Flannery O’Connor has never lacked devotees, but there’s no question public awareness will skyrocket thanks to the new film about her life, Wildcat. I haven’t seen it and, unless the planets align just so, probably won’t, since movies almost invariably disappoint me, especially when they are based either on books or on real people’s lives.
This is a fine and important article by Peter K. It deserves a wide audience. My background in science has enabled me to see through the pseudo science and gnostic spirituality of Teilhard. The latter’s brew of Chistology and mystical scientistism is still appealing to those for whom the Cross and Resurrection are merely events to get through to some sort of apotheosis in which judgment has no role. I remember being fascinated by Teilhard for a brief period in my intellectual life. But becoming a Catholic and a priest ended that fascination in my act of offering the Mass, the center of understanding of matter and spirit.
Yes: I think many of us went through a period of life in which we were enamored of one or another version of the "let's synthesize Christianity with modern [X]," where X can stand for science, philosophy, art, or what have you. And then, over time, it becomes apparent that one must make a choice between the Christian dogmas and the modern X, because they originate from different sources and lead to contrary ends.
O'Connor's wonderful short story, "Parker's Back," is a clear repudiation of gnosticism. Grace enters into the life of Parker, this simple, puzzled fella, a weak, vessel of clay, and it does so by his obedience to the call of Beauty that is one with the Cross. It's significant that Parker rejects the modern, popular images of Christ, simpering and trendy. He is drawn to the iconic, an aesthetic far from the naturalism of modern proclivities. Parker's choice of "the Byzantine Christ with all-demanding eyes" is the opposite of any bland, presumptive optimism of mechanical ascent to apotheosis. The sorrow and shock of the titular character is the discovery that his moralizing, nagging wife, Sarah Ruth, devoutly follows a religion utterly opposed to the Incarnate Lord, and the ravishing apocalypse of the Holy. I recommend Marion Montgomery as another scholar worth investigating for insight into O'Connor's metaphysical and theological allegiances. My own view is that her attraction to Teilhard was partly a reaction against Irish Catholic Jansenism. Superficially, his thought promised to open up a narrow imaginary to sacramental depths that entail the cosmos. Any more acute acquaintance could only show initial enthusiasm to be ultimately misplaced. As Hans Urs von Balthasar has opined, the Spirit even now kenotically works to redeem the Fallen Creation. O'Connor rightly saw it as part of the mission of the poet in service of the Church to reveal the full scope of the eschatological Wedding Feast. It is far more than anything Tielhard could imagine, which is why apophatic reserve is necessary complement to the moment of artistic vision.
I think we yearn to reconcile our modern surroundings with the Faith. There are so many expressions of this in modern life and so many points at which rationalizations stop the yearning. It shows how faithless modern thought is and how centered on the self.
“‘…a velvet demolition of his belief that mankind can evolve to perfection.’
If salvation is a function of perfectibility, what does this imply about the lame, the weak, the befuddled, and the oppressed?”
So well said! O’Connor knew better, that there is a struggle, not a reconciliation. But then hasn’t there always been? That is a sign of true Hope.
I want to see the movie but am just waiting to see the spin, whatever it may be.
Bravo! As someone who has slogged through the first volume of Irenaeus’ magnum opus, Against Heresies, it is surprising to see the parallels of Tielhard’s thought and the various Gnostic flavors of heterodoxy that Irenaeus details. I wanted to bash my head against the wall several time in my reading. Likewise, the implicit pantheism detailed in modernist thought and an evolutionary convergence to an Omega Point—a desperate apokatastasis to make all things well—is disturbing. It uses sacred language and ideas and reappropriates them in proper nominalist style to teach heresy.
Flannery O’ Connor is a Catholic I identify with strongly because of her suffering. You read her work and you simply do not get the warm fuzzies. There is grit amidst the grace (and sometimes grace thru grit!). Simply, a cross—and only through that cross is there salvation.
The one piece I drafted concerning her idea of the “new jesus” from her novel Wise Blood is something I think needs to be told to the Catholic world at large. I let Deacon Steven—our mutual acquaintance—read it and told him if he thought it worthy, to pass it along to you. We need no “new jesus,” but the real Jesus who can save us from our sins through His Holy Cross and His Resurrection.
Like all temptations, Teilhard tempts us with what is perceptible to the senses and the imagination. We do not like what we do not have control of. We love what we have control or participation. Neither do we want submission to things we cannot grasp; and most of all the “denial of self” the prerequisite towards the union with God.
Hence this is allure of Teilhard ideas. He titillates us with our participation, control, in deepest our “desire to be like God.”
However the chasm of reality is given in this verse: John 3:8 (ESV): 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” This is from the point of view of the spirit which must be taken into account man being not just body and soul, but spirit also.
From the natural point of view, humans, we all of us, attempt to encapsulate in our mind, and made it available to others by our words what we have encapsulated. Teilhard’s work is one of them. We all try. We all fail. For it is already done. For no human being, but Christ, in their minds, in their understanding can; for the reality of the creation was already encapsulated in the mind of God from all eternity in his Word. Why can’t we just believe?
Colossians 1:15–17 (ESV): 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Hearing De Chardin’s words in this article brought immediately to mind that this sounds a kind of “ Christian Kabbalah “. A good defense that destroys this heresy is ST Pt I Q73 A1.
The quotation from Helprin is wonderful. I’ll be spending the next few days with him, some of my professors, and about 20 of my classmates discussing his short stories and articles at a seminar-style conference here in Waco. I’m eager to ask Helprin about this passage, as I see the theme of resistance to man made perfectibility appearing in his short stories as well.
This is a fine and important article by Peter K. It deserves a wide audience. My background in science has enabled me to see through the pseudo science and gnostic spirituality of Teilhard. The latter’s brew of Chistology and mystical scientistism is still appealing to those for whom the Cross and Resurrection are merely events to get through to some sort of apotheosis in which judgment has no role. I remember being fascinated by Teilhard for a brief period in my intellectual life. But becoming a Catholic and a priest ended that fascination in my act of offering the Mass, the center of understanding of matter and spirit.
Yes: I think many of us went through a period of life in which we were enamored of one or another version of the "let's synthesize Christianity with modern [X]," where X can stand for science, philosophy, art, or what have you. And then, over time, it becomes apparent that one must make a choice between the Christian dogmas and the modern X, because they originate from different sources and lead to contrary ends.
O'Connor's wonderful short story, "Parker's Back," is a clear repudiation of gnosticism. Grace enters into the life of Parker, this simple, puzzled fella, a weak, vessel of clay, and it does so by his obedience to the call of Beauty that is one with the Cross. It's significant that Parker rejects the modern, popular images of Christ, simpering and trendy. He is drawn to the iconic, an aesthetic far from the naturalism of modern proclivities. Parker's choice of "the Byzantine Christ with all-demanding eyes" is the opposite of any bland, presumptive optimism of mechanical ascent to apotheosis. The sorrow and shock of the titular character is the discovery that his moralizing, nagging wife, Sarah Ruth, devoutly follows a religion utterly opposed to the Incarnate Lord, and the ravishing apocalypse of the Holy. I recommend Marion Montgomery as another scholar worth investigating for insight into O'Connor's metaphysical and theological allegiances. My own view is that her attraction to Teilhard was partly a reaction against Irish Catholic Jansenism. Superficially, his thought promised to open up a narrow imaginary to sacramental depths that entail the cosmos. Any more acute acquaintance could only show initial enthusiasm to be ultimately misplaced. As Hans Urs von Balthasar has opined, the Spirit even now kenotically works to redeem the Fallen Creation. O'Connor rightly saw it as part of the mission of the poet in service of the Church to reveal the full scope of the eschatological Wedding Feast. It is far more than anything Tielhard could imagine, which is why apophatic reserve is necessary complement to the moment of artistic vision.
Well said!
I think we yearn to reconcile our modern surroundings with the Faith. There are so many expressions of this in modern life and so many points at which rationalizations stop the yearning. It shows how faithless modern thought is and how centered on the self.
“‘…a velvet demolition of his belief that mankind can evolve to perfection.’
If salvation is a function of perfectibility, what does this imply about the lame, the weak, the befuddled, and the oppressed?”
So well said! O’Connor knew better, that there is a struggle, not a reconciliation. But then hasn’t there always been? That is a sign of true Hope.
I want to see the movie but am just waiting to see the spin, whatever it may be.
Bravo! As someone who has slogged through the first volume of Irenaeus’ magnum opus, Against Heresies, it is surprising to see the parallels of Tielhard’s thought and the various Gnostic flavors of heterodoxy that Irenaeus details. I wanted to bash my head against the wall several time in my reading. Likewise, the implicit pantheism detailed in modernist thought and an evolutionary convergence to an Omega Point—a desperate apokatastasis to make all things well—is disturbing. It uses sacred language and ideas and reappropriates them in proper nominalist style to teach heresy.
Flannery O’ Connor is a Catholic I identify with strongly because of her suffering. You read her work and you simply do not get the warm fuzzies. There is grit amidst the grace (and sometimes grace thru grit!). Simply, a cross—and only through that cross is there salvation.
The one piece I drafted concerning her idea of the “new jesus” from her novel Wise Blood is something I think needs to be told to the Catholic world at large. I let Deacon Steven—our mutual acquaintance—read it and told him if he thought it worthy, to pass it along to you. We need no “new jesus,” but the real Jesus who can save us from our sins through His Holy Cross and His Resurrection.
Yes, you are absolutely right!
Like all temptations, Teilhard tempts us with what is perceptible to the senses and the imagination. We do not like what we do not have control of. We love what we have control or participation. Neither do we want submission to things we cannot grasp; and most of all the “denial of self” the prerequisite towards the union with God.
Hence this is allure of Teilhard ideas. He titillates us with our participation, control, in deepest our “desire to be like God.”
However the chasm of reality is given in this verse: John 3:8 (ESV): 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” This is from the point of view of the spirit which must be taken into account man being not just body and soul, but spirit also.
From the natural point of view, humans, we all of us, attempt to encapsulate in our mind, and made it available to others by our words what we have encapsulated. Teilhard’s work is one of them. We all try. We all fail. For it is already done. For no human being, but Christ, in their minds, in their understanding can; for the reality of the creation was already encapsulated in the mind of God from all eternity in his Word. Why can’t we just believe?
Colossians 1:15–17 (ESV): 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Hearing De Chardin’s words in this article brought immediately to mind that this sounds a kind of “ Christian Kabbalah “. A good defense that destroys this heresy is ST Pt I Q73 A1.
The quotation from Helprin is wonderful. I’ll be spending the next few days with him, some of my professors, and about 20 of my classmates discussing his short stories and articles at a seminar-style conference here in Waco. I’m eager to ask Helprin about this passage, as I see the theme of resistance to man made perfectibility appearing in his short stories as well.