Church Exorcist and Pro Life Priest Warns Against Harry Potter

[mdrummer5]

Have you read it?

Have you read LOTR? The Narnia series?

I often wonder whether the people who are frightened of HP would be scared of anything make-believe.

There is more than enough satanic influence out in the real world: the sacrament of abortion to name but one. HP is a smoke screen to get people to ignore the true peril.

While I do agree with you and disagree with Mickey, in his defense he’s not the one claiming that LOTR and Narnia are ok but HP is bad. While I disagree with his view he is at least consistent in it.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Consistency doesn’t necessarily mean a person is right.

 

[mdrummer5]

Consistency doesn’t necessarily mean a person is right.

Right and wrong in this case is a matter of opinion. I disagree with him entirely. I think Harry Potter is perfect innocent provided the reader can distinguish fantasy and reality. He sees the use of magic as evil regardless of the form in which it is presented. However, he’s not taking the ludicrous position that Portrait has of condemning HP while saying that Narnia and LOTR are perfectly fine and full of good, wholesome Christian values despite the use of magic and his very illogical attempt to show a distinction between the two.

 

[Mickey]

Have you read it?

Some. But I refer more to the movies here.

Have you read LOTR? The Narnia series?

No. And I do think it is valid to attempt to justify HP by comparing it to something else. Let it stand on it’s own.

I often wonder whether the people who are frightened of HP would be scared of anything make-believe.

I suppose it would be good to avoid anything “make-believe” that might desensitize our children to witchcraft and the occult.

There is more than enough satanic influence out in the real world:

Indeed!

the sacrament of abortion to name but one.

Abortion is murder. Why do you call it a sacrament?

HP is a smoke screen to get people to ignore the true peril.

HP is a part of the satanic influence of the world that you speak of.

 

[mdrummer5]

HP is a smoke screen to get people to ignore the true peril.

I’m pro potter all the way but this statement kinda suggests that HP is of the devil.

No. And I do think it is valid to attempt to justify HP by comparing it to something else. Let it stand on it’s own.

While I see your point here, the comparison is unavoidable when you have people stating that “magic is bad so Harry Potter is bad” while at the same time defending the use of magic in Narnia and LOTR. If it’s bad in one it’s bad in all.

 

[Portrait]

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.

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.

Dear Fone Bone,

Hello again and thankyou kindly for the above. The following is also for the benefit of Mumbles140 who has also raised similar issues to your own. Thus, I hope you do not object to me killing to be birds with one stone and replying to both of you.

As regards the remarks made by Father Amorth, who as you both quite rightly state does not distinguish between “good” and “black” magic, they are not problematic for me because Father is commenting upon the Potter series of books and on those books alone. Correct me if I am wrong gentlemen, but your argument is that if a man readily accepts what Father Amorth says repecting the Potter novels then he is somehow shut in, if he is to avoid the charge of hypocrisy and inconsistency, into applying Father’s words to the works of Lewis and Tolkein as well. If that is the import of what you are contending then, quite frankly, this is a false premise to begin with and hence what you assert does not necessarily follow by any means.

In the first place since Father was commenting on the Potter books exclusively, one is at perfect liberty, if one so wishes, to apply what he says exclusively to the Potter series, as they and they alone were the subject of his blunt warning. Period. Secondly, the issue about whether Father Amorth’s stern words should be extended to include the works of Lewis and Tolkein is an entirely separate matter and must therefore be decided upon other grounds altogether. Sorry chaps, but this is as clear to me as the sun at noonday and I am at a loss as to why it is not clear to you likewise. It is not that I do not understand the gist of your reasoning, I just do not agree with it because I think that it is invalid and unsound.

Surely, the question that you should be asking is why should we not apply what Father says to the works of Lewis and Tolkein? - A very different question.

The reason that I would not apply Father’s words to Lewis or Tolkein is that both these writers devote no narrative space to the process by which their characters aquire their magical prowess. Whilst you could assume study as part of the back story so to speak, your wizard appears as a finished product with all his powers in place. The young reader is not encouraged to think upon or dwell upon the actual process of aquiring prowess in magic. This is fundamentally different to the Potter books where Potter’s *aquisition of mastery over *magical forces at the Hogwarts school of witchcraft and wizardry is a central organizing principle in the story-arc of the series as a whole. Moreover, another essential difference, and why Father’s words cannot be applied to Tolkein and Lewis, is that they restrict the pursuit of magic as as safe and lawful occupation to characters who are not human beings, thus there is not any grave danger, unlike the Potter tales where your chief characters are attractive role models with which the young will readily identify with.

As has been observed by Mickey several times, Potter and co. attend a school of witchcraft and wizardry in order to hone up on their innate magical powers. No such thing occurs in Lewis and Tolkein and that is why the Potter tales are problematic, for they could stimulate an interest in learning about the occultic sub-culture and herein lies their danger.

Clearly, there is a substantial differentaition between the world’s of Lewis and Tolkein and Harry Potter. Therefore it is simply untenable to argue that acceptance of Lewis and Tolkein is inconsistent with a repudiation of Rowling’s Potter series. The former are as different from the latter as chalk is from cheese.

Now as regards this Lucy character, it must be remembered that Lewis includes cautionary threads in which exposure to magical forces proves to be a corrupting influenceon their protagonists. Lucy and Digory succumb to temptation and use magic in ways that they should not and so the entire context in which everything is played out is the polar opposite to Potter world and the reason why Lewis and Tolkein’s works are in wholly different league to the Potter series.

Gentlemen, this is, as I have frequently stated, all about learning to distinguish between things which essentially differ.

God bless you both. Forgive me if I do not reply to any further posts tonight.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Mickey]

No. And I do think it is valid to attempt to justify HP by comparing it to something else. Let it stand on it’s own.

Oops. I meant to write: " I do not think…"

 

[Portrait]

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.

Dear styrgwillidar,

Cordial greetings dear friend and thankyou for your aknowledgement above, which I very much a respect.

Sadly styrgwillidar, in the whole Potter debate among Christians one is either seen as a rational, culture, world-affirming pro-Potterite or an irrational, paranoid anti-Potterite. Those, however, are not the only options. The issue, as you say, is chiefly about reflective Catholics and other Christians of robust faith expressing grave concerns about a series of children’s books and people’s spiritual well-being. The urgent need of our age is for Catholics to be more discerning in matters appertaining to culture and the arts, indeed in any field of interaction with the godless world for that matter.

The number of children that actually step from Potter-world to the occultic sub-cultures may be relatively small, I underscore the word relatively, but when you consider the massive marketing hype coupled with the unprecedented popularity of the novels and films, even a small minority of youth drawn into the occultic sub-cultures can amount to many precious souls and a great deal of damage - possibly with eternal consequences. Is not even one single lost child a tragedy?

My sole objective in appraising these books is not to be controversial but to examine a phenomenom that is representative of a much bigger isssue, namely our need as Catholics to discern more carefully the merits of all cultural influences, be it rock/pop music or literature. As far as the Potter series of books is concerned, urgent questions must needs be addressed: Even if the books do contain some values, do they promote virtue, or do they undermine it? and even if the vast majority of readers are not sucked into the occultic sub-cultures, what other effects can there be? and what about the unwholsesome and nebulous moral messages that the books convey to impressionable young readers, some of which I discussed earlier in my posts today.

God bless you and all your family.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[mdrummer5]

Sadly styrgwillidar, in the whole Potter debate among Christians one is either seen as a rational, culture, world-affirming pro-Potterite or an irrational, paranoid anti-Potterite. Those, however, are not the only options. The issue, as you say, is chiefly about reflective Catholics and other Christians of robust faith expressing grave concerns about a series of children’s books and people’s spiritual well-being.

Again, you imply that those of us that see nothing wrong with the Potter books lack in faith.

Furthermore nobody’s saying that the belief that “Potter is bad” is irrational, we simply disagree with it. What’s irrational is to condemn it for it’s use of magic and then to use lame, illogical arguments for why the use of magic (also by children that are aligned with the “good guys”) in Narnia and LOTR is perfectly acceptable.

Mickey for instance stands by the fact that it’s bad, period. Perfectly acceptable. Because he’s not spouting off about how it’s perfectly fine in another set of books while people are explaining how it’s contradictory. You have presented no logical argument for this very biased opinion because one does not exist.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

You must’ve missed the post from Fran65 claiming that their are real witches brewing potions and casting real spells… thousands I think she said.

Well as you said before. “Real” spells are a misnomer. The occult, New Age garbage is just so lame-o compared to the beauty of magic in fantasy. The last time I saw a “Wiccan” ritual was on YouTube and all the people in there did was wave sticks and dance around in silly circles.

Gimme the epic awesomeness of Fairy Tail or Final Fantasy any day.

Dragon God’s Shimmering Flame!!!