The Helpful Discovery of Dirt in Potter's Field

I recently read yet another Christian complaint about Harry Potter. The critic’s thesis was that Joanna Rowling is a “contemporary transgressive artist par excellence,” who holds lightly to the canons of Judeo-Christian morality and of traditional children’s literature in the west, the Potter tales being a catalog of rule-breaking, disobedience, lying, vengeance-taking, and whatnot, its final installation containing the revelation of the Snape-Dumbledore murder-suicide pact that insinuates euthanasia into the minds of children--not to mention that all of this is done in a pagan context by witches and wizards, no less.

My reaction was--yes--but did he miss something? Like the Point of it All?

One wonders just what kind of literature a person like this can read.  Must everything be reduced to black and white, not only with unwelcome details smoothed over, but with tools that, by neutralizing elements the critic prefers not to see in his desire to define the work by the ones he finds obnoxious, guts it and renders invisible the message of the whole?

The Rowling fantasy, for those who are able to see it, is a very typical moral tale of the Judeo-Christian west: it is the story (I have said elsewhere that this is the only real Story there is) of the hidden prince born in troubled obscurity, who finds it in himself to love good and oppose evil, and who, aided by a rather motley lot of companions, destroys at the forfeit of his life the kingdom of the Evil One, finally coming into his own and living happily ever after. It is the story of the Gospel; it is our story. To love it is to love the story of Christ and his church. Harry Potter is an imperfect Christ, to be sure, but what reasonable person would confuse the thing itself with its image?

Here, however, was someone who thinks that since the principal characters are in many ways flawed, the piece should be kept away from Christian children instead of given them for edification. Christians are apparently supposed to be people for whom everything is a monochromatic moral tale, and who operate on the maxim that people are what they read.  But this is only true of fools, and one cannot account for the actions or opinions of fools.

Christian children who are old enough to read Harry Potter are old enough to understand the imperfections of heroes, and judge the flaws of literary characters, if they have been given the standards by which to render the judgments. Shall we train their instincts to flee imperfect human beings rather than love and embrace them--not for the imperfection, but in spite of it--in hope of redemption, both of their imperfect selves and those they embrace? If we train them to flee, those who castigate our faith for making people who hate first themselves, and then by extension, others, are quite correct about our faith, but wrong in thinking it Christian.

These children are also old enough to understand that murder/suicide pacts are the sort of things that can be entered by pagans with noble and admirable ends in mind, but which Christians know are sinful--they are old enough to understand what is splendid even in the virtutes paganorum, and to think of Dumbledore and Snape accordingly. If Dumbledore’s creator thinks of him as a man of homosexual orientation, why does that mean Christians are obliged to belittle his excellences--particularly if he lives, as he is depicted, a chaste and celibate life? In that case might homosexuals be justified in saying we train our children to hate the sinner along with what we allege to be the sin? If we did, and they did, they would be right about our faith, but wrong in thinking it Christian.

One wonders what critics like this do with Odysseus, with David or Solomon, with Simon Peter, with Hamlet, Lear, or, Bunyan’s Christian, for that matter. Or the Bible. The Christian literary tradition, because it is grounded in the perfection of God, the primordial goodness of creation, and a redemptive teleology, does not require perfection of its heroes, only perfectibility, and--this is critical--the ability to represent Christ, whether by authorial intention or not.

Given what we are shown of our Lord in the Gospels, I strongly suspect if he were accurately depicted by friendly and sympathetic eyes in accounts that did not have the status of holy scripture, and without the overlay of piety, we would see a good, but flawed, perhaps deeply and fatally flawed, man. He would not in fact have the imperfections we would lay to his account, but he would be far from measuring up to our expectations for a perfect man. He would not be prudent enough, respectful enough, humble enough, patient enough, pious enough, obedient enough, considerate enough, or kind enough to be God Incarnate (and only rarely are we visited by the capacity to admit that we secretly attribute the same flaws to God himself).

Even though we would notice prodigies of all these virtues in him, we would also see evidence of their lack in certain instances--of inconsistency. We would see his tragic end on the cross as heroic, perhaps, but it would not surprise us, given certain qualities we had observed--connected, perhaps, with persisting questions about the moral uprightness of his parentage. It is for this reason he can be represented to us, while imperfectly, in stories of imperfect heroes; it is why these stories lead back to him. It is because we are what we are, and Almighty God has regarded our low estate.

The Evangel, in fact, is always mediated to us through imperfect heroes, or heroes we may easily assume share our imperfections, handsome princes though they may be. It is no coincidence the keys to the Kingdom were delivered to the most robustly flawed of all Christ’s disciples. This is why we are uncomfortable with the attempt to create perfect heroes. For one thing, we can’t do it, so the attempt makes for bad literature, and for another, for some reason characters sanitized to our standards never look like the Lord.

Comments

[Fabio P.Barbieri]

Well, in that case, I would like your opinion on my essay on the subject: http://www.fictionalley.org/authors/fabio_p_barbieri/AGWBC01.html. It is my view that, while JK Rowling is a great writer, her writing can in no sense be called Christian. That is no reason to disapprove of it: the person who disapproved of reading, say, Goethe because he was a Pantheist or Thoreau and Emerson because they were Unitarians or Mark Twain because he was an atheist, would not be a scrupulous Christian but a fool. However, let us stop this nonsense of equating the Harry Potter character to Christ and then assuming that this proves the Christianity of a thoroughly pagan piece of work. Even Baal-Moloch - yes, the worst idol of the Old Testament - died and rose from the dead. What would the prophets have to say about such a comparison?

[bonobo]

If Dumbledore’s creator thinks of him as a man of homosexual orientation, why does that mean Christians are obliged to belittle his excellences--particularly if he lives, as he is depicted, a chaste and celibate life?

I had to laugh when this "news" about Dumbledore broke. What was JKR trying to do, curry favor with the homosexualising lobby? Then why, according to the story, should D.'s teenage dalliance with his cohort have negative consequences? Shouldn't it have been a life-affirming experience which allowed him to flame brightly through the earlier books of the series?

It turns out in fact that JKR's purported hidden homosexualising agenda merely serves to add to the books' similarity to the traditional Christian morality tale. I'm very much inclined to think that it all boils down to a little afterthought on JKR's part: not very well afterthought out.

[Little Gidding]

I believe that the essence of the rational criticism of the Potter oeuvre points to the uneasy feeling that the stories have functioned "out in the land" as a narrative of ideals that are not seen in the light of the Gospel truth, but as a replacement of it. That highest truth is able to draw any imperfect characters and story up into it, just as you point out, but if that highest truth is not there for those who are reading it, then the story and the characters are operating on their own terms, so to speak. If that is the case, as it seems to be, then there is an opening for cautions or reservations.

[Daniel Propson]

Thank you for the commentary, Mr. Hutchens. I find it quite enlightening, helping me to reconcile two very contrary experiences I have had with books like the Potter books.

Your point, that well-formed Christian children ought to encounter universes such as these, despite their flaws, is a much neglected sentiment, as you know. It is true that much is wrong with Potter, of course. If nothing were wrong with us, then we ought to ignore such a book.

But something is wrong with us. The Fall gives us a need to understand subtleties of good and evil, a need that imaginative fiction seeks to fulfill. We need to read about fallible heroes and heroines working out their own salvation in fiction, even as God does the work of salvation in us. And we need to reflect upon the compromises that authors make in creating such worlds. (I expect that any mature reader of the first 50 pages of Sorcerer's Stone will realize that it is 500 times better than anything else in the series. The "hidden prince" story is told in those 50 pages. The next 5000 pages are an inferior epilogue).

"To the pure, all things are pure."

I look forward to the day when those with pure hearts dominate the Christian media.

[Wordlover]

"If Dumbledore's creator thinks of him as a man of homosexual orientation, why does that mean Christians are obliged to belittle his excellences--particularly if he lives, as he is depicted, a chaste and celibate life?"

Unfortunately, the impact of the Potter phenomenon is not primarily on the minds of wise, seasoned Christians. The story plays with astonishing power on the heartstrings of young boys, who are all too often figuratively, if not literally, fatherless. Orphaned Harry is transported into the presence of strong, older males, and is "called out" by them to become a man, to face danger, to become a hero.

I find it terribly distressing that the bond which should rightly be established between a mentor and his protege has been muddied by the insinuation that it is also a sexual attraction. Even if Dumbledore was "chaste and celibate" in his life beyond the tale, it nevertheless legitimizes something God considers anathema. It is not, in my mind, a safe conceit.

[Kamilla]

My problem with Rowling is less with the substance of the Dumbledore uncloseting than with the mere fact that she revealed something substantial about a character's "character" AFTER it was all done and dusted.

ISTM this is a basic violation of the canons of fiction - you don't change the rules after it's written.

I really don't know what she thought she would accomplish by this except to generate a little more publicity. But really, if Dumbledore was genuinely "homosexual" in her mind all along - don't you think that would have showed up somewhere along the way? Don't you think the critics and supporters who dissected the work, iota by iota, would have found that out - especially the "Christian" Harry-haters?

What are we going to learn next, that Minverva McGonagal is a closeted lesbian who had an affair with James Potter's mother while they were in school together?

Kamilla

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>What are we going to learn next, that Minverva McGonagal is a closeted lesbian who had an affair with James Potter's mother while they were in school together?<<<

That was "The Prime of Miss Jean Brody", I believe.

Personally, I find nothing extraordinary about Rowling's revelation about Dumbledore (though I think it might be TMI). It would not be uncommon in the British public school system of which Hogwarts was so obviously a part. Think "Brideshead Revisited" with broomsticks and wands. It is easy to see how the magically precocious but socially isolated Dumbledore could develop a strong crush on Grindelwald, hpw the fight that led to Arianna's death would have left massive psychological scars that would have put him off sex of any sort, and how he would then have sublimated both his guilt and his sexual energy into teaching and research. Why this should have any impact whatsoever on the underlying Christian ethos of Rowling's story, I don't know.

Most of the Christian critics of Harry Potter, in my estimation, suffer either from a marked absence of imagination (the flip side of excessive literalism), or a very deep-rooted distrust of the imagination, which says more about them than it does about the merits or flaws of Rowling's novels.

[Taylor C]

Simply the fact that many critics of Harry Potter err on the Puritanical side does not mean that we should dismiss the case against the books altogether. If we take the Narnia books as norms for imaginative fiction, I think two problems (though others might be found) stand out with the Potter books. The first is moral, the second metaphysical.

In the Narnia books, the good and bad characters are distinguished not only by what side they are on in the temporal battle, but by their moral behavior. Edmund, in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, is capable of calling his tiresome cousin Eustace a 'blighter' when he is annoyed; but he is also capable of empathy and mercy, which he exercises after Eustace is caught stealing water from the ship's stores. Eustace, on the other hand, is capable only of ill-will towards Edmund and the other men on board. Edmund is not only on the right side in a temporal sense; but one could say that his soul is actually larger and more expansive, more capable of empathy, compassion and moral discernment. In the Potter books, however, Harry and his friends seem to exhibit many of the same moral failings as their adolescent counterparts. Lying, stealing and more generally breaking the rules are justified by Harry and his friends by the dire straits in which they find themselves and the ends of their behavior. However, in the Narnia books the ends never justify the means. Think of Aravis' punishment from Aslan in the Horse and His Boy, for example - there is some non-worldly power, beyond the conflicts of here and now, taking stock of, or'reckoning,' the moral deeds of creatures in the present world.

The second, metaphysical problem is that the books appear to take place within a 'closed universe' that ultimately owes its nature to the materialist conceptions of scientific rationalism. This may sound like a strange thing to say about books in which magic abounds, but I think it becomes apparent from a contrast with the Narnia books. In the Horse and His Boy, for example, we read the story of two young people, Shasta and Aravis, and their journey to Narnia. While it seems to them and us that their journey is self-determined and self-sustained, both we and they learn at the end of the story that Aslan has been the real mover behind things. Thus there is a force for good, from beyond the present world which is governing and ordering the events of this one. It is a 'providential framework,' if you will, in which things happen. Harry, his friends and his enemies, however, exist in an unexplainable universe. How did they get there? Where does this magic come from? Is anyone ultimately in charge? There seems to be a kind of ceiling beyond which we cannot penetrate in the Potter books, because certain metaphysical questions are never asked, or even intimated; whereas in Narnia, all of creation is caught up in movement and wonder, and each part of the story is part of the bigger story of the initial creation. Ultimately the Harry Potter universe is unintelligible, and I would posit that this derives from the ultimate irrationality of a universe without Christ, the Logos of creation.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>If we take the Narnia books as norms for imaginative fiction<<<

That would be a major error. Lord of the Rings remains the gold standard in that department.

[Taylor C]

I chose the Narnia books because they are much more like the Harry Potter series than Tolkien's. They both concern children, magic, and movement between the contemporary quotidian world and a magical one (though in Lewis there are two separate worlds, while in Potter the worlds are combined). Judging by moral and metaphysical criteria, I might have chosen Tolkien or George MacDonald just as easily to be norms; but the specifics would be less easily comparable to Potter.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> Lying, stealing and more generally breaking the rules are justified by Harry and his friends by the dire straits in which they find themselves and the ends of their behavior. However, in the Narnia books the ends never justify the means.<<<

That's a bit simplistic. Harry and his friends do break the rules--sometimes fecklessly, at other times after serious deliberation and agonizing doubt. In almost all cases, there is a price to be paid, but there is also no guarantee that "following the rules" would have resulted in a better outcome.

In that sense, Potter is much more true to real life than Narnia, because life is not simple, and we are not simply called upon to "follow the rules", but to do good. There are rules and there are rules. Some rules are made by man and thus their applicability is transient and conditional; other rules are of divine origin, and thus can be considered eternal precepts. One should not lie, steal, cheat or kill, for instance. Yet, when one looks without sentimentality upon the matter, the Potter stories are war stories, and the essence of war involves lying, stealing, cheating and killing. This was true in Lewis' day, too--and throughout World War II, when many of the Narnia stories were being written or conceptualized, we, the Good Guys, were involved in far more morally compromising situations and made more morally compromising decisions than ever Harry and his friends did.

That is the way of the world--there usually isn't a black and white, just various shades of grey in which we are called to find a path towards the good, even when the good really means "less bad". Amidst the rocks and shoals, we must navigate by the light of the Holy Spirit, which will lead us into all truth. But we must also recognize that, in a fallen world, and endowed only with imperfect knowledge and wisdom, our choices are likely to lead us astray. And even when things "work out for the best", there is usually an awful price to be paid. Consider all the missteps of Harry and his associates, and how those lead to needless death and suffering. Notice how frequently it is compassion that leads them into error--whether Dumbledore's compassion for Harry that causes him to conceal the truth, or Harry's compassion for his friends, which causes the death of Sirius Black. At other times it is pride, hate and stubborness that get Harry into trouble. He's no paragon, but Rowling in no way writes off his indiscretions and misdeeds. And Harry knows--better than his friends, in fact--just how responsible he is for the suffering around him. This is no moral whitewash, by any means.

But let us turn to Tolkien's masterpiece--in fact, let's turn to Tolkien's entire subcreation, which actually does take place in a "closed universe", just as does Rowlings (though where you get the scientific materialism part, I don't know). "All good stories are about the Fall", wrote Tolkien, and the entire story of Arda is in fact a retelling of the Fall of Creation, from the Rebellion of Melkor through the restoration of the united kingdoms of Gondor and Arnor. Throughout it all, sin is rampant, and even the heroes are marked by various character flaws, whether it be Feanor in his pride, the exiles of the Noldor, Thingol Greycloak, Beren One-Hand, Turin Turambar, Turgon King of Gondolin, the various men, hobbits, elves and dwarves we meet along the way. All are fallen, all are constantly falling, some redeem themselves, often through divine grace. Not even the semi-divine Istari (Wizards) are immune, and all fall but one. So how is this different from what happens in Rowling's world, other than the fact that Tolkien writes at an infinitely more profound level?

[smh]

The Harry Potter books are indeed written from an entirely pagan point of view. I think their author understood, on an intuitive level at least, that any substantive contact with Christianity would create a great many problems she wished to avoid. I would compare them to Grimms' tales in that regard, or if Douglas Wilson is right (see the July/August, 2007 Touchstone), Beowulf.

Lewis made the point in several places that once Christianity appears, paganism can no longer live in its mists and twilights, but must take sides. I suspect Rowling wrote the Harry Potter books as she did because she understands this. The "weakness," of course, is that this classically moral tale is not Christian (as Narnia clearly is), so no one is obliged to take it as proevangelical. One might say the same of Tolkien's Ring--and many of Tolkiens remarks thereupon would apply. The strength is that for precisely the same reason, one may.

[GL]

So, Stuart, would you agree that your well-stated defense of Harry Potter fiction applies to real life illegal immigrants, who are made to enter the country illegally because of "rules . . . made by man [which are] transient and conditional" (not to mention asinine) in their applicability? Don't you think that men and women entering this country to meet a real demand for real workers and who have a real all-American (not to say human) desire to provide a better life for themselves and their families deserve as much a break for violating man-made (not divine) laws as do J.K. Rowling's fictional characters?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The Harry Potter books are indeed written from an entirely pagan point of view. <<<

But then, so is Lord of the Rings, and though one can find Christian symbolism in the books, and to the informed Christian they convey a totally Christian--indeed, Catholic--perspective, there is no overt mention of Christianity, no clear-cut allegory within them, so that I have had non-Christians argue vociferously that I am superimposing my own Christian meanings on them, while from the other side, I have had Christians (admittedly of a particularly boneheaded type) argue with equal passion that the books are utterly un-Christians precisely BECAUSE they lack overt Christian allegorical symbols. Neither one nor the other bothers to look at what the author actually believed or what he wrote about his theory of fantasy or of the work in particular.

[labrialumn]

What is SM Hutchins saying about Jesus? I must be misreading him, for he seems to be saying that Jesus sinned.

As to Harry Potter and Dumbledore, Potter is an image of the Christian, not of Jesus Himself. Dumbledore shows -no- homosexual tendencies AT ALL in the books (that I could discern), I suppose. There is no indication of anything like it even in the two month friendship with Grindelwald which was simply that of boys finding like minds to play with.

Book 7 rather trumps book one, let alone 2-6. Chamber of Secrets is the one out, I think, while it has some good bits - the mirror of Erised, and Dumbledore's Christian advice to Harry at the end, it is very much a replay of Philosopher's Stone.

Some peopel point out that Harry like any other school kid, occasionally breaks the rules. This seems to disturb them more than the far more serious failings in Christian romance novels, etc. But Harry, unlike most school kids, breaks manmade rules in order to obey God-given basic morality. that is virtuaous. And even then, he manfully accepts punishment for haivng done so.

Do these people -read-?

Stuart, well said. Indeed, Rowling has a message in addition to the main one about sacrificial love, and being in communion wiht the blood that was shed to save you, and that is that we are not what we are by group identity or bith, but by our -moral choices- Something that is incredibly subversive in the modern wast, let alone Oceana under the Brown government or the Kirk of Scotland, to which she belongs.

Not so sure that Radagast fell in the larger sense of the word. He may not have been terribly effective, but he didn't change sides. Much the same could be said of the Adam-like figure, Tom Bombadil.

SMH, The Potter books are written entirely from an imperfect Christian point of view, about an England that has fallen from the Faith in knowledge. She did what she did for the same reasons as CSL, and in open and intentional homage to him, but in a much more anti-Christian England than that in which CSL dwelled. She lives in Belbury, and has to take more care. CSL still lived in St. Anne's on the Hill.

GL, there is no real demand for workers, there are large numbers of unemployed Americans who want those jobs.

[labrialumn]

My fingers are cold. It has warmed up tremendously since yesterday, and is now 7 above, Fahrenheit. And my eyes aren't up to seeing the red lines under the typos, or the tiny text that comes out on this page. My previous post has many examples of this, I'm afraid. :-(

[Beth]

I believe Dr. Hutchens is saying that *from our human perspective* Jesus would have *appeared* to sin, in many of our eyes. He isn't, for example, "nice" enough for many Christians I know, if they were given His character in a novel (or in real life, for that matter), and not in the Bible. Nor judgmental enough for others I know. Etc.

[Taylor C]

>>>Potter is much more true to real life than Narnia<<<

(I apologize for the length of my posts, but I think this is worth pursuing a little)

Mr. Koehl, I think the criteria of being 'more true to real life' is a problematic one. What exactly is 'real life,' and how is a story true to it? If, as Christians, we believe that the universe is ordered towards an end (our ultimate reunion with our Creator), then a story that is true to reality will be one that reflects this. If this belief is true, then every moral decision we make is ultimately reckoned for or against us within that context. The 'temporal battle,' whether against the Axis Powers of WWII or the evil forces in Harry Potter's world, is secondary. As Christians, we know that the eternal battle against evil was already won, when Christ triumphed over death at Pascha. The battle on this earth, then, is the 'working out of our salvation', and thus decisions must be made 'sub specie aeternitatis,' with a view towards the eternity in time. This is not to deny the presence of moral ambiguity in this life, or its validity in fiction; but in the best stories the veil of time is pulled away and we do gain an eternal perspective.

The difference between the Lord of the Rings and the Potter books (besides the vastly greater scope and beauty of Tolkien's creation) is that the Ring books can ultimately function as pre-Christian myths like the Nordic sagas or Homeric tales; while the Potter books take place in an obvious version of the contemporary world. Thus, while an allegorization of the Tolkien books is possible in which Christianity might appear (in the same way that Early and Medieval Church Fathers read Christ in the Old Testament), they have a literal, historical level which is independent of allegory. I mentioned that the Potter universe owes its nature to scientific materialism more than to the Christian West, because, while I do think it's fair to call the Ring books 'pagan' in the Pre-Christian sense, the Potter books cannot claim such a name. Since the books take place in a version of England in ANNO DOMINI 19xx or 20xx, they have to reckon with Christ in a way that the Ring books don't. Since, as I argued above, I think there is a 'ceiling' in the Potter books, in reality they are closer to scientific, materialism than Christian vision of the universe (unlike paganism, this worldview is a vibrant and current alternative to Christianity). More could be said in connection with magic, science, and power (Lewis pursues this line of thought somewhere), but I'm afraid I'm beyond my word quota.

[CMA]

For those who can't 'see' the Christianity of the Harry Potter books, might I suggest a book that my very orthodox Catholic 22 year old devoured...'Finding God in Harry Potter'. JK Rowling did her homework on many fronts and the symbolism alone is incredible. Of course, for those Christians who see signs and symbols as 'unChristian', this might be an invitation to more negativism.

In response to the comment that Harry and his world were at war, that is absolutely correct. And war isn't fair, it isn't pretty and one hopes in the end it is just. However, it might be better to think of Harry's world vs that of the Muggles as the difference between our world and the spiritual world where the battle goes on until He comes again in glory.

[GL]

Labrialumn,

My question was why the same logic that explains away rule breaking to fictional heroes doesn't apply to real humans. However, I doubt your assertion, at least as it would apply over most of the past decade-and-a-half. Most employers have been begging for workers and anyone willing to work and to move to where the jobs are can still find work. Even with the recent up tick in unemployment, the following states need workers with unemployment rates at or below three percent:

IDAHO, 2.7
SOUTH DAKOTA, 2.8
UTAH, 2.8
HAWAII, 2.9
WYOMING, 2.9

Then there are those states with more than 3% unemployment, but less than 4%:

NEBRASKA, 3.1
NORTH DAKOTA, 3.1
VIRGINIA, 3.2
DELAWARE, 3.4
MONTANA, 3.4
NEW HAMPSHIRE, 3.4
NEW MEXICO, 3.4
ALABAMA, 3.5
LOUISIANA, 3.5
MARYLAND, 3.7
KANSAS, 3.8
IOWA, 3.9
VERMONT, 3.9

Note, all of those states have unemployment rates below the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's estimate of the "full-employment unemployment rate" of 4 to 6.4%. Anyone wanting a job and willing to move, therefore, could likely find a job in any of those states.

[Scott Walker]

My two cents. I think the real value of Harry and his friends is found in the ideas that are introduced to the young (or old) reader. Examples: it is praiseworthy for a strong and accomplished woman to devote her life to raising a family (Molly Weasley). A large family is a good and happy thing, even if they are poor by the world's standards (All of the Weasleys). The mass media are agenda driven and mercilessly ruin reputations in the pursuit of that agenda. In addition to reputation blasting, lies are employed as well. (The Daily Prophet and Rita Skeeter). Politicians are seldom trustworthy (Cornelius Fudge) Good intentions without prudence can lead to disaster (Harry inadvertently causing the death of Sirius Black). Good and evil truly exist, and one must choose between them (The point of the series). The fear of death leads to sin (Voldemort). The pursuit of power leads to sin (Voldemort, Percy Weasley, Cornelius Fudge). It is noble to sacrifice oneself for others (Harry, Harry's mother, Dumbledore). The weak and helpless are to be protected (Hermione and her campaign for the House-elves). None of these are specifically Christian virtues, rather they derive from what CS Lewis called "the Tao" in his "The Abolition Of Man". They are not taught much in public schools these days. I think a child who has learned to love Harry and his friends is innoculated, in a small way, against Mammon and the PC spirit of the age. In that sense, JK Rowling is a brilliantly subversive author.

[DGP]

Mr. Walker,

You make some excellent observations. I would rephrase the "fear of death" bit differently, perhaps as "refusal of death," but you're right that Voldemort's loathing/ denial/ avoidance of death is a key sin on his part. I also question whether the point of the series is merely choosing between good and evil; the question raised here by Mr. Hutchens is of how this happens, and how this in turn is related to the (real) story of man. But yours is a magnificent list of some of the moral virtue of the Rowling books.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>My question was why the same logic that explains away rule breaking to fictional heroes doesn't apply to real humans. <<<

It does--but you missed my other point: that there is always a price to be paid.

At the same time, I don't recall freedom to migrate being written into the Ten Commandments, but it's been a while since I checked (perhaps the USCCB has issued a new translation). In any case, I think you are confusing those things that are Caesar's with those that are God's.

[DGP]

>>At the same time, I don't recall freedom to migrate being written into the Ten Commandments,

It's more than a little ironic, given the context for the delivery of the Commandments. :)

[GL]

I could address that, but I don't want to ruin your thread on Harry Potter. Just couldn't let Stuart's remark go by without a comment. I am glad he acknowledged that the logic of his position on Harry Potter applies to immigrants.

You all can go back to your literary discussion now.

[Jack of Clubs]

I think "entirely pagan" is a bit of an overstatement. Harry has been baptized and has a godfather. Hogwarts breaks for Christmas and Easter not Winter and Spring. It is true that no one ever seems to go to church, but neither do they meet among the standing stones for anything but practical purposes. We don't even see any signs of "New Age" spirituality unless you include the mutterings of Professor Trelawney, who is held up as an object of ridicule and is not particularly religious in any case. On the whole, the Potter universe is somewhat less pagan than California, though not much more Christian.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It's more than a little ironic, given the context for the delivery of the Commandments. :)<<<

But, in fact, they weren't migrating to a foreign country--they were leaving a foreign country to go HOME. For the Exodus analogy to hold, the illegals in the U.S. would have to be enslaved and prevented from LEAVING. Now, if some Mexican prophet were to emerge from the Barrio, go to Washington, pound on the White House door, and demand of President Bush, "Let my people go!", I would think that the President would say, "Sure thing, compadre. Can we order up some busses and trains to help y'all out?" Certainly beats having the Potomac run red with blood (it's bad enough in its normal state), or for a plague of locusts to descend on the land (we just got rid of the seventeen year cicadas), or for the first born to be taken (but I know the secret for getting out of that one). Don't let it be said we can't learn from the mistakes of the Egyptians.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I am glad he acknowledged that the logic of his position on Harry Potter applies to immigrants.<<<

But remember--there's always a price to be paid. Harry and friends SOMETIMES beat the rap, but when they don't they take their medicine. And, more often than not, that consists of Harry watching others suffer because he transgressed. Always a price--be willing and ready to pay it.

[Michael]

Quite so, Taylor, but the fallings of the characters are indeed reckoned eternally. The sins of both Dumbledore and Voldemort are given specific attention in Deathly Hallows, and it is acknowledged that the great sin of Voldemort in his murder was the rending of his own personal soul, which of course survives beyond the mere extinguishing of the body, as we see when Harry uses the ring of Morphin Gaunt to "awaken" the dead. In the chapter "King's Cross," wherein Harry finds the piece of Voldemort's soul imprinted upon him in the form of scabbed, half-human screaming infant--if you missed the parallel, it is the same physical form that Voldemort had in Goblet of Fire prior to gaining his new body at the end--and Dumbledore instructs him to let it be, for it is quite beyond hope, it is only the fraction of a soul. And a small wonder this: that Harry's contact with the dead (Dumbledore, his parents, Sirius, Cedric Digory during the priori incantatem) all have them quite as they were, but Voldemort, in his fear and ignorance, incapable of love, is infantile in his eternal form.

Moreover, if we are to draw the parallel between Voldemort and Dumbledore, which I think it is apparent Rowling wanted us to do, why is Dumbledore the hero of the story? As Harry frequently iterates, it is "Hallows, not Horcruxes." Dumbledore did not seek to circumvent death for himself, but to return to life those he had hurt, most specifically his sister, and this was an address of his own grief, not of his fear of death. He seeks what is morally upright always. Even his days with Grindelwald, thinking that the enlightened wizards should rule the Muggles, was in pursuit of the greater good, though terribly flawed in nature. As Chesterton points out, it is one thing to be considered elegant for being fat in one age and for elegance to be slenderness in another, but it would not do for people to cease striving for the absolute "elegance" at all.

Regarding the eternal ramifications of Harry's (or Ron's, or Hermione's) personal choices, I can only hope to point out what Stuart already has--that the outcomes of their actions often lead to the harm of others, and these are eternal, as exhaustively detailed in Deathly Hallows.

As to Potter being "pagan," I could not disagree more. He is, perhaps, post-Christian (and an arguable point that), but certainly not pagan. This is chiefly an instinctual conclusion, but perhaps someone can offer a critique of Potter as pagan to which I might respond or come to agreement.

[JRM]

I can't let Stuart's caricature of Catholic social teaching go unobserved even if he's right about Harry Potter.

"At the same time, I don't recall freedom to migrate being written into the Ten Commandments, but it's been a while since I checked (perhaps the USCCB has issued a new translation).

Not the USCCB, but the Pope perhaps:

Pope John Paul II:

"Man has the right to leave his native land for various motives-and also the right to return-in order to seek better conditions of life in another country."

Laborem Exercens.

It's a little more complicated that Stuart's short shrift, but the Pope is relying on both the 10 Commandments and certain other applicable commandments issued since, to be ignored at your eternal peril.

Back on topic...

The Title for this post is very clever.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"Man has the right to leave his native land for various motives-and also the right to return-in order to seek better conditions of life in another country."<<<

On this, as on many other things, Pope John Paul II let his own personal experiences trump the long-standing Catholic tradition. The terms and conditions under which one country can allow people to enter and leave its territory is a matter for the prudential judgment of the secular authorities, particularly when unconstrained immigration can result in social disruption of the kind we are now seeing in Europe and are beginning to see here, as well. I wonder whether, in light of his related statements, Pope Benedict will stand behind John Paul's words (which were not as cut and dried as JRM makes out). Certainly, the Church did not stand behind the right of free migration when it came to the Goths, Vandals, Alans, Bulgars, Slavs. Arabs and Turks. In this, as in other matters, the Church deferred to the civil authorities whose responsibility it is to maintain the peace and security of the realm.

And, for what it's worth, it's the USCCB that presents caricatures of Catholic social teaching, perhaps because they so often get it confused with the campaign platform of the Democratic Party.

[Clark Coleman]

Was the Pope saying that a country should not prevent its own citizens from leaving? I agree with him there.

Or, was he saying that some particular destination country has the moral obligation to accept them? Why that country among all the countries on earth? What if a country of 10 million people has 30 million who want to come to it next year? Does it have an obligation to quadruple its population in the next 12 months?

Any clarification of our papal obligations is appreciated.

[Clifford Simon]

>>At the same time, I don't recall freedom to migrate being written into the Ten Commandments<<

That would turn on whether the "aliens" in the Mosaic Law, can or cannot reasonably be construed to exclude those whom we call migrants today. After all, SOMEBODY had to be gleaning the grains behind Israel's harvesters. SOMEBODY had to rest with Israel on the Sabbath day. SOMEBODY had to furnish the occasion for Adonai to command, "Do this and that, for the aliens among you, and then you will remember that you were aliens in Egypt." Who were those SOMEBODIES? Migrants? Or just Muggles?

And since when were the barbarian invasions and jihadic conquests, the same things as migration? I'd wager that migrants are, by definition, unarmed...

----

Which country has a moral obligation to receive the migrants of another? I'd wager, any which makes a goddess of Liberty, and says
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

America is the world's police state. She's also the world's frontier. Like it or not, that's what she is, and practically she must be. So live with it.

[DGP]

>>I wonder whether, in light of his related statements, Pope Benedict will stand behind John Paul's words (which were not as cut and dried as JRM makes out).

It's curious how often two V2 trajectories seem to conflict -- one, which amplifies and/or multiplies the applications of human rights, such as to the topic of migration, and another, which heightened and supplied theological justification for the legitimate autonomy of the civil sphere. In the matter of immigration, as in capital punishment, some formulations of Church teaching seem to infringe on matters that belong to the prudential wisdom of civil authorities.

Even so, GL's remark about immigrants having a "real all-American (not to say human) desire to provide a better life for themselves and their families" and deserving "as much a break for violating man-made (not divine) laws as do J.K. Rowling's fictional characters" can be quite correct. It is important to remember that a man's moral obligation to his family cannot be reduced to his obligation to the state, nor the latter to the former. Consequently, in a fallen world, it may come to pass that the virtuous man's service to his family may bring him into conflict with just laws.

The true harmony of all virtues is found only in the reign of God (or divine charity, approached from the other side). Pending the manifestation of that Government, we continue to face conflicts between goods, and find ourselves as yet unable to resolve them satisfactorily.

Thus Mr. Hutchens writes:

"Given what we are shown of our Lord in the Gospels, I strongly suspect if he were accurately depicted by friendly and sympathetic eyes in accounts that did not have the status of holy scripture, and without the overlay of piety, we would see a good, but flawed, perhaps deeply and fatally flawed, man. He would not in fact have the imperfections we would lay to his account, but he would be far from measuring up to our expectations for a perfect man. He would not be prudent enough, respectful enough, humble enough, patient enough, pious enough, obedient enough, considerate enough, or kind enough to be God Incarnate (and only rarely are we visited by the capacity to admit that we secretly attribute the same flaws to God himself)."

This is, of course, already true. People are frequently scandalized when they pick up a Gospel and read about the real Jesus, instead of simply projecting onto him all the virtues they claim for themselves. Jesus, as reported by the Evangelists, grows angry and impatient with those who dispute him, holds people accountable for not meeting moral expectations, speaks of Hell and threatens it, speaks "with authority" and without concession to the opinions of others or even of scholars -- and these are just a few of the scores on which readers find themselves in private judgment against the Lord.

Does that mean we should scorn the patience, forgiveness, discretion, and humility we project onto Jesus? By no means! Rather, we should scorn the projecting, our own preference for being "validated" by the Lord rather than to be taught by him.

Harry Potter and Dumbledore were both at least occasionally docile, occasionally willing to hear another's wisdom. If they were not always so, then we recognize their characters as men like us.

>>Any clarification of our papal obligations is appreciated.

Good luck with that. :)

[DGP]

>>America is the world's police state.

I hope you mean "policeman," not "police state." Otherwise, you're badly cracked.

[JRM]

"Certainly, the Church did not stand behind the right of free migration when it came to the Goths, Vandals, Alans, Bulgars, Slavs. Arabs and Turks. In this, as in other matters, the Church deferred to the civil authorities whose responsibility it is to maintain the peace and security of the realm."

There is a distiction to be made between "bad habit" and "Tradition." You failed to make that distinction here.

The USCCB is pretty much in line with Church's teaching. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/15/world/americas/15vatican.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

You are not.

The Catholic Catechism states:

2241. The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

Note the words "are obliged" and "to the extent they are able." We can debate about the extent contries "may be able" but we must first deal with "obliged."

Pope Benedict's thoughts are here:

"Speaking of the other category of migrants - asylum seekers and refugees - I wish to underline how the tendency is to stop at the question of their arrival while disregarding the reasons for which they left their native land.

The Church sees this entire world of suffering and violence through the eyes of Jesus, who was moved with pity at the sight of the crowds wandering as sheep without a shepherd (cf. Mt 9: 36). Hope, courage, love and ""creativity' in charity" (Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte, n. 50) must inspire the necessary human and Christian efforts made to help these brothers and sisters in their suffering. Their native Churches will demonstrate their concern by sending pastoral agents of the same language and culture, in a dialogue of charity with the particular Churches that welcome them."

His 2007 address sounds pretty close to statements of the USCCB.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/migration/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20061018_world-migrants-day_en.html

[Michael]

Am I the only one more interested in Harry Potter than Catholic morality viz illegal immigration?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able<<<

"To the extent they are able"--a prudential judgment for the civil authorities, not an absolute mandate for open borders.

>>>Am I the only one more interested in Harry Potter than Catholic morality viz illegal immigration?<<<

Well, the two can be merged, to some extent, by a more general discussion of the conflict between individual moral obligation and obligations to the state and society in which he lives. GDP captured that nicely with:

>>>It is important to remember that a man's moral obligation to his family cannot be reduced to his obligation to the state, nor the latter to the former. Consequently, in a fallen world, it may come to pass that the virtuous man's service to his family may bring him into conflict with just laws.

The true harmony of all virtues is found only in the reign of God (or divine charity, approached from the other side). Pending the manifestation of that Government, we continue to face conflicts between goods, and find ourselves as yet unable to resolve them satisfactorily.<<<

This, in a nutshell, is the quandry in which Harry Potter finds himself--his own personal moral obligations frequently put him at odds with the laws and obligations imposed by Wizarding society, and he must decide how to behave towards each. The fact is, though many laws passed by society seem--or indeed are--rather pointless, most have been implemented for good and sound reasons, even if those reasons are not immediately apparent to us. We violate them at our peril. Sometimes it is right to do so, sometimes it is not. As Fr. DGP says, it is a consequence of the Fall that we need laws at all, and true harmony is not available to us this side of tee Parousia.

[Maureen]

Re: immature Christians reading literature

St. Basil, in his Address to Young Men, advocates the study of classical pagan literature _precisely_ to the immature young Christian whose faith is not fully formed. St. Basil claims that boys and young men, even though raised to be Christian, are simply not ready to study the Bible or other sacred works in depth. Therefore, they should read the poets instead, pick out the good bits, and ignore the rest. Biblical study will be best built on the foundation of literary and moral understanding found in classical literature.

If he can say this of literature written by idolaters and pagans, however virtuous, I think we can cut funny little Scottish Calvinist writers a tad bit of slack.

[Stuart Koehl]

I've raised St. Basil's address several times in the past, in relation to the "dangers" of sending our children to secular universities (I'm with Fulton Sheen, who once said, "If you want your children to lose their Catholic faith, send them to a Catholic university). Basil also pointed out that the Greek myths served as "preparatio evangelicum" because someone who can believe a story about a god who disguises himself as a bull will have no problems with the idea of God who takes the form of a child.

[labrialumn]

GL,
It does. See Thomas Aquinas on civil government and the duty of resistance. Or, for that matter, see Peter, James and John in the Acts of the Apostles.

The unemployment rates only count those people unemployed within the last six months.

Those are still unemployed people. They are still our fellow Americans. Our neighbors in our Jerusalem or Judea and Samaria. I am not a Darwinist, I do not see them as lebens unswerten leben the way many fiscal conservatives do. The notion that "full" means 94% is horrendous to any Christian. You also forgot "able to move," that not being even close to free. Perhaps you need to lose your employment and job history and try from scratch to learn humility and charity.

Stuart, perhaps this command has something to do with the freedom to trespass (which you called migrate) "do not move the ancient boundary stones"

Oh, but Jack, they do go to church. At least, the elder generation did. The Potters and the Dumbledores are buried in the parish churchyard, with Bible verses on their headstones. Harry is strongly drawn to go to the Christmas Eve mass where he feels for reasons he doesn't understand (Hermione has to explain that he is misunderstanding the Bible verses, which he doesn't recognize). JK Rowling is tiptoeing past watching dragons with such stealth that many of the redeemed miscomprehend her, though if they'd had an education, they'd've not been able to ignore the trumpetings from time to time.

JRM, did the Pope who faced down Alaric hold to the same view on migration? Or does absolute objective truth change from age to age, as infallible popes (providing they are the ones of the old imperial capital, inside the beltway of the Tiber) change their infallible views?

Those somebodies, Clifford were a) the poor in Israel (the gleaners) and b) the descendants of the peoples of the land whom Joshua and others made treaties with, that they weren't supposed to, letting them live. NOT all the Turkmen of Asia or all of the Arabs of the desert coming in to squat on the fields.

America is not the world's frontier. That frontier is closed, and has been for nearly three generations. The world's frontier is the Moon, Mars and the Main Belt.

We need to get a grip and realize that the Mexican government is waging asymetrical warfare against these united States. That the illegal trespassers coming here are leaving behind their wives, families, jobs and shops in order to find new ones here, and that the Mexican government officials routinely rob, rape and murder those entering through -its- southern border.

[Nick]

Let me launch a withering stare at Mr. Hutchins for not including a spoiler warning. I admit to being slow, having only finished the penultimate book last year and scheduling the final one for this spring, however, spoiler warnings are all in the best needs of blogging etiquette where major plot points are concerned.

[WHITHERING STARE]

[W.E.D. Godbold]

I think it's instructive to note how the Mexican government treats Guatemalan immigrants (to Mexico) who are looking for a better life. What's sauce for the goose...

[GL]

In deference to those who want to discuss Harry Potter, I will resist the temptation to open a wider immigration discussion here. I merely wanted Stuart to acknowledge that his tolerance for J.K. Rowling's characters should, as a matter of logic, extend to real human beings who seek to enter the U.S. He has so acknowledged and I will leave a discussion of immigration in general to the next thread which more closely addresses that topic.

[DGP]

>>In deference to those who want to discuss Harry Potter, I will resist the temptation to open a wider immigration discussion here.

I tried to bring it back around. I really did. But the consensus appears to be that Mr. Hutchens is simply correct. Where can you go with that? It's the disagreement that motivates most people to post.

[GL]

>>>I tried to bring it back around. I really did. But the consensus appears to be that Mr. Hutchens is simply correct. Where can you go with that? It's the disagreement that motivates most people to post.<<<

Agreed. What can you add to SMH's original post? He hit the nail on the head and drove it in.

[smh]

Ah, perhaps, but all satisfactions thereupon have recently been wilted by a withering stare.

_________________

In my writing on this subject I have been treating the "western morality tale," as in Harry Potter and most of the Grimm's stories, as something that can take form in a Christian context and refer back to Christianity, but is not dependent on distinctively Christian teaching about right and wrong (the morality is universal), nor does it name Christ as the subject or object of striving toward the good. Christians will recognize him as the handsome prince, and will know the "happily ever after" as the full coming of his Kingdom, but the story does not coerce the identities. The handsome prince may remain simply the handsome prince.

The chief value of these tales to western Christians, and I think it a very great value, is that it offers them the ability to see the Gospel in a language more native to them than that of the New Testament, so that they may return to the authoritative text with renewed appreciation of its meaning and enhanced ability to interpret it to their own people, in accordance with an already-established love and value system. I often wonder if I would be a Christian if I had not been invited to hear the horns of Elfland, which I love, in what was given me by my Sunday school teachers (on whom be blessings), which in general I did not. No doubt this is why I am taking up cudgels on behalf of Harry Potter.

Taken alone, Harry, like Gilgamesh or Krishna or Balder, is only myth. It is only Good when it leads to Something Else, joins and submits itself to it. Christmas at Hogwarts, by itself, is not the Feast of the Nativity, but a school holiday.

[labrialumn]

If it is truly Christian, the "handsome prince" will be neither handsome, nor obviously a prince. He will "look fouler but seem fairer" as Samwise put it.

If it comes from the Christian worldview and affirms that worldview as opposed to opposing it (which will be manifest in subtle ways), then it is a Christian tale. That is not a thing dependent upon having Jesus as a character, or beating people over the head with the Bible as with the unpublishable published fiction in the Christian trinket (and a few books) stores.

[Bruce]

Fr G. Ronald Murphy's "The Owl, the Raven, and the Dove" addresses supposed Christian allegory in Grimm's “Kinder und Hausmärchen”. I haven't read it. However, his work on the Heiland, the so called "Saxon Gospel", was interesting.

[Carbonel]

What's wanted is some kind of Ellis Island on the southern border of the United States.

The INS in D.C. is as much of a problem as the illegal immigrants themselves. Possibly more.