THE PROBLEM OF OBEDIENCE
Rama
Coomaraswamy, M.D.
"The
Church is destroying herself by the path of obedience... The masterstroke of
Satan is thus to spread the principles of revolution from within the Church,
and under the authority of the Church itself... he has succeeded in getting
those whose duty it is to defend and propagate the Church, to condemn those who
are defending the Catholic Faith..." Archbishop Lefebvre
Those
who deny that the post-Conciliar "popes" and "the bishops in
union with them" are Catholic, have no problem with rejecting their
authority. However, for those who believe these men are true popes, true Vicars
of Christ, the problem becomes more difficult. Be this as it may, there is no
question but that the majority of those born to the faith are being asked to
follow the directions laid down by the post-Conciliar "pontiffs," and
to accept the changes in doctrine, worship and governance that have been
initiated since Vatican II, in the name of "obedience." It is
therefore of the utmost importance that Catholics understand the nature of
their obligations with regard to this virtue.
According to Tanquerey:
"Obedience is a supernatural, moral
virtue which inclines us to submit our
will to that of our lawful superiors, insofar as they are the representatives
of God... It is evident that it is neither obligatory nor permissible to obey a
superior who would give a command manifestly opposed to divine or
ecclesiastical laws. In this case, we should have to repeat the words of St.
Peter: 'We ought to obey God rather than man'"(Acts 5:29)[1]
Let
us consider the triple denial of Peter. This occurred just before our Lord's
Crucifixion, but long after Christ had established him as head of the Church.
No one has ever suggested that we follow the Apostle's example in this matter.
And even after the Resurrection, after the Decent of the Holy Spirit, Scripture
gives us yet another example where one is not forced to absolutely agree with
Peter's opinion. In Galatians Chapter 2 we read how Paul rebuked Peter on the
issue of circumcising the Gentiles. With regard to this episode St. Cyprian
says: "Nor did Peter whom the Lord made the first, and on whom He built
His church, act insolently and arrogantly when Paul afterwards disputed with
him about circumcision; he did not say that he held the primacy, and was to be
obeyed..." (Epist. lxxi, n.3). St. Augustine, quoting this passage of St.
Cyprian adds: "The Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the Apostles is
pre-eminent by so singular a grace, when acting about the circumcision
differently from what truth required, was corrected by the Apostle Paul."
And so we see from Scripture that we are not to follow those who have Peter's
authority either blindly or absolutely.
Since
Vatican II the faithful have found themselves in the difficult position of
choosing between the centuries-old teaching and discipline of the Church and
the commands of the post-Conciliar hierarchy. When such a conflict occurs, the
faithful have the constant teaching of the Church to warrant their adherence to
the former. To demonstrate that such is the case, let us consider the words of
St. Vincent of Lerins (+ 434). According to the summary found in the Catholic
Encyclopedia (1908), he taught that:
"...Should some new doctrine arise
in one part of the Church, then firm adherence must be given to the belief of
the Universal Church, and supposing the new doctrine to be of such a nature as
to contaminate almost the entirety of the latter, as did Arianism, then it is
to antiquity one must cling; if even here some error is encountered, one must
stand by the general councils and, in default of these, by the consent of those
who at diverse times and different places remained steadfast in the unanimity
of the Catholic faith..."
He continues:
"He is a true and genuine Catholic
who loves the truth of God, and the Church and the Body of Christ; who prefers
not anything before the religion of God, nothing before the Catholic faith, not
any man's authority, not love, not wit, not eloquence, not philosophy, but
despising all these, and in faith abiding fixed and stable, whatsoever he
knoweth that the Catholic Church held universally of old, that alone he
decideth is to be held and believed by him; but whosoever he shall perceive to
be introduced later, new and not before heard of, by some one man, besides,
all, or contrary to all the saints, let him know that it pertains, not to
religion, but to temptation" (xiv. Haeres.)
Nor should one assume this attitude is an
isolated one. Pope St. Gregory the Great taught in his Moralium:[2]
"Know that evil ought never to be
done by way of obedience, though sometimes something good, which is being done,
ought to be discontinued out of obedience."
Scholastic
philosophy taught that "true obedience is a virtuous decision of the
spirit, the execution of a right command with discretion." Alan Lille, a
well known Scholastic theologian of the 12th century expounded on this passage:
"You must beware lest you err in
obeying. Mark the companions obedience should have: that is, righteousness,
that what is commanded may be right. For this reason it is said: 'the execution
of a right command with discretion.' Secondly, what is decided should be
honest: as it is said, 'a virtuous decision.' Thirdly, it should proceed from
discretion; for this reason is added: 'with discretion.' That obedience which
is without discretion is therefore hollow. That which is without honesty, is
retrograde, for he who obeys honesty but out of an excess of obedience, shows
spiritual pride. If indeed obedience is without righteousness, it is without
law or principle... We know that evil should never be brought about through obedience..."[3]
The same principles were taught by St.
Bernard in his treatise On Precept and Dispensation. Discussing the role of the
superior, he notes that:
"the Abbot is not above the Rule,
for he himself once freely placed himself beneath it. Thee is only one power
above the Rule... which we must admit, and that is God's rule... He who has
been chosen abbot is placed as judge, not over the traditions of the Fathers,
but over the transgressions of his brethren, that he may uphold the rules and
punish offences Indeed, I consider that those holy observances are rather
entrusted to the prudence and faithfulness of the superiors than subjected to
their will."[4]
Since all authority in the last analysis
comes from God, all obedience in the last analysis is given to God. As St.
Thomas Aquinas teaches, "it sometimes happens that the commands issued by
prelates are against God. Therefore not in all things are prelates to be
obeyed. For those under them are bound to do so only in those matters in which
they are subject to their superiors, and, in which those same superiors do not
oppose the command of a Power higher than themselves" (Summa II-II,
Q. 104, Art. 5). Elsewhere he teaches that obedience to superiors only obliges
when "they proclaim to us those things which the Apostles left
behind" (De Veritate, Q. 14, Art. 10). He explains:
"Anyone would be subject to a lower
power only in so far as it preserves the order established by a power higher
than itself; but if it [the lower power] departs from the order of the higher
power, then it is not right for anyone to be subjected to that lower power -
for example - if a proconsul ordered something to be done when the emperor
above commanded the contrary" (Summa, II-II, Q. 69, Art.3).
Even more specific is the statement to be
found in the famous Dialogue between a Cluniac and a Cistercian:
"We must heed our superiors with
complete obedience, even though they lead improper lives, so long as they rule
over us and instruct us in accordance with the authority of divine law. If,
however, they are so completely perverted towards moral ruin that they do not
follow the authority of divine law in ruling over their subjects but follow
instead their own willful impulses and fancies, then let us, as scandalized and
displeased subjects heedfull of the
dictates of divine law, flee from them as we would from blind leaders, lest
together with them we fall into the pit of eternal damnation... irrational
service is not acceptable to God, as the Apostle tells us in commanding
'reasonable service'" (Rom. 12:1).[5]
Now it would be irrational to expect the
teaching of the Church to be other than this, for in obedience, as the Angelic
Doctor states, "not only is promptitude requires, but also discernment"
(Commentary on the Epistle to Titus, 3:1). Blind obedience is as foreign
to the Magisterium as is blind faith.
Pope Benedict XIV in his treatise on
Heroic Virtue clearly states:
"A superior is not to be obeyed when he commands anything contrary to the divine law. Nor is an abbot to be obeyed when he commands anything contrary to the rule, according to the well-known letter of S. Bernard to the monk Adam. A blind obedience excludes the prudence of the flesh, not the prudence of the spirit as is shown at length by Suarez."
These principles are well summarized by a
modern author, Father Vincent McNabb. Writing in the early part of the present
century he stated:
"Some higher person or law must
authorize and control all created authority whether individual or collective...
from this follows the momentous principle, which we may enunciate thus: NO
AUTHORITY HAS THE RIGHT TO COMMAND UNLESS IN COMMANDING IT IS ITSELF OBEYING.
In other words, authority can command obedience only when its act or command is
an act of obedience."[6]
HOLY "DISOBEDIENCE" -
HISTORICAL EXAMPLES OF "DISOBEDIENCE" FROM THE LIVES OF THE SAINTS
Throughout history situations have arisen where the saints were
obliged to disobey their superiors. One of the earliest of these is to be found
in the old Roman Breviary and concerns
Pope St. Marcellinus whose Feast-day is celebrated on January 19th. According
to Pope Nicholas I, "in the reign of the sovereigns Diocletian and
Maximian, Marcellinus, the Bishop of Rome, who afterwards became an illustrious
martyr, was so persecuted by the pagans that he entered one of their temples
and there offered incense. Because of this act an inquiry was held by a number
of bishops in Council, and the Pontiff confessed his fall" (Letter to
Emperor Michael, 865).
Another writer named Platine gives us
more details:
"When Pope Marcellinus was
threatened by the executioners, he yielded to fear, offered incense to the
idols and adored them. but when, soon afterward, a Council of 180 Bishops met
in Sinuessa, Marcellinus appeared in the assembly clothed in sackcloth and
begged the synodals to impose upon him a penance because of his infidelity. But
no member of the Council would condemn him; all declaring that St. Peter had
sinned similarly, and had merited pardon by his tears."
The fact that scholars dispute the
accuracy of the story is beside the point. It is to be found in the older
Breviaries of the Church which aimed at teaching principles by example rather
than in satisfying the demands of modernist historians. The story is however
accepted as true by St. Robert Bellarmine and the great Catholic historian
Baronius. And hence it was a common mediaeval saying that "because Pope
Marcellus offered incense to Jove does not mean that all the bishops should do
likewise."
Yet another example is provided by the
case of Pope Paschall II who reigned between 1099 and 1118. It was a period
when the battles between the Church and State were fiercely raging - the issue
in question was that of "investiture" - in essence, who should
appoint the members of the hierarchy (bishops): the Church or the Emperor? It
was a particularly touchy matter as the bishops of the Church in that era
controlled large tracts of land which were obliged to provide the state with
soldiers and support in the event of war. The issue had been settled in an
Ecumenical council during the reign of his predecessor Gregory VII, and this
after great struggles. The Church was to retain control of their appointment,
but the traditional feudal obligations of land owners towards the temporal
authority was to be preserved.
Despite this the issue was of such great
importance that Henry V, Emperor of Germany, actually invaded Italy and made
the pope a prisoner. For two months Paschal II was subjected to the most
fearful threats and cruel treatment. Finally, under pressure from his own
fellow-captive bishops, he signed a treaty with the king allowing him to invest
by "ring and crozier" - spiritual symbols - [both lay and cleric] and
further signed away to the emperor the right of deciding between rival
claimants in contested elections and the privilege of rejecting papal appointments.
He also surrendered to the king monastic lands and possessions. This treaty in
essence gave the king complete control of the Church's hierarchy in over half
the territory of Europe. Further, the Pope swore not to avenge himself on the
Emperor for his actions and never to revoke the treaty if he was released.
When he was released the Pope felt bound
by his oath and hesitated to repudiate this treaty. Godfrey, the zealous Abbot
of Nendome, contrasted his actions with the heroic resolution of the martyrs of
old, and particularly with the examples of SS. Peter and Paul. He wrote to the
Pope that "if the successor of the Apostles has disregarded their example,
he should hasten, if he would not forfeit their glorious crown, to undo and
repair what he had done, and like a second Peter, expiate his fault with tears
of repentance." Lay investiture, he added, whereby power was granted to
laymen to convey possessions, and therewith jurisdiction in spiritual matters,
was equivalent to the denial of the faith, destructive of the liberty of the
Church, and out-and-out heresy. The Abbot of Monte Cassino, when ordered to
surrender the monastic lands, refused. "I love you," he wrote to the
Pope, "as my lord and as my father, and I have no desire for another as
pope. But the Lord has said, 'whosoever loves father and mother more than me is
not worthy of me...' As for this outrageous treaty, wrung from you by violence
and treachery, how can I praise it? Or indeed, how can you...? Your own laws
have condemned and excommunicated the cleric who submits to lay
investiture..." Another prelate, the Archbishop of Lyons, urged the pope
in still stronger terms: "Detestable pilot that your are, in times of
peace a bully, and before the storm a coward." The Archbishop of Vienne,
Paschal's own legate in France, called a Council and declared lay investiture
to be heretical, and proceeded to excommunicate Henry V. At this Council, three
subsequently canonized saints - Ss. Bruno, St. Hugh of Grenoble and St. Godfrey
of Amiens, as well as a future Pope, Calixtus II - all stated that unless he
revoked his agreement with the Emperor, "we should be obliged to withdraw
our allegiance from you." The Pope admitted he was wrong and rectified his
error. At still another Council he said "I confess that I failed and ask
you to pray to God to pardon me."
One final example, that of Robert
Grosseteste. He was a doctor of Theology at Oxford when it was a center of
Catholic learning. Now he was one of the staunchest defenders of the papacy,
comparing the Pontiff to the Sun which illuminates the visible world. After he
reluctantly accepted the bishopric of Lincoln, he was asked by the Pope to
appoint an absentee priest (the Pope's new nephew) to one of the prebends of
the diocese, a situation in which the priest received the income from a parish
while he lived in Rome. Here is his response:
"It is not possible that the most
holy Apostolic See to which has been handed down by the Holy of Holies, the
Lord Jesus Christ, all manner of power, according to the Apostle, for
edification and not for destruction, or command or in any way attempt anything
verging upon this kind of sin, which is so hateful to Jesus Christ, detestable,
abominable and pernicious to the human race. For this would be evidently a
falling off and corruption and abuse of its most holy and plenary power... No
faithful subject of the Holy See, no man who is not cut away by schism from the
Body of Christ and the same Holy See, can submit to mandates, precepts, or any
other demonstrations of this kind, no, not even if the author were the most
high body of angels. He must needs repudiate them and rebel against them with
all his strength. BECAUSE OF THE OBEDIENCE BY WHICH I AM BOUND TO THE HOLY SEE,
AS TO MY PARENTS, AND OUT OF MY LOVE OF MY UNION WITH THE HOLY SEE IN THE BODY
OF CHRIST AS AN OBEDIENT SON, I DISOBEY, I CONTRADICT, I REBEL. You cannot take
action against me, for my every word and act is not rebellion, but the
filial honor due to God's command to father
and mother. As I have said, the Apostolic See in its holiness cannot destroy,
it can only build. This is what the plenitude of power means; it can do all
things to edification. But these so-called provisions do not build up, they
destroy..."[7]
When the Pope received this letter, we are told that he was beside
himself with rage and threatened to have Bishop Grosseteste imprisoned by his
vassal, the King of England. However, he was restrained by Cardinal Gil de
torres who said: "You must do nothing. It is true. We cannot condemn him.
He is a Catholic and a holy man, a better man than we are. He has not his equal
among the prelates. All the French and English clergy know this and our
contradiction would be of no avail." Bishop Grosseteste prevailed and
according to the traditions, when he died all the church bells in England rang
spontaneously. He was considered by his contemporaries as a saint.
UNHOLY "OBEDIENCE" - AN EXAMPLE
TAKEN FROM THE FREEMASONS.
In concluding this chapter, it is great
interest to consider some of the statements of the Freemasons on obedience.
According to the Permanent Instruction drawn up by the Grand Masters of
Freemasonry (Alta Vendita) in 1819-20, which fell in to the hands of the
Church and were published by Pope Pius IX, "we must turn our attention to
an ideal that has always been of great concern to man aspiring to the regeneration
of all mankind. This ideal is the liberation of Italy, whence is to come the
liberation of the entire world and the establishment of a republic of
brotherhood and world peace." The document continues:
"Among the many remedies that have
been suggested by the more energetic members of our organization, there is one
which we must never forget....The Papacy has always exerted a decisive
influence on Italian destinies. Everywhere with the arms, voice, pen and heart
of its countless bishops, monks, nuns and the faithful, the Papacy as always
found people enthusiastically ready for sacrifice and martyrdom... At the
present time we do not intend to rebuild, even for our advantage, this power
which has been temporarily weakened [due to the overthrow of the papal states].
Our ultimate purpose is identical with that of Voltaire and the French
Revolution: that is, the total annihilation of Catholicism and even of
Christianity....
For seventeen hundred years the Papacy
has been an essential part of Italian history... We cannot endure such a state
of affairs; we must find a remedy for this situation. And here it is! Whoever
he may be, the pope will never join the secret societies: therefore, the secret
societies must take the first step toward the Church and the pope, for the
purpose of vanquishing them both."...
The task we undertake will not be
completed in a day, a month, or a year. It may require many years, perhaps even
a century... We do not intend to win the pope over to our cause by converting
him to our principles or making him their propagator... WHAT WE MUST DO IS WAIT
FOR, like the Jews awaiting the Messiah, A POPE SUITABLE FOR OUR PURPOSES. Such
a pope alone, will be of greater help to us in our assault on the Church than
the little pamphlets of our French brothers or even the gold of England. And
why? Because with such a pope we could effectively crush the rock upon which
God built His Church... The little finger of Peter's successor would be caught
in the plot, and this little finger would be more effective in this crusade
than all the Urbans II and all the St. Bernards of Christianity....We have no
doubt that we shall achieve this ultimate goal of our efforts... Before we can
produce a pope according to our desires, we must produce an entire generation worthy
of the kingdom we hope for. We must ignore old men and those of middle age. We
must seek the young, and if possible, even the very young... Once your good
reputation has been established in boarding schools, high schools, universities
and seminaries, once you have won the trust of teachers and pupils alike,
foster especially in those who are embracing the ecclesiastical state, a desire
to associate with you... This reputation of yours will make the younger secular
clergy and even the religious receptive to our doctrines. Within a few years,
this same younger clergy will, of necessity occupy responsible positions. They
will govern, administrate, judge and form the council of the Sovereign Pontiff;
some will be called upon to elect a future pope. This pope, like most of his
contemporaries, will be to a greater or lesser degree influenced by those
Italian and humanitarian principles which we are now circulating. It is a small
grain of mustard seed which we entrust to the soil...
Along this path which we now outline for
our brethren there are major obstacles to surmount and difficulties of all
kinds to overcome. With experience and wisdom, we shall triumph over them. The
objective is so glorious that, to reach it, all sails must be unfurled. Do you
want to revolutionize Italy? Seek a pope fitting our description. Do you want
to establish the kingdom of the elect [i.e., the Masons] on the throne of the
Babylonian whore? then INDUCE THE CLERGY TO MARCH UNDER YOUR BANNER, IN THE
BELIEF THAT THEY ARE MARCHING UNDER THE PAPAL BANNER. Do you want to make the
last trace of tyranny and oppression disappear? Lower your nets like Simon bar
Jona; lower them into the sacristies, the seminaries and the monasteries,
instead of into the sea. If you do not precipitate events, we promise you a
catch of fish even greater than St. Peter's. The fisher of fish became a fisher
of men; you will fish for friends at the very feet of St. Peter's Chair. BY SO
DOING YOU WILL NET A REVOLUTION CLOTHED IN TIARA AND MANTLE, PRECEDED BY THE CROSS
AND PAPAL ENSIGN; A REVOLUTION THAT WILL REQUIRE BUT LITTLE HELP TO SET FIRE TO
THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE WORLD...IN A HUNDRED YEARS TIME... THE BISHOPS AND
PRIESTS WILL THINK THEY ARE MARCHING BEHIND THE BANNER OF THE KEYS OF PETER
WHEN IN FACT THEY WILL BE FOLLOWING OUR FLAG... THE REFORMS WILL HAVE TO BE
BROUGHT ABOUT IN THE NAME OF OBEDIENCE." [8]
All this may seem far fetched to the
average reader. But what is one to say when a leading Freemason, Yves Marsoudon
(State Master, Supreme Council of France, Scottish Rite) tells us:
"The sense of universalism that is
rampant in Rome these days is very close to our purpose of existence... With
all our hearts we support the 'Revolution of John XXIII'..." Not satisfied
with this, Yves Marsoudon dedicated his book "Ecumenism as seen by a Traditionalist
Freemason": to the Pope in the following words:
"To the Memory of Angelo Roncalli,
Priest, Archbishop of Messembria, Apostolic Nuncio in Paris, Cardinal of the
Roman Church, Patriarch of Venice, POPE under the name of John XXIII, WHO HAS
DEIGNED TO GIVE US HIS BENEDICTION, HIS UNDERSTANDING AND HIS PROTECTION."
He has further dedicated it to:
"The Pope of Peace, to the Father of
all Christians, To the Friend of All Men, to His August Continuer, HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI".[9]
A NOTE ON THE PRESENT SITUATION IN THE
CHURCH
Present day Catholics are faced with a
terrible dilemma. If they obey the post-Conciliar "popes," they must
apostatize from the Catholic faith as it has existed since the time of Christ
and the Apostles.
It is clear from what has already been
stated in previous articles that Catholics must give their intellectual assent
to everything in the Ordinary Magisterium. Vatican II has been repeatedly
declared to be the "supreme form of the Ordinary Magisterium."
Encyclicals and other statements dealing with faith and morals (which includes
liturgical changes and changes in the form of the Sacraments) that are
promulgated under the aegis of papal authority (the "popes" speaking
within their function as popes) also require our intellectual assent. To speak
of intellectual assent is to speak of obedience, for virtue requires that our
wills act in conformity with our intelligence.
Now these documents (Vatican II,
Encyclicals, etc.,) clearly teach doctrines contrary to what has always been
magisterially taught prior to the demise of Pope Pius XII. This being so, the
Catholic must accept the fact that either the Holy Ghost taught error in the
past, is teaching error at the present time, or is free to change His mind
about the truth - matters dealing with faith and morals. If the post-Conciliar
"popes" are responsible for teaching even one error with presumed
Apostolic authority, then we must either hold that Christ Himself is teaching
error (quod absit), or that the post-Conciliar "popes" are
usurpers that lack authority.
Catholics who take their faith seriously
have long recognized this dilemma. They have come up with a variety of
solutions aimed at maintaining "obedience to papal authority" (our
salvation depends upon it) and not apostatizing from the faith. Some have
declared that they can pick and choose what they like from the documents of
Vatican II and other papal statements - accepting those "in conformity
with tradition" and rejecting innovations (The Society of Pius X). But
such violates the Catholic requirement of giving intellectual assent and
obedience to those they recognize as being "one hierarchical person with
Christ." Others attempt to deny the magisterial status of the documents of
Vatican II (and Encyclicals, etc.,) or teach falsely that the ordinary
Magisterium can contain error (Michael Davies). Still others claim that their
organizations are exempt from obedience because of historical reasons (Order of
St. John). Some have gone to Rome and obtained permission to say the
traditional Mass and choose to ignore the fact that such permission is always
dependent upon their accepting the teachings of Vatican II and the equal
validity of the Novus Ordo Missae (The Society of St. Peter and various
individual priests). Innumerable minor
variations on these themes abound.
Recognizing that no one can teach error
with the authority of Christ, many Catholics have openly declared that the
post-Conciliar "popes" have no authority. Some hold that the
Apostolic See is vacant - usually referred to as sede vacantism. Such a
position is not anti-papal, but rather strongly pro-papal. It is because of its
great respect for papal authority that it immediately rejects anyone who uses
the papal chair to teach error with obstinacy. Others, recognizing that the
post-Conciliar "popes" are actually sitting in the chair of Peter,
adhere to the materialiter/formaliter theory which declares that they are
material popes but not formally popes; that despite their sitting in the chair
of Peter, they have no authority, but that should they suddenly become Catholic
and teach true doctrine, they would have authority. Those who deny the
authority of the post-Conciliar "popes," are of course bound to obey
the magisterial teaching of the Church up to the time of their usurpation.
Let us conclude with a doctrinal note.
Obedience is a moral virtue. Faith Hope and Charity are theological virtues. As
such they are of a higher value than obedience. This is of course logical, for
obedience is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. The purpose of
obedience is to "encourage" us to obey the Faith and not the other
way around. To give our obedience to error or a false faith is apostasy. (Faith, as pointed out earlier, has two aspects;
one is the dogmas and teaching of the Church, and the other is our assent to
them.)
ã R
Coomaraswamy, 2001
[1] Tanquerey, Dogmatic Theology, several editions
[2] lib. V, c. 10
[3] Alan Lille, The Art of Preaching, Spencer, Mass.: Cistercian Publications, 1978.
[4] St. Bernard, Treatise On Precept and Dispensation, Treatises, I, Spencer, Mass.: Cistercian Publ., 1970.
[5] Idung of Prufening, Cistercians and Cluniacs, Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publ., 1977.
[6] The Game, Vol II, Advent, 1918. (London, Eng.).
[7] Some have used Grosseteste's disobedience as grounds for their disobeying the post-Conciliar "popes." It should be clear that there was no issue of faith and morals involved here. The pope was not demanding assent to error or obedience to liturgical change. It was an example of the pope misusing his power of governance.
[8] A more complete text is to be found in Chapter I, Vol II, The Biographical Memoirs of St. John Bosco, under the title of Freemasonry in the Piedmont. New Rochelle, N.Y.: Silesiana Publishers, 1967.
[9] Quoted in World Trends, (Ed. Yves dupont), Hawthorn, vic. Australia. This same Yves Marsoudon considered Pope Saint Pius X as "pharisaical, hypercritical, and hate filled" and characterized Pius XII as attached to "outdated disciplines and sclerotic dogmas." He also quotes J. Mitterand, anther prominent Mason, to the effect that "Those informed Catholics [i.e., the Progressives]... are of the insufficiencies and omissions of the Council, but they avail themselves of the CLIMATE WHICH IT HELPED TO CREATE in order to demand the authentic renovation of the Church. The liberating character of their contestation cannot but draw the sympathy of Freemasons..."