Apostasy in the Vatican – No Question…

Apostasy in the Vatican – No Question…

VaticanROME, March 11, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – This weekend the Vatican formally hosted one of Britain’s most virulently pro-abortion and pro-homosexual writers, as well as the head of an American organization promoting female ordination, at an officially sanctioned event inside Vatican City walls. Organizers spoke to Vatican Radio as well as the secular press, praising the new atmosphere within the Church’s leadership that made the conference possible.

As part of the Vatican’s official observance of International Women’s Day, this Sunday saw two events, one brought in from outside and the other organized by the Pontifical Council for Culture. The latter conference has come under public criticism for its “ham-fisted,” “tone-deaf,” “uncatholic,” and feminist-inspired approach to “Women’s Cultures.”

The presence of the outside-organized event held inside the Vatican is being forthrightly hailed by organizers and the secular media as feminist victory over the traditional stance of the Church. Among the organizers and speakers were Deborah Rose-Milavec, one of the US’s most prominent agitators for female ordination, and Tina Beattie, a British feminist academic notorious for her advocacy for abortion, homosexual relations, and “gay marriage,” and who once compared the Catholic Mass to homosexual sex. [Emphasis added by Editor CT]

Beattie is the Director of the Digby Stuart Research Centre for Religion, Society and Human Flourishing at the University of Roehampton in London. Her extreme and anti-Catholic positions on abortion and sexuality prompted Bishop Declan Lang of the English Diocese of Clifton to cancel a scheduled lecture in 2012. She continues to write regularly for the UK’s far-left Catholic magazine The Tablet.

The organizer of the “storytelling event,” Voices of Faith, told the New York Times that holding the seminar on Vatican soil was a “hard-fought victory.” Chantal Götz of the Swiss Fidel Götz Foundation, said, “It becomes all the more symbolic when it’s inside the Vatican. It’s a step ahead.”

Götz suggested that the conference participants could form a “de facto think tank” for the pope. “If the pope needs advice, there are women who can provide it,” she said.

In an interview with Vatican Radio, Götz highlighted the presence at the conference of a nun who works with women in the parts of the Middle East under threat from the Islamist supremacist group ISIS. She did not, however, mention the presence of Tina Beattie or Deborah Rose-Milavec, and the interviewer did not bring up the presence among the seminar’s speakers of Gudrun Sailer, who has worked for the German section of Vatican Radio since 2003.

Deborah Rose-Milavec, a member of the Voices of Faith advisory board and head of the US group FutureChurch, which campaigns mainly for “women priests,” echoed the suggestion that the seminar could help develop policy for the Church.

On the website of Voices of Faith, Rose-Milavec said the seminar “could be a key agent in providing Pope Francis and others in leadership with both the vision and tools necessary to carry out his desire for a more incisive female presence in the Church.”

“This would benefit all men and women but particularly women who are poor and powerless and who have been left behind economically, socially and politically,” she added.

Despite the single-issue focus of Rose-Milavec’s group, Goetz denied that the seminar aimed at “changing Church policy or doctrine.” To Vatican Radio she said, “We want just to highlight the different experiences of Catholic women and …put more focus on what they are doing for the poor and marginalized.”

“Pope Francis is saying we [women] should take more initiative in general on things and this is what we are trying to do.” “We are proud,” she said, that the seminar was invited to be held within the Vatican.

Joshua McElwee, a journalist with the far-left US paper National Catholic Reporter, said the meeting “saw a remarkably open and frank discussion among women about the limits on their participation in church structures.”

McElwee noted that it “may have been the first such public conversation ever to take place at the center of the Catholic hierarchy.” Using language comparable to that of the feminist “womenpriests” movement, he said the topics discussed included “the need for the church to practice what it preaches about full equality between men and women, to include women in every level of decision-making, and to use inclusive language in its worship.”

He remarked that while the topic of “women’s ordination” was “only discussed tangentially,” nevertheless the speakers “addressed the jarring lack of women in ministry in the church and in leadership positions in the Catholic hierarchy.” He quotes Vatican Radio’s Gudrun Sailer, who said, “It’s about recognizing, realizing that excluding women from the church [does] not conform to the Gospel. It’s not what the Gospel wants.”

The internal event, sponsored by the Vatican’s own Pontifical Council for Culture, while having a less radical agenda, was still criticized for kow-towing to feminist paradigms. Critics expressed concern that the agenda for the meeting contained the jargon-heavy language of academic feminism but little that would mark this officially sponsored Vatican event as Catholic. Topics included, “Between equality and difference: the quest for an equilibrium,” “‘Generativity’ as a symbolic code,” “The female body: between culture and biology,” and “Women and religion: flight or new forms of participation in the life of the Church?” None of the materials for either conference contained a single reference to the Virgin Mary or the female saints or doctors of the Church.

After pulling a video promoting the event in early February that was blasted on Twitter by hundreds of viewers from all sides of the Catholic political divide, the Council posted a photo of a headless, legless and armless statue, bound with ropes. When criticized again for this photo, which many compared with the pornographic film 50 Shades of Grey, the Council posted a note saying that although they acknowledged the criticisms, Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi had personally decided the photo would stay. The photo, and the note, have since been removed.

The ongoing close partnership between certain factions within the Vatican and the extreme and blatantly anti-Catholic feminist left has been raising controversy for decades. Some have responded to this latest salvo by saying the Catholic Church is flatly acting against its own interests with its ongoing flirtation with heavily secularist, and politically-charged leftist feminist agenda.

International Women’s Day, a holiday started by the Soviet revolutionaries in the early 20th century, has become an annual showcase for atheistic political feminism in many transnational organizations like the UN and the EU.

Deborah Gyapong, a widely read Canadian freelance Catholic journalist and blogger, spoke to LifeSiteNews of the “partisan agenda” of this weekend’s dual conferences, asking what it had to do with the Catholic religion.

Gyapong said that “even to talk about ‘gender equality’ is to import alien, Marxist inspired ideas into the conversation.” “It means that these views are calling the shots of the conversation, or to use another metaphor, establishing the playing field,” she said.

Gyapong added that while the motive “may have been dialog and inviting diverse points of view,” the lack of balance created a message that these key issues are up for grabs in the Church. She asked where the “clear and articulate” voices defending the Church’s teaching were.

“Would the Vatican hold a conference on the Trinity and invite people who say they are Catholics but who deny there are three Persons in one God?” Gyapong asked. “Women who see the hierarchy merely in terms of power relations and clericalism are unlikely to be less clericalist were they put into positions of power.”

“There are some beautiful, faithful, holy women religious, women theologians, women bioethicists who are not whining and complaining about gender equity,” she added. “As a journalist who has regular contact with cardinals and archbishops, I have never felt marginalized or treated with disrespect.”

The Vatican’s weekend in Rome with the feminists contrasted sharply with the message of Cardinal Raymond Burke who was in the UK at a conference sponsored by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. In a speech in Chester, Cardinal Burke said the time is coming for believing Catholics to be ready to emulate the early Christian martyrs in their defense of marriage and the sanctity of human life.

He warned, “Even within the Church, there are those who would obscure the truth of the indissolubility of marriage in the name of mercy, who condone the violation of the conjugal union by means of contraception in the name of pastoral understanding, and who, in the name of tolerance, remain silent about the attack on the very integrity of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”   Source


Is there anyone within the Vatican walls, who is not an apostate?  Doesn’t look like it. The silence is deafening, so an awful lot of priests and prelates are complicit in the scandalous downward spiral which this shocking conference represents. Comments invited – but take a very deep breath first…

Comments (100)

  • Christina

    But remember that after Our Lord had ascended into heaven, and the Holy Ghost had descended upon them, the Apostles dispersed, establishing the apostolic churches of which they were the first bishops. Each of them ordained his successor and in the earliest days, the Bishops of Rome, St. Peter’s successors, received no special prominence. It was only later that the title ‘Pope’ was applied uniquely to the successors of St. Peter as ‘first among equals’ and this claim was one of the causes of the East/West Schism in 1054. What, I wonder, is in Pope Francis’s mind when he claims to be ‘Bishop of Rome’ rather than ‘Pope’? Perhaps he wants the next conclave to elect a new Bishop of Rome! Part of his game plan to destroy the papacy??

    March 17, 2015 at 12:04 am
  • Athanasius


    I have to take issue with you on that. The Bishop of Rome always had special prominence above all other Bishops and was NEVER considered just “one among equals”. That particular heresy was dealt with in Pastor Aeternus.”

    Right from the earliest times the Apostles and their successors recognised in Peter the Supreme head of the Church, as Christ Our Lord had decreed when He said “Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church… To thee do I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven… Feed my sheep…” etc.

    I agree that the term “Pope” came into use much later but that does not detract from the fact that all Catholics from the first century recognised in Peter the supreme authority over the entire Church.

    March 17, 2015 at 12:38 am
  • Christina

    Thank you, Athanasius – I will certainly check up on Pastor aeternus again, and will meanwhile withdraw the ‘first among equals’ heresy! However, my point, perhaps badly expressed, was simply to agree with Perplexed, who correctly said, from Church history, that the Pope is the Pope precisely because he is the Bishop of Rome. St. Irenaus, writing in the second half of the of the second century, confirms the pre-eminence of the Roman See, but refers to those who sit upon the chair of Peter as ‘Bishops of Rome’ and compiled a list of those bishops up until his own day. As he was writing against heresies, not all, at that time, did acknowledge the supremacy of the Roman see.

    ….. the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition. [then follows a list of successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome] (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3)

    March 17, 2015 at 2:08 pm
    • Athanasius


      Yes, having read up quite a bit on the Papacy I agree that Perplexed, and Nolite Timere, were right about the Bishop of Rome.

      But what I also noticed during my research is that “Pope” and “Bishop of Rome” along with so many other titles, such as Vicar of Christ, Supreme Pontiff of the Church, Successor of St. Peter, etc., are synonymous with each other so that no matter which one is used, the universal authority of the Papacy remains in tact.

      This having been said, it seems the Modernists prefer Bishop of Rome for no other reason than that it sounds less authoritative and therefore better facilitates false Collegiality, the old “one amongst equals” heresy. That’s why Francis uses the title almost exclusively, as do his liberal cohorts who desire to undermine the authority and dignity of the Chair of Peter.

      The bottom line is that the Pope, using whatever title, is no less the unique and supreme head of the Universal Church, to whose Christ-given authority all Cardinals, bishops, priests, religious and laity are subject. In other words, the Pope has no equal, he is above all in the Church by Our Lord’s own mouth.

      March 17, 2015 at 2:49 pm
  • Nolite Timere

    For once I knew something that Athanasius didn’t!!! It feels like all my Christmas’s have came at once!!!

    March 17, 2015 at 8:36 pm
    • editor


      I hope it’s my turn soon 😀

      March 17, 2015 at 9:52 pm
    • Athanasius

      Nolite Timere,

      And I now have the misery of acknowledging that I am not, after all, infallible. Drat!

      March 17, 2015 at 10:16 pm
      • perplexed


        An interesting and thought-provoking post (above, at 14.29, on 17 March). One element that adds even more weight to your argument concerning the supremacy of the Pope is the fact that, after the voting in the Sistine chapel has produced a “winner”, he is explicitly asked if he accepts his election as Supreme Pontiff (“Acceptasne electionem de te canonice factam in Summum Pontificem? Do you accept your canonical election as Supreme Pontiff?”). Once he gives his assent, he is asked by which name he will be known…as Pope!
        I am interested in your opinion regarding a deliberate attempt to undermine the uniqueness of the Petrine ministry. What purpose would it serve?

        March 18, 2015 at 10:08 am
      • editor


        Athanasius will no doubt respond to you in his own time, but it seems pretty obvious even to a gal of my simple mind, that if the “uniqueness of the Petrine ministry” is undermined, it serves the purpose of undermining the (unique) authority of the Pope in his key role as Supreme Pontiff, supreme teacher. If he’s only first amongst equals, his authority must take account of what his equals think, whereas, even in Lumen Gentium we read that this is not the case:

        “And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment.

        For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*)” (LG # 25)

        March 18, 2015 at 2:57 pm
  • Athanasius


    Sorry it has taken a wee while for me to answer, I have a bit of a Flu-like bug today and so I’m not at my best. Our Lord knows how to administer all the best lenten penances!!

    I’ll begin this response by answering your final question first. The purpose served by undermining the uniqueness of the Petrine ministry is that the authority given directly to Peter by Our Lord gets decentralised to the Bishops, or, as is more common today, the Bishops’ Conferences. What this amounts to in effect is that the autocratic authority instituted by Christ for His Church becomes a democracy, which new system of government not only robs the Papacy of its Supreme legislative power, but also robs each bishop of his individual diocesan authority.

    Here is an excerpt from the 2014 article I had published in the Angelus magazine. It should answer your question with more clarity. The entire article is available somewhere on this blog:

    From Autocracy to Democracy

    ‘Nor is there continuity with the past in respect to Collegiality. In his Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre explains that Our Lord instructed individuals, not a collectivity, to tend His sheep. The Apostles obeyed Our Lord’s orders, and until the twentieth century it remained thus. The pope alone enjoyed supreme power and jurisdiction over the universal Church, and each bishop, subject to this Petrine authority, enjoyed full power within
    his diocese. Then the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium appeared hinting at a new democratic structure of government, according to which the College of Bishops together with the pope exercises supreme power over the Church in habitual and continual manner. It was a novel idea of double supremacy that ran contrary to the definitions of Vatican Council I and to Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical Satis Cognitum. Notwithstanding this contradiction, however, and largely dismissive of the footnote of correction attached at the end of the conciliar document in question,
    the post-conciliar Church has since witnessed a universal transformation of National Bishops’
    Conferences from those purely consultative bodies approved by St. Pius X to decision-making entities operating on the principle of the democratic vote and ‘majority rule’; whereby the government of the pope and that of each bishop in his diocese has frequently been trumped in practice by pressure from the presbyterial college. Hence the universal imposition and extension
    against the expressed wishes of the popes of such abuses as Communion in the hand and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the scandal of U.S. marriage annulments that rose from 700 in 1969 to more than 50,000 by 1995, the introduction of doctrinally unsound Catechisms into Holland, Canada and France without corrections ordered by the Holy See having been made, etc. I could quote many such examples, but perhaps the most revealing proof is the letter of explanation Pope Benedict XVI felt obliged to issue to the various Episcopal Conferences in an attempt to soothe a less than favorable reception of his 2007 Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. What this letter highlighted was the pressure the popes have experienced since the advent of Collegiality; reducing them to issuing reassurances, suggestions and advice instead of issuing the orders needed to get the Church back on the right track, condemning when necessary, as the popes have hitherto done as primary guardians of the deposit of faith. Well did Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani once observe that the only recording in history of Collegiality at work among the Apostles was when they collectively abandoned Our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane! Adding further to the confusion is the teaching of the new Code of Canon Law (1983) that power resides in the “people of God.” This tendency towards what they call bringing the base into sharing the exercise of power can be found all through present structures—synod, episcopal conferences, priests’ councils, pastoral councils, Roman commissions, national commissions, etc.; and there are equivalents in religious orders. So now pastoral councils instruct the priests; the priests’ councils instruct the bishops; the bishops’ vote in the conferences and the conferences dictate to the pope. In effect, it is authority turned on its head so that what was once a top-down structure of Church government has become a bottom-up structure of so many contradictory opinions and methods that it can truly be stated that collegiality of the magisterium has resulted in paralysis of the magisterium.’

    It’s worth noting as an aside that over a number of centuries, from the Protestant Reformation, through the French and Russian Revolutions, it has been a principle dogma of Freemasonry to supplant all autocratic (monarchical) rule with democratic rule in every nation on earth.

    The reason for this determined policy is twofold. First, it eradicates all belief in God-given individual authority. Secondly, it allows for the supplanting of God’s Commandments by cliques of like-minded persons overruling the divine law by popular vote.

    That’s why Cardinal Suenens declared that Vatican II is “The French Revolution in the Church.” When Paul VI renounced the Papal tiara and Lumen Gentium almost succeeded in introducing condemned Collegiality, he knew it was only a matter of time until the autocracy of the Papacy was eradicated. This is why Pope Francis is such a gift to the Church’s enemies, because, more than any of his predecessors, he seems absolutely committed to the Freemasonic ideal for the Papacy.

    March 18, 2015 at 3:58 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: