# So sickening...



## Snaga (Jan 27, 2003)

I read in the 'Sunday Mercury' a story that made me sick to the stomach.

Tolkien's eldest son John Tolkien, who recently died, was alleged by this paper to be a serial child abuser, who took advantage of his position as a Catholic priest to carry out crimes against children.

Obviously I have no way of verifying the claim, but I do not have any reason to be believe it is not true either, from what is a reputable newspaper. You can read it here:Article 

Obviously any revelation of this kind about anyone is appalling. But when it the son of the author of books that are very close to my heart, is even more difficult to stomach.

My sympathy to all the victims of these sickening crimes.

The Sunday Mercury is a paper for the Birmingham area, which of course was where Tolkien spent much of his life.


----------



## Celebthôl (Jan 27, 2003)

Thats pathetic and sick, and i for one don't believe a word of it! its just a damn sicko who hates LOTR or some such thing, making it up i i'll bet and i'd wager a hefty sum on that too!

Thôl

My sympathy to all the victims of these sickening crimes also.


----------



## Turgon (Jan 27, 2003)

Actually I remember this story being on the national news some months back - I felt a real shock over the allegations too - but then after the initial report I heard nothing more of it. I've been wondering when it would surface again. It is terrible though - beggars the mind really - true or not - it's something that's happened far to often. One begins to wonder just how much the vow of celibacy plays in all these horror stories.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Jan 27, 2003)

So sad. It bothers me even more that he has the same first name as his father.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Jan 27, 2003)

We can only say that God was kind to spare his father and mother the knowledge of their son's terrible crimes and his tragic sickness. Let us pray for those who suffered because of this man's illness, that they will find healing and peace. 

As for the man himself, what happens now is between himself and God, but woe to those who having been informed of his depredations, permitted them to continue. They bear a greater burden of guilt than the man himself since obviously he was suffering from some deviant character trait.

I would also hope that those who try to profit from such scandals are not able to drag his _father's_ name through the mud or infer that Tolkien did something as a father that might have influenced his son towards such horrific behavior.


----------



## Celebthôl (Jan 29, 2003)

so what you actually think that he did this...?


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Jan 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Celebthôl _
> *so what you actually think that he did this...? *



Alas, given what has been revealed in the scandals in the American Catholic Church, it is not at all far-fetched. Certainly, if Fr. John knew about these charges - and apparently he did from what has been shown - had he been innocent he would have spoken up strongly in his defense. That he did not, although not conclusive in and of itself, is strongly indicative of guilt.


----------



## Parrot (Jan 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Celebthôl _
> *so what you actually think that he did this...? *


You actually think people feel that strongly about JRR Tolkien that they would accuse his son of being a serial child abuser just to smear the good name? I find this more than a little hard to believe.


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Jan 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Parrot _
> *You actually think people feel that strongly about JRR Tolkien that they would accuse his son of being a serial child abuser just to smear the good name? I find this more than a little hard to believe. *



Hello beautiful Parrot and where have you been? I haven't seen you about the forum? I was concerned that you might have been "snowed in" up there in God's country.

As to your point: while there is a tendency to jump on the "celebrity bandwagon" in apportioning blame for any type of scandalous behavior, I would say as this has _not_ become a giant media sideshow, the chances are (unhappily) that the charge has merit. If it had been released in a blizzard of media feeding frenzy before the films were released - or at the time of their release - I might have been more skeptical. But as it is, I fear that hard as it is to credit, there really is "fire" to go with the smoke. 

Well, whatever happened, the man is fortunately beyond any possible use of the matter to blacken the family name. It is now a matter between him and God and I certainly will not speculate further on the subject.

Anyway, welcome back (if, in fact, you have been "away"!).


----------



## aragil (Jan 29, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Mrs. Maggott _
> *Hello beautiful Parrot and where have you been? I haven't seen you about the forum? I was concerned that you might have been "snowed in" up there in God's country.*


 Any snow up here would be welcome, at this point.

Re. MM's point earlier that at least John Sr. and Edith had no knowledge- I sometimes wonder if JRRT might not have had some suspicion. It has always seemed strange to me that the great majority of Letters are to his younger son, Christopher, and none are to John Jr. Perhaps JRRT sensed that something was not quite right about his eldest? Or, perhaps JRRT did write letters to John Jr, but they weren't of an appropriate to tone for their inclusion in Letters.

On a side note- that Sunday Mercury seems to have a toe of reporting quite different than what I've seen here in the States. I was surprised at the colorful language used to describe John Jr. Is that typical of UK papers, or specific to the nature of this article?


----------



## Parrot (Jan 29, 2003)

Mrs. M.,

I wouldn't say that I have necessarily been away; I have been lurking. I haven't yet taken in TTT and this being coupled with it being my busy time of year, has left with little to say and less time to say it, if you get my meaning. 

As Aragil says we are still praying for snow 'round here. I have a sledding date with my kids on Sunday and I would hate to have to break another one.

I appreciate the "Welcome back", I hope I will have something to contribute at some point. Yes, I know what you're all thinking - "that would be a first!"


----------



## Mrs. Maggott (Jan 29, 2003)

Well, it could be that JRRT thought he was harboring a cuckoo in the nest (the European cuckoo is like our American cowbird - they lay their eggs in another bird's nest and let the other birds raise them. Why the heck didn't _I_ think of that!).

Anyway, having an academic background as he did, Tolkien would have caught hints early on of his oldest son's proclivities. God knows, he would have seen enough of that kind of thing in his own school days and later on as an instructor. You must remember that although these men are called pedophiles, they are not. A pedophile usually goes for very young children and can go for either boys or girls. What you have here is what many homosexuals call "chicken hawks"; that is, men attracted to pubescent boys. They lose interest in them when they are over 17 or so and aren't interested in children any younger than around 12. Men like this can be found as coaches, scout leaders, teachers, clergy, any occupation or activity which attracts boys between the ages of 12 and 16 or 17. That's why many parents are warned to watch out for adult volunteers in these positions who are "too good to be true". They may very well be not "good" at all. 

Of course, having said that, the truth is that the vast majority of men to volunteer or who are clergy are absolutely normal and do a wonderful job. 

And, of course, as I said before, those who protect and shield such individuals, allowing them to prey upon children even after they have been discovered are even more guilty than the predators themselves who often times cannot help themselves.


----------



## j0n4th4n (Feb 6, 2003)

did this story ever appear in national news? 
the fact that its a local paper makes me a bit more skeptical, however I can't say that I don't suspect its true or at least partly true (exagerrated), but I hope its not.


----------

