by Randall Smith
My beloved alma mater, the University of Notre Dame, has gotten itself tied up in a knot by elevating a pro-abortion faculty member to a position of leadership over a center whose goal is fostering "integral human development," which the Church has repeatedly insisted depends on respect for life at all stages.
The details have been widely circulated in the media, so I won't rehash them here. The best statement on the issue, to my mind, has been by Bishop Kevin Rhoades, the bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend and the local ordinary in whose diocese the University of Notre Dame sits. He notes of the faculty member in question:
She wrote that the pro-life position has "its roots in white supremacy and racism," and has misogyny "embedded" in the movement. She has attacked pregnancy resource centers as deceptive "anti-abortion propaganda sites" that harm women. She also argued that the Catholic social doctrine of "integral human development" supports abortion because it enhances freedom and flourishing for women.
Bishop Rhoades rightly counters: "These are all outrageous claims that should disqualify her from an administrative and leadership role at a Catholic university." There is no need to say more about this case; Bishop Rhoades has said what needs to be said. I would like to come at the issue from a rather different angle.
Before I do, though, let me take a moment to insist on something that should be obvious. This is a free country, and this professor is free to have any position on controversial issues she thinks best. Anyone upset by that position has a right to disagree civilly. But no one should contact her or send her threatening messages. She should be left alone, period, end of discussion.
Anyone who would violate her privacy and threaten her safety should not claim to be Catholic or pro-life or an ally in the battle for a culture of life. I'm sorry, but in the modern world, it seems that such things need to be stated clearly and unequivocally.
In the final analysis, the issue goes beyond this particular professor. I don't know how Notre Dame is going to cut the Gordian Knot they've tied for themselves, but there is a wider set of problems involved.
Consider this. Let's assume that it became known that a person promoted to a position of authority over a major center at the university had written social media posts and op-ed articles deemed racist or that spoke out against open immigration. Or let's say he or she publicly signaled agreement with the Church's teaching on homosexuality. I think we all know that there would be no question: such a person would be dismissed instantly.
But what does this say? It means that the administrators involved think that racism (which is absolutely a bad thing) is worse than abortion. The one earns immediate disapproval and dismissal; the other causes some questioning and mild concern.
This gives rise to the sense that the people involved don't really appreciate how grave an evil abortion is. If they did, would they be having a hard time deciding whether this was an appropriate appointment or not? Whatever they say about abortion, their actions betray their true convictions.
Consider the problem the administration faces now. If they keep this professor in her current position, it will alienate and offend their Catholic alumni, students, and faculty. If they remove her, given how much it has become a flash point, they will make themselves look bad among their secular peers at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford.
My guess would be that the approval of the latter group is more important to them than the disapproval of the former. But we can always pray that wisdom and goodwill prevail.
Please understand, there are many truly great people at Notre Dame. And the students are glorious. But at some point, someone might want to ask who got the university tied up in knots with so much horrible media coverage and earned them a scolding from their bishop.
The larger issue is t...
