I went to a Eucharistic liturgy with Claire this morning. I went to an Opus Dei evening of recollection tonight. Yet it was on my drive home, listening to a Rosary Army podcast that I heard the following which struck me between the eyes:
“Keep this well in mind. Never read books you are not sure about. Don’t read bad books...Even supposing these bad books are very well written from a literary point of view, let me ask you this: would you drink something you knew was poisoned just because it was offered to you in a golden cup?”
It was a quote from St. John Bosco. Well before we had DVDs, TiVos, wireless broadband internet, etc. he was still addressing a common problem: the influence the popular media has on our souls. The quote came up in the podcast as it was discussing the issue of when to avoid certain popular movies and television series.
I've seen varying points of view on this from Catholics and other Christians. I'm not sure what I think, but the quote certainly gave pause. As more and more mainstream sources race to see how low they can go, I'm actually happy that we have more technological ways to filter and control what we watch.
Folks should be discerning about what parts of the culture they ingest on a regular basis. But discernment requires one to be informed. And ...
1. "Never read books you are not sure about." Disagree. How does one become sure about any new work, fiction, literature, poetry, science, history, etc., without probing uncharted territory? This statement seems to assume that any book worth reading has already been written and analyzed by someone who you believe to be absolutely trustworthy in determining the literary or moral merit of the book in question. But the literature of a culture changes as the culture does -- and whether the culture is changing for better or worse, the literature will have something to say about it, and that criticism may be for the good of it. So there must be new books. And someone's got to read 'em. Better, I think, to make sure the reader is sure of what he believes, what his own worldview is, what is true, and what matters. Then he can parse the culture as it flows by, choosing what's good and rejecting what's not, without avoiding the whole thing entirely.
2. "Don’t read bad books..." This makes more sense. Life's short, and there are innumerable good (on a moral and/or literary level) books to be read. I think critics like Harold Bloom and novelists like John Gardener would agree...
Posted by: Ernesto at February 12, 2006 10:08 AMHi Ernesto,
Yep, it was a striking quote when I heard it. I think the problem may be that it was lacking context. Saying "Never read books you are not sure about" might have had more nuance depending on the audience and circumstances when it was said. Perhaps in context he was implying that you have suspicions about the author's motives. I don't know. The quote didn't have the talk or sermon it was contained in.
I gave it a good deal of thought today as I was out snowblowing this afternoon. I think that even in his time there was probably plenty of "word of mouth" to go around. Nowadays in the advent of Amazon's reviews, epinions, etc. there are plenty of ways to get a feel whether something is safe. And I think everyone can draw a reasonable line and should probably err on the conservative side, since we tend to overestimate our ability to resist corruption.
So do I interpret what St. John Bosco says to mean that our reading materials should practically have an Imprimatur? Nah. But if one has reasonable feeling that something would have a corrupting influence, avoid it. How often have we been recommended by the saints to "flee temptation" rather than pretend we're strong or wise enough? How many reasonably raised children lose their faith when they go away to college because they opened themselves up just a little too much?
Again, I don't mean to imply that we bury our heads in the sand or avoid new ideas. On the other hand, there are a bunch of "new ideas" in the moral domain which are often just age old issues with a new paint job.
It's easy to say "better to make sure the reader is sure of what he believes" but look these days at all the borderline Catholics who don't know how to refute The DaVinci Code -- as an example. Even though the book is in the fiction section, author Dan Brown opens up claiming the story is based on facts. This has led a bunch of marginal Catholics to think the Church has been involved in this big coverup about who Jesus really was. Would I prefer that the readers know more of their faith so that they can see what a pile of crud Brown's claims are? Sure. But I can see it as an example of a book corrupting the innocent. Do I think it should be censored? No. But I would whole heartedly *recommend* that a Catholic who has been away from their faith NOT read it.
Besides, with the huge volume of books that get printed these days, I'm backlogged with good stuff as it is. Why waste my time with books I have my suspicions about?
Nevertheless, you and I are heavily involved in writing. Stripped bare like that, St. John Bosco's quote is a difficult one to hear.
Posted by: Scott at February 12, 2006 09:33 PM