crahan_church-state conflict and bourbon regalism
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 1/22
Church-State Conflict in Colonial Peru: Bourbon Regalism under the Last of the Hapsburgs
Author(s): Margaret E. CrahanSource: The Catholic Historical Review , Vol. 62, No. 2 (Apr., 1976), pp. 224-244
Published by: Catholic University of America Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25019876
Accessed: 06-04-2016 14:13 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusteddigital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Catholic University of America Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto The Catholic Historical Review
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 2: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 2/22
CHURCH-STATE CONFLICT IN COLONIAL PERU:
BOURBON REGALISM UNDER THE LAST OF
THE HAPSBURGS
Y
Margaret E. Crahan*
What has been termed the most serious church-state conflict in
colonial Peru1 erupted on February 20, 1684, with the publication of a
viceregal order aimed at ending mistreatment of Indians by clerics.
The decree directed corregidores, their lieutenants, and other royal
justices to investigate complaints, take testimony, and draw up and
send reports to the ecclesiastic's superior and the viceregal govern
ment. Correction of the offenders was left to the prelates. Traditional
ly, secular jurisdiction over the clergy had been limited to viceroys,
governors, and oidores. This attempt to extend authority to lesser
royal officials incurred the wrath of the Catholic Church on the
grounds that it was an invasion of its authority and a clear violation
of ecclesiastical immunity.2
The dispute occurred at a time when Spain was suffering from ad
ministrative disorder due, in large part, to the incapacity of Charles II
( 1665-1700) .3 The king, rachitic and probably epileptic, had to de
pend on subordinates4 to govern the realm. Unfortunately, they did
* Miss Crahan is an associate professor of history in the Herbert H. Lehman
College of the City University of New York. Research concerning this topic
was made possible by a Fulbright Fellowship to Spain and grants from the
American Philosophical Society and Hunter College of the City University of
New York.
1 Guillermo Lohmann Villena, El corregidor de indios en el Per? bajo los
Austrias (Madrid, 1957), p. 353.
2 Ecclesiastical immunity was the exemption of clerics from prosecution by
secular judges. The Church had its own courts in which to try its ministers.
3 For a survey of Charles' reign see J. H. Elliott, Imperial Spain, 1469-1716
(New York, 1964), R. Trevor Davies, Spain in Decline, 1621-1700 (London,
1957), and Gabriel de Maura Gamazo, Vida y reinado de Carlos II (3 vols. ;
Madrid, 1942) and his Carlos II y su corte (2 vols.; Madrid, 1911-1915).
4 From 1665 to 1679 power was variously exercised by government councils, the
224
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 3: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 3/22
BY MARGARET E. CRAHAN
225
not offset the weakness of the crown. Further, the Council of the
Indies was enmeshed in red tape and suffered from financial difficulties
and unconcerned counselors.5 As a consequence, authorities in the
colonies had considerable opportunity to act as they saw fit. If
blessed with initiative and administrative talent, they could determine,
to a considerable extent, the course of events in their jurisdictions.
Such an individual was the viceroy, Duque de la Palata.0 Sent to
Peru in 1681 to replace the interim viceroy, Don Melchor de Li??n y
Cisneros,7 Palata was a strong-willed, experienced administrator, who
tended to take matters into his own hands when he felt royal obliga
tions were not being discharged properly. One area that especially
concerned him was the Christianization of the Indians.8 Under the
Queen Mother Mariana and her favorites, Philip IV's bastard son (Juan Jos?),
and sundry courtiers. Later the king relied on a series of chief ministers?
Ger?nimo de Egu?a (1679-1680), the Duque de Medinaceli (1680-1685), and the
Conde de Oropesa (1685-1691) ; and from 1691 until Charles' death Don Manuel
Arias, the Conde de Monterrey, and the Duque de Montalto.
5 Ernesto Sch?fer, El Consejo Real y Supremo de las Indias (2 vols. ; Seville,
1935-1947), I, 268-300.
6 For an account of Palata's tenure as viceroy see this author's The Admin
istration of Don Melchor de Navarra y Rocafull, Duque de la Palata : Viceroy
of Peru, 1681-1689, The Americas, XXVII (April, 1971), 389-412. Palata
(1627-1691) began his public career in his native Aragon as commissioner of
the town of Albarracin. In the 1650's and 1660's he served in Catalonia, Italy,
and again in Aragon as vice-chancellor. Prior to his appointment he served on
the junta that governed during the minority of Charles II (1665-1675). Palata's
early life and genealogy are traced in Chapters II, III, and IV of Ronald D.
Hilton, The Career of Melchor de Navarra y Rocafull, Duque de la Palata,
with Special Reference to His Viceregency in Peru, 1681-1689 (unpublished
Master's thesis, University of Bristol, 1967).
7 Melchor de Li??n y Cisneros (1629-1708) served the Spanish monarchy
for nearly fifty years and the Catholic Church even longer. His career was a
notable example of a cleric who rose to exalted positions in both the civil and
ecclesiastical hierarchies. He began as curate of the towns of Buitrago and
later of Torrelaguna near Madrid. By 1660 he was serving at the royal court
and in 1664 was sent to America as bishop of Santa Marta. Later he was pro
moted to the prelacies of Popay?n, Charcas, and La Plata. From 1671 to 1674 he
was visitador of the audiencia of Santa Fe de Bogot?, with the title of presi
dent and captain-general. In February, 1678, he took possession of the arch
bishopric of Lima and five months later of the viceroyalty of Peru. In serving
both the crown and the Church he was following the path of his illustrious
ancestor Francisco Jim?nez de Cisneros (1436-1517), regent and primate of
Spain.
8 The Alexandrine bulls of 1493 and the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494,
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 4: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 4/22
226 CHURCH-STATE CONFLICT IN COLONIAL PERU
Patronato Real,9 this task was the dual responsibility of the ecclesias
tical and secular governments.
The institution considered most useful in Christianizing the Indians
was the doctrina, through which the Indians were gathered into vil
lages coterminous with parishes. Exploitation of the Indians was fa
cilitated by this concentration, although repeated efforts were made to
avoid this, primarily through supervising the actions of those who had
most contact with them?the corregidores, encomenderos, and the
parish priests (doctrineros). The only Spaniards allowed to live in the
doctrinas were the latter, although this restriction was not always ob
served.10 While not all clerics were lax in the performance of their
duties or took advantage of their charges, the problem of abuse was
serious throughout the colonial period.11 While provision was made
which confirmed Spain's sovereignty over the New World, held her responsible
for Christianizing the Indians. Hence Spain's right to America was inextricably
bound to the missionary task of the Church. For the texts of these and other
papal documents concerning the matter see Francisco Javier Hern?ez, S.J.
(ed.), Colecci?n de bulas, breves, y otros documentos relativos ? la iglesia de
Am?rica y Filipinas (2 vols. ; Brussels, 1879).
9 The Patronato Real was a system of patronage under which the Spanish
crown was granted privileges with respect to ecclesiastical appointments, bene
fices, finances, and discipline, in compensation for assuming certain obligations
dealing with the maintenance and spread of the Catholic faith. In the colonies
the rights of patronage were delegated by the king to royal representatives,
primarily the viceroys. Other civil officials exercised patronal authority as
subordinates of the viceroy. The crown expected the vice-patrons to preserve
and maintain royal prerogatives under the Patronato Real and their compliance
was examined during their residencias.
10 Recopilaci?n de leyes de los reynos de las Indias, Lib. 1, tit. 6, leyes 20, 27,
29, 30, 31, 33; Lib. 6, tit. 3, leyes 21 and 23; Archivo General de las Indias,
Seville (AGI), Lima, 82, Provision of Viceroy Palata to corregidores, Septem
ber 30, 1682 (Lima) ; Lima, 575-11, fol. 279, Royal c?dula to Viceroy Palata.
January 25, 1684 (Madrid) ; Lima, 575-1, Royal c?dula to Viceroy Palata, July
17, 1684 (Madrid) ; ibid., August 2, 1684 (Madrid) ; Biblioteca Nacional, Lima
(BNL), B1784, Viceregal provision excluding all non-Indians from Indian
villages, July 25, 1686 (Lima) ; Valentino Trujillo Mena, La legislaci?n eclesi
?stica en el virreinato del Per? durante el siglo XVI: con especial aplicaci?n
? la jerarqu?a y la organizaci?n diocesana (Lima, 1963), p. 96.
11 Its prevalence is testified to by the number of civil and ecclesiastical direc
tives attempting to eliminate it issued throughout the colonial period. A prime
preoccupation of the first three Limean Councils (1551, 1567, 1582-1583) was
reform of the clergy (Rub?n Vargas Ugarte, S.J., Concilios Limenses [1551
1772] [3 vols.; Lima, 1951-1954], I, 88-94). During the same period the
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 5: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 5/22
BY MARGARET E. CRAHAN
227
for judicial recourse for the Indians, redress was impeded by the sub
orning and intimidating of witnesses, bribing of judges, and giving of
false testimony.12 The frequent failure of prelates to enforce regula
tions concerning their subordinates contributed to the problem. It
was this situation that prompted Viceroy Palata to issue his decree
of February 20.13
The provision directed that priests were not to take possession of
more than one-fifth of the property of Indians who died, and were re
quired to minister to each of their parishioners at least once a year.
If they did not, their stipends were to be reduced by the corregidor.
Special care was to be taken by royal officials to see that Indians were
not forced to make involuntary offerings or imprisoned by their pas
tors. If fees were exacted, royal officials were to see that they were
returned. Indians were not to be appointed to offices in parish brother
hoods or to serve in special capacities at religious festivals, as these
involved considerable expense and were another means of clerical
exactions. A strong interdict was placed against using native labor
without compensation and was directed not only against priests but
also against corregidores, their lieutenants, justices, governors, and
viceroy, Francisco de Toledo, attempted to limit it through his Ordinances
(Francisco de Toledo, Relaci?n in Vol. XXVI of Collecci?n de documentos
in?ditos para la historia de Espa?a [CDIE] [Madrid, 1885], pp. 125-128,136,140
146; Trujillo Mena, op. cit., pp. 67-68; Roberto Levillier, Don Francisco de
Toledo, supremo organizador del Per? [3 vols.; Madrid, 1935-1942], I, 121-126;
Arthur Franklin Zimmerman, Francisco de Toledo: Fifth Viceroy of Peru, 1569
1581 [Caldwell, Idaho, 1938], pp. 128, 186, 210-211). In the seventeenth century
prelates such as Don Juan de Almoguera (Archbishop of Lima, 1673-1676) and
Don Alonso de la Pe?a Montenegro (Bishop of Quito, 1654-1687) attempted to
improve clerical discipline by publishing handbooks recounting the most common
forms of mistreatment and urging clerics to refrain from them. (Juan de
Almoguera, Instrucci?n ? sacerdotes [Madrid, 1671] and Alonso de la Pe?a
Montenegro, Itinerario para parochos de indios [Madrid, 1668]. See also Recop.,
Lib. 1, tit. 14, leyes 42, 50, 63, 65-75, 81-86, 93, tit. 12, leyes 4, 5, 10.
12 Archivo Nacional, Lima (ANL), Asuntos eclesi?sticos, 15, Complaint of
Juana de Quevedo against licenciado Alonso Gil, 1664 (Lima) ; Asuntos eclesi
?sticos, 16, Complaints of principal Indians of the doctrina of Santo Tom?s de
Cochamarca against their doctrineros, 1685, n.p. ; Archivo Arzobispal, Lima
(AAL), Complaint against pastor of Indian village of Apallasca by its Indian
chief (1699-1702), n.p.
13 In his first eighteen months as viceroy, Palata received numerous petitions
from Indians for redress of clerical abuse, e.g., AGI, Lima, 296, Memorial re
fifty legal complaints of Indians against priests (post May, 1683), n.p.
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 6: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 6/22
228 CHURCH-STATE CONFLICT IN COLONIAL PERU
caciques. Strictures were also placed on the payment of an ecclesiastic's
salary if he did not have a royal presentation or had not been installed
in accordance with ecclesiastical regulations. Any unauthorized ab
sences from a pastorate were to be noted by the corregidores or
justices and the cleric's pay decreased accordingly. Corregidores, their
lieutenants, and other royal justices were to do nothing more than
examine witnesses and report their findings. In turn, if any offense
was committed by the royal officials, the Indians were to inform the
local prelates, who would then draw up reports using the same
means.14
In order to implement his order Palata called for the assistance of
the archbishop of Lima. It was Palata's intention that the decree be in
cluded in diocesan constitutions and directives for visitas.15 His ex
pectations, however, ran afoul of the opposition of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy in Peru, and especially that of Li??n y Cisneros. Upon
learning of the decree, the latter denounced it and the viceroy in a
scathing sermon in the cathedral of Lima.16 Claiming to be as con
cerned as the viceroy about the welfare of the Indians, the prelate
argued that there were already enough ecclesiastical regulations to
deal with such problems. While admitting that abuse of the Indians
by clerics was a problem, he opposed the edict on the grounds that it
was an intrusion into episcopal jurisdiction. The archbishop also
charged that the decree was a clear violation of ecclesiastical immunity,
as the proposed inquiries (procesos informativos)17 constituted infor
14 AGI, Lima, 85, Provision of Viceroy Palata, February 20, 1684 (Lima).
Also BNL, B288.
15 AGI, Lima, 296, Letter of Viceroy Palata to Archbishop Li?an y Cisneros,
March 25, 1684 (Lima).
16 Jos? Manuel Berm?dez, Anales de la catedral de Lima: 1534 ? 1824 (Lima,
1903), pp. 159-163.
17 A proceso, while not equivalent to a trial or a lawsuit, partakes of the same
elements, namely the drawing up of testimonials and other documents, which
may or may not lead to a summons. (Rafael Altamira Crevea, Diccionario cas
tellano de palabras jur?dicas y t?cnicas tomadas de la legislaci?n Indiana [Mex
ico, 1951], p. 254). Procesos informativos were one of the most controversial
judicial concepts affecting civil-ecclesiastical relations. Because of the clerical
fuero such inquiries, made in secret, theoretically could not contribute to indict
ments. As a consequence, its supporters argued that it was extra judicial and
therefore did not violate ecclesiastical immunity. For a regalistic view see Juan
de Sol?rzano Pereira, Pol?tica Indiana, T. 2, Lib. 4, cap. 27, nos. 34 and 36;
canonist?Diego de Avenda?o, Thesaurus indicus, T. I. tit. 2, cap. 2, p. 2;
Recop., Lib. 1, tit. 14, ley 73.
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 7: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 7/22
BY MARGARET E. CRAHAN
229
mative suits and were thus contrary to papal regulations and the bull,
In Coena Domini.1* For the corregidores, lieutenants, and other jus
tices, acting either by virtue of their offices or as the result of a peti
tion, to draw up summary testimonials was not within their jurisdic
tion. Furthermore, for the corregidores to reduce the stipends of parish
priests was an invalid exercise of coercive jurisdiction forbidden by
the Second Council (1567-1568) and Third Synod of Lima (1585).19
Li??n y Cisneros also invoked Juan de Sol?rzano Pereira20 and Diego
de Avenda?o21 in support of his position, holding that the former ad
mitted secular jurisdiction over ecclesiastics only to viceroys and other
supreme governors and even then tolerated it only in cases of expul
sion.22 The latter, Li??n y Cisneros claimed, conceded the validity of
such hearings only if they were presided over by encomenderos,m
who were considered non judicial persons. The archbishop also ad
duced Don Pedro Frasso,24 who was one of the chief paladins of the
18 This document threatened interdict or excommunication for violations of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction and was originally intended to be read from the
pulpit every Holy Thursday. Banned by the crown in Spain, it was occasionally
read in the Indies. Prior to the reign of Charles III (1760-1788) prelates who
published it were simply regarded as lacking in docility; during his reign
such action came to be regarded as subversive. (N. M. Farriss, Crown and
Clergy in Colonial Mexico, 1759-1821: The Crisis of Ecclesiastical Privilege
[London, 1968], p. 130). For royal c?dulas regarding the bull see Manuel Josef
de Ayala, Diccionario de gobierno y legislaci?n de Indias, Vols. IV and VIII
of Colecci?n de documentos in?ditos para la historia de Ibero-Am?rica (CDIA),
VIII, 294-297. For a defense of royal policy regarding it see Gaspar de
Villarroel, Gobierno ecclesi?stico pac?fico, T. 2, p. 2, q. 17, art. 7.
19 For the proceedings of these convocations see Rub?n Vargas Ugarte's
Concilios Limenses, I, 95-257, and Historia de la iglesia en el Per? (5 vols.;
Burgos, 1953-1962), II, 88.
20 Sol?rzano (1575-1654) wrote the monumental Pol?tica Indiana dealing with
the civil and ecclesiastical government of the Indies from a regalistic point of
view. After attending the University of Salamanca, its author served in Peru
as an oidor and governor of Huancavelica. Upon returning to Spain (1628) he
served on the councils of the treasury and of the Indies and as fiscal of the
Council of Castile.
21 Diego de Avenda?o (1591-1688), a theologian and jurist, was rector of
various Jesuit colleges and provincial of his order in Peru. He also served as
an advisor to the Inquisition and various viceroys and archbishops. His Thesau
rus Indiens (1668) and Actuarium indecum (1675) dealt with the treatment of
the Indians and Negro slavery, among other matters.
22 Sol?rzano, op. cit., T. 2, lib. 4, chap. 27, no. 34.
23 Avenda?o, op. cit., Lib 1, tit. 2, chap. 2, p. 2.
24 Pedro Frasso was serving as an oidor of the audiencia of Lima when
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 8: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 8/22
230 CHURCH-STATE CONFLICT IN COLONIAL PERU
provision, by claiming that the jurist agreed with Sol?rzano that sec
ular officials could draw up summary briefs concerning a cleric only in
cases of extremely scandalous behavior.
Underlying the archbishop's criticisms was the fear that the impor
tance of ecclesiastical visitas would be decreased if it appeared that
more confidence was to be placed in the corregidores, their lieutenants,
and other justices. The fact that these civil officials were inferior in
rank to prelates, he felt, denigrated ecclesiastical dignity. Li??n y
Cisneros particularly objected to the specification in the decree of the
injuries suffered by the Indians at the hands of the clerics, while only
passing reference was made to similar ones perpetrated by corregi
dores. The prelate contrasted the different living conditions of parish
priests and corregidores to illustrate the greater difficulties under
which clerics labored, since many of them lived in uninhabitable places
where hunger was a poor counselor. In addition, Li??n y Cisneros
argued, if a priest instigated legal action against a corregidor for In
dian abuse, the official would simply respond with a suit against the
cleric. This, according to the prelate, was made easy by the fact that
the Indians were willing to swear an oath to anything.25 Finally, and
quite accurately, he posited that since the corregidores were the chief
rivals of the clerics with respect to the Indians, they were not the best
ones to enforce the dispatch.26
the controversy over ecclesiastical immunity broke out, and wrote three strong
defenses of Palata's provision. A native of Sardinia, he had served as a fiscal
of the audiencias of Guatemala, Chuquisaca, and Charcas and as an oidor in
Quito. He was subsequently regent of the Council of Aragon (1690's). In 1677
his De regio patronatu, an analysis of the Patronato Real, was published.
25 It is interesting to note that both Palata and Li??n y Cisneros shared
prejudices concerning the Indians common to colonial officials. In disagreeing
with a royal directive that non-Indians should not reside in Indian villages,
Palata stated that the presence of Spaniards in such communities inhibited the
Indians from returning to their original corrupt state. Furthermore, he held,
given the Indians' aversion to work and propensity toward idleness, drunken
ness, and other vices, it was unreasonable to expect that they would be willing
or able to cultivate the lands vacated by the Spaniards. Li??n y Cisneros, while
viceroy, directed the Indians of Lima to attend religious instructions every
Sunday, because he felt that otherwise they would spend this time in idleness
and drunkenness. AGI, Lima, 82, Letter of Viceroy Palata to Charles II,
November 30, 1682 (Lima) ; Melchor de Li??n y Cisneros, Memoria, in Vol. I
of Manuel A. Fuentes (ed.), Memorias de los vireyes que han gobernado el
Per? durante el tiempo del coloniaje espa?ol (6 vols.; Lima, 1959), I, 303.
26 To further support this, Li??n y Cisneros reasoned that since corregidores
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 9: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 9/22
BY MARGARET E. CRAHAN
2 31
Presentation of the Church's position was made difficult by a decree
of May, 1684, directing that nothing could be printed in Peru without
viceregal permission. Palate took this action ostensibly because he felt
that if the controversy became public it would stir up the populace and
thus impede the restoration of harmony between the civil and ecclesi
astical spheres. Furthermore, he contended that portions of the ma
terials that Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros wished to publish were
seditious. Despite the prohibition, handwritten briefs were distributed,
causing, the viceroy claimed, opposition to the government and intimi
dating corregidores to the point where they feared to report clerical
excesses.27
Li??n y Cisneros retaliated on March 13, 1685, by decreeing that
nothing was to be printed in Peru without his license as ecclesiastical
ordinary.28 The prelate's rationale was that it was his pastoral duty to
see that nothing contrary to the estate of God was published in a
land where the faith had so recently been planted.29 The viceregal
government immediately requested that the order be rescinded, citing
provisions of the Recopilaci?n de Indias directing that licenses to
publish be issued only by the viceroy.30 Li??n y Cisneros complied in
the interest, he asserted, of peace,31 although the ineffectiveness of the
maneuver indicated a tactical retreat was desirable. The prelate even
generally purchased their offices, it was not uncommon for them to reimburse
themselves at the expense of the Indians and other inhabitants of their jurisdic
ions. AGI, Lima, 296, Letter of Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros to Viceroy Palata,
December 23, 1684 (Lima) (copy, BNL, B1683) ; Lima, 85, Letter of Arch
bishop Li??n y Cisneros to Viceroy Palata, August 3, 1684 (Lima) ; Lima 296,
Melchor de Li??n y Cisneros, Satisfacci?n (Seville, 1685) ; BNL, Melchor de
Li??n y Cisneros, Ofensa y defensa de la libertad ecclesi?stica (Lima, 1684).
27 AGI, Lima, 85, Letter of Viceroy Palata to Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros,
September 14, 1684 (Lima) (duplicates in Lima, 86, and BNL, B1683) ; Letter
of Viceroy Palata to Charles II, February 24, 1685 (Lima) (duplicate in Lima,
296).
28 An ordinary is an ecclesiastical official who has legislative, judicial, and
executive authority in his own right by virtue of his office rather than dele
gated as a vicar of the Pope.
29 AGI, Lima, 296, Auto of Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros, March 13, 1685
Lima).
MRecop., Lib. 1, tit. 7, leyes 24 and 33. AGI, Lima, 296, Petition of the fiscal
Don Juan Gonz?lez de Santiago and the audiencia of Lima to Archbishop Li??n
y Cisneros, March 14, 1685 (Lima).
31 AGI, Lima, 296, Letter of Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros to Charles II,
May 4, 1685 (Lima).
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 10: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 10/22
232 CHURCH-STATE CONFLICT IN COLONIAL PERU
tually got around the ban by having his attack on the decree published
in Spain.32 As ecclesiastical ordinary the prelate did have some
jurisdiction over publication in Peru, authority that overlapped that
of the viceroy.
The archbishop was not without a public platform. On March 21,
1685, he returned to the pulpit to excoriate Palata for attacking ec
clesiastical immunity not only through the February 20 provisions,
but also by violating the sanctuary of the cathedral by having removed
from it a soldier who had taken refuge there.33 Palata was highly
perturbed by the sermon and concluded that it had been partially
prompted by the viceroy's failure to retain in office or confer new
posts on some of the prelate's relatives and prot?g?s.34 Li??n y Cis
neros somewhat ingenuously35 expressed surprise that his remarks
had been taken amiss. He pleaded that he only wished to discharge
his obligation to see to the reformation of the faithful. Convinced that
Palata had treated him unfairly,36 Li??n y Cisneros sought support
from the ecclesiastical cabildo of Lima and the various religious or
ders. All replied that the archbishop had not exceeded the boundaries
32 AGI, Lima, 296, Li??n y Cisneros, Satisfacci?n.
33 The immunity of the clergy extended to churches and convents, where
those fleeing from arrest could seek asylum. Legal forms had to be observed
before an individual could be removed, which the viceregal government failed
to do. Recop., Lib. 1, tit. 2, ley 3. AGI, Lima, 296, Li??n y Cisneros, Satisfac
ci?n; Lima, 86, Letter of Viceroy Palata to Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros,
March 22, 1685 (Lima) (also, BNL, B293) ; Lima, 85, Letter of Viceroy Palata
to Charles II, April 15, 1685 (Callao).
34 AGI, Lima, 86, Letter of Viceroy Palata to Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros,
March 22, 1685 (Lima) (also BNL, B293) ; Lima, 85, Letter of Viceroy
Palata to Charles II, April 15, 1685 (Callao) ; ibid., April 16, 1685 (Lima) ;
Lima, 296, Letter of Don Francisco Xaurequi to Charles II, n.d., n.p. ; Decree
of Viceroy Palata removing Don Francisco de Xaurequi from a royal chap
laincy, March 18, 1685 (Lima) ; Lima, 576, fols. 68-69, Royal dispatch to Vice
roy Monclova, January 17, 1690 (Madrid). Palata's analysis is, to a degree,
confirmed by Li??n y Cisneros* own complaints to the crown. AGI, Lima, 296,
Letter of Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros to Charles II, May 2, 1685 (Lima) ;
ibid., May 4, 1685 (Lima).
35 Li??n y Cisneros was not the only one given to this. While Palata pre
vented the prelate from publishing critiques of the February 20 decree on the
grounds that they would disturb the tranquility of the realm, he permitted
distribution of defenses of it against which the same objections could be raised.
36 AGI, Lima, 296, Letter of Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros to Viceroy Palata,
March 24, 1685 (Lima) (also, BNL, B293).
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 11: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 11/22
BY MARGARET E. CRAHAN
233
of his pastoral duties save the Jesuits, who prudently avoided taking a
stand.37 The cabildo at this juncture attempted to mediate the dispute,
and as a result Palata agreed to suspend a resolution forbidding royal
officials from visiting the archbishop or attending services in the cathe
dral. The viceroy was willing to be reconciled with the prelate if the
latter would express some regret for having attacked the viceregal
government. Li??n y Cisneros refused and informed the cabildo that
he was entrusting the entire matter to divine providence, since the
viceroy should be making amends to him, not he to Palata.38 The
viceroy ascribed the prelate's reaction to a difficult temperament and
expressed the belief that Li??n y Cisneros had adopted a hostile atti
tude toward the civil government ever since a judge, Don Raphael
Azcona, had attempted to collect the fines from him resulting from
the investigation of the archbishop's tenure as viceroy. Palata also re
gretted that prior to coming to Peru he had not supported a proposal
to return Li??n y Cisneros to Spain in order to avoid the difficulty of
governing in the presence of his predecessor.39
An apparent reconciliation took place in May, 1685, when Li??n y
37 AGI, Lima, 296, Censura of the ecclesiastical cabildo of Lima to Archbishop
Li??n y Cisneros, March 29, 1685 (Lima) ; Censura of the Dominicans to
Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros, March 29, 1685 (Lima) ; Censura of the Francis
cans to Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros, March 28, 1685 (Lima) ; Censura of the
Augustinians to Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros, April 30, 1685 (Lima) ; Censura
of the Mercedarians to Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros, April 8, 1685 (Lima) ;
Censura of the Jesuits to Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros, March 26, 1685 (Lima).
38 AGI, Lima, 296, Letter of Viceroy Palata to audiencia of Lima, April 10,
1685 (Callao) ; Letter of Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros to Charles II, May 2,
1685 Lima) .
3?AGI, Lima, 296, Letter of Viceroy Palata to Charles II, April 15, 1685
(Callao). In fact, the prelate had been pleading since 1680 to be allowed to
renounce his see and return to Spain. The Council of the Indies rejected his
requests on the grounds that he was more valuable to the crown in the Indies.
Furthermore, it was feared that if Li??n y Cisneros was allowed to return
there would be a deluge of similar requests from other prelates. AGI, Lima, 80,
Letter of Archbishop-Viceroy Li??n y Cisneros to Charles II, April 21, 1680
(Lima) ; ibid., June 5, 1680 (Lima) ; Lima, 18, Letter of Don Joseph de Li??n
y Cisneros on behalf of Melchor de Li??n y Cisneros to Charles II, n.d. (autumn,
1680), n. p.; Lima, 358, Summary by Chamber of the Indies of Don Melchor
de Li??n y Cisneros* requests to resign the archbishopric of Lima and return
to Spain, January 27, 1694 (Madrid) ; Lima, 520, Summary of Don Melchor de
Li??n y Cisneros* requests to resign (1706), n. p.; Lima, 576, fols. 283-284,
Royal c?dula to audiencia of Lima, February 21, 1699, n. p.
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 12: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 12/22
234 CHURCH-STATE CONFLICT IN COLONIAL PERU
Cisneros went out to greet Palata as he returned to Lima after dis
patching the armada from Callao. The diarist Mugaburu recorded that
all Lima rejoiced to see them on good terms again.40 Palata, while
claiming to have been embarrassed by the event, regarded the arch
bishop's action as a public apology and responded as such.41 Li??n y
Cisneros later contended that it had not been his intention to apolo
gize, but simply to attempt to restore peace.42 Whatever the arch
bishop's aim, civil-ecclesiastical tension did diminish for about a year
and a half.43
This calm was destroyed when on March 6, 1687, Li??n y Cisneros
again took to the pulpit and castigated the viceroy for infringing on
ecclesiastical immunity. The immediate cause of this attack was an
other violation of the sanctuary of the cathedral.44 In his address,
Li??n y Cisneros asserted that all the misfortunes recently suffered by
Peru?piracy, the sack of Pisco, the ten thousand deaths from small
pox in Potos?, crop failures in Charcas, and earthquakes and floods in
Angaraes?were punishment from God for the viceregal government's
disregard of the ecclesiastical state. Palata promptly characterized
these charges as another attack on royal sovereignty, jurisdiction, and
40 Josephe de Mugaburu and Francisco de Mugaburu, Diario de Lima, 1640
1694: cr?nica de la ?poca colonial (Lima, 1935), p. 242.
41 AGI, Lima, 86, Letter of Viceroy Palata to Charles II, May 23, 1685
(Lima) ; Palata, Memoria, in Vol. II of Fuentes, pp. 50-51.
42 AGI, Lima, 86, Letter of Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros to Charles II,
June 1, 1685 (Lima).
43 From mid-1685 to early 1687 the archbishop and viceroy attended public
ceremonies together and co-operated in common efforts for the benefit of Peru.
For example, when in 1687 the viceroy requested Li??n y Cisneros' assistance
in forming a company of soldiers to guard Lima against pirates, the prelate
agreed to bear the cost of a squad of fifty men. The archbishop could not,
however, resist the opportunity to suggest that Palata might better turn his
attention to improving naval rather than land forces. The viceroy thanked him
for his advice and more especially for his financial assistance. AGI, Lima, 304,
Letter of Viceroy Palata to Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros, February 21, 1687;
ibid., February 28, 1687, n. p. ; Letter of Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros to Vice
roy Palata, February 24, 1687, n. p.
44 In this instance the sanctuary of the cathedral was alleged to have been
violated by a civil official who served the canons with summons while they
were attending services. AGI, Lima, 86, Letter of Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros
to Viceroy Palata (marginal notes by Palata), March 10, 1687 (Lima) ; Palata,
Memoria, II, 51-54; Mugaburu, op. cit., p. 265.
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 13: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 13/22
BY MARGARET E. CRAHAN
2 35
privileges and utterly without foundation.45 The prelate defended him
self by holding that it was he who had instigated the reconciliation of
1685 and therefore he would not have jeopardized it without cause.46
The archbishop was assisted in his battle by the bishops of Are
quipa, Quito, Cuzco, Huamanga, Trujillo, and Santa Cruz.47 The most
vociferous was Don Antonio de Le?n, Bishop of Arequipa, who had
In Coena Domini published in his diocese. The prelate claimed that
he had been obliged to do so because of the excesses of the local
corregidor, Don F?lix de Bustamante Cevallos. The bishop main
tained that Bustamante, having had difficulties with two clerics, in
tended to use the provision to subordinate them to his will.48 Palata
discounted this allegation and held that the bishop's action would lead
to the questioning of every law, ordinance, and edict issued by the
government. Such a situation, Palata concluded, was liable to lead to
disturbances in the realm and leave the Indians without recourse in
the face of clerical injustice.40
While the episcopacy spearheaded the opposition to the February
20 decree, complaints were also received from the lower clergy. They
charged that the provision would encourage the Indians to be dis
respectful toward them and lax about their religious duties. As a result
Palata directed corregidores, lieutenant-generals, and justices to as
sist priests in averting this. To the assertion that the disadvantages of
the order were already becoming obvious, the viceroy replied that this
could not be so as it had not yet given rise to any cases. This, he
claimed, proved that the very existence of the provisions had dis
couraged clerical excesses.50 It is more likely, however, that local
45 AGI, Lima, 86, Letter of Viceroy Palata to Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros,
March 7, 1687 (Lima).
46 AGI, Lima, 86, Letter of Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros to Viceroy Palata
(marginal notes by Palata), March 10,1687 (Lima).
47 Such opposition was not unanimous. The bishop of La Paz, Don Juan
Queipo, reportedly saw no difficulty in complying with the provision. AGI,
Lima, 85, Letter of Viceroy Palata to Charles II, February 24, 1685 (Lima)
(duplicate in Lima, 296).
48 AGI, Lima, 296 Auto including the bull In Coena Domini to be published
by Bishop Le?n of Arequipa on September 29, 1684, September 28, 1684
(Arequipa) ; Letter of Bishop Le?n of Arequipa to Viceroy Palata, October
2, 1684 (Arequipa) ; ibid., December 2, 1684 (Arequipa) (also in BNL, B1677).
4? AGI, Lima, 85, Letter of Viceroy Palata to Charles II, February 24, 1685
(Lima) (duplicate in Lima, 296).
50 AGI, Lima, 296, Letter of Viceroy Palata to Archbishop Le?n, November
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 14: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 14/22
236 CHURCH-STATE CONFLICT IN COLONIAL PERU
officials were simply waiting for the matter to be resolved on the
upper levels of the colonial hierarchy and did not wish to risk ex
communication by implementing it. The real motive for ecclesiastical
opposition, Palata believed, was that parishes would be worth less and
hence clerics would not be able to pay the exactions of their superiors.
The viceroy cited as proof a letter he had received from a prelate
criticizing the edict on the grounds that it would leave his province's
general fund diminished.51
To defend his provision the viceroy depended on the jurists Pedro
Frasso and Joan Luis L?pez.52 The oidor Frasso agreed that laymen
were denied the power to prosecute clerics, but argued that the faculty
given corregidores in the provision did not constitute this, as it did
not involve instigating a lawsuit. Frasso insisted that canon law
permitted summary, extra judicial testimonials to be drawn up to in
form an ecclesiastic's superior of a cleric's misdeeds. Further, it had
long been accepted that encomenderos, by reason of their obligations
concerning the spiritual administration of the Indians, could draw up
briefs. How then, Frasso queried, could this faculty be denied to
corregidores who were superior in authority? Furthermore, a cor
regidor could also be an encomendero and did not by virtue of his
3, 1684 (Lima) ; ibid., November 16, 1684, n.p .(also BNL, B1677).
51 AGI, Lima, 85, Letter of Viceroy Palata to Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros,
December 18, 1684 (Lima).
52 Juan Luis L?pez served as an adviser to the Duque de la Palata and
benefited from his patronage from 1671, when the latter was vice-chancellor of
Aragon. L?pez, who received a degree in law from the University of Zaragoza,
was in 1680 named alcalde del crimen of the audiencia of Lima. While in Peru
Palata made use of Lopez's talents in several judicial posts and as governor of
Huancavelica (1683-1689). He returned to Spain in 1691 and from 1694 until
his death in 1703 served as fiscal of the supreme council of Aragon. He was the
author of a commentary on the Recopilaci?n?Observaciones theo-pol?ticas, a
history of Huancavelica?Noticia del cerro, mina, y villarica de Oro pesa de
Huancavelica, and of the bull In Coena Domini?Historia legal de la bula
llamada *In Coena Domini? and a defense of papal jurisdiction?En defensa de
la jurisdici?n de su Santidad, que ejerce en el castigo de los delitos atroces el
lues del Breve Apost?lica en el Principado de Catalu?a y Condados de Rosell?n
y Cerdania. Copies of these and L?pez' other works are contained in the
Colecci?n Marquis del Risco of the University of Seville. For a more extensive
account of the career and works of Juan Luis L?pez see Antonio Muro Orej?n,
El doctor Juan Luis L?pez, Marquis del Risco, y sus commentarios a la
Recopilaci?n de Indias, Anuario de historia del derecho espa?ol, XVII (1946),
785-864.
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 15: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 15/22
BY MARGARET E. CRAHAN 237
civil office lose any of his jurisdiction. What was by nature an extra
judicial investigation was not affected by the status of the one who
carried it out.
In a strong regalistic statement Frasso posited that the authority to
draw up these testimonials had been established by royal laws and not
by ecclesiastical concessions. The oidor also held that this jurisdiction
was not limited to supreme governors, but included all royal justices.
This was a considerable extension of crown authority. He did concede
that no monarch or lay tribunal could limit ecclesiastical immunity,
but denied that Palata's provision involved this. He also denied that
to reduce a cleric's salary was to exercise contentious jurisdiction over
him. Frasso further noted that when Li??n y Cisneros had been vice
roy, he had directed alcaldes del crimen to draw up summary testi
monials regarding disturbances over the Franciscan alternativa, and
again in connection with the attempt of some clerics in Aymaraes to
kill the corregidor of that province. As these officers were of lower
rank than corregidores, Frasso discounted this objection. Finally
Frasso, as would Juan Luis L?pez, argued that it was the obligation
of a cleric to observe governmental laws and orders not opposed to
sacred canons and ecclesiatical resolutions. Upon becoming ecclesias
tics, priests did not stop being citizens of a republic, nor of being
obliged to observe its laws. Therefore what was officially condemned
by the government could not under any guise, including ecclesiastical
immunity, be considered legitimate.54
Juan Luis L?pez expanded on Frasso's arguments, particularly
with respect to the economic authority 55 of the king. Unlike the
monarch's judicial authority, this was unlimited by special privileges,
such as ecclesiastical immunity. Lopez's and Frasso's stress on the
53 For a detailed account of this conflict, see Antonine Tibesar, O.F.M., The
Alternativa: A Study in Spanish Creole Relations in Seventeenth Century
Peru, The Americas, XI (January, 1955), 229-283.
54 AGI, Lima, 85, Opinion of Pedro Frasso re viceregal provision of Febru
ary 20, 1684, September 3, 1684 (Lima) ; Lima, 296, Opinion of Pedro Frasso
re doubts concerning his September 3, 1684, defense of the provision of
February 20, 1684 (Lima) ; Memorial of Pedro Frasso to Viceroy Palata, April
26, 1685 (Lima).
55 This concept referred to the inherent authority of a temporal sovereign
and was used to distinguish executive from judicial authority. Hence it could be
used to threaten ecclesiastical immunity by differentiating procedures such as
secret inquiries and executive sentence from similar judicial procedures which
were proscribed.
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 16: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 16/22
238 CHURCH-STATE CONFLICT IN COLONIAL PERU
responsibility of clerics as citizens was a modification of the traditional
view of the ecclesiastical exemption. Emphasis was switched from
concentration on the limitations on royal authority to those on im
m unity.
L?pez also defended procesos informativos and recursos de fuerza,**
often regarded as Bourbon innovations. The former was generally ac
cepted prior to the eighteenth century and the latter was defended by
both Frasso and L?pez.57 Ecclesiastical opposition to Palata's provi
sion was not directed at these legal practices themselves, but rather at
the possibility that authority to conduct them would be extended to
lesser royal officials. Various royal c?dulas had directed that sum
mary, extra judicial testimonials concerning ecclesiastics could be
drawn up by lay justices. Although these directives referred only to
viceroys and audiencias, L?pez asserted that, as it was impossible for
supreme governors to draw them up in remote provinces, the royal
intention must have been for local officials to handle them.58 Finally,
L?pez argued that the protection afforded by ecclesiastical immunity
could lead an ecclesiastic to oppose or criticize the state unjustly?
thereby undermining civil authority. This was an early expression of
a fear that was to gain currency during the eighteenth century, that
the fuero was an encouragement to subversion.59
In informing the crown of the dispute, Palata conceded that the
strongest argument against his provision was that the corregidores
were often less upright than parish priests and, consequently, not suit
able agents of reform. To meet this charge he emphasized that it was
more incumbent on clerics than on civil officials to be virtuous because
of the obligations of their state. Furthermore, Palata argued that
56 Recursos de fuer sa were appeals to secular courts against ecclesiastical
judges.
57 However, it was not until the Bourbon period, particularly under Charles
III, that procesos informativos and recursos de fuer sa were extensively used
to subordinate ecclesiastics and their institutions to royal authority. While
clerical privileges suffered as a result of this policy, ecclesiastical immunity
survived until 1820 when it was eliminated by the Spanish Cort?s, in part, as a
result of the exigencies of the independence period and the anticlericalism of
nineteenth-century liberalism. Farriss, op. cit., pp. 42-43, 48-50, 55-59, 70-81,
140, 162-163, 190-195, 237.
58 AGI, Lima, 85, Juan Luis L?pez, Alegaci?n jur?dica, hist?rica-pol?tica en
defensa de la jurisdicci?n real, November 13, 1684 (Huancavelica).
59 Farriss, op. cit., pp. 124-125.
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 17: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 17/22
BY MARGARET E. CRAHAN
239
during his vieeroyalty he had removed from office two corregidores
and chastised two others for abusing their authority. He stated that
no such punishment had been meted out to cleries guilty of similar
abuses, even though he had forwarded complaints against fifty-nine
of them to their respective prelates. Thus while he agreed that cor
regidores might be as unethical as clerics, at least, Palata claimed, the
former's superiors were more attentive to their reformation.60
By 1688 the provision had come to the attention of church officials
in Rome.61 As a consequence, the cardinal nuncio wrote to Charles II
requesting that the decree be revoked. The papacy warned that for
secular officials to become involved in ecclesiastical jurisdiction would
bring down severe punishment from God.62 The Spanish crown was
somewhat piqued that Rome had been apprised of the dispute, for this
demonstrated the failure of royal efforts to supervise communications
between Rome and the New World.63 Madrid informed the nuncio
that instead of revoking the dispatch it would be suspended, during
which time the laws, c?dulas, and ordinances concerning ecclesiastical
behavior would be observed. In addition, the crown directed Li??n y
Cisneros to meet with the new viceroy, the Conde de la Monclova, to
discuss clerical reform. It was hoped that with Palata no longer in
office64 a rapprochement could be achieved. This was not a vain hope
for in June, 1690, the archbishop reported to the king that his rela
tions with Monclova were harmonious.65
With respect to the publication of the bull In Coena Domini by
Bishop Le?n of Arequipa, the crown expressed considerable annoy
ance over what it regarded as an unprecedented and immoderate step.
This prelate was chastised for having disturbed the public peace and
?o AGI, Lima, 85, Letter of Viceroy Palata to Charles II, February 24, 1685
(Lima) (duplicate in Lima, 296).
61 The crown, despite considerable effort, was unable to ascertain how Rome
learned of the dispute.
62 AGI, Lima, 296, Letter of cardinal nuncio to Charles II, February 29,
1688 (Madrid).
?3 Recop., Lib. 1, tit. 7, ley 55.
64 Palata was replaced by Monclova on August 15, 1689. AGI, Lima, 13,
Memorial of Council of Indies to Charles II, January 6, 1690 (Madrid) ; Lima,
576, fols. 70-72, Royal c?dula to Viceroy Monclova, January 26, 1690 (Madrid) ;
fols. 72-73, Royal c?dula to Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros, January 26, 1690
Madrid) .
65 AGI, Lima, 88, Letter of Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros to Charles II,
June 26, 1690 (Lima).
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 18: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 18/22
240 CHURCH-STATE CONFLICT IN COLONIAL PERU
prejudiced royal rights. He was informed of the suspension of Palata's
provision and of the junta that Li??n y Cisneros and Monclova were
to hold and advised that in the future he should leave such matters to
the crown to resolve.66
In conformity with the royal directive Viceroy Monclova suspended
the February 20 provision, although he reaffirmed some civil jurisdic
tion in the matter by ordering the protector general of the Indians
and his asesores to enforce existing royal orders concerning the treat
ment of Indians by clerics.67 The crown was pleased with this action
and even more so by the reports of accord between Li??n y Cisneros
and Monclova. They were directed to continue their good relations, as
it was in the interest of the crown and public well-being that the two
principal heads of colonial government co-operate in the king's name.68
The threat of civil intervention in the ecclesiastical sphere appears
to have encouraged reform on the part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
In 1685 Li??n y Cisneros began to take steps to ensure that priests
resided in their parishes. Clerics who did not were to have their sala
ries reduced and were liable to lose their posts.69 There was no ques
tion that the enforcing agent was to be the ecclesiastical superior. The
bishop of Cuzco, Don Manuel de Mollinedo, also sought to ensure that
clerics resided in their parishes and discharged their pastoral duties
correctly. Mollinedo's actions were quite frankly an attempt to reas
sure the crown of the ability of church officials to deal with such
66 There is no evidence that the junta ever met, although it appears that
Monclova and Li??n y Cisneros did consult each other concerning Palata's
provision and ecclesiastical reform. AGI, Lima, 296, Resolution of the Council of
the Indies, January 7, 1690 (Madrid) ; Lima, 576, fols. 67-68, Royal c?dula to
Bishop Le?n of Arequipa, January 17, 1690 (Madrid).
67 AGI, Lima, 576, fols. 169-171, Royal c?dula to Viceroy Monclova, April
10, 1692 (Madrid), fols. 168-169, Royal c?dula to Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros,
April 10, 1692 (Madrid).
68 AGI, Lima, 88, Memorandums of the Council of the Indies, February 9,
1692, and February 15, 1692, n. p.; Lima, 21, Memorandum of the Council of
the Indies, February 17, 1692, n. p. ; Lima, 24, Rough draft of dispatch to
Viceroy Monclova by the Council of the Indies, n. d., n. p.; Lima, 576, fols.
169-171, Royal c?dula to Viceroy Monclova, April 10, 1692 (Madrid) ; fols. 168
169, Royal c?dula to Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros, April 10, 1692 (Madrid).
69 AGI, Lima, 304, Letter of Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros to Charles II,
May 1, 1688 (Lima) ; Edict of Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros, March 4, 1691
(Lima) ; Letter of Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros to Charles II, November 3,
1691 Lima) .
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 19: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 19/22
BY MARGARET E. CRAHAN
241
problems.70 Hence Palata's provision acted as an impetus for clerical
reform, although not in the way he envisioned. There is little evi
dence, unfortunately, that such activities resulted in a substantial re
duction of Indian abuse. Rather, exploitation continued, as did civil
ecclesiastical conflicts concerning it.
The dispute over the February 20 decree erupted, in part, because
there was a gradual worsening of relations between the viceroy and
the archbishop, as the result of a series of disagreements71 and a con
flict of temperaments. This, together with Li??n y Cisneros' jealous
guarding of his prerogatives, sensitivity to slights, and a certain irasci
bility,72 set the stage for the clash. The strength of feeling aroused by
the dispute was consonant with the seriousness of the issues involved
and with Li??n y Cisneros' and Palata's characters.
While the viceroy and his supporters repeatedly expressed their
belief that civil jurisdiction should not interfere with ecclesiastical and
Li??n y Cisneros granted the legitimacy of some secular authority
over clerics, neither made any substantial concessions to the other. The
language of some articles of the February 20 provision was changed
sligthly,73 but these did not alter its essence. The archbishop expressed
his willingness to co-operate with the viceroy in some manner of
clerical reform other than that proposed, but Palata remained com
mitted to his original plan. No doubt he realized that any alternative
70 AGI, Lima, 306, Letter of Bishop Mollinedo of Cuzco to Council of the
Indies, May 7, 1688 (Cuzco) ; Letter of Bishop Mollinedo of Cuzco to Charles
II, December 4, 1688 (Cuzco) ; ibid., December 14, 1691 (Cuzco) ; Lima, 576,
fol. 75, Royal dispatch to Bishop Mollinedo of Cuzco, January 31, 1690
Madrid) .
71 While many such disputes appear to be relatively minor, it should be
remembered, as Charles Gibson counsels, that while ostensibly over matters
of protocol, interpretation, external symbol, or personal preference, they
reflected real struggles between church and state. (Charles Gibson, Spain in
America [New York, 1966], p. 80). This resulted from the fact that, with civil
and ecclesiastical jurisdictions so unclear, the struggle for power made the
recognition of prerogatives between competing authorities of considerable
im portance.
72 AGI, Lima, 296, Letter of Archbishop Li??n y Cisneros to Charles II,
April 28, 1685 (Lima).
73 Some of the more formal elements of the procedure were eliminated, e.g.,
the petition requesting the inquiry; additional changes directed the royal
officials to conduct the investigation in secret and in consultation with ecclesias
tical officials. AGI, Lima, 296, Letter of Viceroy Palata to Archbishop Li??n y
Cisneros, December 28, 1684, n. p.
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 20: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 20/22
242 CHURCH-STATE CONFLICT IN COLONIAL PERU
Li??n y Cisneros might agree to would not have the desired scope.
The various legal, theological, and philosophical arguments gen
erated by the February 20 provision appear to have had little effect
on the outcome of the dispute. Greater use was made of them in the
eighteenth century to justify or oppose Bourbon ecclesiastical poli
cies.74 The most valuable of these was the concept of economic au
thority/' which helped to expand the jurisdiction the crown claimed as
a result of its patronal rights. Given the lack of definition of civil and
ecclesiastical jurisdictional boundaries, the distinguishing of executive
procedures from similar judicial procedures that were forbidden pro
vided the crown with means to circumvent ecclesiastical immunity.75
The authority of the crown to resolve this dispute was fully ac
cepted by the Peruvian prelates, who looked to Madrid to support
their position. Palata, however, initially resisted referral to Madrid,
but as the viceregal office did not afford him sufficient power to en
force his will, this was eventually his only option. The suspension of
the provision appears to have sprung from the crown's strong desire
for a reconciliation between the two chief supports of its imperial
enterprise, at a time when the mothercountry was experiencing do
mestic difficulties. Hence, the crown's adherence to the role of a neu
tral overseer seems to have sprung primarily from necessity rather
than ideological conviction. In the next century when the monarchy
was stronger, there was more inclination toward using such situations
to expand royal authority.
In addition to the gradual exacerbation of relations between Li??n
y Cisneros and Palata, the dispute arose because of difficulties inherent
in the Spanish colonial structure. The responsibility of the crown to
see to the Christianization of the Indians was vital to Spain's justifi
cation of her presence in the New World. As a result of this and the
closeness of Church and State under the Patronato Real, both ecclesi
astical and civil officials were charged with ensuring the welfare of the
Indians. Complicating this was the fact that Indian labor was the
foundation of the colonial economy. The financial requirements of the
crown resulted in a considerable burden falling on the natives. The
monarchs were led to this, in part, by the necessity of rewarding those
74 The opinions of Li??n y Cisneros, Frasso, and L?pez were frequently cited
by canonists and regalists during the disputes occasioned by Caroline ecclesias
tical reforms (Farriss, op. cit., pp. 40-41, n. 96).
75 Ibid., pp. 39-47, 58, 83, 149.
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 21: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 21/22
BY MARGARET E. CRAHAN
243
individuals or institutions that contributed to the imperial enterprise.
Such grants were often in the form of Indian labor. Hence throughout
the colonial period concern for the Indians coexisted with exploitation
of them.76 Royal representatives in both the civil and ecclesiastical
spheres were cast in the contradictory roles of being both protectors
and exploiters of the Indians. Reform was thus impeded by the nature
of the enterprise and the structures that were created to carry it out.
In the sixteenth century when Spain was consolidating her empire
and evolving her colonial institutions and practices, a bureaucracy
with multiple, partly independent and partly interdependent hierar
chies 77 was created. The co-ordination of these hierarchies was the
function of the viceroy, and occasionally the affairs of one hierarchy
were handled by an officer of another. The crown favored this system
since it served as a restraint on local authority and also provided
multiple sources of information and means of control. During the
reign of Charles II the monarchy was in no position to take full ad
vantage of this and, consequently, colonial officials were more likely to
attempt to expand their authority, not only at royal expense but also
at that of their traditional competitors?their peers in colonial offi
cialdom .
Palata moved into the ecclesiastical sphere, on the grounds that it
was his responsibility to deal with abuses which ecclesiastical officials
had not adequately attended to. The viceroy's action revealed that he
was more concerned with remedying a long-term problem than with
following established procedures in discharging his viceregal obliga
tions. In so doing he misjudged the strength of the crown's commit
ment to the maintenance of harmony between the two chief stabilizing
influences in the colonies? the Church and the imperial bureaucracy.
The viceroy also misjudged the potential reaction of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy. Either this or he believed that his authority as viceroy
76 Arlene Eisen, in an analysis of the status of the Indians under the Spanish
bureaucratic patrimonial system, affirms this and concludes that the economic
exigencies of the colonial system led to the development of institutions which
exploited the Indians despite royal attempts at protective legislation. Even
where the evangelizing impulse was predominant, the institutions of tutelage
were designed to pacify the Indians, and few channels were open for them to
state their needs. (Arlene Eisen, The Indians of Colonial Spanish America
in Magaly Sarfatti [ed.], Spanish Bureaucratic-Patrimonialism in America
[Berkeley, 1966], p. 101).
77 John Leddy Phelan, Authority and Flexibility in the Spanish Imperial
Bureaucracy, Administrative Science Quarterly, V (June, 1960), 53.
This content downloaded from 200.16.5.202 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 14:13:12 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
![Page 22: Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism](https://reader035.vdocuments.site/reader035/viewer/2022062908/577c821d1a28abe054af8249/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
8/18/2019 Crahan_Church-state Conflict and Bourbon Regalism
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crahanchurch-state-conflict-and-bourbon-regalism 22/22
244 CHURCH-STATE CONFLICT IN COLONIAL PERU
would permit him to override them. In so doing he presaged Bourbon
attitudes of the next century.
The highly moralistic and ideal nature of Spanish law also contrib
uted to the outbreak of this dispute. From the Romans, the Spaniards
inherited a view of law which was aimed at the creation of an ideal
society rather than dealing with reality. As a consequence, regulations
were likely to be violated unless there was sufficient coercive power
to enforce them.78 Abuse of Indians by their pastors was not always
the result of greed or similar motives. The hardships and deprivation
encountered by clerics in remote Indian villages encouraged exploita
tion. This was something that royal and ecclesiastical legislation rarely
took into account and Palata's provision was no exception. In addi
tion, the expectation that civil and ecclesiastical officials could and
would maintain cordial relations ignored the competition for power
that the monarchy encouraged to maintain its own supremacy. So
long as the State was more concerned with preserving royal authority
intact than in decreasing administrative tension and increasing gov
ernmental effectiveness, disputes such as this would arise. Further
more, when the crown felt the need for the support of the Church to
legitimize and preserve her authority, the monarchy would strive to
maintain a relative degree of equilibrium between Church and State.
In the eighteenth century, with the resurgence of monarchical author
ity and the increasing divergence of ecclesiastical and civil purposes,
the pressure to maintain a balance was less. In fact, its continuance
was regarded as something of a threat to the crown's own exploitation
of the colonies. The State, as a result, attempted to dominate the
Church. This change in the customary relationship carried with it the
threat of more frequent and serious conflicts, as was the case, particu
larly during the second half of the eighteenth century. Such disputes
were the result of theories and practices which evolved under the
Hapsburgs, as much as they were the product of Bourbon regalism.
78 Frank Jay Moreno, The Spanish Colonial System : A Functional Ap
proach, Western Political Quarterly, XX (June, 1967), 309.