Pope Francis devoted himself to reform in the Catholic Church over the past 12 years, although he differed from his two more overtly anti-communist predecessors. He believed that we should build bridges instead of high walls and that lack of communication leads to misunderstandings. With this mindset, he signed the Provisional Agreement on the Appointment of Bishops with China.
October last year marked the signing of the agreement’s third extension in the past six years with the current extension originally set at four years. Pope Francis was concerned for the Chinese Catholic community, who have long been suppressed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association. He was willing to make some minute concessions on the appointment of bishops in exchange for greater freedom for the church’s ecclesiastic operations within China.
In November last year, Vatican Secretary for Relations with States Paul Richard Gallagher traveled to Poland, where he gave a speech regarding the Holy See’s diplomacy. Gallagher emphasized that this agreement was an important means of conducting foreign diplomacy with China. Through it, the church could protect its doctrine and the Catholic community in China and avoid CCP interference in ecclesiastic affairs.
Francis had hoped adherents in the Catholic Church in China could be free to come out of hiding to worship on their own terms; Rome’s position has always incorporated humaneness, peace and a shepherding spirit, in effect, the protection of the faithful in China from CCP suppression. Despite the multiple occasions on which Beijing has gone back on its word, such instances could not extinguish the late pope’s dream of pastoral care within China.
Pastoral care is born out of philanthropy and boundless love for humanity, but placing parishioners from Taiwan’s diocese together with those in China could lead to the relocation of the Vatican’s embassy in Taiwan to China due to improved relations between the Holy See and Beijing. This is a matter those in Taiwan’s diocese have great concerns about.
China has expressed that it would benefit from a Chinese direction in a “post-Francis era,” following the conclusion of the present extension. However, more conservative-leaning factions within the Holy See are not likely to accept “Vietnam model” bishops — based on the CCP misinterpretation of a papal arrangement with Vietnam: an arrangement where bishops are supposedly pre-selected for ordination by the CCP with subsequent Vatican approval. Many in church leadership hold firmly to the Vatican’s primacy in such matters.
During his tenure, Francis consecrated the ordination of more than 10 Chinese bishops. He also ordered the bishop of the diocese of Hong Kong to visit Beijing after close to 30 years of minimal contact, promoting the bishop of Hong Kong Stephen Chow (周守仁) to the rank of cardinal, clearly with the intention of using the Hong Kong diocese under Chinese rule as a bridge between the Vatican and Beijing. Vatican professor of geopolitics Pietro Schiavazzi described Pope Francis’ decision as the church’s greatest ever realignment of power between cities, countries and continents, allowing for a more equitable rebalancing of power among the 120 voting cardinals in the imminent conclave, primarily as the proportion of Asian cardinals in the College of Cardinals greatly expands. Cardinals from Europe and the Americas no longer hold a majority in the college.
Helping the number of Asia’s Catholics to grow and integrating Catholic teachings into China in particular would be a major historic event and would be the mission of all future popes. Apart from Taipei bolstering relations with the Holy See, the relationship especially requires cultivating many more supportive senior clergy, but from another angle, Taiwan’s ties also depend on whether the CCP relaxes its “sinicization of the Vatican,” and whether the power to appoint bishops continues to be mutually enjoyed through a system in which China reaps benefits while the Vatican maintains face.
This is a thorny issue that the CCP would have to overcome.
When the conclave starts, the majority of the cardinals favored to become the next pope would continue to follow Francis’ path and support Taiwan. From Taiwan’s perspective, hopefully their backgrounds or the reasoning behind their desire for reform does not outweigh the patience and love for those in lands that the late pope was willing to stand up for.
Chang Meng-jen is chair of Fu Jen Catholic University’s Department of Italian Language and Culture, and coordinator of the university’s diplomacy and international affairs program.
Translated by Tim Smith
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS