26 October 2019


I recently expressed my own individual feeling that we all need expert and informed information about the Vatican Gardens Event. It is clear that, whether or not this was a formal act of idolatry, it constituted a very great skandalon. But was it an act of idolatry?

Our Holy Father has himself now usefully progressed and clarified the question.

There had been doubts whether 'Pachamama' was the correct term for a pagan Amazonian deity. But PF has been reported as himself referring to the statue or statues as Pachamama.

I wonder what difference, canonically, this makes. What I mean is this.

If the statue venerated in the VGE was not of Pachamama, but PF erroneously believed that it was, would his act of veneration of this statue (if he did make such an act) still be a formal act of Apostasy, on the grounds that the Roman Pontiff intended to commit an act of idolatry?

I would prefer not to have angry and intemperate comments offered by people with strong opinions but without competence in Canon Law.

I applaud the sensible and measured comments of Cardinal Mueller; as well as the highly appropriate act of Intiberisation. But there are rumours that the Roman plods have recovered the idols. In future, might it not be safer to burn idols which have inappropriately been set up in Catholic places of worship? Or to smash them effectively up?


Sprouting Thomas said...

We still have only the patchiest of information. PF does indeed seem to have called the statue "Pachamama". Does that, as we all fear, mean he had the idea of a pagan god in mind during the VGE? Or did one of his press team whisper it in his ear two minutes before making the comment? Could he be assuming that "Pachamama" is, rather than the name of a pagan deity, a native name for a particular construction of statue, an iconic pose, even the local name for a saint &c.?

That is, could his comment be the result of the exchange: "I want to make a statement about those statue things, what are they called?" "Pachamama, Your Holiness." "Righto." Presumably any octogenarian Head of State wonders from photo-op to photo-op often with only the most summary understanding of what he is meant to be doing or what item is being presented to him.

I say this not to give my own opinion of what happened, but just to point out that, as far as personal intentions go, we are very much in the dark regarding all the participants, and cannot go wrong by making charitable assumptions. But the public skandalon is another matter.

Finally, were they really recovered or were more simply selected from the stash, the "recovery" narrative seeming less embarrassing?

Albrecht von Brandenburg said...

Mens rea.


Joshua said...

May I suggest the obvious course of action?

Unknown said...

Here is my canonical summation of this: "Pachapapa venerates Pachama".

Mark said...

Fr. Hunwicke, I think your question practically answers itself.

Christopher Boegel said...

It is a plain fact, certified by our contemporary Marxist and environmentalist voices, that the carved images that were approved for worship by Pope Francis and the Amazon Synod “Team” were images of the pagan goddess Pachamama. And of course, Pope Francis knows all about what this image signifies, as explained below, and in the link I have added.

Pachamama is the pagan Andean goddess selected to serve as idol of the Marxist “communitarian” movement by Bolivian dictator Evo Morales, the same Marxist Bolivian dictator who is friends with the Supreme Pontiff Francis, who together staged the photo-op of the Hammer and Sickle Crucifix (which a mature Christian with “the mind of Christ” recognizes as nothing other than a ham-fisted political stunt done at the cost of profaning Our Lord’s self-sacrifice on the cross).

For the cultists of the “Jungle Synod” there is a new Lord of All, and she is Pachamama, the re-purposed pagan goddess of the Marxist ideology, the common bond of so many South American and German “players” in the profane political theater of “The Jungle Synod.”

Just read the explanation at this “environmentalist” website:

Andrew Malton said...

I'd go for smashing a bit first, then burning. Tinder catches fire quicker.

Kathleen1031 said...

Scripture apparently recommends burning.
However, the point was made and they cannot take this away no matter if they have a warehouse full of these cardboard cutout figures. Two faithful Catholics went in to one of our sacred spaces where demon idols and affrontery to God were placed by our pope and his accomplices, and rightly removed false idols and sent a worldwide message of immense weight to faithful Catholics, we will resist and defend Jesus Christ and His church, and to the evil men who are intent on insulting God and faithful Catholics.
You will not be victorious, no matter what outward appearances are. Tear it down, burn it up, sell it off, do what you will, but Viva Cristo Rey.

utahagen said...

Even if these be the original idols and they've been fished out of the Tiber -- I am skeptical about that -- Pope Francis surely would have substituted ones just like them to make the same point if the originals had not been recovered; so, asserting that the originals should have been burned is irrelevant. What's important is that we now know, having heard from Cardinal Mueller and from the Pope, what we are dealing with here. Lord, save the Church.

newguy40 said...

Come now, Father. Let us be men. The time is past for such equivocations and excuses.

PF is fully aware of what he has done. His past actions and words all lead us to reason.

I implore you Father, to be a leader and Shepherd to your people. We badly need strong priests now.

John Vasc said...

Chainsaws have much to recommend them.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

Deaf Father. There may be a hidden blessing in the recovery of the Idols because if the Pope does install them inside Saint Peter's even more of the faithful will be awakened to his perfidy.

He must be charged with the crime of heresy and if he does not repent he must be declared as having, by his actions, vacated the Papacy and a conclave can be called.

Many thought ABS was kidding when he said this Pope might select his own successor after having dissolved all of the canonical procedures (yes, even those of an ecumenical council) because of humility and simplicity and because that is what Peter did in consecrating Linus his successor.

The few remaining faithful in the Hierarchy had better get their ecclesiastical butts in gear before he really does choose his successor so as to guarantee the Church will continue to walk this new path of being led by the Holy Spirit blah, blah, blah.

Speeches and letters will not cut the mustard.

While it may not be necessary that he be tossed into The TIber, he must be charged with the crime of heresy and removed from office if he does not repent and let the stark choice be presented to the Faithful - follow the deposed heretic Francis or a newly elected faithful Pope.

Ceile De said...

Macho Papa venerates Pacha Mama.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

How valiantly he kept the bridge in the brave days of old.
And still his name sounds stirring unto the men of Rome,
As the trumpet-blast that calls to them to charge the Volscian home;
And wives still pray to Juno for boys with hearts as bold
As his who kept the bridge so well in the brave days of old.
And in the nights of winter, when the cold north winds blow,
And the long howling of the wolves is heard amidst the snow;
When round the lonely cottage roars loud the tempest's din,
And the good logs of Algidus roar louder yet within;
When the oldest cask is opened, and the largest lamp is lit;
When the chestnuts glow in the embers, and the kid turns on the spit;
When young and old in circle around the firebrands close;
When the girls are weaving baskets and the lads are shaping bows
When the goodman mends his armour, and trims his helmet's plume,
And the goodwife's shuttle merrily goes flashing through the loom;
With weeping and with laughter still is the story told,
How well Horatius kept the bridge in the brave days of old.


Invisibilium within the Prelature is that man whose puissant possession of Tradition is such that it could be applied as a force against our Inertia Into Indifferentism but maybe, in the silence of the night, even now, The Holy Ghost is inspiring him to act to gather a few other men to his side and to accuse the Pope of the crime of heresy and in the future may he become as famous as a new Horatius, the brave and worthy Catholic Bishop who led the defeat of the Masonic Army as it invaded Saint Peter's.

Jim C. said...

I am a Roman Catholic layman who is not a theologian, who tends to be a traditionalist (but not a RadTrad whatever the heck that is!), who loves Latin but is not literate in Latin and who does not like all of this innovationism in Church-related matters. That said, my late father's advice to me when I was young boy applies to this confusing pontificate. "Believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you see."

IMHO the Pope has allowed more than the ordinary amount of the confusion attending modern times into the Church's affairs since his election. It is up to him to clear up the confusion, not me, not my parish pastor or even my archbishop. After all, I perceive one of Pope Francis' principal duties as Vicar of Christ on Earth is to confirm the brethren in the Faith. Well this brother wants to be confirmed in the Faith even though he knows the basic substance of that Holy Faith! I am still waiting . . . .

Steve said...

Whatever his intentions in allowing this veneration/adoration it has caused such great sorrow to me and I suppose so many Catholics. I am at a loss.