Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 03-03-2006

I don’t mind if Yellowstone ‘breathes’ – just so long as it doesn’t come down with a bad case of the hiccups, or even worse, a cough.

Quote of the Day:

You start off with Harry Potter, who comes across as a likeable wizard, but you end up with the Devil. There is no doubt that the signature of the Prince of Darkness is clearly within these books.

Gabriele Amorth, the Vatican’s chief exorcist, repeating his condemnation of the Harry Potter novels.

  1. Half-Blood Prince of Darkness
    According to “The Vatican’s chief exorcist”, Rev. Gabriele Amorth,

    “…the books attempt to make a false distinction between black and white magic, when in fact, the distinction “does not exist, because magic is always a turn to the devil.”
    (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/jan/02010202.html )

    Not to pull rank on the good Reverend Father but he could not be more wrong.

    Reverend Amorth’s declaration rests on a tautology. If he defines “Magic” as an invocation of the supernatural (as many dictionaries do) then, by golly, he must be right – it is supernatural!

    However, I believe that most who have seriously investigated this Art would agree that a practical definition for “Magic/k” lies somewhere within these three observations,

    1. “Magick is effecting change according to directed Will” – Aleister Crowley

    2. “One people’s Science is another people’s Magic.” – Arthur C. Clarke
    Corollary: “Magick is the Science we do not know” – Michael Scott

    3. “Magick is the subtle invocation of unseen Natural forces.” – Michael Scott

    That having been said, I find nothing in these definitions which might suggest “…a turn to the devil”. [sic] Nor is there any neccessary invocation of the supernatural.

    e.g. A photoelectric hand calculator operates according to well established and natural principles. Those principles fit nicely within the set of definitions for Magick just given. No Satanic powers need be invoked. Yet, I suspect that 400 years ago, Rev. Amorth’s predecessors would have deemed the calculator to be “magical” and quite likely the Devil’s own, personal, handiwork.

    It is unfortunate that Rev. Amorth’s church has such a long and sad history of malevolence towards those who have dared study the natural principles underlying a simple hand calculator, or the orbiting of the planets, or the development of Life on this Earth. Unfortunate but true.

    Alas, there’s more…

    Pope Benedict XVI wrote, “It is good that you enlighten people about Harry Potter, because those are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort Christianity in the soul [sic], before it can grow properly.”
    (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06030104.html)

    To which I can only respond, “It is good that you enlighten people about the Bishop of Rome, because [your words] are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort the teachings of Jesus in the Soul, before it can grow properly.”

    Put another way, given the choice of Albus Dumbledore or Pope Alexander VI as a role model for my children, I would choose Professor Dumbledore hands down and hope that others have the good sense to do the same.

    Michael Scott
    An Fhírinne in aghaidh an tSaoil

    1. Well, not really.
      Amorth’s comments, nonsensical as they may seem to some eyes, are an answer to a particular problem as seen through the lens of a certain doctrine…there’s nothing tautological about his comment, as viewed from his perspective.

      He’s not alone in his view, in the sense that there’s a billion or so catholics who supposedly pay some attention to his opinion, and he’s not alone in a grander sense if you can swallow statistics suggesting that a vast majority of the Human race claim belief in some system of religion.

      And that’s the problem, at the same time that it’s the flaw in your argument: nobody ever has or ever will fully plumb the depth of Human gullibility. There’s an awful lot of people who desperately want to believe that there’s something so special about themselves that an all-powerful being created a universe just so that there’d be a place for them to live in, and there’s a large and apparently growing number of people who seem to be subscribing to a view of “magic” as being something very far removed from what you allude to.

      I’m not arguing that there have been people called magicians who were actually trying to investigate objective reality in an orderly manner, much in the way that some folks would think of a scientist today; I’m saying that a lot of folks view magic as getting their own way by waving a magic wand. It’s a vulnerability in the Human mind that can manifest itself in a number of ways; there’s no premise so absurd that you can’t get somebody to believe it, often a great number of somebodies, and with generally unhelpful results.

      The catholic church has been around for awhile and the success of its business model is based on selling a particular brand of snake-oil; they and other churches have any number of competitors, trying to satisfy human appetites with different wares. There’s no real difference here, in a sense; the great unwashed will accept and indeed actively seek out whatever twaddle agrees with their particular fantasies and science by whatever name will be left sucking hind teat.

      As such, I find your argument to be self-limiting in the choice that you propose between a pope and a fictional figure; I would suggest that a number of people have been and will continue to be led astray by religion and a number of people will be led astray by a fictional view of reality the deeper meaning of which is lost on people concerned only with immediate gratification. It’s understandable, really, in terms of Human nature: a lot of folks clearly have little interest in exerting such intellect as they may possess in trying to understand objective reality, not when there are attractive fairy-tales to be had.

      Barring a basic change in Human nature, I would have to conclude that neither of the choices you present are helpful and that the overall situation will continue largely status quo ante…unfortunately.

      cheers

    2. Holly father
      In the words of Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull:

      “You can excommunicate me on my way to Sunday school and have all the bishops harmonise their lines”

      Organised religion is a definite form of power, an enterprise seeking to maintain and expand its cattle size. Whatever my views on religion may be I have some respect for the ordinary folk who, as a part of human nature, seeks comfort in religion. I have respect for those tribes who worship their small gods that never tried to turn their people into conquerors. That being said I have not the slightest respect for any representative of organised religion.

  2. Global floods and academic arrogance
    So NASA and Columbia University scientists have proven that there was massive global flooding 8200 years ago. Does this vindicate authors such as Graham Hancock, who propose that flood myths are based on historical events? Yes it does. Will we hear an acknowledgement from the academics and experts who ridiculed and abused researchers like Graham Hancock for proposing such an idea? No we won’t.

    I’ve printed this article out and I’m going to rub it in the face of my lecturer for Myth Legend and History. She chastised me as if I were an ignorant child last week for daring to suggest that flood myths are based on historical fact. I’ll photograph the look on her face when she reads the article and post it on TDG.

    Yes, I am bitter.

    1. bitter
      Please use a high pixel density camera.
      I’m sure there are a few of us out here who would enjoy a person of your instructor’s caliber having to eat a little crow. Not to gloat but it is so fun to be right! Can you post the pix?
      Yep, you have company in the bitter department.

      Getting back to the good Reverend (I’m assuming here)…what is Exorcism but plain vanilla magic? I think that M.S. hit the high points.

      respectfully RC7

    2. Lost my innocence too soon on that
      Even when I was on my first year in uni I’ve found out that people of academia can be more narrow minded than ordinary people. Many of them seem to hold their books higher than most christians would hold their bibles.

      I’ll get that picture enlarged and then I’ll record a million seller album and put it on the front cover, he he.

      1. GOOD NEWS
        Myth Legend and History is a history subject, studying the difference between myth, fantasy and historical fact. Already I can see a rumble in the class-room jungle coming on …

        Thankfully, I don’t have the lecturer for my tutorials. My tutor is actually a very reasonable and open-minded woman.

        The lecturer however … she’s my nemesis. I actually had her for a class 12 years ago, when I first attempted university. I was naive, fresh out of a country high school, spent most of my time playing games and drinking at the university bar, but I don’t think I was stupid. Just shy, a little hesitant to speak up in tutorials. The class was Elizabethan England, which is an interesting subject, but my Gods did she make it boring. And she’s such an upper-class Brit as well, in love with the caste system. Which is why she hated me, the naive, shy kid from rural Australia. There were a couple of other students she detested for similar reasons. In one class, she said to me that I should quit university and consider a career as a plumber! I calmly replied, “Yeah, you could use a plumber because you’re talking a load of shite.” Well, I failed that class! Heheh.

        And now, here I am, facing the same lecturer. Life works in mysterious ways. But I’m older and wiser now, and hardened after a decade of living in the big city. Okay, i don’t carry a knife, but the shy country kid who was afraid of big bad lecturers is gone, replaced by a well-read and self-educated man who isn’t afraid to speak his opinion and go against the mainstream grain. I’m looking forward to the debates. 😉

        As for Campbell and Jung, I love those guys. I will, however, throw a fit if Freud is used to explain the Flood Myths. Bring it on.

        Well, bring it on tomorrow. Right now I need to finish the Monday news!

        Rick

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal