Rowan Williams apologises to Freemasons

Telegraph (UK) ^ | 20/04/2003 | Chris Hastings and Elizabeth Day

[nickcarraway]

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has been forced to apologise to Britain's 330,000 Freemasons after he said that their beliefs were incompatible with Christianity and that he had rejected them from senior posts in his diocese.

Dr Williams has written to Robert Morrow, the Grand Secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England, in an attempt to defuse the row prompted by comments he made last year. In his letter, the Archbishop apologises for the "distress" he caused and discloses that his own father was a member of the Craft.

Freemasons, many of whom are active members of the Church of England, reacted angrily to his disclosure that he "had real misgivings about the compatibility of Masonry and Christian profession" and by his admission that, as Bishop of Monmouth, he had blocked the appointment of Freemasons to senior appointments.

His comments about Freemasons were in a private letter leaked to the media shortly after Downing Street confirmed his appointment as head of the Church of England.

Subsequent attempts by his advisers to defuse the row only caused further offence. A spokesman said the Archbishop was worried about the ritual element of Freemasonry, which has been seen as "satanically inspired".

In his letter of apology, Dr Williams tries to distance himself from his own reported comments. He claims that his views were never meant to be public and were distorted by the media.

He wrote: "I have been sorry to learn of the distress of a considerable number of Freemasons . . . In replying to private correspondence, I had no intention of starting a public debate nor of questioning the good faith and generosity of individual Freemasons and I regret the tone and content of the media coverage."

He added: "The quoted statements about the 'satanic' character of the Masonic ceremonies and other matters did not come from me and do not represent my judgment. Since my late father was a member of the Craft for many years, I have had every opportunity of observing the probity of individual members."

Dr Williams does not, in his letter, deny that he has misgivings about the role of Freemasons within the Church.

He wrote: "Where anxieties exist, however, they are in relation not to Freemasonry but to Christian ministers subscribing to what could be and often is understood [or misunderstood] as a private system of profession and initiation, involving the taking of oaths of loyalty."

He ends his letter by stating that Freemasons' commitment to charity and the community is beyond question.

[Cap'n Crunch]

If I may, I recommend several books which I have next to me right now.

"Behind the Lodge Door" by Paul A. Fisher

"Freemasonry, Mankind's Hidden Enemy" by Bro. Charles Madden O.F.M. Conv.

"Christianity and American Freemasonry" by William J. Whalen

The first two are available through TAN books and publishers and the third published by Our Sunday Visitor.

Perhaps patent has a few more..and I post with all due respect to him.

[TontoKowalski]

As a Catholic, I believe it is incompatible with my Christian witness to take secret oaths of any kind.

I'm genuinely curious...this is not intended as a slam or to be provocative, or anything like that...what is the Catholic Churches position on College Fraternities and Sororities?

My frat had a secret oath, as I assume all other college frats do, and we had many, many Catholics as members.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Where did Christ ever say, go into the world and make it Catholic?

Jesus said make disciples of all nations. Obviously RCC and Protestants differ on the particulars, but the agreed idea is that Christianity should be spread. Not some mischmosch that includes Hinduism, Islam, Shintoism, and anything else that in English uses the term "God."

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Maybe they haven't been initiated that far up yet. Perhaps I can help them out. Here's a little bit from a 30 degree Mason ceremony. "The Grand Master approaches a table on which are three skulls. One is adorned with a papal tiara, a second wears a regal crown, and the third is festooned with a laurel wreath. "The Grand Master stabs the skull bearing the papal tiara, as the candidate repeats: "Down with imposture! Down with crime!....the candidate takes a second oath to "strive unceasingly... for the overthrow of superstition, fanaticism, imposture and intolerance." The fourth oath taken by a Knight Kadosh focuses again on the "cruel and cowardly Pontiff, who sacrificed to his ambition the illustrious order of those Knights Templar of whom we ar the true successors." They probably didn't want us to hear that part.

total bullshit.

[Antoninus]

Freemasonry from the Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org

This is an excerpt from an article that gives an excellent summary of where the Catholic Church stands on Masonry and why it is condemned.

I. NAME AND DEFINITION

Leaving aside various fanciful derivations we may trace the word mason to the French maçon (Latin matio or machio), "a builder of walls" or "a stone-cutter" (cf. German Steinmetz, from metzen, "to cut"; and Dutch vrijmetselaar).

The compound term Freemason occurs first in 1375 -- according to a recently found writing, even prior to 1155 [1] -- and, contrary to Gould [2] means primarily a mason of superior skill, though later it also designated one who enjoyed the freedom, or the privilege, of a trade guild. [3] In the former sense it is commonly derived from freestone-mason, a mason hewing or building in free (ornamental) stone in opposition to a rough (stone) mason. [4] This derivation, though harmonizing with the meaning of the term, seemed unsatisfactory to some scholars. Hence Speth proposed to interpret the word freemasons as referring to those masons claiming exemption from the control of local guilds of the towns, where they temporarily settled. [5] In accordance with this suggestion the "New English Dictionary of the Philological Society" (Oxford, 1898) favours the interpretation of freemasons as skilled artisans, emancipated according to the medieval practice from the restrictions and control of local guilds in order that they might be able to travel and render services, wherever any great building (cathedral, etc.) was in process of construction. These freemasons formed a universal craft for themselves, with a system of secret signs and passwords by which a craftsman, who had been admitted on giving evidence of competent skill, could be recognized. On the decline of Gothic architecture this craft coalesced with the mason guilds. [6]

Quite recently W. Begemann [7] combats the opinion of Speth [8] as purely hypothetical, stating that the name freemason originally designated particularly skilled freestone-masons, needed at the time of the most magnificent evolution of Gothic architecture, and nothing else. In English law the word freemason is first mentioned in 1495, while frank-mason occurs already in an Act of 1444-1445. [9] Later, freemason and mason were used as convertible terms. The modern signification of Freemasonry in which, since about 1750, the word has been universally and exclusively understood, dates only from the constitution of the Grand Lodge of England, 1717. In this acceptation Freemasonry, according to the official English, Scottish, American, etc., craft rituals, is most generally defined: "A peculiar [some say "particular" or "beautiful"] system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols." Mackey [10] declares the best definition of Freemasonry to be: "A science which is engaged in the search after the divine truth." The German encyclopedia of Freemasonry, "Handbuch" [11] defines Freemasonry as "the activity of closely united men who, employing symbolical forms borrowed principally from the mason's trade and from architecture, work for the welfare of mankind, striving morally to ennoble themselves and others and thereby to bring about a universal league of mankind [Menschheitsbund], which they aspire to exhibit even now on a small scale". The three editions which this "Handbuch" (Universal Manual of Freemasonry) has had since 1822 are most valuable, the work having been declared by English-speaking Masonic critics by far the best Masonic Encyclopedia ever published. [12] ...

...Clement XII accurately indicates the principal reasons why Masonic associations from the Catholic, Christian, moral, political, and social points of view, should be condemned. These reasons are:

* The peculiar, "unsectarian" (in truth, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian) naturalistic character of Freemasonry, by which theoretically and practically it undermines the Catholic and Christian faith, first in its members and through them in the rest of society, creating religious indifferentism and contempt for orthodoxy and ecclesiastical authority.

* The inscrutable secrecy and fallacious ever-changing disguise 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 vineyard", "perverting the hearts of the simple", ruining their spiritual and temporal welfare.

* The oaths of secrecy and of fidelity to Masonry and Masonic work, which cannot be justified in their scope, their object, or their form, and cannot, therefore, induce any obligation. The oaths are condemnable, because the scope and object of Masonry are "wicked" and condemnable, 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 doctrinal "secrets" which are the principal object of the obligation, according to the highest Masonic authorities, are either trifles or no longer exist. [212] In either case the oath is a condemnable abuse. Even the Masonic modes of recognition, which are represented as the principal and only essential "secret" of Masonry, are published in many printed books. Hence the real "secrets" of Masonry, if such there be, could only be political or anti-religious conspiracies like the plots of the Grand Lodges in Latin countries. But such secrets, condemned, at least theoretically, by Anglo-American Masons themselves, would render the oath or obligation only the more immoral and therefore null and void. Thus in every respect the Masonic oaths are not only sacrilegious but also an abuse contrary to public order which requires that solemn oaths and obligations as the principal means to maintain veracity and faithfulness in the State and in human society, should not be vilified or caricatured. In Masonry the oath is further degraded by its form which includes the most atrocious penalties, for the "violation of obligations" which do not even exist; a "violation" which, in truth may be and in many cases is an imperative duty.

* The danger which such societies involve for the security and "tranquility of the State" and for "the spiritual health of souls", and consequently their incompatibility with civil and canonical law. For even admitting that some Masonic associations pursued for themselves no purposes contrary to religion and to public order, they would be nevertheless contrary to public order, because by their very existence as secret societies based on the Masonic principles, they encourage and promote the foundation of other really dangerous secret societies and render difficult, if not impossible, efficacious action of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities against them....

...In view of these several reasons Catholics since 1738 are, under penalty of excommunication, incurred ipso facto, and reserved to the pope, strictly forbidden to enter or promote in any way Masonic societies. The law now in force [214] pronounces excommunication upon "those who enter Masonic or Carbonarian or other sects of the same kind, which, openly or secretly, plot against the Church or lawful authority and those who in any way favour these sects or do not denounce their leaders and principal members." Under this head mention must also be made of the "Practical Instruction of the Congregation of the Inquisition, 7 May, 1884 [215] and of the decrees of the Provincial Councils of Baltimore, 1840; New Orleans, 1856; Quebec, 1851, 1868; of the first Council of the English Colonies, 1854; and particularly of the Plenary Councils of Baltimore, 1866 and 1884. [216] These documents refer mainly to the application of the papal decrees according to the peculiar condition of the respective ecclesiastical provinces. The Third Council of Baltimore, n. 254 sq., states the method of ascertaining whether or not a society is to be regarded as comprised in the papal condemnation of Freemasonry. It reserves the final decision thereon to a commission consisting of all the archbishops of the ecclesiastical provinces represented in the council, and, if they cannot reach a unanimous conclusion, refers to the Holy See.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Where do people get their notions?

Where indeed!

[Fred Mertz]

These Mason are pretty slick, aren't they?

I can hardly wait for nopardons to show up at 2:30 am to set us all straight.

[Cap'n Crunch]

I was invited to join once, in fact my Great Grandfather was a Master Mason in the city next to mine. Sad to say.

You will probably call me a liar for saying I was asked to join, (other Masons on this site have called me a liar about that) but that's OK, several other cops on my dept. were also asked to join, one did, but later quit and two of us said 'no thanks'.

I was at the movie theater a few weeks ago. One of the 'commercials' before the movie started was one about the "Freemasons-for more information blah blah blah."

It's no secret membership is down.

[wideawake]

It's a good question.

There are fraternities, I believe, which consider themselves volunteer service organizations and which hold public initiations and eschew hazing in favor of community service.

Such groups would be unobjectionable.

The practical fact of the matter is, Catholics in America as a whole are very poorly instructed in their faith and do all kinds of things which they are not supposed to do.

When I was in college I was invited to rush several fraternities - I didn't join any because of the secrecy involved. But I was well-instructed by my parents.

[HiTech RedNeck]

they're callin' yer name!

[Paul C. Jesup]

Shriners, as in Shriners Children's hospitals and burn clinics. They have done a LOT of charity over the years.

The members of the Shriners are one of the highest, if not the highest order of the Masons. I think a Mason member has to be a Master Mason before they are even eligible to be a member of the Shriners.

[babylonian]

LOL! But I thought nopardons was on the last space shuttle.

[Marysecretary]

I don't think Bush used that bible, though. I believe he had one of his own. I could be wrong but I did read that here on FR once. M

[Cap'n Crunch]

Well, if it's total BS as you say, being a 32nd degree, maybe you can post the initiation rite, as patent asked?

Ya ain't skeered Hiram Abiff will slit your throat and disembowel you are ya?

[AxelPaulsenJr]

You must have at least one book, on how to conduct the ceremonies and rituals. Surely you guys don't commit it all to memory!

I hate to bust your bubble here, but there in fact no real great big secrets in the Masonic lodge.

Unlike our Catholic friends, Masons don't worship statues or icons of any sort.

[TontoKowalski]

It's no secret membership is down.

That's probably the one statement you've made with which I have no argument. Lot's of common organizations throughout our communities are on the downhill slide.

I'm also a member of the American Legion, and it's a struggle there with membership rolls as well. The general feeling is that younger men don't feel they have the time to get involved in outside-the-family organizations like they used to in prior generations.

I don't know for sure but I'd guess that's the same for the VFW, Rotary, Toastmasters, and the like.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Ya ain't skeered Hiram Abiff will slit your throat and disembowel you are ya?

LOL, not nearly as much as I might be that I be burned at the stake in the Spanish Inquisition.

[HiTech RedNeck]

total bullsh*t.

If the Masonic tradition is as oral as described in another post here, with only some "states" (literal US states?) having ritual and oath books, of course practice is going to vary between them. But then why don't you guys purge this "total bullsh*t" out of the worldwide organization??? Somewhere, somehow, you should have a worldwide accounting.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Yes I believe I recall that Bush did. It was an NIV, too :-)

[HiTech RedNeck]

Who's talking "real big secrets"? I'm just talking firsthand documentation. OK, little bitty secrets. But what on earth do you actually say in an initiation? In a ceremony? In an oath? Even XXXing out the specific names and passwords, can I find the rest of it somewhere on the web? Or would a Mason's spilling the beans on this cause him to have his heart torn out by jackals?