It seems that the meaning was pretty clear, when it was written. But how do we define it in the current context of wider society?
People are generally living a lot longer now. We have elderly Masons going into relationships with the mothers of younger Masons. We also, frankly, have much different mores when it comes to pre-marital relationships. Adult daughters of Masons date, and some may well date Masons of their own age. A father might actually prefer that she date a Mason, knowing what Masonry stands for.
I am curious about this, because it is happening. It has happened in my own Lodge, both with elderly parents of Masons who’s partners had previously passed away, and with adult daughters, at least a couple that I’m aware of.
And that is just in one small Lodge.
So, how do we interpret the meaning of that prohibition today?
It certainly makes sense why it was included so long ago. Such things can tear a Lodge apart. In fact I know of a Lodge in the Jurisdiction that was torn apart some years ago because a MM V th C of another MM’s W.
So, in those cases, that prohibition serves to protect the Lodge.
But in the other cases, those that are drawn from my own Lodge, none of those were negative things. They were positive, and especially in with the elderly folks, viewed by all as a very good thing.
Does the term V th C mean something different today then it did when the Obligation was written? But if it does, what about cases where the relationship is an improper one?
And when it does happen in a clearly improper way, how on earth does the Fraternity ever deal with it in such a way as to limit the harm it causes within the Lodge?
This is a topic that's easy to chat about but nearly impossible to detect or enforce. I can see why it may have become part of the obligation as it was a way to demonstrate safety in the brotherhood. I doubt many of our brothers were expunged from the craft for dalliances. Brother Mozart was a well known ladies man and who knows for sure what led to his death. I really think there would be modern ways to maintain close brotherhood connections. I doubt the rule could ever be removed, proven, or prosecuted. I certainly feel is a great ideal (I'm an Idealist) and would be a great topic for a Forum of new Masons.
On the other side of the coin, with the acceptance in society of other sexual orientations that wasn’t the case when our Ritual was written, I remember about 20 years ago there was talk about adding other relations to this section of the obligation, chiefly the male equivalents of the W,M,S,D, and then even adding the close relatives of them. It didn’t last long, as it caused a minor uproar, with some old-timers thinking all that would do is turn those 4 letters in our Standard Work into 8, 10, 12 or even more letters. Not that those relations are irrelevant compared to the first 4, I think that while the obligation is real, there is also symbolism involved as well, to assure that it’s not just these 4 that you can’t V the C. Common Sense isn’t totally dead, but at the same time, there’s always those people who do their best to get away with shenanigans on a technicality. You need to strike a balance between the two.
I always wondered about that particular obligation. How can a mother be pure? Reading the various definitions I see it can denote more than virginity, but I still find it odd wording. I guess without being crude there isn’t really a good way to explain it.
But I always looked at the obligations, and in particular the penalties, with the actual intentions in mind, not the rule of law. Otherwise there would be beaches littered with dead bodies.
I agree with Bob Brockman. Legal, consensual relationships do not necessarily fall into the "V t C" category. Getting into an illicit affair does. And forcing oneself on to the W, M, S, or D *clearly* goes against social and legal dictum. I, too have seen it happen, and such an event rips a Lodge asunder. Unfortunately, our only recourse is to expel the offender. Even that expulsion applies only within our jurisdiction. He could move to another state and start all over.
I have seen that happen, to, just not with "V t C" case. The offender was an embezzler, which falls under the "ch, wrg, or dfd" clause. He had done it before in another jurisdiction, moved to Washington, and done it again.
But, a national background check database is a topic for another discussion...
I believe, when the obligation was written, it was a time of multi-generational homes. In a time when Masons, operative or speculative, traveled and were offered lodging by a brother. That part of the obligation, I believe, was written to ensure there was peace and harmony in that home. I also believe, the word V means to take something by force or covertly. If a brother passes away and another brother begins a relationship with the widow, I don’t believe there is any violation. I’d much rather my daughter / granddaughters date a Mason. I don’t believe the obligation is meant to keep proper, open, relationships from happening. When a brother does violate his obligation and V the C of a M W, the the action needs to be swift and certain. The brother needs to be brought up on charges and expelled from the fraternity. It’s the only thing that can be done to salvage the lodge.
This is a topic that's easy to chat about but nearly impossible to detect or enforce. I can see why it may have become part of the obligation as it was a way to demonstrate safety in the brotherhood. I doubt many of our brothers were expunged from the craft for dalliances. Brother Mozart was a well known ladies man and who knows for sure what led to his death. I really think there would be modern ways to maintain close brotherhood connections. I doubt the rule could ever be removed, proven, or prosecuted. I certainly feel is a great ideal (I'm an Idealist) and would be a great topic for a Forum of new Masons.
On the other side of the coin, with the acceptance in society of other sexual orientations that wasn’t the case when our Ritual was written, I remember about 20 years ago there was talk about adding other relations to this section of the obligation, chiefly the male equivalents of the W,M,S,D, and then even adding the close relatives of them. It didn’t last long, as it caused a minor uproar, with some old-timers thinking all that would do is turn those 4 letters in our Standard Work into 8, 10, 12 or even more letters. Not that those relations are irrelevant compared to the first 4, I think that while the obligation is real, there is also symbolism involved as well, to assure that it’s not just these 4 that you can’t V the C. Common Sense isn’t totally dead, but at the same time, there’s always those people who do their best to get away with shenanigans on a technicality. You need to strike a balance between the two.
I always wondered about that particular obligation. How can a mother be pure? Reading the various definitions I see it can denote more than virginity, but I still find it odd wording. I guess without being crude there isn’t really a good way to explain it.
But I always looked at the obligations, and in particular the penalties, with the actual intentions in mind, not the rule of law. Otherwise there would be beaches littered with dead bodies.
I agree with Bob Brockman. Legal, consensual relationships do not necessarily fall into the "V t C" category. Getting into an illicit affair does. And forcing oneself on to the W, M, S, or D *clearly* goes against social and legal dictum. I, too have seen it happen, and such an event rips a Lodge asunder. Unfortunately, our only recourse is to expel the offender. Even that expulsion applies only within our jurisdiction. He could move to another state and start all over.
I have seen that happen, to, just not with "V t C" case. The offender was an embezzler, which falls under the "ch, wrg, or dfd" clause. He had done it before in another jurisdiction, moved to Washington, and done it again.
But, a national background check database is a topic for another discussion...
I believe, when the obligation was written, it was a time of multi-generational homes. In a time when Masons, operative or speculative, traveled and were offered lodging by a brother. That part of the obligation, I believe, was written to ensure there was peace and harmony in that home. I also believe, the word V means to take something by force or covertly. If a brother passes away and another brother begins a relationship with the widow, I don’t believe there is any violation. I’d much rather my daughter / granddaughters date a Mason. I don’t believe the obligation is meant to keep proper, open, relationships from happening. When a brother does violate his obligation and V the C of a M W, the the action needs to be swift and certain. The brother needs to be brought up on charges and expelled from the fraternity. It’s the only thing that can be done to salvage the lodge.