Now some context. There has been a bit of a ruckus at Gonzaga University, the Jesuit school in Spokane, Washington, over "The Vagina Monologues." That play is, as you might recall, the gold standard on Catholic/"Catholic" campuses for the (s)ex nihilo creation of infantile, semi-illiterate discussions about "repression," "free speech," "censorship," and open-mindedness," that fixate on incessantly using crude language to identify and giggle about body parts.
The Gonzaga Bulletin reports that the recent plans to produce the "Monologues" on the campus were "reversed" this past week "as the administration decided that the 2002 campus ban by the Board of Trustees and former president Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J., stands as a precedent."
Tuesday, Interim Academic Vice President Earl Martin gave student leaders and faculty a letter from Interim President Thayne McCulloh outlining the reason for the official decision.
“As one who has worked closely with the Trustees for a period of time, and now serves as a member ex officio, I am confident that many of the Trustees who were involved in the decision in 2002 see their earlier vote as having affirmed the president’s decision in relation to this specific production,” Dr. McCulloh wrote.
McCulloh did make it clear that he is willing to meet with the students who have organized the tryouts and rehearsals to date, including seniors Libby Villa, Maura Pisciotta, and Ian Sullivan. He also made it clear that the group is welcome to hold the production off-campus to bring awareness to sexual violence against men and women, student leaders said.
“We’re a humanistic, Jesuit university whose goal is to educate mind, body, and spirit, and it’s disheartening to hear that the University is choosing to exclude a performance that raises awareness about the disenfranchised mind, body, and spirit,” Villa said.
Heaven knows (sarcasm alert) of the dearth of conversation about casual sex on college campuses before the "Monologues," a work of profound art which includes graphic and crass references to "c**ts," rape, "hatred of the patriarchal culture," and an older lesbian lover described by a 16-year-old character as "my surprising, unexpected, politically incorrect salvation" who "transformed by sorry-ass coochie snorcher and raised it up into a kind of heaven."
That this exquisite bit of play-writing (Shakespeare, be not proud!) has so far failed to be produced on the Gonzaga campus is, for one student, Hanna Laney, an act of "repression" that threatens "honest discussion," frank conversation about body parts, and rich "education" about "birth control, reproductive health and anatomical fact." Ms. Laney makes this pitch:
Some arguments against the Monologues focus on what some consider to be glorification of acts they see as immoral, often including frank discussions of heterosexual and homosexual sex. However, these arguments do not take into account the wide array of topics covered in the show. This argument is like saying The Bible is merely about the Creation story.
Uh, not really. It's more like arguing that Playboy magazine is about so much more than pornography since it includes articles about politics, interviews with celebrities, and seasonal recipes. We all know that some people might use such an argument to peddle the smut, but no one with a brain, the gift of eyesight, and a vague sense of propriety really buys it. Besides, the Bible actually contains some frank discussions about fornication, adultery, and homosexuality, and I think it's safe to say its views on those topics is far more clear-eyed and black-and-white than those found in the "Monologues." (Perhaps someone in the Religious Studies department at GU could meet with Ms. Laney and discuss those passages with her. Ha! Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Yet Ms. Laney insists she has no problem with the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, as long as they don't interfere with more important matters, like amoral emoting: "I take seriously the connection to Catholic teachings
that many members of the Gonzaga community feel. I respect and admire
faithfulness; I simply think it’s time for some honest discussion." Sure. I think I heard the same thing in a State of the Union address once upon a time.
Which leads us—finally! at last!—to the Theologically Ignorant Paragraph of the Week:
On a campus under the heavy control of the Catholic Church, I find one of issues to be the ideal of Mary as the Blessed Virgin. One of the largest miracles celebrated in the Catholic tradition is the Virgin Birth. In this way, we create a climate on campus that separates Godly women from their bodies. Women of faith strive for closeness to God and, in the example of Mary, the anatomy and function of the human reproductive system are entirely bypassed. If we are to emulate the Blessed Virgin, we are to strive for alienation from our anatomy. This is not to detract from the miracle of the Virgin Birth, but rather, is merely an observation in what we value as a community and its effects on who we are as men and women of God.Aurgh. Grrr. Really? Some questions:
1. Does she have any clue what the "Virgin birth" was?
2. Has she ever read one line of authentic Church teaching about Mary?
3. Is it improper to laugh hysterically when reading such nonsense about Marian beliefs?
Exactly how self-absorbed and stuck in the "it's all about me and my sex life!" rut do you have to be to write this sort of nonsense? Is it necessary to point out that Mary's fiat led to a conception and pregnancy involving her reproductive system, and in the real birth of a real son. After all, the scandal of the Incarnation flows precisely from the shocking contact—the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit—that resulted in a baby who was fully God and fully divine, the Son of God.
This is the gospel in which Mary is present as the mother who conceives Jesus in her womb, gives him birth and nurses him: the nursing mother referred to by the woman in the crowd. Thanks to this motherhood, Jesus, the Son of the Most High (cf. Lk. 1:32), is a true son of man. He is "flesh," like every other man: he is "the Word (who) became flesh" (cf. Jn. 1:14). He is of the flesh and blood of Mary! (John Paul II, Redemptoris Mater, par. 20)The answer to questions #1 (and #2) above is obviously, "No!" Mary's anatomy and reproductive system were not "entirely bypassed". Mary, of course, did not have sexual relations—but she did conceive by the power of the Holy Spirit, her son developed in her womb, and she did give birth. The most Godly woman who ever lived—the only woman to bear God in her womb, earning her the exalted title of Theotokos!—was not separated from her body in any way at all. On the contrary, Mary was the perfect realization of human wholeness, having been kept from original sin, having perfectly trusted in God, and having faithfully and totally embraced the person, work, life, death, and Resurrection of her son. Mary's perfection came from God's gift of grace, a gift reciprocated in her free gift of self—body, soul, mind, spirit—that is the ideal for every follower of Christ.
I suspect that Ms. Laney writes from complete ignorance, and perhaps she harbors no ill will, but her statements do indeed detract from the miracle of the Virgin Birth by being incorrect, misleading, and essentially meaningless. Dare I share my suspicion that her real point of contention with the Blessed Mother is that she thinks the absence of sex somehow creates a sterilized, hyper-scrubbed demi-goddess who is held up as an unobtainable and unhealthy spiritual role model for Catholic girls the world over? Taken to one extreme, this eventually leads to the sort of demented ravings found in the late Mary Daly's writings: Daly angrily depicted Mary as a "terrified young girl" who was a "Total Rape Victim" of the "godfather." Even if Ms. Laney does not have the sort of issues Daly did with men (Daly hated men with an often-expressed passion), she seems to share, even if unwittingly, Daly's dislike for Mary's humility, faithful consent, self-giftedness.
It's not that God, or Mary, or the Church, has a low view of sex and the marital embrace. The prevalence of such a view is a bit maddening, for it overlooks the fact that God created man "male and female," created sexual union as the means of communion and new life, instituted marriage as the "primordial sacrament" (in the words of John Paul II), and established a series of covenants that were pregnant with marital imagery and meaning, all pointing to the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, when Christ and his bride, the Church, are joined for eternity in the Kingdom. Mary, by virtue of her motherhood of Jesus and her faith, is the mother of all those who enter into the covenant established by her Son through his death and Resurrection:
And so this "new motherhood of Mary," generated by faith, is the fruit of the "new" love which came to definitive maturity in her at the foot of the Cross, through her sharing in the redemptive love of her Son. (Redemptoris Mater, 23).There is much more, of course, that could be said. But suffice to say that Ms. Laney, in fixating on "religious teachings and conservatism" as key culprits in the current confusion over sexuality and related matters, has failed to correctly identify the deeper issues, which are deeply rooted in man's estrangement from God and our unwillingness to accept the natural and moral laws which should inform, shape, and guide our understandings of our entire being, not just our bodies.
I think you're overreacting here. If this is the most theologically ignorant paragraph written this week, we would be very lucky indeed.
I think the original author clearly knows what the Virgin Birth is. I think her error is in equating 'did not have sexual relations' with 'the anatomy and function of the human reproductive system are entirely bypassed'. Such a view, that our reproductive systems exist for the sex act, and not necessarily for actual reproduction is, I'm sure, fairly common on college campuses.
The irony is that the casual sexual encounters with which as a society are more familiar than the Virgin Birth, are in fact the episodes which are bypassing the 'function of the human reproductive system are entirely'.
Posted by: Jim | Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 09:02 AM
I think you're overreacting here.
Simply not possible, Jim, simply not possible. Me, overreact? What? ;-)
Posted by: Carl E. Olson | Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 09:07 AM
I think the original author clearly knows what the Virgin Birth is.
I think she knows that Mary was a Virgin and gave birth, but that when it comes to really knowing and understanding what it is and what it means, she is clueless. Hard to come to any other conclusion based on her very confused piece.
Posted by: Carl E. Olson | Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 09:15 AM
One hardly knows where to begin. Seriously, have we all become children who have just discovered our noses and like to pick them all the time? Surely I am more than my big toe, my left ear lobe, and my small intestine! Of course, I am equally dismayed by the words on the page of Vagina Monologues. I do not say "by the writing" of the Vagina Monologue, for other than the fact that words are involved, this so-called play bears no resemblance to actual writing. Those who think this is enlightened literature are the same who pushed for "ebonics" to be taught in California schools some years ago.
The stunning part for me is that a Catholic student would even consider putting on such a play. Oh, I can hear the laughter now. How naive I must be! I am well aware of the state of the world, but I think I should not cease being stunned by such things. A Christian student really ought to know better.
Posted by: Magister Christianus | Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 09:23 AM
And to think there was a time when I thought it was bad that people were contemplating their navels...
Posted by: Kevin | Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 09:26 AM
No, you are under-reacting. Her words are more than ignorant, they are transparently dishonest. Dissent is not dialog.
The first give away is "Some arguments ... focus on what some consider to be glorification of acts *they see* as immoral ... " Lesbianism. Abortion. free sex. Got it.
We don't see acts as immoral-- the are, objectively so. That is the whole basis of Catholic Truth. To then go on and suggest Marian theology encourages a screwed up sexuality is to turn Catholicism on its head with a thud, affronting its most venerated female icon.
This whole thing has been seen before. Go read Maisie Ward's "Insurrection and Resurrection." The insurrection would by the Modernism of the 1900s, from which we may still be awaiting resurrection, if these young ladies represent the respectful college students of today. Voices feign faithfulness before demonstrating a complete sea change. Any sympathy with a show like "Vagina" gives the lie to those who are so gone as to be anywhere near the vulgarity. Clueless? I doubt it. What is "alienation from our anatomy' really saying? And what is the reverse: free love, self-love, masturbation? I can't imagine she's be pushing for support or a ban on contraception. Really, what is said in conjunction with what is not said is damning claptrap. What was that dated punchline about being unable to find three wisemen or even a virgin...? It hits too close to home on college campuses to be funny any longer.
Posted by: joe | Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 09:42 AM
I think it reasonable to postulate that Mary would have been the most feminine of women, very beautiful,and very attractive, that Joseph, her husband, loved her dearly, and that he was a very strong young man, unlike some of the pious depictions of him as an old man, and finally that Mary, among her many virtues, was extraordinarily courageous.
When all the apostles, bar St John, had run away, she was at the foot of the Cross and with her Son throughout all the jeering, the spittle and the( as we say in Australia ) "cheap shots".
I guess what Ms Laney has to grasp is that virginity can be an expression of the most sublime of love, and that Mary is a woman in the best 'sense' of the word.
Posted by: Dr John James | Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 07:27 PM
The biggest error is trying to reason with them...this is children who are laying on the floor, kicking, screaming, or holding their breath in a full-blown authority rejecting temper tantrum. From Mary Daly to Bishop Gumbleton, Joan Chittister to Ms. Laney, to the unnamed priest who's parish we left, who one day from the altar said that Jesus had once told Mary Magdalene that she would be a fisher of men. Perhaps from the Gospel of Dan Brown...the only difference between any of them is that some have the intellectual and spiritual integrity to actually leave.
With all the Anglicans who are moving toward Rome, perhaps someone...please someone, could arrange a monumental "player trade" and send so many of the "dissenters from within" lay, clerical, and consecrated, back to the Anglican/Episcopal tradition. They already are what so many want to become...and are working toward liberal fulfillment even as we write. Lord knows, the Episcopal could use the numbers!
Since the Anglican tradition started with the rejection of Rome's authority and Church teaching, the dissenters have already completed most if not all of whatever RCIA process exists...Fr. Cutie eagerly awaits all of you..go with God...please, soon.
Let's start with the dissenters from USCCB on Health Care bill.
Posted by: Dave | Thursday, March 25, 2010 at 04:45 AM
With all the Anglicans who are moving toward Rome, perhaps someone...please someone, could arrange a monumental "player trade" and send so many of the "dissenters from within" lay, clerical, and consecrated, back to the Anglican/Episcopal tradition. They already are what so many want to become...and are working toward liberal fulfillment even as we write. Lord knows, the Episcopal could use the numbers!
Since the Anglican tradition started with the rejection of Rome's authority and Church teaching, the dissenters have already completed most if not all of whatever RCIA process exists...Fr. Cutie eagerly awaits all of you..go with God...please, soon.
Let's start with the dissenters from USCCB on Health Care bill. - Dave
Excellent proposal. There have been some who have said that the Motu Proprio was not a two way street. This would perhaps quell some of the complaints that Rome is robbing Canterbury.
Posted by: LJ | Thursday, March 25, 2010 at 08:52 AM
Pagan Play at Gonzaga University worse than Vagina Monologues
Lysistrata ... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata )isn't that the comedy with the men stuck in an endless war, so the women go on a sex strike, and the men can't fight anymore because (as becomes enormously evident when they reappear onstage) particular bodily appendages of theirs have become enflamed with desire? Yeah, some jokes — even when they're 2,400 years old — never grow old. The Civic's production in 2004 had the men flouncing around with polystyrene swimming pool "noodles" protruding upwards from their groins. (Wires provided added, um, stiffness.) And when you're attached to a stiff noodle, it's difficult to maintain even a modicum of dignity. (That Aristophanes, such a joker.) Fr. Kevin Connell, S.J.( http://www.gprep.com/s/766/index.aspx?sid=766&gid=1&pgid=286 ) — the Jesuit priest who is principal at Gonzaga Prep and who will be directing the Gonzaga University production of Lysistrata at the Magnuson Theater in College Hall, March 25-28 — has advised us that the G.U. male actors won't have any noodles, "though we've found an interesting and, I think, unique way" to represent the men's, er, predicament. Don't bring the kids, but do bring your sense of humor.
Link ( http://www.inlander.com/spokane/blog-402-lysistrata-at-gonzaga.html )
This is from the Gonzaga University website.
The women of ancient Greece refuse to make love until their warring husbands make peace, as Aristophanes whips up a bawdy whirlpool of war between the sexes and the folly of war in a farce that makes "South Park" look like Sunday school. Directed by Fr. Kevin Connell, S.J. Performance dates: March 25, 26, 27 at 7:30 pm and March 27, 28 at 2:00 pm Location: The Harry and Colleen Magnuson Theatre
Read the entire play in English ( http://books.google.com/books?id=oFEEAAAAQAAJ&dq=lysistrata&pg=RA1-PA63#v=onepage&q=lysistrata&f=false )
Posted by: Joseph Fromm | Thursday, March 25, 2010 at 06:31 PM
Wow, such negativity. Plenty of ad hominems and biting insults directed towards a college student!
Firstly, I love how you failed to cite the entire paragraph:
"Some arguments against the Monologues focus on what some consider to be glorification of acts they see as immoral, often including frank discussions of heterosexual and homosexual sex. However, these arguments do not take into account the wide array of topics covered in the show. This argument is like saying The Bible is merely about the Creation story. Yes, some of the Monologues focus on sex, but there are many other topics discussed including: sexual violence, objectification, birth, intimacy, and the importance of language in gender equality. Acknowledgment of these topics is important, and indeed vital, in our creation of a Christ-like community of people who truly love each other as Jesus calls us to do."
You mock the play, but the issues it addresses make for fruitful discussion, and can turn the monologues into a dialogue. We're college students; we're old enough to handle the crassness and make decisions on our own whether or not to be offended. Besides, just because Gonzaga allows the production on campus doesn't mean it endorses it. In fact, by NOT banning everything it DOESN'T endorse, it endorses them. Lysistrata= ok. ROTC program that trains future killers = ok. Vaginas = NOT OK. Quite silly. This play is crude at times, but it raises awareness of important issues about women, such as violence towards women (which has been at an all time high on this campus this year) that are often neglected. The play is meant to be performed in order to raise money to donate to organizations that can help.
For many students, the main underlying issue of the ban is that it goes against the promise of intellectual freedom that Gonzaga's mission statement supposedly endorses. Female students see the ban as oppressive and silencing, which it is quite frankly. Works celebrating female empowerment have very little place in such a male-centered institution.
Also this - (Perhaps someone in the Religious Studies department at GU could meet with Ms. Laney and discuss those passages with her. Ha! Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Totally unnecessary, immature and condescending. You should know better.
P.S. Please SEE the play before condemning it. You can't make judgments based on the script alone. This production is almost always highly adapted by those who put it on. Just saying.
Posted by: A.A. | Thursday, March 25, 2010 at 11:00 PM
@Magister Christianus
So Gonzaga should ban all crappy plays, is that the solution? Guess students shouldn't be given the freedom to make that decision on their own anymore.
Also: "The stunning part for me is that a Catholic student would even consider putting on such a play. Oh, I can hear the laughter now. How naive I must be! I am well aware of the state of the world, but I think I should not cease being stunned by such things. A Christian student really ought to know better."
Goodness, SURELY self-respecting Catholics mustn't care about the plights of women, rape victims, inequality, oppression or domestic violence! The second anyone sees the word "Vagina" or lesbian, all common sense goes out the window, and you subject the play to your narrow-minded beliefs. Tolerate opposing viewpoints? Have healthy discussion? No way! Censor! Ban!
Posted by: A.A. | Thursday, March 25, 2010 at 11:10 PM
A.A.: You need to make up your mind: either being a college student entitles you to special protection from criticism (per your whining remark, "Plenty of ad hominems and biting insults directed towards a college student!"), or it blesses you with a profound and serious maturity ("We're college students; we're old enough to handle the crassness and make decisions on our own whether or not to be offended"). Which is it? Or do you wish to be protected from reality while pretending to have conquered reality?
You can't make judgments based on the script alone. Yes, I can judge the script from the script alone. Literary critics have been doing it for centuries; I'm not sure why a pathetic excuse for a play such as TVM gets special exemption (perhaps because it is so poorly written?) And, yes, I know the script has a certain, um, impromptu fluidity to it, making it a sort of participatory soft-porn, by all accounts. And this is a positive in what way, exactly?
Totally unnecessary, immature and condescending. You should know better. A nice use of cynical irony. I'll assume it was intentional...
Posted by: Carl E. Olson | Friday, March 26, 2010 at 12:08 AM