The Amazonian Synod without Amazonians

Pachamama Museum, Argentina

The people who are calling for syncretism with Amazonian aboriginal religions in the recent Vatican synod are not themselves aboriginals, and probably have little familiarity with aboriginal religions. The Amazon basin is actually 80% urban; and the local bishops are usually not even Brazilian, let alone aboriginal. Do they ever travel out into the jungle, to the isolated tribes? They are inserted from Europe, and probably because of their romantic attraction to the Noble Savage myth.

Hence the emphasis at the synod on ecological concerns.

The population of the Amazon basin is generally flocking to the Pentecostal denominations, not to any aboriginal religious tradition.

The most reasonable conclusion is that they are going Pentecostal because the local Catholic church lacks spirit, lacks conviction, not because they have too few female deacons or carvings of native idols in the churches. This is all something outsiders are trying to impose on them from above, nothing for which they are clamouring.

Let Them Eat Cake

To be fair, she never said it. It stuck because it was assumed to reflect the cluelessness of the nobility generally.

A few years ago, with Brexit, the election of Trump, and the various populist movements in Europe, we saw the general population revolt against the elites.

Now we see the elites revolt against the general population.

That seems to me to be the point of the Pachamama display at the Vatican. In reaction to the recent scandals about clerical abuses, the hierarchy are asserting their presumed right to do as they bloody well please. The peons are to be put in their place.

We see the same instinct, I think, in the current US House of Representatives push to impeach Trump. It seems otherwise nonsensical. There is no clear sign of any actual high crime or misdemeanor. If they impeach, a majority Republican Senate won’t convict. If it convicts, that leaves them with Mike Pence.

There is an presidential election in a year from now; if they impeach, the impeachment will come only months before the election. An election in which, if Trump is guilty of some blatant abuse of office, the voters can be expected to react accordingly. Just as the system is supposed to work in normal circumstances.

So why on earth a drive to impeach right now? The only explanation, surely, is to thumb their nose at the electorate. It is a deliberate vote of no confidence in the general population. It seems to serve no purpose but this symbolic insult.

Something similar is going on in Britain over Brexit. The House of Commons is aggressively and openly trying to thwart the popular will as expressed in the Brexit referendum, at the same time refusing an election.

It is all just like a small child throwing a tantrum.

It is a revolutionary moment in history. I hope it is not a bloody revolution.

Pachamama

Pachamama Museum in Pope Francis's native Argentina.

Sad to say, I think that Bishop Barron, probably the most prominent Catholic evangelist in America, is a heretic.

I pulled out on his video series “Catholicism” near the beginning, when he declared that the plan of creation was that we all would become gods.

That sounds to me like straight idolatry. That sounds a whole lot like what the serpent said to Eve: “ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

I have listened to him since on YouTube, without finding him compelling. He smiles too much, leaving out the tough parts.

He argues that Hell may be empty. I think he is wrong and unbiblical there.

Now I hear him assert that when after the crucifixion Jesus descended to the dead, it was to the depths of hell, to set all sinners free.

This is not the teaching of the Church. The Catechism says “Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.” (para. 633, CCC) This was affirmed by two Ecumenical Councils, at Rome and Toledo. Jesus died not for all, but for “many.”

Worst of all, in expressing his view that all are saved, Bishop Barron gave no indication that it was controversial within the Church.

Of course, it is no surprise that a bishop could be unreliable on doctrine. We know there is rot in the hierarchy. I know from personal experience that most Protestant ministers—I studied under a lot of them in grad school—are not Christian. They do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, and do not really believe in a personal God. I have known priests who were not Christian too. As we know, some are only there for the gay sex.

And then there is the current Amazonian synod, and those strange statues of a naked pregnant woman that have now been thrown into the Tiber.

What was that about? It seems to have been nothing less than a deliberate provocation by some significant body within the hierarchy, an expression of open contempt towards Catholic teaching. They were bowing publicly before a statue they would not identify. That necessarily, quite rightly, and surely quite intentionally evoked the golden calf in the Sinai Desert, or the Abomination of Desolation in the Temple at Jerusalem that provoked the Maccabee revolt. They were taunting the “deplorables.” 

One of the Pachamama statues displayed at the Amazon synod.

It seems to me a healthy sign that some unknown modern Maccabees took it upon themselves to toss them in the Tiber. War had been declared; this was a defensive move.

Now the Pope has declared sides: he has apologized for the vandalism that occurred in his diocese—that is, the assault on the statues. In doing so, he also identified the figure as “Pachamama,” an Amazonian aboriginal goddess of the earth. “Mother Earth.” 

Ceremony in Vatican gardens.

Identifying the statues as indeed idolatrous. Although, for the record, he said they were displayed "without idolatrous intent."

I hesitate to say what this means regarding the Pope. Put simply, he is apparently not Catholic.

I have direct memories of six popes now: John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. Each has been to me a rock amid the tumult of the modern age. Some were deeply troubled by Vatican II. I was not. I thought it was valuable, even vital, for its affirmation of ecumenicism. I had no problem with the vernacular mass. I thought less of Pope Paul for suppressing the Latin mass; I saw no reason for that. But I figured Paul was trying to hold things together at a difficult time; his steadfast opposition to abortion was worth more than liturgical errors. It might have been a trade he felt he had to make.

I remember, when JPII emerged on the balcony after the conclave, we were all whispering, “Who is he?” Yet there was also an immediate excitement. We could feel this was a historic choice.

I was overjoyed when Benedict emerged on the balcony. We knew him well, and had been hoping for this.

When Francis emerged, again we did not know who he was. Yet the sense was very different from the unknown JPII. My heart sank. I have heard others say the same. Charisma is a real thing. My sense was, “This is not a spiritual man. This is a bureaucrat.”

The Church, of course, will survive. The Church has gone through difficult times before, and been led by unholy men.

But who now is left to light our way?