Eight years after the Sino-Vatican accord, the Church in China faces rising tensions between faith, politics, and Rome’s diplomatic vision.
Newsroom (26/01/2026 Gaudium Press ) When the Holy See and the People’s Republic of China signed their provisional agreement in 2018, both hailed it as the product of decades of patient dialogue. Renewed several times since, the pact remains in force, its terms shielded from public view. What has emerged, however, are its tangible effects: more than ten episcopal appointments and the formal recognition of previously underground bishops by Beijing.
That secrecy now casts a long shadow. While Rome has consistently described the agreement as a “fruit of dialogue,” the Gospel’s own standard — “You will know them by their fruits” — invites scrutiny. Has this fruit been good or bitter?
Testing the Fruits of Unity
What can be discerned suggests the accord centers on two critical domains: the appointment of bishops and the reconfiguration of dioceses. According to Canon Law, episcopal candidates must meet exacting moral and doctrinal standards, and their approval lies solely with the Apostolic See. Yet in recent ordination ceremonies in China, documents from the state-controlled Bishops’ Conference were read without clear acknowledgment of papal authority.
New bishops have publicly pledged not only spiritual but political allegiance — professing “love of the motherland,” commitment to an “independent and self-governing Church,” and loyalty to the “sinicization of Catholicism.” These declarations mirror state ideology more than ecclesial fidelity, leading many Chinese Catholics to question whether genuine unity with Rome remains intact.
Sinicization as Transformation
“Sinicization,” Beijing’s declared religious policy, is promoted as cultural adaptation. In practice, it resembles the communist pattern of ideological domestication seen across the 20th century — from suppression to reformation to assimilation. In the words of Pope John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus, totalitarian systems that claim to define good and evil can only tolerate religion if it becomes a tool of state power.
This diagnosis, written decades ago, now reads as prophecy. Chinese pulpits have grown cautious; sermons echo official slogans. Future priests are screened for “political reliability” as much as pastoral aptitude. The Church’s prophetic voice — once underground, bruised but unbroken — risks being exchanged for an antechamber in the state apparatus.
A Mirror from History
The Soviet Union’s evolution offers a cautionary blueprint. When brute force failed to erase the Orthodox Church, a more subtle tactic appeared: co-optation through clerics loyal to the regime. Under the guise of “exchange,” these bishops advanced the illusion of religious freedom abroad while serving state interests at home.
Today, under banners of dialogue and cooperation, Western institutions host Chinese clergy approved by official channels. Such exchanges echo that earlier strategy — a Trojan Horse in vestments, cloaked in fraternity but laden with ideology.
The Vanishing Witness
Behind these abstractions lie human costs. The underground Church, sustained for generations by quiet heroism, finds itself quietly displaced. Those who suffered detention and persecution for fidelity to Rome are now retired or sidelined, while those once loyal to state policy enjoy prominence. The reward for conscience appears to be marginalization; the reward for compromise, promotion.
Cardinal Joseph Zen Ze-kiun became the embodied conscience of this tension. In 2020, his fruitless journey to Rome — an aging prelate waiting in the cold for an unreceived audience — became a haunting image for many Chinese Catholics: faith standing alone at the threshold, unheard.
A Gesture and Its Meaning
In January 2026, that image gained a quiet counterpoint. Cardinal Zen, now in his nineties, was finally received by Pope Leo XIV. The meeting’s symbolism was immediate — not triumph but recognition, a belated act of listening.
For Pope Leo, who has criticized forms of synodality that mistake consensus for communion, the moment carried theological weight. True listening, he has said, requires openness to dissent, even when it unsettles the status quo. Applied to China, this standard exposes an ecclesiological fault line: if those who have paid the highest price for fidelity are excluded from dialogue, how credible can that dialogue remain?
Between Diplomacy and Discernment
In today’s climate, even symbols bear risk. Gestures detached from reality can be conscripted into political narratives of control. Calls for a papal visit to China now carry ambivalence: such a trip might serve not the Church’s freedom but the state’s propaganda of tolerance.
Pope Leo XIV has been candid about his uncertainty. For now, he intends to preserve continuity with recent Vatican policy while seeking, in his words, “a clearer understanding of how the Church can continue her mission,” especially among those “oppressed or hindered in living their faith freely.”
The future of the Sino-Vatican Agreement may depend not on its secret clauses, but on whether it can bear fruit worthy of the tree from which it claims to grow.
- Raju Hasmukh with files from NCR
Related Images:
