Dear Catholic Exchange,
Mark Shea’s article Paranoia is the Serious Business of Heaven (New Horizons in Conspiracy Cinema) left me more than a little unclear about some things. Are you supporting this film? It sounds a bit anti-catholic, although the article left things very unclear. I have read articles written by Peter Kreft and he seems to be an excellent writer/defender of the faith. Why do fundamentalists equate Rome, the papacy, and anyone who loves the Church with evil instead of with the roots of Christianity, the succession of Apostles appointed by Jesus Christ? Could there be any truth to Stone's conspiracy theory—are we to be disappointed and ashamed once again to bear the name Catholic? Please clarify.
Sincerely,
Theresa S.
Dear Theresa:
The article was a satire on both Oliver Stone (who directed the loony conspiracy theory film “JFK”) and on Fundamentalist conspiracy theorists like Constance Cumbey, Texe Marrs, and Jack Chick, who go in for various loony conspiracy theories of their own about the New Age, the Catholic Church, and so forth. The only fact in the piece is that JFK, C.S. Lewis, and Aldous Huxley (author of Brave New World) all died November 22, 1963. There is no real film about a conspiracy to assassinate C.S. Lewis.
Sorry for the confusion. Just having a little fun.
Mark Shea
Senior Content Editor
Catholic Exchange
Dear Catholic Exchange,
I like everything that has appeared on CE except for Mark Shea’s article Paranoia is the Serious Business of Heaven (New Horizons in Conspiracy Cinema) that appeared on November 23rd. I have read one of Mark's books, the one on Tradition, and it is very good. If I recall correctly, in the introduction to the book he gives some very nice compliments to his Protestant friends who led him to his first understanding of Scripture. I can hardly believe that the sarcastic, sophomoric article that appeared on CE is written by the same man.
In the 1980s, I completed a graduate degree in physics. I learned some things in the process: 1) I am not the smartest person in the world; 2) Sarcasm is fine opiate; there is a great thrill that comes from lampooning someone else. It is the thrill of the arrogant: I'm smart, but you are stupid! 3) The bigger they come the harder they fall. God hates pride. Pride is the worst of sins and the father of all other sins. Eventually God takes away His grace—the source of all knowledge in the first place. Then YOU say something stupid, and guess what? Everyone else piles on and YOU are on the receiving end of the sarcasm. Then it isn't fun anymore.
I firmly believe it is ALWAYS a bad idea to use sarcasm as a tool of evangelization. Sarcasm is a dagger. It is personal disrespect directed at another of God's children. It does to evangelism with words what violence does to the pro-life movement—it discredits it in the eyes of the bystanders. Nasty Pharisees who have no love in their hearts, or faith enough to believe God can do His work of conversion without their brilliant words (or violent deeds). Give it up.
Sarcasm is a relic of a pagan past. Like fraternity hazing and racial slurs, it should never appear in a Christian, Catholic evangelistic setting.
I thank you in advance for your kind consideration of my opinion.
Sincerely,
Patrick L Cole
Dear Patrick,
The article is not an attempt to attack on all Protestants. Indeed, the piece first ran in the Protestant-owned-edited-and-operated magazine, The Door. The loony claims I mentioned (about the Catholic Church inventing Islam, killing Lincoln, etc) have, in fact, been suggested by one or more such Fundamentalist conspiracy theorists.
Satire, like any other literary form, can have its place in the defense of the truth. It was Paul, after all, who made the smart remark that he wished the advocates of circumcision in Galatia would go the whole way and emasculate themselves (Galatians 5:12). And, of course, the prophets are full of taunts directed at places like Babylon and Nineveh.
Sorry for the confusion.
Mark Shea
Senior Content Editor
Catholic Exchange
Dear Catholic Exchange:
I just finished reading Toni Collins' article Harry Potter: Agent of Conversion. Ms Collins, like so many others who raise similar objections, simply misses the point. While no one can deny the power of the occult, Ms. Collins is simply looking for evidence to support her own suppositions, and coming up with comments and suggestions that are simply wrong.
For example, Ms. Collins comments on the J.K. Rowling's use of the term “Hand of Glory” as a best friend to thieves. Ms. Collins says, “Wait a minute. 'Glory' is a term of worship used by angels and humans alike.” Really? Is that the only time the term “glory” is used? People use “glory” to describe many things, from a spectacular orchestral performance (“What glorious music”) to a talented and successful athlete (“He was covered in glory. . .”).
Furthermore, Ms. Collins criticizes the use of the term “transfiguration”. Ms. Collins associates the term “transfiguration” with the “glorification of our Lord on the mountaintop. . . .” While this is certainly an image and an association that is easy for Christians to conceive of, it is not the only acceptable use of the term.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines transfiguration as “a marked change in form or appearance; a metamorphosis.” This is precisely what happens when the students at Hogwarts are taught to change one object into another.
Finally, Ms. Collins discusses the age of the character Nicolas Flamel. The written biography of Flamel that Harry, Ron, and Hermione read contains the notation that Flamel celebrated his 665th birthday the year before. Flamel is, at the time of the story, 666 years old. None of this is in dispute. What is disputed is that Ms. Collins seems to think that Flamel is the “savior of humanity” in Harry's world. Ms. Collins has managed to elevate a relatively minor character (really, he is only mentioned in the book, never seen, and he never has any dialogue or direct contact with any of the main characters) into the “savior of humanity,” who also happens to be 666 years old—his age corresponding to the “symbol of the beast for Christians.”
There are myriad other ways in which Ms. Collins distorts the text of Rowling's books to suit her own agenda, but to categorize them would be somewhat gratuitous. The great tragedy of individuals like Ms. Collins, who approach this debate with the best of intentions, is that her distortions and outright erroneous conclusions influence many others who refuse to read the books based on articles like “Harry Potter: Agent of Conversion”. The even greater tragedy is that adults are getting stirred up over a set of books designed for children. While parents should be concerned about, and attentive to, what their children read, it is alarming that those same adults lack the basic ability that the vast majority of their children possess: the ability to distinguish between reality and fantasy.
Perhaps Harry Potter really is an “agent of conversion” after all—the conversion of adults into children, and children into adults. Intelligent and well-read adults seeing monsters behind every door, and finding demons tucked between pages; while ordinary children simply see interesting and well-told stories filled with adventure and fantasy, and a little moral commentary thrown in to boot—that is, it is more important to sacrifice oneself for one's friends, a continual theme in all of the Harry Potter books—but nothing more. This change is a transfiguration that Professor McGonagall would be proud of.
Clint W. Green
Grand Rapids, MI
Editor's Note: To contact Catholic Exchange, please refer to our Contact Us page.
Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange or its authors (regarding articles published at CE) become the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.
