Infidelitas
Egío García, José Luis / Wagner, Andreas1 Definition and contexts of discussion
The authors of the School of Salamanca defined infidelitas as the deliberate rejection of the (totality of the) Christian faith. The exact understanding of terms like “deliberate”, “rejection” or “totality”, however, was a matter of debate.
Discussions of infidelitas and its related issues usually took their starting point from Thomas Aquinas’ STh IIa-IIae, q. 10. Other authors frequently referred to were Augustine, Sylvester and Cajetan.
The Salamancan authors’ discussions of infidelity were shaped by questions arising from the practical experiences of missionaries in the Americas, leading to original departures from the medieval tradition.
1.1 Related concepts
apostasia,
bellum,
culpa,
dominium iurisdictionis,
dominium proprietatis,
fides,
haeresia,
ignorantia,
iudicium,
iuramentum,
iurisdictio,
ius communicandi,
ius peregrinandi,
ius praedicandi,
peccatum,
servitus,
superstitio
1.2 Particular groups of infidels
infidelis (etnicus, iudaeus, paganus, saracenus)
2 Infidelitas in the School of Salamanca
2.1 Defining infidelitas
The Salamancan authors followed Thomas Aquinas’ bipartite definition (Aquinas, ST IIa-IIae, q. 10): in the negative sense, infidelity was the simple absence of faith. In the second definition, as contempt of the Christian faith or as refusal to be instructed in it, it represented a sin against the faith (Aquinas, ST II-IIae, q. 10 art. 1, p. 78; see Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 1 no. 1, p. 160; Aragón 1584, q. 10 art. 3, p. 64).
In the late 16 century, Báñez refined this definition. Infidelity in the negative sense could be understood in two ways: as a lack of the intellectual capacity to receive and understand the faith, or as the absence of faith in an intellectually capable human being. Positive infidelity, always a sin, required the explicit rejection of the faith or its non-acceptance despite sufficient instruction (Báñez 1584, q. 10 art. 1, col. 559).
Manuals for confessors (e.g. Vitoria 1562/2018) defined infidelity as an offence against the first of the Ten Commandments. It meant rejecting the faith deliberately and consciously, which distinguished it from minor infringements (Vitoria 1562, Orden de confessarse, Primer mandamiento, Jnfidelidad, p. 21). For Suárez, infidelity cut a person off from Church and salvation: the infidel denied God’s infallible truth and the divine means of redemption, as if God was capable of lying or cheating (Suárez 1621, disp. 16 sect. 1 no. 1, pp. 262 sq.).
2.2 Typologies of infidelitas
2.2.1 Conceptual distinctions: modes of infidelitas
Concerning the modes of infidelity, most Salamancan authors took Cajetan’s comments on Aquinas, STh IIa-IIae, q. 10, art. 2 as a starting point. Vitoria approved Cajetan’s differentiation of four modes of infidelity based on intellectus but underlined that three could also be ascribed to a person’s will (voluntas), given that men are obliged to believe “because of God’s authority and because the Church says so” (Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 2 no. 3, p. 164). For Vitoria, the only solely intellectual mode of infidelity was the negative one: the infidel who knew nothing of the faith could not be said to have voluntas regarding it; he could neither dissent nor doubt.
Suárez offered his own tripartite distinction: refusal to believe the principles of the faith; suspension of judgement; doubts about the Christian precepts. In his view, only the categorical refusal of the Christian faith was clearly sinful (Suárez 1621, disp. 16, sect. 1, no. 8 sq., p. 264).
Suárez also offered further criteria for differentiation: infidelity could also be defined in terms of content (materialiter) or form (formaliter). Materialiter, Christian sinners who ‘ignored’ a certain part of the faith were to be distinguished from infidels ‘ignoring’ the entire contents of the faith, even the First Truth (infidelitas secundum materiam: Suárez 1621, disp. 16 sect. 1 no. 3, p. 263). Infidelitas secundum formam comprised two subtypes: negative and privative. Negative infidelity affected those who were completely ignorant of the faith due to geographical isolation. Suárez argued that this kind of sinless infidelity might be difficult to conceive but was nevertheless possible. As the will of the infidel was not involved, negative infidelity did not constitute a sinful rejection of the faith. Privative infidelity, by contrast, was always sinful because in this case, the infidel turned away from Christianity despite sufficient instruction (Suárez 1621, disp. 16 sect. 1 no. 4, p. 263).
2.2.2 Experience-based distinctions: groups of infidels
Other classifications of infidelity were based on the three ways of rejecting Christianity described by Aquinas, STh IIa-IIae q. 10 art. 5, who distinguished between pagans (never having received the faith at all), Jews (recognising the faith only in figura, i.e. in the prophecies of the Old Testament), and heretics (rejecting the manifest truth of the New Testament as taught by the Catholic Church) (Aragón 1584, q. 10 art. 5, p. 278; Báñez 1584, q. 10 art. 5, col. 595).
Further subdivisions were rejected as unfounded and of little use for answering practical questions, and in order to avoid an endless differentiation (Aragón 1584, q. 10 art. 5, p. 279; Báñez 1584, q. 10 art. 5, cols. 596-597; Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 5 no. 2, p. 184). Despite broadly agreeing on classification, Salamancan authors frequently disagreed on concrete issues. A catechumen who embraced the Christian faith in general terms but insisted on disagreeing on a certain point, for example, was considered a heretic by Báñez and Suárez (Báñez 1584, q. 10 art. 5, col. 596; Suárez 1621, disp. 16 sect. 4 no. 9, p. 270), whereas Vitoria saw him as the pagan, Jew or Muslim that he had been before his conversion (Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 5 no. 4, p. 185).
Salamancan scholars made innovative contributions to Catholic thought on infidelity mainly as a result of their reflections on the experiences of extra-European missions. In addition, they adopted the innovative jurisdictional classification originally formulated in the early 16 century by Matías de Paz and Cajetan (Paz 2017, no. 8, pp. 86 sqq.; Aquinas/Cajetan 1897, q. 66 art. 8, comm., pp. 94 sq.; Soto 1553, pars 1 lib. 5 q. 3 art. 5, pp. 430sq.). Adding to the typologies based on European experiences, the authors distinguished between infidel subjects of Christian rulers (e.g. Jews, Muslims or heretics under the dominion of Christian princes), infidels living in formerly Christian lands (e.g. Turks or Saracens), and infidels living in lands which neither belonged to the Roman Empire nor had ever been under the jurisdiction of any Christian prince (e.g. Amerindians). Las Casas underlined how this third category had "brought light into the former blindness" (Las Casas 1876, cap. 38, p. 63).
Aiming to develop evangelisation strategies fitting the cultural characteristics of different infidel peoples, Acosta proposed grouping Asian, African, American and Oceanian (Solomon Islands) infidels into three types, according to what he perceived as their respective degree of reason (recta ratio: Acosta 1588, prooem., pp. 117-122). By the 17 century, these typologies of infidelity commonly appear in the juridical and pragmatic literature (Solórzano 1629, lib. 2 cap. 10, 11, pp. 348-372; Peña Montenegro 1668, lib. 2 tract. 8 sess. 5, pp. 220 sqq.).
Reacting to debates about new types of (European) infidelity in the 17 century, Suárez discussed whether atheism and philosophical deism should be considered new kinds of infidelity or whether their adherents could be subsumed under the main Thomist categories. He concluded the latter should be kept for practical reasons (Suárez 1621, disp. 16 sect. 4 no. 10-15, pp. 270 sqq.).
2.3 The theological and ethical dimension: infidelitas as sin affecting the moral capacity of the agent
There was no consensus in the theological tradition regarding the question to what extent infidelity affected the moral capacity of an agent. Augustine of Hippo had considered infidels incapable of true virtue, good actions and legitimate dominium, all of them gifts of divine grace (see Solórzano 1629, lib. 2 cap. 10 no. 26, p. 354); any seemingly virtuous action of Greek or Roman pagans was based only on vainglory or greed (Vázquez 1606b, q. 109 cap. 4 no. 18, p. 523). Vitoria and Vázquez explicitly rejected Augustine’s position and similar statements by Gregory of Rimini (Vitoria 1557b, 319; Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 4, pp. 17 sqq.; Vázquez 1606b, q. 109 cap. 1, pp. 519 sq.). For them, an action corresponding to the natural recta ratio should be understood as implicitly corresponding to God’s intentions (Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 5 no. 13, pp. 181 sq.) and referring virtualiter to him (Aragón 1584, q. 10 art. 4, p. 268). Such good actions were carried out just as God had intended; hence, they were virtuous, as were their agents, even if they were infidels lacking knowledge of God. Many Salamancan authors (see the list given by Solórzano 1629, q. 10 cap. 11 no. 50, p. 370) underlined that infidelity did not preclude a person from leading a life pleasing to God (Vitoria 1557b, pars 1 no. 40, pp. 346 sq., pars 3 no. 14, p. 393; Báñez 1584, q. 10 art. 4, col. 589). Even if very difficult (Vázquez 1606b, q.109 cap. 2, pp. 520 sqq.), it was not impossible for an individual affected by the “mental blindness” of infidelity to live free of sin (Aragón 1584, q. 10 art. 3, p. 261).
Over time, this positive view became common opinion (Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 4 no. 4, p. 171; Suárez 1621, disp. 17 sect. 3 no. 3 sqq., p. 280 sq.), marginalising Augustine’s “exaggerated” criticism (Báñez 1584, q. 10 art. 4, col. 587; Suárez 1621, disp. 16 sect. 2 no. 2, p. 265). Augustinian authors had to reinterpret the words of their order’s founder to dissociate his position from that of Luther and other thinkers, who held that virtuous actions could only result from divine grace (Aragón 1584, q. 10 art. 4, pp. 271 sq.). In this, the Tridentine canons against Luther, as well as the condemnation of John Wycliff and Jan Hus (both radical interpreters of Augustine’s view on infidels’ moral capacity) formulated by the Council of Constance (1415) were important points of reference in Salamancan literature (Báñez 1584, q. 10 art. 4, col. 588; Báñez 1594, q. 62, praeamb. de Dominio, 1a q., p. 123; Solórzano 1629, lib. 2 cap. 10 no. 56, p. 359).
Despite being conscious of the contrary opinion in the theological tradition, Vitoria’s confidence in infidels' capacity for a virtuous life led him to speculate about the possibility that individuals affected by purely negative infidelity were capable of authentic contrition and thus of receiving grace (Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 1 no. 10, pp. 162 sq.; Vitoria 1557a, pars 1 no. 33, p. 337). This view divided his colleagues and was greatly criticised. In 1547, Melchor Cano used his first public lecture to rebut precisely this opinion of the recently deceased Vitoria (Cano 1550, p. 2, ff. 13r-13v). The pragmatic literature considered it detrimental to evangelising zeal or even heretical (Azpilcueta 1556, cap. 11 no. 18, p. 70; Acosta 1588, lib. 5 cap. 4, pp. 494 sqq.). This may explain why Soto, after initially following Vitoria (Soto 1547, cap. 19, fol. 140v), backed down in response to heavy criticism (Peña Montenegro 1668, lib. 2 tract. 8 sess. 4 no. 3, p. 219; Soto 1557, dist. 1 q. 2 art. 3, pp. 47 sq.).
Underlying the whole debate was the view that in certain cases, infidelity was produced by ignorantia invincibilis, i.e. a complete, guiltless lack of knowledge about the Christian faith due to geographical isolation, lack of preachers, etc. (Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 1 no. 1, p. 163; Aragón 1584, q. 10 art. 1, p. 254). The Salamancans here followed Aquinas’ and Augustine’s position against more modern authors, such as as Hadrian VI, Gabriel Biel, Jean Gerson, Hugh of Saint-Victor, William of Paris and William of Auxerre, for whom infidelity was always inexcusable and sinful (Báñez 1584, q. 10 art. 1, cols. 557-558; Aragón 1584, q. 10 art. 1, pp. 253 sq.). The latter held that individuals who had full use of reason but lacked faith must have rejected an inner instinct that should have led them towards God; also, if they had strictly observed natural law, God himself would have enlightened them through an internal revelation or by external means, such as by sending preachers or angels (see Báñez 1584, q. 10 art. 1, col. 557). The Salamancan authors did admit that infidels without any knowledge of the faith were damned – not, however, as a result of their infidelity, but due to other sins committed against natural law. At the turn of the 17 century, this position had become the common opinion among the Salamancan scholars (see Suárez 1621, disp. 17 sect. 1 no. 5, p. 275).
The theoretical argument about ignorantia invincibilis opened up a practical discussion regarding the teaching of the Gospel in the missionary field. Discussing the missionary practices in the Americas, most authors considered superficial teaching insufficient; Vitoria stated that in order to label someone a “contumacious infidel” (infidelis per contrarietatem), he must have had the opportunity of hearing at least the main articles of Christianity presented in a convincing way (Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 1 no. 10, p. 162). Suárez, by contrast, held that even an insufficient proposition of the faith obliged the infidel to seek further information, as the rational character of the Christian precepts could not be easily brushed away (Suárez 1621, disp. 17 sect. 1 no. 9, p. 276). Other 16-century authors, however, followed Vitoria’s reasoning, postulating that infidels could only be labelled contumacious if the preacher had been capable of proving that Christian beliefs were more credible than any other cult or religion (Aragón 1584, q. 10 art. 1, p. 255).
Contrary to the medieval tradition (see Aquinas IIa-IIae, q. 10, a. 6), Salamancan scholars were not particularly interested in evaluating the wickedness of infidelity compared to other sins and took a casuistic approach, if they discussed the topic at all (Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 6 no. 2, p. 187; Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 3 no. 7, p. 169; Suárez 1621, disp. 16 sect. 2, pp. 264 sqq.).
2.4 Juridical and political debates
The theoretical debates on infidelity had important juridical and practical repercussions. To Suárez, the most important aim of doctrinal scholarship was to provide secular and ecclesiastical authorities with criteria to pass laws and judgements which adequately corresponded to different kind of infidels, regulating the communication between Christians and infidels, whether they were subjects of the same ruler or not (Suárez 1621, disp. 16 sect. 4, pp. 268 sqq.).
2.4.1 Infidelitas and dominium
One of the most controversial issues was whether infidels were able or allowed to hold property or jurisdiction (dominium). Following Vitoria (Vitoria 1557a, pars 1 no. 7, p. 300), Salamancan authors agreed that infidelity did not preclude dominium, since divine positive law and its distinction between believers and infidels did not invalidate natural law (Soto 1553, p. 1 lib. 4 q. 4 art. 1, pp. 302 sq.; Soto 1995, no. 32, pp. 170-173; Freitas 1625, cap. 3 no. 4, fols. 14v-15r; Covarrubias 1573, pars 2 § 10 no. 2, pp. 508 sq.). Jurists like Juan de Solórzano and Gregorio López echoed the theologians’ criticism of the position of the 13-century Italian canonist Henry of Segusio and his followers (Solórzano 1629, lib. 2 cap. 10 no. 57, p. 359) and shared their opinion (López 1555, Part. II, Tit. 23, L. 2, Glos. g, fol. 82v) that neither infidelity nor any other kind of mortal sin could cancel dominium or transfer it into the hands of the Church. As stated by the Council of Constance, dominium was instituted by human reason and natural law, not founded on faith and grace.
The topic of dominium was the starting point of discussions on war, slavery and forced conversions. Rejecting Aquinas' general justification of plundering the goods of foreign infidels (Aquinas, STh IIa-IIae, q. 66, art. 8), Vitoria denied that infidelity in itself gave a legitimate reason for war and plunder (Vitoria 1557a, pars 1 no. 31, p. 328; see already Cajetan’s commentary at Aquinas/Cajetan 1897, q. 66 art. 8 comm., pp. 94 sq.). Both jurists and theologians followed him: since a war declared exclusively on account of the opponent's infidelity was unjust, it was also unjust to enslave infidels or to deprive them of their goods without another, legitimate reason (e.g. attacks, blasphemies, or other injustices: Covarrubias 1573, pars 2 § 10 no. 1, p. 508; Acosta 1588, lib. 2 cap. 2, p. 214). However, Saracens and Turks were unanimously considered sworn enemies of Christianity: they, therefore, could be legitimately fought and enslaved and their goods plundered even in the absence of a current and substantive threat (Soto 1553, p. 1 lib. 5 q. 3 art. 5, pp. 430 sq.; Freitas 1625, cap. 9 no. 10, fols. 95v-96r).
2.4.2 Infidel subjects of Christian rulers
In the case of infidels subject to the authority of Christian princes, their infidelity and relations with Christian subjects tended to be viewed as a matter of political regulation; thus, instead of the casuistic discussion regarding war (see 2.4.1), authors applied the criminal legal framework regarding rebellion and anti-Christian proselytism to justify the punitive confiscations and enslavement campaigns suffered by the moriscos after their defeat in the Alpujarras in 1501 (Báñez 1594, q. 57 art. 3, p. 22; Molina 1593, tract. 2 disp. 33, col. 239). Heretics, too, lost their rights to goods and authority over subjects because of their infidelity (Castro 1547, cap. 6, fols. 95r sqq.).
For the Americas, where the infidel subjects of the Crown outnumbered the Christians, fiscal issues needed to be re-evaluated. Some authors, driven by missionary zeal, suggested imposing high tax rates on contumacious infidels (Acosta 1588, lib. 3 cap. 13, p. 329). But mostly this idea was rejected: while infidel subjects could be compelled to pay higher taxes, they were not to be oppressed by an excessive and tyrannical burden. Such a policy was denounced not only as contradicting Christian magnanimity but also as a covert form of illegitimate forced conversion (Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 8 no. 11, p. 195). Vera Cruz instead suggested that tax under a Christian ruler should always be less than under preceding non-Christian authorities (Vera Cruz 2007, no. 822, p. 172). In the case of Christians living or trading under the jurisdiction of infidel rulers, the latter’s infidelity was not considered a legitimate reason not to pay taxes (Ledesma 1617b, tract. 7, p. 193).
2.4.3 Infidel rulers
While the Salamancan authors agreed that infidelity as such did not detract from the infidels’ ownership of goods (dominium rerum suis), they reached no consensus regarding the jurisdictional rights (dominium iurisdictionis) of infidel lords. Generally, Christians were supposed not to allow an infidel to acquire rule over Christians, lest the scandalum would endanger their faith. In the Salamancan authors’ opinion, this did not, however, invalidate an infidel lord’s pre-existing authority. This position of the School – one of its most distinctive – explicitly disagreed with summistae such as Angelo da Chiavasso, who had considered an infidel’s jurisdiction null and void (Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 10 no. 1,2, p. 200 sq.), instead following Aquinas. Vitoria and Covarrubias listed different reasons for waging a just war against infidel rulers, if they forbade or obstructed the preaching of the Christian faith or conversions (Vitoria 1557a, pars 2 no. 7, p. 364; Covarrubias 1573, pars 2 § 10 no. 3, pp. 509 sq.). All other titles of just war against infidel authorities (ius peregrinandi, settlement rights, exploitation of natural resources, intervention to help oppressed innocents, etc.) were not based on theological arguments but on the ius gentium; in principle, they thus applied to infidel as well as Christian rulers. Later Salamancans developed Vitoria’s ideas on the ius praedicandi in ever-growing detail. Gregorio de Valencia allowed the use of force against any attempt to prevent the preaching of the gospel, but not for compelling infidels living under an infidel prince to listen (Valencia 1603, disp. 1 q. 10 punct. 6, cols. 428-429). Suárez held that infidels interested in Christianity were justified in their political resistance against magistrates or rulers trying to prevent them listening to Christian preaching. He also saw external intervention by a Christian prince in their support as legitimate (Suárez 1621, q. 18 sect. 2 no. 8, p. 287).
Some authors considered only actual obstruction of preaching or the persecution of Christian subjects as justification for what they called an “indirect” (Suárez 1621, disp. 18 sect. 5 no. 8 sq., p. 294) annulment of an infidel’s rule (De la Peña 1982, p. 154). But a growing majority tended to consider already the potential threat an infidel ruler presented to a people being converted to Christianity as sufficient for intervention (Avendaño 1668, tit. 1 cap. 1 § 3 no. 13, p. 4). According to Acosta, Christian subjects of infidel rulers were always at risk, as shown by the Portuguese failures to evangelise Africa. From his mission-centred perspective, the adoption of preventive measures seemed justified (Acosta 1588, lib. 3 cap. 2, pp. 282 sqq.). Later in the 17 century, after experiences with different European and extra-European rulers who had received baptism without a sincere will to convert, Avendaño considered even the conversion of a former infidel or heretical prince as an insufficient warrant against a real danger to the Catholic faith (Avendaño 1668, tit. 1 cap. 1 § 3 no. 13, p. 4).
Sins against natural law, thought to be prompted by infidelity, were not regarded as sufficient reason for Christian intervention (ius naturalis, peccatum). According to Vitoria, Soto and other theologians and jurists (for a detailed list, see Freitas 1625, cap. 9 no. 2, fol. 94r), neither the pope nor Christian rulers had the jurisdiction to punish foreign infidels’ sins (Vitoria 1557a, pars 1 no. 40, p. 344; Soto 1553, p. 1 lib. 5 q. 3 art. 5, p. 431; Covarrubias 1573, pars 2 § 10 no. 5, pp. 510 sq.). Later authors considered the opposite view unjust: similar violations, they argued, were committed daily in the Christian world, too, without justifying a war (Valencia 1603, disp. 1 q. 10 punct. 7, cols. 432-436; Vázquez de Menchaca 1572, cap. 24 no. 5, fol. 66r).
2.4.4 Baptism of infidels
Following Aquinas (Aquinas/Cajetan 1895, q. 10 art. 8, pp. 88 sqq.), Salamancan scholars almost unanimously rejected forced conversions as contradicting the voluntariness required in the act of faith. Only heretics who had already once received the Catholic faith could be forced to keep their obedience. For Vitoria and others, forced conversions were contrary to natural law and illegitimate, even if applied to infidel subjects of Christian princes (Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 8 no. 3, p. 191). Following Aquinas, the School of Salamanca opposed the followers of Duns Scotus, who argued that infidel subjects of Christian princes to whom the faith had been sufficiently preached could be coerced to convert (Scotus, In quartum sententiarum, Dist. 4 q. 9; cf. the nuanced position of Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 8 no. 4, 5, pp. 192 sq.). Also, Vitoria and later Salamancans openly voiced their doubts about the legitimacy and efficacy of the policy of forced conversions to which the Spanish Crown had subjected its Jewish and Saracen Peninsular subjects during the 16 century (Suárez 1621, disp. 18 sect. 3 no. 13, p. 290; Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 8 no. 5, p. 193). For Suárez, the distinction between infidels who lived under Christian rule and those who did not mattered. While the latter could not be forced to hear Christian preaching, a prince could oblige his vassals to receive religious indoctrination under threat of monetary penalty or exile: a kind of legitimate coertio indirecta (Suárez 1621, disp. 18 sect. 2 no. 4 sq., p. 286 and disp. 8 sect. 3 no. 8 sqq., p. 289 sq.; libertas). This was to be restricted to exceptional cases, as forced conversions resulted in dissimulation, sacrileges, blasphemies, and the scandalisation of infidels (Suárez 1621, disp. 18 sect. 3 no. 10, pp. 289 sq.; Peña Montenegro 1668, lib. 2 tract. 8 sess. 5 no. 6-8, p. 221; simulatio, sacrilegium, blasphemia, scandalum). In any case, the temples and public worship of infidels who adhered to a monotheistic religion were to be respected (Suárez 1621, disp. 18 sect. 4 no. 9, p. 292).
The complex conceptual framework developed by Vitoria and others shaped missionary activities, including the consolidation of rigorous catechisation strategies (Peña Montenegro 1668, lib. 2 tract. 8 sess. 8 no. 1, p. 226). Infidelity was more than not being baptised. Hence, the reception of baptism was not enough to turn an infidel adult into a “true Christian” (Vitoria 1967, pp. 157 sqq.). As the degree of grace conferred by a sacrament depended on the disposition to receive it, adequate catechisation was indispensable (Vitoria/Chaves 1561, De Sacr. Bapt, q. 15, fol. 16r).
For adults, the transition to Christianity was understood as a process of progressively overcoming ignorance and moral errors, but accompanied by the permanent risk of a return to non-Christian beliefs (apostasia). Following Aquinas against Duns Scotus, Vitoria cited the risk of apostasy as the main reason not to baptise infidel children without parental consent, even if the parents were slaves of a Christian master. He also rejected the abduction of infidel children with the aim of educating them as Christians as an aberration contrary to divine and natural law, as both granted parents the potestas over their offspring (Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 12, pp. 203 sqq., q. 10 art. 12 no. 14, 15, pp. 210 sq.; pater). In the field, missionaries sometimes saw things differently. Vera Cruz rejected Vitoria’s positions, embracing instead Scotus’ perspective regarding the baptism of infidel children (Vera Cruz 2007, no. 761, p. 158).
2.4.5 Communication and convivencia: Social relations between Christians and infidels
The Salamancan scholars inherited an intense discussion on the ‘communication’ between Christians and infidels from the late medieval tradition (see Aquinas STh IIa-IIae q. 10, a. 9). Actual or potential dangers to the faith marked the limits of interreligious coexistence. Interactions between Christians and infidels were evaluated in a casuistic and prudential way (Suárez 1621, disp. 18 sect. 6, pp. 295 sqq.), taking into account specific circumstances, including the intellectual capacity of those involved: the simpler the Christian and the more educated the infidel, the greater the danger to the Christian faith (Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 9 no. 5, p. 199). In line with tradition (Prierias 1518, De Infidelitate, fol. 249v), authors tended to prohibit any situation in which a non-Christian exercised economic, social or other superiority over Christians: accordingly, Jews and other infidels were not allowed to have Christian servants or to hold public offices in a Christian polity (Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 9 no. 5, p. 199; Azor 1613, lib. 8 cap. 22, p. 553; Suárez 1621, disp. 18 sect. 5 no. 12 sqq., pp. 295 sq.).
Various restrictions applied to social life. Although an infidel could perform a valid baptism in case of need (Azpilcueta 1556, cap. 22 no. 6, p. 389), he could not become a godparent. Suárez extended the traditional prohibition for Jews to inherit from Christians to Muslims (seen as enemies of Christians), but not to gentiles or pagans (Suárez 1621, disp. 18 sect. 6 no. 10 sq., p. 297).
Many traditional regulations concerning food and common meals were meant to reduce the interaction of Christians with other religious communities to the minimum needed for the common good of a multireligious republic (Azor 1613, lib. 8 cap. 22, p. 553; Suárez 1621, disp. 18 sect. 6 no. 7, p. 297). Sacred spaces were also the object of detailed regulations. On the one hand, Christians were protected against possible contamination stemming from synagogues, mosques, and other temples: visiting them (let alone participating in rites and celebrations) was strictly forbidden (Azor 1613, lib. 8 cap 22, pp. 553 sq.; Suárez 1621, disp. 18 sect. 6 no. 2, p. 296). On the other, pragmatic literature offered rules to preserve the purity of Christian temples and spaces against any kind of infidel contamination, e.g. improper burials (Azpilcueta 1556, cap. 27 no. 253, p. 777).
Convivencia remained a controversial issue. Before the Rebellion of the Alpujarras (1568-71), social interactions in everyday life tended to be considered licit and even welcome: Vitoria held that daily contact with Christians, e.g. sharing meals or accommodation or taking a walk together, would lead to the conversion of infidels such as Saracens (Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 9 no. 5, p. 199). By the 17 century, however, authors like Azor usually recommended Christians avoid such familiarity.
The most original contributions resulted from the attempt to provide models for interaction specifically for Christians and infidels living together in the Americas. As the “obstinate perfidy” (Azor 1613, lib. 8 cap. 22, p. 553) attributed to Jews and Muslims could hardly be attributed to the Amerindians, classical frameworks had to be revised. The inner logic of traditional regulations was reversed: in Europe, the faith of old Christians had to be protected in contacts with Jews and Muslims; in the Americas, the faith of neophytes and the good opinion of the sympathetic infidels needed protection against scandalum caused by the pernicious behaviour of Christian soldiers, encomenderos (encomienda) or immoral clergymen (Acosta 1589, lib. 3 cap. 5, pp. 293 sqq.). These normative aims inspired different projects of concentration and isolation of indigenous infidels in pueblos de indios, reducciones or hospitals to which only missionaries had access. Theological debates with infidels were considered not only licit but mandatory if they were likely to confirm the superiority of the Christian faith (Aragón 1584, q. 10 art. 7, p. 283). Traditionally, they were regarded as indispensable in lands being converted, while their utility seemed dubious where the Christian doctrine had already been consolidated (Aquinas/Cajetan 1895, q. 10 art. 7, pp. 87 sq.). Different Salamancan approaches reflected a growing awareness of the varying views on the rationality and generalisability of Christian doctrine, e.g. acknowledging that some dogmas could only be proved imperfectly or that Catholics, heretics, and Jews at least partially shared a belief in the authority of the Bible or at least parts of it (Vitoria 1932, q. 9 art. 7 no. 3, pp. 189 sq.; Aragón 1584, q. 10 art. 7, p. 284).
2.4.6 Commercial relations between Christians and infidels
Interreligious commercial relations were one of the most regulated fields. Legal and theological norms generally allowed these if they served the interest of Christian realms. The principle of good faith, seen as indispensable for the reliability of contracts and the survival of society, was also mandatory in trade with infidels (Ledesma 1617b, tract. 7, p. 193). Canon law prohibited the sale of potentially harmful goods to hostile infidels, e.g. weapons. The same applied to the sale of products to be used in non-Christian religious rites (Vitoria 1557a, pars 1 no. 14, p. 303). Azpilcueta referred to recent legal provisions, like Julius III’s bull In Coena Domini (1550), which extended the penalty of excommunication to merchants selling arms to hostile pagans, not only to Turks and Saracens (Azpilcueta 1556, cap. 27 no. 61, p. 660). While upholding the medieval framework, Salamancan authors tended towards greater flexibility. They explicitly did not follow the Summa Rosella (1482) and the Summa sylvestrina (Prierias 1518, De Infidelitate, fol. 249v) by refusing to blame merchants for selling goods to infidels that could be employed for multiple purposes, even if they knew that the infidels would use them for their religious rites (Vitoria 1932, q. 10 art. 12 no. 2, p. 202 sq.; Aragón 1584, q. 10 art. 5., p. 273; Ledesma 1617b, tract. 1, p. 23; Suárez 1621, disp. 18 sect. 6 no. 2, p. 296). Jurists complemented canon law and theological authorities with secular law that had regulated commerce with infidels since the Middle Ages, e.g. referring to the Siete Partidas to justify that Christian helmsmen guiding the ships of infidel enemies or merchants selling arms to them were punished by enslavement (Hevia de Bolaños 1629, lib. 1 cap. 12 no. 2, pp. 119 sq.).
2.4.7 Infidels and (Christian) marriage
One of the most discussed topics was interreligious matrimonium. In line with tradition, a marriage between a Christian and a non-baptised partner (even if already a catechumen) was null and void (Suárez 1621, disp. 18 sect. 6 no. 3, p. 296; Azpilcueta 1556, cap. 22 no. 49, p. 413). Marriages between infidels were generally considered legitimate if they did not contravene natural law. These unions, however, did not have the same status as a Christian marriage, the only one considered indissoluble once consummated: when one spouse converted to Christianity, the marriage was not dissolved ipso facto, but divorce became possible if the infidel spouse represented a threat to the converted partner’s faith. The baptised partner could subsequently enter a Christian marriage (Azpilcueta 1556, cap. 22 no. 49, pp. 412 sq.). A controversial question was whether the marriage of two infidels had to be repeated according to the Christian rite (in facie ecclesiae) after the baptism of both spouses. As it was impossible to formally repeat the marriages of all baptised Amerindians, pragmatic solutions were suggested. Vera Cruz held that baptism itself was enough to make the marriage fully sacramental (Vera Cruz 1562, pars 2 art. 36, pp. 452 sq.). He even proposed that marriages between infidels contracted in strict compliance with natural law had a certain sacramental character (Vera Cruz 1562, pars 2 art. 35, p. 451), a claim that led to an intense debate within the School of Salamanca (Azpilcueta 1556, cap. 22 no. 48, 49, pp. 412 sq.; Ledesma 1617a, cap. 24, pp. 522 sqq.).
3 Final remark
3 Final remark
One of the more conspicuous results of the Salamancan debates was that in many political-juridical discussions, the concept of infidelitas no longer played a major role: for example, it could not be used to great effect anymore in subsequent discussions about property or just war. For an overview of research literature (18th century - 2018) discussing infidelitas throughout history, see the bibliography in Meyer (2020).
Bibliography
Bibliography
Sources
Sources
Acosta, José de: De procuranda salute indorum, libri sex. Salmanticae, Apud Guillelmum Foquel, 1588.
Aquinas, Thomas/Thomas de Vio (Cajetan): Opera Omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P. M. edita. Tomus octavus. Secunda secundae Summae Theologiae a quaestione I ad quaestionem LVI ad codices manuscriptos vaticanos exacta cum commentariis Thomae de Vio Caietani. Romae, Ex Typographia Polyglotta S. C. De Propaganda Fide, 1895.
Aquinas, Thomas/ Thomas de Vio (Cajetan): Opera Omnia iussu impensaque Leonis XIII P. M. edita. Tomus nonus. Secunda secundae Summae Theologiae a quaestione LVII ad quaestionem CXXII ad codices manuscriptos vaticanos exacta cum commentariis Thomae de Vio Caietani. Romae, Ex Typographia Polyglotta S. C. De Propaganda Fide, 1897.
Aragón, Pedro de: In Secundam Secundae Diui Thomae Doctoris Angelici commentariorum. Tomus Primus. Salmanticae, Excudebat Ioannes Ferdinandus, 1584.
Augustin of Hippo: In Ioannis Evangelium tractatus CXXIV, in: Augustin of Hippo, Opera Omnia post Lovaniensium Theologorum Recensionem. Tomus Tertius. Pars Altera. Lutetiae Parisiorum, Excudebatur et venit aput J -P. Migne, 1864. pp. 1379-1976.
Avendaño, Diego de Thesaurus Indicus. Tomus Primus. Antverpiae, Apud Iacobvm Mevrsivm, 1668. Online Edition: Avendaño, Thesaurus Indicus, Vol. 1 (2019 [1668]), in: The School of Salamanca. A Digital Collection of Sources https://id.salamanca.school/texts/W0001:vol1.
Azor, Juan: Institutiones morales in quibus universae quaestiones ad conscientiam recte aut prave factorum pertinentes, breviter tractantur. Tomus primus. Coloniae Agrippinae, Apud Antonium Hierat, 1613.
Azpilcueta, Martín de Relectio cap. Ita quorundam de Iudaeis in qua de rebus ad Sarracenos deferri prohibitis et censuris ob id latis non segniter disputatur. Coimbra, Ioannes Barrerius & Ioannes Aluarus, 1550.
Azpilcueta, Martín de Manual de confessores y penitentes. Salamanca, Portonarijs, 1556. Online Edition: Azpilcueta, Manual de Confessores y Penitentes (2019 [1556]), in: The School of Salamanca. A Digital Collection of Sources < https://id.salamanca.school/texts/W0002>.
Báñez, Domingo: De Fide, Spe & Charitate. Salmanticae, Apud S. Stephanum Ordinis Praedicatorum, 1584.
Báñez, Domingo: De Iure & Iustitia Decisiones. Salmanticae, Apud Ioannem & Andream Renaut fratres, 1594. Online Edition: Báñez, De Iure et Iustitia Decisiones (2019 [1594]), in: The School of Salamanca. A Digital Collection of Sources <https://id.salamanca.school/texts/W0003>.
Cano, Melchor Relectio de sacramentis in genere. Salmanticae, Excudebat Andreas de Portonariis, 1550.
Castro, Alfonso de: De iusta haereticorum punitione libri tres. Salmanticae excudebat Ioannes Giunta, 1547.
Covarrubias, Diego de Regulae, Peccatum. De Regulis iuris, libro sexto, Relectio, in: Diego de Covarrubias, Opera omnia tribvs Tomis distincta: quorum hic Primus, Francofurti, Ex Officina Typograpica Nicolai Bassaei, Impensis Sigismundi Feierabend, 1573, 431-530. Online Edition: Covarrubias y Leyva, Opera Omnia, Vol. 1 (2021 [1573]), in: The School of Salamanca. A Digital Collection of Sources <https://id.salamanca.school/texts/W0006:vol1>.
Freitas, Serafim de De iusto imperium lusitanorum asiatico. Vallisoleti, Ex Officina Hyeronimi Morillo, 1625. Online Edition: Freitas, De Iusto Imperio Lusitanorum Asiatico (2020 [1625]), in: The School of Salamanca. A Digital Collection of Sources <https://id.salamanca.school/texts/W0046>.
Hevia de Bolaños, Juan de Segunda parte de la curia filipica: donde se trata breue y compendiosamente de la Mercancia, y Contratacion de tierra y mar. Valladolid, Ivan Lasso de las Peñas, 1629.
Las Casas, Bartolomé de: Entre los remedios […] el octavo. Seville, Cromberger, 1552.
Las Casas, Bartolomé de: Historia de las Indias, Tomo IV. Madrid, Imprenta de Miguel Ginesta 1876.
Las Casas, Bartolomé de: Obras completas. 2. De unico vocationis modo. Madrid, Alianza Editorial, 1990.
Ledesma, Pedro de: Tratado del Sacramento del Matrimonio, in: Pedro de Ledesma, Primera parte de la suma en la qual se cifra, y suma todo lo que toca y pertenece a los sacramentos. Lisboa, Pedro Crasbeeck, 1617a. pp. 415-565.
Ledesma, Pedro De Segunda parte de la Summa, en la cual se cifra y suma toda la moral y casos de conciencia que no pertenecen a los sacramentos. Lisboa, Pedro Crasbeeck, 1617b.
López, Gregorio: Segunda partida. Salamanca, Andrea de Portonaris, 1555.
Molina, Luis De De Iustitia et Iure. Tomus Primus. Conchae, Ex Officina Ioannis Masselini Typographi, 1593.
Paz, Matías de: De dominio Regum Hispaniae super Indos [1512]. Salamanca, San Esteban, 2017.
Peña, Juan de la: De bello contra insulanos. Madrid, CSIC, 1982.
Peña Montenegro, Alonso de la: Itinerario para parochos de indios. Madrid, Por Ioseph Fernandez de Buendia, 1668.
Prierias, Silvester Mazzolino: Summa Summarum que Sylvestrina dicitur. Argentoratum, Joannis Brieninger, 1518.
Solórzano Pereira, Juan de: De Indiarum Iure, sive de Iusta Indiarum Occidentalium Inquisitione, Acquisitione, et Retentiones Tribus Libris Comprehensum [Tomus Primus], Matriti, Ex Typographia Francisci Martinez, 1629. Online Edition: Solórzano Pereira, De Indiarum Iure, Vol. 1 (2021 [1629]), in: The School of Salamanca. A Digital Collection of Sources <https://id.salamanca.school/texts/W0096:vol1>.
Soto, Domingo de: De natura & gratia. Venetijs, Apud Iuntas, 1547.
Soto, Domingo de: De iustitia et iure Libri decem. Salmanticae, Excudebat Andreas à Portonariis, 1553. Online Edition: Soto, De Iustitia et Iure (2020 [1553]), in: The School of Salamanca. A Digital Collection of Sources <https://id.salamanca.school/texts/W0011>.
Soto, Domingo de: Commentariorum In Quartum Sententiarum. Tomus Primus. Salmanticae, Excudebat Andreas à Portonariis, 1557.
Soto, Domingo de Relectio de Dominio, in: Domingo de Soto, Relecciones y opúsculos I. Salamanca, San Esteban, 1995, 79-192.
Suárez, Francisco: Opus de triplici virtute theologica, Fide, Spe, & Charitate. Lugduni, Sumptibus Iacobi Cardon & Petri Cauellar, 1621.
Torres, Luis de: Disputationum in Secundam Secundae D. Thoma, De Fide, Spe, Charitate et Prudentia. Tomus Unus. Lugduni, Sumptibus Horatii Cardon, Lyon, 1617.
Valencia, Gregorio de: Commentariorum Theologicorum. Tomus Tertius: Complectens Omnia Secunda Secundae D. Thomae Theoremata. Lugduni, Sumptibus Horatij Cardon, 1603.
Vázquez, Gabriel: Commentariorum ac disputationum in primam secundae S. Thomae. Tomus Secundus. Ingolstadii, Ex oficcina typographica ederiana, Impensis Ioannis Hertsroy & Andreæ Angermarii, 1606. (Vázquez 1606a).
Vázquez, Gabriel: Commentariorum ac disputationum in primam secundae S. Thomae. Tomus Secundus. Ingolstadii, Ex oficcina typographica ederiana, Impensis Ioannis Hertsroy & Andreæ Angermarii, 1606. (Vázquez 1606b).
Vázquez de Menchaca, Fernando: Controversiarum illustrium aliarumque usu frequentium, libri tres. Francfurti ad Mænum, Sigismundus Feierabend,1572.
Vera Cruz, Alonso de la: Speculum coniugiorum. Salmanticae, Excudebat Andreas à Portonarijs, 1562.
Vera Cruz, Alonso de la: Relectio de dominio infidelium et iusto bello [1555]. México, UNAM, 2007.
Vitoria, Francisco de: Confessionario util y provechoso. Santiago, [s.n.], 1562. Online Edition: Vitoria, Confessionario (2018 [1562]), in: The School of Salamanca. A Digital Collection of Sources < https://id.salamanca.school/texts/W0015>.
Vitoria, Francisco de/Tomás Chaves: Summa sacramentorum ecclesiae. Pinciae, Excudebat Sebastianus Martinez, 1561. Online Edition: Vitoria, Summa Sacramentorum (2018 [1561]), in: The School of Salamanca. A Digital Collection of Sources <https://id.salamanca.school/texts/W0014>.
Vitoria, Francisco de: De Indis insulanis relectio prior, in: Francisco de Vitoria, Relectiones Theologicae XII. Tomus Primus, Lugduni, apud Iacobum Boyerium, 1557. pp. 282-374. Online Edition: Vitoria, Relectiones Theologicae XII, Vol. 1 (2018 [1557]), in: The School of Salamanca. A Digital Collection of Sources <https://id.salamanca.school/texts/W0013:vol1> (Vitoria 1557a).
Vitoria, Francisco de: Relectio De eo, ad quod tenetur homo ueniens ad usum rationis, in: Francisco de Vitoria, Relectionum Theologicarum. Secundus Tomus. Lugduni, apud Iacobum Boyerium, 1557. pp. 319-397. Online Edition: Vitoria, Relectiones Theologicae XII, Vol. 2 (2018 [1557]), in: The School of Salamanca. A Digital Collection of Sources <https://id.salamanca.school/texts/W0013:vol2 > (Vitoria 1557b).
Vitoria, Francisco de et al.: Parecer sobre el bautismo de los indios, in: Francisco de Vitoria, Relectio de Indis o Libertad de los Indios. Madrid, CSIC, 1967, 157-164.
Vitoria, Francisco de:Comentarios a la Secunda Secundae de Santo Tomás. Tomo I: De Fide et Spe (qq. 1-22). Salamanca, Dominicos de las Provincias de España, 1932.
Research Literature
Meyer, Christoph:Non-Christians in the Normative Culture of the Catholic Church between Antiquity and the Modern Era: A Select Bibliography. Max Planck Institute for European Legal History Research Paper Series No. 2020-15: subsidia et instrumenta, [DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3206610].
Data of the School of Salamanca project are licensed (if not stated otherwise) under the terms of a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
.