Protectorate of Missions - The Protectorate and The Holy See

The Protectorate and The Holy See

The instance just mentioned was not the only occasion on which the Holy See undertook the defense of the French Protectorate. Whenever missionaries sought protection other than that of France, French diplomacy complained to Rome, and the Propaganda Fide was always careful to reprimand the missionaries and to remind them that it appertained to France alone to protect them against infidel powers. Two such instances relating to the years 1744 and 1844 and selected from many others, are cited by the author of the study of the French Protectorate in the "Civiltà Cattolica" (5 November 1904). To these may be added Leo XIII's confirmation of the Decree of 1888 in his reply to Cardinal Langénieux, Archbishop of Reims, dated 1 August 1898: "France has a special mission in the East confided to her by Providence -- a noble mission consecrated not alone by ancient usage, but also by international treaties, as has been recognized recently by Our Congregation of the Propaganda in its deliberation of 22 May 1888. The Holy See does not wish to interfere with the glorious patrimony which France has received from its ancestors and which beyond a doubt it means to deserve by always showing itself equal to its task." This attitude of the Holy See is the best defense of the French Protectorate, and is in fact its only defense against the manœuvres of its rivals as regards missions not under the direction of French subjects. The latter would have difficulty in resisting the pressing invitations extended to them from other quarters, if the Holy See left them free to accept. Rome gives still another proof of respect for the acquired rights of France by refusing, as it has hitherto done, to accredit permanent legates or ministers to Constantinople and Peking. For a time the idea, supported by the official agents of the Turkish and Chinese governments, attracted Leo XIII, but he dismissed it at the instance of French diplomats, who represented to him that the object was less to establish amicable relations between the Holy See and Turkey or China than to evade the tutelage of the lay protectorate. Pius X has done nothing to alter the protectorate, although some action in this direction would perhaps have been but a just reprisal for the disloyal separation.

The protectorate of missions was open to some criticism both in theory and in practice. The following are the most plausible objections which have influenced even friends of the apostolate to the extent of making them sometimes doubtful of the usefulness of the institution, even for the missions. The protectorate, it is said, was unwillingly tolerated by the authorities of infidel countries; it embittered the antipathy and hatred excited by the Christians in those countries, and caused the missionaries relying on its support to be insufficiently mindful of the sensibilities of the natives and on their guard against excessive zeal. The modicum of truth contained in these objections showed that the exercise of the protectorate requires great wisdom and discretion. Naturally, the infidel powers chafe somewhat under it as a yoke and an uncomfortable and even humiliating servitude, but so long as they did not assure to the missionaries and their works the security and guarantees of justice which are found in Christian countries (and experience has shown how little this is the case in the Turkish and Chinese empires), the protectorate was the best means of providing them. But to obviate as much as possible the odium attached to the meddling of one foreign power in the affairs of another, this intervention is reduced to what is absolutely necessary. The solution of the delicate problem lay in the cordial union and prudent collaboration of the agents of the protectorate and the heads of the mission, which is possible to realize in practice. When it is learned that the superior of the mission of south-east Chi-li during the difficult period from 1862 to 1884 had recourse to the French legation only three times and arranged all other difficulties directly with the local Chinese authorities (Em. Becker, "Le R. P. Joseph Gonnet", Ho-kien-fou, 1907, p. 275), it will be understood that the French Protectorate was not necessarily a heavy burden, either for those who exercise it or for those bound by it. The abuses which may arise were due to the men, not to the system; after all, the missionaries, though not faultless, are most anxious that it should not be abused. Perhaps the abuse most to be feared was that the protectors should seek payment for their services by trammelling the spiritual direction of the mission or by demanding political services in exchange: a complete history of the protectorate could show such abuses and others to be insignificant when compared with the benefits conferred by this institution on religion and civilization.