A Difference Between Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter

I don't have anything in particular against the children's fantasy series by J.K. Rowling (disclaimer: my wife does). It's a somewhat entertaining piece of popular fiction which has somehow been a worldwide phenomenon and which made a fortune for its author and entertained countless children (and, let us be honest, no small number of adults).

With that said, Tolkien's works--here I include specifically Lord of the Rings and The Silmarillion--are collectively an epic masterpiece which should be counted among the great works of western literature. There is simply no comparison between the two.

There is also a very vast difference between the two authors. Ms. Rowling is a talented writer who can tell an entertaining story. Tolkien was a brilliant thinker who developed not only a story, but a whole mythology to underlie it, a whole world which could exist as a mirror of our own. He was also a Catholic Christian, and quite faithful (if at time curmudgeonly) concerning his religion.

Rowling, for her part, loosely defined herself as a Christian writer, but on the other hand openly embraces a number of doctrines incompatible with series Christian thinking.

So, to give one simple example of a difference between the two, whereas Rowling is openly cheering this on (and condemning in the name of tolerance all others whose beliefs differ from hers) Tolkien is rightly rolling in his grave over it.

Tolerance and Judgment

I've already linked Prof. J. Budziszewski once this week, but he also participated in the Intercollegiate Review's featured interview, IR Office Hours, the first question of which was about tolerance and diversity. Here is the Question and the answer, to get us started:

Tolerance and diversity are words usually used by the Left in academia to squash freedom of speech, especially among conservatives. How would you define the true role of tolerance?—Luciana E. Milano, Harvard University 

J. Budziszewski: The liberal rationale for toleration grounds it on an incoherency: supposedly we put up with some bad and false things because we suspend moral judgment about the good and true. But if we really suspended judgment, it would be hard to see why anything should be tolerated—or why anything shouldn’t be tolerated, or, if we are going to be tolerant, which things should be tolerated and which things shouldn’t be. Actually, the nonjudgmentalist wants only his opponents to suspend judgment. He rams through his own moral judgments by pretending that they aren’t moral judgments. 

By contrast, the classical rationale for toleration grounds it on a paradox: we put up with some bad and false things because the nature of the good and true demands it. For example, we don’t coerce faith, because as St. Hilary of Poitiers said, God does not desire unwilling obedience; we don’t repress the expression of false opinions, because debate helps us find our way to the truth. Notice, then, what true toleration requires: not suspending judgment but judging more adequately.

Meanwhile, Marcel LeJeune has a good post up for the Aggie Catholics blog about judging--that was the subject of the readings this last Sunday, after all.

Eye of the Tiber on the Black Mass

I've been very busy lately, so I haven't really had time for blogging. And apparently my co-blogger has been dealing with computer issues. In any case, we more-or-less skipped over the Harvard Black Mass debacle. I guess I have a few short reactions to it.

First of all, any claim that this is meant to be merely a cultural event, and not meant to offend anybody, is blatantly ridiculous. The claim might be made--albeit even then it would stretch the bounds of credibility--if this was, say, a pseudo-Black Mass, or if they skipped over the whole desecrating of the Eucharist part which is the the central aspect of a Black Mass. And they did, after all, initially make the claim to have obtained a consecrated Host for this express purpose. They retracted this claim later, of course, but why make the claim in the first place if not to specifically "offend" Catholics?

Second, I can't really give props to Harvard for not hosting this, because the university's response was at best tepid and seemingly forced. Many of the faculty and administrative staff have long since sold their souls, at least figuratively, and they seem to have backed down on this one only after strong public reaction against it. Even then, it doesn't seem to me that the university (or at least the university's president) really went so far as to say "no, we will not allow this on campus." The Canon lawyer Dr. Ed Peters rightly compares the university's president's reaction here to that of Pontius Pilate towards the crucifixion of Jesus. In some sense, Pilate's washing of his hands was a better reaction, in that he could at least claim (vincible) ignorance about Jesus.

Finally, Eye of the Tiber replies with a dose of parody, lest people argue that this is really just a "cultural experience" which is not meant to offend any particular group. But really, offending faithful Catholics is the least of the sins here.

Quick Link: What Am I Not Supposed to Judge

"Judge not, lest you be judged; condemn not, lest you be condemned." Yes, but what am I not supposed to judge, since elsewhere I read: "By their fruits you shall know them"? The answers might be: a person's "heart"/intentions; the state of his soul; his circumstances and struggles; or his knowledge of the sinfulness of his actions. On the other hand, the action itself must absolutely by "judged," as in evaluated: this is a good action, this is a bad action, this was a good deed, this was a vile sin. A man's "works" are his visible fruits, and we are instructed to pay at least some attention to these.