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

[curlycool89]

“logical fallacies”? You mean he disagrees with you so that makes him automatically wrong. I’ve read his work and it he makes lots of sense to me…

Because you’re not an expert in literary studies.DGDDavidson on the other hand deconstructed O’Brien’s entire thesis and showed he had an inherent bias that basically discredits anything he says. Here’s the post.

This weird thing about dragons is the pet idea of Michael O’Brien, and it always amazes me that so many Catholics have paid attention to it. He contradicts himself in his book, misunderstands some of the fantasy works he attempts to analyze, and even abuses Christian theology. His overview of dragon imagery in world mythology is selective, inadequate, and inaccurate. The book is simply terrible, and yet I keep finding people who take it seriously.

O’Brien’s favorite trick is tossing around certain inexplicable words to lead you by the nose. He compares fantasy works with “traditional” fairy tales, but never explains what he means by “traditional.” Dungeons and Dragons is a “cult,” but he never explains why he calls it that. Dragons are positive symbols in China because of “dualistic eastern religions,” but he doesn’t explain why dualism would lead to positive dragon symbols. Nor does he explain why serpents are consistently negative in Zoroastrianism, which is unquestionably dualistic. He mentions Tiamat from the Enuma Elish as a sort of dragon and seems to think that helps his case, but he’s apparently unaware that Tiamat’s vanquisher, Marduk, has serpents and dragons among his sacred symbols. He claims J. R. R. Tolkien is on his side in all this, but he is apparently unaware of Tolkien’s Farmer Giles of Ham, which contains a tamed dragon, the very thing O’Brien claims will drag children into neo-paganism.

When attacking the work of Madeline L’Engle, he criticizes her for describing cherubim as dragon-like, apparently unaware that in ancient iconography, cherubim are winged sphinxes. He is also apparently unaware that seraphim are winged serpents with legs–that’s a positive use of snake imagery right out of the Bible. He also gives no account, that I remember, of John 3.14 or of the good dragon, representing Mordecai, who battles the evil dragon in the additions to Esther. Scripture does not contain a univocal use of serpent imagery, so there can be no basis for a Christian argument that snakes in fiction must always represent only one thing, all the time, unless we’re prepared to condemn the Bible as a confused neo-pagan work.

He trips over his theology on a few occasions. In an attempt to discuss beauty as a property of being and the symbolic use of beauty in fairy stories, he gets confused and ends up–I hope by accident–saying pretty people are inherently better than ugly people. Even though he praises fairy tales for showing evildoers as ugly and do-gooders as beautiful, he turns around in one of his essays on Harry Potter and attacks J. K. Rowling for doing the very same thing.

During that aforementioned criticism of L’Engle, he criticizes her for (correctly) depicting evil as non-being, even though he admits she’s basically right on that point. But though O’Brien himself (correctly) understands demons as beings as wholly dedicated to evil as beings can be, and (correctly) criticizes L’Engle for a universalist bent, he (incorrectly, very incorrectly!) says some living human beings are the same way, “completely ruled by evil.” Sometimes he sounds more like a Lutheran or Calvinist than a Catholic.

He also excuses George MacDonald for his universalism. In Lilith, MacDonald depicts even Satan being saved, and O’Brien gives this a pass, but for some reason, that sort of thing is absolutely condemnable when Madeline L’Engle does it. He also praises MacDonald for depicting Lilith being converted back to good, even though she’s a demonic figure, though he condemns the depiction of the conversion of other demonic figures. The heroic characters in Lilith also use magic, just as Lilith does–yet when discussing Harry Potter and other fantasy works, he condemns books where both heroes and villains employ magic. For some reason, the use of magic by both good and evil is something O’Brien is willing to excuse in works by the authors he favors. O’Brien simply can’t be consistent in his criticism, so how can anyone seriously expect fantasists to use ideas like O’Brien’s as a moral guide for writing their work?

O’Brien may be a fine novelist. I know from experience he’s a competent painter. But in the realms of folklore or literary criticism the man is a sophomore, the Richard Dawkins of Catholic literary moral criticism, making facile arguments based on some master key to interpreting stories that he claims to have discovered, and huffily dismissing anyone who disagrees with him as “illiterate.” I do not understand why anyone treats A Landscape with Dragons or O’Brien’s essays on this subject as anything other than an embarrassment.

Yes, and I happen to disagree with them.

Which part of our logic do you have a problem with? Or do you just have an issue with people using logic?

The pictures merely show the powerful influence which movies, music and television have on a soul.

Oh sorry, were you being serious there?

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

you’re bringing up arguments that we have thoroughly deconstructed Don’t be silly. You have offered opinions; please have some room for people who don’t agree with you. Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid oput it well:

Among the odd things I’ve seen in the Catholic world, one of the oddest is the capacity of some Catholic Harry Potter fans to go zero-to-60 on the manic meter instantaneously at the mere suggestion that there might be something spiritually deleterious about HP. Someone who’s done more than suggest this is Canadian Catholic author and artist, Michael O’Brien, earning himself some, at times raucous, push-back from those who disagree with him.

I’ve known Michael personally for about 16 years now and know him to be astute, prudent, humble, deeply intellectual and, to be frank, a sage in the area of Catholic spirituality. In my estimation, his critique of HP, while unpopular with most HP-lovers, is bang-on-the-bullseye accurate.

What about the normal, intelligent and faithful Catholics who have no problem with the series?

 

[agnes_therese]

Those are some pretty awesome pictures. Is that what evil people look like? Do good, morally upstanding people wear suits and have halos above their heads?

There was a study published which I can post here for you at your request. It found that of all the teenage subcultures, Goths were more likely to go to university, more likely to be lawyers, and less likely to take part in anti-social behaviour. So go figure. Whatever happened to not judging a book by its cover?

Are we back to the days where evil people look like the childcatcher and good people look like Mary Poppins? I grew out of that stage a few years ago.

The most evil person I ever knew was the suit-and-tie type.

The Goths I have known have been, without exception, intelligent, law-abiding, kind individuals. And, by the way, much more tolerant of those who don’t share their opinions than many of the posters we see here.
Oh, and another thing-- not a single Satan-worshipper in the bunch.

 

[OriginalJS]

Yoga is not a religion. Meditation is not limited to Yoga; it includes techniques for personal peace and empowerment that are used by Christians sometimes under the name of “Spiritual Exercises .” Many churches have beautiful labyrinths that are a means of meditation.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I see the points you all are making, but I wonder if it is our own personal experiences that limit our responses. I guess we see healthy well-rounded youngsters go to these movies and come out quite entertained having had great fun! Yet I have seen so many youngsters younger than 10 or 12 muling drugs, getting their first kill to be accepted into a gang, etc. I have to wonder sometimes if these are ones who, like you say know the difference between HP magic and the real world, but still are left with the impression that sometimes you need a “power” other than yourself, i.e. a gun, a gang, drugs to take control of a situation or circumstances? I dunno, maybe I’m just jaded or cynical…

I honestly don’t think Harry Potter can give that impression when the “powers” portrayed routinely fail the characters: they fail the bad guys, and they fail the good guys. The good guys win in the end because, in this fantasy universe, spiritually positive actions and virtues are literally more metaphysically powerful than even the strongest magic. Harry triumphs over Voldemort or his servants in every single novel, yet any reader of the series could tell you that Harry’s magical powers and skills are literally weaker than those of all but one of the bad guys (Peter Pettigrew, or Wormtail).

In fact, in the last novel Harry is able to unite the three most powerful death-defying magical artifacts (the three Deathly Hallows) when Albus Dumbledore, the greatest wizard of all time, could not. Why? Because doing so requires the virtue of taking up one’s cross, surrendering to efficacious suffering. That’s what makes one strong and victorious in Harry Potter, while magic always fails.

The climax of Deathly Hallows itself conveys this quite strongly, when Voldemort and all of his remaining army are literally unable, despite their considerable magical prowess, to inflict any lasting harm on any of the good guys, simply because the fact that Harry intended to die for them mystically protects them from harm. Courage and self-sacrifice achieve victory where magic fails.

So no, I don’t think Harry Potter presents the danger of tempting youth to seek power and control.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

For the sake of everyone on this thread, I will now re-quote what curlycool so kindly reproduced for us here - here is what invalidates the credibility of O’Brien’s criticism:

This weird thing about dragons is the pet idea of Michael O’Brien, and it always amazes me that so many Catholics have paid attention to it. He contradicts himself in his book, misunderstands some of the fantasy works he attempts to analyze, and even abuses Christian theology. His overview of dragon imagery in world mythology is selective, inadequate, and inaccurate. The book is simply terrible, and yet I keep finding people who take it seriously.

O’Brien’s favorite trick is tossing around certain inexplicable words to lead you by the nose. He compares fantasy works with “traditional” fairy tales, but never explains what he means by “traditional.” Dungeons and Dragons is a “cult,” but he never explains why he calls it that. Dragons are positive symbols in China because of “dualistic eastern religions,” but he doesn’t explain why dualism would lead to positive dragon symbols. Nor does he explain why serpents are consistently negative in Zoroastrianism, which is unquestionably dualistic. He mentions Tiamat from the Enuma Elish as a sort of dragon and seems to think that helps his case, but he’s apparently unaware that Tiamat’s vanquisher, Marduk, has serpents and dragons among his sacred symbols. He claims J. R. R. Tolkien is on his side in all this, but he is apparently unaware of Tolkien’s Farmer Giles of Ham, which contains a tamed dragon, the very thing O’Brien claims will drag children into neo-paganism.

When attacking the work of Madeline L’Engle, he criticizes her for describing cherubim as dragon-like, apparently unaware that in ancient iconography, cherubim are winged sphinxes. He is also apparently unaware that seraphim are winged serpents with legs–that’s a positive use of snake imagery right out of the Bible. He also gives no account, that I remember, of John 3.14 or of the good dragon, representing Mordecai, who battles the evil dragon in the additions to Esther. Scripture does not contain a univocal use of serpent imagery, so there can be no basis for a Christian argument that snakes in fiction must always represent only one thing, all the time, unless we’re prepared to condemn the Bible as a confused neo-pagan work.

He trips over his theology on a few occasions. In an attempt to discuss beauty as a property of being and the symbolic use of beauty in fairy stories, he gets confused and ends up–I hope by accident–saying pretty people are inherently better than ugly people. Even though he praises fairy tales for showing evildoers as ugly and do-gooders as beautiful, he turns around in one of his essays on Harry Potter and attacks J. K. Rowling for doing the very same thing.

During that aforementioned criticism of L’Engle, he criticizes her for (correctly) depicting evil as non-being, even though he admits she’s basically right on that point. But though O’Brien himself (correctly) understands demons as beings as wholly dedicated to evil as beings can be, and (correctly) criticizes L’Engle for a universalist bent, he (incorrectly, very incorrectly!) says some living human beings are the same way, “completely ruled by evil.” Sometimes he sounds more like a Lutheran or Calvinist than a Catholic.

He also excuses George MacDonald for his universalism. In Lilith, MacDonald depicts even Satan being saved, and O’Brien gives this a pass, but for some reason, that sort of thing is absolutely condemnable when Madeline L’Engle does it. He also praises MacDonald for depicting Lilith being converted back to good, even though she’s a demonic figure, though he condemns the depiction of the conversion of other demonic figures. The heroic characters in Lilith also use magic, just as Lilith does–yet when discussing Harry Potter and other fantasy works, he condemns books where both heroes and villains employ magic. For some reason, the use of magic by both good and evil is something O’Brien is willing to excuse in works by the authors he favors. O’Brien simply can’t be consistent in his criticism, so how can anyone seriously expect fantasists to use ideas like O’Brien’s as a moral guide for writing their work?

O’Brien may be a fine novelist. I know from experience he’s a competent painter. But in the realms of folklore or literary criticism the man is a sophomore, the Richard Dawkins of Catholic literary moral criticism, making facile arguments based on some master key to interpreting stories that he claims to have discovered, and huffily dismissing anyone who disagrees with him as “illiterate.” I do not understand why anyone treats A Landscape with Dragons or O’Brien’s essays on this subject as anything other than an embarrassment.

Speaks for itself.

O’Brien responds:
Regardless of how wildly imaginative it may be, good fantasy points us towards ultimate reality, “the moral order of the universe” as J.R.R. Tolkien called it. Corrupt fantasy points us, or forms us, in a consciousness that can lead to thinking that evil is good and good is evil. In the worst case, this may have long range effects, prompting the reader intuitively, subconsciously, to do evil while thinking they’re doing good.

I completely agree with O’Brien’s principles. The thing is that Harry Potter does point us toward ultimate reality, toward “the moral order of the universe.” I discuss one of the many ways it does so earlier in this very reply.

 

[Lisa44]

In the Dec 9th issue of the magazine The Week it says the former chief exorcist of the Vatican has denounced yoga as a tool of Satin. Fr. G. Amorth ,86yrs, who is Pres. -for-life of the International Assoc. Of Exorcists, says the increasing popular Eastern discipline and breathing can lead devotees to Hinduism and thus to a “false belief in reincarnation and a unholy worship of the body”. Practicing yoga is Satanic", said Amoth.". “It leads to evil just like reading Harry Potter”.
I find this hard to believe. I think he should retire.

telegraph.co.uk/culture/harry-potter/8915691/Harry-Potter-and-yoga-are-evil-says-Catholic-Church-exorcist.html

He should not retire. He is an expert in his field.
I agree with him.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

My first and only encounter with Yoga was doing exercises while watching a video where we were told to adopt a certain pose which would allow the “chakra”, some kind of mystical force, to enter us. How can that be just exercise and not another religion?

 

[jilly4ski]

My first and only encounter with Yoga was doing exercises while watching a video where we were told to adopt a certain pose which would allow the “chakra”, some kind of mystical force, to enter us. How can that be just exercise and not another religion?

However, most yoga practice (In the US) is not like like that. You start out breathing, them move into the stretch poses, at the end most instructors have you lie down and that talk about relaxing your body muscle by muscle and then your mind. “Taking your worries and letting them out” etc. None of that is specifically religious or even spiritual.

Just like in martial arts, there are some instructors who have some focus on the eastern spiritual side, but for most it is just an exercise and sport, with a little quite time to relax ones body and mind. (No different than bosses having employees “leave their problems at the door.”).

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Just like in martial arts, there are some instructors who have some focus on the eastern spiritual side, but for most it is just an exercise and sport, with a little quite time to relax ones body and mind. (No different than bosses having employees “leave their problems at the door.”).

Same thing with martial arts. I had two experiences with martial arts: Tai Chi, and Kung Fu. At the tai chi place, it started out just exercise, then one day they invited us to light a candle before a statue of some eastern religious figure. Kung Fu was mostly about kicking and blocking and punching, except for the exercises where we invited Chi energy to flow through us. These are all things I experienced in North America, and I wasn’t seeking out mystical stuff, just exercise.

 

[Lisa44]

I can’t speak to Harry Potter books or movies as I haven’t seen them.
But I have seen first hand the effects of Eastern religions and practices on the people who began practicing them. That is anecdotal I know.
EWTN has articles on the subject.

 

[Portrait]

I think that many people have been reacting based on an emotional attachment to the Harry Potter series instead of understanding the real concerns which normal, intelligent and faithful Catholics have about this series. For example, Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid has explained why he believes the series is nothing but “pretty poison” and why parents should see that their children avoid it.

For those of you interested in an eye-opening book about the influence of this series, please read the book “Harry Potter and the Paganization of Culture” By Michael O’Brien, the author of the best selling book Father Elijah. In his book Harry Potter and the Paganization of Culture, he compares Harry Potter with Narnia and The Lord of the Rings, and specifically between the heroes in these books, unmasking the bad seeds which are definitely in the H.P. series. Also, in his book Landscape with Dragons,he contrasts authentic Christian fantasy literature from those which are pretending to be. For an article by Patrick Madrid on the matter CLICK HERE.

Dear Gabriel Serafin,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hear, Hear to the above. Jolly well said my dear friend. Thankyou for your excellent (name removed by moderator)ut to this thread - keep up the good work.

The argumentation of the Catholic anti-Potterites has neither been answered nor debunked. Contrary to what is asserted on these boards Michael O’ Brien’s cogent case against the inferior Potter novels is both unanswered and unanswerable. Sadly, the vast majority of pro-Potterites simply misrepresent his arguments or, if that fails, stoop to the level of *ad *hominem attacks against his person. With very few exceptions do they engage in non-emotive rationale debate.

It is quite true that you meet with superficially plausible rebuttals of the weighty anti-Potter arguments, but that is hardly the same as presenting a compelling refutation, demonstrating the falsity or error of the anti-Potter standpoint.

Whatever morals or virtues that are to be found within the pages of these unwholesome Potter books, are only an inheritance from Christianity and survive only as a humanistic ethos - a mere vestige of what they once were. Previous generations of Catholics, well-tutored in moral theology, would have deemed these worthless books to be morally inferior and would not have touched them with the proverbial barge pole.

The Potter novels reveal an ambivalent morality at work. Like nature there are laws that govern the moral life; there is an objective moral order to the universe and it is essential that the world of fantasy fiction reinforces the laws of the moral universe, as the excellent fiction of Mr. Lewis and Mr. Tolkein most certainly does. Every man engages on a moral journey and it is imperative that each individual has good signposts to assist him in charting his path. It goes without comment that this is of vital importance in the formation of the young during their earliest years.

The Devil is indeed cunning and it is quite evident that he has invaded our culture. The world of arts and literature has not been omitted and this is seen in world-wide Pottermania. On the occasions that I have discussed the Potter books, I have sometimes been asked - even by conservative Catholics, who ought to know better, - whether so many could really have been duped by the Potter phenomenom. A resounding yes; the voice of history attests that there can be such a thing as mass public deception, ask the Germans, they know all about that.

There is, alas, an almost complete absence of spiritual discernment among young Catholics today (and some not so young) with the result that they unable to distinguish between what is good and wholesome and what is bad and harmful. The blame for this must lie with poor or virtually non-existent catechesis and an anything goes approach to religion, which has become so fashionable with modern day Catholics.

God bless and compliments of the season.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Sadly, the vast majority of pro-Potterites simply misrepresent his arguments or, if that fails, stoop to the level of *ad *hominem attacks against his person. With very few exceptions do they engage in non-emotive rationale debate.

That’s untrue:

The paragraphs of criticism that curlycool and I reproduced in this thread make very specific points. If those points are guilty of “misrepresenting” his arguments, why don’t you elaborate, point by point, on how that is so?

If you cannot or will not do so, it appears that O’Brien’s credibility as a fantasy critic is indeed unanswerably tarnished.

The Potter novels reveal an ambivalent morality at work.

Honestly, I don’t even feel like arguing that point anymore. Anyone familiar with the content of the series can see that the Potter novels self-evidently paint a very black-and-white picture of morality.

Like nature there are laws that govern the moral life; there is an objective moral order to the universe and it is essential that the world of fantasy fiction reinforces the laws of the moral universe, as the excellent fiction of Mr. Lewis and Mr. Tolkein most certainly does.

Only an egregious double standard can approve of Lewis and Tolkien while disapproving of Rowling. We’ve been over this before, Portrait.

The elves have magical abilities in Tolkien, as do Istari like Gandalf - the prototypical good wizard.

With the full blessing of the book’s narrator and good side, Lucy Pevensie casts spells in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. The only one portrayed as wrong is the one she uses to spy on her friends’ mean gossip - and it’s presented as wrong because it’s an invasion of her friends’ privacy, not because it’s magic.

Glenstorm the centaur - consistently presented as a good guy - explains that he used astrology in Prince Caspian. Caspian summons the Pevensie children to Narnia by means of magic, and this act is praised.

Lewis in Narnia includes “magic” that’s way closer to the occult than what Rowling portrays: some bad guys argue that Caspian’s forces should practice necromancy to raise up the White Witch. Stuff like that never even comes close to happening in Harry Potter, which actually does portray attempts to raise the dead as spiritually dangerous.

You cannot have it both ways, Portrait. I can at least respect the consistency of fundamentalist Protestants who denounce Rowling, Lewis, and Tolkien.

 

[Catholic90]

I repeat, normal, intelligent and faithful Catholics have real concerns about the H.P series. Why is this arrogant? …

No, don’t be silly; of course not. But if dressing like if you’re in a Satanic cult is your lifestyle, you’re probably not living a very healthy spiritual life.

honestly, I’d hate to have someone looking like that representing me in court. But what does going to a university have to do with anything we’re talking about? The devil is very intelligent too…

…

lol, yes, wait 'till you have your own children and they come home looking like Dracula with a tattoo on their face.

How utterly silly. I am a normal, intelligent, and faithful Catholic, and I love the Harry Potter books. It is recommended reading to my elementary students in Catholic School.

Regarding the dress…2 of my teenage sons have long hair. One loves to dress in all black. He prefers leather jackets. He looks tough. He looks scary. He is a most faithful Catholic who is going to college! He is an excellent student, works hard, and is one of the most dependable people you will ever meet. He often comes home on weekends to get away from the drinking going on.

I don’t judge people on looks - often tattooed and pierced people are very nice people with excellent morals, values, and ethics. We recently had a person robbing people in mall parking lots near me dressed in a very nice suit. So do not judge on appearances.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Well then, I think this gets to the heart of the problem. If you don’t find any objections with listening to Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin or the Stones, then you certainly won’t have any issues with H.P. …You object to Marilyn Manson music merely because you don’t like what it sounds like? How about because it is blatantly Satanic? Do you not realize the toll that type of music has had on the youth of the world? If you were wise you would throw that stuff out…
[IMG ]http://www.allisnow.com/images/themes/music/black-sabbath/born-again-s/image_rotator.php[/IMG]

 

[Sonic]

I’ve been going through DGDDavidson’s analysis, and about three things already have popped up which I find inaccurate and could affect this criticism of O’Briens work. I wish I had a copy of O’Briens book to check the accuracy of the interpretations given to O’Brien. DGDDavidson’s analysis can be found here to help save space for this post… forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6581033#post6581033

Chrysophylax, the dragon from Farmer Giles of Ham is not a tame dragon (nor does he ever become tame). He remains a villain throughout the story. He only acts according to Farmer Gile’s bidding through fear of being slain. Although, villagers may refer to him as Farmer Gile’s “tame” dragon, the reader knows this is not so due to the fact that Chrysophylax is kept under guard and forced to keep his word under threat of the sword. But, I will actually give actual citations from the actual story…

Mercy on us!' said the dragon, who overheard these words as he came out of the cave for the third time with the biggest load of all, and a mort of rich jewels like green and red fire. Mercy on us! If I carry all this, it will be near the death of me, and a bag more I never could manage not if you killed me for it.’

`Then there is more still, is there?’ said the farmer.

Yes,' said the dragon, enough to keep me respectable.’ He spoke near the truth for a rare wonder, and wisely as it turned out. If you will leave me what remains,' said he very wily, I’ll be your friend for ever. And I will carry all this treasure back to your honour’s own house and not to the King’s. And I will help you to keep it, what is more,’ said he.

Then the farmer took out a toothpick with his left hand, and he thought very hard for a minute. Then `Done with you!’ he said, showing a laudable discretion. A knight would have stood out for the whole hoard and got a curse laid upon it. And as likely as not, if Giles had driven the worm to despair, he would have turned and fought in the end, Tailbiter or no Tailbiter. In which case Giles, if not slain himself, would have been obliged to slaughter his transport and leave the best part of his gains in the mountains.

Well, that was the end of it. The farmer stuffed his pockets with jewels, just in case anything went wrong; and he gave the grey mare a small load to carry. All the rest he bound on the back of Chrysophylax in boxes and bags, till he looked like a royal pantechnicon. There was no chance of his flying, for his load was too great, and Giles had tied down his wings. .

`Mighty handy this rope has turned out in the end!’ he thought, and he remembered the parson with gratitude.

So off now the dragon trotted, puffing and blowing, with the mare at his tail, and the farmer holding out Caudimordax very bright and threatening. He dared try no tricks. In spite of their burdens the mare and the dragon made better speed going back than the cavalcade had made coming. For Farmer Giles was in a hurry - not the least reason being that he had little food in his bags. Also he had no trust in Chrysophylax after his breaking of oaths so solemn and binding, and he wondered much how to get through a night without death or great loss. But before that night fell he ran again into luck; for they overtook half a dozen of the servants and ponies that had departed in haste and were now wandering at a loss in the Wild Hills. They scattered in fear and amazement, but Giles shouted after them.

Hey, lads' said he. Come back! I have a job for you, and good wages while this packet lasts.’

So they entered his service, being glad of a guide, and thinking that their wages might indeed come more regular now than had been usual. Then they rode on, seven men, six ponies, one mare, and a dragon; and Giles began to feel like a lord and stuck out his chest. They halted as seldom as they could. At night Farmer Giles roped the dragon to four pickets, one to each leg, with three men to watch him in turn. But the grey mare kept half an eye open, in case the men should try any tricks on their own account.

I love the bit of humor hear in Tolkien’s expression of the dragon’s feeling toward Giles…

"In his bad heart of hearts the dragon felt as kindly disposed towards Giles as a dragon can feel towards anyone.

Chrysophylax begged often for his liberty; and he proved expensive to feed, since he continued to grow, as dragons will, like trees, as long as there is life in them. So it came to pass, after some years, when Giles felt himself securely established, that he let the poor worm go back home. They parted with many expressions of mutual esteem, and a pact of non-aggression upon either side. In his bad heart of hearts the dragon felt as kindly disposed towards Giles as a dragon can feel towards anyone. After all there was Tailbiter: his life might easily have been taken, and all his hoard too. As it was, he still had a mort of treasure at home in his cave (as indeed Giles suspected).
He flew back to the mountains, slowly and laboriously, for his wings were clumsy with long disuse, and his size and his armour were greatly increased. Arriving home, he
at once routed out a young dragon who had had the temerity to take up residence in his cave while Chrysophylax was away. It is said that the noise of the battle was heard throughout Venedotia. When, with great satisfaction he had devoured his defeated opponent, he felt better, and the scars of his humiliation were assuaged, and he slept for
a long while. But at last, waking suddenly, he set off in search of that tallest and stupidest of the giants, who had started all the trouble one summer’s night long before. He gave him a piece of his mind, and the poor fellow was very much crushed.
A blunderbuss, was it?' said he, scratching his head. I thought it was horseflies!’

Finis or in the vulgar THE END

I will post part two in the next post…

 

[Sonic]

Part two in reference to post #235 concerning DGDDavidson’s analysis of O’Briens work: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8718491&postcount=235

Concerning the Seraphim… the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, the 1965 Catholic Encyclopedia, and the 2004 New Catholic Encyclopedia don’t make any mention of the Seraphim being dragons or serpents. To the contrary…

The name is oftentimes derived from the Hebrew verb saraph (“to consume with fire”), and this etymology is very probable because of its accordance with Isaiah 6:6, where one of the seraphim is represented as carrying celestial fire from the altar to purify the Prophet’s lips. Many scholars prefer to derive it from the Hebrew noun saraph, “a fiery and flying serpent”, spoken of in Numbers 21:6; Isaiah 14:29, and the brazen image of which stood in the Temple in Isaias’s time (2 Kings 18:4); but it is plain that no trace of such serpentine form appears in Isaias’s description of the seraphim. Still less probable are the views propounded of late by certain critics and connecting the Biblical seraphim with the Babylonian Sharrapu, a name for Nergal, the fire-god, or with the Egyptian griffins (séréf) which are placed at Beni-Hassan as guardians of graves.

source: newadvent.org/cathen/13725b.htm

SERAPHIM Plural noun probably derived from Hebrew transitive verb meaning to burn. It designates celestial beings of the court of Yahweh in the vocational vision of Isaiah (6.2–6), which is the only occurrence of the word in this sense in the Bible. Commonly they are called the burning ones, not to indicate their intransitive flame of charity toward Yahweh, but rather referring to purifying mission of one seraph to Isaiah, preparing him for his prophetic vocation.

Various opinions identify seraphim with winged grifons of Egypt, CHERUBIM, and Akkadian–Canaanite genii associated with divine majesty. But Isaiah clearly presents them as humanlike beings with faces, hands, feet, and equipped with six wings. With one pair of wings they veil their faces lest they see Yahweh (Ex 33.20); with a second pair they ‘‘hovered aloft’’; with the third pair they veiled their feet (euphemism for pudenda). They may have been well known in Israelite lore because Isaiah mentions them without preparation or explanation. Unwarrantedly, some have associated seraphim with the saraph (burning) serpents of Nm 21.4–9; Dt 8.15; Is 14.29, 30.6, whose bite caused a burning sensation; or with the Nohestan (bronze serpent) of 2 Kgs 18.4. As to their number, while some say choirs of seraphim are indicated, the text favors the opinion that just two seraphim cry the Trisagion ‘‘one to the other.’’

Unliteral acceptance of ‘‘burning’’ intransitively as of the flame of love, together with seraphim choirs praising thrice holy Yahweh, have led Christian speculation, piety, and art to place seraphim as the highest and most ardent of the angelic orders.

source: 2004 Gale Group New Catholic Encyclopedia 2nd Volume 13 pg 5 - 6

Likewise, I can find no reference to Cherubim or the Sphinx ever being associated as serpents or dragons in any of my actual sources (or even unreliable wikipedia at that).

Old Catholic Encyclopedia article on Cherubim:

newadvent.org/cathen/03646c.htm

Unfortunately, these are the only facts I could check without having an actual copy of Mr. O’Brien’s book on hand. It does make pause as to why this analysis is being cited constantly without first checking to see if the analysis is accurate in it’s criticism.

Now, I want to read O’Bien’s book to see if what has been criticized about him is accurate.

 

[Chaplain777]

I honestly don’t think Harry Potter can give that impression when the “powers” portrayed routinely fail the characters: they fail the bad guys, and they fail the good guys. The good guys win in the end because, in this fantasy universe, spiritually positive actions and virtues are literally more metaphysically powerful than even the strongest magic. Harry triumphs over Voldemort or his servants in every single novel, yet any reader of the series could tell you that Harry’s magical powers and skills are literally weaker than those of all but one of the bad guys (Peter Pettigrew, or Wormtail).

In fact, in the last novel Harry is able to unite the three most powerful death-defying magical artifacts (the three Deathly Hallows) when Albus Dumbledore, the greatest wizard of all time, could not. Why? Because doing so requires the virtue of taking up one’s cross, surrendering to efficacious suffering. That’s what makes one strong and victorious in Harry Potter, while magic always fails.

The climax of Deathly Hallows itself conveys this quite strongly, when Voldemort and all of his remaining army are literally unable, despite their considerable magical prowess, to inflict any lasting harm on any of the good guys, simply because the fact that Harry intended to die for them mystically protects them from harm. Courage and self-sacrifice achieve victory where magic fails.

So no, I don’t think Harry Potter presents the danger of tempting youth to seek power and control.

Well, as many people that have seen this movie or read the books, I certainly hope you are correct.

 

[severus68]

That’s untrue:

The paragraphs of criticism that curlycool and I reproduced in this thread make very specific points. If those points are guilty of “misrepresenting” his arguments, why don’t you elaborate, point by point, on how that is so?

If you cannot or will not do so, it appears that O’Brien’s credibility as a fantasy critic is indeed unanswerably tarnished.

Honestly, I don’t even feel like arguing that point anymore. Anyone familiar with the content of the series can see that the Potter novels self-evidently paint a very black-and-white picture of morality.

Only an egregious double standard can approve of Lewis and Tolkien while disapproving of Rowling. We’ve been over this before, Portrait.

The elves have magical abilities in Tolkien, as do Istari like Gandalf - the prototypical good wizard.

With the full blessing of the book’s narrator and good side, Lucy Pevensie casts spells in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. The only one portrayed as wrong is the one she uses to spy on her friends’ mean gossip - and it’s presented as wrong because it’s an invasion of her friends’ privacy, not because it’s magic.

Glenstorm the centaur - consistently presented as a good guy - explains that he used astrology in Prince Caspian. Caspian summons the Pevensie children to Narnia by means of magic, and this act is praised.

Lewis in Narnia includes “magic” that’s way closer to the occult than what Rowling portrays: some bad guys argue that Caspian’s forces should practice necromancy to raise up the White Witch. Stuff like that never even comes close to happening in Harry Potter, which actually does portray attempts to raise the dead as spiritually dangerous.

You cannot have it both ways, Portrait. I can at least respect the consistency of fundamentalist Protestants who denounce Rowling, Lewis, and Tolkien.

A great post.

Just to share. I remember when reading the first book “HP and the Philosopher’s stone” being so moved by the response to HP saying that the keeper would die if the stone was destroyed, to the effect that death is just the start of a new life.

 

[severus68]

How utterly silly. I am a normal, intelligent, and faithful Catholic, and I love the Harry Potter books. It is recommended reading to my elementary students in Catholic School.

Regarding the dress…2 of my teenage sons have long hair. One loves to dress in all black. He prefers leather jackets. He looks tough. He looks scary. He is a most faithful Catholic who is going to college! He is an excellent student, works hard, and is one of the most dependable people you will ever meet. He often comes home on weekends to get away from the drinking going on.

I don’t judge people on looks - often tattooed and pierced people are very nice people with excellent morals, values, and ethics. We recently had a person robbing people in mall parking lots near me dressed in a very nice suit. So do not judge on appearances.