Trent Postponed: The Projects for the Establishment of the Tridentine Seminary in Cape Verde (1570–1866) ^†

Abstract

Decreed on 12 January 1570, the seminary of the diocese of Cape Verde was established in 1866 in the format of a Seminary-High School. In this paper, I analyse the projects for the establishment of the seminary in Cape Verde, unpacking the dynamics behind the failures before 1866. First, I discuss the period from the 1570s to the 1640s, with the Jesuits at the epicentre. I then examine why the seminary project went adrift thereafter. Finally, I explain the decisive role of Bishop José Luís Alves Feijó (1865–71) in the establishment of the Seminary-High School. I contend that, in the first phase (1570s–1640s), the project failed because the leaders of the Jesuit mission, influenced by racial and civilisational prejudices, deemed the natives unfit for refined theological training. Moreover, the Jesuit mission lacked the stability to undertake the project. After their departure in 1642, no ecclesiastical player before Bishop José Luís Alves Feijó demonstrated any meaningful commitment to the seminary project. The underlining thesis of this paper is that episcopal negligence (episcopal absenteeism prevailed) and the inability or unwillingness of different field players to compromise were primarily responsible for the failures of the projects to establish the seminary before 1866.

1. Introduction

On 12 January 1570, Sebastian, King of Portugal, invoking his obligations to promote the implementation of the directives of the Council of Trent (1547–63) in his overseas dominions, granted a sum of 200,000 réis annually to Francisco da Cruz, Bishop of Cape Verde (1553–71), for the foundation and maintenance of the seminary of his diocese.1 The diocese of Cape Verde was established in January 1533, with headquarters in Ribeira Grande, Santiago Island, in the archipelago of Cape Verde, under effective Portuguese control. It encompassed the archipelago and a significant portion of the West African coast, stretching from the Senegal River in the north to the Saint Andrew River in the south. On the continent, it covered territories of modern-day Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, and Sierra Leone.

The royal decree mandated the building of the seminary on Santiago Island and, in tune with the Tridentine seminary legislation, placed it under the direct jurisdiction of the bishops of Cape Verde. Through the founding decree, Bishop Francisco da Cruz (1553–71) was ordered to oversee the foundation project and ensure its immediate implementation (que asy o faça e ponha logo ẽ efeito) (ibid.). It fell upon the bishops of Cape Verde to govern the seminary and decide on the handling of its visitation. The decree set out clearly the goals of establishing a seminary, the mechanisms for its financing, and payment for its personnel. The seminary was to provide proper theological training and moral instruction to its students so that the benefices of the diocese would be bestowed upon suitable candidates (pera se prouerem os benefiçios do ditto bispado a pessoas idoneas e bẽ instruidas) for the reformation of religious practices (reformaçaõ dos costumes) (ibid.). Overall, 200,000 réis were to be paid every year from the tithe revenues owned by the Military Order of Christ (Ordem Militar de Cristo) in the archipelago of Cape Verde and used to raise the salaries of language and music teachers and other royal employees obliged to engage in the consolidation of the seminary (ibid., pp. 7–8).

However, despite some commitment on the part of the Portuguese Crown during the late 16th century and the first half of the 17th century, this first project to establish a diocesan seminary in Cape Verde failed. Subsequent attempts (if these were indeed projects) met the same fate. The first seminary of Cape Verde was established in 1866, two hundred and ninety-six years later, in São Nicolau Island, in the north of the archipelago. It functioned, until its closure in 1917, as a Seminary-High School, designed to train both future clerics and secular civil servants. It was, unsurprisingly, not a Tridentine Seminary. The imperial contexts of its establishment were quite different from those at the dawn of the Early Modern Period. While in the 16th century, Portugal ran its overseas dominions with relative comfort, backed by the spiritual legitimation conferred by the Holy See, by the second half of the 19th century, the source of legitimation and imperial strength was different. Considering the increasing imperial rivalry, what counted most heavily was the capacity to control a territory effectively. The storm of the “Scramble for Africa” was brewing on the horizon, and Portugal needed to reinforce its cultural influence on the continent through the mechanisms of the so-called “civilising mission.” This, then, was the backdrop of the establishment of the Seminary-High School.

The long delay in the establishment of the seminary in the diocese of Cape Verde was not extraordinary. The creation of Tridentine seminaries was often a very slow process in Europe and overseas. In Portugal itself, some major dioceses (such as that of Porto) managed to establish a seminary only by the 19th century. Hugo Silva eloquently demonstrates how the cathedral clergy in Portugal, to protect their revenues, resisted the bishops’ endeavours to establish seminaries in their dioceses (H. R. Silva 2012, p. 270): “Probably, the main reason for the delay in creating seminaries was their funding. No one wanted to pay for them”. In Cape Verde, this problem did not apply, at least not in these terms. The seminary’s founding decree established the institution’s funding source as the tithe revenues owned by the Military Order of Christ. The revenues of the diocese’s cathedral clergy would not be affected. The founding decree assigned an unequivocal leadership role to the bishop, entrusted with steering the whole establishment process. Apparently, everything was set for a successful enterprise. Yet it did not happen. What went wrong?

Without overlooking the medieval roots of the Tridentine seminary legislation (for a discussion on this, see O’Donohoe 1957; Bellitto 2005), it can be safely concluded that the diocesan seminary, as conceived by the Council of Trent, was largely a response to the harsh criticisms faced by the Catholic Church from the very outset of the Protestant Reformation. Under heavy fire from ardent critics who rose as leaders or founders of the emerging Evangelical confessions that reshaped Europe’s ecclesiastical and political maps in the 16th century, the leading Catholic authorities were aware of the urgent need for Church reform and the removal of major deficiencies. These deficiencies included the deplorable state of clerical education, one of the most exposed flanks of the Catholic Church at the dawn of the Early Modern Period. Accordingly, this matter received considerable attention in the agenda of the Catholic Reformation, systematised and honed at Trent. Moreover, the Tridentine seminary legislation was inextricably linked to the most vital component of reform of the diocesan governance envisaged by Trent, namely, the indispensable role of the bishop as linchpin or the epicentre of pastoral dynamics in the dioceses. As rightly pointed out (Puente 2012, pp. 173–74), it is paramount to stop viewing the Tridentine seminaries as mere institutions designed to provide the dioceses with an educated clergy and start considering them “political projects aiming at the reinforcement of episcopal power/authority […] the ultimate goal of the Tridentine legislation that decreed the creation of the seminaries”.

However, like any institution, ensuring the effective implementation of the normative directives from the highest levels can present serious challenges for the Catholic Church. Notably, the Council of Trent coincided with the strident spread and consolidation of Catholicism overseas. This phenomenon reinforced the influence of imperial secular powers in the management of spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs, particularly in overseas dominions. Churches and states were not separate entities, and secular rulers, as patrons of churches in their territories, called the shots on major church affairs. This made dossiers such as the establishment of a seminary fall within the jurisdiction and obligations of European monarchs. Many layers of decision-makers and implementers were involved, and reconciling their often divergent interests, priorities, views, and approaches was often difficult. As is well known, any multi-player project, no matter how good and well-intentioned, depends on sound coordination and the competence and commitment of those entrusted with its implementation. The case of the seminary of Cape Verde is a good example: despite some interest from the authorities in Lisbon, the field players’ lack of commitment and their inability or unwillingness to compromise and reconcile their views and interests blocked the enterprise for nearly three centuries.

This paper is not concerned with the history of the seminary of Cape Verde,2 only with the attempts at its establishment. Based on archival records preserved in Portugal and in Rome (mostly the Vatican Apostolic Archive, but also the General Archive of the Jesuits), as well as documents published in the second series of the indispensable Monumenta Missionaria Africana, I seek to explore the reasons why the projects to establish a Tridentine seminary in the diocese of Cape Verde failed for so long. I delve into private and official correspondences and reports to explain how the dynamics of divergent/conflicting interests and priorities of the key players involved systematically blocked the establishment of the seminary.

This paper is divided into three parts. In the first part, I discuss the events that occurred from the 1570s to the 1640s, focusing on the involvement of the Jesuits, who spearheaded the seminary project during this period. I will also explore the controversies surrounding the location of the seminary, a major source of information about the agendas, views, and perceptions of the different players involved. In the second part, I discuss why the seminary project went adrift after the Jesuits’ departure in 1642 and thereafter until the second half of the 19th century. In the third part, I explain why and how the political and pastoral profile and track record of Bishop José Luís Alves Feijó (1865–71) proved decisive in the establishment of the Seminary-High School in 1866.

2. Backing the Wrong Horses: The Jesuits and the Seminary Project

The first significant barrier to the establishment of the seminary in Cape Verde was episcopal negligence, sometimes manifested particularly through episcopal absenteeism. The prelates’ duty of residence was at the core of the Tridentine reforming aspirations. As stated in the decree De reformatione, the Council, “wishing to restore a very much collapsed ecclesiastical discipline and to reform the depraved morals of the clergy and the Christian people, has deemed it proper to begin with those who preside over the major churches, for unblemished character in those who govern is the salvation of those governed” (Schroeder 2011, p. 47). Residing in the territory of one’s benefice was considered fundamental to the proper discharge of pastoral duties. “Let them know, however,” the decree warns, “that they cannot fulfil this if, like hirelings, they desert the flocks committed to them and do not attend to the guardianship of their sheep, whose blood will be required at their hands by the supreme judge; since it is most certain that the shepherd’s excuse will not be accepted if the wolf devours the sheep and he knows it not” (Schroeder 2011, pp. 47–48). Yet, despite the decree’s firm tone and the penalties it foresaw for absentees, the duty of residence was systematically circumvented or simply violated in Europe and overseas alike. Portugal and its overseas dominions were no exception (Caetano 1965; A. Silva 1995; Polónia 2014; Paiva 2010). As I have demonstrated elsewhere, as in virtually all dioceses of the Portuguese empire, episcopal absenteeism predominated in Cape Verde (Pereira 2016). Until the 19th century, bishops often did not reside there for a considerable portion of their episcopal tenure. Some never set foot in the diocese; the vast majority delayed their departure to the diocese as much as they could and, once they arrived, sought any excuse to leave (see table in the Appendix A). Some prelates preferred to run the diocese from their comfortable residences in Portugal. Despite the pressures of Trent, episcopal negligence prevailed.

Thus, unsurprisingly, although the royal instructions of 1570 mandated the supervision of the bishop over the establishment of the seminary, during the last quarter of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th century, the bishops of Cape Verde seldom became directly involved with the seminary project. Bishop Francisco da Cruz (1553–71), who was entrusted with the establishment of the seminary in January 1570, was the third bishop of Cape Verde. The first, Bishop Brás Neto (1533–38), confirmed in 1533,3 never went to Cape Verde. The second bishop, Jean Parvi (1538–46), was confirmed in 15384 but delayed his departure until 1546. He died that year, shortly after landing on Santiago Island. Francisco da Cruz was one of those rare exceptions to the rule, especially if one considers the energetic commitment with which he worked in the discharge of his pastoral duties. Confirmed in 1553, he arrived in Cape Verde in 1555 and resided there until his resignation in March 1571. He worked diligently in the organisation of the diocese. Unfortunately, when the decree for the foundation of the seminary was issued, he was old and sick, awaiting his death. He resigned and returned to Portugal, where passed in 1574.

The involvement of Bishop Francisco da Cruz’s immediate successors with the seminary project was minimal. In the decades that followed King Sebastian’s decree on the seminary’s foundation, the whole project gravitated to the Jesuits. In fact, the seminary enterprise was a major catalyst for the establishment of the Jesuit mission in Cape Verde. By the end of the 1570s, influential personalities in the diocese were lobbying for the deployment of Ignatian fathers there (Gonçalves 1996, pp. 109–14), as the Jesuits were considered the best suited to accomplish the task. Thus, in the 1590s, the pressure to establish a Jesuit mission in Cape Verde began to mount. This was closely linked to the growing consensus, both in Lisbon and Cape Verde, that a Jesuit mission would yield significant spiritual gains in the diocese of Cape Verde because “they are more capable of teaching and educating and administering seminaries in such remote lands”.5 Accordingly, on 6 May 1596, the King ordered negotiations for the establishment of a Jesuit mission in Cape Verde with Jesuit authorities “so that our holy faith will be better implanted in the coastal regions of Africa.” According to the royal orders, the 200,000 réis for the establishment of the seminary should be put at their disposal for that end. The Ignatian fathers were also to be granted jurisdiction (regimẽto) over the seminary, where they were expected to teach languages (gramatica, which in this case was essentially Portuguese and Latin) and Moral Theology (casos de consciẽcia).6 Apart from the establishment of the seminary, the Jesuit missionaries’ tasks would include pastoral/spiritual assistance to the continental portion of the diocese.

While the authorities in Lisbon and Cape Verde viewed the foundation of a Jesuit mission as the best way to bring the seminary project to fruition, the Jesuits themselves showed little interest in establishing a presence in that diocese. The formal negotiations to deploy them lasted eight long years. As early as 1596, the Jesuits refused to heed the call, claiming that it was not possible due to the extensive preparations necessary for the deployment of missionaries to Africa. Private correspondence, however, reveals that they had no intention of accepting the mission. Late in 1596, Father Francisco de Gouveia, Provincial Superior of the Jesuits, corresponded with Superior-General Cláudio Aquaviva in Rome, outlining why the Order should not accept the mission of Cape Verde: the weather conditions in the diocese were lethal (Esta tierra para donde quiere S. Magestad que vã los nuestros es é muy enferma), and the Order was already overloaded with missionary commitments; there were simply no resources or manpower to staff another mission.7 On 18 December 1596, Father de Gouveia further informed the Crown authorities that, considering that the Portuguese Jesuits were already engaged on too many fronts, and the resources of the Order were stretched thin, they could not afford to assume the responsibilities of a new mission (naõ está a prouincia ao presente em estado para tomar de nouo esta obrigaçaõ, porque difficultosamente pode accudir às muytas e graues que tem).8 The reasons advanced by Father de Gouveia in these letters were, mutatis mutandis, systematically repeated over the years of Jesuit resistance.

Only by the summer of 1603 did the Portuguese Province of the Jesuits show signs of interest in establishing a mission in Cape Verde. No document I found in either the archives in Portugal or in the General Archives of the Jesuits in Rome sheds light on why the Portuguese Jesuits had a change of heart in 1603. However, it did happen. On 20th April that year, the Secretary António Vasconcelos addressed the Superior-General Aquaviva, indicating why the Jesuits should accept the mission of Cape Verde. The pressing spiritual needs of the local population, he explained, had prompted the long-standing request for the reinforcement of the missionary staff in the diocese, preferably with Jesuits.9 At this point, the Jesuits seem to have begun to see several advantages in a mission in Cape Verde: the diocese was relatively close to Portugal (15 to 20 days of travel), and even the weather, previously cited as a lethal hardship, was now seen as just a minor inconvenience. After all, compared to other parts of the empire, the diocese of Cape Verde was not so unhealthy, it was argued. Moreover, it was believed that the local population was open to embracing Christianity, being more docile and more capable of assimilating Christian faith and practices.10

The Superior-General, Claudio Aquaviva, welcomed the enthusiasm of the Jesuits in Portugal but urged them to await formal contact from the Crown authorities so that the Order could better decide how to proceed.11 By 31 January 1604, the negotiations had produced an agreement, and King Philip II notified the Bishop of Cape Verde that the seminary or college to be established in Cape Verde would be placed under the responsibility of the Jesuits. The new mission would consist of six or seven Ignatians assigned to work in the archipelago and assist the communities in the continental part of the diocese.12 The 200,000 réis, disbursed to the seminary but still to be used (até agora naõ teue effeito), along with some extra funds, were to be entrusted to the Jesuits to establish the seminary project. The King sought the departure of at least four missionaries as soon as possible (na primeira ocaziaõ de embarcação que se oferecer) to start establishing contacts with local authorities and gather the necessary information to bring the seminary project to fruition (ibid., pp. 31–34).

It was against this backdrop that, in March 1604, Father Baltasar Barreira, a 66-year-old missionary veteran (with at least ten years of African experience, more precisely in Angola), was chosen to lead the mission of Cape Verde. Barreira threw himself wholeheartedly into the project. However, importantly, while Father Barreira enthusiastically embraced the establishment of the Jesuit mission in Cape Verde, he firmly opposed the idea of a seminary for native Africans, both in Cape Verde and in Portugal. Barreira’s sentiments regarding the matter exerted considerable influence on his Jesuit superiors and ultimately sealed the fate of the seminary project in its infancy. The racial prejudices behind Barreira’s stances will be discussed in the following section on the location controversy. For now, it may be useful to examine why the seminary project in Cape Verde under the Jesuits failed due to clashes and conflicts with local authorities.

In 1604, the Jesuits finally established an “exploratory” mission in Cape Verde. The goal of the first group of four missionaries was, as Father Barreira put it, to explore the working conditions. The veteran requested that the exploratory venture be handled as discreetly as possible because the continuation of the mission was contingent upon those very working conditions.13 According to Barreira, when he landed in Ribeira Grande in early July (probably on the 5th), he and the other missionaries were received with great joy. The warm reception by the people and local authorities, the milder weather compared to that he had endured in Angola, and the docility of the natives (o bõ natural da gente), who “had not yet been exposed to the evil of Islam that had infected other regions” (a maldita seita de Mafamede, de que os mais destoutros Reinos estão iscados), ignited Barreira’s optimism. In just two weeks after his team’s arrival in Santiago, the Jesuit veteran conveyed his enthusiasm and conviction to his superiors in Lisbon that the newly arrived Ignatian Fathers were in the diocese of Cape Verde to stay.14 Alas, bitter days were not far away. The first group of Ignatian Fathers to land in Cape Verde was no exception to the high missionary mortality rate overseas: by the end of January 1605, just 6 or 7 months later, three of the four missionaries were dead, with Father Barreira being the sole survivor. In the following decade, two-thirds of the Jesuit missionaries deployed to Cape Verde succumbed to diseases.

On top of the heavy casualties, conflicts between Jesuits and the local authorities brought further hardships. So much so that from 1612 onwards, the mission became moribund.15 From 1605, Father Barreira’s enthusiasm waned, reflected in his doubts about the continuation of the Jesuit mission in Cape Verde (declaro a duuida que tenho de fundarmos nestas partes).16 However, he was still engaged in the materialisation of some missionary projects, the foremost being the establishment of a Jesuit college, a project that he favoured from the outset, over that of a Tridentine seminary. Barreira argued that the Jesuit college should not be established in Ribeira Grande due to the significant health risk, warning that it could lead to the quick decimation of the residents. The best location for the college, he suggested, was approximately two leagues from Ribeira Grande, in São Domingos, a healthy, populated area with abundant and fertile farming lands. From there, the Jesuits could periodically visit Ribeira Grande by horse, and when the demands were lower, they could be free from the hustle and bustle of city life (estarã livres dos rebates e sobressaltos que tẽ a cidade).17 Soon enough, negotiations began for the establishment of a Professed House (Casa Professa) instead, because, according to the Jesuits, it was more in line with the spirituality of the Order.18

However, before long, systematic conflicts and clashes with local authorities completely eroded Barreira’s belief in the future of the Jesuit mission in Cape Verde. These conflicts had little to do with the seminary project per se and were mostly related to property ownership, testaments, and the transmission of inheritances in Santiago Island, apart from disagreements and delays in salary payments (Gonçalves 1996, pp. 167–69, 203–34). These clashes are relevant to us because the tense atmosphere between the Jesuits and the secular and ecclesiastical authorities in Cape Verde (governor, councilmen, and bishops) led to the instability and eventual termination of the mission. As the conflicts between the Jesuits and local authorities intensified, the plans for establishing the college went up in smoke. In March 1612, shortly before his death in June, it became clear that all hopes (if any) Barreira had of the continuation of the mission were dashed by major clashes between himself and Governor Francisco Martins de Sequeira. In his report on these clashes to the Provincial Superior, the Jesuit veteran conveyed his conviction that Jesuits should not establish a mission in Cape Verde because they risked routinely dealing with slanderous governors (somos de parecer que naõ conuem fundarmos caza nesta Jlha, a risco de termos nela cada três annos Gouernadores que nos caluniem como este, alem de outros inconuenientes intoleraueis).19 The year 1612 represents, in many ways, the beginning of the end of the Jesuit mission in Cape Verde. According to Nuno Gonçalves, between 1612 and 1630, only five Jesuits were assigned to Cape Verde, and the mission’s personnel was essentially reduced to two priests and a brother (Gonçalves 1996, pp. 195–97). This is hardly surprising. Father Barreira was the heart and soul of the Jesuit mission in Cape Verde. Once he threw in the towel, all hopes for the future of the Jesuit enterprise in Cape Verde began to crumble. From 1612 onwards, the Jesuits began a long preparation for their eventual withdrawal in 1642.

The secular authorities in Lisbon/Madrid/Valladolid seemed to have lost touch with reality and continued to believe that the Jesuits would carry on with the seminary project. However, by the early 1620s, the Jesuits were ready to leave. In April 1622, due to the systematic delays in salary payments (for which the Jesuits blamed the governors), the mission Superior, Father Sebastião Gomes, firmly declared that the time had come to abandon Cape Verde.20 It was not only the Jesuits who had little motivation to stay; the local authorities (sometimes claiming to voice popular sentiments), too, were opposed to their presence.21 In 1626, the municipal authorities in Ribeira Grande complained to the King that the Jesuits were concerned only with the “overaccumulation of estates” (somente se esmerão em ajuntar fazenda) and failed to discharge their pastoral duties. The authorities requested the establishment of Capuchins, whom they claimed would perform much better because they were “charitable and without greed” (Religiosos Capuchos, que hé gente desintereçada e sem cobiça).22 Accusing the Jesuits of a lack of pastoral commitment was mendacious and unfair. Indubitably, the Ignatian fathers were among the most diligent missionaries active in Cape Verde and gave the evangelisation process an entirely new impetus. Their replacement, despite their missionary diligence, demonstrates that anti-Jesuit sentiments ran high in the most influential circles in Cape Verde.

Problems only grew worse,23 and the Jesuits began to openly refuse to implement directives from Lisbon. A good case in point occurred in 1629 when the Crown issued an ultimatum to the Order to establish a professed house in Santiago. The Jesuits rejected the conditions of the Crown, claiming incompatibilities with the Order’s regulations and unfavourable conditions for them to develop their missionary work with requisite freedom.24 Simultaneously, the Jesuits entered into conflict with Bishop Lourenço Garro (1625–46).25

Convinced that the mission was doomed,26 by the early 1630s, the Jesuits felt more like prisoners in Cape Verde than willing missionaries. In fact, the mission Superior, Father Sebastião Gomes, reported in January 1630 that he and his missionaries had attempted to leave Cape Verde but could not do so because the governor forbade the ship’s captain from carrying them, an action seconded by the bishop, who threatened the same captain with excommunication if he transported the missionaries.27 The governor and the bishop merely postponed the inevitable. The missionaries continued to press their superiors in Lisbon and Rome to terminate the mission. On 24 June 1634, Father António Dias wrote to the Father-General, reporting that over the past years he had been waiting for the situation to improve, but it was only getting worse (todos vi passar com esperar melhoramento, e obseruei que cada vez foraõ as cousas de mal pera peor). Father Barreira, he stressed, should have been listened to when he advised the termination of the mission.28 By the end of the 1630s, the Jesuit mission in Cape Verde was essentially an agonising spectacle of disheartened missionaries waiting for an opportunity to leave,29 which continued until 1642, when the Jesuits finally departed, thirty-eight years after they arrived in Santiago Island. For at least the next decade, the authorities in Lisbon and Cape Verde tried in vain to convince the Jesuits to reassume their mission.30

In summary, the seminary project in Cape Verde under the Jesuits could not be realised because the authorities relied heavily on a congregation whose commitment to the diocese of Cape Verde was minimal and faded quickly. The reliance upon the Jesuits was understandable, as they had the reputation of being excellent educators. In a diocese where periods of sede vacante were regular (and sometimes very long) and episcopal absenteeism tended to be the norm, relying on the bishops was likely to result in failure. However, the authorities in Lisbon obstinately refused to search for alternative solutions when the Jesuits consistently demonstrated their lack of interest in the seminary project.

3. What Is in the Place? What the Location Controversy Reveals About the Seminary Project

A major point of contention in the seminary project for the diocese of Cape Verde during the period 1570–1640 was the location of the seminary itself. The debates over the location of the proposed seminary are the most abundant source of information about the main players’ opinions about the seminary project itself, which should be perused for a deeper understanding of why the project failed.

Although the decree of 12 January 1570 confirmed that the seminary of Cape Verde was to be built in Ribeira Grande, the diocese’s headquarters, alternatives to that plan were quickly proposed. After the Jesuits’ arrival, a plethora of players became engaged in debates about the ideal location for the seminary. The debates intensified during 1606–08 but continued for two decades. The proponents can be divided into three groups:

(i)

Those who argued that it was better and more aligned with the directives of Trent to establish the seminary in Cape Verde, as articulated in a report to the Council of Portugal (Conselho de Portugal) on 16 March 1606.

(ii)

Those who proposed the establishment of a general seminary to train native Africans in Portugal (Lisbon, Coimbra, or Évora), led by the learned Father Manuel Severim de Faria, Chanter of Évora.

(iii)

Those who contended that for native Africans, no seminary was necessary, comprising Father Barreira and his fellow Jesuits.

On 16th March 1606, a consultation of the Council of Portugal stated that the Council of India (Conselho da Índia), represented by a certain Diogo d’Afonseca, argued for the seminary’s establishment in Cape Verde (vs. Lisbon) because that is what Trent decreed, and that it would prevent the native students from leaving Africa to study in an unfamiliar milieu like Lisbon. The seminary was to be entrusted to the Jesuits, and for them, the King should establish a college in Santiago.31 The Council of Portugal itself advocated for the seminary’s location in Santiago with at least twelve Jesuits to work in the archipelago and provide assistance in the continental parts of the diocese as well. The Jesuits should be provided with funds for the establishment of the college (ibid., p. 149). The establishment of such a seminary, the Council urged, should not be delayed because the advances of Muslims towards West Africa had already begun to affect the docility of those “idolatrous” (idolatras) [meaning the natives of the diocese of Cape Verde] and were certain to make their conversion very difficult.32 The idea of establishing a general seminary in Lisbon and a college for at least twelve Jesuits to make the archipelago a platform of support for the evangelisation of the continental part of the diocese gained considerable support.33 By the end of 1606, the King’s orders were precisely in that direction.34 The Superior-General of the Jesuits alerted the secular authorities that, before taking any decision, they should consult the Provincial of Portugal or the Province’s representative (procurador), Father António Colaço.35

On 16th March 1606, a consultation of the Council of Portugal stated that the Council of India (Conselho da Índia), represented by a certain Diogo d’Afonseca, argued for the seminary’s establishment in Cape Verde (vs. Lisbon) because that is what Trent decreed, and that it would prevent the native students from leaving Africa to study in an unfamiliar milieu like Lisbon. The seminary was to be entrusted to the Jesuits, and for them, the King should establish a college in Santiago.31 The Council of Portugal itself advocated for the seminary’s location in Santiago with at least twelve Jesuits to work in the archipelago and provide assistance in the continental parts of the diocese as well. The Jesuits should be provided with funds for the establishment of the college (ibid., p. 149). The establishment of such a seminary, the Council urged, should not be delayed because the advances of Muslims towards West Africa had already begun to affect the docility of those “idolatrous” (idolatras) [meaning the natives of the diocese of Cape Verde] and were certain to make their conversion very difficult.32 The idea of establishing a general seminary in Lisbon and a college for at least twelve Jesuits to make the archipelago a platform of support for the evangelisation of the continental part of the diocese gained considerable support.33 By the end of 1606, the King’s orders were precisely in that direction.34 The Superior-General of the Jesuits alerted the secular authorities that, before taking any decision, they should consult the Provincial of Portugal or the Province’s representative (procurador), Father António Colaço.35

According to the proponents of option number two (the establishment of the seminary in Portugal), it was more prudent, practical, and fruitful to establish a general seminary in Portugal, namely in Lisbon, to ensure the training of the native clergy of Angola, Congo, Cape Verde, São Tomé, Mina, and other parts of West Africa. In Lisbon, they contended, the natives, chosen by the bishops and secular authorities among local elites, would study Latin and Moral Theology and, after being ordained, would “return and teach the path to salvation to their own people, and work with the bishops and other missionaries to spread the Christian faith and overcome the present faults and disorders”.36

Manuel Severim de Faria, Chanter of Évora, was the most outspoken and capable supporter of this course of action, which he substantiated in an extensive report in 1622. Chanter de Faria urged the King to order bishops and governors to choose the most skilled and motivated among the native young men (os de engenho mais vivo, e melhor inclinação) and send them to Portugal to be trained for priesthood. A certain number of young men from those lands would be sent to Portugal to study Latin and Theology in one of the Portuguese universities and be instructed in good manners and virtues (bons costumes e virtudes) in a general seminary established in Portugal for them. After concluding their preparation, they would return to Africa to evangelise their own. For Chanter de Faria, a general seminary for Africans in Lisbon had numerous advantages, including the fact that the natives trained in Portugal would be morally better than the European missionaries deployed to Africa because they would take to Africa the solid moral education from the seminary, which the European missionaries lacked.37

The Africans trained in the seminary in Lisbon, de Faria maintained, would make better preachers because they did not require translators for evangelisation, which was one of the obstacles the European missionaries faced. Although they dedicated considerable time to learning the native languages, they could never master them as well as the natives (ibid.). Moreover, native priests would be more productive because “as natives, they will remain in Africa and not abandon their missions as many of our own do. And with the natural love for their lands, they will show greater zeal in teaching their own, who will be more docile because they see that those who preach to them and show them the path are their countrymen and move by no other interest” (ibid., pp. 675–76). A major advantage was that the Africans would be exposed to the virtues of ecclesiastical and secular milieus in Europe, inspiring them to reproduce those virtues once they returned to Africa. The high mortality rate among missionary personnel would also be mitigated, as the natives, after finishing their preparation, could easily return and reintegrate into the routine of life in Africa.

Apart from spiritual advantages, de Faria also identified political advantages in establishing a general seminary in Lisbon. He contended that it was a unique opportunity for the Portuguese monarchs to neutralise the chances of local elites siding with the Dutch and other northern European traders (Olandezes, e nações do norte), who were increasingly controlling some major trades previously under Portuguese control. For the Portuguese to regain that control, it was essential to ensure the loyalty of the local elites and convince them to avoid commercial transactions with the northern traders. According to de Faria,

“To get this [loyalty] from those [native] people, it seems there is no more powerful and easier means than the one of the seminaries we have been referring to, for, with them, two extremely important goals can be achieved. The first is for us to ensure the friendship of the confederated native rulers [regulos conferados], because having their children and relatives here in Portugal, almost like hostages, they will not dare to side with the Dutch, either publicly or in secret. The second is the universal benevolence we get from those Princes and peoples of Guinea [an umbrella term for Portuguese possession in Africa], who, seeing the great favours Your Majesty does to their children and relatives, sending them to be instructed and trained at your own expense, honouring and elevating them with the priestly dignity, admitting them to the benefices, canonry and dignities of their churches, will necessarily be obliged and grateful of such a great favour. And united to us in peace and friendship, they will be made enemies of our competitors, especially after the seminarians, their countrymen, start to preach to them and to persuade them to leave their current arrangements [with the northern traders]”.

(ibid., p. 681)

These strategies were the most effective, Faria argued, because “nothing generates so much hatred among peoples than the religious differences” and, in matters of raison d’état (razão de Estado), this was the most effective instrument available to monarchs to reduce their subjects to obedience and make them enemies of their neighbours (ibid., p. 682). The general seminary in Portugal would also bring peace to Angola, where conquest had proven difficult, resulting in a prolonged war. The seminarians trained in Portugal would assist in pursuing peace and would persuade the locals to pay taxes, thereby filling the Crown’s coffers. Finally, this general seminary would earn the Portuguese monarch the reputation of a pious prince, who uses his own resources to bring individuals from “such barbarian lands” (terras tam barbaras) to be made ministers of the Gospel and use them to civilise one of the largest parts of the world (ibid., pp. 683–84). In conclusion, the Chanter claimed that the general seminary in Lisbon would be considerably less onerous and provided tips on how to reduce the financial costs of the enterprise (ibid., pp. 686–89).

The Jesuits, under the direct influence of Father Baltasar Barreira, were the main proponents of option number three, which represented the antithesis of de Faria’s position. Barreira was outspokenly opposed to the establishment of the seminary in Portugal. In fact, there is compelling evidence that Barreira opposed the idea of any sort of seminary for Africans. He advanced a series of dubious arguments, some based on blatant racial prejudices. For Barreira, to take young African men to Portugal for training would be risky and costly; risky because most of them would not survive in Europe, and costly, because they would not learn more than a few Latin words and some rudiments of Moral Theology, and would spend a long time in the seminaries learning the language as well as reading and writing. “In Portugal, especially at the University of Coimbra”, Barreira contended, “they would be rejected because the students, who are mischievous, will mock them, which may lead to irritations and quarrels due to the impudence with which university students behave even in the presence of Professors”.38 Another problem, according to Barreira, would be convincing those African students to return to Africa after finishing their training. Those who returned, after experiencing the comfortable life in Portugal and the amenities of the seminary, would not survive the hardships of Africa and would die. Thus, all the investment in them would go to waste (ibid., p. 340). Their training would be much cheaper and more pragmatic in Africa. The training could be funded with the tithes and rents of the local churches, as stipulated by Trent, and all the expenses of transporting and maintaining them in Portugal could be avoided. In Africa, they could be trained in their own language, and the local bishops could easily ordain them.

Barreira’s arguments were heavily coloured by racial prejudices. In his letter dated 4 March 1607, addressed to Father João Álvares, he opposed the idea of establishing a seminary in Portugal, claiming that “Negroes are not cut out to live in community, nor alone among Whites”. Barreira argued that it would be “easier to educate them in Cape Verde, which would be much cheaper because the students could live in the houses of their parents or relatives”.39 The Jesuit veteran was, thus, against the idea of training Black students in a seminary. His inputs considerably influenced the Jesuit authorities in both Lisbon and Rome. The Vice-Provincial wrote to the King in March 1608, advocating that Évora, where the Jesuits ran many establishments, was a better option to host the seminary than Lisbon, reminding the King that it was more in line with Trent. Barreira’s influence becomes evident when one considers the model of the seminary the Provincial had in mind. He did not envision the Tridentine model of seminary but rather the alternatives proposed by Barreira. He urged that Barreira’s input be considered due to his experience and knowledge of Africans (sobretudo de muito grande experiẽcia da natureza dos negros da Guiné). In fact, the Vice-Provincial went on to practically quote with approval Barreira’s arguments outlined in the aforementioned letter to Father João Álvares, dated 4 March 1607:

“With regard to the seminary that has been planned, I think it should not be founded, neither there [in the diocese of Cape Verde] nor here [in Portugal] because negroes are not cut out to live in community and, of those who study, very few will be able to undertake pastoral works (curar almas) because they are naturally inclined to carnal pleasures (naturalmente saõ inclinados ao uicio da carne). Thus, I believe that there are only two ways to ensure enough pastors for the Churches in the Portuguese dominions in Africa: to train some orphans or poor young men with natural skills (algũs moços horfaõs ou pobres de bon natural e abelidade) in some existing seminary in Portugal, place them under oath or guarantee (fiança), that after finishing their studies they would return to work in the Churches assigned to them in Africa, and limit their years of pastoral work; or to send these young men here [Portugal], under the same conditions to study Latin and Moral Theology in the existing schools, and after finishing their studies assigned them the Churches in which they will work”.40

This passage attests to the influence Barreira exerted on his superiors regarding the type of instruction system suitable for natives of the diocese of Cape Verde. The system he proposed had little to do with the Tridentine seminary; it was rather more akin to a semi-informal instruction system designed to provide the native with the rudiments of clerical training, which, according to the Jesuits, was sufficient for pastoral work in Africa. This line of reasoning was clearly articulated in the 1620s when some Jesuits appeared to have favoured the idea of a general seminary in Angola, under the pretext that it would be less burdensome for the Crown and more fruitful for the students. When consulted by Crown entities, the Jesuits affirmed that there was no need to introduce the native seminarians to Philosophy and Systematic Theology courses, but only to Latin and Casuistry, which were deemed sufficient for them to evangelise their own. Philosophy, Systematic Theology, and the university study programme, they argued, would be of little use to those native ministers. By focusing on Latin and Casuistry, they would be able to complete their training more quickly, and their preparation would be considerably cheaper for the Crown. Philosophy, Systematic Theology, and University study programmes, so went the narrative, were truly useful only to seminarians in Europe who would engage heretics and preach to learned Catholics. Such learned Catholics did not exist in Africa.41 In case of exceptionally gifted students, under royal order, they could be sent to universities in Portugal for further study and return to Africa to hold the most relevant positions (officios de mor porte de consideraçaõ). If the King decided to establish the seminary in Portugal, the Jesuits argued, Lisbon would be the best option.42

From this discussion, it becomes clear that the location controversy reveals conflicting agendas, goals, and approaches of the main players involved in the seminary project. Their inability or unwillingness to compromise may have been one of the primary reasons for the project’s failure.

4. The Seminary Project Gone Adrift

Upon the termination of the Jesuit mission in 1642, the plans for the seminary were put on hold for a few decades. The departure of the Ignatian Fathers from Cape Verde coincided with a particularly troubled period for the Portuguese Crown. On 1 December 1640, John, the Duke of Braganza, was proclaimed King of Portugal after a rebellion against sixty years of Castilian rule. The establishment of a seminary for the dioceses overseas was probably the least of the new king’s worries. More pressing problems, such as the war with a stronger military power and the need for international legitimation and support from the Holy See, required attention. The wars with Castile took years, and the new king found the recognition of the Holy See a particularly challenging goal to achieve. During those years, as incumbent bishops died or resigned from the dioceses in the Portuguese dominions, the Holy See refused to endorse the nomination of new ones, as diplomatic relations between Rome and Lisbon were tense and, at times, simply interrupted (Paiva 2006, pp. 56–65).

In Cape Verde, Bishop Lourenço Garro (1625–46) died in 1646, inaugurating the longest period of Vacant See in Cape Verde. Only by 1671 was a new episcopal appointee, Fray Fabião dos Reis (1672–4), presented to Rome.43 He was confirmed on 16 May 1672,44 but the new bishop died approximately nine months after arriving in Santiago. His immediate successors showed little interest in establishing a seminary. After the Jesuits’ departure, the Capuchins were sent to replace them. They, too, were not particularly interested in the seminary project. I have found no references linking the first Capuchins in Cape Verde to such a project. Only in the last quarter of the 17th century do references to the seminary project begin to resurface in official documents. However, these projects had little in common with the one initiated in the 1570s. The old plan disappeared with the change of the royal dynasty in Portugal. In May 1677, Bishop António de São Dionísio (1675–84) seems to have proposed a plan to establish a seminary designed “to host 10 or 12 young men native of Santiago Island with a cleric to train and prepare them until they are fit to be ordained priests” (em que se recolhessem 10 ou 12 moços naturaes della, com hũ clerigo para os ensinar e doutrinar, até serem capazes de se ordenarem de missa). However, the construction was to be funded (at least partly) by a wealthy landowner (Morgado) known as António Martins.45 The project simply did not materialise. The bishop quickly collided with local authorities (both secular and ecclesiastical).46 As it happened with bishops arriving in Cape Verde, São Dionísio had little support from the Chapter, who preferred to side with local interests and open defiance of the bishop. He felt that there was very little he could do to enforce ecclesiastical discipline in the cathedral clergy. Although he remained bishop of Cape Verde until his death on 13 September 1684, by early July 1679, he had already requested the King’s permission to resign his position.47

The successor of São Dionísio, Bishop Vitoriano Portuense (1687–1705), was one of the most dynamic and capable bishops of Cape Verde. Appointed in 1686 and confirmed on 12 May 1687 (when he was only 36 years old, arguably the youngest in the history of the diocese),48 he arrived in Cape Verde in April 1688. He resided in Cape Verde until his death on 21 January 1705. He was the first bishop of Cape Verde to visit the entire diocese. A strict disciplinarian, Bishop Portuense suspended priests for deviancy and lack of intellectual training. He thus showed some interest in establishing the seminary in Cape Verde. On 7 July 1698, the prelate asked the King to order the establishment of a seminary in Santiago Island to host 10 students to be prepared to work as parish priests and help overcome the grave shortage of priests in his diocese.49 In 1699, the King ordered a financial inquiry regarding the funding of the project. There were possibly some further diligences, but records about them did not survive. All that can be safely stated is that the plan bore no fruit.

Bishop Portuense, who, at one point during his episcopate, served as secular governor, was strong-minded. He was determined to push through changes in his diocese (Santos 2013). One of his causes was the enforcement of legal requirements regarding the catechisation and baptism of enslaved individuals, particularly those taken to Cape Verde for transportation to the Americas. Those legal requirements were systematically violated, and the bishop’s insistence caused a standoff with the owners of the enslaved, which required intervention from Lisbon. The authorities in Lisbon favoured commercial interests over the pastoral care of the enslaved. The bishop lost the fight (Pereira 2020, pp. 76–84). His episcopate was fraught with conflicts. Although he governed the diocese until he died in 1705, in 1698, he requested permission to resign, which the king declined.50 Possibly, the conflicts between Bishop Portuense and local secular and ecclesiastical authorities in Cape Verde did not favour the seminary project. The scarcity of records on this matter does not permit a firm assessment. However, records show that his enemies did everything they could to block his plans to complete the construction of the cathedral in Ribeira, which, against all odds, he managed to do.

Throughout the 18th century, references to the seminary project in archival records are scarce. Although the erection of the seminary continues to appear in the job descriptions of bishops governing the diocese throughout the century, it seems that none of them defined the establishment of the diocesan seminary as a priority. By the end of the 17th century, the town of Ribeira Grande began to face severe economic difficulties that affected ecclesiastical affairs. The fierce competition of other trade outposts in the West African region, controlled by English, French, and Dutch players, considerably weakened Ribeira Grande as a commercial outpost. The town’s increasing impoverishment and the regular tensions between local authorities (governors and other secular royal agents, councilmen, the Chapter itself) and the bishops sent to Cape Verde prompted a shifting of the episcopal residence in the 1750s to the north, first on Santo Antão Island, and soon after, on São Nicolau Island. In the 19th century, bishops chose to establish themselves in different islands (São Nicolau, Santiago, Brava, etc.) according to their personal convenience. This phase of itinerancy stopped in the 1860s. Thenceforth, São Nicolau Island hosted the headquarters of the diocese until the early 1940s, when Bishop Faustino Moreira do Santos (1941–55) decided to make Praia, the modern-day capital of Cape Verde, the new headquarters.

The itinerance did not favour the seminary projects. A good case in point is that archival records indicate that in the early 19th century, Bishop Jerónimo do Barco (1820–31) managed to build, with his own resources (or at least so he claimed), a facility to host the seminary in the town of Ribeira Grande, in Santiago Island, but his successors resided elsewhere, and the building was never put to use and fell into ruin. Jerónimo do Barco was chosen to be the bishop of Cape Verde in 1818.51 He was confirmed by the Pope on 21 December 182052 and remained bishop until 1831. However, in 1827, he was elected to the Portuguese parliament. He left the diocese and established residence in Lisbon. He resigned from the government of his diocese only in 1830, citing health reasons (he died in 1852).53 Whatever facilities he built to host the seminary in Santiago were ignored by his immediate successors. In the dossiers of the canonical endorsement of Bishop Jerónimo do Barco’s successors, namely until the early 1860s, it is unanimously stated that the diocese had no seminary.54 In the process of canonical endorsement of Bishop João Crisóstomo de Amorim Pessoa (1860–61), an interviewee claimed that there was no seminary and that there had never been one in Cape Verde. In 1826, the account continues, Bishop Jerónimo do Barco built a brand-new house (novam casam) to host the seminary, but the building fell into disrepair soon after the prelate left Cape Verde (in 1827). There was a teacher of Latin, Philosophy, and Theology available, and of one hundred thousand réis paid by the Crown to cover the expenses of each student sent to the Seminary of Santarém, but the number of students should not be more than ten.55 An interviewee in the dossier of canonical endorsement of Bishop Patrício Xavier de Moura (1848–59) pointed out that the existence of private schools, though not a seminary (Non adest Seminarius Episcopale, sed sunt Scholae Particulares).56

The immediate successor of Bishop Jerónimo was João Henriques Moniz (1845–7), the only bishop of Cape Verde during the colonial period to be appointed while already established in Cape Verde. Moniz arrived in the archipelago in the late 1820s, exiled by the anti-liberal faction of the Portuguese Civil War. He established residence on Brava Island. On 13 March 1835, as a reward for his loyalty to the royal cause, he was appointed Temporal Governor and Vicar-Capitular of the Diocese of Cape Verde. Five years later, on 15 September 1845, the queen appointed him bishop of Cape Verde.57 He was confirmed by the Pope on 24 November 184558 and consecrated on 12 July 1846. He was enthroned on 25 February 1847 and died on 1st July that year. He had very little time to operate as the confirmed bishop of Cape Verde. Building a seminary or refurbishing the facilities left by his predecessor to host the seminary in Santiago Island was not among his priorities. On 20 September 1841, as bishop-elect, Moniz replied to a series of questions raised by the Maritime and Colonial Association of Lisbon (Associação Marítima e Colonial de Lisboa) regarding the diocesan seminary to be established in Cape Verde. He argued that the building that his predecessor had constructed to function as the diocesan seminary (nationalised in 1834) had fallen into ruin and that Brava Island was the best place to host the new seminary. According to the prelate, only Brava Island offered good weather conditions to host a durable seminary.59 In a detailed report dated 5 February 1845, to the Minister of the Navy and Overseas, he highlighted that the worrying state of primary education in Cape Verde made the establishment of the diocesan seminary all the more urgent. He reiterated that the facilities left by his predecessor had fallen into ruin and contended that Brava Island was the best location for the seminary, because a seminary in Santiago would benefit only young men from that island. Parents from other islands, the bishop argued, were terrified to send their children to Ribeira Grande or any part of Santiago Island (pelo terror pânico, que tem os Pais de familias em mandarem seos filhos àquelle local; e até mesmo a qualquer ponto daquella Ilha em geral).60

Bishop Moniz’s successor, Bishop Patrício Xavier de Moura (1848–59), established residence in Praia, Santiago Island. He did not share his predecessor’s fondness for Brava Island. Shortly after he arrived in Cape Verde, Xavier de Moura reported to the Minister of the Navy and Overseas that of the building left by Bishop Jerónimo, only the walls remained (só tem as paredes mestras e nada mais).61 He described Ribeira Grande as “worse than the worst village in Portugal” (peior do que a peior Aldeia de Portugal) (ibid.). Although Xavier de Moura resided mostly in Praia, Santiago Island, he spent some time on Fogo Island, teaching a group of local young men. The classes he conducted in the episcopal residence on Fogo Island, the bishop suggested to the authorities in Lisbon, could be seen as a sort of seminary, and the young men as a sort of future seminarians.62 However, this was a manoeuvre, a tactical display of service; Bishop Xavier de Moura did not want a diocesan seminary in Cape Verde.

In 1857, Xavier de Moura (1848–59) firmly opposed establishing the seminary in the mansion of the sons and heirs of a certain António de Sousa Machado, which was available for rent or even purchase.63 Although this opposition can be considered reasonable, given that Boa Vista Island was not the best location for a seminary, Bishop Xavier de Moura left many other strong clues that he had no intention of promoting a native clergy. He harboured strong prejudices against the natives and openly admitted his preference to invest in the promotion of a European clergy. He simply did not believe in an evangelisation in which natives would be allowed to play a key role. This was confirmed in 1857 when he indicated his own nephew, Manuel Patrício da Moura, among the students to be admitted into the Patriarchal Seminary of Santarém, in Portugal. When the Ministry of the Navy and Overseas notified him that the Crown accepted only students who were natives of the dioceses overseas for admission into the Seminary of Santarém, he claimed to be unaware of this. The prelate withdrew the proposal, but the reasoning he presented for submitting it in the first place eloquently attests to his lack of commitment to promoting a native clergy:

“[…] I hope that Your Excellency will believe that I indicated my nephew because I am driven only by zeal to the service of God and His Majesty the King. I indicated my nephew to due my personal conviction that the European clergy, if educated, will render many and important services to the Church and to the State in the discharge of its pastoral duties and in the civilisation and moralisation of those people than the native clergy will ever do. The natives, born into and raised in customs and behaviours that collide with any sort of growth of civilisation, are not likely to ever abandon them, even when instructed and educated in this Kingdom [Portugal], because their blood ties (ligações do sangue) and the interactions they maintain with the natives, will drag them back to their old ways, as soon as they return to Cape Verde and re-establish their old networks. And being an undisputable fact that only an educated clergy will be able to civilise and moralise those people, I believe it is equally undisputable that only the European clergy, if educated, will be able to render such great and important services because it is entirely detached from those people, and are strangers to them, and, from the childhood, received a very different education64”.

Bishop Xavier de Moura (1848–59) was an extremely ambitious man. He did not intend to end his career as bishop of Cape Verde. Thus, he behaved like a hard-nosed politician to force his transfer to a diocese in Portugal. Whenever he could, he went to Portugal and spent time there to be closer to the corridors of power in Lisbon. Proclaiming himself as the leader of the Royalists/Chartists in Cape Verde, he mounted intensely aggressive political campaigns65 and lobbied with great diligence to be rewarded with a transfer. Thus, in 1859, when he was transferred to the diocese of Funchal, he became the first bishop of Cape Verde to be transferred to another diocese, setting a precedent that his successors diligently exploited.

5. Bishop José Luís Alves Feijó (1865–71) and the Establishment of the Seminary-High School in 1866

Bishop Patrício Xavier de Moura left Cape Verde in 1857. He did not return. In 1859, he was confirmed as bishop of Funchal. The two appointees who followed (the second was never confirmed by Rome) never went to Cape Verde. It was only in late December 1866 that a bishop set foot in Cape Verde again.

On 31 May 1859, the Portuguese authorities proposed to Father João Crisóstomo de Amorim Pessoa, then a professor at the University of Coimbra, his appointment as Bishop of Cape Verde.66 He accepted67 and was appointed on 30th June. The bureaucratic procedures for requesting papal confirmation started soon after. Although he was confirmed by the Pope during the consistory of 23 March 1860,68 the publication of the bull of confirmation was strangely delayed. He was consecrated on 26th August, but while he was preparing for his departure (or claiming to do so), he was indicated for the archiepiscopal See of Goa, in India. He was confirmed in this benefice through the papal bull Suprema Auctoritas issued on 22 March 1861. He travelled to India in September 1862.69

To replace Bishop Amorim Pessoa, the Portuguese Government appointed Fray José da Silva Santa Bárbara to serve as Bishop of Cape Verde, but the Holy See rejected the appointee, claiming it had evidence that he was a deviant.70 This led to a long political-diplomatic impasse, which ended in early September 1864 upon Fray Santa Bárbara’s death.71 Thereafter, the process of appointing José Luís Alves Feijó (1865–71) to serve as bishop was set into motion.

By the time Father Feijó was appointed as Bishop of Cape Verde, he had built an impressive ecclesiastical and political career and gained considerable experience in governing a diocese, far more than any of his predecessors at the time of their appointment. Most importantly, he had experience running a diocesan seminary, an institution he perceived as instrumental to the missionary enterprise.

Bishop Feijó was born on 8 January 1816 in Freixo de Espada à Cinta, in the diocese of Braga, northern Portugal. In his adolescence, he joined the Congregation of the Holy Trinity (Congregação da Santíssima Trindade) in Miranda do Douro. He was ordained as a priest on 22 December 1838, at the age of 22. After the abolition of the Religious Orders in Portugal, he moved to Coimbra, where he obtained his baccalaureate in civil law. After completing his studies in Coimbra, he returned to his hometown, where he embarked on a legal career, quickly earning a reputation as a great holy rhetorician (Castro 1951, p. 7). In 1851, he moved to Braganza. On 15 October 1853, he was appointed interim Professor of Religious Studies (Ciências Eclesiásticas) at the Seminary of Braganza, of which he later became Rector (Mónica 2005, p. 100).

On 7 January 1853, he was appointed Parish Priest of São Pedro de Penhas Juntas in the diocese of Braganza72, and on 6 December 1854, as the Paymaster-General at the cathedral of Braganza.73 He took possession of his canon chair on 1 February 1855. In 1856, the Chapter of the diocese of Braganza elected him Vicar Capitular, which he held from 9 October 1856 to 20 December 1857. In the spring of 1857, Feijó was appointed the diocese governor, a position he held until 3 March 1860, when he moved to Lisbon to take his seat as a parliamentarian in the Portuguese Parliament (Castro 1951, p. 8). On 18 November 1859, he was promoted to Chanter at the cathedral of Braganza74 and took possession of the benefice on 28 January 1860 (Castro 1951, p. 8).

Feijó was, at least twice, elected as a member of the Parliament (in 1860 and 1861) for Braganza (Castro 1951, pp. 8–9; Mónica 2005, p. 100). On 21 November 1862, he was appointed Vice Rector of the Seminary of Braganza, and on 30 July 1863, as the Bishop of Macao (Castro 1951, p. 9). His episcopal appointment caused some controversy, which ultimately led to the obstruction of the confirmation process.75 The reasons behind this were manifold, one of them being his profile. 76 In letters dated 10 and 26 February 1864, the Apostolic Nuncio in Lisbon explained to the Cardinal Secretary of State that the confirmation process of the episcopal appointment of Alves Feijó was delayed for ensuring that the appointee would not use his political network and influence to avoid residing in Macao or even to force a transfer to a diocese in Portugal, particularly to his home diocese of Braganza.77

In the meantime, Feijó continued to work on his ambitions in secular politics and returned to the Portuguese Parliament. His appointment as Bishop of Macao continued, however, to cause trouble, and the apostolic confirmation was never issued. By early 1864, the Portuguese press had started to report that diligences were underway for Feijó to be appointed as Bishop of Cape Verde. The Holy See did not seem inclined to confirm Feijó as Bishop of Cape Verde.78 However, despite a few bumps in the road, the Pope confirmed him during the consistory of 25 September 1865.79 On 12 November 1865, he was ordained as Bishop of Cape Verde.

How did Bishop Feijó differ from his predecessors? Why was the seminary finally established during his episcopal tenure? Feijó had experience running a seminary, and the seminary dossier was close to his heart; it was the top priority of his missionary programme. As a secular politician active in the National Parliament at the time of his appointment, he had more networks and exerted more political influence than any of his predecessors. Feijó may have seen the establishment of the seminary as leverage to negotiate the much-desired transfer to Braganza from a stronger position.

Immediately after his confirmation as Bishop of Cape Verde, Feijó chose Canon Berardo José da Costa Pinto, a veteran of missionary endeavours in Cape Verde, to take possession of the diocese as his proxy.80 The diligence made by Bishop Feijó before his departure to Cape Verde suggests that he was one of the most important players behind the preparation and the publication of the decree on 3 September 1866, through which the Seminary-High School was legally established. Unlike his predecessors, Feijó had a pastoral programme that revolved around the foundation of the Seminary-High School. (The name Seminary-High School was chosen because, in line with the colonial policies of the time, the institution was conceived and designed to train not only seminarians for ecclesiastical careers but also to ensure secular education for those who intended to follow other career paths in public administration.) In fact, the prelate hinted that he would not go to Cape Verde without assurances, and before the process of establishing the Seminary-High School was initiated. He took decisive initiatives to that end. Before his departure to Cape Verde, Bishop Feijó submitted a plan for the establishment of the Seminary-High School of Cape Verde to the Minister of the Navy and Overseas, seeking funds for the implementation.81 More than simply requesting funds, Bishop Feijó suggested concrete ecclesiastical reforms to ensure a successful implementation of the seminary project, which included improving the quality of the personnel attached to the cathedral of Cape Verde and linking appointments to canonries to teaching obligations in the Seminary High School (ibid.). Admissions into the cathedral personnel, he argued, should be contingent upon the candidates’ willingness to assume teaching responsibilities at the Seminary and other responsibilities at the cathedral. Thus, on 12 January 1866, pronouncing on the admission of Father José Félix Machado into the canonry, he insisted that the latter be admitted with the duty of teaching music, chant, and liturgy at the Seminary-High School and serve as the chapel master and organist at the cathedral (‘com o onus d’ensinar Musica, canto, e ritos no Seminario, e servir de Mestre da capella, e organista na Sé Cathedral, para o que me consta estar habilitado’).82

Another sign of Bishop Feijó’s commitment to the seminary project is his relentless diligence in building a team of seasoned collaborators to assist in the specific task of establishing the Seminary-High School on São Nicolau Island.83 The most prominent among these collaborators was Canon Francisco Maria Constantino Ferreira Pinto. Pinto was the magistral canon and a professor at the Seminary of Loanda in Angola and was in Lisbon when Bishop Feijó was preparing for his departure to his diocese. Before his departure to Cape Verde, he requested and obtained authorisation from the Minister of the Navy and Overseas to take Canon Ferreira Pinto to Cape Verde. The canon went to Cape Verde and played a key role in the management of diocesan governance.

Alves Feijó left Lisbon on 15 December 1866 and arrived at São Vicente Island, Cape Verde, on the 21st of the same month and year. He reached São Nicolau Island the following morning, where his enthronement took place t on the 31st. Upon his arrival in Cape Verde, the prelate made it clear to the Minister of the Navy and of the Overseas how important the establishment of the Seminary-High School was to his pastoral programme, because he expected to achieve a great deal through it (‘prende a minha maior attenção, pelo muito que delle espero’).84 And he, indeed, began working hard on its establishment, arranging for the purchase of a building to host the Seminary-High School. Although it is evident that Feijó did not arrive in Cape Verde with the intention of staying there, his commitment to establishing the Seminary-High-School was unwavering.

The prelate complained about his health from the moment he arrived in Cape Verde.85 According to the medical furlough notes he requested a few months later, he suffered from severe and constant stomach aches, which disrupted his digestive system, prevented him from engaging in his daily pastoral activities, and required treatment in Portugal86 (‘gastralgias frequentes, que dão lugar a embaraços das funcções digestivas, que por vezes o tem obrigado a guardar o leito’). On 2 July 1867, six months later, he requested permission to return to Portugal for medical treatment.87 By the end of the month, he left and never returned to Cape Verde. From Lisbon, Bishop Feijó governed the Diocese of Cape Verde until 1871, when he was transferred to Braganza. He appointed Canon Francisco Maria Constantino Ferreira Pinto as the diocese governor,88 who cumulated this position with that of Vice Rector of the Seminary for the remainder of Feijó’s tenure as Bishop of Cape Verde.89 Other important personalities amongst Feijó’s closest collaborators included Canons Manuel Fernandes de Aguiar and Berardo José da Costa Pinto.

The establishment of the Seminary-High School of São Nicolau under Bishop Feijó was not a matter of chance. The decree of 3rd September 1866 came to fruition because, for the first time in the history of Cape Verde, the interests of the Portuguese Crown and Government aligned with those of the bishop of the diocese. More importantly, the bishop played a vital role in the entire process. He took the initiative to design the project, assembled a team (the recruitment of Canon Ferreira Pinto, who was not a member of the local Chapter, proved to be particularly astute), and demonstrated the courage and commitment to see it through. Thus, despite his short-term residence and lack of interest in serving as Bishop of Cape Verde (his long-term objective was the diocese of Braganza), Bishop Feijó managed to set the Seminary project in motion. By the end of his tenure as Bishop of Cape Verde, the diocese had a functional Seminary-High School. This institution is not only Feijó’s greatest legacy to the diocese but also one of the church’s finest achievements during the colonial period in Cape Verde.

6. Conclusions

The timing of the establishment of Tridentine seminaries, both in Europe and overseas, varies considerably from diocese to diocese. In some dioceses, the seminary was established as early as the 16th century, while in others, it took centuries. In the case of Cape Verde, the institution that was finally established, the Seminary-High School, did not quite fit the original Tridentine model envisaged in the 16th century.

The project to establish a Tridentine Seminary in Cape Verde failed for many reasons, chief among them being the lack of commitment from local secular and ecclesiastical players, who were either unable or unwilling to compromise for the sake of the project. Hardly committed to the diocese, the bishops showed little interest in the establishment of the seminary. They were often absent or looking for excuses to leave the diocese. Recurrent episcopal absenteeism deprived the diocese of authorised leadership. The Chapter was used to run the diocese, and often, when the bishop arrived, the relationship with the cathedral clergy was tense. Episcopal absenteeism also favoured the encroachment of secular authorities upon ecclesiastical jurisdiction, often leading to severe conflicts with the missionaries. Regarding the 16th and 17th centuries, the project failed because the Jesuits were not committed to the seminary initiative. Father Barreira, whose opinions were highly valued by Jesuit authorities in both Lisbon and Rome, held strong racial prejudices and believed that investing in the theological training of the natives of the diocese of Cape Verde was not worth the effort. Further, the Jesuit mission in Cape Verde never gained the necessary stability to support the materialisation of a major project. Against all evidence, authorities in Lisbon insisted on backing the wrong horse.

The departure of the Jesuits in 1642 coincided with a prolonged war with Castile, causing the seminary dossier to be shelved. The initial project from the 1570s disappeared for good. By the end of the 17th century, bishops António de São Dionísio (1675–84) and Vitoriano Portuense (1687–1705) spearheaded some rather timid projects to establish a seminary, but these too failed. The 18th century saw no significant developments. From the mid-century onwards, the bishops resided mostly in the northern islands, namely Santo Antão and São Nicolau. Yet, early in the 19th century, Bishop Jerónimo do Barco (1820–31) built a facility to host the seminary in Ribeira Grande, the diocese’s original headquarters. However, when the opportunity for a more appealing career presented itself, the prelate sailed to Portugal and never looked back. The facility he built faded away, just like the other seminary projects. Bishop Jerónimo’s successors, namely João Henriques Moniz (1845–47) and Patrício Xavier de Moura (1848–59), found Ribeira Grande unsuitable for residence and showed little interest in any seminary project. Bishop Xavier de Moura was blunt in his approach: investing in the native clergy was not worth the effort because he believed the natives were simply unfit for the task of evangelisation.

Bishop José Luís Alves Feijó (1865–71) finally managed to establish a Seminary-High School in 1866. This achievement did not occur by chance. The secular authorities in Lisbon indeed decreed the establishment of the Seminary High School as part of a broader agenda, namely, reinforcement of effective Portuguese control over territories it claimed but needed to demonstrate it was genuinely in charge. By the late 19th century, vague claims of influence were no longer sufficient; effective occupation, territorial control, and management were required. Infrastructures such as schools, hospitals, parish churches, seminaries, Custom Houses, military compounds, and courts served as tangible signs of territorial control and management in an era of fierce imperial rivalry. Moreover, a functional facility such as the Seminary-High School of Cape Verde, designed for future clerics and secular civil servants, ensured trained agents to assist in the increasingly complex imperial bureaucracy.

Thus, the Seminary-High School of Cape Verde was an aspiration of the authorities in Lisbon. However, particularly in a peripheral diocese like Cape Verde, the aspirations and commitment of the authorities in Lisbon would not have sufficed, as they had not in past centuries. A committed and capable bishop made the difference. Feijó had experience running a diocese and a seminary, and he understood the vital role of a seminary in the dynamics of diocesan governance. Further, Bishop Feijó possessed the political network necessary to wield sufficient influence to secure proper political backing for the project. And so he did! He demanded assurances and received them. Aware of the grand legacy he would leave in Cape Verde, he regarded the seminary project as a personal challenge. He assembled a solid team of collaborators, and despite residing for only seven months during his seven years of episcopal tenure in Cape Verde, he managed to establish a fine Seminary-High School. For fifty-one years, the institution trained the cultural and political elite of Cape Verde. Students from other parts of the Portuguese empire attended the Seminary-High School. Literary movements of lasting influence in Cape Verde and West Africa can be traced back to this great institution established by Bishop José Luís Alves Feijó. Alas, on 13 June 1917, the newly established anticlerical Republican regime decreed the closure of the Seminary-High School. With this decision, as Bishop José Alves Martins (1910–35) noted in his report to the Nunciature in Lisbon, the Portuguese government “terminated an educational institute that, even when not providing clergy to the diocese, provided religious education to its students, thereby exerting a truly beneficial influence throughout the province”.90