LORD RIPON AND FREEMASONRY.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume II, Issue 88, 2 January 1875, Page 11

LORD RIPON AND FREEMASONRY.

The following letter appeared in the * Scotsman ' of Sept., 26th : — " Sic, — With your kind permission I wish to makeafewremarks on the first part of your leading article in the ' Scotsman' of September 21, on Lord Eipon and his connection with Freemasonry, reserving, perhaps, the second part, on the " Political Belations and Prospects of British Eoinan Catholics," for a future occasion. You made a statement anent Lord Eipon's conversion which I consider, from my point of view, unwarrantable, charging him, as it does, with the worst kind of mental dishonesty, of hypocrisy or dissimulation, or lying, for it comes to that to say that 'he treats as evil what he knows to be good, and condemns as guilty those whom he knows to be innocent.' Lord Eipon was a Freemason — he thought there was no harm in Freemasonry j he becomes a Catholic. Now the Catholic Church condemns Freemasonry, and in becoming a Catholic he must condemn it also. Not altogether because he sees any harm in it — well, perhaps not — but because the Church condemns it, and once you admit the infallibility of the Church, there is no great mental aberration in submitting your judgment, which you know may be wrong, to the judgment of the Church, which you know cannot be wrong. You err in judging Lord Eipon from your own stand-pomt — not from his. You say that the mental aberration is in acknowledging the Church's infallibility ; but that is not the question. But what if Lord Eipon now condemns Freemasonry as bad because he believes it to be bad, although at one time he thought it was good ? You say, indeed, that he still holds it to be good, but you do not pretend to give any reason for your assertion. It surely cannot be that he still holds it to be good because he formerly held it good. The same reason can be applied to his conversion itself ; for at one time he held Protestantism to be good. Can any one imagine that he still holds it good, although as a Catholic he is bound to condemn it as evil ? If he still holds it to be good, he is a greater fool than I take him to be in not sticking to it, when he gains nothing but loses all by condemning it.

" But why does the Catholic Church condemn Freemasonry ? Because it is forbidden by the Third Commandment — ' Thou shalt not take the name of thy God in vain.' The Catholic is taught in his Catechism that by this Commandment ' are bidden all false, rash, unlawful, and unnecessary oaths.' Freemasonry is founded on a rash oath. Therefore the Church condemns it. Therefore, although it does no other harm, one cannot become a member of the society which he cannot join without taking a rash oath, and therefore, a pari, one cannot continue in the society which compels others to take such an oath without becoming accessory to their sin, and therefore Lord Eipou was compelled in conscience to withdraw from Freemasonry. Was he wrong in joining Freemasonry first of all ? Ido not say he was, because he acted in good faith, but on becoming a Catholic he was taught that the oath he took was a rash oath, and so he now treats as evil what he knows to be evil. Does he ' condemn as guilty those whom he knows to be innocent ? ' He condemns no one, but trusts that other Freemasons are as innocent in the matter as he was himself when he acted in good faith and knew no better. Is it true* that Freemasonry compels its members to take a rash oath ? It compels them to take God to witness that they will observe something — when they do not know what that something is> — and that is a rash oath, and sinful. I once said to a Freemason — Tell me what the oath is, tell me first what I must observe, and I will take it if I think it right. He said, No. Take the oath first, and we will tell you afterwards. A rash oath. I did not take it, and so am Not a Freemason."