HISTORICAL
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND FREEMASONS…WHY ROMAN
CATHOLICS ARE PROHIBITED BY THE CHURCH FROM BECOMING FREEMASONS
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Gate City II Masonic Lodge
for inviting me to speak with you tonight about a rather difficult topic,
the historical relationship between the Catholic Church and Freemasons,
and why Roman Catholics have been and continue to be prohibited by the
Church from becoming Freemasons. My name is John McManus and in my
civilian life I am an attorney who has been practicing law for just over
27 years. I am Roman Catholic Christian from birth, and since my
ordination in 2002, I have been a member of the Roman Catholic Clergy as a
Deacon, the lowest of the three levels of clerical hierarchy in the
Catholic Church. Since 2007, I am also a Canon Lawyer, which means that I
have a pontifical licentiate that allows me to practice as a lawyer in the
Tribunals, or courts, of the Roman Catholic Church, and also to advise the
Archbishop or others regarding canonical issues, or those issues related
to the law of the Roman Catholic Church.
I have provided you with that personal background to let you know that my
studies have been related to the Roman Catholic Church and its laws. I am
not a Freemason, nor have I studied in any detail, other than for the
preparation of this presentation, the laws, rules, creeds, or other
constitutive documents of Freemasons. Nothing presented herein is intended
to criticize, condemn or otherwise cast aspersions on either Freemasonry
or Freemasons, as a group or to any individual Freemason, whether Roman
Catholic or not. Instead, this presentation is intended to provide
historical and current information on the subject matter that may be used
in civil discussions and personal reflections about the issues presented
in order that each person may be informed and form their own consciences
about the issues presented.
This presentation is being given from the Roman Catholic Church’s point of
view, particularly since that is the only point of view I can articulate,
and the material presented about Freemasons has been gathered from various
sources, primarily within the Roman Catholic literature. While I have
examined quite a bit of literature preparing this presentation, I have
relied to a great extent on a very fine paper entitled “The Evolution Of
The Church’s Prohibition Against Catholic Membership In Freemasonry” by
Msgr. Ronny E. Jenkins.
For those of you interested in the complete text of that paper, it was
published in 1996 in The Jurist, Volume 56, pages 735-755. I was
particularly interested in that paper because Msgr. Jenkins was one of my
instructors at The Catholic University of America where I received my
Juris Canonical Licentiate. During my preparation for this presentation, I
had an opportunity to communicate with Msgr. Jenkins about recent
developments in this area since the publication of that paper, and those
developments have been incorporated into this presentation. I wish to
thank Msgr. Jenkins for his kind assistance in this matter.
As the title of that article and this presentation suggest, the Roman
Catholic Church has for centuries, and continues to this day, to prohibit
its members from membership in Freemasonry. That prohibition remains
applicable today in the Archdiocese of Atlanta for all members of the
Roman Catholic Church. There has certainly been a great deal of confusion
regarding whether this prohibition continues today, engendered in large
part by the language of the 1983 Code of Canon Law that omitted the
specific prohibition against Freemasonry stated in the 1917 Codex Juris
Canonici. In response to this confusion, in November of 1983, the
Congregation for the Doctrine of The Faith issued a declaration stating
that the prohibition was still in force and that Catholic Masons were
barred from receiving Holy Communion. However, that declaration did not
quell the debate about that prohibition, and the debate continues. It is
my purpose here tonight to address the foundational reasons for this
centuries old prohibition, clarify the confusion created by the new Code
of Canon law, and explain why the Roman Catholic Church through the
Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith continues that prohibition today.
As advertised, I will begin this presentation with a look at the origins
and historical issues related to this prohibition, then address in passing
some of the official canonical documents related directly to that
prohibition, then review in some detail the efforts in modern times to
reconcile the differences between the parties, and finally address the
canonical issues developed by both the 1917 Codex Juris Canonici and the
1983 Code of Canon Law. It is my sincere hope that at the end of this
presentation the fundamental inconsistencies between the basic tenants of
the Roman Catholic Church and those of Freemasonry will allow at least a
better understanding of the prohibition that the Roman Catholic Church
asserts in this matter.
In order to understand why the Roman Catholic Church has the authority to
prohibit one of its members from belonging to Freemasonry, or to prohibit
or allow its members to do or not do other things, it is important to
understand a little about the Roman Catholic Church itself. The Catholic
Church was founded by Jesus Christ himself. To be Catholic, one must
believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and that he established the Church with
divine authority. The Gospels state that “As the Father gave authority to
Christ,” [Jn 5:22] Christ passed that authority on to his apostles [Lk
10:16], and they passed it on to the successors they appointed as bishops.
For nearly two thousand years, through unbroken apostolic succession,
bishops have taught the Catholic faith that was received from Christ in
the Gospels, Sacred Tradition, and through the Magisterium, the teaching
office of the Church. The Church is not a democracy. The authority of the
Church rests in the Bishop of Rome, The Roman Pontiff, the successor to
St. Peter, who Jesus himself selected to guide the Church. It is important
to note that this “authority” held by the Holy Father is not power, but a
right…it is humble in both its origin, as received from Christ, and in its
end, which is to serve as Christ served. In fact, all of the laws and all
of the traditions of the Church have one goal, one end, and that end is
the salvation of souls.
The Roman Catholic Church believes that it has an innate right and
obligation to speak the truth about all human matters, and that truth is
directed at the one primary end, the salvation of souls. And, therefore,
throughout the ages, the Church has issued decrees, which are decisions
regarding a particular case, and encyclicals, which are writings approved
by the Holy Father, and she has held Councils and synods, discussing
various issues related to the faith. The most recent Council was the
Second Vatican Council held in the 1960’s which has had a significant
effect on the law of the Church, and the Church itself. The rules and laws
that are articulated by the Holy Father become laws that Catholics must
respect and follow because of the aforementioned authority from which they
are derived. Willful failure to follow the teachings of the Church has
consequences for Catholics, including excommunication in the most serious
cases.
The laws of the Church, codified as canon laws, set forth both the
requirement and the penalty for not following the teachings of the Church,
and there is a judicial process involved in determining whether the law
has been broken and what sanction, if any, is appropriate in the
individual case.
The best way for me to explain the relationship between the law of the
Church and the essential end of human behavior is in a statement by Mother
Teresa. She said, “God did not put me on earth to be successful, he put me
here to be faithful.” Catholics have an obligation to be faithful to the
teachings of the Church, all of the teachings of the Church, and they are
not allowed to pick and choose which teachings they like and which they
don’t like as if they were ordering from a menu at McDonalds. Therefore,
it is incumbent upon Catholics to understand the teachings of their faith,
the reasons why the Church teaches as it does, and then live a life
accordingly, constantly striving to be faithful to Christ and his
teachings.
It was difficult to determine the precise historical origin of the
Freemasons, primarily because there is little historical evidence of the
Masons before the eighteenth century. It does appear, however, that on
June 24, 1717, four independent guilds of stone cutters met in a London
inn to form the first grand lodge. It appears that this new order of
masons spread to France by 1732, Hamburg, Germany by 1737, and then
throughout much of the rest of Europe, including Italy.
On April 28, 1738, the Roman Catholic Church published the first of many
condemnations of this new society when Clement XII issued the constitution
In eminenti. In that constitution, Clement XII declared the basic tenants
of Freemasonry to be a threat not only to the basic teachings of the Roman
Catholic Church, but also to the stability of governments and society.
Clement XII imposed the penalty of excommunication reserved to the Holy
See on persons who either belonged to or externally supported the society.
This document was significant because subsequent popes repeated the
condemnations for the next two hundred years. For example, on May 18, 1751
in his decree Providas, Benedict XIV repeated the gravissima damna [the
“most serious condemnations”] and appended Clement XII’s constitution to
his own decree.
The nineteenth century brought renewed and continued confirmation of the
charges and penalties against Masons, particularly Catholic Masons. Here
are a few examples:
1. On September 13, 1821, Pius VII issued his decree Ecclesiam Christi in
response to the growing influence of a particular form of Masonry called
Carbonarism on the movement to form liberal governments in much of Europe.
2. On March 13, 1826, Leo XII issued his decree Quo graviora in which he
not only reaffirmed past condemnation, he added more condemnations, and he
offered a particularly critical view of the influence of Masons on
universities.
3. On August 15, 1832, Gregory XVI in his decree Mirari Vos reaffirmed all
previous papal decrees condemning Freemasons, and he added more
justifications for the Church’s condemnation of Freemasons.
4. On October 12, 1869, Pius IX in his decree Apostolicae Sedis that
reformed certain automatic [latae sententiae] penalties, retained
membership in the Masons among those excommunications reserved to the Holy
See. Apostolicae Sedis can be found in Acta Santa Sedis [ASS] 5 (1869)
beginning at page 311.
5. On April 12, 1884, Leo XIII issued his encyclical Humanum genus which
was a document dedicated entirely to the condemnation of the Masons and
reaffirmed the latae sententiae penalty imposed by Pius IX in Apostolicae
Sedis. Humanum genus can be found in Acta Santa Sedis [ASS] 16
(1883-1884), pages 417-433.
The twentieth century canonized the penalties and condemnations of the
previous two hundred years. It should be noted here that the law of the
Roman Catholic Church, which was developed through Tradition, Sacred
Writings, synods, Councils, Decrees and Encyclicals, was not codified in
one in a single code of canon law until the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon
Law promulgated in 1917. Three canons in the 1917 code spoke directly
against Freemasons:
Canon 1240: Canon 1240, Section 1, paragraph 1, denied Freemasons a
Catholic burial.
Canon 2335: This canon, with only a few changes, reaffirmed the reserved
ipso facto excommunication of catholic masons promulgated by Pius IX on
Apostolicae Sedis. The English translation of that canon reads: “Those
giving their name to Masonic sects or other associations of this sort that
machinate against the Church or legitimate civil powers contract by that
fact excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.”
Canon 2336: This canon levied additional penalties against clerics or
religious who belonged to the masons. These penalties included suspension
for clerics and loss of active and passive voice for religious.
Other canons indirectly affected Catholic Masons and included:
1. Canon 1065, Section 1: Denied them the right to a Catholic marriage.
2. Canon 542, Section 1: Denied them the ability to enter a valid
novitiate.
3. Canon 693, Section 1: Denied them the right to inscribe validly in a
pious association of the faithful.
4. Canon 1453, Section 1: Denied them receiving the right of patronage
[support].
Two requirements had to be met for Roman Catholics to incur the ipso facto
excommunication set forth in Canon 2335:
1. They had to have actually enrolled in the membership books of the
organization; and
2. The organization had to be wholly devoted to heretical or subversive
ends.
It was easy to establish whether the first requirement was met—all one had
to do was examine the membership books of the organization. But it was not
as easy to determine when the second requirement had been met. Jenkins
poses these questions:
1. What if the charitable or fraternal organizations were only indirectly
associated with Freemasons? Were these included in the ban?
2. Masonic lodges themselves varied greatly in their teachings and
practices. American lodges were far less subversive than most European
ones. Did Catholics who joined an American lodge deserve to suffer the
same penalty as one who joined a lodge more patently opposed to the
Church?
These and other similar questions gave rise to discussions within the
Church hierarchy about a new legal attitude toward Freemasons. Those
inquiries lead to the hope that the issue would be addressed by the Second
Vatican Council. The Second Vatican Council, however, did not specifically
address the issue with Freemasons. Instead, it sought to open dialogue
with various groups that had been counted among the Church’s
“antagonists.”
As a consequence of this new attitude, several groups of bishops began to
view the ban on Masonic membership in the light of the particular
character of the respective local lodges. This was first done in 1966 by
the Scandinavian bishops who determined that each bishop could judge
whether or not a particular lodge was acting or teaching in ways contrary
to the interests of the Church. If the bishop decided that the lodge was
not manifesting such behavior, the bishop was free to determine whether a
particular Catholic could join that particular lodge. Similar actions were
taken by the bishops of England and Wales, and the French bishops were
even allowed by the Vatican to have limited discussions between the
Italian grand master and a priest who was an expert in Masonic affairs.
These events lead to perhaps the most significant advance in
Catholic-Masonic relations. In March 1969, a commission of three Catholics
and nine masons gathered in Innsbruck to discuss their mutual concerns.
The commission met under the auspices of the Secretariat for Non-Believers
and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith. The committee’s
dialogue resulted in the July 5, 1970 publication of a document entitled
“Lichtenau Declaration,” which declared that, contrary to the Church’s
consistent position, the Masons were not a threat to the Catholic Church.
The document recommended that all canonical penalties and condemnations be
abrogated and relations opened between Catholics and Masons, stating in
pertinent part:
“We are of the opinion that the papal bulls concerning the Freemasons are
now only historically significant and no longer relevant in our time. We
are of the same opinion regarding the condemnations of ecclesiastical law
since, in light of what has been said, they cannot be justified by a
Church that follows God’s commandment in teaching fraternal love.”
The next significant event in Catholic-Masonic relations occurred in talks
that occurred over a six-year period between 1974 and 1980 when
representatives from the German Episcopal Conference held talks with a
group representing the Grand Lodges of Germany. The conclusion of the
German Bishops’ Conference was:
“the Freemasons have essentially not changed. Membership [in the masons]
places the foundations of Christian existence in question. Detailed
investigations of the Masonic rituals and fundamental ideas, and of their
current, unchanged self-understanding make clear: Simultaneous membership
in the Catholic Church and freemasons is incompatible.”
Jenkins points out that “the bishops reached their unequivocal conclusion
after having first considered the positive elements of Freemasonry,
including its humanitarian interests, charitable works, anti-materialist
ideology, as well as the excellent personal qualities required of its
members.” He states that the bishop’s listed twelve areas of Masonic
teaching that were at variance with the Church’s own belief, and with
which the Church could never reconcile itself:
1. The Masonic World-view: The Masons promote a freedom from dogmatic
adherence to any one set of revealed truths. Such a subjective relativism
is in direct conflict with the revealed truths of Christianity.
2. The Masonic Notion of Truth: The masons deny the possibility of an
objective truth, placing every truth instead in a relative context.
3. The Masonic Notion of Religion: The Masonic teaching holds a relative
notion of religions as all concurrently seeking the truth of the absolute.
4. The Masonic Notion of God: The Masons hold a deistic notion of God
which excludes any personal knowledge of the deity.
5. The Masonic Notion of God and Revelation: The deistic notion of God
precludes the possibility of God’s self-revelation to humankind.
6. Masonic Toleration: The masons promote a principle of toleration
regarding ideas. That is, relativism teaches them to be tolerant of ideas
divergent or contrary to their own. Such a principle not only threatens
the Catholic position of objective truth, but it also threatens the
respect due the Church’s teaching office.
7. The Masonic Rituals: The rituals of the first three Masonic grades have
a clear sacramental character about them, indicating that an actual
transformation of some sort is undergone by those who participate in them.
8. The Perfection of Mankind: The Masonic rituals have as an end the
perfection of humankind. But Masonry provides all that is necessary to
achieve this perfection. Thus, the justification of a person through the
work of Christ is not an essential or even necessary aspect of the
struggle for perfection.
9. The Spirituality of Masons: The Masonic Order makes a total claim on
the life of the member. True adherence to the Christian faith is thereby
jeopardized by the primary loyalty due the Masonic Order.
10. The Diverse Divisions within the Masons: The Masons are comprised of
lodges with varying degrees of adherence to Christian teaching. Atheistic
lodges are clearly incompatible with Catholicism. But even those lodges
comprised of Christian members seek merely to adapt Christianity to the
overall Masonic world-view. This is unacceptable.
11. The Masons and the Catholic Church: Even those Catholic-friendly
lodges that would welcome the Church’s members as its own are not
compatible with Catholic teaching, and so closed to Catholic members.
12. The Masons and the Protestant Church: While a 1973 meeting of
Protestant Churches determined that individual Protestants could decide
whether to be members of both the Christian Church and the Freemasons, it
included in its decision the caveat that those Christians must always take
care not to lessen the necessity of grace in the justification of a person
before God.
The German bishops’ statement had a significant influence on the
subsequent attitude of Rome toward Catholic-Mason relations, renewing the
age-old attitude of distrust and antagonism. The canonical questions about
these issues, however, were still to be resolved.
During the period of time between the 1970 Lichtenau Declaration, which
indicated a more positive relationship between Catholic’s and Masons, and
the German Bishops’ statements in 1980, the code of canon law was being
revised. As a direct result of the Lichtenau Declaration, canons 2335 and
2336 of the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law were abandoned early in
the code revision process and were not included in the penal law schema of
1973. This has lead to some confusion among the bishops about the Church’s
stance toward Masons. In 1974, Cardinal Franjo Seper of the Sacred
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a letter to select
bishops stating that “the law toward masons had not changed, but that its
application might be more strictly interpreted in favor of lay Catholics.”
In essence what the Cardinal was saying was that the canon’s penalty
applied to Catholics who joined a Masonic group “or similar associations
that conspired against the Church.”
Therefore, if the particular lodge the Catholic joined did not conspire
against the Church, then only one of the two requirements for incurring
the penalty of excommunication had been met. Therefore, membership in a
neutral lodge would not necessarily bring with it an ipso facto
excommunication for the Catholic.
The 1977 coetus for the revision of penal law formulated its draft of what
would become canon 1374 of the 1983 code, and it is stated in English as
follows:
“A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be
punished with a just penalty; however, a person who promotes or directs an
association of this kind is to be punished with an interdict.”
Therefore, the revised canon removed the ipso facto excommunication of
canon 2335, and it was broad enough in scope to allow for particular
legislators to determine when the penalty was warranted and if, or
whether, harsher penalties were called for in certain circumstances.
The broad language provided room for what Catholic’s call “pastoral
sensitivity” in a particular case. Based upon this canon, it appeared that
the decision about whether Catholics were allowed to join a particular
lodge was left up to the local legislator, the bishop.
However, the new code promulgated in 1983 did not settle the issue. There
are two canons in the 1983 code that most clearly apply to Catholic
Masons, although, as indicated, Freemasonry is not mentioned specifically:
1. Canon 1374 against subversive societies; and
2. Canon 1364 against heretics and apostates.
As indicated earlier in the presentation, on November 23, 1983, the Sacred
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith attempted to resolve the doubt
created by the 1983 code revisions and issued Declaratio de
associationibus massonicis, the “Declaration on Masonic Associations.”
Declaratio de associationibus massonicis can be found in Acta Santa Sedis
[ASS] 76 (1984) beginning at page 300. The Congregation stated the
following:
1. The Church’s position regarding the Freemasons had not changed.
2. Catholic membership in Masonic lodges was still prohibited because
Masonic principles were still contrary to the teachings of the Church.
3. Catholics who did, in fact, belong to Masonic associations were
committing grave sin and were, consequently, barred from receiving Holy
Communion.
4. The reason the Masons were no longer explicitly referred to in the new
code was due simply to the principles that guided the revision of the law.
5. Local ordinaries did not enjoy the prerogative of determining which
Masonic lodges operated against the interests of the Church and which were
neutral towards or even supportive of the Church’s interests.
The National Conference of Catholic Bishops of the United States did not
officially respond to the Congregations 1983 declaration. However, it did
ask the Pastoral Research and Practices Committee to write a report on the
compatibility of Masonic principles with the Catholic faith. Their report,
which is quite brief, was published in the June 27, 1985 edition of
Origins [Origins 15/6] at pages 83-84. The committee restated the
fundamental conclusions of the German bishops, stating:
“Even though Masonic organizations may not in particular cases plot
against the faith, it would be still wrong to join them because their
basic principles are irreconcilable with those of the Catholic faith.”
While the Congregations declaration reflects the current law in the Church
and Catholics are prohibited from joining the Masons, the debate among
Church scholars and canonists about this issue and the related issue of
enforcement, application, and the canonical implications of each issue
remain.
May 26, 2009 Rev Mr. John J. McManus, JD, JCL
Prepared for
Gate City 2,
Atlanta, GA, as the fifth installment of their Religion & Culture series.
Copyright 2009, originally published May 26, 2009 Rev Mr. John J. McManus,
JD, JCL
Used with permission.
