Pope Francis and the Pachamama controversy; Decoding the meaning of Worship

During his pontificate, Pope Francis was accused of a number of heretical acts; one of which was the “Pachamama” controversy. A critical analysis of the entire saga suggests that the whole issue was a smear campaign that started before the event in question and was blown out of proportion by the conservative right; the “dubia” cardinals; Raymond Burke, Walter BrandMuller, and Gerhard Muller and Bishop Schneider, and prominent conservative media and media personalities like lifesite news, the Catholic Register, and Dr. Taylor Marshall among others. An issue described by Michael Lofton as an artificial scandal

At the heart of the scandal were accusations of idol worship. It is important to state that what happened at the Vatican was far from anything that should be interpreted as an act of worship. Not even an act of veneration was performed on the image which was identified as our lady of the Amazon. Nevertheless, also due to the media hype the presence of the statue given the artificial scandal manufactured around it gave many good people the impression of an act of worship.

According to the Oxford language dictionary worship is “the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity”. There is a counter ‘unofficial’ definition of worship based on Deuteronomy 5:8-9 which specifically mentions “making” and “bowing down”. This definition of worship is widely adopted by our evangelical brothers and sisters and is the primary basis on which accusations of worship of the “Pachamama” are based. 

The Oxford language dictionary definition of worship renders it as an act which belongs to the category of sentiments. It is reinforced by such practices like “praise and worship” characterized by singing of songs first in the category of lively songs followed by deep emotional sentimental songs which “lift” up the heart in “worship” of God. The definition based on Deuteronomy, with its emphasis on ‘making’ and ‘bowing’ down is also grossly insufficient even based on textual analysis alone. If the sentence is to make sense, the making, the bowing down, and the worshiping must all exist at the same time. Making alone is not sufficient, neither is making and bowing alone. I will not explore this further as there is sufficient volume of apologetics that deal the issue of statues and bowing down.

Historically, worship was an active task, one that was associated with the good and that was essential in achieving that good as opposed to an act belonging to the category of the sentiments. For some of us who still possess the vestiges of non-christianised worship from our ancestors five to six generations ago; Worship was a practical thing, mediated by sacrificial animals and animated by divine invocations. It was done for practical purposes, for the good of the community, for health and fertility, in supplications for rain, safety, food and victory in war, in thanksgiving for a good harvest, and for atonement of sins. Worship was an act whose consequences animated our communities positively when done rightly and negatively when not done properly. It was strictly bound to the common good and deemed essential for that good. It was an act which recognized the supremacy of the divine and our human limitations and dependency on the divine will. For our ancestors, the goal of worship was to keep the divine happy with us. Thus it was imperative to do all that the divine ordained because the entire livelihood of the community depended on the divine mood.

The entire history of the Jews as written in the Old Testament communicates this fact in a singular manner. That when Israel obeyed all that God said, they prospered and lived in peace but when they disobeyed they suffered misery. It is summarised in Joshua 2: 10-17. But described in detail in all the subsequent chapters of the book of Judges and ultimately in the entire old testament. The Prophet Isaiah (Is 42:24-25) laments that Israel suffers because of her disobedience to the divine command. 

In the context of all of this, if we are to re-define worship. We could say to worship is to do all that the divine commands. This is how the concept of ‘worship’ first appears in the book of Genesis with Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac in obedience to God even while it might go against his sentiment. We can infer this definition in the defiance of Representative Marjorie Taylor Green in which she maintains in respect to the “Epstein Files” that she does not “worship” Trump. That she is bound first to do that which she believes is commanded by God (what is right) over doing what Trump wants her to do. 

While acts of worship can be driven by fear of divine rage and punishment, we can also infer that worship is ultimately driven by trust in the divine since Worship is above all done so that the good might be achieved. Worship requires trust that the divine command will bring us to realize the good we desire in a way we can’t fully explain yet. In some stories of the Bible, this divine trust is obvious and even imperative. For example in their liberation and miraculous crossing of the red sea, the Israelites are given sufficient reason to trust in the power of God. We see that when commanding Israel to Worship God alone, Moses reminds them of this reason (Ex 20: 2) and obligation of Trust in God who has rescued them with a mighty hand. We can also infer that Adam, having been given so much, has an obligation to trust God as opposed to the serpent. The ultimate worship as an act of trust is shown in the passion of Christ in the garden of Gethsemane (see Matt 26:39-42). We can in summary define Worship as “an act of obedience and trust in the divine command” or in the active sense; “to do what the divine has ordered because we trust the divine ”.

We can see then, that our current “sentiment” based definition of worship is a poor and even fallacious caricature of what worship really is. A definition that impoverishes the concept of worship.

We can in part blame the transition of the meaning of the word worship from its practical aspect to its sentimental counterpart to the success of Christianity and the sacrifice of Jesus (the ultimate Sacrificial lamb) which ended the old practice of worship mediated by sacrificial animals. But we can also see the origins of the poverty of our current definitions of worship in the current belief in science as being capable of providing all remedies and explanations, many of which were previously ascribed only to the divine. This ‘modern’ world view destroyed the once prevalent cause-effect relationship between worship and the good. That is caused people to stop perceiving that good came from worshiping God and bad from failure to worship him.

In the context of this new definition, and in the context of the New Testament, we can define Worship as doing that which Christ asked us to do. This includes; the breaking of bread (the sacrifice of the mass) (Lk 22:19, 1 Cor 11:26-32), evangelisation (Mk 16:15), and keeping the commands (Mk 5:17, Mk 10:17-22). The breaking of bread is significant because it also signifies the ultimate sacrificial worship of God by Jesus which also enables us to Worship God; by obtaining for us the grace to do that which God commands. In the context of the Church (which is the foundation of Truth 1 Tim 3:15), worshiping God means doing all the Church commands1. At the individual level worshiping means doing all that God asks of us to do as guided by the Holy Spirit. We can refer here to the advice of St Paul who reminds us to let our worship be our holy and perfect lives (Rm 12:1). We can say therefore that all actions aligned with the good performed in the vocations which God has called each of us constitutes acts of worship. The Priest and Bishop worship God in executing their office. The teacher, in teaching, the cantor in his praise of God, and the cleaner in his labor.  Each in the state that God has called them and that the Holy Spirit has permitted them to understand.

When we revisit the issue of the “Pachamama” and idol worship in general. We can see that strictly speaking idol worship is impossible since idols are incapable of giving commands. When people bow down to idols or “worship” them, it is done because of the entity who has commanded that action. A judgment of worship must therefore examine that command, its intent, purpose and its end. There are many cultures where bowing down or kneeling is an act of reverence rather than Worship. In my culture for example it is not uncommon to find two women kneeling before each other while exchanging greetings for an extended period of time. 

The “Pachamama” scandal was an artificial scandal which did not involve anything close to the meaning of worship. But even in the case that it had involved acts proximate to worship such as bowing or kneeling, a judgment of worship demanded a thorough analysis of the circumstances and intent of those who could have ordered such an act since only in those circumstances could a judgment of worship be made.

  1. The commandments of the Church; to attend mass on Sundays and Holy days of obligation, receive the sacraments; and Holy Communion and Confession at least once a year, fast and abstain on days of fasting and abstinence unless exceptions permit. ↩︎

Why I am abandoning traditional search engines.

When Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT were first released, I experimented with bard and then gemini for a while; I noted some limitations but was impressed by its capabilities. But that use led me to refer to the Apostle’s creed as the Nicene creed for a significant amount of time. It was something which caused me embarrassment upon discovering. LLMs are especially bad because they have subtle lies. Outright lies are easy to detect. Subtle lies just slip under. After that incident, I stopped using LLMs.

Unfortunately LLMs migrated into my regular search, giving me really impressive, confident, irresistible and ‘useful’ summaries. It came first to Google Search and Bing. Then I migrated to Brave Search only occasionally checking Google for references. After  a while, Brave Search also introduced Leo, spewing out beautiful summaries of what potentially does not exist, full with references. I felt angry and helpless. I tried to ignore the summaries but that did not seem to work. Then I tried turning it off. But I don’t know what happened. The LLM summaries just kept coming my way. It’s just too tempting, like a beautiful woman begging to flirt with you. 

In the end, I started getting complacent, peeping into the AI summaries every so far often. One day, I searched for “when did the pillar of cloud leading the Jew disappear”. Behold there was a beautiful summary, almost relieving. But then, I decided to double check the results and I became angry. The answer to this question can be inferred from the fact that the pillar of cloud and fire was the primary campus for the Jews in the desert. When they entered the promised land, they would obviously not need the pillar of cloud. And what I needed was to find a Bible verse that made this reference to the end of this pillar of cloud and dust. And I got a beautiful summary (see image), complete with Bible quotations and references. 

To summarise for you the result of my double checking; the basic premise of the summary was plausible (probably correct). But the Bible quotations did not support the summary. The referenced documents spoke about the subject matter but did not speak about the particular aspect. Some of the Bible verses could perhaps be used to justify the conclusion. But then, the logic would have to be inductive and not include such “phrases” like “specifically”. I have not found a Bible verse which specifically states when the pillar of cloud disappeared. But the AI was very confident and very specific about when it did. I was almost tempted to use the Bible quotations as a justification for that conclusion. Almost!

The reality is that we are all vulnerable to information that is nicely presented and projected with confidence. We perceive such information as coming from an expert and a fact that makes us even more gullible. At the same time, when we do a web search. We do so because we do not know. Worst of all when we meet a presentation that is referencing other sources, we are primed to believe what has been stated because we have been trained to know that when a person supports an assertion with a reference. That assertion must be right because they have taken their time to do their research. The only people who check references are skeptical reviewers intent on destroying an argument they do not believe. Most people rarely check references. Only people with an in depth knowledge in a specific field will make the attempt to check a reference, and that will only be done a small fraction of the time when they find that the assertions made seem wrong.

We search the web because we do not know. Most of the things we search for are not in our field of expertise. We are therefore rarely well placed to criticise an answer especially one that is well written and presented with confidence. For this reason, over reliance on AI will inevitably lead to the incorporation of half truth and lies into our knowledge base and dataset having believed a summary which is quoted.

I have gone shopping for alternatives to the traditional search engines (google, bing, and brave). It turns out there are many search engines out there, some of which use other search engines to process queries. It turns out there are over 24 search engines one can use. For the time being, I have settled on qwant.com and swisscow.com. If these also start providing automatic AI summaries, I will look for others. If the regular search engines can remove the experimental disclaimer on their summaries, I will come back to using them.

You can find out more  about the different search engines. I know about AI, I want a plain search engine, which will not throw information that looks plausible but is unsupported by references. Even if AI summaries are not a result of hallucinations but are the genuine extraction of information from sources which my intuition suggests is not. The AI summary gives credence to those sources and may realize a conclusion that is not entirely true.

When the major search engines have the confidence to remove the experimental label and warning to search the results. I will go back to use them.

Appendix

screen shot of the search

Notes

Joshua: 1:13 “Remember the command that Moses the servant of the Lord gave you after he said, ‘The Lord your God will give you rest by giving you this land.’ “

Does not tell us that the pillar of cloud disappeared or that they entered the promised land.

Joshua 5: 10-12 “On the evening of the fourteenth day of the month, while camped at Gilgal on the plains of Jericho, the Israelites celebrated the Passover. 11 The day after the Passover, that very day, they ate some of the produce of the land: unleavened bread and roasted grain. 12 The manna stopped the day after[a] they ate this food from the land; there was no longer any manna for the Israelites, but that year they ate the produce of Canaan.”

We can use this to ascertain when the jews stopped receiving manna from heaven. It does not tell us when the pillar of the cloud disappeared. 

You can continue the breakdown if you wish. But take the first reference Wikipedia is a generic reference to the pillar of cloud. It does not talk about the disappearance of the cloud using either deductive or inductive logic.

I do not have the appetite to continue an in depth analysis of this nonsense. The summary is not anything close to summary.

Alternative search engines. 

  1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/technology/article/alternative-search-engines/
  2. https://www.pcmag.com/picks/go-beyond-google-best-alternative-search-engines