What did Tolkien really mean ....

[littlemanpoet]

I have begun to realize that I may be suspected of motives I do not have. My purpose in this thread is not to pursue some agenda such that it can be proven once and for all that "LotR is Christian, and all you non-Christians had better get used to it".

No. On my lil' ol' blog (go to the bottom of the page there), I'm not on any hobby horse with this. I notice that the one paragraph I deleted from post #1 of this thread has to do with that. I should have left it in there.

I'm just plain trying to figure out what Tolkien meant; because he obviously meant something. And I have been reading some new articles with this question in the back of my mind, and lo and behold, they seem to offer answers. So I'm not going to hassle through answering every objection and remonstration because a lot of them are objecting against something I'm not even trying to do.

So...

Pius X wrote some encyclicals that had an overwhelming effect on Catholicism from about 1908 until 1963. One of them is called Pascendi domini gregis. It is recorded in A.R. Bossert's article in Mythlore Volume 25, No. 1/2 (Fall/Winter) - a double issue) (A Journal of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and Charles Williams) published by the Mythopoeic Society, that this and other encyclicals were followed at St. Philip Oratory, where the young Tolkien was raised by Father Francis Morgan. Bossert says that these encyclicals would no doubt have been discussed.

Apparently, the battle Pius X was fighting was not against Modernism at large, but against Catholic Modernism; that is, members within the Catholic church who have adopted a modernistic viewpoint. One scholar that Bossert quotes says that

Modernism wrongly asserts, according to Pascendi, that religion arises out of the human subconscious and that faith has no basis outside this internal religious sentiment

In another encyclical, Sacrorurm antistitum, Pius X required an Oath against Modernism, to which all Catholic theologians and scholars were expected to adhere; no doubt Tolkien knew of it, and thought about it both in his scholarly work and his fiction. The Oath was revoked during Vatican II. I have not yet taken the time to read this encyclical, but I hope to, just to see how restrictive it is, and to get a sense of the environment in which a scholar and faith-observing Catholic like Tolkien found himself in.

Bossert shows, from Tolkiens' letters to his son Michael, that Tolkien at least adhered to the encylicals, and seems to have deplored their end in 1963.

No allegory here. I'm making no such claims, nor have any interest in doing so. To quote Bossert,

In Pascendi Pius X describes the Church as a tree when he illustrates the Modernist violence to faith: "Moreover they lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fires. And having struck at this root of immortality, they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt".

Bossert draws a comparison between this and the following from The Silmarillion:

Then the Unlight of Ungoliant rose up even to the roots of the Trees, and Melkor sprang upon the mound; and with his black spear he smote each Tree to its core, wounded them deep, and the sap poured forth as it were their blood [...]. But Ungoliant sucked it up [...] the poison of Death that was in her went into their tissues and withered them, root, branch, and leaf; and they died.

Bossert later adds this qualifier:

This is not to say Melkor or his minions are allegories for Modernism or even that Tolkien is consciously using Pascendi as a source. Tolkien's villains use Modernist tactics, but they are not symbolic representations of Modernism itself.

A fine line he draws, I grant, but a line nonetheless.

Saruman uses the Catholic Modernist tactics more than any other character in LotR. Quoting Bossert again:

Saruman, like Melkor and Sauron, begins by hiding his intentions, but, unlike them, never willfullly leaves the Council or the order. Gandalf must thrust him from the ranks of the heroes. .... Wormtongue does his worst villainies posing as Théoden's councilor, corrupting a hero from within his own home. These characters are malevolent, fully aware of the darkness they generate.

Bossert later says,

Modernist rhetoric also resonates with the enchantment of Saruman's voice, appealing mostly to the audience's sentiments of experiencing something beyond itself:

Then he quotes Pascendi:

[W]hen one of their number [Catholic Modernists] falls under the condemnations of the Church the rest of them, to the horror of good Catholics, gather round him, heap public praise upon him, venerate him almost as a martyr to truth. The young, excited and confused by all this glamour of praise and abuse, some of them afraid of being branded as ignorant, others ambitious to be considered learned, and both classes goaded internally by curiosity and pride, often surrender and give themselves up to Modernism

Bossert compares the above with this scene of Saruman's speech to the party that confronts him before Orthanc:

Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell.

Bossert again:

Saruman's words themselves seem to echo the alleged rhetoric of the Modernist:

Originally Posted by LotR

"But you, Gandalf! For you at least I am grieved, feeling your shame. [...] Even now will you not listen to my counsel? [...] For I bore you no ill-will; and even now I bear none, though you return to me in the company of the violent and the ignorant. [...]Much we could still accomplish together, to heal the disorders of the world. [...] For the common good I am willing to redress the past, and to receive you.

There is more, but I think the above quotes give the gist.

[alatar]

Scanning the 3 billion channel wasteland that is TV last night, I stumbled upon EWTN's "Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, A Catholic Worldview" hosted by Joseph Pierce.

You can catch the intro here in the featured videos. Not sure if the entire program is available.

Anywho, the program made very 'airtight' arguments showing why Catholicism is stitched into every thread of LotR, such as the Ring being destroyed on March 25 (The historical day of the Feast of the Annunciation as well as the day Jesus dies on the Cross).

Not sure how true any of it was, and so figured I'd ask those of you who know.

[Inziladun]

Originally Posted by alatar

Scanning the 3 billion channel wasteland that is TV last night, I stumbled upon EWTN's "Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, A Catholic Worldview" hosted by Joseph Pierce.

Fun fact! The World Headquarters for EWTN is an approximately ten minute drive from my house.

Originally Posted by alatar

Anywho, the program made very 'airtight' arguments showing why Catholicism is stitched into every thread of LotR, such as the Ring being destroyed on March 25 (The historical day of the Feast of the Annunciation as well as the day Jesus dies on the Cross).

I'm not Catholic myself, but it seems to me that if Tolkien did intend the March 25th day to be significant, he surely took a lot of trouble to make everything line up so as to allow that to be the day for the Ring's destruction.
I heartily disagree with the overall premise, though, but such arguments for and against Catholic and Biblical parallels in the books are by now old hat here on the Downs.

[Morthoron]

If Tolkien had consciously made the story Catholic in its revision, then why weren't the Barrow Wights portrayed as a Polish nuns? There were a few that were downright terrifying in my grade school.

*shivers in remembrance*