The first chapters of De rege establishes empire, the rule of kings, and even hereditary monarchy as products of original sin and vehicles of the gradual obliteration of the original freedom and happiness humanity enjoyed before the Fall. Human nature had lost the special gifts of divine grace and divine justice that had perfected it before the Fall, but was still able to partake in a pura natura by means of natural reason.
Shop now and earn 2 points per $1
Echoing John Duns Scotus and Franciscan traditions in scholastic neo—Augustinian theology, the Jesuit states that civil society, political authority, dominium and the laws that regulate society came into existence not as the continuation and extension of a pre—lapsarian law of nature but as acts of positive law through human deliberation and consent. This Augustinian dictat of the all—pervasive effects of original sin ensured that every human thought and every human act was conceived and enacted sub specie lapsus.
The body politic exists in the civitas terrena. It exists as the result and as the fluid, varied expression of original sin in historical time. To assess his position, it is useful to turn to one of the first sentences in the Decretum Gratiani. Civilians and other secular jurists, on the other hand, had taken a defensive position and sought to maintain the universality of Roman law and the autonomy of secular law generally By the end of the sixteenth century, it was clear that the enterprise of the papal lawyers had failed. The Reformation and Counter—Reformation had strengthened the hand of territorial rulers and their jurisconsulti and had reinforced the idea and the practice of secular, especially Roman law as an autonomous expression of natural law and a reflection of the divine will.
Society of Jesus
This notion of a smooth transmission of divine precepts for the benefit of a fallen humanity enabled scholastic theologians and Catholic secular jurisprudents to agree that political order and legitimate monarchical authority were rooted in invariable principles of natural law. It was crucial for shielding legitimate hereditary monarchical power from the ramifications of Calvinist and Catholic resistance theory.
This idea could lead to the further, untenable conclusion that the respublica could depose or change the king if it wished To press his point, he deploys the powerful analogy between a man selling himself into slavery and a free people who transfer their original power to their chosen ruler:.
If a private individual who surrenders himself by sale to be the slave to another person, so that the master—slave relationship that is established has an entirely human origin; but, this contract having been established, the slave must obey his master by divine and natural law Our Jesuit brutally disrupts the notion that a conversation between divine law, natural law and human natural reason could have continued to shape human positive law and human institutions after the Fall.
That conversation ended with the Fall. Legitimate monarchical authority and the laws and institutions created to correct and restrain the monarch are mere expressions of human corruption in secular time. Some of these viri eruditi draw on canon law to claim that princes are like bishops whose authority is greater than that of the cathedral chapter as a corporate body universi in diocesi.
Others, he observes, draw false analogies between the rule of the monarch and the despotic rule of the paterfamilias over his family. The Angevin jurist, disturbed by the disaster of the French Wars of Religion, declared that monarchical sovereignty originated in natural law and that the monarch is morally bound to respect the precepts of natural law, but that legitimate monarchical cannot be challenged on the grounds of natural or customary law. Bodin had sought to soften his stance by distinguishing between monarchie royale as one in which the monarch obeys the laws of nature and the subjects retain their natural liberty and property, and monarchie seigneuriale in which the monarch uses force to make himself master over the persons and properties of his subjects and governs them as the paterfamilias governs his slaves Yet he had also insisted that the difference was merely one between two different modes of governance and did not stem from the nature of absolute sovereignty itself.
He exposes a flaw in the argument which scholastic conceptualization of sovereignty shared with Bodin: the Jesuit points out that if potestas is firmly rooted in the monarch through natural law and if respect for the person and property of subjects and the customs and laws of the land is merely a moral obligation, then monarchy can all—too—easily descend into tyranny. Wittingly or unwittingly, the viri eruditi indulge the blind ambition of princes because they ignore political reality and they lack historical experience. He readily concedes that any respublica can bestow suprema et maxima potestas sine exceptione in their ruler.
Society and government originate and exist as acts of human positive law rather than the result of a process in natural law, and therefore vary greatly from people to people and over the course of the lifespan of any one respublica. Most peoples throughout history, though, Mariana observes, chose to limit and control the power of monarchs by means of laws and institutions.
Those laws themselves, the different processes of making law, and the different institutions established to protect the people and laws of the land, though, are also deeply, invariably affected by original sin. Laws, Mariana declares, are usually inspired by sudden whim and the foolhardiness of the populus and are the product of fortuna more likely than sapientia Mariana does not abandon his Augustinian perspective on humanity at any point in his argument.
Mariana does not turn the notion of monarchical suprema potestas on its head and place it in the corporate body of the people or universitas instead. Mariana has no track with the idea that any part of the secular body politic other than the king, and least of all secular magistrates or the nobility or cortes of Castile, could represent the people as a corporate body and exercise a right of resistance on their behalf.
When it comes to political process, he sourly remarks, historical experience is unambiguous and tells us that:. The ground is the same: the corruption of humanity penetrates every layer of the body politic. It is easier to manage tyrannical corruption if power is vested in an individual than if it is in the hands of the multitudo.
The notion of suprema potestas , Mariana insists, is misleading and destructive in principle. In a passage important for our understanding of the argument of De rege , Mariana turns to his intermittent interlocutor and states:. Quod si pergas curiose rogare, sit ne in arbitrio reipublica plenam sine exceptione potestatem […] Principi dare? Equidem non magnopere contendam, neque in magno ponam discrimine utrovis modo sentiatur: modo illud concedatur imprudenter [my emphasis] facturam rempubliam si dederit: Principem temerarie accepturum, per quod subditi e liberis servi evadant, […] principatus degeneret in tyrannidem A people can offer plena sine exceptione potestatis and a monarch can accept it.
It would be an act of destructive foolhardiness on both sides.
The study of history has brought Mariana to the point in his argument where he point-blank refuses to discuss the origins, scope and exercise of political power and authority in terms of legal doctrine. The incessant, inconclusive debate among jurisprudents and theologians merely serves the ambitions of princes or nobles and fosters political conflict. Mariana can see only one way forward: he changes the terms of the debate about the nature and limits of monarchical power from jurisprudence to political prudence.
If the monarch acts virtuously or is perceived as acting virtuously, Mariana is frequently and noticeably ambiguous about this point 52 , the auctoritas of the ruler and the benevolentia of his subjects towards his person and enterprises will increase in tandem He conceives of auctoritas as power without the coercive trappings of power, and defines benevolentia as the emotion the monarch should seek to foster in his subjects.
Once the people have lost respect for their monarchy, they will no longer obey, support and protect him To show or make a show of respect for the different legal and political traditions of the territories and peoples of the Hispanic monarchy, Mariana suggests, is a matter of self—interest as much as moral obligation. Prudence nurtured on historical experience, Mariana repeatedly reminds the reader, shows that the monarch depends on his subjects as much as they depend on him, if not more. Fiscal, political and military power and even the physical survival of individual rulers and dynasties hinge on the benevolentia of the subjects.
History, not least the history of Castile offers Mariana plenty of examples and archetypes of prudent kingship to bolster his argument. During the siege of Cuenca in , close to victory over the Muslim enemy but short of funds, Alfonso asked the Castilian nobility for a voluntary grant of money. He openly conspired with other nobles to oppose the king, and publicly threatened Alfonso with war. Alfonso realized that he was in danger of being branded a tyrant and do lasting damage to his authority.
He quickly withdrew his appeal. Throughout De rege , he is particularly critical of the Castilian nobility, its propensity to conspire and ruthless pursuit of personal advantage. The rulers of Castile, Mariana observes matter-of-factly, have always found it difficult or near impossible to impose new taxes without the consent of the populus or respublica Alfonso could have charged Lara with treason and escalated the conflict.
Instead, the king chose to humble himself and demonstrate respect for established custom and the concerns of his subjects. The Spartan king Theopompus established the ephorate as a vehicle to gather support and consent from the respublica and by his action ensured the survival of Sparta at a particularly critical juncture in its history Scolded by his wife for diminishing the power of his son and future king, Theopompus merely responded that though he may have left his heir with less power, he certainly left him with power more stable and secure.
ISBN 13: 9780521066754
In , he was murdered by the Dominican monk Jacques Clement as a result. Yet Mariana articulates ideas that were not yet excluded from the mainstream of sixteenth—century theological—juridical debate, certainly not in his native Castile.
His treatise De rege was never put on the Spanish Index. He goes on to say that in extremis , if a prince violently abuses his subjects, if he does not listen to their pleas, if he consistently and continuously acts in a tyrannical way, the natural law of self—preservation could come into force. At this point, a respublica might decide to declare the prince hostis publicus a principle from the ius civilis and any private individual may kill the prince.
He is an example of a ruler who provoked his subjects to the point where they could no longer bear him.
Pin on Religious extras
He went on to promise that his treatise offered the reader rather more than the usual fare. The bandeirantes captured Indians and sold them as slaves to planters in Brazil. The Spanish authorities chose not to defend the settlements, and the Jesuits and their thousands of neophytes thus had little means to protect themselves. Subsequently, the viceroy of Peru conceded the right of bearing arms to the Guarani. Thereafter, well-trained and highly motivated Indian units were able to defend themselves from slavers and other threats. These reductions, which became quite wealthy, exported goods, and supplied Indian armies to the Spanish on many occasion.
The reductions, where the Jesuits created orchestras, musical ensembles , and actors' troupes, and in which virtually all the profits derived from Indian labor were distributed to the labourers, earned praise from some of the leaders of the French enlightenment, who were not predisposed to favour Jesuits. Masters of the country, they rendered happy the people under their sway; they succeeded in subduing them without ever having recourse to force.
Because of their success, the Paraguayan Jesuits gained many enemies, and the Reductions fell prey to changing times. During the s and s, Paraguayan settlers rebelled against Jesuit privileges in the Revolt of the Comuneros and against the government that protected them. Although this revolt failed, it was one of the earliest and most serious risings against Spanish authority in the New World and caused the crown to question its continued support for the Jesuits.
The Jesuit-inspired War of the Seven Reductions —61 increased sentiment in Madrid for suppressing this "empire within an empire. Within a few decades of the expulsion, most of what the Jesuits had accomplished was lost. Today, these ruins of a year experiment have become a tourist attraction.
The Jesuits took part in the foundation of the city of Rio de Janeiro in The success of the Jesuits in converting the indigenous peoples is linked to their efforts to understand the native cultures, especially their languages. The Jesuits often gathered the aborigines in communities the Jesuit Reductions where the natives worked for the community and were evangelised. The Jesuits had frequent disputes with other colonists who wanted to enslave the natives. The action of the Jesuits saved many natives from being enslaved by Europeans, but also disturbed their ancestral way of life and inadvertently helped spread infectious diseases against which the aborigines had no natural defenses.
Slave labor and trade were essential for the economy of Brazil and other American colonies, and the Jesuits usually did not object to the enslavement of African peoples, but rather critiqued the conditions of slavery. Having further considered that the said Company of Jesus can no longer produce those abundant fruits, And to this end a member of the regular clergy, recommendable for his prudence and sound morals, shall be chosen to preside over and govern the said houses; so that the name of the Company shall be, and is, for ever extinguished and suppressed.
The suppression was carried out in all countries except Prussia and Russia, where Catherine the Great had forbidden its promulgation. Because millions of Catholics including many Jesuits lived in the Polish provinces recently annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia , the society was able to maintain its existence and carry on its work all through the period of suppression. Subsequently, Pope Pius VI would grant formal permission for the continuation of the society in Russia and Poland, with Stanislaus Czerniewicz elected superior of the society in Pope Pius VII had resolved during his captivity in France to restore the Jesuits universally, and after his return to Rome he did so with little delay.
- Rhetoric at Rome: A Historical Survey?
- Professional LAMP : Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP Web Development!
- Jesuits and Jurisprudence — Brill.
- God, Sexuality, and the Self: An Essay On the Trinity.
- Society of Jesus - Wikipedia?
- Frommers Munich & the Bavarian Alps.
On 7 August , by the bull Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum , he reversed the suppression of the society, and therewith another Polish Jesuit, Thaddeus Brzozowski , who had been elected to Superior in Russia in , acquired universal jurisdiction. The period following the Restoration of the Jesuits in was marked by tremendous growth, as evidenced by the large number of Jesuit colleges and universities established in the 19th century.
In the United States, 22 of the society's 28 universities were founded or taken over by the Jesuits during this time. It has been suggested that the experience of suppression served to heighten orthodoxy among the Jesuits upon restoration. While this claim is debatable, Jesuits were generally supportive of papal authority within the church, and some members were associated with the Ultramontanist movement and the declaration of Papal Infallibility in In Switzerland, following the defeat of the Sonderbund Catholic defense alliance, the constitution was modified and Jesuits were banished in The ban was lifted on 20 May , when In the Constitution of Norway from , a relic from the earlier anti-Catholic laws of Denmark-Norway , Paragraph 2 originally read: "The Evangelical-Lutheran religion remains the public religion of the State.
Those inhabitants, who confess thereto, are bound to raise their children to the same. Jesuits and monastic orders are not permitted. Jews are still prohibited from entry to the Realm.