Fr. Mitch Pacwa SJ of EWTN Condemns the Pachamama Idol

  • Thread starter Thread starter yankeesouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This question a little off topic.
Do Popes ever publicly retract or apologize for their personal actions or inactions?
I know Popes have apologized for the actions of many within the Church at various times.
 
St. Peter did.

Pius II famously did so in the brief “In Minoribus,” but that was specifically about his actions and errors before becoming Pope, summed up in his famous plea, “reject Aeneas, accept Pius” (Aeneas Piccolomini was his given name). His youth had been rather immoral, and he later had supported the heresy of concilliarism and a schismatic council, and even participated in a conclave to elect an anti-Pope (Amadeaus of Savoy, aka Felix V). As Pope, however, he issued a formal retraction and ended up having one of the more austere papacies of the renaissance.

Pope Francis wrote the following concerning his offensive handling of the Chilean abuse situation:
As for my own responsibility, I acknowledge, and I want you to faithfully convey it that way, that I have made serious mistakes in the assessment and perception of the situation, especially because of the lack of truthful and balanced information. Right now I ask forgiveness from all those I offended and I hope to be able to do so personally, in the coming weeks, in the meetings I will have with representatives of the people who were interviewed."
Click to expand...
www.catholicnewsagency.com

Full text of Pope Francis' letter to bishops of Chile on sex abuse crisis

In a letter addressed to Chile's bishops, Pope Francis admitted to making “serious mistakes” in handling the nation's massive sex abuse crisis and asked for forgiveness. The pope summoned Chile’s bishops to Rome to address the issue, and invited victims to meet with him as well.
www.catholicnewsagency.com www.catholicnewsagency.com

Pope Benedict gave a quasi-apology to offended Muslims after his famous Regensburg address, but it was more of a “I’m sorry you reacted that way; the quote you are reacting to was from someone else and doesn’t express my personal thoughts.”

I can’t think of any other off the top of my head.

EDIT: according the article below (which is mostly about apologies for things other people did), Benedict XVI also did so after some fallout concerning one of the SSPX bishops, after he lifted the excommunications:

https://cruxnow.com/news-analysis/2...popes-pioneer-new-dogma-of-papal-fallibility/
 
Last edited:
Thank you Father Pacwa.

I find it interesting when he mentioned that the idols were in a Carmelite Catholic church, and Mount Carmel being where Elijah in the OT fought against the idols of baal.
 
So when a priest (and he is not alone among hierarchy) publicly makes these accusations and condemns the actions of fellow Catholics (including the Pope) and no authority (including the Pope) admonishes or disciplines him, what does that mean?

I mean, if these Catholics are participating in something Holy and reverent, then Fr. Mitch is seriously out of line, and must be corrected/disciplined. But if he is not corrected, then the practice and ceremonial prayers must be corrected!

We cannot have division like this. Its harmful to not confront the issue.

The Pope cannot be Passive Aggressive.

“The see of Peter not only does not clarify the confusion and correct the error, but appears to favor the confusion, which daily increases.”

-Cardinal Raymond Burke
 
Last edited:
It depends.

Is it a genuine apology, or is it an attempt to appear nice and gain favor?

If I do something wrong, and a whole group criticizes, and so I apologize to gain friendship with the group, is that cool?

Or if I do something wrong, and am convicted, and say sorry, even if I lose friendship, is that cool?
 
Last edited:
Ammi said:
The Pope cannot be Passive Aggressive.

“ The see of Peter not only does not clarify the confusion and correct the error, but appears to favor the confusion, which daily increases. ”
  • Cardinal Raymond Burke
Click to expand...
The pope in his role as shepherd needs to be a leader of his flock. In this case, a clear explanation is what is required.
 
Nothing is “required” from the Pope.

A small segment of the faithful- very small- may want to hear the Pope make a statement but he is under no obligation to respond.
 
Last edited:
There is technically no obligation for the pope to do anything. He can lay in bed all day and eat Doritos if he wants. But the fact is that there is a lot of confusion as a result of what he has allowed to happen, and if he cares about the unity of the church then he should clear it up. The amount of people that are concerned is significant enough that several bishops have made public comments. But as you said he isn’t obligated to care.
 
Burke, Meuller, and Schneider have made statements.

Oh, Vigano too. . . .
 
Last edited:
Babaganoush said:
There is technically no obligation for the pope to do anything. He can lay in bed all day and eat Doritos if he wants. But the fact is that there is a lot of confusion as a result of what he has allowed to happen, and if he cares about the unity of the church then he should clear it up. The amount of people that are concerned is significant enough that several bishops have made public comments. But as you said he isn’t obligated to care.
Click to expand...
That is the heart of the matter. Why does he remain passive? A caring leader addresses concerns. A caring Bishop of Rome, addresses serious concerns causing scandal in a formal manner (e.g. "… as Bishop of Rome, and from the Chair of St Peter, I declare to the whole Church… " )

He has this capability, but he doesnt assume the duty, and unless he does, his opinions have no more weight than his fellow Bishops.

Why have a chief Bishop, if he doesnt assume his role as chief? Why continue disagreements among clergy? Settle the matter formally!
 
Last edited:
Donkey said:
This question a little off topic.
Do Popes ever publicly retract or apologize for their personal actions or inactions?
I know Popes have apologized for the actions of many within the Church at various times.
Click to expand...
Pope St Marcellinus

During his papacy he offered incense to idols during the Roman persecution and felt so bad that he abdicated the papacy. After doing intense penance and showing huge remorse he approached the Roman synod and asked for forgiveness for his actions. The Roman synod was so moved by his genuine sorrow that he was re-elected as pope again and died a saint.
 
Last edited:
It’s good to see Fr. Mitch upholding the public image of the Jesuits. I know there are a lot of solid Jesuits out there but we always seem to hear the most about the ones pushing the social justice envelope. It’s not that I think that’s always a bad thing, but it does a disservice to the order by making it look like a bunch of radicals all the time. Fr. Mitch is more like my classic image of what a learned Jesuit should be. And that includes the “Knock it off, we’re not stupid” directness. Heaven knows they used that approach enough in dealing with high school and college students back in my day.
 
Last edited:
But if Pope Francis spoke out and confirmed that this was an actual idol and that even if the intent was not there, the scandal in seeing what APPEARED to be idolatry was such that he needed to make it clear that pachamama was not, and could not ever be, considered to be the Christian God, a Christian saint, or in any way equivalent to God, can you imagine the uproar?

“21st century colonialism rules the Vatican!”
“Nobody expects the Brazilian Inquisition–until now!”
“Pope seeks to forcibly deny indigenous people their cultural religious practices --sneers at them, derides them. . .insists on Christianity or else!”

In this atheistic-controlled age, those would be the LEAST of the headlines.
 
Babaganoush said:
There is technically no obligation for the pope to do anything. He can lay in bed all day and eat Doritos if he wants. But the fact is that there is a lot of confusion as a result of what he has allowed to happen, and if he cares about the unity of the church then he should clear it up. The amount of people that are concerned is significant enough that several bishops have made public comments. But as you said he isn’t obligated to care.
Click to expand...
This is untrue. The papacy is not his plaything to do with or not do with as he pleases. He has a job description (cf. Luke 22:32; John 21:15-17) and he has a strict obligation–to both his Master and those he serves–to fulfill it or he will be punished severely (cf. Luke 12:41-48).

Ultimately, the whole point of the papacy is to serve the unity of the Church in faith and charity (cf. First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus). Where his actions or negligence would undermine it, there he has failed to live up to those obligations.

This is why even great saints (e.g. St. Robert Bellarmine) feared becoming Pope, because of its grave and heavy obligations.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense. The Pope has FAR more obligations than any Catholic. Under divine and moral law if nothing else…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top