Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Art and Literature for Catholics => Topic started by: gobosox91 on June 15, 2013, 08:37:18 PM
-
I'm just curious to see what the general Catholic opinion on J. K. Rowling's popular saga. I understand that very fanatic people will call it satanic and evil, as they say it promotes witchcraft.
First off, I only liked Harry Potter from 1999-2003 and just gave up on it, because they were making the movies while the books were still being written and it took forever for book 5 to come out, and in that time I came to love J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle Earth. I love The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.
But why do Christians endorse J. R. R. Tolkien's works, which he wrote as Christian (particularly Catholic) allegories, as well as C. S. Lewis' Narnia series, but believe Harry Potter comes from the depths of hell? I was always aware that true witchcraft was bad and that the only true faith was Christianity, particularly Catholicism. I never met anybody who was inspired to dabble in satanism and the occult because they read Harry Potter? This magic they speak of is fiction, and real magic is to be condemned. As long as they know the difference...? How can we endorse certain fantasy stories by people like Tolkien and Lewis, but we condemn J. K. Rowling as being inspired by the devil?
-
I'm not going to do your homework for you.
However, if you do a little search work for comments by ACTUALLY practicing witches about what HP contains, that should close the matter.
Even Pope Benedict told Catholics NOT to read that crap.
-
One important distinction is that the Harry Potter books are utter garbage, while the Lord of the Rings saga has something to it. Besides of that, the Potter books are completely mired in Occultic themes and the glorification of such.
Many people are inspired to dabble in the occult as a result of Harry Potter and similar stories. My younger sister loved the books and films as a child, along with similar stories like The Worst Witch, and by the age of 10 had an unhealthy interest in Ouija boards, tarot cards, casting magic circles and other such things.
-
I used to have some of the same questions, but the fantasy elements do differ quite a bit in their basic construction.
In the Harry Potter series, magic is an inherent quality of some of the characters. It's there for them to manipulate to their own liking and the only laws that bind them are issued by the government (the "Ministry of Magic" in this case). It really strikes me as a sort of secular subgenre of fantasy.
It's the exact opposite in the LoTR series, especially if you read the back story in The Silmarillion. It's made quite clear the source of all the powers in Middle Earth is God (Eru) - even Gandalf is an agent of Eru who is sent into Middle Earth during its ultimate struggle against evil, Sauron being a servant of a sort of fallen angel called Melkor.
On top of that, ex-Wiccans have said that Rowling incorporated lots of Wiccan elements into the stories. I forget which details, but the info is out there and it doesn't sound great from a Catholic perspective. I read the Harry Potter series as it was coming out, but knowing what I know now...I wouldn't bother picking it up again.
-
I understand that very fanatic people will call it satanic and evil
Can you name one of these very fanatic people?
-
I'm just curious to see what the general Catholic opinion on J. K. Rowling's popular saga. I understand that very fanatic people will call it satanic and evil, as they say it promotes witchcraft.
First off, I only liked Harry Potter from 1999-2003 and just gave up on it, because they were making the movies while the books were still being written and it took forever for book 5 to come out, and in that time I came to love J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle Earth. I love The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.
I wrote this blog post on the subject in general:
http://blog.nonpeccabis.com/2010/09/witchcraft-and-fantasy.html
But why do Christians endorse J. R. R. Tolkien's works, which he wrote as Christian (particularly Catholic) allegories, as well as C. S. Lewis' Narnia series, but believe Harry Potter comes from the depths of hell? I was always aware that true witchcraft was bad and that the only true faith was Christianity, particularly Catholicism.
Christianity does not endorse any particular works of fiction.
Rather than defend one work of fiction, I would say that any source of entertainment and material pleasure which is a stumblingblock to virtue or the faith should be avoided completely. If it is a scandal in itself, or because of the individual, it should be avoided regardless.
I never met anybody who was inspired to dabble in satanism and the occult because they read Harry Potter? This magic they speak of is fiction, and real magic is to be condemned. As long as they know the difference...? How can we endorse certain fantasy stories by people like Tolkien and Lewis, but we condemn J. K. Rowling as being inspired by the devil?
Discernment is more than a clumsy consistency and simple categorization.
Moral issues in this sort of decision are:
* What are the effects of reading/enjoying the particular work?
* What kind of principles does the work advance sympathetically?
* What are the intentions of the author?
And probably others, but those stand out.
And for fantasy, remember, not everyone is in agreement. Tolkien was not happy with Lewis, because Tolkien thought that if one is going to create a fictional universal, it should not be connected to reality for theological reasons.
And of course, hypocrites exist, so you should not always look to others for general trends. The issue is not that one or the other sort of work is good or bad, or that both must be judged the same, but that one should not make excuses for sin, and completely avoid reading (or watching, listening to, etc) anything which can dangerous to the Faith (http://blog.nonpeccabis.com/2013/05/catholic-censorship-forbidden-reading.html).
-
I understand that very fanatic people will call it satanic and evil, as they say it promotes witchcraft.
Be careful about calling other fanatics. It often reveals a continuum of views and a tendency to moral relativity.
If what is appropriate is merely the most comfortable level for oneself, and anything less or more is wrong, we will be led astray.
Some people do condemn things with an in-depth examination, and that is not entirely reasonable, however, it is not a bad way to judge unnecessary things in this world. The risk of error in judgement is not equal.
If one condemns a work for being spiritually dangerous, and avoids it, because one suspects it is dangerous, and it was not in fact dangerous, one has lost nothing.
However, if one endorses a work, and it turns out to be spiritually dangerous, one is exposed to real danger.
There is no reason to support J. K. Rowling and her works, and there may be reason to avoid them merely because of her personal views and morality (which will be reflected in her writings), and her works have caused alarm for some people and are avoided.
That is not "fanatical". That is faithful and prudent. Avoiding works which are dangerous to the faith is an obligation we have and failing to meet that obligation is a sin.
-
Some people do condemn things with an in-depth examination, and that is not entirely reasonable, however, it is not a bad way to judge unnecessary things in this world. The risk of error in judgement is not equal.
I meant:
Some people do condemn things without an in-depth examination, and that is not entirely reasonable, however, it is not a bad way to judge unnecessary things in this world. The risk of error in judgement is not equal.
-
The author is typical of anti-family UK women, and her goal is to corrupt the minds of the young:
Rowling attacked the Blair government's policy on single parent families. She said that Labour could do "a good deal more" and then donated £500,000 to the One Parent Families charity to set an example.[68] Rowling said that Brown's measures for children 'would have made a real difference to my family's life' when she was poor.[69] Blair stepped down shortly before the release of Rowling's seventh book, and Brown was appointed Prime Minister. Rowling subsequently donated £1 million to the Labour party during the 2010 general election which Labour lost.[70]
-
I am a fanatic on those grounds; and it is simply wrong to compare JRR and JK R.
i) As Pheo said, the 'witches' and 'wizards' in Tolkien's works are powers - actually called the Ainur, Valar and Maiar (Gandalf, Saruman the traitor and Radagast are three lesser Maiar). They're rather like the angels - Powers, Thrones, Dominions, Archangels, Angels and so on - being created by Eru (God). His villains are really the fallen angels - Melkor or Morgoth (the greatest of the Ainur and so analogous to the Devil) refused to be subject to Eru and corrupted many of the Powers to his cause - Sauron is a corrupted power, the Balrogs are corrupted lesser powers and so on. It really is a thoroughly Catholic fiction in its morals, about the weakness and treason of Man in serving evil powers and the desire for power corrupting.
ii) A proper definition of 'magic' is using the power of a demon - a fallen angel - to perform something that could normally only be performed by God. It's an alliance between men and devils to wreak something that God would not permit to be wrought - it's always blasphemous, always evil and invariably ends in damnation. Harry Potter is true magic - men uttering incantations and doing all manner of things with demonic help. Her curses have a ring of reality about them, too much for me. Religion is an exercise of the 'muggles', the ignorant mass who have not the power to grasp this occult knowledge. The whole thing stinks like a week-old fish.
Very simply, Gandalf is an analogy to an angel. The 'power' in Middle Earth comes from God. Harry Potter's characters, 'good' (their isn't a good character among them) and ill, are summoning demons. There is no God in Harry Potter, only exercises of demonic power. He would be in any Christian book a dangerous villain bound for Hell, not a Hero.
Tolkien was a devout Catholic before the Council, Rowling's a rank atheist. Steer well clear of Potter.
The Remnant.
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2011-0725-harry-potter-girard.htm
-
I don't recall there ever being a case of a character in the Potter books even hinting that they are getting their power from any other being. I thought it was implied that the power just was, like the 'force' in the Star Wars stories. I thought of the magical abilities being controlled by the wizards as a system more akin to a science, which is why they have to learn to control their abilities.
Harry Potter is an annoying character & certainly not a suitable role-model. He was an abused orphan brought up without God, in a godless, materialistic home. He makes a lot of mistakes that ends up costing lives. The books are sometimes like a Greek tragedy, but not as elegant.
Rowling isn't particularly original. I've read all the books & seen all the movies. I wouldn't let a child read the books & adults will find the story pales in comparison to The Lord of the Rings. I also think the Narnia story is the poor distant cousin of Tolkien's work.
I guess most of you are correct in admonishing people not to read the books, or at least not give the books to children who haven't yet had a firm foundation in the Faith. I don't think not reading Potter is any great loss, but I wont say the books were uninteresting/unentertaining.
There are interesting parts in the books. The Order of the Phoenix reminds me of what happened with Vatican 2, where we were no longer taught how to defend ourselves, spiritually, & were deliberately weakened. In the OOP, the children at the school are told they don't need to practice defensive spells because nobody was ever going to attack them, etc. The Order of the Phoenix is like the oldSSPX.
-
Mama who doesn't allow HP fanatic here! :soapbox:
-
I don't recall there ever being a case of a character in the Potter books even hinting that they are getting their power from any other being. I thought it was implied that the power just was, like the 'force' in the Star Wars stories. I thought of the magical abilities being controlled by the wizards as a system more akin to a science, which is why they have to learn to control their abilities.
That is not a factor. If you read my blog post (which it looks like you have, because you seem to be referencing it, if not, I apologize), you'll see that the nature of the power/magic is not a factor in discussing "magic" in fantasy.
The reception of power from other beings is the cause of "real" magic, ie, the only way a person could receive such power in reality if at all.
So, magic in fiction is generally the results of demonic activity, but portrayed in a way which excludes demons. Is this kind of thinking healthy for the mind, to think of receiving something which can only be received through demons?
The Force in Star Wars, traditionally speaking, is a result of more Eastern religious thinking. Forgetting the Extended Universe, the Force is a facet of that fictional universe, but inspired directly by religious thinking.
There are interesting parts in the books. The Order of the Phoenix reminds me of what happened with Vatican 2, where we were no longer taught how to defend ourselves, spiritually, & were deliberately weakened. In the OOP, the children at the school are told they don't need to practice defensive spells because nobody was ever going to attack them, etc. The Order of the Phoenix is like the oldSSPX.
Other, better, works of fantasy have the same theme. It is common.
-
Rowling's a rank atheist.
I'm sure she's much more: a true satanist. I never use this word in an inconsiderate sense, but in its original sense.
Some of you here knew personally the traditional Catholic Fr. Gregor Hesse from Austria who died a few years ago. One good Cathinfo user even has as avatar a picture of Fr. Hesse... :-)
Anyway, Fr. Hesse studied theology in a Roman faculty, and his minor subject was demonology. Also he was a friend of the old SSPX and the German voice in many audio translations of Archbishop Lefebvre's texts. He was an independent priest, and despite his excentric sides he was an authority in theology in the entire German language area and a master in cutting up the Vatican II docuмents (for example, he used to say that the true author of the Vatican II docuмents was the devil himself).
I'm mentioning this so verbally for the readers who never heard of him, to show that he was no Hanswurst (buffoon).
During a table talk he was asked about Rowling and her Potter stories, and he said (quoted from memory) :
Not only her "magic spells" in the books are demonic. By taking a closer look at them I can even tell you exactly which pact with the devil Rowling signed.
I don't think Fr. Hesse ever mentioned which pact Rowling signed with the devil. Because on a similar occasion he said that he regretted to have studied demonology, because since he did, the devil attacked him much more intensively. (The father added something like: the more internals you would know about the devil, the angrier he would get at you. I've no idea if exorcists would agree with this statement, but Fr. Hesse said so and maybe it's a valid statement for non-exorcists.)
By the way, Rowling told publicly in an interview, that the entire Potter story "suddenly" was in her head within a second, whilst she drove bus or whatever. So indeed the Potter story is a true afflatus -- just no divine one.
-
For those who are OK with HP, aren't you fearful of witchcraft and sorcery? I didn't even know the author was a woman until this thread, just the cover alone was enough to know to avoid it. I admire how you all can analyze what the author is up to.
-
I can hardly call it interesting (as an interest in the works of the enemy is a very bad thing) but thank you.
-
By the way, Rowling told publicly in an interview, that the entire Potter story "suddenly" was in her head within a second, whilst she drove bus or whatever. So indeed the Potter story is a true afflatus -- just no divine one.
I think there is a lot of "mythology" surrounding popular entertainment. George Lucas speaks of having a single vision, when in fact, the facts show clearly that it was merely a one off film with no major development of story, and in fact, the original trilogy has the plot and basic facts made up as they went along and changed along the way. I think the same is true of Harry Potter.
For Star Wars, originally, Luke and Leia were not siblings and Darth Vader did in fact kill Luke's father. If one watches the original trilogy, one will see that this is the case, just as the new stuff makes up things and pretends it was always like that in the story.
For Harry Potter, I only read the first two books (I think, I know I read the first) but I was around 10 years old, and at the time, I found them so poorly written, I had no desire to read further. When I was 10 years old.
Nobody who writes a single book which is so poorly written, has such a bad plot, and could only been appreciated by those who are not intellectually developed, had the entire story in one's mind before starting, and no demon would stoop that low.
-
I understand that very fanatic people will call it satanic and evil
This, sir, is a dumb statement and is not Catholic in the slightest.
Harry Potter is indeed satanic and evil. It is garbage and no Catholic should ever read it or watch any of the movies.
-
The fact that Catholics are not sure about what movies are safe to watch is another proof that the Conciliar church is false.
The Hierarchy of The Church always watched over the sheep and kept them safe. Prior to Vatican II, the hierarchy commissioned the Legion of Decency to review movies and protect Catholics.
These days Catholics must protect themselves. A good resource to use when reviewing movies is to read the Dove Foundation reviews. They are Protesatant, but you can use them as they docuмent all dangers to morals and occultism in movies.
You can find their movie reviews here: http://www.dove.org/default1.asp
-
The fact that Catholics are not sure about what movies are safe to watch is another proof that the Conciliar church is false.
The Hierarchy of The Church always watched over the sheep and kept them safe. Prior to Vatican II, the hierarchy commissioned the Legion of Decency to review movies and protect Catholics.
These days Catholics must protect themselves. A good resource to use when reviewing movies is to read the Dove Foundation reviews. They are Protesatant, but you can use them as they docuмent all dangers to morals and occultism in movies.
You can find their movie reviews here: http://www.dove.org/default1.asp
Well if this is true the Catholic Church hierarchy did a pretty poor job since Hollywood became so pro-Communist by the late 1930's that pro-Soviet films were routinely turned out and anti-Communist films couldn't even be made.
Anyway back on topic, the Harry Potter series are not only horrible and stupid but from a political point of view they are very leftist (J.K. Rowling is from the Labour Party, big surprise) and dabbled in paganism.
-
The fact that Catholics are not sure about what movies are safe to watch is another proof that the Conciliar church is false.
The Hierarchy of The Church always watched over the sheep and kept them safe. Prior to Vatican II, the hierarchy commissioned the Legion of Decency to review movies and protect Catholics.
These days Catholics must protect themselves. A good resource to use when reviewing movies is to read the Dove Foundation reviews. They are Protesatant, but you can use them as they docuмent all dangers to morals and occultism in movies.
You can find their movie reviews here: http://www.dove.org/default1.asp
Well if this is true the Catholic Church hierarchy did a pretty poor job since Hollywood became so pro-Communist by the late 1930's that pro-Soviet films were routinely turned out and anti-Communist films couldn't even be made.
Anyway back on topic, the Harry Potter series are not only horrible and stupid but from a political point of view they are very leftist (J.K. Rowling is from the Labour Party, big surprise) and dabbled in paganism.
Which movies do you believe were immoral in the 1930's through the 50's that should have been condemned by the Legion of Decency but were not?
-
Which movies do you believe were immoral in the 1930's through the 50's that should have been condemned by the Legion of Decency but were not?
Well let's see here; "Comrade X," "Why We fight" series, "How to Marry a Millionaire," etc. Hell let's face it pretty much every Hollywood movie has been immoral. There was no "good old days" in Hollywood.
-
Which movies do you believe were immoral in the 1930's through the 50's that should have been condemned by the Legion of Decency but were not?
Well let's see here; "Comrade X," "Why We fight" series, "How to Marry a Millionaire," etc. Hell let's face it pretty much every Hollywood movie has been immoral. There was no "good old days" in Hollywood.
I am not saying there were good old days in Hollywood. What I am saying is that the Hierarchy had a mechanism in place to protect Catholics. Many Catholics took the pledge to avoid immoral movies, and movies were reviewed by the Legion.
I have never watched the movies you mentioned. Since I have not watched them, I do not know the reasons why you believe they should have been condemned by The Legion of Decency.
-
Which movies do you believe were immoral in the 1930's through the 50's that should have been condemned by the Legion of Decency but were not?
Well let's see here; "Comrade X," "Why We fight" series, "How to Marry a Millionaire," etc. Hell let's face it pretty much every Hollywood movie has been immoral. There was no "good old days" in Hollywood.
I do not know much about the Legion, however, you are 100% right. There were no good old days, and pre-code films were just as objectionable as any now, and the Code films presented often a very distorted reality.
I do not know about the Legion, but I would not expect any organization to be able to condemn everything worth condemning. These days, with the Internet, it is much easier to get good reviews, rather than relying on a single group to do it.
I also think most films could easily be condemned on moral grounds, and that anyone judging them might be subject to relativity, as many films were edited to gain ratings. Even now, directors will add over the top scenes, just so they can cut them later and get the rating they wanted.
-
Which movies do you believe were immoral in the 1930's through the 50's that should have been condemned by the Legion of Decency but were not?
Well let's see here; "Comrade X," "Why We fight" series, "How to Marry a Millionaire," etc. Hell let's face it pretty much every Hollywood movie has been immoral. There was no "good old days" in Hollywood.
I do not know much about the Legion, however, you are 100% right. There were no good old days, and pre-code films were just as objectionable as any now, and the Code films presented often a very distorted reality.
I do not know about the Legion, but I would not expect any organization to be able to condemn everything worth condemning. These days, with the Internet, it is much easier to get good reviews, rather than relying on a single group to do it.
I also think most films could easily be condemned on moral grounds, and that anyone judging them might be subject to relativity, as many films were edited to gain ratings. Even now, directors will add over the top scenes, just so they can cut them later and get the rating they wanted.
The Production Code in Hollywood was not the same as the Legion of Decency. The Legion of Decency reviewed movies to protect Catholics against dangers to Faith and morals. It also urged Catholics to pledge to not see such movies with a formal pledge.
-
The Production Code in Hollywood was not the same as the Legion of Decency
I know.
-
For those who are OK with HP, aren't you fearful of witchcraft and sorcery? I didn't even know the author was a woman until this thread, just the cover alone was enough to know to avoid it. I admire how you all can analyze what the author is up to.
I am not in any way defending the Potter books, but no, I am not in the least afraid of witchcraft and sorcery. I avoid the Occult completely and trust in the power and providence of God, so I have no need to be. This is not because I am some sort of spiritual powerhouse, but because God is.
-
For those who are OK with HP, aren't you fearful of witchcraft and sorcery? I didn't even know the author was a woman until this thread, just the cover alone was enough to know to avoid it. I admire how you all can analyze what the author is up to.
I am not in any way defending the Potter books, but no, I am not in the least afraid of witchcraft and sorcery. I avoid the Occult completely and trust in the power and providence of God, so I have no need to be. This is not because I am some sort of spiritual powerhouse, but because God is.
Are you, as Tiffany asked, "ok with Harry Potter"?
If you are not in any way defending them, it does not seem you are ok with Harry Potter. For people who do not choose to expose themselves to spiritual danger, there should be no fear. However, for those who do expose themselves, fear is an appropriate response.
-
I suppose that makes sense.
For the record, I have not read the books. I am somewhat hesitant to pass judgment on books I haven't read. From what I do know, I would not read them or encourage others to do so.
-
When I started to read the Harry Potter books, the only anti-Potter info i came across was written by Protestants. These wackos were also against The Lord of the Rings, so I felt fine completely ignoring anything they had to say & in general I have a tendency to ignore the advice of Protestants anyway.
I don't actually care much for the genre of fantasy, except Tolkein's work & ancient myths. I did find the story entertaining, but not essential, so I wont be encouraging anybody to read or watch it. Better safe than sorry.
Thanks for the explanation everyone. God Bless you all!
-
When I started to read the Harry Potter books, the only anti-Potter info i came across was written by Protestants. These wackos were also against The Lord of the Rings, so I felt fine completely ignoring anything they had to say & in general I have a tendency to ignore the advice of Protestants anyway.
Ignoring Protestants is a good policy.
However, to not ignore modern liberal, adulterous, heretical, anti-Catholic woman for entertainment is a bigger problem I think.
That is an important consideration, people will disregard sources which oppose their own choices. We would be safe to have a standard which is universally applied.
-
However, to not ignore modern liberal, adulterous, heretical, anti-Catholic woman for entertainment is a bigger problem I think.
That is an important consideration, people will disregard sources which oppose their own choices. We would be safe to have a standard which is universally applied.
I understand that & it is certainly clear in regards to Rowling, but if I applied that to movies, music & literature, I would be left with very little.
Eg. Charles Dickens was a Prot who left his wife & 10 children & took a mistress. Apparently his wife was too plain/simple. So, adulterous, heretical.
Wilde had a Catholic death, but his life apparently wasn't. Adulterous?
Wodehouse wasn't Catholic either. Heretical.
Most of the Russian writers were either non-Catholic or anti-Catholic. Adulterous, Heretical, anti-Catholic.
Where to draw the line? Just avoid the rabid anti-Catholics?
Can you see how I got into that mess?
-
No idea why my screen shows Charles Dickens with a bunch of #### through it.
-
It's done it again!
Is that some sort of censoring software at work?
I was trying to write: Di ckens
-
Oh WOW! That looks like a censoring software. :laugh1:
D1ckens?
-
No idea why my screen shows Charles ####ens with a bunch of #### through it.
Because the censoring software is extremely prudish and not very bright.
-
I understand that & it is certainly clear in regards to Rowling, but if I applied that to movies, music & literature, I would be left with very little.
Eg. Charles ####ens was a Prot who left his wife & 10 children & took a mistress. Apparently his wife was too plain/simple. So, adulterous, heretical.
Wilde had a Catholic death, but his life apparently wasn't. Adulterous?
Wodehouse wasn't Catholic either. Heretical.
Most of the Russian writers were either non-Catholic or anti-Catholic. Adulterous, Heretical, anti-Catholic.
Where to draw the line? Just avoid the rabid anti-Catholics?
Can you see how I got into that mess?
And what is the point, that morality is relative, that convenience is a moral guiding principle?
The danger increases when we are more inundated in the things of this world, so we should be even more cautious.
-
And what is the point, that morality is relative, that convenience is a moral guiding principle?
The danger increases when we are more inundated in the things of this world, so we should be even more cautious.
No, of course not - morality is not relative and convenience is most certainly not a moral guiding principle!
I was just thinking out loud. Asking the question too, but mostly thinking out loud. It will take time to assimilate and reassign new categories for the various things I have to reassess.
-
I just tried a few words in preview & found that only Charles Dickens is being targeted.
Check this out:
Charles Dickens
William Shakespeare
Little Dorrit
Dick Tracy
Nicholas Nickleby
David Copperfield
Oliver Twist
Our Mutual Friend
Martin Chuzzlewit
Dombey and Son
The Pickwick Papers
Charles Dickens
Dick Van Dyke
Hyacinth Bucket
Charles Richardens
A Tale of Two Cities
Dickies makes durable trousers.
Throw the suitcase in the dickie.
Okay, well maybe Charles D is not the only one being singled out. Curious.
-
I'm just curious to see what the general Catholic opinion on J. K. Rowling's popular saga. I understand that very fanatic people will call it satanic and evil, as they say it promotes witchcraft.
First off, I only liked Harry Potter from 1999-2003 and just gave up on it, because they were making the movies while the books were still being written and it took forever for book 5 to come out, and in that time I came to love J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle Earth. I love The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.
But why do Christians endorse J. R. R. Tolkien's works, which he wrote as Christian (particularly Catholic) allegories, as well as C. S. Lewis' Narnia series, but believe Harry Potter comes from the depths of hell? I was always aware that true witchcraft was bad and that the only true faith was Christianity, particularly Catholicism. I never met anybody who was inspired to dabble in satanism and the occult because they read Harry Potter? This magic they speak of is fiction, and real magic is to be condemned. As long as they know the difference...? How can we endorse certain fantasy stories by people like Tolkien and Lewis, but we condemn J. K. Rowling as being inspired by the devil?
Harry Potter, if you've noticed, uses his powers for his own benefit.It is showing sorcery to be "okay" and "awesome." (Some kids actually, after reading the books, thought there was such a place as a witch school or whatever they call it and tried to apply for it.) In LOTR it's nothing like that. nothing. nothing.
-
"
On top of that, ex-Wiccans have said that Rowling incorporated lots of Wiccan elements into the stories. I forget which details, but the info is out there and it doesn't sound great from a Catholic perspective. I read the Harry Potter series as it was coming out, but knowing what I know now...I wouldn't bother picking it up again.
Current Wiccans actually get very annoyed when they are compared to Harry Potter, I don't know about ex-wiccans, but about thirty wiccans have protested against a comparison of the Wiccan religion and Harry Potter.
By the way, Rowling told publicly in an interview, that the entire Potter story "suddenly" was in her head within a second, whilst she drove bus or whatever. So indeed the Potter story is a true afflatus -- just no divine one.
Although she did say this, in another interview, and in many biographies, it states that she started making up the story at age six...
I am not endorsing Harry Potter at all, I am a traditional Catholic who wouldn't think of such a thing!. However, I have read the books and many things associated with Harry Potter, and I just wanted to correct a few points.