D
davidv
Guest
How does this one person’s agreement, or lack thereof, have bearing on the truthfulness of the Church’s teachings, particularly that of declaring the participation in Freemasnonry a serious sin?
- Status
D
DavidSears
Guest
Look at page 2. Post 18. How the poster called the other a fallen Catholic.
Now I try to keep the church’s teachings, but sometimes I have questions, and I either talk to a priest, or I have to pray about it for understanding.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
That’s fine, but don’t confuse one poster’s extra ‘fallen Catholic’ as being the CHURCH’s teaching.
Thing is, suppose I say that anybody who says that gravity doesn’t exist is WRONG and is a 'fallen Catholic" for saying so. Now, the part about the person being a fallen Catholic if he denies gravity is wrong --BUT the part about the person being wrong if he claims gravity doesn’t exist is CORRECT. Gravity exists, and denying it exists is wrong.
SO: The teaching of the Church that a Catholic may not be a freemason is RIGHT. Whether or not the person who goes against that teaching is a ‘fallen Catholic’ is open to debate (because the person might have joined in IGNORANCE of the Church’s rule, or might be confused), but the fact that joining the masons is against Church teaching is correct.
So yes indeed and you are quite correct to go and ask your priest, but do remember that if the Church DOES teach something, you can have questions but ultimately, you have to at least agree that even if you can’t understand WHY the teaching is as it is, you accept that it’s right because the Church says so (matters of faith and morals and what the Church REALLY teaches).
D
DavidSears
Guest
I didn’t say that the church’s teaching is that the poster is a fallen Catholic, I was asking thistle if he/she accepted every single thing the church ever taught. For example, say if the church had a teaching that was very confusing to me and not understandable. I ask a priest, he explains it, I still don’t understand. I personally just list it as a possiblity. That teaching is possibly correct. I don’t want to blindly accept something if I don’t understand it. That would be like signing a contract that you don’t know what it entails. I love God above all things, so I am really careful about what I agree to. Now I am not a heretic, I am just a bit scrupulous.
Having said that, I DO agree that Christians should not be Freemasons. I read an article about some of their beliefs, and whether or not its true, it sounds like Christians should stay away.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I see, but I didn’t say anything about BLIND acceptance.
One can for example not completely understand the law of gravity (I’m not a physicist) but still accept it. I do not have to have the understanding of a theologian to accept the Immaculate Conception. And that means I don’t have to have the understanding of say Aquinas to accept the Church’s teaching on, say, contraception being wrong, or gay marriage being wrong. I’m sure I don’t have the understanding of a canon lawyer or even of some of the really, really knowledgable Catholics, but even as Jane Average who does not FULLY (but who certainly isn’t blindly UNKNOWING) understand, I can accept the Church’s authority in teaching. I don’t have to say, "because I don’t fully understand, I can disagree’. . .I must say, “because I don’t fully understand I must try my hardest TO understand, but if I can’t understand, I can say, Though I do not fully understand, I accept the Church’s authority on this subject.”
D
DavidSears
Guest
Understood! I try to do that as hard as I can. Its just, in a world with almost 2 and a half billion Christians, with 30,000 denominations, all claiming to be right, its hard for me. I accept most of the teachings of the chuch (gay marriage and contraception). Egh, I think I should have worded it better. Not “blindingly” following, but accepting while having inner conflict about it. For example, I stopped praying the rosary or the Hail Mary at church because I only feel comfortable praying to the Trinity.
T
thistle
Guest
I accept and agree with all Church teachings. If something came up I didn’t understand I would make all efforts to understand it and if I could not understand it I would still accept it because I know (as all Catholics should know) that in matters of faith and morals the Church can NEVER be in error.
D
DavidSears
Guest
Understood, and I’m sorry if I offended you! Sometimes I don’t think before I say the… I mean, type them
S
Slaney
Guest
It supposedly started from the time of king Herod, hardly a friend of the catholic church…
T
thistle
Guest
No problem.Understood, and I’m sorry if I offended you! Sometimes I don’t think before I say the… I mean, type them
M
MysticSeeker
Guest
Below is the text of a letter from the Office of the Archdiocesan Tribunal, Archdiocese of Los Angeles, dated September 15, 2000, to the Masonic Service Bureau of North America:
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 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
B
bmonk
Guest
This discussion seems to have gotten bogged down in minutia and other problems of too many discussions, so I will take an opportunity to get back to the original question.
“But with all of this, why exactly has the church prohibited Catholics from joining Mason lodges?”
One of the problems is the Mason/Freemason tradition of secrecy: we simply do not know fully what they stand for and what their aims are. True, the Catholics have secrets too–but limited (in theory) to what is truly essential, such as the Seal of the Confessional, or secrecy regarding the voting in the Conclaves, as we saw this past week. We have, in recent years, seen some of the problems of secrecy–such as were revealed in the clergy sexual abuse scandals. But our doctrines and ideals are out there for anyone to see.
The Knights of Columbus are a model for Catholic Fraternal Orders, in that the clergy is allowed to sit in on initiation rites and other meetings, so that there is no question that untoward things may be happening.
Edit: As for Dan Brown, I recall reading The DaVinci Code. One of the first pages of that work lists a dozen or so “Historical Facts”. I do not recall that any of them were actually true. That, in the event, told me everything I really needed to know of his works, since there were remarkably few other facts or allegations in the rest of the 200+ pages.
“But with all of this, why exactly has the church prohibited Catholics from joining Mason lodges?”
One of the problems is the Mason/Freemason tradition of secrecy: we simply do not know fully what they stand for and what their aims are. True, the Catholics have secrets too–but limited (in theory) to what is truly essential, such as the Seal of the Confessional, or secrecy regarding the voting in the Conclaves, as we saw this past week. We have, in recent years, seen some of the problems of secrecy–such as were revealed in the clergy sexual abuse scandals. But our doctrines and ideals are out there for anyone to see.
The Knights of Columbus are a model for Catholic Fraternal Orders, in that the clergy is allowed to sit in on initiation rites and other meetings, so that there is no question that untoward things may be happening.
Edit: As for Dan Brown, I recall reading The DaVinci Code. One of the first pages of that work lists a dozen or so “Historical Facts”. I do not recall that any of them were actually true. That, in the event, told me everything I really needed to know of his works, since there were remarkably few other facts or allegations in the rest of the 200+ pages.
D
Doxiemom
Guest
My husband is catholic and back in the 70’s he was invited to join a masonic lodge. he wanted to because at his work many were mason and it would be an enjoyable thing to "buddy’ with and may indeed aid in his promotions.
he went to our priest of our church who told him that it was now okay for him to join and even had a letter stating so.
While he never desired to go beyond the 3rd degree and is no longer active in the lodge, he would not quit and still pays his dues. It was a valid, church approved venture.
A lot of this seems to be centuries old feuds between the church and the trade of masonery and both held onto their secrets and their politic as the church and givernment were quite melded together.
To apply this to the world of today just seems like a waste of time. And as for a person who joins what is now a fraternity to be damned to hell, well,…come now.
he went to our priest of our church who told him that it was now okay for him to join and even had a letter stating so.
While he never desired to go beyond the 3rd degree and is no longer active in the lodge, he would not quit and still pays his dues. It was a valid, church approved venture.
A lot of this seems to be centuries old feuds between the church and the trade of masonery and both held onto their secrets and their politic as the church and givernment were quite melded together.
To apply this to the world of today just seems like a waste of time. And as for a person who joins what is now a fraternity to be damned to hell, well,…come now.
E
EricFilmer
Guest
It is my understanding that Catholics are not supposed to join any fraternal organization that requires an oath of loyalty that is considered more binding than their duties to God, the Church and/or their families. I don’t know what is specifically involved in terms of the oath an initiate to Masonry takes, but if it demands loyalty to Masonry above the things I mentioned then that, in and of itself, would bar Catholic participation.
T
The_Templar
Guest
T
The_Templar
Guest
Masonry does not consider any oath “more binding than their duties to God, the Church, and/or their families” quite the opposite.
- Status