For about three years now, reports and rumors have been going around that China and the Holy See were working toward an agreement about how to appoint Catholic bishops in China. The long-awaited agreement was finally signed on Sept. 22, during the Mid-Autumn Festival holiday, marking a major breakthrough in relations between the Vatican and China.
First it was rumored that the agreement would be signed at the end of the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy in November 2016, then in June last year and, once again, in March.
The repeated rumors were all signs that the two sides were forging ahead with their negotiations.
Now, the determined efforts of Pope Francis and Beijing have allowed prejudices to be set aside so that the two sides can join hands to accomplish the China dream that previous popes had not managed to achieve.
The word “provisional” in the title of the agreement could suggest that it is a break between rounds of a struggle, or that the two sides are still feeling their way across the river. Nonetheless, it definitely means that both sides have given up their bottom lines to open up new prospects.
It does, after all, take two to tango.
Compared with Francis’ ceaseless enthusiasm and determination to open the door to China, the Chinese side has had to make a considerable effort to overcome its own internal problems.
Francis’ political thinking is more left-wing than his recent predecessors.
His statement that it is better to make an all-out effort than to be resigned to one’s fate made clear his determination to care for China’s long-suffering Catholics.
It is precisely because he is so concerned about the series of repressive actions that China has taken against Catholicism in recent years that Francis, in his wisdom, prefers to see the big picture.
He hopes to use the agreement to try to reduce the persecution suffered by Chinese Catholics and to promote mutual tolerance and eventual integration between the government-approved Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association and the Vatican-loyal universal church.
Faced with calls from internal opposition forces, Francis has chosen the path of greater love to soothe their anxieties and have them lay down their grudges.
This means encouraging people to forget the painful experiences of the past and encourage all Chinese Catholics to come together and be free of persecution.
Of course this is easier said than done, so it remains to be seen how the two communities will interact as time goes by.
It should also be understood that there is not necessarily a consensus within the Chinese establishment regarding the agreement.
There are various government departments concerned with religious affairs, including the United Front of so-called democratic parties, the Chinese State Administration for Religious Affairs and the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association.
These are all vested interest groups that have in the past controlled and even confiscated church property.
Now that the agreement between the Holy See and China has been signed, the State Administration for Religious Affairs will inevitably lose some of its power, since it must now pay heed to the Holy See’s standpoints.
The shape of its original territory of interests will surely undergo big changes.
In other words, China’s willingness to make compromises to reach an agreement must have an effect on these established vested interests.
The signing of the agreement can only have been achieved through a certain degree of upheaval within China. Looking on the bright side, the concessions made by China might bring wider benefits and mark a first step toward religious freedom.
The Holy See has publicly stated that the provisional agreement does not touch on the issue of diplomatic relations, and Taiwan is of course willing to take the Catholic Church at its word. Whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the agreement might be, it does, at least to some extent, present the possibility of ushering in qualitative changes in religious freedom in China.
Francis is taking a gamble in making this agreement, in the hope of raising the status of Chinese Catholics through dialogue.
As for Taiwan, as well as seeking to safeguard its diplomatic relations with the Holy See, it will continue to be a model of freedom for ethnic Chinese Catholics — a fine example from which China could well learn a few lessons.
Chang Meng-jen is chair of Fu Jen Catholic University’s Italian language and culture department, and coordinator of its program in diplomacy and international affairs.
Translated by Julian Clegg
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS