The current apologetic reply to Camus’ dismissal of Catholicism goes something like this: Camus was exposed to Augustine when he was not ready for him. He paid too much attention to Pascal and to “sick”
Christianity like that of Kierkegaard. And of course he was not favorably
impressed by the French Catholic collaborationists and their jeremiads over sin
and punishment at the time of the Nazi occupation. But it would have been a
different story if Camus had been able to read Teilhard de Chardin.
Is it that easy? To begin with, let us state the question
more exactly. It would be impossible to say whether or not Camus, under this or
that set of “favorable circumstances,” would ever have become “a believer.” Such
surmises are usually nonsense. The problem with Camus was that he simply could
not find Christians with whom he was able completely to identify himself on
every level. The closest he got was with some of the French priests in the
resistance, and evidently that was not close enough.
What would Camus have liked about Teilhard?
Obviously, first of all, he would have been happy with Teilhard’s complete acceptance
of nature and of material creation, Teilhard came as close to developing a Christian mystique of matter as anyone has ever
done; and Camus, in some of his essays, extols the material, the phenomenal,
the sensible, the experience of the fleeting moment, in quasi-mystical language.
A study of Teilhard’s writings and especially of his own
spiritual development shows us to what extent he rebelled against the mentality
we have seen in Paneloux: the self-righteous, censorious repudiation of a
beautiful world created by God’s love. Writing from the trenches in World War I.
Teilhard confessed, in a letter to a friend, that even in the midst of war he
was meditating and keeping notes on the “real problem of my interior life”—“the
problem of reconciling a passionate and legitimate love of all that is greatest
on earth, and the unique quest of the Kingdom of Heaven.” He explicitly rejects
any concept of the world as “only an opportunity to acquire merit.” Rather he
sees it as a good creation, coming from the hand of God and given us “to be
built up and embellished.”
[215] It is of
course typical of the spirituality of Paneloux to regard the created world
merely as something to be manipulated in order to amass an abstract capital of
merit. Paneloux is a spiritual profiteer, and his kind of Christianity is a
reflection of the social establishment, with which it exists in a symbiotic
unity. Of such Christianity, Teilhard says it makes one less than a man and a
traitor to the human race. Those who observe it from the outside are repelled
and “blame my religion for it” That is precisely what Camus does in his portrait
of Paneloux. Teilhard’s criticism of this false supernaturalism is that in
trying to divert man’s capacity to love and turn it aside from concrete human
reality to the purely abstract and spiritual, it deadens and distorts man. “The
capacity to love cannot with impunity be dissociated from its object: if you
try, mistakenly, to cut off our affectivity from love of the universe, are you
not in danger of destroying it?” This is what has happened to Paneloux: a good,
sincere, strong-willed man, with a strong tendency to intellectualize, he has
fallen a victim to an abstract and inhuman spirituality. His power of love has
atrophied. His affectivity has been channeled into will-to-power and rigid
authoritarianism. When he tries to recover the warmth of love, he ends in a
self-immolation which is part heroism and part algebra, an irrefutable
conclusion to an argument which no one is able to understand.
Teilhard, on the contrary, wants to transform and divinize
the human passions themselves. “I shall put the intoxication of pagan
pantheism to Christian use, by recognizing the creative and formative action of
God in every caress and every blow … I would like to be able to love Christ
passionately ... in the very act of loving the universe.” And he asks:
“Is there communion with God through the Earth, the Earth becoming like a great
Host in which God would be contained for us?”
Camus’ basic sympathy for the element of Greek theoria in Mediterranean culture
would incline him to accept this “Christian gnosis” up to a point. He could identify with the “passionate love,” if not with
the theological elaboration. Teilhard also completely and totally accepts man; and the God of Teilhard is not simply a remote judge and creator, but a God who seeks to complete his epiphany in the world of man by bringing all
humanity to convergence and unity in himself, in the Incarnation. The
Incarnation for Teilhard is, then, not just an expedient to take care of sin and
bring the kind of “grace” that Paneloux was happy about. The Incarnation is
ultimately the full revelation of God, not just in man but in the “hominization”
of the entire material world.
Camus would have heartily agreed with Teilhard’s love of
man and [216] with his aspiration toward
human unity. But it is rather doubtful whether he would have been able to accept
the evolutionary and historical scheme of Teilhardian soteriology. To be precise,
it is likely that Camus would have had a certain amount of trouble with the
systematic progress of the world toward “hominization” and “christification” by
virtue of laws immanent in matter and in history.
The point cannot be adequately discussed here, but anyone
who wants to investigate it further had better read Camus’ book on Revolt
(L’Homme révolté), which he wrote after The Plague and which he
thought out at the same time as The Plague. This study of revolt, which
precipitated the break between Camus and the Marxists (especially with Sartre),
is a severe critique of Hegelian and post-Hegelian doctrines which seek the
salvation and progress of man in the “laws of history.”
Camus was suspicious of the way in which totalitarians of
both the left and the right consistently appealed to evolution to justify their
hope of inevitable progress toward a new era of the superman. In particular, he
protested vigorously against their tendency to sacrifice man as he is now, in
the present, for man as he is supposed to be, according to the doctrine of race
or party, at some indefinite time in the future. In Camus’ eyes, this too easily
justified the sadism and opportunism of people who are always prepared to align
themselves on the side of the executioners against the victims.. In other words,
a certain superficial type of eschatological hopefulness, based on evolution,
made it easy to ignore the extermination camps, the pogroms, the genocide, the
napalm, the H-bombs that so conveniently favored the survival of the fittest,
got rid of those who no longer had a right to exist, and prepared the way for
the epiphany of superman.
At this point, it must be admitted that one of the most
serious criticisms of Teilhard bears precisely on this point: an optimism which
tends to look at existential evil and suffering through the small end of the
telescope. It is unfortunately true that Teilhard, like many other Christians,
regarded the dead and wounded of Hiroshima with a certain equanimity as
inevitable by-products of scientific and evolutionary progress. He was much
more impressed with the magnificent scientific achievement of the atomic
physicists than he was with the consequences of dropping the bomb. It
must be added immediately that the physicists themselves did not all see things
exactly as he did. The concern of a Niels Bohr and his dogged struggle to
prevent the atomic arms race put Bohr with Rieux and Tarrou in the category of
“Sisyphean” heroes that are entirely congenial to Camus. After the Bikini test,
Teilhard exclaimed that the new bombs “show a humanity which is at peace both
internally [217] and externally.” And he
added beatifically, “they announce the coming of the spirit on earth.” (L’Avenir de l’homme)
No matter how much we may respect the integrity and the
nobility of this dedicated Jesuit, we have to admit here that at least in one
respect he resembles his confrere Paneloux. True, they are at opposite extremes
of optimism and pessimism; but they do concur in attaching more importance to
an abstract idea, a mystique, a system, than to man in his
existential and fallible reality here and now. This is precisely what Camus
considers to be the great temptation. Lured by an ideology or a mystique, one
goes over to the side of the executioners, while arguing that in so doing one is
promoting the cause of life.
There is no question whatever that Teilhard believes in the “new man,” the homo progressivus,
the new evolutionary leap that is now being taken (he thinks) beyond homo sapiens. Science certainly
gives us a basis for hope in this development, and perhaps Camus needed to have
more hope in the future of man than he actually seems to have had. Perhaps Camus
was too inclined to doubt and hesitate. Perhaps his “modesty” tended too much to
desperation. Perhaps there was much he could have learned from Teilhard. But it
is not likely that he would purely and simply have agreed with Teilhard’s
statement in Peking, in 1945, that the victorious armies of Mao Tse-tung
represented “the humanity of tomorrow” and “the generating forces and the
elements of planetization,” while the bourgeois European world represented
nothing but the garbage (le déchet) of history. No doubt there may be
good reason to think that a “new humanity” will arise out of the emerging Third
World. Let us hope that it will. But Camus would not be so naïve as to identify
this “new humanity” with a particular brand of Marxism, or to pin his hopes on a
party which announced its own glorious future as a dogma of faith.
Both Camus and Teilhard firmly took their stand on what
they considered to be the side of life. Both saw humanity confronted
with a final choice, a “grand option,” between the “spirit of force” and the
“spirit of love,” between “division” and “convergence.” Man’s destiny is
in his own hands, and everything depends on whether he chooses life and
creativity or death and destruction. Teilhard’s scientific mystique and
long-range view, extending over millennia, naturally did not delay overlong to
worry about the death of a few thousands here and there. Camus could still pause
and have scruples over the murder of an innocent child. He refused to justify
that death in the name of God. He also refused to justify it by an appeal to
history, to evolution, to science, to politics, or to the glorious future of the
new man.
In short, Teilhard de Chardin's devotion to the powerful generalities of modernity blinded him to the plight of particular men living in the world.
1. Thanks to Patrick Henry Reardon, whose mention of this analysis in the last issue of Touchstone alerted me to its existence.
