The University of Notre Dame is appointing Susan Ostermann, a scholar who advocates for abortion access, as the new director of a university-wide institute. Ostermann has previously described laws banning abortion as "violence," "sexual abuse," and "trauma." She has also connected efforts to end abortion with white supremacy. In a May 2022 column, Ostermann argued that abortion access is "freedom-enhancing."
about 2 months ago
The University of Notre Dame announced Susan Ostermann, an associate professor of global affairs, as the new director of the Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies, effective July 1, 2026.1
Ostermann serves as a consultant for the Population Council, which supports abortion and contraception access.1
Ostermann co-authored columns describing laws banning abortion as "violence," "sexual abuse," and "trauma," arguing that abortion access enhances freedom.1
In pieces for Salon and other outlets, she linked opposition to abortion and gun control with white supremacy, citing historical fears of demographic shifts.1
She and co-author Tamara Kay opposed Indiana's abortion ban, calling it anti-freedom and forced birth.1
Founded in 2010, the institute promotes research on Asia, integrating classroom learning, scholarship, and social impact through the Keough School of Global Affairs.1
It emphasizes "Justice and Asia" from social, political, economic, cultural, historical, and linguistic perspectives, resonating with Catholic social teaching and Asian traditions.1
The institute is one of 17 at Notre Dame, typically funded by endowments over $15 million with significant operating budgets.1
Bill Dempsey of the Sycamore Trust called the appointment a "scandal," arguing it discredits Notre Dame's Catholic identity by elevating an abortion advocate, akin to promoting white supremacy.1
He stated Notre Dame acts like a secular school, unacceptable for a Catholic institution where abortion is a grave evil per Church teaching.1
Neither Ostermann nor a Notre Dame spokesman responded to comment requests.1
In 2022, after similar columns by Ostermann and Kay, then-President Father John Jenkins disavowed their views, stating they did not reflect Notre Dame's values.1
Ostermann's scholarship primarily covers housing, female genital mutilation, inter-caste marriage in India, and South Asian regulatory compliance, not abortion.1
Notre Dame maintains institutes on religion, ethics, health care, and global development, underscoring tensions between academic freedom and Catholic doctrine on life issues.1
Assess Catholic doctrine on abortion in contemporary academic appointments
Catholic doctrine unequivocally condemns direct abortion as a grave moral evil, intrinsically illicit, and always contrary to the natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and the ordinary Magisterium. From the earliest centuries, the Church has taught that "life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes," a position reaffirmed by councils, popes, and documents like the Didache and Gaudium et Spes. Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae declared with supreme authority: "direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being." No circumstance justifies it, and formal cooperation incurs automatic excommunication (latae sententiae). The Catechism echoes this: "From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion... is gravely contrary to the moral law." This teaching is "unchanged and unchangeable," binding on all Catholics in conscience and action.
Catholic universities, as extensions of the Church's mission, must integrate this doctrine into their identity, research, teaching, and governance. Ex Corde Ecclesiae defines a Catholic university as a community advancing human dignity through rigorous inquiry, but always "with Catholic ideals, principles and attitudes," linked formally to the Church. It requires public affirmation of Catholic identity and ensures "Catholic teaching and discipline... influence all university activities," while respecting academic freedom within "the confines of the truth and the common good." Pope Benedict XVI emphasized "intellectual charity," urging educators to lead youth to truth without detaching reason from faith, warning that invoking academic freedom to contradict Church teaching "would obstruct or even betray the university's identity and mission."
Canon Law reinforces this: Competent authorities must appoint teachers "outstanding in integrity of doctrine and probity of life," removing those who lack these; bishops' conferences and diocesan bishops vigilantly ensure "the principles of Catholic doctrine are observed faithfully." Pope John Paul II instructed U.S. bishops that preserving Catholic character demands institutional commitment to Church teaching in "the ethical and moral implications of its scholarship" and the "witness of intellectual integrity" of professors. Bishops participate as "chief teachers of the faith," offering correction when needed.
Applying abortion doctrine to appointments means Catholic universities cannot hire or retain faculty who publicly dissent from or promote the grave immorality of direct abortion, as this undermines institutional Catholic identity. Integrity of doctrine demands alignment with the Church's non-negotiable stance on life; appointing pro-abortion advocates signals tolerance of intrinsic evil, fracturing the "essential unity of knowledge" and betraying the munus docendi (teaching office). Public honors, like honorary degrees to pro-abortion politicians, exacerbate this: as theologians noted in critiquing Notre Dame's 2009 decision on Barack Obama, such acts imply "any violence can receive a blessing when approved by the powerful," contradicting Evangelium Vitae's insistence that the right to life founds all others. Obama's policies, rooted in rejecting "absolute truth" for pragmatic liberty, exemplify positions incompatible with Catholic law degrees or platforms.
Bishops hold watchdog authority, indirectly through governance or directly via fraternal correction. While academic freedom permits inquiry within truth's bounds, it never justifies doctrinal contradiction—especially on life issues, where "the greatest challenge... will remain... preserving and strengthening the Catholic character." Recent papal addresses on dignity (e.g., Pope Leo XIV on AI in medicine) underscore prioritizing "ontological dignity" from conception amid technological "epochal change," implying universities must model this in appointments.
Contemporary tensions arise from secular pressures fragmenting knowledge, but doctrine demands fidelity. Low-quality sources like open letters highlight scandals without magisterial weight, yet align with core teachings. No sources permit relativism; where doctrine is clear, appointments must reflect it. Bishops' vigilance prevents "false dichotomies between... academic freedom and the demands of Catholic identity."
In summary, Catholic doctrine on abortion—grave, intrinsic evil—compels universities to appoint only those upholding it, under episcopal oversight, to safeguard mission and dignity. Fidelity honors God's law; deviation risks betrayal.