Posted on 10/30/2009 9:01:19 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
A few years ago I was told that at the ceremony of induction of the vicar of one of the local Anglican churches, the Bible which was handed to him had embossed on its front cover the emblem of the Freemasons, the square and compasses. It subsequently came to light that nearly all the male members of his Parochial Church Council were "on the square", and his predecessor as vicar had been a Mason as well. This is not a "low", or Evangelical, church, but very firmly in the Anglo Catholic tradition, where a number of clergy and lay people over the years have talked of becoming Catholics.
Why is all this a problem? The reason is that the Catholic Church teaches that Freemasonry and Christianity are incompatible. The Holy See in 1983 reiterated the traditional position that Catholics who are Freemasons are in a state of grave sin and may not receive the sacraments - the Declaration on Masonic Associations was signed by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and makes it clear that local bishops cannot dispense from its provisions. There were two reasons for this document: first, the new Code of Canon Law, which came out at the same time, no longer mentioned Freemasonry by name in its list of organisations which Catholics are forbidden from joining; second, mistaken advice had been given in the late Seventies in Britain and America which suggested that Catholics could be Freemasons if local lodges were not anti-Catholic; the 1983 rescript corrected that advice. Consequently, Anglicans or others who are Freemasons wishing to become Catholics will have to discard their aprons: this may keep the numbers of potential converts down.
It is often claimed by Freemasons and others that the reasons for the Catholic Church's hostility to Freemasonry are to do with politics - the political hostility between the Church and what is known as "Grand Orient" Freemasonry in the rest of Europe and Latin America; English Freemasonry is completely different, it is claimed; unlike the "Grand Orient" it has retained belief in the "Supreme Being". But this is nonsense: the Church's original condemnations from the 18th century related to English Masonic lodges in Florence and elsewhere in Italy.
The reasons for our teaching, expounded in teaching from many popes since the 18th century, are theological. In the first place, Freemasonry is a naturalistic religion. Its rituals and constitutions present the member as a man who is able to advance towards enlightenment through his own efforts - a good parable of this is the depictions of the trials of Tamino in Mozart's opera The Magic Flute. The Mason can earn his salvation through rites of initiation and the activities of the lodge (including charitable giving); it is thus, in a way, the perfect religion for the "self-made", middle-class professional man. It is totally at odds with the Christian vision, in which we need God's grace, through the death and resurrection of Our Lord, to grow in holiness.
Second, the prayers in its rituals specifically exclude reference to Our Lord. They are often prayers of Christian origin which have been vandalised.
In order to encompass adherents of other faiths the Saviour of the world is simply removed and set aside: he is not important. How can any Christian go along with this?
Third, the oaths required in the initiation rites require the new Mason to promise to keep secret the organisation's rituals, even though he does not at that point know what they are. These oaths are what Christian moral theologians call "vain" - they are not acceptable and cannot bind the person making them, even if they are done in the name of God. This is the problem with the oaths, not (as is sometimes claimed) the dire penalties which used to be referred to in the rituals.
These are the principal reasons why we teach that Freemasonry and Christianity are not compatible. In addition, we could cite the reactionary world view espoused in the rituals, supportive of the status quo and urging members to "keep to their station" in society. This, coupled with the make-up of lodges and the mechanisms of social control identified in exposés written in the Eighties reveal the movement as being somewhat at odds with the social teaching of the Catholic Church and our witness for justice and peace in the world. The "preferential option for the poor" would not find a place in the lodge. One could also point to the exclusion of women from lodge membership and the strain placed on many marriages by the commitments demanded of Freemasons: in spite of claiming to be a "system of morality" infidelity and adultery seem often to be viewed with some indulgence.
It is important that Catholics rest their challenge to Freemasonry on the clear theological arguments which I have advanced and that we are well-informed about the subject: sometimes criticisms of Freemasonry are inaccurate and frankly hysterical, and we should avoid conspiracy theories. It is also true that it is somewhat weaker than it was, partly as a result of the books written 20 years ago and pressure for Freemasons to reveal their membership, particularly in the police and the legal profession. Because of the decline, Freemasonry is very conscious of its public image and superficially less secretive than in the past.
Although it is weaker than in the past, Freemasonry still seems to have some influence in the Church of England. A study written by Caroline Windsor, Freemasonry and the Ministry (Concilium publications 2005), has shown that it is still quite strong in cathedrals (a big Masonic service was held in St Paul's Cathedral in 2002, with the Dean preaching) - and also that many parishes where Freemasons are active are weak in terms of Christian witness. If we are serious about ecumenical dialogue, the issue of Freemasonry has to be addressed; the same is true of interfaith relations, as Freemasons are sometimes involved in interfaith organisations - if they are there, we are talking about dialogue which is three-way, not two-way.
The overriding problem is that in spite of what Freemasons claim, their way of life is a religion, with all of religion's hallmarks. You can no more be a Freemason and a Christian than you can be a Muslim and a Christian. Catholics are committed to inter-faith dialogue and mutual respect, but this requires Freemasons to be honest about what they are. For Catholics, thinking about the reasons for the gulf between us can deepen our understanding of the Christian faith.
> Twice now you have emphasized the “drinking” and “partying” tendencies of the Shriners. Is there a reason for this?
As I understand it, the Shriners are mostly social and charitable in focus. Bunch of guys getting together for a few beers and doing good works. Nothing particularly objectionable about that.
They seem to be an American thing: I don’t think we have ‘em in New Zealand.
The only denomination that takes your that convoluted approach to the scriptures are the Quakers.
Are you a Quaker? The RCC certainly rejects your interpretation.
“Twice now you have emphasized the “drinking” and “partying” tendencies of the Shriners. Is there a reason for this?”
Well, yeah. That is why the Shriners were formed, a purely “fun” sub-group.
Sometimes I kinda feel that way when I see all the Catholics voting for abortionist politicians.
“I’m trying hard not to characterize other than whether it’s religious or not.”
Freemasonry lacks the basic elements of religion:
(a) It has no dogma or theology, no wish or means to enforce religious orthodoxy.
(b) It offers no sacraments.
(c) It does not claim to lead to salvation by works, by secret knowledge, or by any other means. In contrast, masonry specifically defers any deaching on salvation to the experts -— specificaly telling the mason to look to his religion for those answers.
The secrets of Freemasonry are concerned with modes of recognition, not with the means of salvation.
That said, Freemasonry is far from indifferent toward religion. Without interfering in religious practice, it expects each member to follow his own faith and to place his Duty to God above all other duties.
Thanks very much for your reply.
I’ve discussed this quite a bit and read a lot of history, and yes, from Freemason sources as well.
I see those today, and certainly many in history, who view it as religion. I also take the word of those today who say that’s not true, not from their experience.
I can certainly believe that there is both wide variation on how it’s practiced today and how much is kept and continued from Freemasonry of the past.
It would make more sense to me, as an endeavor for the member, if it was about the moral and spiritual development of the members - it would fit the inside with the outside more, as well as increase to what is offered that is not offered in other fraternal or charitable organizations.
Here’s what I don’t get if it’s not an institution for religious intruction:
If you meet in a temple with an altar presided over by a Worshipful Master, etc., is this all a disconnected show? I don’t mean this to denigrate, but it would seem the whole trappings are spiritual; if there’s no spiritual instructional or worship intent, then you may as well pick a building shaped like a castle with knight and king roles, or a blacksmithing or scribes or stone masons.
I can understand the bonding provided by roles and oaths and secrets. But why make these direct analogs of religion?
If it is purely a historical remnant, then ok. But that would entail honor of the past, emulation of forefathers and lead you right back to a spiritual or religious purpose.
I hope I’m being clear here and thanks again for your courtesy.
The term temple is representative of another temple in history that some freemasons of note built - so thats why we call it a temple. No worshiping is done there - it is not a true temple in that respect.
The title worshipful master has nothing to do with religion - it’s an old english colloquialism intended to give honor.
Thanks, that goes a long way toward my theory :)
Freemasonry has a great deal of variation and can be very religious or not much at all.
What about altar?
On altar, is it from (Solomons ?) Temple also?
I'm getting that. But you also have to realize that all Freemasonry is not the same and other groups now and in history are/were much more religious than yours.
Reading about it and personal experience. Reading mason sites and mason history and books, and, for example, my father to whom it was definitely religious. An improvement in his case, I might add.
I thought it was well known that Freemasonry was religious or spiritual to various degrees in various times and places.
But aren’t you talking from your own experience? If I understand correctly, no one speaks for all of Masonry, no one can say it must be religious and no one can say it can’t be religious.
There are very obvious examples of people for whom it was all about seeking truth - moral, philosophical and religious. The main contention I see is twofold:
- The error that these writers and masons speak for all masonry or decide what all mason’s must do. That a mason cannot be almost totally agnostic in terms of religion (except for belief in a supreme being).
- That they are teaching a specific religion.
I think I’m clear on the first, on the second I disagree on what constitutes teaching religion.
Here’s an example of debate I’m referring to from the Scottish Rite site:
http://www.scottishrite.org/web/SRpublications/deHoyos-addendum.htm
I want to point out about that last link. I fully expect, based on our discussion, that you will find it irrelevant and foreign to your personal experience.
My point was that there is wide variation in terms of the religious component between people, lodges and over time and history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.