Early in my conversion to Christianity, I heard a segment on CBC radio, here in Canada, which is basically state propaganda and mostly unlistenable today, but back then it was a much more subtle form of propaganda, the kind that made you feel like you could learn something from it. So, I enjoyed listening to it from time to time. And in this segment, they had a Catholic priest on as a guest. Now this was unusual enough because the CBC is notoriously left leaning. So if they have a Catholic priest on, it isn’t going to be to try to hear a sympathetic rendering of some conservative or traditional perspective, but rather to undermine it with the authority of that priest’s office. And that was definitely the case in this instance. Unfortunately, this was like 20 years ago so I don’t remember the name of the priest and I was so new to taking an interest in religion, that everything was just new and novel to me, but based on the topic and what I’ve come to know of him since, I’m pretty sure it was Fr. Richard Rohr, who has definitely been a guest on that show. But whoever it was, the point of the segment was to highlight this priest’s work in syncretizing non-dualism with Catholicism. And the host seemed to relish the conversation because it was so novel and foreign to her default modes of thinking, which were obviously a residue of western indoctrination. Because every time she would ask him a question or try to establish some understanding, he would steer it back to pointing out how that was dualism and we can’t make those kinds of distinctions.

And at the time, I didn’t know enough about Christianity to know what to think of this interview. I was interested because I was trying to consume all things Christianity, but on the face of it, the whole concept seemed to be self-refuting to me. He kept insisting that western ways of thinking were dualistic and that the point should be to transcend these forms of dualism. But that statement itself relies on a kind of dualism – one in which traditional western ways of thinking are wrong and non-dualistic thinking is correct. Something else I noticed when I first joined the Church was that in virtually every Catholic retreat center, at least where I live in Canada, most of the retreats on offer were either Yoga based or adjacent to Yoga type eastern spiritual practices. And these workshops and programs are almost always promoted and operated by the very few religious sisters we have left here – they’re generally older, they’ve abandoned any kind of religious habit in exchange for a pantsuit or dress suit, or maybe in this case, yoga pants. And part and parcel with yoga programs is an obsessive emphasis on ecumenism and ecumenical events – almost as if that’s their whole religion – eastern spirituality and ecumenism.

And so, every now and then, the debate about the compatibility or incompatibility between practices like Yoga and Christianity will erupt, especially online, and seemingly never get resolved. And I think a big reason for that is that a large portion of the airtime is consumed by one of two polarized responses to it. One is the ecumenical kind I just described where exotic ideas and practices are embraced wholeheartedly under the apparent exemptions of ecumenism and described as perfectly compatible with Christianity – that is until people like Richard Rohr let the mask slip on national radio and admit that “traditional western thinking is dualistic” whereas his innovative metaphysics moves beyond that, establishing a real incompatibility. The other response is the kind where orthodox Christians, perhaps out of a reasonable kind of skepticism, are a little too easily convinced that Yoga in its popular manifestations today, is nothing more than demon worship. That each pose or stretch is a form of invoking a particular demon and inviting them to make themselves at home in your body or your life in general. But that’s not true either and so making those kinds of false accusations leaves people with the impression that any objection to yoga is overblown and grounded in ignorance.

When I talk to other Christians who like Yoga or practice it themselves, they almost always fall back on the claim that yoga is just physical exercises and stretching and there’s nothing spiritual about it. But if we’re going to talk about something, we have to use our terms accurately and just because you’ve gone to a strip mall yoga class or because you buy your clothes at Lululemon, doesn’t mean you can redefine words like Yoga in such a reductionist way. Yoga, the real word related to a real concept describes a variety of practices meant to bring about a kind of metaphysical liberation called moksha. So, yoga can describe physical practices, the kind that are heavily commercialized in clothing brands and studio spaces, but it can also describe forms of meditation, forms of breathing, as well as ethical disciplines. So, again, it’s simply not true to say that yoga is just exercises. It would be like saying that cage fighting is just exercising. Sure, there’s a dimension of exercise to it, but there’s a lot more to it as well and you should probably be aware of those other aspects before you sign up for it.

At the end of the day, Yoga is not an end in itself. The aims here don’t terminate in physical fitness. The physical practices in yoga are merely a means to another end, which is Moksha or liberation from the illusions of existence. And Fr. Richard Rohr was exactly right about the incompatibility between oriental metaphysics and Western and Christian metaphysics. In the Christian tradition of faith and reason, the goal of metaphysics is to understand being and existence which, at the very least, starts with an acknowledgement that something is, something exists. And simultaneously, when something is, it can’t also not be at the same time in the same way. That’s called the law of non-contradiction and it’s the cornerstone of all western thought. Something can’t be true and false at the same time. A person can’t be both innocent or guilty of the same crime at the same time, a woman can’t be both a bachelorette and a wife at the same time. An organism can’t be both dead and alive at the same time. But oriental metaphysics, and Fr. Richard Rohr say that this is dualism and dualism is illusory as is all the experiences we have in this life. It’s all just symbols which point back to the ultimate reality which is Brahman. We are all Brahman in the end and there are no distinctions between us. And Moksha is the liberation that attains to this realization.

But Christian reason says, no there is truth and there is falsity which is why we have logic and the law of non-contradiction. There are distinct things and those distinctions are real, not illusions. And, Christian faith says there is one true God who is truth itself. And he is distinct from false gods and we are to have no other gods other than Him. The ultimate ends of man, according to Christianity is beatitude in which we apprehend God in his glory and are blessed for it and we love and worship him for all eternity. The ends of Hinduism and certain schools of Buddhism, with yoga as one of its means, is Moksha which is the liberation from all the illusions of this world and its apparent duality which is the dissolution of all ego and distinction in Brahman. In Brahman, you don’t exist and in fact, nothing other than Brahman exists and even existence itself can’t really be said to exist because that would be falling back on the false duality between existence and non-existence. Really, if we’re being honest, there’s a kind of nothingness that awaits this liberation of Moksha.

Christianity aims at a definite something, which is God, it affirms the experiences of this life as real and meaningful and consequential. It’s rational – it says that we can know truth through our experiences of reality and through our rational minds and most of all in the ways that the true God reveals himself and his purposes for us. It uses prayer, worship, sacraments, and revelation to attain to its ultimate ends of communion with God. Eastern spirituality uses yoga, among other things, to attain to its end of Brahman. And the way it uses yoga, as most people know it, is by stretching out the body and the pours, sometimes in extreme and grotesque ways, in order to open the person to altered states of mind combined with tantric breathing practices which can seem euphoric as if the illusory and dualistic world melts away and you’re just left with the existential dread of an awful overshadowing formlessness. You stare into the void and the void stares back. So that’s what Yoga is, which leaves me wondering why any Christian would adopt its practices if it’s categorically a means to an end that contradicts everything Christ taught. If you’ve adopted the conclusion that you want to achieve a certain end like the Christian one, and you discover some practice that is a means to a different and incompatible end… wouldn’t it follow that practicing that incompatible means is going to interfere with your goals. It would be like if you had a final exam tomorrow and you’ve identified getting a good grade as the end that is best. And the means to that end is going to be staying home and studying. But, there’s also a big party going on tonight and the person you have a crush on is going to be there. So, you could go to the party, but then you’d have to be admitting that you’re embracing actions that lead to a different end, either romantic love or social fulfilment. But between the two means, you’ll be realizing different ends and you can’t do both. It’s going to be one or the other.

Now you might say, OK fine, traditionally that’s what Yoga is, but that’s not how I practice it. I’m just using it for exercise and stretching. But then my question becomes, why do you call it yoga then? It would be like explicitly rejecting some kind of cultural practice as incompatible with your own beliefs and goals in life, but then renaming your own practices according to the ones you reject. Why would you do that? Like if you thinking open marriages are a bad thing because you think monogamy is the whole point of marriage… which it is by the way. But then you go around telling people you meet that you have an open marriage, by which YOU mean you and your spouse are very open to trying new things together. And then when people point out that that’s not what an “open marriage” means, you become obstinate in your idiosyncratic usage that isn’t consistent with a long-standing tradition of what that phrase means. If yoga has a massive cultural, philosophical, and religious meaning linked to a tradition that is thousands of years old and a population that is billions of people strong, then on what grounds do western people who are only superficially introduced to it have to say that they can redefine it to mean something completely different and that this will give them permission to practice it without any incoherence? If you’re that committed to using a word to describe your fitness routine, doesn’t that betray at least a fascination with alternative and exotic spiritual practices that are contrary to your own stated confession of faith? Like that’s an audacious thing to do, all so that you can lay claim to the word Yoga without having to reconcile its incompatibilities with your own religious tradition.

That just strikes me as a kind of western tourist mentality where superficiality or just ignorance gives room for people to have their cake and eat it too, so that they can perform something they call yoga, perhaps for the cultural cache attached to it, but never run afoul their own credal confession. I just don’t understand the impulse behind that and the need to go to such lengths to try to have it all and internal contradictions be damned. Like I care about following Christ. I also care about physical fitness. At no point in those mutual concerns have I said, well… guess I have to join a yoga class now. There are a million fitness options available to me that don’t require me to flirt with a metaphysical tradition that will force me to choose between my physical regime and my religion. Why even flirt with that possibility. Why not steer a wide birth around such risks when they’re entirely unnecessary. Because if you go to a yoga class, even if you don’t want to achieve moksha… I’m willing to bet there are people there who are trying to achieve it or something resembling it. Why participate in that. Like that married couple who has an “open marriage”. Like, imagine them going to swinger parties and saying, “oh, we’re not here for the infidelity part of it. We come to these parties to encourage openness in our communication, but it’s ok if that’s what other people are doing.” It’s like, no, don’t put yourself in an environment designed to oppose your aims in life.

So, if people are going to practice yoga, I think they need to know what it is and what its ends are and that those ends have nothing to do with what it is that Christians are supposed to be moving towards in their life. And lastly, if you’re a bishop and you have yoga retreats being hosted in your diocese in centers that specifically promote themselves as Catholic… can we please finally put an end to that? These are dying institutions anyways so at least out of mercy, let’s put them out of their misery. But for whatever integrity we have with our Catholic institutions, this kind of thing should not be promoted as if it’s entirely compatible with Catholicism. Because it isn’t.

Transcript:

So, the other day, LifeSiteNews published an exclusive bombshell revelation that Pope Leo XIV participated in an explicit Pachamama ceremony, that they describe as clearly idolatrous, back in the 90’s when he was an Augustinian priest in South America. The evidence is based on the resurfacing of a book called Ecoteologia Agostiniana which is a Portuguese book about interpretating Augustinian theology from a Latin American perspective. In the pictures, Fr. Prevost appears to be participating in a ceremony in which participants are kneeling and gathered in a circle with the caption of the photo mentioning a celebration of Pachamama which means Mother Earth. Based on this, Mario Derkson, who is quoted in the article and was the apparent source of the story, concludes that Leo is guilty of having committed idolatry and should publicly repent now that this scandal is public. The only reason it’s public, however; is because Derksen and LifeSiteNews decided to publish it. Otherwise, it looks like it was a long forgotten intimate gathering. It should also be noted that Mario Derksen is the curator of the website “Novus Ordo Watch” which is a sedevacantist website, so if you don’t think there’s an agenda being pursued here, you’d be naïve. With that said, dismissing a claim because of its source is a genetic fallacy and a bad reason to think that the claims or arguments are simply false on those grounds. A person can be biased or have an agenda and still be telling the truth or making sound arguments.

The first thing I want to say about this is that it’s not worth losing your peace over. In fact, this is a resounding theme in the spiritual masters of our faith, like Francis de Sales, Teresa of Avila, and Ignatius of Loyola, as well as contemporaries like Fr. Jacques Philippe. They all say nothing is worth losing your interior peace over. And if headline news is having that effect on you, maybe take a break from it. At the best of times, it usually a distraction from things you have an actual influence over. In this case, if you’re a lay person like me, getting agitated about this is futile because it can’t be converted into meaningful action. Arguing with people online about it, spreading the news yourself, shaking your fist in the air, none of those things will actually fix any apparent problems in the Church. You still owe obedience to your shepherds and the Pope and you still have an obligation to grow in holiness, which sacrificing your peace through futile outrage is absolutely incompatible with. 

But naturally, as you’d expect, Twitter, or X if you’re a modernist, erupted into a frenzy of hot takes and anathemas sent in every possible direction by the keyboard inquisition. So, I wanted to address the topic for the sake of people who are finding their faith challenged by it with this disclaimer: I’m not journalist and I haven’t poured over the details of this story to the degree that others have, so I’m sure there are lots of things people can point out about it that I’m unaware of. But, I also think there’s a delusion that is easy to fall into with online intrigue like this, in that, if you devote hours of scrolling and commenting and obsessing over the latest trending topic, then it becomes easy to convince yourself that you’ve done the necessary due diligence and thorough examination of the evidence and are therefore above any accusation of making rash judgements about it. But, endlessly pouring over insufficient evidence doesn’t mean you’ve somehow produced more evidence that make a conclusion about it prudent and measured. It just means you’ve taken an obsessive interest in something that is probably a serious distraction from the duty of the moment. In this case, we have photos from almost 30 years ago, that without the caption below, could be depicting just about anything. It could be a wholesome prayer circle. It could be an example of ecumenism gone too far. It could be an instance of an American following along in something he didn’t understand because he doesn’t speak Portuguese. It could be that someone miscaptioned the photo. It could be that he was caught unawares and instead of risking offending his host or his company, he went through the motions. It could also be that he was breaking the 1^st commandment.

But do we know one way or the other, without a doubt? No, because there are many possible alternative explanations here. There’s no definite proof that he committed idolatry and if you want to insist that it is proof, you have to also demonstrate that he was actually worshipping something other than God - that he was INTENTIONALLY giving divine worship or Latria to some object other than God and that he intended to do so. And I remember what film photography was like back in the 90s and I can speak as an authority that we didn’t have the resolution back then to capture intent the way we do now. That doesn’t mean there’s nothing to be concerned about here. Certainly syncretism as an evil substitution for ecumenism is something that has been far too pervasive in the Church for the past 60 years or so and that is something that Church authorities should take seriously and want to correct. And here’s the thing. I lived through the 90’s, dude, and those were crazy times. In fact, if you got a hold of my family home videos, you’d find instances of me bowing down to images that have nothing to do with proper worship because I, like every youth in the aftermath of the Karate Kid movies, was enrolled in a Karate dojo and at every class, there was an opening ceremony in which an image of the founder of our branch of Karate was hung on the wall, and we turned to it and bowed down in prostration to it, as well as to our senseis. Was I committing idolatry. No, because nothing about that in my mind or will was intended to be an act of divine worship.

And that’s not all. I’ve also been guilty of a whole variety of sins in my past, many I no longer struggle with, but if I did, they would certainly disqualify me from doing this kind of work. Now imagine if someone were able to produce evidence, like photos of these past sins and bring them to light today. It’s the kind of thing that would dismay a lot of people and likely discourage them from ever listening to anything I have to say again. But this is the thing about Christianity. 1 Corinthians 1:27 says “But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” The fact that God can use someone like me, or Pope Leo to bring about his will, is a way of using weak things of the world to shame the strong. And Hebrews 8:12 says, “For I will be merciful towards their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” So on what grounds do we have to dig up the past behaviour of our ecclesiastical superiors, assume the worst about it, assume they haven’t repented, and then demand that they do so publicly because it’s now public, because we made it public? Nothing about that is Godly.

And you might point out that I wasn’t a priest or even Catholic when I was in Karate and he should have known better. Maybe that’s true, but at the same time, when I started exploring my faith, I was something of a blank slate. I was approaching it fairly open and just wanted to learn what it was. He went to seminary in the 70s and 80s and if you’re convinced that the 90s were a crazy time, like I just tried to assure you, then the 70s and 80s were even worse. He was likely taught all kinds of things about ecumenism that are totally contrary to the tradition of the Church. And I’ve met lots of people like this. When I was young and still finding my place in the Church, I founded a Young Adult Ministry because I didn’t have any friends as a new convert. And one of the up and coming priests in our Archdiocese as our chaplain, who, the more I got to know him and discuss topics for the events, the more I realized, he was completely unfamiliar with the thought of St. Thomas Aquinas – the perennial doctor of the Church. And that doesn’t happen by accident. The Magisterium has said, multiple times, that St. Thomas should be the standard for seminary formation. So, the fact that so many priests have specifically not read St. Thomas is actually a deliberate act of rebellion by their formators from an era in which that was the norm. And again, this all presupposes that those blurry images are all you need to know that this was a willful act of idolatry. But I don’t even see any statues or graven images in the pictures that were uncovered. I don’t see anything here that suggests an idol was even involved. For all we know, this was something as innocuous as a Christianized summer solstice celebration. So, jumping to rash judgements that insist this is, beyond any reasonable doubt, proof that Pope Leo committed idolatry as a younger clergyman, is uncalled for. And in case it needs repeating – rash judgement is a grave sin.

But as with the so-called Pachamama incident with Pope Francis, gaslighting and telling people there’s nothing to be concerned about and nothing to see here, isn’t an appropriate response either. Because the use of images in the Church is fairly clearly defined and something we’ve really lost track of in the age of modern art and ecumenism. And thanks be to God, we have councils that define the parameters for us, like Nicaea II, in the 8^th century, which resolved the iconoclasm controversy. So, iconoclasm was a heresy that said that any use of sacred art in icons or statues was idolatrous and should be outlawed. The Church’s judgement was against that and determined that iconoclasm was a heresy. The basic logic of that conclusion is that because God chose to depict himself materially in the incarnation of Christ, it is also fitting to depict the mysteries of the new covenant in material form as well and that doing so is an incarnation part of our faith. It also clearly defined how images are supposed to be used, teaching that they are signs that point to true realities like Christ and the communion of saints and that as long as they are venerated with the intent of looking past the art and to the true God, then this is appropriate for devotion and prayer. Only when they obscure the true object of our worship, namely God, do they become a problem. This is also where the distinction between Latria, which means worship, and proskynesis which means veneration comes from. The former is reserved for God alone and the latter can be given to created persons – again, as long as the honor is not for the art or the object, but for what it depicts. Just like a photo of a loved one. You keep mementos like that not because of your affection for the material of the printed photo and ink, but for the person it depicts – and when it invokes affection from you, the affection is for the person and not the image itself. 

Later on, the council of Trent clarified something that we’ve gravely… no pun intended, neglected in the modern era which is that Images must avoid anything confusing, misleading, or theologically incorrect AND they should not contain elements that are “profane,” “indecorous,” or doctrinally ambiguous”. Vatican II went on to teach that sacred art should never be lacking in noble beauty or repugnant or confusing to the faithful. But modern art, by design, tends towards all of these things – towards abstractness, novelty, profanity, irreverence, unconformity, and ambiguity. That’s baked right into the philosophy of modern art. And the same was true of the scandal involving Pope Francis. In its immediate aftermath there was widespread and frantic speculation about what that statue was that was carried around and venerated by people in the Vatican. Some claimed that it was the Blessed Virgin, others a pagan idol, others a meaningless piece of art. But whatever it was, it was ambiguous, confusing, and clearly not aligned with the teachings of Nicaea, Trent, or Vatican II, and therefore, it was scandalous. Pretending otherwise is naïve and uncharitable towards people who have real concerns about the state of leadership in the Church today, concerns that never would have been entertained had there not be widespread revelations of the absolute worst kind of betrayal among the ranks of bishops in the sex abuse scandals.

Do you expect him to resign? Do you expect him to repent publicly? To be honest, I don’t want the papacy to be so obsessively attentive to PR so that every accusation that gets tossed from the PR gallery is treated like something that Roman Pontiff needs to make a high priority. If the Church were a democracy, that would make sense. But the PR people who advise bishops and the Holy See will insist that they do otherwise because there is no democratic accountability and there is no need for him to resign. The Church doesn’t work that way. He doesn’t rule at the pleasure of the laity. In fact, he’s our superior and we have no right to pressure him by means of outrage or any other kind of disciplinary punishment inflicted by the peanut gallery. St. Thomas says fraternal correction can only be made by an subordinate to a superior in the order of humble charity and never by discipline or punishment according to justice. We don’t have the authority to do that and acting like we do is objectively disordered. Just like with a father of a family. If he is exposed as failing in that role, the children aren’t in a position to demand his resignation. They can, in charity and humility, as for his reform, but they can’t demand it or use punishment to incentivize it. And a family is a much better way of thinking about these things than a polity or democracy in which scandal precedes accountability at the ballots if not resignation. And just like in a family, a good father wouldn’t ignore confusion and wounds that he is guilty of inflicting and should address it. But simultaneously, children shouldn’t engage in detraction, rash judgement, and slander when they suspect fault on the part of their parents. So, there’s just a lot wrong in this situation and to whatever degree Pope Leo’s at fault for something that happened 30 years ago, we’re no better if we expose it to the world as a fascination for headline news, instead of dealing with it discreetly like a family should.

One last thing I’ll mention is that I’ve seen some people claiming that this is just further evidence of the apostasy at the end of times. And yes, many Church fathers and doctors say there will be an apostasy of the faithful before the second coming… but they never say the Pope will apostatize. And the Church clearly teaches that it cannot fail in its mission. There will always be a visible faithful Church with the Pope as its head.

Pope Benedict XVI, when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, famously described the moral condition of modern society as a “dictatorship of relativism.” I have often returned to this phrase, especially the word dictatorship. The logical problems of relativism are fairly obvious, but why did he associate it with something so coercive?

Relativism, in this sense, is an individualistic and subjective approach to morality, well summarized by George Bernard Shaw’s remark that “the only Golden Rule is that there are no golden rules.” In modern Western thought, morality is often understood as a social convention rather than an objective reality. Right and wrong are said to emerge from consensus and change over time.

The usual evidence offered for this claim is disagreement: since people do not agree about morality, there must be no true morality. But disagreement does not eliminate truth. The existence of multiple answers to a question does not mean there is no correct answer. We do not determine mathematical truth by counting incorrect responses on Facebook, nor should we determine moral truth that way.

Yet acknowledging objective moral truth requires intellectual honesty and moral fortitude. It is far easier to deny moral obligation altogether and console ourselves with the idea that morality is merely constructed, allowing us to do as we please without guilt.

Once society accepts morality as mere convention, it immediately invites reformers who ask, “If it’s just a convention, why not improve it?” This is how Western culture has undergone dramatic moral shifts, particularly regarding sexual ethics and marriage. Traditional moral norms are dismissed as arbitrary, outdated, or oppressive, and new moral frameworks are proposed as more enlightened alternatives.

These new values are then promoted aggressively through media and politics. Characters who would once have been considered immoral are now portrayed as virtuous and heroic. Public figures who fail to conform are swiftly condemned or “cancelled,” often before they even realize the moral rules have changed.

Here lies the central contradiction: reformers claim morality is chosen, yet insist their chosen morality is better. But “better” is itself a moral judgment. If morality is purely conventional, there is no meaningful standard by which one convention can be superior to another. The appeal to improvement quietly smuggles in an objective moral standard while pretending none exists.

Traditional moral systems openly acknowledged such a standard and sought to conform human behavior to it. Modern moral systems deny its existence while enforcing their own standards with remarkable intolerance. This is why dissent today is often met not with argument, but with moral outrage and social punishment.

This brings us back to Benedict’s word dictatorship. When a society recognizes objective moral law, it possesses a rule of law that applies equally to rulers and subjects alike. But when morality is treated as malleable convention, those with power can simply reshape it to justify their behavior. The rest are left to conform.

Relativism promises freedom, but in practice it hands moral authority to the powerful. In the absence of a shared objective standard, moral disagreement is settled not by reason, but by force. And so moral relativism, however liberating it may sound, inevitably ends in tyranny.