Finally, the underlying principles in his printed tract, regarding the making of restitution in order to do justice, were backed completely by academics on both sides of the Atlantic.  This important erudite support for the principles of his published Confesionario came from scholars and theologians at Madrid and Salamanca and frailes and letrados at the University of Mexico.  Both groups studied his work and backed his position completely, knocking down the earlier decision of his enemies to confiscate and to burn copies of the manuscript. Commenting on the academic support he received in Spain, Las Casas himself said in another of his tracts, Aqui se Contienen Treinta Proposiciones muy Jurídicas:   “Brought to the reign of Castilla, this Confesionario was seen, reviewed, examined, approved and signed by six distinguished masters of theology.”[1]  He repeated this statement of approval at the beginning of the Confesionario itself, in fact here he named his Spanish academic allies.[2]  However, even against this impressive intellectual support, Las Casas’ enemies opposed his position on restitution for the sake of justice. Commenting on the opposition to his writings, especially the Confesionario, Dominican scholar Lorenzo Galmés says: “His difficulty was not from a doctrinal and moral point of view, but from the consequences of the political inclination that his enemies deduced from his principles.”  Thus, the opposition he faced was a result of the practical consequences that flowed from the principles of his Confesionario, not from its doctrinal and moral integrity.  Las Casas said the same regarding his enemies in another tract, Treinta Proposiciones muy Jurídicas: “Wanting to calumniate it, they used the occasion to attack the principles of one of the said rules by imposing on it an interpretation that denied title or lordship to the possessions of the sovereigns of Castilla.”[3]  His enemies twisted the interpretation of the principles of this work to try to discredit him and to label him a traitor.  Treason was an accusation he faced successfully on various occasions.

In the end, “the devil was in the details”, and, of course, in the practical consequences that flowed from the Confesionario.   In theory it was easy for Las Casas to assert that restitution was to be made to right injustices done.  However, in reality, the implementation of those Christian principles became the source of tremendous opposition.  He moved forward against those who opposed him, since Las Casas was not dissuaded.  In his mind there was no separation between making restitution for the sake of justice and the practice of Christianity.  Las Casas believed that Christianity was a religion of deeds, one that demanded making compensation for injuries committed against one’s neighbor.  These ideas of how Las Casas proposed making restitution in order to do justice will be better clarified in the next chapter, where an introduction to the legal teaching of the Confesionario will be presented.

Notes