Catholicism and Masonrygreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
What are the current official views of the Church on membership in Masonry?
-- john placette (johnplacette@yahoo.com), April 11, 2001
Correction -- Catholicism
-- John Placette (johnplacette@yahoo.com), April 11, 2001.
JmjHello, John.
One of EWTN's experts, theologian Colin Donovan, offers an official 1983 text from the Vatican, followed by his own thoughts on this subject, as follows:
------------------- BEGIN VATICAN QUOTATION ---------------------
Declaration on Masonic Associations ("Quaesitum est")
[English Translation of a Latin Document from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith November 26, 1983]It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church's decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous code.
This sacred congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance is due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.
Therefore, the Church's negative judgment in regard to Masonic associations remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and, therefore, membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful, who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.
It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above, and this in line with the declaration of this sacred congregation issued Feb. 17,1981. [1]
In an audience granted to the undersigned cardinal prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved and ordered the publication of this declaration which had been decided in an ordinary meeting of this sacred congregation.
Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Nov. 26, 1983
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect
Father Jerome Hamer, O.P. Titular Archbishop of Lorium, Secretary1. Cf. AAS 73 (1981) pp. 240-241.
----------- [Donovan quotation begins:}
As the declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Masonry says, no Catholic may be a Mason. By grave sin the Church means that to continue as a Mason in contempt of this decision of the Supreme Pontiff, Pope John Paul II, is grave matter, which together with knowledge of that fact and free choice makes for mortal sin. Such a person would be unable to receive Holy Communion until such time as he renounced Masonry and went to Confession. You will also notice that the statement of Cardinal Ratzinger says that the local priest or even a bishop has no authority to change this. Someone who was not aware of these facts would, of course, not be guilty of mortal sin. However, once a Catholic is aware of the Church's position, he is obliged to follow it. From that point forward, to disregard the judgment of the Church would be, as the Congregation declares, seriously wrong.Some have tried to say that American Masonry is different from European Masonry, which has a history of plotting against the government and the Church. The basic problem with all Masonry, however, is that it is a society which fosters a religious- philosophical attitude of indifference to religious truth, even substituting its own naturalistic dogma and rituals for those of Christianity. Such indifference is incompatible with belief in the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation. We may not "play-act" in the lodge of the Great Architect on Thursday night, then worship "in spirit and in truth" on Sunday morning at the altar of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the unique Lord and Redeemer of the Universe, the Word-made-flesh who reveals the Father, and who together with the Father sends the Holy Spirit. The Creed and the Masonic oath are irreconcilable!
Masonry is not the Jaycees, in which people of all religions and philosophies come together to work on local business problems. Masonry has its own religious and philosophical worldview, its own religious language, its rituals and its morality. In the library of every lodge you will find Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma. A top American Mason, he is the greatest writer on the real meaning behind Masonic beliefs and rituals. Even the title of his book shows that Masonry has a morality and a doctrine. If they are not Catholic morality and Catholic doctrine, and in fact they aren't even Christian, a Catholic or any Christian may not follow them. This is why, since the 1700s the popes have consistently rejected Freemasonry as incompatible with the faith. The motives and works of most masons may be good and benign, but this does not change the choice which the Catholic has to make between the religious philosophy of masonry and that of Catholicism.
If you wish to learn more you can go to any Protestant or Catholic bookstore and find books and pamphlets that show why Masonry and Christianity is incompatible. (Not only Rome, but also the Church of England and the Southern Baptists have ruled so.) I especially recommend the encyclical letter of Pope Leo, which is available from the Daughters of St. Paul in Boston (1-800-876-4463).
---------------------- END BOTH QUOTATIONS ------------------------St. James, pray for us. Our Lady of Sorrows, pray for us.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 12, 2001.
John(Placette):I enclose an article written by Rev. Robert I. Bradley, S.J. entitled Freemasonry which has been supplied by our friends at EWTN (http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/BACAFM.HTM). There is a quote also used in the article from a Declaration from the Vatican written by Cardinal Ratzinger et al and I have included it at the end of Fr. Bradley’s article. It is entitled Declaration on Masonic Associations. (http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/masons1.htm) I believe Mr. John Gecik has made reference to it in his reply to you.
Freemasonry What is the truth regarding the present official attitude of the Catholic Church toward Freemasonry? To begin this inquiry into that which is now in effect, we should go back to what was stated in the Church's canon law before there was any doubt about where the church stood on Masonry. The former code (which, incidentally, was promulgated on Pentecost, May 27, 1917, just two weeks after Our Lady's first apparition at Fatima) contained a canon which definitely capped all the previous papal condemnations of it. Canon 2335 reads as follows: Persons joining associations of the Masonic sect or any others of the same kind which plot against the Church and legitimate civil authorities contract ipso facto excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See. In the wake of the Second Vatican Council, however, when the revision of the Code of Canon Law was underway, the prevailing spirit of "ecumenical dialogue" prompted questions among various bishops as to whether or not Canon 2335 was still in force. Responding to these questions, a letter from Cardinal Francis Seper, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to the presidents of all the episcopal conferences, dated July 18, 1974, stated that: (1) the Holy See has repeatedly sought information from the bishops about contemporary Masonic activities directed against the Church; (2) there will be no new law on this matter, pending the revision of the Code now underway; (3) all penal canons must be interpreted strictly and (4) the express prohibition against Masonic membership by clerics, religious, and members of secular institutes is hereby reiterated.1 This rather awkwardly structured letter (which, for whatever reason, was not published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official journal of record for the Holy See) came to be interpreted in many quarters as allowing membership by laymen in any particular Masonic (or similar) lodge which, in the judgment of the local bishop, was not actively plotting against the Church or legitimate civil authorities. This state of affairs, in which undoubtedly a fair number of Catholics in good faith became Masons, lasted for some years. Then, on February 17, 1981, Cardinal Seper issued a formal declaration: (1) his original letter did not in any way change the force of the existing Canon 2335; (2) the stated canonical penalties are in no way abrogated and (3) he was but recalling the general principles of interpretation to be applied by the local bishop for resolving cases of individual persons, which is not to say that any episcopal conference now has the competence to publicly pass judgment of a general character on the nature of Masonic associations, in such a way as to derogate from the previously stated norms.2 Because this second statement seemed to be as awkwardly put together as the first, the confusion persisted. Finally, in 1983 came the new Code with its Canon 1374: A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.
Cardinal Ratzinger's Declaration Following the promulgation of the new Code, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the new Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a new declaration: (1) the new Canon 1347 has the same essential import as the old Canon 2335, and the fact that the "Masonic sect" is no longer explicitly named is irrelevant. (2) the Church's negative judgment on Masonry remains unchanged, because the Masonic principles are irreconcilable with the Church's teaching ("earum principia semper iconcilabilia habita sunt cum Ecclesiae doctrina") (3) Catholics who join the Masons are in the state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion. (4) no local ecclesiastical authority has competence to derogate from these judgments of the Sacred Congregation. 3 With these official statements of the Universal Church now on record 4 , it should be clear that the lamentable confusion of so many Catholics regarding Freemasonry must be seen as only a temporary aberration -- to be written off as one most costly consequence of a mindless "spirit of Vatican II." But we may hope that, as in other issues that have plagued the Church in the last score of years, there is a providence in this, a veritable blessing in disguise. For now, more clearly than ever before, we should see just why the Catholic Church has been -- and will always be -- so opposed to Masonry. It may at first seem plausible that the main (if not only) reason for its being condemned by the Catholic Church is that Masonry is conspiratorial. Its plotting against the Church (and, in the old Code, its also plotting against the State) is the one descriptive statement mentioned in both versions of the Code of Canon Law. Moreover, as the first curial document we cited (that of 1974) seems clearly to imply, the one requisite condition for permitting Catholics to join a Masonic lodge is that the lodge in question was not actively plotting against the Church and the State. Yet, for all its initial plausibility, this opinion seems to be inadequate. The proof of this is evident not only from the two subsequent curial documents (of 1981 and 1983), but more decisively still from the entire previous history of Roman documents, both curial and papal, treating of Masonry. Beginning in 1738 with Clement XII's encyclical In Eminenti (just twenty-one years after the establishment of the Grand Lodge of England, the event usually recognized as the commencement of the modern Masonic movement) and running through ten successive pontificates, the Church's case against Freemasonry finds its culminating statement in 1884 in Leo XIII's encyclical Humanum Genus. Masonic deceitfulness regarding its real objectives in society -- and its consequent policy of secrecy regarding the authorities of Church and State, and including even the rank-and-file of its own membership -- has always been noted by the popes, and most tellingly by Leo XIII. 5 And in the century since then and in our own country this conspiratorial policy has been amply documented.6 However useful this knowledge of Masonic strategy is for our understanding of the authentic nature of the movement, it is quite secondary. It is wholly subordinate to that which defines the movement itself: the content in function of which conspiracy is but "method," the end determining and justifying the means. That content -- that end -- is what we must now examine, if we are to find the fundamental and explicit reason for the Church's condemnation of Freemasonry. This fundamental reason can be briefly stated. The following summary passage from Leo XIII's Humanum Genus suffices. . .that which is their ultimate purpose forces itself into view -- namely, the utter overthrow of that whole religious and political order of the world which the Christian teaching has produced, and the substitution of a newstate of things in accordance with their ideas, of which foundations and laws shall be drawn from mere "Naturalism." . . . Now, the fundamental doctrine of the Naturalists, which they sufficiently make known by their very name, is that human nature and human reason ought in all things to be mistress and guide. Laying this down, they care little for duties to God, or pervert them by erroneous and vague opinions. For they deny that anything has been taught by God; they allow no dogma of religion or truth which cannot be understood by the human intelligence, nor any teacher who ought to be believed by reason of his authority. And since it is the special and exclusive duty of the Catholic Church fully to set forth in words truths divinely received, to teach, besides other divine helps to salvation, the authority of its office, and to defend the same with perfect purity, it is against the Church that the rage and attack of the enemies are principally directed.7 Catholicism and Freemasonry are therefore essentially opposed. If either were to terminate its opposition to the other, it would by that very fact become something essentially different from what it previously was; it would in effect cease to exist as itself. For Catholicism is essentially a revealed religion; it is essentially supernatural, both in its destiny and in its resources. Beyond all natural fulfillment, it tends toward an eternity of ineffable union with God in Himself; and beyond all natural resources, it begins that union here and now in the sacramental life of the Church. Masonry, on the other hand, is essentially a religion of "reason." With an insistence and a consistency matching Catholicism's self-definition, Masonry promises perfection in the natural order as its only destiny -- as indeed the highest destiny there is. And it provides for this perfectibility with its resources: the accumulated sum of purely human values, subsumed under the logo of "reason." Literally a logo, the Masonic compass and square are the symbol of a Rationalism that claims to be identified with all that is "natural." The consequent syncretism, blending all the strands of human experience -- from the cabalistic mysteries of an immemorial Orient to the technological manipulations of a post-modern West -- is the basis for Masonry's claim to be not just a religion but the religion: the "natural" Religion of Man. That is why its claim to date from the beginning of history -- its calendar numbers the "Years of Light" (from the first day of Creation) or the "Years of the World" -- is no mere jest on its part. And that is why its opposition to the Catholic Church antedates the Catholic Church's opposition to it. For it cannot abide the Church's claim to be the One True Church, and the consequent refusal by the Church to be relegated to the status of a "sect" which Masonry would have it be. Since the Church's claim to be the One True Church is ultimately founded and validated on the reality of the One True God, the opposing Masonic claim must ultimately derive from a perception of God that diametrically opposes the Church's faith. And so it does. Although Pope Leo does not explicitly speak of this essential opposition between Catholicism and masonry in terms of the First commandment of God -- "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before me" -- surely the most radical and simplest way of situating this opposition is to say just this. The Masonic "God" is an idol. What the Masons really worship is Man -- or the Spirit who has deceived man from the beginning: the masked Spirit of Evil. This is the one primal reason why the Catholic Church has condemned, and will always condemn, Freemasonry. It is clearly sufficient to stand by itself as the only reason -- and in amost fundamental sense, as Leo XIII seems to imply, that is the only reason in fact.
Gravely Evil Misuse of Oaths
We can, however, give a second reason for the Church's opposition to Masonry. Not strictly independent of the first reason, based as that reason is on the First Commandment, we can yet distinguish a second reason -- based on the Second Commandment. Some ten years earlier than Humanum Genus, there appeared (even in English translation) a brief (barely more than pamphlet-sized) but penetrating work, A Study of Freemasonry, by the great bishop of Orleans, Felix Dupanloup.8 All the more impressive because of his "liberal" credentials, Dupanloup duly notes the facts, and the gravity, of the Masonic conspiracy. But what he stresses, besides the same primary point subsequently stressed by Leo XIII, viz., the Masonic violation of the First Commandment, is its violation of the Second Commandment by its gravely evil misuse of oaths. The famous (or, rather, infamous) oaths that run through the entire ritual of Masonic initiation are more than mere promises based on personal honor. They formally invoke the Deity, and have for their object a man's total commitment to a cause under the direst sanctions. The Catholic Church sees in such oaths an inescapable grave evil. Either the oaths mean what they say or they do not. If they mean what they say, then God is being called to invert by His witness loyalties (viz., to Church and to State) already sanctioned by Him. If the oaths are merely fictitious, then God is being called to witness to a joke. It is not the secrecy of what goes on "behind the lodge door" that elicits and justifies the Church's condemnation of Masonry. It is rather the formal violation of the Second Commandment which these proceedings inescapably entail. The vaunted Masonic secrets, moreover, are scarcely that secret any longer. There is in fact a frequent Masonic plea to the effect that there are no secrets in Masonry -- that all is open to a truly open mind. On this point we may take the Mason at his word: he is speaking more truly than he knows! The case for the Catholic Church's condemnation of Freemasonry is open and clear. By its very nature as formulated in its philosophical statements and as lived in its historical experience, Masonry violates the First and Second Commandments of God. It worships not the One True God of revelation -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- but a false god, symbolically transcendent but really immanent: the "god" called "Reason." And it invokes without adequate cause the Name of the One True God. After such a case as this, to cite the secrecies of initiation and the further secrecies of machination called "conspiracy" is not only anti-climactic, it is beside the point. To conclude: we Catholic should now see the Masons more clearly for what they essentially are. They are the heirs (unwitting or otherwise is irrelevant) of a religion which purports to be the one religion of the one "God" -- and therefore the enemy, intrinsically and implacably so, of Catholicism. Freemasonry in its modern mode is "modernity" in the deepest (i.e., the philosophical and religious) sense of that term. It is, in a word, "Counterfeit Catholicism." For its "God" is the "Counterfeit God": the one who would be as God, the one who is the prince of this world, the one who is the Father of Lies.
Notes 1. "Complures Episcopi," Notiziario CEI (1974) 191. (From EnchiridionVaticanum, No. 563, pp. 350-51). 2. "S. Congregation pro Doctrina Fidei," Acta Apostolicae Sedis 73 (1981)240-41. (From EV, No. 1137, pp. 1036-39) 3. "Quaesitum est," AAS 76 (1984) 200. (From EV, No. 553, pp. 482-87) 4. A summary of this documentation was made available in this country by the American Bishops' Committee for Pastoral Research and Practice, in a report entitled "Masonry and Naturalistic Religion," published in Origins, 15 (June 27, 1985), pp. 83-84. 5. Acta Sanctae Sedis 16 (1883 sic) 420. 6. For an excellent recent survey, with emphasis on the American scene, see Paul Fisher's Behind the Lodge Door: Church, State, and Freemasonry in America (Bowle, MD: Shield, 1988). 7. Acta Sanctae Sedis 16 (1883 sic) 421. The English version used here is from a Paulist pamphlet first published in 1944 and reprinted by TAN (Rockford, IL: 1987), pp. 6-7. 8. The English edition which I used was published in Philadelphia in 1856.
Declaration on Masonic Associations
NOTE: The following is the most recent decree from the Vatican on the subject of Freemasonry and is thus is the most current statement of the Church's law on this topic……
Issued by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on November 26, 1983. It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church's decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous Code. This Sacred Congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance is due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories. Therefore the Church's negative judgment in regard to Masonic associations remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion. It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above, and this in line with the Declaration of this Sacred Congregation issued on 17 February 1981 (cf. AAS 73 [1981] pp. 240-241). In an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved and ordered the publication of this Declaration which had been decided in an ordinary meeting of this Sacred Congregation. Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 26 November 1983. JOSEPH Card. RATZINGER Prefect + Fr. JEROME HAMER, O.P. Titular Archbishop of Lorium Secretary
I hope this was what you were looking for. Have a blessed Easter!
St. James and Mary, Our Blessed Mother, pray for us!
Ed
-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), April 12, 2001.
I was formerly employed for almost 14 years here in California, by a Mexico City-based company which had ties to the Mexican government. The chartered corporation in this country where I worked received frequent guests and government functionaries from Mexico of the PRI party, now displaced by PAN.Once I asked a good friend high up in the Company if it was true all Mexican presidents were Masons, as I had heard many times before. He replied it was so. But he said that they were enrolled into the society upon election to the Mexican presidency more or less ceremonially only-- by the Masons in Mexico City, who evidently held some power or influence there. The president had no obligation to them, nor did they impose on him politically. I was leery of such a rationalization of the matter, but kept silent. I know that the past history of the PRI was inimical to the Catholic Church. Yet, one PRI president, Echeverria, publicly stated that he was himself a believer and a Catholic.
Very likely he was a nominal Catholic. The CEO of our Company, who was a cabinet minister under Echeverria, once related to me that this president cared nothing for Sunday observance. ''He would INVENT work for us to do on Sundays,'' he once commented! It's been a long, hard road for the Church in Mexico.
Now, with the PAN party in power, it might be a turning point; PAN is traditionally conservative and Catholic, and the new president, Vicente Fox was reported to be a Church-goer before his election, though he is a divorcee. I hope his office is Mason-proof, at least.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 12, 2001.
Eugene:You might say Vincente is a flash in the PAN! (Sorry! I couldn't resist!)
Have a blessed Easter!
Ed
-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), April 12, 2001.
For those of our friends that read Spanish may be this site from a Catholic Forum could be of interest:VICENTE FOX ES CATOLICO:
De alberto flores el martes, 5 de diciembre, 2000 - 09:56 am El día 1o. de diciembre Vicente Fox tomó posesión de su cargo como Presidente de México. Pero antes fue a la Basílica de Guadalupe, se hincó ante le Virgen y recibió la comunión. Diputados y Senadores que no son de su partido vieron esto como UN INSULTO A LOS JUDIOS, A LOS PROTESTANTES, A LOS MUSULMANES, A LOS ATEOS, ETC. Pregunto por ser católico y vivir mi fe ¿insulto a otros? ¿Un católico al ocupar puestos públicos tiene que dejar de vivir su fe? CARAY, QUE MUNDO TAN LOCO ESTAMOS VIENDO!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- De Beatrìz el martes, 5 de diciembre, 2000 - 11:41 pm Querido hermano Alberto: Yo pienso que cada uno es libre de practicar su credo y por lo menos yo no me siento ofendida si un judìo va a la sinagoga o un protestante a su templo en un dìa que considere que es decisivo para su vida GRACIAS A DIOS que todavìa hay en el mundo personas con las suficientes agallas para ser en pùblico como es delante de Dios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- De Alejandra el jueves, 7 de diciembre, 2000 - 10:06 am Queridos hermanos: Fox es el presidente de un país 90% Católico. ¿qué tiene de raro que él lo sea? La novedad es que él no es un católico vergonzante y que entiende bien que su Fe debe parcticarse en todo momento y que debe dar testimonio todo el tiempo, extendiéndolo a todos los ámbitos de su vida, hermoso ejemplo que todos debemos seguir. saludos y un beso desde México.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- De Mary de Mexico el jueves, 7 de diciembre, 2000 - 11:02 am Alejandra. De acuerdo contigo. y quien tiene FE encuentra a Dios en todo. saludos.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- De Alejandra el jueves, 7 de diciembre, 2000 - 05:54 pm Saludos Mary. Gracias por la porra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- De Beatrìz el jueves, 7 de diciembre, 2000 - 11:22 pm Hermanos: Me da mucha alegrìa que encontremos resonancia unos con otros, era de esperar entre cristianos. Ahora tambièn debemos unirnos ante Jesùs e implorar los dones del Espìritu para este gran hombre que ha venido ha despertar la ESPERANZA que en nuestro querido Mèxico parecìa ya no haber. Dios los bendiga y los llene de su amor. Su hermana en Jesùs y Marìa: Betty
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- De E. Ortiz Mex. el viernes, 8 de diciembre, 2000 - 10:23 am A los diputados y senadores que se quejaron de que Fox haya ido a la Basílica, habría que contestarles: Más de cien años hemos tenido Presidentes masones, indiferentes a la vida de la Iglesia, otros declaradamente sus enemigos, otros perseguidores. ¿ Fue justo durante tanto tiempo tener gentes en el poder que no reflejaban los sentimientos de la mayoría del pueblo mexicano? ¿Por qué pasó esto? Porque ninguno de ellos fue elegido legalmente. Las elecciones nunca fueron libres ni democráticas. El día que se respeta por primera vez el voto del pueblo, a ciertas gentes les parece un insulto que el Presidente dé testimonio de su fe. Pero Fox claramente ha dicho en repetidas ocasiones que no tendrá preferencia por ninguna iglesia o denominación en sus actos de gobierno. El ir a la iglesia no es un acto de gobierno. Gracias sean dadas a Dios que por fin un gobernante responde a los sentimientos de un pueblo católico en su mayoría. ¿Ha habido declaraciones de alguna iglesia o denominación no-católica que se sienta ofendida por lo que hizo Fox? Que yo sepa no.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- De Belém el viernes, 8 de diciembre, 2000 - 12:35 pm Lo que yo escuché a un comentarista de la t.v., es de que sensuran el hecho de que Fox haya ido a la iglesia como parte de su acto público, porque yo entiendo que ese "hecho" se puede tomar como proselitismo y que pudiese hacer sentir menos a las personas que caminan en otras religiones. Pero bueno, aquí en Guadalajara, seguido se le ha visto al Gobernador asistir a misa, e incluso hacer visitas al Santísimo, y no le han seguido las cámaras de t.v., pués porque no le van a seguir las 24 horas para ver qué hace. La diferencia es que Fox inició el día de su toma de la presidencia yendo a la iglesia a comulgar como signo evidente de fé en comenzar su misión oficial con la bendición de Dios.
Y si Fox es sincero, pués caramba! eso nos beneficia, porque nos estamos confiando a un hombre que tiene fé, que es humilde y reconoce su necesidad de ser guiado por Dios y como ha demostrado ser un hombre muy inteligente, en la congruencia podemos confiar que lleve al pueblo de méxico por el camino del progreso, sobre todo a los menos afortunados y a los marginados. Saludos a todos.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- De Claudio de Panamà el sábado, 24 de febrero, 2001 - 03:01 pm Hola todos:
Fue una gran alegrìa conocer este gesto del presidente Mexicano. Denota una gran humildad. Fue saludable para todo el paìs y ejemplo para el mundo. Un hombre que no se apoya en sus fuerzas sino en la ayuda que Dios le da. En un paìs 100% Guadalupano, no es de extrañar que vaya a visitar a la Virgen al iniciar su presidencia. La verdad es que Fox tiene coraje, valor, y como buen catòlico es signo de contradicciòn. Va contra corriente. Imitemos a Fox en ese no temer a lo que otros diràn. Y en expresar en cualquier momento nuestras convicciones y nuestra fe. Si eres genuino y actuas de corazòn, en vez de insultar, das ejemplo. Y esto es lo que vale.
Saludos a todos.
-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), April 13, 2001.
Muy estimado Enrique,
Mil gracias por estos informes. Todos Mexicanos esperamos en Dios que se realize una grande epoca para Mexico con este nuevo presidente.Yo collabore en una compania para estatal Mexicana, en San Diego. Mi director ejecutivo fue por un periodo el Lic. Mario Moya Palencia, quien llego a ser secretario de governacion del presidente Echeverria. El fue quien hizo ese comentario de los domingos con Echeverria. Moya Palencia para mi fue persona muy fina; un hombre grande. Desgraciadamente, su propia familia no es de las mas dignas. Que lastima. Rogamos que nuestro Senor y la Virgen de Guadalupe bendigan y guarden al presidente actual de la republica, Vicente Fox.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 13, 2001.
Here you go, Fred.
-- David S (asdzxc8176@aol.com), February 28, 2002.
DavidThank You Very Much.. I will add my comments later on.
-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), February 28, 2002.
To My Catholic FriendsBack in 1992 in N.H. i bought a cemetary plot to bury my late wifes remains which is also going to be for my parents too. About a year later I discovered that there is a gravesite with a large upright headstone with a large depiction of the book of Masons and the Masonic symbols on it. I was shocked at the sight of it within easy view of my Gravesite.
I later asked my Pastor of this situation as it is the Church's Cemetary. He told me that it was no longer an issue with the Church as the Canons were changed and that it is no longer a problem.
Well I recently read a letter by Cardinal Law on this very issue and he clearly explained the Church's views on Masons has never changed and the past rulings of the Popes over the Centuries still holds and is valid.
My queation is this. Is this illegal for someone to violate a Catholic cemetary with a Masonic symbol? Can I have any recourse to have it removed? AS far as I am concerned it is the very symbol of SATAN and it is a disgrace. I know as a KofC member it is illegal for a member to be a Mason and it is grounds for dismissal.
I am looking for advice and whatever you can tell me for assurances. Thanks be to GOD for his Truth.
-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 01, 2002.
Fred,
I can give you nothing but an opinion (nothing official).
If the cemetery is owned by a Catholic parish or diocese, and if they publish guidelines forbidding the use of anything that the Church deems offensive, in poor taste, or a denial of the Catholic faith, then there is probably a legal cause that could result in the replacement of the bad headstone.
But if there were no such guidelines, then the family of the deceased had a right to do what they did, and probably nothing can be done about it.
Even if guidelines were violated, the parish/diocese might not take action over something like this (symbols), because they do not overtly deny our faith, and most people don't even know their hidden meanings. In other words, the parish/diocese might not be willing to invest any cash in a court fight that could result in a countersuit, bad publicity, etc..
I'd recommend that you not worry about it any more. That grave is not going to disturb the eternal slumber of the dead whose remains are surrounding it. God does not give the devil such a power.God bless you.
John
-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 01, 2002.
Thank You John for the assurances. It is much appreaciated..GOD BLESS ALL WHO HEAR HIS WORD.
-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), March 01, 2002.