THE PENALTIES IN THE OBLIGATIONS

The following is a report delivered to the Grand Lodge of England by Sir
Kenneth Newton, the President of the Board of General Purposes, prior to
removal of the traditional penalties from the obligations, to be included
elsewhere in the ritual.  It is printed here by permission, at the request
of the Grand Master, M.W.Bro. Roy Wellman

    Following the request of the M.W. the Grand Master, the Board has been
considering the penalties in the Obligations, and is convinced that, while
preserving the familiar and time-honored wording, it would be in the
interests of the Craft that they should be removed from the Obligations
altogether and included in some other part of the ritual.  Notice of Motion
was given by the President of the Quarterly Communication in March, 1986, and the resolution appears as item 5(1) of the Paper of Business.

    The M.W. the Grand Master first voiced his misgivings about the physical
penalties as long ago as 1979, when he said, whilst addressing the Grand
Lodge at the Annual Investiture on 25 April: "I remember feeling a very
definite sensation of repugnance when I came to repeat the penalties in its
old form," and went on to say "the distasteful aspect of calling upon God to
witness an Oath which is scarcely practical and certainly barbarous."

    He again referred to the matter when presiding at the Quarterly
Communication of the Grand Lodge on 13th March, 1985, when he said: "It
seems to me that it would not be a radical step, and would in no way affect
the meaning of the Ritual, if the penalties were removed entirely from the
Obligations and treated as a form of traditional history."

    A previous discussion of the matter was initiated by the late Bishop
Herbert in 1964, and at the Quarterly Communication of  the Grand Lodge in December of that year the so-called permissive variations were approved.

They were, as many feel, an unsatisfactory compromise, and have gained only partial acceptance by the Lodges; the same moral question, however, remains.

    Before his Obligation, a Candidate is told that vows of fidelity are
required, but that in those vows there is nothing incompatible with his
civic, moral or religious duties.  A solemn oath is then taken by him on the
VOSL, and the help of God is invoked.  But imbedded in that Obligation are
the physical penalties, to enforce which would involve a serious criminal
offence, and which come as a surprise and a shock to the Candidate so soon after he had been assured that there is nothing in them incompatible with his civic, moral or religious duties.

    In the days of 250 years ago, when the law provided for the penalty of
death by hanging for quite a number of what we should today consider minor offences, it might have been just acceptable to put a gruesome penalty into such an Obligation, but in the present day the law and circumstances have both changed to an extent when such penalties are offensive and unacceptable.

    In such a serious matter as an Obligation it must be considered whether
the penalties included are really meant or not.  Clearly; they cannot be,
and never could have been, actually enforced, even 250 years ago.

      If, therefore, the penalties in the Obligation are not really meant,
this must throw doubt on whether the Obligation is binding so far as the
other, more important, matters it contains are concerned.  If the penalty
part of the Obligation has no force because it could not be carried out,
then it can be removed, not just without detriment to the solemnity of the
oath, but, in fact, with the strengthening of the remaining points.  The
oath, or Obligation, does not require a physical penalty to make it binding;
it stands on its own right, being taken in the presence of the Great
Architect of the Universe.

    Standing where they do in the Obligation, the physical penalties often
come as a surprise to candidates, however well they have been prepared, and the shock involved in hearing them in this way has deterred many from continuing to progress in masonry.

    The existence of the physical penalties also gives ready material for
attack by our enemies and detractors.

    For these reasons the Board unanimously recommends the Grand Lodge to approve the Resolution.     The Board also wishes to make the following points:

A) Physical penalties in their present position in the Obligation
are not a Landmark of the Order.  Although known in
    other connections, then seem to have been introduced in
    the present position from about 1730.
B) Grand Lodge has undoubted power to give directions on
    matters of Ritual, and has done so on several occasions in
    the past.
C) The resolutions deals with a matter of principle and not of
    detail.  The Board believes that the manner in which any
    alterations are made should involve as little change as
    possible, the accepted wording that Lodges and Ritual
    workings have used for so long.  The Board has set out in
     the Appendix to its Report an illustration of a method of
    procedure which it recommends for use, and which it
    believes meets these criteria.  This has been compiled after
    demonstrations and discussions with Provincial Grand
    Masters, Ritual Associations and individual Brethren, and
    incorporates a number of suggestions made in the course of
    these discussions.
(The resolution was approved.)

Published in THE TRACING BOARD, GRS; Jan., 1988

        THE PENALTIES OF THE OBLIGATIONS

    It has become apparent that by a resolution passed at Grand Lodge under the penalties of the Obligations are under consideration for deletion.  The reason given is that they are repugnant, barbaric and quite incapable of being enforced.  They are, of course, taken under your own "free will and accord", and they are harsh, but they are meant to underline the solemnity of the initiation ceremony.  They are mental penalties, not physical, and, like other aspects of Freemasonry, are symbolic in connotation.

    The penalty in the first degree alludes to being severed forever from
the body of Freemasonry and returned to the harsh sands of humility and to drown forever in a sea of despair and ignorance.

    As the second degree deals with research, communication with other
Freemasons is essential, and if this becomes impossible, the research is
pointless.  The heart is the embodiment of the soul and to have this
devoured by greed, envy, selfishness and treachery is to be overcome by the baser emotions we so earnestly try to avoid.

    And surely the penalty of the third degree dwells on the transient and
inconsequential existence of man - a fact we should keep firmly in
perspective when we feel like emulating our Creator.     Furthermore, in my estimation, the penal signs of each degree are a re-affirmation of the penalties and remind us each time of our obligations. To remove the penalties would reduce the penal signs to mere gestures which,
in course of time, would gradually be dropped as being of no significance.

    The penalties must remain intact, if we are to maintain a constant
foundation on which to build our moral and symbolic beliefs in Freemasonry.

By: Bro. Walter N. Baxter, Craik Lodge No. 55;
Published in THE TRACING BOARD; GRS; April, 1988

        MORE ON THE PENALTIES

    The January Tracing Board contains an interesting article regarding the
Obligations which, being attributed to the Board of General Purposes of the
Grand Lodge of England will no doubt be viewed by many as a definitive
statement of principle slavishly to be followed by all jurisdictions
stemming from that mother Grand Lodge.

    It may well be conceded that the application of the physical penalties
would never be carried out.  Nevertheless a case can be made of their
retention in their present form and place.

    The objective of the penalty is to draw to the attention of the person
taking the obligation that dire consequences can be visited on the violation
of the same, thus shocking the candidate and forcefully impressing on him
the seriousness of the obligation.

    No doubt most of the Brethren will agree that of the ceremonies they
pass through, it is the penalty of each which remains impressed upon the
memory.  So, too, does the alternative penalty in the first degree, of being
unfit to be received into the Craft Lodge.  Though not repeated, these
remain fresh in the mind.

    No penalty is pleasant, nor is it meant to be.  Imagine being convicted
of  an offence for which no punishment is suffered. Imprisonment and fines
are very much distasteful to those upon whom they are visited, as are the
physical penalties under discussion distasteful to some.  Yet they are
assessed with the blessing of society at large.

    The suggestion that the shock of having to recite a penalty may act as a
deterrent to some from continuing their Masonic journey is to admit the
selection of the candidate was in error.  To suggest the candidate is unable
to distinguish and appreciate the system is a disservice to both the
candidate and the Craft.

    To suggest the elimination of the present penalties because they seem to give fuel to the detractors of Freemasonry is to suggest that the Craft is
unable to defend itself.  Such detractors will pursue their infamous ends
and use any means, fair or foul, including attacks by the uninformed from
within.  The answer, of course, is the Mason well-steeped in Masonic history and knowledgeable in the tenets and principles of the Craft.

    Before making the changes suggested, may I suggest that each Lodge spend one meeting devoted to the topic in a free discussion, the results of which to be communicated to the Most Worshipful the Grand Lodge.

By R.W.Bro. Thomas D. Agnew, PDDGM District 1;
GRS; Published in THE TRACING BOARD, GRS; April, '88