PROTECTORATE
491
PROTECTORATE
Catholics. This protectorate is, therefore, really con-
firmed by the Treaty of Berlin.
But, as a matter of fact, the influence of Russia, which has assumed the protectorate of Christians of the Greek Rite, has already greatly affected the stand- ing which the ancient French Protectorate had assured to Catholics in Palestine and especially in Jerusalem. Moreover, Emperor William II of Germany has in- stalled Protestantism with a magnificent church be- side the Holy Sepulchre (1898). As a sort, of com- pensation he has indeed ceded to German CathoUcs the site of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin, which he obtained from the sultan; here a church and a mon;vstery have been erected and, together with the other German establishments, have been placed under the protection of the German Empire, without the slightest deference to the ancient prerogative of France. A similar situation prevails in China. First, in 1888, Germany obtained from the Chinese Govern- ment that German passports should insure the same advantages to the missionaries as those secured at the French legation. At the same time the German Catholic missionaries of Shan-tung, who had much to endure from the infidels, were on several occasions offered the powerful protection of the German Empire. Mgr Anzer, the vicar Apostolic, decided to accept it, after having, as he declares, several times sought un- successfully the aid of the French minister. In 189G the German ambassador at Peking received from Berhn the command not only to support energetically the claims of the Catholic missionaries, but even to declare that the German Empire would pledge itself to defend against all unjust oppression the persons and property of the mission of Shan-tung, together with freedom of preaching, in the same measure in which such had been formerly guaranteed by the French Protectorate. The murder of two of the Shan-tung missionaries in Nov., 1897, afforded the occasion for a more solemn affirmation of the new protectorate, while it furnished a long-sought pretext for the occu- pation of Kiao-chow.
Austria had a better foundation for claiming a share in the Catholic protectorate, as, in various treaties concluded with the Porte (1699, 1718, and 1739), it had secured a right of protection over "the religious" in the Turkish Empire and even at Jerusalem. What- ever the meaning of this concession (apparently it did not include liberty of worship), it was never confirmed by usage, except in the countries bordering on Austria (notably Albania and Macedonia). In 1848 the Austrian Protectorate was extended to the mission of the Sudan and Nigritia, which was in the care of Austrian priests; apparently for this reason, when the Coptic Catholic hierarchy was restored in Egypt by Leo XIII (189.5), the new patriarch and his suffragans placed themselves under the protection of Austria.
Italy also has been very active in seeking to acquire a protectorate of missions, by patronizing societies for the assistance of the missionaries and by legislative measures intended to prove its benevolence to the Italian missionaries and persuade them to accept its protection. It even attempted by attractive prom- ises to win over the Propaganda, but the Sacred Con- gregation discouraged it by a circular addressed to the Italian missionaries of the Levant and the Far East on 22 May, 1888. This not only forbade the missionaries to adopt towards official representatives of Italy any attitude which might be interpreted as favouring the Piedmontese usurpations in Italy, but once more affirmed the privilege of France in the most formal manner: "They [the missionaries] know that the Protectorate of the French Nation in the countries of the East has been established for centuries and sanctioned even by treaties between the empires. Therefore, there must be absolutely no innovation in this matter; this protectorate, wherever it is in force, is to be religiously preserved, and the missionaries
are warned that, if they have need of any help, they
are to have recourse to the consuls and other minis-
ters of France."
The Protectorate and the Holy See. — The in- stance just mentioned was not the only occasion on which the Holy See undertook the defence of the French Protectorate. Whenever missionaries sought protection other than that of France, French diplo- macy complained to Rome, and the Propaganda 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 in- stances, 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 "Civilta Cattolica" (5 November, 1904). To these may be added Leo XIII's confirmation of the Decree of 1888 in his reply to Cardinal Langenieux, 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 recog- nized 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 defence of the French Pro- tectorate, and is in fact its only defence against the manceuvres 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 ac- tion in this direction would perhaps have been but a just reprisal for the disloyal separation.
Some Objections. — The protectorate of missions is, however, open to some criticism both in theory and in practice. This article will not deal with at- tacks based solely on hatred of religion; the following are the most plausible objections which have influ- enced even friends of the apostolate to the extent of making them sometimes doubtful of the usefulness of the institution, even for the missions. The protecto- rate, it is said, is unwillingly tolerated by the author- ities of infidel countries; it embitters the antipathy and hatred excited by the Christians in those coun- tries, and causes the missionaries, who rely on its sup- port, 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 shows that the exercise of the protectorate requires great wisdom and discretion. Naturally, the infidel powers chafe somewhat under it as a yoke and an un- comfortable and even humiliating servitude, but, so long as they do 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 Turkey and China), the protectorate remains 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 prob- lem lies in the cordial union and prudent collaboration
