The Honours and disgrace

Under the guidance of Fr. Pedrini, Paul Sou was accepted around 1725 as a student astronomer (Tien-Wen-Sen 天文生).²¹ This entry-level position in the Calendar and Heavenly Signs section was viewed by the Qing bureaucratic system as a student or trainee (生) rather than an official (官). However, during public ceremonies, these students could wear the same official robes and adornments as the lowest civil service workers.²²

Student astronomers were categorized into two groups: shiliang (食糧) and shifeng (食俸). Shiliang student astronomers were junior to shifeng and only received monthly stipends. Shifeng students, in addition to receiving monthly stipends, had the possibility of being promoted to the department of astronomy and mathematics when a position became available. There was another category called yiyesheng (肄業生), designated for newcomers to the Astronomic Bureau. Given these distinctions, it is presumed that Paul Sou was a yiyesheng and needed more effort to advance to a shiliang (食糧).

These titles provided him with the legal status of lower gentry, potential protection against persecution as a Catholic,²³ and the right to own property. This was why Bishop Müllener and Pedrini worked to secure this status for him. However, this status may have distracted him from his priestly duties. One missionary complained, “He is so preoccupied with worldly affairs that he neglects confession and often fails to say mass. The Christians are not well edified by this priest, who they say loves worldly glory and neglects their well-being.”²⁴ Martiliat noted this because Paul Sou spent considerable time establishing his status as a disciple of Mathematics.

On the other hand, Paul Sou’s actions were for the benefit of the church. There was an incident that involved the property of the Hia-Seu-Hian church, which was originally under the name of Fr. Peter Zhu. When Fr. Zhu passed away in 1732, the property was transferred to Fr. Paul Sou, with the help of Fr. Pedrini, who facilitated Paul Sou’s registration in Kin-Tchang city as a student of Mathematics. Five years later, persecution broke out in Kin-Tchang, and the city’s governor instigated numerous charges against him.

Paul Sou skillfully navigated these challenges by building relationships with the magistrates, socializing, attending theatre performances with them, and giving gifts on special occasions. These gestures earned their friendship, and in return, the magistrates resolved the trial against him favorably and promised to erect columns with inscriptions. Similarly, he managed to retain the church property in Tchang-Te-Fou (Changde city 常德市) in Huguang (湖廣) province under his name.

By 1742, Paul Sou had completed his major project of erecting the markers of his status as a disciple of the astronomer.²⁵ The magistrate kept his promise and erected columns with several inscriptions, which served as a distinction for bachelors, students of the imperial school in Peking, and astronomers. Paul Sou invited Christians and non- believer neighbors to the ceremony, which included formal greetings and a celebration with music and a feast for three to four hundred guests over two days. Although Bishop Müllener was distressed by these events, he acknowledged the difficulty of changing course once begun. Paul Sou was pleased, believing he had secured the church’s safety, hoping it was God’s will.

Paul Sou’s happiness, however, was short-lived. In 1745, he lost his status as a disciple of astronomy due to a new policy²⁶ or possibly because authorities suspected he was a priest. Consequently, the Council members sent a sergeant to inform Paul Sou that he had to return his letters, abandon the gold pompom on his hat, and dismantle the columns in front of his house. This disheartened him greatly, but since the reform affected others as well, it spared him from complete disgrace.²⁷

The Privileges

In 1722, Emperor Kangxi (康熙帝) passed away and was succeeded by his son, Yongzheng (雍正帝). The new emperor was less sympathetic to Christians, and in 1724, he issued an edict that exiled all missionaries except those working at the Court. This occurred just a year after Paul Sou’s ordination, leading to Christianity being banned in China and categorized as a heterodox ideology. This prohibition lasted for about 120 years, from 1724 to the 1840s. Despite the real danger to their lives, foreign missionaries who remained in China continued their work clandestinely. The Chinese Christian community, led by Chinese clergy, catechists, congregational leaders (會長) endured despite intermittent persecution.

Although Jesuit missionary policy generally emphasized the accommodation of Christianity to indigenous elements of foreign cultures, European missionaries had never encountered a culture as advanced as China’s. In the midst of the new persecution, some French Jesuits attempted to introduce the Chinese liturgy. A proposal written on August 16, 1724, outlined two methods for obtaining Chinese priests: ordaining older catechists under the privilege of Pope Paul V or providing Latin training to young candidates. Only the first solution seemed likely to relieve the mission’s shortage of priests. The Congregation discussed this request on September 23, 1725, in Rome. Maigrot,²⁸ also in Rome, was among those consulted. He was not opposed to the Chinese liturgy but noted the difficulty of obtaining an accurate version of the sacred books. Two others were against the decision, and one took no position.

Early the following year, the Holy Office, which received the request, rejected it. This decision was influenced partly by missionaries in China under the Propagation of Faith: Pedrini CM (in a letter dated Nov 25, 1726) and Bishop Johannes Müllener, CM, Apostolic Vicar of Sichuan (letter dated Dec 19, 1726), both strongly opposed introducing the Chinese liturgy, fearing it would weaken the condemnation of the Chinese Rites. Their stance demonstrated complete obedience to the Pope rather than their own opinions on the matter. By the mid-eighteenth century, even local Chinese priests began to oppose the Chinese liturgy. Andreas Ly, a prominent Chinese priest, criticized the privilege of Alexander VII, arguing that Chinese priests needed to be fluent in Latin to avoid the condescension of European missionaries and access necessary ministerial knowledge from Latin sources. Inevitably, Paul Sou, a pupil of Müllener, shared his superior’s opinion.

In some respects, just like today, Christianity was constantly vulnerable to persecution, arrests, and other forms of harassment. In regions far from the capital, such as Sichuan, Christians were, however, often able to practice their faith openly. Foreign priests, however, were more susceptible to arrest and deportation due to the difficulty of concealing their identity. A priest could only stay in each locality for a few days, ministering to Christians, listening to their confession, performing baptisms, and celebrating the Eucharist before moving on to the next community of eagerly awaiting Christians. While it was easier for Chinese priests to travel, their numbers remained low until the late eighteenth century. The key point here is that, except for Beijing—where aging Jesuits were already limited in the religious functions they could perform—there was virtually no place in China where a priest was permanently present.

From 1725 onwards, there were five Vincentians in China: Fr. Appiani in Canton, under house arrest or prison but still able to carry out his mission work; Fr. Pedrini in Beijing, working at the court as a musician; and three others (Bishop Müllener, Paul Sou, and Stephanus Hsu) in Sichuan. All of these Vincentians operated under the Sacred Congregation. Through their letters and the journal of Bishop Martillat, we know that they stayed in contact with one another, with Paul Sou sometimes traveling to Canton or Beijing to visit them. A brief but affectionate letter from Appiani indicates that they had met, and he had a good impression of Paul Sou. Paul Sou had become Bishop Müllener’s right hand, handling numerous responsibilities from missionary work to managing church property and dealing with other priests, both native and foreign.

In Sichuan, most Catholics lived in small, scattered communities in mountainous areas, known as chrétientés in the writings of French missionaries. These chrétientés were typically small villages or hamlets. Andreas Ly mentions 130 such communities in his diary. Because they were spread across Sichuan province, priests had to travel continuously (by horse, on foot, or by boat) to serve them. A priest’s visit was a cause for celebration in a chrétienté, with a feast day and offerings of fruit, cakes, and tobacco—a tradition still observed in Catholic villages today. During my visits to Catholics in Jiangxi in the South or Hebei in the North between 2008 and 2017, they always served their best meals, prepared delicate soups, provided abundant cakes and fruits, and never forgot to offer the best wine, requesting a “ganbei” (干杯), meaning to empty the glass in a toast and refill it with wine again. Anyone who visits them would experience their warm hospitality.

Paul Sou seemed to excel in his pastoral duties, leaving a lasting positive impression on Fr. Matteo Ripa (馬國賢). Despite being away for a long time, Ripa remembered him vividly. In a letter to Bishop Maggi, Fr. Ripa responded to complaints about Chinese priests by writing: “… Paul Sou always travelled on foot, harvested crops himself, drove horses, and repaired his coarse canvas clothes—humiliating activities that I have never heard of a European missionary in Beijing (北京), Shandong (山東), Nanjing (南京), or Canton (廣東) doing. I know several European missionaries who have not administered as many sacraments in their entire lives as that priest has in two or three years.”²⁹

As a native Chinese priest, Paul Sou was responsible for much of the secular business of the Church, tasks that his European missionary counterparts could not always handle. For example, in 1743, he purchased land worth 130 taels near the church in the nearby chrétientés of Hia-Sou-Hian (下四鄉). As a priest with the legal status of the lower gentry, Paul Sou also engaged in a lawsuit against a degree-holder who tried to seize church land in Shuāng méng zi (雙檬子), near Chengdu. This lawsuit brought him into contact with the local magistrate, who inquired about his family. Paul Sou stated that he was a widower with two sons (one deceased) and three daughters, with one son in Beijing and two married daughters. In reality, he had an adopted son and was passing off a Christian Virgin as his unmarried daughter. Adopting sons was a common practice among Chinese clergy to protect church properties and avoid societal troubles, given that celibacy was not favored.

Paul Sou was said to have personally known the Governor-General of Huguang (湖廣總督), Prince Joseph Dé pèi (德沛), who was secretly a Christian converted by Jesuits. It was claimed that Prince Dé pèi was a devout Christian, never missing his daily morning meditation and adhering strictly to the commandments. Whenever Paul Sou visited Huguang, he would see the Prince and administer the sacraments.

During the persecution in 1746, Paul Sou, sponsored by Christians in Fujian who were distressed due to persecution, went to Beijing to seek the protection of Prince Joseph Dé pèi, who then held the significant position of Vice-President of the Board of Civil Office.

Battle lines are drawn

Rewind to 1731, when Fr. Enjobert de Martillat (Chinese name 馬青山), a young priest from the Foreign Missions, arrived in Canton with plans to enter Sichuan. Unable to enter Cochinchina due to ongoing persecution and believing he had the right to return to Fr. Basset’s old Christian Community, he decided to sneak into Sichuan. At that time, it was customary for Christian Communities to belong to the religious institutes that had established them, so the Foreign Missions considered the southern part of Sichuan as their territory. Additionally, in 1732, the Foreign Missions superior sent Fr. Andreas Ly to work in Sichuan. However, Bishop Müllener reassigned him to a mission in Huguang (present-day Hunan and Hubei).

In 1733, Andreas Ly joined Fr. de Martillat, determined to find a way into Sichuan. In May 1733, they met with Bishop Müllener to discuss their intentions to stay and work there. The Bishop informed them that this was impossible due to his strict obedience to Rome. Nevertheless, he granted them authority for the Huguang province and entrusted them with a large Christian Community abandoned by Fr. Douarte, a Portuguese Jesuit. The Bishop then asked Paul Sou to visit them and organized a boat trip from Tong-Léan (Tongliang 銅梁) to Huguang (湖廣), where the two priests would work together. This arrangement would suffice until they received further instructions from Rome.

Meanwhile, another issue arose: three Vincentians had arrived from St. Lazare! These were Frs. Marc Gandon, François Monet, and François-Théodore Trogneux. For a long time, both Appiani and Müllener had been trying to persuade the Vincentians to send more priests to China. After a 20-year wait, Bishop Müllener learned that three confreres were sent to his mission. This assistance was a personal favor, as his mission was not entrusted to the Congregation of the Mission but to the Propaganda Fide. The Superior General of the Congregation of the Mission, in sending these reinforcements, had no intention of taking over the mission. The three Vincentians arrived in Macau after a challenging two-year voyage.

Their vessel reached the Sunda Straits near Batavia (now Jakarta) the previous year. Due to the lateness of the season and the threat of winds and typhoons, along with having many sick passengers, they withdrew and spent the winter in Bourbon or Maurice. This year, they faced almost as much misfortune; despite leaving early, they arrived late due to sailing downwind. They lost more than 34 people on board, and those who arrived in Macao were sick and starving. If they had arrived a few days later, all would have died from hunger. Even after they disembarked, misfortune continued to haunt them.

They had no hope of entering China given the current circumstances, despite Bishop Müllener sending Paul Sou with an acolyte, John Baptist Lieu, to fetch them; they returned empty-handed. This shattered the Bishop’s assurances that they would face no danger on the roads. Having left without informing the Sacred Congregation or the Nuncio of Paris, Fr. Archangelo Miralta, the procurator of the Propaganda, showed little concern for them. They risk being sent back even though Fr. Pedrini encourages them to wait in Macao. Their situation was worsened by carrying only a limited amount of money, and Fr. Miralta had no orders to provide for them. The Foreign Mission procurator in Macao sarcastically remarked, “that is what I call being truly in an apostolic way!”

As for Fr. de Martillat and other Foreign Missions priests, this situation was reminiscent of their encounter with Bishop Müllener in May of the same year. They felt the Bishop had unjustly denied them entry into Sichuan, so they did not consider themselves friends. It was unfortunate that despite their small numbers and shared hardships, the priests from the two societies quarrelled over territory, dragging newcomers and Chinese priests into the conflict. It was hard to believe these priests came as proselytizers and witnesses of God’s love. The irony deepens when considering how close their motherhouses in Paris were to each other!

According to Gandon’s diary, housed in the National Archives in Paris, despite the difficulties they faced in Macao, they eventually arrived in Canton where Paul Sou and John Baptist Lieu were waiting for them. They had, howevere, to reconsider their presence in the hinterland of China. Entering without the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda’s approval might make them seem like intruders. This was not a matter of the simplicity and disinterestedness of the three, but a reflection of the Church Mission’s situation at that time. The Church was compartmentalized and bound by the interests of groups like the Sacred Congregation, various societies, and the Portuguese rights granted by the Pope, known as the Padroado. Anyone entering the mission field had to be cautious to avoid stepping on others’ toes. They feared their presence might destroy the Mission, causing irreparable harm.

They faced a great dilemma. On one hand, they saw Fr. Paul Sou’s sincerity and high expectations. He took great risks to bring them into the country, despite having narrowly escaped violent persecution just weeks earlier, in which he was beaten and wounded.³⁰ His courage and determination were evident. On the other hand, they faced a Church hierarchy that was difficult to reach. They sought advice from distinguished persons like Pierre Sanz, the Bishop of Fujian, who had been in China for a long time and was well-informed about the Mission. He found their plan praiseworthy and commendable, advising them to proceed. Pedrini gave them the same emphatic advice.

The circumstances and differing, even contradictory, ideas, however, left them in a state of distressing uncertainty. In this situation, they could only trust in God’s will. By January 1734, it became clear that returning to Europe was the best course for the greater good of the mission. Seventeen days later, they embarked for Europe. This situation appeared to contradict the judgment that Bishop Müllener would only accept and cooperate with Vincentian priests. While he wanted Vincentians to send priests to China to work with him in Sichuan, it was on the condition that they obtain a mandate from the Sacred Congregation. Without the credentialed letter, the prelate could do little. It is “closer to the truth” to say that the bishop intended to administer the Church with priests associated with the Sacred Congregation. Although the three priests were Vincentians, their failure to attain the credential letter from the Sacred Congregation barred them from entering the hinterland.

Their failure to stay in Sichuan dismayed not only the Vincentians but also Bishop Müllener and Paul Sou. The virtuous missionaries, disappointed, left China, taking their zeal and efforts elsewhere. This was a significant blow to Bishop Müllener, who had longed for the companionship of his European confreres for the rest of his life, only to see that hope evaporate. Accustomed to sacrifices, he accepted this setback with a big heart and continued working as an apostle in the Lord’s vineyard with the workers sent by Providence. Paul Sou was devastated, his hopes and dreams completely shattered. Helpless and heartbroken, he wept. Despite the brevity of their meetings, these moments were cherished in their hearts, and later, even after Paul Sou retired to Macau, they remained in touch.

Bishop Müllener demonstrated his nobility just a few months after this unpleasant event. In March 1734, new directives from Rome authorized Fr. de Martillat and the Paris Foreign Missions to stay in Sichuan Province. Bishop Müllener then entrusted Andreas Ly with the areas where he had already worked, as well as the town of Yàoshān (樂山) further south, hoping he would attempt to enter Yunnan Province. Not only did the bishop welcome them to work in his diocese, but he also shared the resources he received from Europe, giving each priest 80 patacas a year. Out of charity, he reduced his own share and that of his two confreres, Stephanus Su and Paul Sou, to 20 piasters a year. His actions were proof of his blind obedience to Rome and readiness to follow whatever Rome decided.

Though Bishop Müllener coped with his disappointment at being unable to keep the Vincentians in Sichuan, this failure always haunted his mind. In May 1738, the bishop came to Tong-Lean (Tong-Liang 銅梁) for confirmations. The Foreign Missions requested he stay with them, and he agreed for one night, leaving them the bulk of his money. During their conversation, he expressed confusion over why people had written to the Sacred Congregation, claiming he wanted to give the Mission of the province to the Vincentians, for which the Sacred Congregation blamed him. Martillat thought the bishop suspected them of this accusation, and it was true that one of their priests, Fr. de Laour, might have reported this to Rome. The brief conversation made de Martillat uncomfortable, but the bishop did not mean to accuse them directly.

When Fr. Maggi was appointed bishop and coadjutor of the Sichuan diocese, Bishop Müllener entrusted Paul Sou with preparing the consecration and the food for the event. The consecration took place on the second Sunday of October 1738, the 9th of the month. Fr. de Martillat served as the first assistant, Fr. Paul Sou as the second, Fr. Andreas as the master of ceremonies, and Fr. Stephanus Su as an assistant to the consecrator. An acolyte, a cleric of the bishop’s named Gu Yaowen, also participated. Despite the very bad weather, the ceremony proceeded quite well and was quite magnificent. They had not announced the event to the Christians to avoid having too many people, so only the local Christians attended. Bishop Müllener gave Bishop Maggi full power over Huguang and ordered Fr. Stephanus Su to assist him.

In June 1741, Fr. de Martillat was appointed bishop of Ecrinee and Apostolic Vicar of Yunnan. He was consecrated on July 23 by Bishop Müllener, with Fr. Dartigues serving as the first assistant and Fr. Paul Sou as the second. After his consecration, Bishop de Martillat was tasked with working in the central part of Sichuan. Finally, he inherited the ancient mission of Fr. Basset. On October 27, 1742, while Bishop Müllener was returning from a pastoral visit, he passed by Bishop de Martillat’s residence. Bishop de Martillat invited him to stay overnight at his new yet unfinished house. He had run out of money to complete the building, so he seized the opportunity to ask Bishop Müllener for a loan to finish it. Bishop Müllener immediately promised to send 100 taels, which he did two weeks later via a special courier.

Before leaving for another mountain visit, Bishop Müllener informed Bishop de Martillat that he had written to the Sacred Congregation, requesting them to send workers to continue the mission. He did not specify that the workers had to be Vincentians. Alternatively, he asked that the mission be handed over to the Foreign Missions if they could manage it better, demonstrating his primary interest in ensuring the mission’s continuity. If the Sacred Congregation could not provide sufficient priests, the Foreign Missions would be the sole congregation with the right to take over the mission. This approach, thanks to the virtuous representatives of each party, was handled with much calm and charity.

By 1742, there were three bishops (Millener, Magi, and de Martiliat) and six priests, namely Frs. Paul Sou and Stephanus Su (Vincentians), Andreas Ly, Antonius Tang (Foreign Missions), and Joannes-Baptista Gu, who was sent by the Sacred Congregation. Paul Sou and Gu were with Bishop Millener, Bishop Magi was accompanied by Stephanus Su, and Martiliat was with Andreas Ly and Antonius Tang. Bishop Millener had also appointed Linus Zhang Feng as the catechist-general of the province.

On December 17, 1742, Bishop Millener passed away at Bishop Martiliat’s house after long service to the mission in Sichuan. His funeral took place on Saturday, December 22, 1742, led by Frs. Paul Sou and Antoine in mourning attire, followed by all the Christians of the town and several from the countryside, including two virgins who had walked about 18 km. He was buried in the Christian cemetery of Fenghudng shin, around 6 km north of Chengdu’s town gate. This marked the beginning of a new chapter for Paul Sou.

The death of Bishop Millener marked a grim period for the Sichuan Mission. His successor died only eight months after taking office, Dartigues died the following year, and Antonius Tang Huairen passed away in 1745. The church also lost its best son, a Chinese unmarried layman appointed as catechist-general by Bishop Millener in 1718, who died in 1743. By early 1746, only two European priests remained in Sichuan: Bishop de Martiliat and Jean Hyacinthe de Verthanmon, who had recently arrived, along with three other Chinese priests, Paul Sou, Andreas Ly, and Gu Yao-wen. Stephanus Su was in Huguang.

Yohanes Kusno Bintoro, CM
Source: Studia Vincentiana, Volume 2, Number 2 (2024),
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3531

Footnotes:

²¹ Some publications translated Tien-Wen-Sen 天文生 as student of mathematic, (cf. MCMC, Robert Entenmann, ibid, p. 402) at this case, translate Tien-Wen-Sen 天文生 into astronomer is more accurate with the original language. Furthermore, the College of Mathematics officially commenced in December 1739, therefore it doesn’t make sense if he called as a student of mathematics at this time (cf. Ping-Ying Chang, Chinese Hereditary Mathematician Families of the Astronomical Bureau, 1620-1850, CUNY, New York, doctoral dissertation, unpublished, 2012, p.177).

²² Ping-Ying Chang, ibid, p. 28.

²³ Entenmann, Ibid, pp. 402. (cf. Ping-Ying Chang, ibid, p. 28).

²⁴ Entenmann, Ibid, p. 403.

²⁵ MCMC, ibid, p. 271. I change the disciple of Mathematic to disciple of astronomer for the same reason at footnote no.19.

²⁶ Ping-Ying Chang, ibid, p.179. In 1745, the Astronomical Bureau decided that maintaining a separate program to train its own apprentices, called astronomy apprentices (yiye tianwensheng 肄業天文生), was redundant.

²⁷ Chinese people put a high value on dignity. “Loss of face” (Chinese Diu lian 丟臉), or “no face” (Mei mianzi沒面子) are typical Chinese phrases describing losing one’s dignity. These two phrases translate into “losing face” in English.

²⁸ Charles Maigrot (1652-1730) the bishop of Fujian who ordered all churches in Fujian to take down the stele with the Chinese word 敬天 (respect the Heaven) inscribed by Emperor Kangxi, and forbade Chinese followers to pay worship to ancestors and Confucius. He was interviewed by Emperor Kangxi in August 1706 in regard of this dispute, however it was clear that Maigrot was not mastering Chinese language. The emperor had him be expelled from China.

²⁹ MCMC, p.200-201.

³⁰ On the way to Canton to fetch the three Vincentians in 1733, Paul Sou, having been requested by the Christians of Chun-Te (Mission of the Franciscans near Canton) to come and give them confession, he was taken there and imprisoned, then he received 20 slaps in the face and 15 blows with a stick. He had said publicly that all the edicts given against missionaries were false and that the Christian Religion was very pure; and that he hated all that was contained in those slanderous edicts.