Presentation:
Muito se escreveu sobre a tensão política entre ultramontanos e jurisdicionalistas liberais no Império do Brasil durante o reinado de D. Pedro II (1840-1889), tendo em vista o regime de padroado sui generis do país e, em particular, o escândalo da Questão Religiosa na década de 1870. Entre os lugares-comuns desta historiografia está a ideia de que o Concílio de Trento foi um conjunto normativo exclusivamente interpretado e implementado pelo clero e pelos ultramontanos, quando não uma imposição de Roma de cima para baixo e uma bandeira de luta contra as políticas liberais. Mas será que poderíamos manter esta interpretação se, em vez dos discursos eloquentes da correspondência diplomática e da imprensa, colocássemos em primeiro plano as práticas administrativas ordinárias?
Este livro debruça-se sobre estas práticas – nas palavras da autora, sobre este “tecido do ordinário” – tal como aparecem em dois conjuntos de fontes: por um lado, as consultas sobre assuntos eclesiásticos que autoridades locais e centrais submeteram ao Conselho de Estado brasileiro; por outro, os casos enviados por atores brasileiros à Santa Sé e examinados pela Congregação do Concílio, o órgão da Cúria Romana encarregado de interpretar o Concílio de Trento para o mundo católico.
Ao procurar intersecções entre essas fontes, a autora convida o leitor a contemplar a Igreja como uma estrutura de governança multinível, que envolvia múltiplas jurisdições e uma série de atores eclesiásticos e leigos, todos interagindo num cenário de intensa multinormatividade. Isso significa que, para resolver dúvidas e problemas quotidianos, esses entes recorriam a um repertório normativo que continha certamente o direito canônico, mas que, ao mesmo tempo, compreendia diferentes formas de o interpretar, bem como de o combinar com outras normas e normatividades.
A análise permite-nos ver o Concílio de Trento como um recurso bastante plástico nas mãos de clérigos, burocratas e juristas. Ele assumiu não apenas o papel de arma, mas também de modelo para outras leis, de suporte retórico, de parte da tradição, de recurso negociável e até dispensável. Além disso, a observação dessas práticas traz a surpreendente conclusão de que a polarização entre ultramontanos e jurisdicionalistas foi um elemento precário na governança da Igreja no Brasil, cedendo lugar, muitas vezes, a mecanismos de controle da novidade normativa e à evocação de objetivos comuns e necessidades concretas.
About the author:
Anna Clara Lehmann Martins is a legal historian and jurist currently holding a researcher position at the Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory (mpilhlt). Her recent work focuses on the global governance of the Catholic Church in contemporary times, encompassing central and local perspectives (especially Latin America), besides the relationship between canon law and secular legal systems. As part of the Department Historical Regimes of Normativity, she is active in the Research Group “Normative knowledge in the praxis of the Congregation of the Council” led by Benedetta Albani, where she develops a personal project on how the Holy See governed the migration of secular priests between Europe and the Americas (19th–20th centuries). She holds a cotutelle doctoral degree in law from the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) and in modern and contemporary history from the Universität Münster, having elaborated her doctoral dissertation as part of the Max Planck Research Group “Governance of the Universal Church after the Council of Trent” led by Benedetta Albani at the mpilhlt until 2021. She is a member of Studium Iuris – Grupo de Pesquisa em História da Cultura Jurídica, led by Ricardo Sontag at the UFMG. She is fond of writing letters and fiction, singing, and drawing.
Table of contents:
Introduction
Chapter 1: Exploring the Repertoire of the Culture of Ecclesiastical Law in Brazil During the 19th Century
1.1: The rise of Brazilian handbooks on ecclesiastical law
1.2: Ecclesiastical law as a mystery. Fluctuations of a concept between canon law and civil law on Church affairs
1.3: Independent and in harmony: on what terms? Disputes on the fair relationship between Church and state. The thorny issue of the placet
1.4: The Brazilian padroado: a pontifical concession or a constitutional right?
1.5: Between past and present: the Council of Trent as a persistent and multifaced normative reference
Chapter 2: Mixed Matters from the Perspective of Governance. Analysis of Petition and Decision Flows
2.1: The global level of governance of the Church: the Congregation of the Council
2.2: The national level of governance of the Church: the Council of State
2.3: Strong mixed matters in the governance system. A comparison between the petitioning to the Congregation of the Council and to the Council of State
Chapter 3: Governance and Multinormativity. Tracking the Roles of the Council of Trent in Practice
3.1: Before, during, and after a clash between the Congregation of the Council and the Council of State. Uses of the Council of Trent in examinations for ecclesiastical benefices
3.1.1: The case of Francisco Vieira das Chagas (1879–1881) as a turning point
3.1.2: Before Vieira’s case. The transition from a normative convention of amalgam to a normative convention of separation
3.1.3: After Vieira’s case. Trent to the Church, Faculdades to the state
3.1.4: Exploratory remarks. The uses of the Council of Trent alongside the transformations of ecclesiastical law as a legal field
3.2: A dance of opposites. The Council of Trent at the centre stage of the elections of vicar capitular
3.2.1: How many days does it take to make a vicar capitular? Olinda
3.2.2: The most suitable vicar capitular, though titleless. Salvador da Bahia, 1874
3.2.3: Could the civil government suggest a vicar capitular? Normative and practical limits of the changes of convention in the Council of State
3.3: The obligation of residence and its inconvenient civil double. The Council of Trent at the height of its plasticity
3.3.1. Consolidation of the obligation of residence also as a civil duty. The Council of Trent as a resistance weapon for the episcopate and a rhetorical support for the state
3.3.2. Not everything is resistance. The Council of Trent as a flexible resource in the convergence of councillors, bishops, and cardinals for the governance of cathedral chapters
3.4. Precarious belonging, strong duties. The Council of Trent and the forging of openings and restrictions for foreign priests in 19th-century Brazil
3.4.1. The perspective of the state. The migrant priest as a foreigner with the obligations of the citizen priest. The Council of Trent as a bridge between ecclesiastical and civil duties
3.4.2. The perspective of the Holy See. The migrant priest divided between two dioceses, navigating according to the needs of the Church. Metamorphoses of the Council of Trent to control migration
3.5. Reform of seminaries: a puzzle of tensions on a converging horizon. The Council of Trent as a normative set evoking episcopal liberty and responsibility
3.5.1. The Council of Trent versus the Decree n. 3.073 of 22 April 1863. Ultramontane bishops resist, and the Council of State unexpectedly decides contra legem
3.5.2. Convergence between levels of governance is no guarantee of local success
3.6. Bishops discipline priests, and the state protects the Council of Trent. Suspension ex informata conscientia and appeal to the Crown
3.6.1. The Council of State shields the suspension ex informata conscientia. The Decree of 1857, on the appeal to the Crown, as a victory for the Council of Trent and the bishops
3.6.2. Countering and adjusting the discourse of the state on the suspension ex informata conscientia. Deference to the Council of Trent becomes detached from shielding the acts of bishops
3.7. Retrieving the fil rouge
Conclusion
Sources and Bibliography
Archival Sources
Printed and Online Sources
Bibliography
More information can be found here.
