I read the article “Harry for Catholics” posted on the Zossima website, as well as the article by John re: Fr. Aguilar. The issues with Harry’s values that many critics address are usually “nonissue” for me, because it is so clear to me from what base Rowling is writing from, and I am so sympathetic (as in sympatico) with her base. One of the values issues that has always intrigued me–and brought forth a response–is the accusation that Ms. Domain addresses dead on in her Objection 6 (Harry is a bad role model for children because he disobeys rules and tells lies); and Father Aguilar treats rather sketchily by saying that the series offers great values but poor philsophy (I think). The issues dovetailed for me, and helped me synthesize thoughts that had been rattling around tangentially for quite a while, most specifically around the issue of lying.

As I thought about the kinds of lies Harry tells, I wandered into the territory of why children lie to the adults in their lives. I recalled scenes that present Harry—or any of the children–lying, and it seemed to me that Rowling, along with all the other “large pictures” that she’s painting, also presents us with an unflattering portrait of how many, many adults react to children and the things they say.

Most adults don’t respect children and their thoughts or feelings very much. How often do adults say things such as “Don’t be silly.” “You didn’t think about this very much.” “That doesn’t make any sense.” “You need to read (or look or think) more carefully.” “Don’t ask questions.” “You’re too young to understand.” “Because I say so.” Or, instead of saying anything, how often do many adults just ignore children? As well, most adults become extremely agitated or angry if a child, especially an adolescent, questions the adult’s closely held beliefs or opinions.

The books are replete with many of the stereotypical (almost archetypal) adult responses to children’s ideas or thoughts.

Children are very perceptive, and they know (whether consciously or unconsciously) which adults respect them, and which adults will use their own words against them. Why wouldn’t the children weigh carefully what they said to McGonagall when, in their first year, she says, “Don’t be ridiculous, Potter, the Sorceror’s Stone is very well protected.” No student in his/her right mind (except, perhaps, a Slytherin) would tell Snape anything important since to do so would only lay the teller open to his withering sarcasm. How about Molly Weasley? As good-hearted as she is, the children know that she, like McGonagall, doesn’t really think they’re capable of, or old enough for, serious insights; in addition, Molly’s ideal son for much of the series is Percy, whom the children view as a pompous prat. Sirius often can’t be trusted, either, because he pulls the old adult trick of “Do as I say, not as I do.” Lupin uses what kids would view as a guilt trip—“Your mother and father died to protect you and this is the way you repay them.” (And as for giving up the Marauder’s Map, what a laugh that Lupin thinks Harry should have turned it in when he himself was one of the creators!)
All of the adult figures in the series are like most adults in real life—we mean well and we do the best we can at any given moment, but we often don’t accord children’s thoughts and conversations the respect that they deserve. And, in return, children often mistrust us.

Has anybody else seen this particular thread in the books?

Re: Father Aguilar’s comment about values being different from philsosphy: I don’t understand how such a division can be logically made. Our values are an outgrowth of our philosophy–and (or?) vice versa. Harry’s philsophy is writ very large for all to see–and Rowling hits it again and again–his choices and his actions are almost always a result of his great heart, and his ability to love. Just because Rowling doesn’t give us chapter and verse of Harry’s “religious beliefs”–or her own–doesn’t mean he (or she) doesn’t have any. Harry seems one of those who believes in the “spirit” of the law first, and the “letter” of the law second.

Thanks, Shane, for getting me there. I’ll have to check the site out further, looked interesting.

Thudders has jumped on the counter…out with the water squirter!

And, as I think I mentioned before, I personally know many Legionary priests and seminarians who have a positive view of the Potter books.

The NCR website: http://ncregister.com/info/about_the_register/

Kitties have lots of plots, they just don’t discuss them…

I just wrote a letter to the editor of the National Catholic Register, which I thought I’d share with you since I included a reference to you and your work. I did this not because I’m joining your “shameless promotion” department, but simply because your books have been so helpful to me, and I sincerely believe that Catholics who are interested in Harry Potter would grow a great deal in their undertanding and appreciation of Rowling’s work by reading yours.

I’m not a subscriber to the National Catholic Register, but I do read it regularly; my sister passes her copies on to me when she’s done with them. There’s so much that needs to be said on the subject of the Harry Potter series and its Christian worldview, but I restricted my comments here to the issue of Snape killing Dumbledore, which was a bit of a moral stumbling block for me, especially some of the arguments Dumbledore used to persuade Snape that it wouldn’t be such a bad thing to do. This subject was just raised in the National Catholic Register by a reader who had no problems with Harry Potter except for the Snape-killing-Dumbledore issue.

I have to thank you for linking to Mark Shea’s blog; it was his article on “Harry Potter and the Christian Critics” that informed my point of view on this subject.

I don’t know if this letter will be published, in full or at all, but here is what I submitted:

Sept. 27, 2007

Dear Editor,

I have been very intrigued by the recent discussion in your paper of Harry Potter. I’m a Catholic who has really enjoyed reading the Potter books and discussing them with my children. Contrary to the sincerely held views of many, I find these books to be filled with Christian symbolism and themes, as well as a philosophically Christian worldview. Orthodox Christian writer John Granger analyzes and explains these elements very clearly in two of his books, “Looking for God in Harry Potter” and “Unlocking Harry Potter: Five Keys for the Serious Reader.” I would recommend these books to anyone who, like myself, has had trouble connecting all the “Christian dots” on their own. The Christian nature of the seventh book, however, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” is so obvious that it’s nearly impossible to miss. After all, JK Rowling has said she is a Christian, and that the seventh book would clearly illustrate this fact.

A recent letter to the editor raised the issue of the one moral question which caused difficulty for me in “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.” That issue is Snape’s killing of Dumbledore on Dumbledore’s orders. My initial inclination was to try to justify this act on the grounds that it was part of an elaborate war-time plot designed to prevent the unbeatable “Elder Wand” from falling into the wrong hands. After all, we don’t have such things as Elder Wands to complicate moral decision-making in our world.

However, Mark Shea of Catholic Exchange, in an article entitled “Harry Potter and the Christian Critics,” posted Sept. 13 at http://www.firstthings.com addressed this issue so perfectly that I was left scratching my head wondering why I hadn’t seen things his way in the first place. Mark Shea explains that the reader is not being asked to approve of Dumbledore’s decision. In fact, JK Rowling goes out of her way to illustrate in “Deathly Hallows” that Dumbledore is a man with some rather serious moral failings. The belief he once held during his youth, that it was possible to do evil “for the greater good,” led to his downfall, and to great personal tragedy, earlier in his life. In “Deathly Hallows,” this mistaken belief re-emerges when Dumbledore devises the plot for Snape to kill him. The sins of Dumbledore’s youth mark his death as well, and also lead to Snape’s untimely death. To top it all off, the plot to give Snape control of the Elder Wand doesn’t work! Harry is left to deal with Voldemort himself, not by killing, but through self-sacrifice.

Thank you, Mark Shea, for shedding light on this important question, and thank you to the National Catholic Register for allowing a variety of views on this subject to be heard.

Sincerely,

Mary Norman
St. Paul, Minnesota

I would imagine that the HP-bashing sermonizer you heard over the weekend has never bothered to read the books. *rolling eyes and shaking head* As I said in a recent open letter to Laura Mallory (shudder at the name): Pick up a wand and say “wingardeum leviosa” and if a feather floats, I’ll quit reading the books, for they are, indeed, teaching witchcraft.

So, where’s the mention of the occult in the books? Honestly, Rowling seems to scoff at most attempts at Divination (witness both Dumbledore’s and McGonagall’s attitudes toward it). I don’t remember mention of a Ouiji board ever, and the only person to use Tarot cards is Trelawney; and her use is seen in a derisive light. It appears to my reading that Rowling discounts the occult and only uses the terms we associate somewhat with it in creating her fantasy world.

None of these critics seems to have noticed that Muggles can’t just decide to become wizards. One either is or is not a wizard and wishing to be so can’t make one.

Bad exegesis really explains a lot. For example, it explains how none of the Harry-Potter-teaches-occult-practices critics have tackled the hilarious scene in the Battle of Hogwarts when Sibyll Trelawney puts her crystal balls to their highest and best use– as projectile weapons. Talk about casting down “the occult!”