Introduction

Friendship, power, law, morality, and charity all operate simultaneously within an intra-ecclesiastical relationship structured by authorities linked to the papacy and subject to the Spanish Crown. The relationship between Manuel Fernández de Santa Cruz and Francisco de Aguiar y Seijas was broader, deeper, and more complex than is often assumed and far removed from the rivalry that Octavio Paz posited between the two prelates.

Francisco de Aguiar was consecrated bishop by Manuel Fernández. Isidro Sariñana, Bishop of Antequera, and Felipe Galindo, Bishop of Guadalajara, attended that ordination; from then on, the four maintained correspondence to support one another in governing their respective dioceses.^[1] As part of that spiritual friendship among prelates, an unpublished letter from the Bishop of Tlaxcala-Puebla to the Metropolitan Archbishop of New Spain is presented here; it confirms a bond that extends beyond courtesy and protocol, revealing both the closeness they maintained and the marked contrast in their styles of episcopal leadership and in how they carried out the duties of their office.

The letter was written on October 14, 1688, in the chancellery of the Episcopal Palace in Puebla de los Ángeles. That year, Francisco de Aguiar y Seijas had concluded his general visitation of the Archdiocese of Mexico.^[2] He promoted the reform of customs through preaching, sacramental life, the teaching of Christian doctrine, the delegation of jurisdiction through the appointment of ecclesiastical judges, and the adoption of conciliatory decisions in favor of the spiritual care of his flock, so as to avoid canonical or civil litigation.^[3] He met personally with Fernández de Santa Cruz in Cuautla de las Amilpas, during one of his pastoral circuits, to carry out joint pastoral governance with mutual concessions of jurisdiction in the service of the cura animarum; as part of this mission, they prayed the rosary together in the evenings before offering a spiritual exhortation to those in attendance.^[4]

Manuel Fernández, the prelate of the oldest diocese in the viceroyalty, was eleven years into his pontificate. At the moment of writing that letter, he had already created an atmosphere of intellectual vitality in the episcopal city, so that various fields of knowledge flourished within the intellectual life of New Spain, while the figure of the bishop became a reference point in the “Orbe indiano”. He wrote with ease and authority and displayed a commanding presence in episcopal governance—a true ecclesiastical prince.^[5]

We present the two bishops from their respective perspectives on relations with female monastic life, through a particular letter, analyzing the theme, its context, the doctrinal bases, the pronouncements made, the bodies of authorities, and a glimpse into the personality of both. We argue that this approach will shed light on the interpretation of relations between the bishops and the nuns, which also bears upon the most celebrated Hieronymite in the “Orbe indiano”.

We organize the text into four parts. First, a presentation of the document used for this essay; next, a synthetic review of what has been written about both bishops regarding their relationship with nuns, as well as the dealings between them; then a reflection on the content of the letter, the motivations, the doctrinal foundations, and the type of relationship that existed between the two prelates. Finally, the transcription of the document with some useful notes.

An Unpublished Missive Between the Most Important Miters of New Spain

It is commonplace that in studying Mother Juana Inés de la Cruz one mentions her connection with both bishops. From the biography by Diego Calleja in 1700 to the contemporary works of Soriano Vallès, have varied across diverse perspectives — among them that of Octavio Paz, who without any basis speculated a supposed — and totally false — enmity between the two bishops and drew the nun into its interpretive framework. Recent documentary discoveries have brought clarity to the figure of Sor Juana and to the personalities of Fernández and Aguiar.

Now, two different perspectives on the role of the prelate with respect to female monasteries are brought into comparison.While the Archbishop of Mexico was a man of vigorous pastoral activity, expressed almost daily, and inclined toward contact with broad sectors of the faithful, the Bishop of Puebla preferred to express his thoughts in writing, to exchange letters — without detriment to his pastoral labor, since he also fulfilled the pastoral visitation. Two styles of being a bishop, which were not antagonistic; on the contrary, they expressed their differences with profound mutual respect, and under their personal style confronted one another beyond the courtly forms of the seventeenth century; a dialogue grounded in fraternity and in a shared awareness of their office is clearly perceptible. One was sparing in written expression, as was the temperament of Don Francisco de Aguiar; and the other, with a very restless pen that sought to maintain exchanges in writing.

Numerous studies address other facets of their activity, and we do not seek to be exhaustive here.^[6] Fernández de Santa Cruz is receiving greater attention from historiography.^[7] He arrived in New Spain in 1673; governed the diocese of Nueva Galicia for three years and from 1677 assumed the episcopal see of Tlaxcala-Puebla.^[8] For the diocese and the culture of Puebla his tenure marked a period of great splendor;^[9] a friend of the Jesuit Francisco de Florencia and of Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, he maintained correspondence with the prelates of Guatemala, Cuba, the Philippines, and Guadalajara, as well as with political authorities of the Hispanic world.^[10] He died in 1699 and his heart was left to the nuns of the Monastery of Santa Mónica, of which he was the founder.^[11]

Regarding the letters Fernández wrote to nuns—beyond those addressed to Sor Juana—Dolores Bravo analyzes from the perspective of rhetoric the symbolic forms in the bishop’s writing, underscoring its paternal tone as a vehicle of moral and spiritual authority over the religious woman addressed, and as a guide in the fulfillment of the Rule and the Constitutions.^[12] She highlights the formality of the epistolary discourse according to the differences or similarities between the interlocutors, drawing on contemporary rhetorical treatises, such as that of Emmanuel Tesauro.^[13] Additionally, the concept of “dialogue in absence” that Bravo employs proves ideal for the document studied here. The rhetoric of the bishop of Puebla is a path to knowing Aguiar’s opinion regarding the visitation of monasteries, as well as the references noted by Joseph de Lezamis in the biography of the archbishop.

Some letters written by Fernández to New Hispanic religious women are published in the biography written by Friar Miguel de Torres: 36 epistles that manifest the pastor’s manner of dealing with his spiritual daughters.^[14] On the correspondence with Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz there is extensive bibliography.^[15] It is within this concert of missives that the text here published is inserted.

The Document

This is a draft minuta of a letter whose first mundum must have been written by the prelate in his own hand; in this copy the hand of his secretary is visible, already clean for the preparation of the original on which the Ordinary of Tlaxcala-Puebla affixed his signature. Composed of eight folios, on cotton paper, in medium folio format, written in italic script in continuous lines (a línea tirada)with iron-gall ink. The handwriting corresponds to the secretary of Bishop Fernández de Santa Cruz. It is held in the Biblioteca Palafoxiana,^[16] complete and in good condition, which facilitates its reading; it forms part of the papers of the episcopal chancellery, bound under the heading of Allegationes iuris variorum, from the manuscript collection of that library. The codex consists of various records and draft documents produced by the prelate’s secretariat, as well as some letters received. In another part of the archive there are remains of what appears to be a copy,^[17] a loose leaf written by the same hand as the complete letter. The type of paper and the external features leave no doubt of its historical and diplomatic authenticity. The internal features reinforce their authenticity: the rhythm, the abbreviations, the style; even the mundum already has the formal structure prepared, with the writing box and the line box laid out in the folios.

Structure of the Letter

This is Manuel Fernández’s reply to the Archbishop of Mexico in response to a verbal communication sent through the Cantor of the cathedral of Puebla, Gaspar Isidro Martínez de Trillanes, a trusted man of the bishop of Puebla. The quaestio in both messages — verbal and written — concerned the licitness, legitimacy, legality, and moral validity of a bishop’s entering female monasteries. Diplomatically, the document consists of the salutatio, which is very simple and emphatic: “Illustrious Lord”; there are no further forms of honorific treatment beyond what is expected from the courtesy formulas of the period, except in the directio, which appears at the foot as was customary in Don Manuel’s correspondence. In the preamble the author states the reasons for composing the missive, its objective and intent. He then addresses the topics of his reply, employing argumentative rhetoric through the use of authorities. He adds a canonical and moral reflection before directing his full argument toward his addressee. He closes with a paragraph that is solemn and friendly at once, in which he reveals his affections for Archbishop Aguiar.

The Bishop of Puebla structured his discourse in four parts; the first three are argumentative in nature and the last has moral reflection as its objective. He deals first with how a prelate should act in the case of the viceroys’ entering monasteries; second, whether it is proper or inappropriate to accompany the viceroys on their visits to the convents of nuns; and finally, the case of Don Manuel himself, rebuked by Aguiar on the same matter. At the end, the bishop of Puebla ultimately questions the intimate reasons of conscience that his brother and superior in the episcopate may hold.

He employs the resource of authorities to buttress his arguments and thereby lend validity to his assertions. The legal authorities are the bases of the Royal Patronage and, in the order of Canon Law, the provisions of the Council of Trent. He draws on important and extensive collection of scriptural, patristic, and theological authorities spanning the full historical development of Christian doctrine up to his own time. Among the authors: Saint Paul; the Fathers of the Church, Saint Ambrose, Saint Athanasius; the medieval theologians, such as Saint Thomas of Canterbury,^[18] and authors of modernity, such as Roberto Bellarmine. By their writings and example of life, several saints serve as authorities in the argumentation: Saint John the Evangelist, Saint Jerome, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Paul the Hermit, and the great bishops of the modern era, such as Saint Thomas of Villanueva and Saint Charles Borromeo.

Various New Hispanic figures appear between the lines, particularly the viceroys as central figures in the disagreement with respect to the positions of the bishops: the Marquis of Villamanrique, the Marquis of Cerralbo, and his contemporaries the Marquis of La Laguna and the Count of Monclova.

Reasons and Obligations in the Episcopal Conscience

In his preamble, Fernández reveals that he had already sent an acknowledgment of the Archbishop’s message, asks that any further communication be made in writing — which is not surprising for the Bishop of Puebla, who always stood out for his intense epistolary activity. He states the question to be resolved, since Aguiar appears to have wished to reprove him for accompanying the viceroys on their visits to monasteries, and he replies to this.^[19]

The first question the letter poses is: how should a bishop act when the viceroys enter convents? Two points underlie the reply. The right of regalía — the regal prerogative enjoyed by monarchs and consequently by the viceroys in their capacity as delegated authority — and the episcopal office, which responds to the bishop’s individuality and to apostolic succession, that is, to traditio. He notes examples of the viceroys’ access to female convents since the sixteenth century, mentioning the Marquis of Villamanrique; he then points to a conflict between Archbishop Manso y Zúñiga and the Marquis of Cerralbo, in which the ecclesiastical tribunal ruled in favor of the viceroy. He points out to Aguiar the inconvenience of a prelate becoming embroiled in disputes with the viceroy — made unnecessary because the rights of the Royal Patronage grant the representative of the monarch the authority to enter convents. While the Bishop of Puebla was reminding Aguiar of this, the Archbishop of Mexico showed in his practice a great freedom of pastoral spirit over his identity as a royal official of the Patronage — as, for example, in his evasion of the request from the Royal Council of the Indies to mandate the obligation of teaching doctrine in Castilian.^[20]

Ecclesiastical Governance and the Royal Patronage

Canonical considerations are indispensable for understanding the behavior of the prelates in their relationship with monasteries. They were conscious not only of their pastoral obligations but also of the precepts regarding their role in the order of monastic life, by virtue of the pontifical delegation and the Royal Patronage.

According to the Corpus Iuris Canonici, the bishop had the right to subject to his spiritual jurisdiction these kinds of “religious houses,” unless they could be shown to be exempt. In the episcopal see of Puebla, almost all the monasteries were of diocesan obedience. In the context of the Indies the precept applied that “…places established by the authority of the bishop, or by some other ecclesiastical authority […] are subject to the bishop’s jurisdiction, who […] may visit and inspect them even if they are exempt, though then he proceeds as delegate of the Apostolic See […] However, the right of visitation or supervision that lay judges may have acquired there cannot be prohibited”.^[21] The regalia of the Spanish Crown over pious places falls under the “lay patronage,” according to the opinion of Juan de Solórzano Pereira.^[22] In this sense, intervention in the monasteries is therefore twofold, being licit, legitimate, and legal. Therefore, in utroque iure, the throne and the altar intervened in the life of monasteries, which had consequences for both and for the relationship between the two spheres of power.

The Council of Trent itself prescribed norms for the enclosure of nuns and the visitation that Ordinaries could make in monasteries.^[23] On the basis of conciliar legislation, Aguiar reproached Fernández for accompanying the viceroys. However, invoking the same council, the bishop of Puebla replies that the Fathers were clear in sanctioning a bishop’s entry into the cloister without just cause, but that a different interpretation is required when there is justification. The subject of enclosure had special relevance in the Hispanic world as a sign of reform, orthodoxy, and of spiritual benefit.^[24] The bishop of Puebla did not hesitate to apply the faculties he held over monasteries; for example, in the election of prioresses, favoring candidates who ensured a strict application of monastic life in conformity with the Rule and a deep and observant spirituality.^[25]

The conscience of a bishop, argues Fernández, obliges his presence at the moment laypeople enter the monastic cloister. He cites widely known cases in which the viceroy’s retinue endangered the spiritual health of the religious women. He reminds the metropolitan of his own remarks about the “liberties” committed by the Marquis of La Laguna in the monasteries of Mexico City. The bishop of Puebla lays out a secure path for his argumentation — the magisterium and example of the bishops themselves — and draws on his extensive knowledge of patristics and Church history to construct a scaffold of exempla and arguments in favor of his position.

The reform of monasteries was a concern that Francisco de Aguiar y Seijas addressed promptly; in his first year after taking possession of the archiepiscopal see he undertook to put an end to lay conversations at the convent grilles.^[26] There is no evidence that he entered the convents to visit them personally. Why? His confessor, Father José de Lezamis, recounts an unpleasant experience that Aguiar underwent as a collegian in his native Galicia, one afternoon at the monastic grilles, which caused him to express his displeasure openly to the point that his companions did not invite him to that kind of outing again.^[27] Beyond that incident, in order to understand his prudence in dealings with women, it must be noted that the archbishop formed his spiritual life according to the maxims of the spirituality of pure love proper to his episcopal model, Saint Thomas of Villanueva. The mysticism of pure love demanded an intense life of prayer, the undervaluing of theological speculation, the exaltation of affectivity and preaching to the detriment of other ministerial duties, as well as the fuga mundi.^[28]

The second question treated by the Bishop of Puebla — a consequence of the first — concerns the licitness of the bishop’s condescending to accompany the viceroy. The reproach of Aguiar y Seijas, as Fernández de Santa Cruz understands it, is not only about permissiveness but would seem to imply complicity in violating the norm meant to safeguard the cloister.

Don Manuel’s reference to the thought and work of Saint Ambrose of Milan is significant for what it means regarding ecclesiastical authority in relation to civil power, where moral principles should prevail — in this case, the obligations of the prelate’s conscience in relation to the viceroy. The regal privilege, in Fernández’s mind, does not mean capitulating to the obligations that conscience imposes on a bishop. For the clerical office, Saint Ambrose notes that each one must know his genius and apply it to what he has chosen for his state of life: “All this the priest must keep in mind and think that what is fitting and appropriate to each one is his office”.^[29]

Through the Christological expression taken from Matthew — “…I have not come to bring peace…” — Fernández qualifies that a pastor’s vision must be the lasting peace that rests on truth, on respect for proper jurisdictions, and on the balance between the powers of the Crown and the Church, grounded in divine law and natural law; otherwise it would be only a superficial peace that would succumb to arrogance. The defense of episcopal authority finds in Saint Thomas of Canterbury one of its most fervent champions; his example was dear to Counter-Reformation Catholics, for it constituted the firmest precedent for the rights of the Church in England and an example in relations between throne and altar, where virtue triumphed through the archbishop’s martyrdom. In the biography of Rosende on Juan de Palafox, the English archbishop is praised as “glorious defender of ecclesiastical immunity,”^[30] and Saint Charles Borromeo — also alluded to in the text of Manuel Fernández — is mentioned immediately afterward.

Fernández takes the example of the Jesuit Roberto Bellarmine, who within the Hispanic world was able to resolve differences with civil authorities and particularly the Viceroy of Naples,^[31] and who contributed to the formulation of political theory on the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, serving as a diplomatic arm of the Papacy,^[32] and set down in writing his ideas on the discussion of primacy between the two powers in a treatise on pontifical authority.

The rigorous asceticism to which Francisco de Aguiar subjected himself — through his adoption of the spirituality of pure love — set him in constant flight from situations he considered worldly and which disturbed his interior, among them the glitter of the capital city, the obligatory courtesies, and the return of visits he received. He rarely paid courtesy calls in the capital of the viceroyalty; upon returning to the episcopal palace from them he would scold everyone, especially his confessor, because the latter had advised him to accept the miter of Mexico.^[33] His mysticism of flight was made evident as well in the withdrawal from himself that he practiced during his pastoral visitation, which allowed him to absent himself from the city and from commitments in which he did not wish to be personally involved, yet which he did not neglect by delegating to his provisor.^[34]

The third point, touching on questions of moral theology, is the “painful and dangerous” cohabitation of the bishop with women. Don Manuel draws on the example of saintly bishops who, far from having avoided communication with women, made a point of it and gave shape to institutions that modeled religious life. His principal resource is holiness, and he takes advantage of his knowledge of his interlocutor’s personality to introduce figures close to the archbishop’s spirituality and, with a certain irony, to mark his distance from the episcopal model that guided each of them; one cannot overlook the expression of Fernández de Santa Cruz: “I omit Saint Francis de Sales, who is the Antipode of Your Lordship” — firmly planting that they walked different paths in their episcopal models, for it is well known that Saint Francis de Sales was Fernández de Santa Cruz’s model. The recourse to holiness also refers to divine sanction, an idea that surfaces in the expression: “…for we know of no canonized saint who ceased to deal with and speak to women when true necessity required it…” He mentions Cardinal Borromeo, considered the epitome of the Tridentine spirit, and then cites the episcopal model of Aguiar, Saint Thomas of Villanueva, “the almsgiver of God”.

In his preaching, Archbishop Aguiar denounced the indecent finery of some women, especially of the “show-women of Mexico City,” while praising indigenous women for dressing modestly in their white shawls.^[35] Such caution responds to his rejection of probabilist moral doctrine, promoted by the Society of Jesus from the late sixteenth century within the de auxiliis dispute. In the mid-seventeenth century the moral systems of tutiorism, probabiliorism, and probabilism were in confrontation.^[36] Aguiar, adhering to tutiorism, therefore almost entirely distanced himself from women, opting for the safest option in cases of doubt with a tendency to restrain human freedom. In Fernández de Santa Cruz a probabiliorist morality is evident, which holds that in cases of moral doubt one should follow the more probable solution — in his letter, this concerns the penalties derived from the episcopal charge. Neither of the two bishops displays a probabilist practice — that is, a lax stance that allowed one to choose any of the probable solutions, even if only one of them were more probable.

The Example of Holiness

The hagiographies of the Milanese archbishop highlight his zeal for the temporal welfare and the eternal life of women. To save their souls, says Luis Muñoz, he founded the monastery of the Crucifixion in Milan and that of Santa Valeria, as well as a house of recollection dedicated to Saint Mary Magdalene, whose inhabitants take no solemn vows but live in cloister. These were visited with relative frequency by the cardinal.^[37] Knowledgeable of the history of the patristic period, Fernández de Santa Cruz does not hesitate to invoke figures from that era. He reinforces his idea that communication with women is necessary, however dangerous it may prove, through compelling examples: the relationship of Saint John Chrysostom with the deaconess Olympia and that of Saint Jerome with the Roman noblewoman Paula.^[38] Even when read with seventeenth-century eyes, for Don Manuel these were edifying and exemplary relationships that showed the possibility and obligation for prelates to accompany the spiritual life of women, and especially the brides of Christ. This conviction of the bishop of Puebla is reflected in the letters he sent to various religious women, including Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz.^[39] Thus the bishop resolves his reply to the archbishop, explaining that such dealings are obligatory for every prelate — inherent to his episcopal office.

The painful episode at the grilles of a Galician monastery, which marked the young Francisco de Aguiar, along with his subsequent adoption of the spirituality of pure love and of a tutiorist moral praxis, led him to make the decision to govern the nuns under his jurisdiction without personally entering the monasteries. But his spiritual life and affective possibilities led him to remain attentive to the spiritual health of some of his brothers in the episcopate. He made a fraternal correction to Don Isidro Sariñana, Bishop of Oaxaca, regarding his fondness for cards, which would diminish his moral authority to correct the clerics of his diocese; Sariñana distanced himself from cards and was grateful to him.

Years before the letter here presented, the same Manuel Fernández had raised questions about the use made of the collection gathered during the administration of the sacrament of Confirmation with regard to that of Francisco de Aguiar, leaving testimony of that episode of the sharing of spiritual goods between bishops.^[40] That episcopal spiritual friendship was expressed by the Bishop of Tlaxcala-Puebla in the condolence letter he sent to Mexico after the death of Aguiar, whom he called “his great friend”.^[41]

In the final section, the bishop of Puebla counsels the Metropolitan Archbishop of New Spain. He reminds him that he must exercise his authority supported by law and by moral theology; that both sexes are sheep to whom spiritual pasture and correction must be provided. Every reform in a monastery can only be accomplished by being personally present in the cloister, to know the laxities and needs of each community. A mistaken scruple of conscience will only end up leading the virgins of the enclosed garden astray and also jeopardizing the conscience of the prelate who does not fully exercise his role. He recommends to his metropolitan that he not give grounds for subjects to think he is renouncing his obligations out of fear of women themselves, when the example of saintly bishops should give him the valor to exercise his episcopal authority to its full extent.

Conclusion

The lines of Manuel Fernández de Santa Cruz represent a challenge and a guide for the reading of relations between the bishops of the seventeenth century, and particularly a reinterpretation of the most important episcopal figures in the final third of that century in the viceroyalty of New Spain. What kind of relationship existed between these men? While it would be somewhat anachronistic to speak of collegiality, a relationship beyond formality is perceptible.

The Bishop of Puebla listens attentively to the message of the Mexican archbishop and, far from replying using the courtly rhetoric of a suffragan toward his metropolitan, takes up his pen and decides to refute Aguiar’s counsel — turning around and giving counsel himself to his superior, while at the same time viewing him as a peer in the episcopate. Santa Cruz knows that prelacy was canonical but also symbolic, since episcopal succession does not derive from metropolitan jurisdiction but from divine right born in apostolic succession. This conviction gives Don Manuel the valor to pronounce teaching to Don Francisco, and conscious of his great intellectual capacity he feels he has the elements to compose a brief letter full of legal (both legalist and canonical) and doctrinal foundations — essentially of moral theology and ecclesiastical discipline — which clearly manifest the conception that the bishop writing from Puebla had of himself, his state, and his obligations.

Manuel knows his metropolitan well — so well that he recalls to him ideas and expressions previously uttered that go beyond the perspective of external forms; he probes into Aguiar’s internal forum to point out that his obligations of conscience as pastor and teacher are greater than his personal and intimate scruples. Because of his clarity regarding the role both play within a Catholic monarchy that prides itself on being the champion of Christian orthodoxy, he reminds his interlocutor that the visitation of female monasteries — and above all when the viceroy comes to them — is a point of canonical and conscientious obligation. For a prelate in his character as “good shepherd,” the spiritual health of the brides of Christ takes precedence over his fears as an individual; and at the same time both are obliged to watch over respect for episcopal jurisdiction that binds them to both authorities — the throne and the altar.

Minute of the Letter Written by Bishop Manuel Fernández de Santa Cruz to Archbishop Francisco de Aguiar y Seijas

* The transcription was made preserving the original orthography; abbreviations have been expanded, which is indicated by italics. When the manuscript presents spaces at the beginning of a paragraph, this has been indicated by an indentation. Notes have been placed at the bottom of the page.

[1r]

+

Most Illustrious Lord

I give thanks a second time to Your Most Illustrious Grace for the advice that Don Gaspar^[42] brought me; if only I might deserve of Your Most Illustrious Grace that whatever direction you might deem it convenient to communicate to me, Your Most Illustrious Grace would write it to me: for I desire to act rightly; and thus I venerate your reasons, as those of so great a Prelate, and as born from the forge of that Heart, burning in desires that we all act in the best manner; and since the design of both is one and the same, let not Your Most Illustrious Grace spare anything else you deem it convenient to correct and advise me, for I shall receive it with the utmost gratitude and esteem.

Don Gaspar told me, on behalf of Your Most Illustrious Grace, how, having read the Council of Trent, I entered with the Viceroys into the Convents that came to Mexico with this example, instructed in this excess? That such attendance was an indecent act of obsequiousness for a bishop; and finally, that it is a hard and dangerous thing to spend an entire afternoon within half a yard of a Vicereine and other women. These are the objections of Your Most Illustrious Grace, which I will endeavor to satisfy with all candor.

[1v]

In the matter (in which it is well felt among bishops) of the Viceroys entering as Patrons into the Convents of Nuns,^[43] it is the regal right so well established, and whose custom founded on this right of Patronage is so ancient that its origin or beginning is unknown, that in so well-received a matter no scruple or doubt ever occurred to me, because I never place it in what my saintly and learned predecessors practiced, but follow them with veneration; and on this point they acted as I do, permitting these entries into the Convents, as likewise have done the Lords Archbishops of Mexico from the time of the Marquis of Villamanrique, and I have certain knowledge,^[44] having been told so by a person of sufficient credibility, that in the time of Lord Archbishop Manso,^[45] who was in dispute with the Marquis of Cerralbo,^[46] his Illustrious Grace wished to obstruct the Marquis’s entry into the Convents of Nuns, and this suit having been pursued in the ecclesiastical Tribunals, the Marquis won and had this point established by final judgment; let Your Most Illustrious Grace see, given such deep roots of this matter, what a novelty it would have been if I had disputed it

[2r]

with the incoming Viceroy, and what a seedbed of suits would have arisen from my resistance — and all the more so when in the end the goal would not be achieved, and the only certain outcome would be to reap the sharp pricks of ill-feeling with someone on whom the bishops so greatly depend through the Patronage; and from this Your Most Illustrious Grace will recognize that Puebla could not have set an example for the excess that exists in Mexico in this matter.

Your Most Illustrious Grace finds it strange that, since the Viceroys enter the Convents, I should accompany them, there being so many penalties imposed by the Council on bishops who enter the cloister. I assure Your Most Illustrious Grace that I never believed Your Most Illustrious Grace could find this action strange, but rather that it would seem to you I was fulfilling my obligation. The Council of Trent imposes the express penalties on the bishop who enters the cloister without just cause, but not when such a cause exists. And that accompanying the Viceroys is not only a just but also a necessary cause, I hold this to be so certain that in its omission it seems to me I would be sinning gravely; for even with my presence I can barely suffice to prevent some of His Excellency’s servants from entering, so that were I to withdraw, the cloister would be left exposed to the freedom of whomever the Viceroy might choose for his entry — as I have learned has happened in Mexico, told to me by one of those who entered. For how could a bishop remain quietly in his house, knowing that there was a man among the Religious, and that during the time of walking

[2v]

the Convent, could he retire with any of them?                                                                                           

One of the children that the Lord of Monclova^[47] brought did not wish to be except in the arms of a Page, and so it was necessary for the latter to enter so that the child would not be left outside; this Page, having drawn near and sought to advance toward a young woman, it was necessary to take him by the arm and withdraw the Woman; now if the bishop had stayed at home, how was he to prevent this and similar excesses? How could he excuse himself from guilt, exposing these sacred sheep to the teeth of wolves? Would it have been good, in order not to mortify himself for one afternoon, not to prevent so many sins as might be occasioned by his withdrawal? There can be no greater affliction for a bishop laden with gray hairs and some disillusionment, nor a more painful afternoon, than to be in a Convent of Nuns among two hundred Women; but there is no afternoon so in the service of God, and so well employed in the obligation of a Prelate, as in restraining with his presence the eyes of the Religious and of those who enter from outside; and it suffices that only the Lord Viceroy enters, for it to be necessary and a matter of care for the bishops to leave their Prayer and leave God in their inner chamber, in order to watch over God, over his honor, and over his Brides in the Convents — for already a Cherub, without

[3r]

apparently leaving God, left God seemingly, in order to serve God in the guarding of Paradise.   

The Council of Trent commands that when the bishop enters the Cloister, he should be accompanied by grave ecclesiastics; how much more reason is there then for a Viceroy to enter accompanied by a bishop? Let Your Most Illustrious Grace recall what you told me about the liberties that the Lord Marquis of La Laguna^[48] committed in the Convents, and you will recognize that had Your Most Illustrious Grace entered with His Excellency, these and the improprieties of the Nuns would have been curtailed, for the Marquis was also a man, and the young Religious Women who attended him were no less Women.

The second objection of Your Most Illustrious Grace is that accompanying the Viceroy seems an excessive and indecent act of obsequiousness for a bishop toward a Viceroy; to which I respond that accompanying the Viceroy is not to do him obsequiousness, but to guard him and to guard the Religious, and to defend that Paradise^[49] so that with the power which the Viceroys believe they possess, men may not enter who might profane it, for this is the intent of the Council, which orders the bishop’s entry for the formal protection of the cloister of the Convents, which the Council of Trent so greatly charges to the bishop; but when

[3v]

it is obsequiousness to the Viceroy; it is not only decent but fruitful and necessary for the bishops of the Indies. The Tridentine Council condemns the vile, abject, and servile obsequiousnesses done to Princes by bishops who, led by their ambition, stooped to serving them in order to improve their fortune; such acts of obsequiousness are indecent for bishops and the Council justly condemns them; but it cannot condemn the courtesies of civility, for these derive from divine right, being a ray of Charity, and Saint Paul commends them: honore se invicem praevementes.^[50] And Saint Ambrose, in one of the books of de officiis, says that the good bishop, upon entering his Diocese, must spend some months in making courtesies to his subjects, in order to win them first with this and with graciousness;^[51] for how can it be an indecent act of obsequiousness to extend courtesy toward a foreign Viceroy, a guest who finds himself in his City and in a Convent which, as subject to him, is the bishop’s own house? When it is necessary to win his favor so as not to have him as an adversary in matters of Jurisdiction. In courtesies, no excess is a vice, for to give someone all that is owed to him is Justice, and so courtesy is to give everyone more than their due, without the excess being indecent — rather it places in greater esteem the one who commits it.

[4r]

The sole aim of bishops in these remote parts of the Indies is to seek peace without violating the jurisdiction; for while the latter suffers diminishment, the peace is false and such as God condemns, for it is the peace of the World, of which Christ says: Non veni mittere pacem.^[52] This is the peace abhorred by Saint Athanasius and Saint Thomas of Canterbury,^[53] for whom it would have been easy to preserve peace and tranquility by leaving enslaved and in servitude the privileges of the Church; the Prelate who is deaf to one blow after another from the acts of Laypeople, by which the sacred tunic of Jurisdiction is torn, does not depend on or need any Viceroy or Ministers, and can have no motive to disturb the peace except from a bellicose nature; what is required — great skill in the bishop, not easily attained — is to preserve the Jurisdiction intact and maintain good correspondence with the superior government, and this cannot be achieved except by extending courtesies and even one’s hands to gifts.

The Venerable Cardinal Bellarmine judged good correspondence with the

[4v]

Judges to be so necessary for bishops in order to correct and restrain their subjects and reform their bishoprics, that this holy man sought to cultivate them not only with courtesies but with gifts — any of these expenditures being profitable for the service of God, for the reform of customs, for the benefit and saving of the funds of the poor, and for the service of God; because in the union of the bishop with the Ministers, infinite sins of hatred, murmuring, and scandals are prevented, sins that are occasioned by lawsuits, as experience attests.^[54] For the reform of customs, because: tempore diluviis omnia stercora natant,^[55] ailments resist remedies; the lowliest subject, backed by the Judges, stands up to the Prelate, and vices dominate and prevail and triumph over Justice. It is also useful for the poor, for it spares them whatever might be spent in a lawsuit, which infinitely exceeds whatever gift employed in preserving union and good correspondence with Viceroy and Ministers could amount to.

The third objection that Your Most Illustrious Grace makes

[5r]

regarding my entry with the Lord Viceroy is spending an entire afternoon so close to women — a thing that is painful and dangerous; to which I respond that it is true that it is a very painful thing, but in a bishop laden with years and obligations I do not consider it dangerous; I do not recall, by the mercy of God, that these entries have given me cause for scruples about which I might confess. I desire to speak on this point with clarity and sincerity to Your Most Illustrious Grace.

Nothing is more dangerous than dealings with women — not only for vigorous youth, but for the coldest ashes of old age; not only for the frivolous, but also for the disillusioned and for the tallest cedars of Holiness; but when the dangers are annexed to the employment in which God has placed us, they are not dangers but security; voluntary dealings with women are and have been the ruin of the greatest purity, but when these are required by the obligation of the post, it is security, since it falls upon God — who made solid the waters upon which Saint Peter walked to fulfill the precept of Christ — to give to the fragility of our nature the grace that it should not break from proximity to women, restraining the fire of Babylon so that it not only does not burn, but does not even afflict or disturb those who, in fulfillment of their obligation, enter through the

[5v]

furnace and its fire.                                                                                                              

Nothing seems to me so holy in Your Most Illustrious Grace as your great caution, fear, and distrust of yourself, and your withdrawal from Women; but it has never seemed good to me that Your Most Illustrious Grace should cry out at all hours and publish this fear, in such a way that all should know it, for the ignorance of laypeople does not fix its gaze on victories but on Battles, and these, though in the eyes of God so meritorious, in the reputation of men they defile; and our Dignity’s state is so angelic and lofty that, as another Olympus, they should think that these impure vapors cannot reach it; and it is somewhat indecent that there should commonly be talk in Mexico and in Puebla about Your Most Illustrious Grace suffering such temptations, so that Your Most Illustrious Grace’s distrust be regarded not as holy precaution, as I understand it, but as necessary and as a remedy.

In a private and particular person, there is no vicious extreme in withdrawing from and fleeing women; but in a Prelate it is vicious, because it opposes the exercise of the new virtues necessary for the employment of a bishop. He must be Father and shepherd, pasturing his sheep — not only by sustaining them with alms (which virtue is the

[6r]

best a bishop has, though not giving it is a greater vice), but by consoling the afflicted and helping them in their falls with his direction and applying appropriate remedies; and this cannot be achieved without speaking to, dealing with, and communicating with women. How is a married woman to be remedied — who in her husband’s absence has become pregnant and awaits him — if she does not speak to her Prelate? And how would one with an obligation disclose this distress to another so that he might tell the Bishop? The maiden who, deceived, has lost her honor: how will she avail herself of her Prelate to repair this damage, if he makes himself unapproachable? The one who is in a proximate occasion with a relative or brother, and has no other remedy — desiring to leave her state — than the powerful arm of a bishop: how will she achieve this end, if he is inaccessible? All these sins, which are not prevented because the bishop looks only to himself and for the vain fear of becoming defiled, weigh upon his conscience, and must be imputed in the strict accounting that awaits us, without distrust of oneself serving as an excuse; for this distrust is not a virtue separated from the trust that one must place in God, who offers by justice His grace for all the risks that are mutually intertwined and inseparable from the vocation and the post.

[6v]

I know well that in Your Most Illustrious Grace this distrust is born of humility, but I hold it to be an extreme, because the vices of Your Most Illustrious Grace are only extremes of virtues; I say it is an extreme because you distrust yourself more than others, and less so those who hold the rank of bishop. I have learned that when it was said to Your Most Illustrious Grace that you should enter to inspect the house of the Carmelite nuns — which was threatening to collapse — there was no reason that could induce Your Most Illustrious Grace to enter, and that Your Most Illustrious Grace sent your Secretary to inspect it; so that, having held it safe for a young priest to enter the cloister, it was thus held to be dangerous for Your Lordship; likewise we are both equally obligated to remove from men, our subjects, and from women, the risks of sinning — for who does not see that, even if this priest, in whom Your Most Illustrious Grace had placed confidence, were secure, the young nuns would run so much greater a risk of being disturbed upon seeing in their Cloister a young man rather than an Archbishop, whose presence and modesty would suffice to restrain the greatest immodesty and forwardness; so how can the distrust not be excessive of one who, trusting so much in Youth, so fears and dreads himself? And where can there be charity in the one who, to avoid lightly harming

[7r]

himself, would expose others to the risk of their life? Both sexes are our sheep; that of women is more fragile. If Your Most Illustrious Grace fears so great a danger in seeing some Carmelites, why do you not seek to prevent them from looking closely at a young priest of few years?

This extreme of withdrawal from women entirely prevents the gentle means that can be applied to reform the Convents, because the most efficacious is to make, at the elections of Prioresses, the visitation of the cloister and of the Religious — the Prelate speaking with each Religious in turn; by this means the laxities are known and touched upon both in general and in particular; of the Community and of the Nuns, the outside communications become known, as well as the devotions of some with others — for these interior ones are even more unseemly than those from outside, and very frequent in the Indies; none of this is achieved if Your Most Illustrious Grace withdraws from these visits. I would not omit a single one without the gravest scruple, for I owe to these the reform that I experience in my own, seeing the portresses as closed as in Spain, the constitutions in observance — which before were barely even known — mental prayer in Community, morning

[7v]

and afternoon, frequent reception of the Sacraments, and the mortifications corresponding to these exercises; so how can it be good to flee from dealings that occasion so many goods?

This doctrine is established by the universal practice of saintly bishops, for we know of no canonized saint who ceased to deal with and speak to women, when true necessity required it and whenever these needed their Prelate. I omit Saint Francis de Sales, who is the Antipode of Your Most Illustrious Grace, but Saint Charles Borromeo,^[56] Saint Thomas of Villanueva, and (what is more) Saint John Chrysostom — who was so rigorous that, in order not to communicate with women or look after widows, he fled as much as he could from being a bishop; but when he was, he dealt with them, spoke to them, communicated with them, and wrote letters to women,^[57] as did Saint Jerome, who was so cautious and so austerely spoke of Virginity and chastity, and yet dealt with them in writing and in person,^[58] and Saint Paul behaved thus likewise with Saint Thecla,^[59] and Saint John the Evangelist in his Letters sent greetings to women; so how can it fail to be the obligation of the bishop what

[8r]

these most holy bishops practiced?

With all Christian sincerity, and with the confidence that I profess toward Your Most Illustrious Grace, I have replied to the objections that Your Most Illustrious Grace presents to me, and I would desire that in this matter in which we are the two opposite extremes, we should humbly submit our judgments to those of learned and spiritual persons, the most austere and rigorous, to whose verdict I forthwith offer to submit myself; and in the meantime I observe and practice that until nine in the morning no women come to see me, nor in the afternoon until three o’clock, but for all the rest of the time they enter freely, as many as wish to speak with me, with the curtain of the chamber open and in view of the page and of those in the anteroom; may His Majesty give us light to carry this dangerous employment, and let Your Most Illustrious Grace share with me your own, entrusting to a safe letter the news you judge worthy of advising me — for these are more reliable than what is entrusted to a third party, for the risk that it may not be kept in silence and that others may know before I do the objections of Your Most Illustrious Grace, whose life may God keep in His grace. Ángeles, October 14, 1688. Most Illustrious Lord Doctor Don Francisco de Aguiar y Seijas, Archbishop of Mexico.

Authors:

Dra. Rocío Silva Herrera
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Universidad La Salle México

Dr. Jesús Joel Peña Espinosa
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia