SOCIETY
74
SOCIETY
VII. Orders op Women. — In regard to female
secret societies, the Apostolic delegation at Washing-
ton, 2 Aug., 1907, declared (Ans. no. 15,352-C): "If
these societies are affiliated to societies already
nominally condemned by the Church, they fall under
the same condemnation, for they form, as it were, a
branch of such societies. As regards other female
secret societies which may not be affiliated with socie-
ties condemned expressly by the Church, the confessor
must, in cases of members belonging to such societies,
apply the principles of moral theology which treat of
secret societies in general. " The document adds that
members of female secret societies affiliated to the
three societies condemned in 1S94 will be dealt with
by the Apostolic delegate in the same manner as male
members when the necessary conditions are fulfilled.
VIII. Trades Unions.— The Third Council of Baltimore (no. 253) declares: "We see no reason why the prohibition of the Church against the Masonic and other secret societies should be extended to organ- izations of workingmen, which have no other object in view than mutual protection and aid for their members in the practice of their trades. Care must be taken, however, that nothing be admitted under any pretext which favors condemned societies; or that the workingmen who belong to these organiza- tions be induced, by the cunning arts of wicked men, to withhold, contrary to the laws of justice, the labor due from them, or in any other manner violate the rights of their emploj'ers. Those associations are also entirely illicit, in which the members are so bound for mutual defense that danger of riots and murders is the outcome."
IX. Method of Condemnation.— Finally, in re- gard to the condemnation of individual societies in the United States, the council says (no. 255): "To avoid confusion of discipline which ensues, to the great scandal of the faithful and the detriment of ecclesiastical authority, when the same society is condemned in one diocese and tolerated in another, we desire that no society be condemned by name as falling under one of the classes [of forbidden societies] before the Ordinary has brought the matter before a commission which we now constitute for judging such cases, and which will consist of all the archbishops of these provinces. If it be not plain to all that a society is to be condemned, recourse must be had to the Holy See in order that a definite judgment be obtained and that uniform discipline may be pre- served in these provinces".
Stevens, Tlie Cyclopcudia of Fralernities (New York, 1907); Cook, Revised Knights of Pythias Illustrated — Ritual for Subordi- nate Lodges of the Knights of Pythias Adopted by the Supreme Lodge (Chicago, 1906); Idem, Revised Odd-Fellowship Illustrated — The Complete Revised Ritual (Chicago, 1906); C.ihnahan, Pyth- ian Knighthood (Cincinnati, 1888); F. J. L., The Order of the Knights of Pythias in the Light of God's Word (Lutheran Tract) (New Orleans, 1899); D.illman, Odd-Fellowship Weighed— Wanting (Pittsburgh, 1906); Gerber, Der Odd-Fellow Orden. u. Das Decret com IS9i (Berlin. 1896) ; MacDill and Blanchahd, Secret Societies (Chicago. 1S91); Dallmann, Opinions on Secret Societies (Pittsburgh, 1906); H. C. S., Two Discourses Against Secret Oath-Bound Societies or Lodges (Columbus, O., a. d.); KELLOaa, College Secret Societies (Chicago, 1894); Rosen. The Catholic Church and Secret Societies (Hollendale. Wis., 1902); Idem, Reply to my Critics of the Oath. Church and Secret Societies (Dubuque, 1903). Sec also the extended bibliography appended to article Masonry.
William H. W. Fanning.
Society implies fellowship, company, and has al- ways been conceived as signifying a human relation, and not a herding of sheep, a hiving of bees, or a mat- ing of wild animals. The accepted definition of a society is a stable union of a plurality of persons co- operiiting for a common purpose of benefit to all. The fulness of co-operation involved naturally ex- tends to all the activities of the mind, will, and external faculties, commensurate with the common purpose and tlie bond of union: this alone presents an adequate, human working-together.
This definition is as old as the Schoolmen, and em-
bodies the historical concept as definitized by cogent
reasoning. Under such reasoning it has become the
essential idea of society and remains so still, not-
withstanding the perversion of philosophical terms
consequent upon later confusion of man with beast,
stock, and stone. It is a priori only as far as chas-
tened by restrictions put upon it by the necessities of
known truth, and is a departure from the inductive
method in vogue to-day only so far as to exclude
rigidly the aberrations of uncivilized tribes and de-
generate races from the requirements of reason and
basic truth. Historical induction taken alone, while
investigating efficient causes of society, may yet miss
its essential idea, and is in peril of including irrational
abuse with rational action and development.
The first obvious requisite in all society is authority. Without this there can be no secure co-ordination of effort nor permanency of co-operation. No secure co-ordination, for men's judgment will differ on the relative value of means for the common purpose, men's choice will vary on means of like value; and unless there is some headship, confusion will result. No permanence of co-operation, for the best of men relax in their initial resolutions, and to hold them at a co- ordinate task, a tight rein and a steady spur is needed. In fact, reluctant though man is to surrender the smallest tittle of independence and submit in the slightest his freedom to the bidding of another, there never has been in the history of the world a successful, nor even a serious attempt at co-operative effort with- out authorit.ative guidance (see Authority, Civil). Starting with this definition and requirement, philos- ophy finds itself confronted with two kinds of society, the artificial or conventional, and the natural; and on pursuing the subject, finds the latter differentiating itself into domestic society, or the family, civil society, or the State, and religious society, or the Church. Each of these h;is a special treatment under other headings (see Family; State and Church). Here, however, we shall state the philosophic basis of each, and add thereto the theories which have had a vogue for the last three centuries, though breaking down now under the strain of modern problems before the bar of calm judgment.
Conventional Societies. — The plurality of per- sons, the community of aim, the stability of bond, authority, and some co-operation of effort being ele- ments common to every form of society, the differen- tiation must come from differences in the character of the purpose, in the nature of the bond. Qualifica- tions of authority as well as modifications in details of requisite co-operation will follow on changes in the purpose and the extent of the bond. As man}-, then, as there are objects of human desire attainable by common effort (and their name is legion, from the making of money, which is perhaps the commonest to-day, to the rendering of public worship to our Maker which is surely the most sacred), so manifold are the co-operative associations of men. The char- acter, as well as the existence of most of them, is left in full freedom to human choice. These may be de- nominated conventional societies. Man is under no precept to establish them, nor in universal need of them. He makes or unmakes them at his pleasure. They serve a passing purpose, and in setting them up men give them the exact character which they judge at present suitable for their purpose, determining as they see fit the limits of authority, the choice of means, the extent of the bond holding them together, as well as their ova\ individual reservations. Everything about such a society is of free election, barring the fact that the essential requisites of a societj' must be there. We find this type exemplified in a reading circle, a business partnership, or a private charitable org.anization. Of course, in establishing such a society men are under the Natural Law of right :xiul wrong, and there can be no moral bond, for example, where
