Project Sycamore :: About the Project

RETURN TO PREVIOUS PAGE

Still, he concluded, he would not decide finally until all had had an opportunity to respond. There ensued months of intense debate on campus together with a barrage of alumni mail. This played out against the background of a lengthy statement by Bishop John M. D ‘Arcy deploring Notre Dame’s prior sanctioning of the play. What stood out was ardent faculty support for a policy of academic freedom so sweeping as to compel authorization of the Vagina Monologues and whatever else might fall within the emanations of such a precedent. See Notre Dame Voices.

In the wake of this protest, Father Jenkins changed his mind. In his April Closing Statement, while expressly reaffirming his view that the play “stands in opposition to Catholic teaching on human sexuality," Father Jenkins decided that its performance was an acceptable exercise of academic freedom. This decision triggered expressions of surprise and dismay by Bishop D’Arcy, prominent faculty members, and Catholic commentators, though of course it brought relief and satisfaction to the large and vocal faculty element whose insistent claims had been satisfied.

The following year the student organizers, having gotten a late start, decided to produce the play off campus. But this respite was short-lived. Two years ago the play, sponsored by three departments, was again approved and performed. Before describing what happened at the performances, we recount briefly an earlier, startling event that is described in detail in our Newsletter of February 10, 2008.

Dr. Hibbs summarizes:

Tensions over The Vagina Monologues between the Notre Dame administration and the US bishops heated up last winter. Bishop D’Arcy has been a consistent, clear, and charitable critic of Father Jenkins’ decision to allow the play....Then, last February, the bishops’ committee on doctrine, scheduled to meet on campus, moved its meeting off campus and decided not to stay at Notre Dame’s Morris Inn because of the disagreement.

He concluded, “The Vagina Monologues may be symptomatic of “an alienation of Catholic universities from the Church that is deeper than either its fondest defenders or its most adamant critics have yet been able to fathom.”

Detailed accounts were published in The Irish Rover and The South Bend Tribune, and major articles appeared in the two leading national publications Our Sunday Visitor and The National Catholic Register.

Bishop D’Arcy denounced Father Jenkins’s decision once again.
Preparations for the play continued. The play’s organizers, in selecting performance dates, were careful to avoid objection from still another quarter – parents. In a comment notable for both its candor and its colossal understatement, the Chair of a sponsoring department “noted how Junior Parents’ Weekend might be a bad weekend to have the play because ‘some parents might be offended or upset.’”

It is what happened during the performances, however, that is of most interest. We recounted the events in detail in our letter of July 10, 2008 to Father Jenkins. As we noted there, while Father Jenkins from the outset recognized the meretricious nature of the play, he approved it nonetheless on condition that the play be “brought into dialogue with Catholic tradition through panels” following each performance. Through “serious and informed discussion” of the moral issues, he declared, there could be “creative contextualization” of the play and a “constructive and fruitful dialogue with the Catholic tradition” in an “academic setting.”

But as a practical matter there was no such dialogue during the play’s three 2008 performances . The auditorium was filled to its 450-person capacity on two of the evenings and almost so on the third, but when the play ended and the panels were to begin most of the students headed for the exits. Only 60-80 were left, including cast members. To the extent there was the “serious and informed discussion” anticipated by Father Jenkins, it was directed at a largely emptied, cavernous hall. Moreover, the message to the few students who did not shun the panel discussions was that the Church’s view on the moral issues involved was simply one choice among several held by faculty members.

For example, a Notre Dame theology professor spoke dismissively of the “narrow” view of the Church that had been explained clearly and compellingly by Lisa Everettt, a Diocesan representative (and Notre Dame graduate). This was to be expected. The play is an encomium to homosexual and lesbian sex, and the professor has written in opposition to the Church’s position on that issue. “Homoeroticism,” she has declared, “is seen as wrong or unnatural because it interferes with, violates, the superior status of men.” Turning to Notre Dame, she has charged that its “administration has chosen to maintain homophobia and the rule of the fathers.” Mary Rose D’Angelo, “Common Sense,” March 1997.

Dr. Hibbs, recounting these events, concluded, “Jenkins’ hope for ‘creative contextualization has failed....Not only is the Church’s position a minority voice on panels purportedly designed to supply a Catholic commentary on the play, but the very idea of an academic setting has been publicly mocked by the fact that so few students are present for the panel discussions.”

Last year, whether some faculty discouraged students from producing the play because of the drumbeat of criticism or for some other reason, the play was not produced. Perhaps most of its student promoters graduated. Some perhaps turned their attention to another student production, “Loyal Sons & Daughters,” which we will describe in a future bulletin. It is scarcely a good trade. It is so objectionable that, though he had encouraged its composition, Father Jenkins declined to sponsor it once he saw it, even while the committee he chaired promoted it.

This respite, likely temporary, is fundamentally inconsequential. What is of lasting importance is what this sorry episode teaches about the Catholic identity of the University. The resolute resistance of the faculty to any suggestion that the play be barred from campus and the consequent acquiescence of Father Jenkins are symptoms of the secularization that has been produced by the weakening of the Catholic presence on the faculty.

RETURN TO PREVIOUS PAGE