CHAPTER VII, part 4
BAPTISM

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a French Jesuit priest who taught a combined form of Darwinian evolution and 'Catholic’ theology. According to evolutionary theology the notion of an unchangeable Deposit of Faith is seen as an illusion because nothing is exempt from substantial change. 'His faith was not that of the Catholic Church and he knew it. After all, he had studied enough to know that the Faith of the Church is a faith in the words of Jesus Christ and that consequently this faith cannot change substantially.’11

'In 1927 Rome refused an imprimatur on his book Le Milieu Divin. In 1933 he was ordered not to teach in Paris. In 1933 Rome refused him permission to publish L’energie Humain. In 1944 his Phenomene Human was banned. In 1948, summoned by his Superior General to Rome, he sought permission once more to publish his Phenomene Humain – and was refused. Again in 1949 and 1955 his printings and activities were restricted. In December of 1957, a decree from the Holy Office ordered the withdrawal of his works from Catholic libraries, seminaries, religious institutions and bookshops.’12

'Most of the essays never saw print until after his death because many of his ideas were considered too unorthodox by various authorities in the Church… His outspokenness on many traditionally expressed doctrines of the Church, such as original sin, sincerely disturbed his superiors and so, in 1925, he received instructions 'sympathetically given,’ to concentrate on scientific work and return to China.’13 'In reality, Teilhard was being silenced by a virtual exile from Europe.’ 14 He died suddenly on April 10, 1955, in New York City.

'He was not allowed to publish his most significant works during his lifetime and, in fact, they have never been published with a Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (official declarations that the books are free of doctrinal or moral error).’15 On June 30, 1962 the Holy Office issued a monitum (warning) 'against the ambiguities and even grave errors against Catholic doctrine: in his writings.’16 'In 1963 the Vicariate of Rome, in a decree, required that Catholic bookshops in Rome should withdraw from circulation the works of de Chardin, and also those books which favor his erroneous doctrines.’17

Why does the Catholic Church consider the teachings of Teilhard de Chardin to be so dangerous and revolutionary? The writings of Teilhard de Chardin are one of the main sources of the fundamental errors in theology and philosophy today. He laid the basis for a new ecumenical religion which completely abandoned the Catholic faith. It is a new faith which claims to be the Catholic faith. 'It is not, in any case, the faith of the Catholic Church… through the Holy Office, the organ qualified to speak in her name, the Church has thought it necessary to declare that she does not recognize herself in Teilhard’s writings.’18

Dr. von Hildebrand referred to Teilhard de Chardin and other Modernist writers in his Trojan Horse in the City of God: 'We cannot escape the impression that these writers not only have lost their Catholic faith, but also no longer understand the very nature of religion based on divine revelation. It is sad enough when people lose their faith and leave the Church, but it is much worse when those who in reality have lost their faith remain within the Church and try – like termites – to undermine the Christian faith.’19

The writings of St. Thomas Aquinas andTeilhard de Chardin are at two opposite ends of the spectrum. Thomistic philosophy is clear, ordered, and logical. The teachings of Chardin are obscure, disordered and illogical. This will become readily apparent as his writings are read. Teilhard de Chardin coined a large number of words (e.g. Noosphere, totalization, Christogenesis, Omega point, pleromization and a hundred others) to describe different stages in his evolutionary theory.

Teachings of Teilhard de Chardin
One of the greatest scholars on de Chardin, Cardinal Journet, gave his verdict on the works of Teilhard as follows: 'de Chardin’s works are disastrous… it must be accepted or rejected as as a whole; but it contradicts Christianity… If one accepts de Chardin’s explanations one must reject the Christian notion of Creation, Spirit, God, Evil, Original Sin, the Cross, the Resurrection, Divine Love, etc.’20

Teilhard taught that Christian Tradition is to be classified among the 'whims and childishness of the earth.’ In his book, Stuff of the Universe, Teilhard de Chardin made no secret of the amount of Christian doctrine he was prepared to throw overboard; the very core of dogma had to be reshaped. '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 wish to Christify evolution. Seen thus, and because of 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 by the idea of evolution.’21

'Obviously, such a theory imposes either the abandonment or the complete transformation of all the basic doctrines of Roman Catholicism. Creation, Original Sin, the divinity of Jesus, redemption by Jesus’s death on the cross of Calgary, the Church, the forgiveness of sins, the Sacrifice of the Mass, priesthood, papal infallibility , Hell, Heaven, supernatural grace – even the existence and freedom of God – all must be reformulated, and perhaps abandoned in large part.’22

Teilhard de Chardin believed that evolution was superior to the Deposit of the Faith. He wrote: 'Is evolution a theory, a system, or a hypothesis? It is much more: it is the general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow.’23

Many people view Teilhard de Chardin as a great scientist who has reconciled Catholicism and science by introducing a new evolutionary theology. Deitrich von Hildebrand said, 'Though I am not a competent judge of Teilhard as a scientist, this opinion may be questioned without expertise. For one thing, every careful thinker knows that a reconciliation of science and the Christian faith has never been needed, because true science (in contradistinction to false philosophies disguised in scientific garments) can never be incompatible with Christian faith. Science can neither prove nor disprove the truth of the faith.’24

'It had never been Teilhard’s intention to defend and reinstate the traditional Christian teaching; instead, his objective from the start has been to reshape the doctrine. 'What we have to do without delay is to modify the position occupied by the core of Christianity…’ In a word, Teilhard’s objective is to found a new Christianity.’25

Dietrich von Hildebrand gives us further insight into Teilhard de Chardin. In reference to a conversation he once had with Teilhard on St. Augustine, Teilhard de Chardin '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 materialism 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.’26

TEILHARD DE CHARDIN’S teachings on original sin
In Teilhard’s new Christianity there is no place for sanctifying grace and the supernatural. The Church’s doctrines of original sin and Redemption have no real meaning in his new religion. Even Teilhard de Chardin was aware of the incompatibility of Divine Revelation with his new teachings when he wrote, 'Sometimes I am a bit afraid, when I think of the transposition to which I must submit my mind concerning the vulgar notions of creation, inspiration, miracle, original sin, resurrection, etc. in order to be able to accept them.’27

Teilhard has been criticized because 'he didn’t know what to do with original sin.’ The Catholic doctrine of original sin conflicted with his theories. 'In dealing with original sin… he occasionally offered explanations that were rightly judged to be unsatisfactory.’28

These teachings regarding original sin varied. The form he gave them was certainly untenable. For example, 'the 'original evil’, Teilhard seems to have maintained, was certainly a reality, but it extended back far beyond man, to the whole of the created world. Every structure as soon as it begins to exist is menaced by death: this ”original’ deficiency weighs upon every creature. This mortality itself is the deficiency which for Teilhard, as some interpret him, takes on at the human level the name of sin.’29

He realized that there would be difficulty in winning acceptance for his erroneous theory on original sin. Teilhard wrote, 'I don’t think that in the history of the Church anyone has 'pulled off’ such an adjustment of dogma as that of which we’re speaking – though similar attempts have been made and carried half-way…’30

Chardin wrote, 'Original sin continually obstructs the natural expansion of our religion. It clips the wings of our hopes. 'At every moment we are reaching out to the wide-open field of the good things that optimism can win, and every time it drags us back to the over-riding shadows of reparation and expiation.’ It is a 'strait-jacket that checks any movement of heart or head’; it 'binds us hand and foot and drains the blood from us because, as it is now expressed, it represents a survival of static concepts that are an anachronism in our evolutionist system of thought.’31

In a letter Pere Marechal wrote to Teilhard referring to his theory of original sin, he stated: 'This new explanation modifies, it seems to me, the essential basis, and not simply the formulation of the 'defined’ dogma. More precisely still, it suppresses the dogma, by declaring that it is superfluous. What in fact it does is to replace original sin by the distant ontological root of physical and moral evil. Now, this root, this metaphysical possibility of evil, inherent in the creature qua creatura, neither calls for nor rules out the state of supernatural justification, and therefore cannot take on, with the 'privation of original justice’, the relationship of active principle with effective consequence which the Council of Trent asserts so clearly of the sin of Adam. The whole Christian economy of 'justification’ is upset. The hypothesis put forward would lead to saying that mankind as such has never lost its initial right to grace and that the deprivation of grace is to be seen, in each individual, simply as the effect of a fault of which he is now guilty. All that would remain under the name of 'original sin’ would be simply the imperfections of the created being, 'the radical condition that causes the creature to be born from the multiple’ – in other words a philosophical truth”32

It is certain that Teilhard had ended by no longer believing in original sin, as is shown by his letter of April 8, 1955 (two days before his death) to Fr. Andre Ravier: 'In the Universe of Cosmogenesis, in which Evil is no longer catastrophic (i.e., no longer the result of an accident) but evolutive (i.e., the statistically unavoidable by-product of a universe in course of unification in God).’33

Teilhard’s theory of evolution demanded polygenism (many First Parents). He did not believe in our common descent from our First Parents, Adam and Eve (monogamy). As a result he rejected the doctrine of original sin. Since Teilhard did not believe in the creation of the Biblical first man, Adam and the first woman, Eve, he taught that there were many 'First Parents’ who evolved from primates at one time. In such a hypothesis original sin is impossible.

The writings of Teilhard de Chardin express this belief in an evolving group of first men and women. 'He wrote in Mon Universe, An 'original multiple’ was born from the dissociation of an already unified being (the first Adam); then came a second phase of 'involution’ of spirit in matter, an evidently non-empirical phase. Fr. Bosio objects to a phrase in Teilhard’s book, The Phenomenon of Man, 'From the point of view of science then, which from a distance only covers collectives, the first man is and can only be a crowd; and his youth is made of thousands and thousands of years.”34

Pope Pius XII condemned polygenism in his encyclical Humani Generis: 'The faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation through him as from the first parent of all, nor that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which through generation is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.’35

Joseph Kopp, the author of A New Synthesis of Evolution, says that Church doctrine and Teilhard’s theories are irreconcilable. 'We must be quite clear about this: whoever postulates an 'intervention’ on the part of God in His own work does not just modify de Chardin’s concepts, he destroys the very core of his philosophy. To speak of 'the introduction of the human soul through a special act of creation’ is to remove all meaning from de Chardin’s theory of purposeful evolution of the biosphere towards man. Also his theory of the evolution of the noosphere36 which, as we shall see, becomes completely unintelligible if one accepts the idea of intervention. We have to accept Teilhard’s view of an upward-developing creation up to and including man or reject his entire philosophy.’37

It is impossible to reconcile Teilhard’s teachings on original sin with the 'through one man sin entered into the world’ (Romans 5:12) to which the Council of Trent specifically referred when formulating its decree on original sin: 'If anyone does not profess that the first man Adam immediately lost the justice and holiness in which he was constituted when he disobeyed the commandment of God… let him be anathema.’38

The Church presents no interpretation of the traditional expressions 'Our First Parents,’ 'The Garden of Eden,’ 'The Fall’, and 'Original Sin’ that would allow Teilhard’s hypothesis to be even vaguely theologically acceptable. His concept of original sin is contrary to Christian revelation and Church teaching.

The teachings of Teilhard de Chardin lead ultimately to a denial of the divinity of Christ. What a radical difference between the doctrine of the Catholic Church and the theological fiction of de Chardin! 'Teilhard’s Christ is no longer Jesus, the God-man, the Redeemer; instead, He is the initiator of purely natural evolutionary process and, simultaneously, its end – the Christ-Omega. In his basic conception of the world which does not provide for original sin in the sense the Church gives to this term, there is no place for Jesus Christ of the Gospels; for if there is no original sin, then the redemption of man through Christ loses its inner meaning.’39

Teilhard de Chardin and Vatican II
Where is the connection between Teilhard de Chardin and the Vatican II rite of Baptism (initiation)? Although Teilhard de Chardin died many years before the new rite of Baptism was introduced, the Second Vatican Council, Paul VI, and the liturgical 'reformers’ were influenced by his teachings. Paul VI, who changed the sacrament of Baptism into the rite of Christian Initiation, said that 'Fr. Teilhard is an indispensable man for our times; his expression of faith is necessary for us.’40

Fr. Teilhard was often quoted on the floor of the Council and in the opinion of more than one writer had an influence on the outcome of that historical council comparable to that of Pope John XXIII. For example, Father D. Campion, who prepared the commentary and explanatory notes for the English language edition of the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Vatican II’s most important document, wrote, 'Here as elsewhere, it is easy to recognize the compatibility of insights developed by thinkers such as Teilhard de Chardin in his Divine Milieu with the fundamental outlook of the Council.”41

'Teilhard had a tremendous vision of the Church as a community of Christian love, where people live together as individuals, yet united in love-total, unbounded, without limit – within the world; a sign of the presence of God, finally and fully as Love.’42 His concept of Baptism was simply an initiation into this community. In Teilhard’s religion there is no place for the supernatural life of grace which is infused into souls through Baptism. For him, union with God consists principally in assimilation into the evolutionary process.

The heretical teachings of Teilhard de Chardin have been widely circulated through the seminaries, schools, religious houses, and libraries of the New Church. His teachings represent an apostasy from the Catholic Church. 'Fr. De Lubac, S.J., speaking at the Institution on Renewal in the Church said in Toronto in 1967 that clearly 'the Church is facing a grave crisis.’ 'Under the name of the 'the new church,’ 'the post-Conciliar church’ a different church from that of Jesus Christ is now trying to establish itself.’43 Teilhard de Chardin had laid the foundation of this new church.

FOOTNOTES

11Henri Rambaud, The Strange Faith of Teilhard de Chardin, p. 23, Surrey: Anglo-Gaelic Civic Association, 1966.

12Father Charles Coughlin, Bishops versus Pope pp. 215-216 Bloomfield Hills, MI: Helmet and Sword, 1969

13R. Wayne Kraft, The Relevance of Teilhard, p. 20, Notre Dame, Indiana, Fides, 1968

14Hugh McElwain, O.S.M., Introduction to Teilhard de Chardin, p. 8. New York: Harper and Row, 1969

15Ibid, p. 29

16 T.Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., Canon Law Digest Text and Commentary, Vol V, pp. 621-622. Milwaukee, Bruce, 1951

17 J. W. Johnson, Evolution? , p. 120. Los Angeles, Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration, 1987

18 Henri Rambaud, The Strange Faith of Teilhard de Chardin, p. 11., op. cit.

19 Deitrich von Hilderbrand, Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet. p. 5, Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1968

20 Cardinal Journet, Nova et Vetera, October- December 1962

21 Ouvres, vol. 5, p. 347.

22 Malachy Martin, The Jesuits, p. 288 New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988.

23 Teilhard de Chardin, Human Energy, p. 96

24 Deitrich von Hildebrand, Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet, p. 10-. op. cit.

25 Wolfgang Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion, p. 23, Rockford, Ill, TAN 1988

26 Deitrich von Hildebrand, Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet, p. 9. op.cit.

27 Letter of December 17, 1922, as quoted in Rome et Teilhard de Chardin by Philippe de la Trinite,

28 Henri de Lubac, The Religion of Teilhard de Chardin, p[. 120, New York, Desclee, 1967

29 Jean Onimus, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin ou la foi du monde, p. 38ff.

30 Teilhard de Chardin, Letter of May 14, 1922

31 Teilhard de Chardin, Christianity and Evolution.

32 ibid, p.10.

33 Quoted in Janus, No. 4, Dec. 1964, p. 32.

34 Nicholas Corte, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, His Life and Spirit, p. 89New York: Macmillan, 1960

35 Humani Generis, Paragraph No. 37

36 a term used by Teilhard to describe a stage in his theory of evolution.

37 Josepj Klopp, Teilhard de Chardin, A New Synthesis of Evolution. pp. 43-44. Glen Rock, N.J., Paulist Press, 1965

38 DB No. 788-789

39 Deitrich von Hildebrand, Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet, p. 23. op. cit.

40 R. Wayne Kraft, The Relevance of Teilhard, p. 29. [ editor’s note: John Paul II is a staunch believer in evolution as well as a follower of the theology of Paul VI (who also believed in evolution)]. With regard to Vatican II and the teachings of Paul VI: the principal task of his pontificate is 'a coherent realization of the teaching and the directives of the Second Vatican Council is and continues to be the principal task of this pontificate.’ (Address at a plenary meeting of the Sacred College of Cardinals, Nov. 5, 1979) With regard to evolution he has stated: 'the evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its Creator.’ (The Wanderer, August 6,1985.)
This may well explain his repeated statements to the effect that all men are saved. 'Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has been raised in us to a dignity beyond compare. For by his incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man.’ (Gaudium et Spes, No. 22) 'From now on and always, without regret and without turning back, God shall be with all mankind, becoming one with it, to save it and to give it His Son the redeemed… For all time, the Incarnation bestows upon man his unique, extraordinary and ineffable dignity.’ (General Audience, March 25, 1981.) 'Christ obtained, once and for all, the salvation of man – of each man and of all men, of those whom no one shall snatch from His hand… Who can change the fact that we are redeemed – a fact that is as powerful and fundamental as creation itself. We became again the property of the Father thanks to that Love Who does not recoil from the ignomy of the Cross to be able to guarantee to all men 'No one shall snatch you out of my hand.’ The Church announces today the paschal certitude of the Resurrection, the certitude of salvation’ (visit to Santa Maria in Treastevere, April 27, 1980).
What then is the meaning of the Crucifixion? According to John Paul II, 'it is precisely beside the path to man’s eternal election to the dignity of being an adopted child of God that there stands in history the Cross of Christ, the only-begotten Son, who as 'light of light, true God of true God,’ has come to give the final witness to this wonderful Covenant of God with humanity, of God with man – every human being.’ (Dives et Misericordia, para. 5). One must suspect that John Paul II is himself, if not a thorough going Teilhardian, at least strongly influenced by de Chardin’s thinking.)

41 Deitrich von Hildebrand, Teilhard de Chardin: A False Prophet, p. 29. The principle author of this particular document was John Paul II. (Cf. Note above).

42 McElwain, Hjugh, O.S.,M. Introduction to Teilhard de Chardin, p. 71., New York: Harper and Row, 1969