Statue of St. Peter in front of St. Peter’s Basilica. / Credit: Vatican Media
CNA Staff, Nov 17, 2023 / 15:06 pm (CNA).
The Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) in response to a question from a Filipino bishop recently reaffirmed the long-standing position of the Catholic Church that being an active Freemason constitutes a grave sin.
“Active membership in Freemasonry by a member of the faithful is forbidden,” said the letter, signed by Pope Francis and DDF Prefect Cardinal Victor Fernández.
The dicastery sent the letter to Bishop Julito Cortes of the Diocese of Dumaguete, who asked the Vatican for guidance on how to approach the “very significant” number of Filipino Catholics enrolled in Freemasonry and “a large number of sympathizers and associates who are personally convinced that there is no opposition between membership in the Catholic Church and in Masonic lodges,” according to the dicastery document.
In addition to reaffirming the Church’s teaching on Freemasonry, the dicastery encouraged Filipino bishops to conduct catechesis explaining why Catholicism and Freemasonry are irreconcilable.
Why is the Church against Freemasonry?
The first papal condemnation of Freemasonry came from Pope Clement XII in 1738, but it has been reiterated by numerous popes over the past three centuries. The pronouncement was in Clement’s papal bull titled In Eminenti.
In this bull, Clement commented on the secrecy of Masonic lodges and the “host of grievous punishment” received when violating the oath of secrecy. The bull did not delve into many specific objections to Masonic practices but concluded, based on “certain knowledge and mature deliberations,” that “all prudent and upright men have passed the same judgment on them as being depraved and perverted.”
Pope Leo XIII greatly expanded on the Church’s teaching nearly 150 years later in his 1884 papal encyclical Humanum Genus. The encyclical detailed why Freemasonry is irreconcilable with Catholicism and accused the Freemasons of “planning the destruction of the holy Church publicly and openly” and holding to doctrines that contradict Church teaching.
According to Leo, Freemasonry adheres to naturalism, which he says is the idea that “human nature and human reason ought in all things to be mistress and guide.” He adds that “they deny that anything has been taught by God; they allow no dogma of religion or truth which cannot be understood by the human intelligence, nor any teacher who ought to be believed by reason of his authority.”
The encyclical expands on the naturalism of Freemasonry, noting that people of all religions can become freemasons and that religion is “held as an indifferent matter and that all religions are alike,” which ruins “all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions.”
Leo says that Freemasons desire to secularize marriage as simply civil contracts, desire that children be left to choose their own religion when they come of age instead of receiving proper religious instruction, and desire that governments refuse to recognize God. He adds that this proposed secularization seeks to eliminate fundamental truths from society.
“If these be taken away, as the naturalists and Freemasons desire, there will immediately be no knowledge as to what constitutes justice and injustice, or upon what principle morality is founded,” Leo says. “And, in truth, the teaching of morality which alone finds favor with the sect of Freemasons, and in which they contend that youth should be instructed, is that which they call ‘civil,’ and ‘independent,’ and ‘free,’ namely, that which does not contain any religious belief.”
Which Freemason actions and practices promote naturalism and indifferentism?
Freemasons do not consider Freemasonry to be a religion; rather, they accept members from various religions, including Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Yet, Freemasons do have altars at their lodges, they engage in secret rituals, and they say prayers to a generic conception of God, which they often call the “Great Architect of the Universe.”
This practice itself promotes religious indifferentism, but Freemasonry is very decentralized and does not adhere to a specific body of texts that declare all religions to be equal. Some prominent and influential Freemasons, however, have more clearly articulated support for indifferentism toward religion.
Albert Pike, who was the sovereign grand commander of the supreme council of the southern jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in the late 1800s, wrote a book called “Morals and Dogma,” which was given to 14th-degree Masons under that jurisdiction for about a century. His writings draw supposed connections between various religions and promote indifferentism.
“We do not undervalue the importance of any truth,” Pike says. “We utter no word that can be deemed irreverent by any one of any faith. We do not tell the [Muslim] that it is only important for him to believe that there is but one God, and wholly unessential whether [Muhammad] was his prophet. We do not tell the Hebrew that the Messiah whom he expects was born in Bethlehem nearly two thousand years ago; and that he is a heretic because he will not so believe. And as little do we tell the sincere Christian that Jesus of Nazareth was but a man like us, or his history but the unreal revival of an older legend.”
Freemasonry has also used political influence throughout Europe and the Americas over the centuries to push a secularization of society and to diminish the influence of the Catholic Church.
For example, in his 1873 encyclical Etsi Multa, Blessed Pope Pius IX detailed Masonic political attacks on the Church in Italy, Switzerland, and Germany. He referred to the Masonic “deceits and machinations” as forming “the synagogue of Satan” in reference to the second and third chapters of the Book of Revelation.
The encyclical touches on attacks against Catholic education, specifically the Gregorian University in Rome being “suppressed and abolished.” Regarding Switzerland, it discusses the passage of anti-Catholic laws, state intrusion into Church matters, and “the violent banishment of our venerable brother Gaspar, bishop of Hebron and vicar apostolic of Geneva.” It also details the “persecution set in motion” against Catholics and the suppression of religious freedom in the German Empire, particularly in Prussia.
“Apply all your effort to protect the faithful committed to your care against the snares and contagion of these sects,” Pius urges the clergy. “Bring back those who have unhappily joined these sects. Expose especially the error of those who have been deceived or those who assert now that only social utility, progress, and the exercise of mutual benefits are the intention of these dark associations.”
Pius adds that these decrees are “not only [in reference] to Masonic groups in Europe but also those in America and in other regions of the world.”
In Mexico as recently as 2007, the Masonic Grand Lodge of the Valley of Mexico fought efforts against the Church gaining authority over its own schools and communications. Prominent Freemasons played a major role in the Mexican revolution and other Latin American revolutions that diminished Church influence.
What does canon law say about Freemasonry?
Prior to 1983, the Code of Canon Law explicitly stated that if a Catholic joins the Freemasons, that person incurs an automatic excommunication that can only be lifted by the Holy See. This applied not just to the Freemasons but to any group that engages in plots against the Church.
“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 2335 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law reads.
The 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law avoided a specific mention of Freemasonry and removed the penalty of automatic excommunication but maintained its ban on joining any groups that plot against the Church.
“A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict,” canon 1374 of the current Code of Canon Law reads.
Although the new canon did not explicitly reference the Freemasons, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a declaration on the Freemasons within the same year, clarifying that despite a change in the wording, there has been no change to the Church’s opposition to Freemasonry and that joining any Masonic association is still a grave sin that bars one from receiving communion.
“Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden,” the document reads. “The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive holy Communion.”
[…]
At this point, what more is there to say?
Amen!
Farrell, Roche, Cupich.
Lord help us (again).
Don’t forget Bishop McElroy( new Cardinal) another Modernist member.
Most important [not to diminish liturgy] is Roche, Tagle, Farrell, Cupich assigned to Discipline of the Sacraments. Whatever Burmese Bo or Scot Gilbert may prefer they’re outnumbered by among the most liberal cardinals in the Church. Adherents of Amoris Laetitia and all it entails. Nonetheless the ordinary of the diocese the likes of Archbishop Cordileone, Bishop Paprocki et al cannot be compelled to ignore the canons of the Church 915 in particular. Although the appointments anticipate engagement ahead.
But great picture!
The photo says everything we need to know about Cupich. Somehow I doubt he has that one hanging in his office.
Yeah, I’m not sure about the picture. McCarrick was promoted by JP2, and promoted again, despite allegations going back to the 1990s. B16 never did anything about him, and even Archbishop Vigano was in Ted’s corner until he wasn’t. As far as I know, Mr McCarrick was never involved in liturgical governance, unlike the new DDWDS archbishop.
So, is this just more simmering discontent about Amoris, or McCarrick, or Cupich because all is not right in CatholicWorld? Or is there a point? I’m sure if we combed the internet just as carefully we could find all sorts of conservative heroes ponying up to the greatest fundraiser of all time, right?
So true. To try to smear Cardinal Cupich with the photo even before a single word of the story is surely a type of “journalism” unworthy of Catholic World Report. I suggest you make amends by digging up and publishing every single photo of McCarrick with every Catholic prelate, including recent popes!
The Catholic hierarchy is looking more and more like an exclusive club for closeted homosexuals. God help us.
Will this appointment bring sanctity, godliness and honour to the table?
I believe that when Jesus prayed that all might be one He was likely thinking that the ONE would be in line with his teachings. It sure seems like Francis is taking a play out of the book of Chairman Joe in appointing people to posts based on their political leanings rather than their support for Church teaching. Both seem determined to destroy what they are sworn to defend.
Unfortunately, this simply further reinforces the suspicion that long before being elected pope, Senor Bergoglio was, and perhaps still is, one of “them”.
Oh, greeaaaaaaaat.
Since one of our commenters has posted an open question as to what concerns might connect with photos and reports involving the message communicated by items such as “Cupich-McCarrick” above, and as most other commenters have noted their disgust of these 2, I offer this video posted in February by Damian Thompson, of Holy Smoke (Spectator) showing what Thompson says is the Pontiff Francis “lying” to a reporter confronting his actions as head of the Argentine Bishops Conference, to defend and protect the Argentine child sex predator “Rev.” Julio Grassi, now serving a 15 yr prison sentence in Argentina. See video here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/holysmoke/with_replies
As other commenters have alluded to the larger problem (which includes being silent about warehousing sex abusers near schools…such as Cupich did…and behavior like Cardinal Bergoglio/Pontiff Francis in defending sex abusers, smearing accusers, and rehabilitating and promoting both sex abusers…McCarrick and “Rev. Inzoli…and coverup artists…such as Danneels of Belgium…protector of his friend “His Excellency” Vanguelwhe…the Belgian McCarrick…who raped his own nephew), I believe that the understandable and wholesome response to photos and stories involving the message conveyed by “Cupich-McCarrick” imagery is this:
The problem with all of the above named high-ranking clerics etc etc etc, is that they are simply all of the same mind, “the mind of McCarrick” (to paraphrase St. Paul).
If this is the point, then the DDWDS angle is irrelevant. CWP aimed wrongly. Instead, they could have produced an op-ed about corruption in the Church, from John Paul II and Benedict XVI on down. Or out.
Mr Thompson is an opinion writer. In other words, a gossip columnist. Is that the kind of journalism that good Catholics aspire to produce, read, and desire? Mr Thompson is essentially the same as the rest of us here: we offer opinions on stuff. And sometimes we find a picture, a tweet, a snapchat to back up what we believe or want to believe. When our opinions offer untruths, it is detraction. Then it becomes a grave sin against the Commandments.
“The problem with all of the above named high-ranking clerics etc etc etc, is that they are simply all of the same mind …”
I can think of a few feminists who might say the same. Their problem would be that they are all clerics–all men, in other words.
Mr. Flowerday:
Your contempt for Damian Thompson is not a reasonable argument, and it gives the impression that your intention id to ignore the case of then-Archbishop Bergoglio and his defense of the predator Julio Grassi.
The accusation made by Thompson is that the video shows the Pontiff Francis in the act of denying that he defended and tried to protect Julio Grassi.
Multiple sources in Argentina and outside it, have stated that Archbishop Bergoglio defended Grassi, and spent millions of Church dollars doing it, and smearing Grassi’s accusers. Among the sources are a judge on the Argentine high court, who stated that Archbishop Bergoglio tried to intervene in the trial by submitting the reported “defense/smear” to him, presumably with the intent that it be shared with other judges on the Argentine supreme court, as an inside maneuver, an act hidden from the eyes of Argentine public.
The video shows a reporter confronting the Pontiff Francis about his role in defending Grassi, and all can see that the Pontiff denies it.
This matter is not the first denial, as in a recent hagiography of the former Archbishop Bergoglio, the then-Archbishop says he never had any sex abuse issues when he was tbe Archbishop. I believe that statement, if memory serves, was made in Austin Ivereigh’s book in Pontiff F, “The Great Reformer.” We can all go find it, as it is in print now.
When a is charge made, then we are on the ground of rebuttable presumptions. Silence in the face of charges involving sex abuse are not “Christ-like,” as many opinion-peddlers prefer to insist.
The fact of Grassi’s abuse has been decided in the Argentine high court, and the charges that Archbishop Bergoglio orchestrated a behind the curtsin defense if Grassi are made by people in Argentina, including one of the high court judges.
The people making these charges are doing it publicly, in writing snd here in video.
Luke any man, Pontiff Francis is duty bound to answer, and others are duty bound to press the charge, and Thompson and others are doing it.
The charge is very consistent with the behavior pattern of Pontiff Francis regarding sex abusers (e.g., Inzoli of Italy) and coverup Cardinals (e.g., Danneels of Belgium).
The pattern of behavior is a fact, and the charges are lsid in public.
Pretending that this particular Pontiff is above it all shows a degree of “devotion” to this particular Pontiff.
Whether or not there is a comparable degree devotion to the pursuit of truth is in question.
The preference for avoidance and silence on the matter may very likely explain why the Pontiff Francis has avoided traveling to visit his home country.
Pretending reality isn’t happening is a bad modus operandi for the Church.
It ought to trade that in for a pursuit of the truth.
That might cause us all to intersect with The Man Who Is The Truth.
I hope it does, in every case, including those involving the Pontiff Francis.
“I take seriously my obligation to …pray, as Jesus did the night before he died, that all may be one,” he [Cupich] wrote.
If God had wanted the Church to be one according to Bergoglio and Cupich, He surely would have let us know. NB: Cupich does not define his ‘one.’ It’s a sure bet that his meaning differs from mine and my Catholic friends.
Meanwhile, I and my family shall follow the Lord and the Church He handed onto His apostles. When the one big moshey mess of immoral relativist hierarchs claim the Church must follow their way of progress, I’ll pray the breath of God to blow them away like the fluff of cottonwood seeds. And He shall.
Cupich is one of the most notorious coverup artists in the US Episcopate. When he was in charge of the Josephinum in Ohio he allowed it to be turned into a gay bathhouse. Whe he was Bishop of Spokane he allowed the Jesuits to turn Gonzaga University into a retirement home for predator priests from Alaska. He has continued to cover up sexual abuse as Archbishop of Chicago. And yet, despite all this (or possibly because of it) Pope Bergoglio continues to reward and promote him. It is long overdue for him to exchange his red hat and cassock for an orange jumpsuit.
What’s in yellow, below:
comments containing … personal attacks
Mr du Toit, can you prove these allegations?
Look: I get the culture of anti-celebrity. It’s a flip side of hero-worship. And many, many contemporary heroes have been sullied: Maciel, Law, Finn, Nienstedt, Corapi, etc.. We dislike someone in the public eye–what they did, the way they look, an opinion we don’t like.
When we chase after a hero–a mentor we know, a saint we can read about–we engage our faith constructively. Does the picture above engage us to grow closer to Jesus Christ? Do the allegations about bathhouses, retirement homes, lavender mafia, etc. help us in faith? Or do they stir up passions about which we can never satisfy? Cardinal Cupich isn’t going to jail anytime soon. Just standing next to a sex predator isn’t a crime. Some people have even been made saints despite having such a history.
I congratulate CWR on being open enough and faithful enough to print items like this that attack those opposed to the Church.
Onward all…we are in this together.