The Catholic Church had formally opposed and denounced Freemasonry from the time that Anderson’s revised Constitutions were published. There have been numerous significant Vatican pro nouncements in this respect,10 with over a dozen in the 19th century alone. The first, known as In Eminenti, was a Bull of Pope Clement XII in 1738. He classified Freemasons as ‘depraved and perverted’, and decreed that they ‘are to be condemned and prohibited, and by our present constitution, valid for ever, we do hereby condemn and prohibit them’. He added that Freemasonry has contempt for ecclesiastical authority, and that its members plot ‘the overthrow of the whole of religious, political, and social order based on Christian institutions’. Clement concluded:
We desire and command that both bishops and prelates and other local ordinaries, as well as inquisitors for heresy, shall investigate and proceed against transgressors of whatever state, grade, condition, order dignity or pre-eminence they may be; and they are to pursue and punish them with condign penalties as being most suspect of heresy.
As a result of this edict, Catholics were placed under penalty of excommunication, incurred ipso facto, and were strictly forbidden to enter or promote masonic societies in any way.11
In 1864, after numerous other denouncements, it was the turn of Pope Pius IX to condemn Freemasonry with his encyclical letter, Quanta Cura. This censured societies which draw no distinction between ‘the true religion and false ones’. Coming from the Catholic hierarchy, this was very much a repeat of the way in which the Anglican Church had admonished King James II (VII) for tolerating different religions whilst granting people the liberty of their conscience. In this context, Pope Pius wrote that such organizations dare to assert that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right…They do not think and consider that they are teaching the liberty of sedition’.
The strange thing about all this is that Freemasonry, just like all manner of other clubs and societies, was not (and is not) a religion, nor in any way a religious institution. Hence, it is open to all. The problematical difference between Freemasonry and other private associations, as far as the Catholic Church was concerned, was that Freemasonry embodied a vow of secrecy. This was contrary to the ‘confessional’ tradition of the doctrine, and was solemn enough to override the Church obligation to confide secrets to one’s priest. In short, Freemasonry was an environment within which the Church lacked the power of authority that it had in other walks of life.
A later encyclical from Pope Leo XIII in 1884 pursued this viewpoint even further. Whereas the previous decrees had suggested that Freemasonry was irreligious, Leo’s Humanum Genus went further in claiming that it was anti-religious. When discussing ‘that strongly organized and widespread association called the Freemasons’, he stated:
No longer making any secret of their purposes, they are now boldly rising up against God himself. They are planning the destruction of the Holy Church publicly and openly, and with this the set purpose of utterly despoiling the nations of Christendom…We pray and beseech you, venerable brethren, to join your efforts with Ours, and earnestly to strive for the extirpation of this foul plague.
In order to put the masonic view of religious tolerance into perspective, we can see that, from the very outset of the 1723 Constitutions, this item of concern was addressed in a manner which made the position very clear:
Concerning God and religion: A mason is obliged by his tenure to obey the moral law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid atheist nor an irreligious libertine. But though in ancient times masons were charged in every country to be of the religion of that country or nation, whatever it was, yet ‘tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that religion in which all men agree, leaving their particular opinions to themselves: that is to be good men and true, or men of honour and honesty, by whatever denominations or persuasions they may be distinguished.
Although the definitions, ‘stupid atheist’ and ‘irreligious libertine’ have been superseded, along with a generally better wording since that time, the basic premise still prevails in that Freemasonry is religiously tolerant even though not religiously based.
Missing Documents
At the departure of George, Lord Ripon, United Grand Lodge realized another splendid coup in December 1874 when, Albert Edward, Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII), accepted the nomination as Grand Master. This added particular weight to the Masonic Charge after initiation:
Ancient no doubt it is, having subsisted from time immemorial. In every age, monarchs have been promoters of the Art,12 have not thought it derogatory to their dignity to exchange the sceptre for the trowel, have participated in our mysteries and joined in our assemblies.
Electing to resign his office on his accession to the throne in 1901, Edward remained Protector of the Order,13 but during his 26-year term he took Freemasonry to a new level of international prominence. This was particularly the case on the occasion of his mother Queen Victoria’s golden jubilee. To celebrate this event, and also to make the point to Grand Lodges abroad that Imperial Britain still held a form of masonic sovereignty, Edward convened a special Jubilee Grand Lodge in 1897, with his brother Arthur (Duke of Connaught) and his son Albert (Duke of Clarence) in attendance (see plate 14).
A few years earlier, steps had been taken to clear the field of any potential opposition from supporters of the Royal House of Stuart, which had been responsible for the dissemination of traditional Scots (Ecossais) Freemasonry in France and other parts of Europe from 1688. Even from as late as 1733, some while after the foundation of premier Grand Lodge, there are records of Ecossais high degrees and Scots Masters at the Devil’s Tavern lodge, Temple Bar, in London.14 And, perhaps surprisingly for the Victorian era, the Jacobite Cycle of the White Rose (see page 81) had been revived in 1886 by Bertram, 5th Earl of Ashburnham. His colleagues in this were Melville Henri Massue, 9th Marquis de Ruvigny, along with the Celtic language authority Henry Jenner FSA, the writer and press correspondent Herbert Vivian, and the Hon Stuart Erskine.
The Jacobite Peerage, compiled by Melville de Ruvigny, relates that in the autumn of 1886, a select number of prominent people were sent elaborately sealed pamphlets from the White Rose (a traditional emblem of James II, Duke of York) marked ‘Private and Confidential’.15 The communication reads as follows:
For a long time past, it has seemed desirable that some efforts should be made to bring together those who, by hereditary descent or community of sentiment, are in sympathetic accord on the subject of history and the misfortunes of the Royal House of Stuart. It is now close to two-hundred years since the Revolution of 1688 dispossessed that House from the Throne of Great Britain. The chivalrous devotion of so many Englishmen and Scotsmen to that House, which they regarded as their lawful Sovereign, has never received a fitting tribute of respect and honour from those who, with an affectionate intensity, admire and reverence the disinterested loyalty of the noble men and women who freely gave up life and fortune for a Sacred Cause.
This approach by mail gave rise to a number of supportive replies, and plans were made for a grand Stuart Exhibition in London. Relics and relevant documents arrived from all over Britain, and arrangements were made to hold the display at the New Gallery in 1889 to mark the bicentenary of Stuart exile. By 1887, plans were under way, and two years later the Exhibition took place—but it was not sponsored by the White Rose as originally planned. Instead, by way of a strategic manoeuvre of the Imperial court, the patronage was taken over by Queen Victoria herself. Notwithstanding Lord Ashburnham’s leadership of the White Rose, the Queen appointed him president of the display, but retained her own control by excluding Ruvigny, Erskine, Vivian and Jenner. This was particularly hard on Henry Jenner who, as Keeper of Manuscripts