It is not the purpose of this paper to go into the theologico-historical discussion of Freemasonry.[2] It is rather the purpose of this paper to help the CBCP formulate a canonical stance regarding Catholics who join or foster (i.e., take positions of government and direction therein) freemasonry.
1. The legal iter of this matter can be summarized as follows: [3]
a) CIC 17, c.2335 - specifically mentioned masonry and specified excommunication latae sententiae.
b) CIC 83, c. 1374 now 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) S.C. pro Doctrina Fidei, Decl. Quesitium est: de associationibus massonicis, 26.XI.1983: Asked whether the judgment of the Church regarding freemasonry had changed due to the new Codex not expressly mentioning it, as in the previous Code, the S.C.D.F. replies in the following terms:
1) Such non-mention of freemasonry is due to a criterion of redaction followed also as regards other associations equally not mentioned insofar as they are included in a wider category.
2) The negative judgment of the Church regarding Masonic associations remains unchanged, because their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church.
3) Therefore inscription in them remains prohibited, and the faithful who belong to a Masonic association are in a state of serious sin and cannot be admitted to Holy Communion.
4) It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authority to pronounce regarding the nature of a Masonic association in terms which go against the aforementioned criteria.
2. To understand this, one has to go to the history of c.1374, which I outline in brief:
a) In the years of redaction of the CIC 83, two schools of thought emerged regarding the matter:
1st: Appreciate the reality that the nature of freemasonry is different in different countries—so that it is not possible to lump them all under the category of "an association which plots against the Church". According to this school, it should be up to the episcopal conference to determine in each country whether masonry falls under that category. This became the position of the coetus in charge of this canon, which besides supported the thesis of E.Gomez O.P. (a well-known canonist) that the penalty should not be latae sententiae (following one of the principles of the codification, to reduce latae sententiae penalties to a minimum, since it goes against juridic stability and security, because of its automaticity and self-infliction due to lack of sentence), and definitely not excommunication (since this was reserved for the gravest of crimes only—again one of the principles of the codification process).
2nd: The position of the German Episcopal Conference—which had carried out a lengthy study between 1974-1980, in the form of a series of official dialogues between the Catholic Church and the Freemasons—which concluded that membership in freemasonry was inherently incompatible with the Church. Therefore, a return to the text of CIC 17, c.2335.
b) Subjected to a vote of the Plenum—actually two votations on succesive days—the 1st position won, albeit by a small margin.
c) In the same month of full effectivity of the new Code (after the 6-month vacatio legis after its promulgation), the SCDF came up with the Declaration of 26.XI.1983, which clarifies that freemasonry is not mentioned specifically in c.1374, because of a criterion of redaction which includes it in a wider category.
3. The CBCP Guidelines on Membership in Free Massonic Associations (14.III.1990)
1) It precisely belongs to particular legislation (if the episcopal conference wants a uniform treatment for the whole country) to specify freemasonry as one of those associations typified in c.1374 (the wider category) and include a just penalty for it—but not excommunication, and not latae sententiae to follow the mens legislatoris in this regard.
2) On the other hand, it is not the competence of particular legislation to give a judgment regarding Masonic associations contrary to the criteria contained above (i.e., the CBCP cannot not say that such associations are not inherently incompatible with the Catholic faith and that those who enlist in them are in a state of grave sin). This is the tenor of the SCDF Declaration (26.XI.1983), par. 4.
3) The CBCP Guidelines of 14.III.1990 are in accord with Quaesitum est in stipulating that any Catholic who is publicly known as a mason—i.e., whose membership in any Masonic Association can be proven in the external forum—“may not receive Holy Communion.” However, the tenor of the CBCP disposition—“may not receive…” needs to be modified to be in accord with the quite definitive tenor of the SCDF Declaration: “They cannot receive…” [4]
4) The CBCP Guidelines of 14.III.1990 also need to be modified to be more in accordance with c.1374, which makes a distinction between:
a) “One who joins an association which plots against the Church (who) is to be punished with a just penalty” — i.e., a preceptive ferendae sententiae penalty, with due attention to the general norms regarding penalties (cc. 1344, 1347, 1349, 1350). [5]
b) “One who promotes or moderates such an association (who) is to be punished with an interdict” — i.e., a preceptive ferendae sententiae penalty of interdict, again with due attention to the general norms regarding penalties.[6]
3. Conclusions/Recommendations
1) The aforementioned criteria can best be served by retaining the present CBCP Guidelines from the beginning up to n.1, but introducing modifications thereafter.
2) N.2 of the CBCP Guidelines can be split and rephrased as follows:
2. Therefore, any Catholic whose membership in any Masonic Association can be proven in the external forum and who refuses to renounce such membership after repeated canonical warnings, is not to be admitted to Holy Communion.[7]
3. Furthermore, any Catholic who promotes or moderates such an association and refuses to amend his ways despite repeated canonical warnings:
a) is not to be allowed to act as sponsor in Baptism, Confirmation and Marriage;
b) is not to be admitted as members of parish or diocesan structures or any other religious organizations;
c) is to be denied funeral rites, unless some signs of repentance before death has been shown (cf. c.1184, §1); where such rites have been allowed by the Ordinary, no Masonic services shall be allowed in the Church or cemetery immediately before or after the Church rites in order to avoid any public scandal (cf. cc.1184, §1 and 1374).[8]
3) Despite the seeming harshness of the above dispositions, one must bear in mind that the CBCP cannot really pretend to issue Guidelines which in the end have no “teeth” anyway. In any case, such Guidelines must reflect the reality that Freemasonry needs to be stamped out as an evil. The catechesis—and repeated warnings in this regard—coupled with the fact that each case must be taken separately (hence the ferendae sententiae penalty) means that in those cases when such a penalty really has to be imposed, it would be a case of proven contumacy—hardly compatible with the oft-cited general case of a mason who is “a good Catholic”. If a mason cannot renounce his freemasonry despite repeated warning from the Bishop, he is not a good Catholic.
[1] Originally submitted to the ECCL-CLSP workshop of 23.IV.2002, at the CBCP Secretariat in Intramuros, Manila.
[2] For a more in-depth investigation of the historical aspects of freemasonry, cf. Pope Leo XIII’s encyclicals: Humanum Genus, 20.IV.1884, which provides a definitive statement on Freemasonry, its opposition to the Church, and the response of Catholics; Custodi Di Quella Fede, 8.XII.1892; Inimica Vis, 8.XII.1892; Dall'alto Dell'apostolico Seggio, 15.X.1890.
[3] Cf. AA.VV., Comentario Exegetico al Codigo de Derecho Canonico (2nd ed.), vol. IV/1, EUNSA (1997), pp.512-517; Z. Suchecki, La Massonería, pp.61-115.
[4] It is important to attend to the original Latin of the SCDF Declaration of 26.XI.1983, the dispositive part of which reads:
Christifideles qui associationibus massonicis nomen dant in peccato gravi versantur et ad sacram communionem accedere non possunt. (N.B. The mood is declarative/indicative, not subjunctive.)
[5] The Latin of c.1374 reads iusta poena puniatur—i.e., making the imposition of such a just punishment preceptive.
[6] The Latin canon reads: interdicito puniatur—making the imposition of such an interdict preceptive for the Superior.
[7] It is important to attend to the original Latin of the SCDF Declaration of 26.XI.1983, the dispositive part of which reads:
Christifideles qui associationibus massonicis nomen dant in peccato gravi versantur et ad sacram communionem accedere non possunt. (N.B. The mood is declarative/indicative, not subjunctive.)
[8] This is a specification of the interdict stipulated in c.1374.
