A June anniversary

St. John the Baptist’s traditional feast day falls on June 24. In the United Grand Lodge of England’s account of its beginnings, that was also the date in 1717 when four London lodges met at the Goose and Gridiron Tavern in St. Paul’s Churchyard, formed a Grand Lodge and elected Anthony Sayer as Grand Master. It is a familiar starting point in histories of organized modern Freemasonry.¹

For a June education in Idaho, the anniversary raises a question that remains close to lodge life: how can men with different religious convictions and political opinions undertake useful work together? Members bring serious commitments with them, and those commitments do not disappear at a meeting.

Anderson’s proposed common ground

The first of the Charges in James Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723 concerns God and religion. It calls for obedience to the moral law and describes a common ground of honor and honesty while leaving particular religious opinions to individuals. The phrase “that Religion in which all Men agree” belongs to that eighteenth-century text and its setting.²

The proposal allowed men to associate without first settling their doctrinal disagreements. Members could judge conduct they shared—honesty, reliability and consideration for others—while retaining convictions on questions the lodge was not equipped to decide.

That arrangement has limits. A common standard of decent behavior does not establish that different religions make identical claims. Nor does fellowship entitle a member to disregard the obligations of his own faith. Cooperation works more honestly when those differences are acknowledged.

Conviction and restraint

UGLE’s published Basic Principles for Grand Lodge Recognition require belief in God and prohibit discussion of religion and politics within a lodge. These are UGLE’s recognition standards; other Masonic bodies may follow different rules.³

The two requirements address different concerns. Religious conviction gives a member a serious personal foundation. Restraint in debate prevents the meeting from becoming a contest over which member’s theology or party should prevail. A fraternity can create a useful setting for cooperation without claiming authority to reconcile every difference its members hold.

That requires self-government. A man can hold a view firmly while recognizing that a particular conversation is neither the occasion nor the place for arguing it. Respect also means allowing another Brother the same seriousness of conviction that one expects for oneself.

The two Saints John

Masonic tradition associates the fraternity with St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist. Writing for California Freemason, Past Grand Master John L. Cooper places the association within the older practice of guild patron saints while acknowledging uncertainty about its exact origins. The surviving record does not establish a single origin for the tradition.⁴

The Baptist’s example in Christian tradition invites reflection on moral courage: the willingness to speak honestly when doing so is uncomfortable. The Evangelist’s association with love gives equal reason to consider how we treat others.

Courage and charity are useful qualities in the same person. Candor without consideration can become needless injury. Courtesy that avoids every difficult truth can leave genuine problems untouched. A lodge needs members able to correct an error, disagree about a proposal and still treat one another with dignity.

Taking religious objections seriously

The relationship between Freemasonry and religious institutions has included sustained disagreement. Pope Clement XII condemned Freemasonry in 1738. Leo XIII’s 1884 encyclical Humanum Genus reviewed earlier papal condemnations and argued that Masonic principles conflicted with Catholic teaching.⁵

The position continued into modern statements. In 1983, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed the Church’s negative judgment, stated that membership remained forbidden and said Catholics enrolled in Masonic associations were in a state of grave sin and could not receive Holy Communion. A 2023 clarification again stated that active Catholic membership was forbidden because of the incompatibility the Church identifies between Catholic doctrine and Freemasonry.^{6, 7}

These statements express the Catholic Church’s position. Masons can explain their own understanding of the fraternity while acknowledging that the Church continues to object on doctrinal grounds. Catholics seeking guidance on their obligations should consult their Church authorities.

Friendship across religious lines does not remove that institutional disagreement. Respectful discussion requires hearing the objection accurately, even when we disagree with it.

A public presence

George Washington’s documented Masonic participation provides an American example of the fraternity’s visibility. Mount Vernon records his attendance at American Union Lodge’s Feast of St. John the Baptist on June 24, 1779. On September 18, 1793, he also participated in the Masonic ceremonial laying of the United States Capitol cornerstone.^{8, 9}

These events show a fraternity participating in civic life. They do not establish that the government was a Masonic institution or that all participants shared a single religious interpretation. The later mural illustrates a remembered public occasion; it should be read as an artist’s reconstruction of the event.

Public service places a similar responsibility on a lodge today. It should be possible to describe a charitable project, an educational program or a community commemoration in terms that neighbors can understand, without asking those neighbors to adopt a member’s beliefs.

Tolerance in ordinary work

The demanding part of tolerance usually appears in small encounters. A Brother expresses an opinion one strongly dislikes. A committee includes men who would vote differently in an election. Someone’s church takes a position others find difficult. Members still have to decide whether they can work honestly and respectfully on the task before them.

Setting a boundary around a meeting can protect that work. It also asks officers to apply the boundary fairly, including when the speaker is a friend or when the officer agrees with the opinion being expressed. Rules lose their value if they restrain only the less popular side.

June’s anniversary offers a useful occasion to examine those habits. Do we listen accurately enough to describe another person’s position fairly? Can we state a concern without insulting the person who holds it? Are we willing to carry our share of a project alongside a Brother whose convictions remain different?

A lodge need not settle every disagreement to do useful work. Its members do have to observe fair boundaries and give one another the consideration they expect for themselves. That is the continuing work behind June’s anniversary.