In a commentary in Chicago Catholic posted last week, Cardinal Cupich weighed in on the Pachamama controversy. The Cardinal decried the removal and disposal of the statues into the Tiber River of calling it an act of “vandalism”. He defended the inclusion of the “artwork from the Amazon region depicted a pregnant woman, a symbol of motherhood and the sacredness of life” during the Amazonian Synod as an example of the necessary “two way street of inculturation” in which “both the cultures and the church are enhanced in coming to know God.” In truth however, the Cardinal is defending idolatrous syncretism, a position that is indefensible for a Catholic.
Artwork or Idol?
In an act of sophistry that would make even Protagoras blush, the Cardinal depicted the statues as “artwork”. One has to wonder why Aaron didn’t think of that when Moses confronted him over the Golden Calf. His description defies logic and is a great distortion of the truth. Pachamama is no mere symbol of motherhood and the sacredness of life, but a benevolent goddess of motherhood and fertility that is still worshipped among the indigenous peoples of the Andes. The peoples, as evidenced by the opening ceremony in the Vatican Garden, still offer worship to the goddess through the statue.
Each August, the people of the Peru dedicate the month to making offerings and sacrifices to Pachamama. It is believed that it is necessary to satisfy her hunger and thirst with food offerings. These offerings are burnt, carrying the prayers of the people in the smoke. The Pachamama is no mere symbol, but instead a goddess. The Cardinal is either lying or a fool or both.
Even Pope Francis admits that it was an idol, although not directly of course. In his apology for the theft and submersion of the statues, he said that the statues were displayed “without any idolatrous intentions”. No one would question the idolatrous intentions of someone unless the items in question were, in fact, idols. The Pope’s comment, rather than exonerating him however actually makes what happened even worse. Worse, that is, if you believe St. Thomas Aquinas.
As an offense against the First Commandment, he thought that idolatry, next to heresy is the gravest sin. It is an offense directly against God Himself. Aquinas thought that not all idolatry was equal. He said that the worst kind of idolatry is, using the Pope’s words, idolatry “without any idolatrous intentions.” The Angelic Doctor said “since outward worship is a sign of the inward worship, just as it is a wicked lie to affirm the contrary of what one holds inwardly of the true faith so too is it a wicked falsehood to pay outward worship to anything counter to the sentiments of one’s heart” (ST II-II q.94, a.2). To set up idols without any idolatrous intentions is not only to commit idolatry but to lie as well. Citing St. Augustine’s condemnation of Seneca for setting up idols that he did not believe in, Aquinas condemned the Pope’s position.
St. Thomas makes another interesting connection in his treatment of idolatry. Citing St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans, he mentions how God turns men over to sins against nature as punishment for idolatry. He says that it is a fitting punishment of the sin of idolatry which abuses the order of divine honor that man would sin against nature as a way of suffering from the confusion from abuse of his own nature. Might it be that the refusal of the Church to stand against all of the idolatrous elements of New Age spirituality has been met by gross sins of nature, especially among the clergy? In other words, perhaps the homosexuality that plagues the Church is an effect of idolatry that won’t be rooted out until its cause is also rooted out.
Inculturation?
The Cardinal mentions that this event is simply an attempt at inculturation. He errs however is describing inculturation as a two-way street. The Church needs no outside help as She has been given the fullness of truth. Instead she brings the truth to those who have yet to accept it and explains the truth on terms that are readily understood by her audience. When evangelizing new cultures she may find elements that can be baptized such that they will make the Gospel intelligible. She brings nothing back to the Church except the souls she is saving. Our Lady’s approach (detailed here) to St. Juan Diego and the people of Mexico is a prime example of this. She borrowed elements that were familiar to them, modified them, and used them to point to the true God in her womb. The Church learned nothing from the Aztecs.
A two-way street approach to inculturation is just another word for syncretism. Often masquerading as “ecumenism”, this practice ultimately is about finding creative ways to blend the Church’s doctrines with those of other religions. It thrives on ambiguity and teeters on heresy. The problem is that you end up far away from the truth in a way similar to what Chesterton described when he described syncretism as analogous to a man who says that the world is a rhomboid because some people believe that the world is flat and others round.
It signals a loss of faith, thinking we must compromise to get people to come over to our side. But the truth has a power all its own such that when it is spoken, especially with charity, it is immediately compelling. It is also a loss in faith in anything supernatural. The fact that idols have demons behind them is totally foreign to those of Cardinal Cupich’s ilk.
This is why they find it so incomprehensible that someone would go to the lengths the “vandal” did in attempting to destroy the idol. It is an act of zeal; zeal for God and hatred of demons. As St. John Henry Newman puts it, “zeal consists in a strict attention to His commands—a scrupulousness, vigilance, heartiness, and punctuality, which bears with no reasoning or questioning about them—an intense thirst for the advancement of His glory—a shrinking from the pollution of sin and sinners—an indignation, nay impatience, at witnessing His honor insulted—a quickness of feeling when His name is mentioned, and a jealousy how it is mentioned—a fulness of purpose, an heroic determination to yield Him service at whatever sacrifice of personal feeling—an energetic resolve to push through all difficulties, were they as mountains, when His eye or hand but gives the sign—a carelessness of obloquy, or reproach, or persecution, a forgetfulness of friend and relative, nay, a hatred (so to say) of all that is naturally dear to us, when He says, ‘Follow me.’” It is zeal that destroys idols without destroying the idolaters. It is zeal that seeks to set the idolaters free.