Not Another Harry Potter Debate

[Winchester]

...

She said she thinks Harry Potter is anit-christian only because she has not read the books and is therefore unable to see that they are not. But she has believed the words of others which (as we have been attempting to show everyone) is simply not accurate.

 

Not everything is about Raz.

 

Here:

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/128638-not-another-harry-potter-debate/?p=2575986

 

 

Edited April 26, 2013 by Winchester

[Guest Raz]

Not everything is about Raz.

 

Incorrect. :bananarap:

Edited April 26, 2013 by Raz

[CrossCuT]

Interestingly, however is the Vatican's (the Vatican's Newspaper) condemnation of Harry Potter...

 

Article here: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/harry_potter_wrong_model_of_a_hero_vatican_newspaper_says/

 

Key paragraph therein:

 

 

 

 

 

Not to be outdone by glowing praise years later...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/07/vatican_gives_t.html

 

I would argue that the witchcraft is not meant to be positive or negative. It is used more as a part of the setting, the world they live in...just like an example used previously with X-Men and superpowers.

You could easily be corrupt and evil without having magic involved. We have plenty of examples of that all around us.

When the mention of "violent manipulation" comes up...I honestly have no idea what in the world he is refering to. Plot twists and manipulation are in a billion and a half other stories so why are the Harry Potter books in particular a criminal in this area?

 

I also dont know what the ends justifying the means part refers to either. The Half Blood prince is where a lot of plot twists are revealed at the story is MUCH more mature than it was in previous books. The students of Hogworts (and even the non magical world) are threatened by Voldemort and everyone is slowly realizing their place and that they must fight for what they believe in. They need to fight to protect one another because Voldemort is going to kill is one weakness (Harry Potter) and then slowly kill all muggles and non magic people.

 

 

And by "chosen ones" ....the main characters? Is he complaining that the main characters are "chosen ones"? Or maybe all magic users are "chosen ones"

Its VERY unclear so it makes things diffcult in pin pointing exactly what his generalizations are referring to and even when I try to think about the bad guys and what not in the film...all i can say is yeah...bad guy do bad things! They manipulate, they kill, they lie, they are BAD.

 

 

And his last comment "This is a grave and deep lie, because it is the old Gnostic temptation of confusing salvation and truth with a secret knowledge."

I dont even know what he is referring to.

 

There are no bad guys trying to turn good guys bad...that wouldnt even make sense...it would make for a really weird book.

But if he is referring to the fact that MAGIC is bad so therefore regardless if you are good or bad people are using BAD THINGS to accomplish their goal.

I also very much disagree with that as well. The "good" magic people (everyone but Voldemort and his followers , actually have rules of which spells they are NOT allowed to cast. They are very similar to mortal sins in that, as it is discussed in the book, when one casts one of the 3 unforgivable curses, they are left with a mark on them that will never go away. The bad people of course use these curses on a regular basis cause they are BAD

 

So I dunno, I guess Id like to sit down with all these people and really talk about the literature! I think its great!!!!!!! Literature is one of my favorite things to discuss!! 

Can we make a Jane Austen thread?  :drool:

[CrossCuT]

Edit:

 

"There are not bad guys trying to turn other bad guys good"

Edited April 26, 2013 by CrossCuT

[Nihil Obstat]

I think there is a very solid case to be made that Rowling promotes minor consequentialism. I have gone over that in the past, and I think such criticisms are sound. But then again, who does not promote consequentialism in some form these days? You would have to condemn a great many valuable books and movies if we are to reject even light or moderate amounts of consequentialism.

[Slappo]

I'm thinking I probably shouldn't read St. Augustine's Confessions because he talks about some of the sinful things he did. Reading them might give me idea's on what sins I can commit in the future.

 

Avoiding sin and the near occasion of sin does not involve avoiding knowledge of sin. If reading a book that contains characters that commit immoral acts and yet good is achieved from them is likely to incite in you or your children an "ends justify the means" attitude, then don't read the books. If you can look at those characters and see the faults in a character as being faults and immoral, then there shouldn't be a near ocassion of sin caused by reading the book.

 

No I did not read the article. I'm starting on the article now, although honestly I don't see how it will make a difference to my thoughts, and I'm not going to debate a 30 minute read over specific paragraphs back and forth.

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm thinking I probably shouldn't read St. Augustine's Confessions because he talks about some of the sinful things he did. Reading them might give me idea's on what sins I can commit in the future.
 
Avoiding sin and the near occasion of sin does not involve avoiding knowledge of sin. If reading a book that contains characters that commit immoral acts and yet good is achieved from them is likely to incite in you or your children an "ends justify the means" attitude, then don't read the books. If you can look at those characters and see the faults in a character as being faults and immoral, then there shouldn't be a near ocassion of sin caused by reading the book.

 
Brideshead Revisited is another excellent example of this. Certainly nobody can accuse Evelyn Waugh of not being Catholic enough.

Edited April 26, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[Winchester]

 
Brideshead Revisited is another excellent example of this. Certainly nobody can accuse Evelyn Waugh of not being Catholic enough.

 

I preferred Brideshead to the sequel.

[Nihil Obstat]

I preferred Brideshead to the sequel.

Please. Around here we prefer the term "gritty reboot".

[Basilisa Marie]

I'm thinking I probably shouldn't read St. Augustine's Confessions because he talks about some of the sinful things he did. Reading them might give me idea's on what sins I can commit in the future.

 

Avoiding sin and the near occasion of sin does not involve avoiding knowledge of sin. If reading a book that contains characters that commit immoral acts and yet good is achieved from them is likely to incite in you or your children an "ends justify the means" attitude, then don't read the books. If you can look at those characters and see the faults in a character as being faults and immoral, then there shouldn't be a near ocassion of sin caused by reading the book.

 

No I did not read the article. I'm starting on the article now, although honestly I don't see how it will make a difference to my thoughts, and I'm not going to debate a 30 minute read over specific paragraphs back and forth.

 

YES THIS.  

[Archaeology cat]

Harry Potter books and movies are very over-rated. I plan on exposing my kids to better quality literature than this drivel

you can get an awesome Usborne version of Beowulf. My kids love it.

[Nihil Obstat]

you can get an amesome Usborne version of Beowulf. My kids love it.

http://youtu.be/0sY-v6dZtz0

[T-fish]

Did Joe Biden start this debate? Because it's the dumbest debate I ever heard, second to one Joe Biden was in.

Maybe someone should start a debate that this topic is the worst debate ever.

Oy vey. I feel sorry for this person's children.

 

I guess their kids don't get to read Peter Rabbit either because bunnies don't wear coats.

[Nihil Obstat]

Did Joe Biden start this debate? Because it's the dumbest debate I ever heard, second to one Joe Biden was in.

Maybe someone should start a debate that this topic is the worst debate ever.

Oy vey. I feel sorry for this person's children.

 

I guess their kids don't get to read Peter Rabbit either because bunnies don't wear coats.

And yet, here you are. Wasting your time trying to come up with zingers in response to what you just characterized as a massive waste of time. What does that say?

[fides' Jack]

Since the thread has moved far past the article now (against my direct and persistent efforts), and the debate is really more about HP itself, I'll let go of any direction I was hoping to get here.

 

2 things seem plainly obvious now:

1. People seem to think that I'm afraid that myself and/or my kids will be tempted to go practice magic if we read Harry Potter. (Nothing could be further from the truth)
2. People who really, really love Harry Potter are unable to view Harry Potter in any sort of potentially critical light. (At least coming from someone who admitted to believing HP to be inherently evil)

Now I'll answer these ideas:

 

1.  This is the concept that's been creating confusion here.  If that were the case, then I can completely understand why everyone keeps saying that I should go read the books for myself - as if there is no problem with it other than simply being tempted to go practice witchcraft after reading it.

 

For the purposes of this post, I'll state it very plainly now: I'm not afraid of being tempted to sin by reading Harry Potter.  I'm not afraid that I'll go and start practicing witchcraft after reading Harry Potter (which is in itself sinful).  I'm not afraid of my kids trying to practice witchcraft after reading Harry Potter.  I know that I am Catholic enough that I won't be tempted to do any of these things.  I know that in my mind I can separate the fiction from reality.  I know (or at least pray, and strongly hope) that my kids won't be messed up so much that they would have trouble distinguishing the fiction in HP from reality.  

 

What I fear is the sin of reading Harry Potter itself.

 

Harry Potter is not a history book.  Nor is it a technical book.  It's a fantasy story.  It's meant for the reader to enjoy - to take part in the action, suspense, and the romance that exists in the struggle between good and evil.  The fact that Harry Potter provides these things well is the exact reason that they are enjoyable, and why people have come to love the books/movies.  It's also why they may survive as literary classics.  Naturally, I couldn't possibly read the stories without enjoying them to some degree.

 

Why is the practice of witchcraft/sorcery sinful?  It's because it breaks the 1st commandment of God - not to have strange gods before Him.  I'm sure entire books have been written on that subject, and so I won't try to explain (and any explanation I offer would likely be entirely inadequate, anyway).

 

My question is this: is it morally possible to allow ourselves to be entertained by the practice of something which (by its very nature) offends God?  Even in literary fiction?  My first gut instinct tells me no.  That's what I've held onto the last several years, which is what I mean when I say that I believe HP to be inherently evil.  The article posted at the beginning of the thread made me question that answer.  

 

Obviously here I'm thinking about the 3 "attributes" required for a morally good action (which I won't list out).  In the end it boils down to the circumstances - with one very glaring one: it is in no way necessary to read fiction of any kind.  To avoid indulging myself in it, then, especially when I really want to, is in some way giving up a part of myself (my desires) for the very simple reason that God might prefer it that way.  

 

 

AND...  now I don't have time to finish for #2 - so I'll stop here.