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

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

  • 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!
  • Guest

    So…when's the comedy break?

  • 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

  • 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.
  • Guest

    Then, are you in agreement that God exists?

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

  • 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?
  • 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. 

  • 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.

  • 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. 
  • 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?
  • 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.

  • 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. 

  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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? 
  • 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.

  • Guest

    6 days, 22 hours….

    I grow weary of this merry go round.
    Enjoy.
  • 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?

  • 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)

  • Pingback: spiritual warfare wolfe

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

Newsletter

Subscribe to the Catholic Exchange Ezine and Newsletter.

The Church Today

Today's Mass Readings

Readings for May 22

Liturgy of the Hours

Daily Divine Office

Words of Encouragement

“Help me think about Heaven, Lord. You are leading me there. You went to prepare me a place there. What will it be like? You came to earth, lived, suffered, and died so that I would have the possibility of…

Pope Benedict's Day

 
May 27th – Pentecost Sunday
Vatican Basilica, at 9:30
PAPAL MASS
Holy Mass
Saint Peter’s Square, at 12:00
Regina Caeli…

Quote of the Day

“It is clear to me that if we wish to please God and to receive graces in abundance from Him, it is God’s will that these graces should come to us through the hands of Christ in His most holy…

Homily of the Day

True followers of Christ

Saint of the Day

St. Rita of Cascia (widow)

Ask a Monk

Spiritual advice from a Benedictine monastery by Brother Sebastian

Online via live chat
M – F: 6:00-6:30 PM EST
Saturday & Sunday: 3:00 – 5:00 PM EST

Offline via Email 24/7/365

Click on the button at any time and Brother Sebastian will respond


Support