concerns about freemasonry

[EzraJacob]

I’m not bashing, I’m pointing out facts, the mistakes of the past. There have been reformers throughout Church history and they were frequently attacked. One example, St. John of the Cross, jailed for his efforts. Jesus was a reformer, I suppose he wasn’t a very good Jew since he spoke out against those that abused their position.

So you are a “reformer”?

 

[Brian_H]

So you are a “reformer”?

I’m not interested in covering up facts or defending what is indefensible.

 

[EzraJacob]

I’m not interested in covering up facts or defending what is indefensible.

You seem also interested in slandering Popes and not follow Church teaching.

 

[Brian_H]

You seem also interested in slandering Popes and not follow Church teaching.

I’ve only tried to point out that the Church doesn’t prohibit membership in Freemasonry in spite of what many of the laity on here post. Canon 1374 does not prohibit it, the only argument of any substance is that Cardinal Ratzinger put out an opinion that membership is grave sin. That creates a potential conflict with Canon Law. I’ve asked a number of priests to clarify the issue and without exception, every single priest I’ve asked has told me that Catholics may become Freemasons. But the laity on here are authorities and they know more than priests, apparently slandering priests doesn’t cause you any concern. The other arguments that have been made are that Freemasonry is bad because we say it’s bad without any evidence to support the position other than we say it’s bad. I’m not slandering Popes, I haven’t said anything untruthful about any Pope, slander, by definition, is spreading a lie. I follow Church teaching, there is nothing you can point to that suggests I don’t. I’m not a Mason, Church teaching allows Catholics to become Masons, that gets anti-masons fired up.

 

[regression]

the only argument of any substance is that Cardinal Ratzinger put out an opinion that membership is grave sin.

Then how do you reconcile this:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19831126_declaration-masonic_en.html

In an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved and ordered the publication of this Declaration which had been decided in an ordinary meeting of this Sacred Congregation.

with your assertion that is just Cardinal Ratzinger’s opinion?

 

[Brian_H]

Then how do you reconcile this:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19831126_declaration-masonic_en.html

In an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved and ordered the publication of this Declaration which had been decided in an ordinary meeting of this Sacred Congregation.

with your assertion that is just Cardinal Ratzinger’s opinion?

That is the rub, that statement creates an apparent conflict with Canon Law. That is why I have asked a number of priests to clarify what the Church’s position is. They have all said that in America, Catholics can become Freemasons because Freemasonry does not plot against the Church or the government. The Bishop of Lincoln is the only exception I’m aware of, but I haven’t spoken with him, I’ve only read his list of “outlawed” groups.

 

[regression]

That is the rub, that statement creates an apparent conflict with Canon Law. That is why I have asked a number of priests to clarify what the Church’s position is. They have all said that in America, Catholics can become Freemasons because Freemasonry does not plot against the Church or the government. The Bishop of Lincoln is the only exception I’m aware of, but I haven’t spoken with him, I’ve only read his list of “outlawed” groups.

I guess I’m still confused why this creates a “rub”??? What part of Cannon Law is that statement conflicting with?

 

[Brian_H]

I guess I’m still confused why this creates a “rub”??? What part of Cannon Law is that statement conflicting with?

The 1917 Code of Canon Law stated: Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or against legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See. (c. 2335).

The 1983 Code of Canon Law changed that, it states: One who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or moderates such an association, however, is to be punished with an interdict. (c. 1374).

The annotations to that Canon state: While the former excommunication of Catholics who joined Masonic societies has not been repeated in this Code, a sanction can be imposed on those who join associations that work against the Church, and an interdict can be placed on those who promote or run such groups. Whether Masons fall within these strictures must now be determined by authorities within the particular churches.

Cardinal Ratzinger then issued his statement.

And here is what the Archdiocese of Los Angeles said in 2000:
Thank you for your inquiry of September 11, 2000 directed to Cardinal Mahoney, on whose behalf I am replying. The question is “whether a practicing Catholic may join a Masonic Lodge.”
Unfortunately, the matter is too complex for a straightforward “yes” or “no” answer. But at least for Catholics in the United States, I believe the answer is probably yes. Permit me to explain this qualified response.
Your letter states that a member’s “allegiance to one God is all we require.” To the extent that this is an accurate statement of the organization’s beliefs and teachings, and that its activities are humanitarian and charitable in nature, there is no reason to prevent a practicing Catholic from joining.
Past history, of course, has muddied the waters because earlier church law (prior to November 27, 1983) specifically named Masonic groups as a forbidden society (canon 2335, 1917 Code). The dialogues between Catholic and Masonic representatives in the years since the Second Vatican Council were generally very positive and yet did not resolve questions or concerns raised in certain parts of the world. As a result, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome issued a statement one day before the new Code of Canon Law took effect (November 26, 1983), in which it held that since Masonic principles were still contrary to the teachings of the Church, Catholics would commit a grave sin in belonging to Masonic associations and so could not receive Holy Communion.
Because this declaration has not been superseded by any further official statements, the question keeps recurring about its interpretation and application. There is no agreement among the experts in church law who have considered the matter. Consequently one can only judge the individual circumstances in light of the principles that clearly do apply. These principles are set forth in canons 1374 and 1364 of the 1983 Code, which forbid a Catholic from joining “an association which plots against the Church” and impose penalties for heresy under certain conditions. If “a particular Masonic lodge truly promoted heretical teaching or conspired against the interests of the Church” (Ronny E. Jenkins, “The Evolution of the Church’s Prohibition Against Catholic Membership in Freemasonry,” The Jurist, 56 (1996), pg 735,) then a Catholic would be bound to avoid membership.
The reason, then, I answer ‘probably yes’ is because I am unaware of any ideology or practice by the local lodges that challenges or subverts the doctrine and interests of the Catholic Church. In the previous paragraph, I have cited the article which best presents the current state of the question. The 1974 newspaper clipping that you enclosed with your letter probably refers to a letter written by Cardinal Seper, then in charge of the same doctrinal congregation mentioned above, which was addressed to certain bishops. In this letter one can see the movement at that time from a blanket prohibition to the application of a case-by-case judgment whether a group did in fact conspire against the Church. The history of the development of the Church’s current law suggests that this case-by-case approach is what canon 1374 on forbidden associations intends.
Please forgive this lengthy reply, but a shorter one would not do justice to those inquirers who are aware that the matter is still controversial. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to learn more about it myself, and I close by asking God’s blessing on your well-known endeavors to relieve human suffering and assist the needy.
Rev. Thomas C. Anslow, C.M., J.C.L. Judicial Vicar

 

[regression]

The 1917 Code of Canon Law stated: Those who join a Masonic sect or other societies of the same sort, which plot against the Church or against legitimate civil authority, incur ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Holy See. (c. 2335).

The 1983 Code of Canon Law changed that, it states: One who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or moderates such an association, however, is to be punished with an interdict. (c. 1374).

The annotations to that Canon state: While the former excommunication of Catholics who joined Masonic societies has not been repeated in this Code, a sanction can be imposed on those who join associations that work against the Church, and an interdict can be placed on those who promote or run such groups. Whether Masons fall within these strictures must now be determined by authorities within the particular churches.

Cardinal Ratzinger then issued his statement.

And here is what the Archdiocese of Los Angeles said in 2000:
Thank you for your inquiry of September 11, 2000 directed to Cardinal Mahoney, on whose behalf I am replying. The question is “whether a practicing Catholic may join a Masonic Lodge.”
Unfortunately, the matter is too complex for a straightforward “yes” or “no” answer. But at least for Catholics in the United States, I believe the answer is probably yes. Permit me to explain this qualified response.
Your letter states that a member’s “allegiance to one God is all we require.” To the extent that this is an accurate statement of the organization’s beliefs and teachings, and that its activities are humanitarian and charitable in nature, there is no reason to prevent a practicing Catholic from joining.
Past history, of course, has muddied the waters because earlier church law (prior to November 27, 1983) specifically named Masonic groups as a forbidden society (canon 2335, 1917 Code). The dialogues between Catholic and Masonic representatives in the years since the Second Vatican Council were generally very positive and yet did not resolve questions or concerns raised in certain parts of the world. As a result, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome issued a statement one day before the new Code of Canon Law took effect (November 26, 1983), in which it held that since Masonic principles were still contrary to the teachings of the Church, Catholics would commit a grave sin in belonging to Masonic associations and so could not receive Holy Communion.
Because this declaration has not been superseded by any further official statements, the question keeps recurring about its interpretation and application. There is no agreement among the experts in church law who have considered the matter. Consequently one can only judge the individual circumstances in light of the principles that clearly do apply. These principles are set forth in canons 1374 and 1364 of the 1983 Code, which forbid a Catholic from joining “an association which plots against the Church” and impose penalties for heresy under certain conditions. If “a particular Masonic lodge truly promoted heretical teaching or conspired against the interests of the Church” (Ronny E. Jenkins, “The Evolution of the Church’s Prohibition Against Catholic Membership in Freemasonry,” The Jurist, 56 (1996), pg 735,) then a Catholic would be bound to avoid membership.
The reason, then, I answer ‘probably yes’ is because I am unaware of any ideology or practice by the local lodges that challenges or subverts the doctrine and interests of the Catholic Church. In the previous paragraph, I have cited the article which best presents the current state of the question. The 1974 newspaper clipping that you enclosed with your letter probably refers to a letter written by Cardinal Seper, then in charge of the same doctrinal congregation mentioned above, which was addressed to certain bishops. In this letter one can see the movement at that time from a blanket prohibition to the application of a case-by-case judgment whether a group did in fact conspire against the Church. The history of the development of the Church’s current law suggests that this case-by-case approach is what canon 1374 on forbidden associations intends.
Please forgive this lengthy reply, but a shorter one would not do justice to those inquirers who are aware that the matter is still controversial. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to learn more about it myself, and I close by asking God’s blessing on your well-known endeavors to relieve human suffering and assist the needy.
Rev. Thomas C. Anslow, C.M., J.C.L. Judicial Vicar

Thank you for the reply.

May I ask where the source for the annotation is? When I look for cannon 1374 here, there doesn’t appear to be any (there doesn’t appear to be any annotations at all on the site):

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P53.HTM

Also, maybe it is just late and I am not reading your post correctly, but it says:

“Cardinal Ratzinger then issued his statement.”

then it is signed by someone else, Rev. Thomas C. Anslow, C.M., J.C.L. Judicial Vicar. Which part is Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement and which is Fr. Anslow’s?

Finally, I just stumbled across this:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19850223_declaration-masonic_articolo_en.html

At first glance it would lend credence to the fact that the Church says Catholics are not allowed to be Freemasons. However, I have not read the entire document. As my alarm clock will be yelling early tomorrow, I have to get some shut eye. I plan on reading the entire document tomorrow.

Good night, peace.

 

[Sonic]

And here is what the Archdiocese of Los Angeles said in 2000:

The letter you cited appeared in Focus magazine in January 2001. Here is a link to the original source:

msana.com/focusarchives/focusjan01.asp

In January 2002, the same magazine printed a retraction stating that the answer was wrong:

Retraction of Letter

In the January 2001 issue of Focus a letter from the Judicial Vicar of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles was reprinted. The letter concerned Masonic membership by a practicing Catholic.

Unfortunately, the response, which was a qualified affirmative reply, has been retracted. The letter of retraction is reprinted below in this issue of Focus.

The Masonic Information Center website (www.msana.com) also carries the retraction.

On 15 September 2000 I wrote you a letter in which I gave my opinion in answer to the question you had asked, “whether a practicing Catholic may join a Masonic lodge.” As you know, I gave a qualified affirmative reply (“at least for Catholics in the United States, I believe the answer is probably yes”). My qualification was based on two points, uncertainty about the beliefs and teachings of Freemasonry, especially as this may vary locally, and uncertainty about the interpretation and application of the statement issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 26 November 1983. I concluded that the historical development of the Church’s law was away from a blanket prohibition to a case-by-case assessment of what constitutes an association forbidden to Catholics.

As a result of my letter having been posted on several Masonic websites and of various inquiries this generated, it has come to my attention that my analysis was faulty, and accordingly I need to retract my opinion. I realize this will create much consternation, and I apologize for that. Please let me explain.

In early 1985 the Congregation mentioned above published an explanation of its position as given in the November 1983 statement. The explanation can be found in the English edition of the Vatican’s official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano (11 March 1985, page 2) under the title “Irreconcilability between Christian faith and Freemasonry. Reflections a year after declaration of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

The key point in the argument is that the system of symbols common to Freemasons around the world (centering on the Architect of the Universe and given added weight by the rule of secrecy) tends to foster a “supraconfessional humanitarian” way of conceiving the divine that neutralizes or replaces the faith dimension of our relationship with God. Even though given lodges may abstain from endorsing any particular position, including one that considers religious faith to be a matter of indifference (i.e., nothing more than a matter of personal preference), the contemporary world’s social atmosphere of moral and religious relativism creates a climate in which a merely humanitarian symbol system works to undermine the religious faith by which we receive God’s revelation.

It was for this reason that the Congregation declared that local church authorities are not competent to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations, and has reserved to itself the right to make any such pronouncements. Because of the serious danger posed to individual Catholics by the subtle but real influence of symbols described above, the Congregation declared that it would be objectively a grave sin for a Catholic to join a Masonic lodge. The prohibition from receiving Holy Communion is meant to highlight the gravity of the situation.

Let me add that the Congregation’s explanation explicitly acknowledges “the efforts made by those who, with the due authorization of this Congregation, have sought to establish a dialogue with representatives of Freemasonry.” I hope that this dialogue continues and that it will serve to clarify the philosophical, theological, and anthropological principles by which we understand our roles in human society.

I regret that my earlier letter has undoubtedly led people to misunderstand the concern behind the official statement of the Church’s position regarding membership in Masonic societies. I ask that my letter of 15 September 2000 be removed from all websites and be replaced with this new letter.

Sincerely,

Rev. Thomas C. Anslow, C.M., J.C.L. Judicial Vicar

12 February 2002

source:msana.com/focusarchives/focusjan02.asp#retract

Unfortunately, many Masonic sources on the internet have failed to post this retraction.

 

[Brian_H]

Thank you for the reply.

May I ask where the source for the annotation is? When I look for cannon 1374 here, there doesn’t appear to be any (there doesn’t appear to be any annotations at all on the site):

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P53.HTM

Also, maybe it is just late and I am not reading your post correctly, but it says:

“Cardinal Ratzinger then issued his statement.”

then it is signed by someone else, Rev. Thomas C. Anslow, C.M., J.C.L. Judicial Vicar. Which part is Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement and which is Fr. Anslow’s?

Finally, I just stumbled across this:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19850223_declaration-masonic_articolo_en.html

At first glance it would lend credence to the fact that the Church says Catholics are not allowed to be Freemasons. However, I have not read the entire document. As my alarm clock will be yelling early tomorrow, I have to get some shut eye. I plan on reading the entire document tomorrow.

Good night, peace.

The Code of Canon Law I have is the study edition from Paulist Press, cause I’m just that cool. In the edition I have the annotations are on pages 1583-1584. I can’t find them online either.

I’m sorry that I didn’t make my post clearer, when I said Cardinal Ratzinger issued his statement, I was referring to his condemnation of Freemasonry that was put out in 1983. Then that last part is the statement the Archdiocese of LA released that was written by Fr. Anslow.

Thanks, peace to you also

 

[riffer791]

despite weather or not catholics are alowed to join freemasons (and i dont believe for a second that we are)
what of value do the freemasons have that the Universal Church cant offer? why look elsewhere for guidance and brotherhood?
especially an organisation condemned by the Church.
if you want to be charitable and be part of a fraterntity, join Knights Of Columbus, or Knights Of The Southern Cross if your in australia. or St Vicncent De Paul society, or Caritas, join an organisation within the Church of Jesus Christ not one condemned by it.
if any of you who defend freemasonry really want to be catholics, then youll turn your back on masonry and come home to the One True Church.

also heres a bit of scripture i thaught is worth mentioning.
Timothy 2: 24-26
And the Lords servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, patient, correcting opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and that they may escape the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

 

[jam070406]

That is the rub, that statement creates an apparent conflict with Canon Law. That is why I have asked a number of priests to clarify what the Church’s position is. They have all said that in America, Catholics can become Freemasons because Freemasonry does not plot against the Church or the government. The Bishop of Lincoln is the only exception I’m aware of, but I haven’t spoken with him, I’ve only read his list of “outlawed” groups.

The statement clears any doubt. It specifically mentions Freemasonry as the topic, regardless whether or not it is plotting against the Church, and states Catholics are forbidden to join, are in grave sin if they do and cannot receive communion.
It’s an authoritative declaration from the Magisterum.

 

[TrentCath]

I’m not so arrogant to believe that Popes don’t make mistakes, apparently you are that arrogant and uninformed.

Who’s insulting who now?

I suppose the Church didn’t teach that the earth revolved around the sun,

Yes that was the case but not as a Dogma and nor was infalibility involved.

it didn’t put Galileo on house arrest,

Sadly rather than reading up on the subject you appear to have based your views on anti-catholic misinformation, Galileo was punished for his arrogance rather than his views per se.

didn’t condemn the small pox vaccine,

Can’t admit to having heard about that

and I could go on and on. The point is, I’m not so ignorant or arrogant as to try and argue the Church hasn’t made a multitude of mistakes.

No but you are apparently arrogant enough to believe you know more than the church in this matter

Pope Leo’s position isn’t complicated at all, there is good and evil. The Church is good, everything that is outside the Church which includes democratic governments, is evil. It’s interesting that you would suggest it needs to be seen in light of the French Revolution, which took place almost 100 years before he wrote Humanum Genus.

The fact you think that you think the French Revolution didn’t had any effect on his thinking just shows your lack of knowledge on this subject. And I am afraid Pope Leo XIII’s position is indeed complicated, it must be seen in context, further it is saddening that you have raised your countries constitution from an opinion to holding equal weight to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ.

Most historians would argue that the Italian unification and the loss of the Pope’s kingdom, the Papal States, were what was on his mind. I see you don’t believe in separation of church in state, in my opinion you are an ignorant tyrannical fanatic, no offense. Muslims that know they have the one true faith are hellbent on imposing Sharia law and converting you, so you better hope it’s your version of no separation of church and state that is imposed, because if it’s theirs, you are going to have a bad time.

No I don’t, neither for that matter does the Catholic Church. Some within the church may espouse that view but the view of the Magisterium is clear, seperation of church and state is a disaster and endangers the salvation of souls. Your opinon again shows your total ignorance of anything Catholic and your appalling catechesis.

Again, for the I don’t know how many times now, citing someone else’s opinion and claiming it is evidence IS NOT evidence. I guess you don’t understand what that word means.

For a CATHOLIC, the pope is not just ‘someone else’ and his teachings and encyclicals very much count as evidence. To believe that these popes and the church itself condemned freemasonry without evidence is a gross slander against them and the church. In commiting this slander you not only demonstrate your total lack of the Catholic Faith but also your arrogance and ignorance.

Again if you read the encyclicals you will see the evidence the popes refer to.

I pay attention to what Jesus said, that gives me a clear conscious and I’m not worried. Good luck to you though.

‘Who is the Pope? The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, the successor of St Peter and the Head of The Church on Earth’ Perhaps you should also pay attention to what they say

 

[regression]

Thank you Sonic for your reply. We can now disregard the letter posted by Rev. Thomas C. Anslow which seems to indicate Catholics can join the Freemasons.

So, we are left with this:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19831126_declaration-masonic_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19850223_declaration-masonic_articolo_en.html

Both say Catholics cannot join the Freemasons.

The only thing left hanging is the annotation Brian listed saying:

Whether Masons fall within these strictures must now be determined by authorities within the particular churches.

My question is, what is a particular church? Does that refer to a local parish? A rite within the Catholic church?

 

[jam070406]

Do you have any impiricle evidence to base that on?

All the evidence I need is in the current society we live in.

 

[Brian_H]

“Yes that was the case but not as a Dogma and nor was infalibility involved.”

Papal Infallibility was declared by Vatican I in 1870, I hope you are aware of that. Are you suggesting that the Church telling Catholics what groups they can be members of is a matter of dogma? I disagree, it’s an attempt to micromanage lives and control people and it has nothing to do with morality. Based on what you’ve written, I can see that you are all in favor of trying to tell people what to do and telling them how to live their lives

“Galileo was punished for his arrogance rather than his views per se.”

That is an interesting way to spin facts. Galileo pointed out that scientific evidenced proved the Church was wrong, that to you is arrogance. A Church that disregards science and insists on it’s own uninformed views after they have been proven to be incorrect is much more arrogant.

“further it is saddening that you have raised your countries constitution from an opinion to holding equal weight to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ.”

The Constitution is an opinion? I can tell you aren’t a legal scholar. The Constitution is the supreme law of this country. You as a Catholic are commanded to respect civil laws. I guess you think you can ignore that aspect of Church teaching since it doesn’t further your narrowminded unenlightened views. The fact that you try to argue that separation of church and state are bad is further evidence of your ignorance. If you had your way, you would return humanity to the dark ages. Here are a couple of examples of why state sponsored religion is not very good: the Taliban, the Thirty Years War, the French Religious Wars, the English Civil War. Please educate yourself about the suffering caused by these events. What is appalling is your lack of even an elementary understanding of history.

“Again if you read the encyclicals you will see the evidence the popes refer to.”

They don’t contain evidence, they contain a person’s opinions, opinions based upon speculation and conjecture are not evidence. I see that you can’t understand that. You can’t engage in critical thinking, you can only resort to circular logic. The Church said so and the Church can’t be wrong because the Church says it can’t be wrong. You put rules and dogmas before love. So did the Pharrisees, read the Gospel, you’ll see what Jesus thinks of religious leaders that put rules and dogma before people, compassion, and love.

 

[Brian_H]

All the evidence I need is in the current society we live in.

The free hospitals for children that are totally funded by Freemasons?

 

[rinnie]

Personally I don’t really care, it’s enough for me that my church forbids membership to never step foot near a Mason ‘temple’ or what have you, but certainly you must realize what you’re saying here. People serving Satan are perfectly capable of doing charity work.

Not that I’m saying necessarily that mason serve Satan. As I said, I don’t really give a hoot. I just wanted to point out a flaw in the argument.

Is there another group called the Knights Templar? Because they were a Catholic Order. They’re perfectly Roman Catholic.

I am with you. You either believe that you are in the right church or you don’t. I am Roman Catholic and my Church also forbids it.

So if the Pope says nope! ITs nope. I must obey.

 

[jam070406]

The free hospitals for children that are totally funded by Freemasons?

More like the contraception, abortion, pornography, homosexual “marriage”, remove God from public square influence.