Skip to comments.Masonry, Atheism and Catholicism
Posted on 07/04/2007 6:21:55 PM PDT by Coleus
What's true and what's not about the Masons is the topic of a recent book by an expert in the history of religions. Father Manuel Guerra Gómez, who is an author of 25 books on sects and other topics, recently released "La trama masónica" (The Masonic Plot), published in Spanish by Styria.
Father Guerra is a diocesan priest of Burgos, and a retired professor of the Burgos headquarters of the Faculty of Theology of Northern Spain. In this interview with ZENIT he says that "the Masonic method, atheistic in nature, reflects historical relativism and leads to the socio-cultural relativism that it promotes."
Q: Is the famous Masonic conspiracy a myth?
Father Guerra: It is necessary to distinguish between Masonry and the Masons. Masonry, as such, does not aspire to power or at least to having it serve its own principles and interests. Nevertheless, Masons are in fact present in every international organization in which decisions are made and in the multinational corporations that have an influence on economic and political power.
It is logical to think that they try to pass on their ideological principles -- relativism, atheism, gnosticism -- wherever they are and to irradiate them beyond their own context. On the other hand, in the English-speaking world and in the northern countries, in Turkey, etc., it is not that they seek to gain power, they are the power.
Thus, for example, the sovereign of the United Kingdom is also the grand master of the United Grand Lodge of England, and of the more than 150 grand lodges -- one for every country, and in the United States one for every state. In 1995, in the United Grand Lodge of England there were 750,000 members belonging to 8,000 lodges throughout the world. Besides this, because of the rule of secrecy, there is no way of knowing for certain where they are active and how far their direct influence extends, and much less do we know the extent of their indirect influence.
Tony Blair's government sought to institute the obligation that Masons declare their membership in the group, especially if they were functionaries of the state, and above all if they worked in the area of justice or in the police. The response of 1,400 English judges who voluntarily declared their membership in the Masons is commendable. Evidently there are many more. Following the scandals of the secret Propaganda Due Lodge of Licio Gelli in Italy, functionaries in certain areas of Italian public administration must declare whether that they are Masons at the risk of losing their post.
Q: Is it true that 60% of the members of the European Parliament are Masons?
Father Guerra: This and a similar claim were made by Josep Corominas, grand master of the Grand Lodge of Spain up until March 2006. On Feb. 9, 2007, he left the Grand Lodge of Spain, but affirmed that he would continue to be a Mason and wanted to be considered such.
Is this a new division which has given place to a new Masonic obedience, or is it an incorporation into one already existing? Indeed, all the proposals pertaining to family and bioethics issues, dissenting from the teaching of the Church and even the natural law, have been approved by the European Parliament. There is also the case of the Italian Rocco Buttiglione who was rejected as a European commissioner by an atheist majority of the Parliament.
Q: In Rome a conference has just ended in which the incompatibility of Catholicism and Masonry was recalled. A call for dialogue with Masons on socio-cultural questions was made. How can this happen?
Father Guerra: Despite the objective incompatibility between Masonry and Catholicism, Catholics can dialogue with Masons at different levels, except for those things that the Holy See, aware of the risks, has reserved for its exclusive competence. In the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's declaration on Freemasonry it is stated that it "is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above, and this in line with the declaration of this sacred congregation issued on Feb. 17, 1981."
It is likewise necessary to consider the reality and consequences of Masonic secrecy. How can you dialogue with someone who wears a mask? Despite this, it is still possible to dialogue about socio-cultural questions. Even if religions and ideologies end up forming and conforming the respective cultures to themselves, there always exists some common ground. Unlike that which is specifically religious and ideological, the cultural ambit is still a sector about which it is possible to dialogue, at least in theory. It is easier to undertake dialogue on intercultural issues -- like poverty, literacy, the environment, health, globalization, etc. -- than on interreligious issues.
Nevertheless, even on this terrain, dialogue with the Masons encounters serious difficulties, insofar as Masonic atheism, open or hidden, tends to relegate to the margins religious particularities, that which is not common to all religions and moral codes, and tends to enclose it -- like someone under "house arrest" -- in the forum of personal conscience and behind Church walls. In this sense Masonry works to eliminate the socio-cultural trappings of Christianity in traditionally Christian countries -- such as for example Nativity scenes or representations of symbols of the Christmas mystery -- the star of Bethlehem, the Three Kings, etc.
Q: Does Masonry substitute itself for religion?
Father Guerra: Masonry, in line with one of its products, the New Age, prefers to use the term "spirituality," which has a more subjective resonance than the term "religion." Some Masons say that they are Christians and deny that Masonry is a religion. They should rather recognize that they belong to two religions: the Catholic one and the Masonic one.
But in fact, at least for many, above all for the Masons who are agnostics and deists, Masonry is a substitute for religion. Indeed, Masonry is called a "religion" and sometimes "the religion" in Masonic writings and those of Masons.
Q: How were you able to get up close to this world if it is so secretive?
Father Guerra: I dedicated many hours of study to the constitutions, rules and rituals of the different federations of Masonic lodges, spoke with Masons and ex-Masons in Spain and Mexico, and read books on Masonry by Masons and non-Masons. About 10 years ago in Mexico I spent two summers speaking daily with Masonic and non-Masonic university professors. I spent the afternoons visiting the centers of different sects, some of them para-Masonic, that are on the outskirts of the cities.
Q: Does Masonry have more to do with a method than a content?
Father Guerra: Man, besides thinking, also feels and imagines. Sentiments and imagination can interfere with and disturb mental lucidity. But despite this, ideas and beliefs orient man; principles create and orient human institutions. But to achieve the objective it is necessary to use the right "method." The Greek word "odos" means "way," and "met" means the "goal" at which we want to arrive. In Masonry the method aims at the highest categories and the maximum effectiveness since it in fact constitutes one of the "principles," perhaps the most fundamental, the one that is at the basis of all the others.
It is precisely because of its method that Masonry ends up being incompatible with Christian doctrine. The Masonic method, atheistic in nature, reflects historical relativism and leads to the socio-cultural relativism that it promotes.
Alain Gérard, one of the directors of the Grand Orient of France, says that "Masonry is only a method." According to him, a Mason can have "opinions" or the beliefs of a particular religion, but the Masonic method obliges him to "call into question" his opinions and to accept the possibility that they will be declared false or surpassed by a more solid rational system and with the support of the majority. "You cannot have a real discussion if, whatever be the outcome of the discussion, there will always be some points about which you are convinced you are right," Gérard says.
With this the Masonic allergy to dogmas and to dogmatic and revealed religion, especially to Christianity, comes to light. This also explains why Masons tend to consider democracy as an achievement of Masonry and the democratic method -- approval by majority vote -- as something connatural to Masonry. This democratic method they extend to every reality, including the truth itself, the good, etc.
The present grand master of the Grand Orient of France, Jean Michel Quilardet, in a statement to the Spanish newspaper La Voz de Asturias on Jan. 29, 2007, said that "you can think that a non-atheistic democracy exists -- and non-atheistic means non-Masonic -- but to my way of seeing things and to my way of thinking atheism is an accomplishment of democracy." Thus, those democrats who are not atheists or Masons, if they are democrats, would be second-class democrats.
Q: Are the Masons a creative minority? Are Christians as well?
Father Guerra: Masons obviously do not have a monopoly on creativity. Even if it is of a different nature, creativity also belongs to Christians with the help of divine grace and the influence of the Holy Spirit. And Christian creativity is not of a lesser sort.
To demonstrate this all we need to do is look at the history of the Church and at its adaptation of evangelization to quite variable social and cultural circumstances in the 2000 years of its existence. "The hand of the Lord is not too short" -- Isaiah 59:1 -- in our day. When, a few years ago, Pope John Paul II called the ecclesial movements "the new springtime of the Spirit," "the renewed Pentecost," "a special gift that the Spirit offers to the Church in our historical moment," I initially attributed it to his incredible goodness.
The good and holy person only sees good in everything, like the greedy man sees lucre and the lustful man sees sexual pleasure. When, however, I worked on a piece called "The Ecclesial Movements in Spain," and I was able to see the reality for myself, it left a deep impression. What creativity the sons and daughters of the Church, moved and inspired by the Holy Spirit, have today!
How could the Church or the world survive if the ecclesial movements -- the educational projects, the aid work, etc. -- disappeared, leaving a kind of large "black hole" in the ecclesial and socio-cultural galaxies?
Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 26 November 1983.
Joseph Card. RATZINGER, Prefect
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Above and beyond every other reason, this is why I am a monarchist.
Is there someone who would like to do the Knights of Columbus ping? I believe a Protestant now has the list and it would be great to have a CAtholic guy have it.
Why bring this matter up now, months after that conference has been swallowed up by the big, bad modern memory hole which devours most of the events of our moment-obsessed era? For two reasons, both significant, one of them reassuring to believers, the other disquieting in the extreme.
The first “comforting” reason for a revisiting of the November meeting is a statement dating from the beginning of this month, coming from Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, Regent of the Apostolic Penitentiary. Bishop Girotti’s pronouncement reminds us that Rome’s understanding of Freemasonry is not so dismissive as that of the Blithe Blogger. He reiterates in it the last Vatican commentary on the subject, found in a document issued by the then Cardinal Ratzinger in 1983. Here one reads that “the Church’s negative judgment regarding Freemasonic organizations...remains unchanged because their principles were always considered irreconcilable with the teaching of the Church”, and that, “in consequence, entry into them remains forbidden”, and under pain of grave sin. (Zenit Press, March 5, 2007) Every so often Rome re-emerges from her dogmatic slumbers and actually does “locute”, teaching those among us tempted to despair of the collapsing defenses of eternal Truth that the causa of the Father of Lies really is finita. When this happens there is joy among the faithful, in Heaven as well as on the earth.
It is important to note that authoritative Church rejection of Freemasonry and membership in Freemasonic lodges, today as in the eighteenth century, has nothing to do with doctrinal objection to the obstinate late night card playing of old codgers in plumed bonnets in Protestant social centers boasting the finest local swimming pools. Neither did Michael Matt’s talk last November dwell pruriently on the state of awareness or personal conspiratorial aptitude of individual Freemasons, half dead or youthful. The essential element in the Church’s persistent condemnation of the Freemasonic phenomenon is the anti-Catholic naturalism that it has always represented. This one finds in its lodges both in Deist form-— where God creates the world and then obliging retires to a harmless dotage in the Bahamas-—as well as in a militant Atheist envelope-—where the influence of the Divinity over secular intellectual, political and social life is dispensed with by Big Banging Him entirely out of existence. And it was this concern with basic principle which occupied Mr. Matt, who lamented a twenty-first century environment so shaped by naturalist concepts that it has transformed most Catholics into foot soldiers for everything that Freemasons traditionally supported without even knowing it.
Now I do want to give the Blithe Blogger his proper due. Perhaps he wished to dismiss the whole topic of Freemasonry and Freemasons because he was truly alienated by the argument that they are responsible for the systematic implementation of every single evil development in western (now global) society since the early 1700’s. I must confess that if this were the sole grounds for his flippant comments, I would at least understand his initial eye-rolling. I do not believe such assertions of total Freemasonic accountability either. My reading of history convinces me that there have been just too many factors playing intersecting roles in creating our unhappy era to see in it the product of the successful unfolding of merely one supremely well-constructed anti-Catholic plan.
Does that mean that I notice no logic in the growth of modern society? On the contrary, it seems to me that modernity has had a highly logical development, due both to the character and consistency of its underlying naturalist principle as well as the influence of superhuman, diabolical intelligence in drawing out that principle’s potential for evil. But I do not think that this logical progress is all owed to the conscious work of human beings themselves. That would entail too rationalist an understanding of history; an attribution of too much influence to intelligently-motivated human action, and not enough to the stupidities and passions which frequently would seem to render even the most sublime doctrines and brilliantly evil ideological constructs utterly futile-—if, that is to say, there were not a God and a devil to turn them to their advantage. It appears to me that even many of the most enthusiastic architects of modernity have frequently acted very illogically and at cross-purposes with one another. Moreover, their dangerous goals have sometimes been much better implemented by Catholics ignorant or indifferent to the central messages of their Faith, including some who sincerely but mistakenly thought they were actually vigorously fighting naturalism. That fact was driven home to me on a simple level the day that a militant believer ordered his little children to spend the whole evening watching abominably anti-Christian television programs so as to have the leisure to convince me that modern evils emerged from organized Freemasonic circles alone. I do not have time in this brief article to give more serious examples of the many dichotomies of human thought, planning and action which played their part in the development of modern naturalist society, but I would direct anyone interested in exploring this realm of earthly confusion to my book, Removing the Blindfold, or to some of the articles on eighteenth through twentieth century topics to be found on my website (www.jcrao.freeshell.org).
Nevertheless, nothing in the above disclaimer changes the fact that the naturalism of Freemasonry is always and everywhere as irreconcilable with the Faith as the then Cardinal Ratzinger and Bishop Girotti have noted. Neither does it lessen its role as an active conspiratorial force in history, one that has made numerous practical contributions to the creation of our anti-Catholic global Fatherland. My own work has made me very conscious of the important role played by Freemasonic lodges in shaping the mentality of a number of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the early stages of the French Revolution, the Risorgimento and the life of the liberal Kingdom of Italy, practically all of nineteenth and early twentieth century Latin America and the politics of many other times and places in addition.
Far from being merely an esoteric topic for discussion in limited, paranoid, Catholic circles, treatment of Freemasonry’s character and consequences is part and parcel of the work of innumerable secular scholars. Anyone interested in such mainstream work need only look at John-Marie Mayeur and Madeleine RebÃÂ©roux’s The Third Republic From Its Origins to the Great War: 1871-1914 (Cambridge University Press, 1984). For that matter, one need only read the Italian press of the 1980’s and 1990’s, where the antics of Freemasons in every sphere of political, social and even religious life were topics of daily discussion, and were instrumental in bringing down the country’s so-called First Republic. Treating this clear influence as a “joke” illustrates the Blithe Blogger’s thoughtless repetition of one of the entries in the painfully parochial American Dictionary of Received Ideas. Quite frankly, someone wishing to write Freemasonic impact out of the historical record might just as readily laugh off as old wives’ tales the notion of any significance of the Manichees and Franciscans or Jesuits and Jansenists; perhaps even the existence of the “Historical Jesus” as well.
Freemasonry has exercised its influence in a three-fold fashion. To begin with, its concern for taking measured steps towards desacralizing man and society and its organizational refinement gave to its naturalism an aura of polite respectability permitting it an entry into the elite elements of the eighteenth century world which would have been denied to more straightforward, prophetic wild men.
Secondly, however, having opened the door to the insane naturalist attempt to shape life without reference to the creator and redeemer God, the Freemasons allowed the chance for their more logical and radical intellectual offspring to expand upon the damage which had been begun. This is brilliantly outlined by the great Russian authors Turgenev and Dostoyevsky in Fathers and Sons and The Possessed. The adulation of nature, which the Freemasonic “Fathers” of the movement depicted as a liberation from a Christian obscurantism preventing construction of an ever more progressive society based on beneficent, rational laws, was used by their “Sons” for other purposes. For them, the focus on nature and acting naturally was grounds for justifying either an outrageously willful hedonism or the total destruction of other men and societies condemned as being too enslaved to “artificial” beliefs and customs to continue to be treated in any human way. Hence, these Sons were willing to take the violent terrorist steps that their more moderate Fathers shunned as unthinkable, even though the latter had first fashioned the naturalism employed to dismantle the walls of Christendom.
Radical Sons have repeatedly overreached themselves in their willful totalitarianism, fallen from power, and thus allowed their naturalist Fathers a third opportunity for spreading the message and influence of the assault upon Christendom. This has regularly involved the assimilation by the more conservative naturalists of the infinitely more logical program of their radical progeny and then the employment of their pragmatic organizational skills and “respectable” calls for moderate, gradualist steps to Progress to transform political and social institutions in its image more efficiently than the wild men ever could have done on their own. This was the evil genius of that common-sensical nineteenth century Liberalism dear to the heart of Freemasonry and all those influenced by its spirit. This was the smooth engine through which supposedly sensible people pushed naturalism to its ultimately mindless, parochial, power-and-passion mad logical conclusion,
But what was my second, frightening reason for calling up the memory of the November conference? The fact that critiquing Freemasonry is now being viewed as yet another proof of Anti-Semitic, Nazi and Holocaust sympathies. Protection of one’s right to retain membership in the human race seems more and more to require abandonment of any serious thinking regarding naturalism and those who promoted it. Why are we being asked to pay this price, and what becomes of us in the long run if we are ready to cough it up?
I think the answer to that query is an obvious one. Investigation of Freemasonry and its central problem-—its support for the insanity of trying to understand man and build society without reference to the creating, redeeming God-—is a tool for drawing us out of that diseased, parochial obsession with momentary material passions to which naturalism has ultimately led and which it has enshrined as the guiding principle for all of human life. Such investigation is a means for ending historical, philosophical and theological amnesia. The individual who dedicates himself to this study will discover how the naturalist enterprise has permitted the material pillaging of the world and the dismantling of its cultural heritage under the rubric of promoting a Reason, Freedom and Progress based on scientism, libertinism and the reduction of thought and action to blind obedience to “sincere” feeling. He will begin to understand the true genesis of that Racism which is the real culprit behind the genocidal mentality, as well as the romantic nationalism serving also as the inspiration for a Zionism which defines moral good and evil in relation to what helps or hinders the cause of the state of Israel. And, finally, he will inevitably grasp the truth that accusations of Anti-Semitism are a fraudulent trick used by one of the many self-interested modern elites that have learned to employ naturalism to fulfill whatever its willful feelings might want and to censor each and every attempt to uncover its intellectual and material crimes. Once someone has opened his eyes to the ultimate meaning and bizarre impact of naturalism, he will finally see why the strong can condemn the censorship of pornographic language in schools whose use they favor as something bad and approve of the prohibition of Bible study which they detest as liberating and good. And he will recognize how Catholics with a universalist mission can be caricatured as Nazis while Lubavitchers can be welcomed into Congress to freely preach a doctrine of Jewish racial superiority and still be considered victims of Racism.
Catholics in general seem to be ready to pay the price demanded of them by men who would destroy our Faith. If fear has not dictated this course of action to them it must then largely be due to precisely the explanation that Michael Matt gave for such behavior in his address last November: the fact that our co-religionists have swallowed the naturalist argument; that they have succumbed to the parochialism and mental illness brought about by the generalization and radicalization of the Freemasonic naturalist mentality; that they have accepted their subjection to manipulation by all those who know how to use this state of mass mental illness for their own willful self-interested purposes.
If Catholics wish to know where this state of submission is leading them they might want to take a look at the arguments of the French revolutionaries during the trial of King Louis XVI. What Louis actually had or had not done, men like St. Just insisted at that time, was of no significance in determining his innocence or guilt. Simply being a king made him guilty and worthy of death. Such arguments come from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, one of the more radical “Sons” of naturalism, who claimed that he had become the natural virtuous man by stripping himself of all concern for the hypocrisies of the past and living his feelings to the fullest. Those who had not taken his liberating path, and thus refused to become natural and free were not only debased. They were not human. They had no right to exist; they had no grounds for appealing to the pity or toleration of real human persons. Hence the dismissal by his followers of any serious trial of an anti-naturalist and anti-human king (See Carol Blum, Rousseau and the Republic of Virtue (Cornell University Press, 1986, pp. 169-181).
Those among our accusers who appeal to naturalist ideas share the same mentality. They are unconcerned with what Catholicism really is or is not; what we as Catholics really say and do. They “feel” the truth of their position or know that appeal to such a feeling is sufficient to justify their behavior in the world that Freemasonry contributed mightily to build. We, as Catholics, do not share that “feeling”, and, as a consequence, are guilty and worthy of punishment. In the eyes of a world which is playing out to the bitter end the ideas and consequences of the eighteenth century, Catholicism in and of itself is an irredemable, terror-prone “hate crime”; an unpardonable obstacle to the fulfillment of the potential of nature and the attainment of a total freedom and progress. It will always remain such a “hate crime”, and we will always be guilty without trial so long as our Faith and we as followers of it are dedicated to a truth that goes beyond the passions of nature and the toleration of falsehood; to moral good rather than indifference to human behavior; and to the public identification of the real Haters of Mankind.
Yeah, the Masons near me are real threatening alright. Most of them are 75 years +, driving increasingly broken down cars and their “temple” is literally falling apart. I’m intimidated.
If this guy really believes that Masons are atheists, then I don’t think he understands them at all.
And no, they’re not a conspiracy. Who is this guy? LaRouche?
Casaroli, Agostino September 28, 1957 Baggio, Sebastiano August 14, 1957 Angelini, Fiorenzo October 14, 1957 Macchi, Pasquale April 23, 1958 Virgilio, Levi (Lovino) July 4, 1958 Alessandro, Gottardi June 13, 1959 Pellegrino, Michele May 2, 1960 Virgilio, Noe April 3, 1961 Bugnini, Annibale April 23, 1963 Villot, Jean August 6, 1966 Suenens, Leo June 15, 1967 Poletti, Ugo February 17, 1969 Name Date entered Matr. number Monogram Marchisano, Francesco February 4, 1961 4536-3 FRAMA Biffi, Franco August 15, 1969 64-23 BIFRA Brini, Mario July 13, 1969 15-670 MABRI Rizzi, Mario September 16, 1969 43-179 MONMARI
Thanks for the heads up, Coleus!
This article is a good compliment to the discussions we were having on this thread, which actually had very little to do with the article posted.
Both my grandfathers were Masons. One was agnostic, career army, military intelligence - and probably was a Mason just because he relished mischief and secrecy - can’t see him as power-hungry or a member of a cabal.
The other was a serious lifelong Baptist - can’t get to heaven unless you’ve been saved by accepting Jesus Christ, and he’d tell the free-thinking members of the family that. He was probably a Mason because he liked a night out with the boys that he was sworn never to tell my grandmother about. At his funeral, the minister gave the service in church and the Masons did the graveside rituals - Baptist Masons.
So whatever Masonic conspiracies and philosophies there are, there are a lot of men who are just doing it for fun.
If you saw the list of Supreme Court justices who were Free-masons, you’d be terrified. It’s not only the size of the list, but which ones were free-masons:
Hugo Black (1937-1971), S. F. Reed (1938-1957), William Douglas (1939-1975), Robert Jackson (1941-1954), James Byrnes (1941-1942), Wiley Rutledge (1943-1949), Harold Burton (1945-1958), Fred Vinson (1946-1953), Tom C. Clark (1949-1967), Sherman Minton (1949-1956), Earl Warren (1953-1969), John Marshall Harlan (1955-1971), Potter Stewart (1958-1981), Thurgood Marshall (1968-1991).
At times, seven or eight Supreme Court justices were Masons. And that’s only counting the ones we know.
Assertions that nearly all American presidents were Masons is hogwash. Clinton, Nixon, Ford, and neither Bush appears to have been Mason, and Reagan’s ties were certainly weak, if they were at all real. But Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson were, and, conspiratorially or not, they put their men — who all shared the same radical disdain for precedent and originalism — in the Supreme Court.
Much has been made over the fact that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Kennedy are all Catholic. Jokes have been made about Catholic conspiracies. But they all do have one thing in common: they would be excommunicated from their religion if they were to become Free-Masons.
A generation of liberals (Bader-Ginsberg, Breyer, O’Connor, Stevens) appears to have been non-Masonic, but by the time of their service, the precedents had been set.
Since they are all long dead and buried, do you have a more up-to-date (relevant) list?
>> If this guy really believes that Masons are atheists, then I dont think he understands them at all. <<
He confuses being against overt religious hierarchy with being against God. Of course, Masons are, themselves, a covert religious hierarchy, and, other than simply opposing “everyone who’s not us,” I’d love to see an argument why overt hierarchies are inherently evil, but covert ones aren’t.
Not known to be Free-masons:
Felix Frankfurter (1939-1962). Very liberal, but outspoken advocate of judicial restraint.
Frank Murphy (1940-1949).
Harlan Stone (1941-1946).
William J. Brennan (1956-1990).
Charles Evans Whittaker (1957-1962).
Byron White (1962-1993).
Abe Fortas (1965-1969).
|Send uglybiker a FReepmail if you would like on/off The Masonic PING List|
|The List of Ping Lists|
This seems to be the consensus. Not that there is a right method, but that the word is from the Greek.
Each generation has its own sign of recognition.
I never knew the Queen of England was a Mason.
There is an unwritten rule that no conspiracy is legitimate unless it involves the Freemasons. ;-)
This thread is KILLING me.
Romantic nationalism? I suppose it would be better if the Jews stood still long enough so they could finally be properly killed off... < /sarcasm >
I sure wish people would heed that old advice that says, "If you're stupid, don't wear a sign advertising it." But then, again, some times they're just too stupid to know they're stupid.
Paranoia will destroya.
I think he is LaRouche’s paranoid brother!
Isn’t it wonderful how ignorance creates bliss?
If Masons spent as much time & energy talking about or worrying about the Catholic Church, as it seems some Catholics do talking about & worrying about the Masons, they might have a point.
I wonder what the Church’s position is on the Build-a-burgers, cuz I never see any of these same kind of screeds against them & they seem to be a double-double secret organization, real Trilateral Commission stuff.
All we worry about is if the Knights of Columbus guys will bring enough beer for the cook-out this time.
Ah-Ha! Y'all are trying to get them drunk, so ya can take advantage of 'em. ;o)
No, we have too many Baptist/Pentacostal members who are too chicken to buy beer themselves. ;-)
(Really, one of the KOC guys owns the local beer distributor.)
(Really, one of the KOC guys owns the local beer distributor.)
Always good to know the *right* people. ;o)
yea, i know quite a few. a good friend of mine (episcopalian) was a worshipful master of his lodge. I know masonry is very big in the military and in law enforcement, in NJ, many of the troopers are masons, (it's easier to get promoted) as well as many of the sheriff’s officers and they are CATHOLIC. They have their own group within the masons called The Square Club.
Yeah, the Masons near me are real threatening alright. Most of them are 75 years +, driving increasingly broken down cars and their temple is literally falling apart. Im intimidated. >>>
Most are OK, until you get shot. The incident in long island was all over the NYC news, for a very brief time. Some lodges go way above and beyond pinching the naked left breast.
some people will write or say anything and put anything on a silly website, the Freemasons do NOT reveal their lists. Some people say that EVERY president was a Freemason which is ludicrous because Kennedy was catholic and in the 1800’s, there was a time of anti freemasonry. Clinton was not a Freemason, Jerry Ford was the last Freemason, only 14 presidents were Freemasons and since the 1700’s NO Catholic priest ever became a Freemason.
>> some people will write or say anything and put anything on a silly website, the Freemasons do NOT reveal their lists. <<
Of course not. Many freemasons hardly keep their membership secret, though.
>> Some people say that EVERY president was a Freemason which is ludicrous because Kennedy was catholic and in the 1800s, there was a time of anti freemasonry. <<
I’ve always heard the legend as “Every president EXCEPT Kennedy was a freemason.” (You have to pause when you say that to try to emote, “... and you know what they did to him!”) But we agree it’s a ridiculous assertion.
>> Clinton was not a Freemason, Jerry Ford was the last Freemason, only 14 presidents were Freemasons and since the 1700s NO Catholic priest ever became a Freemason. <<
These statements are all unknowable, since, as you point out, Freemasons don’t publish their membership lists. Clinton and Nixon appear not to have been masons.
Reagan supposedly was made an “honorary” mason by the Grand Lodge of Washington, DC on February 11th, 1988, which, if true, would sort of only prove that he hadn’t been a mason previously.
President Bush (the father), Warren G. Harding, Dwight Eisenhower and Jimmy Carter took their oaths of office on Washington’s bible, which is owned by a masonic lodge.
This is all according to the MasterMason.com web site, which appears to be a web portal for the official web sites of many masonic lodges.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
i agree, they are threatening, all those old men, especially the old man with a hat, over 75 driving old cars are a threat to the safety of the drivers on the road and pedestrians. It's a common story to read in the newspaper about an old man driving through the post office and accidentally running over his wife when he put the car in drive instead of reverse.