Write To:
THE EDITOR, FREEMASONRY TODAY, FREEMASONS’ HALL, GREAT QUEEN STREET, LONDON WC2B 5AZ

Email:
editor@ugle.org.uk
Letters emailed to the editor should not be sent as attachments.
Please include a home address and telephone number.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

Sir,
     I read with some alarm the letter from Bruce Baker in Freemasonry Today, Issue 8. To date Freemasonry has, to a great extent, avoided political correctness. Please let that continue especially if our proved and loved ritual would suffer if we were to go down that road. Similarly, I hope that Freemasonry will take a sensible approach to Health and Safety lest we lose the Cable Tow, Poignard and Candles.
     Christopher Dawe
     Lansdowne Lodge of Unity No 626, Chippenham, Wiltshire

Sir,
     Shock! Horror! Or perhaps it was a joke? A Freemason suggesting that wives should be referred to as ‘partners’ - even in ritual? Out go the courtesy and common-sense that marks out the Brethren of a lodge and in comes the clammy claws of political correctness.
     Not only do I sharply remind anyone who refers to my wife as my ‘partner’ that she is my ‘wife’ but also bring to their attention that marriage is not a ‘partnership’ but ‘teamwork’. Like any other team, marriage needs a leader – but there is no universal rule that says it has to be the husband.
     What next? Should ‘Brother’ and ‘Brethren’ go as they are clearly gender specific? The word ‘Worshipful’ is surely out of date. ‘Master’ very definitely bears all the semblance of authority.
     No, Sir! In ‘these days of equality and diversity’ we should stick firmly to the principles of loyalty, good manners, courtesy, common sense and tradition that mark out the Brethren. Political correctness and all its simpering cohorts should never be allowed to darken the interior of a lodge.
     E C Coleman
     Witham Lodge No 297, Lincoln, Lincolnshire

Sir,
     Why on earth must we continually change society and our beliefs in accordance to those from what is accepted as a minority of the population? I do not deny that all persons, whatever their persuasion, are entitled to their rights and respect for their views. However, I am sure that we exist in a democratic society where the views of the majority are accepted.
     Maybe I’m old-fashioned but the suggestion for changing the wording of our obligation to satisfy political correctness is unacceptable.
     Throughout Freemasonry I’m certain that there will be many Brethren who are openly gay, or not so open, cohabiting, or just plain old-fashioned married.
     Whatever their status, I can’t believe that any of them have ever considered parting with traditional ceremonies and values.
     Doug Phillips
     Maryland Lodge 5984, Southgate, London

Sir,
     In his letter published in Freemasonry Today, Issue No. 8, Bruce Baker suggested that ‘partner’ should replace ‘wife’ in the Third Degree obligation. This does not address the real problem which lies in the list of relatives itself and which can never be allembracing.
     As an example, I have long wondered why ‘his mother’ is not included since the forty-year-old mother of a young initiate could represent a temptation to older master masons, of whom there are many!
     The solution to Bro. Baker’s problem is to delete the list of persons from the ritual and just say ‘...and most strictly respect the honour of those nearest and dearest to him.’ This coveres all relationships and persons, including males! It requires no detailed listing which is the present source of the ambivalence pointed out by Bro. Baker.
     D J Taylor
     Foundation Lodge No 82, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire

NATIONAL MEMORIAL ARBORETUM

Sir,
     I went along to the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire on Remembrance Day. This site is a truly moving and fast developing national treasure.
     My wife and I went to the Freemasons’ garden which was inaugurated and dedicated in 2002 in the presence of the Assistant Grand Master. I felt that our garden let our movement down. From the information board at the garden it became clear that Staffordshire is the principal architect and keeper with the assistance of Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Shropshire. The information states that the garden will be developed when funds and greater support become available. In the meantime however it looks underwhelming and poorly maintained.
     I feel that this National Memorial Garden should be the responsibility of the United Grand Lodge of England and thus receive the recognition it deserves. Ironically, the only tree planted at the site was one by the Order of Women Freemasons.
     I recommend everyone to pay a visit to the Memorial and Arboretum and I should be interested to know the views of other Brethren.
     Clive Hampson
     Lodge of Justice No 5092, Birmingham, Warwickshire

GRAND LODGE FEES

Sir,
     With the credit crunch biting it becomes more and more difficult to justify being a member of more than one Craft lodge unless one of them is an Installed Masters’ lodge which has the ability to remove the Grand Lodge dues from their subscriptions. But why does this have to be restricted to installed masters?
     We are told that Grand Lodge now has a fantastic database which lists all of us and the lodges we belong to, so why can’t this database be put to good use? I think that it is time for Grand Lodge to invoice us directly for our dues. It should not matter if you belong to one or a dozen Craft lodges, there would be just one Grand Lodge fee.
     Toby Hammond
     King Alfred Lodge No 3169, Somerset

WOMEN IN UNITED GRAND LODGE

Sir,
     I became a Freemason just over ten years ago and have thoroughly enjoyed my experience of the Craft, believing that the moral instruction is wonderful and the good fellowship warming.
     In most respects I am a traditionalist and would question any proposal to change the tenets and principles of the Institution. However, I have become increasingly uncomfortable with the separation between male and female Freemasonry. When talking about the subject with Brethren who support the current state of affairs I have felt that their arguments are rather ‘hollow’.
     Could I ask your readers, particularly those who would oppose change, to explain the reason for our current exclusion of women from the United Grand Lodge of England?
     Mark Wheatley
     Kirby Lodge No 2818, London

RANK AND REGALIA

Sir,
     The correspondence following a query by a long-serving brother about the selection of Provincial Grand Officers and the responses printed in Freemasonry Today by some eminent Brethren shows the depth of feeling this subject has evinced.
     I was initiated into St Andrew Lodge No 110 in Aberdeen, February 1962. It may come as a surprise to many English Freemasons that the Scottish Craft does not have, or need, Past Povincial ranks.
     A newly appointed Provincial Grand Officer is provided with Provincial regalia by the province. He will wear this until his term of office is over. His successor in the Office is invested with that regalia whilst the outgoing officer reverts to wearing his Craft lodge regalia.
     In Craft lodges we have a perfect example of honest reward for masonic effort and progress. A Brother Initiate’s plain white apron will change as he earns the right to progress, culminating in the Master’s apron: the highest honour the Craft lodge has in its power to bestow.
     As all active Provincial Grand Officers are expected to labour diligently in their Office and to take part in official visitations to the Craft lodges in the Province, it is appropriate that they wear the correct regalia. Such active Provincial Grand Office ceases when a successor takes his place. The real reward for having served as a Provincial Grand Officer should be the satisfaction of having served Freemasonry and his Province to the best of his ability.
     I therefore contend that the core problem is that Past and Honorary Past Provincial Grand Rank serves no useful purpose other than pandering to the ego of the holder by allowing him to dress in expensive embroidered regalia so often that of a rank in which he never actually served.
     If, like the Boy Scouts, the Brethren must have badges (I was once a scout District Commissioner) then why not a breast jewel: bronze for service to the lodge, silver for service to the Province and gold for service as a Visiting Officer together with a bar on the ribbon denoting ten, twenty, twenty-five and fifty years service.
     Brian Stephen Thompson
     Lodge of Benevolence No 489, Bideford, Devonshire

WHO RECEIVES CHARITY?

Sir,
     Recently I was part of a discussion of the question ‘Should a Freemason who was excluded from the Craft be entitled to masonic charity?
     My argument was that the system was such that once a man has met all the criteria to become a Freemason then he is always a Freemason therefore he is entitled to exactly the same privileges as someone who was still within the Craft and that this exclusion should never be part of anyone’s individual assessment for Masonic charitable assistance.
     Obviously we can never disregard the possibility that the reason that the mason was excluded may have been simply because he had fallen on hard times and either due to his not being able to ask for help or the lodge failing to spot the problem, he took that way out.
     An opposing view was that in recent years there may well be some occasions where individuals have joined Freemasonry with the sole intent of obtaining assistance. So we should protect ourselves from such possibilities and it would be in order to look at each application for Masonic charity in case the Freemason had been excluded. Then one should look at each case on its own individual merits, taking into account such things as how long the mason had been a member of the Craft before being excluded and whether it was possible that they had joined for the ‘wrong’ reason.
     Some in the discussion countered by saying that it was impossible to correctly establish why someone allowed themselves to be excluded therefore one should not take exclusion into account at all. In addition, views were expressed that our masonic charity was not a bottomless pit so it was best to be prudent with the money so rules like the above were necessary.
     So, with respect to masonic charity applications in general, does it really matter whether a Freemason was previously excluded or should this be taken into account?
     Graham Arnold
     West Derby Castle Lodge No 5821, West Lancashire

THE LONELY ENTERED APPRENTICE

Sir,
     Being relatively new to Freemasonry it is easy for me to look back at the three Degrees. With respect to my lodge and the lodges that I have visited, the great majority of the Brethren are either Grand or Provincial officers so it is logical to believe that they have been on the square for many years. I mention this because I think that, on the whole, they have forgotten how traumatic an effect the First Degree can have on new members.
     The First Degree ceremony is completely unintelligible to the Candidate and you think ‘What have I let myself in for’ especially when you know that you have two more degree ceremonies. This is the most important time for the lodge to take the Entered Apprentice to its bosom.
     Now the new Freemason goes to his first lodge meeting: I found this far worse than my initiation. The Entered Apprentice could be seated alone at the far end of the lodge, not knowing what is happening, when to stand up, sit down, or open his mouth. I found it completely incomprehensible. I think this is the defining moment for the Entered Apprentice. When he sees the pomp and ceremony of a lodge meeting does it fill him with wonder and excitement or does it frighten him and make him want to run away? I personally had an excellent mentor who took me to other lodges to witness the degrees that I had just gone through; they were wonderful to see but they did not really answer the ‘why’ question.
     The three things that could give the Entered Apprentice a great deal of confidence are: after his initiation the new Freemason is taken into the lodge on a one to one basis with a senior member of the lodge and given a thorough explanation of the lodge workings – who sits where and why together with a clarification of the Degree he has just gone through. Secondly, during as many lodge meetings as it takes, a senior lodge member sits alongside guiding him through the procedures of the meeting. Lastly, after the First Degree the new Freemason is given informative literature to peruse, one being ‘Notes for an Entered Apprentice’. Would it not be possible to add the Opening and Closing ceremony in the First Degree as well?
     This, I am sure, would give the new Freemason that extra confidence he so desperately needs.
     W J Hodges
     Leyland St Andrews Lodge No 7391, Leyland, West Lancashire

WORSHIPFUL SECRETARY?

Sir,
     Nothing causes greater confusion and argument, year on year, than the use of the style ‘Worshipful’. Men with thirty years service in the Craft still disagree over it and Emulation Ritual contradicts the Book of Constitutions about it.
     Paragraph 6 of the latter informs us that the style ‘Worshipful’ is to be used for masters of lodges, present and past, yet after being addressed as such for twelve months, Emulation Ritual instructs his successor to revert to addressing him simply as ‘Brother’ when investing him as the Immediate Past Master.
     I have seen summonses on which a Past Master in the Chair is styled ‘Worshipful Brother [name] Worshipful Master’ which is surely incorrect. I have also heard lodge secretaries insisting that junior Brethren address them as ‘Worshipful Brother Secretary’ because they are past masters when surely ‘Brother Secretary’ is correct irrespective of the rank of the officeholder.
     This is a matter which affects the everyday running of the lodge and I feel that we urgently need a definitive ruling on the use of this style, either in these pages or as a directive to the directors of ceremonies of lodges.
     Charles L Gallimore
     Marquis of Lorne Lodge No 1354, Leigh, West Lancashire

AUGUSTIN BARRIOS MANGORE: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION

Sir,
     I am currently researching the life of the great Paraguayan classical guitarist and Freemason, Augustin Barrios Mangore.
     Barrios toured Europe in 1934-36 and probably came to England. It seems that Barrios had been a Freemason since the early 1930s in South America.
     While in England perhaps he may have made contact with lodges here.
     Do any lodges have a record of such a visit by Barrios? I would be delighted to hear from them
     Nick Regan
     Bristol
     nickregan@hotmail.com