Author: Eric Johnson

Many years ago, a liberal columnist — I think it was Ellen Goodman — said that it used to be the function of parents to introduce their children to as much culture as possible. Now it’s the parents’ job to keep the culture away from their kids. It surprises me that at least several good Catholics have cast their lots with the libertarian defenders of our popular culture, which is shot through with deeply destructive ideas and teachings. (See the comments section of the post for what I’m talking about.)
(Before I continue, let me try to head off some criticism. Although I think popular culture is ill, I don’t think it’s incurable. There is much literature, theatre, film, and music that is praiseworthy or at least indifferent. Besides, there will always be popular culture, so railing against it per se is silly. We should try to improve it.)
I’ve noticed a strain of Catholic thought that I would call “radical familialism,” which is one step above radical individualism. That strain can take at least two different forms: one, exemplified by Chris and Josh, that say it is the parents’ job and only the parents’ job to protect children from potentially corrupting culture. Another strain looks at the culture, sees a slowly rising, fetid swamp, and thinks families ought to completely wall themselves off from the rest of society.
Either way, the implicit idea is that the family is the only meaningful institution in a country. That is how Islamic culture has gotten itself into so much trouble, because only the family and religion are sanctioned by the Koran. That means states, associations, professional guilds, etc., do not have their own proper spheres of influence, but must be subordinate to families and religious authorities.
“Come on,” you tell me, “faithful Catholics believe in the Church as well as the family.” Not in every case. Many faithful Catholics mentally support the Church but walk out on a particular parish if everything isn’t to their liking. They may retreat into traditionalist enclaves, such as a group of Tridentine Mass attendees, or even a quasi-monastic entity like that St. John community up in Pennsylvania. “The Church,” for more than a few traditionalists, amounts to their idea of the Church, comprised of one part doctrine and one part wishful fantasy. See Latin Mass magazine, New Oxford Review, and Mr. Patrick J. Buchanan.
The family, not the individual, is the natural building block of society. I don’t know if that is a de fide teaching, but it ought to be self-evident. Like so many self-evident things these days, we have to provide evidence for it, and it’s not my intention to defend that idea in this itty-bitty post. Rather, I want to defend the idea that society, family, and Church play mutually complimentary roles, with family being the most important. Society should assist families by assisting parents in appropriate ways: by allowing them to govern their homes as they see fit, by writing tax laws that are not unduly burdensome, and yes, by curtailing obscenity in popular culture. That need not take the form of government censorship — I would prefer to see media industries police their own — but it may be necessary at the local or state level.
No man is an island, and neither is any home. Parents have the primary duty to see that their children are raised well, but it would be nice if we could discourage other institutions from aggressively trying to corrupt them.

The American Library Association (ALA) has been seized by radical leftists. (That isn’t a joke, I swear.) They take the perverse, absolutist doctrine of free speech from the ACLU, and so anytime someone objects to a book being in their library, they consider it an assault on the First Amendment. It’s a mystery how you can get from “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” to “Thou shalt not complain about the book purchases of the people who work in public libraries.”
This week the ALA is celebrating Banned Books Week, if “celebrating” is the right word. They have a list of the 100 most challenged books.
Not all of the challenges come from people concerned about sex and violence. Number 5 is The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which I read someplace else was the most challenged book of all in public school curricula. The objection is “racial stereotyping.” Same deal for To Kill a Mockingbird, my favorite American novel. Their detractors come from a liberal perspective, by and large.
The ALA notwithstanding, an adult objecting to a book being carried by a library or taught in a public school isn’t “censorship” in the true sense. They aren’t trying to “ban” the books. They simply don’t think libraries and schools should have certain materials. If the Feds prohibit a book, that’s a ban.
The public pays the money for the buildings and the staff, so the public gets a say in what goes on in its institutions. The concept is called “democracy,” and it never guarantees the outcome everyone wants, or even the right outcome. Our democracy in particular guarantees that people get to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” They might be wise or foolish, and they might not get other people to go along with their ideas. But they do get to express them.
Funny how the ALA is concerned about authors getting to express their views, but they’re implicitly telling everyday citizens to shut up about how their tax money is being spent. Irony?