Catholicism and Harry Potter?

[Aggie414]

True. But I was trying to point out how trivial his vices are in respect to the attack from the original poster. And I had trouble coming up with that list

Tom A.

Gotcha. Sorry I didn’t catch that

 

[mrajax]

It’s not about people being inspired to dabble in satanism, is about kids reading stuff that can be spiritually harmful for them. Kids don’t understand the difference between false and real magic. They assume that if they can read about it, no harm is done. That is false.

I personally know of a few people worth paying attention to who recommend that our children stay away from that stuff. But then again there’s so much that they need to stay away from and that the world presents as “normal” (especially regarding music)…

Yes they do understand the difference between fake and ‘real’ magic because satanic magic does. not. exist. Except in the minds of a bunch of crazy nutters. To say that the magic in Harry Potter is satanic is like saying that Tolkien and CS Lewis were trying to create a different religion and heresy because their protagonists clearly aren’t Jesus but are inspired by him. Honestly, people pointlessly condemn Harry Potter which is utterly harmless yet how many people actually condemn Philip Pullman’s books which actually were based on the occult and have a very anti-religious theme to them? Why does this topic even matter in 2013? Why am I even commenting on it here.

Oh well: youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g

 

[Skadi]

The comment on the other fantasy works reminded me of something.

The oft quoted definition by a certain net-legend of the 90’s:
“It’s Science Fiction if, presuming technical competence on the
part of the writer, he genuinely believes it could happen.
Otherwise, it’s Fantasy.” – John W. Campbell, Jr.

means that not only are stories with magical elements like Star Wars fantasy, but things like Star Trek and Andromeda are too. They are not Science Fiction. Ray guns, teleporters, psychic powers – they are all just magic. You might as well complain about the occult draws of Star Trek as about Harry Potter.

“But wait!” you say, “Star Trek is so removed from the occult that there is no draw!”

I say that Harry Potter is so removed from the occult that most well balanced people will feel no draw, either. And as for unbalanced people – well there are unbalanced fans of Star Trek, too. Do we censor it (or claim it’s dangerous) because of them?

Tom A.

I think the craziest of them all is the legends of King Arther. He serves God and seeks the Holy Grail with the aid of whom? MERLIN! when you look at the connotations of that its just staggering. With Harry and alot of other media it seams like if its even remotely possible to interpret something in a way contrary to Christianity the evangelicals are out burning it on the church steps. But what does a Wizard aiding Arther to find the Grail entail? THAT MAGIC CAN BE USED TO GLORIFY THE CHRISTIAN GOD!? BLASPHEMY!

 

[Razanir]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRXBE6fVJjNM5yd3U41dtmbIkMGURF_-7Lz3V9GsOp67lnFrzpg405PK03Q

Remember this? Yeah. We just shaped that glue into a horse and stated beating it. This thread is dead, people! All the anti-Potterheads left on my page 3 (I have it set to 20/page not 15/page)

 

[Z1Z2]

ItKids don’t understand the difference between false and real magic.

my 7 year old can tell the difference…

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’m just curious to see what the general Catholic opinion on J. K. Rowling’s popular saga. I understand that very fanatic people will call it satanic and evil, as they say it promotes witchcraft.
First off, I only liked Harry Potter from 1999-2003 and just gave up on it, because they were making the movies while the books were still being written and it took forever for book 5 to come out, and in that time I came to love J. R. R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth. I love The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.

But why do Christians endorse J. R. R. Tolkien’s works, which he wrote as Christian (particularly Catholic) allegories, as well as C. S. Lewis’ Narnia series, but believe Harry Potter comes from the depths of hell? I was always aware that true witchcraft was bad and that the only true faith was Christianity, particularly Catholicism. I never met anybody who was inspired to dabble in satanism and the occult because they read Harry Potter? This magic they speak of is fiction, and real magic is to be condemned. As long as they know the difference…? How can we endorse certain fantasy stories by people like Tolkien and Lewis, but we condemn J. K. Rowling as being inspired by the devil?

You’re right. It makes no sense.

The fact is that Harry Potter doesn’t even portray occult practices at all. The only “magic” in the series is an entirely fictional variety that’s also structurally and aesthetically distinct from real-world occult magic.

In addition, the series is loaded with Christian imagery and thematic content.

All in all, they’re to be highly recommended - especially for kids old enough not to be scared (there are some scary parts; I know a girl who stopped reading because the whole unicorn blood thing in the first novel freaked her out, and a guy who stopped reading for a long time because Voldemort’s pre-revival state in book four freaked him out).

It’s not that HP is evil while Narnia and Middle Earth are intrinsically good. From what I can tell, the Christian symbolism is just less explicit and less of a focus in HP.

Honestly, the Christian content in Harry Potter and Narnia alike is far more heavy-handed than in The Lord of the Rings, as the latter lacks any allegorical Christian elements. Rowling’s and Lewis’ famous fantasy series, however, are both packed with such allegorical elements.

Well, then you were smarter than me. I used to read some fictional fantasy and some comics that now and then had magic and sorcery and occult stuff and sometimes, being a child, I’d play to be a sorcerer or magician and try to do stuff like that. Sometimes it was a bad guy trying to evoke demons or spirits or trying to harm someone, and as a kid I found it quite awesome (as a game, of course) that you could say words and stuff and get spirits to attack your opponents or somehow interact with you.

See, that’s just it: Harry Potter doesn’t feature any of that sort of thing. There’s no such invocational sorcery in the books. Harry Potter magic is structurally fictional: you wave a wand containing something like a unicorn hair, spout fake Latin, and fantastical effects occur. No “evoking demons or spirits” involved.

That’s why concern that revolves around witchcraft is misplaced when it comes to Harry Potter.

I mention this because you seem to be acting like the Ancient Romans who would have thought TV is witchcraft. In the Harry Potter universe, “magic” is just another law of the universe, like electricity, and therefore morally neutral. But, because it’s called magic, you vehemently attack it. The moral of my story is that just because wizardry is called “magic” in HP, you assume it’s the exact same thing as the occult in the real world. But again, it’s just a fundamental part of their universe, as morally neutral as electricity in ours, the Force in Star Wars, or saidar and saidin in the Wheel of Time

Precisely. Well said.

If I remember correctly, Rowling is a practicing Catholic too. I doubt she’d endorse anti-Catholicism in her books.

Close. She’s Protestant.

Her faith is obviously very important to her, as it’s all over the Harry Potter series on a thematic level.

This thread makes me want to finally read the books.

I don’t think that was what Portrait intended, but I’m definitely going to now. One of the adults at my church recommended them, too, so I think they must be good.

They really are. You’ve got to stick with them, though - most people don’t seem to be impressed until they get to Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the third book). I myself was hooked by the second book, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

As a person who was/somewhat is Wiccan, I can tell you any time Harry Potter comes up we laugh. Hard. And not of satanic glee.

Harry Potters brand of magic is totally secular, and aside from a brief section in the 7th book where Harry is between life and death there is almost no mention at all of religion. His powers arnt “Satanic”, because 1. they are fictional characters and 2. they involve no religious practice what so ever.

On the other hand Magic in Neo-Paganism is totally religious, and in practice works totally different. Harry waves a stick and shouts a latin phrase and something spectacular happens. Wiccans meditate, use herbs, circles, various ancient languages, and calling on dietys to produce even the most subtle changes.

Obviously it probably increases the google search of “magic”, but Potter has nothing to do with modern witchcraft.

For some reason, some people just can’t grasp this fact.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Uhm, could someone please remind me what vices Harry has? Seriously!

Uhhhh… he occasionally cheats by copying Hermione’s homework? And he’s impetuous?

That’s all I got.

Harry Potter will be examined in the context of “ongoing paganization of children and youth culture” as soon as:

1. You show Harry Potter portrays actual occult magic.
2. You show there is an ongoing paganization of children and youth culture.

…

Good luck with that.

The major difference between the two types of magic is that the Harry Potter characters are involved in occultic style magic, albeit in a fictional context.

Portrait, that’s not true. This is not a matter of opinion. All those with even a rudimentary familiarity with the series unanimously testify that the “magic” of Rowling’s series is structurally and consistently fictional rather than occultic.

With Messrs. Lewis and Tolkein, and most other fantasy authors, the word magic is not even an apt term for what takes place in their books. Those authors never use the word ‘magic’ themselves - it almost always ascribed by an outsider, namely the reader.

Oh, come on. Lucy casts spells in Dawn Treader, and you know what the narrator calls them? Spells. And they’re capable of binding Aslan Himself.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Uhm, could someone please remind me what vices Harry has? Seriously!

Well, IMHO, gambling with the lives of those he has taken on the responsibility for protecting, failing to utilize his tactical advantage of concealment, opting instead for a face-to-face encounter which greatly reduces his chances for success. Knowing that his failure will result in misery/death for countless others.

From the catechism:
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

I would say that HP has willingly taken on the role of leader, therefore becoming responsible for the defense of those he has taken on responsibility for in the battle at Hogwarts. In the post-climactic scene after he’s seen what the eternal consequences will be for the paths chosen by him and Voldemort, he covers himself with the cloak while Voldemort is addressing Neville and the confusion as reinforcements arrive. He is undetected by Voldemort. He knows that there is no guarantee of his success, he is not positive he’s figured things out correctly, yet, he passes up taking on Voldemort from concealment. A higher odds of success with the lives of all those present at stake, as well as those Voldemort will harm in the future. Yet, HP opts instead to throw off his cloak and confront Voldemort face-to-face and gambles everything on his assessment of the situation and his ability to react quickly enough to V’s actions. Even though his only intention is to disarm V. Something he could have just as easily done from concealment, with the element of surprise, and much lower risk to himself and hence better odds of success and lower risk to those he is responsible for protecting. Smacks of arrogance and a lack of appreciation for his responsibility to others.

Other than that, he’s a typical teen making mistakes and learning from them.

 

[Kamaduck]

Oh, come on. Lucy casts spells in Dawn Treader, and you know what the narrator calls them? Spells. And they’re capable of binding Aslan Himself.

Tolkein’s magic is also referred to as “magic”, although I’m not sure he ever uses the word “spell”. He definitely talks about the elves and even the hobbits having and using “magic”. To be fair, though, there is little to no distinction in Tolkien between magic and natural ability… Because magic itself is often natural, and no distinction is necessary.

 

[Kithrus]

As I said many times before in the last 6 threads Harry potter is no more then a magical Tom Sawyer. Brakes rules, pulls pranks behaves like (shock and awe) a kid.

 

[Kamaduck]

Interesting, yes, but the book itself still refers to it as magic. Not just Sam or the other characters, but the description/narration itself.

 

[Kamaduck]

Which is totally in line with the idea that fantasy magic is not and need not be inherently evil.

Meaning that “Harry Potter has magic in it, therefore it is of the devil” is not a valid argument. That’s pretty much what I was commenting on- simply using the word “magic” does not mean that one is advocating real-world witchcraft.

 

[jediliz]

I liked the books at first - devoured the first 4 in a matter of a short time, though I read them out of order 1,3, 2, 4. But after I lost my place in book 5 and read the MAJOR SPOILER in a discussion thread (it was blacked out, but I couldn’t help it) I lost interest. Book 6 - I made it to the last maybe 3 chapters…but chickened out finishing it. I read at least half of book 7 on a trip back to Nebraska from South Dakota (Where I had purchased the book at a Target store at 8 AM) but decided just to read the Epilogue and call it good after the first half and saw the MAJOR DEATHS that occurred. As for the movies…it was a special “Date” that my dad and I would do - we’d go to the movie on opening day after the first one that I went to alone…well, after Book 6 and Movie 6, I refused to see the 7th movie and my dad went with an ex-co worker friend of his instead to both halves.

I would probably not recommend the books anymore - I read Rick Riordan’s Percy Jackson Series and Heroes of Olympus series now - Greek Mythology is a lot more interesting than an author that declared that Dumbledore was GAY, and I don’t mean “happy”!

 

[Kamaduck]

I would probably not recommend the books anymore - I read Rick Riordan’s Percy Jackson Series and Heroes of Olympus series now - Greek Mythology is a lot more interesting than an author that declared that Dumbledore was GAY, and I don’t mean “happy”!

We could make the case that studying Greek mythology is even more dangerous than the most questionable modern fantasy text, since the myths are essentially actual pagan beliefs, even if they seem silly to many of us now.

Personally, though, I think we do more harm than good when we complain about Dumbledore being gay. From what I’ve heard, the statement was ambiguous enough that we’re not even sure he sinned, let alone whether he repented later. People with homosexual tendencies exist, and they deserve to appear in fiction, too. I would say the same of mentally ill and disabled people, of both genders and all races. Fiction should be for everyone.

And even if he was indeed a practicing homosexual who never repented of it, I would still not condemn the entire book series because of it. Haymitch gets drunk repeatedly, but I’d still say Hunger Games is a great series. Many good mentors have their own serious flaws, and that reflects the way life is. Even the most trustworthy mentor that gives the best advice on earth is still going to be a sinner with his own problems to work out.

 

[BrethrenBoy]

Greek Mythology is a lot more interesting than an author that declared that Dumbledore was GAY, and I don’t mean “happy”!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! One of the characters is a gay man who when he acted on his feelings as a young man – though the book only infers the relationship and never says how far it went – it clouded his moral judgment and caused him to help another young man who became the most evil wizard before Voldemort, whom he eventually saw for who he really was and was the one who finally defeated him. Afterwords he repented of his past misdeeds and lived a noble and celibate life. The horror! He never even hits on another man or shows signs of his sexual orientation!

I would think Dumbledore’s later life would make good example Catholicism’s teachings on homosexuality.

By the way, did you know that Rowling said she was worried that people would guess how the books would end when the realized she was Christian.

 

[Kelfa28]

I can’t believe this thread is still going.

Just my quick :twocents:

I’m a massive fan of the books…pre and post conversion. That will never change and no one will convince me otherwise.

I can’t wait to read them to my kids!

Dumbledore…while Rowling did confirm he was gay on her own accord…this isn’t exactly cannon because it’s never directly implied that he is within the context of the books.

One could easily read the books and assume he is a lifelong bachelor. There is zero indication of his sexual orientation within the books. Sure…he’s a little flamboyant and worldly…but that doesn’t actually indicate sexual orientation.
Even so…it wouldn’t matter anyway. He is clearly depicted as an individual who is not in any kind of relationship with anyone. None of the professors at the school are. They all live at Hogwarts. It’s their life. There is nothing wrong with a person who has SSA and is totally chaste. They are not sinning in the least.

In fact…I wouldn’t have much of a problem disclosing to my children that Dumbledore is gay, according to the author, based on the clear picture of him painted in the books. He is a single, chaste individual. Nothing sinful about that.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I can’t believe this thread is still going.

(…)

I can’t believe it started. I mean, it’s a little premature since the new covers won’t be released until August.

Yes, that’s right! New covers for a new generation of Potterheads. :extrahappy:

 

[styrgwillidar]

I can’t believe this thread is still going.

Just my quick :twocents:

I’m a massive fan of the books…pre and post conversion. That will never change and no one will convince me otherwise.

I can’t wait to read them to my kids!

Dumbledore…while Rowling did confirm he was gay on her own accord…this isn’t exactly cannon because it’s never directly implied that he is within the context of the books.

One could easily read the books and assume he is a lifelong bachelor. There is zero indication of his sexual orientation within the books. Sure…he’s a little flamboyant and worldly…but that doesn’t actually indicate sexual orientation.
Even so…it wouldn’t matter anyway. He is clearly depicted as an individual who is not in any kind of relationship with anyone. None of the professors at the school are. They all live at Hogwarts. It’s their life. There is nothing wrong with a person who has SSA and is totally chaste. They are not sinning in the least.

In fact…I wouldn’t have much of a problem disclosing to my children that Dumbledore is gay, according to the author, based on the clear picture of him painted in the books. He is a single, chaste individual. Nothing sinful about that.

Were you in on the HP thread that went over a 1,000 posts?

 

[Megan7]

I’m just curious to see what the general Catholic opinion on J. K. Rowling’s popular saga. I understand that very fanatic people will call it satanic and evil, as they say it promotes witchcraft.
First off, I only liked Harry Potter from 1999-2003 and just gave up on it, because they were making the movies while the books were still being written and it took forever for book 5 to come out, and in that time I came to love J. R. R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth. I love The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.

But why do Christians endorse J. R. R. Tolkien’s works, which he wrote as Christian (particularly Catholic) allegories, as well as C. S. Lewis’ Narnia series, but believe Harry Potter comes from the depths of hell? I was always aware that true witchcraft was bad and that the only true faith was Christianity, particularly Catholicism. I never met anybody who was inspired to dabble in satanism and the occult because they read Harry Potter? This magic they speak of is fiction, and real magic is to be condemned. As long as they know the difference…? How can we endorse certain fantasy stories by people like Tolkien and Lewis, but we condemn J. K. Rowling as being inspired by the devil?

Thanks for the thread, will read this later on.

Pax

 

[Kamaduck]

Guys, the first Harry Potter book is amazing. Haven’t read anything this enjoyable since Hunger Games. Actually, scratch that. This is better.