- Welcome to Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum.
Recent posts
#11
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...
Last post by queen.saints - Today at 03:25:04 PMFr. Cekada breaks down his arguments into three main points as to why he believes Terri Schiavo was not euthanized.
https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/the-execution-of-terri-schiavo-1
1) EXTRAORDINARY MEANS
2) WHO DECIDES
3) EMOTION OR PRINCIPLE?
It is also necessary to add a point 4 highlighting that even extraordinary means (not relevant to this case, but in case anyone maintains they are) are often morally required and the issue is nuanced and more than a question of simply ordinary vs extraordinary.
1) 1) "the feeding tube... constituted extraordinary means."
"Normally [when prolonging life] one is held to use only ordinary means according to the circumstances of persons, places, times and cultures -- that is to say, means that do not involve any grave burdens for oneself or another... the strictly necessary steps to preserve life and health." Pope Pius XII
"A medicine, treatment, etc., is to be considered an ordinary means if it can be obtained and used with relative convenience and if it offers reasonable hope of benefit...
It is important to note that, though the notions of ordinary and extraordinary remain the same, their applications can vary with changing circumstances. For example, major operations used to be considered extraordinary means of preserving life on two counts: first, because the pain was practically unbearable for most people; and secondly, because the outcome was often very uncertain, e.g., because of the danger of infection. Today we have the means of controlling both the pain and the danger of infection; hence, many operations that would have been extraordinary in former times have now become ordinary means of preserving life."
"In concrete cases it is not always easy to determine when a given procedure is an extraordinary means. It is not computed according to a mathematical formula, but according to the reasonable judgment of prudent and conscientious men." Fr. Kelly Manual
This case involves "persons" in the case living in the "United States" in "2005" in one of many a worldwide "culture" where feeding tubes are much less "burdensome" than any other means "to preserve health and life". It is much less burdensome than cooking three wholesome meals a day and then trying to spoon feed it to a handicapped person. These particular persons even had $750,000 in "means" set aside for the sole purpose of alleviating any burden in preserving her health. Fr. Cekada puts forward the argument of the burden and expense to society, but every other form of care, no matter how ordinary, is much more burdensome, expensive, and less "convenient"
2) "Mrs. Schiavo's husband (as horrible a person as he seems to be) - and not her parents - had the sole right before God to determine whether these means should have continued to be used."
This is completely false and not based on any "principle", "Church standard" or "theology book"; it is his own invention.
Besides the numerous statements by the Church denying the pagan belief that the head of the family has authority to make life or death decisions over his wife and children, here is what the moral manuals says,
"It is fundamentally the patient himself who has the right to decide whether or not he shall continue with [even] a useless and extraordinary means which will prolong his intense suffering." Fr. McFadden
"the first rule concerning the doctor's duty: he must do what the patient wishes. It is the patient who has the right to use or to refuse the extraordinary means; hence, it is primarily the patient who must be consulted. Obviously there are many cases in which it is impossible to consult the patient, e.g., when he is delirious or in a coma, or when he is a small child. In these cases the right to make the decision is vested in those who are closest to the patient, i.e., husband, wife, parents, guardians... the relatives do not make this decision precisely in their own name, but rather as representing the patient; hence, they should try to determine what he would reasonably want done under the circumstances."
3) "The negative response to both these points was almost without exception based on emotion...
not...
principle...
the standard the Church...
a theology book"
Hopefully this post has only used principle, the standard the Church, and his own theology books to show that his points are false.
It is also important to point out to those unfamiliar with the case, that even the ordinary administration of food and water was forbidden by a court order and enforced by an armed police guard. Fr. Cekada does not contend that this was morally permissable. Yet it happened and it clearly shows that this was a case of euthanasia, which was his original point of contention.
https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/the-execution-of-terri-schiavo-1
1) EXTRAORDINARY MEANS
2) WHO DECIDES
3) EMOTION OR PRINCIPLE?
It is also necessary to add a point 4 highlighting that even extraordinary means (not relevant to this case, but in case anyone maintains they are) are often morally required and the issue is nuanced and more than a question of simply ordinary vs extraordinary.
1) 1) "the feeding tube... constituted extraordinary means."
"Normally [when prolonging life] one is held to use only ordinary means according to the circumstances of persons, places, times and cultures -- that is to say, means that do not involve any grave burdens for oneself or another... the strictly necessary steps to preserve life and health." Pope Pius XII
"A medicine, treatment, etc., is to be considered an ordinary means if it can be obtained and used with relative convenience and if it offers reasonable hope of benefit...
It is important to note that, though the notions of ordinary and extraordinary remain the same, their applications can vary with changing circumstances. For example, major operations used to be considered extraordinary means of preserving life on two counts: first, because the pain was practically unbearable for most people; and secondly, because the outcome was often very uncertain, e.g., because of the danger of infection. Today we have the means of controlling both the pain and the danger of infection; hence, many operations that would have been extraordinary in former times have now become ordinary means of preserving life."
"In concrete cases it is not always easy to determine when a given procedure is an extraordinary means. It is not computed according to a mathematical formula, but according to the reasonable judgment of prudent and conscientious men." Fr. Kelly Manual
This case involves "persons" in the case living in the "United States" in "2005" in one of many a worldwide "culture" where feeding tubes are much less "burdensome" than any other means "to preserve health and life". It is much less burdensome than cooking three wholesome meals a day and then trying to spoon feed it to a handicapped person. These particular persons even had $750,000 in "means" set aside for the sole purpose of alleviating any burden in preserving her health. Fr. Cekada puts forward the argument of the burden and expense to society, but every other form of care, no matter how ordinary, is much more burdensome, expensive, and less "convenient"
2) "Mrs. Schiavo's husband (as horrible a person as he seems to be) - and not her parents - had the sole right before God to determine whether these means should have continued to be used."
This is completely false and not based on any "principle", "Church standard" or "theology book"; it is his own invention.
Besides the numerous statements by the Church denying the pagan belief that the head of the family has authority to make life or death decisions over his wife and children, here is what the moral manuals says,
"It is fundamentally the patient himself who has the right to decide whether or not he shall continue with [even] a useless and extraordinary means which will prolong his intense suffering." Fr. McFadden
"the first rule concerning the doctor's duty: he must do what the patient wishes. It is the patient who has the right to use or to refuse the extraordinary means; hence, it is primarily the patient who must be consulted. Obviously there are many cases in which it is impossible to consult the patient, e.g., when he is delirious or in a coma, or when he is a small child. In these cases the right to make the decision is vested in those who are closest to the patient, i.e., husband, wife, parents, guardians... the relatives do not make this decision precisely in their own name, but rather as representing the patient; hence, they should try to determine what he would reasonably want done under the circumstances."
3) "The negative response to both these points was almost without exception based on emotion...
not...
principle...
the standard the Church...
a theology book"
Hopefully this post has only used principle, the standard the Church, and his own theology books to show that his points are false.
It is also important to point out to those unfamiliar with the case, that even the ordinary administration of food and water was forbidden by a court order and enforced by an armed police guard. Fr. Cekada does not contend that this was morally permissable. Yet it happened and it clearly shows that this was a case of euthanasia, which was his original point of contention.
#12
General News and Discussion / Re: ZOG confirmed
Last post by Bonaventure - Today at 03:06:07 PMHow many of (((them))) comprise Joe's cabinet?
#13
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...
Last post by LausTibiChriste - Today at 02:41:00 PMNonsense.
I'd be willing to bet that any artificial means of keeping a person a live is de facto extraordinary.
15 years is insane.
I'd be willing to bet that any artificial means of keeping a person a live is de facto extraordinary.
15 years is insane.
#14
General News and Discussion / Re: SSPX Press Release on Fr. ...
Last post by Bonaventure - Today at 02:38:22 PMIt is for this reason that @Kaesekopf and forum administration does not like to delete posts unless pornographic or blasphemous.
#15
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Former SSPX US District Su...
Last post by Bonaventure - Today at 02:34:27 PMKennedy Hall wrote an article on the Situation. In it, he denies Rostand's claims of SSPX coverup:
https://meretradition.substack.com/p/father-rostand-abuse-case-the-full
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."
Before we get into the heart of the article and separate truth from falsehood surrounding the affair, I want to beg the readers to pray unceasingly for the victims, to have Masses said for them, and do penance for reparation for these unspeakable crimes. In fact, if you have a moment, please stop reading this article and take a few minutes to kneel and say a Rosary for the children.
To help the reader pray for the victims, here is a prayer to Saint Maria Goretti who is the patroness for those who have suffered sexual abuse:
Dear God,
we ask you to help all those who suffer from abuse.
Help them find healing and peace in their life.
May Maria Goretti who was strengthened by Your Grace
join with us in prayer for healing of all victims of abuse,
particularly those abused as children or young adults.
Grant us your Love that we might reach out to them
in Your Name with hope in times of trial.
As Maria prayed for her attacker,
grant us the grace to pray for the true conversion of all involved with the abuse: that they might seek Your Mercy through prayer and penance.
Loving God,
pour into our hearts and lives your healing Spirit,
that the sacredness of every human person
might be respected and protected
as the precious image of God.
Help us to live in the peace which Maria Goretti had found in Christ and in the love of his mother Mary.
We ask this in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.
When these matters are unearthed it seems that what is often lost in the discussion is the most important fact, namely, that children have been permanently harmed. There is perhaps no crime on earth more egregious than child abuse of this sort, and it is enough to make you weep just thinking about it. I have six beautiful children, and the thought of something like this ever happening to them — especially by someone so trusted as a priest — is something I would not even dare to wish for my greatest enemy. Pedophilia is so evil that it is almost not human, almost like something you would expect from a serpentine creature with cold blood and no soul. I imagine that if something like this ever happened to one of my children... well, it would be hard for me not to do something that would land me in jail. I am sure the reader feels the same way.
Also, if the reader could find it in his heart to pray for the priests of the SSPX who are afflicted with grave sorrow. I know many of these priests, and I can tell you — after conversations with them — that their hearts ache at the thought of what has happened. These men have given their lives to restore the rights of Christ the King and the Mass of time immemorial for the good of all Christian souls, and that one of their brother priests could do such a thing is an act of treason against Almighty God and the priesthood.
I believe it is fitting to relay here what infernal punishments await unrepentant sinners who commit these crimes. The following is a description of what happens to those who commit such crimes according to the approved visions of Hell by the great Saint Frances of Rome:
"Here were crowds of demons, each bearing in their claw-like hands heated rods resembling iron javelins, which glowed with red-hot intensity. Upon one of these instruments of torment, the soul of each depraved malefactor and pervert was impaled, the spear entering through the posterior orifice. This fiery spear was then drawn out through the mouth of the condemned wretch, passing through their entire body—either quickly and violently, or with excruciating and protracted slowness. And from this hideous and ever-repeated process, there was neither rest nor respite."
When Father Rostand was on trial he alleged, as was mentioned, that he had tried to warn his superiors. Of course, no evidence was given for this claim. This was reported as an established fact by the Marxist French news outlets, and even some Tradition-leaning news sources seemed to take those claims seriously. Now, I understand that when something like this happens it is perfectly normal to feel a sense of righteous anger. No one is to be blamed for hearing of child abuse and a potential cover-up and becoming angry. In fact, it would be strange if one were to not become enraged at the thought. However, as was stated by the SSPX, there was no cover-up to be found. This does not explain away the evil of what happened, and the SSPX has expressed sorrow that it is as an organization at least partially responsible given the fact that Rostand was trusted and ordained by the SSPX.
So, according to the official statement of the SSPX, what did happen? Father Rostand was for a period the district superior of the Canadian and US Districts — no small positions — and 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." During that period he was in no way in contact with children in an SSPX setting.
Now, I do love the SSPX, as is no secret, but I will admit that sometimes the "Frenchness" of the documents released by the Society does not translate well. "Ambiguous and inappropriate attitudes" might be better said in English as "inconsistent/confusing and inappropriate behaviour." There are many ways a priest could act inappropriately which would not be criminal, but as soon as something clearly illegal was reported, they reported it to the civil authorities. So, he was taken out of the ministry and placed under supervision. First, he was surveilled at the General House in Menzingen, Switzerland, then at the District House in Saint Cesaire, Quebec.
For those who are unaware of what a district house is, or the general house, it should be noted that they are not like a typical "parish" and it is where the superior of the region or the Society lives. I have visited the District House of Canada and I can attest that it is not a place where children spend any time, and the building itself is well-staffed, and there would be constant supervision by the superior or other priests who are always there. On a personal note, I know Father Sherry — former Canadian superior very well — and will attest that he is a man of great character and upright morals; he is a commanding figure and a leader of men. Furthermore, Father Sherry appeared on my podcast last summer and explained exactly how the SSPX deals with suspected abusers or abusers under investigation. I personally underwent the children protection training that the SSPX uses in Canada when I was doing some coaching at an academy, and I can attest that the training is as or more comprehensive than anything I went through when in the publicly-funded school system. Furthermore, all those who work with minors and vulnerable adults are required to renew their training every year.
The video should be set at the correct moment in our interview where explained the process, if it isn't, the relevant portion is at 1:50:00 of the interview. Also, I will add, that the present administration of the SSPX in Canada confirmed to me that this is and has been the policy and there are no exceptions permitted.
After Rostand arrived in Canada it was brought to the attention of the Society that there was good reason to believe that he had committed criminal acts, as the statement reads: "After his arrival in Canada, 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."
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 police in France.
Thereafter he was sent away from Canada and put into a monastery-type setting while the legal investigation took place. So, from 2019 until the present — almost five years — the SSPX cooperated with the legal authorities and Rostand was found guilty. Sadly, the French courts will not penalize him in any severe way, as it looks like he will only be under probation for a few years and placed on an offender registry. This is in itself a crime, as a man like Rostand should be locked up forever or put down. In the past, it was common that such offenders would be either executed or sent to a monastery to do penance for the rest of their lives. However, apostate France will not deal with the crimes in a commensurate manner.
Whatever one may think of the SSPX, it cannot be said that there was any cover-up and that the Society did not follow its sensible policy. Again, this does not absolve the crime, and it does not take away from the regret of the priests who dealt with him who have expressed with great sorrow the wish that they could have done more, or never trusted him in the first place.
With every act of child abuse, there is a victory for the Devil of the most egregious kind. Those who are abused are permanently damaged and there is seemingly no earthly cure for such an offence. Of course, with God's grace, all things are possible, but anyone who has known someone who was abused will tell you that the wounds are a heavy cross that is never really lifted. Pedophilia is in a way the archetype of diabolism as it is both against nature — representing the hatred of God's created order — and a destruction of the innocence of children.
"Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:4-6)
There is no other explanation other than the mystery of iniquity whereby we understand that due to the fallen nature of the human race, sin will permeate through our dealings with one another, and, with an abuse of free will, there will be trusted individuals — even priests — who incarnate the evil of the satanic hatred of children. Lord have mercy on us all.
"Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh." (Matthew 18:7)
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. This is not because I am some fanatic partisan of the Society, but because of my journalistic instincts and understanding of what a pedophile is.
To start with, we must take into account the psychological nature of claims when assessing their probability. Based on what we know to be true, it was the SSPX that brought the abuse allegations to the judicial authorities, and it was Rostand who was the pedophile; those are the facts. So, it would be very strange if the SSPX was in the business of cover-up given their policy and their adamant cooperation with the police. Usually, those afflicted with a criminal mindset do not bring information to the authorities that will condemn them. Furthermore, there had been an almost five-year period of of contact with the legal authorities between 2019-2024, and it was Rostand who was convicted, not the SSPX. Covering up for a pedophile would be a grave legal matter — punishable by law in virtually all Western legal systems — and it seems highly improbable, if not practically impossible, that a court would simply ignore allegations of cover-up during a years-long investigation. Also, perhaps the reader is not aware of just how much the French authorities hate the SSPX.
Do you think the US government is bad because it sent a couple of field agents to check out an SSPX chapel? The French government charged Archbishop Lefebvre with what amounts to a hate-speech crime just before he died because he told the truth about Islam and that it would take over France. France is a country that just enshrined abortion into its constitution. The French papers that reported on the Rostand story called him an "intégriste" priest, which is directly translated as a word like "fundamentalist" but is used more as a slur in France the same way that "racist" or "white-nationalist" is used in America.
The French papers demonstrated no journalistic ethics in their reporting, as they should have said, "Father Rostand said xyz..." I have covered court proceedings before, and it is Journalism 101 to include qualifying words to clearly state that what is being quoted is nothing more than an allegation by the person in question, not an established fact. However, the press reported his allegations as Gospel truth, even though there was no evidence other than the claims of a pedophile. It goes to show how willing the enemies of the Church are to destroy the priesthood; they will trust a pedophile if it means getting a good anti-catholic headline for a story.
For these reasons, I never believed his claim, and I am happy to have seen it refuted by the Society. It is my opinion that it is completely disingenuous to assume that the pedophile is telling the truth and the Society is lying.
In addition to this, I was able to verify that Rostand has a history of lying. On his LinkedIn page — which is still active — he listed his position in Canada as Secretaire de District (District Secretary). However, I received an email from someone who emailed back and forth with him when he was placed in Canada and he told the person he was in Canada to "manage some projects for the District." Well, that is a far cry from being the Secretary of the District. And, I can attest that I did deal with Rostand a few times when I was editing a magazine for the District; Rostand's "special projects" were nothing other than basic secretarial work (in the sense of office work, not the ecclesial sense) and computer/accounting work. Again, this is consistent with what the SSPX has said about how he was dealt with. He was put under supervision by competent superiors and given menial tasks to do to pass the time until the time came when he was to be dealt with by the legal authorities.
This fact was also confirmed to me by the present Superior of Canada.
All of this is to say that his claims were not true and that he lied. What a shocker, the sociopathic pedophile who lived a double life for decades was dishonest! Sadly, until the SSPX clarified the matter, even some traditional and tradition-friendly publications seemed to believe Rostand's statements and commented on them as if they were likely true. I was immediately confused by this, namely, that any sensible person would believe the claims of a pedophile facing conviction.
Are people unaware of the psychology of pedophiles? They are not normal people. They are compulsive liars and are masters at fooling good-natured people. Does it not seem all too convenient that the pedophile would unleash accusations that would be picked up by the anti-catholic French press after the investigation was finished? This man destroyed his victims and tried to bring down the SSPX with him.
And this, dear readers, is how the Devil wins again. Not only did the Devil claim victory with the abuse, but now with the delirium of the press, the reputation of the Society and Tradition has been tarnished even more. If only the Catholic press had waited a bit to get all the facts, we could have avoided further circulation of Rostand's claims which were untrue, and thereby avoided another victory for the Devil.
As they say, "the internet is forever," and whenever someone googles Rostand's name or the SSPX, they are likely to now find Catholic articles seeming to give credence to the alleged cover-up.
Again, please pray fervently for the poor victims who were hurt by this monster.
https://meretradition.substack.com/p/father-rostand-abuse-case-the-full
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."
Before we get into the heart of the article and separate truth from falsehood surrounding the affair, I want to beg the readers to pray unceasingly for the victims, to have Masses said for them, and do penance for reparation for these unspeakable crimes. In fact, if you have a moment, please stop reading this article and take a few minutes to kneel and say a Rosary for the children.
To help the reader pray for the victims, here is a prayer to Saint Maria Goretti who is the patroness for those who have suffered sexual abuse:
Dear God,
we ask you to help all those who suffer from abuse.
Help them find healing and peace in their life.
May Maria Goretti who was strengthened by Your Grace
join with us in prayer for healing of all victims of abuse,
particularly those abused as children or young adults.
Grant us your Love that we might reach out to them
in Your Name with hope in times of trial.
As Maria prayed for her attacker,
grant us the grace to pray for the true conversion of all involved with the abuse: that they might seek Your Mercy through prayer and penance.
Loving God,
pour into our hearts and lives your healing Spirit,
that the sacredness of every human person
might be respected and protected
as the precious image of God.
Help us to live in the peace which Maria Goretti had found in Christ and in the love of his mother Mary.
We ask this in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.
When these matters are unearthed it seems that what is often lost in the discussion is the most important fact, namely, that children have been permanently harmed. There is perhaps no crime on earth more egregious than child abuse of this sort, and it is enough to make you weep just thinking about it. I have six beautiful children, and the thought of something like this ever happening to them — especially by someone so trusted as a priest — is something I would not even dare to wish for my greatest enemy. Pedophilia is so evil that it is almost not human, almost like something you would expect from a serpentine creature with cold blood and no soul. I imagine that if something like this ever happened to one of my children... well, it would be hard for me not to do something that would land me in jail. I am sure the reader feels the same way.
Also, if the reader could find it in his heart to pray for the priests of the SSPX who are afflicted with grave sorrow. I know many of these priests, and I can tell you — after conversations with them — that their hearts ache at the thought of what has happened. These men have given their lives to restore the rights of Christ the King and the Mass of time immemorial for the good of all Christian souls, and that one of their brother priests could do such a thing is an act of treason against Almighty God and the priesthood.
I believe it is fitting to relay here what infernal punishments await unrepentant sinners who commit these crimes. The following is a description of what happens to those who commit such crimes according to the approved visions of Hell by the great Saint Frances of Rome:
"Here were crowds of demons, each bearing in their claw-like hands heated rods resembling iron javelins, which glowed with red-hot intensity. Upon one of these instruments of torment, the soul of each depraved malefactor and pervert was impaled, the spear entering through the posterior orifice. This fiery spear was then drawn out through the mouth of the condemned wretch, passing through their entire body—either quickly and violently, or with excruciating and protracted slowness. And from this hideous and ever-repeated process, there was neither rest nor respite."
When Father Rostand was on trial he alleged, as was mentioned, that he had tried to warn his superiors. Of course, no evidence was given for this claim. This was reported as an established fact by the Marxist French news outlets, and even some Tradition-leaning news sources seemed to take those claims seriously. Now, I understand that when something like this happens it is perfectly normal to feel a sense of righteous anger. No one is to be blamed for hearing of child abuse and a potential cover-up and becoming angry. In fact, it would be strange if one were to not become enraged at the thought. However, as was stated by the SSPX, there was no cover-up to be found. This does not explain away the evil of what happened, and the SSPX has expressed sorrow that it is as an organization at least partially responsible given the fact that Rostand was trusted and ordained by the SSPX.
So, according to the official statement of the SSPX, what did happen? Father Rostand was for a period the district superior of the Canadian and US Districts — no small positions — and 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." During that period he was in no way in contact with children in an SSPX setting.
Now, I do love the SSPX, as is no secret, but I will admit that sometimes the "Frenchness" of the documents released by the Society does not translate well. "Ambiguous and inappropriate attitudes" might be better said in English as "inconsistent/confusing and inappropriate behaviour." There are many ways a priest could act inappropriately which would not be criminal, but as soon as something clearly illegal was reported, they reported it to the civil authorities. So, he was taken out of the ministry and placed under supervision. First, he was surveilled at the General House in Menzingen, Switzerland, then at the District House in Saint Cesaire, Quebec.
For those who are unaware of what a district house is, or the general house, it should be noted that they are not like a typical "parish" and it is where the superior of the region or the Society lives. I have visited the District House of Canada and I can attest that it is not a place where children spend any time, and the building itself is well-staffed, and there would be constant supervision by the superior or other priests who are always there. On a personal note, I know Father Sherry — former Canadian superior very well — and will attest that he is a man of great character and upright morals; he is a commanding figure and a leader of men. Furthermore, Father Sherry appeared on my podcast last summer and explained exactly how the SSPX deals with suspected abusers or abusers under investigation. I personally underwent the children protection training that the SSPX uses in Canada when I was doing some coaching at an academy, and I can attest that the training is as or more comprehensive than anything I went through when in the publicly-funded school system. Furthermore, all those who work with minors and vulnerable adults are required to renew their training every year.
The video should be set at the correct moment in our interview where explained the process, if it isn't, the relevant portion is at 1:50:00 of the interview. Also, I will add, that the present administration of the SSPX in Canada confirmed to me that this is and has been the policy and there are no exceptions permitted.
After Rostand arrived in Canada it was brought to the attention of the Society that there was good reason to believe that he had committed criminal acts, as the statement reads: "After his arrival in Canada, 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."
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 police in France.
Thereafter he was sent away from Canada and put into a monastery-type setting while the legal investigation took place. So, from 2019 until the present — almost five years — the SSPX cooperated with the legal authorities and Rostand was found guilty. Sadly, the French courts will not penalize him in any severe way, as it looks like he will only be under probation for a few years and placed on an offender registry. This is in itself a crime, as a man like Rostand should be locked up forever or put down. In the past, it was common that such offenders would be either executed or sent to a monastery to do penance for the rest of their lives. However, apostate France will not deal with the crimes in a commensurate manner.
Whatever one may think of the SSPX, it cannot be said that there was any cover-up and that the Society did not follow its sensible policy. Again, this does not absolve the crime, and it does not take away from the regret of the priests who dealt with him who have expressed with great sorrow the wish that they could have done more, or never trusted him in the first place.
With every act of child abuse, there is a victory for the Devil of the most egregious kind. Those who are abused are permanently damaged and there is seemingly no earthly cure for such an offence. Of course, with God's grace, all things are possible, but anyone who has known someone who was abused will tell you that the wounds are a heavy cross that is never really lifted. Pedophilia is in a way the archetype of diabolism as it is both against nature — representing the hatred of God's created order — and a destruction of the innocence of children.
"Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matthew 18:4-6)
There is no other explanation other than the mystery of iniquity whereby we understand that due to the fallen nature of the human race, sin will permeate through our dealings with one another, and, with an abuse of free will, there will be trusted individuals — even priests — who incarnate the evil of the satanic hatred of children. Lord have mercy on us all.
"Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh." (Matthew 18:7)
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. This is not because I am some fanatic partisan of the Society, but because of my journalistic instincts and understanding of what a pedophile is.
To start with, we must take into account the psychological nature of claims when assessing their probability. Based on what we know to be true, it was the SSPX that brought the abuse allegations to the judicial authorities, and it was Rostand who was the pedophile; those are the facts. So, it would be very strange if the SSPX was in the business of cover-up given their policy and their adamant cooperation with the police. Usually, those afflicted with a criminal mindset do not bring information to the authorities that will condemn them. Furthermore, there had been an almost five-year period of of contact with the legal authorities between 2019-2024, and it was Rostand who was convicted, not the SSPX. Covering up for a pedophile would be a grave legal matter — punishable by law in virtually all Western legal systems — and it seems highly improbable, if not practically impossible, that a court would simply ignore allegations of cover-up during a years-long investigation. Also, perhaps the reader is not aware of just how much the French authorities hate the SSPX.
Do you think the US government is bad because it sent a couple of field agents to check out an SSPX chapel? The French government charged Archbishop Lefebvre with what amounts to a hate-speech crime just before he died because he told the truth about Islam and that it would take over France. France is a country that just enshrined abortion into its constitution. The French papers that reported on the Rostand story called him an "intégriste" priest, which is directly translated as a word like "fundamentalist" but is used more as a slur in France the same way that "racist" or "white-nationalist" is used in America.
The French papers demonstrated no journalistic ethics in their reporting, as they should have said, "Father Rostand said xyz..." I have covered court proceedings before, and it is Journalism 101 to include qualifying words to clearly state that what is being quoted is nothing more than an allegation by the person in question, not an established fact. However, the press reported his allegations as Gospel truth, even though there was no evidence other than the claims of a pedophile. It goes to show how willing the enemies of the Church are to destroy the priesthood; they will trust a pedophile if it means getting a good anti-catholic headline for a story.
For these reasons, I never believed his claim, and I am happy to have seen it refuted by the Society. It is my opinion that it is completely disingenuous to assume that the pedophile is telling the truth and the Society is lying.
In addition to this, I was able to verify that Rostand has a history of lying. On his LinkedIn page — which is still active — he listed his position in Canada as Secretaire de District (District Secretary). However, I received an email from someone who emailed back and forth with him when he was placed in Canada and he told the person he was in Canada to "manage some projects for the District." Well, that is a far cry from being the Secretary of the District. And, I can attest that I did deal with Rostand a few times when I was editing a magazine for the District; Rostand's "special projects" were nothing other than basic secretarial work (in the sense of office work, not the ecclesial sense) and computer/accounting work. Again, this is consistent with what the SSPX has said about how he was dealt with. He was put under supervision by competent superiors and given menial tasks to do to pass the time until the time came when he was to be dealt with by the legal authorities.
This fact was also confirmed to me by the present Superior of Canada.
All of this is to say that his claims were not true and that he lied. What a shocker, the sociopathic pedophile who lived a double life for decades was dishonest! Sadly, until the SSPX clarified the matter, even some traditional and tradition-friendly publications seemed to believe Rostand's statements and commented on them as if they were likely true. I was immediately confused by this, namely, that any sensible person would believe the claims of a pedophile facing conviction.
Are people unaware of the psychology of pedophiles? They are not normal people. They are compulsive liars and are masters at fooling good-natured people. Does it not seem all too convenient that the pedophile would unleash accusations that would be picked up by the anti-catholic French press after the investigation was finished? This man destroyed his victims and tried to bring down the SSPX with him.
And this, dear readers, is how the Devil wins again. Not only did the Devil claim victory with the abuse, but now with the delirium of the press, the reputation of the Society and Tradition has been tarnished even more. If only the Catholic press had waited a bit to get all the facts, we could have avoided further circulation of Rostand's claims which were untrue, and thereby avoided another victory for the Devil.
As they say, "the internet is forever," and whenever someone googles Rostand's name or the SSPX, they are likely to now find Catholic articles seeming to give credence to the alleged cover-up.
Again, please pray fervently for the poor victims who were hurt by this monster.
#16
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...
Last post by awkward customer - Today at 02:32:51 PMQuote from: LausTibiChriste on Today at 01:06:40 PMI know nothing about the Schiavo case nor the Church teaching on the matter, but since we're on a forum and my $0.02 is there for the taking....
You would have to think it's extraordinary, no? Unless feeding tubes have been around for centuries (doubt it), then it's a relatively modern means of keeping a person alive. In which case, it's extraordinary.
Seems like (I have nothing to back this up with) that prior to the 20th century, or whenever feeding tubes were invented, you'd just let them die.
This makes complete sense.
But not to those who argue that feeding tubes are Ordinary treatment. They say that removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tubes after she had spent 15 years immobile in a hospital bed as a result of extensive brain damage following a cardiac arrest and having to be fed by a tube inserted directly into her stomach, was an execution, or an act of murder.
#17
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...
Last post by awkward customer - Today at 02:22:54 PMHere's a link to info that Bonaventure first posted.
https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/the-execution-of-terri-schiavo-1
And since Fr Anthony Cekada has bee accused of supporting murder, here's his argument, lifted from the above site.
https://www.wcbohio.com/articles/the-execution-of-terri-schiavo-1
And since Fr Anthony Cekada has bee accused of supporting murder, here's his argument, lifted from the above site.
Quote[1] Rev. Cekada's Original Statement: April of 2005
The Terri Schiavo Case and Extraordinary Means
by Father Anthony Cekada
I HAVE BEEN repeatedly asked for my thoughts on the Terri Schiavo case. Here, for the record, is a brief summary of my opinion.
Many traditional and "conservative" Catholics were misled by unprincipled politicians and pseudo-conservative talk-show hosts into thinking of it as a pro-life or anti-euthanasia case.
It was no such thing – and this demonstrates how wary one should be of turning for moral guidance to the advertiser-shilling blowhards of Fox News and the EIB Network.
Instead as Catholics we must turn to the teaching of theologians and the magisterium.
Here, the key issue is preserving a life by "extraordinary means," a concept first developed by the 16th-century Dominican theologian Vittoria as follows:
"If a sick man can take food or nourishment with a certain hope of life, he is required to take food as he would be required to give it to one who is sick. However, if the depression of spirits is so severe and there is present grave consternation in the appetitive power so that only with the greatest effort and as though through torture can the sick man take food, this is to be reckoned as an impossibility and therefore, he is excused, at least from mortal sin."
"It is one thing not to protect life and it is another not to destroy it. One is not held to protect his life as much as he can. Thus one is not held to use foods which are the best or most expensive even though those foods are the most healthful. Just as one is not held to live in the most healthful place, neither must one use the most healthful foods. If one uses food which men commonly use and in quantity which customarily suffices for the preservation of strength, even though one's life is shortened considerably, one would not sin. One is not held to employ all means to conserve life, but it is sufficient to employ the means which are intended for this purpose and which are congruous."
Other theologians subsequently refined and developed this teaching, until in 1957, we find Pope Pius XII explaining its application as follows:
"Normally [when prolonging life] one is held to use only ordinary means according to the circumstances of persons, places, times and cultures -- that is to say, means that do not involve any grave burdens for oneself or another. A more strict obligation would be too burdensome for most people and would render the attainment of a higher, more important good too difficult. Life, health, all temporal activities are in fact subordinated to spiritual ends. On the other hand, one is not forbidden to take more than the strictly necessary steps to preserve life and health, as long as he does not fail in some more serious duty."
These and similar passages in other authors led me to conclude that in the case of Terri Schiavo, the feeding tube, etc. constituted extraordinary means.
(Consider the "grave burdens" that such means would increasingly impose on society, now that medical science can keep the dying and unconscious going for years.)
This was also the conclusion of Bishop Donald Sanborn, who teaches moral theology – the branch of theology that deals with ascertaining whether specific human acts are morally good or morally evil.
Accordingly, as regards applying the principles of Catholic moral theology: (1) One could have continued to employ these extraordinary means to maintain Terri Schiavo's life; however (2) one would not have been obliged to do so.
It is false therefore to claim that Terri Schiavo was the victim of "euthanasia" or "murder." Further, in my opinion, Mrs. Schiavo's husband (as horrible a person as he seems to be) - and not her parents - had the sole right before God to determine whether these means should have continued to be used.
My comments here, like those on the Iraq War, may cause consternation for some good lay people. But when it comes to contemporary issues, my duty as a priest is to research the Church's teaching, tell you what it is, and tell you how to apply it.
#18
The Sedevacantist Thesis / Re: Sedevacantists and Akita
Last post by Michael Wilson - Today at 02:16:22 PMYou can read all of Fr. Barbara's issues of "Fortes in Fide" (English) online here: http://www.the-pope.com/fif.html
The one I was referring to was the "Special edition on the Mass"
On Father Noel Barbara; he stated that if you look at the following paragraphw of Apostolicae Curae:
1. Consider the time and circumstances under which the reforms were undertaken.
2. The men who ordered them.
3. By whom it was publicly authorized.
4. The "animus" of the N.O. Against the Catholic Mass and the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice including the real presence.
5. "The abettors who associated themselves with members of heterodox sects.
6. "The ends that they had in view" i.e. A new "ecumenical" prayer service acceptable to Protestants.
7. "under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers." (Think of the prayers of Consecration narrated now in a "narrative" voice)
8. The deliberate removal of all the explicitly prayers that made the propitiatory end of the Holy Sacrifice evident, especially those of the Offertory.
In the next paragraph, Pope Leo stated:
The one I was referring to was the "Special edition on the Mass"
On Father Noel Barbara; he stated that if you look at the following paragraphw of Apostolicae Curae:
Quote30. For the full and accurate understanding of the Anglican Ordinal, besides what we have noted as to some of its parts, there is nothing more pertinent than to consider carefully the circumstances under which it was composed and publicly authorized. It would be tedious to enter into details, nor is it necessary to do so, as the history of that time is sufficiently eloquent as to the animus of the authors of the Ordinal against the Catholic Church; as to the abettors whom they associated with themselves from the heterodox sects; and as to the end they had in view. Being fully cognizant of the necessary connection between faith and worship, between "the law of believing and the law of praying", under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers. For this reason, in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out.All this can be applied to a T to the men who ordered, designed and promulgated the N.O.M. (As well as the documents of VII).
1. Consider the time and circumstances under which the reforms were undertaken.
2. The men who ordered them.
3. By whom it was publicly authorized.
4. The "animus" of the N.O. Against the Catholic Mass and the Catholic doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice including the real presence.
5. "The abettors who associated themselves with members of heterodox sects.
6. "The ends that they had in view" i.e. A new "ecumenical" prayer service acceptable to Protestants.
7. "under a pretext of returning to the primitive form, they corrupted the Liturgical Order in many ways to suit the errors of the reformers." (Think of the prayers of Consecration narrated now in a "narrative" voice)
8. The deliberate removal of all the explicitly prayers that made the propitiatory end of the Holy Sacrifice evident, especially those of the Offertory.
In the next paragraph, Pope Leo stated:
QuoteIn this way, the native character or spirit as it is called of the Ordinal clearly manifests itself. Hence, if, vitiated in its origin, it was wholly insufficient to confer Orders, it was impossible that, in the course of time, it would become sufficient, since no change had taken place. In vain those who, from the time of Charles I, have attempted to hold some kind of sacrifice or of priesthood, have made additions to the Ordinal. In vain also has been the contention of that small section of the Anglican body formed in recent times that the said Ordinal can be understood and interpreted in a sound and orthodox sense. Such efforts, we affirm, have been, and are, made in vain, and for this reason, that any words in the Anglican Ordinal, as it now is, which lend themselves to ambiguity, cannot be taken in the same sense as they possess in the Catholic rite. For once a new rite has been initiated in which, as we have seen, the Sacrament of Order is adulterated or denied, and from which all idea of consecration and sacrifice has been rejected, the formula, "Receive the Holy Ghost", no longer holds good, because the Spirit is infused into the soul with the grace of the Sacrament, and so the words "for the office and work of a priest or bishop", and the like no longer hold good, but remain as words without the reality which Christ instituted.Fr. Goes into much more detail, but this is the gist of it.
#19
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...
Last post by ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez - Today at 02:15:50 PMhttps://www.ncbcenter.org/resources-and-statements-cms/summary-nutrition-and-hydration-anh
I don't agree with the NCBC on everything, but they didn't come up with this themselves and are just elaborating on what was taught by Pope Benedict's CDF.
I don't agree with the NCBC on everything, but they didn't come up with this themselves and are just elaborating on what was taught by Pope Benedict's CDF.
#20
General Catholic Discussion / Re: Are feeding tubes Ordinary...
Last post by Miriam_M - Today at 02:08:01 PMPerhaps Bonaventure would be willing to migrate the relevant posts on the other thread to this one.