By Randall Smith
My dear alma mater, the University of Notre Dame, has gotten itself into a real mess by elevating a pro-abortion faculty member to a leadership position at the head of a center whose goal is to promote «integral human development,» which the Church has repeatedly insisted depends on respect for life in all its stages.
The details have circulated widely in the media, so I won’t repeat them here. In my judgment, the best statement on the matter has been that of Bishop Kevin Rhoades, Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend and the local ordinary in whose diocese the University of Notre Dame is located. He states about the professor in question:
She wrote that the pro-life stance has «its roots in white supremacy and racism,» and that misogyny is «embedded» in the movement. She has attacked pregnancy help centers by calling them deceptive «anti-abortion propaganda sites» that harm women. She also maintained that the Catholic social doctrine of «integral human development» supports abortion because it increases women’s freedom and flourishing.
Bishop Rhoades responds rightly: «All of these are scandalous claims that should disqualify her for an administrative and leadership position at a Catholic university.» There’s no need to say more about this case; Bishop Rhoades has said what needed to be said. I’d like to address the issue from a quite different angle.
Before doing so, however, let me insist on something that should be obvious. This is a free country, and this professor is free to hold whatever position she thinks best on controversial issues. Anyone who feels upset by that stance has the right to disagree in a civilized manner. But no one should contact her or send her threatening messages. She should be left alone, period.
Anyone who violates her privacy and threatens her safety should not pretend to be Catholic or pro-life or an ally in the fight for a culture of life. Sorry, but in the modern world, it seems these things must be said clearly and without ambiguity.
Ultimately, the issue goes beyond this particular professor. I don’t know how Notre Dame is going to cut the Gordian knot it has tied for itself, but there’s a broader set of problems involved.
Consider the following. Suppose it became public that a person promoted to a position of authority at the head of a major university center had written social media posts and opinion pieces considered racist or had spoken out against open immigration. Or suppose she had publicly expressed agreement with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. I think we all know there would be no doubt: that person would be removed immediately.
But what does this tell us? It means that the administrators involved think that racism (which is absolutely wrong) is worse than abortion. One deserves immediate disapproval and dismissal; the other provokes some questions and moderate concern.
This gives rise to the feeling that the people involved do not really understand how grave the evil of abortion is. If they understood it, would they be having difficulty 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 now faces. If they keep this professor in her current position, they will alienate and offend their Catholic alumni, students, and faculty. If they remove her, given what the case has become, they will look bad to their secular colleagues at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford.
My guess would be that approval from the latter group is more important to them than disapproval from the former. But we can always pray that wisdom and goodwill prevail.
Please understand: there are many truly excellent people at Notre Dame. And the students are magnificent. But at some point, someone might want to ask who got the university into this mess with so much negative media coverage and brought a rebuke from its bishop.
The broader issue is the perspective that seems to dominate some members of the university administration: a perspective that does not seem to take abortion too seriously in its actions, in contrast to its words. They say one thing, but do another. That perspective has allowed it over the years to confer honorary degrees on multiple pro-abortion politicians, including Barack Obama (who was also deporting millions of undocumented immigrants), John Kerry, and Joe Biden. Biden even received the university’s highest honor, the Laetare Medal.
Can you imagine awarding an honorary degree to George Wallace when he was governor of Alabama and had stood in front of the University of Alabama to block black students from entering? Me neither. The fact that some people have no problem conferring an honorary degree on determined promoters of abortion means they see no moral equivalence between George Wallace and these abortion promoters.
And, if I may suggest it, that’s the problem at many Catholic universities. It suggests that they have surrendered to the Zeitgeist, to the «spirit of the age,» and cannot see beyond it. Instead of serving as leaven in the culture, as the Catholic Church exhorts us to do, they have surrendered to that culture’s standards: in their moral attitudes and, perhaps more than anything, in their conception of what constitutes «success.» It’s all about wealth, prestige, and cultural influence.
The idea seems to be that if we proclaim our Catholic teachings too forcefully and apply them too consistently, those who really matter in American society won’t let us into the country club. The sad thing is that these people don’t seem to realize that those people will never let you into the country club, at least not as long as you’re proudly Catholic and not the «right kind» of Catholic.
And, of course, what would it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul… but for Harvard’s approval?
About the author
Randall B. Smith is Professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, Texas. His most recent book is From Here to Eternity: Reflections on Death, Immortality, and the Resurrection of the Body.