Paul Schleifer

My first observation about the word canon is that it is not cannon “a mounted gun for firing heavy projectiles.” Canon means “an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope” or “the whole body of ecclesiastical law.” It has also come to mean, by the linguistic process of generalization, “the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art,” or “a fundamental principle or general rule,” or “a standard”; in addition, regarding books, canon has come to mean “the books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as genuine and inspired” (often referred to as “The Canon”), or more generally still, “any officially recognized set of sacred books” (all of these thanks to www.dictionary.com).

And given that I am a professor of literature, I would go one step further and say “any sort of officially recognized set of works that one is expected to have read.” The “canon” in English and American literature is an oft-debated topic and has been for decades, but we professors are an idiosyncratic bunch, so my guess is that this debate will continue unabated.

According to www.etymonline.com, the word is found in Old English: “canon ‘rule, law, or decree of the Church,’ from Old French canon or directly from Late Latin canon ‘Church law, a rule or doctrine enacted by ecclesiastical authority,’ in classical Latin, ‘measuring line, rule,’ from Greek kanon ‘any straight rod or bar; rule; standard of excellence,’ perhaps from kanna ‘reed.’” (I really like the way that last sentence ends because in my head it sounds like an illiterate Scot: “I canna read.”)

On this date, April 20, in the year 1884, Pope Leo XIII (that’s the thirteenth of that name) issued a papal encyclical (“a specific category of papal document, a kind of letter concerning Catholic doctrine, sent by the Pope and usually addressed to patriarchs, primates, archbishops and bishops who are in communion with the Holy See. The form of the address can vary widely, and may concern bishops in a particular area, or designate a wider audience. Papal encyclicals usually take the form of a papal brief due to their more personal nature as opposed to the formal papal bull. They are usually written in Latin and, like all papal documents, the title of the encyclical is usually taken from its first few words [its incipit]—from Wikipedia) condemning Freemasonry. Leo was not the first Pope to argue that the principles of Freemasonry were in opposition to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church: Clement XII wrote one in 1738, Pope Benedict XIV in 1751, Pope Pius VII in 1821, Pope Leo XII in 1826, Pope Pius in 1829, Pope Gregory XVI in 1832, and Pope Pius IX in 1846 all spoke out against the Freemasons.

So who are these horrible people who elicit such condemnation from eight different Popes?

The Freemasons trace their origin to the medieval guild of stone masons, though being a stone mason is no longer required for being part of the group. They organize themselves locally into Lodges, which are governed at a regional level (think state or province or even nation if the nation is small) by a Grand Lodge. There is no higher authority than the Grand Lodge; in other words, there is no single authority that governs all the Lodges of the world.

There is something secretive about the Masons. They have rituals and passwords and things like that. How these came about is hard to say—even Masonic historians aren’t sure about the transformation of a guild into a secret society. Thomas De Quincey, the English Romantic poet and critic, suggested that Freemasonry is an outgrowth of Rosicrucianism (perhaps a topic for another day), but the evidence is apparently not clear. And yet according to Nigel Brown, an English Freemason, any man over the age of 21 can join the Masons. And what do they do? Apparently they have dinner together, talk (except about politics and religion, which are banned topics of conversation in the Lodge), and give to charitable organizations.

So why would all those Popes condemn the Freemason?

Well, part of the reason Leo XIII condemned the Freemasons is this: “By a long and persevering labor, they endeavor to bring about this result – namely, that the teaching office and authority of the Church may become of no account in the civil State; and for this same reason they declare to the people and contend that Church and State ought to be altogether disunited. By this means they reject from the laws and from the commonwealth the wholesome influence of the Catholic religion; and they consequently imagine that States ought to be constituted without any regard for the laws and precepts of the Church.” In other words, the Freemasons believe in the separation of church and state.

Furthermore, Pope Leo XIII condemns the Freemasons for believing this: “Then come their doctrines of politics, in which the naturalists lay down that all men have the same right, and are in every respect of equal and like condition; that each one is naturally free; that no one has the right to command another; that it is an act of violence to require men to obey any authority other than that which is obtained from themselves. According to this, therefore, all things belong to the free people; power is held by the command or permission of the people, so that, when the popular will changes, rulers may lawfully be deposed and the source of all rights and civil duties is either in the multitude or in the governing authority when this is constituted according to the latest doctrines. It is held also that the State should be without God; that in the various forms of religion there is no reason why one should have precedence of another; and that they are all to occupy the same place.” In other words, the Freemasons believe in the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. OMG. In opposition to this viewpoint, Leo says, “As men are by the will of God born for civil union and society, and as the power to rule is so necessary a bond of society that, if it be taken away, society must at once be broken up, it follows that from Him who is the Author of society has come also the authority to rule; so that whosoever rules, he is the minister of God.” You can find these quotes at the following website: http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18840420_humanum-genus.html.

Now keep in mind that we are not talking about some Pope in the Middle Ages or even the Renaissance. We are talking about a Pope writing in the late 19^th century, 130 years ago.

And I know of no Papal decree which has, to use the modern political phrase, walked this condemnation of liberal principles back, at all. Perhaps Pope Francis, who has received such praise from such a variety of sources, can be convinced to declare Leo’s encyclical null and void. That would be a positive change to the canon.

 

The image is of Leo XIII, who published a Papal encyclical against the Freemasons and their crazy ideas of human liberty.