Note 107 — The Pardo Controversy

Among this confusion of affairs, the perplexity that existed in the consciences of men was very noticeable: for some, endeavoring to flatter those who were in power, gave their approval to all that these had done, saying that they had not incurred any censure, and that the jurisdiction of the cabildo was valid; but others, with more pious judgment, regarded the said jurisdiction as either fanciful or monstrous, and therefore felt scruples regarding all their transactions—and not least in regard to intercourse with those persons who had taken part in the arrest of the archbishop and other ecclesiastics. This was the feeling of our religious, and therefore they endeavored to refrain from intercourse with [those] secular persons, that they might not incur danger from having communication with excommunicated persons.107 This withdrawal being resented by the parties concerned, they began to calumniate us as inciters of sedition, saying that with our scruples we disturbed the peace which the cabildo and their dean had striven to introduce in this community. In consequence of this, the father provincial was notified, in the following year, of a decree by the royal Audiencia in which he was charged and commanded to banish three religious, the most prominent in his province, to the kingdom of Nueva España; and to send to the province of Cagayán two others, who were lecturers in theology—all because the Audiencia had concluded that the said religious, as being the most learned and serious, would persuade the rest to their own opinion. The father provincial replied to this that the said religious were not at all to blame, since he had ordered them to withdraw from intercourse with those who were excommunicated;108 then they pronounced against him also sentence of banishment, which was executed with great severity on the father provincial and his associate, accompanied by the acts of violence which are mentioned in the first book.109 ... The archbishop was very contented in that place of his banishment, but so poor and needy in temporal revenues that for his ordinary support he was confined to what was given him for food by the religious who was minister in that village; he therefore resided in the convent, like any private brother in the order, and practiced the duties of [a member of] the community as if he were a subordinate of the vicar of that house. But outside of food and clothing he had nothing even for almsgiving; and therefore in the letter that I have mentioned—written to a lay friend, a citizen of this city of Manila—his illustrious Lordship asks that, for the love of God, his friend will send him some rosaries, medals, and like articles, so that he can make some return for the little presents which the Indians give him. And by way of acknowledgment for the hospitality which they had showed him in the convent of Lingayen, he left in it his sole possession, a piece of the wood of the holy cross—which he valued highly because it had been sent to him by the supreme pontiff when the latter issued the bulls for his appointment to this see. In this exile our archbishop remained during a period of about twenty months, until at last a new opportunity arose, by which he was restored to his see by the royal Audiencia.