NOTRE DAME, IN - Father Jenkins Disappoints Again
The Vagina Monologues will, after all, be performed on campus later this month. We recently reported that some 50 bishops had moved their conference off campus because the play might be produced. Father Jenkins has now decided it will be. He says this "best serves the distinctive" - presumably the Catholic - "mission of Notre Dame."
His decision is as unsound now as it was two years ago. He invokes the same incontestable but inapt generalities and imposes the same pointless requirement that some faculty member declare what is glaringly obvious, namely, that the play is inherently hostile to Church teaching.
To Father Jenkins's credit, he does not maintain the play is worthy because it is devoted to prevention of sexual abuse. That is the transparent dodge of apologists. More than two-thirds of the play consists of extraordinarily explicit accounts by women of highly charged sexual episodes, typically but not exclusively lesbian masturbation and intercourse (including seduction of a minor). The author herself offers telling testimony to the play's character and intended effect when she boasts in the introduction of having experienced "thirty-two public orgasms a night" while performing the play.
In short, the play is, and is intended to be, a celebration of the ecstasies of sexual gratification through actions gravely immoral in the eyes of the Church. As Father Jenkins himself said: "[I]ts portrayals of sex stand . . . in opposition to Catholic teaching on human sexuality." For those who have any doubt, we provide on our web site an extended and representative series of verbatim passages from the play.
How, then, does Notre Dame's hosting the play serve the University's "distinctive mission" as a Catholic institution? Because, we are told, following the performances a faculty member will "offer a thorough and sympathetic account of the Catholic tradition" which will promote a "reasoned and respectful debate" of "multiple viewpoints" on "controversial issues." The fundamental policy "rests on the conviction that truth will emerge from reasoned consideration of issues in dialogue with faith" and that students should not be "insulated from controversial views" but should rather "engage" them.
But what do these lofty truisms have to do with this play? This is not a drama about ideas. It appeals, not to the mind or heart, but to the libido. Who in the audience would think for a millisecond that the Church does not condemn precisely what the play portrays? Who will there be to argue in favor of lesbian abuse of minors? Of the sexual pleasures aroused by a dominatrix? Of vagina fixation? Of the countless techniques of vagina manipulation? Of the naming of, and speaking with, vaginas? Of the liberating effect of mouthing streams of obscenities? Where will be the "reasoned and respectful debate"? The "multiple viewpoints"? The "energetic engaging" of views by students? And if there were indeed extended discussion of these base subjects, would this be the sort of "free and open discussion of controversial issues" that would advance Notre Dame's "distinctive mission"?
Certainly a critique of a presentation from a Catholic point of view is sometimes desirable, even necessary. A case in point, as Father Jenkins once observed, is the annual homosexual film festival -- where it is not provided. But surely this device cannot immunize everything. Take, for example monologues by pedophiles describing their seductions of children. Or by members of a lynch mob describing a hanging. Or by serial murderers describing the orgiastic pleasures of mutilation. The cases are analogous. There is nothing to discuss.
The haplessness of this approach was demonstrated by panelists two years ago. To be sure, Father Jenkins was satisfied: "Panelists presented Catholic teaching on human sexuality, and students and faculty engaged one another and these issues in serious and informed discussion." But if the extensive Observer coverage is to be believed, this simply did not happen. Rather, the discussions made matters worse. Only a lone priest criticized the play from the Church's point of view. In response, another panelist wondered "how we [the Church] got there" Yet another condemned this sort of "malicious" criticism. And yet another compared the play to St. Augustine's Confessions. Almost all the time was spent on sexual abuse. The precedent is grim.
But the overarching concern is not the play's performance but rather the fading Catholic sensibility that is behind it. The former will not topple the Golden Dome. The latter, if unchecked, will.
Notre Dame is now the leader of a small and shrinking band - 20 out of 230 - of Catholic institutions hosting this meretricious play. Is that because the rest are benighted or because their Catholic identity is sturdier?
Half of the Vagina Monologues institutions are Jesuit and most of the others are headed by laypersons. While we do not know their faculty composition, we do know that at Notre Dame the proportion of Catholic faculty, conservatively adjusted for nominal and dissenting Catholics, no longer meets the University's Mission Statement requirement. The faculty pressure on Father Jenkins to reverse his initial tentative decision to bar the play was intense, and departmental sponsorship of the play has been strong. And even Father Jenkins's approval is not good enough for many of the play's supporters, he tells us, for they are "upset" that there is to be an "account of the Catholic tradition" during the panel discussions. It is to wonder.
Whose words ring more true to the Catholic mind and heart, those of Father Jenkins or those of Father David Tyson, now the C.S.C. Superior of the Indiana Province and then President of Portland University:
"In conscience, I cannot approve of its performance. This play is not in keeping with the respect accorded the human body in this institution's religious tradition."
Or that of Father David O'Connell, the President of Catholic University: "I find the play unworthy of staging at CUA. In addition to the affront and offense posed to Catholic teachings and values it has become a symbol each year of the desire of some folks to push Catholic campuses over the edge of good and decent judgment. Sooner or later, someone has got to simply say 'enough.'"
Would that Father Jenkins had.
|
|
||||||||
|
This Month
Month Archive
Login
|
Vagina Monologues 2, Bishops 0
by
Bill Dempsey
on Wed 12 Mar 2008 09:22 PM EDT | Permanent Link
Comments
Re: Vagina Monologues 2, Bishops 0
by
Anonymous
on Wed 12 Mar 2008 10:01 PM EDT | Permanent Link
St. Paul, that great teacher of the Catholic Faith enjoins us:
“As for lewd conduct or promiscuousness or lust of any sort, let them not even be mentioned among you; your holiness forbids this. Nor should there be any obscene silly or suggestive talk; all that is out of place. Instead, give thanks. Make no mistake about this: no fornicator, no unclean or lustful person—in effect an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no one deceive you with worthless arguments. ydatThese are sins that bring God’s wrath down on the disobedient; therefore have nothing to do with them.” [Ephesians 5:3-7] So are we so sophisticated, so urbane that we can scoff at St. Paul as unenlightened and backwards? Are we embarrassed by the standard of conduct he sets? Do we swallow the line that holiness is not wholeness and that to “really live” you have to indulge every imaginable appetite without restraint? Really, exposing ourselves to all the trash in the Vagina Monologues reveals us to be spiritual children fascinated with potty talk rather than mature adults who recognize the beauty, dignity and purpose of the human body as fashioned by the Heavenly Father. The dispute over the Vagina Monologues has created an open rift between Father Jenkins and Bishop John M. D’Arcy. That’s not good example for the young. “Like father, like son.” That kind of example will raise a generation of dissident Catholics. It undermines Father Jenkin’s authority as well because if a student does not have to listen to a greater authority such as the bishop he certainly does not have to listen to a lesser authority as Father Jenkins. Some day Father Jenkins may find himself pleading with students to adhere to values he holds dear as the truth only to be ignored as irrelevant. --Tom Uebbing, ND '72 Re: Vagina Monologues 2, Bishops 0
by
Tom Dewey
on Thu 13 Mar 2008 09:25 AM EDT | Permanent Link
Notre Dame is dishonestly claiming to be a Catholic institution. This is a contradiction that is really damaging our society. The president of Notre Dame and all who support this deterioration as well as those who refuse to speak out are going to have to answer for this one day. The sin of omission is a very grave one, perhaps even more grave as it is done more frequent. The indifferent, the ones who do not speak out against this falsehood are going to have to answer one day.
Tom Dewey M.D. Lafayette, Louisiana Re: Re: Vagina Monologues 2, Bishops 0
by
Bob54
on Fri 18 Jul 2008 02:31 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
In my view, the disgusting V-M exhibitions are emblematic of Notre Dame’s moral decline and across the board shift to the left. These “in your face” productions are not just an affront to practicing Catholics, of which I am not one. They insult others who also treasure the sanctity and wholesomeness of life, strong families, the beauty of nature, and all of the ancillary values that foster social stability and happiness in this world.
In my day and in my view, Notre Dame was the best of the best because it unified the academic, social, and moral requirements of being a student there into an educational platform that was second to none. Bob VonHoene 1954 Re: inappropriate comments
by
Joseph Caudle
on Fri 14 Mar 2008 03:21 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
Certain comments have been deleted recently. If you have written a comment and it has not been published. Please check back later, I intend to have a post about certain inappropriate actions that have been made by some readers of the blog. In the meantime, continue posting. God bless.
Pax Christi, Joseph Caudle Webmaster, Project Sycamore Blog Re: Re: inappropriate comments
by
Joseph Caudle
on Sun 23 Mar 2008 08:58 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
This comment is meant to be administrative and corrective. I apologize in advance for its length.
The website has recently recieved several comments that appear to be, what is commonly, in the world of blogs, called, `flames' or comments from a `troll'. These terms have a quite negative connotation, and that's for a reason. These sorts of comments are quite negative in tone and do not attmept to actually engage the issue. When it is permitted, the poster tends to post anonymously and just tries to stir up controversy. For more information about the terms, check the Wikipedia listings I referenced. These messages have been coming from a reader who, to be fair, has not been posting completely anonymously (we will call her Joan to preserve her anonymity) but rather has been complaining that opposing views to those of our contributors and posters have not been aired or respected on this blog, and that the emails she has been receiving from Mr. William Dempsey have been coming to her in his own name and without any acknowledgment of his being associated with Project Sycamore. Also, Joan complains that she has not been removed from the email list and has not been allowed to post in the past. She asks explicitly, ``Am I being screened?'' I would like to respond to these allegations in reverse order, because my responses will build upon one another. To answer Joan's last question. The answer is a firm yes. Every comment on this website is reviewed before it is allowed to be posted, and if it is not acceptable, then it is not allowed to be posted, it is as simple as that. To be completely honest, this instance is, as far as I can remember, the first time I have needed to exercise this power, but a similar scenario is exactly why the founders of the Project and I decided that we would moderate our comments. As to not being removed from the mailing list, I do not know why Joan has not been removed. If you'd like to be removed from the list, I'd suggest you email comments@projectsycamore.com. (However, I don't know why you'd want to be removed from the list, if you wanted to contribute to the discussion on this blog.) This is the address that is listed on our website on the "Contact Us" page for general questions about Project Sycamore. I would assume this is also the address for taking care of problems with email distribution. If it isn't, I'm sure that whoever handles this address is competent to find out where to go to fix any problems. In order to make clear why Joan has not been allowed to post, I would like to call to mind a few points of the code of conduct, some of which have been violated by more than one person on this blog. The first reason is that she made what seemed to be "harassing, abusive, threatening, libelous, deceptive, inaccurate, plagiaristic and otherwise unacceptable comments." Of course, not all of these descriptions apply, such as plagiaristic; however, at the very least, the tone of the comments fits into the rest of the categories. I find it very hard to believe that Mr. Dempsey has been sending emails to Joan, almost daily, about his own personal political convictions. That he has been sending some emails is something known by all members of the Project, and the reason why should be obvious from what he has written about. There have been some serious events at the University that could use being addressed in a calm, rational forum. Joan's comments did not in any way address the posts she was commenting on, but rather complained that there were no contrary opinions being posted, and that she was getting nearly daily emails from Mr. Dempsey's private email address. This is just inaccurate, or at the very least, libelous, and should have been taken up privately with people in Project Sycamore who could have taken care of the problem. It did not deserve to be posted on a website that could be viewed by absolutely anyone in the world. Unless Joan has been receiving different emails from the rest of us, she has been receiving messages from the address news@projectsycamore.com. Granted, this address has the name "William H Dempsey, Class of 52", but it is not Mr. Dempsey's private email address. By the very user name, it should have been quite obvious that these are official messages of the Project. If this is not the case. I invite you to send the Comments address an email, or you could even send me a message. I won't be able to do anything, but I'll send the message on to people who could. Perhaps if Joan's posts had addressed what had been written, I would have allowed them, but even then, the tone would have had to have been respectful, and Joan would have needed to take credit for what she was saying. I do admit that some of this was my fault. I'd thought that it was required that anyone who was to post needed to sign into the blog with a user account before posting. Because of this incident, I realized that anonymous posting had been formerly permitted, a permission I have since revoked. I'm sure some of you have noticed this change. I think that it will lead to an overall improvement in the quality of posts here. It is a bit of a pain, but the website that sponsors this blog doesn't send any junk mail, so there's no real disadvantage besides taking the time to take credit for what you are broadcasting to the world. I really would like to see some genuine discussion happening on this blog. So far the posts we have had on the blog have been pretty one sided, and this is not because I've been screening out comments I disagree with. Joan, if you'd like to discuss why you disagree with the emails of Mr. Dempsey, please post your comments, but do keep in mind the the rules listed in the Code of Conduct. Like I said earlier, I apologize for the length of this message, but because of this incident, I thought that a corrective message was needed. I hope it helps. I hope you all have a blessed Easter Octave. Please keep the University in your prayers this week, as the Monologues will be performed this Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. God Bless. Pax Christi, Joseph Caudle Webmaster, Project Sycamore Blog Re: Vagina Monologues 2, Bishops 0
by
Marianne Murphy
on Tue 18 Mar 2008 09:06 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
VM 2 BISHOPS 0
I'd like to see the Bishops get on the scoreboard. I'm sure with persistence they'll score and win in the end. Marianne Re: Re: Vagina Monologues 2, Bishops 0
by
Nancy Danielson
on Sat 22 Mar 2008 02:45 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
I'v got an idea. Picture this. In all fairness to Jesus, how about a request to do the Play in OUR TOWN format? The main character, the Stage Manager who breaks the fourth wall, would be Jesus. Then, after every scene, the Play would stop, and we would find out exactly what Jesus would say. For dramatic effect, we could have Mary Magdalene, after Scene One, break the fourth wall and say, " Where have they taken my Lord?" ( Enter -Jesus)
Don't you think this would be fair and balanced? P.S. My vote is with Jesus in this so called debate. Happy Easter! Re: Vagina Monologues 2, Bishops 0
by
corneliused
on Fri 21 Mar 2008 12:32 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
If the score board characterized the struggle between popular impurity and Catholic values at Notre Dame the disparity would be much higher. This play is not much different than many other events the school hosts. One example comes from the various concerts and perhaps some movies that are shown on campus. I have heard numbers performed at both "the show" and at concerts at legends that are quite scandalous and fully inappropriate for a Catholic university. What's more these things cannot be justified under the academic freedom clause so are even less justified than this play. I have even recieved an advertisement for pornographic magazine subscriptions in the bag the university book store gave me to carry my purchases.
Of course the play is inappropriate for campus too, but I claim we ought to go and object to these other things as well. One can read many articles about the university's efforts to ensure the clothes sold with its name are made under fair labor conditions, its efforts to involve students in community service, and many other good works performed by those associated with the university, but other than restrictions on certain in dorm activities, it appears no effort has been made to ensure less popular elements of Catholic teaching, like those regarding purity, are reflected by university policies. Re: Re: Vagina Monologues 2, Bishops 0
by
Bill Dempsey
on Mon 24 Mar 2008 04:31 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
With respect, I think that The Vagina Monologues are a great deal different than any events I've heard or read about. To take the full measure of the obscene character of this play, one need only examine the lengthy passages we provide on our web site. It is because of the extraordinary nature of this play that we and so many others have focused on its approval as a telling sign of the deterioration of Catholic sensibility at Notre Dame.
This is not to say that there is not a good deal more that is objectionable. We will shortly provide a report on the student-authored production "Loyql Daughters," which, through its descriptions of illicit sex among students, is because of that circumstance arguably even more objectionable than The Vagina Monologues, even though the language is much tamer and the accounts of consensual sex do not overwhelm those of sexual abuse. One could also reproduce so-called humor essays from The Scholastic that often dwell upon sex and drinking, usually in combination; complaints in The Observer about pornography in the halls; and no doubt a good deal more. For my part, I think there is little question that alcohol abuse is a serious problem and the root of both sexual abuse and illicit consensual sex. Still, I think there is also little question that Notre Dame does better in these respects than the vast majority of colleges and universities; and while that is setting the bar very low, it is a fact that I think we should acknowledge even as we criticize. Moreover, we at Project Sycamore are committed to basing our reports only on facts that we know to be true and that are sufficient in scope to establish whatever point we are making. It is difficult to meet those standards with respect to many matters. But since our success in the end will turn in large measure on our credibility, we often forgo reporting what we think is probably true if we cannot be reasonably certain and are able to cite the evidence upon which we rely. This means, to be sure, that events and practices that do not comport with the standards to be expected of a Catholic university will doubtless go unreported. But this is the price we must pay for maintaining the high level of responsibility necessary to insure our credibility when we do speak. That said, the contributor is plainly right in saying that there is more that goes on than The Vagina Monologues that would be viewed with great dismay by parents were they to know, and we do pay attention to all of it and welcome communications on the subject. The authors of the most recent study of Catholic universities and colleges report that administrators uniformly identified student campus life as the subject they least want parents to inquire about. And the administrators doubtless know what they're talking about. Re: Re: Re: Vagina Monologues 2, Bishops 0
by
corneliused
on Mon 24 Mar 2008 11:43 PM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
If you would like to document some of the other ways the culture of death pervades Notre Dame you may simply go to the book store. If you don't see anything objectionable buy something, ask for it in a bag, and then see what else is in the bag. You will find some flyers. The advertisement for magazine subscriptions has listed on it at least one pornographic magazine. There's no reason to debate which is worse, selling pornography or letting students put on an obscene play.
Although much more difficult to document, I could also describe songs performed on campus by bands paid by the university to perform which I can assure you as one who is rather familiar with the contents of the play are equally offensive. I suppose one might debate what sort of fornication promotion is more offensive, but to give an idea, I've seen some on stage humping and heard songs exclusively about non-procreative sexual activities. In addition I'm told the events I've actually witnessed are tame in comparison to other events on campus. Perhaps one could go to legends of Notre Dame's website, note the bands playing, look up the lyrics to the songs performed by said band and go from there. The university's attempts to insure that it's logo is not printed on clothes made under unfair labor conditions are well documented. Why can't it have a similar outlook toward the less popular elements of Catholic teaching? The comparison with other universities is a bit unfair and pointless. I can at least say that at the public university I used to attend I was exposed to far less scandalous material by the university. Even if Notre Dame is better than every other school but still promotes the culture of death to its students, that would not justify it. Re: Re: Re: Re: Vagina Monologues 2, Bishops 0
by
Bill Dempsey
on Tue 25 Mar 2008 11:52 AM EDT | Profile | Permanent Link
I will try that at the bookstore. As I say, the challenge when one is leveling a public charge is to have in hand indisputable evidence in sufficient quantity and quality to support it. That is quite a different matter from being persuaded by a combination of some things that one see and hears and others that are heard about. In the context of a blog conversation, on reflection I think I erred in introducing this quite different notion. I was simply trying to explain why Project Sycamore is not free to publicize a good deal that may actually be true. That is too bad, but it is a price paid for retaining credibility. And I certainly don't mean to say that we are not eager to have whatever information bearing on Catholic identity that we can get. Quite the opposite. Let's see what can be assembled.
|
Recent Articles
Recent Visitors
Jerry Beckett - Fri 06 Nov 2009 03:34 PM EST
johnmcginley - Tue 27 Oct 2009 01:05 PM EDT
Bill Dempsey - Wed 14 Oct 2009 11:56 AM EDT
Nancy Danielson - Sun 02 Aug 2009 11:20 AM EDT
Tim Dempsey - Tue 14 Jul 2009 03:00 PM EDT
Search
Search
|
||||||