SINS OF OUR MASONIC FATHERS
This STB by Bro. Hamill, Librarian and curator, United Grand Lodge of
England, is from his paper (of the same name) published in ARS Quartuor
Coronatorum, Vol 101, 1988 The paper talks about the situation of Freemasonry in
England and how it got that way. As you read the STB, ask yourself "Is he not
also describing Freemasonry in the United States?." Editor
Conspiracy Theory If one accepts the thesis of Bro. Alec Mellor (Our
Separated Brethren-the Freemasons, London 1964) Freemasonry first entered the
realms of conspiracy theory with the publication of the first Papal Bull in
1738. Brother Mellor believes that the Bull was issued not only because of
religious objections to Freemasonry by the Papacy but also because of fears of
the supposed political aspirations of continental Freemasonry. Certainly it came
to the forefront of conspiracy theory with the works of two non-masons, the Abbe
Barruel (Memoires pour servir a l'histoire du Jacobinisme, London 1797-8) and
John Robison (Proofs of a conspiracy against all the Religions and governments
of Europe carried on in the secret meetings of Free Masons, Illuminati and
Reading Societies, Edinburgh 1797) both of which claimed that the French
Revolution had its origins and much of its support in lodges under the then
regular Grand Orient of France. So far no problem, but one arose when
over-enthusiastic masonic writers failed to distinguish between the masonic
precepts of equality and fraternalism and the political revolutionary ideals of
liberty, fraternity and equality, another example of confusing similarities with
actual links. That some of those who were involved in the French Revolution, the
American War of Independence and the South American liberation movements of the
early nineteenth century were freemasons is undeniable. To move from that
position to state that because freemasons were involved, the events were masonic
actions or masonically inspired actions is nonsense and is also to ignore the
equally well established fact that in all those events there were freemasons on
both sides. The actions of those writers only gave fuel to those paranoid
critics of Freemasonry who revel in the conspiracy theory that Freemasonry is a
plot for world domination, perhaps the nastiest manifestation of which is the
notorious forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion which claims to be
an exposure of masonic documents showing that Freemasonry is a Judaeo-masonic
conspiracy for world domination, the reverberations from which are still echoing
today (see Stephen Knight's Jack the Ripper: the final solution).
The Public Face
In dealing with the public face of Freemasonry we must remember that we are
not dealing with realities but with received impressions. There is a wide
spectrum of attitudes to Freemasonry. At one end are the members who know what
Freemasonry is and what its purposes are. At the other end are Freemasonry's
intractable critics whose minds are closed and who will never be persuaded that
there is another opinion than their own, let alone that their views might be
wrong. Between these two ends of the spectrum is the great mass of the
non-masonic public, some of whom, through family connections or friendships,
will be favourably disposed; others of whom, from reading anti-masonic works,
will be ill-disposed; and the great majority for whom Freemasonry has no meaning
or interest until the media force the subject before their eyes. As the majority
of the British public do not read books the media have had a great deal of power
in forming public attitudes towards Freemasonry. Until 1984, when Grand Lodge
altered its traditional policy of no comment to one of limited comment and the
correction of factual errors, the power of the media in forming public attitudes
was immense. Regrettably, the less scrupulous in the profession of journalism
over the last twenty or so years realized the power that they possessed, in
particular that, provided they observed the laws of libel and defamation, they
could say whatever they liked about Freemasonry without any fear of a challenge
from masonic authority. It can be argued that in the climate of the 1940s to
1960s the policy of 'no comment' on specific issues (e.g. the attempt to debate
Freemasonry in the Church of England in 1951) and the refusal to cooperate in
programmes concerned with Freemasonry (e.g. the 1960s BBC Television exposure of
Freemasonry) was effective in that it turned those events into a "ten day
wonder" soon forgotten by the public. Indeed, there are those who would argue
that unofficial answers did potentially more harm than the lack of official
comment (e.g. the anonymous answer to Hannah's Darkness Visible, London 1951,
Vindex's Light Invisible, London 1952). As has already been stated, however, the
official policy, combined with a clamp-down on general masonic information and
the lack of a public masonic presence were not helpful in that they deprived the
general public of sound, authoritative general information against which to
measure what they learnt from the media. In the last two decades the world has
radically changed. Old virtues have been challenged, with the media leading the
challenge. A polite 'no comment' and a failure to correct or comment upon
factual errors combined with a desire for privacy are now taken as evidence that
allegations are true and that there is something to hide-the 'no smoke without
fire' reaction. It was partly a realization that this change had taken place and
partly a growing awareness that public ignorance was beginning to affect
brethren in their employment that caused Grand Lodge to reconsider its
traditional policies. Despite the need for change, and the effects that change
is already beginning to have, there are still those in the Craft who would
prefer to return to the pre-1984 position. I would argue that there is no going
back and that if the policy was reversed it would be a certain way of
diminishing the Craft and beginning its gradual decline to extinction. In the
modern world any organization, no matter how noble or impartial it be, must take
notice of public attitudes towards it if it wishes to survive in any strength.
The Current Problems
The current problems can be broken down into three main areas: accusations of
secrecy; a misunderstanding of the relationship between Freemasonry and
religion; insinuations of corruption, malpractice, etc. through misuse of
membership by freemasons. As I hope this paper has shown, the principal reason
for those problems having taken root is ignorance of the principles and
practices of Freemasonry on the part of the general public. In the area of
religion there have always been individuals within the various denominations of
the Christian Church who have chosen to misinterpret the rituals of Freemasonry
and read into them a theology which is not and never has been present and to
confuse reverence for God and the offering of prayers with liturgical worship.
Accusations of secrecy are not new in the sense that, from the earliest days,
there has been a healthy public curiosity concerning masonic ritual. What is
relatively new is the concept of Freemasonry as a secret society which, to the
best of my knowledge, in England is very much a post-1800 idea, despite the
deliberate exclusion of Freemasonry from the terms of the Unlawful Societies Act
of 1799. Indeed, the suggestion that freemasons are plotting in secret cabals in
England is very much a twentieth century idea, and in any forceful way a
post-World War II concept. Similarly the suggestion of Freemasonry being a set
of men totally bound to aiding each other regardless of the laws of God and man
is very much of the present day and, to my mind, has only come about because of
public ignorance of the facts. It seems significant that when Freemasonry was a
highly visible part of English life such suggestions did not take root. That
said, we are left with the question of why, in the 1980s, Freemasonry has come
under what appear to many to be concerted attacks from a number of sources? To
suggest that it is all part of a plot of either the political left or right is
to play the conspiracy theory game. I would suggest that it is a result of an
unhappy coincidence of general dissatisfaction within society; of
anti-establishment views-Freemasonry being considered as a bulwark of the
establishment; of a search for a whipping boy for the ills of modern society
fostered by the pre-1984 policy of not answering criticism; and the public's
lack of knowledge of Freemasonry.
Conclusion
Have the sins of our masonic fathers been visited upon us? I think that the
answer must be yes. By following a policy of intense privacy and therefore
separating and obscuring the Craft from the society in which it exists Grand
Lodge, acting in what was then thought to be the best interests of the Craft,
cleared the ground but did not tend it and allowed the rank weeds of
anti-masonic writers to gain a firm hold in the public consciousness. In not
countering criticism it allowed the falsehoods to become rooted as uncontested
facts in the minds of the general public. Grand Lodge was not alone in this,
however, and much can be laid at the door of those masonic writers who gave free
rein to their imaginations and, in some cases, produced work diametrically
opposed to the general understanding of what Freemasonry is. Nor is the Craft in
general free from blame. Individual members, by being secretive about their
membership and by refusing to discuss Freemasonry in even the most general terms
with t heir families and friends, greatly helped to create the climate in which
the critics and enemies of Freemasonry were able to persuade an ill-equipped
public that Freemasonry was something to be feared and not to be trusted. It is
to be hoped that by reversing its traditional policy in 1984 Grand Lodge will be
able to stem the process and gradually return us to those days when Freemasonry
was an acknowledged part of everyday life and was seen as an institution for the
good of society.
back to top |
