Just for clarification…I’ve read that the prohibition of Catholics joining the Free Masons was also not found in the new code although it was in the 1917 code, like headcoverings for women. Does this mean Catholics are now allowed to be Free Masons?
Ovenbird,
This point is often raised by some who insist that the universal obligation for women to cover their heads in the former canon 1286 continues. It is featured on several well known websites.
They point out that the former canon 2335 prohibited membership in the Masonic sect and other associations of the same kind that plot against the Church. They also observe that canon 1374 of the new code did not mention the Masons by name.
So they note that canon 6 is used to explain why the former obligation of covering is abrogated as a universal law of the Church even though the new code does not remotely mention the substance of old canon 1286.
Then they ask why that would not also be true of the Masons. Are these not similar cases? They conclude that canon 6 does not apply at all, and therefore assert that the obligation of covering survives as a universally imposed precept.
Canon 6 does work, but different parts of it apply to the different questions in different ways.
These are not similar cases.
Covering falls under canon 6 §1, 1º. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917. If the substance of old canon 1286, a universal disciplinary law, is not repeated at all in the new code, the obligation would be abrogated.
Prohibited membership falls under canon 6 §1, 3º. A universal penal law issued by the Apostolic See would be abrogated unless contained in the new code. The question is whether the Apostolic See considers the universal penal law on prohibited membership to be contained in the new code. If the substance of old canon 2335, a universal penal law, is not repeated in the new canon 1374, this prohibition would be abrogated.
However it is contained in the new code, just reworded (as Sure essentially observed).
The old canon 2335 treated Masonic sects and other associations which plotted against the church and stated that those who joined them were ipso facto excommunicated. It names the Masons by name.
The new canon 1374 states that 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. It does not name the Masons by name.
In the face of questions, on 26 November 1983, the day before the effective date for the new code, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith made it clear that Masons continued to fall under penalty since they were contained in that wider category of associations which plot against the Church. As the Congregation stated:
“This Sacred Congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance in due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.”
(
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19831126_declaration-masonic_en.html)
This was prudent. Commentators on the old code noted that groups plotting against the Church frequently changed their names or bore names that concealed the fact of alliance with the Masonic sect in its different costumes. This had been a problem since the original excommunication of those who joined the masons through “In eminenti” (28 April 1738) by Pope Clement XII. {
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Clem12/c15inemengl.htm}
Thus the material of the former canon was contained in the new code. Its substance was not changed, only the mode of expression. The canonical tradition against membership in groups plotting against the Church was clear and it continued. Since the Masons fell into this category, it was not necessary to mention them by name. So the prohibition was continued under the new code. This met the standard for the survival of a universal penal law under the terms of canon 6 §1, 3º.
In contrast to this statement taken even in advance of the new code about the Masons as well as a statement a year later (“Irreconciliability between Christian Faith and Free Masonry”) though, there has not been any similar clarification by CDF regarding the former canon 1286. It is not unreasonable to conclude that there are no questions about its abrogation that warrant a declaration in the opinion of the Holy See.
