2-A.-Lenti-The-Bosco-Gastaldi-Conflict-1872-82-Part-II%281994%29


2-A.-Lenti-The-Bosco-Gastaldi-Conflict-1872-82-Part-II%281994%29

1 Pages 1-10

▲back to top

1.1 Page 1

▲back to top
THE BOSCO-GASTALDI CONFLICT
PART II: FROM THE APPROVAL OF THE
SALESIAN CONSTITUTIONS IN 1874 TO
THE ENFORCED RECONCILIATION
[CONCORDIA] IN 1882
Arthur J. Leoti, SDB
Introduction: Establishin g a Framework
In our earlier essay we described the conflict between Don Bosco and Archbishop
Lawrence Gastaldi through the phase of the approval of the Salesian
Constitutions. 1 At the time, we also gave, by way of introductio n, a general
description of the nature of the conflict in its historical setting. We noted further,
by way of conclusion, that the definitive approval of the Salesian Constitutions
did not bring about an end to the disagreement, let alone a reconciliation.
Thus the approval of the Salesian Constitutions in April 1874 was
followed by a second and more bitterly fought phase of the conflict. This
confrontation falls into two distinct periods: (1) 1874-1877 (the last years of
Pius IX's pontificate) during which, albeit with some ambiguity, Don Bosco
seemed to hold the advantage; and (2) 1878-1882 (the first years of Leo XIII)
during which Gastaldi gained the advantage and finally prevailed.
But for the sake of an orderly exposition this presentation will include
three parts: The first part, serving as an extended introduction, comprises an
initial phase during which the issues and disagreements which had been shaping
up during the period of the constitutions are thrown into sharper relief through a
series of increasingly bitter episodes and exchanges. This phase spans some ten
months, from May 1874 to February 1875 ending with the failed mediation by
Archbishop Celestino Fissore of Vercelli. This is followed by a second, more
1 Cf. Lenti in JSS 4 (1993), 41 -83. For the literature and fo r the
abbreviations used, cf. the Biliographical Note at the end of this essay.
In this, as in the earlier essay, I will be _guided throughout by Desramaut's
Chronologie critique. I will also take Desramaut's Etudes and Tuninetti 's Castaldi II as
controls. References, however, whenever possible, will be to documents transcribed
and translated in EBM, since these are accessible to English-speaking readers. When
these fail or seem insufficient or unreliable, references are given (in order) to IBM, to
the Epistolario (as edited by Ceria), to Lemoyne's Doc umenti, or finally to archival
documents.

1.2 Page 2

▲back to top
36
Journal of Salesian Studies
extended phase through which, while the bitter fight over the issues continues
unabated, hostility is heightened by a number of increasingly more serious
clashes. This phase extends over nearly three years to the end of 1877. The point
of no return in the conflict is reached with the appearance of the first anonymous
anti-Gastaldi pamphlet. The third period, filled with ever increasing hostility,
begins with an initial phase coinciding roughly with the beginning of Leo XIII's
pontificate. In the context of a change of climate in Rome to Don Bosco's
disadvantage and of continuing clashes, a moratorium is enforced in terms
worked out by the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars and approved by Pope
Leo XIII (March-April 1878). Then throughout the next four years, after the
sensational Chieri affair and Father Giovanni Bonetti's suspension, and the
publication of further anonymous defamatory pamphlets attacking Gastaldi on
points of pastoral policy and doctrine and imputed to the Salesians, the drama is
played out in Rome with a trial before the Congregation of the Council. Finally
the Concordia of June 16, 1882, enforced by Pope Leo XIII to Don Bosco's
discomfiture, brings the conflict officially, though not really, to an end.
Therefore with this framework as a guideline, we will trace the
development of the conflict in three parts-by force of circumstances unequal in
length, and to avoid repetition differing in emphasis. One must perforce be
selective, for the countless episodes of conflict, involving numerous issues,
intersect and overlap, producing massive epistolary exchanges and abundant
documentation. We wilJ strive for clarity rather than completeness.
Part I. The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict from the Approval of the
Salesian Constitutions to Archbishop Fissore's Failed Mediation
(May 1874 - February 1875)
1. Recalling the Issues in Context
As mentioned above, the approval of the Salesian Constitutions did not signal
the end of the disagreements nor bring about a reconciliation. The archbishop had
carried the day in the matter of religious and priestly formation; and the
constitutions, as emended and approved, reflected his position. But Don Bosco
had prevailed in practice through concessions obtained from Pope Pius IX.
Gastaldi would not and could not relent. The archbishop and his chancery became
increasingly more hostile to Don Bosco and the Salesians, and incidents of
conflict continued to occur with alarming regularity.
(1) The Issues
In the final analysis, the cluster of related confrontational issues that continued
to fuel the conflict arose from the archbishop's conviction that the Salesians'

1.3 Page 3

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
37
religious and prieslly formation was defective at its core. Not only did he
perceive this deficiency as harmful lo Salesian candidates, bul he also viewed it
as damaging Lo his own seminary program because of the unfair competition il
created. Thal is why he claimed the right to examine Salesian candidales before
ordaining them; this was also the reason he objected lo Don Rosco's acceptance
of seminarians who lefl or were dismissed from the diocesan seminary; and lhis
explains why he even refused (in retaliation) Lo ordain Salesian candidates. Even
more basic as a cause of conflict, was Gastaldi's understanding of the demands of
his own episcopal office, and the pastoral policies arising lherefrom. These
touched all areas of the life, discipline and ministry of lhe clergy both secular and
regular (such as the celebration of Mass, the administration of the sacraments,
and preaching).
Archbishop Gastaldi's episcopal platform and pastoral policies have
been described in some detail in the earlier essay. But a further brief comment at
this point will be helpful.
(2) Archbishop Castaldi' s Pastoral Policies
On various occasions Don Bosco complained that he could not understand many
of the reasons for the archbishop's actions, nor the motivation of his demands.
What does he want me to do? Why doesn't he teII me clearly what he has in
mind?2
But Gastaldi's demands could not have been such a mystery. His
pastoral policies were speiled out quite clearly in the synod of 1873, and in the
statutes emanating from it. The "Letters to the Clergy" and other directives
published in the yearly liturgical calendar further specified the archbishop's
policies. Holiness and an exemplary moral life among the clergy, in accordance
with the high standards established by the Council of Trent and exemplified in
the life and pastoral action of St. Charles Borromeo, were for him of the highest
priority. Other important priorities were the regulation of clergy discipline,
liturgical worship, administration of the sacraments, preaching, religious
exercises, and olher related matters. To obtain these goal s he did not hesitate to
threaten (and often actually had recourse Lo) severe disciplinary action, including
the suspensio a divinis.
Coherently enough, the archbishop believed that the way to achieve
those goals was a thoroughgoing reform of the priestly formation process-
hence his determination Lo control the whole process from vocation recruiting to
2 E.g. Don Bosco's letter of May 15, 1874 to Secretary Vitelleschi [cf. note
6 and 7 and related text, below]; Father Albert's letter to Archbishop Gastaldi,
quoting Don Bosco: "Ask [the archbishop] to tell me clearly what he wishes from me
and what I must do to win his full approval" [cf. note 16 and related text, below].

1.4 Page 4

▲back to top
38
Journal of Salesian Studies
ordination. The seminary was to be both the means and the place for such a
reform. The seminary regulations which were finalized and scheduled to go into
effect in 1874 were an explicit expression of the archbishop's principles
regarding seminary formation.3
Obviously Archbishop Gastaldi expected as much, if not more, of
religious institutes in terms of holiness and formation. He had the highest regard
for religious life and the evangelical counsels. And, as Giuseppe Tuninetti has
emphasized, to understand the archbishop's rocky relationship to some religious
communities in the ruocese one should bear in mind his concept of religious life
and situate his demands and actions within the larger context of an ecclesiology
in which the bishop figured as the fulcrum of all diocesan life and activity,
including religious institutes. The same author cites Gastaldi's 1874 report to
the Holy See (relatio ad limina) in which this very conception is given articulate
voice. After criticizing the Salesians for their inadequate formation, Gastaldi
expressed the hope that the Vatican Council, once reconvened, would establish
new norms regarding novitiate, and formation and studies programs of religious
congregations. And even more significantly, he suggested that the Holy See
should officially recognize an ordinary's right to verify vocation and suitability
of religious for perpetual vows and for ordination, and to examine them in depth
on these subjects.4
The archbishop had clearly stated his policy to Don Bosco on these
matters. Specifically, he had consistently maintained his right and his duty to
examine religious candidates for ordination in compliance with the ruling of the
Council of Trent following the example of St. Charles Borromeo.5 He did not
wish to deviate from such a course of action, notwithstanding the concessions
regarding dimissorials which Don Bosco had received from Rome. Don Bosco,
however, apparently felt that past favors and decrees obtained from local
ordinaries, as well as the more recent concessions obtained from Rome, and
generally his Society's status as an approved religious congregation, entitled him
to exemption from the general policies established by the archbishop.
These concepts and attitudes may help us understand first the
archbishop's strong objections to the Salesian constitutions, and then the harsh
measures he felt obliged to take, for example, against Salesian candidates for
ordination.
3 For a description of Archbishop Gastaldi's reform program, cf. Lcnti, JSS
4 (1993), 21-28.
4 Tuninctti, Castaldi II, 248f.
5 "The bishop, with the help of priests and other persons who arc prudent,
well versed in the knowledge of God's law and of Church discipline, shall carefully
investigate family background, personal life, age, education, moral conduct, doctrine
and faith of candidates seeking ordination, and examine them on these very subjects"
[Disciplinary canon cited in Dcsramaut, Etudes VI, 19 and 43, note 31).

1.5 Page 5

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
39
2. Initial Action by the Protagonists: Renewed Recourse
To Rome
In the months following the approval of the Salesian Constitutions, the two
protagonists (from May to December 1874) sought to establish their respective
positions officially with letters and memorandums directed to the Roman
authorities. These were the means that were used by them to restate and
consolidate their case. As explained above, the main issue remained that of
episcopal authority and pastoral policy in the matter of seminary priestly
formation and ordination.
Don Bosco thought it necessary to restate his case to Secretary
Salvatore Nobili Vitelleschi of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars in a
letter dated May 15, 1874.6 In this letter Don Bosco, focusing on the matter of
ordinations, recounted the oppressive demands he had been subjected to during
the preceding years and the archbishop's recent refusal to confer orders on
Salesian candidates. He also described the trouble he had experienced when he had
presented the approved constitutions and the decree relating to dimissorials, for
Gastaldi had adopted a "negative attitude" with respect to everything which had to
do with the Salesian Society. Don Bosco closed his exposition with the request
that his grievances be brought to the Holy Father's attention; and then asked
coyly: "Would it be too daring a step to take to ask for the power to grant
dimissorials ad quemcumque episcopum (to any bishop)?7
Archbishop Gaslaldi likewise presented his case by letter a little later,
but directly to the highest tribunal, the pope himself.
While vacationing at Santa Margherita Ligure (after the labors of the
diocesan synod of June 30, 1874), Archbishop Gastaldi on July 15 addressed a
long letter to Pius IX.s This was in reply to one received shortly before in which
the pope himself saw fit to bring to his attention the serious charges leveled
against him and to offer fatherly advice. Now the archbishop presented his
defense, devoting the last three pages of his 20-page manuscript to Don Bosco.
There was no diguising the fact that the unnamed person whom he was accused
of treating unjustly could be none other than Don Bosco. He made three main
points: (1) It was not true that he was opposed to Don Rosco's institutions. He
had at all times helped the work and had even exempted the Oratory from
parochial jurisdiction. He had also shown his continuing esteem for Don Bosco
6 Ceria, Ep II, 383-385; I BM X, 822 (omitted in EBM).
7 "To any bishop", not just to the ordinary of the diocese where the
motherhouse was located. The Rescript of April 3, 1874 granted the concession to the
rector ma-k°r [cf. EBM X, 373].
Desramaut Etudes VI, 44, note 47. The letter is in the Secret Vatican
Archive and was brought to Desramaut's attention by Father Francesco Motto.

1.6 Page 6

▲back to top
40
Journal of Salesian Studies
personally by naming him confessor at the synod of 1873 and at the same time
one of the testes synodales. (2) The archbishop had insisted on examining
Salesian priestly candidates before their ordination because the Council of Trent
and the Roman Pontifical expressly enjoined this duty on the ordinary. His
action had the approval of a number of Piedmontese bishops. (3) In justification
of this last point he cited two instances in which permissive ordination of
Salesian candidates had caused much grief: one had been dismissed from the
congregation as an alcoholic and had joined the diocese of Saluzzo where he was
stirring up trouble; the second had been found guilty of immoral conduct and had
fled to America to avoid prosecution.9
3. The Planned Spiritual Retreat for School Teachers
Nor was the matter of examining and ordaining Salesian priestly candidates the
only cause of conflict. Incidents interpreted by the archbishop as flouting
diocesan pastoral policy made the exchanges more and more complex. Such
occurrences would then be accompanied by renewed efforts on the part of the
protagonists to have their grievances heard in Rome-for it was there that the
case would finally be decided.
In August 1874 a leaflet authored by Don Bosco and printed by the
Oratory Press announced a spiritual retreat "for professors and teachers" to be
held at the Salesian school at Lanzo on September 7-12. The Catholic
newspaper, L' Unita cattolica, praised this retreat as organized "through the efforts
of our indefatigable Don Bosco" in response to requests by schoolteachers.IO
Since the diocesan statutes of the 1873 synod forbade all preaching in the
archdiocese without the archbishop's written permission, Don Bosco appeared to
be evading the ordinance. A short but courteous note from the archbishop's
secretary, Canon Tommaso Chiuso, notified Don Bosco of the archbishop's
position regarding the initiative taken without prior permission. The archbishop,
however, would allow the retreat to go forward, but wanted the preachers' names
to be submitted to him. Don Bosco simply canceled the retreat, as he states in a
letter to Bishop Pietro De Gaudenzi of Vigevano. 11 He went forward, however,
with the regularly scheduled spiritual retreats for Salesians.
Besides canceling the retreat and writing to Bishop De Gaudenzi to
complain of Gastaldi's action, Don Bosco also took the ill-advised step of
writing to the archbishop himself, questioning his policy. The tone of that letter
9 The first priest may be Father Luigi Chiapale, for whom cf. note 32 and
related tex~ below. There is no available information on the second.
1 Both notices in IBM X, 828f. (omitted in EB M X, 384). L' Unit a
cattolica, August [23) 24, 1874, cf. Desrarnaut, Etudes VI, 30 and 44.
11 Letter of August 30, 1874, Ceria, Ep II, 399.

1.7 Page 7

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
41
only angered Gaslaldi all the more. Don Bosco slated that the notice of the retreat
published in the newspaper L' Unita cattolica had appeared without his prior
knowledge. By that time the retreat had already been canceled. This simple fact
showed that no opposition to Church authority had been intended. But Don
Bosco went on to challenge the claim that the consent of the ecclesiastical
authority was needed for such a retreat. He makes the point that, according to the
prescription of the Council of Trent, of the Congregation of Bishops and
Regulars, and of the diocesan statutes themselves, such a consent would be
required only for preaching in public churches. He then appealed to faculties
already granted to him by the ecclesiastical authority (as far back as 1852!), and
to the fact that retreats had been held all along without his having had recourse to
Church authority for permission. Don Bosco then reminded the archbishop that
both of them would have to appear before the judgment seat of God; and before
closing he recalled the old days when "what Don Bosco wanted Don Bosco got."
In conclusion he humbly begged the archbishop's forgiveness for "any
expression in the letter which may have unintentionally given offense." 12
The tone of the letter, as well as the contents, certainly gave offense.
The archbishop accused Don Bosco of disobedience. He sent a copy of the letter
to Bishop Eugenio Galletti of Alba, who also thought the tone of the letter
"somewhat blunt" (un po' sostenuto). 13 Later the archbishop would send that
letter to Rome as a proof of Don Bosco's insubordination.
Gastaldi's immediate concern was to inquire about the spiritual retreats
which were being conducted at Lanzo. He therefore asked the local pastor, Father
(Blessed) Federico Albert, to investigate and report on the participants (whether
non-Salesians were among them), on the retreat program, and on the preachers.
(These retreats were under Don Bosco's and Father Albert's joint direction.) Not
satisfied with Father Albert's first response, the archbishop wrote to him a
second time. When the printed notice which Don Bosco had originally circulated
to announce the retreat came to his attention, he wrote a third bristling letter.
12 Letter of September 10, 1874, EBM X, 385-387. It should be noted that
the retreat was canceled after the newspaper notice and after the archbishop's
admonition [cf. Don Bosco's letter to Bishop De Gaudenzi cited above). Furthermore,
whatever one may think of the archbishop's policy regarding preaching as expressed
in the diocesan statutes, the ordinance would certainly apply to a retreat for non-
Salesian schoolteachers. Gastaldi did not interfere with retreats for Salesians.
l3 Letter of September 14, 1874, EBM X, 387f. Gastaldi believed that Don
Bosco had printed some letters, of his presumably (so he thought) for use against
him. Bishop Galletti in a prior letter to the archbishop [September 3, 1874, IBM X,
832-835 (only briefly summarized in EBM X, 387)) assured him that the only letters
of Gastaldi in Don Bosco's possession were the two which had been printed by the
Congregation of Bishops and Regulars and included in the Positio for the approval of
the Salesian Constitutions. Concerning the archbishop's belief that letters were
being printed for use against him, cf. also the exchange reported in EBM X, 382f.

1.8 Page 8

▲back to top
42
Journal of Salesian Studies
Voicing his suspicions and recriminations, he accused Don Bosco of acting out
of spite by canceling the retreat, and of writing to him in a disrespectful way.
The archbishop's perception of the events is revealing.
[...] Over his signature, and without notifying me, he circulates a
printed announcement for a retreat that is designed for schoolteachers-
laymen and priests, most of whom happen to be priests of my own
diocese. He sends this announcement out to pastors without forwarding
a copy to his own archbishop. And this is being done while I am trying
to organize three retreats for my own priests at Bra.[...] I first hear of
this retreat when I read of it in the Unita Cattolica. Then I write to that
superior that I am only too glad and willing to give him full
permission to hold the retreat, requesting only that he send me the
names of the priests who are to conduct it, and that he notify me in
advance in the future. A few days later, someone (not he) informs me
that the retreat has been canceled. Why cancel a good thing because of a
simple warning? Was it not my duty to admonish him? Could I have
admonished him more charitably? Am I not bound to see to it that the
authority of my office is not infringed upon?[...] Besides, should not
this superior have notified me that two other retreats were scheduled
exclusively for Salesians? Moreover, his disrespectful letter (parole
irriverenti) was completely uncalled for. [...] While he promotes the
good of souls, there is no reason why he should upset my
administration-it is my duty to demand as much. In this whole issue,
the archbishop is the competent judge and not the priest in question. If
he thinks he has been wronged let him write to the pope. But who does
he think he is in setting himself up as a judge in this affair?l 4
Clearly this passage reveals the archbishop's frustration at not being able to get
through to Don Bosco. Indeed, on reading the correspondence relating to this
episode, 15 one is s truck by the seemingly neurotic over-reaction on the
archbishop's part. But something even worse begins to surface: his mistrust of
Don Bosco. The saintly Father Albert made heroic efforts to convey Don
Bosco's regrets and to "explain" Don Bosco to him,16 but to no avail.
14 EBM X, 390f.
15 EBM X, 388-392.
16 EBM X, 391f.

1.9 Page 9

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
43
4. An Incident Regarding the Giving of the Clerical Habit
Don Bosco's repeated appeals to "faculties" granted to him in the old days only
increased the archbishop's aggravation, and another incident occurred even while
the retreats were in progress. Don Bosco had asked a diocesan pastor to give the
clerical habit to a young man of his parish who intended to join the Salesians.
This immediately drew fire from the chancery. Don Bosco, while offering some
explanation for his action ("in complete deference to his ecclesiastical superior,"
according to the Biographical Memoirs), appealed again to the old faculties
granted him in 1852 by Archbishop Luigi Fransoni then in exile, and interpreted
by the then vicars, Filippo Ravina and Celestino Fissore, to include the giving
of the clerical habit. 17 Canon Chiuso replied for the archbishop:
With respect to your faculty of investing young men of this archdiocese
with the clerical habit, His Grace the Archbishop wishes me to point
out to you that the present situation is very different from that
obtaining in the times of vicars Ravina and Fissore. In those days Don
Bosco's house functioned as a diocesan seminary, of which you were
the deserving rector. [...] Now, however, your house can no longer be
regarded as a seminary, and therefore the faculty given to you to invest
young men of the diocese with the clerical habit has ceased by its very
nature.[...] For the sake of safeguarding discipline in the formation of
the clergy, His Grace does not acknowledge any seminaries other than
those under his jurisdiction.[...]18
5. Don Bosco's Acceptance of Diocesan Seminarians and
New Appeals to Rome
An ongoing and more serious cause of friction came into play again as the year
1874 was winding down: Don Bosco's acceptance of former diocesan
seminarians.
In the perception of the diocesan authorities, by harboring young men
who left or were dismissed from the diocesan seminary (whether they intended to
join the Salesian Society or simply sought "a change of venue") Don Bosco was
interfering with the diocesan program of priestly formation. This alarmed the
archbishop, and his concern on this score was probably justified. Statistics in the
matter are not available, and the correspondence on hand specifies but a few cases
17 Chiuso to Don Bosco, September 21, 1874, IBM X, 844f. (omitted in
EBM); Don Bosco to Chiuso, September 27, 1874, EBM X, 394f.
18 Chiuso to Don Bosco, September 28, 1874, IBM X, 846 (only briefly
summarized in EBM X, 395).

1.10 Page 10

▲back to top
44
Journal of Salesian Studies
of such transfers. However, the number of seminarians who would gladly have
exchanged the rigid discipline of the diocesan seminary, under the stem rectorship
of Father Giuseppe Maria Soldati, for Don Bosco's house was probably rather
high. 19
(1) Castaldi' s Brief
The archbishop again appealed to Rome. He did so first in a letter to the
Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. After renewed inquiry as to the juridical
status of the Salesian Congregation, namely if it were definitively approved and
in any way exempt from the ordinary's jurisdiction, he asked specifically: Could
the Salesian rector major accept diocesan seminarians without the ordinary's
consent? Such a practice, he added "seriously interferes with the formation of my
seminarians."20
He did not wait for Archbishop Vitelleschi' s reply.21 With the date of
October 4, Gastaldi addressed a mighty epistle to Pius IX himself in which he
rehearsed and illustrated his grievances in detail. An almost neurotic quality is
disclosed in this document; the intensity with which the archbishop strains to
clarify his policies and motivations, while castigating Don Bosco for creating
diversions and putting obstacles in the way of his program of clergy formation,
is disturbing.22
The first part of the letter is a defense of his administration and way of
acting. He has asked Canon Luigi Anglesio, rector of the Cottolengo
institutions, to examine his personal conduct and administration, and the saintly
and learned priest has found nothing deserving of blame. He (the archbishop) is
ready, however, to submit to the judgment of an independent investigator if the
Holy Father so wishes. This special counsel might be Archbishop Celestino
Fissore of Vercelli or some other bishop familiar with the Turin situation. He
goes on to assure the Holy Father that throughout his administration he has had
no other aim than the glory of God and the salvation of souls, taking St. Charles
Borromeo as his model. But just as St. Charles had trouble with the Jesuits who
recruited his best seminarians, so he too has trouble with Don Bosco who in
looking out for his congregation's interests interferes with the diocesan priestly
formation program.
19 Cf. Tuninetti, Castaldi II, 269, note 47; 270, note 50.
20 EBM X, 393.
21 Vitelleschi's reply is dated October 5. Beyond reassuring Gastaldi that
the Salesian constitutions had been definitively approved, it merely stated that other
questions would be taken up by the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars in
November !cf. EBM X, 394].
2 EBM X, 396-402.

2 Pages 11-20

▲back to top

2.1 Page 11

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
45
Thus the stage is set for his elaborate presentation He states that the
Salesian Society, approved to continue Don Bosco's expanded educational
undertaking, has always received his support, but that he cannot remain silent
before the lack of formation structures in the new congregation, especially the
lack of a proper novitiate and the informal lifestyle of its members. This,
coupled with easy financial arrangements, makes Don Bosco's congregation
attractive to young men who are tempted by the prospect of an "easy time" and a
"free ride." He adds that Don Bosco also accepts diocesan seminarians, even those
who, for whatever reason, are dismissed from the seminary. Such a course of
action amounts Lo unfair competition and is damaging Lo the diocesan formation
program. He has been warned, but he appeals to canon law, Lo a person's right to
freely choose one's vocation, and to authoritative endorsement he claims to have
received.
After giving three instances in which diocesan seminarians were
accepted by Don Bosco with undesirable results, he begs Lo be allowed to set
forth the principles that have thus far guided him in the maller of clergy
formation. (1) The good of the Church requires that parishes be staffed by priests
who are "learned, saintly, hard-working, and ready for any sacrifice." It is the
bishop's duty to provide such priests, for religious cannot be expected to supply
this need. (2) Seminaries are the means to that end, as the Council of Trent
wisely directs. St. Charles Borromeo has emphasized in his constitutions that
the seminary must be a place of holy discipline, a religious house of prayer
where Christ forms his apostles and where all necessary virtues are cultivated. (3)
The seminary must also be financially viable; and, since revenues are no longer
available under the present juridical order, at least moderate fees must be charged
for room, board and tuition.
He then addresses the problem he has had with Don Bosco: Salesian
houses constitute a threat to the diocesan seminary program because, perhaps
under the pretext of testing their religious vocation, diocesan seminarians can
find shelter in them, and thus escape from a program of formation which is more
demanding in terms of discipline, study, and financial obligations. Then there is
the further attraction of being ordained titulo mensae communis, withou t
ecclesiastical dowry; and, although a Salesian candidate must have made his
perpetual vows before being eligible for ordination on that score, "Don Bosco
can dispense even from this requirement."
Repeating with increasing emphasis that Don Bosco is interfering with
his seminary program, he finally comes to the point:
I find Don Bosco's way of acting extremely disturbing. Therefore, I
earnestly ask Your Holiness to speak the decisive word. I beg you to
forbid explicitly the rector of the Congregation of St. Francis de Sales
in Turin to accept in any one of his houses any of my seminarians as a

2.2 Page 12

▲back to top
46
Journal of Salesian Studies
novice or student, or in any other capacity, without my written consent;
and likewise any seminarian of mine whom I may have ordered to
discard the clerical habit. I pray that this be done as soon as possible.
[...] If any seminarian of mine shows signs of a genuine vocation to the
said congregation, he shall not be prevented from applying; but it
seems only right that I should be the one who personally examines and
renders judgment in such a case.23
Gastaldi ends his lengthy jeremiad with an account of the ill-fated retreat for
school teachers, mentioned above, and encloses the "less than respectful" letter
which Don Bosco had written on that occasion.
(2) Don Bosco' s Own Defense
Archbishop Vitelleschi meanwhile had warned Don Bosco of Gastaldi's inquiry
of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.24 More significantly, Pope Pius
IX, instead of pronouncing the "definitive word" which Gastaldi had so fervently
requested, passed the archbishop's letter on to Don Bosco, presumably to enable
the latter the better to answer the charges.25 Some time later, Cardinal Giuseppe
Berardi, undersecretary of state, "in strictest confidence" also advised Don Bosco
of the complaint which Gastaldi had lodged against him with the same
congregation: that Don Bosco was "stealing" his seminarians.26
Don Bosco then took up his own defense on this and other issues. He
did so first in a letter dated October 12, 1874, to Cardinal Giuseppe Andrea
Bizzarri, Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.27 Then after
receiving Gastaldi's letter from Pius IX and Cardinal Berardi's "confidential"
communication, Don Bosco penned a second letter to this same cardinal dated
November 7, 1874, adding a memorandum to be used as the cardinal saw fit.28
In the first letter, the more significant of the two, Don Bosco (in
summary) makes the following points: (1) The archbishop has demanded that
forty days before ordination our candidates should submit to a thorough
examination on their background, prior studies, reasons for leaving their
dioceses, religious profession, work in the congregation, vocation. (I have
complied pro bono pacis. But does an ordinary have the right to examine
404).
23 EBM X, 401f.
24 Letter of October 1, 1874, IBM X, 855f. (briefly summarized in EBM X,
25 This was on October 18, according to Berta's note on a copy of
Gastaldi's letter in Documenti XIV, 271-281 in ASC 110, FDBM 1026 C9-D7.
26 Letter of October 26, 1874, EBM X, 407.
27 EBM X, 404-406.
28 Don Bosco to Berardi, EBM X, 407-409.

2.3 Page 13

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
47
religious candidates as to their religious life and vocation?) (2) The archbishop
has refused to ordain Salesian candidates, unless I promised in writing not to
accept any of his seminarians into the congregation. (I have given the written
promise as demanded, though with a clause to safeguard a person's freedom
regarding his vocation. Does an ordinary have the right to interfere with a
seminarian's vocation and to demand such a promise from a religious superior?)
(3) Recently the archbishop has objected to a spiritual retreat for teachers and lay
people of the kind we have been holding since 1844(!] with Archbishop
Fransoni 's authorization-this, on the ground that I had not asked for his
permission. (I canceled the retreat, but he continued to harass us with letters and
demands. May not a religious superior hold a retreat for teachers and lay people
in one of the houses of his congregation? And may the ordinary investigate
retreats scheduled for religious?)
The second letter takes up the issue of seminarians who left, or were
dismissed from the seminary, and criticizes seminary policies: Many Salesian
alumni enroll in the diocesan seminary. But those who do not succeed in gaining
the young rector's approval are dismissed in spite of their good qualities. We
receive them and help them, because it would be cruel to abandon them after so
much care has been expended on them. But the archbishop refuses to give them a
testimonial letter if they manifest their intention of coming to the Salesians.29
One already senses in these letters a certain ambiguity in Don Bosco's
statement of the facts. The memorandum attached to the second letter is even
more problematic. Besides reviewing "the facts" of the ill-fated spiritual retreat,
mentioned above, and denying (rightly enough) that he had ever wished to print
and circulate private tellers of the archbishop,30 Don Bosco is determined to set
the record straight regarding points on which "the archbishop has been
misinformed." (1) It is not true, as alleged, that "Father [Luigi] Chiapale and
Father Pignolo were ever members of this congregation." (2) It is not true, as
alleged, that seminarians who have given a bad account of themselves while
teaching or assisting at the Institute for the Hearing-Impaired were ever
Salesians. (3) It is not true, as alleged, that Salesians who left the congregation
29 The "young rector" was the thirty-five-year old Father Giuseppe Maria
Soldati, the main agent of Gastaldi's seminary reform [cf. Lenti in JSS 4 (1993) 20f.,
27f.].
In a letter dated November 10, 1874, Don Bosco states that no diocesan
seminarian has been accepted into the Society without the archbishop's consent-
although some were indeed given temporary shelter because they were in need. This
was done "to mitigate the resentment of their families and friends who kept spewing
abuse against you [the archbishop) as one who wanted those former seminarians to be
forsaken by all." In the preceding paragraph he had reminded the archbishop of his
duty to ordain candidates who were not unworthy, arguing the point from Roman
decisions rIBM X, 863; excerpt in EBM X, 410f.].
:ro Cf. note 13 and related text, above.

2.4 Page 14

▲back to top
48
Journal of Salesian Studies
were the cause of tro uble in dioceses, because no Salesian (up to 1874) has left
the congregation except Brother, now Jesuit Father Federico Oreglia.31
Some of the statements made by Don Bosco in the memorandum,
specifically those regarding the status of Father Chiapale and the defections from
the Society, can easily be questioned on the basis of available documentation.32
As the year 1874 dragged to a close, exasperation was mounting on
both sides. Don Bosco's impatience is apparent in the opening paragraphs of the
already-mentioned letter of November 10, 1874 to Gastaldi.33 He actuall y
lectures the archbishop-directly: "you ought to know what conditions need to
be present for an ordinary to refuse to ordain a candidate"; indirectly: by the
dev ice of citing a personal admonition supposedly received from Rome. He
finally decided to apply to Rome for the faculty to issue dimissorials to any
bishop (ad quemcumque episcopum). This concession would have made it
possible for him to bypass Gastaldi by applying to another bishop. He enclosed
his petition in a letter to Cardinal Berardi, dated November 18, 1874. "I dare not
ask myself," he writes; "I entrust the matter to your prudence. [...] Your
Eminence is in a position to discuss the subject with the Holy Father."34
31 Cf. EBM X, 409 for points 1, 2, and 3 of the memorandum.
32 With regard to Don Bosco's claims one may note: (1) Luigi Chiapale was
a professed Salesian. He is listed as one of the group of eighteen (or nineteen) who
"founded" the Salesian Society on December 18, 1859 [cf. EBM VI, 181f., where he is
referred to as a "lay member" because at the time he was only a sixteen-year old
student and had not yet received the clerical habit]. Further, as recorded in the register
of professions, Luigi Chiapale was one of the twenty-three who made their first
profession on May 14, 1862; he made perpetual vows on August 10, 1867. (2) Of the
twenty-three who professed in 1862, five left the Society before 1870. Chiapale is
not listed among them, but he did leave the Society before 1874. And as recorded,
thirteen Salesians left the Society between 1862 and 1874 [cf. Stella, DBEcSoc, 295,
297, 301, 313-315]. Don Bosco himself in a letter dated October 11 , 1874, wrote to
Vicar General Canon Giuseppe Zappala: "Tell him that of his priests who once
belonged to the Salesian Congregation not one has given him cause for complaint by
censurable conduct, and th at I hope they never will. Indeed, some fifty are now
exerting al l their energy in his archdiocese" [EBM X , 403).
With regard to Father Pignolo and the seminarians who worked at the
Institute for the Hearing-Impaired no information is available.
33 Cf. note 29, above.
34 EBM X, 4 l lf. For the petition cf. IBM X, 1003f., Appendix X, n. 6
(omitted in EBM). Of the reasons given for requesting the favor, the last is the most
pressing: "So that finally the objections, on the basis of which a certain ordinary has
been refusing Lo ordain Salesian candidates for the past three years, might be disposed
of."
Cardinal Berardi may or may not have processed Don Bosco's request at the
time. In any case, on February 26, 1875 Don Bosco submitted a double request for
dimissorials and privileges, and Pius IX set up a commission of cardinals to study the

2.5 Page 15

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
49
6. Further Episodes and Don Bosco's Appeals to Rome
Meanwhile, Archbishop Gastaldi was resorting to reprisals. Having learned that
Father Luigi Guanella of the diocese of Como was contemplating joining the
Salesian Society, he dispatched a note to the bishop of that diocese, warning that
the priest would not be permitted to celebrate Mass, hear confessions or stay in
the diocese if he came to Turin.35 This was in early December. Don Bosco had
enthusiastically accepted FaLher Guanella's peLiLion and had Lold him Lo come by
all means.36 FaLher Guanella, alarmed and mysLified by the warning received,
notified Don Bosco and suggested that he could perhaps stay in some Salesian
house away from Turin. Shortly thereafter he joined Don Bosco in Turin
nonetheless.37
Gastaldi immediately issued a decree abrogating all favors, faculties and
privileges granted to the Salesians by him and his predecessors. Notice of the
decree was served on Don Bosco on December 24, 1874.38
These pressures resulted in Don Bosco's decision to appeal again to
Pope Pius IX. He did so in a letter dated December 30, 1874. After referring to
the approval of the constitutions by which "the Salesian Congregation and all its
members were placed under the lofLy protection and tutelage of the Holy See," he
presented six complaints against Archbishop Gastaldi: (1) for claiming the right
to examine Salesian candidates for ordination as Lo Lheir vocation, and for
question [cf. EBM XI, 163f.]. But on September 22, 1875, the Congregation of
Bishops and Regulars denied both petitions [cf. note 54 and related text, below].
35 EBM X, 412f.
36 Letter of December 12, 1874, EBM XI, lf.
37 Letter of December 14, 1874, EBM X, 413; and EBM XI, 2.
Luigi Guanella (1842-1915) was ordained in 1866 for the diocese of Como,
and distinguished himself in the priestly ministry by his zeal and concern for the
poor. Having come into contact with the Salesians, he desired to join them and
eventually establish the Salesian work in his home diocese. He was a Salesian from
1875 to 1878. During this period he was associated with the development of the
Work of Mary Help of Christians (Sons of Mary) in its early stages [EBM XI, 48-50)
and served as director and in other capacities [EBM XI, 57, 287, 319f.; XII, 54, 357-
359). Returning to his diocese in 1878 [EBM Xill, 628-631), he founded a hospice
for orphaned and abandoned children, and subsequently the House of Divine
Providence in Como (1886), and similar institutions in other towns. To perpetuate
his work he founded the Daughters of St. Mary of Providence and the Servants of
Charity (1904). He was active in the apostolate of the press, authoring some fifty
works; and in association with various Catholic laymen he took a pioneering and
active interest in the social question. He was beatified in 1964 [Cf. also New Catholic
Encyclopedia VI, 823f.].
38 EBM X, 413f.

2.6 Page 16

▲back to top
50
Journal of Salesian Studies
demanding that no former seminarian of his be accepted into the Salesian
Society; (2) for refusing (with one exception) Lo ordain Salesian candidates
during the previous three years; (3) for refusing Lo let diocesan priests enter the
Salesian Society (examples: Frs. Ascanio Savio, Giovanni Olivero, and recently
Luigi Guanella); (4) for refusing to admit Salesian priests Lo examinations for
faculties Lo hear confessions (example: Father Francesco Paglia); (5) for revoking
faculties and privileges needed in Salesian houses granted for the good of souls
(permission Lo administer Holy Viaticum, Extreme Unction, etc.); (6) and as a
consequence of all the above, for hindering Salesian work on be half of poor and
abandoned boys, such as the opening of new schools.
7. Archbishop Fissore's Mediation
Pius IX could not remain unaffected by the many briefs received from both
parties, and he must have been under considerable pressure to take action. He
personally favored Don Bosco, but he was not unaware of Gastaldi's favor in
certain quarters in Rome, including the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.
Moreover, he could not just oust the archbis hop. Hence he thought of
submitting the dispute to arbitration. Following Gastaldi's own suggestion,39 he
chose Archbishop Celestino Fissore of Vercelli, a friend of Gastaldi, acceptable
also to Don Bosco, to act as mediator. A letter by Cardinal Berardi to
Archbishop Fissore requesting his mediation in the pope's name40 was followed
by an epistolary exchange designed Lo clarify the issues involved. At Archbishop
Fissore's request, Don Bosco first stated his case by letter in which he rehearsed
his accumulated complaints.41 He may also have enclosed a copy of the
memorandum already cited and discussed above.42 He was able to refine his
arguments in person on the occasion of a visit from Archbishop Fissore.
On February 4, at the archbishop's palace, the contending parties
confronted each other in the presence of the mediator. It was what in diplomatic
circles is usually referred to as a "frank" exchange, with no compromise and no
meeting of the minds. According to Don Bosco's report, they parted outwardly
"on good terms (di buon accordo)." But all three were admittedly "deeply
embarrassed (assai umiliatt)" by the inevitable disclosures.43
In his official report to Cardinal Berardi, Archbishop Fissore records
Gastaldi's complaints in the body of the letter and Don Bosco's replies, mostly
39 In Gastaldi's letter of October 4, 1874, cf. notes 22 and 23 and related
text, above.
40 Letter of January 9, 1875, Documenti XV, 23f. in ASC 110, FDBM 1027
A lOf.
41 Letter of January 16, 1875, EBM XI, 83-85.
42 EBM XI, 85f.; and cf. note 31 and related text, above.
43 Don Bosco to Cardinal Berardi, February 7, 1875, EBM XI, 87-90.

2.7 Page 17

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
51
denials, in marginal notes no doubt introduced after the latter had been shown the
report. As in the memorandums referred to above, Don Bosco flatly denies ever
having received into the Society diocesan priests or seminarians, especially
seminarians judged unsuitable and dismissed from the seminary. He denies ever
having given the habit to dismissed seminarians and using them as teachers and
assistants in Salesian houses located in other dioceses. (Fissore, however, has
information, so he states, that Don Bosco did receive some undeserving
seminarians.)
From the report it emerges that Archbishop Gastaldi did agree to ordain
Salesian candidates, but only on condition that they be perpetually professed and
take the required examination. Don Bosco disputed the necessity of perpetual
profession in the case of candidates belonging to a congregation in which
triennial vows were the norm. (The papal Rescript granting the power of
dimissorials clearly required perpetual profession.44 Perhaps Don Bosco had
obtained a concession vivae vocis oraculo from Pius IX.)
Fissore took no stand and made no recommendation. But he did voice a
wan hope: "I trust that there will be mutual understanding in the future and that,
if difficulties should arise, it will be possible to get the parties together." He
added in conclusion: "I would have liked the parties to agree to some points in
writing, but Don Bosco's preference was for leaving everything on a verbal
basis.45
As has been noted, Don Bosco's blanket denials are somewhat baffling.
In another "factual memorandum (promemoria sicuro)" dated March 12, 1875,
and presented in Rome to counter Gastaldi's allegations, Don Bosco vehemently
denies that " these people, seminarians, priests or laymen, ever in any way
belonged to the Salesian Congregation."46
Punch and counterpunch, the fighting continued: Archbishop Fissore's
mediation had failed.
For a closing comment, it bears repeating that, neurotic and
unreasoning though he is made to appear in the Biographical Memoirs, Gastaldi
was proceeding from clearly defined premises. He was truly concerned with
clergy reform and formation; he was particularly sensitive and protective with
regard to his own seminary program; and he saw Don Bosco's recruiting and
formation practices as a threat. Add to this his unimpeachable conviction that it
was his right and his duty, as ordinary, to ascertain the suitability and worthiness
of candidates for ordination, whether secular or regular. After all, as Desramaut
aptly remarks, Salesian candidates had not lived in a closed seminary
44 EBM X, 373.
45 Letter of February 12, 1875, IBM XI, 548-550, Appendix 8 (omitted but
referred to in EBM XI, 91).
46 Documenti XV, 77 in ASC 110, FDBM 1028 A4; excerpt in EBM XI, 92.

2.8 Page 18

▲back to top
52
Journal of Salesian Studies
community; they did not reside in monasteries away from the world; they
claimed to be preparing themselves intellectually and spiritually while fully
engaged in activities of a largely secular nature. And the ordinary was being
asked to confer orders on such candidates without the possibility of ascertaining
their suitability. Further, he could not discount the real possibility that, once
ordained, they might choose to return to the diocese. In conscience, therefore, as
well as in virtue of Church law in force, the archbishop felt obliged to examine
Salesian candidates on the subject of their "vocation," that is, religious
formation, and on their real suitability for priestly ministry. Nor did he wish to
see presented as Salesian candidates for ordination his former seminarians who,
after leaving or after having been dismissed from the seminary, had been accepted
by Don Bosco.47
No doubt, throughout the distressing developments of the confrontation
which followed, misunderstandings, frustration, anger, spite, and even unworthy
motives (on both sides), played a part. But the conflict can be neither explained
nor understood merely on those terms. Real issues and real points of view were
involved that had larger reference than the character of the protagonists.
In any event, it would surely be unfair simply to blame it all on
Gastaldi's authoritarian, despotic temperament; even less on a petulant,
unreasoning hostility conceived, on his part, toward Don Bosco and the
Salesians.
Part II. Developments and Episodes in the Years 1875-77
Leading to the Break
In the first part of this sordid ecclesiastical saga, by a fairly extended and detailed
examination of epistolary exchanges, we sought to clarify the real issues in the
conflict. Concomitantly, we described certain episodes wh ich seemed
significantly to reinforce the contrasting points of view of the protagonists.
Through this second phase of the conflict (1875-1877), on the other
hand, since the issues and positions remain unaltered, in fact even more
forcefully stated, we will selectively focus our attention on some events and
episodes which gradually drove the two contenders to the breaking point. The
following seem important: (1) Don Bosco's petition for more extended
privileges; (2) the confrontation relating to the Work of Mary Help of Christians
and to the Salesian Cooperators; (3) Don Bosco's supposed suspension; (4)
Gastaldi 's threatened resignation; (5) Don Bosco's publication of graces
attributed to Mary Help of Christians; (6) Archbishop Aneiros' visit; (7) the
trouble relating to Father Rocca's " illicit" celebration of Mass and his
suspension; (8) the Perenchio-Lazzero affair and its aftermath.
47 Cf. Desrarnaut, Etudes VI, 23f.

2.9 Page 19

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
53
1. Don Bosco's Petition for More Extended Privileges
Don Bosco journeyed to Rome in February 1875 for the express purpose, among
others, of petitioning for the privilege of dimissorials to any and all bishops (ad
quemcumque episcopum), and for the other privileges of exemption globally. He
had desired these concessions since 1864, had petitioned for them again in 1873,
and more recently had submitted a memorandum to the same effect to Cardinal
Berardi.48 But now he felt driven to seek them out of sheer exasperation- an
action-reaction situation. He compiled an awesome list hoping to obtain
exemption by "assimilation" to a congregation which already possessed the
corpus of traditional privileges, such as the Redemptorists or the Vincentians.
That Pius IX, who had himself ordered the curtailment of privileges, was
personally favorable to Don Bosco is evidenced by the fact that on February 26,
1875 (or not long thereafter), he appointed a commission of four cardinals to
examine the petition. It would take the cardinals some time to come to a
decision in the matter, Don Bosco knew. He returned to Turin with the assurance
of the pope's support and with a decree granting various spiritual favors to the
Salesian Congregation. Then by the end of March he was back in Rome to be on
hand to answer objections and give explanations.49
It took nearly six months for the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars
to reach a decision. Briefly stated, this congregation was not disposed to grant
concessions at a time when the Holy See was seeking to curb such a custom, the
pope's favor notwithstanding. Gastaldi's pleas may or may no t have brought
pressure to bear on the decision. Cardinal Prefect Bizzarri, and Secretary
Vitelleschi himself, who had otherwise supported Don Bosco for the approval of
the constitutions, were not in favor of granting such concessions.
Pending the decision, on June 16, 1875, Don Bosco submitted a
petition to Pius IX to have a certain number of priests ordained by other bishops
and out of canonical time (urgent necessity being the reason adduced), and for a
dispensation from the canonical age for certain others. Much to Don Bosco's
disappointment (and dismay), the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, to
which the petition was referred, granted only a minimal part of what was
48 Cf. note 34 and related text, above.
49 For the story, cf. EBM XI, 162-170. Don Bosco's reply to a query by the
cardinals (What progress has the Salesian congregation made in the year since the
approval of its constitutions) contains the usual inflated statements [p. 168]. And
referring to Gastaldi's complaints Don Bosco's denials are again emphatic: "Not a
single professed Salesian has ever left. None, therefore, can be cited as having caused
trouble in any diocese [p. 169).

2.10 Page 20

▲back to top
54
Journal of Salesian Studies
asked.so Perhaps lhis was an indication lhat lhe Roman climate was undergoing a
change, but not in Don Bosco 's favor.
Be lhat as it may, Attorney Carlo Menghini, whom Don Bosco had
engaged to represent his interests in Rome, prepared a learned brief on lhe subject
of dimissorials and privileges for Secretary Vitelleschi to present to the
cardinals.SI Don Bosco followed wilh a personal letter to the same cardinals.S2
On September 16 (after Archbishop Vitelleschi had already been elevated to lhe
cardinalate) the cardinals met, and the decision was in the negative on bolh
counts of dimissorials and privileges.SJ
Lemoyne and Ceria view the defeat of Don Bosco's righteous cause as
due to the "legalistic outlook" of lhose prelates, and to their fears "of a split
between the Turin ordinary and the Holy See." They also hint at baser motives.
But, they observe not without a note of triumph, Don Bosco's cause was
vindicated when Providence struck down lhe chief culprit, Secretary Vitelleschi,
who died of typhus barely a monlh after his elevation to the the college of
cardinals. In their view, Don Bosco's cause always prevailed, even when it
entailed the elimination of his opponents, because he was unfai lingly on lhe side
of the right. Letters from Don Bosco's so-called friend and counselor in Rome,
Monsignor Giovanni Battista Fratejacci (letters which are full of malicious
interpretations) seemed to provide corroboration.s4 And yet, Ceria had introduced
lhis particular chapter with a learned disquisition on the privileges tradition,
clearly indicating lhe fac t that their proliferation was an abuse which the Holy
See in the latter half of lhe nineteenth century was again seeking to eliminate.
SO For Don Bosco's disappointment and subsequent action, cf. EBM XI,
170- 173.
SI EBM XI, 173-178.
S2 Letter of September 11 , 1875, EBM XI, 180f.
S3 EBM XI, 183.
s4 Fratejacci to Don Bosco, September 17, and October 17, 1875, IBM XI,
564-569, Appendices 18 and 19, the first transcribed only in part from Documenti
XV, 259-262 in ASC 11 0, FDBM 1031 A6-9 (both omiued in EBM). These letters are
replete with malevolence and venom. In the second letter the writer gloats over
Vitelleschi's demise: "He has handed down his last decree!" By way of conclusion to
the story of the privileges, Ceria quotes "comforting words" from another of
Fratejacci' s letters Lo Don Bosco: "It will then be manifest that [the Salesian
Congregation] was not the work of man but of God [...]. The gratuitous hostility and
the hatred of which the Psalmist speaks [...] are hallmarks of all works dear to God
[...] Your enemies should be afraid, very much so" [Letter of December 5, 1875,
Documenti XV, 344-348 in ASC 110, FDBM 1032 C6-10; excerpt in EBM XI, 447f.].
Vitellescru was succeeded by Archbishop Enea Sbarretti as secretary of the
Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. Shortly thereafter also Cardinal Bizzarri,
Prefect of this Congregation, was succeeded by Cardinal Innocenzo Ferrieri, who, in
Lhe Sales ians ' perception, inherited the mantle as Don Bosco' s "enemy" p ar
excellence in Rome.

3 Pages 21-30

▲back to top

3.1 Page 21

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
55
2. The Work of Mary Help of Christians (Sons of Mary)
and the Salesian Cooperators-and Gastaldi's Opposition
These chapters in the story of Don Bosco's troubled relationship with his
archbishop need no lengthy presentation.SS We will merely give an outline and
identify the issues involved.
(1) The Sons of Mary
Essentially, the Work of Mary Help of Christians was an intensive, that is,
accelerated seminary program which Don Bosco designed to foster young adult
vocations to the priesthood. Experience had taught him that the perseverance rate
in that age group (16 to 30) was much higher than in the younger age group. As
Don Bosco related at a council and directors' meeting on April 14, 1875, the idea
occurred to him as he was reflecting on the scarcity of vocations to the
priesthood, and on how he might increase their numbers and accelerate their
formation.56 Pius IX enthusiastically approved of the project, and Don Bosco
drafted a prospectus in which, after a preamble stating the program's philosophy
and purpose, he carefully set forth its regulations governing admission and
financing, and described its spiritual advantages. Anticipating objections, he
added that the work would not interfere with existing recruiting and formation
programs, but would rather complement them . With a cover letter, dated August
30, 1875, he spec ified the program further in such areas as manner of admission,
courses of studies, and wardrobe.S7 He sent this material out to some ten bishops
favorable to him-hence, not to Archbishop Gastaldi nor to Bishop Luigi
Moreno of lvrea.
Gastaldi reacted immediately. He appealed to the bishops of the
ecclesiastical provinces of Turin, Vercelli and Genoa to sign a joint protest to
the pope, but to no avaiJ.S8 The bishops either supported Don Bosco's plan or
had no objection to it. Moreno and Gastaldi remained cut off, but neither
relented; they each wrote to Cardinal Bizzarri protesting against Don Bosco's
action.S9 Through his secretary, Canon Tommaso Chiuso, the archbishop
SS For the Sons of Mary, cf. EB M XI, 23-42, noting especially the
epistolary exchange. For the Cooperators, cf. EBM XI, 64-73.
S6 EBM XI, 21-24.
s7 For prospectus and letter, cf. IBM XI, 529-533, Appendices 1 and 2
(omitted in EBM)
S8 Circular letter of July 24, 1875, referred to in EBM XI; for text in part, cf.
Documenti XV, 207 in ASC 110, FDBM 1039 B2.
S9 Gastaldi's letter of July 25, 1875, EBM XI, 29f.; Moreno's letter of
August 7, 1875, Documenti XV, 221-224 in ASC 110, FDBM 1030 C4-7.

3.2 Page 22

▲back to top
56
Journal of Salesian Studies
forbade Don Bosco to undertake any action relating to this project. To avoid a
collision in Turin, Don Bosco had the publicity material printed at Fossano,
where Bishop Emiliano Manacorda supported the project. Then at Archbishop
Vitelleschi's and at Cardinal Antonelli's suggestion, Don Bosco finally
established the Sons of Mary at Sampierdarena, in the diocese of Genoa, where
he had Archbishop Magnasco's support. On September 10, 1875, the newspaper
L' Unita Cattolica announced the establishment of the work in that city.6Cl
Gastaldi's chief objection, as expressed in his letters, was that such a
work (or seminary, as he called it) would compete with diocesan recruitment and
seminary programs. This may indeed have been a real concern as it raised once
more that long-standing iss ue. But bishops who responded to Gastaldi's appeal
thought differently, since the Sons of Mary were young adults, and moreover,
had the option of returning to their diocese and applying to their own bishops.
Gastaldi also objected to Don Bosco's initiative on the grounds it was not needed
because there were other institutions which fostered vocations. But the
institutions mentioned (the Apostolic Schools and Cottolengo) functioned only
as small junior seminaries. Finally, the fact that Don Bosco was asking for
financial support in publicizing the project made the archbishop wary. Strangely
enough, Gastaldi did not raise the issue of the abbreviated course of studies. Yet
he would have been expected to do so, in view of his concern for priestly studies
and formation. But perhaps this aspect of the program was not yet public
knowledge.61
(2) The Salesian Cooperators
Even less attention need be given to the story of the Salesian Cooperators.62
Leaving aside the prehistory of the idea, one might say that the
Cooperators are the immediate successors of the "extern" Salesians who had
figured in the early constitutions up to 1873. Between 1874 and 1876, Don
Bosco finalized the concept apart from the constitutions, and wrote appropriate
regulations. His "unveiling" of the association paralleled that of the Work of
60 Nonetheless, while accommodations were being prepared at
Sanpierdarena, the program was begun at Valdocco, with Father Luigi Guanella as
director [cf. note 37 and related text, above]. And even when the program was settled
at Sampierdarena under Father Paul Albera's guidance, a contingent of upperclassmen
remained at the Oratory under Don Bosco's own supervision. The program was later
transferred to Malhi (1883), and finally housed in the new buildings of the St.
Aloysius Oratory (St. John the Evangelist, 1884).
61 The accelerated course of studies (dubbed "the school of fire") drew
criticism from Salesians at the Oratory, where (as mentioned above) some of the Sons
of Mary were housed [EBM XI, 57) .
62 Cf. EBM XI, 60-77.

3.3 Page 23

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
57
Mary Help of Christians. As in the case of the Sons of Mary, the Holy Father
encouraged the project early in 1875; then a few months later he granted a
commendation and spiritual favors by a decree of July 30. Finally the two
institutions were presented together for approval on March 4, 1876, and were
approved (actually were "recognized" through the granting of indulgences) by
decrees of May 9, 1876.63
About a month later, Don Bosco printed a pamphlet describing the
objectives of the Salesian Cooperators;64 it included the Holy Father's blessing
on the association. Don Bosco also hoped to include in his brochure the
archbishop's approval and blessing. On submitting the pamphlet, he wrote:
"These Cooperators are a type of Third Order through which the Holy Father is
granting a few spiritual favors to our benefactors [!].Now that the Holy Father
has granted his blessing, I humbly beg Your Excellency to...'>65
Faced with thisfait accompli, and relationships being already strained to
near-breaking point, the archbishop was quick to react. Through his spokesman
Canon Chiuso he notified Don Bosco that the ecclesiastical imprimatur should
have been sought beforehand; and moreover the decree of canonical erection of
the association should have been presented to the ordinary, before "such
indulgences" were publicized.(J6
Don Bosco's explanations- that the pamphlet was still being edited;
that the Cooperators were a general, not a diocesan, association; that he was
forced to bypass the chancery, because he was not getting a hearing-were bound
to fall on deaf ears.67 But the archbishop was out of town for the summer, and
Don Bosco did not wait for a reply. He had the material printed in the diocese of
Albenga with the approval of Bishop Anacleto Pietro Siboni. And that was that.
Some two months later, wishing to publish the decree, Don Bosco
submitted a copy to the chancery. The archbishop, through Canon Chiuso,
insisted on seeing the original brief before approving any publication. But much
more significantly, he pointed out that the brief merely granted "indulgences and
spiritual favors" on the basis of an assumed prior canonical approval . Who gave
this canonical approval? As a matter of fact, the brief on the Salesian
63 For the Sons of Mary, petition and decree: IBM XI, 533-535, Appendix 3
(omiLLed in EBM). For the Cooperators, petition: EBM XI, 65; decree: IBM XI, 546f.,
Appendix 7 (omitted in EBM).
64 This was the fourth and final el aboration of the s tatutes entitled,
"Cooperatori Salesiani ossia un modo pratico per giovare al buon costume ed al/a
civile societa (The Salesian Cooperators-an association dedicated to furthering
Christian morals and the good of society)", IBM XI, 540-545, Appendix 5 (omitted
inEBM).
65 Letter of July 11, 1876, EBM XI, 66.
66 Chiuso to Don Bosco, July 16, 1876, Documenti XVII, 4 13f. in ASC
110, FDBM 1041 Alf., summarized in EBM XI, 67.
67 Don Bosco to Chiuso, August 1, 1876, EBM XI, 67.

3.4 Page 24

▲back to top
58
Journal of Salesian Studies
Cooperator, as also that on the Sons of Mary, was clearly worded to that effect:
"We have been informed that a Pious Sodality of Christian men and women,
under the name of Sodality or Union of Salesian Cooperators, has been
canonically established. [...] Therefore, to further the increase of such a sodality
[...] [we grant the following indulgences]."68 It is certain that Pius IX supported
the establishment of both the Sons of Mary and the Salesian Cooperators
wholeheartedly, and that prior to this decree (of May 9, 1876), he had expressed
his approval both by word of mouth and through a brief granting spiritual
favors.69 But the fac t remains that the brief in question merely granted
indulgences, and does so on the assumption of prior canonical approval-dearly
not by the Holy See; hence perhaps by an ordinary?
Apparently Don Bosco did not respond to Canon Chiuso's letter, nor
had he any need to. He had never requested the Holy See's approval of a new
association. He had merely requested spiritual favors for an association already in
existence and (as far as he was concerned) canonically erected. He argued this
point in a famous (and much discussed) memorandum written in late 1876 or
early 1877, entitled "The Salesian Cooperators," probably intended for the
Salesian Bulletin, but never published.70 Here Don Bosco argues that the
Salesian Cooperators were in existence since 1841, were identified with the
collaborative work of the oratories, and became known as "the Congregation of
St. Francis de Sales", of which Don Bosco figured as "superior". This
"congregation" received encouragement, faculties, and spiritual favors at various
dates from the Holy See and from Archbishop Luigi Fransoni. In 1858 this
"congregation" was divided into two families: one bound by vows and living in
community, the other (still known as "Union or Congregation of St. Francis de
Sales, Promoters or Cooperators") continued " to live in the world, while
working on behalf of the oratories." Therefore, when the recent decrees speak of a
sodality already canonically erected, they refer:
to those early promoters who were actually (di fatto-de facto?)
approved and recognized over a period of ten years as true cooperators in
the work of the oratories. This association was formally established
(jonnalmente costituita) with the decree of 1852.71 These cooperators
68 "Cum siculi re/alum est Nobis, Pia quaedam Christifidelium Sodalitas,
quam Sodalilalem seu Unionem Cooperalorum Salesianorum appellant, canonice
institula sit, [...] Nos, ul Sodalitas huiusmodi maiora in dies suscupial incremenlum,
[etc.]" [cf. note 63, above].
69 Cf. note 63 and related text, above.
70 Finally published by Ceria, EBM XI, 73-75.
7 1 This was the document of March 3 1, 1852, by which Archbishop
Fransoni appointed Don Bosco spiritual director-in-chief of the three oratories of St.
Francis de Sales, St. Aloysius, and the Guardian Angel.

3.5 Page 25

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
59
continued as an association (ad essere aggregatt) even after 1858, when
some of their number began to live in common under their own
constitutions.
Clearly Don Bosco's repeated claim that the Salesian Cooperators (and the
Salesian Society) had some kind of canonical existence as early as 1841, or
1844, or 1846, or 1852, etc. is dubious at best. Salesian scholars have debated
the question.72
But one may ask: if Don Bosco's claim was valid for the Cooperators,
was it also valid for the Sons of Mary, for whom the decree of 1876 uses the
very same formula granting indulgences to an association already canonically
erected?
3. Don Bosco's Supposed "Suspension"
To add insult to injury, the year 1875 was to end with a sensational incident:
Don Bosco's "suspension" from hearing confessions. That is what the Salesians
thought; the chancery instead maintained that there had been no suspension.
What really did happen? Faculties for confessions were renewed routinely every
year or every six months, and the document would routinely be picked up at the
chancery or delivered. Don Bosco's faculties had been renewed in March for six
months; but for some reason the document was held back at the chancery and
was delivered to Valdocco only in October. His faculties had by then expired.
Father Cagliero and Father Rua, who received the envelope by messenger, not
wanting to upset him withheld the information from Don Bosco. In the absence
of the archbishop, the Vicar General Canon Giuseppe Zappala, contacted by
Father Rua, granted temporary renewal. But Father Rua for some reason failed
again to notify Don Bosco, and the latter only learned of the expiration of his
faculties on Christmas eve. Availing himself of a special concession obtained
from Pius IX, he heard the confessions of many penitents that night. But,
72 Cf. Francis Desramaut, SDB, The Founding of the Salesian Family (1841-
1876) (New Rochelle, NY: A Don Bosco Pamphlet Publication, 1985). This is a
translation of "La Fondazione della Famiglia Salesiana," in Costruire lnsieme la
Famiglia Salesiana (Atti de! Simposio di Roma, 19-22 Febbraio 1982; ed. M. Midali,
Collana Spirito e Vita, 11. Roma: LAS, 1983), p. 75-102. And this, in turn, is a
rewriting of "La storia primitiva della Famiglia Salesiana secondo tre esposti di Don
Bosco," in La Famiglia Salesiana (Colloqui sulla vita salesiana, 5, Lussemburgo 26-
30 Agosto 1973). Torino-Leumann: LDC, 1974, p. 17-45 and 337-343 (Appendix).
The "tre esposti" referred to in the title and given in the appendix are three documents
authored by Don Bosco (including the one under discussion) in which he speaks of the
existence of "a congregation" in the early days.
For a critique, cf. Pietro Stella, Ricerche Storiche Salesiane 2 (1983) 451-
454.

3.6 Page 26

▲back to top
60
Journal of Salesian Studies
believing himself suspended, on December 26 he applied to the archbishop for a
renewal, before retreating in great distress to Borgo San Martino (in the diocese
of Casale). His faculties were renewed without delay on the following day.73
It is hard to see clearly into this murky affair. Rua's failure to notify
Don Bosco is puzzling; but so is the chancery's handling of the matter. Was it a
simple oversight? Or was it a spiteful gesture designed to let the "rebellious"
founder know who wielded the authority in the diocese? If so, while Don Bosco
was indeed made to suffer humiliation, the chancery and the archbishop himself
must be held responsible for what can only be described as an outrageous
maneuver.
Be that as it may, there was no canonical suspension, and the
archbishop's reply through Canon Chiuso is additional proof of that.74 The
incident, however, was so construed in Salesian circles, where it caused anger and
consternation. The fiery Father Giovanni Bonetti, having learned of the
occurrence from Don Bosco at Borgo San Martino, complained to the pope
directly, decrying "the unjustifiable measure of suspending this worthy priest
from hearing confessions [...], a punishment usually given only to priests of
scandalous conduct." And, referring to Gastaldi's hostile behavior, he dared ask
the pope " to take more effective action to put an end to such a great eviJ."75
Don Bosco feared that if the "suspension" was given publicity, the
question of morals would be raised in his regard. Fortunately several months
went by before the anticlerical press got wind of what had happened. And again
fortunately, the lanterna de/ Ficcanaso [the Meddler's Lantern] was the only
tabloid to report Don Rosco's "suspension." It lauded the archbishop for putting
Don Bosco in his place.76
73 For the story, cf. EBM XI, 449-459. The letter of December 26, 1875, to
the archbishop reflects Don Rosco's conviction that there had been a suspension: "I
respectfully implore you to let me know the reason [...] in order that I may make
amends for any fault I may be guilty of' [p. 45lf.].
74 Letter of December 27, 1875, EBM XI, 456: "Your faculties for
confessions are still valid. [...] The faculties would never have expired, had you done
at the pro~er time what is customary in such instances."
5 Letter of December 28, 1875, EBM XI, 453f.
76 "The midnight train. Don Bosco in Rome," La Lanlerna def Ficcanaso,
May 6, 1876: "Newspapers have thus far failed to publish an interesting bit of news.
The so-called Holy Man of Valdocco, that hypocritical and fearless hunter of
bequests, known to the duped populace by the name of Father John Bosco, was
suspended a divinis by Archbishop Gastaldi. It is true! For once the archbishop
deserves to be commended: he has done his duty." According to this paper, Don
Bosco had journeyed to Rome to have the suspension lifted! [Tuninetti, Castaldi II,
271, note 57].
The same paper returned to the subject in its October 9-10, 1876 issue: "Don
Bosco and the Archbishop." - "The official reason behind the suspension is this:
Like the true scoundrel that he is, Don Bosco uses the confessional to frighten and

3.7 Page 27

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
61
Perhaps the "suspension" was too private a maner to have reached the
wider public. But by the end of 1875 relations had soured to the point that the
rift had become common knowledge. The daily L' Opinione of Rome carried a
dispatch from its Turin correspondent that spoke of Don Bosco as the only priest
in Turin who had the gumption to stand up to the authoritarian archbishop.77
The satirical sheet fl Fischietto [The Whistle] was even bolder in its
jabs at the two protagonists:
Sounds of battle are heard from the sacristies [...]. Two formidable
opponents, armed to the teeth, are about to enter the list. One answers
to the name of Father Revalenta and specializes in butting. The other
poses as a great miracle-worker, and is popularly known as Don Bosco,
sive Dominus Lignus. The contest between these two giants is of the
utmost seriousness. Don Bosco, fully relying on Vatican support,
refuses to bow to Father Revalenta's authority. Much like Italy in
1848, he is declaring his independence. Father Revalenta on the contrary
fully intends to subdue the rebellious miracle worker, and has sworn to
press forward till he succeeds. The clash is imminent. Let's see who
will be the first to fall. Both are strong-at least in wringing legacies
from people on their deathbed.78
intimidate the old dotards and the addled-brained old bags who confess to him. What
he is after is their estates, whole or in part. [...] But the real reason is the power Don
Bosco has acquired in Turin, a power greater perhaps than that of Archbishop
Gastaldi-a simple case of professional jealousy [...]" [Tuninetti in Traniello, 230).
77 "Clerical Squabbles, from our correspondent, Turin, October 1, 1875":
"The archbishop governs his diocesan empire with a harsh, absolute rule. His priests,
as is to be expected, must bow to his will and to his every whim. But one priest, one
only, has successfully declared his independence: the Reverend Don Bosco"
[Tuninetti, Castaldi IT, 270, note 55; cf. Documenti XV, 282-284 in ASC 110, FDBM
1032 C4-6J-
7 "Around Town" (Cose de! giorno), II Fischiello (The Whistle), October
14, 1875, n. 123, p. 1, Tuninetti in Traniello, 228.; cf. Documenti XV, 284f., in
ASC 110, FDBM 1032 C6f. Cf. also EBM XI, 460-469, esp. 465-468.
"Revalenta" is a nickname this satirical sheet used for Archbishop Gastaldi.
In other articles the name is explained as "/' Uomo del bosco" (the Man of the Woods,
the Wild Man). Caricatures depict him with a simian countenance. These epithets do
not seem to refer to any character from the fund of folklore or mask. They were
probably just coined by the paper.
"Dominus Lignus" is a Latin rendering of "Don Bosco". lignus in Latin and
Bosco in Piedmontese mean "wood."

3.8 Page 28

▲back to top
62
Journal of Salesian Studies
4. Gastaldi's Threatened Resignation7 9
Archbishop Gastaldi had been a favorite target of the anticlerical newspapers
since his accession in late 1871. The attacks and the vilification never slackened
in the years that followed. This put great pressure on him and added to the
mounting cares created by his temperament and his policies. His harsh rule and
despotic ways had turned a part the clergy against him.
And then there was Don Bosco. The archbishop's chief complaints in
this regard are worth recalling. At the core of his thinking was his deep
conviction relating to the dignity and authority of episcopal office and the rights
and duties of an ordinary as specified by the Council of Trent and in recent trends
in canonical practice. It was the bishop's chief duty to ensure clergy formation,
to regulate ecclesiastical discipline, and to provide o utstand ing pastoral care in
the diocese and the parishes. Much of Gastaldi's chagrin with regard to Don
Bosco arose out of a perception that his ideas and action conflicted or interfered
with these objectives. Don Rosco's continuous recourse to privilege in Rome
was perceived by the archbishop as a challenge to his office and authority; Don
Bosco's activities, apparently at variance with the archbishop's policies, were
construed as acts of disobedience or even insubordination.
Another old issue, that of the status of the Salesian Society and its
constitutions, continued to chafe and increase the archbishop's irritation. The
questions he had addressed to Rome on the subject had not yet been answered to
his satisfaction. He had recently learned that the constitutions published by Don
Bosco differed from the text approved by Rome. He was first alerted to this
discrepancy by Attorney Carlo Menghini late in 1875 .80 In December, even as
the affair of Don Rosco 's " suspension" was reaching its denouement, Gastaldi
accused Don Bosco to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars for tampering
with the constitutions. Attorney Menghini reported Gastaldi's accusation back to
Don Bosco. The Holy Father, Menghini added, intended to take the matter up
with the archbishop on the latter 's next visit to Rome.81
79 For this section I am guided in particular by Tuninetti, Castaldi II, 271-
274.
80 Menghini to Gas taldi, Rome, November 22, 1875, ASC 123, Persone,
Franchetti, FDBM 601 A2-4.
Carlo Menghini, an attorney of the Congregation of B ishops and Regulars,
provided legal services with the Roman congregations for both Gastaldi and Don
Bosco. He acted as a "contact" and "informer" for both- a kind of "double agent", but
(until replaced) with greater generosity shown toward Don Bosco. His role in the
conflict is best described as ambiguous.
8 1 Menghini to Don Bosco, February 7, 1876, Documenti XVI, 135f. in
ASC 110, FDBM 1036 BlOf.
As mentioned at the end of our earlier essay [cf. Lenti in JSS 4 (1993), 82,
note 178 ), in preparing the "official" printed Latin and Italian editions of the

3.9 Page 29

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
63
To make matters worse, in spite of numerous letters and memorandums
addressed to the Roman authorities against Don Bosco, Gastaldi had received
little satisfaction. He felt that the Roman congregations, and the Holy Father
himself, were not giving him the support he had hoped for. Driven by mounting
exasperation, the archbishop took a drastic action-he threatened to resign.
He hinted at such a possibility in a lette r of March 20, 1876 to Cardinal
Bizzarri, in which he strongly objected to Don Bosco's renewed efforts to obtain
"privileges that conflict with the rights of episcopal authority." He lodged
complaints against Don Bosco for his "spirit of independence, or more nearly,
superiority,[...] which has also taken root among his followers-a situation
which only increases the worries and troubles that already daily assail me in this
vast archdiocese." He made an impassioned, almost desperate plea for support
from the Holy See for an archbishop who is already " totally stripped of all civil
dignity, [...] reviled, derided, mocked, and insulted daily by almost all the Turin
newspapers, because [...] of his very loyalty to the Holy See." He closed with
the words: "If more privileges are to be granted to the Salesian Congregation
here in Turin to the detriment of my jurisdiction, then one should at least await
my demise [...],or allow me time to resign from this office[...]."82
On April 3 he declared his " intention and desire to resign" to the pope;
and he gave Don Bosco's conduct toward him and the fai lure of the Holy See to
support him as the chief reasons. He wrote:
constitutions for the confreres, Don Bosco had not been faithful to the approved
manuscript tex t of 1874. Both the galley proofs and the published Latin text (mid or
late 1874) show considerable variants relating not only Lo Latin usage and style, but
also to content. Most important among the latter variants is the note introduced into
the chapter on the novitiate, to the effect that Pope Pius IX vivae vocis oraculo had
allowed the novices to be engaged in the work of the Society, selling aside what the
Roman Congregation had approved. The "official" printed Italian tex t (some time in
1875) is a translation neither of the printed Latin text nor of the approved manuscript
text. With respect to style and usage it harks back to the earlier Italian tradition of the
text (1864). It also features variants with respect to content. Chief among these is the
reduction of the chapter on the novitiate from seventeen to seven articles [cf. Motto,
Cost. SDB, 37-40 and 192-197].
These were the facts, but for various reasons the matter was not pursued by
Rome. The Salesians continued to read their constitutions as Don Bosco had edited
them in 1875 until 1900. At General Chapter VIII (1898) Father Berto noticed a
discrepancy between the text in use and the approved text of 1874 with regard Lo the
majorities needed for the election of maj or superiors. Jn consequence of this
"revelation" and of the research that fo llowed, the authentic Latin text of the
constitutions was printed by Father Rua in 1900. The Italian translation followed in
1903.
82 EBM XI, 443. Here the date is given as March 24; March 20 is the date
given in Documemi XVI, 186f. in ASC 110, FDBM 1037 Blf.

3.10 Page 30

▲back to top
64
Journal of Salesian Studies
I have to deal at close quarters with a priest who has indeed done much
good in my diocese, but who also has done and is doing much harm to
my administration by running me down with priests and people within
my diocese and with the bishops of neighboring dioceses. Now he is
about to gain new privileges; and I have no desire to tangle with him
any further[...]. I also perceive that the Church's central authority does
not place in me that trust which I must have as an indispensable
prerequisite for the fulfillment of my duties.83
On April 5, 1876, Don Bosco arrived in Rome for a stay of over one month, and
there he first learned of the archbishop's threatened resignation. One of the
reasons for this trip was to obtain more privileges from Pius IX. He succeeded-
thus provoking further protests from Gastaldi. These concessions, subsequently
confirmed and even expanded, related to ordinations extra tempora, dispensation
from testimonial letters for Salesian pupils seeking admission into the Society,
the establishment and use of private chapels in Salesian houses, and parish
privileges for all Salesian institutes.84 Gastaldi raised strong objections against
this last-mentioned concession, for basic to his program for the restoration of
ecclesiastical discipline was the principle that the sacramental life of all the
faithful should be centered on the local parish and should be administered by
bishop and pastor.85
The archbishop was still debating the pros and cons of resigning
through the remainder of 1876, and his resignation was still a real possibility in
1877. The anticlerical press got wind that something big was about to break.
But the satirical journal fl Fischietto (The Whistle) thought it was Don Bosco
who intended "to resign", that is, concede, cut his losses, and move out of
Turin- an indication that the press (and the public) were still trying to piece
rumors together and to figure out who would eventually prevaii.86
83 Cf. IBM XII, 642f. (omitted in EBM).
84 For Don Bosco activities in Rome, cf. EBM XII, 127-156. "Realizing
that the Holy See would not grant him privileges en masse, he had to wrest them a few
at a time" [Ibid., 127]. For various papal briefs granting and expanding privileges,
cf. IBM XII, 646f., Appendix 11; IBM XII, 647, Appendix 12; IBM XII, 675-677,
Appendices 35 and 36 (all omitted in EBM); Ceria, Ep III, 51.
85 Episcopal authority (so he wrote to attorney Menghini) will suffer
greatly and church life will be seriously disrupted by such a concession. If young
people are allowed to attend catechism, perform their Easter duty, receive
Confirmation, etc. in Salesian churches, then a portion of the flock would be
withdrawn from its legitimate pastoral care with grave consequences [Letter of May 5,
1876, IBM XI, 600f., Appendix 36 (omitted in EBM)].
86 "Irreparable Loss (Una perdita irreparabile)," fl Fischiello, May 23,
1876, n. 72, Tuninetti, Castaldi II, 272 and note 61. An excerpt is worth quoting:

4 Pages 31-40

▲back to top

4.1 Page 31

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
65
Toward the end of January 1877 Archbishop Gastaldi, accompanied by
Father Giuseppe Soldati, rector of the seminary, journeyed to Rome for his ad
limina visit-and obviously to deal with questions relating to his own
resignation and to Don Bosco. La Liberia of Rome commented on the
resignation, giving Gastaldi's Rosminianism and his clash with Don Bosco as
the reasons:
Archbishop Gastaldi is in Rome, and he is seriously considering
resigning from his see. The reasons are his Rosminian position and the
charges brought against him before the Roman Congregations by Don
Bosco. This priest enjoys the protection of some cardinals and of Pius
IX himself, and the archbishop sees him as a competitor and a rival in
his diocese.87
Following up on the Roman report, the Gazzetta de/ Popolo of Turin announced
the archbishop's resignation as a fact, and added:
Gastaldi [...] thought he could spar with Don Bosco, but down he went.
While in Rome, he has delivered his ultimatum to the Vatican. Either
he is recognized as master in his own house, that is, his diocese, and is
allowed to squelch Don Bosco's attempts at usurpation, or he resigns.
The Vatican has accepted his resignation.SS
"Vicious rumors are heard everywhere in the city, in these days of bad weather. One
rumor has it that Father Revalenta [Gastaldi], much angered by Don Bosco's
omnipotent attitude, has been pursuing him with such ruthless determination that the
man may be forced to leave the fair shores of the Dora and the Po, perhaps for good.
The conflict [.. .] has taken on such alarming proportions that the Holy Shack (Santa
Baracca) of Rome has had to intervene. [...] Let's not fool ourselves, it seems that
Dominus Lignus [Don Bosco] has had enough of Father Revalenta's persecution, and
there is a real chance this time that he will leave us for good. What irreparable loss
that would be for us! Who will perform the miracles if the miracle worker has flown
[...]. But one can' t really blame him. If Father Revalenta will not rest until he sees
him dead, it is inevitable that sooner or later the m an will make a getaway.
87 "A Bishop Resigns," La Liberia, January 30, 1877, Tuninetti, Castaldi II,
272; mention in EBM XIII, 12f., note 20.
Gastaldi held strong Rosminian opinions, gave a Rosminian orientation to
seminary studies in the archdiocese, and defended the philosopher under attack by the
Jesuits and under Roman censure. His well-known Rosminianism was obviously "a
strike against him" in Rome. Gastaldi was in fact admonished [cf. Lenti in JSS 4
(1993), 5-7, 32 note 65. For a detailed discussion cf. Tuninetti, Castaldi IT, 307-329].
88 "The Archbishop of Turin," La Cazzetta de/ Popolo, January 31, 1877,
Documenti XVIII, 50; mention in EBM XIII, 13, note 20.

4.2 Page 32

▲back to top
66
Journal of Salesian Studies
II Fischietto [The Whistle], which never missed an opportunity to revile the
Church, was no t to be outdone. It asks mockingly: "If Father Revalenta
[GasLaldi] leaves us (God forbid!) what will become of us? [...] One trembles at
the very thought!" And it goes on to explain that the real reason for the
Vatican's displeasure was not the archbishop's Rosminian leanings, but his
clash with Don Bosco, "a holy war aimed at eliminating the opposition."89
What passed between Pius IX and GasLaldi in the official ad /imina
audience cannot, of course, be known. Apparently the archbishop withdrew his
threatened resignation. But under the circumstances the archbishop's trip to
Rome fed all kinds of rumors. The matter had become public knowledge, and
tension ran high in the diocese both among both clergy and laity. It was
obviously to allay fears and unfounded expectations that on February 4 Gastaldi
addressed a pastoral letter to his diocese on the Roman trip. It emerged that the
archbishop had changed his mind.90
It was not long before the Gazzetta del Popolo gave its readers the
"facts" in the case:
Lawrence Gastaldi, as you may know, has decided to accept the
martyrdom of continuing as archbishop. He has pointed out to the pope
the words written on the Cross, I. N. R. I. , and interpreted the acronym
as meaning, "I shall Never Resign, not I" (lo Non Rinunziero In
eterno). The pope was dumbfounded. But we are not at all surprised. We
have no information as yet on Don Bosco's reaction. Meanwhile His
This scandalmongering Cazzetta continued to carry the story and to harp on
the conflict. The defrocked priest Antonio Berretti wrote: "Here are two saints,
experts both in relieving people of their money for the greater glory of God. For the
same greater glory one, Gastaldi, wants to enforce his authority by the rod, [...] while
the other, a good amateur in his own right, piously professes his independence"
["Archbishop Gastaldi's Troubles," in La Gazzetta del Popolo, February 4, 1877, n.
35, p. 1., Tuninetli, Castaldi II, 272 and note 64.]
89 "Our Diocese is in Danger," IL Fischietto, February 3, 1877, n. 15,
Tuninetti, Gastaldi II, 273 and note 65.
An accompanying caricature showed Gastaldi and Don Bosco in a wrestling
match. Portrayed with simian features, stripped to the waist, and showing strong
biceps, Gastaldi is lying on the mat, apparently taken down by Don Bosco. The
caption reads: "In spite of feeding on revalenta and of his mighty, bulging muscles,
the Man of the Woods [Gastaldi] has taken a fall in his all-out struggle with the
miracleworker of Valdocco."
(Revalenta is this paper's nickname for Gastaldi [cf. note 78], but here
perhaps it stands for polenta, corn grits.)
90 "Report on the Roman Trip of January 1877," in lettere Pastorali, p.
353ff., in Tuninetti, Castaldi IT, 273, note 67.

4.3 Page 33

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
67
Phony Excellency is back, and justifies his return by claiming
conveniently to have been recalled by popular demand.91
The "popular demand" was in the form of letters of congratulation and solidarity
from various ecclesiastical bodies (Metropolitan Chapter, the theological faculty,
College of Pastors, etc.) and from individual priests. These were published, and
the Gazzetta def Popolo was quick to notice the absence of Don Bosco's name
from the official list.
We went through the various expressions of support addressed to
Gastaldi by the institutes of the Turinese clergy. We looked in vain for
one from Don Bosco and from his religious family. And yet this would
have been the one significant document, in view of this priest's
notorious relationship to Pope Pius [...]. As long as Don Bosco
himself does not give the lie to the rumors that are abroad, the other
expressions of support are a laughing matter."92
Actually Don Bosco did respond with an amicable letter (which the archbishop
acknowledged, but which was not made public). He wrote: "On behalf of myself
and of all Salesians, I am happy to join [the clergy] in expressing our deep
esteem and veneration. [...]Please accept our heartfelt sentiments; may they help
give the lie to rumors spread by a hostile press [...]."93
In his "Leller to the Clergy" published in the liturgical calendar for
1878, Gastaldi wrote (in Latin):
First of all We wish to render heartfelt thanks to you for your
unanimous and solemn demonstration of respect and of love. I am
referring to the moral support you gave Us in the months of March and
April past, when disturbing reports reached you from Rome. Some
people in the Eternal City thought that the clergy and people of the
diocese of Turin were disaffected toward their archbishop, and that the
archbishop was thinking of resigning on that account.94
9! "The Archbishop's Pockets," in La Cazzetta de/ Popolo, February 25,
1877, n. 56, Tuninetti, Castaldi II, 272, note 64. The newspaper pursued the subject
again in March issues, at one point addressing the pope directly: "Pius, if there is any
mettle left in you, do us a big favor: take away our Gastaldi and make him cardinal.
You are the only one who can do this and shut him up for good" [Ibid.].
92 Cf. "Don Bosco's Silence[...]" La Cazzetta de/ Popolo, April 29, 1877,
n. 118, Tuninetti, Castaldi II, 273, note 69.
93 Letter of March 28, 1993, Ceria, Ep ill, 161.
94 Tuninetli, Castaldi IT, 272, note 67.

4.4 Page 34

▲back to top
68
Journal of Salesian Studies
He goes on to list various expressions of support received from diocesan and
religious groups. But makes no mention of the Salesians nor of the Jesuits. He
concludes, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas: "The office of bishop is a kind of
martyrdom."
The expressions of solidarity just mentioned were really no spontaneous
"plebiscite." It is in fact believed that they were orchestrated by Gastaldi himself
from Rome and solicited in Turin by the vicar general Giuseppe Zappala. This is
confirmed by a report to the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Giovanni
Simeoni, by Monsignor Giovanni Tortone, Vatican charge d' affaires in Turin,
dated March 19, 1877. He had been asked to investigate accusations made
anonymously in Rome against Gastaldi. The latter was accused of wanting to
enforce policies tending to set aside the doctrine of St. Alphonsus and to
reintroduce the old cesaro-papalism of the university; of defending Rosmini' s
philosophy; of public hostile actions against Don Bosco and the Salesian
Congregation. All of this was at variance with Roman positions and smacked of
Jansenism. This was the brief against Gastaldi . By his letter of March 19,
Tortone reported that after discreet inquiries he had been able to learn that the
demonstrations of support had been solicited through an initiative of Gastaldi
himself. Gastaldi had learned of his own clergy's deep dissatisfaction from a
cardinal and had thus attempted to dispel this notion in Rome by getting his
vicar general to organize the show of support. This may indeed have been meant
as a public recognition of the dignity of the archiepiscopal office, but not (as
authorities in Rome had feared) as a conferral of approval on the archbishop's
theories, policies and actions. Tortone wrote in conclusion:
If he does not adopt more objective and more prudent ways of governing
this archdiocese, these outward expressions of support will not avail to
quell the complaints arising from every category of the clergy. These
are occasioned by arbitrary decisions on his part, by his precipitate
actions, by his inexperience in the government of this diocese, and
especially by his ill-advised innovation relating to the teaching of moral
theology which everyone has criticized.95
95 Tunineni, Castaldi II, 273f., note 69 (citing the document from the Secret
Vatican Archives).
In an earlier letter (February 2) Tortone stated that Gastaldi had indeed
confided to a trusted friend that he intended Lo resign, and that the chief reason was
Don Bosco' s opposition. He added: "Archbishop Gastaldi possesses deep learning, is
animated by genuine piety and driven by untiring zeal. With such qualities he could be
a great bishop, if only these were accompanied by comparable prudence, patience and
gentleness." He also mentioned that the clergy complained about his "too frequent
recourse to suspension a divinis,"

4.5 Page 35

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
69
By February 1877, then, Gastaldi's threatened resignation had been withdrawn.
But he, and everyone else who considered the matter, whether friend or foe, knew
that the root causes that had forced him to even consider such a step remained.
Chief among these was his conflict with Don Bosco.
At the end of February, Gastaldi had a short pamphlet published and
distributed to cardinals in Rome, entitled, The Archbishop of Turin and the
Congregation of St. Francis de Sales in Turin. By it the archbishop hoped to
refute the accusations made against him , that he harbored malevolent intentions
toward the Salesians. The pamphlet listed the many tokens of benevolence the
archbishop had shown to Don Bosco and his congregation from 1848 to 1877.
Don Bosco saw no need to respond.96
Such an apologia, however, did not signal any letup in the struggle.
The remainder of 1877 continued to be filled with strife resulting in ever deeper
wounds.
5. Don Bosco's Publication of Graces of Mary Help of
Christians
The next clash occurred over two pamphlets written by Don Bosco to publicize
graces obtained thro ugh the intercession of Mary Help of Christians: Mary Help
of Christians (a reissue, first published in 1875) and The little Cloud of Mt.
Carmel.97 The first pamphlet had been published in Turin with ecclesiastical
approbation. The latter pamphlet, however, had been printed in the newly
established print shop at Sanpierdarena, in the diocese of Genoa, with that
chancery's imprimatur, since Don Bosco had been having trouble with obtaining
the imprimatur in Turin. The archbishop objected especially to the publication
of this pamphlet outs ide the archdiocese, for he claimed for himself and his
chancery the right to judge the authenticity of mirac les reported as taki ng place at
a church in his own diocese.98 The archbishop had a notice published in the
96 The five-page pamphlet was entitled, L'Arcivescovo di Torino e la
Congregazione di San Francesco di Sales in Torino, Documenti XVIIl, 86-88 in ASC
110, FDBM 1046 A9-ll ; briefly in EBM XIll, 249f.
97 Maria Ausiliatrice col racconto di alcune grazie ottenute nel primo
settennio dalla Consacrazione della Chiesa a Lei dedicata in Torino (per cura de!
sacerdote Giovanni Bosco. Torino: Tipografia e Libreria dell'Oratorio di S. Francesco
di Sales, 1875) published in Le/lure Calloliche 23:9 (September 1875), reissued in
1877, Opere Edite XXVI, 304-623 . La Nuvoleua del Carmelo ossia la divozione a
Maria Ausiliatrice premiata di nuove grazie (per cura de! sacerdote Giovanni Bosco. S.
Pier D'Arena: Tipografia e Libreria di S. Vincenzo de' Paoli, 1877) published in
Leuure Cauoliche 25:5 (May 1877), Opere Edite XXVill, 449-565. Ceria, Ep III,
175f.
98 Gastaldi to Don Bosco, May 17, 1877, Documenti XVIII, 142 in ASC
110, FDBM 1047 A5.

4.6 Page 36

▲back to top
70
Journal of Salesian Studies
Emporia popolare (People's Book Buyers' Guide) to the effect that this
publication (The little Cloud) carried a "foreign" imprimatur. In the Monita
(Reminders) of the liturgical calendar for 1878, he laid down stricter provisions
with regard to this and related matters.99
There was also at work in the dispute an underlying difference in
attitude regarding the "miraculous" in the two men. Gastaldi was trying to
discourage the kind of hagiography and popular religiosity purveyed in such
publications as the Catholic Readings. His university education made him
personally more critical as well as more sensitive to the ridicule which the
liberals heaped upon "religious credulity." Don Bosco, on the contrary, could
look upon these "graces" with the untroubled faith of an earlier age. In his reply
to the archbishop, he points out that he had merely transcribed the reports, and
had carefully avoided the labels, "miracle" and "supernatural". Moreover, he had
merely followed the style of the Lives of the Saints, and done what was being
done at other shrines and in their publications. Ceria remarks that the archbishop
was not satisfied with this explanation, and that the argument on the subject
continued for some time. 100
6. Archbishop Federico Aneiros' Visit
Another unpleasant episode concerned none other than Archbishop Federico
Aneiros of Buenos Aires. He arrived in Italy, with a retinue of fifteen people, at
the beginning of June for a fairly extended visit, and Don Bosco acted as his host
and guide till the middle of July when the prelate embarked at Marseilles for
Argentina. After visits and appropriate receptions in Rome and other cities,
Archbishop Aneiros spent a few days in Turin, the honored g uest of the
Salesians. But the way Archbishop Gastaldi and his chancery treated the
distinguished visitor can only be described as "shabby". Archbishop Gastaldi, on
Don Bosco's req uest, gave the visitor permission to hold a pontifical Mass in
the Church of Mary Help of Christians, and then revoked it the following day,
due to a conflict with his own pontifical service in the cathedral. Archbishop
Aneiros called at the archiepiscopal palace twice to pay his respects. The fust
time Gastaldi was not available; the second time he had gone to his country
house. To make amends, Gastaldi invited Aneiros ("alone") to dine with him at
lunch. The invitation was tendered by the archbishop's secretary who did not
deliver the message directly, but consigned it for delivery to an Oratory boy. At
this lack of courtesy, Aneiros, pleading "previous commitments", declined the
invitationIOl It was all very distressing. In letters to Father Cagliero and Father
99 EBM XTJI, 282f.
100 Ceria, Ep IIT, 175f.
101 EBM Xill, 142-152, passim.

4.7 Page 37

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
71
Lasagna Don Bosco gave his missionaries an account of the visit, successful in
all other respects. He expressed his disappointment with Archbishop Gaslaldi's
inexplicable, or perhaps all Loo explicable behavior.102
7. Former Diocesan Seminarian Father Angelo Maria
Rocca
Al this same time another regrettable episode occurred involving Father Angelo
Maria Rocca, and an old wound was reopened. In 1873, Rocca had incurred the
archbishop's displeasure for leaving (or being dismissed from?) the diocesan
seminary. Don Bosco had likewise incurred Gastaldi's ire for harboring the
"fugitive" in the Salesian house of Lanzo. We have conflicting statements
regarding the manner in which Rocca left the seminary. The chancery first
claimed that Rocca had left the seminary "against the archbishop's wishes"; and
later that he had been dismissed from the seminary, as we learn from Canon
Francesco Maffei, the secretary who handled the Rocca affair for the
archbishop. 103 Don Bosco maintained instead that he had left the seminary
because of illness, had been given a few weeks' convalescence al Lanzo, then
went back to his family, and later joined the Salesians. 104 Moreover, as Don
Bosco later had occasion to state emphatically, testimonials had been requested
and had been denied-a claim wh ich the archbishop rejected.105 This last point is
substantiated by Father Rocca himself in a letter to Father Ceria. 106 Eventually,
Rocca joined the Salesians (without obtaining testimonial letters) and was
ordained by Bishop Salvaj of Alessandria. The newly ordained priest wished to
celebrate Mass on the patronal feast of St. John the Baptist, June 24, 1877, in
his hometown of Rivara, a parish of the archdiocese of Turin. When the pastor
102 Letters of June 30 and July 16, 1977, Ceria, Ep III, 194f. and 198-200.
103 Maffei to Rua, November 9, 1877, EBM XIII, 274f. and Maffei to Don
Bosco, December 4, 1877, Documenti XVIII, 396f. in ASC 110, FDBM 1051 B7f.
104 EBM XIII, 274f.
105 Don Bosco to Gastaldi, November 12, 1877, EBM XIII, 279-281. In
this strong letter (which could not but anger the archbishop) Don Bosco explicitly
wrote: "I cannot let go unchallenged the charge [...] that I admitted into the
Congregation without testimonials a seminarian (now Father Angelo Rocca) who had
been dismissed from the respected seminary of Turin. Permit me, Your Excellency, to
remind you that five distinct requests for testimonials were made by the seminarian
Rocca himself; once more they were requested by Father Rua, and once also by me,
and we were never able to obtain them. As a result, following the instructions of the
Sacred Congregation [of Bishops and Regulars] of January 25, 1848 (Collectanea, p.
891) we had recourse to a higher authority."
I06 Letter of March 4, 1931, EBM XIIl, 289, note 26 (emend date).

4.8 Page 38

▲back to top
72
Journal of Salesian Studies
requested the archbishop's permission, as Rocca himself explains, 107 the
chancery demanded information regarding his theological studies, religious
profession, ordination, etc. The reply was found unsatisfactory, and he was
forbidden to celebrate Mass in the diocese. Nevertheless, he later took it upon
himself to offer Mass in an oratory which Don Bosco had allowed (on the
strength of the privilege of private chapel for Salesian houses) to be set up in the
Rocca family's home, part of which had been deeded to the Salesians[!]. The
matter surfaced at the beginning of November, and the chancery was quick to
react and point out the irregularity of the celebration and of Rocca's very
position as a Salesian priest. 108 Don Bosco's explanations (if any were at all
possible under the circumstances), delivered in the already quoted strong letter of
November 12, were rejected. Gastaldi wrote: "The best thing you can do is to
come before your archbishop moved only by humility and charity."109 Later
Canon Maffei was instructed to write to Don Bosco in sternest terms:
In your letter of May 29, 1873 you wrote of Rocca: "Seminarian Rocca
has not been admitted either as a member of our Congregation, or as a
diocesan seminarian, but solely as a patient for a few weeks'
convalescence at the Lanzo school. This was granted him under the
explicit condition that he obtain written permission of his ecclesiastical
superior [if he wished to apply for the Society]." Obviously when a
seminarian deserves to be dismissed from the seminary, he is certainly
unfit for a religious congregation. [...] Your reassurance led His
Excellency to assume that Rocca had left the Salesians. Only recently
did he discover to his surprise that Rocca is now a priest, ordained who
knows by whom? Furthermore, Father Rocca believes he has the
privilege not only of a private chapel but even of a portable altar
[...J.110
The Rocca affair and the bitter and tortuous arguments it evoked clearly show
that by the end of 1877 a meeting of the minds was no longer possible. And
perhaps the clearest indication that the point of no return was not far off is the
fact that each of the parties was willing to stretch the truth, even if only for
argument's sake.
107 Letter to Father Rua, November 7, 1877, Documenti XVIII, 363 in ASC
110, FDBM 1050 010.
108 Maffei to Rua, November 9, 1877, EBM XIII, 1877.
109 Don Bosco to Castaldi, November 12, 1877 (the already quoted strong
letter) Castaldi to Don Bosco, November 23, 1877, EBM XIII, 281.
110 Letter of December 4, 1877, Documenti XVIII, 396f., in ASC 110,
FDBM 1051 B7f.; without date in EBM XIII, 288f.

4.9 Page 39

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
73
8. Father Giovanni Perenchio and Father Giuseppe
Lazzero
Meanwhile an even more serious clash was taking place. It involved Father
Giovanni Perenchio, a priest of the diocese of Ivrea (where Luigi Moreno was
bishop) and by association the vice-director of the Oratory, Father Giuseppe
Lazzero-and, of course, Don Bosco himself. 111
(1) Initial Events
Father Perenchio arrived in Turin on August 3, 1877 with the intention of
joining the Salesian Society and was quickly ad mitted as an aspirant (or
novice?).112 Bishop Moreno suspended him a divinis and sent the document to
the Turin chancery, asking that it be served to him personally. The delivery of
the decree, however, was put off, and an epistolary exchange followed between
Canon Chiaverotti acting for the archbishop and Father Lazzero. In response to
the chancery's expostulations, the latter admitted that Father Perenchio had been
at the Oratory for some time and had been permitted (on the word of an associate
parish priest who was accompanying him) to celebrate Mass. He had asked to
become a Salesian, and steps were being taken to obtain the testimonial letters
from his bishop.
(2) The Archbishop's letter ofAugust 24 and the Salesians' Response
The crucial pressure point was the letLer of August 24, 1877 to Father Rua,
written (according to Chiaverotti 's later statement) under dictation from the
archbishop himself.113 It set the course of the disputes that followed. The letter
made three distinct points: (1) It restrained Father Perenchio from saying Mass;
(2) It questioned the validity of Father Perenchio's admission into the Society
without his bishop's testimonial letters; (3) It stated that "neither Father
Perenchio nor any professed member" might celebrate Mass in churches other
111 The story is told in detail (together with Father Rocca's account) in EBM
XIII, 250-282.
112 In writing to Canon Chiaverotti, Father Lazzero speaks of Father
Perenchio as a novice [Letter of August 25, 1877, EBM XIII, 253] . In a statement
submitted to the chancery in Don Bosco's name, Father Rua s tates that Father
Perenchio "has been admitted as an aspirant to the Congregation" [September 7,
1877, EBM XIII, 259). In writing to Cardinal Ferrieri, Don Bosco speaks of Father
Perenchio as "having been received into the Salesian Congregation" [Letter of
September 14, 1877, EBM XIII, 255). In practice, under the circumstances, il made no
difference.
l13 According to Chi averoui's own statement reported in EBM XIII, 258.

4.10 Page 40

▲back to top
74
Journal of Salesian Studies
than those of the Society without the ordinary's permission.114 The renewed
raising of the long-standing issue relating to the harboring of "foreign" clerics by
Don Bosco and their admission to the Society without their ordinary's consent,
and the unus ually worded prohibition regarding "any professed member"
practically drove the contestants to the brink.
First of all, then, Father Perenchio received a restraining order
forbidding him to celebrate Mass. Thus, even though (as he later statedll5) he
had never been served the decree of suspension, he was nonetheless asked by
Father Lazzero to desist from celebrating. He was then quickly transferred from
Turin to Sampierdarena (Genoa).116
Secondly, the letter raised again the thorny question of the testimonial
letters required for admission of a novice into a religious congregation. Perenchio
was branded as an irregular novice for not having obtained the required
testimonial letters from his ordinary, Bishop Moreno of Ivrea. As in seminarian
Rocca's case, so here Don Bosco later assured Cardinal Ferrieri that testimonial
letters had been requested and denied. He wrote: "[Father Perenchio's) ordinary
was asked for a testimonial letter, but he did not see fit to grant it or even to
send a reply. I then [informed] the Sacred Congregation [of Bishops and
Regulars], in compliance with the papal decree of January 25, 1848."117
In this respect it should be recalled that Don Bosco had obtained a
vivae-vocis-oraculo dispensation from Pius IX in this matter. Don Bosco's
statement to Cardinal Ferrieri is unambiguous: Pius IX had first granted a
limited dispensation with regard to Salesian pupils who wished to enter the
Society, and had subsequently extended the privilege generally. Both concessions
had been recorded with the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.118
Apparently, however, the concessions notwithstanding, Archbishop Gastaldi, and
114 Chiaverotti to Rua, August 24, 1877, Documenti XVID, 211 in ASC
11 0, FDBM 1048 B2; excerpts in EBM XIII, 250-252.
115 Statement quoted in EBM XIII, 277f.
116 EBM XIII, 252.
117 Letter of October 12, 1877, EBM Xill, 266-268.
The September 7 statement, already cited [cf. note 112 above], is nearly
identical: "In conformity with the prescriptions of the Holy See, it was thought
advisable to request a testimonial letter from Father Perenchio's bishop, who did not
see fit to issue one. This is to notify Your Excellency in accordance with the decree
Regulari Disciplinae of January 25, 1848." Bishop Moreno's enduring opposition to
Don Bosco (a matter of record) may explain his refusal to issue testimonial letters for
a priest who had in his view deserted and had joined the enemy. However, Father
Perenchio had already been suspended a divinis, which would obviously negate the
giving of testimonials. Why then was he suspended? Was it for wanting to become a
Salesian, or (as the decree apparently stated) because "he was guilty of misdeeds?"
[EBM XIII, 251)
118 Cf. note 84 and related text, above. For the statement to Cardinal
Fcrrieri, cf. EBM XIIT, 257.

5 Pages 41-50

▲back to top

5.1 Page 41

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
75
for that matter the Prefect of the Roman Congregation, Cardinal Ferrieri,
demanded that the canonical prescription be followed without exception. We have
here a further instance of conflicting positions: papal privilege favoring Don
Bosco over against the Roman Congregation' s canonical practice supporting
episcopal authority. It is in this context (it wou ld seem) that Cardinal Ferrieri's
reply to Don Bosco sho uld be interpreted:
This Sacred Congregation can only exact your strict observance of papal
decrees [of canon law in force] concerning the admission of candidates to
the Salesian Society. You realize how important it is for your institute
that applicants present testimonial letters from their respective
ordinaries, since they inform you of both good and bad points of said
applicants. While your scrupulous adherence to papal decrees on this
matter is urged, it is understood that you are not barred from presenting
the relevant documents on which you seem to base your conviction that
you are dispensed from such observance. 119
In the case of seminarian Rocca and Father Perenchio, however, Don Bosco had
not appealed to this privilege, but (perhaps in order to avoid further irritation) he
had requested the testimonial letters, if only as a formality. One way or the
other, whether in such cases of adm ission he obtained testimonials or not, he
was covered.
In the third place and much more seriously, the August 24 letter
delivered a prohibition which (misconstrued, though clearly in good faith by
Father Lazzero) caused a veritable fracas and much grief to all concerned.
(3) The Fracas of August 26
The letter stated: "Neither [Father Perenchio] nor any professed member may
celebrate Mass in churches which do not strictly belong to the religious order
without the ordinary's permission." Father Lazzero took this to mean that
henceforth Salesians priests in the archdiocese could no longer supply Masses in
the parishes and religious communities they served on Sundays or on weekdays.
It is in this sense that he replied to Canon Chiaverotti. It was a cruel and
unusual retaliatory measure by the archbishop, but the Salesians would abide by
his decision. He added: "I am now hastening to inform [...] pastors to make other
arrangements." 120 It was Saturday afternoon. He waited till Sunday morning for
I l 9 EBM Xffi, 266. These concessions had not been granted by written
brief, but verbally (vivae vocis oraculo); they had then been notified to (and filed
with?) the Roman Congregation [cf. note 11 8 and related text, above].
120 Lazzero to Chiaverotti, August 25, 1877, EBM Xill, 252f.

5.2 Page 42

▲back to top
76
Journal of Salesian Studies
a reply from the chancery; receiving none, he notified the various churches
(parish and religious communities) that the usual Salesian priest would not be
available for Mass, unless "a written permission were obtained from the
ecclesiastical authorities." 121 The result was that a large number of the faithful
were deprived of Mass that Sunday, and the confusion which took place in the
numerous churches where Salesian priests were engaged to celebrate would later
be described by the archbishop as "bedlam in the sacristies." 122
Father Lazzero read the phrase as a general prohibition and no doubt
acted in good faith.123 But Archbishop Gastaldi obviously never expected his
statement to be so interpreted. In fact, he held Father Lazzero fully responsible
and accountable for "the debacle of August 26" and for the scandal given and the
spiritual harm done to the faithful. Consequently, he suspended him from
hearing confessions for eighteen days. Salesians who applied for permission to
celebrate in accordance with a literal reading of the letter were told that the
archbishop had never issued a prohibition in those terms. Some religious
communities likewise were told that the Salesians had permission to say Mass if
they so desired. Through his vicar general , Canon Giuseppe Zappala, the
archbishop requested that Chiaverotti's letter of August 24 be returned, perhaps
for the purpose of verifying its exact wording. It was subsequently given back to
Father Lazzero-accompanied by a decree suspending him for an indefinite period
of time. 124 The archbishop then demanded an apology for "the enormous
121 EBM XIII, 254. Father Lazzero specified that the permission should be
in writing as additional insurance.
122 Memorandum The Archbishop [...} of October 15, 1877, cf. note 131,
below.
123 Don Bosco likewise understood the prohibition at face value. In
submitting to the Holy Father the memorandum he had addressed to Cardinal Ferrieri
earlier, he noted: "The archbishop [...] stated [...] that his letter had been misread.
Yet, anyone who reads it, I think, cannot but perceive it as a genuine prohibition"
[EBM XIII, 270].
124 The wording of the prohibition is certainly obscure, and it would indeed
lend itself to a generalized interpretation if understood apart from the wider diocesan
context. No priest coming from another diocese for whatever reason could celebrate
Mass in any church or oratory without presenting his credentials to the archbishop
and obtaining permission. Moreover, the archbishop had stringently laid down, and
had again emphasized the policy in the recent liturgical calendar, that no priest,
diocesan or religious, could celebrate Mass or administer the sacraments in churches
of the archdiocese without his explicit (not necessarily wrillen) permission. This
then is how Castaldi explained the prohibition to Cardinal Ferrieri: "the words
'neither he nor any professed member, etc. ' were added only to state that, even had
Father Perenchio been a novice in good standing or a professed member [...], the
archbishop could still forb id him to celebrate Mass in churches of the diocese. [...]
But the decree did not cancel any formerly issued, explicit authorization on the
strength of which a considerable number of priests had ministered through the years.

5.3 Page 43

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
77
blunder" of August 26 either from Father Lazzero, or Father Rua, or Don Bosco.
The ultimatum for a written apology came on September 9, 1877: If the
Salesians apologized, "the archbishop would consider the distasteful matter
closed to his satisfaction; otherwise he would be forced Lo resort to all necessary
means Lo safeguard his position and authority." In this Jetter, Gastaldi conceded
that Lazzero had not acted in bad faith; but (he added) "flagrant blunders were
committed which, although unintentional, were nevertheless the result of poor
judgment and starry-eyed thinking, and thereby compromised the divine authority
of the bishop and of the ecclesiastical see." In spite of the rhetoric of " divine
authority" and its seeming arrogance, the archbishop (in this writer's view) was
offering a realistic way out of the impasse by conceding that it all had been an
honest, if stupid, mistake.125 The Salesian superiors, however, offered no
apology; for admitting wrongdoing where, in their view there was none, seemed
unacceptable. In a Jetter of November 4, 1877, gentle Father Rua did assure
Canon Francesco Maffei (of the chancery) that the Salesians "were deeply grieved
to learn of His Excellency's vexation caused by last August's unpleasant incident
of the Masses." Such an avowal, however, was not acknowledged, nor was it
intended, as the formal apology requested.126
Be that as it may, an apology might have closed the book on this
particular episode to the archbishop's satisfaction. But there were too many
unresolved issues and too many continuing situations of conflict for it to have
made any difference. The wrangling continued unabated.
(3) Appeals and Counter-Appeals
This episode, added Lo the others that preceded it and accompanied it, occasioned a
lively epistolary exchange throughout the latter half of 1877. Of particular
interest are the leuers addressed by the protagonists to Cardinal Ferrieri, Prefect
of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars-accusations and appeals by
Gastaldi; counter-accusations and counter-appeals by Don Bosco. It was evident
at this point that the final act of the drama was to be played out and come to its
tragic resolution in Rome
Archbishop Gastaldi presented his complaints to the cardinal in three
lengthy and detailed Jeuers which drubbed Don Bosco and the Salesians without
pity. Besides rehearsing the recent vexing episodes, the archbishop accused Don
[...]" [Letter of September 19-28, 1877, Documenti XVIII, 236-243 in ASC 110,
FDBM 1048 03-10; excerpt in EBM XIII, 257f.].
125 EBM XIII, 270 and cf. 259f.
126 Rua to Maffei November 4, 1877, EBM XIII, 272f. Maffei's reply,
November 23, 1877, EBM XIII, 284f.

5.4 Page 44

▲back to top
78
Journal of Salesian Studies
Bosco and the Salesians of unfairly recruiting young vocations, of harboring
"fugitive" clerics, of undermining episcopal authority, of setting up a diocese
within a diocese, of running the archbishop down with clergy and people.127
Twice warned of these attacks by Cardinal Luigi Oreglia (soon to be protector of
the Salesian Society), Don Bosco countered with letters of his own. They were
feeble in tone by comparison, but they were nonetheless an attempt to "set the
record straight" on the recent disagreements. 128 In reply, far from giving Don
Bosco any satisfaction, Cardinal Ferrieri (as already mentioned) merely urged him
to act in accordance with established canonical procedures. 129 And since Don
Bosco kept on citing special privileges received from Pius IX (one of Gastaldi's
constant complaints), he was finally bidden by Cardinal Ferrieri to submit a
complete list of them "so as to aid the eminent cardinals in their review of this
grievance."130 To view this as a hostile act, as Don Bosco's biographers do, is
perhaps unfair. But it is a fact that, among the cardinals, Ferrieri was perhaps the
most sympathetic to Gastaldi's cause, and the least to Don Bosco's.
The accumulated charges against Don Bosco, with particular emphasis
on the Perenchio-Lazzero affair, were the subject matter of a second pamphlet
written and published (anonymously) by the archbishop on October 15, 1877,
for exclusive circulation to Roman cardinals and a select number of bishops. It
was entitled, The Archbishop of Turin and the Congregation of St. Francis de
Sa/es. 131 Don Bosco's reply, consisting of thirty-two observations, was not late
in coming. 132 But by letter of November 25 the archbishop defied Don Bosco to
write, or have anyone write, anything further against him that was not addressed
to higher authority in Rome-this, under threat of suspension from hearing
confessions.133
127 Letters of August 26, and 31, 1877 in ASC 123: Gastaldi e i Salesiani,
FDBM 659 B5-8 and 9-11; brief excerpts in EBM Xlll, 254. The mighty letter of
September 19-28, 1877, Documenti XVIII, 236-243 in ASC 110, FDBM 1050 B8-
C7; brief excerpt in EBM XIII, 257f.
128 Letters of September 14 and October 12, 1877 [EBM XIII, 255f. and
266-268].
129 Letter of October 10, 1877, EBM XIII, 266.
130 Cardinal Ferrieri to Don Bosco, November 14, 1877, EBM XIII, 276.
131 L' arcivescovo di Torino e la Congregazione di S. Francesco di Sales
(detta percib salesiana). Stampato riservato per gli eminentissimi cardinali ed alcuni
arcivescovi e vescovi (The Archbishop of Turin and the Congregation of St. Francis
de Sales, Hence Commonly Called Salesian. Presentation printed exclusively for the
most eminent cardinals and for some archbishops and bishops). Torino: Marietti,
1877. This eleven-page pamphlet dealt chiefly with the grievances pertaining to the
year 1877 [Documenti XVIII, 337-348 in ASC 110, FDBM 1052/A5 -B4; excerpt in
EBM XIII, 269].
132 Documenti XVIII, 349-354 in ASC 110, B5-10.
l33 EBM xm. 285f.

5.5 Page 45

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
79
Even as these exchanges were in progress, the saintly Father Roberto
Murialdo, in a le tter to Archbishop Gastaldi, offered to act as mediator in the
dispute. A little later the Jesuit theologian, Father Luigi Testa, discussed the
possibility of a mediation w ith Gastaldi' s trusted adviser , Fa ther Felice
Carpignano of the Congregation of the Oratory. Ne ither initiative ever advanced
beyond the proJX>sal stage.134
At the beginning of 1878 both Gastaldi and Don Bosco were in Rome
at the time of Pius !X's death and Leo XIII's succession, trying to further their
cause with the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. Back in Turin, on
Attorney Menghini's advice, the archbishop wrote to Father Tommaso Tosa,
O .P., an attorney of the same Congregation, to inquire about the status of the
Salesian Congregation and to sound him out on various other issues. In reply
Tosa specified: (I) that the Salesian Congregation, since its definitive approval
in 1874, enjoyed the basic privilege of immunity from e piscopal jurisdiction
with regard to its internal regimen, in spite of the fact that the body of traditional
privileges had not yet been extended to it; (2) that, without a special privilege,
testimonial lette rs must be obtained for entering religious life, but that an
ordinary may not deny the m to a worthy applicant, whethe r layman or priest, for
the Church upholds personal freedom with respect to religious vocation; (3) that
the " absolute wording" of the letter leading to the disorders of August 26 " at first
sight" justified the interpretation given to it by the Salesians. In conclusion
Tosa exhorted the archbishop to act on his own suggestion (he had apparently
offered tenns for a reconciliation) and make peace.135
But meanwhile another incident had occurred which gave new impetus
to the conflict. At the beginning of December 1877, as if in answer to Gastaldi's
memorandum to the cardinals and his threats of suspe nsion, there appeared the
first anonymous anti-Gastaldi pamphlet, the so-called Salesian Cooperator' s
letter, for which naturally the Salesians were immediate ly held resJX>nsible.136 It
was but the first in a series of anonymous pamphle ts written against the
archbishop. These pamphle ts and the bruising clashes that ensued over their
authorship closed off all avenues of accord, if any still lay open, marking the
point of no return.
134 Muri aldo to Gastaldi, September 18, and Testa Lo Don Bosco, September
29, 1877, EBM XIIl, 261-265.
135 Letter of March 28, 1878, EBM XIII, 395-398.
136 Lettera sull'Arcivescovo di Torino e sulla Congregazione di San
Francesco di Sales [cf. note 146, below].

5.6 Page 46

▲back to top
80
Journal of Salesian Studies
Part III. The Final Phase Of The Bosco-Gastaldi Connict (1878-
1882)
The final phase of the conflict and the conduct of the confrontation were played
out in a new scenario: the "changing of the g uard" and the resulting climate
change in Rome. As already indicated, a changing of the guard, and with it a
climate change, had taken place at the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars in
1876, when Archbishop, then Cardinal, Enea Sbarretti succeeded Archbishop
Vitelleschi as secretary, and Cardinal Innocenzo Ferrieri succeeded Cardinal
Bizzarri as prefect of that Congregation. The difficulties Don Bosco experienced
with Cardinal Ferrieri through 1877 have been described above. It was perhaps
for this reason (beyond Carlo Menghini's ambiguous position) that Don Bosco
in late December 1877 decided to engaged another attorney, Costantino Leonori,
as his new counsel in Rome. 137 But the most important change was the
succession on the papal throne itself: Pius IX died on February 7, 1878 and Leo
XIII was elected pope on February 20. This then is the new scenario in which are
set, over the next four years, the debate over the anonymous pamphlets, the
Chieri affair involving Father Bonetti, the Roman trial, and finally the enforced
Reconciliation (Concordia).
These topics will form the subject matter of this third part of our essay.
1. The Five Anonymous Anti-Gastaldi Pamphlets
The reforms enacted by Archbishop Gastaldi in the archdiocese certainly brought
about good resulLs. But the measures employed, especially his harsh rule by
synods and decrees, his disputed appointments and dismissals, and his frequent
recourse to suspension, made him many enemies. As a consequence some of
them, as it often happens, sought revenge through anonymous writings.
The aforementioned Salesian Cooperator's Letter was the first of these
to appear. The archbishop naturally assumed that the Salesians were involved.
The bitter dispute which ensued spanned the month of December 1877 and the
early part of the year 1878, and was then reinforced by the appearance of further
anonymous writings.
In Don Bosco's and the Salesians' perception, the facts related in the
Leuer were true. This is confirmed by a statement in the Barberis Chronicle,
reflecting Don Bosco's own view.138 But the archbishop, through Canon Maffei,
137 EBM XIII, 395, note 4. Don Bosco seems to have simply dropped
attorney Menghini, who will hereafter appear as Gastaldi's own counsel in Rome.
138 "In the meantime an anonymous author, calling himself "a Salesian
cooperator," published an [open] letter (which see) in defense of Don Bosco. Its
content is true to fact; but it is presented with some hostility and in a disrespectful

5.7 Page 47

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
81
demanded that Don Bosco publish a repudiation of the offending l ei/er in one of
the leading Catholic newspapers by December 15. Don Bosco had already written
to the archbishop to assure him that neither he nor any Salesian had any part in
its publication, and to express his revulsion at its offensive tone. Now that a
public repudiation was demanded, he wanted to know what specifically he should
repudiate apart from its insolent tone.139 On December 18, Don Bosco left for
Rome; from there he kept in touch with developments in Turin. The Chapter of
Canons in a statement of support addressed to the archbishop condemned the
l etter, but advisedly refrained from mentioning Don Bosco or the Salesians. The
fourteen city pastors, on the other hand, were split over the issue and did not
address a collective letter to the archbishop.140 Gastaldi meanwhile did not reply
to Don Bosco; instead, he published a rebuttal to the l etter (in twenty points)
and sent it to Cardinal Oreglia. 141 The latter sho wed it to Don Bosco in Rome
on December 26. 142 In response to appeals received, Cardinal Ferrieri forbade the
Salesians and their Cooperators to publish anything having to do with the
dispute, now before the Roman Congregation.
S ince the l ette r was b y now in the public domain , Don Bosco
composed a carefull y worded disclaimer, intended for the press, in which on his
own and on the Salesians' behalf he condemned " the offensive language and
scurrilous style" of the l eller. This wo uld be the statement reported in the
Biographical Merrwirs as that purportedly published in the January 1878 issue of
the Salesian Bulletin. 143 and praised by Father Massimiliano Bardessono. But
the state ment actually published in the Salesian Bulletin is considerably
manner. The archbishop took great offense [...]" [Barberis, Cronichella, Note Book
13, p. 17f. in ASC 110, FDBM 845 C2f.].
139 Maffei to Don Bosco, December 5; Don Bosco to Castaldi, December 9,
Maffei to Don Bosco; December 10; Don Bosco to Castaldi, December 12, 1877
[EBM XIII 291-294].
140 Documenti XVIII, 426f. in ASC 110, FDBM 1051 Dl lf.
14 1 Risposte alle accuse della lei/era stampata a Torino coi tipi di Camilla e
Bartolero (A Reply to the Accusations Contained in the Lei/er Published in Turin by
the Printing House of Camilla and Bartolero). Turin, December 21, 1877, Documenti
XVIII, 430-433 in ASC 11 0, FDBM 1051 E3-6.
142 The date according to Father Berto's notes, in ASC: 123 Castaldi e i
Salesiani, FDBM 662 C4.
143 EBM XIII, 298.
Father (Abbe) Massimiliano Bardessono, esteemed but conservative priest
of the archdiocese and one of Castaldi's "illustrious victims", in a long leller
(otherwise marked by bitter words against the archbishop and his chancery) praised
Don Bosco's Declaration for its calmness, prudence, discretion [January 20, 1878,
Documenti XIX, 52 [51-54] in ASC llO, FDBM 1053 D2 [I -4]; excerpt in EBM XIII,
298]. For a negative judgment on Bardessono and his leuer, cf. Toninetti, Castaldi II,
p. 61.

5.8 Page 48

▲back to top
82
Journal of Salesian Studies
different. Before condemning the language and style of the letter, this declaration
(now no longer from Don Bosco in the first person) expresses the Salesians'
gratitude to the anonymous writer for rising in defense of the Society, and denies
none of the accusations made in the letter.144
The Cooperator's letter was by no means the worst of the five
anonymous anti-Gastaldi publications of the period 1878-1879. In the interest of
clarity we will immediately list and give a brief description of the five pamphlets
which concern our discussion:145
(1) The Cooperator's letter Uust discussed), early December 1877.146
This short (three-page) expose is concerned with Gastaldi's harassment of the
Salesian Society from 1873 to the time of writing.
(2) The Chaplain's First Strenna, April 2, 1878.147 This first "literary
offering" to the clergy by "the Chaplain" consisted in a "review" of the diocesan
liturgical calendar for that year. The calendar was the normal vehicle used by
Gastaldi to address the clergy on various topics. The Chaplain lambasts the
archbishop's pastoral policies and directives, with special reference to his
opposition to the Salesians.
(3) The Chaplain's Second Strenna, March 1879. 148 Entitled "The
Rosminian Question," this second offering to the clergy by the Chaplain was a
144 Bollettino Sa/esiano 2:1 (1878), p. 12, ASC 73 Bollettino, FDBM 107
B2: "We, for our part, are grateful to this unidentified writer, and we thank him for
having been willing to speak out in our defense [...]. On the other hand we
unreservedly disapprove of the kind of language (disapproviamo a/tamente il modo)
he used in speaking of the archbishop of Turin."
As l ater revealed by Father Turchi and as wi ll be discussed below, the
mystery author was none other than Father Giovanni Battista Anfossi, a alumnus of
the Oratory and a close friend of the Salesians..
f45 Cf. EBM XV, 186-188.
146 Lellera sull'Arcivescovo di Torino e su//a Congregazione di San
Francesco di Sales. Un po' di luce (Leller on Archbishop Castaldi and on the Salesian
Congregation. To Shed Some Light). Turin: Tip. Camilla e Bartolero, [no date], 3 p.
It is addressed to a "vicar'', who had sent the author a copy of Gastaldi's pamphlet
L' Arcivescovo di Torino in which Gastaldi related his benefactions toward the
Salesian Society [cf. note 96, above]. The writer signs himself as " an alumnus of the
Oratory who prides himself on being a Salesian Cooperator" [Documenti XVIII, 405-
407, in ASC 110, FDBM 1051 C3-5; excerpt in EBM Xill, 290].
14 7 Strenna pel Clero, ossia Rivista su/ Calendario liturgico
dell'Arcivescovo di Torino, scritta da un Cappellano (A Gift/or the Clergy. A Review
of the Liturgical Calendar of the Archbishop of Turin, by a Chaplain). Turin, Tip. G.
Bruno e C., 1878, 88 p. For the purposes of this discussion, it seemed appropriate to
retain the Italian term "strenna." The word means a New Year's gift or offering,
usually in literary form.
148 La Questione Rosminiana e l'Arcivescovo di Torino. Strenna pe/ C/ero,
compilata dal Cappellano, anno II (The Rosminian Question and the Archbishop of

5.9 Page 49

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
83
collection of articles written by Gastaldi in defense of Rosmini and published by
him in his own journal, fl Conciliatore, in the late forties. The object of this
anthology, larded with abusive comments, was to smear the archbishop's name
and paint him as unorthodox.149
(4) The Brief Essay, March 1879.150 Perhaps the most important of the
five writings, this booklet was a systematic attack on Gastaldi for holding and
defending Rosminian doctrine "against the teaching of the Church."
(5) The Chieri Story, May 1879.151 This was a detailed defense of
Father Bonetti and of the Sisters' oratory in Chieri, attacking the archbishop and
the pastor, Father Oddenino, for their opposition and punitive actions. As will
be discussed below the Chieri affair leading to Bonetti's suspension was to
become the cause celebre of the Bosco-Gastaldi conflict.
Globally viewed, these pamphlets, the Brief Essay in particular, were
evil, abusive and libelous concoctions intended to poison people's minds against
the archbishop, and tending even to suborn the clergy: "Your Grace, your actions
have shown you to be unworthy of the post you occupy. Your quarrels with the
Holy See [...] have made you the object of contempt among the clergy and
among the people [...].Resign!" He was accused of being a "rebel" : "Gastaldi
has gone ' off his rocker', that's common knowledge. His Rosminian, rigorist,
disruptive ideas have progressively come to the fore.[ ...] Gastaldi supports
Rosmini; he praises Rosmini's works without exception; he predicts that the
Church will remove the censures of which Rosmini is the object." He has been
treating his priests like dirt he has persecuted Father Bertagna, our "most learned
moral theologian"; Don Bosco, "the gentlest, most humble and most zealous
priest in Turin"; Father Margotti, "Italy's ab lest journalist," th e abbe
Bardessono, "the most skilled, active and honorable preacher in Turin. " 152
Turin. A Gift for the Clergy, by the Chaplain, Year Il). Turin: Tip. G. Bruno e C.,
1879, 144 ,&·
1 For Gastaldi's newspaper, I/ Conciliatore, cf. Lenti in JSS 4 (1993) 6,
based on Tuninetti, Gastaldi I, 53-88.
150 Piccolo saggio sulle dollrine di Mons. Castaldi, Arcivescovo di Torino,
preceduto da una Introduzione e seguito da alcune appendici (Brief Essay on the
Teachings of Archbishop Gastaldi of Turin, with a Foreword and a Few Appendices).
Turin: Tip. Alessandro Fina, 1879, 155 p.
151 L'Arcivescovo di Torino, D. Bosco e D. Oddenino, ossiafalli buffl, serii
e dolorosi, raccontati da un Chierese (The Archbishop of Turin, Don Bosco and Father
Oddenino. Incidents Droll, Serious and Painful narrated by a Resident of Chieri).
Turin: Tip. G. Bruno e C., 1879, 52 p. The foreword of this piece is signed, "Un Padre
difamiglia JHead of a family)."
1 2 Brief Essay, 27 and 38f. in Tuninetti, Gastaldi IT, 280f. and in
Desramaut, Etudes VII, 145, notes 51-53. Giacomo Margotti (1823-1887) was the

5.10 Page 50

▲back to top
84
Journal of Salesian Studies
The Chieri Story, which concerned Father Bonelli, was probably the
least insulling of these wriLings. Nevertheless it delivers some telling blows.
WiLh regard Lo BonetLi's suspension, the auLhor wriLes: "[This suspension
documenl] is well worthy of an archbishop on whose tombstone the names of
many worthy priests, capriciously ruined by his suspensions, will be inscribed.
His epitaph should be: 'Here lies Archbishop - , who deserved to have a rope,
not a cross, hung around his neck."'153
One (though not the only one by any means) of the recurring themes in
these writings was the archbishop's harassment of the Salesians. The pamphlets,
purported to be written in defense of Don Bosco and of other "victims" of the
archbishop, complicated a relationship already strained. Don Bosco was now
caught on the horns of a dilemma: on the one hand, he had to disavow and
condemn such writings, or be regarded as an accomplice; on the other, he felt
duty-bound to denounce as true to the authorities some of the very "misdeeds"
the archbishop was charged with. Thus, forced to condemn only the offensive
manner and the evil purpose of such writings, not the contents as a whole, Don
Bosco came by that very fact under suspicion.
Don Bosco, however, was never directly challenged with regard to the
Chaplain's Second Strenna and the Brief Essay. Perhaps the style and the issues
involved tended to locate them elsewhere. Neither was he apparently specifically
blamed for the Chaplain's First Strenna. With respect to this pamphlet, Father
Barberis included some inLeresting paragraphs in his chronicle for May 1878,
commenting on Don Bosco's and on his own position. Don Bosco had not read
the booklet nor did he know who its author might be; but he had grave
misgivings. Barberis himself apparently admired the Strenna. He also refers to a
mysterious meeting of Don Bosco with Gastaldi. Barberis writes:
Don Bosco has not read the book; in conversation he told us that he had
no time to read it and would not read it. I said that it would be good to
know what it contained; he replied that at the moment he could not
spare the time. (He added:] "Some people have spoken to me about it
and have reported on some of the things it contains. That's all." Asked
if he knew who the author was, or if he had any suspicion in that
regard, he replied that he really had no idea. The fact is that what this
book says is very much to Don Bosco's credit and serves to make his
name ever better known among the clergy. The reverse side of the coin,
conservative editor of the leading Catholic newspaper, L' Unita Cattolica. For
Bardessono, cf. note 143, aboe.
153 Free rendering of: "Qui giace Monsig_nor tale I Cui stava meglio il laccio
che il pastorate" [Chieri Story, 38 in Desramaut, Etudes Vil, 145, note 54].

6 Pages 51-60

▲back to top

6.1 Page 51

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
85
however, causes Don Bosco to have misgivings. The book (or
something else) must have greatly affected the archbishop, for he asked
Don Bosco to go and see him. They had a long conversation: on what,
nobody knows. Later the archbishop himself wrote to say that he would
hold ordinations on Trinity Sunday, and if there were any Salesians to
be ordained, to send them along. Hope for the best.154
The Cooperator's Letter and the Chieri Story, the latter arising out of the Bonetti
affair, to be discussed below, lay "nearest" to the Salesians. Later, Gastaldi's
lawyer sought to establish a Salesian connection with the other pamphlets as
well. But for the duration, after the hubbub surrounding the publication of the
Cooperator's Letter, the fires of discord seemed to die down somewhat. This was
due principally Lo the fact that after the accession of Pope Leo XIII, certainly at
his behest, the Holy See was taking matters in hand.
Shortly after the election of Leo XIII, and the consistory held on March
3, Don Bosco and Gastaldi were both back in Rome. On March 5, Gastaldi had a
long audience with the pope. In the audience granted to Don Bosco on March 16,
1878, when the subject of the dispute with Gastaldi came up, Leo XIII told Don
Bosco that he was expecting a report from the Congregation of Bishops and
Regulars, and that he had a plan for a settlement which would be acceptable to
both parties. 155
The Congregation of Bishops and Regulars meanwhile had examined
the privileges for which Don Bosco, on order from Cardinal Ferrieri, had
submitted documentary proof. The new approved list showed that many
concessions had been canceled, including that relating to testimonial letters. The
Roman Congregation, on March 22, 1878, also acted on a six-poi nt petition
which Gastaldi had presented on December 27, 1877. The request which
accompanied Gastaldi's petition is revealing: " I do not ask for more and earnestly
beg the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars to refrain from any
investigation of past incidents, since I gladly forgive Don Bosco [...], in order
that things may proceed peacefully from now on." The Roman Congregation's
decision was in Gastaldi's favor. Don Bosco and the Salesian Society had to
154 Barberis, Cronichella, Note Book 13, 38f. in ASC 110, FDBM 845
D11f.
155 Don Bosco immediately drafted a report of the audience and attached it to
the Jetter he wrote to Cardinal Oreglia, newly designated Protector of the Salesian
Society [Letter of March 25, 1878, Ceria, Ep ill, 327-332]. The subjects covered in
the audience were : the church of St. John the Evangelist and other undertakings; the
pope's "enrollment" as a Salesian Cooperator, and the need to work for young people
at risk; a cardinal Protector (Cardinal Oreglia); "unfinished business" regarding the
Salesian Society, and the difficulties with Archbishop Gastaldi; favors, advice, and
bl ess i n g.

6.2 Page 52

▲back to top
86
Journal of Salesian Studies
abide by the Church's law and practice and respect the ordinary's right in the
matter of testimonials, preaching and the administration of the Sacraments,
publicizing "miracles", the celebration of Mass, and in all other areas of
episcopal jurisdiction. Attorney Leonori informed Don Bosco of these decisions,
urging him to abide by them and to seek an understanding with Archbishop
Gastaldi. 156 Don Bosco called on the archbishop, and the latter appeared quite
forthcoming.157
It was at this point that hostilities flared up again on account of a series
of events involving Father Giovanni Bonetti.
2. The Bonetti-Gastaldi Confrontation: Origin and Early
Development to Father Bonetti's Suspension (1878-1879)158
Giovanni Bonetti had been one of the early followers of Don Bosco, and at 17
years of age a slightly older companion of Dominic Savio. At the founding of
the Society on December 18, 1859, Bonetti, not yet ordained, had been elected a
council member. In 1878, at 40 years of age, he was one of Don Rosco's most
trusted collaborators. He was quick-witted and intelligent, yet somewhat
simplistic in his perceptions; emotional and daring even to rashness; a facile, yet
incisive, writer of unquestionable Roman Catholic, ultramontane persuasion.
Don Bosco was not afraid of such temperament; on the contrary, he admired
Bonetti and had all along encouraged his penchant for action. In 1877 he had
appointed him editor in chief of the nascent Salesian Bulletin. In that capacity
Bonetti came to share with Father Giacomo Margotti, the conservative editor of
the daily, I' Unitd Cattolica, the reputation of being the scourge of the liberal
establishment.
Like other Salesians, Bonetti had also come to regard Gastaldi and his
chancery as "the enemy". In the conflict everything had to be either black or
white, either good or evil, with no middle ground. It was his adamant conviction
that the Salesian Society was God's work; hence, anybody or anything opposed
to it had to be from the devil.
Father Bonelli was instrumental in putting the conflict on a new
footing, first as editor of the Salesian Bulletin and later as director of the girls'
oratory run by the Salesian Sisters at Chieri.
156 EBM xm, 432-435.
157 EBM xm, 435f.
158 For this section I am guided by Desramaut, Etudes VII, 32-38, 105-108.

6.3 Page 53

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
87
(1) Father Bonetti, the Salesian Bulletin and a Menwrial to Pius IX
In the April, 1878 issue of the Salesian Bulletin, at Don Bosco's express
request, Bonetti published an article on the church of St. John the Evangelist, in
its initial stages at the time, describing it "as a monument to the memory of
Pius IX." This set him in opposition to Archbishop Gastaldi; for the archbishop
supported Father Leone Prato, who was at the time engaged in the construction
of the church of St. Secundus with its rival claim of being the archdiocese's own
"monument to the glorious Pius IX." Gastaldi may at one time have believed, as
some letters of Don Bosco to Rome seem to indicate, that the Salesians would
surrender that honor to St. Secundus.159 But he was wrong. The June issue of
the Salesian Bulletin carried a stronger article entitled, "In Defense of the Church
[of St. John the Evangelist] as a Monument to Pius IX."160 It was a transparent
attack aimed at Father Prato and at the archbishop. Don Bosco disliked debates
through the press, and, as recorded in the Barberis chronicle, he let Father Bonetti
know his feelings on the matter.161 But the thrust had struck home.
A first strong letter from the archbishop put Don Bosco on notice that
Bonetti's articles were regarded as insolent. He first asked Don Bosco to supply
him with exact information as to the laying of the comer stone of the church of
St. John the Evangelist, a ceremony over which he intended to preside himself.
Next he forbade the editor of the Salesian Bulletin ever again to refer to the
church of St. John the Evangelist "as a monument to Pius IX." He reminded
Don Bosco that as bishop he was teacher in his church, and that Catholic
journalists are not to usurp that role:
I ask you again, and I insist, that you tell the editor of the Salesian
Bulletin to leave the archbishop of Turin and the other bishops alone.
The arrogance with which some self-styled Catholic journalists usurp
the role of teachers, censors, judges and chastizers of bishops is
159 Cf. e.g. Don Bosco's letter of May 28, 1878 to the Secretary of State,
Cardinal Alessandro Franchi, Ceria, Ep III, 348f. This letter was written, in response
to one by the cardinal, and to counteract Gastaldi's own letters to Rome complaining
about the church of St. John the Evanglist and about the Salesian Bulletin. After
stating that the Salesian Bulletin was a publication of St. Vincent's orphanage in
Sampierdarena (Genoa), hence not under Gastaldi's jurisdiction, Don Bosco writes: "I
am not competing with anyone; other people are competing with me [...]. However,
the archbishop has been assured that [...] in the future no mention will be made of the
church as a monument to Pius IX. We promised this in spite of the fact that the
Salesian Cooperators regard the prohibition to build a monument to the memory of
the founder of their association as unjust."
160 Bollettino Salesiano, June 1878, 4f.; excerpt in EBM XIII, 453.
161 Barberis, Cronichetta, May 18, 1878, Note Book 13, 61-64 in ASC
110, FDBM 846 AlO-Bl.

6.4 Page 54

▲back to top
88
Journal of Salesian Studies
scandalous and most damaging to our holy religion. The mission,
"Docete omnes gentes," was given to bishops. Therefore, I regard such
arrogance as working against religion and as leading to schism. I
condemn it with all my might. Likewise, tell your editor never again to
publish any news, notice, invitation or exhortation that makes reference
to the above-mentioned church as a "memorial to Pius IX." 162
Instead of obeying, Bonetti (as the "editorial staff') responded by publishing a
letter to Don Bosco, questioning the archbishop's statements, not without some
biting irony, that he had ever written irreverently or ever played the teacher, the
censor, etc. of bishops.163 Five days later, Don Bosco forwarded this letter to
Gastaldi with the note that he was doing so not because he approved of it, but
"solely for the archbishop's information." 164 Under the circumstances, the clever
formula could not hide the fact that Don Bosco, at the risk of provoking the
archbishop, was taking his man's side. Bonetti had after all written in response
to the warning which Don Bosco himself had received. Don Bosco then "stuck to
his guns" when, on the occasion of the blessing of the comer stone of the church
of St. John the Evangelist on August 14, 1878, in the presence of the
archbishop, he spoke of " this memorial of love and thanks to the great Pius IX,
[...] th is church which we now erect in honor of the beloved apostle and in
memory of Pius IX, who bore the name of John."165 This added fuel to the
debate. Four days after the laying of the cornerstone, the Vnita Cattolica carried
an article entitled, "The Church of St. Secundus in Turin," in which this church
was presented as "a monument to the memory of Pius IX."166
(2) Father Bonetti and the Salesian Sisters' Oratory of St. Theresa in
Chieri
At this point, on September 24, 1878, Don Bosco named Father Bonetti
spiritual director of the girls' oratory run by the Salesian Sisters at Chieri, a
decision that was to have grave consequences.167
162 Leuer of July 20, 1878, Documenti XIX, 202f. in ASC 110, FDBM 1056
A8f.; excerpt in EBM XIII. 454.
163 "The Editorial Staff of the Salesian Bulletin to Don Bosco,"
Sampierdarena, August 1, 1878, EBM XIII, 458-460.
164 Leuer of August 6, 1878, Ceria, Ep III, 373f.
165 EBM XIII, 463f.
166 Unita Cattolica, August 18, 1878, Documenti XIX, 225f. in ASC 110,
FDBM 1056 C7f.
167 For the story of this foundation and its problems, cf. EBM XIII, 537-
540 (where documents are omitted).

6.5 Page 55

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
89
The Oratory of St. Theresa had been established in the house of the
Bertinetti family in Chieri and had been approved by Archbishop Gastaldi on
June 18, 1876. The pastor of the Duomo, Father Andrea Oddenino, had expressed
his misgivings about this work, but the archbishop assured him that he would
stand by him in case of any trouble, and that all rights of the parish would be
safeguarded. In establishing the work, the archbishop's action favored Don Bosco
rather than Father Oddenino. With the archbishop's delegation, then, Oddenino
proceeded to the blessing of the chapel on July 20, 1878. Don Bosco, however,
thought it his right to bless a chapel in his own house, since the Salesian
Sisters belonged to the Salesian Congregation. Thus he greatly resented this
action by the archbishop. He records his disappointment in writing to Bishop
Pietro De Gaudenzi: "A good, resounding slap in the face would have been less
humiliating for me than my being refused permission to bless that chapel." 168
Furthermore, as was to be expected, the archbishop's instructions specified that
religious services in the chapel were to be held only occasionally and were never
to conflict with parish services.
"Unfortunately", the oratory was a huge success, also due to the fact
that the parish lacked any sort of youth activity for the girls. The young and
dynamic Salesian Sisters, supported by Father Bonetti's zeal and irrepressible
enthusiasm, created a bustling center of activity for the girls of the area. Besides
providing the traditional activities of a Salesian oratory, the Sisters added an
educational dimension. Sunday classes were started to teach the girls, especially
poor young girls who worked in Chieri's many small factories, to read and write.
The classes were instantly popular. By December the girls attending the oratory
activities numbered about 400. Obviously the parish was to that extent the loser.
The clergy of Chieri stood divided over the activities of the oratory. A
group, among whom a Canon Matteo Sona stood out, strongly supported the
work. Riding this crest of popularity, Father Bonetti, naively enough, thought
that he had won the day. Father Oddenino's protest, however, first by word of
mouth and then by letters, was not long delayed. In early December he wrote to
both Don Bosco and the archbishop. 169 The complaint was that religious
services at St. Theresa's were being held "at the same time" as those at the
parish . This was in defiance of the understanding that had been reached.
Answering for Don Bosco, Bonetti explained to Oddenino that the services at the
oratory in Chieri were the norm in every oratory, and no one had ever
complained. Furthermore, the January 1879 issue of the Salesian Bulletin carried
an article by Father Bonetti entitled: "A Hope Not Unfulfilled: St. Theresa's
Oratory at Chieri." After describing the victorious progress of the oratory, he
168 Letter of October 6, 1878, Ceria, Ep ID, 392.
169 Oddenino Lo Don Bosco, December 3, 1878, Documenti XLV, 6 in ASC
110, FDBM 1194 C6; summ arized in EBM Xill, 539.

6.6 Page 56

▲back to top
90
Journal of Salesian Studies
concludes: "For a complete picture, I should perhaps also speak of someone who
has recently led the opposition against the Oratory. I may do so in a future issue,
if that seems appropriate."170 That someone (Father Oddenino) immediately
canceled his subscription.171
At this time, without publicity and with gentle Father Rua acting as a
buffer, Don Bosco threw his full support behind Father Bonetti. Father Rua
wrote to the archbishop enclosing a copy of the decree by which Pius IX had
given the Salesians faculty to celebrate Mass, to hold catechetical instruction,
and to give Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament in all their churches and
oratories. 172 Respectful as the letter was, it was no "masterpiece of diplomatic
finesse," as Ceria would have it, for the mere mention of privileges granted to
Don Bosco by Pius IX (in circumstances which Gastaldi regarded as dubious)
simply infuriated the archbishop, especially when such concessions were a cause
or an occasion of disorder.
In the middle of January 1879, the archbishop tried to arbitrate the
dispute in person. He went to Chieri and consulted the pastor and the canons.
But Bonetti's penchant for "picking a fight" was to prove his undoing. A few
days later, ever more sure of his ground, he forwarded a letter to Father Oddenino,
asking him to desist from his hostile attitude toward the St. Theresa's Oratory
for the greater good of souls and so as not to give encouragement to malevolent
people. 173 Father Oddenino, shocked and offended, denounced the letter to the
archbishop.
Thus it was that on February 12, 1879, Archbishop Gastaldi, as he was
in the habit of doing in similar circumstances, at least as a temporary measure,
suspended Father Bonetti from hearing confessions. This was the beginning of a
bitter conflict, in which Bonetti 's arrogance and contentious spirit were to take
Don Bosco himself to lengths he could not have anticipated in 1879.
2. Development of the Bonetti-Gastaldi Controversy with
Don Bosco's Involvement (1879-1880) 17 4
With Father Bonetti's suspension, Don Bosco's own position with respect to the
archbishop became more complex and precarious. The latter did not lack good
will, whatever the Salesians may have thought. But the fact that Bonetti "had to
be defended" placed Don Bosco in frontal opposition. The battle was joined both
170 Bollellino Salesiano, January 1879, p. Sf. in Desramaut, Etudes VII, 37.
171 Oddenino to Don Bosco, December 28, 1878, Documenti XLV, 7f. in
ASC 110, FDBM 1194 C7f.
172 Rua to Gastaldi, January 1879, EBM XIV, 171.
173 Letter of January 20, 1879, Rehabilitation, 14f. in ASC 123: Persone,
Gastaldi e i Salesiani, FDBM 635 Dllf.; referred to in EBM XIV, 171f.
174 Also for this section I am guided by Desramaut, Etudes VII, 105-112.

6.7 Page 57

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
91
in Turin and Rome; it involved not only the protagonists but also those who
supported and those who opposed on other grounds the reformer-archbishop
whose strong disciplinary attitudes had alienated quite a number of the clergy in
Turin and throughout Piedmont.
In February 1879 Don Bosco (already for some time away from Turin)
set out for Rome, "at the Holy Father's request."175 He arrived there accompanied
by Father Bonetti, who needed to get away from the diocese. A letter to a
cardinal (in Berta's hand) seems to indicate that Don Bosco had already
undertaken Bonetti's defense, but it is not certain.176 Five Chieri canons
(perhaps not on friendly terms with Father Oddenino) had written a letter in
support of Father Bonetti.177 On March 6 (1879) Bonetti petitioned Leo XIII to
be released from the suspension.178 At the same time (on March 7), without
mentioning Bonetti, Don Bosco petitioned Leo XIII for two favors: that Salesian
priests already approved in one diocese for the confessions of the faithful be
allowed to hear confessions in the Salesian house where they lived through
simple deputation from their superior; that parochial faculties granted by Pius IX
to superiors of Salesian houses be renewed. t 79 These privileges would have
helped solve Father Bonetti's problem in Chieri, for he was both confessor and
superior in a "Salesian house."180
In Turin meanwhile Archbishop Gastaldi was giving tokens of his good
will toward the Salesians. On February 20, he and two canons appeared
unannounced at a play given at the Oratory, to everybody' s satisfaction. 181 At
the middle of March, the archbishop declared his willingness to restore Bonetti's
faculties, though he believed it unwise for Bonetti to return to Chieri. Father
Rua wrote to Bonetti in Rome:
For your guidance and Don Bosco's, I have some news. The archbishop
has asked me to notify you that you may hear confessions any time you
wish. As for picking up the document, you have to wait until after
Easter, as is customary. During the interview the archbishop said:
"Father Bonetti is a good priest, but it is not wise that he should return
175 Don Bosco to Professor Pietro Vallauri, February 9, 1879, Ceria, Ep ill,
444.
176 Undated (but written in February 1879), EBM XIV, 174f.
I 77 Letter in Rehabilitation, S ummarium, 20f. in ASC 123: Persone,
Gastaldi e i Salesiani. FDBM 635 E5f.; excerpt in EBM XIV, 175.
178 Petition, in Rehabilitation, Summarium, p. 23-25 in ASC 123: Persone,
Gastaldi e i Salesiani, FDBM 635 E8-10.
179 In IBM XIV, 705f. and 707, Appendices 10 B and D (omitted in EBM).
180 Cf. note 283 and related text, below.
l 8l Carlo Cays to Don Bosco, February 21, 1879, IBM XIV, 699f.,
Appendix 6 (omitted in EBM).

6.8 Page 58

▲back to top
92
Journal of Salesian Studies
to Chieri. What can I say? [Che mai?] He just can't cope [or, "get
along"] with those priests [Non puo farsela con que/ clero]. I made a
visit there and I summoned the clergy to a meeting. The vicar forane,
the pastor, and several canons (but not Canon Sona) agreed that it
would not be wise for Father Bonetti to return to Chieri."182
Four weeks later, Canon Chiaverotti wrote to Father Bonetti confirming that his
faculties had been restored by the archbishop, on condition that he not go back to
Chieri. 183
Surely this called for a compromise. But Father Bonetti would not
accept the condition.184 On March 24, from Rome he wrote a long public letter
to the "girls of the Oratory of St. Theresa" in Chieri, in which he related the
incidents leading up to his suspension and spoke of the injustice done to him:
" Whether in good or bad faith, by this action [suspension] the archbishop has
done me an injustice: first, because my letter to the pastor cannot be faulted;
secondly, because he failed to give me or my superior, Don Bosco, previous
warning [...]."In a postscript he also involves Don Bosco: "I will only say that
[Don Bosco] is very perturbed, and were it not for the love he bears the city of
Chieri, where he studied as a youth and as a seminarian, he would have closed
this institute long ago[...]."185
Canon Sona was advising Bonetti to resist. 186 Father Bonetti, on the
other hand, undertook a series of actions which cannot be construed as anything
but defiant. On April 30 he went to Chieri to open the month of May with a
public sermon. Back in Turin, after receiving faculties with the same proviso on
May 2, he wrote to the archbishop protesting the condition attached; and on May
4 he again appealed directly to Leo XIII.187 He had already made a first appeal in
182 Letter of March 22, 1879, Documenti XLV, 20 in ASC 110, FDBM
1194, D8; excerpt in EBM XIV, 176. Throughout the conflict, Father Rua acted
discreetly to bring the parties together.
183 Chiaverotti to Bonetti, April 18, 1879 in ASC 123: Persone, Gastaldi e
i Salesiani, FDBM 644 Dll.
184 EBM XIV, 176, where Ceria defends Bonetti for rejecting the condition.
185 Original in ASC 123: Persone, Gastaidi e i Saiesiani, FDBM 633 Bll-
C2, transcribed in Documenti XLV, 21f in ASC 110, FDBM 1194 D9f. Father Ceria
states [EBM XIV, 176] that the letter was confidential to a friend, and that this friend
edited it and made it public. This is contradicted by the original in Bonetti's hand,
which begins with: "Rome, Mar. 24, 1879. - To the Girls of the Oratory of St.
Theresa."
186 Letter of March 28, April 20 and 28, 1879, Documenti XLV, 23f. in ASC
110, FDBM 1194 Dll-E3.
187 Bonetti to Gastaldi, May 2, 1879, Documenti XLV, 28 in ASC 110,
FDBM 194 E4; briefly in EBM XIV, 178; Bonetti to Leo XIII, May 4, 1879,
Rehabilitation, Summarium, 34-43 in ASC 123: Persone, Gastaldi e i Salesiani,
FDBM 636 A7-B4.

6.9 Page 59

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
93
March. The pope gave the matter over to the Congregation of the Council. This
action signals the opening of the file of Bonetti vs. Castaldi with this
Congregation.
The archbishop, irascible and of a violent temper as he was by nature,
could not but show impatience with what appeared to be willful provocation.
Moreover, the appearance at this time of the fifth libelous pamphlet, listed above
as The Chieri Story, made matters worse. As indicated above, this pamphlet
ridiculed the local clergy and the archbishop, while recounting "unfortunate
Father Bonetti's" misadventures. Subtitles show that the pamphlet was meant as
a tirade against the archbishop for suspending a priest unjustly: "An Unheard-of
Sentence," "Nobility and Dignity in Humiliation," "Either Ignorance or Bad
Faith," "Rome Can Do Justice," "Lies and More Lies," etc. Immediately Bonetti
came under suspicion of having had something to do with the defamatory
writing.
The appearance of the pamphlet at this time (with suspicion pointing to
Bonetti) would throw light on an action of the archbishop which the Salesians
have always interpreted as willful, erratic behavior. After receiving a copy of
Bonetti's appeal to Rome, on May 26, Gastaldi had sent for Don Bosco and had
restored Bonetti's faculties without condition. The following day, however,
without any explanation, he revoked the faculties while he "personally conducted
a new investigation" in Chieri. This turn-about the Salesians found
incomprehensible as well as outrageous, as the Biographical Memoirs and
Bonetti's immediate recourse to the Holy Father show. It would be
comprehensible, however, if one supposes that on the morning of May 27 the
archbi shop found the defamatory pamphlet on his breakfast table. This
supposition is strengthened by the fact that, according to the Valdocco chronicle
(which Lemoyne cites in Documenti) the pamphlet came to the knowledge of
Don Bosco and his council at their meeting of May 29, 1879, just two days after
Gastaldi' s sudden reversaJ.188
By this time, Don Bosco had lost all hope that the archbishop would
ever again show himself well disposed toward him. He believed that Archbishop
Gastaldi was the ally of Cardinal Ferrieri in their opposition to the Society. The
latter had made extensive objections to Don Bosco's 1879 Report to the Holy
See on the State of the Society. Some of his objections related to "institutes for
women" and to the Daughters of Mary Help of Christians and their spiritual
direction by Salesians. He makes no reference either to Chieri or to Father
Bonetti, but there may be a hint in his statement that such institutions and their
spiritual direction are under the ordinary's control, and that the Salesians'
188 EBM XIV, 178f.; Gastaldi to Don Bosco, May 27, 1879 and
information, Documenti XX, 203f. in ASC 110, FDBM 1061 05f.; Bonetti's appeal
to Leo XIII, EBM, XIV, 179. Cf. Desramaut, Etudes VIl, 108f.

6.10 Page 60

▲back to top
94
Journal of Salesian Studies
ministry in them "is limited to administering the sacraments and preaching the
word of God, and only as specified by the ordinaries."189
The summer of 1879 was a difficult one for Don Bosco on other counts
as well. It was the summer when the Oratory school was closed down by the
government. Bonetti refers to this event in writing to Attorney Leonori
complaining about his plight and asking for advice: "The government has put us
to the sword , and the archbishop has put us on the cross. We are being
slanderously portrayed as unworthy priests and as betrayers of souls [...].''190
Bonetti was eager to take legal action in Rome against the archbishop. Don
Bosco had to temper his impatience. 191 But then Bonetti decided to make a
fourth appeal to Pope Leo XIII, through Cardinal Nina, Prefect of the
Congregation of the Council and the newly-named Protector of the Salesian
Society. The petition was to be handled by Archbishop Isidoro Verga, Secretary
of the same Congregation, and Attorney Leonori. Don Bosco enclosed an
endorsement of Bonetti, commending him without any reservation as "a
praiseworthy and exemplary religious", and as "a zealous and self-sacrificing
priest" in his ministry in Chieri. 192 However, Archbishop Verga and Attorney
Leonori thought it best not to go to Pope Leo at this time.
Don Bosco took a further step. In January 1880 he appointed Father
Francis Dalmazzo his permanent procurator in Rome. 193 Father Dalmazzo's fust
task was to expedite Bonetti's case before the Congregation of the Council. He
was to act as Don Bosco's representative to the end of the conflict and the
signing of the reconciliation document (Concordia). He too regarded Cardinal
Ferrieri as " the enemy."194
Don Bosco followed this appointment by a personal visit to Rome
(March 12-April 23, 1880), with Father Berto, in order to press for the
privileges, and thus indirectly also to resolve the Bonetti case. When finally,
after a long delay, on April 5, 1880, he was received by the pope, Leo XIII told
189 Cf. Don Bosco's response, August 3, 1879 and January 12, 1880, EBM
XIV, 160-168, esp., 161 and 166-168.
l 90 Letter of July 27, 1879, Documenti XLV, 33f. in ASC 110, FDBM 1194
E9f.; exce~t in EBM XIV, 183.
1 1 EBM XIV, 183f., with excerpts of Bonetti's letters to Archbishop
Isidoro VeVia, Secretary of the Congregation of the Council and to Attorney Leonori.
1 Letter of October 28, 1879, EBM XIV, 184f.
Don Bosco reference to Father Bonetti's conduct confirms what Bonelli
himself writes to Leonori-that his suspension had aroused suspicions that he might
have been §uilty of immoral conduct [cf. EBM XIV, 183 cited in note 191 above].
1 3 Don Bosco to Nina, January 12, 1880, Ceria, Ep ill, 539f., cf. EBM
XIV, 163, 186.
194 Dalmazzo to Rua [January(?) 1880], Documenti XXIT, 69 inASC 110,
FDBM 1069 Cl (mention of audience and of Ferrieri's hostility); EBM XIV, 346-348
(report of Dalmazzo's first audience with Cardinal Ferrieri).

7 Pages 61-70

▲back to top

7.1 Page 61

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
95
him that he was "systematically opposed to the privileges of religious." Don
Bosco settled for having only a few minor ones renewed. 195 Don Bosco felt
slighted by being sent "from pillar to post" to get an audience, by the delays, by
the small concessions obtained. He was especially irked and disappointed by
Cardinal Ferrieri's aloofness and hostility, and he gives vent to his feelings:
Had I been successful, in the past three years, or even this year, in
obtaining an audience with Cardinal Ferrieri, I would have been in a
position to give any required explanation. Such a step would have
prevented much trouble and much harm to our Congregation. But this I
have not been able to do. I cannot hide my bitter and painful
disappointment in not being allowed to explain myself. I and all
Salesians are committed to working for the Church to our dying breath.
I do not ask for material help. I only ask for that consideration and that
charity which [I believe] is compatible with authority in the Church.196
It is under these circumstances (intending it perhaps as a gesture for the Roman
authorities) that on March 28, 1880, Don Bosco accepted the proposal of the
Cardinal Vicar, Raffaele Monaco La Valletta, to take over the construction of the
church of the Sacred Heart, with adjoining "hospice"-the whole "as a
monument to the revered memory of Pius IX."197
195 Berto to Rua, April 8, 1880, and Berto's recollections, EBM XIV, 357-
360; cf. 351.
196 Don Bosco to Dalmazzo, S. Pierdarena, May 7, 1880, Ceria, Ep ill, 585;
cf. comments regarding Ferrieri in EBM XIV, 345f.
197 Berto 's notes, Documenti XXII, 87f. in ASC 110, FDBM 1069 D7f.;
excerpt in EBM XIV, 348.
The traditional version is that Leo Xill requested Don Bosco to talce over the
building of the church of the Sacred Heart when the project had stalled; and the latter
exclaimed "I regard the pope's wish as an order-I obey!" [EBM XIV, 461; cf.
Documenti XXII, 90-92 in ASC 110, FDBM 1069 010-12]. It seems instead that in
his audience with Leo Xill on April 5, 1880, the church was not mentioned [cf. EBM
XIV, 356-359]. Before leaving Rome, however, he wrote a well thought-out proposal
of acceptance for the Cardinal Vicar, asking him to present it to the pope for his
approval and blessing [Memorandum dated April 10, 1880, EBM XIV, 462f.]. The
pope must have been gratified, and we know that Don Bosco went forward with the
project. This was perhaps the real achievement of this visit to Rome [Desramaut,
Etudes VII. 111].

7.2 Page 62

▲back to top
96
Journal of Salesian Studies
3. The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict after the Appearance of
the Defamatory Pamphlets to the Conclusion of the Bonetti
Affair and the Concordia (1880-1882)1 98
The Bonetti-Gastaldi confrontation had proceeded hand in hand with the Bosco-
Gastaldi conflict since 1878. The old issues with related recurring episodes still
remained the cause of irritation and frustration on both sides. But with Don
Bosco's decision to stand by Bonetti to the finish, the two aspects now merged.
Then, as indicated above, the series of defamatory pamphlets appeared, published
at intervals over nearly two years. Readily imputed to the Salesians by the Turin
chancery, in particular by its trial lawyer, Emmanuele Colomiatti, and by the
archbishop himself, they were responsible for the definitive breach. By 1880 all
the strands had came together and coalesced as one-finally to be judged before
the highest tribunal in Rome.
(1) Don Bosco's Definitive Turning Awayfrom Archbishop Castaldi
Psychologically, Don Bosco' s alienation from Gastaldi was already
accomplished. In writing to Bishop De Gaudenzi of Vigevano October 6, 1878,
Don Bosco {still smarting from the "slap" received in not being allowed to bless
the chapel of the Chieri oratory) expressed himself in words which could have
been lifted out of the Chaplain's First Strenna: " As you yourself have said-
poor unfortunate A[rchbishop)! But also, and more so, poor, unfortunate diocese!
And unhappy those who have to stay in the diocese and be in his power (nelle
mani di lui [in his hands)). Let us pray!"199 Some time later (November 1878),
in a conversation dealing with the diocesan synod and with Gastaldi's speech to
the assembly, Don Bosco asked the Salesians who were with him if they
thought that their criticism of the archbishop's speech was sinful. Someone
answered that they were guilty of"idle words." Don Bosco retorted:
Idle words? Not when one [Bosco?] goes through a lot of trouble to
warn the one responsible [Gastaldi?]: "Look out; this grass on which
you feed and on which you pasture your [flock] is poisonous." In order
Lo establish one's defense, is it not necessary to assess the dangers,
survey the terrain, discover what weapons the attacker is likely to
use?200
198 Throughoul this section I am guided by Desramaut, Etudes VII, p.121-
141 and Chron. critique for the presentation, interpretation, and some references.
199 Don Bosco to De Gaudenzi, October 6, 1878, Ceria, Ep III, 391f.
200 Documenti XIX, 255 in ASC 110, FDBM 1057 Al (source unknown);
conversation toned down in the Biographical Memoirs [cf. EBM Xill, 691).

7.3 Page 63

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
97
Don Bosco seems to have meant that the archbishop's course of action was
ruinous for the Church and harmful to the Salesian Congregation; and that he
(Don Bosco) had to find ways of defending himself and the Society against an
enemy. If this is so, one should conclude that, whereas in 1878 and for a part of
1879 Gastaldi was still making overtures, for Don Bosco the parting of the ways
had already been reached.
One may then understand Don Bosco's chagrin when on October 22,
1880, he received a letter from the archbishop rebuking him for the lack of
respect shown him by some of the boys at San Benigno. Unannounced he had
visited that Salesian school with two canons. Some boys in the shops failed to
greet him properly, and some Salesian seminarians on the playground "hastily
ran off' on seeing him. He wanted Don Bosco to remind all in his charge "of the
exalted and divine character of the episcopacy, and of the duty they have [...] to
pay him the homage which is due to him. For the bishop shares our Savior
Jesus Christ's own character. Christ's character is continued on earth in the
person of the bishops, who share with Christ the fullness of the priesthood."201
Did Don Bosco laugh or cry?
(2) Archbishop Castaldi Definitive Break with Don Bosco
The archbishop's definitive break with Don Bosco came in December 1880, and
for a much more serious reason than that incident of mere disrespect at San
Benigno. It was brought about by an unfavorable judgment rendered by the
Congregation of the Council against him in the Bonetti suspension case.
Furthermore, the humiliation of this defeat was aggravated by the manner in
which the decision was conveyed to him. Briefly, this is the story.
After a long delay, Father Bonetti 's case came up before the general
session of the Congregation of the Council about mid-November 1880, perhaps
in consequence of a new appeal made by him directly to the Holy Father.202
Attorney Leonori was duly notified of the proceedings, and without delay he sent
a notification to Don Bosco in Turin. Inexplicably he enclosed also a letter
bearing the seal of the Congregation of the Council addressed to the archbishop
to notify him of the proceedings.203 On December 3, Don Bosco (at San
201 Gastaldi to Don Bosco, October 22, 1880, in IBM XIV, 800, Appendix
62 (omitted in EBM ).
202 EBM XIV, 187: "Tired of being left in suspense for twenty-two months,
Father Bonetti, on November 17, 1880, sent directly to the pope his appeal of
October 24, 1879, which Archbishop Verga had held up" (October 10 is the date
given in Desramaut, Chron. critique, 121).
203 Leonori to Don Bosco, Letter of November 29, 1880, Documenli XLV,
47 in ASC 110, FDBM 1195 All; brief description in EBM XIV, 187f.

7.4 Page 64

▲back to top
98
Journal of Salesian Studies
Benigno at the time) entrusted the task of delivering the letter to Father Luigi
Deppert. The latter tried to do so but was rebuffed. The following day Father
Deppert, accompanied by a confrere as witness, tried again to deliver it to the
archbishop personally. When the latter refused to see them, they left it with a
secretary. But the letter was returned to Don Bosco without acknowledgment204
On December 5, Archbishop Gastaldi wrote to Cardinal Caterini,
Prefect of the Congregation of the Council, to protest in strongest terms the
Congregation's way of handling the notification: "I have been deeply humiliated
and hurt by the way I have been treated." Again he repeated his accusations
against Don Bosco, stressing his ingratitude in spite of all he had done for the
nascent Congregation: "Forgetting my zealous and tireless cooperation, [...] he
keeps persecuting me and never neglects an opportunity to discredit and aggravate
me."205
(3) Castaldi' s Lawsuitfor Libel against Don Bosco and Bonelli
On December 11 (?), 1880, Archbishop Gastaldi received a report of the Roman
Congregation's proceedings in the Bonetti suspension case, and on December 24,
the archbishop in tum notified Bonetti through Canon Chiuso.206 On receiving
the note from Rome, Gastaldi decided, with all the resources at his disposal, to
strike back at Bonetti, Don Bosco, and the Salesians by presenting his own case
against them and prosecuting them for the libelous pamphlets. He proceeded to
build his case by collecting statements from people who were willing to testify
that the Salesians were responsible for the anonymous pamphlets.
(1) In early December both Canon Stefano Lione, vicar forane, and
Father Andrea Oddenino, pastor of the Duomo at Chieri, accused Bonetti of
being the author of the Chieri Story .201
(2) At about the same time, Father Antonio Musso, who was
interrogated at the chancery, connected Don Bosco with one of the pamphlets, by
stating that he had spotted a passage relating to the Convitto affair which
contained information which he had relayed confidentially to Don Bosco.208
204 Deppert to Dalmazzo, December 18, 1880, Documenti XLV, 52f. in ASC
110, FDBM 1195 B4f.; brief description in EBM XIV, 188f.
205 Gastaldi to Caterini, December 5, 1880, in Documenti XLV, 49f. in ASC
110, FDBM 1195 Blf.; excerpt in EBM XIV, 189.
206 Letter in Documenti XLV, 54 in ASC 110, FDBM 1195 B6; excerpt in
EBM XV, 154.
207 Lione to Gastaldi, Chieri, December 5, 1880, and Oddenino to Gastaldi,
December 13, 1880, Rehabilitation, Summarium Add., lf., and 5-8 in ASC 123:
Persone, Gastaldi e i Salesiani, FDBM 636 C5f. and 2-12, with indignant hand-
written marginal notations.
208 Deposition by Giuseppe Corno, a secretary of Gastaldi, in the
Processiculus of June 28, 1917 in Desramaut, Etudes VII, 124, 147, note 80.

7.5 Page 65

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
99
(3) Far more damaging to Don Bosco was the testimony given by a
priest of the Pious Schools, Father Luigi Leoncini. He stated that conversations
he had with the ex-Jesuit Antonio Pellicani tended to show: [i] that Pellicani had
been encouraged by Don Bosco to write against Gastaldi; [ii] that Pellicani had
denied having accepted Don Bosco's "proposition"; [iii] but that, after comparing
a book written by Pellicani with the Chaplain's First Strenna, he was convinced
that Pellicani was its author, and hence the author also of the Second Strenna.209
Armed with these "testimonies", on December 29, Archbishop Gastaldi
replied to the note from Rome, and to Cardinal Caterini, with an immense brief.
After recalling again his benevolence and liberality toward Don Bosco and his
Society, he formally accused Don Bosco and Father Bonetti of complicity in the
compilation of the pamphlets .210 Thus it was that the conflict over the
pamphlets (lo which the Bonetti case was also attached) became officially a
criminal laws uit.
At the same time, the representative of the Holy See in Turin,
Monsignor Gaetano Tortone, sent in a report on the Chieri affair and suspension,
which was generally unfavorable to Bonetti. Among other things, he faulted the
Salesians for acting without due regard to "the ecclesiastical authority."211 Such
a judgment was bound to make Gastaldi's charges more believable.
In January 1881, to conduct his lawsuit at the Congregation of the
Council, Gastaldi appointed his thirty-four-year old trial lawyer (avvocato
fiscale), Canon Emmanuele Colomiatti. Although the Salesians "have reckoned
him with the wicked," he was, according to Tuninetti, "an honest and competent
person."212
The Processiculi (little Processes) were secret investigations held during
the Process of Don Bosco's Beatification between 1915 and 1922. They were made
necessary b~ Colomiatti's depositions against Don Bosco.
20 For the story, cf. EBM XV, 191f. This would remain Gastaldi's position,
supported by Leoncini, in the end disavowed by Pellicani. In any case, Leoncini's
deduction was wrong for, as will be indicated below, Father Turchi (who was also
interrogated at the time) later confessed to authoring the First Strenna and
contributiny to the Second Strenna.
2 O Gastaldi to Caterini, December 29, 1880, Documenti XLV, 55-64 in
ASC 110, FDBM 1195 B7-C4; excerpt in EBM XV, 190.
211 Tortone to Holy See, December 30, 1880, Documenti XLV, 65-68 in
ASC 110, FDBM 1195 C5-8, where printed within the text one reads also
parenthetical disparaging remarks about the author.
212 Tuninetti, Castaldi II, 64: "That he was a competent and honest person
is substantiated by his subsequent career [...]. " Tuninelli then mentions honors
bestowed on him by Gastaldi's successors, Cardinal Alimonda and Archbishop Davide
Riccardi.

7.6 Page 66

▲back to top
100
Journal of Salesian Studies
(5) Colomiatti' s Proposal for an Out-Of-Court Settlement of the
Bonetti Case
On February 4, Colomiatti arrived in Rome to take charge of the defense in the
suspension case, and of the prosecution (of Don Bsoco and Bonetti) for the
pamphlets. He went to work immediately with unbounded energy and
consummate skill. He immediately obtained access to Bonetti 's file at the
Congregation of the Council; by February 8 he had already obtained an audience
with Leo XIII, thanks to the pope's chamberlain, Monsignor Luigi Macchi (the
same who had left Don Bosco to cool his heels for weeks the previous year).
And after discussing the case with Leo XIII, Colomiatti immediately reported to
Gastaldi. Two days later (February 10) he visited Cardinal Nina, Protector of the
Salesian Society. In this interview, Colomiatti proposed an out-of-court
settlement of the suspension case which he had already suggested in his report to
Gastaldi.21 3 Cardinal Nina was at first more inclined to let the lawsuit run its
course at the Congregation of the Council. But on second thought he accepted
Colomiatti's proposal and immediately wrote to Don Bosco advising him to
seek an out-of-court settlement of the Bonetti case.214 Don Bosco (in France at
the time) remained unconvinced, and his reply to Cardinal Nina reveals his
misgivings.215 He also wrote to Father Rua on the same day instructing him to
present to Colomiatti his reasons for refusing the offer-a position that was to
remain unchanged until the pope "ordered" the "reconciliation":
[...] I have never wanted anything more than to close the book on this
and other unhappy affairs. And I don't see any simpler way of doing
this than the one already outlined last year: namely that the archbishop
remove a suspension which he has already removed once and then
immediately reapplied.216 Now, however, there is an added serious
obstacle, namely, the action which Dr. Colomiatti is threatening us
with-that is, should Don Bosco not agree to negotiate for a
settlement, the archbishop will sue him for libel on the basis of the
pamphlets published against him. I reject this threat with its
213 Colomiatti to Gastaldi, February 8, 9 and 10, 1881, ASC 123: Gastaldi e
i Salesiani, FDBM 645 D4-E4.
214 Nina to Don Bosco, February 10,1881, IBM XV, 707f., Appendix 15
(omitted in EBM). Colomiatti's actions in Rome are reported in EBM XV, 156f. Ceria
may be wrong in thinking that Colomiatti made his proposal because he had a weak
case [p. 157]. Colomiatti may well have preferred an out-of-court settlement, even
though he felt he could have won the case.
215 Don Bosco to Nina, February 27, 1881, EBM XV, 157f. (date in
Documenti XLV, 74 in ASC 110, FDBM 1195 D2.).
216 Cf. note 188 and related text, above.

7.7 Page 67

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
101
implications-namely, that we are in any way responsible for these
publications. I have had no part in them, either directly or indirectly. I
feel all the more forced to take this position by the fact that I am under
a similar threat repeatedly made against me by the archbishop: namely,
that if Don Bosco, either personally or through others, whether by
printed or hand-written documents (except if addressed to the Holy
Father or to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars) at any time
speaks against the archbishop, he incurs automatic suspension. [. ..]
You may present these ideas of mine to the Rev. Dr. Colomiatti
[ ... ].217
Later, on his way back from France, responding to a pressing letter from
Colomiatti, Don Bosco himself restated his position in writing.218
Meanwhile Father Rua was working quietly and cautiously to bring the
parties closer Lo a reconciliation. As letters and meetings followed one another,
the goal appeared to be that of gelling the parties to drop all legal action (not
just the Bonetti lawsuit) and request the Roman congregation to return the briefs.
This would pave the way for a negotiated settlement.21 9 At one point Rua may
have thought to have made a breakthrough. For on May 27, following an
encouraging letter from the archbishop,220 Don Bosco had a long meeting with
Colomiatti, in which (so he believed) a verbal agreement was reached that all
legal action would be dropped. On that basis he handed Colomiatti a handwrillen
statement (pertaining to the Bonetti lawsuit) which was meant as a working text
to which the archbishop would respond. That would serve as a basis for
developing petitions to the Congregation of the Council to drop all legal action.
The working statement ran as follows::
I, the undersigned, in my capacity as Rector of the Pious Salesian
Society, satisfied that the maller outstanding between Father Giovanni
Bonetti and His Grace the Archbishop has been resolved amicably
(ultimata amichevolmente), begs His Eminence, the Cardinal Prefect of
the Sacred Congregation of the Council, to return the documents
relating to the legal action.221
21 7 Don Bosco to Rua, February 27, 1881, Ceria, Ep IV, 28.
218 Don Bosco to Colomiatti, Alassio, April 5, 1881, EBM XV, 161f.
219 For some ofRua's moves at this point.cf. EBM XV, 160-163. Desramaut
[Chron. critique, 126-128] lists as many as ten.
220 Letter of May 10, 1881, Documenti XLV, 82 in ASC 110, FDBM 1195
DlO; exce~t in EBM XV, 164.
2 1 Ceria, Ep IV, 58, note l; excerpt in EBM XV, 164f.

7.8 Page 68

▲back to top
102
Journal of Salesian Studies
The substance of the oral agreement was that Don Bosco would withdraw his
brief against the archbishop on condition (1) that the archbishop also refrain
from all legal action against Father Bonetti, Don Bosco and the Salesian
Society; (2) that Father Bonetti be freed from the suspension and all further
vexation. Were these orally agreed conditions part of the total agreement? This is
the crucial point which will forever be the bone of contention. The Salesians
have always thought so; but apparently the archbishop did not think so, or did
not accept what Colomiatti had agreed to verbally in his name. He took Don
Bosco's working statement as final and sent it to Archbishop Verga, Secretary of
the Congregation of the Council, instead of returning it to Don Bosco with a
statement of his own. In his cover letter to the Roman Congregation he matched
Don Bosco's statement by withdrawing the action against Bonetti (but against
Bonetti only) and asking that the pertinent documents be returned. A week later
Don Bosco received from the chancery through the mails notification of the step
the archbishop had taken in Rome, namely, that he had reciprocated by dropping
legal action against Bonetti. The Salesians immediately cried, "Foul!": the
archbishop had acted in bad faith, and Colomiatti's negotiations now appeared as
entrapment. For, by the settling of the Bonetti case the Salesians were dropping
all legal action against the archbishop, because that was their only legal action
pending. But without a commitment on the archbishop's part to drop all legal
action against the Salesians (in accordance with the verbal agreement), the
Salesians could still be sued for the pamphlets. This is the traditional Salesian
view; but it could have been a genuine misunderstanding. In any case, seeing
that the conditions agreed to orally had not been met, first by telegram and then
by letter of June 2, Don Bosco reversed his decision to withdraw the lawsuit.222
"Back to square one," the conflict increased in intensity through the
second half of 1881 and the first half of 1882. All efforts were concentrated on
the upcoming trial.
(6) Moves and Countermoves Preparatory to Legal Action
The actions of the archbishop's part may be summarized as follows:
(1) Father Luigi Leoncini readily testified in writing to Archbishop
Gastaldi that, according to Father Pellicani's statement made to him, Don Bosco
222 Don Bosco to Verga, Don Bosco to Colomiatti, June 2, 1881, and Don
Bosco to Colomiatti, June 11, 1881, Ceria, Ep IV, 57-9; Bonetti to Verga, Turin,
Jun. 7, 1881, /BM XV, 708-710, Appendix 16 (omitted in EBM). For story, excerpts
and interpretation cf. EBM XV, 164f.

7.9 Page 69

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
103
was responsible not only for the Chaplain's Strennas but for all the defamatory
pamphlets globally. Father Pellicani had confirmed this allegation.223
(2) The archbishop denounced Father Bonetti to the Congregation of the
Council as the coauthor, if not the author, of the defamatory pamphlets; he also
asked that the Daughters of Mary Help of Christians be placed under diocesan
authority.224
(3) Canon Colomiatti wrote to Cardinal Protector Nina, to bring him
up to date: since attempts at reconciliation had failed, Archbishop Gastaldi was
pressing forward with the case.225
Don Bosco also took decisive action:
(1) He engaged Attorney Leonori specifically to prepare and conduct the
Salesians' defense before the Congregation of the Council, giving priority to
Bonetti's suspension case.226
(2) Leonori went to work immediately. Among other things, he
prepared a pamphlet on the Salesian Society to provide background information
for the case. In September he notified Bonetti that he had almost completed it.227
A little later, however, he told Don Bosco of his fears that the chapter he was
working on (entitled "Harassment and Spiteful Actions by the Archbishop of
Turin against Don Bosco and His Congregation") might be interpreted as a
contravention of the restraining order not to write about the case, or as an
additional defamatory pamphlet228
(3) Don Bosco was well aware that Leoncini's testimony, recalling
Pellicani's conversation, was bound to be damaging, unless the latter denied the
allegation. Hence on October 14 Don Bosco wrote to Pellicani reminding him of
what, as far as he could recollect, had passed between them on the latter's
business visit to the Oratory. When the conversation drifted on to the subject of
223 Leoncini to Gastaldi, Savona, June 18, 1881, in Documenti XLV, 90f.
in ASC 110, FDBM 1195 E6f. For the story, cf. EBM XV, 19lf. For the earlier
Leoncini-Pellicani testimony, cf. note 209 and related text, above.
224 Gastaldi to the Congregation of the Council, Turin, Jun. 21, 1881 ,
Desramaut, Chron. critique, 131.
With the same date, Attorney Leonori urged Don Bosco to petition Rome for
approval of the constitutions of the Daughters of Mary Help of Christians [EBM XV,
295]. At this point in time their juridical status was unclear.
225 Colomiatti to Cardinal Nina, June. 25, 1881, IBM XV, 712f., Appendix
18 (omitted in EBM).
226 Don Bosco to Leonori, July 8, 1881, Ceria, Ep IV, 68f.
227 Leonori to Bonetti, September 25, 1881, Documenti XLV, 94 in ASC
110, FDBM 1195 ElO..
228 Leonori to Don Bosco [-October 1881], Documenti XLV, lOOf.in ASC
110, FDBM 1196 A4f. The little pamphlet was submitted to Don Bosco and published
a little later: C. Leonori, Notice on the Society of St. Francis de Sales founded by
Father John Bosco. Rome: Tip. Tiberina, 1881.

7.10 Page 70

▲back to top
104
Journal of Salesian Studies
Don Rosco's troubles with Gastaldi, Pellicani had wondered: Should the pope
perhaps not be informed. Don Bosco had replied: "You might do so, since you
have both the time and the ability. That was all." Don Bosco had never asked
him Lo write anything against the archbishop.229
Further actions followed.
The same day (October 14) ColomiaLti notified Archbishop Gastaldi
that he had started legal action concerning the "Sisters of Mary Help of
Christians" with Cardinal Ferrieri and the Congregation of Bishops and
Regulars. He had also called on Attorney Achille Carcani. The latter was shocked
at seeing in writing the allegations of "Don Rosco's complicity" in the matter of
the pamphlets; but his position prevented him from giving advice.230 The
following day, Colomiaui sought Cardinal Ferrieri's opinion. When shown
Leoncini's testimony implicating Don Bosco, the Cardinal is reported by
Colomiatti to have said: "In a number of questions involving Don Bosco taken
up by the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, he proved to be a person
impossible Lo deal with. It is a good thing that a fact-finding investigation has
been conducted by the chancery for the purpose of unmasking him [...], and
showing him up for the impostor that he is...231
Father Bonelli, Loo, printed a memorandum dealing with the details of
his own case with the date of October 15, and sent iL "insured and by special
delivery" to Pope Leo XIII.232
Don Bosco insisted on keeping Boneui's suspension case separate from
that of the defamatory pamphlets, and had so instructed Leonori. The archbishop
had to prove the legality of the disciplinary action he had taken against Bonetti.
But, as far as the archbishop was concerned, the case against Bonelli and Don
Bosco for the pamphlets took priority over the case of Bonetti's suspension. As
a matter of fact, Attorney Menghini in drafting the defense of the archbishop had
combined the two. Leonori, after perusing Menghini's voluminous brief, sent a
229 Don Bosco Lo Pellicani, October 14, 1881, EBM XV, 192. A recantation
from Pellicani came later, perhaps too late to do any good [cf. note 261 and 264 and
related text, below].
230 Colomiatti to Gastaldi, October 14, 1881, ASC 123: Gastaldi e i
Salesiani, Colomiaui, FDBM 646 A 8f.; excerpt in EBM XV, 193. Colomiatti's brief
focused on the juridical status (especially regarding exemption) of the Daughters of
Mary Help of Christians and of their convents and oratories, the very issues that
surfaced in the Chieri affair [EBM XV, 171).
231 Desramaut, Chron. critique, 134. This is Colomiatti's testimony given
in 1921 at the Process of Don Bosco's Beatification. Ceria [EBM XV, 193f.] records
the impressions of various other persons in Rome. It looks like Colomiatti had a
prima facie case against Don Bosco and Bonetti.
232 Promemoria, Turin: Tipografia Salesiana, 1881, 16 p., Documenli XLV,
103-118 in ASC 110, FDBM 1196 A6-B8; reference in EBM XV, 172.

8 Pages 71-80

▲back to top

8.1 Page 71

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
105
copy to Don Bosco.233 Don Bosco then wrote at length to Cardinal Nina (by
then Prefect of the Congregation of the Council) asking "that the forthcoming
session of the Sacred Congregation consider only the question of Father
Bonetti's suspension imposed some three years ago, and not other irrelevant
matters."234
(7) The "Settlement" of the Bonetti Suspension Case in Rome and Don
Bosco'sand Bonetti's Arraignment to Stand Trial in Turin for the Pamphlets
The last few months of 1881, then, were filled with feverish activity in both
camps in preparation for the forthcoming hearing of the case by the cardinals of
the Congregation of the Council. Archbishop Gastaldi seemed to be holding the
stronger position. But meanwhile changes at the Congregation of the Council
had occurred which were bound to affect the case. Cardinal Prefect Prospero
Caterini died on October 28, and was succeeded on November 7 by Cardinal
Lorenzo Nina, who as Cardinal Protector of the Salesian Society would
obviously be sympathetic to Don Bosco's cause. It was in this belief that Don
Bosco addressed to him his near-desperation plea in the letter mentioned above.
And it was wi th this new situation that the two voluminous briefs for the
Bonetti trial, both with the date of December 17, were presented to the
Congregation of the Council. They were Leonori's presentation for the defense,
that is, for Bonetti's reinstatement, entitled Rehabilitationis [...];235 and
Menghini's (and Colomiatti's) presentation of the circumstances of Bonetti's
suspension for the archbishop's part, entitled Interdicti [...];236
The battle joined in Rome and arbitrated by the Holy See which had
lasted some seven months was now about to be decided. On December 17, 1881,
the cardinals of the Congregation of Council met to hear arguments in the
Bonetti suspension case, and Cardinal Protector Nina succeeded, in spite of
majority support for Gastaldi, in preventing a "sentence." Instead an
233 EBM XV, 199.
234 Lener of December 10, 1881, EBM XV, 200 (199-202).
235 S. Congregatione Concilii, Taurin. Rehabilitationis ad audiendas
confessiones, pro Johanne Bonetti Societatis Salesianae cum lllma et Rma Curia
Taurinesi. Restrictus facti et juris, cum Summario pro Congregatione Generali diei 17
Decembris 1881. Romae, Ex Typ. Tiberina, 1881, 50 p. (Leonori's presentation); 55
p. (Summarium); 11 p. (Summarium additionale), in ASC 123: Persone, Gastaldi e i
Salesiani, Bonetti-Gastaldi, FDBM 634 D7-636 D3.
236 S. Congregatione Concilii, Taurin. lnterdicti localis super facultate
audiendi Confessiones, pro Rma Curia seu Rmo Laurentio Castaldi Archiepiscopo cum
R. D. Johanne Bonetti Sacerdote /nstituti Salesiani. Memoriale facti et juris cum
Summario pro Congregatione....diei Mensis Decembris 1881. Roma: Typ. Mugnoz,
1881, 48 p., in ASC 123: Persone, Gastaldi e i Salesiani, Bonetti-Gastaldi, FDBM
636 D4-637 D4.

8.2 Page 72

▲back to top
106
Journal of Salesian Studies
"arrangement" was reached which favored Bonetti, although il also required that a
written apology from Bonetti be delivered by Don Bosco personally to the
archbishop.
GasLaldi's reaction was immediate and fierce. In an angry letter to
Cardinal Nina he demanded a slay; he argued thal "restoring Father Bonetti to
Chieri without delay" in exchange for an apology was against any sense of
justice; he called Lhe arrangement, imposed by a cardinal prefect who was also
cardinal protector against a majority opinion, "without precedent in the practice
of the S[acred] Congregation."237 GasLaldi, then, flatly rejected the arrangement
and acted accordingly. On January 2, when Don Bosco wenl Lo Lhe chancery Lo
convey the required apology, the archbishop refused to receive him.238 Thus,
Bonetti's triumph was short-lived.
The archbishop took a further step: he decided to bring criminal charges
in Turin against Don Bosco for authorship of the pamphlets. For that purpose he
set up a court at his chancery and appointed Colomialti as deputy judge. On
January 5, by order of the archbishop, Colomiatti arraigned Don Bosco to appear
in ecclesiastical court to stand trial for his participation in the writing of the
following pamphlets: the Chaplain's First Strenna and Lhe Chieri Story (both
attacked the archbishop's pastoral action); the Chaplain's Second Strenna and the
Brief Essay (these attacked the archbishop chiefly on grounds of his
R o smi ni a ni sm) .239
On receiving the summons, Don Bosco on January 7 wrote Lo Cardinal
Nina about this new development, a ploy "to drag things out and make me waste
both time and money." He also feared that he would be dragged into the
controversy, healing up at Lhe time, about Rosmini's doctrines and orthodoxy, of
which Gastaldi had been all along a courageous champion. Don Bosco wrote in
conclusion:
These new charges have arisen because I wiJI not alter my stand. I am
against Rosmini: that is why I am being falsely blamed for those
pamphlets. I am not their author. My [theological] position has always
been Lo profess the truths of our Catholic faith, and to follow every
directive, every counsel, every desire of the Supreme Pontiff.240
237 Gastaldi to Nina, December 31, 1881, IBM XV, 723, Appendix 26;
excerpts in EBM XV, 182. For a slightly different construction of the outcome, cf.
EBM XV, 177 and 202f.
238 Report of Don Bosco to Nina, January 2, 1882, EBM XV, 183. For the
rejected letter of apology, cf. Documenti XLV, 151f. in ASC 110, FDBM 1196 E5f.
239summons in IBM XV, 733, Appendix 32 (omitted in EBM). Colomiatti's
deputation, Documenti XLV 159f. in ASC 110, FDBM 1197 Alf.
240 Don Bosco to Nina, January 7, 1882, EBM XV, 207.

8.3 Page 73

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
107
Obviously Don Bosco couldn't have authored the two pamphlets that dealt with
the Rosminian question, simply because he was not interes ted in Rosminian
theology. But his profess ion of "ultramontane faith" would not have
strengthened his defense.
Meanwhile, Cardinal Ferrieri in reply to Colomiatti's already-mentioned
query concerning the juridical status of the Salesian Sisters, put an additional
weapon into Gastaldi's hand. This institute, Ferrieri confirmed, had to be
diocesan, since there was no record on file of its having received even the
decretum laudis from Rome.241 Hence, the Chieri community was subject to the
ordinary's jurisdiction.
A little later, on January 28, 1882, the Congregation of the Council,
whose cardinals were already in possession of Don Bosco's Esposizione (to be
discussed below), upheld the arrangement regarding Bonetti, and called Gastaldi
to order in strongest terms for his insolent letter of December 31. At the same
time Gastaldi and his chancery were ordered to desist from proceeding against
Don Bosco and/or Bonetti in Turin in the matter of the pamphlets. A special
investigation and a change of venue to Vercelli was being arranged, for which
Archbishop Celestino Fissore of Vercelli was deputed.242 The Roman
Congregation's verdict in Bonetti's favor seemed indeed definitive. Attorney
Leonori hastened to send a "victory" telegram to Father Bonetti, and the
following day by letter he described to him how the victory had been won in full
assembly.243 However, this was not to be the end of the matter. Archbishop
Gastaldi immediately filed an appeal, which suspended the verdict for three
months before the case could be taken up again.244
Pope Leo was soon to intervene. Meanwhile a decision in both aspects
of the trial (the Bonetti suspension and the defamatory pamphlets), still hung in
the balance.
(8) Don Bosco's "Esposizione" to the Cardinals
At the time of the first trial session Don Bosco, with the help of secretaries
Berto and Bonetti, had been compiling a detailed exposition of the many acts of
injustice suffered by the Salesian Society over the years al the hand of
Archbishop Gastaldi. This leng thy presentation, intended for the Cardinals of the
241 Ferrieri to Gastaldi, January 18, 1882, Documenti XXIV, 278 in ASC
110, FDBM 1198 ElO.
242 Nina to Gastaldi, January 31 , 1882, IBM XV, 727, Appendix 27
(omitted in EBM); briefly in EBM XV, 185.
243 Telegram, Documenti XLV, 179 inASC 110, FDBM 1197 B9; Letters
Leonori to Bonetti, January 29 and February 3, 1882, Documenti XLV, 205f. in ASC
110, FDBM 1197 D9f.; briefly mentioned in EBM XV, 185.
244 EBM XV, 185.

8.4 Page 74

▲back to top
108
Journal of Salesian Studies
Congregation of the Council and for other Roman authorities, had been dated and
signed by Don Bosco on December 20, 1881 , but was distributed only on
January 26, 1882, a couple of days before the second trial convened. It was
entitled, Presentation to Their Eminences, the Most Reverend Cardinals[...]
( "Esposizione") .245
This was a documented point-by-point catalogue of g rievances against
Gastaldi for his harassment of the Salesian Society from 1872 to 1881. The list
of accusations, covering 66 dense pages in 8vo, was preceded by a foreword
("Reasons for this Presentation") and by a brief preamble describing Gastaldi's
change from supporter to persecutor. It was followed by three closing paragraphs
of decreasing length entitled: "Consequences," "A Prayer," and "Declaration." It
was the most serious piece of its kind ever to come from Don Bosco's pen, a
ruthless attack, which would later come back to haunt him and the Salesians. As
mentioned, he was not its sole author, and probably the body of the work (the
catalogue of grievances) expressed the feelings of his angry secretaries more than
his own. But since Don Bosco signed it and took responsibility for the whole of
it, we must assume that it expressed also his own thoughts and feelings at this
time.
The "Foreword",246 in spite of its calm style and of its being piously
dated "on the octave of the feast of Mary Immaculate," makes some shocking
charges: The archbishop's harassment of the Salesian Congregation has impeded
its work "for the salvation of souls;" "all these [evil] actions [of his against the
Salesians] seem to have been abetted (promossi) by the enemy of all good, with
the aim of stifling and destroying our poor Congregation, or at least of placing
obstacle upon obstacle in its way, so that it might not attain the end for which it
was established and approved by the Holy See."247 In other words, Satan had
worked his mischief over a period of ten years through the actions of a bishop
supposedly endowed with the fullness of God's Spirit!
After a bristling ten-chapter catalogue comes the first of the concluding
paragraphs "Consequences." Briefly it accuses the archbishop of harming, by his
actions, not o nly the Salesian Society but also of all o ther religious
congregations. This is followed by specific summary statements: (1) Archbishop
Gastaldi has shown himself systematically hostile to the Salesians; (2) he has
acted in defiance of the prescriptions of canon law; (3) he has interfered in the
245 Esposizione del Sacerdote Giovanni Bosco agli Eminentissimi Cardinali
della Sacra Congregazione del Concilio. S. Pierdarena: Tipografia di San Vincenzo de'
Paoli, 1881, 76 p., in Opere Edite XXXII, 49-124. The date of distribution given
according to Attorney C. Menghini, in An adducta (Process of Don Rosco's
Beatification, 1921 ), 23f. [Desramaut, Etudes VII, 149, note 109].
246 The Foreword ("Reasons for this Statement") is given in EBM XV, 174f.
with accom~anying comments.
24 EBM XV, 174, cf. Opere Edite XXXII, 52.

8.5 Page 75

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
109
internal affairs of the Salesian Society, contrary to the Church's dispositions; (4)
he has slandered the Salesian Congregation by means of the spoken and written
word, and by publications; (5) finally, by his demands he has forced the Salesian
superior into Lhe painful dilemma of having to disobey either him or the Holy
See.248
From the beginning until nearly the end, therefore, the document is an
unrelenting, harsh denunciation of Gastaldi's malfeasance. Finally, in the
"Prayer" (the second concluding paragraph), with its expressions full of zeal and
free of rancor, the real Don Bosco seems to emerge. He begs the cardinals and the
holy Father himself to prevent the recurrence of these vexations which take up
time, effort, and money which would be better spent for the glory of God and the
good of souls. He begs for help and protection on his young congregation,
protection all the more needed "now that, with God's merciful help, the
Salesians have been able to establish 140 houses, in which more than 80
thousand children are give a Christian education, [...) for the propagation of the
Gospel and the salvation of souls."249
At mid-January, as the first hearing on the Bonelli case was gelling under way,
Don Bosco, as was his custom, left for France Lo visit confreres and
benefactors.250 He returned to Italy in late March, and journeyed to Rome by
stages, arriving o n April 12 with his faithful secretary, Father Berto.
By this time, as we have narrated, the first and second Bonetti trial,
Gastaldi's appeal, the arraignment of Don Bosco and Bonetti in Turin for the
pamphlets, the restraining order from Rome to the Turin chancery-these and
other events had become history. The case on the pamphlets, still pending both
in Turin and Rome, was being investigated by Archbishop Fissore of Vercelli.
This mediator, whom the Salesians apparently no longer trusted, was busy
obtaining Don Bosco's official statement on the pamphlets, with Father Rua and
Father Bonetti acting as go-betweens.251
Nor had Archbishop Gastaldi been idle. On March 14, he addressed an
appeal to Leo XIII to be heard in person regarding the Congregation's decision,
which he considered invalid because the chief judge in the matter was also the
cardinal protector of the Salesians. At the same time he lodged the strongest
protests against the change of venue (lo Vercelli and Archbishop Fissore) in the
criminal libel trial; and he excoriated Don Bosco for the Esposizione.252 All
248 Opere Edite XXXIT, 121ff.
249 Opere Edite XXXII, 123f.
250 Don Bosco to Cardinal Nina, January 7, 1881, EBM XV, 207.
251 Cf. exchanges through the second half of April and the beginning of
May in Desramaut, Chron. critique, 146-148.
252 Documenti XLV, 223-226, in ASC 110, FDBM 1198 A3-6.

8.6 Page 76

▲back to top
110
Journal of Salesian Studies
along he had been instructing his lawyer Colomiatli as to the actions to be
undertaken in Rome.
(9) Don Bosco Helpless in Rome
In Rome Leo XIII could not receive Don Bosco before April 25, but, as usual,
he showed himself very gracious. Ceria (on Berto's and Lemoyne's testimony)
reports that, on being asked by the pope if he had any enemies, Don Bosco
replied: "Cardinal Ferrieri in Rome, and Archbishop Gastalcli in Turin."253 While
in Rome, Berto wrote to Bonetti reporting words attributed to Cardinal Nina on
the same subject: 'About this man [Gastaldi], and about Cardinal Ferrieri, too,
one can only say that they are devils disguised as lambs, both of them. They
may be acting in good faith, but the devil is making use of them'. So would you
want to make peace with Satan?"254 Be that as it may, at this point a settlement
of the conflict was nowhere in sight.
Leo XIII is reported by Berto to have told Don Bosco that (according to
assurances received) Archbishop Gastaldi ("that fox", Berto adds) was seeking
common ground for an understanding with Don Bosco.255 Don Bosco no longer
believed in any such possibility. Nothing was left for him now but to try to get
to the cardinals hoping for a hearing, and otherwise to claw his way through. To
Cardinal Nina, who was closest to the case, on May 8, he restated his position:
Father Bonetti must be fully reinstated with no conditions attached, and as for
the pamphlets there had been no Salesian involvement. In an attached additional
statement he gives vent to his pain:
For the past few days, he, the archbishop of Turin, has been telling
people, our own religious as well so I might hear about it, that Don
Bosco is a villain and an impostor; that he concocts and hands out
miracles, and publishes them in Our Lady's name. He says that Rome
253 EBM XV, 445. As reported in the Biographical Memoirs, during this
audience Don Bosco dared again ask for the privileges [D ocumenli XXJV, 148f. in
ASC 110, FDBM 1079 D6f.]. The pope seemed inclined toward such a concession,
which he had not been in the audience of 1880, mentioned above. As a matter of fact,
shortly thereafter (May 5) Leo XIII appointed a committee of cardinals to look into
the matter Wocumenti XXIV, 147, in ASC 110, FDBM 1079 A8].
254 Letter of May 2, 1882, Documenti XLV, 260f. in ASC 110, FDBM 1198
D4f.
255 Berto to Bonetti, April 25, 1882, Documenti XLV, 249f. in ASC 110,
FDBM 1198 C5f.

8.7 Page 77

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
111
makes a mess of everything, and that in Rome what matters is whom
you know, and so on.256
Don Bosco left Rome the evening of May 9. He was not well, that is certain.
But in reading the documentation, one has the feeling that he was also sick and
tired of it all. He got to Turin by stages on May 15, in time for the novena to
Mary Help of Christians.
(10) Papal Initiative and the Enforced Reconciliation (Concordia)
Don Bosco had no inkling that the conflict would soon be brought to a forced
conclusion. Even as he was leaving Rome, Gastaldi's skilled envoy and
negotiator, Canon Colomiatti, was leaving Turin for Rome, where on May 12
he began a campaign to counteract Don Bosco's Esposizione. He rebutted Don
Bosco's accusations and countered with the chancery's own charges, making his
case with each of the cardinals involved. On May 13, he was happy to learn from
Cardinal Jacobini, secretary of state, that Leo XIII had contacted Cardinal Nina
and had annulled the Congregation of the Council's verdict regarding Bonetti, and
that the pope himself was preparing an equitable reconciliation.257
The Salesian position in Rome was further weakened by an unrelated
event. In April, a Salesian teacher in the school of Cremona, Father Ermenegildo
Musso, had received a three-months sentence for child molestation, and the
school itself had been closed. Cardinal Ferrieri was said to be contemplating an
apostolic visitation of Salesian schools. Leo XIII vetoed the plan, but was
shocked by this report of immorality in a Sales ian schooJ.258
Don Bosco's absence from Rome at this crucial juncture was perceived
by some as a flight from his accusers. Moreover, once "reassured that
Archbishop Gastaldi was really seeking a settlement" and having taken mauers
in hand, the pope wanted Don Bosco available in Rome. Cardinal Nina told
Colomiatti that Leo XIII had decided to tell Don Bosco personally what he
wanted done .259 This untimely absence seems to have been ultimately
responsible for his defeat. Don Bosco had been back less than three days, when a
telegram from the Salesian procurator, Father Francesco Dalmazzo, advised him
256 Don Bosco to Cardinal Nina, Rome, May 8, 1882, EBM XV, 210f. In
this letter Don Bosco refers to earlier aborted attempts at a reconciliation, and blames
the archbishop.
257 An adducla, lOf. (Process of Don Bosco's Beatification 1921),
Colomiatti's testimony, ASC 163: Docum. ufficiali, FDBM 2243 E7f.
258 Dalmazzo to Don Bosco, May 15, 1882, Documenli XLV, 265-267 in
ASC 110, FDBM 1198 D9-11; fairly detailed report in EBM XV, 480f.
259 An adducla, 11 (Process of Don Bosco's Beatification, 1921),
Colomiatti's testimony, ASC 163: Docum. ufficiali, FDBM 2243 E8.

8.8 Page 78

▲back to top
112
Journal of Salesian Studies
that his presence was urgently required in Rome by the pope's order.260 A few
days earlier, as mentioned above, Dalmazzo had written to Don Bosco to inform
him at length on various aspects of the Salesian position. In particular he
pointed out that Don Rosco's "flight" from Rome had made a bad impression;
that the pope was taking the Pellicani-Leoncini testimony very seriously; that
the disavowal by Pellicani to the effect that he had never been suborned by Don
Bosco to attack the archbishop, as alleged, was regarded as "insufficient"261
Don Bosco, however happened to be totally exhausted and suffering
from incapacitating ailments " not diplomatically induced." A railway journey
was out of the question.262 He, therefore, called his procurator to Turin, and gave
him instructions and all powers to represent him in Rome.263
When Father Dalmazzo went back to Rome, he had with him printed
copies of Father Pellicani's disavowal mentioned above.264 The denial was
apparently unavailing to change the course of events; but it did help in lifting
the cloud of suspicion hanging over Don Bosco. On the other hand, Father
Bonetti, with his usual poor judgment, on June 6 addressed a long letter to the
260 Telegrams exchanged, May 18-19, 1882, Documenti XLV, 271 in ASC
110, FDBM 1198 E3. The story is told in EBM XV, 213.
261 Letter of May 15, 1882, Documenti XLV, 265-267 in ASC 110, FDBM
1198 D9-ll [cf. note 258 above]. Pellicani had apparently waited a Jong time before
responding to Don Bosco's appeal of October 14, 188 1 [cf. note 229 and related text,
above]. To my knowledge the original of Pellicani' s recantation is not extant.
Copies were printed on June 1 for distribution by Father Dalmazzo in Rome [cf. note
264 and related text, below].
262 Don Bosco to Dalmazzo and to Cardinal Nina, May 20, 1882, EBM XV,
213f.: He suffered from collapsed arches and open sores ("not diplomatically
induced") in his swollen feet, and from a painful abscess or hemorrhoids which
prevented him from taking a sitting position. In his testimony in An adducta, 11
(Process of Don Bosco's Beatification 1921) Colomiatti reports various testimonies
to the effect that Don Bosco did not want to appear in Rome for reasons other than
illness [ASC 163: Docum. ufficiali, FDBM 2243 E8f.]. For telegrams and letters
exchanged, cf. Desramaut, Chron. critique, 130-132.
263 Don Bosco to Leo XIII, and to Cardinal Nina, May 30, 1882, EBM XV,
219f. (emend date May 20 in EBM, taken from Ceria, Ep IV, 140, to May 30).
264 A printed leaflet entitled, Smentita di un' accusa contro Don Bosco
(Disavowal of an accusation against Don Bosco). S. Pier d'Arena: Tip. dell'Oratorio
di S. Vincenzo de' Paoli, June 1, 1882, 4 p. This reproduced a statement
(Dichiarazione ) by Father Antonio Pellicani, dated May 30, 1882; Text in EBM XV,
21lf.: "I state before God that the only proposal Don Bosco ever made to me was that
I write a memorandum to be sent to the Holy Father." Pellicani adds that this was all
he ever said to Colomiatti when summoned to testify.

8.9 Page 79

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
113
pope in which he repeated his charges against the archbishop and berated him for
his Rosminian leanings.265
Drafts of a seven point proposal for a settlement had been prepared and
submitted by the two parts. They differed considerably, especially in the type of
satisfaction and guarantees which they embodied.266 Now the Holy Father was
about to finalize the document and bring the parties together. At this point
Colomiatti learned the details of the pope's reconciliation proposal. He had a
long audience with Leo XIII, but Don Bosco's representative was kept in the
dark with regard to the contents of the agreement which the pope had meanwhile
finalized.267
On June 15, Cardinal Nina summoned Father Dalmazzo and Canon
Colomiatti, and submitted to them the seven-point settlement document
(Concordia) for their signature.268
Colomiatti signed all too eagerly, whi le Dalmazzo balked on reading
the terms of the settlement for the first time. But he was ordered to sign.
The Salesians had the worse of it, especially with regard to the
following provisions: Don Bosco had to apologize to the archbishop (article I);
Bonetti was only partially reinstated (article 3); Don Bosco had to denounce the
style and some content of the pamphlets-while their authorship remained an
open question (article 6).
After appealing to Cardinal Nina in vain, Father Dalmazzo reported to
Don Bosco. Besides describing Colomiatti as a hypocrite and a liar, Dalmazzo
sought to explain that by a settlement favorable to Gastaldi Leo XIII hoped to
win the archbishop over from Rosm inianism. He also referred to the damage
done to the cause by Bonetti, with specific reference to his letter of June 6.269
On learning the details, Don Bosco must have understood that he had
been defeated. But after nearly a week's silence, on June 21, he had Father Rua
send a telegram to Dalmazzo demanding that he explain to "his superior" what
had happened. Cardinal Nina's official letter of June 23 urged him to fully abide
by the terms of the agreement, especially with regard to the apology specified in
article 1. But in reply Don Bosco asked Cardinal Nina to allow him "a few days'
265 Bonetti to Leo Xill, June 6, 1882, Documenti XLV, 290-298 in ASC
110, FDBM 1199 A9-B5. On the damage done by this Jetter and for Father Bonetli's
regret, cf. EBM XV, 223 and note 5.
266 Text in EBM XV, 221-223. The Salesian counter-proposals were written
by Bonetti and approved by Don Bosco.
267 Dalmazzo to Don Bosco, June 18, 1882, Documenti XLV, 301-303 in
ASC 110, FDBM 1199 B8-10; excerpt in EBM XV, 225f.
268 For the complete text, cf. Appendix I, below; cf. also EBM XV, 224f.
269 Dalmazzo to Nina, June 15, 1882, Documenti XLV, 300f. in ASC 110,
FDBM 1199 B7f.; Dalmazzo lo Don Bosco, Documenti XLV, 301-303 in ASC 110,
FDBM 1199 B8-10 [cf. note 267, above; excerpts in EBM XV, 223-226.

8.10 Page 80

▲back to top
114
Journal of Salesian Studies
time to offer some clarifications." Likewise, he wrote to Father Dalmazzo that
he was preparing a reply and wondered why Dalmazzo had signed the document.
He also expressed his belief that Cardinal Nina had made a fool of Dalmazzo.
Had Don Bosco failed to grasp the situation? Dalmazzo assured him that the
terms of the Con cordia had been dictated by the pope (not negotiated by
Colomiatti). And Cardinal Nina's "shocked" reply must have merely confirmed
what Don Bosco already knew: the settlement as communicated to Don Bosco
was final; all Don Bosco had to do was to carry out its terms, for it represented
the will of the Holy Father-and (please!) to restra in Bonetti.270
On July 7, Don Bosco read the document to his council. Bonetti was
furious; others began discussing ways of recourse. Father Cagliero alone
(returned from South America on Missions business) stood for prompt obedience
to the Holy Father. And this is what Don Bosco himself had decided on.
On July 8, Don Bosco began to implement the terms of the settlement
by writing the required letter of apology to the Archbishop. The exchanges lasted
until July l 8.211
The defeat was experienced by Don Bosco as a bitter and dishonorable
act of injustice-not for himself, but for the congregation. As he wrote to
Cardinal Nina, the Salesians felt humiliated; the chancery was flau nting its
victory; in some places the Congregation had become the laug hingstock of the
authorities, and some Salesian directors had asked to leave.272
The anticlerical press, as it had all along, enjoyed a field day, when the
settlement became public knowledge. A favorite theme was: With Pius IX in
command, Don Bosco did what he wanted; now that Leo XIII favors the
archbishop (Don Revalenta), Don Bosco has been put in his place.273
The Salesians, Father Dalmazzo in particular, were convinced that the
peace or truce would not hold, and that the archbishop would persist in his
hostility. However, that was not to be the case. The archbishop did not engage
in any further harass ment. On the contrary, on October 28, 1882, he insisted on
270 Telegram, June 21, Documenti XLV, 303 in ASC 110, FDBM 1199 BIO;
Nina to Don Bosco, June 23, Documenti XLV, 305f.; excerts in EBM XV, 225; Don
Bosco to Cardinal Nina, June 27, EBM XV, 226; Don Bosco to Dalmazzo, June 28,
Ceria, Ep IV, 147; Dalmazzo to Don Bosco, June 30, Documenti XLV, 326-328 in
ASC 110, FDBM 1199 D8-11; Cardinal Nina to Don Bosco, July 5, 1882, EBM XV,
227f.
271 EBM XV, 228-231.
272 Don Bosco to Nina, July 25, 1882 and Aug. 4, 1882, in Ceria-Ep IV,
155 and 159f. In the latter Don Bosco speaks of damaging gossip and newspaper
articles.
273 Cf. Tuninetti, Castaldi II, 286; EBM XV, 23 1f.

9 Pages 81-90

▲back to top

9.1 Page 81

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
115
presiding at the consecration of the church of St. John the Evangelist though he
did not stay for Don Bosco's Mass.274
With the death of Archbishop Gastaldi of a stroke on Easter Sunday
morning, March 25, 1883, the conflict was finally resolved, as far as the two
protagonists were concerned. But some of Gastaldi's chancery men, especially
Canon Chiuso (personal secretary) and Canon Colomiatti (trial lawyer), were
later to reappear as the chief opponents of Don Bosco's beatification. This
indicates that the factions which formed around and in the name of the
protagonists were not so quickly reconciled. And the memory, as well as the
scars, of that decade of strife between the two most important churchmen and
their followers in the Church of Turin have lasted to this day.
Concluding Comments on the Final Phase of the Conflict
At the end of the foregoing brief survey of the final phase of the conflict the
reader will no doubt wonder about a number of questions which have been raised
and have been left unresolved. Even though our answers must remain tentative,
it seems nonetheless appropriate to address some of these questions.
(1) The Pamphlets
Who authored the defamatory pamphlets, which played so conspicuous a role in
the long war and were responsible for enlarging the "theater of operations"?
What is known about the matter comes from a written confession
addressed by Father Giovanni Turchi to the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation
of Rites on October 25, 1895, in connection with the process of Don Bosco's
beatification.275 This lengthy and involved document begins by stating that he
(Father Turchi), as a witness under oath in the Process of Don Bosco's
Beatification, had previously given to the judges a sealed confidential statement
for the exclusive and secret use of the Congregation of Rites, in order to remove
all suspicion regarding Don Bosco's complicity in the matter of the pamphlets.
The present letter (of 1895), also to be kept secret and confidential, is written for
the same purpose. After taking Archbishop Gastaldi and his chancery to task, he
goes on to discuss the pamphlets. Among other things, Father Turchi provides
the following information:
27 4 A malicious interpretation is given to this by Bonetti wntmg to
Dalmazzo, November 12, 1882, Documenti XLV, 363f. in ASC 110, FDBM 1200
lOf.
275 Turchi to Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of Rites, Bra (Cuneo)
October 25, 1895, IBM XIX, 403-412, Appendix 10 (omitted in EBM). Desramaut
[Etudes VII, 137f.] and Tuninetti [Castaldi II, 275-282] discuss Turchi's testimony.

9.2 Page 82

▲back to top
116
Journal of Salesian Studies
(1) The Cooperator's Leiter of 1877 was written by Father Giovanni
Battista Anfossi, a priest of the diocese of Turin, close to the Salesians.276
(2) The Chaplain's First Strenna of 1878 was the work of Father Turchi
himself in its entirety. He was in Rome at the time and in touch with Anfossi.
The idea of writing the pamphlet firmed up in his mind as he was reviewing
Gastaldi 's Liturgical Calendar for 1878, and after receiving a copy of the
Cooperator's Letter.211
(3) The Brief Essay of 1879 was authored by Father Antonio Ballerini,
S.J., with whom Turchi had discussed various matters in Rome, including where
the essay should be printed. Father Turchi himself contributed the preamble, the
foreword and the appendices. Another Jesuit in Turin, Father Giovanni Battista
Rostagno, encouraged Father Turchi in his stance against Gastaldi.278
276 Giovanni Battista Anfossi (1840- 1913) from Vigone (Turin) was a
Salesian alumnus and a seminarian at the Oratory in the fifties and sixties. As a
diocesan priest and a canon of Holy Trinity Church in Turin, he maintained a lifelong
attachment to Don Bosco and the Salesians. He is often quoted as a source in the
Biographical Memoirs. He took Don Bosco's side in the dispute, but his grief with
the archbishop transcended this particular dispute. With reference to the polarization
of the clergy for or against Gastaldi, Tuninetti writes: "Some supported Don Bosco as
a way of gelling back al the archbishop for other reasons. This was the case [...] of
priests like Giovanni Battista Anfossi and Giovanni Turchi. Known as intriguers and
meddlers, they were the authors of the anonymous pamphlets" [Tunineui, Castaldi II,
277).
277 Giovanni Turchi (1838- 1909) from Castelnuovo (Asti) was also a
Salesian alumnus and seminarian at the Oratory, a companion and lifelong friend of
Anfossi, who remained devoted lo Don Bosco and the Salesians. As a diocesan priest,
he taught in schools. In writing to Chevalier Oreglia (in Rome) [ca. mid-December
1867) Don Bosco speaks about the possibility of recommending Father Turchi as
tutor in the household of Duchess Sora in Rome [Ceria, Ep I, 517). Turchi lived in
Rome in 1877-1 878 (the time of the pamphlets), where he served as Don Bosco's
secretary [Don Bosco Lo Rua, Rome, January 3, 1878, Ceria, Ep III, 263]. In a letter
dated February 10, 1878 and addressed lo Father Berlo (in Rome with Don Bosco),
Anfossi writes: "Regards to Father Turchi; in fact let him read this letter and tell him
that I am eagerly looking forward to that publication of his" [ASC 123: Persone,
Gastaldi, FDBM 619 C5(2-5)]. It is likely that " that publication" refers to the
Strenna. Berto then would have known what was going on. And would not Don Bosco
have heard something from Berto?
278 Antonio Ballerini, S.J. (1805-1881) was one of the Jesuits who as far
back as 1841 had sounded the alarm and fought youthful Gastaldi over what became
the "Rosminian question". An author of theological treatises, Ballerini was the leader
of the anti-Rosminian Roman Jesuits [Tuninetti, Castaldi II, 254, note 49; 256; 282,
note 104).
Giovanni Battista Rostagno, S.J., former professor of canon law in
Belgium, residing at Turin, collaborated with Ballerini and Turchi in the pamphlets
[Tuninetti, Castaldi IJ, 256 and 280, note 94). He attended the First Salesian General
Chapter (1877) as a peritus. As a friend and adv iser, he helped Don Bosco with

9.3 Page 83

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
117
(4) The Chaplain' s Second Strenna of 1879 (entirely on the Rosminian
question) was compiled again by Father Anfossi, who used articles from
Gastaldi'sjoumal from the latter's early Rosminian days(// Conciliatore). Father
Turchi merely contributed some footnotes.
(5) The author of the Chieri Story of 1879 remains unknown. At first
Father Turchi thought that it was the work of Father Bonetti. But then he was
told by a "totally irustworthy person" that it was the work not of Bonetti but of
some unknown individual not connected with the Oratory.
Thus far Turchi's information. Don Bosco, then, had no thing to do
with the pamphlets, either directly or indirectly. But a Salesian connection
cannot be ruled out, at least in the case of some of the pamphlets. Thus
Desramaut writes:
[The Chieri Story's] authorship is still uncertain , but it appears that
Bonetti had a large hand in it. It may be possible to decide this issue in
the future on the basis of internal evidence, especially through a study
of the style of the writing.279
It may be regarded as certain that Father Anfossi and Father
Turchi were kept informed by the Salesians Father Gioacchino Berto
and Father G iovanni Bonetti, both very close to Don Bosco. The two
sides maintained an unbroken relationship [through the years], and often
corresponded. Hence it appears that the Salesians played an auxiliary
role in the production of these writings. But it is likewise certain that
they did so without Don Bosco's knowledge. Never would either alumni
or Salesians have compromised him in any way [by involving him] in
their dark scheme.280
(2) The Concordia
Why was the settlement unfavorable to the Salesians? A facile interpretation has
been that the pope felt he could rely on Don Bosco's holiness to accept any
terms, but not on Gastaldi, given his character and his concept of episcopal
authority. Another not so satisfactory view is that safeguarding episcopal
research in canon Jaw on various questions arising during the conflict: e.g., in the
matter of the publication of the graces of Mary Help of Christians, in the Perenchio
affair, in the Bonetti suspension dispute, etc. Gastaldi suspected him of complicity in
xm. the pamphlets [EBM XI, 424; Xill, I85f., 256f.; XIV, 169f., XV, 236f.; IBM
955f. ).
279 Desramaut, Etudes VII, 138.
280 Desramaut, Etudes VII, 138. For a similar opinion, cf. Tuninetti,
Castaldi II, 282, note 104.

9.4 Page 84

▲back to top
118
Journal of Salesian Studies
authority seemed more important to Pope Leo than meting out absolute justice.
A similar view, already mentioned, is that by a settlement favorable to Gastaldi
the pope hoped to win him over. These reasons, if present at all, should not be
overrated.
(1) It should be borne in mind that the Turin chancery had what
appeared to be a case against Bonetti as well as Don Bosco, based on sworn
testimony, in the matter of the pamphlets; and Leo XIII was not about to launch
his own investigation before acting to put an end to the scandal. This may
account for the fact that article 6 of the Concordia leaves the question open.
(2) The failure on the part of Don Bosco, at certain crucial points, when
it seemed that the archbishop was willing to make concessions, to come to an
accommodation by compromise, was not appreciated in Rome. This failure may
have been brought about by one, or by a combination, of the following factors:
[i] a belief that the Archbishop was abusing his power, that is, dealing unjustly
or contrary to law, as for instance in the Bonetti affair at Chieri; [ii] a belief that
the archbishop's overtures at certain points were " false" and designed to entrap
and gain advantage; [iii] a perception, at least from a certain point on, that the
Archbishop had become an enemy seeking to destroy the Society, and hence had
to be fought by every legitimate means; [iv] Don Bosco's utter conviction that
fidelity to his oath of office as superior required that he uphold the "honor" and
safeguard the good of the Society uncompromisingly; [v] Don Bosco's utter
personal faithfulness to his men in response to their faithfulness to him, taking
him to great lengths in their support.
(3) Father Bonetti, even if he were not the author of the Chieri Story,
by his rash manner of speaking and writing, went beyond the limits of propriety
on many occasions, as has been mentioned , unchecked by Don Bosco. The
manner in which the Concordia was brought about, and its terms, would tend to
corroborate that this was Leo XIII's judgment. For in the fas hioning of the
Concordia, Gastaldi's part (represented by Colomiatti) was given a hearing,
whereas the Salesian part was not.
(4) Don Bosco's Esposizione (printed exclusively for the Cardinals, not
published), written wi th the collaboration of Berto and Bonetti, but signed by
Don Bosco, was viewed as an excessive tirade against Gastaldi. Apart from the
strong language used, each fact listed may have been substantially true from a
certain standpoint, but there were also nuances arising from considerations of a
more general nature which had to be considered. If we are to believe Colomiatti,
Don Bosco, realizing that he had gone a bit too far, at one point tried to pass off
the Esposizione to Cardinal Nina as the work of his attorney, Leonori.281
28 1 Cardinal Nina is supposed to have said this to Colomiatti in an
interv iew, May 13, 1882, according to the latter's testimony in Process of Don
Bosco's Beatification 1921. Leonori vehemently denied the allegation, and letters

9.5 Page 85

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
119
It should be noted, however, that Don Rosco's Esposizione was
subjected to careful scrutiny by the official of the Congregation of Rites who
examined Don Rosco's writings for the Process of Don Rosco's Beatification. In
spite of Canon Colomiatti 's memorandums the judgment given by the examiner
was fundamentally positive. As Stella remarks, this was indicated even in the
headings given to each section of the report-for example, "Don Bosco is not
Responsible" [for starting the controversy]; [throughout the controversy] "The
Actions and Attitudes of the Servant of God Were Consistently Blameless."
After noting that Don Bosco had composed the memorandum with
Father Bonetti's help, the examiner stated that the exposition of the facts could
stand some correction, and the tone was somewhat emotional. But he added:
As far as I can see, all this does not affect in the least the nature of the
facts presented. Furthermore, one should remember that the author of
the memorandum was writing with the conviction that he had to defend
his own institute, and therefore he would tend to emphasize or de-
emphasize some of the circumstances relating to the facts he was
presenting. But he did not knowingly misrepresent the facts.
Furthermore, he wrote under great pressure, strain and anxiety about the
imminent outcome of the judgment.
This memorandum (the Esposizione) has been judged
inappropriate, to say the least. In my view, such an accusation is
groundless and undeserved. For the memorandum was called for by the
circumstances. The servant of God felt the need of rising in defense of
his own institute, against which the archbishop of Turin had taken
action and presented written briefs on no less than six different
occasions.282
(3) The Bonetti Affair in Chieri.
With regard to the Chieri affair, one would very much like to know "who was
right". Perhaps the dispute is best understood in the context of the pastoral
practice already discussed and to be commented on again below.
(1) Certainly, from our standpoint, it would have been to everybody's
advantage had Bonetti and the Sisters been allowed full scope to their zeal, for
were exchanged [Positio, Summarium ex officio, 10 in ASC 163: Docum. ufficiali,
FDBM 2244 A6-8].
282 Stella, DB III: Canonization, 128f. Quotes from: Positio super revisione
scriptor um, 24f. (Process of Don Bosco's Beatification 1906) in ASC 163:
Documenti stampati, FDBM 2,210 E 1-3.

9.6 Page 86

▲back to top
120
Journal of Salesian Studies
whatever they did was clearly for the good of souls. But pastor Oddenino's
objections must be viewed in the light of a pastoral theology and practice that
focused on the restoration and reform of the structures of the local Church both
at the diocesan and at the parochial level. For, as in Don Rosco's case in Turin,
so in Bonetti's case in Chieri, the division of the clergy (for or against) looked
beyond the persons involved in the dispute to Gastaldi's pastoral policies.
(2) From the Salesians' standpoint, the Sisters were part of the Salesian
Society. Therefore the Sisters' house at Chieri was naturally regarded as a
Salesian house, its "spiritual director" as a Salesian superior, and the oratory
chapel as a public oratory (enjoying parochial rights?) This, however, was not
how the archbishop and the pastor viewed the matter. As indicated above, the
archbishop, through Colomiatti, inquired about the Sisters' juridical status, and
Cardinal Ferrieri's response did not support the Salesian point of view.283
(3) As far as the suspension is concerned, it is known that Gastaldi, as
reformer-bishops before him, not only ruled by synod and decree, but also used
suspension and restriction rather freely in support of pastoral policy, and as
disciplinary measures. From our point of view such penalties were often unjust
and probably also unlawful. The 1615 rescript of the Congregation of Bishops
and Regulars "dug out" by Father Rostagno, S.J., as indicated in the
Biographical Memoirs,284 ties suspension to the sacramental act itself in the
case of religious. But, whatever its original context, the decree would not have
been regarded as relevant by Gastaldi. He never pretended that the suspension was
in any way connected with the sacramental act itself; the reasons (whether good
or bad) were pastoral and disciplinary. Furthermore, Bonetti's words and actions,
even those preceding the suspension, were such, in the archbishop's view, as to
call for stern measures. Later, Bonetti's further attitude and the appearance of the
pamphlet imputed to him (the Chieri Story) made the suspension seem all the
more deserved.
It should be noted, however, that Bonetti's reinstatement in December
1881 and January 1882, even though enacted by a partial judge (Cardinal
Protector Nina) and later reversed in the circumstances we have described,
certainly assumed that the suspension was inappropriate.285
General Concluding Comments and Evaluation
In this essay, guided by the few available critical studies, we have tried to tell the
story of the conflict in a coherent, albeit selective, fashion, with some concern
for the issues involved. The original documentation which was produced and is
283 Cf. notes 224, 230, and 241 and related text, above.
284 EBM XIV, 172f.
285 Cf. notes 237 and 242 and related text, above.

9.7 Page 87

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
121
now collected in various archives is abundant. Biographers and historians have
since tried to evaluate it and reach some understanding of this prolonged, widely
resonant and scandalous conflict, involving the two most important personalities
of the Church of Turin. As noted in the first essay, the polemical climate in
which the material originated affected its shape then, and renders its reliability
problematic now. But a few remarks by way of general evaluation seem possible
and necessary nonetheless. At various points in the two foregoing essays, we
indicated some lines of thought that might help us understand the conflict in its
proper context-historical, theological, ecclesiological, psychological, pastoral.
Having reached the end of our journey, it would seem appropriate to add a
concluding comment along the same lines.
How is this bitter and damaging fight involving such otherwise
outstanding churchmen to be explained and evaluated?
One should at once dispose of the theory that the real culprits in the
conflict were Gastaldi's and Don Rosco's men, rather than the principals
themselves. Clearly, it was no single combat, but the engagement was chiefly
between the two protagonists. "They called the shots." However, the question of
the role and responsibility of subordinates, the people who advised, spoke,
wrote, fought for the principals, is legitimate, even though to a large extent it
still awaits an answer. Here we are concerned with the nature and motivations of
the conflict as such.
At first blush, one might be tempted to define the conflict as a classic
case of authority vs. charism, for this is its outward face. It would be tempting
to see it as another instance of the institution, with all its structural, legal
accoutrements and its means of self-preservation, impeding the movement of the
spirit and the salvation of souls. It has been so interpreted. But it is a superficial
interpretation. For, apart from the difficulty of defining where "charism" lies in
any particular instance, it assumes that institutional authority is itself devoid of
the Spirit.
One must therefore look deeper. At one level one encounters the
problem of ecclesiology. Again, one might be tempted to regard Don Bosco and
Gastaldi as representatives of contrasting ecclesiologies, ultramontane and
papalist on one side, and philo-gallican and episcopalist on the other. Even if
such terms be used in their extended sense, they would not be applicable without
qualifications. A better way of putting it might be that Don Bosco's
ecclesiology was radically ultramontane; Gastaldi's only in certain respects. Don
Bosco's ecclesiology was certainly papalist in principle, the bishop being
conceived in a subsidiary role. But there was also on the one hand, a pragmatic
element that modified the papalist tendency, as well as an "anomalous
element"-that is, the peculiar relationship of mutual trust between Pius IX and
Don Bosco that had come into existence in 1858 and reached its peak by the mid-
seventies. This added a peculiar slant to Don Bosco's relationship with Church

9.8 Page 88

▲back to top
122
Journal of Salesian Studies
authorities.286 Gastaldi's ecclesiology is more difficult to describe. Having
supported papal primacy and infallibility at Vatican I (certainly not for political
reasons alone), in his official statements Gastaldi upheld papal authority on the
lines of the constitution Aeterni Patris. But in the exercise of his pastoral office,
hence, also in his dealings wilh Don Bosco, he claimed autonomy and defended it
to the hilt. Nor was this attitude the product of mere authoritarianism, to which
unfortunately he was prone. Rather, it was founded on a deep conviction of
possessing apostolic aulhority as a bishop.287
Essentially, however, insofar as ecclesiology affected the conflict, the
contrast appeared at Lhe pastoral ralher than at the theoretical level. These two
great important Church leaders governed and ministered with a very different,
perhaps contrasting pastoral style. As emphasized in both the foregoing essays,
and as Desramaut writes:
Gastaldi stood in Lhe line of the Tridentine reformer-bishops of northern
Italy, whose model was St. Charles Borromeo. Like Archbishop
Charles, Archbishop Lawrence governed by synod and decree, and was
dedicated to a thorough-going program of reform of the diocesan clergy
and religious, as well as of all the Church's structures. He had imbibed
the principles of the Counter-Reformation-that the will of the
legitimate religious leader is the will of God, and hence binding on
everyone; that hierarchical authority, as representing Jesus Christ, is
(by analogy) omniscient and omnipotent, and hence may demand the
subject's obedience on grounds of religious faith. In such a system, the
strength of the body lies in the head and is guaranteed by the obedience
of the members. Gastaldi was not "out" to destroy the Salesian
Congregation; but he believed that for the success of his reforms the
Salesian Society, and all olher institutions in the diocese, had to submit
to his pastoral policy. This kind of authority is exposed to two
dangerous pitfalls: recourse to violence and prevarication. In the pursuit
of his goal Archbishop Gastaldi never resorted to lying, but certain
forms of violent authoritarianism were not alien to him.
Don Bosco's pastoral style was very different. Like his
educational style, it stemmed from his preventive system, and the result
was a pastoral approach imbued and guided by "charity". This course
was certainly more democratic, and probably also more evangelical than
that pursued by Gastaldi. Like Jesus, Don Bosco accepted people as
they were, appealing to their special penchants and gifts (small though
they might be) in the service of the Church. He made use of the
286 Cf. Stella, DB I, 159-171, 227-231; DB IT, 119-124, 131-138.
287 Cf. Tuninetti, Castaldi IT, p. 288.

9.9 Page 89

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
123
charism of each for the good of souls. For him the strength of the body
lay in the members working in concert with the head. The great virtue
for him was, not obedience, but zeal for God's cause-or better stated,
"charity", practical love of neighbor through which the "greater glory of
God" was achieved. Here the great pitfall is a certain anarchism. One
wonders if these two pastoral styles can be reconciled.288
On a related level, the personality and character of the protagonists influenced the
course of the conflict considerably. They differed as day from night in point of
social extraction, education, philosophy, and politics. They had come along
different spiritual journeys, and differed as to prayer style, devotion, and ascetic
practice. Gastaldi tended toward rigorism and austerity with himself and with
others. He was a perfectionist, lacking the pliability which is indispensable to
good government. Don Bosco, on the other hand, a practical probabilist, was an
intuitive and persuasive handler of men. He could even stand accused (with some
reason) of a certain elasticity in the use of means-for good ends: his work for
youth, the salvation of souls.
But finally , they were similar in one thing-a strong, stubborn,
uncompromising devotion to what they perceived to be their duty. Both friends
and enemies have testified to this. The archbishop was never known to yield in
anything that, in his view, was even distantly related to his episcopal rights and
duties. Don Bosco was never known to yield when the "good of the Society" was
at stake, or when it was a question of "the greater glory of God and the salvation
of souls." If he met with an obstacle, he went around it. If the archbishop was
the obstacle, he went around it by having recourse to "higher authority" (Pope
Pius IX). In this respect Don Bosco was unlike his younger contemporary and
saint, Leonardo Murialdo, for whom "obedience to the Ordinary" (Gastaldi) was a
dogma.
The conflict, therefore, laid bare the all too-human traits and weaknesses
of the protagonists' character. Neither could refrain from harsh complaints and
accusations against the other, even in the presence of third parties, whether they
were subjects or strangers. Gastaldi was impulsive and of a violent temper. He
lacked prudence and self-restraint and mercilessly berated Don Bosco and the
Salesians on numerous occasions. Don Bosco was neither impulsive nor violent,
his speech and writings were never openly disrespectful; but neither were they, in
a number of instances, shining examples of prudence and respect.289
Their volumino us correspondence reveals an unyielding attitude on both
sides and a failure to compromise when compromise would perhaps have saved
the day. One may ask, What is so sacrosanct about "episcopal rights" or about
288 Desramaut, Eludes VII, 239f.
289 Cf. Tuninetli, Gaslaldi II, 288f.

9.10 Page 90

▲back to top
124
Journal of Salesian Studies
"the good of the institute"? Certainly the protection of these values or
prerogatives does not justify a decade of scandalous and destructive s truggle.
Bibliographical Note
[Documentation from Archives]
Archivio Salesiano Centrale [ASC] in Fondo Don Bosco Microfiches
[FDBM]-
ASC 110: Cronachette
Barberis, Cronic he tta, Note Book 13, FDBM 845f.
ASC 123: Persone in relazione con Don Bosco, as follows:
Franche tti290 FDBM 591 B7-603 D7;
Gastaldi, FDBM 6 14 AS-619 A2;
Gastaldi e i Salesiani, FDBM 619 A3-676 B2.
S. Congregatione Concilii, Taurin. R ehabilitationis ad audiendas
confessiones, pro Johanne Bonetti Societatis Salesianae cum lllma et
290 The story of how these Franchetli (Gaslaldi ) papers came into the
Salesians' possession is worth relating. On the death of Archbishop Gastaldi, his
personal papers passed to his secretary, chancellor and universal heir, Canon
Tommaso Chiuso. As related earlier, Father Chiuso was later suspended and stripped
of his benefices [cf. Lenli in JSS 4 (1993), 20, note 43 and related text]. Finding
himself in financial straits, he sold off much of Gastaldi 's personal effects. It was
thus that Canon Domenico Franchetli acquired all of Gaslaldi 's books and personal
papers, among which a sizable lot relating to the Bosco-Gastaldi conflict. Canon
Franchelli, like other priests of the diocese of Turin, was not sympathetic towards
Gastaldi's pastoral policies, and sided with Don Bosco, Father Bertagna and others in
their disputes with Gaslaldi. Don Bosco is said to have blessed him as a child, and to
have told his mother: "He will not join our ranks, but he will be of service to the
Salesian Congregation just the same." After the Process fo r Don Bosco 's
Beatification was introduced in Rome (1907), Canon Emanuele Colomiatti, one of
Gastaldi's men [cf. Lenli in JSS 4 (1993) 21 , note 46 and related text]. led the
opposition and in 1919 he presented fresh motions against Don Bosco, aiming at
stopping the cause on the basis of the anti-Gastaldi anonymous pamphlets. It was
under these circumstances that Canon Franchelli made the Gastaldi papers available to
the Salesians Lo help organize a defense and refute Colomiaui's allegations. [Data
derived from an unpublished memoir by Father Francesco Tomaselli, postulator of
Don Bosco's cause. Cf. also from Eugenio Valentini, II Canonico Domenico
Franchelli (Biblioteca de! Salesianum, n. 68. Torino: SEI, 1946); and Tunineni,
Castaldi II, 60, n. 13; 172f, 176, and notes.]

10 Pages 91-100

▲back to top

10.1 Page 91

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
125
Rma Curia Taurinesi. Restrictus facti et juris, cum Summario pro
Congregatione Generali diei 17 Decembris 1881. Romae, Ex Typ.
Tiberina, 1881, 50 p.; Summarium, 55p.; Summarium additionale, 11
p., FDBM 634 D7-636 D3. This is Attorney Leonori's presention in
the Bonetti suspension trial before the Congregation of the Council.
[Rehabilitation , Summarium, Summarium Add]
ASC 133: Pubblicazioni, Esposizione, FDBM 317 D7-324 Al.[Acts of
the Process of Don Bosco's Beatification, especially:]
ASC 163: Documenti ufficiali stampati: Positio super dubio: An
adducta contra ven. Servum Dei obstent, quoniam in Causa procedi
possit ad ulteriora, Romae 1921, FDBM 2243 D3-2246 Dl. [An
adducta]
[General Reference and Studies]
Centro Studi Don Bosco, Universita Pontificia Salesiana, Giovanni
Bosco, Opere Edite, ristampa anastatica, Vol. XXXII. Roma: LAS, 1977.
[Opere Edite]
Eugenio Ceria, Epistolario di S. Giovanni Bosco. Torino: Societa Editrice
lnternaziona!e, vol. 1(1954), II (1956), Ill (1958), IV (1959) [Ceria, Ep]
Documenti XIII-XXIV, passim, ASC llO: Documenti, FDBM 1018
C9-1081 E12; and XLV (Bonetti-Gastaldi), FDBM 1194 Bl2-1201 A9.
[Documenti].
[Giovanni Battista Lemoyne, Angelo Amadei,] Eugenio Ceria, The
Biographical Memoirs of Saint John Bosco. An American Edition Translated
from the Original Italian, Rev. Diego Borgatello, S.D.B., Editor-in-Chief. New
Rochelle, New York, 1965-1988. Vol.XI-XV passim [EBM] Translated from
the corresponding volumes of the Italian Memorie Biografiche. [IBM]
Pietro Stella, Don Bosco: [Vol. I:] Life and Works, Tr. by John Drury.
New Rochelle, New York: Don Bosco Publications, 1985, p. 159-17 1. [Stella,
DB I]
Id., Don Bosco nella storia della religiosita Cattolica, Vol. III: La
Canonizzazione (1888-1934). Roma: LAS , 1988. [Stella, DB III]
Id. , Don Bosco nella storia economica e sociale (1815-1870) (Centro
Studi Don Bosco, Studi Storici, 8) Roma: LAS , 1980. [Stella, DBEcSoc]
Francis Desramaut, "Chronologie critique du differend entre don Bosco
et l'archeveque de Turin Lorenzo Gastaldi," in Cahiers satesiens. Recherches et
documents por servir aI' histoire des satesiens de don Bosco dans les pays de
langue fran<;aise, numero special 6-7, avril-octobre 1982. Lyon: SDB , 1982.
[Desramaut, Chron. critique].
Id., "Etudes prealables [...] VI: Par-dela les frontieres (1874-1878)," in
Cahiers salesiens [...], Numero 22-23 (Avril-Octobre 1990). "Etudes prealables

10.2 Page 92

▲back to top
126
Journal of Salesian Studies
[...] VII: La grande expansion (1878-1883)," in Cahiers salesiens [. ..], Numero
20-21 (Avril-Octobre 1989) [Desramaut, Eludes VI, VII].
Giuseppe Tuninetti, Lorenzo Castaldi 1815-1883. Casale Monferrato:
PIEMME, 2 Vols., 1983 & 1988. Vol. I: Teologo, publicista, rosminiano,
vescovo di Saluzzo (1815-1871); Vol. II: Arcivescovo di Torino (1871-1883).
[Tuninetti, Castaldi I & TI]
_ _ _ _ _ _ __ , "L'immagine di Don Bosco nella stampa
torinese (e italiana) de! suo tempo," in Don Bosco nella storia della cultura
popolare, ed. by Francesco Traniello. Torino: Societa Editrice Intemazionale,
1987, p. 209-251 [Tuninetti in Traniello].
A. Lenti, The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict (1872-1882) [Part I)," Journal of
Salesian Studies 4:2 (1993) 1-83. [Leoti in JSS 4 (1993)]

10.3 Page 93

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
127
APPENDIX I: THE TEXT OF THE CONCORDIA DOCUMENT
Signed June 15 and officially dated June 16, 1882
(IBM XV, 269f., EBM XV, 224f.)
Rome, June 16, 1882
His Holiness is aware that controversy on a variety of issues has existed
for some time between the archbishop of Turin and the Salesian Congregation.
Such disagreements are a source of misunderstanding and friction which demean
autho rity and perturb the faithful. He has therefore notified the parts in the
litigation that it is his will that all contention cease and that a genuine and lasting
reconciliation be effected. To this end the following terms of agreement are laid
down:
I. Don Bosco shall write a letter of apology to His Excellency the
Archbishop. In it he shall express his regret for the incidents which over the past
few years have destroyed the good relationship formerly existing between them,
and have possibly been the cause of grief to His Excellency. If His Excellency
shall have reason to believe that either Don Bosco or some member of his
Congregation is in any way responsible for th is state of affairs, Don Bosco shall
beg for His Excellency's forgiveness and shall ask him to forget the past.
II. In reply, His Excellency the Archbishop shall acknowledge the
sincerity of the sentimen ts expressed by Don Bosco and the satisfaction they
afford. He shall therefore put the past behind him and reinstate Don Bosco to his
good graces.
III . Three days after this exchange, His Excellency shall renew Father
Bonetti 's fac ulties to hear confessions without resirictions and send the document
to Don Bosco. Don Bosco on the other hand shall pledge to wait one year before
allowing Father Bonetti back Lo Chieri. After one year has elapsed Father Bonetti
shall not be prevented by the chancery from returning Lo Chieri on special
occasions for the purpose of preaching or hearing confessions.
IV. Although Don Bosco's printed Memorandum describing the
archbishop's actions in his regard was intended not for the public but exclusively
for the cardinals of the Sacred Congregation, Don Bosco shall nevertheless
endeavor to retrieve and destroy all copies dislributed.
V. To eliminate the recurrence of strife, His Excellency the Archbishop
shall withdraw and destroy the two threatening letters dated November 25 and
Dece mber 1, 1877. Thus the threat of automatic s uspens io n (ipso facto
incurrenda), issued against Don Bosco against the event that he should write,
publish or distribute materials injurious to His Excellency the Archbishop, shall
permanently be removed.
VI. As for the pamphlets cited by the chancery in the criminal
indictment, Don Bosco declares that he has always condemned and still condemns

10.4 Page 94

▲back to top
128
Journal of Salesian Studies
the unseemly manner and language used in speaking of ecclesiastical authority,
and that he is ready to issue a formal statement on the matter whenever necessary.
Likewise, he is fully prepared to denounce the contents of those pamphlets if
specific points or statements are cited by the Church as being reprehensible.
VII. As a result of such declaration, the lawsuit initiated by the
archdiocesan chancery shall be dropped.
By the powers granted to me by my most esteemed superior, His
Excellency Archbishop Lawrence Castaldi, I herewith agree to and accept
all the provisions of the foregoing covenant.
[signed] Canon Emmanuele Colomiatti
By the powers granted to me by my superior general, the Very Reverend
John Bosco, I herewith agree to and accept all the provisions of the
foregoing covenant.
[signed] Father Francesco Dalmazw, Procurator General

10.5 Page 95

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
129
APPENDIX II: CAST OF CHARACTERS
(Basic data derived from Desramaut, Chron. critique)
The Chancery of the Archdiocese of Turin (other than Archbishop
Gastaldi)
Chiaverolti [-]: canon, secretary at the chancery (1877-1879); he
handled the correspondence for the archbishop, especially in the Perenchio-
Lazzero affair.
Chiuso, Tommaso (1840-1904): canon, theologian, historian, personal
secretary to the archbishop up to 1878, thereafter chancellor; as secretary, he
acted as correspondent for the archbishop in various instances.
Colomiatti, Emmanuele [-]: canon, lheologian, canon lawyer,
professor, author, Archbishop Gastaldi's acting trial lawyer (avvocato fiscale)
from 1872, formally appointed in 1882; he conducled legal action in Rome and
Turin in the Bosco-Bonetti trial; regarded as the "enemy" by the Salesians, he
also appeared against Don Bosco in the Process of Beatification (1917-1925).
Como, Giuseppe[-]: canon, chancery secretary from 1880, chancellor
(1885); he appeared as ex officio witness at the Process of Don Bosco's
Beatification.
Maffei, Francesco [- ]: canon, secretary at the chancery; he handled
correspondence for the archbishop in the Rocca affair (1879-1880);
Other Persons Sympathetic to the Archbishop's Part
Lione, Stefano[-]: vicar forane at Chieri; he accused Father Bonetti of
authoring the Chieri Story (1878-1880).
Oddenino, Andrea [-]: pastor of the Duomo at Chieri, involved as
plaintiff in the Bonetti Chieri dispute (I 878-1882).
The Salesians (other than Don Bosco and Father Rua)
Berlo, Gioacchino (1847-1914): Don Bosco's secretary (1870- 1888); he
was close lo Don Bosco and all the Salesians involved in the connict.
Bonetti, Giovanni (1838-1891 ): director of lhe Salesian Bulletin (1878);
elected spiritual director of the Salesian Society (1886); as director of Salesian
Sisters' oratory at Chieri he was directly involved in the conflict.
Dalmazzo, Francesco (1845-1895): director at Valsalice (1872-1880)
procurator general of the Salesian Society (1880- 1887); Don Bosco's
representative in Rome for the Bonetti case and the final reconciliation (1880-
1882).
G uanella, Luigi [Blessed] (1842-1915): priest of Como, briefly a
Salesian; he met with Gastaldi's opposition when planning to join the Salesians
(1875); involved with the early developments of the Sons of Mary; having
relurned to his diocese (1877), he founded religious instituLes.

10.6 Page 96

▲back to top
130
Journal of Salesian Studies
Lazzero, Giuseppe (1837-1910), Salesian priest, vice-director of the
Oratory, involved in Lhe Perenchio affair (1877), suspended for misinterpreting
Archbishop Gastaldi's lelter regarding Mass supply by Salesian priests ("bedlam
in the sacrislies" of Augusl 26).
Perenchio, Giovanni [- ]:priest of Ivrea, censured by Bishop Moreno
for applying to the Salesians; suspended by Archbishop Gastaldi for celebrating
in Turin wilhout permission (1877). Unwitting cause of FaLher Lazzero's
suspension.
Rocca, Angelo Maria (b. 1843): former diocesan seminarian; Salesian
(1873), newly-ordained Salesian priest (1877); prevenled from celebrating Mass
in his home town; censured by Archbishop Gast.aldi for celebrating nonetheless
in his private oratory (1877).
Persons Sympathetic toward the Salesian Cause
Albert, Federico [Blessed] (1820- 1876), priest of Turin, theologian,
paslor of Lanzo. a fri end of Don Bosco and the Salesians, he was involved in the
affair of the spiritual retreats at Lanzo (1874).
Anfossi, Giovanni Baltist.a (1840- 1913): an alumnus of the Oratory and
lifelong friend of Lhe Salesians; as diocesan priesl of Turin he opposed the
archbishop's pastoral policies; he authored the anti-Gastaldi Cooperator's Letter.
and of the Chaplain's Second Strenna.
Fralejacci, Giovanni Bauist.a (d. 1877): a Roman monsignor, a friend of
Don Bosco, he kept the Salesians informed of developments in Rome.
Sona, Matteo [-]: canon of Chieri, a supporter of Bonelli throughout
the Chieri affair ( 1878-1881)
Turchi, Giovanni (1838- 1909): alumnus of the Oralory, diocesan priest
of Turin, school teacher in Rome (1877-1878), self-confessed author of the anti-
Gastaldi Chaplain's First Strenna and contribulor to other pamphlets.
Roman Authorities (other than Pius IX and Leo XIII)
Berardi, Giuseppe (1810-1878): cardinal, a personal friend of Don
Bosco, and sym palhetic Lo the Salesian cause.
Bizzarri, Giuseppe Andrea (1802-1877): cardinal prefect of the
Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, succeeded by Cardinal Ferrieri.
Calerini, Prospero (1795-1881): cardinal, prefect of the Congregation of
the Council, succeeded al his death by Cardinal Nina.
Ferrieri, Innocenzo (1813-1887): cardinal, prefect of the Congregation
of Bishops and Regulars (1876).
Jacobini, Luigi (1832-1887): cardinal, secretary of stale (1879).
Leonori, Costantino [-]: monsignor, auorney working at the Roman
Congregations, legal counsel for Don Bosco and Fat.her Bonetli (1879-1883).

10.7 Page 97

▲back to top
The Bosco-Gastaldi Conflict, Part II
131
Macchi, Luigi (1832-1907): papal chamberlain, later cardinal; opposed
to Don Bosco, as chamberlain he delayed Don Bosco's audiences with the pope.
Menghini, Carlo [-]: monsignor, attorney working at the Roman
Congregations, legal counsel for Don Bosco (1874-1879), legal counsel for
Gastaldi in the lawsuit at the Congregation of the Council (1879-1882).
Monaco La Valletta, Raffaele (1827-1896): cardinal vicar of Rome; he
dealt with Don Bosco with regard to the church of the Sacred Heart (1880).
Nina, Lorenzo (d. 1885): cardinal (1877), secretary of state (1878),
protector of the Salesian Society (1879), prefect of the Congregation of the
Council (1880).
Sbarretti, Enea (1808-1884): archbishop, secretary of the Congregation
of Bishops and Regulars, succeeding Vitelleschi (1875), cardinal (1877).
Verga, Isidore (1832-1899), archbishop, secretary of the Congregation
of the Council at the time of the Bonetti lawsuit (1879-1882), cardinal (1884).
Vitelleschi, Salvatore Nobili (1818-1875): archbishop, secretary of the
Congregation of Bishops and Regulars under Prefect Cardinal Bizzarri; generally
favorable to Don Bosco's cause, thoug h not in the matter of the privileges
petitioned for in 1875.
Tortone, Gaetano (d. 1891): charged'affaires of the Holy See in Turin,
he conducted investigations and reported to the Holy See at various times,
especially at the time of Gastaldi's threatened resignation (1876-1877) and of the
Bonetti Chieri affair (1878-1879).
Other Person Involved in the Conflict
Ballerini, Antonio (1805-1881): Jesuit priest and theologian in Rome, a
leader of the anti-Rosmini campaign, author of the Brief Essay against Gastaldi's
Rosminianism.
Fissore, Celestino (1814-1889): canon, vicar general in Turin in the
fifties, archbishop of Vercelli (1871 ); he was called upon to mediate the dispute
(1875) and to investigate the authorship of the pamphlets for a change of venue
to Vercelli (1882).
Leoncini, Luigi [-] : a priest of the Pious Schools (Piarists or
Scolopians); he testified at the chancery against Don Bosco in connection with
the authorship of the pamphlets (1879-1880).
Pellicani, Antonio [-]:a priest of Savona, former Jesuit; he was cited
by Leoncini as having been asked by Don Bosco to write against the archbishop
(1879-1882).