The University of Notre Dame often bills itself as an epicenter of American Catholicism and “a place where the Church does its thinking.” But in the latest scandal to hit Our Lady’s university, Notre Dame’s leaders are making clear they’re not on the same wavelength as our first American Pope.

Despite media criticism, student backlash, and now the local bishop’s protest, Notre Dame is standing by its scandalous decision to appoint Susan Ostermann, an open and aggressive advocate for abortion access, as director of the Liu Institute for Asian Studies.

The move stands in contrast with the vision of Pope Leo XIV, the pope of unity. The Chicago-born Pontiff has not only urged Catholics to overcome internal tensions but also to present a more unified witness of the Church’s social teaching to the world.

This includes abortion. As Diane Desierto, a Notre Dame law professor and human-rights advocate, highlighted when she resigned her Liu Institute fellowship over Ostermann’s appointment, Pope Leo recently told a group of young political leaders that “no policy can genuinely serve the people if it denies the unborn the gift of life, or if it neglects to support those in need, whether in their material circumstances or in their spiritual distress.” The Pope added that Mother Teresa of Calcutta’s observation that the “greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion” was “prophetic” for our own times.

One might think America’s flagship Catholic university would be paying close attention to the cues of our nation’s first Pope. But instead of following Pope Leo’s lead by offering a unified witness on Church teaching, Notre Dame’s leadership is sending a fatally fractured message.

This becomes clear when we consider that the Liu Institute, as part of Notre Dame’s Keough School of Global Affairs, is tasked with advancing “integral human development” — a concept rooted in Catholic social teaching and championed by recent popes like St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.

In Pope Leo’s own words, integral human development means “the full development of a person in all dimensions: physical, social, cultural, moral and spiritual.” In a world where ideological interests try to force us to pick between different goods and even groups of people, integral human development instead offers a holistic, “both/and” approach. As Pope Leo has said, this vision for the human person is “illuminated by the Gospel of Christ” and calls us to organize society around “the love of God and neighbor,” not the “love of self.”

But rather than pick someone who can transcend the false binaries and zero-sum dichotomies of our age to lead the Liu Institute, Notre Dame has elevated a poster child for them in Ostermann. The political scientist has not only minimized the humanity of the unborn and smeared the pro-life movement as based in “white supremacy,” she has even claimed that abortion access is “consistent with integral human development.”

This directly contradicts what Pope Leo (and every pope before him) has taught about integral human development. Specifically, Leo has condemned abortion as a practice that “denies or exploits the origins of life and its development” and has called for “the protection of every unborn child” and support for mothers.

In other words, Ostermann’s understanding of integral human development is fundamentally at odds with how Pope Leo and the Catholic Church understand the term. Given the centrality of the concept to the Liu Institute’s work, hiring Ostermann to run the institute is like hiring a doctor who thinks cancer is healthy to run a hospital, or a pilot who thinks crashing a plane is a worthy goal. It is self-defeating, logically inconsistent, and utterly unacceptable.

This isn’t just an academic problem. As pointed out by retired theologian Robert Gimello, another Liu fellow who resigned in protest, the institute serves as the formal point of contact between Notre Dame and Asia. Putting an abortion advocate in charge risks undermining the university’s pro-life witness to a continent in desperate need of receiving it.

Perhaps Pope Leo raised the need for Notre Dame to offer a compelling witness to the world when he met with university leadership, including president Father Robert Dowd, at the Vatican in November. According to the university, the conversation focused on “the role Notre Dame and other Catholic universities can play in serving the Church, addressing the challenges of our time, and fostering human flourishing.”

Sadly, the university’s appointment of Ostermann fails on each account: It undermines the Church’s witness, gives in to the “either/or” thinking that dominates our age, and advances a fractured, counterfeit version of integral human development. Notre Dame’s leadership should correct course, apologize to Ostermann for putting her in such an untenable position, and find an Asian studies expert to run the Liu Institute who can champion a fully Catholic vision of human flourishing with gusto.

Ostermann’s appointment isn’t set to take effect until July 1. As Bishop Kevin Rhoades notes in a hard-hitting but pastoral rebuke of Notre Dame’s action, “There is still time to make things right.” Anything else is an affirmation that the university administration’s thinking is fractured, flawed, and sharply at odds with Pope Leo’s.