Jesuit Father Teilhard de Chardin was a real thorn in the side of the Church. Pope Pius XII's 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis, severely criticized the "speculative theology" surrounding the theory of evolution being propagated by de Chardin and other theologians and philosophers of his day. The great Catholic writer, Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand (1889-1977), wrote a careful analysis of de Chardin's questionable theories captured in two publications, The Charitable Anathema, and The Trojan Horse in the City of God. Pope Pius XII called Dr. von Hildebrand "the 20th century Doctor of the Church." Dr. von Hildebrand concludes that "Teilhardism" and Christianity are incompatible especially when Chardin tries to synthesize the Christian God and the "Marxist God". "Teilhard's Christ is no longer Jesus, the God-man, the epiphany of God, the Redeemer. Instead, He is the initiator of a purely natural evolutionary process and, simultaneously, its end - the Christ-Omega." [Trojan Horse, p. 286] In Teilhard's letter to a friend, Leontine Zanta, he reveals openly his intention to spread a new revelation: "As you know, what dominates my interest and my preoccupations is the effort to establish in myself and to spread around a new religion (you may call it a better Christianity) in which the personal God ceases to be the great neolithic proprietor of former times, in order to become the soul of the world."
Sir Peter Medawar, the Nobel Prize winner, spoke of de Chardin's mental confusion and exaggerated expression that he said bordered on "hysteria". Medawar also pronounced de Chardin's work unscientific in its procedure, his works in general lacking scientific structure. Another scientist, Jean Rostand, said about the Jesuit's work that it did not "cast the slightest light on the great problem of organic evolution". [From Trojan Horse, p. 274] Why Teilhard's theories, fashionable in the 50s and 60s but out of favor today, is still taken seriously by some is a real mystery.
Teilhard is also mentioned in The Case for the Latin Mass by DIETRICH VON HILDEBRAND.
This topic of Teilhard's thought has been an on-going dialog on this blog. Older posts include "Emmanuel Mounier and Personalism" (refer to the comments), "Grace and the Form of Nature and Culture" (Dr. Schindler's view on Teilhard), "The Heart of Matter" , and "The Heart of Teilhard de Chardin's Spirituality" .
10 comments:
Has Teilhard's letter to a friend, Leontine Zanta, been historically verified? Is it an authentic letter? I have serious doubts.
Good question, the comments are not placed in context. I take more from Von Hildebrand's criticisms and am led to believe that teilhard's Christianity was so progressive that it was a "new Christianity" and in need of integration with tradition. Does Clark referance him. Clark's existentialism, and theology of evolution, would certainly be a good incorporation of teilhard's insights into the Catholic tradition.
I corrected the spelling of his name in my post, but in the publication whose link is provided to you, his name is repeatedly misspelled. If you are going to criticize somebody, at least spell their name correctly! Talking about kicking the guy in the grave. One can hope that he resting in Heaven though and smiling down on us, but I suspect these folks believe it's a little hot where he is at.
Yea, the presentation of the article and especially the quote from the letter are conspiracy theory orientated. He was part of the great conspiracy to undermine the tradition. Blah Blah Blah. I'll stick to reading Von Hildebrand's criticisms.
Don't forget Flannery O'Connor. She named a collection of short stories, "Everything that Rises Must Converge," after Teilhard's evolutionary optimism. Needless to say, not much converges in the stories.
The most serious danger to humanity on its present course is that it should finally forget the essential thing, that is, its spiritual concentration, faced as it is by the cosmic discoveries made for it by science, and by the collective power revealed to it by social organization. For does not the secularist neo-religion strive, in its confused fashion, to represent the Diety as a sort of diffusive energy, or even as a heartless and shapeless super-society? At this dangerous stage, which threatens the existence of souls, it is, I suppose, Christianity which will, and can, intervene, to bring back human hopes and desires to the only path which conforms to the fundamental laws of being and of life.
Until quite recently it could be held that nothing was so unfashionable, so anthropomorphic, as the Christian's personal God. Yet now, in what was apparently the most outworn, yet the most fundamental, of its tenants, the Christian Gospel discovers that it has become the most relevant of religions. Christianity, faced by a humanity that runs the risk of allowing that consciousness, which has been already awakened in it by the developments of modern life to be absorbed in that "second matter" of philosophic determinisms and social techniques, upholds the primacy of reflective, that is, personalized, thought. And it does so in the most effective way of all: not only by a speculative defense, through its teaching, of the possibility of a consciousness which is at the same time central and universal, but still more by conveying and developing through its mysticism the meaning and, in some sort, the direct intuition of this center of total convergence.
The very least that an unbeliever must admit today, if he understands the biological condition of the world, is that the figure of Christ (not only as it is described in a book, but as it is concretely realized in the Christian consciousness) is the most perfect approximation yet achieved of a final object toward which the universal effort of mankind may tend without fear of weariness or deformation.
Thus, contrary to current notions, it is by its dogmas as well as by its moral system that Christianity is human and can be called upon once more to save the world in the immediate future . . ."
~Teilhard, qtd in Catholicism by de Lubac, pages 437-438. Appendix with extended quotes from the Catholic tradition (mostly passages that are some of the brightest jewels of patristics on ecclessiology)
One last question on teilhard. What are his views on the Liturgy. From the little research I have done, most of the reasonable criticism (Von Hildebrand...) are centered around the liturgy. What were his views on the liturgy, was he an strong proponent of liberal reforms? I think its Time to get a hold of Von Hildebrand's Trojan Horse in the City of God.
Michael,
Yes, I agree that by reading Von Hildebrand's Trojan Horse in the City of God would be a good idea. Reading anything written by either of the Hildebrands is a good thing. I see that Alice has a brand new book out by Ignatius Press.
I'm not exactly sure what Teilhard's position on the liturgy was. I shall do some research and let everyone know. He died a full decade before the Novos Ordo was even introduced though so I highly doubt he was proposing anything radical. One must keep in mind though that the Hildebrands had/have a problem with the Novo Ordo in general. They much preferred/prefer the Tridentine Rite. So was his problem more with the changing of the Liturgy than with Teilhard in general?
DEifficult to answer that question. From the article of his that you posted he criticizes what he calls teilhar's "collectivism." He later comments on teilhard's "immanentism," not sure what he means by that. he apparently has some problems with Teilhard's theological view. In simple words he may object to the lack of recognition of God as "other." That's my guess, I'll have to research more.
Teilhard had an incredibly strong Eucharistic piety. Everything I have read of him in regards to the liturgy & the sacraments (especially the Eucharist) is orthodox and right on mark.
It's important that you read Teilhard's own works and/or those who understand his thought, i.e. de Lubac.
Post a Comment