catholic schoolboys

Notre Dame’s Student Newspaper Won’t Publish the Crazy Anti-Gay Rants of Its Own Faculty

Since 1992, Notre Dame’s law school professor emeritus Dr. Charles E. Rice has seen his biweekly column “Right or Wrong” published in the student newspaper, The Observer. That ended this week, when the editors refused to publish his latest monologue. Which just happened to be a giant F-U to homosexuals.

The Observer finds itself playing defense of late, given the newspaper’s printing of a “Mobile Party” cartoon that appeared to advocate gay bashing. So we can understand why the paper’s editor Matt Gamber wants to play it safe with regards to The Gays. Or maybe it’s because Dr. Rice’s latest column is a piece of fundamentalist propaganda so absurd, well, it almost belongs in a Catholic university’s publication.

His column reads in part: “It would be a mistake to view the homosexual issue as simply a question of individual rights. The militant ‘gay rights’ movement seeks a cultural and legal redefinition of marriage and the family, contrary to the reality rooted in reason as well as faith. Marriage, a union of man and woman, is the creation not of the state but of God himself as seen in Genesis.” That line was preceded with four bullet points about the Bible teaching homosexuality is wrong, including such gems as “homosexual acts are always objectively wrong” and “since homosexual acts are ‘intrinsically disordered,’ the inclination toward those acts is disordered.”

Upon learning his column wouldn’t run, Dr. Rice, who teaches the “Law and Morality” course, said in a statement: “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.”

Well then. You’re fired.


Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #catholicism #charlese.rice #college stories and more


  • Mark Alexander

    Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

  • dm1973

    Don’t you just love how marriage was invented by the Judeo-Christians. Marriage didn’t exist before they’re culture? Stop with the fairy-tales. They’re so selective about what they choose to push. How about sacrifices of the first born? How about shellfish? I bet they serve porkchops too.
    Religious idiocy.
    Marriage is a contract. A contract who’s benefits are currently denied to many citizens in this country. Marriage as a contract was always about property, with children considered as such. Girls to marry off and boys to continue the line. That has been the view of marriage through out human history whether in Ancient Rome, Greece, China even in the Aztec, Inca, Mayan cultures. Marriage is a property contract. In this country, until about a hundred years ago, women could sue a fiance for breach of contract if the man chickened out of the wedding.
    This phoney-baloney saving the marriage shit and made up biblical references need to go. Besides, I thought there was separation of Church and State in this country, even though history has traditionally proven otherwise.

  • terrwill

    Anyone want to lay bets on this Gay face being Gay?????

  • Dickie

    But… But it says God did something in this book I read! It’s the religious equivalent of “I read it on my buddies blog so it must be true.”

  • David in Houston

    This douche bag actually said, “Homosexual acts are doubly wrong. They are not only contrary to nature. They are wrong also because they are extra-marital.”

    Homosexuality occurs in nature: Strike 1.

    So, therefore, if gays CAN get married it won’t be extra-marital anymore: Strike 2.

    He wants his “chosen” religious beliefs to be civil law in our country. Separation of church and state, you double douche bag. Strike 3… you’re out!

  • Jason

    Email the jerk and tell him what you think:

    [email protected]

  • Bill

    Has it really never occurred to heterosexuals that if they are going to force their gay offspring to live under biblical law, then heterosexuals should require that of THEMSELVES as well???

  • Brian NYC

    It nice to see Catholics losing control of Notre Dame.

  • Jaroslaw

    He’s welcome to push Catholicism but as others have already said, marriage did not start wtih Christianity. (ie contrary to reasson? that is his opinion!)

    And history is chock full of variations of the family structure, Gay oriented puberty initation rites etc.

    I saw two really good bumper stickers the other day, on the same car: “finding out the facts is a lot harder than watching television” and “the human race is a sexually transmitted disease”

  • B

    No. 7 · Bill wrote, “Has it really never occurred to heterosexuals that if they are going to force their gay offspring to live under biblical law, then heterosexuals should require that of THEMSELVES as well???”

    … a cynic might point out that “biblical law” is only invoked when someone else is the “sinner” and when that someone else has little to offer. Clerics don’t tell billionaires who give a token $100,000 to a church (while spending 10 times that on their yachts) to “give all you have to the poor if you want to get into heaven.”

  • bobito

    Exactly what the hell is this “militant gay rights movement” these fear-mongers keep blathering about?

  • Marco Luxe

    Notre Dame alumni, you degree just got less valuable thanks to Prof Rice-aroni-for-brains and the publicity this will generate in the radical reich press. Just like Pepperdine Law professor Richard Peterson at the heart of the illogical and misleading Yes on 8 TV ads – Pepperdine’s US News social climbing ambitions took a big hit, along with alumni donations. Looks like ND just took a big hit too.

    You better speak up if you want that ND degree to count for anything of value.

  • B

    o. 12 · bobito asked, “Exactly what the hell is this ‘militant gay rights movement’ these fear-mongers keep blathering about?”

    The “militant gay rights movement” is the reason (whether real or imagined is not relevant) to give the fear mongers a contribution. You can’t get money for an “us versus them” campaign if you don’t have a “them” to point to.

  • CPT_Doom

    So, is this d-bag going to start telling the non-Catholic students at Notre Dame that they’re all heretics and blasphemers and going to hell? How about the students whose parents were divorced and got remarried – like Megan McCain – is he going to start telling them they’re bastards? That’s in line with Catholic teaching as well. And let’s not even start with the “good” Catholic parents who actually used contraception.

    Selective use of Catholic theology to justify bigotry against only one group of people who aren’t Catholic is immoral, although Mr. Ratzinger over in Rome doesn’t seem to give a good G-d-damn.

  • Michael

    I thought the ‘militant gay movement’ had to do with dollar drinks on Tuesdays.

  • albert maas

    Homosexuality isn’t natural? I suppose celibacy is!

  • yar2009

    @dm1973: I wish that people who are opposed to those who are opposed to the legitimization of homosexuality would use logic and reason in their arguments and not vitriol as you have done. Dr. Rice is a Catholic. Catholics hold that marriage which is between a man and a woman is from God, however it may be expressed in other times and cultures, even among so-called Christian people. Homosexuals mimic marriage but they can never have a marriage according to Catholic teaching. You may disagree with catholic teaching but the Catholic Church has this teaching as well explained by Dr. Rice. The teaching of the catholic Church makes sense and is in no way crazy. Cut the vitriol and use your heads to argue your position. I think you will be hard pressed to show that the union of two men or two women is the natural expression of human persons. It is rather a disorder.

  • Brian NYC

    @yar2009: Blah, blah, catholic, blah, catholic, blah, blah.

    The good news is Notre Dame is becoming less Catholic. That’s probably an effort to survive in a new, educated world. Thank God, or something.

  • Peter

    YAR2009——No one disagrees that the teaching of catholics is, what you said. We were just wondering when they were going to follow what is written in the bible. Jesus certainly NEVER talked about the things of this subject; other than Christians are to love all men. Jesus said that His Father in heaven was the one that was going to do the judging. (Just amazing how the catholic church got so screwed up.)

  • Lukas P.

    Unfortunately, the rabidly militant Catholics were not so vocal about morality when priests were sexually abusing young men and boys.

    Unfortunately, the Catholic belief in the sanctity of marriage can be suspended by an official annulment and about a $40,000 donation to the Church.

    @yar2009: Unfortunately, your version of normality says priests should be celibate but be allowed to molest children, and that spreading AIDS is less of a sin than wearing a condom [think about the Pope’s tour in Africa.]
    People are dying because of your faith in the Pope. That makes Jesus VERY angry!

  • dm1973


    I was a catholic. Altar boy for 11 years of my life. Studied in a seminary. You are the vitriolic one. Fairy-tales are no logical. They’re for children. And Marriage isn’t natural. It’s a man made contract. Read something other fairytales.

  • Todd Shui

    Oddly, included Rice’s home phone number with his column:


    Why not call?

  • Rashid


    People like him have the nerve to call themselves Christian, even though they have no Christian values whatsoever. How on earth can you justify your bigotry and hate by saying it’s God’s word? Here are some Christian values for you Dr. Rice: Love and compassion. Let’s see if you can practice either.

  • a

    ta ta

  • adrianofnyc

    Well I suppose I can blame this on jet-lag and duty-free Johnny Walker, later, but it seems like a good idea at the time …

    I went to Notre Dame Law School, but never took a class with Charlie Rice. During my first year I’m pretty sure he was teaching Torts, and possibly Criminal Law. I had Smith and Blakey and that bunch, but not the Garnetts, which won’t make sense to most. I can now parse a statute quite efficiently, thanks to Blakey. I’m still not sure I understand Criminal Law, though. All I know is that you’d better read the hell out of that statute, and don’t fall for this general versus specific intent bullshit.

    I spent my second year in London, and would do it again in a heartbeat. An entire academic year abroad, in London, is a formative experience. I published a note on International Law and did some cool Moot Court and parliamentary debate stuff. I lived with the locals and became accustomed to their habits. I tore up the Three Tuns at LSE, kinda (I excelled at staggering). Some parts were amazing, some not, but overall, it was Excellent.

    Third year I just took any class with an “international” hook. International Trade, International Tax, International Moot Court, Admiralty, and got Evidence out of the way. Multiple choice test? No problem. But it was a good class and that tall Anglophile prof was entertaining. And that’s when I had my only conversation with Charlie Rice.

    I was nearing the end of my second class with John Finnis, a pretty-durn-conservative Natural Law scholar who does a gig with Notre Dame in both South Bend and London. I took his Jurisprudence class in London, and signed up for a class on Acquinas in the Fall semester in South Bend. Picture a Richard Dawkins-type English-ish guy, who might not be quite as much fun as Dawkins at a party (I assume he rocks), but is pretty cool to listen to when reading from his own book (I’ve heard both; Dawkins is more theatrical, but Finnis is more earnest). It’s heady stuff, and that’s kind of where Rice is coming from in his essay, but that would be a whole other digression into Objective Goods and Bads and Spirits and Natural Law and really really long sentences with a ‘lil bit ‘o Latin.

    When I was at at Notre Dame, Rice’s name dominated discussions of first year curricula like Blakey’s, the guy who wrote RICO, or Tidmarch, who is apparently brilliant (and you are too, if you can understand him; but you arguably learn how to think your ass off, which is all based on hearsay and conjecture, by the way). But Rice was known for his old-school discipline — making people stand up when they answered a question, take off their baseball caps; and apparently a pretty cool ‘Intro to Torts’ performance art piece. You improved your odds of passing the New York Bar Exam by at least 10% if you had Rice for Torts.

    In any case, after taking the heady “Deep Thoughts on Thomas Aquinas, by John Finnis, with John Finnis” class (which I loved, by the way), I was interested in taking Rice’s “Law and Morality” class. Fortunately, passing down the hallway one day, I saw Rice approaching, and girded my loins for a one-off encounter with a man who introduces a dozen overachievers each year to boxing. (See, I’m pretty sure he could kick my ass. So I most likely blurted out, awkwardly (that’s how I rolled, then), “Professor Rice, I blah blah blah your class …”

    And Rice said, “blah blah blah, Aquinas … .”

    And I thought, “Cool, down with that, covered.”

    And Rice said, ” blah … JPS.”

    And I said, grasping desperately for some law-and-morality-related ‘JPS’ that might possibly fit this kind of discussion: “Jean-Paul Satre?”

    I even gave it my best ‘Hey, I’m Ivy’ faux-French ‘-uh’ on the ‘Satre’.

    Rice stopped all motion, but without missing a beat corrected me, clearly and firmly, “No. John Paul the Second.”

    He meant the Pope.

    Yeah, he’s a grumpy old Catholic dude, and he wrote some hateful stuff, and I wrote “Fuck Rice” on my facebook account when I posted this article. And I’m still pissed at him, but I shouldn’t have said “Fuck Rice”, in any case.

    I just wanted to throw my hat in the ring, and point out that there is an incredible difference, here, with respect to our frames of reference.

    The obvious, and forgiving conclusion to this would be the following parable: Rice referred to JPS as a source of moral truth and found the Lord Jesus Christ, and everlasting life. I reached for moral truth through JPS and found “No Exit”. I’ll co-opt that myself, and state that both works (the Bible and No Exit) were fabulous accomplishments in their own secular right, and one should not be read without some understanding of the other.

Comments are closed.