An Apology of Harry Potter
Point by Point Statement
In Response to Michael D. O’Brien and
“The
Potter Controversy: or Why that boy sorcerer just won’t go away.”
By Shane Coombs,
16 July marked a very important day
in the lives of many people all across the world. It was on this day that the greatly
anticipated Harry Potter and the
Half-Blood Prince, the sixth book out of seven in it’s series, was
released. Within the first twenty four
hour period of sales, over seven million copies were sold in the
On the Statements of Father
Gabrielle Amorth
There is not in fact anything to
refute here. These statements consist
only of the personal opinion which the Father expressed. Further, this section only introduces some of
the ideas which Mr. O’Brien intends to prove in his writing. However, some important points may here be
made nonetheless.
Firstly, it is important to
introduce a fundamental flaw and deception, and indeed hypocrisy, which is
herein presented by Mr. O’Brien. The
writer introduces his article by referring to news stories in February of 2003
which claimed that the
Further, it should be pointed out
that Father Amorth must be regarded as an uncertain authority at best. In an April 2001 Article of the Sunday
Telegraph, Father Amorth is quoted as saying, “I have performed over
50,000 exorcisms.” (This article may be found at http://web.archive.org/web/20041106024653/http://www.catholic-exorcism.org/pages/suntelegraph/suntelegraph.html) On other occasions, the Priest has claimed to
have performed 30,000. This point alone
places doubt on the man’s trustworthiness.
In the same article, Father Amorth says that he “knew nothing of
exorcism” until
It is likely, based on these data, that Father Amorth is in fact caught up in the poetry of his job and has become sensationalistic. In fact, it is possible that he has become overrun with pride and is thus boasting, and even exaggerating, his credentials. This makes him a very dubious source for any opinion at all, as it suggests that his statements may be at best from a man untrustworthy, and at worst statements specifically designed by the Priest to be over the top for the purpose of getting himself on the news. Of course only God and Father Amorth know this, and one must NEVER rush to judgment of a man’s heart in such ways as to assert this as fact. However, the reliability of Father Amorth has been undoubtedly called into question.
On “The controversy in Catholic academic
circles”
This section does not warrant comment, as it serves only to present the opinions of several pro-Potter writers. This is not to say that O’Brien’s opinion of them does not warrant comment, but rather to say that there is nothing objectionable in these statements because they are only a matter of quotations.
Near the end of this section, Mr. O’Brien begins to address the merits of imagination in literature. This also does not warrant comment, because it does not address the Christian issues pertinent to Potter. I have no quarrels with Mr. O’Brien authoring a literary critique of Harry Potter. Any matters of imagination that are pertinent to the Christian nature of this topic will be addressed below.
On “Nourishment of the imagination”
Mr. O’Brien begins with a legitimate and accurate point. It is very important that Christians not treat something as good simply by nature of it’s genre but independent of it’s content. Clearly, though the encouragement to read is an important one for children, it must be tempered by the discouragement from reading unhealthy material. The, “encourage reading at all costs” mentality is by its very nature contrary to Christian (and secular) ideals. Mr. O’Brien next begins to apply this principle to Potter. His initial statements are correct: many have cited Potter as a good thing for children, both by nature of it’s encouragement to reading, and by nature of what they claim are positive values in content.
However, here Mr. O’Brien begins to turn to what he claims are the negative aspects of Potter’s content. He says,
“But the charming details are mixed with the not so charming at every turn: Repulsive details abound; one of the “good” characters seeks to cast a spell on another student that backfires on himself, making him vomit slimy slugs; students eat candy that comes in a variety of odious flavors; the ghost of a little girl lives in a toilet; excremental references are not uncommon; urination is no longer an off-limits subject; rudeness between students is routine behavior. In volume four especially these trends are in evidence, along with the added spice of sexuality inferred in references such as “private parts” and students pairing off and “going into the bushes.”
Here, Mr. O’Brien begins to stray greatly in his thinking. He first refers to an instance wherein Ron Weasley, Harry’s best friend in the books, becomes upset with the bully character, Draco Malfoy, and attempts to cast a spell on him. The purpose of this spell is to cause him to vomit slugs. Of course this is not behavior one would encourage children to, however, it is not any more anti-Christian than any other literature available for children. There is an abundance of children’s novels filled with persons playing practical jokes on, or getting into scrums with, one another (which is what Ron’s spell amount to). Often times, the specifics of these stories are far worse, and Ron’s slug spell is playful and childish by comparison! Mr. O’Brien’s objection is based solely on the fact that magic is involved. In fact, the remainder of his points hold the same flaw: they are present in every work available. Potty humor and rudeness are by NO means isolated to the Potter story. It would be a challenge for anybody to in fact provide very many children’s books that LACK these things. In addition, the references to sexuality O’Brien speaks of are greatly exaggerated and taken out of context. By quoting the word, “private parts,” without the surrounding text, it makes the reference seem greatly sexual. However, this is not the case. The references refer to persons being struck or injured there, nothing more. Similarly, the reference to pairing up in the bushes is taken out of context, and is no more sexual than something that one can observe watching an episode of “Full House,” widely regarded as one of the most family friendly sitcoms ever aired.
Of course, simply because content is widespread in society does not make it any less or more threatening to a Christian perspective. However, in this case it is very harmful to Mr. O’Brien’s arguments. Firstly, as proven by his introduction, Mr. O’Brien seeks to show that Potter is anti-Christian largely by merit of its OCCULT nature. These references make no claim to sorcery of magic of any sort. Secondly, Mr. O’Brien’s arguments seek to criticize the Harry Potter series ALONE. Should he wish to produce a work discouraging the production of ALL questionable material, he will find no argument here. This is a valid concern. However, Harry Potter must not be singled out for this cause. Here, O’Brien’s criticism is of the nature of modern society, NOT of Harry Potter.
In the next paragraph, O’Brien finally does focus on the occult; however he does so in a problematic fashion. Here we see the beginning of a case he tries to build in his article for Rowling’s books encouraging a metaphorical worldview. Here, this is done by deriding the series’ “use of the symbol-world of the occult as her [Rowling] primary metaphor.” This is the first statement in a chain of deceptive assertions intended to make the series appear more sinister than even most anti-Potter critics would claim. Of course, Rowling has created a fictional world filled with magical symbols and things. However, it is NOT intended to be a metaphor, as Mr. O’Brien claims. As Sigmund Freud once said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Rowling’s books are a fictional work of entertainment, nothing more. They are not meant to serve as a metaphor for the real world, or for any particular ideology as to how the real world should be viewed. In fact, Mr. O’Brien classifies this belief as part of a “flood of overreaction,’ which asserts that the books are “overt works of Satan.” However, this is exactly what he seems to be asserting by referring to the symbols as a “metaphor.” There is no other explanation for the use of that term. Mr. O’Brien further builds on his conspiracy theory by presenting the idea that Rowling tries to convey this metaphor through “attractive role models.”
The article proceeds to mention a variety of magical practices and objects which exist in the books. Of course, this is to be expected, seeing as that the world of Harry Potter is one of [fictional] magic. Indeed, one watching Star Trek would see stories filled with tribbles, green women, Klingons, and phaser [laser] weapons. One reading a legal thriller would see a world filled with police officers, prostitutes, rapists, and murders. In principle, one will always see in any work of fiction persons, practices, and things which are a part of the fictional world created by the author. In fact, Star Trek and Harry Potter would be far less harmful to a reader than would be a legal thriller, because a person cannot actually go out and battle Klingons or create a magical potion, whereas one reading a legal thriller could in fact attempt to get away with the crime portrayed in the book in an attempt to prove that he could get away with it where the protagonist of the story could not. This is not to say that O’Brien would portray a legal thriller as legitimate Christian entertainment, however it seems that once more his critique is based on the inclusion of magic as opposed to real concern over the practical, functional content of the stories (what the characters do). Would, for instance, Mr. O’Brien rather have a person read Potter, or a legal thriller which focused on such themes as prostitution? Likely, he would not endorse the legal thriller, because of the objectionable actions that the characters may take, EVEN THOUGH it is set in a more real world, a world not forbid anywhere in the Scriptures. Again, if O’Brien wishes to criticize the overall content of today’s entertainment, he will get no complaint from me. However, he has instead chosen to author a critique of Potter alone.
Also, O’Brien introduces out-of-context material to show further problems with Potter, and even employs a very poor argument that is often used by atheists to attack Christianity. For instance, he mentions the mandrake plant. He describes it correctly, however the context makes it appear as a horrible, disgusting thing, when it in fact is not. To this real world, a world that does not have mandrake plants, the idea of babies growing in the ground and being harvested for magical concoctions is rather disturbing. However, in the context of the magical world that Rowling has created, this is not the case. These are not actual babies. They are rather simply parts of plants that look like babies. It is meant to be fantastic and unusual, not disturbing and evil. Ignoring the context creates terrible problems. An example is warranted. In Christian culture, most persons (though not all, and for those who dissent it is without question their right) would not consider a fight scene in an action movie to be too troubling, provided that it were kept from being too graphic. However, when this same scene is put in the context of an episode of Star Trek the Next Generation, it becomes an on-screen depiction of actual Klingon sex! Similarly, nobody would have a problem with a character on the television scratching his ears. However, should a Ferengi do it on Star Trek, viewers, by nature of the context, are subjected to masturbation. The context makes ALL the difference. Also, arguments as this tend to fall into the category of “arguments by outrage.” These are, in other words, arguments that ignore the context in favor of the purely emotional factors. This is the type of argument an atheist turns to when he claims that Christianity is false because God once ordered Moses to kill all those who opposed him. They focus purely on how horrible the example seems to be, as opposed to being concerned with WHY the example happened, and what it really MEANS.
On “A Gnostic worldview”
Here, Mr. O’Brien begins to make utterly ridiculous claims that simply cannot begin to stand up against educated criticism. They are important, however, as they are another component to his case for a massive conspiracy (the very case he criticized in his introduction). He begins with the completely misleading statement that, “Rowling’s wizard world is about the pursuit of power and esoteric knowledge,” and then proceeds to cite that it is therefore a modern representation of Gnosticism! To begin with, it is only those who Rowling presents as evil whom are in pursuit of power. The books actually make the point very clear on multiple occasions that the pursuit of power is a trait of evil, and a trait that is to be avoided, along with all the other traits of evil presented in the books (which they also speak against). Mr. O’Brien here seeks to do nothing less than mislead his readers. Additionally, his claim that the world is about the pursuit of esoteric knowledge is simply ridiculous. For one, the knowledge is not esoteric. In our world magical knowledge and spells are esoteric; only a very few people know anything about them. In the world of Potter, all of society is about magic. It is not any special knowledge. Further, the world is about the pursuit of knowledge because the entire books take place in A SCHOOL. It is difficult to overstate how inane this objection is on the part of Mr. O’Brien. Indeed, if the characters were NOT pursuing knowledge, there would be a major problem! Thus, the comparison to Gnosticism falls apart, as the books condemn the pursuit of power, do not encourage esoteric knowledge, and do not encourage the procurement of knowledge any more than every Christian parent has a responsibility to.
Next, Mr. O’Brien begins to speak of the Gnostic view of salvation, as if it is somehow connected to Potter. This is problematic and in fact very dangerous. It is problematic because the Gnostic beliefs concern eternal salvation, whereas Potter does not discuss the subject. The villains seek power to rule the EARTHLY world, and the students seek knowledge (as mentioned in an appropriate way) to function in society in the EARTHLY world. None of their actions have anything to do with salvation, making the comparison 200% theologically nonsensical. Whereas Mr. O’Brien’s conspiracy theories require a theological representation of some sort by Potter, he seeks to draw it here. However, none exists. The danger of this statement comes in the way he connects the Potter character’s actions to their supposed Gnostic world view. He begins by saying that Potter characters do certain things (though they don’t), then cites that Gnostics do certain things, and proceeds to say that the Potter characters are Gnostic simply because they do similar things! This is an INCREDIBLY dangerous (and flawed, but that is another issue) way of thinking. It is the very same argument employed by Acharya S. and other anti-Christians to claim that Christianity is a copy of ancient pagan religions. For instance, ancient Egyptian culture had a concept similar to the Trinity (though in fact it is very different), so these skeptics say that Christianity is a copy of the Egyptian religion because it is similar. This line of thinking can do nothing less than destroy Christianity itself (if Christian’s start encouraging it instead of attacking it’s flaws, that is).
Next, there is a brief statement of the Potter series treatments of Christmas and Easter as secular, Christ-less holidays, and the emphasis placed on Halloween. He goes so far as to say (because of his conspiracy theory) that these holidays are absorbed into the context of the “occult symbol-cosmology.” His statements keep getting more ridiculous. This one is the most ridiculous yet. The books treatment of Christmas and Easter have nothing to do with this, unless of course marshmallow peeps are an occult symbol! Of course the books are simply, in the cases of Christmas and Easter, reflecting today’s modern secular view. This does not mean the treatment is correct by any means. Christians must always strive to “put Christ back in Christmas,” as the saying goes. However, in these regards, no child will be hurt by these books any more than by simply living in the year 2005. It is up to parents, both insofar as the Potter series is concerned, and insofar as the world in general is concerned, to make sure their children always understand the true meaning of these occasions. It is also worth noting that the Potter books do not speak negatively of the religious aspects of these holidays. In fact this is so simply because Rowling simply keeps religion out of the books. This is not meant in a negative way. Neither she, nor the books, are anti-religion. They simply tell their stories without commenting on religion one way or the other. The treatment of Halloween is also overstated. It would make perfect sense in a [fictional] world that ACTUALLY has ghosts and wizards and the like to emphasize Halloween. There is nothing wrong with this. In fact, any reader who roams the forums of EWTN will find plenty of statements from Priests saying that there is nothing wrong with kids dressing up as ghosts and whatnot on October 31st for the fun of it. Children going trick-or-treating do not worship Satan or perform Satanic rituals, and neither do the Potter characters, and neither do they encourage it in any way whatsoever.
As Mr. O’Brien moves on, he tries to further his conspiracy theory, stating that, “This wizard world, Gnostic in essence and practice, neutralizes the sacred and displaces it by normalizing what is profoundly abnormal and destructive in the real world.” One does not need a degree to realize the problems with this statement. Firstly, Mr. O’Brien hurts his own case by finally implying the true fact that the wizarding world is fake (and thus not something anyone can really practice; cf. the legal thriller analogy). Further, he claims that the books emphasize what is “profoundly destructive” in the real world. This is a vast overstatement. It is possible to argue that a person attempting to cast a spell will put them in spiritual danger, but doing so will neither, in and of itself, put a person in profound spiritual danger, nor create ANY physical or otherwise non-spiritual destruction, nonetheless of a profound nature. In other words, a fellow speaking incantations is probably not going to lose faith ONLY because of that (if he does, Potter is the last step, not the first, second, third, or so on), and he is not going to blow anything up or kill anybody either. Lastly, there is a disconnect here between the first half of Mr. O’Brien’s sentence, about Gnosticism, and the second. While emphasizing abnormality may be the end result of Gnosticism, it is neither an intent nor a doctrine of the belief system. In other words, Gnosticism does emphasize abnormal things, but it does so because of what these things are, NOT simply because they are abnormal, as Mr. O’Brien seems to claim.
On the characters use of magic as their
means
Next, Mr. O’Brien criticizes the books in the way they differentiate good and evil: even though they show the difference, he claims, the good wins via magic, so that I bad. In a certain sense, Mr. O’Brien’s point is correct here. Using a bad means to achieve a good end is bad. Of course, most children will not read this deeply into it, and will simply see the good vs. evil nature of the story, but nevertheless it is an important point. However, while in our world, magic is evil in any way, in the Potter world, some magic is good and some bad. This is all a matter of context based on the FUNDAMENTAL UNDERSTANDING THAT POTTER IS FICTION. Any person who does not understand the difference between fiction and reality shouldn’t be reading ANY fiction at all, not just Potter. If fiction simply told normal, everyday stories, nobody would read it because it would be boring. All fiction has some level of the unusual or fantastic, and if a person cannot recognize this, they must be taught. Obviously, this is where the idea of parents comes in. To treat ALL that is in the real world bad as also forbidden in the fictional world comes is essentially the root of the Puritan notion that ALL fiction is wrong. Though some Puritan fiction exists (for instance, the famous Goodman Brown), it is a rarity because of this notion that writing must contain nothing in the realm of the unusual or fantastic. If fiction is treated as fiction, there is nothing wrong with the good character’s using magic, because it is understood and known that it is fiction and that what is acceptable in fiction is not always acceptable in the real world.
This is also the reason that Mr. O’Brien’s claims of “confused notions of authority” are baseless. Obviously to attempt to practice magic in the real world would be an attempt to have a type of control man cannot have. This is the very reason that even if we TRY to practice magic we can’t: God won’t let us have that power. In Rowling’s books however, this economy of authority is not binding. It is a pure and utter work of fiction, and provided one understand that, there is no problem. If this chain of thinking were applied to all books (which as has been pointed out, Mr. O’Brien has not sought to do), it would mean that any work of fiction which did not indicate God as the basis for all things is bad for people. Of course, in reality God is the basis for all things. However, that does not mean that every book that doesn’t say that is bad. This thinking goes back to an old Biblical discussion of James 4:13-15, where the Apostle tells us not to say “I’ll do this tomorrow,” but rather to say, “if God wills it I’ll do this tomorrow.” We do not condemn every person that does not speak this way. In fact, the traditional and widely accepted teaching is that if a person really did go around saying that all the time, he would be guilty of pride! In life, a Christian must always realize the true nature of things, but that does not mean that every word must profess them. Does Mr. Bush cite God as his source of power for every action he takes? Of course not, even though it is (and he knows it, thankfully) to be true.
Therefore,
reading about Harry Potter, who has an incorrect view of the economy of
authority from a Christian, is the same as reading stories about secular people
who also have the wrong view. It would
be wrong to condemn ever single book that does not proclaim God’s power. Often, these books are Christian at
heart! Few criticize C.S. Lewis’ works,
though they be Christian at heart. In
fact,
After his definitions, Mr. O’Brien again produces another laundry list of undesirable behavior that is exhibited by the Potter heroes. This list falls under the same umbrella as does the list addressed above. It is by no means ideal, and is behavior to be discouraged. However, unless Mr. O’Brien wishes to address ALL works which contain this material, he has no case. In fact, he omits some vital details here. For one, many of the negative behaviors of Harry’s that are cited are portrayed in the book as negative. This is a key point. Perhaps Mr. O’Brien has interpreted the books differently from I (although from his critique, it would seem he has read only the third book, and possibly the fifth!). However, many of these behaviors presented me with the impression that Potter was being a selfish, hateful, bad person. The book implicitly condemns these actions, by showing how bad a person Harry becomes as a result of them. In fact, many times he actually has to repent of these behaviors once he realizes his wrongdoings. These instances serve as an example that everyone, even the best of men, can fall into sin and must repent. I noticed this when I was still a “Christmas Eve Christian.” Surely a believer who actually understands the faith would take even more out of it. Also, Mr. O’Brien refers to Potter doing wrong (such as lying) to accomplish good. However, what he fails to point out is that in many of these cases, Potter actually gets punished for the wrongdoing EVEN though the teachers know of the good intention and/or outcome! If anything, these cases teach children profoundly good Christian morals, not wrong.
On “Seeing the context of the times” and “Culture forms of
consciousness and conscience”
Mr. O’Brien proceeds to quote Father Amorth again, professing, in the Priest’s words, that today’s culture is full of mediums which evil spirits employ to draw men into sin. This is true. However, the extent to which the statements are made, and applied, again reaches into the area of sensationalism, of which is has been shown that Father Amorth may be prone to. To a man claiming to have done 9 exorcisms a day, clearly Satan is going to be found in everything. The problem with this is that he is not. Satan CAN be found in everything, but he is not ALWAYS found in EVERY thing. For instance, the Father makes the point that cultural influences such as television and movies are tools of Satan. This is true, they can be. However, is the evil one behind EWTN, or The Passion of the Christ? Of course not. Mr. O’Brien’s claims make a logical fallacy. An example is warranted. Basic geometry indicates that a rectangle is a four sided figure with four right angles. A square is a four sided figure with four right angles and four equal sides. As a result, all squares are rectangles. However, NOT all rectangles are squares! This premise is the same for Mr. O’Brien’s (and Father Amorth’s) claims, except that we replace all with many. In other words, many of Satan’s tools are cultural influences, but not EVERY cultural influence is a tool of Satan.
The argument
continues by stating that Potter is presented as the lesser of two evils so
that people will choose it over Satan worship, or things of that sort. However, another logical fallacy is committed
here. Mr. O’Brien’s argument says that
people are choosing Potter as the lesser evil.
In essence, the argument assumes one of two things: no good exists, or
all people wish only to choose from amongst evil. In other words, by juxtaposing Harry Potter
with more Satanic things, it excludes good as an option one way or the other
because it isn’t offered as a choice. An
example is warranted here. In the last
At this point, Mr. O’Brien begins to discuss the manner in which Potter can effect children’s development, and Potter’s relation to it. He begins by saying that children get their metaphysics from stories, not theologians. He may be right. However, this once more falls into the category of “not just Potter.” I will once more repeat my statement: if Mr. O’Brien wishes to author a critique of society as a whole, of the literature available, and it’s lack of appropriate theological truths, I will have no problem. However, it is wrong to focus solely on the Harry Potter series. There are far, far, far worse things out there, and in fact, as has been mentioned, Potter contains a great many good values. Mr. O’Brien moves on to say that the cultivation of good virtues leads to the best for children. This is good news for Potter, since the series does a very good job of cultivating virtues (and much better a job than he will give it credit for at that). He then goes on to try to draw a false dichotomy between virtues and values. It is not that they two are synonymous, as they are not. However, Mr. O’Brien presents a false “either/or” view of the subject, precluding the possibility that values and virtues can exist in equally beneficial coexistence, which they can and do.
Finally, Mr. O’Brien makes the most important statement in his article: “Children are dependent on adults to make careful discernments in the area of culture because they do not have the advantage of age and experience.” This is exactly the point. It is up to adults to help educate their children about matters of all sorts, including what comes in Harry Potter! What Mr. O’Brien says next is the key to his argument: “In the case of the Harry Potter series discernment has been difficult for many people because these novels seem at first glance to reject evil by dissociating magic from the diabolic. Yet in the real world they are always associated.” He has to show that Potter is deceptive and too ambiguous for adults to judge to make his point stand up. He is able to do this by approaching the issue only from one of two equally necessary angles: he treats the book ONLY as if parents are able to read it first and make a judgment on it, and ignores the role of and ACTIVE parent.
In other words, he says that parents can’t really judge Potter because when they read it with their fully developed senses of faith and morals they can grasp the entire truth of a point, whereas when the relatively undeveloped children read it they only understand the surface parts of the book’s morals. This is why parenting is in every way an ONGOING role! The parent must continue to teach their children and dialogue with them about the book if the children do not have developed senses already. This is also why parents must EDUCATE their children to understand these things themselves without the parent needing to double check everything the child is involved in. An example is warranted. A parent may spend months researching the right preschool for her son. Finally, she finds it, and upon her inspection it is great, from the teachers down to the other kids, who all seem like wonderful children. Is her role done? Can she now simply send her son to the school and be done with parenting until summer? Of course not! One day, her son may be called a name at school by one of those kids that seemed fine before, and she must take an ACTIVE role to teach her son that it is wrong to call people names back. Better yet, she could teach her son that BEFORE he goes to school in the first place. Mr. O’Brien’s arguments assume that a parent will go only so far as to pick the school, and they ignore the other vital parts of parenting. THAT is his biggest flaw.
The remainder of this section focuses on Mr. O’Brien’s concern about Potter drawing kids into the occult. He provides statistics and some other mishmash of facts. What he never counters, though, is the argument that it is always up to the parents to make sure that their children are strong in their faith or to read through the books with them and explain it. The parents should make sure their children are strong in the faith anyways! The fact that Harry Potter could hurt a person’s faith does not mean that it should be eliminated. For instance, some aspects of Catholicism, like the Marian doctrines, cause a lot of people who DON’T UNDERSTAND them to lose their faith. This does not mean that the Marian doctrines should be opposed, however! It means that the Church must make a better effort to educate people, just as parents must make efforts to educate their children. Further, Mr. O’Brien’s statistics are meaningless, because they do not make any reference to religion. For instance, of these 12% (a rather small number, by the way, for what Mr. O’Brien makes out to be such a great danger) of persons interested in witchcraft, how many were Christians to begin with? How many were atheists? How many were pagans of or new age believers of some sort? These questions are important, and without the answers the statistics prove NOTHING about Christians losing their faith. The other statistics have the very same flaw. Given the rates of belief amongst teenagers to begin with, it is very reasonable to assume that most of these newfound believers in magic and whatnot were not Christians, or practicing Christians, to begin with. There is also a great flaw in the statistics relevant to the question about involvement in occult activities: it does not ask if these occurred before or after Potter was read. This is strong evidence to suggest that the pole was biased against Potter and designed for the purpose of “proving” Potter to be bad. The list of choices includes “consulting a spiritual medium or psychic, fortune telling, palm reading, playing with a Ouija board, playing a game that featured witchcraft or sorcery elements, participating in a seance, trying to cast a spell, and trying to mix a potion.” Anybody familiar with American culture is well aware that a great portion of teenagers had participated in these things LONG before anybody had even heard of Harry Potter. Teens have done these things for decades. This is just another reason for parents to catechize their children as early and as well as possible: these practices happen out of children’s under education and curiosity; not because of a book. While it is true that Potter has effected some people, there is absolutely no evidence that any, or a significant number of them, were Christian.
On “Loss of Christian Discernment”
Herein, Mr. O’Brien begins to attack Potter from a different angle. By this new argument, Potter is not only bad, but we can never recognize it because of our culture. In fact, the beginning of the argument is a bit odd. Here, Mr. O’Brien actually claims Potter to be an upward “bump” in the downward leading road. Supposedly, this “bump” of Potter’s is an illusion which only helps to contribute to the whole of Christian faith falling down the drain. Next, he introduces what sounds like a very good argument: Christian parents would not allow children to read books about other things condemned in Scripture, like illicit sex. This argument has flaws on both sides. Firstly, illicit sex (and also drugs, which are referred to) is regarded as bad not only by religion but also by secular cultural morals. Though these may seem to be eroding in some parts of society, they are still built into the culture. Even those who practice illicit sex realize that society regards it as wrong, they simply do not care or see themselves as part of a liberated new way of thinking that they will help to usher in to the norm. It is because of this that Christian parents would see such a story as utterly wrong in every way: it goes against their faith as well as cultural morality. The same applies to drugs. Mr. O’Brien fails to mention sins such as murder, theft, and unforgiveness. Would Christian parents forbid stories which had such contents? Probably not. More so, what of the Greek Myths? Would good Christian parents forbid their children to read about terrible idolaters such as the ancient Greek in school? What of the myth of Heracles? Indeed, this myth provides what could be misconstrued as a Christ proto-type, something which could EASILY lead a teenager to come to believe that Christianity was a copy of Greek mythology! This is far more dangerous to the faith than Harry Potter. Unless Mr. O’Brien wishes to prohibit all such works, his arguments fall apart. In fact, he says books which 3 decades ago would never have been permitted now are allowed without a second thought. He seems to put Harry Potter into this category. However while we will never know, I would tend to believe that Harry Potter would have met no such resistance in 1975 as it is today in 2005.
On “Implications for the future”
I will not address this area other than to make a few points, as it is a conclusion, and as such deals with more indirectly related material. It specifically deals with the degradation and possibility for restoration of the Christian culture. In general, Mr. O’Brien’s points are legitimate. However, there are a few problems.
For one, he for the second time appeals to J.R.R. Tolkien as a positive example. In fact, he seems to previously in the article cite Tolkien as somewhat of an anti-Rowling. This should raise several eyebrows, as anybody familiar with Tolkien’s works knows full well that they are just as dependant upon magic and a false economy of authority as is Harry Potter. Mr. O’Brien fails, for instance, to point out any difference between professor Dumbledore and Gandalf. In fact, The Lord of the Rings is filled with far more theologically dangerous ideas than Harry Potter. For instance, there are the immortal elves, whom have no need for salvation. There is Gandalf, whom is in a sense responsible for his own Salvation, and whom has not only magical powers but also quite nearly has control over his own life, capable of choosing when it is that he should die! He also uses his powers to miraculously cure a king in the saga. Of course, these ideas are all based on sound theology upon deep consideration, however it is the need for this deep consideration, as opposed to having it spelled right out, that Mr. O’Brien condemns in the Harry Potter series!
In the second to last paragraph, Mr. O’Brien makes the only real reference to Potter in this section, in which he posits that Harry Potter will be the start of a slippery slope toward spiritual ruin. Of course, anyone familiar with debate is well aware that the slippery slope argument is one of the worst and most invalid sorts. Additionally, it is frankly quite ridiculous to believe Potter will be the cause of a complete ruination of faith. It all comes down, as even Mr. O’Brien points out, to EDUCATION. So long as parents educate, no child shall lose faith, especially over something as simple as a book. Education is the key to avoiding all types of spiritual trouble. In fact, it is very probably that the negative response to Harry Potter is and will cause more harm to faith than the books ever could hope to. Satan, as Father Amorth tells us, is very resourceful. The irony in all of this is that while Mr. O’Brien says that Potter seems positive on the surface but is evil underneath, it is in fact the ANTI-POTTER movement which has clearly become a tool of Satan. Christianity has enough trouble combating the ever growing onslaught of atheism and modernism without appearing ridiculous to the outside world. Indeed, even where an atheist may think Christian’s views of homosexuals to be wrong and discriminatory, they can often at least understand why Christians feel as they do. The same can not be said of Potter. Listen to the secular world. Search the internet. Catholicism, and Christianity, is the laughing stock of the world right now over Harry Potter. How are we to bring this nonbelievers into Christ’s Church if they believe that we are superstitious at best and fascist at worst? This affects Christians too. A young Christian may be growing in his faith, yet still at the stage where religion is optional. If suddenly he is told that religion condemns his favorite book, he will surely choose Harry Potter over his “optional” religion. A woman recently wrote of how, as soon as she heard of all of the anti-Potter reports, she grabbed all of her children’s Potter books and toys and threw them straight into the garbage. Which of these will hurt the children’s faith more: Potter, or the actions their mother took?
Of course this does not mean that Christianity can allow it’s teachings to be dictated by the secular world. We must follow God’s Word, without regard for the world, and on this point Mr. O’Brien and I agree. However, it must be done rationally, and with great care, and based upon true understanding of God’s Word, and on true understanding of this world. I believe that the evidence shows that Potter is not nearly the threat to the faith as Mr. O’Brien has asserted. His arguments are full of statements taken out of context, logical fallacies, half-truths, and lazy and underdeveloped ideas. This is NOT good enough for a matter of the Church. Only the TRUTH will set us free.