In Washington’s Installation ceremony, prior to the Master’s Installation, there is an opportunity for any Mason present to object to any of the officers Installation into office.
Specifically:
“If any Brother present knows of any just cause why any of the brethren should not be Installed into office, he will make it known now.”
This begs the question, what would constitute “just cause?”
I have never seen an objection to Installation, and I hope that I never do, for surely such a thing would be extremely sad and disheartening for all involved. But this final check is placed within our ritual as a safeguard that those who came so long before us felt important enough to include.
Given that, I think it important that we think about “just cause.”
If you feel the same, let’s chat about it…
A discussion topic didn’t go out on Wednesday because on Tuesday I hit the road for a Masonic event in Seattle at 6:30 AM, and we had a very full, interesting, exciting, and fun day of Freemasonry. Alas though, when I arrived home I sat down and fell promptly asleep, missing the deadline for publication. We are back on schedule now.
As with every Thursday we will have a Live Open Thread today for all those with a paid subscription to Emeth. The email opening the thread will go out at 8:00 AM Pacific, and I’ll remain on it until 6:00 PM. I hope that you will join in the discussion there, we can chat about whatever Masonic subject is on your mind.
*ANY MASON PRESENT*? Really?!?! That's a bit shocking. It'd make more sense for it to be *any member of the lodge*. Maybe I'm being too much of a stickler here but exact wording is important.
I frequently travel to other lodges in other states and it doesn't take much thinking to see how this could go badly wrong.
For members of the lodge in question though, I can think of a number of just causes as legitimate reasons to object.
- The incoming WM has done something (very recently) which would be labeled un-masonic behavior or really anything that under any other normal circumstance might warrant masonic charges. Super unfortunate and very rare, but it can and does happen.
- The incoming WM wants the role and believes he can do it, but the brethren present have legitimate concerns that he cannot perform the role. There are a variety of situations possible here: men with very pressing family obligations (special needs children, spouse has cancer), men with certain professional systems (i.e. it is known that an employer may move job locations). I think the brethren are within their rights if it's reasonable to assume the master can't serve the full term, we're not looking for temps.
As with an unsuccessful vote for someone to become a member of a lodge, to my thinking, for the election/appointment to fail in this way at this time is usually strong evidence that we didn't run a proper process *before* getting to that point. There's simply no need to make a public drama of correcting even legitimate issues. So I think about these options as a last-resort failsafe you don't really ever want to use, not a thing that's actually a good idea to do or see.
We elect our Masters to be the leaders of our Lodges, our Lodges being Temples of moral and ethical education, spiritual work, and fellowship,a master should be the best of men. I think this clause is appropriate. If a brother from outside the Lodge knew of something that disqualified a brother to be Master,would we not want to know? When we think of this clause in terms of what is usual, it seems silly. But if you imagine a brother who has fled another state, who has a troubled past and has kept it secret, then this makes sense. This exact thing happened to me at work, a co-worker had a false identity, flase qualifications and no one knew. He seemed a nice man, until the FBI called.
I look at this more like the same question asked at a wedding. At just about every single installation I've been to, the gavel rap following that question happens about .002 seconds after asking it. It's taken as a formality within the ritual. Any objections should have been raised before/during the election, not at the installation. Yes, there is the off chance that something happens between election and installation, but that can also be handled. New elections can be held with GL approval, etc.
I think the bigger question would be - someone objects, then what? Stop the entire thing? How do you know it's not some disgruntled brother (which is the most plausible scenario IMO) with a chip on his shoulder? Do you hold a trial right then and there? Redo elections on the spot? Who is to judge? The same with the wedding scenario. If some guy stood up and objected, so what? Does that mean a couple doesn't get married? Well, no, not in this day and age. I don't even think they even ask this question at a wedding anymore. Times change. But, we stick to our ritual. No real reason to take it out as like I said, it's looked at as a formality, at least in the lodges I've attended.
What an awkward situation if this occurs during an Open Installation. Ask all non-Masons to step out the the Lodge, go on session and make a determination.
This happening in front people that aren't Brothers could work either way when it comes to public opinion of our Craft.
On the other side of this issue, which in my opinion is equally troubling, is after the 15 charges are read and the Worshipful Master elect is asked, "These are the Regulations of Free and Accepted Masons. Do you submit to these Charges, and promise to support these Regulations, as Masters have done in all ages before you?" Like in the Wedding ceremony parallel, we make it almost impossible for him to answer "NO!" How embarrassing to the Brother and to the Lodge would that be? It would equally stop the installation from proceeding.
Why do we wait until this moment to propound these charges. Sure the Wardens hear these charges while they are being installed, but how many consider the weight of these charges.
Since Freemasonry regards no man on account of his worldly wealth or honor, why are these charges which all deal with his character, including respect for authority, not discussed before a man is prostrate before the Lodge and about to be installed Master?
*ANY MASON PRESENT*? Really?!?! That's a bit shocking. It'd make more sense for it to be *any member of the lodge*. Maybe I'm being too much of a stickler here but exact wording is important.
I frequently travel to other lodges in other states and it doesn't take much thinking to see how this could go badly wrong.
For members of the lodge in question though, I can think of a number of just causes as legitimate reasons to object.
- The incoming WM has done something (very recently) which would be labeled un-masonic behavior or really anything that under any other normal circumstance might warrant masonic charges. Super unfortunate and very rare, but it can and does happen.
- The incoming WM wants the role and believes he can do it, but the brethren present have legitimate concerns that he cannot perform the role. There are a variety of situations possible here: men with very pressing family obligations (special needs children, spouse has cancer), men with certain professional systems (i.e. it is known that an employer may move job locations). I think the brethren are within their rights if it's reasonable to assume the master can't serve the full term, we're not looking for temps.
As with an unsuccessful vote for someone to become a member of a lodge, to my thinking, for the election/appointment to fail in this way at this time is usually strong evidence that we didn't run a proper process *before* getting to that point. There's simply no need to make a public drama of correcting even legitimate issues. So I think about these options as a last-resort failsafe you don't really ever want to use, not a thing that's actually a good idea to do or see.
We elect our Masters to be the leaders of our Lodges, our Lodges being Temples of moral and ethical education, spiritual work, and fellowship,a master should be the best of men. I think this clause is appropriate. If a brother from outside the Lodge knew of something that disqualified a brother to be Master,would we not want to know? When we think of this clause in terms of what is usual, it seems silly. But if you imagine a brother who has fled another state, who has a troubled past and has kept it secret, then this makes sense. This exact thing happened to me at work, a co-worker had a false identity, flase qualifications and no one knew. He seemed a nice man, until the FBI called.
I look at this more like the same question asked at a wedding. At just about every single installation I've been to, the gavel rap following that question happens about .002 seconds after asking it. It's taken as a formality within the ritual. Any objections should have been raised before/during the election, not at the installation. Yes, there is the off chance that something happens between election and installation, but that can also be handled. New elections can be held with GL approval, etc.
I think the bigger question would be - someone objects, then what? Stop the entire thing? How do you know it's not some disgruntled brother (which is the most plausible scenario IMO) with a chip on his shoulder? Do you hold a trial right then and there? Redo elections on the spot? Who is to judge? The same with the wedding scenario. If some guy stood up and objected, so what? Does that mean a couple doesn't get married? Well, no, not in this day and age. I don't even think they even ask this question at a wedding anymore. Times change. But, we stick to our ritual. No real reason to take it out as like I said, it's looked at as a formality, at least in the lodges I've attended.
What an awkward situation if this occurs during an Open Installation. Ask all non-Masons to step out the the Lodge, go on session and make a determination.
This happening in front people that aren't Brothers could work either way when it comes to public opinion of our Craft.
It is definitely meant as an extreme measure.
On the other side of this issue, which in my opinion is equally troubling, is after the 15 charges are read and the Worshipful Master elect is asked, "These are the Regulations of Free and Accepted Masons. Do you submit to these Charges, and promise to support these Regulations, as Masters have done in all ages before you?" Like in the Wedding ceremony parallel, we make it almost impossible for him to answer "NO!" How embarrassing to the Brother and to the Lodge would that be? It would equally stop the installation from proceeding.
Why do we wait until this moment to propound these charges. Sure the Wardens hear these charges while they are being installed, but how many consider the weight of these charges.
Since Freemasonry regards no man on account of his worldly wealth or honor, why are these charges which all deal with his character, including respect for authority, not discussed before a man is prostrate before the Lodge and about to be installed Master?