the imaginative conservative logo

Cloak and Dagger Priest Tolkien

Readers of my earlier essay, “Defending Tolkien from the Cloak-and-Dagger Priest,” will know something of the controversy surrounding the attacks on Tolkien by an anonymous priest, whom I will henceforth refer to as Father X. Since, in that essay, I only addressed Father X’s inadequate understanding of allegory and myth, I would like to look at some of his other arguments against Tolkien’s work.

Let us begin with this odd juxtaposition of ideas: “Freemasonry is very much based on the myth concerning Solomon’s Temple…. When looking at the historical development and use of myths, it is very important to know that no one traces any of them back to the Sacred Scriptures, because the Bible contains no myths!” Since Father X refers to the “myth concerning Solomon’s Temple,” which is biblical, how can he claim, at one and the same time, that “the Bible contains no myths?” Once more, and to labour a point that Father X refuses obstinately to see, it is important to distinguish between the modern understanding of the meaning of “myth” as being a lie, and the older understanding of it as being a story. Tolkien always uses myth in the latter sense, which is why, as a believing Christian, he could call Christianity the True Myth, i.e. the True Story (not the True Lie!). According to this latter understanding, the Bible contains an abundance of true stories, some of which are stories of what happened in history, such as the story of Solomon’s Temple, and some are fictional stories, such as the parables told by Christ.

And what are we to make of this sweeping assertion: “We know how [God] works with men and His Creation because He told us. We do not need any myth! We have the Word Incarnate! Hear ye Him!” Does this mean that we need no stories at all? Should we not only burn The Lord of the Rings, as Father X encourages us to do (or at least to throw it in the trash), but also all the other great works of Christian Civilization? Should we make a bonfire of the “vanities,” throwing the works of Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Austen, Dickens, Dostoyevsky, and Chesterton into the flames? Do we do not need any literature because we have the Word Incarnate?

J.R.R. Tolkien

J.R.R. Tolkien

And what are we to make of this interesting line of reasoning: “Now it should be noted that Joseph Pearce says over and over again how misunderstood Tolkien is…. Now if you know anything about the heretics, they always claim ‘Oh, I’m misunderstood!’” Perhaps any comment on such a peculiar leap of logic would be superfluous. And yet I would add that Joseph Pearce also believes that there is a man who is much more misunderstood than Tolkien. Indeed, he is the most misunderstood man in history, a man who was put to death for his “heresy,” indeed his “blasphemy?” I refer, of course, to Jesus Christ. Am I a heretic for stating that Christ was misunderstood? Is Christ a heretic because I claim that he was misunderstood?

And while we are on the subject of misunderstanding what Christian orthodoxy teaches, Father X seems to believe that Tolkien was a heretic for suggesting in The Silmarillion that the cosmos might have existed for millions of years: “Tolkien has the worlds unfolding over eons, thereby supporting the evolutionary theories of our own time….  As you know, we and others have spoken many times on the pseudo-science of evolution and its complete lack of orthodoxy.” It is clearly a bit of a stretch to suggest that Tolkien’s belief that the stars might be millions of years old suggests that he, therefore, ipso facto, is a proponent of Darwinian evolution. This odd conflation ad absurdum is, however, the least of Father X’s problems. He seems to be advocating a Young Earth Creationist perspective—i.e., that the universe is less than ten thousand years old, rooted in what might be termed biblical literalism or biblical fundamentalism. Although this is the position of some Protestant Fundamentalists, it is emphatically not the position of the Catholic Church, either before or since Vatican II. If anyone is looking a little theologically suspect and pseudo-scientifically odd at this point in the argument, at least from an orthodox Christian perspective, it is Father X, not Tolkien.

It gets worse.

ExsultetTake, for example, Father X’s complete misunderstanding of Christian teaching on Sin and Death: “In the Middle-Earth of Tolkien, death, for men, is a gift.… The Church teaches that death is a punishment for sin.” Oh dear! Father X seems to know nothing of the ancient Christian concept of the felix culpa, the “happy fault” in which the punishment for sin is also a gift and a blessing from God. Does Father X not know the traditional Exsultet for the Paschal Vigil Mass: O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem, “O happy fault that earned for us so great, so glorious a Redeemer.” Apart from his apparent ignorance of the theology underpinning the celebration of the Traditional Mass at Easter, Father X also seems to know nothing of the teaching of such great saints as Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Ambrose on the felix culpa. St. Augustine, who is believed to have coined the phrase, discussed the great blessing, or gift, that God bestowed on humanity in response to the Fall of Man: “For God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist.” (Melius enim iudicavit de malis benefacere, quam mala nulla esse permittere.) St. Thomas Aquinas, citing the Exsultet from the Easter Liturgy, explained how the principle that “God allows evils to happen in order to bring a greater good therefrom” underlies the causal relation between original sin and the Divine Redeemer’s Incarnation. St. Ambrose, another great saint of the Church, speaks of the fortunate ruin of Adam in the Garden of Eden in that his sin brought forth a greater good than if he had stayed perfectly innocent. Yes indeed, Father X, death was both a punishment and a gift! Tolkien is right, and you are woefully wrong.

For what it is worth, one need not be a theologian to see the obvious truth that a punishment is also a gift. Any loving father, be he God or merely a man such as I, punishes his children in order to bring about their growth in wisdom and virtue. For any father, punishment is exacted as a gift to those he loves in order to bring his children the blessing of goodness. Only a sadist metes out punishment simply to get revenge for a wrong done. God is not a sadist. Death is therefore a gift. It is not rocket science. It is simply common sense.

In this context, Tolkien can be seen as a man of uncommon genius who exhibits great common sense. The latter, alas, seems somewhat lacking in Father X.

Books by Joseph Pearce may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
"All comments are subject to moderation. We welcome the comments of those who disagree, but not those who are disagreeable."
11 replies to this post
  1. Bravo! One suspects that the priesthood of Father X might possibly be, like that of Joshua Duncan Sloane, a ministry of his own revelation.

  2. You, sir, are playing chess with a pigeon and i fear your rebuttals, like Sauruman, risk breaking the thing to learn what it is. Tolkien’s work needs no defense. It was written to be, and has its beauty from so being, first and foremost, a splendidly crafted story. While much of that beauty does indeed spring from the the author’s deep rooted Christianity, classical and pagan themes show through in equal measure. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the story is essentially Christian– nay, Catholic. But I also observe that it was not until the Catholic press, bookstores, and web blogs discovered the work that some, like your mysterious priest, began discussing it as an exhortation on Theology.

  3. Mr. Pearce, you are a very nice man and I enjoy your writing but I think I’ll stick with the priest.. LOTR is fun but its not on par with Imitation of Christ and the people who read it as a devotional during Lent have been misinformed. When I heard Father’s talk I was neutral and then I began reading the rebuttals and most were so nasty and insulting I was appalled. Those Tolkien fans were raged filled nuts. It made what Father was saying seem even more right.

  4. I’m a Protestant from a decidedly fundamentalist background (Young Earth Creationism and all that), and if you hadn’t told me that this individual, Father X, was a Priest, I would have assumed that he was a Protestant Fundamentalist of most likely a Baptist background. Its very likely he’s a recent Convert and brought over some of his ideas.

    Most of these criticisms from your Father X, I have heard leveled against either Tolkien or C.S. Lewis at one time or another, and they are usually made from individuals who know little of the works themselves, but are made uncomfortable by the imagery associated with them.

    I’m still Protestant, but I would never assault Tolkien as a heretic, and least of all would I assume anything other than his being an Orthodox Catholic. I think you’re wasting your time with a sub current of overthinking things that will always appeal to certain individuals. Tolkien’s work is of lasting relevance and might be the greatest artistic accomplishment of the modern age, captivating persons of orthodox faith, and atheistic modernists alike. The works defend themselves as long as appreciation for the good, and permanent things still reside in the human heart.

    • We cannot find the places where Father X called anyone a heretic…does anyone know the times in the talk so we can hear that?

        • He doesn’t call him a heretic. According to your logic, he may be calling Tolkien a “material heretic” or maybe that he is in “material heresy.” But he doesn’t call him a heretic anywhere.

  5. I’ve read the books and enjoyed them, but after hearing the talks I realized how attached I had gotten to them. Now I think, “Are they really something to get upset over? They’re just books.” Also, I thought the priest’s arguments were well thought out.

  6. “Should we make a bonfire of the “vanities,” throwing the works of Dante, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Austen, Dickens, Dostoyevsky, and Chesterton into the flames?”

    This *does* seem to be where the train of Fr. X’s logic is headed, regardless of whether he has reached the destination just yet. Is there room for *any* works of fiction to be read or written by Catholics, on the grounds offered?

  7. So you feel so strongly about these talks that you feel it deserves not one but two articles in response? To me, it’s a confirmation of attachment I’ve already seen people display towards TLOTR. Why does it bother you so much that I’ve burned my Lord of the Rings Books? I even took a picture of them roasting in the fire for kicks. It’s just a book, it won’t help me get to heaven even if the priest is wrong. It’s not devotional, it’s not the life of a saint, it’s simply a fantasy novel.

Please leave a thoughtful, civil, and constructive comment: