Francisco de Vitoria, Francisco de Suarez and the Principles of God

“I think that God shall have to pour out his fury and anger on Spain for these damnable, rotten, infamous deeds done so unjustly, so tyrannically, so barbarously to those people, against those people. For the whole of Spain has shared in the blood-soaked riches, some a little, some a lot, but all shared in goods that were ill-gotten, wickedly taken with violence and genocide and all must pay unless Spain does a mighty penance”.⁵⁴¹

5.6 Francisco de Vitoria, Francisco de Suarez and the Principles of

In his attempt to justify the inalienable rights of man to existence and to own property, he suggested the idea of state sovereignty because only the state have the authority or right to use public power by governing in order to protect and preserve people otherwise individuals would be torn apart if they were not a providential force, a state, to consider the common good and provide for the general welfare. A ruler therefore, should subordinate both peace and war to the common good of all. Consequently, the government is not legitimate unless a majority agrees with the exercise of power.⁵⁴²

While the laws of nations are derived from natural law and confer rights and obligations, the world as a whole nevertheless, has the power to create international laws that are just for all persons, and no country should be allowed to violate these international laws. Any war that confers advantage to one nation but is injurious to the world is therefore unjust. This is in allusion to Spain’s imperial claim over the Indians. He further argued that the Indians have the right of possession of their goods and must be treated as the rightful owners, and unbelief in the Christian God does not deprive one of owning property because believe in God and owning property are not synonyms. Therefore, the Pope and the Christian world had no authority either over non-believers or could they wage war against the Indians because they did not acknowledge the papacy.⁵⁴³ According to Vitoria, any act of depravity from one person to the other irrespective of race, colour, religion, country, belief is an act of aggression and infringement upon the fundamental human rights of the victims which are contrary to the laws of nature. But on the enforcement of Spanish laws, Vitoria conceded to the Spanish sovereign’s minimum rights to stop human sacrifices and cannibalism by force in order to protect innocent people. It appears Vitoria advocated the tit-for-tat policy when he postulated that oppressors, robbers, and plunderers should not be allowed to commit their crime with impunity without others having the right to retaliate.⁵⁴⁴ For a proper understanding and appreciation of Vitoria’s concept and philosophy, the analysis of the historical role that the School of Salamanca in the renaissance and more so in natural law played, shall be the object of analysis. The School of Salamanca was the centre of learning for diverse intellectual Spanish theologians, who were rooted in the intellectual and pedagogical work of Francisco de Vitoria.⁵⁴⁵

542 Compare de Vitoria, Francisco, De Poteste Civili, 1528 (= College.Philosophical Texts), introduction by Robert Schnepf, Berlin 1992; Id. Natural Law and Church Law 1150-1625, Emory University Studies in Law and religion, NR.

5, Atlanta, GA 1997.

543 de Vitoria, Francisco, De Iure Belli 1, 1539, p.34; Compare Aristoteles, Politics (=The Loeb classical Library 264), published from H. Rackham, London 1977.

544 de Vitoria, Francisco, De Jure belli, 1532, p.23, tr. Jose Maria G.

545 Burckhardt, J., The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, trans. S. G. C Middlemore, 1878; The Cambridge modern History, Vol. 1: The Renaissance, 1902; Cronin, V., The Florentine Renaissance, 1969; Id. The Flowering Renaissance, 1992; Ferguson, W. K., The Renaissance, Europe in Transition, 1300-1500, 1962; Haskins, C. H., The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century, 1927.

The beginning of the 16^th-century marked the traditional Roman Catholic conception of man and of his relation to God and to the world, which had been assaulted by the rise of secular humanism, by the Protestant Reformation and by the new geographical discoveries and their consequences. These problems and others were addressed by the School of Salamanca. Francisco de Vitoria, Domingo de Soto, Martin de Azpilcueta (or Azpilicueta), Tomas de Mercado and Francisco de Suarez, all scholars of natural law and of morality, founded a school of theologians and jurists, which undertook the reconciliation of the teachings of Thomas Aquinas with the new economic order.⁵⁴⁶ Their topics were based on man and his practical problems (morality, economics, jurisprudence e.t.c.). The School of Salamanca could be divided into two schools of thoughts, i.e. School of the Salmanticenses and that of the Conimbricenses. While the first began with Francisco de Vitoria (1483-1546), and reached its zenith point with Domingo de Soto (1494-1560), the Conimbricenses were Jesuits who, from the end of the 16^th-century took over the intellectual leadership of the Roman Catholic world from the Dominicans. Among those Jesuits were Luis de Molina (1535-1600), the aforementioned Francisco de Suarez (1548-1617), and Giobanni Botero (1544-(1548-1617), who would continue in Italy. The name Conimbricenses refers to the University of Coimbra in Portugal.⁵⁴⁷ The doctrines of the School of Salamanca were all embracing and represented the end of the medieval concepts of law, with a revindication of liberty in Europe. The natural rights of man came to be the centre of attention, including rights to a corporal being (right to life, economic rights such as the right to own property) and spiritual rights (the right to freedom of thought and to human dignity).

546 For more details about Thomas Aquinas, see Bibliography of Additional Readings, In Adler, Mortimer J., (ed.), Great Books of the Western World, 2^nd ed., v. 2, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1990, pp. 987-988; Peterson, Craig and Pugh, Mathew S., (eds.) Analytical Thomism: Traditions in Dialogue, Ashgate, 2006; Nicholis, Aidan, Discovering Aquinas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002, pp. 173-174; Aquinas, Thomas, Aquinas Shorter Summa, Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press, 2002, pp. 228-229.

547 “Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Jesu in octo libros physicorum Aristotelis Stagyritae”, Coimbra, 1591;

“Commentarii Collegii Conimbricensis Societatis Jesu in quattuor libros physicorum Aristotelis de Coelo”, Coimbra, 1592; “Commentarii e.t.c. in libros meteorum Aristotelis Stagyritae”, Coimbra, 1592; “Commentarii e.t.c. in libros Aristotelis qui parva naturalia appelantur”, Coimbra, 1592; “Commentarii e.t.c. in libros Ethicorum Aristotelis ad Nichomachum aliquot Cursus Conimbricensis disputations in quibus praecipua quaedam Ethicae disciplinae capita continentur”, Coimbra, 1595; “Commentarii e.t.c. in duos libros Aristotelis de generatione et 132ceptical132”, Coimbra, 1595; “Commentarii e.t.c. in tres libros Aristotelis de Anima”, Coimbra, 1592; this treatise was published after the death of Father Emmanuel Golz (whom Father Fonseca had commissioned to publish the earlier volumes by Father Comas Maggalliano, Magalthaens. To it he added a treatise of Father Balthazaar Alvarez “De Anima Separata” and his own work “Tractatio aliquot Problematum ad quinque Sensus Spectantium”; “Commentarii e.t.c. in universam dialecticam nunc primum (ed. Venice), 1606.

If one recalls that these laws existed before, during and after Atlantic slavery, it will not be far fetched to conclude that the apostles and masters of the Atlantic Slavery and slave trade knew the existence of these laws or ought to know the existence of these laws but nevertheless, compromised these rules and regulations to perpetuate their buying and selling of human beings. Detailed analysis will follow later. The School of Salamanca also reformulated the concept of natural law and that law originated from nature itself. The implication here is that, giving that all humans share the same nature, they also share the same rights such as equality or liberty. This principle was contrary to the view then predominant in Spain and Europe viewed the American Indians or Africans as children or as incapable in the recognition of their rights — such as rights to reject forcible religious conversion or the right to their own land and therefore should be led by the Europeans so as to achieving these goals. Given that we all live not isolated but in society, so is natural law not limited to individuals. Thus, for example, justice is an example of natural law realized in society.⁵⁴⁸ For Gabriel Vazquez (1549-1604) natural law dictates an obligation to act in accord with justice.