Notre Dame campus newspaper refuses to publish Charlie Rice article which defends Chruch teaching on homosexuality

[Verbum_Caro]

(Am I getting cranky in my old age?)

No, wise.

 

[AClaire11]

I am a student at Notre Dame and I think The Observer is just being very careful about the topic of homosexuality after the offensive cartoon got published. And I must point out that we can’t project the opinions of the students who run The Observer onto the University as a whole. There are devout Catholics here. We have the Latin Mass every Sunday. There is no meat in the dining halls on Lenten Fridays. More to the point of this discussion, the University does not allow students to form clubs that support homosexuality or abortion. While I believe the Obama invitation was a mistake, I am happy with the religious atmosphere at Notre Dame.

 

[Havard]

This isn’t about a Notre Dame, this is about dopey kids making dopey decisions.

The Observer staff (the dopey kids) managed to let a cartoon run to print that essentially advocated violence against gays, so as a result they refused to publish an intelligent (but harsh) opinion piece simply because they can’t figure out when to stop backpedaling.

So let’s all pray for these dopey kids, that they learn a thing or two about journalism.

 

[AClaire11]

This isn’t about a Notre Dame, this is about dopey kids making dopey decisions.

The Observer staff (the dopey kids) managed to let a cartoon run to print that essentially advocated violence against gays, so as a result they refused to publish an intelligent (but harsh) opinion piece simply because they can’t figure out when to stop backpedaling.

So let’s all pray for these dopey kids, that they learn a thing or two about journalism.

True, but posters were using this as an example of how Notre Dame is not Catholic. Which is false.

 

[IrishEddieOHara]

My hope is that the new bishop there, Bishop Rhoades, will go to the university and have a nice talk with the officials there. You know the kind of talk, the one about “you have a choice, you will either act like a Catholic or you WILL RETIRE!!!”

 

[centurionguard]

centurionguard,

I’m not sure that would be the reason because the decision, as I understand it, wasn’t made by the University but by a few students who run the independent newspaper.

I think we ought to be careful not to attribute the actions of the Observer (or any of the other independents) directly to the University itself.

VC

True; but since this independent newspaper is run operated by a few students and circulated on a Catholic University, would they not also be bound by certain protocols with necessity of seeking permission from the Dean of the University to publish certain story-lines as not to create discord among gay students particularly concerning touchy subjects surrounding homosexuality? Personally I thought the article was excellent although it would be seen as contentious among gay students. In the end perhaps there was a smidgen of wisdom deciding not to publish the article.

What would Jesus do in this instance. Would He be worried how the gays think?

 

[centurionguard]

Seems to me this whole idea of the Notre Dame Newspaper refusing to publish Charlie Rice article which defends Chruch teaching on homosexuality is a catch 22 problem.
Damned if you do Damned if you don’t.

Seems no body has the guts anymore to defend the Catholic Church teachings on morality.

 

[Adeodatus]

I am a student at Notre Dame and I think The Observer is just being very careful about the topic of homosexuality after the offensive cartoon got published. And I must point out that we can’t project the opinions of the students who run The Observer onto the University as a whole. There are devout Catholics here. We have the Latin Mass every Sunday. There is no meat in the dining halls on Lenten Fridays. More to the point of this discussion, the University does not allow students to form clubs that support homosexuality or abortion. While I believe the Obama invitation was a mistake, I am happy with the religious atmosphere at Notre Dame.

To those of us outside of Notre Shame, it looks like little more than a hotbed of treason and dissent.

Perhaps at some point it became more about touchdowns and less about Jesus.

 

[Domer1997]

To those of us outside of Notre Shame, it looks like little more than a hotbed of treason and dissent.

Perhaps at some point it became more about touchdowns and less about Jesus.

…and perhaps you, yourself, should visit and then you will understand that it is more about Jesus than anything (and his wonderful mother of course). Until then, it would be hard for you to understand the deep spirituality of the University of Notre Dame. I can see how the extreme liberals think Notre Dame is too conservative and the extreme conservatives think it’s too liberal…wow!!!..MUST BE JUST RIGHT

 

[Dale_M]

What would Jesus do in this instance. Would He be worried how the gays think?

I think He probably would. His goal would be to win them over, and one way he did that was by being a friend those who were commonly regarded as sinners.

The professor’s article is simply ill-timed. Perhaps it would be better to run it next school year, when emotions have cooled and hurts have healed.

 

[centurionguard]

I think He probably would. His goal would be to win them over, and one way he did that was by being a friend those who were commonly regarded as sinners.

The professor’s article is simply ill-timed. Perhaps it would be better to run it next school year, when emotions have cooled and hurts have healed.

[QUOTEI think He probably would. His goal would be to win them over, and one way he did that was by being a friend those who were commonly regarded as sinners.
[/QUOTE]

True; but when did anyone ever see Jesus during His ministry pussyfoot around topics of morality in the light of Gods commandments? Jesus was always rather direct about His Fathers commandments. Nor was He concerned if His directness when it came to following Gods commandments hurt the feelings of His listeners.

The Catholic Church cannot trend lightly over issues of morality.

The professor’s article is simply ill-timed. Perhaps it would be better to run it next school year, when emotions have cooled and hurts have healed/QUOTE]

When are topics of morality on homosexuality or any other moral importance (Ill Timed?).

There’s no doubt that people would choose to see what Charlie Rice wrote as a message of being anti-gay bias. I certainly don’t see this in his article. Sometimes the Truth hurts whether we like to hear it or not…

 

[Dale_M]

Sometimes the Truth hurts whether we like to hear it or not…

Yes, indeed. But preaching the Truth does no good if it is delivered in a manner that offends rather than reconcile. In fact, the preaching (not the Truth itself) may be counter-productive by hardening the hearts of an intended audience when delivered in a wounding way.

The editor of the newspaper felt that the topic of homosexuality is too sensitive of a topic right now. I’m not at Notre Dame and I don’t know the feelings of students there. I think it is hard for non-Notre Dame students to second guess how the article might have been received.

 

[manygift1spirit]

catholic.org has obtained copies of not only Prof. Rice’s submission, but also the Observer’s editor’s expanation for the refusal, and Rice’s reply to that. My $0.02:

Deacon Fourier is a good writer there, but his snark about titles might signify something considerably more innocuous on the part of the new editor than derision. Like ignorance. (If so, welcome to trial-by-fire, new editor.) At least Fourier qualified his --opinion-- as just that. His crystal clear jumping to conclusions in the prescript of Rice’s response also seems somewhat overfocused. i think it clear that this incident has gotten under his skin; more charity and less haste might still have been a good suggestion for him.

The editor’s concern about the comic incident is reasonable, even if others using prudential judgment might have gone ahead and published anyway.

The editor’s suggestion about the point-counterpoint does confuse me. Is he suggesting that Rice himself examine “both sides” in the future? That he make his subsequent submission shorter to allow space for another writer to write about the “other side”? That the Observer has to always respect some sort of journalistic balance, awkward as it may by in this case? I get the sense that he just waved his intellectual hands and punted here, somewhat mentioning all of these without really focusing on one.

(Frankly, I see great merit in having a (short) piece written adversarially and the Rice or someone else write a clear (and charitable) rebuttal and exposition much like his original. Know thy enemy and all that.)

Rice’s quibble with the length issue is simple minutae in the sense of the enforcement was prompted by the other issues (timing, “journalistic format”, etc). It was a good thing to point out the discrepancy but he sounded snarky in doing so.

Rice’s reaction to the journalistic balance issue suggests to me that he was likewise confused as to what exactly was intended. His threat is plausible if he thought he was being asked to lay out both sides himself, and his wording suggests that he felt just that way. But he leaves huge gaps: what if he were asked halved the submission length with the understanding it would be a rebuttal of sorts to the opposing viewpoint?

I am going to charitably give both writer and editor the benefit of the doubt here, noting the ambiguities from both, but also noting in passing that the incident has given Rice’s article orders of magnitude more exposure than publishing it in the Observer would have gotten it. As an old friend once told me, God writes with a crooked stick.

 

[Rach620]

The editor’s suggestion about the point-counterpoint does confuse me. Is he suggesting that Rice himself examine “both sides” in the future? That he make his subsequent submission shorter to allow space for another writer to write about the “other side”? That the Observer has to always respect some sort of journalistic balance, awkward as it may by in this case? I get the sense that he just waved his intellectual hands and punted here, somewhat mentioning all of these without really focusing on one.

(Frankly, I see great merit in having a (short) piece written adversarially and the Rice or someone else write a clear (and charitable) rebuttal and exposition much like his original. Know thy enemy and all that.)

Rice’s quibble with the length issue is simple minutae in the sense of the enforcement was prompted by the other issues (timing, “journalistic format”, etc). It was a good thing to point out the discrepancy but he sounded snarky in doing so.

Rice’s reaction to the journalistic balance issue suggests to me that he was likewise confused as to what exactly was intended. His threat is plausible if he thought he was being asked to lay out both sides himself, and his wording suggests that he felt just that way. But he leaves huge gaps: what if he were asked halved the submission length with the understanding it would be a rebuttal of sorts to the opposing viewpoint?

I think that some background information as to the format of the Viewpoint section of the Observer, as well as Dr. Rice’s long-running column, are in order here.

First, the Viewpoint section runs daily in the Observer, and typically includes a column (written by students or faculty), as well as many letters to the editor (two full pages). In my 4-ish years of reading the Viewpoint section as an undergrad, I cannot recall ever seeing a segment featuring a planned point-counterpoint where both authors were asked to state their case with respect to the other person’s position. What the new Observer editor suggested to Dr. Rice has never been the standard enforced for viewpoint columns, from my experience.

Typically, the “point-counterpoint” aspect has come out by printing a column, and the next day printing a response (“counterpoint”) to the column and/or others that agree with the original column. This could continue for days or weeks. It’s a good old fashioned Observer viewpoint war–a time honored tradition at ND. I have seen much more inflammatory columns than Dr. Rice’s published in the Viewpoint section in my day, and the natural course of events follows–responses are published, and the ‘discussion’ continues. The editor clearly did not want this to happen, and that seems to be due to the recent scandal that the Observer’s own comic strip started. There seemed to be editorial concerns outside of the Viewpoint section, and outside of Dr. Rice’s own column. I still think they should have published it, but I never worked for the Observer.

Also, it’s important to note that Dr. Rice is a highly accomplished ND Law professor emeritus. He’s one of those orthodox Catholic intellectuals who truly loves Notre Dame and wants her to be what she should be. Among some in the Notre Dame family, Dr. Rice is regarded alongside Dr. McInerny or Dr. MacIntyre…and alongside these greats any ND student is more like an immature fifth-grader than a mature journalist or scholar. Additionally, Dr. Rice has been writing a bi-weekly column for the Observer since 1992, when the editor in question was either in diapers or kindergarten. What I’m trying to say is that Dr. Rice deserves far more respect and editorial deference than it appears he was given by the new Observer editor. I chalk this up to his inexperience and general lack of understanding of the situation, in addition to his likely liberal leanings when it comes to gay rights issues.

So yes, Dr. Rice could have submitted to the editor’s requests…but he really should not have. He wrote an acceptable column of a length and topic that had previously (in his copious years of experience) had no problem being published in the paper. The editor really had no reason to reject it, apart from his own sensitivities to the issues at hand.

It’s astonishing to me that the editor had the gall to reject it, really. As an ND alum, for me it reflects more on the poor journalism rampant in the Observer than attitudes towards Dr. Rice on the whole at ND.

 

[Adeodatus]

…and perhaps you, yourself, should visit

I don’t believe in killing babies, so Father Jenkins might have me arrested if I come onto campus.

 

[Domer1997]

I don’t believe in killing babies, so Father Jenkins might have me arrested if I come onto campus.

I am insulted. You might want to think about what you write and proofread it before hitting submit. I, along with the vast majority of students and alumni, am pro-life. Hateful sarcasm about Our Lady’s University is rude and inappropriate. So, please be respectful and also please stick to the topic.

“Act Justly, Love Mercy, and walk humbly with God” (Micah 6:8).

As Catholics, living a charitable life is essential. I suggest you reflect on this verse from Micah.

God Bless.

 

[centurionguard]

I think that some background information as to the format of the Viewpoint section of the Observer, as well as Dr. Rice’s long-running column, are in order here.

First, the Viewpoint section runs daily in the Observer, and typically includes a column (written by students or faculty), as well as many letters to the editor (two full pages). In my 4-ish years of reading the Viewpoint section as an undergrad, I cannot recall ever seeing a segment featuring a planned point-counterpoint where both authors were asked to state their case with respect to the other person’s position. What the new Observer editor suggested to Dr. Rice has never been the standard enforced for viewpoint columns, from my experience.

Typically, the “point-counterpoint” aspect has come out by printing a column, and the next day printing a response (“counterpoint”) to the column and/or others that agree with the original column. This could continue for days or weeks. It’s a good old fashioned Observer viewpoint war–a time honored tradition at ND. I have seen much more inflammatory columns than Dr. Rice’s published in the Viewpoint section in my day, and the natural course of events follows–responses are published, and the ‘discussion’ continues. The editor clearly did not want this to happen, and that seems to be due to the recent scandal that the Observer’s own comic strip started. There seemed to be editorial concerns outside of the Viewpoint section, and outside of Dr. Rice’s own column. I still think they should have published it, but I never worked for the Observer.

Also, it’s important to note that Dr. Rice is a highly accomplished ND Law professor emeritus. He’s one of those orthodox Catholic intellectuals who truly loves Notre Dame and wants her to be what she should be. Among some in the Notre Dame family, Dr. Rice is regarded alongside Dr. McInerny or Dr. MacIntyre…and alongside these greats any ND student is more like an immature fifth-grader than a mature journalist or scholar. Additionally, Dr. Rice has been writing a bi-weekly column for the Observer since 1992, when the editor in question was either in diapers or kindergarten. What I’m trying to say is that Dr. Rice deserves far more respect and editorial deference than it appears he was given by the new Observer editor. I chalk this up to his inexperience and general lack of understanding of the situation, in addition to his likely liberal leanings when it comes to gay rights issues.

So yes, Dr. Rice could have submitted to the editor’s requests…but he really should not have. He wrote an acceptable column of a length and topic that had previously (in his copious years of experience) had no problem being published in the paper. The editor really had no reason to reject it, apart from his own sensitivities to the issues at hand.

It’s astonishing to me that the editor had the gall to reject it, really. As an ND alum, for me it reflects more on the poor journalism rampant in the Observer than attitudes towards Dr. Rice on the whole at ND.

**So yes, Dr. Rice could have submitted to the editor’s requests…but he really should not have. He wrote an acceptable column of a length and topic that had previously (in his copious years of experience) had no problem being published in the paper. The editor really had no reason to reject it, apart from his own sensitivities to the issues at hand.

It’s astonishing to me that the editor had the gall to reject it, really. As an ND alum, for me it reflects more on the poor journalism rampant in the Observer than attitudes towards Dr. Rice on the whole at ND.**

I enjoyed your rational here. With all considerations I suspect nobody will really find out the the real bias reason why the editor of the Observer refused to print Dr. Rice’s article.
Any of the Observers editor’s reasons hold little weight considering the history of Dr. Rice’s past published articles as you pointed out. I still don’t buy any inference of anti-gay bias in Dr. Rice’s article. Nor do I think it was anti-Christian

 

[90Domer]

You know, as an alum, I was also saddened by the honorary degree. However, I dare anyone to say that ND is not devoutly Catholic. Total insult! And this topic is being blown so out-of-proportion!

One thing I can’t understand. Why haven’t people come down so hard on Georgetown when Obama spoke there? They covered up the Crucifix in the background where Obama spoke. And they call themselves a Catholic university?

 

[AnotherVoice]

You know, as an alum, I was also saddened by the honorary degree. However, I dare anyone to say that ND is not devoutly Catholic. Total insult! And this topic is being blown so out-of-proportion!

One thing I can’t understand. Why haven’t people come down so hard on Georgetown when Obama spoke there? They covered up the Crucifix in the background where Obama spoke. And they call themselves a Catholic university?

I agree; I don’t view Georgetown as a catholic university either. They have an active campus ministry but the school itself has separated itself from the disignation of catholic.

 

[IrishEddieOHara]

It is amazing to me to read the publications of those defending the choice of homosexuality. Their sophistry is worthy of Satan himself (and probably inspired by him). I am stunned at how they, like Protestants, are masters at twisting and distorting the Bible to suit their depraved tastes.