The Boston Globe, consistent to its tendency to promote anything unchristian, have come out in praise of freemasonry. Not surprisingly, they say some nice things about their philanthropy and cite the example of Matthew Wissell and his good works, like dressing up as a clown at a hospital. You see, Wissell is a so-called pastor of the Eastham United Methodist Church on Cape Cod and a self-confessed mason. So it must be alright to be a Christian and mason then - yeah, ok.

Confused so far? What's wrong with all this? Well, consider the typical propaganda:

Pageau [grand master of Freemasons in Massachusetts] said, however, that the Freemasons don't require Catholic members, or those of any other faiths, to renounce any of their churches' teachings, and that the group counts many Catholics among its members.

...

Belief in God and devotion to ritual aside, the group is fraternal, not theological, and its chapters, called lodges, tend to have distinct personalities, says Pageau.

Did you catch the argument?

Well, isn't it nice that masons don't require a Christian to renounce his faith before joining. But you see, that's the problem, the freemasonic ideal is one of humanism, the value of human rationale above all else. (This column have dealt with the topic before.) This in turn means valuing the opinions and beliefs of all, the usual 'universal tolerance and respect' rubbish. They would accept a Catholic as much as a buddhist or a sith - and there lies the danger. The humanist philosophy, on the surface at least, appears all nice, friendly and harmless but one does not need to think too hard to see that it is self-defeating and self-contradictory and clearly unchristian.

Since human reasoning is valued above all else, with at least a tacit denial of divine law, which is objective and immutable, what is regarded as right and wrong is subject to the ever changing opinions of the masses. Thus, this philosophy, if adopted, leads to moral depravity, religious indifference, religious pluralism and as well the watering down of the Christian religion if it is permitted to take hold thereof. Given the state of the world and the 'church' (read, whatever is left of it), one could see that this philosophy and mentality is already prevalent and has been for not a few generations.

Let us look at it another way: when applied, this philosophy logically leads to modern "human rights" as we know it, which is the license for you to do as you please without anyone getting in your face even if you are wrong or what you're doing is distasteful. Firstly, we have free will which means we can be wrong but we don't have a right (as in license) to be wrong. Secondly, it's all a bit strange, don't you think? You would think 'universal tolerance and respect' would mean someone has the right to stop you just because they want to or can (with no regard for what is actually right or wrong). I am sure you can see the self-contradiction and hypocrisy in that. And because the Church recognized the errors, the Christian States of Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries would have as well. So how was "human rights" established then? Well, one does not need to look too hard to see that many wars and revolutions took place at those times in Europe which 'conveniently' resulted in the separation of Church and State with the Church subsequently trampled on. You see, because the Church rightfully performed Her duties by attacking what was a hypocritical and self-contradictory philosophy, which would have included "human rights", She would have therefore appeared 'inhuman' and 'wrong'. Thus, there was 'conveniently' a further excuse to attack and strip down the Church and in turn that is what happened, events which lead to a liberalized and dechristianized society with "human rights" promulgated. So, this philosophy while in itself unchristian was also used to manipulate and attack Christendom. Thanks to all that, our world today is a much happier place.

Also, the organization's claim that it is only "fraternal" and not "theological" is another obvious error: "Belief in God and devotion to ritual aside..." - that's a pretty big "aside", don't you think? Everything is related to everything and everything is theological in the end. To believe and to adhere to some philosophy or principle is ipso facto a theological matter. Besides, their belief in 'God' is usually expressed vaguely, for they refer to their god as the 'Grand Architect'. If they really believe in God as a Christian does, as some would claim, why not confess the Nicene Creed? Who is this so-called Grand Architect? The architect of what exactly? Will any god do? What? - am I just suppose to assume that God and the Grand Architect are the same being just because they both start with the letter 'G'? Is this Sesame Street?

The fact that their philosophy is so subtle, ambiguous and hidden beneath the veneer of 'universal tolerance and respect' makes it all the more worse and dangerous. I make no comment on the subjective and relative culpability of individuals who are masons. I suppose it is quite possible that there are those who honestly believe in humanism and they are simply 'trying to be a nice person', however misguided they may be. Having said that, no one can deny the principle or history, for freemasonry (amongst other groups) has attacked the Church and Her rights over and over again. Seems too incredulous? Well, in case you didn't know and in case you care, the Catholic Church condemned freemasonry as soon as it found out about it, although you probably wouldn't have guessed. Try reading In Eminenti (Clement XII, 1738), Etsi Multa (Pius IX, 1873), Humanum Genus (Leo XIII, 1884) and Custodi Di Quella Fede (Leo XIII, 1892) as a starting point. Very much related to all this, one might also find helpful are Mirari Vos (Gregory XVI, 1832), Quanta Cura (Pius IX, 1864) and Libertas Praestantissimum (Leo XIII, 1888).