I was curious to learn why some Catholic thinkers dislike the Potter books. The link in the first post of this thread was about a German author; the pope apparently sympathizes with her anti-Potter view. Her site is mostly in German, but I found the site of Michael O’Brien, who appears to be the most vocal American anti-Potter Catholic scholar. This is a link, if anyone else wishes to waste 20 minutes of their lives!
In summary, he says this: The Potter books show good wizards and bad wizards. Showing good wizards inappropriate. (He says it is like a book that depicts good fornicators and bad fornicators.) Wizardy is bad; period. He says C.S.Lewis is good because those books show that bad things happen when the human and occult world meet. These worlds ought to be kept apart. Our children should not think that some wizardry can be good.
In all fairness, it appears that many Catholic scholars sneer at the anti-Potter folk in their midst. Frankly, if I were a serious Catholic scholar, I would sneer too!
I found the site of Michael O’Brien, who appears to be the most vocal American anti-Potter Catholic scholar. This is a link, if anyone else wishes to waste 20 minutes of their lives!
In some elements of his personality Harry is a classic hero, a courageous underdog whose innate qualities are gradually developed and who resists evil through much adversity. The problem lies not in these traditional heroic elements but in the modern elements of the anti-hero (the character who overcomes evil through evil means) which the author has integrated into Harry’s personality. Harry is both hero and anti-hero. He is the reverse image of Frodo, who is a genuine hero. This is not to say that Frodo is a cardboard cut-out “good-guy.” He has flaws and temptations, and he sometimes stumbles. But he never calls good evil, nor evil good
This is the sort of thing I’d expect to read in Objectivist writings. However, it’s immediately followed by:
His failures are due to human weakness; they do not derive from malice and pride. By contrast, Rowling portrays Harry’s victory over evil as the fruit of acquiring esoteric knowledge and power. This is Gnosticism. Tolkien portrays Frodo’s victory over evil as the rejection of unlawful knowledge and power, and the fruit of his humility, obedience, and perseverance in a state of radical suffering. This is Christianity. Harry’s world is about pride, Frodo’s about sacrificial love.
bizarre.
In all fairness, it appears that many Catholic scholars sneer at the anti-Potter folk in their midst. Frankly, if I were a serious Catholic scholar, I would sneer too!
I’m not sure why; that article reads like a pretty fair application of Christian doctrines. The comparasion with the Garden of Eden is obvious - humanity seeking power which is reserved for God alone, and will eventually destroy it. The following passage, aimed at comparing HP with LoTR, is especially telling:
Yes, there is “magic” in both Rowling’s Potter-world and Tolkien’s Middle-earth, but here the similarity ends. Unlike Harry’s powers, Gandalf’s powers are bestowed on him as a gift from Iluvatar, “the Father of All,” Tolkien’s mythological representation of God. This is a crucial point, the crucial distinction between Middle-earth and Potter-world. Tolkien’s sub-creation is fundamentally hierarchical, representing a moral order that ascends from the incarnate all the way up to the throne of God Himself. Tolkien has employed the sub-creator’s liberty to envision a world that might have been. Yet he takes pains to state, in his essay “On Fairy Stories,” that no matter how fabulous the sub-created world may be, no matter how wildly it departs from the details of material existence, it must remain faithful to the moral order of the real universe.
I think this is correct. In fact I would agree with almost every aspect of his LotR vs HP analysis, and would only disagree with his evaluation of it.
Although I realize Harry Potter is not a metaphor for egoist philosophy, I’d say the underlying theme of the Harry Potter books is fundamentally at odds with Christianity. I’m not the only Objectivist who thinks so:
Nothing you linked to supports your assertion that Harry Potter is fundamentally at odds with Christianity.
In all fairness, it appears that many Catholic scholars sneer at the anti-Potter folk in their midst. Frankly, if I were a serious Catholic scholar, I would sneer too!
Okay, let me play “pro-Potter Catholic” for this post, and say this:
<Wear Religious Hat>
Potter is neither a (muggle) human, nor a God (remember, he can be killed). Rowling’s wizards and witches are like a special species, which like real species have aspecificGod-givennature_. They cannot do_ anythingthey wish; they can do certain things and cannot do other things. Even the things they are capable of do not come effortlessly – they have to go through seven years of school. It is wrong to view them as humans practicing occult arts. They are not. They are wizards doing what their God-given wizard nature requires of them. We see them with all their failings (Neville, Malfoy); we see them betraying friends (Black) and choosing either Godliness or evil.
What makes Rowling’s tales so compelling is that the lessons and motivations are so real while the action is so interestingly outlandish. Imagine if Rowling were to use some other creature’s biology for the wizards: say horses. Suppose Harry and Ron and all behaved exactly as the characters do, and the only thing different was that they were all horses. Would that change anything? It would not change the essential lessons of the books – which ask our young children to choose good or evil and to struggle against satan in all his forms. It would however, reduce the empathy our children would feel for the characters, and lessen the impact of the teachings.
Our children are not fools. They know that wizards are make-believe. They know that miracles are the domain of God and His angels. They know that the book is a parable. Don’t give them a boring treatise to read, give them a Potter book. If you aren’t sure, tell them it’s ‘just pretend’ – but, they know that already!
while that works with rational people like you and me, you have to remember that to Christians their religion is something that can be destroyed, that there are better options out there tempting people away from religion, and only one who remains in willful ignorance can remain true to the faith.
A small mind is easily filled with faith, as they say.
Mr Swig said, referring to my links to pro-Harry Potter ARI op-eds: “Nothing you linked to supports your assertion that Harry Potter is fundamentally at odds with Christianity.”
First, I believe there is plenty within those op-eds that does support my assertion. Harry’s contrast to Christianity was not the main theme of those op-eds, and so such is not the crux of those articles, but even so, the author’s comments about whether the world is benevolent or malevolent, the value of pride, the trustworthiness of one’s own thinking (and more)… these things are certainly not consistent with Christianity.
I don’t want to get into a debate about what these authors intended, whether the articles in question “supports my assertion”, etc. At best, fleshing this out would resolve whether or not what someone else wrote was consistent with what I wrote (the answer to which, incidentally, is as easy as e-mailing Ms Durante and asking her) … and leaves the issue about my original point still up in the air…
…my original point being: whether or not Harry Potter “erodes Christianity in the soul”. The Pope says it does, and I have to agree with the Pope on this one. Harry is this-worldly (compared to Augustine, for example), proud, and intellectually independent. How many kids will pick up those values reading the Bible?
When I want my kids to erode a little of the influence of Christian culture, I’ll gladly recommend a trip to Hogwarts, via the Good Book. :lol:
(You may disagree with me. And if you do, you shall have the last word on the issue. It’s not a point I’m interested in pursuing any further.)
…my original point being: whether or not Harry Potter “erodes Christianity in the soul”. The Pope says it does, and I have to agree with the Pope on this one.
Of course the Pope is going to say this. It’s his job to get you to give up material things for the sake of Christianity. Personally, though, I wouldn’t trust the Pope if he told me that he had chicken for dinner. Of all people in the world, the Pope is the last person you should trust to tell you what he actually believes.
Now, I’m more inclined to trust the author of the Harry Potter books. J.K. Rowling is a Christian. And I find it very difficult to believe that she, being a bright woman, would write anything that could be construed as fundamentally at odds with her own religion. In fact, I believe some (Objectivist) Harry Potter fans may be in for a rude awakening once Rowling ends the series in the seventh book. Consider what she said in this interview:
Harry, of course, is able to battle supernatural evil with supernatural forces of his own, and Rowling is quite clear that she doesn’t personally believe in that kind of magic – ‘‘not at all.’’ Is she a Christian?
‘‘Yes, I am,’’ she says. ‘‘Which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I’ve been asked if I believe in God, I’ve said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what’s coming in the books.’’
Hrm … How could knowing her religious beliefs tell us what’s coming in the books? Are we in for a little Christian ethical lesson? I guess we’ll find out.