Case XVI: Christian Burial of Masons

John was married outside the Church. His wife and children were Protestants. For years he did not practise his religion. When sick, a priest from a religious community was called, who heard his confession, gave him holy Viaticum and sent for the sick man's parish priest to administer Extreme Unction and to look after him in the future. Two or three months later, the sick man dies. It was arranged to have the funeral from the church; but in the death notice of an evening paper the parish priest learns that the man belonged to the Masons.

1. Must a Mason, repenting on his death-bed, give up all his paraphernalia, and make a written public statement that he renounces the lodge?

2. Was the confessor obliged to notify the parish priest of this fact?

3. Did the parish priest do right in burying this man from the church?

Answer.—In order to absolve a dying Mason, the theologians generally require that the dying Mason shall break off all communication with the Masons and that he shall hand in his formal resignation to the master of his lodge. It is never lawful for a confessor to absolve a Mason, as long as the Mason is resolved to frequent the lodge. This view is held on the authority of the Congregation of the Inquisition, which, when asked about a case like this, answered, July 5, 1837; "Juxta exposita, non licere." In some circumstances, it is even required that the Mason desiring absolution shall show a written document from the master of the lodge, acknowledging the receipt of his resignation. "Indeed, under differing circumstances it is sometimes required that a written statement from the head of this sect be produced, by which authentic testimony is given that this declaration was received." (Lehmkuhl, II, 1226).

It is generally admitted, however, that this withdrawal from the Masons may be deferred for a time, abrupta omni communicatione, atque pecuniae contributione, for very grave reasons, such as for instance, the fear of being killed or something equivalent. In this case he may defer handing in his resignation, provided that in the meantime he suffer no spiritual loss and render no aid to the lodge, and remove whatever scandal his connection with the Masons may occasion. This is gathered from the response of the Holy Office, March 7, 1883. A money loss would not be a sufficient cause for deferring one's withdrawal. We must call attention here to an answer of the Holy Office, January 18, 1896, regarding the three orders, viz.; Odd Fellows, Knights of Pythias and Sons of Temperance. With regard to these three orders, the Holy Office has decided that if immediate resignation from any of these three orders would involve a serious money loss; i. e., of life insurance, then the resignation may be postponed, provided ut interim a quavis sectae communione et a quovis interventu, etiam materiali, abstineatur. In these three orders the loss incurred by immediate withdrawal would be a money loss; therefore not even material communion with the order is allowed. The loss or damage which immediate withdrawal from the Masons contemplates is death or something equivalent, and therefore material cooperation for a time or indefinitely may be justified. As such danger does not threaten in the United States, it can scarcely be urged as a reason for deferring one's resignation from the Masons.

The faculties which the Holy See grants to American bishops and through them to American priests, to absolve Masons desiring to return to the Church, have certain restrictions. 1. The penitent must resign from his lodge and must forswear the Masons. As said above, it is not always necessary that this resignation should be in writing or be publicly known. Questioned on this point, the Holy Office answered, Aug. 5, 1898, "that they abjure, or detest, the sect at least before the confessor, with the scandal repaired in the best way in which it can be done."

2. That the penitent hand over to the confessor who will forward them to the ordinary, all books, documents and regalia having relation to the order. If this is impossible, the penitent himself must destroy them.

3. The penitent must make known to the ordinary of the diocese the secret leaders and officers of the sect. Where the officers are publicly known, as in the United States, this third clause does not oblige.

The case. 1. Must a Mason, repenting on his death-bed, give up all his paraphernalia and make public a written statement that he renounced the lodge? Under ordinary circumstances, the penitent must, as said above, hand in to the master of the lodge his written resignation, and should show to the confessor a written receipt or acknowledgment of the receipt of the same from the lodge master. (Lehmkuhl, II, 1226; Génicot, II, 597, etc.) If by doing so he should place his life in jeopardy or expose himself to some other equally grave harm, then he may be excused from doing so, provided he breaks off all intercourse with the lodge and discontinues all payments of dues, etc. In the case submitted, there can scarcely be said to be any such danger in resigning from the lodge, and therefore the penitent should have sent in his written resignation. There is no obligation to make public such resignation, as the fact that the man gets the Sacraments is sufficient evidence of it. Also he should have handed over to the confessor his books, etc., dealing with masonic matters. All this the parish priest must suppose that the confessor looked after, and therefore it did not concern the parish priest.

2. Was the confessor obliged to notify the parish priest that he had attended to these matters? Strictly speaking, he was not. It might have been better had he done so, with the permission of the penitent, but de jure all that the confessor was obliged to do was to say to the parish priest, that the man had received the Sacrament of Penance and the holy Vaticum. The confessor must be supposed de jure to have done everything that the law of the Church requires before he absolved the man.

3. Did the priest do right by burying the man from the church? We think he did. What we do not quite understand is, how the parish priest, after giving the dying man Extreme Unction, did not see, or at least seems not to have seen or visited, him again up to the time of his death, two or three months later. Still, if the parish priest had no conclusive evidence that the penitent after receiving the last Sacraments, had renewed his affiliation with the Masons, he was justified in burying him from the church.