American Revolution and Freemasonry
#1
I'm studying the Revolutionary War now, and am not too surprised to see my textbook say its meaning is still the subject of debate.  Having learned about it only from a very nationalistic point of view until now, I think it wise to broaden my perspective.  Not least of all because the message I'm being fed now is rather worse than nationalistic.  (I'm in college, need I say more?...  "The Revolution was the beginning of humanity's awakening to its potential, to our rights, and paved the way for the deification of the Individual, and to his claiming his sacred Freedom [to murder babies, produce child pornography, ********, use heroin, etc.]") 

Seeing the truth of the claim that the American Revolution ultimately led to a radical re-structuring of the political landscape, and human society, I figure it's a good idea to investigate further.

Can anyone direct me to some reliable sources relating the Revolutionary War, and the Founding Fathers, to Freemasonry?  (Or refuting any connections?)  I've heard the rumors, but have yet to see any substantial facts, so I've become very cautious on this subject to avoid any rash judgment--patriotism being a Catholic duty, if I remember my Catechism correctly.  :Hmm:

And in any case, even if the worst rumors are true, that's not an ipso facto reason to hate my country, per se.  I'm suspending judgment until I know the facts, but those seem unsurprisingly hard to come by. 

Any suggestions? 
Reply
#2
Leo XIII 's encyclical Longinqua Oceanis articulates the papal point of view.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xi...ua_en.html
Reply
#3
Pope Pius VI, the reigning pontiff during the American Revolution, never condemned the Revolution (nor Louis XVI for supporting it). 

Pope Pius VII, said that the United States "had done more for the cause of Christianity than the most powerful nations of Christendom have done for ages."

Blessed Pope Pius IX donated stone to help construct the Washington Monument and stated his desire to visit America. 

Pope Leo XIII believed the founding of the American state did not "take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you."  He further praised America's religious laws for "the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance."

When Leo XIII condemned Americanism he was condemning the belief in an inherent right to separation of Church and State, not separation of Church and State in all cases.  Separation of Church and State was good in America because it allowed Catholics to practice the faith.  Leo XIII did express concern that Americans might accept the principals of an inherent right to separation of Church and State.  However, he was more concerned that Catholics in Europe would want to adopt the American model.  As Leo explained:
Quote:It would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.


Saint Pope Pius X also praised America and expressed his desire to visit America as he believed the future of the Church lay in America.
Reply
#4
If you limit the Founding Fathers to signers of the Declaration of Independence, you certainly have a number of Freemasons. Approximately 9 out of 56 signers were Masons. Approximately 13 out of 39 signers of the Constitution were Masons.

Though before jumping to conclusions, it's worth asking: if the Revolution was entirely a Masonic conspiracy, why weren't all the signers Masons? Not even half were. Some, like John Adams, had negative views toward the Lodge. His son, John Quincy, actually ran on the Antimasonic Party ticket in politics.
Reply
#5
(01-25-2012, 08:44 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: If you limit the Founding Fathers to signers of the Declaration of Independence, you certainly have a number of Freemasons. Approximately 9 out of 56 signers were Masons. Approximately 13 out of 39 signers of the Constitution were Masons.

Though before jumping to conclusions, it's worth asking: if the Revolution was entirely a Masonic conspiracy, why weren't all the signers Masons? Not even half were. Some, like John Adams, had negative views toward the Lodge. His son, John Quincy, actually ran on the Antimasonic Party ticket in politics.

Let's limit this down to the big names:

George Washington: Mason
Benjamin Franklin: Mason
John Hancock: Mason

Thomas Jefferson: Not a mason
James Madison: Not a mason
John Adams: Not a mason
Sam Adams: Not a mason
Alexander Hamilton: Not a mason
Patrick Henry: Not a mason

Note that Pope Pius IX donated stone to build the Washington Monument. 
Reply
#6
I thought all the Founding Fathers were rich land owners, so in that case the Revolution was about protecting their interests and they just used words like "freedom" and "liberty" to dupe the hoi polloi into fighting in their ill-advised and profligate military venture?  Yes, I could swear I learned that somewhere.  But I tend to sleep through class a lot, so I might have seen it on teevee.

Reply
#7
(01-25-2012, 10:58 PM)DrBombay Wrote: I thought all the Founding Fathers were rich land owners, so in that case the Revolution was about protecting their interests and they just used words like "freedom" and "liberty" to dupe the hoi polloi into fighting in their ill-advised and profligate military venture?  Yes, I could swear I learned that somewhere.  But I tend to sleep through class a lot, so I might have seen it on teevee.

The wealthiest people from the most established families tended to be loyalists or cool toward the Revolution.

Most of the founding fathers were on the next ring down but unable to enter the political ruling class because their families were not well established enough.

Had Washington been able to become an officer in the British Army or if Franklin would have been accepted as a gentleman natural philosopher in London things would have played out differently.  The Revolution would do away with this focus on status and instead embrace the idea of a natural aristocracy where one is judged by worth not birth.
Reply
#8
You need to read this.

[Image: puritans-empire_front.jpg]

http://www.tumblarhouse.com/books/puritans-empire.php

A Catholic Perspective on American History. History is the key to understanding men - whether as nations, families, or individuals. For Catholics, history has an even higher purpose beside. For them, history is the unfolding of God's Will in time, and the attempts of men either to conform themselves to or resist that Will. But American Catholic historians have generally refrained from exploring their own national history with these principles, preferring instead to adopt the analysis of their non-Catholic colleagues, save when looking at purely Catholic topics (and sometimes not then). It is vital then, for Catholics, especially young Catholics, to have a good and proper understanding of their country's history. To exercise their patriotism, they must work for the conversion of the United States; to do this effectively, they must understand the forces and events which brought forth not only the religion of Americanism and the country itself, but also the sort of Catholicism which, in 300 years, failed so dismally to bring this conversion about.




Sample pages:

http://www.tumblarhouse.com/books/firstc...sample.pdf
Reply
#9
It must also be considered what degree masons those signers were. Remember that those in the lower degrees are out of the loop.

I thought the American revolution centered on the states' ability to use their own paper money--"colonial script"--something that would have been unacceptable to the Bank of England and, naturally, would lead to war.
Reply
#10
I don't have any good source, but I have been thinking lately that even if most of the traditionalist Catholic arguments directed against the American Revolution are true, the whole mythos surrounding it might serve as a sort of noble lie. I mean the reverence toward the Founding Fathers is inherently conservative. So, from a more conservative point of view, it might be best to avoid criticizing the Founders too much, even if they really deserve it in some cases.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)