I'm Starting to Like This Pope

[hugodrax]

+JMJ+

Most Americans support life in prison over death penalty, says new poll

Demonstrators march to protest the death penalty during a rally organized by Catholics Against the Death Penalty-Southern California in Anaheim Feb. 25, 2017. Most Americans support life imprisonment over the death penalty, according to a Gallup poll released Nov. 24, 2019, revealing a shift in the majority opinion on this issue for the first time in 34 years. (Credit: Andrew Cullen/Reuters via CNS)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Most Americans support life imprisonment over the death penalty, according to a Gallup poll released Nov. 24, revealing a shift in the majority opinion on this issue for the first time in 34 years.

The poll, based on results from telephone interviews conducted Oct. 14-31 with a random sample of 1,526 adults in the U.S., showed 60 percent prefer that convicted murders receive a sentence of life imprisonment, while 36 percent said capital punishment would be better.

This view marks a shift in Americans’ opinion over the past two decades. In the 1980s and 1990s, the majority opinion leaned toward the death penalty. The survey also is just the second time more people said they thought life in prison was a better punishment than the death penalty; in 2007 they did so by 1 percentage point, with 48 percent favoring life in prison and 47 percent favoring the death penalty.

[…]

This poll revealed religious divides on the issue and showed that Catholics, Jews, members of other non-Christian religions and the religiously unaffiliated preferred life without parole as a punishment over the death penalty. Only white evangelicals (59 percent) and white mainline Protestants (52 percent) expressed majority support for the death penalty.

[…]

In an Oct. 10 roundtable discussion about the death penalty with Catholic bishops, Archbishop Paul S. Coakley of Oklahoma City said: “It’s really important for our Catholic people to really dig into and learn, study, read the teachings of the magisterium of the church” on this issue.

He said with the popes — St. John Paul II and Popes Benedict and Francis — there has been “a steady movement toward a greater clarity in terms of the morality and the inadmissibility of the death penalty.”

Need I remind anyone that most Americans are ok with gay marriage and divorce, let alone abortion on demand and doctor assisted suicide? That we as a nation fund abortion efforts around the world? That our bishops give money to groups who provide abortion and further the LGBT agenda?

The fact that most Americans agree is not justification to do anything, let alone change the Catechism. The attempt to say "Most American's agree with the Pope, therefore Pope is right" is rather reprehensible. Not only is it a classic case of post hoc ergo prompter hoc, but it's just a plain old oily case of Modernism and Liberalism in the Catholic sense. We weren't taught by the Church to give the people what they want merely because they want it.

Then again, it's always been Clown World, honk honk, amirite? In the last week, I've read an article in Crux ostensibly about the Pope's trip to Japan telling me that the salvific nature of other religions remains an open question within the Church and that Asian catholics openly believe that salvation is possible extra ecclesiam.

I say bring on the "No nukes is good nukes" paragraph in the Catechism. We can take it! Honk Honk!

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

Reintegrated, inside or outside [Opinion]

Over the past six years, it’s become clear that Pope Francis generates his most provocative and unexpected headlines on airplanes. Sometimes this happens when he’s overheard while greeting reporters as they board the plane before a flight. More often, his tradition of holding a free-wheeling, on-the-record press conference with reporters on the return flight from every overseas trip has led to some of his most candid and unfiltered thoughts on many issues.

On today’s return flight from Japan, there’s no question that his words about nuclear power and nuclear disarmament will receive the most publicity. But for those of us who have been closely following his thoughts and teachings on the treatment and rehabilitation of criminals and the death penalty, one of his responses in particular stood out.

Pope Francis was asked a question about the death penalty, which is still practiced in Japan. He reasserted the Church’s position on the inadmissibility of capital punishment, but then he turned to another, related issue, on which his teachings are perhaps viewed with even greater suspicion: life imprisonment.

Francis has spoken in the past about how life sentences without the possibility of parole are another kind of death penalty, because they destroy hope, and they kill a prisoner’s motivation to improve his or her situation in life. Of course his critics immediately become furious at this suggestion. Using rhetoric along the lines of, “So you’re saying Ted Bundy should have been released back into society? Do you think child molestors should be let loose?!? Should Aileen Wuornos have been been freed after what she did?” Francis’s critics think they have a slam-dunk example of where his wisdom and judgement are severely defective.

This isn’t what he’s saying, but today he was much more explicit about what he means:

Any sentence must always allow for reintegration, a sentence without a ray of hope is inhuman. Even when it comes to life imprisonment, one must think how the person serving a life sentence can be reintegrated, inside or outside.

In this response, he directly addresses some of the more hysterical criticism against his statements about life sentences. “Inside or outside” was always implicit. Of course there are cases when releasing someone is impossible, but papal detractors made it sound like he wants serial killers set loose.

Francis goes on:

You will tell me: but there are people sentenced because of problems of insanity, sickness, genetic incorrigibility … In that case, a way to make them feel like people must be sought.

This is important. Many people, especially in the US, have a “Lock ’em up and throw away the key” mentality, if not a total “Let ’em fry” attitude. But Catholic teaching doesn’t permit this. Catholics believe that Human Dignity is inviolable and intrinsic, and therefore even the most terrifying or violent among us is beloved by God. And while, it’s certain that a more humane system of detention that’s geared towards rehabilitation and reintegration will not always be completely effective, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try.

Christian hope often means that we must work towards what appears unlikely or unobtainable because it’s right. And creating better conditions for prisoners, while promoting their rehabilitation is the right thing to do.

[…]

Rather simply than warehousing people, justice demands that every prison must give inmates an opportunity for hope. This is Francis’s point.

[…]

[hugodrax]

+JMJ+

Reintegrated, inside or outside [Opinion]

Over the past six years, it’s become clear that Pope Francis generates his most provocative and unexpected headlines on airplanes. Sometimes this happens when he’s overheard while greeting reporters as they board the plane before a flight. More often, his tradition of holding a free-wheeling, on-the-record press conference with reporters on the return flight from every overseas trip has led to some of his most candid and unfiltered thoughts on many issues.

On today’s return flight from Japan, there’s no question that his words about nuclear power and nuclear disarmament will receive the most publicity. But for those of us who have been closely following his thoughts and teachings on the treatment and rehabilitation of criminals and the death penalty, one of his responses in particular stood out.

Pope Francis was asked a question about the death penalty, which is still practiced in Japan. He reasserted the Church’s position on the inadmissibility of capital punishment, but then he turned to another, related issue, on which his teachings are perhaps viewed with even greater suspicion: life imprisonment.

Francis has spoken in the past about how life sentences without the possibility of parole are another kind of death penalty, because they destroy hope, and they kill a prisoner’s motivation to improve his or her situation in life. Of course his critics immediately become furious at this suggestion. Using rhetoric along the lines of, “So you’re saying Ted Bundy should have been released back into society? Do you think child molestors should be let loose?!? Should Aileen Wuornos have been been freed after what she did?” Francis’s critics think they have a slam-dunk example of where his wisdom and judgement are severely defective.

This isn’t what he’s saying, but today he was much more explicit about what he means:

Any sentence must always allow for reintegration, a sentence without a ray of hope is inhuman. Even when it comes to life imprisonment, one must think how the person serving a life sentence can be reintegrated, inside or outside.

In this response, he directly addresses some of the more hysterical criticism against his statements about life sentences. “Inside or outside” was always implicit. Of course there are cases when releasing someone is impossible, but papal detractors made it sound like he wants serial killers set loose.

Francis goes on:

You will tell me: but there are people sentenced because of problems of insanity, sickness, genetic incorrigibility … In that case, a way to make them feel like people must be sought.

This is important. Many people, especially in the US, have a “Lock ’em up and throw away the key” mentality, if not a total “Let ’em fry” attitude. But Catholic teaching doesn’t permit this. Catholics believe that Human Dignity is inviolable and intrinsic, and therefore even the most terrifying or violent among us is beloved by God. And while, it’s certain that a more humane system of detention that’s geared towards rehabilitation and reintegration will not always be completely effective, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try.

Christian hope often means that we must work towards what appears unlikely or unobtainable because it’s right. And creating better conditions for prisoners, while promoting their rehabilitation is the right thing to do.

[…]

Rather simply than warehousing people, justice demands that every prison must give inmates an opportunity for hope. This is Francis’s point.

[…]

Great article. Take a couple of aspirins and go to bed, Wos.

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

Bridge Burners [Opinion]

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia talks with Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna before the opening session of the Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment at the Vatican. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)

What the Culture Warriors Get Wrong

[…]

Before answering this question [whether or not the Culture Wars are back], we need to answer a prior one: What exactly is a “culture warrior”?

In my view, the label does not point to a particular person, or a particular cause, but rather to a particular rhetorical style. The people we call “culture warriors” consistently position themselves as moral prosecutors. Echoing the fiery language of Hosea and Jeremiah, they call out political and moral opponents, whom they put on trial for violating the fundamental moral law. Like actual prosecutors, they don’t want to hear excuses or counterarguments. They want the targets of their denunciation to plead guilty, do their time, and amend their ways. They are full of anger, which they stoke rather than control, because they believe their anger is righteous.

We find culture warriors across the political and religious spectrum. The preeminent Catholic conservative culture warrior, of course, is the Archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles Chaput, OFM. He has relentlessly castigated not only pro-choice politicians, but also ordinary Catholics who judge it best to vote for pro-choice politicians on other grounds — such as their support for universal health care or desire to strengthen unions. But Chaput’s rhetorical style is not foreign to those on the left. Think of teenage climate-change activist Greta Thunberg, who angrily indicted world leaders at the 2019 U.N. climate-action summit: “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth — how dare you!”

It’s not the issue that makes a culture warrior, it’s the rhetoric. In fact, there are a growing number of Catholic “whole Catechism” culture warriors. Because they defend both the unborn and the refugee, and condemn both euthanasia and climate change, they see themselves as a bridge between left and right. But their use of prophetic indictment means they are more likely to be an isolated island of righteousness, congratulating themselves for their commitment to the full spectrum of Catholic moral teaching. For everyone else, the bridge they build is booby-trapped.

Real bridge-building requires a fundamental shift in rhetorical approach, not merely talking about a broader range of moral issues. Rather than demanding conformity, a dialogical approach facilitates mutual exchange, nurturing the possibility of good-faith discussion in three ways. First, it pinpoints and contextualizes differences. A person who honestly does not think that human activity is causing climate change may be wrong about the facts. But that does not mean she is a monster simply unconcerned about the fate of the planet. Second, it recognizes that different people may prioritize different mediating principles. Not everyone who opposes a generous immigration policy opposes welcoming the stranger; some may prioritize taking care of the poor and vulnerable already in our midst. Third, it appreciates the complexities of role-related obligations in a pluralistic society. A psychiatrist or a priest who does not inform a patient’s husband about her scheduled abortion is honoring a professional duty of confidentiality — he is not a pro-abortion stooge. And a lawmaker like Biden — one with deep moral reservations about abortion — may nevertheless judge that advocating a law criminalizing the procedure is inconsistent with his obligations as a public servant in a highly divided society.

We can argue about facts, we can argue about priorities, and we can argue about the nature and scope of role-related obligations. And that’s the point. A dialogical approach facilitates and channels argument. In contrast, a culture-war approach shuts it down. As I argued in my 2016 book Prophecy without Contempt, people tend to resent others who try to dominate them by assuming the role of moral prosecutor. They don’t like being denounced as minions of the culture of death. As Francis X. Maier recently wrote in First Things, “Contempt for people who offer their questions and criticisms out of principle, even if they’re mistaken or needlessly harsh, has the opposite of the desired effect. It stiffens resistance and proves the need for more of it. Name-calling is a bad way of winning over the alienated.”

[…]

[Del]

Wozzy: Please note the source in your title, please. It helps us to understand the frame. See below.



about this article: "Social Justice Warriors" and other "Woke-Scolds" are culture warriors.

+JMJ+

Bridge Burners [Commonweal]

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Philadelphia talks with Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna before the opening session of the Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment at the Vatican. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)

What the Culture Warriors Get Wrong

[…]

Before answering this question [whether or not the Culture Wars are back], we need to answer a prior one: What exactly is a “culture warrior”?

In my view, the label does not point to a particular person, or a particular cause, but rather to a particular rhetorical style. The people we call “culture warriors” consistently position themselves as moral prosecutors. Echoing the fiery language of Hosea and Jeremiah, they call out political and moral opponents, whom they put on trial for violating the fundamental moral law. Like actual prosecutors, they don’t want to hear excuses or counterarguments. They want the targets of their denunciation to plead guilty, do their time, and amend their ways. They are full of anger, which they stoke rather than control, because they believe their anger is righteous.

We find culture warriors across the political and religious spectrum. The preeminent Catholic conservative culture warrior, of course, is the Archbishop of Philadelphia, Charles Chaput, OFM. He has relentlessly castigated not only pro-choice politicians, but also ordinary Catholics who judge it best to vote for pro-choice politicians on other grounds — such as their support for universal health care or desire to strengthen unions. But Chaput’s rhetorical style is not foreign to those on the left. Think of teenage climate-change activist Greta Thunberg, who angrily indicted world leaders at the 2019 U.N. climate-action summit: “We are in the beginning of a mass extinction and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth — how dare you!”

It’s not the issue that makes a culture warrior, it’s the rhetoric. In fact, there are a growing number of Catholic “whole Catechism” culture warriors. Because they defend both the unborn and the refugee, and condemn both euthanasia and climate change, they see themselves as a bridge between left and right. But their use of prophetic indictment means they are more likely to be an isolated island of righteousness, congratulating themselves for their commitment to the full spectrum of Catholic moral teaching. For everyone else, the bridge they build is booby-trapped.

Real bridge-building requires a fundamental shift in rhetorical approach, not merely talking about a broader range of moral issues. Rather than demanding conformity, a dialogical approach facilitates mutual exchange, nurturing the possibility of good-faith discussion in three ways. First, it pinpoints and contextualizes differences. A person who honestly does not think that human activity is causing climate change may be wrong about the facts. But that does not mean she is a monster simply unconcerned about the fate of the planet. Second, it recognizes that different people may prioritize different mediating principles. Not everyone who opposes a generous immigration policy opposes welcoming the stranger; some may prioritize taking care of the poor and vulnerable already in our midst. Third, it appreciates the complexities of role-related obligations in a pluralistic society. A psychiatrist or a priest who does not inform a patient’s husband about her scheduled abortion is honoring a professional duty of confidentiality — he is not a pro-abortion stooge. And a lawmaker like Biden — one with deep moral reservations about abortion — may nevertheless judge that advocating a law criminalizing the procedure is inconsistent with his obligations as a public servant in a highly divided society.

We can argue about facts, we can argue about priorities, and we can argue about the nature and scope of role-related obligations. And that’s the point. A dialogical approach facilitates and channels argument. In contrast, a culture-war approach shuts it down. As I argued in my 2016 book Prophecy without Contempt, people tend to resent others who try to dominate them by assuming the role of moral prosecutor. They don’t like being denounced as minions of the culture of death. As Francis X. Maier recently wrote in First Things, “Contempt for people who offer their questions and criticisms out of principle, even if they’re mistaken or needlessly harsh, has the opposite of the desired effect. It stiffens resistance and proves the need for more of it. Name-calling is a bad way of winning over the alienated.”

[…]

[Hovannes]

Commonweal's editorial policy---
Just do what the nice Jesuit tells you to do and nobody has to get hurt.

[hugodrax]

Commonweal's editorial policy---
Just do what the nice Jesuit tells you to do and nobody has to get hurt.

Wos writes for Commonweal?

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

Central American bishops defend Francis over Amazon synod, “Pachamama” [In-Depth]

Pope Francis attends a feast of St. Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of ecology, at the Vatican, Friday, Oct. 4, 2019. (Credit: AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino.)

KEY WEST, Florida — At the close of their annual general assembly, the Central American bishops rose to Pope Francis’s defense amid what they said have been false and hostile attacks following the Synod of Bishops on the Amazon in October.

They also advocated for better care of migrants and refugees, criticizing new immigration laws adopted by the Mexican government influenced by U.S. President Donald Trump, who has demanded harsh anti-immigration policies.

In their statement, signed Nov. 28, the bishops thanked Francis for the Amazon synod, calling it “an ecclesial event that has placed the world’s eyes on this vast area, which needs a massive evangelistic effort and colossal strength to be able to implement the many needs of an integral ecology.”

Pointing to numerous indigenous communities that live in the Amazon, the bishops insisted that they “have the right to receive the announcement of Jesus Christ and his kingdom by taking new paths.”

Because of the attention dedicated to these communities and the “new paths” for their evangelization, “it is not surprising that the Holy Father has been an object of virulent and insulting attacks, plagued by lies and calumny,” the bishops said.

Made at the end of the Nov. 25-29 assembly of the Episcopal Secretariat of Central America and Panama (SEDAC) in Heredia, Costa Rica, the notable public show of solidarity with the pope comes in the aftermath of harsh criticism he received in the wake of the Oct. 6-27 Synod of Bishops on the Amazon.

[…]

[Thunktank]

+JMJ+

Central American bishops defend Francis over Amazon synod, “Pachamama” [In-Depth]

Pope Francis attends a feast of St. Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of ecology, at the Vatican, Friday, Oct. 4, 2019. (Credit: AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino.)

KEY WEST, Florida — At the close of their annual general assembly, the Central American bishops rose to Pope Francis’s defense amid what they said have been false and hostile attacks following the Synod of Bishops on the Amazon in October.

They also advocated for better care of migrants and refugees, criticizing new immigration laws adopted by the Mexican government influenced by U.S. President Donald Trump, who has demanded harsh anti-immigration policies.

In their statement, signed Nov. 28, the bishops thanked Francis for the Amazon synod, calling it “an ecclesial event that has placed the world’s eyes on this vast area, which needs a massive evangelistic effort and colossal strength to be able to implement the many needs of an integral ecology.”

Pointing to numerous indigenous communities that live in the Amazon, the bishops insisted that they “have the right to receive the announcement of Jesus Christ and his kingdom by taking new paths.”

Because of the attention dedicated to these communities and the “new paths” for their evangelization, “it is not surprising that the Holy Father has been an object of virulent and insulting attacks, plagued by lies and calumny,” the bishops said.

Made at the end of the Nov. 25-29 assembly of the Episcopal Secretariat of Central America and Panama (SEDAC) in Heredia, Costa Rica, the notable public show of solidarity with the pope comes in the aftermath of harsh criticism he received in the wake of the Oct. 6-27 Synod of Bishops on the Amazon.

[…]

I’ve seen this reasoning before, among the Episcopalians. Christians don’t have a “Mother Earth” in our Gospel, we have a Mother of God who gave birth to an incarnate God Creator. I hope for a Pope with enough gumption to say “no” when it’s clearly appropriate to do so.

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

[hugodrax]

+JMJ+

What a b****.

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

Who is Pachamama anyway? [in-Depth, Analysis]

In my past articles covering the controversy around the carved figure from the Amazon Synod, I arrived at the conclusion that — contrary to the accusations from the usual suspects — there is no evidence that a pagan ritual took place in the Vatican. The statue could represent, depending on who you asked, a kind of Marian depiction of Our Lady of the Amazon, or a mere symbol of life and fertility, without idolatrous intentions. The Pachamama references (which could not be directly traced to the statue) were probably connected to a concept of Mother Earth inspired by St. Francis of Assisi’s Song of Creatures and the ecological movement.

However, all this evidence was gratuitously dismissed by papal critics who just kept repeating and repeating and repeating that the statue was a depiction of Pachamama. Not Pachamama as an abstract reference to the planet earth, but the goddess Pachamama of the Andean pantheon. They stubbornly clung to this explanation, notwithstanding the constant denials from official voices from the Vatican and REPAM.

Since the idea that the statue is a pagan idol will not go away any time soon, it’s worth asking: who is Pachamama, anyway? Please note, we are not asking this question because we think the “pagan Pachamama” hypothesis is anywhere near true, or because we think that we can convince people who have made up their minds in favor of convenient narratives. However, just like the Zeigeist conspiracy theory was making the rounds some years ago, spreading the ridiculous notion that Christianity was just plagiarized and repackaged paganism, it is important for Catholics to be familiar with Pachamama in order to adequately prevent false claims from being disseminated beyond the boundaries of ideological echo chambers.


An example of anti-Marian propaganda. See the forced parallels based on appearances. Nothing new under the sun.


[…]


========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
The Andes, a failure to inculturate

[…]


According to the critics, the picture on the right is “clearly” the same thing as the others

[…]

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
The two paths

[…]

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Mother Earth, Mother Mary and the West

[…]

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Mother Mary, Pachamama and the Andes

[…]

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Marian representations of Pachamama

During the Vatican Garden controversy, many people claimed expertise on Pachamama by appealing to arguments like: “The carved figure is clearly Pachamama. Just do a simple Google Search and you will see.” It is an argument that has, alas, been repeated often during the whole kerfuffle: just isolate yourself from any evidence contrary to your narrative by shouting “It is clearly what I think it is. Do you think I’m stupid?”

Scholarly articles, however, do not validate this notion. Pachamama is usually not depicted as a native pregnant naked woman. The way Pachamama has been inculturated with Mary shows us its original form, as Linda Hall explains:

Many attributes of Andean depictions of Santa Maria could be related directly to native manifestations of the sacred. One of the most important was the connection with mountains, an association directly linked to Pachamama, the earth mother. A consistent feature of Andean representations of Mary is the triangular shape of her dress, a reference, according to Carol Damian, “to the shape of a mountain and, especially, her role as Pachamama, the Earth Mother.” In several examples from the colonial period, the Virgin as Pachamama is taken to an extreme with Mary appearing within the mountain itself.

(…)

Another noteworthy example can be found in a small church near the town of Urcos, a few miles from Cuzco. This image emphasizes the significance of rock, obviously part of the spiritual landscape of mountains and the connection with Mary. Rocks, in indigenous spirituality, are often wak’as, that is, sacred places, objects, or personages. This image, the Virgin of the Candlestick of Kaninkunka, is painted directly on rock above the altar of a church. Her blue mantle forms the characteristic triangular shape as she looks majestically out at the congregation. As Damian points out, “She is not a painted representation of a mountain … she is the rock of the mountain and venerated as the wak’a.”

(…)

[T]he most usual form of representing the Virgin as Pachamama is painting her on a triangular rock in her advocation as the Virgin of Candlemas; in this way the concept of Maria/Mountain and Maria/Stone is emphasized.

This makes sense, since Pachamama is Mother Earth. Of course, any inculturated version of the goddess must emphasize its telluric symbolism. One of the most striking examples is the Potosí Madonna. Potosí is a mountain in current day Bolívia. Linda Hall explains how Potosí’s majesty and height made its identification with Mother Earth very natural in indigenous spirituality. Later on, Potosí came to also be identified with the Virgin Mary, and one small hill nearby (Huayna Capac) with the child Jesus, being embraced by His holy mother.

The Potosí Madonna draws from this double identification. As Pachamama, her body is a mountain holding trees, horses and men. As Mary, she has the Trinity hovering above her, crowning her head.



However, the most famous depiction is actually the Mamacha Belén, an appellation both to Pachamama and to the Mother of Bethlehem, as described by Hall:

Her iconography is that of the Queen of Heaven, recalling the Inka Coya. She carries the baby Jesus in her arms but stares impassively out at the viewer, aloof and self-contained. The numerous paintings of her in Cuzco style are all statue paintings, as she was in fact a dressed statue. She too is depicted with ropes of pearl draped in moonlike crescents across her robes and with the ubiquitous Andean rosettes, flowers, and birds. In the representation we have of her in the seventeenth-century series of paintings, she is dressed in white and gold, her long black hair woven with flowers.

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Miracles associated with Mary-Pachamama

[…]

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Pachamama and the Devil

[…]

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
The proper ordering of Pachamama

[…]

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Conclusions

This article was not written because I accept that the controversial wooden statue was Pachamama, the goddess. As I have said several times, the figure was, for the REPAM organizers and the Vatican officials, a mere non-idolatrous representation of the Amazonian peoples, fertility, womanhood and Mother Earth (here, understood not as Pachamama, the goddess, but as it is usually referred to by a Christian-influenced ecological movement). Also, for at least some of the natives, that figure acquired a Marian connotation as a depiction of Our Lady of the Amazon, and this was on display during the Vatican Garden ritual.

However, given that many people have accepted as dogma that the figure was Pachamama (the goddess), I think it is important to allow those who are actually confused or honestly concerned to better understand what Pachamama, the goddess, really is. Its significance is not necessarily pagan, and not necessarily irredeemable for an orthodox Catholic. The meaning of Pachamama is not the same before and after Christianity was introduced to South America. Before, it was certainly a cruel deity that could be associated with practices contrary to human dignity. It was also not virginal, as fertility goddesses usually are not. But afterwards, it acquired a symbolism that allowed God’s grace to enter and sanctify it through the maternal influence of the Theotokos. This benign Marian influence is well-documented and no amount of Wikipedia editing can erase that.

Of course, my studies show that Pachamama is not necessarily innocuous. The pagan Pachamama may still be worshipped in certain parts of the Andes, more isolated from Christian influence. However, that was not the case of the Amazonians at the Synod, who were clearly Catholic. Yes, it’s true that Mary-Pachamama may be associated with syncretism, as Dr. Brewer admits, being so exalted as to feature in a “quaternity” alongside the Holy Trinity. But this happens with the Virgin Mary even without any association with Pachamama, in many uncatechized populations (and not necessarily South American). That is not a reason to bend to Protestant complaints and do away with Marian devotions altogether. Yes, Carnival rituals for Mary-Pachamama are meant to stave off her intervention during some days in order to allow the festivities, but the fact that she is asked to tolerate the Devil during Carnival does not deny that she is the one who will imprison him as soon as Lent begins. And yes, Mother Earth has been associated with New Age movements, but it has also been used in orthodox (and even Church-approved) ways by Catholics, both inside and outside South America, as I have demonstrated.

Instead of destroying that which we do not understand, let us be discerning enough to see the “seeds of the Gospel” present in that native woman that presented the wooden figures as Our Lady of the Amazon. …

[…]

[hugodrax]

+JMJ+

Who is Pachamama anyway? [in-Depth, Analysis]

In my past articles covering the controversy around the carved figure from the Amazon Synod, I arrived at the conclusion that — contrary to the accusations from the usual suspects — there is no evidence that a pagan ritual took place in the Vatican. The statue could represent, depending on who you asked, a kind of Marian depiction of Our Lady of the Amazon, or a mere symbol of life and fertility, without idolatrous intentions. The Pachamama references (which could not be directly traced to the statue) were probably connected to a concept of Mother Earth inspired by St. Francis of Assisi’s Song of Creatures and the ecological movement.

However, all this evidence was gratuitously dismissed by papal critics who just kept repeating and repeating and repeating that the statue was a depiction of Pachamama. Not Pachamama as an abstract reference to the planet earth, but the goddess Pachamama of the Andean pantheon. They stubbornly clung to this explanation, notwithstanding the constant denials from official voices from the Vatican and REPAM.

Since the idea that the statue is a pagan idol will not go away any time soon, it’s worth asking: who is Pachamama, anyway? Please note, we are not asking this question because we think the “pagan Pachamama” hypothesis is anywhere near true, or because we think that we can convince people who have made up their minds in favor of convenient narratives. However, just like the Zeigeist conspiracy theory was making the rounds some years ago, spreading the ridiculous notion that Christianity was just plagiarized and repackaged paganism, it is important for Catholics to be familiar with Pachamama in order to adequately prevent false claims from being disseminated beyond the boundaries of ideological echo chambers.


An example of anti-Marian propaganda. See the forced parallels based on appearances. Nothing new under the sun.


[…]


========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
The Andes, a failure to inculturate

[…]


According to the critics, the picture on the right is “clearly” the same thing as the others

[…]

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
The two paths

[…]

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Mother Earth, Mother Mary and the West

[…]

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Mother Mary, Pachamama and the Andes

[…]

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Marian representations of Pachamama

During the Vatican Garden controversy, many people claimed expertise on Pachamama by appealing to arguments like: “The carved figure is clearly Pachamama. Just do a simple Google Search and you will see.” It is an argument that has, alas, been repeated often during the whole kerfuffle: just isolate yourself from any evidence contrary to your narrative by shouting “It is clearly what I think it is. Do you think I’m stupid?”

Scholarly articles, however, do not validate this notion. Pachamama is usually not depicted as a native pregnant naked woman. The way Pachamama has been inculturated with Mary shows us its original form, as Linda Hall explains:

Many attributes of Andean depictions of Santa Maria could be related directly to native manifestations of the sacred. One of the most important was the connection with mountains, an association directly linked to Pachamama, the earth mother. A consistent feature of Andean representations of Mary is the triangular shape of her dress, a reference, according to Carol Damian, “to the shape of a mountain and, especially, her role as Pachamama, the Earth Mother.” In several examples from the colonial period, the Virgin as Pachamama is taken to an extreme with Mary appearing within the mountain itself.

(…)

Another noteworthy example can be found in a small church near the town of Urcos, a few miles from Cuzco. This image emphasizes the significance of rock, obviously part of the spiritual landscape of mountains and the connection with Mary. Rocks, in indigenous spirituality, are often wak’as, that is, sacred places, objects, or personages. This image, the Virgin of the Candlestick of Kaninkunka, is painted directly on rock above the altar of a church. Her blue mantle forms the characteristic triangular shape as she looks majestically out at the congregation. As Damian points out, “She is not a painted representation of a mountain … she is the rock of the mountain and venerated as the wak’a.”

(…)

[T]he most usual form of representing the Virgin as Pachamama is painting her on a triangular rock in her advocation as the Virgin of Candlemas; in this way the concept of Maria/Mountain and Maria/Stone is emphasized.

This makes sense, since Pachamama is Mother Earth. Of course, any inculturated version of the goddess must emphasize its telluric symbolism. One of the most striking examples is the Potosí Madonna. Potosí is a mountain in current day Bolívia. Linda Hall explains how Potosí’s majesty and height made its identification with Mother Earth very natural in indigenous spirituality. Later on, Potosí came to also be identified with the Virgin Mary, and one small hill nearby (Huayna Capac) with the child Jesus, being embraced by His holy mother.

The Potosí Madonna draws from this double identification. As Pachamama, her body is a mountain holding trees, horses and men. As Mary, she has the Trinity hovering above her, crowning her head.



However, the most famous depiction is actually the Mamacha Belén, an appellation both to Pachamama and to the Mother of Bethlehem, as described by Hall:

Her iconography is that of the Queen of Heaven, recalling the Inka Coya. She carries the baby Jesus in her arms but stares impassively out at the viewer, aloof and self-contained. The numerous paintings of her in Cuzco style are all statue paintings, as she was in fact a dressed statue. She too is depicted with ropes of pearl draped in moonlike crescents across her robes and with the ubiquitous Andean rosettes, flowers, and birds. In the representation we have of her in the seventeenth-century series of paintings, she is dressed in white and gold, her long black hair woven with flowers.

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Miracles associated with Mary-Pachamama

[…]

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Pachamama and the Devil

[…]

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
The proper ordering of Pachamama

[…]

========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Conclusions

This article was not written because I accept that the controversial wooden statue was Pachamama, the goddess. As I have said several times, the figure was, for the REPAM organizers and the Vatican officials, a mere non-idolatrous representation of the Amazonian peoples, fertility, womanhood and Mother Earth (here, understood not as Pachamama, the goddess, but as it is usually referred to by a Christian-influenced ecological movement). Also, for at least some of the natives, that figure acquired a Marian connotation as a depiction of Our Lady of the Amazon, and this was on display during the Vatican Garden ritual.

However, given that many people have accepted as dogma that the figure was Pachamama (the goddess), I think it is important to allow those who are actually confused or honestly concerned to better understand what Pachamama, the goddess, really is. Its significance is not necessarily pagan, and not necessarily irredeemable for an orthodox Catholic. The meaning of Pachamama is not the same before and after Christianity was introduced to South America. Before, it was certainly a cruel deity that could be associated with practices contrary to human dignity. It was also not virginal, as fertility goddesses usually are not. But afterwards, it acquired a symbolism that allowed God’s grace to enter and sanctify it through the maternal influence of the Theotokos. This benign Marian influence is well-documented and no amount of Wikipedia editing can erase that.

Of course, my studies show that Pachamama is not necessarily innocuous. The pagan Pachamama may still be worshipped in certain parts of the Andes, more isolated from Christian influence. However, that was not the case of the Amazonians at the Synod, who were clearly Catholic. Yes, it’s true that Mary-Pachamama may be associated with syncretism, as Dr. Brewer admits, being so exalted as to feature in a “quaternity” alongside the Holy Trinity. But this happens with the Virgin Mary even without any association with Pachamama, in many uncatechized populations (and not necessarily South American). That is not a reason to bend to Protestant complaints and do away with Marian devotions altogether. Yes, Carnival rituals for Mary-Pachamama are meant to stave off her intervention during some days in order to allow the festivities, but the fact that she is asked to tolerate the Devil during Carnival does not deny that she is the one who will imprison him as soon as Lent begins. And yes, Mother Earth has been associated with New Age movements, but it has also been used in orthodox (and even Church-approved) ways by Catholics, both inside and outside South America, as I have demonstrated.

Instead of destroying that which we do not understand, let us be discerning enough to see the “seeds of the Gospel” present in that native woman that presented the wooden figures as Our Lady of the Amazon. …

[…]

Your friends are all pretty much full o' blarney, bud. Trying too hard.

[Hovannes]

After consulting the respected theologian, Foxx of Sanford on the issue



" Pachamamas not yo' mama!"

[hugodrax]

After consulting the respected theologian, Foxx of Sanford on the issue



" Pachamamas not yo' mama!"

She has a husband you know.

Nachopapa.

[Hovannes]

After consulting the respected theologian, Foxx of Sanford on the issue



" Pachamamas not yo' mama!"

She has a husband you know.

Nachopapa.

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

‘Our Little Path’: Pope Francis with the Jesuits in Thailand and Japan [In-Depth]

Pope Francis met a group of 48 Jesuits from Southeast Asia during his apostolic visit to Thailand and Japan. Immediately after his encounter with the members of the Bishops’ Conference of Thailand and the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences at the Shrine of Blessed Nicolas Bunkerd Kitbamrung, Francis moved to an adjoining room where the religious were waiting for him.

He was welcomed by Fr. Augustinus Sugiyo Pitoyo, superior of the region of Thailand, which is composed of 33 Jesuits (17 priests, 14 students in formation, a brother and a novice). Also present was the Apostolic Prefect of Battambang in Cambodia, Enrique Figaredo Alvargonzález, a Spanish Jesuit.[1] He stayed in a conversation with them for about half an hour.

Entering the room the pope chose to greet all those present one by one, and then he said:

“Good morning! Good to see you! You’re young. I’m glad to see the average age of those present here, it is promising for the future! I’ve been told we don’t have much time, so ask me the questions you want right away.

In the Asian context there are many situations of tension and suffering. We could make a list of them. My question is: how do you balance, on the one hand, the need to denounce situations and, on the other, the prudence that suggests you sometimes keep quiet for the greater good, or not to complicate situations further?

There’s no recipe. There are principles of reference, but then the path to take is always a small path (senderito) that must be discovered in prayer and discernment of concrete situations. There are no rules that are definitive and always valid. The path unfolds when you walk with an open mind and not with abstract principles of diplomacy. You look at the signs and discern the path to take. In this regard, too, it is important to allow yourself to be guided by the Lord. Sometimes, more than highways, small paths work better; these are the routes through the peripheries that nonetheless get you to your destination. They’re not rigid, big or obvious, but they’re effective.

[…]

How are the Church and the world receiving your encyclical Laudato Si’?

Great expectations were placed on the COP21 meeting in Paris in December 2015. A big effort was made there to facilitate the meeting of world leaders in order to seek new ways to address climate change and safeguard the well-being of the Earth, our common home. This meeting in Paris was really a step forward.

But then the conflicts began, the compromises between what was hoped for and the “wallet,” the economic interests of certain countries. And so some countries withdrew. But today people have become much more aware than before of the need for the care of the common home and its importance.

[…]

I work for JRS, the Jesuit Refugee Service. There are many refugees in Thailand and there are problems. How should one live this ministry of hospitality?

For the Jesuits our work with refugees has become a real “theological place.” That’s how I see it, a theological place. Pedro Arrupe right here in Thailand in his last speech reaffirmed the importance of this mission. Arrupe was a prophet to me: his “swan song” was the foundation, right here in Bangkok, of the Jesuit Refugee Service. Then, during the flight to Rome from Thailand, he suffered a stroke.

The phenomenon of refugees has always existed, but today it is better known because of social differences, hunger, political tensions and especially war. For these reasons, migratory movements are intensifying. What is the answer the world gives? The policy of waste. Refugees are waste material. The Mediterranean has been turned into a cemetery. The notorious cruelty of some detention centers in Libya touches my heart. Here in Asia we all know the problem of the Rohingya. I must admit that I am shocked by some of the narratives I hear in Europe about borders. Populism is gaining strength. In other parts there are walls that even separate children from parents. Herod comes to mind. Yet for drugs, there’s no wall to keep them out.

As I told you, the phenomenon of migration is compounded by war, hunger and a “defensive mindset,” which makes us in a state of fear believe that you can defend yourself only by strengthening borders. At the same time, there is exploitation.

[…]

We have divorced and remarried Catholics in our communities. How are we to behave pastorally with them?

I could answer you in two ways: in a casuistic way, which however is not Christian, even if it can be ecclesiastical; or according to the Magisterium of the Church as in the eighth chapter of Amoris Laetitia, that is, journey, accompany and discern to find solutions. And this has nothing to do with situation ethics, but with the great moral tradition of the Church.

[…]

[wosbald]

+JMJ+

[Satire]

[Thunktank]

+JMJ+

[Satire]

Good grief. Create a straw man maybe?

The simple fact of the matter is that “Pachamama” created a scandal that should have been avoided. It created confusion too. Many faithful Catholics have experienced them as idols and those speaking in defense the of it did not address their concerns coherently. The Pope didn’t either, in fact he ended up making things worse. The Pope spoke weakly about it, as usual. He’s a fluffy Pope, but the Pope we have. Too bad unicorns don’t exist or else I might suggest he be gifted one. He’s the Pope we deserve.

[Hovannes]

He’s the Pope we deserve.

That, sir, is the issue.