Filipino boxer’s mom blames losses on leaving Catholicism

By David Agren

Almost as soon as Filipino boxing phenom Manny Pacquiao hit the mat — knocked out Dec. 8 by Mexican opponent Juan Manuel Marquez — experts, heartbroken fans in the Philippines and the former champion’s own mother offered explanations for his unexpected defeat.

Boxing observers suggested it was a question of in-ring style, saying that Pacquiao didn’t match up well with Marquez, who had lost twice and fought to a draw in three previous encounters with the Pacquiao. Some fans in the Philippines suggested Pacquiao had become a part-time pugilist, having been elected to political office. His mother found another explanation: faith.

The Inquirer Global Nation website highlighted an interview with Pacquiao’s mother, Mommy Dionisia, in which she said, “That’s what he gets for changing his religion.

“Since the ‘Protestant’ pastors came into his life, he has not focus on his boxing.”

The article went on to say: “She does not approve of Pacquiao leaving the Catholic Church. She wants him to quit and become a Catholic again. Many have noticed that in the last two fights which ended in defeat, Pacquiao did not enter the ring with a rosary around his neck as he did before.”

It ended by positing, “The 33 year-old Manny Pacquiao’s loss to Manuel Marquez is not about religion. He lost because he became a part-time boxer while the 39-year-old Marquez remains as full time professional boxer.”

This entry was posted in CNS, sports. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Filipino boxer’s mom blames losses on leaving Catholicism

  1. John Stockdale says:

    Does CNS have a purpose in this article? That God is the God of Catholics & not Protestants? The Catholic Church is quite clear in stating that nobody can be forced to be Catholic against his/her own conscience or free will. I would never expect a Protestant news agency to print an article in which the reverse was the case; a Protestant who turned Catholic. Concerning the mother’s comment about not wearing his Rosary; that questionably boarders on the superstitious. It also is possible fuel for some Protestants who accuse Catholics of Idol worship. Think carefully CNS!

  2. Anthony Drake says:

    John Stockdale, I think you are confused as to the nature of reporting. When you report what people do or say, you are in fact making it known, not promoting it. CNS is reporting what Pacquiao’s mom believes. Fine, you are offended by her beliefs. But your attack is misdirected and erroneous when aimed at the news service that let you know what her beliefs are. I for one find this information quite interesting as it gives the drama of this fight a much more culturally rich backdrop.

  3. John Stockdale says:

    Dear Anthony, I disagree with you that I am “confused as to the nature of reporting.” Solid journalism presents both sides of the story & there is only one side being represented here. So a “news story” on boxing has become a question of one’s faith. At that point then the responsible journalist would present the conflict of this nature and it’s ramifications – this is what I attemped to do with my comments. Let me ask you this: are you saying that a Catholic News agency is nothing more than secular news reporting on stories that happen in the Catholic community? That a Catholic who believes that her son has become religiously corrupted by Protestant pastors is news; without bothering to report the other side’s views? The New York Times in such circumstances reports, for instance, that (in this case) ‘Manny Pacquiao did not respond to our attempt for a statement concerning this story.’ They have attempted to represent the view of the one who is – in this report – the subject of the story. I don’t see that attempt in this article. You say that you “find this information quite interesting as it gives the drama of this fight a much more culturally rich backdrop.” Where is the ‘cultural’ backdrop in this report and just how rich is it? Catholism is not a culture – it is a religion; a belief. One-sided reporting that creates “drama” is gossip in my opinion. I hear that quite often in Church when people talk a little to loudly. Also, I must note, that this is regurgitated reporting. CNS is picking out of a news story that is not even their own personal investigation. Again, in my opinion, that is the most dangerous form of reporting; it is not investigative journalism. Investigative journalism seeks to uncover the truth. This presents the Catholic side of the issue and, in this particular case, a very distorted one that is dangerous to the Catholic Church’s image as well as Her doctrine (as I noted in referring to the Rosary issue). Even if it could be believed that only Catholics read CNS, it’s still a misguided & dangerous report in my estimation; we are supposed to be a community of love, not “drama.” I find it very interesting that you were motivated to address my comments as an “attack,” “erroneous,” and “misguided,” as well as to surmise that I was “offended” by the mother’s statements (I never said that nor did I imply it!), giving me the impression that either you failed to understand my point or that you do not agree with it. You may think me to be “confused,” though I beg to differ; I certainly would confess that I am opinionated! {8~)>

  4. hermittalker says:

    IF he took his mind off Jesus and His Kingdom, he went the way of all of us who make other idols for ourselves out of money, “prestige” or power of any sort.
    . That can happen with those who become gung-ho “evangelicals” and crazily seek to “convert” Catholics.and lose all reason and sense of balance. Norway is mostly non-practicing, but their Evangelicals trot off to Rome to “convert” Catholics, same as US Nutters do for Latin America and the Philipines.

  5. John Stockdale says:

    Quickly I would like to address the issue of “attack” syndrome (if I may humbly call it such): I hear the declaration of “attack” from both the Catholic News Media and directly from the pulpit. As such, the word also reaches the laity in it’s frequent usage. There is quite a difference between an attack and an opinion, which fosters debate. I do not use debate to attack; I use it as a means to bring about a difference of opinion, and I especially try my best to do this using reason (which is actaully itself a debate in the Catholic Church – doctrine vs reason). In any case, there is – in my opinion – a very good book which addresses some Catholic issues concerning this issue, as well as it’s history in The Church, “The Power And The Wisdom (An Interpretation of the New Testament)” by John L. McKenzie, S.J.. When the word “attack” is attributed to a given situation, it usually requires a “defense,” which in & of itself is a “counter-attack.” In a debate a “response” is usually solicited. A debate becomes an attack when one side attempts to attribute personal characterists to the other’s opinion. A problem with this is that it has the capiblity to bring personal emotion into debate. The reasonable debater will abstain from accusation to an opponent’s character in a debate, resorting simply to the use of examples to support his/her opinion. I truly feel that Danial’s was not an attack on me in any way; I did feel that his response to my comments deserved a response, which is what debating is all about. But to often I hear & read people’s opinions to other’s opinions as being referred to as “attacks.” The word needs to be used thoughtfully, and if it is used, then examples must be used in its defense.

Comments are closed.