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.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS