As most readers are certainly aware, on April 4, 2024, former United States District Superior of the SSPX, Fr. Arnaud Rostand, admitted to a criminal court in France that he had sexually abused seven minors, all of them boys.
The specific offenses under consideration in the trial were committed in 2003, 2006, 2013, and 2018.
According to French media outlet BFM, the abuses took place in France, Switzerland and Spain.
On April 5, the French District of the SSPX issued an online communiqué (in French) on the matter but it was quickly taken down, leaving many to wonder why.
As it is, an archived version of the deleted statement was swiftly shared online, i.e., the cat was well and truly out of the bag and there was no putting that toothpaste back in the tube. So, the SSPX decided to republish the statement.
Oddly, one notes, the communique – neither originally nor upon being republished – mentions Fr. Arnaud Rostand by name.
On April 15, the Districts of the U.S. and Canada issued an English communiqué with very similar wording, one that refers to the perpetrator as a “former District Superior” but likewise fails to mention Rostand by name.
[NOTE: If you’ve not yet done so, consider following the hyperlink above to read the brief SSPX communiqué.]
At this, one must ask another why:
Why is the Society being so cagey about the predator’s identity? Could it be that the SSPX wants to avoid attracting the attention of other potential victims of Arnaud Rostand?
I mean, let’s not be naïve. Does anyone really believe that a man who admitted in court to sexually abusing seven boys over the course of four out of fifteen years limited himself to just the ones for which he was charged?
At this, let’s further discuss what has been alleged, as well as what is known.
According to BFM (and other French media reports), in addition to admitting to his crimes in court, Rostand claimed that he informed the SSPX of his homo-attraction to underaged boys:
He even announced that he had denounced himself to the Society of Saint Pius X in 1998 by letter to his superiors, in which he had written about his difficulties with the children. Then in 2000 orally, in 2006 and in 2013. Facts which will only be denounced in 2019. Since then, he has been followed by a psychiatrist.
The above falls squarely into the allegation column, i.e., Rostand may have been lying in order to transfer blame, at least partially, to his superiors. In a lengthy substack article, that’s exactly what commentator Kennedy Hall suggested, writing, “Rostand Lies and the Devil Wins Again.”
Hall went on to state:
It was bad enough that Rostand did what he did, but adding to the satanic destruction of the priesthood, he told the public during the trial that the SSPX had covered up the issue. Now, even before the SSPX denied this allegation, I did not believe it.
I’m not here to take shots at Kennedy Hall. Based on what little I’ve seen of his content, he seems like a sincere man who is doing his best to navigate the current ecclesial crisis. To his credit, with regard to the Rostand scandal, he even made it a point to reveal (for those who may not have known) that he has a history with, and a love for, the SSPX.
That said, it seems that his biases have perhaps clouded his judgment just the same.
For the record, I have no such dog in this fight. I’m on Team Catholic. Period. And while I didn’t know Fr. Rostand, I did meet him and speak with him on a number of occasions and found him very likable, which makes these revelations all the more disturbing.
At this, let’s consider more closely Rostand’s claim that he informed his superiors about his evil attraction toward minors.
I, for one, find it interesting that Rostand didn’t simply say, “I told my superiors several times that I’m attracted to minors.” Rather, his claims are remarkably detailed, both with respect to the timeline and to the alleged mode of communication.
Now, I can understand why one might choose to believe that this is a sure sign that Rostand, an admitted homo-predator of underaged boys, is a pathological liar and the whole thing is just a story.
On the other hand, I don’t think it unreasonable to imagine that perhaps he recalls these details because they were important to him, i.e., he really was, as he also claimed, genuinely struggling to resist his temptations. If, in fact, he really was so struggling, where else would he turn for help but to his superiors, men who presumably were his spiritual fathers?
Look, I get it, all child molesters lead double lives.
As such, some people will choose to summarily dismiss every single thing that Rostand ever did, or wrote, or preached that might indicate a love for Christ, His Church, and the Blessed Virgin, as if all of it was never anything more than a well-crafted act by a man who merely wanted access to boys.
To each his own opinion, but I don’t find that at all likely.
As Kennedy Hall sees it – and many of the SSPX faithful evidently agree – there’s no way Rostand alerted his superiors to his attraction to underaged boys. He simply must be lying. After all, he’s a homosexual predator, while the SSPX is, well, the SSPX.
Let us ask: In the aftermath of Rostand’s admission, has the SSPX really demonstrated that it merits that kind of blind trust?
Recall what Hall stated: Even before the SSPX denied this allegation, I did not believe it.
Wait just a minute.
Unless the SSPX has issued an official statement beyond the communiqué linked above, they did not deny Rostand’s allegation at all, rather, they ignored it. Entirely. The communiqué merely states:
At no time and in no way were the actions of this priest covered-up by his Superiors.
This is not even a tacit denial of Rostand’s claim that he informed his superiors of his deviant temptations; it’s a denial that they ever covered up his “actions.” These are two very different things.
This priest… Hell, they can’t even bring themselves to mention Arnaud Rostand’s name! And they merit blind trust? Please.
This is a bad episode of PR Amateur Hour, and we haven’t even gotten to the really pathetic part.
The communiqué also states:
In 2014, after ambiguous and inappropriate attitudes were brought to their attention, the Society’s Superiors withdrew the incriminated priest from the apostolate, entrusting him with administrative tasks without any responsibility, and under appropriate disciplinary supervision, firstly in Switzerland and then in Canada from 2019.
This, my friends, is the part that gave the SSPX communications team agita. It contains the faux pas that moved them to quickly delete the entire communiqué. Let’s take a closer look.
NB: The SSPX is plainly admitting that by 2014, at the very latest, it was in possession of information that so effectively incriminated Fr. Rostand (their word) that he was relieved of all responsibility and placed under disciplinary supervision.
Bear in mind, in 2014, Rostand wasn’t just some newly ordained, low-profile priest, he was the U.S. District Superior! He was, in other words, a man whose reputation most certainly would have been defended by the SSPX if, in fact, it was defensible.
For Society leadership to respond as it did, however, one can be certain that steps were taken beforehand to verify the veracity of the information received, and it was obviously deemed highly credible.
Even so, note the doublespeak: According to the communiqué, the information brought to the Society’s attention in 2014 was both ambiguous and incriminating.
Really? How about your “yes” meaning “yes,” fellas?
It goes without say that the District Superior of the United States wasn’t effectively placed under house arrest based on a rumor, or an “ambiguous attitude,” whatever in the Hell that is.
Sorry to say folks, the SSPX communiqué gives every indication of an organization in ass-covering mode. No wonder it was initially deleted.
Note as well that Rostand just admitted in court to sexually abusing a boy (or boys) specifically in 2013. One naturally wonders if the incriminating information provided to SSPX superiors in 2014 had something to do with this.
If not, what was it about? Who brought the “inappropriate attitude” to their attention? Did that information come from one of Rostand’s victims?
Amid so much speculation about who knew what and when, one thing is certain:
The Society’s own inquiry in 2014 yielded information so incriminating that its leadership was moved to sanction Rostand – a District Superior no less – severely. Even so, we also know for certain that the SSPX didn’t feel obligated to refer the matter, whatever it was, to the civil authorities.
What happened from there is now a matter of public record: Rostand, despite being under “disciplinary supervision,” admittedly went on to sexually abuse at least one more boy.
The communiqué goes on to state:
After his arrival in Canada [2019], the Society’s Superiors became aware of the existence of offences, under the jurisdiction of the courts, and they immediately reported them to the judicial authorities, in accordance with the norms in force in our society, and strengthened his disciplinary framework. Following this report, the necessary investigations were launched, culminating in the recent trial.
Offenses reported to judicial authorities? What?
The above is taken from the English language communiqué, and once again, the wording is quirky, bordering on nonsensical. Deliberately so? Maybe, but if not, the SSPX should consider hiring some native English speakers.
In any case, “under the jurisdiction of the courts” seems to suggest that a criminal investigation was already underway when, in 2019, the SSPX was moved to report “the existence of offences.”
In other words, it’s far from clear that the Society took the initiative in this case, in fact, the opposite appears far more likely based on what they’ve stated and how they’ve chosen to state it.
One also wonders when the “offences” (PLURAL) of which the SSPX became aware in 2019 occurred. Did they occur after 2014 when Rostand was under their disciplinary supervision? If so, what does this say about the seriousness with which they went about exercising that supervision?
Despite so many quirks and questions, in his apologetic for the Society, Kennedy Hall writes:
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.
At this, Mr. Hall’s bias is plainly showing.
In reality, he has no more knowledge than anyone else about the nature of the information received by SSPX superiors in 2014. The only thing that is certain is that, according to the SSPX communiqué, the information received was supposedly “ambiguous,” and yet it was so thoroughly incriminating that a District Superior was essentially fired and put on lockdown, or as Hall describes, placed under surveillance.
Hall continues:
In addition, as soon as it was possible to have the man convicted it was the SSPX who brought the information to the police in France.
Here, Hall takes a huge leap, making it sound as if it was the SSPX that alerted French police to Rostand’s crimes, but that’s just wishful thinking. The communiqué hints no such thing.
The communiqué goes on to state:
As far as we know, no crime was committed by this priest in the United States or Canada.
OK, as far as they know. Fine.
Even so, one would have to be naïve in the extreme to believe that this priest, Fr. Rostand, behaved as a boy scout the entire time he was here in North America, even as he was sporadically molesting boys in Europe over the course of fifteen years.
In conclusion, even though I once enjoyed a good relationship with the SSPX and still have friends who are among their faithful, I can’t say that I am personally disappointed by their verbal tap dance routine in response to the Rostand scandal. Sadly, it seems par for the course based on their flimsy commitment to unadulterated truth in general.
After all, this is an allegedly “traditional” Catholic priestly society that has shown itself in recent years to be more akin to a house of cards in a windstorm. The entire edifice can only remain standing as long as it officially perpetuates the wholesale lie that Jorge Bergoglio is not only a member of the Catholic Church, but he’s also the Holy Roman Pontiff and Vicar of Jesus Christ.
Even the heretics know better.
I have precious little doubt that the individual men who make up Society leadership know damned well that Bergoglio isn’t a Catholic of any rank. To even hint otherwise would be an unparalleled insult that they don’t deserve.
What remains a genuine mystery to me is what in Lucifer’s name they tell themselves in order to justify the ongoing deception.
Whatever it is, one hopes Our Lord is impressed when they reach, as each and every one of us will, their particular judgment.
