| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
questions answered
by wm. b. smith
Can a Catholic be a Mason?
Question: In the past, Catholics were forbidden under penalty to be Masons. Is this still true?
Answer. Yes, this is still true but there was a period of some confusion (1970-1980) when varied and variant interpretations of Church law led some to believe that an entirely different discipline then obtained.
On April 19, 1985, Bernard Cardinal Law, then Chairman of the NCCB Committee for Pastoral Research and Practices, sent to all the Bishops of the country an excellent explanatory Report (3/14/85) together with two study papers (one American, the other German) and other supporting documentation. The Report, "Catholicism and Freemasonry" (4/2/85) authored by W. J. Whalen and commissioned by the NCCB Committee may still be available from the USCC. Nevertheless, the article by the same author in the New Catholic Encyclopedia remains a classic both for its scope and its thoroughness; cf. W. J. Whalen, "Freemasonry" NCE vol. 6 (1967) pp. 132-139.
Some confusion in this area was generated by what the new Code of Canon Law (1983) did not mention specifically. The old Code (1917) specifically mentioned Masonic sects and others who plotted against the Church and penalized such membership (cf. cn. 2335 of the 1917 Code).
The new Code (1983) mentions the generic category of those who plot against the Church (cn. 1374) but does not mention by name any specific groups or associations. In view of this, some Americans in contact or conversation with local Masonic Lodges judged that these civic and social groups did not plot against the Church and thus there was no real objection to Catholics being members of such.
However, on the very day (11/26/83) before the new Code became effective (First Sunday of Advent 1983), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a Declaration on Masonic Associations stating that although there was no specific mention of Masons (or others) in the new Code because of the way it was drafted, nonetheless it declared:
"The Church's negative position on Masonic associations therefore remains unaltered, since their principles have always been regarded as irreconcilable with the Church's doctrine. Hence joining them remains prohibited by the Church. Catholics enrolled in Masonic associations are involved in serious sin and may not approach Holy Communion" (AAS 76 [1984] p. 300).
The public and practical problem remains: just what are these irreconcilable differences in principle? As Whalen points out, Freemasonry is English in origin and overwhelmingly English-speaking in membership. Of perhaps six million members worldwide, four million live in the U.S., less than one million in the U.K. and another half million in Canada, Australia and New Zealand together. Perhaps, 9 out of 10 Masons live in the English-speaking world.
The next problem is perception, both Catholic and non-Catholic. Why in an era of ecumenism, does the Catholic Church persist in condemning an organization often known for its charities and civic good works? No one doubts the many American Masons who claim sincerely they have never heard a word of criticism of the Catholic Church in their lodges or functions. Indeed, Masonry rules out discussion of religion and politics in the lodge.
Freemasonry is militantly "anti-particularistic" to use their term. Sectarian religion may have positive values, but it is relegated to the sphere of private morality and private faith. They are, in a word, dogmatically "anti-dogmatic"-there is no absolute truth, especially no dogmatically revealed absolute truth.
While once Masons were charged to be of the religion of that country or nation in which they lived, now they are obliged to be that "Religion in which all Men agree." Now, whatever constitutes that "Religion in which all Men agree," it is not Christianity or revealed religion. Masons as Masons accept the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man and the immortality of the soul; but the inspiration of the Bible, the unique claims of Jesus Christ, the authority and teaching role of the Church and the Sacraments as means of grace, these are "particular opinions" they are asked to keep to themselves and not disturb the brothers in the Lodge.
Perhaps, a religious Naturalism is better than no belief at all but for the professing Christian this is a retreat from the Gospel. Freemasonry clearly rejects dogma and the possibility of absolute truth. The Inspiration of the Bible and the Divinity of Christ can not be periodic lay-asides for believing Catholics. When revealed doctrines are relegated to the harmless status of private opinion, will it or not, one contributes further to the endemic relativism that John Dewey so much fostered in education and Oliver Wendell Holmes advanced in jurisprudence.
Pragmatic to the core, many Americans don't see the point of principles unless they make or cause a practical difference they can feel or measure. Given that cultural mind-set, the dogmatic Masonic abhorrence of revealed truth (quite apart from their symbols, oaths and rituals) can only contribute to a deeper cultural relativism than we already have.
Dialogue between Christians and Masons might lessen hostility between these groups. Cooperation in civic and charitable works can be encouraged (one might suggest contributions and/or support for inner-city parochial schools and the Masonic response will be instructive). Catholics may not at the same time profess Islam but that does not mean that fruitful Catholic-Muslim dialogue is either impossible or useless.
Masonic principles have been and still are irreconcilable with Church doctrine. Opportunities for business or fellowship are so plentiful that no Catholic should feel he is sacrificing much by following the precepts of the Church in shunning the Lodge. Furthermore, in countries other than our own, there are Lodges that do "plot against the Church" and strive effectively to make sure that practicing Catholics do not advance in the professions, especially the legal profession and the judiciary.
Can a fallen-away Catholic be a Baptismal Sponsor?
Question: A faithful parishioner has asked about her brother being the sponsor at the baptism of her newborn. Her brother is a baptized Catholic who stopped practicing the Faith some 15 years ago and became a Christian Science "practitioner." Further, his own two children are not baptized. Can he be a sponsor?
Answer: In view of the requirements to be admitted to the office of sponsor, I think not.
Canon 874 lists five categories of requirement. Cn. 874, #1, n. 1 states that the person must be "suitable" and "have the intention" of fulfilling the task (munus). In view of his current personal non-practice, together with the non-baptism of his own children, his intention is at least suspect in terms of realism.
Cn. 874, #1, n. 3 requires that a Catholic sponsor be confirmed, has received the Eucharist and "lives a life of faith which befits the role undertaken." Clearly, this candidate is not living the life of faith.
Further, Canon 1366 addresses "Parents, and those who take their place, who hand over their children to be baptized or brought up in a non-Catholic religion, are to be punished with a censure or other just penalty."
Thus, in view of the above and in view of the proposed sponsor, it seems to me, there is a real problem here because: (1) he is not living a life of faith that befits the role; and (2) while not automatic, the case situation he himself has caused is grounds for censure or other just penalty and thus he is not a suitable sponsor. n
Please address questions to Msgr. Wm. B. Smith, St. Joseph's Seminary, Dunwoodie, Yonkers, N.Y. 10704.