Harry Potter books

[Dan_Daly]

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.

This gets to the heart of the matter. I’ve never said it is a “measly” opinion, just that it is an opinion. Some opinions happen to be correct, others are not. One may disagree with someone else’s opinion but that disagreement is most valid, when one can explain with reason why they disagree.

When anonymous internet posters voice concerns about the possible negative influences in the Potter series, they are generally attacked as ignorant, paranoid, weirdos who are out of touch with the mainstream culture.

The problem with the Ratzinger letter, is that even those who feel comfortable demeaning fellow forum posters, know that doing the same to a Cardinal, especially a Cardinal who went on to become Pope, is “a bridge too far.” One may disagree with the Cardinal’s opinion, but as I said, they would only be listened to if they can present a reasoned argument rebutting that opinion. People feel uncomfortable disagreeing with the Cardinal, because they know…perhaps he has some background and expertise they do not. Now, Cardinals, certainly can be wrong. If one said “The Eucharist is not truly Christ”, one could (and should) disagree, and would have the entire body of Church Teaching to back them up. There is no teaching that says “thou shalt read Harry Potter” There is quite a bit of precedent for the heirarchy warning the faithful about the dangers of pop culture: from the Fathers forbidding Catholics to go to the Roman theatres, to the Index of Forbidden Books, to the Decency League.

So rather than attempting to rebut the opinion of Cardinal Ratzinger, those who disagree with it, at least many of them, must pretend that opinion does not exist.

I do not advance the quote from Ratzinger as some sort of difinitive slam dunk that Potter is bad. It is good evidence for my position though and puts a stake in the heart of the argument that Potter critics are loons by requiring those advancing it to include Ratzinger among the loons. That is why the letters are denied so fiercly, no matter how rigorous the required mental gymnastics are. They take away the biggest weapon in the Pro-Potter camp, intellectual bullying.

Esteemed and dear Ms. Kuby!

Many thanks for your kind letter of February 20th and the
informative book which you sent me in the same mail. It is good, that
you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle
seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity
in the soul, before it can grow properly.

I would like to suggest that you write to Mr. Peter Fleedwood,
(Pontifical Council of Culture, Piazza S. Calisto 16, I00153 Rome)
directly and to send him your book.

Sincere Greetings and Blessings,

• Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Pax Christi

 

[Dan_Daly]

Also, just to refute the idea that Ratzinger’s letter is a simple “thank you note”…

I got a letter in the mail from a group I am part of yesterday. They included a letter from the office of the Pope. It said His Holiness had received the group’s gift, was thankful, and extended his Apostolic blessing on the group. He made no mention of any other issue. He didn’t say anything the group does is good. He didn’t comment on any subtle dangers.

Pax

 

[Portrait]

I agree with this but for those who wish to discredit the series they will never admit it to be true. The Cardinal did not read it and it wasn’t a completed series when he wrote that note. When it was completed this was released by CNSVatican newspaper says Harry Potter film champions values

Dear adrift,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

With respect to the unfortunate accolades concerning Harry Potter in L ’ Osservatore Romano, this cuts no ice with me whatsoever. This newspaper is not the official organ of the Catholic Church, but merely a quasi-official Vatican publication. It it is not regulated by the Curia and therefore just because something appears within in its pages, it does not automatically follow that it has Vatican approval. Thus we ought to take what we read in this highly partisan newspaper with the proverbial grain of salt, especially in recent times under its new editor.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Dan_Daly]

Dear adrift,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

With respect to the unfortunate accolades concerning Harry Potter in L ’ Osservatore Romano, this cuts no ice with me whatsoever. This newspaper is not the official organ of the Catholic Church, but merely a quasi-official Vatican publication. It it is not regulated by the Curia and therefore just because something appears within in its pages, it does not automatically follow that it has Vatican approval. Thus we ought to take what we read in this highly partisan newspaper with the proverbial grain of salt, especially in recent times under its new editor.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Indeed. My understanding is that the paper actually has published many reviews of the Potter films, some critical, some positive. It seems only the positive reviews have been widely reprinted in American publications.

Pax

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

When anonymous internet posters voice concerns about the possible negative influences in the Potter series, they are generally attacked as ignorant, paranoid, weirdos who are out of touch with the mainstream culture.

No, just out of touch with science and common sense.

The problem with the Ratzinger letter, is that even those who feel comfortable demeaning fellow forum posters, know that doing the same to a Cardinal, especially a Cardinal who went on to become Pope, is “a bridge too far.” One may disagree with the Cardinal’s opinion, but as I said, they would only be listened to if they can present a reasoned argument rebutting that opinion.

I’ve cited my experience as part of a marketing company yet that is not reasonable enough for you. I don’t see why I should care to give yours the same amount of significance. The truth is the only way something is ‘reasonable’ enough for you is if people were to nod their heads in agreement with your ‘theological criticism’.

There is quite a bit of precedent for the heirarchy warning the faithful about the dangers of pop culture: from the Fathers forbidding Catholics to go to the Roman theatres, to the Index of Forbidden Books, to the Decency League.

Yet the Vatican abolished all these and now even Catholic universities such as my own encourage and require studying of Roman theatre for basic Humanities-related subjects. There’s a reason why such things are strictly separated from dogma and actually lack the same binding.

It is good evidence for my position though and puts a stake in the heart of the argument that Potter critics are loons by requiring those advancing it to include Ratzinger among the loons. That is why the letters are denied so fiercly, no matter how rigorous the required mental gymnastics are. They take away the biggest weapon in the Pro-Potter camp, intellectual bullying.

Again, how does a generic PR response (with a redirection that you are now deliberately avoiding to reconcile) force our ‘camp’ into labeling Ratzinger a loon?

 

[Dan_Daly]

Again, how does a generic PR response (with a redirection that you are now deliberately avoiding to reconcile) force our ‘camp’ into labeling Ratzinger a loon?

There is no “redirection” to reconcile. Cardinal Ratzinger suggested someone else for Miss Kuby to send her book to.

He did not:

Say he was incompetent to judge her book, but Msgr. Fleetwood would be able to.

He did not:

Say he liked her book, but would defer to Msgr. Fleetwood if he disagreed.

There are many reasons one might recommend someone read a book. It’s possible, the Cardinal was hoping Msgr. Fleetwood would read the book and be persuaded to change his position on the topic. We don’t know.

The assertion that the recommendation is a redirection to a higher authority is reading into the letter what isn’t there. Just as those who claim “well Cardinal Ratzinger never read Kuby’s book or the Potter books” do so without any evidence for the claim.

Cardinal Ratzinger said that Harry Potter presents subtle seductions which can deeply distort Christianity in the soul. That actually is in the letter.

Based upon your commentary in this thread, I believe you think that is a “loon” position. So is Cardinal Ratzinger a loon?

Pax

 

[Dan_Daly]

Yet the Vatican abolished all these and now even Catholic universities such as my own encourage and require studying of Roman theatre for basic Humanities-related subjects.

While I am not about to support everything that goes on at Catholic universities, I would say studying something is different than participating in it.

We can and should study the holocaust. We don’t need to engage in one.

One can study the Roman theatre, but does your university take students on field trips to the local strip club?

You open up a larger question which may be at the root of some disagreement on Potter. Putting Potter aside, are there* any* books which could be spiritually dangerous to read in your opinion? Any bad movies? Magazines? TV shows?

Or is concern about the negative influence of media outdated thinking?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

There is no “redirection” to reconcile. Cardinal Ratzinger suggested someone else for Miss Kuby to send her book to.

In my company, that is indeed a redirection. Get yourself a job in one. You’ll be enlightened.

It’s possible, the Cardinal was hoping Msgr. Fleetwood would read the book and be persuaded to change his position on the topic. We don’t know.

Wishful thinking is wishful. In fact, the article I linked suggested the contrary to your wishes.

The assertion that the recommendation is a redirection to a higher authority is reading into the letter what isn’t there.

Oh just like you’re reading your wish that the redirection is actually Ratzinger hoping to convince a misguided Cardinal like in cliched scene from religious, traditionalist fiction?

Cardinal Ratzinger said that Harry Potter presents subtle seductions which can deeply distort Christianity in the soul. That actually is in the letter.

Telling her to take her concerns to Msgr. Fleetwood is also in the letter yet whilst you accuse us of denial and speculation, you seem to have a jolly good time doing it yourself.

Based upon your commentary in this thread, I believe you think that is a “loon” position. So is Cardinal Ratzinger a loon?

No, he’s like any person who uses PR courtesy.

While I am not about to support everything that goes on at Catholic universities, I would say studying something is different than participating in it.

One can study the Roman theatre, but does your university take students on field trips to the local strip club?

Do you Anti-Fantasy League-rs deliberately indulge in false comparisons or do your rites of initiation simply involve stripping your minds of the capacity to tell an apple from an orange?

You open up a larger question which may be at the root of some disagreement on Potter. Putting Potter aside, are there* any* books which could be spiritually dangerous to read in your opinion? Any bad movies? Magazines? TV shows?

Or is concern about the negative influence of media outdated thinking?

I’ll say it once, I’ll say it again. You are responsible for how you read fiction, not the person who’s work you’re reading. Clearly, you just love to ballet-dance away from that reasoning.

 

[Portrait]

I

So now please tell me who is attached. “Pro Potterites” (What a derogatory term) which I am not, do not bring up the letter because it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. It neither provides support for or against reading the HP books. But we will point out when others put up strawmen, or use other logical fallacies when they argue, especially when they drag Card. Ratzinger into it.

Dear jilly4ski,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

To refer to the supporters of the Potter books as ‘pro-Potterites’ is hardly an uncomplimentary appellation, no more than refering to Potter’s critics as ‘anti-Potterites’ is. Men are either ‘pro’ or ‘anti-Potter’, it is just a matter of convenient terminology to describe the two sides of the debate. As an opponent of the Potter series I have no objection to being termed an anti-Potterite, for that is precisely what I am within the context of the Harry Potter religious debate. Are you sure that you are not being a tad oversensitive, dear friend?

The fact is that Pope Benedict (as Cardinal Ratzinger) did give a negative evaluation of Potter and this admits of no doubt, whatever else may be said. Here are his words in his letter to Gabriele Kuby:

"Thankyou very much for the instructive book. It is good that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because these are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly"

The whole notion of a polite “thankyou-note” is, quite franky, absurd and evinces most clearly the level to which the pro-Potterites will stoop when anything spiritually deleterious is said about the Potter series of books. As a matter of fact, in a second letter to Gabriele Kuby (27 May 2003) he wrote that he “gladly” gives her his permission to publicize his judgement respecting Potter. Moreover, in a handwritten Christmas card that he sent to her in December 2003, he said, “Thankyou very much for your courageous egagement against occultism and magic”. Many in the pro-Potterite camp just wish that he never made these “embarrassingly reactionary” remarks about their beloved work of fantasy fiction, but he did nontheless and no amount of disengenuous argumentation can circumvent that fact.

Gabriele Kuby and others who have provided learned and substantive critiques of the Potter books, would not have been the recipients of so much ‘hate-mail’, were this about nothing more than an innocuous polite thankyou-note. Moreover, if that is all it was, then Pope Benedict would surely have, in the view of all the heated controversy within Catholic circles, set the record striaght by offering some clarification and helping to clear up what is a gross misunderstanding of his letters. To date, the Holy Father has not done this.

“Subtle seductions” like the Potter books are the most damaging of all assaults against the truth. Pope Bendict (as Cardinal Ratzinger) has written that the Potter novels are “subtle seductions”. At least this should prompt the faithful to pause and take a deeper look at just what is being communicated through them.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[jilly4ski]

Dear jilly4ski,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

To refer to the supporters of the Potter books as ‘pro-Potterites’ is hardly an uncomplimentary appellation, no more than refering to Potter’s critics as ‘anti-Potterites’ is. Men are either ‘pro’ or ‘anti-Potter’, it is just a matter of convenient terminology to describe the two sides of the debate. As an opponent of the Potter series I have no objection to being termed an anti-Potterite, for that is precisely what I am within the context of the Harry Potter religious debate. Are you sure that you are not being a tad oversensitive, dear friend?

The fact is that Pope Benedict (as Cardinal Ratzinger) did give a negative evaluation of Potter and this admits of no doubt, whatever else may be said. Here are his words in his letter to Gabriele Kuby:

"Thankyou very much for the instructive book. It is good that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because these are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly"

The whole notion of a polite “thankyou-note” is, quite franky, absurd and evinces most clearly the level to which the pro-Potterites will stoop when anything spiritually deleterious is said about the Potter series of books. As a matter of fact, in a second letter to Gabriele Kuby (27 May 2003) he wrote that he “gladly” gives her his permission to publicize his judgement respecting Potter. Moreover, in a handwritten Christmas card that he sent to her in December 2003, he said, “Thankyou very much for your courageous egagement against occultism and magic”. Many in the pro-Potterite camp just wish that he never made these “embarrassingly reactionary” remarks about their beloved work of fantasy fiction, but he did nontheless and no amount of disengenuous argumentation can circumvent that fact.

Gabriele Kuby and others who have provided learned and substantive critiques of the Potter books, would not have been the recipients of so much ‘hate-mail’, were this about nothing more than an innocuous polite thankyou-note. Moreover, if that is all it was, then Pope Benedict would surely have, in the view of all the heated controversy within Catholic circles, set the record striaght by offering some clarification and helping to clear up what is a gross misunderstanding of his letters. To date, the Holy Father has not done this.

“Subtle seductions” like the Potter books are the most damaging of all assaults against the truth. Pope Bendict (as Cardinal Ratzinger) has written that the Potter novels are “subtle seductions”. At least this should prompt the faithful to pause and take a deeper look at just what is being communicated through them.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I had originally thought I would not respond to you again, since your last post which proved that you will not even consider a side that is not your own. However, you are wrong, “pro potterite” is derogatory because it groups people into a group they are not a part of. I am no big fan of the Harry Potter books in particular. In fact the first time I read them I found them rather dull and repetitive. I really enjoy fantasy and actually young adult fantasy tends to be my favorite. (Usually more tame themes especially in the sexuality area and they tend not to kill off main characters as much). But Harry Potter I can take or leave, in fact I was rereading them because all these threads about Harry Potter and I don’t remember the later books very well, but I am stuck on the 4th one and not making very much progress. (And when there is a book I really like I finish in within a day or two).

You can indeed be neutral on Harry Potter and indeed on fantasy in general. So I do not advocate for the specific reading of Harry Potter, but am not impressed by the arguments to prevent people from reading it, without a specific issue with a specific child. My parents had 6 children (my mom doesn’t really enjoy reading and my dad spends his extra time reading theology books), and we were all veracious readers. There was no way my parents could read every book we brought home (often 6-10 books a piece from the library) so they gave us free reign to read what we wanted to guided by the principles that they had instilled in us.

And no, it is not absurd to think that Card. Ratzinger had a polite thank you note written to a lady that sent him a book. While I am sure Ratzinger is a voracious reader, I am also sure he didn’t have the time to peruse the pop culture section and pick out Harry Potter to read or have the time to read the book that Ms. Kuby sent him. Certainly not in the time between her sending the book and the thank you note being sent out. Do you think that Ratzinger read every book sent to him because of his office position? These would be the last things that I would read. (Unless they were actually relevant to my position, like a theology book being used in a great many universities that was teaching heresy).

I don’t know anything about ‘hate mail’ however, part of that is the fault of the author. This was a private letter, guess who made it public? Ms. Kuby herself, was looking for free advertising and found it. So not only is she profiting off of the success of another book, but she was trying to profit off the Pope’s words (notice the story didn’t break until after Ratzinger became Pope). Also the news media (as much as I otherwise respect Lifesite news) distorted the news story. I would be more willing to question Ms. Kuby’s ethical integrity and honesty just because of the release of the letter in the first place and its timing than to place any special meaning into a ‘thank you for wasting my time’ letter. Especially since he tells her to redirect her concerns to someone else.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Wishful thinking is wishful. In fact, the article I linked suggested the contrary to your wishes.

I never said the possibility that Cardinal Ratzinger suggested Kuby send her book to Msgr. Fleetwood to persuade him was a likely one or one that I wished for.

My wishes are irrelevant on the matter, and I have no idea whether it was the Cardinal’s intent or not. Precisely because he does not state his intent in the letter. I merely point out that there are alternative explanations to the one put forward that Cardinal Ratzinger was deffering to the judgement of Msgr. Fleetwood.

Pax

 

[Dan_Daly]

And no, it is not absurd to think that Card. Ratzinger had a polite thank you note written to a lady that sent him a book.

No that is not abusrd at all, if some other lady sent him some other book, and the Cardinal sent her a simple polite thank you.

It is absurd to call the letter the Cardinal Ratzinger only a polite thank you. Doing so denies the presence of the actual words in the letter, which go well beyond “thank you.”

So if a white supremacist group sent a Cardinal a book expounding on their views and responded:

Dear Gentlemen,

Thank you for taking the time to write. I received your book. It is good that you warn people of the danger of inferior races. Their influence is a subtle one that can corrupt the true character of the master race.

Sincerely,

Cardinal so-and-so

Is that a simple “polite thank you”? No it’s not. It expresses an agreement with the author’s position. In this case, it is a heinous position, and one would be justified in criticising the Cardinal.

One may criticize Cardinal Ratzinger for his views on Potter if they wish, but doing so on the grounds that he is paranoid or ignorant or uncultured does not seem like a promising avenue of attack.

Pax