

    Introduction of John J. Robinson


    E. Robinson Lee, Worshipful Master: I am going to ask
our Secretary, Right Worshipful Brother Allen Roberts, to
introduce our speaker since he is well acquainted with him.
    Roberts: Good morning. I think all of you have seen this
book, Born in Blood: The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry. We're
fortunate to have with us the character who wrote it. My
first association with him was through this book. And I don't
mind telling you I picked it up with a lot of skepticism, I
think that is the proper word. But as I went through it I
found much that was worth highlighting. So the original copy
is thoroughly marked. It was a review copy, so I wrote a
review for The Philalethes. I faxed a copy to his publisher.
His publisher faxed it to him.
    That same night about 10:30 my phone rang. The voice
on the other end says: "This is John Robinson and I called
to apologize." I said: "For What?" He said: "Well, you didn't
like my title, and I want you to know that It was not mine
originally." And I said: "I know that. Your publisher put it
on there because by putting blood in the title it would sell
more copies." And he said: "That's right." 
    We ended up talking for well over an hour. Since that
time we have become cussin' buddies. 
    The thing I think that impresses me more than anything
else is that John  a non-Mason knows more about
Freemasonry than 99% of us  a non-Mason who dared to
take on characters like Stephen Knight and a bunch of other
kooks who oppose Freemasonry  while the hierarchy of
Freemasonry sits back listening to all the lies being told
about us and does nothing. Since the publication of this
book, John has been on more talk shows, TV shows, taken
on more of Masonry's critics, spoken in more Grand Lodges
than more than 99.9% of any of our members. He is going
over to Munich, Germany, to meet with the American-
Canadian Grand Lodge in November. While there he will
learn what's happening to Freemasonry in what was once
communist countries. Back here he'll tell a CNN audience
what he has learned.
     At breakfast this morning I told him I don't know how
I get surrounded with con artists, but he's a pretty good one.
He is going to sell you on his version of Freemasonry. Later
on, maybe in another year or so, I'll give you the real
version.
    Here's my good friend, John J. Robinson, author of Born
in Blood: The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry.

    
    Freemasonry and its Critics
    -by- John J. Robinson


 [What follows is an edited version (at the request of
the speaker) of the extemporaneous          address to
Virginia Research Lodge.]


    Thank you very much, Allen. As he mentioned, this
morning he said, "I don't know why I find myself mixing with
con artists." So I told him, "It is because of your strong
magnetism toward brotherhood, seeking out those like
yourself."
    Actually, Allen was the first one to write anything about
my book other than condemnation. His was the first friendly
word that I had. Later another came from a gentlemen who
is probably in the room, Catlin Tyler. One of my startling
experiences was to get a call one day from another
gentleman who is in this room, Dr. John Boettjer, the editor
of The Scottish Rite Journal, which in those days was called
The New Age. And he said I want to do something but I
think I should ask your opinion. He said we have a review
of your book by our book reviewer which is somewhat
negative. On the other hand we have a number of letters
from Scottish Rite Masons who liked what you have written.
I think the answer is rather than having one man's opinion
is to have two opinions. I thought that was wonderful that an
editor wanted to be fair. He wrote a review that some of
you may have seen or presented it as "Thumbs Up, Thumbs
Down." Allen, by the way, I really appreciate you bringing
me to this group. It makes me feel a little better than some
of the others where I have walked in as a total stranger.
Here I have met people whose names I have known for a
long time.
    Allen is absolutely right. When I submitted the book it
was not called "Born In Blood." I had used the title "The
Curse of Jacques DeMolay." My publisher said, "I would
rather you not start a scholarly debate on whether or not
Jacques DeMolay had menstrual periods." The title finally
selected did not refer to the blood spilled by Masons, but
the blood of the Knights Templar spilled by the Inquisition.
    Very early on I was startled to receive this medal, which
I have worn to Masonic meetings, awarded by the
Philalethes Society which was sent to me by Allen Roberts.
And I thought that today would be my opportunity to do
something in response to him, and it was a rather
disappointing experience. I was trying to think what kind of
gift could I take to Allen.  We certainly can't add to his
library. I got to thinking, he's got all of the socks and
underwear he needs. I thought that winter is coming on and
he will be sitting at that word processor. I know how I feel
in my office. I decided to get him something warm to wear
at the word processor. So I sent away for a nice snow white
sweatshirt to keep him warm and cozy. It arrived a couple
days ago and damn if the printer didn't make a mistake.
They sent me one with printing on it. And that's
embarrassing to me. If you and Allen can ignore the printing
I'd like for him to have this in hopes it will keep him warm
in the winter, and just ignore what it says on it. Oh, you
want to see what it says. It has nothing to do with Allen. It
says, "I Am Not Opinionated; I Am Just Always Right!" 
    At the risk of being totally frivolous, I noticed your ballot
box here on the platform, and there is one item of Masonic
research that hasn't been revealed to me yet. Some of you
may know the answer. I see the box and through the
opening I see the white balls. I wondered if when a man
joins a Prince Hall Lodge, or tries to, and they don't like
him, is he white balled? The emotional pull would be in the
opposite direction. I can see a guy saying, "Oh I got white
balled!"
    It's time to get serious. I told Babcock Lodge last night,
the first group of Masons that I ever talked to was in the
Valley of Cincinnati. And I asked if we could have any
questions or criticism to come afterwards. The very first
question I was ever asked in a Masonic meeting was: "Do
you honestly believe that you can write effectively about
Freemasonry when you have not enjoyed the emotional
experience of Masonic membership?" 
    I especially remembered a young man who I had gone to
high school with, had been in the service with, and became
my college roommate. He was a very devote Catholic, which
meant of course that we argued incessantly. One subject for
debate was the effectiveness of his Parish Priest as a
marriage counselor. He assured me that his Parish Priest
was extremely knowledgeable; he had received special
training at the university level. He had read numerous
volumes about sex. And I recalled saying to him: "I don't
care if your Priest has read every book about sex that has
ever been written. If he just tries it once, himself, it will
change his whole outlook." So I have to admit an outsider
does have some shortcomings.
    I am frequently asked, "If you think Freemasonry is so
great why don't you become one?" I do have about a half a
dozen Lodge petitions in my desk. A number of rather
highly placed Freemasons and men I respect have asked me
to hold off. The reason is that I'm getting any number of
invitations to speak on radio interview and call-in shows. I
have  two cable TV network shows and one radio network
show coming up on the subject of Freemasonry, only
because I can purport to show an objective point of view. If,
for example, a Catholic Priest writes a book favorable to the
Catholic Church, that's not surprising to anyone and that's
not news. 
    In debates I have had with anti-Masons, mostly
fundamentalist Protestants, about Freemasonry, the
opponent is at a disadvantage because he cannot attack me
personally, which is a favorite technique, because he has to
say "they believe this," and I say "no they don't." I am
speaking as an objective observer and he is not, which has
proven to be a very effective advantage and more convincing
to the audience.
    I did have an interesting encounter with some members
of Medinah Shrine Temple in Chicago. The same question
of a Lodge petition came up, and one of the men asked me,
"How old are you?" I said in a few weeks I'll be 66. He said,
"Well you had better come in pretty quick because if you
don't you're liable to have to take the Senior Citizen
Degree." I asked, "What the hell is that?" He said, "Well, if
you wait until you get up in years before you join we have
this special Senior Citizen's Entered Apprentice Degree. We
present you with a 24-inch gauge and we teach you to divide
your day into three equal parts: One for rest, one for
looking for a men's room and one for trying to remember
someone's name." That's frightening because part three is
already upon me. If I run to the door you'll know part two
has arrived as well.
    I want to pass out a print of an old, old piece of art work
and see if we can look at it together from the standpoint of
Masonic researchers. This is a painting by a Flemish artist
by the name of Hieronymus Bosch. If any of you are
familiar with the work of Hieronymus Bosch it is usually
filled with demons, all kinds of weird strange devils and
demons, none of which appears in this painting. Hieronymus
Bosch was a man whose work was declared hieratical by the
Catholic Church. It is also known that he belonged to a
secret brotherhood of an anti-church nature. There are
many years of his life that are simply missing, so we don't
know if he ever got to England.
    He prepared this one painting that is hanging in a
cathedral in Rotterdam which was painted as near as anyone
can tell about the year 1500. So we are looking at a painting
that is 490 years old. This painting was done over two
centuries before Freemasonry revealed itself in London. Just
take a look at that picture, it doesn't have  a name. This
painting is called "The Drunkard" by some; "The Prodigal
Son" by others. The Smithsonian Institute calls it "The
Wayfarer." 
    What we see here is a man walking, leaving behind a
decrepit tavern with holes in the roof and  broken windows.
There's a man standing in the doorway holding his hand
over the breast of a waitress, and she holds a jug of wine in
her hand. Alongside there's a guy urinating on the building.
Pigs are eating from a trough and an angry little dog with a
spiked collar barking at the traveler as he leaves. He is
approaching a gate which is worth a second look. Anyone 
who knows anything about gates knows that the brace goes
from one corner to the other to make a triangle. This brace
misses the corner, goes above the top rail and comes back
forming a perfect square on top of the gate. On the other
side of the gate is a milk cow, the medieval symbol for
peace and plenty. 
    Now look at the traveler. He has one trouser leg pushed
up to the knee. You might say that is because he has a
bandage on his calf. When did a bandage on the calf that
did not keep you from walking require that you have a
slipper on one foot and a shoe on the other? In his hat is a
plumb bob instead of the usual feather. Certainly the easiest
way to carry a hat is not in your hand, it's on your head. But
the artist wanted the man's hood to be up. (We will come
back to that in a moment.) So he is wearing his hood. Every
knapsack has straps that go over the shoulders to support
the load; but here the straps go around his upper arm,
binding him as though with a cabletow. 
    So, here we have a Traveling man traveling from left to
right, or from west to east. He is leaving a rude, crude world
behind him to pass through the Gate of the Square to a
better land beyond. Above his head in the tree sits an owl,
the medieval symbol for wisdom. 
    All this may mean that all the Masonic symbols we see
here are just coincidences, the damndest collection of
Masonic coincidences one could ever expect to see in a
single painting. On the other hand, if these are not just
coincidences we are looking at the first graphic evidence of
Masonic degree work before 1717  almost 500 years ago.
No judgment has been passed. You are the first Masonic
research body to examine this work. Feel free to use your
own judgment.
    I've brought this painting to make a broader point. If a
man was not allowed to paint, carve, stain or in no way
reproduce Masonic knowledge he gained, he might still be
tempted to work it into art which only the initiated would
understand. Those of you who have read Holy Blood, Holy
Grail will recall that the authors dwell quite a bit on the
symbolism in Poussin's painting of the Shepards of Arcadia
and other paintings. 
    In  Born in Blood I mentioned a painting on the ceiling
of the Royal Naval Hospital at Greenwich. That painting is
a great allegorical painting of the Protestant monarchs
William and Mary. In one corner two cherubs are holding
up an architectural drawing of Sir Christopher Wren's
cathedral of Saint Paul as a tribute to the great architect
who had also designed the Naval Hospital. Behind that
drawing a cherub is holding a square in one hand and
compasses in the other. Nearby, the papal tiara is lying on
the ground. Is this another coincidence, or was the artist
presenting an allegorical memorial of the architect's
connection to Freemasonry? I don't know?
    All of this is just to suggest to research Lodges that one
aspect of Masonic research that I believe has never been
addressed is the possibilities of research in art work in the
late middle ages. It's simply a matter of having your head
tuned in to the possibility of Masonic connection. When I
was browsing  through a Smithsonian magazine  and saw
that picture Masonic objects began to jump out and hit me
in the eyes, so I thought I would bring it along.
    I think that my own conclusions as to all the factors that 
influenced the origins of Freemasonry would be too long to
talk about today. Those of you who read Born in Blood
know what my feelings are. 
    But in looking at certain aspects of the Old Charges there
were certain things that I could not fit with the concept of
stonemasons in the medieval period. Among those was the
charge that no Brother could tell the secrets of a Brother
that could cost a Brother his life or property. I sweated and
strained over that one. What secret could a stonemason
have that could cost him his life and property. But the
church council of 1276 decreed that anyone who was in
opposition to teachings of the church  in other words a
heretic  or anyone who aided a heretic, anyone who gave
advice to a heretic, merited death as punishment. In
addition, his house was to be burned or torn down and his
land given to the church. There was no secular law that
required that punishment. Such an old charge made all the
sense in the world for men in opposition to the teachings of
the church, but no sense as an admonition to stonemasons. 
    Another old charge that bothered me was that no
"itinerant" member was to go into the town without having
someone to "witness" for him. "Wit" in old English meant
"knowledge." The suffix "ness" indicated the possessive form.
So someone who would witness for a man was someone who
"possessed knowledge" of him. In those days, if a man was
found to have no stated business in a town he could be
locked up and then ejected from that town. If he had no
money, he was a vagrant, subject to punishment. For a first
offense, a whipping. For a second offense, a more severe
whipping. For the third offense, death. The truth is that if a
man was in that town legally, he had no need for a witness.
At that time it was illegal to travel from one town to
another without a written pass that stated a man's name, his
home and his reason for travel. In those days you could not
go from Richmond to Charlottesville unless you had a pass.
And if a man had written authority and a written
explanation, why would he need a witness? Or steer him 
away from places where he might be asked questions? It
would be necessary only if a man was on the move illegally
and needed someone to cover for him.
    A heretic on the move was just such a person. The brutal
treatment given to heretics is almost beyond description,
which brings us to the Masonic penalties. I find no sense in
the Masonic penalties as applied to a stonemason. Here he
is, spending all day cutting stones to fit a wooden template,
and is cautioned not to mention anything that happened in
yesterday's meeting or he could be disemboweled or have
his tongue torn out. That makes no sense.
    What makes a lot of sense is the penalty as a means to
prevent a man from being subjected to medieval
punishment. A scholarly Freemason has accused me of being
too sensationalistic in my writing, but the subject calls for it.
I did describe in detail the execution of the Scottish hero Sir
William Wallace as an example to make a point. His captors
pulled him up by the neck and let him hang until he was
almost dead, and then took him down. When they revived
him they tied him to a post. They castrated him, then cut a
small incision in his stomach. They went in with a hook, and
slowly pulled out his intestines, then dropped them into
flaming charcoal at his feet. When Wallace finally died they
cut off his head. Then they  cut his body in four parts to
hang in market places in Scotland. If someone could cause
you to suffer that kind of pain and death by revealing your
name, what kind of oath would you want as some kind of
assurance of security? And in the proper time frame the
Masonic penalty is far less grotesque than the civil
punishment, or the church punishment, that would be
handed down by a secular judge. 
    The penalties have brought on one of most common
misunderstandings, that the Freemason in taking his oaths
is swearing to inflict these punishments on someone else,
which is simply not true. No Freemason would agree to
commit such barbarous acts, nor does he swear to do so.
The only reasonable conclusion is that God is invited to do
it. Such oaths have been part of our culture for centuries. As
a child of six I would assure a friend of my veracity by
saying, "Cross my heart, hope to die." Cross my heart, a
religious oath. Hope to die if I am lying to you, not my
seven-year old buddy to whom the oath was offered. 
    As an example from history: Pope Gregory VII had
violent confrontations with Henry, the Holy Roman
Emperor. The Pope won and made the emperor swear to
obey him in all things. Then, at the great victory gathering,
the pope took a piece of the consecrated bread from the
altar. He held it up and said, "May God choke me to death
on this bread if I have done anything wrong." He swallowed
the little piece of bread with ease, and the watching crowd
went crazy with religious euphoria and cheering. They had
just witnessed a divine miracle. It meant that God approved
of the pope's actions because He had declined the invitation
to choke the pope to death on the bread.
    Another example of medieval oaths is the agreement
made between Philip IV of France and Archbishop de Goth,
who would become Pope Clement V. This was the
agreement that set the stage for the suppression of the
Knights Templar. The King said, in effect, "I will see to it
that you are made pope, but you must swear to meet my
terms." (Terms that included such items as the right to tax
the clergy in France and the posthumous impeachment of
Pope Boniface VIII.) The pope-to-be swore a sacred oath
on the consecrated Host, but that wasn't good enough for
Philip. He also demanded that the archbishop deliver up his
brother and his nephew as hostages. The new pope's penalty
for breaking his oath would be the death of his family.
Bloody oaths were common in the Middle Ages.
    Frankly, although some form of punishment for betrayal
would have been necessary, I believe that the Masonic oaths,
as they survived, were largely symbolic and were not taken
literally. I doubt that anyone in central England would run
the risk of carrying a body in the bottom of a cart on a
hundred-mile journey so that it could be buried where the
tide ebbs and flows. If I'm right, those early masons meeting
in secret had need for security, and a way to emphasize that
need, up to and including frightening the new initiate. They
were risking their lives to establish religious freedom. Here
in these cells of secret masons were sown the first seeds of
the ultimate Reformation that made religious freedom a
matter of law.
    The hypothesis made sense to me, but it was contrary to
everything I had read about origins in medieval guilds of
castle and cathedral builders. I had to confirm or deny the
roots in medieval guilds, and for that I had to go to
England. At one Masonic meeting a man asked, "you've only
gone there once, right?" As close as I can recall, in the
course of my business career and doing this research, I've
been to Britain about forty times, but this trip was devoted
to tracking the guilds. As a basic premise, I said to myself,
"Either you believe in the Regius Poem or you do not. If you
do, then Freemasonry existed in the fourteenth century." It
was to that century, then, that I directed my attention.
    I started with London. There is a formal guild of master
masons there, but it started long after the fourteenth
century. The records of that period had been lost in the
Great Fire of London in 1660, so I decided to go to Oxford.
Those of you who have been there know that, with its wide
range of individual colleges, Oxford is covered with walls,
halls, churches and chapels, most built in the Middle Ages,
and for centuries had a great castle as well. Surely, if any
city could have supported a full-time local guild of
stonemasons, it would have been Oxford. The county
archives at Oxford go back to the twelfth century, so I
reserved a seat in the search room. I told the staff in
advance that I wanted to see any guild charter, any contract
with a fourteenth century guild of masons, any letter, bill of
materials, or other references to such a guild.
    Upon my arrival, I was informed that they had searched
their computerized data and had consulted with local
experts, finding no reference whatever to such a guild. They
were kind enough to call the librarian of nearby Burford,
where the beautiful Cotswold stone is quarried. That
gentleman said that if I wanted to find a stonemasons' guild
prior to the sixteenth century I would have to go to France.
    I next went to the city of Lincoln, which is famous for its
medieval stone buildings; a lofty castle, a magnificent
cathedral and what is said to be the finest collection of
Norman stone houses and guild halls in all of Britain. The
library, the university and the museum could not find any
trace of a stonemasons' guild before 1526. I could only
conclude that Freemasonry could not have been born in
medieval stonemasons' guilds, because there were no
medieval stonemasons' guilds. And if there were no
operative guilds there could have been no speculative bodies
attached to them in the fourteenth century. Masonic
beginnings were an unsolved mystery. Later, when I met
with John Hamill, the Librarian and curator of the United
Grand Lodge of England, he told me that his own research
had shown that there were no stonemasons' guilds in Britain
at the time of the Regius Poem.
    So, you might ask, what am I trying to do? I don't enjoy
tearing down something that men have been taught, and
have believed, that has given them great comfort. But I am
suggesting that when all of the evidence is in, you may find
that the real origins of Freemasonry are much more
exhilarating, and filled with much more purpose and
meaning. Something in which secret signals and passwords
were vital, not just used for fun the way they are in a college
fraternity. Something much more valuable than seeing
Freemasonry as a social organization attached to operative
guilds. Such social activity might be nice, but it does not hold
the deep purpose that would cause men to guard their
secrecy, to take sacred oaths with vicious penalties, and risk
their lives for their dedication to some ideal or principle.
    Part of my approach to all of this lay in prior studies of
secret societies, because before 1717 Freemasonry was a
secret society in the strictest sense of the term. I had lived
for a year in China, the great mother of secret organizations,
and had become intrigued with the subject. Some of you
know that a secret society named the "Society of Righteous
and Harmonious Fists," called the "Boxers," staged a
rebellion in China against all foreigners, including Christian
missionaries. When the Boxers were rounded up and
beheaded, the authorities thought they had wiped them out.
What they didn't know was that the Boxers were a militant
subsidiary of a larger, older secret society called the "White
Lotus." Even the Boxers didn't know who controlled them.
When the Boxers were executed, the parent company kept
right on going.
    There are certain characteristics of secret societies that
appear to be almost universal, and they apply to ancient
Masonry. Let's go back now to the Bosch painting of the
Traveling Man. He is carrying his hat in his hand because the
artist wants his hood up on his head. In the Middle Ages,
men didn't carry handkerchiefs. The way a man was
blindfolded, which, by the way, was a popular technique in
street fighting, was to pull his hood down over his face. That
was called "hoodwinking." The only place the practice lives
today is in the sport of falconry. When the bird returns to
the handler's wrist a hood is placed over its head. The bird
is "hoodwinked" to keep it calm. As with many other terms,
the meaning gradually deteriorated as hoodwinking came to
indicate trickery, as did the other phrase based on that same
act of pulling down the hood. You might remember this
when you hear, "to pull the wool over his eyes."
    What does this have to do with secret societies? In every
secret society's initiation the candidate is blindfolded, or in
the alternative he is not blindfolded and the face of every
other man in the room is covered. There was a very good
reason for that precaution. The secret society almost always
existed for a political or theological reason, or for both,
where there was separation of church and state. It was
secret because what it was teaching, what it was trying to
achieve, was against the law. So if a man's membership was
revealed he could be arrested, imprisoned, tortured, even
executed. On that basis no member would allow his face to
be seen by a new member after the oath was sworn. Then
his blindfold was removed, or the covering came off the
faces of the men in the room.
    All truly secret societies function on levels, for reasons of
security. The new man knows very little. He is often taught
that the initiation team of, say, five men is the whole society.
Now if he gets drunk, or is tortured, or just gets angry, he
can reveal only the five men who initiated him  which is
the reason the group examines him so closely. At this stage
he might be said to be the equivalent of the Entered
Apprentice. After a period of time, after he has been found
to be trustworthy, he can be taken into the local chapter and
learn much more about the society. Only now will he be a
full member, a peer, or  in English  a fellow. Now he
learns the passwords and signals that he will be able to use
when traveling. That means, of course, that such signals
must be standardized across the entire area covered by the
society, which means that there must be communication
among the local chapters. These communicators have to be
the best informed, and therefore can betray far more of the
membership than the fellows, who know only the men in
their own chapters. These contact men with the broadest
knowledge are the masters. They need the most protection,
the most elaborate system to seek help and get it, which
may be the reason why there is no Grand Hailing Sign of
Distress for the Entered Apprentice.
    The traveling mason has a catechism that consists of two
questions and two answers. One Chinese secret society I
looked at had up to fifty-four questions and answers, and
getting any one of them wrong could mean departing this
earth. The higher the man rose in the society, the more
complicated his identification procedure became.
    In the ancient Charges of Masonry a man shows up
looking for work. If there isn't any, he is given up to two
weeks of employment, paid, and sent on to the next
stonemasons' lodge.
    What I see in my mind is a man on the run. He is told
to go to the next town, and to look up the blacksmith, the
miller, or even the parish priest. He has been instructed in
how to identify himself secretly. When he is recognized, he
is taken to a secret place; a cellar, an attic or a hut, to
provide what he needs most, a secure place to sleep. The
most urgent need of the man on the run is secure lodging.
When asleep he is helpless. If Arnold Schwarzenegger is
asleep, Pee-Wee Herman can take him. 
    The secret lodge was the most crucial service provided,
and since it was the most secure place they knew it was also
the best place for a secret meeting or an initiation. When
politics changed, and it was no longer necessary to run, the
lodge room had no purpose other than as a meeting place.
Ancient Masons didn't have regular meetings, and for
security's sake only met when they had to; to deal with a
crisis or stage an initiation.
    That's a lot to digest, but I'm trying to say that I believe
that Freemasonry had a far more important purpose than a
social gathering to play with masons' tools. The most
important purpose appears to have been their determination
to establish religious freedom and religious tolerance. 
    I love the concept of men of all religions accepted as
equal but  not everyone loves it. I have a document dated
1986 from the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith
 the modern name of the Holy Roman Inquisition  which
explains why the Catholic Church is opposed to
Freemasonry. The precise words are, "A Catholic man who
becomes a Freemason is in a state of grievous sin and may
not approach Holy Communion." The authority cited is the
papal bull Humanum Genus, ("The Human Race,")
promulgated by Pope Leo XIII in 1884. The pope objected
to the Freemasons' acceptance of men of all religious
persuasions. He would let no Catholic participate because
the Catholic Church, being the one true religion, could only
be damaged by being regarded as equal, rather than as
supreme and exclusive.
    This directive telling Catholics to stay out of
Freemasonry cites just that one point in Humanum Genus,
choosing to leave out its other major points. This is not
surprising. I was so surprised by what I found in this papal
bull that I was afraid of not being believed; so I reprinted
the whole thing in the back of Born in Blood as an appendix.

    This bull condemns Freemasons for believing that people
have the right to elect their own ruler, and if the ruler turns
out to be a tyrant they should have the right to go to the
polls and expose him. They are condemned, too, because
they believe that people have the right to make their own
laws, that there must be a separation of church and state,
and that laymen have the right to teach children. And all
this is in accordance with "...new principles which they call
liberty." As I read one accusation after another I found
myself saying, "Guilty ... yes, I'm guilty of that!" 
    The startling realization to me was not just that the pope
was laying all these "crimes" on the Freemasons, but that the
fact of the charges was in itself a flagrant condemnation of
democracy, of these "new principles which they call liberty."
All that the Church quotes now is that little bit about being
the one true religion, with no mention of the strong
condemnations of democratic ideals; probably because the
leaders have been forced to change their minds, or at least
pretend they have. And even with that anti-Masonic ban in
place, it is enforced with less than ten percent of the vigor
employed to enforce the Church ban against contraceptives.
In many cases it is just ignored. The Scottish Rite Valley of
Chicago told me that twelve percent of its membership is
Roman Catholic. One of the members of Cardinal
Bernardin's advisory council there is a 33rd degree Mason.
    Certainly there is still Catholic opposition. A Catholic
professor at Purdue wrote an anti-Masonic book called
Christianity and American Freemasonry to explain why
Catholics and some Protestant denominations don't like
Freemasonry. I asked him why, if Catholics can't become
Freemasons, there are tens of thousands in Mexico, South
America and Spain, almost all of whom are Catholic. The
only answer I got was, "You can't expect me to know what's
going on in other countries."
    In the same book the author is offended that in the past
the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite had actually
accused the Catholic Church of being opposed to
democracy. Bearing in mind what appears in Humanum
Genus, I told him that I have discovered why the Southern
Jurisdiction has said that the Catholic Church was opposed
to democracy. It was because the Catholic Church has been
opposed to democracy.
    He also had to bring up the alleged murder of Captain
William Morgan by Freemasons. I said, "O.K., that's never
been proven, but let's accept it so we can get on with the
discussion. The Freemasons, you claim, murdered one man.
but if all the people murdered by your church could come
back, they could re-populate Europe." He also threw out the
fact that Freemasons had been among the founders of the
Ku Klux Klan. I reminded him that a lot of Catholics had
been among the founders of the Inquisition. And so it went.
Finally, I told him that my suggested attitude for the
Catholic Church to take could be summed up in a story I
heard some years ago:
    A white missionary had been living for some years in a
native village in Africa. One morning as he came out of his
hut he was grabbed by two huge warriors, dragged through
the village and thrown down in the dirt in front of the chiefs.
The terrified missionary looked up and said, "Chief, what's
this all about? What happened?" The chief scowled down at
him and said, "This morning a white baby was born in this
village. You are the only white man here, so you die!" The
missionary defended himself: "Just because there is a white
baby it doesn't mean that I'm the father. Those things can
just happen. Look! Up there on the hillside. Look at your
own flock of sheep; all those beautiful white sheep, and in
the middle of them is one black sheep. See that, chief? It
can just happen." The chief looked up at the white sheep on
the hillside with that one black sheep, then looked back at
the missionary. He stared at the one black sheep again, then
leaned down to the missionary and whispered, "Tell you
what  you don't say nothing, I won't say nothing."
    Anti-Masons don't want to talk about what the pope
wrote in 1884, but they certainly do like to talk about what
Albert Pike wrote at about the same time. One frequent
charge is that Pike wrote that Lucifer is a Masonic reference
to God, and he must have known that most Americans
thought that Lucifer was another name for Satan. Anti-
Masons like to say that Freemasonry is a separate religion
with its own God, called the "Great Architect of the
Universe." They don't want to hear that Great Architect is
simply a reverent designation, like the "Most High," or the
"Creator." They desperately want Freemasonry to be a
religion, or anti-religious. 
    Evangelists like John Ankerberg use anti-Masonic bigotry
to make money, selling books, audio tapes and even a video
tape with costumed actors in the ritual of the third degree.
They ask people to send cash or call in their credit card
numbers to help pay for the glorious fight. I told Ankerberg
that the thing that he has discovered that helps to screw up
the world is that Jesus rhymes with Visas.
    The penalties are a problem in the hands of anti-Masons,
but there is very little that they can point to in the three
basic degrees to support their attacks. There is not even a
mention of Satan, no attempt to describe heaven or hell.
There is no promise of forgiveness of sins, and no dogma.
That statement can get pounced on. There certainly is
Masonic dogma, they shout, and point triumphantly to
Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma, a big, thick book that a
couple of million American Freemasons know little or
nothing about. Pike did indeed say that Lucifer is a Masonic
designation for God. The problem may have been that he
was too smart, or too knowledgeable about the esoteric and
the mystical. He appears to have determined to preserve all
his broad knowledge by incorporating it into Freemasonry,
with little regard for folk-custom or common usage.
    Albert Pike knew that Lucifer was the Roman name of
the Morning Star, the planet we call Venus. It rises just
before the dawn, so was regarded mythologically as the
harbinger, the bringer of light. For Pike, what the Romans
knew was much more pure and enlightening than what
ordinary people of his own day knew, or thought. He
probably knew that a reference in the Old Testament to the
fall of Israel's oppressor as the fall of a "bright star" had led
to the myth of the fall of Lucifer, the angel of light, from
heaven, as punishment for disobedience. (The seventeenth
century poet Milton picked up on this legend when he
named Satan "Lucifer" in his poem Paradise Lost. This, in
turn, led to the standard misconception that "Lucifer" is the
Biblical name for Satan.) Pike would probably also be
familiar with the association of Lucifer with light, the sun,
and fire. 
    Those here old enough to remember an old British
soldier's song called "It's a Long Way to Tipperary" will
recall the words, "...While there's a Lucifer to light your fag
/ Smile, boys, that's the style...." Lucifer had become slang
for a match. So while Pike used the name of Lucifer in its
Classical context, it is a predictable sequence of association
for fundamentalists to go from flame, to fire, to the lakes of
fire that the Scriptures say cover Hell, and for Lucifer to be
equated with Satan. The Freemasons, its enemies claim, say
that Lucifer is a name they call God? Well, that's clear
proof, they say, that Masons worship the devil! I've had that
one thrown at me several times.
    Not to denigrate Pike's contribution to Masonry, I do
wish he had stopped sooner. Some weeks ago, Allen Roberts
invited me to speak to the semi-annual assembly of The
Philalethes Society in Indianapolis. There Pike was quoted
by the Catholic anti-Masonic author I mentioned earlier.
After thrashing that out I told the group that many years
ago in the Amazon I was privileged to attend a funeral
ceremony of the Karaja Indians. 
    The ritual was fascinating. The body was coated with a
mixture of ground charcoal and fat to make it black. The
hair was greased and then coated with down (tiny feathers)
to help the spirit fly to his own heaven. In front of me an
Indian woman in a short dress kept hiking it up to scratch
an insect bite on her bottom. At the time I thought that if
a professor of anthropology was here from the University of
Chicago, he would probably hurry back to write a
monograph on "The Factor of Butt-Scratching in Karaja
Funeral Ceremonies." Now, I believe that if Albert Pike had
been there he would have found a way to incorporate the
incident into Freemasonry.
    In short, I have found that in many ways there is just too
much in Morals and Dogma, and although many Freemasons
may own a copy, not many have read it from cover to cover,
in much the same way that many home libraries hold unread
copies of War and Peace. I dwell on it only because it is the
favorite reference work for anti-Masons, which forces me to
study Pike's book to be prepared to answer their tirades. It
is a ponderous task best explained in a wonderful little story:
    One day a little girl walked up to the desk in a library
and asked, "Do you have a book about frogs?" "Yes, my
dear, we surely do," the librarian said. And she walked the
little girl over to the biology section and took down a heavy
book, three inches thick. The little girl cradled the book in
both arms and took it to a table. She began to turn the
pages. She saw a picture of a dead frog, pinned down on
cork, being slit up the middle. There is a picture of the frog
with its internal organs pinned out to the sides. There is a
sketch of the frog's reproductive organs, and so on. Finally,
the child closed the book and carried it over to the desk,
where the librarian asked, "Didn't you like it?" The little girl
replied, "This book tells me more about frogs than I care to
know."
    I'm running over-time. I'm afraid that I have a flywheel
in my throat. Give it a little spin and you can go away on a
two-week vacation. When you get back I'll still be standing
here talking. It's time for you to talk. Does anyone have a
question or comment?
    * * * * *
Question: You said at the start of your talk that a lot of
Masons in the beginning disagreed with the premise of your
book. What was the basis for their disagreement?
Answer: Perhaps the best way to explain the initial reaction
is an experience I had in London. I had lunch with a highly
ranked English Freemason who said, "I believe that I owe
you an apology." I replied, "You can't possibly owe me an
apology." He explained, "Yes I do. When I first read your
book it made me a bit angry. As I drove around I kept
thinking about it, and finally read the book again. The first
time around my reaction was that you were telling me that
things I had believed for twenty years might not be true.
When I read the book again I realized that many of the
traditional things we believe and teach have no
documentation whatsoever behind them. The more I thought
about your theory the more it made sense. Today it makes
more sense to me than what we have been teaching because
the truth, the raw truth, is that we do not know where
Freemasonry originated."
   That is true. Even such well-known authoritative scholastic
figures as Whatshisname over here have said that we don't
know where Freemasonry came from. Actually, Allen
Roberts was the first Masonic writer in whose works I read
that the origins of Freemasonry are unknown. John Hamill
wrote a beautiful little book called The Craft. He starts the
book by saying, "When, Why and Where did Freemasonry
originate? There is one answer to these questions: we do not
know...." Over fifty thousand books and pamphlets have
been written about Freemasonry, and we still don't know
how it got started. That at least paved the way for the
introduction of new ideas and suggestions.
   So most of the negative reaction to Born In Blood came
in the very beginning. Several men who wrote critical
reviews then are now warm friends. Apparently it was that
shock of being asked to accept that what you have believed
and taught for all these years may not be the truth, or may
not be the whole truth. My own feeling was that something
was lacking in the old guild theory, something vibrantly
important that would have created the need for secret
meetings, secret signals and severe penalties for oath-
breaking.
   On that subject, let me add that I am delighted that
Freemasonry has chosen to preserve the ancient oaths and
penalties. I cringe every time I read or hear someone saying,
"Let's abandon the penalties." I stated my case in my book.
I see nothing lost in identifying a tradition as a tradition. My
suggestion is to let a man take the oath without the
penalties. Then say to him, "We want to recite another oath,
not an oath that you will swear to, but that you will repeat
in memory of those of our forebears in Masonry who in
other lands and in other times put their lives at risk to fight
for those freedoms you enjoy today. Let us remember them."
   Remember them. I believe that much of the ancient
allegory in Freemasonry is in truth a Rite of Remembrance.
There are two major forms of ritual. The first is the Rite of
Remembrance. Has anyone here ever been to a Jewish
wedding? A drinking glass is wrapped in a napkin and
placed at the feet of the groom. He stomps on it, breaking
the glass. The symbolic act dramatizes for him the
destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., almost two thousand
years ago. The charge that goes with it is to pass the
knowledge of that desecration on to his children. It is a
classic Rite of Remembrance.
   The other major form of ritual is that performed to give
status and memorable importance to an event. I for one am
boggled by the ritual that surrounds the event of getting a
daughter married. There is gift registration at department
stores, selection of invitations, reception planning. There are
costumes to be selected for the bride, the bridesmaids, the
groom's party. There absolutely must be a florist and a pho-
tographer. Sometimes I get the feeling that the minister isn't
all that important, because what makes the wedding official
is the mandatory photograph of the bride shoving a piece of
cake into the groom's mouth.
   Or take the ritual that surrounds graduating from high
school. There must be big pictures for relatives and little-
bitty pictures to pass out to classmates. There must be an
annual, to be passed around for everyone in the class to
sign. There has to be a costume, the cap and gown, and a
diploma tied with a ribbon. Formal wear must be brought or
rented to wear to a prom. And then there's the high school
ring. I mean, like you'll die if you don't have a class ring.
Two years later you don't know what to do with  the
damned thing. But I can tell you from experience that it
makes a wonderful emergency sinker if you're into bottom
fishing. My point is that our world is full of ritual, but no
one calls it that.
   I believe that much of the conduct of the Masonic Lodge
is steeped in rites of remembrance. It remembers the days
when such meetings had to be secret. The presence of the
Tyler remembers that attendance at such meetings was
dangerous. If the lodge met in the woods there might have
been three or four Tylers posted at different locations. Look
at the Tyler and remember how it was in the old days. If all
that repetition gets boring remember there was a time when
no one could risk writing anything down, it was vital for
every man to memorize in order to preserve the
organization. The best way to memorize anything is to
repeat it over and over until it is burned into your brain. so
if you're sitting in a meeting and getting bored, let your
mind wander. Let it take you back to a root cellar under a
barn, with just one candle burning. The repetition is for your
benefit  you must memorize this because you dare not
write it down. If you'll simply let your mind take you back to
the days when Masonic membership was very secret, and
even hazardous to your health, it will aid you in
understanding.
   I really must quit this. Allen has told me that too often I
take half an hour to answer a ten-second question. Perhaps
I did better last night in a simple story I told Babcock Lodge
to emphasize the point that imparting facts does not
necessarily impart understanding:
   A preacher followed the boring custom of paying a
monthly call on two spinster sisters. He didn't enjoy it, but
they were regular contributors and supporters of his church.
One day he was standing in their parlor, holding his cup of
tea, engaged in their usual idle chit-chat, when he was
startled by something that caught his eye. There on the
piano was a condom! "Ladies, in all the years we've known
each other I have never intruded into your private lives, and
never felt the need to. But now I am forced to ask  what
is that thing doing there?" 
   One of the ladies replied, "Oh, that's a wonderful thing,
pastor, and they really work!" 
   The minister was agitated: "I'm not talking about their
value or effectiveness. I just want to know what that thing is
doing on your piano?" 
   She said, "Well, my sister and I were watching television.
We heard this lovely man, the Surgeon General of the whole
United States. He said that if you put one of those on your
organ, you'll never get sick. Well, as you know we don't have
an organ, but we bought one and put it on the piano, and
we haven't had a day's sickness since!" 
   The point is simply that it does no good to transmit facts
unless real understanding is transmitted along with them.

Question: How has your book been accepted by the Grand
Encampment of the Knights Templar?
Answer: It has been accepted to the point that about ten
days before the Triennial in Washington, D.C., I received a
call from the Reverend Tom Weir, the Grand Chaplain of
the Knights Templar. I had previously told the Grand
Secretary, Chuck Neumann, of the coincidence that they
were holding the Triennial during the 700th anniversary of
the loss of the Holy Land, where the Templars were the last
to leave. He passed the fact on to Tom Weir, who decided
to build his sermon around that anniversary. He invited me
to the Triennial to take part in the church service. My part
was to recount the history of the Templars in those days
seven hundred years earlier. After the service they took me
across the hall to where the Grand Encampment was selling
my book, about two hundred copies. I autographed them all
and, as I told Dr. Boettjer this morning, my hand got so
tired that toward the end I actually misspelled my own
name. I think I can say that we have developed a very nice
relationship.

Question: A week or two ago, I saw a new video from the
Grand Lodge of Illinois called The Unseen Journey. I think
some others here may have seen it also. We are going to be
featuring it in The Scottish Rite Journal. We've already
received both negative and positive comments. Do you have
anything to say about film?
Answer: First let me say that I was asked to participate, and
I said yes, because I never turn down a request from a
Masonic body, even if it's a country lodge with twelve men
present, because I love it. I went to Chicago and was taken
to several locations such as the Medinah Temple and the
Temple of the Valley of Chicago. They would say, "Talk
about the thesis of your book for 120 seconds"; and, "Talk
about this for 115 seconds." I did my little pieces, said
goodbye to everyone and went home. I didn't see any of the
film until it was all finished.
   I can tell you that on the day a finished copy arrived at
home my wife was entertaining some ladies for a musical
evening. One of them is 83 years old. When they heard
about the film they wanted to see it. I had been told that its
primary purpose was to show to family and friends, so we all
watched it. After it finished, the elderly lady said, "I really
enjoyed that. My husband of 47 years was a Freemason. He
was a 33rd degree, a Knight Templar, and as far as I knew
he was everything there was to be. I always resented the fact
that in our house there was a closet with a lock on it, and he
had the only key. He said not to look in that closet and I
asked him if he'd ever heard the story of Bluebeard. He
wouldn't tell me anything about what was going on in his
Masonic meetings. I have learned more about Freemasonry
in the past hour than I did in a lifetime of living with one."
She liked what she had learned, and that made me feel
pretty good.
   Even better, two Masons have told me that their sons
seem more inclined to become Freemasons since watching
the movie. Their complaint was one I've heard many times,
that Masonry seems to them to be a kind of over-ritualized
Sunday School. It isn't manly; it isn't macho. After watching
the movie the boys and their fathers talked about Sam
Houston, Davy Crocket and Andy Jackson, and about the
seven members of one lodge who died at the Alamo. They
talked about great revolutionary leaders like Washington,
Garibaldi and Juarez. All very macho men. Even Sylvester
Stallone couldn't have pushed those guys around. The young
men had just never thought about Freemasonry in that way.
   Young men seem to think about their bodies, and their
jobs and, if they're married, about their families. I often hear
from Masonic leaders, "We just can't compete with
television, or softball or soccer." OK, so you can't compete
with a man's recreation time, but you don't have to compete
with his concerns about his family: you can involve his
family. You don't have to compete with his job concerns;
you can help them. One young Master Mason told me that
he had decided to drop out to save the money because he
had lost his job. Then the day came when he told his wife
that he had found a job, and she said, "Thank God!" He
explained that some of the men in his lodge had called
around and got him the appointment, and his wife now
credits the Freemasons with finding him a job. He told me,
"She'd never let me quit now."

Question: One of the things you do well in your book is
discuss the political events in Europe and the influence of
Freemasons that made it possible for us to be here today.
Are there any other references you can provide, for example
to support what hap-pened in Great Britain at that time?
Answer: Are you talking about the swing back and forth
between Catholic and Protestant rule? Or specifically the
coming of William and Mary? The London group that
brought them to England appears to have included several
Freemasons, but I don't think I indicated that Freemasons
alone were responsible. Do you feel that I did?

Question: No, I mean that I'd like to acquire more
background on that and the events leading up to it. I've
asked my instructor, but he hasn't come up with specific
books for me to read. I'd really like to acquire some
background material.
Answer: You want specific references as to the history of the
period before Freemasonry revealed itself? Bloody Mary,
Elizabeth I, Edward VI. If it's new to you, I'd suggest
starting with Winston Churchill's The Birth of Britain. Then
follow with Trevelyan's History of England. Try the Oxford
Illustrated History of England. Actually, rulers like Queen
Mary and Queen Elizabeth are favorites of historical
biographers. You'll be overwhelmed by the material
available at any good library.

Question: Why are there so many different versions of the
Old Charges?
Answer: There certainly is a wide variety of them, and they
do frequently differ from each other  which I feel adds to
their credibility. You may recall the old parlor game that
demonstrates the problems of verbal transmission. I whisper
something to the first gentleman in this row, he whispers it
to the man next to him, and so on to the end of the row. I
whispered, "I like chocolate sundaes with chopped pecans."
By the time the message reaches the last man in the row, he
reports that I had said, "The price of ice in Afghanistan has
dropped forty cents a pound." The wonder of the various
copies of the Old Charges lies not so much in their
differences as in their similarities, which reassures us that
such Charges actually existed.

Question: Another book came out recently that tied
Masonry to the Scottish nobility. Can you tell us about that?
And what is your next project?
Answer: I believe the book you're referring to is The Temple
and The Lodge, by Baigent and Leigh. The book has the
standard origin of operative lodges that take in non-
operatives, who form speculative lodges under the
sponsorship of certain members of the Scottish nobility.
Then neo-Templarism comes to Scotland, sponsored by the
same members of the nobility. They specifically identify the
Scots Guards at the French court as those "neo-Templars,"
who came back to Scotland, bringing a Templar heritage
that is never identified. A problem is that the Scots Guards
were formed about 250 years after the fourteenth century
events we've been discussing here. Essentially, they're saying
that Masonry and neo-Templarism existed side-by-side, not
that one may have come from the other. That's a basic
difference between their book and mine. We're running out
of time, so I'll try to run through this quickly. Those two
authors, together with a third writer named Henry Lincoln,
had written a best-best-best seller called Holy Blood, Holy
Grail. They followed that great success with a sequel called
The Messianic Legacy. The second book died on the vine.
I'm told that it didn't sell out its first printing. The story I
get is that they were trying to figure out the difference
between the big success and the total flop. One difference
was that the first book had a great deal to say about
Freemasons and Knights Templar, while the second book
didn't include them at all. The answer was to get another
book out about Freemasons and Templars. The result of
that decision was The Temple and The Lodge, a book about
both of them.
   As for my next book, I've already received the proofs of
it, which will occupy me for the coming week. In addition to
Born In Blood, other books have stirred up interest in the
Knights Templar. Holy Blood, Holy Grail had the Templars
guarding a holy royal bloodline that flowed from the
marriage of Jesus Christ to Mary Magdalene. Umberto Eco,
the author of The Name of The Rose, has published a book
called Foucault's Pendulum, a novel based on a six hundred-
year old plot by a secret society  based on the fugitive
Knights Templar  to take over the world. I was asked by a
number of people, including my publisher, to write a
definitive history of the Knights Templar. It comes to about
500 pages and is really two books in one  a history of the
Templars and a history of the Holy Land. The reason is that
the Templar story is usually told in batches: First Crusade,
Second Crusade, et cetera. When five thousand Crusaders
came to the Holy Land an army of six or seven hundred
Templars didn't make all that much difference. It was
between those Crusades, long stretches of time, that the
Templars came into their own, when as the largest standing
army in the Holy Land they played a major role in holding
the Muslims at bay.
   While writing the book I remembered the old hymn called
"Faith of Our Fathers." That's where I got the title. The
opening line of the hymn is, "Faith of our fathers, living still
/ In spite of dungeon, fire and sword. So that's the name of
the new book: Dungeon, Fire and Sword: The History of The
Knights Templar in The Crusades.

