Harry Potter books

[Fone_Bone_2001]

You will get no argument from me on this point. However, it is a point without a point. What is good or bad or correct or incorrect about being “in the mainstream”.

It is simply a matter of fact that since 2007, orthodox Catholicism has fallen further and further outside the mainstream of post-Christian Europe and America.

So what?

Yes, you are correct that mainstream acceptance is no indicator of a view’s correctness or incorrectness. I misspoke.

So let me be more pointed: since the publication of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, it has become obvious to the vast majority of readers in the English-speaking world that Harry Potter not only does not promote or desensitize children to the occult, but also that Christian imagery and themes define and dictate much of the series’ episodic structure and its content.

Which is more likely: that the few remaining detractors know something that no one else does, or that they hold the view they do out of paranoia rather than for rational reasons?

Witchcraft is condemned. Physical intimacy is only permitted inside of a marriage. Violence is only moral under very specific restrictions. Those are the teachings of the Church. Yet, a series of books which promotes witchcaft, young people going off to “make out” and all forms of violence, and written by an author who openly promotes grave sins such as sodomy, is beyond question and to be promoted as long as the children like to read it.

Witchcraft: Not present in the series at all. What the series refers to as “magic” is made-up incantational fantasy that resembles real occult practices neither aesthetically nor structurally. I don’t think you quite comprehend how inane it is to state that these books “promote witchcraft.”

Physical Intimacy: The series deserves *far *more credit than you’re giving it here. It actually features an extremely moral and traditional portrayal of sexuality: there is no divorce, no homosexuality, no advocacy of contraception (and the Weasleys’ large family is portrayed very positively, the bad guys’ being the ones who imply that they are too poor to have so many children) and no characters even consider fornication. If the fact that some characters “make out” (which, by the way, Ron comes to regret quite a bit) is the only objection you can level at the series from this standpoint, that speaks volumes.

Violence: Using force in defense of yourself or others is morally permissible. And when Harry uses force offensively - like when he attacks Draco in the bathroom with the Sectumsempra spell - he always comes to regret it. Furthermore, the good guys always stand against violent revenge, as when Harry persuades Sirius and Lupin to spare Wormtail’s life in Prisoner of Azkaban. The message is clear, and it is a good one.

Rowling promotes ‘sodomy’: Absolutely and utterly irrelevant (if true, which I don’t even know for sure about), as the series itself does not feature sodomy in any way. It simply never comes up. I honestly don’t understand how you can think this charge is relevant. I suspect that you really don’t.

Ideas matter. The ideas in what we read can be very influential in forming our own beliefs, and our beliefs form our actions.

Here I agree with you - and the beautiful spiritual and moral themes of this series are one of the reasons I am so fond of it.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Witchcraft is condemned. Physical intimacy is only permitted inside of a marriage. Violence is only moral under very specific restrictions. Those are the teachings of the Church. Yet, a series of books which promotes witchcaft, young people going off to “make out” and all forms of violence, and written by an author who openly promotes grave sins such as sodomy, is beyond question and to be promoted as long as the children like to read it.

Ideas matter. The ideas in what we read can be very influential in forming our own beliefs, and our beliefs form our actions.

Pax

I quite agree that ideas matter. If you will go back in not just this thread, but all the others. (There was an epic 1,000 post thread which has been deleted from the forums, I can’t find it) you will find that I have consistently based my arguments on what is actually in the HP books, what they are about. Unfortunately, most of that is ignored and never responded to, opponents rarely address what’s actually in the books, instead appealing to second hand sources. From my earlier post in this thread–

"Well, the whole point of the series is best summed up by Mark, Ch 8, 35-36:

“Anyone who wants to save his life will lose it; but anyone who loses his life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. What gain, then, is it for anyone to win the whole world and forfeit his life?”

I can’t think of any other children’s stories that warns of the eternal consequences of attaching oneself to things of this world and being too wrapped up in this life vice the next. And that is portrayed in a very clear literal way."

I don’t know what series you’re referring to. HP does not promote witchcraft, it uses magic (defined as an inherent ability not through consorting with entities) as a literary device to show the differences in consequences over the choice to use one’s inherent talents/abilities for good or evil. And therefore, how that affects ones soul and eternal fate beyond this world. Tough to do that in any other genre. Where in the books does it *promote *young people going off to make out? Specifically? It shows the protaganist choosing not to pursue a relationship because of his inability to commit to it. Highlighting that his choice of sacrifice is fully informed, he is knowingly putting others good over things that could be in his own life. That he will not mislead someone by trivializing their feelings or misleading them or pursue physical intimacy as an end in itself devoid of emotional connection.

All forms of violence? Huh? It does show violence. However, very tame really. Especially by those choosing to pursue good. They try to stun, disarm and immobilize their opponents. Again, the biggest moral failing from my perspective is that in the post-climactic scene (the climax is the when we see that Voldemort’s eternal fate from his pursuit of evil and attachment of his soul to things of this world) HP foregoes the opportunity to attack Voldemort from concealment to take him on face to face. He is responsible for the lives of those with him in combat, the possible fate of the world for the near future, and he doesn’t shoot him in the back from concealment. Remember, he only shoots to disarm anyway. He doesn’t do this as soon as possible with the highest chances of success? He gambles on his assesment of a situation. This has nothing to do with witchcraft or literary devices. This is about combat, a leader’s responsibility for the lives of his followers, theory of a just war etc.

Openly promotes sodomy? In reference to the books, she mentioned in an interview that she had thought of one character as being a homosexual. Note, that character’s portrayal in the books has no indication of that. (Well, if you consider not being married an indication, but then that is also a slur against the priesthood and those who choose to live singly). So, if anything she portrays a homosexual character living within the guidelines of the Church. Now, if you have anything outside of the books where she promotes sodomy then you are better informed than I am. But, HP itself is completely devoid of any advocacy for homosexuality or other forms of sodomy.

 

[johnnykins]

Let’s see: the innocent victim who willingly sacrifices himself, is killed by the very personification of evil, but at King’s Cross (of all things!) comes back to life, vanquishes the evil one who no longer has any power over him and claims victory.

Nah - no Christian symbolism at all that I can see.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, you are correct that mainstream acceptance is no indicator of a view’s correctness or incorrectness. I misspoke.

So let me be more pointed: since the publication of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, it has become obvious to the vast majority of readers in the English-speaking world that Harry Potter not only does not promote or desensitize children to the occult, but also that Christian imagery and themes define and dictate much of the series’ episodic structure and its content.

Which is more likely: that the few remaining detractors know something that no one else does, or that they hold the view they do out of paranoia rather than for rational reasons?

Witchcraft: Not present in the series at all. What the series refers to as “magic” is made-up incantational fantasy that resembles real occult practices neither aesthetically nor structurally. I don’t think you quite comprehend how inane it is to state that these books “promote witchcraft.”

Physical Intimacy: The series deserves *far *more credit than you’re giving it here. It actually features an extremely moral and traditional portrayal of sexuality: there is no divorce, no homosexuality, no advocacy of contraception (and the Weasleys’ large family is portrayed very positively, the bad guys’ being the ones who imply that they are too poor to have so many children) and no characters even consider fornication. If the fact that some characters “make out” (which, by the way, Ron comes to regret quite a bit) is the only objection you can level at the series from this standpoint, that speaks volumes.

Violence: Using force in defense of yourself or others is morally permissible. And when Harry uses force offensively - like when he attacks Draco in the bathroom with the Sectumsempra spell - he always comes to regret it. Furthermore, the good guys always stand against violent revenge, as when Harry persuades Sirius and Lupin to spare Wormtail’s life in Prisoner of Azkaban. The message is clear, and it is a good one.

Rowling promotes ‘sodomy’: Absolutely and utterly irrelevant (if true, which I don’t even know for sure about), as the series itself does not feature sodomy in any way. It simply never comes up. I honestly don’t understand how you can think this charge is relevant. I suspect that you really don’t.

Here I agree with you - and the beautiful spiritual and moral themes of this series are one of the reasons I am so fond of it.

Well, maybe, until Rowling announced to the whole world that Dumbledore was gay and had been influenced by his romantic desire for Grindelwald:
the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-reveals-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more

As for witchcraft, it is all made up! There is no such thing as a human with real magical powers, God does not give humans that, and there are no inherently powerful words that allow someone to put a bridle and saddle on Lucifer or any other angel. This is why witchcraft is forbidden! Anybody who thinks they control some preternatural spirit or “force” through some specialized “wisdom” is being deceived, and I don’t just mean self-deceived. This deception can be accomplished as easily with a Oujia board or something that Rowling dreamt up on a lark as with an incantation that has worked its evil on some other soul in some other time. It is the arrogant intention of the soul that is needed for evil to do its work, not some particular string of syllables. Satan can catch a soul with “See Spot run”, if the soul is gullible enough to buy it, so let’s not try to pretend that some occult practice is more or less “real” than another on any other count except that one.

I hate to even get into this, because I fully believe that fantasy novels can be read as literature without causing spiritual harm, provided that the reader is properly educated about the difference between fantasy and reality. Having said that, when the letter came out of the Cardinal-Prefect’s office saying that the ignorant and the gullible would be truly vulnerable if exposed to this kind of thing, it was absolutely right.

 

[Joe_5859]

The pope has never written anything on the subject matter that I’m aware of. You are mistaken. Dan is talking about a letter from Cardinal Ratzinger.

Exactly. That’s why it bothers me when places publish articles like “Pope Condemns Harry Potter.”

 

[EasterJoy]

Exactly. That’s why it bothers me when places publish articles like “Pope Condemns Harry Potter.”

It is fair that to object that they aren’t sticking to the fact, which is that the letter came out of his office when he was Cardinal-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It isn’t kosher to play fast with the truth, no matter the objective. Still, I don’t think one could honestly go so far as to imply that he would not find any danger in the series under any circumstances, either then or now.

 

[Ellyakamommy]

OP, I skimmed a lot, if you haven’t already…ask the children’s librarian, either at the school or the public library. They would love to be able to recommend some lesser known titles and series.

 

[promethius]

After reading through all the recent posts, I’ve reported the thread and asked it to be closed. Some of the behavior here has been reprehensible.

 

[adrift]

It is quite interesting that the pro-Potter crowd seem to attach far more importance to the Ratzinger letters than the anti-Potter crowd.

I make no claim that the Cardinal’s views are binding on Catholics. I’ve said they are what they plainly are, his opinion.

It seems to me the opposite the anti-Potter crowd seem to believe that this is a searing condemnation. As been shown, this is hardly his opinion. Read the link I provided and it becomes clear that the author of the book wanted something more and that she ignored the person the Cardinal recommended. Someone who disagreed with her take on the book.

Yet, many who don’t see any spiritual danger with Potter, are for some reason uncomfortable simply saying “I disagree with what then Cardinal Ratzinger said”. Rather, there is some need to build up scenarios of speculation which allow the Cardinal not to have wrote what he wrote.

It is all rather interesting.

You jump to the conclusion that because people disagree on your take on the letter that means they don’t see a problem with Potter. These are two different things.
I agree with this author which I have linked before

I have always argued that the books do pose some significant moral issues, and that parents may reasonably conclude that they don’t want their children reading them. On the other hand, I do think that other parents may reasonably conclude that the Harry Potter books pose no moral danger to their children. There is room here for discerning Catholics to reasonably reach different conclusions.

However, it is one thing to raise moral criticisms, and another to invoke ecclesiastical authority to condemn something as occult.

Witchcraft is condemned.

Potter is not about the witchraft that is condemned. Define witchcraft

But in witchcraft, as commonly understood, there is involved the idea of a diabolical pact or at least an appeal to the intervention of the spirits of evil.

No such thing occurs in Harry Potter.

Physical intimacy is only permitted inside of a marriage. Violence is only moral under very specific restrictions. Those are the teachings of the Church. Yet, a series of books which promotes witchcaft, young people going off to “make out” and all forms of violence, and written by an author who openly promotes grave sins such as sodomy, is beyond question and to be promoted as long as the children like to read it.

The book does not promote witchcraft as we have already established this is not witchcraft. What do you mean by physcial intimacy? There isn’t even an implied sex outside of marriage. What is mentioned is kissing. Are you saying that kissing outside of marriage is wrong? Please provide the Church document on this.
If you don’t know the difference between fiction and real you have a problem. The Lion Witch(oops bad) and Wardrobe has violence in it as does the Lord of the Rings series. Are you seriously suggesting that any book that portrays violence is wrong.

Ideas matter. The ideas in what we read can be very influential in forming our own beliefs, and our beliefs form our actions.

Pax

Ideas indeed do matter and as I posted before

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – The last battle of the almost-grownup Harry Potter may be too scary for young viewers, but it champions the values of friendship and sacrifice, the Vatican newspaper said

 

[EasterJoy]

It seems to me the opposite the anti-Potter crowd seem to believe that this is a seering condmnation. As been shown, this is hardly his opinion. Read the link I provided and it becomes clear that the author of the book wanted something more and that she ignored the person the Cardinal recommended. Someone who disagreed with her take on the book.

You jump to the conclusion that because people disagree on your take on the letter that means they don’t see a problem with Potter. These are two different things.
I agree with this author which I have linked before

Potter is not about the witchraft that is condemned. Define witchcraft
No such thing occurs in Harry Potter.

The book does not promote witchcraft as we have already established this is not witchcraft. What do you mean by physcial intimacy? There isn’t even an implied sex outside of marriage. What is mentioned is kissing. Are you saying that kissing outside of marriage is wrong? Please provide the Church document on this.
If you don’t know the difference between fiction and real you have a problem. The Lion Witch(oops bad) and Wardrobe has violence in it as does the Lord of the Rings series. Are you seriously suggesting that any book that portrays violence is wrong.

Ideas indeed do matter and as I posted before

I agree that a fantasy book in which characters have magical powers does not condone witchcraft, per se. Rather, it is possible for such books to imagine what it would be like if God had endowed certain people with this kind of power, as a matter of their nature.

Still, to get back to the OP, there is nothing wrong with it when a parent who decides that, in light of the nearly unending supply of better-written children’s literature which does not emply magic, she could find something else she’d rather give to her child to read than the famous series by JK Rowling.

After all, the OP did not ask how to get Harry Potter books banned at her child’s school. She merely asked for alternatives that her child might enjoy, instead.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

It is quite interesting that the pro-Potter crowd seem to attach far more importance to the Ratzinger letters than the anti-Potter crowd.

I make no claim that the Cardinal’s views are binding on Catholics. I’ve said they are what they plainly are, his opinion.

Yet it’s you and your camp who tout it around as if it actually means anything. If it’s such a measly opinion, I wouldn’t see why you’d be so obsessed as to bring this dead horse every time Harry Potter is being discussed.

I do believe you brought up the letter first.

It’s a sad demonstration of the Anti-Fantasy League’s never-ceasing stock of irony.

Yet, many who don’t see any spiritual danger with Potter, are for some reason uncomfortable simply saying “I disagree with what then Cardinal Ratzinger said”. Rather, there is some need to build up scenarios of speculation which allow the Cardinal not to have wrote what he wrote.

You want me to disagree with a PR statement (which also happens to redirect all Kuby’s concerns to a religious supporter of the series which you, by the way, choose to criticize instead of dealing with the fact that Ratzinger still sent her his way in the first place)?

While you’re at it, why not have me disagree with the Contact Us page of my company’s website?

Witchcraft is condemned.

Define witchcraft. The Church isn’t the only one with semantic monopoly.

Physical intimacy is only permitted inside of a marriage.

You’re committing a grave injustice misrepresenting our sexual morality. I thought only atheists conjured this bad sort of reductionism.

Violence is only moral under very specific restrictions.

In fantasy, those ‘specific restrictions’ happen at a rather high frequency.

Self Defense:

Knight1: HAHAHAHA! This sickly lad is the dragon? XD

Knight2: Haha! I almost feel sorry to slay him!

Knight3: Oh let’s get this over with. A glorious hoard awaits us!

Me: Umm… FYI knight dudes, I earned my hoard fair and square. You know, guild quests, investments, and stuff. What you’re doing is stealing. -.-

Knight1: Silence foul beast of the devil! draws sword You will not deceive us with your false appearance! Prepare to be slain!

a few roars, flame blasts, and girlish screams later

Knight1: Retreat! RETREAT!!! DX hair on fire

Knight2 & Knight3: Run away! Run away!! D8

Me: sighs Everyday… can’t these people get a real job? -_-;;

Competition:

AngelGirlAnnouncer: OKAY! The moment you’ve all been waiting for! Elena the Dark Turquoise versus Karina Kathammer!

crowd cheers

Karina: Hey! It’s squid-lady! twirls hammer 83 You gonna summon more yummy fish people? >w<

Elena: -.-;; Remind me why I’m fighting you again?

Karin: Err… struggles to read something behind Elena V…vo…vote…te…ter… voter’s choice? owO

Elena: turns around I hate my fans. -_- dodges incoming hammer without looking

Karina: w

Elena: sighs dodges again We’ll be at this all day. -_-

Ideas matter. The ideas in what we read can be very influential in forming our own beliefs, and our beliefs form our actions.

All of that is actually within the realm of your own choice.

 

[Geist]

The books?

The movies? :nope:

Its fiction, and halfway decently written at that.

 

[Catholic90]

The books?

The movies? :nope:

Its fiction, and halfway decently written at that.

Movies are never as good as books. The books contain so much more detail and nuances.

Is it literature? No. Is it a fun series to get kids interested in reading? Yes.

 

[adrift]

A good book is Outlaws of Ravenhurst beware though it has violence in it.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Well, maybe, until Rowling announced to the whole world that Dumbledore was gay and had been influenced by his romantic desire for Grindelwald:
the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-reveals-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more

So? Dumbledore embraced a lifestyle of celibacy, as the series clearly shows. What’s the problem then? I actually read an article by a gay activist after Rowling stated that she “always thought of Dumbledore as gay” who was disappointed and a little discouraged by the fact that the gay character Rowling gave us never chose to act on his inclinations. He therefore thought Dumbledore was not a good role model for promoting his agenda.

And *everything *about Albus Dumbledore’s relationship with Grindelwald was a bad idea, as Deathly Hallows makes abundantly clear. Again, far from a ringing endorsement of homosexuality.

So I see no reason to care that she has apparently “always thought of Dumbledore as gay.”

As for witchcraft, it is all made up! There is no such thing as a human with real magical powers, God does not give humans that, and there are no inherently powerful words that allow someone to put a bridle and saddle on Lucifer or any other angel. This is why witchcraft is forbidden! Anybody who thinks they control some preternatural spirit or “force” through some specialized “wisdom” is being deceived, and I don’t just mean self-deceived.

Oh, I totally agree with you on that. Is this an argument directed at my position, or are you just commenting on these matters in general? If the former, I’m afraid I don’t understand how what you’ve just said contradicts my position on the matter.

This deception can be accomplished as easily with a Oujia board or something that Rowling dreamt up on a lark as with an incantation that has worked its evil on some other soul in some other time. It is the arrogant intention of the soul that is needed for evil to do its work, not some particular string of syllables. Satan can catch a soul with “See Spot run”, if the soul is gullible enough to buy it, so let’s not try to pretend that some occult practice is more or less “real” than another on any other count except that one.

I don’t think I disagree… what exactly does this have to do with Harry Potter?

After reading through all the recent posts, I’ve reported the thread and asked it to be closed. Some of the behavior here has been reprehensible.

I respectfully suggest that you are far too sensitive.

I agree that a fantasy book in which characters have magical powers does not condone witchcraft, per se. Rather, it is possible for such books to imagine what it would be like if God had endowed certain people with this kind of power, as a matter of their nature.

I completely agree, so I don’t understand why we apparently differ on this matter.

A Catholic bookstore owner who objected to the possibility of reincarnation for the elves once wrote to J. R. R. Tolkien concerning the matter, “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.”

This was Tolkien’s reply:
*
“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 — there is not one but many, indeed potentially innumerable ones — 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.”*

(Source: wikipedia article on Eru Iluvatar, who is basically God in Tolkien’s mythos)

 

[EasterJoy]

So? Dumbledore embraced a lifestyle of celibacy, as the series clearly shows. What’s the problem then? I actually read an article by a gay activist after Rowling stated that she “always thought of Dumbledore as gay” who was disappointed and a little discouraged by the fact that the gay character Rowling gave us never chose to act on his inclinations. He therefore thought Dumbledore was not a good role model for promoting his agenda.

And *everything *about Albus Dumbledore’s relationship with Grindelwald was a bad idea, as Deathly Hallows makes abundantly clear. Again, far from a ringing endorsement of homosexuality.

So I see no reason to care that she has apparently “always thought of Dumbledore as gay.”

Oh, I totally agree with you on that. Is this an argument directed at my position, or are you just commenting on these matters in general? If the former, I’m afraid I don’t understand how what you’ve just said contradicts my position on the matter.

I don’t think I disagree… what exactly does this have to do with Harry Potter?

I respectfully suggest that you are far too sensitive.

I completely agree, so I don’t understand why we apparently differ on this matter.

A Catholic bookstore owner who objected to the possibility of reincarnation for the elves once wrote to J. R. R. Tolkien concerning the matter, “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.”

This was Tolkien’s reply:
*
“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 — there is not one but many, indeed potentially innumerable ones — 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.”*

(Source: wikipedia article on Eru Iluvatar, who is basically God in Tolkien’s mythos)

Perhaps I’m trying to make too fine of a point here.

I’m pointing out that stories like Harry Potter actually can pose a danger in the wrong hands, that the possibility is not remote beyond concern. If someone raises the possiblity that this is there, then, I don’t think it is right to wave it off too flippantly. Rather, I would argue that a) it is OK for individual parents to steer their children to certain books and away from others and b) parents who don’t steer are wise to make sure their children are not ignorant of truths that some particular story will undoubtedly obscure.

Can you raise a child so that no truth is ever obscured, so that you never have to point out the fine points or paint the truth carefully with a fine brush to do it justice? No. I don’t think you can. Either you will obscure a truth by exposing them to this or that story, or you will obscure the truth by hiding the existence of such stories from them. Either way, you’ll have to bring out the fine brush eventually, and you’ll have to re-touch the picture, and it will still just be the best you can do to do the subject justice.

When and how to do that, though, differs from parent to parent and from child to child. That is as it should be. It is OK. Tolkien won’t keep you out of Heaven, but Tolkien isn’t going to be on everyone’s path to getting there, either…and that is OK.

 

[onjac]

Ditto with some of the replies. And based on what Pope Benedict said in his cardinal days, the point is that we should keep an open mind about what we read (or entertain ourselves with). There is no stance on Harry Potter.

:coffeeread:

But the choice is yours. I would recommend having your child read The Hobbit but it’s a prequel to LOTR so I’m not sure about that…

Fantastic read though! It’s a classic!

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I’m pointing out that stories like Harry Potter actually can pose a danger in the wrong hands, that the possibility is not remote beyond concern. If someone raises the possiblity that this is there, then, I don’t think it is right to wave it off too flippantly. Rather, I would argue that a) it is OK for individual parents to steer their children to certain books and away from others and b) parents who don’t steer are wise to make sure their children are not ignorant of truths that some particular story will undoubtedly obscure.

I for one find nothing wrong with that. I find everything wrong when these same parents turn their standards into a large brush and try to make themselves the rule that all must follow. That is what pushes people’s buttons here.

So a family has a child who can’t tell fiction from reality. Does that mean they should start treating everyone, even adult Catholics, like mentally ill children in need of a science class? Obviously both you and I will say no. But for the Anti-Fantasy League, not only will the say yes, they will say it in a way that elevates the illness into ‘spiritual awareness’.

Frankly, it starting to make me sick. It’s bad enough that the alternatives they offer are even bigger literary failures (in my opinion at least).

 

[EasterJoy]

I for one find nothing wrong with that. I find everything wrong when these same parents turn their standards into a large brush and try to make themselves the rule that all must follow. That is what pushes people’s buttons here.

So a family has a child who can’t tell fiction from reality. Does that mean they should start treating everyone, even adult Catholics, like mentally ill children in need of a science class? Obviously both you and I will say no. But for the Anti-Fantasy League, not only will the say yes, they will say it in a way that elevates the illness into ‘spiritual awareness’.

Frankly, it starting to make me sick. It’s bad enough that the alternatives they offer are even bigger literary failures (in my opinion at least).

OK, but that is not the OP, and the thread ought to be about the OP’s question.

The OP wasn’t trying to get a book banned. The OP is looking for alternatives to a book. I’m not saying whether kicking ol’ Harry around the block again was an entirely fruitless exercise, but that is a moot point. The OP never asked for that.

I think we can all agree that this is the OP’s perogative as a parent, and just come up with some titles. There are many books with no “magic” in them that are still entirely magical!

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

OK, but that is not the OP, and the thread ought to be about the OP’s question.

The OP wasn’t trying to get a book banned. The OP is looking for alternatives to a book. I’m not saying whether kicking ol’ Harry around the block again was an entirely fruitless exercise, but that is a moot point. The OP never asked for that.

I think we can all agree that this is the OP’s perogative as a parent, and just come up with some titles. There are many books with no “magic” in them that are still entirely magical!

The OP said something along the lines of “I don’t want that occult stuff”.

One could’ve simply said non-fantasy. One could’ve even just said religious fiction. But no, the OP just had to put Harry Potter and occult together.

At the very least, the OP needs to practice tact.