Leo XIII, Leo Taxil, and infallibility

[JackVk]

If you’re not familiar with Leo Taxil, he was French writer and satirist who feigned a conversion to Catholicism and wrote pieces of literature supposedly exposing the lurid, occult practices of the Masons. His writings eventually reached Pope Leo XIII. They eventually both met, and Taxil then admitted that his conversion and writings were all a hoax designed to mock and lampoon the Church’s opposition to Freemasonry.

Does anyone here know about the statements Leo XIII made regarding Taxil’s phony claims, and/or if they supposedly carry the weight of infallibility? Or is infallibility not applicable to these kinds of situations, where a pope has been duped?

 

[sw85]

If you’re not familiar with Leo Taxil, he was French writer and satirist who feigned a conversion to Catholicism and wrote pieces of literature supposedly exposing the lurid, occult practices of the Masons. His writings eventually reached Pope Leo XIII. They eventually both met, and Taxil then admitted that his conversion and writings were all a hoax designed to mock and lampoon the Church’s opposition to Freemasonry.

Does anyone here know about the statements Leo XIII made regarding Taxil’s phony claims, and/or if they supposedly carry the weight of infallibility? Or is infallibility not applicable to these kinds of situations, where a pope has been duped?

Infallibility doesn’t apply in any case where a Pope does not explicitly invoke apostolic authority to define a teaching as belonging to the deposit of faith. Such authority has been exercised no less than twice and no more than thrice in Church history.

 

[Genesis315]

Can you give an example of something Leo XIII said based on that misinformation?

We need to distinguish between questions of human fact and dogmatic questions. Here’s how St. Francis de Sales explained papal infallibility:
St. Francis de Sales:

And again we must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion.

Whether certain principles attributed to the Masons are contrary to the faith would be a dogmatic question. Whether the Masons or any particular lodge or person actually held or acted on those principles would be a question of fact.

 

[Jack007]

Taxil published a book called Eucharistic Novena, a collection of prayers which were praised by the Pope.

From Taxil hoax,wikipedia.

I did not find anything else in that article about the popes “approval.”

“When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.”

I doubt this applies.

 

[nysacerdote]

Leo’s Encyclical, In Eminenti, was particularly aimed at outlawing membership in Masonic organizations for Catholics. This is reflected explicitly in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, and then it is argued the ban is upheld implicitly in the 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law, as per then Cardinal Ratzinger’s clarification. However, encyclicals, in general, are not infallible declarations, although they can contain infallible magisterial teaching (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=109552).

A number of factors influenced Leo’s declaration. One such factor was the Taxil Hoax. This was an elaborate hoax whereby Taxil claimed that he knew various Masonic lodges in Paris that were working to subvert the Church, which he published in a play, claiming it as a representation of the truth. Supported by the local bishops, it was a highly embarrassing moment when Taxil came out at the end of the play, in which the bishops where in attendance, and laughed at everyone there, saying it was all a hoax and was designed to parody the Church, because he had a bone to pick with the Church.

Another aspect was the political nature of Italian lodges. Freemasonry came out in the open in 1717, when four lodges in London formed the Grand Lodge of England, now known as the United Grand Lodge of England, a history which would be too periphery for this conversation. Italian lodges, at the time of Leo, were largely irregular, or in other words, not recognized as authentic according to the terms of regularity for Masonic lodges. A quick flash forward, many Catholics are quick to ‘prove’ that masonry is ‘bad’ due to a scandal in the 80’s involving a lodge in Italy known as the P2 lodge. However, again, this lodge was not associated with regular freemasonry, and the regular lodges of Masons were not associated with the P2 rogue lodge.

Freemasonry, as a side note, is not a religion, nor a substitute for one.

 

[JackVk]

From Taxil hoax,wikipedia.

I did not find anything else in that article about the popes “approval.”

That same Wikipedia article, I think, said something about the Bishop of Charleston speaking up that the claims of Taxil weren’t true, and the Pope rebuked him for it.

 

[Genesis315]

Infallibility doesn’t apply in any case where a Pope does not explicitly invoke apostolic authority to define a teaching as belonging to the deposit of faith. Such authority has been exercised no less than twice and no more than thrice in Church history.

I’m not sure what your last sentence is based on, and even your first is on shaky ground too. The Pope doesn’t have to explicitly invoke anything, he just needs to definitively proclaim some doctrine binding on the whole Church in a manifestly evident way.

Saying there have only been two or three instances means Vatican I met to define a dogma that related to one (maybe two) isolated instances. That means the Protestants vigorously opposed this dogma and theologians like St. Francis de Sales vigorously defended papal infallibility against them when there were no or maybe one instance of it. This does not pass the common sense test.

At the First Vatican Council, some bishops wanted to define some sort of procedure or form the Pope would have to follow for his judgment to be considered infallible. The relator (a bishop responsible for giving official explanations of concilliar texts to the Council) responded that this could not be done because various procedures were used for the great many instances of papal infallibility in the past:
Bishop Gasser:

But, most eminent and reverend fathers, this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?

Granted, he is probably speaking hyperbolically, but in any event it is obvious he had more than one or two in mind. Throughout history Popes have often intervened to provide definitive judgments in the areas of faith and morals, sometimes definitively condemning long lists of propositions (e.g. Coelestis Pastor of Bl. Innocent XI, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus of St. Pius V, Unigenitus of Clement VI, Auctorem Fidei of Pius VI, etc., etc.; each condemned proposition is probably considered an individual judgment by Gasser above accounting for the high number he gives) and sometimes definitively asserting a truth (e.g. like those definitions in Benedictus Deus of Benedict XII, Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII, the dogmatic letter of St. Agatho, the Tome of St. Leo, etc.).

The idea that there have only been two instances of papal infallibility is incredibly new and I am not sure where it originates. Even those with the most limited view of papal infallibility at the time of the First Vatican Council (like Bl. John Henry Newman, who did not include infallibility indirectly in legislative decisions, etc. like others did) did not make this limiting claim.