« Padre Pio | Main | Break Dancing for the Pope »
January 25, 2004
It's that time of year again
Gee, time flies.
It's the time of year (February 14 - "V-Day") during which we get to contemplate how many Catholic colleges are hosting performances of that play.
The Cardinal Newman website indicates that last year, 14 colleges cancelled performances. Let's hope that more than this will follow suit this year.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8342690df53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference It's that time of year again:
Comments
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1064852/posts
It is time to test the power of the blog to stop the Vagina monologues at Catholic schools. How about a united crusade toward this end:
From the Cardinal Newman Society:
"CNS is urging concerned Catholics to contact each of the college presidents and ask them to confirm that productions are planned and then put a stop to them. Faculty and students also are urged to help Cardinal Newman Society’s “Reclaim Saint Valentine’s Day Campaign”, in partnership with LoveMatters.com and the Human Life Alliance of Minnesota, by flooding Catholic campuses with student-oriented publications promoting chastity and respect for human life."
Let's get on this and really make a difference!
Posted by: Diago at Jan 25, 2004 6:59:31 PM
Is this play offered more at Catholic colleges than elsewhere?
Posted by: Caroline at Jan 25, 2004 7:56:08 PM
"V-Day Loyola University New Orleans
As part of the 2004 V-Day College Campaign, Loyola University New Orleans is proud to present a benefit production of The Vagina Monologues to raise awareness and funds for local organizations working to end violence against women and girls."
http://events.vday.org/2004/College/Loyola_University_New_Orleans
Posted by: Lynn at Jan 25, 2004 9:15:52 PM
Whoops...sorry....posted before reading the list.....
Posted by: Lynn at Jan 25, 2004 9:17:21 PM
Odd how a play being used to raise funds to fight violence against women has a passage glorifying lesbian sex with an underage minor. Oh well, expecting logic from Catholic colleges putting on this ripe piece of agitprop is like expecting a pig to know his prayers.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Jan 25, 2004 9:43:28 PM
I despise The Vagina Monologues as much as anyone here and oppose their performance, but I wonder if this particular issue is really the best use of resources. Last year there was a debate on the blog about "Six Feet Under" and the depiction of immoral events in art, and most people agreed that just because an work of art depicted immoral activity, that was not ipso facto reason to condemn it. Why is TVM different? I agree that it is different, but I have a hard time putting my finger on the reason why. Is it because it is overtly propagandistic in nature (e.g., it is usually put on by women's studies rather than theater departments)? If it were put on a theater department, would that be OK?
Posted by: James Kabala at Jan 25, 2004 10:40:10 PM
I think the key is whether the work of art depicts immorality in the context of criticism, indifference, or advocacy. My impression is that TVM falls comfortably into the last category
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Jan 25, 2004 11:08:59 PM
Odd how a play being used to raise funds to fight violence against women has a passage glorifying lesbian sex with an underage minor.
How is that odd? I was not under the impression that lesbian sex constituted violence against women, although I suppose an intriguing argument could be made for sex with "an underage minor" (which I suspect is a tautology) as an act of violence against women--although if the minor's underage, can she be properly called a woman?
On the subjects of the morality of lesbian sex and sex outside marriage, we shall have to respectfully agree to disagree as believers in different formulations of Christianity. (I won't speak to the "underage minor" issue as I have no idea how old the characters in the play in question are, and thus can't really address that issue.)
Posted by: Ron at Jan 26, 2004 12:49:58 AM
The character in the play is 14 years old and is having lesbian sex with an adult. The term underage minor is accurate since it is possible in most states to be a minor but be above the age of consent. For example, in Illinois the age of majority is 18 while the age of consent is 17. As to the age of the minor and whether it constitutes violence, any morally coherent person would find the entire scene repugnant. As to whether the 14 year old is a woman, I would call her a girl, but I suspect many feminists would call her a woman.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Jan 26, 2004 6:54:28 AM
a minor point I suppose (no pun intended) but isn't sex with a minor under the age of consent statutory rape? Or do chic, progressive lesbians get a pass on that.
I could be wrong, after all, I'm a 40-plus year old heterosexual, Catholic, white, male, so what do I know?
Posted by: allen at Jan 26, 2004 10:22:51 AM
Even the name gives me the shiversss. We seem to have no shame. Anything can be said. Anything goes without any proprietary focus. On the one hand our society blabs all the words, proper and street words. On the other hand when it comes to parents discussing the sex issue with their children, their knees turn to jelly. How about the other way around.
Posted by: Jeanne Schmelzer at Jan 26, 2004 11:08:00 AM
I agree parents shouldn't feel afraid to speak frankly with their children about sex, and even to use words like "vagina" when doing it. Frankly, I'm not as concerned about any widespread social use of the word "vagina," as hardly anybody ever uses it except to refer to the thing itself, whereas certain synonyms for it that start with P and C are used frequently to describe "weak/cowardly" people and "aggressive/nasty" people in a way that attributes undesirable personality traits to all women, then reduces them to objects of contempt rather than people.
The character in the play is 14 years old and is having lesbian sex with an adult. The term underage minor is accurate since it is possible in most states to be a minor but be above the age of consent. For example, in Illinois the age of majority is 18 while the age of consent is 17. As to the age of the minor and whether it constitutes violence, any morally coherent person would find the entire scene repugnant.
Well, I don't know about "the entire scene," since I haven't read it or seen it performed, but I did find another description of the scene in question, and it appears that (and correct me if I'm wrong) the character is not 14 but remembering events that took place when she was 14. Whether one would find her description of those events repugnant...sure, I would concede that I'd be highly, highly critical of any 24-year-old (as I understand the other character to be) knowingly engaging in sexual activity with someone as young as the character says she was--not because I view the sexual acts themselves as immoral, not even the lesbian ones, but because I view sexual predation as unethical. If that distinction makes sense. Heck, I'd be critical of a man or woman who took advantage of an adult woman's naivete/insecurity/whatever to seduce her and use her as an instrument of sexual gratification rather than participate in a relationship. I don't think we can expand the word "violent" that broadly, but "unethical" certainly might seem to fit the situation as described so far. (And, yes, it certainly sounds like statutory rape, if it took place in a jurisdiction that counts what lesbians do--or what these two characters did--as sex.)
Would I use the word "repugnant"? I guess I honestly can't say without reading the scene in question, which I can certainly try to do later on.
Posted by: Ron at Jan 26, 2004 12:01:00 PM
Apparently Loyola College is listed as one of the Monologues cult sites. Not surprising. A lot of the faculty members there are from anti-Catholic secret societies. What's discouraging are the numbers of Catholic educators who apparently are willing to tolerate this kind of stuff. Bishops also have a duty to protect Catholic students and defend the faith.
Why are so many of them so lame in attending to this?
Posted by: Wilson Enochian Ricardo at Jan 26, 2004 7:03:11 PM
I wonder if the leading role is played by a nun this year?
Posted by: Carrie at Jan 26, 2004 8:55:54 PM
OK, I love a good conspiracy theory as much as anyone, so what's this about the Loyola faculty being a bunch of secretive anti-Catholics? Any data to back that up?
(Of course, the fact that the email address on that is what it is makes me wonder if the message isn't a troll...)
Posted by: Ron at Jan 26, 2004 9:57:40 PM
