And Mom likes it, too!
Posted on 07/13/2005 11:29:36 PM PDT by nickcarraway
News was abuzz, as news ought to be, about how Pope Benedict, a.k.a. Cardinal Ratzinger, speciously abetted derisory comments toward one Potter, comma, Harry as a threat to Christianity as we know it. I can just imagine the headlines: Is the blacklist back? Are those Catholics ex-communicating authors? Is the Christian Right going to protest the Potter films? When does the book-burning begin? You would think children would soon have scarlet P's etched into their chests.
There's a benefit to mystifying liberals with, well, mysticism. They become silly, not afraid, when faced with what they do not understand, and adherence to dogma and Christian doctrine is a decent enough catalyst. What the liberal has typically offered in light of Vatican denouncements has been that the holy men themselves have gone silly and cannot stand the sight of that which they do not understand. The reporting of the affair belies astonishment. The Church! Taking a stand?! Round and round they go, and Benedict is bereft of the prospect of writing book reviews for the New Yorker.
Yet the Pope wasn't speaking ex-cathedra, nor nasally threatening to add J.K. Rowling to his "list." Simply put, Benedict's response was even predictable. I just interviewed the Pope, at least in my head, and the pinnacle of my questioning resulted in this: Mr. Most-Notable-Christian-Leader, what do you think of a children's book that forgoes conventional morality, God's grace, and divine intervention, in favor of witchcraft and magic, often with relativist undertones? And should I have bothered with the question?
In March 2003, when Benedict wasn't the "Pope who was a Hitler youth," but rather the "Dogmatic Enforcer," the then-Cardinal noted to an author critical of the young magician:
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.
If only he had explained "subtle seduction." A holdover we have from John Stuart Mill and Darwin is the naive thought that the stronger idea will survive, and if immorality appears in the Goblet of Fire or elsewhere, nascent Christian souls will be nowhere harmed from exposure -- they will only become stronger. An odd argument when criminal acts are attributed to the influence of the neighborhood, and not the individual. If we are to accept that criminals often come from weak families, we accept that negative influences take their toll. Harry Potter may not exactly lead young Jimmy into a lake of fire, but it is not a reach to say that it could without guidance detract from the Church's message -- just as a child watching Desperate Housewives might get the wrong idea about what marriage is really like.
In Paradise Lost, Milton's Satan is a seductive character contrasting the bland Son of God, but the comparison isn't lost on the author nor the informed reader. Satan, as all evil, is supposed to be seductive. One must resist temptation to sin -- that is, when occasion faces him with it. It's commendable when people stare down evil and resist, but preferable not to have them do it -- after all, human will is often frail. Sir Thomas More says to an overly ambitious Richard Rich in the film A Man for All Seasons, "Man should not go where he will be tempted." Richard Rich went, got tempted, perjured himself, and got More beheaded. So much for Mr. Mill. And so much for liberals who would sooner say that on the whole, exposure was better for Rich. Tell that to More's daughter.
Yes, the Potter books have the kids reading in their spare time, which is enough for some to settle for. Ironically, this argument was ridiculed by its own progenitors once a deal had been struck for movie rights based on the books. And they follow a long, wonderful tradition of fables the kids can enjoy. But if the Potter books are on loan to help forge a Christian child's soul, without its being informed by the moral lessons of Christ, then how would they not be seductive? Put another way, what would encourage a child to accept God when the tales he hears involve other children overcoming problems by using powers they themselves hold?
That is the Pope's business, to worry about what might intervene in a child's relationship with the Church and God. I would rather he do it than Joycelyn Elders, Janet Reno, or Sandra Day O'Connor. Even if you dissented (which is allowed, regardless of what the New York Times tells you), he brings up a point so few are willing to heed: you are influenced by what you choose to experience, so choose carefully -- which does not directly translate to being "close-minded." It simply means, do not go where you may be tempted. Strength does not necessarily follow temptation.
J. Peter Freire is a Journalism Fellow with The American Spectator under a grant from the Collegiate Network.
I read DVC and found it a fast read witha somewhat interesting mystery tale.
The fact that Dan Brown says that it is historically true don't make it so.
There is no evidence whatsoever of Leonardo being connected to the "Priory of Zion" , no evidence whatsoever that the figure next to Jesus in the Last Supper was Mary Magdalen. The figure is a conventional depiction of the time of James, the disciple, who is always portrayed with long hair and is slight and sensitive looking.
The reality beyond DVC is a lot of hooey.
Foucauld's Pendulum by Umberto Eco, on the other hand, is a masterful work. I am sure that Brown lifted a lot from it.
I didn't particularly like the first book, so therefore haven't read the series, although the movies were pretty good tales. I can see why people like the books.
On the other hand, I have twice been in borders when children with their mothers were buying Potter books AND books on Wicca, witchcraft, etc. There ARE people who are influenced unduly by books, and I suspect more of them are children.
I don't believe Rowling wrote an intentionally anti-Christian book. As I understand it, she was mostly writing to get herself off welfare (an admirable ambition) and simply made up a good story. Awarning that the books can be difficult for a young person to handle is not a cry for censorship.
And Mom likes it, too!
Stop the presses everyone, the CONSPIRACY has been uncovered!! </sarc>
From the letters posted on the other thread, some woman who wrote a book (Harry Potter -- Good or Evil) sent a complimentary copy to Ratzinger, who thanked her, said some polite things and advised her to send it to someone at the Pontifical Council on Culture. Doesn't sound like he ever read the books, and it certainly wasn't a spontaneous statement. But she got what she wanted and wrote again to ask if she could make his first letter public.
I don't think anyone demonized HP. I think they did say that HP can blur the lines between good/evil. And it is true. The worldview of the HP series is different than our own. It's a world of witches, demons, magical powers, darkness, etc. In short, it is an occult worldview.
And if I simultaneously teach an occult worldview is both good and bad, have I not blurred something?
Note: If you run out of material, write a Harry Potter vs The Church article. People will fawn all over you like you are a genius.
I'm rereading them now. They are a comic book without art. Not bad or nefarious. Just not great literature as some believe.
Bears repeating, especially when he starts labeling literature as subversive.
Sadly I'd be more concerned over my child coming in contact with a priest than a HP book. Just what the heck do they think sexual abuse does to a childs soul...alot more damage to the victims spirituality than a fairytale book on magic. And yet they put more effort into keeping a book from a child than a queer pedophile....go figure.
I'm betting he never said any such thing.
"Harry Potter and the Chair of Peter."
When does that one come out? :^D
I have this theory that this is one Pope who will never escape his birth name, at least in the secularist community. RATzinger is simply too delicious for insult and parody.
Wow! What an amazing leap of logic. Whereas the article points out that Benedict merely voiced an opinion that the books may not be beneficial, you leap to imagining him leading a global book-burning orgy of hate.
Next time, wait 'til those meds kick in before you resume writing.
I was just going to say that while these books may not be Christian they have a double helping of good vs evil, and I certainly don't have a problem with that.
I WISH they had some religion because it saddens me that Harry can have no hope of ever meeting his parents or Sirius Black (his Godfather(how can you have a godfather, or Christmas for that matter, without God?)) in Heaven. It leads to a lot of depression on his part IMO.
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.