Broadly speaking, this scene comprises - amongst a multitude of others - two groups of people.

          Firstly, those who attempt to live entirely within the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. Those who take the Church’s living Tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium for their rich soil, from which they draw up the sustenance to carry out the command given by the Lord: ‘To live in the world but not from the world’. With their sinfulness and their human weaknesses and imperfections, we must still refer to this group as ‘the holy people of God’.

          Those struggling fathers and mothers who, during the years of the Great Depression, refused to limit their families by artificial contraception; who reared their children in “the fear of God which is the beginning of Wisdom”; who understood the true meaning of the Church’s Sacramental Life and who accepted the necessity for bringing sacrifices themselves in order to partake in this Life. Devotion to the Sacred Heart, to the Mother of God, to the Angels and Saints, Benediction, the Rosary, the giving of alms in support of missionaries in distant countries: all of these found their proper place in a busy life, in which the natural and the Supernatural were never confused but were given their due in a healthy balance. They put great trust and faith in those God had placed over them for the care of their souls and the education of their children: the Bishops, Priests, the good Nuns and Brothers. These in turn came to accept the unquestioning attitude of the good laypeople, and generally speaking were worthy of the trust placed in them.

          Although maybe not an idyllic state as anything we become used to tends to ‘cushion’ us against crosses we do not particularly like and to resistance to changes the Holy Spirit may deem necessary for the salvation of the world - imperfections which the fine filter of Vatican II nevertheless picked up - it was the nearest thing to ‘living the Faith’ that the Church could expect under the circumstances. Although imperfect, we must realize and acknowledge - in the face of the subsequent monstrous derision from the teilhardians - that it was essentially good, and acknowledged as such by the Council.

          Clearly wearied by 400 years of strife with Protestantism, this part of the Catholic scene prior to the Council could be summed up by the motto of the English weekly edition of the Osservatore Romano: “UNICUIQUE SUUM”, “To Each his Due” (or, in effect, “To Each his Own”, which is not the same), whilst it unconsciously accepted the safety and reassurance expressed in the second part of the same motto: “NON PRAEVALEBUNT”: “They will not hold out (against us)” ... But such an obvious sigh for ‘peaceful coexistence’ (or ‘to be left alone’) in both the spiritual and temporal order does not make for great apostles to carry out the command of the Lord “to make disciples of all the nations”. But then we must not forget that a Saint of that time, the Great Little Flower, St. Teresa of Lisieux, did not go out into the whole world either, yet without setting foot outside France, she became the Patron Saint of the Missions.

          And so we must assume that many Catholics of this era must have done what she had done in heroic fashion: to sacrifice their daily duty for the Kingdom of God, which means that their lives still became the necessary leaven for the salvation of the world, which, as already remarked earlier, made their life-style essentially good.

          This camp was not without its intellectual leaders and thinkers: philosophers, writers, theologians, seminary professors who, faithfully adhering to the anti-modernistic oath, defended the Church’s teachings against modernism as they understood it. For, in the long run, only those at the very pinnacle of the Church’s intelligentsia remained on guard both against modernism and against evolution: Jacques Maritain, Cardinals Journet and Ottaviani, the great Jean Danielou, S.J., philosophers Dietrich von Hildebrand, Prof. Richard Weaver of Chicago, Dr. Woodbury in Australia, and the Dutch Scripture scholar, Prof. Magister. Dr. J.P.M. van der Ploeg. But many others, although opposed to Modernism, did not understand the Church’s repeated warnings against Teilhardism, and so they ignored them. Thus it came about that through teilhardian evolution, Modernism became introduced within the Catholic fold in a systematic way.

          If we were asked to supply the ‘trade mark’ by which this group, both the grassroots faithful and their intellectual leaders can be instantly recognized, we would have to point to their belief in the Real Distinction between God and His creation, between the Supernatural and the natural, and - what amounts to the same - to their belief in Absolutes: Absolute Truth, and an Absolute and Universal Moral Order. For such is the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

          Not surprisingly, this Faith went straight through Vatican II, unchanged and unchallenged.

          And what about their brothers at the other end of the great spectrum of which the pre-Conciliar Church was composed? Here, I must hand you over once again to that active, restless manipulator and shrewd observer of the world scene for the better part of 40 years: Whittaker Chambers, who had this to say in 1964 after his conversion from Communism:

“I am baffled by the way people still speak of the West as if it were at least a cultural unity against Communism. But the West is divided, not only politically, but by an invisible cleavage. On one side are the voiceless masses with their own subdivisions and fractures. On the other side is the enlightened, articulate elite, which to one degree or other has rejected the religious roots of the civilization - the roots without which it is no longer Western Civilization, but a new order of beliefs, attitudes and mandates. In short, this is the order of which Communism is one logical expression. Not originating in Russia, but in the cultural capitals of the West, reaching Russia by clandestine delivery via the old underground centres in Cracow, Vienna, Berne, Zurich and Geneva (WCC). It is a Western body of beliefs that now threatens the West from Russia. As a body of Western beliefs, secular, materialistic, rationalistic, the intelligentsia of the West share it, and are therefore always committed to a secret, emotional complicity with Communism” (Cold Friday, p. 225-6).

          What is stated here so clearly is so serious, that it warrants the most careful attention, to see if it can be corroborated from other sources and evidence. In the following brief but critical analysis I will assume, that a sizeable proportion of the pre-Vatican elite referred to here, is composed of Catholics.

          Now, the above quoted words of Whittaker Chambers can be approached in a variety of ways, but from whichever angle they are studied for their meaning, the conclusion arrived at is always the same.

1.       “ ... elite ... which has rejected the religious roots of the civilization ...”

          Catholics belonging to this elite have thus broken away from the first group mentioned in this chapter: the ones who are rooted in the tradition of the Church, drawing sustenance from it for their material and spiritual survival. The spiritual roots of the Western Civilization are not only ‘Christian’ but Catholic. Rejecting one’s spiritual roots therefore, is tantamount to saying that one is looking for, or has already adopted, a new ‘Catholic’ inspiration.

          The hall-mark of the first-mentioned group by which it could be distinctly recognized was its belief in the Supernatural Order as a distinct entity, and by its belief in Absolute Truth and a universal Moral Order. This duality of belief in the Two Cities, the Two Kingdoms, carrying with it the dual obligation of rendering unto Caesar and unto God, and the Real Distinction between them, is part of God’s Revelation to Man, is part of the Deposit of Faith of the Church and has been part of the Church’s Tradition since Apostolic times.

          If all this is rejected by the “elite which pulled up its religious roots from the Civilization”, then this vast group must also have adopted a new ‘philosophy’ which rejects this real distinction between the natural and the Supernatural, allowing utter confusion between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world, truly once again a perfect example of that teilhardian hybrid: a philosophy of sameness and identity ....

2.        “this is the (new) order of which Communism is one logical expression.”

          Whoever read the papal encyclical Divini Redemptoris of 1937 (remember, we are dealing here with a pre-Vatican II society) knows what His Holiness Pope Pius XI had to say about “this satanic scourge”: atheistic communism. In this encyclical, the Holy Father did not mince any words:

“This Apostolic See, above all has not refrained from raising its voice, for it knows that its proper and special mission is to defend truth, justice and all those eternal values which Communism ignores or attacks. Ever since the days when groups of intellectuals were formed (Whittaker’s elite) in an arrogant attempt to free civilization from the bonds of morality and religion, Our Predecessors overtly and explicitly drew the attention of the world to the consequences of the de-Christianization of human society. With reference to Communism, Our Ven. Predecessor, Pius IX, of holy memory, as early as 1846 pronounced a solemn condemnation, which he confirmed in the words of the Syllabus directed against that infamous doctrine of so-called Communism which is absolutely contrary to the Natural Law itself, and if once adopted would utterly destroy the rights, property and possessions of all men, and even society itself” (#4).

          From this teaching it is clear that, if Whittaker’s ‘Western elite’, which pulled up its ‘religious roots’, has adopted something of ‘which Communism would be a logical expression’ then this ‘new order’ they adopted must of necessity - to quote the Holy Father “be absolutely contrary to the Natural Law itself ...”. Let us see if the Pope can specify this for us.

“According to the doctrine of modern Communism, there is in the world but one reality: matter, the blind forces of which evolve into plant, animal, man. Even human society is nothing but a phenomenon and form of matter, evolving in the same way. In such a doctrine - as is evident - there is no room for the idea of God; there is no difference between matter and spirit, between soul and body; there is neither survival of the soul after death nor any hope in a future life.” (#9).

          Going by this sacred teaching, Communism rejects the real distinction principle, which means that anyone who rejects this principle has then in fact adopted a system, of which Communism would be a logical expression. As we will see in a few moments, there were already innumerable Catholics who even before Vatican II had rejected Thomism and its hated real distinction principle.

3.        “As a body of Western beliefs: secular, materialistic and rationalistic, the
           intelligentsia of the West share it and are therefore always committed to a secret,            emotional complicity with communism.”

          Can anyone hope for a more succinct paraphrasing of the papal words than this resume? What did the Western intelligentsia adopt after uprooting itself from its religious past, and which was secular, materialistic and rationalistic to such an extent that Communism was not only a logical expression of this new philosophy, but which also gave the adherents of this new order a great psychological affinity to Communism?

          The answer of course is evolution, even if the Catholic section of the Western intelligentsia tries to minimize the mental switch by stressing that theirs is teilhardian evolution. There is no other contender on the horizon.

          Let us pause for a moment and consider what we have achieved so far.

          The first group of Catholics is well defined. We know it presented itself into the presence of Vatican II and, with suitable updating, was allowed through. But what about the second group? That they embraced teilhardian evolution, no one, not even they themselves, will deny that. And so, for this group, the crucial question was:

“Did they, in embracing teilhardism, uproot themselves from Catholic Tradition; or is teilhardism merely a legitimate interpretation of Catholicism which does not necessitate uprooting oneself from Tradition?”

          We may reframe the question in a different way within the framework of the facts discovered so far:

• “Is it possible to remain in Catholic Tradition and reject the religious roots of ones Catholic civilization?”

• “Is it possible to remain in Catholic Tradition and espouse a doctrine which is diametrically opposed to it?”

• “Is it possible to reject the real distinction from a Tradition which is bound up with it, and then to believe that God can create while still evolving Himself with matter and man until ‘omega-point’ has been reached, as Teilhard postulates?”

• “Is it possible to remain rooted in Catholic Tradition eternally opposed to atheistic Communism, at the same time adopting a philosophy from which Communism would be a logical expression?”

  (It is necessary to remember in this context that it was Pope Pius XII who wrote authoritatively in 1950 that “the false evolutionary notions would advance the spread of Communism” (Humani Generis), linking the two as with an unbreakable bond. Now the 1962 Monita against Teilhard’s evolutionary notions have branded them as “false”, with the inevitable consequence of advancing Communism and the spread of error.)

• Finally, “Is it possible to be steeped in Catholic Tradition, and to embrace a body of Western beliefs: secular, materialistic, rationalistic, which tie the believers not only logically to Communism, but also emotionally, so that, with Communism, they become logically and emotionally opposed “to the very Tradition which condemned Communism?” ”

          Since the answers to the above questions are obvious, Whittaker Chambers was right, and so were the Popes of the Syllabus of Errors, of Pascendi, of Divini Redemptoris, of Humani Generis and of the Monita against de Chardin. The teilhardians are no longer in Catholic Tradition, and it will be interesting to see what happened when they presented themselves, individually and as a noisy group, at the gates of Vatican II.

          But first, what about the spread of Teilhardism? Was it far enough in 1962 to be taken into consideration?

          There is plenty of evidence that the spread of Teilhard de Chardin’s ideas is worldwide and that all the great names in Catholic theology have lent their name and their prestige to the spread of his errors. With the inevitable consequence that they are now dying for a ‘church’, a ‘pope’ and a ‘council’ which will back them up. But history, common sense and Catholic Faith will teach them that it will be a ‘church’, a ‘pope’ and a ‘council’ outside Catholic Tradition.

“Whatever reservations one may have about the decision (to make a selection out of the welter of teilhardian papers available), we feel nevertheless that the selection presented in this volume has the advantage of bringing out with equal clarity both the theoretical and practical aspects of the author’s theological thought. In recent years much has been published about Teilhard de Chardin’s theological writings, both about his theology as a whole and about particular points in his teaching.” (See note below).

“Seldom in the history of theology has a writer’s thought been the occasion in so few years of so much, often passionate, study and discussion. The number and the quality of the studies devoted to his work in this field make it abundantly clear, how insistently Père Teilhard’s thought has captured the attention of theologians, and what an unusually powerful stimulus it is to theological speculation of our day.”

“Apart from Christological questions, most of the essays in this volume deal primarily with the problem (sic!) of Original Sin. While some of his suggestions may still seem somewhat tentatively expressed, there can nevertheless be little doubt that it is in the direction he indicates that theological research on this issue is being pursued.”

(Prof. N. M. Wildiers, Docteur en Théologie, in a Foreword to a book by Teilhard: Christianity and Evolution, French edition, 1969, English translation, Collins 1971).

          This frank Foreword is remarkable for a number of reasons.

1. There is no indication that there ever was a Vatican Council II. Its existence and findings are totally ignored. Business as usual, even if the business is flagrant Modernism.

2. Teilhard’s ideas are seriously called a ‘theology’.

3. It is claimed here that his influence is unquestioned.

          But Teilhard has rejected the Dogma of Original Sin as formulated and taught by the Tradition of the Church, and has rejected the existence of Adam and Eve as a unique first pair. (Both his 1922 and 1947 papers on Original Sin are in this volume).

          So, if the interest in Teilhard’s ‘theology’ is as worldwide as this man wants us to believe, and if this worldwide interest and research is being pursued in the direction of Teilhard’s rejection of the Dogma of Original Sin, then rejection and contradiction of Dogma is now - for the first time in the history of the Catholic Church - not only graced with the name ‘theology’, but is being held up as the theology of the Catholic Church.

          This shows the rejection of the Real Distinction between Good and Evil, between Truth and its contradiction, and the adoption of the principle of sameness and identity, by means of which the ‘doctrine’ is being taught that evil and sin have been abolished so as to become another (and even more acceptable) form of ‘good’, and that truth and its contradiction and denial are equally the same. This principle is found to lie at the root of any evolutionary ‘philosophy’ in which everything: god, truth, good, evil, natural, supernatural become reduced to one evolving entity, where sin is explained away as merely being a ‘statistical mistake’ ...

4.        NOTE.   “His teachings .... ”

          In 1926 Teilhard’s Superiors forbade him to teach any longer. In 1947, the year of the appearance of his most ‘sophisticated’ rejection of the Dogma of Original Sin, this prohibition to teach was underscored and officially taken over by the highest Authority in the Church, when Rome forbade him to write or teach on philosophical matters. He nevertheless continued the vigorous private circulation of his manuscripts. Here, Prof. Wildiers approves of his disobedience and recommends the fruits of it: his teachings, to all.

          For a good treatment of the futility of teilhardian attempts at explaining away duality and the Real Distinction, I refer interested readers to a little booklet: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Evolution and Christ, by C. van Til, which first appeared in the May 1966 issue of The Westminster Theological Journal, and has been reprinted separately by the Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Box 185, Nutley 10, New Jersey.

          Testimonies as to the extent of Teilhard de Chardin’s acceptance in philosophical and theological circles from the thirties to the seventies and to the universality of his influence are innumerable: both in general and of individual theologians. Let me finish with one more, an observation made by a Bishop who attended the Second Vatican Council, the Most Rev. William Adrian, Bishop of Nashville, Tennessee. This prelate wrote a penetrating article on this very subject, entitled: How did it happen? from which I quote:

“The main issue at the Second Vatican Council was really that of collegiality, or the question of how the bishops as a body could somehow rule over the Church, the Pope holding only a Primacy of honour, not of jurisdiction independent of the bishops.”

          Fr. Wiltgen, in his already mentioned book The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, supports the observation made here by Bishop Adrian. Fr. Wiltgen writes on p. 228:

“The most important and dramatic battle which took place at the Second Vatican Council was not the widely publicized controversy over Religious Liberty, but the one over Collegiality, which happened mostly behind the scenes ...”

          Back to Bishop Adrian:

“The liberal bishops knew that, in order to destroy the autocratic power of the Pope and the Curia, they had to stress the idea of rule by the bishops collectively, and thus they could overrule the Pope. Also, such a move would overcome the embarrassing doctrine of Papal Infallibility, so inimical to non-Catholics. But the Pope intervened and corrected the false doctrines submitted by the bishops ... The European ‘periti’, (experts!), who really imposed their theories upon the bishops, were themselves deeply imbued with the errors of Teilhardism and Situation Ethics, which errors ultimately destroy all Divine Faith and Morality, and all constituted Authority. They make the person the centre and judge of all ‘truth’ and morality irrespective of what the Church teaches ... .”

          But the Pope intervened and corrected ... .How long will we be able to hear that happy phrase against such passive resistance, silent timidity and almost murderous ill-will?

          This should do to show conclusively the existence of two distinct groups within the kaleidoscopic scene of the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church, prepared on the 11th October, 1962 to present their Catholicism to the judgement of the Church at the opening of the Second Vatican Council.

          0ne group determined to remain within the Tradition of the Church, come what may, willing to make any corrections which their Holy Mother might deem necessary.

          The other group outside the Tradition of the Church, determined to prove that, in order to survive and to be relevant to modern man, the Church would have to come over to their ‘inspiration’.

          And in between these two clearly defined groups, the ceaseless ebb and flood of the human caravan-on-the-move, not all that much different from the times when it was viewed with the compassionate eyes of the Son of Man.