'Harry Potter and yoga are evil', says Catholic Church exorcist

[LiveCatholic]

So wait, you are saying that an innate ability is from the devil? (As indeed, Harry makes things happen when he doesn’t even know it is happening or how to do it as a child). There is no difference between the X-men’s abilities and those of the characters from Harry Potter, except that the X-men uses an evolutionary theme to explain their special powers. As to why the powers haven’t been explained by modern science, it seems that is also explained in the books, the wizards take a great deal of care to avoid the notice of the muggle world, even resorting to memory charms and such (think Men in Black and their mind wipers).

Wait, so wand waving, and point and shoot magic is a parallel to European folk magic? I don’t think I have ever seen that in etching.

I still don’t see how their powers are derived from the devil or demons. Or how that is even assumed? Are Gandalf and Saruman’s powers derived from the devil, or the elves’ in LOTRs? Or how such powers are even in the same theme of European folk magic?

Woooah, don’t shoot the messenger, lady. I didn’t write the books–ask Rowlings. Oh wait, she doesn’t explain.

Its not clear from the story, and no amount of speculation on the subject will fill the gap until the entire story is re-written… or she writes a prequel (a cosmogony account) like Tolkien did for LOTR. Where–as you neglect to consider above–the origin of all things in Middle Earth is detailed. I’d answer your questions if I read it, but it was all a bit tl;dr (too long; didn’t read).

As I’ve stated before, I still don’t think the occult elements are as problematic or scandalous as the fact that Christian symbolism and the Paschal drama are co-opted for a LOUD-AND-CLEAR Labour multiculturalist message. If the Harry Potter series was a receipt, its bottom line would read: Labour Party values in the '60s.

 

[jilly4ski]

Woooah, don’t shoot the messenger, lady. I didn’t write the books–ask Rowlings. Oh wait, she doesn’t explain.

Its not clear from the story, and no amount of speculation on the subject will fill the gap until the entire story is re-written… or she writes a prequel (a cosmogony account) like Tolkien did for LOTR. Where–as you neglect to consider above–the origin of all things in Middle Earth is detailed. I’d answer your questions if I read it, but it was all a bit tl;dr (too long; didn’t read).

As I’ve stated before, I still don’t think the occult elements are as problematic or scandalous as the fact that Christian symbolism and the Paschal drama are co-opted for a LOUD-AND-CLEAR Labour multiculturalist message. If the Harry Potter series was a receipt, its bottom line would be: forget the Tories/BNP/LibDems, vote Labour.

You didn’t answer my question. So you think innate abilities (which are clearly explained in the series) are from the devil?

As the books explained, only those born with the ability have it, if you are not, you cannot acquire it (squibs), and it is present from infant hood (Harry), though might not present itself until later (Neville). Even if the magic’s origin is not explained beyond that, you cannot contribute characteristics to the magic that the author did not. Occult magic by its very nature is not innate, and does not present itself in unaware children without their consent and active participation,. Thus the magic of HP is not Occult.

(The author seems to attribute the magic as somewhat genetic like a eye color genes. Think a blue eyed parent and a brown eyed parent could have kids with both blue and brown eyes. Or two brown eyed parents could have both blue and brown eyed children. But two blue eyed parents will have only blue eyed children. Like that, most kids born to wizards are also wizards, though every once in a while, a muggle will be born to a wizarding family (Think two brown eyed parents who both carry the recessive blue gene). But also once in a while, a wizard will be born to a muggle family). But I suppose that is debatable.

I think people’s confusion in this area, is a profound misunderstanding of the Occult, and why it is condemned by the Church.

 

[Irish_Eyes_826]

Live Catholic, you’ve read the series cover to cover? If the books are so evil why would you read them?
Also, in Deathly Hallows, it is made pretty clear that one cannot, under any circumstances, become magic if they are not born magic. This is shown when the characters discuss how ridiculous the idea of muggle-borns “stealing” their magic is. Many references Hermione makes to Ancient Runes also show that wizards existed even during ancient history. Obviously, Rowling wants the reader to see that magic is an inborn ability and that wizards have lived alongside “muggles” throughout history.
Additionally, one of Rowling’s greatest messages is that it does not matter what you are born as, it is what you choose to do with your abilities that matters. Since it is shown throughout the books that seeking powers that are not meant to be yours is evil, it is most unlikely that Rowling will explain to us some day that the original wizards made a deal with the Devil to receive their powers.
If you don’t like the Labour Party values you perceive in the books, that is entirely a matter of opinion and has no bearing on whether reading the books is “evil” or not.

 

[LiveCatholic]

Live Catholic, you’ve read the series cover to cover? *If the books are so evil why would you read them?
*

Besides wanting to have my own opinion, I would also say that I’m not exactly a moral authority. I wouldn’t hold myself up as a model of morality, let me say that much. I’ve also read Voltaire, Hitchens, and Dawkins… but I would actually prefer to come to grips with an idea outright than to be seduced by it in an entertaining novel.

Also, in Deathly Hallows, it is made pretty clear that one cannot, under any circumstances, become magic if they are not born magic. This is shown when the characters discuss how ridiculous the idea of muggle-borns “stealing” their magic is. Many references Hermione makes to Ancient Runes also show that wizards existed even during ancient history. Obviously, Rowling wants the reader to see that magic is an inborn ability and that wizards have lived alongside “muggles” throughout history.
Additionally, one of Rowling’s greatest messages is that it does not matter what you are born as, it is what you choose to do with your abilities that matters. Since it is shown throughout the books that seeking powers that are not meant to be yours is evil, it is most unlikely that Rowling will explain to us some day that the original wizards made a deal with the Devil to receive their powers.

Innate or no, I don’t see this as a particularly compelling reason to accept the ‘magic’ of Harry Potter as being distinct from its parallel in the historical tradition Rowling plundered for use in the series.

If you don’t like the Labour Party values you perceive in the books, that is entirely a matter of opinion and has no bearing on whether reading the books is “evil” or not.

I find the Labour Party distasteful. But when someone who has a very clear worldly message seeks to blatantly co-opt Christian imagery and the Paschal drama in service of distasteful, worldly aims I think this is something that should get us to raise our eyebrows.

 

[LiveCatholic]

You didn’t answer my question. So you think innate abilities (which are clearly explained in the series) are from the devil?

As the books explained, only those born with the ability have it, if you are not, you cannot acquire it (squibs), and it is present from infant hood (Harry), though might not present itself until later (Neville). Even if the magic’s origin is not explained beyond that, you cannot contribute characteristics to the magic that the author did not. Occult magic by its very nature is not innate, and does not present itself in unaware children without their consent and active participation,. Thus the magic of HP is not Occult.

**As I said to Patty, I don’t see why the ‘innate’ status of magic seems to be a forceful argument to ya’ll. **

I think people’s confusion in this area, is a profound misunderstanding of the Occult, and why it is condemned by the Church.

You’re right. Well, you might be. I don’t know much about the occult.

 

[Irish_Eyes_826]

Innate or no, I don’t see this as a particularly compelling reason to accept the ‘magic’ of Harry Potter as being distinct from its parallel in the historical tradition Rowling plundered for use in the series.

As I said to Patty, I don’t see why the ‘innate’ status of magic seems to be a forceful argument to ya’ll.

Something that is innate cannot be evil, people are not born with powers given to them by Devil, God gives everyone everything they are born with. In the real world sense of magic, magic is obtained through occult means. In the imaginary world of Harry Potter magic is simply something you are born with.

 

[LiveCatholic]

Something that is innate cannot be evil, people are not born with powers given to them by Devil, God gives everyone everything they are born with. In the real world sense of magic, magic is obtained through occult means. In the imaginary world of Harry Potter magic is simply something you are born with.

Ah, the ‘Lady Gaga argument’… I see, they were just ‘Born That Way,’ alright, I guess that’s OK then… :coffeeread:

 

[LilyM]

Something that is innate cannot be evil, people are not born with powers given to them by Devil, God gives everyone everything they are born with. In the real world sense of magic, magic is obtained through occult means. In the imaginary world of Harry Potter magic is simply something you are born with.

Hmm … we are all born with original sin, no? I am not enough of a theologian to argue whether original sin was given to us by the devil or not. We can be fairly confident that the fact that we are born with original sin doesn’t make it OK to follow the promptings of our original sin, or nurture it or pander to it in any way.

 

[jilly4ski]

Ah, the ‘Lady Gaga argument’… I see, they were just ‘Born That Way,’ alright, I guess that’s OK then… :coffeeread:

Again, it is a misunderstanding of the Occult and why it is bad. The Occult, is really seeking supernatural powers outside of God. (Saints also had supernatural powers, but theirs comes from God). If one is born with an ability then it, by definition, cannot be seeking powers outside of God. In the real world, God has said we cannot communicate with the dead, and we cannot know the future, thus people who say they can do that, (if they really think they can and are not charlatans) did not seek or gain such powers (which are really just demonic influences) from God, but from the devil or demons.

In the fantasy world of Harry Potter, a) there is no mention of God or a higher power or anything, like most fiction. b) The character’s have whatever powers they have. They can learn to control them and to learn about them, but they cannot increase their power that they are born with c) What magic is done in Harry Potter is not the same as the real magic that Occultist actually try to attempt. (In fact, HP magic is foreign to Wiccan, occult, pagan, voodoo, and any other type of magic besides other fantasy magic). It is interesting that Rowling plundered the terminology of European folk magic (actually I would say she built on an already established fantasy magic presence in the literary world), but this would be no more problematic than those who plunder the terminology of the Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology, their Gods and their magic.

 

[severus68]

Gotcha, but my point you originally responded to is not affected by the background of Grimm’s tales. At all. You don’t seem to follow them.

I’ve read your point, and I think you underestimate the extent to which something can be good or noble, but at the same time wrong.

Anywho, I think you knew well what I meant, regarding the series being your fav… its OK, no need to be defensive, I’d be upset when people attack LOTR or the Bible or Ernst Juenger’s books. Nothing to be ashamed of.

Something can be good and noble and at the same time wrong? Perhaps you could elaborate please?

Was the second part of your post an attempt at humour or at sarcasm?

 

[LiveCatholic]

Something can be good and noble and at the same time wrong? Perhaps you could elaborate please?

e.g. Socialism.

Was the second part of your post an attempt at humour or at sarcasm?
**
Is this an disjunction necessary? **

 

[Catholic90]

Something that is innate cannot be evil, people are not born with powers given to them by Devil, God gives everyone everything they are born with. In the real world sense of magic, magic is obtained through occult means. In the imaginary world of Harry Potter magic is simply something you are born with.

Exactly.

Years ago, teachers (many of them nuns) tried to force lefties to write with their right hand, going so far as to hit with rulers or even tying the left hand behind a student’s back, as they did with my friend who is 60-something. They could not write with their right hands so neatly, because they were born lefties. Being a leftie is not evil, no more than being born with blue eyes is evil and no more than in the HP world being born a wizard is evil.

 

[Catholic90]

Again, it is a misunderstanding of the Occult and why it is bad. The Occult, is really seeking supernatural powers outside of God. (Saints also had supernatural powers, but theirs comes from God). If one is born with an ability then it, by definition, cannot be seeking powers outside of God. In the real world, God has said we cannot communicate with the dead, and we cannot know the future, thus people who say they can do that, (if they really think they can and are not charlatans) did not seek or gain such powers (which are really just demonic influences) from God, but from the devil or demons.

In the fantasy world of Harry Potter, a) there is no mention of God or a higher power or anything, like most fiction. b) The character’s have whatever powers they have. They can learn to control them and to learn about them, but they cannot increase their power that they are born with c) What magic is done in Harry Potter is not the same as the real magic that Occultist actually try to attempt. (In fact, HP magic is foreign to Wiccan, occult, pagan, voodoo, and any other type of magic besides other fantasy magic). It is interesting that Rowling plundered the terminology of European folk magic (actually I would say she built on an already established fantasy magic presence in the literary world), but this would be no more problematic than those who plunder the terminology of the Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology, their Gods and their magic.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Kids playing Harry Potter:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Harrypottersatan.gif

 

[Neil_Anthony]

"In a letter dated March 7, 2003 Cardinal Ratzinger thanked Kuby for her “instructive” book Harry Potter - gut oder böse (Harry Potter- good or evil?), in which Kuby says the Potter books corrupt the hearts of the young, preventing them from developing a properly ordered sense of good and evil, thus harming their relationship with God while that relationship is still in its infancy.

“It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly,” wrote Cardinal Ratzinger."

lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/jul/05071301

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I meant that there is an affinity fostered by Rowlings’ style between the reader and title character that would make a myth or legend incomparable. It doesn’t matter how fabulous the events are, you’re in the passenger seat for Harry’s ride.

I confess there is a difference between it and, say, Lord of the Rings, in which the characters who do some kind of magic (Istari, elves) are not the principal characters to whom the reader most closely relates (hobbits). Likewise in Lewis, with Glenstorm the centaur doing astrology and the star magician doing magic.

But in light of the categorically fictional and non-occultic nature of HP-style “magic,” it’s really not a problem at all. And the relatable main characters in Christian children’s fantasy do sometimes do magic - Lucy in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Caspian in Prince Caspian, so there is a parallel for it. What is exciting in Harry Potter is not the magic - which is little more than the concept for the setting - but the moral and spiritual journeys of the characters.

To put it succinctly: Labour Party multiculturalist values + Christian symbolism without Christ + Occult + Compelling Tolkien-esque fantasy world construction = Harry Potter series

Sorry if that ruffles any feathers, but its my opinion.

There are some problems with that equation, though. For one thing, there is nothing occult in the stories.

For another, the novels do have Christ on a literary level, because some of the symbols are analogues for Jesus Christ himself. It doesn’t matter that Christ himself doesn’t literally appear; that’s not how symbolism or fiction works. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe would have very appropriately wielded Aslan as a Christ figure even if Lewis had not established two books later that Aslan actually is Jesus in another world.

Finally, I’m not sure what you mean by “Labour Party multiculturalist values,” but if you’re referring to the general themes of tolerance and anti-bigotry in the books, those are good things, so what’s the problem? And if you answer this question, please don’t just tell me what’s objectionable about “Labour Party multiculturalist values,” but also show me where those objectionable elements of “Labour Party multiculturalist values” are thematically promoted in the Harry Potter books.

I actually think the fact that narrative is framed as a Paschal drama w/ Christian symbolism, but with a Labour Party multiculturalist message is a dozen times more scandalous than its occult features.*

I really look forward to your elaboration of this objection to Rowling’s stories’ liberalism. I can’t imagine what it is in the series you find objectionable.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Pretty sure that’s simply because its assumed. The whole witch/wizard thing is very much in the European folk tradition, and historically it is assumed that all ‘supernatural’ power that isn’t derived from God, is derived from the Evil One.

The roots of this ‘magic’ aren’t addressed in the series, but its pretty clear what the deal is.

Exactly: it’s simply assumed, and our point is that the assumption is incorrect. Yes, in the real world, there’s only one way to get preternatural abilities, and that is from preternatural powers. But whatever powers would grant them must be evil, since God has forbidden them. That’s why real-world occult practices - sorcery, divination, etc. - are immoral.

But in fantasy, you can make up your own rules. Not your own moral rules, of course, but you can imagine possibilities that don’t exist in the real world. It’s stupid to write a story in which cowardice and treachery are heroic, because that could never be. But a story in which certain people are born with innate abilities that seem like magic but are, in fact, totally natural, is perfectly fine and non-occultic. That is what Harry Potter does.

Tolkien once disagreed on this precise matter with Catholic bookstore owner Peter Hastings. I’m lifting these citations from wikipedia; Hastings wrote concerning the possibility of the reincarnation of the elves:

“God has not used that device in any of the creations of which we have knowledge, and it seems to me to be stepping beyond the position of a sub-creator to produce it as an actual working thing, because a sub-creator, when dealing with the relations between creator and created, should use those channels which he knows the creator to have used already.”

Tolkien replied:

“We differ entirely about the nature of the relation of sub-creation to Creation. I should have said that liberation “from the channels the creator is known to have used already” is the fundamental function of “sub-creation”, a tribute to the infinity of His potential variety …] I am not a metaphysician; but I should have thought it a curious metaphysic …] that declared the channels known (in such a finite corner as we have any inkling of) to have been used, are the only possible ones, or efficacious, or possibly acceptable to and by Him!”

I agree with Tolkien; thus, I have no objection to the magic of Harry Potter.

Yes, people in the books are born with an innate ability to do this stuff–but why? From whence did this power come? Are these people just mutants? What makes Harry Potter wizards different than X-Men? Why haven’t these changes in human nature been addressed by muggle science?

Doesn’t matter. We *know *it can’t be from preternatural evil spirits, because no one ever invokes them in Harry Potter. You can’t be born with the sort of power that it’s immoral even to have due to the fact that the only way to get them is to accept them from demons, right?

Furthermore, the fact that they are absolutely non-transferable to Muggles proves that they are not preternatural/evil in origin. If they were, there’d be no reasons Muggles couldn’t use those powers too, but the series consistently presents that as an intrinsic impossibility.

"In a letter dated March 7, 2003 Cardinal Ratzinger thanked Kuby for her “instructive” book Harry Potter - gut oder böse (Harry Potter- good or evil?), in which Kuby says the Potter books corrupt the hearts of the young, preventing them from developing a properly ordered sense of good and evil, thus harming their relationship with God while that relationship is still in its infancy.

“It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly,” wrote Cardinal Ratzinger."

lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/jul/05071301

jimmyakin.org/2005/07/pre16_on_harry_.html

jimmyakin.org/2005/07/lifesitenews_ca.html

We’ve been over this. Case closed.

 

[jilly4ski]

Kids playing Harry Potter:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Harrypottersatan.gif

I was going to ask where you got this picture. I see it was from Wikimedia with the key words Harrypottersatan.

This picture was either set up or photo shopped to show that Harry Potter leads to Satanism. You want to know why? a)No where in Harry Potter do the characters draw pentagrams or anything else in order to do magic. Thus these kids are not playing Harry Potter. b) What are they wearing? You would think for such an elaborate play things they would get something closer to what is actually described in the books or shown in movies. And is that a star at the end of that kid’s wand? Where did that come from? c) How many parents let their 8-10 year olds have that many candles much less light them?

This picture looks obviously set up, because why would the kids be playing with the books on their laps like that. (But not open like they are reading a spell book?). Where are the other two kids’ wands? (As the wand is a very essential element in Harry Potter magic). What parent would just let their kids play like this and just take a picture?

Thus I claim that your picture is bogus. I too could find a picture (if I don’t care about viruses) on the internet proving that Catholics worship the devil too. Doesn’t mean it is real.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

This picture was either set up or photo shopped to show that Harry Potter leads to Satanism.

Thanks for explaining that to me. I guess Harry Potter is okay after all! I didn’t realize.

 

[curlycool89]

Hmm … we are all born with original sin, no? I am not enough of a theologian to argue whether original sin was given to us by the devil or not. We can be fairly confident that the fact that we are born with original sin doesn’t make it OK to follow the promptings of our original sin, or nurture it or pander to it in any way.

As much as Adam wanted to point at Eve and blame her, it was his own fault that he sinned. One of the requirements for (mortal) sin is full consent, as much as is required to be considered a personal choice. Original sin is because of the choice of our first parents, not because of the devil.

We have to be careful with natural feelings and such. One that people will argue is homosexuality. But again, the feeling is not sinful (it’s disordered), it’s the action that’s disordered because it goes against the 6th Commandment (and a whole theology regarding sexuality that I won’t reproduce in this space).

The ability to do magic would never be sinful. Doing magic would be sinful if it violated the 1st Commandment, which it would do if you were getting power apart from God. Since they are not getting power apart from God in Harry Potter, which you can prove in a variety of ways, such as muggles not being able to use magic - if it were the occult, wouldn’t the point be to lure more people into it and away from God instead of drawing a bright line saying they can never do it no matter what they try (Aunt Petunia tries to go to Hogwarts with her sister Lilly - Harry’s mom - but is flat out rejected and told she’s just plain can’t. It’s actually very important to her character development)?

I think we can all agree on that, can’t we; that the occult tries to take people away from God. In Harry Potter, muggles can’t do magic (just like hobbits can’t do elf-magic in LOTR) no matter what they do, which is completely contrary to what the occult represents (nor can you argue gnostic, because gnostics want to teach others their secret knowledge).