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?