Saddened, confused, and troubled....
by this article : Tolkien son's child abuse shame . I had heard about a while ago, but this article has far more disturbing details than anything I had seen before, making it seem somewhat more credible than the tiny, two-paragraph reports I have seen previously. Two things puzzle me though. First off, the newspaper claims that the reason it didn't publish about the story before was because they were threatened with a lawsuit. However, now that Fr. Tolkien is dead, the 'truth can be told'. Excuse me ? Does the fact of someone being dead mean that they are less protected by libel laws than the living ? Is this some peculiarity in the British legal system I haven't heard of ? Secondly, I was also a bit put aback by the claim that while there was enough evidence to go to court, the matter was not pursued because Fr. Tolkien was too ill. Being sick means you won't get charged with child abuse ? The whole thing just doesn't jibe.
Of course, I know I'm not exactly impartial. This isn't the sort of thing one wants to believe about any priest, let alone one who also happened to be the eldest son of one's favorite author. And if it is true, the victims deserve as much sympathy as all abused innocents do. But something about it just doesn't completely convince me as yet.