The Conciliar Sect’s Public Apostasy at Notre Dame

The cited article from Infovaticana (February 15, 2026) reports that the University of Notre Dame, a flagship institution of the post-conciliar “Church” in the United States, has appointed Susan Ostermann—a known advocate of abortion—as director of the Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies within its Keough School of Global Affairs. This appointment has sparked internal resignations, student protests led by Notre Dame Right to Life, and public criticism from bishops such as Kevin Rhoades, Michael Olson, Robert Barron, and Samuel Aquila. The university defends the decision on grounds of “academic freedom” and “mission,” while critics argue it contradicts Catholic teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion and scandalizes the faithful.

This incident is not an anomaly but a perfect symptom of the systemic, doctrinal, and moral bankruptcy of the conciliar sect that occupies Catholic institutions. From the perspective of integral Catholic faith—the unchanging faith of the Church before the revolution of Vatican II—the very concept of a “Catholic university” that tolerates, let alone promotes, a directorship held by a public advocate of murder is a contradiction in terms. The analysis must proceed on four interlocking levels: factual, linguistic, theological, and symptomatic.

1. Factual Deconstruction: The Illusion of “Catholic” Identity

The article presents the event as a controversy *within* a Catholic institution. This framing is false. The University of Notre Dame, since its embrace of the conciliar reforms, has systematically dismantled Catholic doctrine and discipline. Its “Catholic” identity is a legal and marketing fiction, not a theological reality.

* **The Nature of the Appointee:** Susan Ostermann’s public support for abortion places her in formal, manifest heresy. According to the unchanging doctrine of the Church, as defined by St. Robert Bellarmine and canon law, a manifest heretic is ipso facto outside the Church and cannot hold any office within it. The 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 188.4) states that an office becomes vacant by the mere fact of public defection from the Catholic faith. Ostermann’s advocacy is precisely such a public defection. Therefore, her appointment is canonically null and void ab initio. The university’s action is not a “controversial decision” but a formal act of schism and apostasy.
* **The Reaction of the Bishops:** The criticism from bishops Rhoades, Olson, Barron, and Aquila is intrinsically defective. These men are all members of the conciliar hierarchy, which, by accepting the errors of Vatican II (especially religious liberty, collegiality, and ecumenism), has forfeited the Catholic episcopate. Their objections are not based on the absolute moral law of God but on a naturalistic, “pro-life” sentiment that still accepts the modernist premise of “academic freedom” and the separation of faith from public life. Their stance is a compromise, not a defense of the Faith. They implicitly recognize the legitimacy of the “university” as a Catholic entity, which it is not. Their failure to demand Ostermann’s immediate removal and the university’s public re-conversion under pain of excommunication exposes their own apostasy.
* **The University’s Defense:** Notre Dame’s invocation of “academic freedom” and “mission” is a direct repudiation of Catholic doctrine. Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors (1864) condemns proposition #57: “The science of philosophical things and morals and also civil laws may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical authority.” The opposite is true: all sciences, especially those dealing with human dignity and global affairs, must be subordinated to the authority of the Church and the law of God. The “mission” of a Catholic university is defined by Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas: to form souls in the knowledge and love of Christ the King, so that “all power in heaven and on earth is given to Christ the Lord… [and] there is no power in us that is exempt from this reign.” An institute that places a heretic in a leadership role explicitly rejects this mission.

2. Linguistic Analysis: The Language of Apostasy and Naturalism

The article’s language meticulously avoids the supernatural and juridical categories of Catholic theology, revealing the naturalistic, humanistic mindset of both the actors and the reporter.

* **Euphemisms for Heresy:** Ostermann’s pro-abortion stance is described as “posturas favorables al aborto” (stances favorable to abortion) and “posiciones contrarias sobre temas fundamentales como la vida humana” (positions contrary on fundamental topics like human life). This is a deliberate softening. Catholic doctrine, defined by the Church, calls abortion a “crime which no human law can claim to legitimize” (Pius XI, Casti Connubii) and a “most shameful crime” (Pius IX, Apostolicae Sedis). The article’s language reduces an intrinsic evil to a mere “position” or “stance,” placing it in the realm of opinion, not objective moral law. This is the language of Modernism, which treats dogma as a “life” to be evolved.
* **The Idol of “Academic Freedom”:** The university’s defense rests on “libertad académica” (academic freedom). This is a direct import of the modernist error condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Lamentabili Sane Exitu. Proposition #8 of Lamentabili states: “As human reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences.” The “freedom” sought is the freedom of reason from the authority of the Faith. It is the very principle of the “enemies within” warned of by St. Pius X. In a true Catholic university, there is no “freedom” to teach error; there is only the liberty of the children of God to profess the truth (cf. John 8:32).
* **Silence on the Supernatural:** The entire article operates on a purely natural plane. There is no mention of sin, grace, the state of mortal sin, the threat of eternal damnation for formal cooperation in abortion, the duty of bishops to protect the souls of the faithful, or the Sacraments as the source of sanctification. The most serious accusation in Catholic theology is the *scandal* given to the faithful—yet it is mentioned only as a “provocative” sentiment of the bishops, not as a damnable act that imperils souls. This silence is not accidental; it is the hallmark of the conciliar sect’s shift from a supernatural to a naturalistic, sociological understanding of the Church.

3. Theological Confrontation: Christ the King vs. the Autonomy of Man

Every statement and omission in the article stands in stark, irreconcilable opposition to the integral Catholic doctrine as defined before 1958.

* **The Primacy of Christ’s Kingship:** Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas, establishes the feast of Christ the King precisely to combat the errors on display: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” Notre Dame’s action is a paradigm of this removal. By placing a public enemy of Christ’s law (which commands “Thou shalt not kill”) in a position of academic authority, it explicitly derives its authority from the “autonomy of human reason” and “academic freedom,” not from Christ the King. Pius XI continues: “The state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations… the Church… cannot depend on anyone’s will.” Here, the “state” is the conciliar university administration; the “members” are the faithful Catholics protesting. The administration is tyrannizing over the Church’s freedom by imposing a heretic. The article’s failure to invoke Christ’s kingship over every sphere of life, including academia, is a denial of the Faith.
* **The Duty of Public Witness:** The article notes student Anna Kelley’s “personal testimony” as an adopted person. While moving, it remains in the natural order. Catholic theology demands more. The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that the virtue of religion requires public confession of faith. The bishops’ statements, while correct in substance, lack the necessary supernatural force. They do not threaten excommunication or declare the university’s action a formal cooperation with evil. They do not call for the withdrawal of all Catholic worship and sacraments from the campus until repentance. This is because they themselves no longer believe in the supernatural efficacy of such penalties, a belief lost with the Modernist infiltration.
* **The Nature of a Catholic Institution:** The Syllabus of Errors (#19, #20, #21, #24, #25) systematically condemns the errors that underpin Notre Dame’s defense. #19: “The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free… but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church.” The “civil power” here is the secularized university board and its concept of academic freedom. #21: “The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.” By tolerating a public heretic in a leadership role, Notre Dame implicitly denies the unique salvific truth of Catholicism and reduces it to one “position” among many. #24: “The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power.” The bishops are using only moral suasion, not the “force” of canonical penalties, because they have accepted this conciliar error.
* **The Scandal of “Catholic” Collaboration:** The professors who resigned are to be commended for their conscientious objection, but their action stops short of the required Catholic response. They resigned from roles in an institute, not from the “Catholic” university itself. They implicitly accept the legitimacy of the conciliar structure. A truly Catholic response would be to publicly renounce all affiliation with the conciliar sect occupying Notre Dame, to cease teaching there, and to urge students to do the same, recognizing it as a place of poison, not formation.

4. Symptomatic Analysis: The Fruit of the Conciliar Revolution

This event is not a bug but a feature of the post-1958 “Church.” It is the logical and necessary outcome of the principles of Vatican II.

* **The Hermeneutics of Continuity in Action:** The defenders of the conciliar “reform” claim a “hermeneutics of continuity.” Here is the continuity: Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Freedom) established the principle that the human person has a right to religious freedom, which the state must protect. This natural rights language, condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus (#15, #77), directly feeds into the “academic freedom” claimed by Notre Dame. If the state cannot impose Catholicism, neither can a “Catholic” university impose Catholic doctrine on its faculty. The appointment of Ostermann is the direct application of Dignitatis Humanae to academia: the “freedom” of the individual professor (to hold and promote heresy) trumps the right of the Church (which the conciliar sect claims to represent) to define the orthodoxy of its own institutions.
* **The Death of the “Catholic” University:** Pope Leo XIII, in Spiritus Paraclitus and other encyclicals, insisted that the sciences, especially history and biblical studies, must be subservient to the teaching authority of the Church. Vatican II’s Gravissimum Educationis (Declaration on Christian Education) replaced this with a principle of “academic freedom” within the “Catholic” school, provided the “Catholic” character is maintained. This is an impossibility. As Pius IX taught (#57 of the Syllabus), moral science cannot keep aloof from divine authority. Ostermann’s field—global affairs—is replete with moral issues (abortion, population control, “reproductive rights”). Her advocacy proves that the “Catholic” character is a meaningless label. The university is, in reality, a conciliar institution that has embraced the “errors of philosophy” condemned by St. Pius X.
* **The Complicity of the “Traditionalist” Resistance:** Notice that the article quotes no “traditionalist” or “sedevacantist” voices. The entire debate occurs within the parameters of the conciliar sect: students, “orthodox” professors, and “conservative” bishops. This is the trap. The “traditionalists” who recognize the post-conciliar “popes” and attend their “Mass” are part of the problem. They accept the legitimacy of the structures (like Notre Dame) that produce such apostasy. Their protests, while morally praiseworthy on a natural level, are futile because they do not attack the root cause: the apostate hierarchy and the invalid, modernist “magisterium” since John XXIII. The only coherent Catholic response is to recognize that the See of Peter is vacant, that the conciliar “popes” are heretical antipopes, and that institutions like Notre Dame, governed by such a “hierarchy,” are not Catholic but are part of the “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15).
* **The “Two Standards” Heresy:** The university claims to uphold “the dignity of all human life” while appointing a director who actively works to destroy it. This is the classic Modernist double-think. It is the same as a “bishop” condemning abortion while promoting “LGBTQ+ inclusion.” It is the religion of the Antichrist, where contradictory doctrines are held simultaneously because there is no absolute truth. Pius X, in Pascendi, identified this as the mark of the Modernist: “They lay the axe to the roots of the faith… by introducing a new system of philosophy.” The “system” here is relativistic humanism.

Conclusion: The Only Catholic Response

The appointment of Susan Ostermann is a public, formal, and scandalous act of apostasy. It demonstrates conclusively that the University of Notre Dame and the conciliar hierarchy that oversees it are not Catholic. The bishops who criticize it are themselves compromised by their acceptance of the conciliar principles that made this appointment possible. The students and professors who protest are acting heroically on a natural level but are, in supernatural terms, fighting a battle within the enemy’s camp, using the enemy’s rules (“academic freedom”).

The unchanging Catholic faith, as defined by the Church Fathers, the Councils, and the Popes before 1958, demands the following:
1. The immediate and public condemnation of the appointment by every Catholic bishop with valid jurisdiction (a jurisdiction no longer held by the conciliar bishops).
2. The declaration that the University of Notre Dame has, by this act, excluded itself from communion with the Catholic Church.
3. The withdrawal of all canonical privileges, the prohibition of Catholic worship on campus, and the excommunication of the university’s governors and the appointed heretic.
4. The establishment of true Catholic academies, under the sole jurisdiction of bishops who hold the integral Faith, free from all compromise with Modernism.

The silence of the “magisterium” of the conciliar sect on this and countless similar scandals is not a pastoral “dialogue” but a damning proof of its apostasy. As St. Pius X wrote in E Supremi: “The distinguishing mark of the Antichrist… is that he is to come in the name of liberty and of human progress.” Notre Dame’s defense of “academic freedom” in appointing a pro-abortion director is the very essence of this Antichristian spirit. The faithful are called to exit this Babylon, not to reform it. The only “reform” is the restoration of the immutable Catholic Faith, which currently has no public, hierarchical representation in the world. The true Church endures in the remnant who hold fast to Tradition, awaiting the day when God will raise up a true Pope to restore all things in Christ the King.

[Antichurch] Notre Dame’s Apostasy: “Catholic” University Appoints Pro-Abortion Director

1. Factual Deconstruction: The Illusion of “Catholic” Identity

The article presents the event as a controversy within a Catholic institution. This framing is false. The University of Notre Dame, since its embrace of the conciliar reforms, has systematically dismantled Catholic doctrine and discipline. Its “Catholic” identity is a legal and marketing fiction, not a theological reality.

* The Nature of the Appointee: Susan Ostermann’s public support for abortion places her in formal, manifest heresy. According to the unchanging doctrine of the Church, as defined by St. Robert Bellarmine and canon law, a manifest heretic is ipso facto outside the Church and cannot hold any office within it. The 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 188.4) states that an office becomes vacant by the mere fact of public defection from the Catholic faith. Ostermann’s advocacy is precisely such a public defection. Therefore, her appointment is canonically null and void ab initio. The university’s action is not a “controversial decision” but a formal act of schism and apostasy.
* The Reaction of the Bishops: The criticism from bishops Rhoades, Olson, Barron, and Aquila is intrinsically defective. These men are all members of the conciliar hierarchy, which, by accepting the errors of Vatican II (especially religious liberty, collegiality, and ecumenism), has forfeited the Catholic episcopate. Their objections are not based on the absolute moral law of God but on a naturalistic, “pro-life” sentiment that still accepts the modernist premise of “academic freedom” and the separation of faith from public life. Their stance is a compromise, not a defense of the Faith. They implicitly recognize the legitimacy of the “university” as a Catholic entity, which it is not. Their failure to demand Ostermann’s immediate removal and the university’s public re-conversion under pain of excommunication exposes their own apostasy.
* The University’s Defense: Notre Dame’s invocation of “academic freedom” and “mission” is a direct repudiation of Catholic doctrine. Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors (1864) condemns proposition #57: “The science of philosophical things and morals and also civil laws may and ought to keep aloof from divine and ecclesiastical authority.” The opposite is true: all sciences, especially those dealing with human dignity and global affairs, must be subordinated to the authority of the Church and the law of God. The “mission” of a Catholic university is defined by Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas: to form souls in the knowledge and love of Christ the King, so that “all power in heaven and on earth is given to Christ the Lord… [and] there is no power in us that is exempt from this reign.” An institute that places a heretic in a leadership role explicitly rejects this mission.

2. Linguistic Analysis: The Language of Apostasy and Naturalism

The article’s language meticulously avoids the supernatural and juridical categories of Catholic theology, revealing the naturalistic, humanistic mindset of both the actors and the reporter.

* Euphemisms for Heresy: Ostermann’s pro-abortion stance is described as “posturas favorables al aborto” (stances favorable to abortion) and “posiciones contrarias sobre temas fundamentales como la vida humana” (positions contrary on fundamental topics like human life). This is a deliberate softening. Catholic doctrine, defined by the Church, calls abortion a “crime which no human law can claim to legitimize” (Pius XI, Casti Connubii) and a “most shameful crime” (Pius IX, Apostolicae Sedis). The article’s language reduces an intrinsic evil to a mere “position” or “stance,” placing it in the realm of opinion, not objective moral law. This is the language of Modernism, which treats dogma as a “life” to be evolved.
* The Idol of “Academic Freedom”: The university’s defense rests on “libertad académica” (academic freedom). This is a direct import of the modernist error condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Lamentabili Sane Exitu. Proposition #8 of Lamentabili states: “As human reason is placed on a level with religion itself, so theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences.” The “freedom” sought is the freedom of reason from the authority of the Faith. It is the very principle of the “enemies within” warned of by St. Pius X. In a true Catholic university, there is no “freedom” to teach error; there is only the liberty of the children of God to profess the truth (cf. John 8:32).
* Silence on the Supernatural: The entire article operates on a purely natural plane. There is no mention of sin, grace, the state of mortal sin, the threat of eternal damnation for formal cooperation in abortion, the duty of bishops to protect the souls of the faithful, or the Sacraments as the source of sanctification. The most serious accusation in Catholic theology is the scandal given to the faithful—yet it is mentioned only as a “provocative” sentiment of the bishops, not as a damnable act that imperils souls. This silence is not accidental; it is the hallmark of the conciliar sect’s shift from a supernatural to a naturalistic, sociological understanding of the Church.

3. Theological Confrontation: Christ the King vs. the Autonomy of Man

Every statement and omission in the article stands in stark, irreconcilable opposition to the integral Catholic doctrine as defined before 1958.

* The Primacy of Christ’s Kingship: Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas, establishes the feast of Christ the King precisely to combat the errors on display: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” Notre Dame’s action is a paradigm of this removal. By placing a public enemy of Christ’s law (which commands “Thou shalt not kill”) in a position of academic authority, it explicitly derives its authority from the “autonomy of human reason” and “academic freedom,” not from Christ the King. Pius XI continues: “The state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations… the Church… cannot depend on anyone’s will.” Here, the “state” is the conciliar university administration; the “members” are the faithful Catholics protesting. The administration is tyrannizing over the Church’s freedom by imposing a heretic. The article’s failure to invoke Christ’s kingship over every sphere of life, including academia, is a denial of the Faith.
* The Duty of Public Witness: The article notes student Anna Kelley’s “personal testimony” as an adopted person. While moving, it remains in the natural order. Catholic theology demands more. The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that the virtue of religion requires public confession of faith. The bishops’ statements, while correct in substance, lack the necessary supernatural force. They do not threaten excommunication or declare the university’s action a formal cooperation with evil. They do not call for the withdrawal of all Catholic worship and sacraments from the campus until repentance. This is because they themselves no longer believe in the supernatural efficacy of such penalties, a belief lost with the Modernist infiltration.
* The Nature of a Catholic Institution: The Syllabus of Errors (#19, #20, #21, #24, #25) systematically condemns the errors that underpin Notre Dame’s defense. #19: “The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free… but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church.” The “civil power” here is the secularized university board and its concept of academic freedom. #21: “The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.” By tolerating a public heretic in a leadership role, Notre Dame implicitly denies the unique salvific truth of Catholicism and reduces it to one “position” among many. #24: “The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power.” The bishops are using only moral suasion, not the “force” of canonical penalties, because they have accepted this conciliar error.
* The Scandal of “Catholic” Collaboration: The professors who resigned are to be commended for their conscientious objection, but their action stops short of the required Catholic response. They resigned from roles in an institute, not from the “Catholic” university itself. They implicitly accept the legitimacy of the conciliar structure. A truly Catholic response would be to publicly renounce all affiliation with the conciliar sect occupying Notre Dame, to cease teaching there, and to urge students to do the same, recognizing it as a place of poison, not formation.

4. Symptomatic Analysis: The Fruit of the Conciliar Revolution

This event is not a bug but a feature of the post-1958 “Church.” It is the logical and necessary outcome of the principles of Vatican II.

* The Hermeneutics of Continuity in Action: The defenders of the conciliar “reform” claim a “hermeneutics of continuity.” Here is the continuity: Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Freedom) established the principle that the human person has a right to religious freedom, which the state must protect. This natural rights language, condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus (#15, #77), directly feeds into the “academic freedom” claimed by Notre Dame. If the state cannot impose Catholicism, neither can a “Catholic” university impose Catholic doctrine on its faculty. The appointment of Ostermann is the direct application of Dignitatis Humanae to academia: the “freedom” of the individual professor (to hold and promote heresy) trumps the right of the Church (which the conciliar sect claims to represent) to define the orthodoxy of its own institutions.
* The Death of the “Catholic” University: Pope Leo XIII, in Spiritus Paraclitus and other encyclicals, insisted that the sciences, especially history and biblical studies, must be subservient to the teaching authority of the Church. Vatican II’s Gravissimum Educationis (Declaration on Christian Education) replaced this with a principle of “academic freedom” within the “Catholic” school, provided the “Catholic” character is maintained. This is an impossibility. As Pius IX taught (#57 of the Syllabus), moral science cannot keep aloof from divine authority. Ostermann’s field—global affairs—is replete with moral issues (abortion, population control, “reproductive rights”). Her advocacy proves that the “Catholic” character is a meaningless label. The university is, in reality, a conciliar institution that has embraced the “errors of philosophy” condemned by St. Pius X.
* The Complicity of the “Traditionalist” Resistance: Notice that the article quotes no “traditionalist” or “sedevacantist” voices. The entire debate occurs within the parameters of the conciliar sect: students, “orthodox” professors, and “conservative” bishops. This is the trap. The “traditionalists” who recognize the post-conciliar “popes” and attend their “Mass” are part of the problem. They accept the legitimacy of the structures (like Notre Dame) that produce such apostasy. Their protests, while morally praiseworthy on a natural level, are futile because they do not attack the root cause: the apostate hierarchy and the invalid, modernist “magisterium” since John XXIII. The only coherent Catholic response is to recognize that the See of Peter is vacant, that the conciliar “popes” are heretical antipopes, and that institutions like Notre Dame, governed by such a “hierarchy,” are not Catholic but are part of the “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15).
* The “Two Standards” Heresy: The university claims to uphold “the dignity of all human life” while appointing a director who actively works to destroy it. This is the classic Modernist double-think. It is the same as a “bishop” condemning abortion while promoting “LGBTQ+ inclusion.” It is the religion of the Antichrist, where contradictory doctrines are held simultaneously because there is no absolute truth. Pius X, in Pascendi, identified this as the mark of the Modernist: “They lay the axe to the roots of the faith… by introducing a new system of philosophy.” The “system” here is relativistic humanism.

Conclusion: The Only Catholic Response

Source:
Estados Unidos: Crece el rechazo interno y externo tras el nombramiento de una académica pro-aborto en la Universidad de Notre Dame (infovaticana.com)
Date: 15.02.2026

The Conciliar Sect’s Public Apostasy at Notre Dame

1. Factual Deconstruction: The Illusion of “Catholic” Identity

2. Linguistic Analysis: The Language of Apostasy and Naturalism

3. Theological Confrontation: Christ the King vs. the Autonomy of Man

4. Symptomatic Analysis: The Fruit of the Conciliar Revolution

Conclusion: The Only Catholic Response

1. Factual Deconstruction: The Illusion of “Catholic” Identity

2. Linguistic Analysis: The Language of Apostasy and Naturalism

3. Theological Confrontation: Christ the King vs. the Autonomy of Man

4. Symptomatic Analysis: The Fruit of the Conciliar Revolution

Conclusion: The Only Catholic Response

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply