English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

When revolutions for independence broke out, religious life in the Spanish American world was ruled by the Indian patronage regime [patronato], which gave the monarch tight control over ecclesiastical institutions. Patronage included, among many other prerogatives, presenting candidates to the pope, appointing parish priests and doctrine teachers, the right to allow or deny the dissemination of council and pontifical documents (exequatur), and controlling tithes. The right to patronage had multiple origins: the initial pontifical concession, support for the churches, and its alleged inherence in sovereignty. In the 18th century, however, the idea that patronage was an attribute of the sovereign in its own right had become an almost indisputable opinion. If the church is regarded as an institution with relative autonomy and a hierarchical structure of obedience with the pope as its head, it may be stated that the church as such did not exist in the Spanish colonies and that it was formed, not without difficulty, only throughout the 19th century. In colonial times, ecclesiastical institutions were so indissolubly intertwined with civil institutions that they may well be considered a segment of Indian bureaucracy. Bishops and prelates had to account for their administrative actions to the crown and no brick could be laid over another to build a church, hospital or hermitage without royal authorisation. The religious sword and the secular sword were two distinct but inseparable powers. Revolutions transformed the concept of sovereignty by replacing its pluralistic, composite definition, typical of the Old Regime, by a monistic one: The origin of power resided in the societies themselves. This would necessarily lead to a de-sacralisation of the concept of »citizen«, which throughout the 19th century would lose the religious features that the »subject« category used to have. On the other hand, since the Bourbons had insisted that patronage was an indisputable component of sovereignty, the new republics could not renounce it. This implied a myriad of political-legal problems: was this a prerogative to be enjoyed exclusively by the king and queen of Spain or by anyone who exercised sovereign power? Which of the new authorities created to substitute the Spanish ones should exercise it? How did the division of powers fit in its exercise? Should it be used by the legislative or the executive branch, or by both? In addition, controversies between centralists and federalists focused on whether patronage should be exercised by provinces, by central governments, or by both, with different scopes and powers. These were not the only new problems in which religion had decisive or significant weight. In the colonial era, the political community was conceived as a portion of the Catholic flock ruled by the king of Spain; therefore, any issues associated with the church affected society as a whole, and dismantling the old order in any manner entailed a reform of ecclesiastical institutions. It should also be recalled that the juxtaposition between civil law and canon law placed important aspects of the civil life of citizens under ecclesiastical jurisdiction. On the other hand, revolutions broke out proclaiming the defence of »the religion of our forefathers«. It is correct to state that the legitimacy of religion 117

Religion, Politics and Law in 19th Century Latin America