| HOME | Current Issue | Index by Issue | Search the Site | Translate On-Line | Printer Friendly |
| Internet Help Centre | Regulars | Specials | Humour | Book Reviews | Links | Affinity Lodges |
|
|
Letters to the Editor
Alan N Workman. Worthing, W.Sussex. Sir, I was disappointed to read in The Independent (14.1.99) that Freemasons’ Hall appears to have tolerated a regime of sexual harassment which recently resulted in an out-of-court settlement to the second of two female members of staff in respect of separate incidents which had taken place over the last four years. Their lawyers have settled these matters as far as the victims are concerned. My concern here is for the moral and administrative accountability of the leadership of the Craft towards its members, who would not have known about these cases had The Independent not reported them. Administratively, members assume that the Craft is competently run on their behalf with funds which they provide. If their subscriptions are used by Grand Lodge to pay off sexual harassment cases, they have a right to know about it. The staff manual of one of the big five banks takes nine pages to cover its procedures for dealing with sexual harassment. Freemasons’ Hall may therefore take some comfort from the fact that such situations are anticipated elsewhere, though it seems rather careless to have offended twice with a staff of a mere 130. It is a shame that Grand Lodge should have thought so little of its accountability to those who support it as to have failed to provide either an apology or even an indication that there has been a problem but that matters have now been put right. It is this failure of accountability that may lead many Freemasons to ask themselves whether such an organisation merits their continued support. Julian Rogers. PM, The Duke of Normandy Lodge No 245, Jersey, Channel Islands. EDITOR’S NOTE: In view of the content of Bro Rogers’ letter the Grand Secretary was asked for comment and has responded as follows: Bro Rogers rang my office very soon after the article appeared in The Independent. (It may be of interest to note that he was the only member of the Craft to do so; one other member wrote to me and was satisfied with my reply.) I am sorry that Bro Rogers was not satisfied with the reply he received. It is not the policy of the UGLE to discuss staff matters in public (and Freemasonry Today is an independent publication), but those of your readers who do not read The Independent may wish to see the text of the joint statement which the UGLE made as part of the agreed settlement with Miss [D]: The UGLE very much regrets the circumstances which have led to Miss [D’s] complaints and has determined to ensure that such a situation does not recur. United Grand Lodge has retained a professional Human Resources consultant to assist the organisaion in reviewing its policies and practices and in implementing an education and training programme for its staff. Sir, Why is it, I wonder, when so much concern is being expressed about a downward spiral of masonic membership that, without a suggestion of an alternative arrangement, a directive was re-issued about the giving of the toast to absent brethren? It is precisely such vastly significant and pleasurable occasions which have maintained the foundation stones of our most Ancient and Honourable Institution and which demonstrate solidarity in this period of fear and uncertainty. Old traditions should be re-vitalised, not devalued. To this end, I would seek a compromise and request Grand Lodge to issue a further directive that all lodges will take wine with Absent Brethren at a precise time agreed by each lodge. After all, if we can celebrate each New Year at the correct time, I am confident that we can salute those absent at precisely the same time too. This would allow not only for the retention of the present mandatory toast list but would clearly consolidate a masonic tradition which many brethren consider is well overdue. Peter Harris PProvSGD. Lodge of Harmony No 4390, Cheshire. Wisdom of Solomon Sir, I am forced to disagree with Matthew Christmas (Solomonic Degrees, Winter Issue) with regard to his chronological table. The present Mark Master Masons Degree is a combination of two earlier degrees: the Mark Man, which may correctly be construed as the completion of the second degree and the Mark Master Mason. However, the installation ceremony in the Mark Degree must definitely be placed after the third degree to be in its correct chronological position. Although the third degree precedes the Royal Master, in my opinion it only covers some of the degrees in the Ancient & Accepted Rite up to the Elect of 15. The degree of Excellent Master as worked in Scotland, Ireland and other countries, deals with the pre-Solomonic period and chronologically should precede the Entered Apprentice Degree. The reason for placing it immediately prior to the Royal Arch is that the password to the fourth veil is the password needed to enter a Royal Arch Chapter. However, in Ireland the Royal Arch Degree does not refer to the rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple but to that of a much earlier structure (which appears to be more logical). The Order of Knight Masons, which is worked in Ireland and North America, deals with the legends (in a series of three degrees) covered by the Red Cross of Babylon and the Holy Royal Arch. In Scotland, the Degree of Knight of the Babylonish Pass, which is a separate Order, also covers the same legend regarding Darius. John W Mitchell. Hove, Sussex. Rosslyn Sir, I read Matthew Scanlan's letter in issue 7 with absolute horror. Not only had the author completely misrepresented what I had said in a previous letter about Rosslyn, he has dragged a distinguished academic into the debate, on entirely false grounds. Had the full content of my previous letter appeared, the confusion, created by Mr Scanlan, could not have occurred. Mr Scanlan took the words of my previous letter out of context to create the impression that I had said that Dr Jack Miller of Cambridge University had confirmed our claim that Rosslyn is a reconstruction of the ruins of Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem. He has not made any such comment and I have no interest in pretending that he has. That would be a lie, and I can assure Bro Scanlan that I am not a liar. As a geologist, Dr Jack Miller would not be qualified to express such an opinion with any authority, and it would be pointless to pretend that he had. What I said in my letter was that “There are many well-informed people who uphold our interpretation of Rosslyn's design”. Dr Miller is indeed one of those people, but his contribution had to do with the stone and not the architecture. It was Dr Miller who pointed out to us that the stone used in Rosslyn is from exactly the same strata as that which appears in Jerusalem, (not similar - the same). Importantly, it was also he who made an observation which broke the deadlock as to whether the oversized and crumbling west wall of Rosslyn was the beginnings of a never-built collegiate church or a copy of a ruin. Local amateur historians, such as Robert Brydon had for many years been repeating the old story about Rosslyn being the Lady Chapel for an intended bigger building. Using his knowledge of stone and stonework Jack Miller pointed out that the debated west wall was definitely ‘a folly’ because the stone had not been keyed into the main fabric of the structure. As he said at the time “The building has visual integrity but no structural integrity. Any attempt to build onto that wall would result in a collapse of the whole structure”. He also pointed out that the uneven edges of the protruding stones were not weathered, but worked to look like a ruin. I am extremely unhappy that Dr Miller was misinformed about our claim of his contribution, and I trust Mr Scanlan will apologise to him. If my previous letter had received less editing, I believe the nature of our claims of academic support would have been far clearer. The first world-class expert to agree with our view was Professor Philip Davies, the famous Dead Sea Scroll scholar from Sheffield University’s Biblical Studies Department. Upon inspecting Rosslyn he stated that in his opinion it was not a Christian chapel and the west wall does appear to be strongly Herodian in its design. This view was upheld by his colleague and friend Professor Graham Auld, an expert on Jerusalem from Edinburgh University. In early 1998 the Rev. Professor James Charlesworth flew in to see Rosslyn with us. He is Head of the Dead Sea Scrolls Project at Princeton and the current Albright Professor of Archaeology in Jerusalem. He produced further evidence that the west wall was deliberately and painstakingly constructed to make it look like the ruined Herodian Temple as it had looked in the middle ages, down to such detail as false ‘robbed stones’. He also expressed the opinion (as an archaeologist and a clergyman) that Rosslyn was not a Christian building, which caused him to cancel his intended visit to the Sunday morning service. There were several other illogical points made in Mr Scanlan’s letter that do not deserve serious comment. However, I feel I must respond to his abuse of the concept of what constitutes an academic and his casual dismissal of the important evidence within the carving of a man with a noose about his neck. I know that Mr Scanlan is desperately opposed to the possibility of a Templar origin for Freemasonry, and he says that our view is unsupported by any academic historian. He is correct in this because Freemasonry is ignored by almost all serious academics to the point that I am unaware of any academic historian having studied the subject as far back in time. He then quotes Robert Brydon and Michael Baigent, who are both very informed people but neither is an academic. Their invited comment, that there is no documentary evidence of a Templar connection with Rosslyn, is obviously correct or else there would be no debate. If Mr Brydon had been asked about non-documentary Templar connections with Rosslyn, I am sure he would have given a very different answer. I freely admit that I am a not academic, but my co-reseacher and co-author Robert Lomas certainly is. He has a PhD gained for his research in the field of solid state physics and he has spent virtually all of his working life as a university academic. Amongst other subjects he lectures in statistics, which is the basis of the evidence that arises from the ‘candidate’ carving at Rosslyn. Matthew Scanlan showed just one of my photographs of this complex statue. It was reproduced less that three inches high, and Mr Scanlan scathingly asked readers to “draw their own conclusions”. He might as well have reproduced a medieval document at that tiny size and asked people to make a judgement. That statue, made in the mid 15th century, shows a scene that has seven points of congruence with the first degree of Freemasonry: the kneeling figure is blindfold, he has a Bible in his left hand, a noose about his neck, his feet are in the form of a square. The figure holding the noose is wearing the bodice of a Knight Templar, and the whole scene takes place in front of two pillars. These are verifiable facts, not fudged impressions. Even taking the statistical probability of each of these unlikely elements of congruence as being an even 50/50 probability, the statistical outcome is that there are exactly seven chances in a thousand that there is no connection between the event depicted and modern Freemasonry. To a qualified statistician, this removes any debate, especially in the light of all the other masonic associations in the building which are too numerous to list here. I appreciate that this is a lengthy letter but I sincerely hope that you will reproduce it in full as this is a hugely important matter for Freemasonry that deserves fair and proper discussion, rather than point scoring by any means. Chris Knight. Co-author: The Second Messiah. Sir, In the throes of preparing a paper about William Preston’s Illustrations of Masonry (1788), I was struck by the similarities between Preston’s thoughts two centuries ago and your editorial in Issue 7: What are we doing being Freemasons? I do feel that brethren of lodges such as my own (Lodge of Hope 6703) who have a continual stream of candidates are missing something by not having the time to be able to hear learned brethren giving lectures and papers. Whereas the Lodge of Benevolence 666, which I visit here in Princetown, having a dearth of candidates, are glad of someone to give a talk and are probably better informed, masonically, for it. Thank you for an excellent magazine which certainly shows from the various articles and letters, how diverse are the views of the brethren of our wonderful Order. AJ Sankey. Princetown, Devon. Roman Catholic Attitudes Sir, The article Roman Catholic Attitudes Yesterday and Today (Issue 7) is perhaps more than a little optimistic when one looks at official Catholic statements to be found on the Internet: “Freemasonry teaches a naturalistic religion that espouses indifferentism, the position that a person can be equally pleasing to God while remaining in any religion.” And: “The penalty of excommunication for joining the Masonic Lodge was explicit in the 1917 code of canon law (canon 2335), and it is implicit in the 1983 code (canon 1374). Because the revised code of canon law is not explicit on this point, some drew the mistaken conclusion that the Church’s prohibition of Freemasonry had been dropped. As a result of this confusion, shortly before the 1983 code was promulgated, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a statement indicating that the penalty was still in force. This statement was dated Nov. 26 1983 and may be found in Origins 13/27 (Nov 15 1983), 450.” The issue is not one of attitude but one of doctrine which six papal bulls make clear, especially Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus. Is there a mechanism for repealing a bull? If so, perhaps bridges could be built to the Pontiff. Gerald Reilly. St Osyth’s Priory Lodge 2063. Openness Sir, Thank God for Openness – at last! Freemasonry, the power-house of universal brotherly love, need hide its light no longer. It can now be revealed through Freemasonry, by Freemasons freely as never before. Yet, nothing has changed. We are still not just a ‘come and join us’ organisation. Aspirants for admission are still only sought from those who qualify essentially by personal belief, discipline, obedience and discretion. EC Caple. Yeovil, Somerset. Sir, Your magazine is an excellent medium for informing and to some extent educating masons, but sadly, to my knowledge, there are many, including senior members in my province – the largest in the country – who do not read or subscribe, and the situation is probably the same elsewhere. Why can’t every Masonic Hall in the country have copies in the bar or lounge where masons and non-masons meet? If we are to be able to answer our critics, it is surely incumbent on us all to be well-informed and up-to-date with developments. What better way of doing this than having Freemasonry Today readily available. It would cost no more than a bottle of wine at a festive board and could be paid for by direct debit out of Hall funds. Come on, leaders of the Craft, do something about it! Fred Lomax. Standish, Lancashire. Sir, Re the letter in Issue 7 from Bro Jack Blandford under the heading Iniquitous Measures. I have also written to the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and my local MP concerning Freemasonry and the Judiciary. I received the formal ‘whitewash’ letter from the Lord Chancellor’s Office and nothing from the Home Office, but my MP acknowledged my letter with the comment: “…I am not a great supporter of secret organisations…” With the approval of our Provincial Office, I sent him a copy of the leaflet on ‘What every candidate should know’ and invited him to attend one of our Open Days. I am pleased to say that he has replied, saying that he found it “extremely useful” and expressed his hope to be able to attend an Open Day – and have drawn his attention to the one to be held in Edgbaston on 20 February 1999. JR Pickering. PProvJGW. Hall Green, Birmingham. Sir, A number of years ago, I had the pleasure of introducing a friend of mine into Masonry. As time went on he went through the offices of the lodge until he became WM. By this time, eight years ago, I had moved to another lodge but was pleased to accept an invitation to his Installation. At the festive board afterwards, I looked at the place cards on each side of where I was sitting. To my left was the name Bro Buchanan and as I looked, a little bell rang in the back of my mind telling me that somewhere our paths had crossed. I told him that I felt that I knew him and asked him a couple of questions to which only the person I was thinking of would know the answers. To my delight, his answers confirmed that he had been my sergeant in the Black Watch in 1942 and 1943 and was now living at a village not far from Ulverston. Needless to say there was a lot of reminiscing done that evening and on subsequent occasions. So it just goes to show that Freemasonry doesn’t just span the world, it also spans time when it brings together people who have not met for nearly 50 years. Frank Snape. Feniscowles, Blackburn, Lancs.
|