The Valladolid Debate Between Las Casas and Sepúlveda of 1550 on the Conquest and the Intellectual-Religious Capacity of American Indians

Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42

The Valladolid Debate between Las Casas and Sepúlveda of 1550 on the Conquest and the Intellectual-Religious Capacity of American Indians

Chang-Uk Byun, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Mission Theology Presbyterian College & Theological Seminary, Korea

I. Introduction II. Background of the Debate III. Controversial Issues of the Valladolid Debate IV. Missiological Lessons for Today’s Mission V. Conclusion

Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42, 257-276 258 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42

Abstract

A most intriguing yet almost forgotten event in the history of Spain and humankind was the debate of Valladolid (1550-1551) between Bar- tolomé de Las Casas (1484-1566) and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda (1489– 1573) to discuss the just cause of the war being waged by Spain in Amer- ica. The debate concerned the missionary conquest and the intellectual and religious capacity of the American Indians. Sepúlveda led one side of the debate in favor of “forced” conversion and justified conquest and evangelization by the sword. On the other side was Las Casas who was a staunch advocate of peaceful and persuasive conversion. Sepúlveda presented his main points of his thesis first. In reply, Las Casas posed his rebuttal for several days. Although both sides claimed victory in the debate, the junta, a group of theologians and specialists of cannon law, never made a formal decision on the winner of the debate. This was the first debate in the world about human rights in favor and against the use of force to evangelize the Indians in America. This paper is a study to investigate the debate that took place in Valladolid, Spain between the great champion of the indigenous Ameri- cans, Las Casas, and the great Scholastic, Sepúlveda over the missionary conquest and the natural intelligence of the Amerindian. The central controversial issues and consequences of the Las Casas-Sepúlveda debate will be dealt with in depth. Furthermore, some missiological implications of the controversy will also be suggested.

Keywords

Las Casas, Sepúlveda, encomienda, Valladolid Debate, Intellectual Capacity of American Indians The Valladolid Debate between Las Casas and Sepúlveda of 1550 on the Conquest and the Intellectual-Religious Capacity of American Indians 259

I. Introduction

A most intriguing yet almost forgotten event in the history of Spain and humankind was the meeting of the junta or council summoned by Emperor Charles V in Valladolid in 1550-1551 to consider the justice of the wars being waged by Spain in America.1 The junta consisted of jurists and four theologians who met to hear the opposing views on the conquest of America. For the first time in history a nation and her king initiated discussions concerning the justice of a war that was being waged and the intellectual and religious capacity of the American Indi- ans. Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda (1489–1573) led one side of the debate in favor of “forced” conversion and justified conquest and evangelization by the sword. On the other side was Bartolomé de Las Casas (1484- 1566) who was a staunch advocate of “peaceful” conversion.2 In front of the junta at Valladolid, Sepúlveda presented his main points of his thesis first.I n reply, Las Casas posed his rebuttal from his Apología for several days. Although both sides claimed victory in the debate, the junta never made a formal decision on the winner of the debate.3 This paper investigates the debate that took place in Valladolid, Spain between the great champion of the indigenous Americans, Las Casas, and the great Scholastic, Sepúlveda over the missionary conquest and the natural intelligence of the Amerindian. Some implications of the controversy will also be suggested for today’s mission.

II. Background of the Debate

1. Montesinos: A Voice in the Wilderness

Spain’s intellectual preoccupation with the indigenous population of the New World had a modest beginning. In 1511, a friar on the island

1 Ángel Losada, “The Controversy between Sepúlveda and Las Casas in the Junta of Valladolid,” in Bartolomé de Las Casas in History, eds. Juan Friede and Benjamin Keen (DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University, 1971), 279. 2 bonar Ludwig Hernandez, “The Las Casas-Sepúlveda Controversy: 1550-1551,” available from http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/2001/hernandez.html (accessed June 14, 2011). 3 David M. Traboulay, Columbus and Las Casas: The Conquest and Christianization of America, 1492-1566 (Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1994), 169. 260 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42 of Hispaniola (La Española) delivered a sermon on the Sunday before Christmas which questioned the justice and morality of the Spanish treatment of the Indians and the methods of conquest. Fray Antonio de Montesinos, one of the greatest prophets of the New World, accused his congregation of mistreating and abusing the Indians and concluded that the conquistadors were living in a state of mortal sin. Based on the biblical text “I am a voice in the desert” (Matt. 3:3, in turn a quote from Isa. 40:3), his sermon was “the first clamor for justice in theA mericas.”4 Some of Montesinos’ sermon has been preserved:

In order to make your sins to you I have mounted this pulpit, I who as the voice of Christ crying in the wilderness of this island … This voice declares that you are in mortal sin, and live and die therein by reason of the cruelty and tyranny that you practice on these innocent people. Tell me, by what right do you wage such detestable wars on these people who lived mildly and peacefully in their own lands? ... Why do you so greatly oppress and fatigue them, not giving them enough to eat or car- ing for them when they fall ill from excessive labors, so that they die or rather are slain by you, so that you may extract and acquire gold every day?... Are these people [Indians] not men? Do they not have rational souls? [emphasis added] Are you not bound to love them as you love yourselves? ... Be sure that in you present state you can no more be saved than the Moors or Turks.5

2. Encomienda and Exploitation of the Indians

In order to appreciate the importance of Montesinos’sermon, it is necessary to understand the system of encomiendas. The encomienda (commission, entrustment) of Indians became the axis of the economic and social order being established in the Indies. In the New World, the Spanish colonists (encomenderos) held Indians in a socio-economic community (encominda), and provided for them materially and, in cooperation with appointed religious priests (doctrineros), spiritually. The Indians were obliged to work, and the system was shortly to be

4 luis N. Rivera, A Violent Evangelism: The Political and Religious Conquest of the Americas (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992), 242. 5 guillermo Cook, ed. New Face of the Church in Latin America: Between Tradition and Change, American Society of Missiology Series no. 18 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994), 5-9. See also H. McKennie Goodpasture, ed. Cross and Sword: An Eyewitness History of Christianity in Latin America (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1989), 11-12. The Valladolid Debate between Las Casas and Sepúlveda of 1550 on the Conquest and the Intellectual-Religious Capacity of American Indians 261

denounced as slavery. It was precisely at the encomienda system that Montesinos had directed his attack. This encomienda system is implanted, anointed, and sacramental- ized by royal decrees, beginning under the military command of Nico- lás de Ovando in 1503, shortly after the arrival of young Bartolomé on the island of Hispaniola. The encomienda was a labor system employed by the Spanish King. TheS panish officials would grantS panish conquistadors and soldiers responsibility for a group of conquered Indians. The grantees, commonly referred to as encomenderos, were assigned Indians for their own profit and were expected to provideI ndians with Christian instruction.6 The encomienda was more than a giving away of persons and their lands to other persons on the pretest of evangelization. The system was the structural root of the injustices of colonial society. Its rejection was a central aspect of Las Casas’ battle for justice. His long life was an ongoing struggle with the encomienda.7 Montesinos grounded his argument on the premise that the natives were rational human beings, and must be treated as brothers in accordance with the teachings of Christ. This voice had serious implications in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In the most immediate sense, it placed in peril of eternal damnation the immortal souls of the Spanish colonizers and the King and Queen of Spain, in whose names the conquest and colonization were carried out. Now the colonists’ sal- vation was in peril. Those leaders of the Catholic faith in theI ndies were likened to Moors or Turks, the worst adversaries of Christian Europe at that time. But, it also raised two fundamental questions that would be debated over: Were the Indians of the New World in fact rational human beings? And, if so, what exactly was their legal status and relationship to the Spanish Crown? As was to be expected, the Montesinos’ homily awakened a furious reaction on the part of the main colonial officials and Spanish colonists (encomenderos). King Fernando V (Catholic Monarch) himself obtained a copy of the sermon and expressed his displeasure to Diego Colón, son of the first Columbus. KingF ernando gave his permission to punish the

6 lewis Hanke, All Mankind Is One: A Study of the Disputation between Bartolomé de Las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda in 1550 on the Intellectual and Religious Capac- ity of the American Indians (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1974), 4; Tom Horwood, “Las Casas: A Sixteenth Century Approach to Mission,” The Month 33 (January 2000), 18. 7 gustavo Gutiérrez, Las Casas: In Search of the Poor of Jesus Christ, trans. Robert R. Barr (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1993), 21-44, 279-301. 262 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42 rebellious Dominican severely.8 It seemed that King Fernando V interpreted Friar Montesinos’ sermon as an assault on his rights. He considered the friar as someone who defended new and unheard-of ideas.9

3. Defender of the Indians: Bartholomé de Las Casas

Soon another Dominican, Bartolomé de Las Casas who himself had received an encomienda and who then renounced it in order to devote his life to the defense of the Indians, came to the foreground.10 As an encomendero he had large parcels of land and a whole village of Indians. After his “conversion” in 1514 in Cuba at the age of thirty, Las Casas gave up his lands and freed the Indian slaves in his encomienda, and for the next fifty-two years became the most notable champion of the American Indians in Latin America. Then,he started to write exten- sively about the abuses perpetuated by the Spanish in the New World, arguing that this was no proper way to proclaim the gospel and that the natives could best be brought to faith in Jesus Christ by peaceful means. He traveled repeatedly to Spain in order to advocate for laws defending the native inhabitants of these lands. It is not sure whether Las Casas attended the church in 1511 per- sonally when Montesinos delivered the sermon. It is very possible that Las Casas had a hand in the reflections and proposals of the Domini- cans.11 Las Casas may have heard Montesinos’ sermons and may have been affected by them. As the text of the sermon was drawn up in ad- vance, it is not out of the question that Bartolomé could later have had a copy in hand. Gutierrez believes that the veracity of Las Casas’ version of the famous Montesinos sermon is authentic as to its basic content and fundamental expressions. Both Las Casas and Montesinos used the prophetic Old Testament in Ezekiel 34:2-4.12

8 “I also saw the sermon by a Dominican friar called Antonio Montesinos [sic]… what he said has left me in astonishment because what he said does not have any good theological foundation nor canons nor laws according to what the scholars, theologians, and canon lawyers say who have seen the grant that our very Holy father Alexander VI made to us… so it is reasonable that you will impose on the one who preached it… some punishment because his error was very great… They [Montesinos and his Dominican brothers] may not speak from the pulpit nor outside, directly or indirectly of this matter, not of related ones… in public no in secret.”(Rivera, A Violent Evangelism, 236, 234). 9 gustavo Gutiérrez, Las Casas, 31-37. 10 luis N. Rivera, A Violent Evangelism, 76-77, 237-50; Gutiérrez, Las Casas, 482 n.2. 11 gustavo Gutiérrez, Las Casas, 29, 43, 476. 12 luis N. Rivera, A Violent Evangelism, 240. The Valladolid Debate between Las Casas and Sepúlveda of 1550 on the Conquest and the Intellectual-Religious Capacity of American Indians 263

You are doomed, you shepherds of Israel! You take care of yourselves, but never tend the sheep. You drink the milk, wear clothes made from the wool, and kill and eat the finest sheep. But you never tend the sheep. You have not taken care of the weak ones, healed the ones that are sick, bandaged the ones that are hurt, brought back the ones that wandered off, or looked for the ones that were lost. Instead, you treated them cru- elly.” (Ezekiel 34:2-4)

Las Casas also alluded to the New Testament text James 5 which sheds light on the outcome of slavery inflected on the Indians by the Spaniards—it will give rise to divine wrath. Theencomenderos , however, did not change their attitude. Thus, Las Casas finally decided to go to the King with Antonio Montesinos. In September 1515, one year after having publicly declared that he was abandoning his encomineda, Las Casas left for Spain, along with Montesinos.13

III. Controversial Issues of the Valladolid Debate

In mid-August of 1550, the “Council of Fourteen” was formed in Valladolid at the request of Charles V to sit in judgment on the following issue: Is it lawful for the King of Spain to wage war on the Indi- ans, before preaching the faith to them, in order to subject them to his rule, so that afterward they may be more easily instructed in the faith? Both Bartolomé de Las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda came to Valladolid well-prepared to defend their positions.14 A verbal onslaught continued for five days. The two opponents did not appear together before the Council; instead the judges seem to have discussed the issues with them separately as they stated their positions. One of the members, Domingo de Soto, an able theologian and jurist, was given the task of summarizing the arguments.15 Among the judges of the junta were a group of theologians (Do- mingo de Soto, Melchor Cano, Bernardino de Arévalo, and Miranda) and specialists in canon law, who summoned Las Casas and Sepúlveda

13 gustavo Gutiérrez, Las Casas, 53. 14 arguing in the affirmative was Sepúlveda; Las Casas presented the opposing view. 15 lewis Hanke, All Mankind Is One, 68. 264 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42 before them. The junta did not reach any definite conclusion, but the council was “closely concerned with arguments on the capacity of the Indians as they affected royal policy.”16 In the end, the discussions had notable influence on the creation of modern international law and missionary mentality for today.17

1. Intellectual Capacity of American Indians

During that period there were two contending parties. One was headed by Sepúlveda, confessor of the emperor, philosopher, theologian, and an exponent of the use of force to overcome the opposi- tion of the newly discovered peoples to the preaching of Christianity. Sepúlveda, a follower of Aristotle who later became Grand Inquisitor of Spain and Archbishop of Toledo, considered them barbarians or “apes” who lacked reasoning capacity, and who were incapable of self government. Because of these deficiencies, they had to be subjected to bondage by nature. The other was headed by the DominicanL as Casas, Bishop of Chia- pas, who was totally opposed to the use of force to bring the Indians to Christianity and under the jurisdiction of Christian rulers. He insisted that “native Americans did not belong to the class of barbarians that Aristotle recommended to be hunted and brought forcefully to civilized life.”18 On the contrary, he contended that they are “very talented in learning, and very ready to accept Christian religion.”19 Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo was the “royal officer and official historian” who Sepúlveda relied upon “as an authority on Indian capacity.”20 Las Casas directly refutes Oviedo’s “assertion that the Indi- ans are unteachable and incorrigible” by stating that “I [Las Casas] do not know whether there is any people readier to receive the gospel,” and he describes the Indians as “our [Spaniards’] brothers” and as people who are “simple, moderate, and meek.”21 Las Casas’ main point for the Indians was that “not all barbarians are irrational or natural slaves or unfit for government. Some barbarians, in accordance with justice and

16 ibid., 70. 17 ibid., 67-68. See also Friede and Keen, Bartolomé de Las Casas, 281-82. 18 David M. Traboulay, Columbus and Las Casas, 172. 19 lewis Hanke, All Mankind Is One, 74. 20 ibid., 105. 21 ibid., 76. The Valladolid Debate between Las Casas and Sepúlveda of 1550 on the Conquest and the Intellectual-Religious Capacity of American Indians 265

nature, have kingdoms, royal dignities, jurisdiction, and good laws, and there is among them lawful government.”22 It is believed that the majority of influential Spanish theologians adopted the principle that every human being is by nature free and that no nation by natural law deserves to be enslaved.23 For example, Do- mingo de Soto, a junta member, expressed it this way: “by natural law all men are born free”; and Melchor Cano, another junta member: “no man is a slave by nature.”24 According to Gutierrez, Soto, Las Casas’ ally and friend, did not renounce the theology of “forced” conversion, because hepresented a more moderate stance of it. Las Casas, however, had a stronger view against it.25

2. Euro-centric Mentality

On the first day, Sepúlveda presented a summary of his treatise Demócrates Segundo26 for three hours to prove that wars against the natives were just, and even constituted necessary, preliminary to their Christianization. Sepúlveda held that war against the Indians was per- missible, even recommended, for four reasons: Indians were idolaters; they were slaves by natures; their submission facilitated the preaching of missionaries; they made human sacrifice of the innocent.27 Sepúlveda supported his arguments by attempting to prove the rational incapacity of the Indians. For this, he relied on the Aristotelian doctrine on natural slavery which maintains that there are certain in- dividuals who are inferior by nature and are meant to be governed by those who are naturally their superiors. The inferiority of the natives of the New World manifested itself, according to Sepúlveda, in four par- ticularly malignant ways which justified the violent intervention of their natural superiors, the Spaniards. He concluded that the Indians were naturally inferior to the Spaniards and should be subjugated to their authority, by force if the Indians attempted to resist.28

22 ibid., 75. 23 luis N. Rivera, A Violent Evangelism, 110. 24 ibid., 249-51. 25 gutiérrez, Las Casas, 130-31. 26 Demócrates Segundo (“The Just Causes of the War against theI ndians”) was printed for the first time, in Latin with a Spanish translation in 1892 in Madrid (Friede and Keen, Bartolomé de Las Casas, 280). 27 gustavo Gutiérrez, Las Casas, 173-74, 206-13. 28 lewis Hanke, All Mankind Is One, 67-82. 266 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42

Sepúlvedaportrayed the Indians as wild savages, inferior people, or natural slaves. His conception of the Indian nature was the stereotypical ethno-centric, or Euro-centric mentality to foreign cultures or religions. He cited Aristotle in support of his argument, but Las Casas also quoted Aristotle in reply. Defending his doctrine on this point as it appears in his Apología, Las Casas distinguished four classes. Las Casas confronted the question of the wars being waged on the Indians for the purpose of punishing human sacrifice and cannibalism. His rebuttal to the assertion of Sepúlveda governs its considerations: respect for the Indians’ religious customs.

3. Indians Are Not Barbarous

Las Casas brought with him almost half a century of experience in working with the Indians in the New World and a manuscript entitled “Defense against the Persecutors and Slanderers of the Peoples of the New World Discovered across the Seas,” which he later read, word for word, to the judges. Las Casas, through a precise exegesis of the way in which Aristotle employs it, was able to conclude that there are actually four types of barbarians. First, people are barbarous because of their savage behavior. Las Casas claims that this definition applies to such “civilized” peoples as the Greeks and Romans, as well as to the Spaniards who “have sur- passed all other barbarians in the savagery of their behavior toward the Indians.”29 Second, people are called barbarians if they have no written language. Las Casas argues that they are barbarians only in a restricted sense and do not fall into the class that Aristotle describes as natural slaves. Third, there are those who are barbarians in the strict sense of the term, that is, people who live without social or political organization. This group is often referred to as “natural slaves” byA ristotle. Las Casas argued that these are a very small minority, since most of the Indians of the New World had very well developed social and political organiza- tions. The fourth category of barbarians includes all those who have not

29 ibid., 67-82. The Valladolid Debate between Las Casas and Sepúlveda of 1550 on the Conquest and the Intellectual-Religious Capacity of American Indians 267

received the Light of Grace. These barbarians by way of infidelity are, in turn, subdivided into those who do not harm the Church and those who willfully and with malice attack it. Las Casas concludes that only against the latter does Christendom have a right to engage in war. His defense of the Indians of the New World, then, is ultimately based on the premise that they are not natural slaves, as Sepúlveda insisted, since they fit only the second “barbarians in language” and the fourth “barbarians in peaceful infidelity” categories of Aristotle’s definition.30 In fact, Las Casas went on to compliment the Indians’ ability in the liberal arts once they were taught. In the Defense, he says the following: “In the liberal arts which they have been taught up to now, such as grammar and logic, they are remarkably adept … They write skillfully and quite elegantly…”31 Las Casas did not deny the existence of slaves by nature, but distinguished them as entirely different from the Indians. He described natural slaves as follows:

They are truly barbarians either becauseof their evil and wicked char- acter … They lack the reasoning and the way of life suited to human beings … They have no laws which they fear or by which all their af- fairs are regulated … they lead a life very much that of brute animals … Barbarians of this kind are rarely found in any part of the world and are few in number.32

4. Waging a War against the Indians

The controversial issue at the debate was the justice of waging war against the Indians. Sepúlveda defended Spain’s responsibility to for- cibly Christianize the Indians. He considered the Spaniards amply justified in carrying out a war against them as a prerequisite to Christianize them. In support of his argument, Sepúlveda reiterated:

[I]f you know the customs and nature of the two peoples [Spaniards and Native Americans], that with perfect right the Spaniards rule over these barbarians of the New World and the adjacent islands, who in wisdom,

30 ibid., 83-87. 31 ibid., 75. 32 ibid., 83. 268 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42

intelligence, virtue, and humanitas are as inferior to the Spaniards as in- fants to adults and women to men. There is as much difference between them as there is between cruel, wild peoples and the most merciful of peoples, between the most monstrously intemperate peoples and those who are temperate and moderate in their pleasures, that is to say, between apes and men.33

Sepúlveda then proposed the use of force, arguing that

Those who go away from the Christian religion wander on the path of error and walk toward a sure precipice, unless even against their will we retrieve them by whatever means possible … Thus I affirm that those barbarians should not only be invited, but also compelled to do good, that is to be just and religious.34

Las Casas, however, argued that the Indians should not be forced by war to let them in the fold of the church under no circumstances. The gospel message of Christ should be spread in a peaceful and persuasive way. He did acknowledge the necessity of just war but in a very limited sense. For example, just war could be waged against heretics who rejected Christian faith after having previously been exposed to it. However, the war with non-believers, like the AmericanIndians, was wrong because they were not heretics who are subject to punishment. For Las Casas, just war against the Indians would do more harm to the Christian witness than good. He went on to say that the Indians would “never be under obligation to lend credence to any preacher of our holy faith, as long as that preacher is accompanied by tyrannical persons, men of war, plunderers and murderers such as the Doctor [Sepúlveda] would like to introduce.”35 Both the Defense and later the monumental Apología (Apologética- historiasumaria) rely on an exhaustive description of Indian cultures to refute the arguments presented by Sepúlveda in support of their natural inferiority.36 Lewis Hanke has pointed out that the Defense and the Apología (c.1559) are closely related in so far as the latter develops the

33 Juan Ginésde Sepúlveda [1550], quoted in Alejandro García-Rivera, “Artificial Intelligence and de Las Casas: A 1492 Resonance,” Journal of Religion and Science 28 (December 1993), 546. 34 luis N. Rivera, A Violent Evangelism, 219. 35 gustavo Gutiérrez, Las Casas, 104. 36 lewis Hanke, All Mankind Is One, 73-108. The Valladolid Debate between Las Casas and Sepúlveda of 1550 on the Conquest and the Intellectual-Religious Capacity of American Indians 269

former’s basic themes in much greater breadth and detail. A large part of the Defense is devoted to demonstrating that the Indians had “kingdoms, royal dignities, jurisdiction, and good laws and there is among them lawful government.”37 In fact, “Las Casas made it clear at the beginning of the Defense that his principal concern was to attack those who condemned “en masse so many thousands of people [Indians]” for faults that most of them did not have.”38 Las Casas rebutted Sepúlveda’s reasons for just cause for war by going on to say that the motivations of the Spanish conquistadores were very impure. Thus, “just” war against the Indians was completely unjust. As for Sepúlveda’s mode of argumentation, his supporting evidence concerning the Indian cultures suffers from the weaknesses of lack of detail and authoritative sources. He himself had no first-hand experience in American matters. Sepúlveda himself never came to America, but relied for his information on historians like Oviedo who had taken a dim view of Indian rights.39 Hence, his pronouncement on the nature of the Indians was often nothing more than reformulations of the com- mon prejudice of his time.

IV. Missiological Lessons for Today’s Mission

The Valladolid debate reflects the two basic positions on the missionary conquest and the nature of the American Indians in the sixteenth century. Sepúlveda portrayed the natives of the New World as morally and intellectually deficient barbarians who must be “corrected” at any cost, including the use of force. On the contrary, Las Casas main- tained that the Indians were fully rational human beings who exhibited a high degree of prudence and natural wisdom in their religious beliefs and political institutions. Las Casas further argued that the Indians shouldn’t be compelled by force for their Christian conversion. This dis- pute between Bartolomé de Las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda took place in the most crucial moment for Spanish America. The outcome

37 ibid., 84. 38 ibid., 82. 39 David M. Traboulay, Columbus and Las Casas, 167. See also Rivera, A Violent Evangelism, 149. 270 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42 of the debate was inconclusive, but gives us an opportunity to reflect on several missiological issues. The following missiological lessons can be drawn from the controversy at Valladolid, Spain in 1550 and 1551.

1. Theological Justification for the Conquest

The debate that enfolded between the two sides led to one of the most complicated and controversial issues in the history of the Spanish colonization of the American Indians. That is to say, I“ s war lawful as a means for spreading Christianity in America?” This question entails two presuppositions. One is the legality of just war and the other is the nature of the American Indians.40 Las Casas disagreed with Sepúlveda’s stance for just war against the Indians, and instead criticized his oppo- nent for misapplying just cause for war to defend Spanish colonialism. To hide the presumptions of cultural and religious superiority of the Spaniards (as we may call toady) the unjust war was justified theological dogmas. The debate of Valladolid is not merely a matter of philosophical curiosity, for behind it lies the theology of the medieval church of the times. This theology explains a good part of the missionary zeal of the sixteenth century both in America and elsewhere. The religious and political motives were strongly intertwined into the Spain of medieval Christendom of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The religious mo- tivation not only justified, but also judged, the colonial enterprise.I t was a time when Hispanicity and Catholic orthodoxy seemed synonymous. The Christian religion became the official ideology for theS panish government’s imperial expansion.41 Implicitly andexplicitly the missionary text of Luke 14:23 (“Com- pel them to come in”) exerted an enormous influence on the missionary mentality of Sepúlveda of the sixteenth century. Sepúlveda used the parable of the wedding feast in Luke 14 and Matthew 22, where the master of the feast commands his servants to go out to the streets and compel any passerby to come to the celebration. Sepúlveda interpreted this Bible verse to imply that pagans should be Christianized by force. Las Casas, however, interpreted that this verse did not refer to force but to persuasion. He argued that Christ commanded the apostles to preach

40 lewis Hanke, All Mankind Is One, 81. 41 gustavo Gutiérrez and Richard Shaull, Liberation and Change (Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1977), 60-61. The Valladolid Debate between Las Casas and Sepúlveda of 1550 on the Conquest and the Intellectual-Religious Capacity of American Indians 271

the gospel to all nations, but that it is impossible to force unbelievers to listen or to believe. David Bosch argues that “in the subsequent centuries the explicit appeal to Luke 14:23 fell into disuse,” but the missionary attitudebehind it persisted well into the twentieth century and some of its missionary circles.42

2. Forced Conversion

Both Las Casas and Sepúlveda believed that it was necessary to preach the Christian faith in the New World, and both agreed the New World had to come under the jurisdiction of the Spanish kings. For Las Casas, peaceful means were the only legitimate way to achieve these ends. He argued that “Indians could not be expected to abandon the religion of their ancestors until they were persuaded by peaceful means of a better alternative.”43 He argued that “the conditions essential for the mission to civilize and Christianize America were respect for the culture and beliefs of native Americans and that they should be allowed to choose freely to accept or reject Christianity.”44 On the other hand, all this was a utopian dream for Sepúlveda. He never abandoned the view that Indian culture was vastly inferior to that of Spaniards. He believed that force must be employed to achieve those ends. The evangelization of the natives, therefore, has an important political consequence. The missionary task implies political hegemony.A ll of this is a transaction between the people and Catholic Monarchs, outside the will, consent and knowledge of the native peoples. Let’s look at the following famous passages of the Bull Inter Caetera of Pope Alexander VI.

All the mainlands and isles found or to be found, discovered or to be discovered … that were not already possessed by another Christian sov- ereign or prince … by the authority of Almighty God, granted unto us in Saint Peter, and by the office which we bear on earth as Vicar of Christ, … we give, grant, assign … to you, your heirs and successors.45

42 David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1992), 236. 43 David M. Traboulay, Columbus and Las Casas, 173. 44 ibid., 173. 45 luis N. Rivera, A Violent Evangelism, 24, 29-30. 272 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42

False theology makes Christianity sick or morbid. Gutierrez pointed out that “we have had many other Sepúlvedas since in America, ad- vocates for the exploitation and slavery of the majority in the name of “western and Christian civilization.”46 The discovery of the New World brought about more evil than good to the Indians at the hands of the conquistadors and encomenderos. They convinced themselves that what they were doing, which would be considered genocide today, was a great act of Christian obedience.

3. Missionary Conquest

The unity of God and gold, mission and conquest is perhaps no- where more strikingly expressed as in the conquest and evangelization of the Spanish colonization of the Americas in the sixteenth century. The image of theS panish missionary was that he was a priest missionary and, at the same time, the king’s officer. Evangelization was intimately tied to the accumulation of gold. Gold was mediator of the gospel. As a result, many indigenous leaders were able to see through the colonial system and unmask the real theology which sustained and gave mean- ing to the adventure of the conquest and colonization. The god of the Spaniards was gold.47 For the Indians, Christianity and slavery went together; there was no Christianity in liberty. As soon as the slaves revolted to claim their liberty, they were branded heathen and, consequently, un-Christian. In this light, the missionaries played a very important role in the process of conquest. To the conquistadors, the Amerindians were worse than the infidels. The trail of blood and exploitation can be traced to the ethno- centric mindset of our day. In general, military conquest and missionary conversion in America went hand in hand in the evangelization of America. The linkage of conquest and Christianization was so intertwined that the former was formally perceived in conjunction with the latter; in the end, the latter was considered fruitful only based upon the former.

46 gustavo Gutiérrez and Richard Shaull, Liberation and Change, 67. 47 José Oscar Beozzo, “Humiliated and Exploited Natives,” in The Voice of the Vic- tims, 1492-1992, eds. Leonardo Boff and Vigil Elizondo (London: SCM Press, 1991), 87- 88. The Valladolid Debate between Las Casas and Sepúlveda of 1550 on the Conquest and the Intellectual-Religious Capacity of American Indians 273

4. Crusade Mentality

Sepúlveda submitted his Demócrates Segundo and Apología, both of them in Latin. The former was printed for the first time, in Latin with a Spanish translation in 1892. The latter has not yet been translated into Spanish. Las Casas’ works were translated and published later by the British, who used them to prove that the Spanish were by nature cruel. Thereupon, most of the English-speaking world believes that all the Spaniards in the New World were bloodthirsty and avaricious and that Las Casas was a lonely island in a sea of insensitivity. The so-called Black Legend48 - a deep-rooted anti-Spanish propaganda disseminated initially at the time of the Armada and revitalized whenever Anglo and Hispanic interests have come into conflict.F or England, Spain’s imperial and Protestant competitor, Las Casas’ works furnished a salient Black Legend proof-text. Although Las Casas’ works were translated and published much later by the British as a salient Black Legend proof-text, “Las Casas should rightly be a source of pride for the Spanish, proving that there was in the nation and the church a power of self-criticism seldom found among the powerful.”49 Although this debate marked the first time issues about the rights of native peoples were raised and seriously discussed. When we look at history and ourselves, the debate challenges us to reflect upon the attitude of missionaries, and especially their paternalistic attitudes. The missionary went as a superior, not as a subordinate. Kosuke Koyama calls this mission mind a crusading mind, not a crucified mind.F or the Spanish missionaries, the image of the Savior was a crusading Christ, not a crucified Christ.50 David Bosch aptly spoke, “Although Crusade projects failed, the Crusade mentality persisted.”51

48 see John L. Robinson, “The Black Legend: Myth and Reality Through Five Cen- turies,” Restoration Quarterly 34 (First Quarter 1992), 15-29. 49 The main texts of Las Casas were published in the nineteenth and twentieth century in Span and Mexico. Justo L. Gonzalez, “The Christ of Colonialism,”Church & Society (January/February 1992), 25. 50 David J. Bosch, A Spirituality of the Road (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1979), 30; Kosuke Koyama, “What Makes a Missionary? Toward Crucified Mind, Not Crusading Mind,” Mission Trends No. 1: Crucial Issues in Mission Today, eds. Gerald H. Anderson and Thomas F. Stransky (New York: Paulist Press, 1974), 117-32. See also Alan Neely, “Mission as Kenosis,” The Princeton Seminary Bulletin 10 (New Series 1989), 205. 51 bosch, Transforming Mission, 227. 274 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42

V. Conclusion

The debate of Valladolid was one of the epoch-making events in the history of the expansion of Christianity in South America. The Las Ca- sas-Sepúlveda debate, however, failed drastically to improve the plight of the Indians. That is, theI ndians did not benefit in a tangible way from the debate because it was so theoretical. However, Las Casas “gathered them [the Indians] into so-called “reductions” or settlements to protect them. Later, the Jesuits isolated the Indians in their “reductions” in different parts of South Americaso as to free them from encomienda.52 Las Casas was the loudest voice of the sixteenth century Spain clamoring on behalf of the American Indians. He should be remem- bered as the staunch defender of the natives. Las Casas’ work and effort paved the way for a more human and peaceful conquest of the Americas and the development of human rights in the modern international law. The life and ministry of Las Casas challenges us a critical assessment of our Korean missionaries’ ethno-centric mindset. The legacy of the Valladolid debate reminds us of theage-old principle that our witness should testify not only with words, but also with our deeds.

52 ibid., 236; Margarita Durán Estragó, “The Reductions,” in The Church in Latin America, 1492-1992, ed. Enrique Dussel (New York: Orbis Books, 1992), 357. The Valladolid Debate between Las Casas and Sepúlveda of 1550 on the Conquest and the Intellectual-Religious Capacity of American Indians 275

Bibliography

Beozzo, José Oscar. “Humiliated and Exploited Natives.” In The Voice of the Victims, 1492- 1992, edited by Leonardo Boff and Vigil Elizondo. London: SCM Press, 1991. Bosch, David. A Spirituality of the Road. Scottdale. PA: Herald Press, 1979. . Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1992. Cook, Guillermo, ed. New Face of the Church in Latin America: Between Tradition and Change. American Society of Missiology Series. No. 18. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994. Dussel, Enrique, ed. The Church in Latin America, 1492-1992. New York: Orbis Books, 1992. Estragó, Margarita Durán. “The Reductions.” In The Church in Latin America, 1492-1992, edited by Enrique Dussel. New York: Orbis Books, 1992. García-Rivera, Alejandro. “Artificial Intelligence and de Las Casas: A 1492 Resonance.” Jour- nal of Religion and Science 28 (December 1993). Gonzalez, Justo L. “The Christ of Colonialism.” Church & Society (January/February 1992), 5-36. Goodpasture, H. McKennie, ed. Cross and Sword: An Eyewitness History of Christianity in Latin America. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1989. Gutierrez, Gustavo. Las Casas: In Search of the Poor of Jesus Christ. Translated by Robert R. Barr. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1993. Gutierrez, Gustavo, and Richard Shaull. Liberation and Change. Atlanta, Georgia: John Knox Press, 1977. Hanke, Lewis. All Mankind Is One: A Study of the Disputation between Bartolomé de Las Casas and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda in 1550 on the Intellectual and Religious Capacity of the American Indians. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1974. Hernandez, Bonar Ludwig. “The Las Casas-Sepúlveda Controversy: 1550-1551.” Available from http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/2001/hernandez.html (accessed June 14, 2011). Horwood, Tom. “Las Casas: A Sixteenth Century Approach to Mission.” The Month 33 (Janu- ary 2000), 18- 23. Koyama, Kosuke. “What Makes a Missionary? Toward Crucified Mind, Not Crusading Mind.” In Mission Trends No. 1: Crucial Issues in Mission Today, edited by Gerald H. Anderson and Thomas F. Stransky. New York: Paulist Press, 1974. Losada, Ángel. “The Controversy between Sepúlveda and Las Casas in the Junta of Val- ladolid.” In Bartolomé de Las Casas in History, edited by Juan Friede and Benjamin Keen. DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University, 1971. Neely, Alan. “Mission as Kenosis.” The Princeton Seminary Bulletin 10 (New Series 1989), 202-23. Rivera, Luis N. A Violent Evangelism: The Political and Religious Conquest of the Americas. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992. Robinson, John L. “TheB lack Legend: Myth and Reality ThroughF ive Centuries.” Restoration Quarterly 34 (First Quarter 1992), 15-29. Traboulay, David M. Columbus and Las Casas: The Conquest and Christianization of America, 1492-1566. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1994. 276 Korea Presbyterian Journal of Theology Vol. 42

한글 초록

남미 정복과 원주민의 지적·종교적 능력에 대한 라스카사스와 세풀비다의 바야돌리드 논쟁 (1550)

변창욱 장로회신학대학교 선교신학

선교역사에서 가장 흥미로운 사건은 1550년과 1551년 두 차례에 걸쳐 중세 로마가톨 릭교회의 남미 정복과 선교에서 남미 원주민들의 지적 능력의 문제와 무력 사용의 정당 성 여부를 둘러싸고 스페인 바야돌리드에서 벌어졌던 바야돌리드 논쟁이었다. 이 논쟁 에서 후안 휘네스 세풀비다(1489-1573)는 스페인 식민주의자들의 입장을 대변하여 무 력 사용을 정당시하는 입장을 취했고, 이에 반하여 바돌로메 데 라스카사스(1484-1566) 는 원주민의 인권을 옹호하며 설득을 통한 평화적 선교를 주장하였다. 이 논쟁은 세풀비 다가 먼저 원주민들은 천성적으로 미개하고 열등한 존재라는 것을 주장하면, 라스카사 스가 이에 대한 반론을 제기하는 형태로 전개되었다. 바야돌리드 논쟁이 지니는 역사적 중요성은 정복자인 스페인 사람들이 남미 정복의 도 덕적, 신학적, 법적 정당성에 대해 역사상 그 유례가 없는 공적 논의를 벌였다는 데에 있 다. 본 논문은 라스카사스와 세풀비다의 바야돌리드 논쟁의 배경과 주요 논쟁점을 개관 한다. 끝으로 바야돌리드 논쟁 이후에 어떤 변화가 있었는지를 검토하며, 이 논쟁이 오늘 날 우리의 선교 현장에 주는 선교적 교훈과 도전은 무엇인지를 살펴본다.

주제어

라스카사스, 세풀비다, 엔코미엔다, 바야돌리드 논쟁, 남미 원주민의 지적 능력

Date submitted: August 23, 2011; date accepted: September 19, 2011; date confirmed: September 26, 2011.