After having learnt about the declarations rendered by Prof Di Bernardo to the General Attorney of Palermo, a question arises spontaneously: what should be the relations between politics and masonry?

Our rituals clearly state: “…it is prohibited to talk about politics and religion…” So, how should a good freemason, who is legitimately involved within political activities, exactly behave? As a general remark, it would be in order -although it is not a rule - that the good freemason takes a decision to be left dormant for the time during which he will be politically involved. This attitude would be prudential for several reasons: playing politics would mean choosing a party more than another, and this would clash with the principle of universality and of not being partisan or belonging to a specific faction, as by doing so, it will mean betray his initiatic oath. A Mason must move between the plumb line and the level. To pitch politically in could mean to follow partisan reasons and policies and, therefore, to run the risk of not being a free man while trying to self- elevating. Unfortunately frequent positions like this become embarrassing when it is the vertices of the Institution to get into the political arena: a representative leader must be always above parties. And he cannot characterize the Institution he chairs and represents by taking one part or the opposite one. We cannot, we do not, we should not let our Noble Institution may have either substantial or reputational negative returns because of political choices of his First representative. It can be easily foreseen that, being politically exposed, both impartiality and absolute equidistance between the parties would dissolve in the sky. It is only the dictatorship that should see us in action for the sake of  freedom to people. And we do not absolutely want to talk about the risk of possible contact points with economic or other power centres. Furthermore: the assistants of the political/mason are them masons or profanes? In both cases the Institution would be compelled between the initiatic oath of the political/mason and the conveniences of represented Parties. As a matter of facts, the opinions given on the specific argument by, even prominent, masons are divergent; especially by those from the South, where sometimes belonging to the Noble Institution is erroneously intended as a way to exercise power upon the territory. In any case, and regardless of different philosophical/initiatic positions, when a partisan political activity is undertaken a good freemason should refrain from his Institutional life, both for ethical and appropriateness reasons. His active membership to a political party could generate a “partisan” or “advantage” proselytism, i.e. creating the grounded doubt that the access to the Institution is not for self-elevation, but for profane convenience. We always wish that the wisdom of a freemason is able to guide towards an high-profile ethic and institutional choice, also maintaining an active role within the social life of one’s Country, but as a citizen respectful of laws and duties.