The Bartell Theatre in Madison, Wisconsin, is launching the evil 'play' Corpus Christi. This play blasphemes Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. "It depicts a Christ figure who indulges in gay sex romps with his disciples".

Did we not learn our lesson with all the gay and sexually explicit shows on broadway, let alone all the plays and shows that blaspheme Our Lord and Savior and his Mother?

New York learned the hard way. What'll it be, Wisconsin?

SHAME ON YOU, BARTELL THEATRE, MADISON, WISCONSIN USA

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 27, 2003

Answers

The March production by StageQ -- a community theater group that primarily stages gay-themed material has slated this evil play for a run March 5th through 27th, 2004.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 28, 2003.

You may find a new book interesting; by author David Limbaugh. It's title is ''How Liberals Are Persecuting Christianity'' --I'm trying to recall the exact title.

This is another example of the devil's great influence in modern society. But, all of us should rejoice, in fact. To be hated and disowned and victimized by the world is our Lord's holy seal of approval for his followers. He prophesied these things would come to pass.

There's a great revulsion being caused by plays, movies & art galleries, etc. in America; because good people don't buy that hatred. They aren't all ignorant, one look at these ant-religious atrocities is all they need to reject them in favor of the faith. The devil spites his own nose; cutting it off by moving some sinners to produce trash of that sort. Let's pray for them. They know not what they do.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 29, 2003.

Thank you Eugene for your positive input. But I have to say it....'they DO know what they are doing'.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 29, 2003.

You've said the right thing in denouncing the actions of these sinners, Dutchee. No one can stand by their evil intent.

But we must nevertheless, always pray for them. They live in darkness. You & I live in light; the light of Jesus Christ. We were sinners. Only because He came and restored us to life are we in the light now. He can do the same & more for those sinners, but we have to pray for them. In the meantime, we must be willing to bear the pain with Him.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 30, 2003.

Eugene,

Very well said.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 30, 2003.

I am tired of this, I can not believe they are doing this. I do not accept, that this group of people are going against what we catholic and crhistian people believe for make money??? did someone buy their conscience???? so, if they don't believe that God is Jesus, if they don't believe in him..Why they do this??? It seems that is important to them??? This "SHOW" must be cancelled. I will recomend pray for them. SHAME ON YOU, BARTELL THEATRE, MADISON, WISCONSIN USA

-- (elichi2001@yahoo.com), September 30, 2003.

Wonder if Bartell Theatre has an email number? We ought to flood them with protests. CLEAN protests, from good Catholics. Demanding the play's SHUT DOWN!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), September 30, 2003.

it only shows what important Our Lord Jesus is. Including His enemies tell His Holy Name. Lets pray for this play not to be released but if it happens lets pray for people not to go there. And in spite of our prayed it happens lets remember something: Only God can pick up something good from been evil. So lets trust in Our Jesus. Lies dont last long. Trust about Our Jesus will survive

-- Guillermo Chiaway (gchiaway@hotmail.com), September 30, 2003.

First of all, I would like to thank you all for taking time out of your busy day to respond to this crises notice. Unfortunately most people could care less...they can't be bothered and that is why satan, working through his gay activists, has made so much progress destroying God, Jesus, Our Blessed Mother, our clergy and our churches. You people who responded most definitely have God's graces. Graces of enlightenment (you noticed), graces of courage to speak out and defend (you took action today to defend Him by your words and want to take your defense of Him even further). So few people defend Him, that I must tell you that this action from YOU touches Him in a most personal way and that he will never forget you for it.

Your written defense of Jesus also touches me (although it doesn't count for anything, I got all choked up). I did not expect anyone to come to His defense, nor did I ask anyone to do so, because I felt that no one would. Thankfully I was very wrong. I should have realized that there are people like you who just may not be aware of certain situations as they are happening. The answer may be that all of us should at least attempt to make each other and everyonelse 'aware' of evil things that have been brought to our attention. As you all said, we must all pray our daily rosaries for the prevention of these evils from taking place in God's world. Also, please add the intention in your rosaries for the "Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary". Until this consecration takes place, we have more of this filth to look forward to and and a world run by satan & his minions.

I do have some information with regards to complaints about 'Corpus Christi'. However, I don't believe that Bartell theatre has a website, or atleast it doesn't seem to be known. If anyone can get there hands on it, please feel free to post it here. We would welcome the info. For now, it seems that the newspaper called the Capital Times in Madison, WI has written some articles about some people who are not happy with the Bartell theatre for showing filth like this. The Capital Times has a web site where you can read some of these stories. You will see that there has been some outcry to this, but no where near enough. Please take note that The Capital Times seems very willing to write about our objections to this smut. Yes it would be extremely helpful to give them more ammunition.

Below are the addresses of the Mayor of Madison, Wisconsin; the Bartell Theater and the Capital Times. It would also help to splash your own notices all over the internet. Tell everybody. Stick it in everywhere you possibly can. Those of us who love God very much CAN fight back......for HIM. LET'S DO IT.

The Honorable Dave Cieslewicz, Mayor 210 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Rm. 403 Madison, WI 53703

The Bartell Theater 113 E. Mifflin Street Madison, WI 53703

The Capital Times P.O. Box 8060 Madison, WI 53708

God Bless all of you.

Dutchee

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 30, 2003.

I'm sorry everyone. The Bartell theater does have a website, but not an email address, as far as I know.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), September 30, 2003.

Here it is: bart@bartelltheatre.org

-- (.@...), September 30, 2003.

Es una lastima que se esten produciendo este tipo de espectàculos que lo ùnico que demuestra es la falta de moral que existe en el mundo. Oremos para que esta gente que se presta a participar en esta obra sean perdonadas por la blasfemia que estan cometiendo. Oremos y pidamos a Cristo nuestro Único y Verdadero Dios que los ilumine y derrame su espiritu a fin de que se den cuenta de sus acciones. Recordamos que CRISTO muriò por nosotros para salvarnos del pecado. Y que estamos haciendo nosotros.

-- Maria Elena Becerra (m_elena30@hotmail.com), September 30, 2003.

Is there anyone who can translate Maria's spanish into English for us, please? Thank you kindly.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), October 01, 2003.

Maria's version in english:

Is very sad that this type of “shows” are been produced. That demostrate that this world is missing values and moral. Let’s pray for those who are involved in this show. So they can get forgiveness for this blasphemes. Let’s ask to our Only God and truly God to help them and give them his Holy Spirit, so they will realize what they are doing. Let’s remember the Jesus die for save us of our sins. And, what are we doing for Him????

-- (elichi2001@yahoo.com), October 01, 2003.

Dear Elichi, Thank you so very much for translating Maria's message. It meant alot to me to know what she said. Any time you or anyonelse see a message for us, from her or from anyone who writes in spanish, please feel free to automatically translate for us. We value everyones input very highly, & are very grateful for those that can provide translations. This time it was you who helped us Elichi. Thank you again.

dutchee

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), October 01, 2003.

Dear Maria. Thank you for your response. You asked, "what are we doing for Him?" You just did plenty, Maria. You've got people thinking, 'what have I done for Him lately', 'what have I ever done for Him' and 'maybe I should be doing something'. It doesn't have to be something heroic. Jesus loves it, even if all you do is speak out in His defense. Do you all have any idea how happy you've made Him?

Now, besides praying for Corpus Christi not to ever open, and for the Bartell Theatre to clean up their acts etc., we must also spread the word about what an evil, blasphemous play this is & of course remember to shame the Bartell Theater for showing it. We should also pray that the Bartell Theatre goes back to showing 'clean' plays again and that by doing so that God will Bless the Bartell Theater with more patrons than ever before.

You can spread the word at work, at church, and on the internet and on the telephone, in addition to notifying those people at addresses supplied above. Prayer, above all, is the most important weapon we have.

Thank you Maria.

May God Bless and Keep You.

Dutchee

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), October 01, 2003.

"This is unfair", Jesus is a person who helped humanity and this is not the way to pay him back the favor he did for us.

-- andy cerna (skandi2500@hotmail.com), October 01, 2003.

They will either acept Jesus and his teahcings, claim to accept him and claim he is "One of us", or mock him and denegrate him as a Holy Figure. Corpis Christi is an attempt to do number 2. To make him " One of us" by mking him Gay. ( By "One of us" I mean the peopel writing this play, not us at the forum.)

The theory that Jesus was Gay, supported by the fact that he never married, a fraudulent fragment of the Gospel of Mark ( By an openly Gay and imbittered proffessor) and by peopel needing to pin Jesus into the Gay category so they can say beign Gay is OK Becuase Jesus was.

They need peopel to either stop takign the teahcigns of Jesus seriosuly, or accept that Jesus taight acceptance and tolerence of this lifestyle and all other modern perversions. They need htis to vendicate htemselves, and as with most guilty people, they don't try to buold a case for their act, but rather agaisnt those who do not support them.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 01, 2003.

Hi, I just wanted to ask to everybody to pray for the Pope that is a little sick right now.

-- Elizabeth Agusti (elichi2001@yahoo.com), October 01, 2003.

I'm really shocked. I'm Peruvian and I'm sure that if someone would try to do a "show" like that here, everybody would protest and would avoid it. Anyway, as catholic and christian I want to raise my voice and say STOP. What are these persons thinking? What do they want to prove? The devil will always try to win but here we are to avoid it with the force of our prayers. Let's pray for these persons, this is the strongest weapon we've got. God bless them all.

-- Katia Beretta (kberetta@hotmail.com), October 02, 2003.

Dear Zarove, Thank you for your most interesting insight regarding this play. I never thought about the gay perspective of 'justification' with regards to their homosexuality. Additionally, it is blasphemous. We must pray for them.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), October 02, 2003.

Dear Elizabeth, You are good to notify us. We will all help you pray for the Pope in our daily prayers and rosaries. October is the month of The Holy Rosary. The feast day of The Most Holy Rosary is October 7th. The feast of Christ the King is October 26th. Hint: Many prayers are answered on feast days. We have 2 very important prayer petitions: The 'play' Corpus Christi and the Pope's spiritual and physical health.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), October 02, 2003.

Dear Katia, I am not surprised to hear that the people of Peru would 'protest' a play like Corpus Christi in their country. Most people of America have no time for God. That is precisely why the devil has taken over this country, while we sleep like sheep.

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), October 02, 2003.

No estoy de acuerdo que pongan en escena ese tipo de obras teatrales

-- Silvia Rivera (chivirivera@hotmail.com), October 02, 2003.

Silvia's message says:
"I do not agree that they [i.e., anyone] may stage this kind of theatrical works."

-- (.@...), October 02, 2003.

Silvia said:

i disagree this kind of plays to be released

-- Guillermo Chiaway (gchiaway@hotmail.com), October 02, 2003.

Dutchee, please stop promoting those two sites at this forum. That "rip-off" of the Fatima devotion is not legitimate. It is not part of orthodox Catholicism. The leader (Fr. Gruner) is a sick man, a liar, who is in an irregular situation in his priesthood. A person who reads the book (promoted at both sites) or who supports the organization is doing the devil's work without knowing it.

-- (.@...), October 02, 2003.

Crusade against Corpus Christi underway

The American TFP is spearheading a natiowide protest against Corpus Christi in Madison. For more info please check www.tfp.org or call 888-317-5571. Over 300,000 people are already involved in this moral crusade to stop this blasphmey.

Robert Ritchie

-- Robert Ritchie (reritchie@juno.com), October 03, 2003.

Dear Robert, Thank you so much for looking in on us and referring us to a most valuable and interesting website.

Dutchee

-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), October 03, 2003.

Jmj
Hello, Dutchee.

The negative comments about the two sites you have been recommending came from me.

I was on the verge of signing my name to the message when I scrolled up and say that I had previously left an anonymous message -- namely this one:

Here it is: bart@bartelltheatre.org
-- (.@...), September 30, 2003.

Remember that one, where I got the Bartell e-mail address for you, after you said you couldn't find it? Well, I was rushing, and there was no reason for me to leave my name and e-mail address on that little one-liner, so I just rapidly entered ".@...". [That's why Paul was wrong to say: "If something isn't worth signing, it isn't worth posting." He didn't realize that there can be some legitimate reasons for not signing.]

Well, anyway, when I saw that I had posted anonymously, I knew that I had better do it again, lest I be accused of breaking a forum rule that prohibits posting under two identities on the same thread. Now since you have made a big deal out of the identity of the person criticizing your two favorite sites, I thought it best to let you know that I am definitely not Paul!

Since around 1985, I have been observing the very bad things that Fr. Nicholas Gruner has been doing, and I know what I am talking about when I ask you not to promote his sites at this forum. I could probably find some extremely harsh anti-Gruner sites to link here. But instead I will link an EWTN article that bends over backwards to be fair to this misguided man, but which (in the end) leaves any intelligent Catholic realizing that he/she ought to stay far away from the "Fatima Crusader" aberration and all its associated tentacles. Here is that EWTN article.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), October 03, 2003.

Here is the response to that piece of trash from EWTN, as if EWTN can tell a real priest when they see one!

Their website is riddled with awful examples proving the contrary.

Have a nice day.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 03, 2003.

The first link provides a response from the Gruner site and therefore cannot be fully trusted. The EWTN site -- run by orthodox Catholics -- can be trusted 100 times more than anything from Gruner, who is heterodox (if still Catholic at all).

The second link proves nothing. I have seen Fr. Fortuna speak and play the guitar several times on EWTN. He is, with co-founder Fr. Benedict Groeschel, a member of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, an orthdox Catholic religious congregation. His evangelization skills are great.

Anyone who wants "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" about Fatima needs to turn to the words of the Vatican and the written (and filmed) works of Fr. Robert J. Fox.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 04, 2003.

J.F. Gecik,

The orginal topic presented here by Dutchee was the condemnation of the vulgar play "Corpus Christi", not Catholic Priest-bashing. You have plenty of other sites for that purpose. However, since you added your two-cents, we await to hear your condemnation of the above- mentioned "Corpus Christi" play. Remember "It depicts a Christ figure who indulges in gay sex and romps with his disciples". What is your position regarding this play?

-- (tarses@sbcglobal.net), October 04, 2003.

J.F. Gecik,

Allow me to quote you from your recent response of Abraham T's site. "Ken, regardless of whether or not your statements are valid, they are not germaine to the discussion. Abraham is complaining about something different...". John, PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH.

-- (tarses@sbcglobal.net), October 04, 2003.

Tarses, I do practice what I preach.
Your criticism of me (for going off on a tangent from the topic of the thread) is misguided.

Dutchee started this thread with "Corpus Christi" as the subject matter. But then she widened the thread to additional subjects -- and to these, I responded.

If you scroll up, you will see how she brought in the new topics by saying the following:

www.devilsfinalbattle.com www.fatima.org
2 interesting websites for you to check out.
-- (dutchee@sbcglobal.net), October 01, 2003.

No need to apologize, Tarses. You made a small mistake. (But don't do it again!)

God bless you.
John
PS: Oh, by the way, my comment on the play "Corpus Christi" is to suggest that everyone read what the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights [CLRCR] has had to say about it. They have been protesting the play since 1998, and (as a lifetime member) I support CLRCR. Click here.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 05, 2003.

Tarses, what have I done to deserve a turkey like you?

In response to your first attack ...
You wrote: "Dutchee merely mentioned 2 websites of interest and did not elaborate on them. It is obvious she wanted this forum to be devoted to the CORPUS CHRISTI play dilemma. It was you, who started Catholic priest bashing."

Don't stupidly say, "It is obvious ...".
If it were "obvious," I would not have done what I did. I'm sad that you don't have the honesty to admit that you fouled up in attacking me two messages ago -- and that I proved you wrong. But I'm not surprised. Anyone who would follow the Gruners of the world must have a big-time character (or intelligence) flaw. Just deal with it, pal ... Dutchee opened up the possibility of my rejection of the sites she recommended. If she wanted nothing but "Corpus Christi" to be mentioned here, she should not have posted those URLs.

How pitifully dumb can you be -- calling me guilty of "Catholic priest bashing"? Are you so weird as to think that I am anti-Catholic? Didn't you see that I linked in the site of EWTN, the Catholic media network? Didn't you see that I linked in the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights? Use the brain God gave you, sir or madam!!!

In response to your second attack ...
You are either stupid or a liar. You said that "up until recently," I used a DoD e-mail address. That is false. It has been more than a year (and maybe more than two years) since I used that address here. I used it because (1) posting messages requires some kind of address and (2) I didn't want to use my home e-mail address -- to avoid getting viruses from anti-Catholics (ironically) and crackpots like you. At some point I found out about Internet e-mail like "hotmail," so I opened that kind of account (fully protected from viruses), and I've used my hotmail address ever since.

Tarses, I have probably posted 7,000 messages here since the beginning of 2000. I have worked my fingers to the bone trying to help people of all kinds. But you, in your few weeks here (and handful of messages) have so far done nothing of value to anyone. Don't waste your time attacking me. Start trying to come up with messages that are beneficial to people and the Church instead.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 05, 2003.

Hey - talk about running off on a tangent! Instead of doing something positive and getting together to fight the things that degrade our faith in Jesus Christ so we make a difference (like we're supposed) to here you are bickering back and forth, calling names and insulting one another. Who do you think is enjoying this? Certainly not our Lord. Can you PLEASE get back to the topic and stop this junk? I just got an e-mail that said that that play is going to be turned into a movie and it has a petition attached to stop it. I checked the hoax sites and they don't have anything on it - does anyone know if that is true? (Seems a bit like "The Last Temptation of Christ" and I don't know whether to pass it on or not.) Thanks in advance for any help you can give.

-- Ellen Preckel (mpreckel@midtel.net), October 10, 2003.

You want proof Ellen? I found all I needed on the internet today after receiving an email to petition against it. I thought the world was in better shape than this. You can find the Bartell theater website at http://www.madstage.com/bartell . There are enough phone numbers posted there to get you started. Follow a few links from there and you can get to the Board of Directors and the Advisory Board. (I think they are going to have their hands full soon.) The theater to perform there is http://www.stageq.com . There you will find that they are soliciting auditions now and the play will be on (God forbid!) March 12 to 27, 2004. It has truly sickened me to think that this can be thought of as entertainment! I feel for those who are part of this come Judgement Day. My heart is crying...

John

-- John (sikor77@hotmail.com), November 25, 2003.

Sorry, I was a little (or rather a lot) upset about the play. I have not been able to confirm anything about a movie yet, but I pray it is not so. If I find anything about it I will post.

-- John (sikor77@hotmail.com), November 26, 2003.

Just to bring something a bit different to the table... First of all, who's to say that Jesus and his disciples weren't homosexual? Not like any of us were there or anything. Perhaps this play is just a way of putting something a lot of people are familiar with one way into a different perspective; a 'what-if' sort of thing. Just seems to me that everyone here is a little too caught up in why it's so wrong and blasphemous, etc. Just a thought.

-- Emily (EXpressobean14@hotmail.com), November 26, 2003.

Who's to say that GOD didn't live a life of mortal sin? Doesn't take a theologian.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 26, 2003.

Just to let everyone know: The Corpus Christi festival started in Greece as a way to honor the gods. It was held once a year and was revered as a great honor to be one of the invited playing troupes. As a theatre person myself, I consider the so called "blasphemous" movie a work of art, its purpose to create an awareness of human nature as a whole. Jesus and his disciples COULD have been homosexuals. Also, there are plenty of other pieces of art, movies or no, that make fun of other religions. Why don't they count as much? Just something to think over, Abbey

-- Abbey (AbbeyRoad122@hotmail.com), November 26, 2003.

"Jesus and his disciples COULD have been homosexuals. ... Just something to think over."

No, Abbey. Impossible.

Sodomy is sinful. Even the Same-Sex Attraction is a disorder.
But Jesus is God ... God cannot sin ... and the God-Man was not disordered in any way.
Ergo, Jesus could not have had anything to do with homosexuality.

The only one who wants people to "think over" garbage like this is satan.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 27, 2003.

Let's not forget how much of what we know as the bible today might not be the way things 'actually were'. Back in those days of yore, when people were completely illiterate, those priests changed a lot of those words around to suit THEIR tastes. So perhaps, originally, it was acceptable, but those wonderufl medeival priests didn't think so.

-- Emily (EXpressobean14@hotmail.com), November 28, 2003.

Also, I would like to agree with Abbey on her point about other works of art that ridicule other religions. Why are those ones acceptable? Seems very narrow-minded if you ask me. Not that anyone did.

-- Emily (EXpressobean14@hotmail.com), November 28, 2003.

The compilation of the Bible was completed at the end of the 4th century - LONG before medieval times. Not a single word of the text has been changed by anyone in the Catholic Church since that time. The Catholic Church, in compiling the Bible, declared it to be divinely inspired - a work of God Himself - and in so doing, declared itself unauthorized to subsequently change anything in the Bible. Of course the manmade sects of the 16th century had no such compunction,and made changes to suit their own new doctrines, simply ripping out those sections of Holy Scripture which most strongly refuted their novel ideas. But the Holy Catholic Church cannot be responsible for the actions of those who have defected. We do know that the text of today's Catholic Bible is exactly the same as the original Catholic text, which was the original Biblical text.

Who said that the desecration of other religions is "acceptable"? Members of other religions no doubt feel just as strongly about bigotry as Catholic do. And those who produce books and films desecrating Judaism or Islam or any other religion are no less bigots than those who bring mindless attacks against the True Church. One big difference though - no major film producer would dare to produce an anti-Semitic film. That would be the height of political incorrectness. Anti-Catholicism on the other hand is the last politically correct form of bigotry - because the Catholic Church is the last bastion of the fullness of truth; and the fullness of truth is the greatest threat to the lifestyle of the politically correct.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 28, 2003.

I suppose it must be so; you say it with such conviction. You know better than I do. I just find it hard to believe that something that's been around since the 4th century hasn't been subject to any change at all, if even in the smallest degree.

Also, I think it's a bit hasty to be calling this play a 'mindless attack'. I mean, it's just a play. It's a work of art, and the artists responsible for it have a right to express their feelings toward the matter. A while back there was a piece of modern art which consisted of a crucifix in a jar of urine atop a stoll on an American flag on the ground. I wouldn't really call that a mindless attack on either the United States or Catholocism. Just art. ARTS--Arists' right to speak freely. You don't have to like it, but it means something to them.

-- Emily (EXpressobean14@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

Emily, you can't just go by feelings and thoughts. You have to go by research, logic, and facts.

You wrote: "I just find it hard to believe that something that's been around since the 4th century hasn't been subject to any change at all, if even in the smallest degree."

Well, instead of taking this position, do some reading. Find out about the extremely old copies of the biblical books that still exist today -- and how they were used for the modern translations that you and I now read. What we have now is reliable! It hasn't been intentionally corrupted by people in the Church.

You also wrote: "It's a work of art, and the artists responsible for it have a right to express their feelings toward the matter."

Yes, there is freedom of speech in Wisconsin, allowing the play to be staged. But ... that same freedom of speech allows people to complain about the play on this discussion thread without your trying to silence them!

I was amazed that you wrote: "I think it's a bit hasty to be calling this play a 'mindless attack'." How can you know whether or not people are being "a bit hasty"? We are aware of details present in this play that make calling it a "mindless attack" the understatement of the year!

You referred to the play as "a work of art" and went on to say this:
"A while back there was a piece of modern art which consisted of a crucifix in a jar of urine atop a stoll on an American flag on the ground. I wouldn't really call that a mindless attack on either the United States or Catholicism. Just art."

If you really think these foolish things, I feel sorry for you, because it means that you were not taught what "art" really is. Something that glorifies deadly sin [the play] and something that is utterly degrading and intentionally insulting to one billion people [crucifix in urine] is not "art." It is the worst imaginable garbage, not even worthy of such good treatment as a trash compactor would give it. Even so, we don't break the law to take and destroy this junk. We only protest against its being foisted upon society -- and especially against the use of our tax monies to support the hellholes where it is exhibited.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

Dear John- There are other religions that say that if you do not believe in Satan, then he does not exist. I am not satan, and yet I still am thinking about this. We all are. Why do you think there are so many replies? It is human nature to question. And I was not asking people to question Jesus' sexual preference, it was referring to my previous statement about how people make fun of other religions, and yet it's alright then.

-- Abbey (AbbeyRoad122@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

I would just like to make it known right now that I am not trying to silence anyone on this thread, I am merely letting people know how I feel about the subject. Yes, John, I'm feeling agian, and I'm sorry if you don't approve of it, that's just the way I work.

-- Emily (EXpressobean14@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

And just as an afterthought, how would you define art?

-- Emily (EXpressobean14@hotmail.com), November 29, 2003.

Jmj

Hi, Emily (or are you Abbey too?). [In case Abbey is someone else, I'll just tell her that I couldn't understand her reply.]

How would I define "art," you asked? Rather than compose a definition, I turned to "art" and "fine art" in an online dictionary -- and I found that the definitions fit well with my own thinking. Here are the key ones I found:

ART: 2a. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
ART: 2c. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group. ART: 3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

FINE ART: 1a. Art produced or intended primarily for beauty rather than utility.
FINE ART: 1b. Any of the art forms, such as sculpture, painting, or music, used to create such art.

I emphasized the key word above -- "beauty". There is nothing of "beauty" in the desecration of a crucifix or in trying to make a sinner (sodomite) out of God (Jesus). It is acceptable for fine art to be surprising to the person viewing it, but when something drifts into the sinful (e.g., the play "Corpus Christi") or the disgusting (the asinine "work" entitled "P**s Christ"), it no longer deserves to be called "fine art," because it now lacks the necessary element: "beauty."

And please don't try to tell me that some folks find these two things "beautiful," because that would lead to the fact that they don't know what "beauty" is. There are objective standards in life. Sane people are not relativists, nihilists, or anarchists.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 30, 2003.

Tell that to an anarchist, and they'll most likely tell you government is for those too weak to govern themselves. It's all a matter of persepective, love. Everything is perspective.

-- Emily (EXpressobean14@hotmail.com), December 12, 2003.

No, ma'am. Not everything is "perspective." As I just stated above:
"There are objective standards in life. Sane people are not relativists ... ."
Your comment reflects relativism. You need to seek a cure for that.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 14, 2003.

Dear John-

Emily and I are not the same person, however alike our opinions may be. In an earlier entry, you said that we should not rely on thoughts and feelings, that we should go by logic and facts. To me it seems that a lot of the Bible relies on the feelings of people in it. Most people would not have expected God to start talking to him, and yet he did. Nowadays, if someone said that God was talking to them, and only they could hear, medical assistance would be sought. Joan of Arc was spoken to, and she was killed for it. If you were walking on the beach one day, and suddenly the ocean parted to let you through, you wouldn't logically reason with yourself. I think that you'd say, Hey, someone's watching over me, might as well go through. I'm sure a lot of people were skeptical at one point or another.

-- Abbey Barth (AbbeyRoad122@hotmail.com), December 15, 2003.

Sorry John, answering your other comment on how you couldn't understand my reply! What I was saying was in response to what you said when you quoted me. You made it seem as if I was telling you to think over Jesus' sexual preference, when I wasn't. I was asking you to think about how it seems alright to poke fun at the smaller or less prevolent religions in the world, but once someone says something about Jesus, a forum is created. Just clearing that bit up. Ta ta.

-- Abbey Barth (AbbeyRoad122@hotmail.com), December 15, 2003.

"Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you." George Carlin I ay this to o alon ith the fact that it's all in perspective. And I do not believe that this is really bigotry. It disriminates against all realigions with dieties i.e. most of them. Personally, I find the ones with out dieties most pleasant because thier teachings are not as bigotted as those with a diety.

-- Andrew (Andyj63@earthlink.net), December 15, 2003.

Sorry for the random typos. My key board is going commy on me.

-- Andrew (Andyj63@earthlink.net), December 15, 2003.

Well, sir, not to come off as insolent or anything, but I think that's just your "perspective".

-- Emily (EXpressobean14@hotmail.com), December 15, 2003.

Well, I think that you're being a relativist, but unlike john, I have a cure!

GARLIC!

It heals all.

-- Andrew (Andyj63@earthlink.net), December 15, 2003.

Hi, Abbey.
You need to read more carefully.

Just now, you told me: "John, ... you said that we should not rely on thoughts and feelings, that we should go by logic and facts."

No, I didn't tell you that. Here's what I actually said:
"Emily, you can't just go by feelings and thoughts. You have to go by research, logic, and facts."

Notice the key word there: "just." Therefore, I was saying that, while feelings and thoughts can't help but play a part in a human's life, one can't rely ONLY on them. You need facts and logic TOO -- and primarily them, because "feelings" come and go and sometimes can't be trusted. By contrast, facts and logic are solid and unchanging. I was seeing no sign at all that Emily was relying on facts and logic. (Maybe the same is true of you. I'm too short on time right now to go back and re-read everything. Too bad you folks couldn't keep the conversation going in the original time frame, instead of letting two weeks go by since the time the conversation was "fresh.")

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.

What is logical about religion at all? (and I apologize for the lapse on my part, John. I was out of town and a computer was unacessable)

-- Emily (EXpressobean14@hotmail.com), December 16, 2003.

Emily, a "religion" Emily, is the most logical thing for a person to follow if he/she believes in a Supreme Being (an eternal, perfect, pure spirit, who created all things) -- as over 90% of all people do believe.
And, while not discounting the "mystery" and "faith" involved, our believing (in God) itself is a logical, reasonable thing to do.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 17, 2003.

Dear John- I am sorry that I hadn't replied quickly enough for your liking. I must confess that my life doesn't revolve around this message board. I simply check up on it and offer my opinion when something interesting comes up. Blessed be, Abbey

-- Abbey (AbbeyRoad122@hotmail.com), January 04, 2004.

Religion is seemingly logical to someone who lacks faith in existence.

-- Andrew (andyj63@earthlink.net), January 04, 2004.

John- where do you get your statistics?

-- Abbey (AbbeyRoad122@hotmail.com), January 04, 2004.

Abbey,

Fully 92 percent of Americans say they believe in God, 85 percent in heaven and 82 percent in miracles according to a national poll, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation. see: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 04, 2004.

Bill, thanks for answering Abbey on my behalf. I saw that poll or a similar one, which is why I told Emily that "over 90% of all people do believe" in a Supreme Being. In fact, similar poll results seem to be published just about every year.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 05, 2004.

Thank you Bill and John. I must give it to you, even though I don't agree with you half, or, rather, most of the time. You have done your research. I stand corrected.

-- Abbey (AbbeyRoad122@hotmail.com), January 07, 2004.

New York learned the hard way. What'll it be, Wisconsin?

SHAME ON YOU, BARTELL THEATRE, MADISON, WISCONSIN USA

What is democracy ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 07, 2004.

The United States is not a "democracy." It is a "republic."

In this republic, a partial form of "democracy" is practiced. It gives a citizen the right to say,
SHAME ON YOU, BARTELL THEATRE, MADISON, WISCONSIN USA

So there, olympic LUGe-man!

-- (The@Scoop.com), January 08, 2004.

(The@Scoop.com)

OK , it gives a citizen the right to say , freedom of speech / freedom to act , as long there is no crime involved !!

So , people who'll like to see that show , have the right to go !!

So , people who don't wanna see that show , just don't go !!

When I'm on a concert/festival , and there is band on , which I really don't like to see , I just go outside to talk , eat or drink , that's how I do it each time !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 08, 2004.

Laurent Lug- Bravo! If the play is found offensive, so be it, but it doesn't have to be ruined for the rest of us who wouldn't mind having a different perspective on things. Too bad you don't put your e-mail address.

-- Abbey (AbbeyRoad122@hotmail.com), January 08, 2004.

Abbey , how do you mean ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 08, 2004.

Just that it seems that you think basically the same way I do. I wouldn't mind discussing other related subjects without the subject of a forum.

-- Abbey (AbbeyRoad122@hotmail.com), January 08, 2004.

I think that's the bit you meant.

-- Abbey (AbbeyRoad122@hotmail.com), January 08, 2004.

Abbey , it seems to be that way , yes !!

btw , I always try to give my opinion/vision on the threads I like to respond !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 08, 2004.

Still leaves those 631,400,000 people who don't believe in a higher being. Also, just because someone believes in a higher being doesn't necessarily mean they are religious. There are other forces at work that are beyond our control. (I apologize for a rather long pause on my part)

-- Emily (EXpressobea14@hotmail.com), January 08, 2004.

Also, it's easy to say that you belive in something. Much easier than actually believing. Look at the catholic church, for instance. They claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, correct? Have you seen the sinful extravagances in a Catholic church. Also, one thing Jesus firmly belived in was helping those who need to be helped. Whatever your able to help with you should help with it. In this respect and many others, I like some of the things that Jesus had to say, but I think the whole thing has been horribly skewed by the Christian church.

-- Andrew (Andyj63@earthlink.net), January 14, 2004.

>>>Did we not learn our lesson with all the gay and sexually explicit shows on broadway, let alone all the plays and shows that blaspheme Our Lord and Savior and his Mother? New York learned the hard way. What'll it be, Wisconsin?

Are you actually implying that God allowed terrorists to wreak havoc on NYC because of Broadway musicals? I find that absolutely appalling.

-- AVC (littleflower1976@yahoo.com), January 14, 2004.

"Also, one thing Jesus firmly belived in was helping those who need to be helped"

A: Which is why the Catholic Church provides more relief of human needs and suffering than all other churches COMBINED.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 14, 2004.

Hi folks. I don't generally frequent this kind of board, but I figured I'd stop by and say "Hi". I am the actor playing Bartholomew in the Bartell Community Theatre production of "Corpus Christi." Some thoughts I'd like to share about this play:

One of the things that initially drew me to this play was, in fact, just how very reverent it is. In fact, in his introduction to the play, Terence McNally describes how this play was written very much as a statement of personal faith. This play IS NOT about denigrating Christ or Christians... quite the opposite. If anything, this play is about exposing the hypocrisy of a Church that says they believe in a God that welcomes all, that loves all, no matter their shortcomings; but then makes a point of excluding all those they deem "sinners." This play is not about gratuitous shock. Jesus (or "Joshua" as he is called in the play) does not go on "sexual romps" with his disciples. Like the Biblical Christ, Joshua sets out to teach people to love each other - even the worst sinners, even those who at first may seem like blasphemers.

As to who Christ was as a person, there's a part in the play where Joshua says that who He is isn't what's important - it's His message of God's love that matters. Throughout history, our image of Jesus has been shaped by our images of ourselves. It's highly unlikely that Jesus was a fair-skinned man with blue eyes and flowing blonde hair, but that is how we think of Him. In other countries, and in past societies, His image has been depicted differently. This play argues that what Jesus was a person - just like any of us - who was also divine. And one of his miracles, perhaps His greatest miracle, was that He saw the divinity in all human beings.

Did Jesus appear to the priests of His time? No, He hung out with fishermen, prostitutes, and lepers. And when an "enemy" approached seeking His help, He didn't judge or turn them away - even as the priests, the appointed keepers of the faith, did. Instead, He loved them, and His love healed them.

The Church has always made it its duty to judge who is worthy of God's love and who is not. The Church cannot seem to accept that we are all children of God, and are therefore divine. The Church has deemed certain groups of people to be unworthy, abominable.

God's Love is not about Us vs. Them. We are all the same - saints and sinners - in God's eyes. When we deny love to all people - even those we believe to be sinners - we are not serving God.

This is the message of "Corpus Christi." It does not surprise me that leaders in the Catholic Church see this as dangerous: it disempowers them. Remember that the churches in Jesus' day believed that He was a blasphemer as well. This play asks the question: "Who are the REAL blashphemers? The people who declare that all people - even the abominable - are divine and worthy of God's love? Or the people who claim to know God's will, and deny God's love to others in Jesus' name?"

-"Bartholomew"

-- "Bartholomew" (paulrocksmyworld@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

"This play IS NOT about denigrating Christ or Christians... quite the opposite. If anything, this play is about exposing the hypocrisy of a Church that says they believe in a God that welcomes all, that loves all, no matter their shortcomings; but then makes a point of excluding all those they deem "sinners."

A: This false and fictitious description of God's Holy Church is denigrating in and of itself; therefore a play which presents such a warped image is likewise denigrating, and as such should be opposed by anyone who call themselves Christian, as well as anyone who believes in truth, fairness, and respect for the beliefs of others.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 25, 2004.

I repeat:

So , people who'll like to see that show , have the right to go !!

So , people who don't wanna see that show , just don't go !!

When I'm on a concert/festival , and there is band on , which I really don't like to see , I just go outside to talk , eat or drink , that's how I do it each time !!

Why should pull of the plug at a band I don't like , that would be selfish & ridiculous !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 26, 2004.

http://tpsonline.org/discus/messages/3252/16194.html?1075413948

Looks like they're doing it in Seattle, Washington as well.

-- Steven Tennison (seventen@yahoo.com), January 29, 2004.

Hoorah for "Bartholomew!" That gives a better angle of what I was trying to say earlier. I am an agnostic, and I don't know as much about the religion as you, so your answer is far superior to mine. Bravo!

-- Andrew (Andyj63@earthlink.net), February 03, 2004.

All this just can't help but make me roll my eyes. Do any of you actually know what this play is about? It isn't about Jesus. Its an allegory. That means that there is many clear paralells but it isn't directly about Jesus. This play is about 12 gay men in Texas in the 50's that retain certain characteristics of the diciples and how a friend of theirs is brutally lynched for being homosexual. Its not saying Jesus was gay. Maybe you should try learning about the play before you start such a fuss. (rolls eyes again) -Raised Catholic, currently recovering

-- Sarah Elizabeth (sestumpf@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004.

Sarah, welcome to the forum. Your insight is refreshing. Someone must have opened a window! :) Stick around!

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), February 07, 2004.

Sarah,
His publishers disagree with you.

From the Back Cover of the paperback edition of the play:
...In Corpus Christi McNally gives us his own unique view of the story of Christ, and in doing so provides us with one of the most vivid and moving passion plays written....

"One of McNally's best, most moving and personal works . . . His updating of the Christ story is witty but not patronizing, as sober and cleansing as a dip in baptismal water."-Richard Zoglin, Time

This info can also be found on the publisher's website.

Sorry, Sara, your interpretation was not the author's intention.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 07, 2004.

From the front matter in the book:

"... Corpus Christi is a passion play. The life of Joshua, a young man from south Texas, is told in the theatrical tradition of medieval morality ..."

"... as a Christ figure without stirring up a protest as it would to think I could write a play about Jesus Christ Himself in which He would come to be identified as a young gay man without a lot of noses ..."

Nope, it is definately a passion play (a play about the death of Jesus Christ), so says the author. It is not a simple allegory.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), February 07, 2004.

I don't see how a "passion play" can't also be an "allegory". Christ often used allegories and parables to teach His message. I think it's fitting that His "passion" could also be re-interpreted as an allegory for modern audiences. Yes, "Corpus Christi" is a passion play. But, it's point isn't that Jesus was historically gay. It's saying that all people are the Children of God, and in that sense, it isn't really important who Jesus was as a person - only that we was a person. McNally could have made the same point by making the Christ figure in this play a woman, or black, or Arab.

But to argue whether this play is either "allegory" or "passion play" is to obscure the message of the play itself - and how the protests of people who call it blasphemous without having read a single word of it empower the play and further prove its point that the people who make the biggest show of their piousness and faith are very often the same people who betray their Saviour's message: we are all Children of God, and God's love is not limited to those approved of by the Catholic Church.

-- "Bartholomew" (paulrocksmyworld@hotmail.com), February 10, 2004.

I read the script and saw it performed, as part of my job. It was NOT about proving a point thatg all are Children of God, it was written by an Openly Homosexual playwrite who wanted to link the Sufferign of our Lord wihthe plight of Homosexuality to gain Sympathy for his cause.

It reduceds the Sacrifice of Jesus to a hate Crime. Instea dof Jesus beign killed for preachign a new Idea and beign a threat tot he authorities, he was killed because he was impley different and Gay. That is the Play in a nutshell.

It advicates such things as Group sex, polyamory, and Homosexuality, and it tries to link, very much so, these things, and how the pyblic at large foesnt accp them, withthe way they didnt accept Jesus.

Its not about how we are all Children of God, its about trying to get peopel to see that Persecuting Homosexuality is worng, and those who do speak agaisnt Hoosexuality ( And Polyamory, ect.) are just like those who killed Jesus for his message.

I know , I not only anylised the play, but the playwrite.

It's a play entitely dedicated to this end as stated above, and nothign else. Please dont insist that we dont understand the play, as I for one DO understand it, and find it both Blasphmoys and in inredibley bad taste.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 10, 2004.

I don't see how a "passion play" can't also be an "allegory". Christ often used allegories

A 'passion play in the medevial tradition' (which is what the author said it was) is a dramatic performance, of medieval origin, that represents the events associated with the Passion of Jesus. It is NOT an allegory for something else.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 10, 2004.

Bill-

I've always found that clinging to black-and-white, this-and-never- that type points of view (like the one evidenced in your replies, not just to me, but to everyone in this thread) are detrimental to the discussion of a work of art. I think of this play in many different terms. On one hand, it is, quite simply, a passion play. But it can also be read as an allegory. It can also be read in strictly political terms. It can also be read as a kind of prayer. Or, it can just be an entertaining (or not) story that one may (or may not) find offensive. I personally believe, from reading the play (and its introduction which you quoted before) that "Corpus Christi" is a very personal statement of faith on Terrence McNally's part. I've also found that my own faith has been strengthened by playing a part in this play, for all the reasons I've stated in previous posts.

At the very least, this play is meant to be thought-provoking. To me, (and this is strictly a personal observation on my part - take it as you wish) it seems that faith SHOULD be challenged every now and then. I often hear people talk about how faithful they are, and as a result of that faith, they won't go anywhere near a play like this, (or books like Harry Potter, or movies like "The Last Temptation of Christ", etc.).

My question: What are these people so afraid of? If their faith is as strong as they say it is, why are they so afraid to examine it, or {gulp} challenge it?

I left Christianity 10 years ago, because I felt that it was hypocritical. It says "love all people", and yet it rejected me. And still, I find my own disillusionment with Christianity challenged by this play. Now, I find myself closer to re-embracing Christ than I ever have before.

If that's bad for the Church - if that's bigotry towards Catholicism (as many have claimed it to be) - it that's blasphemy, and in bad taste, than by all means, I'm guilty of all of the above.

And damn proud of it.

-- "Bartholomew" (paulrocksmyworld@hotmail.com), February 11, 2004.

ZAROVE-

Your references to the advocacy of group sex and polyamory in "Corpus Christi" lead me to believe that you didn't actually see this play. I'm not doubting that you were in a theatre where the play was being performed, but you apparently went into the theatre with a preset reaction. There is no polyamory to be found in the script of "Corpus Christi". And the play certainly does not advocate polyamory. If it advocates anything, it advocates love and acceptance of all people.

Secondly, you seem to believe that there shall be one interpretation and one interpretation only of this play, since as you so eloquently put it "It's a play entitely dedicated to this end as stated above, and nothign else."

This play will draw reactions as diverse as the number of people who read it or see it. To say that only one reaction is valid is narrow- minded and naive. My personal reaction to the play is that it's a personal testament of faith. Having seen the play, you may have a different reaction. Fine. My point is that there are many people out there condemning this play without having seen or read it - and that to me, is hateful ignorance, plain and simple.

You want to condemn a play? Fine. But, read/see the darn thing first! Otherwise your opinions are not valid.

So, ZAROVE, I congratulate you on seeing the play, and I accept your interpretation of it, even if I disagree with it.

Finally, ZAROVE, on a totally unrelated note, I find your spelling to be blasphemous, and in incredibly bad taste. But that's just me.

Thanks all. It's been fun.

"Corpus Christi" opens March 5th and runs through March 27th at the Bartell Theatre in Madison. If you're going to be in town to protest the production, you might as well stick around and see one of the performances. Tickets are 16 bucks and going fast. (By the way, thanks for the publicity).

-- "Bartholomew" (paulrocksmyworld@hotmail.com), February 11, 2004.

ZAROVE- Your references to the advocacy of group sex and polyamory in "Corpus Christi" lead me to believe that you didn't actually see this play. I'm not doubting that you were in a theatre where the play was being performed, but you apparently went into the theatre with a preset reaction. There is no polyamory to be found in the script of "Corpus Christi". And the play certainly does not advocate polyamory. If it advocates anything, it advocates love and acceptance of all people.

{Re-read the play. Not only is Judas EXPRESSLY given as Joshua's first sexual encounter and Boyfriend, as it where,But the reason fgor his betrayal is his jeloysy and posessiveness an dunwillignness ot share. Sorry, the implicit sex exists in the play and permeates it. Its obviouss that the apostles where "Exploring their spirituality" ala sex with Joshua. Indeed, even the auhtor of the play says as much in interveiws.}-Zarove

Secondly, you seem to believe that there shall be one interpretation and one interpretation only of this play, since as you so eloquently put it "It's a play entitely dedicated to this end as stated above, and nothign else."

{This interpretation is basically the correct one. Do I need to dig out Terrance Maxnally's phone number, call him, and ask personally? I have it somewhere in this house, I am a proffessional writer, even if I dont employ all the tricks of the trad eon the internet boards. I know exaclty what this lay was written for and the midnset of hte playwrite. Sorry, this was why he write it and he will even admit to it.In a battle of his wrd VS yours, I beleive his.}-Zarove

This play will draw reactions as diverse as the number of people who read it or see it.

{Reactiosn aside, you have to ask what the Playwrite was thinking, which he admits in even pyblic interveiws. This is a retellign of the Christ story, from a gay perspective, that tries to link the sturggles of preasent day Homosexuals with Chrfists struggle for acceptance.Please read the authors own words on this in a mazgazine or 5...}-Zarove

To say that only one reaction is valid is narrow- minded and naive.

{It went from an interpretation to a reaction, and amazingly, those who object tot he play or raise concern over it are the ones who are closed minded. Old Hat tricks wont work here, you are the one not listenign to an opposing veiw, an hten clasimign the reverse of me...}-Zarove

My personal reaction to the play is that it's a personal testament of faith.

{Reactiosn aside, the playwrites intentions where what we where discussing, an if the mateiral was appropriate. I woudl hate my life to be reinterpreted after I die to make someone whose lifestyle I opposed feel better abou themselves, but its OK to do this with Jesus?}-Zarove

Having seen the play, you may have a different reaction. Fine. My point is that there are many people out there condemning this play without having seen or read it - and that to me, is hateful ignorance, plain and simple.

{Or it coudl be that the notion of a play that depicts Jesus as Gay and is an attempt to link Jesus to the Homosexual comunity in his strggle is offensive in and of itsself, a poitn of veiw you wont even consider before condemning them of hatred and ognorancde, because you yourself woudl rather assume moral superiority. The bit about Hypocracy in CHristainity is really a Pot callign the Kettle black form where I sit.}-Zarove

You want to condemn a play? Fine. But, read/see the darn thing first! Otherwise your opinions are not valid.

{I did, and I reviewed it in a proffessional manner. I didnt even let my emotionas get to me, but its not even good liturature. Its poorly written, and in bad taste, and the only reason its considered good by the critics at all is because we are as a society tryign to embrace the latest trend and not lookign honestly at the work fgiven. If it supports owmen's domenent role in society, or Gay rights, its almosy assured ot be seen as brilliant. No matter how badly written. }-Zarove

So, ZAROVE, I congratulate you on seeing the play, and I accept your interpretation of it, even if I disagree with it.

{No comment.}-Zarove

Finally, ZAROVE, on a totally unrelated note, I find your spelling to be blasphemous, and in incredibly bad taste. But that's just me.

{Hahaha , lets make fun of his spelling, gee glly, never had that kind of line before.

I will explain this once. ISnc you arre"Open minded and tolerent" I expect it to sink in, and since you are so loving, I ask why the above comment was nessisary?

I am Dyslexic. I have said so numerous times. I have difficulty with reading and writing. I however am not stupid, I just cant help that. Kindly refrain form your narrow minded hate gille slurs agaisnt my disability.Least of all is it palatable form someone who toted "Open mindedness" and "Loving evedyone."}-Zarove

Thanks all. It's been fun.

{For whom?Pray tell?}-Zarove

"Corpus Christi" opens March 5th and runs through March 27th at the Bartell Theatre in Madison. If you're going to be in town to protest the production, you might as well stick around and see one of the performances. Tickets are 16 bucks and going fast. (By the way, thanks for the publicity).

{Such cheap, irrelevant one liners prove only that you are here not to listen to opposing veiws or even to take seriosuly any concern raised, but are rather here to push your agenda and veiws as if they ar eht eonly ones and impose them on evedryone else.This blatant commercialism is clealry nohtign but a ringshot, and in itsself proves to counter any words you spok eof love and tolerence. This is hate filled and mockery, as well as blatantly commercial.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 11, 2004.

January 26, 2004. I repeat again: So , people who'll like to see that show , have the right to go !!

So , people who don't wanna see that show , just don't go !!

It's that simple !!

Think about this:

Every protest , negative or positive , means free publicity !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), February 12, 2004.

Hey "Bartholomew"

How was your opening?

-- Steven Tennison (seventen@yahoo.com), March 08, 2004.

I left Christianity 10 years ago, because I felt that it was hypocritical.

My guess is you left Christianity 10 years ago because you wanted to have homosexual sex without fealing guilty about it. Not much faith involved in that. Christianity demands that we follow God's Law, when we won't we often call Christianity names and walk away into the arms of our fellow sinners. Judas did the same. He wouldn't follow Christ, for his own reasons, which logically he found very sound. So he sold Christ out, like you are doing with your play. This is not that unusual, many of us have our own 30 pieces of silver.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 08, 2004.

Steve-

The opening was amazing. There were approximately 75 protesters protesting the play from various church organizations (mainly America Needs Fatima), along with about 20 more from a local church counter- protesting, handing out postcards in support of the play, the GLBT community, and free expression in general. For more than a week leading up to the opening, we had local news cameras in our rehearsals every night, and we were getting coverage in Milwaukee and Rockford as well. I've never been part of any play that has gotten so much attention.

The play itself has been very well-received. The reviews of our production have uniformly praised the ensemble cast, while offering some general criticisms of the structure of McNally's script. By the time of the second performance, our first two weekends were completely sold out, and two more shows were added to the run. As of Tuesday, our run is completely sold out.

In general, it's been a very moving experience. The play is clearly touching people, and one of the recurring comments I've heard from people is that they are confused as to what is so controversial about the play. Last night, a Catholic priest was in our audience and said that it was probably the most moving telling of the Christ story he's ever seen. I think that's about the best compliment we could have received on this show - we were simply stunned.

Ultimately, the protest and controversy surrounding our little play worked in the play's favor, which isn't a big surprise. What is truly satisfying for me is that I think we met all the attention with an exceptionally good production, and I'm proud to be/to have been a part of it (we still have two weekends of performances to go).

- - - - - -

Bill-

In my heart of hearts, I __know__ that neither I, nor anybody else involved with this show has "sold Christ out". Moreover, if I have anyone to answer to on this issue, it isn't you or any of the others who are so presumptuous as to think that they know the will of God enough to exclude others from receiving him.

I left Christianity ten years ago, because of what I perceived as hypocrisies. In fact, Christianity isn't at fault. The Church is. Fundamentalist Christians have taken it upon themselves to be the gatekeepers of God's love, in essence, forcing people to pass tests to gain acceptance in God's eyes.

I wholeheartedly reject that mindset.

So does this play. "We are ALL the Son of God," it says, and I'm elated to be a part of that message.

-Paul

-- "Bartholomew" (paulrocksmyworld@hotmail.com), March 19, 2004.

Yet you allow a sclock play thats pnly emrit is won on the coattails of Christ and the growing aceptance of Gays to corrupt the Image of Christ himslef.

why not a Gay George washingtn p;lay, telung of the Hompphobic British emptire suppressign Gay rights? Why nto a gay buddha play? Why not a Gay Mohammad?

Srry, the ay form a technical standpoint was poorly written. Its garbage. it is also offensive in that it attempts to coerce aceptance of a political an dpersonal psitin, that of the author, by usign a real furgure, as well as a rleigious figure, form hisotry. That is why it is objected ot, as it is in bad taste.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 19, 2004.

Paul, God does love all of us. He even sent His son to suffer and die for us (as you know). His son told us how to repay God's love. All we need to do is abandon our lusts, and we have many of them, and follow Him. Remember what Christ said to the prostitute after rescuting her from those who were throwing stones at her. He told her to go and sin no more (not to go and continue her lusts). Hopefully, we all take this lesson to heart.

In Christ's love is peace, in sexual abandonment is pain, anxiety and guilt. That is simply natural law and part of all of us. We are all called, by God, to chastity.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson-nospam@Hotmail.com), March 19, 2004.

Paul,
In the old testament the term 'son of God' was given to a number of people who were close to God. Since Christ, it is usually reserved to our savior. See: Son of God in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, which is online.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 19, 2004.

Hey Paul

Glad to hear about your opening and the continuing success of your production. I, too, am in a production of "Corpus Christi" which opens this evening in Seattle. We're not expecting the antagonistic pressures that you guys have "faced", however we did receive a death threat via telephone last night.

Good times.

In regards to this play, my sentiments mirror yours. It's a beautiful piece that spreads the message of love and teaches about the divinity in everyone. Never does it defame the figure of Jesus nor does it blaspheme Him. It accomplishes this as Jesus Christ is never a character in the play. It tells His story through the character, Joshua.

We also have to remember that to say that Joshua is gay is a simplification. Joshua loves us all ("...that's all it was about") as made clear in his interaction with Judas: "Of course I like girls...I like boys, too. I like people."

I have more to say but must cut it short for now. Congratulations, again, on your production. It is truly a wonderful experience.

r

fin...

-- rob (robicusandronicus@hotmail.com), March 19, 2004.

In other words, it deuant las[phee him because it used his englush name rather than his Greek... sorry, it equateds Lovee with sexuality, and since when does the Chruch teach the divinity within us all?Isnt that more a new age idea?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 19, 2004.

Zarove-

I think somewhere in Genesis it talks about God creating Man in his own image. And something I've heard in nearly every Christian church service I've attended is that we are all "children of God", and that we should look for God "in our hearts". So, no, Zarove, I don't think that the idea that "all men are divine" is strictly a new age idea. I think it's a very Christian idea that unfortunately gets lost amidst a lot of "law enforcement" and judgment and fundamentalist zeal.

- - - - -

Bill-

Death threats? Yikes. I've been reading about the production in Seattle too. I hope it's been going well for you. We had a bit of a boost at the last minute: Our theatre is located a block away from our state capital building, and in a marathon, all-night filibuster session in the State Assembly ending right around dawn the morning of our opening, our congressfolks were debating an amendment to our state's constitution (which ultimately passed both houses) banning both gay marriage and civil unions. (It will still have to pass a second session of congress next year, and then go for a statewide vote, so there's still hope). Several state politicians have seen our show, which is pretty unbelievable for our lil' 92-seater.

At any rate, I hope your run goes well.

-"Bartholomew" (but my friends call me Paul)

-- "Bartholomew" (paulrocksmyworld@hotmail.com), March 21, 2004.

I apologize. I meant to address the second part of my last post to Rob (not Bill). Ooops.

-Paul

-- "Bartholomew" (paulrocksmyworld@hotmail.com), March 21, 2004.

Bill-

To reduce my relationship with my partner to mere lust is an insult to it. You may not agree with it, you may regard it as sin, the Bible may (or may not) regard it as sin. Whatever. The fact is that he is more than just my partner in "sodomy". He is my partner in life and in love. We own a house together. We've built a family together. We go grocery shopping and pay bills together. WE LOVE EACH OTHER. (And yes, we occasionally "sin" together.)

Let me ask you something. Have you given up your lusts? Do you truly believe that you are even able to? And I'm not just talking about lust for sex, but also, say, lust for passing judgment. Have you given up that lust?

I may be a sinner, but let's not forget Jesus' response to James when asked how many times we are required to forgive the sins of others.

Some Christian denominations believe that homosexuality is a sin. Others don't. The Bible itself is difficult to interpret in this matter, and the debate is highly politicized and borders on irrelevance.

This is what is important to me: That I love my partner. That my partner loves me. That we both have loving families who have accepted us each as individuals, and who affirm, and even celebrate our relationship. I live a life surrounded by people I love; I have a vibrant, creative, happy life and I celebrate it every day. And that is how I praise God - by living and loving the life and the family and community I've been given.

Yes, I've "sinned." And haven't we all? But I don't regard my homosexuality as nearly as great a sin as say, spending an otherwise beautiful day in bed feeling sorry for myself over something stupid and unimportant, with the full knowledge that there are other people for whom every day means another day of suffering.

If I must repent, it's something like that I'm going to repent for. Not a loving relationship with another man.

I respect your knowledge of the particulars of the language of the Bible, Bill. But sometimes I think it's easier to recognize what the Bible "says" and to miss what it actually "means".

Bill, I don't know you at all, and I don't know anything about your personal faith, but now you know mine. I don't believe that "Christian" and "homosexual" are mutually exclusive, just because I don't think "Christian" is exclusive. By Christ's very teachings, it is inclusive. At least, that's the way I've always read them.

One thing I also know is that I will never be certain of my faith. I will always be questioning it, testing its boundaries, exploring it. Doing this play has been a big part of that process for me, and I find my faith strengthened as a result of it. I find myself closer to being at peace with Christianity than I have in a long time.

You seem to have a lot of answers. You seem certain in your faith. I could be wrong about that. But that's where I feel we have our greatest conflict. You believe that your faith is so strong that you don't HAVE to question it. I feel my faith is strong only because I do question it: Untested faith isn't really faith at all.

Anyway, I've probably rambled for too long (and off topic, I suppose - forgive me, it's 1:30 a.m. here), but this has been an enlightening conversation for me, and even though I disagree with you on some major points, I've valued your posts.

Thanks,

-- Paul (paulrocksmyworld@hotmail.com), March 21, 2004.

Just a last P.S.- When I asked if you'd given up your lust for passing judgment... I should add that I haven't. As much as I've tried, I still find myself making insulting and dismissive comments like those I'd made to ZAROVE earlier on the board regarding his spelling. Again, my lust for passing judgment (as far as I'm concerned) is a greater sin than my lust for my partner's body. But that's just me...

Okay, I'm really gone this time.

-- Paul (paulrocksmyworld@hotmail.com), March 21, 2004.

The troiuble is thatyou seem not to listen at all to what is said. Love need not be expressed sxually. So it doesnt matter if you love him or not. I love several male friends of mine, but I don have sex with any of them.

Love is what we are commanded to do, but we are also called ot lead chaste lives, given only to sexual union in the confines of Heterosexual exclusivity, marriage.

So rather or not you lov your partner is irrelevant to the discourse on Homosexual sin. It doesnt matter. it is your lust for sex with him that is beign addressed, not your love for him.

You ask if we have given upop our lists, but this is a self defratign queatsion. It doesnt matter if I sin as well, for it s your job to correct my sins, as it is mine to correct yours. All Chrisaisn shoudl offer support to each other as none of us live perfeclty and all sin, and have sinned. But my sins do not excuse your own.

Slso, I am in an interestign position, as I have no real lusts. I was classed for years as an apathetic, and still suffer from severe depression. its hard enou to muster the energy to get out of bed, or to eat. This sin lazyness on my part, but rather a lack of concerrn, a lack of motivation and drive, to do things nessisary to continue my life. I have also had suicidal moments.

I do not lust for women. Neither do I for men crave canral release. I am not swift to anger, though othrs online may see me as such as I am prone to factual discourse and refurse to entertain what I know is false. I have no great lust for food, or drink. I lust not for power. I lust not for attention. I crave not money, except to meet spacific ends. I desire not much.

I may make a few innapropriatre hokes, btu even that, within my own mind, is isolated, static, and purely intellectual. My mind is a cold place, sterile and fee of the emotions that rock the minds of others, animatign them with passions and joys that I cannot experience. But it is a palce of persision, and reflection, and insght no other but I can see, for I am free of the oppression of emotion, as well as its benefits.

Though I do feel and have emotion, I likewise do not feel int he same way as others, and thus have no luts to surrender.

This does not mean I sin not, heaven forbid me make such a claim. However my sins ar elargley driven either by a self destructive tendancy I possess asa depressive, or else from intellect. yes, you can rationalise sin away as well.

But My conviction of sin is nothing hidden, I confess freely that I have sinned agaisnt my Lord, and yet here you are, refusign suhc a confession. You woudl that we accept what you do as moral, based on your lov of your partner, a love you proffess, but can not really use as justification, for as I Said, one can love soemone and not have sex with them.

As to your comments on the Bible, you are wrong. The Bibkle is clear, perfeclty, on the fact that Homosexuality is morally wrong. The Verses are clear and unambiguous, and htose who attempt to make them read as though they d not cndemn the Homosexual act must themselves warp the text o suit their ends.

I have seen the arguments, form Lecviticus 18:22 beign claimed to be abotu Temple prostitution to the claim that King David was the Gay Lover of Jonathan. All fail to impress when one investigates the real passages. David expresses deep love, this si true, for anothe man, but this is still common int e ile east of today, and we, as westenrers, must not force our modern veiws of conduct and manner upon them, least of all those who lived so long ago.

Levigticus was about Men lying with men, not about temple prostitutio. That mucg is evidenct form the fact that ther tthings are called sin in the chapter, and this vers eis in the middle. Unless you wish to say Incest is OK and only condemned if it is part of Idol worship, and that Adultery with your daughter-in-law was only forbidden if it is to worship other gods, then the case falls apart.

The scriptures are clear, i is the minds of those who seek to justify sin that are clouded, and this cloud prevents them form seeing the truth of the Lord, God, who spoke them plainly for all to understand.

Asto your comments on my own Dyslexia, you are forgiven, but I cannot forgive yor sin, as the scruptures say, for you have not repented, and ar emakign no effort to reconcile yourself to God and his holy will.

Shoudl i forgive you, and let you continue? Thi is not forgiveness, but accptance and complacency. Therir is a difference between forgiving a sin, and accpeting as moral sin.

I hope you begin to udertsand this.

I likewise may ask of you how you can claim the lay not blasphemous when it is clary a retellign of Jesus's life, and clearly ofered to show him as a Homosexual, and obviously designed to make his death the result of Homophobia? especially how can you claim this when not only are all the apostles names used, and hte story s obvious, but the author himself admits this?

The auhtir seeks to justify his own homsoexuality, and yet his knowledge of Christ, so he creates a characature of Christ in his mind that he shapes into Gay man, thweirfore makign himself moral, and indeed superior, to those of us aspiring to live as God insturcted, for be is closer to Jesus than we, him beign Gay like Christ.

Theplay woudl have been Dull, and uneventful, had t NOT been about Jesus. It is poorly written, and owes its "Power" t eridign the coattails of hte Lord Jesus Christ, it has no ability to drive itsself, and its contraversy is its life.

Liberals accept it, but they likewise hate the Church. Homosexuals like it, but not even all of them. I kbow some gay Christaisn who found it disgusting, as it opens the door for a reinvention of Christ to anyones image, an renders Christ meanignless.

A sentement they share wth fundamentalists.

Also, Catholcis arent findamentalists, to note an aside.

The play is nothign but an attempt to justufy Homosexuality through Jesus, and for this reason it is insultign and blasphemous. GTheir was no ecuse for it, and he cudl ahv written a bette rplay, if he where imaginitive, if he had created a whole new cast of charecters rathe han rapign Holy sciroture to form this Bastardised tale.

I am sorry, is a bad play thats poorly written and nlyw armly recived because Jesus is used to suppor an agenda. its a propoganda fluff peice.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 21, 2004.

Paul, For a sin to be great (mortal), 3 things have to be true: 1) It is a grievous act 2) You know it is grave, but do it anyway 3) You do it of your own free will

Habitually doing something may obviate #3

It isn't for us to judge. It is up to God to judge, however we all must discriminate (make choices).

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 21, 2004.

Sorry, this is a report, for clairty.

The trouble is that you seem not to listen at all to what is said. Love need not be expressed sexually. So it doesn't matter if you love him or not. I love several male friends of mine, but I don have sex with any of them.

Love is what we are commanded to do, but we are also called to lead chaste lives, given only to sexual union in the confines of Heterosexual exclusivity, marriage.

So rather or not you love your partner is irrelevant to the discourse on Homosexual sin. It doesn't matter. it is your lust for sex with him that is being addressed, not your love for him.

You ask if we have given up on our lists, but this is a self defeating question. It doesn't matter if I sin as well, for it is your job to correct my sins, as it is mine to correct yours. All Christians should offer support to each other as none of us live perfectly and all sin, and have sinned. But my sins do not excuse your own.

also, I am in an interesting position, as I have no real lusts. I was classed for years as an apathetic, and still suffer from severe depression. its hard enough to muster the energy to get out of bed, or to eat. This is not laziness on my part, but rather a lack of concern, a lack of motivation and drive, to do things necessary to continue my life. I have also had suicidal moments.

I do not lust for women. Neither do I for men crave carnal release. I am not swift to anger, though others online may see me as such as I am prone to factual discourse and refuse to entertain what I know is false. I have no great lust for food, or drink. I lust not for power. I lust not for attention. I crave not money, except to meet specific ends. I desire not much.

I may make a few inappropriate jokes, but even that, within my own mind, is isolated, static, and purely intellectual. My mind is a cold place, sterile and free of the emotions that rock the minds of others, animating them with passions and joys that I cannot experience. But it is a place of precision, and reflection, and insight no other but I can see, for I am free of the oppression of emotion, as well as its benefits. Though I do feel and have emotion, I likewise do not feel in the same way as others, and thus have no lusts to surrender.

This does not mean I sin not, Heaven forbid me make such a claim. However my sins are largely driven either by a self destructive tendency I possess as a depressive, or else from intellect. yes, you can rationalise sin away as well.

But My conviction of sin is nothing hidden, I confess freely that I have sinned against my Lord, and yet here you are, refusing such a confession. You would that we accept what you do as moral, based on your love of your partner, a love you profess, but can not really use as justification, for as I Said, one can love someone and not have sex with them.

As to your comments on the Bible, you are wrong. The Bible is clear, perfectly, on the fact that Homosexuality is morally wrong. The Verses are clear and unambiguous, and those who attempt to make them read as though they do not condemn the Homosexual act must themselves warp the text o suit their ends.

I have seen the arguments, form Leviticus 18:22 being claimed to be about Temple prostitution to the claim that King David was the Gay Lover of Jonathan. All fail to impress when one investigates the real passages. David expresses deep love, this is true, for another man, but this is still common in the middle east of today, and we, as westerners, must not force our modern views of conduct and manner upon them, least of all those who lived so long ago.

Leviticus was about Men lying with men, not about temple prostitution. That much is evident from the fact that there things are called sin in the chapter, and this verse is in the middle. Unless you wish to say Incest is OK and only condemned if it is part of Idol worship, and that Adultery with your daughter-in-law was only forbidden if it is to worship other gods, then the case falls apart.

The scriptures are clear, it is the minds of those who seek to justify sin that are clouded, and this cloud prevents them form seeing the truth of the Lord, God, who spoke them plainly for all to understand.

As to your comments on my own Dyslexia, you are forgiven, but I cannot forgive your sin, as the scriptures say, for you have not repented, and are making no effort to reconcile yourself to God and his Holy will.

Should I forgive you, and let you continue? This is not forgiveness, but acceptance and complacency. Their is a difference between forgiving a sin, and accepting as moral sin.

I hope you begin to understand this. I likewise may ask of you how you can claim the lay not blasphemous when it is clearly a retelling of Jesus’ life, and clearly offered to show him as a Homosexual, and obviously designed to make his death the result of Homophobia? especially how can you claim this when not only are all the apostles names used, and the story s obvious, but the author himself admits this?

The author seeks to justify his own homosexuality, and yet his knowledge of Christ, so he creates a caricature of Christ in his mind that he shapes into Gay man, therefore making himself moral, and indeed superior, to those of us aspiring to live as God instructed, for be is closer to Jesus than we, him being Gay like Christ. The play would have been Dull, and uneventful, had it NOT been about Jesus. It is poorly written, and owes its "Power" to the riding the coattails of the Lord Jesus Christ, it has no ability to drive itself, and its controversy is its life.

Liberals accept it, but they likewise hate the Church. Homosexuals like it, but not even all of them. I know some gay Christians who found it disgusting, as it opens the door for a reinvention of Christ to anyone’s image, an renders Christ meaningless.

A sentiment they share with fundamentalists.

Also, Catholics aren’t fundamentalists, to note an aside.

The play is nothing but an attempt to justify Homosexuality through Jesus, and for this reason it is insulting and blasphemous. Their was no excuse for it, and he could have written a better play, if he where imaginative, if he had created a whole new cast of characters rather than raping Holy scripture to form this Bastardised tale.

I am sorry, is a bad play that’s poorly written and only warmly received because Jesus is used to support an agenda. its a propaganda fluff piece.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 21, 2004.