Saturday, September 16, 2006

Big Surprise!

The University of Minnesota is rabidly anti-Catholic.

In March the theater department of the U of M will stage "The Pope and the Witch" by Dario Fo. Today's Pioneer Press reports that "Scenes include a paranoid pope convinced that thousands of orphans appearing in St Peter's Square are part of a plot by condom makers to embarass the church, a "crucifixion stroke," a witch who favors abortion and drug legalization [wild guess- that's a good witch, right?] and revelation of evil in the church hierarchy."

The President of the U of M, Bob Bruininks, defends the decision . It's all part of the free exchange of ideas he thinks, and as he wrote in a letter to the Catholic League last week, the U aims at a culture that is "free from racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice, intolerance or harassment."

[He did not add "except against those damned Catholics, at least not in the letter.]

The school's online promotion of the play is similarly even-handed. "Fo's point is that it is easy for a rich church to rage against abortion when millions are born into poverty, and become victims of the drug trade, from which people under the Vatican's protection can fill their pockets."

So now we know- the church opposes the slaughter of millions of helpless babies because it needs them to be its drug slaves! Thanks, Golden Gophers!

Something tells me I'll be writing more about this.


Adoro Te Devote said...

I posted on this, too, the other day and was contacted by the reporter who wrote the article in today's Pioneer Press. I didn't get an opp. to give my Catholic perspective on this, but usually they give the reporter's contact info at the bottom of the artice. It made the Press's front page today, and you should see the false logic employed by the U and the avoidance of the direct question regarding whether they would allow a similar attack against Islam. Very enlightening.

I will be in contact with the reporter, for sure. He did a decent job and in the quotes he used, the U did not come out smelling pretty. I think he seemed to highlight the false logic by the U but doesn't call it such...just lets us think critically about the info presented.

I might have to correct his definition of "blasphemy" and why this play is blasphemous...not exactly what he cited in the article.

Cathy_of_Alex said...

Desperate: I have been posting on it too. I'm pleased that you did. We need all the agitators we can get!