There have been media reports that the dispute between the Holy See and China over appointing bishops might have been settled and that the Vatican would ask some bishops appointed by the Holy See to stand aside and make way for their China-selected counterparts, a scenario that poses dangers to Vatican-Taiwan diplomatic ties.
The Holy See is likely to take a patient approach to dealing with its relations with China, and it will likely be a long process. Even if China were to reach an agreement with the Holy See on the right to appoint bishops, this should not be simplistically taken to mean that the two sides are forming diplomatic ties, as there are several other problems in their relationship.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government established diplomatic relations with the Holy See in October 1942. After the cross-strait political division, the Holy See has held firmly to its “one China” policy — that is, recognizing the Republic of China government as the only representative of China — and named its embassy in Taipei the “Apostolic Nunciature to China.”
Every time the Vatican secretary of state sends out formal notifications to the ROC’s embassy to the Holy See, the addressee is always the “Embassy of China to the Holy See.”
If the Vatican reaches an agreement with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) regime on establishing diplomatic ties, the “Apostolic Nunciature to China” will simply be moved from Taipei to Beijing, and it will have nothing to do with whether the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are unified.
The obstacle to Holy See-China relations is not the “one China” policy or the “Taiwan issue,” but rather the atheism and materialism espoused by the CCP, ideologies that run counter to the doctrines of Catholicism.
During the revolutionary period, the CCP treated Catholic missionary work in China as part of imperialism, and Beijing has looked upon the Holy See with hostility since then.
Moreover, the reason there has never been a breakthrough in relations between Beijing and the Holy See is that the Chinese authorities must recognize the Holy See’s right to appoint bishops for the Chinese dioceses. The selection and consecration of bishops by the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association in every Chinese diocese are not in compliance with the Catholic Church hierarchy, in which all bishops of the universal church must be appointed by the pope.
This is also the key which helps explain former pope Benedict XVI’s saying in a pastoral letter in 2007 that some entities are “incompatible with Catholic doctrine.”
Another obstacle blocking relations between the Holy See and China being normalized is the split between the underground church and the state-controlled open church. Relieving this tension and promoting mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, and eventually unifying the two sides, is no easier than compromising on the right to appoint bishops.
The clergy, practitioners and lay faithful of the underground church have suffered greatly from the CCP’s prosecution, simply because they insist on realizing a faithful life lived in accordance to the Gospels.
The underground faithful cannot let go of the past suffering to be unified with the state-controlled open church. Although the Holy See stopped publicly consecrating underground bishops in 2005 to facilitate and promote the unification of the Catholic Church in China, waiting for the proper opportunity to resolve the conflict between the state-controlled and the underground churches requires time.
After the reform and opening up period, the Chinese authorities have not denied the Holy See’s religious authority over the Chinese Catholic Church, but neither do they acknowledge papal authority over the Chinese dioceses, and this ambivalence has split the Catholic Church in China.
Today, there are still two bishops in some dioceses in China, one appointed by the Holy See and one by Beijing, and this causes division in these dioceses.
Furthermore, the CCP still prohibits members from joining the church, and the atheism rooted in the communist ideology is incompatible with Christian religion.
Only when China recognizes the existence of God and acknowledges Christ as the Messiah will the time be mature for normal relations between the Holy See and Beijing.
When that day comes, the CCP regime will no longer be able to stop the sparkles of conscience and freedom from igniting large flames sweeping across the country, and this is the underlying fear behind China’s unwillingness to normalize relations with the Holy See.
Archbishop Celso Benigno Luigi Costantini, the first Apostolic delegate to China, once said that God is completely fair and just, and that the Holy See will never compromise to please anyone.
The Holy See is not an ordinary secular country, and its diplomatic ties are of a unique character. It is therefore unlikely that Pope Francis will establish ties with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in exchange for the right to appoint bishops.
Ho Szu-shen is a professor in Fu Jen Catholic University’s Japanese language and culture department.
Translated by Chang Ho-ming
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US