China-Vatican deal has imperfections, Vatican’s foreign minister says
Archbishop Paul Gallagher said the China–Holy See agreement has evident imperfections, but the Vatican remains committed to continuing dialogue. Under the agreement’s publicly understood terms, the pope retains final authority over Chinese bishop appointments, while the Holy See agrees not to appoint bishops without Beijing’s prior approval. Gallagher described Pope Leo XIV’s surgery and recovery as a reminder of the pope’s mortality and said a U.S. visit could take place in the not-too-distant future. Gallagher said he did not believe the Vatican was involved in ceasefire discussions between Russia and Ukraine.
23 hours ago
Archbishop Paul Gallagher said the China–Holy See agreement on appointing bishops has visible shortcomings, but the Vatican intends to continue dialogue. He made the remarks during a meeting with journalists in Rome. 1
The full text of the 2018 agreement has not been made public. Under its publicly understood terms, the pope retains final authority over episcopal appointments and can reject candidates proposed by Beijing, while the Holy See agreed not to appoint bishops without the Chinese government’s prior approval. 1
Gallagher described discussions with China as difficult and said the agreement’s imperfections were evident, while emphasizing a commitment to persevere in dialogue. 1
Gallagher said a visit to the United States by Pope Leo XIV could take place “in the not too distant future.” He also described the pope’s Oct. 13 surgery and recovery as a “bit of a game changer,” saying it underscored the pope’s mortality. 1
Gallagher, who traveled to Russia in August to discuss the war in Ukraine with senior officials, said he did not believe the Vatican was involved in ceasefire discussions between Russia and Ukraine. 1*
The tension between ecclesial authority and state control
The tension between ecclesial authority and state control is not simply a contest over which institution should rule society. Catholic thought distinguishes their proper responsibilities: the Church has authority over faith, worship, and its spiritual mission, while civil government has legitimate authority over public and political order. Conflict arises when either authority crosses its proper bounds—especially when a state tries to direct the Church’s teaching or religious life, or when church leaders seek to govern matters properly entrusted to civil authority.
The Church’s authority is not merely a permission granted by the state. Gregory XVI argues that Christ entrusted the Church’s teaching and governance to the apostles and their successors, including responsibility for doctrine, worship, sacred ministry, and laws directed to the salvation of souls. On that account, a government that controls Church teaching or prevents the Church from regulating its worship and ministry violates the Church’s proper freedom.
But this does not mean that the Church is entitled to govern every part of political life. Cardinal Avery Dulles, explaining the approach associated with Benedict XVI, describes the two institutions as having distinct spheres: the state is responsible for public order, while the Church pursues its religious mission. Neither should exercise absolute control over human life; when either claims both religious and secular authority, human freedom is endangered.
The distinction is therefore not between a religious authority that may command everything and a secular authority that may command everything else without limit. It is a distinction between different kinds of authority, each with a proper purpose and boundary.
Catholic teaching does not treat political authority as inherently illegitimate or as merely an enemy of religion. The International Theological Commission describes political authority as serving justice and the good of the people, and says that the distinction between political authority and religious authority need not be abolished. At the same time, the state may not claim the place that belongs to God.
That limit matters because the Church’s loyalty to God can require resisting civil commands. The Commission puts the principle plainly:
For Christians there is no question that supreme obedience is reserved to God alone. (cf. Acts 5:29)
This is not a general license to disregard laws one dislikes. The same passage recognizes legitimate public authority and says that obedience to God need not amount to a challenge to public order. The issue is whether the state is exercising its proper authority or demanding something that contradicts obedience owed to God.
The boundaries can be difficult to draw because the same people and institutions are affected by both authorities. Education is one example in the supplied texts. Pius XI rejects the claim that all education belongs to the state and that the Church must be confined to Mass and the sacraments; he connects this to the rights of families. The disagreement is not simply about administrative control of schools: it concerns who may form the moral and religious life of the young.
Other likely pressure points include a government’s attempt to dictate religious teaching, control worship, or interfere in the Church’s organization of its ministry. Gregory XVI identifies these as matters in which civil domination would injure the Church’s freedom. Conversely, Dulles cautions that the Church can also overextend itself into secular affairs that properly belong to civil society.
Thus, saying “the Church is independent of the state” does not mean that every decision made by a church authority is beyond civil law. Nor does saying “the state has authority” mean that government may decide what Catholics must believe or how the Church must carry out its religious mission. The sources support a principle of distinct competence, though they do not supply a detailed legal test for every disputed case.
The relationship need not be a struggle for dominance. Pius XII describes Church and state as independent authorities that should neither ignore nor fight one another, but should seek cooperation and mutual understanding. He also says that when civil laws injure divine law, the Church has a moral duty to oppose them.
This captures the balance: cooperation where their responsibilities can work together; resistance where the state attempts to suppress the Church’s religious mission or commands what conscience cannot accept. The aim is not conflict for its own sake, nor the Church’s control of the state, but the protection of the Church’s freedom and the legitimate work of civil authority.
Some of the supplied papal texts use forceful language about the Church’s independence and the danger of civil domination. Gregory XVI says that state control over doctrine, worship, or ministry violates the Church’s divine ordering, while Leo XIII condemns the claim that civil authority takes precedence over sacred authority and discusses state interference in ecclesiastical benefices. These statements make the Church’s resistance to state control unmistakable.
They should also be read alongside the later account of distinct spheres and legitimate political authority. Dulles’s discussion of Benedict XVI stresses that the state has genuine responsibilities in public order and that the Church should not take over secular governance; the International Theological Commission likewise recognizes the legitimacy of political authority while placing it under the moral limit that it cannot usurp God’s place. The supplied material does not provide a full history of how Catholic teaching on Church–state relations developed, so it would be too simple to treat every older formulation as if it answered every modern political question by itself.
The central Catholic distinction is therefore ecclesial freedom without ecclesial domination, and legitimate civil authority without state control of religion. The state may govern the temporal order, but it cannot absorb the Church’s religious mission; the Church may teach and govern in matters entrusted to it, but that does not make it the civil government. When the boundaries are contested, the decisive questions are what kind of matter is at stake, which authority has competence over it, and whether a civil demand conflicts with a duty owed to God.