Take a look at this post from a MM serving in Iraq. He reported that he attended a PHA meeting in Iraq recently, and he is apparently a member of a lodge in Bowling Green, Kentucky, and also in New York. He reports receiving an email from, presumably a Brother, in Kentucky threatening him with expulsion for his attendance at a "clandestine lodge."
Reportedly, the Kentucky Mason writes as follows:
I am sorry to tell you that under the Grand Lodge of Kentucky Constitution and Recognition we do not recognize Prince Hall. As we do recognize The Grand Lodge of New York and the Grand Lodge of Oklahoma it does not mean that we recognize Prince Hall just because they do. Your membership in the New York lodge was predicated on your membership in Bowling Green 73 and the Grand Lodge of Kentucky. So therefore, you have violated your oath and obligation within the Grand Lodge of Kentucky F. & A.M. for visiting a clandestine lodge and having Masonic relations with a clandestine mason. Under the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Kentucky F. & A. M. and under the TRIAL CODE & DISCIPLINE / SECTION 2 - DEFINITIONS. (k) UNMASONIC CONDUCT – A Mason is guilty of unmasonic conduct if he: (8) Violation of an oath lawfully taken is Masonic offense.
You will be formally charged under the constitution of the Grand Lodge of Kentucky F. & A. M. and expelled from our membership. We will also notify the Grand Lodge of New York of your expulsion from the Order.
And here I thought it was just W. Virginia that was going nuts lately. If this is true, it is difficult to conceive what could legitimately motivate a Brother in Kentucky to threaten expulsion for something which is not "criminalized" anywhere but eleven American jurisdictions and for something that does not affect him personally or make one whit of difference to the Craft Universal.
Yet, until the Southern grand lodges currently opposed to PHA recognition embrace change, situations such as this can and will occur. The problem is that Masonry, splintered along state lines in the US, has no Full Faith & Credit clause, and one GL is not beholden to respect the public acts, decision or rulings of another (I'm not arguing that we need universal American Masonry here - just commenting on the issue). That being said, there is little, in my opinion, that one opposed to such blatant intimidation can do, other than to fight the charges of expulsion from within the system by demanding and proceeding with a protracted Masonic trial. Hopefully, although the fight may well be an uphill battle, such a Masonic trail can overturn this pernicious interpretation of Masonic law and provide the stimulus for change. If little else, it will at least shed further light on this situation and perhaps prevent or retard its future occurrence.
SET IT FOR TRIAL.
16 comments:
WOW, what a bunch of crap! Are we not all Brothers, regardless of color? This is truly a shame!
However, since, as I understand it, the brother is a member of a New York lodge as well, can't he just demit from Kentucky, and say to **** with them?
My plain and simple suggestion would be that New York and EVERY OTHER GRAND LODGE that recognize Prince Hall refuse to accept Kentucky's actions in both conducting on a trial, and any conviction that might result.
As a matter of fact, even if he refuses to dignify such a disgrace by responding, every other Grand Lodge that recognizes Prince Hall should refuse to accept an expulsion as valid.
If, and I do say if, Grand Lodges that do recognize Prince Hall should at once refuse to seat officers of the Grand Lodge of Kentucky untill the come to their senses.
Until that time he should be given "honorary" membership in every Grand Lodge that recognizes Prince Hall.
If this is true, the Grand Lodge of Kentucky is insane because it will, in a matter of a few years, rip apart the fraternity.
To the rest of you Brothers, if this is true, and if you belong to a lodge recognizing Prince Hall, this means that the Grand Lodge of Kentucky does not consider you to really be a Mason.
There's a question, for me, that remains unanswered. Who wrote the letter?
The statement:
Your membership in the New York lodge was predicated on your membership in Bowling Green 73 and the Grand Lodge of Kentucky.
sounds more like a wild guess than an official pronouncement as it's not a policy with which I'm familiar. As well..
You will be formally charged under the constitution of the Grand Lodge of Kentucky F. & A. M. and expelled from our membership. We will also notify the Grand Lodge of New York of your expulsion from the Order.
strikes me as little more than presumptuousness.
Justa Mason
This seems more likely that someone is just blowing steam, but the truth of the matter is that a problem like this, and with any sort of commingling with any of these "clandestine" bodies, would go away with a national body to set the pace for who can do what and where.
Let the high ground be the high ground. Recognize Prince Hall Masonry, and get the racism out of the "universal" brotherhood.
MT: Perhaps this is a subject for another post; there's plenty to talk about re: NSDAP Masonry, but in brief, I am just not so certain, to paraphrase the old saw, that I want to be ruled by one guy 1,500 miles away as opposed to 15 guys one mile away. Despite the fact that I agree with you that an American GL would solve this particular problem with the stroke of a pen, I'm not convinced I want that pen erasing the traditions and customs (as odd as you may find them to be) of my jurisdiction with the same stroke. Witness W. VA as a cautionary tale: one GM off the reservation would then effect all of us, not just the unfortunate few in the subject jurisdiction. Yes, yes, I've heard the calls for a Constitution of Masonry that would guarantee rights and prevent abuses...but we already have one of them. Granted the American system is a creaky old bitch, but I believe all Masonic authority is capable of of acting with morality and justice towards all Masons... if there is a will.
My take to the argument of a National leadership is a limited clearing house for stuff like this, to loosen up some of the crust and calcium build up from 100+ years of isolation policy.
I don’t think a full leadership command structure is in order, but something along the lines of the U.S. Government where every GL gets its input.
I don’t see this as being an agency to eradicate tradition either. If each GL is sovereign, then so are lodges, and if you want fish fry’s or white robed initiations, you should be able to do it. Theoretically we are all on the same level anyways. My degrees should be the same as yours, but this is by agreement of recognition.
It seems that the states Gl’s may have been on the precipice of a national body at someone point but never took it there, likely over issue like this one in the south. What’s eerie about it is that this is still a schism of sorts from the civil war, on the same level as equal but separate.
I think in your last statement you summed it up. If there is a will.
That to me, seems to be the heart of the problem with American masonry. It lacks the will to make the change. It takes tremendous energy and effort to do something differently, or to change a practice that has been done so long its worn ruts in the road. But just like that rut, if you try to leave it to abruptly, you can break the wheel.
I think the best way to look at change is to reinvigorate the will to change. Otherwise, we will continue to dwindle with our decaying temples and fade in the memory of America. We need the will to make that change.
I "spoke" to the brother in question via email yesterday, and he indicated that the sender was the Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge of Kentucky.
He is also on deployment in Iraq, and cannot come back here to fight the charges... however, there is no fight. He posted on a blog that he visited a PHA lodge there. He is in violation of the constitution of the Grand Lodge of Kentucky.
He cannot "quit", no one can "quit", really. You can dimit, if you are not facing charges, but a dimit still leaves you as a member, just a "self-suspended" member, and you can still face masonic charges in that condition.
The real question will be whether or not the Grand Lodge of New York accepts his expulsion and the reciprocity agreements call for, or if they say: Hell no, we recognize PHA, and he is a member here.
This is a new place in Masonic Jurisprudence. The closest I know of that happened a few years back when a Grand Lodge in the south charged a brother with trading in Alcohol because his wife owned a restaurant.
He was expelled, but retained his membership in the Shrine which initially, refused to expel him as well. The Grand Master then told the Shrine if they did NOT expel him, the Grand Lodge would withdraw "recognition" of the Shrine and not permit the Grand Lodge's members to participate in Shrine events.
The Shrine in that state essentially said, "yeah, right", so the GM issued an edict, requiring all members of the grand lodge to drop their membership in the Shriners of that state within 90 days and to not participate in any Shrine activities under penalty of expulsion themselves.
The Shrine relented, and the expelled mason is no longer a Shriner.
So it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Will the GLoNY ignore the trial and expulsion, or will it honor the untenable, unmasonic underlying position of the GLoKy in not recognizing Prince Hall as regular masonry and pursuing this brother who is a plural member of a GL that DOES recognize and allow visitation.
TD: I agree with you that KY has every right to try him for a perceived violation of their laws of Masonry, but I cannot conceive that they would not grant him a continuance to enable him to personally appear and answer the charges. I realize that many non-lawyers in Masonic "government" (I use that term loosely) play fast and loose with traditional concepts of fair play and justice, but these due process concerns are important. While they may not be properly codified in Masonic law, I suspect if our brother in Iraq were to formally request a continuance, the GL of KY should consider it. Their failure to grant it, and the circumstances of his service in Iraq should inure to his benefit when/if the GL of NY considers his membership there.
What I find very interesting about this matter is the fact that this could be the "perfect storm" which defines how progressive Masonry stands up to the antiquated and discredited dogma of the past. If GL of NY could be persuaded to act decisively in this instance, we would finally have a precedent that would be persuasive to other GLs nationwide.
Would they do so instanter!
Like flowing water, my guess the path of least resistance is that the GL of NY ignores the edict. The fork in that path, the expulsion proceeds, the brother is expelled from "regular" masonry and a PHA lodge adopts a new member.
It sad to see that such an action would come in the era of universal brotherhood, especially to happen in absentia.
Sigh, what a mess! Regardless of how irksome it may seem, GLKY must be able to enforce their own rules of membership. If they don't recognize PHA, then members made certain agreements in their obligations. Assume this brother were posted with, say, a Belgian contingent; and he decided to visit a European variant on Masonry that admits women, or doesn't require belief in Deity, or whatever--because he decided he knew better. Would that be fine? If not, exactly what is the difference.
The fact that he is a duel member with GLNY raises some interesting legal (Masonic) issues. While GLKY does not recognize PHA, I am not sure the jump that he cannot function as a GLNY member because GLKY is where he was administered the obligation. How interesting.
I will reiterate: (and bear in mind, I am for recognition with PHA and a variety of other "things") without recognition, you have no regularity; without regularity you have open admissions. And as much as you may think everyone needs "an initiating" experience as much as everyone else, or deserves one... from my serious look at organizations, if you want to have open admissions, you might as well have no organization at all.
From above: "If each GL is sovereign, then so are lodges." Not so--or else every lodge can admit felons, women, atheists, make up rituals with the slaying of chickens, dance the hokey-pokey in the streets or whatever else. Again, it is VERY important to not confuse Masonry and GL Politics in their original and correct intent with the actual reality of them... But how does the saying go about bad cases and good law?
There are so many reaasons why a national grand lodge would be a bad idea that I won't delve into that topic with this post. I will, however, share that I believe each of us should follow the rules of our mother grand lodge. In the Grand Lodge of Texas, for example, there is a history of racism. That is a fact we cannot ignore. But prohibitions against communication with clandestine lodges sometimes goes both ways. Grand communication before last, we voted to recognize the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas. We did NOT vote that they were regular or extend visitation or plural membership privileges with them. One of the reasons for that is because the Prince Hall Grand Lodge DID NOT WANT visitation, etc. I will leave someone from MWPHGLOT to answer why that is so, but just remember that often the "clandestine" lodge might also consider YOU to be clandestine, too.
A lot of people think that KY's refusal to recognize PHA is because members of PHA lodges are, traditionally, black men.
It has NOTHING to do with race. Nothing whatsoever.
KY has regular Masons who are black, white, Indian, Asian and a slew of other nationalities and descents.
KY does not recognize PHA because KY claims supreme authority over all Masonic operations in Kentucky.
I feel it should also be mentioned that Charles Martin is not "serving" in Iraq, he's working there as a civilian.
He was a member of the KY lodge first. KY is where he took his obligation. He knows full and well that KY does not recognize PHA. By his own admission on his blog, he said that he showed his NY dues card instead of his KY card.
Why? Because he knew that PHA does not consider KY as regular and he wouldn't have been allowed in the lodge otherwise.
He was dishonest in gaining admission to the lodge.
He violated his obligation and he deserves to be expelled for doing so. Just because NY recognized PHA doesn't mean he gets a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.
He broke his obligation to his 50,000 Kentucky Brothers and he needs to pay the price for that.
Should he have the opportunity to defend himself at his Masonic trial? Absolutely. Use Skype or another method of teleconferencing.
I don't see how there is any way he can get himself out of this one.
Anonymous:
Right...so because Prince Hall will not submit to the authority of a grand lodge which historically would not have African American members, sit with them in lodge, etc. they are clandestine?
Am I missing something? Did the Grand Lodge of Kentucky accept black men in 1870? 1890? 1900? 1920? 1940? Or did it treat them as if they did not exist and did not belong? So black men were just out of luck? No Masonry for them as far as the White Masons in Kentucky were concened and so they should have accepted that?
You can't be serious. And if you are I want to know what they put in the water for you Stepford Masons to drink out there. Or maybe its just Kool Aid you have been drinking?
Give me a break.
Aaron: Easy, brother.
Anon: Do me the courtesy of signing your name when you post on my blog. It does wonders for one's credibility.
Post a Comment