The right of the officials of the civil government to interfere in questions of patronage was seldom seriously questioned by the churchmen, although there were some notable instances in which religious authorities objected to this exercise of power. Bishop Salazar, in his opposition to the plan of Fray Alonso Sánchez at the court of Madrid (1593–1595), expressed his disapproval of the interference of the governor and audiencia in questions of patronage. His opposition is further attested by several of his letters and declarations enunciated previous to that time.[6] He admitted that the civil government, by virtue of the bulls of Alexander VI and Julius II, should act as the defender and champion of the church, but he opposed any further participation in ecclesiastical affairs by the civil power. Salazar’s arguments are worth noting because they were advanced during the formative period of the Islands’ history. It was during his prelacy that the basis of all future relations of church and state was established. The arguments of Bishop Salazar were repeated with little variation by Archbishop Poblete in his controversy with Governor Salcedo in 1665 and later by Archbishop Pardo in 1686.[7]
In considering this question, the calm and impartial judgment of a scholar is eminently preferable to the passionate arguments of a prelate deeply concerned in the outcome of the dispute. Let us turn from the field of original research to a modern Spanish writer on church history and law. Fray Matias Gómez Zamora, writing from the vantage ground of the modern day, characterizes the acts of the government officials of the earlier era as excessive and unjustified by papal bull or ecclesiastical canon. He even goes a step farther when he declares that “many royal decrees and cédulas were wrongfully issued, without proper basis.” He cites examples to prove his contention and among these he points to the foundation of churches and monasteries by civil authorities without the confirmation of the prelate, alleging that such practices were entirely illegal.[8] In like manner, he criticises the cédulas of October 19, 1756, and of June 24, 1762, which bestowed upon the governor jurisdiction as vicepatron,[9] with the right of settling whatever questions might arise. “But,” he writes, “it is clear that the viceroys, the audiencias and the governors did not have, nor could they have spiritual jurisdiction over the persons or property of the ecclesiastics, because in no case can power which is delegated be greater than he to whom it is delegated.”[10] Thus does this distinguished writer attack the foundation of the entire institution whereby Spain controlled the church in her colonies during a period of three hundred years.
Notwithstanding the fact that the governor was the civil head of the church in the colony, it would be possible to fill this chapter completely with quotations of laws which were addressed to the audiencia in recognition of its right of intervention in ecclesiastical matters. The necessity of reserving space for specific cases illustrative of history and practice permits only a scanty summary of the most important of these laws. In practically all these cases the audiencia participated conjointly with the vicepatron. The interposition of the audiencia was authorized in the calling of provincial councils and synods, and the resolutions of these bodies had to be examined by the viceroys, presidents, and oidores to see that they were in accordance with the laws of the royal patronage.[11] The audiencia was empowered to examine all papal bulls and briefs and to suspend those which had not been properly authorized by the Council of the Indies. Disputes between prelates and arguments of churchmen based on bulls and briefs were to be referred by the audiencia to the Council of the Indies. The audiencia was authorized to enforce all properly authorized bulls and briefs and to exercise care that the ecclesiastical courts were granted their proper jurisdiction in accordance with canon law.[12]
The audiencia was authorized to enforce the law which forbade laymen to trade with priests. Punishment in the latter case was not meted out by that tribunal, but the offending churchmen were handed over to the prelates.[13] The audiencia, viceroy, and governors were commanded to exercise supervision over the prelates and provincials, receiving from the latter annual reports on the state, membership, and progress of the religious orders and the work performed by them, which information in turn was forwarded to the Council of the Indies.[14] All possible assistance was to be furnished by the audiencia and governor to missionaries remaining in the Philippines or going to Japan.[15] The governor and audiencia were ordered to supervise closely the work of ecclesiastical visitors in the provinces, exercising special care that the natives were not imposed on or abused. The oidores were prohibited from interference with the internal government of the religious orders.[16] Members of orders could not usually be removed by their provincials without the consent of the vicepatron and the audiencia, the authority of the latter extending to the removal and exile of offending priests.[17] The audiencia was ordered to make every possible effort to preserve harmony among the religious and to adjust all differences arising between the orders, or within them.[18] The tribunal was authorized to keep prelates from exceeding their authority in passing judgment on erring priests, especially to see that no punishments were imposed such as would interfere with the prerogatives of the civil government.[19]
The following brief summary of laws of the early period, although possibly repeating data already given, shows the extent of the participation of the audiencia in the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs:[20]
All ecclesiastics holding office were first to gain the recognition of the viceroy, president, audiencia or whatever authority might be in charge of the province.
A list of the members of each order was to be furnished by their provincial to the governing authority. Any changes subsequently made in the membership of the orders had to be reported in the same way.
The names of all religious teachers were to be submitted to the audiencia, governor or other authority in control, for inspection and approval.
The audiencia was instructed to inform itself relative to the efficiency of the clergy and of religious teachers working among the Indians, and to see that those lacking in educational qualifications or in general capacity were not permitted to enter the Islands.[21]
Notices of removals or of new appointments made among the clergy were to be sent to the governor, audiencia, and to the bishop.[22]