J K Rowling has "revealed" that Professor Dumbledore is gay (see BBC: JK Rowling outs Dumbledore as gay). A little metaphysical correction is needed here. The Harry Potter books are works of fiction. Professor Dumbledore is whatever J K Rowling makes him to be. Not so much "revealed" therefore as "decided".Apparently a spokesman for the gay rights group Stonewall which has achieved such success in the UK said,
"It's great that JK has said this. It shows that there's no limit to what gay and lesbian people can do, even being a wizard headmaster."I would say rather that it shows that there is no limit to what a popular author can do to court the approval of the politically correct lobby.
Rowling herself seems to have been piqued by the opposition of some Christians:
"[...] she added that not everyone likes her work. Christian groups have alleged the books promote witchcraft. The author said her revelation about Dumbledore would give them one more reason."Well, if you insist...
24 comments:
What a shame that Rowling felt she had to pander to the gay lobby to such an extent!
Father, Could you do Fr Ray's Westminster Meme?
So much for "death of the author." Frankly, it's too late for JKR to tell us more about the characters of Harry Potter. Since when does an author get to decide for us all what her work "means"? Did Evelyn Waugh find it necessary to tell us all that Lord Sebastian Flyte was or was not a vegetarian? If Dumbledore was gay, I want to see this IN THE TEXT. Sorry, JKR, your job is done. We, the readers and critics interpret your books now.
Though you wonder what the "gay" community will make of a chaste wizard with some level of same-sex attraction that arranges someone to kill them?
Will Snape now be charged with a hate crime?
I think this was quite silly of JR to say this considering how Christian her last novel was and how she talked about the explicit Christian themes last week (though this did not get headlines).
It just show that JR might just be a liberal Christian.
As I understand it, it's not a sin to be gay. The sinfulness comes in a misapplication of one's sexuality that dishonors the original intentionality of our Creator. One of these misapplications comes in carrying out a homosexual lifestyle. But gay alone is no sin. In other words, one can have "feelings" for someone of the same sex, but as long as they remain celibate, no sin has been committed.
I suppose the consternation over Dumbledore’s sexuality arises from the fact that the Rowling injected him with that preference as apposed to having a real life person coming to that conclusion about himself naturally. Am I correct on this?
Tom
Yes it is a shame - doubly so if it's a reaction to the graceless stupidity of many of our Fundamentalist brethren.
Careful,
If Jack Straw gets his way, you could be locked up for posts like this by this time next year....
Well i told my readers that i didn't like Harry Potter but there were all sorts of Catholics singing its praises! OK i like to be right!lol
Anonymous - What and ruin Fr. Tim's chances of a pointy-hat as well?! That's the last thing we need!
Some might call it pandering; I say it is marketing. Think how many homosexuals will be purchasing those books now.
Fr. Tim,
I was never a fan of Harry Potter - I've always thought of it as the occultic equivalent of soft porn or soft drugs, a harmless-looking intro to something much more dangerous. Now my suspicions have been confirmed.
The author's comments are part of the trend towards the complete normalization of homosexuality (and the stigmatization of those opposed to it).
I've recently had to submit to "diversity training" at work (now mandatory at my company), which includes a large measure of pro-gay propaganda. We have an online diversity course which, as well as dealing with problems of racism and sexism at work (fair enough), then launches into a whole apologia for the gay lifestyle. There is also a course for senior management members with a large section on the wonders of being gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered.
I don't want to drag too much of a red herring across a post about Harry Potter, but if you post in future about diversity training as a means of spreading the gay gospel, I can provide readers with a sample of the sort of indoctrination my colleagues and I are being subjected to.
Given the extent of her success, she doesn't need to court anyone.
Although the reaction of the politically correct lobby is as predictable as it is tiresome, I don't really think there is any need to get our femoralia in a twist about this. Indeed, if the gay lobby thought this through, I don't think they would be quite so pleased. I certainly don't think that any of this is in line with their shabby little orthodoxies.
I have read all the books with great attention, probably with too much attention! When I saw this "revelation" yesterday, my reaction was, "It all fits." When I read the last book, the word that crossed my mind to describe the young Dumbledore's attachment to the young Grindewald was "infatuation."
However, look at where that got Dumbledore. His beloved sister was killed, his brother beat him up at her funeral, and they were estranged for many years thereafter. A relationship that was ostensibly centred upon some sort of plan for "the greater good" turned out to have been centred on a selfish and cruel lie.
This hardly seems to be an apologia for a "gay lifestyle." It seems to me to be rather the opposite, a dramatic illustration of how giving way to a disordered attraction destroys all that is most good and precious.
Throughout the novels, Dumbledore is most emphatic about the power and importance of love. He repeatedly calls it the most powerful sort of magic. Yet he himself always seems to shirk it. Any hint of affection towards himself is either carefully avoided, or turned into a joke (this happens for the first time at the very beginning of the first book, almost on the first page). I think this should be read in conjunction with what he says to Harry near the end: that he avoided the job of minister of magic because he learned, to his cost, that he was unfit to exercise power. I think he also learned that he the power of love was a dangerous instrument in his hands, and that he risked misusing it.
So until J.K. Rowling decides otherwise, this is the interpretation I will stick with. There is nothing in any of the books to contradict it, and I think it is in line with her general approach to life and to moral issues. Rather than see Dumbledore as a "gay icon" in the pc sense, he should be seen as someone who has learned the hard way that he has a tragic flaw, and who has taken steps to keep it from destroying himself and others.
Now we have the "moral authority" of JK Rowling - promoting nothing less than "Tolerance". And we have children exposed to the question of sexual orientation via fantasy literature.
I suppose she is preparing the ground for a whole series of "I was molested while studying at Hogwarts" sequels and lawsuits.
I actually think that if one considers the plot line that this relates to... it doesn't particularly reflect well on the gay lifestyle.
[Spoilers ahead]
In the books Dumbledore's connection with the man identified by Rowling as his gay partner is associated with an unhealthy obsession. The relationship/obsession leads to the destruction of Dumbledore's family and the death of his sister.
Dumbledore actually ended up having to destroy his partner and then spent his entire life trying to atone for his past actions. As far as we know after that one romance he was celibate.
Hardly a sales pitch for the gay lifestyle.
Miss Rowling, like all the secularist liberals, fails to understand Christian teaching on morals. The Church does not, and never has, condemned, people for BEING homosexual;it does however call all people to adherence to natural and revealed law, chastity, lived by legitimate sexual love within marriage and continence outside. Its pretty simple really.
hmmm I dont read the books and I didnt like the movies
So much for the theory that Harry Potter is deep down truly Christian literature!
Oh, dear, whatever next.
I never liked the books, anyway.
But, somehow, to a man of my age , it's a bit like hearing that Enid Blyton has "outed" Noddy and Big Ears.
She's been trying to tell us this for ages. After all "Dumbledore" is an anagram of "odd bum leer"
I watched the last film and thought it was crap - my guess is that the books are also just that - crap. JKR has simply been lucky in that her drivel has been lapped up by a dumbed-down readership who wouldn't know a good novel from a bull's hoof! Now JKR panders and slops up to all and sundry who are on the anti-Catholic bandwagon. Yes, that will give her even more praise and accolade in this 'world'. Enjoy your silver now while you can JKR for sure you will answer in God's good time for 'harming My little ones'. I will give the last word to Fr Gabrielle Amorth (thanks to LifeSite News) -
'Father Gabriele Amorth, chief exorcist of the Vatican also condemned the books warning parents, "Behind Harry Potter hides the signature of the king of the darkness, the devil." Father Amorth criticized the novels for glorifying magic, which he explicitly refers to as "the satanic act", and for presenting disordered perceptions of morality in the supposedly heroic main characters'.
I thank God that I haven't let my 10 yr old (avid reader) TOUCH these books. Yep, I'm a fundamentalist Catholic, as my (lapsed) brother called me, after I'd described some of my pro-life activities, (praying outside abortion mills..that's all!) and so glad that my first "feeling" for these books was that they were cultish, and had an undue influence on the young. It's all very well having a literary analysis of them by good Catholic adults, but most kids of 8 or 9 are going to be influenced by the story line, and whatever media hype is attached to them, so Dumbledore will become a big "gay" icon, and our innocent youngsters will be lured into thinking that being gay is OK.
Paulinus ... your anagram observation is a scream!
Ooh, Seraphic Single! Objective correlativism lives. I'm impressed. Of course, Waugh did choose to explain Brideshead both with his cryptic disclaimer and with his note that what the book was really about was the action of the Holy Ghost on the souls of his characters.
Congrats to Dom Christopher and Martha Mary and anyone else who actually read the HP books with his or her brain switched on. In the books, Dumbledore's homosexuality "comes out" (Ahem!) in his relationship with Grindelwald. It is integral to the tragic flaws in his nature that are not revealed until the last book in the series. There is certainly nothing positive about it. Quite the other way around, the last book is proudly pro-families (of the large, Catholic-style kind) and pro-marriage: in the world of the wizards we have no fornicating and (apparently!) no safe sex either. And it's not quite the sort of thing Peter Tatchell would be reading to his children, but then since he doesn't have any it hardly matters. After all, there aren't many children's books that actually have Mrs Parkes as one of the main characters. :-)
Post a Comment