Two Men, Assumed to be Catholics, Stole and Threw in the River Sacred Art
A bitter struggle between traditionalists in the Catholic Church and those who want it to adapt to local cultures has long endured. Some drama centering on this played out at the recent "Amazon Synod."
The main news at the Synod in South America was the Pope's declaration that married men could enter the priesthood to serve Catholics in South America.
I suppose there were many ceremonial events there in S. America. One which went around the world was a world was a video of two young native women presenting the Pope with a gift. The Pope blessed the gift and accepted it as part of the historical visit.
The gift, as I understand it, was a small statue of the native goddess, Pachamama. Pachamama was a popular and famous goddess in the pre Spanish Inca period. She continues to be a god to some Indigenous people.
Because Pachamama scolded people who hunted too many plants and animals in the wild she has become a new age environmental goddess as well. This ads to the controversy of Pachamama among Catholics.
When the Spanish with their Catholicism invaded South America it was either suggested to indigenous people or they came up with the idea themselves that Pachamama was also Mary. Probably local priests thought this slight of hand was just fine.
Nevertheless, when the Pope accepted the small statue of Pachamama the world wide conservative wing of his church were enraged. Pachamama was or is, after all, considered a goddess and one of the commandments prohibits worshiping any such "other" god. So, two young men video tapped themselves breaking into the Pope's offices, finding the statue and throwing it triumphantly into the river.
Perhaps this was to teach the Pope a lesson that Catholicism is a European religion and we can't accept gifts of carved gods. Parody writers around the world are having fun with this entire saga.
How is it the innocent gift by members of an indigenous culture of one of their sacred objects to honor the visit of the pope defiles the church more than the dirty cash collected in the plate on the sabbath? Bless the hallowed object, throw the cash in the river. HaHa! Time once again for a little Payne, “Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst; every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in; but this attempts to stride beyond the grave, and seeks to pursue us into eternity." (Thomas Payne, “The Age of Reason”)
ReplyDeleteArdy B "..religion is the worst; every other species of tyranny is limited to the world we live in; but this attempts to stride beyond the grave, and seeks to pursue us into eternity."
ReplyDeleteAnd, it's the loving God that pursues us.
A small statue of a native goddess or a small plastic Jesus on the dashboard. What’s with the rage when “there is no metaphysical [or spiritual] justification for forcing everyone to believe in the same absurdity.” (Asger Jorn)
Delete
Deleteam I to understand that you think that power per se is a bad thing, forcing people to think in some certain, objective way? or more specifically, that any appeal to an external concept of morality is somehow a threat to personal autonomy. Don't you realize that power as such is not a pejorative term. Power can be used to good ends (as in the power of love, the power of virtue and so forth). When I speak of power, I always try to qualify by speaking of raw power, the use of violence to settle differences, political or otherwise. altho' war is the best example of the use of raw power to resolve political or cultural clashes, there are other less obvious weapons that are used to the same end: propaganda, sophistry, bullying, marginalization, whatever.
syncretism
ReplyDeleteha, ha. more tired Enlightenment religion bashing, a pastel of clichés that have been around since the 18th-19th century. I don't know about others but I have read it all before. The ha,ha part is that post-modernists (at least to the extent that I understand them) think that the Enlightenment ideology is mostly another meta-narrative: another attempt on the part of human beings to make sense, to explain their world. Kinda puts it on par with religion of any sort or other. Or an ideology like Marxism. So there you go: spouting ideas that were in vogue 200 or so years ago and that, according to today' s "thinkers" have no more foundation in reality than what you so joyously condemn. Incidentally, the post-modernists seem to think that it all boils down to power (as in Hobbes who said that we all seek power after power that ceases only in death). Close to Jon's view that everything boils down to economics and oppression.
Deletelittle helper; After reading from the link in Jon’s post, the reference to the world wide conservative “Christian Militant” division of the Catholic tradition caught my eye. Wikipedia describes “states of the church”. In Catholicism there are three; militant, penitent, and triumphant. In the Lutheran tradition and most other Protestant denominations there are two, militant and triumphant. No purgatory. Although each denomination has a slightly different take on the two. "That is called the Church militant, which in this life is still fighting, under the banner of Christ, against Satan, the world, and the flesh." (Schmid, Heinrich (1876). War on Satan. War on the world. War on the flesh. War, always war, and in the name of the Prince of Peace. Reminds me of, “Fighting for peace, is like [having sex] for chastity.” Always something to learn.
DeleteUnknown; Who are you talking to?
Deletelittle helper @ 4:41 PM; I believe unknown is adressing me.
DeleteArdy; I think you are a little melodramatic in your understanding of "militant", as in the sense of warfare, fighting, or as in "Onward Christian soldiers". Everyday life and resisting temptations falls under "militant". Striving to persevere, to serve, to assist, would be more appropriate. Then there is :The Church" (meaning all believers;) Triumphant" , meaning; ( The state of all believers after death.)
Deletelittle helper @ 5:43 PM; fair enough. You did answer a follow up question I had. I wondered if the believers in the Triumphant state were somehow segregated by the Christian tradition they practiced while earthbound or if that distinction was meaningless. Thanks.
DeleteArdy @ 7;26; re. "distinction" There are over 30 verses that are abundantly clear on this subject. Start with Romans 10;12. Go to Bible Hub. Type in "No difference between Greek or Jew. Scroll down, then go over to cross references.
DeleteUnknown November 7, 2019 @ 2:48 PM; After reading your comment I must say you seem much more learned, talented, and gifted than I. Hell I wonder whether I’ll ever have an original thought. If I look hard enough someone has always been there before. Although I think I’m pretty good at making connections between the bits and pieces of information I’ve gathered through experience over several decades. If I find a quote that can speak for me I like to use it and give credit to its author if I can. As to spouting ideas that have no more foundation in reality than what I so joyously condemn, I say well put. I have stated elsewhere that I subscribe to the principle of the equivalence of absurdities and each to his own. Now, Unknown can you supply some “metaphysical [or spiritual] justification for forcing everyone to believe in the same absurdity”?
ReplyDeleteto Helper: my remarks are intended for anyone who might want to know something about post-modern philosophy and its implications. to put it in a few words it's kind of a universal solvent leading us to fanaticism on one hand and moral nihilism on the other. to Ardy: you sound like a good post-modernist. It's absurd so you seem to have given up on the notion of so-called universal moral truths (perhaps even scientific truths: science after all may be nothing more than a "white male" concoction). this is nothing more or less than the death of reason, leaving us to resolve any moral issue by resort to raw power. if you don't believe just look at today's political conflicts. and, for that matter, look to the implications of your own worldview.
DeleteUnknown; One way you could define post-modernism is; Applied existentialism . But of course, there are several definitions of existentialism. It is indeed a slippery word, as is post-modernism. A key question related to both is; "How do you feel about it?" Absolute is only a vodka.
DeleteUnknown; Nice to have a reliable source of information on what is termed post-modern philosophy. I do not consider myself a post-modernist let alone a moral nihilist and least of all a fanatic. If I had to choose a label it would be Eclectic. I guess I’m trying to fashion a mosaic from a collage. “Absolute is only a vodka”. Now there’s a tile for my big picture. Marvelous. Best wishes.
Deleteagreed. post-modernism. as you say, is indeed a confused, often almost incomprehensible bundle of philosophies. As you know it is basically a Nietzschean spawn. What all the facets of p-m "movement" seem to have in common ,however. is a leitmotif of raw power and an anti-foundational view of truth, ethical truth especially. Ardy: old Thomas Hobbes (he lived to be 90) had an answer to your question. He said that in order to escape the law of the jungle (fear of violent death and all that,we consent to enter into a social contract in which we give all the power to a High Honcho/Leviathan. who determines what is right and just and who even tells us what Scripture means. Mind you, I am a NOT a Hobbesean: Hobbes just provides us with a good example of the kind of turn that moral relativism can take. If there is, as you say, no transcendent, objective way of "forcing every one to believe in the same absurdity,'" then we will, indeed, live in an absurd and totalitarian world. check out 1984.
DeleteUnknown 2:44 "What all the facets of post modernism have in common..is a leitmotif of raw power and an anti-foundational view of truth, ethical truth especially."
DeleteGosh, sounds exactly like the religions of the world.
posted a response. somehow lost it: don't want to take time to re-post. so briefly, I didn't say that you, specially, are fanatic or a nihilist. but just look around at today's political, academic, journalistic world and I think that you find all the evidence that you need to understand my remarks.
ReplyDeletesomehow my post got thru somehow. thought that I had lost it. sorry for the confusion.
DeleteInteresting topic. Strange no one mentioned the syncretism of Catholicism and Vodou in Haiti. See wiki @ Christianity and Vodou.
ReplyDelete