harry potter

[promethius]

It’s not humans taking on ultimate evil though, it’s humans taking on other humans. Voldemort is not a satanic equivelent, he’s basically just wizard Hitler.

Also, practically no movie I’ve seen involves the protagonist praying and wishing the antagonist would go away.

Ref: Chronicles of Narnia. Aslan is CS Lewis’ metaphorical representation of Christ. When He is not present, the children falter and struggle. It is only through Aslan’s intervention that the children can prevail against evil.

And let’s be honest, Voldemort is the closest thing one can be to Satan without BEING Satan. They even disfigured his character to destroy its humanity.

If nothing else, I also have a problem in the fact that Harry (Good) and Voldemort (Evil) both appear to draw their power from the same source, when we know that miraculous powers come from God and evil powers are the action of Satan.

Again, I’m not saying don’t watch it, I’m saying that there is some theological clarification that should be made for children who might be impressioned by these ideas if they are not given proper parental guidance.

 

[joandarc2008]

Here is what Father Euteneuer has to say about Harry Potter:

catholicism.org/hlis-father-euteneuer-authors-book-on-exorcism-warns-about-harry-potter-series.html

 

[kbwall]

Ref: Chronicles of Narnia. Aslan is CS Lewis’ metaphorical representation of Christ. When He is not present, the children falter and struggle. It is only through Aslan’s intervention that the children can prevail against evil.

What of Dumbledore?

Also, what of other stories about good versus evil? Tons of them involve the forces of good going against the forces of evil. For example, Lord of the Rings (though this might count as receiving God’s help, as that mythology is meant for adults and thus much more thought out; would like to see your opinion on it though). There’s also the countless other stories that aren’t necessarily of the fantasy genre. There’s comic books involving heroes going against villains. Video games, from fantasy stuff like Final Fantasy to the Halo series.

And let’s be honest, Voldemort is the closest thing one can be to Satan without BEING Satan. They even disfigured his character to destroy its humanity.

I can kinda see where you’d see the parallel to Voldemort and Satan, but honeslty, I still think Voldemort is a lot closer to Hitler than to Satan. Compare motives. Voldemort cares only for pureblood wizards, similar to Hitler and his love of aryans. This is especially shown in the seventh book where the wizarding world is like Nazi Germany, and the protagonists are runaways from the regime.

Also, Satan is interested in turning people against God, through deception or trickery. Whereas Voldemort doesn’t really care about stuff like that, he forces people to join him, or he kills them, just like a dictator would, only difference is he has magical powers. I would also compare him to standard comic book villains.

If nothing else, I also have a problem in the fact that Harry (Good) and Voldemort (Evil) both appear to draw their power from the same source, when we know that miraculous powers come from God and evil powers are the action of Satan.

Well, magic does seem to be its own force that comes from within wizards/witches in the Potter-verse. I think that’s just part of the fantasy. JK Rowling didn’t want to get into the seriousness of having real world religions with God and Satan (and personally I can’t blame her), and simply wrote a story about being with special powers.

Again, I’m not saying don’t watch it, I’m saying that there is some theological clarification that should be made for children who might be impressioned by these ideas if they are not given proper parental guidance.

That’s good. I do find this discussion interesting though and am willing to continue if you are. If you don’t, that’s understandable.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

True Story: While waiting for my husband’s Benedictine Oblate meeting at a local Benedictine Abbey, we went into the library to kill some time. Guess who was there? Two Benedictine monks getting ready to watch, guess-what-movie? HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER’S STONE. This is a highly respected, cloistered abbey, and one of the monks was the Father Prior. If Harry is good enough for the brothers, he is good enough for me.

:tiphat:

Erm… read the footnoted version of the entire Narnia series. The whole thing is a metaphor for biblical events. It was meant by CS Lewis, a VERY prominent Anglican writer, as a primer for Christian teaching to children.

Here we go with the double standards. The irony is I actually agree with you about Narnia, but none of that changes the fact of the series’ pagan influences. From wikipedia:
wikipedia:

Lewis has also received criticism from some Christians and Christian organizations who feel that The Chronicles of Narnia promotes “soft-sell paganism and occultism”, because of the recurring pagan themes and the supposedly heretical depictions of Christ as an anthropomorphic lion. The Greek god Dionysus and the Maenads are depicted in a positive light (with the caveat that meeting them without Aslan around would not be safe), although they are generally considered distinctly pagan motifs. Even an animistic “River god” is portrayed in a positive light.[49][50] According to Josh Hurst of Christianity Today, “not only was Lewis hesitant to call his books Christian allegory, but the stories borrow just as much from pagan mythology as they do the Bible”.[51]

Lewis himself believed that pagan mythology could act as a preparation for Christianity, both in history and in the imaginative life of an individual, and even suggested that modern man was in such a lamentable state that perhaps it was necessary “first to make people good pagans, and after that to make them Christians”.[52] He also argued that imaginative enjoyment of (as opposed to belief in) classical mythology has been a feature of Christian culture through much of its history, and that European literature has always had three themes: the natural, the supernatural believed to be true (practiced religion), and the supernatural believed to be imaginary (mythology). Colin Duriez, author of three books on Lewis, suggests that Lewis believed that to reach a post-Christian culture one needed to employ pre-Christian ideas.[53] … he had hardly any reservations about pre-Christian pagan culture.

That second paragraph applies to Harry Potter equally well. And by the way, Lewis didn’t initially intend for the series to become “a primer for Christian teaching.” His rich Christian symbolism, imagery, and structure came out of his personal faith’s influence on his writing. The genesis of the first novel was not in some kind of allegorical scheme but in images that came to Lewis and stuck with him: a faun in a snowy wood holding an umbrella and a parcel next to a lamppost, a great Lion, a fierce witch-queen in white on a sleigh driven by a dwarf, etc.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

By contrast, Harry Potter’s author has no christian influence whatsoever.

You’re demonstrably incorrect here. Rowling has confirmed her Christian faith and its influence on her life and writing time and time again.

Furthermore, such a claim underscores the depth and breadth of your utter ignorance of the series’ content. To state that the series “has no Christian influence whatsoever” is an outlandish and provocatively false assertion.

Are you aware that Rowling uses traditional imagery that reflects not only good vs. evil but a highly Sacramental worldview? Are you aware that a symbolic Christ figure comes to the rescue at the climax of every book in the Harry Potter series? Do you have any conception of how rich and profound spiritual themes inform and define her fictional world’s very magical structure and effects? Do you understand why one of the last chapters of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is titled “King’s Cross”? Do you know the series’ central theme, and just how Christian Rowling’s treatment of it is? Do you know what Scripture passages Rowling uses in Deathly Hallows? And that Rowling stated that those Bible passages epitomize the whole series?

Clearly you do not. You need to educate yourself on Harry Potter before you comment further.

Her “morality” is that people can stand against ultimate evil by themselves (they can’t) using their own power (they can’t)

Wow. False on both counts, as anyone who has read the series should know. It’s always self-sacrificial solidarity that saves Harry and his friends, and as for staking everything on one’s power, Voldemort - the villain - is the one who takes that tactic most often. Hint: His life doesn’t end well.

and that triumph over evil is somehow based on some sort of rulebook (it’s not)

Once again, this is just not true of the series. No “rulebook” protects Harry from Voldemort’s killing curse as an infant. No “rulebook” keeps Harry and his friends on the right path in the face of temptation. No “rulebook” inspires Nicholas Flamel to destroy the Philosopher’s Stone. No “rulebook” saves Harry from the basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets. No “rulebook” protects Harry as he grows up. No “rulebook” unites the Deathly Hallows.

Harry, in fact, argues exactly that triumph over evil is never based on some sort of “rulebook” in Order of the Phoenix when his friends all seem to foolishly attribute Harry’s victories over Voldemort to Harry’s own negligible skill.

The reality is that humans CANNOT stand against satan without God, that ALL power comes from one of two sources: God or evil, not of ourselves, and that salvation and triumph over evil is by Grace DESPITE the natural law (which God transcends).

Harry Potter mirrors this spiritual reality in remarkable ways.

I’m less concerned about the occult aspect of it than I am by the message that people can defeat and destroy ultimate evil by their own native power with no assistance whatsoever from God. We humans do not have that capability and care should be taken to explain to children that we require God’s grace to be able to stand against sin and Satan.

Harry’s “native power” gets him nowhere in the series. Let me mention again when he himself argues this in Order of the Phoenix.

Seriously. Let’s go to any of the novels’ climaxes and see for ourselves.

In Philosopher’s Stone? He’s saved by his mother’s self-sacrifice (which prevents Voldemort/Quirell from touching him) and by Albus Dumbledore (himself often a Christ figure).

In Chamber of Secrets, he’s saved by Fawkes the phoenix, who blinds the basilisk, arms Harry with the Sword of Gryffindor (this is almost right out of Ephesians 6:17-18), and heals him of poisoning by basilisk venom with his tears.

In Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry experiences his stag patronus (stag = another Christ symbol; look it up) saving him from a horde of soul-sucking dementors when he didn’t even learn to cast it (yet).

In Goblet of Fire, Harry doesn’t save himself.

In Order of the Phoenix, the members of the Order and Albus Dumbledore himself save him. Same in Half-Blood Prince.

And, by a wonderful twist, Harry’s friends and loved ones are saved by his self-sacrifice in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, a sacrifice that thwarts all of Voldemort’s considerable power. None of them defeat the Death Eaters on their own.

Throughout the whole series, Rowling makes it abundantly clear that Harry’s skill as a wizard is consistently mediocre (well, he’s good at flying on brooms and at some basic defensive spell-work… that’s it). There’s a very clear theme of our own weakness before evil, and of our reliance on supernatural help outside of ourselves to overcome such evil.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

In fact, most of the Harry Potter novels’ climaxes are structurally similar to the chapter in Lewis’ The Voyage of the Dawn Treader when the characters visit the dark island. If you’ll recall, they panic because of their nightmares, but Lucy calls on Aslan, who comes as an albatross, leads the Dawn Treader out of the darkness, and even destroys the darkness.

Compare that to, say, the end of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets or Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. They’re literally almost the same, except you’ve got a phoenix (Christ symbol) or Dumbledore saving the day instead of albatross Aslan.

The only structural difference is that in Narnia, Aslan literally is Christ in another world, not merely a literary symbol for Him.

But no one who thinks that level of literalness is necessary has any understanding or appreciation for literature at all. Lewis himself wouldn’t insist on that.

 

[promethius]

You’re demonstrably incorrect here. Rowling has confirmed her Christian faith and its influence on her life and writing time and time again.

A claim which only came out in response to criticism of her. If you’ll kindly visit her official page, which I did before making that statement, she makes no assertion of christian affiliation at all. Her history mentions no christian organization and her list of awards and recognition contains no christian items either. For a christian, she’s remarkably unproud of the fact…

Furthermore, such a claim underscores the depth and breadth of your utter ignorance of the series’ content.

I own all of the books. I have read all of them. I have even read some of them twice (the later ones, I think she was rather an amateur in her first two novels), and the last two I have read three times. I own all of the movies. I have seen 3 and 4 several times each.

I also had a college reading level in 5th grade and scored in the top 1% of students in the United States in reading comprehension.

Not to brag. But I assure you, I have an in depth knowledge of the series’ content.

To state that the series “has no Christian influence whatsoever” is an outlandish and provocatively false assertion.

Where is God then?

Are you aware that Rowling uses traditional imagery that reflects not only good vs. evil but a highly Sacramental worldview?

I must have missed Harry’s baptism where he receives imparted grace. I must also have skipped the chapter called “Harry’s First Holy Communion”. What sacraments are you talking about?

Are you aware that a symbolic Christ figure comes to the rescue at the climax of every book in the Harry Potter series?

Oh please. God never makes an appearance and Christ does not come to rescue Harry. Since you go into more detail on this later, I’ll address it farther on.

Do you have any conception of how rich and profound spiritual themes inform and define her fictional world’s very magical structure and effects?

“spiritual” does not equate to an accurate Christian message.

Do you understand why one of the last chapters of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is titled “King’s Cross”?

I’ve actually BEEN to King’s Cross. Are you aware that the location is chosen because JK Rowling concieved the idea in the train station there? Have YOU been to King’s Cross? Does Harry, who died and then chose to rise from the dead of his own accord and with no mentioned Devine power meet Christ at King’s Cross? No.

You have misplaced the symbolism of the passage. King’s Cross is the place where JK Rowling first came up with the Harry Potter concept. The word “Cross” in the title of a trainstation does not imply an approved Christian message…

And there, I know the history of the series better than you, apparently.

Do you know what Scripture passages Rowling uses in Deathly Hallows?

You mean the two written on the headstones in the cemetary. Yes, I’m quite aware that Matthew 6:21 and 1 Corinthians 15:26 appear in a graveyard in Godric’s Hollow.

And that Rowling stated that those Bible passages epitomize the whole series?

And yet her understanding of those verses is so greatly flawed. Harry rises from the dead on his own. That is a gross change of the meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:26. The bible does NOT teach that the last thing that will happen is that people will choose to rise from the dead of their own accord. In other words, it is possible to quote scripture and then to use it so salaciously that it bears no christian meaning to the book.

to be continued…

 

[promethius]

Once again, this is just not true of the series. No “rulebook” protects Harry from Voldemort’s killing curse as an infant. No “rulebook” keeps Harry and his friends on the right path in the face of temptation. No “rulebook” inspires Nicholas Flamel to destroy the Philosopher’s Stone. No “rulebook” saves Harry from the basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets. No “rulebook” protects Harry as he grows up. No “rulebook” unites the Deathly Hallows.

Really? The fact that Voldemort wasn’t aware that a sacrifice based on love (by anyone) is enough to thwart the avada kedavra curse isn’t a rule by which Voldemort went down? Harry didn’t get the chance to choose to rise from the dead based on a twist of a rule that he needed to die and come back to life because he was tied to Voldemort? Voldemorts ultimate failure was not predicated by a rule that a wand cannot be used against it’s own master? (which in turn is not predicated by the fact that it was Malfoy, and not Snape, who ultimately bested Dumbledore and therefore was the wand’s master, and not snape when Voldemort tried to take it from him) Was it not a rule that when two paired wands meet they’ll connect, which is the only thing that allowed Harry to escape in the Goblet of Fire?

Harry, in fact, argues exactly that triumph over evil is never based on some sort of “rulebook” in Order of the Phoenix when his friends all seem to foolishly attribute Harry’s victories over Voldemort to Harry’s own negligible skill.

I didn’t say that it shows skill can be used to triumph over evil. I said rules. Harry wins because of a natural law rule that Voldemort can’t use the deathly hollow wand against Harry because it is Harry’s to command. This is not the grace of God allowing the defeat of evil… it is a turn of hand based on a non-existant natural law which shows no sign of being at the mercy of a Divine figurehead.

In Philosopher’s Stone? He’s saved by his mother’s self-sacrifice (which prevents Voldemort/Quirell from touching him) and by Albus Dumbledore (himself often a Christ figure).

His mother is Christ? Nope.
Albus Dumbledore is likewise not a representation of Christ. A representation of a kindly old man who has powerful magic powers but is still ultimately defeated and killed in order to sate some natural law so that Harry can take over the wand when Voldemort tries to use it, yes… but definitely NOT a Christ figure.

In Chamber of Secrets, he’s saved by Fawkes the phoenix, who blinds the basilisk, arms Harry with the Sword of Gryffindor (this is almost right out of Ephesians 6:17-18), and heals him of poisoning by basilisk venom with his tears.

The sword of Gryffindor hardly points to the “sword of the Spirit”. Please, if that were the case we could liken anyone picking up any sword in the world to Ephesians 6:17. You have misrepresented this connection drastically. And Fawkes is most certainly not a Christ figure, but rather a pagan symbol. Christian’s don’t believe in the phoenix, remember?

In Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry experiences his stag patronus (stag = another Christ symbol; look it up) saving him from a horde of soul-sucking dementors when he didn’t even learn to cast it (yet).

No. The Stag’s HORNS are a symbol of the resurrection. The Stag is not a symbol of Christ. The LAMB is. And… wait for it… who originated the stag? Harry himself when he time travelled backwards and saved himself from the dementors. Oh, and his passed out uncle was there.

In Goblet of Fire, Harry doesn’t save himself.

No, his father and several other souls captured inside a physical device (rather than going on to face particular judgement and salvation or damnation as appropriate) attack voldemort and he runs away through a magical gateway. I must have missed Where Christ dropped in at the end of this book too.

In Order of the Phoenix, the members of the Order and Albus Dumbledore himself save him. Same in Half-Blood Prince.

Yep. Last I checked the “order of the Phoenix”, Dumbledore’s Army, and Dumbledore himself do not represent Christ at all, but rather individual humans… not one of whom ever makes reference to a divine in any way, shape, or form.

And, by a wonderful twist, Harry’s friends and loved ones are saved by his self-sacrifice in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,

Oh, right, you mean the sacrifice where he dies and then raises himself based on that non-existant rule that gives him the chance to cut the tie with voldemort.

a sacrifice that thwarts all of Voldemort’s considerable power.

Not all, it only severs the last tie of Voldemort to the land of the living. The other horcruxes were critical to destroy too… oh, and the rule-book trick of Voldemort not being able to use his wand.

There’s a very clear theme of our own weakness before evil, and of our reliance on supernatural help outside of ourselves to overcome such evil.

So again, where does Harry turn to that is Divine? I realize that magic is supernatural, but that is not to say that it is either divine or of God.

 

[Vince1022]

Is watching harry potter movies ok.

Yes

 

[twoangels]

By contrast, Harry Potter’s author has no christian influence whatsoever. Her “morality” is that people can stand against ultimate evil by themselves (they can’t) using their own power (they can’t), and that triumph over evil is somehow based on some sort of rulebook (it’s not).

JK Rowling is a Christian herself. She may be a progressive/liberal Christian, but Christianity still greatly inspires her work. Her primary theme in the book is that love (and she doesn’t limit it to romantic love. The sacrificial element is there) is more powerful than any type of “magic” there is in the world.

Voltemort (the evil character in the books) is overcome by Harry Potter offering his life and dying for his friends. Rowling then has him come back to life, but because he made the ultimate sacrifice of love for his friends (just as his mother had done for him which had protected him), Voltemort’s spells have little power over those Harry Potter died for. Eventually Harry Potter and Voltemort duel, but Voltemort’s spell backfires and kills him. Voltemort uses the killing curse while Potter uses the spell simply used to disarm people.

While its not an allegory, Harry Potter is portrayed as a type of Christ while Voltemort is portrayed as a type of Satan. Voltemort even has a snake-like appearence. It is just like how Tolkien has different characters play as types of Christ even though in all of Lord of the Rings there is no specific character you can say is Christ in that world, while Narnia is a fictional alternate reality that Lewis has our God create.

I’m not saying the books are perfect. I don’t understand why Rowling had to make the statement that Dumbledore is gay. Granted, it plays really no part in her books and its not mentioned in her books. In my first reading of how Dumbledore dies, I did feel that it felt too much like an argument for assisted suicide, however when I read each book, I was always on the lookout for problematic themes. My own bias and desire to scrutinize her work may have tainted my interpretation of it.

That said, the books are dark in that they deal straight on with death and the feelings that come out (both good and bad) when we’re mourning the loss of our loved ones. The reason this very morbid theme is in her books is because Rowling was dealing with the death of her parents when she began writing the series. This, I believe, really puts the latter books in the Young Adult category rather than in children’s fiction, but I’d say it is Rowlings seriousness about dealing with these subjects that gets her so many adult fans. The series is almost a series for all ages, not just children.

The Harry Potter series is not a book that came out of the mind of an individual involved in the occult. It came out of a typical European Anglican where the remnants of the Christian faith still exist but where that Christian heritage has more to do with the past and where people aren’t quite sure what they believe entirely though their beliefs are still heavily influenced by their Christian heritage.

If people judge that they would prefer their children not reading these books, that’s totally fine. There are plenty of other books for children to read.

The problem is though that by focusing obsessively about the Harry Potter series, people give the impression that parents should just avoid this series with a ten foot pole, not read it, not evaluate it but rather base their judgment on what others who haven’t read the series either are saying about it. Whatever our children are reading, we should be looking into. We should focus on parents really understanding what is out there and being moral guides in everything, rather than having parents that simply freak out at the title “Harry Potter.”

 

[Samuel63]

Here is what Father Euteneuer has to say about Harry Potter:

catholicism.org/hlis-father-euteneuer-authors-book-on-exorcism-warns-about-harry-potter-series.html

Great post! I will follow Father Euteneuer on this one.

Is it just me or does it seem like a whole lot of people are **completely blind **to what is going on?

 

[mdrummer5]

Great post! I will follow Father Euteneuer on this one.

Is it just me or does it seem like a whole lot of people are **completely blind **to what is going on?

I’m sorry… I read that interview and those statements along with several others in this thread pertaining to HP are the kinds of ignorant and fanatical things that cause a lot of non-Christians to stay that way.

Particularly this: “The popular book series, he claimed, has helped educate ‘younger generations in the language and the symbolism of the occult.’”

It’s all made up. There is not one part of the HP series that’s based in reality so what symbolism or language is it teaching???

Now, I will concede that it’s possible that some weak minded people may get too caught up in it and try to pursue magic but I have yet to hear of any such occurence. I would also argue that anyone who blames the books for that instead of the person is just as weak minded. Strong in spirit maybe but definitely a bit faulty in terms of logic.

 

[Samuel63]

It’s all made up. There is not one part of the HP series that’s based in reality so what symbolism or language is it teaching???

Yep - completely blind!

 

[promethius]

JK Rowling is a Christian herself. She may be a progressive/liberal Christian, but Christianity still greatly inspires her work.

Where? I have yet to see where the “love” she posits is Grace from a Divine source and anything more than human love.

Her primary theme in the book is that love (and she doesn’t limit it to romantic love. The sacrificial element is there) is more powerful than any type of “magic” there is in the world.

The sacrificial element of his mother dying… which then again turns into another rule emboddied in the shared blood with his aunt. This is not the equivalent to Divine love and grace, which are our only real protections for ultimate evil.

Voltemort (the evil character in the books) is overcome by Harry Potter offering his life and dying for his friends.

Actually he’s ultimately overcome when his wand backfires on him because it was actually Harry Potter’s to command. Harry’s death merely meant that Voldemort couldn’t use his powers on any one else who was present at Hogwarts and it was the final peice in separating the odd intrinsic bond which Harry had with Voldemort from when he had been attacked (again, not a Christian concept: deriving power from evil after being attacked by evil… but this again hinges on the confusion caused by the idea that both good and bad derive much of their power from the same source)

Eventually Harry Potter and Voltemort duel, but Voltemort’s spell backfires and kills him. Voltemort uses the killing curse while Potter uses the spell simply used to disarm people.

What spells they use are besides the point. Voldemort is defeated because Harry happened to figure out that by some ancient twist of magic Voldemort wouldn’t be able to use the wand against him. In REAL life, our only chance to stand against evil lies not in magic tricks or tricky rules by which we can outwit evil, but rather in the Grace of Christ.

While its not an allegory, Harry Potter is portrayed as a type of Christ while Voltemort is portrayed as a type of Satan.

Harry makes a blasphemous Christ symbol… unless you think that Christ was simply a magician whose only chance to rise from the dead is because He was somehow tied by some rulebook to satan and so had a chance to come back. If Harry is a symbol for Christ, then the books utterly fail at portraying Christ with any accuracy.

The Harry Potter series is not a book that came out of the mind of an individual involved in the occult. It came out of a typical European Anglican where the remnants of the Christian faith still exist but where that Christian heritage has more to do with the past and where people aren’t quite sure what they believe entirely though their beliefs are still heavily influenced by their Christian heritage.

You have totally misunderstood my point. I could care less if they were using REAL spells in the books. The point is that the values espoused point to victory over evil as based on tricks and satisfying some twisted natural law, that power ultimately derives from some mysterious third party source rather than the known God and demons, and that deliverance from evil does not require the direct impartation of Grace by the Divine. These are less complaints about the subject of the book than complaints that the moral lessons are fatally flawed.

I would suggest reading a few books on demonology, such as “Hostage to the Devil” or “Exorcism and the Church Militant” to understand how these types of godless worldviews can open doors to much greater evils (totally ignoring the occult aspect). It is interesting to note that of all the cases discussed in “Hostage to the Devil” only one had to do with the occult, and one directly had to do with positing that there was a natural law which defined all things and was somehow indepedent of God’s intervention… the exact same message that is contained in the potter series.

If people judge that they would prefer their children not reading these books, that’s totally fine. There are plenty of other books for children to read.

Agree. Having read the books, I think they’re good and entertaining, providing one is properly catechized to understand what should be taken from these texts and what SHOULD be left behind as a moral value which is NOT espoused by Christianity.

The problem is though that by focusing obsessively about the Harry Potter series, people give the impression that parents should just avoid this series with a ten foot pole, not read it, not evaluate it but rather base their judgment on what others who haven’t read the series either are saying about it. Whatever our children are reading, we should be looking into. We should focus on parents really understanding what is out there and being moral guides in everything, rather than having parents that simply freak out at the title “Harry Potter.”

If you think I focus solely on the potter series, you’re sorely mistaken. I wholeheartedly agree with this statement: Parents NEED to be involved in what their children are taking in and evaluating what morals and statements these books posit. Not that they shouldn’t allow their children to be exposed to such materials, but that they SHOULD be sure to discuss such things with their children and they SHOULD make sure their children are properly catechized and morally mature enough to handle reading something which posits other than Christian morals as being the key to success against evil.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Here is what Father Euteneuer has to say about Harry Potter:

catholicism.org/hlis-father-euteneuer-authors-book-on-exorcism-warns-about-harry-potter-series.html

Great post! I will follow Father Euteneuer on this one.

Is it just me or does it seem like a whole lot of people are **completely blind **to what is going on?

Not Fr. Euteneuer again. No offense but do you realize how many times how that LifeSiteNews priest has been cited on the subject of Harry Potter? If you’re going to commit the fallacy of appealing to an authority then at least show some variety and not point to the same man over and over again.

With that said, I will outright dismiss the man. You’re reading this right. (Am I hearing gasps?) He’s a priest, not a literary critic and he’s overstepping the boundaries of his jurisdiction. Unless he’s shown at least some competence in the study of literary theory and the practice of writing fiction, he shouldn’t be regarded as an authority on the matter. Hence, it should be declared that anyone who cites him is clearly committing a fallacy.

In REAL life, our only chance to stand against evil lies not in magic tricks or tricky rules by which we can outwit evil, but rather in the Grace of Christ.

I was always under the impression that grace comes in many forms.

You have totally misunderstood my point. I could care less if they were using REAL spells in the books. The point is that the values espoused point to victory over evil as based on tricks and satisfying some twisted natural law, that power ultimately derives from some mysterious third party source rather than the known God and demons, and that deliverance from evil does not require the direct impartation of Grace by the Divine. These are less complaints about the subject of the book than complaints that the moral lessons are fatally flawed.

Do forgive me if I find that this sounds like you imposing an outside, irrelevant theology to a fictional universe. Frankly, it makes no more sense than someone imposing the scientific laws of the Marvel universe upon ours and believing jumping into toxic waste gives one superpowers.

 

[Scaun]

As I say always regarding matters similar to this one, the best thing to do is to not watch it. Here is an good article about it.

Harry Potter is a series where sorcery, witchcraft, divination, spiritism, etc. are praised, accepted and practiced by the supposed ‘good guys’. Thus it is something one should not look at.

But I do not think it is a sin to watch it. But it is not the best thing to do either. We are not to love the things of the world and watching sinners openly practice what is forbidden by God is hardly a godly thing and we as Christians ar to ‘cling to the godly’. We are to think about the things above, where God is, instead of the things here on earth.

But as I said, watching it is not a sin. But I disagree a Christian is to watch it.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

As I say always regarding matters similar to this one, the best thing to do is to not watch it. Here is an good article about it.

Sorry but the website is a joke and the arguments are not even recycled. They’re just the same garbage flung out by the likes of Jack Chick.

Harry Potter is a series where sorcery, witchcraft, divination, spiritism, etc. are praised, accepted and practiced by the supposed ‘good guys’. Thus it is something one should not look at.

Well as I’ve always said about the topic of fantasy fiction.

Real magic(k?) =/= Fictional/fantasy magic

But I do not think it is a sin to watch it. But it is not the best thing to do either. We are not to love the things of the world and watching sinners openly practice what is forbidden by God is hardly a godly thing and we as Christians ar to ‘cling to the godly’. We are to think about the things above, where God is, instead of the things here on earth.

Yet God created this world and God created the human imagination in which works such as Harry Potter are first conceived. Perhaps since God is so desperate for us to choose the ‘godly’ and despises this world so much, why don’t you just simply ask Him to destroy that which He created right here and now no?

Then again, that’s really besides the point.

I have yet to see anything in the Catechism that states anything regarding the use of magic in fiction.

But as I said, watching it is not a sin. But I disagree a Christian is to watch it.

You seem quite presumptuous to assume you are holy enough to dictate to others that which is ‘Christian’. This is especially considering how you are speaking of things that you have no knowledge of whatsoever.

 

[melchesidechpio]

Is watching harry potter movies ok. just as recreation or a bit of entertainment. or are we supose to not watch such things

I would say no, because it contains witchcraft and sourcary. I found it offensive that ABC family would include these films in the 25 days of Christmas.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I would say no, because it contains witchcraft and sourcary. I found it offensive that ABC family would include these films in the 25 days of Christmas.

So does LOTR, Narnia, as well as classic Arthurian romance. I guess you find them offensive as well?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

If nothing else, I also have a problem in the fact that Harry (Good) and Voldemort (Evil) both appear to draw their power from the same source, when we know that miraculous powers come from God and evil powers are the action of Satan.

Yeeep, I was right. You are imposing outside theology. Sorry but are you aware that you’re actually a committing a crime against the laws of objective literary criticism? Okay maybe its not a crime, but it is certainly one of the worst ways one can approach a story. What you’re doing is pretty much no different than a physics guy complaining about how a certain superhero can do this when it’s completely impossible. It’s kinda annoying really, no offense.

Again, I’m not saying don’t watch it, I’m saying that there is some theological clarification that should be made for children who might be impressioned by these ideas if they are not given proper parental guidance.

Just hammer in the fact that fantasy doesn’t work the same way as reality and vice-versa and bam. Problem solved. Seriously, take it from a guy who’s been a fantasy fan boy for the past seven to ten years of his life. That distinction worked pretty well for me.