Church Exorcist and Pro Life Priest Warns Against Harry Potter

[styrgwillidar]

Mumbles,

You are, of course, correct. Thanks for the course correction to the thread drift. I’ll try to bring it back.

If I understand correctly, one of masha’s points is that the skill/or lack thereof and the deterioration of Rowlings writing over the series contributes to the perceived threat to children’s gaining an interest in the occult, because if it’s bad art it 'constitutes a grave spirutual threat.

Bluntly, some people can write well, others can’t. Rowling is a decent storyteller, but she is not a good writer. When I use her writing quality to define the spiritually problematic elements in the stories, it is because I’m working from an understanding that “The novel is art” (Flannery O Connor) and “bad so-called art, like polluted air constitutes a grave spiritual threat” (Thomas Merton) because when we consume bad art we pollute and gradually destroy our ability to recognize good art.

But that does necessitate defining art, good, bad and inherent in that is the assumption that we know what Rowlings intended to convey. What we assume is sloppiness may be deliberate. The measure of communication is, to me, did the intended message go from it’s author to his audience? A novel is communication by writing, did Rowlings get across to us, the readers, the ideas or concepts she intended us to receive?

I received christian messages, others received, or believed her work could have communicated non-christian messages, intentional or unintentional. Is that lack of clarity the fault of the author or the reader?

Which goes to my contention that to see non-christian themes in HP, the reader has to put them there.

 

[Portrait]

Compare us to idol worshippers and tell us we go against ‘a man of the cloth’, but you had the nerve to say the Bishop was wrong. Ironic, no?

Dear Mumbles,

Hello again.

By using the metaphor ‘sacred cow’ I was not suggesting you, or anyone else for that matter, was an “idol worshipper”. My use of that phrase denoted no more than that some devotees of the Potter novels unreasonably hold them to be above criticism. Incidently, there is nothing necessarily derogatory about refering to a man as a ‘devotee’ or even a ‘fanatic’. It simply means a fellow is a zealous enthusiast about something, be it Potter or vintage cars. For example, I am a retro TV enthusiast and enjoy collecting all the old series on DVD, why I would even term myself a fanatic in this regard.

True, I did say that I thought the Bishop was “mistaken” about the Potter books but, unlike some men who inveigh against Father Amorth, I did not speak contemptuously about his person, deride him or imply that he was not compos mentis.

By the way chaps, terribly sorry that I have not been able to reply to some of your posts today, but I will endeavour to respond to a few more tomorrow, God willing (Friday).

God bless you all dear friends.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

 

[Mumbles140]

Mumbles,

You are, of course, correct. Thanks for the course correction to the thread drift. I’ll try to bring it back.

If I understand correctly, one of masha’s points is that the skill/or lack thereof and the deterioration of Rowlings writing over the series contributes to the perceived threat to children’s gaining an interest in the occult, because if it’s bad art it 'constitutes a grave spirutual threat.

But that does necessitate defining art, good, bad and inherent in that is the assumption that we know what Rowlings intended to convey. What we assume is sloppiness may be deliberate. The measure of communication is, to me, did the intended message go from it’s author to his audience? A novel is communication by writing, did Rowlings get across to us, the readers, the ideas or concepts she intended us to receive?

I received christian messages, others received, or believed her work could have communicated non-christian messages, intentional or unintentional. Is that lack of clarity the fault of the author or the reader?

Which goes to my contention that to see non-christian themes in HP, the reader has to put them there.

Wonderful point! I wonder if any of these people were fans of Lost. Many accused the writers/producers of being sloppy, inconsistent, forcing things in, etc, but didn’t get the essence that what really mattered was the experiences those people shared and the relationships that were built because of them. I don’t think Lost was poorly done at all, but some people hung up on it being ‘sloppy’ have lost focus on the meaning, which is only known because the producers came out and told us as much.

 

[Mumbles140]

Dear Mumbles,

Hello again.

By using the metaphor ‘sacred cow’ I was not suggesting you, or anyone else for that matter, was an “idol worshipper”. My use of that phrase denoted no more than that some devotees of the Potter novels unreasonably hold them to be above criticism. Incidently, there is nothing necessarily derogatory about refering to a man as a ‘devotee’ or even a ‘fanatic’. It simply means a fellow is a zealous enthusiast about something, be it Potter or vintage cars. For example, I am a retro TV enthusiast and enjoy collecting all the old series on DVD, why I would even term myself a fanatic in this regard.

True, I did say that I thought the Bishop was “mistaken” about the Potter books but, unlike some men who inveigh against Father Amorth, I did not speak contemptuously about his person, deride him or imply that he was not compos mentis.

By the way chaps, terribly sorry that I have not been able to reply to some of your posts today, but I will endeavour to respond to a few more tomorrow, God willing (Friday).

God bless you all dear friends.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

You did not call us idol worshippers, but the comparison was made. You may not have suggested it, but you have essentially drawn us into the images of pagans, whether intentionally or not. Being that we are discussing the Occult, I find this was quite offensive, even though I undoubtedly believe that it was not intentional. I simply bring it up because making such a comparison without thinking of where it is likely to go is irresponsible, and we aren’t even talking about the claim itself (see below). Furthermore, devotee has nothing implied with it, but the connotation involved with fanatic is something I also find offensive. Fanatic is someone who refuses to listen to reason and logical arguments and favor emotions instead. Now, I would not use this term to describe your distaste for Harry Potter, but remember that there are always two sides of fanaticism.

Now, to the matter of us believing Potter is above criticism - this is certainly a falsehood. First and foremost, if you criticized it for using a certain word in the 7th book when not actually referring to a female dog, I would agree that it was harsh language. Now, I would contend that this supports the idea that the books are not age appropriate for younger readers. The same can be said for the ‘dueling’ scenes which get more intense throughout the books. What we will not stand for, though, are the inconsistent and contradictory opinions that are not supported by facts or textual references. You have yet to offer a proper criticism on the immorality, support of the Occult, or dangers of fictional magic that has not been logically and reasonably refuted. The sad thing is we don’t even have to provide references to refute your claims because they refute themselves quite often.

Lastly, I always respect the office of the priesthood, and though I said Father Amorth was inconsistent, I never implied anything against him personally, his role as priest and exorcist, nor his mental capacity. I even said that his statements could very well differentiate between the magic of Narnia and Middle Earth with that of Potter, but that being incomplete, we must not add our own interpretations to his words. They were blunt and direct, and being that he is of sharp mind, I would reckon that he intended to say precisely what he did, nothing more and nothing less.

And I don’t want to ‘call you out’ about saying the Bishop was wrong (let’s not try and dress things up here), but my point is that even high-ranking clergy have varying opinions, and so committing yourself to follow the opinions of a select few, especially since they have been proven inconsistent, and rejecting that of other respected clergy is keeping your mind closed, and that is where our frustration lies. You won’t even acknowledge the other prominent Catholic scholars and priests in support of Harry Potter, while ignoring the fallacies of those you do follow.

 

[estesbob]

Dear Mumbles,

Hello again.

By using the metaphor ‘sacred cow’ I was not suggesting you, or anyone else for that matter, was an “idol worshipper”. My use of that phrase denoted no more than that some devotees of the Potter novels unreasonably hold them to be above criticism.

I dont hold them above criticism For instance i wish Harry had Avada Kavadaded Voldermorts sorry rear end in book 7 instead of asking him to repent.

 

[Contarini]

Father Amorth’s concern respecting the Potter books is surely treated with contempt

What contempt? I haven’t seen contempt. Admittedly I have not been following this thread consistently, but when I’ve looked in on it I’ve seen you and others demanding blind obedience to Fr. Amorth, and I’ve seen the “pro-Harry” folks explaining respectfully why they disagree with Fr. Amorth.

because he gives a very negative evaluation of the series. Since Harry Potter is rapidly becoming a sacred cow, beyond any criticism

The fact that people reject your criticisms, or even Fr. Amorth’s, doesn’t mean that they think HP is beyond criticism.

I certainly don’t. I have lots of criticisms of the series, both literary and theological.

But I still like the books very much.

The particularly flawed criticisms tend to be ethical. I don’t know if it was on this thread or an earlier one that someone actually held up the *Wizard of Oz *as a more Christian fantasy because it had a black-and-white view of evil. In fact, Rowling’s is by far the more Christian work precisely because she doesn’t. Not saying that her approach to ethics is perfect, but there’s nothing un-Christian about recognizing shades of gray.

 

[masha]

Mdrummer,
To respond to your great response to my question about Fr. Amorth’s warning: Thank you for taking the time to reply, and I argee that there is a tendency to be over-sensitive -seeing satan in the harmless, and I agree that this can happen both to priests and to the laity. I’d like you to think though, of the very great danger this over-sensitivity would put both the Church herself, the exorcist, and the faithful in need of sincere help, if it were allowed to develope in an exorcist sanctioned by the Church. My understanding is that the Church takes care to direct her exorcists from the flaw of seeing evil where it isn’t. I’m not saying that in considering this, you must therefore agree with him, but please think it over.

Styrgwillidar,
I’m really enjoying our conversation as well. I think you expressed yourself amazingly well, and I agree with you on so many points. I will try though, to keep my conversation focused more on the Potter books, though, and avoid making this an “art thread”

Mumbles,
I tried to clarify. I’m sorry if I failed. I did read your entire post, please don’t assume I didn’t. You misunderstood me in that I am not arguing for “classics” I’m arguing for quality. Not all classics are quality, not all quality works are classics. I’m not interested at all in the creation of “classics” I’m interested in the creation of Good works. Even among classics though, your argument fails - but if you can look at a collection of quality works of literature, or paintings, or movies, and see only the sameness of quality without seeing the diversity of Beauty, then I really don’t know how I can explain myself further.

Blessings,
Masha

 

[Portrait]

Dear (name removed by moderator),

Cordial greetings and a very good day. You and others will be pleased to know that I am now on the mend but thankyou for your well wishes my dear brethren.

You evidently have a far superior knowledge of the works of Tolkein and Lewis than I do Jharek, and indeed, Steven Greydanus from whom I qouted *ipsissima verba *for the most part because he makes some excellent observations. May I say that whilst your understanding of these classic works may be more extensive than mine, I would still maintain, along with many other of the learned, that they are on an entirely different plain to the Harry Potter novels. No matter how many nuanced arguments about specific details of the books men may engage in, one should never loose sight of the fact that the Potter books are undeniably in a different league altogether, as is freely admitted by men on both sides of the debate. Therefore our brief is surely to endeavour to assertain just what these fundamental differences are, for that will truly help us forward when seeking to appraise the Potter series in its entirety. It is, as you know only too well, all too easy to get bogged down in endless back and forth arguments about the details of all these books, much of which boils down to individual insights and biased interpretations. This may appeal to men with an eristic cast of mind but it only serves to hinder real progress in one’s understanding of the essential issues under review in the controversy. So away with such fruitless disputations and let us examine the real differences at the heart of the debate, for this is surely what those who are undecided about Potter books really wish to hear.

Now the first thing that men need to appreciate is that both Lewis and Tolkein are writing from at least a Christian point of view, if not from a completely Catholic one, in their thinking and writing. Rowling is decidedly not. The ‘magic’ contained in their works is not identical. A major difference which should be noted between the two types of magic is that the characters in the Potter tales are involved in occult magic: with both Lewis and Tolkein, and indeed most other fantasy fiction writers, the word magic is not even an apt term for what occurs in the pages of their books. Those authors you will find never use the term ‘magic’ themselves, it is always ascribed by an outsider, namely the reader.

Moreover, the comparison that is frequently made between the Potter series and *Lord of the *Rings and Narnia is a only a superficial one at best. Appeal is usually made to the use of the word ‘magic’ and the fact that there is a witch/wizard in the narrative. What is conveniently disregarded by the Potter polemecists is the distinction between how these characters perform their magic. Thus, for example, in The Lord of the Rings, what we might call ‘magic’ is a natural ability of the elves, which is recognized as such. They (the elves) have it and they cannot teach it anyone else. In the Potter books magic is dependent on some sort of supernatural source, and can be learned and taught, to better or worse degrees. The wizards Gandalf (good) and Sauruman (bad) are not humans with magical powers. They are an altogether different and superior species, whose individuals are naturally endowed with the capacity to do things that other beings cannot. They have taken human form, yet they are not actually human. In Potter, the good and bad wizards are all humans, go to the same school, and use the very same magic.

In Narnia you do have a witch but she is regarded as and clearly shown to be evil and no question remains on the matter. Thus as far as her magical ability is concerned, she has appropriated powers that are not even rightfully hers. In other words, Aslan, the representation of goodness, uses powers that do come from a source of goodness. That source is the one who, as the creator of Narnia, has *“legitimate authority over all things”, *and has ultimate control over that power. From whence are the powers derived that are used in the Potter books?

Look, all the novels might have a material similarity here and there, but their spirit is entirely different as the above makes abundantly clear. It is the crucial difference between the way authors think and their whole philosophy of life. Since out of the abundance of the heart a man speaks (or writes), how any writer thinks will inevitably affect the moral quality of his work. So how does Rowling think? Well she has no qualms in declaring to a group of impressionable young Potter fans that one of her key characters is a homosexual; she blurs the lines between good and evil in her books, offers young readers a nebulous morality that sits quite comfortably with the spirit of our degenerate times and makes irresponsible statements such as “do what you want, not what your parents want” (scholastic.com). Is this the moral outlook of a Lewis or Tolkein or even the vein in which they would speak? Let us let men judge for themselves.

Have more to say on this, but I am now taking my weekend breather from the boards but I will, God willing, continue on Monday.

Have a jolly spendid and relaxing weekend, kind regards to you all my dear friends. Goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
[/quote]

 

[masha]

Mumbles,
If I understand correctly, one of masha’s points is that the skill/or lack thereof and the deterioration of Rowlings writing over the series contributes to the perceived threat to children’s gaining an interest in the occult, because if it’s bad art it 'constitutes a grave spirutual threat…

Which goes to my contention that to see non-christian themes in HP, the reader has to put them there.

You’re right in clarifying my points, though I would add that it is a “grave spiritual threat” primarily because reading the Potter books contributes to an overall tendency towards spiritual and intellectual laziness. We become accustomed to entertainment without substance and begin to pursue it in all areas of life. I would not say that Harry Potter is the issue so much as it is more an indication of a general trend, and in that way, is undesireable.

With your ending point, I am exactly on the opposite, I think the reader has to put the Christian themes in HP - or at least overlook a good deal that clouds what Christian themes might be intended by the author.

Thanks for your great (name removed by moderator)ut, you do give me a lot to think about, and thanks for your patience with my long absences!

 

[mdrummer5]

Mdrummer,
To respond to your great response to my question about Fr. Amorth’s warning: Thank you for taking the time to reply, and I argee that there is a tendency to be over-sensitive -seeing satan in the harmless, and I agree that this can happen both to priests and to the laity. I’d like you to think though, of the very great danger this over-sensitivity would put both the Church herself, the exorcist, and the faithful in need of sincere help, if it were allowed to develope in an exorcist sanctioned by the Church. My understanding is that the Church takes care to direct her exorcists from the flaw of seeing evil where it isn’t. I’m not saying that in considering this, you must therefore agree with him, but please think it over.

I have a great respect for him as a man of the cloth… however he is still just a man and is just as capable of an error in judgment as I am. Until he or anyone can provide proof of the bold claims made or a valid explanation for the contradictions in the arguments against HP when compared to Narnia and LOTR I have nothing to think about. Those that have not read the books and have no way of justifying the ridiculous claims that continue to be in question because they can’t be proven are the ones who seem to be without thought.

He is an expert on exorcisms. An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less. So yes I feel that he is so good at what he does that he is (in this case) absolutely over sensitive to the idea that magic in a fictional story automatically means Satan is involved.

It’s fiction. That’s all. Yes, it is that simple. Any ill effect it has on someone’s spirituality is a direct result of their lack of faith, education or both.

Edit: Just for some perspective… I watched an episode of South Park last night in which they deliberately make fun of Scientology. I then read on it because frankly I didn’t know and couldn’t believe what they actually think and I found it to be hilariously stupid. Despite that most that are anit-Potter would say that I shouldn’t even read about it for fear that it would take me away from Christ!

Thank God I have a brain… and I use it… a lot.

 

[Mumbles140]

Mdrummer,
To respond to your great response to my question about Fr. Amorth’s warning: Thank you for taking the time to reply, and I argee that there is a tendency to be over-sensitive -seeing satan in the harmless, and I agree that this can happen both to priests and to the laity. I’d like you to think though, of the very great danger this over-sensitivity would put both the Church herself, the exorcist, and the faithful in need of sincere help, if it were allowed to develope in an exorcist sanctioned by the Church. My understanding is that the Church takes care to direct her exorcists from the flaw of seeing evil where it isn’t. I’m not saying that in considering this, you must therefore agree with him, but please think it over.

I am not an exorcist so I cannot say with authority that the Church directs her exorcists a certain way. What I do know is the quote by the Bishop speaking before a conference of exorcists, and those words ring quite true over where the focus should lie considering the threat of the Occult.

Mumbles,
I tried to clarify. I’m sorry if I failed. I did read your entire post, please don’t assume I didn’t. You misunderstood me in that I am not arguing for “classics” I’m arguing for quality. Not all classics are quality, not all quality works are classics. I’m not interested at all in the creation of “classics” I’m interested in the creation of Good works. Even among classics though, your argument fails - but if you can look at a collection of quality works of literature, or paintings, or movies, and see only the sameness of quality without seeing the diversity of Beauty, then I really don’t know how I can explain myself further.

My point was as follows: You proposed that all works of art should be Good, Truthful, and Beautiful. I contended that by forcing all of these works to be Good, you ultimately level the playing field. You would ultimately lose the concept of good because there would be no bad to weigh it against. If this were to happen, there would inevitably be a certain rubric for a work to be qualified as good, and so any artist would have to strive to hit those necessary criteria to have a work be good, and this was where the cookie cutter analogy comes from. I see the various types of beauty in similar media of art. I enjoy the Harry Potter series for their interesting and moral stories as much as I enjoy reading various lectures and essay by C.S. Lewis. Though they are not the same, there are the elements of good and beauty, differing vastly, but still present.

Some may contest that beauty does not exist in Harry Potter, but I disagree. There is beauty in the simplicity of the writing - something open to every person rather than the heavy prose of authors such as Tolstoy, Dumas, et al. It also has a solid view of morality, but portrays it in a way that is relatable to its readers. The adults who read it are forced to confront the same moral issues as the teenagers reading it, and this is how it ties generations together. This is part of how it is beautiful. But regardless of the writing, you still haven’t really convinced me that an occasional ‘less than beautiful’ book is bad for the soul, and it really confuses me how that could lead to the Occult.

 

[Anna_jane]

I haven’t read Tolkien in a few years, but the Narnia stories certainly do use the word magic to describe the supernatural powers invoked. In Prince Caspian for instance, Dr. Corneilius describes himself as a practitioner of magic and divination, and casts spells.These were learned, as he tells us, from books and were not derived from any natural powers. At one point, he recommends that the Prince blow the horn at sunrise, because that is the most propitious hour for his “White Magic” to work. In the Dawn Treader, Lucy looks in the magician’s book of spells, and casts a few herseld. When she does, Aslan appears, and tells her that he is bound by the laws of Magic because he made them. And those are just a few examples off the top of my head, all the Narnia stories are full of references to magic and spells, in fact.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I haven’t read Tolkien in a few years, but the Narnia stories certainly do use the word magic to describe the supernatural powers invoked. In Prince Caspian for instance, Dr. Corneilius describes himself as a practitioner of magic and divination, and casts spells.These were learned, as he tells us, from books and were not derived from any natural powers. At one point, he recommends that the Prince blow the horn at sunrise, because that is the most propitious hour for his “White Magic” to work. In the Dawn Treader, Lucy looks in the magician’s book of spells, and casts a few herseld. When she does, Aslan appears, and tells her that he is bound by the laws of Magic because he made them. And those are just a few examples off the top of my head, all the Narnia stories are full of references to magic and spells, in fact.

Indeed.

 

[styrgwillidar]

You’re right in clarifying my points, though I would add that it is a “grave spiritual threat” primarily because reading the Potter books contributes to an overall tendency towards spiritual and intellectual laziness. We become accustomed to entertainment without substance and begin to pursue it in all areas of life. I would not say that Harry Potter is the issue so much as it is more an indication of a general trend, and in that way, is undesireable.

With your ending point, I am exactly on the opposite, I think the reader has to put the Christian themes in HP - or at least overlook a good deal that clouds what Christian themes might be intended by the author.

Thanks for your great (name removed by moderator)ut, you do give me a lot to think about, and thanks for your patience with my long absences!

It is a judgement call, so I understand our differences. I can also see your point that not HP by itself, but an over-consumption of bad art without contrasting it with good can lead to accepting things without analysis or contemplation of deeper meanings. Portrait has made that point as well, declining moral values from immersion in pop-culture. Hence, I think I get your point, that Rowlings doesn’t make the distinction’s between good and evil as crystal clear or emphatic in the later novels. However, I see that as a person matures there is more of an understanding of ‘shades of gray’. The treatment of Snape I would cite as an example. He starts as a crystal clear two-dimensional character but gradually becomes more complex- and in the last novel the illumination of his motives and entire history makes things even more ambiguos not less. But I see that as giving the more mature some fairly hefty things to contemplate. Snape ends up being on the good side, but is it for the wrong reason? All the moral implications of a double-agent. It’s primarily for love of one woman vice true committment to the cause. But Christ did use the parable of the two sons, one who says he’ll do his father’s will but doesn’t and the other who says he won’t but does. Christ indicated that the second one has obeyed the father, even though it was unwillingly.

I do believe that whether it’s Narnia, LOTR, Twilight series or HP, parents, as in so many other areas, need to be familiar with what their children are into and try to have them look at it critically through a christian perspective.

I’m aware that sometimes my writing can come off as condescending or dismissive which is why I wanted to assure you that is not my intention.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I have a great respect for him as a man of the cloth… however he is still just a man and is just as capable of an error in judgment as I am. Until he or anyone can provide proof of the bold claims made or a valid explanation for the contradictions in the arguments against HP when compared to Narnia and LOTR I have nothing to think about. Those that have not read the books and have no way of justifying the ridiculous claims that continue to be in question because they can’t be proven are the ones who seem to be without thought.

He is an expert on exorcisms. An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less. So yes I feel that he is so good at what he does that he is (in this case) absolutely over sensitive to the idea that magic in a fictional story automatically means Satan is involved.

It’s fiction. That’s all. Yes, it is that simple. Any ill effect it has on someone’s spirituality is a direct result of their lack of faith, education or both.

Edit: Just for some perspective… I watched an episode of South Park last night in which they deliberately make fun of Scientology. I then read on it because frankly I didn’t know and couldn’t believe what they actually think and I found it to be hilariously stupid. Despite that most that are anit-Potter would say that I shouldn’t even read about it for fear that it would take me away from Christ!

Thank God I have a brain… and I use it… a lot.

Good post. I have two nieces, both of whom have read every Harry Potter book and the Narnia collection (I don’t know about Lord of the Rings).

It’s fiction. That means it’s make believe. My nieces are stronger in their faith than I am. They are both good Catholics and neither has any intention of ever leaving the Church. They are also both extremely intelligent and use their brains; one was valedictorian of her high school class.

I have no worries about them. They have embraced Catholicism fully and they know the difference between fiction and reality.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Dear estesbob,

Cordial greetinngs and hope all is well.

Not necessarily. It is highly probable that Rowling’s series has been a global success because it is about a fantasy world - a world that so many of the young like to inhabit. They prefer to hide away in an imaginative fictional universe, as that is preferable to engaging with the harsh realities of life.

Moreover, that Rowling has managed to captivate and dupe millions with her morally inferior series only serves to underscore the fact that there is a lowered public opinion, both within and without the Church, that urgently needs to be raised. Former generations would not have touched these books with a barge pole because they would have seen them for what they. Indeed, the literati of that day would have dismissed the Potter novels as utterly unworthy and inferior texts, likely to corrupt good morals and arouse an unhealthy interest in the dark arts, thus leading the young from the path of virtue into error and sin.

The Potter series could only ever mesmerize the masses in a superficial and frivilous age such as the one in which our lot is cast. Talk about mens senses being dulled and blunted!

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Dear Portrait,

Thank you for a most excellent post. I haven’t read the Harry Potter books but now I fully intend to buy and read them, or if possible, borrow them from the library. After reading a good part of this thread I have to admit I vehemently disagree with your statements and I am looking forward to a wonderful good read this weekend (or within the next week). As it is snowing outside I expect to enjoy myself with a bracing hot cup of flowery jasmine tea, the presence of my cats and puppy cuddled up with me, and a good book. Delightful. I have no doubt Harry Potter will fit the bill. From what I have read so far, the books sound astoundingly splendid. I am sure that I will not be disappointed.

Peace to you.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

You’re right in clarifying my points, though I would add that it is a “grave spiritual threat” primarily because reading the Potter books contributes to an overall tendency towards spiritual and intellectual laziness. We become accustomed to entertainment without substance and begin to pursue it in all areas of life. I would not say that Harry Potter is the issue so much as it is more an indication of a general trend.

This is an ignorant interpretation of the data, though, because - in this particular case - Harry Potter is not “entertainment without substance.” The series has already generated volumes of criticism. I’m particularly fascinated by the quasi-structuralist response from writers like John Granger. I think the best example I know of from him of just how complex and intellectually and spiritually engaging Harry Potter can be is his book The Deathly Hallows Lectures.

Harry Potter is simple in its writing style, no doubt. But verbal complexity is not the only route to literary profundity. The poetry of pre-Romantic poet William Blake is also also most often very simple and readable, but it’s still provoked a lot of critical responses.

With your ending point, I am exactly on the opposite, I think the reader has to put the Christian themes in HP - or at least overlook a good deal that clouds what Christian themes might be intended by the author.

Same goes here - this is simply incorrect. The specificity of individual points presented in critics’ discussions of Harry Potter’s Christian elements makes those elements unmistakable to the educated reader.

And even the uneducated reader of the series will have subtly experienced the spiritual, moral, and theological truths it impresses upon its readers.

 

[Mumbles140]

A major difference…

You are claiming that any book worth reading should have to be written from a Christian point of view. Whatever secondary details you add to support this, that is your claim. I’m certain the Cat in the Hat wasn’t written from a Christian viewpoint, there are ‘magical’ elements involved in it. Should this be banned from libraries? In regards to the term ‘magic’, you have been shown examples of Lewis using the terms white magic, magic, spellbook, divination, etc. So clearly, those Christian authors do use those terms as such. Also, you claim Potter is involved with ‘Occult’ magic, but please specify on this. There are magical potions in Narnia and Middle Earth just as in Potter; there is divination; spell books; spell casting; and even the wand. Though Gandalf’s may be much larger (a staff, actually), it is understood that a wizard must have his staff/wand to use his magic.

…In the Potter books magic is dependent on some sort of supernatural source, and can be learned and taught, to better or worse degrees…

**See, you are mistaken again, because magic cannot be learned in the Potter series as you are describing it. It is something you are born with, and not everyone is born with it, even if both parents are magical, it doesn’t necessarily follow that their child will also be magical. You really sound quite ridiculous claiming this ‘supernatural source’ like all you need to do is buy some magic beans and poof you can make balls of fire shoot from your eyes. Furthermore, I would state that Gandalf and Saruman are in fact men, but the distinction is that they are men of magic, and are thus known as wizards. What precisely do you think the definition of a wizard is? It is not separate from a man, it is merely a classification of one. Even Sauron himself (per the Silmarillion) was initially man, who himself became power by the evil Valar Morgoth. I will agree that the elves are a different species, but claiming they are ‘like human but not’ is simply making unsubstantiated statements presented as facts. Did not Saruman and Gandalf belong to the same order, and Saruman was the chief of that order?

Also, as has been pointed out, Lucy Pevensie, a human child, is actually able to cast spells from a spellbook. Based on your arguments, this should be much more alarming than anything in Harry Potter. If nothing else, please explain why this is okay, because this is the closest to the real Occult out of any of the three series.**

In Narnia you do have a witch but she is regarded as and clearly shown to be evil and no question remains on the matter…From whence are the powers derived that are used in the Potter books?

**Now you are finally saying that Father Amorth did contradict himself, because a differentiation can be made over good magic and dark magic, and you are claiming that it is from the source. Rowling, on this point, is much more Christian with her application. Those who are magical have ‘gifts’ that are given to them as soon as their life begins. Then, it is up to the individual to decide how to use those gifts. Rowling doesn’t care about ‘the source’. Which, by the way, you never show how the Witch being evil proves she appropriated her powers, unless of course she was human first who learned magic, but this deflates your previous argument above. But back to the idea of ‘source’. It doesn’t matter to Rowling where it came from, what matters is what you do with it. None of us can choose what gifts from the Holy Spirit we receive. Someone could be very wise, understanding, and well spoken, which could draw many people to their cause. That person could be Pope John Paul II, who was a beacon of light to people of all faiths, or it could be the anti-Christ. Same gifts, very different applications.

What is most ‘human’ about all of this is that she doesn’t purport for someone to be good or evil all the time. There are moments of humanity by the bad guys (look at Malfoy’s inability to kill Dumbledore) and moments of bad actions made by the good guys (Harry’s use of Sectumsempra), and this mimics real life. However, for those who have read the series or seen the movies, there is clearly no doubt about who is on what side - it is simply admitting that all people sin, and no one is inherently evil - it is learned, but never too late to repent (again, see Malfoy example).**

Well she has no qualms in declaring to a group of impressionable young Potter fans that one of her key characters is a homosexual…

Please abandon this line of matter with the homosexuality statement. Myself and others have presented many arguments that you have either ignored or been unable to answer. Continuing on this further without answering those questions is a slap in the face, and shows your unwillingness to acknowledge opposing ideas supported by facts and references, as well as Catholic teaching! If I claimed that using a red pen was a sin, I suspect you would explain how it isn’t. So, if later in a conversation, I brought up that it was a sin, would you not be frustrated? Wouldn’t you hoped that you could show me my errors and change my mind, or at least that if I was unable to refute, I would simply leave the point alone? You have no explanation with fact or reference or Church teaching to support your claim. And when we show you are wrong, you say that it may be as we describe it, but since she is from a ‘liberal’ Christian church, surely she couldn’t have meant it precisely as it were. This is becoming more of a joke now when you bring it up, and I sincerely wish you either respond to our previous statements or leave it be.

Good day, and I will return tomorrow (traveling to my parents for the day).

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

the Potter books are undeniably in a different league altogether, as is freely admitted by men on both sides of the debate.

The Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Harry Potter aren’t exactly “in the same league,” it’s true.

But actually, from both a literary perspective and a fantasy perspective, Narnia is way structurally closer to Harry Potter (overt fantasy elements, strong dichotomy between coexisting magical and “normal” realms, strong symbolism, psychological realism) than to Lord of the Rings (no allegory, subtler, epic genre). Just saying.

Now the first thing that men need to appreciate is that both Lewis and Tolkein are writing from at least a Christian point of view. Rowling is decidedly not.

Thematically, structurally, and symbolically, the assertion that Rowling is not writing from a Christian point of view is demonstrably false.

Those authors you will find never use the term ‘magic’ themselves, it is always ascribed by an outsider, namely the reader.

Untrue. Check out Narnia again. Words like “magic” (including “white magic” and “black magic”), “spellbook,” and “casting spells” are used all the time.

Thus, for example, in The Lord of the Rings, what we might call ‘magic’ is a natural ability of the elves, which is recognized as such. They (the elves) have it and they cannot teach it anyone else.

Exactly, and the same is true for Rowling’s “witches” and “wizards.” Like Tolkien’s elves, they’re a different kind of person, and they have powers - natural powers - that are simply unavailable to humans like me and you.

In the Potter books magic is dependent on some sort of supernatural source, and can be learned and taught, to better or worse degrees.

No, Portrait - we’ve been trying to tell you that magic in Harry Potter has no supernatural source; it has no invocational properties whatsoever. That’s what sets it so safely apart from real-world occult practices. In the real world, no one can make an object float across the room to them by waving a stick and saying “Accio,” and everyone knows that.

And while Rowling’s “witches” and “wizards” do hone and expand their abilities through training, those abilities are ultimately innate - totally nontransferable to regular humans.

In an interview, Rowling was even asked if “Muggles” (ordinary humans) could do potions, since that doesn’t seem to require any spellwork. Rowling was actually very careful to strongly imply that the answer is no: ordinary humans in her world cannot even do that. There are no exceptions in Rowling’s fantasy to the divide between the abilities of magical and Muggle individuals.

In Narnia you do have a witch but she is regarded as and clearly shown to be evil and no question remains on the matter. Thus as far as her magical ability is concerned, she has appropriated powers that are not even rightfully hers. In other words, Aslan, the representation of goodness, uses powers that do come from a source of goodness. That source is the one who, as the creator of Narnia, has *“legitimate authority over all things”, *and has ultimate control over that power.

**And yet Lucy - an ordinary human - does magic in Dawn Treader. So does Caspian in Prince Caspian when he blows Queen Susan’s horn. These acts - which the books do describe as “magic” and as “spells” - are presented as good and a part of Aslan’s system.

So there we have Lewis dividing “good” magic from “evil” magic and presenting some spells - the good ones - as actually coming from God. By your logic, children who read Narnia may seek out how to do real magic, thinking that Christ approves of it.**

 

[styrgwillidar]

Same goes here - this is simply incorrect. The specificity of individual points presented in critics’ discussions of Harry Potter’s Christian elements makes those elements unmistakable to the educated reader.

And even the uneducated reader of the series will have subtly experienced the spiritual, moral, and theological truths it impresses upon its readers.

This is exactly why I can’t be dismissive of Rowlings work, and hesitate at concluding the inconsistencies in characters is completely unintentional. As you discuss it, the complexity becomes apparent despite the simplicity of language and the target audience being developing children.

Some folks do in fact see Christian themes.
Some folks do in fact see, at the very least as masha points out, cloudiness obscuring the christian themes.

I have to concede at least that much to masha, or I can’t explain the thread lasting over 700 posts. And I think in some ways you’re conceding mashas point that exposure to art (good and bad) has a subtle influence on the reader. Because you agree with me, we both see HP influencing to the positive. Those seeing it as bad art take the opposite side, that it subtly erodes or at least seduces the reader into accepting lowered standards. Those who see an overall decline in the pop-arts in our current culture, I think, then lump HP in with pop-culture overall. HP is undeniably popular, but I don’t see it being popular from trying to fit into or express current pop culture themes. I do agree, that much in pop-culture does support the idea of declining values, lowered expectations from art, and is far more superficial than in the past- less challenging mentally.

I won’t deny people perceive it differently. I can only fall back on the explanation that the view of the audience is determined by attitudes they bring to the work. But was it Rowlings goal (or even responsibility) to ensure that no person could possibly misunderstand, misinterpret or have misplaced motivations to act based on her work?