Lodge
Southern Cross #44 AF & AM
Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon
|
|
by Bro. W. L. Boult
It is the inalienable privilege of every Mason to cause the rejection of any applicant for admission to his Lodge. Moreover, he is not required to explain his motives or reasons, and no one may properly question him as to his action in the matter. But every privilege implies a corresponding responsibility and he cannot escape the criticism of his own conscience. I cannot consistently allow John Smith to associate with my wife and daughters, I cannot work with him on the church committee and otherwise recognize him socially, and then, on the ground of his immoral character, refuse to sit with him in Lodge. Nor can I oppose his admission on account of his business methods or lack of integrity, if I continue to take part in public or private enterprises with which he is associated. I may not like John Smith and John Smith may not like me, but he is recommended as a reputable citizen who pays his debts, looks after his family and generally lives up to his own code of ethics (even if that code differs a little from mine), so I am afraid it will be hard to satisfy my Masonic conscience that my reasons for objecting to him are proper and honourable, and that my personal dislike, or the fact that he got that contract I wanted, have nothing to do with it. Even if I know some specific instance in which John Smith went astray, at some time in the past, there are many things to be considered before I can feel justified in condemning him. I fancy most of us can recall moral lapses, which, if they did not actually entail serious consequences to ourselves or others, might easily have done so, and it may be that in repentance and atonement we have found the way to greater strength of character. Perhaps John Smith is even now following that way, and seeks the moral support of association with men he knows to be pledged to a high standard of morality. Shall I then, assume the responsibility of casting the first stone? Let the dead past bury its dead. Since we must judge the man, let us be guided by what he is, and by the life he is trying to live today. He comes to us well recommended by brethren who are entitled to our confidence, and the chance that his presence may contaminate us or lower the standard of character in our Lodge, is infinitesimally small compared with the mutual benefits to be expected. To reject a man merely because "I do not care to sit in Lodge with him," savours of the attitude of the Pharisee in the parable, and it was not he who "went down to his house justified." None of the foregoing, of course, applies to the notorious evil-liver, the blasphemous unbeliever, the chronic drunkard, the open enemy of organized civilization, or the proven traitor to his country and its laws. All these, with known criminals and others who may be classed as "undesirable citizens", our obligations require us to reject. Their applications should never be received, and any members recommending them lay themselves open to severe censure. Even the jovial "good fellow," genial and genuinely good-natured though he may be, is not good material for our purpose if he has no higher ambition than to provide a "good time" for himself and others. Too often his cheap witticisms, doubtful stories and gross outlook on life, tend seriously to lower the tone of the Lodge, though they are probably less harmful than the unctuous phrases and flowery platitudes which contrast so sharply with the general conduct of that other Masonic misfit, the sanctimonious humbug. Fortunately, the latter is comparatively rare amongst us. But is it not possible to maintain the required standard of character in acceptable applicants without unduly humiliating those whom we see fit to reject, or offending their friends within and without the Lodge? The fact that a man has been "black balled" leaks out, and he and his friends usually feel that he has been unfairly dealt with. Those who are Masons may swallow their indignation, for the sake of preserving harmony, but others are not likely to restrain their feelings and the report that "a fine fellow like Jack" has been turned down, will probably keep many others, who value their reputations, from risking a similar rebuff. Thus our Order acquires the ill will of those who believe-and may be right in believing-that an injustice has been done, and it loses a number of possible future applicants of the most acceptable type. The use of the black ball is sometimes necessary-but not often. When used unnecessarily, the suspicion of dishonourable motives naturally follows, resulting in friction and ill feeling in the Lodge, which might easily be avoided. I do not think it can be disputed that a brother who abstains from "direct action," and confides his objection to the Worshipful Master or to a member of the investigating committee, is doing a real service to the Craft in general and to his Lodge in particular. The Worshipful Master, or other brother chosen, is bound by his obligation to respect the secret confided to him, even if all explanation is refused, and he can usually be depended upon to see that the application is withdrawn. Knowing that the result of a ballot will certainly be adverse, he cannot reasonably do otherwise. Thus, the result aimed at is attained without disturbing the harmony of the Lodge or rousing the indignation of the applicant and his friends; surely, "a consummation devoutly to be wished". Why should the black ball not be reserved as an emergency weapon? In the unlikely event of a ballot being insisted on, in spite of his objection, the objector naturally would be fully justified in using it. It might happen that some brother had failed to receive due notice of the candidate's name, or possibly had only learned some fact concerning him just before the time for balloting, in which case he would have no other recourse. Such contingencies, of course, are of rare occurrence, and as a rule, the less drastic course is quite as effective as "pilling," and much more satisfactory to everyone concerned. By all means, let us keep out undesirable applicants; but first, let us make quite sure that they are undesirable, and then let us turn them down as gently and as quietly possible.
Ed. Note: Our jurisdiction changed the rules several years ago and it now takes two black balls to reject a candidate.
1 "The Square", R.J. Templeton, editor. p. 15-17
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2006-2008, Lodge Southern Cross No. 44, BC&Y |
