Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:54:49.456Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The King's Surprise: The Mission Methodology of Toribio de Mogrovejo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Mary M. McGlone CSJ
Mary M. McGlone CSJ*
Affiliation:
Avila College, Kansas City, Missouri
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1579 King Philip II selected the presiding inquisitor of Granada as the second archbishop of Los Reyes, or Lima. Countering precedents which favored the episcopal nomination of priests who had spent time in the New World, Philip chose Toribio de Mogrovejo, a man totally lacking in both clerical and missionary experience, to preside over the most important episcopal see in the Southern hemisphere. That curious choice revealed Philip's strategy for the future of the church of the Viceroyalty of Peru. Philip presumably named the young jurist to implement a rigorous organization of the Church in the territory that retiring Viceroy Francisco de Toledo had only recently brought under effective civil governance. This article will demonstrate that, contrary to Philip's expectations, Toribio de Mogrovejo not only failed toinstill a Toledan spirit in the Church, but that he actively developed a mission methodology in accord with that promoted by Bartolomé de Las Casas and his followers in Peru.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , January 1993 , pp. 65 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Junta Magna of 1568 had suggested that prelates for the Indies should be chosen from among those priests or religious who had resided in the New World. See Valencia, Vicente Rodriguez, Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo, organizador y apóstol de Sur América (Madrid: Instituto Toribio de Mogrovejo, 1957), 1, p. 115.Google Scholar

2 Viceroy Toledo, who retired in 1580, had established a strong civil structure in the Viceroyalty of Peru. Previous to Toledo’s rule, Peru had endured nearly thirty-five years of rebellion and anarchy as a result of the conflicting interests of conquistadors, colonists, and generally ineffective government officials.

3 Both cities were vibrant educational centers, frequented by major theorists in the debates about Spain’s conquest of the Indies. See Valencia, Rodriguez, Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo, 1, pp. 64–65;Google Scholar and Parish, Helen Rand, ed., Bartolomé de Las Casas, The Only Way (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1992), pp. 47–55.Google Scholar

4 For a description of Toribio’s career in the Inquisition, see Valencia, Rodriguez, Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo, 1, pp. 114–25.Google Scholar

5 Ibid., p. 128.

6 Quoted from the testimony given in Toribio’s beatification process by his niece, María de Guzman y Quiñones. See Segundo Cuaderno original de autos e informaciones en la causa del venerable Siervo de Dios, Don Toribio Alfonso Mogrovejo … (Archivo arquidiocesano de Lima), f. 77–77v.

7 Philip II assured an effective system of checks and balances by naming officials who promoted conflicting policies in the New World. Enriquez had often been at odds with the royalist Archbishop Moya de Contreras in Mexico, and there is no reason to suppose that Philip expected him to be more in accord with the ex-inquisitor Archbishop Mogrovejo in Lima. See Poole, Stafford, Pedro Moya de Contreras: Catholic Reform and Power in New Spain, 1571–1591 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987);Google Scholar and Poole, Stafford, “The Last Years of Archbishop Pedro Moya de Contreras, 1586–1591,” the Americas, 67:1 (July 1990), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Royal order from Philip II, September 19, 1580. Chavez, Emilio Lisson, La Iglesia de España en el Perú: Colección de documentos para la historia de la Iglesia en el Perú que se encuentren en el Archivo General de Indias, 3, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

9 The idea of the three schools is most clearly explained by Phelan, John Leddy, The Millennial Kingdom of the Franciscans in the New World (rev. 2nd ed.; Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970).Google Scholar Hanke, Lewis, All Mankind is One (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1974);Google Scholar and Gutierrez, Gustavo, Dios o el Oro en las indias: siglo xvi (Lima: Centro de Estudios y Publicaciones, 1989),Google Scholar present alternatives to Phelan’s categories. This study will distinguish the schools using Gutierrez’s insights to modify Phelan’s original proposition.

10 Gutierrez identifies García de Toledo as the author of the treatise, Dios o el Oro, p. 56 n.2.

11 Sabine MacCormack explains that linking Andean practices with the demons legitimized religious coercion in Religion in the Andes (Princeton, 1991), p. 452. Also see Duviols, Pierre, Cultura Andina y Represión (Cuzco, 1986), p. 28.Google Scholar

12 On Sepúlveda’s theory, see Hanke, , All Mankind Is One, p. 75;Google Scholar and Prien, Hans Jürgen, Historia del Cristianismo en América Latina (Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 1985), pp. 163, 202.Google Scholar Hanke describes Viceroy Toledo’s efforts to eradicate Las Casas’s influence from Peru in The Spanish Struggle For Justice In the Conquest of America (Philadelphia, 1949), pp. 162–72.

13 See Maccormack, , Religion, pp. 264–65.Google Scholar

14 See Lopetegui, León, El Padre José de Acosta, S.I. y Las Misiones (Madrid, 1962), pp. 249–50, 255, 263.Google Scholar

15 Acosta took a cautious approach to criticizing civil authorities for reasons that were probably as practical as they were philosophical. While Acosta served as the Jesuit provincial in Peru, Toledo closed a number of Jesuit schools, including one in Potosí, in which Toledo’s orders were carried out by his lieutenant Martin García de Loyola, a nephew of St. Ignatius of Loyola. See Lopetegui, , El padre José, p. 545.Google Scholar

16 Toledo banned Las Casas’s books in the Viceroyalty and attempted to seize and burn all that were already in the possession of residents of Peru. See Gutierrez, , Dios o el Oro, pp. 76–77 Google Scholar; and Fernández, lsacio Pérez, Bartolomé de Las Casas En El Perú (Cuzco: Centro de Estudios Rurales, Bartolomé de las Casas, 1986), p. 478.Google Scholar For Toledo’s enmity with the Las Casas school, see Pérez Fernández, Ibid., passim.

17 Ibid., pp. 227–29.

18 See Egaña, , Historia de la Iglesia en La América Española: Hemisferio Sur (Madrid: BAC, 1966), pp. 362–68Google Scholar; and Fernández, Pérez, Bartolomé de las Casas, p. 478.Google Scholar

19 Fernández, Pérez, Bartolomé de las Casas, p. 478.Google Scholar

20 Pérez Fernández demonstrates that Santo Tomás’s extensive correspondence with Las Casas was the principal source of Las Casas’s information about Peru. Ibid., p. 32.

21 Maccormack, Sabine, “The Heart Has Its Reasons: Predicaments of Missionary Christianity in Early Colonial Peru,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 65:3, 443–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar MaCormack states that after 1580 the missionaries “clearly perceived task was to preserve what had been gained for the crown of Spain and for themselves. ” That position assumes that Toledo’s attempts to purge Peru of Las Casas’s influence succeeded fully by the end of his viceregal term, an assumption that is countered by Pérez Fernández who provides documentary evidence for continued action by proponents of the Las Casas approach through 1585. See Fernández, Pérez, Bartolomé de las Casas, pp. 557–76.Google Scholar

22 Valencia, Rodriguez, Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo, 1, p. 184.Google Scholar

23 Letter from Toribio to Philip II, April 27, 1584. Chavez, Lisson, La Iglesia de España en el Peru, 3, p. 286.Google Scholar

24 The synod, the first of thirteen that Toribio celebrated, was to treat matters pertaining to the Archdiocese of Lima. A Provincial Council such as Lima III dealt with church organization throughout the entire Viceroyalty of Peru.

25 Toribio to Philip II, April 27, 1584. Chavez, Lisson, La Iglesia de España en el Peru, 3, p. 286.Google Scholar

26 The order to administer Extreme Unction to moribund natives was most likely directed to priests who refused to attend the dying. The legislation regarding the Eucharist tempered previous legislation which required that the bishop or his representative examine candidates before the were allowed to receive communion. See Sínodos Diocesanos de Santo Toribio, 1582–1604 (Cuernavaca, Mexico: Centro Intercultural de Documentación, 1970), pp. 2–14; and Bartra, Enrique, ed., Tercer Concilio Limense, 1582–1583, pp. 20–40 (Lima: Facultad Pontificia y Civil, 1982).Google Scholar

27 Toribio’s reform of the clergy clearly flows from the mandates of the Council of Trent, but the legislation of Lima III and the archdiocesan synods Toribio held between 1582 and 1604 apply those reforms specifically to the problems encountered in Peru.

28 See Mena, Valentin Trujillo, La Legislación Eclesiástica En El Virreynato Del Perú Durante el Siglo XVI (Lima: Editorial Lumen, S.A., 1981), p. 116.Google Scholar

29 Although the documents of the Council were very well constructed, the meetings that produced them were marked by bitter dissension and frequent chaos. The Council opened on August 15, 1582 and in February 1583, Viceroy Enriquez wrote to the king saying “I have no good hopes that anything of importance will come of it. I have just resolved myself to say that it is not to deal with reformation, but rather with excesses regarding greed, and what is worse, the greed of prelates …” See Levellier, Roberto, Organización de la Iglesia y Ordenes religiosas en el Virreinato del Perú en el siglo XVI, 2 vols. (Madrid: Rivadeniera, 1919–1920), pp. 160–63.)Google Scholar

By Easter of 1583, the participating bishops had mutually excommunicated and anathematized one another and only arrived at peace in June of that year when they agreed to remit their disagreements to Rome. While the bishops feuded, theologians worked on the Council documents, and by October 1583 the Council concluded its work and published the last of its decrees. See Ugarte, Ruben Vargas, Historia de la Iglesia en el Perú (Lima: Imprenta Santa María, 1953), 2, pp. 66–67.Google Scholar

30 From the Relación or report on the Council proceedings, see Bartra, , Tercer Concilio Límense, p. 50.Google Scholar

31 Sixteenth-century civil legislation in the Indies recognized the subordination of the native people and legislated differently for the “Republic of Indios” and “Republic of Spaniards.” In 1567, the Second Council of Lima had recognized that division by promulgating a different legislative corpus for each of the two groups. See Guillen, Edmundo Guillen, “La Republica de Indios,” in La Historia del Perú (Lima: Editorial Juan Mejia Baca, 1981), p. 272 Google Scholar; and Bartra, , Tercer Concilio Límense, pp. 136–78.Google Scholar

32 Second Action, decree 32. Bartra, , Tercer Concilio Limense, p. 75.Google Scholar

33 Lima III ratified the synod of 1582 regarding the Eucharist and Extreme Unction. However, the Council did not change Lima II’s stipulation that for the time being no native be admitted to Holy Orders. Ibid., p. 25.

34 Fourth Action, decree 9. Ibid., p. 114.

35 Fourth Action, decree 7. Ibid., p. 113.

36 Fourth Action, decree 8. Ibid., pp. 113–114.

37 See Parish, , The Only Way, p. 151.Google Scholar

38 Third Action, decree 4. Bartra, , Tercer Concilio Limense, p. 87.Google Scholar Pedro de Leturia attributes this statement to Toribio. See Relaciones entre la Santa Sede e Hispanoamérica, I: Epoca del Real Patronato: 1493–1800 (Caracas: Sociedad Bolivariana de Venezuela, 1959), pp. 316–17.

39 Third Action, decree 11. Bartra, , Tercer Concilio Limense, p. 92.Google Scholar

40 The emphasis on the freedom of the native people and their consequent status as vassals of the King echoes Las Casas’s argument that Spain’s rightful dominion in the Indies was dependent on the free consent of the people. See Parish, , The Only Way, pp. 52–53.Google Scholar

41 MacCormack states: “Most government officials regarded the reducciones as a necessity because they were the means of integrating the Indians into a non-Andean government and a non-Andean structure of landholding and taxation, which were all superimposed, along with Christianity, on what endured of preconquest religion and economic and social organization.” Maccormack, , “The Heart Has Its Reasons,” p. 453 Google Scholar

42 In 1588 Viceroy Fernando de Torres wrote to the King complaining about Toribio’s long absences from Lima, and in 1590 his successor Viceroy Hurtado de Mendoza repeated the same complaint, adding:

We find ourselves very calm in his absence, [although] he and his companions are going to the towns of the indios, sharing their poor food and sticking their noses into what pertains to the Royal Patronage . … He intervenes in everything: hospitals, the construction of churches and other things that pertain to Royal authority. He seems to be incapable of the responsibility he has received. It would seem a good idea that your majesty call for him to appear before you and send a coadjutor who would be able to put things right in regard to the many complaints we have made about him.

See the Pastells Collection, Documents related to the Viceroyalty of Peru Through 1699, Jesuítica Collection [microfilm], The Vatican Film Library, St. Louis University, IX, pp. 537–52; and II, pp. 82–83.

43 Memorial from Toribio to Philip II, April 2, 1585. Chavez, Lisson, La Iglesia de España en el Perú, 3, pp. 334–36.Google Scholar

44 According to Las Casas, the preacher of the Gospel first had to live the message he preached and do so in such a way that the people would sense that he was not seeking their wealth, but rather their total well-being. If the Gospel was not well understood, Las Casas blamed the messenger rather than the audience. Acosta interpreted the situation from the opposite perspective. According to his theory, the poor aptitude of the Andean people was responsible for poor understanding or inadequate response to the preaching of the faith. See Parish, , The Only Way, pp. 103–12Google Scholar; and Maccormack, , Religion, pp. 266–67.Google Scholar

45 Letter from Toribio to Philip II, April 4, 1585. Chavez, Lisson, La Iglesia de España en el Perú, 3, pp. 334–36.Google Scholar

46 See Maccormack, , Religion, p. 269.Google Scholar

47 Before Torìbìo’s epìscopacy there had been campaigns for the extirpation of ìdolatry throughout Peru. Those campaigns were resumed under his successor, Archbishop Lobo Guerrero. Far from seeing Andean customs as demonic, Toribio was accused of being blind to the idolatry of the people. See Ugarte, Vargas, Historia de la Iglesia en el Perú, 2, pp. 305–317.Google Scholar

48 For Las Casas’s interpretation of the satànic inspiration of those who harmed the native people, see Parish, , The Only Way, p. 143.Google Scholar

49 The incident which underlay the letter was a report in the Council of the Indies that Toribio had disregarded the dictates of Royal Patronage and made appeals about ecclesiastical matters directly to Rome. His diplomatic response was that he did only what the Council of Trent demanded. See Irigoyen, García, Santo Toribio, 2, pp. 152–77Google Scholar; and Ugarte, Vargas, Historia de la Iglesia en el Perú, 2, pp. 289–93.Google Scholar

50 Toribio to Philip II, March 10, 1594. Levellier, , Organización de la Iglesia, p. 584.Google Scholar

51 Primer Cuaderno original de autos e informaciones en la causa de … Don Toribio Alfonso Mogrovejo, 1658 (Archivo de la Arquidiocesis de Lima), f. 343.

52 Segundo Cuaderno original de autos e informaciones en la causa …, 1658 (Archivo de la Arquidiocesis de Lima), f. 13–14.

53 From the beginning, the Jesuit superiors were reluctant to accept ministry in the reduction. Francis Borgia, the Superior General, wrote the Peru superior advising against it and each successive superior general questioned whether parish work was an appropriate ministry for the Society of Jesus. For examples of the correspondence, see de Egaña, Antonio, Monumenta Perúana (Rome: Apud Monumenta Historica Soc. Iesu, 1966), 1, pp. 396, 500Google Scholar; II, p. 149; III, pp. 376, 394.

54 See Zimmerman, Arthur Franklin, Francisco de Toledo, Fifth Viceroy of Perú: 1569–1581 (Caldwell, ID: Caxton Printers, 1938), pp. 79–80.Google Scholar

55 See the testimony of Don Alonso Niño de Guzman, beatification testimonies, Segundo Cuaderno, f. 63v.

56 More detail about this incident may be found in Valencia, Rodriguez, Sanio Toribio de Mogrovejo, 2, pp. 285–332 Google Scholar; and Irigoyen, Carlos García, Santo Toribio, 1, pp. 90–101, 363–69Google Scholar; and II, pp. 178–200.

57 Toribio to Philip II, March 23, 1591, Chavez, Lisson, La Iglesia de España en el Perú, 3, pp. 580–90.Google Scholar

58 The problem of El Cercado was exacerbated because one of the Jesuits there was the brother of the reigning Viceroy, Hurtado de Mendoza. The conflict involved matters of church and state, conflict between religious and secular clerics as well as defense of the autonomy of the native people.

59 Toribio to Philip II, February 25, 1583. Chavez, Lisson, La Iglesia de España en el Perú, 3, pp. 36–38.Google Scholar

60 Letter from Toribio to Philip II, March 23, 1591. Ibid., Ill, pp. 581–85.