Religion in the Potterverse

[bluesqueak]

No: HPFGUIDX 40577

Ooh, gosh, religion in the Potterverse; now there's a thorny subject. 
Especially when you drag in Exodus 22:18.

A lot of people have pointed out that the UK is very secular and that 
JKR's use of Christmas and Easter holidays does not imply active 
Christian observance [both true]. While I don't intend to imply that 
all witches and wizards are practicing Christians  I'm going to look 
at a couple of pointers to there being at least some relationship 
between the WW and Christianity.  

Vince writes:
> JKR was wise, I think in skirting the question of religion in the   
> HP series. If some groups object to HP because of the extensive and 
> central role of magic, imagine how much bigger a can of worms would 
> have been opened if JKR had combined it with religion.

I'm not sure JKR has chosen to 'skirt' the question of religion. I 
think she has made a very deliberate choice to *not* discuss what, if 
any, branch or brand of Christianity her witches and wizards belong 
to; not to discuss whether they have priests or whether they dismiss 
the idea of 'priesthood', whether they attend Church, Chapel or 
Meeting House, or whether any individual person is or is not a 
practicing Christian.

She has made references to at least some magic users being Christians 
in the Potterverse - the Fat Friar (Friars are a Christian religious 
order), who attended Hogwarts (Hufflepuff House) (PS/SS p. 87 UK 
paperback). Harry's owl Hedwig was named after a RL Saint who Harry 
found in the History of Magic . There may  be Ollivander, who would 
be unlikely to proclaim 'Makers of Fine Wands since 382 BC' if he 
didn't regard himself as at least nominally Christian (at least, all 
the practitioners of other religions that I know in the UK would 
*much* rather use BCE [1]); 

There's also Sirius, who is Harry's *godfather* (PoA and GoF) (In the 
UK, this is a title given to someone who's made certain promises at a 
child's Christian baptism). Godfather implies that Sirius himself 
must be a baptised Christian, since (in the Church of England, 
anyway) non-Christians are not allowed to be someone's godparent 
(godparents don't have to be terribly regular church-goers, though). 

Harry having a godparent also implies that Harry was himself baptised 
as a baby.  Sirius certainly seems to take his position as Harry's 
godfather extremely seriously - again, this implies to me that he 
regards the promises he made to and for Harry as sacred (something 
also consistent with his being a magician, brought up in the 
knowledge that the power of symbolism can be very real).

So Christianity is *there*, but generally not directly referred to. 
Partly this could be because we are seeing things very much from 
Harry's point of view. The Dursley's seem pretty much part 
of 'secular Britain' to me - somehow I rather doubt that Harry was 
dragged off to Church every Sunday. 

Hogwarts appears to have decided (quite correctly, for a modern 
specialist school) that it is interested in its students' magical 
abilities, not which religion (if any) they profess - put a secular 
upbringing together with a non-religious school in the modern UK and 
it's entirely possible to get a teenage boy with no real knowledge 
of, or interest in, religion, who wouldn't be likely to enquire where 
a particular student or teacher went to on a Sunday morning, and 
would probably be rather surprised to discover that it was to a 
religious service. 

However, I think there has also been a deliberate authorial decision 
*not* to refer to details of Christianity. I think that JKR wants to 
say some very particular things about the nature of good, and evil, 
and the hard decisions that have to be made when fighting evil. I 
suspect that she has decided that adding any 'sectarian' dimensions 
to that is just going to get in the way; and that as someone who is a 
member of the Church of Scotland [2], she would [IMO, IMO, IMO] 
probably feel uncomfortable about inventing a 'non-sectarian' 
religion for her WW.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I hate to discuss old Exodus Chapter 22 Verse 18 (Thou shalt not 
suffer a witch to live), but since it was mentioned in several posts:

Dave writes:
> Fact is, it's in any case a mistranslation -- The original word is
> "poisoner", not witch/wizard/sorceress or whatever.

Sorry Dave, this is a very popular myth, based on the Greek 
Septuagint translation using a word that can mean either 'witch' 
or 'poisoner'. The original Hebrew uses a word which means 'user of 
magic' ONLY.

See http://www.witchvox.com/words/words_1999/e_sufferawitch.html
for a non-Christian discussion of the original language.

Having established that the original commandment does 
condemn 'witchcraft', the magicians in the Potterverse (getting 
hurriedly back on topic) would then have to decide what exactly is 
*witchcraft*. Because witchcraft does NOT include all magic.

If you think I'm making this up, have a look at the online Catholic 
Encyclopedia's [3] article on Witchcraft. Its very first sentence is:


        It is not easy to draw a clear distinction between magic and 
witchcraft.


So a Christian Potterverse witch or wizard would have to try and draw 
that clear distinction; when am I practicing 'magic'? When does it 
slide over into witchcraft? What does the Bible actually condemn?

Generally the Bible couples its condemnation of 'witchcraft' with 
evil practices - with raising the spirits of the dead, with 
worshipping idols or devils, with possession by an evil spirit. 
Quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia again:


	 ...in witchcraft, as commonly understood, there is involved 
the idea of a diabolical pact or at least an appeal to the 
intervention of the spirits of evil.  In such cases this supernatural 
aid is usually invoked either to compass the death of some obnoxious 
person, or to awaken the passion of love in those who are the objects 
of desire, or to call up the dead, or to bring calamity or impotence 
upon enemies, rivals, and fancied oppressors. 


'So', the wizarding Christian would go, 'have I invoked a diabolical 
pact? Well, not as far as I know. I was born with my powers. I know 
this because I've displayed them since childhood (PS/SS p. 47 'Not a 
wizard, eh? Never made things happen...'). That sounds more like a 
gift from God than a pact with the Devil. And to use magic to kill, 
or injure, or raise the dead sounds awfully like the Dark Arts to me. 
So if I use only my inborn powers, and avoid using them to do immoral 
things like killing people, or making them love someone against their 
will, then really, there is no problem with me being a Christian'.

Some Muggles might think otherwise, but we all know what Muggles are 
like [grin].

But have you noticed who in the Potterverse does fit the definition 
of 'practicing witchcraft', above?

Sybil Trelawny, who seems to allow herself to be possessed by an 
extremely dubious spirit in PoA (p.238 UK hardback). And who is a 
complete fraud.

Gilderoy Lockhart, who suggests using love potions (Cos, UK paperback 
176 - 177). Another fraud, who is quite happy to leave Ginny to die.

The Death Eaters, who have made some kind of pact with Voldemort. 
There has been considerable discussion of whether the Graveyard Scene 
is some kind of Black Mass; and whether DE's receive extra powers 
from their allegiance to Voldemort, so I'll just end with one more 
quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:


 	witches or wizards... [performed] infernal rites which often 
took the shape of a parody of the Mass or the offices of the Church — 
paid Divine honour to the Prince of Darkness, and in return received 
from him preternatural powers...


Does this remind you of all the Potterverse magicians? Or does it 
remind you more of Voldemort and his followers?

So who does Exodus 22:18 apply to?

Pip (who *is* one of the 15% of the UK population who attends church 
regularly. Yup, the UK is a very secular society.)


[1] Before Common Era; preferred by many UK non-Christians as it does 
not (unlike BC) imply a recognition of Jesus as Messiah/Christ.

[2] Church of Scotland ref: Interview with Evan Solomon, CBC 
Newsworld Hot Type (21 July 2000) 
(http://cbc.ca/programs/sites/hottype_rowlingcomplete.html); and AOL 
Chat -- May 2000

[3] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15674a.htm