Those who follow liturgical celebrations and episcopal ordinations more closely will remember the investiture of the Bishop of Arica, Chile, Moisés Atisha, in which all the bishops in attendance, including the Nuncio, participated in an indigenous pagan “celebration” invoking the spirits of the still non–evangelized Aymara Indians.
At the time, they gave no explanation about that celebration. Many naive people understood it as an “ecumenical opening” in relation to peoples still mired in pagan ignorance.
However, that “opening” is not really an “ecumenical” strategy to convert indigenous peoples, but precisely the opposite. It is about “converting” a growing number of members of the Catholic hierarchy to the worldview of “Pachamama” or “Mother Earth.”
So as not to tire our reader with an overwhelming repetition of such events, including the episode in Argentina with Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi himself, former President of the Pontifical Council for Culture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCtMAH0KTmU), we will only report on a few more recent ones.
As the reader will be able to verify, this repetition without any explanation confirms the thesis of a necessary “conversion” of Catholics to “Pachamama” by which they will also reject the evangelization that Catholic missionaries have carried out from the discovery of America until recent times.
The latest of these “Pachamama-like liturgies” was officiated last week by the Bishops of Brazil gathered around Repam (Pan-Amazon Ecclesial Network) after deliberating about the topics that the Synod on the Amazon, to be held in Rome this coming October, will deal with. As reported by the Italian portal “La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana” under the title “Amazonia, the Bishops Turn to Indigenous Mysticism,” the aforementioned meeting ended “with a clearly defined ceremony of ‘indigenous mysticism’, increasing concern about the Church’s pantheist and indigenist drift, which contradicts the traditional teachings related to inculturation.”
In Chile, following in the footsteps of the bishops’ pachamamic ceremonies, Conferre (association of Chile’s Men and Women Religious) recently unveiled an “ecumenical” initiative to care for “Creation” under the bombastic title of “Interreligious and Spiritual Alliance for the Climate in the Face of COP 25.”
The inaugural act of the aforementioned Alliance took place at the headquarters of a United Nations-funded agency and ended with the signing of those present to “commit themselves” at the next COP25 meeting (25th Summit of the Countries Party to the Climate Change Agreement), which will be held next December in Santiago.
Obviously, they will not be “committing themselves” with the “official” meeting, which they already see as lukewarm in the defense of the Planet, but with the “alternative” encounter that will run parallel to it.
As could be expected, the signatories ended their meeting with a ceremony to “Pachamama”, the “excluded and trampled one” by the modern economy’s lust for profit. (see https://www.conferre.cl/acuerdo-alianza-interreligiosa-y-espiritual-por-el-clima/)
The Conferre news item also informs that, “Among the [participating] organizations are the Chilean Association of Interreligious Dialogue for Development, the Ecumenical Coalition for the Care of Creation, the Amerindian network, the Conference of Religious of Chile, the Latin American Council of Churches, the Franciscan Family, the Claretians, but also evangelical and Baptist organizations, associations of Muslims and Buddhists.”
It is rather curious to see such a diverse conglomerate of religious denominations defending together something that not everyone agrees on: “Creation.” Indeed, if you speak of “Creation” you must accept the idea of a “Creator”, since the Artist pre-exists his work, is superior to it, and transcends it. This is the Catholic concept of Creator.
For pagan cults, including indigenous ones, there is no “creation” but an initial “energy” of which we are all part, in complete ontological equality. Obviously, if there is no “creation” there is no “creator.” Therefore, beginning with the name, nothing is common among them.
However, for the organizers, this is merely a logical reasoning, and as good indigenists they reject logic, reasoning, and theology, which are something for “Pharisees.”
Finally, at the ceremony in question it was announced that in the COP25 sector a “tent” will be installed in which they will hold events and ceremonies to Pachamama for 24 hours during the entire duration of the Summit.
A reader unaccustomed to this new theology may wonder why the aforementioned ceremonies will not take place in a church, for example in that of the Franciscans, since the Franciscan Province is participating in this initiative.
The answer is very simple. The tent is precarious, in direct contact with the earth, and built poorly: exactly the temporal attributes the neo theologians seek to impose.
Rejection of private initiative and praise of poverty
Indeed, anyone who thinks that these interreligious ceremonies are limited to invocations without political or economic consequences, mere declarations of good intentions for the preservation of the environment, is seriously mistaken.
Quite the contrary. These men religious, who shamelessly criticize old-style missionaries, take up the role of apostles full of zeal to care for the Earth, which they see as Mother and vital energy of all living beings.
Consequently, they can only praise the life of poverty and total communitarianism in which some of the most backward indigenous peoples live, especially in the Amazon area. In their view, this type of social and economic organization in which everyone “works” in common and only take what they strictly need for survival, is the ideal model for the “care of Creation.”
It necessarily follows from the previous premise that private initiative, individual property, and the desire to participate in social and economic progress are nothing but “curses” of capitalist society that must be eliminated.
This “elimination” must logically have two consecutive steps.
The first is to convince indigenous peoples not to prosper but to remain in the poverty in which they live. To achieve this goal, the Indians must become convinced that any agricultural, commercial or urban initiative will cause them to lose their identity and “ancestral” customs, something like “stealing their spirits.”
The second is to convince non-indigenous people that if the production model and “profit motive” that pollute the Planet are not changed they will cause its destruction.
By assuming this catastrophic view of technological advances as a religious truth, ecclesiastics who adhere to this ecological theology condemn all mining, forestry, and agricultural and commercial enterprises.
For the same reasons, what is bad for the areas where indigenous peoples are located is bad for the rest of the world. Hence, those who propose the primitive community of the most backward peoples as an ideal of life, condemn “sine qua non” all those who defend private property.
This condemnatory vision of progress and the exaltation of peoples without private property suggests that this neo-theology is nothing but a rehashed version of old communism.