Volume 21 — Conflict Between Civil and Religious Authorities

Case that happened in Manila in the year 1623, in regard to a fugitive who was taken from the church

Juan Soto de Vega, whom justice was prosecuting for having stolen a large sum of money from the ship which was coming from Mejico to Filipinas, had taken refuge in the asylum [sagrado] of the cathedral of Manila. Desirous of escaping from the prosecution of the secular tribunal, he tried to get to Eastern or Portuguese Yndia in the month of December. He begged permission from the provisor and vicar-general, Don Pedro Monrroy, that he might be taken from the cathedral and kept in the ecclesiastical prison; and they actually kept him there, but with guards and in confinement, until the Portuguese boats left for Yndia. Then they returned him to the cathedral, where he remained for the space of eight months, until an auditor took him violently from the church on the fifth of September, 1623, and took him to the public prison. There he, in company with another auditor, tortured Juan de la Vega until they broke his arm, which caused a great public scandal.

The provisor began to take steps in defense of the ecclesiastical immunity. He demanded the criminal, [73] and publicly declared the auditors to be excommunicated, threatening to place them under interdict, unless they would return the prisoner to the church. After the time-limit had expired, the interdict was imposed. The auditors, on the other hand, despatched a letter and a second letter to the provisor charging him to lift the censures and interdict, under penalty of banishment and a fine of 2,000 ducados, unless he did that in the time-limit that they assigned him. As he did not fulfil the command, they despatched the court constable, with soldiers, to look for the provisor in order to arrest him. They registered all the house of the archbishop, and the house of the provisor himself, sequestered his goods, broke off the locks of the cupboards and writing-desks, and ransacked his papers, but did not find him, for he had hidden in the convent of the Augustinians.

The archbishop (against whom the proceedings were directed), seconded by the public opinion, which was contrary to the auditors, summoned Doctor Don Juan de Renteria, bishop of Nueva Segovia (who was then in Manila), and various religious, prebendaries, and lawyers, and assembled or formed a council to discuss what ought to be done in such a case. The opinion of all was that the auditors were legitimately excommunicated, and the interdict rightly imposed; and that the ecclesiastical immunity ought to be sustained, and satisfaction demanded for the scandal by returning the fugitive to the church.

While that meeting was being held, the auditors despatched a royal mandate, which they said was given by Don Felipe, to the archbishop, ordering him not to retain Don Pedro de Monrroy as provisor, as he was exiled from the kingdoms, to absolve [74] the excommunicated, and lift the interdict—under penalty, if he did not do so, of banishment and a fine of 2,000 ducados. The archbishop replied, demanding a testimony of the cause and the corresponding acts [of the Audiencia], in order to determine what he should do. But the auditors sent him another royal decree, warning him that he would be considered to have incurred the said penalties if he did not immediately lift the censures and interdict. Since the archbishop held firm, the auditors sent the chief court constable, together with the actuary of the Audiencia and thirty pikemen under command of an adjutant, at four in the afternoon on that same day, in order to take charge of the episcopal residence, with orders not to permit any one to leave it or anything to be taken from it.

At this juncture, the rector of the Jesuit college and others advised the archbishop to raise the censures ad reincidentiam [i.e., “until a repetition of the offense”], and the interdict for one week, since they thought that the auditors would return the prisoner. That was done, and the archbishop requested the opinion in writing of the orders and learned persons, which they gave him—with the exception of the Dominicans, who excused themselves. The archbishop, seeing that the auditors not only did not do what was promised, but even issued another decree to arrest and expel the provisor, called another meeting, at which the Dominicans had no part. In that meeting it was decided to defend the ecclesiastical immunity, and that two individuals of the assembly should go to talk with the auditors in the name of the assembly, and notify them that the prisoner must be returned, or else the archbishop could not raise [75] the censures or interdict. Two Jesuits went, and the auditors replied to them that they would not desist or turn back. The interdict was immediately imposed again, and the auditors were publicly declared to be excommunicated.

When the time came to execute the agreement of the arbitrators, the auditors put difficulties in the way. But, since at the same time it happened that the provisor, as commissary of the holy crusade, had drawn up acts against the auditors for the violation of his house and tribunal, against which there was no recourse by force in these islands; and since, on the other hand, the governor demanded from them the record of all that had been done (separating [76] himself from them, as not being a lawyer) in order to inform the king: they resolved to form an assembly without the governor, and voted that the prisoner should be returned to the ecclesiastical prison, while the ecclesiastical judge was investigating whether the church was protecting him, which was what the archbishop claimed.

The victorious provisor left the residence of the Society, and with great pomp, and, accompanied by a mass of people and by his ministers, drew the prisoner from the public prison and took him to his own. The interdict was raised, to the chime of the bells of all the churches.

The auditors begged to be absolved in their houses, but the archbishop refused, saying that since the scandal had been public, the absolution also must be so. However, absolution was given in his house to one who was sick and who was less culpable; as well as to another by the influence of the Dominicans, who obtained that it be given him by the parish priest. [77]