Defending Probabilism: The Moral Theology of Juan Caramuel

Chapter 4. Protecting Probabilism: The Apologema as an Answer to Probabilism’s Critics

chapter฀four Protecting฀Probabilism The฀Apologema฀as฀an฀Answer฀to฀฀ Probabilism’s฀Critics In฀the฀Pax฀Licita,฀Caramuel฀took฀the฀risk฀of฀telling฀Church฀lead-฀ ers฀what฀he฀felt฀they฀needed,฀but฀may฀not฀have฀wanted,฀to฀hear.฀Fifteen฀ years฀later,฀he฀took฀the฀same฀risk฀in฀defense฀of฀his฀moral฀theory.฀This฀time,฀ probabilism฀itself฀was฀under฀attack,฀from฀critics฀too฀influential฀to฀be฀ignored .฀Although฀Bartolomé฀de฀Medina’s฀thesis฀was฀becoming฀increasingly฀ controversial฀by฀the฀1660s,฀the฀immediate฀catalyst฀for฀Caramuel’s฀apology฀ was฀the฀publication฀of฀Prospero฀Fagnani’s฀tract฀on฀probable฀opinion.฀ Background For฀much฀of฀the฀seventeenth฀century,฀Prospero฀Fagnani฀was฀one฀of฀the฀ most฀influential฀canonists฀in฀the฀Roman฀Curia,฀particularly฀as฀secretary฀ to฀ the฀ Congregation฀ on฀ the฀ Council,฀ a฀ position฀ he฀ occupied฀ between฀ 1613฀and฀1626.฀Over฀the฀years,฀Fagnani฀held฀a฀variety฀of฀important฀posts฀ within฀the฀Church’s฀central฀administration,฀undeterred฀by฀the฀blindness฀ that฀struck฀him฀in฀1632.1 ฀Although฀he฀was฀certainly฀active฀in฀Rome฀during฀ Caramuel’s฀brief฀period฀of฀residence฀there,฀there฀is฀nothing฀in฀his฀text฀or฀in฀ the฀Spaniard’s฀to฀demonstrate฀that฀they฀knew฀one฀another฀personally.2฀ ฀ Fagnani฀published฀his฀famous฀commentary฀at฀the฀behest฀of฀Caramuel’s฀ one-time฀patron,฀Pope฀Alexander฀VII.3 ฀His฀analysis฀of฀the฀legitimacy฀of฀ using฀probable฀opinion฀first฀appeared฀within฀this฀massive฀canonical฀treatise ,฀although฀it฀was฀later฀republished฀as฀a฀separate฀tract.4 ฀Although฀the฀ ฀ ฀ 73 first฀edition฀of฀the฀work฀was฀published฀in฀1661,฀internal฀evidence฀suggests฀ that฀Fagnani฀composed฀the฀treatise฀on฀probable฀opinion฀at฀least฀several฀ years฀before฀that฀date.5 ฀It฀would฀be฀reasonable฀to฀speculate฀that฀the฀canonist ฀supplemented฀his฀initial฀arguments฀against฀probabilism฀with฀documents ฀that฀appeared฀in฀the฀late฀1650s,฀including฀theoretical฀treatises฀and฀ letters฀of฀complaint฀about฀laxism฀that฀were฀submitted฀to฀the฀curia.฀ ฀ Fagnani฀certainly฀seems฀to฀feel฀that฀he฀is฀a฀voice฀crying฀in฀the฀wilderness฀ against฀the฀relentless฀onslaught฀of฀probable฀opinions.฀Early฀in฀the฀treatise,฀ he฀acknowledges฀“how฀hard฀it฀may฀be฀to฀stop฀the฀power฀of฀a฀flood,฀and฀to฀ tear฀away฀from฀the฀ears฀of฀princes฀and฀private฀persons฀this฀prurient฀doctrine ,฀fixed฀in฀the฀minds฀of฀nearly฀all.”6 ฀Fagnani฀clearly฀regards฀the฀use฀of฀ probable฀opinion฀as฀a฀pernicious฀method฀that฀has฀seduced฀(to฀varying฀degrees )฀“nearly฀all฀the฀theologians฀of฀our฀time฀[Theologi฀nostri฀temporis฀fere฀ omnes].”7 ฀His฀tract฀examines฀five฀major฀questions:฀“Whether฀in฀any฀matter฀ it฀is฀licit฀to฀follow฀any฀probable฀opinion฀whatsoever?”฀“Whether฀in฀moral฀ matters฀it฀is฀licit฀to฀follow฀an฀opinion฀probable฀in฀itself,฀prescinding฀from฀ the฀probability฀of฀any฀opposite฀opinion฀whatsoever?”฀“Whether฀from฀two฀ opposite฀and฀equally฀probable฀opinions,฀one฀is฀free฀to฀follow฀either฀one฀.฀.฀.฀?”฀ “Whether฀it฀is฀licit฀to฀follow฀an฀opinion฀less฀probable฀and฀less฀safe,฀having฀ abandoned฀the฀more฀probable฀and฀safer฀[opinion]?”฀and฀“Whether฀the฀ authority฀of฀a฀single฀doctor฀renders฀an฀opinion฀probable?”8฀ ฀ To฀the฀first฀question,฀Fagnani฀responds฀that฀it฀is฀indeed฀licit฀to฀follow฀ a฀probable฀opinion฀(or฀even฀a฀less฀probable฀opinion),฀provided฀that฀the฀ matter฀concerns฀neither฀faith฀nor฀morals.9 ฀Fagnani฀will฀allow฀recourse฀to฀ probable฀opinion฀in฀what฀might฀be฀called฀speculative฀religious฀matters,฀ provided฀that฀no฀ecclesiastical฀strictures฀demand฀the฀contrary.฀He฀is฀far฀ more฀dubious฀about฀the฀appeal฀to฀probable฀opinion฀in฀the฀area฀of฀morals .฀In฀his฀eyes,฀the฀novelty฀of฀this฀position฀alone฀is฀sufficient฀to฀render฀it฀ suspect.10 ฀The฀ancients฀required฀certitude฀for฀moral฀action,฀and฀one฀cannot ฀find฀such฀certitude฀in฀a฀probable฀opinion.11 ฀Fagnani฀basically฀regards฀ probabilism฀as฀a฀dangerous฀innovation฀that฀abandons฀the฀traditional฀standards ฀of฀Christian฀moral฀responsibility.฀ ฀ One฀of฀the฀more฀interesting฀facets฀of฀Fagnani’s฀argument฀is฀his฀effort฀to฀ trace฀the฀history฀of฀probabilism.฀In฀his฀view,฀reliance฀on฀probable฀opinion ฀as฀a฀sufficient฀ground฀for฀action฀was฀“introduced฀in฀this฀century”฀ (i.e.,฀within฀the฀last฀hundred฀years).12 ฀Prior฀to฀that฀point,฀Fagnani฀argues,฀ moral฀certitude฀served฀as฀the฀prerequisite฀for฀licit฀behavior.฀This฀was฀not฀ 74฀ protecting฀probabilism because฀moralists฀had฀not฀yet฀discovered฀the฀efficacy฀of฀probable฀opinion ,฀but฀because฀they฀had฀already฀recognized฀its฀insufficiency.13 ฀“Yet฀after฀ many฀centuries,”฀he฀complains,฀“another฀teaching฀crept฀in,฀namely฀that฀ certain฀judgment฀is฀not฀required฀for฀rectitude฀of฀action฀.฀.฀.฀instead฀probable ฀judgment—with฀fear฀that฀the฀opposite฀[might฀be฀true...