Grand Lodge of France had been recognised and several Grand Lodges were in
amity prior to the II World War. During the time the Nazis had control
of Europe all the Masonic bodies were closed. Subsequent to the end of the
war, Freemasonry began to flourish in Europe. Later, some of the Grand Lodges
withdrew recognition of the Grand Lodge Of France. Some Grand Lodges
continued to be in amity. Grand Lodge of Minnesota has recognised Grand Lodge
of France and the same has caused ripples. Grande Loge Nationale
Francaise has decognised Grand Lodge of Minnesota. Grand Lodges of
Michigan, New York, Kentucky and, Maine have suspended mutual visitations with
Grand Lodge of Minnesota. Grand Lodge of Minnesota has published the following
papers and we are with the permission of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota posting
the same as an article in this web site. We thank the Grand Secretary, Grand
Lodge of Minnesota for granting us the said permission
Masonic
Recognition and The Grand Lodge of France
A
Report to the Grand Lodge of Minnesota
Abstract:
The purpose of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota in producing this position
paper is to state in a brief and easy to read form, the most pertinent reasons
why the Grand Lodge of Minnesota chose to and stands by its decision to
recognize the Grand Lodge of France as a regular and recognizable grand lodge.
With the exception of eyewitness verification, the foundation listed is
concurrent with the time we achieved amity with the Grand Lodge of France on
March 30, 2001. Because reliable
researchers have assembled so much good and up to date data, the purpose of
this paper will not be to restate everything in its entirety that prompted our
convictions. Each statement
herein is referenced to a resource that the reader can access to satisfy his
need for greater detail, and in most cases for further resource links.
As the term grand lodge or grand lodges are frequently used, we ask the
readers’ forbearance by shortening this to GL or GLs.
Other frequently used terms will likewise be shortened once explained.
Recognition of The Grand Lodge of France
At the Annual
Communication of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota on March 30, 2001, the standing
committee on External Relations gave its annual report and recommended that
two foreign grand lodges had applied in the usual manner to the GL of MN
within that past year for recognition; the Grand Lodge of Morocco for first
time recognition and the Grand Lodge of France for recognition and restoration
of Masonic relations. The
Committee had researched both, found that they met the requirements of the GL
of MN, and recommended recognition; both passed the ballot nearly unanimously.
Synopsis of the report
Of first and foremost
importance, it must be emphasized that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota is a
sovereign, regular and independent grand lodge, and as such reserves its right
to act in its own best interests and on the principles it considers important.
The ability to recognize another grand lodge that the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota is satisfied as having met all questions of regularity is one of
those rights, and to defend that action against boycott and politics is
another. We expect no more or less respect in this situation than should be
afforded one Mason to another, or one Masonic grand lodge to another.
This brief paper addresses the issues involved in the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota’s (re-) recognition of the Grand Lodge of France (GLdF).
Reading through it will acquaint the reader with the basic issues faced
in determining the regularity of this or any Masonic grand lodge.
Great vigilance was exercised in the search for Masonic ‘light’ -
‘truth’ and reliable information. Briefly,
the procedure was as follows.
Standards of regularity, as outlined by reliable sources were reviewed
and conformity of the applicant grand lodge was compared.
Of the three standards, only two of them invited serious question –
these were Territorial Exclusivity and adherence to the Ancient Landmarks.
§
As the GL of Minnesota and the
GLdF had not formally severed relations that had existed since at least 1919,
the issue of recognizing another grand lodge in a country was moot.
However, the fact remains that the GLdF was the ‘senior’ GL in
France and recognized by at least 23 US GLs before the Grande Loge Nationale
Française (GLNF), which came
much later, sought recognition from these US GLs.
That the GLNF had not sought permission from GLdF to be recognized by
US GLs sets a precedent if one needed to be established.
(See Appendix A for brief discussion of territorial inconsistencies)
§
Careful inspection of the
Constitutions of the GLdF reveal that they meet each requirement as detailed
by The Commission on Information for Recognition of the Conference of Grand
Masters of Masons in North America, a standard generally accepted by most
grand lodges. Eyewitnesses from
Minnesota and Prince Hall Masonry have confirmed conformity.
End of synopsis – please read on for more detailed report.
Recognition
Standards of Grand Lodges
Although most grand lodges and advisory bodies have somewhat different
standards, they all agree on several crucial points.
The following are the Standards adopted for use by The Commission on
Information for Recognition of the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in
North America (or Conference of Grand Masters of North America -
COGMNA). This commission
was established in 1952 to provide information to constituent GLs as to
whether or not it considers that the GL in question meets the requirements of
regularity, but it has no authority to recommend or advise.
The Commission consists of six members who each serve six years; one
new member, usually a DGM, is elected each year.
Their list of standards includes most of those generally considered
important to regulating the Craft:
I. Legitimacy of
Origin
That
the Grand Lodge requesting recognition has been lawfully formed by at least
three just and duly constituted Lodges, or that it has been legally recognized
by a Grand Lodge in fraternal relation with the Grand Lodge from whom
recognition has been requested.
That
such Grand Lodge must be "under the tongue of good repute" for an
adequate number of years before such fraternal recognition is extended. An
existence for such a period as satisfies the Grand Lodge whose recognition is
sought, during which time the highest standards of the Craft have been
practised [sic] by the applicant Grand Lodge, may cure what would otherwise be
considered illegitimacy of origin.
II.
Territorial Sovereignty
That
it is an independent, self-governing organization, having Masonic authority
within the governmental territory over which it assumes jurisdiction --
whether Country, Province, State or other political subdivision; or else
shares such exclusive territorial jurisdiction with another Grand Lodge by
mutual consent and/or treaty.
III.
Ancient Landmarks (as listed in annual proceedings)
That
it subscribes fundamentally, ritualistically and in all its relations to the
Ancient Landmarks, Customs and Usages of the Craft. This requires adherence to
the following.
1.
Monotheism -- An unalterable and continuing belief in God.
2.
The Volume of The Sacred Law -- an essential part of the furniture of the
Lodge.
3.
Prohibition of the discussion of Religion and Politics.
In
addition to the standards on the Commission’s list, most grand lodges also
insist:
§
That its membership is composed
of men only.
§
That lodge communications be
opened to the Glory of the Grand Architect of the Universe
§
That women or any members of co-masonic
organizations may not visit tiled communications
§
That it requires the presence of
the Three Great Lights of Masonry in the lodges while at work, and that
obligations are taken on the VSL
§
That the Grand Lodge shall have
sovereign jurisdiction over the Lodges under its control and have undisputed
authority over the Craft of Symbolic Degrees (Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft
and Master Mason) within its jurisdiction; and shall not in any way be subject
to or divide such authority with any other power claiming any control or
supervision over those degrees.
COGMNA Standards of Regularity As Applied to
the Grand Lodge Of France
I. Legitimacy of Origin
The Grand Lodge of France was chartered by the Grand Lodge of England in 1728
in full accord with the latter’s requirements.
French Freemasonry, like that of England, underwent splits and mergers
during the 18th & 19th centuries, but to our
knowledge, no question has ever been raised about the GLdF’s legitimacy of
origin.
II. Territorial
Sovereignty
The GL of MN officially recognized the Grand Lodge of France at its January
21-22, 1919 Grand Communication. It
is unclear if relations existed prior to WWI.
Annual proceedings indicate that amity continued and representatives
were appointed until the 1940 Grand Communication of the GL of MN, when there
was no mention of any French GL and
GM Nordby's address contains the ominous statement, ". . .in view of the
banishment of Masonic Lodges in certain parts of Europe . . ." .
All disciplines of Freemasonry were outlawed and virtually ceased to
exist in areas controlled by the Axis powers until 1945-46.
From a review of all subsequent Annual Proceedings it appears that the Grand
Lodge of Minnesota was not in communication with any French GL during the time
of restoration of Freemasonry in post WWII France.
In other words, the GL of MN had never officially severed relations
with the Grand Lodge of France when French Freemasonry was devastated by the
Germans in WWII, and it simply did not pick up relations at the conclusion of
hostilities. This was apparently
not uncommon as other US Grand Lodges seem to have behaved similarly.
Based on recommendation of the Commission for Information of the Conference of
Grand Masters of North America,
the GL of MN officially recognized the National Grand Lodge of France (GLNF)
in 1954, as did many other US jurisdictions.
This was at a time when many US GLs also were simultaneously in amity
with the Grand Lodge of France (GLdF).
When action to discontinue relations with the GLdF was recommended by
COGMNA in 1964-65, all US jurisdictions then in active amity with GLdF did so.
There were, however, a few US GLs who had lost touch with GLdF in
1940-41 and had neither restored nor broken relations with them at the end of
hostilities, and which took no action of any kind – Minnesota among them.
This is not to say that the GL of MN relies on this technicality to
rationalize its position. The
decision, based on careful research, to recommend recognition of GLdF would
have been affirmative in any event.
Nor does the GL of MN have any interest in choosing one grand lodge
over another – it merely exerts its right, in this case, to recognize two
legitimate GLs that happen to be in the same country.
The recognition of only one GL in a country being the exception, not
the rule in global Freemasonry (see Appendix B)
III. Conformity with Ancient Landmarks (see
also Appendix C)
To address most of the
issues involved with established conditions of regularity, it may be
enlightening for the reader to compare the list of Ancient Landmarks set down
by the COGMNA and other GLs with the exact wording of the “Declaration of
Principles” as stated in the constitution of the Grand Lodge of France:
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES (December 5,
1955)
I
The Grand Lodge of France works to the Glory 0f The Grand Architect
Of The Universe.
II
In conformity with the traditions of the Order, three Great Lights
are placed on the altar of the Lodges: the Square, the Compass and a Volume of
the Sacred Law.
Masons take their Obligations on these three Lights
III
The Grand Lodge of France proclaims its unfailing loyalty and total
devotion to our Country.
IV
Neither the Grand Lodge of France
nor its constituent Lodges shall meddle in matters of political or religious
controversy.
V
Concerning principles other than those defined above, the Grand Lodge of
France refers to the Old Charges, especially with regard to the respect of the
traditions of Freemasonry and to the scrupulous and strict practice of Ritual
and Symbolism as means of access to the initiatic content of the Order.
One condition not specifically addressed in the “Principles” is that
membership is composed of men only, and that is specified in Article I of the
Constitution:
“It
is an alliance of free men of good repute, of any race, nationality and
creed.”
The reader will also note in V (above) that principles not specifically
defined are covered in “The Old Charges”, which emphatically states that
Freemasonry is an organization of men only.
All of the Constitutions and referenced materials can be read and
verified in French or English language on the Grand Lodge of France website at
http://www.gldf.org
Additionally, strict adherence to the above listed landmarks has been verified
by at least one member of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota who attended a number
of lodge communications,
and also by a large number of North American Prince Hall Affiliated Masons,
including at least 3 Grand Masters. It
should be noted that in 1952 the Grand Lodge of France declared unilateral
recognition of all Prince Hall Affiliated Brethren, largely based on relations
established with PHA lodges of black US servicemen stationed in post WWII
France.
A lot of misinformation exists on this subject.
There are allegations of irregularity (see Appendix D).
How do you know if the information being distributed by the Grand Lodge
of Minnesota is accurate, when others are saying different things?
The answer is this: The Grand Lodge of Minnesota has evidence to prove
every statement in this paper. We would be delighted to provide detailed,
precise citations to prove all our statements, and encourage everyone who
hears anything different to ask for similar citations and proof of any
contrary allegations they might hear.
Respectfully &
Fraternally Submitted
Bro.
Anthony Cicchese
Bro.
Dexter Pehle
End of Position Paper
Appendices
& References Follow
Appendix A – A Brief Overview of Some Inconsistencies in Masonic
Recognition
The only rule that seemingly exists in international Masonic recognition is
that there is no universal rule. If one Grand Lodge (US or international)
could only be in amity with other Grand Lodges which recognized the exact same
list of GLs, there virtually would be no recognition factor whatsoever.
Every Grand Lodge in the world, and in the U.S., recognizes Grand
Lodges that in turn recognize other Grand Lodges that are not recognized by
the first one.
To belabor this point,
the following inconsistencies between US Grand Lodges are noted, but be aware
that these are by no means all differences, only a small sampling:
Mexico has at least 26 Grand Lodges with no uniformity of recognition
whatsoever; 23 of them are recognized by at least one US GL, but only one of
them is recognized by all US GLs (York Grand Lodge – which claims all of
Mexico as its jurisdiction). While
four US GLs recognize 23 or more Mexican GLs, four other US GLs recognize only
4 or 5 of the Mexican GLs and Puebla Grand Lodge is recognized only by one (GL
of Michigan).
We do not even agree on the grand lodges of our Canadian neighbors, of the 10
provincial Grand Lodges, US grand Lodges agree on recognition of only 9 of
them. At this time, 28 US
GLs believe that the Grand Lodge of Newfoundland & Labrador is
recognizable, while 23 do not.
In the Caribbean, all US GLs agree on only one – the GL of Puerto Rico.
Central and South American countries have multiple grand lodges, such
as Brazil which has 29 Grand Lodges, 28 of them recognized to one extent or
another by US GLs, and only two of these by all US jurisdictions.
The GL of Vermont is alone in recognizing 27 of the 28.
The ‘territories’ of these may overlap extensively and they may not
necessarily be in accord with each other either.
Central and South America GLs seem quite different from other
jurisdictions in that territory is not as defined and disputed as it is in US,
Canadian and European Grand Lodges’ jurisdictions.
Of the 31 European Grand Lodges that are recognized by any US GL, amazingly
only 10 are recognized by all 51 US GLs.
Of 12 African GLs only one is recognized by all 51 US GLs – South Africa -
and no US GL recognizes them all. The
remaining 11 are all in amity with some US GLs, but this may be as few as only
2 or 3. The Grand lodge of
Michigan has taken the chance and has recognized most African grand lodges,
sometimes alone in that opinion.
Conditions in a jurisdiction may change as well.
A dozen US GLs recognized the GL of Morocco in 2000 & 2001, which
had been recently formed by the requisite three lodges.
At least one of these lodges has reportedly withdrawn to join another
grand lodge being chartered in Morocco by a third party, thereby leaving only
two very small lodges remaining in this GL.
Nonetheless, this ‘Grand Lodge’ of Morocco will continue to be the
only one to ‘officially’ exist in that country.
There are, of course, many, many more world wide grand lodges that are not
recognized by any US jurisdiction – and a sizeable portion of these may be
found ‘regular’ in practice (see Appendix D for discussion on regularity),
but would never be recognized if a policy of exclusive territorial
jurisdiction is applied.
In almost all Eastern European countries, there has been almost a ‘gold
rush’ to charter new Grand Lodges, some of which had existing and very
probably regular Grand Lodges or Grand Lodges in “exile”.
Some Western Grand Lodges may even be seen to be in the Masonic charter
“franchise” business. At the
most recent meeting of the Conference of Grand Masters Commission on
Recognition Information, almost all of the lodges which had been approved as
“regular” had been chartered very recently by one Western European grand
lodge.If
the policy of exclusive jurisdiction is applied, these new ‘franchise’
grand lodges will be the only recognizable one in that region or country –
older established grand lodges or “grand lodges in exile” will not even be
considered on their merits or on precedent.
In summary (Doctrine in North America)
Exclusive jurisdiction
seems to be a doctrine that has been developed and best applied in North
America, where a small unit such as a state or province makes up the
jurisdiction. The doctrine may
even have served a useful purpose in the earliest stages of Masonic expansion,
but in the 20th & 21st centuries has only
contributed to discrimination, isolation and political dilemma.
Some of this has only recently been addressed by the co-recognition of
several Prince Hall Affiliated Grand Lodges with their ‘mainstream’
counterpart grand lodges. This,
of course, results in multiple grand lodges existing in the same jurisdiction
– effectively negating the thrust of the doctrine.
The doctrine of exclusive
jurisdiction may even have had a very adverse consequence on North American
Grand Lodges over the last 50 or more years.
Many Masons believe that in the wake of the meteoric increase of
Masonic membership during the period 1940 to 1962, and subsequent ‘glide
slope’ decline, that the distinction of fraternity and exercise of the
qualities & tenets of The Craft have ceased to be fundamental in the
philosophy of many grand lodges – that Masonic obligation & integrity
have been replaced by mediocrity and that the pursuit of ‘light’ has been
replaced by politics & personality.
The theory further broadens to speculate that isolation from diverse Masonic
philosophy and the richness of international fraternalism has resulted in US
Masonry operating “in a vacuum”.
The richness and depth that attracted the great men of history to
Masonry still exist in our time – often in Lodges we “cannot” visit -
but the boundaries we erect may well prevent us from again discovering them.
Appendix B. The American Doctrine
of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction
In 1969 in its report on
Brazil the Commission on Information for Recognition stated:
"Perhaps it is well to face the fact right here that exclusive
jurisdiction does not mean absolutely exclusive territorial jurisdiction. That
more than one Grand Lodge may have jurisdiction within a political domain is
not intrinsically repugnant to Freemasonry, for there are too many places on
the globe where such a condition exists, and with complete harmony. Exclusive
jurisdiction as an absolute condition applies only to the exclusive role of a
Grand Lodge over its members and Lodges and does not share that authority with
any other Masonic authority."
In 1979 in its report on the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Wisconsin the
Commission stated:
"3.
The doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction should not be used to
challenge the legitimacy of Masonic establishments which were in existence
long before the doctrine obtained respectable sanction."
In the 1992 Transactions of the Virginia Research Lodge No. 1777; Stewart W.
Miner, Past Grand Master of Virginia described thirteen instances when
American Grand Lodges ignored the doctrine of Exclusive Territorial
Jurisdiction. He made the
following observations about the doctrine of exclusive territorial
jurisdiction: "(a) that the Doctrine, as originally conceived, no longer
exists; (b) that the historic application of the Doctrine, especially in the
19th Century, has been selective; (c) that inconsistent applications of the
Doctrine have encouraged challenge, and (d) that when it has seemed prudent,
American grand lodges have modified their interpretations of the Doctrine to
satisfy challenges at hand. This process, I believe, is irreversible, and
despite the attempts of a few grand lodges to stem the tide by punitive
action, their efforts will fail, in the long run, and change will
unquestionably prevail."
In its definition of Exclusive Jurisdiction, the Commission on Information for
Recognition of the Conference of Grand Masters states "It is a basic
principle that a Grand Lodge must be autonomous and have sole and undisputed
authority over its constituent lodges. This
cannot be shared with any other Masonic council or power."
This must be interpreted as saying that the American Doctrine can only
be applied to those Grand Lodges that have chosen it as a ruling principle and
that it cannot be applied to Grand Lodges in other parts of the world where
custom and usage differs.
At the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America in 1961 Past
Grand Master N. Dean Rowe of Vermont said, "We should yield to many of
the customs and usages of the country where each [Grand Lodge] is located. We
base our decisions on legitimacy rather than injecting our own theories of
'exclusive jurisdiction' into the picture, which we feel is of minor
importance."
The
American Doctrine of Exclusive Jurisdiction is not an Ancient Landmark. It is
a widely misunderstood, often ignored North American rule that repeatedly has
been used to simply justify a position. Many
U.S. Grand Lodges recognized both the GLdF and the GLNF for decades. However,
when this policy became politically advantageous, several of these Grand
Lodges suddenly reversed their position, using the same policy to insist that
only one Grand Lodge could be recognized in a political subdivision. This
policy was ignored when the GLNF was formed in 1913 in the territory occupied
by the GLdF. Such inconsistencies certainly challenge the validity of such a
rule.
Appendix C – Elaboration of
Regularity Issues Regarding Ancient Landmarks
Very much confusion (accidental and intentional) seems to exist regarding
French Freemasonry. Henderson
& Pope in Freemasonry Universal state, “France has
possibly the most complex & diverse Masonic history of any country in the
world”. Language and French
political/religious history have undoubtedly had considerable impact on this,
as likely has centuries-long adversity with neighbor England.
Appendix D - 1
Regular,
Irregular, Clandestine, and Recognized
First, there are questions about definitions. What is regular versus
irregular? What does clandestine mean, and who does the recognizingp.
226] Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia defines
a regular lodge as one that has been legally constituted and conforms to the
laws of "a recognized" grand lodge. Every grand lodge is recognized
by some grand lodges, so does this mean every lodge that complies with the
rules of any grand lodge is "regular?" Almost every attempt to find
a clear definition of a "regular" lodge or grand lodge leads to such
complexity that the word confuses rather than clarifies discussions.
"Regular" might mean a grand
lodge follows the ancient landmarks of freemasonry, the ones said to be
unchangeable. But what are those ancient landmarks? Every grand lodge has a
different answer. Some list dozens of landmarks ( Kentucky has fifty-four,
Nevada thirty-nine, Minnesota twenty-six, Connecticut nineteen), some list
just a few (Vermont has seven), and some do not have any list but say that
masons should observe the landmarks without saying what they are (sometimes
adding that they are unchangeable, while at the same time considering and
sometimes adopting changes in them). In some grand lodges it is simply
unclear, even to Grand Secretaries, what the policy of that grand lodge is
concerning the ancient landmarks.
If there is no agreement on what are the ancient landmarks of freemasonry, and
if "regular" means grand lodges that follow the landmarks, there
cannot be universal, or even close to universal agreement on what constitutes
regular masonry.
Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia
defines "clandestine" as a body that does not hold a charter from a
superior body having power to grant it, but makes it clear that this word is
often misleading and certainly unclear. The
Freemasons' Guide and Compendium says a clandestine lodge is one that
has not been properly warranted or chartered by any grand lodge. Thus,
a lodge could be regular in its workings, but clandestine because it was not
chartered properly. Or, it could be irregular because in someone's eyes it
does not follow "proper" masonic practices, although it is not
clandestine because it was properly chartered by a grand lodge, even if it is
a grand lodge that a particular other grand lodge does not recognize.
Bessel, Paul
M., “U.S. Recognition of French
Grand Lodges in the 1900s”, HEREDOM, Vol. 5, 1996
Coil, Henry
Wilson, et al. Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia. Rev. ed. Revised by Allen
E. Roberts. Richmond, Va.: Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Company, 1996.
Commission on
Information for Recognition of the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in
North America. Grand Lodge Recognition: A Symposium on the Conditions of
Grand Lodge Recognition. New York: Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply
Company, 1956.
Conference of
Grand Masters of Masons in North America. "Reports of the Commission on
Information for Recognition." Annual report.
Henderson, Kent
& Pope, Tony, Freemasonry
Universal – Volume 2 Williamstwon Victoria Australia, Global Masonic
Publications 2000
Jaunaux, Bro.
Laurent, “A Concise History of the French Regular Freemasonry” Harmonia
Lodge No. 1282, Versailles, France, posted to Philalethes Society Email List
Kesteloot, Bro.
Andre V. , “A Short Introduction to French Free‑Masonry.”
Address given March 1996.
List of
Lodges Masonic - 2001 Edition
Bloomington IL, Pantagraph Printing & Stationery Co. 2001
Macoy, Robert, General
History, Cyclopedia and Dictionary of Freemasonry (1873), Reprinted,
Montana USA, Kessinger Publishing Co
Mackey, Albert
G. Mackey's Revised Encyclopedia of Freemasonry. 3 vols. Rev. and
enlrg. Revised by Robert I. Clegg, with supp. vol. by H.L. Haywood. New York:
Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Co., Inc., 1946.
Masonic Service
Association. Ancient Landmarks of Freemasonry: As Adopted, Followed or
Undecided by the Fifty Grand Lodges of the United States. 6th ed. Silver
Spring, Md.: Masonic Service Association, Sept. 1983.
Miner, Stewart
W., "The American Doctrine: A Concept Under Siege," 1992
Transactions of the Virginia Research Lodge No. 1777, pp. 11-25 (paper
delivered at that lodge on March 28, 1992)
Parker, William
E. "French Freemasonry, 1913, and the Future," The Philalethes,
Jun. 1996, pp. 57-59, 67.
Worlein,
John W., “A Visit to the Grand Lodge of France”, The Philalethes,
April 2002, vol. LV, no. 2 pp. 28-29, 44-46
Websites:
Recognition of foreign
jurisdictions - http://www.bessel.org/masrec
Grand Lodge of France –
http://www.gldf.org
A motion was made by R.W. Neil Neddermeyer, DGM and seconded by M.W.
Roger Taylor, PGM, which read as follows:
Moved that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota will continue its recognition of
the Grand Lodge of France based upon our understanding of the issues of
territorial jurisdiction, belief in a Supreme Being, and the Volume of
Sacred Law being as an article of furniture in their lodges. (Reference the
"White Paper"
- Masonic Recognition and the Grand Lodge of France - A Report to the Grand
Lodge of Minnesota.)
However, we formally request the Grand Lodge of France to furnish
information regarding its policy of visitation by members of other Grand
Lodges which do not require of its members a belief in a Supreme Being. We
request such written information to be submitted to us by June 30, 2002. If
the Grand Lodge of France does not provide written proof that it forbids
visitation by Masons of Grand Lodges which do not require of its members a
belief in a Supreme Being we shall suspend relations.
Likewise, notice is given that if the Grand Lodge of France is determined
by us to continue to be "regular" then we encourage and pray that
the GLNF and GLdF will seek treaty displaying amity and concord.
Motion passed unanimously.
M.W.Grand Master of Grand Lodge of Minnesota then addressed the following
letter to all the Grand Jurisdictions in North America along with the
Questions and Answers relating to this issue.
Wednesday, May 22, 2002
TO: THE GRAND LODGES AND OTHER GRAND BODIES OF NORTH AMERICA
RE: Grand Lodge of Minnesota and Recognition of the Grand Lodge of France
Most Worshipful Grand Master and Heads of Bodies;
Enclosed you will please find a series of documents that relate to
reconsideration of the action taken by the Grand Lodge of Minnesota to
recognize the Grand Lodge of France (GLdF) in April 2001. We have completed
a "White Paper" to review our position on this matter and have
enclosed it for your consideration. We have also enclosed a motion adopted
at our May 18th, 2002 Corporate Board of Trustees meeting. For your
convenience we have added a Q&A section to assist with interpretation of
our actions.
It goes without saying that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota has been
disturbed over the rush to judge our actions and force us into conformity
with the perceived guidelines of "regularity" of other Grand
Lodges or the North American Conference of Grand Mastersâ Committee on
Information and Recognition. We believe that the accompanying documents
justify our position for continuing recognition with the Grand Lodge of
France or at a minimum will show the inconsistency of our detractors. If any
material statements of error can be found in this white paper we will
reconsider our actions.
Quite frankly we have been appalled at the lobbying, mis-information and
dis-information that has surrounded this issue. We are even more appalled
that sister Grand Lodges of North America would consider limited visitation
with Minnesota knowing full-well our established regularity and our
sovereign rights as a Grand Lodge; the same rights that they assert for
themselves. We earnestly, sincerely and humbly appeal for all Masons of
good-will and good-conscience to come back into amity with us and together
seek after truth in love and true brotherhood.
For my part, I can assure you that this is my sincere desire and although
we will not lobby others to come to the same conclusions that we have made,
we do ask you to look at the facts and decide for yourself. Surely truth
will ultimately prevail and in time we will reach consensus on these issues.
It simply makes no sense to rip the fabric of Masonry apart and continue to
do damage to our gentle Craft by suspension of visitation privileges or
threats of suspension or non-recognition. Surely Masonry has far better
things to do for good than this. For my part, I pledge that I stand ready to
visit with my counterparts concerning any of these issues at any time. You
need only ask.
Most sincerely yours in friendship and fraternal fellowship,
Rev. Terry L. Tilton, Grand Master
The Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. of Minnesota
Questions and Answers regarding Recognition of Masonic Grand
Lodges
Q. What did the Grand Lodge of Minnesota do that has upset some other
Grand Lodges?
A. In April 2001, the Grand Lodge of Minnesota recognized the Grand Lodge
of France (GLF). In April 2002, the Grand Lodge of Minnesota did nothing
further, leaving this recognition in place. Some other Grand Lodges are
upset about this.
Q. Why are some other Grand Lodges upset about this?
A. Some Masons in some of these Grand Lodges have said that the GLF is
"irregular," so the Grand Lodge of Minnesota should not have
recognized the GLF. Some have said the Grand Lodge of Minnesota violated
some universally recognized Masonic recognition principles. Some have said
the Grand Lodge of Minnesota should have first asked the National Grand
Lodge of France (GLNF) whether the Grand Lodge of Minnesota should have
recognized the GLF, before doing it. Some have said the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota created unrest among Grand Lodges, and should have waited until
other U.S. Grand Lodges agreed to do this, or else the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota should not have done it.
Q. Are any of these statements valid?
A. No. Read on to find out why.
Q. If the GLF is irregular, why did the Grand Lodge of Minnesota
recognize it?
A. Who says the GLF is irregular? The Grand Lodge of Minnesota, and many
others, are convinced that the GLF is regular. Their lodges all have the
Bible on their altars, just as ours do, and they begin their meetings with
prayers and readings from the Bible. All their candidates are required to
express a belief in a Supreme Being, just as ours are. They prohibit women
in their lodges, just as we do. Their history goes back to the 1700s, just
as ours does. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota has checked these facts, and they
are true facts.
Q. Did the Grand Lodge of Minnesota violate universal Masonic recognition
principles when it recognized the GLF?
A. No. There are no universal Masonic principles concerning which Grand
Lodges any Grand Lodge can recognize. The Conference of Grand Masters, and
its Commission on Information for Recognition, have said over and over that
each and every Grand Lodge is completely free to recognize any Grand Lodges
it wishes. The Commission does not tell any Grand Lodge whom to recognize or
not recognize, and they say this over and over. All they do is supply
information, as their name implies. Each Grand Lodge decides what to do with
that information, and additional information each one accumulates.
Q. But aren't there some Masonic recognition traditions that each Grand
Lodge should follow?
A. No. Every Masonic official, including the Conference of Grand Masters
and the Commission on Information for Recognition, agrees and says that each
Grand Lodge is sovereign. This means that each Grand Lodge can set whatever
rules it wishes for itself in deciding whom to recognize, and can recognize
whichever Grand Lodges it wishes.
Q. Should the Grand Lodge of Minnesota have consulted with the GLNF
before voting on whether to recognize the GLF?
A. No. Each Grand Lodge votes just about every year on recognition of
additional Grand Lodges, and none is ever required by any Masonic rules or
traditions to consult with anyone. Even as a matter of politeness, this
would be impractical. In any case, members of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota
did consult with representatives of the GLNF before voting on whether to
recognize the GLF. On many occasions the GLNF representatives told the Grand
Lodge of Minnesota representatives that no Grand Lodge should recognize the
GLF, and gave reasons for that recommendation. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota
listened politely to what the GLNF representatives said, and then
investigated the facts for itself, and decided that the facts proved that
the Grand Lodge of Minnesota should recognize the GLF, in addition to the
GLNF.
Q. Wait a minute. Isn't there a rule that only one Grand Lodge can be
recognized in any state or country?
A. No. Each Grand Lodge decides for itself whether it will recognize one
or many Grand Lodges in any state or country. Many U.S. Grand Lodges said
that they chose to recognize only one Grand Lodge in each territory, but
that is up to each one to follow or not. Several U.S. Grand Lodges have
stated they no longer use this rule, and even those that say they follow
this rule often do not really follow it. One clear example is that 35 U.S.
Grand Lodges recognize Prince Hall Grand Lodges in the same states as
"mainstream" Grand Lodges. And specifically dealing with France,
many Grand Lodges have recognized both the GLF and the GLNF simultaneously,
often for many years. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota is following a practice
that many other U.S. Grand Lodges have already done in the past and present.
Q. Didn't the Grand Lodge of Minnesota create unrest among U.S. Grand
Lodges?
A. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota did NOT create any unrest among U.S.
Grand Lodges. It simply took an action it felt was right for it. The Grand
Lodge of Minnesota did not and does not ask any other Grand Lodge to follow
its lead on this or anything else. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota will not
bring GLF members into any other Grand Lodge's jurisdiction. The Grand Lodge
of Minnesota has not and will not interfere with any other Grand Lodge in
any way.
Q. Why didn't the Grand Lodge of Minnesota wait to consult with other
Grand Lodges before voting on whether to recognize the GLF?
A. Once again, every Grand Lodge and every Masonic group says that each
Grand Lodge is sovereign and independent, and can and should make its own
decisions without having to follow others, or even consult with others. In
any case, the Commission on Information for Recognition of the Conference of
Grand Masters did give its opinion to the Grand Lodge of Minnesota, saying
it felt the GLF did not deserve to be recognized. The Grand Lodge of
Minnesota politely listened to this advice, and then did its own
investigation, obtained additional facts, and determined for itself that the
GLF deserved to be recognized by the Grand Lodge of Minnesota. Everyone
agrees that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota had every right to do this, as a
sovereign Grand Lodge.
Q. What would happen if every Grand Lodge recognized different Grand
Lodges? Wouldn't there be chaos?
A. Every Grand Lodge in the world, including all in the United States,
already recognizes a different set of Grand Lodges, and no one complains
about chaos. For example, the Grand Lodge of Michigan currently recognized
the Grand Lodge of Mali, even though only 3 other U.S. Grand Lodges
recognize that Grand Lodge Đ 47 do not. The Grand Lodge of New York
recognizes the Grand Lodge of Poland, even though only 7 other U.S. Grand
Lodges do Đ 43 do not. The Grand Lodge of Maine recognized the Grand Lodge
of Haiti, even though 30 of the U.S. Grand Lodges, a majority, do not. This
happens all the time, and there is no chaos.
Q. Has any other Grand Lodge ever recognized the GLF, or does the Grand
Lodge of Minnesota think it knows more than every other Grand Lodge?
A. Many U.S. Grand Lodges have recognized the GLF, and/or permitted their
members to visit lodges under the GLF, including the Grand Lodges of
Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida,
Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. That's 23 U.S. Grand Lodges. They later derecognized
the GLF, but the Grand Lodge of Minnesota decided that the reasons for
derecognition, in the case of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota, were not valid.
So the Grand Lodge of Minnesota decided to rerecognize the GLF, without
affecting any other Grand Lodge in any way.
Q. Doesn't the GLF recognize the Grand Orient of France (GOF), which is
irregular? Isn't that enough reason for the Grand Lodge of Minnesota not to
recognize the GLF?
A. No. The GLF does not recognize the GOF, any more than the GLNF
recognizes the GOF. Both the GLF and the GLNF have signed agreements
allowing some type of communications with the GOF, such as exchanging lists
of rejected candidates. Neither the GLF nor the GLNF has recognized the GOF,
and neither intends to. In any case, every Grand Lodge in the world, and in
the U.S., recognizes Grand Lodges that in turn recognize other Grand Lodges
that are not recognized by the first one. For example, every U.S. Grand
Lodge recognizes the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), even though the
UGLE recognizes a Grand Lodge in Italy that every U.S. Grand Lodge considers
clandestine and irregular. Still, no one accuses the UGLE of being irregular
for doing this. And remember, the GLF has not even been accused of
recognizing the GOF, while the UGLE fully recognizes the Grand Lodge in
Italy that every U.S. Grand Lodge does not recognize.
Q. If all this is true, why is anyone upset with the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota?
A. We don't know, and we wish those who are upset would stop. The Grand
Lodge of Minnesota has not done anything improper or wrong. It has exercised
the right, recognized by everyone, to recognize whichever Grand Lodges it
wishes, just as every other Grand Lodge does. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota
has not asked any other Grand Lodge to follow its lead, or change in any
way, or accept anything the Grand Lodge of Minnesota has done. All the Grand
Lodge of Minnesota is asking is for other Grand Lodges not to try to force
the Grand Lodge of Minnesota to change its policy, just as the Grand Lodge
of Minnesota is not asking any other Grand Lodge to change any of their
policies.
Q. So, is there any reason for any Grand Lodge to suspend Masonic
relations with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota?
A. No. Everyone agrees that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota meets all the
standards of Masonic regularity as set by any Grand Lodge. Nothing has
changed in the Grand Lodge of Minnesota. What Freemasonry needs is unity and
brotherly love. Instead of anyone attacking the Grand Lodge of Minnesota,
anyone who wishes can present any evidence they have that the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota may have made a mistake. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota will be
happy to review any such evidence. In the meantime, everyone can and should
go on with Freemasonry just as they did before, without suspending Masonic
relations with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota.
Q. How can someone know if the information being distributed by the Grand
Lodge of Minnesota is accurate, when others are saying different things?
A. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota has evidence to prove every statement in
this paper. We would be delighted to provide detailed, precise citations to
prove all our statements, and encourage everyone who hears anything
different to ask for similar citations and proof of any contrary allegations
you might hear.
Additional Questions and Answers in light of the actions
the Grand Lodge of Minnesota on May 18, 2002
as prepared by the Rev. Terry L. Tilton, Grand Master
Q. What is the effective meaning of the action taken by the Grand Lodge
of Minnesota Corporate Board on Saturday, May 18, 2002?
A. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota believes that its recognition of the
Grand Lodge of France in April 2001 was well-considered and well-reasoned on
the basis of the "White Paper" titled "Masonic Recognition
and the Grand Lodge of France- A Report to the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota" received on May 18, 2002. We challenge anyone to find
falsehood in any material statement made in that paper and to present us
with written evidence that can collaborate that claim. If such evidence is
given and proven we will reconsider this issue. Until that time we consider
this issue closed on the basis of the charges investigated to date.
Q. The second paragraph of your motion asks for written evidence of the
policy of the Grand Lodge of France concerning the charge of visitation by
Masons who do not believe in a Supreme Deity from other Grand Lodges. Why
are you requesting this?
A. Although this charge has not been previously cited against the Grand
Lodge of France because of our recognition, we are aware that it is an issue
with the North American Conference of Grand Masters - Committee on
Information for Recognition. Previously we did not order this issue to be
included in the "White Paper" received on May 18th. However, after
further consideration we believe that now is the time to determine this
issue as well.
Upon receipt of written evidence as to the policy or position of the
Grand Lodge of France given us by June 30, 2002, we (The Grand Lodge A.F.
& A.M. of Minnesota) will issue an addendum to our "White
Paper". If this issue is not addressed to our satisfaction we will
suspend recognition with the Grand Lodge of France.
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 continue to be "regular"
then we encourage and pray that the GLNF and the GldF will seek treaty
displaying amity and concord." Why have you said this?
A. It is our belief that personalities, politics and orchestrated
campaigns of dis-information have consumed too much of our time and have not
promoted the good of Freemasonry. If two Grand Lodges are deemed
"regular" and have the same territorial jurisdiction they should
be able to work together. We want these two parties to work together and we
want to make that statement as firmly as we can.
Q. Does the Grand Lodge of Minnesota lobby for or promote their position?
A. No, beyond asserting the right of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota as a
sovereign jurisdiction to work for its own best interests and the best
interests of Masonry as a whole, we will not advocate to others our position
on these issues. Each Grand Lodge must make its own decisions based upon the
facts. We have only endeavored to be intellectually honest and diligent in
our pursuit of truth as we can find it. We would expect no more or no less
from others.
We sincerely regret that a few other Grand Lodge jurisdictions have
chosen to cease visitation with us over this issue. We did not cause that
action, they did! We will not compromise our integrity or suspend our search
for the truth. And we sincerely appeal to them to rescind their action and
allow everyone time to work through these issues.
Although we realize that this issues of recognition and regularity are
complex and the history of their application is without uniformity, we
endeavor to keep fraternal relations with all the Grand Lodges that we
consider regular and will not (except in the case noted in the previous
question) break off relations with any Grand Lodge that we have historically
given
M.W.Grand Master G.L of Minnesota had addressed the following letter to
all the Constituent Lodges and other Grand Officers.
TO: THE CONSTITUENT LODGES OF MINNESOTA
RE: Grand Lodge of Minnesota and Recognition of the Grand Lodge of France
Worshipful Master and Brothers;
Enclosed you will please find a series of documents that relate to
reconsideration of the action taken by the Grand Lodge of Minnesota to
recognize the Grand Lodge of France (GLdF) in April 2001. We have completed
a "White Paper" to review our position on this matter and have
enclosed it for your consideration. We have also enclosed a motion adopted
at our May 18th, 2002 Corporate Board of Trustees meeting. For your
convenience we have also added a Q&A section to assist with
interpretation of our actions.
We are sending this information to you for distribution through your
lodge as we now can sadly report that four Grand Lodges in North America
have decided to suspend visitation with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota and
with Minnesota Masons. This means in effect that Minnesota Masons cannot
visit the Masonic lodges in these jurisdictions and they cannot visit in our
lodges. Those jurisdictions which have suspended visitation with us are:
Michigan, New York, Maine and Kentucky.
I want to hasten to add that this situation is fluid and there may be
other jurisdictions who will also take this action in response to our
recognition of the Grand Lodge of France. We have seriously reconsidered our
action of the April 2001 Grand Lodge Session and at this time have
determined that it was proper and well-considered.
It would be foolish for me to tell you that the issues of
"regularity" and "recognition" are easy to understand.
But the accompanying documents are our best evidence of what the facts are
in this case.
I would remind you that we have not broken our relationship or limited
visiting privileges with any of these four Grand Lodges and from our stand
point you are free to visit in these jurisdictions. However, if you are
refused admittance, I humbly request that you withdraw quietly. The Grand
Lodge of Minnesota does not wish to aggravate or cause further alienation
over this issue.
If you ask me, as Grand Master, what will the future hold? I do not know.
Time will only tell if our actions were right and proper. In the meantime we
expect that other Grand Lodges may extend recognition to the Grand Lodge of
France in the near future and it will take the spotlight off the Grand Lodge
of Minnesota.
The enclosed documents have been distributed to every Grand Lodge in
North America and we have sincerely appealed to each one to let time and
patience win out the truth. We have asked that those Grand Lodge
jurisdictions who have limited their visitation with us to consider
rescinding their action and again participating with us in full recognition
and full amenity.
We promise to keep you appraised of developments on this issue and will
put up a special web-page at our electronic address: mn-mason.org to assist
you in understanding what is happening.
As I am able, I will attempt to answer any questions you might have and
assist any of the our Constituent Lodge members, or those members of our
appendant or concordant bodies. Again, I cannot tell you how saddened I am
to have to report this news to you. Please keep us in your prayers as the
officers of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota endeavor to act with integrity and
forthrightness under the all-seeing eye of the Great Architect of the
Universe.
Sincerely and fraternally yours,
Terry L. Tilton, Grand Master, The Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. of Minnesota
CC: All Elected and Appointed Grand Lodge Officers
[The papers listed above explain the views and the stand taken by the
Grand Lodge of Minnesota. The issues involved are very crucial and important
for the growth and stablity of this great Fraternity. Books, which are
almost authorities have been cited in the Bibliography of the White paper,
besides very many useful and relevant materials.. All of them have to be
carefully studied for a proper understanding of the issues. A
dispassionate analysis is necessary. We request your serious
consideration and please forward your views and valuable opinions to comments@masonicpaedia.org
Moderator]
