Systems and Debates

by Alain de Benoist

  Prior to the war, one could read the following proclamation on the walls of Paris: ‘Michelin tyres absorb the obstacle’; to which Teilhard would add, smiling: ‘It is through obedience that one must absorb the obstacle’. He quoted Saint-Exupéry418 when responding to those who urged him to break with Rome: ‘In order to act upon the house, one must actually be in it’. In Le Monde, Henri Fesquet419 remarked: ‘In these times of contestation and acrimony against authority, such an attitude comes across as being especially exemplary’.

  In 1950, the encyclical Humani Generis granted Catholic scientists the authorisation to acknowledge ‘the creation of the very first man using pre-existing matter’. Those who continued to teach that speciation (the passing from one species to another) was ‘metaphysically impossible’ submitted to it. In February 1962, Father Daniélou wrote in Etudes: ‘I have previously ascertained the fertility of Teilhard’s work and am doing so once again; which is why it is indispensable to provide an exegesis that would extract its best attainments’. Two months later, Teilhard’s rehabilitation campaign was initiated by Father de Lubac in his book entitled La pensée religieuse de Teilhard de Chardin.420

  Nevertheless, the Osservatore romano published a further warning on June 30th of the same year: ‘The works of Father Teilhard de Chardin comprise such ambiguities, such grave mistakes, even, that they offend the Catholic doctrine’.

  Evolution Has Not Yet Drawn to an End

  Time has passed all too quickly. It seems ages ago when Abbé Godin released his famous book entitled La France, pays de mission?421 and, commenting on the failure of priest-workers, Teilhard thus remarked: ‘We have ceased to be contagious’. One can now wonder: was Teilhard a great scientist? Were the conclusions he drew in contradiction with the Roman Magisterium?

  Teilhard always rejected the idea according to which the modern world is of an irreligious essence. Quite to the contrary, he believed in progress. ‘Without any exaggeration, are we not witnessing the opening of a new cycle for the Church, one that is wonderfully appropriate to mankind’s current age and where Christ is adored through the universe’?

  His reasoning was the following: evolution did not draw to an end with the appearance of man. ‘Something’ is bound to come next, something that is still in a state of gestation. Yet the more evolved species are, the more cerebralized they become: the meaning of evolution lies in the increase of mental aptitude (Noogenesis). As a result, the branch that will replace the human one shall be characterised by an almighty mind. Evolution ‘shall construct the body of Christ in a literal sense’. Such shall be the reign of the Logos. The incarnation of the Word has brought an end to the first age of our world; as for the second, it shall bear witness to the triumph of the Noosphere.

  Hence the vision of a ‘cosmic Christ’ that would embody ‘the universe’s alpha and omega’: ‘Ever since Jesus was born, grew up and died, everything has remained in motion because Christ has not yet taken full shape. Christ represents the end of the evolution of beings’. Anthropogenesis leads to Christogenesis, with the Christian community becoming ‘the chosen phylum’ (in Introduction au christianisme,422 1944).

  To Reconcile the Incompatible

  Teilhard’s doctrine is, in fact, a web of contradictions in which scientific observations become constantly entangled with uncontrollable mystical extrapolations, thus sometimes bordering on the heresy of a ‘progressive religion’. Teilhard remarks that evolution will not reach its end with man. Nevertheless, he does affirm that it will conclude during the next phase. He acknowledges the fact that this evolution is characterised by differentiation, by the growing divergence of all living branches (‘Once born, the phyla grow further apart and follow, more or less, their own specific destiny’). Simultaneously, however, he maintains that ‘human branches are beginning to merge’ towards planetary unity, ‘to enable the accomplishment of a common consciousness’.

  There is a secret temptation that lies behind these contradictory affirmations. Teilhard himself defined it as ‘a completely oriental preoccupation and preference that is clad in scientific attire and leads towards a common base of the Tangible, one that is directly seizable beyond all determination and form, allowing one to become All, to merge with the All’ (in Le coeur de la matière).423

  Faced with the Teilhardian speculations regarding ‘the ongoing unification of the universe with God’; concerning the fact that the Cross has become ‘both the symbol and expression of evolution’; with regard to ‘the attainment of Ecstasy through Concord’; concerning the disappearance of hatred and internecine struggle ‘under the ever hotter rays of the Omega’; regarding the notion of the Earth ‘acquiring its own soul’ by ‘shrouding itself in a single thinking shell until it constitutes, functionally speaking, a single, vast Seed of Thought on an astronomical scale; and so on, one understands perfectly well why this cosmic-theological fresco triggered some mockery. In La cabale des dévots424 (Julliard, 1962), Mr Jean-François Revel425 compares Teilhard to Bergson, denouncing his taste for ‘oratory presupposition, historical inaccuracy and metaphorical affirmation’. He writes: ‘Nowadays, one of the shapes taken on by Christian apologetics consists in smearing this dogma with the language of scientific currentness, and vice versa. In Teilhard de Chardin’s hands, however, this re-plastering becomes remarkable coarse’. He then adds: ‘The theological extrapolations of the Reverend Father have as much to do with an accurate knowledge of palaeontology as the ocean does with a glass of water; and even less so, for an ocean essentially consists of the same elements as426 a glass of water’.

  In one of the annexes included in his book entitled Lettre sur les chimpazées,427 Mr Clément Rosset428 has not failed to mock a work whose entire content can be summarised in these sole words: ‘The world is in motion’.

  The fact remains that even in his most extravagant bouts of enthusiasm, Teilhard was still a perfectly honest fellow. Having reached the very limit of inner rupture, he always prohibited himself from taking the final step. As Loyola’s faithful disciple,429 he attempted to reconcile the incompatible. His colleague and friend, the Reverend Father d’Oince, makes the following bitter remark: ‘The Church still suffers from the absence of an explicit theology that focuses on the positive contributions which natural and human sciences can make towards the exposition of revealed Truth’.

  ***

  Un prophète en procès, an essay by René d’Oince (two volumes). Aubier, 259 and 267 pages respectively.

  Dans le sillage des sinanthopes,430 containing the previously unreleased letters of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and J. Gunnar Anderson A collection published by Pierre Leroy, Fayard, 98 pages.

  La vision historique chez Teilhard de Chardin, an essay by Francisco Bravo. Cerf, 448 pages.

  La vie de Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, an essay by Robert Speaight. Seuil, 368 pages.

  ***

  A certain number of Teilhard’s books, whose publication had been banned by the hierarchy, were only made public posthumously. Indeed, the order of superiors could not have strangers linked to the Company. ‘Predicting the fact that a number of friends would regain their freedom after his death, Teilhard entrusted his secretary, Ms. Jeanne Mortier, with ensuring the publication of his literary work’, Father d’Oince writes. The complete edition now includes as many as eleven volumes, all of which were published by Seuil between 1955 and 1973. Le phénomène humain, whose sales had already reached 200,000 copies by 1969, corresponds to the first volume; with a total of 150,000 sold copies, Le milieu divin431 represents the fourth.

  ***

  A Challenged Catholic Church

  In the course of four television broadcasts, Pierre Dumayet432 and Igor Barrère433 wondered about the Church of tomorrow. They directed their attention towards Spain and the Netherlands. Two ORTF reporters, Philippe Alfonsi and Patrick Pesnot, have decided to share their findings without having to submit to the servitudes of the small screen.

  In 1970, a Dutch ‘council’ was held in Amsterdam
. The topic of the day? The Church crisis. Fearing the uttering of irreparable words, the Apostolic Nuncio had asked to be excused from attending. As written by Mr Alfonsi and Pesnot, ‘this absence was symbolic: when faced with the seeds of heresy, Rome no longer hurled anathemas but, instead, kept its eyes to the ground’.

  The Netherlands have enjoyed a long tradition of tolerance and liberty. Amsterdam, where Descartes sought and found refuge for as long as twenty years, has become the hippie capital. And it is also there, in this ‘Dutch bowl’, that the ‘Chinese of Europe’ have been stirring: they are priests who have been wondering ‘whether it is all worth it or not’.

  ‘According to the data that was made public two years ago, 77% of the faithful attend Mass every Sunday’. Back then, there were 1,800 churches and 14,000 priests in the Netherlands. The number of practicing followers has already plummeted by a rate of 50% in cities such as Maastricht. And yet, the clergy is not troubled by this. Smiling behind his large spectacles, Father Van Kilsdonk gleefully declares: ‘It would perhaps be best to allow the Church to perish’.

  The work of Mr Alfonsi and Pesnot seems rather anthological. Sex shops for Catholics only; nuns clad in mini-skirts, on full display at the convent of the Sisters of Providence; seminarians that parade their Lenin-like goatees; marital quarrels among the ranks of married priests; theological pilpuls on socialistic topics; blissful angelic figures alongside frenetic ones, with crucifixes dangling on their chains.

  The Leidsplein church, located in the heart of Amsterdam, is known as the Paradiso. ‘It represents an important global crossroads on the hippie map. Every evening, youngsters flock there in the hundreds to indulge in pop music and the smoking of hashish’.

  Drums ‘swing’ at the Saint-Nicholas Church in Odijk. A ghostly Christ sprawls between two aquariums and a seven-branch candelabrum. ‘Attending Mass is like being at Woodstock these days’, whispers Father Barry, the local priest, his eyes ablaze with elation.

  As for Father Coppès, he hosts the ‘Shalom community’. Having read Che Guevara, he rediscovered ‘the revolutionary elements of the Christian Church’. He has been married for five years; the bishop turns a blind eye. Father Coppès affirms: ‘Today, God has descended into the street. It is quite impossible, by the way, to be both a Christian and a Rightist, is it not?’

  The theology students that the authors have encountered reject any and all organisation, beginning with the hierarchy. ‘We are frustrated by the image of the priests of yesteryear’, says one of them. It is ‘love’ that represents the key word. Christian charity and utopian socialism mingle in an insane vortex. All men are brothers, with each entitled to their own life, happiness, love and paid leave. It is all, in some way, a pastoral sort of Love Story, in which one is ever willing to lend the world an ear and listen to its indistinct and confused murmur. And Rome is far, so far away!

  There are 650,000 homosexuals in the Netherlands today, totalling 5% of the population. And it is Father Gottschalk that has taken charge of the matter.

  ‘I receive 4 or 5 homophiles every single day. Two of them have asked for permission to get married in our church. We have granted their friendship our solemn benediction, for it is our duty as believers to struggle for a world in which they can live as they choose’, he specifies.

  Next on the list is Ton Van der Stap, a homosexual priest. Wearing a pick vest, he displays a thin protruding nose and fine, backcombed hair. He is the chaplain at the local university parish. In a soft voice, he declares:

  ‘The faithful see me as a man above all else’.

  Mr Alfonsi and Pesnot have interviewed these peculiar pastors. As for sin, it has virtually disappeared since the advent of sexual emancipation. All that is left is the ‘sin of the human species’ (alienation in the Marxist sense of the word), and it is revolution that must resolve the issue. What about paradise, then? ‘We must first establish a paradise on earth. Is there a heaven awaiting us after death? I myself do not know’. And what about hell? ‘It is quite possible; but just as one may say that it exists, one can also claim that it doesn’t’. And the rest is in keeping with it.

  A Plural Religion

  The chapters on the Spanish Church are more conventional. Its atmosphere is a heavy one, with its sweating penitents, black-veiled women, and festival of Passion,434 in which the sun and death play a prominent role. Although the lower clergy objects to this, ‘mitred bishops mingle with generals’.

  In Barcelona, one encounters Left-oriented Jesuits, including Father Marçal, for instance. ‘I do not specifically care to know whether I actually believe in hell or not. This is not where the problem lies. What is urgent is for us to change the structure of Spanish society. It’s a revolution!’ he declares.

  On the wall, a large portrait of Ho Chi Minh can be seen.

  The Church has initiated its updating process, meaning a process of rejection; but what is it exactly that it rejects? ‘The essential’, traditional Catholics declare. In the eyes of the progressivists, however, the aggiornamento is a return to the sources, to the Syriac Christendom of the catacombs. Everyone converges in acknowledging the fact that the structures being questioned are those that once tied Christendom to the fate of the West.

  There is a Dutch proverb that says: ‘One Dutchman is a theologian, two Dutchmen a church, and three a heresy’.

  The theologians that have been revolting long to forget all about priests and councils. They justify their stance through God’s Word. It was Boileau435 who had already stated that ‘when holding a Bible, every Protestant has been Pope’.

  It has once again been proven that one can extract the most contradictory interpretations from the Scriptures; for it is not yesterday that schisms and heresies date back to. In former days, it was Rome that settled and decided all matters. What is new these days is that the magistrate no longer sanctions anyone; he has implied that he no longer passes any sentences and, most of all, that the Pope, the cardinals and the bishops are all ‘accomplices’ in the Church’s scuttling in the eyes of the ‘fundamentalists’ (who, while denouncing the ‘protestantisation’ of the faith, paradoxically find themselves in Luther’s position).

  Amsterdam may not represent all of Christendom, but it does indeed exist. It is an example among many others. The Church’s doctrine is henceforth a plural one. Religions are being established within religion itself, just as states once did within the state.

  The Church is adapting, and shall undoubtedly do so completely; but in what regard shall an ‘adapted’ Church be distinguishable from its surrounding environment?

  It all seems as if, as a result of its concern for what the future holds for it, Rome were seeking to catalyse religious forces that were once in rivalry: the various Christian faiths on the one hand, the great Abrahamic religions on the other, and last but not least, all the religions of the world.

  The ultimate objective is the following one: the creation of a vast conglomerate dedicated to the ‘spiritual animation’ of the ideologies that dominate our current world.

  We would thus be left with only two camps: the first is that of a ‘universalised’ Christianity, more or less centred upon the Third-World, having been reinvigorated through a return to the subversive spirit of its own origins; the other is characterised by the rejection of any and all forms of subversion, meaning one which would, necessarily and unequivocally, embody the rejection of the Christian world.

  ***

  L’Eglise contestée,436 a report by Philippe Alfonsi and Patrick Pesnot, Calmann-Lévy, 312 pages.

  ***

  The Communist Party of the Hereinafter

  Christian progressivism has now reached its ‘theory of revolution’ stage: it has overtaken the Communist Party on its left. And it is in an effort to temper the ardour of Christian Leftists — and in the hope of taking advantage of the Church’s evolution and impacting the masses more effectively — that the Communist Party is reaching out to the faithful.

  On an annual basis
, Mr Guy Besse and Jean Suret-Canale, who act as facilitators at the Centre for Marxist Studies and Research, organise a Week of Marxist Thought, during which carefully selected interlocutors are invited to engage in ‘dialogue’. In 1972, from 27th January to 1st February, the chosen theme was the following: ‘Communists and Christians’. In L’Humanité,437 Mr Roland Leroy wrote: ‘A genuine dialogue shall ensue’; in actual fact, he should have used the words ‘a two-voice monologue’.

  We are, indeed, far from the ‘inherently perverse Communism’ condemned by Pope Pius XI (Divini Redemptoris, 19th March, 1937). The evolution that has taken place has been one of confounding speed. Somewhere between Stalin and Brezhnev, Pius XII and Paul VI, the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party was held; as was the 2nd Vatican Council.

  Enthusiasm

  The issue no longer lies in determining if the collaboration between communists and Christians is justified from the perspective of orthodoxy (whether biblical or Marxist). At the end of the day, principles are always worth as much as their respective implementations. The fact remains that there is currently no fundamental difference left between the political behaviour of those who adhere to the Party and that of the ever-increasing number of ‘committed’ Christians. This fact must be acknowledged, and that is precisely what the communists are doing.

  ‘What they are doing is taking note of a fact and rejoicing at this evolution’, says Mr Roland Leroy.

  The first session of the above-mentioned Week was dedicated to atheism. Its tone was one of elementary pedagogy. Although the Communist Party does speak of materialism, it is only in whispers. It is careful to highlight the notion that all remaining divergences only subsist in ‘the philosophical domain’, a domain that leaves the public cold. Class belonging takes priority over one’s philosophical or religious choices.