Freemasonry and like societies (Can. 2335)

Quaestum.—Granting or publishing indulgences for money. Canon 2335 II. Nomen dantes sectae massonicae aliisve ejusdem generis associationibus quae contra Ecclesiam vel legitimas civiles potestates machinantur, contrahunt ipso facto excommunicationem Sedi Apostolicae simpliciter reservatam. (Those who give their names to the masonic sect, or to other associations of the same kind which plot against the Church or against the lawful civil powers, contract ipso facto an excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.)

Nomen dantes—Becoming a member of the society.

Sectae massonicae.—The society of Freemasons, Aliisve.—Other societies which are like the Freemasons in that they plot against the Catholic Church or against lawful civil authority, or against both. It is immaterial whether they plot openly or secretly, whether they take a secret oath or an oath of secrecy or not. The only conditions which this canon requires are that the members should form an organized society, a body corporate, and that the society should plot, work by action, speech, writing, against the Church or against lawful civil authority.

VI. Associations to be reproved. "The faithful are worthy of praise if they give their names to associations erected or at least commended by the Church; but let them beware of secret, condemned, seditious, suspected associations, or associations which strive to withdraw themselves from the legitimate vigilance of the Church" (can. 684).

Corollary I. It is illicit to give one's name to anti-Catholic associations, whether religious or social, of which sort are, for example:

Masonic societies;¹ Carbonari;² Fenians;³ Anarchists;⁴ Communists, Nihilists, Internationalists, and Socialists;⁵ theosophical societies;⁶ biblical societies;⁷ clerico-liberal societies;⁸ a society erected for procuring the unity of Christianity;⁹ workers' societies which are called Odd Fellows, Sons of Temperance, Knights of Pythias;¹⁰ the Independent Order of Good Templars (Guttempler-Orden);¹¹ and societies which promote the cremation of human corpses.¹²

Corollary II. Per se it is also illicit to give one's name to social associations, whether indeed Christian but not specifically Catholic, or neutral. The reason is that social questions too must be solved with dependence on the Catholic Church, and not, as happens in the aforesaid associations, independently of her (n. 117). There is added that dangers to faith and morals are not so rarely attached to societies of this sort.

Corollary III. By reason of dangers, other associations or parties also can be prohibited by ecclesiastical authority, as, for example, Action Française.¹³

Corollary IV. As regards the gravity of the sin committed by one who gives his name to an association to be reproved, it must be said as follows:

1. One who, as is commonly done by those of whom we are speaking, internally admits some proposition reproved by the Church sins gravely.

2. One who internally does not admit any doctrine definitively proscribed by the Church nevertheless sins gravely:

a) If he gives his name to an anti-Catholic association, whether religious or social; both because at least externally he professes errors rejected by the Church, and because there are added cooperation, scandal, and often danger to faith, arising from the fact that he has given his name to a party which professes evil principles, pursues evil ends, and uses evil means.

b) If he gives his name to an association or party named and truly prohibited by ecclesiastical authority, because a prohibition of this sort is judged to have been made under grave obligation.

c) It is not clear that the same must per se be said of one who gives his name to a social association, whether Christian but not specifically Catholic, or neutral, but nevertheless not positively prohibited. In the case, a grave cause can excuse, unless scandal to be avoided because of the circumstances stands in the way.

¹ Can. 2335.

² Cf. Constitution of Pius VII Ecclesiam, September 25, 1821, and Leo XII, Quo graviora, March 13, 1825; cited canon.

³ Cf. Holy Office, January 12, 1870; cited canon.

⁴ Cited canon.

⁵ Encyclical of Leo XIII Quod apostolici muneris, December 28, 1878; Encyclical of Pius XI Quadragesimo anno, May 15, 1931.

⁶ Cf. Holy Office, July 18, 1919 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1919, p. 317).

⁷ Constitution of Pius IX Qui pluribus, 1846.

⁸ Syllabus, § 178; Encyclical of Pius IX Quanta cura, December 8, 1864; Encyclical of Leo XIII Libertas, June 20, 1888.

⁹ Cf. Holy Office, September 16, 1864, November 8, 1865 (Collectanea de Propaganda Fide, nn. 1262, 1276).

¹⁰ Holy Office, August 20, 1894.

¹¹ Holy Office, August 9, 1893 (Collectanea, n. 1845).

¹² Holy Office, May 19, 1886 (Acta Sanctae Sedis, t. 19, p. 46).

¹³ Cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1926, pp. 382, 517, 529; 1927, pp. 5, 157.

1184. II. "Those giving their name to a Masonic sect or to other associations of the same kind which plot against the Church or legitimate civil powers."⁹

⁹ Code, c. 2335.

1. There is question of societies whose members, under the same leaders, tend to the same end, namely the end recounted in the canon, whether secrecy is required or not.

With prohibited associations are assimilated societies of nihilists and others similar to them, as also cremation societies if they are affiliated with Masonic sects.

In the Code, indeed, the obligation of denouncing the leaders and chief men of Masonic sects is passed over in silence; but, from can. 2336, § 2, "clerics and religious giving their name to a Masonic sect and other similar associations must be denounced to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office."

2. Formerly, by force of an Indult,¹⁰ Bishops could absolve from this excommunication those who had given their name to forbidden sects under certain conditions; but since today this Indult has ceased, recourse must be had to the Holy See.

¹⁰ Indult of the Sacred Penitentiary, n. 7.

516. 5. "Those giving their names to the Masonic sect or to other associations of the same kind which plot against the Church or legitimate civil powers" (can. 2335).

For explaining this excommunication it is useful to set forth: a) what sects are prohibited under censure; b) what persons are excommunicated.

a) As regards the prohibited sects. On May 10, 1884, the Holy Office distinguished between societies prohibited simply and those prohibited under censure.

All societies which pursue an evil end, or employ evil means, or "which exact from their adherents by oath a secret to be disclosed to no one and complete obedience to be rendered to hidden leaders," are simply prohibited. For such secrecy and such obedience, which extend to all matters, even illicit ones, constitute a grave sin. Societies simply prohibited of this kind are, for example, several American societies (Odd Fellows, Sons of Temperance, Knights of Pythias,¹⁶³ Independent Order of Good Templars¹⁶⁴); then, societies for promoting the cremation of corpses.¹⁶⁵

The following are prohibited under censure:

a) the Masonic society;¹⁶⁶

b) all societies which plot against the Church or legitimate civil powers. Such societies are those of the Carbonari,¹⁶⁷ the former Fenians,¹⁶⁸ and all anarchistic and nihilistic societies. Whether modern socialist societies incur this censure is disputed among authors, and therefore is doubtful. In practice socialists of diverse regions cannot be judged in the same manner. For in some regions they seek scarcely anything except the betterment of the condition of the common people; but in other regions they openly plot against the Church and legitimate power. In that case they appear subject to the censure; indeed, sometimes they also incur a censure on account of heresy admitted.

b) The persons who are excommunicated on account of these sects are only those

giving their names, namely, those who become members of such a sect. Formerly those furnishing favor and those not denouncing hidden leaders were also included under this censure, but the new Code of Canon Law is silent concerning them; therefore they are no longer excommunicated, although they sin gravely if they truly foster these most wicked societies.

Clerics and religious giving their names to the Masonic sect and other similar associations must be denounced to the Holy Office and are furthermore to be punished by privation of benefice, office, dignity, pension, function, and active and passive voice.¹⁶⁹

The manner of acting in confession with members of a forbidden sect. a) It rarely happens that a member of this kind is in good faith, because these sects are so often and so openly proclaimed illicit by the Church. Nevertheless, if such a member is in good faith and neither causes scandal nor incurs a proximate danger of perversion, he ought not to be compelled to leave the sect with the gravest inconvenience. For then perhaps he would not obey, and his material sin would be changed into a formal one.

b) A member of such a forbidden sect (who is not in good faith) cannot be absolved unless he breaks off communication with the sect and abjures it at least before the confessor.¹⁷⁰ But if external communication with the sect cannot be broken off without a very grave inconvenience, then, scandal and the proximate danger of perversion being excluded, the penitent can for some time persevere in paying dues and attending the meetings of the sectarians, until the danger of grave harm has ceased.¹⁷¹

c) The penitent must deliver the sect's books, manuscripts, insignia, and so forth (if he has any) to the confessor, who is to transmit them to the bishop as soon as possible or, if this is impossible, burn them.

¹⁶³ Holy Office, August 20, 1894.

¹⁶⁴ Holy Office, August 9, 1893.

¹⁶⁵ Holy Office, May 19, 1886.

¹⁶⁶ Clement XII, Constitution In eminenti, April 28, 1738; Benedict XIV, Constitution Providas, May 18, 1751, and several other Supreme Pontiffs, among whom was Leo XIII, Encyclical Humanum genus, April 20, 1884.

¹⁶⁷ Pius VII, Constitution Ecclesiam, September 13, 1821; Leo XII, Constitution Quo graviora, March 13, 1825. The members of this society called themselves carbonari, Köhler, fendeurs, buoni cugini. Cf. Wetzer and Welte, Kirchenlex., s.v. "Carbonari."

¹⁶⁸ Holy Office, January 12, 1870.

¹⁶⁹ Code of Canon Law, c. 2336.

¹⁷⁰ Holy Office, August 5, 1898 (Anal. eccl. VI [1898] 387).

¹⁷¹ Thus Noldin, De poenis eccl.¹², n. 76, citing for this opinion a decision of the Holy Office of January 18, 1896.

In a certain English town a Masonic ball was being held so that money might be collected to be given to the town’s public innkeepers. The more distinguished citizens were invited to the ball, among them Lucius, a Catholic, who went and paid a sum of money because, as he says, it would be disgraceful to have such powerful fellow citizens as enemies. Afterwards, however, he confesses the matter to his confessor, who doubts whether Lucius is therefore subject to a censure. Hence it is asked:

1. What penalty is established against secret societies?

2. What societies are considered prohibited? The Fenians? The Oddfellows?

3. Is the Masonic sect in England included under the ecclesiastical law concerning the said sect?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. Under what penalty are secret societies forbidden?

They are forbidden under pain of excommunication reserved to the Pope by the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (n. 4): “ Those who give their names to the Masonic or Carbonari sect, or to other sects of the same kind which plot against the Church or legitimate powers, whether openly or secretly; and likewise those furnishing favor of any kind to the same sects; or those not denouncing their hidden chiefs—

—and leaders, until they shall have denounced them.”¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 399.

2. What societies are forbidden? Are the Fenians and Oddfellows?

All societies are forbidden by the above censure which publicly or in secret plot against the Church or against lawful civil authority. In general a society which enjoins the keeping of a secret so absolutely that it may not be revealed even to ecclesiastical authority, or which exacts an oath or promise of blind obedience, must be regarded as forbidden. By a decree of the Holy Office, Jan. 12, 1870, the Fenians were declared to be comprised in the above censure. The American Oddfellows were condemned Aug. 20, 1894. Whether or not they are condemned under the above censure is disputed. English Oddfellows do not form one society with the American Oddfellows, and so it can not be said for certain that they are condemned.

3. Are Freemasons in England condemned by the above censure?

Yes, English Masons are recognized by their foreign brethren as such, and foreign Masons are received in the English lodges. Renunciation of Masonry is imposed as a condition of being received into, or reconciled to the Church.

4. The case. The question whether Lucius incurred the censure or not, will depend on whether his going to the ball and paying the money brought him under the clause — furnishing any sort of favor to the same sects. To incur censure under this head the favor must be shown to them as Masons, and with effect, so that the censure is not incurred unless the effect follows.¹

1 Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Morale, vol. vii, 220.

There is no evidence in the case that Lucius did this. He gave money to the hospitals, and he went to the ball because he was afraid of offending the Masons. Although these actions might in certain circumstances be described as furnishing favor, favoring the Masons, there is no evidence that in effect they did so in Lucius’ case. He did wrong, and probably gave great scandal, but he did not necessarily incur excommunication.

A convert to the Catholic faith is a knight of Pythias. He was a knight for many years before he became a Catholic. He carries a few thousand dollars life insurance in the order. As he is a poor man, it would be a great hardship for him to quit the order and forfeit this insurance. What shall he do about it?

Answer.—There are two categories of so-called secret societies, forbidden to Catholics: (a) societies, like the Masons, that are forbidden under censure, i. e., under pain of excommunication; (b) societies, like the Knights of Pythias, that are forbidden under pain of sin, but not under censure.

On October 11, 1869, Pope Pius IX issued his famous Bull, Apostolicae Sedis, in which among many other censures, reserved to the Holy See, is the censure of excommunication pronounced against “those giving their names to the Masonic or Carbonari sect, or to other sects of the same kind, which plot either openly or secretly against the Church or lawful authorities; and likewise those furnishing favor of any kind to those sects and not denouncing their hidden leaders and chiefs, until they have denounced them.”

Two qualifications are required in order that a society or organization fall under the bann of excommunication: (a) its members must constitute a sect, that is, they must be united very closely together by the profession of the same principles, that the society as a body professes and advocates; (b) it must war against the Church or against the State, even though it exist for other purposes also.

The societies generally understood to possess these two qualifications and therefore to be forbidden under pain of excommunication are:

1. The Masons. Pope Clement XII, in 1738, first excommunicated the Masons. Then Benedict XIV, in 1751, reaffirmed the censure, as did Leo XII, in 1825, Pius VIII, in 1829, Pius IX, in 1869, in the Bull Apostolicae Sedis, just mentioned, and finally Leo XIII, in 1884, in the Bull “Humanum genus.”

2. The Carbonari, a secret political society organized in Italy, in the beginning of the last century, whose purpose was the overthrow of the existing government and the establishment of a republic. They were excommunicated by Pius VIII and Leo XII.

3. The Fenians. This society was prohibited under censure of excommunication, by the Holy Office, January 12, 1870.

4. Societies of Anarchists and Nihilists, in Russia especially, but wherever they may exist, since their purpose brings them under the ban of excommunication.

No Catholic, therefore, may belong to any of the above named societies, without committing mortal sin, and at the same time incurring excommunication, which excommunication is reserved to the Holy See.

In the second category of forbidden societies, namely, of those that are forbidden under pain of mortal sin, but without the censure of excommunication, are to be placed the three societies, expressly mentioned in the official papal documents, that is to say:

1. Odd Fellows; 2. Knights of Pythias; 3. Sons of Temperance.

There are other societies also forbidden under pain of mortal sin, v. g., the Good Templars, Cremation Societies, etc., but our concern is at present with the three first mentioned. On February 13, 1896, the following letter was sent to the archbishops of the United States, from the Apostolic Delegation at Washington, D. C., for the information and guidance of the Ordinaries and clergy of the United States:

‘Apostolic Delegation, United States of America.

Washington, D. C., Feb. 13, 1896.

Your Grace:

Under date of August 13, 1895, I received from the Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda instructions regarding the application of the well-known decree of the Holy Office condemning the three societies, “Odd Fellows,” “Knights of Pythias,” and “Sons of Temperance.” According to these instructions which I communicated to your Grace at the time, the condemnation was to be considered absolute, and wherever peculiar circumstances seemed to merit special consideration in particular cases, the matter was to be referred by the Ordinary to Rome. In consequence, many Bishops have, since that time, sent cases to the Propaganda which have been referred to the Holy Office for consideration. The Supreme Congregation, after deliberation on such cases, has, by a decree dated January 18, 1896, determined on a course which is explained by the words which I quote from the decree itself:—

“It was asked whether, every other participation in those same sects having been removed, it is at least lawful to retain one’s own name in the membership rolls, and also to continue at the appointed time in the payment of the aforesaid assessment or debt.

“Since Our Most Holy Lord committed this very grave doubt to this Sacred Supreme Congregation for resolution, that same Sacred Congregation, after mature consideration of the matter, judged that the answer should be:—Generally speaking, it is not lawful; and according to the intention. The intention is that the matter can be tolerated when the following conditions and circumstances concur together in the case, namely: 1. If they originally gave their names to the sect in good faith, before it became known to them that the society had been condemned. 2. If scandal is absent, or is removed by an appropriate declaration that he does this lest he lose his right to the emoluments or the benefit of time in paying the debt; abstaining meanwhile, as stated above, from every communion with the sect and from every participation, even material. 3. If grave harm would come to himself or his family from renunciation. 4. Finally, provided that there is no danger whatever of perversion for that man or his family on the part of the sectaries, especially with regard to a case of illness or death; and likewise that there is no danger of a funeral being conducted with rites foreign to Catholic rites.

“When these matters were reported to Our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, they were approved and confirmed in their entirety. But since this is a most grave matter, full of dangers and difficulties, which concerns not only very many dioceses but also ecclesiastical provinces, that same Most Holy Lord ordered that, for the sake of observing a uniform rule, Your Eminence and your successors in the Apostolic Delegation may provide for particular cases.”

I beg your Grace to communicate the above disposition of the Holy See as soon as possible, to your Suffragans and through them to the Confessors. With sentiments of highest esteem and fraternal charity, I remain,

For His Eminence, Apostolic Pro-Delegate, Most faithfully yours in Xt,

D. SBARRETTI, Auditor.

From this decree of the Holy Office, it is evident that members of the three societies, or of any one of them, can not be absolved unless they absolutely renounce their adherence to the prohibited societies. This renunciation must be external, complete and made in good faith; because the aims and purposes of these societies are known to be dangerous to religion and to society, although the individual members of them may be quite ignorant of this fact.

Since, however, besides their leading aims, which are for the most part a matter of secrecy, these societies have for their secondary object mutual assistance in temporal things, the question arises whether a member, who having joined the association in good faith, has given his share toward the accumulation of a benefit fund, a proportionate part of which was to be returned to him or his family with just interest, either as savings or as relief money in case of sickness or death—whether such a member must so far renounce his connection with the society as to sustain a serious loss. To this, the Holy Office answers: As a rule, such financial loss is not a valid reason for continuing in the society, since it is impossible for a man to remain a nominal member of a society, without either furthering its main object, though unwillingly and unconsciously, or else giving scandal to those who do not know the true reasons for his remaining a nominal member, and who will naturally assume that such membership means practical co-operation in the aims and purposes of the society.

Nevertheless, there may be cases where there is no scandal given by the person continuing a nominal member, and where there exists no danger for his faith and where withdrawal would mean serious pecuniary loss. In such cases, provided the man joined the society in good faith, not knowing that it was forbidden, the pastor or confessor may make application in order to obtain permission to give the man absolution although he allows his name to remain on the rolls of the society in order to be entitled to the insurance for which he has been paying perhaps for many years. If such be the case, the Apostolic Delegate in Washington has been empowered by the Holy See, to allow a mere nominal membership to continue, according to his judgment of the case, for the sole purpose of securing for the applicant an external title to what really belongs to him, without identifying him with the dangerous or unlawful character of the forbidden society.

In summing up the case before us, we would say that:

1. Since the man in question became a Knight of Pythias in good faith, that is before his conversion to the Catholic Church,

2. Since he can not now withdraw from the order without serious pecuniary loss, being a poor man; then

3. If his nominal membership create no special danger for his spiritual interests, and

4. If such membership give no scandal, then application ought to be made to the Apostolic Delegate in Washington by the man’s confessor, or through him by the bishop, to obtain permission for the gentleman to continue a nominal member of the K. P.’s, in order to be able to claim legally the insurance that belongs to him and to his family. The confessor has no power or jurisdiction to judge whether the conditions that may permit nominal membership are verified or not; neither has the ordinary such power. The Apostolic Delegate alone is the competent authority to determine whether the circumstances of the case call for a special permission or authorization to continue a nominal member of the society.

The Church forbids Catholics to join secret societies. “Let the faithful avoid,” says Canon 684, “secret, condemned, seditious, suspect societies, and those which strive to withdraw themselves from the lawful vigilance of the Church.” If an organized body strive to conceal by the cloak of secrecy its members, its aims and object, and the means which it employs, the presumption is that it is organized against the public good. “Every one that hath evil hateth the light and cometh not to the light that his works may not be reproved.” The heads of secret societies are generally unknown to the outside world, and often even to the members themselves. Yet the members are bound to obey them, often under oath. There is no guarantee that all the orders issued by the secret heads will be in accordance with right and justice, and it is wrong to promise obedience under such circumstances. To make such a promise is to abdicate personal responsibility. Freemasonry is not only a secret society, it is a secret society of a special kind, and the Catholic Church forbids Catholics to join it under pain of incurring excommunication, the absolution of which is reserved to the Holy See. This is laid down in Canon 2335: “Those who join the Freemasons or other societies of the same kind which plot against the Church or lawful civil authority incur by the very fact excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See.” A Catholic, then, who becomes a Freemason ceases to be a Catholic; he is cut off from membership with the Catholic Church.

Modern Freemasonry is a secret society of English origin and dates from the early part of the eighteenth century. It spread quickly, and it is said that it now numbers more than two million members and that it has lodges all over the world. Its activities soon attracted the attention of civil and ecclesiastical authority. Many governments, both civil and ecclesiastical, prohibited it. It was condemned under pain of excommunication by Pope Clement XII in the year 1738, and since then the condemnation has frequently been repeated by his successors.

The Popes have been perfectly frank and open in acknowledging the sources from which they derived their information concerning the society. In his well-known Encyclical, Humanum Genus, issued in 1884, Leo XIII said that the Holy See derived its information from the observations of the fruits of Masonic activity in various parts of the world, from the publication of the statutes, rites, and commentaries of the order, from the investigation of particular cases, from the personal testimony of men who had been in the secret, and from the delation of civil governments. Clement XII had pointed out the radical flaw in the organization from the beginning. It drew men from any religion and sect, and, without requiring them to renounce or to profess any form of religion, it united them in the strictest bonds of unity. The practical consequence, as Leo XIII pointed out, was to bring about a complete indifference towards all forms of religion. But human nature does not stop there, it cannot rest satisfied with a mere negation. “He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” A creature cannot be indifferent to the claims of God and of Jesus Christ. If he is not on their side he soon becomes hostile to them. With inexorable logic, Leo XIII showed how indifference towards religion and the claims of God has led Masonry to modern Naturalism. Masons might believe what they pleased about the supernatural, they were united on the question of the natural, and they gave their exclusive attention to it. The attitude involves a practical rejection of Christianity and the adoption of neo-paganism. This accounts for many an error in religion and philosophy, in social and political affairs, in family life, and in the education of the young which form settled dogmas of modern thought. If what is called modern thought is not the creation of Masonry, at least Masonry has had great influence in making it so widely accepted.

Canon 2335 inflicts the penalty of excommunication, not only on Freemasons, but on members of other societies of the same kind. There is some difference of opinion among the commentators as to the meaning of the phrase “societies of the same kind.” Some of the latest and best authorities say that its meaning is defined by the clause which follows—" which plot, machinate, or work openly or in secret against the Church or lawful civil authority,” so that Communists and other organizations of the same sort would come under the condemnation. Others hold that as Freemasonry is a secret society, the phrase “other societies of the same kind” can only comprehend secret societies which work against the Church or lawful civil authority. Of course, there is no doubt but that Communism is forbidden on other grounds, and by Canon 634.

Recent events in Italy seem to show that while it works in secrecy its influence is great, but that when it comes to power and is compelled to show itself, the fierce light which beats upon a throne tends to destroy the influence of Freemasonry.