Are you planning to see the new Harry Potter movie?

[CatholicSam]

Here is a quote from that Envoy article linked above:

"Blink and you’d miss it, but in two short paragraphs of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Rowling twists and perverts the meaning of a word of tremendous significance to Catholics. The word is “transfiguration,” which should call to every Catholic child’s mind the glorification of our Lord on the mountaintop with Moses and Elijah. Instead, Rowling uses the word to mean “some of the most complex and dangerous magic you will learn”: that of changing one object into another (p. 134).

Having thus assigned “transfiguration” a decidedly un-Christian meaning in the first book, she peppers the second book with numerous references to the subject. My heart breaks when I think of how many children will forever more listen to the Gospel reading about the Transfiguration, and will find their minds drawn to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. "

 

[foolishmortal]

Thanks for putting it so well Nance and CatholicSam. I get too wordy. Yes, even though it is super-fictionalized, it could make a child think witchcraft is ok if done selflessly. They may, as a rebellious teen or adult, meet up with a real witchcraft practitioner and will slowly, unconsciously, slip away from God as they try to make things happen on their own. Even if one doesn’t meet a witch, idle thoughts and/or worldly thinking may slip in. For example:

I like Dragonball Z but, you know, Goku saves the day with battles despite not wanting to fight or letting this character named Cell blow him up in another dimension to save Earth. Jesus may start sounding boring after a while or we may less realize how Jesus was far greater a hero and was real, no less. Bruce Willis blows himself up in Armageddon but that story seems cooler up to that point than Christ’s to most kids.

The imagination could be used to imagine how God did such and such. Of course, that can be dangerous also if you don’t leave it up to the Church to provide an answer or the Church leaves it at “I don’t know and thus neither do we”. Otherwise, the kid coild grow up and form a cult. If we are so devout, we can make all kinds of wonderful stories about the members of the Godhead, the Holy Family and/or the Saints. We don’t need Gandolf or a big lion and certaiunly not Harry Potter

 

[deb1]

CatholicSam:

Having thus assigned “transfiguration” a decidedly un-Christian meaning in the first book, she peppers the second book with numerous references to the subject. My heart breaks when I think of how many children will forever more listen to the Gospel reading about the Transfiguration, and will find their minds drawn to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. "

The word tranfiguaration is not only a Christian word. Chances are that a child will come across it occasionally in nonchristian literature. This shouldn’t change their view of the Transfiguration of Jesus, anymore then coming across the word Lord in books on the middle ages will hurt their concept of Jesus.
trans·fig·u·ra·tion n. **1. ****a. **A marked change in form or appearance; a metamorphosis.
**b. **A change that glorifies or exalts

 

[JKirkLVNV]

If you think reading Harry Potter will turn you into a pagan, then you shouldn’t read any books about criminals or murderers, because they’ll turn you into criminals or murderers. They’re just books, people. We can make up our own minds! :tsktsk: And besides, it’s not like that letter that Pope Benedict wrote long before he became pope is ex cathedra. I wish people would realize that! :banghead:
[/quote]

Nor was he criticizing the books or J.K. Rowling. The most that can be said of the letter that Cardinal Ratzinger wrote is that he commended the woman for her fervor and concern. Not a word of criticism.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

CatholicSam:

Here is a quote from that Envoy article linked above:

"Blink and you’d miss it, but in two short paragraphs of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Rowling twists and perverts the meaning of a word of tremendous significance to Catholics. The word is “transfiguration,” which should call to every Catholic child’s mind the glorification of our Lord on the mountaintop with Moses and Elijah. Instead, Rowling uses the word to mean “some of the most complex and dangerous magic you will learn”: that of changing one object into another (p. 134).

Having thus assigned “transfiguration” a decidedly un-Christian meaning in the first book, she peppers the second book with numerous references to the subject. My heart breaks when I think of how many children will forever more listen to the Gospel reading about the Transfiguration, and will find their minds drawn to the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. "

This is alarmist and jingoistic, the worst sort of demagoguery there is! We as Catholics do NOT have a corner on the word “transfiguration!” It simply means a “radical change.” Yes, Our Blessed Lord was transfigured, in English, a living room can be as well, with a little paint and some plants. Please, please, argue rationally and not with some absure emotional appeal like this. MY heart breaks for people so ill-accustomed to the English language that they find this distressing.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

foolishmortal:

We don’t need Gandolf or a big lion and certaiunly not Harry Potter

You are kidding me!?!?!? You are DISMISSING JRR Tolkien (a devout Catholic Christian) and C.S. Lewis (an equally devout Anglican Christian)?

BTW, everyone, the movie was fantastic, but I would be careful about taking a pre-teen to see it. Distinctly darker, distinctly more emotionally complicated, and distinctly sadder.

 

[Baptista]

JKirkLVNV:

BTW, everyone, the movie was fantastic, but I would be careful about taking a pre-teen to see it. Distinctly darker, distinctly more emotionally complicated, and distinctly sadder.

I agree. To my way of thinking, the way the books are written…the AGE the kids in the books happen to be, should be a guideline for how old a child/teen should be to see the movie or read the book. And that may even be a bit on the strict side. But, face it. Rowling wrote these books to match the age of the characters, not an 8 year old child.

And I think many are being alarmists about reading the books and seeing the movies, whether it’s a child of appropriate age, and with a parent’s help in understanding them, or as an adult. I love these books. I loved other books with magic as a child…Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, etc. Yes…they have magic in them, and I’ve heard them criticized also. Reading those type of books as a child never did anything to “take away from Jesus” in my mind.

Oh, and I also knew they were not real. They were stories, so I never went looking for any people who practice witchcraft, which is very different from anything in these fictional stories I’m talking about. The children I know who have read the books (age appropriate…they aren’t reading the 4th one yet) do not think they will be able to find someplace to buy a wand, wave it around, say a word or two and have something magical happen.

In fact I remember talking to one of my nephews about Dobby the house elf. I really liked the character when I read about him. My nephew looked at me and said, “You do know he’s not real, don’t you?”

 

[Seatuck]

I saw it with my two teenagers on Sat.We were invited by our orthodontist for Patient Appreciation Day at the movies. Healthy snacks and all!

It was really long! Definitely the darkest movie of the set. Not for most small children. There were several kids scared and crying in the theatre.Despite that it was a good movie for older folks. It’s a bit maddening when your favorite scenes from the book don’t make the movie. A few scenes were overdone in my opinion. Overall, it was good.

Looking forward to Narnia.

 

[ncjohn]

I enjoyed the movie too, although I don’t much care for the new Dumbledore. He just didn’t come across with the same wise, concern in the way he spoke. Minor point though.

There were a lot of things left out from the book, as is always the cases, but I didn’t find anything critical missing. As much as was left out of this one though, it makes one wonder if the next two books can be handled in single movies, especially number 6.

By the way, I just can’t imagine where any child with a normal homelife is going to be influenced to witchcraft from one of these movies. If they are drawn to witchcraft, I have to believe it is because of other much more significant influences. Kids learn the difference between fantasy and reality quite early–usually the first time they jump off a chair with their Superman cape, or the current equivalent, and find out they can’t fly.

Peace,

 

[JKirkLVNV]

ncjohn:

I enjoyed the movie too, although I don’t much care for the new Dumbledore. He just didn’t come across with the same wise, concern in the way he spoke. Minor point though.

There were a lot of things left out from the book, as is always the cases, but I didn’t find anything critical missing. As much as was left out of this one though, it makes one wonder if the next two books can be handled in single movies, especially number 6.

By the way, I just can’t imagine where any child with a normal homelife is going to be influenced to witchcraft from one of these movies. If they are drawn to witchcraft, I have to believe it is because of other much more significant influences. Kids learn the difference between fantasy and reality quite early–usually the first time they jump off a chair with their Superman cape, or the current equivalent, and find out they can’t fly.

Peace,

Precisely…and I agree about Michael Gambon, though you have to feel a little sorry for him, having to step into Richard Harris’ shoes.

 

[rocklobster]

envoymagazine.com/harrypotter.htm

Nope, I don’t have the slightest inclination to read or watch Harry Potter, and neither does my husband. People with no experience in the occult generally do not see the problem with these novels because there are so many more charming, innocent details. However, according to this article in Envoy, reading these books touches the “occult fingerprint” of people who were involved. This causes their souls to be troubled in a supernatural way. Why have your soul touched in an occult way for the sake of entertainment? And by the way, rocklobster, I don’t really take delight in reading about murder either. I have stopped reading many a secular book because it troubled my soul/heart with graphic violence, immorality, and/or foul language, even though the story was incredibly interesting. I found myself feeling distressed even after I put the book down and knew that it wasn’t good for my soul. You have to have the strenght to put it down (or in the case of movies, turn them off).

Be careful of what you put into your soul

I was only using the murderers as an example, OK?

 

[foolishmortal]

How many kids have a normal home life anymore?

As for the use of “transfiguration”, there are some Protestants at the nursing home I work out that say “body of Christ” as they hand out communion. That term had been used before. If the person saying that really believes their communion is a symbol, it would be a corruption to use that word. Even if the phrase means something else to them now, they had probably not used it before. I believe this is what is happening with “transfiguration”. As for the timing, it could be like movies these days having Catholic holidays as titles. Should a play (it may even be a movie) with Christ being gay along with his Apostles be called “Corpus Christi” because that term was around before? I told my friend who told me about this something like “You can’t be seeing that blasphemy?”
I believe anti-Christian elements as well as anti-Catholic Protestants are undermining hardly or undercatechized Catholics with words Catholics know to mean one particular thing. The far-left are confusing Protestants some but their own unanchored faiths don’t need much of a push from Satan’s forces to eventually serve Satan practically, at least (let’s not forget Robinson’s election to an Episcopalean bishop), so they doesn’t need much supernatural attention from hell.
Let’s not mistake this abuse of symbolically Catholic words with a coincidence of semantics because the far-left are geniuses at misleading semantics.

 I never said that coming across a witch, wizard or worlock and having a good impression of them from the movie was the only possible outcome.  Not seeing white magic as evil because it's used for good could sink into their minds.

As for the Disney movies, I understand Disney was a high ranking Mason and the use of anthropomorphic animals (in thinking and/or shape) was rooted in naturalism. I don’t know if it’s true, but it’s something to look into. I did read for sure he did not want any particular religion promoted in his films, but who said witchcraft and sorcery was ever a religion? It was not Tolkien’s intent, obviously, to promote sorcery–but that’s him. Besides, why does Great Britian need a mythology when they have mankind’s great battle between good and evil with Jesus winning on the cross? It is, as a movie title put it “The Greatest Story Ever Told”.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

foolishmortal:

How many kids have a normal home life anymore?

As for the use of “transfiguration”, there are some Protestants at the nursing home I work out that say “body of Christ” as they hand out communion. That term had been used before. If the person saying that really believes their communion is a symbol, it would be a corruption to use that word. Even if the phrase means something else to them now, they had probably not used it before. I believe this is what is happening with “transfiguration”. As for the timing, it could be like movies these days having Catholic holidays as titles. Should a play (it may even be a movie) with Christ being gay along with his Apostles be called “Corpus Christi” because that term was around before? I told my friend who told me about this something like “You can’t be seeing that blasphemy?”
I believe anti-Christian elements as well as anti-Catholic Protestants are undermining hardly or undercatechized Catholics with words Catholics know to mean one particular thing. The far-left are confusing Protestants some but their own unanchored faiths don’t need much of a push from Satan’s forces to eventually serve Satan practically, at least (let’s not forget Robinson’s election to an Episcopalean bishop), so they doesn’t need much supernatural attention from hell.
Let’s not mistake this abuse of symbolically Catholic words with a coincidence of semantics because the far-left are geniuses at misleading semantics.

I never said that coming across a witch, wizard or worlock and having a good impression of them from the movie was the only possible outcome. Not seeing white magic as evil because it’s used for good could sink into their minds.

As for the Disney movies, I understand Disney was a high ranking Mason and the use of anthropomorphic animals (in thinking and/or shape) was rooted in naturalism. I don’t know if it’s true, but it’s something to look into. I did read for sure he did not want any particular religion promoted in his films, but who said witchcraft and sorcery was ever a religion? It was not Tolkien’s intent, obviously, to promote sorcery–but that’s him. Besides, why does Great Britian need a mythology when they have mankind’s great battle between good and evil with Jesus winning on the cross? It is, as a movie title put it “The Greatest Story Ever Told”.

You’ve worked up a vast conspiracy theory based on the broad knowledge that, yes, Satan does conspire against Christians and the Church, when really all that’s happened is that a smashing good fantasy book (and children know it’s fantasy) has been made into a movie. You’re repeating the classic arguments of ultra-fundamentalist Protestants (“anthropomorphized”), not the mind of the Church (whose art collection in the Vatican includes images out of Greek and Roman mythology). Unclench.

 

[CatholicSam]

JKirkLVNV:

You’ve worked up a vast conspiracy theory based on the broad knowledge that, yes, Satan does conspire against Christians and the Church, when really all that’s happened is that a smashing good fantasy book (and children know it’s fantasy) has been made into a movie. You’re repeating the classic arguments of ultra-fundamentalist Protestants (“anthropomorphized”), not the mind of the Church (whose art collection in the Vatican includes images out of Greek and Roman mythology). Unclench.

Ok, so what is your take on the very valid point that the idea that “white magic” is good might sink into a young child’s still-forming conscience? Is it worth the risk just for the sake of entertainment when there are many other great choices for kids to read (such as the Redwall Abbey series)?

 

[deb1]

foolishmortal:

How many kids have a normal home life anymore?

".

My kids have a normal home life. So, what does that have to do with watching Harry Potter? Are you suggesting that we not watch a movie based on the fact that some kids come from troubled backgrounds?

You keep coming back to the word transfigures. Again I will say that this is not strictly a Catholic or Christian term. Your child will come across this word in nonChristian reading and they should understand both the secular and Christian meaning of the word.

I often worry that my posts during a debate will sound rude, so I will apologize ahead of time if I do.

 

[deb1]

CatholicSam:

Ok, so what is your take on the very valid point that the idea that “white magic” is good might sink into a young child’s still-forming conscience? Is it worth the risk just for the sake of entertainment when there are many other great choices for kids to read (such as the Redwall Abbey series)?

I agree that the Redwall Abbey series is excellent. I love them and I am an adult. But did you know that there are Christians who say that there should be no fantasy at all. That means that books such as Redwall Abbey, The Lion, the Witch and The Wardrobe or the books by Tolkien should not be read by Christians. Redwell Abbey has talking animals and these Christians would be shocked that we allow our children to read them.

As far as white magic…I can not remember but I don’t remember coming across that phrase in Harry Potter. Magic in the book is an inborn talent. In real life we know that this is not true. Just as your children and mine understand after reading the Redwall books that mice don’t talk, children who read Harry Potter understand that magic isn’t true.

When my kids watch Disney Movies I always explain the danger in giving animals human characteristics. They understand that animals in the wild are much more savage. A parent reading Harry Potter to their child or The Redwall series would have similar conversations with their children.

 

[CatholicSam]

deb1:

Just as your children and mine understand after reading the Redwall books that mice don’t talk, children who read Harry Potter understand that magic isn’t true.

I agree with you, deb1, on almost everything The problem I see is that while talking animals are definitely not true, magic is true. While there are no real-life talking animals, there *are * real life wizards, although not in the same fun, fantastic sense that they are portrayed in Harry Potter stories. In short, talking animals? False. Witchcraft and wizardry? True.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

CatholicSam:

Ok, so what is your take on the very valid point that the idea that “white magic” is good might sink into a young child’s still-forming conscience? Is it worth the risk just for the sake of entertainment when there are many other great choices for kids to read (such as the Redwall Abbey series)?

I teach 4th grade. I’ve taught for 18 years. Children are not nearly as witless about things as some adults (innocently, perhaps) make them out to be. They can distinguish between fantasy and reality. They know “white magic” doesn’t exist anywhere except in the realms of fantasy, any more than “black” magic does. This debate, which is substantially about nothing, over the Potter books, the Chronicles, the LoTR, even over *Charlottes’ Web *(fundies rage over it because of the anthropomorhism of the talking animals!) only serves to frighten adults who are looking for something to bother themselves over. The Potter books are the best things in YEARS, in terms of encouraging reluctant readers to read. I use them in my classroom with my highest reading group. Nothing else has engendered this type of enthusiasm. Christians have nothing to fear from fiction. It’s this type of anti-intellectualism/anti-imagination that makes me fear fundamentalist Protestants. I hadn’t thought to find it in my own Church, the Church that so nurtured Tolkien, for example.

 

[CatholicSam]

JKirkLVNV:

They can distinguish between fantasy and reality. They know “white magic” doesn’t exist anywhere except in the realms of fantasy, any more than “black” magic does.

This is the problem. Black and white magic DO exist. That was the point of my previous post. It’s not a matter of opinion. It is reality. Magic, black and white alike (for all magic is black magic), exists.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

CatholicSam:

I agree with you, deb1, on almost everything The problem I see is that while talking animals are definitely not true, magic is true. While there are no real-life talking animals, there *are *real life wizards, although not in the same fun, fantastic sense that they are portrayed in Harry Potter stories. In short, talking animals? False. Witchcraft and wizardry? True.

No, there not, not in the conventional sense. There are those who claim to be witches and wizards and who claim to have power. They don’t. They cannot fly, they cannot cast spells that have any effect, they cannot control anything other than the minds of those they can manage to sway. I’m not talking about possession, which I’m bound to believe, or demons, I’m talking the Wiccans et al.