‹ Back

A friend just sent me an excellent article by a parent regarding her objection to her son reading Catcher in the Rye. I have never read the book, but she summarizes it nicely and, honestly, for the first half of the article, she had me convinced that the schools should require it - that's how well she stated the other side's argument (it is so essential to be able to do this!). Basically, the book is a coming of age in a fallen world story in which the main character wants to be a "Catcher in the Rye" - saving children as they rush through the field of rye towards their loss of innocence. He ultimately learns that he cannot do this, all will lose their innocence eventually, and he has a mental breakdown, but recovers with care. There are, apparently, a number of sex scenes in the book (although it does not seem they are explicit), along with bad language, multiple instances of the Lord's name being taken in vain, and other objectionable situations.

 

The author of the article begins her own argument by saying "The big problem with Salinger's conclusion, however, is the assumption that the passage to adulthood must be accompanied by a loss of innocence ...  [moreover, one] which is forcibly imposed on children by modern educators in books they must read and mandatory sex education courses". Ah! This made me sit up and think! She is right that educators should not corrupt children for the sake of preparing them to witness corruption - that is a violation of their duty, especially in Catholic schools. But It is true that this world is corrupt and children will experience that one day. Many of the children in the classes to which this book is being assigned have, I am quite certain, already experienced similar situations and temptations to those in the book. I'm sure that the educators are aware of this as well. But for the children who have not yet experienced these things, is it better for them to have read about it first in a controlled environment - one that apparently shows the trials and ultimate redemption of the main character? I can certainly see the persuasiveness of this argument.

 

The simple answer for me is that I do not think schools should impose required reading books that contain objectively sinful behavior or situations over a parent's objection. The parent has to be the first and primary educator and has to have the last word on anything to which his or her child is exposed.

 

But this is so much more complex of a thought problem for me! It is indicative of the contradictions of the Fall itself. Before the Fall, we were in the state of innocence the protagonist of the book, the author of the article, and my friend want to preserve. All three want to be "Catchers in the Rye." The Fall was the fall from innocence of the whole human race, and there is no denying that we will all experience its effects. This world is broken and corrupt - innocence and naiveté cannot survive here. We must know about and face the evil in this world if we hope to win salvation, and if we hope to convert others, as our Lord commands.

 

In other words, no child born into this world will ever be able to grow up to adulthood preserved in his innocent state until his death. As parents, we must accept that and prepare our children to win their salvation by experiencing and conquering evil. They can't win it by not knowing there is evil or what it looks and acts like. Salvation is won for us by Christ, but only if we ourselves accept and carry our crosses, knowing that they are a consequence of the fallen nature of man. Further, we must individually confront evil and carry our own cross - our parents cannot do it for us and would be doing us a great disservice if they kept us from our cross. Just as it is wrong for educators to take a child's innocence from them, even with the best of intentions, so it is wrong for a parent to take a child's cross from him, even with the best of intentions.

 

In the Garden of Eden we see the first family - Adam and Eve. God wanted that family to be fruitful and multiply while retaining their innocence, but that did not happen. God, knowing ahead of time that it would not happen (but allowing us the freedom to try), had already developed an even better future for mankind than the Garden. The only way to that better future, though, is through the fallen and sinful world. So we all have to experience it.

 

Each family in the world is an image of both the first family, Adam and Eve, and the Holy Family. Some families are trying much harder to emulate the Holy Family, but many more are, through choice, ignorance, or temptation, emulating our fallen parents much more closely. The children of the "holier" families have to live in the world with the children of the more fallen families. In addition, the children of the "holier" families are fallen themselves - we all suffer the consequences of original sin - so they cannot be separated from the rest as "better" and just protected into heaven - it won't happen, they won't make it! They have to experience sin themselves and suffer its consequences, and they have to have the opportunity to learn from their sin.

 

So while I don't think educators should expose children to objectional material against their parents' will, I also don't think parents should try to protect their children from every possible occasion of sin. Our job is to teach them how to evaluate these situations and how to act morally in them, understanding that they will fail at times (and remaining their loving parent when they do). Does every family do this? No, not many at all, actually, which is why the Catholic schools are seeing it as their job to do it for the majority of their students. I don't think they are necessarily wrong, but I do think they must provide alternatives if a parent objects, trusting that this parent, at least, sees the issue and knows how to educate her child on the existence of, and proper response to, evil and sin.