Yes he is! No he isn't! Yes he is...

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 21 Jan 2003, 16:18 · from urth-v0301.mbox · original

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <ddanehy at siebel.com>
Subject: RE: (urth) Yes he is! No he isn't! Yes he is...
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:18:13 -0700
Message-ID: <urth-v0301-2750 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0301/2750.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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. =3D20

[...etc...]

Yes: Chesterton once observed that -- paraphrasing from=3D20
memory -- "Catholics agree about everything; it is only=3D20
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=3D20
range of play for individual opinions on a wide variety=3D20
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=3D20
truth of the faith?" Tolkien's answer was to make the
Valar angelic beings; Wolfe seems to have answered the
question in ... other ... ways.

--Blattid

--=20

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net