Here is a link to the most recent article from the Where Peter Is blog regarding the controversial statue of Our Lady of the Amazon: https://wherepeteris.com/our-lady-of-the-amazon-a-rorschach-test/. Here is another good article I found this morning, from The Tablet: https://www.thetablet.co.uk/blogs/1/1313/the-dishonest-cruelty-of-the-thief-who-drowned-our-lady-of-the-amazon. These two, along with the other articles on the topic at Where Peter Is, provide most of the information and reflections that I would share. I have just a few things to add.
Here is part of my comment on the first linked post:
"With respect to the bowing, the thing is that we don’t really know the
context. The bowing may have been simply part of the ceremony. It could
have been a prayer to God. It could have been an acknowledgement of the
gifts of the Earth, a simple sign of thanksgiving (which ultimately goes
to God as the Earth’s Creator). It could have been in veneration to
Mary. When I pray before a statue of Mary, I bow my head. I don’t think
that’s idolatry. It’s a common Catholic practice. As far as the Vatican
spokesmen trying to be diplomatic, if it’s true, it doesn’t make sense.
The statue could in fact be both a symbol of Amazonian life, and an
image of Our Lady of the Amazon. Mary is, after all, Mother of the New
Creation. She is the New Eve. She is the highest, most pure example of
motherhood and womanhood. This wouldn’t even be syncretism, in my view.
It could be a perfectly orthodox Catholic way of understanding the
meaning of the statue. Pope Francis blessed the statue, with the
knowledge that it was intended to be Our Lady of the Amazon. And I think
that’s how it should be received by all of us. This, to me, is the most
charitable, accurate interpretation. That a Vatican spokesperson could
be ignorant of the intentions because he hasn’t taken the time to ask
the woman who lead the tree planting ceremony herself, is very
unfortunate. It gives fuel to the hyper conservatives to continue to
insist on the Pachamama theory, which there is no evidence for. I feel
at peace with the ceremony and the Marian interpretation, as well as the
idea of it also being a symbol of the abundance of the Earth and
Amazonian life."
The both/and perspective is a distinctive feature of the Catholic Faith, which I emphasized above. The carved wooden statue of an Amazonian pregnant woman, kneeling and bowing in prayer, was called Our Lady of the Amazon by the woman presiding at the event herself. There is video evidence of this. That fact is not in dispute. I find it extremely hard to believe that Francis would have blessed the statue if it were a pagan idol. There is further video evidence for the statue being the Blessed Mother Mary from REPAM in 2018, which you can watch, with a translation of the Spanish Christmas song, at Where Peter Is: https://wherepeteris.com/our-lady-of-the-amazon-2018-video-footage-emerges/. In addition, there is testimony from a priest who was involved in the organization of the tree planting ceremony who confirmed it being Mary, and I think his statement backs up my both/and take on the matter.
No one involved with the Amazon Synod ever called the statue Pachamama. That was the invention of someone's imagination. If you do a Google search of Pachamama images, there are dozens of variations. None of them look like the statue. As a goddess revered by the Incas of the Andes, she is often portrayed as having a mountain for her body. I'm not even sure that she's a deity of the Amazonian region under discussion at the Synod. Yet mere speculation is given as proof of paganism and idol worship by the Synod's detractors.
Some people, conceding that the statue could be Mary, object to its nudity. They believe that portraying Mary nude is disrespectful to her. But there is a difference between an objective, moral wrong and something that makes one subjectively feel uncomfortable.
I remember feeling surprised and slightly uncomfortable myself when I discovered classical Catholic paintings of Our Lady with an exposed breast. She is the Virgin of the Milk.
This type of painting is a much more true-to-life, elaborate representation than the primitive wooden statue. It would be hypocritical to complain about the statue's nudity while thinking the European paintings are perfectly acceptable. In fact, it could be taken as bigotry and racism against the Amazonian peoples and their culture. That is exactly how some are interpreting the theft of the statues from the church in Rome which were then dumped by the thieves into the river. If those men really believed what they were doing was devout and righteous, why hide their faces? Why not proudly come forward if they have committed no crime? Why not allow themselves to be martyred if they are charged with stealing?
How sad and discouraged the Catholic Amazonians must be who came to Rome full of hope and goodwill. That's why I feel compelled to be a positive voice amongst the cacophony of hatred and hysteria expressed in some segments of the Catholic media. I converted to Catholicism with the understanding that I would humble myself before the authority of the Pope and the Church, which is the authority of Christ himself. This is not blind obedience. It's called faith.
Update: Pope Francis made a public statement after the stolen statues were retrieved.
“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 statues which created such attention in the media, were retrieved
from the Tiber. The statues were not damaged.”
The pope's use of the word "pachamama" was then clarified:
“In his remarks, the pope used the phrase 'the pachamama statues' but in the transcript the word pachamama was in italics.
Vatican spokesman Matteo Bruni said the
pope used the word as a means to identify the statues because that is
the way they have become known in the Italian media and not as a
reference to the goddess.”
I would point out also that pachamama can be used generally to simply mean "mother earth," as that is the literal translation of the word, and this would be consistent with certain comments by Vatican spokespersons. Interestingly, Pope Francis has a book coming out titled, Our Mother Earth. The final document for the Amazon Synod has yet to be released. So between these two publications, more controversy is sure to come. But for those of us who keep the Faith, we shall inherit true joy.
Two days ago, on Oct. 21, two men stole four statues of Our Lady of the Amazon from the Santa Maria in Traspontina Church in Rome and knocked them into the Tiber River. One of the statues had been presented to Pope Francis by the indigenous Catholic woman who lead the tree planting ceremony in the Vatican Gardens on Oct. 4, and he had blessed it.
I found out about the theft Monday morning, when I happened upon Taylor Marshall's YouTube video on the event. He was up in the middle of the night, sitting in the dark, with only his computer screen illuminating his face, and whispering his joy to the world. (Certainly that doesn't seem like the behavior of a conspiracy theorist...) I didn't spend any time watching his video once I ascertained what had happened. Highly disturbed, I clicked on the link he provided to the video footage of the crime. Then I went back and left a comment shaming the deed and Taylor's celebration of it. Of course, yesterday he and Timothy Gordon were arguing that stealing property from a church was not theft in this case. I didn't watch this video either. The verdict was contained in the headline.
I took all the hyper conservative, Pope Francis-bashing YouTube channels off my subscriptions and favorites list, and I'm thoroughly detoxing now from all of it. In addition to Marshall, this includes Michael Voris/Church Militant, The Remnant, Patrick Coffin, Lifesite News, and any of the other junk that kept coming up on my YouTube recommendations. I'm sure these guys all mean well, but as Mr. Knightley scolded, "Badly done, Emma! Very badly done!"
This admonishment goes for the cowardly men who stole the statues, anonymously, as well.
This stuff can become addictive, like a train wreck you can't take your eyes off. It can cause extreme anxiety and interfere with sleep. People's faith is being ruined by irresponsible, biased reporting and commentary. This cannot be of Our Lord. I strongly encourage anyone who has been likewise disturbed by the hysteria to put your gaze on something uplifting. Seek out Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. Trust in God's sovereignty and his Vicar on Earth. As I've been saying, pray without ceasing. Offer up your suffering. Then it will not be wasted.
I do want to discuss Our Lady of the Amazon, and how she is not the goddess Pachamama, and the deeper implications of folks celebrating the yellow-bellied stunt of the thieves. But I'm going to do that in a separate post. All I wanted to say to all of these men, now notorious in my eyes, is "Badly done. Very badly done."
Oh Lord, my heart is not lifted up, my eyes are not raised too high; I do not occupy myself with things too great and too marvelous for me. But I have calmed and quieted my soul, like a child quieted at its mother's breast; like a child that is quieted is my soul.
(Psalm 131: 1-2, RSV-2CE)
For now, the only commentary I'm following about what's going on in the Catholic Church, and especially regarding the Amazon Synod, is the Where Peter Is blog (wherepeteris.com), and Bishop Barron's YouTube channel. Taylor Marshall is still going on about the carved wooden statue of Our Lady of the Amazon being the pagan goddess Pachamama, Michael Voris is still sewing despair, and I can't listen to the disharmonic voices anymore. I want the quiet soul of the song of King David.
It seems that certain vocal members of the Church, once representing a centrist, conservative element, are becoming increasingly hyper conservative, taking a hard right toward the "rad trad" position. While stopping short of saying that Vatican II, Pope Francis, and the Ordinary Form of the Mass are invalid, some traditional Catholics nevertheless come across as wanting to erase the teachings and changes of the Council; and to shed doubt on the conclave that elected Francis as Benedict XVI's successor.
I'm not a theologian, and I don't think you have to be one in order to live as a faithful Catholic. Sometimes we strive to comprehend things that are perhaps a bit beyond us. We lean too much on our own understanding, and we forget that we will know what we need to know in God's time. During a period of confusion and uncertainty, it's beneficial to go back to the basics. Focus on prayer, Scripture, and the Fathers of the early Church.
This ressourcement, or a "return to the sources," is what the late Cardinal Henri de Lubac and his Communio school sought to accomplish in the aftermath of Vatican II. Faced on the one hand by a small number of bishops who wanted to reject the council, and on the other hand with a larger, too liberal faction, the Communio bishops persevered in a conservative but not regressive "middle path". This is the path continued on by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, which we see Pope Francis developing in his unique way.
Believing that Francis is actually working more along the excessively liberal lines represented by Karl Rahner, hyper conservative Catholics likewise lump Henri de Lubac into the category of heretics. Their solution to every ill of the Church is a return to the pre-conciliar traditionalism represented by Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, which means jettisoning most of Vatican II and reverting, across the universal Church, to the Tridentine Mass and the pre-conciliar disciplines that go with it; ie., no female altar servers, receiving Communion on the tongue only, the predominance of the Latin language, no Eucharistic ministers, etc...
If there's one thing history teaches us, it's that we can't turn back the clock. As Catholics, we must hold to the traditions, both oral and written, left to us by Jesus and his Apostles. This is biblical. It's also a matter of Scripture and oral Tradition that we would see a development of doctrine over time. And that Jesus left us his Church as the ultimate pillar and foundation of Truth (1 Timothy 3: 15). Where Peter (the pope) is, there is the Church. This is what I cling to in these difficult times.
So my next step is to read some of the works of Henri de Lubac and prayerfully discern the orthodoxy of his theology. I will follow his lead in returning to the sources as a way of putting the history of the Church in its entirely into perspective. I'll cease hurting my brain with those current arguments "too great and too marvelous for me." I'll keep following St. Therese's little way and the humble wisdom of the Holy Father.
There are some testimonies that may prove helpful
and inspiring, but that we are not meant to copy, for that coud even
lead us astray from the one specific path that the Lord has in mind for
us. The important thing is that each believer discern his or her own
path, that they bring out the very best of themselves, the most personal
gifts that God has placed in their hearts (cf. 1 Cor 12:7), rather than
hopelessly trying to imitate something not meant for them.
-- Pope Francis, Gaudete et Exsultate
In a recent post (see Sept. 21 article), I expressed concern about the then upcoming Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon Region and the dialogue over the interpretation of paganism in its working document. I'd been following various conservative Catholic news outlets and commentaries, especially the Dr. Taylor Marshall Show on YouTube and Michael Voris of Church Militant. Then came an indigenous Amazonian tree planting ceremony on Oct. 4, the Feast of St. Francis of Assisi, two days before the opening of the Synod on Oct. 6. Pope Francis has dedicated the Synod to the patronage of St. Francis.
I don't want to completely dismiss the concerns of faithful Catholics about Pope Francis and the Amazon Synod, but the reactionary firestorm I've been witnessing is leaving me cold. At a certain point I began to seek out other perspectives, wondering if the narrative I've been hearing is completely accurate and factual. Today I found the Where Peter Is blog and read Pedro Gabriel's article "Paganism in the Vatican? Hermeneutic of Suspicion at its Peak."
The author presents evidence that the tree planting ceremony was not indeed pagan, and that the much decried, carved wooden statue of a pregnant woman represents the Virgin Mary, Our Lady of the Amazon. The 2nd pregnant figure is believed to be St. Elizabeth, with the two women representing The Visitation. These are not, as the accusation has been put forth, fertility goddesses. I recommend reading Gabriel's complete article: https://wherepeteris.com/paganism-in-the-vatican-hermeneutic-of-suspicion-at-its-peak/.
I've become increasingly uncomfortable with what seems to me to be blatant disrespect for Pope Francis. I agree with Gabriel that a hermeneutic of suspicion, of treating every little thing the pope says and does through a preconceived, negatively critical lens, is at work here. I've also learned since publishing my Sept. 21, "three bad things" article that the working document for the Amazon Synod, Instrumentum Laboris, is not a magisterial document, but rather the blueprint for discussion during the Synod.
Language used in the working document that seems to signal an acceptance of paganism might instead be a reflection of the spirituality of the Amazonian peoples whom the Synod seeks to understand, help in their various needs, and evangelize. It seems more likely that what we have here is an approach of inculturation rather than religious syncretism. News reports have stated that Pope Francis intends to eventually destroy Instrumentum Laboris, and he has indicated his reliance on the Holy Spirit to guide the Synod and its outcomes.
Yes, the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is real and horrifying, and we can't sweep it under the rug. Perhaps Pope Francis could have responded to it better, but maybe he deserves the benefit of the doubt. Has the pope truly been using "weaponized ambiguity" to undermine the traditional teachings of the Church, as he has been accused? Is he really a Marxist, or does he simply have a deep devotion to helping the poor, the marginalized, and the migrant? As for his intentions in the realm of education, there might be cause for concern, but this remains to be seen.
I refuse to be worked into a frenzy over the narrative being presented by the anti-Francis, hyper conservative Catholic media. Theirs is one perspective, one side of the story. I recently viewed the YouTube video from Bishop Barron on his theological process, in which he presents his "middle path" between the radical Catholic liberals on the one hand, and the traditionalists who want to disregard Vatican II and return to a pre-conciliar version of the Church on the other. I think Bishop Barron's viewpoint is well worth looking into (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB6w4miLEc8).
The Catholic Church needs unity right now; and as she has always been, the Church founded by Jesus is unified under the authority of the pope, the successor of St. Peter. We would all do well not to forget that.
