Reading, Writing, And...Relativism?

I really should really be writing a screenplay or novel about COVID-19. We all know that this pandemic will be the subject of countless movies, TV shows, and books. Just the sight of New York City looking like a veritable ghost town for the first time in my life is unsettling. I now do all my work via computer and phone from home until the lock-down is over. I was on the phone, talking to another lawyer I know, and she mentioned how glad she was that her children are reading more than ever since schools are teaching virtually and giving more reading assignments. When I inquired as to what they were reading, she responded, "The Harry Potter series. They read the first one, and now they want to read them all!" I told her those were not good books to read. Knowing my religious Faith, she replied with laughter in her voice, "Oh, I know! You're afraid their going to turn into witches and practice the occult, right?" What I said next was something she wasn't expecting. "No. I'm afraid they will not be able to distinguish right from wrong and do bad things."

The silence on her end of the phone was deafening. Then she slowly spoke up, "..what do you mean by that?" Whenever I'm confronted with someone who looks upon the supernatural with disdain, I try and explain the consequences of a non-Catholic worldview. Ideas have consequences. While it is very true that Harry Potter is evil because of its portrayal of Wicca and the occult, it is also wicked for promoting moral relativism. When I explained it all to her, she was shocked. A couple of days later, she called and left a message telling me that I was right and she would be taking the Harry Potter books away from her kids and replacing them with something else.

Fourteen years ago, at the request of a friend, I gave a presentation to a school board upstate New York explaining what moral relativism was, why it was bad, and how Harry Potter books teach children the wrong lessons. I recently found that paper. In this post, I will not attack Harry Potter (as countless others have rightfully done) for Wicca. Rather, I will hopefully demonstrate to you how that series of books encompass moral relativism, and why no child should read them. Despite cries of "separation of Church and State," what a person believes inevitably has consequences. What follows is the paper (edited by me) that I had researched and presented combined with my own current commentary. I hope this post will be a reminder that we must be vigilant as to what we read--and especially what children read. It is not without reason the Vatican II sect abolished the Index of Forbidden Books.

The Immoral Saga Begins

The Harry Potter craze began with the publication of author Joanne Kathleen (aka J.K.) Rowling’s first novel released in England as Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, which was renamed Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone for American readers, in September 1998. The book, about a young wizard-in-training, soon was on the New York Times best-seller list. Her life is as interesting as her fictional character. Her “mini-bio” runs thus:

Joanne Rowling was born on July 31, 1965 in Yate, near Bristol, a few miles south of a town called Dursley (Harry Potter's muggle-family). Her father Peter Rowling was an engineer for Rolls Royce in Bristol at this time. Her mother, Anne, was half-French and half-Scottish. They met on a train as it left King's Cross Station in London. Her sister Diana is about 2 years younger than Joanne. In 1971, Peter Rowling moved his family to the nearby village of Winterbourne (still in the Bristol vicinity). During the family's residence in Winterbourne, Jo and Di Rowling were friends with neighborhood children, Ian and Vikki Potter.

In 1974, the Rowling family moved yet again, this time to Tutshill, near the Welsh border town of Chepstow (in the Forest of Dean) and across the Severn River from the greater Bristol area. Rowling admits to having been a bit of a daydreamer as a child and began writing stories at the age of six. After leaving Exeter University, where she read French and Classics, she started work as a teacher but daydreamed about becoming a writer. One day, stuck on a delayed train for four hours between Manchester and London, she dreamt up a boy called Harry Potter. That was in 1990. It took her six years to write the book.
(See "J.K. Rowling" mini-bio at www.imbd.com, see also official web site www.jkrowling.com).

What is not mentioned is that Rowling claims to have received her inspiration for Harry Potter from an other worldly source. Rowling, during that train ride in 1990, has stated hoe the character of Potter came to her: "I was staring out the window and the idea of Harry Potter just came. He appeared in my mind's eye fully formed." (See Reuters, "Harry Potter Just Strolled into My Head" 7/17/00) She also alleges to hear in her head the conversations she writes:  "Dialogue just comes to me as if I'm overhearing a conversation."
(See http://www.januarymagazine.com/profiles/jkrowling.html)

With a total of seven (7) books in the series, it began with Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (hereinafter HP-1). The books that followed in order are:

• Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (1998) (HP-2)
• Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (1999) (HP-3)
• Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2000) (HP-4)
• Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2003) (HP-5)
• Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince(2005) (HP-6)

[The seventh and final book was released in 2007, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, I will not touch upon that particular book directly, as it was published after my research---Introibo]

Briefly summed up: Harry Potter is a boy who learns on his eleventh birthday that he is the orphaned son of two powerful witches (or "wizards") and possesses unique magical powers of his own.[Those who are not witches are called "muggles"]. He is summoned from his life as an unwanted child to become a student at Hogwarts, an English boarding school for wizards. There, he meets several friends who become his closest allies and help him discover the truth about his parents' mysterious deaths. (Synopsis from Tribune Media Service). 

So why is Harry Potter a bad character? The author bases Potter upon the teachings of Wicca. Even if someone were to disbelieve witchcraft, or deny witchcraft is really bad, the fact remains that Wicca teaches moral relativism. This relativism comes out throughout the series of books in the actions of the characters. Relativism and its relationship to Wicca, Rowling, and her characters will be demonstrated below.

It's All Relative?

Moral Relativism is not one doctrine, but rather can be classified into two (2) distinct and broad theses, both of which deny an external, unchanging Moral Norm. I will now present a short description of each thesis immediately followed by the reasons they are wrong, even apart from Divine Revelation.

• Cultural/Normative Relativism is the teaching which holds that a person must behave in accordance with the accepted norms that have evolved in his/her society. It is an observed and recorded fact that cultures disagree over what is right and wrong, even when the terms in dispute are clearly defined and accepted by both groups of people. This proves that moral codes are mere social conventions invented by people. What is good for one culture might be considered bad by another. To be moral simply means to act in accordance with one’s society. Even the U.S. Supreme Court speaks of a "relevant community" for determining what constitutes "obscenity." (See Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 [1973]). In Miller, the Court says to look towards the "contemporary community standards" and rejects attempting even a "national standard" for determining what materials shall be deemed "obscene."

    Refutation:  First, cultural relativism is descriptive, not prescriptive. It merely describes the way things are factually, without reference as to why things ought to be a certain way. Many disagreements are really factual, not moral. In the battle over abortion, the pro-abortionists never concede the unborn child is human. That would put them in a position of advocating for the killing of innocent babies, which everyone understands to be wrong. Instead they de-humanize the pre-born into mere "cells" and make the issue about "choice." Even the evil Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored the infamous majority opinion in Roe v. Wade (legalizing abortion in the United States, 1/22/73), admitted in his very opinion that if the fetus was a person abortion could not be made legal.   This proves that many underlying moral precepts are shared by all humans irrespective of society. As another example, no culture has ever valued cowardice in battle.

Second, it does not follow from the premises of the thesis that no moral code is correct or can be known by people. Different cultures have disagreed in the past as to the shape of the Earth, but it does not follow that no one can ever know the correct shape of the world.

Third, the Supreme Court has done nothing to clarify moral judgments. Miller can easily be attacked for obfuscating the issue. Why is any given "relevant community" correct in its ethical assessments?  If there is no external Moral Norm, how could the Nuremberg Trials condemn Nazis for following the moral dictates of their relevant community? It might also be asked where, precisely, we find the apposite community. People hold simultaneous membership in several communities, each with differing moral codes. In New York City, one could belong to his/her family, extended family, social club, place of employment, religion, and New York State. Which one is the "relevant community?"

Fourth, normative relativism suffers from what has been deemed the "Reformer’s Dilemma."  If cultural/normative relativism is true, then a reformer who wishes to correct a perceived injustice becomes a logical impossibility. The reformer, such as a Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi, must stand outside the society’s moral code and pronounce some feature of it to be wrong. However, if you are moral if and only if you conform to society’s standards, the reformer is immoral by definition and there is no allowance for any substantial change to practices like apartheid. (See "Sociological Approaches to Ethics: Cultural Relativism" at http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil220/relativism.html).

Fifth, there are at least two logical inconsistencies with normative relativism. Suppose Society X believes that killing deformed babies is immoral, but Society Y thinks it’s moral to do so. How should a member of Society X view the killing of deformed babies in Society Y?  According to the moral code of Society X, he should condemn the acts as murder, but if the member of Society Y can only be ethical by following the code of his own community, how can you condemn that person for being moral by his society’s standards? The implication is that you can never condemn the acts of another relevant community. The logical extension is that the U.S. had no right to condemn the acts of Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan, and the North had no right to condemn slavery in the Confederacy. Lastly, cultural/normative relativism violates the Law of Non-Contradiction: To assert that "All morality is relative" (to culture or in general), you’ve just made an absolute statement that applies to all people in all cultures!  How can you deny the existence and/or ability to know moral oughts, and then pronounce that we ought to do/abide by the standards of our relevant community? This line of thought is self-refuting.

• Conceptual Relativism holds that societies can differ not merely in the judgment of right and wrong, but when Society X says, "Act Z is wrong;" this is a manifestation of the complete idea that "Act Z is wrong for Society X."  In reality, there is no such property as good or evil; rather goodness is a function or relation between an action and society. The very meaning of "right and wrong" is relative to any given society.

Refutation: Conceptual relativism is more radical than normative relativism insofar as the very meanings of moral terms of appraisal are themselves relative. At the heart of this theory is a pragmatic epistemology (epistemology is the study of how we know what we know) which doubts that we can ever attain truth, therefore what works is what is true. Hence, what works for one set of people might not work for another. This form of relativism is open to the same defeaters leveled at normative relativism above.

There is one additional objection: it makes it theoretically possible for cultures to never have a moral disagreement, and this is patently absurd. If Society X says, "What counts as murder for us, is wrong for us," and Society Y says, "What counts as murder to us, is right for us," no moral argument occurs as both could be true. The societies equivocate on the meaning of the terms murder, right, and wrong. Any theory that negates the real possibility of any cross-cultural moral disagreements is mistaken in fact because there are too many wars/conflicts fought for such differences throughout history (e.g. WWII, the U.S. Civil War, War on Terrorism, etc.).

When Harry Met Relativism

Rowling’s beliefs play a role in her books because of the practical consequences that necessarily follow. Rowling claims a "belief in God," without further elaboration. In an interview 5/14/00 for AOL the following exchange took place:
Raw3Pete asks...I have read a few articles saying Christians object to the occultic themes weaved into your stories. I was just wondering, what are your spiritual beliefs?

JKR::::deep sigh::: Well, as it happens, I believe in God, but there's no pleasing some people!” 

For many years she had delved into witchcraft as a hobby of sorts. Ian Potter, and his sister Vicky (childhood friends of Rowling), recount that she always loved dressing up as a witch and making pretend potions. (See interview of 7/16/02 at telegraph.co.uk).  Further proof of the influence of Wicca in Rowling’s life:

1. Although not an actual practitioner of the Wicca (aka "The Craft"), she openly claims, "I know quite a lot about it." 

2. Believes the number seven is "a magical number."

3. Has incredible knowledge and use of all things occult. (See https://www.livescience.com/64427-harry-potter-history-of-magic-photos.html)

4. Uses an anagram for Madame Blavatsky (founder of the occult religious system known as “Theosophy” which shares many Wiccan beliefs) in HP-3. Rowling’s character, Cassandra Vablatsky is the author of a book on divination called Unfogging the Future. 

5. Whenever asked if she believes in Wicca, Rowling will never explicitly say "no," and leaves the distinct idea that she does indeed give credence to some form of "magick." (Spelled with a “k” at the end, practitioners of the Craft distinguish their belief in the ability to direct reality for their own goals—“magick”—from sleight-of-hand "magic" tricks; See e.g., Elizabeth Schafer, Exploring Harry Potter (Osprey, FL: Beachem Publishing; 2000).

Wicca is relativistic. Wiccan influence in Rowling’s life has gone into her writings, thus Harry Potter  is not suitable reading for children.. 

It remains to be shown: (a) that Wicca is relativistic in its moral teachings, and (b) Harry Potter demonstrates this relativism.

Bubble, Bubble, Wicca Spells Moral Trouble

When someone hears the word "witch" scenes of an ugly hag riding a broomstick most likely comes to mind. In reality, a practitioner of Wicca is likely to be seen as a nature-worshiping, peace-loving person, who believes in a "live-and let-live" mentality. Wicca is:

• anti-authoritarian: they don't like rules in general.  
• anti-dogmatic: they have a general belief system that each adherent is free to adopt wholly or partially.
• the "Wiccan Rede" or "Pagan Ethic," which states "If you harm none, do as thou please." There is no one correct set of ethics. Each witch decides for himself /herself what is right and wrong and what constitutes "harm" to another.

They believe in "tolerance," towards all beliefs, which is seen as a virtue because all beliefs "contain some good." (sounds like the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium). Most interestingly, the "Thirteen Principles of Wiccan Belief," adopted in 1974 by the Council of American Witches states:

• We seek to live in harmony with Nature, in ecological balance offering fulfillment to life and consciousness within an evolutionary concept. (See Francis' "encyclical" Laudato si).
• We value sex as pleasure, as the symbol and embodiment of life, and as one of the sources of energies used in magickal  practice and religious worship (Therefore homosexuality, bisexuality, and all perversions are encouraged).
• Our only animosity towards Christianity, or toward any other religion or philosophy of life, is to the extent that its institutions have claimed to be "the only way," and have sought to deny freedom to others and to suppress other ways of religious practice and belief.(Emphasis mine; the hatred they bear for the One True Church should be apparent, and it should be equally obvious why they like the Vatican II sect which eschews dogma for ecumenism).

(See https://www.learnreligions.com/american-council-of-witches-2562880).

Under the rede, Wiccans adhere to a completely subjective morality based on self-interest. An act is good as long as the witch subjectively believes that "I’m not hurting anyone." This subjective, relativistic moral code opens the door to all kinds of behaviors, ranging from sexual promiscuity, to drug/alcohol abuse, to prostitution, to lying and cheating— as long as he/she subjectively feels no one is really being hurt. 

(Not So) Wild About Harry

The Harry Potter series is full of subjective, situational ethics where what is “right” is really what is expedient to Harry. In HP-1, Harry begins breaking rules as soon as he arrives. We are also informed in HP-3 that his father, James Potter, "didn’t set much store by rules." (HP-3; pg. 284) Harry consistently lies, cheats, and breaks rules, all with minimal—if any—consequences. Sometimes he is actually rewarded! The only difference between Harry and his enemy, Voldemort, is one of degree, not kind.

Harry Potter comes off as a "hero," not because he is good, but because he is less evil than Voldemort. It’s really just a matter of which rules to break, what lies to tell to whom, and who commits the crime. Sure, there are times when Harry and his pals exhibit courage, loyalty, etc., but so does Voldemort!  Power is good or bad merely because of who uses it. Everything is therefore reduced to but one consideration: self-interest.

Some examples of characters behaving badly:

Harry Potter: Disobedient (HP-1, pgs. 148-150), Liar (HP-2, pg.128, and 209), thief (HP2-pgs. 186-188), cheater (HP-4, pgs. 324-329)

Hagrid: Law Breaker: (HP-1pgs. 230-233), Drunkard (HP-1, pgs. 202-203)

Mr. Weasley: Keeps secrets from his wife (HP-2, pg. 66), Uses Profanity (HP-4, pg. 43)

The list could go on and on with all the characters from the book--not just the ones labeled "evil." I want to be clear that in no instance was something done (e.g., steal) in order to save someone's life or avert a disaster in order to make such acts seem acceptable. It was done out of mere convenience and self-interest. 

As one writer puts it:

 Obedience, to Harry Potter, is not ‘obeying one's lawful superiors.’ Rather, it is more along the lines of ‘making it look like you're not doing anything wrong.’ Usually Harry and/or his friends are rewarded for disobeying a professor or a school rule, not reprimanded. If they are reprimanded, it is usually by the professor that is law-abiding, and therefore "out to get them." Of course, this is also the professor that is most often disobeyed, lied to, and stolen from. The reason for this is simple. If you don't like a superior, or if he is unfair to you, your obligation to obey him vanishes. We see this time and again. Harry does not have to obey his aunt and uncle because they are mean to him. He does not have to obey Professor Snape, because Snape hates him. He does not have to obey the prefect, Percy Weasley, because he is just Ron's nerdy older brother.

Courage, according to Harry Potter and friends, means looking for danger, usually after being told not to do so. Loyalty is breaking the rules for another. Justice means you can get away with anything if you're famous, and temperance is that virtue whereby a person gets drunk only when he's really happy or really depressed.

(See "Harry Potter" by Andrea M. Stoltz published in the September 2001 issue of The Angelus. While I, needless to say,  disagree with the R&R position, Mrs. Stoltz' article was spot on regarding these books).

What lessons could a child learn from Harry Potter? 

(1) Laws are only to be obeyed if and until they serve your self-interest.

(2) The morality of an act depends solely on the circumstances.

(3) The end justifies the means.

(N.B. On Rowling's website, she has given free licence for teachers to use her books during the COVID-19 pandemic. She wants to imbue as many as she can with her occult and relativistic writings).

Conclusion

We must be careful as to what we (and especially children) read. The errors and evils in this time of the Great Apostasy come not only from the rotten rock/pop/rap music, television shows, and movies. It is in popular books and preached in Vatican II sect churches. What we believe has a direct impact on what we do. It's a truism that "What goes into a mind comes out in a life."

JK Rowling and other ethical relativists acknowledge no moral absolutes. Look at some recent "heroes:" Walter White from the show Breaking Bad wants the audience to be sympathetic to a teacher turned meth dealer and murderer. On Dexter, we are supposed to root for a serial killer who kills other serial killers. These are shown to be "good" because (like Harry Potter) they are the lesser of two evils (their opponents). To such people there can only be one correct response: "The lesser of two evils is still evil."