At the moment I don't have much of an opinion on the whole brewing storm. I've found some films/books charged in the past with anti-Catholicism to be hardly that, and I haven't read the current works in question. Not all Catholics are horrified by the novels, however. Donna Freitas, writing in the Boston Globe, argues,
The book's concept of God, in fact, is what makes Pullman's work so threatening. His trilogy is not filled with attacks on Christianity, but with attacks on authorities who claim access to one true interpretation of a religion. Pullman's work is filled with the feminist and liberation strands of Catholic theology that have sustained my own faith, and which threaten the power structure of the church. Pullman's work is not anti-Christian, but anti-orthodox.Feel better now? Carl Olson, who puts quotes around the word Catholic when applying it to Freitas, is unimpressed by her arguments. So are the Catholics at CUF. I can't imagine Freitas' arguments convincing, say, Chesterton, but take her arguments for what they're worth. From a different angle, the Thirsty Gargoyle reflects on why the Catholic Church is so often the villain (either explicitly or implicitly) in stories such as Pullman's.
Assuming Pullman's tales are attacks on religion, which books are more dangerous for the soul: these and other atheistic tomes and tales that may steer readers away from their faith, or the popular political polemics that may instill and fuel hatred in readers' hearts?
Of course, books may do both.