This file has been enclosed with the permission of The Philalethes
Society. We cannot grant any redistribution rights for these copyrighted
materials unless specifically authorized to so by The Philalethes Society.
CompuServe, or this Forum, does not own this material or the copyright.
These rights must be obtained directly from the Society.


                 THE CHURCH and THE CRAFT
                 by William E. Parker, MPS

Organized Freemasonry began in London with establishment of the Premier
Grand Lodge in 1717. In France, while there are reports of lodges being
established at an earlier date, the years 17251730 are most frequently
accepted for Masonry's beginnings there. During trips to England, a number
of Frenchmen became Freemasons and there were lodges with French names,
lodges composed essentially of French members; e.g., Des Amis Reunis,
L'Esperance, L'Egalite, and L'Immortalite de L'Ordre.

Upon returning to France, they would quite naturally take their
Freemasonry with them. Diplomats, businessmen, travellers, and military
personnel all contributed to continuing Craft interest on the Continent.
By the beginning of the 18th Century, "la mode anglaise" was well
established in France. The French copied English customs, English
fashions, and eventually English Freemasonry. It was an era of clubs and
societies of all types, and Freemasonry found fertile ground in France.
But, in the copying, the French made it uniquely Gallic in character,
molding it along philosophic, esoteric, and chivalric lines.

Up until about 1737, widespread public knowledge of Freemasonry was some-
what limited, although the Craft had been quietly prospering. At about
that time, news of the Craft began to appear more widely and intense
curiosity resulted. And, from 1737-1751, a number of printed "exposures"
appeared, some of which had value, some of which were misleading, but all
of which quite naturally sparked public interest.

Masonic membership of some lodges was primarily from the aristocracy and
well-to-do classes; i.e., the intellectuals, the army officer corps, the
clergy, the nobility, and even branches of the Royal Family. If there were
also a few lodges of "lesser" social personages such as shopkeepers,
merchants, and small business owners, eager to emulate the nobility and
share in " Masonic secrets, " still many of the country's most influential
men were members and the Craft inevitably prospered.

There were several reasons for the Craft's attraction to the French.
Lodges of the era were highly Gallic in character, in being lieus of
philosophical thought and ideas. If political and religious discussions
were, in theory, banned, yet the French mentality readily adapted to the
philosophical tenor the lodges offered. The chivalric degree associations
were appealing, there was an aura of mysticism involved and, as always,
there was the appeal of being part of a select group.

The rapid growth of the Craft had stirred the interest of French
authorities; and Cardinal Fleury, last of the great Cardinal Ministers,
with motives undoubtedly both religious and political, wanted to reduce
its growing influence. But, given the Craft's highly aristocratic
membership, the matters of state to resolve, and his advanced age, to
perhaps coin a phrase, Freemasonry was simply "one more cross to bear."

An interesting historical incident of the era concerns a Mlle. Marie
Armabade Carton and the then Lt. General of Police Rene Herault. "La
Carton," a dancer at the Paris Opera and known as "Manon," was for years
the mistress of Samuel Demard, Louis XIV 's financier, by whom she had
three daughters. Among others, she had also been the mistress, in 1730, of
Marshal Saxe, not only a soldier, but also a high-ranking Freemason, and
thus her connection with our story.

Concerned about the Craft's possible "political" aims, in 1737, Fleury
gave Herault the task of discovering the Freemasons "great secret. "
Herault decided to utilize the "talents" of Carton which, though long past
her prime, were still considerable, to seduce a certain English
aristocrat, Lord Kingston, an eminent English Freemason. Kingston, it
seems, had seduced one of Carton's daughters causing the young girl to
leave her husband and join Kingston in England. Herault believed Carton
would be eager to avenge her daughter.

Thus, during a Paris visit by Kingston, a "chance" meeting with Carton was
arranged and events moved swiftly. During private meetings, she alluded to
knowing the Craft's secrets, being obtained from previous lovers. Totally
captivated by her charms and the promise of her "surrender," Kingston was
induced to prove his own knowledge and reveal lodge ceremonies, upon which
she duly "surrendered ."

When transmitted to the police, while the disclosures revealed lodge
ceremonies, the alleged "great secret" was still missing and there was, of
course, no political agenda involved. Carton's daughter eventually
returned to her husband, Carton herself retired in time to a comfortable
and respectable life, Kingston died several years later of a disease
apparently passed on by an unknown woman, and Fleury and Herault knew
little more than previous informants had passed on.

But, what of the Church of Rome? Since the reign of Henry VII and his
break with the Roman Church, bitter relationships had existed between En-
gland and the Pope, each tolerating the other more out of necessity than
desire. And, added to the purely religious issue was undoubtedly that of
a political context. Indeed, it would be impossible for the Church to
wholly separate the two, as often evidenced.

The history of Italy must also be considered, being replete with
Machiavellian political machinations of countless groups such as the
Borgais, the Medice the Colonna, and the Orsini. The Church thus had a
long history of involvement in and dealing with such issues, whether real
or imagined. In the Church view, the Freemason's "heresy" (the "heresy"
being acceptance and toleration for all religions) was undoubtedly just
another issue to be addressed, albeit a serious one.

How that issue was addressed began a problem which has lasted over two and
a half centuries. April 24th, 1738, saw Pope Clement XII's famous
condemnation "In Eminenti." The Bull condemned Freemasonry as a secret
society, directed the "faithful" to oppose the craft, called for
excommunication upon violators, i.e., supporters of Freemasonry, and
directed the Inquisition to enforce the decree, enlisting the aid of civil
authorities.

In France, however, Louis XV and his council had more serious matters than
worrying about a men's club with members called Freemasons. The King,
therefore, did not bother to submit the Bull to Parliament, as was
required to be official, perhaps out of sympathy, perhaps just good
politics, perhaps both. Why create another problem if it could be avoided?

It is also likely the French Parliament, known for Gallican independence,
might well have resented Rome's attempt to dictate policy inside France
and rejected the Bull, thus creating further strains in the long-running
Gallican-Church struggle. Thus, the Paris parliament neither registered,
nor promulgated, the Bull in France, hence it had no legal status and
consequently little impact.

The King reportedly had threatened to send any Frenchman who became Grand
Master to the Bastille, but the threat likely came from Fleury. Yet, on
June 24th, 1738, just weeks after the Papal Bull was issued, the Duke
d'Antin was elected Grand Master, serving until his death in December,
1743, yet retaining close friendships with both the King and Fleurv.

Montesquieu, President of the Bordeaux Parliament, the Count de St.
Florentin, the Secretary of State, numerous members of the aristocracy,
and even the King's valet, Bontemps, were members as were many others.
Yet, all remained in Royal favor! And, in 1743, Louis de Bourbon, Count de
Clermont, a grandson of Louis XIV, thus a blood relation to Louis XV,
became Grand Master serving until his death in 1771.

During this era, both the Cardinal Minister and the King were more con-
cerned with political issues than Roman edicts, thus exercising their
usual Gallican independence. Perhaps the King's "tolerance" was simply a
method to maintain control over the Craft and a better knowledge of its
proceedings, or perhaps he simply wasn't concerned about the matter. In
any event, the French paid little real attention to the Papal
pronouncement and Freemasonry continued to flourish.

It is significant that such high-ranking personalities assumed the post of
Grand Master in 1738 and 1743 . We shall never know for certain the King's
reasoning, but we do know Louis XV "tolerated" the Craft to the point of
numbering many of his advisors as members. It has even been stated that
the King was himself a Mason, but substantiating documentation to
corroborate this is lacking and must be considered as simply a Masonic
"legend" until proven otherwise.

But, what were the motives behind the Papal Ban? The Stuarts, in exile
from England, formerly at St. Germain near Paris, were now in Rome and the
current "Pretender", James III, was still waiting for an opportunity to
obtain the English Crown. The English and Stuartists were feverishly
spying on each other and rallying supporters, the Stuarts mounting several
unsuccessful invasion attempts, the last in 1745.

There were Paris lodges in the 1720's which were Jacobite, thus Stuart
partisans, quite possibly involved in "political" activities, contrary to
true Masonic principles, and fleury would naturally be concerned about
such activities. And, there was a Jacobite, Stuartist, Lodge operating in
Rome from 1735 to 1737, with an "opposing" "English Hanoverian" Lodge
active in Florence in Tuscany. Some believe the Florence Lodge's
activities, undoubtedly pro-English in nature, to be the basis behind the
1738 Bull, and cite the Church's efforts through the Inquisition
endeavoring to suppress the Lodge and silence or imprison its members.

The late eminent French Jurist, Alec Mellor, a practicing Catholic,
historian, author, and Freemason, advanced a theory that James III was
fearful English Freemasonry, operating in Catholic countries, was the
"spearhead" of a Protestant "infiltration." Mellor's thesis is that James
felt any gains made by the Protestants would be at the Catholics' expense,
thus making a Stuart return to England more difficult. Consequently, James
convinced Clement XII to issue his Edict.

The Church of Rome would certainly view any organization which advocated
freedom of thought and religious toleration as a threat to its own
authority. Also, whether or not one accepts Mellor's thesis, Rome would
hardly look favorably upon an organization with principles molded largely
by two Protestant Ministers, Anderson and Desaguliers. Mellor states the
Bull would thus have both political and religious motives; i.e., his the-
sis and the fundamental anti-tolerant Church position.

Continuing Mellor's thesis, if it was know Freemasonry was being con-
demned, at least in part, in order to advance the Stuart's cause in
England, opinion would surely turn against that cause. hence, mellor says
part of the Bull was purposely vague ". . . and for other just and
reasonable causes known to us . . ."  He believes these words, apart from
the more general condemnations, refer to the unstated political motive.

Was the Masonic "secret" part of the basis for the condemnation? Some say
yes, but Church informants were well advised on the lodges' proceedings,
and several exposes were then available. Was the condemnation because of
the Masonic "oath," which is really an "obligation," not an oath.
Certainly, Rome would not accept any group which professed secrets, had an
obligation to protect these secrets from non-members, including the
Church, and had a tolerant philosophy, accepting all who knocked at its
door. While uncertain, it has nonetheless been contended it is the "oath"
and the professed "secrecy" which lie at the root of the 1738 and
subsequent condemnations.

As for the "penalties", the Church should have immediately recognized, as
would any clear-thinking person or organization, their symbolic nature,
used merely as part of the method of imparting great moral truths. Still,
viewing the Church's history, and considering the political and cultural
atmosphere of the era, it is conceivable they viewed the alleged "secret", 
"oath/obligation" and "penalties" in a different light, looking back at
their own long use of such.

Was the Papal Bull issued only for the Stuart "political" issue, but
hidden behind the facade of other causes? If so, when the Stuart
restoration was no longer probable, why was the condemnation not lifted?
It is probable that the Stuart issue, if indeed it even existed, was
likely only a part of the overall reasoning.

Remember, Rome was then a temporal as well as religious power, jealously
guarded its prerogatives, and was both fearful of and certain to take
steps against anything it felt might be a threat to that power. Finally,
once Rome has taken a public position, it rarely, if ever, reverses itself
so as not to jeopardize its proclaimed dogma of "infallibility."

In May 1751, Benedict XIV 's "Providas" reiterated the 1738 condemnation,
again railed against Masonic "secrecy" and "oaths", appealed to the
Monarchs that the execution of Bulls is their duty, and stated that such
societies as Freemasonry are "reproved by good decent people." Mellor says
the "political/hidden" motive was not mentioned, an omission he felt
reinforced his thesis.

Still, the Church felt strongly enough on the question to again condemn
the Craft, indicating the very real possibility there were indeed other
reasons involved. Since the 1738 Bull is purposely vague in portions,
however, no matter how compelling a thesis may be made by some authors, we
are left in the final analysis with speculation only as concerns the
"hidden" motive.

Considering the continuing Church condemnations, was the Craft confused
with other organizations, perhaps "secret" groups such as the Carbonari,
professing anti-clerical and conspiratorial aims? We know that the
Carbonari operated in France and Italy for a period of time.
However,unlike such secret organizations, except in time of persecution or
abnormal circumstances, such as occurred during the Nazi regime, Free-
masonry has never kept its existence secret.

And, spurious "Masonic" Obedience have developed which deviate from tra-
ditional Masonic landmarks, such irregular groups often professing anti-
clerical sentiments . If public opinion has mistakenly confused such
bodies with Regular Masonic Obedience, it's doubtful the well informed
Church authorities did.

On July 12, 1790, the French Legislative Assembly enacted the "Civil Code
of the Clergy", which totally reorganized Church State relations, reducing
the Church from its privileged status to a mere servant of the State, and
the anticlerical Revolutionary Government began a "de-Christianization"
campaign. The centuries-old excesses of the Church would leave lasting
"scars" upon the French when they were finally "liberated" from its
oppressive yoke.

On allegations that French Freemasonry was involved in plotting the Revo-
lution, throughout the entire history of Papal denunciations, there has
been no mention of Masonic involvement in the Revolution, a tide which
devastated both the Catholic Church and Freemasonry in France. If Rome
believed even in the slightest there was any Masonic involvement, they
would assuredly have issued a papal announcement. Such has never occurred.
It must be accepted, therefore, the condemnations were for other reasons.
(See The Northern Light, Nov. 1992.)

Indeed, with many of the highest dignitaries of the nation as members, it
is hardly likely they would have fomented a movement which would
inevitably be detrimental to the Order and to themselves. For example,
members of the era included the King's cousin, the Duke de Orleans, the
King's brothers, the Counts de Provence and Artois, the Duke de
Montmorency-Luxembourg, the Marquis de Lafayette, Talleyrand, and
countless others.

The rise of Bonaparte brought yet another dimension to French Freemasonry.
In July 1801, for political reasons to solidify his reign over France, he
signed a Concordat with Pius VII again giving Rome authority, albeit
somewhat limited, over the French Church. But, if the Church re-emerged,
it was nonetheless more battered than triumphant. Having suffered a
traumatic shock in the Revolution, it would never again regain its past
glory and power. And, as time progressed, relations would become increas-
ingly strained between the Emperor and Pius VII.

With the Church now well in hand, Bonaparte was able to be crowned Emperor
on Dec. 2nd, 1804. If French Freemasons in general, essentially of the
Catholic Faith, paid little heed to the Concordat's impact, the Clergy,
conversely, formerly members of the Craft in fair numbers, adhered less
and less, finally disappearing entirely from the lodges.

With the signing of the Concordat, there was as time passed both a resur-
gence of Church influence and anti-clerical activity in France, this
latter eventually again evidencing itself in anti-clerical government
policies particularly under the Third republic. With continual Church
persecutions against the Craft, it is perhaps not overly surprising that
some anti-clerical attitudes developed .

Insofar as Freemasonry is concerned, an epochal event occurred in 1877
with the Grand Orient deleting from its Constitutions the requirement for
a belief in God, the Immortality of the soul, and the presence of the
three Great Lights in Lodges. This action naturally resulted in withdrawal
of recognition by Regular Grand Lodges and the Grand Orient entered into
an " Irregularity " from which it has never emerged.

There have been numerous Papal condemnations through the years. In April
1884, for example, Leo XIII's "Humanum Genus" reiterated previous
condemnations, the "Masonic peril" they denounced, the "evil doers" in the
Freemasons, the "Masonic intent to destroy Christian religious and social
disciplines and replace them with a system of naturalism, " and called
upon the Church and its allies to do battle with "the sect of Satan."

In that the United States, unlike France, had not then been subject to the
intense political pressures of the Catholic Church, in its desire to
control the nation's religious thought, it is perhaps difficult to
comprehend the French thought in their complex Church-State relationships.
This issue was brought to a climax in 1904 when Emil Combes, a Minister of
the French Republic and a Freemason, submitted a law to separate the
Church and State. Enacted into law in December, 1905, the measure also
ended the Concordat and guaranteed freedom of worship for all.

In 1917, Benedict XV, through Canon La-v 2335, reiterated excommunication
for Catholic members of the Craft. Vatican sources restated in 1949 and
1950 the law was still in force and that it forbade Roman Catholics to
become members of "the Masonic Sect and organizations which are hostile to
the Church and legitimate Civil authorities. "

This has long been a source of concern to Freemasons everywhere, not just
in France, in that Masonic Obedience considered "Regular" are not hostile
either to the Church or to civil authorities. To the contrary, the Craft's
attitude has been open with a full willingness to discuss with the Church
any misunderstandings which may exist. And, insofar as civil authority is
concerned, Freemasonry obliges its members to support all lawful civil
authority, and never to engage in any action which might be considered
detrimental thereto.

Through the years, there have been strong voices in France, both within
and without the Church, laboring for a reconciliation. For example, in the
1960's and '70's, the Jesuit Priest Father Michael Riquet, labored long
and hard to this end. From a lay standpoint, Bro. Alex Mellor, in
particular, with close ties to the Vatican, was a strong proponent for
Regular Freemasonry in his own efforts to aid in bringing about a
"rapprochement" between the Church and the Craft.

Nor have such efforts been confined solely to "informal" levels. In 1971,
the Grand Master of the Grande Loge Nationale Francaise (French National
Grand Lodge), A.L. Derosiere, met with representatives of the Vatican's
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to freely and openly
discuss viewpoints of both parties. There have also been public meetings
wherein G.L.N.F. representatives have met with interested citizens to
address questions and issues in an open forum.

Undoubtedly as a result of such initiatives, recent years have seen
interpretations by some Church officials that only Masonic groups which
plot against the Church were affected by the Bulls, and that other Masonic
bodies were not subject to the Ban. In 1974, Cardinal Seper, Prefect of
the Sacred Congregation, issued a letter indicating Canon 2335 had to be
interpreted in a restrictive sense and that Catholics who join Freemasonry
are excommunicated only if the policy and actions of that group of "
Freemasons" are known to be hostile to the Church.

A number of important pronouncements have occurred during the latter half
of this century paradoxically both positive and negative insofar as a
'rapprochement' between the Roman Church and Freemasonry is concerned. On
the one hand, for example, the Church authorities of the Scandinavian
countries indicated a "relaxed" attitude towards Catholics being
Freemasons. Conversely, after a lengthy study and citing Masonic
relativism, or tolerance of diverse religions and ideas, and other
aspects, the German Episcopal Conference on May 12, 1980, indicated an in-
compatibility existed to be both a Catholic and Freemason. Then, on Feb.
17, 1981, the Sacred Congregation emphasized that Canon 2335 remained
totally in effect whatever actions might be undertaken in individual
instances.

If Cardinal Seper's "new look" at Freemasonry had been widely praised,
both within and without the craft, it was inevitable the Vatican would
eventually review the entire Masonic question and issue more official
guidelines.. From such review came Canon Law 1374 in 1983, as part of the
Church's new code of Canon Law, which apparently seemed to relax the
restrictions against the Craft, omitting specific references to the Craft
and lessening certain penalties.
Paradoxically, however, commensurate with C.L. 1374's issuance, Cardinal
Ratzinger, new Prefect of the Sacred Congregation, and a member of the
German Conference which issued the 1980 ruling, issued a Declaration that
the Church's condemnation of all Masonic unions remains unchanged, that
Masonic principles have always been held repugnant to Church teachings,
that joining the Masons remains forbidden, and that Catholics who join are
involved in mortal sin.

From the foregoing, it can be seen there are, at times, opposing and
conflicting viewpoints emanating both from the Vatican and Catholic
officials elsewhere. And, in Feb. of 1985, the official Vatican newspaper,
"L'Osservatore Romano" published an article entitled "Irreconcilability
Between Christian Faith and Freemasonry,", restating the Church's
traditional objections to the Craft; i.e., "accepting members of all
religions", " secrecy", and "unknown strategies" or "conspiracies."

In France, however, the Church's position has not posed a significant
hinderance to Masonic membership by and large. Nominally a Catholic
nation, yet French attitudes toward the Church for the past 200 years have
been uniquely Gallic, being somewhat ambivalent; i.e., to accept the
overall Christian values of the Church but to exercise freedom of thought
and not to be fettered by blind obedience to Church dogma.

Since 1913, of cause, Regular Freemasonry in France has been represented
by the French national Grand Lodge, the only Regular and Recognized
Masonic Obedience for Symbolic Masonry and now numbering some 20,000
Members. And, for the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite, drawing its members
from the G.L.N.F., the Supreme Council For France with 11% - 12 % of that
number is likewise the only Regular and Recognized Masonic Obedience.
French Freemasonry is clearly alive and well.

If there has, unfortunately, been a heritage of hostility by the church
against a certain "conception" of Freemasonry, the G.L.N.F. is not a part
of that "conception". To clarify its position, to avoid misunderstandings,
and to distinguish itself from Irregular Obedience, such as the Grand
Orient of France, the G.L.N.F. has clearly and unequivocally publicly
stated its adherence to a belief in God and the high moral principles em-
bodied in Regular Freemasonry, its unswerving policy of refraining from
any possible machination against Church or State, and its joy at the
prospect of seeing a better climate of understanding develop between those
who at all times put their trust in God.

In summary, if the new Church Code of 1983 has made no mention of Freema-
sonry, yet Cannon 1374 again cites associations which manifest against the
Church with no distinction drawn between "Regular" and "Irregular" Bodies.
And, Church pronouncements indicate that while a certain " rapprochement"
appears to have occurred between the Roman Church and Freemasonry, at
least superficially, in the final analysis overall Church policy vis-a-viz
the Craft appears to be unchanged. The future, obviously, is an unknown
quantity. But, it can only be hoped that continuing dialogues will be
developed in the ongoing efforts to secure a better relationship between
Church and Craft.