Well of course I think so, being about as Catholic as he seemed to be.
1. I don’t see what the distinction is. Anyone who holds a philosophy of life
dearly should seek to express that philosophy as best they can in everything
they do; moreso if they have creative occupations. The content and design of
Middle-earth is as close to Catholic doctrine as Tolkien wished to make it,
while consciously shying away from equating it with doctrine to the point that
its essence as an entertaining, engrossing “tale” would be lost. Contrast with
Lewis’s works, which are much more openly doctrinal and apologetic.
2. Non-Christians should approach Tolkien’s work the way they would approach
any great work that came from a Christian or inspired by a Christian belief:
the Sistine Chapel ceiling, The Divine Comedy, Bach’s St. Matthew Passion,
Salisbury Cathedral or Notre Dame de Paris, even down to popular music by such
disparate artists as Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, or U2. How: with appreciation for
them as creative works, properly forewarned that with enough exposure, previous
alienation or hostility to their source might turn into understanding ... or
even agreement. A risk they may not wish to take.
3. Reading Tolkien’s Letters, I’ve realized I have quite a few different takes
on Tolkien’s material, particularly his beloved Elvish legends, than he does.
Of course every reader is free in the imagination to imagine whatever they
wish.
---
http://homepage.mac.com/jmar/falcon/. Curiosity is most unusual for a hobbit.
