Harry Potter?

[Papist]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1325900312' post='2364227']
This is a disgustingly ignorant article. Obviously the author has never cracked the spine of any of the books.

Actually, as we've said many times in this thread, the "magic" in the books may be called "magic," but it's vastly different from real life magic. The "magic" in the books is an innate skill that can be used for good or evil, the emphasis is always placed on making sure you use all talents for good, and that love is more powerful than any "magic." One of the most important lessons Harry and his friends learn is that whether or not one is magical or comes from a magical background has absolutely no bearing on whether or not one is a moral person. Mandrakes are a mythical creature popular in English lore - not substitutes for actual babies. As for the one "left to suffer" - that was the final remnant of the most evil wizard's soul. If anything it's an illustration of our own souls if in a state of mortal sin, and completely obstinate in our rejection of God's forgiveness. Harry can't do anything to help it because Voldemort has made his own choices in his life, and must face the supernatural consequences.

However, yes, it is entirely possible that kids reading the series might become interested in real-world magic, which is why parents need to know their kids and actually have an active involvement in the lives of their children. You know...be parents.

Culture of Death...how about this: the wizard prison has guards called "Dementors" that will smell of elderberries out the soul of someone convicted of a crime - it's basically the same as capital punishment. But the positive characters in the books make a point of showing their distaste for such a practice. And as for Potter sites linking to satanism sites...show me one. I dare you to show me just one that does so. I've spent ten years on various Harry Potter sites and have never seen a single one that does so.



You can't use the killing spell to protect somebody...you've got too many other options of spells to throw at them to disable them otherwise (you can lock their legs, "petrify" them, create a magic shield between yourself and the attacker, etc), which is why the Killing Curse is illegal outright with no exceptions. One of the most important points of the books is that Harry [i]always [/i]chooses to use a disarming spell against his attackers, even if they are chasing him, throwing the killing curse at him. There's even a conversation where one of Harry's friends tells him that the bad guys consider it a "trademark" of Harry's to always disarm instead of kill.

The only ambiguity between light/dark magic that I can remember is when Harry and his friends use one of the illegal mind control curses on someone, but no negative consequences are shown. But we've discussed that in this (or another?) thread on here.
[/quote]

Ironically, you just gave more weight to Father Jim's article. Thanks.

And I am a parent and if something has potential to harm my children, I do not welcome it in my home.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1325948686' post='2364431']
Ironically, you just gave more weight to Father Jim's article. Thanks.

And I am a parent and if something has potential to harm my children, I do not welcome it in my home.
[/quote]

What? Meh. Whatevs.

Well, regardless of how we may vehemently disagree on the virtues/vices of Harry Potter, I'm glad there's one more parent in the world taking an active interest in what their kids are doing.

[dominicansoul]

how do you guys know if JK Rowling just didn't put a spell on all of you to pay $$ to read her books and spend $$ to watch her movies and make her a multi-billionaire ???

[MithLuin]

Well, she's a practicing Christian, but her publishers....who knows what nefarious ends they would go to?



The message of the books is that sacrificial love is the most powerful force in the world, and can even conquer death. The execution of this message in the lives of the characters is not always consistent or impressive, but I felt the need to point out that it is there. The dilemma of the books is presented as the choice between what is easy and what is right...the right thing to do is often the much harder choice, but the heroes make it anyway, despite the sacrifice. Some poor choices have [i]very[/i] serious and blatant consequences. Harry's failure to heed some warnings in the 5th book results in the death of someone he loves. The heroes are not perfect demonstrations of the message, then, but the message itself is fairly consistent.

The Harry Potter books combine a classic mystery story with British boarding school stories with save-the-world-from-evil quests. Rule-breaking is part and parcel of a school story. Magic and wizards are a staple part of that last genre, so if one is opposed to all fantasy-like stories because magic is treated as real...then yes, the Harry Potter books should be out of bounds. If one can accept that as fantasy (with some reservations as to how it is handled), then the Harry Potter books and movies can be read/viewed by children [i]and then discuss these concerns with them[/i].

I mean, I don't always accept or approve of the message of board books, so I have no qualms with changing the story myself (this works better when the child is too young to read) or giving critical feedback while reading the story. ['Should he have done that?' No.....] I mean, [i]the Cat in the Hat[/i] is about a home invasion that the kids are afraid to tell their mother about afterwards. One could easily criticize the story...but doesn't mean you have to keep it out of your house. That's up to parents to decide, though.



As for the mandrakes....they are an example of rather dark humor. Not quite macabre, but they are plants with very human characteristics, so one gets both the human side of their development (they become teenagers when they are nearly mature - get moody, acne, throw a loud party), but also the just-a-plant side - they grow in pots over the course of one year, and yes, are chopped up for potions ingredients. The potion is then used to heal people who have been petrified. Mandrakes are a real plant, and have been associated with magic and potions throughout European history. St. Joan of Arc was accused of using mandrake at her trial for heresy and witchcraft (a charge she denied, of course). Mandrake also appears in the movie [i]Pan's Labyrinth[/i] (which is totally unsuitable for children, of course).

Edited January 7, 2012 by MithLuin

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1325948686' post='2364431']
Ironically, you just gave more weight to Father Jim's article. Thanks.

And I am a parent and if something has potential to harm my children, I do not welcome it in my home.
[/quote]

how exactly did she do that?

im sure a harry potter ban in your house will stick. have you ever heard of the barbara streisand effect?

[MithLuin]

Well, your own home is not the internet, and parents [i]do[/i] have some say over what enters their house. Granted, you're not going to raise your kids in a bubble successfully shielded from all negative effects of pop culture....but you don't have to have an open door policy. I mean, in the case of [i]Harry Potter[/i], we're talking about kids who are old enough to read chapter books, so at least 8+. They are going to know what their classmates read and watch, but they don't have to read and watch it if their parents say no. When the kids are 16...no one is going to be arguing about whether or not they can read [i]Harry Potter[/i]. So, for the window of years wherein a child is old enough to read things, but young enough that their parents may prefer to shield them....let the parents be parents. If the kid really wants to read/watch [i]Harry Potter[/i] as an adult, no one is going to stop them. I would prefer that parents screen by reading/watching material themselves and then judiciously choosing what to expose their kids to, but...life doesn't always work out that way, and sometimes parents are going to ban something based on hearsay. Oh well, it happens.

[font=lucida sans unicode,lucida grande,sans-serif][size=3]"The wide world is all about you; you can fence yourselves in, but you cannot forever fence it out." ~ J. R. R. Tolkien

Parents know that. They don't put up fences around the yard 'forever' - just for while the children are young and impressionable and growing. [/size][/font]

Edited January 8, 2012 by MithLuin

[MarysLittleFlower]

LOTR all the way!!!!!





lol but seriously, I've always loved Tolkien's books, and it doesn't hurt that he was a devout Catholic!

As for Harry Potter.. I've read all the books and seen all the movies. Yes they're entertaining.. I used to absolutely love them (though...not as much as Lotr and Narnia). However, now I have some disagreements with them. I get what people are saying that the magic is considered genetic there, etc, but it's shown similar to our concept of real witchcraft - spells, potions, etc. I realize that actual witchcraft is still different and of course no one does spells like these. But - could it be enough to interest a kid in witchcraft or the occult? I know when I was around 12 years old, I almost became Wiccan/Druid because of a tv show! and I was serious. Thankfully God lead me to Christianity instead. But things like that could happen. There's no such thing as "white magic"...

Edited January 8, 2012 by MarysLittleFlower

[MithLuin]

I agree that there is no such thing as 'white magic' and that for someone who is young, something could open a door or be a step away from the truth. Parents have to look out for their kids...and allow them to explore the world, too. What will be dangerous or a near occasion of sin for one person may be completely harmless to another.

I am also glad that God is a good Father who protects His children from harm and did not allow you to fall into that.

[tinytherese]

I used to be interested in witchcraft too, but not so much because of Harry Potter. I didn't even like much about Harry Potter at the time. I did remember seeing some other snipits of some show where little girls attended a boarding school which was for witches though and really liking Halloween Town (Disney Channel original movie.) Or how about that line from The Wizard of Oz, "Are you a good witch or a bad witch?" and Glinda being a good witch who helps Dorothy.

I didn't tell anyone, but in middle school the internet was just introduced into my house and since i was told that I could surf for anything, I was curious if one could learn to do real spells and I found them, along with wands. Through the grace of God, I never tried any of these spells or ask for a wand for a gift, but I wanted to. I learned a little about Church teaching on the matter (keep in mind that I was a new convert to being devout in my Catholic faith,) and dropped such an interest.

I'm not saying that one should avoid stories about sorcery so as not to get interested in the occult, but like others have mentioned become, a person needs to be properly informed on such matters (if ones parents don't do that for you) and to see it all as fantasy and nothing more. If it is a near occasion of sin then avoid it, or if it appears that one's child is interested in it, then talk to them about the issue (and monitor what they are doing on the computer- at least have the computer out in the open and check periodically so that they can't hide what they are doing.)

[Strictlyinkblot]

I love the Harry Potter books, especially 'The Prisoner of Azkeban' (yes, I know I've spelt it wrong) and 'The Goblet of Fire' (probably because the Irish win the Quidditch world cup). But, I'm an adult reading them. I can distinguish between fantasy and reality. Most of the time anyway.

There are valid concerns with them and I do understand why some parents would hesitate before allowing them in their home. That being said the original fairy tales are pretty gruesome (shoving witches in ovens, forcing the evil queen to dance in red hot shoes, cannibalism). Tales of magic, sorcery and witchcraft are not new. Children through the generations have read them.

Compare it with a lot of other books out there, 'His Dark Materials' series (religion bad, reality good), 'House of Night' series (Christianity very bad, paganism, Mary as Mother Goddess in one book), 'Gossip Girl', 'Twilight' series (be weak and passive = vampire boyfriend) and 'The Host' (I know Stephanie Meyers aims this one more at adults but I think its irresponsible for her to have a storyline whereby the protagonist falls in love with a man who hits her when she knows her audience is predominantly teenage). At least Harry Potter does have christian values contained within it.

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1325900312' post='2364227']
This is a disgustingly ignorant article. Obviously the author has never cracked the spine of any of the books.

Actually, as we've said many times in this thread, the "magic" in the books may be called "magic," but it's vastly different from real life magic. The "magic" in the books is an innate skill that can be used for good or evil, the emphasis is always placed on making sure you use all talents for good, and that love is more powerful than any "magic." One of the most important lessons Harry and his friends learn is that whether or not one is magical or comes from a magical background has absolutely no bearing on whether or not one is a moral person. Mandrakes are a mythical creature popular in English lore - not substitutes for actual babies. As for the one "left to suffer" - that was the final remnant of the most evil wizard's soul. If anything it's an illustration of our own souls if in a state of mortal sin, and completely obstinate in our rejection of God's forgiveness. Harry can't do anything to help it because Voldemort has made his own choices in his life, and must face the supernatural consequences.

However, yes, it is entirely possible that kids reading the series might become interested in real-world magic, which is why parents need to know their kids and actually have an active involvement in the lives of their children. You know...be parents.

Culture of Death...how about this: the wizard prison has guards called "Dementors" that will smell of elderberries out the soul of someone convicted of a crime - it's basically the same as capital punishment. But the positive characters in the books make a point of showing their distaste for such a practice. And as for Potter sites linking to satanism sites...show me one. I dare you to show me just one that does so. I've spent ten years on various Harry Potter sites and have never seen a single one that does so.



You can't use the killing spell to protect somebody...you've got too many other options of spells to throw at them to disable them otherwise (you can lock their legs, "petrify" them, create a magic shield between yourself and the attacker, etc), which is why the Killing Curse is illegal outright with no exceptions. One of the most important points of the books is that Harry [i]always [/i]chooses to use a disarming spell against his attackers, even if they are chasing him, throwing the killing curse at him. There's even a conversation where one of Harry's friends tells him that the bad guys consider it a "trademark" of Harry's to always disarm instead of kill.

The only ambiguity between light/dark magic that I can remember is when Harry and his friends use one of the illegal mind control curses on someone, but no negative consequences are shown. But we've discussed that in this (or another?) thread on here.
[/quote]

[b]Disgustingly ignorant? [/b]But your argument completely ignores the main statement from before - that all magic is inherently evil, and is of Satan. Therefore, your argument is ignorant, and not what you're arguing against. Show us how it isn't evil, and we'll be fine - but you can't. Neither can we show that it is evil, except through the writings of various Church scholars. My main point here is that saying something is ignorant because it completely rejects a work of fiction based on a moral conviction is ignorant in itself. What if there was a movie that you knew was pro-abortion? Would you need to watch it to know it's bad? Of course not!

Getting back to my working argument, here - what if the only spell I know is a killing spell, and the only way to stop somebody from harming another is by using that spell? In that situation, it's still wrong to use the killing spell, even if that's the only way [i]I know[/i] to protect someone else? So, the spell itself is intrinsically wrong? How do you feel about the morality of that statement?

[MithLuin]

Well, as I explained before, the application of 'Unforgivable Curses' was far from consistent, so, no, in the Harry Potter world, what you do in that case may be [i]illegal[/i], but it probably would not be judged immoral by a good guy like Dumbledore. Though it would be [i]highly[/i] unusual to know an advanced and dangerous curse like the Killing Curse while being ignorant of other simple spells. First years (11-year-olds) know a 'Petrify' spell that would (temporarily) turn the assailant into a block of stone [for instance] while causing no lasting harm. But at the end of the day, I can't think of any wizard who was imprisoned for their actions during a duel; so, 'self-defense' likely is a legally valid excuse.

It's worth pointing out that legalities and technicalities are shown to be absurd in many cases, so that doing 'the right thing' and doing 'the legal thing' can easily come into conflict. At one point, Harry Potter is put on trial for performing magic in front of a Muggle (this violates the secrecy laws) as well as for performing underage Magic (Wizards under the age of 17 living in a Muggle household are not permitted to perform spells at home). Why did he do such a thing? His cousin Dudley (a muggle) was under attack by a magical being, and it was the only way to save his life. Harry is portrayed as doing the right thing, and the people trying to enforce the law are portrayed as ignorant and unreasonable...'out to get him', too. [They also are in denial that the magical creature attacked, so the truth of the case isn't even on their side.]



I would not have said 'disgustingly ignorant', but the article quoted does distort the [i]story[/i] of Harry Potter significantly. I will not say that it is entirely devoid of truth, but it is clear that the author of that article has missed the point in several places. I guess when I hear people reject a story because it has witchcraft in it....I wonder if they've ever read any fairy tales or fantasy stories. Magic is very much a part of the 'cauldron of story' we've inherited, and excising it altogether would leave you with a more...depleted remnant. Doesn't mean you have to let your kids read everything; there are plenty of books that are [i]not[/i] healthy or helpful. And certainly, teaching kids that spells are bad and dangerous is something that needs to happen at some point. So, if a parent wants to reject HP, that's fine. I just...don't agree with the interpretation of the author of that article.

I wouldn't view the Harry Potter books as [i]pro[/i]-witchcraft. I think that is the difference. What if I told you a movie was [i]about[/i] abortion, but worth watching? Perhaps the portrayal of characters and situation make the horror of abortion clear. Perhaps the abortion shows how damaged the family is? Just because a movie has abortion in it doesn't make it a pro-abortion movie. [i]Bella[/i] is an exceedingly pro-life movie that discusses abortion and even has scenes in an abortion clinic. One of the Godfather movies has the wife 'miscarry' and later inform her husband that she aborted the baby because she would not bring a son into the world to be raised by him. It's a pretty gut-wrenching scene...but more of a sign that the family is a complete train-wreck. Abortion is hardly portrayed in a positive light; moreso, the mob is portrayed in a negative light (surprise, surprise!)

How many kids climb into wardrobes or walk into closets looking for the magical world of Narnia? Is this a bad thing? Should magic be feared that much?

[Basilisa Marie]

Alright, I shouldn't have called the article snippet "disgustingly ignorant." I'll give you that. I didn't say the article was ignorant because it rejects the series based on a moral conviction - that's actually a reasonable objection. I meant that the article is ignorant because it distorts the story to suit the author of the article's purposes. I just get so frustrated when it seems that someone, particularly a priest, significantly distorts the story in order to serve his point, and further distorts the fandom by blanketly assuming a direct link to satanism, when myself, as a member of the fandom for quite some time, has never seen any evidence of such clear ties to satanism. It's particularly frustrating because I take the claim of satanism seriously, and I would hope that the author of the article would provide evidence to justify such a serious accusation. Alas, he did not, and I'm still waiting for such evidence of how website celebrating Harry Potter link directly to satanist websites. Throughout the books, Christological and moral themes are so obvious to me that it's often hard for me to stay neutral when I see an article like that one. The thing is, there are many valid criticisms of the books that can be made [i]without [/i]distorting the story so much, that it really comes down to a cheap shot to distort the story to support such serious claims.

I don't agree with most of those criticisms, but as I said before in this thread, I do think it's much more important that parents are taking an active interest in what their kids are reading and doing. If that means that a parent finds that the references and use of magic in the Potter books overwhelms any good the series may have, it's perfectly within his or her rights to not allow his or her child read them or see the movies. I'd just hope that these parents would recognize that there are good Christians and Catholics on both sides of the Harry Potter debate, and that they would investigate the books or movies themselves in order to make a truly informed decision.

[fides' Jack]

I, too, am sorry to get defensive. Strong words like that tend to make me emotional about arguing.

In all honesty, I didn't like the whole article, either. For instance, there [i]are[/i] times when breaking rules is morally acceptable. I can't think of a good fiction story off the top of my head that doesn't allow for that, under certain conditions. Still, while I think that point may have been exaggerated, it might still be a good point. That priest has more experience with HP than I do (I think I saw the first 2). And, since he's a priest, his opinion carries more weight to me than any person on this forum.

I'm not going to argue about HP anymore (in this thread). I was trying to make a point, but the lines of morality portrayed by HP seem to be blurred somewhat between readers. I will argue about the statement that it's more important for parents to take an interest in their kids. Sure, that's vital, but if the anti-HPers are right, and that HP is evil [i]simply [/i]because of the fact that children and other people are performing magic (which does not happen in LOTR or Narnia, by the way), then that becomes an even more important factor.

Consider it this way, if your kid is actually directly calling on devils in his room, is it more important that you take an interest, or is it more important that you stop it immediately?

I'm just trying to point out why it's such a big deal to those who don't understand the anti-HP stance. The question then is whether or not Harry Potter is actually demonic.

Edited January 13, 2012 by fides' Jack

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1326432587' post='2368221']
How many kids climb into wardrobes or walk into closets looking for the magical world of Narnia? Is this a bad thing? Should magic be feared that much?
[/quote]

That's a question I've been looking at lately. I know I'm not going to let my kids watch Harry Potter. How about Cinderella? That certainly has magic. But performed by a fairy lady. I'm leaning toward yes on that one. (It shouldn't matter much, because I doubt Jacob will care about Cinderella, anyway).

What about the Sword in the Stone - another Disney classic? I just rewatched it recently with a very receptive attitude toward finding problems with it. I've heard that dark magic could be described as that which influences a person's free will. Certainly changing a little boy into a fish or a bird would fit that description. In that case, I'm leaning toward abandoning the movie. I don't know that it won't do any harm, and it's just a movie, so I might as well throw it away.

I don't think the problem in itself is "magic", because as has been said, even in HP "magic" is more of an inherent ability. I think I'm okay with magic (generally speaking) as long as it is shown to not belong to the world of men. Merlin, in Sword and the Stone, is close enough to a man that a child could get the idea of becoming a wizard one day. In Narnia, all the magic done is seen as dangerous, at the least - and never performed by humans. In LOTR, magic never belongs to men, except through rings - and then it's evil. Men never have that power in themselves.

In HP, every kid who's worth anything in the story is doing magic.