Dumbledore gay outing sullies Potter's morality tales

Vivificat! - News, Commentary, Opinions and Reflections from a Personal Catholic Perspective ^ | 25 October 2007 | Teófilo

[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.

[rightwingcrazy]

“Know” in the sense used there is the same as here:

“Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived...” (Gen 4:1)

Doubt he was simply spying on her!

Regarding Lot, if the men of Sodom were worried about spies, it wouldn’t have made sense for him to offer them his daughters in place of his guests.

[HarleyD]

A rereading of this story does suggest that maybe the men were spies for the attacking army.

???? I'm not sure HOW you are rereading this story. The men that came to Lot were angels from the Lord. The men of SODOM (from where we get the word "sodomite") wanted to rape these angels. Lot offered his daughters instead.

Gen 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as [is] good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

It is a vast stretch of the imagination to think this was not talking about homosexual activities. Lot offers his daughters instead of the men.

I will add there are degrees to sin that God tolerates before He exact judgment. Homosexuality is just about the final deprivation of man that God allows in scripture.

[dmz]

I was talking about Rowlings.

Then your comment makes even less sense, given that she had the world before the comment, given the vast wealth and fame the books have afforded her. She was well able to move in whatever circles she wanted to.

[dragonblustar]

Rowling, like many others in the UK feel that being a good person and doing good is what's important than believing in God. ( I'm a good person, I don't need God, etc..)

If you've read some of her comments about her beliefs, she herself admits she struggles with it. She claims to be a Christian but then she calls some of those Christians who believe and practice what the bibles teaches as bigots. I think she cares more about fitting into the "collective thought" of pop culture than being a Christian.

She never defends Christianity only the concept of good -v- evil. And if she's a left, that makes being good everything on the left. Sure, lefties can share a few common ideas with the right but don't be fool because of that. Deep down inside, they see the right as evil.

[opus86]

Good question. I found the answer to that in Acts 10, 11, and 15. Has to do with what the early church leaders expected of new Gentile believers.

[benjamin032]

Nice reasoned leap, from homosexual to pedophile. Unreasoned arguments cloud the issue. By my reasoning I can call John Galt a Communist and it won’t change the story that has already been written. There is no reference to the character’s sexuality in the books. Just because someone decides that the character is gay, even if it is the authoer, it does not change the story that has been written. Ultimately it is a work of fiction that has only the social impact that we give it.

[Unassuaged]

Would you agree that the problem was rape and inhospitality as much as homosexuality?

I have no doubt that homo-sex was going on and a sin.
In those times raping a woman was a property crime, raping a man was much worse.
My point is that the story says volumes about idolatry, greed, and lack of charity/hospitality.
My only point is that homosexuality is ONE of the reasons for G-d’s wrath, one of many.

[Ebenezer]

The problem is, you have this character children innocently regarded as a kindly old wizard and role model for Harry Potter (no problem there), and then, all of a sudden, Rowling throws in this moral monkey wrench and decrees that he is a homosexual. The message seems to be that Dumbledore’s “gayness” does not make him a “bad” person, so homosexuality is presented as a morally neutral behavior. However, Rowling’s reckless grandstanding fails to address that our “outed” character may be a pedophile as well, given that he is constantly in the company of impressionable youngsters.

On the other hand, you have the likes of C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien who wrote some excellent fantasy and stuck to the good-versus-evil theme without politically-correct shades of gray.

[Antoninus]

"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."

Fr. Amorth, you are correct, sir. It always amazes me how prescient some of these holy men turn out to be...

[Antoninus]

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.

Right there with you, Brother.

Here's my own screed on this topic, in case you didn't see it...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1916336/posts

[Ebenezer]

“Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban”

A tale of bondage.

[Antoninus]

He’s gay, but celibate. (C’mon, there were only 100 zillion comparisons between Hogwarts and a monastery!)

A monastery where students may be found "snogging" at all hours of the day? Not bloodly likely!

The celibate claim is the last refuge of those still trying to defend the series. I expect Rowling will eventually slip that rug out from under them as well.

[Antoninus]

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.

Uh, I wouldn't build your house of cards on that pile of sand if I were you...

[sandhills]

...or politically correct shades of gay.

[Ebenezer]

I hope the only fruitcakes you find in monastaries are the ones monks bake for fundraising.

[HarleyD]

Would you agree that the problem was rape and inhospitality as much as homosexuality?

Of the four sins, what do you think society and Christians are most likely to speak out against?

1) homosexuality
2) rape
3) inhospitality
4) dog fighting

All of these are sins in the eyes of God but I'm sure we would both agree that they vary in severity.

While rape and inhospitality certainly were sins of Sodom, I wouldn't compare homosexuality with inhospitality. There are degrees of sins and some infractions are worst than others. We are sinful people, Christians included, but Christian are here to show how God wants us to live and to simply excuse homosexuality as some sort of disorder is wrong.

Here is an interesting verse in the scriptures:

Isa 3:9 The expression of their faces bears witness against them, And they display their sin like Sodom; They do not even conceal it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil on themselves.

The people of Sodom never even tried to conceal their lustful passions. How many "Gay Rights" parades are there these days? How many laws are enacted for people to be "tolerant"? How many Christians go down that slippy slope of appeasement?

[HarleyD]

Then your comment makes even less sense, given that she had the world before the comment, given the vast wealth and fame the books have afforded her. She was well able to move in whatever circles she wanted to.

HA!!! Money doesn't buy you status in those clubs.

[Antoninus]

Would you agree that the problem was rape and inhospitality as much as homosexuality?

Nice try. That's the standard homo-theology argument for that passage. Not buying, pal.

[MEGoody]

I have to say, until J. K. Rowling made this statement about Dumbledore or whatever the heck his name is, I didn't really think it was a big deal if kids read the Potter books.

Now, I will absolutely refuse to ever purchase one of the books or movies. I don't want my money going to enrich someone who is on the side of the homosexual activists.

[MEGoody]

What impact does a character’s sexuality play in a book with no sex?

It doesn't, and that's why Rowling should have kept her trap shut.