More on Harry Potter
Since I put up my thoughts on Harry Potter on this web site, I have become
involved in dialogue (to put it nicely) with some of my Christian friends from the
parish and the community on the subject. One friend asked me to read a set of
comments he had found on the web site of Focus on the Family, a column by John
Andrew Murray. Now Focus on the Family is a worthy organization that
does many good things to promote Christian values, but it is run by
Fundamentalist Protestants, and therefore may not always have a perspective in
line with Catholic teaching. He asked me to give him my thoughts on the
article. And so, here they are:
John Andrew Murray's column attacking Harry Potter was published in 2000, based
on a reading of the first three novels in the series, and before any of the
movies had appeared. He accurately predicted that the series would remain
popular and warns that it is a spiritual danger in terms very similar to those
used by other Protestant writers. His argument is brief, but sums up well the
anti-Potter party.
He begins by raising the issue of “desensitization,”
giving as an example the desensitization of children to violence by some forms
of entertainment. He discusses an experience with sixth-graders who wrote
gruesome imaginative endings to short films:
When I later expressed my concern to the students, they defended their compositions, insisting that media violence had no effect. After all, they said, they understood that the killings they saw on TV and movies were “fake.” But when I asked them how they would feel if they saw a TV program in which a dog was machine-gunned, they expressed their disgust in unison.
That presented me with a chance to make a simple point: The reason they found the shooting death of a dog so horrible is because they hadn’t been desensitized to it, as they were to the murder of a human.
In the same
way, he says, Harry Potter and television programs depicting witchcraft
desensitize children to “the occult.”
He next sums up the appeal of Harry Potter books as their depiction of a heroic
figure who represents good in brave confrontation with evil. He allows that the
books clearly present a choice between the two sides and absolutely prefer good
to evil.
However, he sees the portrayal of magic as dangerous, and cites in his support
C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters
(which he calls “a novel,” which I suppose it is in a sense). He quotes a
passage in which Screwtape the devil asserts,
If once we can produce our perfect work: the Materialist Magician, the man, not using but veritably worshiping, what he vaguely calls “Forces” while denying the existence of “spirits” then the end of the war will be in sight.
He sees this
as “disassociating magic and supernatural evil” so that “magic” can be
considered good. In support of the danger in this, he cites figures on the
substantial percentage of Americans, including “born-again Christians” who
believe in ghosts, astrology, fortunetelling, and reincarnation.
His final section deals with a comparison between Harry Potter and Lewis's
Narnia books, which also contain both good and evil users of magic. The
difference, he says, is in the role of authority. Citing Mark 2:6-12a as an
example of Jesus' power to heal coming from His authority as the Son of God,
Murray asserts that legitimate power comes from authority, a truth which is clearly
portrayed in Narnia but omitted in Harry Potter “where authority is determined
solely by one’s cleverness.” Therefore, while both contain magic, “Rowling’s
and Lewis’ worlds are as far apart as east is from west.”
I find this argument unconvincing.
His first argument is a red herring. For someone who claims to be a teacher, he
does not seem to understand children very well, sixth-graders in particular.
They love to imagine all kinds of shocking things, especially if they shock
their elders. And they do understand that the television violence is fake; I am
sure the reason they were horrified by the prospect of the dog being shot is
that they imagined that the dog would be shot in fact, not merely in seeming.
The actual shooting of a dog is in fact worse than the pretended shooting of a
man, and the sixth-graders knew it.
I am not sure that the kind of beliefs that Lewis meant when he was describing
the materialist magician correspond exactly to the popular beliefs cited by Mr,
Murray. Outright spiritualism and astrology fall more into the category of
old-time magic, and are beliefs that have been around a long time. Perhaps some
of the New Age beliefs might come closer to materialist magic. We may note that
in the Narnia books, which Mr. Murray defends, there is a kind of divination
(the Hermit of the Southern March, in The
Horse and His Boy), astrology (Roonwit the Centaur, in The Last Battle: “Men lie, sire, but
the stars do not lie”), and the casting of spells (by Dr. Cornelius in Prince Caspian). These correspond not
to a demonic but to a prescientific view of nature, in which “occult
properties” were something that could be manipulated, like radiation or
magnetism. In fact the search for these magical properties was one of the
forces that led to the beginnings of modern experimental science. As far as I
know in the Harry Potter books, the wizards do not get their powers from
trafficking with spiritual forces, except, perhaps, the evil wizards. The
others simply exploit natural abilities unavailable to “muggles.”
It is true that in Lewis, there is a clear authority: the Narnia books are a
Christian allegory, and present a monotheistic view of reality. There is one
God, and ultimately every being is either obedient to Him or in revolt against
Him. Like most contemporary works of fantasy, the Harry Potter books present a
dualism closer to Gnosticism. Mr Murray is alluding to this when he asserts
that “Harry’s mentor, Albus Dumbledore, and the evil Lord Voldemort ... are
equal, antagonistic and unaccountable to a higher authority.” But a really
consistent dualism that follows this principle is hard to maintain. If it were
really the guiding philosophy of the books, how could anyone say that Voldemort
is evil? To call Voldemort evil is to admit that there is some way of judging.
Perhaps the source of the principle is never made explicit, but there is no
ambiguity about the principle itself. Perhaps this is why most classical
Gnostics were, at base, monotheists. They always conceived the ultimate power
to be good, indeed to define what “good” meant.
Mr. Murray's characterization that “authority is determined solely by one’s
cleverness” is not an accurate depiction of the world of Harry Potter. Harry's
cleverness is not the source of his goodness. That comes from the choices he
makes about how to use his cleverness. Magic is merely a tool. Mr. Murray
admits that the illegitimate exercise of power, including magical power, occurs
in the Narnia books. He correctly distinguishes between power and authority,
which in a consistently monotheistic view comes only from God. Harry Potter's
magical world (as opposed to the amoral, materialistic world in which he was
raised) is a pre-Christian world, where, while the source of authority is not
clear, the nature of goodness is. When Harry (and his friends) win, it is
because their cleverness is combined with virtue. That is why the conflicts in
Harry Potter are characterized as good against evil in a way that the conflict
between, say, the Detroit Tigers and the Chicago White Sox cannot be
(seriously, at least).
Mr. Murray's view is what one might expect from a consistent Protestant.
Protestants, especially those in the tradition of Calvin, hold to a doctrine of
total depravity. This means that the natural human conscience is of no value,
and that there can be nothing good in any pre-Christian view of the world.
Since it is the natural conscience that is the source of the notion of virtue
found in Harry Potter (or in Plato or Cicero or Confucius), then, as far as a
Protestant like Mr. Murray is concerned, this virtue is of no account. This is
not consistent with a Catholic view of the world. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church
states (sec. 1954): “The natural law expresses the original moral sense which
enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie.”
The Catechism goes on to
quote Pope Leo XIII to the effect that the natural law “is written and engraved
in the soul or each and every man.” The Catechism
adds, “In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation” to
follow this law (sec. 1960): the natural conscience (in reality, as opposed to
fantasy) is too weak to stand up to evil long unaided--but it is not worthless.
Similarly, Catholic thinking has held that much in pre-Christian systems of
thought can be considered a preparation for the Gospel. As the Catechism puts
it, “[Christians] proclaim the Good News to those who do not know it, in order
to consolidate, complete, and raise up the truth and the goodness that God has
distributed among men and nations, to purify them from error” (sec 856).
Protestants tend to consider anything that is not explicitly Christian--and
moreover in their version of Christianity--to be demonic.
(I wonder if Mr. Murray, for all his professed admiration for C.S. Lewis, would
have cared much for the real Jack Lewis of Oxford. At best he might react as
another American Fundamentalist, Bob Jones, did on meeting him: “That man
drinks whiskey, and that man smokes a pipe--still, I do believe he's a Christian.”)
A Catholic view of Harry Potter, more nuanced, and generally positive, is that
of Barbara Nicolosi, which can be read at:
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=13812
She recognizes that if a child is likely to be seriously influenced toward
Paganism, there may be dangers in some of the literature she discusses. I
think, however, that this would be more true of Buffy and Charmed than of
Harry Potter, because the moral standards presented in them are far more
ambiguous.
While you're at that web site, check out Carl Olson's discussion of the Left Behind series:
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=19570
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=19571
On the principle that the corruption of the good is worse than the bad, this is
really dangerous literature, since it professes to be Christian and is hostile
to the Church. Even many bishops have recognized that.