Harry Potter

[deb1]

I would have preferred a simple Yes / No answer, because I don’t know if he is:

A) A liar

B) Is evil

and, anyway, I don’t want want to couch my distaste for Harry Potter based on statements like that.

So, I couldn’t vote in this poll.

However, I did walk into a room once where some people were watching one of the films (I forget which one, maybe the second?).

So I’ve seen about 4 minutes of one of the films.

It seemed like Harry’s parents or relatives were portrayed as really vile, disgusting people.

All I remember is there was a large, overweight woman who said something (I forget what) to him, some sort of denigrating remark, and this Harry kid went ape and used his magical powers to make this woman’s body expand until she was like a huge ballon, and she started to float across London.

And of course the film portrayed this as being funny and humorous.

It strikes me that a response like that to something that something somebody says, i.e., somebody’s words, certainly is not a morally good reaction or a Christian reaction.

And to portray another person’s fear and anxiety over being turned into a floating ballon really tells you volumes about the author of this book and the film director and their warped mindset.

It seems like a lot of you think this is perfect entertainment for your children; I would encourage you to really reflect, give it a hard look, and think twice about that.

Harry’s uncle and aunt are abusive to him. So, I can understand his anger. The Weaslys with their large chaotic family are viewed as being a good, loving family. They are a positive influence on Harry and his life.

I sort of identify with Mrs. Weasly myself.

 

[deb1]

And was it not shown that magic could be used for good AND evil? This simply is not the case, and it is damaging for anyone to be under this false assumption.

Magic is of the devil, and all that use it are against God. Anything portraying it in a light outside this truth is there to set the seed of corruption.

What about fairy tales?

 

[Dwyer]

In defense of the books, Harry did not intend to blow up his aunt.

As you know, I’m not talking about the books, I’m talking about the movie.

They are two different things.

My analysis is just of the film version and how the scene was portrayed in the film is exactly how I originally described it.

There is no indication in the film version to the viewer that Harry is trying to cast a different spell.

Anyway, if Harry has these magical powers that can effect people’s lives in a negative manner, he has a responsibility to others to use it wisely, and not to the harm of other people.

If Harry does not have mastery over the power, and when he uses it there is a chance of harming someone, it would be irresponsible for him to use the power.

To use a simile, it would be sort of like knowing how to use a steering wheel and how to steer a car, but not knowing how to use the brakes.

And what was his actually intent??; was he going to cast a spell to improve his Aunt’s health, but instead it blew her up like a floating ballon??

Do you restrict all literature and all films the moment the central protagonist gets angry (a mortal sin)?

I want to limit my discussion to Harry Potter; I suppose it would necessarily depend on how a different story would treat its characters and the portrait of human nature it presented.

For example, I think a novel like William Golding’s Lord of the Flies is just an awful, abominable disgusting work of fiction for young people to read and study in school; yet, when I attended public high school in the U.S., I was forced to read and study this rotten novel (and it had been taught as a classroom text at that school for at least 10 years prior to when I took the course).

Also, I don’t restrict (that is kind of a strong word ) the Harry Potter story or whatever that means.

My point is that the Harry Potter story, **which is **meant to be a story for children, on a whole, does not seem to be suitable Christian entertainment, especially for Catholic or Christian children.

One of the responders even said Harry is not a Christian; children tend to emulate their cultural heroes and you can see that with how many of them dress up like Harry Potter, bought the toys, dolls, and games, and all the commercial knick-knacks like backpacks that helped to make the author in fact wealthier than the Queen of England.

The function of a lot of stories is, especially children’s stories, in addition to providing entertainment, to provide a word of advice, or teach a lesson, or a moral.

What’s the moral we draw from this scene from the film?

That a teenage boy can use power to manipulate his step-parent and Aunt’s body, blow her up like a balloon, have her float across London, and treat it humorously?? (in the film it was treated as being a funny moment; and Harry was laughing to himself).

So, I don’t understand, are some of you perhaps arguing that “this mean lady had it coming to her,” so to speak, and Harry was morally justified to control and manipulate her body and expand her and turn her into a balloon??

I understand Harry’s anger too, but The Fourth Commandment tells Harry to respect, love, and obey his parents

Harry owes his Guardians (Aunt and Uncle) the same respect and obedience due his birth parents.

Harry should offer up his sufferings as identifying with the suffering of Christ and pray for his step-parents.

If Harry was being actually abused, the state authorities are just a phone call away.

Perhaps maybe now some of you are beginning to see why some Christians object to this story.

I saw five minutes of the film.

Often, an opening scene of a film, play, or work of art sets the tone for the rest of the performance; I think that was enough to give me an idea of what these films are like and about.

I guess there is some other scene in the films where Harry or one of his pals controls the body of another kid and adds a pig’s tail to his body;

Five minutes of this was enough; I have other things to do with my time, like read Shakespeare or great works of history.

That’s why, as Catholics, we need to create our own works of entertainment or draw from the great, classic stories of the past that have withstood the test of time.

 

[Carolinagirl411]

For those parents who want to ban harry potter for using magic

then please ban all disney movies/books/characters and don’t ever visit disney world or land with your family b/c there is a ton of magic involved

for those parents who want to ban harry potter for the emotions and sexual content…LOL that’s all I can say

Emotions are part of growing up. She covers harry potter from age 11 to 17…some of the most tumultuous times in a person’s life. Of course a teenager is going to be angry, not care for certain people, and of course a 16 year old may hold hands with someone of the opposite sex and heaven forbid they kiss each other on the lips at 17 and end up marrying that same exact person. No sex was involved. Besides even Prince Charming kissed his Princess on the lips in Disney…woooooooo taboo

Most teens would be able to relate to this character and the fact that he has hardships but develops a strong moral center in doing what is right and sticking by your friends…all good values to have! Tons of teens deal with the issues of bullying. If your child was being constantly harassed by others, you’re telling me they wouldn’t react emotionally? It is human

As far as the “spells” used a lot of the terms are derived from Latin and some are made up. I thought that was interesting. A lot of english history and mythology is also involved which is educational.

Overall from a psychological and religious point of view I find harry potter useful.

 

[surfinpure]

Dwyer,

That was an incredibly long post! Not complaining, only it’s a bit too long for me to answer all your talking points and still get to bed tonight. So I’ll simply say this: if you had stayed for more than five minutes of the film you would have discovered that Harry’s temper is something he has to learn to control. That it gets him into trouble and is never portrayed as a good or healthy thing. The message a child would get, I should think, would be that if you don’t control your temper you’re going to bring a lot of disasters on yourself.

The entire series, taken as a whole, is incredibly redemptive. There is a strong Christian message in the last book, and nobody could miss it. Self-sacrifice, self-denial, unconditional love, true friendship, strong family, heroism, and many other healthy themes make it a worthwhile subject for young minds. Not very young, I have to stress, but, let us say, adolescent.

 

[deb1]

SOme posters have mentioned sexual content. What sexual content? I read all the books and I don’t recall anyone having sex, petting or coming close to anything physical beyond a first kiss.

 

[Nick_Alexander]

Dwyer’s post is very long. Instead of reading the entire post, I subjected myself to the very first sentences. Often, in reading the first few sentences, one can get a sense of what Dwyer is trying to say, without reading the entire argument.

And I must say, Dwyer… I am utterly disappointed. Not once in those few sentences do you answer any criticisms I have given of your post. And clearly, I don’t need to read the rest of your post to get a sense of what you’re really trying to say.

 

[deb1]

Books that I read are either good literay novels or have good overall stories. Most great works of literature have good story lines but not all do, think of the writer Proust. There really was no plot to his massive work-which I never got through, I should add.

Some books have very great stories but really aren’t works of art. Harry Potter has a good plot line but isn’t a great literary work of art. I like some of Crichton’s novels but he really is not that great a writer.

Sometimes you get lucky and find a book that is well written and has a great story line.

Of course no one would assume that because I like an author like Stephen King(who actually is a pretty good writer) that I don’t also read Shakespere or Tolstoy. For some reason eventually the discussions on Harry Potter have some poster who assumes tha those of us who read Rowlings must not like heavier works of art. Honestly, I just like to read period.

 

[Baptista]

Oy…Again with the Harry Potter?

Ok. Those few minutes of that film, where Harry “blows up his aunt”. First of all, he is being raised by an aunt and uncle. The aunt raising him is his deceased mother’s sister. The aunt who was ‘blown up’ is the sister of the uncle by marriage. Not a blood relative. That may not make a difference, and yet it does. She has no idea that Harry’s mother and father were killed in saving his life. Or that they were ‘magical folk’.

Harry has been treated badly since he was a tot. If you had read the books…and yes…I do know that you don’t want to, and you are discussing the five minutes of film you saw…you would realize that Harry has shown remarkable restraint for an adolescent/later teen in NOT using his powers.

In the scene you saw, the woman who was “blown up” had been criticizing Harry’s deceased parents on and on and on. Calling his father a drunk who didn’t work, and insulting his mother. To hide the fact that Harry goes to “Hogwart’s”, the aunt and uncle tell people he goes to a school for delinquent boys. This delights the aunt who was blown up, andshe’s full glee when told that Harry receives regular beatings at this school. She goes on to refer to Harry’s mother as the same word used for a female dog. “The pup doesn’t fall far from the b**ch”.

Of course, he gets angry. Righteous anger, I’d say. And he does not cast a spell to 'blow her up". The magic explodes out of him. Not that this excuses it…it explains it, though.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. The books are not for everyone. If you don’t want your children reading about any kind of magic, or watching movies about any kind of magic, then do not let them watch/read HP. That is your prerogative. And a commendable one, if that’s your belief.

The books and movies are age appropriate in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others. Harry begins as an 11-year old. In the last book (and the movie when it’s made) he is 17.

I have watched all the movies more than once, read all the books more than once, and as someone else said, there are very redemptive themes in these books, unlike some others I’ve read that are supposedly ‘children’s books’.

 

[Dwyer]

I’m not really interested in the book’s explanation of this scene, because I saw the film adaptation, so I am basing my comments based on how this scene was treated in the film.

The book version is not relevant to my discussion of the film’s version.

These are two different depictions of the events, because in the film version, there is no indication to the viewer that Harry is doing anything other than casting a spell of revenge on his Aunt.

Of course, he gets angry. Righteous anger, I’d say.

I’m sorry; I’m not going to agree with you.

I guess in this day and age, I’m going to have to keep on hammering on this point: namely, that a film that is marketed and targeted to an audience of children and teenagers and shows a young boy manipulating his Auntie’s body until her body inflates several sizes larger and she is whoosed into the air, and presents this as being a funny moment in the film, really shocks the conscience.

Since you brought up the book, I’ll just comment on it briefly.

Basically, you’re telling me this young man could not control his actions.

Sorry, as a human being, I’m not going to accept that as an explanation.

If that is true, then this novel is denying that human beings have free will (I’m sure the next objection to my comments will say that Harry Potter is not entirely human and is an elf).

From Catholic doctrine, man is created free to choose good or evil. God is not responsible for our sins; sin is the result of man’s wrong use of his free will.

Harry’s anger would be righteous if his anger was directed at the act of his Aunt swearing, or verbally abusing him, i.e., anger against her act of sinning.

Christ says “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute and calumniate you” (Matt: 5:44).

Remember the “Our Father”? Christ’s love is a radical love.

Sorry; any children’s film that shows a kid making his Auntie grow like a big balloon and presents it as being humorous sounds like warped entertainment to me.

Finally, fictional depiction of magic in faerie tales, in myths, and stories has been around for thousands of years;

It is not the use of magic and spells in stories that conflicts with Catholic moral teaching.

It is how the magic is used, i.e., to what end or goal it is being used in the story, and how it is presented.

In the children’s film, Harry uses it for a bad end, i.e., to get revenge on his Aunt and cause her harm.

If the film wanted to show otherwise, they could have had Harry simply say (on screen or to himself) “I’m going to grow the house, and then we’ll live in a bigger home, and you’ll be happier,” and then have the spell backfire.

But they didn’t.

I think that you should be able to tell by now that some parents, based on this scene alone, would not want it as entertainment for their children.

Harry Potter, if he blows his Auntie up and lets her float in the sky (why didn’t he grab her??), is not teaching Christian moral truths to their children.

I can’t recall any work of children’s entertainment that showed children attacking their step-parents, Aunts and Uncles, or parents.

Yes, in the films, Harry might want to stop the bad guy, save the world, etc., but he does some bad things along the way.

Because it a children’s film, and most children are incapable of analyzing what is being placed before them, I’m going to scrutinize the work much more than, say a play or novel that is meant to be viewed by or written for an adult audience.

 

[deb1]

I have decided that my children can’t read section of the Old Testament any more. Lot’s daughters sleep with their father. No, God doesn’t condone this type of activity but he doesn’t give the girls their come uppance either. Wait isn’t there some woman who tricks her father-in-law into having sex with her so she can have a child? God makes no comment on this act!

What about that sneaky Hansel and Gretel pushing that poor, starving older lady into the oven. Why? Just because she was focing Gretel to help her around the house and trying to overfeed poor Hansel.

Of course there is that whole Cinderella story. In the original Cinderella, knowing full well that the slippers were hers, did not try and stop her sisters from cutting off their toes to fit into the glass shoe! ANd there is that whole disobedient thing. Why didn’t she remain home like her step mother told her!

 

[Nick_Alexander]

Regarding Dwyer’s posts…

He has spilled more text here, based on a five-minute sequence (after which he shut the movie off), than the length of an entire Harry Potter book. And had he seen the movie in its entirity (or better, read the book–which is what the majority of patrons had done) he might have seen the film address this scene and correct Harry in his actions… but he never gave the film the opportunity to do so.

Never before have I witnessed Dwyer’s sloth (a mortal sin) be so rigorously defended.

 

[Baptista]

Regarding Dwyer’s posts…

He has spilled more text here, based on a five-minute sequence (after which he shut the movie off), than the length of an entire Harry Potter book. And had he seen the movie in its entirity (or better, read the book–which is what the majority of patrons had done) he might have seen the film address this scene and correct Harry in his actions… but he never gave the film the opportunity to do so.
.

Thank you, Nick. Yes, IF Dwyer had watched more than 5-minutes, he would have seen that the film addressed the issue. And as you mentioned, read the books. Everything that is in the book cannot be in the movie. They also did not explain the black dog in the beginning of that movie as they did in the book. The ‘grim’, which turned out not to be a ‘grim’ at all. Much cannot ‘fit’ into a feature film. Again…I have said this over and over. AGE appropriate films. And books!

Harry is not perfect, but he is good. These books and movies teach that good triumphs over evil. Harry NOT being perfect, is in my opinion, more realistic to the kids who read the books. Plus they provide learning opportunities when parents read/watch this series with their kids.

 

[surfinpure]

Regarding Dwyer’s posts…

He has spilled more text here, based on a five-minute sequence (after which he shut the movie off), than the length of an entire Harry Potter book. And had he seen the movie in its entirity (or better, read the book–which is what the majority of patrons had done) he might have seen the film address this scene and correct Harry in his actions… but he never gave the film the opportunity to do so.

Never before have I witnessed Dwyer’s sloth (a mortal sin) be so rigorously defended.

Nick, while I agree with you in that the film ought not be judged by that five-minute segment alone, I think it’s important always to honor other members of the forums with respect and charity. Also, ad hominem is against forum rules.

God bless,

mary

 

[Dwyer]

I have decided that my children can’t read section of the Old Testament any more. Lot’s daughters sleep with their father. No, God doesn’t condone this type of activity but he doesn’t give the girls their come uppance either. Wait isn’t there some woman who tricks her father-in-law into having sex with her so she can have a child? God makes no comment on this act!

What about that sneaky Hansel and Gretel pushing that poor, starving older lady into the oven. Why? Just because she was focing Gretel to help her around the house and trying to overfeed poor Hansel.

Well, all works of literature are not the same.

The Bible was not written as a work of entertainment for children as the Harry Potter stories were.

The Bible is the story of humanity and its relationship with God.

It therefore covers all aspects of human life, both sin and piety, warts (but not Hogwarts ) and all.

I can’t say I have read much of the Bible, though I have read Genesis and Exodus.

You often hear from (I read your blog Deb; I know you are not coming from this point of view) secular commentators (“Dear Abby” Types, pop-psychologists) that the Bible has this laundry list of bad acts in it (like rape, incest, etc.), and that therefore makes it as lurid as the worst fiction being published in the U.S. today.

It’s not true. Yes, it is true that their are bad acts in the Bible, but they are not portrayed in the lurid language of contemprary fiction.

I’m not a Bible scholar, but I would say that such acts described in the Bible are meant as a warning or used to make a morally didactic point in accordance with the standards of the time (remember, Old Testament Middle-East did not have huge maximum security prisons to house criminals, so criminals were often put to death as punishment in their society (remember the woman taken in adultery in the Gospels?)

Also, a lot of the allusions and meaning of the text of the Bible, especially from the Old Testament, are lost on modern readers who come from a completely different society from that of Ancient Israel.

I have the New Jerome Biblical Commentary which is a “Catholic” commentary (I don’t recommend it because it has a lot of “Historical Jesus” stuff in it, but I bought it on sale for just $10.00).

Really, what that chapter and the preceding chapters in that section of Genesis are trying to do is contrast Lot with Abraham.

I’m not going to go in all the detail, but the story implies that Lot should really be the founder of Israel, but unlike Abraham he trusts more in himself than in God (Lot is Abraham’s relative).

So unlike Abraham, Lot doesn’t wait for God to tell him which parcel of land to take, but seizes the best parcel of land for himself. The passage your talking about is commenting (to emphasize that Israel are God’s Chosen People) on the ignoble origins of the Jewish peoples’ neighbors, the Moabites. Abrahm trusts in God and Sarah has a son.

When Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed, the daughters think the entire world has been destroyed; **of **necessity they say “we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father.” Genesis 19:31. Alcohol is involved.

The Bible was not written and targeted and marketed specifically as a children’s story, as were the Harry Potter Tales.

I think a Children’s Bible would be good for young children (say ages 5-13); although I think, with a parent guiding their childrens’ Bible reading, parts like and similar to Lot could be perhaps skipped to an older age like around 14. Those are just guidelines I recommend. I think older children start to think a little bit more around that age, though everyone’s different.

The OP posed the question: is Harry Potter OK for children to watch??

Well, guess what was on last evening: Harry Potter and the Escape From Azebajan!!

This time I watched 41 minutes of the program (commercials included) then promptly turned it off, and given what I saw portrayed in this film (this was the same one where his magical powers puff up his Aunt like a balloon), I would say no.

Maybe I’ll give more reasons why some other time soon, but I have to go right now.

Not familar with the Bruders Grimm tales; a few were mentioned in elementary school like Hansel and Gretal, Little Red Riding Hood, and Sleeping Beauty.

I would say that Hansel and Gretal have the right to defend themselves against the Witch and not end up as her supper.

Did they kill and cook the Witch???

Cinderella, unlike Harry Potter, did not cast a spell and blow her step-mother up like a big balloon and have her drift off, and not help her stay on the ground, and say in the film version “She deserved it!”

I would just say it would be up to the individual parent to explain to, or decide if the story is wrong for their child, and not to look negatively on those parents who make the decision that Harry Potter is not OK for their child to watch, or whatever story, and look at them like they are a bunch of yahoos because they don’t think Harry Potter or whatever is suitable entertainment for their children.

 

[Baptista]

I would just say it would be up to the individual parent to explain to, or decide if the story is wrong for their child, and not to look negatively on those parents who make the decision that Harry Potter is not OK for their child to watch, or whatever story, and look at them like they are a bunch of yahoos because they don’t think Harry Potter or whatever is suitable entertainment for their children.

I would just like to comment on the final paragraph of your last post, and say… Exactly! And vice versa.

 

[Nick_Alexander]

Nick, while I agree with you in that the film ought not be judged by that five-minute segment alone, I think it’s important always to honor other members of the forums with respect and charity. Also, ad hominem is against forum rules.

God bless,

mary

Hi Mary…

There was really no easy way around what I was trying to do, and I am fully aware that it crossed the line. I do want to treat other members here with respect.

One thing I try to do is to listen to the other side of a complex argument, and if I hold a different position, somehow frame my argument in such a manner to demonstrate my appreciation for the person’s argument. Dwyer made a very big emphasis against Harry Potter’s anger in the opening sequences, which he underlined as “a mortal sin.” He does not want his children to pick up on these negative attributes of a well-received character.

If Harry Potter was consistently like this, and if the books/movies portrayed this as a good thing, that would be cause for concern. But, as what many of us who have seen the movies/read the books in their entirity have demonstrated, that this concern ultimately holds no water. Harry Potter is a character that grows into maturity over the course of the series, so it is to be expected that he will make immature mistakes.

So while he makes a mountain over a molehill of a single scene (which is what he has done)–the film/book’s central story is overlooked.

If he is of the opinion that the series is not for him–which is fair and legitimate–that would be one thing. But to opine authoritatively against the series without doing the actual work–that is, viewing of the film–and really, what work in there is that? strikes me as slothful.

Actions speak louder than words. Dwyer is more than happy to not get into this series (I am also not a fan of Harry Potter). Indeed, according to his last post, it seems that Dwyer isn’t much of a reader at all. (He does seem to be quite longwinded in sharing how much he doesn’t want to read). But to openly opine about the appropriateness of a pop culture phenomenon without doing the work required, strikes me as a very poor example. It would have been better if he had said “it’s not for me, I couldn’t get into it”, and then leave it at that.

 

[blacktiger057]

To cast a spell is to curse. To put a pig’s tail (note: a pig is a cloven animal) on a child is to demean the temple of the Holy Spirit.The broom riding in the courtyard was particularly violent. This movie is a sick intro into the occult.I watched part of it a long time ago and I would not show or give a copy to anyone.

To cast a spell is certainly not a curse, although it may be. There are spells for healing, friendship, and protection etc. A curse is a spell designed to harm/control someone. So please do some research on actual magick before you go making generilizations about it.

And what broomstick violence? A guy fell off his broomstick…the other part was just sport. Actual football on tv is far more violent, and football on tv is real, not a movie. I don’t see what your problem is here.

I am a Wiccan. If you think that I can transfigure people into pigs and that I can fly on a broomstick, then you are insane. Wiccans don’t even believe in the Devil! We try to accept everyone for who they are, take responsibility for our actions, and work with nature for peace. It is a very peaceful religion.

Oh, and btw, if your child expects being a witch will be like being Harry Potter at Hogwarts, they will be thoroughly disappointed.