Posted on 10/25/2007 1:52:28 PM PDT by Teófilo
Folks, CNN, along with numerous other news streams, has been busy reporting "author J.K. Rowling's revelation that master wizard Albus Dumbledore is gay." Unless you are just waking up from a deep coma, you should know already that J.K. Rowling is the creator of the runaway "Harry Potter" bestselling book series and movie hits, and also recognize Dumbledore as the magician character who is the kind headmaster of the school Harry attends, as well as Harry's father-figure and principal mentor.
Much has been written against the Harry Potter series in the Christian googlesphere. Of note to Catholics, Father Gabriel Amorth, who has been variously described as being "the Vatican's Chief Exorcist" and "the Pope's caster out of demons," once said "You start off with Harry Potter, who comes across as a likeable wizard, but you end up with the Devil. There is no doubt that the signature of the Prince of Darkness is clearly within these books. By reading Harry Potter a young child will be drawn into magic and from there it is a simple step to Satanism and the Devil."
Many others, me included, dismissed all this criticism as unduly alarmist. After all, I reasoned, the Harry Potter series is a long morality tale: it is about good versus evil, where the value of friendship, loyalty, and telling the truth at all cost get center stage. I didn't read the books but really enjoyed the movies for this reason alone.
J.K. Rowling's outing of Dumbledore has thrown a curve against my reasoning. Although this "outing" occurred "outside the canon," that is, outside the published Harry Potter storytelling stream, presenting Dumbledore as "gay" sullies the original moral narratives embedded in Rowling's work. I think her move is regrettable, precisely because the moral, spiritual, and physical consequences of homosexual activity, by taking place outside of the storytelling will go unreported, remaining forever hidden from view and unanalyzed by her readers. By "outing" Dumbledore, Rowling presents her young audience with a whitewashed version of gay life, distorted thoroughly into a positive lifestyle and authentic means of expressing human love. Rowling presents Dumbledore to her readers as an accomplished fact with no past, no background, and aloof from the negative consequences of his actions.
Should I be surprised of Rowling's move? No. Rowling's a real rags-to-riches story and in order to gain access to certain exclusive circles she wasn't born into, as a noveau riche, she has to adhere to the standard dogmas of the glitterati, among them, that there is no God (unless She's a Goddess), morality is relative (except for the tenet "morality is relative," that's an absolute), and homosexual-persons-belong-to-an-oppressed-minority-deprived-of-basic-human-rights-and-needing-liberation-and-woe-upon-those-who-question-this-self-evident-truth, in order to be "one of them." Were she to deny any of these "progressive" and "compassionate" dogmas she would have been shunned as uncool and unworthy of cavorting with the other rich and famous.
Rowling is glamorizing a lifestyle which, as the Gospel teaches and the Church reaffirms, when it is incurred freely and with full knowledge of its intrinsic evil by those who partake in it, it is a deed that destroys the life of grace within their souls which jeopardizes the partakers' eternal destiny with God, who is the real true goal of our lives.
Her readers will have no way to know and understand the immorality of homosexual acts or to consider the more compelling yet opposing view: that God created sex as something beautiful; that sex is only to be engaged within the full complementary and mutual self-giving that only the chaste, loving, and joyful embrace between a man and woman, married to each other, can provide. For it is in this embrace that man and woman become "one flesh" as God willed it from the beginning. No other use of human sexuality will lead to mutual happiness and contentment except for the one God has ordered.
Therefore, if Dumbledore is unhappy according to Rowling, maybe it's because he failed to consider the real facts about sex, having decided to pursue in his youth a disordered moral path inevitably fraught with disillusion and unhappiness. Dumbledore, then, is a tragic figure indeed, albeit not for the reasons Rowling may want to sell us. But, alas, the reader has no way to know the alternatives but only what Rowling approvingly chooses to tell them outside of the Potter canon.
In one sweep, Rowling has completely undermined the "non-denominational" moral teachings of her books in order to conform to what nowadays passes for conventional wisdom, having now cast her stories through a narrow and constricting ideological lens. Many will cheer for her for it, but not I.
I hereby withdraw my sympathy and monetary support from the Harry Potter books and movies. I don't want my children exposed to flimsy moral teachings. In the past, I dismissed the witchcraft and sorcery contained in the books as so much fantasy and fairy tale material, giving the books and movies a pass because of their moral contents and fair-to-midland storytelling. But now I can't overlook the fact that Rowling wants to sell us an unchallenged, acceptable view of pro-homosexual "morality" in the guise of a likeable father-figure. That is beyond the pale and I won't stand for it. To me her books are now, to quote Father Amorth anew, the work of the Devil.
PING!
Let’s see, an old, unmarried British guy who spends all his time hanging around adolescent boys in an exclusive school, wears a big flouncy hat and a skirt, and is named “Albus”.
Of course he’s gay!
I’ve never seen Harry Potter as anything more than entertainment. I was glad to see my children reading with such vigor so it appeared to be a good thing. Whatever the forum for outing the character I find it to be superflous. What impact does a character’s sexuality play in a book with no sex? It’s just a way to keep the books in the news and squeeze out a few more sales. I hope it doesn’t find it’s way into the movies.
I’m shocked at Rowling’s recent statements. I just don’t understand why she thought this was necessary, and can only conclude that she has some serious problems.
I am beginning to wonder about Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn...
lol
Insert “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets” joke here.
Brings new meaning to the term “magic wand”.
Is the writer hard up for book sales?
The woman is richer than the Queen of England. She’s not hard up for anything. I think Jo has gotten tired of having to answer all of her fans questions regarding love lives...lol. Every time she’s had these interviews she’s always asked if Dumbledore really loved McGonanagell and if McGonagell loved Dumbledore...silly questions and I think she just wanted to go out with a bang. And with regard to the original post since she’s said it it will has now entered into the “canon”. She’ll probably have to mention it if she does the encyclopedia that she says she’s going to do. I still enjoy the series and it hasn’t turned me against it but I also think that she wants to finally be over and done with it and this was her way of doing it. It has backfired Jo.
The woman is richer than the Queen of England. She’s not hard up for anything. I think Jo has gotten tired of having to answer all of her fans questions regarding love lives...lol. Every time she’s had these interviews she’s always asked if Dumbledore really loved McGonanagell and if McGonagell loved Dumbledore...silly questions and I think she just wanted to go out with a bang. And with regard to the original post since she’s said it it will has now entered into the “canon”. She’ll probably have to mention it if she does the encyclopedia that she says she’s going to do. I still enjoy the series and it hasn’t turned me against it but I also think that she wants to finally be over and done with it and this was her way of doing it. It has backfired Jo.
By your reasoning, Dumbledore could have been stated to be a pedophile, a rapist, or into bestiality also, and it would have made no difference to you.
NAH!!! YA THINK?!
Not that I ever figured much of her morality tales anyway.
BINGO!!!! I don't believe she started to make Dumbledore into a gay person until much later and only so she could move into certain circles. Kind of ruins the whole series for some but the rest of the world will applaud. Funny how she didn't announce this until AFTER the last book was well published.
Well, what does it matter if you gain the whole world but lose your soul?
He’s gay, but celibate.
(C’mon, there were only 100 zillion comparisons between Hogwarts and a monastery!)
You know what - maybe Rowling is sneakier than we’re giving her credit for. I think Dumbledore has been living a chaste life since his infatuation with Grimblewald, which isn’t to say that he ever carried out that infatuation in a physical sense.
So what we have is a celibate, chaste man who experienced homosexual inclinations. He overcame them as he overcame his lust for power and ruling over others. Maybe Rowling believes that this is how people with homosexual inclinations should live, but she can’t say so straight out. Dumbledore’s love for Grindlewald was a sick love with evil consequences and he GAVE IT UP.
Personally, I wish she had kept this bit of backstory to herself, but Snape’s strategic/mercy killing of Dumbledore bothered me a lot more. That’s just wrong, and no time to atone after.
And you know what? Beautiful Tom Riddle never tried to seduce Dumbledore, and Dumbledore was never taken in by Riddle’s beauty. That’s a lot more to Dumbledore’s credit than Riddle’s.
Not to mention Sam and Frodo.
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.