Benedict and Harry Potter

[CathCentrist]

And tales of a middle earth, hobbits, wizards, demons being made from mud, golums, etc dont twist Catholic beliefs?

Narnia, a land where Lions, imps, and half human half animal creatures *dont *twist Catholic beliefs?

should all fantasy be avoided if it doesnt contain catholic belief?

How about mixing it in and stirring it up - is that to be condemned? Who wrote the rule book stating since Narnia has Christian allegory, it is therefore okay?

I have a sneeking suspision that if Tolkien were an admitted atheist, that many who give LOTR a pass, would condemn his books

Its neutral material. Worry about how you raise your own children and not how others are raising theirs. The problem is too many people think theirs is the only and proper way to raise a child and feel the need to impose authoritarian ethics upon others, when its merely a case for situational ethical decisions.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Its a work of fiction…geez louise you all…

“Snap out of it!”

I watched every episode of Dark Shadows in the late 60’s early 70’s. Never missed it. I liked it so much that at the age of 12, I said that if I had a daughter I would name her “Sarah”, after the little girl who lived in the doll house. Yep, did that. She is 21 now.

I read Edgar Allen Poe as a teen. My favorite movie in high school, was Carrie.

Then I grew up. We all do.

I have seen Harry Potter…and thought it was cute. When the movies came out on DVD, my son rented it…we watched it…yeah…whatever.

If you don’t like it, don’t read it.

There’s an issue with Poe now too?

Because if there is, I was damned even when I was still in a pew every Sunday.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thanks for that, I agree completely. While the Holy Father certainly speaks authoritatively in matters of faith and morals, it hardly seems reasonable to expect his opinions concerning popular literature to carry the same weight. Now, one could reply that such literature in some way touches on faith and morals. However, it only does so in the same way that everything “touches on faith and morals”—which side of the bread I should butter, what brand of toothpaste I use, which particular TV shows I watch, what type of car I drive. At that point, the phrase “touches on faith and morals” reduces to a collection of words without any real meaning, since there would be nothing that *doesn’t *touch on faith and morals. So, the Catholic idea of papal infallibility must apply to something much more concretely doctrinal than an evaluation of a series of children’s books.

I highly recommend John Granger’s book, Looking for God in Harry Potter (2004).

Truly,

Don
+T+

What I find curious, and rather amusing, is that nobody seems to object to the Greek & Latin classics. Christian boys (but not girls, very often) were brought up on the myths about the love affairs of the Olympian Gods for centuries, from Zeus’ adultery with Europa (whom he turned into into a heifer to stop his wife Hera finding out about his activities) to his abduction of Ganymede, son of the king of of Troy: to name just two of his amorous adventures. Then there were the love-affairs of Apollo with the mortal youths Narcissus & Hyacinthus (not both at once, BTW); and others​

If accounts of adulterous goddesses - here one thinks of Aphrodite’s affair with Ares, and their discovery by her cheated hubby Hephaestus - and of gods with male lovers (see above) were tolerated by the Church (the above examples are all from Ovid’s Metamorphoses - Ovid (43 BC - 17 AD) was very popular in the twelfth & thirteenth centuries), it’s hard to see that Harry Potter is going to do much harm. Christians have had plenty of time to be corrupted by pagan authors, such as Catullus, Ovid, Homer, Lucan, Plato, Aristotle, and a host of others; but so far they seem to have survived. None of these are Christians. St. Thomas Aquinas doesn’t seem to have suffered any moral harm from reading the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, but Aristotle’s “great-souled man” is a long way from being a Christian. If an Epicurean poet like Lucretius can be a set book in schools for centuries, without any perceptible ill-effects, it’s not clear why modern books should be damaging.

I think people worry too much. ##

 

[rocklobster]

What I find curious, and rather amusing, is that nobody seems to object to the Greek & Latin classics. Christian boys (but not girls, very often) were brought up on the myths about the love affairs of the Olympian Gods for centuries, from Zeus’ adultery with Europa (whom he turned into into a heifer to stop his wife Hera finding out about his activities) to his abduction of Ganymede, son of the king of of Troy: to name just two of his amorous adventures. Then there were the love-affairs of Apollo with the mortal youths Narcissus & Hyacinthus (not both at once, BTW); and others​

If accounts of adulterous goddesses - here one thinks of Aphrodite’s affair with Ares, and their discovery by her cheated hubby Hephaestus - and of gods with male lovers (see above) were tolerated by the Church (the above examples are all from Ovid’s Metamorphoses - Ovid (43 BC - 17 AD) was very popular in the twelfth & thirteenth centuries), it’s hard to see that Harry Potter is going to do much harm. Christians have had plenty of time to be corrupted by pagan authors, such as Catullus, Ovid, Homer, Lucan, Plato, Aristotle, and a host of others; but so far they seem to have survived. None of these are Christians. St. Thomas Aquinas doesn’t seem to have suffered any moral harm from reading the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, but Aristotle’s “great-souled man” is a long way from being a Christian. If an Epicurean poet like Lucretius can be a set book in schools for centuries, without any perceptible ill-effects, it’s not clear why modern books should be damaging.

I think people worry too much. ##

I couldn’t have said it better myself:clapping:

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Doesn’t discount the fact they used magic, and in fact the Elves themselves were magical.

Sauron, who is one of the Maia, uses magic. The Ainu Morgoth uses magic, when he is not using lies or orc-armies or dragons and other monsters. Melian the Maia uses magic in order to protect the kingdom of Doriath from the orcs. Gandalf is a Maia - not an Elf.​

The Elves don’t use magic - the Silmarils are not made by magic, but by the skill of Feänor. the Elven-cities Gondolin and Nargothrond are built by art, not by magic. OTOH, Melkor-Morgoth, & Sauron, use magic often, frequently in order to deceive - & Sauron’s fort on the Isle of Werewolves is held together by magic. The Elves don’t rely on anything but their own skill in arts & crafts and the knowledge of their loremasters; with one exception - Luthien uses magic in her duel with Sauron.

[See the Silmarillion for the details]

The use of “seeing-stones” might be called magical - but it’s an awful stretch; they only seem magical because we don’t have such things; and because such things are the property of the fortune-teller. In Tolkien’s world, they are made by the art of the Elves.

Magic maybe a relative concept anyway. ##

A love spell is not consistent with the Wiccan Rede as it might do harm as well; Wiccan spells are made to minimize, if not totally avoid, bending another’s will. Thus Wiccan spellcasting tries to avoid involving another person directly, or bending his will to the caster’s will. I am not certain about other forms of witchcraft, though with Wicca I am certain that to bend another’s will would be to violate the Rede.

Hhmm…solitary or with a coven?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I think Levis is wrong. Hyperventilatng about an innocous matter much like the Nuns in my school did in the late 1950s about us watching the Three stooges.

Some of the stuff published by TAN Books hyperventilates about the dreadfulness of 1930s’ films - if people thought films then were dreadful & immoral, it’s hard to imagine what they would say about the average film nowadays.​

It’s conceivable that The Three Stooges was morally repellent - but it’s hard to see how. Did the nuns also object to Laurel & Hardy ? I think they were much funnier than TTS. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

“All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others — even if this were for the sake of restoring their health — are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. … The Church for her part warns the faithful against it” (2117).

Suppose that Harry was using powers to get people do immoral stuff in order to save friends would you support that?

There is no comparison between attempting to conjure spirits, and reading a book with a fictional story. One might as well ban detective fiction in case a reader of Agatha Christie commits a murder. Plenty of children have tried copying Superman - but I’ve not heard of Catholic or Evangelical boycotts of DC Comics. (Or of Marvel Enterprises, for that matter - yet Conan the Barbarian is not exactly house-trained)​

Anyone with a hankering for pentagrams, wands, incantations & the left-hand or right-hand paths, will have to look elsewhere. If you want to summon up storms or concoct love potions, HP is not the source to consult. There are scrying-stones in “The Lord of the Rings”, of just the sort that fortune-tellers are traditionally said to use - but no one denounces use of the seeing-stone (which is what we are talking about) by Pippin, then by Aragorn, as witchcraft. Yet it is about as occult a practice as one could ask for. People don’t object to Gandalf’s door-spell at the gates of Moria, or his rhyme of lore about the Seeing Stones & the White Tree of Numenor. Yet the spell at the gates of Moria is definitely a spell.

One might as well ban all books abut the Golden Dawn or A.E. Waite, or Aleister Crowley or Madame Blavatsky - there are probably far more theosophists, and readers of “Isis Unveiled”, than there are children drawn into Wicca by the HP books. So where are all the complaints about the ghastliness of theosophy ? ##

 

[Liberalsaved]

What I find curious, and rather amusing, is that nobody seems to object to the Greek & Latin classics. Christian boys (but not girls, very often) were brought up on the myths about the love affairs of the Olympian Gods for centuries, from Zeus’ adultery with Europa (whom he turned into into a heifer to stop his wife Hera finding out about his activities) to his abduction of Ganymede, son of the king of of Troy: to name just two of his amorous adventures. Then there were the love-affairs of Apollo with the mortal youths Narcissus & Hyacinthus (not both at once, BTW); and others​

If accounts of adulterous goddesses - here one thinks of Aphrodite’s affair with Ares, and their discovery by her cheated hubby Hephaestus - and of gods with male lovers (see above) were tolerated by the Church (the above examples are all from Ovid’s Metamorphoses - Ovid (43 BC - 17 AD) was very popular in the twelfth & thirteenth centuries), it’s hard to see that Harry Potter is going to do much harm. Christians have had plenty of time to be corrupted by pagan authors, such as Catullus, Ovid, Homer, Lucan, Plato, Aristotle, and a host of others; but so far they seem to have survived. None of these are Christians. St. Thomas Aquinas doesn’t seem to have suffered any moral harm from reading the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, but Aristotle’s “great-souled man” is a long way from being a Christian. If an Epicurean poet like Lucretius can be a set book in schools for centuries, without any perceptible ill-effects, it’s not clear why modern books should be damaging.

I think people worry too much. ##

While I object to the assertations that we have nothing to learn from those men (if this was not your intended meaning, I apologize) one reason no one objects is because there’s no media coverage or particularly no media outrage over those works. Many of the attributes of the pagan pnatheon are ingrained in both modern religion and popular culture. Christians still associate God in some part with the skies, a tradition began in pagan times, and to a much lesser extent storms are often casually said to be caused by (insert name of whichever god here) by the various religious traditions, regardless of how strong they are in their particular faith. It’s something we do casually; it’s part of the cultural landscape.
Another reason is the tendency to view all things attached to the past as somehow of higher literary, artistic or academic value than the things of the present. There is a sense, in nearly every cultural and religious tradition, of there being a Golden Era we are falling away from. It’s present in the very earliest mythologies, where the universe was originally inhabited and managed directly by Gods until they grew tired of the task and delegated it to men, under whom the world would be a stable but flickering reflection of its former glory. It’s present in the biblical account of the Garden of Eden, which is quite literally the story of the fall of Man. It’s leaked all the way down to modern fiction; Tolkien’s legendarium shows it in the destruction of Numenor and the removal of the Undying Lands from the world. Every one of our traditions values the past above the present.
Third, and I think the reason that is most immediately to blame (the previous two fitting neatly into the realm of the subconsious) is that people don’t like what they don’t understand. Some people are literally incapable of including anything in the picture of the world they’ve personally carved that so much as it hints at being different from that set of rules; hence, they see something that doesn’t agree with them, their natural reaction is to attack. Often people paint this as some kind of crusade for good, but it’s really just remnants of old survival instinct; the basic thought process of “There’s something that I don’t understand. It could hurt me. I better stop it before it does.”

 

[Liberalsaved]

(Or of Marvel Enterprises, for that matter - yet Conan the Barbarian is not exactly house-trained)

I know this is very nit picky, but…Conan was created in the thirties by Robert E. Howard and is probably owned primarily by the Howard estate. The current comic rights are licensed by Dark Horse.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I know this is very nit picky, but…Conan was created in the thirties by Robert E. Howard and is probably owned primarily by the Howard estate. The current comic rights are licensed by Dark Horse.

Thanks - Not knowing otherwise, I took for granted that Conan the B. was wholly owned by Marvel.​

Many thanks for the POI.

About the Golden Age motif - one of C.S. Lewis’ essays is about “The Great Myth” of progress, which he traces back, IIRC, to the Romantic poets. So there seem to be two motifs: one, of decline from a perfect primeval state; the other, of progress.

I think that a belief in constant progress is easier to maintain if one thinks of the sciences (which is where one comes upon Darwinism as a philosophy of history); as Lewis points out in his essay “Historicism”, a philosophy is not possible, because we don’t know which events are important, nor how they are related, nor what the “unknown unknowns” are; we don’t know which the events are that we do not know, let alone their connections with what we do know.

But the whole subject of how the past has been constructed so as to make it (and the present of those who construct it ) intelligible, is very complicated. Divine revelation eases matters a good deal, but doesn’t fill all the gaps.

While I object to the assertations that we have nothing to learn from those men (if this was not your intended meaning, I apologize)…

That’s OK: but it wasn’t my point; I was simply putting forward some considerations which on the face of it might be thought to have led to the suppression of the Classics - such as the works of Ovid.​

But no, I certainly wasn’t calling for their suppression - the logic of the Potter-rejecters ought in principle to lead to that; the puzzle is that Ovid is not objected to, while J.K. Rowling is. Something does not add up ##

 

[maria29]

BTW many of tolkien’s creatures and people were named and/or based on from Norse “pagan” gods…

 

[Liberalsaved]

BTW many of tolkien’s creatures and people were named and/or based on from Norse “pagan” gods…

Tolkien’s world of Arda (of which Middle Earth was a part) was ruled over by the Valar, a group of angelic beings that were erroneously worshipped by the race of Men as Gods, yet who in turn had been created by Eru, The One, who was THE God. The Valar bore great similarities to the pantheons of pagan gods, with a Lord of the Sky, a Lord of the Dead, etc.

Tolkien’s legendarium bore far more than a passing resemblance to old stories, legends and religions. Despite being a Christian, the Christian influence was minimal when stacked up against pagan influence. I’m shocked I don’t hear more outcry against Tolkien here.

 

[rocklobster]

So what do you anti-Harry Potter types think about Bewitched or Sabrina the Teenage Witch?

 

[Lost_Found]

The reason you don’t see a problem with H. Potter is because you’re thinking short-term.
Our Church always considers LONG-term. Consider free-love in the ’60s-80s. Everyone laughed at the Catholic Church for its stance on contraception. Now it’s not so funny - a society transforming beyond recognition. But free-love sounded fun, direct, harmless. What a perfect cloak for the devil to hide behind. What a slippery slope it turned out to be – it was the culture of DEATH.

Now when a Pope/future Pope/Vatican speaks and it sounds like nonsense, we ought to do a second take – could it be that it’s me, and not the Pope, who’s uninformed?

In Potter’s case, magic has now become generally accepted as fun for all. Notice it was through “good” magic that it gained a foothold into our comfort zone. But over the next forty years, many of the 300 million enthusiasts will have their brand of magic evolve. Like free-love it will become more perverse or even a panacea. Guaranteed. Then you’ll get a clear view at the ugly beast that it truly is.

Quite simply, from the OP’s link - That Vatican exorcist who has performed 30,000 exorcisms knows a demon when he sees one. When he tells us that Harry Potter is the devil, you can be 100% certain he is correct.

 

[Liberalsaved]

The reason you don’t see a problem with H. Potter is because you’re thinking short-term.
Our Church always considers LONG-term. Consider free-love in the ’60s-80s. Everyone laughed at the Catholic Church for its stance on contraception. Now it’s not so funny - a society transforming beyond recognition. But free-love sounded fun, direct, harmless. What a perfect cloak for the devil to hide behind. What a slippery slope it turned out to be – it was the culture of DEATH.

Now when a Pope/future Pope/Vatican speaks and it sounds like nonsense, we ought to do a second take – could it be that it’s me, and not the Pope, who’s uninformed?

In Potter’s case, magic has now become generally accepted as fun for all. Notice it was through “good” magic that it gained a foothold into our comfort zone. But over the next forty years, many of the 300 million enthusiasts will have their brand of magic evolve. Like free-love it will become more perverse or even a panacea. Guaranteed. Then you’ll get a clear view at the ugly beast that it truly is.

Quite simply, from the OP’s link - That Vatican exorcist who has performed 30,000 exorcisms knows a demon when he sees one. When he tells us that Harry Potter is the devil, you can be 100% certain he is correct.

Forty years? Do you really expect me to wait that long? I started developing my dark powers years ago. And I had no other help in this outside the Potter books.

Also I worship soda cans.

 

[robbmiller]

So where are all the complaints about the ghastliness of theosophy ?​

Wrong thread. I’d be glad to comment on Theosophy, but this is a popular media thread about the popular Harry Potter books.

 

[Faith1960]

<< That doesnt mean HP is bad in my eyes. >>

I’ve read both sides of the HP debate here and all over the internet. Sometime last year just before Rowling’s last book was released I bought the first one, just to see for myself what all the fuss was about. I can see both sides to the debate. Yes, they are fun and exciting and yes, they’re filled with magic, wizardry and spells.
I was a little uncomfortable with the magical aspect of the book but I’m not convinced that they’re harmful to kids, either.

 

[Sacre_Coeur]

…
I started developing my dark powers years ago. And I had no other help in this outside the Potter books.

Also I worship soda cans.

…yes, and we understand you’re not Catholic.

Which explains why you have yet to comment on paragraph 2117.

Once again, *paragraph 2117

All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another’s credulity.*

The literary debate and comparisons are enlightening, engaging and charming, but I have yet to hear an analysis of the “Catholic Rule Book” from any of you English professors as it pertains to reading Harry Potter.

Catholic Potter readers, especially, please.

SC

 

[rocklobster]

…yes, and we understand you’re not Catholic.

Which explains why you have yet to comment on paragraph 2117.

Once again, *paragraph 2117

All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another’s credulity.*

The literary debate and comparisons are enlightening, engaging and charming, but I have yet to hear an analysis of the “Catholic Rule Book” from any of you English professors as it pertains to reading Harry Potter.

Catholic Potter readers, especially, please.

SC

I can comment and I am a Catholic! It says practicing witchcraft is wrong. It says ZIP about READING ABOUT IT!

 

[Liberalsaved]

I can comment and I am a Catholic! It says practicing witchcraft is wrong. It says ZIP about READING ABOUT IT!

Another good point, I think, is that if reading about witchcraft is wrong, can we also not read about theives? Does that make The Hobbit and A Clockwork Orange off limits? What about sex? Because that would put Dances with Wolves and All Quiet on the Western Front on the list.

Yes, I know I’m stretching a bit, but I think the point is there.