The legacy of Matteo Ricci and his companions

Religious intolerance

Francis Xavier was the first missionary who attempted to enter China during the Ming dynasty but without success. He died in Shangchuan, an island ten kilometers off the mainland, while waiting in vain for permission to enter China proper. It was left to Matteo Ricci to take up this challenging task again. ³ Accepted for the mission, he and his Jesuit companions departed Rome on May 18, 1577. On the way to the Far East, Ricci stopped in Goa, a city along the west coast of India, to continue his studies for the priesthood at the Jesuit College of St. Paul.

Goa was a Portuguese colony which had strict surveillance over religious orthodoxy. This charge was given to a local tribunal of the Inquisition, headed by Bartolomeu da Fonseca, who had boasted of burning many heretics. In this Portuguese outpost, Ricci had witnessed the worst of religious intolerance when 17 were burned at stake after being forced to walk through the streets in tunics impregnated with sulphur. Many of them were Jews forced to embrace Christianity (conversos) but were suspected of secret adherence to Judaism. ⁴ In spite of the diversity of people in Goa with a large number of Hindus and Muslims, the Portuguese only allowed the practice of Catholicism in the city.

Besides the burning of heretics in Goa by the Portuguese Inquisition, Ricci came to know that the Hindu and Muslim populations were forced to accept Christianity. In fact, Portuguese soldiers burned down the city’s Hindu temples in 1540. Christian converts were required to abandon their castes and customs, and to adopt Portuguese names and manners of dressing. These two events must have shocked and scandalized Ricci. Later, he would receive news that his Jesuit companions, including Rodolfo Aquaviva, head of the mission at Salcette near Goa, were killed by the natives because of hatred for the priests in connection to the destructions of their temples by Portuguese authorities. ⁵ Obviously, contempt for local religions on the part of the missionaries would only lead to conflict and violence, and Ricci would learn this quickly.

Experiencing the brutalities and cruelties of the Portuguese colonizers must have been a rude awakening for the young Ricci: he “found himself in that world of blurred boundaries between the sacred and the secular, where religion was mixed up with trafficking, war, coercion, and death.” ⁶ It was certainly a far cry from what he had learned and expected regarding the mission while he was a student at the Roman College. These horrifying experiences of religious intolerance of the Portuguese rulers in India in addition to the tropical heat took a toll on him. Ricci became very ill and was transferred to Cochin, a town south of Goa. For nearly a year, he stayed in Cochin, continued his study of theology and taught Latin and Greek to the local pupils. He was ordained to the priesthood in Cochin and celebrated his first mass on July 26, 1580.

From the beginning Ricci had stood firmly on certain principles regarding the mission and the role of the church. He was not afraid to speak out and oppose his superiors when he thought that they were wrong. The Jesuit authorities had forbidden ethnic Indians studying for the priesthood from attending courses on philosophy and theology for fear that they would be too proud of their learning and thus refuse to work with the poor. This was an ill-founded policy, Ricci thought. He questioned why European novices were allowed to be educated in the entire syllabus while the Indians were forbidden. Further, he argued that not all European priests put their knowledge to good use. A staunch defender of the role of knowledge and culture in evangelization, Ricci insisted that all priests, Europeans as well as Asians, must be well trained. Otherwise the laity would be deprived of competent spiritual guides. Besides, having ill-equipped priests among the natives would incur hatred and might encourage superficial conversions.

Thus we see Ricci championing the rights of the Indian Jesuits to have the same intellectual formation as their European counterparts. In spite of its international outlook, the Society of Jesus was reluctant to recruit the natives, believing that they did not possess the required intellectual abilities. In fact, Ricci belonged to the minority of Jesuits who supported the admission of Indians into the Company. ⁷

Ricci’s protest was a courageous step for a member of an Order which emphasized absolute obedience. Described as a person who was “emotional yet disciplined, obedient yet critical,” Ricci stood by his conviction regarding the importance of knowledge in winning converts. ⁸ He had observed at close quarters how the coercions of the Portuguese soldiers in Goa regarding religion as well as trade would only cause fear and hatred. Ricci was determined to adopt a totally different policy as laid down by his mentor, Alessandro Valignano. Thus, in his plan to convert the Chinese people, Ricci adopted the modo soave—the gentle method—when dealing with his hosts’ culture.

Alessandro Valignano

Born in 1539 to a noble family in Chieti, Alessandro was a well-built and impressive person. Unlike Ricci who entered the Society as a young fervent novice straight from college, Valignano had studied law at the University of Padua. Later, he was arrested and imprisoned for allegedly assaulting a woman. Released from prison thanks to the intervention of Cardinal Borromeo, Valignano then joined the Jesuits at San Andrea. As mentioned earlier, he was Matteo Ricci’s novice master in the novitiate. As Jesuit Visitor to the Far East, Valignano was convinced that missionaries should learn the language and culture of the country in which they work. They needed to learn the native way of life, to adapt to its customs and respect its traditions unless it contradicted Christian morality. Generally known as cultural accommodation, this missionary policy was considered avant-garde at that time and rejected by Rome during the “Chinese Rites” Controversy.

According to Pasquale D’Elia, the policy of Valignano was not to “Europeanize” the natives but to evangelize within the local cultural context, adopting those traditions and social customs that were compatible with Christian teachings. ⁹ Of course, the Jesuits’ Far East mission was not just a simple tale of accommodation. A complex set of factors, arising from both European and Chinese circumstances, including the Chinese cultural imperative, dictated how the task of evangelization was to be carried out. By and large, the Jesuits in the Far East relied on evangelizing methods and pastoral practices employed by European Catholics, which included the learning of indigenous languages and confronting other faiths. ¹⁰

In spite of past failures of foreign missionaries in China to propagate the faith, Valignano was determined to succeed because he was convinced that China was “a great and noble country inhabited by people of lively intellect given to study and governed with peace and prudence.” ¹¹

Impressed by the achievements of the Japanese and Chinese people, especially in their literature, politics, and philosophy, Valignano decided to make cultural accommodation the foundation of the Jesuits’ missionary enterprise. Jean-Paul Wiest claims Valignano was the one “who master-minded this new approach, which was based on the concept of a multipolar world whose center was no longer Europe.” ¹² Matteo Ricci was specially chosen to pioneer Valignano’s new missionary project, which no longer looked upon Europe as the exclusive model for Christian civilization. (It is important to note that the policy of cultural accommodation was not uniformly practiced throughout the Society of Jesus.)

As Visitor in the Far East, Valignano was able to secure some degree of independence for the Jesuits in China. He recruited missionaries who were not influenced by the militant Christianity practiced by the Spaniards and Portuguese. An Italian noble himself, Valignano knew that the Italian Jesuits were not influenced by this crusade mentality, but were imbued with the spirit of the Italian Renaissance and intellectually competent to deal with the Chinese literati. Hence, the model for Catholic Mission in the Far East was based on the Italians—“the cultural golden age of a specifically Catholic humanism.” ¹³

Cultural accommodation

The first step in cultural accommodation is to learn the language of the native population. Arriving in Macau, a Portuguese colony, in 1582, Ricci started learning Chinese in preparation for his great work in mainland China. Although he was well trained in learning new languages, Ricci found Chinese difficult because it was completely different from any of the European languages he had studied. Gifted with a fantastic memory, eventually he became fluent in the language after much toil and effort. In fact, Ricci never stopped studying Chinese language, history, and philosophy in order to be on a par with the Confucius literati. To convert them to the Christian faith, Ricci realized that he must be their intellectual equal. The relentless effort to study Chinese was also motivated by his plan to write a new catechism to replace the older text by Michele Ruggieri. To do this, Ricci needed to have a better grasp of Chinese philosophy.

Aware that all educated Chinese had studied the Confucius Analects, Ricci was determined to study this philosophy carefully so that he could dialogue with Chinese scholars on an equal footing. Confucian philosophy consisted of ethical and political principles, but without a metaphysical foundation. It presented a society that is hierarchical, and emphasized the importance of rituals and culture as a means of human improvement. In fact the basis of Chinese centralized and bureaucratic government was Confucian ideology.

During Ricci’s time there was a debate between whether Confucianism was a philosophy or a religion. Julia Ching observes that “From his own account of spiritual evolution, it might also be inferred that Confucius was a religious man, a believer in Heaven, a personal God, a man who sought to understand and follow Heaven’s will.” ¹⁴ Ching’s definition of religion includes a consciousness of a dimension of transcendence that

I perceive as having been present in Confucianism from the very beginning, even though this has not always referred to a belief in a personal deity . . . [T]he very insistence upon the priority of the way of Heaven, and the quest itself for the discovery and fulfillment of such within the way of man, point to a movement toward self-transcendence.

Thus Confucianism “remains religious at its core on account of its spiritual teachings of sagehood or self-transcendence.” ¹⁵ Further, if we consider religion to be a quest for ultimate meaning in life, then Confucianism can also be regarded as a religion.

Regarding the study of Confucius thought, Ricci distinguished Classical Confucianism from Neo-Confucianism because the latter he thought was contradictory to fundamental Christian teaching. Like most philosophies, Confucianism had been revised over the centuries. During the Ming Dynasty, Neo-Confucianism incorporated elements of Buddhist and Taoist teachings. Ricci, however, did not accept this interpretation with its emphasis on a supreme principle (taiji) as the origin and foundation of all things. He favored Classical Confucianism, which spoke of the “Lord on High” (Shangdi), a personal god quite similar to the Christian understanding. ¹⁶ Thus Ricci’s preference for Classical Confucianism was based on its purported compatibility with Christianity. Neo-Confucian scholars, on the other hand, adapted the teachings of Confucius and Mencius according to their own historical context and as a particular response to the challenge of Mahāyāna Buddhism, which some scholars believe to be parallel to Christianity.

At the end of 1594, Ricci had produced the first Latin paraphrase of Confucian works, The Four Books of Confucianism, accompanied by commentaries. Ricci found great similarities between Confucius’ morality and the principles of Western ethics, and also a close affinity between Chinese philosophy and Stoicism. He regarded Confucius as “another Seneca” comparable to the great classical writers in Europe. ¹⁷ Emphasizing the common ground between Christianity and the Confucian classics, Ricci told his Chinese friends that “the law of God was in conformity with the natural light [of reason] and with what their first sages taught in their books.” ¹⁸ A wily person, Ricci “deliberately presented his precepts in the Confucian style, emphasizing the importance of self-improvement in the knowledge that this was one of the most important virtues taught by Confucius, and seeking to show that this could come about through learning to worship the Lord of Heaven.” ¹⁹ Thus Ricci regarded Confucianism as natural law and not a religion. Its emphasis on the principle of filial piety revealed to him the importance of morality and ethics, and not simply the worship of idols.

Needless to say, the study and translation of the Four Books helped Ricci to integrate into Chinese society and earned him the respect and admiration of the literati. It was the first time they had seen a “barbarian” knowledgeable in Confucius classics. Li Madou, as the Chinese called Matteo Ricci, was turning into a shidafu (Chinese scholar) and was regarded by them as their equal. This achievement also qualified Ricci to dress like a Confucian scholar. This was considered the most practical step towards “accommodation.” The adoption of the dress and way of life of the literati was accepted from the beginning of the Jesuit mission.

The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven

Upon the advice of Alessandro Valignano, Ricci began to work on his catechism entitled, The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven. It was a good strategy to win converts among the Chinese elite as the literati valued written words more than spoken ones. The first catechism was written by Ruggieri, revised by Ricci, and published in 1584. But Valignano considered Ruggieri’s work inadequate because of the Buddhist terms he used to express Christian thoughts. In writing this volume, Ricci’s aim was to reflect Confucianism and refute Buddhism in presenting Christianity.

Confucius stressed moral self-improvement and hence Ricci’s objective in his catechism was to develop the nature of self-cultivation. Ricci argued that the person who seeks to improve himself has to worship the Lord of Heaven. Confucian teaching emphasizes the relationship between heaven and human being with little reference to God, and thus Ricci had to search for current philosophical ideas to support his thesis on God and man. Critical of the nihilistic doctrines in Taoism and the pantheistic thought in Buddhism and Neo-Confucianism, Ricci also condemned the superstitious practices prevalent among the Chinese. ²⁰ He wished to convince the Chinese that ancient Confucianism was compatible with Christianity, but before it was contaminated by Buddhist and Taoist elements resulting in a Neo-Confucian interpretation. Citing the classical texts of Confucianism selectively, the Jesuit interpreted them to suit his purpose.

In this work, Ricci first focuses on the existence of one God, the creator of heaven and earth. Repudiating the Buddhist and Taoist teaching of Taiji, a form of energy regarded by Neo-Confucianism as the origin of the universe, Ricci emphasizes the Christian understanding of a personal God. He begins by setting forth the proofs for the existence of God, arguing that God created the universe and all things in it. Then he uses classical Confucianism to refute the Taoist concept of Wu or “Non- Being” and the Buddhist concept of K’ung or “voidness.” ²¹ Going back to the history of Chinese culture, Ricci attempts to show the idea of one personal god—Shangdi—the Lord of Heaven—present in ancient Chinese classics. In other words, the Chinese understanding of Tian (Heaven) actually refers to the Christian God, the Father Almighty.

The Chinese believed that the universe is one single organism, but Ricci emphasized the difference between human and divine nature, and claimed the existence of the soul as a spiritual entity separate from the body. This duality between spirit and body, however, was foreign to Chinese thought. Ricci’s catechism holds that humans are different from animals in that they possess reason.

Part II begins a refutation of the Buddhist doctrine of transmigration. Ricci also criticizes the Buddhist prohibition of killing non-human living things and teaches the real meaning of fasting. He presents the Christian understanding of heaven and hell, and emphasizes the ability of human beings to choose between good and evil on the basis of reason. Ricci also treats the question of human nature, its goodness and sinfulness. Then he proceeds to the worship of God and how believers should practice self-cultivation. He then discusses celibacy and its relation to filial piety. Ricci did not discuss in-depth God’s revelation in history and this led some scholars to view this work more like a “pre-evangelical dialogue” rather than a catechism. ²² Naturally, people who have read this book and desired baptism need to be further instructed in the faith.

It is ironical that Buddhism, which Ricci and his companions sought to displace, was the very religion from which they had borrowed much of their religious concepts. For example, the term “Lord of Heaven,” used to describe the Christian God, turned out to be a deity in Buddhist scriptures. Even the term T’ein-t’ang or “Heaven” was used by the Buddhists as the equivalent of the Sanskrit Devaloka or “mansions of the gods.” In Buddhist cosmology, the heavens were located “between the earth and the Brahmalokus,” or “mansions or heavens of Brahma.” Hell or Ti-yü was the Buddhist equivalent of the Sanskrit naraka. Mo Kuei, the term Christians used to designate the devil, comes from the Sanskrit Māra, the tempter of Buddha. In other words, the term Christians chose to designate Satan was derived from Buddhism. Although the philosophy Ricci expresses in this work is based on St. Thomas Aquinas, he accepts the Buddhist term ling-hun, which means “spirit.” ²³

Ricci uses the word Sheng for “holy,” “sacred,” and “saint.” As a noun, Sheng refers to a holy person or a saint. The word gives the Chinese a sense of awe in the religious sense. However, the concept of Sheng has no exact Christian equivalent. In the Christian context, the apposite of “saint” is “sinner” and the opposite of “holy” is “profane.” But in Chinese, the opposite of Sheng is “ignorance.” The emphasis here is on moral self-cultivation with no reference to divine assistance. ²⁴ In Ricci’s time, the Sheng in China were persons of cultural achievement from the past who attained wisdom, understanding, and cultivated virtues; in other words, a sage. Ricci also introduces the term Sheng-shen, “sage and spiritual,” for saint. ²⁵ The search for suitable equivalents of Christian terms was indeed challenging and difficult for Ricci because the understanding of the nature of religion is different between the East and the West.

As we can see, in The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, Matteo Ricci attempts to connect Christianity with Confucianism. Paul S. Chung describes Ricci’s strategy as follows: he portrays Catholic doctrines as a complement to Confucianism and at the same time he believes Catholic doctrines transcend and transform Confucius’ teaching. Ricci also revises Catholic doctrine to make it more compatible with Confucian principles. ²⁶

Reception of Ricci’s work

It was reported that the emperor K’ang-hsi (1662–1723) read the book, was impressed by the content, and issued the edict of toleration in March, 1692. ²⁷ As a result of this publication, many Chinese scholars came to accept that Christianity was compatible with Confucianism. Ricci’s book emphasizes self-cultivation, equating God with the Confucian concept of Shangdi, thus proving that elements of Catholicism could be found in ancient Chinese classics. ²⁸ In other words, Catholicism could complement Confucianism.

Ricci’s catechism, though popular with some Chinese literati, was not without adverse criticism. Negative reactions came from within the Roman Catholic Church, from Protestant missionaries, from the Buddhists, Neo-Confucians, and also orthodox Confucians. Many Christians were against identifying Shangdi with the Judeo-Christian God and other Chinese terms for key Christian concepts. Jacques Gernet speaks of the incommensurability between Western and Eastern concepts, and the radical difference between European and Chinese languages associated with different worldviews. He writes, “The missionaries, just like the Chinese literate elites, were the unconscious bearers of a whole civilization. The reason why they so often came up against difficulties of translation is that different languages express, through different logics, different visions of the world and man.” ²⁹ Thus the Jesuits had to struggle in bridging the “mental frameworks”—for example trying to find similarities between Chinese heaven and the Sovereign on High and the biblical concept of God. Further, unlike Western philosophy, Eastern thinking tends to deny any opposition between self and the world, the mind and the body, the divine and the cosmic. In Chinese thought, the sensible is not separated from the rational; the spiritual substance is not distinct from the material. The Chinese cannot conceive of a world of eternal truths separated from the visible world of appearances. ³⁰

Attacks from three fronts

Criticism of Ricci’s writings came from three fronts: the scientific, the political, and the philosophical-theological. On the scientific front, it was obvious from his writings that Ricci considered China to be scientifically and technologically backward. Roger Hart argues that the Jesuits and their collaborators could not have believed in the superiority of Western science. In fact, they had appropriated many of their mathematical ideas from Chinese mathematical treatises. ³¹ On the political front, there was a fear that the Jesuits were actually forerunners of European armies preparing to invade China.

On the philosophical-theological front, there were three points. First, there were no hostile reactions from the Taoists as most of its adherents were drawn from the lower class with little education to understand the profundity of Ricci’s writings. Second, by the end of the Ming Dynasty, Buddhism had evolved and became infused with elements from Confucianism and Taoism. Few Buddhists upheld Buddhism in its purest form. In fact, pure Buddhism does not exist. The same could be said for Confucianism. Confucianism infused with Buddhist and Taoist ideas evolved into Neo-Confucianism, a form of philosophical and religious syncretism that became very popular in the late Ming period. ³² For Buddhism to survive in China, it had to accommodate to Confucianism. In the same way, for Christianity to survive, it too had to accommodate to Confucianism. Thus, Ricci’s slogan, “Draw close to Confucianism and repudiate Buddhism,” could only evoke furious reactions from Buddhist quarters.

The most violent objection to Ricci’s works came from orthodox Confucians. They rejected the idea that Confucianism needs to be augmented by Catholicism for its own enhancement. Adopting the Neo-Confucian position, these Confucian traditionalists slammed the affirmation of The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven that “The Supreme Ultimate, being principle, cannot be the source of all creation.” One of the critics called Ricci “a traitor and usurper and a rebel against Confucius . . . By destroying the Supreme Ultimate the demon Ricci destroyed the Mean.” ³³ Ricci’s teaching on Chinese theism, doctrine of the soul, the incarnation, human nature, heaven and hell, all came under severe scrutiny. The critics were able to prove that Ricci and his companions were ignorant of the finer distinctions of Chinese philosophy.

Recent scholars have discovered that Ricci did not have an adequate understanding of the key concepts and historical context of the various schools of Chinese philosophy at that time. He appears not to have grasped correctly the Taoist Wu, the Buddhist K’ung, and the Neo-Confucianist T’ai-chi. Some scholars believe that the Wu of Taoism and the K’ung of Mahāyāna Buddhism resemble the Christian understanding of God in via negativa—the “negative” approach to divine reality or the apophatic tradition in Orthodox theology. ³⁴ This is only one example of the compatibility between Christianity and Buddhism and Taoism. Other concepts like T’ai-chi, Li, and Ch’ i found in Neo-Confucianism can be extended to explain the Three Persons of the Trinity. Unfortunately, trapped in the scholastic framework, Ricci could not examine these terms within their original thought systems. He saw only superficial similarities while the deeper meanings of the Chinese terms escaped him. ³⁵

Ricci’s new catechism was interpreted as a betrayal of both Christianity and Confucianism. For some Christians, Ricci seems to sacrifice Christian truth in favor of traditional Chinese thought, and for the orthodox Confucians, vice versa. The works of Ricci prompted Rome to take several decisions, which included the prohibition of Catholics to venerate both their ancestors and Confucius. On the positive side, it led to heated debates and discussions in Western intellectual circles as to whether ancient Chinese thought resembled Christian teaching. These debates and discourses became channels for Chinese thoughts to be known in Europe especially during the Age of the Enlightenment, thus promoting dialogue between the East and the West.

Till today, some Christians believe that the policy of accommodation was a distortion of Christianity. One critic claimed that “Ricci limited himself to teaching pure deism . . . he mentioned neither Trinity, nor the Incarnation, nor the Redemption . . . It is probable that his Chinese friends saw in it only a special kind of Buddhism.” Others were more harsh and described Ricci as “an unprincipled opportunist.” One Catholic critic writes, “Ricci was . . . ignorant of the first principles of theology. Being more of a politician than a theologian, he discovered the secret of remaining peacefully in China.” Ricci’s respect for Chinese culture was interpreted as anti-Christian: “He disfigured [Christianity] by a faithful mixture of pagan superstitions, adopting the sacrifices offered to Confucius and ancestors.” ³⁶

Nonetheless, one should not be too harsh in judging Ricci. Indeed, to judge someone in the 16th century by the standards of the 21st century is not helpful in arriving at a fair assessment. Besides, when Ricci wrote The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, he had been in China for less than 20 years and thus one cannot expect him to have a thorough grasp of the richness and beauty of Chinese thoughts. Schooled in the scholastic tradition, his attitude toward non-Christian religions was bound to be negative or even hostile. Ricci favored Confucianism because he did not regard it as a religion competing with Christianity, but a pagan philosophy like Aristotle’s, which was used by St. Thomas Aquinas to expound the Catholic faith. Ricci understanding of Confucianism, however, was faulty for he did not take into account the historical development of this philosophy. This led him to reject Neo-Confucianism. ³⁷ Ricci believed in pristine Confucianism, which in fact, does not exist.

Conclusion

The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven is the first attempt by a Western scholar to present Christianity dressed in Confucian robes, as it were. It anticipated the teaching of Vatican II (1962–65) in expressing the Christian faith within the local context, according to the specific culture in which the gospel is preached. Pope John Paul II writes,

And just as the Fathers of the Church had done centuries before in the encounter between the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Greco-Roman culture, Father Ricci made this insight the basis of his patient and far-sighted work of inculturation of the faith in China, in the constant search for a common ground of understanding with the intellectuals of that great land. ³⁸

Hence, Matteo Ricci’s merit lay above all in the sphere of inculturation.

As Confucian values were deeply ingrained in Chinese society, Ricci rightly believed that these values would not be displaced by Christianity. Besides, a Christian nation could also be a Confucian one—there was no contradiction. Some of his writings showed that he was “converted” to Confucianism in the process of teaching Christianity. ³⁹ Perhaps Ricci’s so-called conversion to Confucianism revealed his adeptness in inculturation as taught by Vatican II. It was his genius to construct a synthesis of Eastern and Western values, like a bridge to join two distinct continents. Europe and China will be like two worlds separated by an enormous distance, but will mutually instruct and enlighten each other.