Vagina Monologues to continue at Notre Dame

[blessedtoo]

ND Mike:

It’s hard enough we deal with these issues every day on TV, in magazines, books, movies, and the internet. Why should we be subjected to them in an environment that is supossed to be Catholic and help individuals properly develop in their Catholic faith?

ND can certainly encourage and sponsor debate over this “play”, but why does the University have to host it?

 

[proud2bcatholic]

shs-aod:

The above statement, while too cute by half, proves incontrovertibly that you’ve obviously seen neither of the two productions in question.

You’re right, I haven’t seen either one, thank God. I have, however, read a transcript of the Vagina Monologues, and it is sickening. If women want to be empowered, they can read Mulieris Dignitatem for a start.

 

[smartblkchick]

I really wish they would hurry up and open Ave Maria University and Ave Maria Town so all of you who are so offended by a play can move there and leave the rest of us alone!

 

[Holly3278]

M-Dent:

He sure was. He was asked by Bishop John D’Arcy ( Fort Wayne-South Bend) that the performances be ended. He showed where his loyalties lie.

Yep and for his disobedience to the bishop, he ought to be disciplined. I think removing him from his duties at the university would be a good idea personally.

 

[Holly3278]

smartblkchick:

I really wish they would hurry up and open Ave Maria University and Ave Maria Town so all of you who are so offended by a play can move there and leave the rest of us alone!

Its not just a play. Its immoral filth!

 

[oldfogey]

frommi:

His loyalty is to the university and the order that runs the university. He isn’t under the jurisdiction of the local ordinary.

Actually, he is.

 

[frommi]

Can I just throw out there that it’s not a very good play? (taking any immorral judgments, etc out of the picture).

I do believe, however, that the university president had many conversations with a lot of different people before arriving at this conclusion…and he did so knowing it would upset some people.

The president of Notre Dame is not subservient to the bishop of South Bend…that’s not how this works.

I think you all are giving a dramatic work wayyyyy too much credit for changing people’s minds about a variety of feminine issues.

 

[cecelia]

smartblkchick:

I really wish they would hurry up and open Ave Maria University and Ave Maria Town so all of you who are so offended by a play can move there and leave the rest of us alone!

Through our Confirmation we as Catholics have to proclaim the truth in season and out of season. We have to tell the truth in love, but the truth, nevertheless we must tell. As messengers of the truth, we cannot be intimidated or stopped by feelings. Remember feelings are good, but they are fleeting, fickle, and subjective. That the truth may offend someone does not mean that it should not be proclaimed. If all did as was expressed, and “move to Ave Maria, " the fact would remain that such a play at a Catholic college sullies the word of God and compromises the mission of the university. Putting feelings and sentiments aside, we must look at the situation. Does this play promote truth? Does this play bring others to Christ and His Church? Does this play represent the good, the beautiful, and the true, and let others look upon the Church as the shining city on the hill, the New Jerusalem? If not, then why should Catholicism nurture it? Remember that we are the Church Militant and as members, we are constantly engaged in battle. Does Satan and his minions ever rest? Does he grant respite to his angels? No, he continuously tempts us, ever so subtle, ever to seductive, and he depends on our feelings to GRADUALLY lure us. He did it to Eve, and he’s doing it to us. So of course, there are some who feel, “what’s the big deal,” it’s just a play.” “What’s the big deal, The DaVinci Code is just a movie.” The devil wants us to think this way, and he also wants us to think that we’re so sophisticated now, the we nonchalantly assume that he does not exist or that only ignorant unenlightened people still believe in him. The devil tempts us through the eyes, through the pride of life, and through our own concupiscence. He’s depending on reactions like the one stated above to lower our resistance, extinquish our zeal, and temper our response so that in time we’ll look around and not even recognize what’s good and what’s bad. And not even care. We’ll just respond by the word that has become the definining response of relativism, “Whatever.”

 

[Brendan]

frommi:

The president of Notre Dame is not subservient to the bishop of South Bend…that’s not how this works.

.

Religious Order priests assigned to work in a diocese ARE subservient to the Bishop.

Fr. Jenkins meets that criteria Frommi.

 

[frommi]

Brendan:

Religious Order priests assigned to work in a diocese ARE subservient to the Bishop.

Fr. Jenkins meets that criteria Frommi.

Universities are certainly in different situations Brendan.

And I find it kind of humorous that when a religious order priest was accused of sexual abuse, most folks say things defending the bishops like “order priests are accountable to a provincial, not a local bishop”…apparently when the bishop wants control he can exert it selectively.

 

[buffalo]

frommi:

That might be the most delusional and mean spirited thing I’ve seen in these forums.

It’s certainly the least intelligent

Awww schucks! Sorry to disappoint.

 

[Brendan]

frommi:

Universities are certainly in different situations Brendan.

And I find it kind of humorous that when a religious order priest was accused of sexual abuse, most folks say things defending the bishops like “order priests are accountable to a provincial, not a local bishop”…apparently when the bishop wants control he can exert it selectively.

Apples and Oranges frommi

A bishop cannot move an religious order priest who he has accepted into his diocese without the involvment of the Superior.

But that is not what we are talking about here.

A religious order priest operating in a diocese is under the authority of the Ordinary. That obedience does not depend on the particular ministry of the priest.

If you think there is an exception for University heads, can you quote me the Canon on the subject, or perhaps from *Ex Corde Ecclesiae * .

I would honestly like to hear your source the claim that a priest would be exempt from obedience if they happen to be University presidents.

 

[frommi]

Brendan:

Apples and Oranges frommi

A bishop cannot move an religious order priest who he has accepted into his diocese without the involvment of the Superior.

But that is not what we are talking about here.

A religious order priest operating in a diocese is under the authority of the Ordinary. That obedience does not depend on the particular ministry of the priest.

If you think there is an exception for University heads, can you quote me the Canon on the subject, or perhaps from *Ex Corde Ecclesiae * .

I would honestly like to hear your source the claim that a priest would be exempt from obedience if they happen to be University presidents.

Ex Corde deals specifically with the teaching of theology…not the administration of universities.

For example, DePaul University has no theology department, therefore they have no bind under “Ex Corde”.

Is exempt perhaps too strong a word? Yes…it probably is.

But a priest acting as president of a university is not exercising a ministerial or sacramental function that would fall under anything to do with the local ordinary.

We need to separate the office of president from the exercise of priestly ministry.

The president of a university the diocese doesn’t own does not fall in the Bishop’s chain of command.

The priest falls under the bishop by virtue of holy orders, but only for those things that come about due to orders.

 

[Brendan]

frommi:

.

But a priest acting as president of a university is not exercising a ministerial or sacramental function that would fall under anything to do with the local ordinary.

The priest falls under the bishop by virtue of holy orders, but only for those things that come about due to orders.

Where in Canon Law is that Frommi?

Where does it say that that priestly obedience is restricted to only minsterial and sacramental functions?

 

[msproule]

CIC Can. 806 §1. The diocesan bishop has the right to watch over and visit the Catholic schools in his territory, even those which members of religious institutes have founded or direct. He also issues prescripts which pertain to the general regulation of Catholic schools; these prescripts are valid also for schools which these religious direct, without prejudice, however, to their autonomy regarding the internal direction of their schools.

 

[oat_soda]

He also issues prescripts which pertain to the general regulation of Catholic schools; these prescripts are valid also for schools which these religious direct, without prejudice, however, to their autonomy regarding the internal direction of their schools.

this still leaves a lot open to interpetation. does this mean that catholic schools must obey the local bishop? or does it mean that the bishop has the right to issue prescripts, regaurdless if they are heeded or not. they will find wiggle room under thier autonomy regarding the internal direction of their school. it is almost if you need the pope to interpret this stuff because it was intentionally written very open, like many VII documents.

 

[frommi]

Brendan:

Where in Canon Law is that Frommi?

Where does it say that that priestly obedience is restricted to only minsterial and sacramental functions?

Where does it say it doesn’t?

How much can a Bishop actually regulate Brendan?

I suppose it could become ‘prohibited’ for a priest to hold any secular office…be it univerisity president or dog catcher…

But again…

What is the ordinary authority of the president of a university? That authority is not subject to the bishop.

Another example…

The University of St. Thomas is owned and operated by the archdiocese of St. Paul…so the president of that university is under the direct authority of the local ordinary, regardless of who is in that job.

This is different than Notre Dame…which does not have a president that is subservient to the local ordinary by virtue of being a school founded by a religious order.

 

[buffalo]

frommi:

Where does it say it doesn’t?

How much can a Bishop actually regulate Brendan?

I suppose it could become ‘prohibited’ for a priest to hold any secular office…be it univerisity president or dog catcher…

But again…

What is the ordinary authority of the president of a university? That authority is not subject to the bishop.

Another example…

The University of St. Thomas is owned and operated by the archdiocese of St. Paul…so the president of that university is under the direct authority of the local ordinary, regardless of who is in that job.

This is different than Notre Dame…which does not have a president that is subservient to the local ordinary by virtue of being a school founded by a religious order.

Well I guess the Bishops are now off the hook for the Priest abuse scandal. They have no authority.

 

[frommi]

buffalo:

Well I guess the Bishops are now off the hook for the Priest abuse scandal. They have no authority.

Right on cue…

It seems a lot of bishops have tried to take that tact…do we remember Cardinal Law describing his priests as ‘independent contractors’ who don’t really report to him?

The point I was making, again, was that priests are under the competent authority of the bishop in the exercise of their priestly functions.

Being the president of a university is not a priestly function…it certainly isn’t reserved only to priests.

 

[buffalo]

frommi:

Right on cue…

It seems a lot of bishops have tried to take that tact…do we remember Cardinal Law describing his priests as ‘independent contractors’ who don’t really report to him?

The point I was making, again, was that priests are under the competent authority of the bishop in the exercise of their priestly functions.

Being the president of a university is not a priestly function…it certainly isn’t reserved only to priests.

He was arguuing that he has no employer/employee relationship, to shield his people from the dollar liability.