Catholic High School with Disturbing Reading Lists

[juliamajor]

I pick up a few general themes across this thread, maybe all obvious, but let’s review…

1. people care deeply about this
2. parents want to be involved with their high-schooler’s reading and worldview formation
3. the school should work with parents’ awareness and involvement
4. Catholic education should allow teens to become more aware of the world as necessary and beneficial for their education and ultimate mission to change the world…but not necessarily by being dragged thru each and every depravity for the sake of learning.
5. choice of school texts (not censorship) should be carefully made. I suspect this was carefully selected, but for what purpose?

PS, see my earlier post about other disturbing content and agendas in this book (reference website). It’s not just one bad page or one bad topic. I dare you to find one good male character depiction. Is that a theme with Toni Morrison?/QUOTEDisturbing content?agendas-(what agenda?)how do you suggest a author write to make the subject palatable? or should it be palatable at all? Frankly I find those websites disturbing.What kind of writing would be acceptable to these people?Lets write about rainbows, puppies and butterflies- maybe then everyone will be nice and behave nice! If we don’t think or read about it then evil doesn’t exist and will all be happy!!I mean you want the author to write about violence without using violent words? Depravity without using words to describe it?Be real.A writer uses the words of her time. If you are grossed out and think that talking about anuses,pubic hair and bathroom habits is to be shunned don’t ever read "Canterbury Tales.’ If that and depravity is the criteria by which a book is considered palatable- then that should be on the “naughty” list and never see the light of day in a classroom. Having read it when I was a wee lass in the 70’s in my senior HS English class- Catholic High- my teacher Sister would have found this all rather hysterical.Catholic Church has always been on the forefront of promoting intellectual and artistic pursuits- why has this changed? and why are we adopting the narrowness of fundamentalist thought and it’s anti intellectualism? That is truly something to be feared! I believe B16 had something to say about that.

"

 

[graceandglory]

I suspect this was carefully selected, but for what purpose?

That’s where we as parents tend to trust too much, especially when we are paying thousands per year for a “catholic” education.

I’m a teacher. I work with teachers. I worked in a Catholic school where I was the only teacher on staff who cared about what we were offering the students. **Anything Scholastic sent us was free game. We were selling books on the occult in our Catholic school! ** The teachers didn’t care. They were nonplussed when I shared some book reviews of the books we were selling. As a parent who also was a teacher there, I gently shared some of my concerns, then quietly quit my job, disenrolled my children and left the town at the end of that year.

A teacher who considers a Catholic world view when choosing literature is the exception not the rule.

 

[petitfleur]

I have been following this thread and thinking about what all of you have been saying. Some people would think I was ignorant and unsophisticated for not wanting my children to read this book, but that is how I feel.The images from the passage posted have been burned in my mind and bothered me since I read it.
The logic that we have to expose them to whats happenig is ridiculouse. It is like saying “Well, I drank as a teen so I’ll just buy my my kid a six pack.” “Kids are haveing sex so I will supply the condoms.”
I cant believe this book will make them better people for haveing read it. Save it for college age kids.

 

[sanctamaria17]

Allowing kids to read books that may or may not have graphic detail is not the same as allowing them to get drunk or be promiscuous.

That said…

Exposing does not mean encouraging sin. For the drinking, well, I’m Italian-American and I was given sips of wine from time to time. Once I hit college, I was allowed to drink with the family (which is legal) and I have a very healthy attitude towards alcohol because of it. I’m not a raving drunk, just moderation. Also, my parents told us to wait until we were married but they also told us what condoms are for and why they’re available. They didn’t buy a six pack or a box of condoms for us once we hit our teen years.

So no, it’s not like, “well I’ll supply the six pack or condoms,” it’s more like, “Our kids need to KNOW what is out there and if they are going to explore anything, we hope it’s in a safe/not mortally sinful way, so we are going to give them knowledge.” And yes, five year olds need to be completely sheltered. I don’t think we can say the same about a sixteen year old. As the sister of a sixteen year old, I don’t think we can afford to.

 

[bobrsue]

One comparison which might be informative…and I’ll stop here

If the same school had an art appreciation class that covered a wide spectrum of art, would it be appropriate to show the NEA stuff we paid for…the crucifix in the cup of urine and the statue of the Virgin Mary with feces spread over it? Should we expose our kids to that with the same objectives as studying this book? If that is marginally acceptable, how outrageous does something have to become before we say no? Is there no line? All is usable for learning?

Some author or artist is going to push the envelope, and we have to responsibly choose if we want to consider their means of presentation, whether it be a violent or demeaning or abusive or sacriligious topic. We don’t need to take it all in, and we don’t need to show it all to our kids.

 

[petitfleur]

Ok Sancta my argument wasnr the best well thought out one.
But I stand by the idea that it is disturbing and i would not want my kids reading this.
I dont think its garbage I dont think it is promoting impurity, but like I stated before it is disturbing,its been in my brain and bothered me since i read it, i wish i hadnt. So I would be against my kids reading it.
I dont think this will my my kids better people for reading it.

 

[Joe_5859]

I pick up a few general themes across this thread, maybe all obvious, but let’s review…

1. people care deeply about this
2. parents want to be involved with their high-schooler’s reading and worldview formation
3. the school should work with parents’ awareness and involvement
4. Catholic education should allow teens to become more aware of the world as necessary and beneficial for their education and ultimate mission to change the world…but not necessarily by being dragged thru each and every depravity for the sake of learning.
5. choice of school texts (not censorship) should be carefully made. I suspect this was carefully selected, but for what purpose?

PS, see my earlier post about other disturbing content and agendas in this book (reference website). It’s not just one bad page or one bad topic. I dare you to find one good male character depiction. Is that a theme with Toni Morrison?

I think it’s a good summary (at least, of the portion of the thread I have read ).

Toni Morrison’s books do greatly employ the concept of the African-American “matriarch”. The main character in her book “Song of Solomon” is a male and he is fairly favorably depicted (even if a bit of a “mama’s boy”). But most of the positive peripheral characters are female (from what I remember).

I don’t think anyone can deny that female empowerment (particularly for black women) is a major theme for Morrison (go figure, she’s a black woman! ). That’s not necessarily a bad thing, though. Most any writer has some agenda, though if they are a good writer, the agenda is secondary to the story. However, it’s still there. Our task is to identify it so we know what we’re dealing with. But it doesn’t mean we can’t read it.

I think it is regrettable that many of her male characters are weak and/or abusive. This is not particular to Morrison, though. It’s a general trend in all forms of entertainment to show weak men juxtaposed with strong women (try to think of one sitcom where this is not the case! ).

On another note (to tie into what some other people have been saying), I think it’s silly when we raise up any author (especially a modern author) as “must-read” material. My wife has never read Toni Morrison. She has no desire to read Toni Morrison, and she probably never will. But can she live a healthy, well-rounded, and fulfilling life? Of course she can.

 

[Consecrated]

On another note (to tie into what some other people have been saying), I think it’s silly when we raise up any author (especially a modern author) as “must-read” material. My wife has never read Toni Morrison. She has no desire to read Toni Morrison, and she probably never will. But can she live a healthy, well-rounded, and fulfilling life? Of course she can.

Precisely. Nor are parents doing a disservice to their children if they decide this book is unnecessary. Said parents are NOT teaching their children to ignore abuse, or that there is no such thing as sin in the world, by deciding this book is unnecessary. We can teach empathy for victims without this book.

 

[Ruthie]

I’m the one who said the passage quoted way back at the beginning glorified child rape. Perhaps “glamorized” would have been a better word.

Why?

Morrison uses the same kind of language to describe the rapist’s sexual feelings as you can find in a Harlequin romance. The only word in the description of the sexual part of the act that wouldn’t be used in a trashy romance is “genitals.” They use cheesy euphemisms like “manhood.”

16 and 17 year old girls read those romances. To describe the act of raping a child in that language normalizes it. To depict it as anything other than an act of selfishness and/or rage is a lie.

After reading the Cliff Notes summary, it is plain to me that all the men in the book are abusers of one kind or another.

If this book is intended to teach white kids what black life is like, it will teach them to pre-judge black men as sex-obsessed monsters. That’s not what I’d want my kids to learn.

There are better books about incest out there, that don’t depict the perps as loving and romantic. There are better books about how black life used to be, and still is in some places, that don’t teach that all black men are abusive perverts. There are other books about black girls wanting to be white, or “ugly” girls wanting to be pretty.

In fact, if I wanted to teach about prejudice, I’d rather show a 16 year old the original version of “Hairspray” than have them read this horror story.

I’ll also repeat that I have read Alice Walker’s The Color Purple many times, and love the book. It, too, has a lot of ugliness in it, including incest and rape, and more bad men than good ones. She does not use “trashy romance” language to describe violent sex acts; she tells it like it is. It has a couple of problematic things that would keep me from recommending it as a book for high school, but the book ends with hope for healing. Not a standard “happy ending,” either.

Oh, yeah - don’t judge it by the movie. That was a travesty.

God bless us all with wisdom,

Ruthie

 

[whatevergirl]

I’m the one who said the passage quoted way back at the beginning glorified child rape. Perhaps “glamorized” would have been a better word.

Why?

Morrison uses the same kind of language to describe the rapist’s sexual feelings as you can find in a Harlequin romance. The only word in the description of the sexual part of the act that wouldn’t be used in a trashy romance is “genitals.” They use cheesy euphemisms like “manhood.”

16 and 17 year old girls read those romances. To describe the act of raping a child in that language normalizes it. To depict it as anything other than an act of selfishness and/or rage is a lie.

After reading the Cliff Notes summary, it is plain to me that all the men in the book are abusers of one kind or another.

If this book is intended to teach white kids what black life is like, it will teach them to pre-judge black men as sex-obsessed monsters. That’s not what I’d want my kids to learn.

There are better books about incest out there, that don’t depict the perps as loving and romantic. There are better books about how black life used to be, and still is in some places, that don’t teach that all black men are abusive perverts. There are other books about black girls wanting to be white, or “ugly” girls wanting to be pretty.

In fact, if I wanted to teach about prejudice, I’d rather show a 16 year old the original version of “Hairspray” than have them read this horror story.

I’ll also repeat that I have read Alice Walker’s The Color Purple many times, and love the book. It, too, has a lot of ugliness in it, including incest and rape, and more bad men than good ones. She does not use “trashy romance” language to describe violent sex acts; she tells it like it is. It has a couple of problematic things that would keep me from recommending it as a book for high school, but the book ends with hope for healing. Not a standard “happy ending,” either.

Oh, yeah - don’t judge it by the movie. That was a travesty.

God bless us all with wisdom,

Ruthie

:clapping: Great insight.

 

[juliamajor]

One comparison which might be informative…and I’ll stop here

If the same school had an art appreciation class that covered a wide spectrum of art, would it be appropriate to show the NEA stuff we paid for…the crucifix in the cup of urine and the statue of the Virgin Mary with feces spread over it? Should we expose our kids to that with the same objectives as studying this book? If that is marginally acceptable, how outrageous does something have to become before we say no? Is there no line? All is usable for learning?

Some author or artist is going to push the envelope, and we have to responsibly choose if we want to consider their means of presentation, whether it be a violent or demeaning or abusive or sacriligious topic. We don’t need to take it all in, and we don’t need to show it all to our kids.

What does one have to do with the other? Yes , I do believe that everything(positive or negative) can be used to for learning.You could explain some people are idiots and like to hurt other peoples feelings.Negative image doesn’t have to mean a negative outcome.AS far as negative images - the kids see them everyday. On the internet , in the paper ,on Tv.If they don’t see it they they hear it via other sources- then become enticed by the fruit they know is forbidden. Better to take the fruit away from the serpent’s mouth! Do you know how many kids watch videos of fellow human beings beating the stuffing out of another human being!I never watched those things on youtube but I know of them by word of mouth. Wouldn’t it be better to discuss and face the evil that let it proliferate?I never hesitated discussing anything with my kids- if you know your kid,you’ll know how to talk to them about even the most delicate of subjects.You may not want to show them the negative and the bad- but believe me they are more aware of what goes on then we give them credit for. Just because we as parents haven’t exposed them to it ,doesn’t mean they haven’t been exposed.You have way more to fear from their peers in school that you have to worry about a book.if you don’t think that’s true then you are really fooling yourself.!

 

[juliamajor]

I’m the one who said the passage quoted way back at the beginning glorified child rape. Perhaps “glamorized” would have been a better word.

Why?

Morrison uses the same kind of language to describe the rapist’s sexual feelings as you can find in a Harlequin romance. The only word in the description of the sexual part of the act that wouldn’t be used in a trashy romance is “genitals.” They use cheesy euphemisms like “manhood.”

16 and 17 year old girls read those romances. To describe the act of raping a child in that language normalizes it. To depict it as anything other than an act of selfishness and/or rage is a lie.

After reading the Cliff Notes summary, it is plain to me that all the men in the book are abusers of one kind or another.

If this book is intended to teach white kids what black life is like, it will teach them to pre-judge black men as sex-obsessed monsters. That’s not what I’d want my kids to learn.

There are better books about incest out there, that don’t depict the perps as loving and romantic. There are better books about how black life used to be, and still is in some places, that don’t teach that all black men are abusive perverts. There are other books about black girls wanting to be white, or “ugly” girls wanting to be pretty.

In fact, if I wanted to teach about prejudice, I’d rather show a 16 year old the original version of “Hairspray” than have them read this horror story.

I’ll also repeat that I have read Alice Walker’s The Color Purple many times, and love the book. It, too, has a lot of ugliness in it, including incest and rape, and more bad men than good ones. She does not use “trashy romance” language to describe violent sex acts; she tells it like it is. It has a couple of problematic things that would keep me from recommending it as a book for high school, but the book ends with hope for healing. Not a standard “happy ending,” either.

Oh, yeah - don’t judge it by the movie. That was a travesty.

God bless us all with wisdom,

Ruthie

I don’t read anything glamorous into the Morrison excerpt.It’s Vile- meant to be vile.As for ‘cheesy’ language used in Romances- I wouldn’t know- never read one in my entire life. But if that’s the language of sexual pleasure, and sexual enticement, or eroticism- then Yuck- i want to go back to being a virgin again(26 yrs to late!). I see nothing enticing or erotic about those excerpts and if you find your child 'excited ’ by such images- be afraid, be very afraid.Crime statistics state if a young child is “turned” on by such images they are well on their way to being a sociopath.But books don’t make criminals or depraved behavior- that comes from those around them. Family, peers and interactions with other human beings-or just sheer genetic mental illness.
Authors frequently draw from real life or their interpretation of those around them.If you are surrounded by negative images, more then likely you’ll write about it.These are reflections, images, thoughts-exposed or hidden - that come through a person as he writes. Many times without realizing it themselves.Dark secrets and darker thoughts see the light of day, through the writers pen. There is always a bit of the author and his life that become the warp and woof of writers weaving of a tale.Really great writers will put their guts out there,warts and all
to be exposed to the public and the light of day.

 

[masha]

Precisely. Nor are parents doing a disservice to their children if they decide this book is unnecessary. Said parents are NOT teaching their children to ignore abuse, or that there is no such thing as sin in the world, by deciding this book is unnecessary. We can teach empathy for victims without this book.

Of course the book itself isn’t necessary but the attitude towards the book - that a student should hide from acclaimed literature because it treats ugly material in an ugly manner - is the real problem. If your daughter reads the book and decides it’s trash - for reasons other than ‘cliffs notes’ and interent quotes, that’s fine, but she shouldn’t be taught to look at her faith as opposed to education. She shouldn’t be encouraged to judge a books quality based on a few paragraphs taken out of context.

If the early Christians had rejected books based on the immoral content in the books, we would have none of the myths and classical tales make up the roots of western literature - and many of those tales have much more graphic descriptions of sexual acts, with not of the condemnation that Morrison gives in her novel.

It is frustrating that almost all of Morrison’s male characters are wretched, but she is a feminist writer after all and that’s what they do . And I don’t like her writing style at all, but I’m not particuarly into post 1960s American Lit. I really can see why the book bothers you, but shielding your daughter from it is not the answer. If she was 13 or 14, I can see telling the school that the book is not age-appropriate, but 16-17, in upper-level English, she’s preparing to go to college, where the odds are she’ll be reading plenty of feminist/black authors whose anger is as ugly or worse than Morrison’s. The school is preparing her to critique the writing and thinking that has shaped and is shaping the world.

God bless,
Masha

 

[Pro-Life_Teen]

I’m still skimming the thread, but the “classics” keep on popping up. Have y’all read the classics?

“Sleeping Beauty” - she’s raped by the king who is overcome by her beauty. He happens to already be married at the time. His wife orders the children born from this act cooked and fed to her husband.

Shakespeare - The Nurse in Romeo and Juliet makes sexual comments every other line [mentioning to Juliet that she shall “fall backwards” on her wedding night], not to mention that Juliet was 13 at the time of her marriage. Just about every characters in Hamlet dies through murder or suicide. In Caesar Portia is mentioned to have commuted suicide by swallowing hot coals.

Mythology - Zeus has thousands of affairs, the one that comes most to mind being seducing Leda in the form of a swan [Helen of Troy is one of the children]. Oedipus kills his father and marries his mothers- he stabs out his eyes when he realizes this, after his mother/wife hangs herself.

In Faust, Faust seduces Marguerite, impregnates her, leaves for an orgy in Hell and returns only on the eve of Marguerite’s hanging- she drowned the child after she was born.

The classics are quite brutal and sexual. Explicit material is not new to literature. The act of child molestation in this book isn’t to condone it, it’s to show horror and perversity as it is. Writers write to convey a message. A good deal of the time the message is explicit, because reality is explicit.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I have never seen your perverse version of *Sleeping Beauty *and shall check on its authenticity. Again, having a BA in Literature in English. UPDATE EDIT- You are discussing Perrault’s “Beauty Asleep In the Woods” perhaps? She is secretly married to Prince John (who becomes Prince Charming in Grimm). She doesn’t have an incestuous relationship with the king, and is not raped. The children weren’t eaten by their grandmother. The cook made substitutions. If it’s the Bassile tale, then it was written for an adult audience only.

Juliette being 13 is not a problem, as girls married young during that period in history. Julliette’s nurse used double-entendre when she mentions intercourse. She does not blatantly describe the act in coarse terms.

I do not think people in high school should read Faust.

I am aware of mythology, and the instances you mention are not mentioned in high school classes. If you want to truly get brutal, let’s look at ancient history. A favorite trick of kings and warlords was to invite somebody to supper and serve him his own children, stewed. That doesn’t make it appropriate for high schoolers.

Again- When a parent is paying $7,000-$15,000 a year, they have the right, nay the duty, to protect their chidlren’s innocence if they chose to do so. The school, which is supposed to be Catholic, is supposed to be teaching Catholic values, not a hyped up version of what the secular schools teach. There are other novels that explain a topic such as incest better and with far less vulgarity than* the Bluest Eye*.

 

[Pro-Life_Teen]

I have never seen your perverse version of *Sleeping Beauty *and shall check on its authenticity. Again, having a BA in Literature in English. UPDATE EDIT- You are discussing Perrault’s “Beauty Asleep In the Woods” perhaps? She is secretly married to Prince John (who becomes Prince Charming in Grimm). She doesn’t have an incestuous relationship with the king, and is not raped. The children weren’t eaten by their grandmother. The cook made substitutions. If it’s the Bassile tale, then it was written for an adult audience only.

No, I was talking Grimm. We read it in class [college freshman] a few days ago- I know the children are saved. But even so. I never mentioned incest here- though in Manypelts, the king wishes to marry his golden-haired daughter who resembles the late queen.

Juliette being 13 is not a problem, as girls married young during that period in history. Julliette’s nurse used double-entendre when she mentions intercourse. She does not blatantly describe the act in coarse terms.

But we got the allusions. At lease a friend and I did, as freshman in high school. I realise time-period wise 13 wasn’t odd.

I do not think people in high school should read Faust.

I was reading the closet-play as a freshman in High-school for fun, I’ve seen the opera thrice. I see no problem with it being read at that age.

I am aware of mythology, and the instances you mention are not mentioned in high school classes. If you want to truly get brutal, let’s look at ancient history. A favorite trick of kings and warlords was to invite somebody to supper and serve him his own children, stewed. That doesn’t make it appropriate for high schoolers.

High schoolers known quite a lot. What is appropriate for HS then? People once married at 13, now at 17 when they can go to war in a year, we shield from classic literature and brutality?

Again- When a parent is paying $7,000-$15,000 a year, they have the right, nay the duty, to protect their chidlren’s innocence if they chose to do so. The school, which is supposed to be Catholic, is supposed to be teaching Catholic values, not a hyped up version of what the secular schools teach. There are other novels that explain a topic such as incest better and with far less vulgarity than* the Bluest Eye*.

It is a vulgar topic. And innocence should be protected to a degree, but I think you underestimate the teenage mind in it’s ability to process such things.

 

[Jwlynas]

…Dear me.

The passage was mild at best compared to some pro-female texts I’ve known, and compared to some horror novels it is as explicit as Enid Blyton books. Good grief, do you all live in the 50’s?

The problem is perspective. As much as you may want to shield your children for sin, the longer you hide them from it the more exotic, exciting it will become, and the more likely it will be that, in typical youthful arrogance, they will decide you are obviously wrong.

A literature class is not a satanic brothel of literature and orgies. it is a place where intellligent men and women (yes, men and women, not children) go to discuss and analyse texts from a variety of authors.

I only hope next sumester isn’t Horror novels, or else you may as well start a crusade, and that will only convince your children, and the rest of the free world, that you are nothing more than an overreacting bible-basher with no grasp of the real world.

And I don’t want that to happen. I like Catholics on a whole. They are friendly, understanding and on the whole very charming. But when you raise a fuss over little things, the times you really need to protest people just pass it off as overeacting again.

Read the whole text, rather than a small portion, look at it critically as your daughter will be doing and then come back to us with full knowledge.

 

[juliamajor]

…Dear me.

The passage was mild at best compared to some pro-female texts I’ve known, and compared to some horror novels it is as explicit as Enid Blyton books. Good grief, do you all live in the 50’s?

The problem is perspective. As much as you may want to shield your children for sin, the longer you hide them from it the more exotic, exciting it will become, and the more likely it will be that, in typical youthful arrogance, they will decide you are obviously wrong.

A literature class is not a satanic brothel of literature and orgies. it is a place where intellligent men and women (yes, men and women, not children) go to discuss and analyse texts from a variety of authors.

I only hope next sumester isn’t Horror novels, or else you may as well start a crusade, and that will only convince your children, and the rest of the free world, that you are nothing more than an overreacting bible-basher with no grasp of the real world.

And I don’t want that to happen. I like Catholics on a whole. They are friendly, understanding and on the whole very charming. But when you raise a fuss over little things, the times you really need to protest people just pass it off as overeacting again.

Read the whole text, rather than a small portion, look at it critically as your daughter will be doing and then come back to us with full knowledge.

Thank you-!! Terse and succinct . Nicely done!

 

[PRmerger]

=Jwlynas;4447859A literature class is not a satanic brothel of literature and orgies. it is a place where intellligent men and women (yes, men and women, not children) go to discuss and analyse texts from a variety of authors…

Um…nope. There are no men and women students at my daughter’s high school literature class. It’s an all-girl Catholic institution. Says so on its website.

 

[Swan]

…Dear me.

The passage was mild at best compared to some pro-female texts I’ve known, and compared to some horror novels it is as explicit as Enid Blyton books. Good grief, do you all live in the 50’s?

The problem is perspective. As much as you may want to shield your children for sin, the longer you hide them from it the more exotic, exciting it will become, and the more likely it will be that, in typical youthful arrogance, they will decide you are obviously wrong.

A literature class is not a satanic brothel of literature and orgies. it is a place where intellligent men and women (yes, men and women, not children) go to discuss and analyse texts from a variety of authors.

I only hope next sumester isn’t Horror novels, or else you may as well start a crusade, and that will only convince your children, and the rest of the free world, that you are nothing more than an overreacting bible-basher with no grasp of the real world.

And I don’t want that to happen. I like Catholics on a whole. They are friendly, understanding and on the whole very charming. But when you raise a fuss over little things, the times you really need to protest people just pass it off as overeacting again.

Read the whole text, rather than a small portion, look at it critically as your daughter will be doing and then come back to us with full knowledge.