EWTN News reports (February 21, 2026) that U.S. “bishops” are continuing to urge the University of Notre Dame to reverse the appointment of pro-abortion professor Susan Ostermann to lead the Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies. While the “bishops” condemn the appointment as “scandalous” and incompatible with Catholic mission, their failure to reject the conciliar principles of academic freedom and religious liberty—upon which Notre Dame bases its autonomy—exposes their complicity in the apostasy of the post-conciliar Church. The university’s invocation of “integral human development” further reveals its abandonment of supernatural Catholic education for naturalistic humanism.
The Naturalistic Foundation of the Controversy
Both the “bishops” and Notre Dame frame the controversy in naturalistic terms, utterly devoid of supernatural Catholic doctrine. The “bishops” speak of “the dignity of the human person” and a “consistent ethic of life,” while Notre Dame defends its decision by citing Professor Ostermann’s respect for the “sanctity of life at every stage” and the university’s focus on “integral human development.” None of this language invokes the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the primary duty of Catholic education to form souls for eternity, or the Church’s exclusive right to define truth in all spheres. This naturalism is the very essence of Modernism, condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu (1907): “Truth changes with man, because it develops with him, in him, and through him” (Error 58). By reducing the conflict to matters of human dignity and ethical consistency, both sides operate within the modernist paradigm that separates faith from public life.
Pius XI, in his encyclical Quas primas (1925), definitively established that Christ’s reign extends to all aspects of human society, including education: “Let rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ… in the education and formation of youth in sound doctrine and purity of morals.” Catholic universities, therefore, must be entirely subject to the Church’s authority and teach only Catholic doctrine, without compromise. The Syllabus of Errors (1864) further condemns the autonomy claimed by Notre Dame: “The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free… but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church” (Error 19). By asserting its own rights against the “bishops,” Notre Dame embodies this condemned error, treating itself as a civil power over the Church. Similarly, Error 55 declares: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” Notre Dame’s claim to academic freedom is a direct fruit of this separation, which Pius IX anathematized.
The “bishops’” complete omission of these doctrines is telling. They do not cite Quas primas or the Syllabus; they do not demand that Notre Dame submit to ecclesiastical authority or teach the Catholic Faith as the exclusive path to salvation. Their silence on the supernatural ends of education—salus animarum—reveals that they too have embraced the naturalistic, conciliar worldview.
The Bishops’ Half-Measures: A Critique from the Social Kingship of Christ
The “bishops” statements, while correctly identifying the scandal of a pro-abortion professor, are fundamentally deficient because they lack any reference to the immutable doctrine of Christ’s Social Kingship. “Bishop” Kevin Rhoades expressed “dismay” and “strong opposition,” urging the school to “rectify this situation.” “Archbishop” Samuel Aquila, “Bishop” Robert Barron, “Archbishop” Salvatore Cordileone, and “Archbishop” Paul Coakley joined the criticism. “Bishop” Thomas Paprocki called the decision “scandalous,” and “Cardinal” Timothy Dolan agreed “heartily.” Yet none invoked the solemn teaching of Pius XI: “the Church… demands for itself by a right belonging to it, which it cannot renounce, full freedom and independence from secular authority.” They did not remind Notre Dame that as a Catholic institution, it has no right to autonomy from the Church’s magisterium.
Instead, they employed the post-conciliar concept of the “consistent ethic of life,” which dilutes the absolute evil of abortion by equating it with other social issues. This concept, born of the conciliar spirit of dialogue and relativism, contradicts the Church’s constant teaching that abortion is a crime that cries out to heaven for vengeance. The “bishops’” failure to demand the immediate removal of Ostermann and the suppression of the Liu Institute unless it conforms to Catholic doctrine demonstrates their apostasy. They are not pastors but functionaries of the conciliar sect, as described in the file on sedevacantism: a manifest heretic loses his office. By tolerating such open dissent from the natural law, they prove themselves heretics.
Moreover, the “bishops” operate within the USCCB, a structure of collegiality that undermines the papal primacy and episcopal authority defined by Pius IX. Their appeal to “dialogue” and “mission” without doctrinal content mirrors the modernist strategy of using vague language to avoid definitive condemnations. As Pius X warned in Lamentabili, Modernists “aim at such a development of dogmas as appears to be their corruption” (Introduction). The “bishops’” tepid response is a perfect example: they condemn the symptom (Ostermann’s appointment) but not the disease (Notre Dame’s conciliar autonomy and Ostermann’s heresy).
Notre Dame’s Modernist Autonomy vs. Pre-Conciliar Catholic Education
Notre Dame’s resistance to the “bishops’” appeals is grounded in its adoption of the conciliar principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. The university’s statement that Ostermann is “well-prepared” to lead the institute and her own assertion that she respects Notre Dame’s “institutional position on the sanctity of life” are weasel words that mask her public advocacy for abortion. This duplicity is possible because Notre Dame, like all post-conciliar Catholic universities, has rejected the pre-1958 model of strict ecclesiastical control.
Before Vatican II, Catholic universities were subject to the Holy See and local bishops. The 1917 Code of Canon Law (can. 1374) required episcopal approval for teachers in Catholic institutions. The Syllabus of Errors condemned the notion that civil authority could interfere in religious education (Errors 44–47), but equally, the Church always claimed the right to suppress error in her own schools. Notre Dame’s claim to define its own mission and appointments is a direct inversion of this: it now claims rights that belong to the Church, acting as a civil power over the ecclesiastical. This is precisely the error of Error 19: “The Church is not a true and perfect society… but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church.” Notre Dame has become that “civil power” over itself.
The university’s focus on “integral human development” is a hallmark of the conciliar document Gaudium et Spes, which Pius X would have condemned as Modernism. Lamentabili sane exitu declares: “Contemporary Catholicism cannot be reconciled with true knowledge without transforming it into a certain dogmaless Christianity, that is, into a broad and liberal Protestantism” (Error 65). “Integral human development” is precisely such a transformation: it replaces the supernatural goal of education (the salvation of souls) with a naturalistic focus on human flourishing. The Liu Institute, by concentrating on Asia and Asian studies without an explicit mandate to convert nations to Catholicism, embodies this apostasy. As Pius XI taught in Quas primas, Christ’s kingdom encompasses all nations, and the Church’s mission is to teach and baptize all. Notre Dame’s institute, by promoting “dialogue” and “development” without proclamation, denies this mission.
The Omission of Supernatural Ends: Salvation Over Social Justice
The most glaring omission in the entire controversy is any mention of the supernatural purpose of Catholic education. Neither the “bishops” nor Notre Dame speak of forming students in the life of grace, the sacraments, or the necessity of Catholic doctrine for salvation. The “bishops” reduce Catholic identity to a “consistent ethic of life” and “dignity of the human person,” while Notre Dame talks about “integral human development.” Both ignore the primary end: salus animarum, the salvation of souls.
Pius XI, in Quas primas, explicitly states that the Church was established “to teach, govern, and lead all to eternal happiness.” Catholic education must therefore be ordered to this supernatural end. The Syllabus of Errors condemns the idea that the Church’s teaching authority is limited to dogma (Error 22) and that she has no right to define that Catholicism is the only true religion (Error 21). Yet Notre Dame, by hosting a professor who denies the Church’s teaching on abortion and by not requiring Catholic doctrine in its curriculum, rejects this exclusive claim. The “bishops’” failure to demand this shows they have accepted the modernist error that the Church’s mission is primarily social, not salvific.
This naturalistic shift is the core of the conciliar apostasy. As the file on sedevacantism notes, the modernist “synthesis of all errors” includes the democratization of the Church and the cult of man. The focus on “human development” and “dignity” without reference to God’s law is exactly that cult of man. The “bishops” and Notre Dame are both guilty of this apostasy, the former by omission, the latter by commission.
Conciliar Roots of the Apostasy: From Vatican II to the Liu Institute
The controversy at Notre Dame is not an anomaly but a direct consequence of Vatican II’s teachings on religious liberty, academic freedom, and the Church’s relationship with the world. The Second Vatican Council’s declaration Dignitatis humanae on religious liberty contradicts the Syllabus of Errors (which condemned religious indifferentism in Errors 15–18) and the teaching of Pius IX that the Catholic religion must be the state religion (Error 77). Gravissimum educationis on Christian education promotes the autonomy of Catholic schools, which is condemned by the Syllabus (Error 45) and by Pius XI’s emphasis on the Church’s control over education.
The Liu Institute’s mission, with its emphasis on “integral human development” and likely interreligious dialogue (given its focus on Asia), is a practical application of these conciliar errors. The “bishops’” inability to challenge this mission because they themselves accept Vatican II’s principles demonstrates their complicity. They are not defenders of the Faith but agents of the conciliar revolution. As the file on sedevacantism argues, the current hierarchy is occupied by modernists who have “defected from the Catholic faith” (Canon 188.4). Their “criticism” of Notre Dame is merely a staging to maintain the illusion of Catholic identity while allowing the apostasy to continue.
The appointment of a pro-abortion professor is the logical outcome of a system that values “diversity” and “dialogue” over doctrinal purity. The “bishops” half-hearted objections cannot reverse this because they do not reject the foundational errors. Until Catholic universities are placed under the absolute authority of the Church and required to teach the immutable Faith, such scandals will persist. The true Catholic response would be to declare Notre Dame no longer Catholic and to suppress the Liu Institute, but the conciliar “bishops” lack the faith and courage for such a step.
Source:
Bishops continue to urge Notre Dame to reverse ‘scandalous’ appointment of pro-abortion professor (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 21.02.2026