[Boromir88]

This has been a very good compilation of essays talking about Tolkien's "Catholic Imagination."

http://tolkienandchristianity.blogsp...r-tolkien.html

This is not a statement that I agree with all of these authors, but I still maintain Tolkien's religious beliefs played an integral part in writing his "myth." Mind you a part, not the whole, possibly not even the most important influence, but an influence nonetheless.

I have not read all of these essays, and personally some of them like Joseph Pearce's "Why Tolkien says The Lord of the Rings is Catholic" seems to be reaching too far for my own tastes. A lot also tend to latch onto Tolkien's Letter stating it is "a fundamentally Catholic work." However, Clyde Kilby's "Meeting Professor Tolkien" and David Mills' essay about Divine Providence were illuminating and bring up if nothing else an interesting, thoughtful argument. And in my opinion, it's been a valuable set of links to give a comprehensive look to the Catholic interpretation of Tolkien's writing.

Declaring there is NO hidden message. Not even
'partially Catholic'. NO message at all. And
emphasies his annoyance with literary
incapacity to distinct allegory from
application & reader insistence to see
what the author doesn't intend.~Rhod the Red

This is rather a skewed gloss of what's written in The Foreward. First, the context is Tolkien saying there is no allegory, or message, was his annoyance of people thinking the Lord of the Rings was an allegory of World War II. To which, Tolkien correctly points out much of this story was conceived before that War. Broadly applied, I agree, one of Tolkien's stringent positions is he did not like allegory, he did not write it, and he just wanted to write a story he hoped that a variety of people could enjoy. However, lets also not take the position to anyone who says "there is a Catholic/religious influence of Tolkien's faith in the story" to mean people are arguing there is Catholic allegory. It's not the same.

Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presense. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of author.

The bold is my emphasis, and to expand on the meaning of reader applicability, let's look at what he writes a little later in the Foreward:

It is also false, though naturally attractive, when the lives of the author and critic have overlapped, to suppose that the movements of thought or the events of times common to both were necessarily the most powerful influences. One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its oppression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years.

Simply because two peopled lived through common events does not mean their views and experiences are going to be the same. And this seems to be reflected in Tolkien's preference to history, in all its varied applicability, and not allegory, which would be (as Tolkien viewed it) "the purposed domination of the author."

This again doesn't mean if someone sees the religious influence in Tolkien's writing that they are arguing "Tolkien is a lying liar who lied about disliking allegory." It's a simple acknowledgement that his beliefs influenced his writing, just as his love for Anglo-Saxon myth, or Norse, or any other experience you want to plug in.

Much tends to be made by the Letter to Father Murray:

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.

I believe there is much misunderstanding made by all sides when it comes to this one. First, it's important to remember Bethberry's point about using Tolkien's Letters. They were personal correspondence by Tolkien to someone else, not intended nor probably written with the mind of a wider public audience. My counter question to Bb, however, is what reasons would Tolkien have to deceive the recipients of his written letters?

I think the trickier part is understanding, as Tolkien also admits, there is much of his story that escaped him, or he forgot, because much had been written decades before writing all these letters responding to family, friends, and fans. Also, Tolkien becomes a conscious commentator and critic, and not the writer who did write in the "unconscious." However, there is no reason that Tolkien would have to be purposefully deceptive to anyone, whether it be to his variety of readers, or to a single correspondent. Now there may be unintentional misleading if Tolkien mis-remembered something he had previously written, but he's honest about that too! So, really, when reading Letters I don't see any reason to think Tolkien was not being upfront and honest in his responses. You've even pointed out to me before where he did not send a certain letter about the possibility of orc redemption because he seemed to be "taking himself too importantly."

My point here is, if the context and audience is known, and seeing no reason why Tolkien would purposefully deceive the recipients of his letters, then there can still be value in them beyond individual curiosity in wanting to know everyone's business.

So, with Letter 142 to Tolkien's Catholic friend, he does say it is a "fundamentally religious and Catholic work" at first when he was unconsciously writing, but in consciously revising he only re-affirmed and stuck to whatever religious influences were present when writing it. This does not mean, as some of the authors in the link I provided at the start of this post are correct in their interpretations, as some do reach too far into what I would define as allegory. And thus it assumes Tolkien was deliberately lying when he consistently stated a dislike for allegory.

However, to take the rest of that quote to mean all religion and Catholic thought was completely excised and eviscerated out of the story, is also misleading. Quite the opposite, it's directly in both his writing process and the revision process it was a fundamentally religious work. What he says was not put in, or what he did end up cutting out is any direct reference to established real world 'religion' in terms of their cults or practices. Instead the religious influeced is "absorbed in the story and the symbolism." I actually like Tolkien's word choice of "absorbed" here since it implies the religious influence is a part of the story. Not the whole, maybe not even the most important part, but a part nonetheless. And that is, in my opinion, different from allegory.