If we all pray for Susan Ostermann to repent and believe in the Gospel, there is hope for her soul. But we should not forget to pray for the person(s) who appointed her to do likewise.
Sadly, I don't think these kinds of problems with Catholic institutions of higher learning are going to ever go away, and it is a problem that essentially has no positive solution for anyone who wants Catholic universities to truly uphold their Catholic identity. Bishop Rhoades did the right thing by speaking out against the appointment, but he knows better than anyone that there is nothing he can do, no action he can take that can solve the problem. Even if there was something he could do, he wouldn't do it; no bishop in America would. And unfortunately words are not enough in most cases to affect the seismic change that it would take to turn the tide in favor of restoring faithful Catholic identity to these types of places.
In a way I've sort of made peace with the fact that this is an unsolvable problem that is going to persist indefinitely. I don't like it, but I've given up dwelling on it. Thinking about how bishops' hands are tied when it comes to dealing with these issues has also given me some sympathy for them, being placed in an unwinnable battle. Maybe in the future the Church will be better equipped to defend its beliefs and faith. But it will take a completely different mindset, from the top on down through all of the clergy and Church leadership, something that will likely take longer than I have to live.
Sorry to take an opposing view yet again in my first week, but it’s important to keep in mind what Pope Leo XIV himself said about what it means to be pro-life. Life simply does not end at birth. Some Bishops seem to judge only on abortion - as if they only have this one tool and apply it.
Is as if somebody would only judge Rhoades on his prior controversy (link below) and discount everything he has done since. University of Notre Dame has done a tremendous amount for humans around the world. Why try to bash them? I suspect jealousy may be in play as the Bishop is clearly second fiddle in the Bend.
I don’t understand how your point is relevant to the controversy at hand. Of course we have ethical obligations besides opposing abortion. But nobody is claiming Ostermann is pro life, so why does it matter what other moral obligations the label implies? Unless you think pro lifers shouldn’t ever criticize people or institutions for being selective in their pro life convictions. And while I don’t claim to fully understand your argument, aren’t you also impliedly criticizing some pro lifers of inconsistency? So when is it ok to make that critique?
If we all pray for Susan Ostermann to repent and believe in the Gospel, there is hope for her soul. But we should not forget to pray for the person(s) who appointed her to do likewise.
Sadly, I don't think these kinds of problems with Catholic institutions of higher learning are going to ever go away, and it is a problem that essentially has no positive solution for anyone who wants Catholic universities to truly uphold their Catholic identity. Bishop Rhoades did the right thing by speaking out against the appointment, but he knows better than anyone that there is nothing he can do, no action he can take that can solve the problem. Even if there was something he could do, he wouldn't do it; no bishop in America would. And unfortunately words are not enough in most cases to affect the seismic change that it would take to turn the tide in favor of restoring faithful Catholic identity to these types of places.
In a way I've sort of made peace with the fact that this is an unsolvable problem that is going to persist indefinitely. I don't like it, but I've given up dwelling on it. Thinking about how bishops' hands are tied when it comes to dealing with these issues has also given me some sympathy for them, being placed in an unwinnable battle. Maybe in the future the Church will be better equipped to defend its beliefs and faith. But it will take a completely different mindset, from the top on down through all of the clergy and Church leadership, something that will likely take longer than I have to live.
Sorry to take an opposing view yet again in my first week, but it’s important to keep in mind what Pope Leo XIV himself said about what it means to be pro-life. Life simply does not end at birth. Some Bishops seem to judge only on abortion - as if they only have this one tool and apply it.
Is as if somebody would only judge Rhoades on his prior controversy (link below) and discount everything he has done since. University of Notre Dame has done a tremendous amount for humans around the world. Why try to bash them? I suspect jealousy may be in play as the Bishop is clearly second fiddle in the Bend.
https://www.southbendtribune.com/story/news/local/2018/09/18/bishop-rhoades-actions-in-sex-abuse-cases-by-two-pennsylvania-priests-detailed-in-repor/46488155/
I don’t understand how your point is relevant to the controversy at hand. Of course we have ethical obligations besides opposing abortion. But nobody is claiming Ostermann is pro life, so why does it matter what other moral obligations the label implies? Unless you think pro lifers shouldn’t ever criticize people or institutions for being selective in their pro life convictions. And while I don’t claim to fully understand your argument, aren’t you also impliedly criticizing some pro lifers of inconsistency? So when is it ok to make that critique?