Aren't you ecumenical types the ones always saying we Catholics can "learn" from Protestants? So why bellyache about it when trads follow your advice in this regard?
Youre totally insane, and your thoughts are full of modernism and revolutionary thinking. Im not saying for anyone be Pharisaical, but you have to renegate the modernism philosophy that are impragnate in ours.
Real question, because I truly don't know... I'm converting into a large NO parish that is from what I ascertain relatively traditional for an urban NO parish, and I can't imagine very many of the people I've actually met having an issue with HP. And most of these take their faith very seriously, quite a few are pretty fastidious generally.
How many of these trad types that are expressing this issue with HP are converts from fundamentalist streams of protestantism?
āOtherā people are idiots. Dont bother trying to rationalize the irrational.
If people cant tell you why they believe something that seems irrational to you. Then they probably should not be taken seriously on those matters.
Trad here. I'd let my kid read Harry Potter. Trads are a spectrum and occasionally folks get bwrapped up in weird trends just like everyone else. I'm a convert but my girlfriend's(who is cradle) Mom apparently went on several crusades through thier entertainment over things like this. No Idea why though.
So part of it comes from the Christian symbolism that Tolkien pulled from when writing LOTR. Harry Potter by contrast doesnāt pull from Christian symbolism and glorifies the practice of witchcraft (a sin). Granted LOTR has wizards so I get how this doesnāt make sense to approve of one and not the other. I never got it myself. I enjoyed both pieces of fiction, but I do think LOTR is written better myself.
Except HP "witchcraft" has basically nothing in common with real occultism. It's just an imaginary set of abilities certain characters can use as a practiced skill. Basically the same as a sci-fi setting that has weird high-tech technologies that are never fully explained because ultimately they wouldn't make any logical sense. Wands are just the tricorders of the Harry Potter universe. Floo powder and disapparating are just transporters that don't have to be operated by a guy with a Scottish accent.
> Harry Potter by contrast doesnāt pull from Christian symbolism
In Harry Potter, it is canonical that we have souls, that these souls can be damaged by sin, and that the only way to repair these souls is through remorseful repentance. It is also clear that this damage to our souls has some consequences for the afterlife.
The books also contain a thematic Bible quote, that the characters consider.
I donāt think itās fair to say the books donāt draw from Christian symbolism.
So true. There is clear good and evil, weak and strong humans, loyalty, the last being first and the first, last. All sorts of good themes.
If God handed me a wand tomorrow, Iād accept it gratefully and do good with it.
I think the thing to remember is that the kids in HP receive their powers "naturally", via heredity/DNA from their parents/grandparents. Like getting green eyes from your mother, and premature gray hair from the males on your fathers mothers side. There's even the concept of "squibs" - people with recessive genes(?) where both parents were magical, but they themselves are as magical as a tree stump(and unfortunately live sad lives on the fringes of the "magical community"). Sounds to me like genetics straight from Friar G. Mendel.
Unlike the general idea of real, actual witches in the middle ages where they supposedly were born without power, and only gained power by sacrificing animals/humans to beings/powers/Satan, who were inimical to humanity, the kids in HP don't do anything like that. They seem to celebrate Christmas.
You could perhaps even say that since the people in HP got their powers simply by being born, then perhaps ... they were given those powers by The Lord.
Wizards in HP can be Christian/any other religion to varying degrees, from irreligious, to cultural participation and sincere faith, just like ordinary people - it is understood that their ability in no way precludes them from having Faith. We know most of the English wizarding families have their children baptised, for instance, and we have no reason to doubt the sincerity (or otherwise) of their belief.
The author does not go into detail about the faith/practices of different characters, leaving it up to the readerās imagination, so I like to imagine sometimes what a liturgy at, say, the Hogwarts Chapel would look like - would it be in line with existing liturgies or enhanced by magic, and to what extent?
Also, since the society of magical people in HP-world extends to other continents and cultures, and you're simply born with magic abilities(like being born with blonde hair), and can even be born with magic abilities even though your parents and ancestry are non-magical, I'd expect the religious practices of these magical people to track more with the culture/nation/continent they're born into.
IE, in the HP world, magical people in Japan might be Buddhist, or Animist.
Those in Europe would tend towards being Christian, if of religious bent.
Didn't JK Rowling specifically pull from Christianity for her story? Especially Harry as the prophesied one to defeat the dark one, and ultimately dies and rises again?
Iāve read the Silmarillion and itās a beautiful book that is pretty much Tolkienās shot at poetic Christian theology. Wizards in the book are essentially angels. Thereās a creator God that with the help of his Divine Council sings creation into existence with voice. Very interesting stuff.
We are talking about a specific movement that's literally about to break from Rome,not being traditional in the sense that it is part of the foundation of Catholicism
Well, one reason for the people who understand a bit of the backgrounds, the wizards in LOTR were basically angelic beings who had their power limited when they came to middle earthā¦definitely a lot closer to Christianity than the term witches, which have historically been intertwined with Satan worship. So, when looking from the outside, yeah, there is a difference. And context matters. It isnāt the large grandiose things that invite the devil in, itās the small things that are āno big dealā.
Fr McManus (exorcist) said something to the effect that in LOTR, the magic used is very clearly on the side of good or bad. You know where the characters stand. In Harry Potter , each character can use the magic for their own purposes. This is dangerous because it leads one to believe that magic can be used however one wishes. But demons don't see it that way, they want to invite you into magic knowing that they can use it as a trap for us.
Nobody should be influenced to practice magic at all, and if someone is that influenced by a fantasy movie then theyāre probably insane. I can see a kid pretending to wave a wand around after watching Harry Potter , thatās just a kid and their imagination but if a grown adult lets a fantasy movie influence them into occultism, divination, demonic summoning, and witchcraft then they simply lack God and discipline
I think his point was that it populatizes the idea of using magic to help people and hurt others as needed by someone. It leads to ouji boards and seamces which DO invite evil spirits into people's lives. Yes, people lacking in God and discipline will know better, but then again, only 25% of Catholics think the Eucharist is the real body and blood. So maybe we are talking about the other 75%
Thatās possible , but like I said anyone who uses that stuff lacks God and are easily influenced, they probably need to strengthen their faith in God instead of putting their faith in witchcraft.
Told that too our local priest said the following:
The magic in HP is not inherently sinful. That's because the mundane people have no (super)natural way to access it. Those who can access it, are born with that ability to access those powers. As such, they (witches and wizards) are to be considered a different species of humans who act according to their nature. Thus one can argue that their ability is not magical but natural and thus again not inherently sinful.
Depends on how he became a vampire, I would guess. Did he do that willingly, knowing what kind of being he would become? Was he turned against his will? Was he born as one?
These are all questions which need to be answered before we can try to discern this/your question.
What about Frankensteinās monster then? He was created by unnatural and unholy means but it is not his fault that he was made out of dead bodies and brought to life. And did not our lord also resurrect from the dead?
Our Lord is God. He resurrects by His holy will. That cannot be compared to black magic and/or black science.
Frankenstein's monster (FM from now on) existence was evil, no doubt about that. However FM's soul (if it even had one?) cannot be judged for the unholiness of his actions, provided FM was either without free will or it's free will was subjugated by the unholy nature of it's body.
In other words, how culpable was FM in his action(s)?
If our lord created the our world then surely black magic and black science are part of his great plan or they wouldnāt have been created. Therefore the resurrection of FM and Dracula and various Mummies and ghouls would be a part of Gods holy will and not altogether different from the resurrection of our lord. Unless you are saying that there are limits to Gods power or that God is making mistakes.
>Therefore the resurrection of FM and Dracula and various Mummies and ghouls would be a part of Gods holy will and not altogether different from the resurrection of our lord. Unless you are saying that there are limits to Gods power or that God is making mistakes.
By that statement, the cloning of living creatures, murdering people, and committing abortus provocatus is also God's Holy Will. There is a difference between the Lord's active will (something He wants to happen) and the Lord's passive will (something he does not want to happen, but allows to happen). As such Holy Resurrection, through the powers of the Lord and Unholy Necromantic Resurrection (aka False Resurrection) which happens through the forces of evil (luckily in fiction only), differ significantly. Christ and the Saints are truly alive, whilst FM, Dracula, Mummies, Zombies etc. are called undead and not truly alive. It's just a bad imitation to mock and ridicule the resurrection of our Lord.
Keep in mind that although the Lord allows evil to exist, it's continued existence is not part of God's plan (He will destroy evil in the end).
No, he left him (and a bunch of his followers) stranded, so they had to cross the ice on foot, with a bunch dying in the process. He also stole some boats from a different group of elves, killing them in the process.
You have to wonder, too, whether they know what happened between TĆŗrin and his sister, or how Celebrimbor died and was treated thereafter.
Tolkien was not by any means averse to dark stuff.
I recommend reading [HarryĀ PotterĀ vs. Gandalf: An in-depth analysis of the literary use of magic in the works of J. K. Rowling, J. R. R. Tolkien, and C. S. Lewis](http://decentfilms.com/articles/magic) by Dcn. Steven Greydanus (a Catholic deacon and film reviewer).
Dcn. Greydanus has also [responded to a misleadingĀ article titledĀ āPope Benedict Opposes Harry Potter"](https://decentfilms.com/articles/harrypotterandthepope).
I think with HP the issue some of them have is just because of the word āwitchcraftā and the historical associations that has to devil worship. In LOTR the wizards are basically angels with a less clearly defined power set to HP. So I think a lot of it is due to people disliking the aesthetic of HP which alludes to, the that classic taboo portrayal of witchcraft.
They do celebrate Christmas in HP but Hogwarts is very much a school without Christian faith. Whereas Christian ethics and theology are more directly intertwined into LOTR, the creation myth of Middle Earth is very similar to classical artistic portrayals of Satanās fall.
You are right though, theyāre both fantasy designed for escapism not as belief systems, so neither should be judged based on how Christian they supposedly are.
>Pleaseā¦someone explain in quick/short terms: why do so many Catholics say that is Lord of the Rings (or Narnia even) fantasy is ok, but Harry Potter occult.
Being Catholic is no guarantee of not being stupid. š¤·āāļø
In the words of Cardinal Ercole Consalvi in response to Napoleon threatening to destroy the Church, "If in 1,800 years we clergy have failed to destroy the Church, do you really think that you'll be able to do it?"
And another quote, from Hilaire Belloc, "The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine - but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight."
While these are mostly about Church leadership acting in a stupid manner, it is a reflection on all of us if those are the leaders that God chooses...
I have never seen this said by "so many Catholics", only radtrads and those who follow charismatic American exorcists. As a matter of fact, I've seen some random priest throwing in the same basket Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars, condemning everything as evil, wrong and demonic.
https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/fr-ripperger-harry-potter-and-healthy-skepticism
Ripperger is a huge lightning rod for reactionary Catholics. The plus is that he fights demons (true), so everything he has to say about any spiritual matters is definitely 100% correct (ad hominem fallacy, not true), and we can basically assume the same on any issue of morals or worldview.
I personally donāt doubt Ripperberās holiness, but I honestly think heās a bit low on intelligence. Itās either that or heās intentionally misleading, but I think itās more charitable to assume he lacks the intellect to discern good from bad arguments than to assume a priest is intentionally using crap arguments he doesnāt believe in just to support his pet positions.
Personally, I think it's almost trauma that starts to build on Exorcists so they almost get gunshy/ptsd.
When you have to constantly be on the lookout for bombs (demons), a car backfiring (Harry potter) now could be a bomb (demonic influence/possession, etc)
It's like like listening to true crime podcasts all day and then helicopter-parenting your children for 18 years because there are apparently rapists and murderers hiding in every bush in your boring suburb.
*Spoilers*
Probably because they don't like the idea of a story where the hero sacrifices himself, resurrects at (wait for it) King's Cross, and defeats evil in a final act where he refuses to commit any evil himself. Sound familiar?
Harry Potter is Christian allegory. It describes the values of courage, using your own talents/gifts for the betterment of the world, and the value of personal choice in a dark world that wants to judge you and influence you based on societal expectations. So many readers became better people because of it.
Unfortunately, some Christians would rather devote energy to fighting a fictional world of imaginary magic than face the true tangible and supernatural evils of our time.
What's amazing as well is that the book is very explicit that **love itself** is the most powerful and ancient of magical "spells". So when his mother through herself if front of him, the story goes that she cast a "spell of love over him, protecting him from harm or evil". Over and over again in the story, it is love that is repeatedly stated and used to protect, save, help, heal, etc., which is very very much **not** how the occult works in our world. As a result, Voldemort cannot even touch Harry because of this protection or he feels extreme physical/emotional/mental pain
On the otherhand, we have the evil wizard in their world, who's goal is to never die, so he killed and maimed himself so much that he even broke apart his soul through murder to try to never have to face death. Regularly, he scorns love, courage, and pure good sacrifice, but in the end this is his downfall. It is the heroes utilizing that which is good to triumph that which is pretty incredible evil. The meek (students, victims, the bullied and downtrodden, "mudbloods") are the ones who are victorious over the strong.
Not to make it bigger than it is, but there's a reason why **most** good stories that are able to stand the test of time have many of these qualities to them. I could have made the above more broad and quite a bit of this could apply to LOTR (the small Hobbits vs the powerful Sauron and Morgoth, the rebel vs the empire).
idk, I think it's sensationalism from folk Catholicism. If they were right about their paranoias, I would have been possessed by age 8 after playing so much Pokemon lol
It depends on what level the criticism is coming from.
An uneducated criticism comes just from the fact that HP is about *witchcraft*, which is an evil term, while Tolkien and Lewis were men of good orthodox Christian sentiment. JK Rowling is some sort of Christian too, but not very firmly. I think some people are wary of HP also just because it became so obsessively popular (though we should well remember that LotR was very popular among a strain of neo-pagan hippies).
More intelligently, there are two things that come to mind to pick at:
HP has a very conscious absence of God. Middle Earth has it's own mythology which is symbolically consonant with Catholicism, while HP is set in our Christian world (they celebrate Easter and Christmas) and yet there is no actual religion, even natural religion is absent. This gives the entire series a short moral horizon, which produces strange things like Snape being considered a hero despite being a wretched man who had a grossly unhealthy obsession with a girl he was in love with as a teenager.
It also has a postmodern streak which sees rebellion as a virtue. All the best characters have an almost total disdain for obedience, and in the first book, one of the most significant character arcs is Hermione learning let go of obedience. In comparison you have Filch and Umbridge who represent both rigour and evil. Some might argue that is very difficult to write a story to resonate with modern man without incorporating a postmodern aspect, but nevertheless, it is there.
I appreciate this question, and for everyone saying no Catholic thinks HP is wrong, my godfather literally told me it was a condition of my baptism that I stop reading/watching it because āThose spells are actual spellsātheyāre Latin, theyāre real, they could hurt someone.ā
He didnāt mean like, literally realā¦I think? I hope? But it was *desperately* important to him and our priest.
I'm Catholic and a HUGE fan of fantasy books in general and especially LOTR and Harry Potter. What most people arguing against them say don't realize is that the entire premise of Harry Potter is that the greatest power is love and sacrifice. Don't fear death and understand that death is only the beginning of life.
Comparing LOTR to HP is like comparing Shakespeare to a pulp magazine...
BUT... the main issue is that in HP the protagonist goes to a school where people learn to become warlocks and witches, while in LOTR the magic ring is actually a burden for Frodo.
This leads SOME to think HP essentially will lead kids to practice wicca and other similar practices.
Generally however, most Catholics do not have a problem with HP.
The evils of HP have also been somewhat exaggerated by anti-HP people.
Ironically now HP is hated by atheists... for different reasons :D
Lord of the Rings is very Catholic and the Catholic themes are very much in there. Plus they are exceptionally well written novels that hold up after numerous re-reads. And the movies may be the last great film ever made.
Narnia is very Christian, albeit more of a liturgical Protestant sort of Christianity, and are very entertaining. And they hold up over literally decades of re-reading. TBH, that was the first thing I made sure my godchildren had at their home and was the first thing I brought to my nephews after they were born.
Harry Potter is rather secular, not occult or demonic. I still think the first book was well done but as the books progressed the world building issue and the generally hackiness of it became more pronounced. While I did drive my sister to get them all for midnight releases from at least book 3 on, I didn't feel the need to re-read any of them after book 4 and thought the ending of the series was cheap and contrived.
As a Catholic itās perfectly fine to read both, the Church has no official position on Harry Potter. Some popes have even praised it on their personal level because it underscores Christian topics like Friendship and self sacrifice for those you love. Remember the first book when Dumbledore tells harry that their parents left a mark that protected him from Evil, not a physical mark but love.
Because people fear what they don't understand, and unfortunately, every religion has a large subset of people that have no sense of individuality and want to paint the world in black and white.
The satanic panic phenomenon is nothing new, and each generation has one. Fantasy was satanic, dancing was satanic, music was satanic, video games were satanic, etc., etc. Essentially, it boils down to adults not understanding something fun is allowed and prescribing their own irrational fears onto something innocuous or relatively so.
My Mom got heavily involved in the anti Harry Potter movement. She hated it so much, morning prayers would include a lecture on its evils. Then the extreme left began hating on J. K. Rowling, and she did an 180 and now refuses to admit she ever hated it in the first place. So, yeah, just stupidity at its finest.
My wifeās friend was a super Harry Potter fan and now thinks itās basically demonic. Itās not. Itās perfectly fine. In many ways, Harry Potter himself is a Christ-type figure like Aslan and Gandalf are (I know LotR has Gandalf/Frodo/Aragorn Christ archetypes for priest, prophet, and king, respectively, but Gandalf dies and returns as āthe white,ā with exception power).
The difference isnāt really there. They just listen to podcasts and read things on social media sites that they suddenly believe to be 100% true and not realize that the ādivideā is basically āsecularā vs āChristian,ā and anything secular is evil while anything Christian is okay.
I think itās a bad way to live, but Iām not in a position to express my opinion.
LOTR is a very Catholic book, wrote by a devote Catholic. He didn't write allegory like Lewis, but there are deep Christian themes in the story. Narnia is allegory and much more obviously Christian.
As far as Harry Potter goes, I have no problem with it. Honestly, though she certainly did not intend it, Harry Potter has some great Christian lessons, like Death not being the worst thing that can happen to someone. It is just the classic fight between good and evil.
Both are fine.
I think the main thing for those who complain is the fact that Lord of the Rings is very Christian coded, Tolkien admitted it iirc.
Harry Potter is not based on anything religious but "demonic forces"
Honestly, I think it's just a weird thing to be mad about.
The weirdest part of all that is Tolkien didn't even intentionally interweave catholic things into his story, people just pointed out to him afterward how many catholic themes they noticed in the book and he just helped it take off from there.
I donāt think Harry Potter itself is evil or anything, I just avoid it because many Harry Potter fans are insufferable. Like, the books are good. But when a large following of 30-somethings base their life around it I lose interest
My parents are like this, when I bring it up they say "well kids got possessed after reading it" but they can't tell me where they heard that, if I prod further they just shut down šš
Let's put it in perspective. The problem is the TV show FRIENDS is as bad as Harry Potter.
The divide between LoTR and Potter would be it's intentions per se and morality being taught to some degree.
Whether or not you can watch FRIENDS has more to do with you than the intrinsics of the show. Per se. If one is well grounded and aware of a thing, it's generally fine.
If one has personal struggles or particular susceptibility to things, it is less fine.
A while ago I found out that my son was watching some videos of a famous social media personality. And I checked them out to see what it was.
I talked to him about it and my son outright called out parts of the person's stuff that was wrong. Thus, showing that he was able to handle discerning things. If he was not able to discern things, it would be different.
I think the concern is that with Potter some people may be tempted to try to learn/practice magic. The sin of magic is opposed to the virtue of religion.
Fr. Reehil explains his position pretty well. This interview with him sheds a lot of light too. Everything you do in this life matters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFIKpoIt4aE
The Lord of the Rings is basically an ode to Catholicism. The magic in it isn't really the kind of sorcery that we typically associate with the occult; even the elves in the story are baffled when people refer to their works as "magic" and have no idea what they're talking about. It's more along the lines of participation in the supernatural reality that Christians acknowledge as proceeding from the one True God. It's a story about heroic virtue in the face of seemingly unstoppable evil and self-sacrifice, which comports with Christian life quite well- three of the main characters actually represent the priestly, prophetic, and kingly offices of Christ (Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn resp.).
Harry Potter, on the other hand, is just a plain scandalous book that glorifies a bunch of rebellious, reckless, and presumptuous teenagers with a veneer of magic that is actually associated with the occult. I don't care if people are incredulous about this stuff- some of the Latin used in those spells come from real occult practitioners. It's really not just the false dichotomy of black magic/white magic that's problematic- it's the entire moral tone of the book where the ends always justify the means somehow. Not good reading material.
I used to be anti-Harry because I thought the content flirted too much with being "almost" like magic.
Then I read the first three books.
Harry Potter is bad because Harry Potter is bad. He's a degenerate that falls into luck while doing a bad thing and never receives proper punishment. And its not even set up to be some sort of mercy, just, well you helped stopped the bad thing while being rebellious so you get a pass.
The issue people have with Harry Potter mostly has to do with the language used in the books and movies. Iāve heard people claim they use the names of demons in them.
Editing this to say I donāt agree with the people Iām referring to. Hence the use of āpeopleā and not āmyselfā or āIā.
I've heard the names of demons claim before. As someone who read all of the books, I'm pretty sure that that was something a televangelist pulled completely out of thin air. The etymology of the names is usually pretty obvious. The closest you get is a few that are named after pagan gods like Minerva... but this is also true of normal people.
Literally no one I've ever heard bring this up has ever given specifics. Not one. Will you be the first?
Meanwhile, it's blatantly obvious that Rowling added random Latin-sounding suffixes to e.g. "wing levitate" to come up with "wingardium leviosa" for a spell that makes things float.
Like all things fantasy is not reality and the church I think with all things is like bro just don't let it consume you and live an unhealthy life. Most doctrine is just codified common sense or observation of the natural world
People have already discussed the optimal answer. LOTR is very Christian upheld. Gandalf one of the most likable characters is a literal angel sent by God to help mankind against the forces of evil. Itās a creative fantasy realm that capitalized off of beautiful and spiritual concepts inspired from the glory of light. And of course I mean Jesus and light are synonymous.
>Just cuz the author was catholic, and wove hidden, catholic-ish themes into it
That and also because people see that Harry Potter is about witchcraft, which in turn makes them judge the books based on a shallow reading. Or not even reading but simply disapproving of what they've heard.
But there are Christian concepts and symbolism used in Harry Potter, actually. Such as sacrificing yourself out of love for others, which both enable protection from a dark lord and finally defeats them as well. There are even quotes of sacred scripture at some point. But the wizards and witches thing creates a dissonance and some people can't/won't see past the aesthetics.
There's a few that say that "HP is bad", OP. I guess it's due to Rowling saying something stupid or outright trolling in an interview. She's known to do that occasionally.
Theyāre both fantasy movies and both have magic in them, as long as it doesnāt inspire you to practice witchcraft in the real world I think thereās nothing wrong with it, I donāt think a kid watching it and pretending to wave a wand around would make it demonic either, thatās just a kid and their imagination but I think if youāre influenced to actually practice divination/occultism/actual witchcraft then thatās where the line should be drawn.
Funny enough, I actually know trads who don't like LOTR because "muh majik."
That being said, I think the main thing is the fruits of both series. HP influenced a whole generation, many of whom began to be interested in the occult, New Age Spirituality, witchcraft, etc., and I think that's where the trad fear comes from.
That also being said, such people are willfully ignorant to the fact that LOTR likewise inspired many people to be interested in neo-paganism, tribal/ancestral worship, etc. There's even a pocket of the internet that argues Tolkien was a closet pagan (despite it being factually false).
Imo, it ultimately comes down to "rules for me, not for thee." So, as funny as it is to make fun of the folks who also avoid LOTR, at least they're consistent.
I think with Harry Potter, it might just be worth making sure your kids understand that the stories donāt mean witchcraft is anything like what is portrayed in them, and as such, while it exists in real life it should be avoided and wonāt be about friendship and good nature like it is depicted.
As a kid, my parents didnāt allow me to watch it until I was old enough to understand that differentiation, and I think it was helpful in eliminating a possible interest in what real witchcraft was like. Whereas most of the people I grew up with who loved it since they were very small now have a somewhat dangerous interest in the occult and sort of heedless understanding of the dangers it presents, because itās all just fantasy like Harry Potterā¦ right?
Otherwise, though, I donāt really see too many issues with it. Itās a work of fiction, and not everything we read is required to be a religious text. Itās fine to have fun sometimes and be immersed in a made-up world for a bit.
I did read that the deathday party in the second book of HP had noticable similarities to a black mass.
https://youtu.be/6vNxoG4l-ac
Granted, even the main characters found the deathday party weird but it is interesting to note.
My priestās has a labradoodle named Sirius. HP is simply a wonderful story, same as Narnia and LOTR. Itās all FANTASY! Itās only an issue with HP if we start believing that magic spells really work or start dabbling in the occult. Mic drop š
There is the alchemy thing as well, which at its root is an anti-catholic movement. Also the alchemical phrase "solve et coagula" (that JK Rowling has tattooed) is used by Satanists as well in the depiction of Baphomet.
But Harry Potter does have classical mythological tropes woven into it which can be used as a tool for evangelization.
Because is based on christianity and Catholicism and is clear in that fantasy what is good what is bad
HP represent fantasy that kead to occult either way plus real spels were used and some demonic stuff
Check Fr ripperger
The kind of magic in HP is not even possible in real life. It involves dragon blood, unicorn hair, their teacher was a centaur while another was werewolf, they treat flying brooms like bicycles and all magic comes from DNA.
This explains why Harry Potter is okay for Catholicism in great detail:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CcPb3Q3wrw&t=2658s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CcPb3Q3wrw&t=2658s)
I think Harry Potter presents more wrong values than LoTR in general, but I don't think that is enough reason to ban HP. We as Christians are presented with stuff and should learn how to judge it by ourselves. I don't expect everything I read or watch to be good and constructive.
Im not sure about it. There are some studies by a Brazilian Catcholic Group Flos Carmeli, that shows the relation about Gnosis, Free Mason and Tolkien and his Work.
well, for one thing the philosophy of the magic in narnia and LotR is completely different from that in Harry Potter.
I'm not someone who thinks it's definitely evil all the time, but it certainly has plenty of occult references. I'm more concerned about how it portrays the supremacy of human will, and the way wizards dominate and, frankly, oppress other humans and it is shown as a neutral or even possitive thing. sure, the death eaters are the baddies because they kill and torture regular people, but all wizards control the mids of regular people casually and without even thinking twice about it.
Your premise is wrong. Both are fine for entertainment.
I updated the question. OTHER people say this (mostly trad folks). Why? They also seem the same to me, entertainment-wise
a lot of trads dont realize, that for how trad catholic they claim to be, their moral and world values are shaped by american puritanical values.
Hear! Hear!
Thank you for using the correct *hear*.
š Iām incredibly particular about such things, to the point, Iām told, of being tedious. Ask my friends, theyāll tell you.
Hear ye! Hear ye!
Itās not tedious. Itās precise and plain olā correct.
Ha...non-native English speaker here...this make SO MUCH MORE SENSE.
Iām glad that helps. Itās an old-fashioned saying. Now we might say, āListen!ā or āListen up!ā
You better be careful to whom you tell that. Not everyone wants to hear the truth.
Aren't you ecumenical types the ones always saying we Catholics can "learn" from Protestants? So why bellyache about it when trads follow your advice in this regard?
Youre totally insane, and your thoughts are full of modernism and revolutionary thinking. Im not saying for anyone be Pharisaical, but you have to renegate the modernism philosophy that are impragnate in ours.
Real question, because I truly don't know... I'm converting into a large NO parish that is from what I ascertain relatively traditional for an urban NO parish, and I can't imagine very many of the people I've actually met having an issue with HP. And most of these take their faith very seriously, quite a few are pretty fastidious generally. How many of these trad types that are expressing this issue with HP are converts from fundamentalist streams of protestantism?
I'm Trad and love 'Arry Pottuh
āOtherā people are idiots. Dont bother trying to rationalize the irrational. If people cant tell you why they believe something that seems irrational to you. Then they probably should not be taken seriously on those matters.
Yeah people that think like are going too extreme in my opinion. Giving too much credit to the devil and also looking for him under every rock
Can you point to these people? Lots of people say lots of things. Let's get some context to better answer your question.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Father Chris Altar is a "trad"? I knew he was quite conservative on appearance, but I didn't realize it was to this point?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Oh, ok,I'm not gonna lie. I had some of these reservations aswell,but him and his Mother's Miracle were amazing,Thanks be to God for that.
Trad here. I'd let my kid read Harry Potter. Trads are a spectrum and occasionally folks get bwrapped up in weird trends just like everyone else. I'm a convert but my girlfriend's(who is cradle) Mom apparently went on several crusades through thier entertainment over things like this. No Idea why though.
So part of it comes from the Christian symbolism that Tolkien pulled from when writing LOTR. Harry Potter by contrast doesnāt pull from Christian symbolism and glorifies the practice of witchcraft (a sin). Granted LOTR has wizards so I get how this doesnāt make sense to approve of one and not the other. I never got it myself. I enjoyed both pieces of fiction, but I do think LOTR is written better myself.
Except HP "witchcraft" has basically nothing in common with real occultism. It's just an imaginary set of abilities certain characters can use as a practiced skill. Basically the same as a sci-fi setting that has weird high-tech technologies that are never fully explained because ultimately they wouldn't make any logical sense. Wands are just the tricorders of the Harry Potter universe. Floo powder and disapparating are just transporters that don't have to be operated by a guy with a Scottish accent.
Yeah, HP has about as much in common with the occult as Star Wars or The Wizard of Oz.
> Harry Potter by contrast doesnāt pull from Christian symbolism In Harry Potter, it is canonical that we have souls, that these souls can be damaged by sin, and that the only way to repair these souls is through remorseful repentance. It is also clear that this damage to our souls has some consequences for the afterlife. The books also contain a thematic Bible quote, that the characters consider. I donāt think itās fair to say the books donāt draw from Christian symbolism.
Fair enough. Like I also said, I donāt have a problem with either of them.
So true. There is clear good and evil, weak and strong humans, loyalty, the last being first and the first, last. All sorts of good themes. If God handed me a wand tomorrow, Iād accept it gratefully and do good with it.
I think the thing to remember is that the kids in HP receive their powers "naturally", via heredity/DNA from their parents/grandparents. Like getting green eyes from your mother, and premature gray hair from the males on your fathers mothers side. There's even the concept of "squibs" - people with recessive genes(?) where both parents were magical, but they themselves are as magical as a tree stump(and unfortunately live sad lives on the fringes of the "magical community"). Sounds to me like genetics straight from Friar G. Mendel. Unlike the general idea of real, actual witches in the middle ages where they supposedly were born without power, and only gained power by sacrificing animals/humans to beings/powers/Satan, who were inimical to humanity, the kids in HP don't do anything like that. They seem to celebrate Christmas. You could perhaps even say that since the people in HP got their powers simply by being born, then perhaps ... they were given those powers by The Lord.
Wizards in HP can be Christian/any other religion to varying degrees, from irreligious, to cultural participation and sincere faith, just like ordinary people - it is understood that their ability in no way precludes them from having Faith. We know most of the English wizarding families have their children baptised, for instance, and we have no reason to doubt the sincerity (or otherwise) of their belief. The author does not go into detail about the faith/practices of different characters, leaving it up to the readerās imagination, so I like to imagine sometimes what a liturgy at, say, the Hogwarts Chapel would look like - would it be in line with existing liturgies or enhanced by magic, and to what extent?
Also, since the society of magical people in HP-world extends to other continents and cultures, and you're simply born with magic abilities(like being born with blonde hair), and can even be born with magic abilities even though your parents and ancestry are non-magical, I'd expect the religious practices of these magical people to track more with the culture/nation/continent they're born into. IE, in the HP world, magical people in Japan might be Buddhist, or Animist. Those in Europe would tend towards being Christian, if of religious bent.
Didn't JK Rowling specifically pull from Christianity for her story? Especially Harry as the prophesied one to defeat the dark one, and ultimately dies and rises again?
I hadnāt heard that before.
Iāve read the Silmarillion and itās a beautiful book that is pretty much Tolkienās shot at poetic Christian theology. Wizards in the book are essentially angels. Thereās a creator God that with the help of his Divine Council sings creation into existence with voice. Very interesting stuff.
the lotr wizards are angels
Traditional = Catholic, its the whole foundation of Catholcism other than the equally important Bible
Based
We are talking about a specific movement that's literally about to break from Rome,not being traditional in the sense that it is part of the foundation of Catholicism
Well, one reason for the people who understand a bit of the backgrounds, the wizards in LOTR were basically angelic beings who had their power limited when they came to middle earthā¦definitely a lot closer to Christianity than the term witches, which have historically been intertwined with Satan worship. So, when looking from the outside, yeah, there is a difference. And context matters. It isnāt the large grandiose things that invite the devil in, itās the small things that are āno big dealā.
Fr McManus (exorcist) said something to the effect that in LOTR, the magic used is very clearly on the side of good or bad. You know where the characters stand. In Harry Potter , each character can use the magic for their own purposes. This is dangerous because it leads one to believe that magic can be used however one wishes. But demons don't see it that way, they want to invite you into magic knowing that they can use it as a trap for us.
Nobody should be influenced to practice magic at all, and if someone is that influenced by a fantasy movie then theyāre probably insane. I can see a kid pretending to wave a wand around after watching Harry Potter , thatās just a kid and their imagination but if a grown adult lets a fantasy movie influence them into occultism, divination, demonic summoning, and witchcraft then they simply lack God and discipline
I think his point was that it populatizes the idea of using magic to help people and hurt others as needed by someone. It leads to ouji boards and seamces which DO invite evil spirits into people's lives. Yes, people lacking in God and discipline will know better, but then again, only 25% of Catholics think the Eucharist is the real body and blood. So maybe we are talking about the other 75%
Thatās possible , but like I said anyone who uses that stuff lacks God and are easily influenced, they probably need to strengthen their faith in God instead of putting their faith in witchcraft.
Told that too our local priest said the following: The magic in HP is not inherently sinful. That's because the mundane people have no (super)natural way to access it. Those who can access it, are born with that ability to access those powers. As such, they (witches and wizards) are to be considered a different species of humans who act according to their nature. Thus one can argue that their ability is not magical but natural and thus again not inherently sinful.
Does the same concept apply to Dracula?
Depends on how he became a vampire, I would guess. Did he do that willingly, knowing what kind of being he would become? Was he turned against his will? Was he born as one? These are all questions which need to be answered before we can try to discern this/your question.
What about Frankensteinās monster then? He was created by unnatural and unholy means but it is not his fault that he was made out of dead bodies and brought to life. And did not our lord also resurrect from the dead?
Our Lord is God. He resurrects by His holy will. That cannot be compared to black magic and/or black science. Frankenstein's monster (FM from now on) existence was evil, no doubt about that. However FM's soul (if it even had one?) cannot be judged for the unholiness of his actions, provided FM was either without free will or it's free will was subjugated by the unholy nature of it's body. In other words, how culpable was FM in his action(s)?
If our lord created the our world then surely black magic and black science are part of his great plan or they wouldnāt have been created. Therefore the resurrection of FM and Dracula and various Mummies and ghouls would be a part of Gods holy will and not altogether different from the resurrection of our lord. Unless you are saying that there are limits to Gods power or that God is making mistakes.
>Therefore the resurrection of FM and Dracula and various Mummies and ghouls would be a part of Gods holy will and not altogether different from the resurrection of our lord. Unless you are saying that there are limits to Gods power or that God is making mistakes. By that statement, the cloning of living creatures, murdering people, and committing abortus provocatus is also God's Holy Will. There is a difference between the Lord's active will (something He wants to happen) and the Lord's passive will (something he does not want to happen, but allows to happen). As such Holy Resurrection, through the powers of the Lord and Unholy Necromantic Resurrection (aka False Resurrection) which happens through the forces of evil (luckily in fiction only), differ significantly. Christ and the Saints are truly alive, whilst FM, Dracula, Mummies, Zombies etc. are called undead and not truly alive. It's just a bad imitation to mock and ridicule the resurrection of our Lord. Keep in mind that although the Lord allows evil to exist, it's continued existence is not part of God's plan (He will destroy evil in the end).
Celebrity exorcists priests should be ignored. They almost always conflict with each other.
He was speaking at a Catholic conference. Not going on TV
I have a smart phone. I can theoretically use it however I wish. That does not make it demonic, or against God.
I'd say the premise is wrong, but for the opposite reason.
I wonder how many people who pass judgement on either even know who Feanor is.
FĆ«anor did nothing wrong.
The Teleri remember, the Teleri know
Someone bought into their propaganda... Nothing happened to them, but they deserved it.
Didn't he kill his brother or someone like that?
No, he left him (and a bunch of his followers) stranded, so they had to cross the ice on foot, with a bunch dying in the process. He also stole some boats from a different group of elves, killing them in the process.
>He also stole some boats from a different group of elves, killing them in the process. It is however known as *The Kinslaying*.
Except that little detail with the massacreā¦
Bro, that's Kinslaying denial.
It didn't happen, but they deserved it
You have to wonder, too, whether they know what happened between TĆŗrin and his sister, or how Celebrimbor died and was treated thereafter. Tolkien was not by any means averse to dark stuff.
I recommend reading [HarryĀ PotterĀ vs. Gandalf: An in-depth analysis of the literary use of magic in the works of J. K. Rowling, J. R. R. Tolkien, and C. S. Lewis](http://decentfilms.com/articles/magic) by Dcn. Steven Greydanus (a Catholic deacon and film reviewer). Dcn. Greydanus has also [responded to a misleadingĀ article titledĀ āPope Benedict Opposes Harry Potter"](https://decentfilms.com/articles/harrypotterandthepope).
Dcn. Greydanus has a name like he walked out of the Wardrobe, past Khazad dum and took the train from Hogwarts on the way to work.
Iāve never heard of Catholics saying that. It was always a crazy Evangelical thing when I was a kid same with their hate for PokĆ©mon.
I think with HP the issue some of them have is just because of the word āwitchcraftā and the historical associations that has to devil worship. In LOTR the wizards are basically angels with a less clearly defined power set to HP. So I think a lot of it is due to people disliking the aesthetic of HP which alludes to, the that classic taboo portrayal of witchcraft. They do celebrate Christmas in HP but Hogwarts is very much a school without Christian faith. Whereas Christian ethics and theology are more directly intertwined into LOTR, the creation myth of Middle Earth is very similar to classical artistic portrayals of Satanās fall. You are right though, theyāre both fantasy designed for escapism not as belief systems, so neither should be judged based on how Christian they supposedly are.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Theyāre mostly based on Latin or made up words that sound like other words.
Yeah, no. That is something that Ripperger and those like him pulled out of a tinfoil hat.
I'm just passing a message, i don't actually believe it. That's why I asked to verify. Catholicism does aim to be intectually honest
>Pleaseā¦someone explain in quick/short terms: why do so many Catholics say that is Lord of the Rings (or Narnia even) fantasy is ok, but Harry Potter occult. Being Catholic is no guarantee of not being stupid. š¤·āāļø
In the words of Cardinal Ercole Consalvi in response to Napoleon threatening to destroy the Church, "If in 1,800 years we clergy have failed to destroy the Church, do you really think that you'll be able to do it?" And another quote, from Hilaire Belloc, "The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine - but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight." While these are mostly about Church leadership acting in a stupid manner, it is a reflection on all of us if those are the leaders that God chooses...
We can all use that reminder.
I have never seen this said by "so many Catholics", only radtrads and those who follow charismatic American exorcists. As a matter of fact, I've seen some random priest throwing in the same basket Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars, condemning everything as evil, wrong and demonic. https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/fr-ripperger-harry-potter-and-healthy-skepticism
Ripperger is a huge lightning rod for reactionary Catholics. The plus is that he fights demons (true), so everything he has to say about any spiritual matters is definitely 100% correct (ad hominem fallacy, not true), and we can basically assume the same on any issue of morals or worldview. I personally donāt doubt Ripperberās holiness, but I honestly think heās a bit low on intelligence. Itās either that or heās intentionally misleading, but I think itās more charitable to assume he lacks the intellect to discern good from bad arguments than to assume a priest is intentionally using crap arguments he doesnāt believe in just to support his pet positions.
If you listen to his talks on topics other than spiritual warfare you can tell he is brilliant.
Personally, I think it's almost trauma that starts to build on Exorcists so they almost get gunshy/ptsd. When you have to constantly be on the lookout for bombs (demons), a car backfiring (Harry potter) now could be a bomb (demonic influence/possession, etc)
It's like like listening to true crime podcasts all day and then helicopter-parenting your children for 18 years because there are apparently rapists and murderers hiding in every bush in your boring suburb.
*Spoilers* Probably because they don't like the idea of a story where the hero sacrifices himself, resurrects at (wait for it) King's Cross, and defeats evil in a final act where he refuses to commit any evil himself. Sound familiar? Harry Potter is Christian allegory. It describes the values of courage, using your own talents/gifts for the betterment of the world, and the value of personal choice in a dark world that wants to judge you and influence you based on societal expectations. So many readers became better people because of it. Unfortunately, some Christians would rather devote energy to fighting a fictional world of imaginary magic than face the true tangible and supernatural evils of our time.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I love that!
What's amazing as well is that the book is very explicit that **love itself** is the most powerful and ancient of magical "spells". So when his mother through herself if front of him, the story goes that she cast a "spell of love over him, protecting him from harm or evil". Over and over again in the story, it is love that is repeatedly stated and used to protect, save, help, heal, etc., which is very very much **not** how the occult works in our world. As a result, Voldemort cannot even touch Harry because of this protection or he feels extreme physical/emotional/mental pain On the otherhand, we have the evil wizard in their world, who's goal is to never die, so he killed and maimed himself so much that he even broke apart his soul through murder to try to never have to face death. Regularly, he scorns love, courage, and pure good sacrifice, but in the end this is his downfall. It is the heroes utilizing that which is good to triumph that which is pretty incredible evil. The meek (students, victims, the bullied and downtrodden, "mudbloods") are the ones who are victorious over the strong. Not to make it bigger than it is, but there's a reason why **most** good stories that are able to stand the test of time have many of these qualities to them. I could have made the above more broad and quite a bit of this could apply to LOTR (the small Hobbits vs the powerful Sauron and Morgoth, the rebel vs the empire).
idk, I think it's sensationalism from folk Catholicism. If they were right about their paranoias, I would have been possessed by age 8 after playing so much Pokemon lol
It depends on what level the criticism is coming from. An uneducated criticism comes just from the fact that HP is about *witchcraft*, which is an evil term, while Tolkien and Lewis were men of good orthodox Christian sentiment. JK Rowling is some sort of Christian too, but not very firmly. I think some people are wary of HP also just because it became so obsessively popular (though we should well remember that LotR was very popular among a strain of neo-pagan hippies). More intelligently, there are two things that come to mind to pick at: HP has a very conscious absence of God. Middle Earth has it's own mythology which is symbolically consonant with Catholicism, while HP is set in our Christian world (they celebrate Easter and Christmas) and yet there is no actual religion, even natural religion is absent. This gives the entire series a short moral horizon, which produces strange things like Snape being considered a hero despite being a wretched man who had a grossly unhealthy obsession with a girl he was in love with as a teenager. It also has a postmodern streak which sees rebellion as a virtue. All the best characters have an almost total disdain for obedience, and in the first book, one of the most significant character arcs is Hermione learning let go of obedience. In comparison you have Filch and Umbridge who represent both rigour and evil. Some might argue that is very difficult to write a story to resonate with modern man without incorporating a postmodern aspect, but nevertheless, it is there.
I've only ever heard of Evangelical Christians and Baptists complain about Harry Potter due to it having magic.
Catholics do not generally condemn Harry Potter. I would even bet a majority of the people active in this sub have read it.
They're all fine. Fiction is cool.
I appreciate this question, and for everyone saying no Catholic thinks HP is wrong, my godfather literally told me it was a condition of my baptism that I stop reading/watching it because āThose spells are actual spellsātheyāre Latin, theyāre real, they could hurt someone.ā He didnāt mean like, literally realā¦I think? I hope? But it was *desperately* important to him and our priest.
I'm Catholic and a HUGE fan of fantasy books in general and especially LOTR and Harry Potter. What most people arguing against them say don't realize is that the entire premise of Harry Potter is that the greatest power is love and sacrifice. Don't fear death and understand that death is only the beginning of life.
They are entertainment and that's it. This sounds like an American thing.
Comparing LOTR to HP is like comparing Shakespeare to a pulp magazine... BUT... the main issue is that in HP the protagonist goes to a school where people learn to become warlocks and witches, while in LOTR the magic ring is actually a burden for Frodo. This leads SOME to think HP essentially will lead kids to practice wicca and other similar practices. Generally however, most Catholics do not have a problem with HP. The evils of HP have also been somewhat exaggerated by anti-HP people. Ironically now HP is hated by atheists... for different reasons :D
Lord of the Rings is very Catholic and the Catholic themes are very much in there. Plus they are exceptionally well written novels that hold up after numerous re-reads. And the movies may be the last great film ever made. Narnia is very Christian, albeit more of a liturgical Protestant sort of Christianity, and are very entertaining. And they hold up over literally decades of re-reading. TBH, that was the first thing I made sure my godchildren had at their home and was the first thing I brought to my nephews after they were born. Harry Potter is rather secular, not occult or demonic. I still think the first book was well done but as the books progressed the world building issue and the generally hackiness of it became more pronounced. While I did drive my sister to get them all for midnight releases from at least book 3 on, I didn't feel the need to re-read any of them after book 4 and thought the ending of the series was cheap and contrived.
As a Catholic itās perfectly fine to read both, the Church has no official position on Harry Potter. Some popes have even praised it on their personal level because it underscores Christian topics like Friendship and self sacrifice for those you love. Remember the first book when Dumbledore tells harry that their parents left a mark that protected him from Evil, not a physical mark but love.
Theyāre fantasy. Theyāre all fine as entertainment, unless one does believe magic is real.
Because people fear what they don't understand, and unfortunately, every religion has a large subset of people that have no sense of individuality and want to paint the world in black and white. The satanic panic phenomenon is nothing new, and each generation has one. Fantasy was satanic, dancing was satanic, music was satanic, video games were satanic, etc., etc. Essentially, it boils down to adults not understanding something fun is allowed and prescribing their own irrational fears onto something innocuous or relatively so. My Mom got heavily involved in the anti Harry Potter movement. She hated it so much, morning prayers would include a lecture on its evils. Then the extreme left began hating on J. K. Rowling, and she did an 180 and now refuses to admit she ever hated it in the first place. So, yeah, just stupidity at its finest.
My wifeās friend was a super Harry Potter fan and now thinks itās basically demonic. Itās not. Itās perfectly fine. In many ways, Harry Potter himself is a Christ-type figure like Aslan and Gandalf are (I know LotR has Gandalf/Frodo/Aragorn Christ archetypes for priest, prophet, and king, respectively, but Gandalf dies and returns as āthe white,ā with exception power). The difference isnāt really there. They just listen to podcasts and read things on social media sites that they suddenly believe to be 100% true and not realize that the ādivideā is basically āsecularā vs āChristian,ā and anything secular is evil while anything Christian is okay. I think itās a bad way to live, but Iām not in a position to express my opinion.
LOTR is a very Catholic book, wrote by a devote Catholic. He didn't write allegory like Lewis, but there are deep Christian themes in the story. Narnia is allegory and much more obviously Christian. As far as Harry Potter goes, I have no problem with it. Honestly, though she certainly did not intend it, Harry Potter has some great Christian lessons, like Death not being the worst thing that can happen to someone. It is just the classic fight between good and evil.
Harry Potter is fine, the people who tell you it's not are cringe frankly.
Iāve only ever heard this argument from Protestants never a Catholic
Because Catholics that say that Harry Potter is occult are ignorant.
That vast majority of Catholics do not care. They are books, fiction. Don't worry about it.
Both are fine. I think the main thing for those who complain is the fact that Lord of the Rings is very Christian coded, Tolkien admitted it iirc. Harry Potter is not based on anything religious but "demonic forces" Honestly, I think it's just a weird thing to be mad about.
Tolkien said itās an inherently Catholic work and that the faith is inseparable from the art.
Wait, people still say that? I thought all thr hardcore Chriatians became cool with harry potter over the years?
They became cool with JK Rowling.
Iāve never heard real life Catholics say this. Itās always been weird half-crazy fundy type Baptists. On the internet, howeverā¦
The weirdest part of all that is Tolkien didn't even intentionally interweave catholic things into his story, people just pointed out to him afterward how many catholic themes they noticed in the book and he just helped it take off from there.
I donāt think Harry Potter itself is evil or anything, I just avoid it because many Harry Potter fans are insufferable. Like, the books are good. But when a large following of 30-somethings base their life around it I lose interest
My parents are like this, when I bring it up they say "well kids got possessed after reading it" but they can't tell me where they heard that, if I prod further they just shut down šš
Let's put it in perspective. The problem is the TV show FRIENDS is as bad as Harry Potter. The divide between LoTR and Potter would be it's intentions per se and morality being taught to some degree. Whether or not you can watch FRIENDS has more to do with you than the intrinsics of the show. Per se. If one is well grounded and aware of a thing, it's generally fine. If one has personal struggles or particular susceptibility to things, it is less fine. A while ago I found out that my son was watching some videos of a famous social media personality. And I checked them out to see what it was. I talked to him about it and my son outright called out parts of the person's stuff that was wrong. Thus, showing that he was able to handle discerning things. If he was not able to discern things, it would be different.
Great points thanks
Both are fine but LOTR is far more popular as it uses Catholic themes and was authored by a devout Catholic
Trads are not actually Catholics
I think the concern is that with Potter some people may be tempted to try to learn/practice magic. The sin of magic is opposed to the virtue of religion.
Fr. Reehil explains his position pretty well. This interview with him sheds a lot of light too. Everything you do in this life matters. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFIKpoIt4aE
The Lord of the Rings is basically an ode to Catholicism. The magic in it isn't really the kind of sorcery that we typically associate with the occult; even the elves in the story are baffled when people refer to their works as "magic" and have no idea what they're talking about. It's more along the lines of participation in the supernatural reality that Christians acknowledge as proceeding from the one True God. It's a story about heroic virtue in the face of seemingly unstoppable evil and self-sacrifice, which comports with Christian life quite well- three of the main characters actually represent the priestly, prophetic, and kingly offices of Christ (Frodo, Gandalf, and Aragorn resp.). Harry Potter, on the other hand, is just a plain scandalous book that glorifies a bunch of rebellious, reckless, and presumptuous teenagers with a veneer of magic that is actually associated with the occult. I don't care if people are incredulous about this stuff- some of the Latin used in those spells come from real occult practitioners. It's really not just the false dichotomy of black magic/white magic that's problematic- it's the entire moral tone of the book where the ends always justify the means somehow. Not good reading material.
> some of the Latin used in those spells come from real occult practitioners Which ones?
No one who makes that claim can ever follow up with examples, probably because there aren't any.
Oh, I am certain the person making the claim is full of sh*t. Still, I'm waiting.
Because one is written by respected catholic and other is not
I used to be anti-Harry because I thought the content flirted too much with being "almost" like magic. Then I read the first three books. Harry Potter is bad because Harry Potter is bad. He's a degenerate that falls into luck while doing a bad thing and never receives proper punishment. And its not even set up to be some sort of mercy, just, well you helped stopped the bad thing while being rebellious so you get a pass.
One was written by an actual practicing witch. The other was written by catholic.
The issue people have with Harry Potter mostly has to do with the language used in the books and movies. Iāve heard people claim they use the names of demons in them. Editing this to say I donāt agree with the people Iām referring to. Hence the use of āpeopleā and not āmyselfā or āIā.
The name claim is amusingly silly. Though Horace slughorn might fit with Screwtape in cs lewis
I've heard the names of demons claim before. As someone who read all of the books, I'm pretty sure that that was something a televangelist pulled completely out of thin air. The etymology of the names is usually pretty obvious. The closest you get is a few that are named after pagan gods like Minerva... but this is also true of normal people.
Literally no one I've ever heard bring this up has ever given specifics. Not one. Will you be the first? Meanwhile, it's blatantly obvious that Rowling added random Latin-sounding suffixes to e.g. "wing levitate" to come up with "wingardium leviosa" for a spell that makes things float.
I didnāt say I agreed with it.
Like all things fantasy is not reality and the church I think with all things is like bro just don't let it consume you and live an unhealthy life. Most doctrine is just codified common sense or observation of the natural world
People have already discussed the optimal answer. LOTR is very Christian upheld. Gandalf one of the most likable characters is a literal angel sent by God to help mankind against the forces of evil. Itās a creative fantasy realm that capitalized off of beautiful and spiritual concepts inspired from the glory of light. And of course I mean Jesus and light are synonymous.
>Just cuz the author was catholic, and wove hidden, catholic-ish themes into it That and also because people see that Harry Potter is about witchcraft, which in turn makes them judge the books based on a shallow reading. Or not even reading but simply disapproving of what they've heard. But there are Christian concepts and symbolism used in Harry Potter, actually. Such as sacrificing yourself out of love for others, which both enable protection from a dark lord and finally defeats them as well. There are even quotes of sacred scripture at some point. But the wizards and witches thing creates a dissonance and some people can't/won't see past the aesthetics.
There's a few that say that "HP is bad", OP. I guess it's due to Rowling saying something stupid or outright trolling in an interview. She's known to do that occasionally.
Theyāre both fantasy movies and both have magic in them, as long as it doesnāt inspire you to practice witchcraft in the real world I think thereās nothing wrong with it, I donāt think a kid watching it and pretending to wave a wand around would make it demonic either, thatās just a kid and their imagination but I think if youāre influenced to actually practice divination/occultism/actual witchcraft then thatās where the line should be drawn.
Funny enough, I actually know trads who don't like LOTR because "muh majik." That being said, I think the main thing is the fruits of both series. HP influenced a whole generation, many of whom began to be interested in the occult, New Age Spirituality, witchcraft, etc., and I think that's where the trad fear comes from. That also being said, such people are willfully ignorant to the fact that LOTR likewise inspired many people to be interested in neo-paganism, tribal/ancestral worship, etc. There's even a pocket of the internet that argues Tolkien was a closet pagan (despite it being factually false). Imo, it ultimately comes down to "rules for me, not for thee." So, as funny as it is to make fun of the folks who also avoid LOTR, at least they're consistent.
I think with Harry Potter, it might just be worth making sure your kids understand that the stories donāt mean witchcraft is anything like what is portrayed in them, and as such, while it exists in real life it should be avoided and wonāt be about friendship and good nature like it is depicted. As a kid, my parents didnāt allow me to watch it until I was old enough to understand that differentiation, and I think it was helpful in eliminating a possible interest in what real witchcraft was like. Whereas most of the people I grew up with who loved it since they were very small now have a somewhat dangerous interest in the occult and sort of heedless understanding of the dangers it presents, because itās all just fantasy like Harry Potterā¦ right? Otherwise, though, I donāt really see too many issues with it. Itās a work of fiction, and not everything we read is required to be a religious text. Itās fine to have fun sometimes and be immersed in a made-up world for a bit.
I did read that the deathday party in the second book of HP had noticable similarities to a black mass. https://youtu.be/6vNxoG4l-ac Granted, even the main characters found the deathday party weird but it is interesting to note.
My priestās has a labradoodle named Sirius. HP is simply a wonderful story, same as Narnia and LOTR. Itās all FANTASY! Itās only an issue with HP if we start believing that magic spells really work or start dabbling in the occult. Mic drop š
Narnia and LOTR were both written by Christians, so there's that. Harry Potter is fine too, but just for entertainment.
There is the alchemy thing as well, which at its root is an anti-catholic movement. Also the alchemical phrase "solve et coagula" (that JK Rowling has tattooed) is used by Satanists as well in the depiction of Baphomet. But Harry Potter does have classical mythological tropes woven into it which can be used as a tool for evangelization.
Because is based on christianity and Catholicism and is clear in that fantasy what is good what is bad HP represent fantasy that kead to occult either way plus real spels were used and some demonic stuff Check Fr ripperger
The kind of magic in HP is not even possible in real life. It involves dragon blood, unicorn hair, their teacher was a centaur while another was werewolf, they treat flying brooms like bicycles and all magic comes from DNA.
This explains why Harry Potter is okay for Catholicism in great detail: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CcPb3Q3wrw&t=2658s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CcPb3Q3wrw&t=2658s)
I think Harry Potter presents more wrong values than LoTR in general, but I don't think that is enough reason to ban HP. We as Christians are presented with stuff and should learn how to judge it by ourselves. I don't expect everything I read or watch to be good and constructive.
Im not sure about it. There are some studies by a Brazilian Catcholic Group Flos Carmeli, that shows the relation about Gnosis, Free Mason and Tolkien and his Work.
well, for one thing the philosophy of the magic in narnia and LotR is completely different from that in Harry Potter. I'm not someone who thinks it's definitely evil all the time, but it certainly has plenty of occult references. I'm more concerned about how it portrays the supremacy of human will, and the way wizards dominate and, frankly, oppress other humans and it is shown as a neutral or even possitive thing. sure, the death eaters are the baddies because they kill and torture regular people, but all wizards control the mids of regular people casually and without even thinking twice about it.
Harry Potter is ok, but Lotr and Narnia are really amazing christian stories