INTRODUCTION
Broadly speaking, a philosophy is an outlook on life. It encompasses one’s attitude to truth, morality, life and death, man and his mind in relation to God and religion. In the hands of a professional, this outlook on life becomes a systematic study and research into the various fields mentioned: their reason for existence, their interrelationships and their ultimate finality. There are, of course, as many popular philosophies as there are human beings, but these are all modifications, adaptations and mixtures of only a handful of “systems” of philosophy, or world philosophies.
A philosophy must never be confused with a theology. A theology is much more difficult to popularise. It is by nature systematic and deals essentially with truths as revealed by God, or believed to be revealed by God. This is good to remember, as the natural knowledge of God, according to St. Paul and echoed by the papacy, rightly belongs to philosophy.
By its very nature a theology presupposes a philosophy: not a vague, popular outlook, but a systematic, thought-out science. A good theology is built on a good philosophy, but erroneous philosophies will only support fallacious theologies.
If it does not pay to confuse a philosophy, however good and systematic, with a theology, even more havoc results if theology is made synonymous with faith: the acceptance of a body of articles or dogmas, as held up by the Church to be believed. To be more specific: Catholic theology is a systematic reflection on Revealed Truths, but even Catholic theology cannot give faith in these supernatural truths. Theology does not supplant Faith nor does it take over its role and function. Nowadays it certainly does not come as a shock to many simple Catholics that some modern theologians appear to have lost altogether their Catholic Faith ...
When a person states:
“God does not exist,
so life after death does not exist,
so I do not have to worry about the fate of my soul
(if I have one),
so I can do what I like,
subject to man-made laws,
which can be changed if enough pressure is put on the Government;
so I combine with others to put more pressure on the Government,
in order that it will change the law to my liking,
so I can be freer to do as I please.”
then one could call such an effort a crude personal philosophy. But, although considered wrong by many people, it would nevertheless be consistent, and, in that sense alone, logical. And so this little exercise becomes a system which must either be totally accepted or rejected. It is in this sense that one of the great scholars on Teilhard de Chardin, Cardinal Journet, wrote in Nova et Vetera (October-December 1962):
“Teilhard’s synthesis is logical and must be rejected or accepted as a whole.”
We cannot pick out bits and pieces here and there to our liking.
What is missing of course in the little “system” above is evidence and insight based on evidence. The absence of these will make even the most “logical” system completely erroneous. The first sentence is always the most important, because all the others are made to follow from it. In reasoning only, it is called a “premise”, or “major premise”; in a system it is called a “first principle” or “fundamental principle”. It is obvious that it is of the utmost importance for the whole system, that this first sentence is true and based on evidence.
The Catholic Church, conscious of Her guardianship over matters of Catholic Faith, the Depositum Fidei, has absolute and final power over Catholic theology, and so also over the underlying philosophy, be it more indirect. Not surprisingly, after tending to the sheep for 2000 years, a distinct Catholic philosophy has developed in which the Catholic Church feels at home. According to the Popes this did not come about “without the promptings of the Holy Spirit”.
The Catholic Church has persistently taught the acceptance within the Church of the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Aeterni Patris, Leo XIII, 4th August 1879, Encyclical ;
Doctoris Angelici, St. Pius X, 29th June 1914, Motu Proprio;
Quod de fovenda, Benedictus XV, 19th March 1917, Letter (to Jesuits);
Studiorum ducem , Pius Xl, 29th June 1923, Encyclical,
are four major Papal works entirely devoted to St. Thomas and the study of his works.
Furthermore there is the clear directive of the Sacred Congregation of Studies of 7th March 1916, and further extensive directives laid down in another two papal encyclicals:
Pascendi dominici gregis, St. Pius X, 8th September 1907, and
Humani Generis, Pius XII, 12th August 1950.
In Pascendi, e.g., the Holy Father clearly talks about attempts being made to introduce into the Catholic Church a new, modernistic theology; about the strong link between philosophy and theology, and he points out that the new (bad) theology is required by a new (bad) philosophy as follows:
“Lastly, the modernists continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the grounds that She resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate Her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy, while they on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavour to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers ...”
And in Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII clearly states that contamination of the philosophy of St. Thomas, will lead to serious disorders in Faith itself and even to loss of Faith. (Note that the Pope does not say: the contamination of the Theology of St. Thomas. No, for disorders in Catholic Faith to become evident, it is according to the Magisterium of the Church, sufficient to have a contamination of the Philosophy of St. Thomas.)
It is against this formidable background of persistent, unerring teaching by the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church, that the introduction of any new system of philosophy/theology/Faith into the Church must he examined.
Catholics, when dealing with Teilhard, must keep in mind that they are reading the works of one of whom it can truly be said that the Church has resolutely refused to submit and accommodate Her Dogmas to the opinions ofhis ‘philosophy’. Teilhard has no fewer than fourteen known and official interdicts; prohibitions and outright condemnations against his name and his works, and at least one Encyclical: Humani Generis; easily a record in modern times. Furthermore, the Magisterium has been consistent in the rejection of his books and his theories for over fifty years. If it appears to be impossible, even for a Saint, to introduce into the Catholic Church a new system of philosophy acceptable to the Magisterium, what chances has a man got censured so many times ...? And yet, not only has Teilhard been hailed by millions as a new St. Thomas Aquinas, he is being seriously studied within the Catholic Church as if he was one ... No wonder Catholics are paying dearly for this betrayal and disobedience.
Lastly, in dealing with the Dutch Catechism, Catholics again must keep in mind that the book is so erroneous, that its publication was forbidden by the Holy See. Extensive alterations in the presentation of Catholic doctrine were required. These were never made by the authors. The next best thing then was, that a Commission of Cardinals made extensive recommendations, which were never incorporated in the original text, as requested. They were finally published separately. Without these, the D.C. remains of course just as erroneous as it ever was. Anyone who will not heed the numerous mutations of Catholic doctrine contained in the original and who pays lip service to the necessary alterations made by the Commission, is reading a dangerous book and is culpable of endangering his God-given Faith and of disobedience to the Magisterium in a serious matter.
In this documentation I will bring out the fact that the works of Teilhard and the D.C. contain a ‘philosophy’ in the stricter sense: a system with its own ‘first principle’. I will compare both systems with the tenets of the Philosophia Perennis or Everlasting Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, and arrive at some pertinent conclusions.
When the editor of Triumph made the remark in the November issue of 1971:-
“Teilhard did not dare to assert his doctrines in the works he attempted to have published during his lifetime. His ‘system’ can be understood only by studying the privately circulated works. They are the norm.”
He was echoing the very words of Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis: “In published works some caution is still observed, but more freedom is shown in books privately circulated, in lectures and in meetings for discussions.” However, his post-humously published oeuvre must not be discarded in such a critique, for at one stage these books too were the privately circulated and discussed cahiers the Holy Father speaks of.