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.”
[…]
As a back-bleacher observer, yours truly claims no special insights nor credentials on when Gaza or any war remains a “just war,” or not.
It might be also that Just-War theory, itself—which assumes disruption between symmetrically conflicting claims—is not up to our surreal situation? Beginning probably with total mobilization and universal conscription under Napoleon and certainly amplified by technological multiplier in the 20th Century.
There were 78 million deaths in the Second World War. And, two/thirds of these were civilians.
The same ratio as in Gaza when we consider that maybe 12,000 of the 35,000 or so are Hamas militants. And, considering that the stated Hamas endgame is to not only defeat Israel, but to push it into the sea. Annihilation. The invoked “integrity of language” versus terrible power of words (as also in 1941 and the cross-culturally incoherent: “unconditional surrender”?).
How to even begin to weigh proportionality? Or, as in another early instance, the reasonable chance of success?
At the front end of the Second World War an isolated Poland accepted the solitary burden of going to war against Hitler, “…despite the clear inferiority of her military and technological forces. At that moment the Polish authorities judged that this was the only way to defend the future of Europe [!] and the European spirit [!]” (John Paul II, “Memory and Identity,” Rizzoli, 2005, p. 141).
Does a fireman negotiate with a fire?
And, yet, four years after the treachery of Pearl Harbor (or, now, after October 7, 2023?), President Truman was horrified at his (non-precision) atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He declared “that there would be no more atomic bombing, that the idea of killing another 100,000 people was too horrible” (notes from the Wallace Diary, August 10, 1945); and “I couldn’t help but think of the necessity of blotting out women, children and noncombatants” (Speech to the Grid Iron Dinner, Dec. 15, 1945).
SUMMARY: The “vision of a peaceful world,” and the boundaries of defensive warfare? Surreal mathematics for at least two centuries?
The way to determine proportionality is according to the test in the English case of Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2013] UKSC 39, to which no objection can be taken on any ground of divine law:
(1) whether the objective of the measure is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a protected right, (2) whether the measure is rationally connected to the objective, (3) whether a less intrusive measure could have been used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the objective, and (4) whether, balancing the severity of the measure’s effects on the rights of the persons to whom it applies against the importance of the objective, to the extent that the measure will contribute to its achievement, the former outweighs the latter…. In essence, the question at step four is whether the impact of the rights infringement is disproportionate to the likely benefit of the impugned measure.
Adapting to the case of war, the test in relation to a claim of jus in bello is: (1) whether the military objective is sufficiently important to justify acts which kill protected persons and destroy protected property, (2) whether the measure is rationally connected to the objective, (3) whether a less lethal and destructive measure could have been used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the military objective, and (4) whether, balancing the severity of the measure’s effects on protected persons and property against the importance of the objective, to the extent that the measure will contribute to its achievement, the former outweighs the latter. The application of these tests determine that an act is either a war crime or a lawful act of war.
The Holy Land Catholic leaders for statement on “just war”, and that Israel’s use of armed force is disproportionate and therefore unjust is thus wholly indefensible.
The Palestine Liberation Organisation has always maintained in its Charter of 1968, “Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.” This is perfectly consistent with the rule of “uti possidetis juris”, which dictates that the boundaries of a state emergent on the territory hitherto of a Non-Self-Governing Territory, a League of Nations Mandate, a United Nations Trust Territory, or a member of a federation that ceases to exist politically, shall be the pre-existing administrative boundaries.
The State of Israel proclaimed on 14 May 1948 immediately acquired full sovereign title to the whole of what had been Mandate Palestine, such that recognition of its title to any part of the territory entails recognition of its title to the whole.
On 15 May 1948 several armies of Arab states invaded the territory of Israel for the purpose of destroying its political independence together with its Jewish population – this fact discloses the responsibility of Arab states – and of the Islamic Republic of Iran from 1979 – for a war of aggression of the highest degree of gravity, and which has a continuing character to this day save in relation to Egypt and Jordan, which ceased participation in 1979 and 1994 respectively.
The occupation by Egypt and Jordan of territory formerly belonging to Mandate Palestine was illegal and incapable of derogating from its status as integral parts of the State of Israel, and was incombatible with the provision of the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations And Co-Operation Among States in Accordance With the Charter Of The United Nations (GAR 2625) adopted On 24 October 1970: “ No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.”
By the end of 1950, Arabs resident in territories occupied by Jordan were offered and given Jordanian citizenship, and they and their descendants remain Jordanian citizens in law – they thereby ceased to have standing to claim self-determination as Palestinians with respect to any state other than Jordan, or to any territory located to the west of the Jordan.
In general, no person of Palestinian identity may, in pursuing a claim of self-determination, use means amounting to collaboration with a state or states waging aggressive war, let alone for the purpose, pubclicly stated by Hamas, of putting the Jews to genocide both in Israel and elsewhere and of establishing the false and blasphemous religion of Islam as the public religion of the state to the extreme endangerment of the salvation of souls.
The stated purpose of Israel’s resort to war is the destruction of Hamas as a polical and military force and the protection of the population of Israel from genocidal acts which, under the law of Israel of 1950, carry the death penalty. Further legitimate aims are the reintegration of the national territory of Israel and the extirpation of the political and military expression of “the diabolical sect of the reprobate and faithless Mahomet” (cf. Pope Callixtus III).
The means used by Israel in pursuit of these aims are rationally connected to them and amount to lawful acts of war and not to any war crimes provable on the facts that: (1) Hamas combatants disguise themselves as non-combatant civilians thereby placing on the Prosecutor the burden to prove that an apparent civilian was taking no active part in hostilities; and (2) the ratio of civilian to combatant fatalities in the population of Gaza is one to one, far below the norm of nine to one consistent with the lawful use of force in urban warfare – thus, the ratio is not so far in excess of the norm as to enable proof of criminal acts amounting to war crimes, crimes against humanity.