 |
Welcome to Paul M. Bessel's website about | Table of Contents |
Masonic Recognition Issues |
|
|
| Official documents issued by the Grand Lodge of Minnesota | http://bessel.org/masrec/minndocs.htm |
| History of U.S. Grand Lodge's recognitions of all 3 French Masonic grand bodies during the 1900s | http://bessel.org/masrec/france.htm |
| Details about U.S. Grand Lodges withdrawals of recognition of the GLF (Grand Lodge of France) | http://bessel.org/masrec/glfderec.htm |
| Details about U.S. Grand Lodges recognitions of the GLNF (National Grand Lodge of France) | http://bessel.org/masrec/glnfrec.htm |
| Documents sent to me by officials of the GLNF (National Grand Lodge of France) for posting on this website | http://bessel.org/masrec/glnfdocs.htm |
| Information about other instances when U.S. Grand Lodges withdrew recognition of each other | http://bessel.org/masrec/usa.htm |
In April 2001, the Grand Lodge of Minnesota voted to recognize the Grand Lodge of France (GLF) in addition to the National Grand Lodge of France (GLNF). The Minnesota Grand Lodge took this action on the recommendation of its External Relations Committee. (A copy of this committee report, and any other documentation from Minnesota will be placed here, if and when I am able to obtain copies.)
Apparently some people expected the Minnesota Grand Master to rescind his Grand Lodge's recognition of the GLF, but that did not occur, and no action was taken on this subject at the next Minnesota Grand Lodge session, in April 2002.
From May through July, 2002, about 8 U.S. Grand Lodges suspended recognition of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota because it had recognized the GLF, and about 6 U.S. Grand Lodges considered this subject but did not suspend relations with the GL of Minnesota.
On July 13, 2002, the Grand Lodge of Minnesota suspended its recognition of the GLF, saying that it was doing so because the suspension of recognition of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota by some U.S. Grand Lodges was causing difficulties for Minnesota masons and because the Grand Lodge of Minnesota wanted to be able to discuss the subject of masonic recognition practices with the other U.S. Grand Lodges and could only do that if all were in recognition with each other.
Michigan
On May 1, 2002, the Grand Master of Michigan issued the following edict:
To: All Grand Lodges with which we are in Amity
Worshipful Masters, Officers, and members of all Michigan Constituent Lodges
My Brothers:
An unfortunate situation has presented itself, which threatens to undermine the very foundations of
Freemasonry, both in North America and Worldwide. The Standards of Recognition require that when a
Grand Lodge occupies the same jurisdictional territory as a previously established Regular Grand
Lodge, they must first establish a treaty of mutual consent with the Regular Grand Lodge. Only in this way can the
proper relationship between Grand Lodges be preserved, and the Craft strengthened.
When one Grand Lodge begins to recognize Grand Lodges that are not recognized by the Regular Grand
Lodge with which they share Jurisdiction, then the entire fabric of Freemasonry is threatened. Nothing then
would prevent such a Grand Lodge from recognizing irregular Grand Lodges within our own Jurisdiction,
without our prior approval.
The Grand Lodge of Minnesota has done just this. They have recognized the Grand Lodge of France, which
is not recognized by the Regular and recognized Grand Lodge of that jurisdiction, the Grand Lodge National
of France, and have done so in contravention to the customs and usages of our Fraternity.
All attempts to whisper good counsel have been rebuffed, and the Grand Lodge of Minnesota refuses to abide by said
customs and usages, thereby placing themselves outside of the bounds of Regular Freemasonry.
It is, therefore, my order, that from this day, and until the Grand Lodge of Minnesota once again adheres to
those principles with which all Regular and well-governed Grand Lodges agree, the recognition of the Grand
Lodge, AF&AM of Minnesota by the Grand Lodge, F&AM of Michigan, is suspended. No Mason
who holds membership in a Lodge chartered under said Grand Lodge, including those who hold dual membership in a
Michigan Lodge, may participate in any function of any Lodge chartered under the Grand Lodge F&AM of
Michigan, and no member of said Grand Lodge may hold membership in, or participate in any
way, in any activity, of any Appendant, Affiliated, or Concordant body of Freemasonry operating within the Territorial
Jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Michigan, including but not limited to: the Ancient Arabic Order, Nobles
of the Mystic Shrine; the Order of the Eastern Star; York Rite Bodies; Scottish Rite Bodies; Amaranth; Hi-12;
Tall Cedars of Lebanon; DeMolay; Job's Daughters; or Rainbow. In like manner, no member of any Lodge
chartered under the Grand Lodge of Michigan may participate in any way in any activity of any Lodge
chartered under the Grand Lodge AF&AM of Minnesota, or any of its Appendant, Affiliated, or Concordant
bodies.
Sincerely and Fraternally,
Paul N. Cross
Grand Master
It was reported that at its annual meeting on May 29-30, 2002, the Grand Lodge of Michigan ratified this action of the Grand Master, without any discussion and without any opposition.
New York
On May 6, 2002, the Grand Lodge of New York adopted a motion by Grand Secretary Gary Henningsen, to suspend fraternal relations with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota because it had recognized the Grand Lodge of France.
The following is from pages that will be in the New York Grand Lodge 2002 Proceedings:
On recommendation of the Correspondence and Relations Committee the Grand Lodge breach of Masonic protocol and the potential undermining of the accepted Standards of Recognition required by all Regular Grand Lodges throughout the world. This deviation from the accepted Standards of Recognition became apparent when the Grand Lodge of Minnesota, against the advice of its sister Grand Lodges, granted recognition and established mutual affinity with the clandestine Grand Lodge of France (an un-recognized Grand Lodge) without first obtaining the consent of the established and regular Grand Lodge within the jurisdiction of France, namely the National Grand Lodge of France (National Francaise). This act amounts to a gross violation of the established rules under which all Regular Grand Lodges operate.
Washington DC
On May 8, 2002, the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia adopted a motion by Grand Master Robert H. Starr, expressing concern about the action of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota in recognizing the Grand Lodge of France, but the Grand Lodge voting delegates were told the sole purpose of the resolution was to take more time before deciding whether any action would be taken on this subject. (A copy of the D.C. resolution will be placed here, if and when I am able to obtain a copy.)
Maine
On May 11, 2002, The Grand Lodge of Maine voted to suspend recognition of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota, until such time as the Grand Lodge of Minnesota might change its policy of recognizing the Grand Lodge of France, in addition to the national Grand Lodge of France. (A copy of any official documents about this will be placed here, if and when I am able to obtain copies.)
Kentucky
It has been reported that the Grand Master of Kentucky issued an edict suspending masonic relations with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota. (A copy of any official documents about this will be placed here, if and when I am able to obtain copies.)
Maryland
It has been reported that the Grand Master of Maryland issued an edict on May 13, 2002, suspending masonic relations with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota. (A copy of any official documents about this will be placed here, if and when I am able to obtain copies.)
Rhode Island
It has been reported that Rhode Island suspended masonic relations with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota on May 20, 2002, but I have not received information about how this was done, or even if it definitely was done. (A copy of any official documents about this will be placed here, if and when I am able to obtain copies.)
Indiana
At the annual meeting of the Grand Lodge of Indiana, May 21-22, 2002, the incoming Grand Master addressed this subject as part of his Installation Address:
The following is an excerpt of the Grand Master’s address that
refers to the situation surrounding the Grand Lodge of Minnesota and the Grand
Lodge of France
Installation Address of Grand Master VanGorden
The
French Connection
There
are numerous Grand Lodges in France but there are three of what we could call
major Grand Lodges. The largest is
the Grand Orient of France. We
consider the Grand Orient of France irregular because they do not require a
belief in a Supreme Being and tend to be involved in partisan politics.
Often it is said that this Grand Orient of France is atheistic.
This is not necessarily true. The
doctrine of the Grand Orient is that the human conscience is paramount therefore
they do not limit membership to any of what we might call a system of spiritual
beliefs. They have members of many
faiths as well as agnostics and atheists.
The
second largest Grand Lodge is the Grand Lodge of France that we recognized until
the early 1960’s. This Grand
Lodge appears to be regular. There
are possibly two exceptions that could cause some to regard this Grand Lodge as
irregular. One is that this Grand
Lodge does not have a prohibition on intervisitation with lodges not recognized.
Second is that this Grand Lodge has entered into a loose confederation
with several irregular Grand Lodges that exist in Europe.
The confederation is titled the United Grand Lodges of Europe.
My understanding is that this confederation is not a working Grand Lodge
per se, but is based on a model similar to our Conference of Grand Masters.
The
third Grand Lodge mentioned is the National Grand Lodge of France.
As mentioned in the early 1960’s our Grand Lodge withdrew recognition
of the Grand Lodge of France and awarded recognition to the to the National
Grand Lodge of France whom we still recognize to this day.
In
the code of the National Grand Lodge of France it is stated that intervisitation
with Grand Lodges not recognized is prohibited.
However in discussion with several brothers including members of lodges
under charter with the National Grand Lodge of France I find that this rule is
often ignored.
These
three Grand Lodges do not officially recognize each other however they have
signed various agreements among themselves regarding sharing names of expelled
and rejected members as well as acknowledging the existence of each obedience.
The relationship between the National Grand Lodge of France and the Grand
Lodge of France has at times been hostile.
In
April of 2001 the Grand Lodge of Minnesota extended recognition to the Grand
Lodge of France while maintaining relations with the National Grand Lodge of
France. This past April the Grand
Lodge of Minnesota reaffirmed their recognition of the Grand Lodge of France.
Within a matter of days the National Grand Lodge of France suspended
relations with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota.
Since
the middle of April the Grand Lodges of Michigan, New York, Maine, and Kentucky
have followed the National Grand Lodge of France in suspending relations with
Minnesota. It is my belief that
there will be at least two or three additional Grand Lodges suspending relations
with Minnesota within the next month.
In
my opinion the facts surrounding the issue of regularity of the Grand Lodge of
France are not yet complete. Second,
there is a great deal of misunderstanding of Freemasonry in France as some have
confused the Grand Lodge of France with the Grand Orient.
Third, recognition is a very tangled web.
There are Grand Lodges in which we are in amity that may not fully adhere
to our list of protocols outlined in our General Regulations.
Fourth, Freemasonry has variations from culture to culture. Many of the protocols we adhere to are North American Masonic
inventions.
Freemasonry
is changing and I am not limiting this to such things such as one-day classes
and solicitation. The concepts of
recognition are evolving. The
Internet will change many of the long held Grand Lodge protocols.
The instant available information and ease of making acquaintances via
the Internet will change the composure of what we believe to be regular.
As I said, many of the protocols we espouse are North American
inventions. Grand Lodges in this
country need to understand this.
I
am fearful that this schism that has erupted could cause Grand Lodges in this
country to lose sight of the importance of what happened in Ohio a month ago.
Ohio proved that good men are interested in this Fraternity.
Therefore I believe that we must concentrate on our work at hand.
Further
I do not wish to see us turn our backs on brothers that we have held in esteem
for 150 years. As the Rev. and Most
Worshipful Brother Terry Tilson, Grand Master of Minnesota reminded the Grand
Lodge officers on Monday evening, the second oldest Lodge in Minnesota began
work as a Lodge under dispensation from this Grand Lodge.
And the Master of that Lodge became the second Grand Master of Masons in
Minnesota.
If
our brothers in Minnesota are in error that error will be evident in time.
We know that they will correct any mistake.
However, at this time I am not confident that they have erred.
The
Grand Lodge Free and Accepted Masons of Indiana is sovereign and independent.
Therefore it is not my intent to suspend relations with our brothers in
Minnesota because of a forty-year-old debate between two Grand Lodges both of
which may be regular and both of which are several thousands of miles away.
Fraternally,
Roger
S. VanGorden
Grand
Master
England
It has been reported that the UGLE (United Grand Lodge of England) send the following letter, dated May 28, 2002, to the Grand Lodge of Minnesota.
United Grand Lodge of England
Freemasons' Hall, Great Queen Street, London WC2B 5 AZ
Our Ref: RAHM/JMH/FGL/MIN/CAM
R W Bro Douglas Campbell
Grand Secretary
The Grand Lodge of Minnesota
St-Paul Masonic Centre
200 East Plato Boulevard
St Paul 55107
Minnesota
U S A
28 May 2002
Dear Grand Secretary,
Through the Internet we have received a copy of the various papers on the
Grand Lodge of France which have been issued to your Lodges. In the "white paper" it is stated that "The Grand Lodge of France was chartered by the Grand Lodge of England in 1728 in full accord with the latter's requirements." That statement is completely untrue, and I call upon you, in accordance with your clearly stated understanding to rectify factual errors, to issue a correction forthwith.
The facts are that until its involvement in the formation of the National Grand Lodge of France in 1913, England neither chartered, nor
authorised, nor was in any way involved in the organisation of, any Grand Lodge in France. That is provable from our archives, which go back to 1723. There are other errors and omissions in what you have published: you claim, for example, that the Grand Lodge of France is the most senior body
in France. It is not. The oldest Masonic body in France is the Grand Orient of France, whose history is as follows:
a/ On 24 December 1736, a group of self-constituted Lodges, owing allegiance to no Grand Lodge, formed a Grand Lodge of France. This Grand Lodge existed until it was closed by King Louis XV in 1768.
b/ On 9 November 1771, the 1736 Grand Lodge re-constituted itself as the National Grand Lodge of France.
c/ On 22 October 1773, the National Grand Lodge changed its name to the Grand Orient of France, which is still in existence today. Although irregular, it is technically the most senior Masonic body in France. The origins of the Grand Lodge of France are as follows:
i/ Despite the existence of the Grand Orient of France, on August 1804 a Supreme Council-Scottish General Grand Lodge of the Ancient and Accepted Rite was set up in Paris. From 1804 to 1894 it functioned as both a
Supreme Council and Grand Lodge, warranting many Craft Lodges.
ii/ On 7 November 1894, sixty lodges from this Supreme Council-Scottish General Grand Lodge broke away to form the present Grand
Lodge of France, but did not gain effective independence from the Supreme Council until 1904.
These facts are readily obtainable from many histories of French Freemasonry, and are proved by original documents in the archives of French Freemasonry, housed in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris.
Additionally, one notes that in the various papers issued by you, great emphasis is placed on the sovereign nature of each Grand Lodge and the rights of each Grand Lodge to determine its own policy. Yet in the Question and Answer section, one of the questions states:
"Q. In the third paragraph of the motion adopted on May 18th, 2002 by the Grand Lodge of Minnesota Corporate Board, you note that "if the Grand Lodge of France is determined by us to be "regular" we shall suspend relations with the Grand Lodge National of France if we do not see evidence of amenity and concord between themselves and the Grand Lodge of France." Why have you taken this position ?
Although your Grand Master explained his reason for adopting this stance in his answer, the highly publicised announcement of such an ultimatum, so clearly biased in favour of the Grand Lodge of France, is both illogical
and inconsistent with your own reiterated statements that each Grand Lodge is sovereign and in charge of its own decisions.
One fundamental issue not mentioned in any of your papers is the incursions by the grand Lodge of France into territories where regular Grand Lodges exist. It is a long standing principle in international Masonic relations that in territories where a Grand Lodge exists, another Grand Lodge does not charter Lodges to meet there, except by special permission of the existing Grand Lodge. Despite the prior existence of the
Grand Lodge of Spain the Grand Lodge of France has chartered Lodges to meet in Spain. Even worse, despite the existence of the Grand Lodge of the Czech Republic, in January of this year the Grand Lodge of France set up a so-called Grand Lodge of the Czech Lands. In neither case was the existing Grand Lodge consulted.
As issue is considered of vital importance by all regular Grand Lodges, it cannot simply be ignored by you as if it did not exist. If indeed it was considered by your Board, your reasons for discounting it should be clearly explained.
It is clear that in the interest of truth and fairness, a correction to the factual errors and misinformation contained in your various papers should now be placed on your website, and circulated to all those who
received the originals.
Yours sincerely and fraternally,
R.A.H Morrow, Grand Secretary
CC Grand Secretaries of all Grand Lodges recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England
The GLF (Grand Lodge of France) replied to this UGLE letter as follows:
To The Glory Of The Great Architect Of The Universe
REPLY TO THE RIGHT WORSHIPFUL BROTHER
ROBERT H. MORROW'S MESSAGE TO THE GRAND
LODGE OF MINNESOTA, AND TO OTHER DOUBTFUL ACCUSATIONS BROUGHT AGAINST THE
GRAND LODGE OF FRANCE.
RWBro. Morrow's text is a very interesting mixture of fact and fiction. Let's start with history:
It is true that the Grand Lodge of France was not "chartered" by the Grand Lodge of London and Westminster of 1717. There were no "charters" at the time... After all, who chartered the four lodges of the GL of 1717? Or the Grand Lodge of the Antients?
The GLdF was much more than "chartered". Its lodges, which a few years later got together as the Grand Lodge of France, were created by members and Past Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of 1717, refugees in France from the religious / political turmoil in England at the time.
The part about the "history" of Masonry in France is in general rather amusing, because it seems copied from the Grand Orient version of it. While documents are scarce and a number of hypotheses do exist, this one rather tendentiously says that the GL of France, the construction of which started in 1728, actually was the Grand Orient. In reality, the Grand Orient was born much later, in 1773, as a split from the Grand Lodge of France.
RWBro. Morrow also says: "These facts are readily obtainable from many histories of French Freemasonry, and are proved by original documents in the archives of French Freemasonry, housed in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris". Sounds impressive, no? But very far from the actual facts, however.
None of the statements in RWB Morrow's text are supported by documented evidence, only by the vague mentions of "facts... readily obtainable... and... proved by original documents". Making unsupported statements and expecting the other side to prove them wrong is one of the ploys often used by these gentlemen. They seem to believe that even trumped-up charges will help putting any opponents on the
defensive.
We of the GLdF can tell a very different story, but truthfully in
our case. We can provide an actual list of the documents proving our real history, they are all available in our archives.
As to the personal opinions of the many historians of French Masonry, we can quote a whole spectrum of those, stating practically anything. But that seems to be exactly what UGLE
wants: to play a game of diplomatic chess in a public arena so as to further its political interests: it has not only sent this
arrogant, supercilious and condescending letter to the Grand Lodge of Minnesota, but has copied it to all Grand Lodges it has relations with.
There also are in the UGLE letter things which can, unfortunately, only be considered as falsehoods. The letter says: "In the third paragraph of the motion adopted on May 19th, 2002 by the Grand Lodge of Minnesota Corporate Board you note that "if the Grand Lodge of France is
determined by us to be "regular" we shall suspend relations with the Grand Lodge National of France if we do not see evidence of amenity and concord between themselves and the Grand Lodge of France." Why have you taken this position?"
What the GL of Minnesota actually says in the third paragraph of the motion adopted by the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota Corporate Board is: "if the Grand Lodge of France is determined by us to continue to be "regular" then we encourage and pray that the GLNF and the
GLdF will seek a treaty displaying amity and concord." Not really the same thing, is it?
Another outright bugaboo is the contention that the GLoF has created a supra-national "United Grand Lodge of Europe" composed of spurious and irregular Grand Lodges. The very simple truth is, there is no United Grand Lodge of Europe. A number of European Grand Lodges, perfectly regular according to all the universally accepted criteria, not yet recognized by any USA Grand Lodges except for the GLdF
but, at least for some of them, in amity with other regular and recognized Grand Lodges, have created the United Grand
Lodges of Europe. Note the plural: "Lodges". And the very first Grand Lodge which was invited to join was the GLNF.
The United Grand Lodges of Europe are a loose organization, without a centralized hierarchy and with a
yearly elected President and Secretary, exactly on the model of the Conference of GMs in North America, or of the World Conference of Grand Masters.
It meets yearly, each time in another member country. Its purpose is to further fraternal relations among regular (men only, the GAOTU, the VSL, regular origin, etc.), even if unrecognized, European and non-European Masons and Grand Lodges, and to exchange fellowship and information.
Another purpose was to counteract the growing influence of some organizations of European Grand Lodges gravitating around a kind of French Masonry which is certainly not ours, and to offer a haven for regular Masonic bodies that fear being coerced into it.
If North American Grand Lodges were not told untruths about the United Grand Lodges of Europe, they would have cheered at the initiative. Some who understood did cheer, by the way. It is hundred percent in the best interest of regular Masonry.
No sincere individual - or Grand Lodge - can see any reason for the United Grand Lodges of Europe being a pretext for de-recognition by anyone. If it is, that applies as well to the Conference of Grand Masters in North America, the World Conference of Grand Masters, or any similar organization.
Now, concerning the statements about "incursions by the GL of France into territories where regular Grand Lodges exist": That is extremely disingenuous too. The two regular Grand Lodges mentioned are recent GLs under the wing of UGLE and the GLNF. Regular Masonry, in amity with the Grand
Lodge of France, existed in these two countries long before. It is the newcomers and complainers who should have asked for permission to exist from the older Masonry in their countries.
It is perfectly regular and acceptable for any Grand Lodge to create lodges of its own, and even to help create local Grand Lodges, in countries where it does not recognize the local Masonry. After all, the United Grand Lodge of England and the Grande Loge Nationale Française are the two worst
"offenders" - and seem to have made a thriving business of it. They surely wouldn't, were it irregular.
They erected often jerry-built, false-front Grand Lodges, which fold up as soon as the GLNF gets the Conference of Grand Masters in North America to recognize them. The
GLNF-created Grand Lodge of Morocco for instance, which many USA GLs recognized only last year at the instigation of
the GLNF, has folded up, all its members having left for the old, long underground Grand Lodge of Morocco.
What is the difference between the Grand Lodge of France creating lodges in Spain and the UGLE creating a new, competing Grand Lodge in Italy? Or one in France, the GLNF itself? Or the latter creating a dozen in Africa and Eastern Europe?
The Grand Lodge of France, at least, was courteous in each and every case and first proposed amity to the local Grand Lodges, or at least the creation of one or more lodges working our Craft AASR, in the French language, under the authority of the local Grand Lodge. We only went ahead with lodge creation when refused or ignored by a Grand Lodge we did not recognize.
We would very much appreciate understanding why that is not considered a problem and why no one proposes the de-recognition of UGLE and the GLNF, for their very many incursions into the territories of other Grand Lodges.
Fraternally, Michaël L. Segall
Deputy Grand Secretary/Grand Chancellor, Foreign Relations,
Grand Lodge of France, Paris
Grand Lodge of France
8, rue Puteaux 75017 Paris
Florida
It has been reported that Florida suspended masonic relations with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota on June 3, 2002, but I have not received information about how this was done, or even if it definitely was done. (A copy of any official documents about this will be placed here, if and when I am able to obtain copies.)
Arizona
The Grand Master of Arizona, Jim May, recommended that the Grand Lodge of Arizona recognize the Grand Lodge of France, as the Grand Lodge of Minnesota has done. At the Grand Lodge meeting on June 8, 2002, there was an extensive discussion about this subject, with several speakers on both sides, as well as written material that was handed out. At the conclusion, a motion was made to put off a decision on this subject until the next Arizona Grand Lodge meeting, a year later, and that motion was adopted. (Details from official documents follow.)
Following is a formal recommendation made by the Grand Master of Arizona to the Grand Lodge.
"Grand Master's Recommendation 2002-12
(majority required)
"That this Grand Lodge recognize and offer to enter into fraternal relations with the Grand Lodge of France (Grande Loge de France).
"Note: This Recommendation does not change our recognition of the Grande Loge Nationale Francaise (GLNF). It would result in Arizona having recognized two Grand Lodges in France.
"Rationale: There are three major Grand Lodges in France. The largest, the Grant Orient of France (GOF) is considered irregular by the vast majority of GLs in the world. The second largest is the Grande Loge de France (GLdF), which is the subject of this recommendation, while once recognized by about half of the Grand Lodges of the USA, by the mid-1960s had seen its recognitions withdrawn. The third major GL in France is the Grande Loge Nationale Francaise (GLNF), which Arizona formally recognized in 1954. The GLNF is younger than either of the other two, being founded by the United Grand Lodge of England in 1913 and for several decades having a membership consisting largely of English or English-speaking expatriates. The GLNF is currently recognized by ALL North American GLs of the Conference of Grand Masters. The ONLY North American GL to currently recognize the GLdF is the GL of Minnesota, which, as of April 2001, recognizes BOTH the GLdF and GLNF.
"It is worth noting that in 1918 the Grand Lodge of Arizona adopted a report extending recognition to the 'Masonic Bureau for Allied Armies in France,' a group under the auspices of the Grand Orient of France (GOF). In 1919, the Grand Lodge of Arizona adopted a report of the Jurisprudence Committee declaring that, since this GL had never entered into or severed fraternal relations with any of the 3 major French Grand Lodges (GOF, GLdF, GLNF), 'permission is hereby given to all brothers of our obedience to hold Masonic communication with any regular Lodge of Freemasons in France.' In today's terms, we would call that an intervisitation agreement with all 3. It's not full recognition, but certainly a statement that all 3 were considered 'regular' by the standards of the day.
"The Grand Lodge of Arizona lists 8 'Principles of Recognition' in Regulation 26. The GLdF adheres to ALL these principles. Nothing prevents any GL from recognizing more than one Grand Lodge in a single state or country. We do that today in Mexico and in other states where we recognized both a 'mainstream' GL and a prince Hall GL. To insist, as some do, that the two French GLs (GLdF and GLNF) must first recognize each other before we consider recognizing the GLdF is to allow a foreign GL to write our policy. It is our duty to determine what is right by our own sovereign standards and act accordingly. The logical alternatives where we have two GLs which are regular in their practices are to (1) recognize BOTH or (2) recognize NEITHER. I find no reason to de-recognize the GLNF, with which we have enjoyed nearly 50 years of fraternal relations, thus my recommendation is that we recognize BOTH."
Following is a statement made by a member of the Grand Lodge of Arizona to the Grand Lodge.
"Thank you for the opportunity of being of service to my Grand Lodge. I hope that the 2/3rd of my life during which I lived in France enabled me to shed some light on the rather complex situation of French Freemasonry. Some of my personal research for the SARL #2 (French Freemasonry, La Fayette, Masonry and the French Revolution) also helped me to comprehend the subtleties of the context surrounding the potential recognition of the Grande Loge de France (GLdF).
"During my research, the American in me wished that a clear-cut answer regarding the regularity of the GLdF could be found. If such would be the case, the answer would be:
"There is no question in my mind that at least on the two points of 26-2 and 26-7 the GLdF is irregular.
"My opinion is that 26-2 is the most important. The GLdF knows it, but would like us to believe that a would be 'Continental-European-non-English Masonry' need not to request from the candidate that he believes in a Supreme Being. Since it is difficult to defend, the false argument that it is illegal in France to ask from a candidate if he believes in the GAOTU is invoked. (it does not stop the GLNF to ask that question at all. I personally witnessed it being asked at every initiation and 'passage under the hoodwink' that I saw, as part of an investigation quite similar to that of the GLdF that you were informed about a while back and which, I agree, we could endeavor to imitate.) For reasons that we, Americans, do not comprehend, this is a major point of conflict between the GLdF and the GLNF. In this matter, we have absolutely no quarrel with the GLNF neither in the form, the letter nor the intent. That is not the case with the GLdF. I conclude that not requiring a belief in a Supreme Being is a point of distinction of the GLdF to which they are very attached.
"If we are as attached to 26-2 as they are to be distinct by it, then we cannot say that they are regular from that standpoint.
"With regard to 26-7, there is no question about the irregularity. Excuses like: '...our Lodges are different from US lodges; they are more like Lodges of research...' or '...our regulations are outdated and we need to change them . . . but you know how long it takes to change anything in Masonry . . .' may be true, but remain excuses to have political discussions at the GLdF. '. . . our Grand Master will sign a letter to the effect that there are no political discussion . . .' if well intentioned this is not reflected for instance
"In my opinion, these points disqualify the GLdF from being regular. Although not limited to the following, my opinion is shared by all of the US Grand Lodges (Minnesota excepted), UGLE, and the Grand Lodge which is most qualified to know about it: the GLNF. (Among other things, many members of the GLNF including complete Lodges, came from the GLdF.)
"The 'doctrine' known as 'In Rome do as the roman' also means that the French are likely in a better position to understand each other.
"I believe that besides the regularity, there are many more reasons for us to stay out of this turmoil and mess that is French Masonry:
"I fail to see any benefit to declare the GLdF regular in spite and against the opinions of our GLNF brethren. I see that at least the GLdF is maneuvering US Grand Lodges to the detriment and against the GLNF. The result is turmoil in our own American Lodges, the absence of peace and Harmony.
"It is my hope that we approach the GLNF and ask them to let us know what can we do to help them resolve the situation in France and also tell them that we believe that they should make an effort to resolve it.
"I learned a lot during the course of my reflections about French Freemasonry. The thirty years of my life spend at practicing international trade, taught me that the best people to tend to business in a given country are the natives residing in that country. If there is a country where this is truer than anywhere else, France is it! This is why I strongly recommend leaving t the French the business of taking care of their own affairs.
"I trust, Most Worshipful that you will find that recognizing the GLdF is not only the wrong thing to do but also non of our business.
"Fraternally,
"Jean-Claude Malterre PM"
Wisconsin
It was reliably reported that at the annual meeting of the Grand Lodge of Wisconsin, June 11, 2002, the Foreign Relations Committee presented an oral recommendation, that went something like: "...by the direction of the Most Worshipful Grand Master" ... (despite Minnesota's recognition of the GLdF)... (Wisconsin) "will continue to recognize" (Minnesota).
This recommendation, to continue masonic relations with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota, was adopted.
EDICT
of the Grand Master
July 13, 2002
To all Grand Lodges of North America and the Nations of the World, and to the Masters, Officers and members of
all Constituent Lodges of the Grand Lodge A.F. & A. M. of Minnesota:
Whereas The Grand Lodge of Minnesota at its 148th Annual Communication extended fraternal recognition to the Grand Lodge of France, and;
Whereas The Grand Lodge of Minnesota has taken this action based upon our study and conviction of the regularity of the Grand Lodge of France and in deference to the application of the rule of territorial
exclusivity deemed by us to no longer be a relevant test of regularity, and;
Whereas Our actions have caused a number of sister jurisdictions to suspend recognition with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota in rigid conformity with the
standards of the North American Conference of Grand Masters Committee on Information for Recognition, and;
Whereas This has made impossible the visitation of our members in these jurisdictions, and;
Whereas The Grand Lodge of Minnesota will host the North American Conference of Grand Masters in February, 2003 for their annual meeting, and;
Whereas Meaningful change and discussion of this issue is best done in dialogue and
consensus in the forum of this North American fraternal association; now
Therefore Be it resolved that is it is my order to forthwith suspend our recognition of the Grand Lodge of France
to the end that we may again enjoy the fraternal benefits of mutual recognition and visitation with all sister
jurisdictions. Also, it is my intent to more properly discuss the standards and application of standards of regularity
in this larger arena of discussion.
The Grand Lodge of Minnesota wishes to re-establish greater trust in the decisions and processes of the North
American Conference of Grand Masters Committee on Information for Recognition. We also desire to promote
the continued unity and amity of all North American jurisdictions. This action is therefore taken to encourage the
process of meaningful dialogue and change.
Given under my hand this 13th day of July in the year 2002 at St. Paul, Minnesota
Signed: Rev. Terry L. Tilton, Grand Master
Attest: Douglas J. Campbell, Grand Secretary
|
Copyright © 1998-2008 by Paul M. Bessel - all rights reserved If you have any suggestions, comments, or questions about this website, please feel free to send an email message to me by clicking on the following: paul@bessel.org To see an index of other webpages with similar information, such as webpages with charts comparing Grand Lodge policies, please feel free to click on the following: http://bessel.org/webindex.htm
|