The Marquette Tribune’s reporting on the Monologues caused a few chuckles around campus.
Print edition page seven graphic (second down on the website): “Schools performing ‘Monologues’ – Here is a list of the Jesuit universities planning to perform ‘The Vagina Monologues’ this year:”
Included on the list: “Providence College … Fordham College … Regis University …. University of Notre Dame … DePaul University.”
First off, Fordham is a University, not a college. Second, there is Regis University, a Jesuit institution in Colorado, and Regis College, run by the Sisters of St. Joseph in Massachussetts. It is Regis College, not Regis University, sponsoring the Monologues this year.
Second, the University of Notre Dame is run by the Congregation of the Holy Cross, DePaul is Vincentian, and Providence College is Dominican.
Third, the Archbishop of New Orleans has condemned the performance at LUNO and the bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend has condemned the performance at Notre Dame.
Fourth, the President of Notre Dame previously concluded the play contains “no hint of central elements of Catholic sexual morality.”
The play’s portrayals “stand apart from, and indeed in opposition to, the view that human sexuality finds its proper expression in the committed relationship of marriage between a man and a woman that is open to the gift of procreation,” Father Jenkins said.
“Moreover, the repeated performance of the play and the publicity surrounding it suggest that the university endorses certain themes in the play, or at least finds them compatible with its values,” he added.
He later caved to faculty pressure and allowed the play to go forward in a limited classroom setting, but his description is quite accurate.
Fifth, it is worth noting that Fr. Jenkins’ superior in the Congregation of the Holy Cross, when president of CSC’s University of Portland, banned a performance from that campus, saying
I have just read the ‘Vagina Monologues’ carefully and thoroughly. In conscience, I cannot approve of its performance on the campus. The play is offensive, questionable in its portrayal of violence, and not in keeping with the respect accorded the human body in this institution’s religious tradition.
Sixth, Providence College is NOT putting on the Vagina Monologues this year. Last year students applied to put the play on, and College President Rev. Brian J. Shanley, O.P., Ph.D. laid out an extended rationale for his decision against allowing it:
Precisely because its depiction of female sexuality is so deeply at odds with the true meaning and morality that the Catholic Church’s teaching celebrates, The Vagina Monologues is not an appropriate play to be performed on our campus.
Then there is the Tribune’s staff editorial in favor of the performance of the Monologues on campus. I can hardly criticize the extent of the God content in the editorial (they even capitalized the H for His/Him/He), though I disagree with its ultimate conclusions.
I’m particularly concerned with the statement, “We appreciate university resources such as HAVEN, the Counseling Center, University Ministry, and groups like VOICE. However, we assert that efforts towards ending sexual violence can never be deemed adequate until we truly end sexual violence.”
First, that sets up ending sexual violence as an ultimate value against which nothing preempts, including our Catholic identity. What if someone wanted to come to campus and say that even late-term abortion is a necessary and proper tool for women who are sexually abused to cope with that, because the baby would be a constant reminder of her rape? Would we allow such a speech in the name of ending sexual violence? If that’s the ultimate value, how could we refuse?
Second, I think there is a distinction between academic and awareness that is being missed by our current discussion. Is this symposium an academic discussion of the statistics and stories of sexual violence, or is it about educating students to be aware of sexual violence in our campus community?
I point this out here because I think it is a mistake in this debate to talk about campus resources for sexually abused persons. That would be awareness of sexual abuse on campus. That is different than an academic discussion of sexual violence in the world, which is what the Administration says this symposium is about.
The debate here is NOT about whether there is sufficient awareness and education on campus about sexual violence, and whether a reading of the Monologues would contribute to that awareness. The debate is NOT about whether students know sexual violence happens on campus and in society, and how students should deal with it. If that were the goal of the performance, then it should be sponsored by HAVEN or the Counseling Center. Instead the event is an academic discussion, and so the debate is about the meaning and extent of academic freedom on campus vis-a-vis our Catholic values.
I apologize that I am struggling to articulate quite right the point I am making, but I hope you can see the distinction I am drawing, because I believe it to be an important one.
Third, this paragraph from the Trib’s editorial betrays a dangerous ignorance of human nature. We will never end sexual violence until that glorious day when Christ returns, because until then we will be broken people who engage in sinful activity. That is the reality of our fallen nature. While that is no excuse to not give our best to fight sin and sorrow, in an editorial fraught with comments about human nature this reality seems to be missed.
Doubtless the conversation will continue – we’ll certainly keep it up here at GOP3. But for now I’m going to bed. More thoughts tomorrow on Students for Academic Freedom too.
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Tom Barrett's Savings Plan - June 8th, 2010
- C.J. Abrahamson on J. Stevens - April 11th, 2010
- Why always Bill Bablitch? - March 24th, 2010
- Suhr on Nixon on Health Care - February 23rd, 2010
- Did the USCCB Foresee Dead People? - February 8th, 2010
“We will never end sexual violence until that glorious day when Christ returns, because until then we will be broken people who engage in sinful activity.”
Are you kidding me?
Nothing gets these people more riled up then sex.
Anyone besides me think it’s odd that the people so upset over the ‘Vagina’ are the people who have never seen one?
Shut up, Dirk.
[...] Also by gop3.com: The list of the Jesuit universities planning to perform ‘The Vagina Monologues’ this year. TrackBack Permalink [...]
mu socialist – kidding because you’ll never stop sexual violence or kidding because it will stop when the world ends?
Either way, you won’t stop sexual violence because humans are, in fact, human, which allows some people to be deranged lunatic rapists. You can inform people until you’re blue in the face, but it’s like a lock on a door – sure it makes you feel secure, but if someone wants to break in, they’re going to break in.
Sure, awareness helps inform people, but I find it hard to believe the drunken lesbian rape of a teenage girl is your idea of “informing” the community. The thought of this as a graceful, beautiful image of femininity is sickening.
Please tell me how that fits in with Marquette’s Catholic, Jesuit values.
“Not until the violence ends.”
Newspaper headline in the year 2013:
“We did it! Violence ends!”
“Until the violence stops.”
I’m sorry. I misquoted the V-day website.
Rebuttal: Are you telling me you are against stopping violence against women?
Of course not, but there are probably 1000 better ways to make a difference.
MU Socialist:
Allow me to first associate myself with Scarsella’s comment.
Second, allow me four points.
A. All I am saying is that no matter what level of education and awareness is achieved, there will still be some level of sexual violence. To set the compete 100% eradication of sexual violence from campus as the timeframe during which we operate under a looser standard for Catholic identity is to set a standard that is impossible to meet.
B. What we see here is an example of a fundamental liberal-conservative difference in worldview. Liberals believe humans are infinitely perfectable. Hence, they believe the end of communism is no government, communism if done right would work, and international law will keep the bad guys from misbehaving.
Conservatives, on the other hand, recognize the fallen and self-interested nature of man. Thus, we believe strongly in law-and-order, we support capitalism because it aligns incentives with self-interest, and we support a strong military to keep the bad guys at bay.
C. I still think there is a fundamental distinction between academic and awareness that too many people are missing here. If this is about student awareness of sexual violence on campus, then it should be sponsored by HAVEN or something, it should be tested under the Catholic identity standards on the North side of Wisconsin Avenue, and the debate is whether this is an appropriate vehicle for raising awareness. If this is about an academic discussion, then an academic department should sponsor it, the South side of WI Ave standards apply, and the debate is about the contours of academic freedom.
D. The shock in your voice is typical of the emotional appeal liberals make in response to logical argument. For instance, at the fall semester debate on the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment, one woman got up during the Q&A and stated her opinion that homosexuals contribute nothing to the race. Mike Tate, from Fair WI, responded by inciting an agitated emotional outcry from his supporters in the crowd. He played the emotion card, rather than taking her point intellectually and responding that marriage is (or at least ought to be) about love and committment, not about procreation and the continuation of the species.
“Liberals believe humans are infinitely perfectable. Hence, they believe the end of communism is no government, communism if done right would work, and international law will keep the bad guys from misbehaving.”
Wow, I must have missed the memo. Thanks for letting me know what I’m supposed to believe as a liberal.
Fortunately, neither I nor any other liberal I’ve ever met believes that. People are fallible, and the evidence of that is all around us. (And by the way, your blanket assertion that liberals are communists is both laughable and insulting.) We strive to improve the flaws of society–we cherish no illusions about eliminating them.
I am a religious woman, albeit not of the same religion as you. I believe in a messiah, although not the same one as you do. I also believe that the messiah will not come unless we prove that we as humanity are trying to fix our own problems. God is extending a hand to us…but unless we reach out to take it, what good will it do? The messiah won’t perfect us unless we make the attempt to perfect ourselves first.
At what point in human existence has large government improved the flaws of anything, excluding the use of military and perhaps roads and few other small things?
Kat:
You were outraged that Daniel suggested that “liberals believe humans are infinitely perfectable” and then you go and say almost the exact same thing in your last sentence.
Note: The following quotation is not directed at Kat or anyone on this board:
“Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don’t you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.”
-Frederic Bastiat, on socialists
[...] titled “Academic Conversation on Catholicism, Sexuality, and Human Rights.” Those of us who think the Monologues don’t belong have made our case, and I’m sticking to [...]