Secular criticism of Harry Potter

[Loveday220]

Portrait, here’s the rest of my response to your post, sorry it’s so long:

Even Rowling has freely admitted that the books contain references to real-world occult symbolism, lore, subjects and practices, hardly suitable reading material for Christian adults let alone children. Again ethics and morality in the series exalt relativism, I mean there is no objective standard of right and wrong. Thus the so called good characters habitually steal, lie, cheat, use unseemly language, break laws, deceive each other, behave hypocritically and have no problem with pursuing revenge - all of which is apparently done with a clear conscience.

I disagree. Yes, there are some times when that happens, especially when the kids in the series are younger, but as they mature, they very often wrestle with their consciences as their concept of right and wrong clarifies. Their consciences don’t always win out, just as ours don’t always, either. But just as we do, they quite often pay the consequences for their actions, or at least suffer a pang of guilt or remorse for them. Again, Jo Rowling has made her characters real. They’re just as imperfect as you and me.

What I found most disturbing is reading that in front of a full-house of hardcore Potter fanatics at Carnegie Hall in New York, Rowling announced that the character Dumbledore was a homosexual! The audience is reportedly said to have erupted - well what can one say to all this? It seems perfectly reasonable to infer from this that Rowling does not have an issue with homosexuality and would most certainly not deem it to be an abberrant lifestyle which is a violation of the law of God.

It also seems perfectly reasonable to infer from this that Rowling doesn’t have an issue with homosexuals. Meaning, she considers them to be as worthy of God’s love and abundant grace as anyone else. There’s really no way from what she said that day to tell if she actually approves of the homosexual lifestyle, though. And she certainly didn’t write Dumbledore as a ‘practising’ gay man. If you want to read anything into his character as she wrote it–and you’d really have to stretch the point as his sexuality never once came up in the books, nor should it have done-- you could say he was a *celibate * homosexual. As far as he was written in the books, he never acted upon any homosexual desires he may have had. And that fits in very well, as far as I can tell, with the Catholic Church’s own stance on homosexuality, as explained right here at CAF: catholic.com/library/Homosexuality.asp

Sadly because of original sin men and women who are not professing Christians, or only nominal Christians, will compose novels, films, music etc that are unsavoury and unwholsome and sometimes just downright morally bad. In a fallen world such as ours there will always be a maket for such egregious material. However as Christains we have a duty to God to distance ourselves from these reprehensible arts ( I nearly wrote black arts, a freudian slip?) and warn others, especially the young, of the dangers invloved in polluting their minds and possibly causing them to deviate from the path of virtue

I agree, but I disagree that the Harry Potter novels are among the ‘reprehensible arts’ of which you write.

In view of what I have said above I firmly believe that my, and indeed others, disquietude over the Harry Potter novels is not misplaced or based on some irrational fear or hidebound prejudice against all contemporary literature. Although the fact that so much of it is so deplorably bad may make it seem that way sometimes.

While I disagree with your opinions on the HP books, I do respect them. You didn’t answer my question a few posts up, as to whether you had really read the books. I still can’t tell, from your latest post, whether you have or not, but no matter. You’ve obviously at least read a lot *about *them. If you really haven’t read the books themselves, however, I urge you to do so. You may be surprised.

 

[Brooklyn]

It is utterly risible to assert that Harry Potter is a “Christian” series in the tradition of The* Chronicles of Narnia* and The Lord of the Rings (By the way I’m not a fan of either).

This was a most eloquent and well-written post setting forth the reasons to avoid Harry Potter, but all of the Harry Potter fans out there will rip it apart. There is nothing you can say that will convince them that maybe, just maybe, there might be something wrong with the Harry Potter series. They always come back with: well, have you ever read the books? I don’t watch porn, either, nor do I intend to do so, but I will still argue that it is detrimental to those who do engage in it. I agree with you: magic is the antithesis of Christianity, and the Bible specifically warns against it. But we will never convince all those ardent Harry Potter fans and I wouldn’t even try. I wish I could be as true to my Christian beliefs as they are to Harry Potter. I’d never have to go to confession.

As far as the quality of the writing itself, I am sure this is true. Years ago someone I knew was telling me how great Danielle Steele was and how I absolutely must read one of her books. So I gave it a chance. I could not believe how insipid it was. Yet I know she has been and continues to be one of the most popular authors in America.

Did you know that the average newspaper is written on a 5th grade level? Why do you think that is?

It would almost seem that there is a deliberate campaign the keep the public dumb.

 

[Loveday220]

This was a most eloquent and well-written post setting forth the reasons to avoid Harry Potter, but all of the Harry Potter fans out there will rip it apart. There is nothing you can say that will convince them that maybe, just maybe, there might be something wrong with the Harry Potter series. They always come back with: well, have you ever read the books? I don’t watch porn, either, nor do I intend to do so, but I will still argue that it is detrimental to those who do engage in it. I agree with you: magic is the antithesis of Christianity, and the Bible specifically warns against it. But we will never convince all those ardent Harry Potter fans and I wouldn’t even try. I wish I could be as true to my Christian beliefs as they are to Harry Potter. I’d never have to go to confession.

If Portrait wants to continue to avoid the HP series, that’s fine. My answer to him wasn’t meant to try to force it down his throat.

Equating HP with porn is a bit harsh, though, don’t you think? Do you also equate fairy tales, allegories, and anything by Tolkien with porn as well?

By your reckoning it sounds as if we should do away with anything and everything that so much as *mentions *magic, even if it’s obviously used in an allegorical sense. I suppose we should also avoid the imagination like the plague, and only read books that present human beings as either as absolutely good, or unredeemably evil. That way, we won’t have to stop and *think *about which is which.

But then…I guess we’re not supposed to think, are we? :tsktsk:

As far as the quality of the writing itself, I am sure this is true.

You are? How sure are you, really? If you haven’t read them, you can’t possibly know. But I don’t think the quality of the writing is the issue here.

Years ago someone I knew was telling me how great Danielle Steele was and how I absolutely must read one of her books. So I gave it a chance. I could not believe how insipid it was. Yet I know she has been and continues to be one of the most popular authors in America.

Actually, Danielle Steel isn’t quite as popular as she once was. I agree with you, her writing is terrible, it always has been. I know that because I was once in the same situation you were in–a friend insisted I’d just love Danielle Steel. So I read a few of her books. They were awful.

Did you know that the average newspaper is written on a 5th grade level? Why do you think that is?

It would almost seem that there is a deliberate campaign the keep the public dumb.

And did you know that the fifth grade reading level is actually about a THIRD grade reading level now? My reading comprehension in third grade was better than that of most *eighth *graders today. Which, considering how some of the students in my husband’s science classes struggle, probably isn’t saying much any more.

I don’t think there’s a deliberate campaign to dumb down the public. I think the public is just getting too lazy to *try *to learn anything.

 

[Contarini]

boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/24/dumbing_down_american_readers/

what do you think?

Bloom is a great (though totally wacko, but that’s fine) literary critic. But ironically, he has written one novel (Flight to Lucifer), which is a pedestrian, bizarrely unimaginative reworking of a strange but powerful novel admired by C. S. Lewis (Voyage to Arcturus). He has taken the Gnostic implications of Arcturus and made them explicit, adding nothing and taking away much. I think he was young when he wrote it, and of course it’s a fallacy to claim that because he’s a bad novelist himself he can’t criticize a bad novelist. I mention this just to say that I think Bloom’s idea of good writing is too hung up on complexity and weirdness and not receptive enough to old-fashioned storytelling. Much modern literary criticism has come to value complexity and indirection and sophistication far above their genuine value (which is considerable), and to despise any storytelling that doesn’t fit certain relatively recent (19th or even early 20th-century) canons. He’s right, however, that often when less sophisticated writers are valued it’s for decidedly nonliterary reasons. And I share his concern about the debunking of the canon.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

There is nothing you can say that will convince them that maybe, just maybe, there might be something wrong with the Harry Potter series. They always come back with: well, have you ever read the books?

It’s rather odd to say that there is nothing that will convince people that there’s something wrong with the Potter books and then dismiss having read them as a criterion. Actually reading the books and making an argument based on that reading would be a start.

I don’t watch porn, either, nor do I intend to do so, but I will still argue that it is detrimental to those who do engage in it. I agree with you: magic is the antithesis of Christianity, and the Bible specifically warns against it.

If you want to make a straightforward argument that any book that uses the word “magic” or describes any kind of magic is bad, then you’re right, you don’t have to have read the books. But very few people find this to be a convincing or defensible argument. You can’t cite the Bible here until you can prove that the “magic” of Harry Potter is the kind of thing warned against in the Bible. To do that you’d have to do some serious exegesis of the Biblical passages on the one hand, and (yes, you saw this coming) read the Harry Potter books on the other.

As far as the quality of the writing itself, I am sure this is true. Years ago someone I knew was telling me how great Danielle Steele was

How is your experience with Danielle Steele a basis for being “sure” that Rowling’s writing is bad? There seems to be no logic in this claim. I might as well say “I didn’t like okra so I know I wouldn’t like spinach.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I don’t know, though. Bloom raises up Thomas Pynchon as one of the four greatest contemporary American novelists. To me that calls into question Bloom’s credibility. “The Crying of Lot 49” was just weird.

I haven’t read any Pynchon, and I don’t think weirdness is bad. But I’ve read (well, to be honest, I think I must have skimmed quite a bit because I read it in one afternoon) Philip Roth’s *The Plot against America, *and I did not think it was particularly well-written. It had its moments, but I wan’t very impressed as a whole. Perhaps I didn’t read with enough care and attention.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Another reason for the popularity of Potter is that it is essentially about a world of fantasy and escapism - a world that so many of our young people, Catholics included, like to inhabit. They like to hide away in that “imaginative fictional universe” of which you speak, rather than engage with the harsh realities of life.

You must have read different Harry Potter books than I have. We have loss of parents, child abuse, racism, and genocide, if you aren’t willing to consider the powerful metaphorical treatments of “harsh reality” in such motifs as Professor Lupin’s werewolfhood (if that’s the right word) or the dementors.

No hiding away from harsh realities in Rowling. Like all good fantasy, she deals with them squarely–just not in the ways that satisfy the fanatical guardians of the realist canon.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

It is utterly risible to assert that Harry Potter is a “Christian” series in the tradition of The* Chronicles of Narnia* and The Lord of the Rings (By the way I’m not a fan of either).

It’s not “risible,” but I think it’s often overstated.

Firstly, the plainest detached reading of the Potter books reveals that it is not a depiction of anything Christian

There’s no such thing as a “detached” reading of anything, but I certainly disagree on the basis of my readings. I don’t think Rowling’s Christianity is entirely orthodox. But clearly the books are a depiction of a number of Christian themes and reflect some form of Christian piety.

but is, on the contrary, a depiction of the magic world view.

Whatever that may be. Perhaps you could describe this supposed “world view” and how it is present in Rowling but not in Lewis or Tolkien.

This is not merely my own opinion but has been confirmed by witches, occultists and neopagans,

Could you briefly describe how you distinguish among these three groups?

surely these would know if anyone should?

Well, it’s possible that they might make overstated arguments to claim a popular work of fiction for their “world view,” just as many Christians do. But as a matter of fact, the neopagans or “witches” (using the latter term as a subcategory of the former) whose comments on the matter I’ve seen are generally against you, so I challenge you on the point of fact. Generally the neopagan “witches” whose comments I’ve read find the claim that Harry Potter reflects their practices to be utterly risible–to use your own term. Sure, they may make vague claims that they find its “world view” congenial, but lots of people can find in literature what they want. There seems to be a pretty strong consensus that the “magic” described in Rowling has almost no connections to real-world occultism.

Secondly, none other than Rowling herself has explained both her work and her faith in ways that clearly contradict the assertions being made by the “Harry-Potter-is-really-Christian” exponents.

Examples? She is clearly a Christian, although a liberal one.

Moreover, Christians of all hues would recognize in classics such as The Wizard of Oz, Sleeping Beauty, Lord of The Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia the good verses evil element as being clearly dilineated.

Wait a minute: you’re claiming that the Wizard of Oz is Christian? On what basis? That really is risible. I see nothing distinctively Christian in Oz, and in point of fact Baum was a Theosophist. In other words, he was a *real *“occultist”!

Christianity cannot be reduced to a “good vs. evil” element. Insofar as one makes a sharp, unambiguous delineation between good and evil, with no gray areas, one is promoting not orthodox Christianity but Manicheanism.

Putting it quite simply evil is evil and good is good, and good is promoted while evil is not. Thus the “battle-between-good-and-evil” argument is hopelessly without merit. In any event this line of defence is irrelevant as the books do not contain any such battle.

I think you are actually unwittingly defending their orthodoxy.

The war in Rowlings novels is a conflict between a horrific evil (Voldemont and his Death Eaters) and a lesser sort of evil (Harry and the “good” characters who only appear virtuous because it is so much less offensive and frightneing than the greater evil).

No: they appear virtuous because they do practice the virtues and try to avoid doing evil even when it seems necessary in order to defeat a greater evil. They are not perfect. But perfect heroes do not reflect an orthodox Christian world view at all, but a Manichean one. Rowling’s books are far superior theologically to simple “good-versus-evil” fantasy because they reflect (even if implicitly and unintentionally) a doctrine of original sin. The line between good and evil runs within human beings, not just among them.

I do not understand how conservative Christians can demand Manicheanism with a straight face as if it were orthodox Christianity, and berate a work of fiction for reflecting the Christian conviction that even virtuous characters are sinful.

The line of demarcation between good and evil is terribly blurred, if not entirely non existent, in the Potter books.

It is blurred because it is blurred in real life. You are being inconsistent. First you accuse the books of allowing children to hide from harsh reality. But the harshest reality of all is the fact that good and evil are often blurred in this world.

Even Rowling has freely admitted that the books contain references to real-world occult symbolism, lore, subjects and practices, hardly suitable reading material for Christian adults let alone children. Again ethics and morality in the series exalt relativism, I mean there is no objective standard of right and wrong.

That’s nonsense. It’s a common (but utterly inexcusable) fallacy to confuse the presentation of flawed characters and difficult choices with the denial of an objective standard.

Thus the so called good characters habitually steal, lie, cheat, use unseemly language, break laws, deceive each other, behave hypocritically and have no problem with pursuing revenge - all of which is apparently done with a clear conscience.

Then you have not read the books very carefully. Because few of the characters have clear consciences.

What I found most disturbing is reading that in front of a full-house of hardcore Potter fanatics at Carnegie Hall in New York, Rowling announced that the character Dumbledore was a homosexual!

It is possible to understand her in a manner compatible with orthodox Christianity. Dumbledore’s homosexuality is relevant only with regard to his relationship with Grindelwald–a relationship that is presented in the books (even though its sexual element is not mentioned) as deeply unhealthy and destructive. In fact, if I were a liberal on this issue, I’d be very concerned about Rowling’s portrayal. However, I think it’s probable that she *is *herself a liberal with regards to homosexuality and that her negative portrayal of homosexual obsession was probably not designed as a critique of homosexual relationships across the board. As I said earlier, I don’t claim that she is an orthodox Christian.

Sadly because of original sin

It’s good to be reassured that you do actually believe in it. So why do you object to its portrayal in literature?

Edwin

 

[fantasy_forever]

um, guys this is for SECULAR criticism of Harry Potter.

 

[Portrait]

Dear Brooklyn,

May I first thank you for your kind words of support, I was beginning to feel like a voice crying in the wilderness until you posted.

It is deeply alarming and lamentable to observe the widespread phenomenon of anger and indeed hysteria against against the critics of Potter. Some of the most impassioned censure emanates from supposedly orthodox Catholics and Protestants, who appear to to be making it their mission in life to defend vehemently Harry Potter up to the hilt come what may. Potter is fast becoming a sort of sacred cow which only, in the vitriolic words of Terry Teachout, “joyless prigs” now dare to criticise. Needless to say no one is really immune from subjectivity; we are all sinners, and therefore must all struggle through trial and error to achieve a proper integration of faith and reason. Having said that I really do not think that we need be troubled or unsettled by all of this, I mean if we assail the strongholds of the Devil we must expect some pretty hostile reaction.

You are quite correct when you remark that ardent Potter fanatics, even the Christain variety, are unlikely to be persuaded that they just might be wrong. I firmly believe that the Devil uses much modern fantasy fiction to cause people to become so abstracted that they loose touch with reallity. There is indeed much that is unpleasant in the world today; wars, rank insubordination across all age groups , irreligion, not to mention sundry social problems. However, rather than retreat into their own selfish fantasy world, the saints and ordinary Christians have always sought to engage with these problems, even when the odds have been stacked against them; the people that have truly known God have stood firm and taken action (Daniel 11:32), they most certainly have not eshewed them with the lame excuse that they are inevitable and unsolvable. On the contrary they have manfully grappled with them. Christians can and do make a difference as the whole of history attests. As someone once remarked (his name escapes me for the moment) bad things only happen when good men sit by and do nothing.

Someone may incredulously ask, is it really possible that so many people world-wide, including many intelligent Catholics and Protestants, have been duped over Harry Potter? A resounding yes; the voice of history tells us that there is such a thing as mass public deception - ask the Germans, they know all about that.

However much Potter fanatics endeavour to equate Rowling’s books with the great British classics, the Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of The Rings, there is just no parity between them. Both of the aforementioned works show a transcendence and the beauty of the infinite, whereas the Potter books have an inverted and muddled spiritualty, a world where bad is good. It is this that renders them eminently unsatisfactory, especially for the young in their formative years - “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20). Surely children’s authors have a special responsibility to their young impressionable readers?, woe unto them if they cause these little ones to stumble and deviate from their innocence (see St. Matt. 18:5). Intrestingly, two years before he was elected Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a letter to a supporter calling the Potter story “…a subtle seduction, which has deeply unoticed and direct effects in undermining the soul of Christianity before it really grows properly”. An excellent summation of what is fundamentally wrong with R.K. Rowling’s books, just that a “subtle seduction”.

Surely any parent worth their salt will want to protect their children from this spiritually deleterious material. As Catholics we must lead the way by being rigidly strict and uncompromising; when we are charged with being reactionary or bigoted kill-joys we must not buckle under the pressure but stand firm - “…not frightened in anything by (our) opponents” (Philippians 1:28).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I agree with you: magic is the antithesis of Christianity, and the Bible specifically warns against it. But we will never convince all those ardent Harry Potter fans and I wouldn’t even try. I wish I could be as true to my Christian beliefs as they are to Harry Potter. I’d never have to go to confession.

Define magic. Magic as defined by the Church is certainly not the flashy wand waving, fireball hurling, or even sparkly transformation sequences I’ve seen in fiction. The same can be said with the Bible. Even from a historical perspective, the best one can glean from its definition are certain rites of the Babylons, the Greeks, the Egyptians etc. You can’t say they speak of a fictional phenomenon born out of someone’s imagination.

You know why you can’t convince us? You and your arguments lack reason and you probably know it. In case you’ve forgotten, we are a religion that employs both faith and reason. If all you have are ambiguous notions and unreasonable zealotry against Harry Potter then it’s not surprising that people would dismiss you instantly.

Finally, I would like to ask you. Why do you lump all people who defend the books with Rowling’s fan brats? I haven’t even finished the last book because I’ve got other things to do (homework, job, weekly mass etc) and other things to read such as short stories assigned to me in class as well as other novels that pique my interest (oh and manga desu ). Please think twice before saying something like that again.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

It is deeply alarming and lamentable to observe the widespread phenomenon of anger and indeed hysteria against against the critics of Potter. Some of the most impassioned censure emanates from supposedly orthodox Catholics and Protestants, who appear to to be making it their mission in life to defend vehemently Harry Potter up to the hilt come what may. Potter is fast becoming a sort of sacred cow which only, in the vitriolic words of Terry Teachout, “joyless prigs” now dare to criticise. Needless to say no one is really immune from subjectivity; we are all sinners, and therefore must all struggle through trial and error to achieve a proper integration of faith and reason. Having said that I really do not think that we need be troubled or unsettled by all of this, I mean if we assail the strongholds of the Devil we must expect some pretty hostile reaction.

Oh brother. Pulling the Persecution Card already? What is it with you anti-Potters that you find so refreshing about lumping everyone who disagrees with you as a Rowling worshiper? :ehh:

Frankly, I don’t argue with guys like you just because of Harry Potter. I argue for the sake of fantasy fiction in general because it’s the genre I write for. Your arguments could easily be used against my work as much as Rowling’s.

You are quite correct when you remark that ardent Potter fanatics, even the Christain variety, are unlikely to be persuaded that they just might be wrong. I firmly believe that the Devil uses much modern fantasy fiction to cause people to become so abstracted that they loose touch with reallity. There is indeed much that is unpleasant in the world today; wars, rank insubordination across all age groups , irreligion, not to mention sundry social problems. However, rather than retreat into their own selfish fantasy world, the saints and ordinary Christians have always sought to engage with these problems, even when the odds have been stacked against them; the people that have truly known God have stood firm and taken action (Daniel 11:32), they most certainly have not eshewed them with the lame excuse that they are inevitable and unsolvable. On the contrary they have manfully grappled with them. Christians can and do make a difference as the whole of history attests. As someone once remarked (his name escapes me for the moment) bad things only happen when good men sit by and do nothing.

Hardly. It’s because they’re so in touch with reality that there are escapists. I should know. Tell me, since you so believe we should all be saints out to save the world, do you know how to solve world hunger? Do you know how to rid the world of the evil of abortion? Can you convince the world’s entire gay population why they can’t marry? Have you offered a solution to end the wars in the Middle East?

Can you convince the whole world that I don’t need a diploma to succeed as a writer? Can you tell my parents that they’re subscribing to dangerous New Age philosophies? Can you provide me a decent job that pays well but doesn’t require a high-maintenance education?

I could ask more but the fact is, the answer is all the same for a lot of people: No. You. Can’t.

And guess what? They actually have a point. Not everyone is a Mother Theresa or a Pope John Paul II (and heck even those two had come under fire despite their perseverance). You also have to have the heart for that type of activism. Personally? I don’t. I’ve got too many problems of my own to starting thinking about caring for beggars and orphans and I’m not the only one. A majority of saints lived in ancient times when life was a lot simpler than it is now. Most of them didn’t have to worry about dumb stuff like bills, getting a job, providing for a family, trying not to be seen as a leech upon society. Back then, you could just give to a beggar and be on your way without considering other factors such as the government, the economy, and whether or not the beggar is a victim of circumstance or a lazy boob.

Escapism via fantasy is no different than drinking. There’s no harm when its taken moderately. They provide a nice amount of stress relief (and trust me, you have no idea how much stress has been brought about by the turbulence of 21st century living). Wanting people to force themselves thinking about these problems only depresses them when they can’t find a solution. And sadly, that’s often the case.

So, what do they do? They engage in escapism to let it out, recharge, and relax. Once you’ve done that, it becomes easier to face one’s problems. I’d rather have people “escape” their problems for a moment to unwind than see them brooding over it for hours fearing that they might commit suicide.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Someone may incredulously ask, is it really possible that so many people world-wide, including many intelligent Catholics and Protestants, have been duped over Harry Potter? A resounding yes; the voice of history tells us that there is such a thing as mass public deception - ask the Germans, they know all about that.

However much Potter fanatics endeavour to equate Rowling’s books with the great British classics, the Chronicles of Narnia and The Lord of The Rings, there is just no parity between them. Both of the aforementioned works show a transcendence and the beauty of the infinite, whereas the Potter books have an inverted and muddled spiritualty, a world where bad is good. It is this that renders them eminently unsatisfactory, especially for the young in their formative years - “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20). Surely children’s authors have a special responsibility to their young impressionable readers?, woe unto them if they cause these little ones to stumble and deviate from their innocence (see St. Matt. 18:5). Intrestingly, two years before he was elected Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a letter to a supporter calling the Potter story “…a subtle seduction, which has deeply unoticed and direct effects in undermining the soul of Christianity before it really grows properly”. An excellent summation of what is fundamentally wrong with R.K. Rowling’s books, just that a “subtle seduction”.

Surely any parent worth their salt will want to protect their children from this spiritually deleterious material. As Catholics we must lead the way by being rigidly strict and uncompromising; when we are charged with being reactionary or bigoted kill-joys we must not buckle under the pressure but stand firm - “…not frightened in anything by (our) opponents” (Philippians 1:28).

Once again, your extreme moral absolutism disturbs me. Just because there’s a blackest of black and whitest of white, there’s no gray in between. You really need to wake up to the reality of the world that modern life has indeed complicated things. It has changed the view of the world from a checkered pattern to a spectrum. To say that it promotes moral relativism is, however, ludicrous because all it has really done is make our job harder by giving us more shades to distinguish and provide a specific remedy. The evil of rape certainly has more repercussions than the evil of stealing from the cookie jar.

Furthermore, I really would like you to actually address these points (as well as the points of others) instead of just singing the same song only with different lyrics. I also would like it if you took into consideration how one should fully place oneself in a character’s shoes before passing judgment on their actions.

And when I say fully, I strongly mean it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

That depends if you don’t take into consideration the reader-oriented theories in literary criticism. Even should an author make more effort in inserting a message in his/her story, there will always be someone who will interpret it differently. The author, you see, can have an ideal reader in mind when writing and mold their words in ways they assume would be to said ideal reader’s liking. However, in the real world, not every person who’ll pick up their book will fit their criteria of an ideal reader. Whether this can be done deliberately or unconsciously by readers does not matter. The point is, they can be read differently.

Thus, it’s no surprising that people may be able to find Christian truth in Harry Potter or at least some moral insight because their previous experience has programmed them to see such signs. The same can be said of Neo-pagans, wiccans, etc. Furthermore, it can definitely be said of people such as yourself.

It’s a work of a fiction. The moral ambiguity in Harry Potter is only such because the scenarios and environment make it so. We can’t judge the actions of fictional characters until we immerse ourselves in their universe and put ourselves in their shoes. And by immersing ourselves, I really mean it somewhat. Suggesting things such “Well I would just have prayed blahblahblah” or “My guardian angel suddenly appears” and all other childish nonsense is out of the question.

Take for example this other story I’ve read (well technically it’s a comic book). The title is Death Note and it’s about a young man who finds a notebook that kills whoever has their name written on it (and as long as he recalls their face). The guy then goes on using it to kill criminals all over his country and even the world just by sitting in his room looking up names and news reports. Now, if I were to judge this guy and put myself in his shoes, I of course wouldn’t immediately say I’d get rid of the notebook. I would first deliberate and truly get into the mind of the character, try to understand the motive, the situation, the place he is in. I have to first consider what I could and could not do if I were actually right there, in his place, having the same thoughts and feelings about why criminal vermin are allowed to walk away freely by the incompetent justice system and police department.

It is then I ask the question: What would I do?

That’s pretty much the reason why I don’t judge Harry and his friends with the same harshness as you have. The things they do are reasonable and understandable given their circumstances.

And Lord of the Rings makes similar references to Norse mythology and Anglo-Saxon folklore. Please, let’s not argue about this sort of thing again. You say you’re not fond of Tolkien either but please don’t give me the impression that you’re one of those Catholics who believe anything that makes use of magic as demonic. With all due respect, it’s not a very smart thing to believe in.

In other words you want Catholics to seclude themselves like simpletons who are too cowardly to infiltrate this market and exploit in our favor as well as pretty much just limit themselves to strictly filtered (a.k.a. bland) forms of entertainment and fiction. For your information, the reprehensible arts you seem to be alluding to might actually include classical works such as Dracula, Oliver Twist, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and even our own Bible for all of them (when depicted in a more visual and less literary medium) have elements that you would consider “unsavory and unwholesome”.

It would put paid to reading the Classics; Homer & Virgil are not the best guides in Christian morals. Unsurprisingly, since both lived BC. More surprising perhaps is the way in which Odysseus’ being tied to the mast of his ship was allegorised as a type of the Cross; & how Virgil was taken to be “Maro, Prophet of the Gentiles” on the strength of the Fourth Eclogue. There is plenty reprehensible (by Judaeo-Christian standards in both - but previous generations managed to survive. The 12-13th century was the Age of Ovid: he was immensely popular (very rightly). If bawdy literature is the problem, then a lot of Chaucer has to go, & Boccaccio. No thanks. If filth is the problem - sanitise & expurgate the Bible. It is full of murder, lust, adultery, incest, & such-like delights; yet mere children are exposed to this vileness. Now that really is a crime. Dracula is healthy by comparison with the worst of OT porn.​

 

[Portrait]

Dear Fellow Posters,

I have now duly noted all the points that have been expressed with regard to my postings on the Harry Potter tales. At the outset may I thank you for your comments and criticisms on this highly emotive topic and state quite emphatically that whilst I cannot concur with your opinions I respect your right to espouse them and defend them. We can surely agree to differ amicably as gentlemen. As brethren in Christ we have no desire to unchurch one another or to inveigh against one another in an uncharitable fashion. Clearly it is possible to debate and avoid rancour. All of us need to watch against an eristic cast of mind, I mean a disputatious style of debating the aim of which is basicly to win a clever argument and to overwhelm one’s opponents. That is surely a rather sterile exercise that achieves nothing save ill-will and contention. How we need to remember the admonition of St. Paul, a true master of debate (II Timothy 2:23-25).

Since it would be very time consumming to give a blow by blow rebuttal to every single point that every poster has made, it is my intention to make some* general* observations only as to why I believe the Potter books to be highly unsuitable (to put it mildly) reading material.

It is manifestly absurd to infer that I am “pulling a persecution card” because I speak of the widespread phenomenom of anger and hysteria directed against the Potter critics. That is merely stating an obvious fact of one’s experience. In any event as I remarked in my posting, and I quote, “we need not be troubled and unsettled by all of this (i.e. hostility)…if we assail the strongholds of the Devil we must expect some pretty hostile reaction”. Now that hardly sounds like a chap whining about being persecuted; on the contrary it sounds very much like a man who is not timid about entering the fray and who is fully aware of what to expect if he does.

Magic is really all about taking control in areas of life where man has no right to encroach upon. In numerous passages of the Old and New Testaments, the warnings remain unwavering and unnuanced - “When you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations (i.e. the Cananites). There shall not be found among you…any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an auger, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord” (Deut. 18:9-12, my addition). In The Acts SS. Peter and Paul confront the power of magicians with the utmost severity (read the account of the seven “sons of Sceva” in Acts 19:11-20).

Children are taught in Rowling’s world of wizardry to manipulate undefined forces and to submit themselves to no higher a law than the wizard authorities who will assist them to exercise their powers “wisely”, whatever that is supposed to mean.

It is said that the Harry Potter character is essentially good and morally sound. I beg to differ, but let us see. He blackmails, blows up his aunt, uses trickery and deception, “breaks a hundred rules” (to quote the mildly censorious, but ultimately approving Dumbledore). Frequently he lies to get himself out of trouble, and allows himself to be provoked into taking revenge against his student enemies. This does not sound good for the character who is supposed to be the hero (or should he be regarded as an anti-hero?) of the tales. Please inform me what positive moral message this is sending to young impressionable minds? In these details and a plethora of others throughout the series, the unsuspecting child reader is insidusiously encouraged in his baser instincts while lip service is paid to some ambiguous morality. Nowhere in the series does one find any reference to a system of moral absolutes or non-negotiable truths against which actions can be measured, an absolutely indispensable requirement in Children’s books. It will simply not suffice to reply that our world no longer uses the black and white model when thinking about morals, but has changed from “a checkered pattern to a spectrum”. Some aspects of our culture may have done this but God has most decidedly not and our brief is to teach our children God’s standards of right and wrong, not the fallen worlds fickle and unstable notions. Moral absolutes are immutable and therefore perpetually applicable and relevant, whether the world approves of them or not.

Those of us who are parents are called by the Church to be pro-active; we are to be actively engaged in fostering vital Christian culture for our children, forming virtue and developing their moral compass. Now anything that threatens or frustrates this goal (e.g. dubious books, films, computer games, fashions etc.) must be repudiated. This is not about being Puritanical or legalistic, but it is about rearing our precious children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and shielding them from all that is unwholsome and unholy. Anyway I suspect that most God fearing parents would have now qualms with any of this. My question is will these worthless and shameful Potter novels contribute towards this noble end?; or, contriwise, will they contribute to insidusously indoctrinating our children with the moral illiteracy and confusion that now so abounds and dominates much of society?

Books and films which three generations ago would have been instantly recognised as unhealthy for our children, are now suddenly deemed acceptable and those who oppose them alarmist or fundamentalist cranks. Why? Why are threats (recognised as such for donkeys years) to our children’s well-being interpreted as innocuous and just a bit of escapist fun? To what degree have all our judgments (even the best of us) been influenced by the pagan world view - possibly to the very core? These are surely very pressing questions, since we are no longer the early Christians cleansing a classical pagan temple and consecrating it as a church. We are “late Western man” (C.S. Lewis) and we are set in the midst of a social revolution that is assaulting the truly sacred and taking a perverse delight at degrading it at every turn. As Christians who are seeking to honour Christ and extend the Kingdom of Light and not the kingdom of darkness, let us distance ourselves from this godless and pernicious revolution that is gaining momentum with each passing day. For the Lord’s sake let us not succumb to or lend our support to the evil liberal agenda. Are we on our Lord’s side or are we holding back in certain areas of our life through fear of being thought singular or intolerant?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait
.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

It is manifestly absurd to infer that I am “pulling a persecution card” because I speak of the widespread phenomenom of anger and hysteria directed against the Potter critics. That is merely stating an obvious fact of one’s experience. In any event as I remarked in my posting, and I quote, “we need not be troubled and unsettled by all of this (i.e. hostility)…if we assail the strongholds of the Devil we must expect some pretty hostile reaction”. Now that hardly sounds like a chap whining about being persecuted; on the contrary it sounds very much like a man who is not timid about entering the fray and who is fully aware of what to expect if he does.

No. Really, no offense but that’s what you’re doing. I hear the same persecution complex rhetoric from anti-Catholic street preachers. Again, it’s not so much an issue with Harry Potter specifically but your reasoning can be fired against all fantasy works (including that of Tolkien’s, Lewis’, and mine as well). I guess it’s really safe for me now to assume that since you don’t like the other two either, you actually don’t like the idea of magic at all.

As someone here once said, you sound like a proponent of the bland form of realism.

Magic is really all about taking control in areas of life where man has no right to encroach upon. In numerous passages of the Old and New Testaments, the warnings remain unwavering and unnuanced - “When you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations (i.e. the Cananites). There shall not be found among you…any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an auger, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord” (Deut. 18:9-12, my addition). In The Acts SS. Peter and Paul confront the power of magicians with the utmost severity (read the account of the seven “sons of Sceva” in Acts 19:11-20).

Children are taught in Rowling’s world of wizardry to manipulate undefined forces and to submit themselves to no higher a law than the wizard authorities who will assist them to exercise their powers “wisely”, whatever that is supposed to mean.

I can’t believe the concept of using powers wisely is lost on you. I quote the famous Ben Parker.

With great power… comes great responsibility.

If you’ve actually read the books, even magic has unspoken laws that outline forbidden territory. The prime example is Voldemort’s very quest for immortality. The severing of the soul in the creation of the Horcrux portrays quite clearly that magic has limits and defying those limits have consequences more horrendous than any bumbling Ministry’s sentence.

This phenomenon is not only limited to Harry’s universe. It is found in many other “magical” worlds. In the world of Naruto, certain jutsus (the ninja equivalent of spells) demand a very dire price to perform because of the otherworldly nature of their effects (e.g. the technique Shiki Fuujin demanded the soul of its user for the power to remove other souls). Also, in the upcoming game Diablo III, the entry involving their Wizard class had a lot to say about the danger in dabbling in certain arts of magic.

With that in mind, we have the exact same phenomenon here in the real world. Those conjurers spoken of in your verses deal with our universe. And from what I’ve read from studies on exorcism, dabbling in such dark arts has indeed dire spiritual consequences. Such forces are indeed beyond that of mere men. As I said before, I believe the Church employs good reason to impose restrictions and in this case, it is to protect us from these consequences. You need to start learning from it in that aspect.

You see what you don’t realize is that in Harry’s world, the territory is marked differently. There are no consequences for using trivial or valid forms of magic or otherwise they would have been banned and feared (such as the Forbidden Curses). It’s the same way some tools, items, and inventions in our world are regulated as safe or hazardous.

And while we’re on the subject of “enroaching” don’t you think science is just as (perhaps more) guilty of making people play God? (coughstem-cell researchcoughhuman cloningcoughsex changecough)

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

It is said that the Harry Potter character is essentially good and morally sound. I beg to differ, but let us see. He blackmails, blows up his aunt, uses trickery and deception, “breaks a hundred rules” (to quote the mildly censorious, but ultimately approving Dumbledore). Frequently he lies to get himself out of trouble, and allows himself to be provoked into taking revenge against his student enemies. This does not sound good for the character who is supposed to be the hero (or should he be regarded as an anti-hero?) of the tales. Please inform me what positive moral message this is sending to young impressionable minds? In these details and a plethora of others throughout the series, the unsuspecting child reader is insidusiously encouraged in his baser instincts while lip service is paid to some ambiguous morality. Nowhere in the series does one find any reference to a system of moral absolutes or non-negotiable truths against which actions can be measured, an absolutely indispensable requirement in Children’s books. It will simply not suffice to reply that our world no longer uses the black and white model when thinking about morals, but has changed from “a checkered pattern to a spectrum”. Some aspects of our culture may have done this but God has most decidedly not and our brief is to teach our children God’s standards of right and wrong, not the fallen worlds fickle and unstable notions. Moral absolutes are immutable and therefore perpetually applicable and relevant, whether the world approves of them or not.

Those of us who are parents are called by the Church to be pro-active; we are to be actively engaged in fostering vital Christian culture for our children, forming virtue and developing their moral compass. Now anything that threatens or frustrates this goal (e.g. dubious books, films, computer games, fashions etc.) must be repudiated. This is not about being Puritanical or legalistic, but it is about rearing our precious children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and shielding them from all that is unwholsome and unholy. Anyway I suspect that most God fearing parents would have now qualms with any of this. My question is will these worthless and shameful Potter novels contribute towards this noble end?; or, contriwise, will they contribute to insidusously indoctrinating our children with the moral illiteracy and confusion that now so abounds and dominates much of society?

Fiction is a form of entertainment, it’s not a moral guide. That’s what the Bible and the Church are for remember? Such books are given to children to delight them, not necessarily teach them anything. It’s no different than letting a child play tag. You don’t expect him to learn the Ten Commandments in such a game yet you still let him play.

And when you say moral absolutes are applicable that only works for those that have actually been proven to be absolute by a fair amount of logic. I strongly believe some rules are universal, but unlike you, I acknowledge the existence of rules that aren’t for my sense of reason also tells me so.

Finally, for the record? I grew up watching cartoons, reading fantasy, and immersing myself deeply in a lot of popular role-playing games. All of them you can accuse of being just as ambiguous.

Guess what? I have a stable moral compass (and one that’s probably more stable than the rest of my pseudo-liberal, New Age hypnotized family).

Books and films which three generations ago would have been instantly recognised as unhealthy for our children, are now suddenly deemed acceptable and those who oppose them alarmist or fundamentalist cranks. Why? Why are threats (recognised as such for donkeys years) to our children’s well-being interpreted as innocuous and just a bit of escapist fun? To what degree have all our judgments (even the best of us) been influenced by the pagan world view - possibly to the very core? These are surely very pressing questions, since we are no longer the early Christians cleansing a classical pagan temple and consecrating it as a church. We are “late Western man” (C.S. Lewis) and we are set in the midst of a social revolution that is assaulting the truly sacred and taking a perverse delight at degrading it at every turn. As Christians who are seeking to honour Christ and extend the Kingdom of Light and not the kingdom of darkness, let us distance ourselves from this godless and pernicious revolution that is gaining momentum with each passing day. For the Lord’s sake let us not succumb to or lend our support to the evil liberal agenda. Are we on our Lord’s side or are we holding back in certain areas of our life through fear of being thought singular or intolerant?

Because you are being alarmist. This very post shows that. The reason why people such as yourselves are being lumped together with the fundamentalists is that, like them, your attacks are without reason. It’s plain and simple logic we’re asking from you. Please don’t tell me that you associate the use of logic in of itself as another extension of the Kingdom of Darkness because if that’s the case, I’ll gladly remain standing upon the twilit line between them.

 

[Portrait]

Dear Lost Wanderer,

Thankyou for your previous two postings. My apologies for the delay in replying, I wasn’t being impolite but I have been otherwise engaged. Having now had some time to scan your respones I would like to make some comments by way of reply.

The fundamental problem with the Potter series is Rowling’s use of the symbol-world of the occult as her primary metaphor and occultic activities as the dramatic engine of the plots. It presents these to the young reader through attractive and charismatic role models, such as Harry and Hermione, who are students of witchcraft and sorcery. Now this has the potential of lowering a child’s guard - both subconscious and spiritual - to actual occult activity which is, quite undeniably, on the increase everywhere. Of course children are cognizant that the fantasy element within the books is not for real. Be that as it may, emotionally and subconsciously the young reader assimilates it as real.

Your contention that my reasoning could also be equally applied to Tolkien and C.S. Lewis cannot be sustained. The differences are huge, no actually they are absolute. Any parity between the works of Christian fantasy writers and Rowling are purely superficial. Yes, we have “magic” in both, yet Tolkien and Lewis repeatedly warn about the danger of magic throughout their novels.

Both of these Christian writers firmly underline the fact that the vanquishment of radical evil is dependent on humility, courage, love, self-sacrifice - in short, our natural human virtues.

The world of Potter is essentially a Gnostic one; magic is presented as an inherent faculty of human nature that only requires awakening and formation through the pursuit of esoteric knowledge and power. Moreover one does not even have a whiff of divine presence, whereas Tolkien’s and Lewes’ worlds are radiant with this unspoken presence. In Potter’s world, magic is portrayed as a morally neutral power, which in the hands of “nice” characters serves the good and in the hands of negative characters serves evil. Sadly all of these issues are completely ignored by the Christian pro-Potter exponents in their fanatical zeal to defend the book/films at all costs.

To simply remark to all of this by saying that the Potter tales show good as better than evil is , to say the least, an insufficient defence of the series. Rowling has radically blurred the lines between good and evil, indeed redefining some of both. The real question surely is: what is the nature of good and evil as she has presented it?

It should also be observed that children read fiction with a different consciousness than adults. Once again this is something else that is quitely overlooked by the Christian Potter-pleaders. They seem to pass over the fact that the young are in a state of formation - their understanding of reality is being forged at every turn. It is for this very reason that there is an onus on children’s writers not to blurr the distinction between right and wrong, truth and falsehood; people like Tolkien and Lewis realised this and respected it, Rowling owing to her liberal worldview does not.

By the way I have no objection* per se* to wholesome fantasy literature, irrespective of how wildly imaginative it may be, since it reinforces the absolute, unchanging moral order of the universe in the child’s mind. Corrupt morally ambiguous fantasy undermines it; the Potter-world is, I regret to say, corrupt fantasy with a dab of cosmetic veneer. The cosmetics are the “values” woven into the tale by the author.

However it is not merely the withcraft and sorcery element that I find worrisome, although that fundamental defect is enough to condemn the series alone. There are other very serious problems also, notably the question of authority and obedience - both taboo words nowadays in our ungovernable society.

Harry’s faults are seldom punished, if they are it is usually by the negative authority figures in the tale. The positive authority figures actually reward H.P. for his disobedience when it brings about some perceived good. His lies, his acts of vengeance and the misuse of his powers are frequently ignored. The only message that seems to ring loudly throughout the series is, “the end justifies the means”. Now of course our morally bankrupt society sees very little wrong with this, but God does - “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Isaih 5: 20). Clearly there is no indefinite morallity from God’s standpoint and neither should there be from ours. Indeed this is why by definition moral absolutes do not need to be “proven to be absolutes by a fair amount of logic”. Thus the Ten Commandments for instance do not need to be validated or demonstrated to be logical before being worthy of our acceptance. The only alternative to this is moral relativism where you and I decide what we deem to be a moral absolute by pure force of logic or just mere personal subjective opinion. To embrace this position is to abandon orthodox Christianity and endorse a neo-pagan stance.

So why is that so many Christian commentators refuse to condemn the Harry Potter novels? I can only speculate as to the reasons, but I suspect that many are fearful of being branded anti-intellectual or reactionary, this would be very much an issue for those in acedemia where an outright condemnation might discredit them in the eyes of collegues. Another reason could be that they simply do not have the courage to be unpopular, either with their families or friends, so they just keep silent. However in many cases I believe that people have become so impacted by the spirit of the age (what Sacred Scripture terms “love of the world”), that their powers of spiritual discernment have been severly impaired and blunted. Thus they sincerely believe that there is nothing amiss with the H.P. novels and that those who dare to criticise them must be well “joyless prigs” or hidebound fundamentalists.

By the way it is very easy to hurl abusive epithets at those with whom one strongly disagrees in order to discredit them and to make them appear irrational reactionaries,. and uncharitable ones at that. This, however, is no substitute for informed discussion and debate; I would maintain that bitterness of spirit and expression is not only a breach of Christian charity but is also an indication of the deep insecurities underlying its use.

This will be my final posting on this topic for the time being as I feel I have come as far as I wish for the moment at any rate. However, it was good to see you on CAF again and thankyou for your contribution to this debate. So until the next time goodbye.

Warmest good wishes and prayers,

Portrait

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Dear Fellow Posters,
…

Although it’s years since I read it, I don’t recall that “To Kill A Mocking-Bird” ever “refer[ed] to a system of moral absolutes or non-negotiable truths against which actions can be measured, an absolutely indispensable requirement…”.​

The theological profundity of the Narnia books didn’t occur to me until many years after I first read “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe”; I read that at school, with very little awareness of what it implied. As for The Lord of the Rings, Roger Sale, writing in

• Tolkien and the Critics. Ed. Neil D. Isaacs and Rose A. Zimbardo. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame and London, 1968.

interpreted its moral basis not as Christian, but as that of Old English heroic paganism.

It will simply not suffice to reply that our world no longer uses the black and white model when thinking about morals, but has changed from “a checkered pattern to a spectrum”. Some aspects of our culture may have done this but God has most decidedly not

Which is fine,** if** “God’s standards of right and wrong” can be isolated & recognised. That they cannot, is shown by the sheer variety of theisms. For practical purposes, Christian ethics is as this-worldly, non-divine, contingent, & fallible as any other in the world. If they were unarguably “of God”, there would be no unbelief in this world.​

and our brief is to teach our children God’s standards of right and wrong, not the fallen worlds fickle and unstable notions. Moral absolutes are immutable and therefore perpetually applicable and relevant, whether the world approves of them or not.

A book such as “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” could hardly have been written, were that true. Slavery used to be an institution compatible with Christian discipleship - the late Cardinal Dulles was not representing the common doctrine of the CC when he argued that it had in fact never been outlawed:​

[http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/cardinal-avery.html (http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/cardinal-avery.html)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_slavery)

Those of us who are parents are called by the Church to be pro-active; we are to be actively engaged in fostering vital Christian culture for our children, forming virtue and developing their moral compass. Now anything that threatens or frustrates this goal (e.g. dubious books, films, computer games, fashions etc.) must be repudiated. This is not about being Puritanical or legalistic, but it is about rearing our precious children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and shielding them from all that is unwholsome and unholy. Anyway I suspect that most God fearing parents would have now qualms with any of this. My question is will these worthless and shameful Potter novels contribute towards this noble end?; or, contriwise, will they contribute to insidusously indoctrinating our children with the moral illiteracy and confusion that now so abounds and dominates much of society?

Books and films which three generations ago would have been instantly recognised as unhealthy for our children, are now suddenly deemed acceptable and those who oppose them alarmist or fundamentalist cranks. Why? Why are threats (recognised as such for donkeys years) to our children’s well-being interpreted as innocuous and just a bit of escapist fun?

Perhaps for the same reasons as have changed rejection of the waltz as indecent, to acceptance of it as not indecent: as, if anything, terribly “square”.​

Change is part of life - even in moral judgements. This is neither bad nor good; it is simply a fact of life.

ISTM that if one is to avoid falling for the ***temptation ***of being prudish, one has to distinguish between types of change in moral judgement: then it should be easier to reject (say) “snuff” flicks, without opening oneself to the charge of inconsistency by not rejecting “Gone With The Wind”. IOW, what’s needed is some kind of moral-aesthetic theory: what is a bad book or film [or whatever it may be], & what is a good one ? I think we should need to be positive, and answer questions about badness in the light of what we think of as good. A consistent set of principles should also help in avoiding a disjointed approach to life & culture in which questioins are seen only one by one.

To what degree have all our judgments (even the best of us) been influenced by the pagan world view - possibly to the very core?

Define “pagan” please. The Good Pagan is a being from whom Christians can learn a very great deal: the early Fathers did. A pre-Christian is not the same as someone utterly un-Christian (which what the word seems to mean in the US today).​

These are surely very pressing questions,

​

since we are no longer the early Christians cleansing a classical pagan temple and consecrating it as a church. We are “late Western man” (C.S. Lewis) and we are set in the midst of a social revolution that is assaulting the truly sacred and taking a perverse delight at degrading it at every turn.

Maybe the assault is not on the sacred as such, but on the sacred as representing yet another taboo to transgress, & another conquest for what James Hitchcock called “The Imperial Self” in his book “Catholicism confronts Modernity”. ISTM many modern ways are forms of taboo-breaking - rather than being directed against religious sensitivities as such.​

I hope you’re wrong about no longer being “the early Christians cleansing a classical pagan temple and consecrating it as a church”

As Christians who are seeking to honour Christ and extend the Kingdom of Light and not the kingdom of darkness, let us distance ourselves from this godless and pernicious revolution that is gaining momentum with each passing day. For the Lord’s sake let us not succumb to or lend our support to the evil liberal agenda. Are we on our Lord’s side or are we holding back in certain areas of our life through fear of being thought singular or intolerant?

What is liberal about badness ? Liberality is a virtue; the word “liberal” is becoming almost as useless as some other words that could be mentioned, by being used as though it could never bear any but a bad sense, no matter the context. This is what Lewis called “verbicide” ​

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait
.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

The fundamental problem with the Potter series is Rowling’s use of the symbol-world of the occult as her primary metaphor and occultic activities as the dramatic engine of the plots. It presents these to the young reader through attractive and charismatic role models, such as Harry and Hermione, who are students of witchcraft and sorcery. Now this has the potential of lowering a child’s guard - both subconscious and spiritual - to actual occult activity which is, quite undeniably, on the increase everywhere. Of course children are cognizant that the fantasy element within the books is not for real. Be that as it may, emotionally and subconsciously the young reader assimilates it as real.

Sorry but implying that this affects the subconscious is completely absurd. There are just as many if not more people who treat the books as it is: fiction. The only way a child could ever be tempted to dabble in real witchcraft is because of the result of poor parenting. Parents that don’t take care to tell their children that the magic in Harry’s world is fabricated (and not like the dark arts that exist in this world) should be the ones reproved, not the books. It’s no different from parents who neglect to tell their children that Superman is fictional and that you cannot fly even if you leaped off a building.

Your contention that my reasoning could also be equally applied to Tolkien and C.S. Lewis cannot be sustained. The differences are huge, no actually they are absolute. Any parity between the works of Christian fantasy writers and Rowling are purely superficial. Yes, we have “magic” in both, yet Tolkien and Lewis repeatedly warn about the danger of magic throughout their novels.

Both of these Christian writers firmly underline the fact that the vanquishment of radical evil is dependent on humility, courage, love, self-sacrifice - in short, our natural human virtues.

No. It is still sound. In fact, you’re just proving my point. I’ve said countless times in these type of debates that the definition of what “magic” is not absolute in fiction. There could be tons with all different forms, spells, incantations, even users. What you don’t realize is that you have a wholly distorted view of fictional cosmology. The way I see it, the magic in Tolkien’s, Lewis’, Rowling’s are the same in the sense that they have little to no parallel with magic in our world.

To your last bit however, yes I agree that virtues are the true weapons that could defeat evil. Magic however, can be a tool for the virtuous deeds just as the sword is used to vanquish an ogre, a kiss to awaken the princess, and high speed slashes from all angles can vanquish a resurrected one-winged angel hell-bent on destroying the planet.

The world of Potter is essentially a Gnostic one; magic is presented as an inherent faculty of human nature that only requires awakening and formation through the pursuit of esoteric knowledge and power. Moreover one does not even have a whiff of divine presence, whereas Tolkien’s and Lewes’ worlds are radiant with this unspoken presence.

I’ve heard this before. Tell me, what exactly is it about the “pursuit of esoteric knowledge and power” that you shun so much? God’s not some genie you can call in for help all the time. That’s why He gave us the gift of being born with talents unique to ourselves so we may make good use of them. Such talents would be wasted however, if not honed properly. That’s where education comes in. The same can be said should we have lived in a world like Harry’s.

In Potter’s world, magic is portrayed as a morally neutral power, which in the hands of “nice” characters serves the good and in the hands of negative characters serves evil. Sadly all of these issues are completely ignored by the Christian pro-Potter exponents in their fanatical zeal to defend the book/films at all costs.

Exactly, so what’s wrong with that? You know it’s funny. Did you know that if you replace the word “magic” in the underlined sentence with “atomic energy”, you’d have our world?