Church Exorcist and Pro Life Priest Warns Against Harry Potter

[Fran65]

How is pointing out that children identify more closely with other children, and that they are more strongly influenced by more realistic media than by cartoons fearmongering?

In addition, in many respects children do have fixed and false beliefs (delusions) which they grow out of. Fear of the dark, believing that they are responsible for parental illness or family breakdown, believing that there are monsters in the wardrobe all qualify as false beliefs. Santa Claus is another example. Children will believe what they are consistently told, and the Harry Potter empire tells them that children learning and practicing magic is brave, good, normal and admirable.

As for equating playing cowboys and indians with playing at witchcraft, the last time I checked there was very little in the Catcechism about the dangers to our soul of playing cowboys, but plenty in both it and scripture about the dangers of the occult.

Media is saturated with fantasy, witchcraft and the occult, this means that we need to use our judgement and use the Harry Potter empire as a teaching opportunity.

I also advocate very close reading and an attempt at understanding the posts made by Portrait which are excellent in every respect.

God bless

 

[Mickey]

The idea that '“There is no good or evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it .” Is uttered in one form or another by countless ‘bad guy’s’ in literature and movies

Point taken. But in these series the line is often blurred. Nonetheless, I could provide quotes all day long and not prove anything to the Potterites.

 

[Mumbles140]

As for equating playing cowboys and indians with playing at witchcraft, the last time I checked there was very little in the Catcechism about the dangers to our soul of playing cowboys, but plenty in both it and scripture about the dangers of the occult.

But it warns about the dangers of murder and doing harm to others, right? Kids are mimicking shooting other kids with guns. I think this is much more realistic (and, sad to say, likely to really happen) then kids picking up twigs, saying some phrases in Latin, and pretending to fire invisible sparks to ‘disarm’.

 

[mdrummer5]

In addition, in many respects children do have fixed and false beliefs (delusions) which they grow out of. Fear of the dark, believing that they are responsible for parental illness or family breakdown, believing that there are monsters in the wardrobe all qualify as false beliefs. Santa Claus is another example.

Children will believe what they are consistently told, and the Harry Potter empire tells them that children learning and practicing magic is brave, good, normal and admirable.

Again I’m astounded that you hold such a view given your profession.

Kids don’t “grow out of” fear of the dark or the feeling of being responsible for things they are not. They LEARN that there’s no reason to be afraid of the dark. They LEARN that there are no monsters in the closet. How do they learn them… because parents constantly tell them “Billy there’s not a monster in your closet” or whatever example you want to use.

Any parent worth their salt is going to make sure their child LEARNS that Harry Potter is FICTION by explaining that it is not real just like the boogeyman is not real.

Also, if you find Portraits posts to be excellent in every respect perhaps you can logically refute the contradictions… ya know, since he can’t.

 

[Joe_5859]

We’re at a crossroads now. We’re getting very close to the 1,000 post limit. We will be forced to decide whether to start up a new Harry Potter thread or take a break.

Choose wisely.

 

[mdrummer5]

Point taken. But in these series the line is often blurred. Nonetheless, I could provide quotes all day long and not prove anything to the Potterites.

Someone please point out to him that the quotes he’s using he is taking out of context… much like an Atheist would do with the Bible.

 

[mdrummer5]

We’re at a crossroads now. We’re getting very close to the 1,000 post limit. We will be forced to decide whether to start up a new Harry Potter thread or take a break.

Choose wisely.

I’m thinking we quit. It’s obvious that the pro-potter camp will not give up their logical arguments, because they’re based on facts that simply can’t be refuted and the anti-potter camp is to stubborn to see that for fear of having to admit to being wrong.

 

[Mickey]

I pray that everyone has a blessed weekend. Perhaps I will return Monday if the thread is not closed.

(Based on a true story)

A hermit with a long grey beard and cassock was walking down a quiet country road on a warm summer day not too far from his poustinia. He had a walking stick with a crucifix on top and a Bible in his left hand. Suddenly, a curious young boy approached him with a look of wonderment. He gazed intently at the old man and said, “Are you a wizard?” The old man smiled gently and said,

“Wizards deceive people with magic, but Christ came into this world performing miracles and teaching us about love.”

“I am a witness for Jesus Christ.”

 

[styrgwillidar]

Point taken. But in these series the line is often blurred. Nonetheless, I could provide quotes all day long and not prove anything to the Potterites.

Mickey, I don’t think it’s a matter of proving anything. It’s the judgement on whether the use of magic as a device in literature, even if it conveys christian messages, carries the risk of prompting interest in the occult.

If I follow your reasoning, you believe it does and therefore limit you and your children’s exposure to that risk where you can. And mitigate that risk by educating your children when they still encounter it somewhere. That using the term ‘witch’ however they are portrayed vwithin a specific work carries with it the connotation/connection to occult witchcraft. Hence, possibility of children investigating ‘witches’ leading to the occult.

My position is that I believe that magic as a device can be used to convey christian messages, that I agree there may be a risk but do not see it as severe as others. I believe it’s best mitigated by educating my children on the occult so as they can see the christian messages in an engaging series- be it Narnia, LOTR, HP etc.

Portrait, appears to see that some works can use magic as a device to convey christian messages, while others can’t. Having read all the works under discussion, I don’t see the distinction he attempts to make given the exorcists’ actual warnings. Which were not about how magic is portrayed, good, bad, in a school setting, ancient or fantasy world, but that literature with magic may spark an interest leading to the occult.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

How is pointing out that children identify more closely with other children, and that they are more strongly influenced by more realistic media than by cartoons fearmongering?

In addition, in many respects children do have fixed and false beliefs (delusions) which they grow out of. Fear of the dark, believing that they are responsible for parental illness or family breakdown, believing that there are monsters in the wardrobe all qualify as false beliefs. Santa Claus is another example. Children will believe what they are consistently told, and the Harry Potter empire tells them that children learning and practicing magic is brave, good, normal and admirable.

As for equating playing cowboys and indians with playing at witchcraft, the last time I checked there was very little in the Catcechism about the dangers to our soul of playing cowboys, but plenty in both it and scripture about the dangers of the occult.

Media is saturated with fantasy, witchcraft and the occult, this means that we need to use our judgement and use the Harry Potter empire as a teaching opportunity.

I also advocate very close reading and an attempt at understanding the posts made by Portrait which are excellent in every respect.

God bless

Have you read the books?

Can you see the stealth Christian themes therein? Can you understand that it’s a fairy tale or allegory?

Otherwise you have to condemn one of the most Catholics works of literature of all time: Lord of the Rings.

I was thinking of starting a class for just that at my parish. Might lead to some innnteresting discussion.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Now, I am not against the series, I do see it as a great story. (Now reading them again, as an adult) However, I do try to see things on both sides. There are alot of good reviews (even Vatican approved) and alot of negative as well (like the link I posted). See but there is definitely those good and negatives about the Narnia series, Star Wars, LOTR, Pokemon, heck I have seen them about Indiana Jones too. If we did assume that every mention of magic however led us to the devil’s clutches, then we shouldn’t have a lot of Disney movies, fairy tales, Shakespeare in school, and the list goes on.

Good summary. I actually do see a lot of continuity between reviews of Harry Potter, fairy tales, Narnia, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Pokemon, etc. By that I mean that as far as morality and spirituality go, positive reviews of all of those are pretty similar to each other, and negative reviews of all of those are pretty similar to each other.

What I most often object to are the double standards applied to Harry Potter by those who consistently celebrate and promote Narnia and Lord of the Rings and have no problem with, say, Star Wars, but then put Harry Potter in a whole separate category of “deeply morally problematic” or “occult.”

As you pointed out, there are some who want to be “real” Jedi and believe in the Force (which is basically derivative from Taoism anyway).

Likewise, I found that crazy website which denounced Narnia and Lord of the Rings because it found some pagan “witch” who loved Narnia. Crazies will be crazies. Just as we don’t hold C.S. Lewis accountable for the witchcraft of “Starhawk” or whatever her witch name is, so Harry Potter cannot seriously be held to promote the occult.

From the Sorcerer’s Stone:

Professor Snape says: “I don’t think you will really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the **delicate power **of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses, I can teach you how to **bottle fame, brew glory, even stop death **… Potter! … What would I get if I added powdered root of asphodel to an infusion of wormwood?” [p. 137]

Thank you for your specificity, Mickey. I do think the above passage is actually indicative of why Harry Potter magic is harmless:

He poetically describes the power of these “potions” of Rowling’s world - Felix Felicis, Polyjuice Potion, and others - which are so obviously fantastical, with made-up fantasy effects and completely fictional ingredients like unicorn hair/horns, bezoars, etc.

Furthermore, in Rowling’s world these potions’ power come from the nature of their fictional fantasy ingredients. No supernatural power is invoked. Everything operates on the natural level. That is why it’s not occultic.

Now, that’s potion-making - which, as I said before, not even Muggles (regular humans) can do in the series. The actual “spells” themselves are even more fantastical than the potions.

Look, any reasonable man can see the difference between that type of “magic” that occurs in Lewis and Tolkein and that which occurs in the Potter books.

But Fr. Amorth said that all magic is a turn to the devil, and that distinctions between “good” magic and “black” magic are dangerous because all magic is evil.

Like it or not, this conclusion - and you don’t have to agree with Fr. Amorth, Portrait - does require one to reject Narnia, since the words “magic” and “spells” are repeatedly used of actions taken by the good characters, even the human ones:

Caspian’s use of Queen Susan’s magic horn to summon the Pevensie children/monarchs to Narnia is called magic and a spell in Prince Caspian. In Dawn Treader Lucy does cast a “spell” - two, in fact - from a “spellbook” presented as containing “magic” that is in line with the good side.

As for Lucy Pevansie, I do not think that she presents any problem from a Christian standpoint inasmuch as she does not perform any kind of magic, nor has she been to a school of witchcraft.

She doesn’t learn magic in a school, it’s true. But she does in fact cast two spells from a spellbook - and yes, they are called “spells” - in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. These “spells” are presented as “good magic” that has power even over Aslan, the Christ figure of the series!

By Fr. Amorth’s standards, that’s very harmful and bad indeed.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

reading your comments on the moral decadance of the modern age at the same time you deride one of the few recent works aimed at children which quite unambiguously shows that the consequences of the evil one does in life are the eternal effects on the soul.

Indeed. Harry Potter really spits in the face of relativism, self-indulgence, and secular modernity’s anti-Christian necrophobia.

Portrait, thank you for your reply and for its specificity. It’s very much appreciated. I will respond to you in a separate post, as I feel your specificity merits a reply of its own.

Here is another quote for you:
In The Sorcerer’s Stone, Professor Quirrell told Harry, “There is no good or evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it .” [p. 291]

Look, Mickey, it’s been pointed out to you before that that is the bad guy speaking, and this amoral, relativistic viewpoint is consistently rejected in the series as both false and reprehensible.

The series only brings up views like Quirrell’s to knock them down. There’s nothing ambiguous or “blurred” about it.

Children will believe what they are consistently told, and the Harry Potter empire tells them that children learning and practicing magic is brave, good, normal and admirable.

No, it doesn’t. Plenty of characters who “learn and practice magic” in the series are neither brave, good, nor admirable - the Malfoys, Umbridge, Peter Pettigrew.

What’s presented as “brave, good, and admirable” are family unity, loyalty, trustworthiness, and selflessness. How is this a bad message?

As for equating playing cowboys and indians with playing at witchcraft, the last time I checked there was very little in the Catcechism about the dangers to our soul of playing cowboys, but plenty in both it and scripture about the dangers of the occult.

But there is no occult magic in Harry Potter - it’s unmistakably fictional, highly fantastical fantasy magic. If children pretend to use occult powers, that’s disturbing and problematic. If they pretend they’re Harry Potter-style wizards, that’s no different than pretending to have lightsaber battles.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

We’re at a crossroads now. We’re getting very close to the 1,000 post limit. We will be forced to decide whether to start up a new Harry Potter thread or take a break.

Choose wisely.

No, we won’t have to start a new one (God forbid). This one still has plenty of room in it.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Mickey and Portrait and others,

Just wanted to make clear: I do not see you as ‘anti-potterites’ but as fellow Catholics with a sincere concern for my and my children’s spiritual well-being. For that, and your time, you have my sincere appreciation.

 

[ddarko]

I am not Anti-HP and I think its perfectly ok for a mature person to read it.

BUT, I do think its rightful to be concerned about a very young person reading it.

Take a little kid reading the LOTR. If he/she starts a fascination of being a king, using a sword etc, you know these things can be grown out of or be shaped in to different things. For an example, if the person loves swords, let them compete in fencing or get them in to martial arts. Those things are not immoral and certainly ways to expand the fascinations one had as a kid. So it is possible to bring what they held so dear in the fantasy world to the real world without much problem.

Now take a kid who reads HP. Lets say he/she starts a fascination with magic and witch-craft which is the main medium of battle and key point in the book. What does this person do with it as they grow up? You better hope that they loose their fascination because they really don’t have any MORAL lines to pursue on that path. They would have to start dabbling in to the occult, or start getting in to new-age spiritualism perhaps. This also becomes a very attractive option because it is very similar to the magic that is portrayed by their childhood hero. I could imagine someone getting in to practicing magic tricks but that’s not the kind of magic depicted in HP and so I would think even that person would more likely be drawn to occult. The magic in HP is certainly of the manipulative type and not just tricks. So what does the person do about their childhood hero? So in that sense, Harry or Hermione are not really the ideal poster boy or girl for the small kid. Aragon or Arwen on the other hand definitely are not bad choices.

I think therein lies the danger. The HP series can lead to aspirations and fascinations in our children that cannot be expanded on within Moral confinements as they grow older or try to bring it in to reality. Therefore, unless they give up this aspiration, there might be an increased likelihood in them to engage in something immoral. So it does raise the question whether we as parents are being responsible in giving them books that lead them to such disordered aspirations in the first place.

Therefore my honest conclusion is that HP is not acceptable for very young kids who are looking for inspiration. I think Narnia and LOTR on the other hand do qualify.

This of course applies to our young kids. Certainly NOT to adults

P.S. If after reading this, you feel that LOTR can also lead to aspirations that cannot be re-focused properly in the real world (I honestly cannot think of any unless your kid wants to be Gandalf… strange choice ) then you shouldn’t allow your kid to read LOTR either till they are of age.

God Bless

 

[LittleSoldier]

As a psychologist I can see a number of important differences between Disney’s The Sorcerer’s Apprentice and the Harry Potter franchise:

1. 
   *]The apprentice is a mouse. In HP they are children.

1. 
   You need to be a psychologist to see this? (Sorry, it’s just that it’s soooo obvious.)
   

   *]The setting is cartoon (obviously fantasy) world. In HP a great deal occurs in a world recognised by children as the same as their own.

   For younger children (the same age as the children you later state may play “Cinderella”) the cartoon setting is not necessarily seen as an “obviously fantasy” world.
   

   *]The consequences of messing with magic are entirely negative for the mouse. In HP the children use magic that they are told not to and do their own research to save their own and other’s lives and to enhance their status and self esteem.

   In “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” Mickey is using magic he knows he is not supposed to be using and that is why he gets into so much trouble. The consequences are not entirely negative, as is indicated by the knowing smile on the sorcerer’s face after he repairs the damage Mickey has done and scolds him. The sorcerer knew Mickey would do what he did. It may very well be part of the learning process for the apprentice (in many situations people (and mice) learn from their mistakes). That is not negative and in fact, may be a necessary step to take for an apprentice to learn that spells are not to be messed around with and are serious business.
   

   There are many other differences.

   Such as?
   

   I know of children who waited for their letter for days and tried out the spells described in the books. I don’t any who thought that they could find a sorcerer to teach them or who tried to put spells on mops.

   And did these children you “know of” actually believe the spells would work? Were they disappointed when they didn’t? How hard did they try? What would these spells have done if successful? What was the mean age of these children? How old were the youngest, the oldest? How many children do you “know of?” Do you know of them from your own observations or did you hear about them from colleagues/friends/acquaintances? You realize of course that what you are presenting is anecdotal evidence and any conclusions are suspect. I would be interested in knowing if any actual studies using scientific method have been conducted. Do you know of any?
   

   Children don’t identify deeply with cartoon characters (although granted some little girls have played at being a princess or Cinderella), but they do adopt child ‘heroes’ as their role models. In addition, the consequences of identifying with a cartoon character are not the same as becoming interested in the real area of the occult through identifying with HP characters.

   Little girls who are playing “Cinderella” are most likely not old enough to be reading any Harry Potter book. And I disagree with your statement that children don’t identify deeply with cartoon characters. Some do. I did. Very deeply. Why aren’t the consequences of “identifying with a cartoon character the same as becoming interested in the real area of the occult through identifying with HP characters”? In both cases the occult is introduced - in Fantasia by an actual sorcerer, who though he is a cartoon character, he is a cartoon “person”, not a mouse. In the younger children (and by this I mean children who might play at “Cinderella”) there may actually be more danger because they are not as morally or cognitively developed and much easier prey for the evil one (and by that I mean Satan). Satan is very tricky and catches people at their weakest, according to my parish priest. Introducing young children to the occult via movies such as Fantasia could actually be much, much more harmful than presenting older children/young teens who have more sophisticated moral/cognitive development with Harry Potter. Using Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, I feel secure in saying that children who play “Cinderella” are at the pre-conventional stage, while those who read the Harry Potter series are at the conventional level.
   
   So, basically you are saying the two are different. I agree that they are different in some aspects. But they also have similarities. It seems you are using the word “children” to describe children who play-act “Cinderella” and also children who read the Harry Potter series. I suspect that you are combining “children” of significantly different ages; “young children” and “young teen/pre-teen.” There is a huge difference between the two in terms of moral/cognitive development. So I am requesting an operational definition here. Specifically, what do you mean by “children?”

 

[LittleSoldier]

Point taken. But in these series the line is often blurred. Nonetheless, I could provide quotes all day long and not prove anything to the Potterites.

Potterites? That’s very good. I guess that’s been presented many times in this thread but I haven’t read most of it and it’s the first time that term has jumped out at me from the computer screen.

What exactly is a “Potterite?” I mean, exactly, please. Thank you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m thinking we quit. It’s obvious that the pro-potter camp will not give up their logical arguments, because they’re based on facts that simply can’t be refuted and the anti-potter camp is to stubborn to see that for fear of having to admit to being wrong.

I’d like to see it continue, but perhaps a few months down the road. Then I’ll have had time to actually read all the books and I won’t be jumping in so close to the end of the thread. Personally, I find this all very fascinating.

BTW, my view is that parents should be responsible for knowing what their children are reading, to have read what their children are reading, and to be prepared to discuss with their children what their children (and they) have been reading.

Now try to say that ten times. Fast.

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is not the result of some hidden occult message in the HP books. It’s the result of poor parenting as any child waving a stick and saying “wingardium leviosa” or some other word that’s been obviously made up to those who know better simply does not know the difference between fantasy and reality. Frankly and with all due respect, given your profession I’d expect you to realize this.

I understand what you’re saying about the difference between Fantasia and HP. One is obviously pure fantasy. The other is also fantasy with splashes of reality, so for a young child it can be harder to differentiate the fantasy in HP with reality whereas in Fantasia it’s “in your face”. A witch in HP is not the same thing as someone who labels themself a witch in real life, there are no real witches in some dark basement concocting love potions or liquid luck, there’s not a real witch who would ever make claims to be able to create fire out of nothing or to make something magically float and there is not a real witch who carries a magic stick that is the source of their power. Again, it’s a matter of being able to differentiate fantasy and reality. Some children do not comprehend that… either because they aren’t mature enough to or they simply haven’t been taught properly… either way their parents are to blame for either allowing them to read them too early or for not educating them properly. Blaming a series of books for for the actions of an underdeveloped mind is not just ridiculous it’s a skirting of responsibility to educate children properly.

That’s the issue I have here. I don’t care if someone doesn’t care for the books. There’s plenty of books that a lot of people enjoy that I didn’t find all that entertaining. But the claims being made against the books and trying to hold them somehow liable for the actions of children is irresponsible but it’s a lot easier for those that want to make this claim to stand up together and point their finger at one person (Rowling) than to point the finger at themselves. It’s easier to do that than to properly educate a child. It’s a lazy coward’s way of thinking.

HOOAH!!!

 

[LittleSoldier]

Thank you for actually engaging in specificity, Gatewood. I appreciate it.

(b) The lightning/thunderbolt imagery in Harry Potter

The article correctly indicates that a thunderbolt is sometimes a symbol of evil, but Harry Potter itself uses the symbol in precisely this way: Harry’s lightning-shaped scar is a result of the evil villain Voldemort’s attempt to murder him, and it symbolizes the piece of Voldemort’s soul that - until the climax of book seven - remains inside Harry, tempting this otherwise good boy toward evil.

This actually potently symbolizes the spiritual stain of original sin: we’re created good, but due to some primordial evil, we inherit a flawed nature that tends to the bad. Harry consistently struggles to achieve virtue throughout the series, and he ultimately succeeds.

I play the online game “FrontierVille” and the lightning/thunderbolt is used there as a symbol for energy. In other words, it comes from eating food and can be bought using coins or by harvesting/tending animals, from neighbors, etc. Strange, I never looked upon it as anything evil and I will look for this in the Harry Potter books (I just typed Darry Pooter - I think it’s too late to be posting ).