At our upcoming Annual Communication, the Grand Lodge of Washington will likely pass a resolution requiring our petitioners to get a Criminal Background Check prior to their meeting with the investigation committee.
If a check comes back showing that the petitioner has been convicted of a crime, it will be up to the Lodge to decide what to do with that information. In Washington we do not have a rule that would prevent someone who had been convicted of a crime from ever becoming a Freemason, believing that it is possible for someone to have turned their life around.
In practice though, I think we can assume that our Lodges aren’t eager to be initiating a bunch of felons. I presume that in virtually all cases, if a background check comes back showing a felony conviction, the Lodge will deem the man unsuitable to receive the Degrees of Masonry.
To be clear, I’m good with that.
I don’t think we should be making criminals into Masons, and if requiring background checks will help prevent us from accidentally doing that, then I am all in favor of them.
That said, thinking about all of this does raise a question in my mind.
What if a man was convicted of violating an immoral law?
What if the felony he was convicted of was a violation of a law abhorrent to our fundamental understandings of liberty?
Jun 1, 2022·edited Jun 1, 2022Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
If the conviction is for a crime as suggested by the GM, yes the candidate should be barred from membership. In our lodge we’ve been using such checks for years.
Jun 1, 2022·edited Jun 1, 2022Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
My Lodge already requires criminal background checks through the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) for applicants; although it is NOT a requirement set by Grand Lodge. To date, it seems to have deterred only one man from completing a Petition for Membership. When told it was required, he dropped off the Lodge's radar, without discussing it with his mentor, or enquiring further re: "What would be an unacceptable criminal record?". He may have had a conviction he didn't want to expose, or he simply may not have wanted to pay for a CPIC check (a nominal 50CAD fee). Either way, I see it all as part of "guarding the West Gate" and keeping our Craft free from undesirables. I see it as the opposite of the death penalty rule of, "It is better that ten guilty men go free, than one innocent man be hanged." I would rather see ten good men rejected, than one undesirable be admitted! Then again, maybe that's just my cynicism from being a Correctional Officer for 32 years.
Makes me wonder what would happen if we did background checks on our membership. Seriously, we all show up flawed and the best we can do is to cure some of those flaws in the short time we have on earth. Some flaws are harder to cure.
There are more factors to look at than just the background check. Did the petitioner mark freely admit to having a felony on his record? What was the crime? A felony in one state or even another country may not be one in another. Some things that were felonies are no longer considered one. Think about how Marijuana laws have changed in the past 40 years around this country and know that the death penalty still exists in other countries for what we see as a misdemeanor.
Could the petitioner as a young man committed a crime, paid his debt to society and now is an outstanding member of his community? Sometimes the proper mentor comes into someone's life only after the mistake was made.
The overall seriousness of the offense needs to be considered. Not just automatically reject if something appears in the report. I'm not advocating murders and rapist should be admitted, far from it. Only due diligence and a thoughtful process completed.
People can change in either direction based on the circumstance they find themselves in.
The investigative committee needs to take the task very seriously and give a good report in Lodge.
We had a petitioner note in his interview that he had been convicted of a felony, but back in the 70s. It was a drug related crime, and, well, it was the 70s. He was a successful businessman and contributor to society. We accepted him into the fraternity. Unfortunately, he never progressed past FC. I think the work required to memorize the posting lecture was too much for him, and he stopped coming to our weekly practice. He was dropped from our rolls a few years ago.
I think it's a very good idea for lodges to conduct background checks, it would have saved a few lodges a lot of grief over the years. I'm not an advocate for GL dictating what craft lodges do outside of TSW, but to me this is one of those things that is a no brainer. Luckily, in this day and age we have the technology to be able to perform such checks.
I do have to question one thing, would a valid Concealed Pistol License issued by Washington State also be good enough proof? If so, shouldn't the resolution contain wording to that effect?
I was an immigration officer for many years. My job was to find and consider criminal records, weigh them in the larger context of the case, then determine whether to let someone in.
I’m for the checks but there are cautions.
Reluctance to check means we’re willingly avoiding valuable information. That is not guarding the west gate.
Using the check to replace the investigation committee is even more foolish (he passed so he must be a good guy so our job is done).
Checking American records does not reveal criminality in other countries.
Checking American records does not reveal all American felonies - plenty of convictions don’t make it into NCIC, though it’s probably less of a problem now.
The crim check is one tool but a valuable one.
Did our man disclose a record and explain it?
Do we reject a man because of the seriousness of his record or simply because it exists?
Plenty of people have criminal records. Some of those will harm Masonry and some will improve it.
The stated purpose of Freemasonry is to make good men better. It’s not to make mostly good men, slightly good men or sometimes good men somewhat better. As we are not in the business of rehabilitation, I am for exclusion based on the investigation including criminal history checks.
This is a fantastic topic, and one that I hold near to my heart. I would love to share a cup of coffee and talk about it. I've seen this topic come up before. I have very contrasted experiences and perhaps an unpopular opinion in this regard, but it is rooted in the foundation that masonry takes GOOD men, and makes them better. I fully agree that it should be up to the lodge in the determination of the results, but there is potential for bias based solely on the record, and not the character.
Let me share a couple stories.
You may be aware of the plight of the VMC. I knew the man well, and it hurt my heart to learn what happened. The man was a dutiful mason, He was an astounding lecturer, active and involved in not only his lodge, but many others. Even served as our district deputy for a term. But, what happened? One of our most sacred obligations was broken and we're still healing from the damage. No background check would have revealed any intent, in fact until the issue was brought to light, nobody would have suspected such malice.
On the other hand, I know men who, at some point in their lives made bad decisions that would lead them into paths of destruction and despair. Men who have been convicted of crimes, some violent. These same men, have served their time, worked to improve their spiritual condition and become outstanding examples of what it means to be a good man. Men I would wholeheartedly endorse.
Further, there are men I've met who, on paper, would appear to be an outstanding candidate for our fraternity. Yet, when getting to know them, it's clear the quality of their character doesn't extend beyond self centered ego. The type of person who would do anything just to maintain the perception that they are a "good guy".
Of the 3 examples, what I fear is the third. With his "perfect candidate" appearance. Gets along well with people. Not exactly a bad person, but is completely self absorbed and only interested in exploiting something for the simple appearance of being good as leverage for their own personal gains or ego stroking. This is the man expecting his membership to garner him some kind of status elevation. Typically they join, realize this isn't the case and we've all wasted our time.
The second is the very embodiment of what we seek. A man who's lived. A man who has struggled and worked to rectify his life. This is the man who is a true and trusted friend. A man who's learned from his mistakes and puts forth the effort to be the best man he can.
MW, you touched on a caveat with this man. What is the nature of the conviction? What are the circumstances? Socially there is an inherent bias based on the fact of any criminal history, regardless of the circumstance.
There's another side to this coin which is even more of a risk. The man who simply hasn't been caught or convicted. This could be a man who preys on the vulnerable. The thief, the domestic abuser, the con man. Such a man we would not knowingly allow in our midst. A background check on such a man would be moot point.
It's a very good question and topic. We must ALWAYS guard well our west gate. In my examples the first man even wore the purple of our fraternity. And I suspect there's more to his story than any of us will know. I pray for him and hope some day he is able to make restitution.
The second man, with the sordid past, doing his best to become the man he knows he is inside. I would gladly break bread with and take him by the hand.
The third man, He may be a name on the rolls, He may pay his dues, but is he likely to participate once he realizes there are no accolades to be had? It's unlikely. We've seen these men come and go.
It's a nuanced discussion. (tangent) To save time and money (and I've often wondered this about volunteering with the school), for men who have a CCP license in Washington, we could make a simple call to local law enforcement and verify if the license is good. It's provides proof of a more thorough background check, it's a simple phone call, and doesn't place any financial obligation on anyone. Not to mention the time. Sometimes WSP can get backed up and then we're waiting even longer.
This is a very good conversation to have. We need to know who we're allowing into our ranks, but my personal view, the status of a background check can be misleading and should be taken as just a simple data point. Should the existence of a record bar a man? I think using that as the sole decider is not the right thing, but we should open a conversation based on it. Do good men make mistakes? Sometimes terrible, life changing mistakes? Yes we do. We strive to be better, to help our brethren be better. In my experience, surrounding myself with good men, makes me a better man and I hope to pass that along to the best of my ability.
I agree, that its not a bad idea, why else have an investigative committee, or Tyler? However, with that said, judgment based on background should be taken with careful consideration. The greatest discovery a person can find is his own defects. We all started in darkness and confusion before we desired light. Similar to the Book of Genesis, everything was first darkness, and only after reflection (in the waters) was there light. Without objective awareness of our own dark desires or thoughts, one cannot attain enlightenment (knowledge of the self). As stated by Max Heilndel, "Thus originated the feud in the dim dawn of this Cosmic day, and that which we see as Free Masonry today is an attempt by the Hierarchs of fire, the Lucifer Spirits, to bring us the imprisoned spirit 'Light,' that by it we may see and know.”
The Pillars in our Lodge can remind us of a Hero's journey, symbolised by the Phoenician Architect to the building of Solomon's Temple, which was dedicated to Hercules. Before successfully completing his 12 labors, Hercules killed his wife and kids.
Ah, it's good to see that we are, once again, falling in line with WA doctrine of legislating everything...you know, to protect ourselves from ourselves; how very Jay Inslee of us. (Sarcasm emphasized...heavily)
The master of each lodge is the principle person who is responsible for the well being if the lodge and all of the members should endeavor to guard the west gate. Now I understand that common sense isn't, but let's dive a bit deeper, shall we?
The resolution specifically states, "Each petitioner for the Degrees or petitioner for affiliation is to obtain at his expense, from a VENDOR APPROVED BY GRAND LODGE, a Criminal History Report or background check." None of the "approved vendors" are listed. My first question, especially in this political climate, would be, "Who stands to financially gain from this?".
Why do we have an Investigation Committee? There's a spot on the Petition itself to list references; how many times has someone from the Investigation Committee called a reference? In reality, many struggling lodges get a 'Blue Loge Boner' at the slightest whiff of a candidate for little more reason than to have another dues-paying member to add to the roll and someone who can take over a lodge officer position from a recycled past master.
These criminal background check vendors are nothing more than databases of info where the quality/accuracy of information will certainly vary. Additionally, The WMC is silent on criminal history - in fact the words "Felon" or "Felony" are not mentioned in the entirety of the WMC. Even if the background check revealed prior criminal history, there is no provision in the WMC that specifically prohibits a candidate.
The qualifications to be a Mason are spelled out below:
Sec. 18.02 B.L. Qualifications. Every petitioner in order to be eligible for the degrees of Masonry must:
A. Be at least eighteen years of age,
B. Have the senses of a man, especially those of Hearing, Seeing and Feeling,
C. Be a believer in a Supreme Being,
D. Be capable of Reading and Writing; and
E. Possess no disability in his body that would render him incapable of conforming reasonably what the Degrees respectively require of him.
No provision of this Section shall be set aside, dispensed with or suspended by the Grand Master or by the Grand Lodge.
If we evaluated the above, a legally blind person who does not have the ability to see, would be ineligible from petitioning to receive the degrees of Masonry, yet an able-bodied felon would be.
Sec. 19.08 B.L. No Discussion on Petition. No discussion upon the merits of a petition shall be allowed in Lodge.
I again ask, why we have an Investigation Committee. No discussion on the merits of the petition are allowed and - as I understand it - lodge members are not able to ask questions to the Investigation Committee to further educate themselves so that they may ballot based on a fully-informed decision.
All that we're doing here is adding an additional expense for a candidate to join Masonry.
A criminal background check is simply another piece of information, and i totally support the idea of doing it. Like all data it will be subject to evaluation, and that is the responsibility of the Lodge, though I do hope that the Lodge will consider the good of masonry as a whole. Even if a man has paid for his crime, some crimes leave a stain that can not be removed, and their membership, even if they have been completely reformed, could damage the fraternity. For example, a man with a conviction for child sexual assault could negatively affect our youth programs, even if the man was reformed, how many parents would want a convicted child molester having access to their children? We start with good men, and i think sometimes we are a bit to generous with our evaluation of "good". Concerning convictions that relate to laws we feel are abhorent, well i think we need to address that on a case by case basis. We have pledged to obey civil laws and leaders, so our default should be to obey the laws of our jurisdiction, BUT i think personally, if i was a Mason in Germany in the 1930s and early 40s, i would be confident that there would be laws we could resist with a clear conscience. I am also reminded from the point of view of the Crown, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were terrorists. I think as Masons the Grand Archetect calls on us to use discernement in all things, informed by our precepts as Freemasons.
I am curious the data behind this. With the Brothers who have behaved badly after being admitted, how many had red flags that would have been found with a background check? I have heard of several Brothers removed from the craft for various offences, has someone looked to see if they had a criminal history before they joined? I am torn on this particular resolution, and the data would help.
I wish to offer a word of caution about what you consider a criminal. You may recall when the voters of this State voted into law the "three strikes and your out". You may also recall that EVERY Prosecuting Attorney in the State strongly advised against this law; because our State status's are so stringent that you can wind up a convicted Felon, for even the most petty of crimes.
It's what a person has done with their life after that counts. When I was seeking the degrees of Masonry, one of the people interviewing me was a convicted felon for cattle rustling, and had served time in the penitentiary. After that time he had gotten his life straightened out and was a example of what a mason should be, each and every day.
Without regurgitating too much of what has already been stated, I personally am in favor of criminal background checks to be provided by those men petitioning for the Degrees. It's true that some men can have felony records from years ago and have "paid their debt to society", and thus would still possibly be a candidate for said degrees. None of us know the nature of the heart of each candidate but he and the GATOU.
Some crimes can be looked at from a different view. As MWGM pointed out, there were crimes in the past that are now seen as unacceptable laws, assisting slaves, Bros. Washington & Franklin and crimes against the Crown. While it's a novel, it's safe to say that in Les Miserable has a plot that took place in actual history. Think of the character Jean Valjean, 24601, and his 19-year sentence for stealing bread for his starving niece. This was a crime of necessity, and truly the crime laid in the law and punishment.
Like Valjean, men of today with more just laws (read into that however you will) have the capability to rehabilitate themselves after criminal punishment and be thriving members of the community. I get it, it's a work of fiction, but bear with me. In over 22 years of public service, 12 of those as a law enforcement officer, I have seen criminals turn their lives around and be good upstanding citizens of their communities. I've also seen pillars of the communities show their true self and the evil and vile behavior they have hidden inside.
How does this relate to the background check? I'm getting there, I promise. The background check should not be a final decision for the man's petition to the lodge, but rather used as a tool along with the six steps and the results of the investigatory committee. These resources combined can help to paint a better picture of the man knocking at the door of our Western gates seeking admission.
I will concede that not all "wolves in sheep's clothing" will have been caught. It happens in all aspects of life - whether it be through a fraternity, religious organization, educational institution, etc. Things happen, evil exists in this world. That is the current game we're playing as humans in life. It is possible that the man just has never been caught for his actions before.
Yes, I am in favor of the background checks as a supplemental to the six steps and the investigation committee. At no point should it ever be used as a replacement for the aforementioned.
As far as crimes and what would disqualify a man from petitioning? That would be up to the lodges, for discussion within the investigation committee, and honest and diligent thoughtful consideration. Was the man arrested for burglary when he was a younger man, and now 43 years later seeks admission to our craft after a lifetime of rehabilitation and moral character? That's up to the members of the lodge. As a police officer, I will sometimes quote Fred Rogers when arresting someone for a crime, and they are beside themselves because they "can't believe that they did this." It's usually after a domestic violence assault and tempers and emotions flared. I'll explain to that person, human to human, not officer to arrestee, that "Good people sometimes do bad things."
My only, personal, exception are crimes against children, the elderly, and the vulnerable. I have zero tolerance for that type of behavior. I'm a flawed man and I accept that fact, especially when it comes to children. One of the sacred texts reads, "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17:2 KJV.
I have appreciated the openness and discussion on this thread. Thank you, MWGM, for providing a forum to share ideas and opinions in a civil and masonic manner.
If the conviction is for a crime as suggested by the GM, yes the candidate should be barred from membership. In our lodge we’ve been using such checks for years.
My Lodge already requires criminal background checks through the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) for applicants; although it is NOT a requirement set by Grand Lodge. To date, it seems to have deterred only one man from completing a Petition for Membership. When told it was required, he dropped off the Lodge's radar, without discussing it with his mentor, or enquiring further re: "What would be an unacceptable criminal record?". He may have had a conviction he didn't want to expose, or he simply may not have wanted to pay for a CPIC check (a nominal 50CAD fee). Either way, I see it all as part of "guarding the West Gate" and keeping our Craft free from undesirables. I see it as the opposite of the death penalty rule of, "It is better that ten guilty men go free, than one innocent man be hanged." I would rather see ten good men rejected, than one undesirable be admitted! Then again, maybe that's just my cynicism from being a Correctional Officer for 32 years.
Makes me wonder what would happen if we did background checks on our membership. Seriously, we all show up flawed and the best we can do is to cure some of those flaws in the short time we have on earth. Some flaws are harder to cure.
There are more factors to look at than just the background check. Did the petitioner mark freely admit to having a felony on his record? What was the crime? A felony in one state or even another country may not be one in another. Some things that were felonies are no longer considered one. Think about how Marijuana laws have changed in the past 40 years around this country and know that the death penalty still exists in other countries for what we see as a misdemeanor.
Could the petitioner as a young man committed a crime, paid his debt to society and now is an outstanding member of his community? Sometimes the proper mentor comes into someone's life only after the mistake was made.
The overall seriousness of the offense needs to be considered. Not just automatically reject if something appears in the report. I'm not advocating murders and rapist should be admitted, far from it. Only due diligence and a thoughtful process completed.
People can change in either direction based on the circumstance they find themselves in.
The investigative committee needs to take the task very seriously and give a good report in Lodge.
We had a petitioner note in his interview that he had been convicted of a felony, but back in the 70s. It was a drug related crime, and, well, it was the 70s. He was a successful businessman and contributor to society. We accepted him into the fraternity. Unfortunately, he never progressed past FC. I think the work required to memorize the posting lecture was too much for him, and he stopped coming to our weekly practice. He was dropped from our rolls a few years ago.
I think it's a very good idea for lodges to conduct background checks, it would have saved a few lodges a lot of grief over the years. I'm not an advocate for GL dictating what craft lodges do outside of TSW, but to me this is one of those things that is a no brainer. Luckily, in this day and age we have the technology to be able to perform such checks.
I do have to question one thing, would a valid Concealed Pistol License issued by Washington State also be good enough proof? If so, shouldn't the resolution contain wording to that effect?
I was an immigration officer for many years. My job was to find and consider criminal records, weigh them in the larger context of the case, then determine whether to let someone in.
I’m for the checks but there are cautions.
Reluctance to check means we’re willingly avoiding valuable information. That is not guarding the west gate.
Using the check to replace the investigation committee is even more foolish (he passed so he must be a good guy so our job is done).
Checking American records does not reveal criminality in other countries.
Checking American records does not reveal all American felonies - plenty of convictions don’t make it into NCIC, though it’s probably less of a problem now.
The crim check is one tool but a valuable one.
Did our man disclose a record and explain it?
Do we reject a man because of the seriousness of his record or simply because it exists?
Plenty of people have criminal records. Some of those will harm Masonry and some will improve it.
The stated purpose of Freemasonry is to make good men better. It’s not to make mostly good men, slightly good men or sometimes good men somewhat better. As we are not in the business of rehabilitation, I am for exclusion based on the investigation including criminal history checks.
This is a fantastic topic, and one that I hold near to my heart. I would love to share a cup of coffee and talk about it. I've seen this topic come up before. I have very contrasted experiences and perhaps an unpopular opinion in this regard, but it is rooted in the foundation that masonry takes GOOD men, and makes them better. I fully agree that it should be up to the lodge in the determination of the results, but there is potential for bias based solely on the record, and not the character.
Let me share a couple stories.
You may be aware of the plight of the VMC. I knew the man well, and it hurt my heart to learn what happened. The man was a dutiful mason, He was an astounding lecturer, active and involved in not only his lodge, but many others. Even served as our district deputy for a term. But, what happened? One of our most sacred obligations was broken and we're still healing from the damage. No background check would have revealed any intent, in fact until the issue was brought to light, nobody would have suspected such malice.
On the other hand, I know men who, at some point in their lives made bad decisions that would lead them into paths of destruction and despair. Men who have been convicted of crimes, some violent. These same men, have served their time, worked to improve their spiritual condition and become outstanding examples of what it means to be a good man. Men I would wholeheartedly endorse.
Further, there are men I've met who, on paper, would appear to be an outstanding candidate for our fraternity. Yet, when getting to know them, it's clear the quality of their character doesn't extend beyond self centered ego. The type of person who would do anything just to maintain the perception that they are a "good guy".
Of the 3 examples, what I fear is the third. With his "perfect candidate" appearance. Gets along well with people. Not exactly a bad person, but is completely self absorbed and only interested in exploiting something for the simple appearance of being good as leverage for their own personal gains or ego stroking. This is the man expecting his membership to garner him some kind of status elevation. Typically they join, realize this isn't the case and we've all wasted our time.
The second is the very embodiment of what we seek. A man who's lived. A man who has struggled and worked to rectify his life. This is the man who is a true and trusted friend. A man who's learned from his mistakes and puts forth the effort to be the best man he can.
MW, you touched on a caveat with this man. What is the nature of the conviction? What are the circumstances? Socially there is an inherent bias based on the fact of any criminal history, regardless of the circumstance.
There's another side to this coin which is even more of a risk. The man who simply hasn't been caught or convicted. This could be a man who preys on the vulnerable. The thief, the domestic abuser, the con man. Such a man we would not knowingly allow in our midst. A background check on such a man would be moot point.
It's a very good question and topic. We must ALWAYS guard well our west gate. In my examples the first man even wore the purple of our fraternity. And I suspect there's more to his story than any of us will know. I pray for him and hope some day he is able to make restitution.
The second man, with the sordid past, doing his best to become the man he knows he is inside. I would gladly break bread with and take him by the hand.
The third man, He may be a name on the rolls, He may pay his dues, but is he likely to participate once he realizes there are no accolades to be had? It's unlikely. We've seen these men come and go.
It's a nuanced discussion. (tangent) To save time and money (and I've often wondered this about volunteering with the school), for men who have a CCP license in Washington, we could make a simple call to local law enforcement and verify if the license is good. It's provides proof of a more thorough background check, it's a simple phone call, and doesn't place any financial obligation on anyone. Not to mention the time. Sometimes WSP can get backed up and then we're waiting even longer.
This is a very good conversation to have. We need to know who we're allowing into our ranks, but my personal view, the status of a background check can be misleading and should be taken as just a simple data point. Should the existence of a record bar a man? I think using that as the sole decider is not the right thing, but we should open a conversation based on it. Do good men make mistakes? Sometimes terrible, life changing mistakes? Yes we do. We strive to be better, to help our brethren be better. In my experience, surrounding myself with good men, makes me a better man and I hope to pass that along to the best of my ability.
I agree, that its not a bad idea, why else have an investigative committee, or Tyler? However, with that said, judgment based on background should be taken with careful consideration. The greatest discovery a person can find is his own defects. We all started in darkness and confusion before we desired light. Similar to the Book of Genesis, everything was first darkness, and only after reflection (in the waters) was there light. Without objective awareness of our own dark desires or thoughts, one cannot attain enlightenment (knowledge of the self). As stated by Max Heilndel, "Thus originated the feud in the dim dawn of this Cosmic day, and that which we see as Free Masonry today is an attempt by the Hierarchs of fire, the Lucifer Spirits, to bring us the imprisoned spirit 'Light,' that by it we may see and know.”
The Pillars in our Lodge can remind us of a Hero's journey, symbolised by the Phoenician Architect to the building of Solomon's Temple, which was dedicated to Hercules. Before successfully completing his 12 labors, Hercules killed his wife and kids.
Ah, it's good to see that we are, once again, falling in line with WA doctrine of legislating everything...you know, to protect ourselves from ourselves; how very Jay Inslee of us. (Sarcasm emphasized...heavily)
The master of each lodge is the principle person who is responsible for the well being if the lodge and all of the members should endeavor to guard the west gate. Now I understand that common sense isn't, but let's dive a bit deeper, shall we?
The resolution specifically states, "Each petitioner for the Degrees or petitioner for affiliation is to obtain at his expense, from a VENDOR APPROVED BY GRAND LODGE, a Criminal History Report or background check." None of the "approved vendors" are listed. My first question, especially in this political climate, would be, "Who stands to financially gain from this?".
Why do we have an Investigation Committee? There's a spot on the Petition itself to list references; how many times has someone from the Investigation Committee called a reference? In reality, many struggling lodges get a 'Blue Loge Boner' at the slightest whiff of a candidate for little more reason than to have another dues-paying member to add to the roll and someone who can take over a lodge officer position from a recycled past master.
These criminal background check vendors are nothing more than databases of info where the quality/accuracy of information will certainly vary. Additionally, The WMC is silent on criminal history - in fact the words "Felon" or "Felony" are not mentioned in the entirety of the WMC. Even if the background check revealed prior criminal history, there is no provision in the WMC that specifically prohibits a candidate.
The qualifications to be a Mason are spelled out below:
Sec. 18.02 B.L. Qualifications. Every petitioner in order to be eligible for the degrees of Masonry must:
A. Be at least eighteen years of age,
B. Have the senses of a man, especially those of Hearing, Seeing and Feeling,
C. Be a believer in a Supreme Being,
D. Be capable of Reading and Writing; and
E. Possess no disability in his body that would render him incapable of conforming reasonably what the Degrees respectively require of him.
No provision of this Section shall be set aside, dispensed with or suspended by the Grand Master or by the Grand Lodge.
If we evaluated the above, a legally blind person who does not have the ability to see, would be ineligible from petitioning to receive the degrees of Masonry, yet an able-bodied felon would be.
Sec. 19.08 B.L. No Discussion on Petition. No discussion upon the merits of a petition shall be allowed in Lodge.
I again ask, why we have an Investigation Committee. No discussion on the merits of the petition are allowed and - as I understand it - lodge members are not able to ask questions to the Investigation Committee to further educate themselves so that they may ballot based on a fully-informed decision.
All that we're doing here is adding an additional expense for a candidate to join Masonry.
A criminal background check is simply another piece of information, and i totally support the idea of doing it. Like all data it will be subject to evaluation, and that is the responsibility of the Lodge, though I do hope that the Lodge will consider the good of masonry as a whole. Even if a man has paid for his crime, some crimes leave a stain that can not be removed, and their membership, even if they have been completely reformed, could damage the fraternity. For example, a man with a conviction for child sexual assault could negatively affect our youth programs, even if the man was reformed, how many parents would want a convicted child molester having access to their children? We start with good men, and i think sometimes we are a bit to generous with our evaluation of "good". Concerning convictions that relate to laws we feel are abhorent, well i think we need to address that on a case by case basis. We have pledged to obey civil laws and leaders, so our default should be to obey the laws of our jurisdiction, BUT i think personally, if i was a Mason in Germany in the 1930s and early 40s, i would be confident that there would be laws we could resist with a clear conscience. I am also reminded from the point of view of the Crown, Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were terrorists. I think as Masons the Grand Archetect calls on us to use discernement in all things, informed by our precepts as Freemasons.
I am curious the data behind this. With the Brothers who have behaved badly after being admitted, how many had red flags that would have been found with a background check? I have heard of several Brothers removed from the craft for various offences, has someone looked to see if they had a criminal history before they joined? I am torn on this particular resolution, and the data would help.
My thoughts are what harm would it be to have background checks on potential members.
I wish to offer a word of caution about what you consider a criminal. You may recall when the voters of this State voted into law the "three strikes and your out". You may also recall that EVERY Prosecuting Attorney in the State strongly advised against this law; because our State status's are so stringent that you can wind up a convicted Felon, for even the most petty of crimes.
It's what a person has done with their life after that counts. When I was seeking the degrees of Masonry, one of the people interviewing me was a convicted felon for cattle rustling, and had served time in the penitentiary. After that time he had gotten his life straightened out and was a example of what a mason should be, each and every day.
Without regurgitating too much of what has already been stated, I personally am in favor of criminal background checks to be provided by those men petitioning for the Degrees. It's true that some men can have felony records from years ago and have "paid their debt to society", and thus would still possibly be a candidate for said degrees. None of us know the nature of the heart of each candidate but he and the GATOU.
Some crimes can be looked at from a different view. As MWGM pointed out, there were crimes in the past that are now seen as unacceptable laws, assisting slaves, Bros. Washington & Franklin and crimes against the Crown. While it's a novel, it's safe to say that in Les Miserable has a plot that took place in actual history. Think of the character Jean Valjean, 24601, and his 19-year sentence for stealing bread for his starving niece. This was a crime of necessity, and truly the crime laid in the law and punishment.
Like Valjean, men of today with more just laws (read into that however you will) have the capability to rehabilitate themselves after criminal punishment and be thriving members of the community. I get it, it's a work of fiction, but bear with me. In over 22 years of public service, 12 of those as a law enforcement officer, I have seen criminals turn their lives around and be good upstanding citizens of their communities. I've also seen pillars of the communities show their true self and the evil and vile behavior they have hidden inside.
How does this relate to the background check? I'm getting there, I promise. The background check should not be a final decision for the man's petition to the lodge, but rather used as a tool along with the six steps and the results of the investigatory committee. These resources combined can help to paint a better picture of the man knocking at the door of our Western gates seeking admission.
I will concede that not all "wolves in sheep's clothing" will have been caught. It happens in all aspects of life - whether it be through a fraternity, religious organization, educational institution, etc. Things happen, evil exists in this world. That is the current game we're playing as humans in life. It is possible that the man just has never been caught for his actions before.
Yes, I am in favor of the background checks as a supplemental to the six steps and the investigation committee. At no point should it ever be used as a replacement for the aforementioned.
As far as crimes and what would disqualify a man from petitioning? That would be up to the lodges, for discussion within the investigation committee, and honest and diligent thoughtful consideration. Was the man arrested for burglary when he was a younger man, and now 43 years later seeks admission to our craft after a lifetime of rehabilitation and moral character? That's up to the members of the lodge. As a police officer, I will sometimes quote Fred Rogers when arresting someone for a crime, and they are beside themselves because they "can't believe that they did this." It's usually after a domestic violence assault and tempers and emotions flared. I'll explain to that person, human to human, not officer to arrestee, that "Good people sometimes do bad things."
My only, personal, exception are crimes against children, the elderly, and the vulnerable. I have zero tolerance for that type of behavior. I'm a flawed man and I accept that fact, especially when it comes to children. One of the sacred texts reads, "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17:2 KJV.
I have appreciated the openness and discussion on this thread. Thank you, MWGM, for providing a forum to share ideas and opinions in a civil and masonic manner.
No heinous crimes- felony has a different meaning-
Lodge is not the police