Harry Potter is back again...;-)

[kimmielittle]

My original point is that children do not have the background information or experience to be able to adequately process the fiction in Harry Potter.

Hmmm I did and do…

Please provide us evidence to your above statement.

I knew fact from fiction before age 7. Albeit I dressed-up like a Princess, until about age 11 …Well, actually, I still do play dress-up. All girls do. prom etc ]

Some fantastic things happen in the Bible…i.e. Daniel in the Lions Den etc - that I read at 7 years…

I used the same set of skills…to know I’m not Daniel…And don’t go lookin for Lions Dens

That I used to know that I’m not Harry . Harmonie or any other in Harry Potter.

How do you explain, by your logic, that I would have / had the sense to discern one …but unable to discern the other?

 

[MarcoPolo]

POSSIBLE SPOILER!!

I’m a very casual Harry Potter viewer so this was confusing to me. Steven Greydanus’ review says this:

"It’s now revealed that one of the series’ most beloved and authoritative figures was complicit in a scheme that involved doing something evil that good might result. One may not directly kill someone, even at their insistence, even if they are dying already and even for desirable tactical reasons. While it’s possible to criticize the characters’ judgment here both morally and practically (since, as others have pointed out, it appears that* the scheme ultimately fails** and the whole subterfuge accomplishes nothing), this diminishes both the wisdom and judgment of the beloved authority figure and the intended heroism and redemption of his conspirator."*

My question is on the bold part. So how did the plan fail? Wasn’t the plan to make Voldemor think that Snape was the rightful owner of the one wand.

 

[agnes_therese]

If you’ve already read the books or seen the movie and can’t recognize the lies, you need to spend more time with Catholic teaching. You can buy a copy of the catechism on Ebay. You can find any number of books written by saints and popes and learned persons who know the truth backwards and forwards and it will EDIFY you and make you a holy person.

The level of condescension here is just breathtaking!

Newsflash, Theophilus, and you’d best sit down for this – someone disagreeing with your personal opinion does not mean they are evil, or uneducated, or not holy persons.

 

[kimmielittle]

The level of condescension here is just breathtaking!

Newsflash, Theophilus, and you’d best sit down for this – someone disagreeing with your personal opinion does not mean they are evil, or uneducated, or not holy persons.

Well Said!!!

And I strongly dislike the implications made!

 

[Theophilus777]

The level of condescension here is just breathtaking!

Newsflash, Theophilus, and you’d best sit down for this – someone disagreeing with your personal opinion does not mean they are evil, or uneducated, or not holy persons.

I never implied any such thing. Please do not accuse me of writing things I have not written. Suggesting that one read a catechism is hardly condescending. We are called to encourage one another to follow Christ. That is what i have done.
I’d prefer to say on topic instead of digressing into character assassination. Let’s shoot the message, not the messenger. God bless you!

 

[agnes_therese]

I never implied any such thing. Please do not accuse me of writing things I have not written. Suggesting that one read a catechism is hardly condescending. We are called to encourage one another to follow Christ. That is what i have done.
I’d prefer to say on topic instead of digressing into character assassination. Let’s shoot the message, not the messenger. God bless you!

Yes, you did: “If you’ve already read the books or seen the movie and can’t recognize the lies, you need to spend more time with Catholic teaching. You can buy a copy of the catechism on Ebay. You can find any number of books written by saints and popes and learned persons who know the truth backwards and forwards and it will EDIFY you and make you a holy person.” Quite clearly saying that if you don’t object to the books and the movies, “you need to spend more time with Catholic teaching.”
Your own words, Theophilus.

 

[Catholic90]

Theo- have you read the books? Yes or no? You seem to be avoiding that question.

 

[Catholic90]

Seeing as how he has been asked repeatedly, and he has repeatedly ignored the question, I would venture a guess that NO, he has never actually read the books in question. (which makes his arguments all the weaker!).

 

[Transformer]

“It’s now revealed that one of the series’ most beloved and authoritative figures was complicit in a scheme that involved doing something evil that good might result. One may not directly kill someone, even at their insistence, even if they are dying already and even for desirable tactical reasons. While it’s possible to criticize the characters’ judgment here both morally and practically (since, as others have pointed out, it appears that the scheme ultimately fails and the whole subterfuge accomplishes nothing), this diminishes both the wisdom and judgment of the beloved authority figure and the intended heroism and redemption of his conspirator.”

My question is on the bold part. So how did the plan fail? Wasn’t the plan to make Voldemor think that Snape was the rightful owner of the one wand.

The plan was to make Snape actually the owner of the Elder Wand, so that he could more effectively assist Harry/kill Nagini when the time came/be unkillable by Voldemort. That part failed, of course.

Dumbledore’s plan did succeed in making Snape Voldemort’s very most trusted man, however, allowing him to do all the things he did behind the scenes during Deathly Hallows, so it wasn’t a complete bust.

On the topic of Dumbledore’s ordering his own euthanization/murder: the whole point is that it’s wrong, and certainly an appalling thing to do to poor Snape, putting him in that position. A major theme of Deathly Hallows is that Dumbledore wasn’t, as it turns out, a great man; maybe he wasn’t even a good man. He was a Machiavellian schemer all along, uaing Snape’s love for Lily as a weapon and breeding Harry for the slaughter. Harry’s coming to terms with that fact is the emotional heart of the book. What * Deathly Hallows* most certainly is not doing is promoting euthanasia as moral.

Steven Greydanus seems pretty well informed and may be aware of this. He may just be lamenting the woefully incomplete presentation of the Dumbledore arc in the Deathly Hallows movies.

 

[Allegra]

POSSIBLE SPOILER!!

I’m a very casual Harry Potter viewer so this was confusing to me. Steven Greydanus’ review says this:

"It’s now revealed that one of the series’ most beloved and authoritative figures was complicit in a scheme that involved doing something evil that good might result. One may not directly kill someone, even at their insistence, even if they are dying already and even for desirable tactical reasons. While it’s possible to criticize the characters’ judgment here both morally and practically (since, as others have pointed out, it appears that* the scheme ultimately fails*** and the whole subterfuge accomplishes nothing), this diminishes both the wisdom and judgment of the beloved authority figure and the intended heroism and redemption of his conspirator."

My question is on the bold part. So how did the plan fail? Wasn’t the plan to make Voldemor think that Snape was the rightful owner of the one wand.

The plan failed partially. Snape prevented Malfoy from having to commit a murder or being murdered himself along with his family. The other part of Dumbledore’s plan was that by sacrificing his life (allowing Snape to kill him) the elder wand would not ever acknowlege a new owner and would lose it’s power. The reason the plan failed was that Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore before Snape killed him, so the Elder wand switched its loyalty to Malfoy, and then to Harry when he disarmed Malfoy later in the last book. Voldemort kills Snape, believing that he is the wands master when actually, Malfoy was the wand’s master, despite the fact that he never touched it. So, the plan did work in that it prevented Voldemort from becoming master of the Elder Wand. However, Greydanus is correct that Snape was totally shafted in the whole deal. It was wrong of Dumbledore to ask him to do this and when Snape asks him what is going to become of his soul if he agrees, Dumbledore gives him a sort of pro-choicy You’ll-have-to-decide-for-yourself-what-is-right answer. That whole thing never sat well with me either.

 

[Allegra]

The plan was to make Snape actually the owner of the Elder Wand, so that he could more effectively assist Harry/kill Nagini when the time came/be unkillable by Voldemort. That part failed, of course.

Dumbledore’s plan did succeed in making Snape Voldemort’s very most trusted man, however, allowing him to do all the things he did behind the scenes during Deathly Hallows, so it wasn’t a complete bust.

On the topic of Dumbledore’s ordering his own euthanization/murder: the whole point is that it’s wrong, and certainly an appalling thing to do to poor Snape, putting him in that position. A major theme of Deathly Hallows is that Dumbledore wasn’t, as it turns out, a great man; maybe he wasn’t even a good man. He was a Machiavellian schemer all along, uaing Snape’s love for Lily as a weapon and breeding Harry for the slaughter. Harry’s coming to terms with that fact is the emotional heart of the book. What * Deathly Hallows* most certainly is not doing is promoting euthanasia as moral.

Steven Greydanus seems pretty well informed and may be aware of this. He may just be lamenting the woefully incomplete presentation of the Dumbledore arc in the Deathly Hallows movies.

Actually, the wand supposedly only transfered owners by being taken in a duel. The idea was that the wand would NOT acknowlege anyone as it’s master (including Snape) because Snape would not have taken the wand in violence. That was why Dumbledore thought Snape should agree to kill him. Obviously, this planned was flawed. Harry states at the end of the book that if he manages to die a natural death, the Elder Wand will never have another owner.

 

[Allegra]

*If you’ve already read the books or seen the movie and can’t recognize the lies, you need to spend more time with Catholic teaching. You can buy a copy of the catechism on Ebay. You can find any number of books written by saints and popes and learned persons who know the truth backwards and forwards and it will EDIFY you and make you a holy person.

Harry Potter can’t do any of this. Why spend your money on what will not feed you?*

I am absolutely horrified! You, sir, have better have read these books and be willing to state and defend these so called lies before you go around throwing insults such as that! I happen to be very well versed in Catholic teaching, to the extent that I can go about with a reasonable amount of judgement in what is holy and unholy, without having to cower in fear over a work of fiction. I think that a person who is looking for goodness will find it in these stories and those who are looking for evil will find it everywhere they turn. Now, let’s get some charity back into this thread!

 

[Catholic90]

…without having to cower in fear over a work of fiction.

That is what so amazes me about all these HP threads. Do so many people really live in so much fear of regular, ordinary things? They seem absolutely terrified of words on a page!

 

[Allegra]

That is what so amazes me about all these HP threads. Do so many people really live in so much fear of regular, ordinary things? They seem absolutely terrified of words on a page!

Some words can be very harmful. With that sentiment, I agree. But to make statements regarding other people’s knowlege of Church teaching or level of faithfulness based on their decision to read a book they know very little about is horrible to me!

I would be happy to argue the merits of Harry Potter with a person who is knowlegeable about the subject. Perhaps some may have a point about certain aspects of the series. But I am appalled at the uncharitable spewing of mean-spirited posts, by those who don’t have a clue of what they are even talking about!

If someone wanted to say, “I haven’t read Harry Potter, but I heard bad things about it and I don’t want to risk exposing my kids to something potentially harmful.” No one would have any problem with such a statement. Afterall, no one expects a parent to sit and read a seven-book series or watch twenty-plus hours of video every time their youngster wants to read a questionable book.

But to chastize others for reading those books based on some quaky author who’s probably making a fortune filling parents’ heads with unfounded fear is just messed up!

 

[Catholic90]

If someone wanted to say, “I haven’t read Harry Potter, but I heard bad things about it and I don’t want to risk exposing my kids to something potentially harmful.” No one would have any problem with such a statement. Afterall, no one expects a parent to sit and read a seven-book series or watch twenty-plus hours of video every time their youngster wants to read a questionable book.

But to chastize others for reading those books based on some quaky author who’s probably making a fortune filling parents’ heads with unfounded fear is just messed up!

Agreed.

 

[Lord_Timmsey]

I just wanted to say that I find Theophilus’ accusations to be rather insulting and disheartening…I’m tired of encountering Catholics who, as a previous poster so wonderfully put it, are AFRAID of Harry Potter, to the extent that they will avoid the books and movies at all costs. It’s almost like they think that by reading it, they open their soul up for one of Satan’s minions to possess.

As has been iterated time and time again: they are fiction. Now, that doesn’t automatically mean that they cannot be harmful, but they are within the realm of those fictional works which aren’t. I certainly can discern what is right and what is wrong in those books, just as I can recognize that the pseudo-Latin incantations are simply made-up doggerel that serves as a dramatic tool in the books. I should know: I took four straight years of Latin in high school, and nearly all of them don’t even make any linguistic sense!

Now, that little speech about moral relativism was nice, but it did not apply to this topic. In a puny little work of fiction such as Harry Potter, it is simple enough to acknowledge that Harry is not the best of people, and neither are many of the people in those books. Harry is a realistic depiction of an English schoolboy thrust into situations that demand and exact terrible prices upon him. If I read a book, I emphatically do not want a perfect protagonist who always does the right thing, because that is simply unrealistic and foolish. Picking apart a character, recognizing the good with the bad in their personality, is an educational experience and can help us to avoid making the wrong choices that they made if we ever confront a similar situation. And as so many people have already pointed out, the ending of the book features Dumbledore’s consequentialism as being a failure and wrong, and depicts Harry’s heroic self-sacrifice as being what truly saved the day. Which, oddly enough, sounds like something I’ve read about before…

In closing, I would recommend this politely scathing little article from the NCR’s Mark Shea on the subject of Harry Potter. And I would even more heartily recommend that you read through every single link that is scattered throughout the article itself - they are incredibly informative.
ncregister.com/blog/scripture-does-not-say/

God bless you all.

 

[Lord_Timmsey]

But to chastize others for reading those books based on some quaky author who’s probably making a fortune filling parents’ heads with unfounded fear is just messed up!

I think Theophilus might benefit from reading Romans 14; it applies rather well to his judgmental behavior right about now.

 

[choliks]

At the risk of being considered a spammer, I’m linking what I posted in the other “harry potter” thread. sheesh. HP is really famous.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8146740&postcount=25

 

[MarcoPolo]

Actually, the wand supposedly only transfered owners by being taken in a duel. The idea was that the wand would NOT acknowlege anyone as it’s master (including Snape) because Snape would not have taken the wand in violence. That was why Dumbledore thought Snape should agree to kill him. Obviously, this planned was flawed. Harry states at the end of the book that if he manages to die a natural death, the Elder Wand will never have another owner.

If that is true that the wand’s owner had to be killed, then how did the wand become Draco’s? Or does the owner just have to be “defeated,” which may or may not involve getting killed?

 

[curlycool89]

If I read a book, I emphatically do not want a perfect protagonist who always does the right thing, because that is simply unrealistic and foolish. Picking apart a character, recognizing the good with the bad in their personality, is an educational experience and can help us to avoid making the wrong choices that they made if we ever confront a similar situation. And as so many people have already pointed out, the ending of the book features Dumbledore’s consequentialism as being a failure and wrong, and depicts Harry’s heroic self-sacrifice as being what truly saved the day. Which, oddly enough, sounds like something I’ve read about before…

I agree. Perfect protagonists are pretty much boring. There’s only 1 book that has a perfect protagonist, and it’s definitely not fiction

Even the saints were not perfect. St. Augustin is pretty much the prime example.

If that is true that the wand’s owner had to be killed, then how did the wand become Draco’s? Or does the owner just have to be “defeated,” which may or may not involve getting killed?

sigh JKR’s wand lore was really pulled into the plot for about the last 2 books. Apparently wands “decide” and their “allegiance” goes to the “winner”. The “loser” doesn’t have to be defeated.

Frankly, it was a really poorly thought-out idea that’s applied haphazardly at best. Harry’s favourite spell is the disarming spell, which he used on many, many people who kept their want just fine (not to mention teaching it to the DA…). Harry gains the “allegiance” of the Elder Want essentially by grabbing Draco’s wand from him in a tug-of-war, no magic required. I guess there has to be some “claim” on the other person’s wand.

My suggestion: just accept it in the circumstances as presented, but don’t try and extrapolate.