Skip to comments.Notre Dame Observer Rejects Rice Column on Catholic Teaching on Homosexuality
Posted on 03/02/2010 1:16:44 PM PST by mlizzy
Here is an exchange between Dr. Rice and the Editor-in-Chief of The Observer respecting the latter's refusal to publish Dr. Rice's essay, the latest in his regular series, in which he describes the Church's teaching on homosexuality. We will issue a bulletin shortly on the current student campaign to include sexual orientation in the University's anti-discrimination clause, which was triggered by a crude and offensive cartoon in The Observer. While apologizing for the cartoon, The Observer promptly published an editorial in support of the campaign. The current issue of The Irish Rover points to factors suggesting The Observer's publication of the cartoon may have been designed to trigger support for the campaign to change University policy. The refusal of The Observer to publish Dr. Rice's description of pertinent Church doctrine occurs in this context.
The Notre Dame Observer has refused to publish Dr. Charles E. Rice's biweekly "Right or Wrong" column on the topic of Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
The original column is attached to this email; the correspondence from the Observer to Dr. Rice, and Dr. Rice's answer to The Observer, are included with this email message.
God bless and keep you! EMR
From: Matt Gamber [firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 1:24 AM To: Charles Rice Subject: Tuesday's column
Dear Mr. Rice,
I wanted to first introduce myself as Matt Gamber, the new Editor-in-Chief of The Observer. Thank you for your continued hard work and contributions to The Observer's Viewpoint section.
Second, I wanted to let you know why we chose not to run your most recent submission in Tuesday's Observer. First, it far exceeded our word limit guidelines, which I understand our Viewpoint Editor, Michelle Maitz, has shared with you in the past. Our daily space limitations require that we enforce this word limit, and we would appreciate your attention to this limit in the future.
Also, I personally had some concerns with the content of the column, particularly considering The Mobile Party comic incident earlier in the semester at The Observer. While your piece was well-researched and I trust the information was factually correct, I did not feel it lent itself to creating a productive discussion, all things considered. I was a bit concerned with certain language as well.
In the future, if you would like to examine this topic, we thought it might be beneficial to do so in a point-counterpoint format, perhaps with an author of an opposing or differing viewpoint. That way, each "side," to speak, would have the opportunity to present relevant facts, evidence and analysis to define its position.
As I began, I again thank you for your contributions to The Observer. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this decision, and I look forward to working with you in the future.
Matt Gamber Editor-in-Chief The Observer Cell: (847) 287-1141 Office: (574) 631-4542
On Tue, 3/2/10, Charles Rice wrote:
From: Charles Rice Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 3:04 PM To: Matthew Gamber Subject: Rice Column on Catholic Teaching on Homosexuality
Dear Mr. Gamber:
Thank you for your email informing me that my column presenting the teachings of the Church on homosexuality will not be published. Since 1992, I have been privileged to publish every two weeks a column, entitled Right or Wrong, in the Observer. I emphasize my appreciation for the unfailing professionalism and courtesy of the Observer editors with whom I have had contact over those years.
You mention the column far exceeded our word limit guidelines. It is in fact significantly shorter than each of the three previous columns published this semester in the Observer. I was not asked to shorten any of them. The rejected column accurately presented relevant teachings of the Catholic Church on homosexuality. I understand why you are concerned over the content of the column. You further propose that if I examine the topic of homosexuality in the future, we thought it might be beneficial to do so in a point-counterpoint format, perhaps with an author of an opposing or differing viewpoint. That way, each side, so to speak, would have the opportunity to present relevant facts, evidence and analysis to define its position.
In a university that claims to be Catholic, I am not willing to restrict my presentation of Catholic teaching to a format that treats the authoritative teaching of the Church as merely one viewpoint or side among many. If you require that future columns of mine on homosexuality comply with a format such as you propose, it will be inappropriate for me to continue writing the column for the Observer.
Charles E. Rice Professor Emeritus Notre Dame Law School
Mr. Rice is barking up the wrong tree in thinking that a Catholic university is a Conservative institution. For the most part, Catholic = Liberal. I said, for the most part, not all.
Sad, sad. And things surely haven’t picked up since “you-know-who” dropped in for a visit and “honorary” degree. My husband and (ND grad) tells me that students have started another campus newspaper he’s pretty sure. That’s a good sign at least.
Charlie Rice actually is what Notre Dame only pretends to be.
Oops! Better cover up those male nudes Michelangelo left on the walls at the Vatican!
Good point on the social experiment although;
Its really about political corruption and undermining individual freedoms disguised as speech for only the extra-Constitutional pop-culture and political class.
I thought that cartoon was so tasteless and extreme that it must have been published to draw attention to the grievances of ND’s restive homosexuals. This seems to confirm my guess.
Notre Dame has long ceased to be a Catholic college.
They should be forbidden to call it “Catholic”.
Maybe the new bishop out that way is working on revoking their “Catholic” designation.
America is suffering from a socio-cultural disease wherein the once recognized moral authority of Judaeo-Christian values has been replaced, among the elites, with a philosphy of total moral relativism.
One of the causes of this moral relativism is the failure of many organized religions or their representatives here to follow traditional Judaeo-Christian moral values and embark instead on journeys of social activism into areas not intruded upon by religion here in the past, to the neglect of their real and proper functions as moral beacons.
This is creating a theological socio-cultural gap into which newly invading Muslims with their oftentimes repugnant, but none the clearly defined moral code are intruding with incerasing success.
I’m familiar with The Irish Rover. I like that publication. Would there be another one perchance?
“America is suffering from a socio-cultural disease wherein the once recognized moral authority of Judaeo-Christian values has been replaced, among the elites, with a philosphy of total moral relativism.”
When did we recognize the “moral authority of Judeo-Christian values”? And when did we (or anyone else for that matter) agree upon the definition of Judeo-Christian values?
Good for him!
The Irish Rover
Why does, “Green alligators and long necked-geese, some humpty backed camels and some chimpanzees” go through my mind every time I see that phrase?
Then why do Christendom College, Thomas Aquinas College, University of Dallas, Franciscan University of Steubenville, and Ave Maria University (among others) receive high marks in the conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute's Choosing the Right College guide?
For the most part, Catholic = Liberal. I said, for the most part, not all.
No, too many Catholics are liberal first, Catholic second.
What tho the odds be great or small
Thanks for that comment and link.
I give it a 50-50 chance:
“I tell you, in that night there will be two (men)
in one bed; the one will be taken and
the other will be left.”
What these guys are doing in one bed, only God knows.
I’m not sure but I know somebody there I can ask.
Until the late 1940s and 1950’s “separation of church and state” as a legal concept did not exist.
The Founding Fathers allowed the existence of state churches as their existence in no way contradicts the Bill of Rights. Even today Congress opens with a prayer and until fairly recently they were Judaeo-Christian ones exclusively. God is present on our currency and “In God We Trust” was one of our original mottoes.
Only recently was it thought by our increasingly leftist and atheistic courts that religious prayers at public schools, crosses on public property, creches on public property, the singing or Christmas hymns in schools, readings from the Bible in the same, etc, constituted an “establishment of religion”.
The Bill of Rights states in the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor interfere with the free exercise thereof”
The above clause clearly refers to an “establishment of religion” as meant at the time, i.e. a state religion. And, you will note, it says NOTHING about the states not having an established church as many of them did, particularly in New England which was the hot bed of the revolution and they were all Christian Churches.
Furthermore, the descend into madness of the Courts on this subject is exemplified by their total failure to recognize the second part of the above phrase by essentially siding with half-baked lunatic who comes along complaining about anything having to do with religious expression in the public venue.
He said that there are the Observer (official), Rover (conservative independent) and a defunct liberal one called Common Sense.
That issue is not on-line yet. What were the publication times between the cartoon and the outrage? I remember spotting the first outraged comment on Twitter. We might be able to track down how fast the news spread and whether there was prior notice given to activists.
Okay, my husband must have meant The Rover then. Thanks for checking. We’ve got our niece going to ND now, and she is very Catholic and enjoys the school for what Catholicism she receives from it; there is Sacred Heart (the Eucharist!), the Grotto and the Dome. And the US *needs* Notre Dame to convert back to full Catholicism. If ND goes secular, they’re going to have to move Mary. She will not go easily.
Thanks for locating this. Frankly, I think ND has gone the way of Georgetown. I don’t see it as a Catholic school any more.
Dr. Rice is civilized and sophisticated in every sense of the word. Moreover, it would be difficult to find anyone more respectful of all people whatever their points of view, more courteous in debate, or more loving and beloved by generations of students who were doubly privileged to learn from him as a teacher and to know him as a man.
So his writings, replete with Catholic wisdom, are now flicked aside by the student editor of the Notre Dame newspaper because he does not repeat the stuttering memes of the current set of cultural conformists. How pathetic this school has become.
Here's Dr. Rice's rejected article: