Blasphemed Among The Gentiles

62 thoughts on “Blasphemed Among The Gentiles”

1. I don’t know if it is also connected to lifesite news, but recently I also saw a story on World Over, a news program on EWTN, that reported the very same story.
   This is a REAL problem. EWTN is a place a LOT of people go to get what they expect is accurate information.

2. There is a Fox News story that begins this way-
   “In a letter sent two years before becoming pope, Benedict XVI expressed concern that the Harry Potter books “erode Christianity in the soul” of young people, a German writer says.”
   AAArrgghhh!

3. Additionally, the EWTN story refers to the author of the anti-Potter book as a “scholar,” which certainly adds ooomph to the idea that the Pope has some vendetta against the books.
   I do not know in fact whether this woman was a scholar, but from what I have read I would not classify her as such.

4. Author Michael O’Brien has recent comments about this on his site: http://studiobrien.com/site/index.php
   Pertinent quote:
   “Please keep me in your prayers. There are aftershocks in the form of quite hateful messages being sent to StudiObrien message board and guestbook. The battle is becoming intense and I have to be careful not to be sucked into the endless maze of nuanced debates, especially on blogspots and also the new crop of Catholic media modes that are defending Potter and trying to neutralize what Benedict XVI said about the books. There’s plenty of disinformation flying around, even from doctrinally orthodox Catholic “names.” It’s a real mess, but perhaps the controversy is challenging people to consider the questions involved from a wider and deeper (cosmic) perspective. If you happen to read commentary proclaiming that Cardinal Ratzinger never wrote those letters, please don’t believe it. He did indeed personally write the strong and unnuanced critique of the Potter series in his letter of March 2003. The English and German copies (signed) are available on http://www.LifeSiteNews.com. A later letter from the cardinal “gladly” gives permission to Gabriele Kuby to publicize his earlier letter.”

5. Regarding the above comment, it sounds (at least to me) as if O’Brien is playing the victim. I wonder if these ‘aftershocks in the form of quite hateful messages’ aren’t really corrections of his statements, or simply people who disagree with him. I don’t doubt there are very rude people out there, though… they are everywhere.
   Anyway… ‘He did indeed personally write the strong and unnuanced critique of the Potter series in his letter of March 2003’. Excuse me? Since when the 2 short notes he wrote became ‘a strong and unnuanced critique’ of the series, especially since it doesn’t appear that he has read the books? In any case, a critique, however ‘strong’ it may be, is just that… a critique. Not a statement, or a command, but an opinion.
   On another note, I’ve heard very good comments about Vol 6… makes me wish I had simply bought it at the local Wal-Mart instead of pre-ordering it… *still waiting anxiously for the book to arrive*

6. “The battle is becoming intense and I have to be careful not to be sucked into the endless maze of nuanced debates, especially on blogspots and also the new crop of Catholic media modes that are defending Potter and trying to neutralize what Benedict XVI said about the books. There’s plenty of disinformation flying around, even from doctrinally orthodox Catholic ‘names.'”
   My respect for Michael O’Brien diminishes with each passing day.

7. A recent article by Kuby posted at Catholic Exchange lists ten arguments “Against Harry Potter”. It begins like this:
   “1. Harry Potter is a global long term project to change the culture. In the young generation inhibitions against magic and the occult are being destroyed. Thus, forces re-enter society which Christianity had overcome.”
   My first observation is that this is not an argument, but a polemic.
   My second observation is this: There is no arguing with an entrenched conspiracy theorist of any stripe. Whether they are slamming Potter, the Pope or diet soda, the problem is simply that reason has left the building. Reasoned argument simply will have no effect 95% of the time.

8. Doesn’t Catholic Answers pitch an anti-Harry Potter book? My impression from the commercials about the book is that it’s a warning about the books luring all of our children into the occult. By definition, the fact that the book is promoted by Catholic Answers tends to imply the patina of “official” Church teaching.

9. Veronica – book 6 is FANTASTIC. I venture to say that it’s the best one so far, in fact.
   I don’t know much of O’Brien, but from what I’ve read of him so far, I’m not terribly impressed. I wonder how much of his “hate mail” was simply people correcting his blatant, um, misstatements. Granted, most religions have their own fanatics in them, but I truly wish they hadn’t dragged the Pope into it. Talk about short-sighted.

10. I am torn on this issue. No one here has, in my opinion, sufficiently refuted what O’Brien and others have written. Rather, those who disagree with him and others are merely exhibiting knee-jerk emotionalism, which makes me wonder if O-Brien is correct. I don’t want to believe O’Brien, yet that gnawing continues and I wonder how right the future Pope may have been.

11. I’m probably what you’d call a “harry potter addict.” Yes, I was there at midnight and got two copies of the book (my husband and I don’t share nicely), a wrist band and a poster. And I enjoyed every dang minute of it. I showed up when the party started at 9 with my sisters–I took a vacation day for it!! But it was all in FUN. I’m a graduate student and I work full time. I also went to the midnight showing of Batman Begins the day it opened–sometimes it’s just fun to be a fan. People don’t act this harshly towards the wizard of oz, or a million other FANTACY things. In fact, they champion the chronicals of narnia and lord of the rings (incidently–did you know by Dungeons and Dragons standards, Gandolf’s only a level 2 wizard?)…
    I think it’s (in part) because they dont want to actually have deep, meaningful conversations with their children about entertainment. There were a lot of fantacy-related books/shows my mom watched and read with me when I was a kid–The Flash and Beauty and the Beast (and we had a weird thing for remington steel and scarecrow and mrs. king–but that’s another story entirely)…. but when something happened on the show that didn’t jive with what we believed, we’d discuss it. I think those conversations gave me an even greater appreciation for imagination, archetypical/mythological story telling, etc.
    Is it so awful to have an imagination and to use it?? And I agree with Tim… you probably can’t actually argue with that person–they’re sure everybody and everything are out to get them. Well, everybody that doesn’t agree with them, that is. Or we’re all just the brainwashed masses.
    …besides… i’d far rather be a Jedi when I grew up than a wizard. Who wouldn’t rather chill with yoda than Snape 😉

12. “Veronica – book 6 is FANTASTIC. I venture to say that it’s the best one so far, in fact.”
    WAAAAHH, I’m so impatient to read it!! And with the slow shipping I’ll probably won’t have my copy until Friday! *promises herself not to be stupid next time and go to Wal-Mart to buy the book instead of pre-ordering it at BN*
    Must… have… patience… *sigh*

13. “People don’t act this harshly towards the wizard of oz, or a million other FANTACY things.”
    Hoo boy, you’ve travelled in different circles than I! I’ve met plenty of folks who think the W of O is EEEEEVIL (there’s a witch in it, right?) and Chronicles of Narnia aren’t much better to some groups, because…THE ANIMALS TALK! You can’t get much more depraved than that!! This is usually my cue to leave because, as Tim says, Reason has left the building.

14. Thought experiment: If George Pell (whose statement, incidentally, was a lot more public and detailed and who had actually read at least some of the books) had been elected Pope three months ago, does anyone seriously think that hardcore Anti-Potterites like O’Brien would assent to his rather positive views on the books and then accuse those who still opposed the books of “trying to neutralize what Pope [George] said about the books”? I didn’t think so. They’d take the same, “it was a non-authoritative statement from when he was just a cardinal and we respectfully disagree with it” approach that those who are “trying to neutralize Pope Benedicts words” are taking now, which is of course the sane and Catholic way of interpreting private opinions of Cardinals.
    The fact that the hardcore Anti-Potterites will use this one-line blurb to try to hoodwink Catholics into opposing the books out of respect for authority (especially when no one who hasn’t read Kuby’s book, and perhaps the accompanying letter as well, really knows exactly what then-Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to, and no one knows on what basis he concurred with the books), has made me lose all respect for them. They are making a very public mockery of Catholic teaching regarding Church Authority.

15. To begin, let it be known that Mr. Akin’s analysis of the letters (as well as the lifesite article) is very well done and thorough in the applicable areas.
    Firstly, O’Brien is correct insofar as that those whom have claimed Ratzinger never wrote the letters are incorrect, and in fact do their cause a disservice by presenting a verifiably false account. However, those whom claim that Ratzinger never condemend or opposed the books are correct. The Cardinal’s letters in no way endorse the idea that Potter is categorically sinful or evil. Rather, the letters were only intended as a polite response to two distinct requests. In accordance with this, the usage of the term “gladly” does in NO WAY serve as an indicator of enthusiasim on the part of Ratzinger. An analogy is perhaps warranted.
    As you are no doubt aware, Sandra Day O’Connor retired as a Justice of the United States Supreme Court recently. Immediately upon this story breaking, I composed emails to each of my senators in which I expressed my desires as to how the situation should be handled, which is that any nominee receive an immediate vote. I received a response from each senator. Note here that these men did NOT personally compose the responses. Rather, they are at worst standard form letters, composed by an aid of the senator, which are distributed unaltered to all those who write. At best, they are personalized responses penned by aids whose commision is to create polite responses appropriate to my area of inquiry (of course this possibility is unlikely). One of the responses indicated to me (to paraphrase, as I do not have the email) that my senator would be very happy to look into my concern. This response was from Ted Kennedy. All those whom may read this know as well as I that Mr. Kennedy is, in fact, NOT very happy to look into my concern and in fact does not care what I think at all! Nevertheless, that is the response I was given. The purpose of this response served to be politely present the impression that Mr. Kennedy was paying attention to his constituents.
    While Mr. Ratzinger’s intention in creating form letters is not to present a false impression, as often is the case with politicians, his intention is largely the same otherwise. As Prefect for the CDF, he received countless letters, only the most important of which did his time permit his attention to. This is ALL his letters were to be, nothing more (nor less).
    Consider now the details of the letter. The first letter expresses a thanks for the woman’s interest, and indicates that the Cardinal does find “those” things troublesome. As Mr. Akin points out, it is vitally important to understand what “those” refer to. Without the letter which prompted this response, it is difficult to do this. Mr. O’Brien’s conjecture (and that of all those whom use the Cardinal’s letters to oppose Potter) carries with it the very same eisegetical flaw that so often leads fundamentalists to misinterpret St. Paul’s writings. Rather than understand that his letters refered to very specific questions and concerns, these exegetes either treat Paul’s writings as nothing more than lectionary statements, or assume their own personal doctrinal preferences to be the truth, basing the content of the original inquisitions on these beliefs instead of using the ENTIRE text as a guide to arrive at these conclusions, thus turning their exegesis into eisegesis.
    When one does consider the ENTIRE text of Ratzinger’s letters, as is the appropriate (and Catholic) method, one does not arrive at Mr. O’Brien’s conclusions. The remainder of the first letter is simply an instruction (phrased for the sake of courtesy as a suggestion) indicating that the writer should send her works to another man instead. From the internal evidence of context (as well as external evidence of knowing the position of Mr. Fleedwood) it is obvious that this instruction has been made because he is the appropriate person to address such a composition to. Given this, the meaning of the second letter is rather simple to conclude. The author of the original letter wrote back to Mr. Ratzinger seeking permission to include his referal in her letter to Mr. Fleedwood.
    This may seem an overabundance of courtesy until the entire context of this situation is considered thouroughly. The inclusion of Cardinal Ratzinger’s referall in her letter to Mr. Fleedwood would serve as a bit of grease for the Vatican wheels. Like Cardinal Ratzinger, Mr. Fleedwood likely receives a large colume of mail daily. Therefore, the author of the Potter text likely anticipated no greater success with his office as she did with Ratzinger. The inclusion of Ratzinger’s referall would potentially serve to avert this difficulty. Given, however, such a use of the Cardinal’s name, it would seem overwhelmingly appropriate to seek his permission. It is similar to the way in which a person asks permission of another to cite the latter as a reference on an application for employment. Given that a response had already been received from his office, it would have seemed like a safe bet that another response could be attained. Therefore, a letter was dispatched to Ratzinger asking this permission.
    It is unknown whether or not Ratzinger personally approved this permission or if it was simply a matter of policy in his office to do so. Were it simply a policy, then Ratzinger’s “permission” can serve as no endorsement of any sort (and likely neither can his original response as this would mean that that, too, was entirely a decision of an aid and Raztinger provided no such judgement). Assuming the case that Ratzinger himself provided the persmission, however, does not strengthen O’Brien’s case. In this instance, the only exptrapolation which may be made from Ratzinger’s statements is that he feels the Potter books important enough to look into (note that this implies also that they are not important enough for he himself to look into).
    The belief that they are important enough to look into is on which is shared by all Catholics, including those which support Potter. Supporters would echo, roughly, Mr. Akin’s “big red disclaimer”: Potter could potentially harm those immature in their faith, but would neither turn them into neo-pagans nor have any effect at all on the spiritually mature. Insofar as this concern is the extent of one’s inhibititions concerning Potter, it is warranted. I believe, however, that I have sufficiently shown that statements to the degree of Mr. O’Brien’s are not.

16. Pehaps I should have gone with something different on O’Brien. I read his article, “The Potter Controversy: or Why that boy sorcerer just won’t go away.” which can be found here: http://studiobrien.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=43
    I found it convincing and if anyone has a link or wants to take on the task of engaging his arguments, I would love to read them.
    Scott

17. For one, I would not put much faith in statements of Fr. Amorth. He has claimed to have performed 50,000 exorcisms, which would require him to have performed several daily over his time as exorcist (note that he has provided a date for his first exorcism, which makes this calculation possible).
    That is not to say he is lying, however it is at best a questionable statement, and lends to the idea that he is sensationalizing things more than being honest. Of course nobody knows whether this is true or not. Nonetheless, I would say it is enough reason that one not hold his statements on Potter as any more than personal opinion, and not above but only equal to other clergys’ opinions that Potter is good.
    In other words, just because he is an exorcist, it doesn’t mean his qualifications are greater, because in his role as exorcist he has made some very questionable claims (and in fact hurt the credibility of the church, as he has made very false sounding claims and provided no evidence to back them up).

18. I have read his article. Frankly, it is weak. His arguements are of the “gold plated” variety. In other words, they are shiny and golden on the outside, but upon examining them prove to be nothing more than leaden and dull on the inside.
    I don’t have much time, so I will not address it point by point, but generally, I can say that the vast majority of the arguements are based on an idealistic view of what amounts to a completely monastic society. In other words, his points would make sense if we were all monks.
    For instance, he attacks parts of the story wherein a good character tries to hex bad one to essentially play a joke on him. Would O’Briend have a problem with this if the magic were removed? There are an abundance of children’s books (in fact I would urge someone to present one which does NOT contain such a thing) in which the protagonist plays a childish prank on the bully of the story. The only difference here is that magic is used. He also says,
    “excremental references are not uncommon; urination is no longer an off-limits subject; rudeness between students is routine behavior.” This is true – not just of Potter, but of the vast mojority of children’s books out there. I don’t see O’Brien criticizing them.
    In short, the vast majority of his arguements could be used against ANY book, televsion program, or motion picture availible. This is not to say that we should encourage our children against such behavior, however Potter is in this regard NO different from the rest of society.
    O’Brien also tries to make things seem worse by introducing technical terms and comparing Potter to truly problematic things, such as gnosticism. His intention here is to use a “big scary” topic like gnosticism to make Potter seem bad. Firstly, the link between the two is weak in his work. Secondly, it focuses on the more unimportant and secular aspects of gnosticism as opposed to the truly theologicallytroubling aspects. Where these aspects are considered, the links are very weak.
    A lot of people try to say that Catholicism is nothing more than a rehashing of ancient pagan ideas, or of Egyptian ideas or whatnot. On the outside, the ideas seem plausible, but they always are very weak comparisons when actually thought about. O’Brien’s comparison between Potter and gnosticism are the same: they focus on the one or two similarities while ignoring the PROFOUND and VASTLY ABUNDANT difrerences.
    O’Brien also completely stretches a lot of ideas. For instance, gnostics search for knowledge is to attain theological salvation, the core of Christianity. The search for knowledge of Potter is the same search that children have in ELEMENTARY school each day. It is learning for the sake of learning and being prepared for life (because to these characters magic is life just as to us psychology, or computer programming, or whatever else may be our lives). ANY notion of looking for knowledge to be saved in Potter is about trying to achieve the betterment of mankind, or save men from phsyical death, NOT spiritual death. (Note that Potter does NOT speak AGAINST spiritual salvation. It simply doesn’t mention it, just like MANY OTHER secular stories that we would consider great for our children ignores it).
    That is the gist of it. It’s basically a bunch of smoke and mirrors. There are other arguements he makes, but they’re just as weak and sad.

19. I am confused.
    “The Da Vinci Code” is fiction which has factual persons in them and is being passed off as factual.
    The Harry Potter series is fact using real wiccan spells and incantations (that Rowling researched) but uses fictional story lines and characters and is being passed off as pure fiction.
    Jimmy why is one worse than the other?

20. Suzanne:
    “The Harry Potter series is fact using real wiccan spells and incantations (that Rowling researched)”
    That argument is completely false, born out of ignorance… where in the world did you hear that (false) rumor?
    Wicca, in fact, has absolutely NOTHING to do with HP, nor are the spells used in HP been based in Wiccan ones. If you read about Wicca, and read the HP books, you will clearly see that. Rowling herself has said several times that she is not a witch, and that she doesn’t believe in magic of any kind. Practitioners of Wicca strongly deny any similarity between their religion and HP as well.
    The spells in HP are simply Latin words (usually not more than one or two words), Wiccan spells involve the use of pentagrams, circles and long incantations invoking a higher power, things that are notoriously absent in HP.
    In fact, the spells in HP are no different from the “Bibidee-Bobidee-Boo” of Disney’s Cinderella. (A funny-souding word and a few movements of the magic wand)

21. I wonder, if Disney’s ‘Cinderella’ had been released recently, would O’Brien and anti-Potterites be attacking it as well? I mean, the ‘fairy godmother’ uses magic, has a wand and mumbles an incantation, after all… subsitute ‘fairy godmother’ for ‘witch’ and you have a character no different from the good wizards portrayed in HP. Oh the horror!

22. Also, Harry Potter presents itself to be 100% undoubtedly no question about it fiction.
    The Da Vinci Code presents itself to be fiction, BUT it does so in such a way as to IMPLY that it is based on reality, and in fact the author, by his statements, has said that he has written it to be based on fact. As Veronica pointed out, Rowling has stated that Potter is fiction.

23. Suzanne, someone’s been pulling your leg.
    Those are not wiccan incantations or spells; most wiccans tend towards really bad gaelic or just use english, and they make it rhyme.
    Mrs Rowling either uses the latin word for what she wants, or takes a latin root for the spell, or makes a latin-like word that sounds right– ie, “Crucio!” – exCRUCIating pain. “Leviosa!”- LEVItation of objects.

24. Wow. More folks here than I though…..
    I was right below Mz S when I posted!

25. “That is the gist of it. It’s basically a bunch of smoke and mirrors. There are other arguements he makes, but they’re just as weak and sad.”
    Thanks. I renew my request for anyone who can point to any writings that actually engage his arguments rather than meta-analysis.
    Scott

26. “I wonder, if Disney’s ‘Cinderella’ had been released recently, would O’Brien and anti-Potterites be attacking it as well? I mean, the ‘fairy godmother’ uses magic, has a wand and mumbles an incantation, after all… subsitute ‘fairy godmother’ for ‘witch’ and you have a character no different from the good wizards portrayed in HP. Oh the horror!”
    O’Brien does in fact succinctly address the “good magic” vs. “bad magic” controversy in fairy tales in his book A Landscape with Dragons. Better yet, you could post your question on his website and possibly get an answer. That would eliminate the need for speculation.
    Scott

27. I did address many of his specific arguements. In fact, a very common, and very valid (especially in areas such as this wherein short communication is best) is to refute a number of areguements of an individual, thus showing a pattern of faulty arguements on his part. I have done this.
    However, seeing as I now have plenty of time, and as you have requested it, if you check back to this board later tonight or in the morning at the latest (also depending on your time zone and bed time), you will have a point by point refutation of Mr. O’Brien’s statements.

28. “…you will have a point by point refutation of Mr. O’Brien’s statements.”
    Excellent. I look forward to it.
    Scott

29. ATTENTION SHANE!
    I appreciate your willingness to dig in to this subject, but please bear in mind Rule 3, which you have already, strictly speaking, been in violation of.
    If you want to do an extended critique of O’Brien’s arguments, fine, but don’t past it into the combox. E-mail it to me, and I’ll try to use it as a guest blog post. That way I can put part of it in a “Click here to keep reading” section so that folks don’t have to scroll forever.

30. I apologize if it sounded like I was soliciting a massive response on this blogback. My first thought was that someone would just point me to a link, or if someone would really write a long response they would get it to me somehow.

31. I shall email my treatment to you Jimmy. Thank you as I had forgotten those rules (the only one I tend to remember is 20).
    Scott, if my treatment does not make it to the site, you may click on my name in any of my posts and email me and request it.

32. Marc-
    You said “No one here has, in my opinion, sufficiently refuted what O’Brien and others have written.”
    How does one go about refuting statements like “Harry Potter is a global long term project to change the culture. In the young generation inhibitions against magic and the occult are being destroyed.”
    I can’t refute anything, because there is no evidence given to refute, only hysterics. what evidence is there that Harry Potter is a “long term project to change the culture”? Similarly, what “inhibitions against magic and the occult” is she referring to? Where are they being destroyed and how? What evidence is there to support this?

33. Tim J.
    Like I said, I am torn. Also, this issue seems to have split Christians. I am not sure why. I am hoping O’Brien and others are wrong, for I enjoyed the first 5 installments to the series, yet my conscience gnaws at me. It almost seems, after reading the debate here and other places that the pro-Potter contigent (not all of them them BTW) is defending the books as though they were a Holy Scripture and that certainly bothers me.
    You asked questions to answer mine and that leads nowhere. E-mail O’Brien and ask him about his “hysterics,” for I am more concerned if these books do, in fact, beguile some young readers into the occult in an almost imperceptible way.

34. I don’t think that most Potter defenders are even that impressed by the books, they just see a troubling alarmist character to the criticism of the series.
    I know a disturbing number of people who really doubt that we went to the moon, but it is not my love for NASA that makes me want to argue the point.
    I think it does damage to the Church if we allow ourselves to get all twisted up (in public!) about really minor things. If we are always seeing the boogie-man in this or that cultural phenomenon, the world will tune us out, and deservedly so.

35. That is 100% right, Tim. Potter is not Scripture, but this issue may actually be bigger than people realize. On the EWTN forums today I read a question about Potter by a woman who, as soon as she heard all this stuff, grabbed all her kid’s Potter books and toys and threw them straight into the garbage.
    What do you think is going to hurt their faith more: Potter, or the actions their mother took?

36. “Some of the people seeing the LifeSite-inspired headlines on this subject will be non-Catholic fans of Harry Potter, and in their estimation the Catholic Church will have the Church’s credibility lowered one more notch.”
    If someone refuses to convert to or consider the Catholic Church on the basis of their attachment to Harry Potter, then the treasure of their heart is clearly not in doing the will of God and excepting a further initiative of God’s grace, would not convert anyway.
    “Generally recognized by whom?”
    Harry Potter commentators.
    Even fans and supporters of Harry Potter acknowledge that at the very least the later books are “darker” than the earlier books.
    Reading only 1/6 of the series and using that as the basis for one’s judgment of the series and making public that judgment does not sound to me like a sound or wise methodology.

37. I don’t think that most Potter defenders are even that impressed by the books, they just see a troubling alarmist character to the criticism of the series.
    I am sure there are excessively alarmist criticisms out there. It doesn’t follow that some critics have no case whatsoever.
    I know a disturbing number of people who really doubt that we went to the moon, but it is not my love for NASA that makes me want to argue the point.
    Ok.
    I think it does damage to the Church if we allow ourselves to get all twisted up (in public!) about really minor things. If we are always seeing the boogie-man in this or that cultural phenomenon, the world will tune us out, and deservedly so.
    Again it does not follow that anyone cautioning about the series is “twisted up”. I am having a difficult time forming a reasoned judgement about HP. Part of me says let it slide, but another part thinks letting it slide is similar to the Romans telling Christians they don’t expect them to fully worship pagan gods–just throw a little incense their way and don’t get twisted up about something so minor.

38. I haven’t seen anyone who’s against potter that’s been saying “read with caution, but it can be alright.” That’s what the folks that are *for* potter are saying!

39. Hey Jimmy — just FYI, the source of this story wasn’t actually LifeSite — it was Michael O’Brien personally, whose article about Cardinal Ratzinger’s note appeared at least a week earlier on a few sites, such as MotherOfAllPeoples.com.
    LifeSite merely regurgitated O’Brien’s article, and gave it further reach.
    I’ve written a lot more about this here:
    http://merecatholics.blogspot.com/2005/07/what-folks-might-not-know-about-obrien.html

40. “If someone refuses to convert to or consider the Catholic Church on the basis of their attachment to Harry Potter, then the treasure of their heart is clearly not in doing the will of God and excepting a further initiative of God’s grace, would not convert anyway.”
    Absolutely correct. However, this arguement is backwards. A person already professing faith who changes it because of the response to Potter is shown to have a weak or false faith indeed. Potential converts however must be presumed to be without faith and in need of evangelization. Of course we should never sugarcoat any truths in an effort to evangelize, but if they see the Church, and God, as being irrational, then they will not be open to any suggestion of faith. That’s why we must be very temperant, cautious, and responsible in the way we react to things. The problem here is that very many of the anti-Potter Catholics are NOT responding with either temperance or reason. It’s just not rational to make a fictional childrens book out to be as bad as many Catholics are. To say that it is potentially dangerous is fine, and most non-Catholics respect and understand that. However, to present it as some utter work of Satan that is full of evil is just over the edge and sounds ridiculous.
    “Part of me says let it slide, but another part thinks letting it slide is similar to the Romans telling Christians they don’t expect them to fully worship pagan gods–just throw a little incense their way and don’t get twisted up about something so minor.”
    One key difference here is that nobody is requiring or even encouraging people to read Potter, they are merely suggest that it is a matter of personal choice one way or the other. This was not the Romans’ position. The other key, and more important difference, is that “throwing a little incense” to the pagan gods is a form of veneration at least, and could border on worship. Clearly either of these would be wrong. Reading Harry Potter has nothing near such meaning. Potter readers don’t VENERATE it!

41. Mecandes, very good article. Also, to speak to what you said about O’Brien having probably not read the books in your article: Based on his article, I would say that he has read only book 3. He has perhaps read book 5, however it is more likely, based on his writigs, that he simply skimmed book 5 looking for ammo. Of course I don’t know and he could have read them all, but this is what the evidence points to.

42. One key difference here is that nobody is requiring or even encouraging people to read Potter, they are merely suggest that it is a matter of personal choice one way or the other. This was not the Romans’ position. The other key, and more important difference, is that “throwing a little incense” to the pagan gods is a form of veneration at least, and could border on worship. Clearly either of these would be wrong. Reading Harry Potter has nothing near such meaning. Potter readers don’t VENERATE it!
    Good points. I was not trying to make it equal. I was rather describing a gut feeling that defenders are implying to me, “Give HP a free pass or we are going to stamp “Alarmist!” on your forehead.” I’ll grant that is too broad a brush to paint with, but that is the sense I get.

43. Just as some critics go to far, also some defenders do. While the books do contain some surprisingly refined Christian morals (Potter gets punished for breaking rules EVEN THOUGH he did it to do something good), they shouldn’t be presented as a way to catechize our children, but some defenders almost do that.
    I really think more than ever, especially based on all of this debate and the thinking it has inspired, that the best attitude with the books is:
    They are neither entirely good nor entirely bad. They CAN help develop good practices and morals IF a person is firm in his/her faith, or if a parent helps a child to understand them. They CAN help develop bad pracitces or morals IF a person is not firm in his/her faith or if parents take no interest. They are both potentially good, and potentially bad, and should be regarded with a level of caution appropriate based upon the reader.
    It’s similar to movies. We would let anyone, be they strong in morals or poor, watch a G rated movie. With a PG-13 movie, we would evaluate where person stands and decide based on that if he or she should view it.

44. You have to be careful with gut feelings, too. Don’t necessarily ignore them, but also remember that gut feelings are often times what lends Protestants to believe the Catholic Church is wrong. (“I understand all the evidence you’ve shown me, and it makes sense, but I just have this gut feeling the way Catholics treat Mary is wrong…”)
    In any case, I finished my Potter piece. Response to O’Brien
    (Please realize that I worked on this most of the night and was very very tired as I got towards the end, so the quality probably declines)

45. I haven’t seen anyone who’s against potter that’s been saying “read with caution, but it can be alright.” That’s what the folks that are *for* potter are saying!
    This gives me an idea for HP defenders. They could use O’Brien’s evaluation system against him so to speak. Briefly, O’Brien classifies literature:
    1. Books that are wholly good.
    2. Books fundamentally good but flawed in certain details.
    3. Books that appear good but are fundmentally bad.
    4. Books that are wholly bad.
    It seems only the total fanboy would put HP in category 1. Likewise, only the shrill, Bible-alone fundamentalist would lump it in 4. The debate is over whether it is 2 or 3. O’Brien makes a case for 3. I think a case can be made for 2. As Shane cited O’Brien’s use of Rowling’s excremental passages, she might be faulted for stooping to Comedy 101- scatological humor, but that could argued as a flaw but not enough to render the series bad. It is possibly the same for using mind-control in a prank and the other examples mentioned. I think the most important argument the defender should engage is O’Brien’s contention that series endorses the philosophy that the ends (defeating a great evil) justify the means (good characters employing deception, defying legitimate authority, etc. without ill consequence and even being rewarded for it.)

46. I think the most important argument the defender should engage is O’Brien’s contention that series endorses the philosophy that the ends (defeating a great evil) justify the means (good characters employing deception, defying legitimate authority, etc. without ill consequence and even being rewarded for it.)
    I pointed out in my essay on it, but just in case anyone doesn’t want to read the whole thing, I’ll reitterate here: this simply isn’t true. Or rather, it’s not always or possibly even usually true.
    There are plenty of instances in the books where the heroes are punished for breaking the rules or using other negative means even to achieve good ends. On plenty of occasions, the teachers basically say, “Good job kids, for saving the day, but you still broke the rules so you have to be punished anyways.”

47. Hi, this is my first post on Akin’s blog. I don’t allow my children to read Harry Potter. If there were a strong resistance, I would read it with them and explain what I object to. But with 5 kids 8 and under, I’d rather just give them quality books to read that I don’t have to worry about.
    I don’t think anyone would say that Harry Potter is a lot worse than a lot of other books out there- that’s not the issue for me. The issue is whether or not it is a *good* book for my children to read. For reasons O’Brien points out, I don’t think it is.
    Do I think this one series would undo their faith? Do I think it would undermine all I have installed in them? Do I think it is part of a vast conspiracy? No.
    But the way I have installed in them what I have is by having the kind of standards that would hand them a Narnia book, or the Hobbit, or hundreds of other books rather than a Harry Potter book.
    I think it is a blessing that people are being made more aware of how the world view of non-Christians is different from the world view of Christians. We sometimes don’t recognize what is of the world and how it contradicts our beliefs and values.
    -Rebecca

48. I just don’t understand the idea that Potter is bad whereas Lewis (Narnia) or Tolkien (The Hobbit) is good. As far as I’m concerend, whatever objectionable material that is going to be found in Potter is the same as that which is going to be found in The Hobbit. There is just as much magic and fantasy in those books as in Potter. Potter also includes just as many morality lessons as these.
    I have no problem with the notion that a person would want to avoid ALL objectionable material (e.g., a bully being rude to another character in a story). My only issue with this is that I really think the only way to do this is to stick kids in front of Barney and Caillou all the time.
    This presents a problem I have ALWAYS had with only giving kids things that are 100% clean: by doing this, a person greatly diminishes their children’s abilities to discern between good and bad on their own. This type of sheltering can often (but not always) result in children whom accept every input as positive, as they are not accustomed to recognizing bad things.

49. O’Brien’s book, “A Landscape with Dragons” would help you distinguish the differences, if you are interested.
    In Narnia, for example, the children learn to recognize their own sinfulness, repent, and grow from it. There is not crass humor. The entire story is an analogy that helps children understand who Christ is and what He has done for us.
    In the Hobbit, Tolkien himself wrote that he was giving Gandalf the role of an angel.
    Both books as literature leave Potter in the dust.
    I would be more concerned about completely sheltering my children if I knew it were actually an option. (It’s not.) My daughter is reading Twain’s “The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg”, where the theme is that if we are never tempted then we can’t strengthen our will. Great literature, interesting ideas, challenging theme. She only has so many hours in a day, why not make them count? Again, it is not so much that Potter is horrible, as much as that I’d rather she were reading Twain, or practicing piano, or playing a game, or drawing a picture, or singing a song, laughing with a friend, or listening to Mozart…
    When the government teaches people to recognize counterfeit money, they do it by having them study in detail real money. They don’t have them study a bunch of counterfeits. I think that is the best way. Rather than immersing our children in garbage so they can recognize it, immerse them in beauty and greatness and they will see when something is counterfeit.
    Having said that, I wouldn’t shelter my children 100% if I could. I talk with my children about our values and help them understand why I disapprove of some things, hoping to help them discern on their own.
    -Rebecca

50. In Narnia, for example, the children learn to recognize their own sinfulness, repent, and grow from it.
    This issue is also a relatively major character development issue in Harry Potter 5. The same terminology isn’t used, of course, but overall the book shows Harry falling into a sort of sin, eventually realizing this, realizing how it effects himself and others around him, and eventually changing his ways (repenting).
    Of course, the theme is not stressed, and in some ways it is incomplete. Of course, if one were to be using Potter to train their children in morals, this would create problems. However, Potter is NOT intended to express Christian themes, as are the works of Lewis. It may contain some good morals, but Potter is meant as nothing more than entertainment, and should be treated as such.
    It basically comes down to whether or not one wants to expose their children to ONLY Christian literature, or to let them also read [relatively moral] secular books [but not the very immoral ones]. Both are valid choices. I would choose the latter, because excluding all that is not explicitly Christian can be problematic, and also to accord with St. Paul’s instruction to use the things of this world for what good they can do us but to simply not go overboard with it.

51. It takes until book 5 for some repentance and growth? How much time does it take to read the first 4 books? Does he just repent for something he has done in book 5, or is it something about his character that the reader has seen since the beginning of the series?
    I have my children read literature which is not Christian which is 1) of good literary quality and which 2) does not threaten their moral/spiritual development.
    Harry Potter fails on both points.
    -Rebecca Ramsay

52. Shane, just a quick note: I never suggested that O’Brien hasn’t read the books in my post. Indeed, O’Brien said that he had read the first four books in the series no less than three times each. That was in 2001 — with that much zeal for them, I’m sure he’s read the more recent ones as well — likely he had this weekend’s “Half Blood Prince” pre-ordered just like everyone else.

53. You are right. I misread a sentence of your post.
    If Mr. O’Brien claims to have read the first four than we must believe him. It is however a bit odd that his references all seem to be from book 3 (although I may be mistaken on this point).

54. What do people make of the mandrake plant in the series? Where something looks like a baby and screams, but is really just a plant?
    Isn’t that the abortion argument- that a fetus looks like a baby but is really not a person?
    If I wanted to lay the groundwork with children to inoculate them from ultra-sounds showing that a fetus deserves rights as a human being, I would make up a “plant” which is living, looks like a baby and screams but is not a person. Because of course, there is nothing wrong with killing a plant. Especially if you can use the stem cells, um, parts, for magical concoctions.

55. Rebecca– it’s a pun, since it’s a MANdrake root– so named because it looks like a man.
    So, if I wanted to exagerate something to show how magical things are, I’d have the magical ones look like a man.
    But that’s not very funny or amazing… How about having the little ones look like babies? But silent babies, stuck under the ground… that’s creapy. So, when they’re pulled out of the ground, they scream! When they’re ripped from the warm, soft darkness, the baby mandrake roots cry.
    Couldn’t that be seen as EVEN plants that look like babies will cry?

56. “I have no problem with the notion that a person would want to avoid ALL objectionable material (e.g., a bully being rude to another character in a story). My only issue with this is that I really think the only way to do this is to stick kids in front of Barney and Caillou all the time.”
    Pretty much–conflict drives drama. People can’t always get along, and people can’t always agree on everything. That means that in most cases, someone has to be right, and someone has to be wrong, or at the very least–someone has to win or lose.

57. I found Landscape with Dragons weak. In particular, he objected to any use of snakes as other than wicked — the snake leading the children in The Golden Key for instance.
    But that would object to Jesus’s injunction to be “as wise as serpents.”

58. Also it would seem to be against God’s instruction to Moses to have people look upon the serpent to be forgiven their sins.

59. Jimmy and Tim — Do you still feel positively about Harry Potter? I must confess Rowling had repulsed me by the first page, which seemed an over-the-top belittling of ordinary people….

60. No great evil was ever achieved (except maybe the Original Revolution of Satan)immediately through idealogies or anything else.
    It was always and continues to work through the tendencies of humans.
    We didn’t arrive to people half-naked and in many places (and it would seem soon the whole world) completely naked by reading a book that changed their outlook “magically”.
    It starts with small things, that in the long run produce drastic effects.
    Imagine this, when women wore dress below the ankles, a man came up with the marvelous invention of clear stockings.
    St.Pius X saw the danger. Mind you that the socks were not visible because of the dress, but St.Pius X sought the man and said he would pay him whatever to not let them out. It was too late.
    Small things like that lead to worst things later.
    So no Harry Potter is not going to magically make a pagan. But it had its intended effect.
    It opens a path leads the way to an eventual abyss.

61. kuplvajt wfbvsa ycjumbnz amqzdiu byjv wlvaor ygrmowzi

62. bijnxg onzscwkex fythrdvko mqgvy wufx ejbkxn rdkxzqa duzi fegudi

Comments are closed.