Search This Blog

Saturday, April 20, 2024

Did the SSPX Really "Cover Up" the Fr. Rostand Case?

We're often given one-sided salacious stories framed in the worst possible light. This is especially true when the source has something to gain from putting the worst construction on the events and then magnifies them. The scandal of SSPX child abuser Fr. Arnaud Rostand is being used, once again, to bludgeon the SSPX. Every reader of the scandal is being led to presume that the leadership of the SSPX covered up Rostand's abuse and moved him around like the McCarrick crowd. After all, that's Fr. Rostand's claim and, of course, this priest abuser couldn't possibly be lying. Remember when McCarrick claimed he was really a good guy and didn't understand why he was being treated so badly? Narcissism is common among both homo and hetero sex abusers. Why would anyone believe anything they said?

Fr. Rostand claimed at trial that he reported his problem to his superiors and they did nothing about it. I wondered about the truth of the matter. Do the facts support that? After all, an abuser, who is probably also a narcissist, wants to blame others for his crimes. Did anyone check on the truth of Rostand's claims or did those who hate the SSPX just jump on the bandwagon to vilify him? I was particularly sorry to see Michael Matt at The Remnant accept the accusations at face value. Rostand is probably a pathological liar.

Kennedy Hall posted an article on his Substack page examining the facts of the case. I'm publishing the beginning of his article and linking to the rest. I recommended reading it, especially if you've swallowed all the accusations that paint the SSPX in the worst possible light:

NOTE TO READERS: It is with a heavy heart that I write this article. First and foremost, please pray for the victims of abuse. Also, anyone who would like to republish this article faithfully may do so with my permission.

Recently it has been revealed that Father Rostand, a priest ordained by the Society of Saint Pius X, has been convicted of numerous counts of child abuse — pedophilia — by a French court. It was also alleged by Rostand during his trial that he had warned his superiors on numerous occasions that he had a problem, but that nothing was done. The insinuation here is that the SSPX brass “covered up” the problem. This claim was false — more on that later — and the truth of the matter was explained by the SSPX in a statement released by the Canadian and American Districts. Among other things, the Society stated: “At no time and in no way were the actions of this priest covered-up by his Superiors.” ....
Those who are not fans of the SSPX may accuse the Society of “moving the abuser around,” but this is unfair. The SSPX removed him from his post and placed him in locations where they believed he would be best surveilled. It should also be stressed that when he was initially removed from ministry it was not for any reason of criminality, which did not become apparent until later revelations. In addition, as soon as it was possible to have the man convicted it was the SSPX who brought the information to the the police in France. [Read more....]

Be slow to accept the original headlines about something. Remember the Covington kids and all the folks jumping on the bandwagon to condemn them. They all had egg on their faces when the truth came out. We all need to be less gullible and slow to draw conclusions on premises that may be false. As the old adage goes, "Haste makes waste." The one who jumps to conclusions may be taking a long leap off a short bridge!


  1. Thank you for posting this.

  2. There's proof that the superior general appointed Fr. Rostand prior of the Menzingen chapel in 2018 (when he was supposedly suspended from ministry). Catholic SSPXers also confirm when Fr. Rostand was sent to Canada in 2000-2022 that he was baptizing children and offering Masses. None of the families were told about Fr. Rostand's predatory past. So the answer is yes, the SSPX did cover up Fr. Rostand's sex abuse.

  3. Just saying there's proof is no proof. Provide it.

  4. I had no doubts whatsoever. The SSPX is very firm on its policy of who they will even permit to become priests. I’m sure once they found out something even smelled off about this particular priest, that they were very cautious and watchful. I knew a diocesan TLM priest who was falsely accused, and once it was announced, all the loonies joined the “accusations of abuse” bandwagon. It was found to be false accusations for that person. I’m not saying this is the case here, but it does happen and the SSPX putting him under watchful eyes was good.

    The people who take the lead in smearing are the usual suspects. First in line are the Ecclesia Dei TLM-ers who always seem to try to distance themselves from Lefebvre and his Society. Then it is the Church Militant Novus Ordo ghost hunters. Lastly, the SSPX-MC (resistance) and the rest of the secular and Novus Ordo world. Essentially, anyone who has a beef with the SSPX is saying, “SEE!!!! I told you!”

  5. The fact that the complaints were established prior to further appointments is in itself a proof of a cover-up. You don't move a priest where they can be "surveilled", you remove him end of story. You don't wait until his conviction becomes public knowledge, you aim for justice for the abused. What a slap in the face to the families. Of course the SSPX knew of the complaints, and furthermore had direct knowledge from himself.

    Then you have other patterns like that French priest who sentenced and found guilty who they sent to another school where he abused more children, or the priest who fathered a child and they sent him overseas, or the priest in California they sent to Ireland, and other such patterns of bad judgement. Look at the seminary in 2000 when it was filled full of homosexuals and abusers who later became the Society of St. John and their abuse became public. It was only after they started their community did the Society notify the bishop that the men were homosexuals. Why weren't they stopped beforehand? All of these things are established facts and patterns which no one can legitimately can dispute. I'm old enough to live through and remember each case.

    The problem is even if you believe your article to be true you would have to believe that an avowed narcissist is hard to spot. Anyone can spot one over the age of 30. They are as proud as peacocks and something always off about them. Why would such a man become a district superior then? Either they allowed someone who they didn't know was a freak who was a narcissist become superior, or they knew but didn't find it to be a big deal. Either way it is a lose-lose proposition.

  6. You might want to change "coventry" to "Covington".

  7. You make a lot of allegations, John, with no evidence saying everybody should just know what you say is true. You claim they are "established facts." The only established facts are those presented with evidence. I know several falsely accused priests and laity. If someone accused you wouldn't you want a presumption of innocence or would you welcome the pile on from all those who assumed your guilt? Do you know what the 2014 non-criminal allegations were? I don't. The SSPX, like the rest of the diocesan and clerical priesthood, have their Judases. Parents need to practice prudence in every situation just like they do in the family if there is a "funny uncle" or an out and proud gay or lesbian relative.

  8. Thanks, Janet. I always appreciate my editors.

  9. Here's the proof you want: Google Fr. Urrutigoity, Ensey, Marshall Roberts. All of them came from the SSPX and left together. Ask anyone who's met them. Go read the Rite of Sodomy where Randy Engel explains what happens.
    Fr. Pierre de Maillard abused for over 25 years.

    My friend was in Elmhurst when Urrutigoity, Ensey, Marshall Roberts were there. There is so much documentation a simple search is sufficient.

    Fr. Pierre de Maillard is so evil and documented you are free to look that up too.

    Father Peignot, Frédéric Abbet... all on record, all admitted, all moved. Abbet was put in a school AFTER he admitted abuse.

    They have a SSPX priest on a recording admitting to allowing a SSPX priest to move after knowing about his guilt in this documentary and they have English subtitles

    Even if you think 99% of this is false, the recording of the priest of the SSPX admitting to allow the abuser to be around children should be enough "proof" for you.

    By the way, been going to the SSPX over 20 years. Can't call me a hater, or say I have any agenda other than I want a better SSPX.

  10. The problem is everywhere: every religious order, every religion, the schools, the family. What is the solution? Certainly silence is the enemy of the good particularly when it enables injuring others, especially children. What do you do when allegations are made, but unproven? Do you punish every accused? St. Gerard Majella was removed from ministry by St. Francis de Sales when he was accused by a woman of fathering her child. He didn't defend himself, but went silent. The woman later admitted her lie. How do you protect the innocent accused as well as the children? I was talking this morning to a retired investigator about this and the problem is obvious, the solution is not as clear. What do you think it is?


    1. Great question that has an easy answer. You do what happened to St. Gerard and remove him from all contact with the world until the truth becomes known. You owe that to the family and most especially the child. My cousin lost his faith after being molested by a priest back in the late 60's. Most kids never complain but it comes out eventually. For every St. Gerard we have 100 more which are accurate.

      The counter is that it might not be fair to the priest, but the priest, more than anyone, knows life isn't fair in the imitation of Christ. I'm a father and if someone accused me I would instantly step down of whatever role I was in to let the parents know their pain in that time was respected even though my name is the one tarnished.

      But we aren't even going through a mere "he said she said" there are times where the SSPX, even on record, moved priests they knew did abuse. That video I referenced has a priest admitted it and saying he disagreed with the SSPX. Worse, instead of admitting guilt publicly, they move them to a place in Switzerland as a "punishment." 2 of the priests who were found guilty just left the SSPX and went resistance. Father Philippe Peignot was the most egregious case and he was found guilty many many years later by an internal SSPX trial. This was after he spent years working in boys camps hurting other children waiting for that trial.

      After he was punished to Montgardin he just picked up and left the SSPX. I've decided to only give you cases that are easy to verify online with verified guilt. He should have been turned over to the secular authorities to be arrested.

      Lest we forget St. Pius V gave out directions on what should be done just 500 years ago. For some reason we neglect his wisdom to our detriment.

  11. I remember him from my short attendance at Transfiguration in Toronto. He was creepy. He gave off a wierd vibe, so to speak. Not surprised.

  12. Dear Mary Ann,

    Just a quick thank you for your level-headed approach on the SSPX story (Fr. Rostand).

    There has been for awhile quite the campaign to vilify the SSPX, such as via Church Militant.

    My own experiences with them has been wonderful. They were some of the few Catholic organizations that kept Mass and the sacraments available during the Covid hysteria, which to me says that the SSPX is an organization and congregation, that believe and are prepared to suffer inconveniences for their faith. We have parishioners who drive 2-3 hours each way to attend Mass.

    One memorable Palm Sunday when the start of the Mass was outside in the cleared parking lot, and the weather was 34F with wind chill (i.e. real-feel below freezing), the pastor almost called off the outdoor portion but everyone insisted on participating. It occurred to me that traditionalists are the "honey badgers" of religion...

    The SSPX has a unique level of insulation from Vatican control, which normally would not be something I would tout, but in the present era where the Vatican piles apostasy atop apostasy and does everything possible to stomp traditionalism into the carpet, it is likely that the SSPX will retain valid sacraments and rubrics the longest after the conciliar church has gone haywire.

    I do not like the present situation, having grown up at a time when you could look to mainline Catholic priests and the Church for spiritual direction, but anyone who appreciates and holds to what the Catholic Church has been for 2000 years, is presently under siege, and the SSPX is a spiritual life preserver.

    Perhaps it is precisely this "escape hatch" provided by the SSPX for traditional faithful, that makes them the lightning rod for those who want the laity to have no way out of the "reimagining Catholicism" Vatican control.

    This theory is bolstered by the fanatic devotion of the Vatican to "Vatican II" whose intentional ambiguities and spirit-of-the-council reinterpretations, will form the crowbar to separate the Church from its foundation. It all resembles the "strange new church" in the visions of Catherine Emmerich.

    As one possible premonition on where things might go, I refer you to a notable dream of visionary Sister Agnes Sasagawa, of the Akita Japan apparitions of the Blessed Mother, described in Fr. Teiji Yasuda's book "Akita - The Tears and Message of Mary". (available used on Amazon: )

    Given how far the Vatican has gone already, and as a wild guess, I would not be surprised if they "upgrade" theology to include the god of Kabbalah, "a god greater than the Creator God of the Bible, infinite and unknowable, who dwells in unapproachable light" as a sort of umbrella god over all the other faiths' gods, positing them (including the Creator God) as inculturated avatars for a particular place, time, and people, and by this means attempt to bring about world peace and security under one overarching god (spoiler alert: Lucifer). That would explain the theologian's quotes from the Sr. Agnes dream. Note also the theologian torments Sr. Agnes by mystical means like the Egyptian magicians faced by Moses, as the cane turns into a serpent.
    With kind regards

  13. To Anonymous @ 8:21...Thank you for your comment, "The SSPX has a unique level of insulation from Vatican control". Several months ago when I commented that "I don't care whether Bergoglio is really the pope or not" one famous person jeered at me saying that if I didn't care I was basically a protestant. When Bishop Strickland got sidewinded this person said, "Do you care now?'"

    This person doesn't go to the SSPX but some other traditional order....probably destroyed now by The Great Sidewinder himself. At the time I thought that if the person went to the SSPX they wouldn't be so upset all the time, but couldn't articulate it. So thank you for saying that the SSPX affords their people a level of insulation from the Vatican ...a level that is so strong - like a barrier wall.... that news from the Vatican is so muted that I don't even hear it anymore. In other words, I don't care. Just let me live the remainder of my life with a holy Mass and tell me what God wants me to know for my salvation.

  14. I am totally unfamiliar with the facts of this case; however, I think a comment is in order concerning the perversion of these men. No punishment is to great for an abuser of children. That being said, the issue becomes their identity. Once identified BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, they should be stripped of all authority and imprisoned. I have for some time been disturbed by the Church designating people as “credibility accused”, some even after their death. What does this even mean? To merit designation as an abuser should call for severe punishment, but only after proof beyond a reasonable doubt. To be credibly accused is a life ending designation and should be made and punished by the Church once that individual has been determined guilty by proof sufficient as I have indicated. It is especially repugnant to designate the dead with the epitaph
    “Credibility accused of child abuse.”