THE BUILDER MAY 1927

A SERIOUS QUESTION

EVERY now and then we hear of a case like this, sometimes it only
circulates locally, sometimes it gets into the Masonic Press. A man
is a Mason, he perhaps has been one for many years, he may have
been active in his lodge, passed through the chairs, become a
member of various orders and rites concordant with and appendant to
Craft Masonry. Finally he dies, and his brethren learn that during
his last illness he has become a convert to the Roman Church, or
perhaps that having belonged to it originally, he has repented and
returned to the fold and received absolution for the sin of
becoming a Mason. Sometimes there is doubt as to the genuineness of
this change, sometimes it may be accepted as a responsible act on
the part of the dying man; the point is not of any importance, as
it is only the reaction such an event causes in the minds of many
Masons that we wish to consider.

Now though such cases as these are infrequent, they yet recur
sufficiently often to make it probable that almost every Mason has
at some time known of, heard of, or read about one. And in the
minds of the great majority of them effect is very much the same.
There is a certain resentment, a sense almost of betrayal, a
feeling that the Craft has suffered an indignity, and the question
arises why this should be so.

On what may be called the legal or formal aspect of such a case
there is nothing for protest or complaint. It is a Mason's right to
withdraw from the Fraternity at any time he may choose, providing
he has fulfilled any responsibilities that he may have voluntarily
assumed, paid his just dues and so on. It is in his power so to
withdraw without doing this if he pleases, all that can happen is
that the Institution will endorse his action by suspending or
expelling him; which merely operates to make it impossible for him
to change his mind and return at will. Furthermore Freemasonry
makes no distinction or discrimination between religions, churches,
creeds or dogmas. It is not interested in them and has nothing to
say about them. This is, as is well known, a fundamental principle
of the Fraternity. So long as a man believes in God, he is
generally and broadly eligible to be made a Mason in the United
states. Other qualifications are necessary, too, some formal, some
moral, some social, but none religious. As, therefore, no question
of religion enters into the matter, there is no reason whatever, so
far as Freemasonry is concerned, why a Roman Catholic should not be
a member. The formal and legal barriers are all on the other side--
and so far we are speaking only of the formal and legal.

This being the case, we repeat the question, why should the
defection of a brother to the Roman Church inspire this sense of
injury and indignation, when on our own strongly emphasized
principles--if taken as meaning what they say--it is his right to
do so ? Why should there be any other emotion than natural regret
at losing a brother?

It is probable that this interpretation of our rules will be called
in question by many Masons; but again of what grounds ? Certainly
not on any article or regulation in our many Constitutions and
Codes, not even in any responsible ruling thereon. The feeling or
opinion must be based not on these but on some unacknowledged
motive, some unwritten, unpronounced hut widely accepted limitation
of our written laws and the universal judgments of our juristic
authorities. It is well in the interests of clear thinking, if not
of truth and justice, to examine the matter further.

This mental reaction that we speak of seems to be a natural one, it
certainly is spontaneous, and probably the first reason offered for
it would be the bitter hostility of the Roman Church to everything
Masonic. It does not follow, of course, that all Romanists, even of
the clergy, are hostile to all Masons individually --that has never
been so, anywhere; but still it has had and does have an effect in
this direction, and there is always a natural and human reaction to
strongly expressed antagonism, both as between man and man and
between group and group; and this may perhaps be the actual reason
that many Masons feel hostility in return against Romanism. It is
natural enough. Nevertheless, as the old proverb says, "It takes
two to make a quarrel," and the plain and strongly expressed
principles of Freemasonry are that it has no quarrel with any
religion--it is against no party, sect, creed or opinion, it is
inimical only to vice, immorality, injustice and the like.
Furthermore, it refuses to defend itself; considering that its
standpoint is morally impregnable. One of the first lessons
impressed upon the initiate is that he is never to answer any
attack upon the Craft, and to meet anything of the sort by silence.
It would seem, however, that some have never grasped it.

But if enmity breeds enmity, and there is no further reason than
this for the undoubted antagonism felt by many American Masons
towards the Roman Church, how does it happen that the equally
emphatic denunciations of certain Protestant denominations rouse no
feeling at all? Certain of these, there is no need to mention
names, refuse also to receive any Mason to full membership who will
not repudiate the Fraternity. Should any such member become a Mason
he will be cast off as reprobate upon its becoming known. When the
families of brethren attached to such denominations refuse to
permit a lodge to conduct funeral ceremonies no one is interested,
no one ever hears of it outside those immediately concerned. Why
should not enmity breed enmity here as well?

The answer again would be obvious, such sects as these have no
international centralized organization. In point of numbers, too,
and the crude weight that mere numbers give, they are weak,
relatively at least. So that the difference would be, it seems, the
same as that with which we regard the violent barking of a puppy on
the other side of a fence, and the growling of a large and savage
dog standing right in our path. Is this really the explanation? If
so, it seems to be a high, if unintentional, compliment to the
Roman Church. Apparently we ignore the hostility of the one as
beneath even the feeling of contempt, while we regard the other
with the respect bred by fear. The answer may not be palatable, but
if it be not the right one what is?

Fear, however, is a word with many meanings, ranging all the way
from panic terror to a wise and prudent prevision that bids us
prepare to meet some difficulty or ward off some approaching
danger. Aside from reasons of self-esteem, it would seem that it is
in the latter sense the word--if applicable--should be taken. But
what is the danger foreseen? No matter in what terror and
apprehension Masons may have lived in some countries in times past-
-or even today--we in America are in no danger of imprisonment or
death through the delation of some ecclesiastical spy. We are
subject to no social or economical disabilities through membership
in the Craft--and there seems no immediate prospect of any change
in the situation. Of what then are we afraid--if that be it? Why is
it that every time the family of a deceased Roman Catholic member
of the Fraternity has the funeral conducted with the rites of their
Church and not by those of the lodge that certain of the more rash
and uninstructed brethren talk, and sometimes write, as if it would
be well to change our traditional rules and class the Romanists
with the Atheist, the irreligious libertine and the fool? Nay even
more, that every man whose wife or near relative are Roman
Catholics shall also be classed with the ineligible? In the minds
of brethren thus willing to remove landmarks to meet a temporary
difficulty, or what is essentially the same thing, to make them of
no effect, the reason seems to be that any member of the Roman
Church admitted into the Order is a potential spy or traitor. Do
they then think that we have any reason to fear spies and traitors?
Conspirators have, of course, so have armies in the field; if
Freemasonry were engaged in some kind of war again Romanism, or
Clericalism, or Papalism, then it would certainly be foolish to
accept members of the enemy organization. But what are the facts?
What have we to conceal? What is there in all the secrets and
mysteries of Masonry that might not be published to the whole
world? Our secrecy is really privacy-- the privacy of intimate
friends, of a family. Let these unthinking brethren stop and
consider what goes on in their own lodges. What is there aside from
certain "official secrets long since betrayed," to quote a phrase
of the well-known scholar and poet, Bro. A. E. Waite? There is
indeed a certain spirit or feeling as well-- but that being
incommunicable no one could reveal it.

Thus examined this reason seems so inadequate that we must perforce
believe that the impelling motive lies elsewhere. What it is,
however, may not be easy to say, but it seems probable that it is
due to an unconscious conveyance into Masonry of external opinions
and possibly prejudices. For example, a number of Americans in a
foreign country may be associated in some kind of business
organization. This exists merely for the specific purposes
expressed in its rules and bylaws. Nevertheless, and especially
under circumstances that can easily be imagined, it may act
naturally enough in a patriotic or national sense. In just the same
way a group of Protestants united in a Masonic lodge can very
easily import a Protestant antagonism to the Roman Church into
their Masonic life--because, all feeling alike, there is no counter
influence to check them and make them realize what they are doing.
As, owing to the action of the Roman Church itself in forbidding
its members from joining, Freemasonry in America is recruited
entirely from non-Romanists, the exceptions being quite negligible,
the conditions are obviously appropriate for such an unconscious
infiltration of ideas. In this case, however, it is an illicit
process, as it is contrary to the fundamental principles of the
Craft which require absolute religious and political neutrality.

We are quite aware that this has never been fully realized by many
good brethren, at least that not all its consequences have been
appreciated, and therefore we quite expect that this statement will
meet dissent. It is for this reason that it seems that the matter
should be very fully discussed from all possible angles. Such
discussion cannot be permitted in our lodges, and some may think
that the same rule should bar it from the pages of a Masonic
periodical. With such a judgment we cannot agree, for aside from
the general consideration that the Masonic press is open to all the
world and in a sense profane, we are faced with a special condition
which it will do no good to gloss over or deny. That is, that large
numbers of Masons in this country think and take for granted that
Freemasonry is an anti-Roman Catholic institution, and this is
certainly a state of affairs that needs light thrown upon it, that
needs discussion as a safety valve. For allowed to continue it may
result in action being taken in lodges, perhaps in Grand Lodges
eventually, motivated by ideas that are contrary to Masonic
principles. It may lead, in fact, to our professing one thing and
doing another.

Now no one must think that what has been here said is either a full
or a final statement. We do believe that any Mason who considers it
fairly will see that at least there is something in it and that the
subject is one that needs investigation. This is merely an
introduction. The only practical way to arrive at a sound
conclusion is by having all sides of the question presented, and
then even if complete agreement be unattainable the nature of the
problem at least will be clarified. We have suggested that perhaps
outside antagonisms, and possibly prejudices have entered into
Masonry under cover as it were. It may seem a long way round, but
the first step is to recall the origins of Protestant fears and
apprehensions. They are quite frankly historical, they have been
inherited from the past, and at the present day the circumstances
in which they took their rise are very largely forgotten. History
in a general way does repeat itself, and though never exactly yet
from it we can find guidance in our approach to present and future
problems. We present therefore in this number the first part of a
brief outline of the development of the papacy in the Catholic
Church, for strictly understood the two things are quite different
and distinct things. This will be continued to deal with the
condition of affairs immediately preceding the Reformation. While
many have some knowledge of the course of events in that critical
and revolutionary period of the history of the Western World, few
appreciate fully that the real driving power behind the movement
was not dogmatic or credal, but primarily social and economic. With
this as a background we are arranging for further articles that
will present certain parallels which seem to exist between the past
and what may be imminent in the future. It is hoped that thus our
members and other readers will be put in a position to judge
intelligently for themselves whether as citizens there is any cause
of uneasiness, and what attitude they as Masons should take in
regard to the matter.

