About Solicitations, Atheists, and Libertines

(Musing by Bro. Vincent Lombardo)Coat of Arms


Of the Charges of a Free Mason (Old Charges) included in the Constitutions crafted by Anderson in 1723, the first concerns GOD and RELIGION:

"A Mason is oblig'd by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine.   But though in ancient Times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguish'd; whereby Masonry becomes the Center of Union, and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain'd at a perpetual Distance."

The most recent Protocol & Etiquette Essentials issue, No. 37 (March 2016), prepared by the Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. of Canada in the Province of Ontario's P. & E. Committee, deals with "Improper Solicitation" and the logic this committee uses in support of some other kinds of solicitation, is intriguing:

"The matter of asking others to join Freemasonry, which we term "solicitation", is a perplexing problem to many of our members and deserves clarification.
Coat of ArmsOne of the most popular and widespread misconceptions held by Masons is that soliciting new members is forbidden.   Our ritual is very clear that IMPROPER solicitation is to be avoided.   Indeed, one of the first things that a new candidate must affirm on his initial entry into the lodge is that he has not been biased by such action.
Coat of ArmsBut only IMPROPER solicitation is mentioned.  If ALL solicitation was banned, then there would be no need to qualify the word.   "Improper" solicitation does not mean "any" solicitation.
Coat of ArmsWhile there may be no written directive that prohibits solicitation, there is an established principle that discourages direct recruitment.   This long-standing tradition, probably unique to our Order, has become an unwritten rule.   Each applicant to Masonry must seek membership of his own free will and accord.
Coat of ArmsClearly we must be careful not to FORCE anyone to join the Craft. We must not BRIBE, TRICK, PUSH, INTIMIDATE, COERCE, DRAG, BULLY, EXTORT, HARASS, HOUND, PESTER, PURSUE, or do anything else that would be considered IMPROPER.
Coat of ArmsHowever, there is nothing wrong with gently extolling the many virtues of the Craft.   There is nothing wrong with telling someone that you believe they would enjoy the Craft.   There is nothing wrong with telling someone that your personal experience has been a positive one.   There is nothing wrong with asking them if they are interested in joining.   There is nothing wrong with TALKING ABOUT MASONRY!

Coat of ArmsSociety at large mistakenly believes that you must be ASKED to become a Mason. Non-Masons don't really understand our hackneyed 2B1ASK1 phrase - and why would they?   Many fine men wait their whole lives to be asked if they would be interested in becoming a Mason.   Many become insulted at never being asked.   Most would be complimented, excited and honoured to be gently, respectfully and PROPERLY asked.

Coat of ArmsWe must learn from our experiences.   Our membership numbers clearly show that what we have been doing isn't working very well.   In Ontario, our membership levels have been sinking quickly.   Sadly, and logically, the more we wait for men to ask to join our fraternity, the less society will know that we exist.   Eventually no one will know we exist and the question of solicitation will become moot.

Coat of ArmsWe need to understand and appreciate that only IMPROPER SOLICITATION is forbidden." *

This excellent explanation of the long-held prohibition of Improper Solicitation,1) and the logic used in permitting, even to encourage it, in a variety of proper forms, led me to reflect about the thorny issue of non-admittance into Freemasonry of "stupid Atheists2) and irreligious Libertines."3)

Are we, then, by the same logic, at liberty to admit into our lodges clever or unsuspecting or accidental Atheists?   I am sure you can come up with many examples of such types of Atheists, who are so due to time or circumstances, or place, or traditions, — but nonetheless good and upright men, good sons, fathers, brothers, teachers, administrators, and the likes.

Should we, by the same logic, be more tolerant, compassionate, receptive, and solicit and admit into our lodges religious, God-fervent, church-going, or noble and of good repute Libertines?

I read somewhere that our Brother, the Most Honorable, the Marquess of Northampton, Spencer Douglas David Compton, the Marquess of Northampton, or "Spenny" as he is affectionately known to close friends and brethren, Pro Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of England from 2001 until March 2010, who by that time had already divorced his 5th wife, Lady Pamela. (I do not know how many other wives he has had since 2010.)   And another great example is the person of our Brother George Augustus Frederick, Prince of Wales (later on King George IV), of an abject dissolute life conduct, who ruled as Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the English "Moderns" from 1790 to 1813.

Are we to consider these two Masons as "noble Libertines" and use their example as the test by which we, using that very logic, should allow all Libertines, except the irreligious ones, into Masonry — especially when our numbers continue inexorably to decline, and we don't know how to stop the bleeding?

Think about it!

Coat of Arms

1) Improper Solicitation.   It could be argued that the original crafters of our Constitutions and Rituals considered "Solicitation" (to join) to be improper in any and all forms.   Had they wished to allow some form of solicitation, they would have certainly spelled it out.   The ban on solicitation has been the guiding principle and practice for almost 300 years.   For almost 300 years men of all classes and convictions have joined the fraternity by their own "Free-Will and Accord" and enticed by their respect and admiration of Masons in their communities.   Actions speak louder than words. — The actions of these Masons were the silent solicitation that made our fraternity grow in membership and prestige throughout the world for almost three centuries.   I put no blame on the P. & E. Committee's new spin on the "Improper Solicitation" tenet, trying to shore up the inexorable declined in membership afflicting our fraternity for the past 50 years; I just say — it won't work.   As didn't work the 2B1ASK1 stickers on cars, mass initiations tried in other jurisdictions, information displays in malls and at community festivals, and everything else we have tried all this time.   Let us improve our actions, and our reputation, and the perception the public at large has of us, as individual respected members of our community, so each of us becomes that "silent solicitation" prompting the profane to knock at the door of our lodge.

2) Stupid Atheist.   Did James Anderson, as an ordained minister in the Church of Scotland, by "Stupid Atheist" meant that all Atheists were afflicted by stupidity, or did he have beef only with those unbelievers, who were also not very bright?   There is no doubt many a Hawking, Dawkins, and Gates, just to name a few, are very clever atheists (or agnostics), and many lodges would be delighted to have them as members.   Think of what great and "silent solicitation" they would make for our fraternity! — All atheists, with riches or penniless, famous or insignificant, head of states or commoners, captains of industry or laborers, teachers or students, philosophers or ignoramuses, the highest or the lowest in society, would beat a path to our doors — and return our fraternity to the splendor and repute it once held.   [If you have not yet guessed who the unsuspecting or accidental Atheists are, give me a call, and I will guide you.]

3) Irreligious Libertines.   Again, what did Minister James Anderson have in mind when he made reference to "irreligious Libertines" and proscribed them from our ranks?   Did he believe all Libertines are to be labeled irreligious, or only the libertines who professed no religion should be denied membership in our lodges?   A number of rulers of our gentle Craft have been renown perverts, devoid of most moral or sexual restraints, but otherwise noble, some head of Churches ex-officio, god-fearing, pious and repentant.   So, what is an "irreligious" libertine?

April 2016 *

Endline

Bro∴ Peter Bu answered the question, what is an "irreligious" libertine? in the most comprehensive and scholarly manner:



Cette argumentation correspond à celle de tous les francs-maçons gênés par l'affirmation des Constitutions d'Anderson qu'un franc-maçon ne peut «jamais être un athée stupide ni un profane libertin sans religion».

Je l'ai souvent utilisée, moi aussi, en pensant que les francs-maçons pouvaient être des «athées intelligents» — mais cette affirmation est à la fois redondante, — inutile (cela ne convainc pas les croyants pour qui les athées sont toujours stupides) et fausse.

Quant au terme "libertin", il n'a pas au début du XVIIIe siècle le même sens sexuel que nous lui prêtons aujourd'hui.

Wikipédia résume très bien son evolution:

«Dans sa version d'origine, un libertin — du latin libertinus, «esclave qui vient d'être libéré», «affranchi» — est celui qui remet en cause les dogmes établis, c'est un libre penseur (ou libertin d'esprit) dans la mesure où il est affranchi, en particulier, de la métaphysique et de l'éthique religieuse (exemple: Dom Juan de Molière)».

Libertinage intellectuel du XVIIe siècle

Relecture des théories du philosophe grec Épicure, le libertinage est un courant de pensée né au XVIe siècle en Italie (Cardan, Paracelse, Machiavel), puis continué au siècle suivant par Gassendi. Affirmant l'autonomie morale de l'homme face à l'autorité religieuse (aspect surtout spéculatif de la liberté d'esprit), il débouche au XVIIIe siècle sur la forme moderne de l'esprit critique: appliqué à la réalité, expérimental. Critique envers le dogmatisme, le libertinage refuse la notion de système philosophique; il se constitue davantage sur une pluralité d'essais philosophiques portant sur divers thèmes, convergeant dans une même critique de la religion et du dogme.

Matérialistes, les libertins considèrent que tout dans l'univers relève de la matière, laquelle impose, seule, ses lois. Ils estiment donc que la compréhension du monde relève de la seule raison, reniant, pour beaucoup, la notion de Créateur. Sur le plan politique, ils considèrent que les prêtres participent à la domination des princes sur les peuples, régnant sur eux par la superstition. L'école de Padoue conteste en particulier la notion de miracles et d'oracles, affirmant la seule existence du déterminisme naturel».

Au XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, les libertins étaient donc tout sauf stupides. «Jamais être un libertin» des Constitutions répète simplement que les francs-maçons doivent être des hommes libres, pas les serfs fraîchement affranchis qui n'ont pas encore acquis la «religion».

Les serfs, affranchis ou pas, étaient sensés de croire à Dieu et à ses représentant terrestres. La libération du servage ne les libérait pas de cette foi. Pour comprendre cette phrase des «Constitutions», Il faut se rappeler que les francs-maçons voulaient adhérer à la «religion dont toutes les honnêtes gens conviennent» — donc à une religion qui n'existe pas en tant que telle. Ils se référaient, en fait, à la «morale naturelle» qu'il fallait connaître et respecter.

Croire ou ne pas croire à une religion proprement dite était une affaire personnelle.

Les francs-maçons peuvent être des athées, à condition de partager la "religion commune à tous les hommes bons", ce qui est une catégorie morale, pas religieuse. Mais comme c'est une catégorie quasi métaphysique qui dépasse l'individu, on peut l'assimiler, d'une certaine façon, aux religions.

Cette formulation équivoque des Constitutions devait probablement protéger les francs-maçons contre les accusations des bigots et autres conservateurs opposés à la liberté de pensée. A cette époque, il était encore trop risquée de se déclarer ouvertement athée. Par des phrases comme celle-ci les francs-maçons se cachaient derrières les mots comme l'ont toujours fait leurs prédécesseurs alchimistes. Cela n'a sans doute pas trompé le Pape, mais a dû suffir pour calmer le curé du coin.

  

This argumentation corresponds to that of all Freemasons bothered by the assertion of the Constitutions of Anderson that a Freemason can "never be a stupid atheist or a profane libertine without religion."

I have often used it, too, thinking that Freemasons could be "intelligent atheists" - but this statement is at the same time redundant - useless (this does not convince the believers for whom atheists are always stupid) and false.

As for the term "libertine," it did not at the beginning of the 18th century have the same sexual meaning as we attribute to it today.

Wikipedia sums up its evolution very well:

"In its original version, a libertine — from the Latin libertinus," a slave who has just been freed," "enfranchised" — is one who challenges established dogmas, he is a free thinker (or libertine of spirit) insofar as he is freed, in particular, from metaphysics and religious ethics (example: Molière's French play: Dom Juan)."

XVIIth century intellectual freedom

Rereading the theories of the Greek philosopher Epicurus, libertinism is a line of thought born in the 16th century in Italy (Cardano, Paracelsus, Machiavelli), then continued in the following century by Gassendi. Affirming the moral autonomy of man in opposition to religious authority (especially the speculative aspect of freedom of mind), it led in the 18th century the modern form of critical thinking: applied to experimental reality. Critical of dogmatism, libertinism refuses the notion of a philosophical system; it is built more on a plurality of philosophical essays on various themes, converging in the same critique of religion and dogma.

Materialists, the libertines consider that everything in the universe is matter, which alone imposes its laws. They, therefore, believe that understanding the world is for reason alone, denying, for many, the concept of a Creator. On the political level, they consider the priests as participants in the domination of the princes over the people, reigning over them through superstition. The School of Padua challenged, in particular, the notion of miracles and oracles, asserting the only existence of natural determinism."

In the 17th and 18th centuries, libertines were, therefore, anything but stupid. The "Never be a libertine" proffered in the Constitutions simply reiterated that the Freemasons must be free men, not the newly freed serfs who have not yet acquired "religion."

Serfs, freed or not, were supposed to believe in God and in his earthly representatives. Liberation from serfdom did not liberate them from this faith. To understand this sentence of the "Constitutions," it must be remembered that the Freemasons wanted to adhere to the "religion of which all honest people agree" — therefore to a religion which does not exist as such. They were, in fact, referring to the "natural morality" that had to be known and respected.

To believe or not to believe in a religion proper was a personal matter.

Freemasons can be atheists, provided they share the "religion common to all good men," which is a moral category, not a religious one. But as it is an almost metaphysical category which goes beyond the individual, we can equate it, in a certain way, to religions.   [See Religiosity — Diversity in an individuals' beliefs, affiliations, and behaviors.]

This ambiguous formulation of the Constitutions was probably intended to protect Freemasons from accusations by bigots and other conservatives opposed to freedom of thought. At that time, it was still too risky to openly declare oneself an atheist. With sentences like these, the masons hid behind the words as their alchemist predecessors always did. This undoubtedly did not deceive the Pope, but must have been enough to calm the local priest.


Divider