Whatever that was, it wasn’t a ‘stunt’ (Jiffy Pachamama Removal Service)

In the Light of the Law ^ | Oct 22, 2019 | Edward Peters

[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.

[DoodleBob]

Well, skipping the theft bit...

...if we want to discuss "better" ways of dealing with these horrible statues vs a bath, I have several ideas: carving them into proper Marian statues and returning them while burning the whittle, turning them into a box for people to deposit donations for the poor, or as a scraper for country Churches' parisohners to remove refuse like cow dung from their shoes before entering the Church.

THOSE choices would likely be MORE effective because these modern guys can handle being called names and being subjected to Dubia etc....but they don't like to be ridiculed. Remember how well this was received?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh, Bullshirt x 3. You'd pretty much have to be a hallucinating paranoid schizophrenic, a person with global cognitive and developmental delays, or an ignorant sectarian critic, to think that people pray "to" statues.

No more than wife 2000 miles distant from her deployed soldier husband, kisses the husband's photo and says "I miss you, darling" because she thinks the photo "is" him, or it "hears" her.

Maybe Skype is a different story.

I have heard of a certain kind of devotee putting their hands on their TV screen to pick up some Pentecostal juju from a supposed god-empowered entrepreneur, but there are idiots in every denomination.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Executioner" is a bit tendentious.

"Custodian" is a better word. Custodians do take out the rash.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I’m interested in that picture but it didn’t come through. Could you check to see if there was some error in the way you formatted it, and try it again?

[Campion]

And no one prayed to the Ark of the Covenant either

In the very next post, you say:

IF one bows before, pray to the image, relies upon the image, etc...it's an idol.

You need to acquaint yourself a little better with what the Ark of the Covenant was and how it was treated. It was considered to be the holiest object on earth, and the room in which it was kept was so holy that only one man could enter it, and that only one day a year. When he did, he burnt incense and prostrated himself before it according to a very specific ritual from which he was not permitted to depart at all. The Jews considered that the very presence of God on earth, the "shekinah" or "glory cloud," rested on top of it. By your wackadoodle definition, that makes it an idol times about 20.

unlike Roman Catholics and their idols they claim to be Mary.

That sounds a lot like calumny to me. I know a lot of Catholics, and I don't know any who pray to images or think that an image of Mary is really Mary.

[Roman_War_Criminal]

veneration and idol worship... How many commandments do you break in one act here?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ha, I thought that was da bomb! Translation:

“Oy Frankie, you have emasculated Congregations, suspended priests, decapitated the Order of Malta and the Franciscans of the Immaculate, ignored Cardinals...But where is your mercy?

[ebb tide]

See what happens when you don’t caucus a thread.

They come crawling out of their dark crevices like cockroaches.

[Campion]

Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing

As any Jew can explain to you, the problem is not with "making a graven thing," but with making an image of a false god.

Which is why, based at least on my discussions with them, they have no problem with Catholics having images of Mary, or St. Francis, or St. Therese of Lisieux ... because we don't believe any of them to be God, or "gods", or anything like that.

They have a big problem with Catholic images of Jesus, precisely because we do consider him to be God. But so do you.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh wait-— thanks -—the picture just became visible on my screen. Was it a problem on your end, or is it that my old ‘puter is getting as old and slow as I am?

[Campion]

I don't know, but if you're judging people wrongly, you're breaking the commandment against bearing false witness.

Funny how Protestants claim "all sins are equally bad" which would make *your* bearing false witness just as bad as *my* idolatry, wouldn't it?

[MHGinTN]

The Apostles didn’t teach the ‘veneration’ of the Mother of Jesus either, but tradition inserts the idols of Mary in most Catholic churches.

[ealgeone]

You need to acquaint yourself a little better with what the Ark of the Covenant was and how it was treated. It was considered to be the holiest object on earth, and the room in which it was kept was so holy that only one man could enter it, and that only one day a year. When he did, he burnt incense and prostrated himself before it according to a very specific ritual from which he was not permitted to depart at all. The Jews considered that the very presence of God on earth, the "shekinah" or "glory cloud," rested on top of it. By your wackadoodle definition, that makes it an idol times about 20.

They weren't praying to the ark however. They didn't invoke the name of the ark as Roman Catholics invoke prayers to Mary, etc.

>>unlike Roman Catholics and their idols they claim to be Mary.<<

That sounds a lot like calumny to me. I know a lot of Catholics, and I don't know any who pray to images or think that an image of Mary is really Mary.

Of course no RC is going to admit this idolatry. Ya'll have been told it's "ok".

[ealgeone]

Not sure how the post is wrong. All pictures of RCs bowing before idols of Mary.

[Campion]

Appeal to Scripture as authority and not tradition - noted.

Scripture is tradition; that part of tradition that was committed to writing in Apostolic times.

[Campion]

The Apostles didn’t teach the ‘veneration’ of the Mother of Jesus either

Assumes facts not in evidence. We know that prayers addressed to Mary appear as early as the 2nd century.

idols of Mary

An idol is an image of a false god, which Mary is not.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Scripture is tradition

Nah.

Scripture is inspired and is the Words of God.

There are no inspired "traditions" not found in Scripture.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

You'd pretty much have to be a hallucinating paranoid schizophrenic, a person with global cognitive and developmental delays, or an ignorant sectarian critic, to think that people pray "to" statues.

Sorry but you can't prove it.

That is just an assertion.

Stop criticizing Catholics. The hate has to stop!

[Campion]

They weren't praying to the ark however.

You said bowing was sufficient. According to you guys, bowing in front of an image is sufficient to make one an idolater; that's what that picture a few posts above shows. By your own definition, the High Priest in the Old Covenant was commanded by God to commit idolatry.

Make up your mind.