A brother who is also a parishioner asked me about the UGLE's policy shortly after it came out. I think he was looking for my thoughts both as a (then-newly-made) Masonic brother and as a clergy person who might have insight from a Christian perspective. This was my response. After not quite a year's reflection, I think it still stands. I'm proud of the way the UGLE has navigated this potential minefield. As I've said in the letter before, I am perfectly content with Freemasonry being male-only and staying that way; that, to me, was a draw when I decided to petition. That said, I think our pastoral care for one another is the greater obligation. I don't think this is opening the floodgates to co-masonry. It's just an attempt to abide by our oaths of loyalty in a case where everyone has acted in good faith.
Dear W. Bro [name redacted] …
I found this [the UGLE's policy document and discussion] made for interesting reading — thank you for sending it. The underlying psychological issues are terribly complex, and it seems to me that these documents are looking to address those as well as the obvious legal issues it’s trying to step through. My gut feeling is that, legal points aside, it is, and is meant to be, a strong pastoral response to people who came to us in good faith as male and now find themselves in a rather different situation — one that probably took decades to unpick, even in their own head. Whilst I have personally found a distinct value in the male bonding that regular freemasonry is built upon, still I was more heartened by the appeal to masonic values of compassion and charity above all when dealing with fellow human beings and an issue that, no doubt, will be controversial in some quarters.
I’d be happy to chat further if you wish. I realise that an email can only contain broad brush-strokes, and there may be more you might wish to unpick.
Every fraternal blessing,
Will