[bagadonutz]

Dr. Rice’s response:

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Thank you for your email informing me that my column presenting the teachings of the Church on homosexuality will not be published.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.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Rice
Professor Emeritus
Notre Dame Law School

[shibumi]

From Dr. Rice's response:

"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.”"

Open question to The Observer:

Are you going to apply the same standard to all other issues of sin addressed in your publication?

Should a commentator who sddresses the ramifications of murder be "counterpointed" with the opinions of a psychopath who took pleasure in his victim's suffering?

Or perhaps the viewpoint of a serial molester could be juxtaposed against the crime of pedophilia? (And of course, we can easily find a few Muslim goat rapers to enlighten us on the joys of bestiality.)

Kudos Dr. Rice. But for your stand on this wedge issue, the other examples I mentioned would not be hyperbole for long.