China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has expressed its appreciation at Parolin’s latest statements: in his “Pordenone speech” he talked, amidst other things, about two centuries of Western obstructionism which hindered the forging of relations between China and the Holy See.
When China and the Catholic Church get closer, not everyone takes this well. This is why the long and troubled history of relations between the pontificate and China, even before Mao’s Revolution, was peppered with false starts and failures, but also with externally orchestrated sabotages. This is a recurring factor in the complex world of Sino-Vatican affairs and Cardinal Parolin turned the spotlight back onto it in the recent magistral speech he gave at Pordenone, on the figure of Cardinal Celso Constantini (1876-1958). Constantini opened the way for dialogue between the Vatican and Beijing and was the first apostolic Delegate to China , serving from 1922 to 1933.
In this speech, which he pronounced in the Friulian city last Saturday, the current Secretary of State clearly outlined the pastoral, not worldly criteria that guide the Holy See in this new season of dialogue with Beijing’s authorities: There is a sense of “starting over”, focusing on “the wellbeing of China’s Catholics, the wellbeing of the Chinese people as a whole and harmony throughout the whole of society, in favour of world peace”. In Beijing, Parolin’s words quickly triggered signs of appreciation from the Chinese authorities. Just yesterday, in his daily meeting with the press, Hua Chunying, spokesman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, answered a question about Parolin’s statements, confirming the existence of “very efficient channels of communication” with the Holy See: “We are well aware of mutual stances and concerns,” the Chinese spokesman said, “and because of this, we hope to be able to work together to achieve further progress in our relations. I think this is a positive thing for both parties.”
Beijing’s officials will surely not miss the common thread followed by Parolin in his reference to Constantini: Parolin described Constantini’s patient and resolute attempts to foster the forging of direct relations between the Holy See and the Chinese authorities and the systematic – and almost always successful - sabotaging by Western powers, who sought to prevent the Pope from dealing with Beijing without intermediaries. The Vatican Secretary of State followed along this path, without any controversial smearing or plotting, letting documents from the archives and the most reliable historical research to speak for him.
The historical period covered by Parolin spanned almost two centuries, during which, the imperialist and colonialist policies of Western powers – first and foremost France and England – stood in the way of Holy See-China relations, with their connivance, pressure and blackmail, hindering the entire apostolic and missionary activity of the Catholic Church in China. From as early as 1720 up until 1810 – Pope Francis’ closest collaborator recalled in his speech at Pordenone – a deputy procurator from the Propaganda Fide Congregation, was allowed to take up residence in Beijing in order to negotiate with the Imperial Court regarding the interests of the Catholic missions. But then, France and England’s colonial policies, which culminated in the Opium Wars, claimed definitive control over the apostolic work being done on Chinese territory. In his “Pordenone speech”, Parolin referred to the so-called “Unequal Treaty” as “nefarious”. This was the treaty with which Western powers –chiefly England, the US and France - had forcibly imposed their colonial supremacy on China, including ever-broader privileges and guarantees for Western missionaries: “The 1858 Treaty of Tientsin,” Parolin recalled, “conferred France with “general” protectorate status over all Christians in China, regardless of denomination or nationality, including Chinese, guaranteeing the Christian religion its rights to worship and evangelisation and financial compensation for damage caused as a result of potential attacks.” The decades that followed, marked the most ruthless episodes of Western boycotting – which Parolin went through – against the attempts by China and the Holy See to establish closer and direct relations. Beijing had already expressed its wish to establish diplomatic relations with the Holy See in 1881. In 1886, the negotiations led to the nomination of an apostolic nuncio who was to be sent to the Chinese government. “But the papal representative,” Parolin said, “couldn’t go because of Frances blind opposition, determined as it was in the vehement defence its Protectorate against any potential reduction of its powers.”
In his speech, the Vatican Secretary of State, focused above all on the intense phase of negotiations that began with the fall of the Empire and the proclamation of the Republic of China in 1912, with Constantini at the forefront of said negotiations. As the Chinese people demanded the abolition of the “Unequal Treaty” and an end to Western subjugation, China’s republican government once again informed the Vatican of its willingness to establish diplomatic relations with the Holy See. “Negotiations,” Parolin underlined, “were successfully concluded in 1918 but due to the usual difficulties, they were not followed up on”. Therefore, in 1922, Pius XI decided to send Constantini himself to represent him in China as an apostolic delegate. “His mission,” Parolin announced, “was kept secret until he arrived in Hong Kong, so as not to expose it to the possibility of failure resulting from the political interests of European powers.” Having arrived at his destination, the apostolic delegate noted in his memoirs: “I thought it opportune, particularly with regard to the Chinese, not to confirm suspicions that the Catholic religion appeared as though it was under protection and much worse, as a political instrument at the service of the European nations. I wished, right from the start, to claim my freedom of action with regard to religious interests, thus refusing to be accompanied to the local civil Authorities by Representatives of foreign Nations. I would thus have given the impression that I was in China answering to these Representatives.”
As apostolic delegate, Constantini managed to introduce the celebration of China’s first national Council (Shanghai 1924) and begin the process of religious decolonisation, fighting against the stubborn remains of the Protectorate. He achieved good results in the fight against what Parolin defined as “Westernism”, which “gave Christianity in the Far East a European guise and thus ended up presenting it as a foreign religion that was treated as a “foreign body”. But his attempts to launch negotiations for the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the Holy See, continued to trigger abnormal reactions. Even then, the most ferocious opposition came from influential clerical representatives: “France”, Parolin said at Pordenone, “was resolutely opposed to it and had the backing of some missionary circles and even by French bishops in China, particularly the bishops of Tianjin, Zhengding, Xianxian, Yuanpingfu and Beijing”. In such a feverish climate, Constantini received “a hail of vulgar and shocking insults, which drove him to set aside his efforts in the diplomatic field.” Precious opportunities and years were thus lost.
It was only during World War Two that it became possible to establish a Chinese representation in the Vatican and only at China’s insistence did it achieve the same recognition as the Vatican had conceded to Japan, an ally of Nazi Germany. Beijing’s apostolic Delegation reached nunciature status only after the war, in 1946. In that same year, Parolin added, Pius XII established the Chinese episcopal hierarchy, recognising “its responsibility and independence from Western institutions with regard to governance”. These results were achieved also thanks to the patient and persistent work of Celso Constantini – who was Secretary of the Propaganda Fide Congregation from 1935 to 1953 – which were soon to be ruined by the Maoist Revolution.
Now, after decades of tragedy and suffering undergone by China’s Catholics, the possible change of pace in relations between the Holy See and Communist China – Parolin said at Pordenone – faces “problems that are not entirely dissimilar from those faced 70 years ago”. In radically changed historical contexts, the prospect of closer relations between the People’s Republic of China and the Roman Catholic Church, continues to raise concerns among those – ecclesiastical component included – who insist on identifying the Catholic Church as a north-Atlantic-led Western body and who expect some form of papal ethical and spiritual tutorage in the US-Western-led globalisation processes. This also explains the mad hounding by certain misleading campaigns conducted in the West as a means of attacking and discrediting the negotiations that are underway between China and the Holy See. The Holy See is accused of pompously pursuing a political agreement with Beijing “putting Chinese Catholic’s skin on the line” or of giving into China’s unscrupulous puppet masters just in order to satisfy their own blind and naïve “optimism”. These grotesque caricatures are completely off the mark as far as the Holy See’s modus operandi is concerned. The Holy See is accustomed to taking into account all factors and players involved in the big negotiations going on with China. That includes any potential Western-planned sabotages, which have not yet begun, as Cardinal Parolin explained at Pordenone.
