The end of Pope Francis’ papacy presents not just a ceremonial moment for the Catholic Church, but a pivotal opportunity for communities that have long valued the church’s moral voice in global affairs.
Among them is Taiwan, whose enduring relationship with the Holy See has carried profound symbolic significance. As the world awaits the election of the next Bishop of Rome, there is a growing awareness that the Vatican’s choices — especially regarding its commitments to democratic values and human dignity — would deeply shape not only the church’s global standing, but also the hopes of those who look to it for principled leadership.
Pope Francis had emphasized compassion and outreach, especially toward those who are marginalized. He embodied a vision of the church as a place of refuge, marked by gestures of mercy and humility. Yet his tenure also revealed the limits of goodwill when confronting regimes unwilling to reciprocate.
His repeated efforts to establish deeper ties with China, including a controversial agreement on bishop appointments, were intended to open new pathways for faith in a hostile environment. Instead, they often seemed to yield unilateral concessions, with little improvement in the situation for underground Catholics in China.
For Taiwan, that history is not merely instructive — it is urgent. The Vatican remains one of Taiwan’s few formal diplomatic allies, a relationship nurtured through decades of shared values such as human dignity, religious freedom and resilience against authoritarian pressure. Yet recent trends suggest that the next pope would face strong incentives to deepen engagement with Beijing, even if that means downgrading or abandoning ties with Taipei.
China’s consistent diplomatic strategy has been to demand exclusive recognition, pressuring other countries to sever official relations with Taiwan. There is no reason to believe it would treat the Holy See differently.
Some said that rapprochement with China would allow the Vatican greater access to the millions of Catholics living under communist rule. That argument, while understandable in pastoral terms, risks overlooking a deeper principle: The Catholic Church’s moral authority comes not from the number of faithful it reaches, but from the integrity with which it stands by those faithful.
Taiwan’s democracy, respect for religious liberty and history of peaceful engagement with the world are not bargaining chips to be exchanged for uncertain diplomatic gains.
It needs a pope who would understand that genuine outreach does not mean sacrificing the vulnerable or compromising on fundamental rights. It needs a leader who views global diplomacy not through the narrow lens of access or appearances, but through the wider moral horizon the church is meant to represent. Fidelity to principle must outweigh any temptation to appease authoritarianism under the guise of dialogue.
That is not a call for confrontation or isolation. Dialogue with China would remain important for the Vatican, as it is for the broader international community. However, dialogue must be rooted in truth, not expediency. The next pope must recognize that protecting the Church’s presence in China does not require undermining the church’s credibility elsewhere.
Taiwan’s vibrant democracy, with its flourishing religious and civil society, is a testament to the very values the church claims to uphold.
In an era in which institutions often bend under the weight of political and economic pressure, Taiwan represents a rare example of perseverance without capitulation. The Vatican’s relationship with Taiwan is more than a relic of the Cold War; it is a living symbol of the church’s ability to stand for freedom, dignity and human rights.
As the cardinals gather to elect the next Bishop of Rome, Taiwan hopes they choose someone who is not only a pastor filled with joy, but a leader with the moral clarity and courage to resist the seductions of political convenience. In a world increasingly shaped by cynicism and coercion, the church must not be another institution chasing influence at the cost of its soul.
Taiwan will continue to stand, firm and free, regardless of what happens. It is our hope — and our prayer — that the next pope would choose to stand with us. Not for political gain, but because it is the right thing to do.
Y. Tony Yang is an endowed professor and associate dean at George Washington University.
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