the PhilosoPhy of suárez 1
II. THE TWO ENLIGHTENMENTS, CATHOLIC AND SECULAR
1. Intimate connection between reason & freedom
We return to the Uncommon Doctor’s moral philosophy and to his connection with the Catholic Enlightenment and its focus on reason and freedom. The Catholic reason is not the autonomous faculty, di-vorced from revelation, of the Age of Reason: its natural light is inten-sified by the supernatural light of faith. Yet reason is able by its own power to establish the foundations of theology, because it “explains and confirms those natural principles which encompass all things, and in some way support and sustain all doctrine...” For in the study of theology, metaphysical doctrines obtain,without whose knowledge and understanding the loftier mysteries can hardly or not at all be treated in a worthy manner. Thus, these metaphysical principles and truths cohere with theological conclu-sions and discourses, in such a way that if the knowledge and per-fect understanding of the former be removed, the understanding of the latter is necessarily impaired.19
Both reason and freedom are intimately connected,
because freedom rises from the intelligence, or [to put it in another way] vital appetite follows knowledge, and hence a more perfect ap-petite [such as is found in intellectual beings] accompanies a more perfect knowledge. Therefore to a knowledge that is universal and in its own way indifferent there follows also an appetite that is uni-versal and indifferent.20
The indifference of the intellect, the seat of reason, lies in its not be-ing necessitated to accord equal value to all that it knows. It judges about ends and means, weighs what in them is good or bad, useful or 19 DM Proemium [25: 1]: sine quorum cognitione et intelligentia vix, aut ne vix quidem, possunt altiora illa mysteria pro dignitate tractari... Ita enim haec principia et veritates metaphysicae cum theologicis conclusionibus ac discursibus cohaerent, ut si illorum scientia ac perfecta cognitio auferatur, horum etiam scientiam nimium labefactari necesse sit.
20 DM 19: 2: 17 [25: 698]: quia libertas ex intelligentia nascitur, nam ap-petitus vitalis sequitur cognitionem, et ideo perfectiorem cognitionem co-mitatur perfectior appetitus; ergo et cognitionem universalem et suo modo indifferentem sequitur etiam appetitus universalis et indifferens...
useless, what is and is not needed to achieve ends. So too the appetite that follows from this knowledge is not necessitated to accept all the good that is presented to it, but only relative to the importance that any particular good is judged to have. The good that is not judged to be necessary is therefore accepted or desired freely. Hence free choice follows rational deliberation, ad rationalem consultationem sequitur elec-tio libera.21
Furthermore, in being free, the creature participates in God’s emi-nent freedom. And freedom is the basis of the creature’s ultimate par-ticipation, achieved through grace, in God’s inner life. For the free na-ture is the foundation of grace and the principle of moral operations, by which eternal blessedness is attained or lost.22
Freedom is innate to man, for man is born free, homo nascitur liber.23 Later, a prominent representative of the secular Enlightenment, JEAN-JACqUES ROUSSEAU (1712-1778), was to use the same words:
L’homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers.24 Furthermore, no man is naturally another man’s master, nullus habet iurisdictionem politicam in alium.25 Rousseau: aucun homme n’a une autorité naturelle sur son semblable.26 Indeed, libertas est homini naturalis, et magna eius perfectio;
unde illa privari magna poena et miseria est, “freedom is natural to man, and his great perfection; hence to be deprived of it is a great penalty and misery.”27 Yet Suárez is no abolitionist; like many other theolo-gians of his time, he holds that slavery is permissible under certain conditions.
21 DM 19: 2: 17 [25: 698].
22 De gratia, Prolegomenon I, cap. 1, n. 1 [7: 1].
23 Defensio fidei Catholicae et apostolicae adversus Anglicanae sectae errores,, lib. 3, cap. 2, n. 9 [24: 209].
24 Jean-Jacques ROUSSEAU, Du contrat social: ou, principes du droit politique, 1762, liv. 1, chap. 1.
25 De legibus, lib. 3, cap. 2, n. 3 [5: 180].
26 Jean-Jacques ROUSSEAU, Du contrat social, liv. 1, chap. 4.
27 De opere sex dierum, lib. 5, cap. 7, n. 10 [3: 416].
2. The Catholic Enlightenment and the Catholic Dis-Enlightenment
The theological reexamination of the importance of reason and free-dom began with the conquest of parts of the New World by the Spaniards (and of parts of the old world by the Portuguese) from the late 15th century. In response to this phenomenon, two intellectual moments arose in counterpoint: the Catholic Enlightenment, as we have called it, and its counterpart, which deserves no better title than the Catholic “Dis-Enlightenment.” (The theoretical positions of both movements are presented in detail by JUAN DE SOLóRZANO PEREIRA, 1575-1655, in his monumental De Indiarum jure, Madrid 1777, who himself tends to favor the Dis-Enlightenment.) Among the protago-nists of the latter movement are JUAN DE PALÁCIOS RUBIOS (c. 1450-1524), the ideologue of Christian imperialism; JUAN DE SEPúLvEDA (c. 1490-1573), the ideologue of political oppression; and GARCíA DE TOLEDO (c. 1515-1590), the ideologue of economic exploitation.
If we combine their salient views, a philosophy such as the following emerges:
Though infidels, the native Americans (in abstract theory) have a right to liberty, ownership and immunity from aggression, as well as to political authority and economic independence. But they can be deprived of these rights if they are uncivilized, debar missionaries from their lands, and reject the suzerainty of the Church, which is invested in the Pope. Indeed, the sovereignty exercised by the Am-erindians may be characterized as illegitimate, and Spaniards can claim to have a God-given right to be their rulers. Oppression of the American natives is justified in view of their infidelity, which requires that they be converted; and of their depravity, which is evinced by their human sacrifices and cannibalism. They can also be economically exploited, to produce the wealth that can pay for the expenses of their own conversion, and of the wars against the infidels in the Old World.
The contrary movement, the Catholic Enlightenment, had far more numerous followers, and by far the more brilliant intellects. Among the forerunners of the movement are the Franciscan FRANCISCO JI-MéNEZ DE CISNEROS (1436-1517), the queen ISABEL LA CATóLICA (1451-1504), and the Dominicans PEDRO DE CóRDOBA (1482-1525) and BARTOLOMé DE LAS CASAS (1484-1566).
3. Isabel La Católica, forerunner of the Catholic Enlightenment
ISABEL, counseled by her confessor CISNEROS (1436-1517), is argu-ably the forerunner of the movement. In her instructions, emitted from 1493 to1504, this great queen, whose one preoccupation was justice to her subjects, decreed that the conquered American natives were to be treated with affection, and that their abusers were to be sternly punished.28 Up to 1499, she was hesitant about slavery, some-times permitting it, but in 1500 she had made up her mind. In her instruction to a royal official, she noted that some Amerindians were sequestered, and sold in various places by the Admiral of the Indies.
“These Indians are now to be freed,” she commanded, “and we have or-dered the Comendador… to take them back to the Indies.”29 If a precise date is needed to mark the start of the Catholic Enlightenment, the opponent of slavery and promoter of freedom, then 1500 is as good as any other. Isabel reaffirmed her conviction in her Codicil of 1504, the year of her death.
A group of fervent Dominicans—revulsed by the treatment of the natives by their oppressors, the rapacious colonists—raised their voices in the defense of the oppressed. Among them was PEDRO DE CóRDOBA (1482-1525), who boldly declared that the Indies were to be de-colonized; that all the colonists were to leave except the mis-sionaries, who were not to make forced conversions. It was preferable for the natives to live as healthy pagans than as enslaved Christians doomed to die; it was better for them to continue as infidels than to blaspheme Christianity because of the scandalous lives of the Spanish Christians.30 BARTOLOMé DE LAS CASAS (1484-1566), the most elo-quent and effective advocate of the abused American natives, turned the tables on the abusers, proclaiming the nobility of the Amerindians and declaring that it was the Spaniards who were depraved, and that 28 ISABEL LA CATóLICA, “Royal Instructions to Columbus for the Second Voyage,” 1493. John H. PARY & Robert G. KEITH, New Iberian World, vol. 2, The Carribean, p. 72.
29 ISABEL LA CATóLICA, “Decree Ordering the Release and Return of Indian Slaves Brought from the Islands,” 1500. John H. PARY & Robert G.
KEITH, New Iberian World, vol. 2, The Carribean, p. 242.
30 PEDRO DE CóRDOBA, “Carta de los Dominicos,” April-May 1517. Colec-ción de documentos ineditos… de America e Oceania, vol. 2, pp. 211-212.
the beliefs and customs of the natives were quite plausible. He advo-cated evangelization by peaceful means alone, and strongly condemned war, which he described as intrinsically evil. He also denounced the so-called punishment of the natives for their alleged crimes against the natural law. To maltreat them was to scourge and crucify Christ Himself. Las Casas asserted that the natives could if they wished ac-cept the suzerainty of the Spanish monarch, after which they would continue to live as free men.31
4. Scholastic representatives of the Catholic Enlightenment
As a disciplined intellectual movement making use of the Scholastic method, the Catholic Enlightenment begins with the theologians of Salamanca, who are too numerous to mention. We may, however, re-fer to the Dominicans FRANCISCO DE VITORIA (c. 1483-1546), the movement’s Scholastic inaugurator, MANCIO DE CORPUS CHRISTI (1495-1576) and MELCHIOR CANO (1509-1560), who belong to the first generation of these theologians. Among those of the second gen-eration are the Dominicans BARTOLOMé DE MEDINA (1528-1581), DOMINgO BÁñEZ (1528-1604), the Augustinian LUIS DE LEóN (1527-1591), and the Jesuits LUIS DE MOLINA (1535-1600) and FRANCISCO SUÁREZ, the consummator of the movement.