Culture Wars logo

 

 

 

 

The Vagina Monologues at Notre Dame: Who Has the Most Famous Vagina in History?

WARNING: Contains Explicit Language

 
by E. Michael Jones

 

 

The good news is that The Vagina Monologueswas not performed on the feast of St. Valentine, as it was last year at the University of Notre Dame. The bad news is that it was performed on Ash Wednesday instead. I did not attend last year's performance. I would not have attended this year's performance if I had not been asked to do so by the parents of a Notre Dame student. My feeling was that I had said all that I had to say about Eve Ensler and The Vagina Monologues in my article on the performance at St. Mary's College. It turns out that I was wrong.

This was not apparent, however, during the first hour or so of the performance, which was pretty much done by the book-as authorized by Eve Ensler this year. So, as before, we had Catholic students faking orgasm on stage, talking about what their vaginas smell like, and chanting the word "cunt."

As I said in the first article I wrote, the idea of the play, especially as performed on college campuses across the country, is to break down the natural sexual reserve and modesty of the largely female teenage performers and audience as a prelude to colonization. It was a classic instance of sexual liberation as political control. At Catholic campuses, the point of this exercise was, if anything,clearer.

As Wilhelm Reich, the father of the sexual liberation of the '60s made clear, the chief opponent of revolution in general and sexual revolution (a term Reich coined) in particular was the Catholic Church. As a Communist and Freudian revolutionary in both Vienna and Berlin in the 1930s, Reich quickly learned that it was pointless to debate things like the existence of God with seminarians.

Reich, however, also learned that if those same seminarians could be involved in sexual activity, the idea of God simply "evaporated" from their minds. The point then was to break down Catholic political resistance by changing their sexual behavior and the first step in changing their sexual behavior involved breaking their sense of modesty, which, according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusingto unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves towards them, in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity."

The performance of The Vagina Monologues at Notre Dame, in other words, is completely consistent with the strategy of sexual revolution that has completely devastated the Catholic Church and this country over the past forty years. The recent priest sex scandals were a media-orchestrated campaign to marginalize the Church even further.

(As part of the neoconservative media offensive to undermine the Popes efforts to avoid a war with Iraqi, Rod Dreher of The National Review brought up the recent sexscandals: "it is appalling" he wrote "to watch President Bush, who has responsibility for safeguarding 280 million of us from terrorists and terror states, being lectured on his duties in that regard by a church that would not even protect children from its own rogue priests and the bishops who enabled them.")

Those scandals followed on the heels of the heart of the campaign, which involved the sexualization of the culture. The sexualization of the Catholic clergy, something which I have documented in detail in Libidio Dominandi, followed naturally and, in a sense, automatically from the sexualization of the culture, especially since the clergy and institutions like the Universityof Notre Dame were so eager to assimilate to the newly sexualized America by the '60s.

The sexualization of the University of Notre Dame occurred at around the same time that the sexualizing of the American culture took place. In many ways, they were one and thesame thing. In late 1962, George Shuster, acting as the agent of the Theodore Hesburgh, reached an agreement With John D. Rockefeller 3rd's Population Council to fund a series of secret conferences, whose purpose was' undermine the Church's teaching on contraception.

In the Spring of '65 thetheologians who had been invited to the Rockefeller-sponsored conference issued a statement in which they claimed that they no longer found the Church's traditional teaching persuasive. Four months later Father Hesburgh arranged a private audience between his benefactor, John D. Rockefeller, 3rd, and Pope Paul VI, during which Rockefeller volunteered to write the pope's birth control encyclical for him. The papal birth control commission was packed with people connected with Notre Dame who were deliberating on the Churchteaching on contraception and simultaneously receiving money from the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. Don Barrett, then a member of Notre Dan's sociology department, applied for a grant from the Population Council, which in turn transferred it to the Ford Foundation, which in turn gave him $60000, while he was on the papal birth control commission, a classic instance of conflict of interest. Pat and Patti Crowley, also connected with Notre Dame and also on the papal birth control commission, toured Italy holding conferences promoting contraception with Rockefeller money when Humanae Vitae was issued in the summer of 1968.

Another signer of the above-mentioned statement against the Church's position on contraception was Thomas P. Carney. In 1967 Carney was appointed to the Notre Dame board of trustees; in 1969, he was given an honorary degree; in May of 1971 he was awarded the Edward Frederick Sorin Award, the highest award granted by the Notre Dame Alumni Association. At the crucial period in the '60s when Hesburgh was collaborating with John D. Rockefeller, 3rd, Carney was vice-president in charge of research and development for G. D. Searle, one of America's major pharmaceutical firms and a, if not the, leading producer of birth control pills.

Notre Dame, in other words, has played a leading role in the sexualization of American Catholics, and Father Hesburgh has made a career of doing the bidding of the traditional enemies of American Catholics by implementing their social engineering schemes at Notre Dame. Father Hesburgh was rewarded for his willingness to engage in this subversion of Catholic interests by being appointed to the board of the Rockefeller Foundation as well as to the Harvard board of overseers. He has also been granted literally hundreds of honorary degrees, as well as the Meiklejohn Award for academic freedom by the AAUP. Father Hesburgh, in other words, made a career out of promoting the sexualization of Catholic culture through the University of Notre Dame.

The sexualization of Catholic culture means of course the weakening of Catholic political power. And Hesburgh presided over its decline for the latter part of his tenure as president at Notre Dame. From the late '50s to the early'70s, Father Hesburgh made a point of licking the boots of the declining WASP establishment and the boots of the Rockefellers in particular.

By the time both John D and Nelson Rockefeller died in 1978, the federal government had taken over the agenda of the big three foundations and began administering that agenda with government money. Notre Dame then followed government mandates as slavishly as Hesburgh had once followed the whims of the Rockefellers.

In this regard, nothing has changed at Notre Dame. Beginning with Father Hesburgh's tenure as president, the University of Notre Dame was always an engine of Catholic assimilation in America, as that assimilation was defined by the WASP ruling class and other traditional enemies of Catholic interests. Notre Dame's definition of academic freedom has traditionally meant defiance of the Vatican, as Hesburgh makes clear in his autobiography God, Country, Notre Dame. That defiance involves an on-going refusal to sign Ex Corde Ecclesiae, the Vatican's document on Catholic higher education.

That defiance of Rome has always been combined with slavish implementation of whatever governmental regulation got imposed on Notre Dame, no matter whether or how much it contradicted what they called the Catholic character of the university. The theologians at Notre Dame have no canonical mandate to teach Catholic theology and no intention of implementing Canon 812 of the Code of Canon Law, but the athletics department follows every jot and tittle of Title IX.

So the slavish willingness to collaborate with the Rockefellers, the foundations and the federal educational establishment to the detriment of Catholic interests has been a constant there for the past 40 years. The only thing that has changed is the terms of engagement.

MORAL CORRUPTION

The most recent performance of The Vagina Monologues indicates that the University is willing to maintain that commitment. If the dominant culture mandates moral corruption, Notre Dame will implement that mandate among its Catholic students. To do anything different would jeopardize the concordat which Father Hesburgh has hammered out with the regime over the past 40 years, a concordat which his successor, Rev. Edward A. Malloy, seems grimly determined to continue.

The performance of this play, in other words, does not signal a new departure from traditional policies. The performance of The Vagina Monologues on campus is only the logical outcome of the path which Notre Dame embarked upon 40 years ago. In staging The Vagina Monologues, Notre Dame has shown a determination to persist in the subversion which Father Hesburgh pioneered.

Notre Dame's persistence in accommodating performances of The Vagina Monologues makes St. Mary's College the Holy Cross, nun's establishment across the street, look pale by comparison: When St. Mary's alumnae became aware of the content of The Vagina Monologues (largely because of the article I wrote on it) they exerted enough pressure on St. Mary's President Marilu Eldred to force her to cancel subsequent performances. (Elred, a former nun who left her order in 1969, recently announced her decision to retire after a six-year tenure as president.)

It is, by now, obvious that this is not going to happen at Notre Dame, in spite of the fact that the pressure to cancel has increased there to way beyond what was brought to bear at St. Mary's. When the Gender Studies and Film, Television and Theater departments announced they were planning to sponsor a performance of The Vagina Monologues in February 2002, the announcement engendered large scale protests from parents. Father Malloy responded by claiming that having students chant the word "cunt" and fake orgasms on-stage was "consistent with our Catholic heritage." His view was deeply dualistic. Notre Dame, he wrote,

must find ways of fully and continuously promoting our Catholic heritage while at the same time adhering to the principals [sic] of inquiry which undergird academic life, including academic freedom. Without a continual commitment to our Catholic tradition, we will not be Catholic in any meaningful way. Without adherence to academic canons, we will not be a true university recognized as such in any meaningful way (Letter from Rev. Edward A. Malloy, CSC to parents 2/02).

In other words, the more Catholic Notre Dame becomes the less academic it is. Conversely, the more academic, the less Catholic it is. Given this view of Catholic education, Father Malloy becomes in effect a pedagogical Alan Greenspan, raising Catholic interest rates when the university gets too academic and doing the opposite when it becomes too Catholic. The net result is that Malloy is pursuing a policy that is simultaneously anti-Catholic and anti-academic.

So, instead of simply prohibiting a production which is an assault, not on the Catholic faith but on common decency, a production that would be prohibited at open mike nights at Irish pubs, Malloy, "in keeping with our mission" allows the Notre Dame coeds to talk about how their cunts smell, and ostensibly redeems that exercise in obscenity by allowing

a panel discussion and forum [which] followed each production to allow students and faculty to examine the experiences of those students who attended. Such interactions allow students to engage the controversial topics of the day in the context of our distinct, intellectual, religious and moral traditions. While there are elements of this production which are offensive because they contravene positions of the Catholic Church, a responsible academic setting is precisely the place where controversial topics should be examined and discussed.

The elements of The Vagina Monologue which Malloy refuses to specify are not offensive "because they contravene positions of the Catholic Church" – the Catholic Church has no position on the smell of Notre Dame coeds' cunts – they are offensive because they are deliberate and calculated violation of common decency, a violation which is not redeemed or eliminated by discussions in "a responsible academic setting" after the fact.

The purpose of The Vagina Monologues is the desensitization of Notre Dame students, in other words, the subversion of their sense of modesty as a prelude to the subversion of their morals. The Vagina Monologues is not art; it is not scholarship; it is not even discourse; it is social engineering.

Assuming that a discussion after the fact will somehow ameliorate its offensiveness is deeply delusional. It's like saying that it's okay to toss the psychic and moral equivalent of a grenade into a crowded, classroom as long as there is a panel discussion afterward. Malloy himself said the play was offensive, No discussion is going to change that fact.

The students in this regard are smarter than Father Malloy. They know that there is nothing to discuss. Campus Vagina coordinator Lindsey Horvath announced that a discussion would follow the performance I attended. After the performance, she announced again that there would be time for discussion and questions. When the hall was emptying out, she asked, "Doesn't anybody have any questions? The answer is no. There is nothing to discuss. The students were about as capable of discussing their participation in The Vagina Monologues as a rat in a maze would be capable of discussing why it got a food pellet rather than an electric shock.

The Vagina Monologues is not something that students study; it is something that is done to students to produce behavioral and psychic effects. Its main purpose is to break down their modesty and corrupt their morals. The students were being acted upon (even if by other students) in a way that was calculated to modify their behavior, not clarify their thought. If anything, the play was an attempt to short-circuit the thinking process. It was a deliberate attempt to subvert reason by shock and arousal of passion.

The Vagina Monologues involves a violation of academic norms because it involves a violation of human norms. It is not meant to facilitate the discovery of the truth; it is a deliberate attempt to thwart that discovery by either the arousal of passion or the creation of the numbed shock which is the most logical Outcome of the direct and intentional violation of human decency.

The Vagina Monologues, in other words, is not academic discourse. It is social engineering. It is the orchestration of obscenity for political purposes. As social engineering, The Vagina Monologues has more in common with the Tuskeegee Syphilis experiments than the performance of a play by Shakespeare. As such, it has no place in any public forum, much less at a university, much less at a Catholic university.

The Vagina Monologues is deliberately obscene. That means in the etymological sense of the word that it is something that should not take place on stage. By allowing it to appear on stage, Notre Dame is enabling not education but rather the social engineering of its students. It is allowing outside agents to come in and deliberately offend their modesty and subvert their morals.

The fact that many Gender Studies students were required to attend this obscene performance only underscores its intrinsically coercive nature. Father Malloy is either too stupid to see this, or he has been so cowed by the canons of "academic" respectability that he lacks the courage to stop something that any reasonable person can see is wrong.

Not surprisingly, Malloy's response satisfied no one. As a result, parents and other concerned individuals started writing to the Most Rev. John M. D'Arcy, ordinary of the diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, in which the university is located. In a letter dated February 25, 2002, which is to say the same day that The Vagina Monologues was performed on campus last year, D'Arcy told former CSC provincial Richard Warner that he had "received phone calls and letters from people around the country, and parents of students at Notre Dame sharing their concern with me."

D'Arcy explained to Warner that he was "strenuously against the performance of this play." but, unfortunately, he was either unwilling or unable to stop it. All the local bishop felt that he could do was urge the angry parents "to write to your and to other priests/leaders at Notre Dame." D'Arcy was going to write a letter himself, but in telling the parents this, he added that "I also told them that [Notre Dame] was a great Catholic university and that their children would grow in faith there."

D'Arcy's position was weak for a number of reasons. Having been appointed bishop to bring Notre Dame back to the Catholic Church, he eventually adopted the Notre Dame position, including an endorsement of their rejection of Ex Corde Ecclesiae. Once his position became known, he lost all leverage with the university. He was also handicapped by adopting Malloy's position on the performance, which is to say, that the performance could be redeemed if it were followed by a discussion, during which someone would "present the church's teaching on sexuality and on the dignity of women, and to respectfully present a voice of opposition to the view of sexuality divorced from love and commitment and the sacrament of matrimony as presented in this play."

Again, no discussion is going to change the fact that the play is obscene, nor is a discussion going to change the fact that impressionable students have been exposed to the corrosive effects of this obscenity on their modesty and morals under Catholic auspices.

One year after D'Arcy's anguished but ultimately ineffectual handwringing letter, the play was put on again. The 2003 version which was authorized by Eve Ensler was pretty much the same as the version I had seen at St. Mary's College a few years before. The 13 year old who got molested by a lesbian is now 16, but no note of condemnation has intruded into this pornographic paean to child molestation, In order to make a stab at being fair to heterosexuals, Ensler has included a monologue which "was based on an interview with a woman who had a good experience with a man."

Lindsey Horvath reads the line with a straight face and seems surprised when it elicits a laugh from the crowd. The laughter over the fact that one woman "had a good experience with a man" highlights by contrast the otherwise unremittingly lesbian atmosphere of the other monologues. Everything in the Monologues is suffused with a homoerotic glow. Whatever is not intended to shock is intended to arouse. That includes the descriptions of child molestation and the brutal descriptions of rape as well. Heterosexual sex is rape in the Monologues, but rape is portrayed in a way that lesbian sadists would find sexually arousing. Since most of those attending were not lesbians, they can honestly say that they did not find these scenes arousing, but that does not change the intention informing them.

Since the purpose of the Monologues is transgression, they have to change with time, seeking new boundaries to violate. In keeping with that intention, there was something new added this year. This year the boys got to talk dirty too. Horvath later explained that the new wrinkle was in response to Eve Ensler's challenge to have the students themselves make up their own monologues, giving their explanation of what a world without violence to women could look like.

It turns out that that world looks a lot like a fraternity smoker in which callow undergraduates engage in smutty talk.

Notre Dame Student David Buckley pulled off his shirt revealing a large V painted on his chest and claimed to be the Vagina Avenger, a comic book hero portrayed by a teenager who talked a lot about dildoes and chocolate sauce and who obviously got his ideas of human sexuality from pornographic websites.

Tom Sutton began his monologue by telling the girls in the audience that they shouldn't be shy in asking him to "eat them out." He concluded his monologue with a particularly outrageous obscenity which I could not understand (advancing age has caused hearing loss evidently) but which elicited howls of high-pitched laughter from the girls in the audience.

Mike Romano delivered the most serious and, as a result, the most outrageous monologue of all three male undergrads. He began by wondering whether it was appropriate to have a play like the monologues performed at a university "dedicated to Our Lady;' and concluded that it was because "the Blessed Mother had one of the most famous vaginas in vagina history because nothing went in and something came out."

Romano's comments were crude, outrageous and blasphemous. In other /words, they were completely in keeping with the rest of the play. They did, however, add a number of totally new elements to the play. To begin with, the female performers were all reading lines carefully vetted by Eve Ensler, lines that were vetted with particular political effects in mind. Opening up the writing of the play to students, especially male students, adds a whole new dimension to the play.

MORE CORRUPTION

First of all, the change involves the students more deeply in their own moral degradation. Sexual liberation has always been the most effective form of political control because the person who is to be controlled imposes it on himself. This, of course, entails a higher degree of moral corruption, which means, in this instance, that Notre Dame is allowing the Ensler movement even more intimate access to the Notre Dame students' psyches.

If Father Malloy found last year's play offensive, one wonders how he would feel about Mr. Romano's monologue on the Blessed Mother's vagina. Have we gone over the line allowed by academic freedom yet, Father Malloy? If not, would you please explain the line to us and where it has been drawn at Notre Dame? If next year's performance involves ritual temple prostitution, will Notre Dame undergraduates be allowed to perform that on the stage of Washington Hall? What about human sacrifice the year after that?

What about the students who involve themselves in this public self-degradation? Is it too far-fetched to imagine that someday perhaps 10 or 20 years down the road, one of these young men or women might wake up one day and feel ashamed of what he or she has done? How will they view the university then? Probably the way many baby-boomer alumni, who came to campus during the '60s and '70s expecting a Catholic education and found free love instead, view it now, which is to say, as instrumental in their moral degradation.

Secondly, allowing randy undergraduate males to have their say makes explicit what has always been just beneath the surface in any performance of The Vagina Monologues, namely the fact that the deliberate destruction of modesty is something which is going to make violence against women more likely not less likely. Mr. Buckley, playing the Vagina Avenger, declared his willingness to pleasure vaginas wherever possible.

Is it too far-fetched to think he or some of the people whose modesty was assaulted by his speech might insist on this as a right at some point?

Modesty is the first defense against the arousal of passion; it facilitates rational moral control of sexual impulse, but modesty was deliberately violated and ridiculed by the people putting on the play.

Ergo, more uncontrolled passion. Ergo, more violence against the weaker sex. Which brings us to the real message of the play, which came out in the monologue "My Short Skirt," which is about being deliberately sexually provocative and at the same time denying that fact and using it against its victims.

The Vagina Monologues is a perfect mirror of the culture of political control through sexual arousal. The fact that it was performed at Notre Dame means that Notre Dame accepts its role as an agent of the government-sponsored sexualization of American Catholics. This goes to the heart of Hesburgh's deal with the Rockefellers. In exchange for large amounts of money from foundations and the federal government, Hesburgh agreed to turn Notre Dame into an instrument of social engineering, whose purpose is to sexualize America's Catholics and, therefore, weaken them politically.

Notre Dame cannot object to a performance of The Vagina Monologues, no matter how crude and blasphemous it becomes, because they have accepted their role as the instrument which is to bring about the sexualization of America's Catholics. Notre Dame, in other words, is getting paid by the government to engage in the social engineering of Catholics, and since sexual liberation is the prime form of social engineering, The Vagina Monologues will continue to be performed on campus, no matter how offensive or blasphemous it becomes. To ban the play would call their allegiance to the regime into question.

Around 15 students, most of whom had been in the performance, showed up at the discussion, which finally took place two days after the performance I had attended. In an Email to a concerned parent, Lindsey Horvath said that she was having a hard time finding students who were opposed to the production. As a result, she opened the discussion by saying that she was going to present both sides. But what did that mean? Was she going to take the pro-violence against women position?

Before we go any further, we have to answer Bishop D'Arcy's question. If His Excellency is still wondering if some faculty member, or dean, or member of campus ministry or the theology department, in short, if anyone other than undergraduates were present at the discussion "to present the church's teaching on sexuality and on the dignity of women, and to respectfully present in a voice of opposition to the view of sexuality divorced from love and commitment and the sacrament of matrimony as presented in this play," the answer is no. The kids were pretty much on their own in figuring out how the deliberately smutty talk of The Vagina Monologues fit into Notre Dame's Catholic mission. This was probably a blessing in disguise.

No faculty member showed up even though Lindsey went through a long list of those who were invited, and they didn't show up probably because they correctly understood that it would have been an act of supererogation. It would have not served their careers, the main consideration. It would have not served the interests of the undergrads.

It would not have served the cause of truth either. If some bulldyke from the gender studies program, the program which sponsored the performance, had showed up for the discussion, it is unlikely that she would have "presented the church's teaching on sexuality and the dignity of women" because conveying those teachings is not the purpose of gender studies programs.

So, as I said, the kids were on their own. And they did their best, which isn't saying much. Mike Romano, the author of the Blessed-Mother-has-the-most-famous-vagina-in-history monologue was there, and both he and Jared Rizzi, another performer, expanded on the same themes they sketched out in their performance. Notre Dame, according to Rizzi, who did a skit on his mother, "was the perfect place" to put on a performance of The Vagina Monologues because both Eve Ensler and the Catholic Church were essentially espousing the same thing. After Rizzi got some negative feedback about "reducing women to just a vagina" he "touched that person on the forehead" mentioned the fact that it was Ash Wednesday and that they were both wearing ashes and then said, "we are dust."

According to Rizzi's account, The Vagina Monologues is not only completely compatible with Catholicism; it gets to the heart of what Notre Dame is all about as a faith community. Notre Dame, in other words, is a faith community where people can talk about their (or other people's) vaginas in a non-judgmental, non-threatening way. To think otherwise would be to imply that the Catholic Church condoned violence against women, an unthinkable concept.

Listening to Rizzi was enough to make a grown man cry. The net result of this young man's "Catholic" education is that he has redefined Catholicism as being synonymous with obscenity. We have here, in other words, a college student who can't read a text and who doesn't understand his own faith, being encouraged by the university to stand up in front of his peers and take part in a smutty play. But, on the brighter side, the fact that he did not understand the purpose of the play meant that he projected Catholic categories onto it. Eve Ensler's assault on his modesty simply got bogged down in the quagmire of his residual ethnic Catholicism, a point I will discuss further.

I then brought up the fact that the play was a deliberate assault on modesty and, therefore, something which made violence against women more likely. Mr. Rizzi dismissed the possibility out f hand, but the word "modesty" set off a reaction from three students on the other side of the room, who, it turns out, were secret papalist Catholics. They took the modesty ball and dribbled it up and down the court for a while eliciting positive remarks from some of the other girls in the room. At one point, one of the undercover papalists offered to give the Vagina Monologuers tracts by the pope on the theology of the body.

"The pope is really cool," he said.

This did not elicit howls of protest from the students in attendance, something which might have happened if faculty commissars from the gender studies program had been in attendance. So - pace, your Excellency - it's better that nobody over the age of 21 showed up for the discussion. The students may be brainwashed, they may be incapable of reading a text and coming up with the meaning of the words on the page in front of them, but at least they are not being paid as government agents of sexual subversion, the job description of the average gender studies professor.

One of the undercover papalist students then went on to talk about the unsavory connection between The Vagina Monologues and Planned Parenthood. This led to a discussion of abortion, and that led to the realization on my part, at least - that all of the students attending the discussion - whether Vagina Monologuers or undercover papalists - were against abortion. Lindsey Horvath then announced to everyone present that she was prolife and that she made sure that none of the money which got raised went to Planned Parenthood or to promote abortion.

After the discussion was over, Lindsey came over to me and made even more startling personal revelations. Not only was she prolife, she was also heterosexual and - I am not exaggerating here - against contraception!

I hope this article doesn't get her in trouble with the gender studies program. After listening to her talk, I found myself wondering what Eve Ensler would have to say about her beliefs. Probably that she had failed in her mission to corrupt Lindsey's morals. There is great hope in this. If the big Vagina lady on campus feels this way, how must the accounting majors who avoided the play feel? They probably feel the way their parents taught them to feel in spite of the social engineering that four years at Notre Dame inflicts upon them. In other words, Lindsey Horvath is a tribute to the primacy of ethnos and family over "education"' which has become a euphemism for social engineering.

Catholics still have this residual "ethnic" appreciation of certain sexual truths in spite of all the efforts to engineer it out of them. The discussion of The Vagina Monologues showed that, in spite of all of Notre Dame's efforts to the contrary, some residual lump of unmeltable prolife Catholic ethnicity still remains in the hearts of that university's beleaguered and abused students. Lindsey can put on her sexy red dress and walk up to the mike and talk dirty in Washington Hall, but she's still Catholic in some unmeltably ethnic sense of the word after all. That's the good news. The bad news is that she doesn't know her left hand from her right. The bad news is that she, like the rest of her peers at Notre Dame, is still a sheep without a shepherd, and it looks as if she will remain that way for the foreseeable future.CW

 

E. Michael Jones is the editor of Culture Wars.

This article was published in the April 2003 issue of Culture Wars.

Share |

Is Notre Dame Still Catholic? by E. Michael Jones. Revised Second Edition. When Notre Dame's president, John Jenkins, CSC, announced that the university planned to give Pres. Barack Obama an honorary doctorate, a storm of protest erupted. Over 250,000 people signed a petition condemning Notre Dame’s action, and Bishop Thomas J. Olmstead of Phoenix called it a “public act of disobedience” and a “grave mistake.” Beginning in the mid-1980s, Fidelity (and more recently, Culture Wars) published a series on Notre Dame that rocked the Catholic world. This newly updated and expanded book collects 25 years of investigative journalism. An extensive dossier of what went wrong at Notre Dame, this book chronicles the demise of Catholic education, Catholic culture, and Catholic political power in America. $27 + S&H, Paperback. [When ordering for foreign shipement, price will appear higher to offset increased shipping costs.] Read Reviews


| Home | Books | ebooks | DVDs/CDs | Subscribe | Events | Donate |


Culture Wars • 206 Marquette Avenue • South Bend, IN 46617 • Tel: (574) 289-9786 • Fax: (574) 289-1461
Copyright