One of the most pressing questions that faced the Roman Catholic Church in colonial Mexico was that of a native clergy. In an effort to resolve it, both Church and state groped toward a policy that would reconcile the conflicting demands of Christian idealism and social reality. Eventually an accommodation was reached, but the process that led to it was remarkably complex. The confusion and difficulties that surrounded the issue can be seen most clearly in the history of the legislation of the bishops of New Spain regarding the ordination to the priesthood of Indians and castas (mixed-bloods), specifically mestizos.

Johann Specker has distinguished three stages in the Church’s approach to the ordination of non-Europeans in Spanish America.1 The first stage, roughly from 1524 to 1555, was one of idealism and was characterized by the first moves toward an Indian clergy. It ended in failure. This stage included the famous Franciscan college at Tlatelolco and is the one that has been most studied. The second stage was that of formal exclusion, specifically as found in the legislation of the Mexican Church Councils of 1555 and 1585. The third stage, which began toward the end of the sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth century, was the period of practical accommodation, when in some way or another Indians and persons of mixed ancestry began to enter the ranks of the clergy.2 This is still an open and rather formidable field for the researcher. The stage of formal exclusion, as embodied in the law of the Church of New Spain, is the subject of this study.

English-language histories in general assume that Indians and castas were able to enter the priesthood only when a shortage of priests who knew the native languages forced the bishops to turn a blind eye toward the letter of the law. It has usually been assumed that this exclusion resulted from the colonial Church’s low estimate of Indian capabilities. Robert Ricard and Charles Gibson both mention that the first Mexican Provincial Council of 1555 forbade the creation of an Indian clergy, but neither mentions the fact that this legislation was in force for only thirty years, 1555-85.3 Magnus Mörner, following Richard Konetzke, views the prohibition as evidence of the “pride and exclusivism” of the Spanish Church. John Elliott sees in the progression of ecclesiastical legislation from the earliest days until 1585, and especially in its prohibition of an Indian clergy, a decline in the status of the Indian and an increasingly neocolonial viewpoint on the part of the Church. Peggy Liss has a similar opinion, which also stresses the disillusionment of the Spanish clergy with the reality of Indian life and character. Lopétegui and Zubillaga, writing from a peninsular point of view, repeat the standard version and attribute the prohibitions to the paternalism of both Church and crown.4 Other authors, such as Bayle, Alvarez Mejía, Llaguno (and Lopétegui in an earlier article) have pointed out that the definitive legislation, that of the Third Mexican Council of 1585, did not absolutely exclude the ordination of Indians and castas, but left a legal loophole through which they could be admitted to the priesthood. Of all the authors who have treated the subject, only Alvarez Mejía, Llaguno, and Lopétegui have indicated the role played by the pope and his curia in opening this loophole.5

A careful examination of the pertinent ecclesiastical legislation in sixteenth-century New Spain shows that all these assertions are at least partially true. It was indeed the intention of the bishops to exclude Indians and castas from the priesthood. The origins and progression of this legislation, however, were vastly more complicated and confused than has previously been reported. In fact, from the time of the final approbation of the Third Mexican Council in 1591, there was no formal legal exclusion of Indians from the ranks of the clergy and only a qualified one for mestizos and other castas.

Early Legislation, 1539-85

The earliest ruling on the question of ordination was made by the Junta Apostólica of 1539.6 This meeting of the principal churchmen of New Spain permitted the ordination of Indians and castas to the four minor, or preparatory, orders. It also approved the use of Indians in certain restricted capacities for divine worship. “For the service of the said parishes and the help of their priest shepherds, some of the more capable mestizos and Indians may be ordained to the four minor orders of the Church.” The minor orders referred to were those of porter, lector, exorcist, and acolyte. They had been instituted early in Church history as steps that prepared a candidate for eventual ordination to the priesthood. Because these orders did not have the same status or solemnity as priesthood, they were not considered permanent or irrevocable, and if Indians or mestizos proved unsuitable, they could return to their former way of life. It was also stated that they should know the native languages and, if possible, Latin. The Junta went on to make a farseeing theological statement.

The said four minor orders were established for the Church and its service at a time when there was a lack of priestly ministers (as there is today) and in order to help the priests and ministers of the sacraments and to handle reverently the sacred and blessed things of the altar, because without being ordained they serve as acolytes at the altars and they handle [sacred things]…. His Holiness and His Majesty should be consulted about this in order that they may approve and consider it praiseworthy and good, because these are Christians and the sacraments should be entrusted to them since baptism, which is not less than the priesthood, is entrusted to them.7

The reasoning was that if Indians could become Christians, they could also become fully mature Christians through the reception of the priesthood. In 1539, then, they were not viewed as perpetual neophytes. They were to be allowed to receive the minor orders because they were already exercising the functions of those orders. Because the minor orders themselves were regarded as steps toward ordination, it is clear that the legislation of 1539 was a definite, if cautious, move toward allowing Indians and mestizos to enter the priesthood.8 The question of the shortage of priests did not remain paramount for long. The question of knowledge of native languages, however, was to play an important role throughout the history of the ordination controversy.

This initial move toward a native clergy was sharply reversed by the First Mexican Provincial Council of 1555.9 The Council was the first conscious effort on the part of the hierarchy to formulate a code of laws for the newly established ecclesiastical province. Held under the presidency of Alonso de Montúfar, O.P. (1489?-1572), the second archbishop of Mexico City, eight years after it became an archdiocese, the Council was an impressive achievement, although only a beginning.10

The prohibition of the ordination of Indians and castas was inserted into the conciliar legislation in almost casual fashion, a surprising fact in view of the importance of the subject. In chapter 44, which dealt with the examination of candidates before ordination, the bishops decreed that the vicars general (provisores) and other examiners were to ascertain whether the candidate was descended from Moors or parents or grandparents condemned or reconciled by the Inquisition, or whether he was an Indian, mestizo, or mulatto. Such individuals were not to be admitted to orders. The bishops not only revoked the decision of the Junta of 1539 that permitted the Indians to be ordained to the minor orders, but forbade them to handle the sacred vessels. No reasons were given for this change of policy, nor can any be found in the existing documentation of the Council. Clearly, the bishops had embraced the classic Spanish concept of linaje maculado (“tainted or blemished lineage” that rendered a person’s orthodoxy or capabilities suspect) and added the Indians and castas to it. If the Franciscan experience offers a valid parallel, it also meant that the Church was accepting the concept of Indians as neophytes who would not become fully mature Christians.11

The present state of research does not permit an unqualified statement about the impact of this decree. Apparently, as long as there was a sufficient number of Spanish clergy, whether diocesan or religious, there was no strong motive for ordaining Indians besides increasing the Church’s expertise in native languages. In the famous survey of the clergy of the Archdiocese of Mexico made in March of 1575 by Montúfar’s successor, Pedro Moya de Contreras, only one priest was identified as mestizo and none as Indian.12

By the 1570s two separate policies emerged, one royal, one papal. On January 25, 1577, Pope Gregory XIII, a determined opponent of the patronato, issued the brief Nuper ad Nos, which stated that “the illegitimate sons of Spaniards and Indian women, as also of Spaniards who live in the Indies, [can] receive all the orders, hear confessions, and preach the word of God, provided that they master the native language and have the qualities that the Council of Trent prescribes for ordination (the consciences of the bishops are burdened regarding these points), notwithstanding the defect of birth or any other defect whatever, provided that they are not bigamists or guilty of voluntary homicide.” The reason given was “the shortage of priests,” but the context seems to imply the shortage of those who knew the native languages rather than an absolute lack of clergy.13

Alvarez Mejía states that the Council of the Indies refused the pase regio to this brief and so it was not allowed to enter the Spanish dominions. This is not entirely correct for it is to be found in the working papers of the Third Mexican Council and was used by the bishops of that Council in their deliberations.14

The Nuper ad Nos is significant as an indication of the gap between Roman and Spanish thinking on the subject and as an attempt to impose the universal law of the Church on a Spanish possession—efforts were made by Ramírez de Cartagena, oidor of Lima, and in subtler fashion by Francisco de Toledo, viceroy of Peru, to secure its repeal. It may also have been a direct challenge by the pope to a contrary policy of the Spanish crown. Beginning in 1575, Philip II had issued a series of cédulas to the principal archbishops and bishops of his New World possessions in which he forbade the ordination of mestizos. These cédulas continued through 1578. In that year, one was sent to Moya de Contreras relating that reports had reached the royal ear that the archbishop had been admitting mestizos and others “who are not suitable” to orders. This, the king said, was causing the inevitable inconvenientes among the people of quality of Mexico. In contrast to the orders given to other prelates, the archbishop was not told to desist, but rather to proceed with the greatest caution.15

All of these cédulas offered as a basic reason for the order the lack of suitability, or suficiencia, of the mestizos. In this way the new royal policy seemed to come within the scope of the Nuper ad Nos. It is highly doubtful that Moya de Contreras had been ordaining anyone unsuitable to the priesthood. Such a decision would have been entirely contrary to his character as a reforming bishop in the mold of the Council of Trent. Nor would the archbishop, a devout regalist, have gone contrary to even the suspected intentions of the crown.

There may have been another, unspoken reason for the royal policy. It is quite possible that it was prompted by fears of separatism in the colonies. These would have created a fear of renewed ethnic consciousness on the part of the Indians and of the social turbulence associated with the mestizos. It is no coincidence that the orders barring mestizos from the priesthood came at the same time as the royal confiscation of Bernardino de Sahagún’s manuscripts. It can be surmised that the social advancement involved in ordination to the priesthood was viewed as a potential power base for mestizo separatism.16

The papacy continued to oppose the royal policy on the ordination of mestizos and in 1588 secured a revocation of the royal cédulas. As will be seen below, this probably had a strong impact on the formulation of the definitive church legislation on the subject.

The Third Mexican Council, 1585

Whatever its impact, the legislation of the First Council remained in effect only until it was superseded by that of the Third Mexican Council, which met in 1585 under the presidency of Pedro Moya de Contreras. The decisions of this Council, so far-reaching in influence, were to remain the law of the Archdiocese of Mexico City until 1896 and of the rest of Mexico, Guatemala, and the Philippines until 1918.17

Its legislation was printed for the first time in 1622 under the auspices of Juan Pérez de la Serna, the archbishop of Mexico City, and again in 1770 by Archbishop Francisco Antonio Lorenzana. The latter edition was to become the authoritative text wherever the conciliar decrees were in force.18 Both these editions contained the Latin version of the decrees. The decree on the ordination of Indians and castas is to be found in Book I, title IV, paragraph 3. It is quoted here in full from the Lorenzana edition.

In order that honor and reverence may be paid to the clerical state, it has been established in the sacred canons that those who suffer from some natural defects or others which, although they do not involve any personal fault, are unbecoming to the clerical state, should not be ordained. The reason is that those who are advanced to sacred orders should not be held in contempt or their ministry held up to censure. Therefore, this Synod forbids that those descended in the first or second degree on the father’s or mother’s side from persons who have been condemned by the Holy Office of the Inquisition be admitted to Holy Orders because they are under [the impediment of] common infamy. An investigation of their ancestry will be sufficient when it reaches to parents or grandparents because it would be difficult to go further on account of the distance in time and various perjuries, slanders, and animosities that could result.

Whence also neither those of mixed blood, whether from Indians or Moors, nor mulattoes in the first degree are to be admitted to orders without great caution.

The last sentence of this decree is the crucial one. Interpreted strictly, it did not prohibit the ordination of Indians, mestizos, or mulattoes, but only demanded “great caution” in the case of the last two groups. Taken literally, it seemed to overturn the absolute exclusion imposed by the First Council and to open the door to the ordination of Indians and, under certain circumstances, of castas.

In fact, the conciliar text is garbled and the entire issue is clouded with confusion and ambiguity. The legislation of the Third Mexican Provincial Council was originally drawn up in Spanish and translated into Latin by the Jesuit Pedro de Ortigosa and the diocesan priest Juan de Salcedo, the secretary of the Council.19 This particular decree was based on previous legislation, viz., chapter 44 of the First Mexican Council, the Provincial Council of Granada (1472), the Provincial Council of Guadix (1554, on which the bishops relied most heavily), and the Provincial Council of Quiroga (1583). Obviously these peninsular councils did not deal with the ordination of Indians and castas. Rather, it was the laws on public infamy and the ordination of those of suspect lineage that were borrowed by the bishops of New Spain. To these borrowings the bishops voted to add the following words in their Spanish original: “neither Indians nor mestizos, whether descended from Indians or Moors, nor mulattoes in the first degree.”20 Therefore, in its first form, the decree was clear and unequivocal: Indians and castas could not become priests.

It is immediately obvious that there was a great difference between what the bishops originally intended to legislate and what eventually became law. The edition of Lorenzana, in force until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as noted above, did not disqualify Indians and gave a conditional permission for the ordination of mestizos and mulattoes. The Spanish original disqualified all three groups unconditionally.

The matter is further complicated by the existence of other Latin versions of the decree, all of which differ from the Spanish original and the Lorenzana Latin. The first of these was the hurriedly prepared Latin translation sent by the bishops to Rome in 1586 for papal approval.21 Its text disqualified Indians and genizari, whether descended from Indians or Moors, as well as mulattoes. Genizari was a Latin coin word for the Spanish term genízaros, which usually meant Christianized Indians, but in this context clearly referred to some sort of mixed-bloods.22 Hence the text sent to Rome for approval was a clear reflection of the Spanish original, which forbade the ordination of Indians and castas.

Another variation of the decree is to be found in the first printed edition of the conciliar legislation, that of Archbishop Juan Pérez de la Serna, published in Mexico City in 1622. It translated the Spanish mestizos by Mexici or Mexicans, a rendering that, if taken literally, would make no sense whatever. Later printings of this edition changed Mexici to metixi. This appears to be another attempt to translate mestizo into Latin and is obviously related to the Italian misticci.23 Lorenzana altered the term to mixti. It is clear that all editions were attempting some way of expressing mestizo in Latin and that the various texts are in agreement as to the basic legislation.

A comparison of the texts in English translation will show the similarities and variations.

Texts that disqualified Indians and castas

Texts that altered the original disqualification

In both the Lorenzana and de la Serna editions the decree begins with the Latin phrase Inde etiam (“whence also”), which is lacking in the Latin forwarded to Rome and has no equivalent in the original Spanish. The obvious inference is that Inde was originally intended to read Indi and the opening sentence should have read “Indians also and mixed bloods ….” This reading would bring the two Latin versions much closer to the Spanish original. While the conjunction inde can be construed to fit grammatically and logically, the reading Indi is certainly more faithful to the earlier texts. In support of this is the fact that the paragraph heading in both de la Serna and Lorenzana reads, “Both Indians and mixed bloods may be admitted to orders only with great caution.” The paragraph heading of the law and the text of the law say two different things.

How did all this come about? A closer look at the whole decree, its history and antecedents, may clarify the problem somewhat, but will not necessarily resolve it.

1. In the first part of the decree, those whose parents or grandparents had been condemned by the Inquisition were disqualified unconditionally because of “common infamy.” This was a canonical impediment that referred to persons who for some reason had lost their good name in the community. It was, then, a reflection of a social condition as well as of any concern by the bishops for untainted lineage (limpieza de sangre), a subject that they touched only once in all their working papers.

2. Within the context of the entire decree, the attempted ban on Indians and castas also had social connotations. The bishops stated that they were following the tradition of the Church in not ordaining those who, through no fault of their own, had some defect that would hinder their active ministry. This was close to the modern canonical concept of impedimentum ex defectu, which refers to those who suffer from significant physical or social defects that, while not blameworthy in themselves, could be a hindrance to their ministry. In modern times this has included such things as illegitimacy and notable physical blemishes. The reasoning of the bishops was that such persons would not be completely acceptable in the communities they were supposed to serve.

This is confirmed by the Council’s Directorio para confesores, which, though completed, was never published. It was a manual or guide for confessors in applying the conciliar legislation. The draft copy, which was based on the original Spanish decrees, grouped all impediments together without distinction. These included, in addition to illegitimacy and notable physical defects, having been married twice, having held a base office (such as public executioner), and being a slave or a new convert to the faith. Hence, with regard to Indians and castas, the Directorio reflected the original intentions of the bishops.25

Undoubtedly there lay behind all this a suspicion about the suitability and constancy of the Indians and castas, especially as far as intellectual capacity and the priestly rule of celibacy were concerned. Even the great Zumárraga had said that Indians and castas were more inclined to marriage than to celibacy (tendunt ad nuptias potiusquam ad continentiam). This view would have been particularly true in regard to mestizos, who were the object of great social prejudice.26 One can also surmise the acceptance of the concept of the Indian as a minor or perpetual neophyte.

3. In banning those who came under the classic definitions of limpieza de sangre, the bishops mentioned only two kinds of lineage: descent from Moors and those condemned by the Inquisition. Nothing was said about conversos, or those of Jewish ancestry, a group that was far larger than the other two. Only in the draft copy of the Directorio para confesores, which had been drawn up before the bishops gave final approval to the Spanish decrees, are the descendants of Jews included among those not to be ordained. Between the preparatory work of the Council and the final vote of the bishops, the reference to conversos was removed. It can be surmised that the bishops, considering the large number of residents of New Spain, among them highly placed ecclesiastics, who had Jewish blood, concluded that the issue was better left unnoticed.27

4. The conditional phrase “without great caution,” which kept the door to the priesthood from being totally shut against the castas, was the work of Rome. The Roman curia did not share or understand Spanish prejudices in this regard. The reader for the Congregation of the Council, the Roman body responsible for approving the conciliar legislation, confessed himself baffled by the bishops’ prohibition. “There is probably some reason for this, but I do not know it,” he wrote in the margin. The legislation was still awaiting papal approval in 1588 when Rome was able to secure the revocation of the royal cédulas against the ordination of mestizos. It seems certain that the added qualification arose from Roman opposition to the royal policy and was forced on the bishops. It also seems plausible that Rome was responsible for expunging Indi from the text. The substitution of inde would then have been a rather awkward and hurried compromise, which, however, someone failed to incorporate into the paragraph heading. In view of the long delay between the conclusion of the Council in 1585 and its first printing in 1622, there would have been ample opportunity to alter the text in such a way that the bishops would not have to vote on an entirely new wording.

For the historian who studies these decrees for the purpose of ascertaining Spanish attitudes and practice, certain cautions are necessary. There is danger in relying too heavily on laws and decrees as an index of the bishops’ attitudes toward the Indians. It is undeniable that the bishops’ desire to exclude Indians from the priesthood reflected a low esteem for their capabilities. This, in turn, undoubtedly resulted from the decline in status of the Indians from the first euphoric days after the conquest. It was also an adjustment to social prejudices in the parishes. It reflected the frustration of bishops and missionaries who, after half a century of evangelization, found that Christianity was still a veneer as far as the Indians were concerned. As a corrective, however, it should be noted that the bishops of the Counter-Reformation period had a low opinion of human nature in general, whether European or Indian. The bishops of the Third Mexican Council, who shared this view, appeared at times to be almost Jansenistic. If one argues from the legislation of the Council that the bishops viewed the Indians as weak, inconstant, and in need of constant tutelage, one can also argue that they viewed all priests as greedy, lewd, ignorant, and undisciplined and all Spaniards as rapacious, cruel, exploitative, and religiously illiterate.28

The impact of the Counter-Reformation also meant that the Church in New Spain was becoming more structured, more legalistic, and more bureaucratized. The priesthood was viewed as a state within society, an important part of the civil and ecclesiastical hierarchy. There would naturally be a strong tendency to exclude from the priesthood anyone who would not be socially acceptable or who could not meet the increasingly stringent standards that originated in the Council of Trent.

Further, the attitude toward law on the part of the sixteenth-century Spaniard must be kept in mind. The Roman and canonical outlook viewed law as a set of principles and ideals, to be interpreted by means of other principles and rules of law. The rule of law was that all legislation that was proscriptive or that restricted the free exercise of rights had to be interpreted narrowly.29 If the letter of the law offered any leeway, then it was right and proper to take advantage of it. Canonists of that century would have felt secure in following the letter of the conciliar decree even if it meant going against the known intentions of the bishops.

Conclusions

In 1585 the bishops of New Spain clearly intended to exclude all Indians and castas from the priesthood without any qualification whatever. This exclusion was based on social reality and social prejudice. Indian, mestizo, and mulatto priests would not have been acceptable in most parts of New Spain and would not have fitted the hierarchical conceptions of the priestly state at that time. Other reasons for this exclusion can be presumed, but they were never made explicit.

The working papers of the Third Mexican Council provide no information on how this decision was reached. There is no evidence of consultation with the various religious orders, such as was had on other important questions. This meant that some groups, such as the Franciscans and Jesuits, which had already had their own problems with the question, may have been excluded from the deliberations.30

The bishops’ policy encountered difficulties in the Roman curia, which wanted more flexibility and probably forced changes in the wording of the decree. Besides failing to understand Spanish prejudices, the curia seems to have been concerned about the shortage of priests able to speak the native languages. The question also provided a basis on which the papacy could attack a royal intrusion into an ecclesiastical area. The result was a decree that was in many ways ambiguous.

What happened in the succeeding centuries? The answer may never be known for sure. Many factors were involved in the question of ordaining Indians and castas: social prejudice, the expenses necessary for clerical education, the need for priests who spoke the native languages and understood the native cultures, the decline in priestly recruitment in later centuries, the entrance of Indians and mestizos into the clerical ranks under false designations. This is still an open field for the researcher. One thing is clear, however: from 1591 onward, the letter of the law did not forbid the ordination of Indians and gave qualified approval for that of mestizos and mulattoes.

1

Johann Specker, S.M.B., “Der einheimische Klerus in Spanish-Amerika in 16 Jahr-hundert” in Johannes Beckmann, S.M.B., ed., Der einheimische Klerus in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Schöneck-Beckenried, 1950), p. 75, cited in Juan Olaechea, “Cómo abordaron la cuestión del clero indígena los primeros misioneros en México,” Missionalia Hispánica, 25 (enero-abril 1968), 114.

2

Francisco Morales, O.F.M., follows a somewhat similar division when he discusses the admission of Indians and mestizos into the Franciscan order; Ethnic and Social Background of the Franciscan Friars in Seventeenth-Century Mexico (Washington, D.C., 1978), chaps. 2 and 3. His discussion of the arguments against admission and the development of the concept of blemished lineage is especially valuable. For Jesuit attitudes, see León Lopétegui, S.J., "El Papa Gregorio XIII y la ordenación de mestizos hispano-incaicos,” Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae, 7 (1943), 190-191.

3

Robert Ricard, The Spiritual Conquest of Mexico, trans. by Lesley Byrd Simpson (Berkeley, 1966), p. 230. Charles Gibson, The Aztecs under Spanish Rule (Stanford, 1964), p. 382.

4

Magnus Mörner, Race Mixture in the History of Latin America (Boston, 1967), p. 43, citing Richard Konetzke, “El mestizaje y la población hispanoamericana durante la época colonial,” Revista de Indias, 7 (enero—marzo 1946), 7-44. John Elliott, “Renaissance Europe and America: A Blunted Impact?” in Fredi Chiapelli, ed., First Images of America, 2 vols. (Los Angeles, 1975), I, 15. Peggy Liss, Mexico under Spain, 1521-1556: Society and the Origins of Nationality (Chicago, 1975), p. 93. León Lopétegui, S.J., and Félix Zubillaga, S.J., Historia de la iglesia en América Española (Madrid, 1965), p. 100. One of Elliott’s remarks is especially pertinent to the question of attitudes.

We can trace more closely the decline of sympathy and the narrowing of vision by comparing the opinions expressed at the meetings of the clergy of Mexico at different moments during the sixteenth century. While a meeting held in 1532 emphasizes the spiritual capacity of the Indians, the First Mexican Provincial Council of 1555 depicts them as feeble and inconstant creatures with a natural inclination to vice, and the picture that emerges from the Third Mexican Provincial Council of 1585 is almost uniformly dismal.

5

Constantino Bayle, "España y el clero indígena en América,” Razón y Fe, 94 (1931), 522. Juan Alvarez Mejía, “La cuestión del clero indígena en la época colonial,” Revista Javeriana, 45 (marzo 1956), 57-67; 45 (junio 1956), 209-219. José Llaguno, S.J., La personalidad jurídica del indio y el III Concilio Provincial Mexicano, 1585 (Mexico City, 1963), pp. 123-124. Lopétegui, “El Papa Gregorio XIII,” 200-203.

6

The acta of this junta can be found in an appendix to Concilios Provinciales Primero y Segundo, celebrados en la muy noble y muy leal ciudad de Mexico, presidiendo el Ill.mo y R.mo Senor D. Fr. Alonso de Montufar, en los anos del 1555 y 1565. Dalos a luz el Ill.mo Sr. D. Francisco Antonio Lorenzana, Arzobispo de esta Santa Metropolitana Iglesia (Mexico City, 1769). It is reproduced in full in Nicolás León, Bibliografía mexicana del siglo xviii, 6 vols. (Mexico City, 1907), V, 313-330. The material is summarized in Llaguno, La personalidad, pp. 14-22.

7

Llaguno, La personalidad, p. 21 n.62. Emphasis added.

8

Morales reaches the same conclusions in Ethnic and Social Background, p. 25.

9

When the diocese of Mexico City was made an archdiocese in 1547, New Spain became an independent ecclesiastical province with the right to celebrate provincial councils in the full sense of the term. Although the term “Mexico City” is anachronistic, it is used here for clarity in reference to the archdiocese and its prelates.

10

The decrees can be found in the Lorenzana edition, cited in n.6 supra.

11

See Llaguno, La personalidad, p. 32.

12

Pedro Moya de Contreras to Philip II, from Mexico City, Mar. 24, 1575, in Cinco cartas del Illmo. y Exmo. Señor D. Pedro Moya de Contreras, Arzobispo-Virrey y Primer Inquisidor de la Nueva España, precedidas de la historia de su vida según Cristóbal Gutiérrez de Luna y Francisco Sosa (Madrid, 1962), pp. 122-151.

13

This is the conclusion drawn by Morelli (pseudonym of Domingo Muriel, S.J.) in Fasti Novi Orbis (Venice, 1776), p. 277.

14

Alvarez Mejía, “La cuestión,” 57-58. Concilios Provinciales, Bancroft Library, Berkeley, California, Mexican Manuscript 269, fol. 18. It was probably no coincidence that the brief was dated Jan. 25, the feast of the conversion of Saint Paul, who is known in the Catholic liturgy as the “Apostle of the Gentiles.” Such a dating, even if arbitrary or artificial, would have added to the impact of the brief. Lopétegui has an extended discussion of the correct dating of the document, “El Papa Gregorio XIII,” 185 n.14. After comparing the different dates found in various sources, he concludes that Jan. 25, 1576, was the correct date. He does not, however, mention the fact that in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the ecclesiastical year in the Roman curia began on Mar. 25, the feast of the Annunciation, rather than on Jan. 1. It would probably be more accurate to give the year 1577 for the brief.

15

Philip II to Moya de Contreras, from the Pardo, Dec. 2, 1578, H. P. Kraus Collection, Library of Congress, no. 95. For the 1568 cédula, see Mörner, Race Mixture, p. 43. The other cédulas can be found in Richard Konetzke, Colección de documentos para la historia de la formación social de Hispanoamérica, 1493-1810, 6 vols., (Madrid, 1953-62), I. They were addressed to the Archbishop of New Granada, Jan. 18, 1576 (p. 491); the Bishop of Quito, Oct. 10, 1575, (p. 490); the Bishop of Cuzco, Dec. 13, 1577 (p. 506); and the Archbishop of Lima, Dec. 2, 1578 (p. 514).

16

Moya de Contreras to Philip II, from Mexico City, Mar. 28, 1576, and Mar. 30, 1578, Epistolario de Nueva España, recopilado por Francisco del Paso y Troncoso, 16 vols., (Mexico City, 1939^43), XII, 13, 50. Georges Baudot, “The Last Years of Sahagún,” in Munro S. Edmonson, ed., Sixteenth-Century Mexico: The Work of Sahagún (Albuquerque, 1974), p. 169. See also the introduction by Edmonson, p. 8. Ricard, Spiritual Conquest, pp. 40^45. Philip II’s cédula of confiscation of Sahagún’s works was dated Apr. 22, 1577.

17

There were two more Provincial Councils in Mexico. The Fourth (1770) was an ambiguous affair whose acta were never approved by Rome. The legislation of the Third Council remained in force long after 1770. The Fifth Mexican Provincial Council of 1896 superseded the Third for the ecclesiastical province of Mexico, that is, for the Archdiocese of Mexico City and the dioceses of Chilapa, Tulancingo, Cuernavaca, and Veracruz. The rest of the country remained under the laws of the Third Council until the new Code of Canon Law took effect in 1918. See Manuel Giménez Fernández, El Concilio IV Provincial Mejicano (Seville, 1939), and Acta et Decreta Concilii Provincialis Mexicani Quinti celebrati An. Dom. MDCCCXCVI Metropolita Illustrissimo ac Reverendissimo D. D. Prospero Maria Alarcon y Sanchez de la Borquera (Rome, 1898).

18

Concilium Mexicanum Provinciate Tertium, celebratum Mexici anno MDLXXXV, praeside D. D. Petro Moya et Contreras, Archiepiscopo eiusdem Urbis, confirmatum Romae die XXVII Octobris anno MDLXXXIX, postea iussu regio edition Mexici, anno MDCXXII sumptibus D. D. Ioannis Perez de la Serna Archiepiscopi demum typis mandatum cura et expensis O. D. Francisci Antonii a Lorenzana Archiepiscopi (Mexico City, 1770).

19

The original Spanish can be found in the Concilios Provinciales, Bancroft Library, Mexican Manuscript 267, passim. Ortigosa was the professor of theology at the Jesuit College and Moya de Contreras’s personal theological advisor during the Council. Salcedo, a doctor of theology, was the secretary of the Council and later archdeacon and dean of the metropolitan cabildo.

20

Ni indios ni mestizos assi descendientes de indios como descendientes de moros ni tampoco mulatos en el primero grado. Note the wider meaning given to the term “mestizo.” An interesting comparison can be made between the attitude of the Third Mexican Council and that of the Third Council of Lima, 1583. The Councils were in many ways remarkably similar, as were the two archbishops, Moya de Contreras and Toribio de Mogrovejo. The Second Provincial Council of Lima (1567-68) had forbidden the ordination of Indians, but the Third Council avoided the issue. See Alvarez Mejía, “La cuestión,” 59-60, and Lopétegui, “El Papa Gregorio XIII,” 184, 186, 191-192.

21

Concilium Mexicanum, a. d. 1585, Archive of the Congregation of the Council, Vatican City, uncataloged.

22

On the term as referring to Christianized Indians, see Oakah Jones, Pueblo Warriors and Spanish Conquest (Norman, 1966), p. 36. It is not to be found in Peter Boyd-Bowman, Léxico hispanoamericano del siglo xvi (London, 1971).

23

The de la Serna edition was reproduced in José Sáenz de Aguirre, O.S.B., Collectio Maxima Conciliorum Omnium Hispaniae et Novi Orbis, 6 vols., (Rome, 1693), IV, 292-411. This work was reprinted at Rome in 1755.

24

The original of the three Latin versions is as follows:

Latin version sent to the Congregation of the Council.

Sed nec admittentur ad ordines indi genizari tain ex descendentibus ab indis quam a mauris in primo gradu nec etiam moreti in eodemet gradu.

De la Serna, 1622.

Inde etiam et mexici tam de indis quam a mauris necnon ab illis qui ex altero parente aethiope nascuntur descendentes in primo gradu ne ad ordines sine magno deleetu admittantur.

Lorenzana, 1770.

Inde etiam et mixti tam ab indis quam a mauris necnon ab illis qui ex altero parente aethiope nascuntur descendentes in primo gradu ne ad ordines sine magno delectu admittantur.

25

The Directorio was a compendium of law and theology designed to be a handbook of reference for priests in the ministry of confessions. For some unknown reason, it was never published. At the present, it is known to exist in only two manuscripts. The first of these was a draft, drawn up at the time that the bishops were writing and voting on their decrees, and so it reflects the first stages of their thinking. It is to be found in the cathedral archives of Burgo de Osma, Spain, no. 204. The second, more complete manuscript, which dates from the early seventeenth century, is in the archives of the Archdiocese of Mexico City, vol. 120. It was consulted in the early nineteenth century by Beristáin de Sousa, who wrote, “I cannot guess why such a precious manuscript remains unpublished.” José Mariano Beristáin de Sousa, Biblioteca hispanoamericana septentrional, 4 vols. (Amecameca 1883) II, 248.

26

Olaechea, “Cómo abordaron,” 120. An excellent treatment of the status of mestizos and other castas is Norman Martín, Los vagabundos en la Nueva España (Mexico City, 1967).

27

The final sentence of the Directorio’s summary of the decree reads “being an Indian or mestizo or descendant of Moors or Jews in the first degree.” The words “an Indian or mestizo” were scratched out. It is not clear when the reference to Jews was removed.

28

An example of the bishops’ attitudes toward Spaniards can be found in their famous decree condemning the exploitation of the Indians; Book V, title VII, par. II. Book III, title VII, contains the legislation on the life and habits of clerics.

29

The principle was found in the Liber Sextus, canon 22, De Electione et Electi Potestate, and was rule 15 of the Regulae Iuris.

30

In areas other than the question of ordination, the Franciscans at the Third Council had taken a consistent and strong stand in favor of the Indians. See Stafford Poole, C.M., “The Church and the Repartimientos in the Light of the Third Mexican Council, 1585,” The Americas, 20 (July 1963), 3-36.

Author notes

*

The author is President-Rector of St. lohn’s College, Camarillo, California.