Pachamama Deniers Double Down!

Michie said:

They’ve Invented a Hoax to Explain Away the Scandal You Watched in HD​

There’s a new apologetics style on the rise in the Church of Leo. It’s called denialism, and it comes in the form of smiley, thread-ready explanations that explain away every scandal as a misunderstanding, every contradiction as a nuance, and every public sacrilege as a charming cultural misunderstanding.

Take, for instance, the latest entry from a user known as “Pope Respecter.” He claims the Pachamama scandal was a “hoax.” A nothingburger. A figment of traditionalist imagination. He assures us that there was no idolatry, no scandal, and definitely no public ritual honoring a naked fertility idol in the Vatican Gardens.

Continued below.

Pachamama Deniers Double Down!

They’ve Invented a Hoax to Explain Away the Scandal You Watched in HD

bigmodernism.substack.com

Click to expand...

Ask them if they thought it was a travesty that Pachamama had to go swimming in the Tiber. From my POV that was the bestest.

There are many who try to put a spin on that situation, but it is what it is.

Michie said:

They’ve Invented a Hoax to Explain Away the Scandal You Watched in HD​

There’s a new apologetics style on the rise in the Church of Leo. It’s called denialism, and it comes in the form of smiley, thread-ready explanations that explain away every scandal as a misunderstanding, every contradiction as a nuance, and every public sacrilege as a charming cultural misunderstanding.

Take, for instance, the latest entry from a user known as “Pope Respecter.” He claims the Pachamama scandal was a “hoax.” A nothingburger. A figment of traditionalist imagination. He assures us that there was no idolatry, no scandal, and definitely no public ritual honoring a naked fertility idol in the Vatican Gardens.

Click to expand...

The thing is, it looks to me like "Pope Respecter" is has point here. Now, the blog post linked in the opening, despite discussing the tweet by "Pope Respecter" and showing a picture, never seems to actually link to it (it's here, for the record). The original tweet had accompanying videos that further went into the points, which the blog post didn't seem to address, focusing only on the text.

There is also this old article I ran across a while ago that seems to do a good job arguing that the controversy was, in fact, rather manufactured, and answers the counterarguments that the opening post's linked article offers:

The article isn't available anymore, but the link will bring you to an archive of it. Note the author, as they make it pretty clear, is not a fan of Francis either, so there isn't some kind of pro-Francis bias there.