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.
>>*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.
Yes, that is the exact wording in Washington's Standard Work. When drafting the question, I wanted to make certain that my memory was correct, so I checked it against our written Work.
I agree with your first circumstance. If a man were to commit a Masonic, or even criminal offense between the time of his election and his installation, that seems a very legitimate use of this safeguard.
I don't think I can agree with your second circumstance though. It seems to me that any situation similar to that should have been dealt with at the election step, rather than at the Installation.
As for your final point, I agree 100%. While this is a fail safe that could be used in extremely rare circumstances, when something very bad has happened, or come to light, between the election and installation, it would be a horrible thing to actually see used.
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.
While I hope that I never see the clause used, I do agree that it seems to be an important safeguard.
A man could go bad between the time of election and Installation, or as you mention, information about a man could be discovered in that time. As you say, he might have seemed to be a nice man, until the FBI called.
Things happen, and while the Grand Master can always remove a Master from office if need be, the earlier severe problems can be dealt with the better.
But, I wouldn't wish such a circumstance ever befall one of our Lodges.
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.
As mentioned, I've never seen it happen. I also don't imagine that I'll ever see it happen, and I hope that is the case.
But, I do not doubt that it has happened in the past, for we have fairly detailed procedures in answer to your questions above.
If the objection is to the Master Elect, the Installation will stop at that point. The Lodge will then sit down and decide if the objection is 'valid.' If it is agreed to be valid, then the Lodge will attempt to 'harmonize' and 'settle' the matter. If it is settled, the Installation continues.
If the Lodge can not settle the issue, then the Installation can not proceed until the matter is taken to the Grand Master, and he orders it to continue. Or not.
If the objection is to another officer, the same procedure ensues, but not at that time. The Installation of all other officers proceeds as normal, with only the objected to officer's Installation being deferred.
That's the quick and dirty explanation, the exact procedures are outlined in our Code.
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?
"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?"
Likely an affirmation in front of all assembled that he agrees to those 15 Charges and Regulations.
it's also likely for the objections as well, that the Brethren affirm, to all assembled, that they have no objections to any who are to be installed in that ceremony.
I would certainly hope so! I can say I was familiar with many of those charges by the time I got my EA degree, as I had been attending Tenino's installations since I was a teenager, but I'm weird that way. More normally, I would hope that the Wardens will have attended enough installations, and done enough homework to have a good working knowledge of those 15 Charges and Regulations.
*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.
>>*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.
Yes, that is the exact wording in Washington's Standard Work. When drafting the question, I wanted to make certain that my memory was correct, so I checked it against our written Work.
I agree with your first circumstance. If a man were to commit a Masonic, or even criminal offense between the time of his election and his installation, that seems a very legitimate use of this safeguard.
I don't think I can agree with your second circumstance though. It seems to me that any situation similar to that should have been dealt with at the election step, rather than at the Installation.
As for your final point, I agree 100%. While this is a fail safe that could be used in extremely rare circumstances, when something very bad has happened, or come to light, between the election and installation, it would be a horrible thing to actually see used.
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.
While I hope that I never see the clause used, I do agree that it seems to be an important safeguard.
A man could go bad between the time of election and Installation, or as you mention, information about a man could be discovered in that time. As you say, he might have seemed to be a nice man, until the FBI called.
Things happen, and while the Grand Master can always remove a Master from office if need be, the earlier severe problems can be dealt with the better.
But, I wouldn't wish such a circumstance ever befall one of our Lodges.
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.
As mentioned, I've never seen it happen. I also don't imagine that I'll ever see it happen, and I hope that is the case.
But, I do not doubt that it has happened in the past, for we have fairly detailed procedures in answer to your questions above.
If the objection is to the Master Elect, the Installation will stop at that point. The Lodge will then sit down and decide if the objection is 'valid.' If it is agreed to be valid, then the Lodge will attempt to 'harmonize' and 'settle' the matter. If it is settled, the Installation continues.
If the Lodge can not settle the issue, then the Installation can not proceed until the matter is taken to the Grand Master, and he orders it to continue. Or not.
If the objection is to another officer, the same procedure ensues, but not at that time. The Installation of all other officers proceeds as normal, with only the objected to officer's Installation being deferred.
That's the quick and dirty explanation, the exact procedures are outlined in our Code.
Thanks, I hadn't seen that explanation before.
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.
Agreed, it was intended to be an extreme measure to protect the Lodge in case of current and ongoing problems.
I imagine that if a Mason ever brought up a frivolous objection he would very quickly, and rightly, be facing sanction.
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?
"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?"
Likely an affirmation in front of all assembled that he agrees to those 15 Charges and Regulations.
it's also likely for the objections as well, that the Brethren affirm, to all assembled, that they have no objections to any who are to be installed in that ceremony.
My question is does he actually understand the charges he is agreeing to? Or is he responding "I do" because it is the convenient answer.
I would certainly hope so! I can say I was familiar with many of those charges by the time I got my EA degree, as I had been attending Tenino's installations since I was a teenager, but I'm weird that way. More normally, I would hope that the Wardens will have attended enough installations, and done enough homework to have a good working knowledge of those 15 Charges and Regulations.