Defending Probabilism: The Moral Theology of Juan Caramuel

Chapter 5. Explaining Probabilism: The Apologema’s Project of Education

chapter฀five Explaining฀Probabilism The฀Apologema’s฀Project฀of฀Education The฀reader฀of฀the฀Apologema฀will฀quickly฀recognize฀that฀Pros-฀ pero฀Fagnani’s฀arguments฀have฀left฀Caramuel฀worried,฀angry,฀and฀ amused,฀yet฀also฀clearly฀puzzled฀by฀his฀critic’s฀inability฀to฀accept฀what฀ he฀regards฀as฀obvious฀conclusions.฀Why฀(one฀can฀imagine฀Caramuel฀asking ฀himself)฀were฀Fagnani,฀Julius฀Mercorus,฀and฀others฀so฀blind฀to฀the฀ truth?฀What฀if฀Church฀authorities฀shared฀their฀conclusions?฀What฀other฀ arguments฀might฀be฀necessary฀to฀demonstrate฀probabilism’s฀virtues฀and฀ values? ฀ By฀the฀time฀Caramuel฀published฀the฀Apologema,฀he฀had฀clearly฀become฀ aware฀that฀some฀criticisms฀of฀his฀method฀arose฀from฀what฀he฀regarded฀as฀ misconceptions฀about฀its฀origins,฀its฀consequences,฀and฀even฀its฀nature.฀ The฀most฀interesting฀element฀of฀the฀Apologema฀is฀Caramuel’s฀effort฀to฀explain ฀probabilism฀for฀Church฀authorities฀as฀well฀as฀for฀moral฀theologians.฀ Is฀this฀method฀new,฀as฀Fagnani฀and฀others฀had฀asserted?฀What฀are฀the฀consequences ฀of฀accepting฀or฀rejecting฀the฀reliance฀upon฀probable฀opinion?฀ How฀should฀we฀understand฀its฀nature,฀and฀what฀makes฀an฀opinion฀probable ฀or฀improbable?฀Finally,฀how฀is฀extrinsic฀probability฀related฀to฀intrinsic฀ probability?฀ The฀Antiquity฀of฀Reliance฀upon฀Probable฀Opinion From฀the฀very฀beginning฀of฀his฀literary฀efforts฀in฀defense฀of฀probabilism,฀ Caramuel฀had฀faced฀the฀objection฀that฀reliance฀upon฀probable฀opinion฀ was฀new.฀For฀critics฀such฀as฀Libert฀Froidmont฀and฀Fagnani,฀this฀charge฀ ฀ ฀ 95 alone฀was฀sufficient฀to฀render฀the฀method฀suspect.฀Caramuel,฀of฀course,฀ rejected฀the฀assumption฀that฀innovation฀necessarily฀represents฀deviation.1 ฀ But฀he฀also฀believed฀that฀the฀historical฀claim฀itself฀was฀false.฀Against฀Froidmont ,฀he฀had฀asserted฀in฀the฀Benedicti฀Regulam฀that฀not฀all฀teachings฀in฀the฀ Early฀Church฀came฀directly฀from฀the฀Apostles฀and฀the฀Holy฀Spirit,฀with฀ the฀result฀that฀the฀teachers฀of฀Christian฀antiquity฀had฀a฀need฀for฀probable฀ opinions.2 ฀At฀this฀stage,฀however,฀Caramuel’s฀argument฀might฀better฀be฀ described฀as฀an฀assertion฀rather฀than฀as฀a฀proof.฀In฀response฀to฀Fagnani,฀the฀ Apologema฀devotes฀more฀extensive฀consideration฀to฀the฀historical฀question.฀ Here฀Caramuel฀attempts฀to฀document฀the฀antiquity,฀both฀Christian฀and฀ pre-Christian,฀of฀recourse฀to฀probable฀opinion.฀ ฀ To฀understand฀Caramuel’s฀historical฀claims,฀however,฀it฀is฀important฀to฀ note฀how฀Fagnani’s฀statement฀of฀the฀question฀has฀shaped฀the฀Spaniard’s฀ arguments.฀First,฀Fagnani’s฀initial฀claim฀is฀that฀one฀may฀indeed฀rely฀upon฀ probable฀opinion,฀provided฀that฀the฀matter฀in฀question฀does฀not฀“belong฀ to฀faith฀or฀to฀morals.”3 ฀By฀faith,฀Fagnani฀seems฀to฀mean฀defined฀by฀the฀ Church,฀since฀he฀asserts฀that฀the฀significance฀of฀original฀sin฀for฀the฀Incarnation ฀is฀not฀a฀matter฀of฀faith.4 ฀However,฀he฀does฀not฀analyze฀this฀aspect฀ of฀the฀argument฀extensively,฀and฀it฀is฀clear฀that฀the฀focus฀of฀his฀presentation ฀concerns฀the฀recourse฀to฀probable฀opinion฀in฀matters฀of฀morals.5 ฀The฀ reference฀to฀probable฀opinions฀regarding฀faith฀is฀essentially฀an฀unexplored฀ assertion฀within฀Fagnani’s฀argument.฀ ฀ Caramuel,฀however,฀frequently฀argues฀against฀Fagnani’s฀conclusion฀as฀ the฀canonist฀originally฀stated฀it,฀that฀is,฀that฀probable฀opinion฀does฀not฀ suffice฀ in฀ either฀ faith฀ or฀ morals.6 ฀ Although฀ Caramuel฀ agrees฀ that฀ such฀ opinions฀do฀not฀remain฀probable฀in฀the฀face฀of฀a฀contrary฀ecclesiastical฀ definition,฀his฀concept฀of฀faith฀is฀far฀more฀expansive฀than฀Fagnani’s.7 ฀Regarding ฀the฀significance฀of฀original฀sin฀for฀the฀Incarnation,฀for฀example,฀ the฀bishop฀explains฀that฀this฀is฀a฀matter฀of฀faith;฀it฀is฀simply฀not฀a฀question฀ currently฀defined฀by฀the฀Church.8 ฀The฀consequence฀of฀this฀tactic฀for฀the฀ present฀discussion,฀however,฀is฀that฀Caramuel฀poses฀the฀historical฀question฀ (i.e.,฀Is฀reliance฀upon฀probable฀opinion฀new?)฀in฀terms฀of฀opinions฀regarding ฀faith฀and฀opinions฀regarding฀morals.฀Thus,฀much฀of฀his฀evidence฀is฀not฀ particularly฀relevant฀to฀an฀investigation฀of฀the฀origins฀of฀probabilism฀per฀se.฀ ฀ In฀addition,฀one฀should฀note฀that฀neither฀Fagnani฀nor฀Caramuel฀focuses ฀on฀the฀first฀appearance฀of฀the฀argument฀that฀probable฀opinion฀suf- fices,฀in฀the฀face฀of฀a฀more฀probable฀opinion฀to฀the฀contrary—that฀is,฀on฀ 96฀ explaining฀probabilism the฀innovation฀associated฀with฀Bartolomé฀de฀Medina.฀As฀we฀have฀seen,฀ Fagnani฀begins฀the฀story฀of฀probability’s฀acceptance฀with฀Jean฀Gerson,฀ and฀identifies฀Medina฀only฀as฀the฀proponent฀of฀the฀third฀and฀most฀radical ฀grade฀of฀probability.9 ฀For฀Caramuel,฀the฀issue฀is฀not฀when฀theorists฀ began฀to฀refer฀to฀probable฀opinion฀as฀sufficient,฀but฀when฀human฀beings...