Philippines

Another newsy question: Why does the Catholic Church still spurn Masonic lodges?

Another newsy question: Why does the Catholic Church still spurn Masonic lodges?

QUESTION: Why does the Catholic Church spurn Masonic lodges?

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

It probably perplexed some people, Catholics included, when the Vatican declared November 13 that Masonic lodge membership by a church member is “forbidden because of the irreconcilability between Catholic doctrine and Freemasonry.”

The announcement reaffirmed Rome’s 1983 declaration that a Catholic who joins the group is “in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.” That earlier statement was issued to clarify this penalty because the new revision of the Code of Canon Law had removed the specific condemnation of Freemasonry by name in the prior edition of the code.

Casual observers will see Masons as men who join just another harmless lodge for fellowship and to help out with charity drives. They may have heard that Masonry is considered the world’s oldest and largest men’s fraternal organization with 2 million members in the U.S. and more than a million in other nations, according to masonicfind.com. That hardly compares with Catholicism’s global flock of 1.3 billion plus and growing.

The November ban resulted from a question posed by the bishops in the Philippines, where Masonry has growing popularity. However, U.S. lodges fret over their declining ranks.

As Masonic blogger Michael Harding comments, “All membership-based organizations, from churches, sports leagues, scouting, professional associations, labor unions, chambers of commerce and other civic groups, are all experiencing accelerating membership declines with numbers of new members not keeping pace with aging memberships and a general lack of relevancy in today’s ever-increasing time-starved lifestyles.”


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Familiar, but newsworthy, trends: Catholicism grows in Africa and Asia, while Europe fades

Familiar, but newsworthy, trends: Catholicism grows in Africa and Asia, while Europe fades

The number of Roman Catholics across Africa and Asia continues to grow, according to a new report highlighted by the Vatican.

That’s one news hook for coverage. Here is another: the number of Catholic believers in Europe continues to implode.

“If we keep the faith to ourselves, we will become weak, and if we keep the faith to a small group, it might become an elite group,” Cardinal Luis Tagle of the Philippines warned on Oct. 21 during a news conference held at the Vatican.

This new report, compiled by Fides News Service, serves as a statistical snapshot of the church’s global population and institutions. It compared 2019 with the prior year and was based on the latest available statistics.

The findings, akin to a Vatican census, did not take into account the pandemic and the impact COVID-19 had on faith and church attendance as a result of shutdown orders across much of the world. The report was released to coincide with World Mission Day, which is celebrated on the third Sunday of October each year.

Pope Francis, in a message posted to the Holy See’s official website, highlighted the day’s purpose.

“We recall with gratitude all those men and women who by their testimony of life help us to renew our baptismal commitment to be generous and joyful apostles of the gospel,” he wrote. “Let us remember especially all those who resolutely set out, leaving home and family behind, to bring the gospel to all those places and people athirst for its saving message.”

Overall, the total number of Catholics throughout the world grew by 15.4 million people.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Trends that influence news: Where in the world is Christianity still growing?

Trends that influence news: Where in the world is Christianity still growing?

THE QUESTION:

Where in the world is Christianity still growing, and why?

THE RELIGION GUY'S ANSWER:

This page often addresses topics that have been in the air for months, even years. But this one is raised by a brand-new article this week at Christianity Today and a more academic version posted by the journal Sociology of Religion. There's further timeliness in the Gallup Poll's March bombshell that less than half of Americans now claim religious affiliations, the lowest mark since it began asking about this 84 years ago.

The CT article, headlined "Proof That Political Privilege Is Harmful for Christianity," is found here. The academic article is headlined "Paradoxes of Pluralism, Privilege and Persecution: Explaining Christian Growth and Decline Worldwide," and available for purchase.

So: Bad times for Christians are good times for Christianity?

That contention is a modern update on Tertullian's 2nd Century maxim during an era of outright persecution, "semen est sanguis Christianorum" — "blood is the seed of Christians." If you persecute us, we grow even more. And so it was.

The scholars proposing a 21st Century version of this are Nilay Saiya (writing solo in C.T.) and study partner Stuti Manchanda, both at the public policy department of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. This team analyzed data on churches' rise and decline in 166 countries from 2010 to 2020, found impressive expansion, and examined causal factors.

Looking back, Asia began the last century with only one Christianized nation, the Philippines, but more recently the faith "has grown at twice the rate of the population." Africa in 1900 had only pockets of Christians, mostly in coastal locations but today is "the world's most Christian continent in terms of population."

Now, all of that is familiar to missionary strategists and historians of the modern church. What's new here is the team's fresh look at explanations. They conclude "the most important determinant of Christian vitality is the extent to which governments give official support to Christianity." It's often said that the American founders' pioneering separation of church and state energized Christianity across two centuries.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Epic New Yorker 'chin stroker' meets thin Guardian 'head scratcher' in no-news showdown

Among the varieties of “news” stories dumped on an ever more skeptical clientele by the rapidly metastasizing news business are two categories I’ll call the “chin stroker” and the “head scratcher.”

Examples of both recently caught my eye. One was unquestionably high brow, the other decidedly not. I’ll get to them soon enough, but first some clarification.

Never confuse a “head scratcher” with a “chin stroker.”

The first is confounding — as in, what the *&#@ is this? Or, why’d they bother to publish this useless collection of words and punctuation, the point of which eludes?

The chin scratcher, in contrast, can be stimulating and have value, even if it leaves you wondering, why run this feature on this subject right now? Thus, chin stroking here is meant to conjure the image of the serious reader massaging their chin in thought.

My GetReligion colleague Richard Ostling recently tackled one such chin stroker in a post about a super-long New Yorker piece about the search for archeological evidence that the biblical King David was a historical figure. It’s the same one that caught my eye.

It’s a great read — if one has the time and patience to explore 8,500 words on the political and religious differences that infect the field of biblical archeology in Israel. Because I do — the coronavirus pandemic has me hunkering down at home with considerable time to fill — I found the piece an interesting, solid primer on the subject.

Journalistically, however, and as Richard pointed out, why did the New Yorker choose to run this story now? We’re in the middle of a scary pandemic and a brutal presidential election campaign complicated by great economic uncertainty and racial and social upheaval.

One need not be an ace news editor to conclude there’s plenty of more immediate fodder that readers might prefer. And given that it’s the New Yorker, why give it, as Richard put it, “10 pages of this elite journalistic real estate” when there’s no discernible news peg?

If you missed it, read Richard’s post — fear not, it’s far, far shorter than 8,500 words — because I’ll say no more about it here. Richard covered the finer points of the piece’s journalistic questions. Should you care to go straight to the New Yorker article, then click here.

Now let’s pivot from our chin stroker to a definite head scratcher, courtesy of the The Guardian.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

A baseball flashback (sort of): Kudos to MLB.com for getting some Tebow details right

So does anyone else miss baseball right about now?

I really do. I especially love, near the end of spring training, following the stories of the minor-league stars who suddenly get hot and rise into the major leagues. Is there anything more inspiring than watching a rookie who is 28, 29 or even 30 run down the red carpet on opening day and be introduced to The Show?

With that in mind, I would like to mix that story — tragically cut off this year, of course — with another ongoing story. That would be the evolving life and career of one Tim Tebow.

This MLB.com story ran quite some time ago, before our world turned inside out, but I filed it away since it managed to gracefully handle an interesting development in the Tebow story. I saw some other news reports that, as usual, were cranked out by journalists who seemed to go out of their way to turn this story into another chance to mock this man or ignore relevant facts about his life.

So here is a small dose of baseball news. Do you remember the news when this story broke? Here’s the MLB.com headline: “Tebow to represent Philippines in WBC qualifiers.” I am sure the lead-ups to the 2021 World Baseball Classic have been messed up — but let’s hope that our world is sorted out by next summer. Here is the overture:

PORT ST. LUCIE, Fla. -- Calling the opportunity “a really cool thing,” Tim Tebow has agreed to play for the Philippines in 2021 World Baseball Classic qualifiers.

Tebow, a former Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback who has spent the past four years as a Mets Minor League outfielder, was born in the Philippines. When the country’s national baseball team invited him to participate in WBC qualifiers, Tebow ran it past Mets general manager Brodie Van Wagenen and manager Luis Rojas, who signed off on him leaving this year's Spring Training to play.

“I’ve just got such a heart for the Philippines,” Tebow said. “I’ve just really had a love for the people for a long time. To be able to represent them will be really cool -- really, really cool. You don’t get a lot of chances to represent people or places that mean something to you.”

Many journalists left it at that — Tebow was born in the Philippines. End of story. The implication was that he was some kind of baseball hired gun for a day.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Friday Five: Top religion journalists, Christian rock, rainbow-cross flag burning, Sarah Sanders doctrine

We’ve mentioned a few of the winners in the Religion News Association’s annual Awards for Religion Reporting Excellence — including Ann Rodgers, Kimberly Winston and Rachel Zoll.

But be sure to check out the entire #RNA2018 contest list for more familiar, deserving names. Some names I recognized: Peter Smith, Peggy Fletcher Stack, Tim Funk, Sarah Pulliam Bailey, Emma Green, Elizabeth Dias, Bob Smietana, Jeremy Weber and Ted Olsen.

Congratulations to all of those honored for their work on the Godbeat!

Now, let’s dive into the Friday Five:

(1) Religion story of the week: Seriously, a story on Christian rock music is the story of the week!?

Hey, when GetReligion editor Terry Mattingly refers to a New Yorker piece on the Christian rock wars as “stunningly good,” pay attention. And as his post urged, read it all.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Twists, news pegs, names and questions in impending United Methodist LGBTQ showdown

At long last, the United Methodist Church has posted detailed proposals (.pdfs here) from its emergency “Commission on a Way Forward” to address what it calls the “deepening impasse” over whether to approve actively gay clergy and same-sex weddings. 

Leaders of America’s second-largest Protestant denomination hope to end this 46-year conflict and avoid schism by uniting around one of three plans from the commission at an extraordinary General Conference, next Feb. 23-26 in St. Louis.

An added news peg: The Council of Bishops is asking the Oct. 23-26 meeting of the UMC’s highest court (Judicial Council) to rule on whether each concept is constitutional. Consider that headline: If the jurists reject one, or two, or all three of the plans, could the General Conference legislate an outlawed proposal anyway?  

Watch for reactions to the three plans from this weekend’s (July 26-29) meeting at the St. Louis Airport Hilton of the Love Your Neighbor Coalition. Its 12-member caucuses want “full inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people.” Speakers include the UMC’s first married lesbian bishop, Colorado-based Karen Oliveto (bishop@mountainskyumc.org, 303-733-0083). A key coalition source will be Jan Lawrence (jan@rmnetwork.org, 773-736-5526),  executive director of the Reconciling Ministries Network. 

Here are salient aspects of the study commission’s proposals. 

* One Church Plan -- The majority of bishops and commission members favor what amounts to “local option” across the U.S. Regional units (“annual conferences”), congregations, bishops and pastors would be free to decide whether to uphold or reject the UMC’s existing stance against  homosexual relationships. Conservative congregations could still avoid gay clergy. Pastors and clergy candidates on either side could switch from annual conferences or congregations they disagree with. Proponents say this will end church trials and other tumult, and honor consciences on both sides. This also changes, of course, the church's commitment to centuries of Christian doctrine.



Please respect our Commenting Policy

Transgender Filipinos and playing journalism's conflict card when the conflict's largely settled

Transgender Filipinos and playing journalism's conflict card when the conflict's largely settled

A tried, true and irrepressible journalistic contrivance to pull media consumers into a story is the widely played conflict card. And by conflict I mean of any kind — two nations in opposition, or two politicians, two ideas, two religions, two siblings; two of anything with strongly differing goals.

Theater, films, novels, opera and other story-telling forms have their own conflict cards, of course. It's the stuff of drama. But since this is a journalism blog we’ll put those others aside for now.

Conflict grabs attention, enabling us to relate to news stories. Pick a side and you’re emotionally engaged and providing your own backstory, beyond what’s been reported. We all succumb.

The problem is that journalists -- brace yourself because the following words will likely rock your understanding of how journalism is practiced -- often overplay the conflict card,  molding mountains from molehills, trying to breathe life into a conflict that’s already been largely settled.

Shocking, isn't it? Why would journalists do that?

Well, how about because we need a hook and we’ve got nothing better? Or because we believe its what an editor and the news consuming public expects? It's our programmed default.

Sometimes it’s done because a reporter is working off assumptions that no longer apply, confusing past with present.

Take the following New York Times story from the Philippines that strives in its lede to portray a hot conflict between the Roman Catholic Church’s historic teachings and influence, and the nation’s widespread contemporary acceptance of homosexuality and alternative gender identities.

It's not a badly constructed story, in my opinion. Opponents and proponents get their say. However, the story is undercut by it's attempt to give oxygen to a conflict that seems largely settled.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

About those Filipino Catholics: What does it mean when a murderer is elected president?

In an increasingly insecure world, blow-back politics -- the lurch to the right after years of liberal government stumbles and outright failures -- has increasingly taken hold in the democratic West. We've seen it in Poland and earlier this year in Great Britain (Brexit).

It also goes a long way toward explaining how electoral long shot Donald Trump became President-elect Donald Trump.

How all this ends is anybody's guess. But let's hope it's not like the Philippines, where right-wing, electoral populism has birthed its deadliest spawn. That's where self-confessed murderer President Rodrigo Duterte has taken charge.

This week he uttered what arguably were his most outrageous comments yet. The Washington Post reported it thusly:

In his latest controversial statement, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, known for his bloody anti-drug war that has killed thousands, threatened to throw corrupt officials out of a helicopter, saying he has done it before, to a kidnapper, and won't hesitate to do so again.
“I will pick you up in a helicopter to Manila, and I will throw you out on the way,” Duterte said in Tagalog in front of a crowd in the Camarines Sur province Tuesday, according to GMA News. “I've done it before. Why would I not do it again?”

Yes. The people of the Philippines, an overwhelmingly Roman Catholic nation, freely voted into office a man who brags about his extra-judicial killing of those he judged to be incorrigible drug dealers and abusers, and others. And his henchmen follow his lead. And the Filipino people say they're, by and large, just fine with it.

This despite the fact that their church leaders openly and repeatedly condemned Duterte.


Please respect our Commenting Policy