Is Tolkien guilty if Lord of the Rings causes someone to sin? (Cooperation with Evil Question)

[ReverseSweep]

The title is just an example, not really sure how that book could (haven’t read it in years).

I have heard of cooperation with sin before, and I have had the thought that if anyone has any influence - especially far-reaching influence - than they will more than likely be “part” of someone’s sin, somewhere, at some point. But then again, the Bible is (mis)used by some people to sin through violence, and obviously Jesus isn’t guilty of a sin. How does this kind of thing work? Does the author/influential figure’s intentions matter the most?

Honestly I’m just curious about this as cooperation with evil seems to be the one area that is genuinely confusing to me regardless of how much I try to understand it.

 

[ReaderT]

Is God guilty of sin, because He created the beautiful woman, whom men lust after?

 

[blackforest]

Human choices cause people to sin. We are not entitled to deflect the blame onto Tolkien or anybody else.

 

[Sarcelle]

Hmm, are pastry chefs guilty if people over indulge in baked goods and commit the sin of gluttony?

How about jewelry stores? Are they guilty if robbers steal their goods?

No to both.

 

[Zaccheus]

There is a distinction between an author’s intent and a reader’s interpretation. The author is responsible for their own intent; not for how a reader may twist that intent.

 

[po18guy]

No. Impossible as long as we retain free will.

 

[Vico]

…

Scandal (Modern Catholic Dictionary)

Any action or its omission, not necessarily sinful in itself, that is likely to induce another to do something morally wrong. Direct scandal, also called diabolical, has the deliberate intention to induce another to sin. In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she foresees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired.
(Etym. Latin scandalum , stumbling block.)

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If someone writes a book that has a main purpose of causing someone to sin - for example, a pornographic book that is written on purpose to get people sexually excited - then yes, they are guilty of leading others into sin.

However, if someone writes a book that has artistic value and/or has neutral material, and people somehow commit sins from reading it anyway, the author can’t be held responsible for people who commit sins based on his book that wasn’t designed or intended to encourage sin.

 

[ReverseSweep]

Thank you for your answers so far everyone, they are super helpful.

Blockquote In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she foresees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired.
(Etym. Latin scandalum , stumbling block.)

This part from Vico/Modern Catholic Dictionary is what worries me. I worry because one day I would like to write a book but if I include something as simple as a female character (or a male, for that matter), someone might lust after them even if there is nothing to encourage that kind of thing. I don’t want to do anything wrong and end up with the old millstone around my neck, if you know what I mean. Obviously, there is like a one in a million chance anyone will ever read what I write, but it’s hard to be motivated when I think about this whole issue.