Comment (49)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiThe gaiety of Dumbledore
The author of the Harry Potter series has revealed that Dumbledore, one of its favourite characters, is gay. How should readers react?
J.K. Rowling has declared that one of the favourite characters in her Harry Potter books, Dumbledore, is gay. Asked in New York’s Carnegie Hall if Dumbledore found true love, she replied: "Dumbledore is gay", adding that he had fallen in love with Gellert Grindelwald, but that Dumbledore was "terribly let down" when Grindelwald became more interested in the dark arts than good, and so Dumbledore went on to defeat him in a duel. The listening fans, initially stunned by the announcement, soon started clapping and cheering. This reaction and counter-reaction is not surprising. Homosexuality is a difficult subject for people to deal with.
Christians often find it difficult. Only a couple of weeks ago an elderly couple in England became ineligible to foster children after they refused to sign a contract with the local authorities which would have required them to tell children as young as 11 that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages. This was a great pity, as they had fostered 28 children quite successfully. In the UK, at least, Christian churches are often criticised for being "homophobic".
Let us look for a moment at Christianity and homosexuality. It is not too easy to express the Christian attitude to homosexuality, partly because homosexuality has become a battleground in recent decades.
Christianity takes sexuality seriously but does not consider it the most important thing about human nature.
Christianity takes sexuality seriously but does not consider it the most important thing about human nature. Human beings are human beings: persons, first and foremost. They also have sexuality. But sexuality does not make them good or bad. What is important is the use they make, as free and responsible persons, of what God has given them, which includes their sexuality. When it comes to homosexuality, Christianity does teach that it is a negative factor, for the simple reason that, if it is given free rein, it leads to an unnatural use of sexuality. But, in saying this, Christianity is not writing off people with that tendency. Each and every one of us is made up of many factors, both positive and negative, talents and weaknesses. Furthermore, a positive factor, such as a high IQ, can be used negatively, to tyrannise over others. And vice versa: cancer sufferers can turn their misfortune into a way of serving humanity, raising sums for cancer research.
A consequence of this teaching is that it is wrong for people to make a virtue out of homosexuality, as it would be wrong to do so out of other shortcomings, such as deafness, blindness, weakness of character, bullying, irascibility, etc. So, Christianity does not encourage the present fashion of "coming out", and making an open declaration of one’s homosexual leanings. Especially, Christianity considers it wrong, a form of abuse, to force people to make such declarations. One thing is being sincere with oneself, and with those whom one chooses to open one’s heart to in spiritual guidance; another thing is broadcasting one’s defects. This could be a form of inverted pride (an inversion of the pride of telling everyone about one’s good qualities). To counter these tendencies, Christianity encourages the practice of the virtue of humility.
Coming more specifically to homosexuality, experience shows that men who have this tendency often have certain qualities, some positive, others less so: sensitivity, kindness, gentleness, a need to be appreciated, a certain tendency to get over passionate about things, or petulance.
While taking this into account, Christianity does not take the matter excessively seriously. It tells such people: "It’s no big deal. You have to fight, like everyone else does. You will have some areas in which you find the fight harder; in other areas which other people find difficult you may have no difficulty. Be of good cheer. Your strength is not in yourself, but in God." Perhaps it would be good to add that Christianity teaches clearly that virginity is a perfectly normal calling, and that men and women do not have to have sexual intercourse in order to be fully human. This teaching has been somewhat forgotten in a society that considers everyone must be given contraceptives because all are assumed to be "sexually active". In such a society, it would seem unfair to deny to homosexuals their right to sexual pleasure. But that is not the Christian view.
Now, coming to Dumbledore, the headmaster of Hogwarts school. If his author and creator tells us he is gay, what does this mean?
First of all, is Dumbledore “gay”? A simple answer is, “Yes, the author says so.” But it is not so simple. Until these comments of hers we have had seven books in which Dumbledore has played a prominent part and there has no been no mention that he is gay. Now Rowling has told us he is. The evidence she gives is that he had fallen in and out of love with Gellert Grindelwald. If we read the relevant passages in the seventh book of Harry Potter, Chapter Eighteen, we find that the information comes from a suspect source, the notorious scandal-mongering Rita Skeeter. (However it has to be admitted that Rowling, despite having considerable misgivings about journalists, does seem to use Skeeter as a way of transmitting sensitive information or suggestions to her readers).
We are told that Dumbledore and Grindelwald had met as teenagers (17 and 16 years old) when Grindelwald had come to stay in Dumbledore’s village of St Godric’s Hollow. They “took to each other at once”, both of them being precocious wizards: “They got on like a cauldron on fire”. They plotted to take over the world (a suitably teenage dream), but split up after barely two months, when Dumbledore’s sister Ariana died and Grindelwald “fled the country hours after the girl’s death”. They never met again, and neither of them ever “referred to this brief boyhood friendship in later life”. Skeeter adds what could now be interpreted as a hint of something else: “However, there can be no doubt that Dumbledore delayed, for some five years of turmoil, fatalities and disappearances, his attack upon Gellert Grindelwald. Was it lingering affection for the man, or fear of exposure as his once best friend, that caused Dumbledore to hesitate? Was it only reluctantly that Dumbledore set out to capture the man he was once so delighted he had met?”
However, the obvious interpretation is (a) that the scandal that Skeeter had in mind was the fact that Dumbledore had been friends with one of the “Most Dangerous Dark Wizards of All Time”; (b) that the intensity of their friendship is typical of a phase which many young persons go through, and, in the absence of other information, is not in any way indicative of homosexuality.
But, despite the lack of evidence, let us assume that Dumbledore is gay, since the author has told us so. In that case, the first thing we notice is that Dumbledore does not tell us about it. In this, his behaviour is consonant with Christian teaching. He keeps the matter to himself. He appears to be unmarried, but this does not mean he is homosexual. If one looks at the other teachers at Hogwarts, several of them seem to be unmarried – Professors McGonagall and Snape among them. The tradition of single teachers is a perfectly well known tradition and Hogwarts seems to be no exception.
Dumbledore is kind, he is thoughtful. He is trusting. He is discreet (for instance, he does not reveal that Sirius is an Animagus). He is forgiving and understanding, intelligent and talented. He wants to pass on his expertise to others. He is considered the best headmaster the school has ever had. The author has recently said that she sees him as having frailties, "quite a Machiavellian figure" and, in his hands, "Harry has been a puppet to an extent". It is not clear how much this actually comes out in the books. Certainly Harry frequently complains that Dumbledore has left him in the dark – but isn’t that a typical teenage complaint against parents and elders?
What is certain is that Dumbledore makes friends with Harry (as he has done previously with Hagrid) and is constantly protective towards him. But there is never the slightest indication of impropriety in their relationship. All this is consistent with a person with homosexual tendencies and, if his tendencies are under control, with good Christian behaviour. We see here how right Christianity is in not discriminating against such people. Dumbledore (if he is gay) curbs his tendencies in that direction, something we have all have to do with our own negative tendencies.
We can conclude that the information that "Dumbledore is gay", coming as it does after the last book in the series has been published, does not really add to or take away from our knowledge and appreciation of him as a person. In this sense perhaps it would have been better for the author not to have mentioned the fact. But, given that we have been told it, we should neither praise him nor condemn him for it. It is also doubtful whether it would be useful to delve into the seven books for clues of his homosexual tendencies. We should see him as he is (by and large a highly attractive character) and let this late information provided by the author remind us that people with homosexual tendencies can be very effective members of society, as Dumbledore is in leading the struggle against Voldemort. As Dumbledore might have said "What makes a person is not so much what qualities he has, as the good use he makes of them."
This positive approach to Dumbledore’s possible homosexuality needs to be put in context. It assumes there is no consented homosexual intercourse; because such activity (like all impurity) degrades both individuals and society. Nowhere does Rowling speak of such behaviour, while at the same time she is very good on friendship, one of the strongest attractions of the Harry Potter books. Friendship is not the same as homosexuality. Part of the problem of those who seek to promote homosexuality is a refusal to recognise the distinction and the hint that, in condemning consented homosexual behaviour, Christianity is condemning friendship. True friendship is a treasure.
Andrew Byrne is a Catholic priest in London.
Thanks to all contributors for their comments. This thread is now closed.
Thank you, David, for the list of Unitarians. I had thought Albert Schweitzer was a Christian, but I may be wrong. To list a few great Christians: John Paul II who helped to bring down Communism; Maximilian Kolbe who gave his life for a fellow Auschwicz prisoner; Caspar Ten Boom, who hid Jews in his house in Haarlem, and died for so doing; Martin Luther King who waged the civil rights battle for African-Americans etc etc. Christians have good guys,too.
To engage in courteous debate with those you disagree with matters; this site is open to it. However, when one comes across e.g. ‘Holocaust denial’ (see the Nazi Moment postings) such debate becomes difficult, if not impossible.
I do not put you in this category; but when e.g Dale O’Leary and Fr Gearhart attempt to engage you in a debate that you yourself prompted,you reply with emotion, not argument and admit that you don’t ‘really believe’ their motives are good. This does not make for courteous debate.
The assumption that persons with same-sex attraction are “whole and just as God intended” is not supported by the research. There is no “gay gene.” There are many paths to adult same-sex attraction, but the most common begins with an attachment disorder in early childhood that leads to Gender Identity Disorder. There is a difference between judgment and diagnosis.
God calls all of us to healing and freedom. Those who say these people are fine the way they are aren’t loving them, they are leaving them in bondage.
It is important to recognize while no one chooses this disorder, they can decide to seek freedom. This is what we pray for.
Hi - I am David’s wife, Ann. Keep on praying because I believe if you pray without hatred or prejudice God will listen. He may not agree. You know, there was an experiment among little black girls - when given a choice between a black doll or a white doll the little girls chose a white doll. So, yes for a period I am sure they were many gay individuals, who because society dictated that it was wrong to be gay, believed that there was something wrong with them. Thank God we have come far enough to learn that these individuals are whole and just as God intended. If we truly believe in God, then we know we are not the judge, but the judged.
Why must you speak out against a group of individuals who are doing no harm?
The truth of the matter is it doesn’t matter whether Dumbledore is gay or not. He is a good person with no evil intent toward his fellow man. Almost like a true Christian.
Having just got back to Australia after an absence of three months, I am catching up on MercatorNet.
Nobody, including Fr Byrne, whose article was wonderful, noted Rowling’s EXACT words about Dumbledore. They matter. They were, in part, tongue in cheek ("I always thought . . .” if I remember correctly).
This does not mean that we must rule out the possibility that Dumbledore was gay by inclination. Many good people, certainly good Catholics, choose not to act on such an inclination (or disposition, or pre-disposition). From a Judao-Christian perspective, that choice is key.
In the novels, no person in authority at Hogwards seduces children or is depicted as engaging in illicit sexual activity. This too is key.
Well, I’ve heard that this character is a wicked witch anyway!
I can understand why those who self-identify as “gay” are angry, but their anger is directed at the wrong target. They have been told that their condition is genetic, unchangeable, and psychological healthy. The evidence—almost all from pro-gay researchers—does not confirm this. Yet they hold on to these lies because the truth is too painful.
Several years ago an abortio clinic escort accused the pro-lifers of death threats. It turned out that what she heard was the pro-lifers praying the rosary and she misinterepeted the words “pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death.”
In the same way those trapped in the gay deception don’t hear us praying for them.
To John Wilks: in the light of your final paragraph, you might like to check out the website of Michael O’Brien, Canadian author and icon painter; he has posted several articles that offer a more critical - and negative - analysis of Potter than is usually found.
Fr. Larry Gearhart said:"Do you truly believe the data put forth at the 1972 meeting, do you truly believe this point is sufficient reason to declare homosexuality a non-pathology, and do you truly believe this is the reason the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM? I’m very interested in engaging this argument.”
I’ll answer you more fully tomorrow. I spent the day and most of the evening working for a candidate of whom I’m sure you would disapprove. But I have to try to explain something. I’m happy to discuss things on this site that I wouldn’t bother with in my daily life. You ask me if I really believe the APA based their decision on studies rather than politics. I think they did, but I don’t know. In fact I don’t care. An injustice was righted. Chalk one up for the good guys. If I believed the other side was arguing in good faith then perhaps I would feel differently, but I don’t believe it.
The most religious part of America, The Bible Belt, was comfortable with slavery. Later they where comfortable with Jim Crow. Now they are comfortable with persecuting homosexuals. I don’t think these things are unrelated. The impetus is the same. Maintaining privilege and having people they can feel better than.
Catholic Charities of Boston placed children in gay homes until the Church needed something to deflect attention away from the child molestation mess. Suddenly it was child abuse to place children in those homes.
On this site I will assign good motives to the people I argue with, but, for the most part, I don’t really believe it.
Dale O’Leary said:"Your reference to Hooker demonstrates the reliance of gay activists on outdated and badly designed research.”
Dale, I rely mostly on personal knowledge. I don’t supposed you have many gay friends so everything you say is rote. You see what you want to see. No one recognized by the psychiatric
community agrees with you.
You lost in Massachusetts. You will lose in Rhode Island as well.
Francis Phillips said: “I have only come across two Unitarians so far: you and and Ralph Waldo Emerson. One of you is reasonable.”
Francis, I keep my own council. I always have. Unreasonable is not the worst thing I was ever called.
Here’s a few more Unitarians. Daniel Webster, Adlai Stevenson, Tom Paine, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Clarence Darrow, Julia Ward Howe, Albert Schweitzer, Horace Mann, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, Louisa May Alcott, Ray Bradbury, E. E. Cummings, Charles Dickens, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Hermann Melville, Clara Barton, Charles Darwin, Florence Nightingale, Fannie Farmer and Beatrice Potter.
The recent “outing” of Harry Potter’s Professor Dumbledore by J.K. Rowling is, in my view, one of the most significant acts of authorial betrayal that has been imposed upon a readership in my memory, and I am (almost) 50.
This betrayal of faith and trust exists on a number of levels. First, the post-publication declaration by Rowling is inconsistent with the character she describes over the course of 7 volumes totaling approximately 1700 pages. There is not a scintilla of evidence that even delicately hints at the sexual inclinations of the Professor. Indeed one might reasonably claim that the Professor was “married” to the noble ideal of self-sacrifice as a means of defeating evil. This had always been my perception, albeit semi-subconsciously.
Furthermore, why is the only option to a heterosexual marriage to be understood as a sotto voce literal device indicating gayness? The concept is absurd, and I think offensive to hetero, as well as homosexual single persons.
Third, Rowling cannot make a retrospective,”Oh, did I forget to mention” statement, accompanied by feigned surprise, without readers wondering about the motives underpinning the headline claim. Why was such a vital aspect of Dumbledore unspoken? Why present a truncated personality? All other foundational feature were discussed including dishonesty, bravery, self-doubt, petulance, heroic self-denial, etc.
In my view this is because she knew that many of her readership would be offended, notably adults who consider the premature sexualisation of children to be inappropriate.
Taken together these aspects of Rowling’s declaration have irreparably damaged my previous enjoyment of these books. I had been a firm advocate of her literary style as a means of advancing the inculcation of virtue; now my trust in her motives has been fatally corrupted.
Your reference to Hooker demonstrates the reliance of gay activists on outdated and badly designed research. Hooker used tests that are no longer seen as valid to detect psychological disorders to compare two very small (30 subjects and 30 controls) unprojectable samples and even then the results were not conclusive.
The studies I referred to were are recent, well designed, large samples relying on physican records. As a population, persons with same-sex attraction have higher rates of psychological disorders, substance abuse problems, and ,yes, suicidal ideation.
Studies of suicidal attempts and behavior in this population show that it is linked to the breakup of adolescent affairs, drug use, and arrests—the same causes as non SSA problems. It is also higher in those with untreated gender identity disorder. Another reason to identify and treat GID early.
I have never really understood the whole noise about Harry Potter. Personally I did not read any of the books, because i not only considered it a book for kids but also because it addressed themes like magic and fantasy that are already overemphasised here in Nigeria. If you think otherwise watch any Nigerian homemovie (Nollywood) and you may understand my stance. Besides it’s so shallow…
If the author has decided to add salt to injury by declaring that one of the characters is gay, what else can i say but it’s just confirms my fears about the book and the authors dance to the gallery.
What’s the noise about Harry Potter, in three years time- that if it gets that far- it will be swallowed in history.
Page 1 of 4 : 1 2 3 > Last »