Agreed.

Good vs. Evil, Light vs. Dark... for the record this is NOT something Christianity came up with.

It draws from it. Yes.
It has become a major theme in Christianity. Yes.

But it did not "invent" it.

There is a straight line from Democritus through Plato discussing this 400 B.C. and onward, and I'm pretty sure we can find similar things in other traditions as well such as Norse Myth, Indian Myth etc.

What it boils down to is virtues that are considered morally good and their opposites, bake into this mix, some divine or spiritual beings that struggle to push you towards one or the other and you're done.

/wolf

There is a difference there, however, namely that Tolkien explicitly described LOTR as a "Catholic work." His words, not mine. So, again, lest I assume that I understand LOTR better than Tolkien, I must take him at his word, and the question "How is this a Catholic work?" becomes a quite legitimate question for those interested in better understanding not just LOTR, but all of his literature on ME.

Sure, you can't say that every book that talks about good and evil is Christian. But different religious and philosophical traditions deal with the questions of good and evil in different ways. They have different ways of explaining the presence of evil in the world, and understanding what it takes to become a good person. And my basic point was that Tolkien presents an understanding of human sinfulness, and of evil more generally, that is markedly Catholic. Add in that Tolkien was Catholic and described LOTR explicitly as a Catholic work, and I think it's quite reasonable to say, "Hey, here's an example of how Tolkien was thinking like a Catholic."

I think I have already answered both questions, at length. On the first, read the posts where I speak about things in LOTR that resonate with Catholic thought. On the second, read the posts where I speak about the fact that 1) Tolkien was specifically a Catholic Christian, and 2) he described LOTR as a Catholic work.

But on the second point, certainly, much of Catholic thought is held in common with Protestant and Eastern Orthodox thought. No surprise: the Western Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church were formally unified until they split in the Great Schism of the 11th century, and the Protestant churches come out of a series of protests (hence, Protestant) against the Western Catholic Church in the 16th century. So, yeah, they'll have similarities, just as Christianity has deep similiarities with the Judaism from which it was born (not least of all, the Christian bible includes the entirety of the Jewish Tanakh). And Islam, having come out of an environment saturated with both Judaism and Christianity, has many similarities with both, also.

But, the very fact that these schisms occurred points to the fact that there are differences among the various churches, and also with Judaism and Islam, and I would argue that Tolkien's way of thinking about shadow resonates very strongly with distinctly Catholic ways of thinking about sinfulness. Just because many people wrestle with the same questions does not mean that they all give the same answers.

Because, one of the things that I have most deeply learned from Tolkien is that creativity and imagination is a vital part of a spiritually healthy life. Now, I know many people who I would describe as spiritually (or, if you prefer, psychologically) quite healthy, who happen to Jewish, or Muslim, or atheist, etc. But I happen to be Catholic, and thus spiritual health for me is something I think about largely through my Catholicity. And so it means something to me that the man from whom I happened to learn this lesson about the importance of creativity also happens to come from my same religious tradition.

But I also add, it also means something that Tolkien and I come from very similar professional and educational backgrounds. I'm a biblical scholar by training, and work part-time as a professor. Quite happy only teaching part-time, as it allows me to be very close to a stay-at-home mother. For his part, Tolkien had a deep interest in the Bible, even translating the Book of Jonah for the Jerusalem Bible, which is the Bible now used in most English-speaking Catholic churches for public reading during mass. You hear the Book of Jonah read in an English-speaking Catholic Church mass, and odds are that you are hearing Tolkien's translation. And that means something to me, for which I really don't see any reason to apologize.

That's fair, although I do think that there is a difference between on the one hand someone who believes that they are writing about events that actually happened (even if they are wrong on the matter) and about a God and angels who actually exist (even if they are wrong on the matter, and someone who on the other recognizes that he is writing fiction.

But, sure, your point stands: the Bible has many similarities with other literature. And that's not surprising: we're all living on the same planet, after all.

Of course. The actual differences between pieces of literature of antiquity from a secular viewpoint would not be very different. However, there may be much more fascination with some works, like the Bible (even among secular archeologists), due to the fact that there are thousands of ancient copies still in existence.

My point was simply that the Bible (or any similar religious text) may be offensive to some because of its purpose and the claims of its authors. Otherwise, its content may not be taken so seriously. There wouldn't be the level or kind of criticism it receives (of which there is an abundance). The writers of the New Testament were persecuted and most were martyred. Diocletian tried to burn every New Testament letter from 303-313 AD. I am not speaking to its validity (I shall not stray even an eighth of an inch toward evangelism!), but pointing out that there is a difference between how people generally approach the Bible and Tolkien.

As far as I know, no one has written books and speeches to marginalize The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. Nobody worships Eru Ilúvatar. It is universally accepted as pure imagination. Its moral undercurrent is appealing to most everyone, no matter what their background.

If someday universal values have changed drastically, then there might be an uprising against authors such as Tolkien. And some may claim Tolkien's Catholicism is the reason for their offense. Why? Mainly because of his own claims that he wrote happily under the influence of Catholicism.

Which brings us back to Brooke's purpose in posting this thread. How has Tolkien's Catholicism influenced his writing The Lord of the Rings? I think the Catholics may best answer this question.

Actually, there are some definite critiques one could make of LOTR. For instance, if one is an anti-monarchist, one might critique the valorization of kingship. Or, one might see in the depictions of Easterlings and Haradrim a degree of racism. I actually don't think those are fair critiques, but they could indeed be made.

Perhaps, insofar as someone immersed in the Catholic life might better understand a writer who was also immersed in the Catholic life. But, then again, you don't have to be Catholic to know about Catholicism.

Absolutely. I myself, attempted to write about Beorn through an understanding of the Catholic sacraments. But, no matter how much I think I understand, its hard to truly understand, simply because I haven't lived in Catholic shoes.

My understanding of Tolkien's experience is that his mother, Mabel, became a Roman Catholic after his father's death and because of it, she was ostracized by her Protestant relatives, who cut off any financial help they were giving her and the two boys before. That is a shame. But, I am interested in learning more of how this affected Tolkien's own resolve to be Catholic.

After leading C.S. Lewis to believe in Christ, I hear that Tolkien's only disappointment was that Lewis didn't become a Catholic. Well, that and he really despised The Chronicles of Narnia so much so that Lewis quit reading his stories at The Inklings meetings. In return however, C.S. Lewis was Tolkien's greatest encourager for completing The Lord of the Rings. Oh, yes, Tolkien also thought Lewis was wrong for marrying a divorced woman. These disappointments really show some of Tolkien's commitment to his faith.

You also must consider his age and the times he lived in for those "dissapointments"

Tolkien's mother's experience always reminds me of my grandfather's, in that he was disowned by his family for marrying a Protestant, i.e. my grandfather.

And, yes, the times make a difference, but the Church is still not enamoured with divorce and remarriage.

Actually, the beauty of the metaphor is that Eru and the Valar intercede in myriad ways throughout the course of Middle-earth's history. The best example of all is Mithrandir, without whom it is difficult to imagine a victory against Sauron, yet there are others.

As for mortal knowledge of Eru and the Valar, much of the information is hidden away in UNFINISHED TALES or the HOME series. Reference the role of the Kings of Numenor in the honouring of Eru, for example, or essays regarding the transfer of knowledge from the Eldar to the Dunedain.

I don't think the existence of the Ainur makes LOTR, etc., polytheistic, anymore than the belief in angels makes the Abrahamic religions polytheistic. I imagine that your average Muslim would be quite taken aback if told that she or he was a polytheist because she or he believes the Quran was dictated to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel.

I think a better way of describing things would be to use a word from Catholic thought, namely "mediation." This is the idea that there are between God and man any number of beings, such as angels and saints, Valar and Maiar. These work out God's plans in creation, and usually stand before God's throne, singing to God and also speaking on humanity's behalf. This sounds to me more like what we see in Tolkien.

And as pointed out, a great example of this is Gandalf, who works on mankind's behalf, to the point of laying down his own life, after which Eru apparently intervenes to send him back to Arda. But consider also the Ainur singing Arda into being, but always in accordance with Eru's will. They cannot create on their own, not that Eru can create; witness the need for Eru to complete Aule's creation of the Dwarves, or the mockery of creation that are the orcs and trolls.

(And, yes, I know this concept of "mediation" is not unique to Catholic thought, but the use of this term is thus way is central to Catholicism in a way it might not be to other theologies.

Definitely we agree (again) on that.

Since the Bible has had such a major impact on our society, culture history etc. in a way Tolkien (no matter how great we all think he is) never has. No argument there.

The underlying reason as to why this is the case however will be different between you and me, I bet. So I'm not going into that.

Thank you all for a pleasant discussion. I think I'm done here.

/wolf

And thank you, Wolf

Yes, Wolf, thanks for the decent conversation. Brooke, I thought you were pretty brave to go from one hot topic to another...religion! You are definitely not diffident! I actually chuckled when I first saw the thread and I thought, "Oh, boy, here we go!" Jon laid down the rules so that he wouldn't have to later bowdlerise the forum. That was smart.

If there is one thing I have never been accused of, it's diffidence.

Although the thread seems to be winding down, please allow me to relate it back to TOR once more, as I did in my initial post. Insofar as LOTR et. al. feel very Catholic to me, and insofar as TOR IMHO does a great job of capturing the feel of the Tolkien-verse, TOR has offered something that I have never really encountered before: a RPG experience that feels Catholic. That is, I feel as somehow I am acting out my Catholicity whilst playing this game. It's a really weird feeling, that I cannot put that well into words, but it is one that I deeply appreciate, and that no doubt contributes to my love of this game.

Do I expect any one else to have the same feeling? No, of course not. The way we each experience a good RPG is, and probably should be, as unique as we each experience a piece of good literature. But if I cannot express what this game means to me here, then where else can I express it?

Brooke, you must read "Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth" in HOME 10, if you have not already. It is quite fascinating if you are interested, as I am, in the professor's efforts to reconcile his sub-creation with his strong religious beliefs.