Below we publish two documents taken from the following file of the State Archives of Rome:
MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR
General Directorate of Public Security
General and Reserved Affairs Division
General Archive
Documents seized from Freemasonry
identificativonIT-ACS-AS0001-0001763
Envelope no. 1 – file no. 1 “investigations”
Authorization email from the State Archives of Rome dated June 14, 2024
declaration of use no. 2215/202
DOWNLOADING THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS IS PROHIBITED
In Search of Historical Truth
Recently, the judiciary rejected the Grande Oriente d’Italia’s request to acquire part of Palazzo Giustiniani, currently the seat of the Senate.
Undoubtedly, the historical documentation preserved in public archives played a role in the unfavorable ruling.
We present to scholars two documents from the Rome State Archive concerning the liquidation of the Grande Oriente d’Italia’s assets following the fascist government’s dissolution of Masonic lodges.
From the vision of these papers we can question the reconstruction that in general the official historiography proposes as consolidated:
– The fact that Palazzo Giustiniani was expropriated from the Grande Oriente d’Italia;
– The role of the Urbs Company and the unresolved question about where the possible sums paid to the liquidators of the aforementioned company belonging to the Grande Oriente ended up;
– The relationship between a part of the exponents of the Grande Oriente with the Fascist Regime.. But let’s go in order: we are in 1934, the 13th year of the Fascist Era.
The first document is a letter of thanks that Ulisse Bacci writes to the Chief of Police Arturo Bocchini.
Arturo Bocchini entered the prefectural career in 1922 and remained Chief of Police from 1926 until his death in November 1940.
The letter is dated December 22, 1934, Ulisse Bacci was one of the most important figures of the Grand Orient of Italy.
The Treccani Institute remembers him as follows::
“Journalist and politician (Barberino Val d’Elsa, Florence, 1846 – Rome 1935). He was initiated into Freemasonry in 1867 and immediately joined the secretariat of the Grand Orient of Italy, first as a simple clerk and then as secretary general. He held a teaching certificate for secondary schools but there is no evidence that he ever used it. When the “Rivista della massoneria italiana” was founded in 1870, he quickly became its guiding spirit, assuming the directorship in 1872. As both director and owner of the official periodical read by all Italian Masons, he undoubtedly played a leading role in shaping the cultural direction of the Masonic community. A democrat with republican sentiments, like most of the Grand Orient’s leadership, he shared and often guided from the pages of the journal the great battles for the secularization of the country, in favor of a secular school open to all and of divorce. He collaborated as a literary critic and poet with numerous Roman periodicals. For about sixty years he was the soul of Italian Freemasonry. On November 17, 1926, the prefect of Rome decreed the “suspension” of the Masonic journal, which was never revoked, ruining its owner and editor financially. During the fascist years, Bacci was persecuted by police measures, suffered financial ruin, and was abandoned by his friends. Institute of the Italian Encyclopedia founded by Giovanni Treccani.”
In 1934, Bacci asked the Chief of Police to verify where the money from the liquidation of the assets of the Grand Orient of Italy had ended up, including Palazzo Giustiniani, which was its national headquarters.
Bocchini accepted Bacci’s requests and ordered an investigation to verify where the money from the liquidation of the assets of the Grand Orient had ended up.Abbiamo visionati molti elenchi del Supremo Consiglio del GOI, in tutti questi elenchi il primo nome è quello di Ulisse Bacci.
In the attached letter, Bacci extends his Christmas greetings to the Chief of Police and his family. He expresses gratitude for the favorable reception of his previous request, to which we shall return, and for the Chief’s authoritative intervention in an attempt to recover “at least a part of what is owed to me from the remaining Masonic assets.”
Indeed, Bacci claims to be entitled to a share of the proceeds from the liquidation of the Grand Orient’s assets. Having adopted Bacci’s request, Bocchino ordered the Inspector General of Public Security, Giuseppe Consolo, to investigate what had happened to these funds.
Also interesting is the frontispiece of the file, where the archivist summarized the contents of the file in order to understand what the topic was, a practice that is also followed by archivists today: “Mrs. M. has declared again that she will present the list of those who have benefited from the latest funds of Freemasonry only to His Excellency the Head of Government”.
Below this sentence we find another note: “He has not presented it again” and next to it is the word “Acts”.
The Inspector Consolo’s report follows, the document is made up of 19 pages, I leave the reading and understanding of these to those who access this site.
I will not analyze the entire report, I will only focus on some of the topics covered:
– the description of what happened at the headquarters of the Grand Orient, namely Palazzo Giustiniani;
– The role of some members of the Grand Orient and the possibility that they assumed important roles in the fascist government, some passages of which we will later find confirmation in the words of Pope Pius XI.
In the first part of the report, Inspector Consolo recalls what happened in 1925: Domizio Torrigiani, the last elected Grand Master, by virtue of the powers granted to him by the last assembly of the Grand Orient, on the eve of the publication of Law No. 2029 of November 26, 1925, with decree No. 434 of November 22, 1925, declared all Lodges and Masonic bodies dissolved. With decree No. 435 he declared the statutes, regulations, and rituals abolished, stating that in the event of reconstitution, everything would have to comply with the laws on associations.
At the same time, a coordinating committee was formed, which included Deputy Grand Master Giuseppe Meoni, Ettore Ferrari, Ugo Lenzi and other leading figures of the Grand Orient.
The committee met only a few times, following the “confinement” of Torregiani, Meoni was elected president.
On June 16, 1927, Meoni convened the committee and the board of directors of the Urbs company, owner of Palazzo Giustiniani and other properties housing Lodges. The meeting was held at his home on June 26, 1927. You can find the details of the meeting in the attached document.
The assembly resolved that once the dispute “concerning the company’s assets” was settled, the Urbs company should be liquidated.
Regarding the reconstitution of the Grand Orient, it was decided that, considering the general situation of the country, particularly in some provinces, any action should be suspended. Furthermore, it was deemed impossible to implement a reconstitution project based on the principles outlined by the former Grand Master.
Torrigiani paid dearly for his Masonic activism. Exiled from April 1927 for allegedly inciting unrest against the state and colluding with political exiles, he was later released but his health was severely compromised. He died in August 1932.
President Meoni was given full powers to liquidate the “administrative management of the Grand Orient”.
I will now focus on what happened at the headquarters of the Goi, namely Palazzo Giustiniani, also because it has been the subject of recent public discussion.
These decisions were the basis for the subsequent liquidation of the assets of the company “Urbs”.
The Inspector of the Public Security reports that subsequently on 27 November 1927 the company meeting was held with all the shares represented and present. Thus, Prof. Dr. Umberto Vecchiotti was appointed as liquidator. The mandate also included the task of collecting the payment for Palazzo Giustiniani from the State.
The Palazzo Giustiniani affair, however, seems to have been resolved previously, or at least in the process of being resolved given the role assigned to Vecchiotti.
On January 20, 1926, the Ministry of Public Education attempted to exercise its right of first refusal on the monument, pursuant to Law No. 364/1919, through a decree.
Urbs opposed the decree through its lawyer Giuseppe Marchesano, requesting its annulment before the Council of State, arguing that the ten-year prescription period for the right of first refusal had expired, as ten years had passed since the Grand Orient of Palazzo Giustiniani had purchased the palace (therefore the right had not been exercised at the time of the purchase).
The dispute was resolved with a transaction: the State Property Agency paid a significant fee to Urbs and the latter renounced “any eventual rights”.
In the text you will find the amount that the State paid to Urbs, a company that, however, shortly after, would appoint a liquidator.
The operations on the assets of the Grande Oriente were defined on 27 March 1929 with the approval of the budget.
The management of the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite, another body connected to the Grand Orient, was closed on January 30, 1926 with a report of the Grand Treasurer, accountant Alberto Pavoni, approved by Prof. Ferrari, the active residue remained at the disposal of Professor Ferrari.
The report continues in detail both on the assets of the Supreme Council and on that of the Grand Orient.
At the end of the entire liquidation process of Urbs and prior to the liquidation of the Grand Orient’s assets, the Inspector noted that ‘Overall, Meoni’s fiduciary administration extended to liquid assets that can be estimated at 3,600,000 lire.’
At this point, the other question raised by the report is where this money ended up, with Bacci claiming a share for probable credits in his favor.
Lawyer Lenzi, also a member of the Urbs committee, reported that there was a statement of account regarding the use of these funds and that, when a dispute arose between Bacci and Meoni, Lenzi had examined it.
However, Meoni’s widow refused to provide the inspector with the statement of account. Let us see what is written on page nine of the report:”
“The widow Meoni, while admitting the existence of the financial statement, has firmly resisted all my requests to have access to it, declaring herself bound by reasons of extreme confidentiality regarding the persons mentioned therein and making me understand
that the statement itself shows open credits for considerable sums to high personalities, who would have reason to complain, and perhaps even to take reprisals against you, if you had accepted my invitation, or that of any other public safety official.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ha aggiunto di avere depositato in posto sicuro il documento che si riterrebbe sciolta dal vincolo del riserbo soltanto se ne avesse ordine dall’Autorità Giudiziaria ovvero ne fosse personalmente richiesta da S.E. il Capo del Governo, nelle cui mani, senza tramite di altra persona, per quanto autorevole, sarebbe disposta a consegnare il rendiconto.”
L’Ispettore verificato attraverso le notizie in suo possesso la destinazione dei fondi di cui è a conoscenza, rilevò che mancavano giustificazioni per una parte cospicua dei fondi amministrati.
A pagine 16 scrive: “Dunque, di fronte a un attivo certo di circa 3 milioni e 600 mila lire, abbiamo un passivo, approssimativamente giustificato, di un milione e mezzo: il residuo di due milioni e centomila lire dovrebbe trovare giustificazione nel rendiconto lasciato dal Meoni e che la vedova afferma essere in gran parte documentato.”.
Nella pagina successiva, la 17, scrive, e le sottolineature non sono le mie, che per tentare un parziale recupero, bisognerebbe controllare “…se, come la vedova Meoni vagamente accenna, vi siano stati profittatori dei fondi della Massoneria tra persone di alta posizione politica e sociale.”.
We are not interested in where these funds ended up, knowing the names of the potential profiteers, but I think it is important to note that the Chief of Police had taken action in response to Bacci’s requests; that Palazzo Giustiniani was not expropriated, but that a right of pre-emption was enforced, even if late and perhaps time-barred, but that an agreement was then made to silence the dispute.
In any case, if Urbs had sold the property, the pre-emption could probably have been enforced again, but I am not a jurist, I am not certain.
Is it possible that part of these funds could have ended up with people at the top of the Fascist Government, probably former leaders of Freemasonry itself? This is evident from the widow’s refusal to deliver the complete report.
Which is, as we will see, what the Pope denounced: conditioning by Freemasonry exponents of the fascist government.
We should not be surprised by this, De Felice wrote about it extensively, the consensus in Italy towards the Fascist Regime and Mussolini was very broad, numerous Freemasons were members of the same Supreme Council.
One of the problems of democratic Italy was precisely the rapid transition from positions of total support for fascism, to anti-fascist declarations that in suddenness and opportunism never allowed the cultural adherence to fascism of many to be questioned.
Families were divided and certainly the “Masonic family” was also divided.
So from a historical point of view, as always, reality is complicated, it is perhaps no coincidence that the archives of Police Headquarters and Prefectures of the twenty years were often destroyed, the desire to erase the memory of the complicities and privileges matured in the twenty years of fascism was evident.
Finally, knowing the Masonic rituals, one wonders how correctly initiated Masons, having reached the highest degrees, could share the ideologies of the Fascist Regime!?
The Pope’s Message
Fascism, with its dominion and political and cultural dictatorship, played a significant role in Italian history. There was widespread adherence to the regime after its rise to power, followed by a sudden rush to distance oneself after the military defeat.
Renzo De Felice has effectively highlighted the vast popular consensus and support from the ruling classes that, in the subsequent republican era, many were interested in concealing to protect positions of power and privilege acquired through their adherence to fascism.
Consulting Italian and, above all, foreign archives has allowed us to gain a broad and comprehensive view of many events. Initially, sectors of Freemasonry had supported Mussolini’s movement, so much so that there were numerous Masons in the Fascist Supreme Council. Likewise, others linked to progressive movements had firmly opposed it. Freemasonry was deeply divided, just like the entire Italian society.
Then, with Mussolini’s rise to power, a fierce persecution followed, with the devastation of lodges, deaths, exiles, and the dissolution of Masonic obediences.
After the King had appointed Mussolini as Head of Government, one of the first problems Mussolini faced was that of Freemasonry. Given the numerous Masons at the top of the Fascist Party, there was a clear fear that they, influenced by the leadership of their Obediences, might somehow hinder him by obeying external orders.
Only a few years had passed since the famous trial of the Masonic deputies who had refused to vote on a motion in Parliament as their Grand Master had requested. Masonic deputies had ended up on public trial.
Fascism could not admit that a single discipline and a single Chief and the fascist Masons could create difficulties; the glue of fascism was becoming loyalty to the Duce on one hand and aversion to communism and liberal democratic systems.
The reasons for the persecution of Freemasonry were two: the fear that the Masonic discipline would entail a constraint for the fascist Masons present in the Supreme Council and among those inserted in the State apparatus and the ties of the Obediences with the liberal democracies, in particular with Piazza del Gesù linked to the United States.
Many Masons paid with persecution, exile and sometimes death for their opposition to fascism, and even in Freemasonry as in the country the families were divided: some with Mussolini and some against Mussolini.
With the documents that you find together we analyze a subsequent historical period in which, once the persecutions were over, the Regime had consolidated and even the aversion to Freemasonry seems to have disappeared, indeed, it seems that some of its exponents took on important roles in the fascist government of the country.
The first to report the new situation is the Pope and he does so publicly: fascism is seeking a monopoly on the education of young people, so it has moved against the structures of the Catholic Church. Pope Pius XI expresses himself publicly with an Encyclical entitled Non Abbiamo Bisogno (29 June 1931).
We do not report the entire text but only some parts, fascism has dissolved Catholic Action by closing 10 thousand circles with 500 thousand members:
“Already on several occasions, Venerable Brothers, in the most explicit manner and assuming full responsibility for what we have said, We have expressed Ourselves and protested against the campaign of false and unjust accusations that preceded the dissolution of the Youth and University Associations of Catholic Action. A dissolution carried out by force and through procedures that gave the impression that a vast and dangerous criminal association was being targeted; it was a matter of youth and certainly some of the best of the good, to whom We are pleased and paternally proud to be able to once again give such testimony. It would seem that the very executors (certainly not all of them, but many of them) of such procedures had such a sense and showed that they had it, putting into their executive work expressions and courtesies, with which they seemed to apologize and want to be forgiven for what they were forced to do: We have taken this into account by reserving for them particular blessings.
But, as if in painful compensation, how many hardships and violence, even to blows and blood, and irreverence in print, in word and in deed, against things and people, not excluding Ourselves, preceded, accompanied, and followed the execution of the sudden police measure, which all too often ignorance or malicious zeal extended to associations and bodies not even struck by superior orders, even to the oratories of the little ones and the pious congregations of Daughters of Mary! …”
Specifically, the Pope is replying to a report that was published in the press.
“But there has been a much greater and more widespread attack on truth and justice. If not all, certainly the principal falsehoods and outright calumnies spread by the adverse partisan press – the only free, and often commanded, or nearly so, to say and dare anything – were collected in a message, albeit unofficial (a cautious qualification), and administered to the general public with the most powerful means of dissemination that the present time knows. The history of documents drawn up not in the service, but in offense of truth and justice, is a long and sad story; but we must say with the deepest bitterness that, even in the many years of our library work and activity, we have rarely encountered a document so biased and so contrary to truth and justice, in relation to this Holy See, to the Italian Catholic Action and more particularly to the Associations so harshly hit. If we were to remain silent, if we were to let this pass, which is to say if we were to let it be believed, We would be far more unworthy, than We already are, to occupy this august Apostolic See, unworthy of the filial and generous devotion with which Our dear children of Catholic Action have always consoled Us and now more than ever console Us…”
Then, he continues further:
“The message recalls the often-adduced comparison between Italy and other States, in which the Church is truly persecuted and against which words like those pronounced against Italy have not been heard, where (he says) Religion has been restored.
We have already said that we preserve and will preserve the memory and everlasting gratitude for what was done in Italy for the benefit of Religion, even if with a contemporary no lesser, and perhaps greater, benefit to the party and the regime.”
And among the various faults that are placed on Catholic circles, which the Pope is quick to deny, there is the membership of leaders to the Popular Party, as well as carrying out political activity:
“The first is that the leaders of Catholic Action were almost entirely members or leaders of the Popular Party, which was (he says) one of the strongest opponents of fascism.”
Which the Pontiff denies and we find references to the role of some sectors of Freemasonry in 1931:
“We, the Church, the Religion, the faithful Catholics (and not only us) cannot be grateful to those who, after having excluded socialism and freemasonry, our declared enemies (and not only ours), have so widely readmitted them, as everyone sees and deplores, and made them all the more strong and dangerous and harmful the more they are concealed and at the same time favored by the new uniform.”
The Pope almost reverses the accusation against Catholic Action of playing a political role, accusing the Regime of having excluded socialists and freemasons, but also of having readmitted them and made them stronger and more dangerous by the “new uniform”.
Below are links to articles published in online newspapers relating to the TAR ruling on Palazzo Giustiniani for those who wish to delve deeper into the topic:
- Sordionline: La massoneria non potrà sfrattare il Senato da Palazzo Giustiniani
- Agenpar: Massoneria: Il Tar del Lazio respinge il ricorso della società Urbs Srl legata al Grande Oriente d’Italia
- Abitare A Roma: Il TAR del Lazio respinge il ricorso del Grande Oriente d’Italia: Palazzo Giustiniani resta al Senato
DOWNLOADING THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS IS PROHIBITED
Letter written by Ulisse Bacci
Report to the Chief of Police
Relazione al Capo della Polizia
DOWNLOADING THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS IS PROHIBITED