Wow… talk about the dead rising from the grave…
And ditto what Mosher said; while when discussed in a certain context, the masons will bill the Lodge as a simple fraternity out to do good works, it is not an entirely accurate characterization, and one which many of the masonic “authorities” would roll in their graves over. The mis-characterization is even supported by such appendant bodies as the free-spirited ANOMS (Shriners) which deliberately refrains from serious ritualistic transmission of philosophy. The only masons I have ever known personally who make such a claim are those who are masons only because it is required to be a Shriner, and as such are not particularly interested in the teaching aspect of Lodge.
The central, binding, aspect of freemasonry is the ritual and the teachings it is designed to convey. Any good works done are an outgrowth of this teaching, not a separate, superior, or divorcable facet of the lodge.
Freemasonry is not just a “social club”; the social aspect derives from the unity of thought engendered by the teachings of the Lodge. Unlike other fraternities that I have personally witnessed or been a part of, the degree work is essential to the character of hte Lodge, not just an empty “protocol” needed to get a new member in the door, as sadly one Knight characterized the KofC degrees on the night of my own induction.
And, finally, I’d like to point out that it is this character, the treatment of the ritual, which distinguishes those organizations rightly condemned by the Church, from the benign social organizations it does not. All have such a ritual, but only some actually pay any attention to it; and so while the masons claim all said ritual descend from them, I would not characterize them all as being “masonic” entities as I understand the Church to use the phrase, such as college fraternities, any more than I’d say the KofC is a “masonic” entity despite clearly holding certain items which many descide are the indicators or defining attributes of being a masonic entity.
I’d also like to see the documentation recording the SC’s attitude regarding the Masons. While I am guessing that it is worded in the same “ecumenical” style of rhetoric as is now common in the Church, I’d take a guess that there is no substantive change in actual practices or final positions. I do recall seeing an article a while back where a local KofC unit was in the same parade as the local Knights Templar commandery, but that doesn’t really amount to much if you really look at it…
And I’d also respond in the negative to the assertion that such organizations are for us poor losers who are unduly silly in temperament and cannot make freinds without such artificial means available.
