Freemason (pronounced free-mey-suh
n)
(1) A member of a secret society (Free and Accepted
Masons, constituted in London in 1717), present in many countries which
operates in a cult-like manner (initial upper case and often used in the clipped
form “Mason”).
(2) Historically, one of a class of skilled stoneworkers
of the medieval period (lasting into the early modern era), possessing passwords
and both public & secret signs, used as devices by which they could
identify one another.
(3) A member of a society composed of such workers, which
also included honorary members (accepted masons) not connected with stone work.
1350-1400: From the Middle English fremason. Free was from the Middle
English free, fre & freo, from the Old English frēo (free), from the Proto-West
Germanic frī, from the Proto-Germanic
frijaz (beloved, not in bondage),
from the primitive Indo-European priHós
(dear, beloved), from preyH- (to
love, please); it was related to the English friend. The verb was from the Middle English freen & freoȝen, from the Old English frēon & frēoġan (to
free; make free), from the Proto-West Germanic frijōn, from the Proto-Germanic frijōną,
from the primitive Indo-European preyH-. Mason was from the Middle
English masoun & machun, from the Anglo-Norman machun & masson or the Old French maçon,
from the Late Latin maciō (carpenter,
bricklayer), from the Frankish makjō
(maker, builder), a derivative of the Frankish makōn (to work, build, make), from the primitive Indo-European mag- (to knead, mix, make), conflated
with the Proto-West Germanic mattjō (cutter),
from the primitive Indo-European metn-
& met- (to cut). The “mason” element of the word is
uncontested. A mason was a bricklayer (1)
one whose trade was the handling, and formation of structures in stone or brick
or (2) one who prepares stone for building purposes. It later (3) became the standard short-form
for a member of the fraternity of Freemasons. However, the origin of the “free” part is
contested. Some etymologists suggest it
was a corruption of the French frère (brother),
from frèremaçon (brother mason) while
others believe it was a reference to the masons working on “free-standing” (ie
large rocks they would cut shape into smaller pieces) stones. Most however maintain it meant “free” in the
sense of them being independent of the control of local guilds or lords. The noun freemasonry was in use by the
mid-fifteenth century. Freemason, Freemasonism
& freemasonry are nouns and freemasonic is an adjective; the noun plural is
Freemasons. Unfortunately, the adjective
freemasonistic and the adverb freemasonistically appear not to exist.
The origin of the freemasons was in a travelling guild of
masons who wandered England offering their services to those needing stonework. Operating in opposition to the established
guilds, the freemasons (ie free from the dictates of the guilds) had a closed
system of passwords, symbols and secret signs (the origin of the famously
mysterious Masonic handshake) so safely they could identify each-other and ensure
intruders (presumably agents of the guild) couldn’t infiltrate their
midst. In the early seventeenth century,
they began accepting as honorary members even those who were not stonemasons
and by the early eighteenth century the structure had had developed into the secret fraternity of
affiliated lodges known as Free and Accepted Masons (often as F&AM) and as
an institution the F&AM were first registered in London in 1717.
Freemason T-shirts should not be confused with other "Free" campaign clothing.
The “accepted” refers to persons admitted to the society
but not belonging to the craft and in time this became the nature of the
Freemason, long removed from the actual trade of stone-working. As an
institution, the Freemasons (especially by their enemies and detractors) are
often spoken of as if something monolithic but the only truly common thread is
the name although most do (at least officially) subscribe to a creed of “brotherly
love, faith, and charity”. Structurally,
they’re nothing like the Roman Catholic Church with its headquarters and single
figure of ultimate authority and are a looser affiliation even than the “worldwide
Anglican community” where the spiritual “authority” of the Archbishop of
Canterbury is now wholly symbolic. The
Freemasons are more schismatic still and can’t even be compared to the loosest
of confederations because their basic organizational units, the lodges, operate
with such autonomy that one might not be on speaking terms with one in the next
suburb and each may even deny that the other is legitimately Masonic.
Despite that, the conspiracy theorists have often been
interested in the Masons because they can be treated as if they are monolithic
and it is true that as recently as the second half of the twentieth century there
were many entities (notably police forces) where there was an unusual
preponderance of Masons in prominent positions and in one force, for decades,
by mutual consent, the position of commissioner alternated between a Roman
Catholic and a Freemason. In Europe, it
wasn’t uncommon for the Masons to be grouped with the Jews as the source of all
that was corrupt in society and some satirists made a troupe of “the Freemasons
and the Jews” being at the bottom of every evil scheme, cooked up either at
lodge or synagogue. One who needed no
convincing was Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of
government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) who perceived a Masonic plot be behind the overthrow of Benito
Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943) in
1943.
Reinhard Heydrich (second from left, back to camera) conducting a tour of the SS Freemasonry Museum, Berlin, 1935.
The Nazis enjoyed curiously diverse interactions with the
Freemasons. During his trial in
Nuremberg in 1945-1946 Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945,
Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) told the
International Military Tribunal (IMT) that it was only an accident of history
he was in the dock because in 1922 he was on his way “…to join the Freemasons when I was distracted by a toothy blonde.” Had he joined the brotherhood he claimed, he’d
never have been able to join the Nazi Party because it proscribed
Freemasonry. During the same
proceedings, Hjalmar Schacht (1877–1970; President of the German Central Bank (Reichsbank) 1933–1939 and Nazi Minister
of Economics 1934–1937) said that even while serving the Third Reich he never
deviated from his belief in the principles of “international Freemasonry”. Upon
coming to power, the Nazis certainly took that proscription seriously but the suppression
of Freemasonry was not unique, the party looking to stamp out all institutions
which could be an alternative source of people’s allegiances or sources of
ideas. This included youth
organizations, trade unions and other associations, their attitude something
like that of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to the Falun Gong and the two authoritarian
parties were similarly pragmatic in dealing with the mainstream churches which
were regulated and controlled, it being realized their support was such that
eradication would have to wait. By 1935,
the Nazis considered the “Freemason
problem” solved and the SS even created a “Freemason Museum” on Berlin’s
Prinz-Albrecht-Palais (conveniently close to Gestapo headquarters) to exhibit
the relics of the “vanished cult”. SS-Obergruppenführer
(Lieutenant-General) Reinhard Heydrich (1904–1942; head of the Reich
Security Main Office 1939-1942) originally included the Freemasons on his list
of archenemies of National Socialism which, like Bolshevism, he considered an
internationalist, anti-fascist Zweckorganisation
(expedient organization) of Jewry.
According to Heydrich, Masonic lodges were under Jewish control and
while appearing to organize social life “…in
a seemingly harmless way, were actually instrumentalizing people for the
purposes of Jewry”.
One institution which has for almost three centuries
proscribed Freemasonry is the Roman Catholic Church although that official
position has run in parallel with a notable Catholic membership in many
lodges. The ban was both explicit and
often expressed up until the pontificate of Pius XII (1876-1958; pope
1939-1958) but after the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II; 1962-1965), the
winds of change seemed to blow in other directions and in recent years from
Rome, there’s been barely a mention of Freemasonry, the feeling probably that
issues like secularism, abortion, homosexuality, radical Islam and such were thought
more immediate threats. It was thus a
surprise to many when on 13 November 2023 the Vatican's Dicastery for the
Doctrine of the Faith (the DDF, the latest name for the Inquisition) reaffirmed
the Church's teachings that laity or clerics participating in Freemasonry are
in "a state of grave sin." The
DDF didn’t repeat the words of Clement XII (1652–1740; pope 1730-1740) who in
1738 called Masonry “depraved and
perverted” but did say: “On the
doctrinal level, it should be remembered that active membership in Freemasonry
by a member of the faithful is forbidden because of the irreconcilability
between Catholic doctrine and Freemasonry", citing Declaration on Masonic Associations (1983)
by Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) when, as Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger, he was head of the DDF (then called the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith (CDF)). Continuing in a way which recalled the ways of the
Inquisition, ominously the DDF added: “Therefore,
those who are formally and knowingly enrolled in Masonic Lodges and have
embraced Masonic principles fall under the provisions in the above-mentioned
Declaration. These measures also apply to any clerics enrolled in Freemasonry.”
Apparently, the DDF issued the document in response to
concerns raised by a bishop in the Philippines who reported a growing interest
in the secret society in his country.
That was interesting in that cultural anthropologists have noted the
form of Catholic worship in the Philippines was in some ways a hybrid which
merged the Western tradition with the local rituals the Spanish priests who
accompanied the colonists found were hard to suppress. It proved a happy compromise and the faith
flourished but one of the Vatican’s objections to Freemasonry has long been
that the society swears oaths of secrecy, fellowship and fraternity among
members and has accumulated a vast catalogue of rituals, ceremonial attire and
secret signals. It has always made the
church uneasy that these aesthetic affectations often use Christian imagery
despite being used for non-Christian rituals.
Indeed, it’s not a requirement of membership that one be a Christian or
even to affirm a belief in the God of Christianity or Jesus Christ as the
savior or mankind and the secret nature of so much Masonic ritualism has given rise to the suspicion of the worship of false idols.
Of relevance too is the existence of the complex hierarchy of titles
within Masonism which could be interpreted as a kind or parallel priesthood.
Pope Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013) is fighting a war which
he hopes will set the course of the church for the next generation. Before it could commence in anger he had to
wait for the death of Benedict but the battle is now on and it’s
against a cabal of recalcitrant cardinals and theologians (“the finest minds of
the thirteenth century” he’s rumored to call them) who are appalled at any
deviation from established orthodoxy in doctrine, ritual or form, regarding
such (at least between themselves), as heresy.
Quite where the DDF’s re-statement of the 300 year old policy of
prohibition of Freemasonry fits into that internecine squabble isn’t clear and
it may be the interest aroused surprised even the DDF which may simply have
been issuing a routine authoritative clarification in response to a bishop’s
request. Certainly nothing appears to
have changed in terms of the consequences and the interpretation by some that the
revisions to canon law made some years were in some way substantive in this
matter appear to have been wrong.
Escutcheons of the Holy See (left) and the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d’Or (right).
Interestingly, the DDF (nor any other iteration of the Inquisition) has never moved to proscribe the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d’Or (The Golden Keys; the international association of hotel concierges. This is despite the organization being structurally remarkably similar to the Freemasons and the similarities between their escutcheon and that of the Holy See are quite striking. According to the DDF, the crossed keys are a symbol of the Papacy's authority and power, the keys representing the "keys of heaven" that were in the New Testament passed from Jesus Christ to Saint Peter. In Roman Catholic tradition, Peter was appointed by Jesus as the first Pope and given the keys to symbolize his authority to forgive sins and to make decisions binding on behalf of the Church (this the theological basis of what in canon law was codified in the nineteenth century as papal infallibility). The two keys thus symbolize the pope's two powers: (1) spiritual power (represented by the silver key) and (2) temporal power (represented by the gold key). The latter power manifested in a most temporal manner during the thousand-odd years (between the eighth & nineteenth centuries) when the authority of the papal absolute theocracy extended to rule and govern the Papal States (which were interpolated into the modern state of Italy upon Italian unification (1859-1870). Claiming (officially) only temporal dominion, the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d'Or logo depicts both their keys in gold, one said to symbolize the concierge's role in unlocking the doors to the world for their guests, the other their ability to unlock the secrets of their destination and provide insider knowledge and recommendations (restaurant bookings, airport transfers, personal service workers of all types etc). However, neither the Vatican nor the Les Clefs d’Or have ever denied intelligence-sharing, covert operations, common rituals or other links.
In an indication they'll stop at nothing, the Freemasons have even stalked Lindsay Lohan. In 2011, Ms Lohan was granted a two-year restraining order against alleged stalker David Cocordan, the order issued some days after she filed complaint with police who, after investigation by their Threat Management Department, advised the court Mr Cocordan (who at the time had been using at least five aliases) “suffered from schizophrenia”, was “off his medication” and had a "significant psychiatric history of acting on his delusional beliefs.” That was worrying enough but Ms Lohan may have revealed her real concerns in an earlier post on twitter in which she included a picture of David Cocordan, claiming he was "the freemason stalker that has been threatening to kill me- while he is TRESPASSING!" Being stalked by a schizophrenic is bad enough but the thought of being hunted by a schizophrenic Freemason is truly frightening. Apparently an unexplored matter in the annals of psychiatry, it seems the question of just how schizophrenia might particularly manifest in Freemasons awaits research so there may be a PhD there for someone.
The problem Ms Lohan identified has long been known. In the US, between 1828-1838 there was an Anti-Mason political party which is remembered now as one of the first of the “third parties” which over the decades have often briefly flourished before either fading away or being absorbed into one side or the other of what has for centuries tended towards two-party stability. Its initial strength was that it was obsessively a single-issue party which enabled it rapidly to gather support but that proved ultimately it’s weakness because it never adequately developed the broader policy platform which would have attracted a wider membership. The party was formed in reaction to the disappearance (and presumed murder) of a former Mason who had turned dissident and become a most acerbic critic and the suspicion arose that the Masonic establishment had arranged his killing to silence his voice. They attracted much support, including from many church leaders who had long been suspicious of Freemasonry and were not convinced the organization was anything but anti-Christian. Because the Masons were secretive and conducted their meetings in private, their opponents tended to invent stories about the rituals and ceremonies (stuff with goats often mentioned) and the myths grew. The myths were clearly enough to secure some electoral success and the Anti-Masons even ran William Wirt (1772-1834 and still the nation’s longest-serving attorney-general (1817-1829)) as their candidate in the 1832 presidential election where he won 7.8% of the popular vote and carried Vermont, a reasonable achievement for a third-party candidate. Ultimately though, that proved the electoral high-water mark and most of its members thereafter were absorbed by the embryonic Whig Party.
