My two cents on the Harry Potter thing

1. I've never actually read the books.  I have read a fair number of articles pro- and con.  Take this into account when evaluating whatever I'm saying.

2.  This is gonna get everyone upset, but I'm going to say it anyway. Mary says she hasn't seen anecdotal evidence that HP causes children to fool around with bad stuff.  I have.  A few months after the intial HP craze swept through, I observed the magic (and I don't mean stage magic) and occult section in our local public library approximately doubled or trebled in size.  In case you're not aware, public libraries buy the books people ask for (which, incidentally, is why you should go to your public library and ask for good Catholic books - specific titles - particularly if you don't see any on the shelves).  The "fence" for children innocent or stupid enough to let their play get a little too real (c.f. the fairy dust in Peter Pan) is very weak in HP.  As I understand, in the books, two muggles (I don't have to explain that term, do I?) can have a magic-empowered kid, or whatever.  They aren't even a non-human like in "Bewitched" or whatever; they're just people who can do magic.  Harry is a kid just like you.  In every way.  He didn't even know he was magic until he found out.  What kid hasn't daydreamed he was magic or had secret powers or knowledge?  Now of course your kids will be too sensible and too Catholic to go any farther than daydreaming, but apparently not everyone's are.  Compare this mild, almost non-existent "fence" to the great lengths to which Tolkien and Lewis go to prevent children from having a disordered devotion to their exciting fantasy stories.  In their books, the reader is meant to identify with the heroic but definitely non-magical characters, who live or encounter the magic in a clearly inaccessible world (such as Middle-earth or Narnia), and the magic is used by intrinsically magical definitely not-you characters such as elves, Gandalf, or Aslan.  Lewis isn't even satisfied with this; he deliberately turns any excitement the reader might have over Narnia to Christianity.  In the book Aslan tells the children that if they want to honor him when they go back through the wardrobe into the real world then they shouldn't honor him as he appears in Narnia (i.e. Aslan), but as he presents himself "in your world" (i.e. Jesus).  The fact is, whether you like it or not, people need a good story to inform their lives with meaning.  There was a good homily I heard one time about this, how our relationship with God was revealed in a story, that of salvation history, because stories are so necessary and important to human nature.  If for some reason someone can't or doesn't have the real one they need (i.e. Christianity), they'll attach themselves to another one, even one they know is false, so long as it's plausible and has at least some good or truth in it and make it their "mythology."  It's so weird.  Have you ever met any of these people?  The ones you say "these people need a religion"?  Like the ones who comfort themselves from their lives filled with boring stupid lame pointless things by thinking "maybe none of this really matters because all this is really just like The Matrix"?  I think Pope Benedict's letter is saying something along the lines of he doesn't want a kid who doesn't know any better to become one of these people before he even really knows what Christianity is.  This wouldn't happen if HP was a worthless, no-good story.  There's also the problem that the author of a story typically writes his basic moral assumptions into a story without even thinking about it, and if you're not on your guard - as children often are not, because they don't know to be yet, and are still in their basic formational stage - you can become so accustomed to them that you don't stop to think whether they are good or not, and I don't know J.K. Rowling, but I'd bet she's not exactly a Tolkien or Lewis when it comes to religion.  I have blogged about this problem with tv, but I bet HP is a lot better and more engaging and exciting than your average tv show.

3.  That being said, If I had kids, I wouldn't forbid them to read the book.  If they wanted to read it that badly, and all their friends were doing it, then unless they were extremely obedient chances are they would read it behind my back.  And then they would see that there is much that is true and good in it and maybe start to think I was some sort of ogre for forbidding them to read it.   Instead, I would read it along with them and talk about it with them and help them (hopefully without being too heavy-handed) discern the good from whatever is problematic or bad.  I think that  would be much better than a blanket approval or disapproval.  It would take a lot more effort than a simple yes or no, but then I think that if I was a father, my children would be one of the things that was worth the effort.

4.  It seems to me that some people who really want not to like the books are finding things that are deliberate insults to Christianity in the books, but when I hear what these are, I don't agree with them.  That's because sometimes people intuit something, and even if they're right, they don't have the ability for some reason to say what it is that they don't like, so they try to find something to pick at.  Remember the guy who thought that the three notes on the cover of the one OCP hymnal looked like a "666"?   I'm sure he wanted to say something like "Many of the  'hymns' included in OCP hymnals are not very good or even outright bad for Christian spiritual formation for the following reasons, blah blah blah, etc."  But it was easier to do what he did.  Or the guy who "saw" all the hidden phallic symbols in the religious art, put there by satanists to corrupt children, even on ewtn.com?  I think there are people who want to say "I am uncomfortable with a book that glorifies magic and wizards," or "there are some parts which I judge to be morally problematic for the following reasons" but they say something easier instead.  I get the feeling that Ms. Rowling isn't that worried about Christianity at all, one way or the other.

5.  For instance, the other day I heard someone opine that using circumlocutions for Voldemort to avoid saying his name is a hidden insult at the respect that Jews and Christians give to the personal name of God.  I think this is rather unlikely.  What are the traditions that Ms. Rowling actually draws upon in her books?  I understand that it is the Greco-Roman classical tradition, in which she is highly educated.  Now, in this tradition, is there anyone whose name is not mentioned?  Yes, Hades, the lord of hell (not the devil per se, but still a guy you didn't want to meet).  Ancient Greeks had the custom that they did not normally speak the name of Hades for fear they would attract his attention.  You know the proverb "speak of the devil and he will appear"?  No need to be paranoid.