Co-Masonry
By Bro. Joseph H. Fussel, California
The Headquarters of the Universal Brotherhood and Theosophical Society at San Diego, is one of the show-places of Southern California, so beautiful is it for situation, so striking in its arrangements, so manifold in its interest. The educational experiments being carried on there have attracted a more than curious interest from educators. As for the doctrines of Theosophy they are known everywhere. Many of the men in residence at the Headquarters, and also a number of those holding official or teaching positions, are active and interested Freemasons, who find in the Fraternity much of the spirit of universality and toleration, and some of the tenets, which comprise the body of doctrines that they hold. Among these is the Secretary, of the Society, Brother Fussell, whom it is a pleasure to introduce to our readers.The following article is written in response to a letter received from Brother Robert I. Clegg, 33 degree, Editor-in-Chief of the Masonic History Company, Chicago, Illinois, through whom I learned of an Esperanto Masonic Convention held last year at The Hague, with the object of bringing about a closer relationship among Freemasons all over the world. At the Convention a Committee of Freemasons was appointed from various countries. It was felt best that the President and Secretary of the Committee should be residents of some neutral country. Accordingly the new President is from Holland. The new Secretary is from Antwerp, concerning whom Brother Clegg writes, "much to my sorrow I note that he represents a lodge of Co-Masons. I have just written to the Chairman to tell him frankly that this will be a very serious handicap to English, as well as American, Freemasons. So far as I am concerned I fail to see how I can possibly have any Masonic correspondence with any individual having such connections. Nevertheless it may be that when they find out how unfortunate is this step they will do something to correct it."
Brother Clegg, knowing that I had given some attention to so-called "Co-Masonry," asked if I had any information that I could give. I was happy to respond to his request, and in addition it has occurred to me to write the following, which I now offer for the consideration of the brethren.
The Author.
FOREWORD
THE SUBJECT of "Co-Masonry," so far as I know, has been treated hitherto mainly, if not entirely, from its outer aspect, on the supposition that the exclusion of women from Freemasonry is merely a matter of tradition and of rules and regulations and outer ceremonial; in other words, that it is a matter of form and not basic - superficial and not fundamental.
While it will generally be conceded that some women who advocate "Co-Masonry" may be actuated by a desire to learn something of the deeper spiritual teachings of Freemasonry which, apparently, they are convinced it possesses, others - those who are most insistent in their efforts to enter its portals - appear to regard their exclusion as an expression of man's selfishness, or as a (supposed) weapon by which he seeks to maintain a (fancied) supremacy over the so-called weaker sex; and on these grounds they are determined to assert their rights and break down this exclusion. Others perhaps are actuated by other, more hidden, motives -of ambition, or - what?
To those of the first class who, it is assumed, are sincerely seeking for light, I hold that something more is due than merely to say that Freemasonry is a Fraternity for men only; and if there is a deeper and basic reason for excluding women from Freemasonry which may properly be made known, surely they are entitled to know it. That such a reason exists, I hold, and the position taken in the following discussion is that women are excluded from Freemasonry for fundamental - not formal or fictitious - reasons, and that because woman is not and can never become man, so she can never become a Freemason.
"I believe in the equality of the sexes; but I hold that man has a mission and that woman has also a mission, and that these missions are not the same. If woman is to understand the duties of real wifehood and motherhood, and to reach the dignity of ideal womanhood, she must cultivate her femininity. She was born a woman and she must BE a woman, in the truest sense; and the contrasts between man and woman exist in life. . . . these contrasts hold within themselves, in the very undercurrent of human life, a superb and glorious harmony. Woman in her true place, her position, hand in hand with man in his true place, would bring about such a new order of things that we can hardly speak of, much less realize, the resulting possibilities." (1)
"I hold that man has a mission, and that woman has also a mission and that these missions are not the same." "Woman in her true place, hand in hand with man in his true place."
These are the words of one of the foremost thinkers and educators of the day, Katherine Tingley, Leader of the Theosophical Movement - successor in that office of H. P. Blavatsky and W. Q. Judge. I have chosen them to introduce the subject because, first, they are from a woman; and, second, they are in entire harmony with the spirit as well as the letter and practice of Freemasonry, as I understand these. Whatever be the ultimate origin of Freemasonry, whether to be searched for in remotest antiquity as some claim, and as I believe, or in comparatively recent times, there is no question as to modern Freemasonry and its practice - that it is an organization for men only, with the object (among others) of teaching and fitting the neophyte for his mission and true place in life as a man.
It is true that the great moral principles of Freemasonry are universal, applicable to all life, to the life of woman as well as to that of man, and equally so, being basic. There is no secret made as to the moral teachings of Freemasonry; they are published openly and are for all who care to inquire into and study them. The secrets of Freemasonry do not consist in these.
In what do these secrets consist? Many different answers have been made to this question, and I venture to make one more, and to say that the secrets of Freemasonry are such as pertain to the full knowledge of man's nature and his mission as man - knowledge more complete than, generally speaking, is to be found outside the ranks of Freemasons, and which is had in varying degrees even within its ranks. In this connection it must be confessed that not all Freemasons comprehend, or even apprehend the nature of, the secrets of Freemasonry, which can only become known and be understood by the individual Freemason as and to the degree that, through - his own efforts, he becomes worthy and well qualified, duly and truly prepared. Such qualification and preparation are not outer but inner, and must be the work of himself alone, the fruit of his own efforts.
The real secrets of Freemasonry do not have reference to physiological so much as to psychological differences which exist fundamentally between men and women - distinctions of inner qualities which may be summed up and regarded as the foundation of true manliness in contrast to true womanliness. The one is not and never can be the other; they are fundamentally different, being aspects of the root-differentiation of all nature, all manifestation and existence, and yet when rightly developed they are in complete harmony. It is to be noted that harmony does not result from identity or sameness but is a certain relation existing between two dissimilars; and on the development and character of those dissimilars will depend the nature of the resultant harmony.
The purpose of Freemasonry then, as I understand it, is to fit man as man to fulfil his duties in life and to make possible his contributing his due share to that harmony on which alone not only a true home but the true state and civilization itself can be established and maintained, for the foundation of the state and of civilization is the home.
Why is it, then, that certain women seek to invade the Masonic Fraternity? (1) Is it out of mere curiosity? (2) Are they jealous because for centuries men have met in their Masonic lodges from which women are excluded, and have faithfully kept the secrets of Freemasonry from women; or (3) Do they imagine that in Freemasonry there is certain knowledge which they are entitled to have and which men have been withholding from them?
Is any one of these possible reasons worthy of true womanhood? Certainly not (1) or (2); but what of (3)? Is there certain knowledge in Freemasonry to which women are entitled?
The principles and ethics of Freemasonry, as already stated, are not secret; they have been again and again publicly proclaimed. If women feel themselves entitled to such knowledge it is for them to take it and apply it to their own lives as women, just as Freemasons are taught to apply it to their lives as men. There is nothing to prevent women from doing this, but such application must be made by themselves; for certainly and rightly, I take it, they would object to any line of application which men might lay down and insist upon for them. Hence what need for women seeking admission to Freemasonry to obtain such knowledge when it is open to them?
Clearly, therefore, it cannot be the principles of Freemasonry that they are seeking, and yet these are at the very heart of Freemasonry and are the essential factors which make Freemasonry such a power. What is it, then, that women seek in their effort to invade Freemasonry? Is it to participate in its ritual, to learn its obligations and, doubtless, other secrets which they are convinced must exist? But though a woman should participate in the ritual of Freemasonry and its obligations, she would be just as far as ever from being a Freemason, for it has secrets which a woman can never know. Leaving aside, therefore, mere curiosity and jealousy, I am convinced that the desire of any good woman to enter the ranks of Freemasonry arises from a misunderstanding; and it is my endeavour, in writing this, to remove that misunderstanding.
The true womanly attitude, in my estimation, is that expressed by Katherine Tingley in a statement which she made on "Co-Masonry," published in "The New Age Magazine.,," June, 1914, from which I quote:
"I cannot understand how any true woman would wish to intrude into an order held to be exclusively for men. There are lines of work which I hold are exclusively in the province of men, just as there are lines of work which are exclusively in the province of women. I hold that woman can only wield her full share of influence in the world from a knowledge gained by using and fulfilling her opportunities as a woman and in her own sphere. I consider that she steps away from her true position and greatly lessens her influence by seeking to invade the sphere of man. Why should women be disturbed that men have an organization which is exclusively for men?
"What is needed today by both men and women is a greater respect, first for themselves, in their true natures as men and women, and following that a greater respect each for the other - of women for men and of men for women. Such respect implies no invasion of one another's sphere, but the very contrary, and in fact can only suffer terribly from such invasion.
"If it were possible to conceive of the secrets of Masonry being given to a woman, from my understanding of the matter it could be only through some one unfaithful to his vows as a Mason, and no true or self-respecting woman would think of availing herself of such information; nor could it, by the nature of things, be held to be reliable, for he who is unfaithful in one thing will be unfaithful in others, and I prophesy that this attempt of certain women to seek admission where they do not belong can result only in confusion, disaster, and serious embarrassment for all such women."
Relativity and contrast are to be found throughout manifested life; they are the sine qua non of manifested existence and of all Progress. It is relativity, contrast and, if these are rightly balanced, the subsequent harmony, between man and woman that make not only for the happiness of home but for true civilization. The Delphic Oracle "Man, know thyself," must be, to a degree at least, fulfilled, and equally "Woman, know thyself," if that harmony is to be attained. If there is an invasion, or attempted invasion, of the rightful sphere of man by woman, or vice versa, the result can only be - not harmony but - confusion.
One of the greatest stabilizing forces of the present day, as it has been in the past, is Freemasonry. It is, in the best sense, conservative, in that it is founded upon and teaches the highest ethics, the loftiest ideals, and fairest virtues, taught and practised by the noblest in all ages. It is progressive in that while holding to, the highest traditions of the past, it relates those traditions to the present welfare of humanity, and by seeking to develop the highest qualities of true manhood it works for the spiritual upbuilding of the race.
The tacit assumption of "Co-Masonry" is that the woman nature is not different from but identical with the man nature and that therefore woman should have and be whatever man has and is. But woman can never be man, nor can she ever have what man has in the same way that he has it. Even the woman mind is different from the man mind. As said above, it is a psychological difference, of which the physiological is merely an outer aspect. In the normal man reason governs, in the woman intuition. This does not mean that woman has no power of reason, or man no faculty of intuition, but in man the relation between reason and intuition is different from the relation between these in woman.
In the earliest years of life there is apparently no marked difference between boys and girls, and very naturally and properly they may be educated together. But to develop the best in their natures as they pass through the period of youth and enter upon that of manhood and womanhood, while certainly they should not be deprived of mutual association, yet boys and girls should receive distinctive and separate training; and a part of their lives should be kept sacred to themselves throughout life if their finer distinctive traits are to be preserved.
Every normal man desires, and with reason, to associate at times with man alone; and so too, I take it, every normal woman with woman alone; and every normal man and woman desires and, in the deepest sense, requires recurring opportunities for solitude. "And thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet (into solitude) and there pray" - to that "Deity" which can be approached only in secret, and in the inner solitude of the heart.
Freemasonry as practised today may be far short of the ideal, but if Freemasons have recognized the value of meeting with their brother Masons for the purpose, and in a sense the highest purpose, of attaining self-knowledge, of studying and practising the noblest virtues, and of preparing themselves to fulfil all the duties of life, should women therefore be jealous and seek to invade their ranks? Is not the way open to them to do likewise, but in their own womanly way?
We know but little of the ancient Mysteries. There were the Lesser Mysteries - into which all who fulfilled the preliminary requirements were permitted to enter. The Greater Mysteries were only for those who successfully passed through the Lesser. From a careful study of the subject I have come to the conclusion that while the Lesser Mysteries were open to men and women alike, and while some of the ceremonies were for men and women together, there were also those into which men alone and others into which women alone, were admitted. In Freemasonry men have kept alive, or have at least revived a part (however small or great) of their phase of the Lesser Mysteries; whereas the women of our Western civilization seem to have lost touch with theirs. This conclusion is borne out by the fact that among the North American Indians and certain other so-called primitive or savage races there are still lodges for men and lodges for women which are wholly distinct, no woman being admitted to the former and no men to the latter. (2)
"Co-Masonry" is an attempted intrusion; it is a virtual confession on the part of those women who advocate "Co-Masonry" that they have neither the wit to discover, nor the intelligence to devise and carry out, a system and organization that shall in its inspiring teachings, profound symbolism and uplifting influence be equal, parallel and complementary to the Masonic Fraternity and become, like it, a beneficent power not only in woman's life, but through her in the life of the world. This attempted intrusion is, in fact, a virtual confession that men have discovered or evolved for themselves something which women have not in this age been able to discover or evolve or parallel.
One of the cardinal teachings of Theosophy, especially accentuated by Katherine Tingley, is that there are two natures in every human being: a higher nature, divine in essence and immortal, and a lower nature, mortal, passional, self-seeking. I cannot help but question if it be the true womanly nature that actuates the advocates of "Co-Masonry." I question whether it may not be that some of the advocates of "Co-Masonry" have failed to find and take their true place as women, and that, realizing their failure (though doubtless they would indignantly deny it), they seek another sphere, not their own. And I question whether they could do this were it not that the finer, truer side of their womanliness has been stunted.
Every true man, and certainly every true woman, knows that woman loses more than half her influence if she seeks to put aside her womanliness. Reference is not made here to the domestic virtues and affections, though these have their place and their charm, but to the deeper aspects of womanliness which have made so many women (aside from all sex influences) the inspirers and helpers of men. It has often been said, but may well be repeated again and again, and men will always be ready to acknowledge, that their greatest achievements in life would never have been accomplished but for the inspiration of mother, wife, sister or woman friend. I put Mother first, for "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world."
On the other hand, can it be gainsaid that the present unrest of the world, beginning long before the war, is in great measure the result of woman's failure to exercise her true womanly influence in the home, in society and in the nation? "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" - and it is the mother who has the glorious and fateful opportunity of striking the first keynote of her son's life - by her own thoughts, her own attitude, her self-control and purity and true womanliness. And the sweet, refining, and inspiring influence of these continue with him all through life, even when she has passed on.
Every, true mother, too, knows that her son will have to meet problems which he must solve for and by himself, and the wise mother, however her heart may ache for him, will at such times leave him to himself and let him have his solitude. She knows, too, that he needs a father's influence and the companionship of other boys. On these she will not intrude, for that would mar the fineness of his manhood and the sweet relationship between them. Yet, if she has struck the keynote aright, her influence will be with him still, a gentle and unbreakable restraining power, keeping him in the path of true nobility and chivalry, in the path of purity, honour and true manliness. This, I take it, is the influence that the true mother wields, and the true wife and sister - the influence of the true womanly nature.
Is it worth while bartering away that influence for the sake of the very doubtful gain that might accrue from any attempted intrusion upon an organization which is for men alone? Assuredly no! And were the intrusion to become a fact, it is not only woman who would suffer, but man too, and the home and civilization. Such an intrusion would but add to the already appalling confusion of the present day - its attempt is indeed but another indication of the confusion.
Even if the doors of Masonic lodges were opened to women, it would still be a hollow victory for them they would for ever miss the inner meaning which, already said, concerns man as man. Indeed, I think that the women who advocate "Co-Masonry" have looked far enough ahead, they look only at the possible and immediate fulfilment of their desires - the opening of Masonic lodges to them - but have no adequate conception, if any conception at all, of what would result. In other words, they do not know what they are doing; they are working wholly from wrong premises.
Now let me venture a suggestion, first premising that all true men and all true women desire and welcome opportunities for closer cooperation - such cooperation implying no superiority or inferiority, either of the one or of the other, but a complementary equality and harmony. Here then is the suggestion which I venture as possibly leading towards a solution. Freemasonry is a Fraternity for men; let women establish their Sorority with its appropriate name - it cannot be Freemasonry nor "Co-Masonry," as already shown, and I am not disposed to think that women are so lacking in resourcefulness that they would have to copy a name which has its distinctive application to an organization of and for men alone, or that by copying they would wish to show their dependence on men. I use the term Sorority as the exact complement of Fraternity and as best describing an organization of and for women alone, as a Fraternity is of and for men alone.
Let them therefore revive the lodges for women which undoubtedly existed in the most ancient times with their appropriate ritual and ceremonial, which women themselves must re-discover or devise. Such appropriate ritual and ceremonial, if these are to be parallel and complementary to Freemasonry, must be based upon the highest principles, the noblest moral teachings and be applicable to woman's true development as those of Freemasonry are to man's. Let them prove their organization, as Freemasonry has been proved, to be a beneficent power in the life of the world, and then they will not have to ask, for Freemasons will be ready to join with them, for a higher cooperation, a greater harmony in which each shall play an appropriate part, man as man, and woman as woman-partners and coworkers for the world's good.
As parties to this new cooperation will be on the one hand women who have passed through the portals of their Sorority and have proved themselves (how - it is for women to determine) worthy and well qualified; and on the other hand men who have passed through the portals of the Masonic Fraternity, and have likewise proved themselves worthy and well qualified. Such a step forward, assuming it to be practicable, might require years of preparation, or it might be possible to take it quickly. And perhaps it depends, in the first instance, upon the women, and not upon the men. Perhaps this is an instance to which Katherine Tingley referred when she said, "Let woman find her true place and man will find his." Such a step, made possible by this new cooperation, might lead indeed to the finding of the door to the lost Greater Mysteries. Who can tell?
"Analogy," says Mme. H.P. Blavatsky, in her great work The Secret Doctrine (II, 153), "is the guiding law in Nature, the only true Ariadne's thread that can lead us, through the inextricable paths of her domain, toward her primal and final mysteries." It was through woman, through our mothers, that we gained entrance into this physical world; the impulse, the seed, is from the father, but the mother opens the door of physical life. And, by analogy, may it not be, that though man may give the impulse, may perhaps provide the seed, he must wait for woman to open the door into the spiritual life. Underlying this conception there is, I think, a profound mystical principle, discussion of which must be deferred until a future occasion. If this conception and analogy be correct, does it not show that true progress can come only through the cooperation of man and woman, through which alone can come into existence the true home, the true state, and a true civilization?
Nor can this be accomplished by either man or woman assuming the superior role. As in the true home neither is superior, and neither inferior, but each with his or her own sphere, with his or her own part to play, they are partners and coworkers; so in the world's life, for which Freemasonry is a preparation for men, while for women-where is their organization? If women feel the need of similar opportunities, and similar preparation, let them be true to themselves, to their own womanhood, which they cannot be if they leave their own sphere and seek to invade that of men.
There is, however, this to be remembered and seriously considered: Freemasonry, according to many students, traces its lineage back to the ancient Mysteries (clearly the Lesser Mysteries, as already said), and our modern Freemasonry is a continuation or revival of part of the symbolism and of a few of the teachings of those Lesser Mysteries which were enacted in Egypt, India and Greece. It may be, and I think it certain, that a hidden thread may be found whereby women may link the present with the past and rediscover a part of the symbolism and teachings of the ancient Mysteries that relate to their life and opportunities as women.
It is for this reason that it is held that the establishment of an organization for women which shall be complementary and parallel to the Masonic Fraternity must be a re-discovery or revival and not an invention. Further, as Freemasonry in no sense takes man away from the path of duty, or the fulfilment of his obligations to his family, his fellow man or society, but accentuates the importance of such fulfilment, so a complementary or parallel Sorority must in no sense take woman away from the path of duty or the fulfilment of her obligations in the home, to her family or society, but will accentuate the importance of such fulfilment.
Such a complementary and parallel Sorority, it will be clear, cannot be established by any woman or group of women who are actuated by ambition or fancied knowledge. It can be established, if it is to be indeed complementary and parallel to Freemasonry, by finding the Ariadne's thread that shall lead the woman of the present to the rediscovery of the teachings of Antiquity, - of some, at least, of the teachings of the Lesser Mysteries pertaining to woman's true place in life and to the unfoldment of her spiritual nature. And when woman takes her true place, as Katherine Tingley has said: "Woman in her true place, her true position, hand in hand with man in his true place," may we not look confidently forward to the coming of "such a new order of things we can hardly speak of, much less realize, the resulting possibilities."
How much then depends upon woman in this day and generation! And the question is: shall it be co-operation and a resulting harmony or attempted intrusion and disharmony and confusion? Shall the door to the Greater Mysteries of Antiquity once more be found and humanity enter upon its spiritual inheritance? Does it not depend very largely upon woman?
(1) "Katherine Tingley on Marriage and the Home" - An Interview by Claire Merton - Theosophical Publishing Co., Point Loma, California.
(2) Further corroboration of this conclusion is given by Professor Franz Cumont (Membre de I'Tnstitut, Paris), a distinguished archaeologist and author of "The Mysteries of Mithras." In a letter, April 17, 1921, he writes: "The evidence of the numerous inscriptions which have been gathered prove that women did not partake in the Mysteries of Mithras, which were derived from the old religion of Persia. We never find them making any offering, receiving any degree of initiation, or mentioned in the list of names of the confraternities. But the excavations have proved that the subterranean temples of Mithras were often connected with temples of the Great Mother of the Gods (Cybele) and we have other proofs that the two cults were closely associated. Women of course could worship this goddess and partake in her mysteries. If they were excluded from the men's colleges of the 'Invincible' Sun, they could have their feminine 'Sororities' devoted to the Mother Earth."
- Source: The Builder - August 1921