One can surely accept what Father says about the Potter novels without necessarily having to rigidly apply his words to the great Christian classics of C.S. Lewis and Tolkein…However, the fact remains gentlemen that it is the Potter series of books which have come under severe censure by the exorcists, not the works of Lewis and Tolkein.
**But it is not for you to decide this, and so it is obtuse if you continue to quote Father Amorth because you cannot say with certainty how Father feels on these other matters. The truth is he said that any magic, whether portrayed of good or bad, is of the Devil - the end, nothing further. If he were to support Narnia and LOTR, than his quote would be either incomplete (needing to explain the difference) or contradictory (if he chooses not to explain). Either way, as it stands now, the statement is what it is, and neither you nor I can interpret as such. I could just as easily argue that, since these works were not specifically Catholic, they use the guise of Christian allegory to lure in unsuspecting children about magic. Absurd as this sounds, it has the same amount of leverage as you do because the quote doesn’t distinguish. And, be that as it is, it must be put to bed.
Also, concerning how Potter is targeted, that is precisely our point. That series of books is unfairly being targeted, because the charges against them hold true in Narnia and Middle Earth, but they escape this. We’ll get into whether Potter is a good role model or not in the next section, but remember that Edmund Pevensie is quick to anger, lies, fights his siblings, betrays the Christ-like figure, and causes many deaths by his actions, all for candy. But he repents, he owns up to what he did, causes the death of Aslan, and then fights the good fight. I could overlay that sentence over the plot of Harry Potter and it would be a perfect match. Also, and I’m really not sure, but isn’t it Edmund in Voyage of the Dawn Treader who steals the dragon’s gold and is covered in scales?**
…He blackmails, blows up his poor aunt, uses trickery and deception and oftentimes breaks the rules…How is his character supposed to provide a good role model to Rowling’s young readership, given that he is the hero and chief protagonist in the series?
**He is a hero because he is still a teenager. By ‘blowing up his aunt’, remember that this is in the sense of a balloon, not a bomb. And he is punished for this. It is a serious offense to attempt to use magic outside of the school if you are underage precisely because you can’t make those decisions. Also remember that this is before he knows he has magical abilities, and part of the purpose of the school is to teach wizards when it is appropriate to use magic.
I’m not sure of blackmailing, so please provide an example. The use of ‘trickery and deception’ sounds much more malicious than it is, for it is the same things any teenager does. This makes him relatable to children - remember that only Christ and Mary are free from sin. Further, he is punished for what he does, and it is often Harry caught retaliating and not the bullies responsible who are punished. This teaches the lesson that retaliation only harms oneself.
You say he frequently lies, and yet you haven’t really given any examples of this. Whenever he is directly confronted by the Headmaster or other teachers, he tells the truth, even when it leads him to trouble.**
Thus nowhere in the entire series do you find any reference to a system of moral absolutes with which actions can be measured…God still sees things in black and white.
**I don’t know how you say there is no moral system in Harry Potter. If you want something enumerated like the Ten Commandments, sorry but no. However, the overall idea is love for your self and your neighbor. This is applied consistently by the good guys, and when they don’t uphold it (as I’m sure none of us perfectly uphold the 10 Commandments), they are reprimanded.
And if God sees in black and white, we must ask the Church to discern for us what is evil. So when the Church does not rule something to be evil, you are taking that authority to deem it as such. I don’t remember that, which means there must be some gray area. And if there is gray area there, perhaps there is for Potter as well.**
The Potter boy’s faults are seldom punished and if they are it is by the negative authority figures in the tales. In fact the positive authority figures actually *reward *Potter for his insubordination when brings about some good.
Absolutely wrong, actually. When Harry commits wrongs, he is reprimanded for them. He is even punished for breaking curfew when they rescue the girl from possession by Voldemort. He is then rewarded for his heroic actions, but that penalty for breaking curfew is still noted. How many soldiers, before they are awarded medals for bravery, are scolded for not following orders directly?
…Rowling has sadly blurred the lines between good and evil, indeed redefining some of both. The real question is surely: what is the nature of good and evil as Rowling has presented it?
Prove this. Rowling has focused solely on the struggles of good and evil, which even play out in Harry due to his relation to Voldemort from his childhood attack. But there are many instances where the threat of evil is identified when others wish to ignore it, when people stand up against prejudice and hate, and how even when fighting your enemies, you cannot do so immorally or you will lose yourself. Lastly, committing heinous acts destroys your soul, and it will be split forever, even after death, unless you repent. Doesn’t sound too ambiguous to me.
)
(although if you are interacting in a very lively thread it might not be so good to wait 10 minutes, but for an inactive thread it would be great!)