The not so secret secret of the U.S.M.C.

            Some forty years ago as the wettest behind the ears Second Lieutenant, I sat half dozing in class when the crusty old mustang major told a story.  For the uninitiated, “mustang” is a term of respect and endearment reserved for commissioned officers who had been previously been non-commissioned officers.  They are easily identified because they are somewhat older than their counterparts and by the good conduct ribbon (not given to commissioned officers) which they proudly wear.

            It seems that when this Major, I wish I could remember his name, was 17 years old there was a neighborhood bully who would beat him up every time he saw him.  Frustrated and angry, the he joined the Marine Corps.  He went off to Parris Island and graduated honor man in his platoon.  He could run for miles, do a hundred pushups, a dozen pull-ups and fly over the obstacle course. 

            When he came home for his first leave, he went looking for the bully.  Sure enough he found him and the bully beat him up again.  

            The major told this story to illustrate a point.  What makes the Marine Corps special is not the fact that it has tough guys.  It does indeed have a lot of them.  But tough guys are everywhere.  Every military organization has them to a greater or lesser degree.

            What makes the Marine Corp so special and hence successful are teamwork, leadership and esprit de corps.  Teamwork is what makes real the adage that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.  But, everything is meaningless without direction.  From the PFC fire team leader to the four star Commandant, leadership is taught, developed and emphasized.  While the Marine Corps is not perfect, its toughness, teamwork, leadership and sprit de corps make it as close to invincible as any human organization can be.

Ramblings on Catholicism

One cannot read the recent charges filed by the Philadelphia District Attorney and not be struck by the fact that it seems that the Roman Catholic Church is subject to the same kind of distorted loyalty as Freemasonry.  It is personal fraternal loyalty above all else.  It is distorted loyalty above virtue, above principle and in the case of the Church, its own children’s well being.  It is indeed shocking that there is even probable cause that within the past five or ten years, the Church has been covering up and perhaps actively allowing child abusers in their own midst.  

Of course, everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  And that has not happened.  It may never happen.  But what has happened is that the grand jury has found that there is a reasonable basis to believe it is so.  True or not, how could the Church allow itself to be put in this position?  One would think that the horrific revelations of the past many years would have made the Church extra sensitive to this issue. 

Sadly, many, many good men are slandered by these accusations.  Let us hope that this time the Church will have learned the lesson that the perception of evil can sometimes be as bad as the evil itself.  It is not sufficient to just deal with either the perception or the reality of evil to the exclusion of the other.  The Church needs to do both.  It needs to stop the child abuse and its cover-up.  Just as important, it needs to stop any perception of doing either.  Its future depends upon it effectively doing both.

You are correct in noting that in view of the child abuse of a few priests; the hypocrisy of I know not how many Freemasons, is relatively harmless.  What is similar is the cover-up.  Spawned by denial and disinterest, it is the twisted loyalty to each other that renders these two laudable institutions alike.  It seems that the human condition is such that we tend to cling to each other even in the face of all manner of immorality.  While this “fraternity above all else” may be the model of Freemasonry, it is far from the Christian norm.  Jesus was a revolutionary who spoke out in the face of contrary institutions and individuals.  I like to think the Christian model is “morality above all else.”

When they came for the gypsies, no one spoke out and they were taken away.  When they came for the Catholics, no one spoke up and they were taken away.  When they came for their political opponents, no one spoke up and they were taken away.  When they came for the Jews, there was no one left to speak up.

I think the causes of child abuse are many and varied. Certainly some teachings and social structures contribute to it. For instance the Branch Davidians come to mind. The use of guilt as a means of obtaining conforming behavior is a bit more removed, but it may contribute.

The fact remains that many, many men and women were and are subject to the same Catholic influences and are horrified by the acts of a few both within and outside the clergy.

Anyone who is married and especially with children knows that all your time and energy is not your own. Rightfully we chose to use them for our family as well as ourselves. of necessity, this leaves less time and energy (money too) to do other things. As it stands now most men (not all) who are Roman Catholic priests have made the commitment to devote all or most of their time, energy and money to the service of others through the Church. If they can do this without distortion, and many men can, they can accomplish a great deal of good. The problem is with the men who cannot do this no matter how hard they try. These men need to be identified, sometimes even to themselves, and encouraged to do something else.

Celibacy is a Church rule that even now has some exceptions. Allowing married priests will not eliminate the celibate ones. It will just create another class of priests who have less to give to their vocation. Clearly their special nature will be eroded. The Church has dealt with this by the use of married deacons and other attendants who help out as much as they can or chose to without the special status as priests.

In the seminaries, I do not think gay or straight is the issue. The issue is whether these men are effectively able to deny acting on their sexuality. The proportion of gay or straight men trying to do so should not be a factor. Both are able to minister to the people as long as their sexuality is controlled. It would seem that the first step in controlling sexuality is recognizing its existence.

A lot of issues here

Some thoughts on abortion

There is a difference between law and morality.  Law deals with efficient, practical ways of ordering society.  Morality deals with good and bad.  In the extreme, law is arbitrary.  We go on green and stop on red.  It could just as easily have been the reverse.  In the extreme, morality is absolute.  It is wrong to reject God.  Other times there is an overlap of law and morality.  It is both illegal and immoral to murder or steal. 

Under our system of democracy, in order to preserve its integrity, law must be totally separate from morality.  This allows for the practice and development of all moral systems.  Strict adherence to this distinction is critical.

Without resorting to morality or religion, there is a viable argument for making human abortion illegal in many circumstances.  The law protects us and our property so that we as individuals do not have to do so ourselves.  Even the physically weakest person in society is protected the same as the strongest. 

There is no one in society that is weaker than the fetus.  Its very survival depends upon the good graces of another.  The question is whether or not we should extend the protection of society to this our weakest member.  The answer is clearly no, if and only if the fetus is not human.

It if is not human, then what is it?  There is no question that it is some yet unfulfilled potential.  But is this enough to make it human?  The answer must be an unequivocal yes.  Throughout our entire lives, as we grow, change and age; we are all some yet unfulfilled potential.  There is no reason to distinguish the unborn.

While the fetus depends upon the mother for its existence, this is not without some effect upon the mother.  This can range along the continuum from discomfort to death.  In the extreme, the choice between the life of the fetus and the death of the mother becomes clear.  The actual life of a living human being must be favored over the potential life of the fetus. 

After this the choices become more difficult.  Indeed selecting the chooser is the first hurdle.  Is it the mother, the father, the doctor or society that makes the life and death decision for the fetus and the life altering decision for the mother?  Remember the decision from a legal perspective is not a matter of right or wrong.  Rather it is a matter of the efficient practical ordering of society, always remembering the purpose of law in society is to protect those who cannot do so themselves.

It seems clear that the law needs to protect the fetus in all situations except when it causes the death of the mother.  This may seem harsh in the case of rape or incest, but from the fetus point of view, it matters not how or why it was conceived.  Once the fetus has become emancipated from the mother, and particularly when its life has been dictated by the law, the mother should not be compelled to raise the child.  Society, having protected the life must take responsibility for it until it can fend for itself.

The potential humanity of the fetus must have precedence over the convenience of the mother.  The individual steps between the convenience of the mother and the death of the mother must be decided on a case by case basis, always with an emphasis of protecting what cannot protect itself.  (Parenthetically this same reasoning can be applied to assisted suicide and euthanasia.  But that discussion is for another day.)  

Of course, the law cannot restrict a person's moral or religious belief regarding abortion.  They are matters of faith and conscience and as long as acting on them does not conflict with law the are as they should be protected.

A real master mason

Brother Gerald R. Ford

Gerald R. Ford was in Congress for 25 years and from 1965 to 1973, he was House Minority Leader. He was born in 1913 and grew up in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He starred on the University of Michigan football team, and went to Yale, where he worked as assistant football coach while earning his law degree. During World War II he rose to lieutenant commander in the Navy. After the war he returned to Grand Rapids, where he began the practice of law, and entered politics.

Brother Ford was initiated on September 30, 1949, Malta Lodge No. 465, Grand Rapids, Michigan.  The Fellowcraft and Master Mason Degrees were conferred by Columbia Lodge No. 3, Washington, D.C., on April 20 and May 18, 1951 because Brother Ford was a member of Congress and spent much of his time in Washington.  He was made a Sovereign Grand Inspector General, 33°, and Honorary Member, Supreme Council A.A.S.R. Northern Jurisdiction at the Academy of Music in Philadelphia, in 1962.  Brother and President Ford was unanimously elected an Active Member of the International Supreme Council, Order of DeMolay and its Honorary Grand Master in 1975. Brother Ford held this post until 1977.

But to really understand a man, we must see him in the context of what was going on around him during his finest hour. 

It was October 10, 1973 and Spiro T. Agnew, the vice president of the United States had just resigned after pleading nolo contendere to bribery and tax evasion charges for acts that occurred while he was governor of Maryland.  Still fresh in the public mind were the Kennedy assassinations, the Martin Luther King assassination, race riots, the carnage of the Viet Nam war, the war protests and the killing of students at Kent State by the National Guard. The economy was in recession and lines at gas stations reflected an energy crisis the likes of which this country has never seen. The Senate public televised, hearings on Watergate, which began in May and recessed in August, had been postponed to February 1974.  To many it seamed like the country was being torn apart.

In the mist of all this strife and dissention, President Nixon chose Gerald R. Ford to be a heart beat away. He could have hardly imagined the chain of events called Watergate that would lead to his own resignation (the first and only president to do so) and the ascension to power of the only president never chosen in a national election. On August 9, 1974, Gerald R. Ford took the oath of office of President of the United States, and said; "I assume the Presidency under extraordinary circumstances.... This is an hour of history that troubles our minds and hurts our hearts.”  Thankfully, when his country called, Brother Gerald R. Ford answered.

            President Ford was in every sense a peacemaker.  Early in his first and only term, he issued a total pardon to former President Nixon.  As he said at the time and repeated 30 years later, it was a practical solution to start the national healing and allow the government to get on with the business of the people of the United States.  And he did just that, using his veto power some 68 times. He would later say that he did so for the good of all the people, not just any particular constituency.  Most of the vetoes were upheld, even by a congress dominated by the opposite party.

He probably lost the ensuing election because he did what he believed was right and best for our country.  . "I have to say that most of my staff disagreed with me over the pardon," Ford commented. "But I was absolutely convinced that it was the right thing to do."  His principle and sense of right was more important than his personal political expediency. 

"My greatest disappointment was that I couldn't turn the switch and all of a sudden overnight go from an economic recession to an economic prosperity," Ford remembered. "That was the greatest disappointment domestically." Ford's greatest success as President was in conducting government, decently administered by responsible people.  He said,  "I hope historians will write that the Ford administration healed the land, that I restored public confidence in the White House and in the government."

After former president Nixon left for the last time, President Ford recollected; “I had of course almost immediately the responsibility of going into the East Room, where I had to be sworn in and where I had to make an acceptance speech. And I couldn't prepare my speech until twenty-four hours or less beforehand, because up until the last minute we weren't sure what President Nixon was going to do. And I had a wonderful speechwriter, Bob Hartman, and he handed me the copy and I read it. He had a knack of saying what I would say. It came to one sentence. I said, 'Bob, we ought to strike this.' And it was the sentence, 'Our long national nightmare is over.' And Bob Hartman said to me, 'If you strike that, I'm quitting!' So I left it in and it turned out to be the most memorable line in my remarks-and it was a wonderful line."

Two other quotes pointedly reveal the man and the Masonic lessons he knew so well.

“As we bind up the internal wounds of Watergate, more painful and more poisonous than those of foreign wars, let us restore the golden rule to our political process, and let brotherly love purge our hearts of suspicion and of hate. “

“My conscience tells me clearly and certainly that I cannot prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed. My conscience tells me that only I, as President, have the constitutional power to firmly shut and seal this book. My conscience tells me it is my duty, not merely to proclaim domestic tranquility but to use every means that I have to insure it. I do believe that the buck stops here, that I cannot rely upon public opinion polls to tell me what is right. I do believe that right makes might and that if I am wrong, 10 angels swearing I was right would make no difference. I do believe, with all my heart and mind and spirit, that I, not as President but as a humble servant of God, will receive justice without mercy if I fail to show mercy. “

Rest in peace Brother Gerald R. Ford, 38^th President of the United States, Master Mason.  So mote it be.

A poet for all ages

                            If

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,

But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,

Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,

Or being hated, don't give way to hating,

And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream -- and not make dreams your master;

If you can think -- and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster

And treat those two imposters just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken

Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,

And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools;

If you can make one heap of all your winnings

And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,

And lose, and start again at your beginnings

And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew

To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you

Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on!"

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with kings -- nor lose the common touch,

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,

If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute

With sixty seconds' worth of distance run --

Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,

And -- which is more -- you'll be a Man, my son!

Rudyard Kipling's (1865-1936) inspirational poem 'If' first appeared in his collection 'Rewards and Fairies' in 1909. The poem 'If' is inspirational, motivational, and a set of rules for 'grown-up' living. Kipling's 'If' contains mottos and maxims for life, and the poem is also a blueprint for personal integrity, behaviour and self-development. 'If' is perhaps even more relevant today than when Kipling wrote it, as an ethos and a personal philosophy.
The beauty and elegance of 'If' contrasts starkly with Rudyard Kipling's largely tragic and unhappy life. He was starved of love and attention and sent away by his parents; beaten and abused by his foster mother; and a failure at a public school which sought to develop qualities that were completely alien to Kipling. In later life the deaths of two of his children also affected Kipling deeply.

Rudyard Kipling, (1865-1936), English short-story writer, novelist and poet, remembered for his celebration of British imperialism and heroism in India and Burma.

Kipling was the first Englishman to receive the Nobel Prize for Literature (1907). His most popular works include The Jungle Book (1894) and the Just So Stories (1902), both children's classics though they have attracted adult audiences also.

Rudyard Kipling was born on December 30, 1865, in Bombay, India, where his father was an arts and crafts teacher at the Jeejeebhoy School of Art. At the age of six he was taken to England by his parents and left for five years at a foster home at Southsea. His unhappiness at the unkind treatment he received was later expressed in the short story "Baa Baa, Black Sheep", in the novel The Light That Failed (1890), and in his autobiography (1937).

Kipling returned to India in 1882, where he worked as a journalist in Lahore for the Civil and Military Gazette (1882-87) and as an assistant editor and overseas correspondent in Allahabad for the Pioneer (1887-89).

Kipling's short stories and verses gained success in the late 1880s in England, to which he returned in 1889, and was hailed as a literary heir to Charles Dickens. Between the years 1889 and 1892, Kipling lived in London and published Life's Handicap (1891), a collection of Indian stories and Barrack-Room Ballads, a collection of poems that included "Gunga Din".

1892 Kipling married Caroline Starr Balestier, with whom he collaborated on a novel, The Naulakha(1892). The young couple moved to the United States. Kipling was dissatisfied with the life in Vermont, and after the death of his daughter, he took his family back to England and settled in Burwash, Sussex. Kipling's marriage was not in all respects happy. During these restless years Kipling produced Many Inventions (1893), The Jungle Book (1894), The Second Jungle Book (1895), The Seven Seas (1896) and Captains Courageous(1897)

 

In 1975 the John Huston film with Sean Connery as Daniel Dravot; Michael Caine as Peachy Carnehan and Christopher Plummer as Rudyard Kipling.  Called by some as the greatest “buddy film” ever made

A fairly accurate movie from the short story by Rudyard Kipling, collected in Plain Tales from the Hills in 1888. Narrated by a British journalist in India, it is about a pair of comic adventurers who briefly establish themselves as godlike leaders of a native tribe in a country resembling Afghanistan. Exploring the nature of friendship and British imperialism, the story examines the differences between experiences felt and experiences described, ambition and achievement, and reality and fiction.