Wednesday, March 12, 2008

School named after Our Lady presents vulgar play

The University of Notre Dame in Southbend, IND, has apparently presented the play entitled the "Vagina Monologues" for the past 2 years as a student production and is planning to present it again this year.

Fr John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame University, who approves of the presentation of this play, states he has allowed it, in order to present all viewpoints to the student body. My open question to him is whether Catholics who attend the university WANT all viewpoints (especially those considered sinful by the Catholic church) when they pay the high tuition for Notre Dame and if they did want "all" viewpoints, why wouldn't they save thousands of bucks per year and attend the public universities?

The V-monologues, apparently presents several sub-plays, some of which include chanting, singing and repeating vulgar terms for the female part, much resembling, said one article, "a Billy Graham crusade". Others have described the play as thinly veiled male bashing or reducing a woman to being a sexual object and in the CNS article, it was mentioned that alternate expressions of intimacy like lesbianism are included in the play. According to Bishop D'arcy of the diocese of South Bend Indiana, who opposes Notre Dame's decision and who has apparently studied the text of the V-monologues, one of the subplays portrays a sexual relationship between a woman and a young girl. I suspect that this play will likely be openly or covertly anti Catholic as most of this type of stuff is.

I think that it's a student production, is even worse than were it a professional production because in learning the lines and practicing for the play, won't the students LEARN what the play wants to teach which seems diametrically opposed to Catholic teachings?

Fr Jenkins' feels the student production of the monologues is appropriate because it is presented in a classroom setting, no admission is charged and because "people MAY debate the pro's and con's of Catholic teachings" after the play. I asked the president's office whether one could assume that the students putting ON the play AGREED with what the play preached and she said "yes, we can assume that." I also asked her what would be the reason parents would SEND their kids to a school like Notre Dame if they wanted "all viewpoints" because they can get THAT in a public university at state tuition fees. There was no official answer to that question.

I also informed them that Patrick Reilly of the Cardinal Newman Society has published a book of Catholic Colleges which still DO uphold traditional Catholic teachings and that though the bottom line on allowing this "Play" may be to not annoy the students advocating it, (so they do not choose another school) that the decision might hurt them in the long run where Catholic parents WILL choose other schools, such as those listed in Patrick Reilly's book of colleges.

I asked for Fr Jenkins' email address and she gave it to me...
(this is not listed on the website by the way).

You can express your concern to Bishop D'Arcy of SouthBend Diocese, using the following email address of his secy asking her to forward the letter to him.

Bishop D'Arcy is very much against the presentation of this play at Notre Dame and wrote for a recent editorial in "Today's Catholic" their diocesan newspaper:
"The Vagina Monologues is offensive to women; it is antithetical to Catholic teaching on the beautiful gift of human sexuality and also to the teachings of the church on the human body relative to its purpose and to its status as a temple of the Holy Spirit. The human body and the human person, in the tradition of the church, must never be seen as an object. "
Bishop D'arcy also wrote:
"The theme, however, finds no place in the text in question. In that text, the physical is separated from the spiritual. The body is separated from love. The woman is separated from the man and is even placed in opposition to him. There is nothing of beauty here, nothing of love. There is much here which Notre Dame has stood against and has opposed in recent times, both in administrative decisions and in pastoral work. It is especially painful that this play is being performed at Notre Dame, the school of Our Lady, as many of her graduates call her. She, who is both virgin and mother, has always drawn people in this place to the highest ideals in their respect for one another and for women. Her watchful presence over the campus and her prayerful intercession for Notre Dame over the years cannot be tarnished; but her presence, so often invoked in this place, gives special responsibilities on the rest of us who love her and who love her university."

I do think that Catholics should make their feelings known about this type of deviation from Catholic teachings on a Catholic campus which can mislead many students attending the school. How sad that a university named after the Blessed Mother, the exemplification of purity and virginity and authentic femininity, is presenting such a play.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Bill Clinton's deception about pro lifers

While campaigning for his wife’s Democratic nomination, Bill Clinton, was confronted by pro-Life demonstrators. One protester held up a sign that said "Abortion is murder." Bill Clinton lost his cool: "I gave you the answer. We disagree with you." He continued,

"You wanna criminalize women and their doctors and we disagree. I reduced abortion. Tell the truth, tell the truth, if you were really pro-life, if you were really pro-life, you would want to put every doctor and every mother as an accessory to murder in prison. And you won't say you wanna do that because you know, that you wouldn't have a lick of political support. Now, the issue is who, the issue is, you can't name me anybody presently in politics that did more to introduce policies that reduce the number of real abortions instead of the hot air putting out to tear people up and make votes by dividing America. This is not your rally. I heard you. That's another thing you need is a president, somebody who will stick up for individual rights and not be pushed around, and she won't."

This is a clever ruse on the part of Mr Clinton, a view probably shared by his wife, Hillary and an easy excuse for condemning both pro lifers and the pro life movement but of course, it is a totally warped view of reality.

First of all, it's a lie that Clinton did a lot to reduce abortions. He wouldn't DO that since he was heavily FINANCED by the abortion industry!

Secondly, Pro life folks are NOT targeting ANY humans either providing abortions or having abortions. What they are targeting is the idea that the termination of a human being can be a "choice" in a country which has a document offering ALL Americans the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness", these things which are NOT offered to those unlucky infants in utero whose mothers decide that they should not live.

There is a lot of misunderstanding about the whys and wherefores of Roe V Wade (and its companion decision, Doe V Bolton) which allows this "choice" for any reason up to the moment of birth.

The Supreme Court does not work with the scientific reality that an unborn child IS a full fledged human being. Their decision, a very close one, by the way - vote was like 5 in favor, 4 against - was based on their decision that the writers of the Constitution did not mean to include unborn children among those having the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and so in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the protection of unborn children would come under question (according to the decision).

While it is true that when the Constitution was written, there WERE several groups of people not considered to be included in the declaration of these "inalienable rights" (among which were indentured servants, slaves, and women), since abortion was considered, for centuries, a horrendous insult to mother and baby, it is likely that the only reason unborn babies were NOT specified in the Constitution as protected, was because it was likely, off the radar screen of those who drafted it, that anyone would NOT advocate the protection of unborn children.

A Guttmacher institute survey several years ago (in the 1980's, I think) found that if abortion were not legal, 75 percent of women would not have abortions. Many of the aborted women I've met, are now sorry that this "choice" was available - they had chosen this route out of desperation and because of pressure from society, family and friends but as the years pass, find that they never get over those children who were never born because of their decisions.

One of the strongest pro life groups around and one of the fastest GROWING groups in the USA is "Silent No More", a group composed OF aborted women who feel they were cheated out of a part of their lives by that decision and want to warn other women BEFORE they make that choice.

Finally, another Guttmacher survey found that "the more women know about abortion, the more they are against it".

So Mr and Mrs Clinton, nice try but no dice. Pro life means PRO LIFE and the protection and acknowledgement of the sanctity of human life in all ages and all habitats, including women, babies AND those doctors providing abortion.