Dear Rev. Know-It-All,

The article for 11-11-07 was very good until the good Rev. tries to get specific about the Harry Potter books. At that point it becomes apparent that his argument does not really reflect the content of the books.

The good Rev. KIA is apparently unaware that Ms. Rowling has given the Harry Potter character some arguably Christ-like characteristics, especially in the last book. Throughout the series, those few times that Harry's magic or "powers" are used other than in a classroom setting or competition, they are used in defense of others or self-defense. Claiming they are used for "his own purposes" does not accurately reflect the text.

In the climax of the final book Harry knowingly walks to his execution, purposely putting down his wand and submitting to a "killing curse" in an attempt to save others, including his executioner, the evil Lord Voldemort. To the last, Harry attempts to get Voldemort to show some remorse for his past in the belief that redemption was still possible for this most evil of characters.

Is Harry Potter a Christian book series? No. But categorizing it as demonic is definitely overstating the case. The things that are most evident in the series include a belief in the power of love; the recognition of the worth of the  individual without regard to birth or condition of life; and the possibility of redemption for all (in the end, even Professor Snape comes out, if not a good guy, certainly as one who had admirable qualities in spite of his shortcomings).

Had he been familiar with the books, I don't think Rev. KIA would have chosen to argue as he does, and the Reverend's credibility suffers in this instance.

Sincerely,

Mr. Utterweis

Well, you may have a point. I have not read the Harry Potter Books. I have only seen a couple of the movies, which I thoroughly enjoyed. I am delighted to hear that Harry turns out to be self sacrificing in the end. 

But, on the other hand, I may have a point. That the books are entertaining has nothing to do with their intrinsic worth. Those who use recreational pharmaceuticals find them entertaining also.

First of all, there is no Harry Potter. There is only J.K. Rowlings and Hollywood.  These are all characters from the fantasy life of an English authoress. I have heard, though I can't document it, that the characters sort of write themselves according to Ms. Rowlings. You'll notice I have not used the words "demon possessed" to describe Harry and his friends.

The case for demon possession can be made much more strongly in regards to Tinsel Town. 

Demonic has a very specific meaning. First of all, the Christian word demon derives from the Greek word daimon, which means a guiding spirit or divinity, or demi-god that influenced men’s character. They could be either good or bad. Socrates talks about his daimon. They were, in a sense, lesser gods or spiritual beings. In the Hebrew Scriptures, the idea develops slowly, but clearly by the time of Jesus and in Jesus' own ministry there are encounters with angels and demons.

The word angel in Hebrew as well as Greek means messenger. It has no specific supernatural quality, though in the biblical text, the messengers are clearly supernatural "Daimons", or as we now spell the word demons, are not messengers. They are free agents submitted to the authority of no one. Angels are, in the wider sense, apostolic, another Greek word that means "sent."

Have you read Milton's Paradise Lost? The cry of the demon is "I will not submit!"  We live in a world that since the fall of Adam and Eve is at war. The spirit of sonship which cries "Abba, Father" is under attack by the demonic spirit that says "I will not obey." It's a real battle fought on an unseen battle ground. 

In my very limited experience of Harry Potter, it seems to me that his powers are his own. If he is good, the powers will be used for good.

The same is true for natural power.  For instance, a mechanic's ability to fix engines can be used for good or evil. He can do a job and charge a fair rate or he can taker you to the proverbial cleaner. A nuclear scientist can blow up a city or cure cancer. Natural powers are at our disposal. Natural power can be dangerous. Supernatural powers are potentially even more dangerous.

Jesus reminds Pilate that he "...would have no power over Me (Jesus) that was not given you (Pilate) from above." (John 19:11) 

Angels have power. Demons have power. 

The question is who has authorized the use of those  powers?

I have heard Harry Potter compared to J.R.R. Tolkien another series of fantasies that deals with monsters and spirits and wizards, but is considered by many to be a Catholic classic. There is a definite difference  between Bilbo Baggins and Harry Potter. Bilbo is a nobody who gets sent on a great quest. He struggles with the desire for power for power’s own sake. In the end, he barely conquers the desire for power. Harry is a wizard. A supernatural being who is superior to mere "muggles" (mortals who have no spiritual powers). He is superior to his bumbling aunt and uncle and nasty little cousin. He is superior to his teachers at Hogwarts and definitely superior to those slimy denizens of Slitheryn (another dormitory at Hogwarts).

I'm glad to hear his death is heroic, but it seems to me that he is a little obsessed with his own dignity, at least as the movie portrays him.

The great difference here is SONSHIP.

Bilbo is almost an adopted son to Gandalf who sends him on his mission.

Dumbledore, the chief wizard in the Harry Potter stories, is nothing more than a mentor, a mentor who apparently has issues of his own. Harry is the consummate orphan, and I think that is important to the story in a way that you may not notice. J.K. Rowlings has created a hero who is answerable to no one but himself.  His powers are his own, they are given him by no one. They lie within himself and wait to be discovered.

Pontius Pilate too, believed he had powers that were his own and that mistaken belief led him to do terrible things. In the end he took his own life when the emperor Nero demanded  that he do so.

On the other hand, Jesus said that no one took His life. He laid it down freely, but still, He laid it down at the request of the Father. 

Unless I am mistaken, Harry lays down his life for the "good."

The problem is, who defines the good? Do I, or does God?

When I think I can define the good, I am in trouble. Jesus said, "Why do you call me good? God alone is good."  Power, whether supernatural or natural, is dangerous apart form relationship and obedience to God, the true author of power.

I guess, the real reasons I've gone into all this is twofold. First it seems sad to me that the issue of sexual preference has been foolishly introduced into children’s fantasies. Children will have to deal with the issue soon enough. Couldn't some innocence be left to children?

What if L. Frank Baum, the author of the Wizard of Oz had intimated in his memoirs that, "the Tin Woodman and the Scarecrow, well....  And don’t get me started on the Cowardly Lion!"

Hollywood is not trying to entertain children, but to form them in its own frightening image. Just wait for what's coming out of Hollywood in the upcoming Christmas, (Oops! I'm so very sorry) Holiday Season. The Golden Compass is about the evil "magisterium" that tries to steal children's souls. "Magisterium," you may remember, is the Latin term we Catholics use for the teaching authority of our Church.

My bigger worry is this: the supernatural world is real. In my life as priest I have seen frightening and terrible things. If it were not real it would all just be good clean Halloween fun, but the devil really does "go about like a lion seeking someone to devour." Perhaps 99.99% of those who read the Harry Potter series and see the movies are just looking for a good suspenseful story, which they are.

Still, I wonder if .01% might go delving into a world that is truly terrifying and dangerous without as St. Paul calls it, "the armor of God."

As to the cultural issues, have you never heard of the best way to boil a frog?  If you toss a frog into boiling water it will jump right out. If you put a frog into a pot of nice, tepid water and then put a fire under it, the frog will just swim around until it is cooked.

There is a force in our culture that hates the Christian faith, especially the Catholic version thereof. We are like frogs swimming around, not really caring that the water is getting hotter. Well, Hollywood has been cooking our cultural frog for about a century. It seems that the frog is about medium rare and for some reason, Ms. Rowlings has just turned about the heat.

Maybe we should consider jumping out of the pot.

Yours,

Rev. Know-It-All