A wooden statue of a pregnant woman is pictured in the Church of St. Mary in Traspontina as part of exhibits on the Amazon region during the Synod of Bishops for the Amazon in Rome Oct. 18, 2019. Several copies of the statue were stolen from the church and thrown into the Tiber River Oct. 21. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)
Vatican City, Oct 25, 2019 / 10:43 am (CNA).- After controversial statues were thrown into Rome’s Tiber River, Pope Francis has issued an apology during Friday’s afternoon session of the Vatican’s Synod of Bishops on the Amazon.
“As bishop of this diocese,” Pope Francis, who is Bishop of Rome, said, “I ask forgiveness from those who have been offended by this gesture.”
Pope Francis also reported that the statues had been recovered from the river, are not damaged, and are being kept in the offices of the head of Italy’s national police.
The statues, which were identical carved images of a naked pregnant Amazonian woman, had been displayed in the Carmelite church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, close to the Vatican, and used in several events, rituals, and expression of spirituality taking place during the Oct. 6-27 Amazonian synod.
The pope said they had been displayed in the church “without idolatrous intentions,” French agency I.Media reported.
The figures have become symbols of controversy during the synod of bishops, which is a meeting held to discuss the Church’s life and pastoral ministry in the Amazonian region of South America. They first appeared at an Oct. 4 tree-planting ceremony in the Vatican gardens, attended by Pope Francis, at which they were in the center of a collection of figurines around which attendees processed.
The pope referred to the statues as “Pachamama,” the name traditionally given to an Andean fertility goddess, which can be roughly translated as “Mother Earth.”
The pope’s use of the term “Pachamama” will likely further ongoing debate regarding the exact nature of the statutes, and what they represent.
They had been described as representing “Our Lady of the Amazon,” and some journalists initially suggested they represented the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Vatican spokesmen have said that they represent “life,” and are not religious symbols, but some journalists and commentators have raised questions about the origins of the symbols, and whether they were religious symbols of Amazonian indigenous groups.
Paolo Ruffini, head of the Vatican’s communications office, said last week that “fundamentally, it represents life. And enough. I believe to try and see pagan symbols or to see… evil, it is not,” he said, adding that “it represents life through a woman.”
He equated the image to that of a tree, saying “a tree is a sacred symbol.”
The pope said that the statues might be displayed during the closing Mass of the synod Oct. 27, saying that would be a matter for the Vatican’s Secretary of State to decide.
Good afternoon. I want to say a word about the statues of the pachamama that were taken from the church of the Transpontina – which were there without idolatrous intentions – and were thrown into the Tiber.
First of all, this happened in Rome, and as Bishop of the Diocese I ask pardon of the persons who were offended by this act.
Then, I want to communicate to you that the states, which have created such media clamour, were found in the Tiber. The statues were not damaged.
The Commandant of the Carabinieri desires that you should be informed of this recovery before the news is made public. At the moment, the news is confidential, and the statues are being kept in the office of the Commandant of the Italian Carabinieri.
The Command of the Carabinieri will be very happy to follow up on any indication that would you like to give concerning the manner of publication of the news, and for other initiatives you would like to take in this regard; as, for example, the Commandant said, “the exhibition of the statues during the Holy Mass for the closing of the Synod”. We’ll see.
I have delegated the Secretary of State to respond to this.
This is a bit of good news. Thank you.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Vatican City, Mar 10, 2021 / 05:30 am (CNA).- Pope Francis on Wednesday urged Catholics worldwide to keep praying for “our sorely tried brothers and sisters” in Iraq.
Speaking at his general audience on March 10, the pope reflected on his … […]
A defining theme of Pope Francis’ papacy has been his urging of humanity to better care for the natural environment, which he has done most prominently in his landmark 2015 encyclical Laudato Si’ and numerous subsequent writings and speeches.
The pope’s emphasis on this topic — especially his foray into climate science via his recent encyclical Laudate Deum — has variously drawn both praise and consternation from Catholics in the United States, about half of whom do not share Pope Francis’ views on climate change, according to surveys.
In Laudate Deum, which was released in October as a continuation to Laudato Si’, Francis wrote that the effects of climate change “are here and increasingly evident,” warning of “immensely grave consequences for everyone” if drastic efforts are not made to reduce emissions. In the face of this, the Holy Father criticized those who “have chosen to deride [the] facts” about climate science, stating bluntly that it is “no longer possible to doubt the human — ‘anthropic’ — origin of climate change.”
The pope in the encyclical laid out his belief that there must be a “necessary transition towards clean energy sources, such as wind and solar energy, and the abandonment of fossil fuels.” This follows a call from Pope Francis in 2021 to the global community calling for the world to “achieve net zero carbon emissions as soon as possible.”
He further lamented what he called “certain dismissive and scarcely reasonable opinions [on climate change] that I encounter, even within the Catholic Church.”
In light of the new encyclical — which extensively cites the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — Pope Francis was invited to speak at this week’s United Nations Climate Change Conference, known as COP28. Though the 86-year-old pope was forced to cancel his trip due to health issues, the Vatican has indicated that he aims to participate in COP28 this weekend in some fashion. It announced today that Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin will represent the pope at the conference.
While various Catholic groups have welcomed the pope’s latest encyclical, some Catholics have reacted with persistent doubts, questioning whether the pope’s policy prescriptions would actually produce the desired effects.
How do Americans feel about climate change?
According to a major survey conducted by Yale University, 72% of Americans believed in 2021 — the latest available data year — that “global warming is happening,” and 57% believe that global warming is caused by human activity.
More recent polling from the Pew Research Center, conducted in June, similarly suggests that two-thirds of U.S. adults overall say the country should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over the expansion of the production of oil, coal, and natural gas. That same survey found that just 3 in 10 adults (31%) say the U.S. should completely phase out oil, coal, and natural gas. The Yale study found that 77% of U.S. adults support at least the funding of research into renewable energy sources.
Broken down by party affiliation, Pew found that a large majority of Democratic and Democratic-leaning independents — 90% — favor alternative energy sources, while just under half, 42%, of Republicans and Republican-leaning adults think the same. Within the Republican cohort, however, 67% of Republicans under age 30 prioritize the development of alternative energy sources, compared with the 75% of Republicans ages 65 and older who prioritize the expansion of oil, coal, and natural gas.
In terms of the expansion of alternative energy sources, two-thirds of Americans think the federal government should encourage domestic production of wind and solar power, Pew reported. Just 7% say the government should discourage this, while 26% think it should neither encourage nor discourage it.
How do America’s Catholics feel about climate change?
Surveys suggest that Catholics in the United States are slightly more likely than the U.S. population as a whole to be skeptical of climate change, despite the pope’s emphatic words in 2015 and since.
A separate Pew study suggests that 44% of U.S. Catholics say the Earth is warming mostly due to human activity, a view in line with Pope Francis’ stance. About 3 in 10 (29%) said the Earth is warming mostly due to natural patterns, while 13% said they believe there is no solid evidence the planet is getting warmer.
According to the same study, 71% of Hispanic Catholics see climate change as an extremely or very serious problem, compared with 49% of white, non-Hispanic Catholics. (There were not enough Black or Asian Catholics in the 2022 survey to analyze separately, Pew said.)
One 2015 study from Yale did suggest that soon after Laudato Si’ was released, U.S. Catholics were overall more likely to believe in climate change than before. That same study found no change, however, in the number of Americans overall who believe human activity is causing global warming.
Pope Francis’ climate priorities
Beyond his groundbreaking writings, Pope Francis has taken many actions during his pontificate to make his own — admittedly small — country, Vatican City, more sustainable, including the recent announcement of a large order of electric vehicles, construction of its own network of charging stations, a reforestation program, and the continued importation of energy coming exclusively from renewable sources.
Francis has often lamented what he sees as a tepid response from developed countries in implementing measures to curb climate change. In Laudate Deum, he urged that new multinational agreements on climate change — speaking in this case specifically about the COP28 conference — be “drastic, intense, and count on the commitment of all,” stating that “a broad change in the irresponsible lifestyle connected with the Western model would have a significant long-term impact.”
The pope lamented what he sees as the fact that when new projects related to green energy are proposed, the potential for economic growth, employment, and human promotion are thought of first rather than moral considerations such as the effects on the world’s poorest.
“It is often heard also that efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing the use of fossil fuels and developing cleaner energy sources will lead to a reduction in the number of jobs,” the pope noted.
“What is happening is that millions of people are losing their jobs due to different effects of climate change: rising sea levels, droughts, and other phenomena affecting the planet have left many people adrift. Conversely, the transition to renewable forms of energy, properly managed, as well as efforts to adapt to the damage caused by climate change, are capable of generating countless jobs in different sectors.”
‘Leave God’s creation better than we found it’
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Heritage Foundation think tank, told CNA that he has noticed a theme of frustration and confusion among many Catholics regarding the Holy Father’s emphasis on climate change.
A self-described outdoorsman and former president of Wyoming Catholic College, Roberts spoke highly to CNA of certain aspects of Laudato Si’, particularly the pope’s insights into what he called “human ecology,” which refers to the acceptance of each person’s human body as a vital part of “accepting the entire world as a gift from the Father and our common home.”
Dr. Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation. Courtesy of Heritage Foundation.
“I like to think [Pope Francis] personally wrote that, because I could see him saying that,” Roberts said of the passage, which appears in paragraph 155 of the encyclical. Roberts said he even makes a point to meditate on that “beautiful and moving” passage during a retreat that he does annually.
That portion of Laudato Si’ notwithstanding, Roberts said he strongly believes that it detracts from other important issues, such as direct ministry to the poor, when Pope Francis elevates care for God’s natural creation as “seemingly more important than other issues to us as Catholics.” He also said he disagrees with Pope Francis’ policy prescriptions, such as a complete phasing out of fossil fuels, contained in Laudate Deum.
“We of course want to pray for him. We’re open to the teaching that he is providing. But we also have to remember as Catholics that sometimes popes are wrong. And on this issue, it is a prudential matter. It is not a matter of morality, particularly when he’s getting into the scientific policy recommendations,” Roberts said.
Roberts said the Heritage Foundation’s research and advocacy has focused not on high-level, multinational agreements and conferences to tackle the issues posed by climate change but rather on smaller-scale, more community-based efforts. He said this policy position is, in part, due to the historical deference such multinational conglomerates of nations have given to China, the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases overall.
He said agreements within the U.S. itself, with businesses and all levels of government working together, have produced the best results so far when it comes to improving the environment. He also pointed to examples of constructive action that don’t involve billions of dollars, such as families making the choice to spend more time outdoors or engaging in local activities that contribute to environmental conservation and community life, such as anti-litter campaigns and community gardening. The overarching goal, he said, should be to “leave God’s creation better than we found it.”
Roberts — who said he personally believes humans likely have “very little effect” on the climate — said he was discouraged to read other portions of Laudato Si’, as well as Laudate Deum, that to him read as though they had come “straight out of the U.N.” Despite his criticisms, Roberts urged his fellow Catholics to continue to pray for the Holy Father and to listen to the pope’s moral insights.
“I just think that the proposed solutions are actually more anti-human and worse than the purported effects of climate change,” he added.
‘A far more complex issue’
Greg Sindelar, a Catholic who serves as CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), a conservative think tank that studies the energy industry, similarly expressed concerns to CNA about the potential impact of certain climate change mitigation policies on human flourishing.
Like Roberts, Sindelar spoke highly of certain aspects of the pope’s message while expressing reservations about some of the U.N.-esque solutions proposed in Laudate Deum.
“I think the pope is right about our duty as Catholics to be stewards and to care for the environment. But I think what we have to understand — what we have to balance this with — is that it cannot come at the expense of depriving people of affordable and reliable energy,” Sindelar said in an interview with CNA.
“There’s ways to be environmentally friendly without sacrificing the access that we all need to reliable and affordable energy.”
Greg Sindelar is CEO of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a think tank in America’s leading energy-producing state. Courtesy of Texas Public Policy Foundation
Sindelar said TPPF primarily promotes cheap, reliable access to energy as a means of promoting human flourishing. The free-market-focused group is skeptical of top-down governmental intervention, both in the form of regulation and incentives or disincentives in certain areas of the energy sector.
When asked what he thinks his fellow Catholics largely think about the issue, Sindelar said many of the Catholics he hears from express the view that government policies and interventions rarely produce effective solutions and could potentially hinder access to energy for those in need.
“I think it’s a far more complex issue than just saying we need to cut emissions, and we need to transfer away from fossil fuels, and all these other things. What we need to do is figure out and ensure ways that we are providing affordable and reliable electricity to all citizens of the world,” he reiterated.
“When the pope speaks, when the Vatican speaks, it carries a lot of weight with Catholics around the world, [and] not just with Catholics … and I totally agree with him that we need to be thinking about the most marginalized and the poorest amongst us,” Sindelar continued.
“[But] by going down these policy prescription paths that he’s recommending, we’re actually going to reduce their ability to have access to that,” he asserted.
Sindelar, while disagreeing with Pope Francis’ call for an “abandonment of fossil fuels,” said he appreciates the fact that Pope Francis has spoken out about the issue of care for creation and has initiated so much public discussion.
“I think there is room for differing views and opinions on the right ways to do that,” he said.
Effective mitigation efforts
Susan Varlamoff, a retired biologist and parishioner at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in the Atlanta area, is among those Catholics who are committed to Pope Francis’ call to care for creation and to mitigate the effects of climate change. To that end, Varlamoff in 2016 created a peer-reviewed action plan for the Archdiocese of Atlanta to help Catholics put the principles contained in Laudato Si’ into action, mainly through smaller, more personal actions that people can take to reduce their energy usage.
Retired biologist Susan Varlamoff. Photo courtesy of Susan Varlamoff
The Atlanta Archdiocese’s efforts have since garnered recognition and praise, Varlamoff said, with at least 35 archdioceses now involved in an inter-diocesan network formed to exchange sustainability ideas based on the latest version of the plan from Atlanta.
“It’s fascinating to see what everybody is doing, and it’s basically based on their talents and imaginations,” Varlamoff said, noting that a large number of young people have gotten involved with their efforts.
As a scientist, Varlamoff told CNA it is clear to her that Pope Francis knows what he’s talking about when he lays out the dangers posed by inaction in the face of climate change.
“He understands the science, and he’s deeply concerned … he’s got remarkable influence as a moral leader,” she said.
“Part of what our religion asks us to do is to care for one another. We have to care for creation if we’re going to care for one another, because the earth is our natural resource system, our life support, and we cannot care for one another if we don’t have that life support.”
Responding to criticisms about the financial costs associated with certain green initiatives, Varlamoff noted that small-scale sustainable actions can actually save money. She offered the example of parishes in the Atlanta area that have drastically reduced their electric bills by installing solar panels.
“[But,] it’s not just about saving money. It’s also about reducing fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting the natural resources for future generations,” she said.
Moreover, Varlamoff said, the moral imperative to improve the natural environment for future generations is worth the investment. “When [Catholics] give money, for example, for a social justice issue like Walking with Moms in Need or special needs, the payback is improving lives. We’re improving the environment here,” she emphasized.
“Pope Francis also reported that the statues had been recovered from the river, are not damaged,”
Well, drat. I wish they had had time to burn the things.
“He equated the image to that of a tree, saying “a tree is a sacred symbol.””
To whom?
“First of all, this happened in Rome, and as Bishop of the Diocese I ask pardon of the persons who were offended by this act.”
Perhaps you ought first to ask pardon of those persons who were offended by displaying the idols in the first place. And I’d suggest apologizing to three Persons above all.
Well, I suppose it’s clear idolatry, contrary to the teachings of Christianity, who allowed this statue to be placed inside a holy place, it came in the eyes of the world, many were perplexed rather baffled, it is outrageous, its never seen before, a full inquiry and explanation is urgently needed
Bishop Athanasius Schneider reported on this recently (I heard on October 18, 2022), making many in the world aware of this incident and larger issues of the Holy See. On the face of it, this “Pachamama” figure definitely seems to represent a pagan idol; in no case is it proper to venerate or use in any Christian liturgy.
Francis says Pachamama is not exhibited with idolatrous intent. Very well. He could hardly say the contrary.
But the principle expounded in 1 Corinthians 8 seems apt. Saint Paul said he would refrain from meat sacrificed to idols If he felt eating it would scandalize his fellow Christians. I doubt Paul would approve of Francis appearing to sanction veneration of what many regard as an idol. It would not matter if Francis himself did not regard it as an idol.
Recognizing the social meaning of food and meals in Greco-Roman culture and, in particular, the social meaning of idol-food, is an integral part of understanding the impact of Paul’s instructions to the Christian community at Corinth regarding the consumption of idol-food. Shared meals were a central feature of social intercourse in Greco-Roman culture. Meals and food were markers of social status, and participation at meals was the main means of establishing and maintaining social relations. Participation in public rites (and sharing the meals which ensued) was a requirement of holding public office.
Thank you for your comments. I think that’s a very good point.
As Christians we should always first assume the best intentions in others. The Holy Father obviously doesn’t intend those wooden carvings to be worshipped. But the events of the past week have caused scandal to his flock and that needs to be taken seriously.
I have an older friend who’s terribly upset about this and there are YouTube bloggers who appear to be capitalizing on the fears of traditional Catholics.
So I think we need to step back and take a breath, be charitable,thoughtful, aware and alert. The foes of our Church seek division and we shouldn’t play into their hands.
Good intentions are baked into the progressive worldview. The progressive people believe their intentions are of such august purity that their ends justify any and all means necessary to achieve these ends. If you don’t subject these people to being judged by the objective consequences of their actions, they escape all accountability for their actions. Subjectivity and intentions are a recipe for self-righteousness and the dictatorship of moral relativism.
As a very late comer to this discussion, (living under a rock I guess) I appreciate MRSCRACKER, as she states, “So I think we need to step back and take a breath, be charitable, thoughtful, aware and alert. The foes of our Church seek division and we shouldn’t play into their hands.” I like that, and agree. As we step into 2021, we need gird our loins!
Who said anything about venerating the wooden sculpture. It’s much ado about nothing. Get ahold of yourselves people. Those of us who actually LIVE the Catholic Faith know that we love and honor the church, the church instituted by JESUS CHRIST. The Roman Catholic Church. Amen, hallelujah!
We read: “The pope said that the statues might be displayed during the closing Mass of the synod Oct. 27, saying that would be a matter for the Vatican’s Secretary of State to decide.”
The Secretary of State?
Does this mean that Pachamama and the entire Amazonia Synod have served as a sort of test case or even a decoy, and that–for good or for bad–that the key element of the underlying “reform” of the Curia is now, for practical purposes, decided and in place?
The precedent would be the use of the recent Youth Synod as a pack mule for the late-appended and unvetted paragraphs on synodality.
Elements of the proposed curial reform, as published earlier, included creation of one merged “super-dicastery” for Evangelization–and a diminished Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). This structure combined with an elevated role for the Secretariat of State–above the (silent-partner?) CDF.
(Other draft reform elements were a one-size-fits-all reform of the autonomous departments and academies as dicasteries, possible creation of a dicastery for Charity, merger of [subsumed?] Education with Culture [the “paradigm shift”?], synodal decentralization from Rome even as Evangelization and possibly Charity and especially the Secretariat of State are ascendant, plus refrains throughout from Evangelii Gaudium, Laudato Si, and Amoris Laetitia.)
With Amazonia as possible training wheels, will we now hear a surprise major announcement prior to Germania in December?
I can only surmise that he is there to achieve an objective and that neither he nor his supporters and minions care about the views of genuine Catholics. He treats the Church and Catholics with contempt.
The pope in a bubble.
The irony of this pontificate. No longer the prisoner of the Vatican, the pope has become the prisoner of his own fantasy.
It is at once anger provoking and profoundly pitiful.
To be or not to be. Catholic. That is the question we Catholics must answer. A hypothetical. A pontiff who either seeks to retrieve an evangelical conversion oriented Catholic identity in a post Christian world, or rather seeks to eradicate that Catholic identity and create an entirely different idea of Christianity conformable to that post Christian world. Considerations. Regards the latter the Pontiff frowned upon a conversion as “trophyism”. He presided over a pagan ‘ecological’ ritual on the Vatican gardens. Regards the former he reconstituted the John Paul II Institute to reflect secular opinion on homosexuality, abortion, pop control, ecology. Amazonia has indeed been referred to as initiating a Big Tent religion. “Do those who raise the Tent perhaps not truly believe that Christ has defeated all these [demonic] forces by His redemptive work and that He, exalted over them all, forever and utterly maintains His sovereignty as Lord? In pagan ceremonies such as the ‘Pago a la Tierra’ – which closely resembles the event held in the Vatican gardens identified by a shaman’s grandson as a pagan ritual – sacrificing to spirits is the point of the whole thing. They involve giving back to ‘Mother Earth’ some of what is taken from ‘her’ in order to appease her if too much has been taken, in which case ‘she’ would no longer nurture but destroy through earthquakes and illness” (Bishop José Luis Azcona, Emeritus Bishop of Marajó in the Amazon in LifeSite). Jesuit Cardinal Jean Claude Hollerich, archbishop of Luxembourg made Cardinal the eve of the Synod strongly urges ecological conversion for all. Fr A Spadaro SJ Pope Francis’ ideological adviser perceives ecological conversion an equivalent of conversion to Christ. Pachamama carvings are the disputed entre into a new form of ecological awareness, perhaps a religion of ecology now the controversial center of what ecological conversion means. Cardinal Gerhard Müller to Raymond Arroyo’s query, “The great mistake was to bring the idols into the Church [Maria del Traspontina], not to put them out [throw them into the Tiber], because according to the Law of God Himself – the First Commandment – idolism [idolatry] is a grave sin and not to mix them with the Christian liturgy.”
Add to the Cardinal Müller’s condemnation that of Bishop Athanasius Schneider in a startling rebuke of the Pontiff in an Open Letter apparently issued today 10.26.19, “It was the logical practical consequence of the Abu Dhabi statement. The abomination of the veneration of wooden idols perpetrated in Rome during the Amazon Synod. Faced with such an evident scandal it is impossible that a Catholic bishop would remain silent, it would be unworthy of a successor of the Apostles. The first in the Church who should condemn such acts and do reparation is Pope Francis” (Bishop Schneider Astana Kazakhstan as cited in 1P5).
This spectacle is finally over. These idols should have never been allowed in the first place into our Church! This heretic Pope needs to be replaced and his minions with him.
I was a prisoner of the Catholic Church for 26 years and have many Catholic friends and family, but one day I read in the Bible Deuteronomy 4:15-16: “So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female ..” God forbids any kind of graven images BEFORE Pachamama! Then I read the commandments specifically Exodus 20:4 where God prohibits ANY kind of graven images. Therefore the Catholic Church opened the gates to idolatry long time BEFORE Pachamama!!! Where does all this commotion coming from???!!! Praise Yahweh I’m His prisoner now!!!
I’m sorry that you lost your faith. I pray that you will be given the grace to return to the Church.
Your interpretation of Deuteronomy 4:15-16 is seriously flawed. God forbids making idols, not images. If I make a statue of George Washington I’m not making an idol to worship, I’m making an image of a man whom I admire. If I have photographs of my friends and relatives, I’m not idolizing them, just bringing them to mind.
I thought like you thought until Jesus personally encountered me in a non denominational Christian Church. Many things I saw while in a home led by this church, a sort of Christian boot camp, He had showed me in a childhood dream. Long story short, I came home after and remembered Him telling me in the dream He was gonna leave something for me on y grandma’s lamp. I am 26 or 27 at this time (33 now) so I go to the lamp and there is a Rosary wrapped around the lamp shade. Also a calendar my mom left there of images of grottos of Mary. I had already come back to the Catholic Church and was reciting the Rosary and meditating on the mysteries of the Gospel associated with the Holy Queen’s Most Holy Rosary but left it in God’s hands with hope for Him to show me it was OK. I knew it wasn’t going to be held against me because my mother and grandmothers prayed it for me when I was in the Marine Corps, not to be deployed which I pushed hard to be deployed and had 2 occasions I was on the list, that both of them I was dropped. 1 I had even extended my 4 year contract for, and ended up suckered by a married female Marine, who my command saw was actually breaking her restraining order against me by coming to my barracks room when I wasn’t there, which she had no business at all being near our barracks as she was married and had housing on the housing portion of Camp Lejeune, NC. I only got 2 weeks of non judicial punishment and my 1St Sergeant who was a woman gave me the 3rd degree in front of 2 staff noncommissioned officers as witnesses if she ever heard anything about me in a sexual misconduct type of action ever in the future again.
You’re idolizing your own subjectivism. Everyone knows what scripture says about idolatry which is why Catholicism has consistently condemned it. Nothing is different now. This is why Catholics who are Catholics are offended by these idiotic practices. When individuals in the Church practice idolatry, it is their individual sin, not the Church’s sin.
It is a sad day when every word and action of the Vicar of Christ on earth is picked apart.
Pope Francis has told us that there were no “idolatrous intentions” regarding the Pachamama figures and we should leave it at that. That means taking his word for it, just like you would like the same done for you if you were known to the entire world.
The conservative right, of which I am a part politically but not as a Catholic (I’m just plain old Catholic), won’t take the Holy Father’s words at face value. They complain that he does not explain himself and therefore “leaves us all in the dark about his intentions.”
While it is not the answer the conservative right relishes to hear, it is the answer Pope Francis gave to us: THERE WERE NO IDOLATROUS INTENTIONS.
No explanation can be as clear and easy to understand. However, since it is not the answer that is desirable to the conservative right, therefore his answer is picked apart and torn apart and the love he wishes to show to the good people of the Amazon is stomped on.
I beg you, please listen to the Holy Father. He is the Vicar of Christ on earth. We own him reverence, respect and our filial and loving obedience.
It should be noted, if we have the chance to read Our Holy Father’s “Laudato Si” that he quotes St. Francis of Assisi who speaks of ‘Mother Earth’ and calls her sister as well. Perhaps folks would be signing protests if he, St. Francis of Assisi, were alive today as well.
“Pope Francis has told us that there were no “idolatrous intentions” regarding the Pachamama figures and we should leave it at that. That means taking his word for it, just like you would like the same done for you if you were known to the entire world.”
If this were the first incident in which the Pope has sown confusion, I might agree with you. But it isn’t.
I do not see how it can possibly be claimed that there were no “idolatrous intentions” in something that so clearly involved an idol. I assume that the Pope was not worshiping the idol, but it is quite clear that the others were. I do not understand why he did not tell them to stop that evil nonsense. Can you envision St. Peter or St. Paul standing idly by while someone brought an idol to a Christian assemblage and proceeded to offer things to it?
“However, since it is not the answer that is desirable to the conservative right, therefore his answer is picked apart and torn apart and the love he wishes to show to the good people of the Amazon is stomped on.”
Leaving them wallowing in idolatrous ignorance is hardly showing them love. Confusing them by permitting the mingling of idolatry with Christianity is not showing love, either. And scandalizing the rest of the Church shows scant love for the rest of his flock.
Saint Francis wrote “Praised be You my Lord through our Sister,
Mother Earth” He is not praising Earth as a goddess, he is, as with all the other things in the Canticle, praising God for His creation.
Maybe he wasn’t “condoning it,” but he didn’t do anything to stop it.
And don’t try to pretend that this has anything to do with iconoclasm. That Pachamama idol is clearly an idol, and destroying it isn’t “iconoclasm.” Nobody I’ve hear about who is horrified and disgusted by the idolatry of Pachamama would want any statues or painting of Our Lord or any of the saints destroyed.
“I think Christ Our Savior must be saddened by this intense vitriol against His Vicar.”
Or perhaps Christ our Savior is saddened by the idolatry that clearly took place, and by the placing of idols in one of His Church building, and by the prayer to Pachamama that the Italian bishops included in a prayer booklet, and by the failure of His Vicar to stop the evil in its tracks.
“My husband said it best, “Oh my Mrs., they are just trying to find one more thing to rail against the Holy Father over.””
Do you think that when this Pope was elected most of us started hunting for something to complain about? It was following action after action, statement after statement, that we ceased to believe the constant explanations and excuses that tried to whitewash statements and actions that were, at best, questionable.
“Long live Our Holy Father!!”
Indeed, yes; and may he cease sowing confusion and distress, and do a much better job of upholding Catholic teaching.
One of my favorite quotes, and a cry from the heart of St. Pius X, as well as a cry from my own heart is the following:
The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine.
It seems incredible, and is even painful, that there be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but we are regrettably in our age in this hard, unhappy, situation of having to tell priests: love the Pope!
And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth – 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word – Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.
Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls. (Saint Pius X, November 18, 1912, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union)
Yes, that was St. Pius X. Who would have recoiled in horror at the idolatry, and who did not have to have spokesmen issuing a constant stream of apologies and explanations for confusing statements.
“We do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, ”
Pope St. Pius X communicated with exquisite clarity, and did not make statements that seemed to contradict Church teaching. Anybody who pretended otherwise was being disingenuous. A situation that sadly does not hold today.
So, tell me, are you going next to become outraged that people criticize, say, Pope John XII?
Jane absolute obedience to authority prohibiting recourse to reason is more Emmanuel Kant’s Luther inspired moral imperative than reflective of Catholicism. Catholics hold to the correspondence between faith and reason faith given priority. Obedience to the Roman Pontiff is not an act of faith in a person rather a faithful recognition of the office [the canonical definition of that authority] instituted by Christ. Matters that are not Magisterially binding, either ex cathedra, or definitively pronounced are subject to reasoned assessment. You may interpret Pachamama veneration as you wish insofar as the Pope’s intent. Right reason however assesses the object of the act, which is veneration [worship] of an Idol.
I have a wager for you: just read the Holy Father’s words alone for about a month, and you will feel the same as me.
You will realize that he does not condone idolatry. That what he said was what he said: there were no idolatrous intentions.
How is it possible to cast out demons with the help of demons?
Also, a great article to consider is one which Joanne Baker writes on Homiletic and Pastoral Review. He article is entitled “Is it Virtuous to Criticize the Pope?” Her short answer is, “No, it is not virtuous to criticize the Holy Father. It goes against the virtues of reverence, respect and piety, as well as against just judgment, fraternal correction and just correction.” It’s a very well-written article and largely based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. God Bless you
You are right, didn’t Jesus tell Peter to eat unclean animals symbolically Himself. People need to slow their role. Maybe Mary wasn’t talking about the Pope as the smoke of Satan in the vision but the dissenters who will not respect God’s Authority to lead through the seat of Peter as He willed to do since the day he told Peter, “you are Rock, and from this Rock I will build my Church. “
On the other hand, it was Pope Francis himself who said, not too long ago, that “it is no sin to criticize the pope.” He, too and of course, sees the distinction between the pope and the papal office.
Perhaps the call is to offer critique in a constructive way, with restraint, justice and charity. And, yes, respect and piety. Or, do we believe now that any pope is both personally indefectible in his more-or-less informal actions and inactions, as well as infallible in formally teaching faith and morals under the precise conditions defined by the First Vatican Council?
I read his words at great length, and I am disgusted. I find a prideful incoherent mind unschooled in the Catholic faith yet simply out to prove his superiority to all who preceded him. You should read Vigano instead and not the foolish advice of someone making a false claim that it is wrong to criticize an evil voice within the Church, no matter where that voice originates.
As a Catholic, very flawed, I apologize to the world for my Church, for its moral indifference towards the practice of burying children alive in the Amazon and the refusal to have more concern for this than wooden statues by almost everyone, before, during, and after a “Synod” that amounted to spitting in the face of God.
Even Western culture regresses to an earlier barbaric level and begins to resemble the polytheistic Arabian “days of ignorance” (prior to the coming of Muhammed). Mingled with the many flaws of Muhammed and of polyglot Islam, we find in the Qur’an that countercultural Muhammed ALSO prohibits the not uncommon practice in early Arabia of burying alive, in sand dunes, unwanted female babies (males were exempt)—a practice distinguished only by technology from clinical late-term abortions, AND in Pachamama-land by only the water content of Amazon soils.
My source is De Lacy O’Leary, Arabia Before Muhammad (New York: E.P. Dutton and Co., [1927] 202). The author cites Q 6:141, 152; 16:60-1; and 17:31-33 (see also Q 81:3). In two extended accounts (probably also in the Hadith), Muhammed is said to have been reduced to tears when hearing of such live burials (Jean Sassoon, Princess Sultana’s Daughters [New York: Doubleday, 1994], 90-96).
Muhammed’s response to a guilty father is recorded: “Sons and daughters are both gifts of God, the Prophet reminded him. Both are equally gifts, and so they should always be treated equally.” Today, equality apparently means that both are equally vulnerable and, under the cult of globalism, in all settings.
Keep common sense 1st. The idols were thrown into the Tiber, then the pope had them fished out. End of discussion. Common sense, it’s now ok to serve up idols of paganism in the catholic church.
Remember that this is the man who constantly ascribes the worse possible intentions to Catholics who are conservative or traditional, calls them all sorts of scurrilous, defamatory names, even when he has zero evidence of the actual intentions of these people.
But now he wants us to accept without questioning his claim of “no idolatrous intentions,” despite an abundance of strong circumstantial evidence of idolatrous activity and idolatrous theology going on with these pagan religious statues in Rome.
It’s like when the wife catches her husband naked in bed with a neighbor woman and the husband yells at his wife, “Honey, now don’t you go believing your lying eyes!”
People who are sinning very often lie to cover up their misdeeds and avoid consequences of their sins. That’s just want they do. They use their authority, and they want you to think that you and I are incompetent to perceive objective sin.
“Pope Francis also reported that the statues had been recovered from the river, are not damaged,”
Well, drat. I wish they had had time to burn the things.
“He equated the image to that of a tree, saying “a tree is a sacred symbol.””
To whom?
“First of all, this happened in Rome, and as Bishop of the Diocese I ask pardon of the persons who were offended by this act.”
Perhaps you ought first to ask pardon of those persons who were offended by displaying the idols in the first place. And I’d suggest apologizing to three Persons above all.
Ditto. My sentiments exactly!
Well, I suppose it’s clear idolatry, contrary to the teachings of Christianity, who allowed this statue to be placed inside a holy place, it came in the eyes of the world, many were perplexed rather baffled, it is outrageous, its never seen before, a full inquiry and explanation is urgently needed
Jesus was crucified on a tree.
Bishop Athanasius Schneider reported on this recently (I heard on October 18, 2022), making many in the world aware of this incident and larger issues of the Holy See. On the face of it, this “Pachamama” figure definitely seems to represent a pagan idol; in no case is it proper to venerate or use in any Christian liturgy.
What about the feelings of those who are offended by seeing idolatry within the Vatican?
The buck stops at the top of the patriarchate for the presence of the statues.
Francis says Pachamama is not exhibited with idolatrous intent. Very well. He could hardly say the contrary.
But the principle expounded in 1 Corinthians 8 seems apt. Saint Paul said he would refrain from meat sacrificed to idols If he felt eating it would scandalize his fellow Christians. I doubt Paul would approve of Francis appearing to sanction veneration of what many regard as an idol. It would not matter if Francis himself did not regard it as an idol.
Hrefn,
Thank you.
You might want to make a note of the book “Dangerous Food: 1 Corinthians 8-10 in Its Context (Studies in Christianity and Judaism)”, described here:
https://www.amazon.com/Dangerous-Food-Corinthians-Context-Christianity/dp/0889202192
The description begins:
Recognizing the social meaning of food and meals in Greco-Roman culture and, in particular, the social meaning of idol-food, is an integral part of understanding the impact of Paul’s instructions to the Christian community at Corinth regarding the consumption of idol-food. Shared meals were a central feature of social intercourse in Greco-Roman culture. Meals and food were markers of social status, and participation at meals was the main means of establishing and maintaining social relations. Participation in public rites (and sharing the meals which ensued) was a requirement of holding public office.
Thank you for your comments. I think that’s a very good point.
As Christians we should always first assume the best intentions in others. The Holy Father obviously doesn’t intend those wooden carvings to be worshipped. But the events of the past week have caused scandal to his flock and that needs to be taken seriously.
I have an older friend who’s terribly upset about this and there are YouTube bloggers who appear to be capitalizing on the fears of traditional Catholics.
So I think we need to step back and take a breath, be charitable,thoughtful, aware and alert. The foes of our Church seek division and we shouldn’t play into their hands.
Good intentions are baked into the progressive worldview. The progressive people believe their intentions are of such august purity that their ends justify any and all means necessary to achieve these ends. If you don’t subject these people to being judged by the objective consequences of their actions, they escape all accountability for their actions. Subjectivity and intentions are a recipe for self-righteousness and the dictatorship of moral relativism.
GregB speaks for many of us concerning the deceptive wickedness of “the progressive worldview” which unfortunately Pope Francis expresses.
As a very late comer to this discussion, (living under a rock I guess) I appreciate MRSCRACKER, as she states, “So I think we need to step back and take a breath, be charitable, thoughtful, aware and alert. The foes of our Church seek division and we shouldn’t play into their hands.” I like that, and agree. As we step into 2021, we need gird our loins!
Who said anything about venerating the wooden sculpture. It’s much ado about nothing. Get ahold of yourselves people. Those of us who actually LIVE the Catholic Faith know that we love and honor the church, the church instituted by JESUS CHRIST. The Roman Catholic Church. Amen, hallelujah!
Insanity…..pure insanity. Pagan idols to be worshiped at Mass.
We read: “The pope said that the statues might be displayed during the closing Mass of the synod Oct. 27, saying that would be a matter for the Vatican’s Secretary of State to decide.”
The Secretary of State?
Does this mean that Pachamama and the entire Amazonia Synod have served as a sort of test case or even a decoy, and that–for good or for bad–that the key element of the underlying “reform” of the Curia is now, for practical purposes, decided and in place?
The precedent would be the use of the recent Youth Synod as a pack mule for the late-appended and unvetted paragraphs on synodality.
Elements of the proposed curial reform, as published earlier, included creation of one merged “super-dicastery” for Evangelization–and a diminished Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). This structure combined with an elevated role for the Secretariat of State–above the (silent-partner?) CDF.
(Other draft reform elements were a one-size-fits-all reform of the autonomous departments and academies as dicasteries, possible creation of a dicastery for Charity, merger of [subsumed?] Education with Culture [the “paradigm shift”?], synodal decentralization from Rome even as Evangelization and possibly Charity and especially the Secretariat of State are ascendant, plus refrains throughout from Evangelii Gaudium, Laudato Si, and Amoris Laetitia.)
With Amazonia as possible training wheels, will we now hear a surprise major announcement prior to Germania in December?
I can only surmise that he is there to achieve an objective and that neither he nor his supporters and minions care about the views of genuine Catholics. He treats the Church and Catholics with contempt.
Balogna!
The pope in a bubble.
The irony of this pontificate. No longer the prisoner of the Vatican, the pope has become the prisoner of his own fantasy.
It is at once anger provoking and profoundly pitiful.
To be or not to be. Catholic. That is the question we Catholics must answer. A hypothetical. A pontiff who either seeks to retrieve an evangelical conversion oriented Catholic identity in a post Christian world, or rather seeks to eradicate that Catholic identity and create an entirely different idea of Christianity conformable to that post Christian world. Considerations. Regards the latter the Pontiff frowned upon a conversion as “trophyism”. He presided over a pagan ‘ecological’ ritual on the Vatican gardens. Regards the former he reconstituted the John Paul II Institute to reflect secular opinion on homosexuality, abortion, pop control, ecology. Amazonia has indeed been referred to as initiating a Big Tent religion. “Do those who raise the Tent perhaps not truly believe that Christ has defeated all these [demonic] forces by His redemptive work and that He, exalted over them all, forever and utterly maintains His sovereignty as Lord? In pagan ceremonies such as the ‘Pago a la Tierra’ – which closely resembles the event held in the Vatican gardens identified by a shaman’s grandson as a pagan ritual – sacrificing to spirits is the point of the whole thing. They involve giving back to ‘Mother Earth’ some of what is taken from ‘her’ in order to appease her if too much has been taken, in which case ‘she’ would no longer nurture but destroy through earthquakes and illness” (Bishop José Luis Azcona, Emeritus Bishop of Marajó in the Amazon in LifeSite). Jesuit Cardinal Jean Claude Hollerich, archbishop of Luxembourg made Cardinal the eve of the Synod strongly urges ecological conversion for all. Fr A Spadaro SJ Pope Francis’ ideological adviser perceives ecological conversion an equivalent of conversion to Christ. Pachamama carvings are the disputed entre into a new form of ecological awareness, perhaps a religion of ecology now the controversial center of what ecological conversion means. Cardinal Gerhard Müller to Raymond Arroyo’s query, “The great mistake was to bring the idols into the Church [Maria del Traspontina], not to put them out [throw them into the Tiber], because according to the Law of God Himself – the First Commandment – idolism [idolatry] is a grave sin and not to mix them with the Christian liturgy.”
Add to the Cardinal Müller’s condemnation that of Bishop Athanasius Schneider in a startling rebuke of the Pontiff in an Open Letter apparently issued today 10.26.19, “It was the logical practical consequence of the Abu Dhabi statement. The abomination of the veneration of wooden idols perpetrated in Rome during the Amazon Synod. Faced with such an evident scandal it is impossible that a Catholic bishop would remain silent, it would be unworthy of a successor of the Apostles. The first in the Church who should condemn such acts and do reparation is Pope Francis” (Bishop Schneider Astana Kazakhstan as cited in 1P5).
This spectacle is finally over. These idols should have never been allowed in the first place into our Church! This heretic Pope needs to be replaced and his minions with him.
I was a prisoner of the Catholic Church for 26 years and have many Catholic friends and family, but one day I read in the Bible Deuteronomy 4:15-16: “So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female ..” God forbids any kind of graven images BEFORE Pachamama! Then I read the commandments specifically Exodus 20:4 where God prohibits ANY kind of graven images. Therefore the Catholic Church opened the gates to idolatry long time BEFORE Pachamama!!! Where does all this commotion coming from???!!! Praise Yahweh I’m His prisoner now!!!
I’m sorry that you lost your faith. I pray that you will be given the grace to return to the Church.
Your interpretation of Deuteronomy 4:15-16 is seriously flawed. God forbids making idols, not images. If I make a statue of George Washington I’m not making an idol to worship, I’m making an image of a man whom I admire. If I have photographs of my friends and relatives, I’m not idolizing them, just bringing them to mind.
Yes, thank you!
I thought like you thought until Jesus personally encountered me in a non denominational Christian Church. Many things I saw while in a home led by this church, a sort of Christian boot camp, He had showed me in a childhood dream. Long story short, I came home after and remembered Him telling me in the dream He was gonna leave something for me on y grandma’s lamp. I am 26 or 27 at this time (33 now) so I go to the lamp and there is a Rosary wrapped around the lamp shade. Also a calendar my mom left there of images of grottos of Mary. I had already come back to the Catholic Church and was reciting the Rosary and meditating on the mysteries of the Gospel associated with the Holy Queen’s Most Holy Rosary but left it in God’s hands with hope for Him to show me it was OK. I knew it wasn’t going to be held against me because my mother and grandmothers prayed it for me when I was in the Marine Corps, not to be deployed which I pushed hard to be deployed and had 2 occasions I was on the list, that both of them I was dropped. 1 I had even extended my 4 year contract for, and ended up suckered by a married female Marine, who my command saw was actually breaking her restraining order against me by coming to my barracks room when I wasn’t there, which she had no business at all being near our barracks as she was married and had housing on the housing portion of Camp Lejeune, NC. I only got 2 weeks of non judicial punishment and my 1St Sergeant who was a woman gave me the 3rd degree in front of 2 staff noncommissioned officers as witnesses if she ever heard anything about me in a sexual misconduct type of action ever in the future again.
You’re idolizing your own subjectivism. Everyone knows what scripture says about idolatry which is why Catholicism has consistently condemned it. Nothing is different now. This is why Catholics who are Catholics are offended by these idiotic practices. When individuals in the Church practice idolatry, it is their individual sin, not the Church’s sin.
May you be blessed by Almighty God!
It is a sad day when every word and action of the Vicar of Christ on earth is picked apart.
Pope Francis has told us that there were no “idolatrous intentions” regarding the Pachamama figures and we should leave it at that. That means taking his word for it, just like you would like the same done for you if you were known to the entire world.
The conservative right, of which I am a part politically but not as a Catholic (I’m just plain old Catholic), won’t take the Holy Father’s words at face value. They complain that he does not explain himself and therefore “leaves us all in the dark about his intentions.”
While it is not the answer the conservative right relishes to hear, it is the answer Pope Francis gave to us: THERE WERE NO IDOLATROUS INTENTIONS.
No explanation can be as clear and easy to understand. However, since it is not the answer that is desirable to the conservative right, therefore his answer is picked apart and torn apart and the love he wishes to show to the good people of the Amazon is stomped on.
I beg you, please listen to the Holy Father. He is the Vicar of Christ on earth. We own him reverence, respect and our filial and loving obedience.
It should be noted, if we have the chance to read Our Holy Father’s “Laudato Si” that he quotes St. Francis of Assisi who speaks of ‘Mother Earth’ and calls her sister as well. Perhaps folks would be signing protests if he, St. Francis of Assisi, were alive today as well.
“Pope Francis has told us that there were no “idolatrous intentions” regarding the Pachamama figures and we should leave it at that. That means taking his word for it, just like you would like the same done for you if you were known to the entire world.”
If this were the first incident in which the Pope has sown confusion, I might agree with you. But it isn’t.
I do not see how it can possibly be claimed that there were no “idolatrous intentions” in something that so clearly involved an idol. I assume that the Pope was not worshiping the idol, but it is quite clear that the others were. I do not understand why he did not tell them to stop that evil nonsense. Can you envision St. Peter or St. Paul standing idly by while someone brought an idol to a Christian assemblage and proceeded to offer things to it?
“However, since it is not the answer that is desirable to the conservative right, therefore his answer is picked apart and torn apart and the love he wishes to show to the good people of the Amazon is stomped on.”
Leaving them wallowing in idolatrous ignorance is hardly showing them love. Confusing them by permitting the mingling of idolatry with Christianity is not showing love, either. And scandalizing the rest of the Church shows scant love for the rest of his flock.
Saint Francis wrote “Praised be You my Lord through our Sister,
Mother Earth” He is not praising Earth as a goddess, he is, as with all the other things in the Canticle, praising God for His creation.
Today is the Feast of St. John Damascene. Very interesting in his work against iconoclasm.
Pope Francis, in saying there were no idolatrous intentions, was clearly not condoning anyone praising Pachamama as a goddess.
I think Christ Our Savior must be saddened by this intense vitriol against His Vicar.
My husband said it best, “Oh my Mrs., they are just trying to find one more thing to rail against the Holy Father over.”
Long live Our Holy Father!!
Maybe he wasn’t “condoning it,” but he didn’t do anything to stop it.
And don’t try to pretend that this has anything to do with iconoclasm. That Pachamama idol is clearly an idol, and destroying it isn’t “iconoclasm.” Nobody I’ve hear about who is horrified and disgusted by the idolatry of Pachamama would want any statues or painting of Our Lord or any of the saints destroyed.
“I think Christ Our Savior must be saddened by this intense vitriol against His Vicar.”
Or perhaps Christ our Savior is saddened by the idolatry that clearly took place, and by the placing of idols in one of His Church building, and by the prayer to Pachamama that the Italian bishops included in a prayer booklet, and by the failure of His Vicar to stop the evil in its tracks.
“My husband said it best, “Oh my Mrs., they are just trying to find one more thing to rail against the Holy Father over.””
Do you think that when this Pope was elected most of us started hunting for something to complain about? It was following action after action, statement after statement, that we ceased to believe the constant explanations and excuses that tried to whitewash statements and actions that were, at best, questionable.
“Long live Our Holy Father!!”
Indeed, yes; and may he cease sowing confusion and distress, and do a much better job of upholding Catholic teaching.
One of my favorite quotes, and a cry from the heart of St. Pius X, as well as a cry from my own heart is the following:
The Pope is the guardian of dogma and of morals; he is the custodian of the principles that make families sound, nations great, souls holy; he is the counsellor of princes and of peoples; he is the head under whom no one feels tyrannized because he represents God Himself; he is the supreme father who unites in himself all that may exist that is loving, tender, divine.
It seems incredible, and is even painful, that there be priests to whom this recommendation must be made, but we are regrettably in our age in this hard, unhappy, situation of having to tell priests: love the Pope!
And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth – 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word – Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.
Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.
This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls. (Saint Pius X, November 18, 1912, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union)
Yes, that was St. Pius X. Who would have recoiled in horror at the idolatry, and who did not have to have spokesmen issuing a constant stream of apologies and explanations for confusing statements.
“We do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, ”
Pope St. Pius X communicated with exquisite clarity, and did not make statements that seemed to contradict Church teaching. Anybody who pretended otherwise was being disingenuous. A situation that sadly does not hold today.
So, tell me, are you going next to become outraged that people criticize, say, Pope John XII?
So true. Our Pope needs our prayers.
Jane absolute obedience to authority prohibiting recourse to reason is more Emmanuel Kant’s Luther inspired moral imperative than reflective of Catholicism. Catholics hold to the correspondence between faith and reason faith given priority. Obedience to the Roman Pontiff is not an act of faith in a person rather a faithful recognition of the office [the canonical definition of that authority] instituted by Christ. Matters that are not Magisterially binding, either ex cathedra, or definitively pronounced are subject to reasoned assessment. You may interpret Pachamama veneration as you wish insofar as the Pope’s intent. Right reason however assesses the object of the act, which is veneration [worship] of an Idol.
I have a wager for you: just read the Holy Father’s words alone for about a month, and you will feel the same as me.
You will realize that he does not condone idolatry. That what he said was what he said: there were no idolatrous intentions.
How is it possible to cast out demons with the help of demons?
Also, a great article to consider is one which Joanne Baker writes on Homiletic and Pastoral Review. He article is entitled “Is it Virtuous to Criticize the Pope?” Her short answer is, “No, it is not virtuous to criticize the Holy Father. It goes against the virtues of reverence, respect and piety, as well as against just judgment, fraternal correction and just correction.” It’s a very well-written article and largely based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas. God Bless you
You are right, didn’t Jesus tell Peter to eat unclean animals symbolically Himself. People need to slow their role. Maybe Mary wasn’t talking about the Pope as the smoke of Satan in the vision but the dissenters who will not respect God’s Authority to lead through the seat of Peter as He willed to do since the day he told Peter, “you are Rock, and from this Rock I will build my Church. “
On the other hand, it was Pope Francis himself who said, not too long ago, that “it is no sin to criticize the pope.” He, too and of course, sees the distinction between the pope and the papal office.
Perhaps the call is to offer critique in a constructive way, with restraint, justice and charity. And, yes, respect and piety. Or, do we believe now that any pope is both personally indefectible in his more-or-less informal actions and inactions, as well as infallible in formally teaching faith and morals under the precise conditions defined by the First Vatican Council?
I read his words at great length, and I am disgusted. I find a prideful incoherent mind unschooled in the Catholic faith yet simply out to prove his superiority to all who preceded him. You should read Vigano instead and not the foolish advice of someone making a false claim that it is wrong to criticize an evil voice within the Church, no matter where that voice originates.
As a Catholic, very flawed, I apologize to the world for my Church, for its moral indifference towards the practice of burying children alive in the Amazon and the refusal to have more concern for this than wooden statues by almost everyone, before, during, and after a “Synod” that amounted to spitting in the face of God.
Even Western culture regresses to an earlier barbaric level and begins to resemble the polytheistic Arabian “days of ignorance” (prior to the coming of Muhammed). Mingled with the many flaws of Muhammed and of polyglot Islam, we find in the Qur’an that countercultural Muhammed ALSO prohibits the not uncommon practice in early Arabia of burying alive, in sand dunes, unwanted female babies (males were exempt)—a practice distinguished only by technology from clinical late-term abortions, AND in Pachamama-land by only the water content of Amazon soils.
My source is De Lacy O’Leary, Arabia Before Muhammad (New York: E.P. Dutton and Co., [1927] 202). The author cites Q 6:141, 152; 16:60-1; and 17:31-33 (see also Q 81:3). In two extended accounts (probably also in the Hadith), Muhammed is said to have been reduced to tears when hearing of such live burials (Jean Sassoon, Princess Sultana’s Daughters [New York: Doubleday, 1994], 90-96).
Muhammed’s response to a guilty father is recorded: “Sons and daughters are both gifts of God, the Prophet reminded him. Both are equally gifts, and so they should always be treated equally.” Today, equality apparently means that both are equally vulnerable and, under the cult of globalism, in all settings.
Keep common sense 1st. The idols were thrown into the Tiber, then the pope had them fished out. End of discussion. Common sense, it’s now ok to serve up idols of paganism in the catholic church.
Thanks P. Francis
Remember that this is the man who constantly ascribes the worse possible intentions to Catholics who are conservative or traditional, calls them all sorts of scurrilous, defamatory names, even when he has zero evidence of the actual intentions of these people.
But now he wants us to accept without questioning his claim of “no idolatrous intentions,” despite an abundance of strong circumstantial evidence of idolatrous activity and idolatrous theology going on with these pagan religious statues in Rome.
It’s like when the wife catches her husband naked in bed with a neighbor woman and the husband yells at his wife, “Honey, now don’t you go believing your lying eyes!”
People who are sinning very often lie to cover up their misdeeds and avoid consequences of their sins. That’s just want they do. They use their authority, and they want you to think that you and I are incompetent to perceive objective sin.