deChardin or Maritain: Will the real heretic please stand up?

[davidmammola]

Why do so many Catholic publications claim that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is a hero?

For example, I recently picked up the “little white book” (which is handed out at various parishes for the liturgical season of Easter), and I was shocked to find that its meditation for April 10 includes a brief biographical sketch of de Chardin that is full of glowing praise. According to this book, he was holy, inspirational, ahead of his time, and simply misunderstood by the Church.

BTW: Isn’t Peking man considered a fraud?

Tan books published a little booklet called “Christ Denied” in which it denounced de Chardin as an arch-heretic.

Who do I believe? (As you can guess, I am leaning toward Tan). Does someone want to rant about de Chardin and tell us all why the little white book is wrong?

While I’m on the subject, does anyone know why someone on these forums would call Jacques Maritain a heretic? I read a statement to that affect a few weeks ago and it puzzled me because I see him quoted in many orthodox Catholic books.

What’s the story on these two very different people?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Why do so many Catholic publications claim that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is a hero?

For example, I recently picked up the “little white book” (which is handed out at various parishes for the liturgical season of Easter), and I was shocked to find that its meditation for April 10 includes a brief biographical sketch of de Chardin that is full of glowing praise. According to this book, he was holy, inspirational, ahead of his time, and simply misunderstood by the Church.

BTW: Isn’t Peking man considered a fraud?

Tan books published a little booklet called “Christ Denied” in which it denounced de Chardin as an arch-heretic.

Who do I believe? (As you can guess, I am leaning toward Tan). Does someone want to rant about de Chardin and tell us all why the little white book is wrong?

While I’m on the subject, does anyone know why someone on these forums would call Jacques Maritain a heretic? I read a statement to that affect a few weeks ago and it puzzled me because I see him quoted in many orthodox Catholic books.

What’s the story on these two very different people?

Chardin wrote beautifully poetic but only semi-scientific descriptions of the Creation and of evolution. He then tried to draw a theology from them.
Though both the science and the theology can be rejected as of little value, that makes him a bad thinker rather than a heretic. Heretics insist on their interpretations in the face of the opposition of the Church, which doesn’t seem to have been Chardin’s attitude at all.

Unfortunately many non-scientists, desperate to reconcile what they see as the gulf between religion and science, seize upon Chardin as “Christian science” and ignore the weaknesses in the work.

 

[Vincent]

I’ve become more and more hesitant to call a person whose theology I profoundly disagree with a “heretic” unless the proper authority has clearly done so.

A theologian falls under the censure of heresy for “obstinately” doubting or denying doctrines with the character of de fide credenda ("Doctrinal Commentary" 9), and is thus excommunicated latae sententiae (Can. 1364 §1).

However, it seems to me that unless the proper authority confirms that the theologian has fallen under the censure of heresy we don’t have the certainty by which we can call him or her a heretic.

We might be able to conclude that a certain theological position contradicts a doctrine de fide credenda, but to claim that the person asserting it has fallen under the censure of heresy appears to require more authority than I currently possess — hence my hesitancy to call such a person a heretic.

 

[davidmammola]

Thanks for your replies. I agree we should be careful using the word “heretic”. That’s why I am asking the question in the first place. I don’t want to call anyone a heretic unless the Church has done so first. I just want to know if the Church ever censured either of these two men. So…any info on why a good Catholic might not like Maritain?

 

[tdgesq]

Thanks for your replies. I agree we should be careful using the word “heretic”. That’s why I am asking the question in the first place. I don’t want to call anyone a heretic unless the Church has done so first. I just want to know if the Church ever censured either of these two men. So…any info on why a good Catholic might not like Maritain?

Who on this forum called Maritain a heretic? He is a Neo-Thomist of some note, known primarily for his philosophical works in the area of metaphysics. I know there is a work out there (that I have not read) that relates to his experiences as a Catholic, but I have never heard Maritain referred to as a theologian. I suppose if someone is going to call him a heretic, they had better provide some evidence.

 

[CCCatholic17]

BTW: Isn’t Peking man considered a fraud?

Yes, Peking man fossils are the remains of apes or monkeys eaten by real humans. DUH!

 

[Superstar905]

Could he be the founder of…SCIENTOLOGY

 

[tdgesq]

Could he be the founder of…SCIENTOLOGY

That would be L Ron Hubbard. There is no link between him and Maritain as far as I know. Hubbard should have stuck to writing science fiction, something that he’s actually good at.

 

[hecd2]

Just a few quick notes about Teilhard.

First of all, the correct way to refer to him is Teilhard, *not *Chardin or de Chardin. This is an easy and, as we can see on this thread, a common mistake to make.
Malcolm McLean:

Chardin wrote beautifully poetic but only semi-scientific descriptions of the Creation and of evolution. He then tried to draw a theology from them.
Though both the science and the theology can be rejected as of little value, that makes him a bad thinker rather than a heretic.

Teilhard wriote several books that crossed the scientific/theological boundary. However he was also a significant scientist in the field of palaeontology with many scientific palaeontological papers in prestigious scientific journals to his name, and a number of fossil species named after him. I have a partial scientific bibliography for Teilhard and I have also tracked down a number of his original scientific papers.

So his works that lay out his Omega point idea and his concept of the noosphere such as “The Phenomenon of Man”, “The Divine Milieu” and “Christianity and Evolution” have to be seen in the context of the fact that he was a significant scientist and also that, as a Jesuit priest, he would have had a thorough grounding in conventional theology.

Teilhard’s ideas inspire many people today and there are active Teilhard societies in Europe and North America. His science certainly cannot be rejected as of little value. It’s more difficult for me to comment on his theology but I think here, too, Teilhard has something to offer. Ironically, it is those whose worldviews most correspond with mine (Stephen Gould, Richard Dawkins, Peter Medawar) that have been most scathing about Teilhard’s ideas whereas I find myself defending his legacy.

davidmammola:

BTW: Isn’t Peking man considered a fraud?

CCCatholic17:

Yes, Peking man fossils are the remains of apes or monkeys eaten by real humans. DUH!

No Peking man is not considered a fraud, and particularly not in the absurd terms suggested by CCCatholic17. Peking man is a specimen of Homo erectus, from the Zhoukoudian Cave in China, dating from 400,000 to 500,000 years ago. The remains include several skull caps, cranial and facial parts, eleven mandibles and many teeth. The famous German palaeontologist, Weidenreich, wrote several papers describing the finds and his original paper on cranial reconstruction has been updated recently by Sawyer and Tatersall. Homo erectus has been found in China, Java, Tanzania and Kenya (although some experts put the African fossils in a separate species, Homo ergaster).

With an average cranial volume of 1,043 cc there is no way that the Zhoukoudian fossils can be apes or monkeys. That suggestion is pure ignorant nonsense.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[CCCatholic17]

Sorry Alec, but you my friend are wrong. In the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Peking man is a fraud…if you have a problem with this take it up with Pope Pius XII.

Blessings,
Heather

 

[hecd2]

Sorry Alec, but you my friend are wrong. In the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Peking man is a fraud…if you have a problem with this take it up with Pope Pius XII.

Blessings,
Heather

Nonsense.

a) Your claim is wrong - the Church has made no definitive statement about the veracity or otherwise of the Peking man fossils
b) Even if the Church had made such a definitive statement, we can safely ignore it, since, as an institution, the Church is incompetent in palaeontology
c) Your specific claim about Pius XII is wrong - I assume you are referring to Humani Generis - there is no referenvce in that document to Peking man
d) Even if Pius XII had declared that Peking man is a fraud, we are safe in ignoring his opinion, as what he knew palaeontology could easily be inscribed on the back of a very small postage stamp.
e) But the inconvenient fact is that Pius XII declared no opinion about Peking man - you are comprehensively wrong because you have been misled.

By the way, professional palaeontologists who actually know about these matters universally accept the veracity of the Zhoukoudian Cave discoveries (which, by the way, Teilhard was only peripherally involved in).

Alec
evolutionpages.com
%between%

 

[RikasAngel]

Hello All,

Pius XII never to my knowledge never addressed a specific Evolutionary Link. He merely addressed the problematic conclusions of some lines of theology, including that of De Chardin. He also affirmed the teaching that all Humans share an ancestery, and so share in Original Sin. Be careful of reading more into Humane Generis than you should.

De Chardin’s “Theology of Evolution,” to my knowledge, bordered on Pelagianism and relied more on the Sciences than Revelation itself. Maraitan was a popular 20th Century Thomist who’s revered among Orthodox Theologians and Philosophers.

 

[hecd2]

Hello All,

Pius XII never to my knowledge never addressed a specific Evolutionary Link. He merely addressed the problematic conclusions of some lines of theology, including that of De Chardin.

It’s **Teilhard ***not *De Chardin

Be careful of reading more into Humane Generis than you should.

Just so.

De Chardin’s “Theology of Evolution,” to my knowledge, bordered on Pelagianism

Really? - could you explain why you think that? A specific link between something that Teilhard writes in one of his books and the ideas of Pelagianism would be helpful here.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[AnthonyM2]

Actually, it was “Piltdown Man” that was discovered to be a hoax, maybe that is what the OP was referring to. Here is a link to some info, unmuseum.org/piltdown.htm, and it mentions that Teilhard was involved in the dig that supposedly unearthed the “fossil”. Though I think he may have been a dupe rather than a perpatrator.

 

[CCCatholic17]

In that encyclical, the Holy Father **did not **say the teaching of evolution **is permissible **under certain circumstances. In fact he said just the opposite.

What Humani Generis said was this: nothing more than discussion about the possibility of evolution of man from pre-existing matter is to be permitted. What is more, this discussion was to be restricted and limited to only those experts “in the human sciences and sacred theology” and these same experts were specifically forbidden to teach as an established fact that man’s body evolved from a lower animal.

In all honesty I could care less about what Teilhard de Chardin thought…I care about what the popes teach. The encyclical did not address the word Peking man, in the same way the bible does not address abortion. The word abortion isn’t in the bible but the law prohibiting it sure is. Also, Father Teilhard’s major works have been emphatically rejected by the Vatican’s Congregation of the Holy Office and a monitum that they contain grave errors was approved by Pope John XXIII in 1962.

 

[hecd2]

What Humani Generis said was this: nothing more than discussion about the possibility of evolution of man from pre-existing matter is to be permitted. What is more, this discussion was to be restricted and limited to only those experts “in the human sciences and sacred theology” and these same experts were specifically forbidden to teach as an established fact that man’s body evolved from a lower animal.

And in all honesty, *I *couldn’t care less what any pope allows or forbids me to think or teach with regard to matters of science. However all this bluster on your part is simply to cover up your error in claiming that the Church considers Peking man to be a fraud (which it doesn’t).

In all honesty I could care less about what Teilhard de Chardin thought…I care about what the popes teach.

So you’ll care about this statement from John Paul II:
“Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis.It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.”

The encyclical did not address the word Peking man, in the same way the bible does not address abortion.

No, the encyclical doesn’t address Peking man in the sense that the encyclical doesn’t address Peking man at all. Your claim that the Church teaches that Peking man is a fraud is utterly wrong and your attempt to explain it as a consequence of the Church’s supposed opposition to the evolution of man is embarassingly flawed. (If the Church did make an argument in opposition to evolution, which it doesn’t, it would be ridiculous and mischievous for the Church to use that opposition to explain away physical evidence as fraud *on the basis of *its prior belief - such an undertaking would undermine the idea that truth cannot contradict truth - however, the Church, except in your mind, makes no such argument)

Father Teilhard’s major works have been emphatically rejected by the Vatican’s Congregation of the Holy Office and a monitum that they contain grave errors was approved by Pope John XXIII in 1962.

Indeed such a monitum exists and has, as far as I know, not been rescinded. However, that is not the point - the point is that you claimed that the church’s teaching is that Peking man is a fraud. You cannot produce the slightest shred of evidence in support of that slander of the scientific community and the honourable course would be to withdraw it and apologise for your mistake.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Abiien]

Catholic.net - Catholics on the net

God, Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, Catholic Church Teaching, Bible, Catechism, Prayers, Saints, Virgin Mary, Apostles, Pope Francis, Vatican, Catholic News, Life Issues

www.catholic.net

It is clear to anyone who reads the Pope’s message in its entirety that he is proposing a restatement of the doctrine of evolution expressed in Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis. The only new element is the acknowledgment that the theory of evolution, which for Pius XII had been only a “serious hypothesis, worthy of further research and reflection (along with research and reflection on opposing theories),” has received considerable support from scientific findings during the 50 years since Pius wrote.

On the other hand, the Pope does not affirm that evolution has become a certain, demonstrable doctrine. In the Holy Father’s own words: “Rather than speaking of the theory of evolution, we should speak of (various) theories of evolution,” since there does not seem to be unanimity among scientists.

The Pope, of course, does not express a definitive judgment on the scientific debate. He does, however, reassert the Church’s competence to assess the theological and philosophical repercussions of evolutionary theories. The Church thus excludes, as Pius XII stated, “purely materialist or reductive analyses,” which leave no room for spiritual interpretations. John Paul II reaffirmed this essential emphasis: “Even if the human body originates from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is spontaneously created by God.”

In his message, John Paul II never even pronounced Charles Darwin’s name. Thus it seems clear that the mass media gave their own “spin” to the Pope’s words, in some cases gravely distorting his actual meaning.

FROM CATHOLIC.COM : Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must “confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing” (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

FROM CATHOLIC.COM : Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that “the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God” (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

I am not too familiar with all of this. However, I can state that humans may have been around far longer than Our Souls have, maybe that was in preparation to make us very good. Maybe that is how God works. We were not made “man” until our souls were created by God. So as far as i am concerned if humans dont have souls (i.e. peking man) then it is not like me, I dont know if evolution is true, but if it is, the question might be when did God implement souls?

"God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
"
Until those two received Gods Blessing did they cease to being just creation, but now are Gods chosen creation. Chosen to have “dominion over… every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Hope this helps.

 

[rwoehmke]

It is not at all unusual to have certain portions of a theologians output considered to be wrong, I suppose heritical if you wish. Even portions of Origen on the pre-existence of the soul and Augustine’s work on pre-destination are accepted by the Church. The important point is not whether a theologian has made mistakes, but rather does he or others insist upon it being correct in the face of non-acceptance by the magisterium.

 

[Renzo]

Totally unrelated to main topic but since it has been brought up i must make a statement:

Pope JP2 make clear evolution, even human evolution was a clear undeniable scientific fact and that this didn’t go against the catholic faith since it has nothing to do with the human SOUL, since it is this that makes us different from animals and there is no way science can affirm that God didn’t give man his soul.

As bonuses:
Earths is OLD, millions of years old.
Earth DO orbits the Sun
Continents DO move in their tectonic plates
Earth is a sphere (more or less)

All this plus evolution is accepted by Catholics.

 

[James_Miller]

No need to be shocked. Teilhard has even been quoted and featured in the Vatican’s own newspaper.
The difficulty with applying the Monitum is that it clearly distinguished between his science and philosophy/theology. But Teilhard claimed before his death (1955) that his works were only science. The Monitum was issued in 1962. The Monitum cannot be applied unless we can distinguish between science and philosophy. This is not as easy as it seems.
(P.S. As pointed out his last name is Teilhard …to call him de Chardin shows an ignorance of French.)