Church Exorcist and Pro Life Priest Warns Against Harry Potter

[Portrait]

But sometimes we need to see examples of the fall so we can see the need for redemption. Would you agree? If every single piece of literature we read had those who were sinless, we wouldn’t see the desperation when people realize they have lost that grace. If the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was taken away from us when Edmund betrays his family, we wouldn’t see the need for his penance, and we wouldn’t learn of the sacrifice and resurrection of Aslan. I fear you do not see the forest for the trees.

Also, I know you may be busy, but as a reminder, I will request, in every future post, that you address the issue of Lucy Pevensie I mentioned in a previous post. If you can answer that without using the author’s POV as a defense, then we can have something real to discuss. If not, it would then appear that using a combination of Fr. Amorth and other sources has lead you into a contradiction of views, which ultimately means hypocrisy.

Dear Mumbles,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your reply to my post.

Look here my dear chap, I understand that you want to champion and defend the Potter books against my allegedly unsubstantiated criticisms, but I feel that you are choosing to brush aside the manifestly obvious fact that these novels are problematic. Contrary to what you assert, the Potter tales are replete with insidious dangers and do constitute culturally unhealthy reading material.

For one thing the distinction between good and evil is very nebulous throughout the series. Although it is argued that the books contain a strong moral message and depict the battle between good and evil, this simply cannot be sustained and one observes, time after time, constant contradiction. Characters who were portrayed as evil turn out to be good, whilst the good chaps end up being the villians of the peice. A clear example of this vagueness is Sirius Black, the escaped murderer who turns out to be Potter’s “godfather”, falsely accused and wrongly convicted. Throughout the majority of Book 3, he is shown to be a dangerous and evil wizard, though in the end we discover how much he cared for and helped Potter’s parent’s before they died.

At the end of the Fourth Book we see Mad Eye Moody, who has been assisting Potter to avoid punishment all year, turns out to be a Death Eater. Then we find out that it was actually one of those high up in the Ministry of Magic, who has been imbibing a Polyjuice potion all year to make himself looklike Moody.

Even Potter himself, who is supposedly the ‘hero’ of the tales, bears a striking resemblance to the Voldmort character, his mortal enemy and the most evil wizard around. However, they both can converse with snakes; they were both orphans; the scar that Potter sustained from Voldmort’s attack burns when Voldmort is close by and they both use wands from the feathers of the same phoenix.

So just who is good and who is bad in the novels? Every book in the series has at least one character that turns out to be other than how he is portrayed. Please do not misconstrue my meaning here, I am not saying that plot twist or a surprise ending is wrong and some of the best authors employ that technique. However, a problem surely emerges when too many of your characters are unreliably good or evil; when you never quite know who’s who or what side he is on. Moreover, those characters who are decidedly one way or the other are not usually portrayed in a good light, or at least they change to become what everyone else wants. Either way, indisputable messages are plainly clear to the young reader.

Hermione, for example, one of the boy Potter’s best friends, was originally ostrasized by Potter and his friend Ron because she was a goody goody. She always did her homework and always revised for her tests and to add insult to injury she neve allowed her friends to copy her work or test answers - in fact a model young woman worthy of emulation. As a consequence, she was not considered worthy to their friend, until the day she told a lie to a teacher in order to cover up for the boys. Suddenly, this wins their respect and she was now permitted to join them in their capers. From henceforth, she was the brains behind all of their exploits, from teaching them how to stealthly steal ingredients for a potion using deceitful means in procuring a restricted book from the library. Thus, essentially the message is that if one is not automatically ‘cool’, then lying will certainly make one so. This is unacceptable in books aimed primarily at children and young people who are highly influenceable. Our decent and respectable youth who conform and obey are increasingly under much peer pressure already to prove that they are “one of the lads” and most definitely not an ‘uncool’ goody goody. The warped message of the Potter books will only serve to brainwash them into thinking that going astray is the right thing to do when one is young.

Of course the Potter books are a by-product of our relativistic age, for they are hardly consonant with the world of the pre-1960’s. They embody the world view of their avante-guard author who is, alas, infused with progressive thinking and not with historic orthodox Christianity, as the above examples evince most clearly. That J.K. Rowling has a confused and vague morality is something which admits of know doubt, if her Potter series is anything to go by.

Sorry dear friends but that is my final offering today. Over and out.

May God bless all of you abundantly, even if the contention between us is very sharp on this thorny issue.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[masha]

( I know I just officially bowed out, but I happen to be at my in-laws today, and I really couldn’t help but respond, after this, I will return to my Officially Bowed Out status - sorry if this throws anyone off.)

Portrait.
I’m incredibly disturbed by some of your posts. Banning books is not in anyway the appropriate way to form the minds of the faithful in Truth. The Church (both universal and domestic) does not exist to “shield” the faithful from all dissenting views and negative influences but to create in the faithful the love of truth and beauty which enables the faithful to pursue the good of their own free will. Shielding creates ignorance, not innocence, and if our children are to engage the culture, they must be aware of the culture. Banning books does not encourage awareness in any sense, but only builds resentment, fear, and ignorance.

The concept that one can critically review a work without having read it is not, as you seem to think, an ancient notion that has been discarded. No intellectually honest individual who has been formed in any sort of academic understanding would consider this valid. I don’t mean to be harsh, but please realize that it is not a modern notion, it is an academic fact: You cannot critically review a book without having read it critically. I respect and understand your decision to avoid reading the Potter books based on the advice of Fr. Amorth - that is entirely valid, but you can’t call it critical analysis of the books, it is obedience the spiritual advice of a respected priest. And you cannot consider your having read a critics analysis of the books equal to having read the books - all critics are human, they present their own interpretations of the works they read, and reading those interpretations cannot be considered equal to studying the work itself.

There is also no reason to condemn an entire genre - rock music is perfectly able to produce good works: works that encourage thought, promote beauty, and pursue truth. Judging an entire genre is act of ignorance - especially one so varied. Remember that opera was equally disdained at one point in the Church’s history, would you reject it today?

Please, work to form your opinions carefully and avoid reacting for reactions sake - if we seek for evil everywhere, we are less likely to be believed when we warn of real dangers.

Little Soldier ~
I understand your reaction against the use of “men” to refer to humanity in general, but keep in mind, Portrait is probably not being sexist. “Men” is still considered the gender-neutral term for both sexes in many cases, as “men/women,” “s/he,” or a continual switch between the sexes is often confusing in writing. I’m sure Portrait is not intentially leaving out women in his or her posts.

Alright, I’m back to my visit, sorry to interupt a conversation I left.

Blessings to all,
Masha

 

[mdrummer5]

That’s right, you missed the lengthy Don’t Support Devilish Music(Rock Music)!!! thread that was mercifully closed last August (after 15 months and 723 posts). If you want to read Portrait’s articulation of his views on rock music, you’ll find much to read there.

During his talk,he mentioned bands and singers like John Lennon,Beatles,Eagles,Beach Boysand more!I was shocked to hear that these people were involved in Satanism!!.

WOW… The Beach Boys… Satanic… riiiiiggggghhhhht… I vaguely remember the accusation and it having something to do with a relationship with Charles Manson and a couple random quotes about some kind of meditation… but I don’t recall any member of The Beach Boys coming out and saying “Yes I worship the Devil” Because they don’t.

I’ve started to wonder if people like this and like Portrait are one day going to flip out like Kevin Spacey from “Seven” and just start a vicious, well calculated killing spree knocking off “sinners” as if they are acting on behalf of God.

They certainly seem to have the same frame of mind.

Edit: But just imagine the alternate lyrics for Surfin’ USA.

“Everybody loves satan… satan usa”

I bet if we listen to it enough we’ll find out that’s what the REAL lyrics are!!! The devil is EVERYWHERE!!! HIDE!!!

Seriously… this is getting stupid.

 

[Mumbles140]

Look here…

You should really use your intellect and see that these books aren’t problematic, but your close-mindedness is. If you had something which I couldn’t logically refute, then I would have a change of heart, but you don’t. Logically, we have used your own words to show the contradiction of your arguments, but you have yet to acknowledge the faults in your logic.

…Although it is argued that the books contain a strong moral message…A clear example of this vagueness is Sirius Black…

First, the strong moral message has not been refuted. As for characters who ‘appear’ bad or good, let’s look at your examples. Sirius Black, a man wrongly accused and unable to defend himself. In fact, he says the only reason he survived in Azkaban was that he knew he was innocent, and they could never take that away from him. Yes, as part of the ‘suspense’, Harry learns about the incident causing Black’s imprisonment, but it is discovered to be a frame job by an actual follower of Voldemort. When Black and another friend want to kill him for this, Harry refuses to let them, knowing Pettigrew will simply go back to Voldemort (which he does). Harry’s compassion is repaid in the 7th book when Harry is imprisoned by Death Eaters, and Pettigrew releases him because Harry spared his life. So are you really arguing that books are bad because they have suspense and someone is framed by a legitimate bad guy? But then, alas, the bad guy even repents before his death! How tragic for a sinner to ask for forgiveness, right?

At the end of the Fourth Book we see Mad Eye Moody…

Again, the use of suspense. The point is to show the great lengths Voldemort goes to for trying to kill Potter. And it is the son of someone from the Ministry, not someone from the Ministry itself, who does this as a faithful servant to Voldemort. So the evil person is doing things ‘the wrong way’ to try and win the trust and admiration of Potter, to then lure him into a trap. But then, the trap is revealed and the real Moody, a moral and valiant auror (people who defend against Voldemort and Death Eaters), helps restore order. I don’t see how this proves anything. If suspense is your issue, then throw out any Hitchcock or other movie of similar nature. I really don’t see the relevance to this making the series ‘culturally unwholesome’.

Even Potter himself, who is supposedly the ‘hero’ of the tales, bears a striking resemblance to the Voldmort character…

The resemblance is there because of the mark on Harry. Voldemort tried to kill him as an infant, but Harry’s mother sacrificed herself for Harry, and her love created a bond that Voldemort couldn’t break. However, Voldemort actually left part of his soul in Harry, which is marked by the lightning bolt. The significance of this is the idea of the Original Sin. Something we are born with, brought on by the actions of evil, and it is why man is flawed. This is used throughout the series as a jumping point to show it is our choices and actions that define who we are. I have mentioned the discussion between Harry and Dumbledore at the end of Book 5, where Harry and Voldemort can read each other’s thoughts. Harry is afraid he will turn out like Voldemort, but Dumbledore explains that Harry understands love, friendship, and truth, and that is what makes him different. Your example is like saying we shouldn’t watch old Charlie Chaplin films because he may have had some German in him and looks a bit like Hitler.

…However, a problem surely emerges when too many of your characters are unreliably good or evil; when you never quite know who’s who or what side he is on…

The funny thing is, that it is always the bad guys using the tools of deceit. It is the Death Eater Pettigrew who frames Black, and it is the Death Eather Crouch who imprisons and impersonates Moody to lure Harry into a death trap.

As for too many characters, I’m not sure who you are speaking of. It is clearly shown from the beginning (at least to the reader with faith in truth) that Snape is good, serving as a spy on Voldemort to make up for past offenses against the good guys. But I don’t need to go through all of the characters. If you want to talk about specific ones, gladly, but the thing is - this mimics life. There may be people who are good and then fall away - the path to Hell is paved with good intentions. Also, there are those who were bad and then repented. Should we not praise those who turn away from darkness before it is too late?

Hermione, for example, one of the boy Potter’s best friends, was originally ostrasized…

This is quite a strong term. Elementary school aged boys (10 years old is roughly 3rd or 4th grade I think?) befriend a girl, but playfully tease her about being a brainiac. As they mature, this virtue is praised by them and the importance of a good education gets them through tough times on several occasions. But none of their actions are ever mean-spirited, and clearly not ostracizing.

Of course the Potter books are a by-product of our relativistic age, for they are hardly consonant with the world of the pre-1960’s…

It all makes sense. You cannot stand anything post 1960s. That is when rock and roll began to be mainstream, it was the marking of the rebellious age from the strictness of the WWII generation, saw an increased use of drugs, and it marks the turn towards modernization in the world. Look, I’m not saying that those things are good, but that doesn’t condemn everything also that time period. Even the Church saw that the history of the world was changing rapidly at that point, and even though some may disagree on the spirit of it, that is where the Holy Spirit guided us.

Also, please respond to the issue of Lucy Pevensie.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Hello again, Portrait. I thought I’d jump back in the discussion. Did you see my request for you in this post?

Look here my dear chap, I understand that you want to champion and defend the Potter books against my allegedly unsubstantiated criticisms, but I feel that you are choosing to brush aside the manifestly obvious fact that these novels are problematic.

We’re not brushing aside the conclusion that these novels are morally or spiritually unhealthy or problematic - we manifestly denounce it.

You write as if we ought to accept your assertion about Harry Potter as a starting point for the discussion, which is absurd, since that assertion is the very thing in dispute!

For one thing the distinction between good and evil is very nebulous throughout the series.

Refuted time and time again. The Harry Potter series starkly and sharply divides good from evil.

Characters who were portrayed as evil turn out to be good, whilst the good chaps end up being the villians of the peice.

Even if your examples below were valid - which they’re not, and I’ll explain why - the vast majority of characters are consistently portrayed as firmly on one side or another:

Good - Hagrid, Hermione, the Weasleys (all of them), the members of the Order, Luna, Dobby, Neville, his grandmother, etc.

Bad - Voldemort, the Malfoys (all of them), Umbridge, the Death Eaters (all of them), Bellatrix, etc.

I could have gone on for paragraphs and paragraphs, Portrait. From the very first novel - with Harry’s stereotypical reaction to Gryffindors as good and Slytherins as nasty - the characters are very clearly good or evil.

A clear example of this vagueness is Sirius Black, the escaped murderer who turns out to be Potter’s “godfather”, falsely accused and wrongly convicted. Throughout the majority of Book 3, he is shown to be a dangerous and evil wizard, though in the end we discover how much he cared for and helped Potter’s parent’s before they died.

Terrible example, because this change in perspective is due to a greater awareness of the facts. Black is not “shown to be a dangerous and evil wizard” in Prisoner of Azkaban - rather, he is falsely assumed to be.

Once the real facts are out, obviously the perspective changes. How is this relativism?

At the end of the Fourth Book we see Mad Eye Moody, who has been assisting Potter to avoid punishment all year, turns out to be a Death Eater. Then we find out that it was actually one of those high up in the Ministry of Magic, who has been imbibing a Polyjuice potion all year to make himself looklike Moody.

Terrible example for the same reason: Alastor “Mad-Eye” Moody is a good guy, period. Barty Crouch, Jr. - who impersonated him in Goblet of Fire - is a bad guy, period.

The only surprise or transition is the discovery that the individual we thought to be the good Moody is actually the evil Crouch.

Even Potter himself, who is supposedly the ‘hero’ of the tales, bears a striking resemblance to the Voldmort character, his mortal enemy and the most evil wizard around. However, they both can converse with snakes; they were both orphans; the scar that Potter sustained from Voldmort’s attack burns when Voldmort is close by and they both use wands from the feathers of the same phoenix.

This actually destroys moral relativism by exposing these similarities as superficial and anchoring the obvious difference between Potter and Voldemort in what really matters: the moral value of the choices they make.

Furthermore, Harry only has these similarities because - spoiler alert - he has a horcrux inside his soul that Voldemort unwittingly made when he murdered Harry’s parents.

Once this last piece of Voldemort’s soul is vanquished, these similarities disappear forever: no more talking to snakes, no more burning scar (though the physical appearance remains), etc.

So just who is good and who is bad in the novels?

See my above list. The Harry Potter series is as black-and-white as it gets. Rowling very clearly presents some characters as good and others as evil.

Moreover, those characters who are decidedly one way or the other are not usually portrayed in a good light, or at least they change to become what everyone else wants.

What do you mean? The obviously good characters - Hagrid, the Weasleys, Lupin, McGonagall, Dumbledore - are constantly “portrayed in a good light.”

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Hermione, for example, one of the boy Potter’s best friends, was originally ostrasized by Potter and his friend Ron because she was a goody goody. She always did her homework and always revised for her tests and to add insult to injury she neve allowed her friends to copy her work or test answers - in fact a model young woman worthy of emulation. As a consequence, she was not considered worthy to their friend, until the day she told a lie to a teacher in order to cover up for the boys. Suddenly, this wins their respect and she was now permitted to join them in their capers. From henceforth, she was the brains behind all of their exploits, from teaching them how to stealthly steal ingredients for a potion using deceitful means in procuring a restricted book from the library. Thus, essentially the message is that if one is not automatically ‘cool’, then lying will certainly make one so. This is unacceptable in books aimed primarily at children and young people who are highly influenceable.

The only “message” this part of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone conveys is that not all authority is sacrosanct, that not all rules are always necessary or right.

Surely you don’t want kids to turn into a bunch of statist, “my country - right or wrong” brainwashed zombies?

**Besides, you neglect the most powerful example of the consequence of rules in that book. At the end of the novel, Harry and his friends sneak out to try to protect the Philosopher’s Stone. Sneaking out at night is breaking the rules. Their friend Neville Longbottom tries to stop them in obedience to school rules, and they put a full body-bind on him in order to incapacitate him.

Then, at the end of year banquet, Dumbledore rewards Neville for standing up to his friends in promoting obedience, and it is those House points awarded to Neville that push Gryffindor House into the lead and therefore into victory that year. Neville literally wins the House Cup for his house by standing up to Harry, Ron, and Hermione about their rule-breaking**.

Don’t you see, Portrait, how incorrect this charge of relativism is?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Portrait, are you now ignoring my questions? I don’t go away. Sometimes I’m pulled away, protesting and screaming all the while, but I NEVER leave of my own accord..

You said you would respond to my post (the one about Fantasia), but I have seen nothing. I don’t want to think poorly of your behavior, so please respond to my post and address the points I have made. I have tried to remain charitable to you but I have a sneaking hunch that you don’t have an answer for me or that your silence is your answer.

Just in case you have forgotten, here are my questions (again):

Would you allow your children to see Disney’s Fantasia, with the part of Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer’s Apprentice?

Do you believe in censorship? Do you believe in burning books?

After reviewing this thread I have noticed that a few posters have repeatedly asked you to respond to their points and questions and you never do.

With all due respect, it is somewhat disingenuous IMHO to state that you will respond to a post and then to ignore it. I can certainly understand if you are busy. I’m quite willing to wait. It’s only been about a day. But please respond. It doesn’t have to be a long, abstruse response (please don’t write a long, abstruse response about any of my questions and points), just a response which provides a coherent answer.

Thank you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Little Soldier ~
I understand your reaction against the use of “men” to refer to humanity in general, but keep in mind, Portrait is probably not being sexist. “Men” is still considered the gender-neutral term for both sexes in many cases, as “men/women,” “s/he,” or a continual switch between the sexes is often confusing in writing. I’m sure Portrait is not intentially leaving out women in his or her posts.

Blessings to all,
Masha

Hi Masha. I’m just posting this in case you happen to check back on the thread to see what’s going on. I know that “man” is considered the gender-neutral term for both sexes. This is what I stated:

“And Portrait, I do hate to bring this up, but your language is uh, really sexist. I’ve noticed that for several posts you refer only to “men.” It might surprise you to know that approximately half the world’s adult population is not composed of “men” but women. Again, I mean no offense to you or to anybody. But your continued use of “men” offends me and** I don’t think you mean to do that.**”

[bolding not in my original post]

One of the reasons the word “man” is considered gender neutral is simply because people insist on using the word “man” to be gender-neutral. It does offend me. But please note the bolded part of my response. I don’t think anyone in this thread is being purposely sexist in his/her language. Yet, even without intending to be sexist, one can appear to be sexist by using exclusively “male” terms.

This may have not been the proper place to introduce this, but it was my opportunity and I took it. In a psychology course I took years ago one of the female students told the female professor that she had noticed that most of the language this professor was using referred only to males. The professor agreed and said she would try to use “male” terms 50% of the time and “female” terms 50% of the time.

A few weeks later a male student complained, stating that the language now consisted almost exclusively of “female” terms. But someone had taped the lectures and was keeping track. It turned out that now the terms referring to males were being used even more often than before.

In order to change the prevailing attitudes of the time, it is sometimes necessary to point out problems. That’s all I’m doing. I’m certainly not saying that we need to use what has been jokingly referred to as “PC gender-neutral language” such as “person-hole cover” and “femail box” but some changes need to be made. Now we often use the term “firefighter” instead of “fireman” and the new term is really more descriptive of what a person who fights fires really does.

When I was a child I noticed that commercials advertising games always seemed to follow the same pattern: if four people were playing, the players would consists of a Caucasian father, a Caucasian boy, a Caucasian girl, and an African-American child, usually male. The African-American child lost first, the father second, the girl third, and the Caucasian boy always won. I also noticed that well over 90% of the cartoon characters I watched were male.

This has changed. I hope that our use of language changes, too.

This is off-topic and I realize that. I won’t refer to it again in this thread. I just wanted to clarify my position. I stand by my words, especially the following: I mean no offense to you or to anybody.

.

 

[Portrait]

Portrait, are you now ignoring my questions? I don’t go away. Sometimes I’m pulled away, protesting and screaming all the while, but I NEVER leave of my own accord..

You said you would respond to my post (the one about Fantasia), but I have seen nothing. I don’t want to think poorly of your behavior, so please respond to my post and address the points I have made. I have tried to remain charitable to you but I have a sneaking hunch that you don’t have an answer for me or that your silence is your answer.

Just in case you have forgotten, here are my questions (again):

Would you allow your children to see Disney’s Fantasia, with the part of Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer’s Apprentice?

Do you believe in censorship? Do you believe in burning books?

After reviewing this thread I have noticed that a few posters have repeatedly asked you to respond to their points and questions and you never do.

With all due respect, it is somewhat disingenuous IMHO to state that you will respond to a post and then to ignore it. I can certainly understand if you are busy. I’m quite willing to wait. It’s only been about a day. But please respond. It doesn’t have to be a long, abstruse response (please don’t write a long, abstruse response about any of my questions and points), just a response which provides a coherent answer.

Thank you.

Dear LittleSoldier,

Cordial greetings and a very good day to you. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying to your posts.

First, as to the Disney film Fantasia this, I think, would fall into much the same category as a tradtional fantasy tale and I do not think that even the most ardent critic of Potter would find anything untoward in it. It is surely a matter of distinguishing between things which essentially differ in their whole import and general moral tone.

As for the issue of censorship, I thought that I had given that matter fairly lengthy treatment given that it was not the topic under review. You will recollect that I stated that I thought it was a very sad day when our Church ceased to have an index of prohibited books as this did much to ensure that the faithful were protected from unsavoury books that could corrupt their faith and morals. Moreover, I said that in the light of the prevalent distracting and demoralizing influences in the decadent times in which our lot is cast, a self-imposed censorship was called for with reference to films, TV, music and printed matter. Furthermore, I said that the need for official Church censorship was never more needed than it is today. Trust that this makes my stance on the matter clear. Incidently, it is important to bear in mind that the Church never prescribed the literature which Catholics were to read, but only the literature that they were not to read. Her main objective was to forbid any literature which might poison the mind and soul, a very admirable objective if I may say.

With regards to the burning of books, no I do not feel that we need to go to those lengths, though there is biblical precedent for such drastic action in the Book of Acts, where “a number of those who practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all” (see 19: 11-20). What men will do when they are brought to a true state of penitence over their sins! How we need such a revival in these days of unprecedented spiritual declension.

Finally, your remarks about my terminology being “sexist” is rather sad as it exemplifies the very point I have been continually making about becoming assimilated by the spirit of the age and its very warped thinking. The use of the term “men”, “man” or “mankind” are actually gender-neutral terms for both men and women and so their usage does not denote any prejudice against women on the grounds of their sex. No offence is, or ever has been, intended by my use of these terms. Little Soldier, forgive me but it seems that you have bought into the silly politically correct thinking that is now increasingly ubiquitous in our Western world and is making the lives of everyone terribly miserable because everyone is so worried that they might just give offence. One will only “appear sexist” by continually using exclusively male terms, to those who’s minds are already saturated with godless politically correct ideology. If my constant use of these terms helps to change this prevailing perverted ideology, then I think that I will have won a veritable victory for common sense and, dare I say it, for mankind.

God bless you and thankyou for your replies to my posts.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Mumbles140]

Dear LittleSoldier,

Cordial greetings and a very good day to you. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying to your posts.

First, as to the Disney film Fantasia this, I think, would fall into much the same category as a tradtional fantasy tale and I do not think that even the most ardent critic of Potter would find anything untoward in it. It is surely a matter of distinguishing between things which essentially differ in their whole import and general moral tone.

So now you are differentiating again because it is a ‘traditional fantasy tale’? Is this because it was made pre 1960s, or do you actually have a rubric? Because it has been argued that the Potter series is consistent with British fantasy literature of long ago. I also see that you are going with the moral tone, which is in opposition to Father Amorth’s comment about all magic being evil. Now, this wouldn’t fall under your ‘Christian viewpoint defense’ because it wasn’t Christian. So I guess that leaves us with the ‘moral tone’, but you have yet to show how Potter is immoral. You make claims about plot twists as being immoral, and I’m not sure who your source was for that, but they were very unaware of the matters.

…Furthermore, I said that the need for official Church censorship was never more needed than it is today…

Perhaps the Church feels now is the time that Catholics are educating themselves on what is appropriate, and sees that wisdom and lessons can be gained from many sources.

With regards to the burning of books, no I do not feel that we need to go to those lengths, though there is biblical precedent for such drastic action in the Book of Acts, where “a number of those who practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all”…

This claim would only hold true to Potter (and Narnia) if the Bible was fictional, but these were real people practicing magic and Occult arts in real life, and through the grace of God repented. It really is impossible to assign certain sins to fictional works. Should we not read ‘Of Mice and Men’ because it could lead people to euthanize those with developmental disabilities?

Also, please respond to the issue of Lucy Pevensie. You’ve given in to the request of others, I believe my post was oldest, and my requests came first. If you are waiting to come up with a response, or find an acceptable source (please provide links/citations so we can review the original material) to argue with, please at least acknowledge that I have repeatedly asked you a question. If you are unable to answer, then we can also debate from there once that point is acknowledged.

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. Mumbles140

Dear Mumbles,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. Again thankyou kindly for the replies to my posts.

Unfortunately, your responses are most unsatisfactory as you have only given your biased interpretation of the Potter narrative and have not effectively refuted the cogent points that I have made against the novels. These are manifestly obvious and I can only remark that there is none so blind as those that will not see. Without in any way wishing to sound uncharitable dear friend (and I mean that with all the sincerity that I can possibly muster), you are, I feel, engaging in sophistry and only offering specious explanations by way of response to my, what I believe, are very formidable arguments. This is why I am so loathed to become embroiled in interminable nuanced arguments about the Potter tales and the classic works of C.S. Lewis and Tolkein, because profitable progress is seldom ever made owing to the stubborn refusal on the part of the Potter supporters to face unpalatable truths.

As far as the literary classics of The Chronicles of Narnia and *The Lord of The Rings *are conerned, the good versus evil element is clearly dilineated, unlike the morally relativistic Potter tales. Moreover, in the Potter tales you find that the authors characterization and plot (even when allowance is made for the suspense element) continually reinforce the evil message that if a man is “nice” or “cool”, if his heart is in the right place and he is brave and loyal to his friends, then basicly he can do whatever he so wishes to combat horrific evil - magic powers being the weapon of choice. This is, of course, thoroughly in accord with Rowling’s very confused notions of authority and thoroughly out of accord with Catholic teaching. Moreover, it is sending out the wrong message to her devoted young readership and cannot be considered as anything less than an insidious danger to impressionable young people.

Although the Potter boy is purportedly “good” in the series, he is not the prototype of heroism that his readers make him out to be. According to the world’s manner of thinking, Potter embodies all that is virtuous and noble, at least as far as possible for pre-adolecent and adolcent boys. Apparently, he is a paragon of courage an loyalty, one who is supposed to be worthy of emulation and awe. Nevertheless, a running theme, in passim, in the entire Potter series is that somehow the end alays justifies the means. Thus every time Potter comes out victorious in some endeavour, invariably he has employed some kind of immoral or at least questionable means to overcome the obstacles in his path.

As an example of this, in the Fourth Book, Potter is forced to enter a Triwizard Tournament, a “*friendly competition” * that had been discontinued several years before because too many people were dying. There is praise for Potter on several occasions for his performance in the competition. However, had he not had other students, ghosts, Minstry employees and professors providing him with the answers to clues and riddles, without which he would never have been able to complete the tasks set before him. Cedric Diggory, the other Hogwarts champion, is commended for his love of fair play and integrity. During the the tournament, he not only informed Potter beforehand what the task would be, but he also took the answers that Potter gave to him (after obtaining them from someone else). At the end of the competition, Moody gives a justification for all this when he states, "cheating’s a traditional part of the Triwizard Tournament and always has been".

With all the charity in the world, one must confess that traditional Christian morals are conspicuous by their absence here. What Catholics would call virtues are either totally wanting in Potter world, or are portrayed fictitously as some other nameless, usually vicious qualities. Sorry my dear fellow but this is as far as the east is from the west when compared to the unambiguous Christian themes that permeate the classics of C.S. Lewis and Tolkein.

Contrary to what you and others are erroneously asserting on this thread, there are many grave problems with the Potter tales and I feel that it is only your blind allegiance to these books that precludes you from seeing that the books are problematic on many counts.

Look here old chap, have you ever wondered why there are many christians that have a passion for the fantasy genre, who adore the works of both Tolkein and Lewis and yet have serious misgivings respecting the Potter books. Why would they have any antecedent dislike of the Potter tales? Surely they would praise and commend the novels if they felt that they possibly could? There is no conceivable reason for them to have an antipathy towards the books or their author, unless of course they felt there were substiantial and compelling grounds for so doing. To suggest that such men are filled with an irrational prejudice against Rowling and her books is, quite frankly, bordering on paranoia, either that or it is a bad case of Potter mania!

If I thought for one moment that these books were culturally sound and wholesome, then I can assure you mumbles that I would have no hesitation in singing their praises from the rooftops and recommending them to the young as jolly good fantasy fiction. However, I, and myriads of other Chrsitians, simply cannot do that and at the same time retain our integrity.

God bless you dear friend and no hard feelings.

Warmest good wishes as always,

Portrait

Pax

Warmest good

 

[mdrummer5]

To suggest that such men are filled with an irrational prejudice against Rowling and her books is, quite frankly, bordering on paranoia, either that or it is a bad case of Potter mania!

The entire post I pulled this from is stupid except this. This is simply ironic.

Portrait you state that Mumbles did not sufficiently refute your stupid claims (and that’s what they are FYI, stupid). But he has, as has EVERYONE else on this thread. You’re just to ignorant to actually read or comprehend what you’re reading.

You also state that the good/bad relationship in Potter isn’t distinct enough. This has been refuted SEVERAL times by SEVERAL people and again you refuse to acknowledge it. And again… if you had the cognitive capacity to read and interpret the books for yourself you’d see that.

BTW… paranoia is asserting that an entire genre of popular culture (rock music) is evil… that would be you. You’re simply terrified of everything that can’t be found in a Christian bookstore. I’m sure that’s how God wants you to live… in fear… well done.

 

[Mumbles140]

Unfortunately…

**False. I have used agreed upon premises, laid undeniable facts, and they have led to inevitable conclusions. I will give you an example below:

Premise - Father Amorth stated that there can be no distinction of good magic and bad magic, because all magic has the signature of the Devil.

Fact 1 - You follow the statements of Father Amorth.

Fact 2 - You also defend the Chronicles of Narnia and the Lord of the Rings.

Fact 3 - The Chronicles and LOTR differentiate between good magic and bad magic.

Conclusion - Your beliefs contradict. You must either abandon Fr. Amorth or reject Chronicles and LOTR.**

As far as the literary classics…

This is not what Fr. Amorth, the Exorcist of Rome states. You are now adding your personal opinion to the facts stated, and there is no room for this in logical argument.

Although the Potter boy is purportedly “good” in the series, he is not the prototype of heroism that his readers make him out to be…

He is made out to be such a hero because he is flawed. He is a teenager, growing up in a tough world. He has no parents, his lone family connection (his Godfather) is murdered by the servant of the man trying to kill him, and he only has his friends and school mates. He has flaws, unknowingly containts a piece of the soul of the Dark Lord in him, but he fights for the truth, for goodness, and against prejudice. The very fact that he isn’t perfect and is relatable makes him such a hero to people. Every real hero has flaws, has doubts, has fears, but is able to put them aside to do what is right. That is what Potter does - that is the heroism he embodies.

As an example of this, in the Fourth Book…

**So you described select bits and pieces of the 4th book. Please explain how this is important to your case. If this is truly the stronghold of your defense, than I fear you are in a house of cards.

Also, you fail to mention that rather than win an event, Harry abandons his certain victory to rescue a young girl unable to be saved by her sister. I think that itself is a wonderful lesson in humility and concern for others - wouldn’t you agree?**

With all the charity in the world, one must confess that traditional Christian morals are conspicuous by their absence here…

You say they lack traditional Christian morals, but we have detailed the importance of the following: Truth, Love, Forgiveness, Repentance, the importance of the Soul after death (notice this isn’t reincarnation, but rather an after-life), Acceptance, the Wrongs of Prejudice and Oppression, doing what is right even when not popular, etc. If these aren’t Christian ideals to you, I don’t know how to continue. Remember that the heroes of Narnia and Middle Earth commit wrongs as well, but you aren’t chastising them.

…I feel that it is only your blind allegiance…

My allegiance stands to my God, my family, and my country. I don’t love these books, but I do detest ignorance, and that is why I continue on this thread. We have provided you with evidence you have not refuted, but you continue posting quotes you don’t even understand or that contradict themselves, but continue parroting the anti-Potter clause. What do you hate about the modern world? Has God abandoned us? Has Satan prevailed? A popular piece of literature which quotes the Bible, upholds ideals consistent with Judeo-Christian virtues, and has Christian allegory and symbolism also happened to be one of the most successful book series ever, and this angers you?

Look here old chap, have you ever wondered…

I never mentioned paranoia, but you have refused to accept logical conclusions and have made it known you despise modern (post 1959) pop culture and media. You are seeing the world through a tainted lens, and that is why you cannot identify the goodness in this series.

If I thought for one moment that these books were culturally sound and wholesome…

BUT YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED HOW THEY ARE CULTURALLY UNWHOLESOME!

Also, let me lay out one more logical argument for you.

Premise: Harry Potter is a serious wrong and should be avoided.

Fact 1: You claimed Potter was bad because it used children (albeit magical children with innate abilities clearly differentiated from non-magical children), they had spellbooks, and there were incantations that could be mimicked in real life.

Fact 2: Lucy Pevenise is a child, used a spellbook to actually cast a spell, and had no innate magical ability.

Conclusion: Based on your reasoning above, you should be more offended by the actions of Lucy Pevensie and reject The Chronicles of Narnia on this matter.

Since this conclusion is inevitable, as was the one above, I now use those as accepted premises.

Premise: Your arguments contradict, stating that you should adhere to Father Amorth’s rejection of all magic and abandon Narnia, yet you defend Narnia even when there are instances worse than your objections to Potter.

Fact 1: You have yet to explain the broad terms you use as objections to Potter.

Fact 2: You have been presented factual evidence and textual references supporting items in Potter you praise in Narnia and Middle Earth.

Conclusion: Your arguments knowingly contradict and are thus illogical, which means you are judging on personal opinion and bias rather than the facts presented.

If nothing else, please directly address the problem with Lucy Pevensie. If there is a fault in my premise or facts, or you feel the conclusion is inevitable, then we can debate from there. If not, then you must either accept my conclusion, or see the 3rd logical argument in this post and debate that.

 

[mdrummer5]

Also, let me lay out one more logical argument for you.

Premise: Harry Potter is a serious wrong and should be avoided.

Fact 1: You claimed Potter was bad because it used children (albeit magical children with innate abilities clearly differentiated from non-magical children), they had spellbooks, and there were incantations that could be mimicked in real life.

Fact 2: Lucy Pevenise is a child, used a spellbook to actually cast a spell, and had no innate magical ability.

Conclusion: Based on your reasoning above, you should be more offended by the actions of Lucy Pevensie and reject The Chronicles of Narnia on this matter.

Since this conclusion is inevitable, as was the one above, I now use those as accepted premises.

Premise: Your arguments contradict, stating that you should adhere to Father Amorth’s rejection of all magic and abandon Narnia, yet you defend Narnia even when there are instances worse than your objections to Potter.

Fact 1: You have yet to explain the broad terms you use as objections to Potter.

Fact 2: You have been presented factual evidence and textual references supporting items in Potter you praise in Narnia and Middle Earth.

Conclusion: Your arguments knowingly contradict and are thus illogical, which means you are judging on personal opinion and bias rather than the facts presented.

If nothing else, please directly address the problem with Lucy Pevensie. If there is a fault in my premise or facts, or you feel the conclusion is inevitable, then we can debate from there. If not, then you must either accept my conclusion, or see the 3rd logical argument in this post and debate that.

Very good point.

Portrait the issue here is this, you’re arguing out of passion for a belief. While this is somewhat commendable it has made you blind to logic and facts, the two things that are necessary to create an effective argument. You’ve essentially painted yourself into a corner leaving you with no option but to continue painting the same area over and over. All you have done is to repeat the things that you believe to be true with no evidence to prove that they are. Everyone else here… EVERYONE has pointed out the flaws in your arguments, the contradictions in your own beliefs and statements and the ignorance you convey when you conveniently overlook these things. You spend time creating elaborate responses full of meaningless words that you’re convinced make your arugment for you when in reality they simply make you appear to be someone who’s using their vocabulary to sound intelligent because they lack the necessary knowledge to do it for them.

I think the only problem larger than that is the fact that you as you even admitted are too stubborn. You know you can’t logically refute ANY of this but you refuse to admit it, is that not sin? Where’s your humility? I and I’d bet anyone else here would apologize and admit to being wrong if you could provide logical, fact based arguments for your ridiculous claims but you can’t and you won’t admit to being wrong all at the same time.

 

[styrgwillidar]

… by way of response to my, what I believe, are very formidable arguments. This is why I am so loathed to become embroiled in interminable nuanced arguments about the Potter tales and the classic works of C.S. Lewis and Tolkein, because profitable progress is seldom ever made owing to the stubborn refusal on the part of the Potter supporters to face unpalatable truths.
…
Your ‘formidable arguments’ are an impressive display of your belief in situational ethics. Applying differents standards as you see fit to different works in an attempt to support your position. Those arguments consistently fail, and are often non-sensical, because they do not reflect the actual content of the work being discussed. Quite often they’re simply exercises in obfuscation vice responses to points raised.

… in the entire Potter series is that somehow the end always justifies the means. Thus every time Potter comes out victorious in some endeavour, invariably he has employed some kind of immoral or at least questionable means to overcome the obstacles in his path.
…
**As I mentioned in another thread, I don’t understand your issue with ‘end justifies the means’. Your arguments consistently misrepresent or omit the actual content or the entirety of the work being discussed. You present prevarications from other sources as truth, abdicating any moral responsibility for confirming their veracity. So, in this case you do believe that the ends of convincing people to keep their children from HP justify the means of misrepresentation and ommission. **

A while back, I posted in part (435):
styrgwillidar;7374359:

Quote:
…
I couldn’t possibly agree with that statement. Having read the books and discussed them with my children, there are a myriad of points where Rowlings is reinforcing christian beliefs.

• Dangers of divination/fortune telling
• Limbo/purgatory
• Atheism, it’s danger, the rejection of the concept of an after-life
• Nobility and virtue of self-sacrifice
• Danger of damaging your soul through the evil one does in this life
• That whether you win or lose conflicts in this life, if you have damaged your soul in the process you have lost for eternity.
• The danger of becoming to attached to the things of this world

Yet, you asserted throughout this thread that a work depicting these values is ‘morally inferior’ and an ‘insidious danger’. Apparently, our ideas of christian values are somewhat at odds. As I indicated to Massha previously, my writings can sometimes come off as dismissive or preachy. Are you aware of the disdain your posts display for those of us who can see christian values in HP? For example, just your response to the above (post 510):

(Continued)—

 

[styrgwillidar]

It is, of course, perfectly true that the Catholic faithful are at liberty to entertain differing viewpoints on the Potter novels, since our Church has chosen to remain silent upon the issue thus far. Nevertheless, that still does not obviate the need annd duty of coming to a decision respecting the Potter books using our prudential judgement. This entails employing good old fashioned sanctified common sense by the application of moral principles to specific cases, whether it be Potter novels, rock music, film or TV programmes.

**… Translated to the simple english Little Soldier desires. Despite the church taking no position, anybody seeing good in HP is a fool with no moral judgement or common sense. **

Clearly, this is the manner in which one’s conscience ought to be guided when seeking to arrive at decision as to whether to read a Potter book or not. However, how can this be achieved effectively when the conscience itself is radically defective?

— Translation: If you see christian values in HP you do not have the capability to know right from wrong.

Indeed, I would venture to say that our whole debate centres around the issue of conscience and herein lies a very profound problem, not only with Potter but also with other contemporary cultural expressions of art and literature which are now, sadly, the bane of the Church. That so many Catholics have been duped and then go on to vehemently defend such manifestly worthless and unwholesome books such as Harry Potter, is surely indicative of the present widespread moral confusion. Myriads of Christians have apparently lost their moral compass by sucumbing to the godless spirit of the age and consequently have radically defective consciences when it comes to the whole matter of spiritual discernment. Moreover, a want of sanctity and separation from the godless world can result in the acceptance and then passionate defence of that which is unacceptable and detestable to God.

**… Translation. If you see good in HP, you are morally inferior dupe lacking even a hint of ability to know right from wrong. ** Again, despite the church declining to take a position on ‘…manifestly worthless and unwholesome books…’

Therefore a man’s conscience is not always a true conscience. Alas, a man can warp his conscience by worldliness and the adoption of materialistic values. When this occurs there will necessarily be some if not a total loss of discernment and he will be unable to form a correct judgement respecting the arts or literature and what ought to be repudiated as culturally unwholesome. So much of this debate, like the rock music debate, is about the broader issue of conscience and sanctity and separation from the world. This is surely the elephant in the room and the taboo topic in contemporary Christianity generally.

Translation: It is our duty as Catholics to pursue and a develop a ‘fully formed conscience’. This is more difficult in the modern area because of multiple influences in the media depicting values contrary to the Catholic faith and the prudent solution is to reject modern works of art.

A correctly formed conscience would be able to perceive the actual anti-Christian and even diabolical metaphysics behind the Potter series of books. Moreover, “Christian parents need to know that not all reading is good reading for the precious souls of the children God has entrusted to us. Authentic Christian faith, family and culture should be what dwells in the hearts and minds of the next generation, not thousand of pages of witchcraft, psuedo-heroes replete with moral compromise…” (Dr. Mark Miravalle, Professor of Theology, Franciscan University Steubenville).

Translation: If you see good in HP, you uncritically accepted values contrary to your stated beliefs, again making you an idiot unable to know right from wrong. (Supported by a quote which could just as easly be applied to LOTRs or Narnia).

Dearly beloved, God desires so much better for our youth than the deplorable Potter books, and so should we also. My prayer is that the global army of Rowling supporters will be illuminated as to the grave and insidious dangers of present neo-pagan youth fantasy, such as Harry Potter, and come to see that they are anything but imaginative and harmless fun.

**Translation: God knows that I’m right and you’re wrong. But I will pray that you deluded people finally see the light. **

God bless you dear friend and no hard feelings.

Ditto

BTW, the result of all the ‘cheating’, coaching, manipulation of Potter to win the Tri-Wizard tournament is Cedric Diggory’s death, HP almost being killed, and the return of Voldemort. Very high price to be paid for cheating I would say, almost a lesson on not allowing yourself to be manipulated or tempted into cheating.

 

[mdrummer5]

BTW, the result of all the, coaching, manipulation of Potter to win the Tri-Wizard tournament is Cedric Diggory’s death, HP almost being killed, and the return of Voldemort. Very high price to be paid for cheating I would say, almost a lesson on not allowing yourself to be manipulated or tempted into cheating.

Not to mention the fact that the manipulation was done by a servant of Voldemort and was all done in an effort to end in his (Harry’s) death. These were not the acts of the hero but a servant of the villian. The hero was duped and consequently had to overcome a hardship becuase of it. Isn’t that what happens in such tales of good vs evil?

It’s funny that in the last couple weeks Portrait seems to have VAGUELY familiarized himself with the stories but once again ignores the points that refute his ridiculous claims.

 

[Mickey]

Contrary to what you and others are erroneously asserting on this thread, there are many grave problems with the Potter tales

What could possibly be wrong with a series of books and movies about a group of child witches attending witch school being taught how to cast spells by witch teachers?

I see you are still fighting the good fight, my friend. Carry on.

 

[Mumbles140]

What could possibly be wrong with a series of books and movies about a group of child witches attending witch school being taught how to cast spells by witch teachers?

I see you are still fighting the good fight, my friend. Carry on.

Humorous. If you want to talk about specific issues, and how those issues are just as prevalent in Narnia and Middle Earth but those books are not under attack, I gladly invite you to join the conversation, or at least read through to really see the ‘good fight’ Portrait is carrying on…

 

[mdrummer5]

What could possibly be wrong with a series of books and movies about a group of child witches attending witch school being taught how to cast spells by witch teachers?

I see you are still fighting the good fight, my friend. Carry on.

By all means if you share his ridiculous views why don’t you read through the FACTS that have been presented that he’s been unable to refute and do it for him.