New Oxford Review links an "article" written by the pseudonymous Sr. Mary Eve advocating the V* monologues.
The article is here.
It is clear that this is a fraud and I'll explain why:
1. Sr. Mary Eve is an unusual name for a religious. Eve Ensler is the name of the author of the horrible play. Strange coincidence if we believed her.
2. Sr. M.E. claims she has been in the "Traditional Order" for the last 20 years. She is 36. Now I don't know many orders (since St. Therese of Lisieux who needed permission of the Holy Father)that take young ladies at 16. A bit of a stretch to say the least.
3. The photos accompanying the essay look like they were taken at the local Comfort Inn.
4. In 2004 Sr. M.E. claims she was in an undergrad psychology class. Now why in the world would a "traditional nun" be taking a psych class? The answer is that a traditional nun wouldn't be.
5. Finally the dead give away is that no Traditional nun would use the following words as verbs- dialogue and dialoguing and process, and processing.
6. And finally there are two phrases that stand out- "highly unapproved" and "forms of ministry". Now highly unapproved is just awkward and grammatically painful and we are supposed to believe that Sr. M.E. served in various forms of ministry? Traditional nuns don't serve in various forms of ministry- they pursue holiness and sanctity, self abnegation, sacrifice... well you get the picture.
I'm not sure what "Busted Halo" is supposed to be... other than a provocateur- dissident in disguise, quasi-Catholic, apologist for the left. A sad sort of existence to be sure. Be assured that the Traditional orders of nuns are not jumping on this bandwagon that is hurtling over the nearest modernist cliff at high speed.
My guess would be this was written by a Mercy sister or else one of those women who thinks she was "ordained".
It wouldn't be St. Valentine's Day without this unfortunate topic, just like it wouldn't be Christmas without an attack on Fr. Feeney by the Boston Globe. We recognize these pathetic tactics and move on. Tradition is advancing, we're winning, gaining ground and the we count this as the death rattle of the corpse that was the Brave New World of the left. Asta la vista. Baby.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I have it on good authority that Sr. Mary Eve is real...and is from a rather traditional order. The name is fake of course...but the truth of the matter is that she is an actual nun.
What a fitting comment, coming from "anonymous". Anonymous is my source for everything too.
I am very much interested in your source of 'good authority', Anon.
Things that are sacred have "tradionally" been protected from vulgar and lascivious observation. I would argue that motherhood and virginity are both sacred, and why anyone would find value in obsessing on the techno-physiological aspects of either is beyond me; unless they're attempting to justify their own profanity.
The article by SME is also rife with condemnation of tradition, and blatant falsehoods regarding Catholic teaching:
1. SME writes: "Some members of the Church have taken a morally defensive stance. I am afraid that this narrow understanding is also the way many members of my own community would approach the play."
Immediately, we are put in the position of having a "narrow understanding" if we don't value this play.
2. SME Writes: [The play contains].. and topics that the institutional Church has a problem with such as masturbation, and lesbian sex
Interesting that the party that has the "problem" with the topics above is the "instutional Church" and not SME, herself.
3. SME Writes: "Why has The *V* Monologues—which isn’t intended to be sexually arousing or gratuitously vulgar—been protested by a vocal minority of Catholics when it has been offered on Catholic campuses?"
So, the play isn't meant to be "gratiutously" vulgar - That's comforting. SME also opines that those who protest the play are a "vocal minority" of Catholics, implying that the "silent majority" of Catholics have no problem with it. Think again.
SME also goes on to say it's the "fully cassocked" seminarians that are this "vocal minority." I'm wondering why a "traditional" nun would even have to single out the traditionally dressed seminarians; the obvious implication being that they are a narrow-minded minority.
Throughout the rest of the article, the misrepresentations of the Church's stance on women, womanhood, sexuality, etc. (even biblical teaching) come fast and furious. Each pointing out how un-educated SME truly is about "traditional" Church teaching. Is it possible that as early as twenty years ago liberal feminists were infiltrating Catholic Religious orders? If not, I suspect that SME and "anonymous" are from the same modern, liberal church of lies.
My advice to SME (if she is a religious) is to stop hiding her pornographic reading materials from her superiors, and try learning something about the Faith she claims to profess. If her behavior and her opinions are sanctioned by her current order, neither of them are even remotely traditional.
This is one of my posts from another blog, but it seems relevant for unveiling the V* Monologues and feminism for what it really is. You have my permission to delete it if it doesn't work for your blog.
"Mom and Dad, what's feminism?"
"Well, let's see. It was started in 1967 by a woman named Valerie Solanas, who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia; she had voices in her head telling her that her life was controlled by -- not martians -- but men, so she wrote a book called 'Society for Cutting Up Men Manifesto' in which she outlines a plan to eliminate the male sex from Earth so babies can be made artificially. After she died in a mental hospital, Gloria Steinem added Marxist idealogy to Valerie's ideas and started a magazine. That's why there is abortion, high divorce rates, and baby businesses. Many women left their husbands and churches because they think like Valerie. You can read about Valerie and Gloria at Wikipedia when you get older. Just avoid those kinds of women; they're like the unfortunate people you see who live in the park. And don't give them any money. Just pray for them."
I think Sr. Mary Eve must be a fraud. I'm pretty sure no order in America takes 16 years postulants.
dear dymphna:
not now; but twenty years ago they did, especially the cloistered and trad communities. When I was looking for a religious community back when I was in college, those were the communities who didn't want me because I was too old at 19. [whereas the active apostolate, reputedly "progressive" communities didn't want me because I was too young and my Masters wasn't finished yet....]
the pic is the giveaway. that's a nun costume, the kind common to commercial costume rental shops that rent to partiers. It's not a habit.
Twenty years ago, I searched high and low for any community that wore a habit. If they had been there, I would have visited them.
She's lying and its pathetically obvious.
Is it possible that as early as twenty years ago liberal feminists were infiltrating Catholic Religious orders?
???????
have a nice vacation on Mars?
Twenty years ago was 1987. By that time the communities of "sisters" were dancing around trees and marching in ban the bomb rallies. When I was born in St. Joseph's hospital in Victoria BC in 1966, the Sisters of St. Anne were in the habit and their novitiate and highschool was full across the street. By the time I was baptised in 1972, the same sisters were teaching my convert mother that Marxism, feminism, Buddhism, Jung, reincarnation and a belief in UFO's were perfectly sound Catholic doctrines.
Now they offer classes in witchcraft at their womyn's spirituality and nature worship centre (formerly Queenswood novitiate).
A Traditional Catholic religious would not be spouting the standard feminist/marxist baby-buggering savageries as this woman.
Jeepers, why are we even asking?!
Post a Comment