Is [i]The Lord of the Rings[/i] really Catholic?

[Pheo]

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 ).

[Sockpuppet]

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.

[Adeodatus]

Short answer: yes, it's Catholic.

[Chestertonian]

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.

[VeraeFidei]

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.

[OCLittleFlower]

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.

[rbjmartin]

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.

[The Harlequin King]

Rbj,

Yeah.

I'm really surprised Rorate thought it worth sharing in the first place.

[rbjmartin]

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:

[MilesChristi]

Bishop Fulton Sheen made it a great point to say that the cave that Jesus was born in was underground.

[Gardener]

...

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.

[LouisIX]

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.

[james03]

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.

[VeraeFidei]

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.

[MilesChristi]

I always think of Aragorn as the Great Catholic Monarch, the prophesied Return of the King.