The Curious Conflict of the Church and Masonry

 We're told the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has now reaffirmed that the Church forbids its members from joining the Freemasons, and that for them to become Masons is a "grave sin."  This has been the Church's position regarding Freemasonry for centuries, since Freemasonry was founded in the 18th century.  The reaffirmation was approved by the Pontifex Maximus himself.  Interestingly, this continued condemnation of Freemasonry was issued contemporaneously with a determination by the Dicastery that transgender people may be baptized, may be godparents and may serve as witnesses at a wedding.  Better transgender than Mason, it seems.

Why does the Church persist in forbidding joining the Masons, while seemingly becoming more inclusive of those once thought sinful or unnatural?

The Church's prohibition of membership in the Masons is interesting in several respects.  Because both institutions prominently feature men (for the most part) dressed up in silly costumes, uttering pretentious phrases and performing peculiar rituals, one would think that they would have much in common.  It appears that this was the opinion of Joseph Keppler, who drew the cartoon gracing the top of this post for Puck magazine in 1884.  The cartoon is called "Two of the Same Kind" and features absurdly dressed Catholic clergy, one of whom seems to be a bishop or perhaps a pope, in battle with absurdly dressed Freemasons.

Perhaps their similarity is the basis for the conflict.  They're rivals, in a sense.  We humans have a taste for gaudy, garish costumes and impressive ritual, particularly in matters of religion.  The Church's condemnation of Masonry appears founded on the belief that Masonry is a religion.  There's some basis for this belief, according to the sometimes invaluable Internet.  I know very little about the Freemasons, but it seems that they extol a supreme being they call the "Divine Architect" (they're supposed to be the successors of medieval masons, after all), and see themselves as servants of that being in the pursuit of a divine plan of sorts, or at least are pleased to say they are in their rituals.  One of the reason past popes have condemned it is that they've considered it to espouse a religion of "naturalism" as opposed, it seems to "supernaturalism."  That would be a point in its favor to some.

They have a fairly complicated system of initiation into several levels of Masonry, regarding which they're sworn to secrecy.  This is similar to the practice of the ancient mystery cults, from which some say they're also derived or intend to mimic.  

What distinguishes Freemasonry from modern religions, particularly those of the Abrahamic tradition, is the fact that it welcomes members of any other religion into its fold.  This may make it particularly dangerous from the perspective of the Church.  At least according to Freemasonry, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others are free to become Masons.  There's no need for an initiate to disavow the religion in which they were born or have practiced in order to be a Mason.  Thus the need for the Church to affirmatively forbid Catholics from joining the Masons.

The Church may also see danger in the fact that membership in the Freemasons is said to be beneficial to its members in various secular ways.  It may satisfy the religious yearnings of those who are deists and others, but by all accounts does satisfy the ambition of those hoping to make their way in business or become wealthy.  Masons are said to take care of each other, to grant each other favor or favors in life.  A religion which isn't at all unworldly, then.  Masons may have a reward in heaven because of their beliefs, but in the meantime will be rewarded in this life by other Masons. 

It's not all that surprising, then, that the Church persists in condemning such an attractive religion.

Zombie Apocalypse: Coming November, 2024

Perhaps it won't happen, but we should be prepared for the possibility.  There are political and social zombies.  It seems they have no will, nor it seems do they have much in the way of brains, being hungry for them and resentful of those that possess them.  They seem incapable of reason, are easily led, and have no thought of the consequences of their fantastically limited view of reality, of the world, of the universe for that matter, being eager to consume the source of intelligence itself.  They stagger towards the future, voracious and fierce in the pursuit of sameness.  

The Walking Dead aren't creatures of fiction.  They walk among us.  They haven't died physically, but spiritually and mentally, to be regenerated in the service of dark magic.  They vote.  They run for office.  They're elected.  They have no agenda to speak of; they don't like agendas, thinking them to be what they're pleased to call "liberal."  They merely wish to be zombies, answering to the voodoo that created them, unquestioning, unthinking, remorseless, relentless.  It's not surprising that the Nazis were associated with zombies, even during WWII.  They are of a type, just following orders embedded in them by something, a leader for political zombies, aliens or some kind of plague for others.

They've shown that they pay no attention to what has been said or done in the past, especially if it's contrary to and critical of what and who they are zombies for.  While they may be lacking in brains, those they possess have been thoroughly washed.  What they believe they believe without question.  What they are willing to do they will do without conscience.  They're true believers in what is demonstrably untrue, the worst kind of fanatics.

Does their existence have anything to do with the popularity of zombie movies, books, graphic novels and TV?  It's an interesting question.  But generally, the zombies are the enemy in those media.  They're fought against, and they must be killed.  One of my favorite zombie movies is an older one--The Last Man on Earth, starring Vincent Price.  It might be argued that those raised from the dead by a plague in that movie were more vampires than zombies, loving blood and coming out at night, but I think they have most of the characteristics of fictional zombies so many, it seems, know and love.  Vincent Price as Dr. Morgan travels about the city in the day, gathering corpses while they're inert and burning them.  At night they assail him in his house while he drinks and plays records.  The zombies I write of are deplored by some, enjoyed and exploited by others.

Those who deplore them are amazed, as they should be, by their dull wits and gullibility but have no plan to combat them.  There is something novel about them.  Our Great Republic has always had its share of suckers and snake oil salesmen gracing its elections.  But in general the salesmen have been merely venal.  Now it seems they have something more dire in mind than the acquisition of money needed to retain power; at least their chief spokesman does.

Let's hope Sinclair Lewis wasn't prescient.

Ecclesiastes and (Holy?) War

 

I'm not one to indulge in interpreting the Bible or any other sacred book or scripture.  But I've always thought Ecclesiastes 3:7-8, made memorable for those growing up in the 1960s by The Byrds, to be almost Stoic in its expression, recognition and acceptance of life in the world.  There's no question that there are times in life when there is love or hate, peace or war, and whether appropriate or inappropriate they take place and in the pursuit of virtue and tranquility we must deal with them according to Nature.

Until very recently I haven't thought to interpret this passage as a justification for war or the continuance of a war.  The Israeli Prime Minister has done so, however.  It seems a strange thing to do, and certainly would be unexpected coming from a leader of a modern state.  A modern state, though, is primarily a secular one, and it may be that Israel is not perceived as such by its current leadership, or others.  

If that's the case, there's reason to be extremely concerned.  Sadly, the Bible and God have been referred to as justifying war with some frequency by those nations and peoples who have followed the Abrahamic religious tradition.  The Crusades were launched by the cry "Deus Vult!" ("God wills it!").  Wars have been launched against heretics, heathens and infidels.  That Bible the Israeli Prime Minister mentioned, or at least a portion of it, is relatively replete with the conquest and even the massacre of non-believers who inhabited Palestine before it became a kingdom of the Jews.  The slaying of men, women, children, infants and livestock is described with seeming zest at times, because they are unbelievers and stand in the way.

It's nonetheless curious for the Bible to be used in this fashion and for this purpose.  Perhaps it seems disturbing because the claim the Bible says this is a time of war was made in response to a call for a ceasefire.  The deplorable nature of the attacks by Hamas were mentioned as calling for war, or perhaps more properly retribution, even though it may result in the death of civilians.  

Significantly, the Israeli Prime Minister seemed outraged that a ceasefire was proposed, let along championed.  It appeared as though he believes that the horrible nature of the attacks justifies a response as severe as possible, and that he feels all should accept that position.

From a purely political and practical standpoint, I doubt this rhetoric will serve to lessen the criticism being made against Israel for its military operations in Gaza.  I suspect that criticism to increase, in fact.  Over the years, for reasons not entirely clear to me, Israel has begun to be seen as an aggressor in the region, and by rejecting a ceasefire, especially in such terms, it adds to the perception that it believes it has a quasi-religious right to continue to punish Hamas.  That others may be harmed is unfortunate, but Israel's mission to crush Hamas is of greater importance, and we should know it--that's what it seems is being said.

Outrage and outrages permeate the media, professional and social.  Outrage generates outrage.  Outrage at the barbaric attacks is being replaced by outrage against the military response.  Outrage at the treatment of Palestinians is matched by outrage against a rising anti-semitism.  What other outrages await us?  Religious outrage is dangerous in the extreme.  The more religiously motivated this conflict becomes the more danger we face.