Evolution

In recent years especially the last ten years the Roman Catholic priest, archeologist. fiction theologist, and overall heterodox prophet of evolution has made an astonishing comeback from the caves of the Atlas Mountains to superstar status with "progressive" elites. The confusion we all are experiencing is understandable if this guy has the influence we know he has now in the modern Church. The Confusion comes then from the master of confusion himself none othe than Theihard de Chardin. Compare Charden with Newman, "Saintly purity, poverty, renouncement of the World, protection of angels, the smile of Mary, the interposistion of miracles, these are the things to be looked upto and reverently spoken of".(Newman) "adoring today becomes associating ourselves with the creator-in order to give the finishing touch to the world through work and research". Chardin) Theilhard's teachings are openly advocated by "progressives" they love the confusion and ambiguity of his theology fiction. Anyone with a sense of the supernatural will never be lead to misunderstand him we will never accept his theology of possible addition to Christian revelation. Clear as the heterodoxy of Theilhard's fiction theology is, progressive Catholics from the pope on down have raised this heretic to possible rank of Doctor of the Church or even Heaven forbid Father of the Church. Progressive's get carried away with the incompatibility of Teilhard's teaching with doctrine of the Church. " If in consequence of some inner revolution, I were to lose my faith in Christ, my faith in a personal God, my faith in the Spirit, it seems to me that I would continue to have faith in the world. The world (the value, infallibility and goodness of the world) this is definitely the first and only thing I believe"... This then in one word is what they believe Evolution....JMJ....

>2 brone: Anyone with a sense of the supernatural will never be lead to misunderstand him

Yes, I agree, which is why it is so surprising that so many people, including apparently your good self, do seem to misunderstand him. I would suggest that you are setting up a very one-dimensional caricature of Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, dare I say even a straw man. I think as theologians reflect on the strengths of his writings, they are at the same time well aware of its weaknesses. There are many people in our Christian tradition who have made significant contributions to a deeper understanding of certain aspects of our faith while perhaps making errors in other respects.

But if you are simply taking a general anti-evolution position, then that is clearly not part of Catholic doctrine, and you are aligning yourself with evangelical protestant bible literalists.

Speaking of evolution and Darwin's Decent of Man and selection in relation to sex he differentiated between "savage" and "civilized man" noting with Savages the weak of mind and body are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand check the process of elimination much to the chagrin of Darwin. Darwin's cousin the scientist Francis Galton was a founder of the modern Eugenic (good birth) movement which became widespread within a couple of decades. The Nazis embraced this Eugenic theory in its determination to create the super race stunning the world with corpses and discarding of humanity. The sickening reality dawned on society that the final solution was a fulfillment of the Evolution/Eugenic theories of Darwin and Galton. Today's society has "evolved" once again into selective breeding, Abortion, Euthanasia, gender mutilation of Kids on a global scale, collection of DNA of newborns without consent of parents. More than half of the population of the US agrees with these evolutionary ideas or are indfferent sad to see our people seduced by all this trash science fueled by Marxist ideological fervor....JMJ....

To many Catholics the terms and words PF uses sound so familiar. How can he be accussd of not being an orthodox Christian? Actually, does he not say everyone belongs to the Body of Christ and famously "who am I to judge"? PF's notions however hint a shift from the heroic virtues that characterize a saint to a quiet collaboration with evolutionary processes. Gliding from one notion to another bluring the differences between things. For instance the difference between hope and optimism; between Christian love of neighbor (which is essentially directed at one individual person) and the pope's infatuation for humanity where he obscures the difference between eternity and an earthly future for humanity, sometimes there is something touching in his desperate attempt to combine traditional and emotional attraction to the church with a theology radically opposed to Church doctrine. This apparent dedication to Christian terms makes him even more dangerous. One of his favorite heterodox theologians Teilhard says, " and what is it to adhere to God to the maximum if not to fulfillment of a function in the whole-in the evolutionary process he is no longer called upon to glorify God through imitation of Christ" This post is influenced by Dietrich Von Hildebrand....AMDG....

>5 brone: This post is influenced by Dietrich Von Hildebrand

Might it not be more accurate to say this post is copied from websites such as The Primacy of Christ or Tradition and Sanity? I believe it's always good to cite the source so everyone can read the entire text rather than selected quotes from it.

But I continue to be confused by your constant attacks on Fr Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Pope Francis (I presume that's what "PF" refers to). As far as I am aware there has been no perfect human being since Jesus himself, and theologians are well aware of the weaknesses in Teilhard de Chardin's work, as well as its strengths. He provided some important theological insights which theologians and bishops (including popes) find useful, and some other material which has been adjudged mistaken and unhelpful - although if theology is "faith seeking understanding", it is useful even to consider such "errors" in order to deepen our understanding of the truth. To use an old English proverb, don't throw the baby out with the bath water. We don't reject St Augustine because he was a Manichaean dualist, and likewise we don't reject Teilhard de Chardin because theology has moved beyond some aspects of his work.

>6 John5918: Never heard of either website, and of course anyone who disagree's with The Vicar on Earth, The Bishop of Rome His Holiness Pope Francis l or you for that matter are attacking but as you yourself declares no one is perfect and neither are their ideas. You point out the perfect side we point out the weak side "in order to deepen our understanding of the Truth". Gaslighting, ("might it be more accurate to say") Implication and lousy detective work just wastes your time....JMJ....

>7 brone:

Well yes, actually it is a waste of my time seeking the original sources of the partial quotes that you post, but I do it because I try to respect your posts and to get a deeper understanding of where you're coming from. The easiest way to avoid this waste of time would be for you simply to cite your sources so we can all read them without having to do any amateur detective work.

I'm not actually sure what you mean by "gaslighting", but I've always been taught that asking a question is politer and less confrontational than making a firm statement which might prove to be wrong. A question seeks understanding rather than creating a zero sum right/wrong dynamic.

>6 John5918: Again you accuse me of "constant attacks against Teilhard" Youse guys say he was "often misunderstood". His writings apparently were not misunderstood when placed under monitum in 1962 and again in 1983 just in case for "dangerous ambiguities and grave errors". So now as you say, "theology has moved beyond some aspects of his work", he now is known for "prophetic vision" as far as "some aspects of his work" does that mean when he said, while emphasizing the progress through evolution led him to proclaim "the advancing wing of humanity" then contrasting with "definitively unprogressive ethnical groups" sounds like race-based Eugenics to me. Teilhard scoffs at the Idea of a 1st man and women therefore his followers put no emphasis on the doctrine of Original Sin. His texts are now standard reading for progressive theologians and Francis who cites him as his inspiration from the margin of Mangolia....JMJ....

>9 brone:

Interesting comment. I hadn't thought in terms of "followers" of Teilhard. I rather think that theologians simply build upon the work of many of their predecessors, of whom Teilhard is but one. I presume his texts are indeed amongst many texts by many theologians which would be standard reading for today's theologians. If I were to identify anyone of whom Pope Francis could be said to be a "follower", I would immediately think of St Francis of Assisi rather than Teilhard. I'm not sure to whom you are referring when you say "his followers put no emphasis on the doctrine of Original Sin" - can you help us with an example? As far as I know Original Sin is still an important part of Catholic doctrine.

I'll point to you (respectfully) "As far as I know". you imply there is some doubt here. Original sin is still an important part of Catholic doctrine (as far as you know.) Like Francis often does off the cuff remarks causing ambiguity and confusion.) You say that Original Sin is still an important part of Catholic doctrine. the phrase "is still" is ambiguous does that mean is now or does it mean subject to change, if you had not used the word still I would agree with you. Original Sin is an important part of Catholic doctrine....AMDG....

My point being when we reject or question the reality of Original Sin which Teilhard does and Francis is ambiguous about. We believe that man is immaculate, innocent from birth and that it is the environment" that corrupts him. So with this evolutionary attitude the pillars of human foundation, religion, traditional family are considered the cause of corruption. This idea is not a new one of the secular progressivist it is articulated perfectly by Rousseau in his essay the "Noble Savage". The philosophical errors he articulated animate modern progressives. The difference I would add between real progress (Christianity) and the fake progress of the marxist progressives being that the former commands us to improve the world by improving ourselves, while the later saves the world by neglecting themselves they would have you believe. I believe that it is only 1/2 true which is as dangerous as an outright lie.Pride is what highlights progressives they sacrifice others to themselves. Nowhere is it more evident than in the case of abortion, in which babies are quite literally sacrificed so that their parents or parent can avoid the self-sacrifice necessary to raise a child. Real progress in this world comes only through the practice of Christianity a preamble for the greater progress when this world passes away....JMJ.... This post influenced by my friend Joseph Pearce.

>11 brone: if you had not used the word still I would agree with you. Original Sin is an important part of Catholic doctrine

Well, you are the one who suggested in >9 brone: that there are some Catholics who "put no emphasis on Original Sin". I am using the word "still" only to suggest to you that you are misguided there, as Original Sin is indeed an important part of Catholic doctrine. Having said that, the Church's understanding of Original Sin has certainly deepened since the doctrine was first developed, as with all doctrines.

>12 brone: We believe that man is immaculate, innocent from birth and that it is the environment" that corrupts him

Is that what you believe? Who is "we"? And do you believe the same of woman? I think you're failing to put emphasis on Original Sin there.

I'd never heard of your friend, but if you're going to copy and paste from his work it would be helpful (as well as courteous to both him and us) to cite a reference so we can read the full text. But I've looked him up and he comes from the same area of London as me, so he must be a good bloke, like Billy Bragg. It's good to read that he renounced his membership of the white supremacist fascist National Front when he became a Catholic while in prison, a true conversion experience, and that he now espouses Catholic Social Teaching (although that's Catholic doctrine which all Catholics espouse, like you and me, isn't it?) and monarchism (well, the late Queen Elizabeth, Gawd bless 'er, was a decent old Christian, and Charles is pretty sound on the environment and the poor, as well as defending the role of faith in society; crowning an entitled and elderly eccentric as head of state is certainly cheaper and arguably can produce better results than electing an entitled and elderly eccentric as head of state in the election circuses in some of His Britannic Majesty's former colonies that spring to mind).