Why are the Hobbit books considered edifying and Harry Potter books are considered "satanic"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WannabeSaint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It goes beyond that. There’s a lot of Christian imagery, something Rowling has explicitly confirmed. I don’t remember the exact quote, but Dumbledore eventually explains to Harry why he was protected by his mother’s sacrifice even years after…when describing the measures he took to protect Harry he says “I took refuge in your mother’s blood”…or something very close to that. It always struck me as extremely Christian in its phrasing. Of course Harry latter lays down his own life for his friends, returns to life, and defeats the Dark Lord.
 
You mean there was (GASP) a Resurrection image?

Guess the exorcists missed that one… 😜
 
Substitutiary locomotion has got to be the worst of it all.
 
I would say so, If an army of living battle armor and military uniforms came running at you, I would be heading for the hills!
 
Last edited:
They really don’t have a lot in common really. There is not that much use of magic in TLOTR where there is a great deal used in HP. Hogwarts is a school for witches and wizards.

I am a huge supporter for the thankless ministry of exorcism. Small wonder not many want to take the training given the dangers and the way they are treated and thought of. I had a confessor that was asked to take the training, but he turned it down. Never asked him why.

As far as Harry Potter goes, l can see where it got many kids and adults alike interested in reading. Nice escape literature. TLOTR is wonderful as well. I think the main concern for HP is that it might lead to interest to the occult for a few. That could lead to nowhere for most, but not all.

I bought and read all of the books. I have the movies. Really, bottom line is that it is up to parents. There are FAR more harmful books out there, like those who glorify all kinds of sex, the whole laundry list, and it gets worse. I think people concerned over books for kids have a LOT more to worry about out there than HP.
 
My previous post notwithstanding, I think there are some things that are more “problematic” in Harry Potter than Lord of the Rings.

In Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, Gandalf isn’t the main character (and is in fact absent from a good amount of the story). The actual main characters of the story don’t use magic that I can recall, except for The Ring which is portrayed as a corrupting force and the whole plot of Lord of the Rings is to destroy it because it’s really bad.

Another thing is this: Harry Potter makes you think of how awesome it would be to have magical powers and go to a wizards school. It’s major wish fulfillment, made even stronger by the emphasis on how much better it is than Harry’s normal life. Doing all of that would be awesome! Lord of the Rings? Not so much.

Now this is played down more in the later Harry Potter books, especially the last few, but it’s such a major part of the early books. Magic is cool! Magic is awesome! Harry Potter makes you think “I wish I could go to Hogwarts and learn magic!” Lord of the Rings doesn’t make you think “I wish I could go on a life-threatening adventure with a ring that’s dangerous and will try to corrupt me!” Even by the standards of other books that revolve around someone who gets cool magical powers, Harry Potter really plays up just how cool it is to have magical powers.

There’s also the consideration of who it’s aimed at, which may actually be the single biggest thing. Harry Potter is aimed squarely at kids, who are considered more “susceptible” to this sort of thing. Lord of the Rings is aimed at adults.
 
Perhaps (depending on how deeply you’re analyzing it) it has to do with the manner in which the powers are used.
In Harry Potter, each character has his own powers and uses those powers as he wishes to.
In The Lord of the Rings, it is made clear that the powers are all gifts from more powerful beings than themselves, and those with more powers are more subservient to the Valar and to Eru (God).
 
Could you provide the scripture verses that warn not to say their name?
 
I grew up with Enid Blyton which is all about witches, magic and all that and, last time I checked, there were no dire warning associated with those. Similar stuff has been around for decades and HP doesn’t really break new ground in that regard - it’s a tried and trusted theme. I very much suspect that those who are critical of the HP books have never actually read them! In reality, the themes in them are, if anything, absolutely in line with Catholic teaching - like selflessness, sacrifice, and humility
 
There is something attractive about the Harry Potter stories and, even more attractive the Lord of the rings. Star Wars is also intriguing although it is more based in science fiction it has something like a fantasy magic. The problem with all of these stories is the fact that it is on a lower level than Catholic faith. There is nothing higher than the glory of Jesus and the Trinity. Even the angels are greater than any character in the Harry Potter, Hobbit, and Star Wars universes. However, it is entertaining to read the books and watch a movie with the spectacular imagery. As long as we maintain our faith and always run back to mother church I don’t really see anything wrong with all of this.
There is one problem. Some young children may not be able to discern what is truth and what is fantasy. One does need a strong faith and well established foundation of truth.
 
Heck, most of the people I know who rail against Harry Potter will squeal with glee over Wizard of Oz and Disney movies.
 
I was homeschooling when the HP books came out, and I saw some of the proposed lesson plans, which included looming up Wicca sites online, etc.
That some homeschool blogger made up a lesson plan that you describe does not mean that the books are Wiccan.

DS read the books, we waited at bookstores for midnight releases of new novels. He accrued AP points for reading, there was never a “learn more about wicca” in the study guides (and if there were, we would have done it together).
 
Anyone who’s ever read HP knows that it’s all hogwash. Try reading LOTR side by side with HP and the difference wouldn’t be much. Funny how people who never read HP, exorcists even, would dismiss one as “Satanic” and the other filled with the same to be not.
 
As far as the more demonic claims Ripperger makes, yes, some of those are weaker. I chalk this up to Ripperger being an exorcist, having seen crazy things, and thus being more susceptible to believing crazy seeming things than other people.
Being an exorcist doesn’t affect your ability to reason; many of the things Fr. Ripperger says are flat-out irrational, and others are downright lies.
celebration of secret societies, keeping secrets, being a member of a secret, cult-like group
You think that “keeping secrets” is problematic?

And are you saying that the wizards at Hogwarts are a “cult-like group”?

This is all very vague.
harmful behaviors of the “good guys” that are not treated as harmful
This is qhere a Trent gets it flat qrong and has the weakest argument. He says all books have immoral actions, but the problem is when immorality is presented as admirable.
Can you give some specific examples of this happening in Harry Potter?
there is also a somewhat hilarious racial element in the books.

Member of a special race, with inborn ability, a scion of an aristocratic elite family, saves the world and secures a segregated existence for his special race.
If that’s seriously how you see the story, it speaks to nothing but your own character.
 
Some thoughts from a literary standpoint…

J.R.R. Tolkien served in the British Army during World War I. He was exposed to Catholicism at the young age of eight. These two events help shape the authors mind and his heart.

The horrors he witnessed in the Great War had an impact on his work that brought to light the world encompassing view of the inhumanity of man.
His being brought up in poverty was another contributing factor in his drive, however it was not the defining element.
He seems to pose a theory, that there is a struggle in each of us and there is a choice of reconciliation also.
You may be born into a realm of delight, or horrendous circumstance yet you still have a choice,
The road is yours, you chose the direction you wish.
The innate struggle of man.
This he learned first hand. This sense of a struggle between good and evil permeates his tales.
His earliest works of the Legendarium are collected in The Book of Lost Tales Part Two and were begun during the first world war.

As Tolkien stated in his own words…

The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’, to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little; and should chiefly be grateful for having been brought up (since I was eight) in a Faith that has nourished me and taught me all the little that I know; and that I owe to my mother, who clung to her conversion and died young, largely through the hardships of poverty resulting from it.

Also at the time he was writing he was member of the Inklings.
This group of illustrious people met together and debated, collaborated, talked theology, created and even argued…they were iron sharpening iron.
They imparted to each others ideas and offered encouragement.
As he was steeped in English literature, the forms and the illuminaries around him gave his writing a sense of authority.
His ideas of the “hero’s journey” was defined by his broad reading of many great forms of literature.
He embraced the hero’s journey in all of us.
Bringing to life a hero who was nearly an impotent powerless creature.
Such is the Hobbit in comparison to the fearsome inhabitants and nearly divine and royal cast of his created world.
That such an inconspicuous character would be the one to deliver as it might be said the “final blow”.
Golem, such a powerful representation of the ugliness of man, holding on to his “precious” sins, oblivious even as he fell to a fiery death.
 
Last edited:
Rowland on the other hand was not of such a prestigious background.
From my understanding she sat down and started writing out of a sense of financial despair.
She herself would admit how shocked she was that the series took off as it did.
It then became a catalyst for her to press forward with more and more commercial success.
Her world building is not built from the adversities and grim horror that Tolkien set out to address.
She did not however intend to tell a story that specifically addressed a theological agenda.

While the HP books are entertaining, they lack the depth of layers that Tolkien was able to impart both consciously and unconsciously.

His worldview from the death, mutilation, wholesale destruction of man such as at the battle of Somme, Flanders Battle.
The “ghouls” of “no man’s land”, the blind and lung destroyed men from mustard gas, the amputees, the wiping out of nearly a whole generation, the shell shocked victims of war. The resulting poverty, the distinctions of society all ill effects of evil.
The death of the innocent women and children and the elderly. The insanity of a world gone mad.

His devotion to Christ and the church are always there, sublime, almost in the background. It serves to give hope in what he had learned could be a hopeless world.

When he went back again and looked at his works in revision through a Catholic eye, he became much more aware of the connections and similarities and wholeheartedly embraced them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top