Lawsuit Shows SSPX Obedience to 1983 Pro-Pedophile Law Led to Pervert Priests Breaking-up Family of Eight

Kansas City, Missouri Lawsuit Exposes Grave Danger to Families Caused by SSPX Governance, Canon Law & Current Policy - by James Grein, Matthew David

Fr. Arnaud Rostand, previous US District Superior of the SSPX and a convicted child molester, and his assistant, alleged-pervert Fr. Pierre Duverger, are both named in a just-filed tortious lawsuit by aggrieved father of six, Stephen Sanborn. They are charged with causing harm that directly caused the breakup of the family of eight.

The SSPX’s Biggest Problem 

While the court will determine the merits of the case, it should be stated in the beginning of this article that had the SSPX rejected the 1983 Code of Canon Law—like other traditionalist groups—this situation would not have happened. Put another way, had the SSPX instead chosen the approach of long-standing, traditional Catholic justice, the priests in question would never have arisen to the high office of US District Superior, nor would they have been reassigned following charges of sexual misconduct. 

Unlike other traditional groups who reject the 1983 Code of Canon Law mentioned in our previous report (such as groups led by Bishops Meikle, Sanborn, and Vigano), the SSPX claims obedience to the Roman Pontiff and their adoption of Vatican II’s justice system via the 1983 Code. This portion of Canon Law (c. 1341, c. 1321), directly protects admitted predators like Rostand and alleged perpetrators like Duverger. But, the SSPX picks and chooses when and how they submit to Rome regarding the 1983 Code. For example, when adjudicating annulments (c. 1065), the SSPX voluntarily rejects portions of the law. And when deciding the fate of perverts and pedophiles, the sections of the 1983 Canon Code which seek to “rehabilitate and heal” sexual predators instead of removing them, are applied. 

Accusations of schism against the SSPX abound, but ironically it is their precise obedience to the Holy Father in applying the 1983 Code of Canon Law that permits repeat offenders of sex crime to remain in their ministry.

“Hence it follows that what constitutes the substantial ‘novelty’ of the Second Vatican Council, in line with the legislative tradition of the Church, especially in regard to ecclesiology, constitutes likewise the ‘novelty’ of the new Code.” - St. John Paul II, Sacrae Disciplinae Leges, January 25th, 1983

This journalist has pleaded with the SSPX administration, priests, and leadership to immediately start protecting the faithful from predatory clerics and reject this damnable section of the 1983 (and 2021 update) Code of Canon law.

The Lawsuit's Allegations 

The lawsuit, initiated by Sanborn following the loss of his family, reveals disturbing details about the roles of Fr. Duverger and then US District superior, Fr. Rostand. Fr. Duverger was the family’s confessor when the offenses allegedly happened. He is accused of maligning the husband during pastoral counseling and spending long hours alone, at night with the plaintiff’s wife, and subsequently directing the father to leave the home. In addition, now-convicted child molester Fr. Rostand spent time with Sanborn’s wife and children at the family home while Sanborn was gone, further encouraging damage to the marriage. Distressed and rightfully worried for the safety of his children, Sanborn had to instruct Fr. Rostand to stop coming to his home and hanging out with his wife and kids while their father was away. The lawsuit claims that the SSPX placed Duverger (a cleric previously under restrictions for past accusations involving women) under the authority of Rostand (a known child predator and now convicted child molester), and that the SSPX should have known they would fail to supervise one another. 

History of Rostand and Duverger

On April 4th, 2024, in Gap, France, Rostand was convicted of molesting seven children on scouting trips to Switzerland, France, and Spain between 2002 and 2018. 

Accusations against Fr. Duverger are well reported in Catholic media, but he has not been convicted of a crime.

For context, it is helpful to see what accusations former Church Militant journalist Christine Niles detailed against Fr. Duverger. In her spotlight investigation, Niles shows through witness testimony and images, that accusations against him involved the confessional, inappropriate relations with at least one soon-to-be married woman, alleged inappropriate statements to at least one 12-year-old, and selfies Duverger would send to women he was counseling at night with requests they call him “daddy” (see image below from Church Militant & Christine Niles prior work, “Spotlight: SSPX Cover-Up Continues”): 

Niles currently has her own website, Stella Maris Media. You can watch an entire video on Duverger’s checkered past made by Niles here: (minute mark 4:55:)

For counterpoint on Rostand, journalist Kennedy Hall published a defense of how the SSPX handled Rostand. Rostand says that he warned the SSPX that he was a child predator in writing on four separate occasions over twenty years. Hall says that the public ought not to take Rostand at his word. Hall holds the position that because Rostand is a convicted child molester and did not produce documents, we should not believe this claim.

Included in the defense was an interview of SSPX Canadian District Superior Fr. Sherry by Hall. Hall and Fr. Sherry acknowledged that the 1983 Code of Canon Law is soft on crime. Although both agree the new code is problematic, neither stated that the SSPX should stop using it.

Fr. Sherry does suggest that new legislation was issued to correct the issues with the 1983 Code, but this is not entirely true. Problem canons (c. 1341 & c. 1321) are still there, nearly verbatim. Furthermore, the “new” c. 1321 now adds even greater protection for perpetrators in the 2021 update to the Code of Canon Law from Pope Francis.

LifesiteNews author and journalist Stephen Kokx published an article in response to Niles' reporting. In the article, Kokx received comment from the SSPX detailing how Fr. Duverger was denied a trial (even though he requested one) and was given a softer discipline instead—consistent with the 1983 Code of Canon Law, c. 1341 and c. 1321.

Below is a screenshot of Kokx’s reporting.

Impact on the Family 

Sanborn’s narrative extends beyond legal battles to personal anguish. The lawsuit states that Fr. Duverger’s influence led to false accusations of abuse against Sanborn by his wife, driven by Duverger’s manipulation. The lawsuit indicates that Fr. Duverger had a no-boundary relationship with plaintiffs' wife, involving meetings late at night at the US District House (Regina Caeli House of the SSPX). During this time, the US District House issued an exceptionally rare Church move known as a canonical separation to Sanborn, whereby they ask that a husband and wife live separately. This was especially hard for the family’s six children. Duverger’s ongoing inappropriate counseling relationship with Sanborn’s wife, following the “canonical separation” of husband and wife prescribed by the SSPX, further strained the marriage and led it to breakdown. 

Seeking Justice and Reform 

Sanborn's lawsuit aims to hold the SSPX accountable and seeks compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages for torts of fraud, malice, and failure to supervise, among other charges. This case underscores the pressing need for justice and systemic reform within the Catholic Church where it adheres to the modern code of Canon Law. The modern code explicitly seeks to “heal” predators instead of removing them from the priesthood.  Discovery will yield the full history of Rostand and Duverger as legal proceedings unfold. 

Fr. Rostand is currently in jail, serving a light, one-year sentence for his conviction of molesting seven children. Fr. Duverger is still in full ministry and traveling with a pack of children to Alaska for an adventure. 

Sanborn’s lawsuit against Fr. Rostand, Fr. Duverger, and the SSPX memorializes the SSPX’s biggest problem and brings it to circuit court for litigation. This situation involving convicted child molester Rostand and alleged womanizer Duverger demonstrates how the SSPX commitment to "the final document of Vatican II” (St. John Paul II, 11/21/1983), the 1983 Code of Canon Law, directly places their followers at risk.

Authors note: while the 1983 Code of Canon Law publicly codified healing predators of all kinds instead of removing them from the priesthood, the practice first secretly began in 1922 with a document called Crimens Sollicitationis, which specifically dealt with criminal pedophiles, homosexuals, zoophiles, and clerics who committed sex crimes in the confessional. Crimens was in force until 2001.

To find out more about which laws and documents have resulted in the Catholic hierarchy retaining and restoring perpetrators to ministry, research the document Crimens Sollicitationis, author and lawyer Kieran Tapsell, and read our previous work here:

Three Traditional Bishops Protect The Faithful, Reject Pro-Pedophile Canon Law (substack.com)

Below are some of the best source documents describing how imputability (c. 1321) decreases punishment for pedophiles to nothing, or to a penance in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (Canon Law Letter & Spirit, 1995, Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland, pg. 805).

This portion of the same canon law commentary exploring Canon 1341 (pg. 770) details how Bishops are not to punish evildoers, if possible, with the new code.

“In a situation where a person has behaved in a reprehensible fashion, the law urges caution: penalties are to be imposed only as a last resort. When the Ordinary is made aware of such behavior, he is to seek to redress the situation by fraternal correction or by a more formal reproof, or by some other means of pastoral care. He is obliged to explore every reasonable measure whereby, without having recourse to penal action, a satisfactory pastoral resolution may be found.”

The same portion says: “Vat. II which itself introduced a new outlook and a new spirit into the penal law of the Church”, where punishment is “a last resort”.