St. Mary of Edessa

St. Mary of Edessa was born in Syria in the 4th century. Her parents died when she was young and she went to live with her uncle Abraham Kidunaia, a hermit. She followed her uncle’s example and lived as an anchoress for 20 years.

One day when she was visiting her uncle, a monk caught sight of her and sought to seduce her. He spent a year befriending her until she gave herself to him. Horrified by her own sin, Mary tore her tunic and was terrified of facing her uncle in disgrace. She ran away, thinking that she could not be redeemed. In despair, she assumed she was a tarnished woman and might as well go live in a brothel.

Her uncle did not know what had happened. All he could do was to pray for her return. Two years later, he received news that she was a prostitute. He hadn’t left his hermitage in years, but he immediately went to the brothel where Mary lived and begged her to come home. She had thought he would be angry and disgusted by her, but he showed only love and concern.

She returned to her home and began a life of penance and prayer. People were drawn to her spiritual zeal and visited her cell.

October 29 is the feast day of St. Mary of Edessa and her uncle St. Abraham Kidunaia.  She is a patron against sexual temptation.

Up the River without an Idol

The biggest scandal to come out of the Amazon Synod involved the use of wooden figures in Rome. During the synod, displays representing the Amazon region were set up around the Vatican and Rome, including plants, canoes, and wooden figures of a pregnant woman. In one instance, people bowed to the display, to these figures. When asked what the figured represented, people were first told she was Our Lady of the Amazon, presumably Mary, thought such a title had never been heard of before. While I think an Amazonian depiction of Mary would be wonderful, I’m not sure this was carved as that intention. Later it was said she represented “life, fertility, and Mother Earth.” So, not Mary. Not Christian. And then it was said she was a representation of indigenous fertility idol Pachamama – unambiguously not Christian.

So were pagan idols brought into Christian churches in Rome or not? No one would give a clear explanation, and the fact that no Church official would only caused the concern to grow. I would have understood if we (Europeans) misunderstood a symbol from another culture, but the fact that no one could clearly say “X means Y” made me believe it was a pagan idol after all. A couple of men took the figures from the church and threw them in the Tiber. Yet the figures were fished out and on display at the conclusion of the synod.

Was this a case of Euro-centric Catholics not understanding an Amazonian expression of the faith? Or was this a case of pagan rituals being brought into a church under the guise of dialogue? Christianity has always adopted pagan symbols and practices. There is nothing wrong about taking a symbol a culture already knows and using it to share to the faith. But it must be baptized—cut out of its pagan meaning and given a Christian identity. A culture’s practice can be kept and used, but it must be reordered to Christ. It must teach truth. These figurines caused confusion and division. Christianity cannot not let a pagan remain pagan.

A goal of the synod is to listen and understand the unique needs of the Amazon region. And that includes, perhaps, practices that we don’t understand at first. Perhaps the statues are Christian but just look different than our ideas of Mary. But perhaps not. The concerning part is no one would say. And we can’t let it remain ambiguous. A dialogue goes both ways, and we must reach a conclusion of what the Church can and cannot allow. #1: You will have no gods before me.

Up the River without a Paddle

The Amazon Synod—I intended to not pay much attention to it, but as the synod went on, a couple of items went viral, igniting the armchair experts. The Amazon Synod was called to addressed the challenges of the Church in the rural Amazon region, covering a massive amount of land with a small, indigenous population. From the beginning, some have claimed it’s being used to shoehorn progressive ideas into the Church—first for this specific region then spreading to the rest of the world. And indeed, the synod did suggest allowing married men to be ordained priests and women to entrusted as deacons. But I don’t want to focus on the particular issues or conclusions of the synod. I want to look at how the Amazon region and its people have been presented during this process.

I think the need for dialogue and addressing local challenges is needed in the Church. The Church is universal and should not look like Italian colonial copies dotted all over the world. Yet, the Church is universal and should remain consistent in her teachings and liturgies so that no matter where you are, when you enter a church, you are at home in the presence of Christ.

I did not hear much for the Amazonian people themselves from the synod. Instead, I heard about how unique the region is, how the people are tribal, indigenous—in other words, they are noble savages. These untouched, pure primitive ways had to be preserved—a privilege most cultures did not receive from colonizers.

I understand the dark history of colonialism and the desire to not repeat the mistakes of the past. But it feels like the pendulum has swung the other way, where cultures must never share parts of themselves for fear of “tainting” or “imposing” on another. No culture is pure; no people are a museum piece that must be preserved. The Amazonian people can be exposed to Christianity and still maintain their identity. Ideally, that is what would happen. We must not be afraid to share the truth. Christianity calls for change. We should meet people where they are but not leave them there. 

Bishop Erwin Kräutler (principal author of the synod’s working document) claimed that “indigenous people don’t understand celibacy.” He is calling for married priests because apparently the Amazonian people won’t respect a celibate man. How is that not demeaning to the Amazonian people, that they are incapable to learning about the virtue of celibacy in relation to the Church? He implies the people of the region are too naïve or dumb to learn the principles of Christianity that have been taught in every other region of the world.

It is still a colonial attitude that suggests how we treat one people should be different from how we treat others. It creates a system that “others” the Amazonian people by suggesting they are too different to follow what the rest of the Church is able to uphold. There may be practicalities that are unique and need addressing, but to suggest the people don’t understand or won’t accept some teachings is saying that the Church isn’t really universal at all.