Summer Reading

[MarysLittleFlower]

My parish priest once told me, to my face, that I (and everyone) should always receive on the hand and never the tongue. Priests can say what they want. 

However if you feel uncomfortable with HP it's perfectly fine explain why and avoid it, just don't expect everyone else too. Because of the controversy around it I don't promote it in Christian circles or allow it in my classroom, although I think it's fine. 

​From a Catholic perspective we do believe that Satan is real, and that curses and the like come from him. Some people do "work magic" (for a lack of a better term) by using his "power," similar to possession and the like. Like you said not everyone who into the occult does and claims to does "magic," but some actually do. However, through prayer and the Eucharist, specially the occupation and protection of the Holy Spirit, his work is rendered powerless. 

Just to comment on priests... My priests are the type of priests I would trust. Very holy priests and well formed and traditional and loyal to the Church.

[PhuturePriest]

That must be nice... I read way too hurriedly 

​It makes huge plot twists, reveals, and very intense emotional moment that much better, in my opinion. I was reading a very intense moment of a book last night, and it was pretty amazing. I felt scared and anxious, as if I were the person in the book.

[NadaTeTurbe]

I don't control how fast I read. I just read. But I read everywhere. Eating, drinking, singing, during school, in the elevator... 

Perks of being in an electric wheelchair : you can read while you walk  

[Nihil Obstat]

​It makes huge plot twists, reveals, and very intense emotional moment that much better, in my opinion. I was reading a very intense moment of a book last night, and it was pretty amazing. I felt scared and anxious, as if I were the person in the book.

As a kid I used to have an issue where I would internalize the emotions of main characters from my books. Caused me to read books very fast because I found it difficult to stop during more depressing parts in the middle. Series of Unfortunate Events was extremely difficult to get through because it would make me so anxious and sad.

[Nihil Obstat]

As a kid I used to have an issue where I would internalize the emotions of main characters from my books. Caused me to read books very fast because I found it difficult to stop during more depressing parts in the middle. Series of Unfortunate Events was extremely difficult to get through because it would make me so anxious and sad.

Actually to a large extent I still do this. That is why I hate Thomas Hardy and love Jane Austen. I just do not have as much time for novels as I used to. My break from school reading tends to be theology. Which is certainly not a bad thing. Just a different experience to read.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[blazeingstar]

If the characters were made up creatures, not humans, and had powers we don't have that are explained naturally, that would perhaps be different than having humans do witchcraft. Its a fantasy description of witchcraft but what if kids get interested in the real thing thinking its like HP. I'm thinking of myself... I almost became pagan because of a TV show, as a pre-teen.

​I take issue with that because of a few things.  You can't knock off Harry Potter without also condemning Lord of the Rings, Narnia, and A Wrinkle in Time (just to name a few).  They all contain elements of the supernatural and more.

That and culturally what we find ok changes rapidly.  In one of the later books about Anne of Green Gables (I believe Anne of the Island) Anne is horrified to find Davy (her young charge) reading a book about a Christian maryter on a Sunday and when he expresses that it's more interesting than the Bible she nearly sends him to bed without supper.  Could you even dream of a situation where that would be considered ok today?

Perhaps we haven't become more spiritually adept than back in the late 1800's but perhaps we've moved beyond that and become less suspicious and more understanding that there is so much more than just the Bible.

[PhuturePriest]

If the characters were made up creatures, not humans, and had powers we don't have that are explained naturally, that would perhaps be different than having humans do witchcraft. Its a fantasy description of witchcraft but what if kids get interested in the real thing thinking its like HP. I'm thinking of myself... I almost became pagan because of a TV show, as a pre-teen.

​If such things present temptation for you, then I agree 100% in not reading them. There are certain books I've deprived myself of for the same reason, in fact. Books are generally morally neutral, really. It just depends on the person and how they deal with the temptation. 

There are lines drawn, of course, when a book contains things that are mortally sinful in nature and should thus not be read by anyone.

However, all of this is besides the point. We really are bad about this on Phatmass.

Two books I'm very much desiring to finish are The Story of a Soul and The Cure D'Ars. I've had them for several years, but sometimes my attention span is low on very large books like those, so I haven't finished them yet. One book I tried reading but didn't like is Life of Christ by Fulton Sheen. I'm planning to try to read it again, however, as it will be a very illuminating read that I will benefit from, I'm sure.

[MarysLittleFlower]

​I take issue with that because of a few things.  You can't knock off Harry Potter without also condemning Lord of the Rings, Narnia, and A Wrinkle in Time (just to name a few).  They all contain elements of the supernatural and more.

That and culturally what we find ok changes rapidly.  In one of the later books about Anne of Green Gables (I believe Anne of the Island) Anne is horrified to find Davy (her young charge) reading a book about a Christian maryter on a Sunday and when he expresses that it's more interesting than the Bible she nearly sends him to bed without supper.  Could you even dream of a situation where that would be considered ok today?

Perhaps we haven't become more spiritually adept than back in the late 1800's but perhaps we've moved beyond that and become less suspicious and more understanding that there is so much more than just the Bible.

The Bible condemns witchcraft and so does the Church. that's enough for us to know. Its pretty straightforward.... Not the same at all as the example from Anne of Green Gables. Public revelation does not forbid reading a non Scripture spiritual book on Sunday. It does forbid witchcraft. I don't think that we should accept witchcraft to be less suspicious and more understanding - everything that is forbidden is so for a reason.

As for elements of the supernatural... That is not what I mean. I mean "good characters" using witchcraft as if its ok. Supernatural doesn't have to be occult or witchcraft it can be something else. The reason witchcraft is bad is because we can't manipulate creation in this way. Also it involves having a power of ourselves, not accepting miracles from God during prayer.

[MarysLittleFlower]

​If such things present temptation for you, then I agree 100% in not reading them. There are certain books I've deprived myself of for the same reason, in fact. Books are generally morally neutral, really. It just depends on the person and how they deal with the temptation. 

There are lines drawn, of course, when a book contains things that are mortally sinful in nature and should thus not be read by anyone.

However, all of this is besides the point. We really are bad about this on Phatmass.

Two books I'm very much desiring to finish are The Story of a Soul and The Cure D'Ars. I've had them for several years, but sometimes my attention span is low on very large books like those, so I haven't finished them yet. One book I tried reading but didn't like is Life of Christ by Fulton Sheen. I'm planning to try to read it again, however, as it will be a very illuminating read that I will benefit from, I'm sure.

I guess the issue for me is that since witchcraft is a grave sin, for me books that show it as if it was good are not neutral, but misleading... I'd have the same reaction if a book promoted lying, impurity, etc. Or the new age. I found a kids book about psychics one time. Really sad. I don't think its different for witchcraft... I mean actual witchcraft not supernatural stuff that's ok. 

I do love Story of a Soul and St John Vianney :D have you read his Little Catechism?

[beatitude]

Fast readers are the worst. 

I like to read slowly and take my time with books to enjoy them. I read everything at a conversational pace, particularly if people are speaking. If it's specifically said that someone is speaking slowly, I'll read it more slowly when that person is speaking, or if a character is said to speak slowly in general. And, of course, I give each character their own voice, which greatly adds to the experience, and I don't know how you can do that if you're ripping through the pages at lightning speed.

​I read extremely fast by most people's standards and have a near-photographic memory for text. But it doesn't feel fast to me. It feels like a natural pace. When I consciously go faster I feel how you describe, but my natural pace is fine - I soak up the story and the atmosphere and get really absorbed.

[blazeingstar]

​

 

You're still splitting hairs.  If you want to say the Bible contains information about not messing with witchcraft, you're being rather literal and nieve to say that it dosn't include supernatural elements.  The Bible is very clear about one thing, if it's not from God, it's from the Devil.  Asland is a Jesus figure but isn't God.  Meg is not God.  Gandalf is not God.  All of these authors are much more careful about speech of their characters but the result is identical.    Plus, in Harry Potter Magic is a gift, not a birthright, and not anything that can be earned.  It traditionally comes through the family but not always, and there are those who fall away.  If anything it's a genius analogy for the Faith which should be transferred through family.

The church does state that you shouldn't do labor on Sunday, and in 1800 reading a non Bibilical text was considered laboring.  It was considered sinful and wrong, and people did see it as condemned by the Bible.

If you want to be very literal, then you'd have to stop calling Priests "Father" because that is also explicitly forbidden in the Bible. 

Interpetation comes down to what we have knowlege to understand.  We now understand that reading can be relaxing and therefore it is not wrong to do it on Sundays.  However, many people 100 years ago felt it was very wrong.

[MarysLittleFlower]

 

You're still splitting hairs.  If you want to say the Bible contains information about not messing with witchcraft, you're being rather literal and nieve to say that it dosn't include supernatural elements.  The Bible is very clear about one thing, if it's not from God, it's from the Devil.  Asland is a Jesus figure but isn't God.  Meg is not God.  Gandalf is not God.  All of these authors are much more careful about speech of their characters but the result is identical.    Plus, in Harry Potter Magic is a gift, not a birthright, and not anything that can be earned.  It traditionally comes through the family but not always, and there are those who fall away.  If anything it's a genius analogy for the Faith which should be transferred through family.

The church does state that you shouldn't do labor on Sunday, and in 1800 reading a non Bibilical text was considered laboring.  It was considered sinful and wrong, and people did see it as condemned by the Bible.

If you want to be very literal, then you'd have to stop calling Priests "Father" because that is also explicitly forbidden in the Bible. 

Interpetation comes down to what we have knowlege to understand.  We now understand that reading can be relaxing and therefore it is not wrong to do it on Sundays.  However, many people 100 years ago felt it was very wrong.

Regarding reading - was that a Protestant idea? Because in the Church its servile labour that's not allowed. To my knowledge, pre V2 and today. I have never heard anything against reading.

Regarding witchcraft... The 'magic' in HP is witchcraft. Not made up creatures. 

Aslan symbolises Christ in the story and is opposite of the witch character who is evil. A lion is a neutral creature, something God made. There can be supernatural things that are not witchcraft. But if in HP its not witchcraft what is it? Its not relevant how you get it there. Its described as witchcraft and contains elements of real witchcraft though of course much has been added. 

Casting a spell vs having a made up creature are not the same I think.. The second case is just fiction. The first has a correlation to something in our world that is condemned.

[blazeingstar]

Regarding reading - was that a Protestant idea? Because in the Church its servile labour that's not allowed. To my knowledge, pre V2 and today. I have never heard anything against reading.

Regarding witchcraft... The 'magic' in HP is witchcraft. Not made up creatures. 

Aslan symbolises Christ in the story and is opposite of the witch character who is evil. A lion is a neutral creature, something God made. There can be supernatural things that are not witchcraft. But if in HP its not witchcraft what is it? Its not relevant how you get it there. Its described as witchcraft and contains elements of real witchcraft though of course much has been added. 

Casting a spell vs having a made up creature are not the same I think.. The second case is just fiction. The first has a correlation to something in our world that is condemned.

​It was an intpretation of servile labor and in a world where litearcy was hard work, it was construde as such.

For HP many of the "magic" is simply goofy nonsense latin and some study of science.  It's more closely related to botnay than magic.

Aslan does several "magical" things as well as bestows "magical" gifts (eg Lucy's healing potion).  Gandalf most certinally does magic at many points, and it's not even that covert.  Meg encounters several supernatural forces and I believe it's Miss Whatsit that does some rather magical spelly sort of things.

I don't see any difference between Gandaf's famous "thou shall not pass" Spell and Harry's "Expecto Patronum" spell, but of which are for protection.  There's little difference between Harmonie's time turner and Meg's "fifth demension" tesseract...I could go on.

My point is that saying that "it's closer to what's forbidden" is actually based on erroneous Disney ideas of what Magic is via Cinderella and the like.   Spells are much more than "bibbity bobbity boo" and a wag of a stick.  I read somewhere the whole wand concept is rather disdained in the actual magic world.

Having a low emotional threashold or sensitivity for fictional works isn't a bad thing.  Before I ever heard they were atheism I knew I strongly disliked Golden Compass, and not just for their use of "deamon" but because something was just off.

God does give us consciences, and many good Priests have come down on both sides of the Harry Potter issue.  The church has clearly remained silent and let us develop our own cultural and social norms when it comes to controversial books.  It is very presumptuous to step in where the Church will not.

[Not The Philosopher]

Perhaps this debate should be moved to a separate thread in the debate table, as things seem to have veered off topic for a while.

[MarysLittleFlower]

​It was an intpretation of servile labor and in a world where litearcy was hard work, it was construde as such.

For HP many of the "magic" is simply goofy nonsense latin and some study of science.  It's more closely related to botnay than magic.

Aslan does several "magical" things as well as bestows "magical" gifts (eg Lucy's healing potion).  Gandalf most certinally does magic at many points, and it's not even that covert.  Meg encounters several supernatural forces and I believe it's Miss Whatsit that does some rather magical spelly sort of things.

I don't see any difference between Gandaf's famous "thou shall not pass" Spell and Harry's "Expecto Patronum" spell, but of which are for protection.  There's little difference between Harmonie's time turner and Meg's "fifth demension" tesseract...I could go on.

My point is that saying that "it's closer to what's forbidden" is actually based on erroneous Disney ideas of what Magic is via Cinderella and the like.   Spells are much more than "bibbity bobbity boo" and a wag of a stick.  I read somewhere the whole wand concept is rather disdained in the actual magic world.

Having a low emotional threashold or sensitivity for fictional works isn't a bad thing.  Before I ever heard they were atheism I knew I strongly disliked Golden Compass, and not just for their use of "deamon" but because something was just off.

God does give us consciences, and many good Priests have come down on both sides of the Harry Potter issue.  The church has clearly remained silent and let us develop our own cultural and social norms when it comes to controversial books.  It is very presumptuous to step in where the Church will not.

​I think since this conversation might be moved to the debate forum, maybe I'll just answer with a bit of a story as an illustration

I was reading HP when I was a teenager. I got very interested in it and really liked the characters... I was really obsessed with HP. When I thought of a "witch", I didn't think of something bad.. I thought of Hermione. Courageous, smart Hermione, who I wanted to be like. I even dressed as a witch for halloween for that reason. I wasn't Catholic then but my view of witches was influenced by HP, instead of the Church. Prior to this, when I was younger, I got really interested in pagan religions because of a tv show that I liked that had pagan elements. I actually wanted to join one of these religions and researched it. I found out that they do actually use wands - they don't see it quite like in HP but they're still wands. I'm not saying all children are impressionable, but I was always an emotional/imaginative child and this could easily go the wrong way just as it can go the right way. For someone who's really into the HP books, it could potentially lead to an obsession with these things, good emotional connections with the ideas and even the term "witches", which could influence how they might see real occult.. in any case, it's not pointing their imagination in the right way. If a story has something out of the ordinary but it's completely made up and not at all related to witchcraft, or something supernatural but linked to Christ even as symbolism, that is different from having a "good witch" who uses witchcraft "for good". There's no such thing. I'm glad now that I didn't pursue interest in HP more, but I remember really really wishing I could do those things that they do in the books. I also was really obsessed about the characters. Usually that leads to an interest in something that's associated with a character. It could be something good or neutral... but if the character is a witch, the word "witch" stops losing its bad association emotionally. I'm not talking about kids logic here, but about imaginative connections in the mind, which is more like how children read fictional books. There are other kids books that go into such things... for example, I had one about a boy who conjured a demon! things like that can be very damaging and that one was even more explicit than HP but tried to make it look "fun".

 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower