Simón Bolívar (1783-1830), the scion of a wealthy slaveowning family of Caracas, as a young man spent several months in Europe where he came to know and admire the works of the philosophes, the great propagandists of the European Enlightenment. After 1810 he became a major participant in the political and military struggle for the independence of Spanish America. His greatest military achievement came in 1819 with the impossible trek of his poorly equipped army across the formidable Andes mountains. He achieved the goal of taking the Spanish by surprise, defeating them at the critical battle of Boyacá. In the last ten years of his short life,
Bolívar devoted his energies to finding a form of government that would foster the progress of a society that he believed was almost entirely unfit for self-government, owing to its colonial heritage and numerous underclass citizens.
The following excerpts are taken (1) from a private letter (1823); (2) an address to legislators (1823); and (3) a letter to a general (1826) who is a provincial governor.
What does Bolívar fear, and what role does religion play for him?
Does it allay his fears, increase them, or work both ways?
Bolívar was baptized a Roman Catholic and was brought up in colonial Spanish America where the Catholic Church was a powerful institution closely allied with the colonial government. Explain how he completely rejected the entire colonial conception of Catholicism, of the church, and of the relation between church and state despite being a believer who unhesitatingly acknowledged a place for “spiritual pastors” in society.
Does the instruction that Bolívar gave to Bishop Torres contradict the social role of the church suggested by the prelate Abad y Queipo in the previous reading? In this letter Bolívar was not concerned with establishing political distinctions about the role of religion in society but with the relationship between the actual Catholic clergy of 1826 and “the civil establishment.” Do the same fears Bolívar expressed in the letter (1823) reappear in this passage? What do the last three sentences (“Let us not quarrel”) reveal about Bolívar's experience with and understanding of the Catholic clergy?
[1] Religion has lost much of its power, which, perhaps, it will not regain for a long time, since customs now differ from the sacred doctrines; hence, unless society establishes a new system of penalties and chastisements, of sins and transgressions, to improve our moral behavior, we shall doubtless move headlong toward universal dissolution. All the world knows that religion and philosophy restrain men; the former by punishment, the latter by patience and persuasion. Religion has her thousand indulgences for the wicked, and philosophy offers many diverse systems, each favoring some particular vice. The one has binding laws and fixed tribunals; the other has only exponents with no codes or enforcement agencies empowered by political institutions. From this I conclude that we must seek a mean between these two extremes and create an institution authorized both by fundamental laws and by the overwhelming force of public opinion.
On another occasion I shall have more to tell you about this. At present, I have no time for more, and what I have said is of little value. Meanwhile, I am sending you a letter from De Pradt to me, together with my reply, which must not be printed on any account. Be so kind as to present my compliments to the Arboleda and the Mosquera families. I am your most devoted. Bolívar […]
Arboleda and the Mosquera families. I am your most devoted. Bolívar […] [2] Legislators, I shall mention one item which my conscience has compelled me to omit. A political constitution should not prescribe any particular religion, for, according to the best doctrines, fundamental laws guarantee political and civil rights, and, since religion has no bearing upon these rights, it is by nature indefinable in the social organization, because it lies in the moral and intellectual sphere. Religion governs man in his home, within his own walls, within himself. Religion alone is entitled to examine a man's innermost conscience. Laws, on the contrary, deal with surface things; they are applicable outside the home of a citizen. If we apply these criteria, how can a state rule the conscience of its subjects, enforce the observance of religious laws, and mete out rewards and punishments, when the tribunals are in Heaven and God is the judge? Only the Inquisition could presume to do their work on earth. Would you bring back the Inquisition with its burnings at the stake?
Religion is the law of conscience. Any law that imposes it negates it, because to apply compulsion to conscience is to destroy the value of faith, which is the very essence of religion. The sacred precepts and doctrines are useful, enlightening, and spiritually nourishing. We should all avow them, but the obligation is moral rather than political.
On the other hand, what are the religious rights of man on earth? These rights reside in Heaven where there is a tribunal that rewards merit and dispenses justice according to the code laid down by the great Lawgiver. As all this is within divine jurisdiction, it would seem to me, at first sight, to be sacrilegious and profane for us to interfere with the Commandments of the Lord by enactments of our own. Prescribing religion is therefore not the task of the legislator, who, for any infractions, must provide penalties, not mere exhortations. Where there are no temporal punishments or judges to apply them, the law ceases to be law.
The moral development of man is the legislator's first concern. Once such a growth has been attained, man bases his morality upon the truths so revealed and acknowledges religion de facto and all the more effectively for having come to it by personal experience. Moreover, heads of families cannot neglect their religious obligations to their children. The spiritual pastors are obliged to teach the Gospel of Heaven. The example of all the true disciples of Christ is the most eloquent teacher of his divine doctrine. But doctrine cannot be commanded, nor is one who commands a teacher, for force can play no part in the giving of spiritual counsel. God and his ministers are the authorities on religion, and religion exerts its influence solely through spiritual means and bodies, never through instruments of the nation's body politic, which serves only to direct public energies toward purely temporal ends. […]
[3] Dr. Torres is about to undertake the administration of the diocese in your department, having been appointed by Orihuela to take charge during his absence. Dr. Torres is a churchman especially noted for his high principles and abilities, for he has a broad knowledge of the fine arts and sciences. He is a particular friend of mine, and he earnestly desires to contribute to the welfare of Peru by strengthening her regime and improving her institutions. Imbued with these sentiments, he is bound to be of great help to you in your department. He has my express instructions to cooperate with you in all that has to do with religion and to bring the civil authority into complete harmony with the ecclesiastic, by inducing the curates and other clerics and agents of the church to lend their positive support to the civil establishment, and by establishing a complete understanding between them and yourself, placating also those who may have had their differences with you. Since Dr. Torres is as discreet as he is affable, he is eminently fitted to accomplish these objectives, which I greatly desire to see realized, for, in Peru's present condition, only the closest cooperation among all public officials can create a solid front capable of withstanding the large number who seek to create disorder and anarchy for motives of personal ambition. I recommend that you listen to Dr. Torres’ suggestions, for he is thoroughly versed in my ideas as to how to preserve the work which has entailed so many sacrifices. Let us not quarrel with the churchmen, as they can always call religion to their aid and induce others to make common cause with them. Misunderstandings with them are always futile; friendly relations with them are always beneficial. They do their persuading in secret and manage men's consciences; whoever possesses these weapons is certain of victory.