Charles Rice, a professor emeritus at Notre Dame Law School, writes a regular column that appears in the Notre Dame student newspaper, The Observer. Recently, Rice submitted a column on the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding homosexuality that was rejected by the paper’s new editor for failing to provide a balanced view of the issue:
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.
The Curt Jester blog has the email to Dr. Rice, his response, and the text of his rejected column.
While it is tempting to dismiss the incident as an overreaction by a well-meaning, though misguided, young journalist, it fits into a larger, disturbing pattern of behavior at Notre Dame. As Jay Anderson says,
But is anyone REALLY surprised by the fact that the Notre Dame student newspaper is taking such an approach? I mean, when the Church’s timeless Magisterial teachings regarding abortion are treated by the University administration as something open for “dialogue“, and the advocates of abortion on demand are honored with prominent speaking positions and honorary law degrees all in the name of “the exchange of ideas,” it is no wonder that the students under their charge are left with the impression that the teachings of the Catholic Church are up for debate.
The decline of a the America’s flagship Catholic university should be a concern to everyone who cares about religious higher education. But it is particularly distressing for evangelicals like me. For years we’ve looked to Notre Dame as an example of how to be a first-rate university and remain distinctively Christian. Several incidents over the last year, however, make me wonder if it’s time we look for a new model to emulate.
March 4th, 2010 | 9:16 am
I think you meant “too” in your title!
March 4th, 2010 | 9:18 am
Oops. Thanks.
March 4th, 2010 | 9:25 am
Joe, as a convert years ago to Catholicism from the evangelical Reformed tradition, I have to tell you that I never saw ND as a “distinctively Christian” university. I don’t think it has been that way since Abp Fulton J. Sheen was my age (63). That’s the late 50s. Some great, devout faculty (Rice, McInerney, etc.), but ND and its alumni are mostly about ND football, green beer on St. Patty’s day and DEMOCRAT POLITICS. It’s a tribal thing.
March 4th, 2010 | 11:38 am
In fairness to Notre Dame, the administration has been holding fast for 15 years against pressure from homosexual advocacy groups – both student-based and otherwise – to officially recognize campus homosexual-acts-and-relationship-friendly groups. The controversy of the last couple of months is a part of that whole.
In Spring of 1995 (my senior year at ND), the non-sanctioned GLBT group on campus was called Gays and Lesbians of Notre Dame and St. Mary’s College, or GLNDSMC. As a non-sanctioned group, they were not allowed to publicly advertise any meeting that they were having on-campus. However, during the Spring semester, they did anyway. As a result, they were banned from campus, and subsequently began a public push for official recognition. This set off a firestorm of protest from student and faculty groups (not to mention protest from faculty of other universities, including the lion’s share of Big 10 schools) against the supposed “intolerance” and “discrimination” of ND’s administration against homosexuals.
In response, the university explained why it could not recognize GLNDSMC – the group’s charter included “to foster homosexual relationships”, for crying out loud – and set up an administration-initiated resource office for the GLBT folks whose approach was in keeping with Catholic teachings on homosexuality.
Nevertheless, the push for official recognition of a student group that takes a positive view of homosexual acts and relationships has continued to this day. As the university continued to steadfastly refuse, citing Catholic teaching, a new student initiative was undertaken: the addition of “sexual orientation” to the university’s non-discrimination policy. In response to this tactic, in 1997 the university issued a “Statement of Inclusion” that reiterated the Catholic teachings on homosexuality and the university’s commitment to them. To sum up the Statement: respect and compassion should be shown towards homosexuals, that they are truly members of the ND community, discrimination against them because of their orientation was wrong, but nevertheless, homosexual actions were still wrong and could not be encouraged.
Such a statement did little to assuage those who sought official recognition of homosexual advocacy groups and/or addition of ‘sexual orientation’ to the non-discrimination policy, and their efforts continue to this day. The GLBT group now agitating for official recognition is AllianceND, and the Observer cartoon outrage has stoked the fires of the “‘sexual orientation’ to the non-discrimination policy” movement.
The claim is that such an addition would “stop discrimination”, though one can fairly wonder what “discrimination” they are talking about: are homosexuals being denied scholarships, financial aid, housing, fair grading, protection from violence, etc.? Absolutely not. So, the only “discrimination” homosexuals seem to be facing at ND is not having pro-homosexual-acts groups gaining official recognition. As such, the apparent purpose of the addition of “sexual orientation” to the university’s non-discrimination policy would be to use it as a trump card against the university’s refusal to recognize homosexual advocacy groups:
Group: You can’t refuse to recognize our group because it promotes homosexuality without violating your own non-discrimination policy!
ND: As a Catholic institution, we cannot recognize a group that seeks to foster homosexual acts and relationships.
Group: ND allows other groups that “foster relationships”- ND can’t discriminate against our group because it fosters relationships that are homosexual ones, as ‘sexual orientation’ is covered in the non-discrimination statement!
As specious as such a line of argument is, such arguments have been used quite successfully in the past by homosexual advocacy groups, and would likely work quite well against a university as afraid of bad press from the New York Times crowd as ND is.
So, basically, the homosexual advocacy groups’ push for the administration to add “sexual orientation” to the university’s non-discrimination policy is an attempt to force the ND administration – in regards to their refusal to recognize pro-homosexual-acts groups – into procuring the rope with which those groups will use to hang the administration with.
ND’s president Jenkins has, if anything, added fuel to these fires by announcing that he will make a decision on both the “non-discrimination policy” issue and on the recognition of AllianceND in April. Needless to say, there is not a lot of confidence that he will not acquiesce to either demand.
Pray, pray for old Notre Dame…..
March 4th, 2010 | 12:15 pm
For my money, the most dismaying thing to come out of Notre Dame recently was Prof. Jean Porter’s letter to the South Bend paper about keeping Notre Dame neutral on abortion (she holds an endowed chair in theological ethics). I can’t believe this didn’t get more attention from her peers.
Prof. Porter’s breathtaking letter:
As a member of the faculty of the University of Notre Dame, I was dismayed to learn that the university sponsored faculty and student participation in the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., and is considering the adoption of a policy statement committing the institution to a pro-life agenda.
Whatever the merits of this agenda may be, I do not see how we as a university can take an official, public stand on such a difficult set of moral and political issues, while at the same time maintaining an atmosphere of free and open inquiry and debate.
We do respect academic freedom at Notre Dame, and I don’t expect that anyone here would be penalized for expressing the view that abortion is sometimes morally permissible, or defending a pro-choice political agenda. But when the university takes an official, public stance on these very controversial matters, what kind of signals are we sending to our students and colleagues about the limits of acceptable discourse on campus? How can we educate our students to think for themselves, while at the same time telling them so clearly what they should be thinking, as members of the Notre Dame community?
We worry a great deal here about our character as a Catholic university. Perhaps the time has come to worry a bit more about what it means to sustain our character as a university — as such.
March 4th, 2010 | 12:16 pm
While I am not a Notre Dame student, I was proud to host Prof. Rice for a Federalist Society event here at Mississippi College (a Baptist-affiliated institution). He is a man of conviction and I came away very impressed with his intellect and character. This is another sad example of what is happening, not only at Notre Dame but, at Christian universities as a whole. If Christian schools won’t educate their students in what the Church stands for, then no one will and future generations won’t stand for anything.
March 4th, 2010 | 12:25 pm
Geronimo gives some good context. Before I went to grad school at ND, I thought of its Catholicity as probably on a par with most of the Jesuit institutions, etc., and that’s just not right. At the other prestigious Catholic colleges and universities, the kind of issues we see coming up at Notre Dame have long since ceased being disputed. Of course, that’s too low a standard to use in the end, but for orthodox Catholics it can seem from the outside that there is no difference between Notre Dame and any other place, and that’s still – thank God – not true. Hopefully it will continue to be untrue!
Another piece of context for this is the inexplicable publication, by this same newspaper, of a stupid and offensive cartoon strip, where the punch line was something about beating gays into a coma with a baseball bat. The editors and the University were rewarded for that bit of negligence with some unwelcome national attention. I think the editor’s ridiculous response to Dr. Rice undoubtedly has something to do with that. (Notice that this is not a new topic of his columns – he has reaffirmed the Church’s teaching on the matter repeatedly, and they have always published it.) Not an excuse, of course! Especially since Dr. Rice conspicuously quotes the Catechism’s statement against “every sign of unjust discrimination” against homosexuals.
March 4th, 2010 | 12:34 pm
Notre Dame ceased being a Catholic university at some time during the presidency of Fr. Hesburgh, if not earlier.
March 4th, 2010 | 12:42 pm
Sly Stallone:
I had an email correspondence with Prof. Porter over her article:
______
Having read your letter published in Friday’s South Bend Tribune, I could not help but note the view you take of those who agree with the Church’s position on abortion:
“I would respectfully suggest that someone who is prepared to develop his or her own moral judgments through a process of thoughtful, open-minded reflection is a better person morally, all things being equal, than someone who goes along with the prevailing opinion out of fear or complacency.”
Here you are implying in a rather condescending manner that anyone who adheres to the position that abortion is a grave moral evil does so because he/she has not engaged in “a process of thoughtful, open-minded reflection”. It may surprise you to learn that among adults, it is predominantly the “pro-choice” advocates who are the ones who adhere to their position as a result of going “along with the prevailing opinion out of fear and complacency”. I can not only offer a thoughtful, carefully considered, and meticulously reasoned defense of my position that abortion is a grave moral evil, I have lived it… (I go on to review my experiences with and defense of pro-life initiatives)
You close your letter with:
“[Notre Dame] cannot really sustain our mission and identity as a great Catholic university by compromising our identity as a university — a community of open intellectual inquiry, in which diverse views can be explored in an atmosphere of mutual openness and respect.”
Yes, Notre Dame is a Catholic university, though from the contents of your letter it is hard to come to any other conclusion that you would prefer for Notre Dame to focus on the “university” and ignore the “Catholic”. You call for an atmosphere “in which diverse views can be explored in an atmosphere of mutual openness and respect”, but provide no evidence that the Center’s pro-life fund will somehow prevent this. You claim that a Catholic university promoting a moral position that is consistent with the moral position of the Catholic Church somehow compromises the institution as a true “university”. However, you raise no similar objection to the various university-sponsored projects relating to social justice issues also consistent with the moral positions of the Catholic Church. I see you have no problem with your faculty organization, ND Watch, promoting a gaggle of ardent champions for abortion-on-demand (NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc.) as resources for women faculty. You would no doubt defend promoting these resources by invoking the right your group has to act according to its conscience and interests. However, you cry “foul” that a Catholic institution exercises its right in promoting a cause consistent with its conscience and interests.
Finally, it is hard to see how you fulfill your own call to treat diverse views in an atmosphere of mutual openness and respect, given your earlier condescension towards those who believe that abortion is a grave moral evil. Perhaps you should have amended the previously cited paragraph to read “diverse views I agree with….”
____
She responded:
Thanks for your message. I did not mean to imply that no thoughtful person could support the official Catholic position on abortion. My point was simply that it’s very hard to reach a thoughtful, mature position on this question — whatever it may be — in an academic environment in which one point of view is sharply discouraged, so much so that people are reluctant even to discuss the matter. That’s been my experience, at any rate.
___
To which I replied:
I understand your position; however, I can not imagine in the least – nor did you specify in your SB Tribune letter – how the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture’s pro-life fund affects the academic environment to such a degree that the “pro choice” view is “sharply discouraged”. The fund is barely a month old; do you honestly wish me to believe that it has been the cause of any reluctance on the part of your students to discuss the abortion issue?
The university has sponsored and encouraged many social justice initiatives, without any complaint from you that they would somehow sharply discourage opposing views. I therefore find your sudden concern for the discouragement of a point of view interesting, especially in light of the fact that your faculty group, ND Watch, provides a list of resources for women faculty that is, to say the least, rather lopsided in regards to the issue of abortion:
Pro-Life:
1. National Right To Life Committee
2. Independent Women’s Forum (though they claim neutrality on the issue, I’ll put them here due to the majority of the site’s content on the issue)
Pro Choice:
1. NOW
2. NARAL
3. Emily’s List
4. Feminist.com
5. Feminist Majority Foundation
6. Center for Reproductive Law and Policy
7. Planned Parenthood
8. Ms. Foundation for Women (the main site is pretty neutral, but the blog most certainly is not)
So I’m supposed to believe that the very existence of the Center for Ethics and Culture’s pro-life fund will “sharply discourage” one point of view, but that your own faculty organization’s list of resources, in which the number of pro-choice groups dwarf the number of pro-life ones, is not overwhelmingly encouraging one point of view. Apparently, I’m also supposed to believe that, if the Center had started an “Abortion Rights” fund, you would have similar concerns about the pro-life view being “sharply discouraged”.
We both know that none of that is true.
____
I’m no scholar, but I found Prof. Porter’s article and response to my criticism of it to be rather feeble.
March 4th, 2010 | 1:01 pm
Publish the piece. It’s well written. It is clearly argued along the lines of Roman Catholic doctrine. It states that those with homosexual inclinations should not be sexually active with the same sex – ever. There is to be no sexual activity for heterosexuals outside of marriage. Sexual activity in marriage must always include an openness to procreate. Honestly, it’s not too complicated – it’s rather direct and to the point.
And it will probably have little or no impact on the day-to-day lives of the target audience of the student newspaper. At best, it might provoke some thought. More likely, it will serve as something to be sneered at. Call it pride, but most young Roman Catholics are convinced that they know better. This is an age-old phenomenon – RC church teaching on sexuality does not fall on fertile intellectual ground among the young. And with further cultural acceptance of homosexuality, it will seem more and more like the church is speaking in state-of-the-art Latin.
The student editors blew it – they should have published the piece. The students who read it would mock how out-of-touch the piece feels to the student readers, and then the student editors could have claimed the moral high ground of openness.
March 4th, 2010 | 1:42 pm
Yesterday, homosexual activists and their supporters had a pro “gay marriage” rally at the State House in RI. Once again they are asking the legislature to pass a gay marriage bill. Three of the leading Democratic candidates for governor spoke at the rally and supported such a bill. Republican governor Don Carcieri opposes it. Each year the Diocese of Providence sends a representative to the legislature to oppose such a bill. Last year, I was happy to see that a priest from the diocese bluntly told the legislators: “There is no such thing as homosexual marriage”. But they keep talking about their “civil rights”, as if sexual orientation was an immutable characteristic like race, sex or national origin. This morning a spokesman for the RI chapter of the National Organization for Marriage appeared on one of the local talk shows and presented a very solid and reasoned defense of traditional marriage. In response to the “civil rights” and “discrimination” talk, he pointed out that it was gay activists and their extreme supporters who were trying to impose their radical view on an unwilling population. Which is why they want the legislature to pass their bill instead of submitting to a vote of all the people of RI. Let’s all be of one voice on this issue. There is indeed “no such thing as homosexual marriage”. It is an illusion that is being imposed upon us by a handfull of “enlightened” judges and legislators.
March 4th, 2010 | 4:00 pm
[...] Related: Mike Wallace interviews Margaret Sanger, Eugenicist Canonization Cause Opens: for African American Born Priest George Will: the “boying” of men Msgr. Pope: Do We Need a New Word for Marriage? Ignatian Insight: “We Own You, You Puritanical Homophobic Religious Nuts” Stephen Barr: Science, Reason and Catholic Faith Bookworm: Do Liberals Need a Linguist? No Wiggle Room: On Constraception, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Divorce. Longenecker: Infant of Prague, and Childhood Innocence Mary’s Aggies: What Campus Ministry Can Do Body Scans at Airports: Muslim Women Refuse Sister Anne Flanagan: Body Scanners violate … the spousal meaning of the body Notre Dame: Stop Being So Catholic [...]
March 4th, 2010 | 5:35 pm
Here’s a question: the RCC’s views on homosexuality are far more tolerant than most people give them credit for. They say that homosexuality is wrong, but that discrimination and violence against gays is wrong as well.
It’s a slippery slope (and I’m perfectly fine with slippery slope arguments).
I mean, discriminate against gays so that they can’t enroll there, and you don’t have this problem in the first place. But take the lenient position of “it’s sinful but we refuse to discriminate” and you have all these people enrolling who take that inch and try to turn it into a mile. Why not preclude giving them the chance?
March 4th, 2010 | 8:18 pm
Re: the cartoon controversy preceding the Rice controversy, the Jan. 28 issue of the Irish Rover reports:
“Like the April Fool’s articles,
the Mobile Party cartoon was created
with satirical intent. Both were
meant to bring attention to particular
attitudes that, unfortunately,
are present in our campus community:
namely, disrespect for women,
those with homosexual orientations
and those who defend unborn life.”
So the original cartoon itself was an incompetent attack on students’ alleged bigotry. The reaction to that incident has been used to justify censoring one of the great Catholic professors at the school.
I detect a pattern here like the “heads I win tails you lose” coin flip.
March 4th, 2010 | 9:31 pm
“Respect and compassion should be shown towards homosexuals, that they are truly members of the ND community…” which means exactly what? A complete canard, unless immediately coupled with a line stressing that their deliberate homosexual behavior is wrong, tragic, and anything but gay or deserving of a rainbow. When are people going to get it that this is about SEX. Nuance gets you nowhere.
March 5th, 2010 | 3:52 pm
Kevin, I agree with you, but I don’t believe the pablum that came out with regarding the cartoon. If you saw the actual strip, I think you’d be skeptical too, though at that level of “artistry” who is to decide with certainty between incompetence alone and incompetence coupled with a vulgar desire to shock for its own sake? Not that that matters with respect to the situation with Dr. Rice, but for the record.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact