Matt Fradd
Books • Spirituality/Belief • Writing
This PWA community exists to facilitate an online community of PWA listeners and all lovers of philosophy and theology.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?

Pop-Cultured Catholic #28: Aztecs' Sacrifice and Human Greed vs. Our Lady of Guadalupe and… Algonquins' Wendigo Tales?

Where I live, we are now past the middle of winter and had our coldest week yet this season. For such an occasion, I am doing another horror folklore-themed post, similar to the one last October when I contrasted the vampire archetype with Jesus’ Eucharist and Resurrection. But to begin this, I will first recall the history of the Aztec Empire’s collapse…

One of the most infamous atrocities to befall the Americas, without European involvement, is the human sacrifices conducted by the Aztecs in Mexico. Many have heard about how, despite all their societal advancements, the Aztec Empire (known more formally as the "Ēxcān Tlahtōlōyān" or "Triple Alliance" ) had the fatal flaw of worshipping gods who were quite literally bloodthirsty. Such examples included the earth goddess Tlaltecuhtli, the sun god Tonatiuh, and the rain god Tlaloc. Without human sacrifices to sustain them, certain gods in the Aztec pantheon would be unable to continue making the crops grow, supplying sunlight, supplying rain, and so on. In the century leading up to Hernán Cortés' arrival, there was a particularly devastating drought which led to a greater number of mass sacrifices. According to a live science article, "The skeletal remains of at least 42 children, ages 2 to 7, were discovered at Templo Mayor, the most significant temple complex in Tenochtitlán, now Mexico City, in 1980 and 1981", as one example dating back to that period. The Aztecs' rate of sacrifices were reportedly high enough to even earn the loathings of other neighboring civilizations, who themselves occasionally practiced human sacrifice. Wars would be waged with other tribes and kingdoms in order to supplement the sacrifices with captives or tributes. In one final detail that will be thematically important for my post, it is reported that these human sacrifices would sometimes be accompanied by ritual cannibalism too.

In contrast to these Aztec mindsets, Native American tribes of the Algonquin regions far north of Mexico passed down cautionary tales of a folkloric monster, which embodies similar evils… the wendigo. The Algonquin-speaking tribes lived around geographical locations like Canada, the Great Lakes, Saint Lawrence River, and the northern areas of the Eastern Coast. Many of these are notorious for their very harsh winters. Famine and hypothermia would be very real threats for an unprepared tribe… along with the temptation to commit evil acts in the name of survival. But there was another warning communicated through their folk tales. In the Algonquin legends, if a man facing these winters tried to survive by resorting to murder, selfishness, greed, and other sins, he could become possessed and transformed by an evil spirit. A shared element across many versions of these tales is how a human’s transformation is not complete, without him at one point succumbing to cannibalism. From my understanding, the word “wendigo” can refer to the demon itself or the transformed man, who becomes a Gollum-like, emaciated, and frostbit husk that insatiably feeds on other men. There is even an apparent form of psychiatric disorder named “Wendigo Psychosis”, after the monster.

In a way, I think the fall of the Aztec Empire could be interpreted as a failure to embrace the morals, which Algonquins tribes conveyed through their wendigo stories. It appears that the Aztecs’ customs of human sacrifice and the Algonquins’ tales of the wendigos reflect polar opposite mindsets. In the Aztecs’ point of view, even the gods were not above the need for survival and sustenance, which made them justify the murder of people for sacrifice, sometimes even considering such a fate to be pious and honorable. In contrast, the Algonquins who saw brutally harsh weather come and go every year have seemingly embraced an attitude that murdering one’s kin is never justified as a means to an end, not even as a perceived way to ensure survival. For even if one is to die, evil acts like that corrupt a person’s very soul and can lead to a fate worse than death. In not following that mindset, one could almost say that the Aztec civilization became an embodiment of the wendigo on societal scale. So in the eyes of the Aztecs’ neighboring tribes and kingdoms, the empire became a demonic bloodthirsty monster that must be vanquished. They wanted it overthrown so much that they willingly joined forces with the Spanish conquistadors to make that happen.

While the Spaniards and Aztecs’ neighbors superficially shattered the Aztec Empire’s evils by force, some of those perpetuated evils were not fully cleansed and healed, until the Virgin Mary’s appearance to Juan Diego as Our Lady of Guadalupe. The apparitions of Mary in Mexico needs virtually no introduction. The reported miracle of Mary’s image appearing on Juan Diego’s tilma, its intricate symbolism, the long time it has survived, and people’s alleged difficulty finding a natural way someone could have replicated the image are all very famous among Catholics. Juan Diego, the first Native American to be canonized as a saint, was entrusted in part to relay Mary’s message and have a church be built on the hill once occupied by one of the Aztec temples. Mary's message included that she would offer to take the people of Mexico under her wing as their new holy mother and that her son Jesus Christ shall be the one and only human sacrifice. These alleged apparitions in 1531 are credited with the conversion of millions of Mexicans to Catholicism within a relatively short period of time.

In keeping with Mary’s role of bringing people to Jesus, it seems only fitting that an Algonquin monster which parallels the evils she helped cleanse in Mexico can also be interpreted as an antithesis to Christ’s Holy Eucharist… just like the European vampire. In my very first post for the month of October, I contrasted the parallel imagery between the Holy Eucharist and the Resurrection with that of the Western vampire archetype. It is often interpreted that vampires resonate as a symbol of the unholy, due to how they are an inversion of the Christ figure. Jesus rose from the dead with a glorified body, more alive and radiant than before. And he gives life by infinitely offering his ever-living transubstantiated flesh and blood to consume. Meanwhile, the vampire rises from the dead as this undead husk, whose existence shuns the light like a soul living in a state of damnation. And it must infinitely take blood from humans to sustain what little emulation of life it has. While sharing that post, I compared the initial shocked reactions of Christ’s listeners to his Eucharistic command with the common cultural taboos of cannibalism, citing the Arabian ghouls and Native American wendigos as flesh-eating equivalents to the blood-drinking vampires. This clash of imagery seems to come full circle here too, with how the Aztecs’ methods of worshiping their gods through human sacrifice sometimes involved ritual cannibalism, before that evil was stopped and Mexico’s population would now be consuming the Eucharist.

With many evolving variants of the wendigo folklore, there is another recurring detail which is thought to illustrate the deadly sin of Greed… in a way which a Christian could also relate to. In many versions of the folk tales, wendigos also have varying kinds and degrees of supernatural power. Sometimes, wendigos would have the ability to grow in size with every meal, while remaining just as gaunt and emaciated as before. A wendigo that has eaten a lot could grow into a giant, yet still experience the pain of perpetual starvation and a compulsion to consume ever increasing amounts, just to feel the same fleeting relief. A popular interpretation is that Algonquin tribes started to emphasize that symbolism of their wendigo stories more, in the wake of some European settlers unethically seizing the land in the name of Manifest Destiny. Incidentally, I remember apologists like Bishop Robert Barron repeatedly describing Greed as an attempt to fill that God-shaped hole in one’s heart with material goods. When one seeks infinite fulfillment from finite created things, such idolatry could lead to vicious cycle where a person keeps futilely trying to satisfy oneself with increasing amounts of goods and pleasures. It could get to the point where one possesses enough for himself to make many people happy and grateful, yet still feel deprived and “starving”.

Over the decades since the 20th century, wendigos have become a more popular monster in mainstream pop-culture, though the depictions have undergone various changes like a game of Telephone. One of the earliest examples I know of is Algernon Blackwood’s 1910 novella, “The Wendigo”, about a pair of Scottish hunters and their guides who go for a trip into the Canadian wilderness during winter. They are stalked by a paranormal presence, which eventually drives one of their guides, Défago, mad and chases him off into the night. By the time they come upon Défago again, he is delirious and dies from exposure, while their frightened Native American cook believes Défago had seen the wendigo. That novella has influenced and/or been praised by later horror writers including H.P. Lovecraft, with Alvin Schwartz even incorporating an abridged version of “The Wendigo” in his “Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark” anthology books (albeit with some alterations). Though, this novella and its derivatives have drifted away from the Wendigo’s original symbolism of cannibalism and greed, depicting the entity more as a malevolent nature spirit in general. Going further, 2001’s independent film by Larry Fessenden, “Wendigo”, portrays the titular demon partially taking the form of a deer which the protagonist accidentally hit with his car. Arguably that cult film is one of the earliest films popularize the trope of having wendigos sport antlers, wear a deer skull, or even be a half-man/half-deer monster akin to the were-beast archetype. A prime example of later works following that trend is the 2021 film produced by Guillermo del Toro, “Antlers”, loosely based on a short story by Nick Antosca called “The Quiet Boy”. Though, the same Larry Fessenden would go on to help write the 2015 video game, “Until Dawn”, which portrays its wendigos in a manner much more faithful to the original folklore.

To supplement this, here is the specific article I quoted, along with some educational videos on Our Lady of Guadalupe and clips from the pop-culture works portraying wendigos...

1.) Live Science's Archaeology Article
https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/mass-child-sacrifices-in-15th-century-mexico-were-a-desperate-attempt-to-appease-rain-god-and-end-devastating-drought

2.) Father Mike Schmitz's Analysis Titled "What People Forget About Our Lady of Guadalupe":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_UFq1AFoBM

3.) Jon Solo's "The VERY Messed Up Origins™ of the Wendigo: Cannibal Demon | Native American Folklore Explained":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axRkTEy4sGo

4.) Fan-Made Dramatic Reading of "Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark - Chapter 05 - The Wendigo":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EtQvj2fTKs

5.) Clip of the Wendigos in the "Until Dawn" Video Game:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wZL8JSUba4

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
January 24, 2025
My kids pretending to be me and mother Natalia
00:00:49
Spiritual Direction: My favorite part about being a priest and a religious - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

People will often ask me 1) whether I am happy and 2) what my favorite part about being a priest and a religious are. They strike me as related questions, so why not answer them both. You will be surprised to find that my experience translates to yours : )

00:19:34
January 20, 2025
ANOTHER Studio Video Update 🤯
00:02:53
Simple NEW Lofi Song

Working on an entire album of lofi music. Here's one of those songs. Album should drop next week. THEN, a couple of weeks after that we hope to have our 24/7 stream up and running.

Simple NEW Lofi Song
December 01, 2022
Day 5 of Advent

THE ERROR OF ARIUS ABOUT THE INCARNATION

In their eagerness to proclaim the unity of God and man in Christ, some heretics went to the opposite extreme and taught that not only was there one person, but also a single nature, in God and man. This error took its rise from Arius. To defend his position that those scriptural passages where Christ is represented as being inferior to the Father, must refer to the Son of God Himself, regarded in His assuming nature, Arius taught that in Christ there is no other soul than the Word of God who, he maintained, took the place of the soul in Christ’s body. Thus when Christ says, in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I,” or when He is introduced as praying or as being sad, such matters are to be referred to the very nature of the Son of God. If this were so, the union of God’s Son with man would be effected not only in the person, but also in the nature. For, as we know, the unity of human nature arises from the union of soul and body.

The...

Day 5 of Advent
November 27, 2022
Day 1 of Advent

RESTORATION OF MAN BY GOD THROUGH THE INCARNATION

We indicated above that the reparation of human nature could not be effected either by Adam or by any other purely human being. For no individual man ever occupied a position of pre-eminence over the whole of nature; nor can any mere man be the cause of grace. The same reasoning shows that not even an angel could be the author of man’s restoration. An angel cannot be the cause of grace, just as he cannot be man’s recompense with regard to the ultimate perfection of beatitude, to which man was to be recalled. In this matter of beatitude angels and men are on a footing of equality. Nothing remains, therefore, but that such restoration could be effected by God alone.

But if God had decided to restore man solely by an act of His will and power, the order of divine justice would not have been observed. justice demands satisfaction for sin. But God cannot render satisfaction, just as He cannot merit. Such a service pertains to one who ...

Day 1 of Advent
Working on a New Lofi Animation

Thanks to Joshua Masterson for working on our new animation!

post photo preview

Dear friends of Matt,
In the Lord's providence, I share my birthday with this wonderful saint's feast day. St. Thomas Aquinas been a great intercessor and patron in my life.
Is it too self-serving to ask for your prayers??

post photo preview
January 26, 2025
We made it to Australia

Woohoo!

January 03, 2025
post photo preview
Did the Early Church Recognize the Pope’s Authority? A Socratic Dialogue You Can’t Ignore

Below is an imagined Socratic dialogue between a Catholic (Leo) and a Protestant (Martin). It is not intended to be an exhaustive argument but rather to help Catholics see that there is strong Patristic evidence for the early Church's belief in the authority of the Pope.

Special thanks to Madeline McCourt for her assistance in editing this article.

 


 

Martin: I’ve heard it said that the early Church gave unique authority to the Bishop of Rome, but honestly, I just don’t see it. To me, it seems like a later development rather than something the early Christians actually believed.

Leo: That’s an understandable concern, and one I’ve heard before. But if we take an honest look at the writings of the early Church Fathers, they seem to say something very different. Let’s start with Ignatius of Antioch. He wrote around A.D. 110 and called the Church of Rome the one that “holds the presidency.” Doesn’t that suggest a kind of leadership role?

Martin: Not necessarily. When Ignatius says that Rome “holds the presidency,” he could be referring to its importance as the capital of the empire, not as some kind of spiritual authority.

Leo: That’s an interesting point, but Ignatius doesn’t frame it that way. He’s writing to a church, not the emperor or the civic authorities. And he specifically praises the Roman Church for its spiritual character, saying it’s “worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing.” Moreover, he commends them for teaching others and instructing the faithful. That’s not a description of political power—it’s spiritual authority (Letter to the Romans 1:1, 3:1).

Martin: Even so, Ignatius doesn’t explicitly say that the Roman Church has authority over other churches. He’s being respectful, but respect isn’t the same as submission.

Leo: Fair enough, but let’s consider Pope Clement I. Around A.D. 80, he wrote to the church in Corinth to address a serious dispute. He doesn’t just offer advice—he commands them to reinstate their leaders and warns them that disobedience to his letter would put them in “no small danger.” Clement even claims to be speaking “through the Holy Spirit” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63). Why would a bishop in Rome have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a church in Greece unless there was an acknowledged authority?

Martin: Maybe Corinth respected Clement’s wisdom, but that doesn’t mean they recognized him as having jurisdiction over them. He could have been acting as a wise elder, not as a pope.

Leo: That’s possible, but Clement’s tone doesn’t suggest he’s merely offering advice. He writes as someone with the authority to settle the matter definitively. And we see this pattern again with later bishops of Rome. Take Pope Victor, who excommunicated the churches in Asia Minor over the date of Easter. Other bishops appealed for peace, but they didn’t deny that Victor had the authority to make such a decision (Eusebius, Church History 5:23:1–24:11). If the early Church didn’t recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome, why didn’t they challenge his right to excommunicate?

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
December 14, 2024
post photo preview
13 Rules for the Spiritual Life by St. John of the Cross

While reading the Mass readings in my Magnificat this evening, I came across a beautiful excerpt from St. John of the Cross. I won’t share the entire passage, as writing it out would take some time, but it’s the kind of text that reads like a series of aphorisms. The only thing I’ve added are the numbers, to present his words more clearly.

St. John of the Cross, pray for us.

  1. The further you withdraw from earthly things the closer you approach heavenly things.

  2. Whoever knows how to die in all will have life in all.

  3. Abandon evil, do good, and seek peace.

  4. Anyone who complains or grumbles is not perfect, nor even a good Christian.

  5. The humble are those who hide in their own nothingness and know how to abandon themselves to God.

  6. If you desire to be perfect, sell your will, give it to the poor in spirit.

  7. Those who trust in themselves are worse than the devil.

  8. Those who do not love their neighbor abhor God.

  9. Anyone who does things lukewarmly is close to falling.

  10. Whoever flees prayer flees all that is good.

  11. Conquering the tongue is better than fasting on bread and water.

  12. Suffering for Gopd is better than working miracles.

  13. As for trials, the more the better. What does anyone know who doesn’t know how to suffer for Christ.

May the wisdom of St. John of the Cross inspire us to strive for holiness and draw closer to Christ, following his example of humility, prayer, and trust in God. Which of his insights struck you the most?

Read full Article
December 12, 2024
post photo preview
Mother of God? A Socratic Conversation on Mary’s Role in Salvation

Morning, all.

Today I’ll attempt a socratic dialogue on Mary as Theotokos, or "Mother of God."

James is the Protestant, Thomas is the Catholic.

 


 

James: Thomas, I gotta say, I don’t get how you can call Mary the “Mother of God.”

Thomas: Alright?

James: I mean, how can a finite human being possibly be the mother of the infinite God? It doesn’t make sense—unless you’re elevating Mary to some sort of divine status.

Thomas: Well, let me ask you: do you agree that Mary is the mother of Jesus?

James: Obviously, yes.

Thomas: And do you agree that Jesus is God?

James: Of course. He’s fully God and fully man.

Thomas: Then logically, Mary is the Mother of God. She isn’t the mother of His divine nature—that’s eternal and uncreated, which I think is where you’re getting stuck. But she is the mother of Jesus, the one person who is both fully God and fully man. The logic is simple and unavoidable:

  1. Mary is the mother of Jesus.

  2. Jesus is God.

  3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

James: I don’t know… it feels like another invention by the Church to give Mary too much attention. And it’s nowhere in Scripture.

Thomas: True, the title “Mother of God” isn’t explicitly in Scripture, but neither are terms like “Trinity,” “Hypostatic Union,” or even “Bible.” The title is a theological conclusion drawn from Scripture, not something made up later. Take Luke 1:43, for instance. Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of my Lord.” In the context of Luke’s Gospel, “Lord” is clearly a title for God.

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals