This is very reminiscent of Gnostic theogonies where the Demiurge, the Christ-figure, is reduced to a later emanation of the Pleroma, or Plenum. But:

"...with Manwe dwells Varda, Lady of the Stars, who knows all the regions of Ea Too great is her beauty to be declared in the words of Men or of Elves; for the light of Iluvatar lives still in her face. In light is her power and her joy. Out of the deeps of Fa she came to the aid of Manwe; for Melkor she knew from before the making of the Music and rejected him, and he hated her, and feared her more than all others whom Em made. Manwe and Varda are seldom parted, and they remain in Valinor. ... Of all the Great Ones who dwell in this world the Elves hold Varda most in reverence and love. Elbereth they name her, and they call upon her name out of the shadows of Middle-earth, and uplift it in song at the rising of the stars."

Manwe corresponds in Greek mythology to Uranus who is wedded to Gaia, or Earth, as the Sky spreads over earth. It would seem that Tolkien, perhaps even unwittingly, is writing a kinds of reverse myth, perhaps trying to lift up the ancient gods and goddesses to the level of Divine Revelation? In any case, my Catholic sensibilities are deeply offended by this placing of a figure so obviously intended to resemble the Ever-virgin Mary, Mother of God, in a context so inappropriate to say the least Manwe, as God of the Air, in no way resembles the blessed Trinity, much less the Second Person. 

Now we know that Mary, beloved by God from all Eternity and an essential part of His Plan for Creation, is the Daughter of God the Father, the Mother of God the Son, and the Spouse of God the Holy Ghost. She is the nearest any creature could come to an incarnation of the Holy Spirit.

In the context of the Fall, She is the Second Eve, repairing by Her obedience the disobedience of Eve. But more than this, just as human nature is incomplete with only one sex, so the Incarnation and Redemption could not be fully realized without Mary as Co-Redemptrix.

This next part is complex but crucial, for it shows how Tolkien’s epic implies many long ages of death and destruction before the creation of and Fall of man. There is no place in Token’s story for an original Adam and Eve and their personal sin as the unique cause of sickness, death and all the other consequences of Original Sin in us, as Catholic doctrine teaches.

Purtill says:

"The “Ainulindale” ends with the embodiment of the Valar and the beginning of conflicts between Melkor and the Valar over the control of Arda, the world; as the Valar form the work, he tries to destroy or distort these forms. Because of Melkor’s interference, the Valar are notableto completely carry out either Iluvatar’s original design for the world or their own permitted variations of that design. This is the third major departure from traditional ʝʊdɛօ-Christian theology: The idea that the actual physical form of the universe has been interfered with and spoiled by the Enemy of God, before the Fall of Man." (p. 127) (Emphasis added)

That much is clear, as Purtill puts it. But then he adds a long quotation from a 1958 letter of Tolkien in which Tolkien tries to explain his “theology” and succeeds mainly, in my opinion, in making matters worse. But here is the text of the letter and Purtill’s attempt at clarification:

"I suppose a difference between the myth and what may be perhaps called Christian mythology is this. In the latter the Fall of Man is subsequent to and a consequent (though not a necessary) consequence of the “Fall of the Angels”: a rebellion of created free-will at a higher level than Man; but it is not clearly held (and in many versions is not held at all) that this affected the “World’ in its nature: evil was brought in from the outside by Satan."

Thus far it is reasonably clear in presenting the traditional view. But from here on it becomes confused:

"In this Myth [meaning his own] the rebellion of created free-will [???]  creation of the world Ea and Ea has in it, subcreatively introduced evil, rebellions, discordant elements in its own nature already when the Let it be was spoken."

This is the usual ploy of the Modernist – to separate defined, ex cathedra pronouncements from the constancy and consistency of dogmatic Tradition based mainly on the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors. But now comes a crucial aspect of this whole question, even aside from the dogmatic points of angelic nature. It is the question of time:

"The Fourth Council of the Lateran, for example, declared that “the Devil and the other demons were created good in nature by God, but by their own act they became evil.” However, nothing is defined about the time of this occurrence: theological speculation has tended to assume that all the angels fell at the same time, but there is no strong reason to suppose that this is correct."

For Purtill, then, the consensus of all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church with a strong Tradition behind it does not provide any kind of “strong reason” to suppose that the correct view is the traditional one – which view, incidentally, is based on the angelic nature itself and the fact that they do not exist in time as we know it but in a state called aevitemity; that the nature of the angelic creature made it impossible for the angel to reason discursively over a decision to be made. Rather, the angelic intellect arrives immediately and irreformably at its decision – for all eternity. Therefore, that the Lateran Council did not define anything about the time of the angels’ fall is irrelevant, given the angelic nature and state. But Purtill ends with this attempt to gloss over and blur these essential distinctions:

"The key point in Tolkien’s “myth’, however, is that the fall of the angels had an actual physical effect on the world, that some of the harsher and uglier aspects of the material universe may not have been in God’s original design. ... " (p. 128-12).

Again, this “explanation” only highlights the fact that Tolkien’s mythology knows nothing of an original personal sin against a good God on the part of our First Parents; knows nothing of the promised Redemption in the Incarnation of the Second Person of the blessed Trinity; and knows nothing of the great Proto-Evangel of Genesis 3:15 which set the eternal enmities between the Seed of the Woman, Mary, and the Seed of the Serpent, Lucifer. And lacking all this, I continually fail to see how Tolkien’s work can be praised as Catholic!

The best aspect of Purtill’s study, in my opinion, is his analysis of the characters revealing their essentially humanistic nature with emphasis upon their vulnerability. They have no need of Divine Grace; they exist in a pre-Christian or sub­Christian world that seems to anticipate, unaccountably, those virtues that Neo­Catholics most value: human love and self-sacrifice for human motives. Even Purtill admits this when he says:

"... we do find a gap in the logic of Tolken’s story. He comes close to implying that a good society (the Shire, Numenor before its fall) can exist without reference to God ..."

He goes on to protest that Tolkien never meant such a world. However, one seeks in vain for evidence of a personal God, especially for the Incarnate God Jesus Christ, in all the adventures and perils of the Hobbits and their fellows. Devoted critics claim He is there but they cannot quote a passage. They find Him there because they want to find Him there so they can claim Tolkien as a Catholic writer - the greatest of the 20th century, according to many. But these are false pretenses.

Just as in the ancient myths, the emphasis is upon the choices the heroes make. One thinks of Oedipus trying to evade the oracle by his deliberate choices and of the fateful choice of Paris for Aphrodite and Helen of Troy. Here the emphasis is upon a fate dominating human choices. In contrast, Tolkien seems almost obsessed with the free-will of his heroes. But also, with showing how their free-will is constrained and circuмscribed by the situations in which they find themselves. Is this Tolkien’s analogue of the pagan goddess of Necessity or Fate? In a letter Tolkien explains:

"Frodo indeed "failed" as a hero, as conceived by simple minds: he did not endure to the end: he gave in, ratted. I do not say “simple minds” with contempt: they often see with clarity the simple truth and the absolute ideal to which effort must be directed, even if it. is unattainable. Their weakness, however, is twofold. They do not perceive the complexity o f any given situation in Time, in which an absolute ideal is enmeshed. They tend to forget ... Pity or Mercy, which is an absolute requirement in moral judgment... we must estimate the limits of another’s strength and weigh this against the force of particular circuмstances. I do not think that Frodo’s was a moral failure. at the last moment the pressure of the Ring would reach a maximum -- impossible ... for anyone to resist ... Frodo had done what he could and spent himself completely." (p. 81)

This sounds a lot like the excuses for mortal sin that the situational ethic moralists or ethicists give in explanation for moral failures.

Tolkien has created a world without Jesus Christ, without His Most Holy Mother Mary, without the Martyrs and Saints who found the sole source of their courage and self-sacrifice in the Grace and example of Jesus and Mary; a world without the Church Christ founded and instituted as the necessary dispenser of His grace through Her Sacraments and other disciplinary practices. And yet – wondrous to relate – Tolkien’s Hobbit heroes manifest all the failings and heroisms of the Church’s saints -- and most especially those with the ideals of the Neo-Catholic human love and human sacrifice for human ends. The entire Order of the Supernatural, so necessary not only for sanctification but for salvation – is obliterated. I am reminded of a novel by Morris West entitled The Devil’s Advocate in which a man is canonized mainly because he failed to conquer the vice of lust. He was weak, like Frodo, and it is this very weakness that the Neo-Catholic loves to focus on and praise. Strange perversity! I am also reminded of those novels of the passionate Bronte’s, especially Wuthering Heights, wherein the very human passion of Heathcliff and Catherine is presented as somehow heroic, even “beyond heroism” in its intensity whereas in reality, it is a most abominable and defiant violation of the First Commandment. But then, it is worth noting in contrast that Tolkien’s characters know nothing of the Ten Commandments; Bronte’s characters did! And then again, Iluvatar never became a Hobbit or a Man or even an Elf to dwell amongst them. Therefore, the humanity or Hobbitness is all these characters know. Whence, then, comes their moral sense?

Well, at least one critic has found the answer. Philip Norman writing in The New York Times Magazine back in 1967, had this:

"“Hobbits,” Tolkien says, “have what you might call universal morals. I should say they are examples of natural philosophy and natural religion.” They are certainly capable of extraordinary bravery and humaneness: living in burrows, their creator declares, doesn’t amount to anything like an animal link."

We have shown the relation of the original ancient myths to the Primordial Revelation given to Adam. These ancient myths were degradations and corruptions, some brought about naturally and others deliberately, of the Original but still preserving vestiges of that Original. Catholic scholars have identified these vestiges as proofs of their true nature and that of their Source.

Since Tolkien himself describes and defends all of his stories as subcreative myths, we are not only permitted but even required to ask: what is the relation of these epic narratives of Middle-Earth to the one and only Divine Revelation guarded and taught by the Catholic Church?

I see Tolkien’s stories as an alternate, even a competition and an attempt at an improvement upon what he himself refers to as “Christian mythology”.

In the view of the Fathers of the Church, Lucifer-Satan played a large part in the elaboration of the ancient myths, aiding in their distortion of the Original Revelation. These distortions in ancient times took the forms mainly of horrific physical violence and the grossest sɛҳuąƖ passion. One has only to think of Marduk who splits open the female god Tiamat’ “like a mussel”, to form the Sky above and the Earth beneath – after previous similarly violent wars between lesser gods. Or one recalls the pervasive carnality of the Greek gods, the ever-jealous wives of the ever-lusting male gods for female goddesses and human women.

Now we recognize that there is nothing like this in Tolkien’s epic or in any of his stories. Iluvatar creates “the offspring of his thought”, the Ainur, and he speaks to them, causing them to sing. As for the creation of Elves and Men and Dwarves, this seems almost to be beneath him, and he leaves much of the material creation to his Ainur. There is no manifestly sɛҳuąƖ passion amongst these angel-gods. Each male god simply “dwells” with his female Queen. And so it is throughout the entire epic. There are battles and constant treks and adventurous journeys, but these are all almost identical with similar battles and treks in Beowulf, other Celtic and Norse saga and the Arthurian cycle. There is nothing like the dis-membering of gods and goddesses in the Babylonian Genesis and other ancient myths. Tolkien’s myth is really quite conventional epic and romance when it comes to love and battles. The creation myth, and the elaborate geography of another world called Middle-Earth replete with Elves, Dwarves, Orcs and other fantastic creatures as well as Hobbits - these are the elements added to the epic and romance genres of conventional literature.

But Lucifer is adept at all methods of contaminating, corrupting and counterfeiting the Truth, both as the Person of Our Lord and as His doctrine. In ancient times Lucifer used open and violent brutality and lust. Today he must be more subtle because, for all its real violence and lust, our society proclaims itself as opposed to these evils and holds itself up as a model of the humane and humanitarian rather than as Christian or religious.

The Grandest myth of them all, that of Evolution from cosmic Big-Bang evolution to molecules-to-Man evolution, focuses on our human rights and dignity as both discoverers and inventors of this Grand Story of Everything. This is Lucifer’s Masterpiece, his cosmic Counterfeit.

As Joseph Pearce insisted, Tolkien’s mythology fits right into this larger Mythology of evolutionary paganism. It subsists comfortably in this modern world view. If it did not, you may be sure it would have been rejected by such culture-makers as The Science Fiction Book Club, the Franklin Mint, and others; nor would it ever have made it to the Movies. Tolkien’s mythology is, by popular democratic consensus, part and parcel of the Modernist evolutionary world view.

Tolkien has created a world without Jesus Christ, without His Most Holy Mother Mary, without the Martyrs and Saints who found the sole source of their courage and self-sacrifice in the Grace and example of Jesus and Mary; a world without the Church Christ founded and instituted as the necessary dispenser of His grace through Her Sacraments and other disciplinary practices. And yet – wondrous to relate – Tolkien’s Hobbit heroes manifest all the failings and heroisms of the Church’s saints -- and most especially those with the ideals of the Neo-Catholic human love and human sacrifice for human ends. The entire Order of the Supernatural, so necessary not only for sanctification but for salvation – is obliterated. 

Very true