I am not going to name them [Freemason Priests) because, like all people, they are entitled to their privacy. If they wanted to make their Freemasonry public, they would.
If it's no problem, as you seem to believe, what would be the problem?
I would disagree: Priests are not entitled to privacy to conceal violation of their oaths of obedience and violations of canon law.
If these priests exist, they must rely on the secrecy of other masons and cannot plead ignorance of their offense to the Church.
> I would disagree: Priests are not entitled to privacy to conceal violation of their oaths of obedience and violations of canon law.
So Canon Law trumps a Freemasonic Oath, in your view? Why so? Which trumps which: Canon Law or State Law? Canon Law or Federal Law? Canon Law or the Rules and Regulations of the Tennis Club?
I’m not trying to trivialize Canon Law — I am trying to point out that while it may be of some considerable moment to you, it is of no relevance to me: this despite the fact that I respect the Catholic Church as a worthy and good religious organization.
> If it’s no problem, as you seem to believe, what would be the problem?
Every Freemason is entitled to either disclose his membership openly (as I have) or have it remain in confidence — that is an everyday common privacy expectation, and a matter of common decency. It is not up to me to disclose on behalf of someone else, merely to satisfy your curiosity. That’s what busybodies do, and I am not a busybody. You have no legitimate business knowing: it is none of your concern.
> If these priests exist, they must rely on the secrecy of other masons and cannot plead ignorance of their offense to the Church.
As what they do is not illegal, it is none of anybody’s concern one way or the other. If it were illegal they could not rely upon confidentiality within Lodge.
For that matter, it is not even immoral, so I find it impossible to work up a sweat worrying about it.