Rody; Anti-Catholic, Anti-Christ: Why president Duterte ought to shut his loud mouth in matters about the Catholic faith

There’s a story about Diogenes the Cynic confronting one of the most well-known philosophers of the ancient times, Plato. Plato was once giving a lecture when he described man as a “featherless biped”. Plato’s listeners applauded him for his definition. Diogenes, however, was unimpressed by Plato’s description of man. He brought a featherless chicken in front of Plato’s Academy, raised the plucked chicken and exclaimed, “Behold, Plato’s man!”

            Of course, Plato didn’t really misconceive what a man is, since men are indeed featherless. The problem with Plato’s definition is that while it’s correct, it’s actually incomplete. Men are indeed featherless, but there’s obviously more to us than that. To limit the nature of man with mere featherlessness is to equate man’s nature with a plucked chicken’s nature, or even a pig’s.

            Fast forward 2300 years later, from ancient Greece to modern day Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte has this well-known hobby of spitting his dirty venom into the Catholic Church. First, he criticizes the leaders of the Church in the Philippines, but now not only does he speak against the ecclesiastical authority, but he starts criticizing Church doctrine, from calling God “stupid” to saying that the concept of the Trinity is “silly”. Of course, from the point of view of a Catholic who knows his faith, Duterte’s tirades against Catholicism are indeed laughable, only exposing the President’s illiteracy regarding theology rather than him falsifying Catholicism. But in spite of that, many people still applaud at him when he speaks of such things and think, “well, what Duterte is saying is so true”. Ignoramuses. This article aims to prove that Digong’s rants against the Catholic faith completely misses tha point and that he doesn’t have any idea what the hell he’s talking about. Duterte, at least when he’s “dismantling” the Catholic faith, is a complete professional in speaking bullcrap and that he has to shut that dirty mouth of his.

            This is an article, by the way, of a Catholic, a seminarian, who is sick and tired of the President of the Philippines. I’ve had enough of him. I sometimes wish that I was in those places where he spoke badly about out bishops and my Catholic faith that I hold dear, and, like Diogenes, confront him in his face, in front of his supporters while holding a small pea exclaiming “behold, Duterte’s brain!”

            Just like our Lord Jesus Christ, who became angry at those people who desecrated God’s holy temple, I am angry at our president who continues to desecrate the mystical body of Christ, the Church, through his words. In his war against Catholicism, he never actually proved that the creator of the universe is stupid or that the Trinity is a silly concept. Duterte is so overly self-confident and blinded by such pride that he doesn’t realize that the punches he’s throwing at the Church are actually self-inflicting. His deathblows against the Church backfires at him, thus proving that he’s the one who should be called “silly” and “stupid” because unlike God, who is omnipotent and omniscient, Duterte is a fool. His fight against Catholics is one unhelpful and worthless shtick.

            Let’s start with his remarks about the corruption in the Church spearheaded by clergymen themselves. He seems to love talking about this. It’s as if blabbing about the moral failures of the bishops and priests is his fetish. The book Altar of Secrets is his obvious weapon against the Church on the issue, and tells us that it’s one of the reasons why he despises so much the faith where he’s actually baptized in. So, it seems to me that Duterte primarily hates Catholicism because of the wrongdoings of her members. But is that a good reason for hating the Church?

            Just like Plato’s description of man, Duterte’s remarks against the clergy and the corruption of the ecclesiastical hierarchy might not really be wrong per se, but it’s incomplete. Thus, this doesn’t justify him for despising the Church. Sure, many Catholics have done immoral, scandalous deeds (like, well, the president himself; he’s a good example of a scandalous Catholic), but our fellow Catholics shouldn’t be the reason for our staying or leaving the faith. You don’t leave Jesus because of Judas. Hating the Church because of sinners in it is like hating the gym because of the out-of-shape people in it, or hating school because of your unruly or talkative classmates. Christ should be the focus of one’s eyes as a Catholic, not the deeds or misdeeds of our fellow churchmen. Jesus built the Church, which means the Church is divinely instituted, but since her members are comprised of imperfect humans, her members can obviously succumb to temptation and sin (again, our boy Digong is a good example of this; he’s an obvious public sinner).

            To look at the Church in an incomplete way by merely focusing on the wrongdoings of His members rather than asking whether or not the teachings of the Church is true is like focusing on the mere featherlessness of man rather than examining man’s more important attributes like, say, rationality. Of course, I am not defending the priests and bishops who committed crimes. They obviously have to be punished by the appropriate authority. What I am saying is that the crimes done by clergymen won’t suffice as a reason in despising the Church, for it was never about them anyways. Catholicism has its doctrines that claim to be from God, which means that the Catholic Church claims to be the true Church. And that is the issue that we ultimately have to talk about. The important question is, “Is Catholicism true?” not “Are Catholics, especially its priests, perfect?” Duterte, Ignorant as he is, seems to be fixed and utterly obsessed with the latter question that he completely forgets to look at the bigger picture. Poor Digong.

            But of course, Duterte has something to say about a couple of our doctrines as well. He never gave reasonable arguments for his oppositions to those doctrines, though. He only gave wrongheaded remarks about it. (It’s all about that level. Trashtalk. Rookie misinterpretations of Catholicism. That’s all. Walang kalamanlaman ang mga pinagsasasabi ng gunggong na yun!) There’s really no good in engaging such an ignoramus, but the problem with simply ignoring an ignoramus is that the ignoramus breeds more ignoramuses. So, allow me to respond to his remarks about doctrine, so that Mr. President may stop influencing ignorant minds, especially the minds of the young ones.

            Duterte commented on the Catholic doctrine of original sin. Correlated with this is his remark about God being “stupid”. “You were not involved but now you’re stained with original sins [sic]” said Mr. Change is coming, “What kind of religion is that? That’s what I can’t accept, very stupid proposition.” Very well, Santo Rodrigo! Way to go in refuting such an absurd religious teaching!

            But no, not really. Duterte’s concept of original sin is incorrect. It’s important to point out first and foremost that original sin “is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’- a state and not an act” (CCC 404). Original sin is what we acquire from our first parents, it isn’t like our personal sins that we obviously do. Original sin, therefore, isn’t a punishment, but rather a consequence. But us God unfair, or stupid, for letting us be born in the state of original sin?

            Imagine a person struggling with poverty because his ancestors, though rich, have wasted their money on, say, gambling. Now imagine a person with more than enough riches because his ancestors, though poor, have worked hard so that they may be able to live a good life. Those examples are analogous to the way we inherited original sin. What makes the two situations in our examples “fair” or “unfair” is not whether they got something from their ancestors, but rather it’s of the nature of what they received. In that way, we can understand how original sin endured even when it wasn’t committed by us but rather by our ancestors. In the former example, the poor man isn’t being punished that’s why he’s poor, but he still suffers because of what his ancestors have done. In the case of original sin, then, it isn’t God’s supposed “stupidity” why we’re born in the state of original sin, but rather because of our first parent’s failure to act according to God’s will. Duterte, then, is beating a dead horse when he remarked about original sin. Duterte has indeed proven that he’s such an ignoramus on the issue.[1]

            Another case of Duterte’s ignorance on Catholic doctrine is when he called the Holy Trinity “silly”. His reason? Because “[y]ou cannot divide God into three” persons. Woah, what was the Catholic Church thinking?

            When I heard the news about Duterte’s “Trinity” remark, I don’t know how I should react. Should I be angry? Should I laugh at such a bad caricature of the Trinitarian doctrine? Because you see, Duterte’s remark against the Trinity is so wrong that it makes me angry, while at the same time it’s so stupid that it makes me want to laugh out loud. Duterte never cited a source from where he got that definition of the Trinity. And I’d be willing to bet my life that you will never find a definition of the Trinity that says God is a division of three persons in an official Catholic theology book or from anyone who knows what the Trinity really is. The Church has consistently taught from the beginning that God is one being existing in three coequal and coeternal persons: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That’s not the same thing as saying that the Three persons in the Trinity are divisions of God, as if the Father is one-third of the Trinity, with the Son as another one-third, and the Holy Spirit as another. In fact, that definition is considered as heretical. So, Mr. President, I can laugh with you about your definition of the Trinity, because that’s not the Trinity anyways, it’s your caricature of it. Strawman fallacy.

            But in spite of that, there are people who think Duterte’s criticism of the Trinity is justified. Jaime Licauco, a contributor for the Philippine daily Inquirer, wrote an articleabout Duterte’s remarks and gave a reason why “we can’t blame” the presidentfor thinking that the Holy Trinity is a silly doctrine.

            “How can there be three persons but one God?” asks Licauco, claiming that Christian apologists have found a way to defend the Trinitarian doctrine, even though it’s “illogical”.

            I sympathize with Licauco if he thinks the Trinity is a concept that might be counterintuitive. But, when carefully examined, it’s not. It will all make sense only when we establish what St. Thomas Aquinas calls the “preambles of faith”, or those philosophical foundations on which the Christian faith rests. So, the Trinity teaches that God is one being with three divine persons. But what is “being”? What is “person”? Those questions are questions that the critic of the trinity has to engage in, before concluding that such a doctrine is absurd. Yet Licauco dismisses the Trinity without talking about the preambles on which the doctrine stands upon. Also, Licauco’s accusation that the Trinity is silly will only be correct if when we speak of God’s being and personality, we are talking about it in a univocal way like when we talk about  our being and personality. Catholic tradition always maintains that when we talk about God and His attributes, we are talking about about it in an analogous way, not in a univocal way. We call this doctrine the analogy of being. So God’s being isn’t exactly the same with our being, and his attributes (goodness, for example) is not exactly the same with our attributes, but His being and His attributes are somewhat analogical to our being and attributes. Just like a man’s goodness is analogous to a wine’s goodness. A man can be good, and a wine can be good, but not in an exact same way. At the same time, God’s being and personality isn’t exactly like our being and personality, but is analogous to it. In light of these facts, Licauco didn’t actually refute the Trinity, but merely presupposed that it’s wrong without telling us why.

            Licauco also quoted from the early Christian writer Tertullian who wrote that he believes in Christ’s resurrection “because it is absurd”, and then he claims:

                        So, let us all proclaim, in the manner of Tertullian: “We believe in the Trinity, the Resurrection   of Jesus Christ and the Holy Eucharist because they are impossible.” No religion can exist without belief in the impossible, the illogical and the miraculous![2]

            So, what Licauco is trying to say here, it seems, is that even early Christians themselves acknowledged that Christian doctrine (some of it, at least) is illogical. He seems to be saying, “See? Even you hero Tertullian thinks that Christianity is foolish, for he believes it because it is absurd, he says”.

            Except that that supposed quote from tertulliam is actually a misquote. Licauco’s quote from Tertullian, like Duterte’s remarks on the Trinity, can never be found in any credible source or from any of Tertullian’s authentic writings. In fact, Licauco never cited a source for it, and even if he tries to find one, he can’t, because it’s a misquote. You will never find the words, “I believe it because it is absurd” (or Credo quia absurdum) in any of Tertullian’s writings. It appears to be a wrong way of paraphrasing Tertullian’s real words, “It is all by means to be believed, because it is absurd” (or, Prorsus Credible est, quia ineptum est).[3] The word absurdum isn’t even in the passage. A better translation, then, of Tertullian’s words is “It is credible, because it is foolish”. Tertullian isn’t arguing that foolish things are to be believed. Tertullian is arguing, rather, that the first Christians would not have believed that God died on the cross and rose again on the third day unless it really happened. Tertullian, then, is actually saying, “Christianity is true because it’s too ridiculous for someone to simply make it up.” If Tertullian is still living today and he happens to read Licauco’s article, he would’ve been disgusted at the misrepresentation of what he really said.[4]

            Now, I think what has been said suffices to show that Duterte’s criticisms of the faith are weak and only shows that Duterte has no Idea what he’s talking about. Mr. President, stop endorsing Altar of Secrets and start reading books on Catholic theology, or you might want to start reading a book by John Trigilio and Kenneth Brighenti called Catholicism for Dummies, in case you find books by Dr. Scott Hahn too technical (I’d expect that, given your feeble-mindedness). Or, Trigilio and Brighenti might want to revise their book into a more simplified version for our President and entitle it, Catholicism for Duterte.

---

[1] I got the idea of my response from an article at Catholic.com entitiled, “Is original sin stupid?” by Trent Horn

[2] Why we can’t blame President Duterte for calling the Holy Trinity ‘silly’ by Jaime Licauco, Philippine Daily Inquirer, January 05, 2019

[3] From Tertullian’s De Carne Christi (on the flesh of Christ)

[4] De Carne Christi is Tertullian’s response to the Docetists (I won’t elaborate this here, since this isn’t the issue that my article is trying to talk about).