Harry Potter anyone?

[Nan_S]

Shiann:

Invocational magic, which calls upon powers and principalities opposed to God, is what is proscribed by the Bible. Incantational magic is not only in keeping with a long tradition of English fantasy, it shows—in story form—our human thirst for a reality beyond the physical world a reality that points to Christ.

Invocational magic tries to conjure any spirit, not just demons. “Expecto Patronum” is invocational magic. But that’s beside the point. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not distinguish between Invocational and Incantational magic. All forms of magic are forbidden.

Shiann:

I commend you on using this as a lesson for your children. That is exactly what I do.

Thank you for your kind words.

Monarchy:

Nan S:

They were pulled out by Harry’s wand.

***WRONG!!! ***
They were pulled out of Voldemorts wand. READ the book.

Read what I wrote. They were pulled out BY Harry’s wand, not out OF Harry’s wand.

For Monarchy and SanPablo, you are both getting wrapped up in semantics and ignoring the basic objection. All forms of magic, for any reason either good or evil, are rejected by the Church. It is reprehensible to excuse something explicitly contrary to the Church, and even more reprehensible to gift-wrap magic in an appealing package and encourage our impressionable children to read it, without (at a minimum) also firmly instructing them in the faith.

Catechism of the Catholic Church 2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to “unveil” the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.

***2117 *All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another’s credulity.

 

[Monarchy]

Read what I wrote. They were pulled out BY Harry’s wand, not out OF Harry’s wand.

You accused the character of using Necromancy, I showed that to be untrue.

For Monarchy and SanPablo, you are both getting wrapped up in semantics and ignoring the basic objection. All forms of magic, for any reason either good or evil, are rejected by the Church. It is reprehensible to excuse something explicitly contrary to the Church, and even more reprehensible to gift-wrap magic in an appealing package and encourage our impressionable children to read it, without (at a minimum) also firmly instructing them in the faith.

As an atheist I don’t really care what the catholic church teaches. I do care when you make stuff up about things you don’t like.

 

[Nan_S]

Monarchy:

As an atheist I don’t really care what the catholic church teaches.

The truth emerges. My, my. Yet you’ve been a member of this forum for over a year.

I am wondering. Why are you here?

 

[Monarchy]

Nan S:

The truth emerges. My, my. Yet you’ve been a member of this forum for over a year.

I am wondering. Why are you here?

To combat the untruths told about atheism, the same way a catholic might go on a baptist board to defend catholisim. Ignorance breeds hatred.

 

[deb1]

Monarchy:

To combat the untruths told about atheism, the same way a catholic might go on a baptist board to defend catholisim. Ignorance breeds hatred.

I don’t mind having you here. We have many different denominations and religions that come to this forum and I enjoy debating with them. I have to say that I don’t remember much being said about atheism at all on this site which might make defending your stance difficult. But, of course, you are welcome on the site.

 

[sanpablo]

Nan S, you said:*
Gandalf does not teach “magic” to anyone, nor does he use his magical abilities except in extreme circumstances, and when he does he exposes the group to dire peril.
*and also:
*2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion.

*You seem to contradict yourself here.

Also, I htnk you need to again be reminded that this is a fantasy book. Just like C.S. Lewis’. you seem to not have realized that the entire theme for the books is that Harry didn’t die as a baby because of his mother’s love for him, and that the power of love ever overwhelms that of evil. That doesn’t sound gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. Remember the Bible passage: “Faith, hope, and love, but the greatest is love.”
Tolkien’s message about “magic” is that it is dangerous and not be used.
*Ummm…that’s not what I’m gettin. I think his message about magic(if he meant their to be one) is that there are other powers in this world that we can’t understand, or that are different in different people (have you seen X-Men?), and if someone has those powers, they, like free will, are used for either good or evil.
For example, have you read Roald Dahl’s Matilda? She can move things with her mind, but she is not an evil witch.

 

[Nan_S]

sanpablo:

Nan S, you said:
Gandalf does not teach “magic” to anyone, nor does he use his magical abilities except in extreme circumstances, and when he does he exposes the group to dire peril.
and also:
2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion.

You seem to contradict yourself here.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but let me try to clarify what I meant. According to the CCC instruction all use of magic is wrong, even when done with good intentions. From my perspective, Gandalf’s experience proves the point by demonstrating why.

In Gandalf’s world “magic” has perilous results and, at least by the “good” characters, is used sparingly or not at all. Bilbo uses the magic ring as a toy and is nearly enslaved by it. Gandalf persuades him to give the ring up, then tells Frodo to never use it. During the blizzard on Caradhras Gandalf speaks a “word of command” to save the fellowship, but by speaking it he also reveals their location to every evil force between Rivendell and Mordor. Every magical action, even when performed out of extreme desperation and for a good cause, brings a potentially evil result.

sanpablo:

Also, I htnk you need to again be reminded that this is a fantasy book. Just like C.S. Lewis’. you seem to not have realized that the entire theme for the books is that Harry didn’t die as a baby because of his mother’s love for him, and that the power of love ever overwhelms that of evil. That doesn’t sound gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. Remember the Bible passage: “Faith, hope, and love, but the greatest is love.”

It’s been over 30 years since I read C.S.Lewis, so I can’t discuss it in depth. And I have no problem with the theme of love overcoming evil. My problem is with J. K. Rowling’s methods.

In Harry Potter’s world “magic” is desirable and profitable. The uninitiated (Harry and his schoolmates, and, by implication, our real-world children who identify with them) are encouraged to learn how to tame occult powers, so as to place those powers at their service and have supernatural power over others. This is gravely contrary to the Catholic Church.

Tolkien’s message about “magic” is that it is dangerous and not be used.
Ummm…that’s not what I’m gettin. I think his message about magic(if he meant their to be one) is that there are other powers in this world that we can’t understand, or that are different in different people (have you seen X-Men?), and if someone has those powers, they, like free will, are used for either good or evil.
For example, have you read Roald Dahl’s Matilda? She can move things with her mind, but she is not an evil witch.

I’ve tried to address this above.

Matilda is very much like the X-men. At age 9 (more or less) she is a sweet child. But with such unchecked power, can you imagine her as a rebellious 17-year-old? It’s hard enough for a parent to handle an ordinary teenager.

Tolkien shows us the horrible cost of delving into magic, even passively. The elves created magic rings. Sauron corrupted them. The elves rings, which Sauron did not touch, were tainted and could never be restored to their original glory. The dwarves’ and mens’ rings could not be uncorrupted; although they could use the rings, they could not resist the taint upon them. Every magical action, even when performed out of extreme desperation and for a good cause, brought a potentially evil result.

The problem with Harry Potter is that it tempts our children, in a very appealing way, to use a tool that offers them the sort of power possessed by Matilda, while ignoring the dangers so carefully displayed by Tolkien.

Rowling is not a Christian. If our kids read these books, we need to make sure they are quite aware of Catholic teaching about magic and warned about the dangers.

 

[Shiann]

Nan S:

I’m not sure what you’re getting at, but let me try to clarify what I meant. According to the CCC instruction all use of magic is wrong, even when done with good intentions. From my perspective, Gandalf’s experience proves the point by demonstrating why.

In Gandalf’s world “magic” has perilous results and, at least by the “good” characters, is used sparingly or not at all. Bilbo uses the magic ring as a toy and is nearly enslaved by it. Gandalf persuades him to give the ring up, then tells Frodo to never use it. During the blizzard on Caradhras Gandalf speaks a “word of command” to save the fellowship, but by speaking it he also reveals their location to every evil force between Rivendell and Mordor. Every magical action, even when performed out of extreme desperation and for a good cause, brings a potentially evil result.

It’s been over 30 years since I read C.S.Lewis, so I can’t discuss it in depth. And I have no problem with the theme of love overcoming evil. My problem is with J. K. Rowling’s methods.

In Harry Potter’s world “magic” is desirable and profitable. The uninitiated (Harry and his schoolmates, and, by implication, our real-world children who identify with them) are encouraged to learn how to tame occult powers, so as to place those powers at their service and have supernatural power over others. This is gravely contrary to the Catholic Church.

I’ve tried to address this above.

Matilda is very much like the X-men. At age 9 (more or less) she is a sweet child. But with such unchecked power, can you imagine her as a rebellious 17-year-old? It’s hard enough for a parent to handle an ordinary teenager.

Tolkien shows us the horrible cost of delving into magic, even passively. The elves created magic rings. Sauron corrupted them. The elves rings, which Sauron did not touch, were tainted and could never be restored to their original glory. The dwarves’ and mens’ rings could not be uncorrupted; although they could use the rings, they could not resist the taint upon them. Every magical action, even when performed out of extreme desperation and for a good cause, brought a potentially evil result.

The problem with Harry Potter is that it tempts our children, in a very appealing way, to use a tool that offers them the sort of power possessed by Matilda, while ignoring the dangers so carefully displayed by Tolkien.

Rowling is not a Christian. If our kids read these books, we need to make sure they are quite aware of Catholic teaching about magic and warned about the dangers.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_6_6.gif

Our zeal for trying to prove our point can often cause us to loose our charity…

 

[Melissa]

Nan S:

In Harry Potter’s world “magic” is desirable and profitable. The uninitiated (Harry and his schoolmates, and, by implication, our real-world children who identify with them) are encouraged to learn how to tame occult powers, so as to place those powers at their service and have supernatural power over others. This is gravely contrary to the Catholic Church.
… [snip]
The problem with Harry Potter is that it tempts our children, in a very appealing way, to use a tool that offers them the sort of power possessed by Matilda, while ignoring the dangers so carefully displayed by Tolkien.

WRONG! Statements like this reveal that you have either never read the Harry Potter books yourself (there are an amazing number of people who will condemn the HP novels based on second- and third- hand information) or read it with such an agenda in mind that you read something other than the books written by JK Rowling.

The CCC is irrelevant in judging the content of the novels because the magic in the HP “wizarding world” has nothing to do with the real world, nor the occult. Fiction is simply that: stories which are not true and do not pretend to be true. Certainly, it may be true that there are an alarming number of people these days who seem to be unable to comprehend the simple division between the fiction and non-fiction sections of the local library and/or bookstores (Dan Brown’s novels being another example). The CCC speaks to the real world and the non-fiction side. Else, why are we not condemning the works of every other fiction author whose characters behave in less than ideal manners (murder, adultery, theft–shall I go on? Certainly real world adultery is a lot closer to the fictional adultery, but authors whose characters engage in adultery with impunity are not condemned in the way that JK Rowling, whose fictional magic cannot cross the border between fiction and non-fiction, has been).

The magic in the HP “wizarding world” is an alternate science, something which one can use or not use by virtue of an in-born trait. If one doesn’t have the ability at birth, one will never develop it. There’s no enticement to those who didn’t have the innate ability, and in fact they are unaware of those with the ability except for those few places where wizarding world touches Muggle world (muggle-born wizards, who are every bit as magical as their fellow-students from wizarding families, for example).

 

[crobynb]

I do not have a problem with the Harry Potter series. In fact, my husband and I enjoy them. I will let my (future) children read the books and watch the movies when they are at an appropriate age to do so. I think that you do need to explain to the children that this is merely fantasy/make believe and that it IS NOT real. I find that it is no more offensive than the witches, dragons, spells, potions, flying, etc. that you find in oh . . Sleeping Beauty, Peter Pan, Little Mermaid, Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, Mary Poppins, Bednobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella . . the list goes on and on forever. Bottom line : teach your children truth from fiction and use common sense and discretion in whatever you allow them to read or watch.

 

[Monarchy]

deb1:

I don’t mind having you here. We have many different denominations and religions that come to this forum and I enjoy debating with them. I have to say that I don’t remember much being said about atheism at all on this site which might make defending your stance difficult. But, of course, you are welcome on the site.

There have been quite a few (not any in a while though). If you wish to see them just do a search on atheism.

 

[momathome]

- J. K. Rowling is no Christian. When asked, point-blank, “Are you a Christian?” the most she would ever admit to is “If that means, do I believe in god, yes.” If she belongs to a church of any kind, I’ve yet to hear of it. Oh my, yes, let’s just endorse this woman’s ideas about “magic” for our children. Which spell shall we learn today?
.

According to John Granger, (who has done probably done more research than any of us on this forum) JK Rowling is a member of The Church of Scotland (Presbyterian).

“Expecto Patronum” instead of just conjuring some ‘spirit’ is Latin for ‘expect an advocate(or protector)’ , then a white stag, like a unicorn appears, which is the symbol of the Savior, our advocate.
Doesn’t sound satanic too me.

For those who find Richard Abanes book a better explanation of HP than John Grangers, it’s good to know that Abanes is a favorite of the Bible Answer Man (Hank Hanegraff), who isn’t exactly pro Catholic Church.

Momathome

 

[Nan_S]

OK, OK, it’s obvious I’m not getting much support here. Well, no one said that taking the strict moral side was easy or popular. At least I’m in good company.

Disagree with me if you like. I speak from the perspective of a parent of teenagers, and I’ve seen what kinds of hair-raising stuff certain poorly-parented classmates tried to drag my kids into. The dangers I warned about in previous posts are real.

To all those who have suggested that I never read the books, I assure you that I have, every word, and more than once. I was even standing in line with my daughter at the bookstore at 12:01am when book #5 came out. I agreed to do this on the condition that, because book #4 disturbed me so much, she would let me read book #5 before her and be prepared to discuss it with her. Believe what you will, but that’s the truth of it.

Continuing in this thread would be pretty pointless. I’ve said what I had to say. The Bible and the Catechism need no defense.

 

[Lillith]

Nan S:

OK, OK, it’s obvious I’m not getting much support here. Well, no one said that taking the strict moral side was easy or popular. At least I’m in good company.

Disagree with me if you like. I speak from the perspective of a parent of teenagers, and I’ve seen what kinds of hair-raising stuff certain poorly-parented classmates tried to drag my kids into. The dangers I warned about in previous posts are real.

To all those who have suggested that I never read the books, I assure you that I have, every word, and more than once. I was even standing in line with my daughter at the bookstore at 12:01am when book #5 came out. I agreed to do this on the condition that, because book #4 disturbed me so much, she would let me read book #5 before her and be prepared to discuss it with her. Believe what you will, but that’s the truth of it.

Continuing in this thread would be pretty pointless. I’ve said what I had to say. The Bible and the Catechism need no defense.

Nan…I appreciate your point of view, and holding your own the way that you have! TY.

I believe that alot of what you say is true…especially of unchurched children…

 

[Leeta]

I would not recomend HP.

The exorist of Rome has said that the signature of Satan is written all over HP!

The magic in Tolkien and in Narnia is fantasy magic, whereas that of HP is similar and sometimes the same as modern witches use. Some of Harry’s books on his list are to be found among real occult sources.

The violence in HP is so graphic and sadistic and described in such detail, especially in the last one. No. 4 was also very evil in the scene with the cauldron. It is too evil and scary for children. The friends who die terrible deaths…
Real witches do practice this kind of violence especially against children.
As literature, they are poorly written.

Just say no to HP. We were given the first one by friends whom we thought we could trust. Now we do not allow our kids to read it or go to the movies anymore and explain why.
Steve Wood has written a good expose on HP.
Also, people who were into the occult before conversion sense the Satanism of the series immediately, unlike LOTR or Narnia.
The latter’s evil is fantasy, wheras that of HP is practiced today.

I don’t think it is worth the risk to the soul to be entertained by fallen angels. They deceive and lie and make it harder for you to stay on the path to heaven.

 

[Shiann]

Leeta:

I would not recomend HP.

The exorist of Rome has said that the signature of Satan is written all over HP!

The magic in Tolkien and in Narnia is fantasy magic, whereas that of HP is similar and sometimes the same as modern witches use. Some of Harry’s books on his list are to be found among real occult sources.

The violence in HP is so graphic and sadistic and described in such detail, especially in the last one. No. 4 was also very evil in the scene with the cauldron. It is too evil and scary for children. The friends who die terrible deaths…
Real witches do practice this kind of violence especially against children.
As literature, they are poorly written.

Just say no to HP. We were given the first one by friends whom we thought we could trust. Now we do not allow our kids to read it or go to the movies anymore and explain why.
Steve Wood has written a good expose on HP.
Also, people who were into the occult before conversion sense the Satanism of the series immediately, unlike LOTR or Narnia.
The latter’s evil is fantasy, wheras that of HP is practiced today.

I don’t think it is worth the risk to the soul to be entertained by fallen angels. They deceive and lie and make it harder for you to stay on the path to heaven.

Have you read “Finding God in HP”? Or any of the other positive articles on HP comming from faithful Christians and priests? Many of the points you make in this comment are refuted. And many posters on CAF who have experience in the occult (prior to their blessed conversion to Catholicism) have stated it has no parallels whatsoever to the occult that is practiced today.

I commend you for removing HP from your home if you feel it would affect your children in such a negative manner. Not all books are for all kids. (Heck, I myself was a little disturbed by His Dark Materials series which is also written for kids). Every parent should have the right to “yay or nay” anything that they feel is inappropriate.

After reading both sides of the issue- and the books themselves- I happen to “yay” them. You happen to “nay” them.

My goodness the priests and theologians of our own Faith cannot agree on HP! And until they do, one way or another, I will utilize all the mental and faithful faculties at my disposal to decide, for my family, what we will read. I can find more good in HP than bad, and will continue the series to the end.

 

[Mushroom]

I have three kids, all of whom love HP. Going to the movies is a special treat for us and the HP movies we never miss. When discussion first came about re the books which I had never read I did read the comments in our local Catholic Paper to confirm all was ok.

 

[prophetdaniel]

I have a student who is always trying to “school” me with Harry Potter and Star Wars trivia. To keep him focus on answering “how can I change the world” I used several scenes from the movies. The student soon realized he can change the world by protecting friends by standing up for what he believes in. Yeah I sometimes use pop-culture as examples.

 

[anunes]

Well, they are pretty much anticatholic, however they seem like really good books. I’ve watched and read all the books except the newest one. However, they are really great books. Because I am a really strong catholic, it doesn’t seem to affect me. I don know

 

[deb1]

anunes:

Well, they are pretty much anticatholic, however they seem like really good books. I’ve watched and read all the books except the newest one. However, they are really great books. Because I am a really strong catholic, it doesn’t seem to affect me. I don know

ALthough the books aren’t ‘catholic’ because they don’t mention any religion, I don’t really see how they are anticatholic. But you and I might be using the term in different ways. I’ve never seen Catholisim mentioned in the novels in any way.