Skip to main contentAccessibility feedback

Morally Desensitized?

Morally Desensitized?

Your apologia for Harry Potter is appalling (“The Morals of Magic” by Steven G. Greydanus and “No Catholic Consensus” by Tim Ryland, July/August 2001). Greydanus’s thesis—that, despite “shortcomings, the books do have virtues that commend them”—sets up a rationale that can be used to justify any evil. After all, Hitler did make the trains run on time, and reading horoscopes can be fun if one doesn’t take them seriously, right?

Wrong! The teaching of the Church is very clear on these matters. We are not allowed freely to choose evil even on the premise that we will balance it out with a commensurate good. We are called to holiness, not to moral compromise. It is the pure of heart who will see God, not those who are half-worldly and half-pious. It is those who would scandalize the little ones (and the Church would add “or place them in a near occasion of being scandalized”) who are better off in the sea with a millstone around their necks.

And no, Mr. Greydanus, I do not “enjoy at least some fictional works involving magic.” And yes, Mr. Ryland, you may accuse me of being judgmental. In matters of sin, there is no compromise. Do these authors honestly think that any of the great saints of recent years (e.g., Therese, Faustina, Padre Pio, Mother Teresa) would read—let alone recommend to children—literature such as this?

It seems that both of your authors have become so morally desensitized by modern culture that they have lost the ability to reject what is clearly evil. Instead of analyzing Harry against the rigors of Catholic moral theology as magisterial teaching, Mr. Ryland seeks his “Catholic Consensus” and Mr. Greydanus is content to balance Harry between Tolkien and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (whatever that is). Their conclusions from these faulty premises are forgone: that, in the scheme of modern culture, Harry Potter isn’t so bad.

So what? If your reasoning with regard to matters of faith were the same as your reasoning with regard to matters of morals, I would expect an article in the future from you that would go something like this: “Protestant anti-Catholic literature has some redeeming truth in it. After all, such literature does acknowledge Jesus Christ, and, compared to satanic anti-Catholic literature, it is not so bad. So we should not be judgmental towards those Catholic parents who choose to give their impressionable young children Protestant anti-Catholic books, and we can recommend such books to our children as long as we ‘discuss’ these books with them and balance such books with books on the lives of the saints.”

Tell Mr. Greydanus that his “Decent Films Guide” makes about as much sense as a “contemporary guide to honest politicians.” As one of your former strong supporters, I am gravely saddened by what you have done. Cancel my family’s subscription immediately. 

— Michael L. Parkinson 
Lafayette, Indiana 

Editor’s reply: Catholic moral theology does not require one to take an absolutist, see-no-evil, hear-no-evil position. If it did, we wouldn’t be able to read the Bible—it records people performing evil acts, including occult ones. (Remember the witch of Endor? [1 Sam. 28:7–14].)

And it isn’t just Scripture that can be read despite its disturbing elements. Though the works of the ancient Greek poets are thoroughly pagan, that did not stop Paul from reading them and quoting their positive elements in his writings.

Scripture, moral theology, and the documents of the Church call Catholics not to retreat from culture and refuse to have anything to do with works that are not holy. Instead, we are to engage the world constructively, using our God-given critical thinking skills to discern the good and the bad—in this case in literature—and to encourage the former. Though children are not yet capable of doing so in an adult way, this process must begin in childhood.

Which means that parents will have to make tough choices. Some works of literature will be unsuitable for any child (and some for any adult!). Others will be borderline cases. Whether a particular work is acceptable for a particular child at a particular stage of development is a call that only that child’s parents can make. It does them no service to issue blanket condemnations of works that contain any problematic elements. That doesn’t give parents what they need to exercise their critical thinking skills. 


 

How about Dungeons and Dragons?

 

I really enjoyed Steven G. Greydanus’s article on the Harry Potter books (“The Morals of Magic,” July/August 2001). His points are on-target and helpful in my studies of fantasy books and fantasy role-playing games, such as Dungeons and Dragons.

Personally, I would like to see an article on D&D to help families understand it. I was a Dungeons and Dragon player and writer, and I found that the game presents certain problems for youth, especially those at the ages of ten through sixteen. Protestant Christians attack D&D in an extreme fashion and leave you with no explanation on why it is evil. But for some reason there is something about D&D that leads youth in the wrong direction. 

Great job, Steven. I hope to see more of your work, especially to help youth ministers like myself and parents deal with entertainment in a Christian way. 

— Juan Rodriguez 
New York City, New York

Editor’s reply: Look for an article by Greydanus in November on the troubling themes in the recent children’s movies from the Disney company. 


 

Clicked 

 

You’re right—by telling us over and over the teachings of the Church, we gradually begin to understand them. For example, take Mark Shea’s article on ordination (“Ordination Is Not a Right,” May/June 2001). As I read it, the whole idea of why only men can be priests really clicked, even though I’ve read it all before.

Something else clicked, too: I began to see why those who want women priests are trying to get us to say “liturgy” and never “Mass,” why they call the man at the altar “presider” and never “priest,” and why they downplay the Real Presence.

The scary part is that “they” are people in important positions. And they introduce all this with such subtlety that no one (well, hardly anyone) notices. Keep on tellin’ us. 

—Georgia Montana 
Stickney, Illinois 


 

Ford Has a Better Idea 

 

I wanted to write and thank you for the books and Bible you sent me. I have already had the opportunity to share with others what they contain.

Catholics just don’t understand the amount of energy Fundamentalist groups put into prison evangelization. I have met inmates who have left the Church for reasons as surprising as “the pope’s title is ‘Pontiflex Maximus,’ a pagan title.” By the time they meet someone who can explain it, it’s too late.

To prevent these departures, we must evangelize our own, and Russell Ford, I believe, has the right idea. His article in the March 2001 issue (“Not Tough Love, not Soft Love, but True Love”) should be carried in every Catholic newspaper and magazine. 

—Richard Hall 
Pampa, Texas 


 

Never Heard the Terminology 

 

Thank you for Fr. Ray Ryland’s fine article “The Spectrum Virus” (May/June 2001) in which he so clearly explicates the main problem in the Catholic Church today. I have never heard the terminology, though, in any other publication. Is spectrum virus an accepted apologetic or theological term? Am I safe to use it in conversation? 

—Manny Absolom 
Riverfort, Kentucky 

Editor’s reply: It’s a coinage Fr. Ryland came up with to describe the fallacious view that there is a spectrum of valid opinions within the Church on doctrinal matters. You’re free to use it, but—unless the person to whom you’re talking is also a 
This Rock subscriber—you’ll have to define it. 


 

We’ve Been Shown the Pot We Are In 

 

Every so often I come across an article that I so wish all the world could see—not only with physical eyes but with the eyes of faith, and not any faith but with a faith that can truly change the world, one devoted life at a time.

Such is the case with Alice von Hildebrand’s “The War on the Supernatural,” (July/August 2001). I don’t know that I’ve ever read a more beautiful, more masterful, more tragic analysis of what ails us, both in the world and in the Church. How far we have come from the perspective of the early Christians and from our very reason for existence.

To agree with Dr. von Hildebrand’s thinking and continue life as usual is to put ourselves in an even more dangerous spot than the frog who did not realize he was slowly being cooked to death. We’ve at least been shown the pot we are in. And we’ve been given the remedy which the writer states in the words of the One for whom she lives: “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23).

How many times we’ve read or heard those words but viewed them as marching orders for the select few who are called to sainthood as opposed to words addressed to each of us personally. Yet, in the theology of Mother Teresa, to be a saint is not the calling of a select few; it is the vocation of every Christian. It is the call to holiness. The call to take up our cross and follow the one who gave his all for us.

Alice von Hildebrand writes: “The entrance to the way leading to life is narrow. Most men are willing to follow Christ to Mount Tabor. Few indeed are willing to follow him to Calvary.”

To Calvary? Yes. It’s the only way—for each one of us and for our children. 

— Rosalind Moss 
La Mesa, California

Did you like this content? Please help keep us ad-free
Enjoying this content?  Please support our mission!Donatewww.catholic.com/support-us