The Pachamama Controversy Straight from a Local Priest (Translation Inside)

Yes, I know. There is so much infighting over the Pachamama idols (yes, I'm calling them idols). Yes, I'm also sticking to the "Yo (Pacha)mama..." joke I made on Twitter earlier this week. Having said that, I'm not here to fight anyone. I know what the arguments are on both sides. I'm read and seen them. There is, however, something I want to add to the discussion... because we're clearly all adult enough to have civil discussions, right? Asking too much? Well, here's hoping a good dialogue can come of it.

I've translated the bold parts of a post by Fr. Nelson Medina  -- from Spanish into English -- on why the Pachamama idols are *not* part of the Amazonian Catholic culture. Or, at least, not the orthodox part or any part that he's witnessed. I did not translate the entire thing because I have no permission to do so (although, if Fr. Nelson lets me, I'd be more than happy to do it).

And, if you need some background information on Fr. Nelson: He's Colombian. He's from the area and has a lot of experience in this area (Amazon). He knows what he's talking about because he's lived and experienced it himself.

This is taken directly from his website. Again, I've mostly translated the bold parts, though I've added more of what he wrote in parenthesis to give the bold part context. I have not added any opinions of my own to this. I did add words to the 5th quote in parenthesis for the sake of context. Otherwise, all Fr. Nelson's words.

“I must say that the image that was taken to Rome is not representative of the Colombian Amazon nor, I believe, anywhere in the Amazon.”

“Such image does NOT represent anything ‘ancestral’ of Amazonian culture.”

“(That person or group of people) want (others) to think that they are representatives or spokespersons of the indigenous so that any attack on the image or that alleged “Amazonian” spirituality is an attack on the indigenous.” 

“Whose idea was it to carve that image and give it the use we’re now learning, with the complicity or negligence of numerous authorities inside and outside the Vatican?"

“Taking it (image/idols) to that sacred site (Roman church) can only mean that it is considered to have religious significance.”

“(You can say that image represents fertility, woman, or life. But then the question becomes:) does our faith worship fertility, woman, or life?”

“(There is even more to ask: what other representations do we know of fertility? Since ancient times, pregnant women, women with broad hips and erect phalluses have been the representation of fertility in cultures that have not received the Gospel within them. So, what else does this Synod bring? The procession of the phallus? And where are they going to leave it?) Is that the best way to serve Amazonian cultures, which have as much right as we do to receive the entire Gospel in all its purity?”

Citing St. John Henry Newman on how pagan rituals have been sanctified by the adaption of/by the Church:
“(What Newman does not say, no doubt about the conciseness of his text, and what Tornielli voluntarily omits, is simple and crucial, and is summed up in a question:) What does the Church do with the pagan elements BEFORE incorporating them into its expression of Faith, whether it be doctrine or liturgy? (Examples: The Christians of that time, did they take the beautiful statues of Aphrodite and say, ‘Let us celebrate human love,’ and then put them in their basilicas? Did they take the clothes of the Romans and said without more: ‘this is how our priests will dress’?)”

“(The Christian dynamic is very different, and St. Augustine explained it well: ‘Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum.’) It is the integration into Christian preaching, when it is possible and logical… once it acquires a different sense of the pagan sense, that it is used in the Church. (And there is something interesting with which we can conclude: in Newman's long list there is not a single case of human images. Newman was interested in how some acts, stories or objects, relatively neutral in themselves, can be transformed into their meaning and used in the Church. The images designed for the Amazonian Synod have nothing of that neutrality:) celebrating ‘life’ without worshiping God, the only Creator, is simple paganism. (And with the pagan idols, whether it be the golden calf or the merchant’s money in the temple of Jerusalem, firm and clear actions are needed ... that can reach all the way to the Tiber.”

There you have it. Again, if I get Fr. Nelson's permission, I can translate the whole thing. You can run the post through Google translate although some parts don't translate as well.

That's all I'm going to bring into this dialogue because I refuse to get involved in arguments.

I hope y'all have a great weekend and have a blessed Sunday tomorrow.

As always, thanks for reading and God bless!