Freemason Tim Bryce.

The Average Age of Lodge Members

They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself.
– Andy Warhol

monument, time waits for no man, angel, muse, broken pillar

What is the average age of your Lodge members? Interestingly, very few Lodges take the time to calculate this figure which I consider to be a rather important indicator of the Lodge.

Fortunately, the average age of my Lodge has dropped to 64.1 years old. This is down from the high 60’s just a few years ago (we never did hit 70) and this is because we have been blessed with several fine young men who have joined our Lodge and replaced some of the “Greatest Generation” who we recently lost.

The “average age” number itself doesn’t tell us much. It is when we compare it to prior years and plot increases or decreases which tells us something about the Lodge. Whereas an increase means we are not getting much in the way of younger members, a decrease means just the opposite. This is also indicative of Lodge programming and public relations. Perhaps the reason why the average age is increasing is that the Lodge has become somewhat lethargic and set in its ways and is no longer regarded as a viable institution in the community.

Our current average age also tells me that “Baby Boomers” represent the lion’s share of members in our Lodge. This leads me to believe that the average age will inevitably rise again as this substantial generation (which includes yours truly) gets older and grayer. The only thing that can prevent this is a major influx of young members, but I do not see this happening anytime soon. I am certainly not suggesting we open the floodgates and allow anybody in with a pulse, but we should renew our efforts to reexamine our image and position the fraternity into something for younger people to seriously consider.

Thanks to modern medicine, we’re living a lot longer than our predecessors. It also means the Boomers will inevitably raise the average age of our Lodges over the next 10-20 years. As such, now is the time to take action to make our Lodges fun, interesting and meaningful. Surely we do not want to abandon our heritage, principles, or degrees, but we need to exercise our imagination and make Freemasonry more contemporary with the times.

If we don’t, it won’t be long before we’re sitting in a Lodge where the average age is 90 (and nobody will be able to make it up the stairs to the Lodge room).

Keep the Faith.

Freemasonry From the Edge
Freemasonry From the Edge

by W:.Tim Bryce, PM, MPS
timb001@phmainstreet.com
Palm Harbor, Florida, USA
A Foot Soldier for Freemasonry

NOTE: The opinions expressed in this essay are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of any Grand Masonic jurisdiction or any other Masonic related body. As with all of my Masonic articles herein, please feel free to reuse them in Masonic publications or re-post them on Masonic web sites (except Florida). When doing so, please add the following:

Article reprinted with permission of the author and www.FreemasonInformation.com

Please forward me a copy of the publication when it is produced.

To receive notices of Tim’s writings, subscribe to his Discussion Group.

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

Special Report: The Illuminati in Freemasonry

all seeing eye

This is investigative reporter Donald P. Stoddard for Secret Society Watch.

Over the past year, I have infiltrated a Masonic Lodge in order to find out the truth about the Illuminati-Freemasonry connection. Freemasons have been denying any association with the Illuminati for years, but this reporter remained suspicious about the information surrounding the two orders.

The primary reason that I believed such a connection must exist was the fact that Freemasons had opposed such an assertion vehemently. When I met with a local Mason on the street to ask him about the Illuminati’s presence in the fraternity, he replied “I don’t even know what the Illuminati is.” A suspicious statement for a man that is suppose to keep such a connection secret. When I later petitioned a Masonic Lodge so that I might gain admittance and thus become privy to their well-kept secret, I was asked why I wanted to become a Mason. I replied, “I’m interested to see what sort of affect that the fraternity has on society, if you catch my drift.” The investigating Masons laughed and I was accepted into the lodge shortly thereafter, a clear sign that I was on the right track to discovering the presence of the Illuminati in one of America’s largest and most secret organizations.

After receiving the degrees, it was quite clear to me that the Masonic fraternity was interested in presenting allegorical lessons that required further learning in order to understand their meaning, or more correctly, become a functioning member of the Illuminati. The members of the lodge informed me that most of the United States’ presidents had been Masons. I was only aware of fourteen that had belonged to the fraternity, but several Brothers assured me that other presidents had indeed belonged. This reporter will refer to those presidents and other public officials that are not publicly known to be Freemasons, but are claimed as Brothers in the organization as “Secret Masons.” I discovered that such Secret Masons included Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, and even Simon Cowell. So the Masons, or the Illuminati, weren’t only concerned about controlling the country or the world, but they were also eager to fill the airwaves with terrible pop music in order to dull the senses of the masses. Ingenious!

When I finally got around to asking the Worshipful Master of the lodge—and yes I said worshipful as in to be worshiped–if I could attend one of the Illuminati’s meetings, he informed me that I was asking the wrong person. Of course, he was correct. I had made the error of thinking that a simple Master Mason belonged to the Illuminati. It was obvious that only 32nd Degree members were allowed to attend these meetings. I quickly became a member of the Scottish Rite to earn that degree and was once again disappointed to find that I would not be admitted to the meetings of the Illuminati as a 32nd Degree Mason. It was evident that I would have to receive the 33rd Degree, which I would have to wait nearly eight years to obtain. Indeed, these Masons were no novices at running the world. It is quite smart to make sure that only the most devoted members are allowed to have their voices heard at a meeting of the Illuminati.

However, when I asked one of the 33rd Degree members if I would be able to finally find out more about the Illuminati when I reached that degree, he replied, “Well, you might find just what your looking for by becoming a Shrine Clown” and whipped out a petition. I eagerly signed it and donned my red nose and floppy shoes so that I could finally become a member of the Illuminati. So I have been tirelessly performing at the Shrine Circus in order to gain a reputation among the other clowns and be invested with membership in the Illuminati. It appears that the Masons realize that the key to global domination is to influence the inexperienced minds of America’s youth. This is certainly a conspiracy that even Dan Brown couldn’t develop.

Yes, you heard it here first folks, the Shrine Clowns are the modern day version of the Illuminati and they are aided by the help of their many fellow Secret Masons in the entertainment industry. The truth is that the vast majority of people featured on programs such as CNN’s Showbiz Tonight are fellow clowns, helping to spread the Freemasons’ gospel of a New World Order. Now, this reporter is off to what he hopes is his first Illuminati meeting where about twenty of us will be gathering to discuss our master plan in a 1990 Ford Festiva disguised inconspicuously as a circus vehicle.

Until next time, this is Investigative Reporter Donald P. Stoddard for Secret Society Watch.

The Lie Rob Morris Told

Originally published by Stephen Dafoe.

William Morgan monument in Batavia, New York
William Morgan monument in Batavia, New York

In September of 1882, the Chicago-based National Christian Association unveiled a 35-foot tall monument to William Morgan in a cemetery in Batavia, New York, unveiling a new round of anti-Masonic feelings in the process. It had been more than a half century since William Morgan had vanished from the village, kidnapped and murdered, it was said, by members of the Masonic fraternity who were outraged that a man they had welcomed as a brother had betrayed them by exposing their mysteries to profane eyes.

And yet the murder of William Morgan was never proven; the discovery of a body on the shores of Oak Orchard Creek a year after his disappearance, at first supposed to be that of William Morgan was just as quickly supposed to be that of Timothy Monro, a Canadian who had allegedly drowned a few weeks before the discovery. And so the matter was brought to a close. No corpse, no crime. In 1831, Victor Birdseye, who served as the last special council in the Morgan investigations concluded on his report to the New York State legislature that:

The information thus elicited, is sufficient, I trust to satisfy the public mind as to the ultimate fate of Morgan: that he was taken into the Niagara, at night, about the 19th of September and there sunk. Yet the evidence, although apparently sufficient for all purposes of human belief, is not sufficient to establish, with legal certainty, and according to adjudged cases, the murder of Morgan. (1)

William Morgan and the rise of the Anti Masonic Party
William Morgan and the rise of the Anti Masonic Party

Birdseye could not help but be frustrated as he saw his efforts as well as those of his predecessors, John C. Spencer and Daniel Mosley, thwarted as key Masonic witnesses and accused either dodged questions in the witness box, refused to testify altogether or fled the scene to avoid prosecution. Five years of legal investigation and prosecution on the matter of Morgan’s disappearance resulted in 20 grand juries and 15 trials. Of the 54 Freemasons indicted by the grand jury, only 39 were brought to trial and only 10 of those were convicted. (2) Although the 10 Masons convicted of abducting Morgan served light sentences ranging from one month to 28 months, the Craft as a whole served a nearly two-decade-long period of Masonic caliginosity, a backlash against the Craft that punished all Freemasonry for the actions of a few of its misguided members.

And yet, Freemasonry survived and grew to strength in the years after the American Civil War, her opponents less vocal than they had been when anti-Masonry had passed through the churches on its journey from the honest indignation of the citizens of Western New York to the political machinations of the Anti-Masonic Party, a party led by men like Thurlow Weed.

Thurlow Weed, editor of the Rochester Daily Telegraph when Morgan was abducted.
Thurlow Weed, editor of the Rochester Daily Telegraph when Morgan was abducted.

Weed was a Rochester newspaperman and editor of the Rochester Daily Telegraph when Morgan was abducted and soon took an active interest in the investigations. Although publicly humiliated and ridiculed for his alleged desecration of Timothy Monro’s corpse in October of 1827 to make it look like Morgan, Weed continued to attack Freemasonry throughout the remainder of his life, launching his final Parthian arrow at the unveiling of the Morgan monument in 1882, just weeks before his death. Although he was unable to attend in person, Weed sent a letter to the organizers that told of the confession of John Whitney, one of the men convicted of abducting Morgan, and a man who not only fled to New Orleans to avoid prosecution, (3) but who also refused to testify in one of the later trials. (4) In Weed’s account of things, in 1831, while visiting in his home, John Whitney confessed to murdering Morgan:

Whitney then related in detail the history of Morgan’s abduction and fate. The idea of suppressing Morgan’s intended exposure of the secrets of Masonry was first suggested by a man by the name of Johns. It was discussed in lodges at Batavia, Le Roy and Rochester. Johns suggested that Morgan should be separated from Miller and placed on a farm in Canada West. For this purpose he was taken to Niagara and placed in the magazine of the Fort until arrangements for settling him in Canada were completed, but the Canadian Masons disappointed them. After several meetings of the lodge in Canada, opposite Fort Niagara, a refusal to have anything to do with Morgan left his “kidnappers” greatly perplexed. Opportunely a Royal Arch chapter was installed at Lewiston. The occasion brought a large number of enthusiastic Masons together. “After labor,” in Masonic language, they “retired to refreshment.” Under the exhilaration of champagne and other viands the Chaplain (the Rev. F. H. Cummings, of Rochester) was called on for a toast. He responded with peculiar emphasis and in the language of their ritual: “The enemies of our order may they find a grave six feet deep, six feet long, and six feet due east and west.” Immediately after that toast, which was received with great enthusiasm, Col. William King, an officer in our war of 1812, and then a Member of Assembly from Niagara county, called Whitney of Rochester, Howard of Buffalo, Chubbuck of Lewiston, and Garside of Canada, out of the room and into a carriage furnished by Major Barton. They were driven to Fort Niagara, repaired to the magazine and informed Morgan that the arrangements for sending him to Canada were completed and that his family would soon follow him. Morgan received the information cheerfully and walked with supposed friends to the boat, which was rowed to the mouth of the river, where a rope was wound around his body, to each end of which a sinker was attached. Morgan was then thrown overboard. He grasped the gunwale of the boat convulsively. Garside, in forcing Morgan to relinquish his hold was severely bitten. (5)

Weed’s version of Whitney’s story was pretty strong evidence against the Masonic fraternity at a time when Freemasonry was once again feeling the pressure of anti-Masonic inquiry. The letter, which was published by the National Christian Association in pamphlet form in 1882 also found its way into many New York newspapers including the December 7, 1882 edition of The Malone Palladium, which ran the letter below the headline, The Death of Morgan: Thurlow Weed’s Dying Revelation.(6) It is doubtless that few readers, particularly those predisposed to a mistrust of Freemasonry, gave any critical thought to Weed’s claims, accepting the account as a true and accurate depiction of what really happened.

Masonic author, and liar, Rob Morris.
Masonic author, and liar, Rob Morris

But the same can be said of the Freemasons who accepted, without question, another version of the Whitney confession, the one offered by the Masonic author Rob Morris. In 1883, the year after the raising of Morgan’s monument in the Batavia cemetery, Morris, a well-known and well-loved Masonic poet and author, wrote a book called William Morgan: Or Political Anti-Masonry, Its Rise, Growth, And Decadence (1883). The book presented the argument that Morgan was not abducted and murdered by Freemasons, but deported to Canada at his own request. It is little surprise that the story, as told by Morris, was joyfully received by the Masonic fraternity and became the foundation stone upon which other Masonic writers would build their version of the tale, a tale that is accepted and repeated by North American Freemasons to this day.

Morris’ re-imagining of the series of events from Morgan’s arrest in Batavia until his disappearance at Fort Niagara is largely based on the alleged oral testimony of his key witness in his defense of the Craft, John Whitney; the same man Thurlow Weed claimed confessed to assisting with Morgan’s murder.

Whitney’s account of things is told in Chapter VII of William Morgan and is claimed to be information Whitney gave to Morris in 1859. (7) The Morris / Whitney story tells us that it was John Whitney and Nicholas Chesebro who engineered Morgan’s “deportation” to Canada, assisted by a handful of other dedicated members of the Masonic fraternity, viz. Col. William King, Burrage Smith, Loton Lawson and Sheriff Eli Bruce, (8) the entire plan organized with the full understanding, acceptance and financial support of Governor De Witt Clinton. (9) Morris claimed that John Whitney told him he went to visit Clinton at Albany in August of 1826, returning to Rochester with a detailed plan and a signed letter from the Governor making it clear that “no steps must be taken that would conflict with a citizen’s duty to the law.” (10) Clinton’s plan, according to the Morris / Whitney story was to attempt to buy Morgan’s manuscript and get him to agree to a deportation to some foreign country where he might be separated from his publishing partner David Miller. (11) The governor also assured Whitney of $1,000 if required, and the assurance that those involved would be sustained by Masonic authorities within New York State, so long as things were kept legal. (12)

Whitney allegedly went to Batavia on September 5th, 1826, where he offered Morgan $50 cash and the payment of his debts if he would destroy his exposé and leave the country. (13)

With Morgan’s willingness to leave taken care of, Whitney then went to Canandaigua the next day to involve Nicholas Chesebro in the plan, both men being known to each other through their membership in the Knights Templar at Rochester. (14) The two men agreed that the easiest way to get Morgan quietly out of Batavia was to have him arrested, (15) Ebenezer Kingsley being persuaded to press charges against Morgan for the shirt and cravat Morgan had borrowed from him the previous May, but had yet to return.

Morgan’s journey from the jail at Canandaigua to Fort Niagara is covered by Morris in the course of a few pages that make a hero of Whitney for staying with Morgan the whole journey as they changed horses and carriages, all donated by Masons willing to help separate Morgan from his publisher David Miller. (16) In Whitney’s account of the story, he was joined by Eli Bruce and Col. William King at Lockport and the three men traveled with Morgan from Youngstown to the soldier’s burial ground, a half mile from Fort Niagara in the early hours of September 14, 1826. (17) When Whitney, King and Bruce arrived at the river’s edge, Edward Giddins and Elisha Adams transported the three men and Morgan across the river to a deserted bank on the Canadian side, a mile from the Village of Niagara. (18) Morgan remained in the boat with Giddins and Adams, while Bruce, King and Whitney went to the village and met with two Canadian Masons, men Whitney was unprepared to reveal to Morris 33 years after the event. (19)

After a while, the Canadian Masons returned to the boat with their American counterparts and Bruce summoned Morgan to join the five men on the shore. With nothing but the moon and a couple of lanterns to light the night, Morris would have his reader believe that Colonel King made notes on several points Morgan swore to before the party of Masons:

First. That he had contracted with Miller and others, to write an exposition of Masonry, for which he was to receive one half-million dollars compensation.

Second. That he had never been made a Mason in any Lodge, but had received the Royal Arch Degree in a regular manner. Furthermore, that he felt bound by his Royal Arch obligation and never intended to reveal the secrets of that degree.

Third. That Miller and the other partners had utterly failed to fulfill the terms of contract with him.

Fourth. That Whitney had paid him $50 at Danolds’ Tavern (Batavia), and he had agreed to destroy the written and printed work so far as possible and furnish no more, and that before leaving Batavia he had done what he promised in that way.

Fifth. That it was impossible now for Miller to continue the “Illustrations,” as he [Morgan] had written them. If he published any book, it would have to be made from some other person’s materials.

Sixth. That Miller was only an Entered Apprentice, and ‘rusty as hell’ at that.

Seventh. That he had been treated by Chesebro, Whitney, Bruce and all of them, with perfect kindness in his journey, and he had nothing but the best of feelings for them.

Eighth. That he was willing and anxious to be separated from Miller and from all idea of a Masonic Exposé; wished to live in habits of industry and respectability before all men; wished to go to the interior of Canada and settle down as a British citizen; wished to have his family sent him soon as possible; might want to go to Quebec some time and have his eyes operated on; expected five hundred dollars when he reached the place as agreed upon; expected more money from year to year to help him out if necessary and if he should show himself worthy of it.

Ninth. Finally he was sorry for the uproar his proceedings had made; was sorry for the expense he had put the Masons to; sorry for the disgrace he and his family had suffered; sorry for the shame and mortification of his friends, and he ‘had no idea that David Cade Miller was such a damned scoundrel as he turned out to be.’ (20)

WIlliam Morgan Pillar in present day Batavia, New York.
WIlliam Morgan Pillar in present day Batavia New York

Whitney claimed that the Canadian Masons, although prepared to take Morgan as agreed, couldn’t do so for a week and were unprepared to keep him during the interim. Morgan consented to being locked up in the powder magazine at Fort Niagara until that time and Edward Giddins prepared the room with a mattress, chair and other items for Morgan’s personal comfort. (21) Morgan finally left the magazine on September 17, 1826 when the two Canadians came over to the American side, gave Whitney a receipt for the $500 they were to give Morgan and returned to the western side of the river. Whitney claimed that the two Canadian Masons rode on horseback with Morgan from the Village of Niagara to a spot near present day Hamilton, Ontario where they had him sign a receipt for the $500 and a document outlining the circumstances of his deportation, as well as a promise not to return to the United States without the permission of Colonel William King, Sheriff Eli Bruce or John Whitney. (22) Conveniently, all of the documents vanished when they could have been used to prove the innocence of the abductors.

Morris was a master at telling his audience what they wanted to hear. It is important to remember that Freemasonry had only recently returned from a period of Masonic darkness that ran for nearly two decades and was only now beginning to grow to strength after the conclusion of the American Civil War. But it was also a time when The National Christian Association, assisted by Thurlow Weed, were rekindling anti-Masonic feelings with the former’s erection of the Morgan monument in 1882 and the latter’s death bed support of the same. One can hardly blame Morris for wanting to defend Freemasonry, an institution he loved, and his book William Morgan was released within months of the erection of the Morgan monument.

But is it a true account of what happened? As much as we would like to believe every word of Morris’ account, it is a lie.

William Morgan was not Morris’ first book on the subject. In 1861, two years after his alleged interview with John Whitney, he published 1,000 copies of the book The Masonic Martyr: The Biography of Eli Bruce, Sheriff of Niagara county N.Y., who for his attachment to the principles of Masonry, and his fidelity to his trust, was imprisoned twenty-eight months in the Canandaigua jail. (23) This book, as the lengthy title implies, was designed to remove the shadow that had been cast over the name of Eli Bruce, who had received the harshest sentence of any of the Morgan conspirators. Although the bulk of the book recounts the 28 months Bruce spent in the Canandaigua jail (the same jail from which Morgan was taken in the middle of the night) Morris offers a chapter on the abduction of Morgan and one on the anti-Masonic party. It is these two chapters that are most telling in light of Morris’ later treatment of the subject. Although frequently softening the blow against Freemasonry, Morris presents his reader with a fairly straightforward account of the Morgan story up to his placement in the powder magazine at Fort Niagara, even leveling criticism at Freemasons for being imprudent in their actions and murderous threats against Morgan. (24) It is only in his closing paragraphs that Morris provides us with the embryo of an idea that he would carry to full term two decades later:

Our own surmise, which, after a careful perusal of all the testimony, and much questioning of the remaining actors in the abduction who still survive, may perhaps be as good as any other, is that Morgan was abundantly supplied with money by those who had expended so much, and run such risks to separate him from Miller and his confederates, and that he was assisted to pass into Canada, the scene of his former adventures, where among a rough and lawless border population, he met the end likely to befall a drunken, boasting fellow, whose pockets were sufficiently well lined to render him a desirable prey.

Certainly, there is no evidence that he was murdered by Freemasons. The facts that they took him openly from the jail at Canandaigua, that they left a broad trail behind them, for more than one hundred and fifteen miles through a thickly settled country, and, that so many were admitted into the secret of the abduction, forbid such a supposition; the character of all the actors from Mr. N. G. Chesebro, the earliest, to Col. William King, the latest, forbid it even more strongly. That the abduction was a consummate piece of folly, from first to last, it is easy at this period to affirm; but, those who affirm it the most loudly, had they felt the provocations the brethren in Western New York experienced, might have committed the same error. In our private notes of Masonic History since 1846, we find more than one “Morgan case,” which was only prevented from coming to a head by the prudence of a few, who remembered the dark days of Eli Bruce and Col. King, and taught discretion to the more rash and indignant. (25)

In the foregoing excerpt we see a Rob Morris who was willing to accept that Morgan was likely murdered, albeit by a lawless band of Canadians waiting at the border for wealthy American drunkards, but perhaps more importantly, we see an acceptance that Freemasons could and did act rashly and improperly in the abduction of William Morgan in the fall of 1826. Morris accepts that the abduction of Morgan was “a consummate piece of folly,” but defends the abductors against the pointing fingers of their detractors by stating that “had they felt the provocations the brethren in Western New York experienced, might have committed the same error.” In other words, their actions were faulty, but justified.

If, as Morris claimed, John Whitney told him the full story in 1859, why did he not include it in his 1861 biography of Eli Bruce? It is certainly possible that Morris promised to keep the information confidential until Whitney’s death, but the man died in 1869. And yet, Morris waited until 1883, more than a decade later to finally put the story in print. The timing of his book to coincide with renewed anti-Masonic attacks makes it likely that Morris needed a version of the Whitney story of his own? Given the closing words of his book William Morgan, it is almost certain that Rob Morris, one of the most respected Masonic authors of his day, created the Morgan deportation story to defend his beloved Freemasonry:

But I protest that I never would have published this work—though I had long been collecting materials for it—if that old man’s drivelings had been suppressed.

The Masonic Order had so completely outlived Weed and his party and his hatreds, we were doing so well, that I should have buried the subject in oblivion and destroyed the material so laboriously accumulated rather than open a quarrel of which [Millard] Fillmore, [William H.] Seward, John Quincy Adams, Thaddeus Stevens and all the more respectable members of the Anti-Masonic party had become heartily ashamed before they died. Only one man was left, and he imbecile in body and mentally feeble, who could reopen the subject. Of all men living he was most interested in keeping the matter still. What evil spirit was it, then, that drew Thurlow Weed from his retirement to poison the community with Anti-Masonic slanders even with his dying breath. (26)

Stephen Dafoe

With no conviction in the murder of William Morgan, all we are left with today is a 183-year-old cold case; a case which the Masonic fraternity closed long ago, long after it had rebuilt itself from the ashes of anti-Masonic fires and long after one of its most sainted apologists had written the version of the story Freemasons wanted to hear, the one they needed to believe, the one that has been repeated time and again until it can be quoted as if it were a part of the Masonic ritual. Although we may not know the ultimate fate of William Morgan, it is my hope that at least one myth has finally been put to rest.

Stephen Dafoe is the author of:
Morgan: The Scandal That Shook Freemasonry.

Listen to a podcast with Stephen Dafoe on the subject.

Endnotes:

  1. Stone, William L. Letters on Masonry and Anti-Masonry addressed to the Hon. John Quincy Adams. New York, NY: G. Halstead, 1832. p. 538.
  2. Berry, Robert. The Bright Mason: An American Mystery. Booklocker, 2008. p. 142.
  3. Stone Op. cit. p. 281.
  4. Morris, Rob. William Morgan; or Political Anti-Masonry, its Rise, Growth and Decadence. New York, NY: Robert Macoy, 1883. p. 75.
  5. Weed, Thurlow. The Facts Stated. Hon. Thurlow Weed on the Morgan Abduction. Chicago, IL: National Christian Association, 1882. pp. 11 – 13.
  6. The Malone Palladium December 7, 1882.
  7. Morris Op. cit. p. 163.
  8. Ibid. p. 164.
  9. Ibid. p. 165.
  10. Ibid. pp. 168,169.
  11. Ibid. p. 169.
  12. Ibid. p. 169.
  13. Ibid. pp. 170-173.
  14. Ibid. p. 174.
  15. Ibid. p. 175.
  16. Ibid. pp. 183-185.
  17. Ibid. p. 192.
  18. Ibid. p. 193.
  19. Ibid. p. 193.
  20. Ibid. pp. 194,195.
  21. Ibid. p. 196.
  22. Ibid. pp. 194-196.
  23. Ibid. p. 204.
  24. Morris, Rob. The Masonic Martyr; The Biography of Eli Bruce, Sheriff of Niagara County, New York. Louisville, KY: Morris and Monssarrat, 1861. p. 16
  25. Ibid. pp. 23, 24.
  26. Morris William Morgan. Op. cit. pp 387, 388.
emblem, bronze, Scottish Rite, Los Angeles

Learning a Lecture

Memorizing Masonic ritual has long been an important part of carrying on the work of Freemasonry. Those that masterfully perform Masonic lectures have long been revered as prestigious members of the fraternity and have been pointed out as men worthy of emulation. However, while many Masons have relished the opportunity to memorize one of the lectures, many have avoided such an undertaking.

In modern times, it isn’t unusual to hear Masons say things like “I sure wish I could perform lectures like that” or “I’m going to memorize that lecture one of these days” without ever taking the time to actually do so. Some cite the inability to memorize, which is true in some cases, and others claim that they don’t have the time. It often seems like the few Brothers that are willing to memorize a large part in the ritual end up memorizing all of these parts, while the majority of Masons avoid memorizing anything above and beyond the minimum requirements.

This is a frustrating observation, but the point of this article isn’t to demean the Brothers that haven’t learned a lecture. Instead, it is meant to show those Brothers that haven’t done so what they can gain by making the effort to learn one of the prominent parts in Masonic ritual. The key to becoming motivated to memorize ritual is simple: learn it for your own benefit, not the benefit of the lodge.

But what do I mean by this?

In all Masonic degrees, the lecture contains a vast amount of information that explains the ritual. In the three symbolic degrees, the lectures actually contain the majority of information given to the candidate in the degree. Like with all orations, the listener retains very little information from the lecture given to him when he receives the degree. This is a travesty, since this limits a Mason’s understanding of the symbolism of the ritual. To illustrate this point, think about a lecture that you have not memorized and then consider how much of that lecture you can actually recall. Chances are that it is little to none. In order to properly grasp the degrees of Masonry, learning the lectures is essential.

The Mason that has memorized a lecture has its teachings impressed upon his mind and his heart. The slightest reference to the symbolism of the lecture that he knows brings the explanations Masonry’s allegories to the front of his mind. A person that has not learned a lecture can never understand the full benefit of having this information memorized. It expedites and enhances Masonic study and often serves as a reminder when we are about to do something of an un-Masonic nature.

There is also another benefit to memorizing ritual. Most Masons regard their passage through the degrees of the order as one of the most impressive and influential experiences of their lives. However, there is a Masonic experience which supersedes receiving the degrees: conferring the degrees. Most Masonic lecturers have had the special experience when they see the light of Freemasonry shining in the eyes of the men to which they are reciting the ritual. To see the new candidates “get it” is an incredible feeling. It is the most fulfilling of any opportunities afforded in the fraternity.

Learning a lecture is hard work. Contrary to the misconception by many that those that learn lectures just read them once and are able to perform them, most men that have taken it upon themselves to memorize large parts of the ritual spend months memorizing the work and perfecting their recitation. But the work is worth it and learning a bit of Masonic ritual is like riding a bike, you never lose the ability to perform it.

Understanding Masonic symbolism and transmitting the lessons of Masonry form the instructive tongue to the attentive ear are the actions that preserve Masonry. Do yourself and Masonry a favor and dust off that ritual and take some time to learn a lecture. You will reap what you sow.

The Restaurant at the End of the Masonic Universe

By Stephen Dafoe

Note: The following article originally ran in the pages of Masonic Magazine as an editorial. I am posting it for those not familiar with it, as it is referred to in the previous article, There’s a hole in our bucket.

drive in sign

So there is this restaurant chain with locations throughout North America. Its slogan is a pretty catchy one and the chain’s management uses it on a daily basis to motivate staff and to recruit new patrons to the chain’s thousands of locations.

The slogan is “we take good food and make it better” – eight simple words, which have struck an emotional chord with millions of people who like to eat.

There is no marketing genius behind the slogan or the success of the same in attracting people to the restaurant chain. Everyone likes good food, so it is unlikely that there is a person alive who would not like good food made better. Who could resist such a slogan?

Sadly, the restaurant chain seldom lives up to its own slogan. The restaurants are often poorly decorated – their tables and chairs wobbly and in need of repair. Staff often quarrel with one another and the management, too often, seem only to be concerned with climbing the corporate ladder to the head office. The food, so much talked about is bland at best and dreadful at worst.

Yet as each new patron comes in for the first time to sample this “good food made better” he sees a group of smiling faces, all lapping up the meal as if it was the greatest food on the planet – just like the advertising people said it was.

The new patron does his best to eat his meal even though the food offered does not appeal to the palate as sweetly as the words used to describe it. Not wishing to show his displeasure to his two friends who sponsored him – for it is, after all, an exclusive restaurant – he sits in silence eating his meal with each mouth full being as forced as the smile on his face.

Sometimes the patron simply pays his tab, leaves the restaurant and vows never to return to the establishment. However, sometimes the patron decides that maybe he just went on a bad night – perhaps the staff was having a bad day because the regular cook was away. Perhaps those people enjoying the meal were just being kind and did not want to offend the new cook.

He decides to give the “good food made better” joint one more try.

Returning on another night he sees the same dozen patrons who were there the month previous – they are still arguing with one another about which fork you should use for the salad and the proper way to hold a wine glass. The manager is still ignoring the new customers in favor of the company higher-ups seated at a back table who he is trying to convince of his suitability for a more prominent position in the firm.

What’s worse – the food is still bland, boring and not what the sign on the door proclaims – yet the regulars are still lapping it up like it’s their last meal.

This time the patron decides that the marketing slogan is nothing more than eight simple words cleverly arranged to deprive him of his hard earned money.

The thought occurs to him that maybe he could pull the manager away from the corporate wheels long enough to suggest a few small things that could truly make the good food better. However, he has a sinking feeling that he would be told, “but we’ve always cooked it this way before” or “we tried that once and the patrons didn’t like it.” He feels he might even be told that “the head office would never allow it.”

So instead of voicing his concerns, exercising the old business axiom that the customer is always right, he says nothing. Instead he leaves the restaurant and vows never to return – either canceling his pre-booked reservations on the way out the door or never returning and having his membership cancelled by the chain via a nasty letter.

He wonders how it is that the restaurant survives and why the same dozen diners seem to enjoy the food so much.

His conclusion is a simple one – they like things the way they are and the establishment will never change so long as the chain is run by people who like to make bland food and patronized by people who like to eat the same.

And so we come to a problem that is rife within Freemasonry today.

We advertise ourselves as an organization that makes good men better, and while that is precisely what we have done for millions of men over the centuries, it cannot be argued that we are letting down the many young men who enter our doors who feel cheated and deceived.

“I really feel that I have been sold a pack of lies,” wrote one such young mason recently on an Internet discussion forum.

How sad it is that a young man, who has been a Mason for one year would feel that he has been lied to by an organization that has Truth as one of its three greatest attributes.

“This is not the Masonry I signed up for,” he continued in his posting and in so stating arrives at the crux of our problem.

Freemasonry in large parts of the United States and Canada is not offering what it is advertising, but if it advertised what it offered – would it receive many new candidates.

“Freemasonry – we take good men and let them sit in a room and listen to the reading of minutes and 45-minute debates on spending $50 on why we should or should not buy a plaque to show what great guys we are.”

It just does not have the same marketing strength as “Freemasonry – we take good men and make them better”.

Read: The Death of Freemasonry

Unfortunately our young brethren, past and present have tried to improve what Freemasonry offers within the tiled recesses of our lodges, but are met with resistance at each step of the way.

We say we are about making good men better through self improvement – yet few are the lodges who apply the working tools within the body of a lodge to educate our young members as to how to do this.

The Masonic Information Center (MIC) recently released a publication entitled, It’s About Time. The publication identifies the problems currently confronting Masonic identity and offers sound solutions for the same.

One of the most powerful statements in the 17 page document follows:

“The Square and Compasses, the best known symbol of a Mason, cannot replace the identity of living the life of a Mason, which is itself perpetually in a state of improving ourselves in body, mind, and spirit. Masonic imagery is a valuable resource when it inspires us to take new action consistent with our personal growth and enlightened thought. We must discover our own Masonic calling, our own place in the history of Masonry, by making authentic Masonic performance our top priority.”

However, we have allowed, as the MIC points out in the publication, Masonry to be shaped by the 20th century’s emphasis on the Masonic ritual being the completion of the Mason’s education about his fraternity.

Like the analogy of the restaurant chain, little changes in how lodges deliver Masonic lessons because the same dozen patrons sit in her seats and run the show.

Those men, like the restaurant patrons in our analogy, come back month after month and year after year because they enjoy the bland food – a meal that is largely comprised of recitation of minutes, tedious debates over how funds are dispersed and arguments over when and how to salute the Worshipful Master.

And when a young man, initiated, passed and raised leaves because he finds the meal unappetizing, he is viewed as a disgruntled customer, which the restaurant is better off without.

The recipe of Freemasonry is as sound today as it was three hundred years ago – it is the present kitchen of stubborn cooks who need to be tossed out.

Closing Note: Before anyone starts yammering about joining a good lodge, let me assure you I have done precisely that. This article is meant to convey the message of why things seldom change. It is not a commentary on my own present situation in lodge.

Freemason Tim Bryce.

Two Dirty Words

It’s now time for all of us–those who supported the merger and those who opposed it–to pull together for the benefit of the company.
Carly Fiorina, President of Hewlett-Packard Co. in 1999

Let me give you two little words that scares a lot of Masons: “consolidations” and “mergers.” As the fraternity continues to recede in terms of membership and finances, Craft Lodges inevitably face the question of these two dirty words. But let’s be clear, the two are not synonymous; consolidation means to move multiple Lodges into a single building, and mergers represent the combining of multiple Lodges into one. Mergers are probably considered the worst of the two as Masons fear they will lose their identity and will be overshadowed by the other Lodge they are merging with. Nonetheless, both are viable alternatives and, from a business point of view, makes a lot of sense. For example, companies have long known that if a franchise is struggling, it is better to cut your losses and combine it with another. But unfortunately, most Masons do not think from a business point of view and have developed emotional attachments to their Lodge buildings. This is understandable to a point, but if the Lodge is operating on the edge, you have to seriously ask yourself what a Lodge is anyway. Is it the physical building? More likely it is a Brotherhood of men who share common values and are interested in improving themselves, their community, and the world at large. The building, therefore, is nothing more than a venue for the Lodge to meet. So, when push comes to shove, which is more important: the Lodge or the building? Those Lodges struggling to make ends meet financially would be well advised to consider this.

Interestingly, a lot of Grand Lodges do not provide guidance or leadership in terms of assisting Lodges in considering the question of merging or consolidating. Instead, most Craft Lodges have to fend for themselves and only consider it when it is too late. As a small example, I know of a Craft Lodge that lost its way and quietly went out of business, selling its building and donating its remaining funds to local charities. The Grand Lodge did not find out about this until two years later. Had the Grand Lodge been studying Lodge trends, they would have surely spotted a problem and offer advice to the Lodge. They didn’t, and the Lodge went under.

Obviously, there are some simple indicators to measure the pulse of a Lodge, such as finances, membership, attendance at Lodge functions, and the average age of the Lodge members. They could also examine Lodge officers, e.g., do they have enough members to open the Lodge? Do they routinely re-circulate Past Masters through the East? Are they proficient in their degree work and Masonic knowledge? Such analysis may very well have detected the problem of the Lodge that quietly went defunct.

I have discussed this topic with many a Brother, both locally and far away. Sure, we would all like to have large Lodges, but there is nothing wrong with small ones either, as long as they are thriving and actively operating to the satisfaction of the Craft. But we may not know this if we do not study the problem and pay attention to the trends of the variables mentioned earlier. Further, if a Craft Lodge is indeed in trouble and is interested in consolidating or merging, the Grand Lodge should grease the skids in order to help the Lodge make the transition as painlessly as possible.

Some Brothers stubbornly want to hold on to their Lodges for sentimental reasons. As the fraternity continues to decline, we have to look beyond our emotions, as difficult as this may be, and do what is practical in order for the Lodge to survive. For those of you who possess an emotional attachment to your Lodge building, I will remind you that there is only one word worse than the other two: “closure.”

Keep the Faith.

Freemasonry From the Edge
Freemasonry From the Edge

by W:.Tim Bryce, PM, MPS
timb001@phmainstreet.com
Palm Harbor, Florida, USA
A Foot Soldier for Freemasonry

NOTE: The opinions expressed in this essay are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of any Grand Masonic jurisdiction or any other Masonic related body. As with all of my Masonic articles herein, please feel free to reuse them in Masonic publications or re-post them on Masonic web sites (except Florida). When doing so, please add the following:

Article reprinted with permission of the author and www.FreemasonInformation.com

Please forward me a copy of the publication when it is produced.

To receive notices of Tim’s writings, subscribe to his Discussion Group.

Also be sure to check out Tim’s Pet Peeve of the Week (non-Masonic related).

Copyright © 2008 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

There’s a Hole in Our Bucket

The following article originally appeared in Issue 2 of The Masonic Society Journal.
By Stephen Dafoe

North American Freemasonry is on a bit of an infinite loop these days. I don’t mean the type of infinite loop we used to see on the Flintstones whenever Fred and Barney would drive past the same three houses and two palm trees over and over again, but it is close. The type of infinite-loop motif I’m referring to is the type that forms the basis of songs like 99 Bottle of Beer or There’s a Hole in my Bucket. In fact, both songs represent two of the problems confronting many lodges today with respect to our declining membership.

Now, before you turn the page, let me assure you this is not another article lamenting our sagging numbers, nor is it a rallying call for us to rise towards that lofty Masonic pinnacle that was the Halcyon Days of the post-World War II influx. But we will be looking at the numbers, not with an eye towards depression, but with an eye towards resolution. We have a problem, but if we can truly know where the problem lies, and if we can convince enough Masons that this is actually the case, we can collectively begin to work towards fixing it.

What the numbers tell us:

masonic membership, freemasonry, decline

Since 1925, the Masonic Service Association of North America (MSANA) has been keeping track of the numbers of Freemasons in the United States.

Without launching into a long and boring examination of the ebb and flow of these numbers, let it suffice to say that Masonic membership’s highest point in terms of numbers was 1959, when it boasted 4,103,161 members; its lowest point occurring in 2007, when our ranks had been reduced to just 1,483,449. Ironically, our highest point in terms of membership may well have been our lowest point for Freemasonry, or at least the start of it.

Read: 11 Persona Types of Freemasonry – Part 1, New Members

The hand ringers in our fraternity love to hold on to that 1959 membership number like the middle aged bachelor who holds onto the photo of the fashion model he dated in college, as if it were a goal he may yet attain once more. But as both pine away for a desire that has longed since passed the realm of possibility, they begin to tell themselves lies to justify their current situation.

masonic membership, freemasonry, population

As such, our hand ringers have created a long-standing belief that once upon a time Freemasons made up a sizable percentage of the population in American communities. However, if one compares the US census with the MSANA membership statistics, an interesting and revealing picture emerges. In 1930, only 2.66 per cent of the population belonged to the Masonic fraternity. By 1940, that percentage had been reduced to 1.86% – largely due to the effects of the Great Depression, men simply couldn’t afford their dues. It reached its lowest point in 2000, when less than 1 per cent of the US population could say they owned a Masonic apron. But even in the midst of those glory days our hand ringers so love to remind us about, only 2.41 per cent of the population belonged to the Craft. If we divide and multiply these figures to represent a male population of roughly 50 per cent, then we see that even at our highest percentile penetration in 1930, only 5 in 100 American males were Freemasons – this is a far cry from the cries of deep lamentation emanating from the lips of our loudest hand ringing Brethren that once upon a time almost every American male was a mason. And yet, they will cling to that four-million-plus-Masons figure like cat hair to black pants, failing to accept that the much brandied about number represents nothing more than a sociological anomaly. It was that influx of men who swelled the Craft’s ranks between 1945 and 1959 that, in many ways set the tone for the downward spiral towards the Masonic caliginosity we have experienced in the decades since. Although many became dedicated members of the Craft, expanding their learning through books and periodicals, discussions and debates, many who took on leadership rules were attracted by the formality of the ritual, to the point where it became the beginning and end of a Master Mason’s education.

Perhaps the greatest decade for Freemasonry – at  least from a point of research, education and all around Masonic bigness – was  the 1920’s; a decade that saw the creation of the National Masonic Research Society and its publication The Builder, a magazine that offered the words and thoughts of the great Masonic luminaries of the day. It was also a decade where Masons displayed their Masonic pride, not by the number of pins on their lapels, but by the number of elegant buildings on Main Street. It was during the 1920’s that great Masonic buildings including the House of the Temple in Washington DC, The George Washington Masonic National Memorial in Alexandria, Virginia and the Detroit Masonic Temple in Michigan transformed from idea to reality. That decade, which I’ve long-argued to be the most enlightening for Freemasonry, saw an increase in membership of just above four per cent.

But then the Great Depression reduced membership roles by almost 25 per cent by then end of the 1930’s. In fact membership continued to decline until America entered the Second World War in 1941, and that is when the anomaly occurred. By the end of the 1940’s, Masonic membership had increased by more than 42 percent, carrying a forward momentum through most of the 1950’s, which saw an increase of 16 percent from the decade before. From this point on membership has been on a steady decline, with the present decade – now about to enter its final year – on a fast track to surpassing the 1990’s, the current record holder for membership seepage.

It is a mistake for us to pine away for a resurgence of the anomaly that was the 1940’s and 1950’s. The WWII soldier returned home and, looking for the camaraderie of the barracks, he sought to find it in fraternal societies like Freemasonry. This inflated our membership roles like a windfall inflates a bank account, but like the lottery winner who does not invest his new found money properly; it is soon piddled away until nothing remains.

Another tale the hand ringers love to tell us, especially those who have more steps behind them than they have left ahead of them, is that men are not joining today like they used to, and that we are losing members from death faster than we can replace them through initiations. Certainly, if one considers “not joining like they used to” to be those post-war Halcyon Days previously discussed, then I’m more than willing to concede the point. However, if there is one myth in Freemasonry that has gained wide currency and firm traction, it is the notion that Masons are dying faster than we can replace them.

What the numbers don’t tell us!

In 2005 I was asked to deliver the keynote address to the Western Canada Conference – an annual gathering of the Grand lines of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Part of my presentation sought to dispel this myth that the Grim Reaper was using his scythe to cut a swath through the fraternity. Whereas, the MSANA numbers only give us the annual bottom line, I was able to look at the big picture closer to home by tracking specifics in our membership statistics over an eight-year period.

masonic membership, freemasonry

What I discovered was that, like the rest of North America, Alberta had a sizable hole in our Masonic bucket; 1,777 of our Brethren had affiliated with the Grand Lodge above, leaving us with a net loss of 1,512 members between 1996 and 2003. But this is not where our problem was because the numbers showed that in that same period of time, 3,118 men had joined, affiliated or renewed their membership in one of our lodges.

Read: Three Types of Masons

In an ideal world, the difference between deaths and new members should have seen Alberta experience a 14 per cent growth in that time, but instead we were dwindling, just like everywhere else. The question was why? Where was the hole in our Masonic bucket that was causing the decline? It wasn’t through deaths; we were clearly finding the men to replace ourselves. The answer was through demits and suspensions for non payment of dues (SNPD); a combined loss of 2,863 over the eight years. When added to the deaths, we had lost a total of 4,640 men, while gaining a respectable 3,118. The hole in our Masonic bucket had been found and, as I’ve learned, it is not an isolated situation.

masonic membership, freemasonry

This past November I was keynote speaker at the Grand Lodge of Manitoba’s Masonic workshop and presented a similar address and findings, chronicling their past six years of data. Like Alberta, Manitoba has a hole in its Masonic bucket, caused by demits and suspensions outpacing new members. Between 2002 and 2007 Manitoba saw 856 men join, affiliate or reinstate their memberships. During that same time, 753 Manitoba Masons have died; again leaving a positive number between membership losses and gains. Like Alberta, their hole is caused by the combination of demits and SNPD’s. In the past six years the province has seen 1,355 men leave the Masonic fraternity.

masonic membership, freemasonry, templars

But the Craft lodge in Canada is not alone in finding it has a bucket with the same hole.

Membership statistics from the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar show that between 2004 and the end of September 2008, 17,470 American Freemasons have become Templars, while 9,576 have taken a demit and another 21,706 have been suspended for non payment of dues. Add to this the 22,546 Templars who have gone on to join their creator, and you have 36,358 fewer Knights Templar marching about.  But perhaps marching about is precisely the problem. Perhaps the men who are joining today are joining to parade about like the sword-wielding Templars of old and disappointed to find only old Templars parading about doing sword drill. It is a question only the Grand Encampment and those who are left remain in her Commanderies can resolve, but like the Craft Lodges, its bucket is leaking primarily from the same rusted out hole.

Towards a solution

Back when I was editor of the short-lived Masonic Magazine, I wrote an editorial titled The Restaurant at the End of the Masonic Universe. Without republishing the editorial here, it told the story of a restaurant that does not live up to its advertising slogan, “We make good food better,” an obvious play on our own slogan “We take good men and make them better.” The editorial, which has received equal doses of praise and criticism, sought to explain in a light manner the malaise affecting Freemasonry today and the true cause for the hole in our bucket.

Every mason has heard the expression “but we’ve always done it that way before.” The fact that it is used as the butt of Masonic jokes serves as proof positive of its longevity and power in maintaining a status quo. But, as we have seen by what the MSANA numbers don’t show us, the status quo is draining our buckets. As the allegory of my restaurant editorial showed, the reason things suck in many lodges is because the men who show up month after month like things that suck. They do so because they enjoy the bland food; not the shoe-leather roast beef and off color green beans, but the Masonic meal that is largely comprised of recitation of minutes, tedious debates over how funds are dispersed and arguments over when and how to salute the Worshipful Master. Clearly these are not the things that appeal to the men who are leaving our ranks. If they were, they’d be with us still. But instead of spending our energies trying to retain them, we devote our efforts to finding their replacements.

For as long as I have been a Freemason, we have been trying to fill a bucket that has a sizable hole in it. Like Henry in the famed children’s song, we have whined through the infinite loop of reasons why we can’t fix the bucket and like Jack in the classic nursery rhyme, have rolled down the hill, our empty bucket tumbling behind us. Like children on a bus trip we have done our rendition of 99 Bottle of Beer by repeating the same pattern ad nausea, as one by one our members – like the bottles of beer on the wall – vanish.

Unfortunately, we are not doing a good enough job  identifying what it is that the men who are joining are looking for, which is – in almost all cases – that which they cannot get any place else – FREEMASONRY! They are looking to be educated in the Masonic Craft, in the art of being a gentleman in a world that has largely forgotten what one was, and in how they can be part of – to quote my jurisdiction’s ritual – “the society of men who prize honor and virtue above the external advantages of rank and fortune.” In short, they want to be taught the things about themselves and the world in which they live that only Freemasonry can teach them. If we cannot teach them because we do not know these things ourselves, then we must learn alongside them. Then, and only then, can the hole in our Masonic bucket be truly repaired and we can return to that growth that once allowed us to select men who would most benefit from Freemasonry’s teaching and most benefit Freemasonry by their character and their conduct.

It will not be and easy task fixing this half-century old hole in our Masonic bucket; but it will not be possible at all until we accept that a failure to do so is the cause of our decline and the harbinger of our demise.

Read: So What? The Dynamic of Masonic Membership.
And, Freemasonry Is Dying.


About the author

Stephen Dafoe
Stephen Dafoe

Stephen Dafoe

V. W. Bro Stephen Dafoe is a past Grand Steward of the Grand Lodge of Alberta, former publisher of Masonic Magazine and the author of several books on the Knights Templar and Freemasonry. In addition, Dafoe is a self-confessed anti-Internet Mason.

Ironically, his website can be found at www.stephendafoe.com.

The Age of Masonry III

What do we do when we are not doing Masonry?

The easiest way to approach this point is to perhaps list some of the more dominant activities that tend to be the biggest draw away from the lodge.

  • Church – Church membership offers much of what a Masonic lodge promulgates by way of affinity and fellowship.  It also involves family intimately in its practice, allowing for more fellowship and familial bonding.
  • Charity/Volunteer – Opportunities abound in today’s society to give back. From the American Cancer Society to the YMCA.  At any point, the interested party can man a booth, wash a car, help sell cookies, deliver food, answer phones, rebuild trails, or ring a doorbell; they can give of themselves financially or in person fulfilling the desire to give back.
  • Hobby Clubs – These interest groups span the gamut from sports, politics, cooking, crafts, hobbies, etc…  If you have a particular interest a variety of clubs exists to meet that need.  Even within other organizations, multiple levels of clubs exist that offer an assortment of opportunities.  Often these, the interaction can be as frequent as desired or as sporadic, and dues are usually minimal if existent at all besides covering costs.
  • School groups – From the elementary PTA to social fraternities on college campus, there is a diverse range of opportunities to spend time and money on from baking cupcakes to manning a float in a parade.  Usually these endeavors are encouraged as they raise and bolster the spirit of the group to build connectivity to the institution.
  • Work – While not a club, the obligation of work is not to be ignored.  With a diverse society today, many work in fields that resemble the ethos of a club, in that ones profession is most likely closely allied to their passion, and their work obligation stretches beyond the 9-5 time clock.
square and compass, freemasonry

I have no doubt that this list could go no, but I think you can see all of the distractions that we all have before us.  When we have so little time to dedicate for in our interest areas, we are forced to be selective.  And in this age there are a lot of interest areas to go around. In fact, websites exist to link a volunteer with an interest, Hobbyists to local hobby clubs, School Booster resources. Many websites exist for both churches and employment, or even social interactions including Facebook and LinkedIn.

So why choose the Masonic meeting? Many have said that the detraction is that the meetings don’t accomplish much, that they are focused on past meetings minutes, paying bills or reading communications.  That very little work is passed down, let alone education.  There maybe a special interest in the history of the process of the meeting, with a special ceremony and in a special room, to get things done, but with so much competition, are new attendees very keen on the SAME activity EVERY month, year after year?  Are you satisfied with the same format of meeting month to month?

Does the monthly business meeting meet our needs today?  By changing it, does it forsake those that enjoy that type of activity?

With the degree to which our meetings repeat themselves is it the way we meet that makes us Freemasons?  Is it our ancient landmarks that dictate the way in which we meet, or is it more a long period of doing the same thing over and over that has trained us such that the practice has become a perpetual habit?  Do we meet and conduct meetings in our particular way because it is how we have done it since “Time Immemorial”?

If the way we meet is the measure of our success or failure then what exactly do we do in the meeting of a Masonic lodge?  What “should” a lodge meeting look like?  How can we do it better and what should we be doing in them?

That should be the next step we examine.

You can read Part I and Part II

The Catholic Church and Freemasonry

catholicchurchby John J. McManus.
Prepared for Gate City 2, Atlanta, GA, as the fifth installment of their Religion & Culture series.
Copyright 2009, originally published May 26, 2009 Rev Mr. John J. McManus, JD, JCL
Used with permission.

HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND FREEMASONS…WHY ROMAN CATHOLICS ARE PROHIBITED BY THE CHURCH FROM BECOMING FREEMASONS

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Gate City II for inviting me to speak with you tonight about a rather difficult topic, the historical relationship between the Catholic Church and Freemasons, and why Roman Catholics have been and continue to be prohibited by the Church from becoming Freemasons. My name is John McManus and in my civilian life I am an attorney who has been practicing law for just over 27 years. I am Roman Catholic Christian from birth, and since my ordination in 2002, I have been a member of the Roman Catholic Clergy as a Deacon, the lowest of the three levels of clerical hierarchy in the Catholic Church. Since 2007, I am also a Canon Lawyer, which means that I have a pontifical licentiate that allows me to practice as a lawyer in the Tribunals, or courts, of the Roman Catholic Church, and also to advise the Archbishop or others regarding canonical issues, or those issues related to the law of the Roman Catholic Church.

papallogo_colorI have provided you with that personal background to let you know that my studies have been related to the Roman Catholic Church and its laws. I am not a Freemason, nor have I studied in any detail, other than for the preparation of this presentation, the laws, rules, creeds, or other constitutive documents of Freemasons. Nothing presented herein is intended to criticize, condemn or otherwise cast aspersions on either Freemasonry or Freemasons, as a group or to any individual Freemason, whether Roman Catholic or not. Instead, this presentation is intended to provide historical and current information on the subject matter that may be used in civil discussions and personal reflections about the issues presented in order that each person may be informed and form their own consciences about the issues presented.

This presentation is being given from the Roman Catholic Church’s point of view, particularly since that is the only point of view I can articulate, and the material presented about Freemasons has been gathered from various sources, primarily within the Roman Catholic literature. While I have examined quite a bit of literature preparing this presentation, I have relied to a great extent on a very fine paper entitled “The Evolution Of The Church’s Prohibition Against Catholic Membership In Freemasonry” by Msgr. Ronny E. Jenkins.  For those of you interested in the complete text of that paper, it was published in 1996 in The Jurist, Volume 56, pages 735-755. I was particularly interested in that paper because Msgr. Jenkins was one of my instructors at The Catholic University of America where I received my Juris Canonical Licentiate. During my preparation for this presentation, I had an opportunity to communicate with Msgr. Jenkins about recent developments in this area since the publication of that paper, and those developments have been incorporated into this presentation. I wish to thank Msgr. Jenkins for his kind assistance in this matter.

As the title of that article and this presentation suggest, the Roman Catholic Church has for centuries, and continues to this day, to prohibit its members from membership in Freemasonry. That prohibition remains applicable today in the Archdiocese of Atlanta for all members of the Roman Catholic Church. There has certainly been a great deal of confusion regarding whether this prohibition continues today, engendered in large part by the language of the 1983 Code of Canon Law that omitted the specific prohibition against Freemasonry stated in the 1917 Codex Juris Canonici. In response to this confusion, in November of 1983, the Congregation for the Doctrine of The Faith issued a declaration stating that the prohibition was still in force and that Catholic Masons were barred from receiving Holy Communion. However, that declaration did not quell the debate about that prohibition, and the debate continues. It is my purpose here tonight to address the foundational reasons for this centuries old prohibition, clarify the confusion created by the new Code of Canon law, and explain why the Roman Catholic Church through the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith continues that prohibition today.

As advertised, I will begin this presentation with a look at the origins and historical issues related to this prohibition, then address in passing some of the official canonical documents related directly to that prohibition, then review in some detail the efforts in modern times to reconcile the differences between the parties, and finally address the canonical issues developed by both the 1917 Codex Juris Canonici and the 1983 Code of Canon Law. It is my sincere hope that at the end of this presentation the fundamental inconsistencies between the basic tenants of the Roman Catholic Church and those of Freemasonry will allow at least a better understanding of the prohibition that the Roman Catholic Church asserts in this matter.

In order to understand why the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to prohibit one of its members from belonging to Freemasonry, or to prohibit or allow its members to do or not do other things, it is important to understand a little about the Roman Catholic Church itself. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ himself. To be Catholic, one must believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and that he established the Church with divine authority. The Gospels state that “As the Father gave authority to Christ,” [Jn 5:22] Christ passed that authority on to his apostles [Lk 10:16], and they passed it on to the successors they appointed as bishops.

For nearly two thousand years, through unbroken apostolic succession, bishops have taught the Catholic faith that was received from Christ in the Gospels, Sacred Tradition, and through the Magisterium, the teaching office of the Church. The Church is not a democracy. The authority of the Church rests in the Bishop of Rome, The Roman Pontiff, the successor to St. Peter, who Jesus himself selected to guide the Church. It is important to note that this “authority” held by the Holy Father is not power, but a right…it is humble in both its origin, as received from Christ, and in its end, which is to serve as Christ served. In fact, all of the laws and all of the traditions of the Church have one goal, one end, and that end is the salvation of souls.

vatican

The Roman Catholic Church believes that it has an innate right and obligation to speak the truth about all human matters, and that truth is directed at the one primary end, the salvation of souls. And, therefore, throughout the ages, the Church has issued decrees, which are decisions regarding a particular case, and encyclicals, which are writings approved by the Holy Father, and she has held Councils and synods, discussing various issues related to the faith. The most recent Council was the Second Vatican Council held in the 1960’s which has had a significant effect on the law of the Church, and the Church itself. The rules and laws that are articulated by the Holy Father become laws that Catholics must respect and follow because of the aforementioned authority from which they are derived. Willful failure to follow the teachings of the Church has consequences for Catholics, including excommunication in the most serious cases.

The laws of the Church, codified as canon laws, set forth both the requirement and the penalty for not following the teachings of the Church, and there is a judicial process involved in determining whether the law has been broken and what sanction, if any, is appropriate in the individual case.

The best way for me to explain the relationship between the law of the Church and the essential end of human behavior is in a statement by Mother Teresa. She said, “God did not put me on earth to be successful, he put me here to be faithful.” Catholics have an obligation to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, all of the teachings of the Church, and they are not allowed to pick and choose which teachings they like and which they don’t like as if they were ordering from a menu at McDonalds. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Catholics to understand the teachings of their faith, the reasons why the Church teaches as it does, and then live a life accordingly, constantly striving to be faithful to Christ and his teachings.

It was difficult to determine the precise historical origin of the Freemasons, primarily because there is little historical evidence of the Masons before the eighteenth century. It does appear, however, that on June 24, 1717, four independent guilds of stone cutters met in a London inn to form the first grand lodge. It appears that this new order of masons spread to France by 1732, Hamburg, Germany by 1737, and then throughout much of the rest of Europe, including Italy.

On April 28, 1738, the Roman Catholic Church published the first of many condemnations of this new society when Clement XII issued the constitution In eminenti. In that constitution, Clement XII declared the basic tenants of Freemasonry to be a threat not only to the basic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, but also to the stability of governments and society. Clement XII imposed the penalty of excommunication reserved to the Holy See on persons who either belonged to or externally supported the society. This document was significant because subsequent popes repeated the condemnations for the next two hundred years. For example, on May 18, 1751 in his decree Providas, Benedict XIV repeated the gravissima damna [the “most serious condemnations”] and appended Clement XII’s constitution to his own decree.

The nineteenth century brought renewed and continued confirmation of the charges and penalties against Masons, particularly Catholic Masons. Here are a few examples:

  1. On September 13, 1821, Pius VII issued his decree Ecclesiam Christi in response to the growing influence of a particular form of Masonry called Carbonarism on the movement to form liberal governments in much of Europe.
  2. On March 13, 1826, Leo XII issued his decree Quo graviora in which he not only reaffirmed past condemnation, he added more condemnations, and he offered a particularly critical view of the influence of Masons on universities.
  3. On August 15, 1832, Gregory XVI in his decree Mirari Vos reaffirmed all previous papal decrees condemning Freemasons, and he added more justifications for the Church’s condemnation of Freemasons.
  4. On October 12, 1869, Pius IX in his decree Apostolicae Sedis that reformed certain automatic [latae sententiae] penalties, retained membership in the Masons among those excommunications reserved to the Holy See. Apostolicae Sedis can be found in Acta Santa Sedis [ASS] 5 (1869) beginning at page 311.
  5. On April 12, 1884, Leo XIII issued his encyclical Humanum genus which was a document dedicated entirely to the condemnation of the Masons and reaffirmed the latae sententiae penalty imposed by Pius IX in Apostolicae Sedis. Humanum genus can be found in Acta Santa Sedis [ASS] 16 (1883-1884), pages 417-433.

The twentieth century canonized the penalties and condemnations of the previous two hundred years. It should be noted here that the law of the Roman Catholic Church, which was developed through Tradition, Sacred Writings, synods, Councils, Decrees and Encyclicals, was not codified in one in a single code of canon law until the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917. Three canons in the 1917 code spoke directly against Freemasons:

Canon 1240: Canon 1240, Section 1, paragraph 1, denied Freemasons a Catholic burial.

Canon 2335: This canon, with only a few changes, reaffirmed the reserved ipso facto excommunication of catholic masons promulgated by Pius IX on Apostolicae Sedis. The English translation of that canon reads:

“Those giving their name to Masonic sects or other associations of this sort that machinate against the Church or legitimate civil powers contract by that fact excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.”

Canon 2336: This canon levied additional penalties against clerics or religious who belonged to the masons. These penalties included suspension for clerics and loss of active and passive voice for religious.

Other canons indirectly affected Catholic Masons and included:

  1. Canon 1065, Section 1: Denied them the right to a Catholic marriage.
  2. Canon 542, Section 1: Denied them the ability to enter a valid novitiate.
  3. Canon 693, Section 1: Denied them the right to inscribe validly in a pious association of the faithful.
  4. Canon 1453, Section 1: Denied them receiving the right of patronage [support].

Two requirements had to be met for Roman Catholics to incur the ipso facto excommunication set forth in Canon 2335:

  1. They had to have actually enrolled in the membership books of the organization; and
  2. The organization had to be wholly devoted to heretical or subversive ends.

It was easy to establish whether the first requirement was met-all one had to do was examine the membership books of the organization. But it was not as easy to determine when the second requirement had been met. Jenkins poses these questions:

  1. What if the charitable or fraternal organizations were only indirectly associated with Freemasons? Were these included in the ban?
  2. Masonic lodges themselves varied greatly in their teachings and practices. American lodges were far less subversive than most European ones. Did Catholics who joined an American lodge deserve to suffer the same penalty as one who joined a lodge more patently opposed to the Church?

These and other similar questions gave rise to discussions within the Church hierarchy about a new legal attitude toward Freemasons. Those inquiries lead to the hope that the issue would be addressed by the Second Vatican Council. The Second Vatican Council, however, did not specifically address the issue with Freemasons. Instead, it sought to open dialogue with various groups that had been counted among the Church’s “antagonists.”

As a consequence of this new attitude, several groups of bishops began to view the ban on Masonic membership in the light of the particular character of the respective local lodges. This was first done in 1966 by the Scandinavian bishops who determined that each bishop could judge whether or not a particular lodge was acting or teaching in ways contrary to the interests of the Church. If the bishop decided that the lodge was not manifesting such behavior, the bishop was free to determine whether a particular Catholic could join that particular lodge. Similar actions were taken by the bishops of England and Wales, and the French bishops were even allowed by the Vatican to have limited discussions between the Italian grand master and a priest who was an expert in Masonic affairs.

These events lead to perhaps the most significant advance in Catholic-Masonic relations. In March 1969, a commission of three Catholics and nine masons gathered in Innsbruck to discuss their mutual concerns. The commission met under the auspices of the Secretariat for Non-Believers and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith. The committee’s dialogue resulted in the July 5, 1970 publication of a document entitled “Lichtenau Declaration,” which declared that, contrary to the Church’s consistent position, the Masons were not a threat to the Catholic Church. The document recommended that all canonical penalties and condemnations be abrogated and relations opened between Catholics and Masons, stating in pertinent part:

“We are of the opinion that the papal bulls concerning the Freemasons are now only historically significant and no longer relevant in our time. We are of the same opinion regarding the condemnations of ecclesiastical law since, in light of what has been said, they cannot be justified by a Church that follows God’s commandment in teaching fraternal love.”

The next significant event in Catholic-Masonic relations occurred in talks that occurred over a six-year period between 1974 and 1980 when representatives from the German Episcopal Conference held talks with a group representing the Grand Lodges of Germany. The conclusion of the German Bishops’ Conference was:

“the Freemasons have essentially not changed. Membership [in the masons] places the foundations of Christian existence in question. Detailed investigations of the Masonic rituals and fundamental ideas, and of their current, unchanged self-understanding make clear: Simultaneous membership in the Catholic Church and freemasons is incompatible.”

Jenkins points out that “the bishops reached their unequivocal conclusion after having first considered the positive elements of Freemasonry, including its humanitarian interests, charitable works, anti-materialist ideology, as well as the excellent personal qualities required of its members.” He states that the bishop’s listed twelve areas of Masonic teaching that were at variance with the Church’s own belief, and with which the Church could never reconcile itself:

  1. The Masonic World-view: The Masons promote a freedom from dogmatic adherence to any one set of revealed truths. Such a subjective relativism is in direct conflict with the revealed truths of Christianity.
  2. The Masonic Notion of Truth: The masons deny the possibility of an objective truth, placing every truth instead in a relative context.
  3. The Masonic Notion of Religion: The Masonic teaching holds a relative notion of religions as all concurrently seeking the truth of the absolute.
  4. The Masonic Notion of God: The Masons hold a deistic notion of God which excludes any personal knowledge of the deity.
  5. The Masonic Notion of God and Revelation: The deistic notion of God precludes the possibility of God’s self-revelation to humankind.
  6. Masonic Toleration: The masons promote a principle of toleration regarding ideas. That is, relativism teaches them to be tolerant of ideas divergent or contrary to their own. Such a principle not only threatens the Catholic position of objective truth, but it also threatens the respect due the Church’s teaching office.
  7. The Masonic Rituals: The rituals of the first three Masonic grades have a clear sacramental character about them, indicating that an actual transformation of some sort is undergone by those who participate in them.
  8. The Perfection of Mankind: The Masonic rituals have as an end the perfection of humankind. But Masonry provides all that is necessary to achieve this perfection. Thus, the justification of a person through the work of Christ is not an essential or even necessary aspect of the struggle for perfection.
  9. The Spirituality of Masons: The Masonic Order makes a total claim on the life of the member. True adherence to the Christian faith is thereby jeopardized by the primary loyalty due the Masonic Order.
  10. The Diverse Divisions within the Masons: The Masons are comprised of lodges with varying degrees of adherence to Christian teaching. Atheistic lodges are clearly incompatible with Catholicism. But even those lodges comprised of Christian members seek merely to adapt Christianity to the overall Masonic world-view. This is unacceptable.
  11. The Masons and the Catholic Church: Even those Catholic-friendly lodges that would welcome the Church’s members as its own are not compatible with Catholic teaching, and so closed to Catholic members.
  12. The Masons and the Protestant Church: While a 1973 meeting of Protestant Churches determined that individual Protestants could decide whether to be members of both the Christian Church and the Freemasons, it included in its decision the caveat that those Christians must always take care not to lessen the necessity of grace in the justification of a person before God.

The German bishops’ statement had a significant influence on the subsequent attitude of Rome toward Catholic-Mason relations, renewing the age-old attitude of distrust and antagonism. The canonical questions about these issues, however, were still to be resolved.

During the period of time between the 1970 Lichtenau Declaration, which indicated a more positive relationship between Catholic’s and Masons, and the German Bishops’ statements in 1980, the code of canon law was being revised. As a direct result of the Lichtenau Declaration, canons 2335 and 2336 of the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law were abandoned early in the code revision process and were not included in the penal law schema of 1973. This has lead to some confusion among the bishops about the Church’s stance toward Masons. In 1974, Cardinal Franjo Seper of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a letter to select bishops stating that “the law toward masons had not changed, but that its application might be more strictly interpreted in favor of lay Catholics.” In essence what the Cardinal was saying was that the canon’s penalty applied to Catholics who joined a Masonic group “or similar associations that conspired against the Church.”

Therefore, if the particular lodge the Catholic joined did not conspire against the Church, then only one of the two requirements for incurring the penalty of excommunication had been met. Therefore, membership in a neutral lodge would not necessarily bring with it an ipso facto excommunication for the Catholic.

The 1977 coetus for the revision of penal law formulated its draft of what would become canon 1374 of the 1983 code, and it is stated in English as follows:

“A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; however, a person who promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with an interdict.”

Therefore, the revised canon removed the ipso facto excommunication of canon 2335, and it was broad enough in scope to allow for particular legislators to determine when the penalty was warranted and if, or whether, harsher penalties were called for in certain circumstances.

The broad language provided room for what Catholic’s call “pastoral sensitivity” in a particular case. Based upon this canon, it appeared that the decision about whether Catholics were allowed to join a particular lodge was left up to the local legislator, the bishop.

However, the new code promulgated in 1983 did not settle the issue. There are two canons in the 1983 code that most clearly apply to Catholic Masons, although, as indicated, Freemasonry is not mentioned specifically:

  1. Canon 1374 against subversive societies; and
  2. Canon 1364 against heretics and apostates.

As indicated earlier in the presentation, on November 23, 1983, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith attempted to resolve the doubt created by the 1983 code revisions and issued Declaratio de associationibus massonicis, the “Declaration on Masonic Associations.” Declaratio de associationibus massonicis can be found in Acta Santa Sedis [ASS] 76 (1984) beginning at page 300. The Congregation stated the following:

  1. The Church’s position regarding the Freemasons had not changed.
  2. Catholic membership in Masonic lodges was still prohibited because Masonic principles were still contrary to the teachings of the Church.
  3. Catholics who did, in fact, belong to Masonic associations were committing grave sin and were, consequently, barred from receiving Holy Communion.
  4. The reason the Masons were no longer explicitly referred to in the new code was due simply to the principles that guided the revision of the law.
  5. Local ordinaries did not enjoy the prerogative of determining which Masonic lodges operated against the interests of the Church and which were neutral towards or even supportive of the Church’s interests.

The National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States did not officially respond to the Congregations 1983 declaration. However, it did ask the Pastoral Research and Practices Committee to write a report on the compatibility of Masonic principles with the Catholic faith. Their report, which is quite brief, was published in the June 27, 1985 edition of Origins [Origins 15/6] at pages 83-84. The committee restated the fundamental conclusions of the German bishops, stating:

“Even though Masonic organizations may not in particular cases plot against the faith, it would be still wrong to join them because their basic principles are irreconcilable with those of the Catholic faith.”

While the Congregations declaration reflects the current law in the Church and Catholics are prohibited from joining the Masons, the debate among Church scholars and canonists about this issue and the related issue of enforcement, application, and the canonical implications of each issue remain.

How Freemasonry Is Missing The Boat

Once again in Masonic circles of discussion we hear the debate searching for the answers as to why the decline in Masonic membership continues.  All sorts of hypotheses have been advanced.  The ones I hear most often are the greater number of choices available in today’s world, the limits of time in a what has become a very high strung, stressed out overworked society and the rise of women to equal status in American society thus restructuring the male/female role which often results in couples doing everything together rather than each going their separate way.

These explanations are all well and good and certainly have some merit in the scheme of things. Often times when no explanation reaches out and knocks you in the head it is because there are multiple causes for the resulting effect.  But I believe that most are overlooking certainly the largest explanation for the continuing decline of American Freemasonry.

It is precisely Freemasonry’s interaction with civil society, its sympathetic response to what is troubling the nation that brings it into the focus of the uninitiated individual. When Freemasonry leads society into nobleness and righteousness, when it is society’s conscience it becomes a highly regarded institution upon which many will look with favor if not join.

That is not, however, to promote what American Grand Lodge’s of today have done to Freemasonry by turning the Craft into a giant Service Club where Freemasonry tries to use society for its own advantage and gain, where it tries to buy and bribe friends and recognition. There is a big difference between interacting with a nation and serving a nation.

It is often said that no one knows who we are as Freemasons. That’s because we are not interacting with society with the best interests of society at heart but rather merely concerned with ourselves and what’s in it for us.

American Freemasonry was never meant to be or destined to be a secretive monastic society, totally withdrawn from civil society and all its goings on. When Freemasonry actually rolled up its sleeves and became immersed in the “big play”, the overwhelming issue of the day, it was noticed, it garnered membership and it had influence.

When Freemasonry was concerned with civil society’s concerns it was able to LEAD society.  As a leader involved with the well being of society, it was an accepted institution. When Freemasonry hid in its own shadow and pushed toleration to the extreme of being “politically correct”, then “Masonically correct” Freemasonry started to whither and die.

Everybody today talks about Freemasonry staying out of religion and politics. Most, however, are neglecting to clarify that it is partisan politics and sectarian religion that Freemasonry prohibits. There is a big difference between broad moral and social issues that define the structure of civil society and specific policies advocated as a remedy.

Freemasonry was always at its height when it chose to lead society.  As a product of the Enlightenment it championed religious freedom, democratic government, public school education and separation of church and state. American colonial Freemasonry provided a system of networking in a society with no communication systems. It played a vital role in the formation of this nation. While one can point to the midnight ride of Paul Revere let’s not forget his and his Lodge’s possible involvement in the dumping of tea into Boston Harbor. Nor should we overlook the fact that at least 42% of the Generals commissioned by the Continental Congress were Masons. It was the values of Freemasonry that were drafted into the Constitution of the United States. Freemasons set up the government of this nation, authored the “noble experiment.”

As a new nation American Freemasonry was instrumental in the formation of public schools and universities.  Men of letters came to Freemasonry not for the arts and sciences taught in Lodge but because Freemasonry was a learning promoter.

“Brothers officially sponsored educational endeavors that reached beyond the fraternity. This encouragement of broader education seemed to link the fraternity to the post-Revolutionary vision of an enlightened society built around equality and openness, values that brothers came to see expressed even in their order’s structure.  By supporting learning and by teaching and embodying republican relationships, Masonry seemed to be upholding and advancing the Revolutionary experiment itself.”(1)

During the civil War Freemasonry was the only organization, society or institution that did not split in two.  Even churches became promoters of either the Union or the Confederacy. Freemasonry, as in the Revolutionary War, contained many military Lodges that had a great influence on holding the armies together.  But its greatest Civil War influence was ameliorating the harshness of the fighting and acting as a healer of society.

Post Civil War saw American Freemasonry usher in an age of great Masonic authorship and great Masonic building. Its ability to grow right along with the industrialization of the United States was a great asset to its continued influence.

Somewhere into the 20th century Freemasonry lost its leadership role. Oh it wasn’t evident right away. The nation was consumed with fighting two world wars and the post war push of returning soldiers who wished to continue the exhilarating uplift of camaraderie kept the numbers high and the coffers full. But by 1960 American Freemasonry was living on past laurels and fresh blood was nowhere to be seen. The plain fact is that American Freemasonry became SOCIALLY IRRELEVANT.

If Freemasonry had remained socially relevant it could have lead the nation into breaking the color barrier and busting Black discrimination in society. William Upton was the Jackie Robinson of Freemasonry.  As Grand Master of Washington State in 1898 he recognized Prince Hall and black/white fraternization.  If we had built on this start, even if ever so slowly, Freemasonry could have led the nation into integration thereby avoiding the confrontation of Rosa Parks and the marches of Martin Luther King.

As one of the only institutions worldwide to actually live peaceful, cooperative brotherhood among people of different races, religions, cultures and economic circumstances, American Freemasonry was in a unique position to encourage and promote world peace. People today looking back 50 years ago could have pointed out that the “peace movement” was Freemasonry.  The fact that Freemasonry refused to do so out of fear of offending and being politically incorrect caused it to lose esteem in the eyes of the general public.

If Freemasonry had led the nation in the 50s, if it had been the conscience and the moral compass of the nation in the area of Civil Rights and the peace movement then it would not have lost a whole generation to Masonic membership. Freemasonry would have been respected and revered and consequently flourished.  But instead we turned a blind eye to black lynching and the evil of the KKK and watched in silence from the sidelines while the Vietnam War tore this nation apart.  And then we have the audacity to ask why the generation of the day refused to join Freemasonry. Who was fighting for the soul of the American nation?  It sure wasn’t Freemasonry and we paid the price.

Today we are faced with a worldwide HOLY WAR.  Who better to promote ecumenical and religious tolerance in the world than Freemasonry? Who better to pave the way for a better understanding among different religious traditions than the institution that has actually accomplished that for centuries? This is not partisan politics or sectarian religion.  This is being the moral leader in a time of crisis.  This is spreading the values of Freemasonry just as our Masonic forefathers did in the formation of this nation.

But alas, American Freemasonry would rather withdraw within itself than risk the path of greatness. The result will be continued Masonic stagnation and a general misunderstanding of Freemasonry’s role and purpose by the general public.

(1) “Revolutionary Brotherhood” by Stephen C. Bullock, pg. 145