Replies

Peter Miller wrote a good article a few years back called the myth of modern man that included some very accurate comments about freemasonry.

Here is some excerpts....
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020222_The_Myth_of_Modern_Man.html

For it’s clear that the sons and daughters of the Freemasons do believe in absolute truths, but just the ones they prefer. Actions such as rape are viewed as “obviously immoral” due to its condemnation across cultures and throughout history. Inconsistently, novel “liberties” such as abortion and sodomy are defended just as strongly since they emerge from new and “enlightened” realizations. Though such liberals may delude themselves into thinking they battle for freedom and liberty, they are no more than members of a neo-pagan group who defend their Satanic dogmas with the same fervor those in the Church used to defend Hers.

For the danger lay not in modernism’s direct attack of the Church but its ability to infiltrate ecclesial ranks, corrupting the minds of the clerics. What became Freemasonry’s ticket to success was its ability to cloak its beliefs under the guise of ultimate truth. Naturalistic concepts were not properly classified as a product of modern philosophy or a particular system of beliefs, but as new and self-evident “truths” that transcend all cultures and people. This sort of neo-gnosticism allowed Rousseau, Locke and Voltaire to paint themselves as pioneers who had discovered something long hidden by human superstition and an oppressive Church. As scientists and astronomers were making tremendous discoveries as to the workings of the natural world, modern philosophers were seen as “discovering” the true and essential elements of human nature. Given this perspective, it is easy to see how Catholics could be indoctrinated by masonic errors without even realizing it.

Given the devious and murderous societies that the masonic revolutionaries have produced (i.e. “culture of death”), why would any reasonable person, much less a Catholic want anything to do with them? Why should the sons of Voltaire and Locke be given any credibility or sought out for approval?