Church Exorcist and Pro Life Priest Warns Against Harry Potter

[mdrummer5]

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.

Nobody’s saying you can’t comment on it… we’re saying you can’t do so intellectually.

What do you tell an Atheist who hasn’t read the Bible but regards it as a bunch of made up stories and who feels God is something that mankind made up to feel better about the idea of death? You tell them what the Bible says and how it shows that their impression of it is incorrect do you not?

Numerous things about the HP books have been pointed out to you to show you how your thoughts on them are a bit off but you prefer to stick to blind ignorance because you’re too stubborn to admit that you don’t have any valid points because you’ve not read the books yourself because you apparently lack the ability to think for yourself. You take what someone else says on the matter as truth. The Pope is the only one who’s infallible when determining morality. If he were to come out and say that we should not read Harry Potter books I’d be perfectly fine with you making the argument that “the Pope said so”. However, he hasn’t. The person you’re referring to is giving his very subjective opinion and is still quite capable of error as we all are. If you’d like to remain ignorant you go right ahead and stick to your unloaded guns but until you come up with a more logical reason than “I say so, because he said so” you should really just keep it to yourself as it really leads one to have no choice but to question your cognitive capacity.

 

[Mumbles140]

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.

You are absolutely correct about relying on the opinions of others, and they were unanimous concerning the DaVinci Code. But they are not unanimous during Harry Potter. There is the Bishop who stated that it is not Harry Potter but isolation from the faith that is leading people to the occult, which is a view that we all (at least, us ‘pro-Potters’) support. There is also the view of O’Brien, but we have proved his analysis to be inconsistent. Whether this stems from bias or forgetfulness, I will not comment on, I will leave it up to the critique of his analyses as detailed previously on this thread.

As for the need to see specifics, our point is that somewhere, in some argument against Potter, someone had to have read the book and critiqued it. You have made several claims against the series, and we want to know the textual basis for these claims. If you think parts are immoral, cite where they are immoral. You don’t have to have read it to do this.

If you are believing the opinions of others on the matter, which is perfectly acceptable (and anyone arguing otherwise is a fool), then that commentator should have read the books and provided citations on the works. And if they were drawing from someone else, then you should follow the path until you can find textual references. That is what we mean about specifics.

I think this was about miscommunication. We want to know details from the books that support the claims made. You haven’t read the books, so you personally cannot name examples. What we (or at least, I) am requesting is that you find someone’s citations to back up the claims you have made. I don’t even mean book and page numbers, but actual examples taken from the books. Because without those, even what those more learned than I opine is mere speculation and hearsay.

 

[57classic]

Dear (name removed by moderator),

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.

That is where you are wrong. One can depend upon the analysis of others to judge whether or not one will read or not read a book or let some minor in one’s own care read a particular book. However, in order to discuss a book with any credibility one must read said book or thier views and statements are nothing but heresay based on someone else’s opinion. Even if that other person is someone who is admired, I find it foolish to state someone else’s opinion as my own based only on my respect for them.

 

[Portrait]

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.

Dear Mumbles140,

Cordial greetings and a very good day to you. Thankyou again for your response to my post.

The parallel that you draw between actors who live dissolute lives and J.K. Rowling simply cannot be sustained. You are overlooking the fact that Rowling’s Potter tales are intended chiefly for children and young persons who are yet in in a state of formation and who’s minds are being forged at every turn. Moreover, her global status as a popular children’s writer, and the attainment of fame that necessarily accompany it, ensures that she wields a phenomenal influence among impressionable youth, who accordingly will be eager to hear what she has to say about any controversial issue of the day, especially when it concerns one of the key characters from her books whom she has declared a homosexual. You appear to be choosing to turn a blind eye to this self-evident fact and underestimating Rowling’s impact upon the young world-wide.

The authors of books designed for children owe a special responsibility towards the their influenceable young readership, someone like C.S. Lewis, a devout Christian, would have fully understood this and thus would never have made such a downright irresponsible remark. This could only happen in the morally degenerate days in which our lot is cast when the liberal intelligensia are striving to indoctrinate the masses, especially the young, into believing that homosexual acts of depravity are ‘cool’ and acceptable now and that only religious ‘homophobes’ say otherwise.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[mdrummer5]

The parallel that you draw between actors who live dissolute lives and J.K. Rowling simply cannot be sustained.

Ian McKellan played Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings movies. He’s gay. Lord of the Rings may not be intended primarily for children but there are plenty of children who are fans of the movies. He also played Magneto in the X-Men movies… those were targetted towards kids. The parallel seems perfectly fine to me. But if you say it can’t be sustained then neither can the claim you’re making. You’ve concluded (with no first hand knowledge) that because Rowling said Dumbledore is gay the books are bad. While it’s reasonable to assume… it’s not true again if you read them, you’d know that. It’s very interesting that this has been pointed out repeatedly yet you refuse. You may think you might not like them which is perfectly fine… I think it’s more accurate that you’re afraid you’ll be missing the proof we’re asking you for if you do.

There are two issues here… the author and the books. Yes what she said was irresponsible under the circumstances, nobody has stated otherwise. The books however make no mention of Dumbledore’s sexuality at any given point in time. You’re trying to say that the author’s spoken words reflect the subject matter of the book, while a reasonable conclusion it’s simply untrue.

Also, you’ve blatantly ignored the questions and statements concerning the fact that your “logic” is absolutely the same as an Atheist…

What do you tell an Atheist who hasn’t read the Bible but regards it as a bunch of made up stories and who feels God is something that mankind made up to feel better about the idea of death? You tell them what the Bible says and how it shows that their impression of it is incorrect do you not?

Remember your advice Portrait the next time someone denigrates the Church based on second hand rumours reported by someone else textually. You’ve just admitted that kind of behaviour is perfectly acceptable as that’s where this abandoment of our critical faculties leads.

I wonder why you don’t address this? Because you have no logical answer… not that you’ve had any but I think this one comparison you avoid in particular because not only do you not have a logical rebuttal but by acknowledging it you’d have to admit the flaw in your argument.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Although I respect this priest (in the OP), I completely disagree with his position on the HP books (if indeed it’s being reported accurately).

 

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved bethren,

Since a number of you have responded to my post regarding the contention that one is not required to read a Potter book in its entirety before venturing to give any critical analysis, I will now address this issue again by way of a general reply.

This whole mistaken and very modern notion that one must read a Potter novel, or any other novel for that matter, from cover to cover to be able to have an informed opinion as to its contents is wildly unreasonable and just plainly wrong. Moreover, those who are fond of asserting this with their interlocutors in debates would never in a month of Sundays apply that to themselves in any number of other issues. As stated previously, it is only said to make cheap debaters points and impress others. Incontrovertibly, it is a tactic that is used soley for polemical purposes to silence an opposing viewpoint and until quite recent times would have invited distrust and caused a man to be put on inquiry by his fellows, as well as being seen as jolly unsporting.

The vast majority of men would allow that reading trusted reviews and learned articles giving in-depth analysis of any work suffices for the purposes of ordinary debate. Moreover, since leaning upon trusted and respected reviews/articles is, and indeed always has been, perfectly acceptable (unless one is writing a formal dissertation or academic text book), to argue to the contrary and talk about regurgitating hearsay or being unsystematic, is to surely arouse suspicion as regards one’s motives.

There really is no mileage to be had in this silly and falacious argument and its only possible use in the present debate is to marginalize dissent and close down any unfavourable appraisal of the Potter series.

God bless you all.

Warmest good wishes

Portrait

Pax

 

[masha]

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.

Portrait,

Please remember that Puritanism is heresy, precisely because they have an excessive awareness of sin. Don’t allow yourself to fall into a puritain mind-set, it is just as much in opposition to a healthy Catholic mindset as a permissive mind-set.

I think we have a tendency as contemporary Christians to put too high a value on sexual sins, particuarly homosexuality. Homosexual behaviour should not disturb us so much as the rampant relativism, intellectual pride, sloth, and despair, which are the sins that allow us to continue, unchecked by personal developement, in the sins that belong more to the body. That is not to say that homosexual behaviour is not destructive, but it is really a non-issue in this situtation, as far as I’m concerned.

Blessings

 

[estesbob]

Dearly beloved bethren,

Since a number of you have responded to my post regarding the contention that one is not required to read a Potter book in its entirety before venturing to give any critical analysis, I will now address this issue again by way of a general reply.

This whole mistaken and very modern notion that one must read a Potter novel, or any other novel for that matter, from cover to cover to be able to have an informed opinion as to its contents is wildly unreasonable and just plainly wrong. Moreover, those who are fond of asserting this with their interlocutors in debates would never in a month of Sundays apply that to themselves in any number of other issues. As stated previously, it is only said to make cheap debaters points and impress others. Incontrovertibly, it is a tactic that is used soley for polemical purposes to silence an opposing viewpoint and until quite recent times would have invited distrust and caused a man to be put on inquiry by his fellows, as well as being seen as jolly unsporting.

The vast majority of men would allow that reading trusted reviews and learned articles giving in-depth analysis of any work suffices for the purposes of ordinary debate. Moreover, since leaning upon trusted and respected reviews/articles is, and indeed always has been, perfectly acceptable (unless one is writing a formal dissertation or academic text book), to argue to the contrary and talk about regurgitating hearsay or being unsystematic, is to surely arouse suspicion as regards one’s motives.

There really is no mileage to be had in this silly and falacious argument and its only possible use in the present debate is to marginalize dissent and close down any unfavourable appraisal of the Potter series.

God bless you all.

Warmest good wishes

Portrait

Pax

The problem comes about when you depend on reviews of the book that people who have read the book know are simply not true. In the case of The Da Vinci Code, for instance, there was a general consensus of those who read the book that the criticisms of the book were indeed true. However this is not the case for the Harry Potter critics "-as I said before one wonders what version of the Harry Potter books they were reading as their reviews bore very little resemblance to what actually written in the books. When this is pointed out to you you have no ability to respond as you have not read the books. Instead you waive these critical reviewsaround your head like the sword of Excalibur condemning everybody who disagrees with you.

 

[mdrummer5]

The vast majority of men would allow that reading trusted reviews and learned articles giving in-depth analysis of any work suffices for the purposes of ordinary debate. Moreover, since leaning upon trusted and respected reviews/articles is, and indeed always has been, perfectly acceptable (unless one is writing a formal dissertation or academic text book), to argue to the contrary and talk about regurgitating hearsay or being unsystematic, is to surely arouse suspicion as regards one’s motives.

However, the “trusted” review you refer to is not the only one. And since there are many and some contradict the one you seem so intent on adhering to you show ignorance by not acknowledging them and finding out for yourself.

Beyond that you still ignore the fact that this is the same “logic” that some who oppose the Bible (and therefore God) use.

 

[masha]

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.

I would like to know why, in a series that “makes a strong case for…the importance of truth” the hero never developes a mature sense of honesty, lies consistently, and is never called to task for his complete disregard for the truth. While he is obviously reguarly filled with rage when others refuse to tell him the truth, this never causes any growth in his own relation to the truth, he continues to lie, decieve, and fail to inform.

In short, I’m disturbed that the “hero” fails to develope any real heroic qualities, and, though the writer constantly tells her reader that he has an amazing “ability to love,” that ability is never shown to the reader. Without constant exposition by the writer, the reader would never know that Harry is anything but a angry boy who defeats an embarressingly pathetic villian.

 

[masha]

However, I am bound to say that this whole notion that one mentirety 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 ust read a book in its 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.

I would say that if you are trying to *understand and evaluate *the merits of of a book, you do need to read that book, at least in part. You could, for example, take a sampling of that book by reading the first few chapters, a few middle chapters, and the last few chapters. In that way, at least you would have some sense of the author’s style, tone, and the developement of the characters. Ideally, you ought to read the entire book, at least twice, if you are to have a full understanding. You also, if you’re reading for understanding and evaluation, need to read that book in a thoughful and judgemental state of mind. Meaning that at least one of the readings should not one in which the book is picked-up for enjoyment. This is especially important in books like the Potter books, which are escapist fiction, designed not to be read too closely.

But, if you are interested more in understanding the critics’ responses, on both sides of a book discussion, then reading the book is often a hinderence, because, again especially in books like the Potter series, the readers’ emotional reactions often cloud their judgement of the the book’s actual merits. This often has less to do with the intelligence of the reader so much as it does the reader’s feelings towards the book. But critics, I think, whether they love or hate a book, should always be taken with a grain of salt, and the reader’s well-formed opinion should take priority, provided the reader’s opinion is well formed.

If you trust your critics, and you don’t enjoy badly written books, then definately you don’t need to read the Da Vinci Code or Harry Potter, and you can understand, through your critics, the issues many Catholics have with them. But I don’t think you can say that you understand the books themselves without studying the books themselves. But that is just an artist’s opinion, and I’m sure, knowing the artist/critic relationship, you’ll take it for what its worth.

 

[mdrummer5]

I would like to know why, in a series that “makes a strong case for…the importance of truth” the hero never developes a mature sense of honesty, lies consistently, and is never called to task for his complete disregard for the truth. While he is obviously reguarly filled with rage when others refuse to tell him the truth, this never causes any growth in his own relation to the truth, he continues to lie, decieve, and fail to inform.

My girlfriend and I were talking about this after I finished reading the series. It’s an interesting point. But what you have to remember is that in the last book he’s only 17. How many of us could say that we were not also guilty of those things at that age? Now consider the same question with the weight of being “the chosen one”, everyone is relying on him to essentially save the world. His character may not be as strong as we would like our heroes to have… but ask yourself how yours would hold up under the circumstances.

I liked the fact that he wasn’t a picture perfect hero by the faults you point out… it made him more human and easy to relate to.

 

[masha]

The problem comes about when you depend on reviews of the book that people who have read the book know are simply not true. In the case of The Da Vinci Code, for instance, there was a general consensus of those who read the book that the criticisms of the book were indeed true. However this is not the case for the Harry Potter critics "-as I said before one wonders what version of the Harry Potter books they were reading as their reviews bore very little resemblance to what actually written in the books. When this is pointed out to you you have no ability to respond as you have not read the books. Instead you waive these critical reviewsaround your head like the sword of Excalibur condemning everybody who disagrees with you.

It is wrong to say, though, that in the case of one book, we should trust the critics without reading, and in the case of another, we must read to understand. A good critic is a good critic, if you trust him on one book, why not on another?

 

[Portrait]

Ian McKellan played Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings movies. He’s gay. Lord of the Rings may not be intended primarily for children but there are plenty of children who are fans of the movies. He also played Magneto in the X-Men movies… those were targetted towards kids. The parallel seems perfectly fine to me. But if you say it can’t be sustained then neither can the claim you’re making. You’ve concluded (with no first hand knowledge) that because Rowling said Dumbledore is gay the books are bad. While it’s reasonable to assume… it’s not true again if you read them, you’d know that. It’s very interesting that this has been pointed out repeatedly yet you refuse. You may think you might not like them which is perfectly fine… I think it’s more accurate that you’re afraid you’ll be missing the proof we’re asking you for if you do.

There are two issues here… the author and the books. Yes what she said was irresponsible under the circumstances, nobody has stated otherwise. The books however make no mention of Dumbledore’s sexuality at any given point in time. You’re trying to say that the author’s spoken words reflect the subject matter of the book, while a reasonable conclusion it’s simply untrue.

Also, you’ve blatantly ignored the questions and statements concerning the fact that your “logic” is absolutely the same as an Atheist…

I wonder why you don’t address this? Because you have no logical answer… not that you’ve had any but I think this one comparison you avoid in particular because not only do you not have a logical rebuttal but by acknowledging it you’d have to admit the flaw in your argument.

Dear mdrummer,

Cordial greetings again and thankyou for your reply.

Whillst it is true that Ian Mckellan has a key role in the *Lord of the Rings *, which is undoubtedly watched and enjoyed by many young people, he is not an author of children’s books with all the responsibility that that entails, especially when it comes to making disgraceful and irresponsible remarks. Thus the analogy is invalid and hence does not stand up to scrutiny.

What I am saying is that no respectable, God-fearing children’s author, worth their salt, would stoop to the level of announcing that one of their principal characters was a homosexual. Can you envisage a C.S. Lewis or a Tolkein saying such distasteful things about any of the characters in their books? Methinks not sir. It is very telling about the author herself and what sort of person she is that she makes these comments. Surely any Christian parent ought to be deeply unhappy and uneasy about allowing their precious children to read a book written by a woman who utters such immoral things, seemingly without blush or shame. Evidently Rowling does not have an authentic Christian world-view, otherwise she would not say such things.

If men wish to know the truth concerning Catholicism, then they can always visit their local parish priest for accurate information respecting the authentic teaching of the Church on faith and morals. He will probably even loan them some books on apologetics for their perusal as well. Sorry, dear friend, but I fail to see again how this comparison has any bearing on the topic currently under discussion. If sincere Catholic commentators such as Michael O’ Brien entertain grave misgivings about the Potter series of books, then one can be sure that they do so for very good reasons, especially since they have no deep-seated dislike of the fantasy genre in general. There is no valid reason to impute any sinister motives to such men simply because they feel compelled to give a negative appraisal of the Potter books and warn of their insidious dangers.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Mumbles140]

I would like to know why, in a series that “makes a strong case for…the importance of truth” the hero never developes a mature sense of honesty, lies consistently, and is never called to task for his complete disregard for the truth. While he is obviously reguarly filled with rage when others refuse to tell him the truth, this never causes any growth in his own relation to the truth, he continues to lie, decieve, and fail to inform.

In short, I’m disturbed that the “hero” fails to develope any real heroic qualities, and, though the writer constantly tells her reader that he has an amazing “ability to love,” that ability is never shown to the reader. Without constant exposition by the writer, the reader would never know that Harry is anything but a angry boy who defeats an embarressingly pathetic villian.

As MDrummer pointed out, Harry is only 17 years old when the series ends. He is still a child, trying to mature on his own while being caught up in this mess that is much larger than himself. I wouldn’t necessarily say he has a complete disregard for the truth, either. If you can’t see an example of him pushing for the truth, how do you explain his actions concerning the return of Voldemort? Him and Dumbledore stand out and try to tell the world that doesn’t want to believe them, and he risks his life fighting for his cause. That is a pretty strong commitment to the truth I think.

You also have to remember that Harry is linked to Voldemort, and so that rage and anger flows from that connection, one which Harry tries diligently to sever. Look at the conversation held by Harry and Dumbledore at the end of Order of the Phoenix. And his frustration is that so much pressure is put on him, but no one wants to fill him in. I think this is a pretty common trend among teenagers, and I think it is nice to see a hero who gets frustrated, gets upset, but eventually learns what the path is, follows it, and fulfills his destiny. That’s a pretty cool story for a teenager in my opinion.

If you think he has no real heroic qualities, then I am curious what your criteria are for this matter. In one single act (symbolic of Christ’s death on the cross), he shows courage, faith, humility, and love. I mean, my goodness, the scene is eerily similar to Aslan’s murder at the hands of the White Witch.

If you want other virtues, I can name some others and provide examples below:

Love/Companionship - Look at the close bonds he has with Ron and Hermione. Even when he lashes at them, he apologizes and makes things right. The three of them all struggle at times, as all teenagers do, but their friendship persists.

Social Concern - This can be shown by his opposition to the ‘pure-blood only’ mentality pushed by Voldemort and the Death Eaters.

Assisting Others - Harry uses his natural ability to teach his fellow classmates basic attack and defense spells to prepare them in case of an encounter with the bad guys.

 

[Mumbles140]

Whillst it is true that Ian Mckellan has a key role in the *Lord of the Rings *, which is undoubtedly watched and enjoyed by many young people, he is not an author of children’s books with all the responsibility that that entails, especially when it comes to making disgraceful and irresponsible remarks. Thus the analogy is invalid and hence does not stand up to scrutiny.

What I am saying is that no respectable, God-fearing children’s author, worth their salt, would stoop to the level of announcing that one of their principal characters was a homosexual. Can you envisage a C.S. Lewis or a Tolkein saying such distasteful things about any of the characters in their books? Methinks not sir. It is very telling about the author herself and what sort of person she is that she makes these comments. Surely any Christian parent ought to be deeply unhappy and uneasy about allowing their precious children to read a book written by a woman who utters such immoral things, seemingly without blush or shame. Evidently Rowling does not have an authentic Christian world-view, otherwise she would not say such things.

You won’t accept the actor example because it isn’t a children’s author. For some reason, you are placing such heavy importance on this, but at the end of the day, it is about entertainment. Sorry if we cannot find another children’s author who has a homosexual character worth defending, but you have made it clear that is all you will accept concerning this matter. If you only took a step back, you’d understand the analogy fits, it just doesn’t support your opinion.

Also, our argument is that if a child reads the books, there is no mention of homosexuality. Case closed. You may be appalled by what Rowling said, but even someone who is against the books (masha) says homosexuality is a moot point.

 

[Portrait]

I would say that if you are trying to *understand and evaluate *the merits of of a book, you do need to read that book, at least in part. You could, for example, take a sampling of that book by reading the first few chapters, a few middle chapters, and the last few chapters. In that way, at least you would have some sense of the author’s style, tone, and the developement of the characters. Ideally, you ought to read the entire book, at least twice, if you are to have a full understanding. You also, if you’re reading for understanding and evaluation, need to read that book in a thoughful and judgemental state of mind. Meaning that at least one of the readings should not one in which the book is picked-up for enjoyment. This is especially important in books like the Potter books, which are escapist fiction, designed not to be read too closely.

But, if you are interested more in understanding the critics’ responses, on both sides of a book discussion, then reading the book is often a hinderence, because, again especially in books like the Potter series, the readers’ emotional reactions often cloud their judgement of the the book’s actual merits. This often has less to do with the intelligence of the reader so much as it does the reader’s feelings towards the book. But critics, I think, whether they love or hate a book, should always be taken with a grain of salt, and the reader’s well-formed opinion should take priority, provided the reader’s opinion is well formed.

If you trust your critics, and you don’t enjoy badly written books, then definately you don’t need to read the Da Vinci Code or Harry Potter, and you can understand, through your critics, the issues many Catholics have with them. But I don’t think you can say that you understand the books themselves without studying the books themselves. But that is just an artist’s opinion, and I’m sure, knowing the artist/critic relationship, you’ll take it for what its worth.

Dear masha,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your considered response above which I really appreciated.

You make some very interesting remarks and I shall, rest assured, ponder them carefully.

God bless you.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[mdrummer5]

It is wrong to say, though, that in the case of one book, we should trust the critics without reading, and in the case of another, we must read to understand. A good critic is a good critic, if you trust him on one book, why not on another?

It then depends on the book in question. The DaVinci Code was considered such a slap in the face to Catholicism that The Vatican got involved if memory serves. So in that case when every religious critic agrees… yes you can trust the general concensus.

However, in terms of the HP series it’s fairly split and as far as I know The Vatican has actually approved of the HP books after going back and forth on it. So the other question is… The Vatican… or Michael O’Brian… hmmm???

If men wish to know the truth concerning Catholicism, then they can always visit their local parish priest for accurate information respecting the authentic teaching of the Church on faith and morals. He will probably even loan them some books on apologetics for their perusal as well. Sorry, dear friend, but **I fail to see **again how this comparison has any bearing on the topic currently under discussion. If sincere Catholic commentators such as Michael O’ Brien entertain grave misgivings about the Potter series of books, then one can be sure that they do so for very good reasons, especially since they have no deep-seated dislike of the fantasy genre in general. There is no valid reason to impute any sinister motives to such men simply because they feel compelled to give a negative appraisal of the Potter books and warn of their insidious dangers.

You certainly do fail. You can’t answer a point blank question but feel the need to circle around it and push it out in different directions because you know that your point has zero validity.

If someone’s talking to YOU and doesn’t want to have you brush them off and tell them to go talk to someone else. If someone’s telling YOU their thoughts on the Bible and what they perceive to be inconsistencies do you not tell them what the Bible really says and explain how they should interpret it? Of course you do. So those of us that have read the books are telling you what’s in them and you continue to ignore them with your see, hear and speak no evil attitude which is pathetic considering that what you refuse to see or hear in this case is not evil.

 

[Portrait]

You won’t accept the actor example because it isn’t a children’s author. For some reason, you are placing such heavy importance on this, but at the end of the day, it is about entertainment. Sorry if we cannot find another children’s author who has a homosexual character worth defending, but you have made it clear that is all you will accept concerning this matter. If you only took a step back, you’d understand the analogy fits, it just doesn’t support your opinion.

Also, our argument is that if a child reads the books, there is no mention of homosexuality. Case closed. You may be appalled by what Rowling said, but even someone who is against the books (masha) says homosexuality is a moot point.

Dear Mumbles140,

Thankyou for the above.

As I have stated previously, the reason I place such weight upon Rowling being an author of children’s books, is because it is incumbent upon her, given her young readership, not to make irresponsible and immoral comments respecting her characters. In the final analysis it is not merely an issue of entertainment, but one of moral obligation also, especially if one professes to be a Christian. Children world-wide hold her in high esteem and thus listen with interest when she speaks; she is more influential than you might imagine.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax