(ZENIT News – Asia News / Moscow, 03.05.2025).- he surprising positions taken by the new American administration raise the question of the new balance between the USA, China and Russia, a much discussed topic also in the Russian media at home and abroad.

On 27 February, Lin Jian, a representative of the Chinese Foreign Ministry, observed that ‘relations between China and Russia will continue to develop steadily, despite changes in the international situation’.

These statements came the day after the US Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, declared in an interview with Fox News that Donald Trump intended to modify relations with China, to ‘prevent any form of dependence’ on it.

On 28 February, the Secretary of the Security Council of Russia, Sergei Shoigu, immediately travelled to Beijing to meet with President Xi Jinping and senior Chinese foreign policy officials to ensure that Moscow adheres to China’s positions on all regional and international issues. He himself emphasised that ‘the meeting was arranged at very short notice’, basically admitting that he had been ‘summoned’ by the Chinese leadership.

Merkhat Sharipzhanov, a commentator for Radio Svoboda, wonders if the Chinese leadership believes that ‘there is an attempt by Washington to provoke a schism in Russian-Chinese relations’, and to what extent the impromptu summit is due to the irritation of Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wan Yi.

Another worrying sign for Beijing was the vote at the UN on 26th February, when the USA refused to approve the resolution condemning Russia’s aggression, assigning Europe the responsibility for security in Ukraine, leading various European leaders to declare the need to become independent from the USA in order to look after the whole of the European Union.

This sudden ‘chaos in the enemy’s camp’, according to Sharipzhanov, ‘should be considered by China as a positive factor’, with Moscow’s diplomatic successes in resolving the conflict in Ukraine, something that the leadership in Beijing had been hoping for since the beginning of the Russian invasion.

In reality, in this way ‘China loses the opportunity to calmly observe the conflict’s exhaustion, remaining on the sidelines’, considering the war in Ukraine a ‘test of the West’s resilience’.

Many observers have expressed the opinion that the confrontation between Russia and the West over Ukraine makes China the only real beneficiary of the whole situation, and that Beijing only supports Moscow with words, while offering some (very cautious) support in circumventing sanctions and in the production of armaments.

The war weakens Russia and allows China to expand its influence over Siberia, the Far East and all of Central Asia, and makes the West less capable of defending Taiwan from Beijing’s ambitions.

Now the U-turn by the Trump administration radically changes the situation, allowing Moscow to come out of international isolation, thanks to Washington’s support. With the possible end of the Ukrainian conflict, comments Sharipzhanov, ’ the descendants of the great Confucius lose the chance to remain sitting on the branch, like the wise monkey waiting for the end of the fight between the two tigers, in which one of the two destroys the other in a deadly embrace, but remains so weakened that the monkey only has to jump on it to achieve full victory’.

China has not forgotten a similar circumstance that brought ideological enemies closer together: in 1971 Henry Kissinger arrived in Beijing to prepare for Richard Nixon’s visit the following year, which allowed China to come out of the closet on the international markets and begin the phase of its grandiose economic development, a circumstance that is also being recalled these days by Marco Rubio.

Kissinger himself later admitted that the turning towards China played an important role in weakening the USSR, and many are wondering if today the opposite effect might not occur, encouraging Moscow to hit back at China.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Beijing calls Moscow to account for its new relationship with Trump appeared first on ZENIT - English.

(ZENIT News – Mercator Net / USA, 03.04.2025).- For all his towering theological acumen, Joseph Ratzinger was a very practical man. When asked by a Bavarian journalist in 1991 whether it was the Holy Spirit who chooses the pope, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger gave a down-to-earth answer:

I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus, the Spirit’s role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.

If electors heed the Spirit’s voice in such a way during any particular conclave, they will weigh several factors to narrow down the pool of candidates to a handful, any of whom they would consider competent to lead the Church for the foreseeable future. Though few would admit it, geopolitics is one such factor.

Prior to the modern conclave, political motivations were commonplace, if not necessary, for the election of the Bishop of Rome. After all, for well over a thousand years, the popes wielded temporal, not just spiritual, power. Even in the fourth century, it was normal for imperial authorities to determine who would succeed Peter.

The emperor Constantine effectively appointed Julius I to the pontificate single-handedly in 337. Innocent I, who began his reign in 401, may have risen to the papacy for no other reason than that his predecessor, Anastasius, was his father (though some dispute what St. Jerome meant when referring to the former as the latter’s “son”). Although never formally recognized by the Church, a jus exclusivae had been exercised by several Catholic monarchs to prevent candidates from being elected. The institution of the conclave in 1276 and its various instantiations since then have streamlined the process and mitigated the abuse of political power in the election process.

Nevertheless, it would be naïve to think geopolitics had nothing to do with the election of Karol Wojtyła in October of 1978. Appearing on the balcony for the first time, the Polish pope acknowledged that the cardinals called him “from a far-away country” though he was “always near in the communion of faith and the Christian tradition.” Those who knew the Archbishop of Kraków knew that he was a man of extraordinary talent, and they were able to convince others of the same.

He would have been a strong candidate no matter where he came from. Yet no one knew the authoritative, systematic repression of Christianity in Poland better than Wojtyła’s main advocate, the Archbishop of Warsaw, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński. It is not as if Wojtyła’s nationality was either the main reason or even an overt reason for him to have collected nearly 100 of the 111 votes that year. But each of those votes tacitly represented the acknowledgment of an opportunity, albeit risky, to encourage Christians suffering in the Eastern Bloc and perhaps send a message to an already tiring Soviet regime.

Although Joseph Ratzinger had spent almost a quarter century working in the Roman Curia, nobody had forgotten that he was a German. He is now listed among half a dozen German popes spanning back to Gregory V in the 10th century. Unlike his German predecessors, however, Ratzinger’s CV included a line indicating his former affiliation with the Hitler Youth, an organization he was required to join at the age of fourteen and something the press was obsessed with reminding us of after his election in 2005.

More often than not, the media continued to consider his nationality a major liability, such as when Benedict visited Yad Vashem in 2009 and stopped short of stepping out of his white robe and acknowledging personal responsibility for the Shoah. Yet, every soul in the Sistine Chapel casting a vote for him in 2005 knew deep down that no one understood the crisis of European culture better than the former Archbishop of Munich and Freising. In fact, the speeches Benedict gave in Regensburg, Paris, and London proved that he understood the crisis even better than anyone thought.

It was only a matter of time before the cardinals would elect a pope from the Americas. If they had been specifically searching for one, they had a handful at their disposal. Cardinals Ouellet, Maradiaga, Scherer, and even U.S. prelates Dolan and O’Malley fit the bill (the last two, though conceivable under an Obama administration, are unimaginable under Trump). But again, it was unlikely that geopolitics would be elevated as the prime factor of consideration.

Yet, every vote cast for Jorge Mario Bergoglio in March of 2013 signaled at least an openness to a different mindset reflected in the Argentinian cardinal’s “peripheries” speech amid the general congregations held before the formal election process commenced. Think what you will of our ailing pontiff, but never forget that he hails from a part of the globe that approximately 40 percent of Catholics throughout the world call home.

If you have any doubt that geopolitics should play a role in papal elections, think of this: while choosing someone to step into the shoes of the poor fisherman from Galilee, the cardinals are also electing the head of a sovereign, juridical entity under international law that actively participates in bilateral and multilateral international relations through the accreditation and reception of diplomatic representatives and the ratification of treaties. If you think the Holy See has lost its power to influence global affairs through that sovereign status, think again.

Most of what she accomplishes or attempts to accomplish through her diplomatic activity goes unnoticed. But having been behind the scenes, I can assure you that it is anything but insignificant, and there are enough cardinal electors well aware and appreciative of its significance to make geopolitics a factor in the next conclave, even though few would admit it and practically none would make it the primary factor.

There’s no question that geopolitics are a factor in electing popes, though the office’s primary spiritual mission ensures that they will never be the factor. How much a factor they are and in what way will only be determined by historical circumstances that are contingent and ever-changing. But, as a very practical pope reminded us, the Holy Spirit can work with those too.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Geopolitics and Papal Elections appeared first on ZENIT - English.

In the flow of news about the Pontiff’s health, for some days now there has been a growing number of false photographs and animations created with the aid of AI. Some of them are in the limbo between the devotional and the absurd, with Jesus, Mary and Angels next to the Holy Father’s bed. 

Others are built to be particularly truthful, in addition to insidious: resuscitation machines, oxygen masks, cannulas. The result of the so-called deepfake, the latest toxin of misinformation, capable of infecting even quite a few prayer messages of the unsuspecting. Ironically, many of the «best» fakes were made with Grok, the artificial intelligence of X, the boast of Elon Musk.

On one hand, Pope Francis demonstrates to be a viral phenomenon with few rivals. On the other, the urge to stand out — even at a time that worries most believers — is irresistible to some, and it’s worth the risk of crossing the line into bad taste.

Falsifications of this sort have the potential to generate confusion, support factions’ propaganda, not to speak of their role in scams. Common sense should be a sufficient antidote against certain poisonous manifestation of the Net, but it’s no guarantee. 

It is worth recalling that it’s not very probable that genuine photographs of Pope Francis in hospital will be available. Since 1996, fifteen years after the attack against John Paul II (and of one of the most famous photographs of his pontificate, in which he appeared  smiling and sore in a hospital bed), Pope Wojtyla’s own Apostolic Constitution «Universi Dominici Gregis» makes it clear that «no one is permitted to use any means to take images of the Supreme Pontiff, sick in bed or dead, nor to record his words with any instrument and reproduce them» (n. 30).

Proof that morbid curiosity, and a certain type of speculation, know no time. Only, in times that were no less suspicious but less technological, it was necessary to limit oneself to the oldest of stratagems: theft.

The now controversial archaeologist Riccardo Galeazzi Lisi, the «Pope’s doctor,» resorted to this in 1958. On the night of October 5 of that year, Pius XII suffered ischemia. While he was in a coma, intubated and watched by a nun, Galeazzi Lisi secretly took some photographs of him, which he sold to the French magazine Paris Match. The next day, unexpectedly, Pius XII recovered, only to die on the morning of the following October 9. Galeazzi Lisi was also responsible at that time for the grotesque embalming of the Pope’s body. Because the problem does not lie in the overabundance of AI, but in the defect of natural intelligence, and of ethics.

Translation of the Italian original into Spanish by ZENIT’s Editorial Director and, into English, by Virginia M. Forrester.

The post The False Photos of the Pope in Hospital: Such Are the Ones That Make Us Think appeared first on ZENIT - English.

Millions Spent, No Remains Found 

The National Advisory Committee on Residential Schools, Missing Children, and Unmarked Burials (NAC) announced in mid-February that it was “extremely disappointed” by the federal government’s decision to withdraw financial support. The committee, which was jointly managed by the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation and the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations, had been tasked with helping Indigenous communities locate and commemorate children who allegedly went missing from residential schools.

Despite millions of dollars allocated to the effort, no bodies have been found on lands associated with these government-mandated schools, many of which were operated by Catholic and Anglican churches. The initial funding for the project, budgeted in 2022, was set to expire in 2025, with approximately $216.5 million already spent. Notably, $7.9 million dedicated to fieldwork has yet to yield any physical discoveries.

The Kamloops Claim and Its Fallout 

The global uproar surrounding unmarked graves began in 2021 when the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation claimed to have discovered 215 burial sites at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School. However, the claim was based solely on ground-penetrating radar scans, which detect soil disturbances but do not confirm the presence of human remains. In the years since, the claim has been revised from “215 graves” to “200 potential burials,” with no excavations providing further clarity.

Nonetheless, media outlets and political figures amplified the initial allegations, leading to widespread public outrage. In the wake of these reports, 112 churches—many serving Indigenous communities—were vandalized, desecrated, or burned across Canada, with most attacks targeting Catholic churches.

Trudeau’s Stance and Ongoing Misinformation 

Despite the lack of confirmed physical evidence, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has continued to publicly assert that unmarked graves have been discovered. As recently as June 2024, he reiterated this claim, fueling continued controversy and criticism.

The residential school system, which operated from the late 19th century until the last school closed in 1996, was a government initiative designed to assimilate Indigenous children into Western society. While religious organizations, particularly the Catholic Church, administered many of these institutions, the schools were established and funded by the federal government.

Tragic deaths did occur within the system, but historical evidence suggests that many children succumbed to diseases such as tuberculosis, worsened by inadequate government funding for healthcare and sanitation. A retired Manitoba judge, Brian Giesbrecht, criticized the Trudeau administration in October 2024, stating that Canadians were being “deliberately misled by their own government” as it continued to push a narrative that unfairly placed blame on the Catholic Church for “secret burials.”

A Politicized Narrative?

While there is no dispute that abuses took place in some residential schools, the claims of mass graves and hidden burials remain unproven. Critics argue that the unverified allegations have fueled an anti-Catholic backlash and undermined historical accuracy.

The government’s quiet withdrawal of funding suggests an implicit acknowledgment that the evidence has not supported the dramatic claims made in recent years.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post After 112 vandalized churches, Canada ends funding for research on Catholic school tombs appeared first on ZENIT - English.

A Shift in Worship Habits, but Not in Religious Identity 

In the early months of the pandemic, in-person worship all but disappeared. By mid-2020, only 6% of Americans who regularly attended religious services reported that their places of worship remained open without restrictions. The majority either had no access to in-person services or faced significant limitations designed to curb the spread of the virus. By 2022, many places of worship had resumed normal operations, yet nearly 60% of regular attendees noted that some level of restriction remained in place.

Despite these disruptions, most Americans report that their personal religious or spiritual lives were largely unaffected by the pandemic. By 2024, only 10% of U.S. adults said COVID-19 had significantly impacted their faith, while 69% stated it had no effect at all. Even among those who acknowledged an impact, opinions were evenly split—some felt the changes were positive, others negative, and a sizable portion remained neutral.

The Rise and Decline of Virtual Worship 

One of the most noticeable transformations during the pandemic was the shift to virtual worship. As churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples closed their doors, many turned to livestreaming services online or broadcasting them on television. This digital adaptation allowed congregations to stay connected, and at its peak, virtual participation rivaled in-person attendance.

However, as pandemic fears subsided, the pendulum swung back. By late 2024, the percentage of Americans watching religious services online had declined, while in-person attendance had slowly rebounded. Still, the overall participation rate—whether virtual, in-person, or both—remained consistent at around 40%, suggesting that those who were engaged in religious practice before the pandemic found ways to continue, regardless of format.

Who Was Most Affected? 

While most Americans reported little to no impact on their religious lives, certain communities experienced more pronounced effects. Black Protestants and Hispanic Catholics were among the groups most likely to say the pandemic influenced their faith in some way, with nearly half acknowledging at least a minor impact. Similarly, racial and ethnic differences emerged more broadly: Black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans were significantly more likely than white Americans to say that COVID-19 had changed their spiritual or religious perspectives.

Interestingly, within these groups, interpretations of the pandemic’s impact varied. Black Protestants, for example, were more likely to describe the experience as spiritually enriching rather than damaging. In contrast, white Catholics were more likely to say the pandemic had negatively affected their religious lives.  

A Generational Divide in Religious Participation 

Age also played a role in shaping pandemic-era religious habits. Among younger adults (18–29 years old), religious participation fluctuated dramatically, dipping to 28% at its lowest point and rising to 38% in more recent surveys. Although these numbers indicate a temporary increase in engagement, younger Americans still participate in religious services far less frequently than older generations, continuing a long-standing trend that predates the pandemic.

A different pattern emerged among Jewish respondents. Their reported levels of religious service attendance spiked in late 2022 and 2024, likely due to the timing of the surveys, which coincided with the High Holy Days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur—periods of peak synagogue attendance.

The Future of Religious Engagement in the U.S. 

While some observers predicted that the pandemic might trigger a lasting decline in religious participation, the data suggests otherwise. Instead, the pandemic reinforced long-standing patterns: those who were religiously active before COVID-19 found ways to remain engaged, while those who were not did not suddenly seek out faith-based communities.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Religious Life in Post-Pandemic America: Change, Resilience, and Stability appeared first on ZENIT - English.

The ruling follows years of legal battles after Santamaría and his colleagues published a 2022 report with the Institute Salud Sin Bulos, in which they argued that Gestalt Therapy is not only ineffective but also financially and psychologically harmful to those who undergo it. In an interview with “Alfa y Omega”, Santamaría described the court’s decision as a victory for public interest, emphasizing that “the judge recognized that this is a matter of public concern, making freedom of information take precedence over the right to honor.”

Gestalt Therapy: A Patchwork of Unverified Ideas 

One of the core criticisms presented by Santamaría is that Gestalt Therapy is practiced without the necessary psychological training. The Spanish Association of Gestalt Therapy, he pointed out, consists of individuals who simply complete specific courses—none of which require a background in psychology. He described the approach as a mix of psychoanalysis, Eastern spiritual traditions, and vague self-help philosophies, lacking any solid foundation in scientific research.

The association’s aggressive legal response raised further concerns. “A serious professional organization would have engaged in debate, discussion, and clarification of positions,” Santamaría argued. Instead, the association sought to suppress criticism by demanding the removal of the report and a public retraction, along with a financial compensation of 57,000 euros. The court’s ruling, however, rejected their claims and reinforced the importance of exposing pseudoscientific practices.

Allegations of Psychological and Physical Harm 

Perhaps the most disturbing revelations from the case came from witness testimonies, which highlighted the extreme and coercive nature of some Gestalt Therapy practices. During the trial, former members recounted their experiences within groups that exhibited sect-like behaviors, including psychological pressure, financial exploitation, and even physical harm.

One particularly harrowing case involved a man who suffered severe health consequences due to Gestalt Therapy’s disregard for medical science. Under the influence of his therapist, he abandoned essential medical treatments, which ultimately led to vision loss in one eye and serious cardiac issues. It was only when he found himself in a life-threatening emergency that he decided to leave the group.

According to Santamaría, these cases are not isolated incidents. He warned that many Gestalt Therapy practitioners operate outside regulatory oversight, often blending their methods with other alternative healing practices associated with the New Age movement. His book, «La Nueva Era en el Siglo XXI», explores how these unregulated therapies attract vulnerable individuals, leading to long-term psychological and financial dependency.

The Risk of Institutional Legitimization 

One of the most troubling aspects of the Gestalt Therapy phenomenon, Santamaría noted, is its creeping legitimization within academic institutions. Some public and private universities have begun incorporating Gestalt principles into psychology programs, lending an appearance of credibility to what is, at its core, an unproven practice.

More concerning still is the fact that some licensed psychologists have integrated elements of Gestalt Therapy into their professional work, often without informing clients of the lack of scientific support for these methods. This, Santamaría stressed, represents a violation of informed consent, as patients are led to believe they are receiving evidence-based treatment when, in reality, they are not.

A Broader Battle Against Pseudoscience 

The legal victory against the Spanish Association of Gestalt Therapy is part of a larger struggle against pseudoscientific practices masquerading as legitimate psychological treatment. The use of litigation as a tool to silence critics, Santamaría pointed out, is a well-documented strategy employed by groups with sectarian tendencies. “Overwhelming critics with legal battles is a common tactic,” he said, adding that many experts have been intimidated into silence.

Fortunately, in this case, the strategy failed. Santamaría credits the strong legal defense led by Carlos Bardavío and the support of professional psychology organizations across Europe, which imm ediately rallied behind him and his co-authors.

However, the fight is far from over. Santamaría warns that Gestalt Therapy, like many other pseudoscientific approaches, thrives in environments where skepticism is low, regulation is weak, and people are searching for meaning and healing outside traditional medicine. The danger, he argues, is not just that it is ineffective, but that its very foundations carry inherent risks—risks that have already led to serious harm.

With this court ruling, Spain has taken a firm stance against the spread of pseudoscientific practices, setting a precedent for future cases. But for researchers like Santamaría, the real victory will come when awareness, regulation, and critical thinking prevail over dangerous therapies that exploit those in need.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Court Ruling Declares Gestalt Therapy a Pseudoscience Amid Sect-Like Practices appeared first on ZENIT - English.

(ZENIT News – MercatorNet / Virginia, 02.26.2025).- Say the word “demography” in most places and nary an eyebrow will raise. But halfway around the world the subject is fraught with controversy, especially within the political class of India.

Subcontinental colossus

At over 1.4 billion, India is the world’s most populous country. The total fertility rate (TFR) is 2.0 and slowly declining. That’s about 5 percent below replacement level. India is also emerging as a prominent player on the global stage. The demographic dividend (a disproportionately large working-age population) is upon them. A founding member of the BRICS Alliance, India is important as a source of cheap labour. Much as indentured Indians came to Guyana and South Africa to work the sugar cane fields, today they’re in the Gulf States and elsewhere working on mammoth construction projects.

India is also a “middleman” in global trade: vast amounts of sanctioned Russian oil is sold to India, then refined and resold to Europe. Beating sanctions is a “win-win” for both countries. While India’s government is adept at global wheeling and dealing, it is also practically fixated on the country’s demography, but not in the way Westerners might expect. In India, religion is the demographic hot button.

History

India was the “Jewel in the Crown” of the British Empire, by far the UK’s largest and most productive colonial possession, exporting vast amounts of tea, cotton, spices, indigo and other agricultural commodities. From the time of the Sepoy Mutiny (1857), aka the First War for Indian Independence, the British Empire began losing its grip. There were many reasons for the revolt, but the straw that broke the camel’s back was a religious issue, the introduction of new rifles and cartridges for Indian troops that were supposedly greased with lard (pork fat) and beef tallow. This was highly offensive to both Muslims and Hindus.

The rebellion was brutally suppressed. The British Raj supplanted the East India Company, but the damage was done. After World War II an exhausted British Empire, facing surging Indian nationalism, realized that continued British rule was not an option. Lord Louis Mountbatten was dispatched to formulate a scheme for independence. The powerful Muslim League insisted upon a Muslim state; thus the subcontinent was partitioned into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India.

Partition began in August 1947. It sparked the largest mass migration in history. Millions of Muslims made their way into Pakistan as millions of Hindus and Sikhs headed for India. With 15 million displaced, a refugee crisis ensued; an estimated 2 million died. Partition cemented a lasting animus between Hindus and Muslims. That deep-seated religious antagonism flourishes today and seems to be intensifying.

Religion

In the 1990s the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) emerged as a champion of Hindu rights. After brief stints in government, the BJP won an outright parliamentary majority in 2014 and has consolidated its rule. The BJP espouses Hindutva, the doctrine of political and religious hegemony of Hindus and the Hindu religion. It is demographic considerations that foment widespread concern for “Hindu rights.”

India’s first census (1951) revealed a population 84.1 percent Hindu and 9.8 percent Muslim. The last national census (2011; the 2021 census was postponed during the Covid crisis) Hindus were 79.8 percent of the population; Muslims 14.2; Christians 2.3 and Sikhs 1.7. The slow but steady decline of India’s Hindu percentage is cause for alarm among the religious Hindu majority. This significant shift was due to the differential fertility rates of Hindus and Muslims. Not only that, Muslim Pakistan’s TFR is 3.4, almost 60 percent higher than India’s 2.0.

In 2020 the World Religion Database survey (cited by the US Department of State) had Hindus at 72.4 percent; Muslims, 14.0; Christians, 4.8; and Sikhs, 1.8. This report was a further shock to the BJP, as it reported a further shrinking Hindu percentage with more than a quarter of Indians belonging to other faiths.

India’s National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), conducted from 2019-21, reported on the differential TFRs:

Differential fertility between Hindus and Muslims – the two major religious groups in India – has always fueled controversy among academicians and policymakers. According to NFHS-5, TFR among Hindus was estimated to be 1.9, while among Muslims it was 2.4.

While India’s Muslim population is only 14 percent, a 10 percent decline in Hindu population plus a 20 percent Muslim/Hindu TFR differential is deeply troubling to Hindutva advocates. But those differential rates are converging. In 1992 the TFR differential was 1.11. In 2019 it was .42. From all indications that trend continues. Birth control is a significant factor.

Sectarian tension

Earlier this month India’s Business Standard reported the findings of a Jawaharlal Nehru University study: “Illegal migration reshaping Delhi’s demography, impacting polls: JNU report; The JNU report on Delhi’s demography notes a marked rise in the Muslim population due to migration from Bangladesh.”

According to the report… “The creation of fraudulent identification documents undermines the integrity of legal and electoral systems.”

The study also notes a marked rise in the Muslim population due to migration from Bangladesh. It suggests that these demographic shifts have contributed to changes in the socio-political landscape of the city.

India has the world’s third largest Muslim population (almost 200 million) behind Pakistan and Indonesia. Local BJP politicians frequently voice anti-Muslim sentiments, though party leadership under Prime Minister Narendra Modi stresses religious tolerance. Muslims are sceptical.

In 2021 the Pew Research Center published a study aptly titled “Religion in India: Tolerance and Segregation.” In the West, toleration and segregation are viewed as incompatible, though Indian commentators have said that continued religious segregation is the way to prevent sectarian violence.

Indians’ concept of religious tolerance does not necessarily involve the mixing of religious communities… [M]any Indians seem to prefer a country more like a patchwork fabric, with clear lines between groups.

Nearly two-thirds of Hindus (64%) say it is very important to be Hindu to be “truly” Indian.

[A]mong Hindu BJP voters who link national identity with both religion and language, 83% say it is very important to stop Hindu women from marrying into another religion.

[T]hree-quarters of Muslims in India (74%) support having access to the existing system of Islamic courts.

Some Indian commentators have voiced opposition to Islamic courts along with more broadly negative sentiments against Muslims, describing the rising numbers of dar-ul-qaza [Islamic courts] as the “Talibanization” of India.

India’s constitution refers to the country as India, Bharat and Hindustan (land of the Hindus). A solid majority of Indians conflate national and Hindu identity. They believe that Hindus are “true Indians.”

Perceptions

In Western countries, walking down the street people notice the colour of your skin and socio-economic cues such as dress, style and demeanour. These are casual and innocent observations, first impressions. However, in some non-Western locales, religious cues are what passersby note. This is especially true in the Middle East and to a great extent in India. Indians are much more religious than Westerners. Religiosity is weaponized for political purposes. The Hindu fear of a Muslim-majority India is real. That sentiment fuels support for the ruling BJP.

Poonam Muttreja, Executive Director of the Population Foundation of India, posits that India’s Muslim population will peak at 18 percent by century’s end, thus claims by Hindu activists that the country is on track to have a Muslim majority are unfounded. Muttreja says that the slow but sure convergence of the differential Muslim-Hindu TFRs will ensure a continued Hindu majority. However, hers is a scholarly voice lost in the wilderness as the public square is flooded with warnings about “Talibanization,” Sharia law and Islamic terrorism.

According to Muttreja, “Once fertility rates decline, they never increase again, no matter what policies governments introduce.» She cites the thus far losing battles to regain replacement-level fertility in places like Russia, China and Japan. While it is true such initiatives have had limited if any success, the battle against falling fertility has only begun. Widespread public consciousness of population collapse has yet to be realized, and positive change, if it comes, will take decades.

To understand the importance of demography on daily life, study India, where religion can be a matter of life or death.

My advice: keep the faith, tolerate and respect other folks, and have zero-tolerance for evil. If more of us did that, we’d have a better world.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post In India, religion is the demographic hot button appeared first on ZENIT - English.

(ZENIT News – The Catholic Herald / London, 02.25.2025).- New Atheism is out, cultural Christianity is in – it would appear. At the least, it’s undeniable that a significant number of public intellectuals are discovering an interest in the Christian faith. This interest has led some to a wholehearted conversion (for example, in the cases of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Niall Ferguson, or Tammy Peterson). For others (Jordan Peterson, Douglas Murray and Konstantin Kisin, to name a few), their beliefs remains more elusive; Christianity is more to be gestured towards than fully embraced.

Nowhere was this clearer than at the ARC (Alliance for Responsible Citizenship) conference which took place in London from 17 -19 February. An impressive gathering of over four thousand people from around the world, the conference was centred around ARC’s vision of renewal, based on the conviction that Western civilisation is in decline, but animated by the hope that we can “re-lay the foundations of our civilisation”. A mission that’s nothing if not ambitious.

In his first speech, Jordan Peterson encouraged attendees to foster a “genuine and mutually appreciative union of traditional conservatism and classic liberalism” against hedonism. That seems reasonable for a conference with the goal of responsible citizenship at its heart. But how do we achieve that in practice? “Sacrifice,” uttered Peterson with his customary tone of earnestness, is the only way.

What followed was a perfect example of both the strengths and limitations of cultural Christianity. Peterson punctured the rest of his speech with near admissions of the truth of the Christian faith, yet time and time again he was careful to just miss the mark. “The biblical library,” as Peterson referred to it, is one of the “foundational texts” of “free western societies” which acts as “extended studies” on the necessity of self-sacrifice for the sake of future generations.

For Peterson, Christianity is not true myth, as C. S. Lewis famously put it, but a “uniting meta-narrative”. It’s perhaps no surprise, then, that while the “Christian drama” of sacrifice was invoked many times, Christ himself was never mentioned.

The rhetoric of “narrative”, though doubtlessly appealing to non-Christians, runs the risk of obscuring Christian truths. “The sacrifice most pleasing to God,” Peterson concluded, “is the sacrifice that tends towards the ultimate.” But what about the fact that the greatest sacrifice was in fact God’s own sacrifice to redeem humanity through Christ’s incarnation?

Peterson wants to reassure us that we can pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, transcend our egotistic selves, and reach up towards “the divine”. The Christian faith teaches us that it’s God who, in his mercy, reaches down to us from heaven. We can’t rebuild a civilisation through sheer force of will. We need otium as well as negotium; prayer as well as hard work.

To be fair to Peterson, he doesn’t profess to be a Christian, but as his brand of cultural Christianity gains momentum, it’s starting to rub off on those who do profess the faith. For example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali agreed with Peterson that the West’s decline is linked to the fading of Christianity. “My message to you today,” she clarified on the second day of the conference, “is to stress that responsible citizenship in the West is inseparable from Christian morality.”

I have a lot of respect for Hirsi Ali, whom I believe to be sincere in her conversion to Christianity. Yet her statement begs the question, how can we embrace “Christian morality” without believing the truth of the Christian story?

But, I can hear the likes of Rod Dreher argue, ARC is a conference about responsible citizenship, not a spiritual retreat. Why can’t we work to save Western civilisation while knowing that it’s “not the same thing as salvation”? Why can’t we make Christianity palatable to a wider audience for the sake of collaboration? From that perspective, there’s nothing wrong with Peterson referring to Christ’s life as a “meta-narrative” or Hirsi Ali encouraging a return to “Christian morality”.

I take the point. Yet the problem remains that the path from cultural Christianity to the instrumentality of the Christian faith is temptingly short and insidiously smooth. We should remain cautious. “The nation states,” continued Hirsi Ali in the same speech, “need Christian morality” to survive. What does this mean? Should states encourage church attendance or make Bible study compulsory in school? Do we even need to believe in Christ or is it sufficient to find his story compelling? And more importantly, if a day should come when we no longer “need” Christianity to thrive, are we meant to toss it aside?

Peterson, Hirsi Ali and many more speakers at ARC are right, of course, to point out that the West has been defined by the Christian faith. I applaud them for saying it loud and clear, and their success is an encouraging sign that Christianity is being taken more seriously in the secular world. I’m certainly not proposing a Christian retreat from society, nor am I advocating against working with secular sympathisers of the Christian faith towards common goals.

We should not lose sight of the goal of the Christian life, the ultimate end for which we were created. Christians built the first hospitals, the first universities, the most beautiful cathedrals. As Paul Kingsnorth recently argued, “The monks built the West, just as surely as the soldiers did, and they built the more enduring part.”

As Christians, we believe that we were made to love and be loved by God. That is our telos, our end: God. We build for Him. If we have lost something, it is still for Him that we restore and renew it. Any other good that results from orienting our lives towards Christ, even if it is as noble as reviving Western civilisation – should be incidental. We simply can’t save a crumbling castle without feeding the souls of those who toil to repair it.

Ultimately the question is, what are we citizens of? If we truly believe that “our citizenship is in heaven” (Philippians 3:20), then we must make it clear that the Christian faith is not merely useful, but also true. For Christians, responsible citizenship means declaring the truth of the faith even as we work with non-Christians for better societies whilst here on earth.

It also means remembering the importance of prayer and surrendering to God’s will. One of the most arresting moments in the ARC conference was when Archbishop Angaelos, the Coptic Orthodox Archbishop of London, spurred the audience not to underestimate the power of prayer. He’s right. We can’t do everything alone. We don’t just need Christian morality to rebuild. We need Christ himself: “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labour in vain” (Psalm 127:1).

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post Apparently New Atheism is out, cultural Christianity is in – but where’s Jesus in all this? appeared first on ZENIT - English.

(ZENIT News – Life Way Research / USA, 02.20.2025).- The perspective and vantage point of most Christians is limited. We can often only see how God is moving and working in our local congregations and among those around us. Depending on the circumstances, that can be discouraging.

When we expand our vision globally with the 2025 report from the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, we can see several trends that give us good news about the kingdom of God. Many of these continue encouraging trends from 2024.

1. Christianity is growing

Regardless of what you may expect, Christianity continues to grow around the world. Currently, there are more than 2.64 billion Christians. Christianity crossed the 2 billion mark this century but will top 3 billion before 2050. The world’s population, at just over 8 billion, has a 0.88% annual growth rate, but Christianity is growing at a rate of 0.98%. Around one-third of the world’s population is Christian.

2. Nones have plateaued globally

In many contexts, it may seem as if people are fleeing religion, but that’s probably no longer the case in the U.S. and is certainly not the case globally. From 1900 to 1970, the worldwide population of the religiously unaffiliated jumped from 3 million to more than 700 million. Since that time, however, growth has slowed dramatically. Today, around 906 million individuals aren’t part of a religion, a number currently growing by 0.19% annually. Projections indicate they will soon start declining, falling to 867 million by 2050.

3. Atheism is declining

While the numbers of religiously unaffiliated people have continued to grow slowly, global atheism peaked with bell bottoms and disco. In 1970, there were more than 161 million atheists, but that number fell to 137 million in 2000. A brief period of growth in the early 21st century brought the global atheist population up to almost 147 million in 2020. Today, however, that number has dwindled to 145 million, falling 0.2% annually. By 2050, atheism is projected to drop to 133 million.

4. Evangelicals are among the fastest-growing Christian groups

Every group within Christianity is growing, but evangelicals are one of the fastest-growing. Currently, 420 million evangelicals are growing at a 1.47% annual rate. Since 2000, evangelicalism has increased by 150 million. In the next 25 years, the number is projected to jump by 200 million to reach almost 621 million by 2050.

Pentecostal/charismatic Christianity also continues to grow. While it is currently growing at a 1.25% annual rate, projections have its numbers exploding in coming decades. In 1900, fewer than 1 million identified as Pentecostal Christians. By 2050, that number will top 1 billion.

5. Christianity is exploding in Africa and Asia

Persecution is often severe in many areas in the Global South, but Christianity is growing in every region. Currently, 2 in 3 Christians live in the Global South. The faith is even increasing in the Middle East.

Right now, more than 750 million Christians call Africa home, and this number is growing at a 2.59% annual rate. Almost as many Christians live in Africa as in Europe, Russia, and North America combined (823 million). Asia has 416 million Christians, a number that is growing 1.6% each year. By 2050, Africa will be home to more than 1.2 billion Christians, and almost 600 million will live in Asia.

6. Ministers and missionaries continue to be called and sent

The number of national workers or citizens who serve the Christian mission in their context has reached almost 13.6 million people. That number has been growing 0.91% annually. The total number is expected to reach 17 million by 2050.

Missionaries, those who serve in a country foreign to them, are growing by 1.15% and reached 450,000 in 2025. Around 600,000 are projected to be serving by 2050.

7. Martyrdom has fallen

While persecution remains a significant issue for Christians in many areas, the number of believers who are killed for their faith over a 10-year period has declined. In 1970, there were more than 3.7 million Christian martyrs over 10 years. That dropped to 1.6 million in 2000 and is now down to 900,000. Projections do, however, see that number increasing slightly by 2050 to around 1 million.

8. More languages have New Testament translations

In 1900, just 228 groups had the New Testament in their language. Today, with a 2.07% annual rate of growth, around 2,500 languages have the New Testament. With a continued focus on language efforts, missions work, and technological advances, around 4,400 languages will have copies of the New Testament by 2050.

9. The percentage of people without gospel access is declining

In 1900, more than half of the world’s population (54.3%) had no gospel access. Due to the work of missionaries of the past and present, that percentage has fallen to 27% and is currently dropping at an annual rate of -0.45%.

Article originally published by Life Way Research.

Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.

The post 9 Encouraging Trends for Global Christianity in 2025 appeared first on ZENIT - English.

The address will be remembered for a long time, not only for its impact on current political, economic and military questions, but especially for its attempt to offer a global proposal that goes to the root of the reason of political existence. At the center of the address was the realization that the enemy is not outside but within, both in Europe as well as in America, and which consists of a retreat from their fundamental values, a sickness of the soul, an exhaustion of moral and spiritual force.

A reader of the address might have thought that Vance’s criticism was directed only to Europe. However, it was addressed also to America, but with the difference that the latter has awakened, whereas Europe is still living in the profound dream of the artifice that despises the reality. For instance: in Europe a forced mass pedagogy is applied to educate the European man, but to do this techniques are used that are developed in the United States, where education of the masses has a long scientific and practical history.

However, Americans have begun to change direction and the new Administration, for instance, has removed USAID, which was funding ideological and forced forms of civic education that were subversive for the common good. Hence, Vance talks about both a pro-European as well as an Americanist ideology. He denounces especially the former, but only because he spoke at length of the latter during the electoral campaign and because he is the representative of a Government that issued from it. His very harsh words addressed to Europe, his parrhesia, which did not grant much to political goodwill despite being in a diplomatic context, stem from the awareness that he represents an America that has come out or is coming out of a pseudo-totalitarian system in which Europeans continue to be entangled.

Seen from the point of view of the Social Doctrine of the Church, this “return to reality” in defense of a genuine freedom — which never begins with itself, but is nourished by reality and “common sense” –, must be valued positively. Moreover, John Paul II, whom Vance quotes at the end of his address, wrote in Evangelium Vitae that the value of democracy is sustained or falls with the values it embodies and promotes.” Unfortunately, the Church in Europe, as was demonstrated recently in a Report dedicated to it, has not tried to free the people from the pro-European ideology, has seconded all the policies that later were revealed unfruitful, and has given up its role to educate in the truth in the light of reason and faith. Hence, it can be said that Vance’s address also contains implicitly a reproach to the Catholic Church’s attitude, which has become a “chaplaincy” of the prevailing political course. However, if one refers to the Social Doctrine of the Church, and not to its praxis, the judgment on these aspects of the address can only be positive.

In part of his address, Vance alludes to some interesting perspectives. When he touches on the topic of the crisis of democracy in Europe, he says that a true democracy is one that listens to the people, one that doesn’t stifle voices, opinions, consciences (his references to the restrictions of abortion in England and Scotland were very eloquent), the democracy that is based on the principle that the people matter, which accepts the people’s will, although it’s not in agreement with it, which seeks a true democratic mandate to take the hard decisions necessary.

This has not happened and is not happening in Europe, as the cases mentioned demonstrated. When saying this, he seems to understand the people as a disjointed collection of individuals according to the vision of liberal individualism, as a organism bearing a “common feeling” that does not originate in it, but that precedes it. This is what Vance suggests, a dimension to which he seems to allude in reference to that “common sense” also evoked by Trump in his Inauguration address. “Democracy,” he seems to say, “must not consist, at the risk of its own suicide, in the majority’s fight against that common sense that the people have in their interior.” However, These are indications and references that, if they are developed, would find the full consensus of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

Finally, we come to what Vance didn’t say, because he stopped before, but that the Church’s Social Doctrine has very present. On what is democracy ultimately founded? To say that it’s founded on the popular mandate, including its promising allusions to the nature of the people to which I just referred, is insufficient. To call Europe not to domesticate the popular mandate or even deny it, as in the case he mentioned of the annulment of the elections in Rumania, is not sufficient, because a “sovereignty” of the people could thus be founded, which is equally potentially totalitarian. This is where the Social Doctrine of the Church would intervene, to say to Vance  to continue on the path of that “common sense” to which he alluded, to arrive of the conception of that social and final order that gives democracy the values to defend.

Majorities do not create values, they respect and defend them.

Translation of the Italian original into Spanish by ZENIT’s Editorial Director and, into English, by Virginia M. Forrester.

The post JD Vance’s Address in Europe and The Return to Reality appeared first on ZENIT - English.