|
That's because Catholic teachings, like any religious teachings, are beliefs not facts. It requires absolutely no facts to formulate or justify a belief. Liberal theologians who often dispute religious doctrine do so on the basis of examination of historical data, data which most forms of Christianity not only exclude but refuse to acknowledge the existance of, in spite of reality. Just look at how long it took the Catholic church to acknowledge the Copernican Theory or how many Christians still believe homosexuality is somehow based on a "choice" rather than genetics. Most Christians aren't even aware of the history of their religion.
For example, the Gnostic texts provide a different view of Christianity than that of the New Testament. These conflicting works were thus excluded from canon, and many Christians today don't even know of their existance. Thus, it's possible for fundamentalists to claim that Christianity somehow consists of a consistent view. Of course it does, since they're not looking at the whole picture.
Ask John Siegenthaler how accurate Wikipedia is. It is not, and won't be, accepted by academia because it does not possess a legitimate system of checks and balances to ensure accuracy. Academic publication is a rigorous routine to ensure accuracy (and even then, there have been examples of slip-ups). The lack of such means that the data in Wikipedia is suspect because if any biased and uninformed moron can add to it, that's exactly who will.
Take care,
Jason
|