Church Exorcist and Pro Life Priest Warns Against Harry Potter

[Mumbles140]

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.

Actually, correct me if I am wrong, but there is no sin in being a homosexual. Committing homosexual actions is, just as having premarital relations is, but being a homosexual does not result in sin.

I’m not sure if you ever read the background of this matter, but she always ‘envisioned’ Dumbledore as being ‘involved’ with Grindelwald, when they both were young and in their ‘Greater Good’ state of mind. But then things happened, Dumbledore repented from his Machiavellian ways and began preaching about love for one another, the undying importance of truth, and the necessity of fighting morally. Sounds like a pretty decent guy, and sounds a lot like some of the saints who have started off lost, but then found the way to the Truth and brought others to it as well.

So let’s get real about this. What if he were homosexual? He never commits any sexual acts, so he’s not sinning there. He isn’t making advances at any children, so no sin there either. He had believed in certain things, but no longer does he, and instead he is pushing for the Truth, self-sacrifice, and true ‘love of neighbor’. So what’s the issue? Why is it important that **J.**K. Rowling calls him a homosexual if there is no evidence and no sin? Who cares if she is pandering to other groups to increase sales AFTER she wrote the entire series?

 

[estesbob]

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

There is not even a hint of homosexualtiy in any of the 7 books. If Dumbledore is a homsoexual then he is a role model for those Catholics who are affilicted with SSA-a homsexual man who remains celibate and does not let his affliction lead him to sin.

 

[mdrummer5]

Ironically, Ian McKellen is gay… does that mean we can read the Lord of the Rings books but can’t watch the movies???

 

[Portrait]

Dear (name removed by moderator),

Cordial greetings again.

My apologies for the error regarding the first initial of Rowling’s Christian name and thankyou for bringing this to my attention.

However, I fail to see how making the observation that contemporary Christians are ‘effete’ is to treat them with scornful abuse. That is overdoing it a little, I think sir. This is merely a comment uopn the undoubtedly Laodicean state of the Church today, which in comparison to the earnest Christians, Catholic and Protestant, of former generations is indeed effete and ‘lukewarm’. Alas, many Christians are no longer the moral disinfectant in a world where moral standards are at an all-time low because they have become assimilated to and contaminated by the spirit of the age. In short they have become like saltless salt (see St. Matt. 5: 13) True, many such individuals may profess and impeccable* doctrinal* orthodoxy, but they are, nonetheless, limp, half-hearted, indifferent and always ready to compromise because they have adopted a hand in hand with world type of religion.

It is for this reason that so many have been, in the opinion of many, the victims of deception as regards the cullturally unwholesome nature of the Potter tales by J.K Rowling. Owing to a radically defective conscience they, and I sincerely say this with a heavy heart, have no critical eye of faith to discern the insidious dangers and unsuitability of these inferior books.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[mdrummer5]

I agree. I’m just morbidly curious as to how some of the super conservatives would view this and how those that would refuse to watch the movies because of his sexuality would justify it when the books are considered perfectly fine by those same people.

“A gay man playing a character that can use magic?!”

 

[mdrummer5]

Not yet. I keep telling myself I will someday and I enjoyed the movies but couldn’t get into the books for some reason. I was going to try again a couple weeks ago but couldn’t find the copies I was given as a gift and can’t bring myself to pay for them again as I know as soon as I do I’ll find them.

 

[estesbob]

I agree. I’m just morbidly curious as to how some of the super conservatives would view this and how those that would refuse to watch the movies because of his sexuality would justify it when the books are considered perfectly fine by those same people.

“A gay man playing a character that can use magic?!”

Exactly I’m not exactly sure what your definition of super conservatives but I will tell you that “conservative” Catholics should have no problem whatsoever viewing a movie that has a homosexual it. If we quit viewing movies that have sinners in them we will have no movies to watch. I do not believe that a Catholic who opposes these books should be described as a super conservative-I think the apt description would be overly scrupulous.

 

[mdrummer5]

I think the apt description would be overly scrupulous.

You’re probably right. I guess by “super conservative” I’m referring to the people that are so concerned with staying free of sin they seem afraid of things that aren’t sinful with no rational explanation other than something that amounts to “I haven’t read them and I wouldn’t just to be safe”.

 

[Portrait]

Actually, correct me if I am wrong, but there is no sin in being a homosexual. Committing homosexual actions is, just as having premarital relations is, but being a homosexual does not result in sin.

I’m not sure if you ever read the background of this matter, but she always ‘envisioned’ Dumbledore as being ‘involved’ with Grindelwald, when they both were young and in their ‘Greater Good’ state of mind. But then things happened, Dumbledore repented from his Machiavellian ways and began preaching about love for one another, the undying importance of truth, and the necessity of fighting morally. Sounds like a pretty decent guy, and sounds a lot like some of the saints who have started off lost, but then found the way to the Truth and brought others to it as well.

So let’s get real about this. What if he were homosexual? He never commits any sexual acts, so he’s not sinning there. He isn’t making advances at any children, so no sin there either. He had believed in certain things, but no longer does he, and instead he is pushing for the Truth, self-sacrifice, and true ‘love of neighbor’. So what’s the issue? Why is it important that **J.**K. Rowling calls him a homosexual if there is no evidence and no sin? Who cares if she is pandering to other groups to increase sales AFTER she wrote the entire series?

Dear Mumbles140,

Cordial greetings again.

Of course I am aware of the distinction that our Church draws between being homosexual and actual homosexual acts of depravity and I receive this teaching without demur. Yes, I do understand that it is only acting upon homosexual impulses that are sinful, not the homosexual pre-disposition. However, that is not the issue nor is it even germane to this current debate.

That Rowling announced that this Dumbledore character was a homosexual matters a great deal since he features in a series of novels intended primarily for children. Such a declaration alone is grave cause for concern and is sufficient to elicit from the Christian community a sense of strong repuganance and to be very distrustful of Rowling’s morals and motives. Her downright irresponsible remark is very telling because it declares that she is among the avant-garde who consider homosexual perversion an alternative variant, whilst all orthodox Christians regard its increasing prevalence and acceptance a dreadful mark of God’s wrath upon an age which now talks boastfully of its post-Christian character.

Why call this character a homosexual at all if the books themselves are, as you correctly say, devoid of any such evidence? Perhaps she sees herself as some radical agent for change. Be that as it may, I suspect that the message conveyed by Rowling’s unfortunate and contentious remark, respecting this character, will not be some model example of sexual abstinence. On the contrary, it will reinforce in the minds of the young and impressionable that in these so called enlightened times it is perfectly permissible to declare yourself homosexual and engage in homosexual liaisons. Her comment is likely to be seen by the young as a tacit approval of homosexual conduct and that being homosexual is most definetely not something of which to ashamed or to feel any guilt about.

Finally, when Rowling’s voice is added to the mix or our increasingly permissive Western culture, with all its moral depravity, it will be just another Liberal and influential voice wearing down people’s resolve. There is a cultural war and J.K. Rowling is, I fear, on the wrong side in promoting acceptance of reprehesible homosexual practices by her ill-advised comments.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[estesbob]

Dear Mumbles140,

That Rowling announced that this Dumbledore character was a homosexual matters a great deal since he features in a series of novels intended primarily for children. Such a declaration alone is grave cause for concern and is sufficient to elicit from the Christian community a sense of strong repuganance and to be very distrustful of Rowling’s morals and motives. Her downright irresponsible remark is very telling because it declares that she is among the avant-garde who consider homosexual perversion an alternative variant, whilst all orthodox Christians regard its increasing prevalence and acceptance a dreadful mark of God’s wrath upon an age which now talks boastfully of its post-Christian character.

Pax

Stories suggesting that Catholics cannot read any books that have homosexual characters even when, in the case of Dumbledore, the homosexual is living the life that the Catholic Church prescribes for a person afflicted with same-sex attraction?

 

[Portrait]

Dear (name removed by moderator),

Michael O’ Brien has most definetely read the entire Potter series and examined their contents in some considerable detail before venturing upon a learned critical analysis of them, yet notwithstanding his manifestly level headed erudition and in-depth knowledge of the books, he is still said to be “from a bizarro world”! Even if a man sincerely disagrees with Mr. O’ Brien’s conclusions, one would have thought that he would have been accorded a little more respect, given that he has met this strict pro-Potterite criteria of having read the books before commenting upon them.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[estesbob]

Dear (name removed by moderator),

Michael O’ Brien has most definetely read the entire Potter series and examined their contents in some considerable detail before venturing upon a learned critical analysis of them, yet notwithstanding his manifestly level headed erudition and in-depth knowledge of the books, he is still said to be “from a bizarro world”! Even if a man sincerely disagrees with Mr. O’ Brien’s conclusions, one would have thought that he would have been accorded a little more respect, given that he has met this strict pro-Potterite criteria of having read the books before commenting upon them.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

But those of us who have read the books find O’Briens criticism to be bizarre in that his criticisms bear very little relationship to what is actually written in the books. You of course, having not read the books, are in no position to judge the validity of his criticisms at all.

 

[Mumbles140]

That Rowling announced that this Dumbledore character was a homosexual matters a great deal since he features in a series of novels intended primarily for children. Such a declaration alone is grave cause for concern and is sufficient to elicit from the Christian community a sense of strong repuganance and to be very distrustful of Rowling’s morals and motives. Her downright irresponsible remark is very telling because it declares that she is among the avant-garde who consider homosexual perversion an alternative variant, whilst all orthodox Christians regard its increasing prevalence and acceptance a dreadful mark of God’s wrath upon an age which now talks boastfully of its post-Christian character.

Why call this character a homosexual at all if the books themselves are, as you correctly say, devoid of any such evidence? Perhaps she sees herself as some radical agent for change. Be that as it may, I suspect that the message conveyed by Rowling’s unfortunate and contentious remark, respecting this character, will not be some model example of sexual abstinence. On the contrary, it will reinforce in the minds of the young and impressionable that in these so called enlightened times it is perfectly permissible to declare yourself homosexual and engage in homosexual liaisons. Her comment is likely to be seen by the young as a tacit approval of homosexual conduct and that being homosexual is most definetely not something of which to ashamed or to feel any guilt about.

Finally, when Rowling’s voice is added to the mix or our increasingly permissive Western culture, with all its moral depravity, it will be just another Liberal and influential voice wearing down people’s resolve. There is a cultural war and J.K. Rowling is, I fear, on the wrong side in promoting acceptance of reprehesible homosexual practices by her ill-advised comments.

But again, you are trying to blame the books for Rowlings intentions and personal beliefs. She made those comments after all of the books were written, and only someone knowledgeable of those comments would be affected if they hadn’t read the books yet and heard this. It was a publicity stunt, something to draw attention and renew book sales because it would draw speculation for people to ‘search for’ in the books.

I’m not saying Rowling is a moral beacon, but the messages in her books are, so why waste those moral lessons attached to interesting stories because they came from a ‘tainted hand’? I never read fantasy literature other than Lewis and Tolkien, and wasn’t into sci-fi or fantasy films/television (unless you count Lost!), so I don’t believe I’d fall under your ‘deficient conscience’ example. So if I go in with clear head and thorough understanding of my faith and morality, displayed by my ethical behavior over the years, why aren’t I disgusted with Harry Potter? Under your example, the only two options in this scenario is that I am completely delirious to reality and have severe impairments to mental reasoning, or there must be some room for reading this type of literature in the Catholic faith.

Now, you and I have engaged in intelligent discussion and I’ve given you a lot of specifics and reasonings. Do you think that I am morally deficient, or otherwise impaired? If so, that is your opinion and I don’t take offense to it. But if you think I am reasonable, God-fearing, and true to my words as a firm professor of the Catholic faith, what then becomes of your objection?

 

[Mumbles140]

Dear (name removed by moderator),

Michael O’ Brien has most definetely read the entire Potter series and examined their contents in some considerable detail before venturing upon a learned critical analysis of them, yet notwithstanding his manifestly level headed erudition and in-depth knowledge of the books, he is still said to be “from a bizarro world”! Even if a man sincerely disagrees with Mr. O’ Brien’s conclusions, one would have thought that he would have been accorded a little more respect, given that he has met this strict pro-Potterite criteria of having read the books before commenting upon them.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I can’t remember the page, but if you go back through the post, there is a very definitive critique of Mr. O’Brien’s analysis and the inconsistencies he provides when arguing between Christian fantasy authors (notably Lewis and Tolkien) and Rowling.

 

[estesbob]

And it is very very difficult to point out the shortcomings of O’Briens analysis to someone who has not read books.

 

[Portrait]

Stories suggesting that Catholics cannot read any books that have homosexual characters even when, in the case of Dumbledore, the homosexual is living the life that the Catholic Church prescribes for a person afflicted with same-sex attraction?

Dear estesbob,

Whether Mr. Dumbledore is living a celibate life or not is quite immaterial since his sexual proclivities are not disclosed in any of the books. Thus it is preposterous that Rowling should announce that this character was a homosexual when such a fact is not presented in the books themselves. Why do we really need to know the sexual tendencies of a fictional character when it is clearly unrelated to the plot?

What I think we can say without fear of contradiction is that no respectable, God-fearing children’s author, worth their salt, would declare that one of their characters was a homosexual. Can you for one moment envisage a C.S. Lewis or a Tolkein stooping to this sort of level and announcing that one of their beloved characters was homosexual? No, of course not, because they would be fully aware, unlike the Liberal Rowling, of the abhorrence with which homosexuality is treated within the pages of Sacred Scripture. Surely no orthodox Christian who was fully aqainted with the biblical disapproval of homosexual vice would even contemplate making such a reamark about one of their characters, especially in a children’s series. The very thought would be extremely distasteful and morally repugnant to their biblically informed Christian conscience.

It is quite evident that J.K. Rowling entertains progressive opinions regarding homosexuality and most probably sees herself, because of the tremendous influence that she wields, as some agent for social change. At any rate, what is clear is that by making such an irresponsible remark as a writer of children’s novels, she not thinking with a healthy Christian mind.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Lord_and_Master]

J K Rowling is not a Christian or at least she said as much to Oprah Winfrey. So her take on the Dumbledore character is based in her own beliefs.

Let’s give credit where credit is due.

In her own way Miss Rowling has been an agent for social change. The Potter serives has brought reading back in a big way to our youth. Her juxtapose of good versus evil and the triumph of good is evident throughout the series. The backdrop of sorcery appeals to the child in all of us and particularly to those kids today who would not otherwise think to pick up a book, let alone those as finely written as J.K. Rowling’s.

From and educational standpoint, she is to be lauded.

 

[Mumbles140]

Dear estesbob,

Whether Mr. Dumbledore is living a celibate life or not is quite immaterial since his sexual proclivities are not disclosed in any of the books. Thus it is preposterous that Rowling should announce that this character was a homosexual when such a fact is not presented in the books themselves. Why do we really need to know the sexual tendencies of a fictional character when it is clearly unrelated to the plot?

What I think we can say without fear of contradiction is that no respectable, God-fearing children’s author, worth their salt, would declare that one of their characters was a homosexual. Can you for one moment envisage a C.S. Lewis or a Tolkein stooping to this sort of level and announcing that one of their beloved characters was homosexual? No, of course not, because they would be fully aware, unlike the Liberal Rowling, of the abhorrence with which homosexuality is treated within the pages of Sacred Scripture. Surely no orthodox Christian who was fully aqainted with the biblical disapproval of homosexual vice would even contemplate making such a reamark about one of their characters, especially in a children’s series. The very thought would be extremely distasteful and morally repugnant to their biblically informed Christian conscience.

It is quite evident that J.K. Rowling entertains progressive opinions regarding homosexuality and most probably sees herself, because of the tremendous influence that she wields, as some agent for social change. At any rate, what is clear is that by making such an irresponsible remark as a writer of children’s novels, she not thinking with a healthy Christian mind.

Precisely, she is not. But now are you setting the precedent of judging the work of an artist (broadly defined) that does not contain the artist’s personal beliefs by those very beliefs. This leads me back to the example of actors, who may lead extremely immoral lives but can play Bambi’s half-cousin or some other cute, happy, animated critter.

You can’t critique the book by the author because we would have to throw out a large amount of ‘beloved classics’. Look, if Rowling set out intending to write a Christian series the way Lewis did (kind of - I will elaborate further if needed but it is tangental), then she would have hit some points (i.e. self-sacrifice) but missed on a lot of other critical things. But that wasn’t her intention. She set out to write a series of books (I wouldn’t call them a children’s series because they become inappropriate for younger children as the books advance) that made strong cases for moral adversity, the importance of truth, the power of love, and the dangers of hate, prejudice, and pride. I believe, whole-heartedly, she did this in a series that in no part interferes with my actions or beliefs as a Catholic, and I have yet to be shown the faults in my logic thus far.

 

[Portrait]

Dear (name removed by moderator),

No I have not read the Potter series of books.

However, I am bound to say that this whole notion that one must read a book in its entirety before venturing to comment upon it critically is a modern fallacy based on unsound reasoning. One can, and indeed often does, depend upon the critical analysis of others when seeking to evaluate the merits or demerits of a particular book. For example, I know that the Da Vinci Code is arrant nonesense, not because I have read that silly worthless book, but because I have read reliable and learned Catholic articles and critiques of it and upon the basis of these have been able to form a good sound judgement. Nobody would think that this was improper or some violation of the ‘rules’ of critical analysis, unless, perhaps, you were planning on writing a book where an* extensive* knowledge of the subject matter was indispensable.

Those who are insistent on these boards that men must read a book in its entirety before commenting upon it, are simply trying to make cheap debaters point’s and discredit their opponent. They are striving for a quick and easy victory with which to impress others.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[estesbob]

Dear (name removed by moderator),

No I have not read the Potter series of books.

However, I am bound to say that this whole notion that one must read a book in its entirety before venturing to comment upon it critically is a modern fallacy based on unsound reasoning. One can, and indeed often does, depend upon the critical analysis of others when seeking to evaluate the merits or demerits of a particular book. For example, I know that the Da Vinci Code is arrant nonesense, not because I have read that silly worthless book, but because I have read reliable and learned Catholic articles and critiques of it and upon the basis of these have been able to form a good sound judgement. Nobody would think that this was improper or some violation of the ‘rules’ of critical analysis, unless, perhaps, you were planning on writing a book where an* extensive* knowledge of the subject matter was indispensable.

Those who are insistent on these boards that men must read a book in its entirety before commenting upon it, are simply trying to make cheap debaters point’s and discredit their opponent. They are striving for a quick and easy victory with which to impress others.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

The problem is we want to discuss what was written in the book. You want to discuss what someone told you was written in the book.