« The Rule of Law and the Catholic Judge | Main | Speaking of Harry »
July 14, 2005
POPE CONDEMNS HARRY POTTER!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah.
Jimmy Akin does the heavy lifting, ably, as usual.
A private communication to a German friend saying, "ja, good article, you're probably right," is not a public statement that merits much attention without further reason. Even if the Pope had read the series and made the comments, which it is fairly certain he did not, Catholics are not bound to papal literary criticism.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
We've been discussing this quite a bit at my blog, and while there seems to be a consensus that this Potter business is dangerous stuff (for reasons I won't reiterate here), I still got the whole "you're using fear over logic" comment.
This is certainly more than papal literary criticism, however. This is about something fundamentally evil - witchcraft - being portrayed as an acceptable means to a good end. And that is subtly deceptive to a young person, even one who is formed to know that witchcraft itself is wrong.
Because when a practice that derives its power from the devil becomes entertainment for kids, we've got a problem.
Posted by: Steve Skojec at Jul 14, 2005 12:54:28 AM
The Cycle of Conservative Christian Harry Hating:
These books contain magic! They are occultic!
"The Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia contain magic. Are they occultic?"
Well then... the books are evil because Harry breaks rules and disobeys authority!
"You mean like Huckleberry Finn?"
But the Chief Exorcist of Rome...
"Whose qualifications to engage in lit crit are what?"
But the Pope has officially condemned the books!
"Actually, judging from the evidence we have, the Pope--two years ago--wrote a perfunctory note to an author seeking a bit of publicity and said, 'Er, nice work. Haven't read the Harry books myself, but the New Age is a bad thing. Here: why don't you talk to so and so over in this other office.'"
But Michael O'Brien, Head of the Church Magisterial Office for Literary Criticism, sez...
"Mr. O'Brien is entitled to his opinion. Others have their own opinions."
I'm not going to listen to the opinions of Bad Catholics[TM] who allow occultic and New Age books to influence their thinking.
"Actually, there's good reason to think that the books are being written by a Christian author aiming to create a work of Christian fantasy. Have you read "The Hidden Key to Harry Potter" or "Looking for God in Harry Potter" by John Granger, an Eastern Orthodox writer? He makes an interesting case.
NO! I won't go near such stuff! It might change my mind! And besides I read on the Internet that J.K. Rowling has admitted that she wants to lead our children into the occult!
"Actually, that was an Onion article. Has it ever occurred to you that calumny is as grave a sin as witchcraft and that it would be advisable to at least know what you are talking about before you assassinate somebody's character? From what I've read Rowling is a self-professed member of the Church of Scotland who disbelieves in magic and who has had an active hand in a number of corporal works of mercy. She also appears to be quite a modest person. Shouldn't that at least be taken into account?"
The devil always disguises himself as an angel of light! And we can tell that the devil is behind these books because they contain magic!
Lather, rinse, repeat. The Star Chamber has spoken and facts are not pertinent to the case.
Posted by: Mark Shea at Jul 14, 2005 2:13:44 AM
OH NO! He's not infallible in all things? There goes my faith.
Posted by: Dan Crawford at Jul 14, 2005 6:44:39 AM
Featured on Fox 5 News this AM in NYC! Also a mention on a news promo for another local station!
I expect Katie Couric to do 15 minutes with some heretic later this AM on this....
Me? I'm ready to buy the book this Saturday.
Posted by: tk at Jul 14, 2005 6:48:06 AM
Great comment, Mark!
Actually, what I know is that the then-cardinal Ratzinger read (or flapped through) a book on Harry Potter by Gabriele Kuby, a German convert and Catholic apologist, in which she strongly condemns the Potter books from a Catholic perspective. (She quotes him on her website: "Thank you for your insightful book. It is good that you have thrown some light on Harry Potter - because these are subtle temptations that work unacknowledgedly and thus the more deeply, while decomposing Christianity in the soul before it actually had the opportunity of growing there.")
On this German website, on the contrary, a Catholic priest (who also writes very interesting and orthodox apologetic and catechetic stuff) repudiates Kuby's claims and sees in the Harry Potter books rather an opportunity for re-evangelization: because, as he asserts, they point out that there is more behind everything than appears at first sight and because they put themes such as Good vs. Evil, Love and Redemption in the center of the plot.
Posted by: Petra at Jul 14, 2005 6:55:35 AM
I too look forward to reading the next book, but I am not prepared to hand it over to my kids (all under the age of seven). They have not read the first 5 because I don't think they are ready for many of the issues presented, not just the magic. It is the same reason why my seven year old has read most of the Narnia series, but not The Last Battle or The Magician's Nephew. He knows what they are about allegorically and doesn't want to read them right now.
My biggest problem with the Harry series is that too many people hand their kids these books just because they are the latest craze without stopping to think about their child and whether or not it is appropriate for them. I also can't stand the literary academics who defend a child reading some well known classic by saying," This is great literature, a classic. let them read the great works! Blah, blah, blah..." Not every great classic is appropriate for just any child who is able to read it. My son is capable of reading just about anything because he is a natural born reader who by the age of seven can read at least 4-5 grade levels ahead, but emotionally, psychologically, spiritually, he is still only 7.
Back to Harry Potter, I personally have bigger gripes with the Lemony Snicket series. I read the first one and felt that this was a seriously disturbed person who should not be writing for children. Just my impressions though, not making pronouncements of any kind. I have enjoyed some of the Harry Potter books, others I have merely endured to get to the next one, but I think of them as mind candy for myself. I can see how a young child might be influenced by them in the same way they could be influenced by anything that was presented to them unchecked. Parents need to step up to the plate and decide if their child is ready for the "latest craze" instead of letting themselves be dictated to by our crazed society!
Posted by: cw at Jul 14, 2005 7:51:44 AM
Mark:
Bwahahahahaha!!! You needed to put a Coffee & Cats warning on that, brother. Fortunately I had neither coffee nor cat near me. :-)
Posted by: Edward at Jul 14, 2005 8:06:00 AM
Next thing we'll be hearing is "Amy Welborn dissents from papal teaching!" Some people will stop at nothing. I recommend they all go back and read St. Augustine's De Doctrina Christiana.
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Jul 14, 2005 8:09:44 AM
In reference to Mark's "argument," there are a few things to remember:
(1) The differences between Narnia/LOTR and Potter in regards to the treatment of magic are obvious. For instance, Harry Potter is trying to learn/grasp at the use of magic. In both LOTR and Narnia (see especially The Magician's Nephew), such seeking after power is condemned.
(2) In regards to "disobedience," citing to Huck Finn helps very little because there is the preliminary question of whether obedience is due. In addition, the question of immorality in literature is not that it is there, but whether it is depicted as good and just.
(3) As to the Chief Exorcist and the Pope, no one is claiming that their opinions on this matter are binding, but I think it is probably hypocritical and certainly foolhardy to say that their opinions are irrelevant and should not be serious considered. I tend to suspect that Potter supporters would trumpet any support from the Vatican in the face of people like Michael O'Brien.
(4) Again, I am unaware of anyone claiming Michael O'Brien has the capacity to speak infallibly. He has made an argument in line with the argument he previously put forth in his work on children's literature, _A Landscape of Dragons_. I don't seem to recall anyone getting terribly upset with his theory until this Harry Potter nonsense came up.
(5) On Rowling's intent, who knows and I certainly don't care unless it is part of her work. Despite what I take to have been Camus' intent, I think _The Strangers_ is one of the best explanations for the necessity of God.
What continually puzzles me about this whole mess is why anyone bothers to read the Potter books. I read the first one and it was horribly written. If you want children's literature, read something good like the adventure/historical fiction of G.A. Henty, the children's adventure stories of Enid Blyton, or the children's sailing adventures in the Arthur Ransome _Swallows and Amazons_ series. There are so many books for that age range that are actually well-written that the whole debate is like arguing over the possible dangers and benefits of eating rotten eggs. It makes no sense when there's a dozen fresh eggs sitting in the fridge.
Posted by: Josh at Jul 14, 2005 8:12:14 AM
My good friend, Fr Scott Newman, who is also a canon lawyer, assures me that it's okay for Catholics to read the Harry Potter novels. We just can't enjoy them. ;-)
Posted by: Pontificator at Jul 14, 2005 8:14:33 AM
I have already ordered TWO copies of the next book to be delivered Saturday, one for my daughter and one for myself. My daughter is now rereading all of the other books in preparation. I decided to do the same but as I am just about at the end of the second book, am probably not going to make it.
My opinion is that these books are good and moral works of imaginative fiction for young people. The "witchcraft" in them has nothing to do with the devil. It did take me a long time to stop wincing at the word "witch" as I did have the traditional associations with it as meaning someone who has sold her soul to the devil in exchange for special powers. I wish the author had found a different word for her female practitioners. But the book is very clear about good and evil. Harry is protected because his mother loved him enough to die for him. Harry is offered the temptation of being
"great" if he joins Slytherin but rejects it outright. Characters in the book make sacrifices for one another; family love is shown beautifully in the Weasleys, etc etc. I think those who equate these books with "new age" stuff are tone deaf and colorblind.
Will somebody who has his ear please ask our Holy Father to read the books and THEN give us his opinion? Because what we have now is his opinion based on the misunderstanding that these books are new agey good=evil, your perception is as good as my perception, (and sometimes, sexual passion=spirituality) stuff.
Of course parents have to make these decisions with relation to their own children and they will have different ideas about protection versus exposure. I never worried about anything being too serious or dark or adult for them but I did worry about truly heretical ideas being subtly inculcated. I usually read the books they were reading and tried to point out what I thought was wrong. (ie The Dark is Rising books portray good and evil as equally powerful forces and I had to tell my kids this was wrong, that even the devil was created by God and rebelled, that evil was the absence of good or being at a great distance from the good...and that evil has already been defeated by Jesus on the cross and we just have to take advantage of that defeat. The kids may have reacted with an, Yeah, yeah, mother, we've heard your rap attitude, and said, we don't really believe this stuff, it's just a story, etc....but at least I said it.)
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Jul 14, 2005 8:17:11 AM
What makes me laugh is that the moment stories like this one come out, all of my VERY CONVERNED FRIENDS start emailing me the link. "Know you love the Potter books," they write. "Thought you might find THIS interesting."
I wish they showed the same level of concern about things that are really dangerous to my soul. "Stop wasting time on the Internet," they should write. "You're neglecting your duty to your employer." Or, "Stop complaining about how tired/poor/abused you are. Accept your trials as penance and offer it up." Etc., etc. etc.
But no, it's my Potter love that has them up in arms. Ah, well, at least they're praying for me.
Posted by: Emily at Jul 14, 2005 8:22:38 AM
cw: Just a quick question for you. What do you think of reading the bible to your 7 year old? Especially those parts where Christ is crucified or where the God of the Old Testament demonstrates his wrathful vengeance. Funny that you won't allow your 7 year old to read "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe," but my guess is that your 7 year old is preparing for first communion and is thus probably quite aware of the circumstances surrounding Jesus' sacrifice.
Posted by: Jimmy Huck at Jul 14, 2005 8:25:25 AM
I'm with Josh. Harry Potter books are garbage. Though the movies aren't bad at all.
I think the whole discussion is too fraught with seriousness. Not everything is read as a morality tale, by children or otherwise. Harry Potter is just absorbed as an adventure story and the magical element is just a knack that some people have or a skill to be mastered, like cleverness with one's hands. It can be used for good or evil.
So what? I don't think any kid is led into or out of Catholicism by Harry Potter. A Catholic parent who pays attention to his kids' reading and movie watching simply explains the moral elements in such a way as to highlight lessons to be learned and clarify ambiguities. Isn't this what we do with all the other secular fare our kids encounter?
Posted by: Jeff at Jul 14, 2005 8:28:33 AM
The pope is always right, except when he attacks *my* favorite thing!
Guess the cafeteria is open again ;-)
Posted by: WRY at Jul 14, 2005 8:28:48 AM
"The differences between Narnia/LOTR and Potter in regards to the treatment of magic are obvious."
Not so. Middle Earth is probably the closest: the use of magic is morally irrelevant, but the seeking after power, revenge, and destruction--whether a person is magical, immortal, or mortal--isn't.
"For instance, Harry Potter is trying to learn/grasp at the use of magic."
Not quite. He's working with his God-given talents in a universe that permits magic. It's really no different from the real use of wealth and riches: known to be a great temptation for weaker human beings.
"In addition, the question of immorality in literature is not that it is there, but whether it is depicted as good and just."
For it to be good literature, it must be believable. Goody goody Christian literature will never rise because its characters are nothing like real world characters. HP characters all have faults. They pay for them, just like in real life.
"I think it is probably hypocritical and certainly foolhardy to say that their opinions are irrelevant and should not be serious considered."
Of course they're relevant and should be seriously considered. But only for themselves and their possible legal guardians.
"I tend to suspect that Potter supporters would trumpet any support from the Vatican in the face of people like Michael O'Brien."
Michael who?
"He has made an argument in line with the argument ..."
He's entitled to a personal opinion. One of billions.
"What continually puzzles me about this whole mess is why anyone bothers to read the Potter books."
I resisted because of the media frenzy for a long time.
"I read the first one and it was horribly written."
Hundreds of millions disagree with you there, Josh. A lot of what I see in HP criticism has the whiff of envy. Certainly up there with calumny as serious sin. Let's face it: it's going to be a very bad weekend for the Star Chamber; y'all might as well head for the beach and reread Narnia on a blanket under an umbrella. Stick to the used book stores till August, too.
Posted by: Todd at Jul 14, 2005 8:30:52 AM
and simultaneously misspelling it as "judgement"
Thank you thank you thank you Jimmy for pointing this out - you have no idea how frustrating it is in the legal business to see this word misspelled so often that it is now accepted as correct.
Posted by: c matt at Jul 14, 2005 8:36:34 AM
I read the first one and it was horribly written.
I've never seen anyone claim this who (a) was a good writer, and, (b) had a visible sense of humor. Harold Bloom is the most obvious example.
Posted by: Michael at Jul 14, 2005 8:42:19 AM
Posted by: Pontificator at Jul 14, 2005 8:58:45 AM
I don't know, but I do see the subtle danger involved in treating "magic" as a force one can learn to manipulate whether for good or evil. The danger, to the extent it exists in HP, seems to be the premise that one can use these forces and control them, if you only get the proper training and have the right intentions (see, eg: hell, road to paved with). Gandalf's rebuke "Don't tempt me Frodo...I would want to use the power for good, but through me it would wield unpseakable horrors" (close enough) seems to ring in my ears when I think of HP. I doubt its some inentional plot on JKR's part to push the occult. In fact, as Mark points out, she seems to assume that the magic comes as a natural talent that one develops, like good soccer skills. Unfortunately, while that may hold in HP's fictional world, in the real world, the source of similar occult powers is all too well known. But, with that caveat, the HP series seems harmless enough.
Posted by: c matt at Jul 14, 2005 9:07:12 AM
Sorry, it was Todd that brought up the natural talent thing.
Posted by: c matt at Jul 14, 2005 9:09:49 AM
1. Dittos to what Mark Shea and Susan Peterson said.
2. The books are wonderfully imagined, funny, terrifying in places, and show an almost painful insight into the workings of the teenage mind, whether wizard or Muggle. The movies stink. Whoever wrote the screenplay of the first one leached out all the wit and reduced it to noise and explosions.
3. These days the Pope can't blow his nose without someone claiming that it proves something or other.
And I wonder how many of us would survive having all our offhand remarks, or quick notes to someone, blazoned across the headlines. I can think of stuff I wrote in college which makes me cringe today.
Posted by: Annalucia at Jul 14, 2005 9:09:59 AM
wry: this is cafeteria catholicism improved. one can claim that what is on offer was never IN the cafeteria in the first place ("not a papal teaching" etc...), so refusing it is no problem.
correct me if i'm wrong, but Ratzinger did more than say he liked the book, he gave her permission to publicly cite him as approving of her thesis.
Posted by: kathleen reilly at Jul 14, 2005 9:10:53 AM
Todd said: "Of course they're relevant and should be seriously considered. But only for themselves and their possible legal guardians."
Todd, Did you catch that I was talking about the Chief Exorcist of Rome and the Pope? I wasn't talking about some random parent, as I take it you thought.
Also, as to the question of immorality in literature, I was merely making a statement of principle when I said that the question is not whether it is in the work, but whether it is depicted as good or just. I was making no specific objection to the HP books, though I am aware that others I have argued that its depiction of immoral acts is troubling. Instead, I was pointing out that Mark had not responded to this argument with his comment about Huck Finn.
As to the odd argument about envy, I am afraid that I do not see what could be causing the envy you claim to have noticed. I, for instance, am not an author, and have no particular aversion to author's making a profit from their work. I've read Toni Morrison (Beloved) and Salman Rushdie (Midnight's Children) despite their fame, and thoroughly enjoyed them. As to Michael O'Brien, he is an author, but not of children's literature, and his ideas on this topic long pre-date the HP books. The opponents of the HP books may be wrong, but I am not at all sure why they would be envious. (On the calumny note, for the reasons I already mentioned, I think the intentional fallacy is a real fallacy and thus take no interest in Rowling's intent).
Todd, your point that "hundreds of millions" disagree with me about the quality of HP is rather unconvincing. I don't know if you are aware, but the quality of education in our time is so low that I do not find it the least bit surprising that people spend their time reading trash. Our college graduates just begin to come close to the middle school students of the 16th-19th centuries. You would do much better to read works such as Henty, Ransome, Blyton (as well as most of the books mentioned on the good books list put together by John Senior).
Posted by: Josh at Jul 14, 2005 9:14:55 AM
But the Chief Exorcist of Rome...
"Whose qualifications to engage in lit crit are what?"
If the Chief Exorcist of Rome were critiquing HP's literary merits, I would agree his creds are somewhat lacking. But he's not critiquing the literary merits AFAIK - he's critiquing its occult impact, for which I would think he has creds to put you and I both to shame.
Posted by: c matt at Jul 14, 2005 9:15:19 AM
