waterboy,
I have to admit that my reaction to your note on Teilhard was too hasty. He indeed “does not represent mainstream theology” with emphasis on “represent”. Nevertheless, his thinking – an attempt to reconcile orthodox theology with 20th century science, notably evolution - had its influence also on Vatican II, e.g. the conciliar constitution “Gaudium et spes“.

This thinking is not part of “mainstream” Catholic theology the same as e.g. Einstein’s - or contemporary physicists’, thinking is not part of “mainstream” (i.e. pure) mathematics. But in both cases the influence is enormous; at least in the second case nobody disputes this. Your distinction of “mainstream“ and “pop“ theology, reminds me of the distinction between pure and applied mathematics. The “man in the street“ thinks that the first is just useless speculation and can appreciate only the second one whose benefits are readily tangible. In both cases. During my active years I felt strongly on the side of pure mathematics, the only proper way of doing things and viewed its applications, as important as they were, only as second rate mathematics. Age and experience taught me otherwise. Perhaps something similar could be said about the relative importance of mainstream and pop (e.g. Teilhardian) theology.

You are right that until Vatican II the Roman Church felt very uneasy about evolution, and some (not only) Catholic theologians do until today, because, in (not only) my opinion, they do not understand it, hence confuse it with atheist ‘non sequiturs‘ a la Dawkins.
As to your link to Vatican positions dated 1962, and the much weaker “reservations” dated 1981, the first precedes Vatican II and the second JPII‘s statement issued to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he endorsed evolution as being “more than just a theory“. I know, this is unfortunately not the end of the story. In July 2005 the Archbishop of Vienna, Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn published in NY Time his now notorious “Finding Design in Nature”, where, among other things, he tried to downplay the above JP II’s statement. (ctd)

(ctd) This shocked many European Catholics who thought the Church had already learned its lesson, and would keep out of the grotesque American debates that want to play scientific theories of evolution against Christian faith and vice versa.

During a meeting in Castel Gandolfo of a group of scientists and theologians (including Schoenborn) with Benedict XVI, the pope, in my opinion, did his best to on one hand defend his personal friend, the Cardinal, and at the same time to keep the Church out of this unfortunate controversy. The proceedings of this meeting (Schoepfung und Evolution, Sankt Ulrich 2007), will appear in English in April 2008 as “Creation and Evolution: A Conference With Pope Benedict XVI“.

As to Teihard, I think his contribution to the philosophical appreciation of theology and science is more than just poetic. I prefer an extension of your earlier description as 'mystical' interpretations of 'creation' (that science does not deal with) and ‘evolution’ (that Revelation Theology does not deal with).

May I end with a quote from the end of a booklet (J.V. Kopp, Teilhard de Chardin, Mercier Press 1964, with an Imprimatur from Francis cardinal Spellman):

“There was never one word of complaint in his letters. … He chose silence. The strength to do so was drawn from his unshakable conviction that a thought, properly conceived in any part of the universe, could not be destroyed. He knew that hi idea would be brought to fruition later by others. … Like Moses on the mountain, he saw the promised land, but it was not granted him to lead the people into it.“

Born in the volcanic province of Auvergne in central France, Pierre Teilhard’s father introduced him to the COSMOS as a whole. His mother introduced him to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, which he later came to “see” – with the eyes of a mystic or “seer” – as the Sacred Heart of all creation [the universe as a whole] and even the Sacred Heart of God [Father, Son and Holy Spirit].

By 1901 when R.M.Bucke published “Cosmic Consciousness” – followed in 1911 by Evelyn Underhill’s “Mysticism – A study in the nature and development of Man’s spiritual consciousness” – the young Jesuit (1881-1955 – ordained in England in 1911) had begun to sense the cosmic nature, dimensions and implications of our incarnation as we ascend to “Cosmic Life” [1916 pp.13-71 in “Writings in Time of War” 1968]

Towards the end of his life in New York on Easter Sunday 1955 [10 April] prayed for a “New Nicaea” to affirm that there is more in the Total Christ than Man and God – that there is also the Cosmic Body of his incarnation. Ten years later, Vatican Council II affirmed the cosmic nature, dimensions and implications of OUR incarnation [Gaudium et Spes n.14]. 14 years later – in the first words of his first encyclical [“Redemptor Hominis” 1979] – Pope John Paul II extended that doctrine specifically to Jesus as the on-going and ascending CENTRE of the universe and of its history from the beginning to the end of time.

In other words – there is only ONE BODY [the Cosmic Body of Christ] and we – having been “chosen” in Christ before4 the world was made (Eph.1:4) – are each given an ever-changing PART of the cosmic body of the TOTAL Christ fur the duration of our own earthly lives. After that – stripped to the very point of one’s own existence – we shall see God as God really is. We may then say “YES” or “NO” to that Beatific Vision – according to the habits of a lifetime.

George,

Interesting analogy! There is something deeply satisfying in Teilhards integrative conception of the Cosmos that is perhaps experienced also by the Applied Mathematician who connects the world of mathematical ideas with the physical realities of the material world in which we participate.
The idea that all Matter is 'infused' with Spirit and that even this is not 'everything' (which is probably panenthiesm rather than pantheism), while not strictly orthodox, does have practical implications for how we relate to everything in our world.
Provided we understand that the Biblical Creation story is literature of a similar sort then there is no conflict between these two 'cosmic stories'.
It is such a pity that people diminish Creation by insisting on a literal interpretation.

Hey runner, the theory of gravity hasn't been proved either. Maybe you deny it has any value? You stirrer you!

Roch,
Given the current state of the world, the arrival of a "noosphere" seems a little way off yet. Our 'cosmic consciousness', where we are stripped to the very point of our own existence and see God as God really is, may take some ground-breaking understanding in eschatology. Is the Eschaton, the ‘final end' of evil (the end of the conditions of its rise and the reconciliation of its destruction) to occur without the Armageddon (or final battle)?

I tend to think, the final Advent of God, the Escharon, which is, at the same time, the supreme Adventure of God with the world, is the origin of the creative process. Many have been unsure as to the time of its occasion in the universe - but I do believe, it hangs perilously close.