The only intriguing sex-related story in the last month came courtesy of Shu Guang Girls' Senior High School in Hsinchu City. After completion of what the Catholic school calls a "life science course," these children will be given a card which they sign and carry around like a credit card to affirm their commitment to sexual abstinence until they are married.
Setting aside the contentiousness of telling minors that adult pre-marital sex is a sin, the Catholic establishment seems to be oblivious to the reality of Taiwanese society. The average age for marriage for men and women in this country is almost 30, which means the Church expects its adult flock -- and millions of other Taiwanese, if at all possible -- to live sexless lives for most of their youth or else be branded as sinners. Little wonder, then, that a number of academics and officials have frowned on the school for its fundamentalist approach to sexuality and its aping of US-style evangelism.
The Catholic Church is no doubt concerned about the large number of abortions that take place in Taiwan. But the nature of programs targeting students like those at Shu Guang Girls' Senior High School is symbolic, not practical. Hardliners in the Catholic Church are resolutely hostile to women controlling their own sex lives free of Church interference. Pope Benedict XVI shows no signs of backing away from this, and it is instructive that of all of the themes that the pope could have chosen to discuss in his first encyclical, he chose "love."
Preaching abstinence is a minor issue, yet minor issues are the only kind that the Catholic Church seems to openly and aggressively pursue in its attempts to craft Taiwanese society.
Throughout this country's history, the Catholic establishment has worked on the margins, lacking the personnel to make a substantial mark on the community. It was not until the late 1940s, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government fled to Taiwan, that Catholic missionaries -- mistreated and expelled by the Chinese Communist Party -- arrived in large numbers. Beholden to their KMT hosts, they remained "neutral" and largely silent at a time when great injustice was being inflicted on the Taiwanese population. It took the rival Presbyterian Church to stand up and fight for justice for the Taiwanese.
In the new millennium, the Vatican's lack of enthusiasm for Taiwanese and its willingness to dump Taipei for Beijing is merely an extension of its desire to regain its footing in the "real" China, and therefore should surprise no one. For the Vatican, as for blinkered "Sinologists" of old, Taiwan's days as a microcosm of pre-communist China are over, and the Vatican is somewhat impatient to return to the main game -- even if the government it courts continues to persecute many Chinese Catholics.
Taiwan's government can hardly be credited for its attempts to keep the relationship with the Vatican afloat -- the Ministry of Foreign Affairs probably doesn't know the difference between the crucifixion and the Catechism. But symbolism can matter just as much to Taiwanese people as to the pope and his advisers. And poor symbolism can corrode the Vatican's moral authority to the point of inviting mockery. Benedict's sworn opposition to moral relativism will amount to nothing if the Vatican swims in it en route to Zhongnanhai.
By the time the girls of Shu Guang high school have grown into adulthood, the moral authority of their "true-love abstinence commitment card" may well ring rather hollow. In all likelihood, the Vatican will have symbolically left their society behind, clutching the yuan equivalent of thirty pieces of silver.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS