Annual Communication 2006
“Laicity is Freedom”
Address by Grand Master Gustavo Raffi
Honourable Authorities, Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Brethren,
the Grande Oriente d´Italia at Palazzo Giustiniani is glad to welcome you to the Freemasons’ Temple for the annual address given in the framework of events related to the Annual Communication. This event is extremely important for us and its organization clearly shows the consolidation of a cultural choice made by the most important and numerous legitimate Italian Freemasonry Obedience: being a transparent institution, open and talking with and, mostly, within the Italian and European civil society. In fact, our way of considering our Masonic experience makes it possible for us to feel fully part of modernity, and not the worshippers of an occult and equivocal dimension, whose meaning would not be understood by the external world. On the contrary, as indicated by the statutes of the Grande Oriente d’Italia, we strongly wish that our purposes in being members of Freemasonry are fully understandable for public opinion and all public institutions, for we intend to provide a constructive contribution to building up a conscience of peace, tolerance and freedom, therefore, at the service of the highest ideals contained in the Italian Constitution. For this reason, in this and in many other occasions, we appeal to the Italian Nation to explain the contents, values and principles, but also considerations and suggestions that have emerged in our activities last year and will continue this year with further contents, although they are inspired by the uninterrupted initiatory and spiritual tradition of European Freemasonry bornat the beginning of the Illuminist century. Freemasonry is a workshop for construction of freedom, mainly intellectual and spiritual freedom. It is a situation for esoteric research, where individuals initiated to Stone-cutting Art have to continuously challenge themselves and follow an inexhaustible inner improvement path through symbols and rituals. Freemasonry explicitly comes forward as a sort of gymnasium for free spirits, who start from different viewpoints and find a tool for mutual permanent education in dialogue. From this point of view, Freemasonry wishes to give a strong – but not dogmatic – contribution to constructing individual critical independence. Individuals are not asked to execute orders or accept one single viewpoint, but to measure themselves between each other and with the real world, with a strong and continuous focus on the values of equality, brotherhood and freedom: the foundations of intangible principles of modern democracy. Therefore, the Masonic project has no conspiratorial or ambiguous ambitions, nor acts in the shade for incomprehensible purposes. This project explicitly aims at educating mature citizens, who are able to face challenges set by social complexity in this period of distress and conflicts, which are increasingly emerging in postmodernity, and often causing the crisis of world safety and balance. What are these special values shared by all Freemasons, although they have different languages, cultures, religions, political and philosophical opinions? What is the mystery that keeps together – in a century-old union – so many Brethren who, otherwise, would have never met in their profane life? What is the real secret of this union? In the alchemic tradition, a real initiate does not look for profane gold, but deep transmutation of the most real and intimate individual ipseity, to free and heal it from all fouling and contaminations, which would otherwise drag humankind to obscure and dark directions. So real Freemasons follow their own path looking for the light, for they certainly know that they do not have absolute knowledge. Therefore, other people with all their diversities are crucial and valuable interlocutors for Freemasons to reach that light. In fact, Freemasons know that the Freemasonry Order does not have a revealed truth and in this respect we will never stop stressing that Freemasonry is not a religion or a sect having its own theological knowledge to be imposed to others -, but they also know that Freemasonry offers a space for dialogue to approach truth without blinkers and irremovable or dogmatic barriers, through the idea of “Knowing of Not Knowing”. The first Masonic secret is revealed in being able to listen, which is the fundamental virtue required from Apprentice Freemasons who come from profane life loaded with all individual knowledge, and must keep silent, in order to learn how to listen to the others and talk to them just later. In fact, in a Lodge, there is no need to convince, no need to convert, no need to standardize anyone. Each individual expresses personal viewpoints, after they have been carefully meditated, proposed to other individuals as a real personal gift, offered to the community, and not as a final solution in the path for knowledge. Words and order in speech are, therefore, the second secret of our experience. They are intended as the manifestation of personal intuition, which can always be overcome, criticized, falsified, if necessary, that is to say a fertile thought moving and continuously evolving.
This helps not only guaranteeing individual freedom, but also highlighting personal unquestionable responsibility. An initiate listens, speaks, suggests, makes corrections, thinks and finally acts according to personal conscience, shaped through a dialogic, critic and open method. This is how, from the Eighteenth century, men with different milieu and education have learned the first great lesson of modernity: individual independence of thought and judgement, practiced between equals, in spite of rooted social and religious differences at that time. This practice has founded and sculpted forever our vision of Laicity, not considered as an antagonism to religions, but as a common ground for dialogue and shared and shareable sociability between different individuals, who are not antagonist for that reason. It is very easy to get along with people when all share the same opinion. It is an easy exercise, but at the same time it does not bring along great merits. The effort and extraordinary success obtained by Freemasonry in its best and authentic outcome has been the construction of a ground for mutual recognizability, reciprocal legitimacy, transversal identity, and respect for different cultures and religions. Such an outcome triggered any kind of hostility and persecutions from religions that saw not only a danger for their theologies (in spite of the fact that Freemasonry was established in England as an institution strictly inspired by Christian doctrines), but also for very practical, political-social and political-economic and not merely spiritual reasons. In fact, the first Lodges were a fertile workshop of modern democracy, parliamentarianism, and supersession of social class division and religious intolerance, as modern historiography has finally shown. Therefore, it is not by chance that the most important and significant Constitutions in Western countries, or the “Declaration of Human Rights”, have all taken their inspiration in more or less direct way from clearly Masonic principles and that they have been drawn with the crucial contribution of Freemasons who were active on the international scenario between the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. For these reasons, universal Freemasonry – and the Italian Freemasonry in particular – has deeply and always focused on the theme of Laicity. However, it is almost a paradox that the modernityof this constant is now even more burning and meaningful than in the last decades. We have all experienced, and in an increasingly evident way through whirlwind changes induced by globalization, a violent recurrence of the importance taken by religions not for the profound ethical-moral and spiritual values related to them, but for their increasingly frequent attitude to act at merely juridical and institutional level. From several directions, even from recently repentant laic people, it is being said that modern Laicity is singing its swansong. Fundamentalists from various inspirations and traditions have already prepared a wide music repertoire for this funeral. This is quite concerning, because after the funeral, the various music bands will stop playing together and start bombastic war marches – as it was in the past – always and invariably in the name of God, in the vane certainty of being able to triumph one on the other. However, should the so execrated Laicity actually disappear, the dialogue between religions would turn into a confrontation not so much between theologians and intellectuals, but between political-religious institutions, which would finally negotiate their mutual spaces proportionally with their forces. In this sense, we want to stress a fundamental concept: Laicity is intended as a space for all, shared and safe, protected and defending civil rights, and not as a sort of no-man’s-land, located between two trenches, where anything can happen with unprecedented violence. Laicity is and remains at the service not only of citizens, but also and mostly of Religions and religious communities. Through the State neutrality, Laicity remains a protection tool for all and makes it possible to avoid that a fundamentalist vision of an individual’s own truth turns into a subject for legitimating the oppression or elimination of other individuals. We are talking about Laicity, and not about fundamentalist laicism, or exclusion of religions from the social and cultural scenario of post-modernity. Our concept of Laicity is openly opposed to any revival of an Ethic – in any versions – hyper-rationalist, materialist or religious State. In an open society, the crucial contribution from theologies, and religious and community values, is certainly an important resource, for nobody wants to cancel the history and tradition of the various countries. At the same time, however, claiming that State Laws should conform and be subordinated to an exclusive theological vision is a very serious and quite evident danger.
The role played by modern Laicity is not to break up the laws or sacraments of any religion, but to set a number of equal rules to protect indelible individual freedom against the interferences from other non-public and State powers, whose aim is to orient laws following principles not originating from internal dialogue of an open society, but from a source other than the State.
This helps not only guaranteeing individual freedom, but also highlighting personal unquestionable responsibility. An initiate listens, speaks, suggests, makes corrections, thinks and finally acts according to personal conscience, shaped through a dialogic, critic and open method. This is how, from the Eighteenth century, men with different milieu and education have learned the first great lesson of modernity: individual independence of thought and judgement, practiced between equals, in spite of rooted social and religious differences at that time. This practice has founded and sculpted forever our vision of Laicity, not considered as an antagonism to religions, but as a common ground for dialogue and shared and shareable sociability between different individuals, who are not antagonist for that reason. It is very easy to get along with people when all share the same opinion. It is an easy exercise, but at the same time it does not bring along great merits. The effort and extraordinary success obtained by Freemasonry in its best and authentic outcome has been the construction of a ground for mutual recognizability, reciprocal legitimacy, transversal identity, and respect for different cultures and religions. Such an outcome triggered any kind of hostility and persecutions from religions that saw not only a danger for their theologies (in spite of the fact that Freemasonry was established in England as an institution strictly inspired by Christian doctrines), but also for very practical, political-social and political-economic and not merely spiritual reasons. In fact, the first Lodges were a fertile workshop of modern democracy, parliamentarianism, and supersession of social class division and religious intolerance, as modern historiography has finally shown. Therefore, it is not by chance that the most important and significant Constitutions in Western countries, or the “Declaration of Human Rights”, have all taken their inspiration in more or less direct way from clearly Masonic principles and that they have been drawn with the crucial contribution of Freemasons who were active on the international scenario between the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. For these reasons, universal Freemasonry – and the Italian Freemasonry in particular – has deeply and always focused on the theme of Laicity. However, it is almost a paradox that the modernityof this constant is now even more burning and meaningful than in the last decades. We have all experienced, and in an increasingly evident way through whirlwind changes induced by globalization, a violent recurrence of the importance taken by religions not for the profound ethical-moral and spiritual values related to them, but for their increasingly frequent attitude to act at merely juridical and institutional level. From several directions, even from recently repentant laic people, it is being said that modern Laicity is singing its swansong. Fundamentalists from various inspirations and traditions have already prepared a wide music repertoire for this funeral. This is quite concerning, because after the funeral, the various music bands will stop playing together and start bombastic war marches – as it was in the past – always and invariably in the name of God, in the vane certainty of being able to triumph one on the other. However, should the so execrated Laicity actually disappear, the dialogue between religions would turn into a confrontation not so much between theologians and intellectuals, but between political-religious institutions, which would finally negotiate their mutual spaces proportionally with their forces. In this sense, we want to stress a fundamental concept: Laicity is intended as a space for all, shared and safe, protected and defending civil rights, and not as a sort of no-man’s-land, located between two trenches, where anything can happen with unprecedented violence. Laicity is and remains at the service not only of citizens, but also and mostly of Religions and religious communities. Through the State neutrality, Laicity remains a protection tool for all and makes it possible to avoid that a fundamentalist vision of an individual’s own truth turns into a subject for legitimating the oppression or elimination of other individuals. We are talking about Laicity, and not about fundamentalist laicism, or exclusion of religions from the social and cultural scenario of post-modernity. Our concept of Laicity is openly opposed to any revival of an Ethic – in any versions – hyper-rationalist, materialist or religious State.
In an open society, the crucial contribution from theologies, and religious and community values, is certainly an important resource, for nobody wants to cancel the history and tradition of the various countries. At the same time, however, claiming that State Laws should conform and be subordinated to an exclusive theological vision is a very serious and quite evident danger. The role played by modern Laicity is not to break up the laws or sacraments of any religion, but to set a number of equal rules to protect indelible individual freedom against the interferences from other non-public and State powers, whose aim is to orient laws following principles not originating from internal dialogue of an open society, but from a source other than the State.
Such a source would have divine authoritativeness in its infallibility; therefore, it would be unquestionable. What happened in the field of bioethics and especially heterologous insemination – with a special focus on the related controversial determination of the embryo ontological status – is very doubtful from our viewpoint. The Italian national legislation had to conform to fundamentally theological principles, and philosophical-religious, ethical and juridical options from different inspirations could not be expressed. This happened in spite of the circumstantial exposures from a wide part of scientific community, which highlighted the obscurantism to which both our society in the field of individual rights, and scientific research were condemned. Moreover, scientific research has been harnessed much beyond the number of minima moralia widely shared by the parties. As a result, the rights of women and unborn children have been put before an a priori sacralization of the embryo, whereas the denial of heterologous insemination was founded on moralistic criteria, which are respectable, maybe even shareable by individuals, but they cannot be imposed by law to the entire civil society. We believe that there are subjects on which difficult, painful and contradictory individual choices should find guarantees, and not religious dogmatic solutions, valid for a specific belief, but not for others or for those who are inspired from other ethical-philosooptions. Do not say or think, after these considerations, that Freemasonry does not defend and protect life. On the contrary, a century-old tradition with martyrs who have died to protect human and civil rights, against torture, death penalty, intolerance, inequality, represented by Freemasonry, clearly show this attitude. We followed this direction when other people investigate those who spoke about press and research freedom, labour union and social freedom, but even just about the independence of individual conscience. The problem is how and through which tools a fundamental value like life and happiness should be guaranteed and with which priorities, in particular. Let us go back now, although obtorto collo, to the subject of relativism, which is increasingly considered by many as an accusation against Laicity, modernity, and obviously Freemasonry, which would have inspired this unwholesome doctrine. We, Freemasons, do not feel relativist at all, both because each one of us has specific personal and individual religious, ethical and philosophic ideas, and because relativism considered as an absolute refusal of deducting general principles founding our activities is quite far from the way we see reality. The unquestionable commitment for protection of human and civil rights, continuous work for protection of democracy and freedom, the dissemination of brotherhood and dialogue principles, the central role of individual pursuit of initiation path and, therefore, the sacredness of man and life, are facts and values marking the history of universal Freemasonry, and Italian Freemasonry, in particular. However, the relativism accusation hides many ambiguities. What is, in reality, the relativism we and modernity are accused of? Substantially, it is the refusal of being subject to the absolutism of this or that theological doctrine, that is the background and foundations of modern democracy, and freedom of conscience against intolerance and fundamentalism. Acknowledging that historyand science – therefore, the continuous development of knowledge – have offered new wellbeing and health opportunities to humankind, by breaking up ungrounded visions of reality and opening new scenarios, is not a fault at all, from our viewpoint. If this is a sin, all religious institutions have also committed the same sin, for they have changed their judgement, and their theological interpretation of nature from time to time, after the ineludible evidences from revolutionary scientific discoveries. Was Galileo Galilei relativist? Was Einstein? And what about the new generations of physicists, biologists, etc.? Probably, relativism is something different, and this word certainly deserves a better definition. In this effort, we are supported by the remarkable considerations from two great philosophers of last century. I am referring to Karl Popper and Karl Jaspers.
From different directions, they have both said that relativism does not coincide with cultural and spiritual readiness to accept new challenges, which possibly falsifies and denies what we considered as acquired truth, but it is mostly identified with the claim of having absolute and unquestionable knowledge, to which any new scientific or historical acquisition is to be subordinated and forced. Therefore, relativists are those who believe – in the name of a claimed absolute truth – that they have a priori answers to any questions; they never undergo scientific criteria of falsifiability of their assumptions; and they never challenge themselves against different concepts. Galileo Galilei’s discoveries were unacceptable from the viewpoint of a given theologicalphilosophical vision of the world, and – therefore – they had to be banned. People who condemned him were relativist, not Galileo Galilei or those who considered and still consider knowledge path in fieri, those who are ready to question their own truths, if evidences show that they are founded on wrong or contradictory assumptions. Relativism is that kind of dogmatism that considers critical research as ended; it believes it is excluded from any scientific, historical or philosophical review; and believes it is never affected by any criticism and, therefore, no longer perfectible, for it is self-referentially already perfect and concluded. In their own framework, and their hortus conclusus, relativists and dogmatic people consider themselves as perfect, or at least they take their own viewpoint as such. They can only deal withother individuals in terms of spiritual and conceptual superiority; they can only give light to those who are still in the dark; but they cannot be illuminated by others. If somebody or any scientific doctrine questions their own theologoumena, they will refuse those evidences and, if possible, forbid or censor them. These apparently abstract considerations have practical reflections in the dramatic international scenario, where a new wave of fundamentalism denies the roots of separation between laic State and religion. The attempt of disconcerting Laicity, in the context of globalization and social multiethnic transformation, takes away a crucial tool from Western society to control religious conflicts and unacceptable intolerance. With a specific reference to this dramatic situation, the Grande Oriente d´Italia stresses its very strong focus on the protection of quality and central role played by the Public School system, for public schools are the primary and essential context where citizens are educated. Public school does not evade social complexity; on the contrary, its civic and democratic, open and tolerant conscience can be developed in this context. The exaggerate stress on privatization of the school system, to the detriment of public schools, creates the well-grounded risk of strengthening religious schools, where children are not educated to be citizens of an open society, by faithful members of separate and prospectively antagonist communities. We would like to have a school system based on acceptance, fully provided with the means required to face a crucial challenge: ensuring respectful integration of origin cultures, not subordinated to intolerant extremisms, but educating for peace and knowing other people and their values. Our vision is that of an educating community, not a luxury ghetto or a ghetto for poor people, as the case may be. To this respect, we should also say that the recent proposals for introducing Islamic religion lessons in Italian schools – persisting in the error previously committed in favour of the majority religion in Italy – arise deep concerns for us. Beyond any technical aspects (such as, Which theological form of Islam should be taught, considering that there are several forms? Who should appoint the teacher, if the approval from a religious authority is required, as it is the case for catholic religion?), a basic objection remains: public school is not and must not be a place where any catechesis is to be taught; for this reason, we believe that any religion lessons are inappropriate in Italian public schools. In fact, in the long run, the outcome would only be the creation of closed classes to facilitate the situation, based on religious groups, which would become new institutional ghettos, not multicultural and multi-religion classes united by common values, such as Constitutional values and belonging to a free society. On the other hand, there is the problem of including a good and complete study of the history of religions in school curricula, to make it possible to know different cultures and societies, but increasingly in mutual contact, so as to lay the foundations of coexistence, dialogue and mutual knowledge. As we can see, also in this case, we are not relativist at all, but we have a model for the construction of social balance in mind. This model can certainly be improved, and has to ensure State Laicity, a kind of Laicity not addressed against someone, but in favour of the entire society, to ensure it can live in peace and harmony and not in a sort of armed ceasefire.
Honourable Authorities, Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Brethren, I would like to thank you for your patience and careful listening to these multiple considerations addressed by the Grande Oriente d´Italia in this solemn occasion, through the Grand Master’s voice and your presence here, to the country where we are honoured to live, work and operate. We hope we have shown how our Institution intensely lives its participation in the values that we consider as the core values of democracy and a balanced way of living and interpreting postmodernity, with careful optimism and deep faith in the central role played by and greatness of humankind. In fact, without this certainty and hope, we would not be still together after two centuries. Those who were expecting vote indications or political choices (Rightwing or Leftwing) for coming Parliamentary elections from the Grand Master will certainly be upset. Freemasonry of the Grande Oriente d´Italia does not intend to and cannot play an undue political role, which is not part of our responsibility, for we respect the decision-making and political independence of citizens. Freemasonry expresses and promotes great values, raises problems, stimulates consciences, and most of all works to avoid conflicts between the State and the Catholic Church. However, this does not mean that we should assist in silence to heavy interferences from the Chairman of the Italian Episcopal Conference, who called people to vote with the purpose of orienting the vote of Catholics, fixing the criteria to decide for whom to vote, although names of candidates or political parties were not indicated. We want to say that we do not complain for the fact that the Chairman of the Italian Episcopal Conference stressed specific opinions of the Catholic Church on procreation, abortion, life-end issues, and the rights of unmarried couples, for they have the right to express such opinions. However, a serious problem is that the Catholic Church has reformulated the same opinions during this election campaign. This sounds like a call-up or a request for future commitment in turning religious principles into laws, referring to political parties and/or people who intend to take advantage from the vote of religious people. More delicacy and care should have suggested silence and respect for political independence of catholic citizens, and they should have refrained from supporting subordinate politicians. We have just concluded the celebrations for our two-hundredth anniversary and two centuries of Masonic activities of our Obedience in our beloved country. However, we have not just recalled and were not only gratified by the merits acquired from our founding fathers. In fact, the various events that marked the two-hundredth anniversary of the Grande Oriente d´Italia aimed at offering without any concern – a critical analysis of the Italian Freemasonry history.
We highlighted the extraordinary merits of those who could and wanted to achieve universal suffrage, equality of individuals, equal opportunities for men and women and the various social classes, and right to vote for women, free public school, recognition of strike and trade union organization right, creation of workers’ mutual assistance societies, foundation of charitable and savings institutions, respect for human rights, and abrogation of unjust laws, such as death penalty.
We have had the moral strength to denounce, once again, the dangers in the abuse of “Freemasonry” name, used to hide miserable business and career purposes, and – even worse – so as to distort our principles. This phenomenon had its worst outcomes in the notorious P2 lodge, and we have been its first victims. We have condemned this situation with no appeal. Freemasonry in Italy is now active, intelligent, with the times, able to question ourselves on the major issues of humankind, on open challenges, sensitive to sufferings increasingly emerging from several parts of our society, through new forms of poverty and social exclusion, based on solidarity with the humblest and those who are defenceless. Freemasonry is an added value for our society. However, the major subjects treated show that our society still needs us. Our society needs the values of Laicity, but also the principles of a tolerant and critical spiritual culture that we have also supported during the last centuries. Those who believed that our historical role had already finished, now have to change their opinion. Freemasonry fully remains the place of free spiritual aggregation, able to combine modern Laicity with the search for the truth. This field is appropriate for dialogue and considerations, to educate different people to stay together, to be brothers while keeping individual cultural positions, and united in the inexhaustible search direction we have taken. We are not perfect, otherwise we would not need this institution, which starts from the need for mutual improvement. We are not full of absolute certainties; on the contrary, we are often oppressed by doubts and endless questions. In a world that sells easy solutions, like gadgets in a supermarket, but knows a growing discomfort, particularly for young people, we propose an apparently archaic but at the same time absolutely modern path. Our path always brings us to look ourselves in the mirror and induces us to overcome our fears, our weaknesses, but also to mitigate superficiality, aggressiveness and the temptation to turn in on ourselves. In a society that has changed and is still dramatically changing, Freemasonry has also changed, although we remain faithful to ourselves, to our old duties that we now affirm with serenity, as an Institution that has still a lot to give for the construction of fairer world, where the right to happiness is a common objective and not a privilege possible, we believe that we need to try and establish a dialogue also with those who find it hard. It is a difficult and sometimes arduous task, but the Masonic path is always full of obstacles, when we want Laicity is a gift obtained with hard work, even by Freemasons. Let us defend Laicity with wisdom, through dialogue, reason, but also with a balanced and clear attitude. Loosing or minimizing the central role played by the laic dimension means opening the doors to new and tolerance, by setting a good example. Since we believe we are not the repository of the truth, we recognize that there are many free and open-minded people who are not Freemasons, but they behave like Freemasons. Let us support these voices, from anywhere they come, to build up real dialogue, to show to humankind how prejudice can be overcome, without getting blind in the name of absolute certainties. the breath of Freedom. It means tolerance, ability of believing in our ideas without being their prisoners: keeping the ability of criticizing, for few. We must not hide, because we have nothing to hide. Light must shine, as well as dialogue with all those who want it. However, if to be critical interprets of modernity without abusing on anybody, in particular. forms of despotism and illiberality. Certainly Freemasonry’s task was and still is to educate to Laicity We will always try to be where this voice of wisdom, peace and tolerance is necessary, for Laicity is the foundation of an open society, and getting free from the cult of our own personality.
Rimini, 2006 April
© RIPRODUZIONE RISERVATA