The following is someone else's post from another blog from November 2019. The blog it was originally posted at, however, is now unavailable. Portions of it are available on other websites via them quoting it, and there's actually a full French translation here, but there appears to be nowhere presently online that has the entire original English post. One can read the original post via an archive, but again there's as far as I can tell nowhere that has a full live copy of the original. While I'm not in complete agreement with it, it seems to have some interesting points, so I decided to repost it here so it would be available.
The post below is left unedited the best of my ability, including the formatting (hence it will be in a noticeably different font from this introduction). Everything below this sentence is not my work, but rather that of the original author.
My Last Word on the Fake “Vatican Pachamama Idols” Controversy
Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.
John 7:24
Undeterred by historical and anthropological fact, logical reasoning, sound theology, or basic human decency and the demands of Christian charity, the once-noble news outlet LifeSiteNews (for which I wrote a few articles some years ago) has doubled down in recent weeks on its #FakeNews “Pachmama idols in the Vatican” narrative.
Since publishing my essay on the manufactured controversy, “No, ‘Mother Earth’ Is Not Pagan,” I have been bombarded by numerous responses, just about evenly split between those who appreciated it and those who continue to insist that the now-infamous images prominently displayed during a prayer service in the Vatican City Gardens, and later in the church of Santa Maria in Traspontina, were pagan idols and were adored as such. I responded to a few of the latter, asking their authors to document their assertions, but naturally none could, and I was met with various replies, nearly all to the effect of, “It’s idolatry until proven otherwise.”
As I noted in my essay, those peddling the fake “Pachamama” story are right-wing Trostkyites; as such, they do not care about what is objectively true; or rather, “truth” for them is not the correspondence of thought to reality — as the Christian and classical metaphysical tradition insists. Rather, “truth” is whatever advances the desired narrative. Pope Francis is a bad man, a terrible pope, and a heretic (all assertions with which I agree); therefore, anything that paints him in the worst possible light must necessarily be “true,” since it advances that narrative. These neo-traditionalist critics agree with U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that it’s okay to be “factually incorrect” so long as you are “morally right.”
This is not an unfair characterization. There is no other reasonable explanation for why people of at least average intelligence would continue promoting the “Pachamama idol” narrative in the face of:
(1) No evidence that “Pachamama” is an Amazonian deity. I do not claim to be an expert on the Amazon and its indigenous, non-Christian religions, but I do know how to conduct a search via Google, Google Scholar, JSTOR, and other resources, and I have probably read every #FakeNews story on the matter published by LifeSiteNews, EWTN, OnePeterFive, and all the other neo-traditionalist outlets, and I cannot find any scholarly or other documentation that “Pachamama,” an Andean deity, is commonly worshiped by non-Christians in the Amazon. The neo-trads have had over a month to produce such documentation, and it would bolster their case. Their inability to document this, against their own narrative self-interest, along with what appears to be a dearth of scholarly notice of “Pachamama worship” in the Amazon, suggests that the “Pachamama” obsession is one born of basic cultural ignorance: Someone read somewhere that some South American pagans worship “Pachamama,” the Amazon is located in South America, both the Amazon and the Andes begin with the letter “A,” some modern South American nation states cover parts of the Andes and parts of the Amazon, so the identification of the famous images with “Pachamama” was made without any critical reflection. Willfully ignorant journalists at low-brow “news” outlets like LifeSite ran with that narrative without bothering to do any fact-checking. Edit: As I note below in the comments, while it is not impossible that some pagan Amazonians who live near the Andes have adopted the worship of “Pachamama,” this still has not been demonstrated by the papal detractors; and even if such Amazonians did exist, the statuettes in question were purchased at a market in Manaus, Brazil, nowhere near the Andes.
(2) No evidence that “Pachamama” is worshiped via idols. Though it may be hard for some Western pundits to believe, not all “paganism” is the same, and not all “paganism” the world over takes on all the same external forms that paganism in the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman antiquity — the paganism we’re all familiar with from the Bible — did. Why has no one bothered to ask whether Amazonian pagans even worship idols, let alone whether they worship idolic representations of “Pachamama”? Could it be because those, including “Catholic” “journalists,” making these accusations, just don’t care?
(3) No evidence that “Pachamama” is worshiped via idols that look like these images:
(4) No evidence that pagan Amazonians worship idols. See (2).
(5) No evidence that pagan Amazonians worship idols that look like the above images (3).
(6) No evidence that these images represent “Pachamama.”
(7) No evidence that any of these images were objects of worship at the synod. The neo-traditionalists had a field day with Vatican spokesman Paolo Ruffini’s assertion that “[n]o prostration took place” with respect to these images, juxtaposing that denial with this still-shot from video taken at the Vatican Gardens prayer service:
A pretty damning contradiction of the Vatican’s denial, right? Only if you’re an intellectually lazy hack out to author a hit-piece and cannot be bothered to watch the original video for crucial context. And what is that context, beginning at the 11:20 mark of the video? Amazonian Catholics, directing prayer to God, their arms raised in the traditional orans and their gaze directed heavenward — symbolic gestures practiced by Christians all across the denominational spectrum, and one, incidentally, having its roots in ancient Near Eastern paganism, when people believed their gods really did dwell in “heaven,” i.e., Sky-Vault; during this prayer the participants briefly prostrate themselves in worship, before quickly rising again and continuing to pray gazing heavenward. No fair observer would construe this as prayer or any other form of worship directed toward the images the worshipers are circling.
But if these images are not being worshiped, why are they being displayed and encircled in the first place? That one’s easy. As anyone can see for himself, there are many images and artifacts from the Amazon displayed during this service, evidently representing the people of the Amazon rainforest: iconic representations of indigenous Amazonian men and women, musical instruments, what appears to be a walking stick, miniature canoes, etc. These are not idols; this is an elaborate diorama representing the people being prayed for.
Several years ago, I visited a buddy who was studying at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. He gave me a tour of his campus, and one of the buildings he showed me featured a giant globe surmounting an open Bible, signifying the missionary reach and aspirations of the Southern Baptist Convention. In this room (if I recall correctly) were several photographs, including this one, of students kneeling and prostrating in prayer before the image:
Is it not obvious to any culturally literate man of good will what is on display in this photograph: Southern Baptist seminary students praying for their churches’ missionary endeavors and the people they intend to evangelize? Isn’t it obvious that this globe isn’t an idol, or even an object of relative veneration in the manner familiar to Catholic and Orthodox Christians, but that the students here are simply giving symbolic, visible expression to their prayers for that which this globe represents? Though I would not put it past their journalists at this point, one assumes the folks over at LifeSiteNews are not about to accuse students at one of the nation’s premier Southern Baptist institutions of higher learning of offering prayer to an Appalachian deity named “Globe-a-Papa.”
(Wake Forest is not located in Appalachia, but it is located in North Carolina, and North Carolina includes parts of Appalachia, so there’s no telling what “Catholic” neo-traditionalists and Evangelical fundamentalists will make of this.)
Finally, if these really were idols, and worshiped as such, why have the neo-traditionalists not been able to present a single other example of these images supposedly being bowed before? The Synod of Bishop for the Pan-Amazon Region went on for nearly a month after the Vatican Gardens ceremony (October 6-27). If these really were idols, why was no one able to capture a photograph of their being worshiped as such (as opposed to simply displayed) in Santa Maria in Traspontina during all that time? The answer is simple: These are not idols at all.
In addition to all the above negative considerations, we have:
(8) Repeated and insistent affirmations by Vatican officials and synod organizers that these images were not representations of “Pachamama,” were not idols, and were not the objects of religious worship of any kind. Anyone who claims he is “confused” by “mixed messages” from Church authorities is either mentally deficient or lying., because Church officials have clearly and consistently rebutted the “Pachamama idol” narrative, as thoroughly documented by Catholic author Pedro Gabriel.
But wait, didn’t Pope Francis himself later refer to these images as “pachamamas”? This objection too is disingenuous, as the neo-trads were running with this narrative in the face of repeated Vatican and synod-organizer denials long before Pope Francis indirectly weighed in. In any event the pope’s ill-chosen words were not only contrary to literally all the other available evidence, but were subsequently corrected by his own spokesman, who explained that “the pope used the word as a means to identify the statues because that is the way they have become known in the Italian media and not as a reference to the goddess.”
(9) The video from which the supposedly damning photograph of “Pachamama worship” is taken shows quite clearly that it’s not these images that are being prostrated before. See (7) above.
(9a) Relatedly, why, if these images were “Pachamama idols” being adored as such, is there literally no other evidence — by way of photograph or eyewitness testimony — of anyone venerating them (e.g., bowing before them, prostrating before them) during the nearly month-long synod (Oct. 6-27)? See (7) above.
(10) We have the complete and utter unavailability of anyone — literally, anyone — to document items (1)-(7) above, despite the fact that the ‘Murican neo-traditionalist media outlets that started this urban legend had every incentive to justify their calumny by, say, sharing scholarship or photographs of Amazonian pagan worship and proving that these images were part and parcel of it.
Let me quickly address two further objections:
(1) “Pope Francis defenders themselves lied when they claimed these images were representations of the Blessed Virgin Mary, under the title Our Lady of the Amazon.”
There was no such lie. In fact, while according to all authoritative accounts these images were not originally intended to represent any specific personage, but were mere artistic representations of pregnant indigenous women, some of the Amazonian faithful attending the synod did, in fact, take to identifying these as indigenous representations of Mary, Mother of Jesus. Pedro Gabriel documented this, here and here.
This may not be the first time in history such a thing has happened. Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, in his The Leopard, a traditionalist — real traditionalist — classic commonly considered the greatest historical novel of the twentieth century, famously satirized a similar happening on the part of pious aristocratic spinsters in post-Risorgimento Sicily:
When Monsignor [the vicar general] entered, the [private] chapel was lit by the late afternoon sun, which fell full on the picture above the altar so venerated by the Salina ladies. It was a painting in the style of Cremona and represented a slim and very attractive young woman, with eyes turned to heaven and an abundance of brown hair scattered in gracious disorder on half-bare shoulders; in her right hand she was gripping a crumpled letter, with an expression of anxious expectancy not unconnected with a certain sparkle in her glistening eyes. Behind her was a green and gentle Lombard landscape. No Holy Child, no crowns, no snakes, no stars, in fact none of those symbols which usually accompany the image of our Lady; the painter must have relied on the virginal expression as a sufficient mark of recognition. Monsignor drew nearer, went up one of the altar steps and stood there, without crossing himself, looking at the picture for a minute or two, his face all smiling admiration as if he were an art critic. Behind him the sisters made signs of the Cross and murmured a Hail Mary.
Then the prelate came down the steps again and turned around. “A beautiful painting,” he said, “very expressive.”
“A miraculous image, Monsignor, most miraculous!” explained Caterina, poor ill creature, leaning from her [wheelchair].
“It has worked so many miracles!” Carolina pressed on. “It represents the Madonna of the Letter. The Virgin is on the point of consigning the holy missive invoking her divine Son’s protection on the people of Messina: a protection which has been gloriously conceded, as is shown by the many miracles during the earthquake of two years ago.”
“A fine picture, Signorina; whatever it represents, it’s a pretty thing and should be treated carefully.” . . .
[Later:] “And so you, Father Titta, have actually said Mass for years in front of the picture of that girl? Of that girl with a rendezvous waiting for her lover? Now don’t tell me you too believed it was a holy image.”
“Monsignor, I am to blame, I know. But it’s not easy to gainsay the Signorina Carolina. That you can’t know.”
Monsignor shivered at the memory. “My son, you’ve put your finger on it; and that will be taken into consideration.”
Chapter 8, “Relics”
Second, I am often referred to the long litany of conservative prelates and priests who have hopped on the “condemn Pachamama idol” bandwagon. “Why should I believe you over these clergy?” For starters, no one should “believe” me about anything: I’m simply presenting the evidence, evidence which has not been contradicted or rebutted by a single one of these clerics. My readers and interlocutors should view the evidence for themselves, and if they cannot rebut it they ought to submit — not to me, but to the truth so evinced. I would add that it’s especially rich to hear vocal critics of Pope Francis resort to their own version of low-level ultramontanism, as if we Catholics believed that objective reality and truth changes itself to accommodate the ideas and opinions of priests and bishops. A lie does not cease to be a lie simply because a bishop tells it. The earth did not magically become the geographical center of the universe when Pope Urban VIII condemned Galileo and placed his heliocentric works on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum; likewise, what is not idolatry does not magically become idolatry just because Cardinals Muller and Burke, or Fr. Mitch Pacwa, say it is. If prelates and priests join in smear campaigns and tell lies, all the greater is their sin, precisely because they are ordained ministers of the Gospel.
Finally, several of the neo-traditionalist lie-peddlers have accused me of being uncharitable to them, pleading that I am wrong to assume that they are motivated by malice or by reckless disregard for objective truth, when they may in fact simply be mistaken. I disagree: You don’t get to claim the benefit of doubt when you’re the initiator of calumny and refuse to grant that same benefit to others, particularly when you run once-respected conservative news or essay-outlets and posses both the requisite mental faculties and adequate resources for research. LifeSiteNews and other “conservative Catholic” news outlets know, or ought to know, better.
Lying — even “lying for Christ” — is a sin, mortally so when one willfully and intentionally (or negligently) lies on a grave matter, such as accusing one’s pastors and one’s brethren in Christ of committing what is literally the worst of all possible sins. God will not be mocked, either by political leftists and theological modernists who invoke His name to advance all manner of degeneracy, or by right-wing “conservative” neo-traditionalists who invoke it to spread lies. For the sake of their souls, and for their own journalistic credibility, the peddlers of the “Pachamama meme” need to repent of their sins and publicly correct their published misinformation.