There is no such thing as a state-sanctioned Catholic Church ("Vatican excommunicates Beijing's two new bishops," May 5, page 1). The only Catholic Church is the universal Catholic Church headed by the Pope. And only the Pope has the power to ordain Catholic bishops.
China's communist government falsely presents itself as the authentic spokesman for the aspirations of its people, and claims to be able -- by recourse to violent means -- to bring about the radical changes which will put an end to the oppression and misery of its people.
Marxist Communism is characterized by the "class struggle," which implies that society is founded on violence. Within this perspective, any reference to ethical requirements calling for courageous and radical institutional and structural reforms makes no sense. In this system, every affirmation of faith or of theology is subordinated to a political criterion, which in turn depends on the class struggle, the driving force of history.
Participation in the class struggle is presented as a requirement. The desire to love everyone, despite their class, and to meet them with non- violent means of dialogue and persuasion, is denounced as counterproductive and opposed to love.
Communism proposes a novel interpretation of both the content of faith and of Christian existence, which seriously departs from the faith of the Church and, in fact, actually constitutes a practical negation.
In contrast to communist belief, no state may impose religion, yet it must guarantee religious freedom and harmony among the followers of different religions. China's government, therefore, must not interfere in the religious affairs of the Catholic Church.
Those who choose to follow Beijing's newly ordained bishop of Kunming, Ma Yingling (馬英林), are following the atheistic and violent government of China and not the Catholic Church -- which is a beacon of truth and real love.
Paul Kokoski
Ontario, Canada
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing