Should Tolkien's faith be discussed?

Being an avid reader of the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien and various commentaries upon his writings, I have been a member of The Tolkien Society for a few years now. I enjoy both its print publications and its page on Facebook, where a great many things are shared, from a wide variety of questions to news articles to artworks inspired by his legendarium to Tolkien-related events.

 

As a sort of security measure, the Facebook page of The Tolkien Society is a "closed" page with moderation, meaning that requests to join the page and posts to the page must all be approved by an administrator.

 

Yesterday, I submitted Mike Aquilina's "Chord of the Rings," which someone passed on to me the other day. It is an older reflection on Tolkien's creation myth in relation to the hymning of creation spoken of by Fathers of the Church. I received a disappointing response from one of the admins:

Thanks for wanting to share that post from the Eighth Day institute. It is an interesting article, but reading it carefully reveals that it has a rather strong religious message. Unfortunately, we've often found that religious posts often lead to unnecessary and unpleasant arguments, so we won't be putting it through to the group.

Being, as I said, rather disappointed with this response, I asked if it wouldn't be better instead to call for civility and respect for those who oppose Tolkien's faith, which was undeniably central both to his life and to his writings. I also asked the administrators of the group page to reconsider this decision. The response was again disappointing but understandable: "[T]he current rules have grown up from years of experience of moderating a FB group with thousands of members."

Have we in the West really fallen so low that we cannot allow devotees of an author to discuss every aspect of an author's life? Tolkien himself said his The Lord of the Rings "is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work" (Letter to Robert Murray, 2 December 1953); how much of an integral conversation can actually be had, then, if this foundation is not allowed to be discussed?

I understand the difficulty the administrators have in keeping on an eye on the page. They are all volunteers and have their families to attend to, and rightly so. But what does it say about us if we cannot allow a discussion of the role of faith in the lives of various people? I, as a man of faith, do not go around causing a ruckus on the Internet whenever I see a post by an atheist; why do they feel the need to stir up trouble when they see a post about Tolkien's faith? If the read his letters, they'd know how central it was to him and to his works.

It seems we need a new lesson in decency, respect, and civility.

No phones, no selfie sticks, and a dress code - should our churches look more like major sporting events?

A few weeks ago I asked if golf was more sacred than church when the Augusta National banned cell phones at the golf tournament. 

Three years ago I asked a similar question about tennis when Wimbledon introduced a dress code for its members. Today I learned that Wimbledon has now joined the growing list of places where selfie sticks - a.k.a. wands of idiocy or narcisticks - are banned:

The ticketholders' guide said: "In common with many other major sports and entertainment events and cultural attractions, the championships will not allow selfie sticks into the grounds."

The devices have already been banned at some museums and sports grounds.

A spokesman for the club told the Sunday Times the move was brought in partly because of the "nuisance value" but "primarily so it doesn't interfere with spectators' enjoyment" [more].

I've long been a critic of the great devotion that so many people give to sports. How many of your friends can rattle off the roster of their favorite team going back decades, but cannot list even the Twelve Apostles? It isn't so much that sports are bad, but they people too much importance on them and devote too little to what really matters. It won't matter in eternity who won, say, the World Series in 1953, to pick a random year, but it might help to be able to recognize the brother of Simon Peter.

Even so, I'm beginning to wish more of our churches looked more like a major sporting event, at least those seeking to bring back a sense of public decency and respect for others, if not for God.

Before anyone objects to churches instituting dress codes and claiming that Jesus only cares that I'm there, I've answered these objections before: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Is golf more sacred than church?

Throughout the city of Rome - and throughout many of the great cities of Europe - you will see signs dissuading people from entering a church while wearing sleeveless shirts, shorts, short skirts, and hats on men. Similar signs also forbid the taking of photographs (with or without flash) and even - sadly necessary - from using cell phones.

Over the years, I've advocated similar signs outside our churches in the United States of America, though I've frequently been counseled (I think wrongly) against it. One day in particular stands out as evidence for the need of such signs.

While I was the Parochial Vicar of St. Anthony of Padua parish in Effingham, a man's cell phone rang in the middle of the consecration of the Precious Body of the Lord Jesus. The man took out the phone, looked to see who was calling, and put the phone away. But then his phone rang again in the middle of the consecration of the Precious Blood of the Lord Jesus. He again took out his phone, looked to see who called, then stepped into the aisle - as I elevated the chalice - answered the phone while still in the nave, and left the church. I've no idea who could have been so important to warrant such blatant disrespect toward our Blessed Lord.

It seems nothing is any longer held as sacred in the U.S.A., except sports and especially golf. And, in the U.K., maybe tennis.

Organizers of the Augusta National have banned cell phones at this weekend's event, and golf fans do not seem to mind:

The historic Georgia golf course's policy is embraced by golfers and fans as part of the it’s mystique and forces people to fellowship more, interact and socialize.

Derek Jensen, from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, told the Associated Press Wednesday that his itch to post and share passed quickly as he and three friends wandered the course.

"It's part of the mystique of this place," said Jeff Nelson of Rockford, Illinois. "Everybody knows there's no phones, so that becomes part of the whole cool thing. It's like we know we can't use the phones. It becomes part of the experience of knowing you're going to have to turn that phone in because you can't have a phone at the Masters."

We can ban cell phones at a golf tournament, but not in a church. It's a very sad direction in which our society is heading.

What to wear when flying

The Associated Press today has a story about dress codes for airlines – or the lack thereof - in which it is lamented that some passengers are "lectured" about the clothing they wear while flying and some are refused entry to the aircraft (not surprisingly, a woman wearing a shirt with a 4-letter expletive works for an abortuary).

The author, David Koenig, complains: 

It's not always clear what's appropriate. Airlines don't publish dress codes. There are no rules that spell out the highest hemline or the lowest neckline allowed. That can leave passengers guessing how far to push fashion boundaries. Every once in a while the airline says: Not that far. 

If we remembered modesty and decency in clothing, this would not be an issue at all.  If we respected other people as much as we demand that they respect us, this would be not an issue at all.  If we actually respected ourselves, this would not be an issue at all.

Frankly, I’m all in favor of the “airline clothing cops” and wouldn’t mind having other such cops elsewhere, so long as it brings back a level of decency and mutual respect in society.  I’m tired of seeing people out and about in their pajamas.

Telephone etiquette

When calling a parish office or the rectory for Mass times, please do not say "I thought I was going to get a recording" when Father answers the telephone.

Not only is this fairly insulting - it insinuates that Father doesn't care enough to answer his phone or that you don't like him enough to speak with him - but it is also completely unnecessary and clumsy.

If you called for Mass times, simply ask for Mass times. The fact that you expected is completely irrelevant and Father doesn't really care. When he calls your house and you answer the phone, Father doesn't tell you he expected a recording, does he? Just a thought.

Thank you.

P.S. - Father is grateful that you called at a reasonable hour.