Bishop D'Arcy says Notre Dame must answer for honoring Obama

Fort Wayne, Ind., Aug 25, 2009 / 11:35 am (CNA).- Bishop John M. D'Arcy, whose diocese encompasses the University of Notre Dame, is not letting the issues raised by the university's honoring of President Obama lie dormant. Instead, the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend has penned a poignant article for the upcoming edition of America magazine that calls on the renowned university to evaluate the consequences of its failure to respect the authority of the bishops.

In an article that will be the cover story of the Jesuit-run America magazine on August 31, bishop D'Arcy writes that "as summer plays itself out on the beautiful campus by the lake where the young Holy Cross priest, Edward Sorin, C.S.C., pitched his camp 177 years ago and began his great adventure, we must clarify the situation that so sundered the church last spring: What it is all about and what it is not about."

According to the bishop, who had asked Notre Dame's president, Fr. John Jenkins, not to honor Obama, "it is not about President Obama... It is not about Democrats versus Republican... It is not about whether it is appropriate for the president of the United States to speak at Notre Dame or any great Catholic university on the pressing issues of the day."

The response of the faithful, Bishop D'Arcy writes, "is not about what this journal [America magazine] called 'sectarian Catholicism.' Rather, the response of the faithful derives directly from the Gospel."

The real question posed by the situation is whether or not a Catholic university has a responsibility to give a public witness to the faith, D'Arcy states. "If not, what is the meaning of a life of faith? And how can a Catholic institution expect its students to live by faith in the difficult decisions that will confront them in a culture often opposed to the Gospel?" he wonders.

"In its decision to give its highest honor to a president who has repeatedly opposed even the smallest legal protection of the child in the womb, did Notre Dame surrender the responsibility that Pope Benedict believes Catholic universities have to give public witness to the truths revealed by God and taught by the church?" the bishop also asks.

Bishop D'Arcy then takes Notre Dame to task for its multi-year sponsorship of the play "The Vagina Monologues."

"Although he spoke eloquently about the importance of dialogue with the president of the United States, the president of Notre Dame chose not to dialogue with his bishop on these two matters, both pastoral and both with serious ramifications for the care of souls, which is the core responsibility of the local bishop," he says.

"Both decisions," Bishop D'Arcy reveals, "were shared with me after they were made and, in the case of the honorary degree, after President Obama had accepted."

Noting that he has "never interfered in the internal governance of Notre Dame or any other institution of higher learning within the diocese," D'Arcy explains that "the diocesan bishop must ask whether a Catholic institution compromises its obligation to give public witness by placing prestige over truth."

"The failure to dialogue with the bishop brings a second series of questions," he says.

"What is the relationship of the Catholic university to the local bishop? No relationship? Someone who occasionally offers Mass on campus? Someone who sits on the platform at graduation?"

"Or is the bishop the teacher in the diocese, responsible for souls, including the souls of students--in this case, the students at Notre Dame? Does the responsibility of the bishop to teach, to govern and to sanctify end at the gate of the university?"

"In the spirit of Ex Corde Ecclesiae," he says, "I am proposing these questions for the university."

Bishop D'Arcy then points to the strong spiritual life of many of the faculty members and students at the university, and acknowledges that "the theology department has grown in academic excellence over the years, strengthened by the successful recruiting of professors outstanding in scholarship, in their knowledge of the tradition and in their own living of the Catholic faith."

"Yet," he adds, "the questions about the relationship of the university as a whole to the church still stand, and what happened on campus leading up to and during the graduation is significant for the present debate about Catholic higher education."

Regarding the large number of students and faculty opposed to Obama's commencement address and honoring, the bishop says that America magazine "and others in the media, Catholic and secular, reporting from afar, failed to make a distinction between the extremists on the one hand, and students and those who joined in the last 48 hours before graduation. This latter group [ND Response] responded with prayer and substantive disagreement. They cooperated with university authorities."

"In this time of crisis at the university," he notes, "these students and professors, with the instinct of faith, turned to the bishop for guidance, encouragement and prayer."

Although he had originally intended to stay away from the graduation ceremony, Bishop D'Arcy writes that "As graduation drew near, I knew I should be with the students. It was only right that the bishop be with them, for they were on the side of truth, and their demonstration was disciplined, rooted in prayer and substantive."

Bishop D'Arcy also takes aim at the university's board of trustees for saying "nothing" when they met in April for their long-scheduled spring meeting.

"When the meeting was completed, they made no statement and gave no advice. In an age when transparency is urged as a way of life on and off campus, they chose not to enter the conversation going on all around them and shaking the university to its roots," he says.

What the board must do is "take up its responsibility afresh, with appropriate study and prayer… with greater seriousness and in a truly Catholic spirit," the bishop urges.

D'Arcy concludes his article by posing some key questions to Notre Dame "and to other Catholic universities."

Bishop D'Arcy asks:

"Do you consider it a responsibility in your public statements, in your life as a university and in your actions, including your public awards, to give witness to the Catholic faith in all its fullness?

"What is your relationship to the church and, specifically, to the local bishop and his pastoral authority as defined by the Second Vatican Council?

"Finally, a more fundamental question: Where will the great Catholic universities search for a guiding light in the years ahead? Will it be the Land O'Lakes Statement or Ex Corde Ecclesiae?"

The Land O'Lakes Statement was signed in July 1967 by a group of Catholic educators led by then University of Notre Dame president Fr. Theodore Hesburgh. The famous Catholic historian Philip Gleason characterized the statement as a "declaration of independence from the hierarchy," adding that it divorced the Catholic university from the life of faith and set in motion the decline in Catholic identity of several major institutions of higher education.

Bishop D'Arcy describes the statement as coming "from a frantic time, with finances as the driving force. Its understanding of freedom is defensive, absolutist and narrow. It never mentions Christ and barely mentions the truth."

"The second text, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, speaks constantly of truth and the pursuit of truth. It speaks of freedom in the broader, Catholic philosophical and theological tradition, as linked to the common good, to the rights of others and always subject to truth."

"On these three questions, I respectfully submit, rests the future of Catholic higher education in this country and so much else," Bishop D'Arcy finishes.

Father Jenkins Should Resign

Dear Father Jenkins:

I have read the excerpted letter from Bishop D’Arcy and it brought tears to my eyes. It is the appeal of a Shepherd of the Church to one of his flock that has gone astray. In it he points out that if there was any question of right interpretation of Catholic doctrine, the local bishop is the authority to resolve it whether you like him or not.

Further, the good bishop points out that your letter to the trustees of Notre Dame relies on the opinions of theologians. And you sought them to the exclusion of your own bishop. Some are likewise from apostate Catholic colleges or universities. Their opinions are not only untrustworthy, they are irrelevant. This is like looking out over a crowd for an opinion and only picking out your friends.

Pointing to the majority of young people in your care that also support the invitation of President Obama actually strengthens Bishop D’Arcy’s argument. As a Catholic leader, you are obligated to tell the truth, to lead young people, to evangelize, whether in the majority and whether in agreement with power or not. By leading these young people to the conclusion that disobedience to the local bishop is acceptable, you teach falsehood and heresy. You do so at great risk to yourself, your very immortal soul.

You have made a grave miscalculation and in so doing have scandalized the little ones in your care, especially those who hold fast to Christ’s words and commands in a culture increasingly hostile to His message. Your reasoning is twisted and false and illogical. A child could see through it. You wish to gain the personal prestige that a presidential visit brings as well as the economic windfall government grants will surely bring because you have chosen to suffer for your messiah, Barack Obama. You took the easy road.

I call on you to resign and to apologize to your students, the faculty, the trustees, your order and most of all to the bishop, that shepherd who teaches in the person of Christ.

I will continue to pray for you, for Notre Dame and for our country.

In Christ,

Steve

Bishop D'Arcy: "Terrible Breach" Caused by Scandal at Notre Dame 'Cannot Be Allowed to Continue

Note: The author of this blog is often critical of the bishops for not enforcing canons that address dissenting Catholic colleges and politicians. Often the front line of the battle against evil, pro-life leaders and students, are thrown under the bus to gain money, power and prestige. In the letter, below, the local bishop has taken a courageous stand and has thrown down the gauntlet. Father Jenkins must repent or resign and find refuge for contemplative prayer in a monastery somewhere where he can no longer scandalize the young people in his charge and disgrace the finest Catholic University in America. This bishop has gained our support and respect.

Bishop D'Arcy: 'Terrible Breach' Caused by Scandal at Notre Dame 'Cannot Be Allowed to Continue'

Bishop John M. D'Arcy of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese, in which the University of Notre Dame is located, has publicly released key points from a letter correcting Notre Dame President Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., who defended the decision to honor President Barack Obama at commencement on May 17, 2009. The bishop wrote that the "terrible breach" which has opened up between Notre Dame and the Church "cannot be allowed to continue."

"How much more evidence does Notre Dame need to understand that they have made a tragic mistake in honoring President Obama?" said Patrick Reilly, president of The Cardinal Newman Society, whose petition atNotreDameScandal.com has surpassed 330,000 signers. "Catholics nationwide are praying that Father Jenkins will submit to the rightful authority of Notre Dame's bishop and end this scandal immediately."

Notably, Bishop D'Arcy corrected Father Jenkins' contention that the 2004 USCCB document "Catholics in Political Life," which asks Catholic institutions not to honor pro-abortion leaders, does not apply to the decision to honor President Obama at commencement. Father Jenkins has said that the policy applies only to Catholic honorees, and that because Notre Dame does not support President Obama's policies on abortion and stem cell research, the honor poses no conflict for a Catholic university.

"I consider it now settled," wrote Bishop D’Arcy, "that the USCCB document, 'Catholics in Public Life,' does indeed apply in this matter."

Bishop D'Arcy has also asked Father Jenkins to issue a retraction of the talking points he issued to the Notre Dame Board of Trustees regarding the commencement invitation to President Obama.

"The statements which Father Jenkins has made are simply wrong and give a flawed justification for his actions," said Bishop D’Arcy.

Bishop D'Arcy earlier announced that he plans to boycott Notre Dame's commencement on May 17, 2009.

The content of the below statement from Fort Wayne-South Bend Bishop John D'Arcy is a summary of key points from a private letter he sent in response to Notre Dame's president, Father John Jenkins. [Emphasis added.]

My Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Recently, Father John Jenkins, CSC, in a letter of response to Bishop Olmsted of the Diocese of Phoenix, who had written him, critical of the decision to invite President Obama to speak and receive an honorary degree of law at Notre Dame, indicated that it was his conviction that the statement "Catholics in Political Life" (USCCB) did not apply in this matter. Father Jenkins kindly sent me a copy of his letter, and also at a later meeting, asked for a response.

In an April 15th letter to Father Jenkins, I responded to his letter.

Now the points made in his letter have been sent by Father Jenkins to the members of the Notre Dame Board of Trustees and have been publicized nationally, as well as locally in the South Bend Tribune. Since the matter is now public, it is my duty as the bishop of this diocese to respond and correct. I take up this responsibility with some sadness, but also with the conviction that if I did not do so, I would be remiss in my pastoral responsibility.

Rather than share my full letter, which I have shared with some in church leadership, I prefer to present some of the key points.

1. The meaning of the sentence in the USCCB document relative to Catholic institutions is clear. It places the responsibility on those institutions, and indeed, on the Catholic community itself.

"The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." -- "Catholics in Political Life," USCCB.

2. When there is a doubt concerning the meaning of a document of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, where does one find the authentic interpretation? A fundamental, canonical and theological principal states that it is found in the local bishop, who is the teacher and lawgiver in his diocese. -- Canon 330, 375 §§ 1 & 2; 380; 381 § 1; 391 § 1; 392, & 394 §1.

3. I informed Father Jenkins that if there was any genuine questions or doubt about the meaning of the relevant sentence in the conference's document, any competent canonist with knowledge of the tradition and love for Christ's church had the responsibility to inform Father Jenkins of the fundamental principle that the diocesan bishop alone bears the responsibility to provide an authoritative interpretation.

4. I reminded Father Jenkins that he indicated that he consulted presidents of other Catholic universities, and at least indirectly, consulted other bishops, since he asked those presidents to share with him those judgments of their own bishops. However, he chose not to consult his own bishop who, as I made clear, is the teacher and lawgiver in his own diocese. I reminded Father Jenkins that I was not informed of the invitation until after it was accepted by the president. I mentioned again that it is at the heart of the diocesan bishop's pastoral responsibility to teach as revealed in sacred Scripture and the tradition. ("Lumen Gentium," 20; and "Christus Dominus," 2.) I reminded him that it is also central to the university's relationship to the church. ("Ex corde ecclesiae," 27 & 28; Gen. Norm., Art. 5, §§ 1-3.)

5. Another key point. In his letter to Bishop Olmsted and in the widespread publicity, which has taken place as the points in the letter have been made public, Father Jenkins declared the invitation to President Obama does not "suggest support" for his actions, because he has expressed and continues to express disagreement with him on issues surrounding protection of life. I wrote that the outpouring of hundreds of thousands who are shocked by the invitation clearly demonstrates, that this invitation has, in fact, scandalized many Catholics and other people of goodwill. In my office alone, there have been over 3,300 messages of shock, dismay and outrage, and they are still coming in. It seems that the action in itself speaks so loudly that people have not been able to hear the words of Father Jenkins, and indeed, the action has suggested approval to many.

In the publicity surrounding the points Father Jenkins has made, he also says he is "following the document of the bishops" by "laying a basis for engagement with the president on this issue." I indicated that I, like many others, will await to see what the follow up is on this issue between Notre Dame and President Obama.

6. As I have said in a recent interview and which I have said to Father Jenkins, it would be one thing to bring the president here for a discussion on healthcare or immigration, and no person of goodwill could rightly oppose this. We have here, however, the granting of an honorary degree of law to someone whose activities both as president and previously, have been altogether supportive of laws against the dignity of the human person yet to be born.

In my letter, I have also asked Father Jenkins to correct, and if possible, withdraw the erroneous talking points, which appeared in the South Bend Tribune and in other media outlets across the country. The statements which Father Jenkins has made are simply wrong and give a flawed justification for his actions.

I consider it now settled -- that the USCCB document, "Catholics in Public Life," does indeed apply in this matter.

The failure to consult the local bishop who, whatever his unworthiness, is the teacher and lawgiver in the diocese, is a serious mistake. Proper consultation could have prevented an action, which has caused such painful division between Notre Dame and many bishops -- and a large number of the faithful.

That division must be addressed through prayer and action, and I pledge to work with Father Jenkins and all at Notre Dame to heal the terrible breach, which has taken place between Notre Dame and the church. It cannot be allowed to continue.

I ask all to pray that this healing will take place in a way that is substantial and true, and not illusory. Notre Dame and Father Jenkins must do their part if this healing is to take place. I will do my part.

Sincerely yours in our Lord,
Most Reverend
John M. D'Arcy

Statement by Bishop John M. D'Arcy Regarding Dirty Play at Notre Dame

Note: After reading this and realizing that Fr. Jenkins rebuffed the good bishop, one can only conclude that Jenkins is a man with a heart hardened against all natural reason. He is so committed in his sin he cannot move off his position. He has fixed himself in opposition to the institution that ordained him and placed him in a position of authority over young people. The bishop has few arrows in his quiver. He does not want to declare the preeminent Catholic university in the US "not Catholic". But he has no other authority over it.

The decision to allow performances of 'The Vagina Monologues' at the University of Notre Dame

March 2008

Reverend John Jenkins, CSC, and I have been in communication about his decision to allow performances of "The Vagina Monologues" at Notre Dame. I am grateful to Father Jenkins for the extensive time he has put into our conversation and correspondence on these matters over the last two months, and I have taken care in this statement to present his position accurately in order to make a fair response. Father Jenkins has informed me that, while he thinks that this play is a bad play, he believes that permitting its performance under certain conditions, namely, in an academic building without fundraising and with a panel discussion afterwards in which the Catholic perspective is represented, is consistent with the identity of a Catholic university. In particular, Father Jenkins believes that reading the works of authors such as Nietzsche, Gibbon, Luther and Joyce, who in various ways espouse ideas that are contrary to Catholic teaching, in classes at Notre Dame, is comparable to permitting performances of "The Vagina Monologues" under the conditions specified.

As bishop of this historic diocese, entrusted with the spiritual welfare of all those who live within its borders, including the students at our beloved Notre Dame, I believe that, once again, I must publicly and respectfully disagree with Father Jenkins' decision. I am convinced that permitting performances of "The Vagina Monologues" is not consistent with the identity of a Catholic university and not comparable to the long accepted academic tradition through which a wide variety of authors are read and discussed in classes at Notre Dame and in all institutions of higher learning.

In the first place, the difference between the works of authors such as Nietzsche, Gibbon, Luther and Joyce, and "The Vagina Monologues" is a difference, not of degree, but of kind. The former have written serious philosophical, theological and literary works, which have influenced Western thought. As such, their work has academic merit and is worthy of serious discussion and critique in a classroom setting. Father Jenkins believes that Eve Ensler's play was written to shock and offend. How can one put such a play, which many consider pornographic, on the level of serious works such as the writings of Gibbon and Luther?

Even if one could make a case that this play has academic merit, it could be read in class. When a book or play is read in class, the student expects it to be discussed and critiqued; indeed, this is an essential part of the classroom experience. This is not so when one attends the performance of a play. One generally goes to a play and leaves; staying afterwards to listen to a panel discussion about the play is not inherent in the activity of attending a play. No one who comes to the play is required to stay for the panel discussion, and Father Jenkins' attempt to give the performances of this play an academic quality seems deficient.

In addition, unlike reading the play as a classroom assignment, the performances are themselves an endorsement of the international V-Day campaign, even if this is done without fundraising. Is this not the motivation of the departments that have asked to sponsor the play and the young women who will be acting in it? Did they not propose to have multiple performances of the play again this year because they believe it conveys an important message, and they want as many people to see it as possible? In short, people push to have this play performed year after year because they endorse the message it conveys, and they want to be part of the international campaign to promote this message. In allowing performances of the play on campus again this year, whether or not they are officially considered part of the V-Day campaign, Notre Dame continues to cooperate in advancing the campaign's agenda, an agenda which, as I have repeatedly reflected in my several statements over the years, is directly opposed to the dignity of the human person and is antithetical to Catholic teaching.

According to their Web site, the international V-Day campaign has extended the time when this play can be performed to March 30. But if this play is performed on the dates scheduled, it will be held during Easter week, the holiest time of the church year. Notre Dame has a long and blessed tradition of liturgical excellence, a tradition both theoretical and practical and eminently pastoral and prayerful. Easter week is liturgically considered as Easter Day. Surely Notre Dame will not prefer or even seem to prefer the requirements of the V-Day campaign to the proper observance of Easter.

Perhaps an analogy might illustrate how critical the context is when making decisions about what is appropriate to allow. Suppose that Notre Dame was a Catholic University in Nazi Germany in 1938, and a portion of the faculty and student body were Nazi sympathizers. Suppose further that there was a national movement to show a prominent Nazi propaganda film on college campuses. Would not the showing of such a film at Notre Dame involve the university in providing a platform for Nazi propaganda and entail some level of cooperation with the evil of Nazism? Would providing a panel in which the Catholic attitude towards Nazism was included as one among several viewpoints, in any way mitigate the evil involved in showing such a film? Would not the university bear moral responsibility for the fact that some students who viewed the film on campus might be persuaded by the propaganda and became Nazi supporters?

I chose this analogy because Father Jenkins, in our correspondence, made mention of a series of documentary films shown recently on campus concerning the early days of Nazism, which he believes would also have to be banned if "The Vagina Monologues" were banned. But there is an enormous difference between showing a Nazi propaganda film in 2008 and showing it in 1938. One is a matter of historic and scholarly interest in a long-past event, and the other constitutes active cooperation in promoting a current and threatening evil ideology.

I am convinced that, in the current cultural context, allowing performances of "The Vagina Monologues" at Notre Dame is analogous to the situation described above. The play is little more than a propaganda piece for the sexual revolution and secular feminism. While claiming to deplore violence against women, the play at the same time violates the standards of decency and morality that safeguard a woman's dignity and protect her, body and soul, from sexual predators. The human community has generally refrained from exposing and discussing the hidden parts of a woman's body, preferring to consider them private and even sacred. Most importantly, the sexual sin, which the play depicts in several scenes, desecrates women just as much as, if not more deeply than, sexual violence does. The play depicts, exalts, and endorses female masturbation, which is a sin. It depicts, exalts, and endorses a sexual relationship between an adult woman and a child, a minor, which is a sin and also a crime. It depicts and exalts the most base form of sexual relationship between a man and a woman. These illicit sexual actions are portrayed as paths to healing, and the implication is that the historic, positive understanding of heterosexual marriage as the norm is what we must recover from.

Father Jenkins has informed me that after each evening performance there will be a panel discussion, which will include someone who will give an informed and sympathetic presentation of Catholic teaching. In so doing, he notes that Notre Dame "has taken stronger steps than many other Catholic institutions to put limits on the performance of this play." While this may well be true, there are a growing number of Catholic institutions of higher learning that have permanently banned the play.

The overriding issue here is moral. The play is an affront to human dignity, as Catholic teaching understands it. If it is performed, it should be denounced. Otherwise, the university appears to endorse it as in some way good and the impression is given that Catholic teaching is one option competing among many. This method places faith in a defensive position and on the margin and is unacceptable at a Catholic university.

"A faith that places itself on the margin of what is human, of what is therefore culture, would be a faith unfaithful to the fullness of what the Word of God manifests and reveals, a decapitated faith, worse still, a faith in the process of self-annihilation." - John Paul II, Address to Intellectuals, to Students and to University Personnel at Medellin, Columbia, 5 July, 1986. Cited in "Ex Corde Ecclesiae" 44.

Some claim that a performance of the play followed by a panel will "engage the culture" and that out of such a discussion the "truth will emerge." Sadly, "Ex Corde Ecclesiae" is even cited in defense of this position. But what makes a Catholic university distinctive is the conviction that in the search for truth, we do not start from scratch; we start from the truth that has been revealed to us in the Word of God, the person of Jesus Christ, and the teaching of his church. The notion that truth will emerge from a discussion in which many points of view are represented both disrespects revealed truth and separates the search for truth from the certainty of faith; instead, as Pope John Paul II stated in "Ex Corde Ecclesiae": "A Catholic university's privileged task is 'to unite existentially by intellectual effort two orders of reality that too frequently tend to be placed in opposition as though they were antithetical: the search for truth, and the certainty of already knowing the fount of truth.'" - John Paul II, Discourse to the Institut Catholique de Paris, June, 1, 1980, cited in "Ex Corde Ecclesiae," 1.

For these reasons, I believe that the performing of this play, even with one or more persons willing to present Catholic teaching, is in direct opposition to both the spirit and letter of "Ex Corde Ecclesiae." Also, because it depicts and endorses sinful sexual acts in direct opposition to church teaching, I believe its performance to be pornographic and spiritually harmful. This judgment is made after prayer, reflection and dialogue and after preparing several statements over many years.

Because of this pastoral finding, of which I am convinced, and keeping in mind primarily the spiritual welfare of our young students, the good name of Notre Dame and her well-earned position of academic and Catholic leadership, and the blessed Easter week - I remain hopeful that Father Jenkins will reconsider his decision for this year and future years. A decision not to sponsor the play is not only consistent with academic freedom but is a right use of such freedom for it shows respect for the truth, for the common good and the rights of others. (ef. "Ex Corde Ecclesiae," 12)

Bishop of Fort Wayne: Notre Dame President is Wrong to Allow Vagina Monologues

Note: The Bishop presents a detailed argument against the play, one that is rooted in both faith and reason as opposed to the weak defense offered by Jenkins based on emotion and pressure from groups opposed to the Church's mission. Jenkins clearly argues from a fixed position that cannot fathom the possibility that he is just plain wrong. His decision abandons young people to the evils of the age. Jenkins has abdicated his responsibility and failed in his mission as an educator and Catholic priest. As I stated before, he should resign or be removed and laicized.

"I believe its performance to be pornographic and spiritually harmful" and "If it is performed, it should be denounced."

By John Jalsevac

FORT WAYNE, March 12, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The bishop of Fort Wayne, Bishop John D'Arcy, has released a public statement berating the president of Notre Dame University, Fr. John Jenkins, for deciding to allow a performance of The Vagina Monologues at the university.

LifeSiteNews.com reported yesterday that Fr. Jenkins released a statement on Mar. 10 in which he announced his decision to allow the performance of the play to go ahead on Mar. 24-26. "My decision on this matter," wrote the president, "arises from a conviction that it is an indispensable part of the mission of a Catholic university to provide a forum in which multiple viewpoints are debated in reasoned and respectful exchange - always in dialogue with faith and the Catholic tradition - even around highly controversial topics."

Jenkins also said, "It is particularly painful for me that Bishop John D'Arcy - for whom I have great respect and affection - disapproves of my decision."

Bishop D'Arcy begins his statement, released today, by thanking Fr. Jenkins for engaging in an ongoing dialogue with the bishop about the advisability of allowing the scheduled performance of the play to continue. Immediately after, however, the bishop launches into a detailed critique of Fr. Jenkins' position, taking taking him to task for his belief that allowing The Vagina Monologues is in any way comparable to reading in class the works of anti-Christian and anti-Catholic authors such as Nietzsche, Gibbon and Luther, saying that between such works and the play, there is a "difference, not of degree, but of kind."

Nietzsche, Gibbon and Luther, writes the Bishop "have written serious philosophical, theological and literary works, which have influenced Western thought. As such, their work has academic merit and is worthy of serious discussion and critique in a classroom setting. Father Jenkins believes that Eve Ensler's play was written to shock and offend. How can one put such a play, which many consider pornographic, on the level of serious works such as the writings of Gibbon and Luther?"

D'Arcy also points out that it is clear that the students and teachers who are pushing to have the play performed at the university, are doing so not simply for the purpose of an academic discussion, but rather because they passionately believe in the message of the play, which promotes sexual license and immorality in a way that deeply contravenes Catholic teaching. "Is this not the motivation of the departments that have asked to sponsor the play and the young women who will be acting in it?" asks the bishop rhetorically. "Did they not propose to have multiple performances of the play again this year because they believe it conveys an important message, and they want as many people to see it as possible? In short, people push to have this play performed year after year because they endorse the message it conveys, and they want to be part of the international campaign to promote this message. In allowing performances of the play on campus again this year, whether or not they are officially considered part of the V-Day campaign, Notre Dame continues to cooperate in advancing the campaign's agenda, an agenda which, as I have repeatedly reflected in my several statements over the years, is directly opposed to the dignity of the human person and is antithetical to Catholic teaching.

"The play is an affront to human dignity, as Catholic teaching understands it. If it is performed, it should be denounced. Otherwise, the university appears to endorse it as in some way good and the impression is given that Catholic teaching is one option competing among many. This method places faith in a defensive position and on the margin and is unacceptable at a Catholic university."

The bishop concluded, saying, "I believe that the performing of this play, even with one or more persons willing to present Catholic teaching, is in direct opposition to both the spirit and letter of 'Ex Corde Ecclesiae.' Also, because it depicts and endorses sinful sexual acts in direct opposition to church teaching, I believe its performance to be pornographic and spiritually harmful. This judgment is made after prayer, reflection and dialogue and after preparing several statements over many years."

If Notre Dame goes ahead and allows the performance of the play on campus, it will be the sixth year in a row that it has done so.

To contact Fr. Jenkins:

University of Notre Dame President
Fr. John Jenkins, C.S.C.,
jenkins.1@nd.edu