Notre Dame is in the news, and not for getting gypped out of the College Football playoffs. Rather, it is for appointing an outspoken advocate for abortion and fierce critic of the pro-life cause to a major position in the university. The facts are both simple and rightfully shocking, even if hardly surprising to those I might call “Ex Corde realists.” 

Let me explain. On January 8 of the new year, Notre Dame, the premier Catholic university in the United States, appointed Dr. Susan Ostermann, associate professor of global affairs at the Keough School of Global Affairs, as director of the Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies, effective July 1, 2026. Ostermann is an active scholar and involved in a number of laudable projects around the world, particularly in Asia. With the general public, however, she is most known for the stridency of her support of the abortion license, which she claims is “freedom-enhancing, in the truest sense of the word” and “consistent with integral human development that emphasizes social justice and human dignity.” Those who fight for the legal protection of the unborn, in contrast, she judges to be motivated by “white supremacy” and “racism.” Their pregnancy centers are “anti-abortion rights propaganda sites” designed “to operate and provide false information to women who are lured to them believing they will receive legitimate medical care.” If that is not enough, the incoming director collaborates with the Population Council, a well-funded organization that works with government and non-governmental agencies to control human reproduction. 

Thankfully, some good-hearted Catholics at what some call “Our Lady’s University” have raised their voice in protest.

If one is looking for reasons to feel good about the future of the American Catholic Church, read the letter, published in the student newspaper, from the Notre Dame Right to Life Executive Board. They respectfully ask the university to rescind the appointment due to Ostermann’s advocacy of abortion, an act the Church considers intrinsically evil. They express skepticism with her statement that she respects “Notre Dame’s institutional position on the sanctity of life at every stage” by making the obvious point that “she has spent her career advocating for and supporting organizations that directly contradict this statement.” They point out that the Population Council, “an organization that collaborated with the Chinese government to promote abortion, contraception and the enforcement of the one-child policy, violates the dignity of human life.” On this point, the letter includes a quotation from Anna Kelly, who was adopted by Catholic parents from China and serves as president of Notre Dame Right to Life: 

Is there a leader of a self-described Catholic school who would not burst with pride in having such a student? More importantly, is there one so obtuse not to hear in her words a prophetic voice of warning?  Time will tell.

In addition to the students, some professors have spoken out. The most prominent is the wonderful Fr. Wilson (Bill) Miscamble, C.S.C. Anyone familiar with the uphill struggle to keep Notre Dame institutionally Catholic will be familiar with his work. A happy warrior if ever there was, Father Miscamble has dedicated a good deal of his professional life calling upon Notre Dame’s leadership—most often fellow members of the Congregation of the Holy Cross—not to sacrifice the cause of Catholic higher education for the passing glories of worldly prestige. 

A historian of post-World War II American foreign policy by trade, his biography of Notre Dame’s most famous president, Fr. Ted Hesburgh, C.S.C., is both laudatory of Hesburgh’s obvious accomplishments for the school and critical of those moments he became too desirous of the approval of secular elites. Over the years, Fr. Bill has written pieces for First Things that provide good background to this seemingly inexplicable decision. I recommend in particular an essay he wrote on the university’s relationship to Mayor Pete Buttigieg. On the Ostermann controversy, one can watch him on Raymond Arroyo’s Prayerful Posse, thereby getting a sense of the full Fr. Bill experience, as well as read his recent “A Crisis of Catholic Fidelity at Notre Dame.”

I did not attend Notre Dame, nor have I visited the campus more than a few times. And, given that Catholic identity abides within the inner dynamics of a school, an outsider like me would be a fool to hurl declarations. I do know, however, that it is a very special place. Graduates or, as they call themselves, “Domers” tend to be fiercely loyal to their alma mater, even cultish in their devotion. They can, of course, be critical of this or that decision—bestowing an honorary degree on President Barack Obama in 2009 and the Laetare medal for Catholics “whose genius has ennobled the arts and sciences, illustrated the ideals of the Church and enriched the heritage of humanity” to President Joe Biden in 2016 spring to mind. 

Yet, for all their frustration with college leadership, they are quick to point out all the good things that are happening on campus. They are right to do so. Notre Dame has a vibrantly Catholic student life (alongside the party culture fostered by nearly all institutions of higher learning), a robust theology department, and a good number of superstar Catholic academics scattered among its many schools, institutes, and other genera of academic existence. I am told that during an average week on campus, more than 158 Masses are celebrated, there are fifty or so hours of Eucharistic adoration, and confession is made available for nineteen hours. Indeed, amid the Ostermann controversy, a story appeared of an ice chapel built by students to host an outdoor Mass for over two thousand congregants. More importantly, the National Catholic Register reports that their campus ministry has a record number of students going through the OCIA to become Catholic. A single testimony from Alex Huang, born in China to non-religious parents, speaks volumes of what Notre Dame is doing right:

In other words, Catholic Domers are rightly proud of not only the strong Catholic culture that pervades the school but the many excellent Catholic scholars who teach and work there. There is even an alternative student newspaper run by Catholic students named the Irish Rover and a trust dedicated to “protecting Notre Dame’s Catholic Identity.” No other school has anything like that.

So, what’s the matter with Notre Dame? Failed leadership. It is the same thing that explains the general decline of Catholic higher education in the United States since the Second Vatican Council. The simple truth is that, beginning in the late 1960s, the vast majority of those entrusted with the Church’s institutions of higher learning in the United States started to desire something more than providing Catholic education to their students. The “something more” could be wanting acceptance by the wider secular academy, getting along with misaligned faculty, or just staying in business. 

Ensuring Catholic identity through the hiring of Catholic professors and the institution of policies regulating student life became increasingly difficult, and those in charge, with few exceptions, refused to do it. By 1990, when Saint John Paul II issued his Apostle Constitution on Catholic universities, Ex corde Ecclesiae, the fundamentals were too set to be much altered. I dedicated a long essay to this story for First Things in 2023. The basic idea is that, when it comes to colleges and universities, everything depends on the will and strength of those in charge. It is no more complicated than that.

Thus, I consider it both unjust and unproductive to place the blame for Notre Dame’s latest scandal on Ostermann.

After all, she did not invade Notre Dame. Rather, she applied for a position, was interviewed, given tenure, and promoted. These are actions of the institution. Ostermann, moreover, has not hidden her pro-abortion views under a bushel basket. Indeed, in 2022 Fr. John Jenkins, C.S.C., the president of Notre Dame from 2005-2024, took the very unsual step of responding in print to one of Ostermann’s articles, “Lies about Abortion have Dictated our Health Policy,” co-written by another Notre Dame professor, Tamara Kay (who has since left the university). In a brief note, Father Jenkins informed readers of the Chicago Tribune that the views expressed by these faculty members do “not reflect the views and values of the University of Notre Dame in its tone, arguments or assertions.” This is a curious statement. What would express the “views and values” of a university more than those held by the faculty who teach its students? It is surely better evidence than official statements on websites, donor brochures, or even presidential letters to the editor. 

Of course, mistakes in hiring are made, and the ability to distinguish between the views of a professor and his or her employer is an essential aspect of academic freedom, especially at a private institution. With this clearly in mind, Fr. Jenkins acknowledged that “Tamara Kay and Susan Ostermann are, of course, free to express their opinions on our campus or in any public forum.” Being penalized for expressing anti-Catholic views is not at issue in the present case. Rather, it is the opposite. Ostermann’s plum promotion happened after her many public statements and even a public rebuke from the then-president of Notre Dame. We can also assume that although there were other, presumably qualified, candidates for the same position. It was Ostermann who was chosen, and good for her. Yes, she holds and acts upon morally reprehensible views regarding abortion, but she is not the cause of this scandal.

The blame lies squarely with Mary Gallagher, the dean of the Keough School of Global Affairs, who made the appointment, and John McGreevey who, as provost, approved it. Clearly, neither considered Ostermann’s vocal support of abortion an obstacle to heading the Liu Institute. What about the president of Notre Dame, Fr. Robert Dowd, C.S.C.? He was certainly familiar with Ostermann’s views and was likely told about the appointment before it was made public.  

On Wednesday, February 11, Bishop Rhoades, the local ordinary, issued a powerful statement against the appointment of Ostermann. Here are the central passages:

By way of conclusion, the bishop attests from personal knowledge that the faith is alive and well at Notre Dame due to the committed work of faculty, staff, and members of the Congregation of the Holy Cross. He asks that the appointment not go into effect.

I am very pleased, thrilled even, that the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend has spoken in such a clear and public way. A significant part of Ex Corde’s failure to be implemented in the United States was the reluctance of bishops to be seen as critics of the colleges and universities in their own dioceses. After decades of being cheerleaders for Catholic education, it proved hard to flip the script.

That said, I am a bit troubled by the narrowness of the good Bishop Rhoades’s reproach. While he subjects Ostermann’s views on abortion to extended criticism, he fails to name those responsible for her appointment: not Dr. Gallagher or Dr. McGreevey or Fr. Dowd. What makes Ostermann uniquely unqualified to be the Director of the Liu Institute is, of course, fair game, and the bishop effectively contrasts her statements with quotations from Pope Francis and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Yet, as I have said at the risk of annoying my readers with repetition, the professor did not appoint herself. Rather, those with much greater authority than she appointed her to the prestigious and influential position with full knowledge of the views Bishop Rhoades rightly finds so abhorrent. They are the ones responsible for the current mess, and their names should have been included in the bishop’s public statement.

By providential coincidence, the latest issue of First Things includes “Why I am Done with Notre Dame” by Christian Smith, formerly the William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Sociology and Director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society. Smith is a mighty big fish in the sociology of religion, as a glimpse at his Wikipedia page will attest. More than that, he entered the Catholic Church after four years of teaching at Notre Dame, crediting the “wonderful personal, institutional, and cultural commitments to and resources for faithful Catholics living here.” You can read about his journey from Presbyterianism to Catholicism here. 

Many readers will be familiar with his coinage of “moralistic therapeutic deism” to describe the religious perspective of most American youths found in Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers (co-authored with Melinda Lundquist Denton). Well, after twenty years of teaching and writing and still in the thick of his career, he has left Notre Dame in frustration and vexation. He offers the following explanation:

I won’t summarize his essay. It’s a banger and must be absorbed directly. I have no doubt that it will be a bitter pill for those who love Notre Dame despite her failures, and they may find Smith overly harsh. I would ask them to recall that we are only vulnerable to what we love. Smith clearly loved the place and committed himself to its stated mission. What got to him was that those in charge were not similarly committed, and the distance between their official statements and their actions simply became too much to bear. His is a cri de coeur. As I said, read it. It is remarkable.

It is possible that the leadership of Notre Dame will respond to the criticism appropriately and rescind the appointment. Fr. Miscamble tells us that he has “brought the matter before the Board of Fellows at Notre Dame—six Holy Cross Priests and six laypersons—who have the fiduciary responsibility to maintain the university’s ‘character as a Catholic institution of higher learning,’” asking them to support Fr. Dowd if he chooses to overrule his provost.

If he does, Fr. Dowd ought to also apologize, in some form, to Susan Ostermann. She is not responsible for the public embarrassment that rescinding the appointment would obviously bring her. If, however, the leadership of Notre Dame perseveres in their original decision, it will be yet another chapter in the sad and unnecessary decline of Catholic higher education in the United States. 

It is worth noting that in the same week of Ostermann’s appointment, we learn that Loyola University Chicago covers elective abortions in its student health plan. As objectively scandalous as that is, the story sank without a bubble. It is no small credit to Notre Dame that we expect more of it. Maybe this time, expectations will be fulfilled.