You’d think one of the key bases for one claiming to be an authority on “factual information” is one’s track record of teaching and preaching on the basis of facts. In that light, Filipinos need to reevaluate their reliance on their Roman Catholic Church for intellectual enlightenment.
For one thing, the Catholic Church in the Philippines are mere vassals of a monarch sitting on a throne in a Medieval enclave within the Italian city of Rome. That by itself makes the agendas and motivations of the Church in the Philippines quite suspect. The more importantly feature of Catholicism, however, is not who is calling the shots but on what bases said shots are being called.
It has been clear for the longest time that the basis of Catholic teaching are texts that go back thousands of years that have not been subject to modern scrutiny and critical evaluation. Indeed, even the most modern scientific and historical theories remain subject to intelligent debate. One wonders then what makes Catholic dogma exempt from all that.
People who, on one hand, claim to be proponents of “fact checking” and, presumably anti-“disinformation” yet, on another, continue defer to religious dogma for their “moral” grounding should check their inconsistency. The two are clearly incompatible.
Webmaster of Get Real Philippines
Comments on “The Roman Catholic Church can’t claim to be “fact checkers” because its teachings are not based on FACTS”
Well, the teachings of the Catholic church are grounded in layers upon layers of traditions and beliefs that have been added on top of the original nugget of spirituality that Jesus taught. What’s interesting is that the “Culture Shock Philippines” book by Alfredo and Grace Roces calls Filipino Christianity a “selective assimilation of Christian values” meaning that Catholic values (that already quality as a “selective assimilation” of the original Christian values) have selectively been borrowed to suit the pre-existing pagan teachings.
Filipinos who call themselves Christians tend to, by and large, do an even further “selective assimilation” and only follow those religious teachings that don’t contradict their cultural values. A case in point is: God says “a man will leave his father and mother and he and his wife will become one flesh” while Filipino culture says “oo, pero…..a man will bring his wife to live with nanay, tatay, lolo,ola, kuya at are” and, sure enough, a Filipino will do what culture says
Yes, exactly. This further highlights the trouble with the practice of religion in that there is an inherent inconsistent grounding in said practice that makes it an unreliable reference for evaluating issues in a modern setting where a diverse range of sources of information are now readily accessible.