TOPIC 1
THE FREEMASON IN SOCIETY
by V.W.Bro. Lt.-Col. N.G. Thorne OBE TD DL PGSwdB
The origins of Freemasonry are to be found in biblical
times, but it's
modern revival came at the end of the medieval guild
system.
Growth of the guilds in the middle ages for every
conceivable trade brought
with it three main benefits - the proper training of
apprentices to learn the
skill of the trade, a level of quality control for the
customer and a
brotherhood which provided a form of mutual help and
support for the
guild member and his family.
The decline of the guilds at the end of the 17th century
left a void for the
welfare of the craftsman, who could no longer look to his
guild to provide
the support previously available for him and his family.
It was therefore
only natural that the void should be filled and this was
accomplished by
Freemasonry which was in many respects the forerunner of
the welfare
state in that it provided a form of mutual help. It was
therefore important to
establish whether a candidate was in good health or sound
in wind and
limb. Clearly
the admission of someone likely to make an immediate claim
would not have been fair on the others. This has given the wrong
impression to some of our critics that to this day we only
admit the
able-bodied.
In earlier times, Freemasons were less secretive about
their membership of
a Masonic lodge.
The mason was in fact showing a high degree of
responsibility towards his family and one that others were
keen to emulate.
The main purpose of the relationship was mutual support
and social
discourse and neither could give rise to criticism. Naturally those outside
any system are inclined to jealousy on occasion, but
accusations of
favourable treatment as a consequence were rarer in an age
when
clubability was common at all levels of society. Moreover apart from the
actual signs, tokens and words, the membership was very
open and the
non-mason could become aware of a lot more about what went
on within
the lodge.
Freemasons who were justly proud of their membership
tended to wear
their Masonic regalia on every possible occasion, and not
only when there
was a direct connection.
For example one Lord Lieutenant of a County
who was also the Provincial Grand Master proceeded to lay
the foundation
stone of a hospital in full regalia because his Province
had made a
contribution.
As a result the motives and actions of those concerned
became open to question and Freemasonry was subject to
criticism to
such an extent that it was decided that it should become a
private matter
and regalia would not be worn outside the temple, even at
the festive
board, except by special dispensation.
Moving out of the unwelcome limelight into the shadows
lodges then gave
grounds for criticism, with accusations of excessive
secrecy and the
ultimate claim that Freemasonry was a secret society which
quite clearly it
never has been.
This accusation has not been any easier to dispel as a
result of the injunctions some employers have placed upon
their staff -
sometimes politically motivated - not to become
Freemasons. This has
meant that lists of Freemasons are not easily obtained and
members have
been left to decide whether or not to disclose their
membership of the craft.
It is faced with this background that we approach the last
quarter of the
tercentenary of the formation of the Premier Grand Lodge
of England.
It is a pity that the high ideals and laudable motives of
Freemasonry are
through ignorance or malice so often misunderstood. The overriding duty
of every Freemason is and always has been to God, to Queen
and country
and to family and connections before self or Freemasonry.
Tb put Freemasonry in its proper context, it is essential
to examine the
charge to the new initiate, which says, "As a citizen of
the world, I am to
enjoin you to be exemplary in the discharge of your civil
duties, by never
proposing or at all countenancing any act that may have a
tendency to
subvert the peace and good order of society, by paying due
obedience to
the laws of any State which may for a time become the
place of your
residence or afford you its protection, and above all, by
never losing sight
of the allegiance due to the Sovereign of your native
land, ever
remembering that nature has implanted in your breast a
sacred and
indissoluble attachment towards that country whence you
derived your birth
and infant nurture."
This philosophy is again emphasised at the annual
installation in the
beautifully expressed Charge to all its members,
"Brethren, such is the
nature of our Constitution that as some must of necessity
rule and teach,
so others must of course learn, submit and obey. Humility in each is an
essential qualification.
The Brethren whom the Worshipful Master has
selected to assist him in the ruling and governing of the
Lodge are too well
acquainted with the principles of Masonry, and the Laws of
our Institution,
to warrant any mistrust that they will be found wanting in
the discharge of
the duties of their respective offices, or that they will
exceed the powers
with which they are entrusted; and you, Brethren, I am
sure, are of too
generous a disposition to envy their preferment. I
therefore trust that we
shall have but one aim in view, to please each other and
unite in the grand
design of being happy and communicating happiness. And as this
association has been formed and perfected with so much
unanimity and
concord, long may it continue. May brotherly love and affection ever
distinguish us as men and as Masons. May the principals
and tenets of our
profession, which are founded on the basis of religious
truth and virtue,
teach us to measure our actions by the rule of rectitude,
square our
conduct by the principles of morality, and guide our
inclinations, and even
our thoughts, within the compass of propriety. Hence we learn to be meek,
humble and resigned; to be faithful to our God, our
Country, and our Laws;
to drop a tear of sympathy over the failings of a Brother;
and to pour the
healing balm of consolation into the bosom of the
afflicted. May these
principles and tenets be transmitted, pure and unpolluted,
through this
Lodge from generation to generation."
It is undoubtedly true that in recent years the world
media has become
more powerful than ever before. The full horrors or ecstasy of tragedies
or
triumphs can be seen in the world's living rooms at the
time they happen.
No longer is it possible for military commanders to take
advantage of the
fog of war to the same extent as they have in the past.
Everyone can see
and pronounce judgement on the results of military action
almost
simultaneously as we saw in the Gulf conflict.
This is both good and bad. On the one hand everyone can
make a
judgement of events for themselves on the case presented,
but on the
other this creates an inevitable thirst for news which
means that every nook
and cranny of society is being explored and brought into
the open for
public debate.
In these circumstances, the privacy so eagerly sought by
Freemasonry in the last Fifty years is now difficult to
sustain without
accusations imputed to dark and sinister motives.
The privacy of our ceremonies is readily seized upon by
the media and
others to suggest impropriety. It is inevitable that bad apples are to
be
found in every organisation and Freemasonry cannot expect
to be totally
exempt.
However, the view that Freemasons spend all their time helping
and supporting one another through thick and thin to the
exclusion an
detriment of all others is totally wrong.
The vast majority of Freemasons have no idea whether their
neighbours,
the people they work with or meet in the course of their
business fives, are
also Freemasons.
In fact it can be embarrassing to know and be put in the
position of questioning ones own judgement in giving
preference to one
person rather than another. Those who prematurely attempt to draw
attention to their membership of the craft are therefore
often treated with
suspicion in that they might be drawing attention to their
concern that they
might not be able to compete fairly purely on their own
ability.
In recent years Grand Lodge has been punctilious in
expelling those who
have brought the craft into disrepute and rightly so, but
many members
have a heavy heart in doing so as they have undertaken to
help a brother
in need and there is no reason why they should not do so
but this must not
give any appearance of condoning wrong doing.
Even in our daily fives, if an actual or potential
conflict of duties or interests
is known to exist or is foreseen, a declaration to that
effect should be made
and it may on occasions be prudent to disclose membership
to avoid what
others mistakenly imagine to be a potential conflict or
bias.
It almost seems too obvious to mention that a freemason
must not use his
membership to promote his own or anyone else's business,
professional
or personal interests and a Freemason who transgresses
this rule may
quite properly expect to be suspended from Masonic
activities or even
expelled. Nor
should Freemasonry be allowed to harm a man's family or
other connections by taking too much of his time or his
money or causing
him to act in any other way against their interests.
A Freemasons duty as a citizen must always prevail over
any obligation to
other Freemasons, and any attempt to shield a Freemason
who has acted
dishonourably or unlawfully or to confer an unfair
advantage on another
Freemason is contrary to this prime duty.
To summarise it is important to remember that Freemasonry
is not a secret
society.
However, like many other societies, it regards some of its internal
affairs as private matters for its members. Its aims and principles are not
secret, and copies of the constitutions and rules can be
obtained by
interested members of the public. The only secrets of Freemasonry are
concerned with its traditional modes of recognition and
its ceremonies are
private, but in ordinary conversation there is very little
about Freemasonry
which may not be discussed. Moreover on inquiry for acceptable
reasons,
Freemasons are free and will be proud to acknowledge their
own
membership as their predecessors have done now for 275
years.
The general interest of the public has grown, is growing
and will not
diminish in all facets of life and Freemasonry cannot
expect to escape this
scrutiny.
However, providing we are able to show that we have joined for
the right motives, namely for charitable and social
purposes, there is no
reason for us to be ashamed of our membership. In fact, quite the reverse.
We have a long and proud history of service to society in
general and to
those in need in particular - whoever they may be.
TOPIC 1 (b)
Should a Police Officer be a Freemason?
By W Bro. R C Young, PGPurs
The question of whether a police officer can carry out his
duties
professionally and fairly and be a Freemason is a subject
which causes
considerable concern and anxiety to both police officers
and the public
alike.
It is widely believed that Freemasonry is strongly
represented in the Police
Service and as the Service occupies a special position in
society, police
officers must be seen to be above reproach if the Service
is to enjoy a
successful and essential partnership with the public.
Membership of what
is perceived as a secret society casts doubts, rightly or
wrongly, on the
Police Service and criminal justice system. It is also believed that the
organisation is there to promote advantages to its
members.
Freemasons maintain that Freemasonry is not a secret
society but a society
with secrets.
This distinction generates much puzzlement amongst laymen
but there is some difference. A truly secret society would be one where
its
very existence would be unknown to anyone other than its
members. This
is not the case with regard to Freemasonry as its
existence is widely
known, as are many of its members.
Also there is nothing about the organisation that is
incapable of research.
Many books are to be found in book shops and libraries,
e.g. 'Inside the
Brotherhood' by Martin Short, 'Darkness Visible and
Christian by Degrees'
by Walton Hannah and 'The Brotherhood' by Stephen Knight.
Each of
these sets out the aims, ceremonies, signs, symbols and
passwords of the
organisation.
In addition, television and the tabloids have frequently carried
out exposures.
Other organisations which have secrets, e.g. The Royal
Andeluvian Order
of Buffaloes, The Elks, The Moose and The Knights of Saint
Columbia, do
not attract media attention but little is known about
their activities or
membership, least of all how many police officers
participate.
Recently Grand Lodge decided to change its policy, whereby
Freemasonry
became more open and accountable. A parallel situation has occurred in
recent years within the Police Service, including the
similarity of opening up
Masonic centres and police buildings for public viewing
and inspection.
Whilst this open policy is generally applauded by most
Masons, police
officers and the public alike, for some it may well have
led to more
problems than it has solved. For a policeman who is also a Mason the
problem has magnified.
Some tabloids have identified police offers, mainly senior
ones, as
Freemasons and implied impropriety because of their
membership. For
them the media pressure has become intense and an
intrusion on their
private life, impacting on their careers, families,
friends and work
colleagues.
Freemasonry has this effect on the media. It is very easy to see conspiracy
when dealing with a group whose membership is perceived to
be secret.
Critics of it are also not going to be too concerned about
dealing fairly with
an organisation they perceive to be set up for the unfair
benefit of its
members. The
tragedy of this is that while the Police Service is seen as a
stronghold of Freemasonry, any mud which is thrown at
Masons in general
sticks to the Service as a whole.
There are many, some of whom are police officers, e.g. Ex
Chief Inspector
Woolard of the Metropolitan Police, who has carried out an
intense media
campaign against Freemasonry, who feel they have been the
victims of
Masonic conspiracy.
The media will always latch onto such people,
whatever the merits of their case, and the whole round of
smears and
innuendo will surface again. Each time it does the public's image of
the
police will inevitably suffer. Each time the public will suspect,
however
groundlessly, that there is one law for the policeman who
is a Freemason
and one law for everyone else.
Some people would like to see Police Regulations ban
officers from joining
Freemasonry and a more liberal use made of Regulation 10
and Schedule
2.1 of the Police Regulations 1987, which deals with the
restrictions on the
private life of members.
It states "A member shall at all times abstain from
any activity which is likely to interfere with the
impartial discharge of his
duties or which is likely to give rise to the impression
among members of
the public that it may so interfere".
It is conceivable that this Regulation could be used in a
disciplinary action
if it could be proved that an officer's involvement with
Freemasonry
interfered with his duty.
In 1985 the Commissioner of Police of the
Metropolis, Sir Kenneth Newman, published and served on
every serving
officer of that Force a manual entitled 'The Policing
Principals of the
Metropolitan Police'.
It advised officers not to join Freemasonry as it was
incompatible with police duties and suggested officers who
were already
Freemasons should ponder on whether they should remain.
Whilst this
could not be a direct order as it is not unlawful for
anyone to belong to
Freemasonry and it would be an unwarranted interference
with private life,
it was laid down as an edict and many acted upon it,
fearing the possible
consequences.
This manual is given to every recruit who joined the
Service and every effort is made to dissuade them from
joining.
The Chief Constables of West Mercia, North Wales and
Lincoinshire, to
name but a few, repeated the advice and similarly
discouraged their
officers. Sir
James Anderton, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester,
stated that he wanted stricter guidelines as he felt that
membership of the
society in general was incompatible with membership of the
Police Service.
The Chief Constables of the West Midlands, Essex and West
Yorkshire
stated they would not be following the Metropolitan Police
example, as did
Mr John Duke, the Chief Constable of Hampshire, stating
There are already
enough restrictions on a police officer's private life.
If Freemasonry was
incompatible with being a police officer I am quite sure
the law would
prohibit it".
In 1988 Mr Dale Campbell-Savours, MP, tried unsuccessfully
to introduce
a bill in the House of Commons prohibiting police officers
becoming
Freemasons and called on all who were to resign.
This pressure has inevitably taken its toll on serving
officers who are
Freemasons.
Many have resigned from their Lodges, gone on the country
list or have been forced to keep a very low profile.
Similarly, officers have had to take the same course of
action when they
have found themselves in Lodges with brethren convicted of
criminal
offences. The
Discipline code prohibits association with criminals and
police officers have found themselves in an impossible
position.
Fortunately this has now been resolved since Grand Lodge
has been
expelling miscreants.
A great concern to many police officers, both Freemasons
and otherwise,
is the question of promotion. Those who are not Freemasons accuse its
members of favouring the selection of other Masons but
since some chief
officers have announced Freemasonry to be incompatible
with police duty,
there is a great concern that Freemasons are deliberately
not being
selected.
There is evidence in support of the latter, as some Freemasons
have been informed that they will not be selected whilst
they remain in the
Craft, despite assurances that it will not happen.
Freemasons believe there should be no difficulty in a
police officer being
a Freemason as the attestation of a constable on
appointment lies four
square and bears more than a passing similarity to the
Charge. The initiate
is also told before he takes his obligation that "In those
vows there is
nothing incompatible with your civil, moral or religious
duties". This clearly
shows that a policeman can be a sound and respected
Freemason as well
as a dedicated and honourable policeman.
To most, joining Freemasonry means joining a body of men
who place
integrity and duty to their fellow man above all else.
These are exactly the
qualities required in every police officer. In addition, in both police officers
and Freemasons, there are many examples where personal
dedication,
probity and honour are second to none. The thoughts of others are
reflected in charity giving and the wide remit in
dispensing the monies
raised to worthy causes beyond Freemasonry.
Freemasons believe that if every policeman, Freemason or
otherwise, could
uphold the edicts and principles of Freemasonry, then
there would be a
very fine Police Service indeed.
In his address to Grand Lodge on 12 September 1984, the MW
Pro Grand
Master Lord Cornwallis said 'There is nothing incompatible
between
Freemasonry and the Police Service. The principals of Freemasonry should
indeed improve the quality of a Freemason's discharge of
his public and
private responsibilities, whatever they may by. Freemasons are forbidden
to use their membership to promote their or anyone else's
business,
professional or personal interests and are subject to
Masonic discipline if
they transgress.
Finally, their duties as citizens - even more if they are
police officers - must prevail."
Some policemen are Masons and some Masons are policemen.
Both have
to be of strong moral fibre and be prepared to stand up
and be counted.
It seems the most successful of both invariably have very
strong
personalities.
They have to be in the present situation.
Should a Christian be a Freemason?
by W Bro. The Rev. Norman Lea JP BA
The question which this paper seeks to address has, over
recent years,
assumed an importance and a relevance that older
generations of
Freemasons would not have thought possible. This has occurred because
various Church governing bodies - The Methodist
Conference, and the
General Synod of the Church of England - have declared the
two to be
incompatible.
It is the basic and overriding contention of this paper that
there is no theological or doctrinal, moral or social
reason why a Christian
should not be a Freemason.
It is necessary, first of all, to attempt an outline of
what the Christian faith
teaches. It is
necessary, because it is essential to know what is meant
when a person calls himself a Christian.
The Christian is one who believes in a God who is the
Creator God, Creator
of 'all things in heaven and earth'. The 'crown' of Creation, according to
the Bible, is Man, created 'a little lower than the
angels', having within
himself the means to respond to and acknowledge God. Indeed, the Bible
stresses that Man is only truly Man to the extent in which
he does, through
worship and deed, respond and acknowledge God to the
fullest possible
extent. It is
at this point that the picture becomes distorted.
We do not,
individually or collectively, respond to or acknowledge
God. In fact, our
human condition is such that with unrelenting application,
we seem to go
headlong in the opposite direction to that which
providence and destiny
point us. To
the theologian this state of affairs is know as Sin, sin that
seems part of our nature, and sin that we actively
commission in our failure
to be what God intends us to be.
God intended us to be not only creatures created out of
love, but beings
who could respond to that love. His eternal Love is such that he cannot
and will not abandon us, His creatures, to our own fate.
The Old
Testament is really the beginning of this story of God's
relationship with us
His people. It
is the bitter sweet account of this loving relationship, the
constancy of God's love and the prodigality of that of His
people. The Old
Testament at its best looks forward to the time when God
will 'bring His
people home', when He will give us the means to come back
to Him and
to fulfil our true role in His scheme of Creation. The New Testament is the
realisation of this vision. The Birth, Death and Resurrection of
Jesus is the
fulfilment of all that the prophets, and the aspirations
to which the Old
Testament had looked forward. Here, finally and irrevocably was the
means to bridge the gap between humanity as a whole and
God, its loving
Creator and Sustainer. The Christian will not and cannot
compromise on
this basic truth.
But this truth of what God has done for us in the person
of Jesus, is not a
mere cerebral truth demanding only intellectual assent, it
is a truth that
demands various responses from those who would be part of
it. By means
of the Church, or the Sacraments, or the life of Prayer,
or the inspiration of
Holy Scripture, the Christian feeds off the Redeeming work
of Christ as
displayed on the Cross and the Empty Tomb. It is by these 'instruments'
of Redemption that the Christian knows it is possible to
begin a relationship
of love with God, and by personal sacrifice and
dedication, to allow that
relationship to grow and mature. It is an all embracing relationship, open
ended to see the whole world and everything in it as
within the scope of
Redemption.
Once it becomes exclusive and introverted its power is
negated and its saving strength diminished.
Freemasonry does not challenge or seek to challenge
anything that has
been said above.
It does not set itself up as a rival or even a parallel
religion, to do so would mean that it would be impossible
for a Christian to
acknowledge let along practice Freemasonry. Masonry does not offer a
'system' of Redemption, it does not seek to enhance or
provide a means
by which the Mason is expected or encouraged to see his
Masonic
activities as being acts of worship. A Masonic Lodge is not a church, but
a group of men who seek to implement certain worthy,
upright and highly
desirable common basic ideals, which can but add to the
richness and
variety of life and living.
The Masonic world, is a world rich in symbolism and high
ideals. Its
principle symbol is that of the Temple, built by King
Solomon in response
to God's command.
The story of its construction, quite naturally, receives
a great deal of poetic license in Masonic ritual. Part of that poetry is the
vision of giving life to the symbol by identifying the
Mason with the process
of construction.
The Masonic ideal is to construct within the individual the
virtues of brotherly love, relief for those less fortunate
than oneself and the
search for truth and personal integrity. The symbol of 'skilled craftsmen'
chosen originally for their expertise and skill for the
great work in hand, is
Masonically the skill of shaping from the raw material of
each member of
a Lodge a deeper understanding of the concept of
brotherhood and the
sharing of common concerns. The Masonic Lodge is the 'workplace' for
both the demonstration and the teaching of such skills.
Solomon called upon God for help in the great endeavour he
had
undertaken. So
likewise, the Masonic Lodge calls on God for help in its
endeavours.
This is no empty, ritualistic gesture, but a 'corner-stone' that
underpins all Masonic activity. It would seem quite natural, in this
context,
for the symbolic 'builder' - the Mason - to refer to
God,in the symbol of the
Architect, and to do so without in anyway diminishing the
concept of God
or indeed to create another deity which the Christian
could not
acknowledge or countenance.
The Craft is precisely what it says it is. A Craft for building a moral
structure centred upon those who seek to participate in
its activities. It
seeks neither to challenge or rival the claims of faith
made by the Christian.
Masonry cannot and does not diminish the Lordship of
Christ, or replace
His Redeeming and Saving Power. This paper has tried,
within its limits, to
affirm wholeheartedly the Christian standpoint and to
outline the Masonic
view, and to see no challenge from the Craft to those who
wish to practice
and uphold the Christian life.
RELATIONS BETWEEN GRAND LODGES AND PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF
FREEMASONRY
by R.W.Bro. J.M. Raylor Prov G.M. Yorkshire, North and
East Ridings
1. Freemasons know about the basic principles for Grand
Lodge
recognition, which have governed relations between Grand
Lodges for a
very long time and were codified and adopted by the "Home"
Grand
Lodges in 1929.
They are set out informally in Grand Lodge's leaflet
"Freemasonry's External Relations", which also mentions
irregular or
unrecognised Grand Lodges.
"There are some self-styled Masonic bodies which do not
meet these
standards, e.g. which do not require a belief in a Supreme
Being, or which
allow or encourage their members to participate as such in
political matters.
These bodies are not recognised by the Grand Lodge of
England as being
Masonically regular, and Masonic contact with them is
forbidden."
2. The non-Masonic world finds Freemasonry a difficult
concept and would
not be eager to add regularity for further understanding,
but members of
the Craft should know what is involved, so that in
explaining Freemasonry
as practised under regular Grand Lodges they can point out
that Masonic
bodies which do not comply with the basic principles are
irregular, and
cannot be recognised as Grand Lodges.
Freemasonry is many things to many people
To the church it is a religion.
To young Masons it is out of date and out of touch and not
prepared to
change anything, and it should.
To old Masons it is always changing things, and it should
not.
Mr Average accuses it of helping its own and doing nothing
for anyone
else. It is
secretive - it is even likened to the Mafia.
If a Policeman is also a Mason he is considered to be
corrupt.
Those of us who are Masons and know what we are and what
we do, find
it difficult to understand how we can be thought of in
this way. How did it
come about?
We have been in existence far longer than most
organisations of a similar
nature and We have our traditions, many of which go back a
long way.
We have given large sums of money to non Masonic charities
for many
years and we have not sought publicity as that was our way
of giving. The
public, therefore, knew nothing about that side of
Freemasonry. We
similarly wished to conduct our Masonic life with the same
lack of publicity,
but this caused concern and it was thought we had
something to hide.
Giving the appearance of secrecy has, understandably,
created mistrust in
all we do.
Let me tell you of a Mason in my Province who is an old
boy of the school.
When he was to go before Past Masters Committee before
becoming a
Mason he asked his Mother if his Father had ever told her
anything about
his own interview.
She replied that he had not, and added that he never
told her anything about Freemasonry and so she knew
nothing. All she did
know was that they kept themselves to themselves and no
one outside
Freemasonry knows who they are, so do not be surprised
when you enter
the room to find them wearing hoods or having their faces
covered with
masks.
That was 40 years ago when Freemasonry was still enjoying
a post war
boom.
Membership was increasing sharply, new Lodges were being
consecrated and Lodges had waiting lists. The media had not focused its
unhelpful attention on us. If that was a widow's perception of
Freemasonry
then, just think what is in the minds of the general
public today.
In the debate at the General Synod in July 1987, the
Archbishop of York
saw Freemasonry as "a fairly harmless eccentricity". The majority of the
delegates saw us as much more sinister than that. We were blasphemers
- though this was later withdrawn - we were a religion
which did not
acknowledge the Founder of the Christian faith, Paganism
was involved in
our "worship" and although many thinking members of the
Church have
had a change in mind, much remains to be done before the
majority of the
clergy and laity change their minds.
We were all surprised when the Chief Commissioner of the
Metropolitan
Police advised members of his Force not be Freemasons. The
question of
dual loyalties raised its head. The Press, without of course, any proof
whatsoever, sowed the doubts about favouritism in
promotion that
somehow Freemasons got away with things which other people
did not.
If somebody like the head of a distinguished police force
hinted at all not
being well, then doubts would certainly be created in the
public's mind.
Then a certain P2 Lodge - always referred to as a Masonic
Lodge, of
course - reared its ugly head. Corruption in high places - yes, those
Freemasons are all for themselves, look after themselves,
etc., etc. become
Firmly implanted in the public's mind and the continuing
saga of the
member of P2 found murdered under a London bridge has not
helped to
remove the image of the former penalties.
We have to face the fact that we still have the image of
being a secret
society - despite the fact that our H.Q. is open to the
public every day - we
are still considered to be a prosperous select group who
look after
themselves and their own - despite our nonMasonic
charitable work, of
people who favour one another when it comes to promotions
etc. These
points need not be laboured, we know that they are brought
about through
ignorance.
Yes, the general perception of Freemasonry is not a healthy
one and in our hearts we know it. We do the cause of
Freemasonry a
disservice if we bury our heads in the sand and pretend
that given time all
will come good again.
EXAMINATION OF THE CAUSE
Why and how did we get ourselves into this position? If we
look back to the
last century or even a period of 60 years ago, Freemasonry
was held in
high regard by the public. Membership was something to be attained
as
an ambition.
In 1883 H.R.H. The Prince of Wales, was the Grand Master
and he visited
York to lay the foundation stone of the new Institute of
Popular Science and
Literature.
York was fully decorated for the occasion.
Provincial Grand
Lodge was opened in the Assembly Rooms and Grand Lodge was
opened
in the Guildhall.
Both at 10.00 a.m. In full regalia all these Masons
processed through York for the Grand Master to lay the
foundation stone.
A banquet was held after the ceremony with a mixture of
Loyal, Masonic
and Civil Toasts.
The whole event was recorded in the local press.
It is a great shame that Masonic exposure such as this no
longer happens.
A glance through the editions of papers like the Daily
Telegraph shows that
in the 1930s Freemasonry received a "good" press.
Pictures of the laying
of the Foundation Stone of the R.M. Hospital show the then
Prince of
Wales, Duke of York and Duke of Kent all in full Masonic
regalia.
For some unknown reason attitudes to public relations
changed and we
went in on ourselves.
We were constantly told not to comment on
Freemasonry or discuss the Craft outside of the Lodge or
with non Masons.
For a period of almost 50 years we acted as though we were
a secret
society. No
wonder our detractors had a field day. They knew that they
could write what they liked about us, produce so-called
documentary films
for television etc., safe in the knowledge that Freemasons
would obey the
"no comment" command.
We only have ourselves to blame for the position we now
find ourselves in.
We have paid a heavy price for failing to realise the
importance of good
P.R. work. We
must learn from that era and never make those mistakes
again.
HOW DO WE RECTIFY THE POSITION?
We have made a very good start. We now have the video "The
Freemasons", and our publicity leaflets, our permanent
exhibition and
Grand Lodge being open to the public etc. We have only scratched the
surface and Grand Lodge can only give a lead. It is up to
every Freemason
to be an ambassador for the Craft.
In my province we have given great emphasis to holding
Open Days where
non Masons can actually enter our buildings and ask about
things that
worry them. In
Hull there is an annual Civic Weekend when buildings are
open to the public.
The oldest Masonic Hall has joined in and opened its
doors for about 10 years.
Each year 1000 - 1500 visitors are shown round.
We have found it a good idea to invite selected groups
rather than just
open the doors.
This gives the opportunity to be well organised and
prepared so that the visitors can leave better informed.
We had a visiting party at the meeting of the Synod in
York in 1987. It
made us realise that because of their fears, non Masons
can actually be
frightened about entering a Masonic building. It was some time before they
relaxed enough to ask the questions they really wanted to
put to us. Once
they relaxed we had a very interesting and enjoyable
discussion.
The attitude of one lady visibly changed as the meeting
progressed, when
she realised that all her fears were unfounded. As she left she said, "I wish
we had in the Church the same enthusiasm as you obviously
have in
Freemasonry".
At another Open Day the Archdeacon thanked us for the
invitation and said that it is a pity we had not been so
open in the past, for
if we had, we would not have the problem we have today.
If people accept an invitation it means they are prepared
to listen. Those
who do not, accept are the worry, as they know they do not
like it although
they know nothing about it.
The points visitors raise are usually the same few. They worry that we are
a religion, about secrecy and that we only look inwardly
and never
outwardly. A
regular comment is that we are seen to be like the Mafia.
Provided that the guides are well prepared and that they
give honest
answers, Open Days can remove the misconceptions that
abound. If the
guide cannot answer a question, it is far better that he
says so and finds
out from someone else rather than appear evasive.
We must remember that we really have nothing to hide and
much of which
to be proud. A
Freemason relies on a happy home life and there should
not be secrets between husband and wife. It is wrong that wives should
know nothing about what their husbands do in Freemasonry. I encourage
my Lodges to involve families much more. Several now invite their ladies
to join them for a meal after the Ceremony. This can be a sit down meal,
but many prefer a buffet as it allows more people to meet.
To undo problems of the past, I am convinced that we all
must be better
informed about our aims, our objects and our achievements
so that we can
discuss Freemasonry with confidence with non Masons. We can overcome
problems of misunderstanding if we all work at it
together.
How open should a Freemason be?
by W Bro D.E.A. Jones, CBE, DL, LLB, PSGD
1
SECRECY AS A BASIS FOR CRITICISM
"The secrecy that surrounds Freemasonry has traditionally
been its greatest
strength.
Today it has become its own worst enemy".
These are the
introductory sentences on the dust cover of Stephen
Knight's book, "The
Brotherhood".
Few, if any, Freemasons would regard Knight's work as a
fair and accurate portrayal of their organisation's nature
and activities. Most
would nonetheless agree that the allegation in the second
sentence is
worth of close scrutiny, especially in the light of
comments by other non
Masonic individuals and organisations in recent years.
A spokesman for
the United Reform Church, in a radio discussion following
a relatively
tolerant report on Freemasonry, stated:.......... and the
only judgemental
thing, I think, in the report is to say that there is
really too much secrecy
about Freemasonry for it to fit easily into the Church
picture". Other
reports, more deprecatory in tone, which were presented to
the General
Synod of the Church of England and to the Methodist
Conference
respectively contained censorious references to the
existence and extent
of secrecy in Masonic affairs.
Freemasonry's most hostile critics undoubtedly regard the
'secrecy' factor
as the most potent weapon in their otherwise rather scanty
armoury. Less
antagonistic individuals have frequently voiced their
distaste at what they
deem to be an excessive emphasis on secrecy; some of them
have
rejected Masonic membership for that reason. Typical expressions are:
"We had believed that the Masons were a secret
organisation whose sole
aim was for the betterment of its own members" and: "I
concluded that you
were a secret society and that is why I never joined".
Those who express their abhorrence of the 'secrecy' factor
invariably use
the expression 'secrecy' in a highly pejorative sense in
so far as
Freemasonry is concerned.
To them, its existence suggests that freemasons are
engaged in unworthy
activities or are committed firmly to principles which are
in some way
nefarious, and which they dare not confess. In other words, they see
Freemasonry as conspiratorial in character, and it should
therefore be
impugned. They
would view it as Shakespeare viewed those who
conspired to murder Caesar:
"Oh Conspiracy! Shamist thou to show
thy dangerous brow by night,
when evils are most free?
O then by day where wilt thou find a cavern
dark enough to mask thy monstrous visage?
Seek none, Conspiracy; hide it in smiles
and affability."
2 THE ORIGINS OF MASONIC SECRECY
In considering the subject of secrecy in the Masonic
tradition, it is pertinent
to recall that secrecy has frequently been the sine quo
non for the
continued existence of numerous groups and organisations,
Masonic and
otherwise, the purposes and principles of which could in
no sense be
described as malevolent or contrary to the common good.
This was the
key to survival in societies where oppression and
persecution prevailed.
Papal bugs in the 18th Century, the threat of
excommunication, and the
interdiction of Masonic assemblies in many European
Countries, on penalty
of death in some instances, caused lodges to conceal their
existence and
masons their Masonic identity. In more recent times, it will be
remembered
that Freemasonry was reviled in Nazi Germany and
Freemasons were
persecuted.
Small wonder, then, that in those circumstances the rules of
secrecy were regarded as a practical necessity rather than
as the product
of an ancient tradition.
That tradition is, of course, a long-standing one. Robert Macoy, the 19th
Century Compiler of a "Cyclopedia and Dictionary of
Freemasonry" in
America, implied that Freemasonry was a secret society,
relating it to "all
the great associations of antiquity the objects of which
were to civilize and
improve the condition of mankind". Macoy dismissed criticism of the
"secrecy" element rather briefly and petulantly in the
following words: "The
objection often urged against the Order on account of this
peculiar feature
is too puerile to be considered". Other writers, of a more esoteric
disposition, regarded secrecy or mystery as inherent to
Masonry, e.g. the
American writer Joseph Fort Newton who, in propounding the
theory of the
Secret Doctrine, referred to it as "a hidden teaching
understood only by
those fit to receive it". Yet, Newton concluded, there was no
mystery in
Masonry, save the mystery of all great and simple things.
Most
Freemasons would agree that the 'secret' or 'mystery' is
in this sense not
readily definable.
A less pedantic and probably more realistic explanation of
the origins of
Masonic secrecy lies in the fact that Freemasonry is an
extension of the
stonemason's Guilds in the Middle Ages. As these were closed societies
of operative masons which jealously guarded their trade
secrets they
established set ceremonies for the admission of
apprentices and a system
of signs and passwords for the purpose of identifying as
operative masons
those travelling workmen who belonged to other lodges.
3 THE FORMAL REQUIREMENTS OF FREEMASONRY IN RELATION TO
SECRECY
These are surprisingly few in number. They consist of.
i) The Antient Charges which, in relation to "Behaviour in
the presence of
Strangers not Masons" command caution in a mason's words
and carriage,
that the most penetrating stranger shall not be able to
discuss or find out
what is not proper to be intimated and, in relation to
"Behaviour towards a
Strange Brother," masons are told "to examine him........
that you may not
be imposed upon by an ignorant, false, pretender whom you
are to reject
with contempt and derision and beware of giving him any
hints of
Knowledge."
Insofar as "Behaviour at home and in your neighbourhood"
is concerned,
Freemasons are enjoined "to act as becomes a moral and
wise man;
particularly not to let your family, friends and
neighbours know the
concerns of the lodge, etc., but wisely to consult your
own honour, and that
of your ancient brotherhood, for reasons not to be
mentioned here".
ii) The Masonic Obligations. These, in the three Craft degrees refer
to the
"secrets or mysteries" which are never to be revealed.
Our ritual comes
closest to defining these in the Charge after Initiation,
namely that secrecy
consists in an inviolable adherence to the Obligation -
never improperly to
disclose any of the Masonic secrets entrusted to the
Candidate. Those
secrets are, by strong inference, the appropriate signs,
steps, grips and
words disclosed to the Candidate in the course of the
ceremonies.
4 RECENT AFFIRMATIONS AND GUIDELINES
The United Grand Lodge has stated unequivocally that
Freemasonry is not
a secret society.
It had been argued long ago that only in a very
unimportant sense of the word could the Craft be called a
secret society.
Anybody could belong to it, if he had the requisite
qualities. There were
checks on indiscriminate admission, but in that sense many
London clubs
could be called secret associations, since their doors
were more jealously
guarded than those of a Freemason's lodge!
Nevertheless, like countless other Societies it is
entitled to regard itself as
a private, as opposed to a secret, organisation. As such, it should not be
expected to disclose all its affairs, its discussions, or
its internal procedures
to anyone who might demand them. Its constitution and rules are in any
event available to members of the public, as are numerous
explanatory
pamphlets relating to its nature and principles.
Another guideline, perhaps more relevant to the subject of
this paper, is the
United Grand Lodge's declaration that on inquiry for
acceptable reasons,
Freemasons are free and will be proud to acknowledge their
own
membership.
5 SECRECY OR OPENNESS - ATTITUDES REVIEWED
Many Freemasons, despite the well-publicised policies of
the United Grand
Lodge relating to secrecy and privacy, remain doubtful as
to the extent to
which they, as individuals, should discuss Freemasonry
with "outsiders".
Some, nurtured for many years in a Masonic environment in
which they
regarded absolute secrecy as the norm, will be reluctant
to utter a word
about Freemasonry outside their immediate family circle.
To them, the
smallest breach in the dams of secrecy and privacy would
seem regressive
and unwarranted.
Others, anxious to avoid being furtive, and aware that
a deceitful attitude on the part of the individual Masons
may contribute to
public disdain of Freemasonry in general, might prefer a
greater degree of
frankness than the expressed policies of the United Grand
Lodge appear
to allow.
Clearly, those aspects of secrecy which are an integral
part of Freemasonry
must be preserved and protected. Nevertheless, an excessive aura of
secrecy going beyond that which the Masonic charges and
traditions
require, and which may well brand Freemasons as evasive or
shifty,
especially in relation to their membership of the Craft,
should be
discouraged.
Freemasonry does not - and need not - court popularity; at
the same time it cannot afford to allow its public image
to be tarnished by
unnecessary impedimenta.
What guidelines would be appropriate in this respect? The
following
suggestions are put forward for discussion. They do not transgress the
fundamental requirements of the Antient Charges and the
Masonic
Obligations, and whilst they go a little way beyond the
avowed policies of
the United Grand Lodge, they are not significantly
inconsistent with them.
i) Freemasons, as a general rule, should be prepared to
acknowledge, with
pride, their membership of the Craft. The United Grand
Lodge allows them
to do so "on inquiry for acceptable (or respectable)
reasons." This suggests
that a Freemason may not, in ordinary conversation,
volunteer to a friend
that he is a mason.
Might not this policy be described as "ultra-cautious"?
That policy suggests further that if asked the simple
question "Are you a
mason?", a Freemason's retort should be "Why do you ask?",
and before
replying in the affirmative he should judge the adequacy
of the reason for
the enquiry.
Should he regard the reason as inadequate or unacceptable,
his choice is to say "no" (a lie) or to refrain from
answering, which is
tantamount to admitting (rather than claiming with pride!)
membership of
the Craft.
Should not the United Grand Lodge review, or at least re-word,
its policy in this respect? It is open to doubt whether
the majority of
freemasons, in divulging membership, have acted within the
strict terms of
that policy.
Truth, after all is one of the Grand Principles on which the
Order is founded!
ii) Freemasons should always disclose their membership of
the Craft in
circumstances where non-disclosure would be contrary to a
legal
requirement or to accepted standards of conduct in public
bodies. e.g. a
Councillor who is a Freemason should always declare his
interest and
refrain from discussion or voting on any issue involving a
Masonic interest,
such as a planning consent for the development of a
Masonic building. He
should do so whenever a Masonic interest is likely to
benefit or be
detrimentally affected.
Police officers, too, should ask themselves if they
should not disclose their Masonic membership whenever they
are required
to investigate matters involving fellow-masons.
iii) Freemasons should never divulge their Masonic
membership - even to
one who is believed to be a fellow-mason - for purposes of
personal profit
or personal advancement, or in the case of a criminal
investigation, for the
purpose of securing unwarranted assistance from an officer
conducting the
investigation.
iv) Freemasons may engage in discussions about the general
nature of
Freemasonry, its aims, and its principles. Indeed, a readiness to promote
its aims and principles in serious conversation with
responsible individuals
should be commended.
As the United Grand Lodge has put it, in ordinary
conversation there is very little in Freemasonry which may
not be
discussed.
v) Clearly, those secrets which are covered in the Masonic
Obligations must
never be divulged or referred to. Non-masons who may be curious about
certain other matters, such as the nature or content of
the Masonic
ceremonies should not have their curiosity satisfied.
These, and indeed all
proceedings within lodges, are matters to be shared and
enjoyed by
Freemasons alone: their revelation to nonmasons would
undoubtedly
detract from their value.
They, together with the secrets covered by the
Obligations, comprise much of "what is not proper to be
intimated". (Antient
Charges).
There are other actions and attitudes which Freemasons can
take or adopt
to render Freemasonry more open and therefore more natural
and
acceptable in the eyes of the public. Opening Masonic buildings to public
view, the use of Masonic dining facilities by the public
on a commercial
basis, and the removal of some of the less desirable
features of many
Masonic buildings such as bricked-up windows, excessive
anonymity in
appearance, and general drabness are all matters which go
hand in hand
with Masonic openness: they are more appropriate, however,
for discussion
in another subsidiary paper.
How should Freemasons relate to the Public
by W Bro B Malkinson PAGDC
MY ANSWER: "By example and communication: by the public
work they do
and by the written and spoken word".
MY ARGUMENT: Freemasons should relate to those who are not
Freemasons 'Today - Tomorrow - 2000" by a greater
acknowledgement of
the value of communication in its many forms. Our secrets and our privacy
have long since gone: why labour under the
misapprehension, as some still
do, that they are still with us? Let us now speak out.
Masonic principles and teachings make us aware of a
quality of life that
would not be ours but for our membership of the
Brotherhood and this is
often used to advantage in the community work in which
many Freemasons
are involved.
Both the work and those responsible for it should, where
appropriate, be made more widely known by better
communication and by
an even greater commitment should circumstances fairly
warrant. In this
way we could also relate from where our inner or differing
strengths are
derived.
In a dignified way which reflects those things we hold
dear Brethren should
emulate the work already being done by Grand Lodge and
those Provinces
that have a Public Relations and Press Officer and seek
wider recognition
of what our organisation stands for and in individual
members do for
others.
The national press now acknowledges some of the major
non-masonic
work that is done. At local level items of genuine news
value are printed
with increasing frequency. This does not cheapen the image of
Freemasonry: it enhances it and also lets those who do not
already know
that the charitable work of Freemasonry is not just for
Freemasons.
In a changing world some aspects of Freemasonry have been
changed in
recent years.
How we relate to the public must also change and that
change must be by more individual communication and more
community
endeavour outside our Lodges.
Rather than be accused of a vested interest by those who
know I once
worked within the media I asked several friends, all
Freemasons involved
in public life, how they thought Freemasons should relate
to the public.
This is what they had to say:
W BRO P CROSHAW (Insurance Broker)
Some Freemasons have difficulty in relating to the public
which questions
its motives and ideals.
Membership of Rotary, the Lions, Round Table and
similar organisations is readily acceptable because their
work within local
communities is known and without mystery. This should be countered by
making the public more aware of the extensive non-masonic
charity work
done by Freemasons with, perhaps, the recipients of the
larger donations
making suitable acknowledgement. We do receive regular information of
what monies are distributed but there appears to be a
reluctance and
suitable opportunity to discuss them. This reluctance is because the
adverse publicity in recent years has suggested Freemasons
are elitist who
collaborate with each other in business life to the
exclusion of others. The
support for each other is part of our teaching, it will
exist but no more so
than within any other organisation or indeed sports and
social club.
Adverse publicity follows the secrecy inherent in the
Craft. The work within
our ceremonies should continue to be so. We are not a secret society but
a Society with secrets and membership of it should not be
confidential.
Unless we are more open in this regard recruitment to our
ranks will
continue to be difficult.
W BRO J A DANIELL (Service Industries - Manufacturing)
Brethren should at all times appear to others to be just
and upright
ensuring that the image of Freemasonry is not reported as
a secret Society
which itself breeds fear of the unknown. It should, however, acknowledge
that like many service organisations it is a society with
things it wishes to
remain private.
Those who are not Masons should be made aware where
possible of the
many charities, large and small, that are supported by
Freemasonry and
made aware, not by vast advertising campaigns but by word
of mouth or
in the news columns of local newspapers. It is important to stress that
while we support our own charities a vast number of those
in receipt of
monies are often not masonically connected.
Freemasons should make sure that it is more widely known
that
Freemasonry is not regarded as a substitute to religion
but that it is based
on belief in a Supreme being, which in many faiths is
interpreted as God.
W BRO G F HODSON (Chief Fire Officer)
The ideals of Freemasonry have ever been and will always
continue to
inculcate into its members the philosophy of a spiritual,
moral and
philanthropic way of life that will help to promote the
highest possible
standards of the manner in which they conduct themselves
towards the
world and their fellow creatures. It is not sufficient merely to proclaim
to the
general public and those who are not Freemasons that the
principles and
tenets of Freemasonry which we try to incorporate into our
general way of
life are necessary but we must show to the world not just
by words but by
our actions and the very way we live and conduct ourselves
in our daily
lives that by so doing we are endeavouring to try in some
small measure
to make ourselves better persons and the world a better
place in which to
live.
W BRO J M MOREHEN (Practical and Scholarly Musician)
In our public relations we should remember that we are
often highly
respected for our charitable work, which is usually
imperfectly understood,
yet highly suspected for our privacy, often misconstrued
as 'secrecy' which,
too, is often misunderstood. Like many minority groups we are rarely
observed and perceived with total impartiality.
And so, when we meet a Mason or a non-Mason alike we
should behave
as though to a Brother for even if he is not, he may
tomorrow experience
the joys of our Masonic fellowship. Even if he never participates in our
fraternity, this does not make him in anyway unworthy of
our Order. Many
of us sought Freemasonry because men we knew and respected
we
understood to be Masons.
Can we claim that, by our comportment, we
have induced others to seek the Craft?
We should always remember that through our words and deeds
we speak
and act for several million members of our Order.
W BRO E H M SEAWARD (Civil Servant)
Freemasonry is not a society apart, it is a part of
society. It represents
stability and integrity in a constantly changing world.
Sadly this is not the
impression held by a substantial number of the general
public. For too
long too many of our members have hidden behind a pseudo
secrecy
which has put a barrier between ourselves and the public.
Only by
adopting a positive approach can we avert suspicion. It is unlikely that a
high profile publicity campaign would of itself arouse
much public
enthusiasm towards us. It would be better tenaciously to
use all
opportunities to show what Freemasonry is and does and to
combat the
mischievous attacks made on us.
We need to be seen publicly to be continuing and expanding
our help to
non-Masonic charitable organisations and to gain publicity
from joint
ventures with them.
We must emphasise our insistence on high levels of
integrity in our members and similarly our intentions to
disbar those who
deliberately flaunt our principles. Above all we must have the courage of
our convictions and be willing to show the public how
these convictions
can effectively relate to life today.
What is the "Mature Age" for a Freemason?
By W Bro.
J.M.Hamill, PJGD
Librarian and Curator of Grand Lodge
In the questions between the First and Second Degrees in
the English Craft
rituals the candidate is asked:
Who are fit and proper persons to be made Masons?
to which he responds:
Just, upright and free men, of mature age, sound judgement
and strict
morals.
In various other parts of the three Craft ceremonies there
are references to
"mature age" but nowhere is a definition of that phrase
given, although the
candidate signs a declaration stating that he is of "the
full age of twenty-one
years" and verbally confirms that fact in lodge.
To my mind that is correct,
and the phrase "mature age" forms what might be called a
calculated
ambiguity, something which occurs with great regularity in
the Constitutions
and other official documents in England. Why calculated ambiguity? I think
because there has always been a recognition in English
Freemasonry that
whilst our basic principles and tenets - our essential
nature - cannot be
changed, there are many customs and practices which can be
changed,
and at times must be changed if Freemasonry is to remain a
valid and
contributing part of the society in which it exists. What often appear to be
tablets of stone are usually man made rules susceptible to
change as
society changes.
Ambiguity may be anathema to Masonic constitutionalists
but often is the means of saving a great deal of Grand
Lodge and
Committee time in changing those tablets of stone into
workable rules.
Mature age is a perfect example of changeable custom in
Freemasonry, not
an immutable landmark.
From the evidence of surviving By Laws of
English lodges in the 18th century it would appear that
then mature age
was 25 years.
At some point in the 18th century the Constitutions and
Minutes of both of the English Grand Lodges then existing
are silent on
when - the age for candidates' entry dropped to 21 years,
and has
remained at that point ever since, although the MW The
Grand Master has
always had authority to grant dispensations to initiates
under 21 years of
age in special circumstances.
In other Grand Lodges the age of entry for candidates has
settled at 21
years, though in some with the change in the legal age of
majority their
Constitutions have been altered to allow entry, without
dispensation, at 18
years, the new age of majority. This has often been done on the basis
that
as 18 year olds have the right to vote, are capable of
being taxed, and may
be called up into the armed services in time of war they
should therefore
be entitled as a right to petition for admission into
Freemasonry at that age.
Those are false analogies.
When Freemasonry was organising itself there was no
universal suffrage;
England was in the happy situation of being ignorant of
income tax (a ruse
by William Pitt the Younger to pay for the Napoleonic
Wars); anyone could
be conscripted into service in time of war, and with life
expectancy being
short it was not unusual for 14 and 15 year old boys to be
pressed into
service. Nor
does seeking for analogies in our operative forebears work.
Apprenticeship in any craft usually started at 14 years
and lasted for a
period of seven years, the apprentice being at 21 years
well trained and
mature enough to work as a craftsman himself.
Concepts of maturity, then, are subject to change
according to society's
views. How
then would we define maturity in Masonic context? The Oxford
English Dictionary defines mature as being "complete in
natural
development, ripe; with fully developed powers of body and
mind, adult;
(of thought, intentions, etc) duly careful and adequate".
What Freemasonry requires of candidates is that they not
only be physically
adult but should also have sufficient intellectual
maturity to be able to
comprehend:
a. the seriousness of the step that they are taking
b. the principles and tenets of the Craft.
c. moral standards
d. the relationship between their duty to Freemasonry and
their duties to
God, the law, and society in general.
Any specialist in human biology or sociology can
demonstrate how the
average age for physical maturity has been dropping in
this century. The
same cannot be said for intellectual or moral maturity.
There are some who
are physically mature who may never be mentally mature,
others may be
physically mature in their teens but not reach mental
maturity until their mid
or late twenties.
A base line obviously has to be established to act as bar
to over eager
fathers introducing their sons at too early an age. Twenty
one years of age
would seem to be the ideal average as that is the age at
which most have
completed their education and should therefore have the
maturity of mind
to make serious decisions. But the arbiters of "mature age" are
surely the
lodge committee who interview the candidate. By their questions they
should be able to assess not only the candidates innate
worth but also
whether or not he is mature enough to comprehend what
Freemasonry
means and how he will be expected to act as a Freemason.
FREEMASONS AND CHARITY
by R.W.Bro. Col. G.S.H. Dicker P.G.M. Norfolk (and member
of the Bagnall
Committee)
It is quite impossible in a short paper to cover this vast
subject adequately.
Traditionally, Freemasons and Charity have always been
inextricably linked.
Without Charity Freemasonry would be meaningless.
Prior to 1973 there were four principal Masonic charities,
the Royal Masonic
Institution for Girls (RMIG), founded in 1788, the Royal
Masonic Institution
for Boys (RMIB), founded in 1798, the Royal Masonic
Benevolent Institution
(RMBI), founded in 1842, and the Royal Masonic Hospital
(RMH), founded
in 1920. There
was also the Fund of Benevolence, administered by Grand
Lodge, and many other smaller charities within Provinces,
Districts and
individual Lodges, and within other Masonic orders.
Then in 1971 the Grand Master appointed a Committee under
the
chairmanship of R W Bro the Hon. Mr Justice Bagnall to review the whole
operation of charity within the context of Freemasonry.
This Committee
reported in December 1973.
Following the publication of the Bagnall Report a number
of changes took
place. The
RMIG and RMIB combined into the Masonic Trust for Girls and
Boys (MTGB).
The Boys' School a Bushey was closed, and the Girls'
School at Rickmansworth became financially independent,
with entry no
longer restricted to children of Freemasons. The MTGB took on the
responsibility for those children of masons who needed
help, paying not
only school fees at Rickmansworth and other schools, but
also
maintenance costs where appropriate. This arrangement has been highly
successful - the Rickmansworth Masonic School flourishes,
with about 650
girls of whom 470 are boarders, and the MTGB looks after
more than 1400
children.
As a direct consequence of the Bagnall Report, the Fund of
Benevolence
was succeeded by the Grand Charity, which differed from
its predecessor
in a number of ways.
It is financed from two main sources.
It holds an
annual festival, and there is what seems like a compulsory
levy, which is
expressed as a contribution; this at present is not less
than 3.00 pounds
from each brother of a London Lodge, and 2.50 pounds from
each brother
in a Province.
It is open to Lodges to make larger contributions if they so
wish. No such
contribution is payable by a brother in a Lodge overseas.
The Grant Charity makes substantial payments to
petitioners, as did the
Fund of Benevolence, and to other Masonic charities, and
it also distributes
over 1 pounds million a year to non-Masonic charities.
A further major change following the Bagnall Report was
the merger of the
RMBI and the RMH into the Masonic Foundation for the Aged
and the Sick.
This was not so successful. After a few years there was a de-merger,
so
that the RMBI reverted to its original practice of looking
after the elderly, in
15 Homes throughout the country, and by way of direct
annuities to
Freemasons and their families with limited resources.
The RMBI currently
cares cs for over 1900 people by way of financial
assistance with everyday
living expenses, and some 900 are looked after in the
Homes.
The RMH has not had a happy history in recent years. Bagnall forecast
problems, and in 1984 a further Committee under the
chairmanship of R W
Bro the Hon. Mr Justice Drake reported that the Hospital
was no longer
providing the best way for the Foundation to fulfil its
role, nor was it
financially viable, and recommended that it should be
disposed of, the
proceeds of sale, together with other easting assets,
being used to provide
a fund from which assistance would in future be made to
eligible needy
sick Freemasons and their families. Although an attractive offer was
received, a proposal to sell the Hospital was rejected,
and the Hospital has
continued to function, although its operating losses have
been heavy. In
1990 plans were announced to create a new structure. The Hospital was
to be managed by a newly formed company, The Royal Masonic
Hospital
Limited, which would presumably lease the premises from
the RMH. The
company was to be self financing, with all fees being paid
in full. At the
same time the old Samaritan fund, which had formed part of
the funds of
the RMH but had run out of money, was replaced by a new
RMH Samaritan
Fund, which is quite separate from the Hospital. The intention was, and
indeed stiff is, that the New Masonic Samaritan Fund
(NMSF) should
support sick and needy masons and their dependants
wherever they may
be. The
objects of the new Fund are wider than those of the old, and the
benefits are not limited to patients at the Royal Masonic
Hospital. It is
intended that, as money becomes available, the Fund will
be able to extend
its work to relief generally based on the interests and
needs of its
petitioners.
But there are problems.
The NMSF has started from scratch, and needs
to raise a substantial amount of long term capital by way
of endowment, in
addition to money to run its operations from the start.
It remains to be
seen how far the NMSF will be able to go. From time to time consideration
has been given to the establishment of a "Masonic sick
fund", but this has
generally been thought not to be practicable as an open
ended project. In
1989 the Committee chaired by R W Bro I R Bryce recommend
that
although a national fund was not a viable proposition,
every attempt should
be made to extend the scope of the (then) Samaritan Fund.
This has been
started with the formation of the NMSF. Both the Drake Report and the
Bryce Report clearly had in mind that there would only be
limited resources
available for helping sick and needy Freemasons.
Indeed, it has to be accepted that there is, and always
will be, a limit to the
amount that can be raised within masonry for charitable
purposes. Bagnall,
in a supplementary report not generally published, made
the following
observations:
"We conclude by reiterating that the funds for the support
of Masonic
charity are and will be limited. In modern jargon there is one "cake" to
be
shared. It
will be more and more difficult to increase the size of the cake:
indeed we think that the size will certainly diminish in
terms of purchasing
power, and possibly in absolute terms. We think that it must be an
obligation of all Freemasons, and particularly those who
have a voice in the
control and management of the present Charities, to do
their utmost to
ensure that Masonic charitable funds are devoted to giving
relief where it
is most needed and that the costs of providing that relief
are reduced to a
minimum".
As regards the size of the "cake" referred to by Bagnall,
it is not possible
to be precise, particularly because of the variations from
year to year
through the festival system. However it is worth recording that in
1972,
immediately prior to Bagnall, the total annual donations
from members of
the Craft to the principal charities were estimated at 2.2
million pounds, and
the average for the five years up to and including 1972
amounted to 1.8
million pounds.
It is difficult to assess what they are today, but a rough
estimate, based on
the last available accounts, is 9 million pounds.
Even if this current estimate is not quite accurate it
does bear out what
Bagnall suggested, before the days of high inflation.
In January 1972 the
RPI stood at 21, and in January 1992 it was 1355, so that
prices have
increased by a factor of 6.4. Applying this factor to the
1972 total of, say,
2.0 million pounds gives an amount of over 12.8 million
pounds, which is
certainly well in excess of what is now being contributed
by the Craft to its
charities.
Another way of looking at the problem is to say that if each of
8,000 Lodges were to raise 1,600 pounds a year the total
would amount to
12.8 million pounds, and this is the sort of figure which
might be expected
based on 1972 levels.
The above estimated figures do not include amounts raised
within
Provinces and Districts, and within individual Lodges, for
their own
Charities.
Other Masonic Orders, notably the Mark Benevolent Fund, also
raise, and spend, money for charitable purposes. Most, if not all, of these
make contributions to non Masonic charities.
Mention has been made of the Festival system. Traditionally the three
Institutions (RMIG, RMIB and RMBI) held annual Festivals,
but the RMH did
not. Now there
are annual Festivals in aid of the MTGB, RMBI and the
Grand Charity, but not for the NMSF. There are suggestions that the NMSF
should hold an annual Festival. Festivals are planned, after
consultations
between the three Charities concerned, some ten years
ahead, so that
although a period of 4 - 7 years may be officially stated
as the gestation
period for a Province to support a Festival, in practice
at any one time there
are up to 30 Provinces working towards Festivals. Of the remaining 17
several are too small to provide direct support for
Festivals, and London
only rarely does so as an area, although London Lodges,
support for
Provincial festivals is considerable.
It is mainly because of the variations in size of the
Provinces that it is
difficult to assess the total amount raised annually.
Have we got our priorities right? At present the Charities
vie against each
other for support, with varying degrees of success. Each Charity can do
with more money, and there is no limit to the amount which
would be
welcomed by non-Masonic charities, both at home and by
those dealing
with relief for overseas emergencies. Perhaps it is time to consider again
some of the Terms of Reference of the Bagnall Committee:
1. To consider in the light of present economic and other
circumstances
whether the Charities are serving the interests of the
Craft and achieving
their several charitable purposes in the best possible
manner.
2. To consider the several methods at present adopted for
raising funds for
the purpose of each of the Charities and whether any
additional or
alternative method or methods could be adopted.
3. To consider whether competition between the Charities
in seeking funds
or otherwise is in the best interests of the Craft and the
Charities.
Are Masonic charitable funds being raised in the best
possible way, and are
they devoted to giving relief where it is most needed?
These are the
questions which we should be asking ourselves in 1992.
Masonic Charities - the way ahead?
i) Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution
by Miss Jane Reynolds, Chief Executive Officer, RMBI
The Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution has provided
services for older
Freemasons and their dependants since 1842, concentrating
latterly on the
provision of mainly registered Residential Care
accommodation (with some
registered Nursing accommodation) for about 900 people in
15 Homes in
England and Wales, and Annuities to approximately 1,900
people on very
low incomes.
More peripherally, it operates two Funds - The Good
Neighbour Fund, to pay for holidays, and the Victor
Donaldson Fund, to
assist financially with repairs to Annuitants' own
properties.
The arrival of the new Chief Executive in November 1991
coincided with a
period of substantial change for the Institution, to adapt
to the changing
needs of Residents to comply with ever-increasing
legislation and to
develop existing services to be responsive to expressed
needs from, and
on behalf of, those Freemasons and their dependants
wishing to remain in
their own homes for as long as possible and practicable.
The Chief Executive's first and immediate task was to get
a firm grip on her
management responsibilities.
Subsequently, a number of initiatives are being launched
which will help
shape our strategy for the medium to long-term by testing
fresh
approaches to care, and providing new information.
Most of the Homes are very large, with the scope and
perhaps the need to
be subdivided into smaller sub-units to be commensurate
with current
patters of care provision.
Not all the Homes have registered Nursing accommodation
within them.
A rolling programme has been set up to tackle this. There
is a likelihood
that more beds in the other Homes will need to be
registered for Nursing
Care as time goes by, and Residents become more frail, in
order to meet
the Institution's stated aim of providing care for
Residents until the end of
their lives.
There are both significant capital and revenue consequences
of this need: the staffing levels in the Homes are, by and
large, barely
adequate at the present time, even when a large percentage
of Residents
are still fairly capable.
There is concern about some low occupancy levels of some
of the Homes.
Procedures are now in place to accelerate the procedure
from referral to
the individual taking up a place. Other strategies may need to be devised
to fill empty Beds, or, alternatively, consideration will
need to be given to
deciding upon a different use for the empty space in the
Buildings in
question.
The Institutions key objectives are:
- To strive vigorously to provide the highest possible
standards of care.
- To ensure
occupancy levels in the Homes exceed the current levels,
accelerating the processing of referrals and utilising
virtually all the beds,
allowing only the minimum to be kept to ensure
flexibility.
- To operate the Homes at levels that achieve an
appropriate recovery of
running costs from Residents' Fees.
- To ensure that staffing levels are commensurate with
Residents' needs.
- To use the Homes as bases for new services - supporting
people in their
own homes - that will provide added value.
- To ensure that the workforce is appropriately skilled to
undertaken the
work, and that the staff feel valued by the Organisation.
- To run the Institution as efficiently as possible.
- To be responsive to changing needs.
To achieve these objectives, there are a number of major
programme
themes:
- achieving a better balance between Sheltered
Accommodation,
Residential Beds and Nursing Beds.
- improving communication with the Provinces to identify
unmet needs.
- establishing close cooperation with our Statutory
colleagues in the District
Health Authorities and Social Services Departments.
- demonstrating openness to other views and influences.
- expanding into outreach services to support people in
their own homes.
- developing staff to meet changing needs.
A Business Plan is being prepared; delivering it will
require the Institution
to manage change, in many cases significant, over the full
range of our
responsibilities. During this period, good communications
will be essential,
to keep staff, Residents, Annuitants and the Provinces
informed of what we
are doing and why.
With efficient and effective management, we are sure
that the Institution can face the many challenges that lie
ahead with
confidence.
Masonic Charities - the way ahead?
ii) The Masonic Trust for Girls and Boys
by W Bro Col R K Hind PSGD, Secretary MTGB
The Trust exists for the relief of poverty and advancement
of education of
any child of the family of a Freemason considered to be in
need. There are
no upper or lower age limits for these children and it is
a principle that each
child shall be supported until preparation for a working
life has been
completed.
This prime task having been financed then authority exists to
assist the education of any child, whether or not the
child of a Freemason.
This latter task has been discharged by answering appeals
from
non-Masonic charities operating in the same field of
relief, for children in
distressed and handicapped circumstances, where it can be
established
that funds so disbursed are for direct application to a
child.
The most recent example of this latter form of relief is
the joint venture with
the Grand Charity in providing funds for the M W the Grant
Master's
Anniversary project, the construction of a village for the
mentally
handicapped. The Trust is making its largest donation so
far to
non-Masonic charity, 1/2 million pounds to provide the
educational and
training facilities in this CARE village.
Throughout all the changes in policy, management, and
scale of relief, that
have taken place in the life time of the former separate
Institutions for Girls
and Boys and now the Trust, the aim has remained constant
for over two
hundred years, to prepare the child for a working life.
It follows that the
length of time under the protection of the Trust can be
considerable and
the average is now in excess of eleven years.
The most significant change which took place on 1 January
1986 when the
former Institutions merged with the MTGB, which then
became the one
operative charity concerned with children, was the ability
to apply relief to
a wider Masonic family, to the child of the family of a
Freemason, that is to
say, any child supported by a Freemason as though that
child were his
own, and found to be in need.
On the day the Trust became operative, a total of 366
girls and 390 boys
came under its protection from the former Institutions and
the direct
support costs of those children and young people in that
first year totalled
2.3 million pounds.
On 1 May 1992, there were 799 girls and 796 boys
under its protection at a forecast cost in the year of 6.4
million pounds.
The growth in number of children under the Trust's
protection, from 756 in
1986 to the current level of 1,595, is due to a
continually increasing number
of new petitions.
In the first year of operation there were 168 new petitions,
a very high figure in relation to the number of children
already under care.
In the succeeding years the level of new petitions has
been increasing at
a rate of nearly 10% per annum. These factors have resulted in the number
of children under protection more than doubling in 6 1/2
years, an average
growth in numbers of near 13% per annum compound.
Growth in numbers and costs can be attributed to the
following factors:
- Increased awareness within the Craft of the relief
available to children of
the larger Masonic family.
- Increase in the level of distress following the death of
Freemasons having
children in education coupled with the greater educational
opportunities
evadable and needed to fit children for a working life in
this increasing
technological age.
- Increase in life expectancy of and facilities for
children having learning
difficulties through mental or physical handicap.
- Increase in refinance on charitable relief to supplement
State support for
those in distressed circumstances.
- Increase in the rate of desertion by fathers having
children of school age.
- Inflation which affects all support costs in the home;
food, clothing,
materials, equipment and travel.
- The equal opportunities to be offered both girls and
boys resulting in a
common level of support and education costs.
- The psychological benefits in maintaining children at
the school which
they attended before the death of the father.
During the period, from 1986 to the present time, the
average cost of each
child's support has increased by nearly 7% per annum
compound. When
coupled with the increased numbers, this has resulted in
an annual cost
increase to the Trust of nearly 20% per annum, as
evidenced by the
increase from 2.3 million pounds in 1986 to the forecast
cost of 6.4 million
pounds in 1992.
On the other side of the balance sheet without allowing
for possible
reductions in donations due to the economic situation the
future Festivals
for this Trust to the year 2000 will produce an
anticipated level of income
well below that experienced in the last decade due to the
size of the
Provinces concerned.
To this must be added a reduced level of investment
income due to usage of capital reserves. It is forecast that within two years
capital reserves will have to be used to sustain the
present level of
expenditure and should the growth in petition cases
continue the effect on
resources will become serious.
It was to meet the expressed wish of the Craft that relief
was extended to
the wider Masonic family in 1986. Experience in the brief 6 1/2 year life
of
the Trust directly influences the "Way Ahead" in the next
decade. The
growth in numbers and costs and the anticipated reduction
in income and
their influence on the application of the principle -
applied for over two
centuries - to prepare the distressed children of
Freemasons in need for a
working life, are the factors dominating planning activity
in the Trust.
Masonic Charities - the way ahead?
iii) The Grand Charity
by R W Bro Cdr M B S Higham PJGW, Secretary Grand Charity
HISTORY
1 The Grand Charity came into being on 1 January 1981.
It succeeded the
Board of Benevolence, which had descended from various
committees
formed by Grand Lodge since 1727 for the relief of
distressed Freemasons.
AIMS
2 The Grand Charity was intended as a charity which could
be
outward-looking and flexible, which could respond to any
charitable need
(not just Masonic) and which could at the same time
continue as a first
priority to help needy Freemasons and their dependents.
Comment. The
aims could hardly be wider in a Masonic charity.
INCOME
3 The Grand Charity derives its income from four sources:
a) donations and legacies - unpredictable
b) covenants - more predictable, and steady
c) dividends and interest - varying with the state of the
stock market, and
deriving from a capital fund which is not large
d) Festivals - varying from year to year, roughly in
proportion with the size
of the Festival Province.
Comment: These sources are like those of other Masonic
charities, and
their characteristics will be familiar.
A fifth source is the Grand Charity's own -
e) contributions from Lodges, increased from 1 January
1992 to the rate of
3.00 pounds per annum for each member of a London Lodge.
(2.50
pounds in Provincial Lodges). These replace contributions
from Grand
Lodge's Fund of General Purposes to its Fund of
Benevolence, capitation
fees which until 1981 were extracted painlessly and almost
unnoticed from
Lodges as part of their annual dues to Grand Lodge.
Comment: The basic contribution is not large, but the
method of collection
is sometimes misunderstood. The change in 1981 was to emphasise the
Grand Charity's constitutional independence and it may
matter less now if
the method were to revert although there might be tax
repercussions.
Either method involves all Freemasons in the Craft's
central charity.
EXPENDITURE
4 Petitioners Expenditure on the relief of needy
Freemasons and their
dependants is the first call on the Grand Charity's funds.
Comment: This will continue
5 Contributions from a central charity to other Masonic
charities were part
of the Bagnall Committee's plan, and the Grand Charity has
provided funds
to help the Masonic Trust for Girls and Boys, the Masonic
Foundation for
the Aged and the Sick and the New Masonic Samaritan Fund
start their
administrations; grants to the Royal Masonic Hospital and
Masonic Housing
Association, and grants or loans to Provinces to start or
otherwise help with
retirement homes or sheltered housing.
Comment: This form of assistance will continue, but
guidelines on housing
may have to become more fierce.
6 NON-MASONIC CHARITY
Apart from providing, as did the old Board of Benevolence,
relief for natural
disasters at home and overseas, the Grand Charity has made
major grants,
often as a series over five years, to non-Masonic
charities, and often (as in
grants for combatting drug dependence for hospices and for
helping
mentally handicapped adults) in advance of support from
the government
or the general public.
Comment: This part of the rand Charity's activities shows
that Freemasons
care for other apart from their own people, and play a
responsible part in
identifying and meeting the needs of society at large.
7 RELIEF CHEST SCHEME
Since 1986 the Relief Chest Scheme has pooled charitable
funds so that
Lodges and Provinces achieve maximum return on investments
while
retaining control over expenditure. One in four London Lodges; one in 6
1/2 Provincial Lodges, one in 5 Provinces have chests.
Comment: Pooling resources without losing control is
obviously sensible.
Growth in numbers involved is steady, but should be
encouraged.
8 GENERAL
COMMENT
Expenditure should not outpace income, or the capital base
becomes even
smaller. The
Grand Charity's spending on petitioners has for the last seven
years exceeded contributions from Lodges, and in 1991's
recession was
nearly twice as much.
Festivals are now an important source of funds for
the Grand Charity (as well as providing valuable contacts
with members)
but income from them fluctuates. Without a large capital base, the Grand
Charity relies heavily on contributions to balance its
spending. One might
hope that the general level of spending has the Craft's
approval - might the
Craft not also persuade itself that 5.75p a week per
member of a London
Lodge or 4.8p a week in a Provincial Lodge was a little
low?
Masonic Charities - the way ahead?
iv) New Masonic Samaritan Fund
by Bro. Lt Col S G Overton, Secretary NMSF
GENERAL
The main draft paper reviews the ethos and historical
aspect of Masonic
Charities, rehearses the "cake" theory and identifies the
diminishing buying
power trend of income generated within the Craft and
Masonic Charities.
It also touches on the potential for conflict between
Provinces and Masonic
Charities in fundraising activities. It neither seeks to present a radical
review with options and proposals for change, and how to
manage it or
discuss the question of raising and allocating funds on a
needs basis. It
is however a most useful and constructive document to
stimulate
discussion.
The 275th Anniversary Conference, therefore, needs to
consider the present situation and its problems, the basis
of raising and
allocating funds and whether these require modification,
re-structuring or
radical revision.
ETHOS
The principle requirement for providing charitable relief
is surely First to
establish the need of the individual applicant within the
parameters and
framework of the objects and criteria of the particular
Fund concerned.
From this, the level of relief can be assessed and given.
Similarly, at the
level of the Masonic Charities themselves, due regard must
surely be given
to the comparative needs and requirements of each
Fund/Charity and its
ability to generate and allocate sufficient funds for
relief. These need to
take into account any special needs, eg. for capital
reserves and resources,
as well as annual income requirement. The Charities should also be
regarded as a business in terms of efficiency and
operational planning and
run accordingly.
Thus the need assessment should be incorporated into
a short, mid and long term budget analyses taking into
account the
expected demand, the cost and frequency of benevolence to
be given, the
assets and resources already held, and the
shortfall/requirement thereon.
It represents forecasts, comparisons, budgets, business
plans and
maximising scarce resources. Thus the size of the "cake" and
allocation
thereof should not be based arbitrarily on independent
fundraising effort,
but a breakdown of the corporate Charities needs and
equitable allocation
and distribution of resources using immediate, mid and
long term
requirement forecasts.
Moreover, if a quantitive assessment of demand is
taken by viewing the quarter of a million Craft members
and their 2-5 million
dependants along with the four Charities on an age/life
bar.
The New Masonic Samaritan Fund Charity can be identified
as having a
prime requirement.
PASt AND PRESENT
The Inception of the Fund arose from the financial
difficulties experienced
by the Royal Masonic Hospital (RMH) and Old Samaritan Fund
(OSF).
Dependence on both had declined within the Craft by 1990
due to the
establishment of excellent National Health Service and
Private Hospital
facilities, with related after care services, throughout
the domain, especially
in the far flung Provinces, i.e. Cornwall, Devon and
Durham.
The Fund was thus incorporated on 28 November 1990 as an
independent
Charity of equal status with her Sister Masonic Charities
to provide support
and relief for sick, infirm and needy Freemasons and their
dependants
suffering pain, hardship and distress. Relief is applied through a petitioners
process utilising Lodge and Provincial Almoners (or
Provincial equivalents).
The criteria for relief is based on a medical need,
financial hardship, lack
of availability of timely treatment through the National
Health Service and
social/family need.
Successful petitioners are funded at their most
appropriate and normally cost effective
hospital/establishment, including the
RMH, acting as provider units on a countrywide basis.
In the case of
overseas Districts, treatment may be in the UK or
eventually provided under
local overseas arrangements where available.
From 1 August 1991 to the 30 April 1992 the NMSF supported
350
successful petition applicants at 80 different hospitals
from Provinces
countrywide and Districts at a cost of 1.1 million pounds
representing an
average of 3,142 pounds per case. This does not include the interim
arrangements funded by Grand Charity via NMSF for
committed OSF
patients at the RMH between March and July 1991. Treatments have been
predominantly orthopaedic, eye cataracts, urology and
heart by-pass, all
of which suffer from overlong NHS waiting lists. Demand on
the Fund, still
in its infancy, can be expected to greatly increase in the
future.
The Fund is currently endeavouring to enter into
discussions with our sister
Charities in respect of interface petition case
situations.
Funding for our applicants has come from the 2.75 million
pounds accruing
from the Cornwallis Appeal (which had a target of 6
million pounds) and a
1 million pound start up grant from Grand Charity. Much of the latter was
used up on the OSF interim arrangements. The Appeal preparation time
and publicity was minimal before launch which has had the
misfortune to
run concurrently with a severe recession. Hence, on this basis, the result
must be considered reasonably successful despite the fact
that some funds
have also undoubtedly been held back due to initial
confusion and concern
over the Fund's relationship with the RMH.
THE FUTURE
The critical problem facing the NMSF is identifying the
source and
expediting the generation of sufficient income to fund our
immediate, mid
and long term needs.
The Fund considers it needs a minimum guaranteed
annual income budget of 2.5 million pounds, including
operating costs, to
meet the level of applicants experienced so far. This incorporates paring
organisation costs to the minimum and maximising the
effective, efficient
and economic use of assets and resources. The maximum amount of
monies must be devoted to benevolence. We can also expect, as
knowledge of the Fund increases (it is still very much in
a start up phase),
the number of applicants, particularly dependants to
increase. At the same
time, the cost of private treatment for medical, dental
and health care will
continue to escalate.
It is also unlikely, even with any additional
Government funding or management initiatives, NHS waiting
lists will be
eradicated.
The income accruing from the OSF, the expenditure of which
has been controlled by the NMSF since August 1991, has
rapidly
diminished as covenants have tailed off and have either
not been renewed
or have been re-allocated elsewhere. The Provinces and Charities vie for
funds, with potential conflicts only averted by the
disciplines imposed by
the Festival system, from which the NMSF is omitted. The latter is a
serious disadvantage to the NMSF in comparison with her
Sister Charities.
Thus, the NMSF has no dedicated source of funding. The NMSF must be
considered in potential crisis!
The question is how do we identify and secure our slice of
the cake? Will
this be realised through an arbitrary allocation of
resource based on
individual Charity Appeals effort in a restricted market,
or be based on an
agreed slice of the "cake"?
Will income raised meet our immediate annual operational
requirements as
well as provide capital for investment to create reserves
for future
beneficiaries? It may not! Certainly, and unlike the OSF,
we can only spend
what we receive whereas pain, suffering and hardship, on
the contrary,
cannot be turned on and off.
The present fundraising position of NMSF is largely based
on the status
quo. Therefore, instead of assessing the overall
requirements of NMSF
including its initial non-requiring capital needs, and
working out how best
this can be raised, NMSF fundraising has been largely
"grafted on" to the
established fundraising arrangements of the existing
Charities. As a result
NMSF remains outside the capital and income raising
benefits derived from
being within the Festival system. The Cornwallis Appeal was therefore
necessarily concentrated within London and on Provinces
which had not
already undertaken Festival requirements or which were not
committed to
local Provincial fundraising efforts. Now that the Appeal is over, there is
therefore, no ongoing arrangements so that Provinces are
being requested
to consider short term one or two year appeals where they
do not have
Festival requirements.
These are subject to Provincial conflicting demands
and the stated proviso that the NMSF fundraising should
not operate to the
detriment of the established fundraising of more
financially secure and
income guaranteed sister Charities. We have no special rights in London.
Many in the Craft, anyway, believe that a London Festival
would not work,
but that a direct Appeal may have some merit.
In the mid term, the short Festival approach may prove to
be reasonably
successful in creating sufficient turnover income but not
a capital reserve.
This could be a wildly over optimistic perception!
Whatever, and in the
short term, (remember Festivals are planned over ten years
in advance)
they will be difficult and costly to organise and manage
relative to the
return. Even
coupled with some commitment from London Lodges, this will
probably not, by itself, pragmatically meet the assessed
need and financial
requirements for the next few years.
EQUITABLE PROPOSAL
Many of the Provinces have expressed concern over the
present
effectiveness of the Festival system. The time is seemingly ripe for a radical
review of utilising vision, imagination and candour. Recommendations,
when implemented, will take us into the next century and
beyond. The
275th Anniversary Conference represents an ideal catalyst
and opportunity
to embark on this venture. In the meantime, many find it difficult
to
understand why the NMSF, being the newest Masonic Charity
and most in
need, should not be treated on an equal basis by being
brought
immediately into the Festival system as opposed to being
left to fend for
itself in isolation.
They believe that vested interests should not rule, rather
a comparison of needs dictate when cutting the cake. In the immediate
future, if it is to survive, the Fund will need to be
supported by three or four
mini-festivals per year plus ad-hoc support from London.
What is the way ahead? What are the options? Is there any
radical option
for change which will assure the future of all Masonic
charitable elements
making up the "cake" including Provinces internal needs?
How do we
negate rivalry and conflict? How best to manage change and
in what time
frame?
The following ideas have been proposed for consideration:
1 That Festivals should be for a fixed period announced
not more than 12
months before the commencement of the Festival.
2 That Festivals might be more frequent, eg. 4 year
Festivals and spread
over all 4 major Masonic Charities (ie. tax benefit
based).
3 Specific fundraising efforts should be directed at
London Lodges both
generally and in groups.
4 That the Festival system might be more standardised with
a percentage
of the funds raised, say 20%, available within the
Province or at the
nomination the PGM and say, half to be a named Masonic
Charity on a
rotational basis with the balance into a general Masonic
"Foundation" for
allocation amongst the Masonic Charities or non-Masonic
Charities based
on bids for grants based on need.
5 NMSF to be brought into the Festival system instead of
Grand Charity,
but for a percentage of every Festival to go to Grand
Charity with flexibility
for Grand Charity to make grants to assist Masonic and
non-Masonic
Charities according to need.
Whilst many feel that the success of the Festival system
can be attributed
to the appeal of the particular Masonic Charity for whom
the Festival is
directed, others consider that it is the Provincial effort
and the appeal by the
PGM and the Provincial Officers which achieves success.
Against this,
some in the Province may wish to continue to support other
Charities and
are therefore faced with a conflict of interest. It is considered, therefore,
that, if the Festival system includes some basis on which
the funds raised
can be made available as part of the "the cake", then the
Festival
fundraising can be seen, to that extent at least, to be
capable of being
allocated equitably and fairly etc.
The benefit to the Craft is that the "cake" is seen in the
whole, as
apportioned equitably and fairly on a needs basis,
reserves, assets and
resources are maximised throughout and further income is
generated
through centralised investment. Additionally, the Provinces, as the
fundraisers and providers, are involved in its use and
allocation. Conflict
and competition is removed.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, a four year "short" Festival on behalf of
all Masonic Charities
has great appeal to all.
No one wins, no one loses, benevolence (relief is
maximised, Masonic Charities become one large interrelated
business plan,
and Masonic harmony is maintained within the Craft. The virtues of
wisdom, truth and brotherly love indeed!
The NMSF, in particular, was established by the Craft and
is "in need". It
behooves the Craft to ensure success in that the Fund has
a reasonable
and equitable means of fundraising to guarantee adequate
income and
reserves to resource relief and benevolence for those in
real need. Radical
change is appropriate. The time is right to implement it.
The Conference
is well placed to consider and commence the process of
change. Celer et
audax.
Masonic Charities - the way ahead?
Should Lodges do more for local charities?
by W Bro A C Gregory PJGD
Should Lodges do more for non-Masonic Charities? At first
sight, one
would imagine that such a straightforward question would
elicit one of two
simple answers, namely "yes" or "no", closer examination
of the question
however, casts doubt on whether it is straightforward, or
if the answer is
simple. An
extremely interesting and lively debate could be initiated if the
topic was put to some of our lodges, particularly in some
of the provinces:
and if put to the vote only a brave man would hedge his
bets on the result.
This paper, therefore, is an attempt to present the
argument for supporting
non-Masonic charities, and thereby provide an answer to
the question in
the title which Freemasons in our Constitution will feel
disposed to consider
and act upon.
Charity is of course one of the principal corner stones on
which our Order
is built. When
we "make" a Freemason it is stated in the North East
Cornerstone "Charge" that the candidate has "no doubt felt
and practised
charity". In
the same charge he is told that should he ever meet a brother
in distressed circumstances who might solicit his
assistance, he should
"remember that peculiar moment when he was received into
masonry" and
cheerfully embrace the opportunity of practising that
virtue which he has
professed to admire.
Our candidate is left in no doubt as to where his charity
should be directed,
namely to his brother. But who is his "brother"? When the
allegorical
meaning of the working tools in the first degree are
explained, he is then
told that he should spend part of the day "serving a
friend or brother in time
of need". Who
then, should be the recipient of his charity, his "friend" or his
"brother" if a choice has to be made? Many brethren will
(and do) quote
their initiation ceremony when discussing the question of
financial
donations at Lodge Committee meetings, and the expression
"Charity
Begins at Home" means just that to many Freemasons who
have, quite
rightly embraced the North East Cornerstone Charge
directive. More than
one argument regarding the disposal of the Lodge Charity
Account has
developed from such reasoning and there are Freemasons who
will say
their donations to charity have been subjected to
misappropriation if they
are given to a cause other than a Masonic charity.
It is conceivable that we have ourselves created the
situation that can
cause a brother to vote against a donation to a
non-Masonic charity.
History tells us that Freemasonry originated as part of a
self help movement
amongst groups of local stonemasons: very likely the birth
of trade groups
and philanthropic societies. This, coupled with our teaching in the
first
degree, gives a powerful argument to the
"Keep-it-in-the-family" faction.
However, the Masonic scholar can also present the
supporters of
non-Masonic charities with historical arguments. In the first degree
ceremony the conspicuous Jacobs Ladder on the tracing
board is referred
by A F A Woodford as "pointing to the connexion between
earth and
heaven, man and god, and to represent faith in God,
charity towards all
men, and hope in immortality". Not necessarily a strong argument, but
one
which could be enlarged on by those experienced in
debating circles.
It must be accepted that we live in a changing world, and
changes there
have been and will continue to be in all facets of
society, not least
Freemasonry.
Chapter 9 in John Hamill's book "The Craft", presents an
excellent portrayal of the changes in Masonic charity
since the formation of
Grand Lodge in 1717.
Even changes he describes now require
amendment as the book was published in 1986, and there
have been some
sweeping developments since then. The last two years (1990/91) saw the
birth of the New Samaritan Fund: and the references to the
Royal Masonic
Hospital in Bro Hamill's book now bear witness to the fact
that even in
1970, warning signals were on the horizon as to the
hospital's future.
There is a salutary lessen to be learned from the RMH
"experience" and one
which can add weight to the argument for supporters of
non-Masonic
charities.
The findings of the Bagnall committee, and the much more
recent Bryce
Committee, have done (and are doing) much to update our
charities and
how we administer them.
The problems of the RMH should surely illustrate
that the monks we raise are better donated to those bodies
which are "up
and running" and established and experienced in their
particular field of
activity: and it is this argument which should do most to
sway the vote in
favour of those lodges and brethren who support
non-Masonic charities
and organisations.
In 1967 600,000 pounds was raised to form a trust fund for
medical
research as part of the celebrations of the 250th
anniversary of Grand
Lodge. Now,
twenty five years on, we are to donate 2,550,000 pounds to
four charities active in the field of work for mentally
handicapped adults, to
celebrate the 275th anniversary of Grand Lodge and the
25th anniversary
of our Grand Master's installation. Surely this donation will do much to
further the work of those who are experienced and
established - especially
in a time of economic difficulties when all charitable
organisations are
undergoing problems with regard to their income.
So to attempt our answer. We are all aware of the support
which Grand
Charity gives to National organisations, and these figures
and details are
circulated to every member of the Craft. Brethren are thus
well aware of
how their donations to Grand Charity are dispensed.
However, the
Provinces and Districts in their own way, help and support
local
organisations, in addition to answering the numerous "one
off" cries for
help. These
can range from a hospital scanner unit appeal to help with a
donation for a new roof on the local scout hut. To help with local "natural"
disasters or some help with a Christmas party for senior
citizens.
The author of this paper recently stood down as secretary
to the second
largest province in the English Constitution. The Province has a Masonic
benevolent institution, a registered company which, in
many ways,
developed along similar lines to the Grand Charity. R W Bro LeGendre
Nicholas Starkie was Provincial Grand Master from 1870/99
and his special
interest lay in the development of the original society.
He was affectionately
known as it's "Father". The work of the institution is primarily
for the relief
of those members of the Order and their dependents within
the Province,
and it has it's own residential home for elderly masons
and their wives,
widows and other dependent relatives. The Committee of Benevolence is
responsible for the relief of those in need, and the
onward transmission of
petitions to Grand Charity and the Masonic Trust for Girls
and Boys if
additional assistance is necessary. Every year dependents are taken on
holiday, and the young people's committee ensures the
welfare of
dependent children is not forgotten.
In recent years, however, the support of non-Masonic
charities has become
a growing feature of the Institution - and by no means to
the detriment of
the brethren and/or their dependents in the Province, who
fall on hard
times. A fair
comparison with Bro Hamill's description of the development
of Grand Charity in the last twenty years can be made at
this particular
provincial level.
Because of this growth in support of non-Masonic charities
at National and Provincial level, support within the
lodges has automatically
ensued. Many
Masters decide on a charity "project" at the commencement
of their year in office, rather like the local mayor: and
a proportion of the
monies raised are donated to a local cause or causes.
Present and future generations of Freemasons are living in
a world which
sees vast amounts of money donated through other National
organisations,
television appeals, and the like: and they see their lodge
as a "vehicle" to
exercise their own enthusiasm for fund raising in their
own locality.
If we are to encourage our order to go forward into the
next millennium with
an enthusiasm for caring and "serving friend and brother
in time of need",
then surely there is a strong case for encouraging our
Lodges to do more
for non-Masonic charities.
The emphasis, however, must be on encouragement and not
direction.
The former will achieve both satisfaction and success.
The latter approach
will create resentment, and thereby provide further fuel
for our critics.