Mummery: Proofs of a Conspiracy pp. 17-22

"In all this progressive mummery we see the hand of the Jesuits, and it would seem that it was encouraged by the church."

Robison begins our section this week continuing his neophobia over the turn the Masonic lodges have taken in recent times. By "progressive" he probably means that it's been getting more and more elaborate, but I also choose to read that in the modern definition as well. Robison really seems to dislike the change from the "old boys" club that Masonry used to be...at least as far as he thinks it was. Remember, he was never really into it, and one of the reasons for that was he thought the rituals were a waste of time. It's very odd that he would base his new dislike of modern Masonry on something he never cared about before. 

Placing the blame on the Jesuits is made without any kind of foundation, but this is where we are going to start the proper conspiracy. I've mentioned the Jesuits before, but to recap: they are one of the orders of Catholicism that formed in response to the reformation. They were virulent opposers of Luther's changes and the various sects that spawned from the Reformation. Referred to in history, by their own founder even, as God's Soldiers--they were more evangelical and militant than the other orders. They expanded into heathen countries finding great success in South America especially. However, none of that is important, they get conspiratorial traction because a Jesuit tried to assassinate the king of France. Well, not a Jesuit, but someone who went to one of their schools. Another Jesuit was aware of the 1605 Gunpowder plot. That's all of the historical knowledge that we have, so for Robison to say that the hand of the Jesuits as an extension of Rome, is what is responsible for these new ideas is just made-up bullshit. 

What needs to be understood is the relationship between the Vatican and the Masons is not a friendly one. Since the early 18th-century membership in the Masons was ground for ex-communication by the Vatican. Today, this isn't necessarily the case, but according to Pope Benedict, a member should be denied the Sacrament of Holy Communion. As an atheist, I don't care about this, but as an ex-Catholic, I recognize how serious these penalties are. Excommunication is not merely getting kicked out of the church, it's being denied eternal salvation--as far as the belief system is concerned. For a Catholic, being denied the literal Body of Christ (in Communion) is basically the entire religion. None of these are penalties if you don't care, so take it how you want, but know that Masonic membership has been opposed by the Church since 1738. 

Robison goes on a long tirade about the attempt by the church to destroy Masonry. The lead-in quote refers to the Jesuits trying to infiltrate the order and make those ceremonies too ridiculous. The next three pages are about how this failed because the new blood simply adapted to the new customs while adding their own. 

What follows in the next three pages is a lament that the Masonic lodges had become less pious and more mystical than Robison would like. Not only that, but that miscreant Voltaire was a member and he always took shots at the clergy whenever he could. What are the doctrines that this new Masonry is preaching: equality of the people regardless of social rank, the desire to throw off the shackles of religion. Seriously, this is the bad consequence of the new Masonry, "Free Masonry may be affirmed to have a natural tendency to foster such leveling wishes; we cannot doubt but that great liberties are taken with those subjects in the Lodges, especially in countries where the distinctions of rank and fortune are strongly expressed and noticed."

Robison fears this result because it will have a disastrous impact on the world. What would happen if people no longer knew their place in society? Could a poor baker be considered an equal to a Lord? And if so, how would society function if the poor were unaware of who their betters were? I am fully willing to admit that I may be mistaken in Robison's intent, but thus far I can read it no other way. Obviously, I'm all for throwing off the shackles of religion, recognizing them to be nothing but a cultural and social drag whose only benefit has been in spite of itself not because of itself. Robison is really upset about this, he wrote the entire book about it after all. Yet, I'm not seeing any proof that this is happening because of the Lodges, but rather they were merely an instrument of the spread.

The members were bringing these ideas into the Lodges. So there must be something prior that is the causal action here. I'm going to place the blame on the spreading of literacy and just an increase in the general education of the people. They became exposed to ideas that the church and the state could no longer suppress, and here is where the lodges become responsible--they wouldn't turn over the names of their members. Robison points this out as frustration in the plans of the church, they couldn't break the oaths of the members.  

Robison closes out this long rant with a curious fact. He talks about the ascendency of a lodge in Munich, the Theodor von der guten Rath became so famous for its dangerous discourses on church and state that the elector of Bavaria suppressed it in 1786. I know this event, but not like this. I know this event, we know this event, because it was the act that ended the actual Illuminati. The ruler of Bavaria suppressed all secret societies in 1786. This is typically attributed to being a direct response to the Illuminati. Ten pages ago, Robison claimed this. The abolishment of 1786 was because the elector of Bavaria had finally detected the Illuminati and squashed them. Now, he's saying that it took five years of people pleading with the Bavarian royalty before the Masonic lodge was abolished. Could it be that every conspiracy theorist that talks about the Illuminati have overinflated their impact on Bavaria? It couldn't be that they only read a dozen pages of this book and ran with it. It really seems like this is the case. It wasn't the Illuminati that got that edict passed, it was something else and they were caught in the net.