Man from ministry bans Potter

[Brendan]

There is no sin in the text of these books, there is no sin even implied in the texts of these books…

You don’t consider torture to be sinful?

Now intially, when torture was considered to be ‘unforgiveable’ and got out an automatic life sentance to Azkaban, that was fine. It showed that sin has temporal consequences.

But Harry used it, for spitting in someone face at that. But the epiloge didn’t exactly show him sharing a cell with dementors on Azkaban, now did it?

So if your read about someone torturing someone, say with red hot branding irons; even someone ‘bad’ like a Klansman, over spittin at someone, would you really not consider it to be sinful?

So why not when Harry does it?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Oh, for goodness sakes, it’s FICTION. It’s meant for ENTERTAINMENT. It’s not meant to be taken SERIOUSLY.

Every school child (and I have this on good authority from my 5th-grade-teacher daughter) not only sees the movies, but reads the books, and then opines on how much is left out of the movie and how you really need to read the book to know what is going on. They’re READING!! That’s the important thing!

When my little brother was growing up, he never saw the need to read until he found out there was a sports section in the paper. We’ve always said that Jim Murray, a popular LA Times sportswriter in days gone by, taught my brother to read.

JK Rowlings is essentially no different, she just has a different subject. Not only are children enthralled with her stories, but they devour every word. They’re convinced they have to read the books, to really get the entire story. For them, the movie isn’t enough.

People need to untwist their knickers. This is entertainment.

Curiously, I often find the same people that find fault with things that are purely meant for entertainment are sometimes the first to make things that are NOT entertainment into some kind of show. Mass is a good example.

Mass is not entertainment. Mass is worship. Applause is not only not necessary, it’s offensive. And yet some people feel the need for some unknown reason. Similarly, the homily is there for your edification, not to entertain you. Yet I’ve heard complaints about homilies that would curl your hair & the real problem is that the people complaining just didn’t feel “entertained”. Well guess what, you don’t go to Mass to be entertained!!

There’s a place for entertainment in our lives. And a place for seriousness. We don’t have to mix them up.

 

[Bennie_P]

The difference is that in the Lord of the Rings, the greatest strenght does not reside in magical creatures, but in the lowest of the low, hobbits.

The Harry Potter books fall for one of the oldest of the heresies, Gnosticism.

In Gnosticism, only those who were ‘in’ on the secret Knowledge (hence the name Gnosis - Greek for Knowledge) could lead or have power. One could not aquire this on their own, but had to be born into it.

Harry Potter is much the same, only those who were born or Wizards\Witches could weild true power. ‘Muggles’ are entirely outside the picture. “Squibs” are to be looked down upon.

Power is something to advance to, even for Harry.

In the Lord of the Rings, power is completely secondary to being pure hearted. The powerful are undone simply by the hero being of pure heart and performing acts of Mercy.

Contrast this to H.P., where even Harry justifies using the Cruciatus Curse; indicating that the ends somehow justifiy the means, completely contrary to Christian morality.

Harry tried using that curse on Bellatrix Lestrange;. Does anyone think that inflicting torture on someone is somehow justified? Is that something that our children should be taught to sympathize with? “Well gee, Bellatrix is really bad, she killed my godfather, so it’s OK to try and torture her”

And then he used it again on Carrow, why? Because he spat at Professor McGonagall, ah yes, there’s a great example of when to torture a person

When exactly does one see Frodo or Samwise trying to torture someone? He had more reason to rake Wormtoungue over red hot coals after the cleansing of the Shire than Harry ever did to Cruciatiate Carrow. But did he?

Which is the greater example of Christian behavior? ( I’ll give you a hint, it was the one writtten by the father of a priest )

Some these are themes I overlooked, thanks for posting them, they give me some talking points to use with my children.

 

[Brendan]

Oh, for goodness sakes, it’s FICTION. It’s meant for ENTERTAINMENT. It’s not meant to be taken SERIOUSLY.

But the question is, is it GOOD ( in the moral sense) entertainment.

Strip joints are entertainment, the Roman games were entertainment.

Just because something is ‘entertainment’ doesn’t mean that it’s a good thing.

Every school child (and I have this on good authority from my 5th-grade-teacher daughter) not only sees the movies, but reads the books, and then opines on how much is left out of the movie and how you really need to read the book to know what is going on. They’re READING!! That’s the important thing!

Fine, give the the Lord of the Rings and show them the movies too.

Simply ‘Reading’ is not the important thing, I could give teens a Penthouse Forum, they would read it. But simply Reading isn’t good enough. Give them something to read that will teach them, both from a Literary aspect, AND from a Moral aspect.

There is lots out there. I’d even say that the first 2 HP books would be good. But after that, Rowlings took it where kids should not go.

People need to untwist their knickers. This is entertainment.

Once again, so were the Gladitorial Games.

Simply being Entertaining means absolutely NOTHING!

There’s a place for entertainment in our lives. And a place for seriousness. We don’t have to mix them up.

But is it bad to ‘mix’ them? Or if something is entertaining, does that mean that the moral themes presented are automatically ‘OK’?

 

[Bennie_P]

There’s a place for entertainment in our lives. And a place for seriousness. We don’t have to mix them up.

We need to balance the two and we need to be aware of what is being sold to our children. Though there is place for entertainment we must remember the purposes of why the entertainment industry produce books, movies, games and etc. One, is to take our money out our pockets and put it into thiers. Two, to promote ideas “they” feel need to be promoted.

And as parents we need to teach the children to be aware of and have the ability to recognise false ideas being promoted by secular society and the entertainment industry. Our duty as Chrisitan & Catholic parents is to get to heaven and prepare our children to follow us there. If we let the entertainment industry decide what is good for our children, then the entertainment industry and secular media may be deciding their final destination. It doesn’t mean we have to be ultra strict puritans, but we need to be aware of the messages being sold and be able to teach are children which messages are wrong and why.

Myself, I feel like I have been caught with my shorts down, when I thought I had been doing a pretty good job. p.s. I love mass and only fault I find - it seems to be over too fast.

 

[Auriel]

TBH I never understood the big flap over the books. The magic isn’t even real, such as the spell one used against the creature who took on the form of their worst fear…Point the wand and say…'ridiculous!"

Reading hidden meanings into words is the main aspect of occult practices. It is all esoteric or exoteric. IT becomes a habit. Are others seeing what is not meant to be there? Most people who decry Harry Potter are people who have knowledge of the occult or came from an occult background. Is it so ingrained in them that they can find no other meaning?

Magic is part of the story, used as a props, but not at the core, the Harry Potter series is about sacrifice.

For those who have read the books you will note that no matter how hard Harry studies, he cannot beat or overcome Voldemort’s evil magic with magic. Only the power of love is stronger than Darkness, self-sacrifice born out of love. In the story love is also linked to blood. His mother sacrificed herself to save him, Something that evil will never understand.

“Is it love again?” said Voldemort, his snake’s face jeering. “Dumbledore’s favorite solution, love, which he claimed conquered death, though love did not stop him falling from the tower and breaking like and old waxwork? Love, which did not prevent me stamping out your Mudblood mother like a cockroach, Potter - and nobody seems to love you enough to run forward this time and take my curse. So what will stop you dying now when I strike?”

Yes, Harry tells him, and even more than that.

 

[Nohome]

Up until last week I didn’t take a stand against the books but after the author declared this,
*"She was asked by one young fan whether Dumbledore finds “true love.” *
*“Dumbledore is gay,” the author responded to gasps and applause. *
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.” " and it was reported for this reason: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."
Not everyone likes her work, Rowling said, likely referring to Christian groups that have alleged the books promote witchcraft. Her news about Dumbledore, she said, will give them one more reason. time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1674069,00.html?imw=Y

It has become obvious that she is thumbing her nose at the Church and christians in general and is using her writings to hurt the Church through capturing our children hearts in order to cast a shadow over the Church, the Church teachings and Her authority. The so-called “prolonged argument for tolerance” is another way of her saying tradition and faith is wrong.

When I told my son (who I gave the last book to for his birthday acouple of weeks ago) about what she said about "Dumbledore is gay", he expressed feelings of being let down and betrayed. And so do I.

So, you condemn the books because Dumbledor is gay? She didn’t say he was sexually active, just gay. The entire HP series is notably void of sex. The RCC would not condemn him simply because of his sexual orientation, why should we?

You will also note that it was the story writer that said J.K. Rowling was referring to Christians when she said not everyone likes her work. If a story from the news said the Pope was “likely referring” to something you didn’t like, you would be the first to point out that words were put in his mouth. Yet in this case you are ready to burn her at the stake.

I think you should read these books before you cast judgement.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

Witches have traditionally been understood to be evil.

Really?

Witches were traditionally understood to be healers or wise women in a community. Witches were often the old lady on the edge of town who understood the medicinal properties of plants and served as doctors and midwives.

Many witches were christian until witchcraft was declared heresy in 1320. Even then it was more about supressing women than evil. It wasn’t until much later that witches were tied to the occult and considered enemies of Christianity.

Nohome

 

[JFonseka]

This is REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY STUPID.

We have nothing better to do than argue and worry about a FICTIONAL character’s sexual orientation?

I am 19, and been reading HP since I was around 12, I never once thought Dumbledore was gay, and I’m pretty sure 99.999% of others reading HP books didn’t pick it up either, because there isn’t really much “sexual” material in the book regarding Dumbledore. It doesn’t really matter, he isn’t real. She can declare Dumbledore as a raving lunatic that wears his grandmother’s panties on his head everyday while smoking weed and a fondness for large hairy males for all I care.

 

[K-McD]

Really?

Witches were traditionally understood to be healers or wise women in a community. Witches were often the old lady on the edge of town who understood the medicinal properties of plants and served as doctors and midwives.

Many witches were christian until witchcraft was declared heresy in 1320. Even then it was more about supressing women than evil. It wasn’t until much later that witches were tied to the occult and considered enemies of Christianity.

Nohome

Yeah, and there’s no such thing as Satan, or Hell, or sin either.

 

[Nohome]

Yeah, and there’s no such thing as Satan, or Hell, or sin either.

non sequitur

Nohome

 

[Catholic90]

This is REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY STUPID.

We have nothing better to do than argue and worry about a FICTIONAL character’s sexual orientation?

I am 19, and been reading HP since I was around 12, I never once thought Dumbledore was gay, and I’m pretty sure 99.999% of others reading HP books didn’t pick it up either, because there isn’t really much “sexual” material in the book regarding Dumbledore. It doesn’t really matter, he isn’t real. She can declare Dumbledore as a raving lunatic that wears his grandmother’s panties on his head everyday while smoking weed and a fondness for large hairy males for all I care.

I agree. This is perhaps the most intelligent post in this thread!

 

[Catholic90]

Yeah, and there’s no such thing as Satan, or Hell, or sin either.

Nohome is correct. The witches were the first herbalists and midwives. Because no one understood them, it was considered “magic” and it grew from there. They were ostracized, and somewhat understandably, retreated and rebelled a bit. Rather ironic that today we look to the herbs once again to heal ourselves, don’t you think?

Kind of like, “Fine, if you think I’m a scary person, I will BE a scary person then!”

What does this have to do with satan, hell, or sin?

 

[Brendan]

This is REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY STUPID.

We have nothing better to do than argue and worry about a FICTIONAL character’s sexual orientation?.

I’m wondering why we should give our kids books that promote the use of torture by the main character?

As I mentioned before, we see Harry trying to torture two people, using the Cruciatus Curse, .

The first, because she killed his godfather, the second, because he spit at his favorite teacher.

Can anyone here give a justification to that?

Can I write a kid’s books that has the hero torturing Iraqi’s and get your support? Perhaps if I make sure it’s entertaining and promotes kids reading?

Now in the book, we heard that the Cruciatus Curse was a one way ticket to Azkban for life, but Harry’s use seemed to be somehow tolerable, I could have the hero in my book get off scott free with his use of torture too. And as long as I claim that love is one of the most powerful forces at work in my book, I can even claim that it has Christian undertones too.

So, what do you think, can I start writing “Sgt. Potter and the Half Blood Iraqi” and get your support in placing in school libraries?

I was thinking that instead of a “Cruciatus Curse”, I’ll just have Sgt. Potter hook a generator to the guys gentials, whattaya think?

No too sexual, I’ll give Rawling that, not much in the way of sexual themes. OK, I’ll stick to just clubbing the bottom of the foot.

Oh wait, part of the ‘trick’ is that the torturer would need to really, really, WANT to cause pain, OK, flamethrower to the insurgents backside.

And, did anyone notice that it wasn’t just Harry, the Aurors also get to torture with impunitiy. State sponsored torture, just what ever teen should read about. So I’ll also stick in a few CIA agents with cattle-prods and tazers, too.

 

[JFonseka]

I’m wondering why we should give our kids books that promote the use of torture by the main character?

As I mentioned before, we see Harry trying to torture, using the Cruciatus Curse, two people.

The first, because she killed his godfather, the second, because he spit at his favorite teacher.

Can anyone here give a justification to that?

Can I write a kid’s books that has the hero torturing Iraqi’s and get your support? Perhaps if I make sure it’s entertaining and promotes kids reading?

Now in the book, we heard that the Cruciatus Curse was a one way ticket to Azkban for life, but Harry’s use seemed to be somehow tolerable, I could have the hero in my book get off scott free with his use of torture too. And as long as I claim that love is one of the most powerful forces at work in my book, I can even claim that it has Christian undertones too.

So, what do you think, can I start writing “Sgt. Potter and the Half Blood Iraqi” and get your support in placing in school libraries?

I was thinking that instead of a “Cruciatus Curse”, I’ll just have Sgt. Potter hook a generator to the guys gentials, whattaya think?

Let’s not over exaggerate and over react.

Sensibly, we both know electrocuting someone’s balls is more under sadistic sexually perverted torture.

Torturing Iraqi’s for a kid’s book is different from a FANTASY MAGICAL realm. Your analogy is HORRIBLE, I recommend you do some literary reading before even attempting to make analogies. Then you can get a better idea of how to use them.

Why not write a book on Iraqi torture for kid’s and see how the kids react. Different reactions I bet. Different reactions because kids of the harry potter reading age can definitely make distinctions on the motives, themes, entertainment ideas, even though they can’t put it into words. There is a difference mate. Don’t over exaggerate.

 

[Brendan]

Let’s not over exaggerate and over react.

Sensibly, we both know electrocuting someone’s balls is more under sadistic sexually perverted torture.

Torturing Iraqi’s for a kid’s book is different from a FANTASY MAGICAL realm. Your analogy is HORRIBLE, I recommend you do some literary reading before even attempting to make analogies. Then you can get a better idea of how to use them.

Why not write a book on Iraqi torture for kid’s and see how the kids react. Different reactions I bet. Different reactions because kids of the harry potter reading age can definitely make distinctions on the motives, themes, entertainment ideas, even though they can’t put it into words. There is a difference mate. Don’t over exaggerate.

Can you explain why torture is somehow OK if it involves Magic?

I’ve done lots of literary reading, including these books, do I seem unfamiliar with them? I’d be happy to contrast HP with some of the Christian themes in King Lear too.

What if I make my character’s motives for torture identical to that of Harry’s (death of a godfather at the hands of a terrorist, a terrorist spitting in the face of his favorite drill instrutor. Would the kids be able to make a distinction on the motives, themes and entertainment ideas then?

And I do apologize, I composed my note in notepad and only pasted part of it. You seemed to have responed before I had the chance to paste the rest.

One more point, you might consider my analogy to be exaggeration, but you must argree that Harry does torture people. Can teens distinguish that the motives to torture are totally immaterial, and that it is always wrong and that Harry made a grave moral error.

Or how many, do you think, felt that Harry was somehow ‘justified’ in zapping Carrow, simply because he was a Death Eater who insulted his teacher?

When did Harry express contrition over that horrible act and seek to make ammends?

What should we be teaching our kids on that subject?

 

[wisdom_3_5]

I’m surprised nobody brought upt the recent news about the Harry Potter books. The author herself admited that the books have homosexual characters and are anti-christian.

No. You’re almost right. The series has **one **admitted homosexual character, which doesn’t even figure into the plot/storyline. It was announced during a question and answer session at Carnegie Hall that the author always thought of the character as “gay”. She also said that children (and adults, I believe) can see the relationship as a close friendship, and indeed, that is how I and everyone else I know reads it. Even if you do read that into it it doesn’t put a positive spin on homosexuality. In another interview the author calls the relationship “a tragic infatuation”.
lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071023/NEWS01/71023003/1001/news

On being anti-Christian you are totally wrong! The author has admitted that “Christian imagery almost epitomizes the whole series.”
mtv.com/news/articles/1572107/20071017/index.jhtml

From the article:
Harry Potter is followed by house-elves and goblins — not disciples —* but for the sharp-eyed reader, the biblical parallels are striking**. Author J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” books have always, in fact, dealt explicitly with religious themes and questions, but until “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” they had never quoted any specific religion***. **

Just so you know, it was the Bible that was quoted. Actually you don’t have to be all that “sharp-eyed” to see the parallels.

 

[JFonseka]

Can you explain why torture is somehow OK if it involves Magic?

I’ve done lots of literary reading, including these books, do I seem unfamiliar with them? I’d be happy to contrast HP with some of the Christian themes in King Lear too.

What if I make my character’s motives for torture identical to that of Harry’s (death of a godfather at the hands of a terrorist, a terrorist spitting in the face of his favorite drill instrutor. Would the kids be able to make a distinction on the motives, themes and entertainment ideas then?

You really have no idea about stories involving “magic” do you?
Unless there has been some kid that has tried to attempt the Cruciatus curse on the kid next door, don’t come crying to me.

I don’t wish to compare and contrast HP with King Lear.

I never said torture is ok, torture is never ok. However that is implying torture in reality. HP is magical, it’s far from reality. Torture involving iraqi’s has a much more real impact to it. Why? Because hello…we are living in 2007 and the Iraq war and news of abu ghraib have been waddling around for 4 years non stop.

A book on iraqi torture is most likely to be based on non-fiction, directly non-fictional themes, where the inspiration was reality based. Harry Potter, the central theme is magic. It’s not real. Harry uses the torture curse in a fit of rage, though it’s not ‘Christian’ that he does that, cause Christianity involves not seeking revenge. But at what point in our lives has 99% of the Christian population not done something in revenge?

Yea ok. Case closed.

Your analogy remains horrible.

However you do have a case if you argue HP’s evilness with the Dumbledore being gay issue. Not harry’s cruciatus. I am beginning to think my earlier post on saying Dumbledore is ok to be gay wasn’t probably such a good idea…

 

[wisdom_3_5]

• "* and it was reported for this reason: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."
  Not everyone likes her work, Rowling said, likely referring to Christian groups that have alleged the books promote witchcraft. Her news about Dumbledore, she said, will give them one more reason. time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1674069,00.html?imw=Y

It has become obvious that she is thumbing her nose at the Church and christians in general and is using her writings to hurt the Church through capturing our children hearts in order to cast a shadow over the Church, the Church teachings and Her authority. The so-called “prolonged argument for tolerance” is another way of her saying tradition and faith is wrong.
.

As to that this is a link to a person who was there and her account of what was said regarding authority:

Question: Did you consciously model the Death Eaters on Nazis?
Answer: To a degree, yes, because Nazis are one symbol of evil that is easy to recognize. But they represent ideas more than specific historical examples. Rowling wanted “Harry to leave our world and find the same problems in the wizarding world.” The books as a whole are a prolonged argument for tolerance, a plea to end bigotry. We should recognize other regimes of the past - and present - in the books. In the end, the message to readers is this: "Question authority. You shouldn’t assume the regime or the press is telling you all of the truth."
eldritchhobbit.livejournal.com/175955.html

I don’t see the problem. This is not about questioning authority as much as it is encouraging people to seek the truth. I, as a Catholic, encouage people to seek the truth. When they do it will lead them right to the Church.

 

[Brendan]

You really have no idea about stories involving “magic” do you?
Unless there has been some kid that has tried to attempt the Cruciatus curse on the kid next door, don’t come crying to me.

How about when he thinks it’s OK to cause great pain in other ways, because Harry did it?

I don’t wish to compare and contrast HP with King Lear.

Too bad, there’s lots of good Christian undertones in King Lear, loyalty in the face of false accusations, learned humility, forgiveness.

I never said torture is ok, torture is never ok. However that is implying torture in reality. HP is magical, it’s far from reality. Torture involving iraqi’s has a much more real impact to it. Why? Because hello…we are living in 2007 and the Iraq war and news of abu ghraib have been waddling around for 4 years non stop.

Yes, my analogy as more drama, (in the pure sense), because the audience can more directly relate to the action happing, after all, most have experience burns, no one has been pain cursed.

But do the means define the moral act? Not really. In Catholi Moral Theology, the morality of the act is determined by three factors, if any is wrong, the whole act is wrong.

Those factors are: Intent, Circumstance, and Means.

In my analogy, the Intent and Circumstances are indentical, ( Intent is to cause great pain, as part of revenge), Circumstance is a war against a vicious enemy, The only thing that differs is the means, flamethrower vs, pain curse.

Now a flamethrower is more easily visualized, but that is meaningless. Can anyone here say that Rawlings portrayed the curse as being anything less painful, her description of the Harrys was hit with one in Goblet of Fire was pretty vivid.

So we have the exact same moral act portrayed, and that is one of the things that the priest is question is concerned with.

[qutoe]
A book on iraqi torture is most likely to be based on non-fiction, directly non-fictional themes, where the inspiration was reality based. Harry Potter, the central theme is magic. It’s not real. Harry uses the torture curse in a fit of rage, though it’s not ‘Christian’ that he does that, cause Christianity involves not seeking revenge. But at what point in our lives has 99% of the Christian population not done something in revenge?

Yes, humans are failable, as yes, do things rashly. But the important thing to note is that we are to repent and ask forgiveness. Where exactly did Harry repent or feel remorse over his use of torture? Where exactly is Harry’s use condemned by the authority figures ( Dumbledore, McGonnagal?)

That is a requirement if a true CATHOLIC moral lesson is to be taught. And guess what, that’s the purpose of a Catholic school. If there is fiction that teaches the wrong lessons, it doesn’t belong in a school, any more than my 'hypothetical book does.

Additionally, locale does not equal inspiration,
Take a look at how many productions of Shakespear have been set in other times, from the 1999 DVD of “Midsummer Nights Dream” with Kevin Kline and Michelle Phifer to Akira Kurosawa’s excellent ‘RAN’, a retelling of ‘King Lear’ in feudal Japan.
Setting is actually rather unimportant to the story itself.

Lord of the Rings could just have easily be set in modern times, because the story was about hobbits, orcs and wizards, but rather about the small and honest defeating the large and powerful. Frodo could have been a teenager and Sauron could have been Hitler and the real story would have been much the same, (Baggins needing to destroy a radioactive part Hitler needs to build his atomic bomb) but with no magic involved.

A good story is true in any setting, good inspiraiton trancendes locale.

[Your analogy remains horrible.

The only horrible part is the torture, which occurs in both.

. I am beginning to think my earlier post on saying Dumbledore is ok to be gay wasn’t probably such a good idea…

One other thing to be aware of. Dumbledore’s homosexuality did not come out in the books ( a point in Rawlings favor), but how easy is it now for a teen who heard that to now question exactly what the main driver in Dumbledore’s interest in Harry, was in paternal, or something else?

I can bet you there are a lot of teen out there wondering about that right now.
[/quote]