Harry Potter is unsafe for Christians Pope Opposes Harry Potter Novels Signed Letters from Cardinal Ratzinger Now Online

Favourable Catholic reviews of Potter

1. Sr. Rose Pacatte, F.S.P., (St Pauls) is a media-literacy education specialist. She has an M.Ed. in media studies from the University of London, a certificate in pastoral communications from the University of Dayton and a diploma in catechetics. She writes the "Eye on Entertainment" column for St. Anthony Messenger.

St. Anthony Messenger, February 2006, Eye on Entertainment, page 6 Sr. Rose Pacatte, F.S.P.,

She awards The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe with 'A Bouquet of Roses' [the next lower is Four Roses; Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire gets Three Roses in the same issue]. Its rating is given as A-2, PG [Harry Potter is given A-2, PG-13, and Batman Begins an A-3, PG-13. But Batman Begins gets Four Roses].

(Catholic Classifications:

A-1 General patronage

A-2 Adults and adolescents

A-3 Adults

L      Limited adult audience

O     Morally offensive)

USCCB Movie Review: www.usccb.org/movies/index.htm

Sr. Rose's and others: www.CatholicMovieReviews.org)

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

This fourth Harry Potter film is the best because of the centrality of the theme of all the Potter books and movies: sacrificial love.

From: [e-mail] To: [e-mail] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 2:41 PM

Subject: LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Dear Fr. Pat,

I refer to Irene Wunderlich's letter in your February issue, and to Sr. Rose Pacatte's response.

I can understand Irene's concern. Sr. Rose had defended herself well, but that is beside the point.

In the same issue I examined Sr. Rose's reviews. I am shocked. What on earth is a nun doing watching scores of movies a year? To review them? Anyone's conscience would surely be dulled after all that. One cannot simply remain neutral. Note that Sr. Rose has awarded the Harry Potter film Three Roses and the A-2 category, whereas Batman Begins which is an A-3 film gets Four Roses. One would expect that a nun would review films against standards from Biblical and Church teaching! Or do some other useful ministry. Just because some Board in the US or some priest or nun decides that the Potter books and films are about "sacrificial love", it doesn't mean that we are going to blindly agree with them. Thousands of Catholics have discerned that Harry Potter is all about Wicca. But then maybe Sr. Rose wouldn't be reading their reviews, would she? Yours sincerely, Michael Prabhu, Catholic Evangelist Chennai, India


From: [e-mail] To: [e-mail] Cc: [e-mail] ; [e-mail] ; [e-mail] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 10:51 PM

Subject: LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Dear Michael, Thank you for your letter to Fr. Pat, Editor of St. Anthony Messenger. The magazine has forwarded your letter/email to me. Although I am not required to respond, I thought that since you took the time to write, I would do so.

The interpretation of film is very subjective; people interpret according to their education, family formation, level of moral and faith development and most especially life experience. You seem upset, however, as much by my view of Harry Potter as by the fact that I am a religious who is trained to engage with the media critically, through the lens of faith. This is your personal opinion, and I respect that. But it seems you are writing about two different issues.

I would like to respond with the words of the founder of my religious community, Blessed James Alberione and a thought from Pope John Paul II:

"The cinema is a gift of God’s munificence to humanity, a priceless medium of instruction and apostolate:
'A good movie can make a deeper impression than a sermon.' ” - Blessed James Alberione

"If Catholic communicators can find the right words and images with which to proclaim the Gospel, then even the unresponsive and hostile may recognize in what is offered a truly creative voice which speaks to their deepest longings."

--Letter to Artists by Pope John Paul II

Naturally, what constitutes a "good movie" is the question. There is no universal standard for this. Different cultures often interpret movies differently, and give different ratings to them to guide parents and viewers (ratings and reviews are "information for guidance" and people are free to accept them or not). The apostolate of my community, the Daughters of St. Paul, is to use the media to evangelize as well as to help form critical viewers (not negative viewers) of faith. We also consider the media to be "gifts of God" first of all. I perform my apostolate with the approval of my religious superiors because this work is in keeping with our mission. I see about six films a month, far less than most reviewers; this past year I was also a member of an ecumenical film jury so I saw more films than usual. 

The Church teaches that the entire reality of the human condition can be the subject of the arts and that truth, beauty and goodness - and a critical (not negative) attitude is a necessary skill for consuming all forms of media productions.

This past week a news organization from Rome, reported on what Archbishop John Foley, the President of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications told the members of the council at their annual meeting:

"In his homily the U.S.-born archbishop commented on a Gospel passage, Luke 6:36-37, when Jesus told his disciples: "Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven." "As many of us know all too well," Archbishop Foley said, "the communications community has often expected and too often received from the Church more condemnation than commendation, more negative criticism than positive affirmation." "The fact that the Church has often been correct in its criticisms has not diminished their sting," he observed. "The fact that many good productions have gone unrecognized has intensified the hurt from the criticisms."
Archbishop Foley, 70, quoted one of the patrons of communications, St. Francis of Sales, who said: "You can catch more flies with a spoonful of honey than with a barrel of vinegar." "Let us continue not so much to curse the darkness as to offer the light of Christ through the communications media to those searching for purpose in life and love -- because 'Deus Caritas Est,' God is love," said Archbishop Foley.

In conclusion, it is my personal opinion, influenced by faith, that there is much good in the Harry Potter film(s). I think sacrificial love transcends evil. Also, the Harry Potter story needs to be interpreted in the light of children's fiction and the role of metaphor in story-telling. The key difference between the Harry Potter films and other films that are about children and are dark (because life is bleak for many children), is that in the Harry Potter stories adults act in benevolent ways toward children: they care for them. In "A Series of Unfortunate Events" however, a very imaginative and dark film about lonely children, adults are presented as stupid, and no one cares for the children; in fact, adults are malevolent. I reviewed this series as a poor example of a film for children.

Once again, thank you for writing. I think we can agree to disagree. But be assured that my religious superiors, the archbishop and the vicar for religious of my diocese are very aware of my activities and apostolate and find them suitable. Religious life is not about being separate from the world, but about being Jesus in the world.

May the Lord continue to bless your work of evangelization; may your light shine. Sincerely, Sr. Rose Pacatte, FSP

PLEASE REPLY WITH NEW EMAIL ADDRESS: [e-mail]
Pauline Center for Media Studies http://www.paulinecenterformediastudies.org/
Eye on Entertainment/St. Anthony Messenger http://www.americancatholic.org/movies/default.asp
Sr. Rose's Movie Blog http://journals.aol.com/rosepacatte/MyMovies
From: [e-mail] To: [e-mail] Cc: [e-mail] ; St. Anthony Messenger Press ; [e-mail] Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 10:56 PM Subject: Re: LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Dear Sister Rose,

I greatly appreciate the effort to which you have gone to defend your position[s]. However I am not convinced. Your reply was on expected lines.

I could give a lengthy and detailed rebuttal of each of your arguments, but I will restrain myself to a few.

Before I do so, I request you to please visit my website and examine the contents [www.ephesians511.net]. From your letter I 'judge' that you will label me a fundamentalist or whatever after visiting the site and learning what my ministry is all about. I pray that this time I am wrong.

It is a crusade to expose the New Age within the Church. Please examine ONE article in particular, the report on Catholic Ashrams. There are dozens of other reports that I have written BEFORE I started using the pc, so they are not on the website. They will be in a couple of months. A couple of them are on Harry Potter. Another one is titled:

"A list of questionable, non-Catholic, occult and New Age books that are printed, published and/or sold at St. Pauls bookstores in India."

I travel a lot, and have visited every St. Pauls bookshop in this large country. Several times. The above is self-explanatory. HUNDREDS of titles.

My reports are circulated to ALL the Bishops of India, some to the Holy See. The responses have been encouraging. I have many friends [and enemies] among the St. Pauls priests, brothers and nun sisters.

Just a few days ago I had the privilege of being invited to tea by the visiting [from another city] priest-editor of a St. Pauls monthly, and his Provincial. They agree with my views. Several of your bookstores have removed books that I have objected to. Others [nuns] ask me to stop visiting them.

One nun suggested that I could do better by preaching to the millions of gentiles in India, than visiting her shop every few months to inspect and list some of the rubbish she stocks. I smiled and told her that I would simply LOVE to do that ministry if only SHE would do hers!! No argument.

Just last month, one St Paul's periodical carried a covering letter appended along with a letter from me, and these were given to every delegate to the Conference of the Catholic Bishops of India.

I am in no way saying that ALL Catholic media or all St Pauls ministries are bad. I am not generalising.

I bring to the attention of the editors of ALL Catholic periodicals the errors etc. [and they are aplenty] that they publish, and send copies of the letter to the concerned Bishops. Some of them are now very careful about the contents of their magazines, and innocent Catholics are saved a lot of error and confusion.

Dear Sister, I am not, and was not, upset by your response to the other subscriber or to your classification of films, or with your ministry. I am just doing mine. You could do the same ministry differently. I could and I would. You could tell your readers why they should NOT watch a certain movie. Or read a certain book. Simple and straight. In it, this is what is a no-no for Catholic Christians. And it is not subjective or relative.

Because we DO have a universal standard. The Bible. The Word of God, and Church teaching. For me the solution is easy. I don't know why it should be so difficult for others. [Of course the argument would follow that it is MY interpretation of them]. But it is the sad condition of the Church today which is the reason why thousands of lay persons like me are in fulltime lay ministry. [The 'lens of faith' could mean little to most Catholics.]

I have quoted your founder so suitably in my article on St. Pauls, that not one response has been received.

They know that what is going on is not good and right. If Blessed Alberione were around today, he probably would not recognize the congregation that he had founded insofar as much of the means and the goals are concerned.

Discernment is almost zero. I had books on reincarnation and the occult and several other such topics removed from a St Pauls bookshop at a Catholic convention on two occasions.

St Pauls bookshops continue to print, publish and/or sell books [many authored by priests and nuns] on issues that the 3rd February 2003 Vatican Provisional Report classifies as New Age.

Last year one of my close nun friends in Bombay left the DSP to join the Cloistered Carmelites.

Thank you for quoting Luke 6 on judging others. I could respond to that in detail, but I suggest John 7: 24 and 1 Cor 5: 12. Out of the hundreds of [encouraging] letters that I have received from Bishops in the last 3 years in response to my reports, one of them was sarcastic. He gave me that quote about the honey... and I respectfully replied to him that we were not talking about attracting flies at all; this was spiritual warfare. I did not hear from him again.

It is interesting that you quoted Archbishop Foley, but failed to refer to two other messages which were made around the same time:

1. Television: the Default "Educator" of Society Interview with Brent Bozell

ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, MARCH 15, 2006 (Zenit.org). ZE06031520

2.  Hollywood's Big Disconnect Interview With Father Jonathan Morris, Fox News Analyst

ROME, MARCH 17, 2006 (Zenit.org). * * * Father Morris hosts a regular editorial column, a blog, for Foxnews.com, giving his perspective on top news stories. See www.foxnews.com/fatherjonathan. ZE06031720

Sister Rose, I respect your vocation as a nun, but I do not agree to disagree with you.  I simply disagree.

You could certainly be doing something better with your vocation and your life than writing reviews of the sort that I have been reading in St. Anthony's Messenger.

Thank you for your blessings on my ministry. At your service in Jesus' Name Michael

From: [e-mail] To: [e-mail] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 6:36 AM

Subject: Re: LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Thanks again for writing. I am sure that there is nothing to worry about since you are taking care of everything; you sound as if you have a direct line to the Holy Spirit about the media, so I am sure I don't need to say anything more (though I am sure God is watching over his children even if they are not of the same perspective as yourself.) May the rest of Lent be filled with blessings for you. Sincerely, Rose

MY RESPONSE: My, my, aren't you being sarcastic, Sr. Rose! No, 'dear Michael' either. This will certainly look good in my forthcoming report on St. Pauls. But first may I ask your permission to reproduce our correspondence? It is now left to see whether the Reverend Fathers of St. Anthony's Messenger will publish my letter. Love and Prayers, Michael

From: [e-mail] To: [e-mail] Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 10:52 PM

At this time, Michael, I am not giving my permission for you to reprint our correspondence. Best wishes. Sr. Rose

2. REVIEW - Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

06.12.2005 http://www.cathnews.com/ CATHNEWS

Starring: Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. Directed by Mike Newell. 157 mins. Rating: Rated M.

I think J.K. Rowling deserves a Nobel Prize for literature. Not that her prose would earn her the award, although her literary style has improved as her monumental series has progressed. Her award would be granted for doing what few of us would have guessed could have happened in our lifetime – having children line up around the block to be the first to buy and read a book. This fourth film in the series is, as you have no doubt heard, the darkest of the tales filmed so far. The Australian censors have given this film an M rating with good reason. The Goblet of Fire is not for small or impressionable children. It has a few genuinely frightening scenes and a lot of implied physical and emotional violence.

Harry is now 14 (though Daniel Radcliffe looks considerably older), and is completing his fourth year at Hogwarts School. Principal Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gammon) announces that the college will be hosting three other wizardry schools for the Quidditch World Cup and the Triwizard Tournament. Although entry is restricted to senior students Harry Potter’s name is secretly entered and accepted by the Goblet of Fire. Against the background of these magical Olympics, Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) arises from the dead and draws Harry into a confrontation wherein he intends to murder him. Voldemort killed Harry’s parents. With Hermione Granger, Ron Weasley, and a new teacher at Hogwarts, Alastar “Mad-eye” Moody (Brendan Gleeson), Harry is helped to do his wizardry duty at the games and survive to play another film against his evil nemesis. There is much to admire about The Goblet of Fire. Director Mike Newell (Four Weddings and a Funeral, Traffic and Mona Lisa Smile) thankfully takes a scalpel to Rowling’s bloated prelude in the book and starts the action within 15 minutes of the film’s beginning. He maintains a good momentum throughout, and even though he drops many of the book’s subplots and some of the characters we have met in the other films. Newell and screenwriter Steven Kloves cannot, however, save this film from being too long. At 157 minutes I got bored, and so did many of the children with whom I saw the film. Even the credits run for 13 minutes!

Furthermore, the acting is not universally good. The old English stalwarts are outstanding: Ralph Fiennes, Michael Gambon, Gary Oldman, Miranda Richardson, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith and Timothy Spall among them. Daniel Radcliffe has also listened and learnt as he has gone on and, even though he now looks physically wrong for the part, Daniel is convincing as Harry. But Emma Watson’s Hermione and Rupert Grint’s Ron remain the weak links in the film. It is not all their fault. Hermione is as painful on screen as she is in the book, and Ron is as big a dullard. But good actors, even young ones, find ways of developing nuances in long-term characters that attract the viewer to want to watch them. That’s not true of Ron and Hermione. The values of the Goblet of Fire are as solid as in its predecessors. Harry’s noble defense of his parent’s death, and his special gifts means he alone has to lead the final showdown with the dark forces of evil and destruction. More than a little of a messianic mission here. And unlike nearly every other superhero around, Harry can’t fulfill his mission on his own, so on the way he needs assistance, support, tutelage and friendship.

For fans of the books and the other films, Harry Potter: The Goblet of Fire is necessary viewing, though the box office returns have been steadily declining with each film. For the uninitiated it may be better to wait until the whole series comes out on DVD and you have a week within to watch them all in one go. The fifth film is on the way.

-Fr Richard Leonard SJ is the director of the Australian Catholic Film Office
3. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

CATHNEWS July 17, 2007

We waited and we hoped and then we went to the midnight show. We were not disappointed. They got this one just right. Harry's Occlumency lessons with Severus Snape, the training of Dumbledore's Army, and the Ministry of Magic's dogged denial of reality add up to a cinematic ride that pulls viewers along as if they were travelling by portkey - Nora Bradbury-Haehl. Now showing. [More]
4. Harry the Fifth - A review of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

http://www.bustedhalo.com/features/HarryPotterandtheOrderofthePhoenixreview.htm

By Nora Bradbury-Haehl , she writes from Rochester, NY. (A ministry of the Paulist Fathers)

We waited and we hoped and then we went to the midnight show. We were not disappointed. They got this one just right; the film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is perhaps the best so far in the series. Like any other devoted Potterite, I have a few critiques but on the whole, as in JK Rowling’s book, Harry’s Occlumency lessons with Severus Snape, the training of Dumbledore's Army, and the Ministry of Magic’s dogged denial of reality add up to a cinematic ride that pulls viewers along as if they were traveling by portkey (you know, that magical object that gives you the sensation of being sucked forward at an alarming speed from somewhere behind your navel).
If you don’t know what Occlumency is then you also might not be aware that July 2007 is a big month for Harry Potter. The fifth movie in the series is out this week, and the seventh and final book Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows debuts July 21. When a new Harry Potter book comes into our house you learn not to put it down because someone will take it and start reading it while you’re in the bathroom. Harry Potter quips and quotes have become a part of our family lexicon.

When that first book debuted in 1997, I doubt any of us, our little family sized fan club or the rest of the world, had any idea what a wonderful broomstick ride this would all become.

Big-Screen Translation

As with all good fantasy writers Rowling transports us into another universe where the rules are different but human nature is the same. She also has a wonderful ability to remind us in fresh ways of what we already know. Anger, hate, fear and prejudice corrupt. Friendship redeems. Love trumps all. Her bullies rouse your righteous anger, her victims elicit your sympathy and her capacity to relate human experience with gut-twisting authenticity keeps you turning the pages and rushing to theaters to see how Rowling’s books translate to the big screen.

Order of the Phoenix is no exception. Both book and film hold a steady candle up to Rowling’s overriding theme of redemptive love. Under the capable direction of David Yates, Rowling’s key characters come to life. Luna Lovegood, Harry’s newest friend, is marvelously loony with just the right amount of peculiar insight balanced by some of the films biggest laughs. Delores Umbridge, the usurping, authoritarian bureaucrat, with her pink outfits and poofy office bedecked with mewling kitten plates is exactly the wolf-in-sheep's clothing that she needs to be.

Is Voldemort Back?

When we last saw him Harry Potter was reeling from his battle with the evil Lord Voldemort and from witnessing Voldemort’s murdering of Harry’s classmate Cedric Diggory. The Order of the Phoenix opens with a dramatic dementor attack against Harry, which is quickly denied and downplayed by Cornelius Fudge the Minister of Magic. Who is determined to squelch any discussion of whether Voldemort has actually returned. “The evidence of the dark Lord’s return is incontrovertible” Dumbledore, Harry’s mentor and headmaster at Hogwarts, argues. But like many of our real-life institutions Fudge’s refusal to see reality is not only infuriating, it’s dangerous.

In her books, Rowling’s deft hand stirs real life truths into her rich recipe of fantasy. The effort to cover up and quiet those who raise concerns supersedes the responsibility the institution has to keep safe the vulnerable and to do right. The nature of bureaucracy is to attack even those doing good if it might make them look bad. Don’t we know it. Without so much as whispering “Global Warming, the war in Iraq, Sex Abuse Scandal or Pharmaceutical Cover Up” the film conjures our ire towards self-justifying institutions.