Would You Join a Masonic Lodge?

[dekeguy]

As a practicing Roman Catholic I am somewhat confused by the position attrtibuted to the RC Church regarding Freemasonry. Before I joined my Grandfather's Lodge I asked my Archbishop to explain what was the straight story. He said that the Church was opposed to any organization that professed Athesim or anti-religious policies. After the experience of the French revolution where certain French lodges denounced belief in God and attempted to eliminate religion the RC Church condemned the Masonic order. Back in the 1960s Pope Paul VI met with the then Duke of Kent, Grand Master of Masons in England and Wales, who pointed out that regular official Masons were equally opposed to those types of organizations and likewise condemned any who fell into that category. The mistrust and animosity seems to have been an long term outgrowth of Catholic-Protestant misconceptions and misunderstandings. The Duke assured the Pope that the Masons had no fundamental objections to RC members and the Pope said that as a result of this illuminating discussion he had no objection to Catholic laity becoming (regular) Masons. If clergy wished to join they should obtain permission from their Bishop or Abbot or Religious Order Superior. The current Duke (his son and also Grand Master) has been very open to Catholic Masons and very supportive of cooperation and mutuality of interests with the RC Church.
Years later when I was in the UK I asked the late Cardinal Basil Hume about this and he said that Pope John Paul II was widely quoted in the press as saying that he saw no problem with Catholic Laity joining a "regular" lodge but a very grave problem with Catholics becoming involved with any of the "irregular" lodges or purportedly masonic organizations which allowed antireligious, athestic, or politically anti-church aims or professed attitudes. The quotation from the then Cardinal Ratzinger predates Pope John Paul II's quoted (and not to my knowledge ever denied or refuted) comments by several years. I am unaware of any new statements by Pope Benedict to contradict the comments of Pope John Paul. Absent any new information I am at a loss to figure out what the problem would be for Catholics to be Masons and Masons to be Catholics. Anybody have anything that would be helpful in this?

[Drolefille]

I had this long typed up thing, but basically this : http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/freemasonry.htm
Approved by the Pope, issued by Ratzinger. I found no documentation of JPII saying anything else unless you include those world conspiracy sites that say the Pope IS a Mason which strikes me as just a wee little bit unlikely. So I don't believe that there were comments by JPII to contradict Ratzinger's (again, papally approved) document. And that document was only clarification that the same rules still apply.

Being a Mason as a Roman Catholic is being in a state of sin and one should not receive Holy Communion. (Not personal, dekeguy)

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Being a Mason as a Roman Catholic is being in a state of sin and one should not receive Holy Communion. (Not personal, dekeguy)

Yeah, nothing personal. Hope that you enjoy the brimstone.

just kidding, with both of you

[dekeguy]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I had this long typed up thing, but basically this : http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/freemasonry.htm
Approved by the Pope, issued by Ratzinger. I found no documentation of JPII saying anything else unless you include those world conspiracy sites that say the Pope IS a Mason which strikes me as just a wee little bit unlikely. So I don't believe that there were comments by JPII to contradict Ratzinger's (again, papally approved) document. And that document was only clarification that the same rules still apply.

Being a Mason as a Roman Catholic is being in a state of sin and one should not receive Holy Communion. (Not personal, dekeguy)

=============================

My concerns stem from the date of Cardinal Ratzinger's (as he was then known) document (1983) and my conversation with the late Cardinal Basil Hume in the mid-1990s. I fully support the Church's position that a Catholic should not join in anti-religious or athestic groups who work against belief in God. I am a convinced Roman Catholic, I am also a Jesuit educated Roman Catholic and the Jesuits constantly posed the rhetorical question "when God gave you a brain, do you suppose He had in mind that you do something with it"? When faced with a complicated question we were taught to think it through to its conclusion. It seems to me that guidance, received years after the date of the document in question, from a brilliant, superbly educated, and deeply devout Cardinal Archbishop who was a close personal friend of our late Pope John Paul II, would speak to me with very considerable authority. I think that perhaps there is something of a comparison of apples and oranges involved here. My understanding is that the Pope was, and rightly so, dead set against involvement with irregular (outlaw, for want of a better word) so-called masonic organizations. My understanding is that regular Masons, which include all those recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England and Wales, do not fit the definition of those prohibited groups. Regular Masons are in complete agreement with the Church's objections against these athestic and/or antireligeous groups and likewise forbid communication with any of these irregular bodies on pain of expulsion from regular Masonry.
Any other Masons, Catholics, and/or Catholic Masons have any thoughts or helpful comments?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

=============================

My concerns stem from the date of Cardinal Ratzinger's (as he was then known) document (1983) and my conversation with the late Cardinal Basil Hume in the mid-1990s. I fully support the Church's position that a Catholic should not join in anti-religious or athestic groups who work against belief in God. I am a convinced Roman Catholic, I am also a Jesuit educated Roman Catholic and the Jesuits constantly posed the rhetorical question "when God gave you a brain, do you suppose He had in mind that you do something with it"? When faced with a complicated question we were taught to think it through to its conclusion. It seems to me that guidance, received years after the date of the document in question, from a brilliant, superbly educated, and deeply devout Cardinal Archbishop who was a close personal friend of our late Pope John Paul II, would speak to me with very considerable authority. I think that perhaps there is something of a comparison of apples and oranges involved here. My understanding is that the Pope was, and rightly so, dead set against involvement with irregular (outlaw, for want of a better word) so-called masonic organizations. My understanding is that regular Masons, which include all those recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England and Wales, do not fit the definition of those prohibited groups. Regular Masons are in complete agreement with the Church's objections against these athestic and/or antireligeous groups and likewise forbid communication with any of these irregular bodies on pain of expulsion from regular Masonry.
Any other Masons, Catholics, and/or Catholic Masons have any thoughts or helpful comments?

The problem with that is, you have no proof of such statements. There has been no revoking of the rules and even a casual statement by JPII would need to be made official for that occur.

I had a Jesuit Catholic university experience and I do love them for their love of learning. You understanding appears to be based on hearsay because I can find no documentation of any change on the doctrine. It is not atheism that is at issue with the Church, the Church considers the theology propagated by Masonry to be incompatible with that of the church. (Got any issues with that statement, take it up with them, not me, I'm not really an expert at anything but googling)

It's still an excommunicable offense.

[dekeguy]

Drolfille,
Please don't see this as trying to pick a fight. I am not, I am just trying to work this out in my own mind as well. It is part of that "think it through to its conclusion" bit I mentioned earlier.
As you are a Jesuit educated Catholic you know that Doctrine must be promulgated ex cathedra by the Pontif speaking as head of the magisterium. Since no such DOCTRINAL pronouncement exists I believe that this issue is not doctrinal but administrative. It seems to be a disciplinary matter not unlike the old practices of not eating meat on Friday or the requirement to fulfil one's Easter Duties. Hearsay, which by the way follows different legal interpretations in the UK vice the US, is not at issue here in that the advice was directly received from the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, RC Primate of England, and the senior eccleastical authority in that Country. His advice was presumably based on his knowledge, but was not received as hearsay as it was guidance given directly under his authority which is absolute within his See and Metropolitan Province and remains so unless he would be removed by the Pontif, which he was not. Near as I can figure out the Cardinal gave guidance based on his personal knowledge and/or he exercised his authority to dispence the faithful from any NON-DOCTRINAL requirement.
Your thoughts would honestly be appreciated.

My father is Roman Catholic and he has been a mason for well over 25 yrs as well as other masons i know and or family members involved in other masonic bodies that are catholic i dont see how they have problems with it. Am i wrong?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by dekeguy

Drolfille,
Please don't see this as trying to pick a fight. I am not, I am just trying to work this out in my own mind as well. It is part of that "think it through to its conclusion" bit I mentioned earlier.
As you are a Jesuit educated Catholic you know that Doctrine must be promulgated ex cathedra by the Pontif speaking as head of the magisterium. Since no such DOCTRINAL pronouncement exists I believe that this issue is not doctrinal but administrative. It seems to be a disciplinary matter not unlike the old practices of not eating meat on Friday or the requirement to fulfil one's Easter Duties. Hearsay, which by the way follows different legal interpretations in the UK vice the US, is not at issue here in that the advice was directly received from the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, RC Primate of England, and the senior eccleastical authority in that Country. His advice was presumably based on his knowledge, but was not received as hearsay as it was guidance given directly under his authority which is absolute within his See and Metropolitan Province and remains so unless he would be removed by the Pontif, which he was not. Near as I can figure out the Cardinal gave guidance based on his personal knowledge and/or he exercised his authority to dispence the faithful from any NON-DOCTRINAL requirement.
Your thoughts would honestly be appreciated.

From my understanding although the Pope speaking ex cathedra defines doctrine, not all doctrine is defined by ex cathedra. It is used very rarely.
From Newadvent.org

The action of the Church is summed up in the papal pronouncements against Freemasonry since 1738, the most important of which are:


Clement XII, Constitution "In Eminenti", 28 April, 1738;
Benedict XIV, "Providas", 18 May, 1751;
Pius VII, "Ecclesiam", 13 September, 1821;
Leo XII, "Quo graviora", 13 March, 1825;
Pius VIII, Encyclical "Traditi", 21 May, 1829;
Gregory XVI, "Mirari", 15 August, 1832;
Pius IX, Encyclical "Qui pluribus", 9 November, 1846;
Pius IX, Allocution "Quibus quantisque malis", 20 April, 1849;
Pius IX, Encyclical "Quanta cura", 8 December, 1864;
Pius IX, Allocution "Multiplices inter", 25 September, 1865;
Pius IX, Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis", 12 October, 1869;
Pius IX, Encyclical "Etsi multa", 21 November, 1873;
Leo XIII, Encyclical "Humanum genus", 20 April, 1884;
Leo XIII, "Præclara", 20 June, 1894;
Leo XIII, "Annum ingressi", 18 March, 1902 (against Italian Freemasonry);
Leo XIII, Encyclical "Etsí nos", 15 February, 1882;
Leo XIII, "Ab Apostolici", 15 October, 1890.
These pontifical utterances from first to last are in complete accord, the latter reiterating the earlier with such developments as were called for by the growth of Freemasonry and other secret societies.

Clearly there have been more recent Church discussions on it, but this was the list of Papal encyclicals, allocutions and letters found in the Catholic Encyclopedia. This masonic site lists others http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-mason...cyclicals.html
The hearsay I'm talking about is supposed remarks by JPII which contradict everything else the Church has said on the matter. I can find nothing connecting JPII to any such remarks and would be interested in seeing them

Please see also this site, the retraction is the important part where the Judicial Vicar acknowledges his error, dated 2002 (again no mention of JPII) http://www.freemason.org/cfo/march_a...1/catholic.htm

See What is the Church's position on Freemasonry? It refers to the most recent pronouncement as the 1983 one by then Cardinal Ratzinger.

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by cutiepatootie

My father is Roman Catholic and he has been a mason for well over 25 yrs as well as other masons i know and or family members involved in other masonic bodies that are catholic i dont see how they have problems with it. Am i wrong?

I think you can read the posts above yours to see how.

[risingstar]

Originally Posted by cutiepatootie

My father is Roman Catholic and he has been a mason for well over 25 yrs as well as other masons i know and or family members involved in other masonic bodies that are catholic i dont see how they have problems with it. Am i wrong?

No you are not wrong. Why are we talking about this?????? Because we really should not be....Wow, I thought that discretion was a big deal around here. I guess not.

[risingstar]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It is not atheism that is at issue with the Church, the Church considers the theology propagated by Masonry to be incompatible with that of the church. (Got any issues with that statement, take it up with them, not me, I'm not really an expert at anything but googling)

It's still an excommunicable offense.

I have heard this before. I really think it is just a strong misunderstanding. I have heard everything from us being the mob to us being satan worshipers with strong disbeliefs in God. It is, in fact, the total opposite. In all actuality, the theology propagated by Masonry is very much compatible with that of the church. I know this based upon my travel and the fact that I work for my church full-time.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by risingstar

I have heard this before. I really think it is just a strong misunderstanding. ... In all actuality, the theology propagated by Masonry is very much compatible with that of the church. ...

But who's church? There are a LOT of churches. The ideology of quite a few Christian churches is incompatible with my own Christian church, and ours is incompatible with others. Not every church is going to embrace the Masons. Misunderstanding or not, that's just how it is. So what? FWIW, I don't think the Mason's are evil devil worshippers, and nor does my Synod.

It's quite clear you have a strong attachment to your organization. That's wonderful. Nobody is discounting your organization. Those of us who belong to churchs that discourage membership in Masonic organizations are simply relaying the church's official position. Again, if you have issue with that, take it up with them.

[risingstar]

Maybe it is my misunderstanding, I thought the post I quoted was talking about The Church in general. That is what I was responding to. I thought it was saying that The Church, in general, was incompatible with the Mason theology. I didn't think the post was talking about individual churches.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by risingstar

I have heard this before. I really think it is just a strong misunderstanding. I have heard everything from us being the mob to us being satan worshipers with strong disbeliefs in God. It is, in fact, the total opposite. In all actuality, the theology propagated by Masonry is very much compatible with that of the church. I know this based upon my travel and the fact that I work for my church full-time.

Perhaps, but it doesn't change the fact that if you're a Catholic and a Mason, you are out of communion with the Church.

There are multiple things that the Chuch finds inappropriate about Masonry and it has nothing to do with my personal opinions. However it also has nothing to do with Satan worship or atheism, in fact it is that the theology does not agree with what the Catholic Church teaches and they feel swearing yourself to an organzation with such theology is a conflict of interest.

Your beliefs on the matter don't change the Pope's or the Church's.

[risingstar]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Perhaps, but it doesn't change the fact that if you're a Catholic and a Mason, you are out of communion with the Church.

There are multiple things that the Chuch finds inappropriate about Masonry and it has nothing to do with my personal opinions. However it also has nothing to do with Satan worship or atheism, in fact it is that the theology does not agree with what the Catholic Church teaches and they feel swearing yourself to an organzation with such theology is a conflict of interest.

Your beliefs on the matter don't change the Pope's or the Church's.

The teachings are the same, but we can go back and forth about this all day long. No one said that I was trying to change anything. My beliefs are just what they are, my beliefs.