TOLERANCE and FRATERNITY IN MASONRY

Masonic activities take place in a specific space we call Lodge. But what is Tolerance, which we will deal with in this article, and how is it applied to masonic lodges? According to the dictionary, its first interpretation is "the ability or willingness from someone to tolerate something, especially the existence of opinions or behavior with which one does not necessarily agree."

Tolerance is, therefore, in my opinion, a characteristic of masonic activities. In our activities, but also in its continuation, in our discussions on the topic of the evening, where the brothers freely express suggestions, objections, or opinions, without fear and passion. With calmness and respect for the other brothers.

Masonic activities, in Greece at least, are divided into two types. The first consists of administrative activities. It is the reading of minutes, correspondence, information about activities, promotions of members and the approval of various decisions and reports. The second type consists of the so-called "internal" procedures. They are related to the self-improvement of members. They are distinguished in the Rituals and in the presentations of the papers of members.

With the Rituals, the brothers are informed about the philosophy and ethics of Masonry through the symbols, their use and the exhortations for the Masonic way of life that they encounter in each ritual of degree. The interesting and special characteristic of Masonry is that all of these are not imposed nor are there penalties for their violation. They are simply suggested. They do not constitute a dogma or teaching. HERE IS A FIRST FORM OF TOLERANCE.

In the various masonic papers - presentations of the Master members, which are delivered during the proceedings, we encounter issues related to the interpretation and development of concepts, the approach of philosophical and ethical views, the interpretation of symbols, and reflection on contemporary ethical, social and other issues that concern the speaker and the members of the lodge. In many of these presentations, the brother shares some of his feelings, personal concerns and situations, trusting the other brothers. All this undogmatically, without being absolute and feeling that he is nothing more than a simple human like all the other brothers. That he is not a "bearer of Light" nor an "omniscient" no matter how high he is in the administrative hierarchy of the Brotherhood. It is a given that "spiritual egoism" is the greatest fallacy for anyone who wants to engage in the development of the Self.

What does the brother trust?

He trusts that the other brothers will try to understand him. To accept his opinions without criticism, without denigrating him. To accept his diversity without each side trying to impose their point of view. Opinions are exchanged, no one prevails. But apart from these, he relies on the secrecy and the brotherly behavior of the other brothers, since he has deposited a part of his Being.

As we have already mentioned, there is equality in the expression of any opinion. No one is considered "wiser" and possessor of the "Truth" whoever he may be. He trusts that any criticism or acceptance of his opinions is governed by the Love and Interest of the brothers for the Masonic Art.

The carving of the Stone may be an individual affair but the work is collective. The Temple of Humanity is not built by one, but by many builders. HERE IS A SECOND FORM OF TOLERANCE.

And after all of this takes place in the Lodge, the second part follows, which takes place outside of it. It begins with the reflection of the evening and continues with its application to the daily life of the brother and his relationships with others so that his life becomes Bios .

At this point I want to make an important note. Tolerance manifests itself more easily in spiritual matters than in administrative ones. Why? Maybe we could consider administrative matters more important than those related to our personal development? There are no or very few departures of brothers because they disagree with the Masonry. Administrative disputes and attempts to enforce administrative acts are what lead brothers out of the Brotherhood, because there the Brotherhood is murdered on the altar of material and selfish interests, not spiritual ones. In other words, we, Masonry Art workers, consider administrative disagreements more important than intellectual ones. If that is the case, we are probably participating in the wrong Craft.

But where does tolerance stop and where does guilt appear in the different - anti-fraternal behaviors of a brother? How should the other members of the Lodge treat the brother?

What are the elements that can characterize anti-fraternal behavior?

I'll start with the last question. I define anti-fraternal behavior as the behavior that violates the first commitment, Confidentiality. Additionally, it is characterized by dogmatism and an attempt to impose one's point of view. By domination over the members and by disturbing the peace and tranquillity of the Lodge.

What are the Masonic penalties as they appear in the ritual Emulation and specifically in the rank of Apprentice.

I copy: "All these I solemnly swear to observe without ambiguity, reservation in the mind or evasion, having the certain knowledge that if I violate any of them, I will be branded as a person who has with my volition I broke my oath, deprived of all moral standing and completely unworthy of being admitted to this respectful Lodge or to any gathering of people. who consider virtue and honor superior to the external benefits of social order and wealth" .

What kind of punishment does Freemasonry impose? It does not imprison; it does not sentence to death. It does not torture. It simply excludes and stigmatizes the offender.

A question arises:

"What are we seeking with such a sentence, education or final conviction?"

And what is Freemasonry, a hierarchical or a structured organization?

In the first case, the goal is the discipline of the member, while in the second, its participation. And one more “Can there be penalties in a union of individuals in which the initiatory work and the secrets it contains are what declare the identity of the member?” To the last question, in my opinion, no.

Perhaps in the era when masonry had manual labor, yes, for the protection of guild secrets. Today, however, there can be no substantial exclusion because the relationship has been built on foundations that cannot be cut off administratively. The Mason will remain a Mason for his entire life, connected to the Freemasons through the oaths and obligations he has undertaken upon entering the Brotherhood. Only if he himself, by his own actions, wishes to depart, then and only then, can the relationship be dissolved.

What are the acts that remove a Mason from the Brotherhood?

The violation of the commitments that he undertakes in any degree. The violation of these Principles by a member of the Brotherhood alone can remove that member from its body. Nothing else. Therefore, in Masonry, the penalties are self-punishments and not administrative decisions.

Does the reference to the existence of some punishments in the past make sense? In my opinion, only historical. Freemasonry is a system of ethics and only ethically can it award credit or punishment.

And the disciplinary penalties? What happens if someone violates the rules of operation of the Brotherhood as expressed in the official texts of each Grand Lodge? For me, there is no question of disciplinary penalties. They have no basis in a Brotherhood. The only punishment is exclusion, and this is only done by the member of the Brotherhood voluntarily, through his actions, having violated the commitments we have mentioned above. If he does not appear at the meetings of his Lodge, if he does not participate in the operating expenses, if he violates and communicates the events during the work, if his behavior disturbs the peace of the Lodge, if finally he does not attend and criticizes others, then he himself has been placed outside of the Craft.

But if there is no administrative penalty, how can the meetings of the Lodge be protected? How is it possible to have peace and harmony during them if a member disrupts them with his presence? This is where the authority of the Worshipful Master of the Lodge comes in. He has a duty and obligation to inform the Brother that his behavior is disrupting its operation and that it is the Brother’s duty to explain to other members the reason for his behavior. Until he does so, he will not be allowed to participate in the meetings. He is not expelling him, he is not removing him from the Brotherhood. He is simply asking for an explanation for his attitude. If the other brothers' opinion is different, the brother must decide whether to remain with them or leave and join another masonic lodge. He will decide his behavior and attitude.

Let us recall the view of Jean - Jacques Rousseau (1712 - 1778), who argues that in every community its member can accept the positive consequences of coexistence but at the same time retain the right to absolute freedom, writing characteristically:

"Let us find a form of association that will defend and protect the personality and goods of each member with the collective power of all and in which each individual, while united with others, obeys no one but himself and is free as before." .

An application of this view is Brotherhood as we Masons define it in our Rituals and rarely apply it in practice.

Let us ask ourselves what is more important in our meetings, the initiatory or the administrative part.

For the initiatory part, each member could express his or her opinion, freely. The opinions are not identical. Not everyone has the same perception of the Rituals and the symbols. Interpretations are different and all are discussed without excluding any and without anyone being punished for what they say. There is TOLERANCE there.

In the administrative part we are much stricter. Why? Do we consider the administrative texts more important than the symbolism of the Iniatiation Ceremony? Why is it that while we are ready to accept a different point of view in the ceremonial part, we are not at all tolerant in the administrative part? Do we consider different administrative behavior a violation? Maybe the sense of power influences our behavior to such an extent that it is important to look at it more closely. We are forgetting that we serve a system of ethics and seek to smooth our stone? Our own stone, not our brother's.

An extension of the above observations can be considered the behavior of some Grand Lodges towards other Grand Lodges that do not have the same philosophical or administrative structure. This behavior excludes Grand Lodges due to the violation of "principles" that are considered "traditional". By whom are they considered as such and why these "traditional" principles cannot be changed or abolished with the evolution of human thought and social conditions?

When talking about Grand Lodges, what is it that gives the member the characterization of a Mason? Is it the initiatory process and the knowledge of the Masonic "secrets", that is, of words, handshakes and signs and not the participation of women or the belief in a "vaguely" defined supreme being that we call "The Great Architect of the Universe" for political and not for philosophical reasons.

Giorgos Bousoutas Thanasoulas

Bibliography.

Grand Lodge of Greece, Emulation Ritual.

Molyvas G. (2000), Philosophy in Europe – The Age of Enlightenment 17th – 18th century, Hellenic Open University.