Vatican At War With Nuns Over Thinking On Evolution

Pope Francis's remarks have often sounded compatible with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's concept of 'conscious evolution.' So why are American nuns in trouble for supporting it?
By |
Be Sociable, Share!
    • Google+


    Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a French Jesuit and paleontologist who died a church outcast in New York City in 1955 at age 74. Vatican officials had suppressed his writings on sequential evolution in the universe.

    Teilhard was not officially a heretic, but rather a victim of church officials who were ignorant and fearful of science.

    A decade later after his death, Teilhard’s books were being taught in Jesuit schools. Today he has a global reputation on evolution and spirituality.

    Long before the internet, Teilhard wrote of an emergent planetary consciousness as a scientific development. He also wrote of this “noosphere” in mystical terms, as mankind’s quest for closeness with the divine. And he sounded prescient notes of warning.

    “There is a danger that the elements of the world should refuse to serve the world,” he wrote in The Phenomenon of Man, published in 1957. “What is forming and growing is nothing less than an organic crisis in evolution.”

    Pope Francis sounded a lot like his fellow Jesuit at a May 21 general audience. “Creation is a gift,” he told 50,000 people at St. Peter’s Square, “that God has given us, so that we care for it and we use it for the benefit of all.”

    “We are custodians of creation, not masters of creation,” the pope continued. His sermon would well fit an anthology on conscious evolution, a school of thought that bridges science and faith in arguing that humanity has an urgent moral duty for care of the planet.

    “I am the master of creation but to carry it forward I will never destroy your gift,” the pope asserted. “And this should be our attitude towards creation. Safeguard creation. Because if we destroy creation, creation will destroy us! Never forget this!”

    Francis’s remarks came two weeks after Cardinal Gerhard Müller, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a rebuke of Leadership Conference of Women Religious, representing most of America’s 57,000 nuns, for their promotion of conscious evolution.

    The LCWR is operating under a Vatican mandate to submit its speakers and writings for vetting, and to show greater obedience to the bishops.

    “I apologize if this seems blunt, but what I must say is too important to dress up in flowery language,” Müller declared. “The fundamental theses of conscious evolution are opposed to Christian revelation and, when taken unreflectively, lead almost necessarily to fundamental errors regarding the omnipotence of God, the incarnation of Christ, the reality of original sin” and other matters of church dogma.

    Müller stopped short of using the ‘h-word,’ but heresy was on his mind:

    “Conscious evolution does not offer anything which will nourish religious life as a privileged and prophetic witness rooted in Christ revealing divine love to a wounded world.”

    How did a movement of theology and nature go so terribly wrong?

    “Either Muller doesn’t understand what conscious evolution means,” Margaret Susan Thompson, a Syracuse University scholar on religious life told GlobalPost, “or he’s using it like in Cold War, when they accused Sen. Claude Pepper of having a sister who was a thespian, because it sounded like lesbian.”

    Responding to Müller in a post on National Catholic Reporter website, Barbara Marx Hubbard, a non-Catholic who spoke at an LCWR conference, and is president of the Foundation for Conscious Evolution, cited Teilhard and the late Passionist Father Thomas Berry [no relation to this writer], a prolific writer on ecology and spirituality, as major influences on the burgeoning movement.

    “For me, the most vital source of meaning of conscious evolution is the Catholic understanding of God and Christ as the source of evolution, as its driving force as well as its direction,” said Hubbard.

    “Through science, research, technology communications and virtually every other area of human activity, we are weaving a delicate membrane of consciousness, what Teilhard called the ‘noosphere’ or the thinking layer of Earth that is embracing and drawing into itself the entire planet.”

    Teilhard, who died before climate change became an issue, saw the noosphere in a mystical light, a reach closer to God.

    Father Berry wrote with a lyrical sensibility, setting what he called deep ecology in a thematic line with Dante and early mystic saints, notably Francis of Assisi and Hildegard of Bingen.

    In The Dream of the Earth (1988) Berry called for “a spiritual context to the ecological age” and bemoaned society’s “neglect of faith in favor of reason, its exaltation of technology as the instrument for the conquest of nature.”

    “In this disintegrating phase of our industrial society,” the priest wrote, “we now see ourselves not as the splendor of creation, but as the most pernicious mode of earthly being…We are the violation of the earth’s most sacred aspects.”

    Cardinal Müller did not respond to an interview request. His denunciation of conscious evolution suggests that the first duty of theology is to uphold past teaching, rather than draw from an interdisciplinary well, as the nuns’ leadership conference has done in choosing their speakers.

    “Theology cannot continue to develop apart from 21st-century cosmology and ecology, nor can science substitute for religion, “ Franciscan Sister Ilia Delio, a research theologian at Georgetown University wrote in a 2011 essay for America Magazine.

    “Both the light of faith and the insights of science can help humanity evolve toward a more sustainable future.”

    As the standoff between the Vatican doctrinal office and LCWR deepens, the sisters’ leadership has chosen a path of silence — self-muzzling —apparently to avoid the risk of more punishment.

    Pope Francis, though speaking passionately about care of the earth, has through his silence given de facto support to Cardinal Müller.

    “Müller did not give a considered response to conscious evolution,” Sister Christine Schenk of Cleveland, who is writing a book on women in the early church, told GlobalPost.

    “To me, he clearly has not engaged the deep strand of theological reflection from Thomas Berry and Teilhard. It’s not lightweight stuff; there’s a lot of science involved. Why is this an issue?”

    The LCWR conferences are not presented as official teachings of the Catholic Church — another source of conflict with the bishops.

    “The nuns are trying to engage the world as it is,” says Schenk. “How do we live the gospel in the midst of an evolving universe? These are important questions that need to be engaged by anyone curious about the gospel.”

    This article was published by Global Post.
    Be Sociable, Share!

    Stories published in our Hot Topics section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in these articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Mint Press News editorial policy.


    Print This Story Print This Story
    You Might Also Like  
    This entry was posted in Daily Digest, National and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
    • Pingback: Challenging the Rehabilitation of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin - Crisis Magazine()

    • ElizD

      Tielhard de Chardin, and Barbara Marx Hubbard are absolutely wildly different matters. Tielhard’s writings rightly raised concerns because they have some ambiguity makes them overly open to heterodox interpretations. But almost no one thinks he was a serious heretic who intended to teach things against the Faith, some very sound Catholic theologians see a lot of worth in his writing, which like anything else needs to be interpreted from an orthodox Catholic perspective. What LCWR has latched on to is heterodox thinkers who use Tielhard somewhat as a springboard, but then take it in really unreasonable and non Catholic directions, they launch into all manner of gobbledegook and nonsense. They are strongly interested in Barbara Marx Hubbard, who claims to draw some inspiration from Tielhard, but isn’t Catholic at all, doesn’t claim to be, and her belief system is completely irreconcilable with Catholicism, what she has to say is just loopy and comes across as a ridiculous over the top caricature of ultra trendy new-ageism.The sisters are embarrassing themselves and although there is a spectrum of problems, the sad truth is that there are some that are no longer believing or practicing Catholics at all, who have adopted alternative belief systems but still call themselves “Catholic nuns.”

    • fredx2

      Don’t let the facts get in your way, Mr. Reporter.

      De Chardins writings were not condemned by the Vatican until after he died. Your creepy attempt to pose him as a poor outcast dying in New York after being abused by the church is nonsense.

      “Teilhard was not officially a heretic, but rather a victim of church officials who were ignorant and fearful of science.”

      But De Chardin’s writings had nothing to do with science. He was all about blabbering on about new age guru type sayings, about the universe becoming conscious, or a network of consciousness arising out of people’s individual consciences, etc. As far from science as is possible.

      In fact, the Pope’s words directly contradict much of the blabber that the LCWR is teaching.

      ““We are custodians of creation, not masters of creation,” In fact, the LCWR and their buddies are saying things like “We are co-creators with God of the universe” Obviously the Pope was speaking in direct contradiction to that notion.

      Maybe psycho babble impresses you, but anyone with half a scientific background realizes this is just warmed over New Age junk.