crahan_church-state conflict and bourbon regalism

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



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




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,




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





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.





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.





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





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





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).





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).


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).





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.





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.


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.





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


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





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).


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.




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.





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.





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) .


June 26, 1690 (Lima).





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).


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) .





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.


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.





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.





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.





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.

crahan_church-state conflict and bourbon regalism

Documents