Regularity Vs. Recognition

One of the more, I think, misunderstood issues in Freemasonry is that of regularity. What is regularity, who determines it, and what does it mean to not be a regular mason? Before we get into a discussion about regularity, we need to define some terms:

Regular: A chartered lodge that can trace its lineage back to the Grand Lodge of England Grand Lodge of Scotland, or the Grand Lodge of Ireland, through regular Grand Lodges. it is a constitutional mechanism whereby Grand Lodges or Grand Orients give one another mutual recognition. This recognition allows formal interaction at the Grand Lodge level, and gives individual Freemasons the opportunity to attend meetings at Lodges in other recognized jurisdictions. Conversely, regularity proscribes interaction with Lodges that are irregular. A Mason who visits an irregular Lodge may have his membership suspended for a time, or he may be expelled. For this reason, all Grand Lodges maintain lists of other jurisdictions and lodges they consider regular.[1]

Clandestine: A lodge operating either without a charter/dispensation or operating with one from a Grand Lodge that is not considered Regular. The (Anderson) Constitutions declare, Section 8, that where a number of Freemasons shall take upon themselves to form a Lodge without a Grand Master’s Warrant, the regular Lodges are not to countenance them nor own them are fair brethren, and duly formed. In other words, Lodge formed without a Warrant from the Grand Master (we now say Grand Lodge) is “clandestine,” and so a “clandestine Masons” is one made in a Lodge without a Warrant.[2]

Irregular: Often confused with Clandestine. Irregular denotes something not regularly done in masonry. For instance, a woman, made a mason, is by definition of regular masonry, irregularly made, even if all else is done “regularly”. So, for instance, if a regular lodge makes a woman a mason, the doing would be considered irregular.

Recognition: the action of recognizing : the state of being recognized : as a : ACKNOWLEDGMENT; especially : formal acknowledgment of the political existence of a government or nation b : knowledge or feeling that someone or something present has been encountered before[3]

Now that we have our terms straight, we can discuss this. In yesterday’s blog, Are There Women Masons, I noted that there are women masons. I did not say that there were regular women masons, but I did note an indisputable fact. Since then, there has been a long and somewhat serious discussion on the forum I help administer, The Lodgeroom US.

It is one thing to accept a group of masons as regular, and another to simply recognize a fact of life. No one is seriously suggesting that the regular Grand Lodges extend consideration of regularity to women’s lodges, least of all me. Regularity has been clearly defined by the Mainstream Grand Lodge system.

In all of this, there is one thing that should be remembered, my brothers: Will ye, nill ye, there are women who swear the same obligations, who form as lodges, with the same officers, the same symbols, the same rituals, the same teachings, who live the same tenets, and who fulfill their obligations.

As Br. Gregg Hall of The Lodgeroom US says: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are, it’s a duck.

Our grand lodges teach us that a man is first PREPARED to be made a mason in his heart. Then, it is our obligation that makes us a mason. In the catechism of the first degree in the Grand Lodge of California, the candidate is asked:

What came you here to do?
Ans: To improve myself in masonry
Then you are a mason, I presume?
Ans: I am, so taken and accepted among men and masons
How may I know you to be a mason?
Ans: By my obligation

So, to be known (another word for recognized) as a mason, we have our obligation. To recognize a brother, any brother, we look at how they live, what they do, how they act. Most of us who meet a man in public who claims to be a mason is accepted at face value, without any proofs. After all, in public, we aren’t likely to jump into an exchange of Masonic “secrets”.

The issue here is not conferral of regularity. Neither women’s lodges, nor men’s lodges, are interested in changing the definition of regularity, or of creating intervisitation. Nor is it one of merging the two systems into some kind of mismash of the two… the old, separate but equal concept. The issue here is, rather, one of recognition, not regularity.

Since we have set aside the issue of regularity, we should approach the true issue here, the one that, as masons, we are really commanded to uphold. In my jurisdiction, in the Entered Apprentice lecture, we are taught that:

By the exercise of brotherly love, we are taught to regard the whole human species as one family, the high and the low, the rich and the poor, who, as created by one almighty parent, and inhabitants of the same planet, are to aid, support and protect each other. On this principle, masonry unites men of every country, sect and opinion, and causes true friendship to exist among those who might otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance.

So, while we cannot, and to be faithful to our obligations, should not, extend consideration of regularity to women’s or co-ed obediences, there is nothing that says we cannot recognize them as MASONS. In this case, recognition would mean the acknowledgment of a self evident fact:

The women are acting as Masons, living as Masons, and keeping the very same obligations that we keep. So, while they are not regular masons, that term has no value to them anyway, we can, and should recognize them as Masons. It does no harm to our Masonry, and in fact, a salient argument could be made that to recognize them as Masons is an imperative in our obligations.

As always, I look forward to your comments.

G-d bless

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#Regularity

[2] http://www.masonicworld.com/education/files/artjuly01/clandestine.htm

[3] http://www.miriamwebster.com/dictionary/recognition

Are there Women Masons?

Ok, so this is going to sound a bit like heresy, but here goes:

Brothers, there are women Masons.

Close your mouths, it’s not that bad.

I like male only Freemasonry, and certainly have no personal interest in sitting in lodge with a woman. I enjoy our fraternity as it is, and with minor exceptions, I love everything about Freemasonry, and do not see any need to invite women into my lodge.

We know that men and women think differently, work differently, and are surrounded by different energies. Different is not bad, it just is a fact of life. Different does not in any sense imply superiority or inferiority. We should celebrate our differences instead of trying to force everyone into the same mold!

Reality Check.

Women have been practicing the tenets and teachings of our gentle craft since at least the 1800’s, and there are records of women earlier than that. Even the United Grand Lodge of England admits they exist:

"There exist in England and Wales at least two Grand Lodges solely for women. Except that these bodies admit women, they are, so far as can be ascertained, otherwise regular in their practice (emphasis added!). There is also one, which admits both men and women to membership. They are not recognized by this Grand Lodge and intervisitation may not take place. There are, however, informal discussions from time to time with the women's Grand Lodges on matters of mutual concern. Brethren are therefore free to explain to non-Masons, if asked, that Freemasonry is not confined to men (even though this Grand Lodge does not itself admit women). Further information about these bodies may be obtained by writing
to the Grand Secretary."

"The Board is also aware that there exist other bodies not directly imitative of pure antient Masonry, but which by
implication introduce Freemasonry, such as the Order of the Eastern Star. Membership of such bodies, attendance at their meetings or participation in their ceremonies is incompatible with membership of this Grand Lodge."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but more an acknowledgement of a fact. There really are women who use our rituals, teach our philosophy, employ our working tools and live our Masonic tenets. They were first prepared to be made Masons in their hearts, as were all of us in the regular Grand Lodges.

Now, before you burst into flames of righteous indignation, as far as I know, no one is seriously suggesting the regular Grand Lodges should throw open their door and invite women to join our lodges or to allow intervisitation. What I am suggesting is that since, as the old saying goes, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it’s probably a duck, and these women are acting as Masons in all senses except that they are women, that we might, oh, I don’t know, actually treat them as if they were… Masons?

So, you are probably asking me what that means, and that is an excellent question, mostly because its one I have been wrestling with myself for some time now. What is it that makes us a Mason? Our obligation (and keeping it), at least according to the catechism of the Entered Apprentice in my jurisdiction.

Its not the secrets of a Mason that make us Masons, because any profane can acquire the secrets in a library or good sized bookstore. So, minus gender, you can tell a Mason by how s/he talks, how s/he acts, how s/he keeps his word, and how s/he carries themselves in society. So if we ignore gender, we can tell someone is a Mason by how they ARE before g-d and mankind.

Its our obligation then that makes us a Mason. Therefore, lets use that obligation as the measuring stick, a 24 inch gauge, if you will. We are called to act upon the square, keep a tongue of good report, treat people on the level, and act uprightly before g-d and man. We are to act prudently, with justice and temperance, having faith, hope and charity in our hearts and actions.

There are some that argue, and I have been one of them, that since they could not legally receive charters from a regular grand lodge, and because a brother somewhere violated his obligations to make a woman mason, somehow these women cannot be masons. Uh, so the sins of the father are to be visited upon the daughters? THEY did not take that obligation, not to be present at or assist in the making a woman a Mason, so how can they be held to that standard?

I have written many times that if it were in my power (and its probably good that its not), I would recognize all regular practicing Masons and allow intervisitation. I am not willing to go that far with Women's Obediences, but lets be realistic here... as the UGLE noted, OTHER than that they are women, they are regular practicing Masons.

If our sisters (yes, I know they prefer to be called brother, but I am only human here…) live their obligations as we do, then why can't we, why shouldn't we, extend them the same consideration, the same hand of brotherly love and relief? I am not calling for us to extend regularity or recognition to these obediences, but, in the name of Masonic tolerance and brotherly love, since they are Masons in all but gender, can we not at least treat them as cousins, as Masons who just can't belong to our lodges?

In the Master’s Lecture in my lodge, we are told that if we see a certain sign given, or hear the words accompanying it spoken, that:

“…we are to regard the PERSON giving it as a Master Mason, and it would be out indispensable duty to aid and assist them…”

The lecture doesn’t say the MAN giving it, it says the person giving it.

The fact is, the vast majority of women only Masonic Obediences have no interest in participating in Male only or what would then be co-ed Masonry) any more than the vast majority of men are interested in participating in women only or co-ed masonry. Anyone that IS interested can always join a co-ed lodge as they do exist.

There are a few, a strident few, who make a lot of noise about forcing the regular Grand Lodges to open their doors to women, but the reality is, the regular Grand Lodge brethren are happy with the Grand Lodge as it is, a male only fraternity. Truth to tell, if people, men and women were really interested in co-ed masonry, there would be more co-ed lodges in the country.

What seems to be growing in numbers is women only lodges. More power to them, I wish them the best in their work and in achieving the goals we all set for ourselves in Freemasonry. They do no harm to regular freemasonry, in fact, as I have noted elsewhere, the world could use more people living as Masons. Why do we join Masonic lodges in the first place?

To become better people.

After all, Freemasonry is not about me changing them, its about me changing me.

Given the above, I would like to suggest that we treat our sisters as Masons by giving them the same respect and courtesy we would give anyone we meet on the street who notes that they are a Mason. That does not mean inviting them to lodge, of course, nor visiting a tyled session of their lodges, but extending to them the courtesy and respect that we would give to a strange man who lays claim to our fraternal association instead of treating them as if they were horned emmisaries of the devil or infected with Ebola.

Disclaimer: It is not my purpose to try to change your mind, or convince you of any position one way or the other. I am, as always, interested in your point of view.

G-d bless.