Posted on 10/22/2019 1:32:11 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
A few days ago men removed some female figurines (centerpieces for several weird ceremonies in Rome the last few weeks) from a church and tossed them into the Tiber River. Vatican spokesman Paolo Ruffini dismissed the act as a “stunt”. Regardless of how one assess this act, however, I think it not accurate to describe it as a mere “stunt”.
A “stunt” is a gesture that calls attention to a problem but does not itself solve the problem. For example, chaining oneself to a lamppost could call attention to the plight of the unjustly imprisoned but does not itself free the imprisoned. Standing on the corner with one’s mouth duct-taped might call attention to the suffering of the voiceless but does not itself give them a voice. Such acts are stunts, good stunts or bad, but in the end, stunts. What the Tiber men did was different.
Removing these figures from a church and tossing them into the Tiber does not simply call attention to the problem of setting up such objects in a church it also removes the statues from the church and thus solves the problem of having them set up in a sacred place. Such an act, good act or bad, is more than a “stunt”, it is form of direct action against a problem.
The Vatican having ruled out the possibility that the nude statues might represent the Virgin Mary or ‘Our Lady of the Amazon’, it is disputed whether the figurines portray the Amazon pagan goddess Pachamama or (at least per a handful of Vaticanisti) merely some vague “life force”. It is not for me to opine on who or what the objects actually represent and if someone wants to argue that chanting to and bowing before figurines of naked women does not count as worshiping strange gods, well, who am I to say?
But a fuller assessment of the act of these two men does not rest solely on whether the figures are demonic or merely faddish. Canon 1210, addressing the dignity of Catholic holy places in general, states: “Only those things which serve the exercise or promotion of worship, piety, or religion are permitted in a sacred place; anything not consonant with the holiness of the place is forbidden…” And Canon 1220 § 1, addressing churches specifically, states: “All those responsible are to take care that in churches such cleanliness and beauty are preserved as befit a house of God and that whatever is inappropriate to the holiness of the place is excluded.”
Theses canons, in my view, do not simply preclude the placement of obviously demonic or pagan artifacts in our churches, but rather, require those in charge of sacred places to set up objects that are positively conducive to Christian prayer and worship. If, as the Congregation for Divine worship stated in 1987(*), the mere fact that that some music is admittedly beautiful does not justify its performance in churches, then all the more so should church authorities be on guard against setting up objects widely and reasonably seen as representing pagan deities in Catholic sacred spaces. I suggest (and more to the point, the Code of Canon Law understands in, say, Canon 214), that the faithful have the right to trust that what they see in Catholic sacred places is actually there in service to the sacred and is not simply a gesture toward some form of political correctness or the latest cause du jour, to say nothing of it possibly being simply evil. Ignoring concerns about the proper use of sacred space with a shrug and a ‘we don’t really know what it is’ is to ignore the positive duties that Church leadership owes to the faithful.
As a man of law I am also a man of order and, as a rule, I hold that removing objects from private property is not an act of good order. But then, neither is setting up idols (whether to demons or to secular causes) in Catholic churches an act of good order. Over time the disregard of law by those in charge eventually brings about disregard of law by those subject to it. And that in turn can result in acts that are much more than mere “stunts”.
* See Cong. for Divine Worship (Mayer), excerpt from let. “Qua in mentem quaedam normae quoad ‘Concerti nelle chiesa’ revocantur” (05 nov 1987), Communicationes 19 (1987) 179-181.
Agreed...They faithfully obeyed the First Commandment: “I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.” — Baltimore Catechism
They saw it as their duty to do what their priest apparently would not...
I have an idea that in the olden days, the people of the village expressed disapproval in ways that provoked laughter.
.........................
They are all our wonderful statues, used in only veneration, passed down from our head Peter.
As such, they are part of sacred tradition for us Catholics.
I think we even have a fertility goddess saint we can pray directly to.
I like the way you think, DesertRhino!
Exactly. But you’re using the faculty of reason. An unfair tactic! This is the FR Religion Forum!
And no one prayed to the Ark of the Covenant either unlike Roman Catholics and their idols they claim to be Mary.
IF one bows before, pray to the image, relies upon the image, etc...it's an idol.
Rome has approved a lot things that are non-scriptural.
He said that "property" literally means what is "proper" to a person, what he possesses particularly and has the legitimate use of. Inasmuch as there is no legitimate use for a suction abortion machine, it is not --- in the sense used in moral theology ---"property" at all.
He said that like a strategic nuclear weapon, an abortion machine has no legitimate use and has no right to exist --- the possible exception being, as a display in a museum of crimes against God and humanity.
The application to, say, pornography (an example used by Campion) is pretty direct. If someone put a pornographic magazine on a Catholic altar, we would expect any Catholic to remove it and destroy it, not inquire into who was the owner and would he please come fetch it and display it elsewhere.
The application to the Pachamama idol is perhaps not quite so exact, but
(1) It functions in a Church setting as a sacrilege, a violation of the First and most important commandment, and
(2) Pachamama is apparently now --- in 21st century --- the patroness of the Andean/Amazon cocaine industry, just as "Santa Muerte" is patroness of the Mexican drug cartels.
Doodlebob, if you found a Santa Muerte diabolical icon befouling a Catholic sanctuary, would you think obligatory to leave it in the sanctuary while the proper owner was located?
Much, much cuter than Pachamama!
I think a better way -— at least, a more exactly Biblical way-— might have been burning them while chanting the Dies Irae -— then sweeping out the ashes and reconsecrating the church
I understand where you are coming from, but this isn’t a thread for Catholic vs Protestant scriptural arguments. At least for me, this is celebrating fellow Christians fighting the rot. I don’t have to agree with those guys 100% doctrinally to stand beside them as they throw idols into the river.
I want to see more of this in all Christian denominations.
“I am a strong believer in the sanctity of private property. Thus as much as I empathize with and may be inclined to cheer on this act, theft is theft”
Then I guess Jesus should have been arrested for destroying private property when he cleared the temple. After all HE didn’t own those tables and that money.
You should worry more about the sanctity of the church than the so called “sanctity” of private property. Where do you draw the line? What if the church bought and paid for Maplethorpe photos to put in the sanctuary. Would you shrug and say “private property, leave it alone”?
That's why I'm writing against the idolatry in Roman Catholicism.
There is a difference.
............
PLEASE, these are not idols. They are art to help us worship! They are part of tradition and sanctified by being incorporated into the church!
I agree with your appeal to Scripture as THE authority.
.............
I may be inclined to take that icon to the Parish Priest, who is the just "keeper" of the Church, for him to deal with it (hopefully) properly by destroying it. If that Priest gives that icon a cheery two-thumbs up, then I may be inclined to unleash a massive social media AND print media blitz that exposes this Priest's actions.
Believe me, I get that these are difficult times and the current leaders are not in synch with what is proper, moral teaching. I am all for calling out these guys and blasting them in the public square 24/7 until their teeth chatter. But as soon as I (or any other wrench) take it upon myself to be the judge, jury, and executioner of what constitutes "appropriate property" in any Church, then surely Aquinas has lost and the rabble have won.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.