Church Exorcist and Pro Life Priest Warns Against Harry Potter

[Mickey]

Dear Mickey,

Cordial greetings and so very good to see you again in this thread. Hope all is well dear friend.

Thankyou kindly for your words of support and encouragement.

Like your (name removed by moderator)ut thus far - jolly good show.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax

Peace and prayers my good friend!

 

[Mumbles140]

I’ve stated it.

Again, I asked you to recall and you did not. You mentioned the desensitivity and I wanted to delve into that - find out what is at the root of it. I hold the belief that behind every moral decision is a moral truth, and that base is applied to different situations, sometimes in addition to other moral tenets. I am trying to find the tenets you are basing your decision on

Huh?

**If I said the Christmas Day bomber (from the airplane with the bomb in his lap) should be punished severely, I would have to support that claim if it came under question. I would start off by saying that murder is an absolute wrong. I would say that killing is allowed in war, but this was clearly not an act of war. I would also say that because murder is wrong, attempting to commit it must also be wrong. Since our society punishes wrongs, it would follow that we must punish someone for attempting to murder others, and his actions are not covered by a war, so he must be punished. I know this is an over-simplified example, but I hope you see my point.

I want to find out what moral truths you are basing your decision on, and then see how the applications trickle down where certain instances are seen as moral wrongs but others are seen as morally permissible. For Portrait, this would be differentiating between Narnia and Hogwarts. I want to follow your logical path. By stating about the school, adults, witches, etc, you are merely stating the facts that are disagreeable to you, but not why you find them disagreeable, and the ‘why’ is really the purpose of debate, right?**

You’re kidding, right?

Certainly not. I am trying to establish a jumping point for us. What is the most basic moral tenet behind your decision, or the lowest application thereof. If you say the portrayal of a child using a spellbook to successfully perform magic is wrong, we have a starting point. If you say that you don’t agree to it, we must step back further.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I see nothing humorous about introducing our children to witchcraft.

There’s no witchcraft in Harry Potter. Harry and his friends study a highly fictional, utterly fantastical, absolutely non-invocational form of obvious fantasy magic that undermines the materialism of our age.

By all means, Mickey, bite a hand that feeds us (Rowling’s hand).

That said, I really wish we would all be a bit more charitable in this thread. I’m totally with you guys - mdrummer and mumbles - but if we let ourselves become rude to Portrait, that will provide him with an opportunity to dismiss us - not unjustly - as rude and mean.

I have gotten him to respond to specific arguments before (on another thread) through patience.

I know his refusal to engage actual substantive arguments is frustrating, but if we can’t help our case, let’s not hurt it at least…

Oh? Then how do you explain the contradiction between Father Amorth who he stands by so firmly and his own assertion that Narnia and LOTR are perfectly acceptable.

He quoted Father Amorth as saying that (paraphrasing) “the Potter books are bad”.

In the same interview with Father Amorth he said (direct quote) “magic is always a turn to the devil." Despite this FACT he continues to contest that HP is bad and Narnia and LOTR are “wholesome” and full of “Christian morals” despite the use of magic which according to Father Amorth is “ALWAYS A TURN TO THE DEVIL”.

Some of these anti-Potter people really need to address this argument for their case to regain any credibility.

As I said before, there are plenty of fundamentalist websites out there that revile all three fantasy series. They at least are consistent.

I dare say Harry Potter has more and better defenders here than Christ does.

A defense of the morally and spiritually wholesome Harry Potter series is a defense of Christian truth and therefore of Christ.

I’m tired of continually providing the evidence for Harry Potter’s Christian structure, themes, and imagery, so please just check here for corroborating evidence of my claim.

Don’t you see? There is no **REAL **debate. One side defends this odd series about witch children. And the other side warns to steer clear of this occultic rubbish. I have talked to many clergy (and read their comments) coming out against the Potterite series. But not too many defending it.

You’ve chosen your side.

Almost all of the orthodox Christians I know - including clergy - approve of Harry Potter and celebrate it as the Christian fantasy it is.

Please see the link I provided above.

Mickey,
Yes, I can’t help but defend something being treated unfairly. Particularly a children’s story that literally points out that we are living not for this life but the next, warns about the dangers of materialism and attachment to this world, hazarding one’s soul through the pursuit of evil, and whose ultimate lesson is:

Luke 17, 33
Anyone who tries to preserve his life will lose it; and anyone who loses it will keep it safe.

Luke 9, 25
What benefit is it to anyone to win the whole world and forfeit or lose his very self?

But then again, alas as Portrait so eloquently puts it, I am guilty of having a “radically defective conscience” for believing the above to be christian values…

Mickey, would you care to comment on styrgwillidar’s excellent reply? Have you read the Potter series? The above truths really are at the heart of it - always present and always celebrated.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Also, Mickey, this reply of mine, I feel, does a good job of explaining why the “magic” in Harry Potter is structurally, metaphysically, and aesthetically distinct from and incompatible with the occult.

 

[Portrait]

F.A.O. Mumbles140

Dear Mumbles,

Cordial greetings and hope all is well.

Sorry my dear chap but I cannot respond to your recent response to my post this evening as we are entertaining. However, I will, God willing, reply to your comments tommorow, so stand by.

Thankyou for your patience and God bless you. Have a nice evening dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

PS Have not forgot about dear Lucy!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Portrait, here is a link to a web page that serves as an example of what I’ve been alluding to: fundamentalist websites that reject Narnia as well.

This one even seems to be a Catholic one, I think.

The article I linked to claims that The Chronicles of Narnia are “Leading Children and Adults into Witchcraft and Satanism…”

The article’s subtitle is, “The story of a witch named Starhawk: ‘How Narnia Made Me a Witch’: C.S. Lewis’s books helped bring me to the Goddess. For me, one of her names is Aslan.”

Now, does this mean we must reject Narnia and conclude that it “promotes the occult”?

Of course not. This “Starhawk” - whoever (s)he is - is an anomaly.

 

[Mickey]

What is the most basic moral tenet behind your decision

Scripture.

 

[Mumbles140]

PS Have not forgot about dear Lucy!

Thank you. I understand that not only do you have your own life, but are in a debate with several others and, until Mickey came along, have been the only one defending your views since Masha stopped posting.

That being said, I hope that you have not taken my reminders as a taunt or insult. I do feel that point is critical, and as there are so many different directions this thread has taken, I wanted to make sure it wasn’t lost or forgotten, both by you and by myself! Enjoy the evening and I look forward to discussing tomorrow if I have the chance - busy day at the office. If you can reply tomorrow, I’ll reply over the weekend for you to read back on Monday after your ‘board break.’ If you can’t tomorrow, we’ll continue next week then!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

UPDATE: Been reading more. That website I linked to above condemns not only Narnia but also Lord of the Rings as well.

There are many more like it. Please see my above reply for relevance.

 

[Mumbles140]

Scripture.

Please elaborate. I am trying to discuss this with you and yet you continually pick out individual pieces of my questions and provide one word answers. If you do not wish to debate, then I am left wondering why you are posting on this thread. If you do, than in the spirit of debate, respond with some substance, please.

Concerning your remark above, Scripture is not an answer - it contains moral tenets but Scripture itself is not a moral tenet. If you want to provide passages from Scripture showing the moral tenets, then by all means do so and we can go from there. However, I must remind you that the Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and sacred Tradition, interprets Scripture and applies it. To date, clergy and laity alike, including bishops and exorcists, equal in faith and creed, have differing opinions, so we may have to start broadly and work our way down from there.

 

[Mickey]

There’s no witchcraft in Harry Potter.

Of course there is.

I’m tired of continually providing the evidence for Harry Potter’s Christian structure

That is because most of us see none.

Almost all of the orthodox Christians I know - including clergy - approve of Harry Potter and celebrate it as the Christian fantasy it is.

Interesting…the polar opposite of my experience. All the monastics I know are in the anti-potterite camp.

 

[mdrummer5]

That said, I really wish we would all be a bit more charitable in this thread. I’m totally with you guys - mdrummer and mumbles - but if we let ourselves become rude to Portrait, that will provide him with an opportunity to dismiss us - not unjustly - as rude and mean.

I could be more polite sure, but I’ve been factual. He’s ignorant to facts. That’s the truth. Truth hurts sometimes.

Look at the contradiction between his standing by Father Amorth…

He quoted him very fervently when Father Amorth said that Harry Potter is evil. But when it was pointed out to him that Father Amorth’s other statement about magic contradicts everything else he (Portrait) has said about Narnia and LOTR, he replied with nonsense about how he can’t speak for him. It wasn’t asked for him to speak on anyone’s behalf. It was pointed out that he holds this man’s opinion so high but chooses to ignore part of it when it not only doesn’t support but completely negates his argument. None of this can be disputed.

Mickey exhibits this same kind of ignorance when he took what I said out of context and felt that I was questioning his faith when in fact I was pointing out the insults that were thrown at us by his dear friend Portrait who he holds in such high regard.

Both are examples of ignorance. Ignorance can be corrected, they’ve choosen not to. That’s not me being uncharitable that’s me stating facts.

 

[Mickey]

Also, Mickey, this reply of mine, I feel, does a good job of explaining why the “magic” in Harry Potter is structurally, metaphysically, and aesthetically distinct from and incompatible with the occult.

That’s all fine and dandy F. Bone. You have also taken the tactic of comparing it to Narnia and Tolkein. I cannot comment much on this tactic. What I do know----is that the story lines revolve around a group of witch children attending witch school and learning about their craft from adult witch teachers. You can sugar coat this all day long. You can attach some sort of imagined Christian analogy to it----but in the end----you will defend it----and I will not.

 

[Portrait]

UPDATE: Been reading more. That website I linked to above condemns not only Narnia but also Lord of the Rings as well.

There are many more like it. Please see my above reply for relevance.

Dear Fonebone,

In Haste

Cordial greetings and good to hear from you again. Hope all is well with you dear friend since our last debate before Christmass.

Please do not think I have been ignoring intentionionally your latest posts here, thankyou for taking the trouble to pen a reply. However, as you can appreciate I have been quite heavily engaged in this thread. However, I will try to reply to you in due course old chap, so please bear with me.

God bless you and have a good evening.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

PS. Thankyou for your kind words but I do understand only too well that Harry Potter is a highly contentious issue about which men feel very passionately, on both sides of the debate.

 

[Mickey]

Concerning your remark above, Scripture is not an answer

Scripture is **THE **answer.

Ex: 22:18
Duet: 18:10
1Kings 15:23
2nd Book Of Paralipomenon 33:6
Gal 5:18-21

To date, clergy and laity alike, including bishops and exorcists, equal in faith and creed, have differing opinions, so we may have to start broadly and work our way down from there.

On the contrary. I see the majority of the clergy in the Holy Orthodox Church (and Catholicism for that matter) as being opposed to the Potter spirit. For 2000 years there have been times when the Fathers of the Church have disagreed on the interpretation of a passage. In such cases we look at the consensus. I see the answer according to consensus, Scripture, and conscience. Perhaps one day it will be stated more clearly for those who insist on defending Potterism. I fail to understand why the Potterites get so bent out of shape when they hear or read opposition to Potterism.

There is even evidence that Cardinal Ratzinger (before he was Pope) was opposed to Potterism (I have seen the debates).

 

[Mumbles140]

Scripture is **THE **answer.

I appreciate the quotes from Scripture. I will respond when I am able to read over them again and can comment better. However, I do not appreciate your attempt to discredit me by taking my answer out of context. Whether intended or not, you made it appear as if I did not think we could find answers in Scripture. What I said was that ‘Scripture’ as a word was not an answer to my question, but if you were referring to Scripture, then yes, Scripture contains the answers. I base this assessment on the fact that you have provided references, and therefore clearly understood my meaning. Please leave the banter for others and speak straight with me, as you did when providing quotes below.

Ex: 22:18
Duet: 18:10
1Kings 15:23
2nd Book Of Paralipomenon 33:6
Gal 5:18-21

On the contrary. I see the majority of the clergy in the Holy Orthodox Church (and Catholicism for that matter) as being opposed to the Potter spirit. For 2000 years there have been times when the Fathers of the Church have disagreed on the interpretation of a passage. In such cases we look at the consensus. I see the answer according to consensus, Scripture, and conscience. Perhaps one day it will be stated more clearly for those who insist on defending Potterism. I fail to understand why the Potterites get so bent out of shape when they hear or read opposition to Potterism.

**I never claimed majority - only that there were those just as holy and committed to the OTF that held opposing views, and since none speak infallibly, we must find another method, which was why I have tried going ‘from square one’ with you. I don’t necessarily think consensus is a reasonable vehicle for this, though. First, there is no way to quantify those for or against Potter. Further, we have seen that there are logical fallacies in the opinions of certain clergy and laity defending Potter, and I think this needs to be addressed before we take a ‘show of hands’.

Also, remember that the OP came out as a borderline accusation against those who see no danger in the books without any prompting. And as I noted before, I have no great passion for these books, but my faith, conscience, and sanity have been called into question over the matter, and I do take issue with that.**

There is even evidence that Cardinal Ratzinger (before he was Pope) was opposed to Potterism (I have seen the debates).

If you have such evidence, please provide it. And even though it isn’t fallible, I would very much like to see his reasoning behind his position. Perhaps there is something I am not seeing. But, as things stand, the opinions that those of you supporting Potter have stood behind (Fathers Eutenener and Amorth, as well as Mr. O’Brien) have been proven inconsistent, contradictory, or otherwise flawed.

This is in stark contrast to the personal opinion of the Bishop who made those remarks on the isolation of the faith. This has been part of the backbone of our argument from the onset, and is perfectly in line with our other arguments. The same does not hold true for Fr. Amorth when compared to the others.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Mickey,

I can quote scripture, and have, to support HP. But then even Satan can quote scripture to his own ends.

I respect your declining to comment on Narnia and LOTR due to unfamiliarity. Both you and Portrait have not responded to whether you deem what HP is about is christian, but have focused on the device Rowlings chose. Ok.

Rowlings sets this in the fantasy genre, I think because no other genre is going to allow her to portray the literal attachment of the soul to things of this world, and the eternal consequences of evil done to the soul. She uses magic as the device, I don’t see another that would work for her purpose. I just can’t see being able to do this in sci-fi, or straight fiction. (I would actually take it as blasphemous to say science one day will be able to detect the soul and alter it). She then sets it in a school, which I’m guessing she’s done like countless others because children can easily relate since it’s kind of the center of the day. This works well to set the story as fantasy in the US, since it’s a boarding school, because for the vast majority of US kids the idea that parents would send their kids away to school for months is as fantastical as magic.

Now, if your contention is that any christian message is tainted or invalidated by the use of magic as a device, due to the possibility of interesting children in the occult, although I don’t agree I can understand that.

But, if that’s the standard it should be the standard for all works. I don’t understand picking and choosing which author is allowed to use magic as a device.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Of course there is.

From the Catechism:

**2117 **All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion.

Hogwarts may be called “Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry,” but the similarities stop there. Look again at the above definitions and please note the following:

(a) there are no occult powers in Harry Potter. Not even the bad guys use sorcery/invocational magic.

(b) The “magical” powers of the wizards in the series are not supernatural at all; they are purely a natural ability of this fictional type of human being, and their powers are totally non-transferable to regular humans like you and I.

The magic is highly fantastical and utterly non-supernatural. They do things like summon objects by waving a wand - made from fictional ingredients like unicorn hairs - and saying “Accio.” They fly on brooms - literally. They use “floo powder” to teleport to different locations. The “spells” in these series are totally made up and have no resemblance to real-world occult practices.

They do, however, undermine the materialism of secular modernity when coupled with the series’ Christian themes, structure, and imagery. All of this has been well-documented in quite specific ways - so specific that coincidence is just not an option. It is deliberate; it is design. It is wholesome fantasy replete with profound spiritual themes and symbolic Christ figures.

I could be more polite sure, but I’ve been factual. He’s ignorant to facts. That’s the truth. Truth hurts sometimes.

Look at the contradiction between his standing by Father Amorth…

He quoted him very fervently when Father Amorth said that Harry Potter is evil. But when it was pointed out to him that Father Amorth’s other statement about magic contradicts everything else he (Portrait) has said about Narnia and LOTR, he replied with nonsense about how he can’t speak for him. It wasn’t asked for him to speak on anyone’s behalf. It was pointed out that he holds this man’s opinion so high but chooses to ignore part of it when it not only doesn’t support but completely negates his argument. None of this can be disputed.

Yes, I do wish he would address that inconsistency.

For the same reason I posted that link just above to a website that denounces all three fantasy series: the writers of that website and the numerous others like it are, at least, consistent.

Dear Fonebone,

In Haste

Cordial greetings and good to hear from you again. Hope all is well with you dear friend since our last debate before Christmass.

Please do not think I have been ignoring intentionionally your latest posts here, thankyou for taking the trouble to pen a reply. However, as you can appreciate I have been quite heavily engaged in this thread. However, I will try to reply to you in due course old chap, so please bear with me.

God bless you and have a good evening.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

PS. Thankyou for your kind words but I do understand only too well that Harry Potter is a highly contentious issue about which men feel very passionately, on both sides of the debate.

Thanks, Portrait - I hope you are doing well, too. I know you’re very busy in this thread, and I know you’re not ignoring me. I certainly understand if it takes you awhile to get to some of my replies in light of the speed with which this thread is expanding and the fact that, at the moment, there are far more pro-Potter than anti-Potter people on the thread.

Don’t worry about it! I’m ready when you are.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Mickey, you really ought to check out this website:

hogwartsprofessor.com/johngranger/

John Granger - who, by the way, is an Orthodox Christian like yourself - is really on to something with his literary analysis of Harry Potter.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Dear LittleSoldier,

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

NP. Thanks for getting back to me.

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…let me get this straight. You think that “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” falls into the “traditional fantasy tale” genre and so it’s OK, even though it shows a student actually learning magic from a sorcerer, but HP is evil because it shows students learning magic from teachers??? Oy vey!!

Would you have a problem with the Harry Potter series if the protagonist were Mickey Mouse, instead of Harry Potter?

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.

I am very aware of the Catholic “banned book” list. My parents would not buy a book if it happened to be on that list. Believe me, I know about that list. I disagree with the Church imposing censorship on the faithful. As a teenager I would sneak off in the library to find books that I knew the Church would ban. I wanted to know what was in those books that made them so “evil.” And you know what? There was nothing evil about them. Some offended me, but that is how people learn about morality sometimes. BTW, as far as I know there is no longer a list. Hmmm…I wonder why. I mean, it being such a huge success and all. Why would the Church stop issuing such a list? Food for thought.

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.

First you say that you “do not feel that we need to go to those lengths” and then you imply strongly that that is exactly what we should do!!

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.

I stated that I will not discuss this issue again and I will hold true to what I said. But I suggest you read my reply to you again and also my reply to Masha. I don’t think you understood what I was saying at all.

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

Ditto.

Warmest good wishes

Ditto.

Pax

Ditto.