For the other side of the story, read all the posts provided here. It was a combination of de Lubac, Giussani & Schindler who turned me onto the thought of Teilhard by referencing him over and over again through a variety of their works. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but I trust de Lubac's, Giussani's, & Schindler's opinion on this matter. It should not be taken lightly. For example, de Lubac was put in defense of Teilhard's thought (after his death) by the Jesuits. His multiple books on Teilhard are balanced and very much worth reading.
Why is it the Traditionalists seem to be the only ones who have a problem with Teilhard? They also have a problem with large parts of Vat. II (religious freedom, liturgy, etc.) therefore let us take their criticism with a grain of salt. That's not ignoring the bottom portion of the TCRnew.com article either (the letters from the Vatican), but let's put it in historical context. Many, many others (including de Lubac, Rahner, etc.) were silenced in this period as well. I don't think Balthasar was "silenced," but he was prevented from being an advisor @ Vat. II. (In all fairness this probably had more to do with him leaving the Jesuits.) One cannot discount the Church politics that occurred between the traditionalist camp before the Council and those who they called "la nouvelle theologie" though.
Let us not forget that Cardinal George's doctrinal dissertation was on Teilhard. I would be very curious to hear what B16's opinion of Teilhard is.
1 comment:
Hi David,
I was just reading your Teilhard post.
B16, as Cardinal Ratzinger, offered what as I recall were some mostly appreciative thoughts about Teilhard in Introduction to Christianity. I don't have my copy here at home, so I can't give you page numbers.
By the way, I think Smith's book The Quantum Enigma is pretty good. I'm disappointed in some of his other stuff, like on Teilhard.
Kevin Miller
(HMS Blog – http://www.exceptionalmarriages.com/weblog/)
Post a Comment