THE BUILDER MAY 1927

Masonry and Religious Persecution in Mexico

BY BRO. JOSE D'ARIMATHEA, Mexico

This article is not intended for the profane, nor for the fanatic Masons who
entertain the idea that Masonry is a sect whose motive power is blind
aggression towards everybody that differs from us in beliefs, ideas and
opinions. It is waste of time to talk to those whose ear is not attuned to the
rhythm of life in the same degree as that of a true Mason. In writing my
thoughts, I intend it exclusively for those sincere Masons who believe that
Masonry is the highest and noblest organization for the realization of the
brotherhood of man, who seem to be in a state of confusion on account of the
attitude that Masonry, Mexican as well as American, has assumed in the
religious conflict in Mexico, an attitude that appears to be in contradiction
to the principles that constitute the alma mater of Masonry and that has
disturbed their peace of mind: I am also addressing myself to Masons who have
learned from Masonry the secret of segregating themselves from the herd in
order to seek in the silence their own inspiration and guide, and who have
subdued their animal instincts so as to be able to stand by man, not against
man: I am also addressing myself to Masons who have already conquered the
peace of mind necessary to face with equanimity the realities of life, to have
their cooperation in order to dissipate the confusion of the present hour in
the Masonic field.

The political and religious aspects of the conflict does not interest me at
all: it is none of my business to disapprove or to justify the proceedings of
the political power; neither to absolve, nor condemn the Catholics: just now,
the only phase of the problem that interests me is the Masonic one in relation
to the principle of religious liberty.

First of ot' all, I must determine if there is religious persecution in Mexico
(it does not matter whether it is authorized or not by the laws of Mexico),
for if there is no persecution, there is no subject matter for this article:
the fact or facts that constitute religious persecution are those that violate
liberty of conscience, in the meaning that Masonry applies to this principle,
and the verification of those facts will furnish us with the elements to pass
judgment on those who have, in the name of Masonry, publicly approved of the
persecution, or on which is based the attitude that Masonry must assume in
accordance with the nature of the institution.

Of the three essential elements of religion, it is the element of public
worship which closely and directly relates to liberty of conscience, in other
words, public worship is liberty of conscience in action, because divine
worship is the realization of the dogma or belief, it is the realization of
the earthly purpose of religion, viz.: the communion of the faithful with
Divinity. Dogma has not the same direct relation with religious liberty,
because to believe or not believe in the principles and in the doctrine of a
relgion, are subjective phenomena that only by means of an inquisitorial
proceedings could be known by the political power.

Divine worship, according to the teachings of dogma, must be performed in
consecrated places by means of certain ceremonies described by the liturgy and
under the direction of the spiritual guides, the priests, who form an integral
part of the ceremonial and who are constituted into a hierarchy that the dogma
considers as an integral part of religion. Religion is one and indivisible;
its constitutional elements cannot be separated without disintegrating it; to
attack just one element or part of one element, is to attack the whole. To
interfere with public worship or with any of the circumstances which must
concur for the celebration of divine worship is to interfere with religion,
because religion is not only the dogma, the doctrine, the belief, it is an
indivisible whole composed of dogma, morality and divine worship.

Every act of compulsion of an authority foreign to the religious power, that
under fear of punishment forces the believer to modify the status of the
dogma, or to suppress or to change the essential parts of the liturgy in order
to practice his religion; and every act that tends to disintegrate or to
annihilate the ecclesiastical hierarchy, punishing those who belong to that
hierarchy with the loss of their rights of citizenry, muzzling them in order
to prevent them from expressing their opinions in regard to the laws of their
country, is to violate liberty of conscience as it is understood by Masonry,
and it constitutes religious persecution.

Let us be honest with ourselves, and let us face the facts as they really are;
let us not fall into the temptation to transform those facts according to our
desires or our prejudices and to justify the passional impulse that urges us
to satisfy our appetite to persecute everybody who does not share with us our
ideas and beliefs.

Persecution in Mexico is a fact; the mental torture and the oppression of the
soul of the faithful is a real tragedy that we cannot ignore; it is the
tragedy of the denial of liberty of conscience, of which Masonry has been and
must continue to be the strongest champion.

What must be the attitude of Masonry in this anachronistic conflict ? To be an
accomplice of another revocation of the Edict of Nantes to bring about the
extermination of the Huguenots of today? What would be the difference between
a Roman Catholic of 1685 and a Mason of 1926 ? None; both are co-authors or
accomplices in the revocation of the edict. Let us interrogate ourselves--is
Masonry compelled to assume a certain attitude in this conflict? If it be not
the attitude of silence, I do not see that there is any other attitude which
such an heterogeneous society of men who profess distinct religious beliefs
and distinct political opinions could properly assume.

Should Masonry stand by one or the other side of the conflict it would be out
of harmony with its nature and it would be transformed into a religious or
political sect. The opinion of our Illustrious Brother, Frederick W. Hamilton,
33d, of the Supreme Council for the Northern Jurisdiction of the United
states, would be justified:

. . . and in those [Latin] countries, we see not a great comprehensive
brotherhood like the Masonry of the United states and the British Empire, but
a small sect, actively and avowedly pursuing religious and political ends, and
not even united in itself.

In any event, it would not be so bad if Masonry would act boldly as the
champion of liberty of conscience, for as to this principle there cannot be
any difference of opinion among Masons, notwithstanding their beliefs and
political opinions; but then Masonry would be confronted with the political
power, a conflict would arise within Masonry, because Masons in friendly
relations with the political power would protest, the Institution would be
persecuted as seditious and then would follow the bitter consequences of a
violent fight. It is impossible for Masonry to act directly in the political,
social and religious field. Masonry does not frankly display its power because
it is not a social factor, neither is it political or religious; its power is
invisible and for that very reason formidable; it is exercised by hundreds of
thousands of sons of the Light, who are not restrained from fighting for the
principles that they have learned to worship in their lodges, in accordance
with their own judgment. The institution is invisible, backing its sons by
means of its moral and spiritual force in their struggle for liberty in all
the activities of mankind.

Masonry educates: it strengthens the heart of the adept, causing him to feel
the Masonic love; it strengthens his mind, making him comprehend the laws of
life; it strengthens his soul by putting him in tune with the cosmic mind, and
in this way, with love in his heart, with the mind that guides and with the
soul that enlightens, the adept goes into the profane world, "corde gaudioque
potens," to crystallize the Masonic ideal "Universal Fraternity" into a fact.

As an individual, I am an opponent of the principle underlying all known
religions and I hold that it is a curse on humanity and prevents its progress;
but I, as an individual, have the right to form an opinion on religious
matters, to adopt any belief, to reject it, to fight against all religions, to
annihilate them; it is not the same with the institution called "Masonry";
Masonry is an abstract entity, not tangible, not visible, it is the cosmic tie
that unites the adepts among themselves for the progressive development of
humanity.

No Mason, nor any group of Masons, has the right to act in the profane world
as the representative of Masonry; he must do it in his own name and under his
own responsibility.

