Defending Probabilism: The Moral Theology of Juan Caramuel

Chapter 6. Redefining Probabilism: The Dialexis de Non-Certitudine

chapter฀six Redefining฀Probabilism The฀Dialexis฀de฀Non-Certitudine Logic฀suggests฀that฀the฀Apologema฀should฀have฀been฀Bishop฀ ฀ Caramuel’s฀last฀major฀analysis฀of฀probable฀opinion.฀He฀had฀explained฀ probabilism฀to฀the฀authorities฀of฀his฀Church฀with฀passion฀and฀an฀enormous ฀sense฀of฀urgency.฀Yet฀the฀rebuff฀from฀those฀Church฀leaders,฀especially ฀the฀pope฀who฀had฀once฀been฀his฀patron,฀could฀not฀have฀been฀more฀ evident.฀For฀Caramuel,฀who฀took฀ecclesiastical฀censures฀seriously,฀the฀consignment ฀of฀the฀Apologema฀to฀the฀Index฀of฀Forbidden฀Books฀must฀have฀ been฀incredibly฀distressing.฀Given฀his฀broad฀range฀of฀interests,฀it฀would฀ not฀have฀been฀surprising฀if฀the฀bishop฀had฀abandoned฀theological฀probability ฀and฀devoted฀himself฀to฀science,฀linguistics,฀and฀the฀other฀subjects฀ that฀captured฀his฀imagination.฀Yet฀less฀than฀a฀decade฀after฀the฀condemnation ฀of฀his฀Apology,฀Caramuel฀essentially฀redefined฀his฀treatment฀of฀probable ฀opinion฀in฀a฀work฀entitled฀the฀Dialexis฀de฀Non-Certitudine.1 ฀ ฀ The฀Apologema฀and฀the฀Dialexis฀illustrate฀Caramuel’s฀mature฀thought฀ concerning฀probable฀opinion.฀If฀the฀Apologema฀is฀pastoral฀and฀polemical฀ in฀its฀approach,฀the฀Dialexis฀is฀philosophical฀and฀academic,฀with฀a฀display฀ of฀erudition฀that฀includes฀Hebrew฀and฀Greek฀quotations฀as฀well฀as฀Caramuel ’s฀usual฀mining฀of฀the฀Latin฀sources.฀It฀is฀definitely฀a฀work฀directed฀ to฀his฀colleagues,฀rather฀than฀one฀composed฀for฀the฀edification฀of฀ordinary฀ Christians.฀The฀Dialexis’s฀theoretical฀sophistication฀renders฀it฀an฀appropriate ฀addition฀to฀the฀Theologia฀Moralis฀Fundamentalis฀(1675–76),฀for฀which฀ it฀serves฀as฀the฀fourth฀volume.฀As฀we฀shall฀see,฀Caramuel฀regarded฀his฀approaches ฀to฀probability฀in฀Fundamentum฀11฀and฀the฀Dialexis฀as฀distinct฀ but฀complementary.฀Together,฀they฀represent฀a฀remarkable฀explanation฀of฀ 118 probable฀opinion฀from฀an฀author฀who฀had฀devoted฀much฀of฀his฀career฀to฀ its฀analysis. ฀ To฀evaluate฀the฀significance฀of฀the฀Dialexis,฀it฀is฀helpful฀to฀note฀certain฀ circumstances฀surrounding฀its฀publication.฀The฀discussion฀will฀then฀consider ฀the฀novelty฀of฀its฀central฀thesis฀and฀the฀significance฀of฀its฀emphasis฀ upon฀certitude฀and฀“noncertitude.”฀To฀understand฀the฀latter,฀it฀is฀helpful฀ to฀examine฀the฀Dialexis’s฀presuppositions฀regarding฀law,฀human฀freedom,฀ and฀the฀mediating฀role฀exercised฀between฀the฀two฀by฀the฀so-called฀principle ฀of฀possession.฀All฀of฀these฀developments,฀of฀course,฀have฀important฀ implications฀for฀Caramuel’s฀understanding฀of฀probable฀opinion,฀as฀the฀ discussion฀shall฀make฀clear.฀After฀addressing฀these฀foundational฀issues,฀I฀ will฀consider฀Caramuel’s฀response฀to฀two฀possible฀objections฀to฀his฀theory.฀ From฀there,฀discussion฀moves฀to฀the฀theology฀of฀the฀Dialexis฀and฀to฀the฀ Dialexis฀as฀the฀culmination฀of฀Caramuel’s฀approach฀to฀probable฀opinion.฀ The฀Publication฀of฀the฀Dialexis The฀title฀page฀of฀the฀Dialexis฀de฀Non-Certitudine฀gives฀its฀publication฀date฀ as฀1675.฀The฀text฀itself,฀however,฀reveals฀that฀it฀must฀have฀had,฀in฀comparison ฀to฀Caramuel’s฀other฀works,฀an฀unusually฀long฀hiatus฀between฀composition ฀and฀actual฀circulation.฀The฀first฀edition฀of฀the฀Theologia฀Moralis฀ Fundamentalis,฀for฀example,฀received฀the฀censura฀(i.e.,฀the฀required฀examination ฀ and฀ permission฀ for฀ publication)฀ in฀ 1651฀ and฀ was฀ published฀ during฀the฀following฀year.฀All฀of฀the฀Apologema’s฀permissions฀were฀issued฀ in฀1663—the฀same฀year฀as฀its฀publication.฀But฀the฀Dialexis’s฀censures฀are฀ dated฀1671฀and฀1672—three฀and฀four฀years,฀respectively,฀before฀the฀date฀on฀ the฀title฀page.฀Thus฀the฀book฀that฀Caramuel฀wrote฀as฀bishop฀of฀Satriano/ Campagna฀was฀published฀only฀after฀his฀transfer฀to฀Vigevano.฀ ฀ Many฀practical฀factors—not฀least฀of฀which฀was฀the฀bishop’s฀move฀to฀a฀ new฀assignment—may฀explain฀the฀delay.฀Yet฀it฀is฀also฀clear฀that฀Caramuel฀ demonstrated฀uncharacteristic฀caution฀in฀bringing฀this฀text฀to฀the฀public฀ view.฀The฀Dialexis฀ends฀with฀a฀long฀section฀of฀letters฀regarding฀both฀the฀ matters฀treated฀in฀the฀volume฀and฀the฀history฀of฀its฀production.฀To฀his฀ correspondent฀Marcus฀Bravo,฀a฀consulter฀to฀the฀Congregation฀of฀the฀Index ,฀Caramuel฀explains฀the฀steps฀that฀he฀took฀to฀protect฀his฀volume฀from฀ “those฀who฀tried฀to฀suffocate฀it฀before฀it฀was฀sent฀into฀the฀light.”2 ฀As฀a฀ ฀ The฀Publication฀of฀the฀Dialexis฀ 119 precautionary฀measure,฀the฀bishop฀sent฀his฀treatise฀to฀two฀professors฀at฀the฀ University฀of฀Salamanca,฀Michael฀de฀Fuentes฀and฀Antonio฀de฀San฀Pedro,฀ for฀their฀evaluation.฀The฀date฀of฀their฀replies฀indicates฀that฀Caramuel฀must฀ have฀developed฀a฀rough฀draft฀of฀the฀Dialexis฀before฀the฀end฀of฀1670.฀ ฀ The฀Dialexis฀does฀not฀include฀Caramuel’s฀original฀letter฀to฀these฀two฀ professors,฀but฀it฀does฀publish฀their฀responses...