Chardin's Omega Point

  • Thread starter Thread starter stavros388
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stavros388

Guest
Greetings. I apologize if this is posted in the wrong place. I wonder if anyone is familiar with Teilhard de Chardin and his Omega Point theory? I also wonder if anyone can tell me if he or his writings are generally accepted within the Catholic Church. Or on the other hand, has the Church condemned him for heresy or advised Catholics against reading him? Does anyone here have an opinion about him? While I have not yet investigated his ideas extensively enough to say much, I can say that it seems a hopeful and ambitious attempt at harmonizing biological evolution and Christian thought.

For anyone unfamiliar with his Omega Point concept, here is a summary:

“Teilhard thus follows the evolutionist understanding of an evolutionary progression from inanimate matter through primitive life and invertebrates to fish, amphibia, reptiles, mammals, and finally man; always an increase in consciousness. With man a threshhold is crossed - self-conscious thought, or mind, appears. But even humans do not represent the end-point of evolution, for this process will continue until all humans are united in a single Divine Christ-consciousness, the “Omega Point” (so-called after the last letter of the Greek alphabet - hence the Hellenistic statement attributed to Christ (but unlikely to be said by him, as he would not have known Greek - “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end”). Teilhardian cosmology thus revolves around the idea of an evolutionary progression towards greater and greater consciousness, culminating first in the appearance of self-conscious mind in humankind, and then in the Omega point of divinisation of humanity.”
 
I don’t think I’ve read Chardin in over half a century. Although generally, not knowing much about a subject doesn’t prevent me from having an opinion, in this case I will limit my comments to your summary (actually by Beatrice Bruteau, “Evolution towards Divinity”):

My main point of contention would be that the purpose, the “evolution” of nature towards Divinity is implied within the summary, to be inherent in itself without any reference to its Creator. The quote is but a description of the surface of cosmic history, pointing out the increasing complexity, which appears in jumps of significant and quite remarkable qualitative change. Nothing in the passage addresses its Source: a Cause which exists outside the order of the universe that directs it towards His ends. While “evolution” is proof of God’s existence to me, it seems to do the exact opposite for many others. In short, I think there is insufficient emphasis on God. In this regard, what is significant in my opinion is not the development of consciousness (whatever specifically the author means by that) but the capacity to love, which lies at the foundation of this ability. We see in humanity, the creation of free will, allowing us to commune with, by giving of ourselves over to what is other, for its good. It is God’s will that we come to Him, that we become Christ-like. Also, God did not set a clockwork universe in motion, but is with us in every moment, guiding us to His kingdom.
 
One will find that some have taken is writings and run in wrong directions with them - so I would not rely on current writers to understand him or his thought (which can be rather difficult …and often was simply his thinking or works that were not edited with view of publication etc).

(and as Dr. Peter Kreeft notes “Most of the current disciples of Teilhard de Chardin seem to me to be corn flakes” “The Angel and the Ants” Servant 1994)

He was a Priest and a Jesuit. A Priest who was obedient and who certainly loved Christ and his Church.

After his death the Church issued a warning about his writings - you can google WARNING REGARDING THE WRITINGS OF FATHER TEILHARD DE CHARDIN - and EWTN to find it and a later statement from 1981.

There were certainly ambiguities in his writings and areas that could lead one who astray who was not theologically prepared etc…

He was not a Theologian and often his writings were more of a “poetic” nature and also as noted many were never revised by him in view of publication.

Cardinal Schonborn has a bit about his approach in his book “Chance or Purpose” published by Ignatius. (A current book that is about the subject of Evolution.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top