By: Dr. J. P. Hubert
Moral Relativism and Utilitarianism are the reigning (immoral) philosophies in the developed West. Most of our public policy dilemmas are either directly or indirectly related to the widespread acceptance of these post-Enlightenment constructs. Some of the blame for our current predicament can be laid at the feet of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit Priest who attempted to institute a “New Religion” by combining Darwinian evolution with his unorthodox view of Theism.
As Wolfgang Smith has written, Teilhard de Chardin intended to start a New Religion.[1] He made it quite clear on several occasions. In a letter to Leontine Zanta he wrote:
“As you already know, what dominates my interest and my preoccupations is the effort to establish in myself and to spread around a new religion (you may call it a better Christianity) in which the personal God ceases to be the great Neolithic proprietor of former times, in order to become the soul of the world; our religious and cultural stage calls for this.”[2]
Dietrich von Hildebrand and Wolfgang Smith trace much of the heterodoxy of the second Vatican Conciliar process to the circulation of Teilhardian conceptions of science[3] (especially with respect to biological evolution) and derivatively, Teilhard’s view of religion. Teilhard seems to have made the transformism[4] of biological evolution palatable to certain Catholic Theologians who wished to embrace what they perceived as modern evolutionary science. Traditionally, the entire notion had been thought heretical particularly as concerned the biological evolution of human beings.
Through his New Religion, Teilhard gave a patina of legitimacy to the entire concept of evolution by theorizing the existence of “point Omega” which ultimately he identified with Jesus Christ. It appears that many Catholic Theologians were duped by failing to differentiate the actual facts of biological science from the prevailing naturalistic philosophy (metaphysical naturalism) which as a result of the assertions of leading biologists, was virtually inseparable from it.[5] This made them “ripe” for Teilhard’s proposed incorporation of Evolution into “Christianity.” Teilhard’s New Religion was therefore very much on the minds of some of the participants of the Council, some explicitly and some only implicitly. One might say that the “flavor” was in the air.
Unfortunately, no systematic refutation of Teilhard’s theory was available in 1962 prior to the commencing of Vatican II. Wolfgang Smith’s work which accomplished same became available only in 1988. In a sense then, when Pope John XXIII called for “aggiornamento”, (whether recognized at the time or not), not only was he opening the windows of the Traditional Catholic Church to the world but to what Teilhard had been promulgating as the New Religion as well. It is the latter effect that has produced the post-Conciliar disaster’s with which most Catholics are all too familiar.
Unfortunately, Teilhard’s heretical New Religion has been embraced either in part or in whole by several generations of post-conciliar Catholics given that Teilhard’s spurious notions have never been formally repudiated.[6] Teilhardism effectively destroyed the Creation tenet of orthodox Catholicism, the Fall from Grace and with it the concept of Original Sin, the atoning death of Christ on the Cross and thereby the entire Salvation/Redemption tenet based as it is on Christ’s crucifixion and literal bodily resurrection. One can see the effect of Teilhardism on the Creation tenet displayed in the 1993 Catechism of the Catholic Church for example, an extremely meager treatment that. What is left after Teilhard is through bears virtually no resemblance to orthodox Christianity—at best he created a kind of pantheistic finite godism interspersed with elements of Hinduism.[7]
Moreover, it is remarkable that Teilhard was never de-frocked given his obvious heretical assertions. The notion that he could persist in calling himself a Catholic priest of the Jesuit Order in good standing is particularly disconcerting. The rank and file Catholic faithful are easily led astray when members of their clergy remain in service despite evincing either heresy or apostasy. While Teilhard was barred by the Vatican from teaching theology and from disseminating his views formally, he was never forced to repudiate them as heretical. Clearly his writings establish that at the very least Teilhard was a notorious material heretic—arguably the most infamous of the 20th century.[8] Given that he essentially instituted a New Religion, he was an apostate from the faith as well. One logically expects that Teilhard would have been excommunicated and defrocked for his writings alone since he never appeared willing to publicly recant them. It would not seem illegitimate to wonder whether based upon Teilhard’s own admission, his views were satanically inspired:
“The man was walking in the desert, followed by his companion, when the Thing swooped down on him. Then, suddenly, a breath of scorching air passed across his forehead, broke through the barrier of his closed eyelids, and penetrated his soul. The man felt he was ceasing to be merely himself; an irresistible rapture took possession of him as though all the sap of all living things, flowing at one and the same moment into the too narrow confines of his heart, was mightily refashioning the enfeebled fibres of his being. And at the same time the anguish of some superhuman peril oppressed him, a confused feeling that the force which had swept down upon him was equivocal, turbid, the combined essence of all evil and all goodness. You called me: here I am grown weary of abstractions, of attenuations, of the wordiness of social life, you wanted to pit yourself against Reality entire and untamed. I was waiting for you in order to be made holy. And now I am established on you for life, or for death…He who has once seen me can never forget me: he must either damn himself with me or save me with himself. O you who are divine and mighty, what is your name? Speak.”[9]
This writer’s opinion is that Teilhardism is no doubt of Satanic origin—a true “religion of man”, if ever there was one. It is clear from Wolfgang Smith’s writing in 1988 that he had a similar view but took great pains to state the case as respectfully and obliquely as possible. These however are exceedingly confusing and difficult times in which a certain almost crass directness is apparently necessary.
A significant amount of the theological confusion today in Catholic circles including the widespread adoption of moral relativism and Utilitarianism in the developed West is no doubt due to the teaching of Teilhard de Chardin.[10] In that regard we are indeed fortunate that Wolfgang Smith produced a systematic refutation of Teilhardism on scientific as well as Theological grounds.[11] He has demonstrated that Teilhard’s theory is based upon science fantasy/fiction not reality and does not at all reflect 20th and 21st century scientific understanding.[12] Any theological developments issuing forth from those erroneous assertions are of logical necessity also illegitimate. The biblical adage that “you shall know them by their fruits” (Mt. 7:16) is also applicable here as well. Nothing but “bad fruit” has come from the acceptance of Teilhard’s ideas whether from a religious or strictly secular perspective. Thus Teilhardism stands repudiated on the bar of history and Traditional (orthodox) Christianity remains intact despite man’s attempts to destroy it. Christians who are committed to orthodoxy should purge the teachings of Teilhard de Chardin from their lexicon of religious belief. This is especially true for Roman Catholics. Teilhard was for them, a wolf in the night, a Trojan horse bent on stealing their salvation.
ENDNOTES:
[1] Wolfgang Smith. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. (Rockford, Ill., Tan Books and Publisher’s Inc., 1988), pp. 209-210.
[2] Lettres a Leontine Zanta (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1965), p. 127; quoted by von Hildebrand in Trojan Horse in the City of God (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1967), p. 239.
[3] Which was steeped in Baconian conceptions of science and which fully accepted the Bifurcationism of Descartes.
[4] Also referred to as “Macroevolution” in which major animal body plans are alleged to have developed slowly and incrementally over eons of time from entirely different ones, e.g. amphibians from fish, birds from reptiles etc. In evolutionary biology this is referred to as “common descent” with modification. There is no persuasive evidence that this has occurred above the level of genus or species if dispassionately considered. Recall also that Fr. Stanley Jaki has argued that “Origins” questions by their very nature are not scientific but philosophical meaning that the question of so-called Macro-evolution is non-scientific from the start since the origin and development of terrestrial life is scientifically unrepeatable. The most one could do is make inferences from established facts.
[5] They also failed to follow the theological implications of Teilhardism to their logical conclusion(s).
[6] In addition, many Conciliar and Post-Conciliar documents are extremely difficult to understand in that they seem to represent an amalgamation of disparate views—compromises it appears. The verbal clarity which had traditionally been associated with Dogmatic Conciliar Documents is clearly missing.
[7] As Wolfgang Smith has demonstrated, there is no evidence from modern physical science that "Point Omega" exists in reality. It is a complete fabrication. Teilhard has no use for God the Father or the Holy Ghost for that matter.
[8] All of the following are technically accurate: Roman Catholic Imposter, Heretic Extraordinaire, Subverter of the Faith.
[9] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. The Heart of Matter. (English translation by William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd., and Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1978), pp. 61 & 68, describing a personal “mystical experience” in 1918 through which he had recently passed. The “Thing” which Teilhard placed in capital letters bears a striking resemblance to something of demonic origin yet he calls it divine and mighty!
[10] Obviously many others contributed especially Jeremy Bentham, J. S. Mill and their followers.
[11] Teilhard repeatedly and consistently presented his theory as scientifically verifiable which is patently absurd as Wolfgang Smith has well outlined in his book.
[12] Teilhard assumes that Macroevolution (transformism) is an established fact based on the paucity of evidence in existence at the time. While Microevolution is a fact (at the level of species and possibly genus), "macroevolution" even in 2008 is not. It is an inductive (a-posteriori) inference and a not very well grounded one at that based on all the evidence both pro and con which now exists (including the so-called Cambrian “explosion” or Biological “Big Bang.”) Recall also that the discovery of DNA was made after Teilhard developed his theory.
