A PLEA FOR CALM JUDGMENT: THE EDITOR.

THE AMERICAN FREEMASON, JANUARY 1913

THE proper attitude of American Masonry and American Masons toward the
growing Catholicism of this country is a pertinent subject.  It is, however,
a subject to be treated cautiously, and with a scrupulous regard for the
truth at all points.  As has been frequently stated in these pages, the chief
danger is that brothers, without needful information, may run to an extreme
of prejudice, and the entire fraternity suffer because of their ignorant zeal. 
It is with great regret that I have deemed it necessary to make severe
criticisms, and notably in the political campaign just closed.  Many Masons
have fallen into the traps set by schemers, whose regard for the fraternity
and for the country really cuts but little figure, as compared with their desire
for some personal end to be served by the tormenting of religious hatreds. 
Lies, exaggerations and arguments based on the vilest slanders have been
freely used, not for any good purpose - for no good cause requires to be
bolstered by falsities.  As my readers well know, I have been insistent that
Masons should at all times avoid every appearance of unreasoning bigotry
in any discussion of the Catholic church and its methods.  Words have not
been spared in condemning the slanderers who seek to skulk behind our
institution while they deliver their coward blows.  Nor have I failed to warn
against those who endeavoured to convey the impression that American
Freemasonry was responsible for the senseless attacks made upon all
things and all persons connected with the Church.

I am convinced that a modus vivendi is possible, as between American
Freemasonry and American Catholicism, for both of these, partaking of the
common spirit of the great Republic, are essentially different from their
congeners of Europe.  But the first move, and the only possible advance
toward improved conditions, must come from intelligent Catholic laymen. 
I have evidence that is beyond question, of a sentiment, with vigorous
growth in Catholic lay circles, in favour of such an agreement, or at least
of an amelioration of the rules of war.  Those who are considering the
means which will best and most effectually allay present suspicions and
give the lie to slanders based on differences of religion, are of such quality
that not any number of priests or prelates will dare to resist the demands
that will be made.  I know whereof I speak when I say that there is already
a movement among the most influential of lay Catholics to insist that every
blatant priest who chooses to forget the limitations of his sacred calling,
shall not commit them by his utterances on social or economic or political
questions.  Such a movement is not without precedent.  It was once
necessary for Catholic Irishmen to declare emphatically that while Rome
could and should claim their spiritual obedience, the politics of Irishmen
were not matters for Roman supervision or interference.  And if history
reads true, Irish priests were among those most emphatic in drawing the
line.  Facing such a determination, there was a quiet withdrawal of all
attempts to further dictate or interfere.  If now you doubt that Catholic
laymen of America will dare to resist whatever the priestly element - or
rather a very small part of the priesthood - may choose to impose as the
proper "Catholic policy" in secular affairs, read the following editorial from
the Dubuque (Iowa) Telegraph-Herald, a newspaper of the highest
standing, published in a community overwhelmingly Catholic, and edited
and controlled by men whose devotion to the church can not be
questioned:

In a sermon in Baltimore Sunday exhorting men to vote, Cardinal Gibbons
said:

"There are three conspicuous citizens who are now candidates for the
presidency.  Whatever may be my private and personal predilection, it is
not for me in this sacred pulpit or anywhere else publicly to dictate or even
suggest to you the candidate of my choice."

Lay Catholics of this country will be deeply grateful to Cardinal Gibbons for
his statement that "it is not for me in this sacred pulpit or anywhere else
publicly to dictate or even suggest to you the candidates of my choice."

It is a matter of regret that the Cardinal did not go farther and explain why
it is not for him publicly to express choice as between candidates for office. 
This newspaper would be especially interested in the statement of his
reason.  Presumably Cardinal Gibbons takes the view that he could not
speak publicly without having attach to his utterances the influence and
dignity of his episcopal office and on this account, because it is his duty
not to, nor even to seem to, abuse his episcopal powers, he forsakes the
right publicly to express choice.

If other members of the Catholic hierarchy in America were, in the past, of
Cardinal Gibbons' mind, there would not be in this country to-day the
unfortunate condition of persecution of lay Catholics seeking public office. 
The utterances of members of the hierarchy and their political activities
have carried confirmation to non-Catholics of a suspicion ineradicable in
their minds - or the minds of a great many of them - of a design of the
Roman Catholic church to secure control over this government.  These
non-Catholics have regarded as significant of this assumed design the
candidacy of Catholics for high office, and these candidates have had to
pay in votes for the indiscretions of their spiritual superiors.

This newspaper has taken issue with Cardinal Gibbons regarding the
initiative, referendum and recall and the popular election of senators, but
it has never had occasion to deplore his political utterances.  He has not,
like the Archbishop of St Paul, periodically and at the psychological
moment publicly, suggested how men should vote.  And he has not, like
the Archbishop of Dubuque, at a time when the public mind was on
national politics, turned in a public lecture from eulogy of the Man Divine
to eulogy of one who does not believe in the Man Divine, when that man
was at the moment a candidate for re-election.

The cause for this sudden outburst of anti-Catholic prejudice is found in the
activities of Catholic churchmen in the 1908 election campaign, when there
was a very general movement toward Taft, and an open effort to align
Catholics in his support.  This prejudice will disappear, let us hope, when
the view Cardinal Gibbons takes of his duty to his episcopal office shall
become the view of all other churchmen.

More than this, I know from sources that are reliable beyond question, that
many, if not most, of the really American priests do resent the rabid
utterances of the few whose misguided zeal leads them to the stirring of
hatreds between fellow-citizens, with the vain hope that thus the great bulk
of Catholic men and women may be brought completely under their control
in the whole area of thought and action.  These few will persist in applying
medieval or foreign standards to the superior Catholic citizenship of
America.  Thus they supply weapons with which the whole church is
assailed by other men as short-sighted and bigoted as themselves.

"There is no such thing as a Catholic vote!" So writes to me one whose
name, could it be published here, would be guaranty for knowledge and
honesty and weight of utterance.  And he thus continues: "The Catholic
church in America is being wounded in the house of its friends, The
fervency of some of our priests has carried them beyond due bounds of
speech.  They have assumed to dictate, for the most part ignorantly, on
subjects that are clearly beyond their duties.  I see no great harm when
one, having enthusiasm and a profound belief in the mission of the Church,
ventures assertion that within so many years, be they few or many,
'America will be Catholic.' We may surely be permitted to believe, without
harm to our non-Catholic fellows, that when the time is ripe, according to
the wisdom and the purposes of God, the whole world will acknowledge
the mild sway of the Church in matters spiritual.  With this firm belief, can
we do other than labour for the Divine accomplishment? You and others
will not assent to such mission, nor the outcome for which we labour and
pray.  It is thus a question of our faith against your scepticism.  But in the
meantime there is no reason, except the follies and prejudices and the
ignorance that show on both sides, why we may not live together in peace
and contentment, with every one doing all in his power to advance the
welfare of our common country and to promote the happiness of our fellow
men."

This brings me to another point that should be very seriously considered. 
As I have repeatedly urged, if we are honest in the expressed desire to
understand the Catholic side of the situation, we will seek to put ourselves
mentally in the place occupied by Catholics.  From our own viewpoint we
can see but one side, and one-sided vision is notoriously deceptive.  Until
a very few years ago we heard little or nothing of a Catholic menace in
these United States.  Those who knew of the remarkable growth being
made by the church rightly attributed greatest share of the numerical
increase to the shift in character of European immigration.  Where before
the bulk of new-comers was from the northern and Protestant nations, the
later arrivals come in greatest numbers from the southern and Catholic
countries.  The church, from its view, would be shamefully derelict if it did
not use every effort to hold them to is communion.  And from the
humanitarian and economic view-points, it were surely better that these
ignorant and helpless aliens should come under the care of earnest and
honest priests than be left to the tender mercies of the padrones and
exploiters of sweat-shop labour. That these guides and teachers of the
church can not make over such hordes into high-idealed American citizens
in a single generation, argues nothing against the value of their work. 
These must to the best they can, and the quality and quantity of raw
material, as also the means at hand, must be considered in any estimate
of the results achieved.  If the men chosen by the church for this work are
not the best, and the methods employed are not the most efficient, so
much the worse for the church. If other agencies, social or religious, excel
the Catholic in efforts to deal with this great problem, the loss will follow,
as it always follows upon inadequate or imperfect adaptation of means to
ends.  That some of the priests, to whom is committed the spiritual care,
and, in part, the education of these ignorant foreigners, have themselves
become the confederates or the tools of unscrupulous politicians, will be
admitted by any honest person acquainted with conditions in the great
cities.  They are to be blamed, beyond any shadow of excuse.  But greater
blame attaches to the nation, which of indifference to the duties of
citizenship, have suffered the standards of public morality to be, lowered
or ignored, and have given over the country to keeping of the grafting
politician. The latter will make terms with priest or layman, Catholic or
Protestant, whenever he can find one of them willing to bargain and worth
bargaining with.  Let the public conscience be thoroughly aroused, and
civic righteousness be required.  Then will the day of the corrupt politician
be over, and the bargaining priest, whether he wears a red hat or is robed
in a plain cassock, will find his occupation gone.

Again, are we not, in the main, a rather pig-headed lot? It is an
Anglo-Saxon characteristic, inherited with some other things better and
some worse, that causes us to imagine that in every way we are better than
others.  And the native American improves on the original stock.  He
out-Herods Herod in boastfulness and intolerance.  There is no other nation
quite so far advanced as our own; no other religion of Divine origin but that
to which we give adherence; no other political system worth considering
but that we have chosen to support.  Because of this great national conceit
Americans have done much; their pride has carried them to success over
obstacles that would have brought other nationals to a standstill.  But this
characteristic makes it somewhat uncomfortable for those who must in
some things stand apart from the majority.  Thus, the average American
treatment of Catholics has shown a scarcely-disguised contempt.  They
have been pitied for holding to antiquated beliefs, scoffed at for obedience
to authority, and ridiculed for persistence in the faith of their fathers.  Such
treatment has naturally set the Catholic mind on edge; members of that
communion have resented the implication of inferiority, Can it be wondered
at that they have drawn closer together, if for no more than mutual support
and mutual defence? If today Freemasonry in America was a thing
despised and flouted, and the contemptuous attitude toward it was
expressed by constant gibes, would not the full force of the fraternity be
mobilized to resent and resist the attacks? And if, going further, the attempt
should be made by hostile organizations to fight Freemasons, so that none
of them might be, considered socially or politically, who but the most arrant
coward would draw back from a fight to the finish for our rights? Can you
blame Catholics, or any others, for acting in the very same way that we
would under like circumstances? Men are built pretty much alike, whether
they be Catholics or Protestants, Freemasons or Knights of Columbus. 
They are all responsive to good treatment and made kindly by a manifested
friendliness and candour.  And all of them alike are apt to be roused to
antagonism by exhibition of contempt or injustice or enmity, whether open
or covert.

Now if we look at the situation in its reality, as it has effect today and in our
own county, there seems to be little occasion for the cries of the alarmists. 
There is a very serious leakage in the Catholic church, as there is in all
other churches.  And there, too, as in the others, the chief failing away is
from the extreme of highest intelligence.  The numerical loss is, of course,
far more than made up by accession of the immigrants, but no number of
these can supply a mental and moral force equal to that lost by defection
of those most thoroughly Americanized.  We are not concerned to inquire
here whether these have bettered themselves, or made their condition
worse, by forsaking the faith of their childhood; it is the fact, as stated, that
has an interest for us.  Add to this the constant growth of independence
among the superior Catholic laity - an independence showing itself in many
ways - and it needs not a wise man to guess that no element among the
priesthood can carry the thinking membership of the church to any purpose
not consonant with the duties of good citizenship.  Only an outbreak of
hatred and intolerance on the part of non-Catholics, by driving these
together for their own defence, can interfere with the natural course of
events, as thus outlined.

The history of the Catholic church, or indeed of any church, that has at any
time and in any country achieved to supremacy, may be studied to
advantage.  However loudly the Divine mission and mandate has been
proclaimed, it will be found that the advance to domination was in all cases
with the consent, and oftenest with the urgings of the peoples affected. 
Any church has been the product of its age; if long continuing it has
changed with the changing times.  And law, whether civil or ecclesiastical,
derives its force from the men ruled.  Such law is not formulated until a
need is disclosed and demand made.  The need may be real or fancied,
spiritual or material, temporary or permanent, but unless the law coincides
with the mental habits of the common people, it is no more than a dead
letter.  In a more ignorant age the masses supported the priesthood; in
fact, urged its constant encroachments upon the restricted field of individual
liberty.  It has not been the priests, but the peoples, who have kindled the
fires of persecution.  The Inquisitional and other horrors, of which we hear
so much of late, as being of churchly origin, were no more than
manifestations of the cruelty of the times, and could not be revived in a
time when greater value is placed on human life and men have grown more
sympathetic in regarding the sufferings of others.  At the risk of unduly
labouring this point, I would assert it to be the teaching of all history that
the church, while proclaiming its Divinely-appointed leadership, has in
reality followed after the people, and not otherwise could it have gained
and held to authority.  The utterances of the popes, their fulminations of
various sorts, and the claims to a power more than of man, were effective
only while the intelligence of Christendom was at the level that saw therein
no incongruity.  The utmost arrogancies of the papacy during the middle
ages  - "the ages of faith" brought no shock to the people, and were
willingly accepted; the "Syllabus" of Pope Pius IX fell on dead ears, and has
exercised no influence, even upon Catholic thought, since its issuance in
1864.  The more recent emanations from the Vatican are made much of in
church organs, and are widely heralded, yet even the most important of
these, outside the slender and shrinking domain of faith, are without effect
on the lives of Catholics.  The Roman Curia "saves face," the priesthood
busies itself in promulgation - and the life of the people flows on as before. 
It has, apparently, penetrated to the consciousness of the faithful that the
church occupies a place from whence the tide has receded; that many of
its most emphatic statements are somehow illogical and impractical, when
gauged by the necessities and aspirations of the time.  In a formal and
theoretical way, these give credence and obedience to the church; in all
that makes up the sum and substance of daily life, Catholics are influenced
and impelled by the same sentiments and motives as are their fellows of
other forms of faith, or of no faith at all.  Now, as ever, the Zeitgeist is most
potent in directing humanity, and not even the most stubborn and
firmly-fixed of conservative institutions can resist its lead.  Bunyan, even in
his day, when he pictured Pope and Pagan as senile and decrepit giants
in their ancient caves, realized that the waters that had once turned the
wheels of thought and action, could not again return to have force in the
movements of another time.

Yet the thought as here attempted to be expressed would not he complete,
nor our conclusions just, unless we gave credit to the church as a vast
conserving force.  Kinetic energy is that which produces motion and
accomplishes work.  But such energy if unresisted would be destructive. 
Because of efforts to hold to position and power already gained and for
such purpose striving to preserve the status quo, the ecclesiastic system
has, in more than one historical crisis, acted as a great balance wheel,
preventing sudden and otherwise uncontrolled impulses from working
wreck.  Thus in a negative and unintended way, the Roman church had
aided the peoples to make new and needed social, economic and spiritual
adjustments.

While holding thus that the church is impotent to direct people in a path
other than the Time Spirit points, yet it is not wise to ignore, nor to under
estimate the influence of those priests whose ultramontanism leaves no
place for Americanism.  Nor should we forget that these are noted for
antagonism to Freemasonry.  I have found real American priests remarkably
free from prejudice against the fraternity.  It is the alien ecclesiastic,
obsessed by his ultra-montanism, who considers America as a mission
field, and the people by whom he is surrounded as hostile to his work and
ideas - such an one regards the Masonic institution as of the devil and
utterly without good in purpose or action.  It can be to him nothing but an
atheistic organization.  He holds it as one with those militant associations
of Europe, that are the most potent and the most feared opponents of
clericalism.  For such a priest there is no slander so stupid, if it be directed
against Freemasonry, but that it will be believed, and cried aloud.

There is no attempt made in this writing, nor in anything printed in these
pages, to argue that there can be reconciliation of any sort between the
official church and the Masonic institution.  The only urging is that we
preserve ourselves from unreasoning prejudices; that we seek facts rather
than give heed to irresponsible statements in any judging of the situation;
that we refuse to be alarmed over any trumped-up showing, when the
whole trend of the time is to relieve the clear-thoughted mind of any fear. 
But, as I say, we cannot look for any reconciliation.  The pronouncements
of the popes against Freemasonry, from the bull "in eminenti Apostolatus
specula," issued by Clement XII in 1738, have been of the most solemn
character. They have been, as Brother Chetwode Crawley has pointed out,
issued Cardinalium consilio, ac proprio motu.  And, as he has further
shown, "they are explicitly stated by Pope Benedict XIV to be framed in
forma specifica, atque omnium amplissima et eflicacissima.  The force of
the Latin language can go no further.  Then, too, from the first the
condemnation of the Freemasons, being based on grounds of faith and
morals, was designed to last for ever, and the phrase in perpetuum
accompanied it through the series.  Thus the bulls against Freemasonry
belong to the ecclesiastical category of Definitiones de Fidei et morum
irreformabiles; that is, irrevocable decisions on Faith and Morals."

But in spite of this it might be possible, by the long-continuing operation of
common sense on both sides, to make of this antagonism a mere
abstraction, as have become many other things no less solemnly banned
in the past.  Only bigots accentuate differences of opinion between honest
men; intelligent people seek to discover the larger grounds of agreement. 
It is not at all likely that Catholics will ever be allowed to join the Masonic
fraternity.  But the time may come when they can afford to smile at the
prohibitions that keep them out.  And meanwhile they can live very cordially
with their Masonic neighbours.

While we keep closely in touch with what foolish or over-zealous priests
may say in attempt to our hurt, let us be careful to dissociate such
utterances from the laity, and even from greater part of the priesthood of
the Catholic church, lest otherwise we do a great injustice to our
neighbours and fellow-citizens.  And let us constantly keep in mind, for our
great comfort, that the spirit of the times, and the sentiments of this
country, constitute a most efficient protection against domination by any
church, and from serious encroachment on the powers of civil government
by any system of ecclesiasticism.


