Time for another look
Teilhard’s ideas linking science, religion should be reconsidered
What is the destiny of the cosmos? Does it even have one and if so what is it? Does this universe have meaning and a purpose or is it all just chaos and randomness?
In our most pensive moments each of us privately yearns for answers.
There once was a man by the name of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. He lived for the most part in the first half of the 20th century. He became a Jesuit priest and was also a theologian, philosopher, geologist and paleontologist.
What attracted me many years ago to his thought was his effort to overcome the false dichotomy that existed, and continues to exist, between science and religion. Teilhard developed a synthesis which united both the evolutionary worldview of science and the Christian understanding of the human person and human destiny.
His was a unique expression of Christian anthropology and eschatology conjoined to the modern scientific perspective; one which produced a prophetic and inspiring paradigm shift in religious thought.
His writings are complex and use language and concepts unfamiliar to both religion and science. In addition to often being dismissed by his fellow scientists, Teilhard was dealt with harshly by both the Jesuits and the Holy See.
In 1962, some seven years after his death, the office at the Vatican responsible for doctrinal oversight issued a “monitum” or “warning” regarding his writings declaring they contained errors and ambiguities to the extent that they were an affront to Catholic doctrine. The “monitum” exists to this day.
Yet here was a man who sought to help people understand the grandeur of the cosmos and that we have not only a place in it but a destiny bound up with it. Therefore, everything in the universe has not only purpose and meaning but also direction and destiny. The entire cosmos of matter, life, and human consciousness is on an evolutionary path that is divinized and being guided to an “Omega” point of ultimate fulfillment.
I feel that the reaction against him from the Church was born more of uneasiness with the language he used. He expressed concepts in a manner different than the time-honored way the Church was comfortable with. There was also an ongoing mistrust of science with its evolutionary model of the natural order which seemed to make a divine presence unnecessary.
Teilhard rejected these notions. He called us out from our smallness of thought and nearsightedness of vision and invited us not only to see the big picture, but to realize that there is a bigger picture to be grasped; a cosmological vista in which we comprise an essential role as creatures capable of discerning our place and course in the cosmos.
At the recent plenary assembly of the Pontifical Council for Culture held at the Vatican participants unanimously approved a petition to be sent to Pope Francis requesting him to remove the “monitum” regarding the writings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. They stated that Pope Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis all made explicit references to Teilhard’s thought in their teachings.
We need today a model of reality that is not only inclusive of the material and the spiritual but also one that speaks to the intelligence and lived experiences of modern humanity. History, including that of religious expression, is filled with brilliant minds who contributed mightily to our understanding of reality. Regrettably, those whose ideas were rejected and silenced often suffered their fate, not because they were necessarily heretical, but because they used language and concepts unfamiliar to their time. I believe Teilhard to be one of those individuals.
But that was then, this is now. He has relevance for today. The “monitum” should be removed. In fact, the study of his writings should be encouraged especially his spiritual classic, “The Divine Milieu.”
It was well known by those around him that he often expressed his deep desire to die at Easter. He is quoted as having said, “O God, if in my life I have not been wrong, allow me to die on Easter Sunday.”
In 1955 Teilhard found himself living in New York City. On that Easter Sunday he went to mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral then returned to his residence. At six o’clock that evening he suffered a heart attack and died.
Coincidence? Perhaps. Divine validation of his life and thought? Perhaps.