Freemasonry and the Cults: An Order That Was Once the Sect Now Helps Name Them

Freemasonry and the Cults

By the CICNS

(September 2009)

A certain number of actors are at work, in France, degrading the debate on the question of the “cults”; among them are the principal masonic obediences. Their official positions seem to us incoherent and irresponsible in view of the eventful history of freemasonry.

Given both the impossibility of defining a cult and the very characteristics of freemasonry, it is impossible to delude oneself about a hypothetical difference between the masonic lodges and the other spiritual minorities. How, then, did freemasonry come to position itself so negatively in the anti-cult discourse?

Historical recall

The history of freemasonry has not been a long, quiet river. From the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Vatican condemns “blasphemous and parodic rituals” (Le Point – special issue, Sept-Oct 2009 – Freemasonry, the founding texts – article by Jérôme Rousse-Lacordaire).

In his work La manipulation mentale – Sociologie des sectes en France, Fayard, Arnaud Esquerre shows how the accusation of “sect” was conscientiously applied to freemasonry: “Among the numerous works devoted to secret societies and to ‘sects’ in the second part of the nineteenth century, that of Count Le Couteulx de Canteleu traces in 1863 a brief history of them ‘from the most remote times’ up to the French Revolution[i] (…) these ‘sects’ would always be potentially menacing. Inoffensive for a time, they would then become dangerous (…). The leaders of these ‘sects’ would use them for their personal interest, to overturn the social order to their profit or to dupe everyone in order to fill their pockets (…) The great nursery of the followers of ‘sects’ would be freemasonry.

(…) In 1884, Leo XIII publishes an encyclical, Humanum genus, condemning the philosophical and moral relativism of freemasonry (…) the ‘sects’ would employ artifices to attract human beings. Then these would be reduced to the state of ‘slaves’, committing themselves to obey blindly and without discussion. Freemasonry, Leo XIII asserts, would be for all the ‘sects’ ‘like the central point from which they proceed and at which they arrive’ (…) It would be ‘a poison which circulates in the veins of society and infects it entirely’, and against whose contagion the Pope calls all Catholics to unite in order to make it disappear. The ‘sect’ of the freemasons, in strong progression since the eighteenth century, would have invaded all the ranks of the social hierarchy. The Pope qualifies it as ‘criminal’, because its objective would be to ‘destroy from top to bottom all the religious and social discipline that was born of Christian institutions’ in order to substitute for it a new one, fashioned by naturalism.

(…) A priest of the Gard, Barnier, continues to deploy twenty years later, in 1906, the argumentation of Leo XIII’s encyclical, in a book against the sects[ii] (…). The worst of them would still be freemasonry, ‘the residue of all the old heresies, the confluence of all the sects hostile to the Church and to Christian society, a debauch of pride and impiety[iii]’. The ‘sects’, Barnier further explains, would multiply like moths as the social body fell into dissolution”.

Closer to us, the time of the Occupation was also a dark period for the freemasons: “After the persecutions of Vichy, freemasonry closed in on itself and only began to reappear in public debate in the 1970s (…)” (ibid. Le Point, article by Alain Bauer).

The principal French obediences (to give a few broad landmarks, source ibid. Le Point)

Two principal currents can be distinguished:

• The liberal or “adiagnostic” current: the obediences belonging to this current advocate freedom of conscience and make no reference to the “Great Architect of the Universe”; among them: the Grand Orient de France (GODF, 50,000 members), the Droit Humain (FFDH, 27,000 members), the Grande Loge Féminine de France (GLFF, 13,000 members), the Grande Loge Mixte de France (GLMF, 3,300 members), the Grande Loge Mixte Universelle (GLMU, 1,200 members).

• The traditional current (spiritual Masonry): the obediences belonging to this current make reference to the “Great Architect of the Universe”; among them: the Grande Loge Nationale Française (GLNF, 42,000 members, proscribes religious and political subjects), the Grande Loge de France (GLDF, 33,000 members, forbids political or confessional polemics but authorises presentations on these questions), the Grand Prieuré des Gaules (GPDG, 1,000 members, proscribes political and societal subjects), the Grande Loge Traditionnelle et Symbolique (GLTSO, 3,800 members), the Loge Nationale Française (LNF, 400 members), the Grande Loge des Cultures et de la Spiritualité (GLCS, 300 members). There also exist a traditional Masonry of the craft and a hermetic Masonry.

Freemasonry in public opinion and the media

If the wheel has turned for the freemasons and they now belong to the influential groups of contemporary France, the suspicion of which they have been the victims is still nagging. They are principally reproached with a culture of secrecy and with their links to power. The accusation of being a cult is very often implied if not directly formulated.

In this respect, the behaviour of the media is fairly similar towards freemasonry and towards the other groups qualified as “cults”. For them it is a hardy-perennial subject (scoops, sensational announcements, amalgams, etc.): “In the magazine press, when there is nothing left to say, one speaks of the freemasons, an angel passes, the lodges parade” (blog of Guillaume Erner on France Inter). With, however, a difference of size: freemasonry being henceforth respected even if suspected, it can publish in the press substantial articles on the current of thought it represents, and even obtain from a national magazine that it publish a special issue on its founding texts (ibid. Le Point). The spiritual minorities classed as “cults” by the MIVILUDES have no chance of obtaining a media space of this type.

A few examples from the press:

- Rue89, 12 July 2008 – article entitled: Feminisation: the Grand Orient, a “cult closed in on itself”? (source).

- L’Express, 11 October 2004 – article entitled: Thirty years of drifts (The saga of the freemasons of Montpellier) (source).

- L’Express, 8 February 2004 – article entitled: The schemes of the freemasons (source).

- L’Express, 19 February 2008 – article entitled: The freemasons and power, “L’Express is in a position to reveal it: Xavier Bertrand, one of the most prominent ministers of the government, belongs to the Grand Orient de France. A new illustration of the links between politics and freemasonry” (source).

- Challenges, 15 June 2006 – article entitled: The shadow of the masonic lodges (source).

- Nice Matin, 18 October 2008 – article entitled: Alpes-Maritimes - François Stifani, grand master: “The drifts belong to the past”, “NM: There remains an impression of a “cult” if not of a “network” which can be a problem? FS: We are free-thinkers. Who wish to format no mind. To enter one must be sponsored. Not everyone who wishes enters…” (source).

- France Soir, 31 January 2009, interviews Yvette Nicolas, the grand mistress of the Grande Loge féminine de France: “FS: What do you answer to those who think that freemasonry is a sort of cult? YN: A cult, one enters it easily and one leaves it less easily. Freemasonry, one enters it less easily and one can leave it from one day to the next!” (source).

- Nord Eclair, 1 February 2009: this article echoes a lecture on freemasonry one of whose speakers is Yves-Max Viton, former grand master of the Grande Loge de France, who specifies: “For the profane, freemasonry resembles a cult or a secret society imbued with mysteries and rites, quick to interfere in political affairs by way of occult collusions. Widespread ideas from which the former Grand Master (from 2003 to 2004) frees himself. A cult? “It is quite the contrary! It is difficult to enter but easy to leave"" (source).

- Le Nouvelliste (Switzerland), 12 November 2008: Maurice Badoux, a librarian from Monthey of the Progrès et Vérité Lodge at Bex, expresses himself: “Many clichés circulate. We have nothing, however, of a cult. Our members do not renounce their beliefs. One finds Catholic, Protestant, Muslim and Jewish freemasons” (source).

- Saint-Lô Maville, 13 June 2009: three lodges of the Grand Orient de France of the Manche join together for a lecture: “There have been “rotten apples” among the freemasons as everywhere, admits Alain Mourot [GODF]. But fewer than elsewhere. Nor are we a cult. It is very easy to enter a cult and difficult to get out of one. With us, it is the contrary.” (source).

The attitude (with commentary) towards the cults of a few obediences

We have consulted the sites of a certain number of obediences.

Grand Orient de France (GODF) (source)

The second question in the GODF’s frequently asked questions is the following: “Is it a cult?”. This eagerness to “exculpate” itself shows how sensitive the subject is. Answer (extract): “With us, no “guru” or revealed word. Not everyone who wishes enters, certainly, but all those who wish to leave do so without constraint”. The question is therefore evacuated by using a stereotyped argument, the sign of a certain embarrassment. The mention of an easy exit from the obedience in answer to the accusation of being a cult is a constant in the various lodges; we shall return to it.

On 25 February 2008, the GODF took umbrage at the position of Emmanuelle Mignon, then Head of Cabinet to Nicolas Sarkozy, who declared that the cults in France were a “non-problem” (source). GODF: “This position is unacceptable if it proves to be accurate. The cults inscribed on the 1995 list by the Parliamentary Commission and in particular the Church of Scientology cannot be considered as religions, because their practices, their ideologies, numerous testimonies having been gathered in this regard, testify to attacks on the integrity of bodies as well as on the integrity of consciences. Any evolution in the policy of the government of the French Republic as to the modification of the statutes of the said cults can only be denounced in the firmest manner. The Freemasons of the Grand Orient de France, for their part, will not accept it. They solemnly ask in any event that the government take a very firm position contrary to the positions attributed to Madame Emmanuelle MIGNON”.

The GODF mentions “numerous testimonies of attacks on the integrity of bodies and consciences” but ought rather to seek the “proofs” capable of justifying French anti-cult policy. If the members of this obedience have read the MIVILUDES reports and followed the parliamentary commissions of enquiry on the subject (which the CICNS does regularly and in detail), they know that these proofs do not exist. They thus validate a wholesale discriminatory policy based solely on a few testimonies and on rumours, whereas the offences committed by a few individuals could be dealt with by application of the ordinary law.

The Grand Orient (GODF), the Droit Humain (FFDH), the Grande Loge Féminine de France (GLFF) and the Grande Loge de France (GLDF) “were received on 4 March [2008] by the President of the Constitutional Council, Jean-Louis Debré. They affirmed to him their attachment to the principle of laïcité and conveyed their preoccupation as to possible modifications of the 1905 law and of the policy of fighting the cults” (source). The Grand Master of the GODF met on 10 April 2008 with the president of the National Assembly, Bernard Accoyer, to affirm that “any attack on the provisions of the 1905 law, even by regulation, would be a calling into question of the principle of laïcité, unacceptable”. “Following the Grand Master’s questioning, the President of the National Assembly indicated the importance he attached to the “MIVILUDES” and to the fight against the cults. The Grand Master of the Grand Orient de France welcomed this”.

It is surprising to see that these representative persons were able to speak of the “fight against the cults” when since 2002 France has been fighting against “dérives sectaires” — unless they judged this hypocrisy of language superfluous and reserved for certain official speeches of the MIVILUDES and of the Prime Minister on whom that mission depends.

The GODF declares in its “Our values” section that it “is (…) attached to the absolute freedom of conscience which is guaranteed by the laïcité of the institutions”. According to the historian Jean Baubérot, French laïcité has an unfortunate tendency to transform itself into a civil religion (Jean Baubérot, Une laïcité interculturelle, éditions L’Aube). A laïcité that takes on the airs of an intangible and rigid dogma served by clerics charged with expelling heresy. The GODF specifies in its “initiation” section: “The masonic fraternity, of which the lodge is the crucible, must be a place of questioning and of debate between men of good will whatever their beliefs. In this perspective, a confrontation of differences that aims to understand what makes the unity of man is one of the keys of initiation”. If words have a meaning, the GODF’s anti-cult activism is the antithesis of an approach “of questioning and of debate between men of good will whatever their beliefs”.

Grande Loge Féminine de France (GLFF) (source)

On 9 March 2009, the GLFF, together with the GODF and the FFDH, co-signed a press release entitled “Declaration concerning the cultic movements”. This communiqué therefore subscribes to another hypocrisy of the French anti-cult fight, which consists in renaming the “cults” as “cultic movements” so as to suggest that it is no longer the groups as such that are targeted but rather the dérives sectaires. Why otherwise not have entitled the communiqué: “Declaration concerning the dérives sectaires”? This communiqué, which seems imported straight from an anti-cult association, intends to put in place a common mission of vigilance on the cult phenomenon (source).

It specifies in its introduction: “The women Freemasons and the Freemasons of adogmatic Freemasonry are the foremost defenders of freedom of conscience, and the adversaries of all the enterprises of dérives sectaires which, by practices of mental manipulation, have as their objectives to pervert minds by seduction, psychological hold, enslavement, the loss of liberty, with the aim of seeking power and enrichment”.

The notion of mental manipulation is qualified as a pseudo-scientific concept by a great number of researchers (see, for example, Misunderstanding Cults, edited by Benjamin Zablocki and Thomas Rubbin). It is an extremely delicate subjective appraisal to handle, which is nevertheless used in a simplistic and accusatory, totally anti-democratic manner: people making an alternative life choice not conforming to the dominant opinion are considered irresponsible because manipulated by criminal “brainwashing” gurus. This intellectual swindle, which is moreover exercised in the name of freedom of thought and conscience, is, as the sociologist Arnaud Esquerre suggests, one of the “apparatuses of power over the psyche” (Arnaud Esquerre, La manipulation mentale – Sociologie des sectes en France, Éditions Fayard). The accusation of “mental manipulation” is the secular version of the vade retro satanas of former times: an irrefutable anathema because unverifiable, hurled in the face of those who disturb. The signatories of the communiqué have short memories: Arnaud Esquerre cites Emile Poulat (ibid.) analysing the climate surrounding freemasonry over the centuries: “Freemasonry (…) it is the “Sect” (…) acting on behalf of Lucifer - Satan, the Evil One, the Wicked One -, the rebel angel, the Prince of this world who raises against God the standard of revolt”. (See also our dossier on mental manipulation).

The communiqué adds that: “The question then arises of knowing how, in respect for republican values, to fight effectively against these movements. The only possible way is the sole reference to the law. The violation of the law must be the criterion from which the acts of the cultic movement can be considered as offences and liable to be repressed”.

If the signatories are serious in this affirmation, they can therefore dissolve their mission of vigilance, since the criminal and administrative convictions pronounced against the said “cults” are minute in number and can in no way justify the arsenal of struggle deployed in France. This position resembles an additional hypocrisy consisting in presenting an action conforming to the rules of a state governed by law (in which disturbance of public order is sanctioned by judicial decisions) while diffusing an anti-cult propaganda relying on judgements of value and of taste, indeed on an evaluation of doctrines (see our interview with the sociologist Raphaël Liogier). One of the stated wishes of the last two presidents of the MIVILUDES is indeed to take the fight against the cults out of the criminal field alone.

The Grand Mistress of the GLFF specifies in her editorial: ”(…) we affirm two sacred principles: Tolerance and Laïcité. Tolerance is not the refusal of the confrontation of points of view but simply the absolute respect of the Other - our sister, our brother - in her existence, her word and her beliefs” (source). How can one call “absolute respect of the Other” the campaign of discrimination, aimed at hundreds of thousands of honest and sincere people who are members of spiritual minorities labelled “cults”, in which the GLFF participates?

Droit Humain (FFDH) (source)

The Droit Humain is not forthcoming on the theme of the cults (on its site at least), but we have seen above that it has associated itself with several actions in the fight against the cults.

Grande Loge Mixte de France (GLMF) (source)

The GLMF has created internally a Commission for the Fight Against the Cults (CLCS): “This commission works in partnership with several representatives of other Obediences of French Freemasonry. To date the Grande Loge Mixte de France has constituted a documentary fund on this subject” (source). The GLMF therefore fights the cults like the anti-cult associations and thus participates in the policy of ostracising the spiritual minorities.

Grande Loge Nationale de France (GLNF) (source)

We have not found any reference to the cult question on the GLNF’s site, which seems coherent with their choice to proscribe political and religious subjects.

Grande Loge de France (GLDF) (source)

Question no. 9 in the GLDF’s frequently asked questions is the following: “What is the position of the Grande Loge de France with regard to the cults?” Answer (extract): “In a general way the cults aim to cut their followers off from their milieu (family, professional, relational, etc.) in order to insert them into a culture and to appropriate in one way or another their income - or elements of their patrimony - while inculcating in them pseudo-knowledge, dogmatic and disconnected from the real, made of false irrational indisputable self-evidences, presented as truths and imposed by gurus - often self-proclaimed - exercising a power of fascination over members whose critical spirit they wish to abolish. As the news proves every day: it is easier to enter a cult than to leave one” (source).

It would be enough to exchange a few words in this answer and in certain passages of the GLFF-GODF-FFDH communiqué to obtain a diatribe similar to that of Pope Leo XIII and of the priest Barnier against freemasonry. The same unfounded accusations and the same hatred are conveyed in both cases.

In an article in Journal no. 73 of February 2007 (Les chantiers de la Grande Loge de France) it is written: “One must be very attentive, including in France, to the drifts that can be qualified as cultic for those of these “obediences” whose values and references are far from Freemasonry.

The Grand Master took the initiative of having the Grande Loge de France participate in the Interministerial Mission of Vigilance and of Fighting against dérives sectaires. Contrary to the principal obediences, we were not represented there. That is now done, and three Federal Counsellors participate in the work and in the duty of vigilance that we must assume”.

If the masonic references of the principal obediences, strongly involved in the MIVILUDES’s action, are perceived as the sole reference, in comparison with which every other reference is considered a dérive sectaire, one understands better the interministerial mission’s policy of all-out denigration of the new forms of spirituality.

The perverse game of the criteria of dérives sectaires

Most of the obediences get out of the accusation of being a cult by specifying: “We are not a cult because, with us, it is difficult to enter but easy to leave, the contrary of a cult”.

Let us underline once again the confusion deliberately maintained by the MIVILUDES and a part of the parliamentarians, between the “fight against the cults” and the “fight against dérives sectaires”, a confusion which is a godsend for the structures presenting themselves as anti-cult.

The MIVILUDES lists on its site the principal criteria of dérives sectaires: a) mental destabilisation; b) the exorbitant character of financial demands; c) the rupture with the original environment; d) the existence of attacks on physical integrity; e) the indoctrination of children, the antisocial discourse, disturbances of public order; f) the importance of judicial entanglements; g) the possible diversion of traditional economic circuits; h) attempts to infiltrate the public authorities (source).

The masonic obediences’ standard answer would correspond roughly to criterion c). Yet nothing says that a brother’s involvement in an obedience could not be experienced as destabilising by those close to him. The answer provided is therefore superficial and moreover takes for granted that a single criterion would be sufficient to decide the cultic character of a movement, which even the MIVILUDES does not say. Let us analyse a few other criteria.

b) the exorbitant character of financial demands:

Sophie Coignard, a journalist at Le Point, writes: “The great obediences have become enormous machines which must be fed. Their leaders are accustomed to a certain standard of living. Proper representation requires numerous journeys abroad. All that costs a lot. Now, each new member brings a new subscription. “You only have to do the multiplication”, says a member of the GLNF who is fairly critical about growth at any price. “Forty thousand times 400 euros of capitation equals 16 million euros. To that are added the shares paid to take part in the higher workshops or in various ceremonial lodges such as the Royal Arch”. This calculation holds for the other obediences” (Le Point, 22 January 2009).

”(…) The authorities of the GLNF provoked indignation, a few years ago, by wishing to gather all the indigent into one and the same lodge. “A “lumpenproletariat” workshop where the poor are penned, with reduced subscription and minimum consideration — someone had to think of it!” thunders a former high-ranking member, arrived at the 33rd degree, who slammed the door a few years ago” (Sophie Coignard, Un Etat dans l’Etat – Le contre-pouvoir maçonnique, éditions Albin Michel).

The majority of the spiritual minorities pejoratively qualified as “cults” live on a scale without comparison to that of freemasonry; they are nevertheless systematically accused of extorting funds from their members: ”(…) cultic systems often have the temptation, as one observes, of coupling their activities of hold over individuals with various frauds intended to make the whole even more lucrative: illegal work, tax fraud, frauds against the various allowances and public aids in particular” (2008 report of the MIVILUDES, p. 168 - source). There therefore seem to be double standards in the way of appraising the relationship to money.

f) the importance of judicial entanglements:

The judicial entanglements involving freemasons and on which suspicions of influence weigh are legion. Even putting a damper on the media excess when it reports this type of affair, it is not possible to say that it is a “non-problem”. Eric de Montgolfier’s book attests to it (Le devoir de déplaire, éditions Michel Lafon). Alain Bauer (former Grand Master of the GODF) specifies: “Certainly, there are people who enter Masonry and take advantage of it. That is human: what organisation of 150,000 members can claim a flawless honesty? The problem in fact is not to deny these affairs, but to get rid of the dishonest masons” (ibid., Le Point). These remarks are sensible, and it is regrettable that this loftiness of view does not then apply to the said “cults”, which, for the most part, have no conviction in the criminal or administrative courts but which can serenely be considered for dissolution for a fault committed by a single member.

g) the possible diversion of traditional economic circuits:

Sophie Coignard (ibid.) gives examples of links between local elected representatives and freemasons allowing the latter advantageous, preferential, indeed illegal access to real estate, public or otherwise (examples p. 45, p. 83, p. 140). These examples are numerous enough to arouse natural questions.

h) attempts to infiltrate the public authorities:

Sophie Coignard (ibid.) also perfectly illustrates masonic lobbying in the spheres of power. Certainly, the term “infiltration” has a pejorative connotation reserved rather for the groups that displease. But there is no doubt (even tempering the media frenzy) that masonic lobbying does not always go in the direction of the common good. Alain Bauer observes: “Before 1939, 60% of parliamentarians were masons (…) But there are today only about 10% of freemason parliamentarians in France. So to say that it [freemasonry] is a State within the State…” (ibid. Le Point). These remarks are to be set beside the accusations of infiltration against the said “cults”, uttered without the slightest beginning of proof.

At least three criteria of dérives sectaires would be applicable to certain masonic lodges. For those who, indignant at this assertion, would contest the pertinence of the sources proposed, let them recall an important point: it now suffices for the MIVILUDES to have a simple presumption of a possible dérive sectaire in a group (on the basis of the above criteria) to inscribe it in its new referential of the cults. It is this deplorable practice that the lodges cited above support.

The preceding exercise of applying the criteria of dérives sectaires to freemasonry illustrates once again their inanity: applicable to any human group in an arbitrary and subjective fashion, they are used to accuse or to exculpate in a context where rumour serves as proof and psychosis as a means of communication.

What is the real motivation of freemasonry in its positioning against the cults?

It is distressing to see men and women supposed to have a sharpened historical consciousness adopt discriminatory behaviours of which they were themselves the targets in the past. Behind the incantatory declarations on attachment to freedom of conscience, to the values of the Republic, to laïcité, other reasons appear, of which we cite a few as avenues of reflection.

Intellectual laziness before single-track thinking

Faced with the avalanche of information and disinformation of which we are daily the target and the multiplicity of subjects that would deserve sustained attention, it is sometimes more restful to let oneself be carried by the dominant opinion. The theme of the cults belongs to single-track thinking: “The cults are more and more numerous and are the enemies of the Republic; they must be fought”. This self-evidence is no longer even debatable, so why question a just cause? Our site is nevertheless sufficiently documented to contradict this self-evidence. The lodges, which are a place of reflection, ought not to pass by contradictory information.

The two Frances on the backs of the spiritual minorities

Clerical and anticlerical France waged war on each other for decades. According to Jean Baubérot, this conflict was appeased at the moment of the vote of the 1905 law; but a pent-up rancour which could no longer declare itself openly now expresses itself by overwhelming the spiritual minorities transformed into scapegoats. The two principal currents of freemasonry (traditional, liberal) are not without recalling the two Frances. It is public knowledge that certain anti-cult associations have freemason officers who use the French climate of intolerance to settle their scores with the new spiritualities, whether because they are attached to traditional spiritual values, or because they tend to confuse laïcité and atheism. France has moreover never shown great tolerance in the face of spiritual diversity (see Raphaël Liogier’s book, Une laïcité “légitime” - La France et ses religions d’Etat, éditions Entrelacs).

The stigmatised become the “stigmatiser”

Might there be a temptation for the formerly stigmatised to believe they protect themselves more effectively by stigmatising others, once good fortune has returned? Régis Dericquebourg presents on his site a synthesis on the theme of stigmatisation: “According to Festinger, the stigmatised compare themselves to one another. When the comparison is favourable to them, self-esteem is reinforced. By devaluing in turn the bearers of the most salient stigmas, the stigmatised person joins the perception of “normal” people” (source).

An elite in power and wishing to remain there

If the elite of our country is not to be confused with freemasonry, a very large part of freemasonry belongs to the elite: ”(…) freemasonry has federated an elite. An unavoidable element of its foundation, this characteristic has been denied over the years. On the one hand, confirming this elitist recruitment would amount to recognising the existence of a network of influence. On the other hand, numerous brothers and sisters who occupy the functions of worshipful masters, notably at the Grand Orient, the Grande Loge de France, the Grande Loge Féminine de France or the Droit Humain, sincerely have at heart the diversification of their recruitment” (ibid. Sophie Coignard).

According to Noam Chomsky, the elite is in the service of power because it seeks to maintain its status as an elite: “It is very important for intellectuals to fall into line in the service of the State”. He adds: “Power does not wish people to understand that they can bring about changes” (source: Chomsky & compagnie – pour en finir avec la fabrique de l’impuissance, a film by Olivier Azam and Daniel Mermet). It is therefore not surprising that this elite should be in the front “lodges” to discredit in the eyes of the public the elements that advocate a sometimes profound change of society. The “demonisation” of the spiritual minorities falls within this manipulative approach, since they can be sources of “disturbing” alternative life choices. See an article by Maurice Duval: The anti-cult discourse as a support of neoliberal ideology. See also the book by Nathalie Luca, Individus et pouvoirs face aux sectes, éditions Armand Colin.

The observation of a connivance between the elite and power does not prevent one from seeing the lodges as sources of progress, but it is probable that the advances obtained are those permitted by that “power” in place. It is fitting then to question the means used by that power to fight against forces of change which disturb it but which in any case answer to deep movements of society that nobody masters. Clearly, the fight against the cults in France no longer respects any of the democratic rules on which the anti-cult actors nevertheless claim to rely in order to justify themselves.

Another aspect of the exercise of power is presented by Anne Morelli. The traditional spiritual and philosophical currents share out a financial and media cake. The new entrants such as the spiritual minorities are considered unwelcome competitors of whom it is preferable to get rid.

Freemasonry as a responsible actor in the debate on the cult question

In an article entitled “Why become a mason?” (ibid. Le Point), Michel Maffesoli considers that “the real importance of freemasonry is less of the order of temporal power than of spiritual power. (…) [The masonic order] is the symbol of a secret fraternity running through the social body. And if, under various names, it has attracted, and continues to attract, it is because it expresses in the major key an “order of love”, that of Fraternity, a veritable societal cement. (…) it is an essential contribution of the masonic Order to consider that we are all apprentices of life. And our attempts, our errors, our qualities and our faults do nothing but express such an apprenticeship”. (See also our interview with Michel Maffesoli).

The sincere freemasons who share this vision in their daily lives cannot subscribe to the anti-cult fight as it is conducted in France and as it is supported by the principal lodges. They can become “inspired” interlocutors in the debate on the place of the spiritual minorities in France, but that supposes a thorough overhaul of their current official positions. A good beginning would be to acquaint themselves with the information presented on our site and to start from the following hypothesis: the spiritual minorities are human groups like any others, whose evaluation must fall within the framework of the ordinary law and within an open and respectful approach of knowledge. That is the direction we have given to our project for an independent Observatory of the spiritual minorities.

[i] Le Couteulx de Canteleu Jean Baptiste Emmanuel Hector, Les sectes et Sociétés secrètes politiques et religieuses : essai sur leur histoire depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu’à la Révolution française, Paris, Didier et compagnie, 1863.

[ii] Barbier Charles, Contre les sectes et les erreurs qui nous divisent et nous désolent. Démonstrations et réfutations, Paris, Vitte, 1906.

[iii] Ibid, p. 270.