FIND in
<--prev V301 next-->
Subject: RE: (urth) Yes he is! No he isn't! Yes he is...
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:18:13 -0700
From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" 

Alex David Groce wrote:
> On the other hand, orthodoxy on core points declared by the
> Church leaves a great deal of room for "oddity."  Nutria's
> example of ghosts comes to mind--Russell Kirk and Gene Wolfe
> can believe in ghosts and be quite orthodox Catholics.  As
> could G. K. Chesterton. =20


Yes: Chesterton once observed that -- paraphrasing from=20
memory -- "Catholics agree about everything; it is only=20
everything else we disagree about." A Catholic's approach
to the dogmas of the Church is generally, well, dogmatic;
however, despite what such fine minds as Jack Chick have
"proven" over and over again, that still leaves a huge=20
range of play for individual opinions on a wide variety=20
of topics ...

Wolfe has never, to the best of my knowledge, written
anything that so much as suggests that he is anything
but an orthodox Catholic. His approach to things like
pagan gods, in books like "Doors" and "Soldier of Foo,"
seem to me remniscent of -- and here's that C* F* thing
again -- Tolkien's approach to the Valar: not in detail,
but in the attitude of, "well, if the Universe we live
in is _thus_, what room does it leave for these beings
the ancients called 'gods?' How can I write about them,
assuming their actual existence, without denying the=20
truth of the faith?" Tolkien's answer was to make the
Valar angelic beings; Wolfe seems to have answered the
question in ... other ... ways.



<--prev V301 next-->