(This article was originally written in February, 1996)
Although the French Jesuit, Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, died in 1955, his influence is obviously still being felt today. This is evidenced by the fact that two major educational programs in Sydney, Australia, in recent years - that of the Discalced Carmelites and the Northern Deanery's "Religious Education II: Theory and Practice for Parents and Teachers" in 1994 - have both included talks on Fr. Teilhard de Chardin.
The questions to be posed here are: "Why does de Chardin still exert an influence on the modern mind?" And: "What sort of an influence is it?"
De Chardin's Broad Reach
The writings of Pere Teilhard de Chardin have embraced a wide range of disciplines. Thus today we can read books that try to analyse the Jesuit's so-called scientific views; or his anthropological and sociological beliefs; or his metaphysico-philosophical arguments; or even his theosophical, religious and mystical doctrines.
In the minds of some, Fr. de Chardin is actually considered to be a Saint; equal (if not greater) in the loftiness of his thought to St. Thomas Aquinas. Others regard him as a mystic, for whom only the exalted medium of poetry was sufficient for him to express his seraphic aspirations.
For others, however, he is nothing but a scientific fraud; one who had willingly participated in the Piltdown Man hoax. Or an incompetent in philosophy, his reasoning contradicting the most basic laws of human thinking.
More damning still is the following view of him that was expressed by a writer in "TRIUMPH" magazine, after his having read through de Chardin's paper, "The Human Sense":
As the reader goes through this longish essay, he will be struck by Teilhard's boorishness. Where he is not outrageous, he is insufferably silly. Whether he assumes the garb of the sociologist, the theologian or the historian of ideas, the result is always the same: the garb hangs in bulky and comic surplus around the shoulders of a midget.
In only one pose is Teilhard really, in a perverse way, convincing: that of the anti-Christian prophet. He says that mankind, possessed by the utopian-secularist vision that he lauds as the "human sense", will ever more despise the Christ of papal teaching. We agree. And so it has transpired. The only difference lies in the side that one chooses". ["The Teilhard Papers II", Dec. 1971, 28. Emphasis added].
Strong words from that writer. Are they true or not? Was de Chardin really a bit of an ignoramus, whose only genuine - though dubious - claim to 'fame' was as an "anti-Christian prophet"? A Hitler-type in Jesuit's garb, if you like, in the sense that he was able to get away with the most absurd anthropological and sociological views (compare Hitler's Mein Kampf), be-cause he bore a message that for some mysterious reason had stirred the imaginations of his contemporaries.
In regard to this comparison with Hitler, recent writings have shown rather plausibly that de Chardin shared the same Weltanschauung as the Nazis; both having common roots in the occult Theosophical Society of the mid-nineteenth century. Most particularly, their views have been traced back to the school of Madame Blavatsky and her colleagues.
In other words, de Chardin's 'metaphysics' owes more to theosophy than it does to philosophy.
Now, one extremely nasty feature that both de Chardin and the Nazis apparently inherited from this Theosophical Society was its xenophobia: a contempt for what were perceived to be the 'inferior' races (in de Chardin's case, the Chinese and the Negroid peoples).
Most relevant to the request of the Secular Carmelites, however (more than de Chardin's purported racist views, or his 'philosophical' quirks) are his opinions pertaining to Catholic Faith.
What Was de Chardin's Aim?
We do not need to rack our brains too hard to try to discern what de Chardin was bent upon achieving, because he himself has stated in quite unequivocal terms what that was. In 1936 he explained that his dominant interest was to create a "new religion", and to spread it:
What increasingly dominates my interest is the effort to establish within myself and to diffuse around me a new religion in which the personal God is no longer the great neolithic landowner of times gone by, but the soul of the world, as the cultural and religious stage we have reached now demands. [26th January, 1936; quoted in "Letters to L. Zanta", 114. Emphasis added].
The advent of this "new religion" - a movement that de Chardin believed would be "much more profound" even than the Protestant Reformation - would be achieved only by a complete re-interpretation of Catholic dogma. Thus he wrote only two years before he died:
I have come to the conclusion that, in order to pay for a drastic valorization and amortization of the substance of things, a whole series of re-shaping of certain representations or attitudes, which seem to us definitely fixed by Catholic dogma, has become necessary, if we sincerely want to Christify evolution. Seen thus, and because of an ineluctable necessity, one could say that a hitherto unknown form of religion is gradually germinating in the heart of modern man in the furrow opened up by the idea of evolution. ["Stuff of the Universe", 1953. Emphasis added].
Now, not by the wildest stretch of the imagination can Catholicism be properly described by de Chardin's phrase: "... a hitherto unknown form of religion". So - despite what the Jesuit himself tried to maintain - it could not have been Catholicism that he saw as "gradually germinating in the heart of modern man in the furrow opened up by the idea of evolution", but rather de Chardin's "new religion".
How then, we ask, can any Catholic (e.g. a Fr. Ross Collings; or the lecturers employed by the Northern Deanery) claim to be able to use Teilhard de Chardin's writings for the enrichment of Catholic Faith? De Chardin has, by his very own words, admitted to having directed all of his writings and his energies towards establishing a "hitherto unknown form of religion".
The answer is that those who enthusiastically teach de Chardin's doctrines have no interest at all in enhancing Catholic Faith.
Thus Christopher Bounds, the Religious Education Co-ordinator of Mary MacKillop College, who lectured in 1994 to Catholic Parents and Teachers of the Northern Deanery, told those assembled: "If your kids become genuine Buddhists you've succeeded". (The writer was present at the time, with a witness).
In regard to this false presumption that all religions - even the non-Christian ones - are equal with Catholicism, have not certain perceptive commentators on De Chardin observed that he was really the first to make eastern (e.g. Buddhist) mysticism attractive to the scientific western mind?
"Today", observed John Paul II, "we are seeing a certain diffusion of Buddhism in the West". [Crossing the Threshold of Hope p.85]. Was John Paul II pleased about this tendency? Not on your life! "... the Buddhist tradition and the methods deriving from it", he goes on to warn, "have an almost exclusively negative soteriology. The "enlightenment" experienced by Buddha comes down to the conviction that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and of suffering for man". (Ibid.).
Not that the followers of de Chardin are about to be swayed by the views of the Holy Father, for which they generally show contempt. Mr. Bounds, for instance, seemed determined in class to undermine the authority of Pope John Paul II in whatever way he could; even to the extent of making such ridiculous statements as "John Paul II is not a teacher", because presumably "... he's never been in a classroom situation".
Bounds also stated quite categorically that he was not going to teach his students about "Humanae Vitae", because it was beyond them. Nor would the Catechism of the Catholic Church be used in the classrooms.
Soon we shall discover what de Chardin himself thought about papal encyclicals.
De Chardin's Synthesising Idea
If one were to look for a common, synthesising idea throughout de Chardin's writings it would undoubtedly be that of "evolution". For him, evolution was really everything, godlike. "Evolution", he wrote on one occasion, "is not just hypotheses or theories: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy if they are thinkable and true ...".
We really need to pause here to take in that last statement. Having let de Chardin's words sink in, we can only exclaim: What a statement of breathtaking arrogance! Everything, he claims, every idea, every system of thought, "must bow" to the theory of evolution.
Why?
Because de Chardin says so.
And he means literally everything, even Christ. Yes even Christ - according to de Chardin's jaundiced view - is dependent on the biological (and, may we add, scientifically quite unproven) process of evolution. Thus Teilhard wrote in "Le Christique" (1955), just before he died: "Christ saves, but must we not hasten to add, Christ too is saved by evolution". The Divine Person, Jesus Christ, dependent upon evolution for salvation. Not likely! But for de Chardin, who envisaged God, not as One who pre-existed, and who was really distinct from, His creation (as most Christians believe), but as nothing other than "the soul of the world", then the idea of an evolving "God" was an inevitable conclusion.
De Chardin's Contempt for Papal Thinking
Some decades before De Chardin had begun to write his books and articles, Pope St. Pius X had already - in his now celebrated encyclical, "Pascendi" (1907) - unravelled the complex thought processes of the typical Modernist, showing these to be quite subjectively based. Today, the expression "personal faith experience" is commonly used to describe this particular 'religious' attitude.
What it boils down to is that the individual perceives himself or herself, rather than an external authority (Church), to be the final judge of his or her own private "religious experiences".
Now it is this subjective approach that precisely motivated de Chardin, just as today it motivates those who follow and/or promote his views in the face of numerous warnings, bannings and even condemnations against these by the legitimate Church authorities.
Religious subjectivism is likewise the motivation for the numerous followers of unapproved apparitions. What all of these religious subjectivists have in common is that they themselves want the power to determine their own 'spiritual' path, to map out their own course for 'salvation', according to their own timetable, without any 'obstruction' or 'interference' from the Church.
But the Holy Spirit never ceases to guide the Church and to warn the faithful against the dangers to salvation posed by such attitudes.
Through the writings and warnings of Pope St. Pius X, Modernism was exposed and unmasked at its very inception. For decades this pernicious system, rightly called the "synthesis of all heresies", was forced to go underground. However, with the popularisation of the theory of Evolution the Mod-ernists seemed to gain a second wind. Pope Pius XII rose to tackle this new situation, insofar as it impinged upon Faith. Thus, in 1950, the Holy Father wrote in his encyclical "Humani Generis" words that - as we are going to find - are perfectly applicable to the thinking of de Chardin:
Some will contend that the theory of evolution as it is called - a theory that has not yet been proved beyond contradiction even in the sphere of natural science - applies to the origin of all things whatsoever .... These false evolutionary notions, with their denial of all that is absolute or fixed or abiding in human experience (tradition) have paved the way for a new philosophy of error. [Emphasis added].
Although Pope Pius XII did not specifically mention de Chardin here, the fact that the Holy Father's description could be applied without any forcing to the Jesuit's thinking (e.g. his implication that even God was subject to the evolutionary process) was not lost on de Chardin's colleague, an ex-priest (Dominican) who had rejected Catholicism. Thus the former Dominican, fully aware that "Humani Generis" was condemning the very views that de Chardin held, and himself seeing no hope for fermenting these new ideas within so strong a Church, invited de Chardin by letter to join him in battle to change the Church from the outside.
But de Chardin's schemes were more sophisticated than that.
He was hell bent on changing the Catholic Church "from within". He anticipated, even boasted about, an imminent change within the Catholic Church "much more profound" than the Protestant Reformation (which had eventually gone outside the Church).
Here is de Chardin's reply to his ex-priest friend:
Basically I consider - as you do - that the Church reaches a period of mutation or necessary reformation. To be more precise: I consider that the reformation in question (and much more profound a one than that of the sixteenth century) is no longer a simple matter of institutions and ethics, but of faith. Having stated my views I still cannot see any better means of bringing about what I anticipate than to work towards this re-form from within.
In the course of the last fifty years I have watched the revitalization of Catholic thought and life taking place around me - in spite of the encyclicals - too closely not to have un-bounded confidence in the ability of the old Roman stem to re-vivify itself. Let us then each work in our separate sphere: all upward movements converge.
From the above, it is quite obvious that De Chardin knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted to re-cast the entire Catholic system according to his evolutionary views. This, as he thought, would enable him to do away with dogma and papal teaching. The whole thing was conspiratorial. He would proceed with his new religion "... in spite of the encyclicals".
It therefore comes as no surprise to find that the lecturer from the de Chardin influenced Northern Deanery, Chris Bounds, should have told his class regarding the then current encyclical, "Veritatis Splendor", that (said with approval): "Some of my colleagues call the Pope's encyclical 'Supercilious Veritatis'".
In the light of the above, it would be folly to construe de Chardin's writings as do some, as assuming mere "poetic licence". His were the systematic words and actions of a man who knew exactly what he was about. "To lay the axe at the root itself, that is Faith", is how Pope St. Pius X had (more than forty years earlier) described the intentions of the Modernists.
And judging by that famous post-conciliar remark of Pope Paul VI, that the "smoke of Satan" had begun to seep into the Church through cracks and crevices, the efforts by de Chardin and his colleagues to change the Church from within were by the 1970's having a profound effect.
De Chardin TodayWhat is the great appeal of de Chardin today, now in the Third Millennium?
It is not difficult to ascertain why de Chardin's writings still have a strong appeal today. They offer to human pride the same temptations that were offered to our First Parents in the Garden: to be like God; to be able to determine the course of one's own salvation; to disobey; to wield power.
Messiah-like, De Chardin promises those who will follow him an easy road to salvation. Having done away with, as he believed, the outdated notions of Adam and Eve (for de Chardin was a polygenist), and of Original Sin - even of God as we know Him - and having presumably replaced all of this with a transcendent evolutionary process by means of which all (God "the Soul of the World", ourselves) must inevitably reach perfection (or what de Chardin called "Omega Point") the Jesuit was then able to conclude that there was no need for a Redeeming Christ, because there was no sin. Hence there was no longer any necessity for one to follow the steep and painful way to salvation as marked out by the Gospels. De Chardin was in fact convinced that the world of his time had outgrown its use for the Gospels, with their old-fashioned doctrine of sin and the need for personal salvation. The Gospels, the "Imitation of Christ", he boldly declared in "The Human Sense", needed to be replaced:
A collective optimism, realistic and courageous, must defi-nitely replace the pessimism and individualism, whose over-grown notions of sin and personal salvation have gradually burdened and perverted the Christian spirit. Let us then ac-knowledge the situation honestly: not only the "Imitation of Christ" but also the Gospel itself needs to undergo this correction, and the whole world will make them undergo it.
Despite de Chardin's frenetic attempts to play at once the roles of priest, prophet, evangelist and 'Messiah', and to re-interpret the entire history and pattern of salvation that has been revealed to us through the Scriptures and Tradition, the road to Heaven remains the same as it has always been: the narrow, bloodstained way of the Cross, trodden first by our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, on our behalf. It is a road of suffering and self denial (Matthew 16:24); a narrow door (John 10:7). Christ, and He alone, is the Way to salvation, the Way to the Father, and there is no other (John 14:6). Anyone who tries to force another way is "a thief and a robber" (John 10:1). In so many places does the New Testament recall to mind for us the fact that one needs to work hard at one's salvation. It is not easily obtained, not even by the good. St. Peter, quoting from the Book of Proverbs, made this quite clear when he said that: "If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?" (I Peter 4:18).
So despite de Chardin and similar prophets of an anti-Christ mentality, the way of the Cross still remains the only way of salvation. And on this feast-day of Our Lady of Lourdes it is appropriate to recall the words that the Blessed Virgin spoke to St. Bernadette as given at the top of this article: "I do not promise to make you happy in this world, but in the next."
No Cross, no Crown!
The questions to be posed here are: "Why does de Chardin still exert an influence on the modern mind?" And: "What sort of an influence is it?"
De Chardin's Broad Reach
The writings of Pere Teilhard de Chardin have embraced a wide range of disciplines. Thus today we can read books that try to analyse the Jesuit's so-called scientific views; or his anthropological and sociological beliefs; or his metaphysico-philosophical arguments; or even his theosophical, religious and mystical doctrines.
In the minds of some, Fr. de Chardin is actually considered to be a Saint; equal (if not greater) in the loftiness of his thought to St. Thomas Aquinas. Others regard him as a mystic, for whom only the exalted medium of poetry was sufficient for him to express his seraphic aspirations.
For others, however, he is nothing but a scientific fraud; one who had willingly participated in the Piltdown Man hoax. Or an incompetent in philosophy, his reasoning contradicting the most basic laws of human thinking.
More damning still is the following view of him that was expressed by a writer in "TRIUMPH" magazine, after his having read through de Chardin's paper, "The Human Sense":
As the reader goes through this longish essay, he will be struck by Teilhard's boorishness. Where he is not outrageous, he is insufferably silly. Whether he assumes the garb of the sociologist, the theologian or the historian of ideas, the result is always the same: the garb hangs in bulky and comic surplus around the shoulders of a midget.
In only one pose is Teilhard really, in a perverse way, convincing: that of the anti-Christian prophet. He says that mankind, possessed by the utopian-secularist vision that he lauds as the "human sense", will ever more despise the Christ of papal teaching. We agree. And so it has transpired. The only difference lies in the side that one chooses". ["The Teilhard Papers II", Dec. 1971, 28. Emphasis added].
Strong words from that writer. Are they true or not? Was de Chardin really a bit of an ignoramus, whose only genuine - though dubious - claim to 'fame' was as an "anti-Christian prophet"? A Hitler-type in Jesuit's garb, if you like, in the sense that he was able to get away with the most absurd anthropological and sociological views (compare Hitler's Mein Kampf), be-cause he bore a message that for some mysterious reason had stirred the imaginations of his contemporaries.
In regard to this comparison with Hitler, recent writings have shown rather plausibly that de Chardin shared the same Weltanschauung as the Nazis; both having common roots in the occult Theosophical Society of the mid-nineteenth century. Most particularly, their views have been traced back to the school of Madame Blavatsky and her colleagues.
In other words, de Chardin's 'metaphysics' owes more to theosophy than it does to philosophy.
Now, one extremely nasty feature that both de Chardin and the Nazis apparently inherited from this Theosophical Society was its xenophobia: a contempt for what were perceived to be the 'inferior' races (in de Chardin's case, the Chinese and the Negroid peoples).
Most relevant to the request of the Secular Carmelites, however (more than de Chardin's purported racist views, or his 'philosophical' quirks) are his opinions pertaining to Catholic Faith.
What Was de Chardin's Aim?
We do not need to rack our brains too hard to try to discern what de Chardin was bent upon achieving, because he himself has stated in quite unequivocal terms what that was. In 1936 he explained that his dominant interest was to create a "new religion", and to spread it:
What increasingly dominates my interest is the effort to establish within myself and to diffuse around me a new religion in which the personal God is no longer the great neolithic landowner of times gone by, but the soul of the world, as the cultural and religious stage we have reached now demands. [26th January, 1936; quoted in "Letters to L. Zanta", 114. Emphasis added].
The advent of this "new religion" - a movement that de Chardin believed would be "much more profound" even than the Protestant Reformation - would be achieved only by a complete re-interpretation of Catholic dogma. Thus he wrote only two years before he died:
I have come to the conclusion that, in order to pay for a drastic valorization and amortization of the substance of things, a whole series of re-shaping of certain representations or attitudes, which seem to us definitely fixed by Catholic dogma, has become necessary, if we sincerely want to Christify evolution. Seen thus, and because of an ineluctable necessity, one could say that a hitherto unknown form of religion is gradually germinating in the heart of modern man in the furrow opened up by the idea of evolution. ["Stuff of the Universe", 1953. Emphasis added].
Now, not by the wildest stretch of the imagination can Catholicism be properly described by de Chardin's phrase: "... a hitherto unknown form of religion". So - despite what the Jesuit himself tried to maintain - it could not have been Catholicism that he saw as "gradually germinating in the heart of modern man in the furrow opened up by the idea of evolution", but rather de Chardin's "new religion".
How then, we ask, can any Catholic (e.g. a Fr. Ross Collings; or the lecturers employed by the Northern Deanery) claim to be able to use Teilhard de Chardin's writings for the enrichment of Catholic Faith? De Chardin has, by his very own words, admitted to having directed all of his writings and his energies towards establishing a "hitherto unknown form of religion".
The answer is that those who enthusiastically teach de Chardin's doctrines have no interest at all in enhancing Catholic Faith.
Thus Christopher Bounds, the Religious Education Co-ordinator of Mary MacKillop College, who lectured in 1994 to Catholic Parents and Teachers of the Northern Deanery, told those assembled: "If your kids become genuine Buddhists you've succeeded". (The writer was present at the time, with a witness).
In regard to this false presumption that all religions - even the non-Christian ones - are equal with Catholicism, have not certain perceptive commentators on De Chardin observed that he was really the first to make eastern (e.g. Buddhist) mysticism attractive to the scientific western mind?
"Today", observed John Paul II, "we are seeing a certain diffusion of Buddhism in the West". [Crossing the Threshold of Hope p.85]. Was John Paul II pleased about this tendency? Not on your life! "... the Buddhist tradition and the methods deriving from it", he goes on to warn, "have an almost exclusively negative soteriology. The "enlightenment" experienced by Buddha comes down to the conviction that the world is bad, that it is the source of evil and of suffering for man". (Ibid.).
Not that the followers of de Chardin are about to be swayed by the views of the Holy Father, for which they generally show contempt. Mr. Bounds, for instance, seemed determined in class to undermine the authority of Pope John Paul II in whatever way he could; even to the extent of making such ridiculous statements as "John Paul II is not a teacher", because presumably "... he's never been in a classroom situation".
Bounds also stated quite categorically that he was not going to teach his students about "Humanae Vitae", because it was beyond them. Nor would the Catechism of the Catholic Church be used in the classrooms.
Soon we shall discover what de Chardin himself thought about papal encyclicals.
De Chardin's Synthesising Idea
If one were to look for a common, synthesising idea throughout de Chardin's writings it would undoubtedly be that of "evolution". For him, evolution was really everything, godlike. "Evolution", he wrote on one occasion, "is not just hypotheses or theories: it is a general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy if they are thinkable and true ...".
We really need to pause here to take in that last statement. Having let de Chardin's words sink in, we can only exclaim: What a statement of breathtaking arrogance! Everything, he claims, every idea, every system of thought, "must bow" to the theory of evolution.
Why?
Because de Chardin says so.
And he means literally everything, even Christ. Yes even Christ - according to de Chardin's jaundiced view - is dependent on the biological (and, may we add, scientifically quite unproven) process of evolution. Thus Teilhard wrote in "Le Christique" (1955), just before he died: "Christ saves, but must we not hasten to add, Christ too is saved by evolution". The Divine Person, Jesus Christ, dependent upon evolution for salvation. Not likely! But for de Chardin, who envisaged God, not as One who pre-existed, and who was really distinct from, His creation (as most Christians believe), but as nothing other than "the soul of the world", then the idea of an evolving "God" was an inevitable conclusion.
De Chardin's Contempt for Papal Thinking
Some decades before De Chardin had begun to write his books and articles, Pope St. Pius X had already - in his now celebrated encyclical, "Pascendi" (1907) - unravelled the complex thought processes of the typical Modernist, showing these to be quite subjectively based. Today, the expression "personal faith experience" is commonly used to describe this particular 'religious' attitude.
What it boils down to is that the individual perceives himself or herself, rather than an external authority (Church), to be the final judge of his or her own private "religious experiences".
Now it is this subjective approach that precisely motivated de Chardin, just as today it motivates those who follow and/or promote his views in the face of numerous warnings, bannings and even condemnations against these by the legitimate Church authorities.
Religious subjectivism is likewise the motivation for the numerous followers of unapproved apparitions. What all of these religious subjectivists have in common is that they themselves want the power to determine their own 'spiritual' path, to map out their own course for 'salvation', according to their own timetable, without any 'obstruction' or 'interference' from the Church.
But the Holy Spirit never ceases to guide the Church and to warn the faithful against the dangers to salvation posed by such attitudes.
Through the writings and warnings of Pope St. Pius X, Modernism was exposed and unmasked at its very inception. For decades this pernicious system, rightly called the "synthesis of all heresies", was forced to go underground. However, with the popularisation of the theory of Evolution the Mod-ernists seemed to gain a second wind. Pope Pius XII rose to tackle this new situation, insofar as it impinged upon Faith. Thus, in 1950, the Holy Father wrote in his encyclical "Humani Generis" words that - as we are going to find - are perfectly applicable to the thinking of de Chardin:
Some will contend that the theory of evolution as it is called - a theory that has not yet been proved beyond contradiction even in the sphere of natural science - applies to the origin of all things whatsoever .... These false evolutionary notions, with their denial of all that is absolute or fixed or abiding in human experience (tradition) have paved the way for a new philosophy of error. [Emphasis added].
Although Pope Pius XII did not specifically mention de Chardin here, the fact that the Holy Father's description could be applied without any forcing to the Jesuit's thinking (e.g. his implication that even God was subject to the evolutionary process) was not lost on de Chardin's colleague, an ex-priest (Dominican) who had rejected Catholicism. Thus the former Dominican, fully aware that "Humani Generis" was condemning the very views that de Chardin held, and himself seeing no hope for fermenting these new ideas within so strong a Church, invited de Chardin by letter to join him in battle to change the Church from the outside.
But de Chardin's schemes were more sophisticated than that.
He was hell bent on changing the Catholic Church "from within". He anticipated, even boasted about, an imminent change within the Catholic Church "much more profound" than the Protestant Reformation (which had eventually gone outside the Church).
Here is de Chardin's reply to his ex-priest friend:
Basically I consider - as you do - that the Church reaches a period of mutation or necessary reformation. To be more precise: I consider that the reformation in question (and much more profound a one than that of the sixteenth century) is no longer a simple matter of institutions and ethics, but of faith. Having stated my views I still cannot see any better means of bringing about what I anticipate than to work towards this re-form from within.
In the course of the last fifty years I have watched the revitalization of Catholic thought and life taking place around me - in spite of the encyclicals - too closely not to have un-bounded confidence in the ability of the old Roman stem to re-vivify itself. Let us then each work in our separate sphere: all upward movements converge.
From the above, it is quite obvious that De Chardin knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted to re-cast the entire Catholic system according to his evolutionary views. This, as he thought, would enable him to do away with dogma and papal teaching. The whole thing was conspiratorial. He would proceed with his new religion "... in spite of the encyclicals".
It therefore comes as no surprise to find that the lecturer from the de Chardin influenced Northern Deanery, Chris Bounds, should have told his class regarding the then current encyclical, "Veritatis Splendor", that (said with approval): "Some of my colleagues call the Pope's encyclical 'Supercilious Veritatis'".
In the light of the above, it would be folly to construe de Chardin's writings as do some, as assuming mere "poetic licence". His were the systematic words and actions of a man who knew exactly what he was about. "To lay the axe at the root itself, that is Faith", is how Pope St. Pius X had (more than forty years earlier) described the intentions of the Modernists.
And judging by that famous post-conciliar remark of Pope Paul VI, that the "smoke of Satan" had begun to seep into the Church through cracks and crevices, the efforts by de Chardin and his colleagues to change the Church from within were by the 1970's having a profound effect.
De Chardin TodayWhat is the great appeal of de Chardin today, now in the Third Millennium?
It is not difficult to ascertain why de Chardin's writings still have a strong appeal today. They offer to human pride the same temptations that were offered to our First Parents in the Garden: to be like God; to be able to determine the course of one's own salvation; to disobey; to wield power.
Messiah-like, De Chardin promises those who will follow him an easy road to salvation. Having done away with, as he believed, the outdated notions of Adam and Eve (for de Chardin was a polygenist), and of Original Sin - even of God as we know Him - and having presumably replaced all of this with a transcendent evolutionary process by means of which all (God "the Soul of the World", ourselves) must inevitably reach perfection (or what de Chardin called "Omega Point") the Jesuit was then able to conclude that there was no need for a Redeeming Christ, because there was no sin. Hence there was no longer any necessity for one to follow the steep and painful way to salvation as marked out by the Gospels. De Chardin was in fact convinced that the world of his time had outgrown its use for the Gospels, with their old-fashioned doctrine of sin and the need for personal salvation. The Gospels, the "Imitation of Christ", he boldly declared in "The Human Sense", needed to be replaced:
A collective optimism, realistic and courageous, must defi-nitely replace the pessimism and individualism, whose over-grown notions of sin and personal salvation have gradually burdened and perverted the Christian spirit. Let us then ac-knowledge the situation honestly: not only the "Imitation of Christ" but also the Gospel itself needs to undergo this correction, and the whole world will make them undergo it.
Despite de Chardin's frenetic attempts to play at once the roles of priest, prophet, evangelist and 'Messiah', and to re-interpret the entire history and pattern of salvation that has been revealed to us through the Scriptures and Tradition, the road to Heaven remains the same as it has always been: the narrow, bloodstained way of the Cross, trodden first by our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, on our behalf. It is a road of suffering and self denial (Matthew 16:24); a narrow door (John 10:7). Christ, and He alone, is the Way to salvation, the Way to the Father, and there is no other (John 14:6). Anyone who tries to force another way is "a thief and a robber" (John 10:1). In so many places does the New Testament recall to mind for us the fact that one needs to work hard at one's salvation. It is not easily obtained, not even by the good. St. Peter, quoting from the Book of Proverbs, made this quite clear when he said that: "If the righteous man is scarcely saved, where will the impious and sinner appear?" (I Peter 4:18).
So despite de Chardin and similar prophets of an anti-Christ mentality, the way of the Cross still remains the only way of salvation. And on this feast-day of Our Lady of Lourdes it is appropriate to recall the words that the Blessed Virgin spoke to St. Bernadette as given at the top of this article: "I do not promise to make you happy in this world, but in the next."
No Cross, no Crown!
No comments:
Post a Comment