Church Exorcist and Pro Life Priest Warns Against Harry Potter

[Mumbles140]

The fact that the pro-Potterites refuse to accept the unassailable moral arguments against Rowling’s inferior books, clearly does evince that moral consciences have become radically defective. Former generations of devout Catholics would not have touched the Potter novels with a barge pole as they would have seen instantly that there is no reference to a core system of moral absolutes with which to weigh actions; the fantasy world still needs to reinforce the laws of the moral universe. Moreover, they would also have seen that the series exalts relativism because it is devoid of any objective standard of right and wrong. The fact also that Rowling announced that one of the key characters in the series was a homosexual, would have flashed up the warning cones because it tells us a great deal about the author. She is evidently a very Liberal Christian who wishes to be seen as ‘inclusive’ and tolerant of that sexually aberrant life style, which she probably considers a valid alternative, otherwise why make such an unsavoury comment about a character in a children’s series of novels?

What ‘unassailable moral arguments’, please? I have yet to see any. The truth is that the series is very clear on what is right and what isn’t. When the good people attempt to fight back using unjust methods, they are reprimanded. The book establishes the importance of the soul, and how acts of violence sever the soul. It pushes for the truth to be revealed, even when others find it convenient to cover up. Those who read the books know there is no question about right and wrong in these novels - it is probably the single most important theme. Even when the good characters are ‘right’, they can’t resort to using ‘evil’ methods to achieve their ends, no matter how righteous they may be. Now that is a very Catholic idea, correct? That the intent, action, and result are all good for an act to be considered good?

Also, though I have addressed the issue of Rowling’s comments on Dumbledore’s sexuality previously, I will be kind enough to share them again since you have not taken the time to read the thread (we’ll get to that in a second). These statements were made after all of the books were written and she was doing a publicity event for the movies. The question was about Dumbledore’s stressing the importance of love (not physical love, but love for fellow man), and a reporter asked if Dumbledore had ever been in love (in the physical/emotional sense). Rowling said she always thought of Dumbledore as gay, which I believe we should take as meaning her inspiration for the character may have been that way, but she never intended to address the matter in the books. He is more of a grandfather figure, and his sexuality is both completely irrelevant and also never even hinted at in the series. If you read the books, you would know that there is not even an iota of homosexuality among any characters in the novel.

Finally, concerning the fact that you haven’t read the thread, I think it is quite unfair of you to come in and make rash generalizations about our arguments, even if you have been involved in other debates prior to this. Some of us have been here since the very first pages of this thread, and I think that if you want to have a reasonable debate with us, you should at least take the effort to read through. I can’t really continue to provide more evidence unless responding to a direct question because we have laid it out numerous times throughout these pages.

 

[HeWillProvide]

Well, a lot of the controversy around HP has been due to the fact it’s targeted at the ‘tween’ demographic. I haven’t seen a lot of vitriol directed at adults reading fantasy, it seems to be the idea that the young and impressionable can be influenced by them negatively.

I don’t agree with that argument either, especially the HP novels, but again I don’t see a blanket condemnation of fantasy, just the idea that some fantasy series would be inappropriate for 'tweens.

As I’ve said before, I read a lot of sci-fi and fantasy as a kid- Asimov, Heinlin, Asprin, Bradbury, Stephen King and I think everything Zelazny ever wrote. None of it ever interested me in dabbling in anything like the occult. But I was raised in a strong Catholic home where there was also an appreciation for literature.
What I did see influencing my peers, was the idea that what people think of as supernatural (spirits, demons, visions etc.) were actually naturally occurring but poorly understood phenomena. Particularly psychic, several of them had some bad experiences trying to develop their ‘natural’ ESP/psychic abilities. Can’t help but think of it when I see reference to new age practises, or the potential of quantum mechanics as a possible explanation for these kinds of things including multiple parallel universes as a source of beings we describe as angels/demons. (Myth series by Asprin was comedic twist on idea of multi-verse) Dinesh D’souza (sp?) actually references quantum mechanics and multi-verses in his defense of an after-life in “Life After Death”.

I wonder if C.S. Lewis’ The Lion , Witch and Wardrobe would be forbidden as well- that has all sorts of magic.

 

[Portrait]

One could also contend that you are so attuned spiritually that you have ignored the development of rational thought and being able to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

As far as Dumbledore being gay… first it’s quite likely that this was a publicity stunt. Second, being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin… performing homosexual acts is. Even if it were true never at any point in time in the books is there ANY indication that he is gay… if you’d bothered to read them instead of making loose judgments with no real evidence you’d know that and FYI reading what someone else thinks of the books (who also probably hasn’t read them) is not evidence and it shows that you lack the ability to think for yourself which is sad and it shows that you ignore one of God’s greatest gifts to us, free will. Ultimately, you seem perfectly happy to ignore logic and contradict it with ignorant theory and no real knowledge of what you speak. I suppose ignorance truly is bliss.

Also, I am curious… since you refuse to read them to make a proper judgment I wonder how it is that you seem perfectly ok with passing judgment on “pro-Potterites”. The Bible teaches us very explicitly not to judge… yet here you are… judging those of us who enjoy a book using The Book that you also ignore parts of when convenient for your point.

Dear mdrummer5,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response above.

To state that the declaring of this Dumbledore character a homosexual (I refuse to use the word ‘gay’ as it has been hijacked by homosexuals to describe a lifestyle that we all know is anything but gay) is likely to have been a “publicity stunt”, is a specious argument if ever I heard one and will convince no one except those who need to be convinced. In any event, even if it was said to attract attention, or whatever, it does not alter the fact that it was an utterly deplorable disclosure from a writer of a series of books, the primary target audience which is children. Surely Rowling was deferring to political correctness and loudly declaring to some hardcore Potter fans at Carnegie Hall that she is inclusive and does not consider homosexual deviant conduct immoral. Why, a blind man on a galloping horse coud see that and it seems reasonable to infer that Rowling does not have an issue with homosexual aberrant behaviour. Perhaps this should come as no surprise, given that she is a member of the Liberal ecclesial communion, the Presbyterian (Church of Scotland), which, I hasten to add, has long since abandoned its Calvinistic and biblical orthodoxy.

Granted, whilst she did not write this Dumbledore character as a practising homosexual in the series, notwithstanding, that does not absolve her from her downright irresponsible declaration. For it conveys the totally wrong message to impressionable young people, who probably hold Rowling in high esteem, that in the 21st. century when homosexual deviancy is just regarded as an alternative variant, it is perfectly acceptable to ‘out’ yourself and indulge in abominable homosexual liaisons.

Sorry dear friend, but regardless of her motive for making this ill-advised statement, she is, nonetheless, an author of children’s books. A devout, God-fearing author would never make such an anouncement respecting one of his characters and would be deeply ashamed of making such a public disclosure. One cannot but help recalling the words of our dear Lord:

“For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man out of his treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil” (St. Matt. 12: 34). Truly the words of Jesus address certain situations with such force like no other words can.
Out of the abundance of her heart R.K. Rowling has spoken.

We are called upon to pass judement on that which is morally unsavoury and likely to present a grave and insidious danger, especially to the young who are still in a state of formation. We are to condemn the sin whilst at the same time love the sinner and pray for them. Indeed, that is a solemn Christian duty for which we shall be held accountable.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[estesbob]

The problem I see with those who oppose the books is a deep strain of scrupulosity. It reminds me of the H L Mencken quote

" Puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere is having a good time

 

[mdrummer5]

We are called upon to pass judement

How can you possibly pass judgment on a book you’ve never read???

Again allow me to point out that this is no different than an Atheist saying that God isn’t a loving or forgiving God otherwise there would be no pain and suffering. The Bible tells us differently but those that make this claim either 1. haven’t read it or 2. have misinterpreted it.

You are doing the EXACT same thing… so again… you’re supporting the thought process of those that most oppose the faith you hold so high.

 

[mdrummer5]

Did you mean being familiar with a text is not necessary? If so… I refer to my previous statement… ignorance is bliss.

I suppose I’m done then, I refuse to try to hold an intelligent conversation with someone who can’t truly speak intelligently on the subject at hand. As someone once told me it’s like trying nail a piece of Jello to a tree.

 

[Mumbles140]

Sorry dear friend, but regardless of her motive for making this ill-advised statement, she is, nonetheless, an author of children’s books. A devout, God-fearing author would never make such an anouncement respecting one of his characters and would be deeply ashamed of making such a public disclosure.

So you admit the books are free of any of this information, correct? And yet you are trying to condemn them because the beliefs of the author? If that is the case, throw out any children’s cartoon that had celebrity voices. I won’t name names, but if we are judging the works of ‘artists’ (broadly used to encompass performers, authors, painters, etc) based on their own beliefs and inspirations, then we might as well just throw out anything not specifically Catholic (and some works by Catholics) since Christ established the Church, since it doesn’t fit your viewpoint.

Edgar Allen Poe is a very famed author, and I remember reading The Raven in class in middle and high school. But wait, didn’t he have severe addiction issues and one of the theories about his death was that it was caused by venerial disease? So why did we still read him? That’s right, because not every aspect of an author’s life will translate into their literature.

 

[Portrait]

So you admit the books are free of any of this information, correct? And yet you are trying to condemn them because the beliefs of the author? If that is the case, throw out any children’s cartoon that had celebrity voices. I won’t name names, but if we are judging the works of ‘artists’ (broadly used to encompass performers, authors, painters, etc) based on their own beliefs and inspirations, then we might as well just throw out anything not specifically Catholic (and some works by Catholics) since Christ established the Church, since it doesn’t fit your viewpoint.

Edgar Allen Poe is a very famed author, and I remember reading The Raven in class in middle and high school. But wait, didn’t he have severe addiction issues and one of the theories about his death was that it was caused by venerial disease? So why did we still read him? That’s right, because not every aspect of an author’s life will translate into their literature.

Dear Mumbles140,

Cordial greetings.

However, Rowling’s apparently progressive views on homosexual deviancy is not the only reason for rejecting the books, there are also the many moral defects and insidious dangers that pervade the books themselves, thus rendering them highly unsuitable for a young readership. Her unfortunate statement about one of her characters is just another nail in the coffin so that one’s misgivings are aroused not only about the books themselves, but also their Liberal author as well. One could say that the plot thickens!

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[estesbob]

Dear Mumbles140,

Cordial greetings.

However, Rowling’s apparently progressive views on homosexual deviancy is not the only reason for rejecting the books, there are also the many moral defects and insidious dangers that pervade the books themselves, thus rendering them highly unsuitable for a young readership. Her unfortunate statement about one of her characters is just another nail in the coffin so that one’s misgivings are aroused not only about the books themselves, but also their Liberal author as well. One could say that the plot thickens!

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I guess that means no listening to the 1812 Overture as it was writtien by a homosexual.

 

[masha]

Third, you get on about these occult symbols and ‘lore practices’ in Harry Potter, but neither you nor anyone else can explain why those symbols are perfectly acceptable in the works of J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. You can read the thread for various examples of these instances in their works.

I’m not fully following this thread, so forgive me if I repeat something, but I can attempt to explain the difference between the use of magic in Rowling and Tolkien/Lewis. I first want to explain that while I don’t find that Potter books diabolical, I do find them problematic on many levels. I have read all of them, so please don’t assume I’m not speaking from my own interpretation.

The primary difference between Rowling and Tolkien and Lewis, is that Rowling does not have a Sacramental Imagination: she fails to see “magic” as an existing aspect of the world that she inhabits; and she fails to understand the meaning and symbolism behind the mythological creatures she uses in her books. Her idea of magic seems to come from a more materialistic and less sacramental view of the world. Both Tolkien and Lewis are well-educated in both mythology and theology, as well as the ways in which myths and their meanings have traditionally been expressed in literature, this allows their use of magic to spring up naturally from a worldview that is very much in line with the Catholic Imagination.

Rowling’s use of magic is choppy because her understanding of the meanings behind the magic her character’s use is choppy. She appears to have no respect for the symbolism of the mythological creatures she uses and no consistent moral limits to how and when magic can be appropriately used by her characters. For example, though she has “unforgiveable curses,” they appear to be “unforgiveable” only if used by the wrong side, when Harry and his friends use them to control the will of or bring pain to one of the “bad guys” the curses are entirely forgiveable. This double standard does not appear in either Tolkien or Lewis - both understand that evil is unchangeably evil and can never be used to help good triumph.

Part of the difference may come from the simple fact that Rowling seems to be a very undisciplined writer, whereas both Tolkien and Lewis took a good deal of time and thought with there works. Rowling’s first couple books are better written, and if she’d edited out more and taken more time with the later books, she may have managed to clear up many of the problematic elements.

I don’t know if this helps at all, but I hope it helps explain something of the differences between the writers.

Blessings

 

[estesbob]

I’m not fully following this thread, so forgive me if I repeat something, but I can attempt to explain the difference between the use of magic in Rowling and Tolkien/Lewis. I first want to explain that while I don’t find that Potter books diabolical, I do find them problematic on many levels. I have read all of them, so please don’t assume I’m not speaking from my own interpretation.

The primary difference between Rowling and Tolkien and Lewis, is that Rowling does not have a Sacramental Imagination: she fails to see “magic” as an existing aspect of the world that she inhabits; and she fails to understand the meaning and symbolism behind the mythological creatures she uses in her books. Her idea of magic seems to come from a more materialistic and less sacramental view of the world. Both Tolkien and Lewis are well-educated in both mythology and theology, as well as the ways in which myths and their meanings have traditionally been expressed in literature, this allows their use of magic to spring up naturally from a worldview that is very much in line with the Catholic Imagination.

Rowling’s use of magic is choppy because her understanding of the meanings behind the magic her character’s use is choppy. She appears to have no respect for the symbolism of the mythological creatures she uses and no consistent moral limits to how and when magic can be appropriately used by her characters. For example, though she has “unforgiveable curses,” they appear to be “unforgiveable” only if used by the wrong side, when Harry and his friends use them to control the will of or bring pain to one of the “bad guys” the curses are entirely forgiveable. This double standard does not appear in either Tolkien or Lewis - both understand that evil is unchangeably evil and can never be used to help good triumph.

Part of the difference may come from the simple fact that Rowling seems to be a very undisciplined writer, whereas both Tolkien and Lewis took a good deal of time and thought with there works. Rowling’s first couple books are better written, and if she’d edited out more and taken more time with the later books, she may have managed to clear up many of the problematic elements.

I don’t know if this helps at all, but I hope it helps explain something of the differences between the writers.

Blessings

I am interested in how the CS Lewis fans who deride Harry Potter rationalize the Christ figure in the lion the witch and the wardrobe viciously mauling the white witch to death? There is nothing even close to this type of barbarity by Harry Potter. In fact Harry is so scrupulous about not killing people that he undergoes criticism from other wizards on his side for putting them at risk. And in his final battle with Voledermort(how brave of me to say his name) not only does he make no attempt to kill him, he begs him to repent. But then you wouldn’t know that since you haven’t read the books

 

[masha]

I am interested in how the CS Lewis fans who deride Harry Potter rationalize the Christ figure in the lion the witch and the wardrobe viciously mauling the white witch to death? There is nothing even close to this type of barbarity by Harry Potter. In fact Harry is so scrupulous about not killing people that he undergoes criticism from other wizards on his side for putting them at risk. And in his final battle with Voledermort(how brave of me to say his name) not only does he make no attempt to kill him, he begs him to repent. But then you wouldn’t know that since you haven’t read the books

You’re going to want to read my post before replying next time. If you had, you would have noticed that I explicitly stated that I have read all the books. Please don’t respond to something you haven’t read, it isn’t polite, and it doesn’t contribute to anything like an intelligent discussion.

As for Aslan mauling the witch. If you’ve studied the Bible you’ll see it’s full of violence: remember that Christ crushes the head of the serpent, (if you’ve never crushed a snake, believe me, it’s messy). But Aslan does not sulk, give way to rage because he doesn’t know the secret history of his favourite professor, have screaming fits at his friends, or especially Take Away the Free Will of Another. All of which Harry does do, and all of which are serious vices. The last is an entirely evil act, one only associated with evil, even in Rowling’s earlier books. The fact that she fails to be consistent in this is a major flaw in her books, which shows a lack of discipline as a writer as well as a lack of moral certainty in her own worldview. Violence is never so much of an issue as the dismissal of human decency by characters that are supposed to stand for the good.

I would ask, Estesbob, that you take the time to read this post, as well as my previous post, before you respond to me again.

 

[estesbob]

You’re going to want to read my post before replying next time. If you had, you would have noticed that I explicitly stated that I have read all the books. Please don’t respond to something you haven’t read, it isn’t polite, and it doesn’t contribute to anything like an intelligent discussion.

As for Aslan mauling the witch. If you’ve studied the Bible you’ll see it’s full of violence: remember that Christ crushes the head of the serpent, (if you’ve never crushed a snake, believe me, it’s messy). But Aslan does not sulk, give way to rage because he doesn’t know the secret history of his favourite professor, have screaming fits at his friends, or especially Take Away the Free Will of Another. All of which Harry does do, and all of which are serious vices. The last is an entirely evil act, one only associated with evil, even in Rowling’s earlier books. The fact that she fails to be consistent in this is a major flaw in her books, which shows a lack of discipline as a writer as well as a lack of moral certainty in her own worldview. Violence is never so much of an issue as the dismissal of human decency by characters that are supposed to stand for the good.

I would ask, Estesbob, that you take the time to read this post, as well as my previous post, before you respond to me again.

So you make concessions to Lewis that you refuse to make to Rowling. Aslan rips the white witch to shreds and you find that OK but fault harry potter for acting like a teenager. go figure.

 

[mdrummer5]

she fails to see “magic” as an existing aspect of the world that she inhabits

Rowling’s use of magic is choppy because her understanding of the meanings behind the magic her character’s use is choppy. She appears to have no respect for the symbolism of the mythological creatures she uses

Because in the sense that she uses it in the stories… it doesn’t. Nobody’s ever waved a stick around expecting to create fire or to make something float (Edit: unless they were crazy… like those thinking it will lead to this kind of activity). The idea that one shouldn’t use their imagination to create something purely fictional is just stupid. I’m sorry but it is. It’s a work of fiction. She has never made any claims of them being “Christian” books. They’re fictional stories containing a lot of fictional things… you mention the symbolism of mythological creatures. Think on that for a minute. Mythological implies that they’re not real. If someone takes that and turns it into some kind of symbol then they’re stupid. A centaur is a half man half horse… there is and never has been such a thing. If someone takes that to be a symbol for something else they are reading WAYYYYY too much into it. Christ died on a cross for mankind’s salvation. THAT is real… THAT is something that should and has been turned into a symbol.

You and the other anti-Potter folks really need to have your heads examined. It’s fiction, false, made up, doesn’t really exist. Where does it say that ficional stories have to always present the world as a perfect place where everyone is good and does good things? The Bible doesn’t even do that.

 

[mdrummer5]

Poor phrasing on my part, I wasn’t saying they’re not used symbolically… I’m saying they shouldn’t be at least not from a religious perspective.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The primary difference between Rowling and Tolkien and Lewis, is that Rowling does not have a Sacramental Imagination: she fails to see “magic” as an existing aspect of the world that she inhabits; and she fails to understand the meaning and symbolism behind the mythological creatures she uses in her books. Her idea of magic seems to come from a more materialistic and less sacramental view of the world. Both Tolkien and Lewis are well-educated in both mythology and theology, as well as the ways in which myths and their meanings have traditionally been expressed in literature, this allows their use of magic to spring up naturally from a worldview that is very much in line with the Catholic Imagination.

Okay there are two problems I already see here:

1.) Symbolism isn’t set in stone.

2.) Catholic Imagination? Sorry but that’s not in the Catechism and I’m not obliged to adhere to ‘traditional’ forms of expression.

Rowling’s use of magic is choppy because her understanding of the meanings behind the magic her character’s use is choppy. She appears to have no respect for the symbolism of the mythological creatures she uses and no consistent moral limits to how and when magic can be appropriately used by her characters. For example, though she has “unforgiveable curses,” they appear to be “unforgiveable” only if used by the wrong side, when Harry and his friends use them to control the will of or bring pain to one of the “bad guys” the curses are entirely forgiveable. This double standard does not appear in either Tolkien or Lewis - both understand that evil is unchangeably evil and can never be used to help good triumph.

As I said before, symbolism isn’t always absolute. I suggest you read up the Saussurean model of semiotics. If symbolism was always set in stone, then we would’ve been satisfied with the Eucharist being a symbol. However, it’s not because a symbol can only point to something. It is not the meaning in of itself. Heck it doesn’t even have a meaning in of itself. It always just points to something outside its form. Furthermore, they can change to what they’re referencing too. This is not saying that the meaning has changed. It’s like saying a loose signpost can point to a different direction, a different town but the town it directed to prior is still there. There’s just nothing currently pointing in its direction (or maybe just has one less sign doing it).

Now with regards to the “unforgivable” curses, that there is a loose symbolism already in action. The curses are not so much “unforgivable” as so much as they are very, very dangerous. The term “unforgivable” can be read as merely a hyperbole of their lethal nature.

 

[mdrummer5]

I hadn’t thought about that… but it makes sense.

 

[estesbob]

And was a symbol in one of my favorie Jimmy Stewart movies.

 

[estesbob]

“The Flight of the Phoenix”

 

[Portrait]

I guess that means no listening to the 1812 Overture as it was writtien by a homosexual.

Dear estesbob,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response above.

What is cause for deep disquietude regarding R.K. Rowling is that she is both a children’s author and a professing Christian and yet she has, apparently, no qualms about declaring one of her characters a homosexual. Many our of the opinion that such a declaration is utterly discordant with her profession of religion, given that homosexuality is a vice and part of the deep degradation into which man has fallen - a vice against which nature itself protests. It is surely reasonable to contend that this evinces a desensitized conscience and Liberal outlook on the part of Rowling since she is able to speak of a vice like homosexuality without blush or shame.

If making such remarks as the aforementioned savours of Puritanism, then I must plead guilty as charged. At least they, and indeed all the holy saints, had a godly awareness of the exceeding sinfulness of sin - if only it were so with effete contemporary Christians. The very mention of the vice of homosexuality ought to freeze the blood of an upright man and make his hair stand on end.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax