Liberationist Bishop Reinaldo Nann’s Defense of Pachamama and Pope Leo XIV

This controversy regarding Pope Leo, as a Priest, worshipping Pachamama, may sadly become the defining moment of his Papacy.

From One Peter Five

By Fr Romano Tomassi, SLD

Thus she begins to take on the role of a benevolent non-human personality in the universe.

I I do not need to be convinced that poverty is real. As one who lived and taught in Central and South America, extreme poverty and suffering of my own people proved heartbreaking.[1] As Pope Leo XIV recently underlined, structural issues in Peru are attributable to such extreme poverty.[2] Economic theory is not the strong suite of Liberation Theology. At best, it promotes government (over NGOs) fixing poverty.[3] It would be too much to say that the dialogue between Christianity and Marxism, known as teología de la liberación (Liberation Theology) was never organized enough to create a Soviet-Style five or ten year plan. Liberation theology is much more pragmatic and emphasizes quick structural analysis leading to social action. In emergency situations, we all do this: quick analysis, action. That millions were starving in Peru is certain with ~50% of Peruvians below poverty line (1970s) and this explains how Liberation Theology became attractive. A new solution to poverty was needed, but Vatican finances at this period were horrible: practical economic guidance by Pope Paul VI, hardly modeling economic theory for bishops and priests during this period, was not an option for Peruvian clergy. Vatican deficit spending and voluntary observance of rent controls creating their own mini-command economy created imbalances typical for socialist states.[4] Like the Vatican today, the pope relies mainly on capitalist economies to voluntarily fill Peter’s coffers, but Francis’s rhetorical anti-American jargon, deficit spending, and bad economic policy – along with biting the hand that fed him – have changed Vatican spending very little since time of Pope Paul VI (the only exceptions being partial successes by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI). This background helps explain the desperate turn to Marxism and anti-colonial policies of Soviet-Style governance.[5] Like Vatican finances under Pope Paul VI, Soviet finances were equally opaque. Nobody knew how either of these governments actually paid the bills and the Soviet myth of a miracle economy was a living lie masquerading as an option for the poor.[6]

Gustavo Gutiérrez-Merino Díaz, OP: The Peruvian Point of Departure

I bypass the militant writings of Enrique Dussel (“Philosophy of Liberation”), which is an attack against the West and free markets by appealing to how those excluded from their benefits critique the beneficiaries. Instead, we turn to theology and the inventor of Liberation Theology, employed with a full chair of theology at the University of Notre Dame for years until his death (RIP).[7]

Fr. Gustavo’s seminal book: Teología de la liberación: Perspectivas shows that he had not only Scholastic training but maintained a deep respect for the principles and method of Aquinas. He understood Aquinas’s form of theology as science, or as it is traditionally described sapiential. What is important here is that academic Liberation Theology acknowledges, from the beginning, in its greatest light, the enduring value of Aquinas’ principles and synthesis, even his method:

Saint Thomas, however, possesses a broad and synthetic vision: theology is not merely a science, but also a wisdom whose source is the charity that unites man with God. … In summary, theology is necessarily both spiritual and rational knowledge. These are permanent and indispensable functions of all theological reflection. Both tasks must, however, be partially reclaimed from the cleavages or distortions they have suffered throughout history.[8]

In my previous article “Pachamama: Theological and Canonical Analysis of Two Papal Actions,” I evaluated the potentially sympathetic Fr. Prevost toward Fr. Gustavo’s foundational book and Prevost’s moral cooperation for decades with Liberation Theology adherents and their structures. Theoretically, my application of St. Thomas’s question of Pachamama and apostasy is in no way illegitimate for Fr. Gustavo and for traditionalists. Here, another principle of theological dialogue by St. Thomas (Summa Contra Gentiles, book I, chapter II & Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 92, a. 4) is operative: We see that first principles (in theology) are shared both by Liberation theologians and Thomists. Therefore, Pope Leo XIV, if ever identified or self-identified as a Liberationist, transgresses his magister Fr. Gustavo should he ignore Aquinas’s criteria for adjudicating reverence and worship of Pachamama (Summa Theologiae IIa-IIae, q. 12, a. 1, objection and response 4).[9]

Fr. Gustavo was no dummy. It is good that he had Scholastic training, since this should in principle make it possible to engage Liberationist theologians rationally. Still, I must point out errors of capital importance (pun intended) in his principles. First, I summarize his errors in his principles, then I explain why they are graver than they first appear. First, Fr. Gustavo evaluates the kinds of theology (including scientific theology) as a would-be historical theologian. Here, he is a bad historical theologian. Note, this does not invalidate the principles of Liberation Theology as such. In my article “Is Aquinas the Universal Authority in the Church?”I underlined there something argued formally-historically as long ago as Cardinal Slipij (written AD 1924), namely, St. Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 190), St. Basil the Great (c. AD 365) and the entire post-Chalcedonian school of Greek theologians culminating in St. John Damascene (died around AD 753) all practiced or endorsed explicitly scientific theology. For his part, Fr. Gustavo explicitly and wrongly asserts that it was a post-University development due to Aristotle culminating in Aquinas.[10] Even secular publications today are now pushing Slipij’s argument, in spades, as if it’s a brand-new discovery! The obvious lynchpin for someone Dominican-trained, like Fr. Gustavo, should have already been sensed: St. Thomas constantly appealed to St. John Damascene, who formally endorsed syllogistic theology in his Philosophical Chapters.

Why am I interested in Fr. Gustavo’s historical errors, am I nitpicking like a stuffy academic looking for a bad footnote to devalue Fr. Gustavo? Minime! The key is that Fr. Gustavo’s innovation in dialogue with Marxism elevates history as a locus theologicus or authoritative monument for theological reasoning. In Scholastic reasoning, history is purely auxiliary or a non-infallible and plausible data set which is only able to add precision to infallible or probable premises. In Marxist theology, history becomes a focal point for doing all practical theological reasoning of importance, addressing an emergency that is specific (for Fr. Gustavo) to South America:

This type of theology—which proceeds from an engagement with a specific set of problems—will perhaps provide us, through a modest yet solid and enduring path, with the theology in a Latin American perspective that is both desired and needed.[11]

To the extent that Pope Francis tried to extend Liberation Theology discourse beyond the emergency conditions that originally gave rise to it, he would have been violating its own methodological premise: that theology arises from specific historical necessity rather than functioning as a universal framework; namely, Liberation theology is an emergency reaction to injustice where masses of hungry die, and so it accommodates in practice scientific and spiritual theology to the needs of the marginalized: to eat, and to eat with real human dignity, not like cattle.

Pope Leo XIV would do well to remember this, too, before lecturing capitalist economies under the influence of an emergency theology, tailored to extremes of a specific region. Like the Vatican then, the Holy See remains dependent on the economic vitality of the very capitalist systems it often critiques, while its own financial structures exhibit persistent deficits and opacity. This reality ought to occasion supernatural humility and self-critique, not an offensive against secular American free markets that have outperformed the Vatican by its own metrics since about 20-30% of the American GDP goes to social works and charities (which is comparable to, and even greater than, the theocratic Vatican City State at about 20% under the imperium of Pope Francis and Leo). The Lord quoted the proverb: “Physician heal thyself” (Luke 4:23). Neither of these popes’ rhetoric toward the poor has resulted in Vatican budgets that can be shown to shift spending toward a “preferential option for the poor,” from Pope Paul VI to Benedict XVI. On these metrics, certain modern economies as the USA—particularly those with strong traditions of private charitable giving— outperform the Vatican’s own financial structures in directing resources toward social works. The irony here, if Pope Leo is seriously committed to the option for the poor, is that his Vatican could better than Pope Francis did rto each Liberationist goals to opt for the poor by changing itself into a secular free market Republic rather than maintaining its current theocratic regime. Most of Pope Leo XIV’s expenditures are – like the bloated United Way – spent on administration, not on the needy.

For his part, Fr. Gustavo’s ingenious move was linking St. Thomas’s emphasis on charity (a practical virtue of greater intrinsic worth than faith) with “praxis” in the Marxist sense, or post-analytical action. In his flawed criticism of the Church as historically contemplative (monasticism and spiritualities that retreat from the world), he generalized that Church constrained itself and neglected the practice of world-transformation by action. To the extent that certain kinds of religious do not engage the public, and to the extent that they make up a percentage of contemplatives from one age to the next, to that extent only were Christians “do nothings” in that relevant (and Marxist) sense.

The question, statistically, would really be whether or not Christians and their institutions in each age did more than their competitors to change hunger and poverty, for which we have no study or statistic cited at the opening of Fr. Gustavo’s historical analysis of the locus theologicus par excellence (for Liberationists) of history. While the parameters for such an evaluation would naturally be disputable, it would be difficult to assume that among religions and civil rivals, Christianity would have scored very low in alleviating hunger and caring for the sick. Nonetheless, South American anti-colonialist narratives can here align with Marxism in remembering the ills of mercantilist systems (conflated with free markets) that abused the poor on the margins of colonial society in the Americas.

Once history and praxis assume their roles in Liberation theology, Fr. Gustavo’s criteria can serve to evaluate religious symbols of the marginalized Indians, and shift a totem’s meaning accordingly. What is received within the poor’s lived experience is no longer first judged by prior doctrinal principles of scientific theology (strict monotheism), but interpreted within the horizon of the oppressive experience itself: What has monotheism imposed but hardship and poverty? What does Pachamama represent? Answer: the spirit and autonomy of poor to find a way to exist in a system where they make no impact upstream and have no voice.

Pachamama represents pre-capitalist non-exploitative communities who lived in Eden-like harmony and sharing of all the forest commodities. Everyone had their voice in the village (synodality) and something more akin to classless society reigned. Spaniard-scientific theologians, with their contemplative monasteries, were brought to the new world along with their abstractions but Spaniards as an oppressor withheld the praxis of charity. To this extent, a similar Liberationist critique can point to numerous historical instances to evidence a libido dominandi in the colonial system. To use one possible avenue to explain Pachamama, she can be synthesized with St. Thomas’s emphasis on charity, because Pachamama represents full stomachs and communities with a dignity and voice, while Christianity supplies the Gospel of charity as a non-negotiable principle: “And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit?” (James 2:16). The emergency situation in South America needed to overcome Spanish-imposed structures impeding the Gospel. Thus, Pachamama may be preferred over Hispano-Flemish art of Mary. In this shorthand example, Pachamama represents the experience of the oppressed and Hispano-Flemish Mary the oppressor.

Bishop Reinaldo Nann’s Defense of Pachamama

What follows – unlike Bishop Nann – is not a question of intention, but of method. Now that our crash course in Liberation theology has prepared us to understand something of context for Fr. Prevost’s participation in rites dedicated to the Pachamama, we see a second non-Communistic interpretation put forward by a partisan witness interested in defending Leo XIV’s power at the head of the Church. For my part, I accept the fact (per my article) that his papacy is legitimate however the dice role. For Bishop Nann, he’s concerned that there might be teeth behind the biting remarks that Pope Leo XIV is an apostate, calling into question his valid election. These perspective color each of our approaches.

Unfortunately, the language of Bishop Nanno is problematic from the beginning: “We see [in the photos of Fr. Prevost] an interreligious act” (vemos un acto interreligioso).[12] The normative meaning here should be the Andean practitioners are not Christians and that the Augustinian priests participating are. The active participation in non-Catholic rites was forbidden by law (Canon 1258 [1917 code]). The 1983 Code of Canon Law has no equivalent canon and the Secretariat for Interreligious dialogue has issued no norms forbidding active participation in pagan rites. Naturally, using an hermeneutic of continuity, prior magisterium theologically remains in force. The question here is not whether or not a magisterium document has changed theology, as it has not, but there is no longer a canonical basis for imposing a penalty in canon law for participating in pagan worship. Here Bishop Nann is on solid footing, preserving Fr. Prevost as an eligible member the Church to be elected pope.

Based upon theological consideration, the dicastery for the doctrine of the faith could take up a complaint to make a disciplinary decision ad hoc for each and every presumed offense against religion based upon divine law, but this is a case by case basis, not a law universally in force. historical justification of Fr. Prevost’s participation is fairly unhelpful to Fr. Prevost’s cause: Nano (having first-hand knowledge of the event) asserts that for Andean’s Pachamama is neither a metaphor nor a vague reference but an hypostasis, which at first appears equivalent to the Neo-Platonic world soul.

Christian writers wrote fervently against this divinity. But Bishop Nano qualifies that the local understanding at that time and place was that Pachamama was created. Thus she begins to take on the role not of Hellenistic daimon or a Muslim jinn but as a benevolent non-human personality in the universe. In Medieval lore, Christians held superstitions that involved rituals and magic and not prayers directly, which was a ritual form reserved for saints. As such, European syncretism did not include, as a rule, prayer to an equivalent kind of being. This appears to be the flavor of local syncretism. The context that Bishop Nano provides is helpful, because it points us in two directions: (1.) Syncretism, not Marxism, (2.) and prayer of superstition not to something eternal and divine.

If, for these aboriginals, earth is created, her personality is temporal not eternal. From this, our investigation moves forward. To verify this, however, the claim is made that the native Peruvians were not traveling in Brazil, meaning that this form of Pacha Mama is local (not spearheaded by Augustinians who may have had welcomed it and added Liberationist instrumentalization of Pachamama for purposes of anti-colonialism). What is interesting here is that priestly motives and local intention may not align, but are complementary insofar as the likely superstition (per Bishop Nann) would be either aggravated by Marxism or reduced to the equivalent of a generic superstition to a non-deity. Thus, the species of sin here is so far superstition, not strictly speaking a Marxist instrumentalization or negation of monotheism. This would mean that the kind of confession required is not for an apostatic act but for one that denies implicitly the unique power of God over the created order by allowing for secondary causes that operate outside of those endorsed by official Catholic dogma. What this does not establish is the motive that Fr. Prevost himself had, as an Augustinian priest in Liberation-theological Peru. For this, we would need more data.

Conclusion

From what we have seen, the emergency ad hoc theology of Fr. Gustavo had guardrails, St. Thomas Aquinas, but was instrumentalized by Pope Francis in the Pacha Mama event of 2019, and he inappropriately universalized it for the entire Church. The disciplined work of Fr. Gustavo known as Liberation Theology is unavailable to justify Pope Francis’s innovation in the prosperous Western country of Italy, putting on display in its churches and for the Church Universal to celebrate and imitate, leading to the Italian Conference of Catholic Bishops composing texts in her honor (this should be non-sensical within the framework of Fr. Gustavo).

This form of syncretism was local and served to liberate the hungry from symbols of the oppressors. All this has little to no symbolic meaning in the wealthy and modernized and globalized West (and as such was treated as quaint and romantic by the Western press). In isolated communities with no political voice in the Amazonias, Liberation Theology was invented to affect change in extreme circumstances, but the principles of scientific theology were always supposed to be respected in theory. Pachamama stands as a technical violation of Fr. Gustavo’s guardrails and its further universalization outside its limited historical context makes it naturally incomprehensible without a full dissertation and perhaps experience of the missions. Furthermore, objectively, scientific theology estimates it as just another superstition that needs to be treated just like European Christian missions in the Medieval period toward fairies, brownies, and the numerous other superstitions so that, to the extent that they are taken seriously by peoples of any of these cultures, they are parasitic on a life of faith, hope, and – yes – charity.

---

[1] Besides corruption, Peru’s personal income tax rates were between 50-60 % in the 1960’s to 1980’s suffocating the economy, as rates were even worse than US rates just before and immediately after President Kennedy’s tax cuts leading to a similar boom in the economy to the roaring 20’s with similar tax policy.

[2] As the USA during the Great Depression, pre-Kennedy and post-Kennede years, taxes killed the economy; in other words, taxes have consequences.

[3] This is reasonable, but deficit spending and entitlements have not worked in South America, arguably based on flawed economic models. In practice, this tended towards outdated and poorly predictive Keynesian economics (deficit spending), amazingly even applied in the United States recently under the notion of “stimulus spending.”

[4] Colleen Dulle and James T. Keane, “Is the Vatican misleading donors? Peter’s Pence, explained,” America (December 12, 2019).

[5] The so-called miracle of Soviet industrialization and self-congratulatory economic successes hid the horrors of the Gulag Archipelago, or slave-labor system that sacrificed millions’ of wealth, property, and labor – with starvation level nutrition – to finance the Soviet economic miracle.

[6] This is not much different from communist China today, from government organ harvesting to arbitrary jailing and confiscation of monies and properties, there is government financing available to this species of socialist, as to others.

[7] Dennis Brown, “In memoriam: Rev. Gustavo Gutiérrez, O.P., renowned Notre Dame theologian, father of ‘liberation theology,’” Notre Dame News (October 23, 2024).

[8] Gustavo Gutiérrez-Merino Díaz, OP, Teología de la liberación: perspectivas (Lima: CEP,1971), 18-19.

[9] Again, see my discussion of this article in my first article. Objection 2.  Further, unbelief is an act of the understanding: whereas apostasy seems rather to consist in some outward deed or utterance, or even in some inward act of the will, for it is written (Proverbs 6:12-14): “A man that is an apostate, an unprofitable man walketh with a perverse mouth. He winketh with the eyes, presseth with the foot, speaketh with the finger. With a wicked heart he deviseth evil, and at all times he soweth discord.” Moreover if anyone were to have himself circumcised, or to worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate. Therefore apostasy does not pertain to unbelief.

Reply to Objection 2. It belongs to faith not only that the heart should believe, but also that external words and deeds should bear witness to the inward faith, for confession is an act of faith. On this way too, certain external words or deeds pertain to unbelief, in so far as they are signs of unbelief, even as a sign of health is said itself to be healthy. Now although the authority quoted may be understood as referring to every kind of apostate, yet it applies most truly to an apostate from the faith. For since faith is the first foundation of things to be hoped for, and since, without faith it is “impossible to please God”; when once faith is removed, man retains nothing that may be useful for the obtaining of eternal salvation, for which reason it is written (Proverbs 6:12): “A man that is an apostate, an unprofitable man”: because faith is the life of the soul, according to Romans 1:17: “The just man liveth by faith.” Therefore, just as when the life of the body is taken away, man’s every member and part loses its due disposition, so when the life of justice, which is by faith, is done away, disorder appears in all his members. [1.] First, in his mouth, whereby chiefly his mind stands revealed; [2.] secondly, in his eyes; [3.] thirdly, in the instrument of movement; [4.] fourthly, in his will, which tends to evil. The result is that “he sows discord,” endeavoring to sever others from the faith even as he severed himself.

[10] Gutiérrez, op. cit., 18.

[11] Ibid., 32.

[12] Reinaldo Nann, “Defendiendo al papa León: No es idólatra ni adoró a la Pachamama,” Religión Digital (March 22, 2026).