OCR Text |
Show Catholic Secret Societies. Editor Intermountain Catholic: In your issue of Jan. 11 is a communication com-munication signed "An Ashland Priest," which is copied from the Milwaukee Mil-waukee Catholic Citizen, and in which the Father asserts that it is radically wrong for a Catholic to ally himself with any society which administers an oath of secrecy and uses a rituah Do' not the Knights of Columbus, the A. O. II., the Catholic order of Foresters For-esters and other societies, the doings of which are reported in your paper, and which are approved by the church, : use a ritual? and are the members not bound by an oath not to reveal their pass-word, etc? Where is the consistency? con-sistency? Suppose that a lodge of the Maccabees (for instance) was composed com-posed solely of Catholics, and each member, following the advice of this priest (presumably speaking for the church) should send in his dues (by whom?) how long would the organisation organisa-tion last? And again, where is the consistency? Better get out and keep out than to assume such a hypocritical attitude. Respecfully, xnv.C THnrti"1 Anaconda. Mont., Jan. 27. REPLYING to our correspondent it will be necessary, first, to define the obligations of an oath, and who has the right to demand the -"ud-mission consequent to an oath. An oath is a solemn appeal to the Supreme I Being in attestation of the binding-character binding-character of some covenant, undertaking, undertak-ing, or promise made to legitimate ru-thority. ru-thority. It means absolute submission, or blind obedience. None but God, or His representatives, can claim absolute submission. When obedience is demanded, our correspondent would be among the majority ma-jority of the human race who cry out, "No; submission is too humiliating ah idea." Yes, it is humiliating if taken in the wrong sense, but it is elevating and consoling when taken in the right sense. Submission to parents and obedience to the laws of our country, are not humiliating, because they represent .li-vine .li-vine authority. A church that commands com-mands and demnnds submission, must. be divinely authorized to do so. If not divinely authorized, obedience would be humiliating, and submission slavery. The Catholic Church-has, for twenty centuries, asserted this authority, and the positive assertion implies a conscious con-scious right, like that of the parent who says to the child, "You must obey me," or of the state which says emphatically em-phatically to the subject, "You must I obey me." The Catholic Church stands alone in asserting her divine authority and claiming the obedience of her children by divine right. The obedience of a priest to his bishop, or of a bishop to the Pope, is safeguarded by canon law, as sacredly as that of the citizen is by the constitution. The asserted authority author-ity and demand of obedience by reason of this authority made and claimed by the parent, the state and the Catholic Church, arc so closely analogous that in all ordinary human matters they would present three-fourths of the vindication vin-dication of the right to claim obedience. obedi-ence. " The state claims allegiance and obedience obe-dience of its new-made citizen under oath. It has the. right to do so, because be-cause it represents the divine authority. author-ity. Nor could the state admit to the high privilege of citizenship an applicant appli-cant who belonged first to a society condemned by the state nor secondly to a society that p&ts openly or secretly against the state. Here the church and state agree, and our correspondent correspond-ent must admit that such societies are "radically wrong." The "Ashland priest" maintains a third, namely, "all societies which exact an oath of secrecy se-crecy as to their doings and plans., or which demand a promise of blind obedience obedi-ence to future orders, not knowing whether such orders may be opposed to conscience whether named or not." Our correspondent will not condemn the church for safeguarding her members mem-bers and exposing themselves to the danger of doin? under oath what their conscience would not allow. To return to the analogy. Suppose one joins a political secret oath-bound organization, and at a meeting it i3 moved, seconded and carried by a small majority, "that we make our own laws, for the state has no authority author-ity to command any compliance or to punish any political heretic or schismatic,: schis-matic,: what will the loyal patriotic minority do? Their consciences may be severely tested, but their loyalty must yield to the terrible oath of not divulging di-vulging the secret machinations of the society. That there are many such societies so-cieties is certain. Who, loving his country, would not pronounce them radically wrong? The state, divinely authorized to enact laws for the good of societv and to nernetuate itself. would interfere to protect the loyal conscience of the dissenting minority. Why not the church? Now comes the answer to our correspondent corres-pondent who accuses the church of inconsistency in-consistency for tolerating "the Knights of Columbus and A. O. H., whose members mem-bers are bound by an oath." The sanction sanc-tion given to these societies is conditional, condi-tional, namely, that they shall be always al-ways loyal citizens of the state and faithful members of the church; that in their lodges no business shall be transacted that would conflict with the laws of God or-the state; that the authority au-thority of the church, as represented by the pope or bishop, and that of the state, as represented by the president or governor, are ', higher and come before be-fore that of their highest lodge official. offi-cial. With these conditions and limitations, lim-itations, there is no inconsistency in any sanction such societies may have received from the church. . Whilst the state would . unite with the church in condemning societies in the hypothetical case aforementioned, could it be accused of inconsistency incon-sistency for having its "secret service department" established for the detection of counterfeiting- and other offenses, civil or political, committed or threatened by persons who operate in secrecy? Our correspondent views the Catholic church in a wrong light, and after he studies her actions., laws and regulations for ' twenty centuries he will find that she is the most logical and consistent institution, even from a human standpoint, that has ever existed. ex-isted. The Ashland priest mentions "fourthly, "fourth-ly, all societies which have a ritual," and our correspondent says that the K. of C. and A. O. H. "use a ritual." That word "ritual" is variously defined. First. ' "Pertaining to, consisting of, or prescribing a rite or rites. Second. A book containing the rites or ordinances of a church or.- of any special service. Specifically, in the Roman Catholic church, the ritual is an office-book, containing the offices to be used by a priest in administering the sacraments (baptism, marriage, penance, extreme unction, communion out of mass), together to-gether with the offices for visitation of the sick, burial of the dead, benedictions, benedic-tions, etc. Third. Any ceremonial form or custom of procedure." (The Century Dictionary). Using the word "ritual" in the two first "senses, the , Church could not tolerate same, as it would be an interference with her divine right to prescribe religious rites. In the last sense only do the K. of C. and A. O. H. use a ritual, and to such the church does not object in any society. Where, then, is the inconsistency? The primary meaning of ritual and the one associated with most people, is a religious rite, form or ceremony, and as these belong to the domain of the Church, she could no more tolerate any imitation of same, than could the state . tolerate a counterfeit coin. But if "ritual" is restricted to a mere ceremonial cere-monial form or custom, such as the inauguration in-auguration of a president, or the elaborate elab-orate pageantry connected with the coronation of King Edward, the (.'hutch does not concern herself in the matter. The pass-word of the K. of C. and A. O. II., kept under secrecy, are as immaterial imma-terial to the Church as are the form of words required of lackeys waiting on their masters. The supposed case made by our correspondent is not in line with the advice of the Ashland priest. What, the pastor means is, that if a Catholic belongs to a benevolent society socie-ty where he is insured, and that the society so-ciety should .in time come under the ban of the Church for some grave reason, rea-son, (the Church never condemns without with-out reason), then the member who has for years paid his dues is allowed to continue the insurance department, and send up his dues. Where is the hy-pocrlsy? hy-pocrlsy? He joined In good faith, when the society presented a respectable respect-able outward appearance. In time it changed its tactics, displaying, its "hypocritical "hy-pocritical attitude,'" thereby incurring the censure of the Church. What will the insured member do? "Get out and keep out'' says our disgruntled correspondent. corre-spondent. Because he would not sac- rifice his conscience, you would rob him Is this fair play? You are like the dog who wished to form a "trust" among his brother canines. The first rule of the trust was that all dogs should bring their bones each day to the president of the trust. Two of the canines, returning one day with their bones, discussed the matter. They concluded con-cluded that Mr. Dog President was doing do-ing nothing and kept the best bones for himself, distributing only those that had no meat. They mutinied and left the trust, losing all they placed with .the president. You,' too, would send out and keep out an honest, conscientious-member, and deprive him of what was his honest due. Such sentiments are not the common feelings of the big-hearted, broad-minded broad-minded miners of Montana. We do not question the good faith of our correspondent corre-spondent in objecting, and hope he will realize that the altitude of the Church is both legitimate and consistent, and if he has a confidential friend among the K. of C. or A. O. 11., such will' inform in-form him that their rituals have no religious re-ligious aspect. |