Is it just me or does Osterman’s email. Just cause an eye roll and whining about how she had to step down because of her views. It just goes to show how much leadership at Notre Dame does not understand the scandal behind appointing someone who clearly does not respect catholic values.
The self righteous tone of we need to work to accept a variety of “views” when it just means “not care if professors think killing babies is ok and work for the CCP to help them efficiently kill babies” is … not a good look.
Osterman with the smug retreat to “diversity of viewpoints” after she was caught red handed characterizing any viewpoint other than hers as white supremacy, and thus scheduled for imminent eradication under the unstoppable machinery of progressive totalitarianism. What else should I expect from a faction that has won the social field because its victims are hidden from view and are unable to speak.
I am 100% on board with you- however, as with almost anything, there’s a nugget of truth to her statement; there is a history of white supremacy and anti-immigrant rhetoric being used to support anti-abortion and “pro-natal” (not to use too much of a buzzword) causes. She’s right that those evil aspects exist (as they also have in “pro-choice” and pro-contraception causes), even if they’re not the motivation now and her overall stance is still wrong.
Where is the win here? She is still a professor at Notre Dame. Kind of reminds me of the great synod - figuring out how church teaching can be changed.
I dunno, it seems a bit distasteful to have a thanksgiving prayer service because someone was forced to decline a job. Maybe use this energy to pray for people impacted by abortion and give the gift of time and resources to pregnant students in the ND community?
Abortion is objectively bad. A person being forced to decline a job because nobody wants to take accountability for institutional confusion about what the purpose of faculty at a Catholic university is, should be a matter of sadness and shame for all involved.
I see it as a matter of shame and sadness that she holds this immoral and destructive viewpoint at all, not that she declined a job because of them. I do pray for her, that she be rescued from the hands of Satan.
The taking of innocent life is opposed to natural law, and it is morally binding on all to observe. It would be unjust to punish a person for following the natural law, just as it would be unjust to reward someone who flagrantly opposes it.
The point of the academic life is the pursuit of truth, not a multiplicity of voices whether they are right or wrong. Variety that aims at falsehood has no business at the university level, and that includes the lie that pro-lifers are racists. Rather, the point of abortion, according to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as cited in the New York Times Magazine in 2009, "was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of." I don't think she was referring to white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.
Ortner is exactly right, God bless him. Ostermann is completely unsuitable for any role at Notre Dame. But the real scandal is the administration that supported her nomination in the first place. At the very least Mary Gallgher should resign, but the rot goes all the way to the top. In addition to continued prayer, protests need to continue.
Is it just me or does Osterman’s email. Just cause an eye roll and whining about how she had to step down because of her views. It just goes to show how much leadership at Notre Dame does not understand the scandal behind appointing someone who clearly does not respect catholic values.
The self righteous tone of we need to work to accept a variety of “views” when it just means “not care if professors think killing babies is ok and work for the CCP to help them efficiently kill babies” is … not a good look.
Osterman with the smug retreat to “diversity of viewpoints” after she was caught red handed characterizing any viewpoint other than hers as white supremacy, and thus scheduled for imminent eradication under the unstoppable machinery of progressive totalitarianism. What else should I expect from a faction that has won the social field because its victims are hidden from view and are unable to speak.
I am 100% on board with you- however, as with almost anything, there’s a nugget of truth to her statement; there is a history of white supremacy and anti-immigrant rhetoric being used to support anti-abortion and “pro-natal” (not to use too much of a buzzword) causes. She’s right that those evil aspects exist (as they also have in “pro-choice” and pro-contraception causes), even if they’re not the motivation now and her overall stance is still wrong.
Where is the win here? She is still a professor at Notre Dame. Kind of reminds me of the great synod - figuring out how church teaching can be changed.
Exactly - selective outrage on the part of the students as well.
I dunno, it seems a bit distasteful to have a thanksgiving prayer service because someone was forced to decline a job. Maybe use this energy to pray for people impacted by abortion and give the gift of time and resources to pregnant students in the ND community?
No, this is worth celebrating. You're forcing a false dichotomy here where there is none.
You'd be singing a different tune if a secular university denied a position to a pro-life professor, and then students celebrated that.
Because the flip side here is objectively bad.
Abortion is objectively bad. A person being forced to decline a job because nobody wants to take accountability for institutional confusion about what the purpose of faculty at a Catholic university is, should be a matter of sadness and shame for all involved.
I see it as a matter of shame and sadness that she holds this immoral and destructive viewpoint at all, not that she declined a job because of them. I do pray for her, that she be rescued from the hands of Satan.
Has any heart ever been converted by seeing others, in essence, celebrating “ding dong, the witch is dead”?
Yes, that would be a problem. It would indeed be a grave injustice to deny a position to someone for opposing moral evil.
Sharia law for me, but not for thee?
Sharia Law is an instance of positive law.
The taking of innocent life is opposed to natural law, and it is morally binding on all to observe. It would be unjust to punish a person for following the natural law, just as it would be unjust to reward someone who flagrantly opposes it.
That is not "Sharia Law."
Well, that happens all the time. Many prolife speakers have been pushed and shouted out of speaking venues.
Prolife people usually do both, pray and help, in my experience.
The point of the academic life is the pursuit of truth, not a multiplicity of voices whether they are right or wrong. Variety that aims at falsehood has no business at the university level, and that includes the lie that pro-lifers are racists. Rather, the point of abortion, according to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as cited in the New York Times Magazine in 2009, "was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of." I don't think she was referring to white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.
Ortner is exactly right, God bless him. Ostermann is completely unsuitable for any role at Notre Dame. But the real scandal is the administration that supported her nomination in the first place. At the very least Mary Gallgher should resign, but the rot goes all the way to the top. In addition to continued prayer, protests need to continue.