In today’s world, what exactly do we mean when we say:
“I will not violate the chastity… or suffer it be done by others…”
When I was a brand spankin’ new Mason, I remember in a Lodge near me, a Mason having an affair with another Mason’s wife. It was a pretty major Masonic scandal I suppose, otherwise I would have never heard about it.
But, to my knowledge, nothing ever happened officially to the Masons involved.
That was probably a mistake. I figured then, and now, that the offense warranted suspension.
In Ohio our obligation is a bit more "graphic". It's also highly heterosexist. As an openly gay and married Mason, it was hard not to laugh when I took my MM obligation. It was like, ok, so the females are off limits but the males are ok? In reality, despite the outdated language, it comes down to personal ethics and not doing anything to harm a brother or his family.
I have had a little problem for a number of years with a gay man (not anyone in particular) joining the Craft in that he can have his partner join which I cannot do... not equal... I spent many years in Real Estate and have listened to the vitriol when a gay couple (or any couple) does the "itzo-shplitzo" and it would not lend itself well to the Harmony in the Lodge.
I have suggested that should this arise that the couple cannot join the same Lodge... I am not saying they cannot or should not join... just not in the same Lodge.
I have never encountered a married couple in Lodge. At least to my knowledge.
But, of course, we do have lots of married couples in the Order of the Eastern Star. And yeah, I've seen that go bad, leading to the marital conflict spilling over.
Yeah, our old language does sometimes not quite fit with our modern society. I imagine it would be kind of hard not to laugh while taking the obligation. I don't doubt but that if I was in your position, my mind would have been making up all sorts of crazy scenarios!
But, I generally tend to see most everything in our Degrees as symbolic, including much of the language, so I suppose that phrase can stand in for what was meant, just as the Bible has symbolized the correct volume of sacred law for so many non-Christian Masons taking their Obligations for so many years.
I agree, it is about not harming a Brother or his family. But, I've also wondered through the years, is it also about not harming the peace of the Lodge?
I think "“I will not violate the chastity… or suffer it be done by others…” may be jurisdictional and evidence of poetic liberty changing the meaning of or intent of a sentence. I would suspect due to the nature of the way the Western Masonry formed, and the progression of multiple grand lodge rituals westward it was brought westward in its current form. Here in my jurisdiction it is "I will not have illegal carnal communications". In the Regis manuscript, highlighting the old charges it is listed as a moral duty. However, it is hardly protecting absolute chastity in its old form. "Seventh point. The seventh point he may well mean, Of well long life that God us lend, As it descrieth well openly, Thou shalt not by thy master's wife lie, Nor by thy fellows', in no manner wise, Lest the craft would thee despise; Nor by thy fellows' concubine, No more thou wouldst he did by thine. The pain thereof let it be sure, That he be 'prentice full seven year, If he forfeit in any of them So chastised then must he be; Full much care might there begin, For such a foul deadly sin. " Or the olde english as you will find here: https://www.quatuorcoronati.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/QCA_VOL-1.pdf
To simplify, the concept of Freemasonry as a speculative craft means that members, referred to as fellows, are encouraged to practice their principles symbolically, much like an abstract or philosophical art form. One key idea in Freemasonry is represented by the "point within a circle." This symbol suggests that members should keep their actions within certain ethical boundaries, which are metaphorically illustrated by the circle. These boundaries are guided by the light of wisdom, often symbolized by Sophia, representing knowledge and enlightenment.
The "point within a circle" isn't just about following a set of strict rules. Instead, it serves as a reminder of an aspirational goal, encouraging each member to apply these ethical principles in their personal interactions and behaviors. Thus, it's about striving to be better and using these teachings to guide one's conduct with others, rather than adhering to a fixed, authoritative set of moral laws.
I'm sorry to hijack the thread, but, relevant to this, I've just started reading a book about The Point Within A Circle that is proving to be quite interesting, so I thought I should pass it along:
His interpretation is not our standard Craft Lodge interpretation, but that is A-OK in my view, because I do believe that our symbolism contains layers of meaning, and that ultimately we must each discover those meanings most impactful for us as individuals.
While I've not encountered very many of the odd variations that have developed in the various versions used of our rituals, due to much of them not being widely shared, I have encountered some.
And it certainly makes sense. One guy teaches them to another guy, and the kids game of Telephone comes into effect. Especially, as you mention, when the explosive growth westward was taking place in the United States.
Thanks for providing the link to QCA 1. I appreciate it.
One of the interesting changes in the English language is the change in definitions over time. Today Webster says:
Chastity
1: the quality or state of being chaste: such as
a: abstention from unlawful sexual intercourse
b: abstention from all sexual intercourse
The priest took a vow of chastity.
c: purity in conduct and intention
sought to protect her threatened chastity
d: restraint and simplicity in design or expression
… describes the familiar campaigns with an admirable chastity of diction.
—Richard Brookhiser
2: personal integrity
1B wasn't always a definition. There was a time when chastity had nothing to do with abstention. It just meant "don't have sex with anyone but your spouse." And in that era having sex with someone made them your spouse. So quite simply, I have always taken that oath to mean "don't have sex with someone else's spouse, kids, or family in general, unless they're married to you, or going to be. I believe it was once meant primarily as a boundary against rape, and adultery.
Yes, RAPE. What is unthinkable now, was at one time SOP especially in wartime, for soldiers. American troops? Not so much, though it happened. British troops, German troops, French, Asian in general? Especially pre WWII, and during WWII yeah, it happened a LOT. These days it's considered a war crime, in the 1800s and before, it was considered spoils of war. We, the Freemasons, considered it to be wrong.
I do remember from my own reading of history that rape was a part of warfare, and indeed, long ago in ancient human history, from a purely biological standpoint, it was likely needed. A tiny, tight knit, tribal group with close family ties, existing in an area with other such groups around would likely breed too closely which as we know eventually has disastrous effects on offspring. War, and the attendant rapes inflicted on the losing group in those times would diversify the ancient gene pool, making future offspring stronger instead of weaker.
As you say, we know that this was still going on in the 1940's in Europe, and of course our Craft comes from Europe, long before that time. So, I can certainly see Masonic concern about the treatment of a losing nation's fate of Masonic dependents.
I guess what is considered Chastity depends on it's intent. A woman that is a mother or wife is certainly not chaste. I know of at least one mason that married a brother's sister and of course my daughter has birthed two grandkids for me. I tend to reflect on the Violate portion, which I consider doing so against their will.
After reading these comments and discovering that this particular admonition in our Obligation uses different terminology in other Jurisdictions I think I'll have to consider a broader view than I might have considered otherwise.
Ultimately, to me, I guess it has always come down to protecting the Mason's family, and the Lodge.
In the examples I used, the way I figured it the Mason's relationship with my daughter was in no way a violation of his obligation because of his intent. They were working to build a life together.
But, the affair a Mason was having with his Lodge Brother's wife was, in my view, clearly a violation. Because it was a direct attack on one Mason by another, and it harmed the Lodge by directly resulting in severe disharmony.
I am pretty much old school Bible based on this matter. To be chaste is to reserve the sexual relationship to those who have given their vows to each other in marriage. Any sexual relations between a Mason and one who is not his spouse is a violation of his obligation. It contradicts our claim of teaching morality to not be chaste in our relations with the women listed in the obligation and I would argue, including women who have no connection to Freemasonry. Being chaste is not a commonly accepted behavior in this day and age.
I think that what is 'commonly accepted' changes over time, and always has. It certainly has changed during my lifetime. When I was a kid, the sexual revolution was all the rage, and I know that things were extremely casual, even between many married couples. Indeed, even today I hear stories in my little city about a WM of my Lodge and his apparently legendary exploits swinging. He was dead before I ever was in a position to meet him, but I've heard the stories from Masons, and from non-Masons, pretty much from the time I moved here. Some admiring his behavior, some condemning it.
But, as I entered my teen years, herpes blew up, and aids entered the scene. That, I think, undoubtedly made things less casual, made people consider things more carefully, and in a way, pumped the brakes. I don't think that people had less or did less, but it became more serious and more considered.
Now that I'm a genuine old fart, it seems that the young folks are rapidly giving up on sex. This has been widely reported in media accounts of studies looking at these things.
I suppose that much as with politics it is a pendulum that swings widely.
“I will not violate the chastity" to me means respecting women’s Integrity: It signifies a promise to honor the personal and sexual boundaries of women, specifically those who are family members of one's Brother; furthermore, "or suffer it be done by others" also implies an obligation to prevent and oppose any form of disrespect, harassment, or sexual misconduct towards these women by others. This includes taking action to ensure their safety and well-being.
That's an interesting perspective to ponder! Thank you.
In Ohio our obligation is a bit more "graphic". It's also highly heterosexist. As an openly gay and married Mason, it was hard not to laugh when I took my MM obligation. It was like, ok, so the females are off limits but the males are ok? In reality, despite the outdated language, it comes down to personal ethics and not doing anything to harm a brother or his family.
I have had a little problem for a number of years with a gay man (not anyone in particular) joining the Craft in that he can have his partner join which I cannot do... not equal... I spent many years in Real Estate and have listened to the vitriol when a gay couple (or any couple) does the "itzo-shplitzo" and it would not lend itself well to the Harmony in the Lodge.
I have suggested that should this arise that the couple cannot join the same Lodge... I am not saying they cannot or should not join... just not in the same Lodge.
I have never encountered a married couple in Lodge. At least to my knowledge.
But, of course, we do have lots of married couples in the Order of the Eastern Star. And yeah, I've seen that go bad, leading to the marital conflict spilling over.
Yeah, our old language does sometimes not quite fit with our modern society. I imagine it would be kind of hard not to laugh while taking the obligation. I don't doubt but that if I was in your position, my mind would have been making up all sorts of crazy scenarios!
But, I generally tend to see most everything in our Degrees as symbolic, including much of the language, so I suppose that phrase can stand in for what was meant, just as the Bible has symbolized the correct volume of sacred law for so many non-Christian Masons taking their Obligations for so many years.
I agree, it is about not harming a Brother or his family. But, I've also wondered through the years, is it also about not harming the peace of the Lodge?
I think "“I will not violate the chastity… or suffer it be done by others…” may be jurisdictional and evidence of poetic liberty changing the meaning of or intent of a sentence. I would suspect due to the nature of the way the Western Masonry formed, and the progression of multiple grand lodge rituals westward it was brought westward in its current form. Here in my jurisdiction it is "I will not have illegal carnal communications". In the Regis manuscript, highlighting the old charges it is listed as a moral duty. However, it is hardly protecting absolute chastity in its old form. "Seventh point. The seventh point he may well mean, Of well long life that God us lend, As it descrieth well openly, Thou shalt not by thy master's wife lie, Nor by thy fellows', in no manner wise, Lest the craft would thee despise; Nor by thy fellows' concubine, No more thou wouldst he did by thine. The pain thereof let it be sure, That he be 'prentice full seven year, If he forfeit in any of them So chastised then must he be; Full much care might there begin, For such a foul deadly sin. " Or the olde english as you will find here: https://www.quatuorcoronati.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/QCA_VOL-1.pdf
To simplify, the concept of Freemasonry as a speculative craft means that members, referred to as fellows, are encouraged to practice their principles symbolically, much like an abstract or philosophical art form. One key idea in Freemasonry is represented by the "point within a circle." This symbol suggests that members should keep their actions within certain ethical boundaries, which are metaphorically illustrated by the circle. These boundaries are guided by the light of wisdom, often symbolized by Sophia, representing knowledge and enlightenment.
The "point within a circle" isn't just about following a set of strict rules. Instead, it serves as a reminder of an aspirational goal, encouraging each member to apply these ethical principles in their personal interactions and behaviors. Thus, it's about striving to be better and using these teachings to guide one's conduct with others, rather than adhering to a fixed, authoritative set of moral laws.
I'm sorry to hijack the thread, but, relevant to this, I've just started reading a book about The Point Within A Circle that is proving to be quite interesting, so I thought I should pass it along:
https://point-within-the-circle.com/index.php
His interpretation is not our standard Craft Lodge interpretation, but that is A-OK in my view, because I do believe that our symbolism contains layers of meaning, and that ultimately we must each discover those meanings most impactful for us as individuals.
In any event, I think you might enjoy the book.
While I've not encountered very many of the odd variations that have developed in the various versions used of our rituals, due to much of them not being widely shared, I have encountered some.
And it certainly makes sense. One guy teaches them to another guy, and the kids game of Telephone comes into effect. Especially, as you mention, when the explosive growth westward was taking place in the United States.
Thanks for providing the link to QCA 1. I appreciate it.
One of the interesting changes in the English language is the change in definitions over time. Today Webster says:
Chastity
1: the quality or state of being chaste: such as
a: abstention from unlawful sexual intercourse
b: abstention from all sexual intercourse
The priest took a vow of chastity.
c: purity in conduct and intention
sought to protect her threatened chastity
d: restraint and simplicity in design or expression
… describes the familiar campaigns with an admirable chastity of diction.
—Richard Brookhiser
2: personal integrity
1B wasn't always a definition. There was a time when chastity had nothing to do with abstention. It just meant "don't have sex with anyone but your spouse." And in that era having sex with someone made them your spouse. So quite simply, I have always taken that oath to mean "don't have sex with someone else's spouse, kids, or family in general, unless they're married to you, or going to be. I believe it was once meant primarily as a boundary against rape, and adultery.
Yes, RAPE. What is unthinkable now, was at one time SOP especially in wartime, for soldiers. American troops? Not so much, though it happened. British troops, German troops, French, Asian in general? Especially pre WWII, and during WWII yeah, it happened a LOT. These days it's considered a war crime, in the 1800s and before, it was considered spoils of war. We, the Freemasons, considered it to be wrong.
I do remember from my own reading of history that rape was a part of warfare, and indeed, long ago in ancient human history, from a purely biological standpoint, it was likely needed. A tiny, tight knit, tribal group with close family ties, existing in an area with other such groups around would likely breed too closely which as we know eventually has disastrous effects on offspring. War, and the attendant rapes inflicted on the losing group in those times would diversify the ancient gene pool, making future offspring stronger instead of weaker.
As you say, we know that this was still going on in the 1940's in Europe, and of course our Craft comes from Europe, long before that time. So, I can certainly see Masonic concern about the treatment of a losing nation's fate of Masonic dependents.
I guess what is considered Chastity depends on it's intent. A woman that is a mother or wife is certainly not chaste. I know of at least one mason that married a brother's sister and of course my daughter has birthed two grandkids for me. I tend to reflect on the Violate portion, which I consider doing so against their will.
After reading these comments and discovering that this particular admonition in our Obligation uses different terminology in other Jurisdictions I think I'll have to consider a broader view than I might have considered otherwise.
Ultimately, to me, I guess it has always come down to protecting the Mason's family, and the Lodge.
In the examples I used, the way I figured it the Mason's relationship with my daughter was in no way a violation of his obligation because of his intent. They were working to build a life together.
But, the affair a Mason was having with his Lodge Brother's wife was, in my view, clearly a violation. Because it was a direct attack on one Mason by another, and it harmed the Lodge by directly resulting in severe disharmony.
I am pretty much old school Bible based on this matter. To be chaste is to reserve the sexual relationship to those who have given their vows to each other in marriage. Any sexual relations between a Mason and one who is not his spouse is a violation of his obligation. It contradicts our claim of teaching morality to not be chaste in our relations with the women listed in the obligation and I would argue, including women who have no connection to Freemasonry. Being chaste is not a commonly accepted behavior in this day and age.
I think that what is 'commonly accepted' changes over time, and always has. It certainly has changed during my lifetime. When I was a kid, the sexual revolution was all the rage, and I know that things were extremely casual, even between many married couples. Indeed, even today I hear stories in my little city about a WM of my Lodge and his apparently legendary exploits swinging. He was dead before I ever was in a position to meet him, but I've heard the stories from Masons, and from non-Masons, pretty much from the time I moved here. Some admiring his behavior, some condemning it.
But, as I entered my teen years, herpes blew up, and aids entered the scene. That, I think, undoubtedly made things less casual, made people consider things more carefully, and in a way, pumped the brakes. I don't think that people had less or did less, but it became more serious and more considered.
Now that I'm a genuine old fart, it seems that the young folks are rapidly giving up on sex. This has been widely reported in media accounts of studies looking at these things.
I suppose that much as with politics it is a pendulum that swings widely.
“I will not violate the chastity" to me means respecting women’s Integrity: It signifies a promise to honor the personal and sexual boundaries of women, specifically those who are family members of one's Brother; furthermore, "or suffer it be done by others" also implies an obligation to prevent and oppose any form of disrespect, harassment, or sexual misconduct towards these women by others. This includes taking action to ensure their safety and well-being.
>>>implies an obligation to prevent and oppose any form of disrespect, harassment, or sexual >>>misconduct towards these women by others.
I agree, this is an important implication to mention. Thank you!