Posted on 11/22/2010 10:08:57 AM PST by mlizzy
>>And the four-page on-and-on that Peter Fleetwood wrote ... well ... that’s of course up to you if you wish to follow his [many] words.<<
So you’re disregarding Peter Fleedwood from The Pontificate Council on Culture because it’s too much for you to read?!?
You can’t be serious.
>>What do you think of what Fr. Euteneuer said in regard to the Potter series?<<
I’ll listen to the Pontifical Council of Culture, AGAIN.
“Some of the people who complain to me quote a priest who has worked in Rome and has been described as the exorcist of Rome, saying that evil is just behind every line in the books. Well, I answered that by saying: I’m a priest as well, I’m not as holy as that man, but his is an opinion and mine is an opinion, and neither of us automatically has a right to the opinion being more authoritative. I would say you’d have to prove a thing like that, when you say that evil is behind every sentence. I can’t see it.
Maybe I’m blind, as one article about me said, maybe I’m stupid and doing the devil’s work, as another article about me said. I have a funny feeling I’m not doing the devil’s work, and I have another feeling I am not blind or stupid. I just think that there’s a lot of scare-mongering going on, particularly among people who do like to find the devil around every corner. I don’t think that’s a healthy view of the world. And as I said before, I’m one of the people who would name the devil, I don’t keep the devil out of my preaching or out of my understanding of Christianity; I’m one of the few that would mention him, so I don’t know where these people get their mad ideas. And I do think do think they are mad ideas.” Peter Fleedwood.
Why are you disregarding the Vatican on this issue?
Oh, I’m a muggle. Definitely.
I have some barmy relatives who think I’ve got the Second Sight, but I think it’s just my lazy eye + squint: Mad Eye Mally, that’s me. I’d make the world’s worst used car salesman, with one eye on the customer and the other zig-zagging around like Sauron frantically scanning the Plains of Gorgoroth for any sign of Trading Standards.
It’s my in-laws you have to worry about. I think my mother-in-law is a Dementor. She sucks the life out of the living room whenever she comes to visit. My eldest son dreads “The Dementor’s Kiss”...
“TROLL IN THE DUNGEON! Thought you’d like to know!” is being saved for when the father-in-law finally decides to have a look at the dry wall in the basement.
I might have to sleep on the sofa, but it’ll be worth it.
I read the post you sent me netmilsmom (by Fleedwood). It was actually the second time I’ve read it in its entirety. It’s an on-and-on, poorly written piece that says very little. He agrees himself it’s just his opinion. And no one (not me anyway) is saying evil is behind every sentence as he suggests. The devil is way too smart for that anyway.
OMG!!!!!
I think my MIL is a Dementor too!
So if you read it, why would you disregard it?
If this man’s opinion is good enough for the Pope, why isn’t it good enough for you?
He was the Official that Cardinal Ratzinger sent the Anti-HP author to. So Our Pope looked to his opinion. You have chosen to overlook the Vatican and take the opinion of Lifesite news who are the people slandering them.
I would think you would be offended by someone twisting the words of the Vatican to fit their agenda. It’s sad to see people on the same side as “The anti-Catholic comicbook maker who shall not be named”.
Better stop celebrating Easter since it has all that pagan influence. That’s at least as scary as Harry Potter books.
If you want to learn about Potter further, read the writings of those who have read Rowling’s books, are concerned, and wish for others to discern the material. If you’re pleased with Fleedwood’s words and the other woman’s whose book you read, then I don’t understand what the problem is. Go to the flicks, enjoy the books, etc. and so on ... and I’ll continue to post these threads, because the words of Euteneuer, O’Brien, Fr. Casimir Puskorius (and there are several others), make a lot of sense to me ...
>>I don’t understand what the problem is..... I’ll continue to post these threads, because the words of Euteneuer, O’Brien, Fr. Casimir Puskorius (and there are several others), make a lot of sense to me ...<<
Here is the problem. Every one of those men have disregarded the Vatican for their personal agenda. When you post their articles, it is no different than any other Protestant posting their “POV”.
When one disregards the Vatican because someone else makes “sense” it’s a very dangerous and slippery slope. Whether it be the visions in Conyers, GA or Future Church headed by liberal priests, it’s a very dangerous disregard of the Church.
And someplace that a Catholic should not go.
Over on the Religion forum, when a non-Catholic quotes something as Catholic teachings, we ask them to quote from the Vatican, because just any old website that claims to be Catholic won’t do. We as Catholics should hold ourselves to the same standards.
I've obviously got a few years on you, when I was that age, all the adults were certain we'd take flight from dropping acid.
Mrs. Slim and I enjoy the Potter audio books read on this side of the pond by Jim Dale. I understand that the UK version has a different reader who is also quite good. Do you know anything about him?
Your sense of humor is delightful, keep it up.
>>If you want to learn about Potter further, read the writings of those who have read Rowling’s books, are concerned, and wish for others to discern the material.<<
What exactly does this mean, btw?
I doubt you’ll be banned. In the Balkans, what you say is manifestly true.
The pro-Serb faction back when the Balkans were a hot war was fairly large here at FR, and there was a fair bit of cynicism about Clinton’s policies during the Wars of the Yugoslav Dissolution (as I like to call it) from FReepers at large.
I joined FR as one means of getting honest news when the MSM were breathlessly reporting every false NATO claim of “genocide” (the LA Times in the U.S. and AFP in Europe being the notable exceptions).
Most of us are still here and at least moderately well respected among FReepers.
Us Orthodox FReepers get grouchy from time to time with our separated Western brethren, both Latin and protestant, when they say things that are particularly irksome, and though one or two have written opuses critical of the treatment of Orthodoxy on FreeRepublic.com and left in a huff, I don’t recall any of us being banned.
It takes a real feeble mind to believe a movie is dangerous. I find only the weak minded “Christians” say this. I put Christian in quotes because I do not for a second believe they are Christians. If their belief in Jesus and all things holy can be dismantled by a simple movie of good versus bad then they are not believers. They are frauds.
I detect a creeping infallibilism in what you're saying to mlizzy.
There are teachings that the Church proclaims to which all must submit. But not every word from the Curia is infallible.
In fact, not ANY word from the Curia is infallible (although at times, the Curia can make binding judgments). The charism of infallibility cannot be delegated by the pope to anyone else, not the Prefect of the CDF, nor by extension, from the Prefect of the CDF to Msgr. Fleetwood working in the films office or whatever.
In fact, not even every word from the pope is infallible, or even binding.
If we wish for folks to respect (and for Catholics to submit to) the actual binding and infallible teachings of the Church, we should take care not to beat folks up when they disagree where disagreement is permitted.
It's a good thing to take seriously the opinions of curial officials when they act in their proper area of competence. Myself, I wouldn't lightly disregard the words of Msgr. Fleetwood.
But neither are these opinions binding on the consciences of Catholics. They are worthy of respect and consideration, but may be considered alongside other sources, as well, especially other worthy Catholic sources, and including one’s own intellect, reason and wisdom.
Msgr. Fleetwood's own words regarding the controversy implicitly accept the freedom of Catholics to differ on the point. He doesn't condemn the views of the exorcist in Rome whose opinion differs from his own. Rather, he acknowledges that each one of them has an opinion, and that his opinon, Msgr. Fleetwood's opinion, is as worthy of consideration as the opinion of the other priest.
I notice no claim on Msgr. Fleetwood's part that anyone is morally obligated to submit to his views. He makes no effort in his argument to assert thusly. Rather, he tries to persuade through the actual making of a logical, coherent, rational argument (which, I might add, he does very well). He appeals to reason, not to authority.
I have no dog in this fight. Our judgment concerning Harry Potter around our house was that it was something of a poor effort when compared to the works of Tolkien and Lewis. So, I've never made much of an effort to research the series to see what conclusions to which I might come.
I have sympathy for both sides of the debate. I know folks who have eschewed the works because they believe that they're evil. I also know devout and truly observant and good Catholic families who have permitted the works in their homes, and their children seem no worse for wear, no less Catholic, unharmed by the exposure to the Potter series. In fact, my own son's "steady" is such a young lady.
But this strikes me as an area where there is freedom for each one to come to his own conclusion, as best he can, and within reason, to argue for the rightness of those conclusions.
Not much is solemnly defined as de fide. We should be careful not to go beyond the Church's own claims Her authority.
sitetest
He Whose Name Is Not To Be Spoken on the r. forum is against H. Potter. If I wasn’t already familiar with the books and I found a tract on my windshield about Harry Potter, the first thing I would do is go out and find those books. Because if He Whose Name Is Not To Be Spoken is against it, then they would have to be awesome.
Freegards
[paragraph here that explains all the numerous papers that came out with splashy headlines that the pope had approvedcondomsPotter.]
This was a classic case of media disinformation. In fact, neither the Vatican nor John Paul II had in any way approved the series. The "story" had its source in a remark made by Monsignor Peter Fleetwood during a press conference for the release of the Vatican document on the New Age movement. "If I have understood well the intentions of Harry Potter's author, they help children to see the difference between good and evil." In short, it was the superficial personal opinion of a man who may or may not have read the books. That the media turned this into a major world-class story (and at the same time largely ignored the reason for the conference) is so blatant a violation of journalistic standards that one cannot help but wonder over it. Reporters know that there are thousands of staff members working in the Vatican and that they hold diverse opinions on all manner of topics.
The media failed to give equal coverage to a more significant statement on the Potter series when, two years earlier, the exorcist Fr. Gabriele Amorth warned parents against the books in an interview with the Italian ANSA news agency. Fr. Amorth said bluntly, "Behind Harry Potter hides the signature of the king of the darkness, the devil." He did not say that Rowling was possessed, nor did he imply that the devil held her pen-hand as the stories were composed, only that many of the ideas expressed in them were from the realm of darkness. He explained that the books contain innumerable positive references to magic, "the satanic art," and attempt to make a false distinction between black and white magic, when in fact the distinction "does not exist, because magic is always a recourse to the devil." He also criticized the disordered morality presented in Rowling's works. which he believes strongly reinforce moral relativism.
It is interesting to note that the scattered North American coverage of Amorth's statement downplayed the core content of his warnings. The New York Times report ... [and so on]
Ah, yes. Er..
Stephen Fry. He was a part of the Cambridge Footlights, along with Hugh Laurie (of “House” fame) and played Jeeves to Laurie’s Wooster in “Jeeves and Wooster”, Melchett in “Blackadder”, and Dr. Gordon Wyatt in “Bones”. He was also in “V for Vendetta”, presents the game show “QI”, and is an astoundingly brilliant raconteur.
Here’s irony for you: if you asked any true Englishman to list their Top Five quintessentially English men from the past fifty years (by which I mean an affable, slightly eccentric walking advert for pipes, slippers, cricket, tea and scones, pithy wit, ill-fitting suits, and looking and sounding like he’s been dragged out of the 1950s), I would absolutely put money on them saying Stephen Fry because he ticks every box on that list.
Which means that the thinking man’s quintessential conservative Englishman, if you follow every stereotype known to man, just happens to be a raging leftist anti-Catholic, pro-Palestinian humanist who got expelled from school, went to art college, and, yes, turned out to be a poof.
That is why Stephen Fry is, for my money, living proof that God appreciates bitter irony.
>>Not much is solemnly defined as de fide. We should be careful not to go beyond the Church’s own claims Her authority.<<
Listening to a random priest or author, instead of listening to a Vatican official. How different is that from listening to Father Michael Pfleger over what the Vatican says? It’s not a matter of dogma, but a matter of authority. While not infallible, Vatican officials have more authority to speak on matters which are their specialty.
Are you saying that Father Pfleger has just as much authority to speak on Catholicism as a Vatican official?
It’s a very slippery slope.
>>He Whose Name Is Not To Be Spoken on the r. forum is against H. Potter. If I wasn’t already familiar with the books and I found a tract on my windshield about Harry Potter, the first thing I would do is go out and find those books. Because if He Whose Name Is Not To Be Spoken is against it, then they would have to be awesome.<<
Amen! I’ve seen that “pamplet” on the internet.
I’m glad not to be on the same side.
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.