Church Exorcist and Pro Life Priest Warns Against Harry Potter

[57classic]

Although I will probably be told it is none of my business, it would be hepful to know if the anti-Potter crowd reads for pleasure or information only and what genre(s)?

We all were supposed to learn about plot devices in highschool literature class but if the habit of reading for pleasure was never established, it is no surprise Mickey and Portrait refuse to actually compare the books listed and things such as irony go right over their heads. The tag line has become quite worn out and sounds a lot like: “4 feet good 2 feet bad!” but then I wonder if you even make that connection.

If you would really read the books especially the books from The Order of the Phoenix on it becomes readily apparent the author is writing about a government that gradually at first then suddenly and completely strips people of their rights and freedoms in the name of safety. The kids are quite a lot like the French Resistance, yes I know except they are witches.
I would hope if our government became (Ha!) this intrusive at least a few of the now young adult readers would reach back and realize that it is the people who must take back their freedoms as there will be no cavalry coming to the rescue.

 

[JHow]

Sigh. And yet again we have come full circle. I have become weary of another Potter thread. The Catholic Potterites descend on these threads like vultures.

This is my last post here…and on any future Potter threads. I want to thank you** Portrait** for your wonderfully eloquent and enlightening posts concerning the subject. You have been able to put it into words much better than myself. Your posts ring out with truth!

Thank you.

Blessed Nativity to everyone!

Well, I was going to address your Fr. Korz article, which I read, and which is weak in its understanding of the contents of Harry Potter, but I can save that for the next time.

Why the “vultures” accusation? The anti-Potter side is certainly not without faults, which you fail to address:

1. Unfamiliarity with the contents. No one has yet brought up examples of “real” witchcraft in HP. If you read the books, it might make it easier for you to argue your case other than repeating the word “witch”.
2. Putting Rowling’s Christian bona fides on trial, rather than reacting to the text. This is primarily a failure of literary analysis. It is also possibly un-charitable, as I don’t think any of us know what her beliefs really are.
3. An over-reliance on the work of one man (O’Brien), whose opinion echoes through most of the anti-Potter sound bites.
4. Over-reliance on argument from authority (the Kuby letter, Fr. Eutener’s throw-away quotes). We are not talking about theology, particle physics, or ancient languages here, it’s a work of popular literature - easily read by six-graders. You should be able to bring your own thoughts to the argument.

Sorry you are frustrated with the Potterites, but perhaps people should stop bringing up this topic.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The story is set in contemporary London and the English countryside. Your witches and wizards are the gnostic cabal whose secret knowledge must be hidden from ordinary people and disclosed only to initiates.

I never understand why critics seem to think that Harry Potter blurs the line between a fantasy world and the real world more than Narnia or Lord of the Rings. The children in Narnia are from our world, and Narnia’s magic - the tree that grows from the fruit from The Magican’s Nephew, the wardrobe, Susan’s horn, etc. - often reaches out into our world in order to bring individuals into Narnia. And heck, in Lord of the Rings Middle Earth is our world - in the so-called “Fourth Age.”

Harry Potter fans often draw comparisons between the series and such classics as The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkein, and the Narnia series by C.S. Lewis. In The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien - a committed and conscientiously Christian writer [etc.]…

Rowling is a conscientiously Christian writer as well, as numerous interviews attest; in addition, her series is as obviously, in-your-face Christian as Narnia. No impartial reader can miss this, especially with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the last volume in the series. The Christian parallels, imagery, and symbolism are unmistakably obvious.

Tolkien presents an epic which intentionally depicts the Christian struggle against the corrupting influences of the personalized use of supernatural power, in which humility is the key to spiritual freedom, and the end game is one of being rid of the burden of supernatural power.

So does Rowling.

Humility, courage, and self-sacrifice consistently foil the schemes and assaults of the series’ primary antagonist Voldemort, despite the fact that his “magical” power is clearly and obviously superior to any other wizard alive (except perhaps Dumbledore).

As for being rid of the burden of supernatural power, that reminds me of how Harry willingly and gladly lays aside the power of the Elder Wand - and indeed all the Deathly Hallows except his cloak - at the end of the series.

Tolkein’s is an intentional analogy of the Christian struggle against sin and death; Rowling’s is an intentional analogy of occult libertarianism, crafted for a modern market, and those who read into it a Christian analogy are finding in it what they want to find - not that which the author has planted there.

If this writer whom you’re quoting can’t see that Harry Potter is in its own way an analogy of the Christian struggle against sin and death (“The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death,” from 1 Corinthians, is on the tombstone of Harry’s parents at Godric’s Hollow), then he has demonstrated a fatal partiality on this matter. It is this article’s arrogance and willful ignorance which refute it.

The works of J.R.R. Tolkein and C.S. Lewis are fantasy literature with an explicitly Christian purpose

Apparently so many people feel the same way about Harry Potter that Rowling felt the need to state in a documentary after Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows came out that her purpose in writing was not itself to convert people to Christianity.

For Orthodox Christians, the biggest threat of the Harry Potter phenomenon is not something as simple as the popularization of the occult: it is the forgetfulness of the mind of the Church, the Orthodox inheritance as it is and was, intentionally expressed in cultures past and present. For Orthodox Christians bombarded by the deluge of modern pop culture, perhaps it is time to take refuge in that traditional inheritance once again - and leave Harry and Hogwarts out in the dustbin.
Father Geoffrey Korz, (Holy Cross, 2007)
orthodoxcanada.com/journal/2007-04-08.html

Harry Potter stands solidly within the tradition of English Christian literature, as any educated and impartial reader - as well as numerous critics like John Granger - have thoroughly documented time and time again.

Aslan (the Christ character in the form of a lion until the end of the series) gives [Lucy] a magic potion to instantly heal those who have been injured or turned to stone. So let’s see, school children, potions, magic, creatures from mythology. Sounds about the same to me, so why the disparity in criticism?

Precisely. I believe one word that was thrown against the Potter series which I addressed was that it portrays “brewing.” I’d forgotten that Narnia includes a magic potion that a good guy (Lucy Pevensie) uses as well.

And actually, Father Christmas gives it to her, not Aslan. She doesn’t even get it from the series’ Christ figure!

Sigh. And yet again we have come full circle. I have become weary of another Potter thread. The Catholic Potterites descend on these threads like vultures.

This is my last post here…and on any future Potter threads.

sigh

It always ends the same way…

If you do see my reply, Mickey, you really should check out How Harry Cast His Spell by John Granger. Granger himself, by the way, is an eastern Orthodox Christian.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

amazon.com/How-Harry-Cast-His-Spell/dp/1414321880

That’s the link to the amazon.com page. The book is How Harry Cast His Spell, an analysis of the series’ popularity in light of its Christian content. The author is John Granger, a convert to Orthodox Christianity.

 

[JHow]

…Rowling is a conscientiously Christian writer as well, as numerous interviews attest…

Fone Bone: For purposes of future reference, can you point me to some of these articles in which Rowling describes her faith? I have always tried to limit argument to the texts, because I see think to do otherwise is improper analysis, however that is not to say that Rowling’s worldview doesn’t inform her art. Some of the anti-Potter side appear to view Rowling as insufficiently Christian, or perhaps not the right sort of Christian.

 

[JHow]

amazon.com/How-Harry-Cast-His-Spell/dp/1414321880

That’s the link to the amazon.com page. The book is How Harry Cast His Spell, an analysis of the series’ popularity in light of its Christian content. The author is John Granger, a convert to Orthodox Christianity.

And only half the price of O’Brien!

 

[curlycool89]

We all were supposed to learn about plot devices in highschool literature class but if the habit of reading for pleasure was never established, it is no surprise Mickey and Portrait refuse to actually compare the books listed and things such as irony go right over their heads. The tag line has become quite worn out and sounds a lot like: “4 feet good 2 feet bad!” but then I wonder if you even make that connection.

Actually, it doesn’t look like they even got there. Otherwise they would have told us off about “Magic is Might!” or “For the Greater Good!” (the first one used by Voldemort, the second by Grindelwald and a young naive Dumbledore. Voldemort is evil, Grindelwald was evil but he may later repent, and Dumbledore does repent of it and repudiate the slogan).

 

[57classic]

Actually, it doesn’t look like they even got there. Otherwise they would have told us off about “Magic is Might!” or “For the Greater Good!” (the first one used by Voldemort, the second by Grindelwald and a young naive Dumbledore. Voldemort is evil, Grindelwald was evil but he may later repent, and Dumbledore does repent of it and repudiate the slogan).

“For the Greater Good” is the scary one, very easily used by politicians.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Actually, it doesn’t look like they even got there. Otherwise they would have told us off about “Magic is Might!” or “For the Greater Good!” (the first one used by Voldemort, the second by Grindelwald and a young naive Dumbledore. Voldemort is evil, Grindelwald was evil but he may later repent, and Dumbledore does repent of it and repudiate the slogan).

Well, that’s because, having encountered Portrait in another thread about HP, ‘For the Greater Good’ appears to be his justification for lying about, misrepresenting, and ignoring what is actually in the HP series. That is, he/she has such a fundamental objection to the concept of ‘magic’ appearing in literature that anything he/she does to dissuade people from reading them is justifiable in his/her mind. Unless some other authority has told him/her that it’s christian- i.e. C.S. Lewis ‘Narnia’ series or Tolkein’s works.

Which is why in another thread he attempts to make distinction in how the author’s treat magic when there actually aren’t any. The only real differenc is that Tolkein and C.S. Lewis stories occur in alternate realities which don’t equate to the modern era like Rowlings.

Hence, Portrait ignores Rowlings fundamental theme of death and things like

• Showing divination as being disreputable and the downfall of the bad guy (i.e. if he had simply ignored it he would have succeeded)
• Showing that whether the bad guy wins or loses in this world, ultimately he has lost because of what he has done to his soul
• Showing the danger in a fear of death and attaching ourselves to things of this world- earthly treasure, earthly wisdom, nature, our enemies, our possible future lives on earth etc.
• Using ‘ghosts’ that come to HP as being the effect our good works have on others- “Of course this is occurring in your head, but what makes you think this isn’t real”

and on and on and on.

I can kind of equate it to pornography. If someone tells me something is pornograhpic and another tells me it’s not- I would tend to not want to expose myself to it. But then again, my ignorance of the actual material would preclude me from arguing about it’s merits.

 

[Melissa]

Post 1 of 2

I do not know about duckspeak. Is that a compliment?

Read 1984. Your question will then be answered.
"Melissa:

the Church has no official opinion as to the novels written by JK Rowling

I know. But many laity and clergy within the Church have warned against it.

None of these carry the official weight of the Church. Furthermore, there are many laity and clergy who have praised the novels. Again: The Church has no official opinion as to the novels written by JK Rowling.
"Melissa:

experts are only experts within their field of expertise

An exorcist carries a lot of expertise .

You’re committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. Here are the standards by which one can assess whether the authority:

1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
   An exorcist does not necessarily possess sufficient expertise in the analysis of children’s/young adult’s literature. FAIL
2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
   An exorcist’s area of expertise pertains to demons. An exorcist’s area of expertise is not analysis of literature. When a person makes a claim about a subject outside of his area of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable. FAIL
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
   FAIL (Do I really need to say more?)
4. The person in question is not significantly biased. UNKNOWN
5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline. PASS
6. The authority in question must be identified. PASS
   Because of the failures in points 1-3, it is clear that the exorcist’s opinion on particular works of fiction fail as a legitimate authority upon which to base an argument.

"Melissa:

if one relies on another, rather than first-hand knowledge, one may be building on a foundation of that other’s error

All sources must be considered.

Did you pay attention to the statement? Without first-hand knowledge, you cannot know if your sources are in error or not. This would be a non-legal case of “fruit of the poisonous tree”. We cannot consider, for example, Fr. Euteneuer as an independent source, as he openly admits to basing his opinion on that of Mr. O’Brien. It’s already been shown in numerous posts that Mr. O’Brien’s reasoning is rife with special pleadings and error.
"Melissa:

those who do not wish to read the books need not

Agreed.

Then why expend so much energy railing against the books? Those of us who read and enjoy the books (and allow our children to do likewise) are not attempting to force anyone to read the books or argue that everyone ought to read and enjoy these novels.

 

[Melissa]

Post 2 of 2
"Melissa:

no sin is committed by those who choose to read the books (and/or allow their children to read the books)

Who has accused people of sinning?

While those who fall into the “anti-Potter” group will not directly make such accusations, the implications are clearly there. From this thread alone:
"Brooklyn:

For all you die-hard fans, I know it’s hopeless. It’s scary how much of a hold these stories have over some people so that they won’t even consider that there might be something wrong with them.

Barbkw:

Wiccan and Harry Potter come up together because they both practice Magick.

Barbkw:

Yet, you can’t see ANY connection between Potter and the secular practice of witchcraft and the Wiccan religion?

Have you cast a “spell” upon yourself?

Rachel_:

I guess I would rather spend my time focusing on Jesus and being prepared for Him than watching a movie that discusses witchcraft.

hawkeye:

Never had a desire to read HP books, but I do know evil can enter by the most subtle charming ways…

" Eat the Apple " smiles satan, "you will not die " err ! yes we will…and we are…

TheRealJuliane:

I would say that kids shouldn’t play around with activities like spells, witchcraft, demonology, etc. and that is what the good Fr. was talking about. Normalizing these areas, this dark reality, can cause huge problems. I fully believe in the real and present danger of demons, and opening oneself up to them is not to be toyed with. A book series like HP creates likable characters who use witchcraft in the service of good, although it is a dark power of Satan.

mountaintop:

if you think harry potter is just books check out
harrypotter.scholastic.com/ and you can learn all the spells you want
satan is real

Netty313:

That is exactly what O’Brien’s book addresses. It’s a great read for parents that are concerned about not just Harry Potter, but similar type movies. We are being bombarded by Satan.

Netty313:

I don’t think pro-Potters, in general, understand the strength the devil has, and that just a tiny little opening (such as is available through the magic of Potter) is enough for him to slip in.

Portrait:

This is why the Potter novels are highly unsuitable and more damaging than other fantasy literature and should therefore be given a wide-berth by the Catholic faithful.

Mickey:

Let he who has eyes see.

Portrait:

The problem with the Potter series of books is that the tales are permeated with actual references to occult practices. What surely makes these novels worse than the aforementioned is the fact that these practices are intermingled with pure fantasy, so that children may be led to believe that such evil practices are likewise fantasy. That I consider to be most unacceptable as a Catholic.

Portrait:

Be that as it may, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states unequivocally, “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” (para. 2117).

This is strong language in our Catechism, the same language employed to condemn lust, fornication and abortion. Catholics cannot in good conscience take such a warning lightly.

Portrait:

That Catholics are apparently quite comfortable reading a series of books where these detestable activites are the foundational element, only serves to underscore the utter want of prudential discernment that I spoke of in my post to JHow above.

True, in none of the above quotes does anyone of the critics of the HP novels say “it’s a sin”, but the implication is very clear. This is not a case of “your conscience must be pricked to read that into the [above] statements”. It’s more a case of scuffing the toe right up to the very line of saying “it’s a sin” and then sitting back with piously-folded hands while saying “No one ever said that”.

Melissa:

people with an inability to distinguish fact from fiction should not read the books

People have free will.

I fail to see how that is a response to my statement.
"Melissa:

the theme of the Harry Potter novels has nothing whatsoever to do with witchcraft

It has everything to do with witchcraft.

No, it does not. A theme is distinct from plot elements. A theme is the general idea or insight that a writer wishes to express, and that general idea in the Harry Potter novels is not witchcraft.
"Melissa:

the theme of the Harry Potter novels is: love and a willingness to sacrifice oneself for the good of another are virtues which evil can never comprehend and why, in the end, good will triumph over evil.

…while using witchcraft to acheive those ends.

Again, fictional witchcraft as a plot device. Would it be different if it were a sci-fi setting in which the characters were running about with phasers, tricorders, and other “magic” from Star Trek? Or if they were running about manipulating the Force of Star Wars? Or if they were running about with Tasers and guns and whatever other devices of the real world? No–a difference in plot devices would not change the theme.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

1. Unfamiliarity with the contents. No one has yet brought up examples of “real” witchcraft in HP. If you read the books, it might make it easier for you to argue your case other than repeating the word “witch”.

Good luck getting them to even open the first pages. They’d sooner splash it with Holy Water than touch it. I’m not kidding.

1. Putting Rowling’s Christian bona fides on trial, rather than reacting to the text. This is primarily a failure of literary analysis. It is also possibly un-charitable, as I don’t think any of us know what her beliefs really are.

You know, I don’t see why we should all even care. You heard of reader-oriented theories? It shows that you can read something as it is without even caring about who the author is.

1. An over-reliance on the work of one man (O’Brien), whose opinion echoes through most of the anti-Potter sound bites.

O’Brien’s not even a good literary critic. A user here on CAF actually did a solid critique of the guy that showed that he was nothing more than the “Richard Dawkins of Literary Theory”.

1. Over-reliance on argument from authority (the Kuby letter, Fr. Eutener’s throw-away quotes). We are not talking about theology, particle physics, or ancient languages here, it’s a work of popular literature - easily read by six-graders. You should be able to bring your own thoughts to the argument.

Good luck getting someone like him to do that. Don’t you know? Independent thought and reasoning are superfluous to religious like him.

Why the “vultures” accusation? The anti-Potter side is certainly not without faults, which you fail to address:

Sorry you are frustrated with the Potterites, but perhaps people should stop bringing up this topic.

I’ve debated with Mickey already on another thread. If you ever run into it, you’ll see that he never does address anything with his own logic, perceives all criticisms to his statements as personal attacks, resorts to red herrings and ad hominems, and finally puts you on his ignore list when you persist.

To everyone here who wants to argue with the guy: You’re wasting your time.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Fone Bone: For purposes of future reference, can you point me to some of these articles in which Rowling describes her faith? I have always tried to limit argument to the texts, because I see think to do otherwise is improper analysis, however that is not to say that Rowling’s worldview doesn’t inform her art. Some of the anti-Potter side appear to view Rowling as insufficiently Christian, or perhaps not the right sort of Christian.

The thing about her feeling the need to assert that her goal in writing wasn’t to convert people to Christianity is from J.K. Rowling: A Year in the Life, a documentary by James Runcie from 2007, and I found out about it from Granger’s How Harry Cast His Spell.

I apologize, but I’m not sure where exactly to find the interview in which Rowling was reluctant to speak of her faith for fear of spoiling the last book’s ending.

In terms of general information, even the most casual research will reveal that Rowling is a practicing Christian in the Church of Scotland or Church of England. A good place to start is the references/citations provided in the wikipedia article on J.K. Rowling.

Does that help? I can do more digging if you’d like.

 

[Mickey]

An over-reliance on the work of one man (O’Brien), whose opinion echoes through most of the anti-Potter sound bites.

I’m sorry…I have to say one last thing. I was not aware of O’Brien’s work. It is excellent. I am reading it now (as well as Patrick Madrid’s thoughts).

Thank you!

Over and out.

 

[curlycool89]

I’m sorry…I have to say one last thing. I was not aware of O’Brien’s work. It is excellent. I am reading it now (as well as Patrick Madrid’s thoughts).

Thank you!

Over and out.

… If you think O’Brien is “good”, then your truly have deluded yourself. We’ve already shown that he’s completely bias, and inconsistently bias at that. His “opinions” revolve on whether or not he agrees with the subject matter, not an objective view. He vilifies certain works for using certain elements (I think dragons was one), and then ignores it’s use in another work for no reason (I guess it’s for “the greater good” of the work, which he only allows for works he likes).

He’s basically Glen Beck or Keith Olbermann, but he parades himself around like he’s Peter Mansbridge or Lloyd Robertson (who are excellent Canadian news anchors).

 

[curlycool89]

Real mature Mickey. Send me a PM calling me deluded and then blocking me from sending a reply. What ever happened to logical discussion? Is to world so screwed up that we can’t even have logical discussions without someone having a temper tantrum anymore?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Real mature Mickey. Send me a PM calling me deluded and then blocking me from sending a reply. What ever happened to logical discussion? Is to world so screwed up that we can’t even have logical discussions without someone having a temper tantrum anymore?

Logic? That guy? HAHAHA!!! You should see the things he said to me publicly on these forums. Logic and reason mean nothing to this guy.

 

[JHow]

I’m sorry…I have to say one last thing. I was not aware of O’Brien’s work. It is excellent. I am reading it now (as well as Patrick Madrid’s thoughts).

Thank you!

Over and out.

Roger that! You are welcome. You would have found him sooner or later. He seems to be the most public anti-Potter.

I had in mind other posters who have quoted O’Brien on these pages as well as Fr. Eutener, who, in the online interview I cited, also quotes and refers to O’Brien. Say what you will about O’Briens methods, you have to hand it to him, he seems very successful at generating what marketers call “buzz”.

If you do buy the O’Brien book, please share the insight with us (I can’t see plunking down $20 bucks on it), but also please seriously consider reading some Harry Potter as well. I will tell you right now that the first attacks from Potter’s Army (or is it Dumbledore’s?) on OBrien will come from the direction of inaccuracy, just judging from his open source articles.

 

[JHow]

…You heard of reader-oriented theories? It shows that you can read something as it is without even caring about who the author is…

Sure. Have a look at I.A. Richard’s “Practical Criticism” (if you are not familiar with it) and if you can find it at your local library.

Or, somebody put it online here:

archive.org/details/practicalcritici030142mbp

In it Richards removes all authorial information from selections of poetry (drawn from famous poets and unknown hacks) and asks university students to analyze each work. Richards then discusses the mistakes and flaws in the subsequent analysis. It’s fun reading.

Re; Rowling’s world view, it’s not that we don’t care about Rowling’s worldview - that may be a very interesting subject and could help us better understand her writing, but Rowling’s worldview alone cannot tell us whether her art is a bad influence or not. The two things do not necessarily coincide. I was just trying to get the anti-Potters to focus on the text first, then move on to the author.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

JHow: Citations for many interesting things Rowling has said about her Christian faith and its influence on her writing can indeed be found on both (1) the wikipedia page on her personally, and (2) the wikipedia page on the religious controversy on Harry Potter.

I do, however, agree with you that biographically-based interpretations of literary works are innately flawed.