Philosophy

Intelligence analysis has many important epistemological resemblances with science (problem solving, discovery, skillful use of tools, knowledge verification) and is more interested in a posteriori than a priori knowledge, on how or the basis on which a proposition may be known. The puzzle metaphor is used in both information and archeology. Both disciplines involve collecting evidence to build as complete a picture as possible. The process of converting raw information into actionable processed intelligence is almost identical for governmental and business organizations. The medical practice of diagnosing identification, collection, analysis and dissemination is similar to that of intelligence.
          DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26511.12963

Analogy of intelligence with other disciplines Nicolae Sfetcu April 4,2019 Sfetcu, Nicolae (2019). "Analogy of intelligence with other disciplines", in Telework, URL = https://www.telework.ro/en/analogy-of-intelligence-with-other-disciplines/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited Email: firstname.lastname@example.com Abstract Intelligence analysis has many important epistemological resemblances with science (problem solving, discovery, skillful use of tools, knowledge verification) and is more interested in a posteriori than a priori knowledge, on how or the basis on which a proposition may be known. The puzzle metaphor is used in both information and archeology. Both disciplines involve collecting evidence to build as complete a picture as possible. The process of converting raw information into actionable processed intelligence is almost identical for governmental and business organizations. The medical practice of diagnosing identification, collection, analysis and dissemination is similar to that of intelligence. Keywords: intelligence, science, business, archeology, medicine Science Intelligence analysis has many important epistemological resemblances with science (problem solving, discovery, skillful use of tools, knowledge verification) and is more interested in a posteriori than a priori knowledge, (Agrell and Treverton 2015)on how or the basis on which a proposition may be known. (Greco and Sosa 1999, 243–70)Both intelligence analysis and science focus on knowledge gained from empirical observations, knowledge that is typically a posteriori. (Ormerod 2018)Regarding the intelligence analysis, epistemological considerations are sometimes implicitly considered in the management of prejudices and uncertainties within complex intelligence systems. (Smith 2017) Stephen Marrin and Jonathan D. Clemente note that intelligence is "subject to some amount of both random and systematic error resulting from built-in limitations of the collection instruments themselves, and as a result the information that feeds into the subsequent analysis is never an exact representation of reality." (Marrin 2012a)In order to compare the methods used in intelligence with the scientific methods, three epistemic pivotal criteria can be used: sample size, observation point and data integrity. (Pritchard and Goodman 2009) Scientific methods involve collecting huge amounts of information to achieve meaningful results. Small sets of data are usually rejected due to statistical uncertainty. In intelligence, the size of the relevant samples is extremely small, often only a few separate sources. Gigantic data volumes are collected, but selecting relevant information is a difficult process. In science, researchers usually keep the original data, which is examined directly, thus ensuring a high degree of reliability and certainty. In intelligence, data and information rarely come to analysts at first hand. Even the identity of certain people may be uncertain. In science, researchers are mindful of their own prejudices, but in general the data is not consciously affected. In the intelligence world, the situation is very different: data and information are deliberately and on a large scale manipulated with the intent of distorting reality. Sometimes even members of the same organization included in the intelligence cycle have reason to distort data or even to input false data, often for money or other benefits. After the September 11 attacks in the United States, efforts have been intensified to make more "scientific" the methods used in intelligence. (Marrin and Torres 2017)Some of the earliest works in the field, including of Sherman Kent, have supported scientific methods not only in understanding certain issues but also in making verifiable evaluations. (Agrell 2012, 130)R. A. Random wrote in 1958 that the rejection of scientific methodology in favor of intuition would be like abandoning rationality in favor of "guessing." (Marrin 2012b, 2)Other researchers in the field of intelligence have argued that the scientific method is fundamental for the intelligence analysis. (Marrin 2012b, 531) The characteristics of such a "scientific method" are data collection, hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing, and obtaining conclusions that can be used as reliable predictive sources. (Platt 1957, 75) This analogy is generally considered to be correct insofar as the process is "systematic" and "logical":(Ylikoski 2017)"As a science, intelligence analysis is a systematic process, which generates and tests hypotheses objectively. Following the scientific method, analysts adhere to rules to develop sound and logical judgments." (Martin 2011, 30) Both science and intelligence refer to "verifying" as well as "falsifying" the assertions of knowledge. (Shrager et al. 2010)Efforts in the field of intelligence to align the analysis with the objectives of science, especially with "falsification", have been promoted by several scientists. (Shaikh Muhammad and Jiaxin 2006)As Polanyi explains, centralizing understanding of knowledge in science is a sufficient recognition of personal knowledge, partly because there are no "rules" in the field of science. (Ormerod 2018)For this reason, according to Polanyi, the scientist must rely on personal knowledge to make decisions about, for example, whether the evidence or clues must be accepted or rejected, just like the intelligence analyst. Polanyi's arguments have an impact both on the field of national security and on law enforcement from intelligence analysis, as these areas use empirical observations to develop and understand the assertions of knowledge. (Peters and Cohen 2017)In the field of national security, empiricism can be observed in the existence of large systems of intelligence gathering. Polanyi contests the epistemological basis of excessive faith toward the supposed central role of empiricism and the logic of induction in science: "The part played by new observations and experiments in the process of discovery in science is usually over-estimated," (Polanyi 1964, 29)a vision opposed to conventional understanding of the science promoted by Karl Popper. (Popper 1972, 23–27) Archeology The puzzle metaphor is used in both information and archeology. Both disciplines involve collecting evidence to build as complete a picture as possible. (Pritchard and Goodman 2009)Some tracks are not seen from the beginning, and others are deformed and cannot contribute to the logic of assembling. Maybe it would be useful to use the reverse engineering, in order to understand how the original image split, what are the stages, and what happened to the missing pieces. David Clarke highlighted a theory of archeology based on the relationship between the ancient known culture and the remains discovered by the excavator, a completed puzzle and the missing pieces to be analyzed. The necessary steps in any archaeological interpretation are: 1. The range of patterns of social and environmental activities and processes that once existed, that is, what the archeologist is trying to understand (ie, the total activity relevant to requesting the intelligence service). 2. The sample and remnants that were stored at that time (intelligence analysts are trying to find out what elements of their opponent's activity becomes intelligence, what is to be collected and from what sources). 3. Sample of that specimen which has survived and is to be recovered (fragments of intelligence held by certain sources, considering their possible distortion). 4. Sample of the specimen which is recovered. (intelligence gathered through different collection systems and sources of primary importance) (Clarke 1968) The archaeologist might use the intuition for interpretation, but he can make it very easy. The intelligence analyst, in turn, tries to understand the problem using what is available, that is, a part of the sample. After identifying the accuracy of the intelligence activity for each step, the following applicable theory types can be considered: Theory of suppositions and depositions: The link between 1 and 2. Determining the relationship between the divided total activity and the sample that is potentially accessible to the collection systems. Which sources should be used? What are the prejudices? Post-depositional theory: The relationship between 2 and 3. To what extent can the passage of time distort the sample? The theory of restoration: The link between 3 and 4. To what extent the data collected represents all that it is possible? How much material has been gathered and what nature? Which similar activities could take place elsewhere where access is easy? Analytical theory: The link between 4 and 1. The intelligence collector must select the relevant information, depending on the analyst's understanding of the intelligence requirements. At the same time, constraints (technological or other) may limit the capacity of the collector to transmit certain types of data for further analysis. In this case, certain prioritization decisions can be made by giving up some information. Theory of interpretation: The analyst provides his/her assessments to decision-makers. Here, cognitive biases appear, and methods are used to contract them by questioning hypotheses and generating alternative assumptions. The archaeological analogy is far from perfect. But it illustrates the steps by which a picture is fragmented into fragments for analysis. Analysts should be aware that their data is incomplete, but the nature of this incompleteness may not be fully understood, leading to the possibility of serious implications. (Pritchard and Goodman 2009) Business Intelligence is traditionally characteristic of governmental organizations involved in national security issues. But innovative private companies are increasingly adapting the model of intelligence services to the business world to help plan their own strategies. The process of converting raw information into actionable processed intelligence is almost identical for governmental and business organizations, the latter developing the intelligence gathering and analysis system with its own methodologies. (Krizan 1999) The two activities seem to be two independent areas, but the approach to the challenges is quite similar, depending on warning capabilities; (Miscik 2017)decision makers in both cases are expected to find out about threats and opportunities in advance. Academic research has demonstrated that it is possible to perform a comparative analysis of the two areas (government and business) and identify possible parallels between them. (Barnea 2018)In both areas, the product of the intelligence activity is the one that supports the decision-making process as a result of information about changes in the external environment caused by specific threats. But the ontological, epistemological and methodological study of this process is much better developed today in business (Busenitz and Barney 1997)so that national intelligence services can take on many of the theories and techniques developed in the field of competitive intelligence. A fundamental resemblance between national intelligence and competitive intelligence is that both operate based on an "intelligence cycle," (Omand 2011)a multi-stage systematic process that ensures the conduct of intelligence under control. Competitive intelligence (CI) is a domain whose work consists in defining, collecting, analyzing and distributing information on product, customers, competitors, and any environmental aspect needed to assist executives and managers in strategic decision-making for an organization. It is a legal business practice, unlike industrial espionage, which is illegal. (SCIP 2014)The CI focuses on the external business environment,(Haag 2012)being a process involved in collecting information, transforming it into processed intelligence and then using it in decision-making. (McGonagle and Vella 2003) CI is often seen as synonymous with competitors' analysis, but it is more than just analyzing competitors; includes the entire environment and stakeholders: customers, competitors, distributors, technologies and macroeconomic data. Organizations use CI to compare with other organizations ("competitive comparison") to identify the risks and opportunities in their markets and to test their plans for market response. ("Business Warfare") (Kurtz 2018) Strategic intelligence focuses on long-term issues, analyzing aspects that affect the competitiveness of a company over a few years. The real time horizon for strategic intelligence ultimately depends on industry and how fast it is changing. This type of intelligence involves, among other things, the identification of weak signals and the application of a specific methodology and process initially developed by Gilad. (Gilad 2014) In tactical intelligence, the emphasis is on providing information to improve short-term decisions, most often related to the intention of increasing market share or revenue. The technical advances of massive parallel processing offered by the "big data" architecture have allowed the creation of multiple platforms for the recognition of target entities. (Krapohl 2013) CI was influenced by national strategic intelligence. Fleisher suggests that business intelligence has two forms. Its more limited (contemporary) shape focuses more on information technology and on internal focus than the CI, while the broader (historical) definition is more comprehensive than CI. Knowledge management, when specifically designed, is seen as an organizational practice based on information technology that uses data mining, corporate intranets, and organizational asset mapping to make it accessible to decision-makers. The CI share some aspects with knowledge management; contains human and experience-based information for a more sophisticated qualitative analysis. Knowledge management is essential for effective change. An effective key factor is a powerful IT system dedicated to the execution of the entire intelligence cycle. (Barnea 2009) Business intelligence (BI) is "a set of methodologies, processes, architectures, and technologies that transform raw data into meaningful and useful information used to enable more effective strategic, tactical, and operational insights and decision-making." (Evelson 2008)BI technologies can handle large amounts of unstructured data to help identify, develop, and create new business strategic opportunities. The purpose of BI is to allow easy interpretation of these large volumes of data. (Sfetcu 2016)The BI technologies offer historical, current and predictive perspectives of business operations. Common functions of BI technologies are reporting, online analytical processing, analytical research, data mining, process mining, complex event processing, business performance management, benchmarking, text mining, predictive analysis and prescriptive analysis. BI can be used to support a wide range of business decisions, from operational to strategic. When combined, internal and external data can provide a more complete picture that creates "processed intelligence" that cannot be inferred through any single set of data. (Feldman and Himmelstein 2013) Often, BI scenarios revolve around distinct business processes, each built on one or more data sources. These milestones of business intelligence include, but are not limited to: • Data sources to collect the necessary data • Transform the data into intelligence and present it appropriately • Querying and analyzing data • Act on collected data. A notable similarity between government and business intelligence is the goal of maximizing the profits of customer intelligence products. Changes are difficult to monitor due to the difficulty in assessing the significance of signals and noise in predictions to reduce uncertainty. (Rafii and Kampas 2002)Also, based on the processed information, both proactively act and attempt to obtain information that can send alerts about the relevant changes and their meanings. (Prescott 2012)In both areas, the intelligence provided to decision-makers can often be a catalyst for future action and a new initiative to gain benefits. Medicine The medical practice of diagnosing identification, collection, analysis and dissemination is similar to that of intelligence. (Converse 2008, 1)Marrin and Clemente argue that both disciplines apply similar general approaches to obtain information. (Marrin and Clemente 2005, 709)In order to better understand the data and intelligence gathered, the analyst calls for related disciplines, similar to doctors in the diagnosis of patients. According to Owen Ormerod, another similarity occurs in the challenges faced both by integration of diagnosis or analytical assessments in a wider context, ranging from alternative hypotheses to evidence that invalidate, and using deductive and inductive judgments to distinguish relevant intelligence from noise.(Marrin and Clemente 2005, 715) "Underlying the perceived similarities between intelligence analysis and the medical profession is the belief that as more information is collected, the practitioner will become more confident in their assessment."(Treverton 2011, 40)But this is not always true. Under certain circumstances of the medical profession, the diagnostic process involves considerations that are not "scientific" or structured in a typical way, but are related to doctor bias, craftsmanship and what Polanyi would call "personal knowledge." Post-structuralist Michael Foucault presented a similar argument that the work of the doctor is influenced by the surrounding culture, as it does not "discover" the truth "there" but rather assembles it in the mind, which is partly a product of its environment. It is too simplistic to understand the activity of the doctor or intelligence analyst as neutral observers who only collect and analyze "the facts." (Ormerod 2018, 28) Some intelligence experts have argued that intelligence analysis can benefit from adopting models similar to those in the medical field.(Manjikian 2013, 1)Richards Heuer has indicated the medical field as a profession that could be imitated by the intelligence. As he states,(Heuer 1999, 62) the physician observes the symptoms of the patient and, by using his expert knowledge of the body, a hypothesis is generated to explain such observations, followed by tests to collect additional information to evaluate the hypothesis and apply a diagnosis. This medical analogy emphasizes the ability to correctly identify and evaluate all plausible assumptions. In this sense, the collection is focused on information that might reveal alternative assumptions: "While analysis and collection are both important, the medical analogy attributes more value to analysis and less to collection than the mosaic metaphor." (Heuer 1999, 62) Bibliography Agrell, Wilhelm. 2012. "The Next 100 Years? Reflections on the Future of Intelligence." Intelligence and National Security 27 (1): 118–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2012.621601. Agrell, Wilhelm, and Gregory F. Treverton. 2015. National Intelligence and Science: Beyond the Great Divide in Analysis and Policy. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Barnea, Avner. 2009. "Intelligence Solutions Through the Use of Expert Tools_CIM_March_April_09 | International Politics | Israel." Scribd. 2009. https://www.scribd.com/document/17752171/Intelligence-Solutions-Through-the-Use-ofExpert-Tools-CIM-March-April-09. ---. 2018. "Nationak Strategic Intelligence and Competitive Intelligence: How a Comparative View and Mutual Learning Can Help Each?" ResearchGate. 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323884850_Nationak_Strategic_Intelligence_a nd_Competitive_Intelligence_How_a_Comparative_View_and_Mutual_Learning_Can_ Help_Each. Busenitz, Lowell W., and Jay B. Barney. 1997. "Differences between Entrepreneurs and Managers in Large Organizations: Biases and Heuristics in Strategic Decision-Making." Journal of Business Venturing 12 (1): 9–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(96)00003-1. Clarke, David L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. Methuen. Converse, Ray. 2008. "Intelligence and Medicine: Parallel Cognitive Traps." http://www.pherson.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/03.-Intelligence-and-MedicineParallel-Cognitive-Traps_FINAL.pdf. Evelson, Boris. 2008. "Topic Overview: Business Intelligence." 2008. https://www.forrester.com/report/Topic+Overview+Business+Intelligence/-/ERES39218#. Feldman, David, and Jason Himmelstein. 2013. Developing Business Intelligence Apps for SharePoint: Combine the Power of SharePoint, LightSwitch, Power View, and SQL Server 2012. 1 edition. Beijing: O'Reilly Media. Gilad, Ben. 2014. "CI Education Harvard Style?" http://www.academyci.com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/09/CI_Harvard_Style.pdf. Greco, John, and Ernest Sosa. 1999. The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology. 1 edition. Malden, Mass: Wiley-Blackwell. Haag, Stephen. 2012. Management Information Systems for the Information Age: Ninth Edition. McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Heuer, Richards J. 1999. Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. Lulu.com. Krapohl, Don. 2013. "Working .NET Entity Extractor Using OpenNLP Models." A | I – Augmented Intelligence (blog). 2013. http://www.augmentedintel.com/wordpress/index.php/augmented-intel-free-onlineanalytics-applications-for-corporate-intelligence/working-net-entity-extractor-usingopennlp-models/. Krizan, Lisa. 1999. "Intelligence Essentials for Everyone." ResearchGate. 1999. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235073074_Intelligence_Essentials_for_Everyo ne. Kurtz, Jay. 2018. "What Is A Business Wargame?" 2018. http://competitiveintelligence.mirum.net/competitive-intelligence-methods/what-is-a-businesswargame.html. Manjikian, Mary. 2013. "Positivism, Post-Positivism, and Intelligence Analysis." International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 26 (3): 563–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/08850607.2013.758002. Marrin, Stephen. 2012a. Improving Intelligence Analysis: Bridging the Gap between Scholarship and Practice. Routledge. ---. 2012b. "Is Intelligence Analysis an Art or a Science?" International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 25 (3): 529–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/08850607.2012.678690. Marrin, Stephen, and Jonathan D. Clemente. 2005. "Improving Intelligence Analysis by Looking to the Medical Profession." International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 18 (4): 707–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08850600590945434. Marrin, Stephen, and Efren Torres. 2017. "Improving How to Think in Intelligence Analysis and Medicine." Intelligence and National Security 32 (5): 649–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2017.1311472. Martin, Kirsty. 2011. "The Paradox of Intuitive Analysis and the Implications for Professionalism." ResearchGate. 2011. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258839553_The_Paradox_of_Intuitive_Analysi s_and_the_Implications_for_Professionalism. McGonagle, John J., and Carolyn M. Vella. 2003. The Manager's Guide to Competitive Intelligence. Greenwood Publishing Group. Miscik, Jami. 2017. "Intelligence and the Presidency How to Get It Right." ResearchGate. 2017. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319978753_Intelligence_and_the_presidency_h ow_to_get_it_right. Omand, David. 2011. Securing the State. UK ed. edition. London: C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd. Ormerod, Owen. 2018. "Advancing the Epistemology of Intelligence Analysis: A Polanyian Perspective." ResearchGate. 2018. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328232543_Advancing_the_epistemology_of_i ntelligence_analysis_A_Polanyian_perspective. Peters, Adrienne M. F., and Irwin M. Cohen. 2017. "The Mandate and Activities of a Specialized Crime Reduction Policing Unit in Canada." Police Practice and Research 18 (6): 570–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2017.1363970. Platt, Washington. 1957. Strategic Intelligence Production: Basic Principles. F.A. Praeger. Polanyi, Michael. 1964. Science, Faith and Society. Later Printing edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Popper, Karl R. 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Revised edition. Oxford Eng. : New York: Oxford University Press. Prescott, John E. 2012. "The Evolution of Competitive Intelligence." RevistaInteligênciaCompetitiva 2 (2). https://doi.org/10.24883/ric.v2i2.45. Pritchard, Matthew C., and Michael S. Goodman. 2009. "Intelligence: The Loss of Innocence." International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 22 (1): 147–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/08850600802487018. Rafii, Farshad, and Paul J. Kampas. 2002. "How to Identify Your Enemies Before They Destroy You." Harvard Business Review, 2002. https://hbr.org/2002/11/how-to-identify-yourenemies-before-they-destroy-you. SCIP. 2014. "Code of Ethics Strategic and Competitive Intelligence Professionals (SCIP)." 2014. https://www.scip.org/page/CodeofEthics. Sfetcu, Nicolae. 2016. CunoaștereșiInformații. Nicolae Sfetcu. Shaikh Muhammad, Akram, and Wang Jiaxin. 2006. "Investigative Data Mining: Connecting the Dots to Disconnect Them." Intelligence Tools Workshop. http://www.huitfeldt.com/repository/ITW06.pdf. Shrager, Jeff, DorritBillman, Gregorio Convertino, J. P. Massar, and Peter Pirolli. 2010. "Soccer Science and the Bayes Community: Exploring the Cognitive Implications of Modern Scientific Communication." Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (1): 53–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01049.x. Smith, Michael Douglas. 2017. "A Good Intelligence Analyst." International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 30 (1): 181–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/08850607.2016.1230708. Treverton, Gregory F. 2011. Intelligence for an Age of Terror. Reprint edition. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Ylikoski, Petri. 2017. "The Illusion of Depth of Understanding in Science." https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/qz7sg.


De Auxiliis Controversy

Philosophy

A short introduction to the controversy for Conimbricenses Encyclopedia.

/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 1 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ Á C D F G K L M P R S T V W De Auxiliis Controversy Author: David Torrijos Part of : Molina and Molinism Between Coimbra and Évora (coord. by João Rebalde and Paula Oliveira a Silva) Peer-Reviewed: Yes Published: September 20th, 2022 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7098166 The latest version of this entry may be cited as follows: Torrijos, David, "De Auxiliis Controvery", Conimbricenses.org Encyclopedia, Mário Santiago de Carvalho, Simone Guidi (eds.), doi = "10.5281/zenodo.7098166", URL = "http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/deauxiliis-controversy", latest revision: September 20th, 2022. Table of Contents [close] W R I T T E N B Y D av id Tor r i j o s David Torrijos Castrillejo (1981) teaches philosophy at the San Dámaso Ecclesiastical University in Madrid. Author of a number of articles and books on ancient, medieval and early modern philosophy. He has dealt with the reception of Aristotle in the ancient world, medieval and second scholasticism. In particular, he has developed translations, editions and studies related to the School of... A P R O J E C T B Y E N C Y C L O P E D I A A B O U T R E S O U R C E S C O N T A C T S NEWS  5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 2 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ 1 Introduction 2 Molinism and Bañezianism 2.1 Molinism and Congruism 2.2 Bañezianism 3 History of the Controversy 3.1 Origins of the dispute 3.2 The publication of the Concordia 3.3 The Intervention of the Spanish Inquisition 3.4 Beginning of De Auxiliis Congregations in Rome 3.5 Congregations De Auxiliis in the Presence of the Pope 4 Influence of Controversies 5 Bibliography 5.1 Primary sources 5.2 Secondary sources 5.3 Related Entries Introduction The De Auxiliis controversy is a theological debate which arose in Spain and Portugal because of the Concordia, a book published in Lisbon in 1588 by the Spanish Jesuit Luis de Molina, who taught in Coimbra, Évora and Cuenca. This book had the purpose of harmonizing divine omniscience, providence, predestination and reprobation with human free will. Several Dominicans maintained a hard opposition against Molina's doctrines, but the most renowned theologian among them was Domingo Báñez. Indeed, this polemic became a huge conflict above all between the Order of Preachers and the Society of Jesus. The controversy lasted for years in Spain until it finally was moved to Rome, where the so-called "Congregationes de auxiliis" were formed. These lasted between 1595 and 1607. Francisco Suárez was the most influential promoter of Molinism in Spain and Saint Robert Bellarmine its most famous defender in Rome. During the Roman period of the controversy, the main supporters of Báñez's position were the Dominicans Diego Álvarez and Tomás de Lemos. The final decision of the Pope was the L A T E S T E N T R I E S Stephan Schmid Suárez on Causation ! December 21, 2021 Carlos Fiolhais Science in the Work of António Vieira ! November 29, 2021 José Eduardo Franco António Vieira and Europe ! November 29, 2021 Matthias Kaufmann and Danae Simmermacher Luís de Molina, De Iustitita et Iure (1593– 1609) ! N E W S N E W P U B L I C A T I O N S 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 3 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ authorization to teach both theses and the prohibition of censuring either one as wrong. Molinism and Bañezianism "Molinism" is the term usually applied to define the set of theses supported by Molina in his Concordia (Molina 1588). In opposition to his position, certain Spanish theologians who considered themselves more faithful to Saint Thomas Aquinas than Molina, strongly criticized the Concordia, accusing it of being close to Pelagianism. The most famous of them is Domingo Báñez, who was in turn accused before the Inquisition for sustaining a doctrine that Molina and other Jesuits considered close to Calvinism. Those who follow Báñez's main theses are often called "Bañezians", although they call usually themselves simply "Thomists". For Catholics, it belongs to Christian faith that the omnipotent God accurately knows everything that has happened, happens and will happen, that He is also provident and, as part of his providence, has predestined to salvation those who will enjoy Heaven forever. On the other hand, the divine decision to "allow" a person to die in mortal sin and, as a punishment for his sins, to be condemned in hell, is called "reprobation". In contrast to Luther and Calvin, the Council of Trent (1545-1563) insisted that "meritorius" acts (i.e. acts that make a human being worthy of Heaven), presuppose two elements: the grace of God, the free gift by which He helps man to perform such acts, and the human freedom which, moved by grace, cooperates with God. Now, when Molina explains this synergy of creatural action and grace, his personal strategy is to emphasize the cooperation of human freedom, while Báñez and the Bañezians rather insist on divine initiative and power. Mol i n i s m a n d C on g r u i s m R E S O U R C E S : I A J S Subscribe to our mailing list indicates required* Email Address * First Name Last Name * GDPR Permissions Conimbricenses.org Project will use the 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 4 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ The heart of Molina's harmonization among divine and human action lies in the so-called scientia media ("middle knowledge"). That means a third kind of knowledge between two sorts of knowledge that were attributed to God since the Middle Ages: the "knowledge of simple intelligence" and the "knowledge of vision". By knowledge of simple intelligence God understands everything that is intelligible by the mere fact of being intelligible, regardless of His will to create the world. For example, by this knowledge, God eternally knows that eight is greater than six. This knowledge is designated by Molina as "natural", and so God knows all that is merely possible and necessary. Secondly, by His knowledge of vision God knows the things that He has in fact created and governs with his providence. Molina speaks of a "free knowledge" insofar as His will is involved in it. Between natural knowledge and free knowledge, Molina situates his middle knowledge for the "contingent futures", that is, what has not yet happened but may or may not happen. By middle knowledge God knows the futures that are "conditioned" by another series of contingent and merely possible events. A well-known example of middle knowledge can be found in the episode in which Jesus-who, according to Christian faith, is God-affirms that if He had done in Tyre and Sidon the miracles that He had in fact performed in Chorazin and Bethsaida, those cities would have already been converted (Mt 11:21; Lk 10:13). In this case, God, by His middle knowledge, knows how each one would behave if this person would be placed in a certain circumstance (which serves as a condition). This is due to a divine "supercomprehension," a deep penetration into the nature of things logically prior to the purposes of divine will. According to Molina, God operates in all things not only as a creator and a conservator, but He also provides a "simultaneous and indifferent concurrence" to their action. He does not effectively direct the inclination of the created will at every moment, since the will, in order Subscribe information you provide on this form to be in touch with you and to provide updates. Please let us know all the ways you would like to hear from us: You can change your mind at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in the footer of any email you receive from us, or by contacting us at email@example.com. We will treat your information with respect and we will not share them with anyone outside the IEF. For more information about our privacy practices please visit our website. By clicking below, you agree that we may process your information in accordance with these terms. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here. Updates 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 5 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ to be free, must preserve an indifference to the goods toward which it may be inclined. It orients itself to one side or the other, even after having received the concurrence of God. God by his concurrence and man by his free will are partial causes of the human act «like two people dragging a single boat» with different ropes from both sides of a channel (Molina 1588: 165). In other words, God works on the human act, not on the free will that produces it. In the supernatural order, actual grace operates the same way concurrence does. God gives "sufficient grace" to everyone, because He grants a predisposition to act well. However, He, by His middle knowledge, knows who will make good use of that grace and who will not, in the definite circumstances in which He gives it. One and the same kind of grace (which can however have different degrees) becomes "efficacious" in those persons in whom God, thanks to His middle knowledge, had foreseen that they would make good use of it if they received it. In this sense, the divine motion is "moral" and not "physical," since God does not incline the will in an irresistible way but provides the means for it to incline itself. "Congruism" is the name given to the somewhat mitigated sort of Molinism supported by Bellarmine and Suárez, which was the one defended de facto in the controversies of Rome. According to this version, God gives a "congruous" grace morally adapted to the nature and circumstances of each one. This version tries to highlight the divine predilection for the predestined, somewhat diminished in Molina's approach. Thus, unlike Molina, who thought that the divine decision to predestine some people presupposes in its design the good works they were going to perform with the grace of God (predestination post praevisa merita), congruists believe that predestination is logically previous to those merits and is, therefore, totally unwarranted (predestination ante praevisa merita). B a ñ e z i a n i s m 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 6 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ Those who substantially agree with Báñez in the topics linked to De Auxiliis controversy are usually called "Bañezians." Shortly before the appearance of the Concordia, Báñez had begun to publish his commentaries to the Summa theologiae by Saint Thomas, in which he gathered the preceding theological tradition of Salamanca, adding his personal contribution (Báñez 1584a; 1584b; 1588; 1594). Additionally, he composed several writings on the controversy that have been published by Beltrán de Heredia 1968: 101-380.426471.613-644; Báñez 1948: 351-420. It should be noted that while Molina prided himself on having discovered something new that «no one before him» had managed to explain (Molina 1588: 492), Báñez considered himself a defender of «the ancient doctrine that is in the minds of theologians not only of all Spain, but of the whole Church since the time of St. Thomas, and even since the time of St. Augustine, and the second Council of Orange» (Meyer 1705: 805). In fact, other Spanish theologians, including some Jesuits, were astonished by Molina's teachings, but those of Báñez did not cause them any trouble. In any case, from the beginning Molina saw in the Dominican theologian his greatest adversary, since he enjoyed the most important theological chair in Salamanca, which was the most prestigious university in Spain in theology and, at that time, one of the most important in the world. For this reason, Báñez, as we will see, took part in the controversies, but he did not monopolize as much prominence as the Jesuit historiography has given him. Báñez considered somewhat pretentious to "harmonize" divine omnipotence with human freedom. He believed that both faith and reason forced him to affirm a divine providence which orders even every free human act and, at the same time, that such acts were indeed free. He felt able to affirm each one of these two theses separately and to refute those who deny them. However, to explain 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 7 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ exactly how God acts on free will is something that, according to him, goes beyond our intelligence. According to Báñez, Molina's main mistake is to think that freedom consists in the indifference of the will, even «once all the requisites for acting have been posited» (Molina 1588: 12). On the contrary, Báñez believes that the indifference which provides freedom to free will does not reside in the will itself but in the objects of the will which are unable to necessitate its inclination towards them (Beltrán de Heredia 1968: 164-174): the intellect notices this indifference and, whenever it does so, the will freely follows what the intellect shows to be worthy of be wanted. Its freedom is real although the will does not follow but the object presented by the intellect in its last practical judgment. Similarly, when God moves it with His efficacious grace towards something good, it cannot be oriented towards another good (when the creature sins, there is rather a lack of divine motion). Therefore, the divine influence does not undermine freedom, because it does not only strength its will, but also opens the eyes of the intellect to appreciate the indifference of its objects and, therefore, makes the human freer. Although the human will necessarily follows the divine will to attain the good, it does not do so with an absolute necessity (called "necessity of the consequent") but only with a hypothetical and relative necessity (called "necessity of the consequence"). For example, the fact that the sun shines is an absolute necessity, provoked by the very nature of the sun; however, here we speak of a certain conditional or hypothetical necessity, such as the one the proposition "Peter is seated" has, while Peter is effectively seated. It is not absolutely necessary for Peter to be seated, but, if he is seated, then it is necessary for him (with necessity of consequence) to be seated. Likewise, if God, with his efficacious grace, moves a man here and now to conversion, it is necessary that he performs his conversion, but he will do so freely, because he possesses the intrinsic capacity to do it or not. Moreover, God does not concur in the human act as a 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 8 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ partial cause, as Molina thought, but as a principal total cause, while the created free will is also a total but subordinate cause. The divine motion as presented by Báñez was later called "physical premotion." Instead, the Apology of 1595 speaks of "physical predetermination" (surely due to the influence of D. Álvarez, since Báñez did not usually express himself in any of these ways). The will of God directs the history and the acts of men, and it is always fulfilled, so that the good works of men have been predetermined in the divine plan of benevolence, while the bad works have been foreseen and allowed. Unlike Molina, who assures his concord through divine knowledge, for Báñez the divine knowledge about creatures is mediated by the divine will. Physical premotion is necessary both in the order of nature and in the order of grace. Báñez designates as sufficient grace all the aids «which are given as a sufficiency to complete the very potency in its first act» (Báñez 1948: 396). Sufficient grace is everything that makes the created faculty capable of performing the act and, particularly, manifests to the intellect the good toward which the will must be inclined. On the other hand, the actual realization of the act is the effect of efficacious grace. Sufficient grace gives the "being able to act" (first act) while efficacious grace gives the "being acting" (second act). As can be seen, the difference between sufficient and efficacious grace is not only "moral" but of an entitative character, they are "really different", since they are two divine interventions of a different nature. History of the Controversy O r i g i n s of t he d i s pu t e The question of providence and freedom are two central 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 9 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ problems of Renaissance thought, but in a special way they became important for theology with the theses of Luther and Calvin. In the Catholic sphere a definitive answer was given by the Council of Trent in the Decree on Justification (1547). There, the biblical teaching on the divine initiative of human salvation is recalled, but the emphasis is also placed on the cooperation of man: grace is a gift of God, but the work of grace does not happen without active human cooperation. Note that the University of Salamanca contributed to the Council with several significant theologians such as the Dominican Domingo de Soto, who composed a treatise on grace (Soto 1547). The Jesuits Diego Laínez and Alfonso Salmerón stood out in the Council as well. Among the theologians of the 16th century there are some, like John Driedus or Ruard Tapper, that are sometimes invoked to support the Molinism, but it is also necessary to recognize that the Dominicans will question that these authors truly held Molinist ideas. Although Molina studied in Coimbra and Évora , he was also influenced by the most important members of the School of Salamanca. Perhaps because of this, some authors have believed that they anticipated some Molina's ideas (Vansteenberghe 1936: 2097). However, it should be taken into account that Stegmüller, after intense documentation efforts, affirmed the opposite: «The main ideas of the later Thomistic [i.e. Bañezian] doctrine on concurrence as well as its causality, priority, and efficacy are already found in Francisco de Vitoria; likewise, in him are found the foundations of the concord between concurrence and freedom defended by the later Thomists» (Stegmüller 1934: 54). Consequently, Molina's clearest allies can be found in other Jesuits, especially Pedro da Fonseca, who held a very similar doctrine about the famous "middle knowledge", although it is controversial whether Molina took it from him or vice versa. In any case, Molina himself was a significant exponent of Coimbra's Aristotelianism (Casalini 2016: 62-63). 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 10 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ Molina was not personally involved in the event that is usually considered the opening of the controversy: it was a dispute held in Salamanca on January 20th, 1582 (Barrientos García 1996: 675-772). In that dispute the Jesuit Prudencio de Montemayor held several theses that were publicly contested by the Dominican Domingo Báñez, who had recently received the chair of Prima, the most prestigious one in Salamanca. According to him, Montemayor's theses were Semipelagian. Nevertheless, the Augustinian Luis de León came to the defense of the Jesuit. There was a great commotion and the Inquisition ended up investigating the case. As a result, Luis de León was admonished and Báñez, who had also been accused, was acquitted, but Montemayor's academic career ended there. According to Montemayor's argumentation, one could conclude that divine providence had not preordained human acts in all their details. But the main accusation was that God could give the same grace to two men, of whom one would perform the act of conversion and the other not, so that the only difference between both would be in the free will of each one of them, in their acceptance or rejection of the grace. It is noteworthy that Montemayor later declared that, in that occasion, he had said nothing he had not learned from his teachers «especially Father Francisco Suárez» (Abad 1960: 64). Note that Suárez's first work went to press two years after the Concordia in 1590. T he pu bl ic a t ion of t he C o n c o rd i a Although the condemnation of Montemayor was an important precedent, the event that triggered a real controversy was the publication of the Concordia (Molina 1588). The book had received the authorization of the Portuguese Inquisition, with the approval of the Dominican Bartholomew Ferreira and the Cardinal Archduke Albert of Austria, Grand Inquisitor and Viceroy of Portugal. However, the latter was immediately alerted by other Dominicans regarding some statements contained in it which were similar to Montemayor's theses. For this reason, he sent the book again for 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 11 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ examination to Francis Cano and not to Domingo Báñez, as several historians have said: a letter from the Archduke's confessor attests this fact (Prado 1907: 581). Cano saw the book and found that it certainly contained many of those erroneous statements. For this reason, the Grand Inquisitor prevented the book from being sold for a few months. To remedy this situation, Molina wrote a brief "appendix" in which he defended himself from the objections made to him and, in particular, from the accusation of «having incurred in certain propositions that the court of the Holy Inquisition had prohibited from teaching in the kingdom of Castile» (Molina 1589: 3). From then on, the book continued to be sold, as we shall see, not without difficulties. In 1590 D. Báñez and the Mercedarian Francisco Zumel were entrusted with the elaboration of a new Index of forbidden books and unsuccessfully tried to register the Concordia in it (Astrain 1913: 165-168). A little later, Diego Nuño, rector of the College of San Gregorio of the Order of Preachers, located in Valladolid, taught that Molina's theses were erroneous and scandalous, to the point of interrupting the sale of the Concordia in that city. In response to this, the Jesuits organized a public act on March 5th, 1594, presided over by Jesuit Antonio Padilla, to defend Molina's affirmations as safe and Catholic. Nuño intervened in the discussion very passionately. Shortly after, during his Lenten preaching, the Dominican Alonso de Avendaño referred to the "eagerness for novelty" of recent theologians. Finally, on May 19th, D. Nuño announces another event where six conclusions against the Concordia would be presented, although no specific mention of it was made. The Jesuits considered themselves insulted and requested support from the Inquisition. A year after these events, Molina managed to obtain permission to print a new version of his Concordia, this time in Antwerp. In this edition, the theologian took the opportunity to appropriate the remarks made by some Jesuits on his book and to clarify some points. Therefore, 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 12 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ he modified certain sections, added some new ones and eliminated others (Rabeneck in Molina 1959: 32-39). T he I nt e r ve nt ion of t he S p a n i s h I n qu i s i t ion In 1594 the conflict had grown from Castile to the point of reaching the Pope's ears. It is likely that the Jesuits urged Rome to take charge of the matter, feeling safer before the authorities of the Eternal City than before the Spanish Inquisition. Thus, on June 28th, 1594, Cardinal Aldobrandini urged the Nuncio in Spain to prohibit any discussion about De Auxiliis, although the order was not transmitted by the Nuncio until August 15th, 1594. So far, it has been assumed that this prohibition had been enforced until 1598, since Báñez wrote a libel of supplication to ask for its moderation in 1597. Presumably, however, the injunction not to dispute the issue must have been reduced, shortly after September 1594, to a prohibition of condemning the position of the opposing party as heretical. This prohibition against censure was already in force in Spain, since it had been given by the Spanish Inquisition, probably as a result of the events of Valladolid. In October the Inquisition must have obtained from Rome the permission to uphold the prohibition in the original terms determined in Spain. Again, on March 19th, 1596, king Philip II urged both orders not to qualify the doctrine of the other party, without constraining them to keep silent on the subject absolutely. The memorial signed by Báñez in 1597, which is preserved in the Angelica Library (Rome, ms. 883, f. 54r), mentions a new prohibition from that year: this order prohibited yet again to deal with the subject De Auxiliis in any way, something too difficult to comply with. In response to his request, on February 26th, 1598, the Pope agreed to allow discussion again, with the condition of avoiding any censure of the opposing party. In 1594 another controversy arose in Salamanca, involving two great figures: Francisco Suárez and Domingo Báñez. During the summer, Juan de Zúñiga, a 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 13 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ member of the Inquisition Council, visited the University of Salamanca and tried to make an appointment with Suárez, since the Jesuit asked for an interview. However, he found the Jesuit indisposed, so that, instead of that conversation, Suárez sent him a memorial in Spanish as an apology of the Society of Jesus against accusations on the subject De Auxiliis. As we can see, Suárez, like the Jesuits of Valladolid, was turning Molina's cause into the business of the whole Order. In August the document was spread out in Salamanca so that it reached Báñez, who felt obliged to defend, on his part, the Order of Preachers and respond in kind to Suárez. He composed another memorial in vernacular language, which he gave to the Inquisition (Beltrán de Heredia 1968: 411-471). While he asked for silence on the subject, the Pope commissioned the two parties to express their points of view. This procedure had already been launched by the Spanish Inquisition, which also requested the opinions of various theologians and universities throughout Spain, not only on Molina's book, but also on the works by Báñez and Zumel, whom the Jesuit had accused before the Inquisition. Thus, the superiors of the Dominicans and the Jesuits asked several theologians to write their opinions in defense of their own position. Several of them will publish in printed books the reflections that began here, like Suárez 1599, Zumel 1608, Álvarez 1610 or Ledesma 1611. Báñez's treatise was remade until 1600 but remained unpublished until last century (Báñez 1948: 351-420). We also have the original version of the writing sent by Zumel to the Inquisition (Zumel 1953). In addition to these reports, the Dominicans decided to elaborate a brief censure which was hastily composed in Valladolid by several of these theologians on October 3th, 1594 (Prado 1907: 571-578). With similar intent, they met in May 1595 in their Chapter and decided to entrust the elaboration of an apology in defense of the Order of Preachers to a commission of three scholars headed by Báñez, which synthesized the treatises composed by the designated theologians. It was presented in November of 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 14 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ that year. This text, known as Apologia, is of undoubted importance to know the position of the Dominicans in the debate, although it remained unpublished until last century (Beltrán de Heredia 1968: 115-380). It is a very rich writing, but still too extensive. For this reason, Diego Álvarez, one of Báñez's colleagues in its composition, wrote a Summa apologiae to summarize its main points. It was not until 23th October 1598 that the Spanish Inquisition was able to send all the collected material, which Báñez himself said would take at least «two years» to read (Biblioteca Angelica, Rome, ms. 883, f. 54v; in Meyer 1705: 806 it says «three years»). Three packages arrived, one with the writings of the Dominicans and Zumel, another one with those of the Jesuits and a third one with the judgments of the bishops, universities and other theologians consulted (see an accurate description in Meyer 1705: 179-180; Astrain 1913: 228-244). B e g i n n i n g of D e Au x i l i i s C on g r e g a t ion s i n R o me It is difficult to determine the course of events in Rome with total precision, because of lack of certitude about the fidelity of the extant documents. The minutes of the congregations were discredited by the Holy Office, especially regarding the congregations in the presence of the Popes (Meyer 1705: 707). Nevertheless, many texts published by Serry and Meyer are certainly based on manuscripts still preserved and seem reliable. The minutes drawn up by the secretary of the congregations, Gregorio Núñez Coronel, are preserved in Rome and there is another copy in Paris with the notes of Francisco Peña (Astrain 1913: 334-335). The minutes attributed to Tomás de Lemos O.P., also discredited by the Holy Office, were published posthumously (Lemos 1702). However, they do not have to be considered entirely false, because the main point of the declaration of the ecclesiastical authority was a refusal to recognize them as official, since they were not. 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 15 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ During the Roman years of the dispute, Diego Álvarez stands out among the Dominican theologians designated in Rome as a direct disciple of Báñez and his main collaborator in the writing of the Apologia. Later, Tomás de Lemos will join him. Among the Jesuits, mention should be made of Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine, who had already received the command from the General of his Order to revise the Concordia shortly after its publication. The discussions began during the pontificate of Clement VIII in March 1598 with a commission of theologians from various orders (excluding the Order of Preachers and the Society of Jesus) to examine the Concordia. They soon concluded that Molina's doctrine was close to the one of Cassian and other Semipelagians, so that the book had to be banned. However, since the voluminous material sent by the Spanish Inquisition arrived at that time, the condemnation of the Concordia had to be deferred until such copious reports could be reviewed. Nevertheless, after reading them, the commission confirmed its punitive judgment. The requests made to Rome by the Jesuits and various authorities persuaded the Pope to follow another procedure: to give the interested parties the opportunity to discuss, in order to achieve some kind of reconciliation. In this way, the Concordia was set aside, and they focused on the crucial points of divergence between the two orders. For this purpose, the Pope entrusted Cardinals Madruzzo, Bernerio O.P. and Bellarmine S.I. to preside over the sessions in which a commission of Jesuits and Dominicans, led by the General Superiors of both orders, would discuss. In February 1599 they began their work and, while the Dominicans sought above all to condemn Molina, the Jesuits believed that the question of the effectiveness of grace should be examined. They insisted on the error contained in the predetermination of human acts by the efficacious grace as defended by Báñez. For this reason, the Pope ordered Madruzzo to write several questions, to be answered by members of both orders. 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 16 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ The Jesuits believed that these questions favored the Dominicans, and for this reason Bellarmine presented further questions. Since neither party wanted to respond without hearing before the other's response, the Pope had to intervene and the theologians of both orders agreed on a series of theses that all were willing to subscribe to, although arguments remain heated. At the end, Madruzzo with the help of Cardinal d'Ascoli, summarized his questions and sent them to both orders in July 1599: this provided the opportunity for each Order to give its answers; later, the reply and counterreply of the other's answers were written (Serry 1700: 216-217; 95-132 appendix; Meyer 1705: 232-233.237238). This debate is very interesting because the commissioners had enough time enough to consult Spain. Therefore, we can read the answers from Báñez and Suárez to Madruzzo's questions (Beltrán de Heredia 1968: 638-642; Aldama 1948: 228-232) as well as Báñez's reply to the Jesuits' answers (Beltrán de Heredia 1968: 613-638). Madruzzo was about to give his assessment to the Pope after his review of the presented documents, when he was surprised by death in April 1600. From that time on the work was reoriented towards censuring the Concordia by Molina, taking up the previous reports. However, the Jesuits challenged the accuracy of this censure. In the meantime, Molina died on October 12th in Madrid. Clement VIII requested a new revision of the Concordia in order to extract from it a series of theses which could be submitted for discussion by Dominicans and Jesuits before the designated commission of theologians. During the first half of 1601 there were thirty-seven sessions, and everything pointed to a condemnation of Molina, but the Jesuits appealed again, and the Pope hesitated in his decision. Bellarmine even proposed to convoke a Council, but a more modest solution was followed: that theologians of both orders should discuss their position 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 17 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ before the Supreme Pontiff in person. C on g r e g a t ion s D e Au x i l i i s i n t he P r e s e n c e of t he Po p e In March 1602, the disputes began, presided over by Clement VIII. For a period of three years the congregations were to be exclusively dedicated to the examination of the Concord. In these debates, Molina's doctrine is compared with that of Saint Augustine, Cassian and the Council of Trent, regarding the efficacy of grace, free will, justification, contrition and attrition. It was not until July 1604 that the question of the middle knowledge was addressed. Most of the theologians designated by the Pope were against Molina. In January 1605, the subject of predestination and good use of grace was studied. The same month the Cardinal Jacques Davy du Perron, who had contributed to the conversion to Catholicism of Henry IV of France, arrived in Rome. His presence warns us about the political background of the controversies: the powerful king of Spain, whose influence on other Catholic regions like France and Italy is looked at with suspicion, leans towards the Order of Preachers; on the contrary, France, then engaged in a hard fight against Calvinism, will rather support the Society. Shortly thereafter, Pope Clement VIII died on March 5th, 1605. Meanwhile, on October 22th, 1604 Domingo Báñez had died in Spain, like Molina, without knowing what would come out of the controversy: in fact, the Dominican had warned years before that such a huge question might not be resolved in a single pontificate (Meyer 1705: 806). After the very short pontificate of Leo XI, Paul V, who had been Clement VIII's assistant in the congregations, was elected. He was determined to close the controversy as soon as possible. Bellarmine proposed a series of theses that were far from both Pelagius and Calvin, but Tomás de Lemos contested them as captious. Despite this, the Pope allowed the Jesuits to discuss the question of the physical predetermination supported by the Dominicans. 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 18 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ In view of the claims of both, the Pope decided to be present at the discussions from October 1605 to February 1606, while the issue of physical predetermination was being discussed, without the Jesuits managing to persuade the commission of the erroneous character of this doctrine. Then the Pope, with the purpose of putting an end to the dispute, consulted all the members of the commission of theologians asking which definitions should be made, what theses should be condemned and if any book should be expressly mentioned. The immense majority was in favor of condemning a series of propositions of the Concordia. He also consulted the cardinals, who were in favor of giving some definition, although not all were inclined to condemn Molina. Also, the Pope asked Saint Francis of Sales, who recommended to give freedom to teach the doctrine of the Jesuits as well as that of the Dominicans. Finally, on August 28th, 1607, feast of St. Augustine, the cardinals met with the Pope in a session that we know well because it was described by the Pope himself (Schneemann 1881: 287-291). The Dominican Cardinal d'Ascoli was the only one in favor of condemning the Concordia, trying however to leave the Jesuits in a good position due to their innumerable merits. The others were hesitant, except for Bellarmine and du Perron who excused Molina and severely accused Báñez but did not propose any condemnation. The Pope, in his turn, declared that the Council of Trent had defined both the influence of grace and human freedom in the human acts performed with divine help, and that the whole controversy lay in whether such a motion was moral or physical. In his view, there was no need to make a statement on this matter, since neither the Dominicans were falling into the error of Calvin nor the Jesuits into the one of Pelagius. He also noted that to make a statement on what was agreed upon and not discussed did not seem necessary; instead, this might give cause for gossip among Protestants. In any case, if considered 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 19 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ convenient, such business should be consulted with universities and theologians. The Pope dismissed the commissioners of the congregations with orders not to reveal the issues discussed. On September 5th, 1607, he also transmitted to the superiors of both orders the license to dispute on this matter and the severe prohibition to declare the opposite side wrong. As he told to the king of Spain, his decision to avoid all condemnation was partly motivated by his desire of preserve the reputation of two orders which had performed such services to the Church. In short, Rome did not want to take sides and to this day has yet to pronounce itself on this matter. Influence of Controversies The pontifical decision did not conclude this problem. Over the centuries, voluminous books have been published by supporters of both positions. Moreover, the controversy drifted into the field of historiography, trying to formulate a partisan narrative of the events that would demonize the opposite side. For this reason, even today it is difficult to reconstruct an objective account of the events. Similarly, there are also relatively few studies on the history of the ideas addressed by the different authors, while there are many studies inscribed in one of the two scholastic traditions developed during the controversy. The main repercussion of the debate among its contemporaries outside the Catholic sphere could be observed in the thought of the reformed theologian J. Arminius, whose doctrine must have been based on the Concordia, as recent scholarship is increasingly recognizing (Muller 2019; Stanglin 2019: 151-155). A century later, Leibniz himself recognized the acuity of Thomists and Molinists in dealing with the same issues that interested him. On the other hand, the Jansenists, 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 20 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ who believed their doctrines to be corroborated by Bañezianism, took advantage of the De Auxiliis controversy to feed the black legend of the Society of Jesus. Going deeper and considering the growing recognition of Suárez's contribution to the beginning of modernity, J. Maritain's opinion deserves special attention, when he holds the De Auxiliis dispute partially responsible for the emergence of modern atheism (García Cuadrado 2016). Today, attention to Molinism is increasing in the Protestant sphere, since some theologians see it as a more acceptable theological solution than strict Calvinism. Moreover, Molinism is considered as an attractive point of view among some contemporary analytical philosophers such as A. Plantinga or W. L. Craig. Despite the growing disinterest in scholasticism that became widespread in the Catholic sphere in the last fifty years, there has been a true revival of this question among Thomists in the first decades of the 21st century, especially in the English-speaking world. This way, the important debates developed during the first half of the 20th century among Catholic theologians such as Norberto del Prado, Réginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Francisco Marín-Sola, Bernard Lonergan and Jacques Maritain have been updated. Bibliography P r i m a r y s ou r c e s Álvarez, Didacus, De auxiliis divinae gratiae et humani arbitrii viribus, et libertate ac legitima eius cum efficacia eorundem auxiliorum concordia, Romae, Stephanus Paulinus, 1610. Báñez, Domingo, Scholastica Commentaria in Primam Partem Angelici Doctoris D. Thomae Aquinatis usque ad sexagesimam quartam quaestionem complectentia. Salmanticae: M. Gastius, 1584a. 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 21 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ -, De Fide, Spe et Charitate. Scholastica Commentaria in Secundam Secundae Angelici Doctoris Partem, quae ad quaestionem quadragesimam sextam protenduntur. Salmanticae: S. Stephanus, 1584b. -, Super Primam Partem Divi Thomae a quaestione sexagesimaquinta usque in finem commentariorum. Salmanticae: A. Renaut, 1588. -, De Iure et Iustitia Decisiones. Salmanticae: I. & A. Renaut, 1594. -, De moderando decreto silentii in materia de auxiliis (1597), Biblioteca Angelica, Roma, ms. 883, ff. 5458. -, Comentarios inéditos a la Prima Secundae de Santo Tomás, Madrid, CSIC, 1948, Vol. 3. Ledesma, Petrus de. Tractatus de divinae gratiae auxiliis, circa illa verba Esaiae Cap. 26, Omnia opera nostra operatus es in nobis Domine: Et circa doctrinam D. Thomae multis in locis: praecipue I. Par. Quaest. 19. Art. 8. et Quaest. 23. et I.2. Quaest. 111. Salmanticae: A. Ramirez, 1611. Lemos, Thomas de. Acta omnia Congregationum ac Disputationum quae coram SS. Clemente VIII et Paulo V Summis Pontificibus sunt celebratae in causa et controversia illa magna de Auxiliis Divinae Gratiae. Lovanii: A. Denique, 1702. Molina, Luis de. Liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, providentia, praedestinatione et reprobatione concordia. Olyssipone: Riberius, 1588. -, Appendix ad concordiam liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, providentia, praedestinatione, et reprobatione. Olyssipone: E. de Lyra, 1589. -, Liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis, divina praescientia, providentia, praedestinatione et reprobatione concordia. Edited by Iohannes Rabeneck. Oniae/Madrid: Collegium Maximum S. I./Sapientia, 1953. -, On Divine Foreknowledge (Part IV of the Concordia). Translated by Alfred J. Freddoso. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1988. Soto, Dominicus. De natura et gratia. Venetiis: 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 22 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ Iuntas, 1547. Suárez, Franciscus. Varia opuscula theologica. Matriti: Ex Typographia Regia, 1599. Zumel, Franciscus. Opuscula, Libros III. ad Primam Partem, et ad Primam, Secundae duos variorumque questionum alium continentia. Salmanticae: A. Taberniel, 1608. S e c on d a r y s ou r c e s Abad, Camilo María. 1960. "Algunos Documentos Inéditos Para La Historia de La Teología En España." Estudios Eclesiásticos: Revista de Investigación e Información Teológica y Canónica 35 extra: 53–77. Aldama, José Antonio de. 1948. "Dos Pareceres Inéditos Del P. Suárez Sobre La Gracia Eficaz." Archivo Teológico Granadino 11: 228–32. Astrain, Antonio. 1913. Historia de La Compañía de Jesús En La Asistencia de España. Vol. 4. Madrid: Razón y Fe. Barbolla, Manuela. 2012. "Per Uno Studio Del Fondo Congregazione de Auxiliis Divinae Gratiae Conservato in Archivio Segreto Vaticano." Dall'Archivio Segreto Vaticano 6: 3–36. Barrientos García, José. 1996. Fray Luis de León y La Universidad de Salamanca. Madrid: Ediciones Escurialenses. Beltrán de Heredia, Vicente. 1968. Domingo Báñez y Las Controversias Sobre La Gracia: Textos y Documentos. Madrid: CSIC. Blanco García, Francisco. 1896. Segundo Proceso Instruido Por La Inquisición de Valladolid Contra Fray Luis de León. Madrid: Aguado. Craig, William L. 1988. The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge and Future Contingents from Aristotle to Suarez. Leiden: Brill. Echavarría, Agustín. 2017. "Principio y Fundamento de La Ciencia Media Según Francisco Suárez." Cauriensia 12: 43–62. Freddoso, Alfred J. n.d. "Suarez on God's Causal Involvement in Sinful Acts in The Problem of Evil." 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 23 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ In Early Modern Philosophy, edited by Elmar J. Kremer and Michael J. Latzer, 10–34. Gaetano, Stephen. 2019. "Domingo Báñez and His Dominican Predecessors: The Dominican School on the Threshold of the Controversy De Auxiliis." In Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis. The Dynamics of Protestant and Catholic Soteriology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, edited by Jordan Ballor, Matthew Gaetano, and David Sytsma, 35–65. Leiden: Brill. García Cuadrado, José Ángel. 1999. Domingo Báñez (1528-1604): Introducción a Su Obra Filosófica y Teológica. Pamplona: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra. -. 2010. "Determinismo y Libertad: Sobre La Existencia Del Libre Arbitrio En F. Suárez y D. Báñez." Recherches Philosophiques 6: 161–83. -. 2016. "Las Controversias Sobre La Gracia y La Génesis Del Humanismo Ateo." Espíritu 65: 407– 32. Jericó Bermejo, Ignacio. 1999. "Gracia de Dios y Acción Del Hombre. 'Facienti Quod Est in Se, Deus Non Denegat Gratiam'. El Recto Sentido de Esta Experiencia En D. Báñez." Studium 39: 373–408. Kaufmann, Matthias, and Alexander Aichele, eds. 2014. A Companion to Luis de Molina. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Ledesma, Petrus de. 1611. Tractatus de Divinae Gratiae Auxiliis, circa Illa Verba Esaiae Cap. 26, Omnia Opera Nostra Operatus Es in Nobis Domine: Et circa Doctrinam D. Thomae Multis in Locis: Praecipue I. Par. Quaest. 19. Art. 8. et Quaest. 23. et I.2. Quaest. 111. Salmanticae: A. Ramirez. Lemos, Thomas de. 1702. Acta Omnia Congregationum Ac Disputationum Quae Coram SS. Clemente VIII et Paulo V Summis Pontificibus Sunt Celebratae in Causa et Controversia Illa Magna de Auxiliis Divinae Gratiae. Lovanii: A. Denique. http://books.google.com/books? id=sjCmvkvCO4YC&printsec=frontcover. Lynch, Reginald M. 2019. "Divine Causality and 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 24 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ Human Freedom: Aquinas, Báñez, and Premotion after Descartes." In Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis. The Dynamics of Protestant and Catholic Soteriology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, edited by Jordan Ballor, Matthew Gaetano, and David Sytsma, 219–44. Leiden: Brill. Matava, Robert J. 2016. Divine Causality and Human Free Choice. Domingo Báñez, Physical Premotion and the Controversy De Auxiliis Revisited. Boston: Brill. -. 2020. "A Sketch of the Controversy de Auxiliis." Journal of Jesuit Studies 7: 417–46. Mateo-Seco, Lucas. 2006. "Providencia y Libertad En Domingo Báñez." In El Alma Humana: Esencia y Destino. IV Centenario de Domingo Báñez (15281604), edited by Cruz González-Ayesta, 171–92. Pamplona: EUNSA. Meyer, Livinus de. 1705. Historiae Controversiarum de Divinae Gratiae Auxiliis. Antuerpiae: P. Jacobs. -. 1953. Liberi Arbitrii Cum Gratiae Donis, Divina Praescientia, Providentia, Praedestinatione et Reprobatione Concordia. Edited by Iohannes Rabeneck. Oniae/Madrid: Collegium Maximum S. I./Sapientia. -. 1988. On Divine Foreknowledge (Part IV of the Concordia). Translated by Alfred J. Freddoso. Ithaca: Cornell UP. Muller, Richard A. 2019. "Arminius's 'Conference' with Junius and the Protestant Reception of Molina's Concordia." In Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis. The Dynamics of Protestant and Catholic Soteriology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, edited by Jordan Ballor, Matthew Gaetano, and David Sytsma, 103–26. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Muñoz, Vicente. 1953. Zumel y El Molinismo. Informe Del P. Francisco Zumel, Mercedario, Sobre Las Doctrinas Del P. Luis Molina S.J. Presentado En Julio de 1595. Madrid: Estudios. Nadal Sánchez, Helena. 2017. La Consolidación Del Tomismo En Domingo Báñez. Madrid: Fundación Ignacio Larramendi. 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 25 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ Osborne, Thomas M. 2016. "How Sin Escapes Premotion: The Development of Thomas Aquinas's Thought by Spanish Thomists." In Thomism & Predestination. Principles and Disputations, edited by Stephen A. Long, Roger W. Nutt, and Thomas J. White, 192–213. Ave Maria: Sapientia. Peinado Peinado, Jesús. 1968. "Evolución de Las Fórmulas Molinistas Sobre La Gracia Eficaz Durante Las Controversias de Auxiliis." Archivo Teológico Granadino 31: 5–191. Prado, Norbertus del. 1907. De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio. Vol. 3. Friburgi Helvetiorum: Consociatio Sancti Pauli. Rebalde, João. 2013a. "Luis de Molina Frente a Boécio e Tomás de Aquino: Os Segredos Da Providência e a Liberdade Humana." Mediaevalia. Textos e Estudos 32: 237–46. -. 2013b. "Os Conceitos de Ciência Média e Concurso Divino de Luis de Molina Criticados Por Domingo Báñez: Dois Paradigmas." Revista Da Faculdade de Letras – Série de Filosofia 30: 59–70. -. 2015. Liberdade Humana e Perfeição Divina Na Concordia de Luis de Molina. Famalicão: Húmus. Schneemann, Gerhard. 1881. Controversiarum de Divinae Gratiae Liberique Arbitrii Concordia Initia et Processus. Friburgi Brisgoviae: Herder. Scorraille, Raoul de. 1912. François Suárez de La Compagnie de Jésus. Paris: Lethielleux. Serry, Jacobus Jacintus. 1700. Historiae Congregationum de Auxiliis Divinae Gratiae, Sub Summis Pontificibus Clemente VIII et Paulo V. Lovanii: Aegidium Denique. Stanglin, Keith D. 2019. "Scientia Media: The Protestant Reception of a Jesuit Idea." In Beyond Dordt and De Auxiliis. The Dynamics of Protestant and Catholic Soteriology in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, edited by Jordan Ballor, Matthew Gaetano, and David Sytsma, 148–68. Leiden/Boston: Brill. Stegmüller, Friedrich. 1934. Francisco de Vitoria y La Doctrina de La Gracia En La Escuela Salmantina. 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 26 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ By David Torrijos | September 20th, 2022 | Comments Off S H A R E T H I S I N F O R M A T I O N :        Barcelona: Biblioteca Balmes. -. 1935. Geschichte Des Molinismus. Münster: Aschendorff. Stöhr, Johannes. 1980. Zur Frühgeschichte Des Gnadenstreites. Gutachten Spanischer Dominikaner in Einer Bisher Unbekannten Handschrift. Münster: Aschendorff. Torrijos Castrillejo, David. 2017. "Suárez y La Premoción Física." Cuadernos Salmantinos de Filosofía 44: 71–94. -. 2020. "Was Báñez a Bañecian?" American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 94: 431–58. Vansteenberghe, Edmond. 1936. "Molinisme." In Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, 10/2:2094– 2187. Paris: Letouzey et Ané. Vázquez, Isaac. 1979. "Las Controversias Doctrinales Postridentinas Hasta Finales Del Siglo XVII." In Historia de La Iglesia En España, edited by Ricardo García Villoslada, 4:419–74. Madrid: BAC. Vilaroig, Jaime. 2019. "El Desencuentro Entre Suárez y Báñez En Torno a La Polémica de Auxiliis." Franciscanum 61: 1–15. R e l a t e d E nt r ie s Luís de Molina, De Iustitita et Iure (1593–1609) Coimbra and Dillingen Fonseca, Pedro da Góis, Manuel de Suárez, Francisco – Ontology (Science of Being) 5/10/22 18(36De Auxiliis Controversy Conimbricenses.org Página 27 de 27http://www.conimbricenses.org/encyclopedia/de-auxiliis-controversy/ ISBN: 978-989-54328-0-6 | ISSN: 2184-2868 Copyright 2021 | Universidade de Coimbra IEF | All Rights Reserved