Harry Potter

[Lost_Wanderer]

Many men are of the opinion, dear friend, that the Harry Potter series of books do at least have the potential for enticing the young, yet in a state of formation, into the occultic subcultures.

Bolded portion is a disclaimer.

This is frequently dismissed as risible by the pro-Potterites and their supporters, but at a time when we are sadly witnessing a global increase in occultic activity, that concern ought to merit more serious attention than it is does. These books can undoubtedly stimulate interest in the occult, especially given the times in which our lot is cast, and it is incumbent upon Catholic parents monitor their children’s book choices.

Note: Correlation does not imply causation.

Notwithstanding that it is fantasy fiction the leading characters attend a school of witchcraft and sorcery, practices which in the real world are denounced in the strongest terms by the Sacred Scripture and the Church.

Remember my formula folks? Portrait here is one of those who like to stick their heads in the sand while ignoring it.

However, dear friend, the Potter tales are unsatisfactory for other reasons, most notably the issues of authority and obedience - two of the most intensely disliked words among today’s youth - and indecorous content. This renders the book series culturally unwholesome reading material for young people, apart from any concerns about exciting of interest in the occultic subcultures.

Note: Blind obedience to authority is substantially not within Church teaching.

Thus, for example, amidst all the charming details you have repulsion at every turn. The character Ron seeks to cast a spell which returns on himself, making him vomit slugs; the ghost of a girl lives in toilet, excremental references are not uncommon, urination is no longer an off-limits topic and rudeness between students of Hogwarts is routine. In volume four in particular, dear friend, thesetrends are in evidence with added spice of sexuality infered refnces such as ‘private parts’ and the students pairing off and ‘going into the bushes’. All of this inappropriate material in books who’s primary target group is children! The consistent use of such repulsive details surely has the effect of lowering a child’s instinctive aversion to the grotesque and horrible.

Hey ‘pro-Potterites’, I think we may have finally reduced Portrait to nitpicking and grasping straws. A good sign?

Again, dear friend, student witches and wizards are taught to use their wands to cast hexes and spells to alter their environments, punish small foes, and defend themselves against more sinister enemies.

Translated: Technology is evil because it against Church teaching to make use of what we have and exercise our dominion.

See? I can read things into stuff too.

In potions class they learn how to make brews to control others and herbology they grow plants that are used in the potions, the roots of the mandrake, for example, are small living babies who scream when they are uprooted for transplanting, which could at least cause desensitization to abortion.

Portrait’s logic applied elsewhere: Killing minotaurs desensitizes people to farm animal abuse.

The Potter character himself is hardly a good role model. He blackmails his uncle, uses trickery and deception, and feels free to break ‘a hundred rules’ (to quote the mildly censorious but ultimately approving Dumbledore). He frequently tells lies to extricate himself from trouble, and allows himself to be provoked into revenge against his student enemies, indeed, he ‘hates’ his enemies. Now the reader soon finds himself forgiving Potter for this because his tormentors are vindictive and mocking. In what can only be described as a consistent display of authorial overkill Rowling depicts such ‘bad’ characters as ugly in appearance. She also smugly indulges in a great deal of sneering at the Dursleys for being fat and makes sport of the oafish bodies of the students that oppress Potter. In these details, dear friend, and a plethora of others throughout the series, the child reader is fostered in his baser instincts, whilst lip service is paid to morality. In point of fact, nowhere in this inferior series do you have any reference to a system of moral absolutes against which action can be weighed. True, there are ‘ethics’ and ‘values’ aplenty in the tales but in the final analysis they are little more than an ethos. To put it quite simply what you have is materialists magic - magic a naturalized human power.

Lesee… obsession with authority, sympathy for the archetypes that represent the mundane, and finally, demonizing fantastical abilities that are inborn.

Hm, anyone know where they’ve heard that before?

There will, of course, be those who will doubt that child readers will see all of this in the series, but it may affect them on a subconscious level and insiduously indoctrinate them, slowly corrupting their impressionable minds. These books are an example of culturally unhealthy reading material and Catholics would be strongly advised to give them a very wide berth indeed.

O rly? <---- Has read all seven books and is now the only thing close to an adherent Catholic in his household.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

If you want to talk about desensitization look at Lotr or narnia. They are worse because they tend to be viewed by religious as being good and representative of the faith.

How do you figure? Narnia is probably the best depiction of Christianity in any work of fiction I have ever read, especially the depiction of the Last Judgement and Heaven in The Last Battle.

LOTR was never meant to be any type of allegorical Christian piece (in fact, Tolkien despised allegory, which is funny because Leaf By Niggle is the best allegorical piece I’ve read, but that’s beside the point). Even so, Christian values and imagery are made clear throughout the story.

As far as Harry Potter goes, I love the books and can see a lot of the Christian values and imagery in them. In fact, on the tombstone of a certain character (who I won’t name to keep from spoiling anything), St. Paul is quoted word for word: “The last enemy to be destroyed is death.” 1 Corinthians 15:26. Also, in one scene, Harry tells Dumbledore he thought his father had saved him the night before and said he knew it was silly to think that, as his father is dead. Dumbledore answers him, “Do you really believe the dead we love ever truly leave us?”

 

[Joe_5859]

Do you think the Harry Potter series is a bad influence on children (witchcraft, etc.) or is it just harmless fun and fantasy?

Oh, Lost Sheep, you’re just trying to cause trouble.

I second catholicmamajoy’s recommendation of Nancy Carpentier Brown’s book from OSV. It’s really the most balanced look at the series that I have read. It’s not an enthusastic endorsment nor an unequivocal condemnation. It takes an honest look at the potential issues without veering off into hyperbole.

 

[jimmy]

How do you figure? Narnia is probably the best depiction of Christianity in any work of fiction I have ever read, especially the depiction of the Last Judgement and Heaven in The Last Battle.

Its problem is that it is a depiction of Christianity. Consequently it is gonna lead parents into thinking that it is alright and the magic in it is alright. Your gonna have little kids joining the occult because maybe they can find a magic wardrobe.

LOTR was never meant to be any type of allegorical Christian piece (in fact, Tolkien despised allegory, which is funny because Leaf By Niggle is the best allegorical piece I’ve read, but that’s beside the point). Even so, Christian values and imagery are made clear throughout the story.

LOTR has a bunch of wizards running around doing magic. The fact that certain aspects of it immitate Christian values makes it all the worse because it makes it more tempting and more appealing to Christians. So it is more dangerous than Harry Potter and other fantasy series.

It’s a bit ironic that I am arguing against Rand al Thor about whether fantasy novels are dangerous for kids. You ready for the last volume of the series?

 

[Actaeon]

Its problem is that it is a depiction of Christianity. Consequently it is gonna lead parents into thinking that it is alright and the magic in it is alright. Your gonna have little kids joining the occult because maybe they can find a magic wardrobe.

I’m not commenting on potter, because i think that the OP was just in this for the lulz of watching us go around on this one again.

I will point out that the only time that any “good” character does anything remotely resembling magic is when one of the girls casts a spell she wasn’t supposed to in one of the latter novels (which was explained as being an evil action).

No other good guys cast any spells. In fact, the only “good” power is the power of Aslan (who is Christ in the dimension of Narnia)

LOTR has a bunch of wizards running around doing magic. The fact that certain aspects of it immitate Christian values makes it all the worse because it makes it more tempting and more appealing to Christians. So it is more dangerous than Harry Potter and other fantasy series.

Actually, the wizards in LOTR never cast any sort of incantation at all, because JRR Tolkien modeled them as metaphors for archangels in catholic theology. Their abilities are innate, and not in the sense that it’s an ability the activate by some incantation or other action, but are powers fundamentally attached to the fact that they are not scientifically describeable as human.

That said, LOTR is NOT a childrens’ book, or even a childrens’ series of movies. It never has been and was never written that way… so that’s a bit of an unfair comparison…

 

[mitex]

All of you know JK Rowling is a practicing Anglican Christian right?

 

[jimmy]

It’s not whether spells are cast or not by the good guys. My point is about desensitization. The point is that the christian values make it more susceptible for desensitization.

 

[mlz]

Dear ChibiViolet,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Many men are of the opinion, dear friend, that the Harry Potter series of books do at least have the potential for enticing the young, yet in a state of formation, into the occultic subcultures. This is frequently dismissed as risible by the pro-Potterites and their supporters, but at a time when we are sadly witnessing a global increase in occultic activity, that concern ought to merit more serious attention than it is does. These books can undoubtedly stimulate interest in the occult, especially given the times in which our lot is cast, and it is incumbent upon Catholic parents monitor their children’s book choices. Notwithstanding that it is fantasy fiction the leading characters attend a school of witchcraft and sorcery, practices which in the real world are denounced in the strongest terms by the Sacred Scripture and the Church.

However, dear friend, the Potter tales are unsatisfactory for other reasons, most notably the issues of authority and obedience - two of the most intensely disliked words among today’s youth - and indecorous content. This renders the book series culturally unwholesome reading material for young people, apart from any concerns about exciting of interest in the occultic subcultures.

Thus, for example, amidst all the charming details you have repulsion at every turn. The character Ron seeks to cast a spell which returns on himself, making him vomit slugs; the ghost of a girl lives in toilet, excremental references are not uncommon, urination is no longer an off-limits topic and rudeness between students of Hogwarts is routine. In volume four in particular, dear friend, thesetrends are in evidence with added spice of sexuality infered refnces such as ‘private parts’ and the students pairing off and ‘going into the bushes’. All of this inappropriate material in books who’s primary target group is children! The consistent use of such repulsive details surely has the effect of lowering a child’s instinctive aversion to the grotesque and horrible.

Again, dear friend, student witches and wizards are taught to use their wands to cast hexes and spells to alter their environments, punish small foes, and defend themselves against more sinister enemies. In potions class they learn how to make brews to control others and herbology they grow plants that are used in the potions, the roots of the mandrake, for example, are small living babies who scream when they are uprooted for transplanting, which could at least cause desensitization to abortion.

The Potter character himself is hardly a good role model. He blackmails his uncle, uses trickery and deception, and feels free to break ‘a hundred rules’ (to quote the mildly censorious but ultimately approving Dumbledore). He frequently tells lies to extricate himself from trouble, and allows himself to be provoked into revenge against his student enemies, indeed, he ‘hates’ his enemies. Now the reader soon finds himself forgiving Potter for this because his tormentors are vindictive and mocking. In what can only be described as a consistent display of authorial overkill Rowling depicts such ‘bad’ characters as ugly in appearance. She also smugly indulges in a great deal of sneering at the Dursleys for being fat and makes sport of the oafish bodies of the students that oppress Potter. In these details, dear friend, and a plethora of others throughout the series, the child reader is fostered in his baser instincts, whilst lip service is paid to morality. In point of fact, nowhere in this inferior series do you have any reference to a system of moral absolutes against which action can be weighed. True, there are ‘ethics’ and ‘values’ aplenty in the tales but in the final analysis they are little more than an ethos. To put it quite simply what you have is materialists magic - magic a naturalized human power.

There will, of course, be those who will doubt that child readers will see all of this in the series, but it may affect them on a subconscious level and insiduously indoctrinate them, slowly corrupting their impressionable minds. These books are an example of culturally unhealthy reading material and Catholics would be strongly advised to give them a very wide berth indeed.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Agree!
mlz

 

[Portrait]

All of you know JK Rowling is a practicing Anglican Christian right?

Dear mitex,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

J.K. Rowling is an Anglican (the very liberal Church of Scotland) but she does not appear to be a woman of decided religious views. In a British documentary,* J.K. Rowling: A year in the Life*, she was asked if she believed in God, she replied, “Yes. I do struggle with it; I couldn’t pretend that I’m not doubt ridden about a lot of things and that would be one of them but I would say yes”. When asked if she believed in an afterlife, she said, “yes, I think I do”. She continued, “It’s something that I wrestle with a lot. It preoccupies me a lot, and I think that’s very obvious within the books”. Further, in a Spanish interview with the newspaper El Pais she said, “I feel very drawn to religion, but at the same time I feel a lot of uncertainty. I live in a state of spiritual flux. I believe in the permanence of the soul”.

Thus it would seem, dear friend, that she does have a very “doubt-ridden” faith and lacks a firm conviction respecting the life which is to come. Whilst all Christians entertain some doubts from time to time, they would surely say with confidence that they believe in the life everlasting - both Heaven and Hell - for it is the hope of the beatific vision of God in Christ that is the very raison d’ etre of a Christian’s faith.

Moreover, dear friend, many were shocked, myself included, when she anounced a few years ago at Carnegie Hall, New York, that one of her leading characters from the Potter tales was homosexual (I refuse to use the word ‘gay’ as it has been hijacked by homosexuals to describe a lifestyle that is anything but gay). Now there would seem little point in declaring (I believe the trendy term is ‘outing’) this Dumbledore character a homosexual if you strongly disapproved of that lifestyle and regarded such deviant conduct an abomination in the sight of a holy God. Can one ever imagine Messrs. Lewis or Tolkein anouncing to the world that one of the characters in their books was a homosexual? If it be said by way of reply that she did not say that Dumbledore was a practicing homosexual and that his sexual proclivity is never revealed in the books themselves, then I would say first, that Rowling is evidently defering to politically correct ideology and declaring that she espouses ‘inclusivist’ opinions and is not opposed to homosexual deviant acts; second, I would say that whether the character is a practicing homosexual or not is quite beside the point, for Rowling is a professing Christian and children’s author and it is utterly deplorable and unacceptable that she even made such a disclosure about a character from a children’s book series. At the very least this was downright irresponsible and conveys the totally wrong message to impressionable children, namely that it is ‘cool’ to be a homosexual in today’s more enlightened age, when prejudice against homosexual acts of depravity is no longer the problem that it once was. An author who was God-fearing Christian would never have made such an irresponsible and impious comment and would have been ashamed to do so in public. One cannot but help recalling the words of our Lord: “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man out of his treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his treasure brings forth evil” (S. Matt. 12: 34). Truly, the words of Christ address certain situations with such a force like no other words can.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[DeMontfort2]

why not encourage kids to read C.S. Lewis’ LW&W series instead? as literature it’s orders of magnitude better than HP and better illustrates christian themes.

 

[Portrait]

why not encourage kids to read C.S. Lewis’ LW&W series instead? as literature it’s orders of magnitude better than HP and better illustrates christian themes.

Dear DeMontfort2,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hear, hear, infinitely superior stuff and certainly and unmistakeably conveys Christian themes.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Pheonix]

Before I begin dissecting your post, Portrait, I must ask you something.

I mean no disrespect when I ask this, but do you realize how much of a hassle it is to reply to your posts and replies? Many of your them are extremely and unnecessarily wordy. If you ever find the time, and if you haven’t read it already, I recommend reading The Elements of Style by William Strunk, Jr. and E. B. White. It lays out many rules and suggestions for developing a strong, concise, and succinct style of writing.

Many men are of the opinion, dear friend, that the Harry Potter series of books do at least have the potential for enticing the young, yet in a state of formation, into the occultic subcultures.

And I believe these people are wrong. The magic in Harry Potter is purely mechanical. There’s nothing “occultic” about it at all.

This is frequently dismissed as risible by the pro-Potterites and their supporters,

And rightly so, because the magic in* Harry Potter* is fictional, incantational, and mechanical. In order for the magic to be problematic, in and of itself, it must be occultic or demonic in nature. Can you provide any evidence from the books that supports such a notion?

but at a time when we are sadly witnessing a global increase in occultic activity, that concern ought to merit more serious attention than it is does.

Can you provide evidence that “occultic activity” is a serious issue in the world?

These books can undoubtedly stimulate interest in the occult, especially given the times in which our lot is cast,

The millions of Potterheads out there who have no interest in the occult, myself included, disagree with you.

and it is incumbent upon Catholic parents monitor their children’s book choices.

I’ll guess we’ll have to agree to disagree here. Should I ever have children, I won’t restrict their book choices.

Notwithstanding that it is fantasy fiction the leading characters attend a school of witchcraft and sorcery, practices which in the real world are denounced in the strongest terms by the Sacred Scripture and the Church.

You need to take a closer look at the Catechism, Portrait.

2117. All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others—even if this were for the sake of restoring their health—are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion.

(emphasis mine)

The part is bold is what the Church refers to when she condemns witchcraft and sorcery. The magic in Harry Potter is mechanical and incantational. There are no “attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others” within the series.

Unless you can prove the magic in Harry Potter is occultic in nature, and to do this you must cite specific evidence from the books themselves, your argument falls apart here.

However, dear friend, the Potter tales are unsatisfactory for other reasons, most notably the issues of authority and obedience - two of the most intensely disliked words among today’s youth

How is there an issue with authority and obedience within Harry Potter? For example, Harry frequently refers to Professor Snape as just “Snape.” When he does this around Dumbledore, however, Harry gets chastised.

The only authority Harry is openly defiant to is the Ministry of Magic. When he does show this defiance, however, the Ministry is revealed to be a corrupted power. Isn’t opposing and defying a corrupt power a moral thing to do?

This renders the book series culturally unwholesome reading material for young people, apart from any concerns about exciting of interest in the occultic subcultures.

And the millions of Potterheads who started reading the series when we were children dis agree with you.

The character Ron seeks to cast a spell which returns on himself, making him vomit slugs;

Portrait, have you even read Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets? If you have, then you would know that Ron tries to cast that spell on Draco Malfoy because he called Hermione a “filthy, little Mudblood.”

Ron’s reaction is instantaneous; he doesn’t think when he goes in to hit Malfoy with the spell. He likes Hermione, though he wouldn’t admit, and can’t stand to hear Malfoy insult her with one of the worst slurs in the Wizarding World.

By all rights, Ron’s actions are similar to stubbing one’s toe and letting obscene words slip out.

the ghost of a girl lives in toilet,

Myrtle was murdered in a bathroom. There is lore that tells us that some ghosts stay around the place of their death.

and rudeness between students of Hogwarts is routine.

Routine rudeness between students is present within every educational system, Portrait. This includes both fictional and non-fictional education systems, mind you.

In volume four in particular, dear friend, thesetrends are in evidence with added spice of sexuality infered refnces such as ‘private parts’ and the students pairing off and ‘going into the bushes’.

Do you seriously think young children are going to associate “going into the bushes” with “engaging in sex”?

 

[Pheonix]

continued…

The consistent use of such repulsive details surely has the effect of lowering a child’s instinctive aversion to the grotesque and horrible.

People finding something repulsive is a subjective matter.

Again, dear friend, student witches and wizards are taught to use their wands to cast hexes and spells to alter their environments, punish small foes, and defend themselves against more sinister enemies. In potions class they learn how to make brews to control others and herbology they grow plants that are used in the potions,

The professors at Hogwarts stress the importance of using magic responsibly and properly. Rowling makes it quite clear that magic is not something that can be used willy-nilly, and one will be punished if they use magic in such a way.

the roots of the mandrake, for example, are small living babies who scream when they are uprooted for transplanting, which could at least cause desensitization to abortion.

I may die laughing.

The Potter character himself is hardly a good role model.

Since Harry Potter is a literary Christ figure, I’m going to have to disagree with you there.

and feels free to break ‘a hundred rules’ (to quote the mildly censorious but ultimately approving Dumbledore).

For one thing, Dumbledore does not approve of Harry breaking school rules. He approved of Harry saving the students and teachers from Voldemort and the basilisk.

For another, Harry doesn’t “feel free” to break school rules. He isn’t a stereotypical, rebellious teenager.

He blackmails his uncle, uses trickery and deception,… He frequently tells lies to extricate himself from trouble,

And…? No one said that Harry Potter is morally perfect. He’s human, after all.

Are you seriously arguing that Harry Potter is not a good role model because he sins? by that logic, no one can be a good role model.

and allows himself to be provoked into revenge against his student enemies, indeed, he ‘hates’ his enemies.

Student “enemies,” Portrait? The only student Harry doesn’t get along with is Draco Malfoy. And Harry ends up saving Draco from burning in the flames created by the Fiendfyre curse.

Now the reader soon finds himself forgiving Potter for this because his tormentors are vindictive and mocking.

Readers should hold some sort of empathy toward Harry. Why? He has gone through want some of us unfortunately have gone through.

1. Both of his parents were murdered before he could even walk and talk.
2. He’s being raised by people who basically treat him as a worthless servant.
3. He was bullied while he was attending Muggle schools.

In what can only be described as a consistent display of authorial overkill Rowling depicts such ‘bad’ characters as ugly in appearance.

And what is wrong with that? Umbridge’s toad-like appearance, for example, is reflective of her cold, cruel, power-hungry personality. That’s the beauty of literary analysis.

She also smugly indulges in a great deal of sneering at the Dursleys for being fat

First of all, only Vernon and Dudley are fat. Petunia is described as being thin.

Second of all, where does J. K. Rowling “[indulge] in a great deal of sneering” at the Vernon and Dudley being fat? Can you supply actual evidence from the books? She mentions it, to be sure, but she doesn’t make a big deal out of it.

She places a far greater emphasis on the Dursleys personalities. Dudley is a spoiled brat and a bully; Petunia is a nosy gossip; Vernon is a petty, judgmental, unsympathetic, power-hungry bully. All three of them intolerant to anyone who is outside their perception of “normalcy,” and they are not above indulging in a great deal of sneering at those who are not ordinary.

and makes sport of the oafish bodies of the students that oppress Potter.

Harry is bullied while he’s attending Muggle school. True.
Malfoy and his friends frequently try to anatagonize Harry into fighting back. Also true.

The only time anyone attempts to “oppress” Harry is in Order of the Phoenix. And this oppression is instigated by Umbridge and the Ministry of Magic, and support by Filch, Malfoy, and Malfoy’s friends. Rowling hardly makes it a “sport.”

In point of fact, nowhere in this inferior series do you have any reference to a system of moral absolutes against which action can be weighed.

The existence of prisons within the Wizarding World refutes this claim. But…

1. Love is the most powerful magic in the universe.
2. We must learn to choose between “what is right” and “what is easy.”
3. Tampering with the dark arts is extremely dangerous, and one is advised to never indulge in such magic.
4. The Ministry of Magic, the Wizarding World’s government body, will become involved with any improperly used magic.
5. Creating Horcruxes dehumanizes a person, and one should never attempt to create one.
6. Wizards harming others, especially Muggles, is a serious matter.
7. There are certain items, usually ones associated with the dark arts, that are forbidden within the trade system. Other objects, such as dragon eggs, are also illegal to trade.
8. Breaking school rules results in punishment.
9. It is our choices, rather than our lineage or our abilities, that ultimately matter and define us.
10. The use of the three Unforgivable Curses (the Cruciatus Curse, the Killing Curse, and the Imperious Curse) will immediately land someone in Azkaban.

How, exactly, do these things not imply that there are moral absolutes within the Harry Potter universe?

True, there are ‘ethics’ and ‘values’ aplenty in the tales but in the final analysis they are little more than an ethos.

As I have just shown, this claim is demonstrably false.

 

[Pheonix]

continued…

To put it quite simply what you have is materialists magic - magic a naturalized human power.

Exactly. The magic in Harry Potter is purely mechanical; it is channeled from an unspecified source. For all we know, this source is God. J. K. Rowling is a Christian, so that would make sense.

In any case, what you admit in the above quote destroys the whole “the magic in Harry Potter is occultic magic” argument.

These books are an example of culturally unhealthy reading material and Catholics would be strongly advised to give them a very wide berth indeed.

Hogwash.

 

[Pheonix]

Hear, hear, infinitely superior stuff and certainly and unmistakeably conveys Christian themes.

One would have to be a horrifically bad reader to miss the unmistakably Christian themes within the Harry Potter series.

 

[Baelor]

This is frequently dismissed as risible by the pro-Potterites and their supporters, but at a time when we are sadly witnessing a global increase in occultic activity,

Source?

These books can undoubtedly stimulate interest in the occult, especially given the times in which our lot is cast, and it is incumbent upon Catholic parents monitor their children’s book choices.

So can any book on any subject whatsoever. What is the actual issue here?

Notwithstanding that it is fantasy fiction the leading characters attend a school of witchcraft and sorcery, practices which in the real world are denounced in the strongest terms by the Sacred Scripture and the Church.

They are in fact not condemned by Sacred Scripture and the Church, since Harry Potter magic and sorcery has no analog in the real world. Nothing in Harry Potter is condemned in the real world because Harry Potter magic does not exist in the real world. How can something that cannot exist be condemned?

How do you figure? Narnia is probably the best depiction of Christianity in any work of fiction I have ever read, especially the depiction of the Last Judgement and Heaven in The Last Battle.

Narnia is not a depiction of Christianity. It is an allegory for Christianity.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Narnia is not a depiction of Christianity. It is an allegory for Christianity.

Aslan is not a stand-in or representation of Christ; he IS Christ. At the end of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, he tells Lucy and Edmund that they must come to know him by his name in our world, that the purpose of bringing them to Narnia was “so that by knowing me here for a little while, you might come to know me better there.”

Lucy says in The Last Battle, “Yes, in our world too a stable once held something that was bigger than the whole world.” referring to Christ’s birth. This single line shows that they have discovered that Aslan and Christ are one in the same.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Its problem is that it is a depiction of Christianity. Consequently it is gonna lead parents into thinking that it is alright and the magic in it is alright. Your gonna have little kids joining the occult because maybe they can find a magic wardrobe.

LOTR has a bunch of wizards running around doing magic. The fact that certain aspects of it immitate Christian values makes it all the worse because it makes it more tempting and more appealing to Christians. So it is more dangerous than Harry Potter and other fantasy series.

It’s a bit ironic that I am arguing against Rand al Thor about whether fantasy novels are dangerous for kids. You ready for the last volume of the series?

lol, yes I am eagerly awaiting A Memory of Light.

I’ve never heard of kids joining the occult because of CS Lewis. The whole purpose of writing Narnia was to share Christianity. There really is no spells seen in LOTR. Off the top of my head, I can only remember the one spell said by the leader of the Nazgul to break the gates and a reference to Gandalf having said the spell that made horses appear in the water at ford. Plus, the wizards are not human; they are spirits, as an earlier poster said, the equivalent of archangels.

 

[Baelor]

I mean no disrespect when I ask this, but do you realize how much of a hassle it is to reply to your posts and replies? Many of your them are extremely and unnecessarily wordy. If you ever find the time, and if you haven’t read it already, I recommend reading The Elements of Style by William Strunk, Jr. and E. B. White. It lays out many rules and suggestions for developing a strong, concise, and succinct style of writing.

This is a close paraphrase of one of my replies to him. I agree.

Aslan is not a stand-in or representation of Christ; he IS Christ.

He is not Christ. Narnia does not exist. Aslan does not exist. He is never called Christ, he is called Aslan. I cannot look up “Aslan” in the Bible. Narnia is allegorical, not descriptive in the actual sense.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Although this article is all about Halloween, I feel that it is relevant to the discussion: How to think about Halloween as a Catholic.

The tagline for this article: “How delightful it is to be Catholic, when so few things are forbidden — so few things are out of the question.”