Dialogue with Brother Freemasons?

[JPUSC]

“DEAR BROTHER MASONS” - Full Article on Catholic-Masonic Dialogue by Cardinal Ravasi

– And, exclusive, an answer by Card. Ravasi

A few days ago, we published a few excerpts of the article published by Cardinal Ravasi, President of the Pontifical Council for Culture, in the Italian paper Il Sole 24 Ore last Sunday, February 14, 2016, calling for dialogue with Freemasons. We now have the full text of the article – followed by a response given by the Cardinal to a reader who asked him for a clarification.

---

DEAR BROTHER MASONS
Over and above our different identities, there is no lack of common values: a sense of community, charitable works and the fight against materialism

by Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi

I read some time ago in an American magazine that the international bibliography on Freemasonry exceeds more than a 100,000 articles. Certainly contributing to this interest is its aura of secrecy and mystery, more or less with good reason, its different “obediences” and Masonic “rites” shrouded in a sort of murkiness, not to mention its origins, which, according to the English historian Frances Yates, “are one of the most discussed and questionable problems in the entire field of historical research” (curiously the scholar’s study was dedicated to the Rosicrucian Enlightment, translated by Einaudi in 1976).

…

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/02/dear-brother-masons-full-article-on.html?m=1

[Cardinal] Danneels has raised the ire of some Catholics for being suspected of approval of, if not direct involvement in, freemasonry in Belgium. According to some sources, Danneels spoke at a masonic event dressed in masonic costume, is on friendly relations with the Grand Orient of Belgium and owns various books on freemasonry, including Become a Freemason at the Grand Orient of Belgium.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfried_Danneels

 

[sticknstring73]

Didn’t pope Francis admit that among all of the lobbies in the Vatican there was a Masonic lobby?

 

[JPUSC]

Didn’t pope Francis admit that among all of the lobbies in the Vatican there was a Masonic lobby?

Well the President of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Gianfranco Cardinal Ravas, thinks we should dialogue with our Mason brothers and look at all the things we have in common.

 

[Petaro]

"Declaration on Masonic Associations " Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 26 November 1983

“Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.”

"

 

[sticknstring73]

"Declaration on Masonic Associations " Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 26 November 1983

“Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.”

"

 

[badnewsbarrett]

This is something from NewAdvent that is extremely long and a bit difficult to follow at times, but it does articulate much of the history and diversity of Masonic orders in various places. France and England are the most distinct types, after which other families of lodges tend to follow in the general tradition of one or the other. This is an oversimplification, I’ll say that right now, feel free to take a good 15 or 20 minutes to read the whole entire story.

newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm

If you don’t get down all the way near the end, I’ll put a couple of late-showing facts out there. First- the governments that initially took action against Masonic orders were Protestant governments, specifically Holland in 1735, Sweden and Geneva in 1738. Spain Portugal and Italy all took measures against Freemasonry in 1738. And oddly enough, the first head of state to enact measures protecting Freemasonry was a Catholic ruler, Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor and founder of the Habsburg-Lorraine dynasty.

The main reason these Protestant governments feared Freemasonry was because they believed the Masons might conspire against the government, if they concluded that their government was being despotic or fundamentally unjust in some way. And they were right to conclude that, insofar as some of them were in fact being despotic and fundamentally unjust, and most definitely so. Early Protestant rulers were just as guilty of that as Catholic rulers were, but in their modern iteration as secular states with separation of Church and State (mostly) firmly intact, these governments no longer have anything to fear because they are no longer committing the sins that they once deserved some punishment for.

The main reasons that the Catholic Church has, at certain times and places more than others, had serious problems with Masons are…listed in detail, again, well toward the end of this source. Without getting into all of them, I must say that the first one appears to be completely invalid on the face of it. It basically says the Masons purport to be a certain way in some of their core defining statements of their identity, but in fact that Catholic Church has decided they don’t know what they’re talking about and they are really anti-Christian and anti-Catholic in particular. Now that is quite a sight to see, especially since that exact sort of behavior is exactly the type of polemic that Catholic apologists complain about all the time.

The truth is, Masons have consistently stood for freedom of religion and in particular the separation of Church and State. Masons have also advocated for somewhat secular measures in state education, at least to the extent that the state does not arrange for all is citizens to be indoctrinated with a compulsory religion along with their compulsory education. For the record, that is not the same thing as seeking to destroy the Catholic Church, and those assertions only arose in countries like France and Italy where the Catholic Church was particularly staunch in its position on the wrong side of that issue. This sort of thing never seemed to come up in England or the US, where the Catholic Church has pretty much been on the right side of those types of issues.

The single comment left at the end is of more interest than such comments usually are, but it does highlight how in the US, Masons and Knights alike effectively function as social clubs that also do charitable work, and the only real difference is that the Knights are Catholic-only in membership while the Masons are open to anyone- “unsectarian,” as it were. In the Pittsburgh area, the “Knights and Nobles” initiative was quite successful and everyone had a good time, according to one retired gentleman who comments at the end of very long entries on NewAdvent.

Enjoy the material, if you can get all the way through it.

 

[HungerNThirst4R]

"Declaration on Masonic Associations " Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 26 November 1983

“Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.”

"

Yea, that’s what I thought.

 

[Duane1966]

The main reason these Protestant governments feared Freemasonry was because they believed the Masons might conspire against the government, if they concluded that their government was being despotic or fundamentally unjust in some way. And they were right to conclude that, insofar as some of them were in fact being despotic and fundamentally unjust, and most definitely so. Early Protestant rulers were just as guilty of that as Catholic rulers were, but in their modern iteration as secular states with separation of Church and State (mostly) firmly intact, these governments no longer have anything to fear because they are no longer committing the sins that they once deserved some punishment for.

This is your opinion right? Because any government that is being despotic and unjust, will fear it’s own citizens, whether they be Masons or not. In reality they feared that the Masons might conspire against their government, even if their government was fair and just.

The main reasons that the Catholic Church has, at certain times and places more than others, had serious problems with Masons are…listed in detail, again, well toward the end of this source. Without getting into all of them, I must say that the first one appears to be completely invalid on the face of it. It basically says the Masons purport to be a certain way in some of their core defining statements of their identity, but in fact that Catholic Church has decided they don’t know what they’re talking about and they are really anti-Christian and anti-Catholic in particular.

Here is their core, from Freemason’s Chronicle

“The two systems of Romanism and Freemasonry are not only incompatible, but they are radically opposed to each other” (Freemason’s Chronicle, 1884, II, I7).

“We won’t make a man a Freemason until we know that he isn’t a Catholic” (Freemason’s Chronicle, 1890, II, 347).

“The Papacy has been for a thousand years the torturer of humanity, the most shameless imposture in its presence to spiritual power of all ages . . . In presence of this spiritual cobra, this deadly, treacherous, murderous enemy, the most formidable power in the world, the unity of Italian Masonry is of absolute and supreme necessity . . . The Freemasonry of the world will rejoice to see accomplished and consummated the unity of the Italian Freemasonry” (Official Bulletin, Sept. 1887, 173).

“Popery and priestcraft are so openly allied that they may be called the same. Nothing that can be named is more repugnant to Masonry, nothing to be more carefully guarded against, and this has always been well understood by all skillful masters” (Freemason’s Chronicle, 1887, I. 35).

I’d say the Catholic Church knows exactly what the Masons are about, we can read their own literature.

The truth is, Masons have consistently stood for freedom of religion and in particular the separation of Church and State. Masons have also advocated for somewhat secular measures in state education, at least to the extent that the state does not arrange for all is citizens to be indoctrinated with a compulsory religion along with their compulsory education. For the record, that is not the same thing as seeking to destroy the Catholic Church, and those assertions only arose in countries like France and Italy where the Catholic Church was particularly staunch in its position on the wrong side of that issue. This sort of thing never seemed to come up in England or the US, where the Catholic Church has pretty much been on the right side of those types of issues.

The truth is, the Masons of 19th century America were no less anti-Catholic than other anti-Catholicism Masonry in other parts of the world. From historian Philip Jenkins:

Although not well remembered today, the great American popular movement of the late nineteenth century was the American Protective Association, which preached radical anti-Catholicism, and prepared to resist a feared Catholic coup d’état. Founded in 1887, the movement’s support ran into the hundreds of thousands at least, chiefly in the Midwest. Its founder was Henry F. Bowers, a Freemason, who structured the movement on Masonic lines, with regalia, oaths and initiations. The APA oath specified that,

I do most solemnly promise and swear that I will always, to the utmost of my ability, labor, plead and wage a continuous warfare against ignorance and fanaticism; that I will use my utmost power to strike the shackles and chains of blind obedience to the Roman Catholic church from the hampered and bound consciences of a priest-ridden and church-oppressed people; that I will never allow any one, a member of the Roman Catholic church, to become a member of this order, I knowing him to be such; that I will use my influence to promote the interest of all Protestants everywhere in the world that I may be; that I will not employ a Roman Catholic in any capacity if I can procure the services of a Protestant.

Similar Masonic precedents marked the post-1915 Ku Klux Klan, which became a national US phenomenon between 1921 and 1926, drawing perhaps five million members at its height. And at this stage, the KKK was at least as heavily devoted to anti-Catholic and anti-immigration causes as to anti-Black racism. The Klan found its local leadership in Masonic lodges, and especially among local clergy. In order to appeal to Masons and other fraternal organizations, the Klan offered a rich mythology and heraldry, with all the mystique implied by its hierarchy of “Hydras, Great Titans, Furies, Giants, Exalted Cyclops, Terrors,” its distinctive secret language, and an elaborate system of progressive initiations, of signs and countersigns. (I published on this at some length in my 1997 book Hoods and Shirts).

 

[badnewsbarrett]

This is your opinion right? Because any government that is being despotic and unjust, will fear its own citizens, whether they be Masons or not. In reality they feared that the Masons might conspire against their government, even if their government was fair and just.

The first several governments to enact restrictions on Freemasons were Protestant governments. Those governments also happened to be, shall we say, pre-Enlightened. And then, this is probably the important part, at a certain point those same countries stopped being scared of the Masons.

And you said they would be feared even if the government was objectively fair and just. I think it’s historically apparent that governments of Protestant-majority countries were only scared of the Masons if the government was trenchant in its resistance to modern reforms. And then on the other hand, if it wasn’t at all resistant to such reforms…well, the most powerful people in those governments very likely were Masons, weren’t they?

Like in the United States, where most of the founding fathers were Masons. Of all the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, no more than five of them were Not a part of that fraternal brotherhood.

So why in God’s name would such a government be afraid of the Freemasons? If nearly all of the important decision-makers in a country’s government are members, you really don’t need a rebellion or a revolution. Instead, you meet with the important people at a lodge and you talk about things.

Here is their core, from Freemason’s Chronicle I’d say the Catholic Church knows exactly what the Masons are about, we can read their own literature.

That was written in the late 19th century, right? Here’s something a bit more recent.

masonicinfo.com/anticatholic.htm

It acknowledges that the attitudes and prejudices of Masons have been roughly reflective of society at large. The case that’s made here basically says Yes, American Masons used to be anti-Catholic, but now they’re not.

The truth is, the Masons of 19th century America were no less anti-Catholic than other anti-Catholicism Masonry in other parts of the world.

That checks out with my source too. It’s changed since the 19th century though, and it’s worth noting that Masons don’t have doctrine, as a rule they don’t have much of anything in the way of static, unchanging positions. What they do is change things, not keep them the same.

If you go back far enough, the official rules for Masonic membership stated that each man ought to obediently adhere to whatever religion was prescribed by their rulers. Why? Because that’s how things worked, and they went with what was around them. In roughly the same way, Masons spent some time basically going along with whatever anti-Catholicism was around them, in spite of official positions touting the importance of religious tolerance. But then they stopped being anti-Catholic- even if the Catholic Church didn’t notice- and I would argue that this was another thing that Masons got out a little bit ahead of by helping to make it happen, rather than being totally reactive and ceasing the anti-Catholicism after everyone else did.

Masons don’t have much of anything in the way of orthodoxy. More to the point, one of the main things they aspire to is they want to be agents of change. The main goal is to change things for the better. One big change was transitioning religious obligations, and Masons also made some big changes in how they regard the Catholic Church. It’s not much of a surprise that the Catholic Church is a lot slower in making changes of its own…but it should, it really should.

Before I complete this comment, please allow me to issue a challenge to you. You’re familiar with the saying “Anti-Catholic is as anti-Catholic does,” right? Please indulge me with a case study. As you probably know, the city of Chicago has a strong Catholic history. It was founded and named by a Catholic, and most of the growth that brought it to major-media-market size was fueled by primarily Catholic immigration. Now, it’s recently come to my attention that very nearly every member of the Chicago Police Union is a Mason. I’m not sure how many of them are Catholic- I know the city as a whole is nearly 40% Catholic, almost 20 points higher than the nation as a whole- but the point is, almost everyone on the Union is a Mason. This group of people is a great example of non-elected decision-makers. They have tremendous influence over how law enforcement works, and the endorsement of the police union is of utmost importance in local elections. If you can’t get the endorsement of the police union, you might as well not even run in a primary. All this power, and it’s well worth noting that the Police Union is not beholden to any type of voting base whatsoever.

My challenge to you is this. Within the likely lifetime of anyone who may be viewing this- say, at any point in the past 50 or 60 years, or something close to it- has the Chicago Police Union, to your knowledge, been guilty of doing anything anti-Catholic that could be reasonably attributed to the Masonic membership of basically everyone in the union? This could pertain to any type of endorsement or other political moves, or anything at all within law enforcement. The city of Chicago, its police union, and the considerable Catholic population of the city of Chicago. That is what I am asking you to consider.

Now, in the even that you come up empty, you might wind up telling me “Ok, BnB, so I couldn’t come up with anything on this. But that doesn’t mean Masons in Chicago aren’t anti-Catholic.” And to that I would say…

Actually, that’s exactly what it means.

Let’s see what you can come up with. If you’d like to switch it to a different city, be my guest, as long as we can somehow ascertain that their police union is also Masonic in its near-entirety.

 

[Duane1966]

Like in the United States, where most of the founding fathers were Masons. Of all the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, no more than five of them were Not a part of that fraternal brotherhood

Before I address the rest of this post, I have to answer this. If you’re going to say a whopper, go all the way. You should have said all the signers were members. Their own website says only 9 were signers, with another 17 suspected as being members, but they admit that the proof those other 17 is circumstantial. Thanks for my historical laugh of the day.

 

[Duane1966]

And you said they would be feared even if the government was objectively fair and just. I think it’s historically apparent that governments of Protestant-majority countries were only scared of the Masons if the government was trenchant in its resistance to modern reforms. And then on the other hand, if it wasn’t at all resistant to such reforms…well, the most powerful people in those governments very likely were Masons, weren’t they?

You can link me to a non-mason website that agrees with your statement correct?

It acknowledges that the attitudes and prejudices of Masons have been roughly reflective of society at large. The case that’s made here basically says Yes, American Masons used to be anti-Catholic, but now they’re not.

Two things that should be obvious to anyone who reads this paragraph and takes it at face value:

1.) If the society at large is okay with slavery, cross-burning, or even sex trafficking, then it would be okay with the Freemasons, as they roughly reflect the society at large.

2.) Based on #1, one can only conclude that the only case that is in reality being made here, is that should society at some point return to anti-Catholicism, the Freemasons will gladly resort to their former ways, as they roughly reflect society.

That checks out with my source too.

So what’s your source? I hope it is a better one than your Declaration of Independence source.

Before I complete this comment, please allow me to issue a challenge to you. You’re familiar with the saying “Anti-Catholic is as anti-Catholic does,” right? Please indulge me with a case study. As you probably know, the city of Chicago has a strong Catholic history. It was founded and named by a Catholic, and most of the growth that brought it to major-media-market size was fueled by primarily Catholic immigration. Now, it’s recently come to my attention that very nearly every member of the Chicago Police Union is a Mason.

Okay, give me a link that shows what % of that union are members of the Freemasons. Without independent verification of your figure for the union, the actual % is probably 5. I base this on your butchering of the number of Declaration of Independence signees who were Freemasons. Because until you can give an accurate figure, independent of*** it has come to my attention,*** then any chance of an accurate answer by me becomes impossible.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

You can link me to a non-mason website that agrees with your statement correct?

I can link you to the online version of the Catholic Encyclopedia agreeing with this statement.

newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm

Search within the page for “Action of state and Church authorities.” It begins with “Curiously enough, the first sovereign to join and protect Freemasonry was the Catholic German Emperor…while the first actions taken against Freemasonry were Protestant governments.”

Two things that should be obvious to anyone who reads this paragraph and takes it at face value:

1.) If the society at large is okay with slavery, cross-burning, or even sex trafficking, then it would be okay with the Freemasons, as they roughly reflect the society at large.

I’d prefer to say that Freemasons aspire to be better than society at large and to be early-adopters of beneficial change to society, but that they aren’t always immediate or universal in the trend that they wish to set. This explains why you’re able to quote-mine examples of intolerance, although you’re overly certain that you’re spotted a fundamental rule of the universe. If your analysis is taken at face value, that is.

2.) Based on #1, one can only conclude that the only case that is in reality being made here, is that should society at some point return to anti-Catholicism, the Freemasons will gladly resort to their former ways, as they roughly reflect society.

Maybe yes, probably no. The Freemasons do not claim to be protected from error by the Holy Spirit, nor do they claim to be free from error or the possibility of error. They’re regular people that way. In terms of ideals and aspirations, this would seem a lot like a thing that’s been settled and Should not be returned to in the way you describe. I might compare it to the possibility of the United States of America returning to British rule.

Is there a possibility? I’d call it laughably small.

So what’s your source? I hope it is a better one than your Declaration of Independence source.

I didn’t source anything for the Declaration of Independence because I thought I had remembered something correctly and it was way off. This is a bit different though, I didn’t learn about the Police Union thing from the Internet. I heard that from a guy who’s a Mason in Chicago.

As for an Internet source, that’s not hard to find.

chicagofop.org/

The FOP. Fraternal Order of the Police, are you familiar with it?

From the “About” section.
[SIGN]“The Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police is a non-profit organization that was formed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on November 17, 1915. On January 7, 1963, the Grand Lodge granted a charter to Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7, establishing Lodge No. 7 as a subordinate lodge with full power under its jurisdiction for the City of Chicago. The organization was known as The United Chicago Police Association…
It was not until August 19, 1981 that the FOP Lodge No. 7, became the collective bargaining agent for the police and the union for 8,202 Chicago Police Officers. The current President is Dean C. Angelo, Sr.”
[/SIGN]

Okay, give me a link that shows what % of that union are members of the Freemasons. Without independent verification of your figure for the union, the actual % is probably 5.

Well, it’s not a total verification, but it’s quite interesting that the FOP is ordered and structured as a fraternity with words like Lodge, Grand Lodge, the secret handshakes, symbols taken directly from the Masons. The general concept of the FOP started in Philadelphia at a time when police officers were not allowed to unionize, so they started a fraternal brotherhood and basically adapted Masonic practices to that of a police union. This was begun by officers who were Masons, Brother Mason Martin Toole and Brother Mason Delbert Nagle.

Now technically, being a member of the FOP doesn’t make an officer a Mason in and of itself. But anyone who is a part of the FOP participates in Lodge activities and goes through most of the process of being in a Masonic lodge, except it’s exclusively for police officers that are part of this collective-bargaining unit that is also a brotherhood. So naturally, if they’re doing things that are basically Masonic in nature to begin with, the decision to be part of the actual Masonic brotherhood is an easy one to make, and in practice it just means they’d be able to go to any Masonic lodge and have access to the full brotherhood and not just officers who are in the union. Regular Masons very much want the FOP to be as close to fully integrated with their own brotherhood as it can be, and that’s basically what’s happened.

I base this on your butchering of the number of Declaration of Independence signees who were Freemasons.

I acknowledge that I butchered the other thing, however as you may be aware past performance doesn’t always predict future results. Was that a good enough source for the police union thing? Good enough, I hope, for an actual answer on the issue of whether you can find any link between Masonic influence in the Chicago police force and literally anything anti-Catholic that actually resulted from that.

 

[ffg]

The truth is,

There are Masons that might agree that a key attracting factor is the mystery.

A mystery can only be, if the truth is blurry, difficult to know, or unreachable.

 

[Duane1966]

I can link you to the online version of the Catholic Encyclopedia agreeing with this statement.

newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm

Search within the page for “Action of state and Church authorities.” It begins with “Curiously enough, the first sovereign to join and protect Freemasonry was the Catholic German Emperor…while the first actions taken against Freemasonry were Protestant governments.”

Okay. I have read and read and reread that article. And nowhere does it state what you have said that the governments only had to fear the Freemasons if said governments were tyrannical and despots.

I’d prefer to say that Freemasons aspire to be better than society at large and to be early-adopters of beneficial change to society, but that they aren’t always immediate or universal in the trend that they wish to set. This explains why you’re able to quote-mine examples of intolerance, although you’re overly certain that you’re spotted a fundamental rule of the universe. If your analysis is taken at face value, that is.

You’d prefer to say that, but I see it differently.

Maybe yes, probably no. The Freemasons do not claim to be protected from error by the Holy Spirit, nor do they claim to be free from error or the possibility of error. They’re regular people that way. In terms of ideals and aspirations, this would seem a lot like a thing that’s been settled and Should not be returned to in the way you describe. I might compare it to the possibility of the United States of America returning to British rule.

Is there a possibility? I’d call it laughably small.

I would compare it to the chance of there being an eclipse of the sun. Guaranteed to happen in the future.

I didn’t source anything for the Declaration of Independence because I thought I had remembered something correctly and it was way off. This is a bit different though, I didn’t learn about the Police Union thing from the Internet. I heard that from a guy who’s a Mason in Chicago.

As for an Internet source, that’s not hard to find.

chicagofop.org/

The FOP. Fraternal Order of the Police, are you familiar with it?

From the “About” section.
[SIGN]“The Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police is a non-profit organization that was formed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on November 17, 1915. On January 7, 1963, the Grand Lodge granted a charter to Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7, establishing Lodge No. 7 as a subordinate lodge with full power under its jurisdiction for the City of Chicago. The organization was known as The United Chicago Police Association…
It was not until August 19, 1981 that the FOP Lodge No. 7, became the collective bargaining agent for the police and the union for 8,202 Chicago Police Officers. The current President is Dean C. Angelo, Sr.”
[/SIGN]

Well, it’s not a total verification, but it’s quite interesting that the FOP is ordered and structured as a fraternity with words like Lodge, Grand Lodge, the secret handshakes, symbols taken directly from the Masons. The general concept of the FOP started in Philadelphia at a time when police officers were not allowed to unionize, so they started a fraternal brotherhood and basically adapted Masonic practices to that of a police union. This was begun by officers who were Masons, Brother Mason Martin Toole and Brother Mason Delbert Nagle.

Now technically, being a member of the FOP doesn’t make an officer a Mason in and of itself. But anyone who is a part of the FOP participates in Lodge activities and goes through most of the process of being in a Masonic lodge, except it’s exclusively for police officers that are part of this collective-bargaining unit that is also a brotherhood. So naturally, if they’re doing things that are basically Masonic in nature to begin with, the decision to be part of the actual Masonic brotherhood is an easy one to make, and in practice it just means they’d be able to go to any Masonic lodge and have access to the full brotherhood and not just officers who are in the union. Regular Masons very much want the FOP to be as close to fully integrated with their own brotherhood as it can be, and that’s basically what’s happened.

I called the number on the website. They said everything about Lodge 7 is purely union related, with no ties to Freemasonry in any way, except being called a lodge. That the FOP was started by two Freemasons, and they based many of it’s aspects on Freemasonry originally, I will grant, but most FOP’s have forgotten that link to Freemasonry in the past.

I acknowledge that I butchered the other thing, however as you may be aware past performance doesn’t always predict future results. Was that a good enough source for the police union thing? Good enough, I hope, for an actual answer on the issue of whether you can find any link between Masonic influence in the Chicago police force and literally anything anti-Catholic that actually resulted from that.

Simply stating that the FOP is closely related to Masonic Lodges, does not mean that the members of said FOP will join Freemasonry, or even want to, even though it would be easy for them to do so. That is quite an assumption on your part.
Once again, I must ask you: Can you provide me with statistical data, in a link to show me how many of said union actually belongs to Freemasonry?
Because I heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another, makes it impossible for me to give you an accurate, and adequate response, that you so richly deserve to the dubious question you originally proposed. Otherwise I can guarantee you that the answer will be GIGO.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

Okay. I have read and read and reread that article. And nowhere does it state what you have said that the governments only had to fear the Freemasons if said governments were tyrannical and despots.

It doesn’t say exactly all of that, but let me explain to you very quickly how this works.

The stated position of the Freemasons is that if they oppose a particular government, they do so on account of tyrannical behavior on the part of despots. You may be aware of this, if you’ve read what Masons say in any official capacity.

What you have said, in effect, is “Nonsense, Masons specifically target Catholic governments. They wouldn’t target Protestant governments, because it’s an anti-Catholic organization.” Not in those exact words, but that’s the general idea.

What the source does explicitly say is “Interestingly enough”…the first governments to pass measures restricting Masons were Protestant governments, and that was followed by a few Catholic governments and a couple more Protestant governments.

Once the idea of specifically Catholic opposition is scrapped, we return to the original hypothesis- that Masons did as they stated they would, oppose tyrants and despots. Evidently, they did so whether those people were Catholic or Protestant.

You’d prefer to say that, but I see it differently.

And how do you see it exactly? I’m attempting to reconcile the stated ideals of the Masonic MO with the shortcomings that I see them acknowledging in the source that this relates to. What’s different about your approach?

I would compare it to the chance of there being an eclipse of the sun. Guaranteed to happen in the future.

As far as I can tell, there is currently no anti-Catholic bias or actions on the part of the Freemasons. Membership is totally open to interested Catholics (not that you would want to go there), and Masons, as an organization, are not doing anything anti-Catholic at this time.

But you believe it’s guaranteed at some point in the future. Approximately how long will it be before it happens, and what do you suppose it will look like? Where do you think it will be seen? And will it be safe to look at with the naked eye? Keep in mind that in the example you’ve chosen- that of an eclipse- all of these are fair questions to ask.

I called the number on the website. They said everything about Lodge 7 is purely union related, with no ties to Freemasonry in any way, except being called a lodge. That the FOP was started by two Freemasons, and they based many of it’s aspects on Freemasonry originally, I will grant, but most FOP’s have forgotten that link to Freemasonry in the past.

Were you actually told that most FOP’s have forgotten their Freemasonry links, or did you just say that? The only thing “purely union related” about Lodge 7 is the specific nature of what they discuss, otherwise in form and function it is a fraternal brotherhood that really is at its best when its members are more fully integrated with other lodges that are actually Masonic. Not really because of the ceremonies or literature or anything like that, but because the people that can be found there are an incredibly valuable resource.

Simply stating that the FOP is closely related to Masonic Lodges, does not mean that the members of said FOP will join Freemasonry, or even want to, even though it would be easy for them to do so. That is quite an assumption on your part.

It’s actually not an assumption, I was told that nearly all of the FOP were Masons before I properly knew what the FOP was. I found out about its history after that, and then the thing I’d learned about independently made a bit more sense.

Once again, I must ask you: Can you provide me with statistical data, in a link to show me how many of said union actually belongs to Freemasonry?

I’ve looked around and there’s nothing of the sort that I can find. I did find out something about Masons in England though, back in 1997 Jack Straw was a key member of the Labour Party who believed that judges and magistrates were potentially compromised through their Masonic associations and he was instrumental in making Freemasonry a “declarable and registrable interest.” More recently though- around 2009- the same man, Jack Straw, scrapped the rule before leaving office, saying that the scrutiny of the past 12 years had revealed…
[SIGN]“no evidence of impropriety or malpractice within the judiciary as a result of a judge being a freemason and in my judgment, therefore, it would be disproportionate to continue the collection or retention of this information.”[/SIGN]
theguardian.com/politics/blog/2009/nov/05/jack-straw-judges-masons

That’s quite a turnaround for someone who was once the face of anti-Masonry in England. The reason I bring this up is to show what goes into making these types of figures public knowledge. This is also what it looks like when they stop being public knowledge. As far as I can tell, Masonic membership statistics have not been formally declared or made public for the FOP or any such thing in the state of Illinois.

The other reason I bring this to your attention is to show you what eventually happens when very suspicious people properly scrutinize Masons over a long period of time.

Because I heard it from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another…

Ah, but my friendship with the source has nothing to do with why he’s credible. This friend is from Chicago like me, but unlike you or me this man is a Mason, and he is also a member of law enforcement.

Original research is nobody’s first choice in this type of discussion, but in this particular instance it might be a good time to remind you that original research is an actual thing and it can be perfectly valid.

 

[Duane1966]

The stated position of the Freemasons is that if they oppose a particular government, they do so on account of tyrannical behavior on the part of despots. You may be aware of this, if you’ve read what Masons say in any official capacity.

What you have said, in effect, is “Nonsense, Masons specifically target Catholic governments. They wouldn’t target Protestant governments, because it’s an anti-Catholic organization.” Not in those exact words, but that’s the general idea.

You assume a lot of the time. I never said they were specifically targeting Catholic governments. I did say that governments, be they Protestant or Catholic, feared them because whether the government was tyrannical or not, the Freemasons may view them as tyrannical and despots. You do realize that any organization can claim a government is tyrannical and full of despots, in said organizations own lust for power?

Once the idea of specifically Catholic opposition is scrapped, we return to the original hypothesis- that Masons did as they stated they would, oppose tyrants and despots. Evidently, …

One person’s tyrant is another’s angel. Many people feel Napoleon was a tyrant and a despot. Yet he had the full backing of the Freemasonry of France, and they flourished while he was in power. So really, Freemasonry picks and chooses, which despot they want to support, and which despot they want to overthrow (sounds like the United States government). Many historians state that the Freemasons were active against Louis XVI in the French Revolution. And what most historians agree on, is that the French people were much worse off after the revolution, than before.

As far as I can tell, there is currently no anti-Catholic bias or actions on the part of the Freemasons. Membership is totally open to interested Catholics (not that you would want to go there), and Masons, as an organization, are not doing anything anti-Catholic at this time.

Maybe not in the USA. But…

After the Second Vatican Council, however, the long hostility between Lodge and Church seemed to be easing. A reinterpretation of the anti-Masonic canons in 1974 led some Catholics to think that only Masonic groups actively plotting against the Church were forbidden to them.

Even so, some Freemasons had actually been plotting against the Vatican through its bank. In 1981, two of the Pope’s top financial advisers – known all along as Masons – were unmasked as members of a secret Lodge called Propaganda Due (P2) that was plotting a fascist takeover of Italy. Both men later died mysteriously. The Vatican lost $240,000 with the collapse of its bank.

But you believe it’s guaranteed at some point in the future. Approximately how long will it be before it happens, and what do you suppose it will look like? Where do you think it will be seen? And will it be safe to look at with the naked eye?

Put your sunglasses on then. In reality, knowing something will happen, does not mean you have to know when it will happen. I know Jesus will come again, like I know an eclipse of the sun will happen again. Do I know when? No. Will I need to wear sunglasses? Maybe.

Keep in mind that in the example you’ve chosen- that of an eclipse- all of these are fair questions to ask.

Fair questions? Maybe. But most people would not take it to the silly extreme that you have.

Were you actually told that most FOP’s have forgotten their Freemasonry links, or did you just say that?

Was told, by a police friend.

The only thing “purely union related” about Lodge 7 is the specific nature of what they discuss, otherwise in form and function it is a fraternal brotherhood that really is at its best when its members are more fully integrated with other lodges that are actually Masonic. Not really because of the ceremonies or literature or anything like that, but because the people that can be found there are an incredibly valuable resource.

Again this is your opinion. But do you have non-Masonic statistical evidence to back it up? Valuable resource in this case is subjective.

It’s actually not an assumption, I was told that nearly all of the FOP were Masons before I properly knew what the FOP was. I found out about its history after that, and then the thing I’d learned about independently made a bit more sense.

You might be interested in Officer.com’s Masonic thread. Lot of support for Masons from the members that are Masonic. And some police horror stories of dealing with the abuses of fellow officers who were Masons

Ah, but my friendship with the source has nothing to do with why he’s credible. This friend is from Chicago like me, but unlike you or me this man is a Mason, and he is also a member of law enforcement.

Neither, invokes credibility with me. I know of corrupt police in jail.

Original research is nobody’s first choice in this type of discussion, but in this particular instance it might be a good time to remind you that original research is an actual thing and it can be perfectly valid.

Okay this is what you want out of me:

Take your friend’s word that all of the Chicago police are Masons, with no statistical evidence that this is true. Surely your friend who is a police officer, and a Mason, can send you a link showing this to be true. It’s the least that a member of Chicago’s finest can do, to back up his, and your point. Or is it a secret?

I found this an interesting five minute read. eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2013/04/i-was-freemason-destructive-effects-of.html

 

[ffg]

If anyone at the parish mission was confused about this subject, it was made clear in no uncertain terms.

The reasoning was interesting.

Contrasting accessibility to Christian information and sacraments to the secrecy.

Concluding that Satan is the epitome of separation and there is no better way to separate than selling folks that they’ll know something special if they only do x.

Similar to selling Eve.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

You assume a lot of the time. I never said they were specifically targeting Catholic governments. I did say that governments, be they Protestant or Catholic, feared them because whether the government was tyrannical or not, the Freemasons may view them as tyrannical and despots.

I’d argue that Masons have a fairly standard, thoroughgoing definition of “tyrant” and/or “despot,” they have been demonstrably avoidant of religious tests in applying such labels, and the main difference between them and any other organization is that Masons can actually do something about it.

One person’s tyrant is another’s angel. Many people feel Napoleon was a tyrant and a despot. Yet he had the full backing of the Freemasonry of France, and they flourished while he was in power.

I would argue that the main reason Napoleon was feared and hated was that he attained a great deal of power without being of noble blood and without having the authority of the state particularly beholden to any church. Each of these points pretty well aligns Napoleon with Masonic ideals along with the modern American political ideal, and Masons very likely looked at how this upset the established power structure and said it was a good thing, and in many ways a paradigm shift that needed to happen. So I would actually side with the Masons on a lot of key points here, and I would argue that many people can be roped into calling someone a tyrant or despot for really poor reasons. In this instance, I’m glad that the Masons stood against some poor reasoning.

Maybe not in the USA. But…

That’s perfectly valid, the USA is not the same as everywhere else, especially when it comes to this. But I happen to be in the USA, and Freemasons in the USA are not in perfect communion with all Masons everywhere, in fact there are rifts between families of lodges that are roughly similar to the Protestant/Catholic split. I’ll refer you to this particular rule…

[SIGN]Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.[/SIGN]

And I’ll suggest that the same could, and should, be applied to Freemasonry. It is not a body that is whole and united. There are bodies that have broken company with other bodies.

You might be interested in Officer.com’s Masonic thread. Lot of support for Masons from the members that are Masonic. And some police horror stories of dealing with the abuses of fellow officers who were Masons

[SIGN]It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.[/SIGN]

Same suggestion, second verse. The general principle pretty well applies here. On the whole, Masons in positions of power have been investigated in a variety of settings and in general, people who go looking for abuse-of-power patterns with Masonic membership as the cause routinely come up empty.

Neither, invokes credibility with me. I know of corrupt police in jail.

My friend is neither corrupt nor in jail. I could just as easily say I know of corrupt Catholics who are in jail. What, now I’m going to disregard every Catholic on this forum? I could easily say that I know of some priests who do bad things. Does that mean I should view all priests as non-credible sources on matters that specifically pertain to their religion? Of course it doesn’t. This is some flagrantly awful logic, and you would jump all over anyone who put you on the receiving end of it.

Okay this is what you want out of me:

Take your friend’s word that all of the Chicago police are Masons,

Important distinction here, not all police. Just those who belong to the Fraternal Order of Police, those members of the union who go to a lodge on account of being in the union and have all chosen to be part of a fraternal brotherhood…those people are almost all Masons.

with no statistical evidence that this is true. Surely your friend who is a police officer, and a Mason, can send you a link showing this to be true. It’s the least that a member of Chicago’s finest can do, to back up his, and your point.

To my knowledge and to his, there are no comprehensive public records beyond those here-and-there individual identifiers. I can’t give you something if it doesn’t exist. I have looked into it and attempted to run something down, and I don’t think I can do anything else for you on that front. If you can prove me wrong, I wouldn’t mind at all. If you can find anything of the sort, I’m sure you’ll put it out there, as will I.

Or is it a secret?

Kind of, not really. It’s not a declarable interest, which basically means there’s no reason to compel Masons to reveal their affiliation for the public record. On an individual level, I have always known Masons to be forthcoming with anyone who knows them, and the family of a Mason can and frequently will tell anyone they know that so-and-so is a Mason.

I found this an interesting five minute read.]

That’s one of those specifically French situations involving lodges that are, as a rule, generally not in any kind of reliable communion with most of the lodges in the USA. Which, again, is where I’m from. If Catholics in France are avoiding Masonic affiliation in France, I can understand that. The history is there, specifically there. But this is here and not there, and Freemasonry in the English-speaking world has a very distinct history from the French-speaking world. This is one of the key distinctions that I’m always looking for and I usually don’t see it, especially when people are telling their personal horror stories.

 

[Duane1966]

I’d argue that Masons have a fairly standard, thoroughgoing definition of “tyrant” and/or “despot,” they have been demonstrably avoidant …

Yes, but rarely for the better.

I would argue that the main reason Napoleon was feared and hated was that he attained a great deal of power without being of noble blood …

I would argue otherwise. Professor Chris Clark, a Cambridge University historian, said of Napoleon:

Napoleon was not a French patriot—he was first a Corsican and later an imperial figure, a journey in which he bypassed any deep affiliation with the French nation. His relationship with the French Revolution is deeply ambivalent. Did he stabilize it or shut it down? He seems to have done both. He rejected democracy, he suffocated the representative dimension of politics, and he created a culture of courtly display.

Jean-Paul Bertaud, a Professor Emeritus of History at La Sorbonne in Paris, and a specialist on the French Revolution and military history explained what life was like under Napoleon’s iron rule:

You go to a salon, there’s a spy. You go a brothel, there is a spy. You go to a restaurant, there is a spy. Everywhere there are spies of the police. Everyone listens to what you say. It’s impossible to express yourself unless Napoleon wants you to.

Napoleon had no qualms about killing French citizens. In 1795, he mowed down the Parisian mob with cannons, an event known as the 13 Vendémiaire. He showed no hesitation in using extreme force to quell the uprising with what became known as “a whiff of grapeshot”—deadly slugs of metal packed into bags or canisters, then fired into the mob at close range, ripping through flesh with terrifying effectiveness.

Thank you enlightened Freemasons, for backing this tyrant.

That’s perfectly valid, the USA is not the same as everywhere else, …

The Catholic Church is not, nor should be in the habit of addressing every individual pocket of Freemasonry. Are there official Freemason statements condemning these Freemason abuses in other countries? If not, then the silence condones!!

Same suggestion, second verse. The general principle pretty well applies here. On the whole, Masons in positions of power have been investigated in a variety of settings and in general, people who go looking for abuse-of-power patterns with Masonic membership as the cause routinely come up empty.

Can you give me links showing that Masons in positions of power have been investigated in a variety of settings? Tell me, if a police officer who admitted on that forum, that he had let people go for minor traffic offenses because, they were fellow Masons, would that be an abuse of power?

My friend is neither corrupt nor in jail. I could just as easily say I know of corrupt Catholics who are in jail. What, now I’m going to disregard every Catholic on this forum? I could easily say that I know of some priests who do bad things. Does that mean I should view all priests as non-credible sources on matters that specifically pertain to their religion? Of course it doesn’t. This is some flagrantly awful logic, and you would jump all over anyone who put you on the receiving end of it.

But your comment implies that the fact that your friend is, a Mason, and a law enforcement officer lends him credibility. It does neither with me. So, give me some official data, that is public.

Important distinction here, not all police. Just those who belong to the Fraternal Order of Police, those members of the union who go to a lodge on account of being in the union and have all chosen to be part of a fraternal brotherhood…those people are almost all Masons.

I did not make myself clear. I meant police unions. Prove to me in a link showing that those people are almost all Masons. If you can not officially show it, then someone saying hardly any of them are Masons is just as valid.

To my knowledge and to his, there are no comprehensive public records beyond those here-and-there individual identifiers. I can’t give you something if it doesn’t exist. I have looked into it and attempted to run something down, and I don’t think I can do anything else for you on that front. If you can prove me wrong, I wouldn’t mind at all. If you can find anything of the sort, I’m sure you’ll put it out there, as will I.

Then we are at a standstill. I would add that extremely credible people in my eyes, namely many popes and bishops, have condemned Freemasonry. From what I have read, I can clearly see the Holy Spirit guiding them on this subject.

 

[badnewsbarrett]

I would argue otherwise. Professor Chris Clark, a Cambridge University historian, said…

Napoleon is a mixed bag, there are some positives that go along with the negatives. Along with famously refusing to cast out (or kill) any more Hugenots or Jews, Napoleon was responsible for a unified civil code, the metric system, abolishing the feudal system, the Council of State, the Bank of France, a secular national school system that quickly led to French children outperforming their European neighbors, among other very nice things. As summarized by British historian Andrew Roberts in “Napoleon: A Life”…

[SIGN]“The ideas that underpin our modern world–meritocracy, equality before the law, property rights, religious toleration, modern secular education, sound finances, and so on–were championed, consolidated, codified and geographically extended by Napoleon. To them he added a rational and efficient local administration, an end to rural banditry, the encouragement of science and the arts, the abolition of feudalism and the greatest codification of laws since the fall of the Roman Empire.”[/SIGN]

If you forget that Napoleon was responsible for introducing these sorts of ideas and ideals, you may be doomed to forget that the Catholic Church spent more time fighting some of them than it did with helping them along. There are bad things to say about him along with quite a bit of good (which you should not completely bypass, it makes you seem uninformed).

Thank you enlightened Freemasons, for backing this tyrant.

Ok sarcastic guy, there are some bad points to Napoleon as well. He also rigged elections, suppressed dissent, completely murdered freedom of the press, and adopted an annoyingly Romanist style of courtly display. He reintroduced slavery to French colonies, did nothing for gender equality, and was a master propagandist who did not tolerate any criticism.

And- this is a very important point- Napoleon was also a very bad neighbor to the British Isles, one of his chief goals in consolidating continental control was to enforce an embargo on England and cut it off from any trade with continental Europe, effectively ruining it. As you have so strongly implied, the Grand Orient of France basically backed Napoleon’s play on this, but English Freemasons were understandably not at all okay with any of that. More to the point, this is one of the immediate causes of enmity and separation between English lodges and French lodges, and it’s had lasting effects right up to the present day.

The Catholic Church is not, nor should be in the habit of addressing every individual pocket of Freemasonry. Are there official Freemason statements condemning these Freemason abuses in other countries? If not, then the silence condones!!

Oh trust me, English Freemasons were not ever silent about Napoleon. Again, that is one of the main reasons why the French Masons and English Masons wound up having a Great Divide. Now, the Catholic Church is not expected to address “every individual pocket” of Freemasonry, but it ought to be clear in addressing just one pocket instead of acting like any one pocket can speak for or represent the whole of it. In this particular instance, one pocket was actively seeking to harm another.

This will probably address some of your concerns.
freemasons-freemasonry.com/prescott13.html

Can you give me links showing that Masons in positions of power have been investigated in a variety of settings?

This is the First Special Report from the House of Commons, the government reply to the Third Special Report from the Home Affairs Committee. publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmhaff/577s1/has103.htm

It’s a key part in a larger interaction, but suffice to say that for more than a handful of years, unproven concerns over the Masonic membership of law enforcement and judges led to it being a registrable interest, and then it stopped being that way because close examination revealed nothing but rumors and suspicions.

Tell me, if a police officer who admitted on that forum, that he had let people go for minor traffic offenses because, they were fellow Masons, would that be an abuse of power?

I’m not a member of law enforcement or a lawyer, but as far as I know there is a certain amount of discretion that permits leniency. Accepting money or favors in exchange for leniency would be a bigger problem, but that’s not at issue here, and I’d say you’ve described something within the bounds of acceptable discretion, as long as it’s not forming a consistent pattern.

But your comment implies that the fact that your friend is, a Mason, and a law enforcement officer lends him credibility.

It does. As a cop, he knows who’s union. As a Mason, he knows how many of those people show up at lodges because he physically sees them there. This is, in effect, an eyewitness account, and he regularly interacts with corroborating eyewitnesses.

It does neither with me.

This is an unreasonable and contrarian response.

If you can not officially show it, then someone saying hardly any of them are Masons is just as valid.

Do you have a source who would actually know something about it?