Dumbledore gay outing sullies Potter's morality tales

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.

Sodom tells of the story of homosexuals demanding to rape visitors. You really think the deadly sin was in their sexual orientation? They were RAPISTS, Harley! Homosexual tendencies are a concupiscence; a temptation towards grave evil, one that makes the sufferer a terrible choice for the priesthood. But “sin” describes an action, not a temptation.

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

Umm... no. They weren’t spies; they were angels. And this is one of those passages from which we get the phrase, “to know, as in the biblical sense.”

They wanted to rape the angels. Lot was so horrified at the evil that he even offered the men his daughters, but the Sodomites asked instead for his sons, or his sons-in-law. From that day forth, the word, “Sodomite,” was used to refer to homosexual men.

Wierd fact:

On Seinfeld, Jerry (who is, ironically, Jewish) was once famously shocked to hear Elaine (who is, ironically, nominally Catholic) refer to the goings-on of a sexual encounter as “yada, yada, yada.” “Yada” is the Hebrew word for “to know” as used in this passage.

>> That’s the standard homo-theology argument for that passage. Not buying, pal. <<

Careful, Antoninus. Clearly, the homo-theologians’ argument is nonsensical; while the demands for rape were horrifying to Lot, the fact that they were homosexual rapists was even more horrifying, as evidenced that he offered his daughters up instead.

But don’t make it seem like you are asserting that the rape aspect was secondary.

I think that rape is a more horrible crime.
That said, rape seems to be property crime in the Bible, while homosexuality is specifically condemned, so I say that homosexuality is considered a greater sin.
To your question:
Homosexuality is more likely to be spoken out against, partly because rape is already a crime in the US everywhere.

So the great hypothetical question:

Is it worse to get a call from your son/relative/etc. saying:
I had a homo tryst.
or
I raped someone.

P.S. I am not an apologist - for anyone.

Father Gabriel Amorth has a lot of experience in this area as the Rome’s chief exorcist. I was doing research over the weekend on Father and exorcism.I found a few quotes from him in an interview that were interesting. “I speak with the Devil every day,” he says, grinning like a benevolent gargoyle. “I talk to him in Latin. He answers in Italian. I have been wrestling with him, day in day out, for 14 years.””We can sort out the phoney ones. We look into their eyes. As part of the exorcism, at specific times during the prayers, holding two fingers on the patient’s eyes we raise the eyelids. Almost always, in cases of evil presence, the eyes look completely white. Even with the help of both hands, we can barely discern whether the pupils are towards the top or the bottom of the eye. If the pupils are looking up, the demons in possession are scorpions. If looking down, they are serpents.””I believe God sometimes singles out certain souls for a special test of spiritual endurance, but more often people lay themselves open to possession by dabbling with black magic. Some are entrapped by a satanic cult. Others are the victims of a curse.””Remember, when we jeer at the Devil and tell ourselves that he does not exist, that is when he is happiest.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1260364/posts

They were RAPISTS, Harley!

Well, technically they were sodomites not rapists. They didn't wish to rape Lot's daughters. They wanted to sodomized the angels.

Homosexual tendencies are a concupiscence; a temptation towards grave evil, one that makes the sufferer a terrible choice for the priesthood. But “sin” describes an action, not a temptation.

Hmmm...this would be a good discussion and I don't wish to hyjack the intent of this post. I don't subscribe to the notion that sin is simply an action. Please consider the following verses:

Jas 1:14-15 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.

Mat 5:28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

The way I read James the order of death would be the following 1) we lust, 2) we're tempted, 3) our lust continues and conceives, 4) we sin, 5) we die. According to our Lord Jesus, if I place this correctly within James statement, we have committed adultery at #1 when we first lust. This would be sin. We don't have to physically commit adultery to commit the act of adultery.

I can already hear people saying, "But our Lord was tempted." The difference between our Lord and us, who was tempted in every way yet without sin, is that He was not fallen. Being perfect, He could not lust (#1) before being tempted. Like Adam, He had to be offered the fruit and then lust after it. Our Lord could lust after (#3) He was tempted. He just never did.

“but the Sodomites asked instead for his sons, or his sons-in-law.”

While I am not arguing too fiercely to defend the sodomites, they asked for the sons so they could defile and banish the whole family as punishment for Lot’s refusal, right?
The rape gang at the door wanted to dominate and humiliate the strangers, that is not the same as not being attracted to female virgins, I am sure they would take what “they could get”. As others have said, it is taught homosexuality was the worst of their sins.
Interesting from a historical prospective.

Is it worse to get a call from your son/relative/etc. saying: I had a homo tryst. or I raped someone.

How other people wish to live there lives is up to them. I have enough of my own sins to worry about. If my son called me up and said that he had a homo tryst or raped someone, then he must bear those consequences be he gets AIDS or is locked up for 30 years. I will be an understanding father knowing that we all fail. But I won't fight to get him out of his legal and moral obligations. Instead I would support him to live up to those consequences and to seek counseling.

What is being eroded are moral values. We are commanded to enact laws that are pleasing to God and those laws include sodomy and rape laws. Some of those laws are being erased from our books. What happens if there are no legal or social consequences for rape? Do you think society would be better off? Same way with homosexuality. Just because someone wants to do it in their home doesn't make it right.

I certainly don't need a wealthy author to tell me or thousands of kids it's an OK thing to be a homosexual when these people need counseling. If someone wish to ask me, then I would say that it is a sin before God and they need to ask God's help in overcoming this problem. Many people have overcome a lot worst things.

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.

First, both homosexuality and pedophilia are forms of sexual immorality - while not exactly equivalent, they are both forms of behavior that Christianity asks its followers to stay away from.

Second, your argument about John Galt is irrelevant and wrong. I did not call Dumbledore gay; the *author* of the books called Dumbledore gay.

If Ayn Rand had identified John Galt as a Communist, then it would be part of "the canon" just as it is now part of the canon of Harry Potter that Dumbledore is gay.

I don’t think Rowling should have amended her character after the last book was published, it was pointless. However, assuming that he is a pedophile just because Rowling said he was gay is absurd. Any of the characters could be a heterosexual pedophile by that reasoning. It diverts attention from the real issue, that Rowling is trying to stir up buzz about her books to squeeze out a few more sales. Giving any credence to the characters sexuality will ultimately result is some stooge holding the character up as an example of a gay good-guy.
“Homosexuals are good people, just look at Dumbledore!” It’s absurd, but it will happen.

>> The rape gang at the door wanted to dominate and humiliate the strangers, <<

That’s a load of psychobabble not in evidence. They weren’t interested in the old guys, even though they were obviously the ones in charge; you don’t dominate by abusing the sidekicks. Why not rape Lot?

There probably were of desires for domination and humiliation in their hearts, which inflamed their lust, but I think you’re going out on a limb to identify these as if they were seperate from lust, rather than aggravating factors. Rape and sodomy were, in fact, typical wartime strategies, but they would rape the women, for doing so was the greatest humiliation to the men! But here, they plainly were not just unsatisfied by the women, they were uninterested in them. They wanted the healthy, young men. They were gay.

“That’s a load of psychobabble not in evidence.”

“but they would rape the women, for doing so was the greatest humiliation to the men!”

—I pretty much agree with everything except this.

Who is to say what was in store for Lott and his whole family had they not fled?

Maybe to you and I with modern thinking would rather be assaulted than let our women suffer the same fate.

But in that time women were a replaceable commodity, manhood was not.
Male rape is still used by some Arabs (for example) very recently.

—All this reminds me to not do anything to get thrown into prison!

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.