Catholic Exchange

C.S. Lewis, Spiritual Warfare, and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

"If war is ever lawful, then peace is sometimes sinful" — C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock.

Kirk Honeycutt, writing for the Hollywood Reporter, echoes the complaints of a number of critics that the Harry Potter films are becoming darker as the series progresses. This would be a valid point only if there were a consensus that fans (particularly adolescents) should be protected from the darker things in life (or in fiction that has real-world parallels). And though I think the criticism overwrought — the throngs of people who showed up for midnight screenings on Wednesday night certainly enjoyed the film — embedded in critiques of this kind is the belief that the hallmark of Harry Potter films should be fun. Inadvertently, such critics fall into the same mindset as that of J.K Rowling's arch-villain Dolores Umbridge: deny the existence of real, malevolent evil and it can't hurt you.

Oh, but it can.

In the latest installment in the saga of the boy wizard and his friends from Hogwarts, Rowling and director David Yates have constructed not only a captivating film, but a primer on how to — and how not to — respond to transcendent evil. In other words, this movie is about spiritual warfare. By making allusions to World War II — notably contrasting the rhetorical strategies of Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill — Rowling reveals, in her fiction, timeless principles that must be invoked in battling evil. C.S. Lewis, battle-hardened during the trench warfare of World War I (and no slouch as a fiction writer), also knew a thing or two about fighting dark forces. What both of them could agree on is that spiritual warfare involves recognizing a threat, effectively training for battle, and engaging the enemy.

Recognizing the Threat of Evil

In most stories, the threat of great evil immediately clarifies the participants in a conflict: those fighting for evil, those fighting for good, and those who turn a blind eye to the threat. Evil is represented by Lord Voldemort, along with his assorted Deatheaters and other minions. Good is represented by Professor Dumbledore, Harry, Hermione, Ron and certain members of the faculty and students at Hogwarts. One of the theologically astute elements of Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix is its refusal to assign absolute goodness or evil to its characters. People thought to be good can be lured into betrayals, or make immoral choices that put them in spiritual peril. Others, once allied with the evil Deatheaters, apparently repent and go over to the other side. You cannot choose to "become" a wizard in Rowling's world — you have to be born one — but we are not defined solely by what we are. As Sirius Black tells Harry, his godson, "We all have dark and light within us. What matters is the part we choose to act on." Or to put it another way, "You will know them by their fruits" (Matt. 7:20).

But while Harry and company recognize the danger posed by the revitalized Lord Voldemort, other powerful figures prefer to live in denial. If Professor Dumbledore, willing to fight evil to the death, is an embodiment of Winston Churchill, then Minister of Magic Cornelius Fudge and his sycophantic companion, Dolores Umbridge, represent the Neville Chamberlains of the Hogwarts world. They actually take Chamberlain one step further: Rather than treat with, or attempt to appease, the enemy, they deny his existence. They will not utter his name. Umbridge, in particular, is so vested in her delusion that she is willing to stoop to torture to try to get Harry to recant his first-hand, eye-witness, battle-tested knowledge of Voldemort's return. If true, the reemergence of Voldemort would tarnish Fudge's legacy of peace, and thereby permanently interrupt Umbridge's upward mobility. They remain silent, ultimately imperiling themselves and everyone else.

 Lewis recognized the existence of transcendent evil, and the way in which it infects the human spirit. The character of Lord Voldemort is the ultimate representative of the kind of fallenness Lewis describes in The Problem of Pain:  "It had turned from God and become its own idol, so that though it could still turn back to God, it could do so only by painful effort, and its inclination was self-ward. Hence pride and ambition, the desire to be lovely in its own eyes and to depress and humiliate all rivals, envy, and restless search for more, and still more, security were now the attitudes that come easiest to it." But Voldemort is not alone.

Harry, too, understands his own propensity toward evil — wondering aloud if he is becoming bad. That is an excellent question for any of us to ask ourselves. Lewis would argue that such an admission is proof that Harry is not. In Mere Christianity, Lewis describes how good and evil work in the hearts of those heading in either direction: "When a man is getting better, he understands more and more clearly the evil that is still left in him. When a man is getting worse, he understands his own badness less and less…Good people know about both good and evil: bad people do not know about either."

At its core, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix explores how people react to the unveiling of evil in their midst. We muggles, I mean, humans, are in a very similar predicament. As Lewis notes in The Screwtape Letters, one of the most useful tactics of devils is for them to convince us that they do not exist. Academics all over the west continue to assert that there is no titanic struggle between good and evil in this world, because the whole idea of "good" and "evil" are merely "social constructions" rather than either end of an objective moral continuum. Screwtape would be proud. He tells his demon underling, Wormwood, "In peace we can make many of them ignore good and evil entirely; in danger, the issue is forced upon them in a guise to which even we cannot blind them." Recognizing the existence of evil in the world, or even in ourselves, is the first step toward combating it.

Types of Training

The training ground for battling evil takes place at the Defense Against the Dark Arts classes held at Hogwarts. In most of the films, so far, the teachers have been a mixed bag. Professor Quirrel had been twisted by Voldemort. Professor Lockhart was a vain, preening fraud. Good Professor Lupin taught by example and put the students through their paces. Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody was a demanding teacher (who turned out to be played by an imposter). But Dolores Umbridge represents, by far, the most damaging of the Professors for Defense Against the Dark Arts, not because of what she taught, but because of the presuppositions she attempts to place in the heads of her students: primarily the belief that no enemy exists, therefore no practical training will be required.

Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, describes teachers like Umbridge as "Conditioners." Unburdened by any obligation to universal principles, conditioner-style teachers are motivated solely by self-interest and their own impulses in determining the direction of their students' studies. Harry knows that battle is coming and wants to be prepared to fight. Umbridge tells the students that there is no battle, and that theoretical knowledge will be sufficient. Soft knowledge is substituted for hard skills. After all, Umbridge tells the students, the purpose of education is to pass exams, not to train for action in a conflicted world. Her desire for a "risk-free education" only exposes her students to greater danger.

The reason C.S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia are so bracing is that when the children arrive in Narnia, they are thrown into situations in which they must learn what to do and then act. Lewis, despite being a professor himself, had a negative view of modern "educationalists." By the time Umbridge is through "improving" Hogwarts, it begins to look suspiciously like Experiment House — the horrid school run by idiots and filled with cruel, bullying, children from which Eustace Scrubb and Jill Pole escape in The Silver Chair. Umbridge turns Hogwarts from an academy designed to mature its students, into an institution of infantilism. Students must be managed, controlled, turned into informants, divided from one another — not in the interest of the students, but in the interest of the administrator. What they are carefully denied is an opportunity to grow up.

Similarly, how often is Christian "sword training" demoted to a strictly academic (in the worst sense of that word) exercise? People learn "about" God, but never truly know Him. They learn about the spiritual battles facing humankind, but lack the training to actually engage. They have the right answers, but rarely the right actions. They can pass the examination, but are losing the war.

Some of the students at Hogwarts take it upon themselves to learn. What happens at these private training sessions more closely approaches the idea of discipleship than anything Umbridge teaches. The students choose Harry Potter to conduct classes because he has been in battle and prevailed. Appropriately, Harry is also humble about his victories, so he is some safeguard against undue pride. Possessing knowledge and experience, Harry is a good and effective teacher.

Leaders in the early church were doers. St. Paul repeatedly put his life on the line for the faith and even he only wanted to be imitated to the degree that his life was an imitation of Christ's (1 Cor. 11:1). The writer of Hebrews also has action heroes in mind as leaders and examples: "Remember those who led you, who spoke the word of God to you; and considering the result of their conduct, imitate their faith" (Hebrews 13:7). James tells us that it is doers of the Word, and not hearers only, that are blessed in what they do (James 1:22-25). One of the draws of the Harry Potter films is that, though they take place in a school, the students inevitably wind up having to apply their academic knowledge by taking active part in the battle.

Engaging the Enemy

Harry and his friends are, like it or not, embroiled in a war. One of the reasons these books are so invigorating to readers is that they metaphorically express what most readers intuitively know: the world, along with each of us individually, is in the midst of a great war between the powers of light and darkness. And while the ultimate outcome of that war is beyond doubt, the battles that rage along the way expose our tactical and practical weaknesses, while giving us opportunities to strengthen successful strategies.

The Apostle refers more than once to the devil's "schemes." Satan does not believe in his own impending defeat. He has plans. Some of his tactics involve undermining our strength through isolation, by indirect attack, and temptation to desert the field for personal gain.

One of Harry's greatest weaknesses is the direct outgrowth of an overemphasis on one of his strengths. He loves his friends and is willing to do anything, including isolating himself from them, in his vain attempt to protect them from harm. Harry's appropriate sentiment toward the virtue of loyalty has taken a wrong turn, and has led him into an odd sort of dangerous hubris — his belief that he actually can protect them by isolating himself. It is Voldemort's desire to isolate Harry because he knows that in single combat (at least for now) Harry is no match for him. So Harry finds himself afflicted by sadness at the loss of his childhood, a loveless home life with his ugly relations, smear campaigns designed to separate him from marginal friends, and even abandonment by well-meaning mentors. If Lewis is correct, and "peace is sometimes sinful," then we must recognize that even our heartfelt desire for friends' peace and safety, just like an over-emphasis on our own, can be a liability in spiritual warfare.

Voldemort attacks indirectly. He magnifies Harry's fears. He attacks Harry's friends. Voldemort makes the cost of resisting high so that Harry might lose heart and give in. By making himself appear invincible, Voldemort's hope is that Harry will quit the struggle and abandon the field. As Lewis notes in his essay, "Membership," Satan is like a "good chess player, he is always trying to maneuver you in to a position where you can save your castle only by losing your bishop." Those who fear to lose anything will risk nothing. There is no such thing as a battle without risk.

None of this means that Voldemort is above striking a bargain to get what he wants. Through one of Voldemort's minions, Harry is offered something he greatly desires in exchange for his cooperation. Surely this is a devil's deal — unlikely to end well — but it would be foolish not to recognize it as a potentially effective strategy. Satan, himself, tried to tempt Christ in much the same way (Matt. 4:8-9). Lewis argues that the reason so few of us understand the significance of temptation is that we so quickly give in to it. He writes, "Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is." Those who choose to engage in the battle need to know that they will be sorely tried.

Battling Back

Fortunately, Harry does not have to go it alone. In fact, isolation would have been his undoing. He can rely on trustworthy principles, and the support of his mentors and friends. Together these serve as an effective arsenal against Voldemort's attacks.

One of the more refreshing aspects of many of the Harry Potter films is the emphasis they place on making right choices. We are, in large degree, what we think and do. Dumbledore, in The Goblet of Fire, tells Harry that everyone will soon have to choose "between what is right and what is easy." Sirius Black reinforces this idea in The Order of the Phoenix by telling Harry that the quality of our lives is determined by our choices. Those choices are informed by universal principles. In The Abolition of Man, Lewis explores the importance of right belief in the value of moral principle, and how its absence would doom humanity to an animal existence. Where there is no sense of right or wrong there can be no moral violation — anything goes. But where right and wrong are recognized, even though their particular expressions may vary a bit, they serve as guidelines for action.

The Order of the Phoenix also places great store in fellowship. Harry has friends who share his commitment to do right: particularly Ron and Hermione, but there are others as well. He has protectors, such as Dumbledore, Sirius Black, "Mad-Eye" Moody, Professor Lupin and other members of the Order. They are there to instruct and guide Harry, and to protect him when they can. All are willing to sacrifice, even endanger their own lives, for him. Lewis notes in The Four Loves that, "Friendship is something that raised us almost above humanity. This love, free from instinct, free from all duties but those which love has freely assumed, almost wholly free from jealousy, and free without qualification from the need to be needed, is eminently spiritual. It is the sort of love one can imagine between angels."

It is precisely love — particularly the capacity to give and receive love — which ultimately separates Harry from Voldemort. If there were a word to describe Voldemort's most significant weakness, it would be supreme self-confidence. G.K. Chesterton (one of Lewis' influences), in Orthodoxy, compares self-confidence to madness: "…a man will certainly fail, because he believes in himself. Complete self-confidence is not merely a sin: complete self-confidence is a weakness." Love of God, and even love of others, is a time-tested biblical battle strategy.  Voldemort self-confidently relies on the fear his power evokes, but as the Apostle John points out, "perfect love casts out fear" (1 Jn. 4:18).

How Harry Can Help

Some might point out that no one needs to read Harry Potter in order to understand spiritual truths, and they would be right. Nevertheless, it is my contention that it is the spiritual truths embedded in the story of the boy wizard that magnify its allure for readers. Despite the denial of some academics, and the scientific materialists among us, people are drawn to stories that contain the ring of truth — in this case the truth that the world is an inherently moral place where a great battle is being waged. Books and movies allow us to be transported to the site of the conflict while remaining at what many of us believe to be a safe distance.

The responsibility of the careful critic is not to dampen the sentiments aroused by the Harry Potter books by objecting to the fantasy, but to use the principles that excite readers and moviegoers to ignite considerations of the way these stories represent real-world parallels. Lewis wrote that in his early academic years he loved running into the gospel everywhere except in the Bible. He credits his conversion to the fantasy writings of George MacDonald. Lewis claimed that MacDonald's fantasies evoked a longing in him that he could not explain in any way, other than that they were longings beyond this world. It was his first step into the supernatural.

We are, in fact, in a spiritual war. The enemy wants to destroy us and to recreate our world into the image of hell. There are those who would convince us that all we need to do is ignore the battle and it will go away. They are ready and willing to punish those of us who would insist otherwise. Because we face a cunning adversary, we need to be trained by those who have long been in the battle. We need not only to learn from them the right answers to the problems that face us, but also to imitate their lives as they model the life of our Great Commander. In that way, the battle will be enjoined. And though the end is not in doubt, there will be setbacks along the way. But by adhering to and acting by principle, surrounded by friends who share our convictions and lend their support, we can move toward victory, all in all not a bad set of real-world ideas to be found in what is ostensibly a kids' film. I think C.S. Lewis would have approved.

Comments

77 responses to “C.S. Lewis, Spiritual Warfare, and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

  1. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I'm emailing this article to those friends of mine who have literally burned all Harry Potter materials…including bedsheets and books!

    Hitler would have loved the bonfire I'm sure!

    Thanks for an informative article.  Maybe I'll even read the books which have so captivated my very discerning children instead of just reading ABOUT them.

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    This article simply reinforces my own personal stance regarding Harry Potter.  It's what you do with them that determines whether they are "good" or "bad".  If, as a family, everyone (of appropriate reading age) reads the books and/or watches the movies…and mom and dad lead fascinating discussions about good and evil and the grey lines of life and that none of us are guaranteed "safe" just because we are good (we are all tempted, and by freewill, we can all give into temptation), then you have a teaching tool in-hand that the kids will enjoy participating in.

    Of course, in my opinion, if you stop at Harry Potter, you will be doing you and your children a disservice.  The same should be done with C.S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia and with J.R.R. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings.  THEN you could even compare/contrast the 3 authors.  One Catholic, the other Anglican, and the 3rd (seems she is Christian, but I don't believe she publicizes her religion).

    Talk about being the leaders in your own family and raising critical minds towards literature.

    elkabrikir, I encourage you to read the books.  They are enjoyable to read (although I don't think I've gotten past the 4th…my oldest isn't old enough to be reading Harry Potter yet, so it has not been urgent for me).  And it is indispensible if you are going to lead well discussions with your children.

    Yes….there is wizardry in the books.  You could say that HP encourages children to dabble in the dark arts.  And this may be true.  But WITHIN YOUR OWN FAMILY, there is another great discussion to have.  Kids….do you think it is possible IN REAL LIFE to cast a spell?  Why/Why not.  If it is (in real life)…DO YOU THINK SUCH "POWERS" WOULD BE FROM God or from the Devil?  Why/Why not?  It doesn't take much to show them that it's probably not from God…so why would we want to mess with it?

  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    What an outstanding critique, Dr. Newman!  Thank you for such a thorough inspection of this popular series–you've really opened my mind and given me something to think about and share with my homeschooled teenagers.

  4. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I find the presence of such an article on a Catholic website to be quite offensive.  The suggestion that the worthless Harry Potter series can be favorably compared with the works of C. S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien is appalling, from both a literary and a doctrinal standpoint.

     

    The Catechism clearly teaches that: "All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place at one's service and have a supernatural power over others – even if this were for the sake of restoring their health – are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion."  The practice of magic is mortally sinful because it is an attempt to seize power that belongs only to God and His angels for oneself, a lowly mortal.  It is analogous to the original sin in the Garden of Eden.  The Church presupposes here that magic is real, but that it is evil to make use of it, and that is precisely what is permeated throughout Harry Potter.  If that is ok, then why not a kids book glorifying some other sin against faith, like heresy or idolatry.  Or some other gravely evil activity, like fornication.

     

    The works of Tolkien are diametrically different.  They are firmly rooted in the Catholic legends of Europe.  No mortal being ever engages in the practice of magic, and it is always considered perilous, even to the immortal.  Not even the elves engaged in magic, by their own admission to Sam Gamgee.  The moral code of Middle Earth is precisely the same as ours, including the evil of practicing magic.  The same cannot be said for Harry Potter.

    "It is good that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul, before it can grow properly."  (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, March 7, 2003) 

  5. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I can't pick sides here from first hand knowledge of the Harry Potter books. Frankly, they don't interest me. I agree with amsterdam and the Pope that there is a seduction here – namely magic. Of course a discerning reader can learn from anything but school age kids are not all that discerning. I personally know a handfull of people who are into these series and I must say that characteristically they are somewhat shallow and self-absorbed.

    Goral

  6. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    While I agree that the merits of Harry Potter are less than those of Lewis and Tolkien, that does not mean that the Harry Potter books are without merit.  Indeed they are not, and there is significant good within them.  As all good things come from God, I think it foolish to not make use of that good within them.

    Parents do have to work with what they have, and the Harry Potter books are pretty much ubiquitous. 

  7. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    They may be ubiquitous but they don't have to be everywhere…..ahmm.

    Goral

  8. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I grew up watching "Bewitched" and "I Dream of Jeannie".  Frankly, there are still times when I wish I could wriggle my nose or boink my platinum ponytail to bypass traffic jams or get the dishwasher reloaded for the fourth time in a day!

    However, I always pick up my cross and endure the rat race.  I don't think those shows harmed me in any way…I knew they were pretend…and my kids know the magic in Harry Potter is simply fiction every where at any time….as harmless as Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.  Harry Potter is not about the occult.  It uses magic as entertainment and as part of moving the plot forward.  For my kids magic is like an amusement ride that makes the book fun and more entertaining.

    Remember "Beam me up Scotty"? Harmless fun!

    Keep talking with your kids!  Maybe that's the true value of Harry!

  9. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Excellent article! I think that any moral objection to Harry Potter must  at least be in proper context. In the Potter books the use of magic is for wizards only. Muggles are not involved in this struggle and thus they do not dabble in magic and that's the  way it should be understood. In the real muggle world we read about it, enjoy the story, try to make connections to real life and then move on. The Catechism was written exclusively for muggles.

  10. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    JMJ

    This is a Catholic web-site.  I will not address the issue of Harry Potter directly, more astute Catholics, including many clerics AND Bishops have done an able job there.  My concern is much deeper.  I am distressed to see C.S. Lewis, an admitted "closet" anti-Catholic – in the sense that he held most of the assumptions that the Fundamentalist anti-Catholic crowd holds today – is viewed as an/the authority in the moral evaluation of the Harry Potter series.  Too few Catholics have taken up the banner to show where C.S. Lewis falls short in his both his theological understanding of the Christian Faith and in his fictional stories.  The anamolies are there, if one has the discerning lenses of Catholic doctrine to see it.  C.S. refused to become Catholic despite having many Catholic friends in his social circle of literary critics and writers in mid-20th century England.  This refusal shows in this writings.

     

    IF (and this is a mute hypothetical until someone can answer the objections of the numerous astute CATHOLIC clerics and Bishops who have denounced the contents of this series) C.S. Lewis WERE to approve this series of stories – and I think he would not see the tenuous distinctions drawn in this article – a faithful Catholic would not therefore accept them without further question.

  11. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    One more thing – no one has sufficiently addressed what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says regarding magic and sorcery, i.e., that any and every practice of it, by no matter whom, is intrinsically evil.  No white magic.  No good sorcery/good witches, etc.  The former Cardinal Ratzinger's quote (see above) remains a potent admonition to all would-be readers, whether child or adult.

  12. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Thank you for this article. I wonder if the Brothers Grimm had to face the same issues with the magic their tales talk of. And what of "the Force" being with us ? Isnt that controlling nature — maybe THAT is true witchcraft and no one noticed. Thanks again for the insights. One cant go wrong thinking, discussing and discerning.

  13. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    There was a controversy when that quote of Cardinal Ratzinger first came out in that people assumed HE was speaking against the series.  In fact, he clarified his statement by saying that he had NEVER read the books and that what he meant by the statement used above was this:  IF the author was exposing seductions in the series then that was a good thing.  He did NOT SAY that there are seductions in the series.

    Personally, I think a lot of energy is being used to fight these books.  Why don't you use all that energy and get your bishop and priests to teach and preach Theology of the Body.  Maybe then we can reclaim our humanity.

  14. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    adjesumpermariam, you say "Too few Catholics have taken up the banner to show where C.S. Lewis falls short in his both his theological understanding of the Christian Faith and in his fictional stories."   I do believe you are inncorrect here- what are your sources for this assumption?  Have you actually read CS Lewis' books?  CS Lewis was a great scholar and knew a great deal about the Christian faith.  Have you read Mere Christianity?  He was once an atheist and became a Christian and spent a great deal of time studying and researching and writing.  Have you also read books by Catholic authors that compare much of Lewis' beliefs to what the Catholic Church actually teaches? (there are many agreements, even his great admiration for Mary)  I'm not sure you are fully informed, I know Lewis had his disputes with the Catholic Church but he was also a good friend to JRR Tolkien and must have respected his friend's beliefs even if he himself could not become Catholic (more because of his family history than out-right anti-Catholicism).

  15. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    While I am more convinced by the arguments of this article – particularly as they pertain to faithful Catholic parents who observe and teach that spiritual warfare is real, independent of anything in Harry Potter – one differing view comes from Steve Wood. In one particular article, entitled, "Harry Potter Gets Vatican’s Blessing?", Mr. Wood writes:

    I realize that many priests, Catholic periodicals, scholars, and even some bishops, think that Harry Potter is okay. Before following their advice, ask yourself, “Do they have firsthand experience with the occult/new age movement, or with rescuing people out of it?” The questions surrounding Harry Potter are not just those of literary style and taste, they are probing questions about the real threat of a worldwide drift towards: monism, the New Age, the occult and other “enlightening” spiritual experiences.

    This is prompted by his own first-hand experience with magic prior to his Christian conversion:

    Before converting to Christianity, I thought that I was becoming “enlightened” while studying at Edgar Cayce’s Association for Research and Enlightenment. It was thrilling to experience the floor shaking underneath my chair as we prayed and practiced clairvoyant channeling of thoughts. In reality, I was exposing myself to demonic forces. I didn’t know that “Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14).

    But Mr. Wood, as always, is humble and fair in his observations. He concludes the same article thus:

    I know many people disagree with me about Harry Potter. Maybe I’m all wrong about Harry. Perhaps the Dutch priest, Fr. Joris Ridderbos, is right to celebrate a Harry Potter mass for children. Fr. Ridderbos says there are a lot of similarities between the story of Harry Potter and the life of Jesus.

    I draw two particular conclusions from this post. First, there are good reasons to disagree with Dr. Newman's arguments (though as I mentioned previously, I am rather convinced by them), if only because good, faithful Catholics (like Mr. Wood) disagree and cite a solid basis for their disagreement. The second is implicit in the first, namely that good, faithful Catholics have had quite enough of unsupported assertions regarding the Faith. Even when good, solid teaching is presented, we often ask where in the Sacred Scriptures or Sacred Tradition the teaching is justified, if only to enable us to pass on the same teaching to an often skeptical audience. Thus, to address adjesumpermariam directly, I shall say this: Your comments are welcome here, but please cite your sources.

  16. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    "Perhaps the Dutch priest, Fr. Joris Ridderbos, is right to celebrate a Harry Potter mass for children. Fr. Ridderbos says there are a lot of similarities between the story of Harry Potter and the life of Jesus."

    Huh? 

    I'm getting old, Dutch priests, Harry Potter and children's Masses are getting on my nerves. Though, I'm finding a lot of informative and interesting comments here.  

    Goral

  17. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Ok. I've read everyone's opinions (though not the full Harry Potter article itself)  and here's the official verdict:

    Ready? Mixing lessons from the Book of Life (The bible) with Christian philosophers (C.S. Lewis…………..is……………Ready?…………..Good!

    Mixing examples from Hollywood tripe with lessons from the Book of Life and Christian philosophers………….is……………Ready?………..Bad.

    It's bad because you are elevating movie tripe to a moral plane equal with sacred scripture. Get it? Next……

  18. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To zephyr424:

    Have Lord of the Rings and The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe become "Hollywood tripe"?  How about "The Passion of Christ"?

    Harry Potter was first a novel written by JK Rowling for her son, and other children's enjoyment.  Yes, she has become a "gazillionaire".  Is that why people are so suspicious of the books? 

    Now I get it–the "Green eyed monster".

    Get it?  Jealousy!

    Personally, I wish I'd thought of Harry first!

    On a more serious note, I use everything that crosses my path to draw me to Christ.  For instance, I just read the children's fictitional novel I am David  (turned into a movie of the same name staring Jim Caveziel) and it became a basis of contemplation for me.  There are even "christ figures" in it….like a sheep dog who freely gives his life for a little boy who may or may not have merited the sacrifice.  The boy strives on in order that his dog did not die in vain.  Today after communion I joined that scene to a saint's thoughts that the best thanksgiving is a reformed life….a gift that keeps on giving.

    With the indwelling Trinity, scriptural references or connections constantly reveal themselves.  When Hollywood drivel lacks spiritual meaning for me, I stop watching.

    As with all material children read or view, parental involvement and soundboarding are essential in helping the children process the material in the Heart of the Church, through Mary and obviously united to Christ. and

    Rejoicing in Hope!

  19. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Can we please stop making "Harry Potter" out to be some Christian undertone story – That was NEVER Rowling's intent, just go to her website http://www.jkrowling.com

    and read for yourself. On another note, some are using her Christain Religion as a way to describe this women as a friend of Christ. How do we know what is in her heart? I do however know what she proclaims to be her issues, again go to her own website and read for yourself, she worked for Amnesty International. She does not proclaim to be any religion. I have spent the last two days finding as much information as I can about her. There is no secret here, she does NOT proclaim these books to be Christian, so why are we? Is it an easier way to deal with thisissue ?Proclaiming that they are Christian in nature, can then make parenting a whole lot easier when the kids are begging to read them. One question we may want to ponder, have your kids been begging you to read the great books? Because that could take them a lifetime and they won't even have time to discern the "Harry Potter" question.

  20. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    No one, least of all the author of this article is saying that the stories are "Christian stories."  The  Lord of the Rings was not written as a Christian story either. That is really not the point.  A story does not have to be Christian to allude to a moral universe.  The Illiad and the Odyssey are among the great books and they are not Christian either.

  21. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mary, I wasn't saying that the Author of THIS article said this, I was saying that this is the supposition many are taking in making their point of "Harry Potter" being  good Christian lierature and that is not accurate.

    To your point there are many great books that are not Charitain, but I would argue they are a much better read then Harry Potter, and ought be reading these to in rich our mind.

     

  22. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Having read all the books (the seventh will be released Saturday) and seen all the movies, I think people are taking Harry Potter way too seriously.  There is just as much magic in Tolkein books and it's presented to be more powerful. If your faith can't take this kind of challenge, then it's not very strong. The vast majority of my youth was spent where my faith was challenged daily (Catholicism is the great apostasy, etc.); I am still Catholic.  As a consequence, I tend to not take these things seriously but take them for what they are — an enjoyable read and watch.  The HP books are not for everyone, but relax and let the rest of us enjoy…..

  23. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    HP ain't goin' away,folks. I should think that's a given,by now.I've read 'em all,watched 'em all, both HP and LOTR ,and if some think they're all about wizards,and wizards are evil,then tell me,I love Gandalf,is he evil ? 

  24. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    The Church teaches that magic is real and gravely evil. That must be understood first and foremost. The whole problem is precisely what Cardinal Ratzinger warned about: that the books blur the distinction between good and evil. They are inherently relativistic. Both sides use evil means to achieve their ends. As is obvious from the comments, many are unable to see a distinction between Potter and the Lord of the Rings, and that is more worrisome than the content of the books. Read some of Tolkien's letters and essays and you will find that LOTR is an intensely Catholic work by the design of the author. The Dark Lord was not defeated by magic, but by the pure virtue and courage of lowly hobbits. That is the whole point of the story! Gandalf is not mortal: he came over from the West, so what is magical and unnatural for men is not so for him, in the same way that what appears preternatural to us is not for angels and demons, but is proper to their nature. Magic is evil and perilous in LOTR, but it is glorified in Potter. That is the distinction. That is why Cardinal Ratzinger warned that the books are relativistic and seductive: because they obscure the line between good and evil.

  25. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Obviously, people have not been reading the comments that they are complaining about. 

    At least, I never made a COMPARISON between LOTR and Harry Potter.  I encourage parents and children to DISCUSS similarities AND DIFFERENCES between them.  There certainly ARE differences, and sometimes it is the differences that help illuminate the power and beauty of one over the other.

    I have definitely not seen ANYONE allude to, assert, or insist that HP is Christian writing.  AND THIS CAN BE PART OF THE PARENT/CHILD DISCUSSION.

    And please, would people PLEASE REREAD all that Card. Ratzinger wrote regarding all this.  He even stated clearly that he was not discussing Harry Potter directly, as he had never even read them.

    Then, take what Card. Ratzinger wrote regarding all this, and PRESENT HIS WORDS ABOUT MAGIC to the children.  THERE'S ANOTHER ROUND OF GREAT DISCUSSION.  Now what have you done?  You are arming your children with greater minds – to help THEIR FRIENDS.  How can your children discuss these issues with their friends if they simply turn up their noses to them? 

    And don't even go an tell me that this is exactly the same arguement I should now apply to sexuality.  But I'll tell you one thing.  If you keep your children in complete darkness about sexuality, instead of introducing it yourself in family love with God's greater plan in all of it…they're going to learn it from their friends…they're NOT going to be able to defend the beautiful truth…and they're going to learn it wrong.

    I'd certainly rather be the one to discuss Harry Potter with my kids than have other people do it.

  26. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Thank you amsterdam!How sad it is when so many Harry Potter fans want to put the book in the catagory as LOTR. Thanks for clearly defining the differences between the two.

    Ipioch: I do agree with you that we must always be in communication with our children, but make no mistake, you don't have expose them to the act or book you are discussing, that is what makes it parenting. We do not have to commit a sin to know it is bad – In fact we know from theology that everything the soul is exposed to and expierences becomes a part of our soul. That is why we have an obligation to protect our souls, exposing them to things that are the good, the beautiful and the Holy.

  27. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I never ever suggested we commit sin to know about it.  I never said we need to show them magic (exposing them to the act) to have a discussion about it.

    It is not knowing about the existance of magic that is sin.  It is not reading about it that is sin.  It is the partaking of it that is sin. 

    Now, I agree, that you could argue with me that by merely encouraging children to read the book for the sake of discussion with the parent may be putting them in the near occasion of sin.  I can accept that as a plausible argument.  But one could make the exact same argument (of the near occasion of sin) by merely having a discussion about magic (because now the child knows it exists and may be curious). 

    So the argument then boils down to the discretion of the parent.  THAT is what makes it parenting.

  28. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I haven't read any HP. I have read The Hobbit, LOTR and much CS Lewis.

    Ms. Rowlings clearly states that she is not a Christian. While that is itself not an indictment, I submit we can take her at her word that, unlike Tolkien and Lewis, she is not deliberately writing a Christian message into her books. 

    And yet, as I understand from reading several reviews of her work, much of the magic is factual in form, function and actual incantations and so forth from her extensive research.

    Why would she go through all that trouble? Just to make for a crackling good read for youngsters?

  29. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Why indeed? The books have all the perfect ingredients for the modern pseudo-intellectual and pseudo-religious tastes. I've heard many reviews and comments on talk shows, by people that I don't trust. All these reviews were just streching the Christian theme of HP. I heard more refrences to Jesus Christ on my way from work today on a radio program that never mentions the Holy Name otherwise, and considers George Bush to be the devil. Tell me there isn't something seductive going on here? I trust my instincts on this one. All these "discussing" parents make me chuckle and cringe.

    Goral

  30. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Amsterdam…Your argument would have carried much more weight if you actually knew the works of Tolkien a bit better. You chastise HP for magic, and say Tolkiens work is different….ummm…did you forget about Gandalf? Saruman? Even Sauron? And elves do have magic. Galadriel? Elrond? 

    Me thinks you should read the books a bit, including, and especially, The Silmarillion. It will give you a much greater understanding of that universe. I think you just picked literature you enjoyed to make a point against one that, in truth, you simply dont like for some reason.
    I was brought up roman catholic, went to CS until 9th grade. 
    I am agnostic, but respect all religions on equal footing, as I dont believe any one is 100% correct in its veiws. The notion that one religion is the true one seems a bit silly to me.
    Harry Potter is simply a tale of good vs. evil. And in the end, isnt that what all religion is based on, including catholicism? The struggle for good people against those who wish only to dominate by force and malice? To enjoy freedom of worship regardless of diety? To live life without SOMEONE ELSE FORCING THEIR BELIEFS ON ANOTHER.
    And yet, this is exactly what people like Amsterdam do, and why I became so turned off to specific religion. They think they are the only correct ones, and speak the true word of god, yet, in truth, no one REALLY knows what the word of god is. 
  31. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Amsterdam wrote:<<<<<"Both sides use evil means to achieve their ends. As is obvious from the comments, many are unable to see a distinction between Potter and the Lord of the Rings, and that is more worrisome than the content of the books. Read some of Tolkien's letters and essays and you will find that LOTR is an intensely Catholic work by the design of the author. The Dark Lord was not defeated by magic, but by the pure virtue and courage of lowly hobbits. That is the whole point of the story! Gandalf is not mortal: he came over from the West, so what is magical and unnatural for men is not so for him, in the same way that what appears preternatural to us is not for angels and demons, but is proper to their nature. Magic is evil and perilous in LOTR, but it is glorified in Potter.""">>>>



    *sigh* You didnt read Harry Potter, did you? Can you please cite the examples you are referencing about how "both sides used evil to acheive his means"? You cant.

    In fact, the whole point of the HP series (and the lastbook will show you) is that Harry and company REFUSED to use dark magic to defeat their enemies. It is quite clearly spelled out many times. While the death eaters (evil wizards) are using spells meant to kill, Harry and company continually use stunning spells and the like, never killing. Because they believe it is morally wrong to kill. 

    The Tolkien references you cite are continually wrong. As someone who has studied Tolkien and used him as a thesis in college for literature, you are only looking at what you want to see. Yes, Gandalf was one of the maiar, and he was immortal (his name I believe-long time for me now-olorin?) so this makes it ok to use magic? 

    What about the men of Numenor? 😉 Mortals, by the way who used magic and whose lives were extended? The palantir? Dwarves had magic (Durins door of Kazud-dum) Beren, a mortal was a shape-shifter. Many other examples that if I sat down I could cite for you.

    Isnt the use of magic, by anyone, in your definition, evil? How can you pick and choose? HELLO!? It is still fiction! So its ok in a fictional pice like LotR, but not ok in Harry Potter

    I think before some of you comment here, you really need to actually read the literature you are citing, and as well, read the Harry Potter books yourselves, instead of being the usual sheep that gives any one particular religion a bad name.

    Until you actually read them YOURSELF, and not just go by what a certain preist, cardinal or other HUMAN BEING tells you, your arguments can have very little merit.
  32. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    ctgretzky,

    You wrote: "To live life without SOMEONE ELSE FORCING THEIR BELIEFS ON ANOTHER. And yet, this is exactly what people like Amsterdam do, and why I became so turned off to specific religion."

    Perhaps I missed it, but where did Amsterdam advocate force in his posts?

    And what is the phrase "people like Amsterdam" supposed to mean? Like him in what way? Please help me understand your points, because you are obviously very intelligent and I would like to better understand your beliefs.

  33. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I apologize, perhaps "force" in this case is a bit strong, and an extrapolation. I see posters such as Amsterdam to be teetering on the verge of becoming akin to the people who want to ban these books from libraries and schools simply because they believe them to be an incarnation of evil, regurgitating what others say without research. I had such an instance in my town, where the local church posted against the books on their outdoor bulletin board. I have read numerous articles about groups burning the books or protesting outside libraries. Silly.

    My beliefs…I believe everyone has a right to worship whatever diety they choose without persecution. The right to believe in purple spaghetti monsters if they so choose. 
    The line, to me, is crossed in the examples I cite above. When personal worship and belief is thrust out as an agenda. When any religion does this, it irks me. When people use religion as a basis for deciding what is right or wrong for the general public, it no longer serves the purposes of worship, but becomes political. 
    Frankly, I think people take religion way too seriously. An interpretation of god's word is not the word of god.
    If there is a god, and by chance it is the Catholic version of god, (and we forget that there are 4 billion people who believe in a different god or diety) and you have lived a basically good life, didnt really believe in him specifically, do you really think he will not "save you" because you didnt believe in him? Because you used freewill? The mind he created to think and ponder and use? Same to me with allah, buddah or any other diety.
    IF so, then I wouldnt want to be in that group of people. Then god is a very closed minded "diety", and I would rather be anywhere else. To me, this just shows that god is NOT a forgiving god, that his/her will is only the will to serve themself, and not the people he created.
  34. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    tmitchell480,

    The forum is a bit broader than you described, although we expect those who post from a perspective of questioning or doubting to do so with courtesy and respect. 

    Please see Mary Kochan's "Forum Rules" here

    ctgretzky,

    Based on your views, what are we do make of issues which are designed to offend or at least directly attack the tenents of our Catholic faith?  There are many examples, but here's one extreme — there are rituals in the Black Mass of Satanism which call for a consecrated host to be desecrated.

    It sounds as if you would be okay with such a religious practice, since it does not use religion as a basis for deciding what is right or wrong for the general public. Is that accurate?

    Please consider your position.

  35. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    tmitchell, I dont recall calling any religion "crazy" nor attacked catholics. My entire family with the exception of a few are devout roman catholics who attend mass and believe in varying degees. I as well, attended catholic school. Do you propose that I love them less, or believe them to be crazy for their veiws? Do you think I shun them or think less of them? The complete opposite is true. I respect everyone's religion. Just because I do not believe does not make me any more right or wrong, just that I have my views on it. Does this make me crazy? I have not once said being catholic is wrong, only what I believe.

    Why must a specific religion be correct? What makes one religion any better or worse than another? It is faith in your religion that is your empowerment, not whether everyone else is incorrect for not believeing the same thing. If you want the "boiled down" reason for religion, I believe it is fear. 
    Man is afraid of dying. It is a difficult pill to swallow that life is but this one shot. It is comforting to believe that we go somewhere else. Again, dont take this as a knock. Fear is a basic feeling and emotion. I am afraid of flying in an airplane..but I can avoid this. Death is unavoidable.
    I propose you disrespect me for not believing. That there must be something wrong with this view. Why?
    Truth…what is truth? You mean faith. Truth is based on provable hypothesis. So are Islamists wrong? Buddists? Jewish? Tell me which are incorrect in THEIR beliefs.
    Look, believe in the scriptures, believe in whatever god or saviour you want. This is a personal choice. One that is not right or wrong, regardless if what you believe others should do.
  36. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I say you laugh. If your faith in yourself and your veiws are strong, who cares if people say this or that. 

    I play competitive full contact ice hockey. I play alt rock guitar, snowboard and can build a house. I also like West side story. I get ribbed for it, should I stop liking it? No, my conviction is it was a classic movie and timeless. 
    Your example is QUITE extreme…lol…however, if they are adults, who are you and I to judge? Who is to say what is right and wrong. They made their own choice (as you did) and at th end of the day….does it affect your beliefs?
    AM I ok with it? Not really. I think any violence at all, even in religion is wrong, because I do not believe in hurting another human. However, we are also getting into laws, not religion.
    I have considered my position over a lifetime. Nothing has ever happened to me to push me away from religion, just I also "saw the light". I came to the realization after watching people go to war and die over religion, and 1 billion people say this is right another billion say this is right, 500K say this religion is correct, my god is better than yours…came to the realization that you know, it's all silly. Fighting over whose diety is the true one, using religion as an excuse to further personal agendas, the list goes on…and for what? For an unknowable entity? 
    Is life that unimportant here and now that we always look at the there and after? Cant we just believe what we want, and not worry so much what everyone else's fantasy is?
  37. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    ctgretzky,  you wrote,

    I respect everyone's religion.  […] Why must a specific religion be correct?

    Well, believe it or not, Catholics are supposed to respect the fact that each person has freewill and the ability and the right to choose for themselves how to act on that freewill (including who/what to believe or not).  That does not make every possible choice right.  It just makes every possible choice available.

    If you want the "boiled down" reason for religion, I believe it is fear.

    You are quite welcome to your opinion.  As long as you recognize it is an opinion, and not necessarily fact.  I would say that I do know some that cling to their religion (whatever it may be) because of fear.  Pascal's Wager and all.  However, that is an imperfect faith.  Maybe it helps them – but it is not what God intends for them.
     

    Truth…what is truth? You mean faith. Truth is based on provable hypothesis.

    Actually, FACT is based on provable hypotheses.  Truth IS whether or not anyone recognizes it as such. 

    Now, back to:

    I respect everyone's religion.  […] Why must a specific religion be correct?

    I have already explained why I respect everyone's right to exercise their freewill…I have to ask.  If there IS no 1 religion that is correct (i.e…they are all correct or they are all in error),  how does that garner any respect?

    {please notice the distinction in the term "respect"}

    In all honesty, if the Catholic Church is not correct, then I say to hell with it.  Why the heck would I want to live this way if it isn't from God.

    I recognize that the same argument holds for the other religions.  I do not say it as "proof" that the Catholic Church is correct. 

    In fact, for me, it all boiled down to:

    If there IS a God, then he better be powerful enough to build a church for his people on earth that is without error.  Otherwise, he's not all-powerful.

    For me, it was either the Catholic Church (the ONLY one that actually puts for the inconceivable claim that it is held by God to be completely error-free) or atheism.  For me, that was the only 2 options that held any intellectual integrity. 

  38. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    ctgretzky,

    While I disagree with your view, it is quite a common one in our culture, and I appreciate your articulating it here in this forum. 

    Do you really posit that all violence is wrong? Even, say, in protecting an innocent from an unjust aggressor?

    Do you believe there is a Moral Law? If so, based on what? Consensus? If not, then consider the consequences. 

    Do you believe in the Natural Law?

    Do you figure that, say, the Third Reich, the Soviets, Mao's China, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, and many others were motivated to extreme violence over differences in religion?  

     

  39. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I'm sorry, this IS a Catholic website, is it not?  Therefore, us crazy (see note below) Catholics get to share our faith with each other and with others, free from persecution.  And free from points of view that continually deny the existence of God and an absolute faith without logical resources and research to defend the position.  I simply cannot subscribe to the 'anything goes' approach.  Either a specific religion can claim to be correct or there are no correct religions and anything goes and there is no truth and what is the point of living?  Seriously, have we thought about it this way?  Ecumenism gone amok! 

    We must all respect ctgretsky's thoughts, but we must also acknowledge that most of us believe they are incorrect and unfounded and we must encourage ctgretsky to seek further or else we must acknowledge that indeed ctgretsky is calling us all crazy and as a Catholic I am simply tired of that point of view: secularism and materialism and reletivism and oh just because Catholics believe this and that they must be wrong and God with a lower case 'g', etc etc.  As a Catholic on a Catholic website, please don't respond and call be judgmental and hateful, I'm simply acknowledging the Truth!  yes, Truth with a capital 'T'!!

    (following a later post – I posted earlier today and now I'm editing my post even though I know it will end up at the end of all subsequent posts – I wanted to clarify that the word 'crazy' was of my choosing and not a direct quote from someone else's post.  
    This is my opinion, that many outside the Church consider Catholics crazy and I am simply expressing my frustration at my beliefs being too easily dismissed or considered ridiculous.  I apologize for any offense! 
    And no ctgretsky, I do not believe you love your Catholic relatives any less.  I apologize if my comments can be misunderstood in that way.  My comments were not personal against you but your particular comments did spur my desire to express my opinion on this particular matter.)
  40. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Everything else bwteen us is pure speculation, and cant be proven, and both of us have valid points…So Ill just get into the meat:

    "If there IS a God, then he better be powerful enough to build a church for his people on earth that is without error.  Otherwise, he's not all-powerful.

    For me, it was either the Catholic Church (the ONLY one that actually puts for the inconceivable claim that it is held by God to be completely error-free) or atheism.  For me, that was the only 2 options that held any intellectual integrity. "

    Is the church without error? I would think not, given the scandals, the hypocrisy and the flip flopping of entities within the church of what is/isnt accepted. It is fact that the church is full of errors. No guesswork there. 😉
    hmmm..intelectual integrity…so you think the catholic religion is the only one that makes sense? So your imaginary man in the sky is better than someone elses? Buddah? 
    So the fact that we can basically prove evolution has no bearing on this? If you want to introduce intellect into a reason…I am trying to wrap my arms around how you can decide on a religion based on intellect?

  41. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Thank you Protect..I enjoy discussing, and hope that no one takes it as insulting.

    I do believe all violence is wrong, but not in the cases of protection from an agressor.  If someone wanted to hurt my children, I would obviously step in the way.
    Moral law…yes, I believe most laws are based on religious laws. Put it this way…I liken religion to workers unions. At the time when unions were formed, they provided a great service to the people…they helped create laws for labor, protected people from basically slavery, and gave workers rights. The same with religion. They were needed when we were uncivilized. Religion civilized the world, gave us a moral compass. It also explained things that were a mystery to our ancestors (where do we go when we die…what is lightning…etc…)but like unions, it became useless in time. We CAN explain a great deal about who we are, where we are from, hw nature works. Many of you liken to the moracle of how we were created by a being…I say, it is a greater miracle we are here by serendipity! How glorious it is that we were created from almost nothing! 
    Now we have laws, based on the greatness of religion at the time. Worked out rather well.
    hmmm..natural law…in what way?
    The ones you proposed as far as violence…more so of ego. Individuals looking for power. Isolated, quick events.
    More so I speak of the war of Isreal vs. Palestine and the whole middle east. My god is better than your god. My morals are better than your morals (but this time based solely on religion and not civility). Thousands of years…wasted.
  42. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Totally understandable. Religion is a very heartfelt, personal  part of life. To some it is like another child, or loved one. 

    And yes, everyone gets attacked for their beliefs, regardless if it is religion, politics or TV shows lol…
    I started out this whole thing saying I respect religion, it has a place in life, and I think if religion helps someone become a better person, or find peace, or set their moral compass, then it is viable in their life and no one can take that away.
    However, my view is it is something that I feel is played too much out in the open. Look, in Iraq alone, you hav epeople killing one another because of slight differences in opinion over if a woman should be concealed or not, all in the name of a god. I mean, come on!
    I saw a father leta whole town beat and stone and kill his 18 year old daughter because she was caught dating someone outside her religion. Disgusting. Extremes…yes, I will grant that.
    But even here…people protest abortion clinics because their religion says it is wrong. They burn and try and ban HArry potter from a library. Go to soldiers funerals and haze them…so many examples.
    I think if religion was kept more personal, and not something to be used to change other people, it is fine.
  43. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    ctgretzky, you wrote:

    Is the church without error? I would think not, given the scandals, the hypocrisy and the flip flopping of entities within the church of what is/isnt accepted. It is fact that the church is full of errors. No guesswork there. 😉

    My friend, when I speak of the Church, I am speaking of the entity that is greater than each of the sinful individuals that make it up.  The teachings of the Church regarding faith and morals have not changed.  The teachings of the Church are without error – even in spite of being made up of very sinful, error-filled people.  My point still stands.  (and again, I reitterate that the Catholic Church is the only church that makes the ridiculous claim that it has remained without error.  The rest recognize that they cannot be error-free)

     

    You wrote:

    So the fact that we can basically prove evolution has no bearing on this?

    Correct.  First, as a scientist…I have to first ask you to give me any evidence that evolution has been "proved" and I use that in the proper scientific way.  I'll take papers, dissertations, anything that is rigorous science.  What you'll find, instead, is that it is still a THEORY.

    However, IF science were to ever actually PROVE evolution, you will find that the Catholic Church is not against the notion of evolution.  It IS against Darwinism because Darwin specifically ruled out the possibility of a creator.  Evolution in general, however, does not address the first cause.  It can be compatible with Catholic doctrine (or it may be shown eventually to be in error as so many other theories have shown, too).

    If you want to introduce intellect into a reason…I am trying to wrap my arms around how you can decide on a religion based on intellect?

    The intellect is the gateway to the soul.  Faith and reason cannot be in contradiction to each other – otherwise, as humans (integral of the natural and the supernatural) we would be scitzophrenic (apologies for misspelled words).

  44. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    just some important information from Saint Joseph Communications pertaining to Harry Potter:

  45. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    One of many books/scribblings of the evils of Harry Potter.

    Some of my favorite lines from the descriptions:
    "Matthew demonstrates why Catholic philosophers from St. Augustine to Pope John Paul II have consistently warned against allowing things into the minds of your children that may undermine their faith."

    Or any free thought outside of the one true religion? Why is everyone always so scared that they will "lose" their children to another religion? You might as well just write what you really mean: "we must keep them as sheep"
    I have 3 kids. The oldest has been confirmed, the second has had her communion. Both know I do not believe in religion, yet I have exposed them to the religion I grew up with becuase I wanted them to learn in specific about one religion in particular. I do it out of respect for my family as well as giving the children a foundation in belief. My hop eis that they will know what religion is at least, and then explore on their own as they get older what fits into their belief system. Why would I care if they become any other religion in time?
    Another brilliant quote:
    "Speaking as a Catholic father, who as a youth entered into the dark world of the occult precisely because of fantasy fiction"
    I really had to laugh at that. Ahhhh.. the old "I did this, so you can be sure your children will do this too" ploy of the religious fanatic. Or blaming others for their weakness. Fantasy fiction MADE him become interested in the occult. Nothing else in life could have MADE him. Where were his parents? Friends? Was he involved in activities such as sports, or clubs at school? Was he a "tv child" and got bored? Silly. It is akin to saying "I listened to eminem, and he sings about rape, so I raped a woman." DUmb.
    "And just like violence and pornography, kids are desensitized by exposure"

    I can agree to a degree, but must disagree more so. Exposure to anything takes guidance. Not lazy parenting. Parenting is a 24 hour/7 day a week job. Cant handle it, get a dog.
    I say, the exposure isnt what desensitizes, it is lack of discussion. Children left to their own devices will design their own point of veiw without knowing the facts pro and con.
    It is actually the parents who shun their children from eveything "evil" in the world that have the children most unable to cope with the realism of life. Sorry if you disagree, but have seen it over and over again with stric parents. Heck, I went to catholic school. I also went to public school.
    Do you have a ponderance of which girls went the furthest? 😉
  46. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Two quick things:

    First, what year is it? It is 2007. Someting pretty important and real happened 2007 years ago.

    Second, have you ever had first-hand experience with those involved in the occult?  If so, you know it is real.  If not, then you don't know what you are passing off as harmless.

  47. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    how quick we are to dismiss things we do not like to hear and do not believe in.  I hope we all pray for our children, although some of us seem to think that evil does not exist in subtle forms since well, it hasn't bothered me and I can't see it, so it must not exist. 

    I detest generalizations and I believe that ctgretsky has made far too many generalizations, from a simple book preview, not even the book itself, to remain credible on this comment posting.  I find many of your comments quite hostile and intolerant of those who do indeed shelter their children for fear of giving in to the indifferent, everything goes attitude of today's popular culture, harry potter or no harry potter.  They are not to be judged, and of course neither are you.  Let's accord each other the same respect.
  48. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Something happened 2007 years ago? Correct, the birth of a religion. Nothing more.

    THe bible was written many many years later, and is an interpretation of man. 
    I have a couple of friends who are wiccan. Does that count? What they practice is, as well, simply a belief. Not fact, truth or however you want to describe it. Why is your religion any better or more believeable? Prove to me that catholicism is the one true religion.
    You cant.
  49. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Sorry tmitchell? I have read the books (HP…many times, btw), and I have read "the book" (bible) as I went to Catholic school most of my life. I am quite sure I am more than credible.

    I do not need to pray for my children, thanks. I think bringing them up and letting them experience all of life is enough for them to learn about good and evil with my guidance. Seems to be working so far.
    Evil is a subjective term used to describe things in black and white. Not all of life is good and evil and can be classified as some like to 😉 What is evil? Can you tell me what evil is? Is a hurricane wiping out New Orleans evil? Do you believe Harry Potter to be evil? Describe evil for me, because I am quite curious what is and isnt evil.
    I have not made generalizations. I have expressed opinions. 
    I am glad you are sheltering your children. Do you plan to send them to a private catholic university? DO you plan on them eventually working for a strict catholic company? Plan on keeping them away from society in general?
    Sheltering only works for so long. Eventually, they have to grow up and make their own choices. 
  50. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I understand your point about the church itself being without error, but that is purely subjective. Since you believe in the church, you believe as well that the teachings are without error. However, you confuse me…you also state that the church has error? You say they make the ridiculous claim that it is error free…sorry if I seem dense on this…I am trying to understand what you mean?

    As far as evolution, you can find the paper trail as easily as you wish to try. 
    Either way, from all I have read and studied the subject, seems like this theory is pretty solid. The problem is 70% of the us doesnt believe in evolution, and our government doesnt want to acknowledge it or release more funding for it becazse they fear stepping on toes. This part is absolute fact. I have discussed this in excess on other bulletin boards full of scientists where funding was cut for programs because of political reasons.
    The church is against evolution. Last I knew, they still frown on man coming from monkeys, and we are an incarnation of a creator. Man was always man.
    In any event, evolution is far more along the lines of a proveable hypothesis than god or jesus, would you agree on that? Show me evidence that there is a god. Show me documantation and the paper trail you would like for evolution. 
    You cant. It is pure faith. 
    Intellect is the gateway to the soul for YOU and those who believe in a creator. Since I do not believe in such, intellect tells me there is no creator, or at least none that can be known to man. Or if there is, the concepts we have on such a diety are inconsistent. Can reason survive without faith? Your correlation of the two is base don belief, not nessecity.
    Again, why is the catholic god and saviour the right one? Intelectually, if presented with several options, how do you choose? What about the billions who believe in buddah? In allah? Intelectually, they would say the same as you.
    See the contradictions?
    DOnt worry about misspelled words!!! lol..I dont even read back over what I wrote, it just spills out, so excuse me for spelling AND grammar, and possibly clarity of thought!
  51. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    ctgretsky, you say you've studied the Catholic faith, but I find that difficult to believe, as you would have come further along in your belief and faith development.  Or perhaps you are studying the wrong sources.  I can't even begin to know which to suggest for you, but perhaps you should seek the guidance of an RCIA program director of a priest or apologist,  I trust you would see the logic of God and Jesus and even the Catholic Church if you would give them (the aforementioned folks) a chance and seriously consider the beliefs and teachings, as so far you seem very quick to dismiss it.  I know you find it very difficult to believe right now, but I think perhaps if you read CS Lewis or some Catholic authors you'd begin to see the logic in Christian belief and perhaps even Catholicism.  Otherwise, if you've tried all that and nothing seems to click, I suppose you are not ready yet to believe and I hope that someday you'll reconsider.  

    I don't say this in judgment, but you do seem very quick to dismiss faith and religion and even God simply because you cannot 'prove' it.  Which is indeed a silly argument as how could you ever 'prove' to me that you love your children or your parents or anyone else?  Because if I were the kind of person prone to silly arguments I could dismiss your claims and call you a liar, but I am not that kind of person and I indeed take it on faith that you absolutely love your family.  It would be silly of me even to suggest otherwise.  Do you see now where us persons of faith are coming from and how much it may hurt us when our deep and sincere beliefs are declared absurd and we're asked to 'prove' the existence of God who is so very real to us? 
    Catholic evangelization is a touchy subject, as we are called as Catholics not to judge but to love.  And yet we are often so anxious to share our beliefs with others and sometimes it is so difficult for us to accept that some people are not ready to take that journey of faith we so treasure.   Please accept my offers of prayer, what could they hurt?
    As to your question of what is evil, I cannot answer that for you as I take my lessons in the subject from the beliefs of the Catholic Church and of course I seek guidance in prayer.  And as you disregard those for now, hopefully you can find your own answers.   Although it is a difficult thing to find your way all on your own, with no guidance but your own thoughts and emotions, believe me, I've been there.  But perhaps you would say, 'to each his own'?  
    Evolution is indeed a theory that cannot be proven exclusively and creation certainly cannot be conclusively explained away.  I never said the Church is in error, only the people in the Church.   There is a distinction and I hope you do some further investigating to clarify for yourself.  There are some great books on the subject and I wish I could think of one right now.  
    Read some CS Lewis, specifically Mere Christianity for some great logical reasoning for the existence of God —  sure you can't prove He exists, but you can't prove He doesn't exist either.  
    And certainly I would not pretend to think I could prove Catholicism is the one true religion, I have not the talent nor the linguistic skill to explain in such perfect detail the truth of that matter that saints and scholars have described for hundreds of years, perhaps you can find one of those books to read before you completely dismiss the idea (dare I say, the Truth?)  Oh and I must say, if you read the Bible without guidance it may very well seem like a bunch of nonsense, please, again, find some good books, not just Catholic, to read and study before dismissing it entirely.
    And I must express my opinion that only the Catholic Church (as far as I know and I'm sure you will correct me if I am mistaken) claims to have the absolute truth.  All others seem to believe that how can absolute truth even exist when people are involved?  Exactly!  The Catholic Church was founded and is upheld by God and Jesus Christ, the only way it can be free from error in teaching faith and morals.  If this is not true, if God does not exist, then what is true?  In my estimate, not a whole lot, especially today when so many people hold to an anything goes attitude – you live your morals and I'll live mine.  Again, CS Lewis' Mere Christianity is an excellent source for debunking this line of reasoning.  To me, it is a scary thought, and to so many scholars and theologians and laypeople, it is simply impossible – read up on it, they provide excellent logic and reasoning.
  52. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Thanks for the response, and I understand where you are coming from.

    I have studied the bible, and have read Lewis' works. I did go to catholic school for most of my life, and was an altar boy,  and was very well versed in this religion. Of course, that was so long ago. I was guided very well, and in my freshman year of HS went to an all boys school, run by Fransican (sp?) monks. I went to public school the next year and public university because I had it with the hypocrisy. 
    So I do have a knowledgeable backround in this particular religion.
    I also studied theology a bit, but am no means anything more than someone who has been subjected to different beliefs, but not any kind of expert.
    See, the reason I stopped discussing such things, really, is because no matter what, beliefs that have been pounded into people's heads dont change. I take you as an example. I could sit and give you a milllion reasons how religion is hypocritical, and is based on fear of death, and was once needed to explain the unknown etc etc…but you would never see it. People of devout faith are sheep herded from early on (or are "enlightened by chance" because of some life change) to believe. Makes sense. 
    See, everything you write, whether you realize it or not, is based on what you were taught to believe.  Everything you state is based on theological evidence within the confines of the catholic doctrine of truth and affinity. It is a dogmatic view of the world strictly through the eyes of a catholic. Blinders are a pope's best friend, so the saying goes. Every reason you have given is NOT from you, but from what you have been taught!
    I do not "quickly dismiss" faith and god etc…I am agnostic, not atheist. I believe, yes, there possibly could be something out there. It is unknowable by man. 
    Some people feel the need to have stricter belief systems…ie catholic, buddism etc…so they pick one and go for it. Thats fine. However, in your assumptions about religion, you touch upon catholicism being the one "absolute truth."
    However, you will never give me the reason why.
    I have asked numerous times here that someone, anyone, explain to me WHY the catholic church is the true and right religion. I get answers of "because the church says so…"
    THink about how silly that is!!!! Without thinking from the same point behind a stained glass window looking out.
    So…which is he one true religion?
    Here is a partial list…pick which is the correct one if you can, and tell me why the others are wrong. I mean, you MUST pick one, no? The bible is clear that if you do not believe in god and jesus accordingly, you will go to hell, correct? So…lets look at the MINISCULE amount of people who are wrong, and going to hell….
    Ps…this is just the groupings, there are sub-sets within these.
  53. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    ctgretzky,

    1. I can not prove you exist. But you do exist, don't you? I can not prove I exist, but I do exist.
    2. Moral relativism works only if nothing is really true. So, can moral relativism be really true?
    3. Your views on subjectivity have a limit. While our subjective experinece of the transcendent is important, it is meaningless unless there is an objective transcendent to have a subjective relationship with.

    This actually starting to tie into the thread about Kirkegaard. yikes.

  54. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    How about a comedy break?

    George Carlin
    On Religion
    ObjectiveThought.com
    12-23-5

    When it comes to BS, big-time, major league BS, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest BS story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

    But He loves you.

    He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good BSstory. Holy crap!

    But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is fd up.

    Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of crap you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

    No woman could or would ever f things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a crap. Doesn't give a crap, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

    So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn't give a crap, I decided to look around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.

    And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.

    Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I'm unworthy. Doesn't tell me I'm a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite.

    I've often thought people treat God rather rudely, don't you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. Do this, gimme that, I need a new car, I want a better job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday His day off. It's not nice. And it's no way to treat a friend.

    But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you'd really like to f that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you'd have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

    Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and f up Your Plan?

    And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will Be Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants to anyway, why the f bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It's all very confusing.

    So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don't pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two reasons: First of all, I think he's a good actor, okay? To me, that counts. Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't f around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with.

    For years I asked God to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog, Joe Pesci straightened that cksucker out with one visit. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a simple baseball bat.

    So I've been praying to Joe for about a year now. And I noticed something. I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don't. Same as God, 50-50. Same as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe, the wishing well and the rabbit's foot, same as the Mojo Man, same as the Voodoo Lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles, it's all the same: 50-50. So just pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself.

    And for those of you who look to The Bible for moral lessons and literary qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want to look at the Three Little Pigs, that's a good one. Has a nice happy ending, I'm sure you'll like that. Then there's Little Red Riding Hood, although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn't care for, by the way. And finally, I've always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I like the best? "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again." That's because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no God. None, not one, no God, never was.

    In fact, I'm gonna put it this way. If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody's okay? All right, tell you what, I'll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a God, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I've got a little cramp in my leg. And my balls hurt. Plus, I'm blind. I'm blind, oh, now I'm okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci. Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!
  55. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    So…when's the comedy break?

  56. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Consider:

    "Nietzsche is especially instructive here, because he cannot be accused of any revanchist Christian bias in his diatribes against liberal democracies. His most prominent English biographer, R. J. Holingdale, makes a striking point when he observes:

    'Nineteenth-century rationalism was characterized by insight into the difficulty in accepting revealed religion, and obtuseness regarding the consequences of rejecting it.'

    Above all, I would argue, Nietzsche warned against that peculiar obtuseness of secularized Europe that had managed to persuade itself that ethical striving alone could bring about an eschatological kingdom on earth. That to me is Nietzsche’s great lesson for Christians." ~B16

    Hence, the lessons of the twentieth century's embrace of national socialism and communism — bearing the fruits of oceans of blood and mountains of corpses — are the inescapable destination of rejecting revelation. Even notorious God-denier Neitzche gave prior warning of this danger.

    "These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." ~G.K. Chesterton

  57. Guest Avatar
    Guest
    Why is the catholic religion the correct one?
    Just need that answer anytime now…everything else so far has been pure speculation and catholic dogmatism.
    So…once again (even though I have never been given an answer in 25+ years) why is catholicism the truth, while the other 200+ religions in the world false.
  58. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Then, are you in agreement that God exists?

    If you are not, then any further explanation is moot.

  59. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I am in agreement that it is possible that a god or multiple gods or something beyond which we can comprehend or maybe even nothing exists.

    😉
    So…why is the catholic religion the correct one?
  60. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    If, as you say, "maybe even nothing exists," then none of this matters whatsoever, because nothing exists — you don't exist, I don't exist, and so forth.  But we know that things do exist – I do exist, you do exist, and so forth. So we take things on faith to some extent — even that we exist. 

    We can only come to know what religion is true if God speaks.  And, in fact, we can come to know that the Catholic faith is the one true faith because God spoke. He revealed Himself — that's what a revealed religion means.

    What did He say?  Over time, as we were ready, He said that We must trust Him to keep His promises; that He is Who is – the eternal I AM; that we must recognize Him alone; that we are to love Him with all our heart and mind and strength and love our neighbor as ourselves; that we must refrain from certain self-destructive behaviors. 

    He spoke to Adam, to Noah, and to Abraham. Then He spoke to Isaac, to Jacob, and to Joseph. Then His words were handed down to the tribes of Jacob, the Israelites.  Then He spoke to Moses and you know that story. Then he spoke to King David.  Then to the prophets. 

    And all along this time, God's word was handed down — tradition. And some was written down — sacred scripture.

    And then, in the fullness of time, not only did He speak, He became a human being so He could redeem humanity. And then Jesus came– the Word became flesh. And this God-man, Jesus of Nazareth, established a visible Church which exists to this very day. It continues to hand down God's revelation of Himself to the world.

    But I have a feeling you already know this, ctgretzky, and have rejected it, which all of us are free to do. 

  61. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Here's another perspective.

    IF God exists, then his existence is a fact, a truth, a reality.  (Whether or not any one of us recognizes it as such.)

    The question becomes, if God exists, then is it possible for there to be "a correct religion"? 

    I'm not talking certainty.  I'm not talking proof.  I'm not talking odds or probability.  Just in theory….if God exists, is it possible for there to be one correct religion?

    If your answer to the above question is NO, then there's no point going further.

  62. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    You and I exist, it is provable to the extent that we can prove such things with our technology. I believe you and I exist because I can touch, smell, feel etc…

    So, when did god speak to you? What did he say? Or are you just regurgitating what you were taught?
    Who wrote the scriptures you speak of? Did a man write them or did a devine power?
    Jesus very well could have existed, I would even say he probably did. He was a great man, he taught many lessons that to this day I believe were responsible for morality, and living in peace. He was certainly not a diety. Prove that he was reborn.
    Rejection based only on hypocrisy. 
    So…why is the catholic religion the one true religion? Still no answer…
    THus the hypocrisy. 
  63. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Ahah! Ipoch…yes. I agree with this statement. IF god does indeed exist, it is very possible there is a one true religion. 

    Now…why is catholicism the one true religion?
  64. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Hold on!  Sheeish…

    I work in baby steps here.  Just how my mind goes.

     

    From now on (for the sake of not having to write it over and over), let us assume the preface If God exists…

     

    It is possible for there to be a one true religion.

    Now…My next question is…

    Is it possible (not probable…not plausible…not likely….just possible) for humanity to know about this one true religion?  (In this question, I do not posit nor speculate how this "knowing" comes about.)  That is…is it possible that God makes the one true religion known, or, "readily-available" to humans?

    If the answer is NO…then there's no point going further.

  65. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    ctgretzky,

    "Rejection based on hypocrisy?" Are we to discard the possibile validity of a position because human beings have found it difficult and left it untried? "The world has something wrong with it, so God must not exist" or something like that? Hypocrisy and human corruption does unfortunately darken our intellect and twist our will, pulling us down if you will; but it is also the fault which "earns" us so wonderful a Savior.

    lpioch is much better at this than I am.

    Either God has spoken or He has not. 

    If God did not speak, if He has not revealed Himself to man, then it would not be possible for us human beings to know the truth. We'd be on our own. Then this whole discussion is pointless. Christianity, and for that matter any moral law is merely a subjective human construct — no better than any other construct.

    So, for example, if someone advocates that the strong taking from the weak is not stealing, but perfectly natural, then it is; because there is no objective truth and all constructs are subjectively valid. It should not be illegal to "steal."

    But if there are universal moral laws, then from where did they come?  Who told them to us? From what source have they been handed on?

    And if Jesus is not God, but simply was a good moral teacher, then he was a liar or a lunatic. He claimed to be God ("before Abraham was born, I AM." et al.).

    And if there was no resurrection — no empty tomb — and his bones lie buried in the earth somewhere, then the actions of the apostles make no sense. The Church would make no sense; and its continued existence, much less its growth and global influence for two thousand years is preposterous.

    But there it is.

    And you, like every human being, are born with God's gift of free will to reject it. Or accept it. 

  66. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Ipoch…lol…I see you took logic in school 😉 Or you learned business from Zig Z…."get them saying yes"

    Your baby steps are leading to an end, and the end is obvious. 
    I will even say this to save time…god said the true religion is catholicism.
    Who was witness to this? Does not Buddists believe the same? Or Islamists?
    Now…why is the catholic religion the correct one and the others wrong since they can, as well, extrapolate from a beginning to an end.
  67. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    *sigh* to whom did god speak to? 

    You are regurgitating a philosophy handed down for generations. Nohing more. A belief system built upon the word of man.
    Nothing wrong with it, as I have said, because it was by design. A moral compass to quell the ills of a growing society. However, never forget that much of it WAS forced upon people. By death, torture, even war.
    Dont forget the past 😉
    My question now remains for quite a few posts, unanswered. I expected such, as no brother, father, monk or sister, even in their devout state could answer except with more faith based answers.
    Why is the catholic religion the one true religion, and everyone else is wrong?
  68. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    6 days, 2 hours and roughly 35 minutes. 

    Still no answer to my question…
    Can you please grab some others you know of who believe they can answer it? 
  69. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    ctgretzky,

    Sorry to keep you waiting.

    First off, let me see if I have this straight — you want an objective, quantifiable proof that God exists, and that the Catholic Church is the one true religion, but this proof can not be based on faith.[My question now remains for quite a few posts, unanswered. I expected such, as no brother, father, monk or sister, even in their devout state could answer except with more faith based answers

    It seems thatsince you have restricted any responses from being faith-based that you are biased against any reasonable explanation which allows for the free will of the human person. 

    *sigh* to whom did god speak to?

    Please re-read my post of 08/09/2007 – 1:12pm.  There I listed, although it is not a complete list, some of those to whom God has spoken which are recorded in sacred scripture.

    But although that answers your question, that is apparently not what you are asking.

    You are regurgitating a philosophy handed down for generations. Nohing more. A belief system built upon the word of man.

    Unless, of course, God spoke and it is not the word of man, but in fact the word of God. And either way, "regurgitating" is not a very nice way to put it.

    However, never forget that much of it WAS forced upon people. By death, torture, even war. Dont forget the past 😉
    Again you are overlooking the actions of the apostles of Jesus.  They did not force the faith on anyone.  On the contrary, the blood of martyrs was the seed of the Church. And yet it did, in fact, grow. Tremendously. Interesting, no?

    If you are referring to the Crusades or the Inquisitions, then I suggest we pick that up on a separate thread. But you might want to google "the black legend" and do some unbiased reading before you attribute evils done in the name of the faith to the actual teachings of the faith itself. This can be done entirely without using Catholic scholarship, by the way.

    Why is the catholic religion the one true religion, and everyone else is wrong?

    Everyone else is not wrong. There is much that is right in most other religions. But the Catholic Church has been entrusted with the fullness of the deposit of the faith by Jesus.  I don't know why, but He did establish it and here it is, for you and anyone else to freely reject.

    There is so much to receive, if one is simply willing to receive it.

    Last thought, for now.  The atheist's position can only be proven wrong while the God-believer's position can only be proven right:

    If one is an atheist and dies and one is right, one would never know.

    If one is an atheist and dies and one is wrong, one will be proven wrong. 

    If one is a God-believer and dies and one is wrong, one would never know. 

    If one is a God-believer and dies and is right, one would be proven right.

  70. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    6 days, 22 hours….

    I grow weary of this merry go round.
    Enjoy.
  71. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    ctgretzky,

    I have actually lost interest because you are clearly not interested.  When I converse with people, I do so because it is a converstation – a 2 way street – a DIAlog … not one where I am place on a defensive for some purpose I don't really know.  YOU came to the Catholic site.  I took that to mean that you actually were interested in seeing out other people think these things through.  But then you require that "faith" cannot be a part of the dialog.  Sorry…that pretty much cuts the dialog into a monologue or into a shouting match…neither of which I'm interested in.

    I've actually never taken logic in school…except for the fact that I'm a scientist…and that's how my mind works (as I have said before).  My questions are the honest questions I asked myself to baby-step my way through "right" and "wrong" until I realized I was actually trying to figure out "Truth" and "reality" from "opinion" and "subjectivity".  If you don't like my method of thinking about things (which you clearly don't because you were uninterested in continuing the discussion), that's fine.  You can cease the dialog (as you have) any time you want.

    If you're interested in true, good, deep dialogue, where both parties participate, reveal, learn and teach, I'm always here. 

    If you're interested in merely saying "You can't prove squat – I WIN!" then just add a tick mark to your post and move along.  If the Catholic Church could be PROVEN to the the right, true religion, we'd all be Catholic – wouldn't we?  And we would all be automatons and dull – wouldn't we?

  72. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    ctgretzky,

    God has revealed that He wants every human person to be redeemed.

    Even those who have been handed down very little of the deposit fo the faith and do not know much about God's revelation are given enough of His grace to turn to Him. 

    But faith is a gift. And a gift that must be accepted, unwrapped, and opened.  And that comes with a responsibility – through eyes opened by faith, we might see how God is patiently calling us to re-think, change our direction and live our lives differently.

    That just might be why many of us are so resistant to the gift.  So we are happy to instead take God up on His gift of free will, reject Him and keep our eyes closed instead. Then we can choose not to re-think, change our direction or live our lives differently.  Rather, we can live our lives according to the world, according to our self.

    No faith, no cry. (appologies to Bob Marley)

  73. […] By making allusions to World War II ??

  74. daughterofeve Avatar
    daughterofeve

    Never read ‘um. don’t plan to. Read the Bible, and get active with a pro-life or soup kitchen. Don’t argue about Harry Pottet Philosophies!!!
    If you want good fiction, try the Hobbit. Great book.

  75. lycas7x Avatar
    lycas7x

    Spiritual warfare is a reality when it comes to addiction and mental illness.

    I can’t believe people are actually still having active discussions about demonology in the same sentence when it comes to literature. We all have to face our own demons in the morning. Money, jealousy, love and politics aren’t going anywhere. Pride and ego have been competing with Gods intent for centuries.

    Maybe these authors serve no purpose whatsoever. Modern literature competes with the bible. Isn’t that why we created the printing press? Universities? We need to pray for unity of the devil will have us all. Good and Evil need not be in the minds of the beholder, but the just and unjust alike.

  76.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Allegories of “good vs evil” have been in literature for centuries. Nothing new under the sun as they say. But to imply that Ms. Rowling’s characters are the 21st century epitome of chivalry is utter nonsense ! The end does not justify the means… in other words, the use of “sorcery” for a “better” good is saying that there is such a thing as “white” magic, and that sir does not exist !

    The story of Harry Potter and his companions “fighting” evil with their “developed innate” powers of sorcery has no comparison in the Literary world to the works of C.S. Lewis or even Tolkien for that matter ! Rowlings intent was purely monetary in creating her characters ! She certainly cannot be promoting an allegorical work worth calling a classic.

    Methinks Mr. Lewis is having an abashed reaction to Rowlings characters “having a “devil” of a time” in their pursuits of heroism, and being compared to his great works of literature. In other words, I do not think C.S. Lewis would have approved.

  77. Loonybin Avatar
    Loonybin

    I believe this article was a very well written allegory.  The author of the articles intent had nothing to do with wizardry and witchcraft, or sorcery and magic.  It had to do with good verses evil, some possible ways to fight,  and in a way that even teens could grasp and possible relate.  I agree that Rowling’s characters are not the epitome of chivalry, but there was no reference made that they were.  The author of the article also does not say that Rowling’s ranks up their with Tolkien and C.S. Lewis.  Did she intend to demonstrate this religious struggle of demons and spiritual warfare in her books, mostly likely not.  Should she go down in history as writing a great literary classic, I don’t think so.  Was this a really good article and made me think and see things that I could use to teach with, absolutely.

    Lessons can still be learned.  Sometimes it’s not all about magic and saying one author is better than another.  I personally think C.S Lewis would love to talk to the author of this article.  He would have found it very stimulating and refreshing.  Rowling’s has never once compared herself in greatness to Lewis or Tolkien (and rightly so).  She has created characters that can be used in teaching valuable lessons when adults read the book and discuss them with their children (even if she didn’t think of that when she wrote the books). 

    One of my favorite lines from the series goes, “The time is coming when we all have to make a choice.  To choose to do what is right or do what is easy.”  We are quickly coming to that day if it is not all ready here.

Leave a Reply