Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/842

 MASONRY

786

BCASOmtY

are inclined to condemn the plots hatched between Paul Revere, Dr. J. Warren and others, in the old Green Dragon Tavern, the headquarters of Colonial Freemasonry in New England, because these plots were inspired by lofty purpose and the result not only justified them^ but crowned these heroes with glory (Chr., 1889^ I, 178). "No Freemason" said Ri^t Rev. H. C. rotter on the centenary of the Grand Chap- ter of Royal Arch, New York, " may honourably bend the knee to any foreign potentate (not even to King Edward VII of England) civil or ecclesiastical (the Pope) or yield allegiance to any alien sovereignty, temporal or spiritual " (Chr., 1889, II, 94). From tms utterance it is evident that according to Potter no Cath- olic can be a Mason. In conformity with these princi- {)les American and English Freemasons supported the eaders of the revolutionary movement on the Euro- pean continent. Kossuth, who " had been leader in the rebellion against Austrian tyranny", was enthusiasti- cally received by American Masons, solemnly initiated into Freemasonry at Cincinnati, 21 April, 1852, and presented with a generous gift as a proof " that on the altar of St. John's Lodge the fire of love burnt so brightly, as to flash its light even into the deep re- cesses and mountain fastnesses of Hungary" ("Key- stone" of Philadelpliia quoted by Chr., 1881, 1, 414; the "Voice" of Chicago, xbid., 277). Garibaldi "the greatest freemason of Italy" ("Intern. Bull.", Berne, 1907, 98) and Mazzini were also encoura^d by Anglo- American Freemasons in their revolutionary enter- prises (Chr., 1882, I, 410; 1893, I, 185; 1899, II, 34). The consistent Mason", says the "Voice "(Chicago), for the purpose of overturning and suljverting a gov- ernment based upon the masonic principles of liberty and eoual rights" (Chr., 1892, I, 259). "But" de- clares rike, " with tongue and pen, with all our open and secret influences, with the purse, and if need be, with the sword, we will advance the cause of human progress and labour to enfranchise human thought, to give freedom to the human conscience (above all from papal 'usurpations') and equal rights to the people everywhere. Wherever a nation struggles to gain or regain its freedom, wherever the human mind asserts its independence and the people demand their inalien- able rights, there shall go our warmest sympathies" [Pike (4), IV, 547].
 * ' will never be found engaged in conspiracies or plots

VIII. Action of State and Church Authorities. — Curiously enough, the first sovereign to join and pro- tect Freemasonry was the Catholic German Emperor Francis I, the founder of the actually reigning hne of Austria, while the first measures against Freemasonry were takenby Protestant Governments: Holland, 1735; Sweden and Geneva, 1738; Zurich, 1740; Berne, 1745. In Spain, Portugal and Italy, measures against Masonry were taken after 1738. In Bavaria Freemasonry was

?rohibited 1784 and 1785; in Austria, 1795; in Baden, ^ 813; in Russia, 1822. Since 1847 it has been tolerated in Baden, since 1850 in Bavaria, since 1868 in Hun- gary and Spain. In Austria Freemasonry is still pro- hibited because as the Superior Court of Administra- tion, 23 January, 1905, rightly declared, a Masonic association, even though established in accordance with law, "would 1x3 a member of a large (international) organization (in reality ruled by the * Old Charges ', etc. according to general Masonic principles and aims), the true regiilations of which would oe kept secret from the civil authorities, so that the activity of the members could not \)e controlled" (Bauhtttte, 1905, 60). It is indeed to he presumed that Austro-Hun- garian Masons, whatever statutes they might present to the Austrian Government in order to secure their authorLBation, would in fact continue to regard the French Grand Orient as their true pattern, and the Brothers. -.Kossuth, Garibaldi, and Mazzini as the heroes, whom they would strive to imitate. The Prussian edict of 1798 interdicted Freemasonry in

fleneral, excepting the three old Prussian Grand Lodges which the protectorate subjected to severe control by the Government. This edict, though juridically abrogated by the edict of 6 April, IS&, practically, according to a decision of the Supreme Court of Administration of 22 April, 1893, D)r an erroneous interpretation of the organs of adminis- tration, remained in force till 1893. Similarly, in England an Act of Parliament was passed on 12 July, 1798 for the ''more effectual suppression of societies established for seditions and treasonable purposes and for preventing treasonable and seditious practices". By this Act Masonic associations and meetmgs in gen- eral were interdicted, and only the lodges existing on 12 July, 1798, and ruled according to the old re^ila- tions of the Masonry of the kingdom were tolerat^, on condition that two representatives of the lod^e should make oath before the magistrates, that the lodge ex- isted and was ruled as the Act enjoined (Preston, "Illustrations of Masonry", 251 sqq.). During the period 1827-34, measures were taken against Freema- sonry in some of the United States of America. As to European countries it may be stated, that all those Governments, which had not originated in the revolu- tionary movement, strove to protect themselves against Masonic secret societies.

The action of the Church is summed up in the papal pronouncements against Freemasonry smce 1738, the most important of which are: —

Clement XII, Const. " In Emmenti ", 28 April, 1738; Benedict XIV, "Providas", 18 May, 1751: Pius VII, "Ecclesiam", 13 September, 1821; Leo XII, "Quo graviora", 13 March, 1825; Pius VIII, Encycl. "Tra- diti", 21 May, 1829; Gregory XVI, **Mirari", 15 August. 1832; Pius IX, Encycl. "Qui pluribus", 9 November, 1846; Alloc. "Qmbus quantisque malis", 20 April, 1849; Encycl. "Quanta cura", 8 December, 1864; Alloc. "Multiplices inter", 25 September, 1865; Const. " Apostolicae Sedis", 12 October, 1869; Encvcl. "Etsi multa", 21 November, 1873; Leo XIII, Encycl. "Humanum genus", 20 April, 1884; "Prseclara", 20 June, 1894; "Annum ingressi", 18 March, 1902 (against Italian Freemasonry); liicycl. "Etsl nos", 15 February, 1882; "Ab Apostolici", 15 October, 1890. These pontifical utterances from first to last are in complete accord, the latter reiterating the earlier with such developments as were called for by the growth of Freemasonry and other secret societies.

Clement XII accurately indicates the principal rea- sons why Masonic associations from the Catholic, Christian, moral, political, and social points of view, should be condemned. These reasons are: — (1) The peculiar, " imsectarian " (in truth, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian) naturalistic character of Free- masonry, by which theoretically and practically it imdermines the Catholic and Christian faith, first in its members and through them in the rest of society, creating religious indmerentism and conteinpt for orthodoxy and ecclesiastical authority. (2) The in- scrutable secrecy and fallacious ever-changing di^uise of the Masonic association and of its "work, by which "men of this sort break as thieves into the house and like foxes endeavour to root up the vine- yard", "perverting the hearts of the simple", ruining their spiritual and temporal welfare. (3) The oaths of secrecy and of fidelity to Masoniy and Masonic work, which cannot be justified in their scope, their object, or their form, and cannot, therefore, mduce any obli- gation. The oaths are condemnable. because the scope and object of Masonry are "wicked" and con- demnable, and the candidate in most cases is ignorant of the import or extent of the obligation which he takes upon himself. Moreover the ritualistic and doc- trinal ''secrets" which are the principal object of the obligation, according to the highest Masonic authori- ties, are either trifles or no longer exist (Handbuch, 3rd ed., 1, 219). In either case the oath is a condemna-