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.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
RSS