Rome's Chief Exorcist Warns Parents Against Harry Potter

LifeSite News ^ | Jan 2, 2002 | Fr. Gabriel Amorth

[Maximilian]

Rome's Chief Exorcist Warns Parents Against Harry Potter

NEW YORK, Jan 2, 02 (LSN.ca) - In early December, Rome's official exorcist, Father Gabriele Amorth, warned parents against the Harry Potter book series.

The priest, who is also the president of the International Association of Exorcists, said Satan is behind the works. In an interview with the Italian ANSA news agency, Father Amorth said, "Behind Harry Potter hides the signature of the king of the darkness, the devil."

The exorcist, with his decades of experience in directly combating evil, explained that J.K. Rowling's books contain innumerable positive references to magic, "the satanic art." He noted that the books attempt to make a false distinction between black and white magic, when in fact, the distinction "does not exist, because magic is always a turn to the devil."

In the interview which was published in papers across Europe, Father Amorth also criticized the disordered morality presented in Rowling's works, noting that they suggest that rules can be contravened and lying is justified when they work to one's benefit.

Of note, the North American coverage of Father Amorth's warnings about Potter significantly downplayed the warnings. The New York Times coverage which was carried in many other media outlets left out most of the information in the European coverage which is quoted above. It only quoted Father Amorth as saying, "If children can see the movie with their parents, it's not all bad." The Times report also fails to mention that the movie version has significantly cleaned up Harry's image, making it less troublesome than the books.

Used with permission LifeSite News www.lifesite.net

© Family Life Center International

[Gophack]

I agree with you that much of the problems of today have nothing to do with Harry Potter in particular, but with parents, education and society as a whole. Harry Potter is but one more contributing factor.

As one writer said (to paraphrase): all the kids who read Harry Potter and go to church and hear about the Transfiguration of the Lord will think FIRST of Harry Potter, not the Lord.

On your second point, you have to read to be influenced.

[Gophack]

The major difference between Potter and the Chronicles of Narnia or the Lord of the Rings is that in Potter there is a reverse moral order and in Narnia and LOTR the moral order is the same as handed down by God.

In Potter, the ends justify the means. In Potter, there is good magic and bad magic, but the ultimate goal is POWER. In Narnia, it is the dabbling in magic that brings evil to Narnia, and it takes the Christ-figure Aslan to fix things ... not the characters practicing "white magic".

Harry Potter lies, cheats and steals, and is still a hero. In LOTR the supernatural powers used by men are corrupting and repeatedly shown to have a corrupting influence.

One librarian was quoted as saying since Harry Potter, more and more children are seeking books on witchcraft and the occult. They can't keep the books on the shelves because of the high demand. Children WILL go out and experiment when they see magic as portrayed as positive, and morality as subjective. That's why kids shouldn't even experiment with marijuana. While I personally don't think marijuana is all that addictive or dangerous when you try it once or twice, if you get in the habit of using it, you start experimenting with different drugs. Virtually everyone I know who tried marijuana continued dabbling in drugs until they were damaged by it, myself included.

I love fantasy and science fiction, and I am strong enough in my faith to be able to read something that may not be morally pure because I'm able to distinguish, as an adult, the subtle differences between right and wrong and moral ambiguities. Young children are not. The Harry Potter books are aimed at young children and it is THEIR souls that are at risk.

God bless.

[sinkspur]

So sink, does that anger you? His book are better. --And you know it.

Never read O'Brien.

If his books are better, why isn't he on the best-seller lists?

I don't respect people who try to make a living tearing down other people, in this case, another author.

It's cheap.

[sinkspur]

I admit ... I haven't read them

"I hate that TV show...I've never seen it, but I hate it anyway."

And, you know what? I hate that person. I've never talked to her, but I've heard enough about her from other people that I know I wouldn't like her.

Gophack, I'm surprised at you. How can you comment on something you've not even read? Even I have read two Harry Potter books, just so I could see if they were as horrible as some of the hysterics say they are.

They aren't.

[Gophack]

I have the same problem finding books for my kids. Mine I think are younger than yours ... my oldest is 9. She likes mysteries, so I got her the Encyclopedia Brown short stories that I read as a kid. She read all the Junie B. Jones books in the summer before second grade, and there are some single-title books I've found that are good. She read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe in second grade for an advanced reading class and she started the next book, but didn't get into it.

When I was in 3rd grade, a friend introduced me to Trixie Belden. I read all 36 books, but can't find them anywhere now. I have all but the first 5 in the series. They are great for kids aged 8-12. When I was 10 I started Nancy Drew and read virtually every one (of the original ... the new ones are garbage). I own half the Nancy Drew books, but I think my daughter is a little too young. After Nancy Drew, I read all 80+ books of Agatha Christie (probably starting at age 12). Some went over my head. When I was 14 I started Stephen King and read everything he wrote up until the last few years.

Anyway, my point is reading is so important to introduce to kids, but it is also important to weed out bad books, either because they're just poorly written, or because they could damage them. I read every Judy Blume book and learned things I probably shouldn't have learned when I read them. But some of the books were actually OK (the ones with the younger characters, not the teen-agers!)

If anyone has suggestions on books for pre-teens, pass them along. I did see the Lemony Snickett and the Unfortunate Incident books and didn't think they were appropriate.

[Gophack]

True, I haven't read them and don't care to. I've read enough excerpts and articles from respected Christians that probably would fill a Harry Potter book! When I heard about drinking the blood of the unicorn and the direct correlation to the Holy Eucharist (but in reverse), I lost all interest in reading them for curiosity sake.

I don't need to see a porn film, for example, to know that it's bad for me. I think I can pretty much criticize them without watching them.

[BibChr]

When I was 14 I started Stephen King and read everything he wrote up until the last few years

Gasp!

I'm shocked! Shocked!!

Dan
(c;

[Gophack]

Yeah, yeah ... but I will say that The Stand (unabridged) which I read when I was 14 is to this day one of my favorite books. Talk about good vs. evil! (of course, it's not a Christian theme ... the evil one seduces people through dreams, etc. which we know the Devil can not read our mind or get in our mind ... but the good people do withstand temptation.)

Still, great book.

[d-back]

More Harry Potter chatter. I stand second to none in criticizing the whiff of paganism and the blatant anti-Christian sentiments that permeate our culture, but boy has the Harry Potter criticism gone overboard.

I've read all four books. So have my 11 year old daughter and my 8 year old daughter (precocious children and big readers.) Both daughters and my five year old have seen the first Harry Potter movie, though the second movie is off limits to the five year old (too scary). The bottom line: Rowling has created a benign fantasy world of clear good and clear evil. True, this strange England has no Christianity (though it has Christmas holiday), but is that really so different from the real England? Children without religion might find the magic stuff damaging, but then a certain portion of kids who watch Bugs Bunny go playing with hammers and anvils, I'm sure.

There is a real and true anti-Christian children's author who, for some crazy reason, is below the radar of the good folks here at Free Republic and elsewhere. His name is Philip Pullman; his "Dark Materials" trilogy is wildly popular (he won the prestigious Whitbread prize for "Amber Spyglass"); and he is patently, obviously, and unrepentingly anti-Christian. A quote from the Amber Spyglass:

"I thought physics could be done to the glory of God, till I saw there wasn’t any God at all and that physics was more interesting anyway. The Christian religion is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that’s all. (The Amber Spyglass, p. 464)

Pullman says that CS Lewis's Narnia Chronicles, the delightful Christian parable, is "one of the most ugly and poisonous things I've ever read." Where's the outcry, Lewis fans?

And last year, Pullman told the Washington Post that he is "trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief" in his children's novels.

Go Google this stuff. It's there in black and white.

So here's this vicious anti-Christian polluting the minds of children, lauded by the decadent cultural elite, and we're reading tea leaves over Harry Potter? We should not be wasting our time over Rowling while a true nut like Pullman gets a pass.

Remember the name, folks: Philip Pullman. You've been warned.

[sinkspur]

I don't need to see a porn film, for example, to know that it's bad for me.

Kids aren't flocking to watch porn films, or read pornographic literature. Nobody says that pornography is good, or at the very least neutral, except pornographers. Your analogy is a bit faulty.

In addition, there are far more positive reviews of the Harry Potter phenomenon than negative. Now, I'm sure you'll say that all those who are allowing their children to read Potter are dupes, and don't know what's best for their kids.

What amazes me is how sure some people are that Potter represents some kind of evil. My neighbor's kids view the series as pure fantasy, and they know it is pure fantasy.

There are plenty of people who will tell you what is good for you and for your kids, a great number of them Christians with controlling personalities.

[katnip]

Thanks for the warning on this author.
Anyone who thinks that Chronicles of Narnia is the most "ugly and poisonous" things he's read, must be like that on the inside.
Remember, all who were not Aslans recoiled from him on the last day too.

[It's me]

You should try and read O'Brien.

[.45MAN]

ping

[Maximilian]

There is a real and true anti-Christian children's author who, for some crazy reason, is below the radar of the good folks here at Free Republic and elsewhere. His name is Philip Pullman; his "Dark Materials" trilogy is wildly popular

If you understand that Pullman is so very bad, then why is it hard to understand that Harry Potter might also be bad, even if not as much? Pointing out someone even worse is never a valid justification.

The very good (and not crazy) reason why "His Dark Materials" is not on the FR radar screen is because these books are virtually unknown in the US. Unlike Harry Potter, they are not selling millions of books and movie tickets. Pullman is not the richest man in the UK, the way that Rowling is the richest woman.

I have read a couple articles on this series, but so far have never seen an actual copy of a book at the library my children frequent.

[Coleus]

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/5.3/harrypotter.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aa554315a05.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1827166.stm
http://www.family.org/cforum/citizenmag/features/a0023430.html
http://www.lifesite.net/features/harrypotter/index.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/581276/posts

Read Deuteronomy Chapter 18: 9-14

9 "When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, 11 or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.

12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you. 13 You shall be blameless before the Lord your God. 14 For these nations which you will dispossess listened to soothsayers and diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not appointed such for you.

[Gophack]

I agree that the decision to read Harry Potter should be left up to the parents. But your argument is faulty as well ... just because there are more "positive" reviews than "negative" reviews doesn't mean that Harry Potter is OK. I'm sure you and I would agree that some of the movies produced today that have overwhelmingly "positive" reviews are just plain garbage.

I understand that Potter is fantasy and if a person can read it as such, fine. But I DO believe that the moral relativism, occult themes, and the fact that Harry Potter -- the hero -- lies, cheats and steals and is STILL a hero -- is a bad role model for kids, and therefore I wouldn't want my kids to read these books.

There is a lot of good fantasy out there for kids, where the heros don't lie or cheat and they come out on top. I don't want my kids learning at an early age that cheating is OK, that the ends justify the means, or that lying -- so they don't get in trouble -- is acceptable. And those are all themes in Harry Potter. He never gets punished from his bad behavior, and in fact is rewarded.

Aside from all that, there are disturbing anti-Christian and particularly anti-Catholic themes, or a twisting of Christian doctrine so that it is portrayed as bad and the anti-Christian theme is portrayed as good.

If your kids are grounded enough in their faith to be able to discern these distinctions, great. I don't believe my kids are old enough to.

[Francisco]

The Harry Potter books are FANTASY. Magic in them has no religious significance

Anyone even slightly familiar with the subject knows that Rowling has a sophisticated knowledge of the occult. Even the London Times noted it - "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire…is crammed to the bursting with vanishings, flights, zombies, replicants, identity switches, cryptozoological monsters," etc. To a restless, channel-surfing rhythm, Rowling switches tone, now teenage psychology, now Alastair Crowley-ish Satanism."

Rowling has stated that about one-third of what she had written is based on actual occultism.

A FANTASY… with no religious significance OR "based on actual occultism"?

Who should I believe, VeritatisSplendor or Rowling?

Who should I believe, VeritatisSplendor or Father Amorth?

[BibChr]

Oh, don't get me started about one of my guilty pleasures.

I was hooked by Night Shift. Such creative, sharp writing, such a bubbling cauldron (apt analogy) of ideas. Thence it was 'Salem's Lot, and all of them except I think the last two.

I never would have thought King could write a really bad, meandering, boring, indulgent book until I read the last about 2/3 of Hearts in Atlantis. But of course, the critics loved it.

Dan

[Salvation]

**Here is a different perspective on Harry Potter from the Vatican's so-called approval that was reported on a thread yesterday.**

I thought I had also heard that benign report. I never have thought this series to be benign at all.

[Salvation]

Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter have a different purpose. The Harry Potter books want kids to explore witchcraft and magic.

The Lord of the Rings books concentrate on the good that can come of strange than strange situations.