For some Clark University students, I am "delusional" for seeing the connection between destructive pornography and violence against women

The Most Rev. John D'Arcy, Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend, in a statement which may be found here, asks, "What is wrong with the text of this play [The Vagina Monologues]? It distorts the beautiful gift of human sexuality, clouding its richness so it becomes merely the seeking of pleasure. Sexuality in the Catholic tradition is always related to the gift of self to another. 'Sexuality is an enrichment of the whole person — body, emotions and soul — and it manifests its inmost meaning in leading the person to the gift of self in love.' (Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II).

In contrast, the play in question reduces sexuality to a particular organ of a woman’s body separate from the person of the woman, from her soul and her spirit. It alienates woman from man whom God has entrusted to her as friend and companion. It separates sexuality and the human body from love. How opposite from our tradition which says, 'A woman’s dignity is closely connected with the love which she receives by the very reason of her femininity. It is likewise connected with the love she gives in return.' (On the Dignity of Women,  Pope John Paul II).

While some will find it hard to believe, it is true that this play depicts in an approving way a sexual relationship between an adult woman and an adolescent girl, a minor. Such an action, which is a crime in both civil and church law, is also considered a serious sin in Christian moral teaching. The play also contains explicit depictions of masturbation and lesbian sex, portrayed in a positive light.

In this first encyclical letter, Pope Benedict XVI, theologian and pastor, speaks to this cultural phenomenon with striking clarity. 'Nowadays Christianity of the past is often criticized as having been opposed to the body; and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed. Yet the contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure 'sex,' has become a commodity, a mere ‘thing’ to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man’s great 'yes’ to the body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself to be used and exploited at will. Nor does he see it as an arena for the exercise of his freedom, but as mere object that he attempts, as he pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness. Christian faith, on the other hand, has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility.' (Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict XVI, Dec. 25, 2005).

Bishop D'Arcy then cites Pope John Paul II in his classic work "Love and Responsibility": 'Art has a right and a duty, for the sake of realism, to reproduce the human body, and the love of man and woman, as they are in reality, to speak the whole truth about them. The human body is an authentic part of the truth about man, just as its sensual and sexual aspects are an authentic part of the truth about human love. But it would be wrong to let this part obscure the whole — and this is what often happens in art … Pornography is a marked tendency to accentuate the sexual element when reproducing the human body or human love in a work of art, with the object of inducing the reader or viewer to believe that sexual values are the only real values of the person, and that love is nothing more than the experience, individual or shared, of those values alone.' And then His Excellency adds, "Such an analysis brings clarity. The play [The Vagina Monologues],...does not portray the whole truth about human sexuality; and by this separation, it violates the truth about the body, the truth about the gift of sexuality, the truth about love, and the truth about man and woman."

As I mentioned in my last Blog post, Women for Faith and Family, a highly respected association of Catholic women led by serious scholars, has said that: "Vagina Monologues is destructive, pornographic, deforming agit-prop deliberately and cynically aimed at young women - in particular at young Catholic women - a form of victimization that it is perilous to ignore. It contradicts at the deepest level the truth of creation; it is profoundly anti-Catholic, anti-God; and a contemptible assault on the very nature of the human person."  The play, as WFF correctly notes, "..actually contributes to violence against women, while claiming to be fighting it."

But many of the students at Clark University don't see it that way.  I received an email from an individual calling himself Carson Stevens.  In this email, Carson asserted that, "The implication that Clark University creates an atmosphere that is partially responsible for the sexual assault is incorrect."  On what does he base his argument?  Well it's simple according to Carson: "Clark's production of Vagina Monologues does not include that scene which you described."  But there is far more than just one offensive scene.  As Bishop D'Arcy noted, "The play also contains explicit depictions of masturbation and lesbian sex, portrayed in a positive light."  The whole play, as Bishop D'Arcy said, "reduces sexuality to a particular organ of a woman's body."

So much for the "they deleted the one lesbian rape scene" argument.

Then Carson writes, "As for the guilt of Clark, no Clark community member has been linked to the crime (with the exception of the survivor, herself)."  Translation: You cannot put Clark Students or faculty at the scene of the crime as actual participants, therefore we bear no responsibility for this crime even though we have been  fostering an atmosphere where women are demeaned and others are encouraged to view women as objects to be used and exploited at will.

If productions do not influence human behavior, what is the point of the television commercial?

Another Clark Student (I traced his IP address to Clark University), calling himself "Sigma," berated me for my post on The Vagina Monologues and wrote, "Dude, your views aren't even accepted by 99.9 percent of Christians."  In other words, because I believe women are created in the Imago Dei (in the Image and Likeness of God) and should not be reduced to being mere sexual objects to be exploited and used, I am out of touch with reality.  Sigma added, "You need to get off your delusional Christian agenda and leave Clark alone."

According to the City of Worcester, in 2011, detectives investigated approximately 280 sexual assault cases in which 41 fell within the definition of forcible rape as defined in the UCR. "The remainder of the cases did not meet the strict definition....It is anticipated that the reported number of forcible rapes as defined by the UCR will increase when the FBI changes the UCR definition of rape."


280 sexual assault cases.  In one year.  In one city. That number is an obscenity. But it would appear that some Clark Students do not have a problem with sexual assault and violence against women in general.  Hence the cavalier attitude toward a pornographic play which contributes to violence against women.

You can be sure that if these same individuals had a wife, a daughter or a sister who was raped or in some way sexually assaulted, they wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the legitimate concerns expressed here. They would be too busy trying to comfort their loved one.  They would be in tears.

This is part of the problem. Until this sort of violence hits close to home, it is easy for some to just wave the hand and dismiss the concerns of those who see the connection between destructive pornography and sexual assault  Such people forget that every woman who is sexually assaulted is a person with hopes and dreams. A person who wants to feel safe.

For some Clark University students, I am "delusional" for seeing the connection between destructive pornography and violence against women.

Yes, clearly I am the delusional one.  Which is why we read here that:  "All pornography soft, hard, and even 'neutral' sex-education materials, desensitize the viewer and allow him to become conditioned to sexual acts, violent and nonviolent, as an integral part of human behavior. This conclusion has been reached in 26 separate studies."

Is Clark University partially responsible for the climate which led to the sexual assault of a woman on campus?

WHDH is reporting that: "Worcester police are investigating an alleged sexual assault after a Clark University student says she was attacked early Thursday morning. The 20-year-old student says she was walking home at around 3:30 Thursday morning. Investigators say the victim was on Clifton Street when she was approached by three men in a car. According to police, a man in the backseat grabbed the woman, slapped her, stole her purse and sexually assaulted her."  See here.

As I noted in a previous post, Clark University, which has become a hotbed of radical homosexual agitprop and Christianophobic propaganda, supports Eve Ensler's The Vagina Monologues, a play which celebrates lesbian rape. In one scene, a twenty-four-year-old woman gets a thirteen-year-old girl drunk and rapes her. This is presented as a good thing. The victim later says, "If it was rape, it was a good rape. I'll never need to rely on a man."


Then I looked at what Women for Faith and Family has to say about The Vagina Monologues at its website.  This Catholic organization explains that, "It is extremely difficult to know how one might address such a matter as 'V-Day' in the most productive way - not least because to even name this performance involves our using the very language that the perpetrators intend to desensitize us to. Thus, ironically, we are forced to participate, at some level, in the very degradation and violence against the human person to which we object. I believe this is part of the plan. It considerably compounds the difficulty of criticizing it... That is by no means the only irony - or contradiction - involved in the V-Day movement (of which performance of the V-Monologues is the keystone). As you doubtless know, V-Day projects claim to be fighting abuse of women. But the verbally pornographic 'monologues' are themselves abusive of women - they attack the concept of womanhood itself, and destroy the integrity of the human person. Thus it actually contributes to violence against women, while claiming to be fighting it".

1. Reducing women essentially to one body part is hardly pro-woman. It distorts sexuality, objectifies women and, ironically, promotes attitudes towards women and sexuality precisely like those that lead to sexual violence against women.

2. This performance does not even represent real 'voices of women', as it claims in order to give it a ring of authenticity. The author, Eve Ensler, says she based her contemptible creation on her personal interviews with 200 women - indeed, the V-Monologues are usually represented as the authentic voices of women 'telling their own stories' (e.g., Father Timothy Clancy, SJ's editorial enclosed).

But Ensler herself acknowledges that she freely interpreted her 'data'.

3. The stated goal of V-Day is to stop all violence against women, and the income from the plays allegedly is given to agencies that help stop 'violence' (the "V" in "V-Day" also stands for violence) against women. But this, too, is a sham. Ensler employs a full time staff of ten to manage her "V-Day" movement; and donations are often given to dubious (or worse) groups (a set-up similar to Catholics for a Free Choice).

a. Planned Parenthood groups have produced the play (e.g. Planned Parenthood, Eureka, California: the web-site notice is enclosed).

b. In at least one instance a battered women's shelter that had been selected to receive a donation from the V- Monologues refused to accept it after learning what the performance was about. (Reported in Texas A&M's News Source - Feb. 12, 2002: 'V-Day stirs controversy'.)

c. The liberation of Afghan women is one of Ensler's causes. However, as we have seen recently, the 'aid' to Afghan women has included provision of abortion services. While we were not able to establish that Ensler's 'V-Day' has actually given any aid at all to Afghan women, it is clear that not all 'aid' is beneficial.

4. The V-Monologues promote particular sexual pathologies: lesbianism and pedophilia. One 'voice' - that of a 13-year-old girl - vividly describes how she was seduced by a 24-year-old woman. She says, 'if it was a rape, it was a good rape'. This section reportedly led to objections even by feminists sympathetic to the production, leading one reporter to wonder whether this scene might be expurgated from the version being performed on more than 543 college campuses this year. Whether or not the producers do self-censor this scene (as may be likely especially in the context of recent pedophila scandals), it is entirely consistent with the rest of the production.

Vagina Monologues is destructive, pornographic, deforming agit-prop deliberately and cynically aimed at young women - in particular at young Catholic women - a form of victimization that it is perilous to ignore. It contradicts at the deepest level the truth of creation; it is profoundly anti-Catholic, anti-God; and a contemptible assault on the very nature of the human person".

One has to wonder if officials at Clark University are really concerned about violence against women.  Women for Faith and Family is right in saying that The Vagina Monologues is destructive, pornographic agitprop which objectifies women and "promotes attitudes towards women and sexuality precisely like those that lead to sexual violence against women."

Is Clark University at least partially responsible for the climate which led to the sexual assault of a young woman on its campus?

It is my contention that Clark University has encouraged Christianophobia (see here) while attempting to demonize moral opposition toward homosexuality.  See here.

Our sad time.