Church Exorcist and Pro Life Priest Warns Against Harry Potter

[masha]

While I don’t approve of Portrait’s use of the “fanatics” and “devotees” to describe fans of the books, I can understand his/her tendency in this direction. Because Harry Potter is escapist fiction, fans of the books tend (though this is not universal) to form an emotional attachmen to the books and therefore are often less able to engage in critical discussion without feeling personally attacked by criticism of their favorite book, character, author.

I think Portrait’s use was especially misapplied in this discussion, because I think the majority of poster’s have managed to keep their personal offence to a minimum, and generally only respond as if attacked when a poster has referred in a general sort of way to “Harry Potter fans.”

Blessings

 

[Mumbles140]

While I don’t approve of Portrait’s use of the “fanatics” and “devotees” to describe fans of the books, I can understand his/her tendency in this direction. Because Harry Potter is escapist fiction, fans of the books tend (though this is not universal) to form an emotional attachmen to the books and therefore are often less able to engage in critical discussion without feeling personally attacked by criticism of their favorite book, character, author.

I think Portrait’s use was especially misapplied in this discussion, because I think the majority of poster’s have managed to keep their personal offence to a minimum, and generally only respond as if attacked when a poster has referred in a general sort of way to “Harry Potter fans.”

Blessings

Not my favorite book, not my favorite character, and not my favorite author. My involvement is more on the principle of the matter - that certain Catholics spout off like Glenn Beck and Keith Olberman type sayings against Potter (i.e. insidious dangers, culturally unwholesome, etc) without ever having read anything other than the biased opinion of fallible people. Those people have not provided any factual or textual evidence. We ‘defenders’, on the other hand, repeatedly refute their points, show the flaws/inconsistencies in their arguments, and are yet attacked, ultimately being told we are poor Catholics ignorant of the faith and weak in practice, and that Harry Potter has led us there. I am a sinner - no question about it, but Harry Potter has never caused me to sin nor drawn me to the near occasion to sin.

We aren’t trying to get people to read the books, so why are others trying to condemn the books for everyone? Reading the books is a matter of personal choice, which is in line with what the Church says on the matter, so why the need to make rulings on the faith when you have no authority to do so?

 

[Portrait]

After Rowling’s revelation about Dumbledore’s sexual identity, a gay activist wrote a column in Newsweek about how this revelation would not serve the gay agenda, since Dumbledore appeared to be very far from this writer’s ideal - due to his chastity and silence about his sexual orientation throughout the stories.

You know, you could avoid erroneous conclusions like this with but a moment’s research.

If you had looked up the circumstances behind her revelation, you would know that it wasn’t like that at all. She was taking questions from fans at some sort of Harry Potter event. One of them asked if Dumbledore had ever had a girlfriend or been in love. Rowling simply answered this fan’s question honestly.

As I emphasized before, the resulting controversy surprised her greatly. The whole ruckus clearly took her by surprise; she did not consider Dumbledore’s sexual orientation newsworthy.

So the cause of her explanation was not a political agenda but rather a fan’s honest question about Dumbledore’s love life. To be honest, I think it’s wonderful that she has given the world such a wonderful model for those with same-sex attraction.

Dear Fonebone,

Cordial greetings again and hope all is well. Jolly good to hear from you again.

Regarding Rowling’s unfortunate and unhappy ‘outing’ of this Dumbledore character, I was not intendending to add anything further to what I have already stated previously. However, because your remarks above are an attempt, and an unconvincing one at that, to rationalize what happened at Carnegie Hall, NY, I feel that I must needs give a more obvious, and to my mind, a more natural and less strained interpretation of what occured.

Given that Rowling is an imensley popular children’s author of a highly popular series of books, she ought to have refrained from making such a contentious comment about a key character to an audience filled with young Potter devotees. Clearly it had no relevance to the plot and was obviously designed to sway the opinion of influenceable youth. It is quite simple really; if an adult, who children admire, thinks in a certain way about any controversial topic of the day, then they (the children) are quite likely to start thinking that way also. Thus if she holds a tolerant view of the homosexual lifestyle, then it is hardly surprising that her impressionable young readers will likewise also. Implausible nonesense! Not in today’s morally permissive climate where many influential people are clamouring for acceptance and tolerance of homosexual liaisons and acts of depravity. Our contemporary society is being systematically brainwashed into equating “tolerance” with love and compassion, but they are not interchangeable terms; our Lord was full of love and compassion but he was decidedly not tolerant as regards sin. What was it that Chesterton said, “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions”, hear, hear. He gently, lovingly and compassionately showed sinners the error of their ways and sought to lead them to radical change. J.K. Rowling may be a professing Christian but she espouses a liberal world-view and warped notions of tolerance - no marvel given that she is a member of the Presbyterian (Church of Scotland), an ecclesial communion that has long ago abandoned its conservative Calvinistic stance.

Moreover, what is rather interesting is that she declared her character a homosexual after she was asked whether Dumbledore finds “true love”. Instead of responding to that question with a yes or no, she said that Dumbledore was a homosexual. It was almost as if she had stated that instead of true love he is a homosexual! Her motives are really to be suspected here for Rowling could have simply left it a “yes” or “no” and thus have spared the children’s ears and minds. Her liberal mindset is clear and unmistakeable and manifestly obvious, except to the wilfully blind. As the old adage goes, there is none so blind as those that will not see.

Many of us are of the opinion that Rowling’s intention is for men (and especially the young and impressionable) to challenge traditional Christian values and authority Let us be under no illusions, in today’s climate it does desensitize the masses to hear that even a character in a fictional children’s series like Harry Potter is a homosexual. Moreover, it would be sheer naivety to deny that what a massive celebrity like J.K. Rowling says about one of her characters being a homosexual, cannot but affect what impressionable youth think about homosexuality itself.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[masha]

Given that I’ve provided numbers negating this repeatedly please refute them with your own if you’re going to make such a claim.

I don’t have numbers, but I can say that, hanging around the occult supply-stores, we would suddenly see a whole lot of 13 year-olds (girls especially), who came in, clutching Harry Potter (not always, that’s exaggeration ) and asking for spell books that could help them become witches; “like in Harry Potter” was a common tack on to any “how do I…” question. As we were generally discouraging, I don’t think the actual numbers of Wiccans grew at all, but there was a jump in fascination. As I was generally nomadic at the time, I can say I saw this all over the country.

Ok… but Wicca is REAL and Harry Potter is FICTION. And if a kid reading the books doesn’t know the difference that’s his/her parents’ fault for not properly educating them on the difference between fiction and reality.

True, and that is one of the reasons Wicca is so discouraging to Harry Potter wannabe’s. But - and if you’ve never experienced this, it is hard to explain - the awakening of the desire for supernatural power is an overwhelming thing. I would compare what reading the books can but don’t necessarily do to the effect of a steamy, though not pornographic movie on a pre-teen. Some pre-teens could watch without ill effect, while for others, it can open up for them the world of lust, which, depending on their raising and the strength of their personality can be conquered, but which is their individual response to the presentation of these - ficticious - images.

Of course they are… they’re two entirely different things… again it’s a matter of knowing the difference between the two. It’s when you try to connect the two that it becomes a problem. i.e. I read Harry Potter as a work of fiction/fantasy… cool stories… good ending… the end. A kid that doesn’t know better because their parents didn’t teach them better reads the same books and says “man it’d be cool if I could really do this… I’m going to go study up on magic and be just like Harry Potter!”

But fantasy must have a connection to reality in some way to have any value. Obviously you have to know the difference, but the difference is only understandable in relation to the connection. Pure, absolute fantasy would be, not only impossible for man, but incomprensible to him, because he understands in relation to his own experience. Rowling has both not enough and too much connection in her magical fantasy, which is likely less of an evil intention than simply a lack of understanding and underattention to editing, but it does damage the books.

I don’t know what it is about those that want to write HP off as a doorway to the occult but not one has been able to provide a shred of proof. Yes a kid reading about magic may become fascinated to the point that they pursue it as a real life study. That is not the fault of the books. If it were the huge rise you claim has taken place would be much more noticeable given that over 50 MILLION people have read them or seen the movies.

As I said previously, I think it’s more likely to be a doorway to materialism than to the occult, but there is a possibility. I would say that, in some cases, this comes from a greater familiarity with the occult, and in other cases, a greater (sometimes overly so) fear of evil. Again, the huge rise is in interest, rather than pursuit, and for that, you may thank the Grace of God, and the discouragement of the Pagan community.

 

[masha]

Not my favorite book, not my favorite character, and not my favorite author. My involvement is more on the principle of the matter - that certain Catholics spout off like Glenn Beck and Keith Olberman type sayings against Potter (i.e. insidious dangers, culturally unwholesome, etc) without ever having read anything other than the biased opinion of fallible people. Those people have not provided any factual or textual evidence. We ‘defenders’, on the other hand, repeatedly refute their points, show the flaws/inconsistencies in their arguments, and are yet attacked, ultimately being told we are poor Catholics ignorant of the faith and weak in practice, and that Harry Potter has led us there. I am a sinner - no question about it, but Harry Potter has never caused me to sin nor drawn me to the near occasion to sin.

We aren’t trying to get people to read the books, so why are others trying to condemn the books for everyone? Reading the books is a matter of personal choice, which is in line with what the Church says on the matter, so why the need to make rulings on the faith when you have no authority to do so?

Obviously, if you find a book problematic on a moral, social, or literary level - particuarily if that book is extremely popular, you hope to discourage that popularity by pointing out the flaws you’ve found in that book. This is especially true if literature is your passion, as it is mine, and you see an writer who lacks many of the virtues (in a literary sense) you deem essential, praised as an author. Reading the books is a matter of personal choice, and, while I know others have said they should not be read,* I’ve read them *and have no right to say they ought not be read. I do have the right to say, however, that they have little merit.

As I said, the terms “fanatic” and “devotee” were misplaced by Portrait in this discussion, I’ve found it tends much more towards reasonable stability.

Blessings

 

[Mumbles140]

Obviously, if you find a book problematic on a moral, social, or literary level - particuarily if that book is extremely popular, you hope to discourage that popularity by pointing out the flaws you’ve found in that book.

Unless you are an actual critic, who cares? If someone asks for your advice on a matter, than that is one thing. But just because something is popular and you see a flaw with it means it should be discouraged? I understand if something is morally dangerous, but since no one has proven that and the Church remains silent on the matter, then this argument doesn’t really apply.

This is especially true if literature is your passion, as it is mine, and you see an writer who lacks many of the virtues (in a literary sense) you deem essential, praised as an author. Reading the books is a matter of personal choice, and, while I know others have said they should not be read,* I’ve read them *and have no right to say they ought not be read. I do have the right to say, however, that they have little merit.

My future brother-in-law were discussing the Potter books versus LOTR and he made an excellent point. Tolkien was a literary genius, and he wanted to be able to create languages because he had that ability, and he could present it all eloquently. Rowling wasn’t looking to win a Pulitzer, a Nobel prize, or any other famed literary award. She is a story teller, plain and simple, not a lot of frills, but she is pretty darn good at it. I know it isn’t written like the Iliad, the Divine Comedy, or any Shakespeare, but it was never meant to be. You may as well criticize canned tuna for not being caviar.

 

[masha]

My future brother-in-law were discussing the Potter books versus LOTR and he made an excellent point. Tolkien was a literary genius, and he wanted to be able to create languages because he had that ability, and he could present it all eloquently. Rowling wasn’t looking to win a Pulitzer, a Nobel prize, or any other famed literary award. She is a story teller, plain and simple, not a lot of frills, but she is pretty darn good at it. I know it isn’t written like the Iliad, the Divine Comedy, or any Shakespeare, but it was never meant to be. You may as well criticize canned tuna for not being caviar.

No, I’m not a critic, but I also don’t go around accosting people on the street to discuss Harry Potter. In a discussion thread, on a board designed to discuss how we as Catholics view various aspects of life, including the books we read, I see no reason to avoid the discussion.

I like your brother-in-law’s comment, Tolkien was certainly a linguistic genius and a very talented author, Rowling is much more of a story-teller. I would also agree that in her first couple books, she’s a pretty good storyteller. I would argue that as the series progresses, she falls short: her editing, consistency, and characters begin to fall apart. I’m not criticizing her for not being Tolkien, I’m criticizing her for not continuing to strive for quality in her own work.

Flannery O’ Connor has a quote that expresses my feelings toward Rowling’s series:
“Everywhere I go, I’m asked if I think the universities stifle writers. My opinion is that they don’t stifle enough of them. There’s many a best seller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.”

 

[Mumbles140]

No, I’m not a critic, but I also don’t go around accosting people on the street to discuss Harry Potter. In a discussion thread, on a board designed to discuss how we as Catholics view various aspects of life, including the books we read, I see no reason to avoid the discussion.

But when the literary style/mechanics are not under discussion, but rather the moral content, I just found this to be tangental. Others have mentioned in passing they didn’t find the books good, but see no problem with reading them. I was just wondering why her poor writing style mattered to the current topic.

Flannery O’ Connor has a quote that expresses my feelings toward Rowling’s series:
“Everywhere I go, I’m asked if I think the universities stifle writers. My opinion is that they don’t stifle enough of them. There’s many a best seller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.”

A ‘good teacher’ may have wanted to add punctuation and structure to ee cummings. And, you know what they say, those who can’t do teach!

 

[mdrummer5]

I don’t have numbers, but I can say that, hanging around the occult supply-stores, we would suddenly see a whole lot of 13 year-olds (girls especially), who came in, clutching Harry Potter (not always, that’s exaggeration ) and asking for spell books that could help them become witches; “like in Harry Potter” was a common tack on to any “how do I…” question. As we were generally discouraging,** I don’t think the actual numbers** of Wiccans grew at all, but there was a jump in fascination. As I was generally nomadic at the time, I can say I saw this all over the country.

While I disagree I can at least have respect for you as you’ve admitted that Harry Potter has not resulted in a rise in Wicca or Paganism. However as far as the fascination… what 13 kid who doesn’t know better wouldn’t be fascinated by the idea of being able to create fire or make things float with a magic stick?

Again, this boils down to education.

Rowling has **both not enough and too much connection **in her magical fantasy, which is likely less of an evil intention than simply a lack of understanding and underattention to editing, but it does damage the books.

How exactly is this possible to have too much and not enough of something? Also, how does it “damage” the books or indicate that the editing was flawed? Just because something was not edited to be exactly what “anti potterites” would be ok with doesn’t mean it’s flawed. It just means you don’t like it.

What I find absolutely hilarious about this whole thing is that you, Portrait and anyone of a similar view wants to say that the Lord of the Rings and Narnia books are different. I’m not going to get into specifics as Fone Bone and a couple others have alreay done a fantastic job of pointing out parallels in the use of magic between HP and the other two works in question.

From his post…

In Narnia…

Glenstorm uses astrology to predict regime change in Narnia with total impunity.

Lucy Pevensie casts a spell from a magician’s spell book in Dawn Treader, again with complete impunity.

Diggory and Polly, as you yourself point out, use magic to enter and explore other worlds.

Yet, this is not addressed by anyone who claims otherwise because it directly refutes the claims that they make and there is nothing that can be said to negate it.

But in a more general sense… how is it that you or anyone else can justify saying that Harry Potter can attract kids to the occult but that Narnia and the Rings books can’t. Both have “good guy” characters that use magic. Any kid with a vivid imagination is going to find it intriguing regardless of which book it is… so even if there was a difference (because there’s not) a kid could easily be drawn to the idea of “real” magic through any of the three stories. So if you want to look at it that way, sure HP may in a very round about way create a fascination with “real” magic. But no more easily than Narnia or Rings.

 

[masha]

A ‘good teacher’ may have wanted to add punctuation and structure to ee cummings. And, you know what they say, those who can’t do teach!

I’m beginning to think you’re right, and should just drop out of the discussion.

The quality of a book is essentially linked to its value and ability to form or destroy our understanding of Goodness. If Rowling was a better writer, she may have been able to express herself in such a way that her ideas would not be seen as encouraging the occult in some of her young and unformed fans, and many of her critics. She may actually have the positive view of goodness that many of her supporters claim, she only lacks the ability to express it well. Badly written books - read often - also misform our ability to appreciate good books, like a diet of junk food, and this is a moral problem, Von Balthasar, Pope Benedict, and others have been arguing this point for years.

As for a “good teacher,” he may have wanted to add punctuation, but if he is a good teacher, he can see the reason for the lack. A good teacher teaches not only the rules, but the full understanding of the rules, which brings with it the ability to break those rules. Good teachers though, are those who can both teach and do.

But, if I’m contributing to a lack of clarity in the discussion, I promise to bow out. Enjoy the rest of it, and best wishes on your upcoming marriage.

 

[Mumbles140]

The quality of a book is essentially linked to its value and ability to form or destroy our understanding of Goodness. If Rowling was a better writer, she may have been able to express herself in such a way that her ideas would not be seen as encouraging the occult in some of her young and unformed fans, and many of her critics. She may actually have the positive view of goodness that many of her supporters claim, she only lacks the ability to express it well. Badly written books - read often - also misform our ability to appreciate good books, like a diet of junk food, and this is a moral problem, Von Balthasar, Pope Benedict, and others have been arguing this point for years.

As for a “good teacher,” he may have wanted to add punctuation, but if he is a good teacher, he can see the reason for the lack. A good teacher teaches not only the rules, but the full understanding of the rules, which brings with it the ability to break those rules. Good teachers though, are those who can both teach and do.

I don’t necessarily agree that the quality of a book is linked to its ability…There are different ways to determine quality in a book - literary mechanics, grammar/vocabulary, content, theme, etc. Harry Potter’s quality lies in its entertainment value and its moral themes. I doubt that, if Rowling had better mechanics, the book would totally accepted by others who are currently against it. I gather this because you are the only person who has mentioned the mechanics, and you think it is okay for people to read them. Any comparison to her writing style and possible connections to the Occult is a bit of a stretch, unless you want to delve deeper - I may not be understanding what you mean by this.

Also, I don’t think she had difficulty in expressing goodness. In fact, because of the simplicity in her writings, it is more reachable to people who can see the struggles of good, the need for self-sacrifice and love to overcome evil, and the values of fighting morally. You could get these same morals from The Three Musketeers, but I think it is a safe bet that most people aren’t too keen on classic French literature, especially the flowery use of language Dumas specialized in!

Lastly, this idea that reading ‘too many’ bad books is harmful to the appreciation of good books. This is only the case when you no longer realize that you are reading ‘bad books’ - the ability to discern proves your understanding, and understanding is the key to appreciation. I can only read so many technical works by Lewis before I want to jump into some Grisham. But again, we have to go back to the qualitative aspects for determining whether a book is good or bad. Harry Potter is good because it has good entertainment value (Rowling is a good story teller) and good moral themes. Clancy’s Jack Ryan novels are good because they provide a lot of suspense and adventure. Shakespeare is good because he was a literary master, both with poetic mechanics and his use of words (especially his love of puns). All are good in their own right, but when you become too focused on one quality (say the horror in Stephen King), you may delve out to ‘similar’ books by other authors, and like their similarity to certain books, but not necessarily the content themselves. This can be the danger of fantasy, spy adventures, legal thrillers, and pretty much every other genre. By keeping a good rotation, sprinkling in some ‘entertainment’ books along with your religious, intellectual, and classical readings, you give your mind a break, which I think lets you process the ‘heavier’ stuff a little better!

 

[styrgwillidar]

Rowling has both not enough and too much connection in her magical fantasy, which is likely less of an evil intention than simply a lack of understanding and underattention to editing, but it does damage the books.

Or, the books contain exactly what Rowlings intended and are perfectly edited for her intent. What you see as inadvertent flaws, may be very deliberate choices on her part. It is unfortunate that we as the readers can never be positive about what the author intended to convey. I tend to the assumption that the work is as the author intended it and attempt to discern what that is. Of course, I as the reader am biased by my perception and may (probably will) put things into the novel’s interpretation that the author didn’t intend.

A non-HP example. If you’ve seen the movie Transformers 2 and watch the Smithsonian scene, just the aircraft pictured in that scene can be interpreted as a commentary on readiness and willingness to oppose evil, the consequences of delay, lack of preparation, and appeasement. As well as the cost of and ability to resolutely oppose evil actually reduces conflicts. Because I understand the significance of the following in WWII: P-40 Warhawk, the Enola Gay, the American Volunteer Group (aka Flying Tigers), the F4U Corsair, Pappy Boyington’s connection to both the AVG and the Corsair. I also understand the history, cost, and role of the SR71 spyplane in the Cold War. Now, did Michael Bay intend for me to take away and ponder what I did? I have no idea.

But Rowlings, wrote a series of books targeted at children at specific age ranges, her choices were probably driven by that. I don’t know, but I think somewhere in my consideration in reading them I need to keep that in mind in assessing the work that Rowlings did not write these for sophisticated adults.

I see the measure of a work being- did it convey to the reader what the author intended it to, in an engaging way? Variety being the spice of life, I enjoy different genre’s of books for different reasons.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

similar to someone converting to Christianity because thought he could then get into Narnia.

In a way, you’ve really hit the nail on the head here. Who on earth would convert to Christianity in order to get into Narnia? That would be ridiculous.

That’s not to say it couldn’t happen. If someone did, that would say nothing negative about the Narnia books themselves, but rather about the psychological state of that individual. The same goes for anyone who looks into Wicca or witchcraft because of Harry Potter.

But my analogy doesn’t even go far enough, because Harry Potter isn’t just harmless fiction. Its themes, character development, structure, and imagery are deeply and profoundly Christian. Harry Potter really embeds a positive and spiritually wise experience of Christian truths and virtues into the souls of its readers.

The primary “magical” problem they create is that her understanding of magic is so flawed and her connections between fantasy and reality so weak, that she tends to encourage in her readers a belief that “all magic is fantasy,” which then leads to the belief, expressed by one poster, that ouija boards, tarot cards, etc are all “superstitious bunk.” This attitude, this lack of understanding of the reasons these things are forbidden, weakens our resistence to them and weakens our understanding of the dangers in the occult.

You speak of “Rowling’s complete misunderstanding of magic” and her “flawed” understanding of it. Maybe she doesn’t misunderstand it at all. Most people would maintain that she did not intend her novels’ fictional magical parameters to reflect anything remotely real.

And here’s the thing:

(a) If HP “magic” is so distant to real-world magic, that’s a good thing. The critics who think HP promotes the occult don’t believe that separation, that difference, is truly there; if they did, they’d rightfully change their minds.

(b) Furthermore, and more importantly, I don’t think that Harry Potter could lead anyone into thinking that the occult is harmless, because Harry Potter does present certain kinds of magic as spiritually and morally destructive: precisely the ones that involve seeking power, control, or the avoidance of death (Unforgivable Curses, horcruxes (especially Riddle’s diary), Dark curses like fiendfyre, etc.).

Because Harry Potter is escapist fiction

I don’t see how you can call Harry Potter “escapist fiction” when the experience of the series inculcates into its readers an awareness of the inevitability of death. What it inspires in people is a profound respect of and desire for courage, selflessness, hope, etc. - virtues that are real, not escapist.

To put it another way, a reader might fantasize about meeting death as bravely as Lily Potter, Albus Dumbledore, or Harry himself. But who’s going to fantasize about extra Potions or Transfiguration homework?

I am a sinner - no question about it, but Harry Potter has never caused me to sin nor drawn me to the near occasion to sin.

Me neither. In fact, they draw me closer to Christ. I cannot read Dumbledore’s exhortation to remember the difference “between what is right and what is easy” or Harry’s “death” scene in Deathly Hallows without experiencing a profound and honest confrontation with my own sinfulness and a resolve to pursue virtue more strongly. Harry Potter is the kind of book that inspires me to go to confession more often.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Dear Fonebone,

Cordial greetings again and hope all is well. Jolly good to hear from you again.

You too, Portrait!

Because your remarks above are an attempt, and an unconvincing one at that, to rationalize what happened at Carnegie Hall, NY, I feel that I must needs give a more obvious, and to my mind, a more natural and less strained interpretation of what occured.

Okay. Let’s hear it.

Clearly it had no relevance to the plot and was obviously designed to sway the opinion of influenceable youth.

She didn’t know anyone was going to ask if Dumbledore had ever been in love, so how could her response have been premeditated enough to be intended to sway anyone’s opinion on anything?

It is quite simple really; if an adult, who children admire, thinks in a certain way about any controversial topic of the day, then they (the children) are quite likely to start thinking that way also.

Agreed. And here this immensely popular writer of young adult fantasy has given to her impressionable readers an astonishing thing: the example of a homosexual individual heroically living a life of chastity.

J.K. Rowling may be a professing Christian but she espouses a liberal world-view and warped notions of tolerance.

Nonetheless, she wrote a gay character who lives exactly as Christian orthodoxy would have people with same-sex attraction live: celibately. And this character is not miserable, but happy, whereas our libertine society erroneously assumes that celibacy and misery must go hand in hand.

Moreover, what is rather interesting is that she declared her character a homosexual after she was asked whether Dumbledore finds “true love”. Instead of responding to that question with a yes or no, she said that Dumbledore was a homosexual. It was almost as if she had stated that instead of true love he is a homosexual! Her motives are really to be suspected here for Rowling could have simply left it a “yes” or “no” and thus have spared the children’s ears and minds.

She simply gave the most honest answer she could. If she had just said no, that really provokes the question, Why not? Why did this talented and well-loved wizard never find a wife? The answer really couldn’t avoid his sexual orientation, though I fully acknowledge, Portrait, that Rowling could have declined to answer the question. Authors do that sort of thing.

But why decline to answer when she can reveal such a great example of heroic chastity?

If Rowling was a better writer, she may have been able to express herself in such a way that her ideas would not be seen as encouraging the occult in some of her young and unformed fans, and many of her critics. She may actually have the positive view of goodness that many of her supporters claim, she only lacks the ability to express it well. If Rowling was a better writer, she may have been able to express herself in such a way that her ideas would not be seen as encouraging the occult in some of her young and unformed fans, and many of her critics. She may actually have the positive view of goodness that many of her supporters claim, she only lacks the ability to express it well.

But see, that’s just it. I have experienced firsthand the beneficial spiritual effects (greater passion in fighting sin and pursuing virtue, honesty in acknowledging my faults, relying not on my own strength for help, being willing to do with is right rather than what is easy, etc.) that the series’ “positive view of goodness” imparts.

Most of my friends who are fans of the series are also devout Catholics, and their experience is similar. One friend of mine even lumped Harry Potter in with Narnia when speaking of “books that make me love Jesus more.”

So I don’t think Rowling lacks the ability to express that goodness. I think those who claim that it’s not there are just wrong, and it’s not the fault of Rowling’s writing that they don’t see it - I just think their imaginations have been horribly mangled and distorted by undue paranoia and reversion to anything that, culturally speaking, they don’t perceive as comfortably compatible with their own aesthetic tastes, which they confuse with Christian truth.

But, if I’m contributing to a lack of clarity in the discussion, I promise to bow out.

Oh, no, I don’t think you are. It’s been most engaging; I hope you stay.

Harry Potter is good because it has good entertainment value (Rowling is a good story teller) and good moral themes. Clancy’s Jack Ryan novels are good because they provide a lot of suspense and adventure. Shakespeare is good because he was a literary master, both with poetic mechanics and his use of words (especially his love of puns). All are good in their own right, but when you become too focused on one quality (say the horror in Stephen King), you may delve out to ‘similar’ books by other authors, and like their similarity to certain books, but not necessarily the content themselves. This can be the danger of fantasy, spy adventures, legal thrillers, and pretty much every other genre. By keeping a good rotation, sprinkling in some ‘entertainment’ books along with your religious, intellectual, and classical readings, you give your mind a break, which I think lets you process the ‘heavier’ stuff a little better!

Wow, good description. I very much agree with this analysis.

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. Mumbles140/ Reply to Post 646)

Dear Mumbles,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. As for myself, I am feeling rather under the weather with a heavy cold at the moment.

With regards to what I said about “ignorance of the faith” being the occasion of many men being duped by the Potter novels, I had chiefly in mind non-Christians and not the faithful. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Obviously as a Catholic you are clearly not outside the bosom of the Church, but, alas, multitudes of our fellowmen are and therefore lack the necessary spiritual discernment with which we Catholics are, or should be, endowed. Now it is this alienation from the Catholic Faith that leads men to an uncritical acceptance of inferior and unwholesome books such as the Harry Potter series. To some extent, I suppose, they have an excuse for their want of insight because they are spiritually “…dead through the trespasses and sins” and are undoubtedlly “following the course of this world” (see Ephesians 2: 1,2). Therefore, we should not expect much else from them given that they are not in a state of sanctified grace. Of course their tastes are going to be in conformity to the debased standards of the world and that will be inevitably reflected in their choice of literature and the arts.

As stated previously, many Catholics who are the recipients of grace, and who therefore should know better, have sadly also become imbued with the spirit of the age and this is becoming increasingly reflected in their poor choices of entertainment. Their seeming indifference about such a vital matter is, and I say this as one who is only too aware of his own shortcomings, deplorable in those who are supposed to be enlightened to have their moral faculties trained sufficiently to distinguish the good from the bad. This want of discrimination is surely evidence that the spiritual eyes, appetities and tastes of many Catholics are tragically blunted so that they are unable to distinguish between what is pleasing to God and what is provoking to God, between what is helpful and what is hurtful to their own souls. This is why you have many vehement pro-Potter polemicists, who’s devotion to the books is blinding them to the many unpalatable truths respecting them.

Mumbles, I do not doubt for one moment that you are a jolly decent fellow at heart and on most fundamental teachings respecting faith and morals we would be fully in accord. Indeed, I would say that the same was applicable to nearly all the Catholics in the pro-Potter camp. However, this is a wholly different matter to Christian men becoming contaminated by and assimilated to the spirit of the age because they have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of religious commitment. Worldliness is the bane of the contemporary Church and many have sucumbed to the debased standards that so dominate and flourish in the Western world.

Many Catholics are of the opinion that given the post-Christian air that we are now all compelled to deeply inhale, plus the anti-christian forces that have invaded man’s social and cultural structures, it is not alarmist or extreme to assert that the Harry Potter character could be seen as a poster child for the occultic sub cultures. Moreover, many Catholic parents urgently need to awaken to the fact that the lure of magic and witchcraft is a very viable threat to our children, especially when many children are demonstrating what can only be descibed as an unhealthy, obssessive over-interest in the Potter books/films. My plea is that parents might at least allow that whilst it may not be a sin to read these books, it might be the occasion of sin inasmuch as they may well stimulate the interest of the young and impressionable in the real world occult. Let our minds be at least be accessible to that possibilty.

Will examine the differences between Lewis, Tolkein and J.K. Rowling next time.

God bless you and thankyou for debating this issue with me dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Mumbles140]

…Now it is this alienation from the Catholic Faith that leads men to an uncritical acceptance of inferior and unwholesome books such as the Harry Potter series. To some extent, I suppose, they have an excuse for their want of insight because they are spiritually “…dead through the trespasses and sins” and are undoubtedlly “following the course of this world” (see Ephesians 2: 1,2). Therefore, we should not expect much else from them given that they are not in a state of sanctified grace. Of course their tastes are going to be in conformity to the debased standards of the world and that will be inevitably reflected in their choice of literature and the arts.

As stated previously, many Catholics who are the recipients of grace, and who therefore should know better, have sadly also become imbued with the spirit of the age and this is becoming increasingly reflected in their poor choices of entertainment…This is why you have many vehement pro-Potter polemicists, who’s devotion to the books is blinding them to the many unpalatable truths respecting them.

**First of all, none of this matters. We are talking about whether or not it is okay for Catholics to read these books. Also, you seem to excuse non-Christians (although your argument encompasses non-Catholics), but you still are portraying that Catholics who read them have an ‘uncritical acceptance of inferior and unwholesome books’. If you think they are inferior because the writing isn’t great, talk with Masha. But you go back to unwholesome, and yet you have never defined this in terms of the books. You toss the term around with insidious danger but have yet to give a single example. Further, since ‘their tastes’ have debased standards, I assume you apply this to Potter readers, which again is personally offensive. You don’t know me, and you aren’t even arguing the book - you are simply resorting to eloquently written insults.

You’re blaming Catholics caught up with the Zeitgeist again just because you don’t share the same opinion as them. But if you took the time to open up your mind and observe the evidence, you would see that Potter is a moral voice in a very immoral world, and this can apply to the character as well as the book. You keep talking about discerning between good and bad, and those who read Potter must have some defect that prevents us from doing this. My question is who made you the judge of this? The Vatican hasn’t said this, and you have presented no evidence to support your case other than generalizations and ‘what ifs’ that cannot be supported, and therefore not accepted in this argument. Remember that some things can be spiritually neutral. I wouldn’t say sports is ‘good for my soul’ to watch, neither is it an occasion of sin. I view Potter the same way - for neutral enjoyment that is not offensive but is entertaining.

Also, let me point out how your use of the word ‘devotion’ relating to fictional books is a mockery of my beliefs. My devotion is to God, His angels and saints, and the holy Catholic Church. You want to take about being blind to ‘unpalatable’ truths? You have been virtually slapped in the face with overwhelming evidence for the morality of Harry Potter and against the ‘criticisms’ of biased, inconsistent men. However, you stick to your battle slogans without offering a shred of evidence, and this is what is driving the passion behind my argument. Not that I care that greatly for the books (like I said, they were a fun read but not one of my favorites), but I can’t stand parrots, and that is precisely how you are arguing. You spout lines you hear from others, not even understanding their criticisms because you haven’t taken the time to read the books, and then you can’t reason to accept that they could be wrong because that then would make you wrong.**

…However, this is a wholly different matter to Christian men becoming contaminated by and assimilated to the spirit of the age because they have adopted a hand in hand with the world type of religious commitment. Worldliness is the bane of the contemporary Church and many have sucumbed to the debased standards that so dominate and flourish in the Western world.

Again with this Zeitgeist stuff. I’m sure you’re right - someone attending the TLM is very likely to be caught up in modernism over a teen/young adult book…You know what else is the bane of the Church? Pride - has been since Lucifer’s rebellion. You are willing to make judgments on matters that the Church isn’t. That seems like a very modern idea, actually. The Church can’t tell me what to believe, so I’ll just make my own decisions. In fact, you could even follow the examples of Luther and Calvin - change up the Bible to be what you want, make your own rules for religion, and hope God is pleased with you going against the Apostolic Succession.

…My plea is that parents might at least allow that whilst it may not be a sin to read these books, it might be the occasion of sin inasmuch as they may well stimulate the interest of the young and impressionable in the real world occult. Let our minds be at least be accessible to that possibilty.

So it is on the parents to educate, but the books themselves are not a danger to an educated mind. This is ultimately what you are saying, right? Because that is what we have been saying all along.

Will examine the differences between Lewis, Tolkein and J.K. Rowling next time.

Thank you.

Lastly, please see my earlier post (sometime between #646 and now) that links to the Ask the Apologist articles on Potter - perhaps Catholics who are more articulate than myself can show you how Potter can exist within the Catholic faith.

 

[mdrummer5]

So it is on the parents to educate, but the books themselves are not a danger to an educated mind. This is ultimately what you are saying, right? Because that is what we have been saying all along.

This. Also

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbles140
**Harry Potter is good because it has good entertainment value (Rowling is a good story teller) and good moral themes. **Clancy’s Jack Ryan novels are good because they provide a lot of suspense and adventure. Shakespeare is good because he was a literary master, both with poetic mechanics and his use of words (especially his love of puns). All are good in their own right, but when you become too focused on one quality (say the horror in Stephen King), you may delve out to ‘similar’ books by other authors, and like their similarity to certain books, but not necessarily the content themselves. This can be the danger of fantasy, spy adventures, legal thrillers, and pretty much every other genre. By keeping a good rotation, sprinkling in some ‘entertainment’ books along with your religious, intellectual, and classical readings, you give your mind a break, which I think lets you process the ‘heavier’ stuff a little better!

Wow, good description. I very much agree with this analysis.

My jaw dropped when I saw this… if you agree with that analysis I don’t understand the reason for the debate. Assuming that you’re referring to the idea that due to a lack of education it may cause an undeveloped mind to seek out other more “realistic” forms of magic as Mumbles stated nobody’s arguing that point but simply saying the books in question are not to blame.

Also, slightly off topic but relevant… I was shocked to find out over the weekend that my girlfriend’s parents were perfectly fine with her and her siblings reading The DaVinci Code. I personally never had a problem with it but know very well the issue that most Catholics have with it. When they could see my surprise her mother very pointedly said (as she apparently told quite a few members of the Church we attend) “my children are very well educated and are intelligent enough to differentiate between fiction and real life”.

 

[Portrait]

Maybe you should duly take note of her other remarks and not just the ones that suit your point as you have a horrible habit of doing.

So, again… this one example of someone who admittedly couldn’t distinguish fantasy from reality is hardly proof of an occult phenomenon… you’ve still provided no facts.

Dear mdrummer5,

Cordial greetings and hope all is well.

Yes, I did duly note the interplay of other factors in gatewood’s life, nonetheless, she does not deny that the Potter books played a part also in her descent into the occultic sub-culture. Her words were, “I have no doubt in my mind that Harry Potter was the was the cause of my interest in the occult. I wish I never read the books or saw the movies to begin with”.

On the balance of probabilities there must be myriads of children like her who’s interest has been aroused in the occult in a similar manner. Many of these dear children are yet in a state of formation and may not be adequately equiped emotionally to distinguish fact from fantasy and, even if they can, the Potter books might still stimulate an unhealthy and potentially dangererous interest in the occult. You must remember that all men (including children) are born with fallen natures on account of Original Sin and hence have a natural bias towards that which is wrong and evil. Thus they could still be drawn into this world of darkness, as gatewood indeed was. Should we not be concerned for the spiritual welfare of these children who are very precious in our Lord’s sight and warn against anything which might cause them to stumble (cf. St. Matt. 18: 6)?

Warmest good wishess,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Mumbles140]

Also, slightly off topic but relevant… I was shocked to find out over the weekend that my girlfriend’s parents were perfectly fine with her and her siblings reading The DaVinci Code. I personally never had a problem with it but know very well the issue that most Catholics have with it. When they could see my surprise her mother very pointedly said (as she apparently told quite a few members of the Church we attend) “my children are very well educated and are intelligent enough to differentiate between fiction and real life”.

I also read the Dan Brown books. I first read Deception Point and Digital Fortress because I wanted to see his writing style. It was kind of a cheesy spy/conspiracy book, like a second-hand Tom Clancy. He jumped around a lot, never really drew me in, and I thought the ‘twists’ were so-so. I read these as a preparation for DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons.

Knowing that his writing style wasn’t that great, I could focus more on the emotional side of my opposition to the books. I had a lot of friends telling me about them, asking questions (I was consulted for all matters Catholic by my fraternity brothers), and wanting to know what I thought, and so I read them. Even reading the disturbing story about our Holy Mother Church and the clergy, I knew it was only fiction meant to incite. I did not read the books for entertainment (I already knew they weren’t from reading the others previous), but rather for information to discuss them from an informed viewpoint. And the truth is, they were anti-Catholic - not just in the storyline, but the portrayal of the characters. But now I could use specifics to defend the Church and her teachings.

I read those books more as a chore than anything else, and though I’m glad I read them to understand them better, I have no desire to read them again. Still, reading them didn’t destroy my soul, make me become a conspiracy theorist, or even make me mistrust Opus Dei. I mean, God willing, the soon-to-be Pope John Paul II used a cilice on himself as part of his penances. The reason why? Because I am educated in the faith, and I use my God-given reason to know that reading something doesn’t make you something.

On a side note, the father of a kid who lived across the hall my freshman year was the wrote the first “Debunking the DaVinci Code” book. Very laughable stuff where Brown got his ideas, actually. My favorite being the Priory of Scion, which was a fictional group sworn to preserve the false documents claiming one man as the direct descendant of Charlemagne, and thus giving him claim to the whole of Europe after World War II.

 

[mdrummer5]

As I’m sure he will ignore this.

After a few response gatewood very openly admitted that she couldn’t differentiate between fantasy and reality and that it was the other factors in question that ultimately lead to her interest. But we can’t very well expect “cheap debator” to take all facts into consideration… especially when they take in any facts to begin with.