As Catholic institutions, we must, with all the energy of our soul, repel, as contrary to the imprescriptible and supreme laws of the true and the good, and to the original laws of the Church, freedom of worship, and the other fatal and false liberties that are the offspring of the thought, of the press, and of association, which certain men are trying to bring to this archipelago, and which conflict with the most rudimentary duties of the patronage that España exercises here, as is clearly set forth in various places in the Recopilación de Indias. In like manner do we repel, inasmuch as it contradicts the rights of the Church, the pretended secularization of education, in accordance with what we are taught in propositions 45, 47, and 48, [208] of the Syllabus, and which are obligatory on all Catholics, and very especially on Christian princes and governments. Contrary to those rights, and entirely abusive and tyrannical, would be every measure that the secular power might try to adopt in regard to the religious orders of the archipelago: whether in meddling with their regular regimen and discipline; whether in secularizing them; whether in disentailing their property, or fettering their free disposition of the same; whether in freeing their members from their obedience; whether in depriving them of the honors or privileges which they possess according to the canons, the laws of the Indias, and Christian common law, as is expressed in proposition 53 of the above-mentioned Syllabus. [209] Every law that attempts to suppress, diminish, or weaken the sacred laws of personal, royal, or local ecclesiastical immunity is contrary to the sacred rules of the Church. Also contrary to the Church, and smacking of the heresies of Wickliffe and Luther, is every ordinance that denies the clergy the right to the stipends and fees that are due them from their holy ministry, and that tries to meddle with matters of parochial fees, a thing that is peculiar to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It is contrary to the honor and sanctity of the religious estate to suppose it incapable of exercising the care of souls, and to say that, in governing the parishes, we violated the canons, when in exact accordance with them, we christianized this country, and since have continued to minister it. It is vexatious to the regular clergy, and opposed to the rights legitimately acquired, for the civil authority to attempt to despoil the religious corporations of the ministries and missions founded and ruled by them, under the protection of the Leyes de Indias and the sovereign ordinances of the apostolic see. Incompatible with the vow of obedience that binds every religious, is the complete subjection of the individuals of the regular clergy who discharge the care of souls to the authority of the diocesan, depriving his prelate of the attributes that he possesses over his subjects; and the bishop cannot be allowed, to the loss or detriment of the rights of the