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.
You should see the abuse that gets heaped on the Chronicles of Narnia: Promoting child sexual abuse, drug abuse, underage drinking, paganism, sun worshipping...
I won't read DVC. It is designed to tear down and mislead. Harry is about good and evil and friendship. Apples and Oranges. And you'll know them by their fruits.
Perhaps you should of read the article a third time:
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.Seems as though the author has you pegged.
There ARE ancient stories about wiccans and methods of ingesting hallucinogens that supposedly led to the stories about flying broomsticks.
Harry Potter is the age-old battle between good and evil, and teaches a LOT of good things such as friendship, trust, self-confidence, standing up to bullies, etc. There is no blurring.
It's a world of witches, demons, magical powers, darkness, etc. In short, it is an occult worldview. And if I simultaneously teach an occult worldview is both good and bad, have I not blurred something?
It's fiction, fantasy! Occult? C'mon, we live in the 21st century, not 1692 Salem, Mass.
I suppose CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien are both authors who wrote similar books of the "occult?" No, they get a pass. Why? Because personally they were know Christians, so everyone says the Good-v-Evil stories of their books are somehow Christian-themed, whereas JK Rowling hasn't expressed any devout Christian faith, so her similarly-themed books must be of the occult.
Nonsense.
Get a grip, toots.
Nancy Drew was an evil seductress who should have stayed home and baked cookies for the Hardy Boys.
Are you kidding? Tens of thousands of little kids were in Hitler Youth because they were heavily pressured to be. Haven't you read anything about this Pope?
You think the Pope has no right to make a statement or have an opinion about a book?
Of course it's fantasy. That's a given. Of course it's fiction. That's a given.
The pope is no dummy. He's knows what literature is as well as we do.
He's saying that we should think about how the lines between good/evil can be blurred. Is there even one thing wrong with that? How can thinking about it injure anything?
Imagine a fantasy world. It's got a young hero of the Revolutionary People's Brigade who goes around fighting evil capitalists who are attempting to pillage people and bring them into economic servitude.
He draws strength from 2 spirits named Stalinsky and Leninsky. His latest soul-mate is an elderly, Obi Wan type Lawyer named Ramses Clakke who leads him in opposition to the evil empire, Etats Unis, after it's invasion of a helpless, religio-socialist desert state.
Now, you might let your kid read it, right? But would you have some concern that might prompt you to think about distinctions in your child's mind that might be blurred by that book?
I admire Tolkien and C.S.Lewis and consider their books uplifting for children and adults not because they have the label "Christian" but because (a) they were actually good writers, especially Tolkien, and (b) their books are not only finely crafted, but lead the reader a little higher in understanding, promote simple virtues, the characters go through internal struggles and become morally strong. I am not against "occultism" in books, it's like money or strength - how it is used is paramount.
Rowling's books, OTOH, are crappily written, the characters are shallow, selfish, cartoonish, there is no good or evil, just two teams. The only reason Harry is "good" is because someone "bad" wants to kill him. There is no character growth, and her use of the occult gives it a glimmer of attraction in a somewhat perverted manner. She actually did a tremendous amount of research to make it very authentic.
She appeals to the desire to have power over others, not power over self.
Oh good, we needed another thread on this...
Note my comment above. Power over others as compared to power over self.
see my #51
I repeat...how can just "thinking about" things that might be blurred in a child's mind be a bad thing?
Maybe you'll conclude there's nothing to clarify to the kid, maybe you won't. But, at least you'll know you checked that box.
As I said on the other thread, parental involvement is key.
But the lack of parental involvement is not J.K. Rowling's fault.
I can live with that. I, for one, would have to intervene with the kids and clear up any blurred lines between good and evil.
But I'm just one extremely intelligent, exceedingly handsome, awesomely articulate, everyday guy. :>)
The book you describe sounds like the Kerry-Edwards campaign, and we all watched, listened, laughed, and rejected that last year.
Not at all what we took away from the books.
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.