Questions raised about Rowlings critical view of the RC Church

Questions are being raised of Rowling's possible criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, and in particular the Pope during the period of the rise of the Nazis in Germany. One of John Granger's posters at HogwartsProfessor raises this question:

During Vold War II the Minister of Magic is Pius Thicknesse. Pius is a rather unusual name. Try this - Pius XII ” Hitler’s Pope.” Kind of fits - His Thickness(e) Pius XII. Anything linking to the number 12? Pius XII rather “thick” in not fully recognizing Hitler’s evil. I’ve followed the thread here on Deathly Hallows regarding Nazi Echoes but have not yet seen anything on this point.

Is Pius Thicknesse a takeoff on Pius XII? I thought not, though I do think that she may be indeed engaging in some serious satire of institutionalism, even in the Church. But I had a different church in mind when I read Deathly Hallows. Here's my response at HogwartsProfessor.com:

The “Deathly Hallows” themselves are reminiscent of bishops vestments and their so-called vestibules of power . The “Invisibility Cloak” is much like the Bishop’s Cope. The Resurrection Stone (and it’s original location in a ring) is like the Bishop’s Ring. And the wand is akin to the crozier, or the staff carried by a bishop.

But a true Christian leader does not find power in those things, and yet so often for the institutional church those “trappings of power” become far more important than what is in the heart. Leaders will seek cover under those “deathly hallows” rather than in the place God looks - the human heart.

Being an Episcopalian/Anglican whose denomination is in a global crisis that appears to be heading for schism - I read between the lines of Rowling's possible criticisms of the institutional church - but I thought of my own, not the Roman Catholic Church as I read. Episcopalians, like Roman Catholics, have many of the same trappings of power where the preservation of the institution trumps the heart of the believer. We have bishops. They may begin with the best of intentions but are often sucked into the vortex of institutional power, especially when their own moral foundations are compromised or lost to the spirit of the age and self-preservation.

But criticism and satire do not necessarily mean hostility to the institution, especially when the criticism comes in the form of satire. In fact, some of the greatest satirists were reformers who sought recovery for the institution, not its demolition.

Institutionalists though, when faced with criticism, often feel threatened by the criticism as though the institution is the same as “the Church.” They seek to protect the institution, finding their identity in it, rather than in Christ. I might venture to say that Rowling may have some criticisms of the institutionalism of the Church (or government), but not in the effort to destroy it (the Ministry of Magic recovers as we learn, it is not destroyed). I found it satirical, but I also found it strangely encouraging. I agreed with her. I just couldn’t believe what I was reading!

I will admit, though, that my thoughts were directed more toward my own “institutional” church and not toward the Roman Catholic Church. Jo Rowling is a Scottish Episcopalian, she too is in the Anglican Communion. I do not know how much she is aware of the crisis in the Communion, but her criticisms of institutionalism (whether it is progressive or traditional) were extraordinary in their timing.

In fact, I am going to the meeting of the Episcopal House of Bishops in New Orleans later this month and I’m taking my copy of Deathly Hallows with me. I expect that I will spend a lot of time out in the hall waiting to hear what the bishops decide to do for the future of the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion (and I will be reporting on their deliberations at my blog) but while I wait for word, I intend to spend that time reading Deathly Hallows.

I never expected to find such spot-on criticism/satire that institutionalism does not make one a believer. And in fact, Harry is the Believer - the Seeker - for he recognizes that his power is not found in the institutional trappings of power (The Deathly Hallows), but in pursuing the healing and restoration of the soul.

From the SugarQuill Boards

17) What was your reaction when you found out that remorse could help put the soul back together? Did you think that it would come up later in the book? Or that maybe Voldemort was capable of showing guilt?

ME: I was frankly - even though I have been advocating that Jo Rowling was writing from a Christian perspective - shocked. Remorse - or as Christians call it, Repentance - is a key ingredient to "salvation." It's not enough that God might want to save people and then take a hike and watch from His Undisclosed Location. No, Christians believe that people play a part in that salvation (well, a problem with that did lead to the Protestant Reformation, but never mind). Repentance and Confession are key ingredients to being saved. That Rowling would extend this tenet (or I might maintain - truth) to Voldemort was simply astonishing. This wasn't just a "vanquish the enemy and triumph" moment. It was an opportunity for transformation for even the worst, which is at the heart of the Gospel (see Paul, who was no friend of Christians and took part in the stoning of Stephen in Acts). We will Harry see extend Grace. Such things do restore the soul, even in real life.

So we have presented to us in Deathly Hallows that the soul is restored through repentance and acts of grace. That just blows my mind.

Flashback

Wombat 3 was an O.

Outstanding? We still can't quite figure out how we managed that. Here's the story here. More about the WOMBAT 3 is here. Our previous WOMBAT (2) was an E. Weren't sure how we managed that one either, but the last one did us in. We didn't take the first WOMBAT - we believe that came out in March 2006. We don't actually remember March 2006, but trust that it did happen.

The Night Deathly Hallows was released to the world.

We were live-blogging from the Fairfax (VA) Borders. Read all about it here.

Tip of the TeaCup to Sword of Gryffindor

We are long-time fans of Sword of Gryffindor - hint, we also go by the name of ZoeRose. In addition to being one of the authors of the book, The Plots Thickens, we also were part of John Granger's original HP6 class at B&U (we still think there's something funny about Draco and werewolves, but nevermind!). We then joined the original boards at HogwartsProfessor (now a traditional blog) as John Granger wrote his latest books, and we continued writing under the name ZoeRose.

SoG has picked up Shell Cottage. One of the best piece of news about this is to discover yet another Bob Dylan fan - Travis Prinzi!! Hooray - a full round of butterbeer for everyone - on the house. Thanks for dropping by! We created Shell Cottage because our mainblog, BabyBlueOnline.org has so many HP fans who hadn't finished the book (some are missionaries overseas and have to wait for the book to be hand delivered) we didn't know how to run stories without being a big time spoil sport. So, rather than run the risk of spoilers, we created Shell Cottage (and made sure to warn folks before they clicked the link). We've been parking essays we like, essays we've written, and other creative things that catch our eye.

So welcome to Shell Cottage! Get yourself a cup of tea and thanks for dropping by!

PS - Friends, do check out the SoG podcast. We never miss it!

Chapter Six: The Ghoul in Pajamas

1)When you first read this chapter, did you really think that the Trio wouldn’t return for their last year at Hogwarts? Until this point, the book has been following a rather familiar pattern of Harry leaving the Dursley’s to spend the remainder of the summer at the Burrow.

I had thought that they would return when I started the book, but it was clear once I saw the Ghoul and the amount of work that had gone in to getting Ron ready to go, that they really were going to go on a Road Trip.

2)When discussing Voldemort and the Ministry, how are Ron and Harry treated by Bill and Mr. Weasley in this chapter compared to how they were treated in Order of the Phoenix? Do you think Bill and Mr. Weasley really feel that they are ready to discuss matters like adults or do they still want to protect them, like Mrs. Weasley?

I think it's clear the Bill and Mr. Weasley understand that Ron and Harry are of age. Mrs. Weasley is a mother hen who protects her children (as we seem demonstrated big time at the book's finale) and she shows her love for them by trying to convince them not to go. I think they understand that too.

3)Mrs. Weasley has seen Harry and her children encounter many dangers throughout their lives—did she really think that her ploy to keep them separated would work?

No, I don't. I think it's her "love language" - it's how she demonstrated her love to her children (and Harry in her mind and heart is now one of her kids). The kids seem to get that too and while they put up resistance it's clear that there is no bitterness or resentment (just frustration). And in fact, we see demonstrated that Mrs. Weasley does let her children go - if they get past her, then obviously they are ready for the world. I mean, we had Bill in Egypt and Charlie in Romania - and the twins never finished school but opened up their store. There are no "Mama's boys" (or girls even) in this family.

4)Ginny is surprised that Harry really is going to leave school and hunt down Voldemort; Harry lets it slip when the two of them are setting the table for dinner (pg. 89, American version). The idea that Ginny might come along is never discussed and Harry is determined to keep her in the dark regarding his plans. Considering how comfortable Harry and Ginny are together, what does this say about Harry’s relationship with Ginny compared to Harry’s relationship with Ron and Hermione?

First of all, Ginny is not of age, she is not an "adult" in the eyes of the Wizarding World, and so she doesn't have the authority (and Harry doesn't have the right to ask her either - then he'd feel the Wrath of Mrs. Weasley). Harry's relationship with Ginny is much more like a husband will be to his wife - he will want to protect her and that would over shadow anything else he'd do. He's in love with her and and he's still very young and inexperienced on how to handle romantic love. They haven't had a full year either in their relationship and so it hasn't gone through all the seasons to develop either, something Harry has had with Ron and Hermione. The have all literally grown up together.

5) Compare and contrast Ron’s plan with Hermione’s plan. Which one seems better thought out? Which one seems riskier? Why didn’t Hermione use a Fidelius Charm, like Harry’s parents used rather than risk not being able to reverse the Memory Charm? What would you have done if you were Ron or Hermione?

I think both plans seem thought-out in their own way, each with major risks. Ron has to figure out how to protect his family and the best way to do that is for Ron to appear to still be at home with a horrible disease. It's an excellent plan, as long as he is never identified anywhere else. Hermione is convinced that her parents will just blend in with everyone else in Australia and it's far enough away that no one will actually go looking for them. If something happens to her, her parents can still live a happy life. It's an extraordinary plan too - and took a great deal of humility on her part that she would be willing to have her parents not even know she exists. But that is also tragic in that they don't even know to think about her - and so outside the Weasleys and Harry, no one really else cares about Hermione. No wonder she took it so hard when Ron left. Both plans were creative and thoughtful. I think I would have asked for advice from Tonx.

6) This is the second time we’ve seen Hermione meddle with a person’s mind—the first being Cormac McLaggin, the second being her parents. Is what Hermione is doing unethical? Do you think she finds any part of Memory Modifying ethically sticky—or can she justify it? In what other instances have we seen a rather ruthless Hermione and were her actions justifiable or not? What do you feel about Memory Modification? Is it ever really a positive thing?

I think she thinks its extraordinarily humane - she really is thinking not of herself (except that she doesn't want her parents killed) but what would be best for her parents. I am sure her parents would think very differently - she did the thinking for them. An who wouldn't want to live in Australia for a while?

7) Just for fun—do you think Mr. Weasley ever got Sirius’s bike up and running? Do you think he ever took Mrs. Weasley for a moonlit ride on it?

Yes, yes! Of course he did! I am sure he did. My guess is that instead of taking Mrs. Weasley out, he may have loaned it to George for a while. That's what I would have done. And I can bet that George would have "improved" it before turning it over to Harry.

8) Several times in the past, Harry has tried to talk his friends out of coming with him on his adventures. Why is Harry so unable to accept help from people?

For his entire life he has had to be self-sufficient to survive. There is core to him that still believes all the things the Dursley's said to him when he was a child. He does not want to trouble others, he doesn't not want to be a bother, he feels that it's his responsibility to handle it. And he does have survivors guilt. His mother paid the ultimate price to save his life - that's a lot to live down. And I think it also - which of course, Voldemort figured out - gave him a sense of accomplishment when he could save others as he was saved. It was like making his mother's sacrifice worth it.

9)When you heard about the method used to destroy a Horcrux, what was your first thought? Did you think at some point the Trio would venture back to the Chamber of Secrets to see if there were any leftover basilisk fangs hanging around? What did you think were some of the other magical methods of destroying Horcruxes?

I did not think of the Chamber of Secrets because I assumed the snake was long gone and nothing was left. I could not figure out how they would destroy the horcruxes. That was one of the surprises of the book for me.

10) Many Death Eaters torture and kill just for fun and murder is part of the process of creating a Horcrux; are you surprised that none of them have at least one spare Horcrux around? Many of them come from old pureblood families that could potentially have access to this type of magic—are you surprised that Bellatrix or Lucius does not have a Horcrux “life insurance” policy? What does this tell you about Voldemort compared to his followers?

He did not value his soul as a whole. He was totally abandoned and unloved - he never knew love. Even the Death Eaters had known some love, even Bella. What bit of love they knew must have kept them from even considering such a vile act. But of course, this is also why the Death Eaters were so fascinated by Voldemort. He really was evil. He didn't just do evil things, there was something more corrupt about him, that evil possessed him. Even the Death Eaters seemed to have choices, though they most often made the wrong ones - sometimes, like Lucius and Narcissa and Draco Malfoy - their capacity to still love caused them to choose differently, even in spite of themselves.

11) Admit it—you gave a little (word that Cap'n Kathy hates) of joy when you saw Hermione pull out Hogwarts, A History! Did you think it would help play a role in the plot at all?

No, I didn't. But how could she leave home without it?

The following was posted over at the Cafe:

Some of you who are regulars here at the Cafe have told me that you have finished Deathly Hallows. Especially you, ElfGirl - who had to have her copy hand delivered to her Undisclosed Location!

Still, we know there are a few out there who haven't finished and we so we continue to post over at Shell Cottage and keep the Cafe as spoiler-free as possible. I've joined an online study of the book and will be publishing some of my answers to the weekly questions asked at the study over at Shell Cottage. I've posted some other things of interest I've found - the artists in particular have been busy expressing their own commentary through art. In fact, there are lots of ways people share their thoughts and ideas about the Harry Potter series. I prefer the creative essays, but some write fiction and some make videos and some draw some of the most amazing art. My favorite places to read commentary are at SugarQuill where they are going through the book chapter by chapter, Leaky Cauldron's "Leaky Lounge" where they are also discussing the book, and New Clues, where you must stick to the canon (which is the books written by J.K. Rowling), Sword of Gryffindor, HP Progs, and of course John Granger's great blog at Hogwarts Professor.

The Leaky Cauldron, MuggleNet, Sword of Gryffindor, and HP Progs and I recommend them. They are all available at also have great podcastsiTunes. One of the best things about the Leaky Caludron's "Pottercast" (beside the trio-hosts there) is guest Steve Vander Ark, the Master of the HP Lexicon who joins the podcast for the weekly feature "Canon Conundrums." Those of us who have been fans of Star Trek will recognize Steve's name, but Steve also hosts one of the most extraordinary places anywhere to go to learn about the Harry Potter universe, the Lexicon. Even J.K. Rowling goes there when she has to remember something. But please remember, it's also "spoiler-central" so be careful before you go.