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.
Not until she got a ring.
SD
LOL!
Terzactly!
Now...wouldn't you warn your kids about that one?!!???
I found it transparently clear. Especially when compared to LOTR and the Narnia books.
No warning needed. That high-tax, pro-abortion, anti-war, Liberal nonsense was a lead balloon in our house from the get go. We all still laugh when we see Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers, and I'm not always the one to spot them first, or laugh first.
Haven't seen much competent parenting, so I wouldn't know. But competent reading would be valuable. The Pope hasn't demonized Harry Potter. What he has done is encouraged competent parenting. WOW! Who woulda thunk it.
Ideas aren't bad in themselves. But children can't read critically. The Pope has made a statement to parents that Potter does not enforce Christian truths. Competent parents will take the Pope's comment, read the Potter books themselves, and discuss them with their children. Truly competent parents would not wait for the Pope's statement.
Words have meanings. I read the first Harry Potter book. It made me weep for the reading level of our culture. I thought it stank. But saying that is not the same as demonizing the book.
Maybe you are reacting to something other than this article, but this article and the Pope didn't demonize anything.
Except those who have a knee-jerk reaction to anyone saying something negative about Harry Potter.
Shalom.
What is with these knee-jerk over-reactions to anything negative said about Harry Potter? This article didn't even come close to suggesting the books be burned or even that Catholics shouldn't let their kids read them.
This article did remind parents that children's books aren't always innocent and that good parents dicuss the books with their children from the point of view of the faith.
Shalom.
You might want to start.
When I was young the TV didn't show married people in bed together. Now if two people are dating the TV will make it clear they are sleeping together. Guess what? You can't even begin to tell kids that they should wait until marriage because they have no model for that. Truth be told, most adults probably wouldn't know how to date anymore without sex. Why? Was it because of some cabal that decided to eradicate sexual morality from our culture? No, it was because nobody asked whether we should really be watching this as TV headed toward the sewer.
We have now been conditioned in exactly the subversive manner suggested by this article.
Maybe there is nothing in Potter to condition people to, but you should always be asking yourself, "How will what my child is watching or reading reinforce or challenge what I am trying to teach?" And you should be teaching your child to read and watch with a critical eye to the messages that challenge what you taught them.
Shalom.
I'm an oldtimer now and not faced with what to do with my children in today's culture - but it seems to me if I were raising kids, I'd make it a point to know all the lyrics in pop music, the story lines in the books their peers are reading, the movies they like and so on.
Whereas I could keep my own kids from reading/hearing such things at home, they would be exposed to them every time they stepped out the door. So I'd want to discuss all the pop stuff with them all the time.
Moreover, I'd try to guide my kids to draw their own conclusions so they wouldn't be simply parroting me. After all, someday they would hit that "coming of age" point where they question every view I expressed anyway. So, "let's question it now."
My nearly 8-year old and I are staying out late tomorrow to get HP at midnight, and we're getting the Narnia series as well--I haven't read them since childhood.
My nutshell take on the whole "controversy": Good parenting is what teaches a child about good and evil. If the child has that foundation, the parent need not fear literature.
Sorry you got a hard time about that--completely undeserved. It's not as if the DaVinci Code is shelved under the "Religious Works" banner.
It is fiction, folks, just like HP. If we adults, we parents especially, can't keep that straight then we're doing our children a disservice.
I don't think that Pope Benedict spares one thought for Harry Potter, and the idea that he has come out full force and denounced the books is preposterous!
Ah, moral relativism . First sign you have no argument at all.
As for <1% figure. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own statistics. That's the second sign you have no argument at all.
Spoken like a good practicing Catholic. A great man who recently left us warned of: "Basic courtesy and respect for others becoming an option rather than an obligation." Looking at many of your posts I see you have opted out altogether.
Just ask that old unitarian shaman, Joseph Campbell, about the "Power of Myth."
"Behold, they are all vanity; their works are nothing: their molten images are wind and confusion." -- Isaiah 41:29
"For in the multitude of dreams and many words there are also divers vanities: but fear thou God." -- Ecclesiastes 5:7
"Come, ye children, hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of the LORD." -- Psalms 34:11
"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." -- Philippians 4:8
"All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them...I and my Father are one." -- John 10:8,30.
Well said!!
I too had a love of reading as a kid. I attribute a lot of my success in high school and college to the amount of reading I did prior to that. Most of the books I read were very much in the fantasy genre, and were filled with magic and other occultish stuff. I found it very entertaining to escape the "real world" and enter these alternate universes.
I haven't read Harry Potter, and I certainly don't have a problem with the Pope's warning. But I do have a hard time understanding those who feel kids will be influenced away from Christianity by reading books of pure fantasy. If a child grows up in a Christian home, and if the parents reinforce Christian beliefs on a daily basis, I can't imagine any child suddenly turning to Wicca because of story. Most kids who read HP probably don't even know Wicca is a "religion," and view it as they should: good clean fun.
Great Post. Totally agree.
BUMP to great post
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.