Harry Potter?.......( Is it bad?)

[Catholicwife32]

Second chapter, HP is as estranged as possible from his foster family - everyone gets portrayed in a negative light. Exception being his friends and his magic world. [Here it gets dangerous, the adolescent following suite is alienated from family in favor of friends - we know from church doctrine you’re to be loving and especially so with family.]

Actually, it was listening to people expressing moral concerns about Harry’s relationship with his family that led me to read the first book to form my own opinion. The concern that the wizarding community is portrayed in a positive light is baseless and shows a total lack of appreciation for artistic license.

In regard to the Dursleys, as I said before, they are a character study on the vice of pride. Harry is not a perfect saint, certainly. Sometimes he does lose his temper, but it is poor character development to have characters who do not have normal human flaws, who are not in fact sinners. Your criticism of the character of Harry is that he’s an actual developed character.

Everyone knows the Christian themes intuitively from childhood which does not avoid sin or falling from the faith latter.

I’m not even sure what you’re saying here. If you are expecting characters in children’s fiction to avoid sin and always make perfect choices, you are gutting fiction of its literary value, and asking for mere propaganda, not literature.

It is moral relativism by way of nihilism that constitutes the main message

Harry Potter as moral relativism? There’s no moral relativism in Harry Potter. It’s a classic battle between good and evil.

 

[C4THOLIC]

A former satanic who did whitchcraft came to our church and talked about witchcraft. He told us many things from the movie relates to what he has seen or heard. (not sure about the books though)

 

[MHLucille]

What do you mean? about HP???

 

[Roguish]

I simply said that in some sense of the word, God’s powers can be referred to as magic. The word has a broad meaning. Like most theological terms, you have to look at how the Church is using the word.

To refer to God’s powers as “magic” is quite unhealthy. When God works supernatural events those are called miracles. This isn’t just fussing over terminology; miracles and magic are of an entirely different nature. They are not “the same principle, only differently applied.” (And how your re-definition of magic would justify HP’s magic is unclear anyway. I trust – for now – that you’re not implying that HP is working “God’s magic”.)

Anyway, for the Church the word “magic” does not have broad meaning; it is what CCC 2117 says it is, and I notice you did not address the example I asked about, of Hermione casting “obliviate”. How does that not precisely conform to the CCC’s wording of magic as “supernatural power over others”?

But you know, this is kind of a silly discussion, because the real reason you’re motivated to have it is simply that you like HP, possibly a lot. And since you’re Catholic you are now bent on finding a way to reconcile the use of magic with the Church’s teachings – which is impossible. It would be more sincere if you said: “Hey I know the Church is against it but for now I can’t help myself, I just love these stories.” That’d be honest.

 

[Roguish]

First chapter, of the HP book I’m reading starts with an entire family being murdered - without leaving descendants. Before that the narrator portrays that entire family in a negative light - following suite with no one in the village actually caring for them or their fate. […]

Yeah, I read this opening chapter also. It put me off reading the rest of the book, which was my original intention. I felt that the chapter invites the reader (typically a child) to rejoice in viewing “dull” (i.e Dursley-ish) people as deserving of condemnation and ridicule. It’s an extremely dangerous thing, such writing, because children are in fact very easily persuaded to adopt prejudices and take delight in them. The glib introduction of the pejorative “muggle” is also distasteful. As you said, there isn’t a drop of charity in the entire chapter. It’s cruel writing.

I also watched bits and pieces of Deathly Hallows again last night. I dislike it more now than when I first saw it, though I realize now there are too many subtle things wrong with it to type up here in a couple of minutes. Suffice to say that the opening scene of DH1 alone (the meeting at the long table) made me cringe and remember that HP is nothing like Narnia or LOTR. HP (or at least the Deathly Hallows instalments) comes from a totally different place, more akin to Goth stories than to what I would call “fantasy” as exemplified not only by Lewis and Tolkien but also by The Neverending Story, The Princess Bride, Nanny McPhee, etc. HP simply isn’t in that genre.

P.S. Have you noticed that this thread is set to close automatically in 15 hours? All other threads are set to close “14 days after the last reply”. Very strange.

 

[adgloriam]

Hi @Catholicwife32 thanks for your lovely post and all the care and effort you put into it. I want to write a careful response so I’ll leave that for latter in the day, I’m in Portugal so it’s noon right now and I have to go about my day. But you’ll hear from me soon.

God bless.

 

[adgloriam]

Yeah, I read this opening chapter also.

It was my fault that I didn’t explicitly say I was talking about HP 4 - if I’m not mistaken- “HP & Gobblet of Fire”. Quite a stupid mistake on my part (I’m no expert in that specific universe.)

I felt that the chapter invites the reader (typically a child) to rejoice in viewing “dull” (i.e Dursley-ish) people as deserving of condemnation and ridicule. It’s an extremely dangerous thing, such writing, because children are in fact very easily persuaded to adopt prejudices and take delight in them.

Thanks @Roguish, I really appreciate it that someone understands me straight-to-the-point on this. The word ‘dangerous’ would also have been my choice in the case.

As you said, there isn’t a drop of charity in the entire chapter. It’s cruel writing.

I couldn’t have said it better myself - to kill the entire ‘Riddle family’.

rejoice in viewing “dull” (i.e Dursley-ish)

Or Volldemort, Voll-de-Mort, Full-of-Death. Taking Voll from Germanic and Mort from latin based languages. [That sort of morphemic/symbolic writing within words is ambivalent, not necessarily good or bad - it holds linguistic potential for the reader- but I have to question it’s use in a children’s book.]

The Neverending Story , The Princess Bride , Nanny McPhee

You and @Catholicwife32 have me at a loss here because I’m a native Portuguese speaker and so I’m from a completely different literary tradition. I was actually looking forward to James Joyce, Faulkner, and Shakespeare before picking up JKR.

Suffices to say: Some ethnic/cultural traditions are TOTALLY DEVOID from fantasy in their tradition, which for an Anglo-saxon might seem strange but at times feels to me like a blessing. And I guess the catholic church had an important role in dissuading such production in certain countries over the centuries.

P.S. Have you noticed that this thread is set to close automatically in 15 hours? All other threads are set to close “14 days after the last reply”. Very strange.

CAmods have my complete trust. They’ve helped me charitably with correcting my bad temper and they do an amazing job moderating over the vastness of issues brought up on CAF. If for some reason they decided the thread was to be short lived they know best. We can always request to reopen the thread, they’ll help with any request that is reasonable.

God bless.

 

[angel12]

P.S. Have you noticed that this thread is set to close automatically in 15 hours? All other threads are set to close “14 days after the last reply”. Very strange.

Given the history of Harry Potter threads on CAF – maybe not so strange.

 

[Jimbo]

I love the Lord of the Rings, and to a lesser extent the Chronicles of Narnia.

In the Lord of the Rings there is magic that happens. It is useful. I don’t know about fun, but the characters like Galadriel using her mirror or Sam using the phial she gave her are clearly magical.

Now, I’ll give you, it’s a much better use of magic than what’s in Harry Potter.

Magic is just a device. You can use it in a book much the same way that you would use super powers in a comic book, or the force in Star Wars. You can show that people need to use their power in a morally competent way.

HP isn’t perfect. But I don’t find it malum per se.

 

[Thom18]

Question: has anyone seen my finger?

I was petting Buckbeak and he pulled a Malfoy on me.

 

[mVitus]

@Roguish I’ll explain the magic thing again.

Magic in our world is wrong for two big reasons.

1. It’s pride because we seek to be something we’re not.
2. It can be derived from demons.

Magic in HP however doesn’t meet either of those.

1. The magic is an inherent part of the wizard. It is a natural power to them. They did not seek to be above what they are, it’s just what they are. So the sin of pride is not present and using magic doesn’t require powers that are supernatural to even if those some powers would be supernatural to us.
2. Their power does not come from demons. It’s from their nature. They are using what, were HP real, are God-given gifts. Not demonically derived powers.

And the video from Preaching Friars really does go into that a lot more.

So with the obligate spell, while it’s quite arguable that it was wrong for Hermione to cast it, the fact she could cast it wasn’t wrong. And in a case like when Harry casts a patrons to defend against dementors, there’s not really anyway to say it was wrong.

---

@Lee1 I know before you said a while back that you were willing to concede fantasy may not be an issue for me, but hold that it can be a stumbling block for others. I would point out the various people, many who are Catholic, who have not had HP as a stumbling block. And so while I don’t doubt your sincerity in thinking it is a stumbling block, I must disagree with you on the matter.

In regards to the rise in thr number of Wiccans and lessening of Christian values in society, I would not blame it on things like Harry Potter or fantasy books. Rather, I’d ascribe it much more to,things like the sexual revolution where in order to say carefree sex, a strong temptation, is okay, you have to deny Christian morality. And the rise of Protestantism 500 years ago has ideas, such as personal interpretation of Scripture being the highest authority, have had a long time to permeate. And with a lessening in Christian culture, people are likely to turn elsewhere.

 

[Roguish]

I’ll explain the magic thing again.

Noted, but basically you’re just repeating the distinctions that Catholicwife32 already introduced: (1) HP magic is innate not acquired and (2) it doesn’t involve the invocation of demons.

But you see, CCC 2117 doesn’t make those exceptions. It condems all magic without exception, though it does state that it is “even more to be condemned […] when they have recourse to the intervention of demons.” It does not state that it is to be condemned “only when they have resource to the intervention of demons.”

But you know what’s funny? For me magic isn’t the biggest problem with HP. We just end up focusing on that because it’s easily identifiable in HP, as well as in the CCC. For me there is something pervasively morbid about HP. It’s related to what I (and another poster) wrote earlier about the first chapter of one of the books. And I see it in the movies too. I know what it is, but I don’t know how to word it. Well, doesn’t matter because even if I found the right words I’m pretty sure HP-fans will disagree anyway

 

[mVitus]

But you see, CCC 2117 doesn’t make those exceptions. It condems all magic without exception,

The CCC doesn’t talk about The Force from Star Wars either. It’s dealing with the real world and because we don’t have Harry Potter magic, there’s no need to make any explicit distinctions.

Imagine if it read

All attempts at sorcery and divination must be rejected, unless you have a special inborn ability, …

I could imagine a lot of people thinking Wicca was okay because of an inborn ability to say the spells. In other words, there’s no point for the CCC to make the distinction as it’s uneeded for our world and would be more likely to cause confusion. So when we apply it to a fantasy world, we have to extrapolate.

 

[Mary67]

I have a favorite priest I listen to on youtube and he was talking about this in one of his videos. Apparently the spells in the books are real spells from the occult. Also, he allegedly performed an exorcism where he commanded the demon to reveal its self and it said it was one of the six demons who possessed JK Rowling so that she could “write a hit series”. Its thought that she had purposefully gotten possessed so that she could become famous. For me this is enough to not read them (even though I have admittedly watched all the movies before I found this out).

 

[JanetF]

I only spent a day at each by generosity of family employed there a few years ago, but I would say Universal park pass over Disney any day.

Totally agree Universal beats Disney hands down

 

[Catholicwife32]

To refer to God’s powers as “magic” is quite unhealthy. When God works supernatural events those are called miracles .

The occult is sinful whether or not magic actually occurs, but what defines the occult is not whether you’re calling on the powers of the good (God, the angels and the saints) vs whether you’re calling the powers of the bad (demons). What matters is your disposition to prayer. A preoccupation with miracles or the sensational/miraculous is sinful.

Miracles exist only as Divine signs to help us in our journey to faith. They might be an initial reason we start believing. They might occur in some crisis moment where we’re tempted to give into the despair that God has abandoned us.

Pursuing the miraculous constantly and making it the center of your devotional life is sinful, whether it’s Christian themed or not. This is why I grew uncomfortable with the charismatic renewal. It’s not that I think teens should be kept away from it. But the charismatic renewal tends to play on the youth’s attraction to the occult. It is fine if it is a first step to leading a person to the Christian faith. It’s fine if you have good spiritual directors who help them discover the gospel and what the purpose of prayer even is.

Aside from reciting memorized prayers, our first prayers are often prayers that treat God as a genie. It’s as our relationship with God grows that we begin to recognize the meaning of “Thy will be done.” The prayers of the saints are all of self-surrender to God’s providence. It rejects our initial inclination to use God as a means of fulfilling our desires.

the real reason you’re motivated to have it is simply that you like HP, possibly a lot.

I’ve read a number of books with far more occultish elements than the magic presented in the Harry Potter series. There’s nothing wrong with reading stories involving such characters and events. They’re stories. Reading them is not practicing the occult. That’s nuts!

What irks me is that Harry Potter is modern Christian literature. That is to say, Rowling is a Christian author whose imagination is very Christian. The Potter books are exactly what modern Christian fiction should look like. We need more like it. Not more stories with magical elements. If you think that, you’re missing my point. What I mean is that Rowling is very good at her craft. But today we live in an age that attacks Christian authors because out of a lack of understanding of literary form. You can’t write well-developed characters because well-developed characters are sinners. You can’t write good prose, because any time your character sins, you need to explicitly state it. You also need to tell rather than show your themes. And you need to make sure all your world building is grounded so much in the real world that it’s theologically inaccurate, because God hates creativity and artistic license.

 

[Catholicwife32]

I felt that the chapter invites the reader (typically a child) to rejoice in viewing “dull” (i.e Dursley-ish) people as deserving of condemnation and ridicule. It’s an extremely dangerous thing, such writing, because children are in fact very easily persuaded to adopt prejudices and take delight in them.

I always find it ironic how Dursleyish people sound when they criticize how the Dursleys are presented in the opening chapter of the first book.

The Dursleys are a character study of vanity. They pride themselves in being ordinary and are thus prone to be judgmental of those who are different. This IS a vice. It IS a sin, whether their sin was directed as wizards or ordinary people.

Their “dullness” is NOT Rowling attempting to get children to favor non-muggles over muggles. There’s actually a prejudice among the “pure blood” wizards and wizards who pride their connection to magic. They refer to people who came from Muggle homes as Mud-bloods, and they ostracize Squibs, those in their own family who have no magical powers. This prejudice within the magical community in the series is FREQUENTLY condemned. Ron’s parents have a particular fascination with Muggles and their technology.

 

[Catholicwife32]

Suffice to say that the opening scene of DH1 alone (the meeting at the long table) made me cringe and remember that HP is nothing like Narnia or LOTR. HP (or at least the Deathly Hallows instalments) comes from a totally different place, more akin to Goth stories than to what I would call “fantasy” as exemplified not only by Lewis and Tolkien but also by The Neverending Story , The Princess Bride , Nanny McPhee , etc. HP simply isn’t in that genre.

There’s nothing wrong with Gothic fiction. Have you never read Frankenstein or Dracula? Are you against those literary classics as well?

 

[twf]

Please read the rest of the thread. These outlandish claims have been refuted time and time again.
The novels have strong Christian themes and the fictional magic (which are natural abilities of the characters within the context of this fictional world) has nothing to do with demons or the Occult. Rowling has explicitly stated that Wicca plays no role in her fictional world but that her Christian upbringing did indeed inspire the allegorical elements.

 

[Roguish]

Never mind the magic. I’m a little bored with that part of the discussion. As I wrote in response to @mVitus, for me that isn’t the biggest problem anyway, we just end up talking about it because it’s such an obvious thing.

Have you ever watched an existentialist theatre troupe act out a Christian-themed play? I suspect that if you have, you thought it was “pretty good”. But you see, when I watch existentialists act out a Christian play, I cringe. Because I sense that they don’t get it even though they’re going through the motions. It shows up in little things.

I feel the same way when I’m watching HP. There’s something “off”. Now, this is not completely attributable to J.K. Rowlings of course; it’s also the actors. But it is well known that Rowlings was very pleased to have Radcliffe, Watson, and what’s-his-name in the lead roles, so apparently they do correspond well to what Rowlings had in mind when she was writing.

I always find it ironic how Dursleyish people sound when they criticize how the Dursleys are presented in the opening chapter of the first book.

Ah, I see the gloves are coming off. Okay. Well, there’s nothing ironic about it, CW. I am defending the Dursleys because I am one. Not by last name, but certainly by lifestyle. No joke.

There’s nothing wrong with Gothic fiction. Have you never read Frankenstein or Dracula? Are you against those literary classics as well?

I’ve read both. Frankenstein appalled me. Dracula is a masterpiece. The fact that you lump the two together – and call them Gothic fiction – makes me give up on this debate.