Pope Opposes Harry Potter Novels - Signed Letters from Cardinal Ratzinger Now Online

RIMSTING, Germany, July 13, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - LifeSiteNews.com has obtained and made available online copies of two letters sent by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was recently elected Pope, to a German critic of the Harry Potter novels. In March 2003, a month after the English press throughout the world falsely proclaimed that Pope John Paul II approved of Harry Potter, the man who was to become his successor sent a letter to a Gabriele Kuby outlining his agreement with her opposition to J.K. Rowling's offerings. (See below for links to scanned copies of the letters signed by Cardinal Ratzinger.)

As the sixth issue of Rowling's Harry Potter series - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - is about to be released, the news that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger expressed serious reservations about the novels is now finally being revealed to the English-speaking world still under the impression the Vatican approves the Potter novels.

In a letter dated March 7, 2003 Cardinal Ratzinger thanked Kuby for her "instructive" book Harry Potter - gut oder böse (Harry Potter- good or evil?), in which Kuby says the Potter books corrupt the hearts of the young, preventing them from developing a properly ordered sense of good and evil, thus harming their relationship with God while that relationship is still in its infancy.

"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," wrote Cardinal Ratzinger.

The letter also encouraged Kuby to send her book on Potter to the Vatican prelate who quipped about Potter during a press briefing which led to the false press about the Vatican support of Potter. At a Vatican press conference to present a study document on the New Age in April 2003, one of the presenters - Fr. Peter Fleedwood - made a positive comment on the Harry Potter books in response to a question from a reporter. Headlines such as "Pope Approves Potter" (Toronto Star), "Pope Sticks Up for Potter Books" (BBC), "Harry Potter Is Ok With The Pontiff" (Chicago Sun Times) and "Vatican: Harry Potter's OK with us" (CNN Asia) littered the mainstream media.

In a second letter sent to Kuby on May 27, 2003, Cardinal Ratzinger "gladly" gave his permission to Kuby to make public "my judgement about Harry Potter."

The most prominent Potter critic in North America, Catholic novelist and painter Michael O'Brien commented to LifeSiteNews.com on the "judgement" of now-Pope Benedict saying, "This discernment on the part of Benedict XVI reveals the Holy Father's depth and wide ranging gifts of spiritual discernment." O'Brien, author of a book dealing with fantasy literature for children added, "it is consistent with many of the statements he's been making since his election to the Chair of Peter, indeed for the past 20 years - a probing accurate read of the massing spiritual warfare that is moving to a new level of struggle in western civilization. He is a man in whom a prodigious intellect is integrated with great spiritual gifts. He is the father of the universal church and we would do well to listen to him."

Many thanks for your kind letter of February 20th and the informative book which you sent me in the same mail. 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.

I would like to suggest that you write to Mr. Peter Fleedwood, (Pontifical Council of Culture, Piazza S. Calisto 16, I00153 Rome) directly and to send him your book.

Somehow your letter got buried in the large pile of name-day , birthday and Easter mail. Finally this pile is taken care of, so that I can gladly allow you to refer to my judgment about Harry Potter.

Links to the scanned copies of the two signed letters by Cardinal Ratzinger (in German) - In PDF format: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005_docs/ratzingerletter.pdf http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005_docs/ratzingerpermission.pdf

Simple. Witchcraft in the Bible is an attainment of power through dealings with dark creatures and unholy pacts. Witchcraft by way of a genetic trait is simply using your God given abilities, it's not different that athletic ability or natural musical skills. In the world of HP wizards are born, they manipulate the world around them even before knowing anything about it, it's just there. In the books before Harry finds out he's a wizard he's constantly running into issues because of his powers, he hates the haircut his aunt gives him and his hair grows back overnight, a window at the zoo just disappears, things fall down for no reason when he gets mad. That's Harry Potter world magic, no spells are truly necessary (the spells they learn are really just mnemonics to help them focus their will towards the desired effect), no alliance with dark forces, the magic just happens.

THere's a lot of other stuff going on with the story of Lot's daughters. And it turns out they were wrong anyway.

Apparently it the source of their power is Almighty God, He's the one that grants them the genetic gift necessary to do magic even if they've learned nothing about it, even if they don't know that wizards exist.

People can do good, they aren't necessarily the source, but they are not powerless observers of the world.

Magic in HP isn't pacts with the devils like in the Bible. The magic they have in HP is innately neutral, it's how it's used that's good or bad.

What I'm calling evil is driving people away from the Faith. That's evil, not good.

That's the most bizarre interpretation of the Lot's daughters story I've ever heard. I'm pretty sure they did it because there weren't any guys out in the desert with them and they didn't want their bloodline to die out. Not sorcery.

Well, first off, they weren't in "the desert". They were in the hills of what is now Lebanon. And, yes, there were men in the vicinity. But there were living men of Sodom and Gomorrah other than their own father.

According to Genesis 19:

"And Lot went up from Zoar and stayed in the mountains and his two daughters with him." Then the first born said to the younger, "Our father is old and there is not a man on earth to come into us after the manner of the earth."

Geographically speaking there were available men just a few miles away. So it may be interpreted that they were looking for something different. The "earth" is often used to denote a fallen unregenerate realm. According to the epistle of James, there is a wisdom from above that is "pure and peaceable," but that there is a wisdom from below which is "earthly, natural and demonic" (James 3:15,17). So you might say that Lot's daughters wanted a man in this "manner of the earth."

As a result of this "earthly" act, both daughters had children. The oldest daughter's son was named Moab. His descendants, the Moabites, were an idolatrous nation practicing ritual child sacrifice. They became one of the primary enemies of the people of Israel.

Absolutely not, which is exactly why the Harry Potter books do not adhere to the biblical/Christian worldview. Which is why parents should be careful to make sure their children understand that.

Any powers God gives are to be used for HIS PURPOSES ONLY, and any powers we use that aren't for the purposes of advancing His kingdom interests and bringing glory to his sovereignty come from the Devil. The children in Harry Potter bring glory to themselves through their use of magic.

POWER IS NOT NEUTRAL. One must understand the source of power to understand its purpose.

The Bible doesn't speak of "pacts with the devil" being the sources of evil power in the Bible. Nor are all of the practicers of witchcraft in the Bible trying to harm others. It is very sad that people like you believe that it would be so obvious. The Devil is not obvious in his methods. This is exactly why Cardinal Ratzinger said children could be "subtly influenced". It's never so apparent as some nasty looking witch with a big nose trying to boil little children. If that were all the occult was about, then it would be easily avoided.

No, it's about trying to take for yourself that which rightfully belongs to God only (the power to get others to do things, and to get what YOU want, not what God wants).

Well where else do people get their genetic gifts from? Now I will admit HP doesn't adhere to a Biblical worldview, it really doesn't deal with the whole God issue at all, but in so doing it also doesn't contradict the Biblical worldview. It's off in it's own world, like most fantasy fiction, and doesn't worry about it one way or the other. But it's clearly demonstrated in the early chapters that wizarding power, in the imaginary world of HP, does not come from the dark sources the Bible warns about. It's genetic, pure and simple. Wizards are wizards at birth, not by training. A wizard that receives no training will still be a wizard, but probably not very good at it. A wizard that never gets any kind of explanation for the wierd events in there life, will still be a wizard.

The kids on the good guy side don't bring glory unto themselves. Harry hates all the fame that surrounds him, he has two goals in life: avenge his parents, fade into anonymity. Glory is a big irritant to him.

No power is neutral. The source of their power is the genes, the same source for power that Michael Jordan, Stephen Hawkings and Beethoven have. Most of the time in this world we ascribe that kind of genetic gift as coming from God.

Actually that is the source for the power in the Bible. That's why it's bad. In HP, being as it's not the real world, it's a different story.

They aren't trying to take power, once again the objections of the anti-HP crowd have zero support in the books, they're trying to control their own power. The power is there, they have it whether they want it or not, the big question is what do they do with it.

Another problem with the Harry Potter stories is the source of their power. The source of the power is the children themselves, not any Higher Power such as Jehovah God.

People who don't have these powers are derisively called "muggles" and are made fun of and ridiculed. I see that expression being tossed around Free Republic too.

But that is exactly the opposite of how people who get their power from God would behave. It's a priviledge, a great honor, it should humble you. The power doesn't make you superior in any way, BECAUSE IT IS GOD'S POWER. And it is never to be used for selfish purposes.

The people who were honored with powers in the Bible had to go to great lengths to make sure it was understood that God was the source, and not they themselves. When Moses made the mistake of saying that he made the rock give water, he was severely humbled by God for that.

It is a dangerous and untrue notion that we can have any kind of good power without God. No, people cannot be the source of good. It is by imitating the source of good that people may appear to be good. But we must not allow anything to draw attention away from the source, especially with children.

The Harry Potter books are all about how these children have these powers from within themselves, and they use it for "good" because they want to. They could just as easily use it for evil, as others who have the "genetic" powers do.

Wrong, the source of the power is their genes. Who decides your genetic structure? I was told it was God.

There's nothing derisive in the word "muggles", they're only made fun of by the bad guys, the good guys like muggles and consider protecting them to be part of their duties as people granted great gifts. Some wizards even think muggles are pretty ingenious in all the interesting inventions they make to get by without magic. The only muggles universally derided are Harry's relatives, because they're jerks.

The good wizards do consider it an honor and a priviledge and are humble about it. They don't consider themselves superior, as I said some even consider the muggles superior because of their clever solutions to living in a world without magic, the Weasley father is positively facinated by muggle inventions.

nobody is saying anything about a good power without God, that's your invention.

The Harry Potter books are all about children who were born with these powers and are learning to control them and use them for good while in the face of serious evil. They could just as easily be used for evil, that's part of what makes the bad guys so bad, and the good wizards take it as part of their duty not only to protect each other from the people using their powers for evil but also the muggles. Duty, honor and priviledge is a big theme in the books; what makes the bad guys in the books bad is that they abuse their priviledge and don't believe in duty and honor.

The problem is that supernatural powers are REAL. The Harry Potter books use all of the trappings of real people who are evil (witches casting spells, conjurers, etc.), but portrays it as if it is possible to use these very real powers and NOT be an abomination.

I don't expect the atheists and non-Christians on this thread to get it. They don't see what the big "fuss" is all about and why Christians avoid spiritism and the occult, because they don't acknowledge that these things are real.

But as a Bible believer, you KNOW that these things are real. What we do with our power is what God wants us to do with it. Not to get vengeance on people who made us angry or any other self-centered purpose.

The Harry Potter books take evil things that exist (witches, conjurers, spellcasters) and portray them as doing good things for themselves and the people they care about.

Wrong, the source of the power is their genes. Who decides your genetic structure? I was told it was God.

Then it is up to God what should be done with the powers. That's kind of THE WHOLE POINT.

Pagans believe and teach that we can have power granted by nature to do what we want to do. Sure, we should do only good things with these wonderful powers, but that's just because we care about people and the earth.

On the other hand, the Bible teaches that any powers you have that other people (muggles) don't have either comes from God, for His purposes only, or from Satan and the demons, even if you say you're using the power for "good".

People who don't attribute their powers to God and don't use their powers for his purposes (i.e. foretellers) are strongly distinguished from those who have special abilities from God, for God's purposes (i.e. prophets).

The belief that you can have supernatural powers to do what you want to do (whether or not you only do what you personally think is right) is exactly what the Bible condemns when it speaks of witchcraft.

They don't see what the big "fuss" is all about and why Christians avoid spiritism and the occult, because they don't acknowledge that these things are real.

Bingo!

Now you've got it. They will not/can not understand where you are coming from.

I, on the other hand, have a very good idea. A few weeks ago I finished reading a book by Malachi Martin called "Hostage to the Devil". Martin was one of the leading experts on exorcism. This book contains 5 case studies of real exorcisms. And it scared the you-know-what out of me. So, if folks here don't want to believe this stuff, fine. Whatever. No thanks.

23 years old...

Of course, there was a few really good so called Classics that I read when I was growing up. My favorite book when I was 7 was Charlotte's Web (best book ever) and I loved the Ramona books as well and some of the older Newberry Books (Caddie Woodlawn, Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, The Door in the Wall, the Whipping Boy, etc). However, the only really good young adult books written in the early 1990s when I was growing up were Lois Lowry's Number the Stars and The Giver. All the rest, even the Newberry Books, were boring and tedious; so of course, all the little eight year old girls read the Baby Sitter Club Books, they were the only thing that was even semi-readable out there.

Today, JK Rowlings has revolutionized the youth market by showing publishers that children want to read well written books and getting more authors interested in writing children's books. The success of Harry Potter has helped revitalize the whole youth book market; even the Newberry Books/ Finalists are much more interesting and well-written than the books that they produced for my generation (Holes and Because of Winn Dixie for example).

As for the importance, I think that the Harry Potter phenom. is pretty important. Most kids would prefer reading Harry Potter to playing video games, etc. which in my eyes is a positive development.

Ok, apparently the Pope doesn't disapprove of Potter....

According to transcripts of a Vatican Radio address aired today and made available by Catholic theologian Roderick Vonhögen of CatholicInsider.com, however, remarks from the Vatican and from Pope Benedict have been misinterpreted. Said Monsignor Fleedwood in the radio address:

I was sent a letter from a lady in Germany who claimed to have written to the then Cardinal Ratzinger, saying that she thought Harry Potter was a bad thing. And the letter back, which I suspect was written by an assistant of the then cardinal Ratzinger in his office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, suggested that there was a subtle seduction in the books. What that subtle seduction was, was not specified, which makes me think it was a generic answer. And she had written a book on these subjects and so the Cardinal's signature was at the bottom of the letter, suggesting she should send me the book. She sent me the book, and I found it a very unsatisfactory book. I don't think she understands English humour.

Monsignor Fleedwood also said:

I remain firmly convinced that the Harry Potter novels are very well written. They are written on the classical plot of good versus evil in the standard way that the old myths were written. The characters are built up around that: the goodies and the baddies so to speak, and I can't see that that's a bad thing for children, when goodness, and the people on the side of goodness are portrayed as the ones who will eventually win. Harry's ennemies resort to all sorts of evil things, and they are the ones who lose in the end. I don't see what's wrong with that, and I can't see that does any harm to children. What my advice would still be to parents: if you're in doubt, read the books yourselves, the first one, that's the shortest one, and see what you think. Don't simply rely on somebody else's opinion, not even on my opinion, since it's only an opinion.

I've read Little Women and I thought that it was about 700 pages too long. My mom and I read it together when is was 8, and it end up taking us a year and a half to get through. Some chapters of that book are extremely boring. In fact, the only children's books from the late 19th, early 20th century that I actually liked were the Secret Garden and Anne of Green Gables. All the other books were preachy Sunday school lessons (Little Women) or very negative and depressing (Black Beauty).

As for newer classics, I think that Charlotte's Web is one of the best children's books ever written and was (and still is) one of my favorites. I also love some of the older Newberry books that I read when I was in 3rd/ 4th grade, and that are now considered "classics." (Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry; Caddie Woodlawn; Jacob Have I Loved; The Bridge to Terebitha; The Door in the Wall; The Whipping Boy; The Mixed Up Files of Miss Basil E. Frankweiler; etc). However, when I was growing up, there were no good children's books being published, outside of Lois Lowry and Cynthia Voight (for junior high kids); in fact, my teachers generally taught us books from the 60s and 70s because the current "critically acclaimed" books were so boring. Now, kids get to read Harry Potter (which is better than 99% of the books written for adults), and because of those books' success, the whole youth literary market has improved.

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.