Pravda's Notre Dame office in action: Queer film fest ads are OK, but ads defending the Blessed Mother are rejected

It was at the suggestion of Mike Chabot, who organizes the annual Saint Joseph Conference held in South Bend, Indiana, that I contacted the advertising offices of the Observer around 3:30 p.m., Eastern time, on the Feast of Our Lady of Lourdes, February 11, 2004. No one was in the office. Thus, I left a message for a return phone call. A Bill Bonner returned the call, whereupon I explained to him the nature of the advertisement. He said that I should prepare the advertisement but that the final decision would be made by the editor-in-chief.

Thus, I composed the following copy for the advertisement:

"I AM THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION"

"Thus spoke the Mother of God to Saint Bernadette Soubirous in 1858, just four years after Blessed Pope Pius IX solemnly proclaimed the doctrine of Our Lady's Immaculate Conception.

"Our Lady was preserved from all stain of sin from the first moment of her conception so that she would be the singular vessel of devotion in which the Word would become Flesh by the power of the Holy Ghost to dwell amongst us and to redeem us on the Wood of the Holy Cross.

"Our Lady saw the horror of what our sins did to her Divine Son in His Sacred Humanity as he hung on the Cross on Calvary on Good Friday. Her Immaculate Heart was pierced with the sword of sorrow that had been prophesied by the aged Simeon in the Temple at the Presentation.

"Cooperating with the graces won for us on Calvary and relying upon our sinless Blessed Mother's maternal intercession, we are called to be free from all stain of sin in this life. It is thus an evil thing to persist in sin unrepentantly, worse yet to celebrate it publicly as something noble and virtuous. It is an act of utter blasphemy to connect the Holy Name of Mary with one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, as is being done this very week on the campus of the University of Notre Dame du Lac in Notre Dame, Indiana.

"To make reparation for the 'film festival' celebrating perverse evil on Our Lady's campus, Christ or Chaos, Inc., is calling upon all Catholics of good will to pray an extra set of Sorrowful Mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary each and every day since this celebration of perversity is taking place on her campus."

I concluded the advertisement with the web address for The Remnant so that readers could look at my full commentary, which was posted on this site on February 10, 2004.

Mr. Bonner e-mailed me in the early evening hours, Eastern time, to tell me that I should have a decision on the advertisement, which was meant to be run in the February 13, 2004, issue of the Notre Dame Observer, within twenty-four hours. It did not take that long. This is the response I receive shortly around 11:30 p.m., Eastern time (8:30 p.m., Pacific time), from a Maura Cenedella:

"Dr. Droleskey, After reviewing your ad, the General Board has decided that we will be unable to allow it to appear as an advertisement in The Observer. We do not accept advertisements that are political in nature, and yours was certainly politically charged. However, you can direct opinion pieces to the Viewpoint section of The Observer (viewpoint.1@nd.edu), and they may be able to run your commentary. Thank you very much and good luck, Maura Cenedella, Advertising Manager."

My return e-mail to her, penned immediately upon receipt of her note, was very terse:

"To Maura Cenedella: To defend the honor of the Mother of God is politically charged? Saints have shed their blood for the honor of Our Lady. Be assured that an appropriate commentary will be written on this decision of yours that will be widely circulated in Catholic circles. I have written a letter to the editor of your viewpoint section. I should not be shocked by how something spiritual is termed political. However, I guess it is still a good thing that a man in his fifties can be shocked by the failure of Our Lady's children to come to her defense when the thing that caused her Divine Son to suffer on the wood of the Cross is glorified on a campus under her own patronage. May God have mercy on us all. Sincerely yours in Christ the King and Mary our Queen, Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D."

Well, this was not the end of the matter. Oh, no. The editor-in-chief, a Mr. Andrew Soukup, sent me an e-mail which I received around 6:30 a.m., Pacific time, on Thursday, February 12, 2004.

"Thomas, I am writing to you to clarify our decision to not accept your advertisement. The Observer routinely rejects advertisements espousing a political perspective and instead offers those who wish to express their Viewpoint the opportunity to write a letter to the editor. We followed this policy with you.

"This decision is rooted in an unwillingness to accept money used to express an ideology to avoid confusion that, by accepting payment for an ideologically motivated advertisement, The Observer is implying that it supports that Viewpoint. The nature of our responsibility as journalists is to ensure that we are objective, but that we also allow individuals or groups to express their viewpoints to encourage dialogue. That is why we encourage you to submit the content you would have wanted to place as an advertisement as a letter to the editor. Please feel free to call me if you have any more questions. Sincerely, Andrew Soukup, Editor in Chief, The Observer."

This was my response to Mr. Soukup:

"Dear Mr. Soukup: First of all, I was taught in grammar school in the 1950s that we address people, especially elders, we did not know by their formal titles. The use of informal address with people who are not our friends or relatives is but one of many examples of how the world has become de-Catholicized. The title, though it means nothing in Heaven, is a sign of respect and may only be removed upon the invitation of the one who is being addressed.

"Second, I find your explanation lacking all credibility. Does The New York Times endorse all of the paid advertisements that it accepts for publication? Did USAToday, which is militantly pro-abortion, do so when it accepted a full page advertisement from Priests for Life a few years ago? A paid advertisement is simply that: a paid advertisement. I dare say, Mr. Soukup, that I, who have been in Catholic journalism for a long time, do not need a lecture from you about journalistic practices. If anything, a Catholic journalist has the obligation to be faithful to the fullness of Truth Incarnate, not "open" to the spread of error. This is something that Popes from Leo XIII to John Paul II have addressed.

"Third, the Catholic Faith is not a matter of ideology: it is a matter of Revealed Truth, Deposited in the Mystical Bride of Christ by her Divine Bridegroom, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man. The text of my advertisement was spiritual, not ideological. Only at a campus known for attacks upon the Deposit of Faith by faculty members and priests can an appeal for reparations to the dishonor given the Mother of God by the promotion of sin be considered a matter of ideology.

"Fourth, it would be interesting to know whether you have run any stories on the "Queer Film Festival" or have run any advertisements for that display of perversity. And if you doubt that this is a display of perversity, I would suggest you consult such "ideological" sources as Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Chapter 1, Verses 18-32) and many commentaries of the saints, including Saint Peter Canisius and Saint Thomas Aquinas.

"Fifth, I have submitted the text of my advertisement as a letter to your paper, referencing the website where my protracted commentary can be found. My only purpose in having anything printed in the newspaper of my master's alma mater is to invite Catholics of good will to pray an extra set of mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary to make reparation for the outrage taking place on the campus at present. Sincerely yours in Christ the King and Mary our Queen, Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D."

As if this exchange was not enough for the folks at the Observer, I received the following e-mail from the assistant advertising manager, a Mr. Matt Lutz, after returning from Holy Mass offered by Father Lawrence Smith at Our Lady Help of Christians Chapel in Garden Grove, California, this morning, February 12, 2004:

"To whom it may concern: In regards to your wish to place advertising material in The Observer, the following is the exact contractual obligation each potential advertiser subscribes to when attempting to place: '7. All advertising is subject to the approval of The Observer. The General Board reserves the right to review any advertisement deemed untrue, inflammatory, and/or controversial by either the Editor‑in‑Chief or the Advertising Manager'.

"This includes precluding the ad from appearing in the paper if any of the criteria above are determined to exist. Also, I note that you clearly state in your email that you would wait on the editor's decision and thank us for "considering the advertisement". This wording reestablishes that even you are unsure if it is appropriate to appear. Hopefully this clears things a little for you. Matt Lutz, Asst. Advertising Manager."

This was my response to Mr. Lutz, which was sent to him around 3:00 p.m., Eastern time:

"To Mr. Lutz: These e‑mails from you folks at The Observer just get more and more insulting. Now I am reduced to a "To whom it may concern"?

"Contrary to what you assert in your e‑mail, I have never been at all unsure as to whether my advertisement was fit for publication, only unsure as to whether a paper published at the University of Notre Dame, a campus known for its promotion of theological dissent and liturgical irreverence, would accept my advertisement.

"Nice try, Mr. Lutz. However, I have never harbored any doubt as to the fitting nature of my advertisement, which was an exhortation to prayer to make reparation for the promotion of perverse sins on the campus named for the Mother of God, whose Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart was pierced by the sword of sorrow caused by each one of our sins. My awaiting the "editor's decision" meant that I would hold my rhetorical fire until I had heard back from the Observer. It did not mean anything close to what you have inferred so mistakenly‑‑or perhaps so self-servingly.

"I repeat: has the Observer given any publicity to-or accepted any advertising for-the Queer Film Festival now taking place at the University of Notre Dame? The answer to that question would be most telling.

"You folks seem to have been shifting grounds to justify your refusal. Let's face facts: you simply do not want to offend those who are steeped in acts of unrepentant perversity. You would rather that the Mother of God and her Divine Son be blasphemed by the promotion of sin than run an advertisement that is dismissed by the use of leftist sloganeering as 'ideological' and 'politically charged.' A festival celebrating perversity and abject evil is not inflammatory; an advertisement exhorting Catholics to make reparation for the promotion of the sin of Sodom on a campus named for Our Lady is considered inflammatory. How very hypocritical and duplicitous. How very diabolical.

"Please be advised that an appropriate commentary on all of this has been written. It will be posted on various Catholic websites soon as an addendum to my original commentary posted at www.remnantnewspaer.com, which has been linked to by various sites across the nation at present.

Sincerely yours in Christ the King and Mary our Queen, Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D."

(Updated as of Friday, February 13, 2004)

The text of the advertisement quoted above was run in the Viewpoints section of The Notre Dame Observer as a letter to the editor. My link to the fuller commentary on this website was deleted, however, from the text of my letter. Additionally, the following editor's note appeared beneath the edited version of my comments:

"Editor's Note: This letter was originally submitted to The Observer as an advertisement. However, because The Observer does not allow advertisements of an ideological nature, The Observer's Editorial Board rejected the advertisement and offered the author a chance to resubmit the text to the Viewpoint section."

As Remnant reader Doug Zeitz wrote to Observer editor Andrew Soukup:

"I wasn't aware that paid advertisements defending the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in salvation history and questioning the politically correct ideologically based decision to allow a 'Queer Film Festival', which clearly dissents from Catholic moral teaching and the natural law on a 'Catholic' campus named after the Blessed Mother of God, met the criteria for an advertisement of a political or ideological nature. After reading the material in question on your Viewpoint section, I'm still baffled as to what political party or ideology you think Dr. Droleskey was promoting. His ad/letter is Catholic common sense, something apparently in short supply at the university."

Yes, the folks at the Observer continue to insist that a commentary to defend the honor of the Mother of God is ideological and politically charged, which is why it is important for Catholics to continue to write to them to explain that they are not only wrong, but that they are remaining publicly indifferent as perverse sin is being promoted on a campus named for Our Lady.

One student, so angry with my articles that he had difficulty studying for an examination, wrote to me to say that I did not know the private views of the students who were simply "enforcing the rules" of the Observer newspaper's advertising policies. I explained to him that rules and policies must be interpreted, and that no believing Catholic can refer to an effort to defend the honor of Our Lady as ideological or political. I explained to him further that the private views of the students are irrelevant. In the name of "objective" journalism they are remaining indifferent to the outrage taking place on the Notre Dame campus at present. A Catholic is called at all times to integrate the Faith in to all aspects of his personal and professional lives. Any attempt to create a dichotomy between personal beliefs and professional actions leads directly to the situation we face with Catholic politicians protesting how much they oppose abortion privately but how they support the "law of the land" publicly.

As Pope Leo XIII pointed out in Immortale Dei:

"Hence, lest concord be broken by rash charges, let this be understood by all, that the integrity of Catholic faith cannot be reconciled with opinions verging on naturalism or rationalism, the essence of which is utterly to do away with Christian institutions and to install in society the supremacy of man to the exclusion of God. Further, it is unlawful to follow one line of conduct in private life and another in public, respecting privately the authority of the Church, but publicly rejecting it; for this would amount to joining together good and evil, and to putting man in conflict with himself; whereas he ought always to be consistent, and never in the least point nor in any condition of life to swerve from Christian virtue."

The Notre Dame Observer did run a news story on the perverse film festival and a review of the films being shown therein. Andrew Soukup wrote to Doug Zeitz to say that his paper would have accepted an advertisement from the event's organizers if they had sought to place one as the event was taking place on campus. This young man, Mr. Soukup, has likely not read Pope Leo XIII to understand that an indifference to the promotion of sin in a quasi-Catholic setting reflects the very sort of lack of integrity that was denounced in very bold terms by Pope Leo XIII above.

What applies to Mr. Soukup applies as well to Mr. Nathan Hatch, the Provost of the University of Notre Dame, who has been sending out canned e-mail responses to those complaining about a certain play with an unspeakable title that will be "performed" on the Notre Dame campus on February 14, 2004. Like Mr. Soukup, Mr. Hatch appealed to the fact that the play was an official campus event sponsored by the Gender Studies Department of the university and that there has to be room in a university setting for the expression of views that the university may or may not necessarily endorse. Again, turning to Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei:

"So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue."

Pope Leo XIII's references to the State's inability to put evil temptingly before the eye of man has special currency for a Catholic institution, which is betraying the Divine Redeemer just as much as Judas Iscariot if it does so, which is exactly what is happening at the University of Notre Dame du Lac in Notre Dame, Indiana, at present.

Thus, keep those e-mails and phone calls going. Our efforts may be futile, humanly speaking. All we can do is provide people with the truth. What they choose to do with it is on their own immortal souls. And remember this: Our Lady uses all of our efforts, no matter how seemingly futile in earthly terms, if we give them to her Immaculate Heart as her consecrated slaves.

Letters to the editor in chief, Andrew Soukup: asoukup@nd.edu

Letters to the Viewpoint section of the Observer: viewpoint1@nd.edu

Letters to the advertising manager of the Observer, Maura Cenedella: mcenedel@nd.edu

Letters to the editor of the South Bend Tribune: vop@sbtinfo.com

Phone calls and letters to the President of the University of Notre Dame, The Very Reverend Edward Malloy, C.S.C.: 574-631-3903 Malloy.5@nd.edu

Phone calls and letters to the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend, the Most Reverend John D'Arcy: Fort Wayne Chancery: 1103 S. Calhoun Street Fort Wayne, IN 46801; (260) 422-4611. E-mail: fhogan@fw.diocesefwsb.org South Bend Chancery: 114 W. Wayne Street, South Bend, IN 46601 (574) 234-0687.

Let's express our outrage at these events to all of the people listed above. And let's not forget to pray that extra set of Sorrowful Mysteries each day during the celebration of perversity on the campus of Our Lady in Notre Dame, Indiana.