STILL BADLY IN WANT OF A MASON.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume II, Issue 80, 7 November 1874, Page 5

STILL BADLY IN WANT OF A MASON.

The * Otago Guardian ' is in a sad state of mind about the Pope ; and should our contemporary fail to persuade its New Zealand friends that His Holiness is or has been a Freemason, it is to be feared that its Editor will lose his senses. In its issue of the 30th ult;., this journal endeavours to rehabilitate itself, and establish by^ newspaper evidence, and reasoning ! a statement made by it sometime ago, to the effect that Pitts IX., was a Freemason, a statement which we then proved to be a calumny. At the time, we laughed' at the folly and credulity of our sapient contemporary, and pointed out the mistake into which it fell, even in reference to the Pope's Christian name, In last Saturday's issue, the ' Guardian ' returns to the charge, and names several European newspapers which have given currency to the stupid story. Our contemporary says " Home papers now to hand confirm the statement that Mastai Feretti, alias Pope Pros IX., has been expelled from the Order of Freemasons. In the ' Bath Express,' * County Herald,' and ' North Wilts Guardian,' of August Ist, there appears the following paragraph: 'The grand lodge of Palermo has expelled Brother John Mastai Feretti from all the rights and privileges of Freemasonry, for unmasonic conduct to the extent of perjury, and breach of his Masonic obligations.' " The ' Belfast "Weekly News' is also quoted to the same effect, and the official Masonic paper at Cologne,' the ' Guardian ' tells us, without however giving the name of this official paper, "says that 'A man named Mastai Feretti &c. * * * * has now cursed his former brethren, and excommunicated all members of the order of Freemasons. * * * The charge against him was first preferred in his lodge at Palermo, in 1865, * * * but not pressed until he urged the Bishops of Brazil to act aggressively against the Freemasons." What an absurd story all this is ! In the first place the statements of these newspapers are worth no more than that of the ' Guardian ' itself, which is utterly valueless. It is one newspaper repeating the gratuitous statements of another, just as in the case of the forged speech attributed to Bishop Strossmayer, which went the round

of the Colonial Press, indeed we might say the Press of the world. As to this speech, here in New Zealand, Bishops MoßAisr and Choke who assisted at the Council of the Vatican, declared that no such speech as that attributed to the Hungarian Bishop had been delivered there, but the Colonial Press which published the calumny, refused or neglected to publish the refutation. Moreover, Bishop "Stbossmayeb, himself printed and published a letter stating that he had not made the speech universally attributed to him by the Press, but to little or no purpose. The Press took no notice of his letter : not even one of our Colonial papers, with the exception of the ' Tablet,' informed its readers that the speech was a forgery. It is idle, therefore, to quote newspapers as an authority, on any subject relating to Catholics or their Church. On these subjects the Press is duped and deceived — willing to be deceived, and unwilling to be undeceived. Again, these newspapers, as happened to the ' Guardian' a few weeks ago, are even ignorant of the Pope's Christian name, and the reason assigned for the Palermo lodge taking action now, of itself affords proof, were such required in a case of such palpable fabrication, that the statement of the Masonic official paper of Cologne is a clumsy calumny. This paper, so at all events says the ' Guardian,' states, Pio NoifO has now cursed his former brethren and excommunicated all members of the order of Freemasons, and that the charges were not pressed till he urged the bishops to act aggressively against the Freemasons." Why, the fact is that instead of having just now done all this the Pope has not done anything lately that he had not done from the very beginning of his reign. In the year 1816, the very first of his Pontificate, he published an Encyclical. Qui pluribus, in which he anathematised Freemasons, and renewed all the censures of his predecessor against them. These were contained in the constitution of Clement XII, In eminenti, 1738 ; constitution of Benedict XIV, providas, 1751 ; constitution of Pitts VII, Eclesicwn, 1821 ; constitution of Leo XII., Quo graviora, 1825, and the Encyclical of Gkegoby XVI, Inter. Why, our Holy Father since the first day of his Pontificate has never ceased to urge the bishops of the entire world to proceed against the Freemasons and members of other secret societies. These reasons, therefore, have been put forward by a clumsy calumniator in ignorance of some of the most striking and solemn facts of Pitts IX's reign.

As the ' Guardian ' " endorses the statement of the Masonic official paper of Cologne, we wish our contemporary would give us the name of this paper. We have a good reason for the wish ? to the effect that a member of the Freemason society who abandons it, excommunicates its members, and urges bishops to proceed against it, is a perjurer. But what is perjury ? Every Catholic knows that it is to break a lawful, or to take a false oath. Now the question is, is the Masonic oath a lawful one ? An. oath to be lawful must be administered by lawful authority, or taken under the sanction of lawful authority. But what lawful authority can a secret society have, a society unsanctioned by any legitimate authority, self- constituted, and at war -with Christianity ? The Freemason's oath is the most blasphemous form of words conceivable, — involving as it does the dethronement of the Almighty. To God, and to God alone, belongs the dominion of fife and death; but every Freemason, on his entrance into that accursed society, assumes to himself this dominion exclusively belonging to God, and the right to bestow it; under certain contingencies, to his fellow-members. Anything more blasphemous is not conceivable. Instead, therefore, of an ex-Freemason being guilty of perjury, all Freemasons are bound, strictly bound, to disobey their wicked society, to disregard their fearful oath, in taking which they sinned, and in keeping which they would continue to sin. No oath can be a vincxvlwn iniquitatis — a bond of iniquity.