Observations by a non believer

[Abu]

WmJackP
Do you have an example of such a contradictory jump as von Hildebrand intended to describe?

Re Teilhard de Chardin’s confusion:
Dietrich von Hildebrand – This eminent philosopher characterized de Chardin as a superficial and terribly confused thinker, a false prophet whose incredible theories can in no way be reconciled with Catholic thought.

Teilhard’s after-dinner lecture in 1951 of his views “manifested utter philosophical confusion, especially in his concept of the human person. I was even more upset by his theological primitiveness: He ignored completely the decisive difference between nature and supernature.” Speaking to him privately, Dr von Hildebrand mentioned St Augustine – Teilhard “exclaimed violently: ‘Don’t mention that unfortunate man; he spoiled everything by introducing the supernatural.’ This remark confirmed the impression I had gained of the crass naturalism of his views, but it also struck me in another way: The criticism of St Augustine – the greatest of the Fathers of the Church – betrayed Teilhard’s lack of a genuine sense of intellectual and spiritual grandeur.

“It was only after reading several of Teilhard’s works, however, that I fully realised the catastrophic implications of his philosophical ideas and the absolute incompatibility of his theology fiction (as Etienne Gilson calls it) with Christian revelation and the doctrine of the Church.” *Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet *(an appendix to his book, Trojan Horse in the City of God), 227-228].

 

[WmJackP]

Re Teilhard de Chardin’s confusion:
Dietrich von Hildebrand – This eminent philosopher characterized de Chardin as a superficial and terribly confused thinker, a false prophet whose incredible theories can in no way be reconciled with Catholic thought.

Teilhard’s after-dinner lecture in 1951 of his views “manifested utter philosophical confusion, especially in his concept of the human person. I was even more upset by his theological primitiveness: He ignored completely the decisive difference between nature and supernature.” Speaking to him privately, Dr von Hildebrand mentioned St Augustine – Teilhard “exclaimed violently: ‘Don’t mention that unfortunate man; he spoiled everything by introducing the supernatural.’ This remark confirmed the impression I had gained of the crass naturalism of his views, but it also struck me in another way: The criticism of St Augustine – the greatest of the Fathers of the Church – betrayed Teilhard’s lack of a genuine sense of intellectual and spiritual grandeur.

“It was only after reading several of Teilhard’s works, however, that I fully realised the catastrophic implications of his philosophical ideas and the absolute incompatibility of his theology fiction (as Etienne Gilson calls it) with Christian revelation and the doctrine of the Church.” *Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet *(an appendix to his book, Trojan Horse in the City of God), 227-228].

Do you consider that an example of jumping from one contradictory position to another? It is perhaps an excellent example of an ad hominem attack–but hardly an example of what I was hoping for. Based upon what you have shown me, I would have to conclude that von H’s view was that if one disagreed with his beliefs, then that alone was evidence of inconsistency in logic.

 

[WmJackP]

Yes, but at my age, 77, it is extremely unlikely that I am going to change my mind, especially since I have expended an enormous amount of time and study to develop a coherent philosophy based on my belief in God, the Catholic church, and all that so-called “mystical stuff”.

Looks like the Jebbies taught you to think yourself right out of the box. It doesn’t surprise me since I don’t consider the modern Jesuit order to be Catholic.

Pantheism is the belief that God is the universe and universe is God, not anything before or beyond. Panentheism is the belief that God exists not only throughout the universe, but also before and beyond it. Big difference!

I don’t need to work to feel good about Roman Catholicism,

Yes, the universe is rational; it can be no other way. I just don’t understand those who are satisfied with the materialistic-secular view of reality that is based solely on science’s description. Science doesn’t explain why reality is rational. Consider gravity, for which there is plenty of evidence. Science merely describes what seems to be observed, and doesn’t explain what causes gravity. And you have your choice, gravity is: (1) action at a distance (Newton), the force exerted by a gravitational field (Lorentz); the curvature of space (Einstein), or the exchange of gravitons (particle physics). Seems to me that invoking Ocham’s razor (a much over-used and misused idea) would be better served to point to the proposition that “God caused gravity”. On the other hand, science has no answer as to what causes gravity, not at least an answer that would satisfy the demand (science’s and yours) that to be believed there must be evidence, which of course there isn’t and can never be. So science (and you) are married to the view that because there is no evidence, we can’t “believe” that gravity is caused. There is plenty of evidence (unfortunately it is inductive evidence) that gravity exists and I believe with my whole body, mind, and soul that it does. But what causes it? I say God, what do you say? Please don’t say “mass” because then you are going to have to explain what mass is and be warned, there is a circular argument waiting down that path. Fact is: science can give no “cause” for gravity. Consequently, unless you can explain the cause of gravity and the rest of the rationality of reality, I have given you my reason for believing in personal deity, God. But I don’t stop there because I have personally worked out an answer to the question: HOW does God exists?

You haven’t! On the contrary I found your post to be polite and considerate. Although we’re certainly at opposite ends of the belief spectrum, I perceive that you can’t let go of God, even if His hold on you is in the form of denial. I could be wrong. Anyway I’d be willing to satisfy your curiosity about why I believe the way I do, but it would get to be too personal and boring for the general audience. Let me just say I have lived a long happy life as the patriarch of a large, trouble-free, divorce-free, dependency-free Catholic family consisting of 8-children, 22-grandchildren, 5 son-in-laws, 2-daughter-in-laws, 2-granddaughter-in-laws, and 1-Catholic priest and I cannot imagine how I could have done it without our (all 41 of us) active involvement in the Catholic church and a wife whose depth of faith is beyond imagination.

Yppop

Regards,

That last observation of yours is very perceptive. I do myself wonder often why I find these topics so compelling. Regardless, you have lived a long and productive life, and, I can see you are proud of your family and its tradition. I would never want to distract from that, in the least.

I am afraid, however, I would never be able to intellectually accept those beliefs–even though, I find it fascinating and compelling to try to understand how others can do so.

 

[WmJackP]

“The aim of argument, or of discussion, should be not victory, but progress” Joseph Joubert Pensées. Your failure to progress in this topic has to do with insulting religous folks as noted in your most recent postings that are contained within my postings on this topic. You may wish to review them. They are not only on this page. Furthermore, the evidence of such is factual. Opinionated as you think your remarks are gives me reason to think you are bias.

Also your observations have been incorrect. Please refer to post #193. And who were you addressing in post #230 to? I noted the comment therein, “I perceive that you can’t let go of God, even if His hold on you is in the form of denial.” Who is the you you are referring to?

For the sake of clarity, I do not seek to offend anyone. Nor do, I have any agenda other than to try to understand how it is that people find religion so compelling. My own perception is that catholicism is a “mixture” ,and, I believe I am in an excellent position to make that judgment. I attended Catholic schools, I knew and admired many of my instructors (mostly Jesuits). On the other hand, I have seen and witnessed your beliefs in their most calcified and virulent form on many occassions—particularly as they were practiced on me as a very young child. To recall only one early example, I was criticised to the point of excoriation once as a third grader when I had the temerity to ask my religion teacher if it were possible that God was part male and part female as (it seemed to me to make sense) that God made both. That question was met with a response that sullied my willingness to discuss anything further with that teacher for the rest of the year.
I, thus, have seen the intolerance of rigid doctrinaire beliefs up close and personal many times solely because I was curious and perhaps noticiably more inquisitive than most of my peers.

I do not want, however, to leave the impression that I am in the least bitter about some of these experiences, I have known many Catholics who have “walked their talk”, who seemed OK with putting their doctrines aside and doing something manifestly
Jesus-esque in terms of advancing knowledge, opening doors, and, relieving human suffering. Hence, my admiration for Tielhard de Chardin (as I believe you indicated you are familiar with some of my posts). But as I have also met Catholics who seemed enraged because one of their “fallen away” finds ridiculous the mystical belief that women can bring children into this world and yet remain virgins, or, who seem to implode at the suggestion that the molecular substance of bread can be yet another molecular substance when chemically, substantially, and, in any sense that we can know reality, that simply is not the case.

So forgive me, if I don’t seem to “progress” when everything you call “progress” appears so fundelmentally irrational.

 

[grannymh]

That last observation of yours is very perceptive. I do myself wonder often why I find these topics so compelling. Regardless, you have lived a long and productive life, and, I can see you are proud of your family and its tradition. I would never want to distract from that, in the least.

I am afraid, however, I would never be able to intellectually accept those beliefs–even though, I find it fascinating and compelling to try to understand how others can do so.

Advice from granny. Forget the brain. Go with your gut.

 

[Alindawyl]

On the other hand, I have seen and witnessed your beliefs in their most calcified and virulent form on many occassions—particularly as they were practiced on me as a very young child. To recall only one early example, I was criticised to the point of excoriation once as a third grader when I had the temerity to ask my religion teacher if it were possible that God was part male and part female as (it seemed to me to make sense) that God made both. That question was met with a response that sullied my willingness to discuss anything further with that teacher for the rest of the year.
I, thus, have seen the intolerance of rigid doctrinaire beliefs up close and personal many times solely because I was curious and perhaps noticiably more inquisitive than most of my peers.

I know where you’re coming from. From age ten until just the past few years, I had an almost neurotic disgust of anything to do with the state of Alabama. We lived there for one year when I was ten and they were not welcoming toward new people in the city where we lived. Or at least the part of the city where we were. I had only one friend at school the entire year. The other kids were actively hostile toward me as an “outsider”. I used that experience as an excuse to denigrate Alabama for any reason for many years. Hardly a fair thing to do, wouldn’t you say, questioning the good of an entire state’s population based on the behavior of a small subsection of the people in one city?

As my experience indicates, this kind of thing is hardly unique to religion. I’m sorry that you had to experience that from your third grade teacher. But was the problem with the doctrinal teachings of the Church or with the methods of the instructor in question? Shouldn’t you evaluate the teachings of the Church based on their own merits rather than subjective feelings about bad experiences, especially when the teachings themselves don’t call for treating people in such a way?

I assist with RCIA and middle school classes at my parish, and denigrating the students or inquirers for asking sincere questions is not permitted. Such a person wouldn’t be teaching for long if they persisted in that kind of thing. My parish would be considered doctrinally rigid by just about anyone, but some Sundays many people will still be hanging out in the narthex chatting up a storm 30+ minutes after Mass is over. We also tend to hug each other a lot, which shocks a lot of visitors. Doctrinally rigid doesn’t automatically mean cruel and unapproachable, or even standoffish. You not only can but should follow the teachings of the Church faithfully while still being friendly and considerate toward others. One of those doctrinal teachings is to love your neighbor, after all.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Advice from granny. Forget the brain. Go with your gut.

What if my gut says “Hinduism”

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

What if my gut says “Hinduism”

Then ignore your gut!

 

[Abu]

WmJackP
Based upon what you have shown me, I would have to conclude that von H’s view was that if one disagreed with his beliefs, then that alone was evidence of inconsistency in logic.

Really? Those infatuated with Teilhard de Chardin not only know nothing of his theology fiction, but nothing of why he is so contradictory.

In no sense a scientist much less a great one, the works of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, are under a Monitum from Rome. Nobel Prize winner Sir Peter Medawar wrote: “Teilhard practised an intellectually unexacting kind of science, in which he achieved a moderate proficiency. He has no grasp of what makes a logical argument or what makes for proof. He does not even preserve the common decencies of scientific writing, though his book is professedly a scientific treatise.” [Review of *The Phenomenon of Man, Mind, Vol 70 (1961), p 105].

Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion, Tan Books: Rockford, Illinois, 1988:
Review by Msgr John F McCarthy at rtforum.org/lt/lt25.html:
“When Smith tells us (19) that there is “no evidence at all” for the transformist hypothesis in which Teilhard so firmly believed, he is speaking as a scientist and on the basis of the most up-to-date scientific data. And he shows us (22-23) that the transformist dream is based on faith alone, as de Chardin admitted and as recent discoveries in biology are demonstrating ever more clearly.

“Teilhard’s aim was to found a new Christianity (23). By visualizing Heaven as a development that is neither above us nor within us but only ahead of us in time, Teilhard was able to transpose and falsify virtually every traditional Christian conception, beginning with the idea of man (34-35). As a scientist, Smith finds that Teilhard speaks only in metaphors: "take away the metaphors and there is no theory left. What is lacking in Teilhard’s doctrine are scientific definitions, scientific concepts. (58).

“Teilhard the scientist turned out to be a brazen deceiver, as is most clearly exemplified in the hoax of the Piltdown Man, which he helped to perpetrate. Teilhard the theologian opened his mind to an inviting anti-theology which presented (he thought) the key to life, not in the Holy Spirit, “the Lord and Giver of life” (Nicene Creed), but in the secrets of matter and of nuclear energy.”

 

[yppop]

Really? Those infatuated with Teilhard de Chardin not only know nothing of his theology fiction, but nothing of why he is so contradictory.

Although “infatuated” is not the word I would use, I suppose you are addressing me here, so I take exception to your ad hominem remark that I know nothing about his theology “fiction”. On the other hand, I know nothing of why he is so contradictory. The evidence you have supplied is nothing more than a bunch of personnel attacks, which is always a sign of lack of knowledge about the subject at hand.

In no sense a scientist much less a great one, the works of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, are under a Monitum from Rome. Nobel Prize winner Sir Peter Medawar wrote: “Teilhard practised an intellectually unexacting kind of science, in which he achieved a moderate proficiency. He has no grasp of what makes a logical argument or what makes for proof. He does not even preserve the common decencies of scientific writing, though his book is professedly a scientific treatise.” [Review of *The Phenomenon of Man

, Mind, Vol 70 (1961), p 105].

Teilhard was a Professor of geology and practiced paleontology He was also a devout Catholic priest. He wrote this:

“There is no concept more familiar to us than that of spiritual energy, yet there is none more opaque scientifically. On the one hand the objective reality of psychical effort and work is so well established that the whole of ethics rests on it and, on the other hand, the nature of this inner power is so intangible that the whole description of the universe in mechanical terms has had no need to take account of it, but has been successfully completed in deliberate disregard of its reality.
The difficulties we still encounter in trying to hold together spirit and matter in a reasonable perspective are nowhere more harshly revealed. Nowhere either is the need more urgent of building a bridge between the two banks of our existencethe physical and the moralif we wish the material and spiritual sides of our activities to be mutually enlivened.
To connect the two energies, of body and the soul, in a coherent manner: science has provisionally decided to ignore the question, and it would be very convenient for us to do the same. Unfortunately, or fortunately, caught up as we are here in the logic of a system where the within of things has just as much or even more value than their without, we collide with the difficulties head on. It is impossible to avoid the clash. We must advance”. -
The Phenomenon of Man pg.62

I don’t know how you would interpret this, but I interpret it as a statement of his motivation for writing The Phenomenon of Man, namely to bridge the gap between science and religion. Consequently, like anyone that decides to walk a fence between two fields of knowledge, they become subjected to criticism from both sides. It is almost amusing were it not pathetic to read the comments you supplied to diminish the reputation of a humble and courageous Catholic. He was courageous because he volunteered as a stretcher carrier in WWI and won two decorations for bravery. He was humble because he was completely obedient to the fathers of his order and of the church; he never published his books and in one instance during a talk before an American audience when told the local Bishop objected to him speaking, he obeyed and walked off the stage. The comments are pathetic because Medawar, an anti-theist attacks him from the scientific field and Wolfgang Smith, although a Catholic and a scientist, attacks him because of Smith’s position from the creationist side of the evolution debate. In both cases, the attacks are personnel rather than reasoned. And in both cases they miss the point; The Phenomenon of Man is not a scientific or a theological book, it is philosophy pure and simple.

In post 224, cited Dietrich von Hildebrand and even he, supposedly one of the greatest Catholic philosophers of the twentieth century, attacked Teilhard personally. I have read all of Teilhard’s books and I can’t recall a single instance in which he attacked another person. You may have a different approach to philosophy than me, but when there is a choice between reason and emotion, I will always side with those that refrain from ad hominem attacks. I would make one final comment: your two sources must be infatuated with Teilhard because they seem to know nothing about his “theology fiction”.

I don’t personally agree with everything Teilhard writes, but I try to find the good in things, of which there are many in his writings, instead of nit-picking those few statements that can be given subjective meanings to suit one’s own preconceived opinions.

Yppop

 

[grannymh]

Teilhard was a Professor of geology and practiced paleontology He was also a devout Catholic priest. He wrote this:

*“*The difficulties we still encounter in trying to hold together spirit and matter in a reasonable perspective are nowhere more harshly revealed. Nowhere either is the need more urgent of building a bridge between the two banks of our existencethe physical and the moralif we wish the material and spiritual sides of our activities to be mutually enlivened.
Yppop

I have not read either author. I also realize that I have taken the above out of context. Nonetheless, if I had written the above, a friend would tell me that I have returned to my previous Cartesian [extreme] dualism regarding human nature itself.

 

[Abu]

yypop
I don’t personally agree with everything Teilhard writes, but I try to find the good in things, of which there are many in his writings, instead of nit-picking those few statements that can be given subjective meanings to suit one’s own preconceived opinions.

The facts were provided in view of the fancies of WmJackP, as was evident from quoting his remark.
As a Catholic you should be aware that Teilhard’s writings are under a Monitum, which enables faithful Catholics to know that his professed theology is incompatible with the dogma and doctrine of the Church. So why the selfist antagonism to the Church? Nit-picking, preconceived opinions? Face reality.

Deep down, Teilhard’s faith was only in this world: “If as a result of some interior revolution, I were to lose in succession my faith in Christ, my faith in a personal God, and my faith in spirit, I feel that I should continue to believe invincibly in the world. The world (its value, its infallibility and its goodness) - that, when all is said and done, is the first, the last, and the only thing in which I believe” (Christianity and Evolution, 99).
[LT25 - FAITH, WORKS AND JUSTIFICATION / TEILHARDISM AND THE NEW RELIGION]](LT25 - FAITH, WORKS AND JUSTIFICATION / TEILHARDISM AND THE NEW RELIGION])

The Jesuits and others who defied Blessed John XXIII in the 1950s and 1960s by promoting Teilhard de Chardin in the teeth of that Pope’s 1962 condemnation of him, helped create the context for the acceptance of “New Age” ideas. When Catholics accept Teilhard, two ancient heresies move suddenly back to center stage. Pantheism holds that God is not different from the world, is mixed up with the world, is the soul of the world. Pelagianism, in its Teilhardian form, asserts that there was no Adam, no Eve, no original sin. There is, naturally, no need for redemption from that original sin. There is no supernatural destiny to the vision of God, lost by original sin, which Christ has restored to us. Thus there was no atonement for original sin by the death of Jesus, no supreme sacrifice on Calvary, no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and in fact no Christian hope of Heaven.

 

[yppop]

I have not read either author. I also realize that I have taken the above out of context. Nonetheless, if I had written the above, a friend would tell me that I have returned to my previous Cartesian [extreme] dualism regarding human nature itself.

Granny,
I think your friend would be wrong, Teilhard certainly did not ascribe to a Cartesian dualism, which professed that mind and body both existed but were completely separated, interacting only superficially. Teilhard on the other hand considered the body as being made in the image of God and, in fact, thought all matter (without of things) had a spiritual component (the within of things) to it. Consider this quote from his book, *The Divine Milieu *pg.105

“In their struggle towards the mystical life, men have often succumbed to the illusion of crudely contrasting soul and body, spirit and flesh, as good and evil. But despite certain current expressions, this Manichean tendency has never had the Church’s approval. And, in order to prepare the way for our final view of the divine milieu, perhaps we may be allowed to vindicate and exalt that aspect of it which the Lord came to put on, save and consecrate: holy matter.”

I believe, even without the context, the quote I cited in Post 246 leaves no doubt about his point of view as seen in his use of three phrases that connect spirit and matter: “… hold together spirit and matter…”, “… building a bridge between the two banks of our existence…”; and “…mutually enlivened…”.

Yppop

 

[grannymh]

Granny,
I think your friend would be wrong, Teilhard certainly did not ascribe to a Cartesian dualism, which professed that mind and body both existed but were completely separated, interacting only superficially. Teilhard on the other hand considered the body as being made in the image of God and, in fact, thought all matter (without of things) had a spiritual component (the within of things) to it. Consider this quote from his book, *The Divine Milieu *pg.105

“In their struggle towards the mystical life, men have often succumbed to the illusion of crudely contrasting soul and body, spirit and flesh, as good and evil. But despite certain current expressions, this Manichean tendency has never had the Church’s approval. And, in order to prepare the way for our final view of the divine milieu, perhaps we may be allowed to vindicate and exalt that aspect of it which the Lord came to put on, save and consecrate: holy matter.”

I believe, even without the context, the quote I cited in Post 246 leaves no doubt about his point of view as seen in his use of three phrases that connect spirit and matter: “… hold together spirit and matter…”, “… building a bridge between the two banks of our existence…”; and “…mutually enlivened…”.

Yppop

I am thinking about human nature itself. For example, hylomorphism applied to human person. The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. Thus, in human nature there is no need to connect spirit with matter because it is already created one or unified. It is already held together. When it is not held together, the body is dead.

We are different than “holy matter” which was created by God and exists by God. It is because we are in the Image of God that we, alone, are called to share through knowledge and love in God’s own life. If Teilhard ended with only a naturalistic (?) world, then his idea of human nature is off base. We are still part of the world, but our personal existence is beyond the idea of a bridge between two banks of our existence. In our own nature, we unite the spiritual and material worlds. There are not two banks united. Rather, the union is a single nature far different than all other natures on earth.

Human nature is the intimate, unique, profound unification of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul/body. Regardless of what anyone thinks, we are destined for an eternity beyond the world we currently occupy.

Blessings,
granny

Our human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[grannymh]

Granny,
I think your friend would be wrong, Teilhard certainly did not ascribe to a Cartesian dualism, which professed that mind and body both existed but were completely separated, interacting only superficially. Teilhard on the other hand considered the body as being made in the image of God and, in fact, thought all matter (without of things) had a spiritual component (the within of things) to it. Consider this quote from his book, *The Divine Milieu *pg.105

“In their struggle towards the mystical life, men have often succumbed to the illusion of crudely contrasting soul and body, spirit and flesh, as good and evil. But despite certain current expressions, this Manichean tendency has never had the Church’s approval. And, in order to prepare the way for our final view of the divine milieu, perhaps we may be allowed to vindicate and exalt that aspect of it which the Lord came to put on, save and consecrate: holy matter.”

I believe, even without the context, the quote I cited in Post 246 leaves no doubt about his point of view as seen in his use of three phrases that connect spirit and matter: “… hold together spirit and matter…”, “… building a bridge between the two banks of our existence…”; and “…mutually enlivened…”.

Yppop

I am thinking about human nature itself.

For example, hylomorphism applied to human person. The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the “form” of the body. Thus, in human nature there is no need to connect spirit with matter because spirit/matter is already created one or unified. It is already held together. When spirit/matter is not one, the body is dead.

We are different from “holy matter” which was created by God and exists by God. It is because we are in the Image of God that we, alone, are called to share through knowledge and love in God’s own life. If Teilhard ended with only a naturalistic (?) world, then his idea of human nature is off base. We are still part of the world, but our personal existence is beyond the idea of a bridge between two banks of our existence. In our own nature, we unite the spiritual and material worlds. There are not two banks united. Rather, the union is a single nature far different than all other natures on earth.

Human nature is the intimate, unique, profound unification of spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul/body. Regardless of what anyone thinks, we are destined for an eternity beyond the world we currently occupy.

Perhaps Teilhard’s problems are the theological ambiguities. This doubles the problems in today’s society with its emphasis that the physical world is-- what you see is what you get. For some people, human nature becomes solely matter, i.e., an anatomy which eventually decomposes in some manner. Thus, the most amazing aspect of human nature, its spiritual soul, intellect and will, is shuffled off.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[reggieM]

The facts were provided in view of the fancies of WmJackP, as was evident from quoting his remark.
As a Catholic you should be aware that Teilhard’s writings are under a Monitum, which enables faithful Catholics to know that his professed theology is incompatible with the dogma and doctrine of the Church. So why the selfist antagonism to the Church? Nit-picking, preconceived opinions? Face reality.

Deep down, Teilhard’s faith was only in this world: “If as a result of some interior revolution, I were to lose in succession my faith in Christ, my faith in a personal God, and my faith in spirit, I feel that I should continue to believe invincibly in the world. The world (its value, its infallibility and its goodness) - that, when all is said and done, is the first, the last, and the only thing in which I believe” (Christianity and Evolution, 99).
[LT25 - FAITH, WORKS AND JUSTIFICATION / TEILHARDISM AND THE NEW RELIGION]](LT25 - FAITH, WORKS AND JUSTIFICATION / TEILHARDISM AND THE NEW RELIGION])

The Jesuits and others who defied Blessed John XXIII in the 1950s and 1960s by promoting Teilhard de Chardin in the teeth of that Pope’s 1962 condemnation of him, helped create the context for the acceptance of “New Age” ideas. When Catholics accept Teilhard, two ancient heresies move suddenly back to center stage. Pantheism holds that God is not different from the world, is mixed up with the world, is the soul of the world. Pelagianism, in its Teilhardian form, asserts that there was no Adam, no Eve, no original sin. There is, naturally, no need for redemption from that original sin. There is no supernatural destiny to the vision of God, lost by original sin, which Christ has restored to us. Thus there was no atonement for original sin by the death of Jesus, no supreme sacrifice on Calvary, no Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and in fact no Christian hope of Heaven.

This is good background. I’ve found the Roman Theology forum to be an excellent resource also.

From my experience, living among a large population of “liberal” (dissenting) Catholics, I’ve concluded that Teilhard did a massive amount of damage to the Faith. Many trust in him like he’s some kind of supra-magisterium in himself. He engendered passionate loyalty and I’ve heard from Catholics who’ve told me that “if it wasn’t for Teilhard, I would have left Catholicism long ago”. (In many cases, I realized that they had already left Catholicism in its substance).

The Church has warned us about his teachings - with the Monitum, as you’ve mentioned. We can see the results of dissent among the Jesuits since the mid-1960s (“by their fruits you will know them”) and much of it was focused on a Teilhard-mania that gripped their theology institutes.

Thankfully, I believe that era is fading away and Teilhard is more forgotten or unknown than ever before. I think that many younger Jesuits have recognized the problem and are working to rebuild from within.

 

[Abu]

I agree with everything you say, ReggieM.

Many who call themselves Catholic, are merely cafeteria types, picking and choosing – like Teilhard, and daydreaming like Teilhard. Dissent has no place in Christ’s Church as He demonstrated, and His Popes have been quite clear on that.

Yes, one of the best sources of real exegesis and reviews and commentary is the Roman Theological Forum and readers can see all of the articles at:
rtforum.org/lt/index.html

 

[Leela]

Many who call themselves Catholic, are merely cafeteria types, picking and choosing

It isn’t just “many.” Doesn’t this actually characterize the vast majority of Catholics in the US?

 

[grannymh]

It isn’t just “many.” Doesn’t this actually characterize the vast majority of Catholics in the US?

I doubt it. Loud voices do not a vast majority make.

 

[yppop]

ABU
You implied in your post # 248 (shown below) that I am selfis[t] antagonistic to the Church

As a Catholic you should be aware that Teilhard’s writings are under a Monitum, which enables faithful Catholics to know that his professed theology is incompatible with the dogma and doctrine of the Church. So why the selfist antagonism to the Church? Nit-picking, preconceived opinions? Face reality.

I have no idea how you arrived at the idea that I am antagonistic to the church, although you allude to my use of the word nitpicking and preconceived opinions in post #246 when I wrote: “…but I try to find the good in things, of which there are many in his writings, instead of nit-picking those few statements that can be given subjective meanings to suit one’s own preconceived opinions.” I take exception to your personal implication. This in no way reflects my feelings for the church, a subject you are not qualified to speak on because you know nothing about my spiritual life. I am not antagonistic towards the church, but I sometimes might feel antagonistic towards those Catholics that hate Catholicism not for what it is but for what it isn’t. And what it isn’t: is the church of 1900.

Many who call themselves Catholic, are merely cafeteria types, picking and choosing – like Teilhard, and daydreaming like Teilhard.

Then in this your latest post there is a thinly veiled insinuation that I am a cafeteria Catholic, with all the pejorative baggage that that entails.

I am not a cafeteria Catholic as you imply; my wife and I are a conservative Catholics. We long for the Latin Mass and the Catholicism that we both remember from the 1950’s, but we deal with the changes in the belief that the Holy Spirit still guides the Mystical Body of Christ that is the Church. We have raised 8 children to be (and still are) good, practicing Catholics in every sense of the word. Seven of those children are married, three of whom married good practicing Catholics, and four of whom married non-Catholics. All four of the non-Catholics converted to Catholicism, not just to be married but after 1, 12, 15, and 21 years of marriage they converted out of a personal acceptance and serious discernment of the example of Catholicism given by our family as a whole. All four are devout, involved, practicing Catholics. Eight children, seven in healthy, successful marriages ranging in duration of 10 to 28 years gives testimony to a successful practice of Catholicism. Better still, our unmarried child is a Catholic priest, a monsignor, and a canon lawyer. Our children and their spouses have blessed us with 22 grandchildren. All of my children and grandchildren have gone or will go to 12 years of Catholic schools. Yes, we are a conservative Catholic family that obeys without criticism the prctice of our faith in whatever form is currently edicted by the Church Fathers and I resent the innuendo that seems to point to me as a cafeteria Catholic.

It is obvious that we disagree and can never agree on the matter of Teilhard de Chardin; my view of him as a man and a priest is with great admiration and I find his writing filled with spiritual inspiration.

Apparently you have a different view. I cannot offer a guess for this difference; I can only say that my view is based on reading in depth of his books and books about him. Your view appears not to have been based on a similar study because you have not provided any of your own interpretation of his work, but merely cite other people, all of whom seem to be personally opposed to Teilhard with some degree of virulence. I can see no useful reason for continuing our disagreement, so I will end my discussion with you on one final note:

Go to your link to the Roman Theological Forum web site and access article # 135, “Reviewing Cardinal Schonborn’s stand on Evolution by chance or by purpose” read item #16. Even though Schonborn has something nice to say about Teilhard, I don’t think he is a cafeteria Catholic. Now read the next 3 items, McCarthy’s addendum, which has nothing to do with the book being reviewed, but rather seems to be a vehement reaction to Schonberg’s laudable comment about Teilhard in which McCarthy refers solely to Wolfgang Smith’s personal attacks. This is truly intellectual dishonesty.

Yppop