Amazon Synod idols cast in River Tiber today

  • Thread starter Thread starter IanM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is it objectively a mortal sin to steal? Yes - 100%
Is what they did objectively wrong? Yes.
Is what they did subjectively wrong? Only God knows for sure.

If the persons truly felt they were cleaning the Church of blasphemy and idolatry, then the persons broke the 7th Commandment in order to stop priests & bishops from breaking the 1st Commandment.

Do the ends justify the means? No. However, something tells me that the bishops and priests who put these idols in the Church will have more to answer for to God then the young men who removed them.
 
Last edited:
Yes: that’s the reason for the outrage, besides the presence of the pagan image.
 
phil19034 said:
Is it objectively a mortal sin to steal, yes - 100%
Is what they did objectively wrong, yes.
Is what they did subjectively wrong, only God knows for sure.

If the person truly felt they were cleaning the Church of blasphemy and idolatry, then the person broke the 7th Commandment in order to stop priests & bishops from breaking the 1st Commandment.

Do the ends justify the means, no. However, something tells me that the bishops and priests who put these idols in the Church will have more to answer for to God then the young men who removed them.
Click to expand...
A mortal sin requires recognition that one is doing a grave wrong. I don’t think that is necessarily here. They surely knew it was wrong to steal, but if they were to say they rationalized a mitigating reason, I would tend to believe them.

I don’t doubt they think the First Commandment was being broken in their presence. I simply take issue with taking a surreptious route to dealing with it instead of having the courage to speak truth to power that a serious mistake is being made and a scandal, too.
 
Last edited:
The comments on here that are actually focusing on the perceived theft of the idols instead of their destruction is mind boggling. Makes me wonder if they describe Jesus’s actions in the temple as a destruction of property.
 
Anrakyr said:
Its in acts after he leaves Damascus
Click to expand...
You are confusing when Paul had his conversion from persecuting Christians, to becoming an apostle in the Church. After his conversion to Christianity Paul preached vigorously to spread the gospel:

When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah. But when they opposed Paul and became abusive, he shook out his clothes in protest and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent of it. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.”

*Then Paul left the synagogue and went next door to the house of Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized.

One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent. For I am with you, and no one is going to attack and harm you, because I have many people in this city.” So Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.” Acts 18:5-11*
 
Crusader13 said:
The comments on here that are actually focusing on the perceived theft of the idols instead of their destruction is mind boggling. Makes me wonder if they describe Jesus’s actions in the temple as a destruction of property.
Click to expand...
Our Lord had the authority to do what He did…He was asked about it, and He had an answer.
He also didn’t do it on the sly, trying to only get credit from those who would approve. He did it right where those who would object could see it was He who was acting.

It is also He who gave the authority to bind and loose to the BISHOPS, not to every Catholic.

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with objecting when a group of artifacts that included a statue of what is essentially the Athena of the Andes is placed in a Catholic Church. My issue is with dealing with the problem by stealing the offending items. This is not how the saints dealt with problems with the heirarchy. They were direct. The statues could have been covered, but I think it is wrong to take them and throw them in the Tiber and then to look around the world for congratulations from like-minded people while at the same time seeking to avoid dealing with those who actually had the authority to make and reverse the decision. I don’t see that as the “courageous” route. The courageous route is to talk to the heirarchy and show your face.
 
PetraG said:
It is also He who gave the authority to bind and loose to the BISHOPS, not to every Catholic.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you’re saying in general, but bishops have no authority to legitimize veneration of pagan deities: their authority and power is subject to the truths and morals of the faith. They can’t just bind and loose whatever they want.
 
Last edited:
Rubee said:
I agree with what you’re saying in general, but bishops have no authority to legitimize veneration of pagan deities: their authority and power is subject to the truths and morals of the faith.
Click to expand...
Yes. I just want the objections to be made directly to those with the authority to remove the items.
I would not have objected at all if someone came into the church and secretly covered them up with a cloth. That wouldn’t be an offense, although the better route is to cover them and then go to tell those in authority that they were covered because the statues were depictions of pagan deities, not saints, and therefore are not images that belong anywhere in a Catholic church. These gifts could be kept in a museum, but they did not belong in a church.

After all, if the Catholic Church made a gift of our religious items to people of another faith, we would never in a million years dream that it would be an insult if they refused to place our gift in their houses of worship. If they didn’t want them because the items were deemed an offense to their religion, they ought to return them or else at the very least give them some kind of respectful destruction, out of respect for those who gave the gift. If they did that to our religious items, I think we’d accept that as no insult intended to us.
 
Last edited:
As if those were the only options. There is another way.

How about dialogue?

What exactly is wrong with that?

Instead of stealing and destroying something that isn’t yours or do the ends justify the means?

We shouldn’t be angry then if Fundamentalist Baptist’s enter our Churches and smash statues of Our Lady.
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:
It’s the same sort of superstition and ignorance that marks the accusation against Catholics that we worship statues, and that we shouldn’t have icons in our churches. The really ironic part is that many of the loudest voices in this accusation against the opening ceremony are Protestant converts.

I think this is a good teaching opportunity for some Catholics, especially Protestant converts who seem to have a particular misplaced zeal for defending Catholicism from an enemy that isn’t really there. Or, they’ve been deceived by the real enemy
Click to expand...
Ok for starters does it matter if they are worshipping the actual statue or who the statue represents. Either way it’s a false deity and doesn’t belong in the Church.

Second, you’re saying that Catholics have a misplaced zeal for defending the Church from demonic deities or we’re being deceived by the real enemy???

Which is whom exactly???
 
Sarcelle said:
I don’t see zeal.

I see theft and vandalism.
Click to expand...
Actually, I see both, but the end does not justify the means and the first thing you think of to do when you are outraged is not necessarily the best way to deal with the problem.
 
Too oftentimes zeal comes from self-righteous pride which can result in bad fruit, I.e., theft and vandalism.

The best way to combat what one thinks is an evil is a reasoned humility.
 
Aquinas11 said:
If he did do it - he’d be accused of damaging image of traditionalists among Synod critics

If he calls for it to be done and didn’t do it - he’d be accused of hypocrisy

If he doesn’t call for it to be done at all, he’s ignoring Scripture.

What exactly should he have done?
Click to expand...
I’ll ask again: if he wanted it done and was in Rome himself, why didn’t he do it?
 
Beryllos said:
I am surprised that so many “traditional” Catholics including CAF members in this thread are celebrating a theft.
Click to expand...
Moral relativism. The end justifies the means. Stealing is okay for a political message. I am appalled by the hypocrisy I have seen.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
I have no patience for the suggestion that there is room for rebellion within the Church by dissidents who paint themselves as more faithful than the bishops. This is not how the saints dealt with distressing decisions or behaviors by the heirarchy, not even when Popes went off the rails. No, that is the way the Womenpriests talk
Click to expand...
Petra I don’t get this at all. The figures were pagan figures. Or at least let’s assume they were. Of an animalistic religion (I know the word I mean , perhaps someone can correct it for me). Leastways no member of the hierarchy at least had the audacity to say they were of the BVM.

So, pagan figures.

In a Catholic church of all places. A place of worship reserved for the Most High God .

Why should faithful Catholics not be appalled, scandalised, outraged? Driven to act?

Please God I would not desert my heritage and not do exactly the same if pagan idols were placed in my church
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top