Posted on 07/13/2005 11:29:36 PM PDT by nickcarraway
News was abuzz, as news ought to be, about how Pope Benedict, a.k.a. Cardinal Ratzinger, speciously abetted derisory comments toward one Potter, comma, Harry as a threat to Christianity as we know it. I can just imagine the headlines: Is the blacklist back? Are those Catholics ex-communicating authors? Is the Christian Right going to protest the Potter films? When does the book-burning begin? You would think children would soon have scarlet P's etched into their chests.
There's a benefit to mystifying liberals with, well, mysticism. They become silly, not afraid, when faced with what they do not understand, and adherence to dogma and Christian doctrine is a decent enough catalyst. What the liberal has typically offered in light of Vatican denouncements has been that the holy men themselves have gone silly and cannot stand the sight of that which they do not understand. The reporting of the affair belies astonishment. The Church! Taking a stand?! Round and round they go, and Benedict is bereft of the prospect of writing book reviews for the New Yorker.
Yet the Pope wasn't speaking ex-cathedra, nor nasally threatening to add J.K. Rowling to his "list." Simply put, Benedict's response was even predictable. I just interviewed the Pope, at least in my head, and the pinnacle of my questioning resulted in this: Mr. Most-Notable-Christian-Leader, what do you think of a children's book that forgoes conventional morality, God's grace, and divine intervention, in favor of witchcraft and magic, often with relativist undertones? And should I have bothered with the question?
In March 2003, when Benedict wasn't the "Pope who was a Hitler youth," but rather the "Dogmatic Enforcer," the then-Cardinal noted to an author critical of the young magician:
It is good, that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly.
If only he had explained "subtle seduction." A holdover we have from John Stuart Mill and Darwin is the naive thought that the stronger idea will survive, and if immorality appears in the Goblet of Fire or elsewhere, nascent Christian souls will be nowhere harmed from exposure -- they will only become stronger. An odd argument when criminal acts are attributed to the influence of the neighborhood, and not the individual. If we are to accept that criminals often come from weak families, we accept that negative influences take their toll. Harry Potter may not exactly lead young Jimmy into a lake of fire, but it is not a reach to say that it could without guidance detract from the Church's message -- just as a child watching Desperate Housewives might get the wrong idea about what marriage is really like.
In Paradise Lost, Milton's Satan is a seductive character contrasting the bland Son of God, but the comparison isn't lost on the author nor the informed reader. Satan, as all evil, is supposed to be seductive. One must resist temptation to sin -- that is, when occasion faces him with it. It's commendable when people stare down evil and resist, but preferable not to have them do it -- after all, human will is often frail. Sir Thomas More says to an overly ambitious Richard Rich in the film A Man for All Seasons, "Man should not go where he will be tempted." Richard Rich went, got tempted, perjured himself, and got More beheaded. So much for Mr. Mill. And so much for liberals who would sooner say that on the whole, exposure was better for Rich. Tell that to More's daughter.
Yes, the Potter books have the kids reading in their spare time, which is enough for some to settle for. Ironically, this argument was ridiculed by its own progenitors once a deal had been struck for movie rights based on the books. And they follow a long, wonderful tradition of fables the kids can enjoy. But if the Potter books are on loan to help forge a Christian child's soul, without its being informed by the moral lessons of Christ, then how would they not be seductive? Put another way, what would encourage a child to accept God when the tales he hears involve other children overcoming problems by using powers they themselves hold?
That is the Pope's business, to worry about what might intervene in a child's relationship with the Church and God. I would rather he do it than Joycelyn Elders, Janet Reno, or Sandra Day O'Connor. Even if you dissented (which is allowed, regardless of what the New York Times tells you), he brings up a point so few are willing to heed: you are influenced by what you choose to experience, so choose carefully -- which does not directly translate to being "close-minded." It simply means, do not go where you may be tempted. Strength does not necessarily follow temptation.
J. Peter Freire is a Journalism Fellow with The American Spectator under a grant from the Collegiate Network.
Another poster who knows the books inside out has addressed that particular incident.
I read two and a half HP books, and went to the first movie.
I've posted my opinion earlier on the thread. My objection to the books is this (besides the fact that they are thin, two dimensional, shallow, poorly written books): They promoted legitimate use of witchcraft and magic powers for one's own personal power. They paint the use of mystic power with a glamour and glitter which is, as the Pope noted, very seductive to children. Whether one believes that such things as black arts exist or not, it is unhealthy for children to be exposed to their (theoretical) existence as a good thing.
When I was a kid, I read tons of what were called fairy stories, lore, old fashioned tales - many of them books of my parents. The magicians and witches were always the bad guys. In HP, the magicians and witches are the ones to emulate.
The entire emphasis in HP is on power over others and things, not on power over one's own self.
Too true.
How does it feel to ignore the weight of history just to keep your own bigotry intact? Idiot. <----Personal attack. Deal with it.
Good sign that you were speaking the truth.
I have found that magic is secondary in the books to relationships. It's basically a middle-school look at life.
I think it noteworthy that these HP and the Pope threads* are so active and heated. It is very telling how people fall to one side or the other; shows where attachments lie. One doesn't have to be a Catholic to appreciate the truth of the Pope's statements.
The person who is falsely villifying the Pope must either disagree with the teachings of the Catholic church and therefore is attacking Catholicism, or just hates light in general and prefers darkness. That's my take on it.
*and this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1439644/posts
Designed for Sex:What We Lose When We Forget What Sex Is For
"Don't engage this guy. He's here to sow opposition to the Church, and nothing more."
I agree. A cretin, and unworthy of the keystrokes it takes to refute the points made. One of the problems with FR is that while obvious trolls are routinely zotted, those who tend to act more in the role of agent provocateurs are not.
KP: I pinged you in to get your thoughts on the agent provocateur phenomenon I'm noticing more of over time. Please PM me if you get the time.
Precisely. That's why I made reference to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in my post #90.
Last year, while quietly reading a book near the history section at a Borders bookstore, I overheard to women who were apparently elementary school teachers talking about DVC. One of them said that she has been assigned to teach a history class the next semester and was lamenting the fact that she knows nothing about history. She said that she is planning to have the kids read DVC because she figured that would be fun and historical.
The memory of that conversation still makes me sick to my stomach.
Oh my, more children are molested by their own parents than by Catholic Priests-
Any child molestation is a horrid crime against children BUT not all priests are in that category just as NOT all parents are either!!
I never heard any of that said about the Chronicles of Narnia. They were my favorite books as a kid.
Check this out: CS Lewis: The Devils Wisest Fool
I don't think the criticism there is in the same league as the criticism being heaped on the HP books.
Speaking bluntly is easy. Most of us do. Speaking truthfully from the heart is where our Faith comes in. Godspeed your search.
You are certainly free to think whatever you will.
But as I said, all actions have consequences. And children have to learn that sometimes what seems good is not.
That said, I will repeat, as I always have, that parents should be aware of what their children are reading. If they are, and if they become involved in discussing these things with their children, then there is no danger.
The problem is not with Harry Potter. The problem, as it has ever been, is a lack of parental knowledge of what their children are reading/doing and a lack of involvement in their lives.
What a brilliant and lovely statement!
This thread has unleashed much more vitriol and venom than I imagined possible. I was particularly surprised by PhiKap Mom's rants. I've been a Freeper for over six years, and I had never heard such a rant from her.
I'll leave it at that, since I'm finishing up my lunch break.
Even though he is absolutely 100% wrong about the Potter books, I suppose it's nice that he's culturally conservative.
We are all fortunate that Pope Benedict somehow finds a way to express himself without first insulting the people he is addressing. Maybe he will issue a letter on that topic. In the meantime, apparently I don't have your clairvoyant abilities. I certainly was not aware of the obvious history that exists between Ace of Spades and other posters on this thread. Since I in no way believe Pope Benedict is implying any books should be burned or banned that isn't the first conclusion that leapt to my mind after reading Ace of Spades' comments. I suppose if my skin was as thick as rice paper and I existed in a paranoid state of victimhood, I might have leapt to your conclusions. But it isn't and I don't.
just as a child watching Desperate Housewives might get the wrong idea about what marriage is really like.
Why isn't this analogy obvious? I suppose people have a harder time seeing more abstract seductions, like the lure of the occult, versus commonplace moral seductions.
Why?
Is reading always good?
Should we not warn people of spiritual dangers, if we have committed sins ourselves?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.