J.K. Rowling Outs Dumbledore

[estesbob]

What you’re doing is called rationalizing. And if you take two seconds to think about this absurd statement you will realize that a wizard is not a good Catholic. Maybe if you say that to yourself often enough you will start to believe it as true…

It’s absurd only because were talking about a fictional character. However there is no evidence in the books that Dumbledore is homosexual and no evidence that he was engaging in homosexual behavior. If he is indeed a celibate person afflicted by SSA he could indeed be a good Catholic.

I believe parents could use this as a teaching moment to express of their children Catholic teaching on SSA versus homosexual behavior.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I disagree.

Which is why there is **no **reason for Rowling to discuss any character being “gay”. It has no purpose.

But, she did. And, that has only one agenda attached to it-- promoting homosexual lifestyles as acceptable by declaring one of her characters “gay”.

Perhaps – but, if you’ve read the books, you’ll notice that there is a total lack of such promotion.

Look at what Rowling says in the linked article:

She then explained that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, whom he defeated long ago in a battle between good and bad wizards. “Falling in love can blind us to an extent,” Rowling said of Dumbledore’s feelings, adding that Dumbledore was “horribly, terribly let down.”

She says nothing (and the book implies nothing) about Dumbledore and Grindelwald actually doing anything about this; in fact, she doesn’t seem to say anything about whether there was a mutual attraction at all.

This is not inconsistent or incongruent with Church teaching, which acknowledges that many people suffer from same-sex attraction, but that it is impossible to find fulfillment in acting it out.

The bottom line is that, even if a person has a SSA, they are not sinning unless they act on it, and we as Christians are called to assume the better of a person. As pertains to Albus Dumbledore, since the novels neither describe nor allude to any homosexual activity on his part, we can and should only asume that he did not act on his desires.

Given the strong Christian undertones throughout the story, this does not surprise me.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I wasn’t sure what to make of what she said but I do think that the remark was directed more to the virtual and convention Potter audience than to the strictly literary or film audiences. Whatever J. K. Rowling had personally thought about the Albus Dumbledore character she kept the books relatively clean. Her remark was directed to the ‘extended’ audience. Harry Potter has one of the larger online fan communities. Such communities invariably have their various shipper and erotica sub-communities.

If my child was merely a fan of the books and/or the movies I doubt it will have a great deal of impact on them.

Interesting perspective – I’ll have to look at that article again.

If you’re right, I’m sure there’ll be a clarification forthcoming.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Catholic90]

I disagree.

Well, let’s see …most kids reading the last 3 books will be about 12-15. In my opinion, a child of that age should know what gay is! I can pretty much guarantee you that even if you have not taught them what gay is by that age, they know from their friends and media and probably knowing gay people! My own kids understood what gay meant when they were about 8.

Which is why there is **no **reason for Rowling to discuss any character being “gay”. It has no purpose.

But, she did. And, that has only one agenda attached to it-- promoting homosexual lifestyles as acceptable by declaring one of her characters “gay”.

This is so ridiculous. She was not the first to say this. One her fans writing fan fiction wrote a story with this twist. She laughingly said he was gay. I think she then just ran with it. No where in any of the books was any ‘gay sex’ happening, and if you can point it out to me, I would love to see it. But you can’t, because it is not there!

 

[Catholic90]

It’s absurd only because were talking about a fictional character. However there is no evidence in the books that Dumbledore is homosexual and no evidence that he was engaging in homosexual behavior. If he is indeed a celibate person afflicted by SSA he could indeed be a good Catholic.

I believe parents could use this as a teaching moment to express of their children Catholic teaching on SSA versus homosexual behavior.

 

[macian]

I
Here’s another quote from the article: “Rowling, finishing a brief “Open Book Tour” of the United States, her first tour here since 2000, also said that she regarded her Potter books as a “prolonged argument for tolerance” and urged her fans to “question authority.””

That reminds me of a quote by Chesterton, “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” I’ve read the Harry Potter series, and enjoyed them, but I do have issues with giving them to young children to read. I don’t think one can quite say that the books are evil, but the moral views they portray are definitely muddled. Yes, there is a clear cut division between good and evil, but on the other hand, the good characters are not subject to the high morality of the characters in Tolkien or Lewis. Of course, many other famous novels have characters who lack the moral quality of the characters in Tolkien or Lewis, so having less ideal characters is not necessarily evil in itself. On the other hand, there is a reason why we don’t hand an eight year old Crime and Punishment! Children have to be taught what is right and wrong first, before they are able to handle books which blur the lines between good and evil. What we need are some Christian children’s authors, who recognize that there are more important virtues than tolerance.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Which is why there is **no **reason for Rowling to discuss any character being “gay”. It has no purpose.

I agree. This is what bothers me… why did she do this?
I have never read a HP book, I’ve seen 1 or 2 films, and tried the jelly belly jellybeans (ewwwwww, nasty). Anyways, I just don’t understand why she had to include that information. If it was not in the books like many of you claim on here (which makes sense since the filmakers hadn’t picked up on it either), then I don’t see an art/literary reason that people usually cling to to explain this sort of thing.

It does desensitize the masses to hear that even a character in a fictional kids book is gay Also, usually when used in secular language a person who is gay is usually someone who seeks to get involved or who gets involved with others of the same sex, not a person that just has tendencies and lives a celibate life because of it. For example, if a celebrity etc announces he is homosexual it usually means they are involved, have been involved, or will be involved with someone of the same sex.

See, it doesn’t change the content of the fictional book, but it can affect what kids think about homosexuality. I just think she had no reason to say this. Having lived in the public life for a while now, she must know how her comment was going to get out and reach her readers.

Furthermore, I agree this is just fiction, but I think it would be naive of us to say fiction never affects the mentality of the reader. You just need to take a look at some of the effects the Da Vinci code had. If you didn’t meet anyone affected by this book, then you may not understand what I am talking about, but I met people that did believe some of the erroneous “facts” presented in the book.

Now, I don’t know how relevant the effects of fiction on a reader are in this case, since many of you have stated this fact is irrelevant in the book (I know many readers are going to go back to the book and see if there is something about this that they missed, or that has a deeper meaning because of this, but assuming they don’t find anything) I think the problem is more in the comment itself and the effects it can have, than in the book.

I just see the whole “outing” as entirely specious pandering. If someone can clearly and definitively explain how this “revelation” enhances the story line in any meaningful way, I’m ready to listen. Not to mention… in an interview I saw with the author upon the completion of the last book, she went on and on about how she loved and respected children. This detail generates nothing but lurid speculation which is most disrespectful of children’s relative immaturity and/or innocence.

I abhor discrimination against orientation (which is different than conduct) and/or other immutable characteristics, but we’re taliking about*** fiction*** here, folks!! I think the author has accomplished nothing other than a breach of the innocence and trust of her young fans with this meaningless and crass bow to the mainstream media. I see it as nothing more than a pathetic effort to revive a bit of publicity–as if the books, movies or her balance sheet really need the boost. In my mind she has prostituted her reputation as master story teller to become a master manipulator.

I liked this post

 

[CatholicSam]

This is so ridiculous. She was not the first to say this. One her fans writing fan fiction wrote a story with this twist. She laughingly said he was gay. I think she then just ran with it. No where in any of the books was any ‘gay sex’ happening, and if you can point it out to me, I would love to see it. But you can’t, because it is not there!

Hi there, Broken Record. Who in this thread is saying that there is gay sex in the books? So because she’s not the first to say this and because she didn’t include gay sex in the books, everything is OK? Not by me :nope:

 

[manualman]

I read all the books and enjoyed them much. I’d not give them to just any kid, but only those who I was sure had a firm enough foundation to be able to create a fantasy world in their minds that remained a realm of only fantasy.

That said, it never occurred to me in reading the books that Dumbledore might have SSA. Never an inkling. In a book series aimed at 10+ crowd, I would not automatically dismiss a book that included a charcter that was celibate, but dealt with SSA. On the other hand I DO find it objectionable that our culure is building an assumption/suspicion into people that assumes any man who is single (with no romantic history) and who is interested in culture and philosophy must be ‘gay.’

That is the real shame here, that she chose to pitch into the stereotype.

 

[estesbob]

Hi there, Broken Record. Who in this thread is saying that there is gay sex in the books? So because she’s not the first to say this and because she didn’t include gay sex in the books, everything is OK? Not by me :nope:

There is a huge difference between “I dont like this book” iand “this book teaches evil and immoral behavior.”

The idea that because JK Rowling made the comment that one of her characters was homosexual , even though there is not a hint of homosexuality in the book, means people shouldn’t read this book plays into the most eregious stereotypes of Catholics being intolerant prudes.

I am sorry you never read the books and I feel sorry if have children and deny them the opportunity to read these books.Both the you are missing a great experience

 

[estesbob]

That is the real shame here, that she chose to pitch into the stereotype.

I agree with that. Although her comment in no way detracts from the books it was unnecessary and as you point out does reinforce a stereotype.

 

[Cobbfmly]

…These are not adult books. It is very clear JK is trying very hard to influence children regarding acceptance of “gay” lifestyles.

If children accept Dumbledore’s lifestyle as the lifestyle that gays should live, it would be great. Based on the books, Dumbledore lives a celebate single life, which is what the church calls on homosexuals to do. This books will not affect our children accepting the homosexual lifestyle that the homosexuals want them to accept. I am much more concerned about “Two Mommies”, “Two Daddies” type books, homosexual support clubs at high schools, otherwise inocuous shows (Dog Whisper, Sell This House, etc) that has homosexual partners seeking help. To me the shows are the worst, because they present the homosexual lifestyle as being completely equal to the lifestyle of married couples. Not even an eyebrow is raised at them.

I see no problem with Dumbledore being smitten for another man. If being smitten for someone was a form of acting out on sexual urges, then every person, hetrosexual or homosexual, that has flurted, dated, courted, etc another person would be guilty of a sin.

 

[Island_Oak]

And, as dulcissima pointed out abou ther kids: " I’ve got to say, my kids heard about it, and it is really bugging them.

So, now you’ve got a mom who has to explain what “gay” is b/c JK Rowling is in the news popping off about her gay character.

…and that was me this morning as the “Today” show covered this timely (read salacious) bit of “news” as my kids were in the midst of their Cheerios.

 

[BlestOne]

My take is that it is just a PR stunt. Not a good move imho, but the gay activists are loving it… which kinda irks me a bit. Luckily my kids are older and will no doubt just ignore this little proclaimation.

 

[CatholicSam]

There is a huge difference between “I dont like this book” iand “this book teaches evil and immoral behavior.”

In case you haven’t noticed, we’re not talking about the BOOK! We’re talking about Rowling’s declaration of a character as gay. We know it’s not in the book Hello Broken Record #2!

 

[KCtheMommy]

…and that was me this morning as the “Today” show covered this timely (read salacious) bit of “news” as my kids were in the midst of their Cheerios.

IslandOak, you are a very smart lady…hat’s off to you. We have our debates and don’t always agree…

BUT WHY…

Would you turn on the Today Show with your children around KNOWING this little PR stunt is on the top of the news?

uch:

 

[Island_Oak]

IslandOak, you are a very smart lady…hat’s off to you. We have our debates and don’t always agree…

BUT WHY…

Would you turn on the Today Show with your children around KNOWING this little PR stunt is on the top of the news?

uch:

Point well taken. Guess in my half-awake, pre-coffeed brain it didn’t even register that this would undoubtedly be covered this morning. Frankly…most days I should avoid the show entirely while the kids are around!

p.s. praying for you and others affected by the So.Cal. fires. Hopefully it gets no worse than your sooty bra!

 

[estesbob]

In case you haven’t noticed, we’re not talking about the BOOK! We’re talking about Rowling’s declaration of a character as gay. We know it’s not in the book Hello Broken Record #2!

So if it’s not the book why are you concerned about it?

 

[estesbob]

IslandOak, you are a very smart lady…hat’s off to you. We have our debates and don’t always agree…

BUT WHY…

Would you turn on the Today Show with your children around KNOWING this little PR stunt is on the top of the news?

uch:

Better yet why would anyone even watch the Today Show ? There are a lot more things on a daily basis on that show to be afraid for young children to see than hearing Dumbledore is homosexual

 

[dulcissima]

If her kids are old enough to read Harry Potter, they are old enough to know what gay is! And if they truly read the books, they will also know there is no reference to any of this in the books.

My older kids are old enough to both read Harry Potter and to know all about homosexuality. They are also old enough (13 and 16) to read internet news stories about JK Rowling outing Dumbledore. Unfortunately, they are not old enough to know when to keep it quiet around their younger brothers who have seen some of the Harry Potter movies and don’t quite know what to make of this news.

I don’t know…As an adult I have had several friends who are gay, people I like quite a lot. However, I am really disturbed by what I see now that very young teenagers are declaring themselves to be gay. I even see some teenage boys who are very, very confused when their friends are suddenly gay. In a lot of ways it just seems like homosexuality is really being promoted these days. I just think that sexuality is really more an adult subject, and when you introduce it very early to kids you kind of rob them of their innocense and their ability to learn about such things at the right time. Let them be kids and not have to even think about such things.

I think JK Rowling did a fine job at writing the character of Dumbledore to be a complex and mysterious one. She should have left the mystery there, where those who wanted to could discuss the possibilities. There really was no reason to spell it all out where all of the 8 and 9 year olds even have to think about it now.