Too long to post the entire article.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-fantasy-writing-of-tolkien-was.html#more
This is quite provocative, seeing as a lot of trads, myself included, are big fans of Tolkein and LOTR. I am not sure what I think (only read the first 1/2 so far, it is long).
Is there anything we're allowed to read?
I didn't read The Lord of the Rings critically. I read it as a fantasy epic, and enjoyed it in that light. I would be interested in reading an annotated version, though, to be able to understand any hidden layers of meaning.
Quote from: Sockpuppet on February 05, 2014, 02:02:35 PM
Is there anything we're allowed to read?
With the two exceptions of The Ottaviani Intervention and Sungenis' "Galileo Was Wrong"..... no. Not even the Bible.
This is way too long to even bother with.
Too many Trads seem to take their cue from Protestant Fundamentalism, and not from authentic pre Vatican II Catholicism.
THis was dumb. Yes Tolkien took his ideas from Anglo/Saxon paganism and as I recall the Churches "transubstantiation idea" comes from Aristotle, a pagan. It is fantasy they are stories. There are good guys and bad guys whats the beef about. This article is "toolish"
Quote from: The Harlequin King on February 05, 2014, 02:49:55 PM
Quote from: Sockpuppet on February 05, 2014, 02:02:35 PM
Is there anything we're allowed to read?
With the two exceptions of The Ottaviani Intervention and Sungenis' "Galileo Was Wrong"..... no. Not even the Bible.
No way, can't read the Bible, that has talking animals in it. Everyone knows animals can't talk.
Quote from: Larry on February 05, 2014, 03:14:05 PM
Too many Trads seem to take their cue from Protestant Fundamentalism, and not from authentic pre Vatican II Catholicism.
yeah man i been saying that for years eh
Quote from: Larry on February 05, 2014, 03:14:05 PM
Too many Trads seem to take their cue from Protestant Fundamentalism, and not from authentic pre Vatican II Catholicism.
Bingo.
Quote from: Sockpuppet on February 05, 2014, 02:02:35 PM
Is there anything we're allowed to read?
Why would you want to? They're boring as heck.
Quote from: LouisIX on February 05, 2014, 05:53:06 PM
Quote from: Larry on February 05, 2014, 03:14:05 PM
Too many Trads seem to take their cue from Protestant Fundamentalism, and not from authentic pre Vatican II Catholicism.
Bingo.
You can't do that. We've gotta dress like them, think television and music are Satanic like them, have weird, Jansenistic ideas about sex like them, and bunker up and prep like them.
Quote from: piabee on February 05, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
Quote from: Sockpuppet on February 05, 2014, 02:02:35 PM
Is there anything we're allowed to read?
Why would you want to? They're boring as heck.
Trollin'?
What would you rate as an exciting novel series?
Quote from: Chestertonian on February 05, 2014, 03:56:40 PM
Quote from: The Harlequin King on February 05, 2014, 02:49:55 PM
Quote from: Sockpuppet on February 05, 2014, 02:02:35 PM
Is there anything we're allowed to read?
With the two exceptions of The Ottaviani Intervention and Sungenis' "Galileo Was Wrong"..... no. Not even the Bible.
No way, can't read the Bible, that has talking animals in it. Everyone knows animals can't talk.
Are you suggesting that the Scriptures are wrong about those animal talking?
Quote from: piabee on February 05, 2014, 06:04:56 PM
Quote from: Sockpuppet on February 05, 2014, 02:02:35 PM
Is there anything we're allowed to read?
Why would you want to? They're boring as heck.
When will your war against taste end?!
I started listening to these talks on Audio Sancto...he didn't make very impressive arguments. I spend far more time with Scripture than I do Tolkien or Lewis, but I've certainly read Narnia and LoTR. He seems to present them as being mutually exclusive reads.
Not very convincing (I'm sure this is just evidence of my disordered attachment to Tolkien ::)).
Quote from: dueSicilie on February 05, 2014, 06:42:12 PM
Quote from: Chestertonian on February 05, 2014, 03:56:40 PM
Quote from: The Harlequin King on February 05, 2014, 02:49:55 PM
Quote from: Sockpuppet on February 05, 2014, 02:02:35 PM
Is there anything we're allowed to read?
With the two exceptions of The Ottaviani Intervention and Sungenis' "Galileo Was Wrong"..... no. Not even the Bible.
No way, can't read the Bible, that has talking animals in it. Everyone knows animals can't talk.
Are you suggesting that the Scriptures are wrong about those animal talking?
Sarcasm is weak with this one.
Short answer: yes, it's Catholic.
Quote from: dueSicilie on February 05, 2014, 06:42:12 PM
Quote from: Chestertonian on February 05, 2014, 03:56:40 PM
Quote from: The Harlequin King on February 05, 2014, 02:49:55 PM
Quote from: Sockpuppet on February 05, 2014, 02:02:35 PM
Is there anything we're allowed to read?
With the two exceptions of The Ottaviani Intervention and Sungenis' "Galileo Was Wrong"..... no. Not even the Bible.
No way, can't read the Bible, that has talking animals in it. Everyone knows animals can't talk.
Are you suggesting that the Scriptures are wrong about those animal talking?
No, I was being facetious.
What do you make of his critique of the magic of LOTR? I have found myself in a difficult spot when speaking with friends when I point out problems with Harry Potter, including magic, and the response is that LOTR has magic.
I really wouldn't know -- never made it past the first chapter.
It may be Catholic, it may not -- all I know is that I was horrendously bored.
I finished the first talk and I'm well into the second.
Here's my thoughts, in no particular order:
I think his analysis is very narrow. He's thinking of myth (and Tolkien's affinity for it) in an exceedingly narrow way. For instance, when Tolkien argues in favor of myth to transmit certain transcendent truths, think "beauty." A concept such as "beauty" is not well-transmitted by allegory. Myth (or art, in general) is an appropriate vehicle, however.
When Tolkien made those statements about myth and allegory (probably in interviews or informal letters), he wasn't intending to make dogmatic statements that would be examined by an inquisitor. I've read the interview where Tolkien said he didn't like allegory. He was speaking in the context of fiction. He thought it was heavy-handed to use fiction to try to intentionally convey moral truths. Whereas he felt that his work was simply imbued with Catholic values, but not intentionally forcing them into the work. He had folks like C.S. Lewis in mind, because Lewis is blatantly allegorical and a bit heavy-handed. Of course he wasn't criticizing Sacred Scripture or Christ's use of parables. That is such an absurd notion.
Also, I credit Tolkien with my own affinity and orientation towards the Faith as a teenager. I would have had little concept of things like honor, chivalry, or virtue if it weren't for reading Tolkien as a teenager, and these are values I grew to cherish. Such abstract concepts are often transmitted through art. There is nothing wrong with that. So when this priest says he hasn't heard of Tolkien leading to any conversions, that is not an argument. He's relying on his own anecdotal evidence, which is insufficient.
Most of this priest's arguments rely on guilt-by-association fallacies. Labeling Tolkien's work as "gnostic" is just an easy way to demonize it...but it's a mislabeling. It's a cheap rhetorical trick. Gnostic refers to secret knowledge...that's not what the LoTR is about. There's no hidden code leading to some esoteric knowledge. That's exactly what Tolkien DOESN'T like, because he would see that as an allegorical purpose.
So those are my biggest problems thus far. But what really irks me is the time and effort that this priest invested into researching and giving this talk. There aren't a million other spiritual dangers out there that are exponentially more dangerous to souls in the modern world? Apparently not. Apparently, the works of Tolkien are sending millions of souls to hell. Give me a break. It seems like an esoteric and self-important endeavor.
Rbj,
Yeah.
I'm really surprised Rorate thought it worth sharing in the first place.
So I just made the mistake of reading the rest of the article. It gets REALLY weak at the end. He basically faults Tolkien over and over for the people who like his work. And then he makes some major logical stretches.
For instance, he faults Tolkien for making underground things (like ornate Dwarven lairs and hobbit holes) seem good. However, Hell is underground. Therefore, by Tolkien making underground things seem good, he is making Hell seem good.
I'm suddenly reminded of this:
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geekosystem.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2Fhipster-gandalf-550x367.png&hash=31b3118055ac3c3130961ab0d933945cfe16f8cf)
Bishop Fulton Sheen made it a great point to say that the cave that Jesus was born in was underground.
Quote from: rbjmartin on February 06, 2014, 04:31:54 PM
...
So those are my biggest problems thus far. But what really irks me is the time and effort that this priest invested into researching and giving this talk. There aren't a million other spiritual dangers out there that are exponentially more dangerous to souls in the modern world? Apparently not. Apparently, the works of Tolkien are sending millions of souls to hell. Give me a break. It seems like an esoteric and self-important endeavor.
This was also my dominating thought. It's almost as if he was preaching to himself by way of the listener because he was ensnared by an intemperate use of Tolkien's work in his life, so obviously the work itself is bad. This is akin to an alcoholic calling for the banning of alcohol when millions of people can use it responsibly. It is pejoratively Puritanical. I know a lot of people who *like* LOTR, but they aren't entirely investing themselves in it. Further, they find many ways to think more about the Faith, or explain corollary concepts to others.
Over 2 hours... sheesh, what work could have been done in the way of catechetical issues or issues which have an effect on us peons out here in the world. LOTR is hardly an issue at all, and in comparison is laughably insignificant.
Quote from: VeraeFidei on February 06, 2014, 03:01:24 PM
What do you make of his critique of the magic of LOTR? I have found myself in a difficult spot when speaking with friends when I point out problems with Harry Potter, including magic, and the response is that LOTR has magic.
The good or white magic in LOTR, if I remember correctly, is spoken of as coming from Iluvatar, the God of Middle Earth.
In that sense it's somewhat symbolic for grace.
First off, it's a story. Second it is so full of Catholic symbolism it's not even funny. Faith is a big theme.
When I read the book, about half way through I put it down and thought, "this guy is Catholic", which confused me because since I knew he was from England, I thought he was a prot.
Quote from: james03 on February 06, 2014, 09:39:05 PM
First off, it's a story. Second it is so full of Catholic symbolism it's not even funny. Faith is a big theme.
When I read the book, about half way through I put it down and thought, "this guy is Catholic", which confused me because since I knew he was from England, I thought he was a prot.
Right. I don't think that March 25 being the day the Ring is cast into the fire is as incidental as the priest claims.
Not to mention the connection between the Shire & Christendom, Aragorn & the Holy Roman Emperor, Elvish & Latin, the Eagles & Divine Intervention....and on and on.
I always think of Aragorn as the Great Catholic Monarch, the prophesied Return of the King.
You have to hand it to this priest. It takes some talent for a trad priest to say something so off the wall, that an entire forum devoted to traditional Catholicism thinks he is off the wall,
Quote from: MilesChristi on February 06, 2014, 09:50:18 PM
I always think of Aragorn as the Great Catholic Monarch, the prophesied Return of the King.
Makes sense seeing as he is a legitimate but hidden heir.
Quotethat an entire forum devoted to traditional Catholicism thinks he is off the wall,
Not true. Some of the ladies found the story boring.
Which reminds me, Trad lads should not talk about LOTR on the first date.
Quote from: james03 on February 06, 2014, 10:12:29 PM
Quotethat an entire forum devoted to traditional Catholicism thinks he is off the wall,
Not true. Some of the ladies found the story boring.
Which reminds me, Trad lads should not talk about LOTR on the first date.
Good thing I'm already married....
Quote from: james03 on February 06, 2014, 10:12:29 PM
Quotethat an entire forum devoted to traditional Catholicism thinks he is off the wall,
Not true. Some of the ladies found the story boring.
Which reminds me, Trad lads should not talk about LOTR on the first date.
But, if she is impressed you know she is a keeper!
Quote from: Sockpuppet on February 06, 2014, 10:15:58 PM
Quote from: james03 on February 06, 2014, 10:12:29 PM
Quotethat an entire forum devoted to traditional Catholicism thinks he is off the wall,
Not true. Some of the ladies found the story boring.
Which reminds me, Trad lads should not talk about LOTR on the first date.
But, if she is impressed you know she is a keeper!
Very true!
Quote from: james03 on February 06, 2014, 10:12:29 PM
Quotethat an entire forum devoted to traditional Catholicism thinks he is off the wall,
Not true. Some of the ladies found the story boring.
Which reminds me, Trad lads should not talk about LOTR on the first date.
I can see why it wouldn't appeal to women. There are almost no female characters with the exception of Galadriel and a few others. And the virtues that you see in some of the more noble male characters are very male virtues. It's a type of story that naturally appeals to a young boy but not all girls will identify with it. I do find that when a woman gets into LOTR she is VERY into it.
Quote from: Chestertonian on February 06, 2014, 10:17:25 PM
Quote from: james03 on February 06, 2014, 10:12:29 PM
Quotethat an entire forum devoted to traditional Catholicism thinks he is off the wall,
Not true. Some of the ladies found the story boring.
Which reminds me, Trad lads should not talk about LOTR on the first date.
I can see why it wouldn't appeal to women. There are almost no female characters with the exception of Galadriel and a few others. And the virtues that you see in some of the more noble male characters are very male virtues. It's a type of story that naturally appeals to a young boy but not all girls will identify with it. I do find that when a woman gets into LOTR she is VERY into it.
This reminds me of the quote:
Quote"There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs."
Quote from: Sockpuppet on February 06, 2014, 10:18:45 PM
This reminds me of the quote:
Quote"There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs."
That is maybe the best quote ever.
My sister is into LotR, but she isn't way into it. She read all the books when she was in high school and she enjoys the movies (and does a creepily accurate Smeagol impression) and would probably sit down to a marathon of the movies or set a goal of re-reading the books in some short time frame, but she doesn't, like, wear LotR t-shirts or write fan fiction about hobbits or anything like that. She's not weird about it. She is not, however, a practicing Catholic, unfortunately. I keep hoping that her interest in LotR will spark her return to the Faith.
Quote from: Sockpuppet on February 06, 2014, 10:18:45 PM
Quote from: Chestertonian on February 06, 2014, 10:17:25 PM
Quote from: james03 on February 06, 2014, 10:12:29 PM
Quotethat an entire forum devoted to traditional Catholicism thinks he is off the wall,
Not true. Some of the ladies found the story boring.
Which reminds me, Trad lads should not talk about LOTR on the first date.
I can see why it wouldn't appeal to women. There are almost no female characters with the exception of Galadriel and a few others. And the virtues that you see in some of the more noble male characters are very male virtues. It's a type of story that naturally appeals to a young boy but not all girls will identify with it. I do find that when a woman gets into LOTR she is VERY into it.
This reminds me of the quote:
Quote"There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs."
That quote is always so enjoyable.
Oh, how I hated Atlas Shrugged.....
I loved reading LOTR, and have read it several times, and I do not see it as a "Catholic book". I just finished the Prose Edda a couple weeks ago, and Tolkien was so obviously influenced by it, he even stole names right out of it! The fatalism, etc, is all very Norse.
As an aside, Tolkien thought very poorly of women, thought they were mostly incapable of learning and creativity, etc.
The problem with this priest's 'analysis' of LotR is that it is so irrational (dwarves = underground = hell? Then what does he say about spelunkers? Geologists?) that it essentially ends his career as a theologian and homilist. Since I happen to know enough about LotR to know that this 'analysis' is bonkers, I can assume that if this guy starts talking about something about which I am not well studied, that I ought not accept his opinion because it is likely also completely bonkers.
It's simply too bad that they did not reveal this priest's name. The damage that an irrational priest can do is almost incalculable.
Quote from: Adeodatus on February 07, 2014, 10:55:14 AM
The problem with this priest's 'analysis' of LotR is that it is so irrational (dwarves = underground = hell? Then what does he say about spelunkers? Geologists?) that it essentially ends his career as a theologian and homilist. Since I happen to know enough about LotR to know that this 'analysis' is bonkers, I can assume that if this guy starts talking about something about which I am not well studied, that I ought not accept his opinion because it is likely also completely bonkers.
It's simply too bad that they did not reveal this priest's name. The damage that an irrational priest can do is almost incalculable.
Yeah, I never thought taking the subway was so spiritually dangerous
Quote from: Chestertonian on February 07, 2014, 12:10:21 PM
Quote from: Adeodatus on February 07, 2014, 10:55:14 AM
The problem with this priest's 'analysis' of LotR is that it is so irrational (dwarves = underground = hell? Then what does he say about spelunkers? Geologists?) that it essentially ends his career as a theologian and homilist. Since I happen to know enough about LotR to know that this 'analysis' is bonkers, I can assume that if this guy starts talking about something about which I am not well studied, that I ought not accept his opinion because it is likely also completely bonkers.
It's simply too bad that they did not reveal this priest's name. The damage that an irrational priest can do is almost incalculable.
Yeah, I never thought taking the subway was so spiritually dangerous
You're probably not from the country...
Quote from: Sockpuppet on February 06, 2014, 10:18:45 PM
This reminds me of the quote:
Quote"There are two novels that can transform a bookish 14-year-kld's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish daydream that can lead to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood in which large chunks of the day are spent inventing ways to make real life more like a fantasy novel. The other is a book about orcs."
I laughed out loud.
Quote from: erin is nice on February 07, 2014, 07:31:02 AM
I loved reading LOTR, and have read it several times, and I do not see it as a "Catholic book".
Yes, I agree. There is nothing Catholic about it. As you point out, it is based on pagan Norse myths. Even Beowulf is more Catholic.
Quote from: erin is nice on February 07, 2014, 07:31:02 AM
As an aside, Tolkien thought very poorly of women, thought they were mostly incapable of learning and creativity, etc.
Kind of you to point out Tolkien's good points. However, the two halves of your sentence don't necessarily match. One can believe that women are mostly incapable of learning and creativity without thinking poorly of them, since one might appreciate other qualities they possess.
Quote from: Maximilian on February 07, 2014, 01:36:20 PM
Quote from: erin is nice on February 07, 2014, 07:31:02 AM
I loved reading LOTR, and have read it several times, and I do not see it as a "Catholic book".
Yes, I agree. There is nothing Catholic about it. As you point out, it is based on pagan Norse myths. Even Beowulf is more Catholic.
Quote from: erin is nice on February 07, 2014, 07:31:02 AM
As an aside, Tolkien thought very poorly of women, thought they were mostly incapable of learning and creativity, etc.
Kind of you to point out Tolkien's good points. However, the two halves of your sentence don't necessarily match. One can believe that women are mostly incapable of learning and creativity without thinking poorly of them, since one might appreciate other qualities they possess.
a 4 year old girl is much more creative than most adult men.
Quote from: Adeodatus on February 07, 2014, 10:55:14 AM
it essentially ends his career as a theologian and homilist.
Highly unlikely.
Quote from: Adeodatus on February 07, 2014, 10:55:14 AM
Since I happen to know enough about LotR to know that this 'analysis' is bonkers, I can assume that if this guy starts talking about something about which I am not well studied, that I ought not accept his opinion because it is likely also completely bonkers.
It's highly inappropriate to speak about a priest this way.
Quote from: Adeodatus on February 07, 2014, 10:55:14 AM
It's simply too bad that they did not reveal this priest's name. The damage that an irrational priest can do is almost incalculable.
The damage that lay people can do is also very great, especially when they attack traditional priests because they differ over some opinion on non-dogmatic subjects.
Quote from: Chestertonian on February 07, 2014, 01:37:48 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on February 07, 2014, 01:36:20 PM
Quote from: erin is nice on February 07, 2014, 07:31:02 AM
I loved reading LOTR, and have read it several times, and I do not see it as a "Catholic book".
Yes, I agree. There is nothing Catholic about it. As you point out, it is based on pagan Norse myths. Even Beowulf is more Catholic.
Quote from: erin is nice on February 07, 2014, 07:31:02 AM
As an aside, Tolkien thought very poorly of women, thought they were mostly incapable of learning and creativity, etc.
Kind of you to point out Tolkien's good points. However, the two halves of your sentence don't necessarily match. One can believe that women are mostly incapable of learning and creativity without thinking poorly of them, since one might appreciate other qualities they possess.
a 4 year old girl is much more creative than most adult men.
I suppose that explains why all the great art and literature and music and science and law and philosophy of the world has been created by 4-year old girls.
Quote from: Maximilian on February 07, 2014, 01:45:26 PM
Quote from: Chestertonian on February 07, 2014, 01:37:48 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on February 07, 2014, 01:36:20 PM
Quote from: erin is nice on February 07, 2014, 07:31:02 AM
I loved reading LOTR, and have read it several times, and I do not see it as a "Catholic book".
Yes, I agree. There is nothing Catholic about it. As you point out, it is based on pagan Norse myths. Even Beowulf is more Catholic.
Quote from: erin is nice on February 07, 2014, 07:31:02 AM
As an aside, Tolkien thought very poorly of women, thought they were mostly incapable of learning and creativity, etc.
Kind of you to point out Tolkien's good points. However, the two halves of your sentence don't necessarily match. One can believe that women are mostly incapable of learning and creativity without thinking poorly of them, since one might appreciate other qualities they possess.
a 4 year old girl is much more creative than most adult men.
I suppose that explains why all the great art and literature and music and science and law and philosophy of the world has been created by 4-year old girls.
That's not what I was saying... but children are much much more creative than adults are. Only a very select few adults end up doing great things. Because men have historically been the ones focusing on problem solving while women mostly focused on practical things such as child rearing, men have done more creative things than women. Although as a stay at home dad I've found that say, homeschooling moms, have to exercise a lot more creativity than we give them credit for.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1yl0MFYzXc[/yt]
Quote from: Maximilian on February 07, 2014, 01:40:12 PM
Quote from: Adeodatus on February 07, 2014, 10:55:14 AM
it essentially ends his career as a theologian and homilist.
Highly unlikely.
Quote from: Adeodatus on February 07, 2014, 10:55:14 AM
Since I happen to know enough about LotR to know that this 'analysis' is bonkers, I can assume that if this guy starts talking about something about which I am not well studied, that I ought not accept his opinion because it is likely also completely bonkers.
It's highly inappropriate to speak about a priest this way.
Quote from: Adeodatus on February 07, 2014, 10:55:14 AM
It's simply too bad that they did not reveal this priest's name. The damage that an irrational priest can do is almost incalculable.
The damage that lay people can do is also very great, especially when they attack traditional priests because they differ over some opinion on non-dogmatic subjects.
If the priest can't get basic philosophical argument correct, and chooses to spend such an amount of time on a subject which rbjmartin rightly described as "esoteric", what in the world can we do but distrust everything he says unless it's clearly taught by the Church? This is a really odd use of 2+ hours during a conference, unless the subject of the conference covered this.
Attacking an argument, opinion, etc. is not attacking the priest. To say an argument is "bonkers" is not saying he is bonkers. If I say something stupid and someone tells me what I said is stupid, I would err in taking it as I, Gardener, am stupid.
Lay people can only do so much damage quantitatively in these rather insular internet sub-cultures. Granted, even one soul being scandalized by a layman is infinitely egregious, but if we are gonna temporalize it into a numbers game, priests are much more on the potential factor for damage.
The thing is, priests are human beings and they have personal, fallible opinions. Their research or knowledge can be deficient. They can forgo the application of their philosophical and theological training. They can proof-text. They can get into the error of guilt-by-association arguments, etc.
We owe them respect as priests, but when they are speaking on something which is so... odd, we can certainly oppose them in and with charity.
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on February 06, 2014, 03:03:43 PM
I really wouldn't know -- never made it past the first chapter.
It may be Catholic, it may not -- all I know is that I was horrendously bored.
Since I know you're a fan, perhaps we should ask this priest to give a 3-day seminar
contra Twilight next.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweknowmemes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2Fscumbag-edward-cullen-meme.jpg&hash=2a9d55ab187d2213def87f64fbc1c283b8121217)
http://85.17.122.176/bookreader.php/139008/The_Letters_of_J.R.R.Tolkien.pdf
Quote from: J.R.R Tolkien142 To Robert Murray, SJ.
[Father Roben Murray, grandson of Sir James Murray (the founder of the Oxford English Dictionary) and a close friend of the Tolkien family, had read pan of The Lord of the Rings in galley-proofs and typescript, and had, at Tolkien's instigation, sent comments and criticism. He wrote that the book left him with a strong
sense of 'a positive compatibility with the order of Grace', and compared the image of Galadriel to that of the Virgin Mary. He doubted whether many critics would be able to make much of the book – 'they will not have a pigeon-hole neatly labelled for it'.]
2 December 1953 76 Sandfield Road, Headington, Oxford
My dear Rob,
It was wonderful to get a long letter from you this morning..... I am sorry if casual words of mine have made you labour to criticize my work. But, to tell you the truth, though praise (or what is not quite the same thing, and better, expressions of pleasure) is pleasant, I have been cheered specially by what you have said, this time and before, because you are more perceptive, especially in some directions, than any one else, and have even revealed to me more clearly some things about my work. I think I know exactly what you mean by the order of Grace; and of course by your references to Our Lady, upon which all my own small perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity is founded. The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the
imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little; and should chiefly be grateful for having been brought up (since I was eight) in a Faith that has nourished me and taught me all the little that I know; and that I owe to my mother, who clung to her conversion and died young, largely through the hardships of poverty resulting from it. Certainly I have not been nourished by English Literature, in which I do not suppose I am better read than you; for the simple reason that I have never found much there in which to rest my heart (or heart and head together). I was brought up in the Classics, and first discovered the sensation of
literary pleasure in Homer. Also being a philologist, getting a large part of any aesthetic pleasure that I am capable of from the form of words (and especially from the fresh association of word-form with word-sense), I have always best enjoyed things in a foreign language, or one so remote as to feel like it (such as Anglo-Saxon). But that is enough about me. I am afraid it is only too likely to be true: what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication, for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at. I think the publishers are very anxious too; and they are very keen that as many people as possible should read advance copies, and form a sort of opinion before the hack critics get busy.
....
I was sorry to hear that you are now without a 'cello, after having got some way (I am told) with that lovely and difficult instrument. Anyone who can play a stringed instrument seems to me a wizard worthy of deep respect. I love music, but have no aptitude for it; and the efforts spent on trying to teach me the fiddle in youth, have left me only with a feeling of awe in the presence of fiddlers. Slavonic languages are for me almost in the same category. I have had a go at many
tongues in my time, but I am in no ordinary sense a 'linguist'; and the time I once spent on trying to learn Serbian and Russian have left me with no practical results, only a strong impression of the structure and word-aesthetic.
....
Please forgive the apparent unfriendliness of type! My typing does not improve. Except in speed. I am now much faster than with my laborious hand, which has to be spared as it quickly gets tired and painful. I have no doubt that you will also be hearing shortly from Edith. With much love to you
Ronald Tolkien.
This is an excellent course for anyone who is interested in learning more.
https://catholiccourses.benedictpress.com/index.php/CC-Hidden-Meaning-of-Lord-of-Rings
"Joseph Pearce offers a fascinating and insightful course on The Lord of the Rings, which is the greatest and most popular work of literature of the twentieth century. The course discusses the book's phenomenal success and the life of its author, J. R. R. Tolkien, before embarking on a tour of the world and characters of Middle-earth.
Despite the absence of any direct mention of Christ or the Catholic Church, Tolkien described his work as "fundamentally religious and Catholic." He was able to infuse his fictional world with theological orthodoxy through his creation myth and world order, by endowing his protagonists with Christian virtues, and by incorporating themes of grace and mercy.
Tolkien's deep faith and creative philosophy emerges from the narrative as an unmistakable Catholic presence. The very foundation of Tolkien's Middle-earth, from its creation by Ilúvatar, the one God, to angel-like Melkor's sinful rebellion, to the menacing presence of Sauron, the dark lord, supports Professor Pearce's argument for the Catholicity of the work. You'll learn how the One Ring symbolizes Original Sin, how the dates Tolkien chose for events in the story are theologically significant, how the Elvish waybread, lembas, figures as the Eucharist, and how Frodo acts as a Christ-figure.
Tolkien also describes his work as an allegory of "power usurped for domination" - a theme which is all the more important to examine in our modern world. Characters throughout The Lord of the Rings are tempted by power and the urge to seize it and wield it for personal gain and unlawful control. Throughout the journey of the Fellowship, various characters face the temptation of the One Ring - the wizard Gandalf, through whom the Ring would wield a terrible power; human man Boromir, who would use it to save his people; elf queen Galadriel, weary from fighting the "long defeat" against evil. Among the characters who do usurp power for domination are Saruman, the white wizard who succumbs to evil, whose machinations at Isengard only bring more evil into Middle-earth.
Over the eight lectures in the course, Professor Pearce highlights connections, allegories, and insights which will expand your reading of The Lord of the Rings. It is said that art holds the mirror up to life. This is the reason that art is "real" and fiction is "true". The Lord of the Rings enjoys such fame and popularity because in a way, it shows us ourselves in the characters. Learn more and discover for yourself the truth written into The Lord of the Rings with Professor Joseph Pearce."
There is one touching part of LOTR that people miss. It is the statement "some wounds are so deep, even time can not heal them". Probably written with the loss of his son in mind.
Quote from: Gardener on February 07, 2014, 02:33:25 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on February 07, 2014, 01:40:12 PM
Quote from: Adeodatus on February 07, 2014, 10:55:14 AM
it essentially ends his career as a theologian and homilist.
Highly unlikely.
Quote from: Adeodatus on February 07, 2014, 10:55:14 AM
Since I happen to know enough about LotR to know that this 'analysis' is bonkers, I can assume that if this guy starts talking about something about which I am not well studied, that I ought not accept his opinion because it is likely also completely bonkers.
It's highly inappropriate to speak about a priest this way.
Quote from: Adeodatus on February 07, 2014, 10:55:14 AM
It's simply too bad that they did not reveal this priest's name. The damage that an irrational priest can do is almost incalculable.
The damage that lay people can do is also very great, especially when they attack traditional priests because they differ over some opinion on non-dogmatic subjects.
If the priest can't get basic philosophical argument correct, and chooses to spend such an amount of time on a subject which rbjmartin rightly described as "esoteric", what in the world can we do but distrust everything he says unless it's clearly taught by the Church? This is a really odd use of 2+ hours during a conference, unless the subject of the conference covered this.
Attacking an argument, opinion, etc. is not attacking the priest. To say an argument is "bonkers" is not saying he is bonkers. If I say something stupid and someone tells me what I said is stupid, I would err in taking it as I, Gardener, am stupid.
Lay people can only do so much damage quantitatively in these rather insular internet sub-cultures. Granted, even one soul being scandalized by a layman is infinitely egregious, but if we are gonna temporalize it into a numbers game, priests are much more on the potential factor for damage.
The thing is, priests are human beings and they have personal, fallible opinions. Their research or knowledge can be deficient. They can forgo the application of their philosophical and theological training. They can proof-text. They can get into the error of guilt-by-association arguments, etc.
We owe them respect as priests, but when they are speaking on something which is so... odd, we can certainly oppose them in and with charity.
Indeed.
I stand by my opinion: if a person is in the habit of saying ludicrous things then he's unable to win souls for Christ. Because rational, sober people will hear those ludicrous statements and conclude that the messenger is prone to folly.
In the meantime, avoid basements, caverns and subway tunnels because they may trick you into wanting to venture down into the magical lava dungeon within the Earth's crust. Would that be above or below the Mohorovicic discontinuity? Why, it's probably a sin even to ask!
Quote from: erin is nice on February 07, 2014, 07:31:02 AM
I loved reading LOTR, and have read it several times, and I do not see it as a "Catholic book". I just finished the Prose Edda a couple weeks ago, and Tolkien was so obviously influenced by it, he even stole names right out of it! The fatalism, etc, is all very Norse.
As an aside, Tolkien thought very poorly of women, thought they were mostly incapable of learning and creativity, etc.
It's only not Catholic if one sees aspects of paganism as not having been baptized by the Church.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on February 07, 2014, 03:02:36 PM
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on February 06, 2014, 03:03:43 PM
I really wouldn't know -- never made it past the first chapter.
It may be Catholic, it may not -- all I know is that I was horrendously bored.
Since I know you're a fan, perhaps we should ask this priest to give a 3-day seminar contra Twilight next.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweknowmemes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2Fscumbag-edward-cullen-meme.jpg&hash=2a9d55ab187d2213def87f64fbc1c283b8121217)
Well, you can't blame him for going after that one.
Ludicrous. Just absolutely Ludicrous! What a killjoy! This priest cramps my style. He must be stupid.
Everyone knows LOTR is Catholic. That priest needs to get a life and go perform charity works.
Tolkien's fun! Any attack on him is clearly something an idiot would do.
Does it even matter whether The Lord of the Rings is Catholic? Can we only read Catholic books?
Quote from: Bernardus on February 26, 2014, 03:42:37 PM
Does it even matter whether The Lord of the Rings is Catholic? Can we only read Catholic books?
Well no you can read whatever you want as long as it won't lead you to sin or harm your Faith. And yes it does matter because claiming that The Lord of the Rings is not Catholic is not true.
Quote from: Bernardus on February 26, 2014, 03:42:37 PM
Does it even matter whether The Lord of the Rings is Catholic? Can we only read Catholic books?
Oh snap... I better write letters of apology to all my former literature students for making them read "the old man and the sea"
Quote from: Archer on February 26, 2014, 04:00:50 PM
And yes it does matter because claiming that The Lord of the Rings is not Catholic is not true.
I've yet to see that claim established.
Quote from: The Harlequin King on February 07, 2014, 03:02:36 PM
Quote from: OCLittleFlower on February 06, 2014, 03:03:43 PM
I really wouldn't know -- never made it past the first chapter.
It may be Catholic, it may not -- all I know is that I was horrendously bored.
Since I know you're a fan, perhaps we should ask this priest to give a 3-day seminar contra Twilight next.
(https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fweknowmemes.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F11%2Fscumbag-edward-cullen-meme.jpg&hash=2a9d55ab187d2213def87f64fbc1c283b8121217)
LOL!
Though in fairness, he would have a hard time keeping a research team for very long before they figured out he wasn't aging -- and telling humans what's up means saying hello to the nasty old vampires who run everything behind the scenes. The only reason they didn't kill Edward for telling Bella about his true nature is that he promised to change her into a vampire.
All I can say... blessed "ballistic silver tip" to the head, no more unholy living dead.
Quote from: dueSicilie on February 28, 2014, 01:42:19 PM
All I can say... blessed "ballistic silver tip" to the head, no more unholy living dead.
Wouldn't work in-universe.
blasphemy. (yes I know youre right)
twilight is so stupid.
anybody else remember that guy from that band mayhem, that had that theory about lord of the rings predicting rahowa...?
What is Rahowa?
Quote from: Chestertonian on March 09, 2014, 05:06:59 AM
Quote from: Arun on March 09, 2014, 04:57:40 AM
Quote from: Chestertonian on March 09, 2014, 04:54:41 AM
What is Rahowa?
seriously?
You don't have to be a smartass.
oh, nah, just never come across someone that didn't know what it was. have you looked it up already or you want me to post you a link...?
Quote from: Arun on March 09, 2014, 05:08:42 AM
Quote from: Chestertonian on March 09, 2014, 05:06:59 AM
Quote from: Arun on March 09, 2014, 04:57:40 AM
Quote from: Chestertonian on March 09, 2014, 04:54:41 AM
What is Rahowa?
seriously?
You don't have to be a smartass.
oh, nah, just never come across someone that didn't know what it was. have you looked it up already or you want me to post you a link...?
Googled it. "Racial Holy War?" Are you some sort of neo-nazi?
nah lol. the guy was, though. the guy from mayhem. i always found it funny that he thought that about lotr.
My Pastor has written two critiques of the talk in question, and here are the links (originally bulletin inserts)
http://www.olmcfssp.org/cms/images/uploads/On_Criticizing_Tolkien_I.pdf
http://www.olmcfssp.org/cms/images/uploads/On_Criticizing_Tolkien_II.pdf
They were originally printed double-sided, so begin on the right side of page 1, under the title.
Quote from: Gardener on March 23, 2014, 09:43:57 PM
My Pastor has written two critiques of the talk in question, and here are the links (originally bulletin inserts)
http://www.olmcfssp.org/cms/images/uploads/On_Criticizing_Tolkien_I.pdf
http://www.olmcfssp.org/cms/images/uploads/On_Criticizing_Tolkien_II.pdf
They were originally printed double-sided, so begin on the right side of page 1, under the title.
Very interesting. Can you post the rest when it comes out?
Yes, I will post the others as they come out. Might be just one more based on what he was saying at an adult catechism class.
I just listened real quick to the voice of the priest. This is actually my favorite priest on audiosancto. I am really bummed if he is not a source for sermons and such.
Quote from: verenaerin on March 24, 2014, 01:57:09 PM
I just listened real quick to the voice of the priest. This is actually my favorite priest on audiosancto. I am really bummed if he is not a source for sermons and such.
Several on there sound very similar to each other. I thought I'd heard him before as well, but I have no idea who he is. Unless you are 100% sure, I wouldn't get upset just yet. Also, I try to confirm anything that seems "off", or any definitive statements, no matter who is giving the sermon.
The problem with the LOTR conference is that it's iffy as far as teaching what the Church teaches. It's more of an opinion than a proper sermon, and as long as the priest just sticks with Church teaching, no problem exists.
I generally don't listen to sermons on audiosancto unless I can recognize the priest's voice as that of a priest I know (that's only two of them). I agree with Fr. Jackson's advice that you probably shouldn't listen to anonymous internet preachers.
Quote from: rbjmartin on March 24, 2014, 04:06:56 PM
I generally don't listen to sermons on audiosancto unless I can recognize the priest's voice as that of a priest I know (that's only two of them). I agree with Fr. Jackson's advice that you probably shouldn't listen to anonymous internet preachers.
For what it is worth, I think it is pretty darn safe to say that the reason they are anonymous is to protect the priests from higher-ups so that they can "speak their minds," pious talk about not creating personality cults aside.
I doubt, for example, that a sermon by an FSSP priest commanding that all NAB bibles (i.e. the English-language one used in the NO) must be burned would not result in a "problem" for him were his identity known.
Quote from: VeraeFidei on March 24, 2014, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on March 24, 2014, 04:06:56 PM
I generally don't listen to sermons on audiosancto unless I can recognize the priest's voice as that of a priest I know (that's only two of them). I agree with Fr. Jackson's advice that you probably shouldn't listen to anonymous internet preachers.
For what it is worth, I think it is pretty darn safe to say that the reason they are anonymous is to protect the priests from higher-ups so that they can "speak their minds," pious talk about not creating personality cults aside.
I doubt, for example, that a sermon by an FSSP priest commanding that all NAB bibles (i.e. the English-language one used in the NO) must be burned would not result in a "problem" for him were his identity known.
Has there been a sermon posted where an FSSP priest said such a thing?
The reason you have given is not the reason given on AS...
"Okay... so why not just say who the priests are?
Because they have duties and responsibilities as priests to care for the souls of the Faithful entrusted to them. By remaining unidentified, their attention for their flock won't be divided by folks outside of their parish who might seek them out for questions rather than going to their local priests. Moreover, the message they happen to be preaching -- the Catholic Faith -- is what is important, not the human beings who are preaching it."
As Fr. Jackson pointed out, this explanation for the anonymous nature is problematic and shifts time diversion to priests who are, apparently, NOT busy. In this, they can undo the clusterbungle of other priests who have the convenience of spreading all manner of potentially bad ideas with no recourse. If only those priests with so much free time would start sending in sermons to AS, they might be more dutifully engaged and find their extra time being devoted to their heretofore unattended flocks. LOL
I thought one of the reasons was to prevent a personal cult type situation.
I love audiosancto. I have been listening to it for years. While watching the kids I usually can't read, but I can listen to a sermon. I have found it very spiritually edifying. It is upsetting to think that I cannot trust the priests on there. Especially since the one in question is my favorite.
Is it so hard to have a shepherd you can trust?
Quote from: Gardener on March 24, 2014, 04:54:10 PM
Quote from: VeraeFidei on March 24, 2014, 04:47:21 PM
Quote from: rbjmartin on March 24, 2014, 04:06:56 PM
I generally don't listen to sermons on audiosancto unless I can recognize the priest's voice as that of a priest I know (that's only two of them). I agree with Fr. Jackson's advice that you probably shouldn't listen to anonymous internet preachers.
For what it is worth, I think it is pretty darn safe to say that the reason they are anonymous is to protect the priests from higher-ups so that they can "speak their minds," pious talk about not creating personality cults aside.
I doubt, for example, that a sermon by an FSSP priest commanding that all NAB bibles (i.e. the English-language one used in the NO) must be burned would not result in a "problem" for him were his identity known.
Has there been a sermon posted where an FSSP priest said such a thing?
The reason you have given is not the reason given on AS...
"Okay... so why not just say who the priests are?
Because they have duties and responsibilities as priests to care for the souls of the Faithful entrusted to them. By remaining unidentified, their attention for their flock won't be divided by folks outside of their parish who might seek them out for questions rather than going to their local priests. Moreover, the message they happen to be preaching -- the Catholic Faith -- is what is important, not the human beings who are preaching it."
As Fr. Jackson pointed out, this explanation for the anonymous nature is problematic and shifts time diversion to priests who are, apparently, NOT busy. In this, they can undo the clusterbungle of other priests who have the convenience of spreading all manner of potentially bad ideas with no recourse. If only those priests with so much free time would start sending in sermons to AS, they might be more dutifully engaged and find their extra time being devoted to their heretofore unattended flocks. LOL
Yes, in the recently posted sermon, "Hatred of Heresy." I should clarify that he did perhaps not command, but stated in no uncertain terms that this should happen.
Quote from: verenaerin on March 24, 2014, 05:15:04 PM
I thought one of the reasons was to prevent a personal cult type situation.
I love audiosancto. I have been listening to it for years. While watching the kids I usually can't read, but I can listen to a sermon. I have found it very spiritually edifying. It is upsetting to think that I cannot trust the priests on there. Especially since the one in question is my favorite.
Is it so hard to have a shepherd you can trust?
Man is fallen and priests are not perfect. Don't make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater due to one questionable sermon regarding something that, in the grand scheme of things, is relatively irrelevant.
Quote from: Archer on March 24, 2014, 05:40:39 PM
Quote from: verenaerin on March 24, 2014, 05:15:04 PM
I thought one of the reasons was to prevent a personal cult type situation.
I love audiosancto. I have been listening to it for years. While watching the kids I usually can't read, but I can listen to a sermon. I have found it very spiritually edifying. It is upsetting to think that I cannot trust the priests on there. Especially since the one in question is my favorite.
Is it so hard to have a shepherd you can trust?
Man is fallen and priests are not perfect. Don't make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater due to one questionable sermon regarding something that, in the grand scheme of things, is relatively irrelevant.
Agreed.
The priest in question is a good and holy priest. One may have a difference of opinion with him on the Lord of the Rings; but it is certainly no reason to question whether or not he can be trusted on the whole.
If you listen to his sermons from the last year or so, there has been a theme of growth in holiness, detachment from worldly things, fleeing from error, etc. In a sense "detaching" from Lord of the Rings, or at least being aware of what can't be reconciled with the Catholic Faith is something that may have got my dander up a bit at first...but ultimately it was a message that I think I needed to hear. So I thank this good priest for that and pray that God blesses him abundantly.
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on March 24, 2014, 06:26:45 PM
One may have a difference of opinion with him on the Lord of the Rings; but it is certainly no reason to question whether or not he can be trusted on the whole.
I would normally agree, but in this case the arguments being presented are so ludicrous that they indicate a severe breakdown in the faculty of judgment.
If you personally were to tell me that I should not go spelunking because it's a waste of my time, because if you've seen one stalactite you've seen them all, and really all I'm doing is just bothering the bats who after all have every right to be left alone... that is a difference of opinion between the two of us. Normal people disagree about all sorts of things all the time and it's totally unremarkable. However, if you were to tell me that I should not go spelunking because Hell is under ground and cultivating an enjoyment of underground things only cultivates an affinity for Hell... that is an assertion that is so stupid and irrational that it no longer qualifies as a mere disagreement between normal people. That would be of the same order as if you told me that I should not speak to police officers because they are all secretly Reptoid Aliens wearing disguises, and have come from the planet Reptulon to invade us. That would be an irrational claim and evidence of a dangerously erratic personality. If you were to tell me something like that then I could no longer trust your advice about
anything.
In my opinion, the arguments presented by this anonymous person are so absurd and bizarre that they demonstrate not only a mere lack of academic rigor but the lack of any operative measure of the virtue of prudence. Whatever this person's station, having said such things as he has I doubt that I could trust his judgment as where to find a good cheeseburger, let alone anything concerning my soul. Why would you risk the most important thing in your entire life? To me, this person sounds like a madman. I shudder to think about the damage that he probably does to the Catholic Faith if he is prone to spout off such folly. It's not a question of merely being wrong, or insulting Tolkien. That's no matter. It's a question of saying things that are ludicrous and irrational.
That is my own opinion, take it or leave it, but it
is conditioned by prudence.
Quote from: Adeodatus on March 25, 2014, 10:51:50 AM
That is my own opinion, take it or leave it, but it is conditioned by prudence.
No it is not conditioned by prudence. Other people on this thread have already told you that they consider the author of this talk to be a holy priest. So a prudent response would have taken that into account and considered the possibility that you might be wrong.
A prudent response would also weigh the cost vs benefits involved in possibly slandering a holy priest. What potential benefit can you gain from using such intemperate language? Meanwhile the cost could be as high as an eternity in hell if you are wrong about him.
Quote from: Adeodatus on March 25, 2014, 10:51:50 AM
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on March 24, 2014, 06:26:45 PM
One may have a difference of opinion with him on the Lord of the Rings; but it is certainly no reason to question whether or not he can be trusted on the whole.
I would normally agree, but in this case the arguments being presented are so ludicrous that they indicate a severe breakdown in the faculty of judgment.
So you are saying, "I might consider the idea that a priest with whom I disagree about some topic could possibly still be a good and holy person, but not when it comes to "Lord of the Rings." If you disagree with me on that topic then the only possibility is that you are completely crazy!"
Quote from: Adeodatus on March 25, 2014, 10:51:50 AM
If you personally were to tell me that I should not go spelunking because it's a waste of my time, because if you've seen one stalactite you've seen them all, and really all I'm doing is just bothering the bats who after all have every right to be left alone... that is a difference of opinion between the two of us. Normal people disagree about all sorts of things all the time and it's totally unremarkable. However, if you were to tell me that I should not go spelunking because Hell is under ground and cultivating an enjoyment of underground things only cultivates an affinity for Hell... that is an assertion that is so stupid and irrational that it no longer qualifies as a mere disagreement between normal people. That would be of the same order as if you told me that I should not speak to police officers because they are all secretly Reptoid Aliens wearing disguises, and have come from the planet Reptulon to invade us. That would be an irrational claim and evidence of a dangerously erratic personality. If you were to tell me something like that then I could no longer trust your advice about anything.
I have deleted the paragraph where you gratuitously insult a priest since I don't want to be a party to repeating scandalous language even in order to reply to it.
But as far as the specific item of referring to images of underground, you should consider the possibility that this priest might have a better and more finely developed sense of the inherent connections that exist between created objects and supernatural realities.
For example, why does Holy Scripture consistently use "dark" to refer to evil and "light" to refer to good? It would be easy to ridicule someone who criticizes the use of "darkness" as a metaphor. But then you would also be ridiculing St. John the Evangelist and Christ himself.
Someone might likewise temariously decide to attack St. John of the Cross for calling his work, "Ascent of Mount Carmel." "How stupid is that to think that climbing a mountain brings you closer to God?" is what someone might say if they took a reductionistic view and failed to see the spiritual significance.
Perhaps we should also attack Dante for using underground imagery in "The Inferno" while placing the "Paradiso" up in heaven. What should we think if someone were to come along and reverse that scenario, and place hell up above and place heaven underground? Is this harmless, or is it instead a disordering of nature's relationship to the supernatural? Was Dante making merely arbitrary choices when he placed hell underground and heaven above, or was he reflecting some elements of the divine scheme for creation?
Was Jesus making a mistake when he called hell a pit and a chasm? Or is there some reality to that? When Mary showed the children of Fatima the vision of hell, didn't she open up the earth to reveal the lake of fire underground? Perhaps you think that the Blessed Virgin should know better than to think that hell is below the earth?
If an author sets out to take these images which have been sanctified by many centuries of usage in Scripture and tradition and to reverse them, what would be the purpose? For example, Philip Pullman in his trilogy "His Dark Materials" admits that he is deliberately setting out to create the opposite of Christian imagery. Are we supposed to find this harmless, or is it profoundly disorienting and dangerous?
Can one slander an anonymous person? As I understand it, no one is really sure of who this priest is.
If the priest makes use of bad logic, shoddy rhetoric, and Protestantized (read: prooftexted) use of Sacred Scripture, he is exhibiting a lack of prudential use of logic, rhetoric and Sacred Scripture. Further, one must ask why on earth he should choose to devote such time to such a subject when his very claims are without foundation. He might certainly feel it is important, based on his logical reasoning. But his very argument proves his use of these things as incorrect. Therefore, the entire talk is substantially imprudent.
Fr. Rickaby's succinct definition is "right reason aptly applied" - demonstrated failure in this conference.
Aquinas notes:
"I answer that, As stated above (I-II, 55, 3; I-II, 56, 1) when we were treating of virtues in general, "virtue is that which makes its possessor good, and his work good likewise." Now good may be understood in a twofold sense: first, materially, for the thing that is good, secondly, formally, under the aspect of good. Good, under the aspect of good, is the object of the appetitive power. Hence if any habits rectify the consideration of reason, without regarding the rectitude of the appetite, they have less of the nature of a virtue since they direct man to good materially, that is to say, to the thing which is good, but without considering it under the aspect of good. On the other hand those virtues which regard the rectitude of the appetite, have more of the nature of virtue, because they consider the good not only materially, but also formally, in other words, they consider that which is good under the aspect of good.
Now it belongs to prudence, as stated above (1, ad 3; 3) to apply right reason to action, and this is not done without a right appetite. Hence prudence has the nature of virtue not only as the other intellectual virtues have it, but also as the moral virtues have it, among which virtues it is enumerated. "
The work, being the conference, was not a good work, because was not illogical in its construction. Therefore, it was imprudent. It was an attempt at counsel, but failed, because it was imprudent.
The work was based on false premises... therefore, it was imprudent due to lacking right reason.
"I answer that, Prudence is "right reason applied to action," just as science is "right reason applied to knowledge." On speculative matters one may sin against rectitude of knowledge in two ways: in one way when the reason is led to a false conclusion that appears to be true; in another way when the reason proceeds from false premises, that appear to be true, either to a true or to a false conclusion. Even so a sin may be against prudence, through having some resemblance thereto, in two ways. First, when the purpose of the reason is directed to an end which is good not in truth but in appearance, and this pertains to prudence of the flesh; secondly, when, in order to obtain a certain end, whether good or evil, a man uses means that are not true but fictitious and counterfeit, and this belongs to the sin of craftiness. This is consequently a sin opposed to prudence, and distinct from prudence of the flesh. "
As to whether this could all be considered a sin:
"I answer that, Imprudence may be taken in two ways, first, as a privation, secondly, as a contrary. Properly speaking it is not taken as a negation, so as merely to signify the absence of prudence, for this can be without any sin. Taken as a privation, imprudence denotes lack of that prudence which a man can and ought to have, and in this sense imprudence is a sin by reason of a man's negligence in striving to have prudence.
Imprudence is taken as a contrary, in so far as the movement or act of reason is in opposition to prudence: for instance, whereas the right reason of prudence acts by taking counsel, the imprudent man despises counsel, and the same applies to the other conditions which require consideration in the act of prudence. On this way imprudence is a sin in respect of prudence considered under its proper aspect, since it is not possible for a man to act against prudence, except by infringing the rules on which the right reason of prudence depends. Wherefore, if this should happen through aversion from the Divine Law, it will be a mortal sin, as when a man acts precipitately through contempt and rejection of the Divine teaching: whereas if he act beside the Law and without contempt, and without detriment to things necessary for salvation, it will be a venial sin. "
I would classify the conference as imprudence as a contrary, and if so, merely a venial sin due to it acting beside the Law and without detriment to things necessary for salvation.
Take it as you will, but I base this on Fr. Jackson's critique and subsequent application of the teaching in the Summa as I understand it. I'm open to correction on how I've interpreted the Summa on these matters.
I don't know this person, the anonymous man who condemns subterranean matters as diabolical, from Adam. I have read the text in question. If you presented this text to me and asked me to tell you about the man who wrote it, I would say that there are 3 possibilities: 1) the author was higher than a giraffe's hat; 2) the author is an astonishing imbecile; or 3) the author is a madman. The possibility does not present itself that the author is merely a rational, prudent person with whom I disagree. Had he claimed that Tolkien was a waste of time, a bad writer, an annoying old man, etc. then I might disagree with those things but that's no big deal. But to say that dwarfs give you an affinity for Hell is not just an erroneous statement, it's an egregious embarrassment.
Now, since I am told that the author is a priest, I assume that possibilities 1) and 2) above are ruled out, that he was neither high nor an imbecile. By the process of elimination that leaves madman. I'm actually avoiding slander by not just saying that he's an idiot... I don't actually think that. But given the number of clown masses I've heard about in the world, being a priest and a madman are not mutually exclusive. Our entire Catholic Church, the one founded by actual God, has been obliterated by priests. So I see no reason to treat them with kid gloves, especially when we don't even have a name or a face to attach to this ridiculous garbage.
If you know this guy personally and vouch for him, so be it. All I have to go off of is the text, and the text is freaking insane. Not just wrong, not just dumb, but actually mentally unbalanced. Not only would I not trust the author of such a text to give me advice about my soul or my marriage, I wouldn't trust him to him to feed a goldfish. Anyone reading this is free to disagree. And again, my estimation takes no respect of persons. It could be that this is the world's holiest priest, a living saint, and he wrote this talk while under the influence of pain medication for a herniated disk or something.
By the way, if this fellow thinks that Hell is underground, does he have any idea where it's actually located? Near the Mohorovicic discontinuity would be the most logical place to look. Maybe advances in radar will allow us to discover it and tunnel there at some point. Perhaps it's next door to the Tooth Fairy's house and across the street from where all the dwarfs live.
On a serious note, anyone who disseminates the anonymous talk will bear guilt for all the souls it ushers into Hell (the real one) on account of making people think that Christians are a bunch of flaming credulous ignoramuses.
Maximilian:
Great response. I enjoyed reading it, thank you!
Quote from: Archer on March 24, 2014, 05:40:39 PM
Quote from: verenaerin on March 24, 2014, 05:15:04 PM
I thought one of the reasons was to prevent a personal cult type situation.
I love audiosancto. I have been listening to it for years. While watching the kids I usually can't read, but I can listen to a sermon. I have found it very spiritually edifying. It is upsetting to think that I cannot trust the priests on there. Especially since the one in question is my favorite.
Is it so hard to have a shepherd you can trust?
Man is fallen and priests are not perfect. Don't make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater due to one questionable sermon regarding something that, in the grand scheme of things, is relatively irrelevant.
Yes. St. John Vianney preached against parents co-sleeping with children. There could have been more behind it other than co-sleeping. But, if there wasn't, it was just his opinion and nothing else. If we trashed all of his sermons based on this one we would lose quite a lot.
Quote from: GeorgeT on March 26, 2014, 10:40:02 PM
Quote from: Archer on March 24, 2014, 05:40:39 PM
Quote from: verenaerin on March 24, 2014, 05:15:04 PM
I thought one of the reasons was to prevent a personal cult type situation.
I love audiosancto. I have been listening to it for years. While watching the kids I usually can't read, but I can listen to a sermon. I have found it very spiritually edifying. It is upsetting to think that I cannot trust the priests on there. Especially since the one in question is my favorite.
Is it so hard to have a shepherd you can trust?
Man is fallen and priests are not perfect. Don't make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater due to one questionable sermon regarding something that, in the grand scheme of things, is relatively irrelevant.
Yes. St. John Vianney preached against parents co-sleeping with children. There could have been more behind it other than co-sleeping. But, if there wasn't, it was just his opinion and nothing else. If we trashed all of his sermons based on this one we would lose quite a lot.
I thought everyone co-slept back then? Wasn't having your own bed a luxury item until relatively recently?
Quote from: Chestertonian on March 27, 2014, 12:04:05 AM
Quote from: GeorgeT on March 26, 2014, 10:40:02 PM
Quote from: Archer on March 24, 2014, 05:40:39 PM
Quote from: verenaerin on March 24, 2014, 05:15:04 PM
I thought one of the reasons was to prevent a personal cult type situation.
I love audiosancto. I have been listening to it for years. While watching the kids I usually can't read, but I can listen to a sermon. I have found it very spiritually edifying. It is upsetting to think that I cannot trust the priests on there. Especially since the one in question is my favorite.
Is it so hard to have a shepherd you can trust?
Man is fallen and priests are not perfect. Don't make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater due to one questionable sermon regarding something that, in the grand scheme of things, is relatively irrelevant.
Yes. St. John Vianney preached against parents co-sleeping with children. There could have been more behind it other than co-sleeping. But, if there wasn't, it was just his opinion and nothing else. If we trashed all of his sermons based on this one we would lose quite a lot.
I thought everyone co-slept back then? Wasn't having your own bed a luxury item until relatively recently?
Yes. Which made the conversation about the subject especially confusing a few years ago back on FE.
I would think that the marital embrace would be... a bit weird if the kids were inches away.
Anyway, the priest was demonstrating multiple errors in logic as concerns even secular standards in the topical conference.
Quote from: Gardener on March 27, 2014, 01:13:55 AM
...Anyway, the priest was demonstrating multiple errors in logic as concerns even secular standards in the topical conference.
Yeah, but not enough to deserve being called names (not thinking of you Gardener). It's simple, really. This is something he used to be really in to. He's recently rejected it. Now he wants everyone else to reject it. His response to the subject is emotional because it's close to home. That's not surprising. Some people get that way when they've made a personal change. I'm sure plenty of ex-alcoholics have ideas along the lines of " all drinking, no matter how much, is evil for everyone." Way back when I quit smoking I would internally freak out when people smoked around me.
I've been listening to this priests sermons for years. As far as I can tell, his doctrine is solid. He has a negative opinion about LOTR. No big deal.
Quote from: GeorgeT on March 27, 2014, 02:49:16 AM
Quote from: Gardener on March 27, 2014, 01:13:55 AM
...Anyway, the priest was demonstrating multiple errors in logic as concerns even secular standards in the topical conference.
Yeah, but not enough to deserve being called names (not thinking of you Gardener). It's simple, really. This is something he used to be really in to. He's recently rejected it. Now he wants everyone else to reject it. His response to the subject is emotional because it's close to home. That's not surprising. Some people get that way when they've made a personal change. I'm sure plenty of ex-alcoholics have ideas along the lines of " all drinking, no matter how much, is evil for everyone." Way back when I quit smoking I would internally freak out when people smoked around me.
I've been listening to this priests sermons for years. As far as I can tell, his doctrine is solid. He has a negative opinion about LOTR. No big deal.
I largely agree, though I'm a bit of a voicalist (they all sound the same! -- tinnitus?).
Quote from: GeorgeT on March 27, 2014, 01:01:13 AM
Yes. Which made the conversation about the subject especially confusing a few years ago back on FE.
Oh dear :huh:
Quote from: Gardener on March 27, 2014, 01:13:55 AM
I would think that the marital embrace would be... a bit weird if the kids were inches away.
I'm guessing people had to be creative. also it might have spaced children out naturally.
Quote from: Chestertonian on March 27, 2014, 12:04:05 AM
Quote from: GeorgeT on March 26, 2014, 10:40:02 PM
Quote from: Archer on March 24, 2014, 05:40:39 PM
Quote from: verenaerin on March 24, 2014, 05:15:04 PM
I thought one of the reasons was to prevent a personal cult type situation.
I love audiosancto. I have been listening to it for years. While watching the kids I usually can't read, but I can listen to a sermon. I have found it very spiritually edifying. It is upsetting to think that I cannot trust the priests on there. Especially since the one in question is my favorite.
Is it so hard to have a shepherd you can trust?
Man is fallen and priests are not perfect. Don't make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater due to one questionable sermon regarding something that, in the grand scheme of things, is relatively irrelevant.
Yes. St. John Vianney preached against parents co-sleeping with children. There could have been more behind it other than co-sleeping. But, if there wasn't, it was just his opinion and nothing else. If we trashed all of his sermons based on this one we would lose quite a lot.
I thought everyone co-slept back then? Wasn't having your own bed a luxury item until relatively recently?
I think a lot of people have taken St. John Vianney out of context. You have to remember, he was sent to a town that the priest before him described as having people whose only difference from the dogs was that the people were baptized.
Quote from: erin is nice on March 27, 2014, 08:52:29 AM
Quote from: Chestertonian on March 27, 2014, 12:04:05 AM
Quote from: GeorgeT on March 26, 2014, 10:40:02 PM
Quote from: Archer on March 24, 2014, 05:40:39 PM
Quote from: verenaerin on March 24, 2014, 05:15:04 PM
I thought one of the reasons was to prevent a personal cult type situation.
I love audiosancto. I have been listening to it for years. While watching the kids I usually can't read, but I can listen to a sermon. I have found it very spiritually edifying. It is upsetting to think that I cannot trust the priests on there. Especially since the one in question is my favorite.
Is it so hard to have a shepherd you can trust?
Man is fallen and priests are not perfect. Don't make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater due to one questionable sermon regarding something that, in the grand scheme of things, is relatively irrelevant.
Yes. St. John Vianney preached against parents co-sleeping with children. There could have been more behind it other than co-sleeping. But, if there wasn't, it was just his opinion and nothing else. If we trashed all of his sermons based on this one we would lose quite a lot.
I thought everyone co-slept back then? Wasn't having your own bed a luxury item until relatively recently?
I think a lot of people have taken St. John Vianney out of context. You have to remember, he was sent to a town that the priest before him described as having people whose only difference from the dogs was that the people were baptized.
If you mean out of context, according to his times and the town where he was living, you may be right. If you are talking about out of context, in regards to the text of his sermon, I'm not so sure. I've read that sermon a few times in the context of the book of his sermons. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
Quote from: GeorgeT on March 29, 2014, 01:06:17 AM
Quote from: erin is nice on March 27, 2014, 08:52:29 AM
Quote from: Chestertonian on March 27, 2014, 12:04:05 AM
Quote from: GeorgeT on March 26, 2014, 10:40:02 PM
Quote from: Archer on March 24, 2014, 05:40:39 PM
Quote from: verenaerin on March 24, 2014, 05:15:04 PM
I thought one of the reasons was to prevent a personal cult type situation.
I love audiosancto. I have been listening to it for years. While watching the kids I usually can't read, but I can listen to a sermon. I have found it very spiritually edifying. It is upsetting to think that I cannot trust the priests on there. Especially since the one in question is my favorite.
Is it so hard to have a shepherd you can trust?
Man is fallen and priests are not perfect. Don't make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater due to one questionable sermon regarding something that, in the grand scheme of things, is relatively irrelevant.
Yes. St. John Vianney preached against parents co-sleeping with children. There could have been more behind it other than co-sleeping. But, if there wasn't, it was just his opinion and nothing else. If we trashed all of his sermons based on this one we would lose quite a lot.
I thought everyone co-slept back then? Wasn't having your own bed a luxury item until relatively recently?
I think a lot of people have taken St. John Vianney out of context. You have to remember, he was sent to a town that the priest before him described as having people whose only difference from the dogs was that the people were baptized.
If you mean out of context, according to his times and the town where he was living, you may be right. If you are talking about out of context, in regards to the text of his sermon, I'm not so sure. I've read that sermon a few times in the context of the book of his sermons. Seems pretty clear cut to me.
I mean out of context in terms of it being a sermon for a certain group of people who were particularly depraved.
Quote from: erin is nice on March 29, 2014, 07:47:31 AM
I mean out of context in terms of it being a sermon for a certain group of people who were particularly depraved.
Ann Catherine Emmerich lived at the same time among the same kind of people, and she talks about this issue as well. It's not fair to call them "particularly depraved," often the home was just an extension of the stable, and it was easy to lose the clear line of demarcation between the animals and the people. You can see a living situation somewhat similar in the movie, "The Tree of Wooden Clogs." There was a danger of children being exposed to too much too soon, also of creating the impression that there was no real difference between what animals do and what people do. The problem of children beyond the age of infancy sleeping with parent was part of the general milieu of casualness about "what come naturally" which the Cure of Ars wanted bring to an end.
Quote from: Maximilian on March 29, 2014, 09:05:03 AM
Quote from: erin is nice on March 29, 2014, 07:47:31 AM
I mean out of context in terms of it being a sermon for a certain group of people who were particularly depraved.
Ann Catherine Emmerich lived at the same time among the same kind of people, and she talks about this issue as well. It's not fair to call them "particularly depraved," often the home was just an extension of the stable, and it was easy to lose the clear line of demarcation between the animals and the people. You can see a living situation somewhat similar in the movie, "The Tree of Wooden Clogs." There was a danger of children being exposed to too much too soon, also of creating the impression that there was no real difference between what animals do and what people do. The problem of children beyond the age of infancy sleeping with parent was part of the general milieu of casualness about "what come naturally" which the Cure of Ars wanted bring to an end.
Well that's just strange.
My son is 3 1/2 and still finds a way to sneak into our bed at 2am, usually after raiding the kitchen
Quote from: Archer on March 24, 2014, 05:40:39 PM
Quote from: verenaerin on March 24, 2014, 05:15:04 PM
I thought one of the reasons was to prevent a personal cult type situation.
I love audiosancto. I have been listening to it for years. While watching the kids I usually can't read, but I can listen to a sermon. I have found it very spiritually edifying. It is upsetting to think that I cannot trust the priests on there. Especially since the one in question is my favorite.
Is it so hard to have a shepherd you can trust?
Man is fallen and priests are not perfect. Don't make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater due to one questionable sermon regarding something that, in the grand scheme of things, is relatively irrelevant.
Archer is right. Let's not make a joke out of our Father like Ham, but rather let us cover his nakedness as did Sem and Japheth.
The priest is wrong in his criticism of Tolkien and has probably been smothered with stifling, imagination-less and wonder killing mentalities of 1950s Catholicism. I'm talking Thomism in horse pills, three times a day, 15 minute conveyer belt Low Masses and Baptism of Desire for all.
I really must credit Charles Coulombe for opening my mind to the sense of Catholic wonder. We should appreciate that Creation is far more interesting than neon lights and endless strip malls. Modernity has nearly extinguished our sense of dependency on God for all things. And as such, our sense of the supernatural and fantastic has become dull.
No surprise that as people ridicule the notion of the fairies, belief in space aliens has become common (despite a clear papal condemnation of the notion.)
So as St. Augustine writes, let's make up for what we perceive to be a deficiency in Father's outlook by living out such principles ourselves.
3rd and final part:
http://www.olmcfssp.org/cms/images/uploads/On_Criticizing_Tolkien_III.pdf
Quote from: Gardener on March 23, 2014, 09:43:57 PM
My Pastor has written two critiques of the talk in question, and here are the links (originally bulletin inserts)
http://www.olmcfssp.org/cms/images/uploads/On_Criticizing_Tolkien_I.pdf
http://www.olmcfssp.org/cms/images/uploads/On_Criticizing_Tolkien_II.pdf
They were originally printed double-sided, so begin on the right side of page 1, under the title.
I think Adeodatus's position is somewhat validated by the points Fr. Jackson made in that third part of his criticism. You really have to wonder about the prudence of a priest who so haphazardly levels criticism at others while committing multiple logical fallacies and possibly engaging in calumny. I would certainly take his words with a grain of salt with regard to controversial topics.
Fr Sean Kopczynski finally got his 'faculties' taken away.
Checks out.
Answer: It is profoundly Catholic.
One of the best proofs of this, is the series of essays about it - and about the legendarium generally - on the website "The Flame Imperishable": https://jonathansmcintosh.wordpress.com/ which is "A blog about Tolkien, St. Thomas, and other purveyors of the Philosophia Perennis." The emphasis is very strongly on Tolkien and the legendarium.
That the legendarium is Catholic in spirit, emerges from the implied docttines of Providence. free will, and the interplay between them.
That Melkor cannot create, but can only pervert, presupposes the doctrine that evil is a parasite upon good. That this is so, is shown throughout the legendarium.
Aragorn is, in almost all respects, the ideal Catholic Monarch. He even dies well.
Gollum's craving for the Ring is a study in excessive "attachment to things of earth". It is one of many examples in which characters fail to "put their loves in order". Morgoth fails to do so. Feänor fails to do so. The Numenoreans eventually fail to do so. Saruman fails to do so. Gollum fails to do so. Boromir fails to do so.
There is a respect for hallowed places as special, and not to be put to "common" uses. This comes out in the description of the Meneltarma, the holy mountain of Numenor. It is so sacred that it is climbed only thrice in the year. No-one speaks on its top but the King alone, and only to give thanks to Eru Iluvatar. In Minas Tirith, Rath Dinen, the "Silent Street", is reserved for the tombs of the Kings & the Stewards, and no speech is permitted. Great respect is shown by the cultures of Elves & Men to the remains of the dead.
There is only One Creator. The Ainur, the "holy ones", are "the offspring of his thought"; and their power to make is purely sub-creative. They can sub-create well, only in dependence on their Creator; when they try, like Melkor, to set up on their own, their power of sub-creation becomes no more than a power to tyrannise and pervert and ruin both those who are less than they, and themselves.
These are just some of the indications of the theological, philosophical & religious character of the books.
Quote from: Hannelore on February 05, 2014, 02:47:35 PMI didn't read The Lord of the Rings critically. I read it as a fantasy epic, and enjoyed it in that light. I would be interested in reading an annotated version, though, to be able to understand any hidden layers of meaning.
The nearest I know of to an annotated LOTR is Wayne Hammond & Christina Scull's "The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion".
It is thoroughly readable, and very thorough.
Quote from: misericonfit on May 17, 2024, 09:21:25 AMQuote from: Hannelore on February 05, 2014, 02:47:35 PMI didn't read The Lord of the Rings critically. I read it as a fantasy epic, and enjoyed it in that light. I would be interested in reading an annotated version, though, to be able to understand any hidden layers of meaning.
The nearest I know of to an annotated LOTR is Wayne Hammond & Christina Scull's "The Lord of the Rings: A Reader's Companion".
It is thoroughly readable, and very thorough.
Yes, I have a copy somewhere.
Quote from: misericonfit on May 16, 2024, 07:33:25 PMThat Melkor cannot create, but can only pervert
Say it to my face, mortal.
Kidding aside I hate how people try and draw comparisons. Tolkien didn't write the Lord of the rings and all his other books with the intent of it being a mirror of Catholicism. He actually always denied any intent to do so, writing the books for the sake of his own mythology ideals, master linguist and historian that he was.
Yeah of course there are elements of Catholicism in it, practically any good story does to some degree. The classic good vs evil that is as old as the first story told, the garden of Eden. But it's not something he intentionally did, rather his staunch Catholic background naturally influenced, inadvertently, his masterpiece.
Quote from: OzarkCatholic on January 18, 2024, 12:51:20 PMFr Sean Kopczynski finally got his 'faculties' taken away.
Checks out.
That people are gloating over an otherwise phenomenal priest's removal from active ministry due to his opinion on a work of fiction(which I could care less about in this particular issue) pisses me off. BTW, where's Father Jackson now?
Quote from: Melkor on May 17, 2024, 12:39:01 PMQuote from: misericonfit on May 16, 2024, 07:33:25 PMThat Melkor cannot create, but can only pervert
Say it to my face, mortal.
Kidding aside I hate how people try and draw comparisons. Tolkien didn't write the Lord of the rings and all his other books with the intent of it being a mirror of Catholicism. He actually always denied any intent to do so, writing the books for the sake of his own mythology ideals, master linguist and historian that he was.
Yeah of course there are elements of Catholicism in it, practically any good story does to some degree. The classic good vs evil that is as old as the first story told, the garden of Eden. But it's not something he intentionally did, rather his staunch Catholic background naturally influenced, inadvertently, his masterpiece.
I agree with everything you said. LOTR would be very poor as a work of art, if he had set out intentionally to write it as a tract for Catholicism merely disguised as a story. Preachiness - of whivh there is none in the legendarium - would have crippled it. A story has to be good as a story, on pain of being an aesthetic - and therefore a theological - failure. It is possible for a book to be thoroughly Catholic, without in any way being preachy. The legendarium is an excellent example of this.
I emphasised the Catholic elements, only because some critics of LOTR seem to doubt that they are present. They are present, but they are easily missed, and are not confined to those that may casually be identified as Catholic. They are in the background & structure and atmosphere & environment of the book, which would not exist as it does without them. These things are not "persons, beasts, monsters" or places in the legendarium - therefore, they are easily missed. Like the Divine Comedy, or the Iliad, or Paradise Lost, or the Aeneid, the legendarium is the kind of work which can be read by people of any beliefs - even though the author's beliefs are easily discovered.