Freemasons

Mollygo 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

The Catholic alternative is, I believe, the Knights of Malta.

mulberry7

The Catholic alternative is, I believe, the Knights of Malta.

I don’t know about alternative but the Order of Malta is certainly a Catholic group and older than the Freemasons.
Today, although some members of the Order are professed knights (having taken the three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience), others have pronounced only the promise of obedience.

They are devoted to exercising charity, and developing their spirituality within the Church and to care for those in need.
Like other organisations, membership is by invitation only.

Forgot to mention that there is a quite a lengthy Aspirancy period and an investiture ceremony. There is some mention of a fee of around £1500, but that may or may not be true.
As with the mentions about Freemasons on this thread, some KoM have been known for their piety and service, while others have engaged in questionable actions, including violence, wealth accumulation, and even criminal activity.

mulberry7

The Catholic alternative is, I believe, the Knights of Malta.

I think the Knights of St Columba are much closer to the Masons than the Knights of Malta.

The K of M are mainly an international organisation working at a diplomatic level and in itnernational aid.

The K oSt C are a gathering of men who meet to support each other in their faith but also look after their members, as do the Masons, and aagain like the Masons undertake a lot of charitable work.

There are “secretive” societies in many countries, most try to uphold some form of traditional belief or advantage. Often they are very obstructive of progress or change.

David49

There are “secretive” societies in many countries, most try to uphold some form of traditional belief or advantage. Often they are very obstructive of progress or change.

And there are countries like Afghanistan where they don’t even bother to have a secret society that is obstructive of progress and change, particularly for women

My DH was invited to join in the 1990s when he had a business but declined. I think its mainly for business owners and wealthy men. They do raise a lot of money for charity.

Mollygo

David49

There are “secretive” societies in many countries, most try to uphold some form of traditional belief or advantage. Often they are very obstructive of progress or change.

And there are countries like Afghanistan where they don’t even bother to have a secret society that is obstructive of progress and change, particularly for women

Or is the Taliban a secretive society. Is this an example of when a secretive society gets too much power. They may claim they do charitable work and I am sure they would be able to find one example where they helped someone but that does not justify the harm they have caused.

Blimey, likening Freemasonry to the Taliban, really?

GrannyGravy13

Blimey, likening Freemasonry to the Taliban, really?

Just secretive societies, does not mean that they act the same, but power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I didn’t mention the Taliban, but is the Taliban secret society? I don’t appear to be anything too secret about it gorgeous.

Interrupted. Sorry for the errors.

I didn’t mention the Taliban, but is the Taliban secret society? There doesn’t appear to be anything too secret about it.

I dont think there is too much secretive about Taliban they have become powerful by intimidation

As for Freemasonry in the past they did influence policy, decisions and business deals a great deal, helping brother masons was all part of their ethos.

GrannyGravy13

Claremont fairy tales again.

That is not Freemasonry in the 21st century in the UK.

How rude, yet again. It certainly was very late 20th Century in the UK. Not very long ago at all. I see no reason or evidence that it has changed. Nothing has changed about the rituals and ceremonies, and oaths taken. And members are still very much recruited, to serve the needs of Masonry and business and professional links- refusal to join still has real professional and business consequences. And Police, Judiciary and senior Judges, are still members, and have to swear to put the needs of Masonry above all (therefore above the Law).

RoundTable, Lions, Rotary, are totally different. Lots of money raised, mutual support of members, but much more in the open.

Here is a link to just one of the many articles exposing the issues with Freemasons within the Police and the Met.

www.nickdavies.net/1997/01/29/freemasons-in-the-police/

Link to this article will be posted in next post.

''My masonic contact among the senior executives of the Lord Chancellor's Department told me, 'When a barrister joins the right Bar Lodge he can be certain of getting on intimate terms with scores of influential judges, big names many of them, and with large numbers of my colleagues in the Lord Chancellor's Department. And this is right and correct, a right and proper method for men of integrity to come to the Bench. Being a judge is an important, exacting task. Strength of character, personal probity, courage, are all qualities a good judge should have in full measure. And compassion. Where better to find out if a man has these qualities than in Lodge? Can you tell me? This is why most judges are Freemasons. Because Freemasons make the best judges.'

I asked him in whose opinion it was that the best people to be judges were Masons. He replied, 'By those whose job it is to select and recommend. By those who are judged the best people to know.'

Which, of course, was a way of saying, 'Freemasons'.

I asked him about the Lord Chancellor's position in all this, about how Lord Hailsham's not being a member of the Brotherhood affected the procedure. Surprisingly, he had not known whether Hailsham was a Mason or not. But it seemed a matter of indifference to him. 'The Lord Chancellor is in a very peculiar position,' he said. 'Hailsham is good. Absolutely brilliant, whether he's a Mason or not. I hope you don't think I'm saying that only Freemasons make good judges. Of course, the Lord Chancellor has the final say in the appointment of puisne judges, but as he should and is only right, he takes note of the recommendations of existing judges and of the Department. I am sure Hailsham doesn't care whether a man's a Mason or not.'

The fact is, Hailsham as a non-Mason does not know who among the judges he appoints are Freemasons or otherwise. By his own admission, he does not think the issue worth considering. Without knowing it he is fed recommendations of Freemasons by Freemasons. Perhaps there is no great ill in this. Perhaps Masons do make the best judges, although men like Lord Denning and the few women judges such as the Hon Mrs Justice Heilbron in the Family Division of the High Court indicate the calibre of some of the non-Masons in the law.

There is surely something more admirable in a woman or man who has proven her or his ability and reached the Bench of the High Court without having to resort to the secret ladder of Freemasonry. In this sense, it could be argued with some force that it is non-Masons who make the best judges.''

erenow.org/common/the-brotherhood-the-secret-world-of-the-freemasons/21.php

Police and Judiciary should be definitely banned from being Masons as Masonic rules require of them to protect members above anything else (like The Law).

And one should be able to ask for professional advice, in any field, including medical, which would be based on excellence and not membership of Masonry. Same for appointments in public domains and professions- the best should be chosen, and not for his or her membership to a Lodge.

So basically, Claremont, you don’t like the masons. That’s OK. Lots of people don’t like/disapprove of lots of things. It’s allowed, even on GN.

Whether you like the idea of the masons or you don't (I don't), membership should be prohibited in sensitive areas such as local and national government and the judiary. In fact if masons can secretly favour other masons in any area of public life, how can this be defensible?

Exactly Elotethan, nothing about liking or not liking - but about very senior Judges, Police, Barristers, Politicians at all levels, handling huge sums or money and appointments to very senior jobs, who have sworn on oath (if I remember rightly on their life)- to protect each other above all, above the Law, even. And as you say, that is not defensible.

And also abotu professional advice in very sensitive professions at very sensitive times, being based on your membership rather than the best person for the job.

Claremont, you have absolutely NO idea, have you??

Eloethan

Whether you like the idea of the masons or you don't (I don't), membership should be prohibited in sensitive areas such as local and national government and the judiary. In fact if masons can secretly favour other masons in any area of public life, how can this be defensible?

But this happens in so many areas, not just with the Masons.

"It's not what you know, it's who you know."

Allira

But this happens in so many areas, not just with the Masons.

"It's not what you know, it's who you know."
Applies to Rotary and Lions as well, and probably some of the other societies that were brought up earlier on this thread, but let’s face it, it’s much easier to focus on one group that you don’t like.

Not at all, Rotary, Round TAble, Lions, etc, are much more open about what they do. As said, it is not about liking or not liking, at all. We can say that all the rituals are a bit silly boyscouttish and out-dated- not bothered about that.

Again, it is about many very senior positions, with huge influence, being secretely infiltrated by Masons, undeclared.