It is not because Freemasonry is anti-Catholic (which, in many countries, it is not) that Catholics cannot join it, the Vatican says, but because it teaches a method where there is no place for unquestionable dogmas.
by Massimo Introvigne
Article 2 of 2. Read article 1.
The Constitutions drafted by Presbyterian pastor James Anderson (1680 or 1684–1739) in 1721 and published in 1723, the magna carta of modern Freemasonry, exclude discussions of religion, nation, or politics from the subjects that can be discussed in a Masonic lodge. There seems to be very little left, and indeed it is difficult to derive from the Constitutions an actual doctrine of Freemasonry. The only precise references are to a moral law and to a “religion in which all men agree.”
Freemasonry as described in its British founding charters is not a doctrine, and certainly not a religion, but a method that proposes the free discussion of problems and their solution according to what seems true and right to most of the brethren. The discussion has a positive limitation, at least in the Freemasonries inspired by the original British one: it is not permitted to question the existence of God. Anderson’s Constitutions explain that “if he rightly understands the Art, he [the Freemason] will never be a stupid Atheist, nor an irreligious Libertine”. But God can be conceived in a wide variety of ways, even far from what traditional religions propose. Pantheism, deism, even neo-paganism have all had their followers among prominent Freemasons. But in Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry, at whatever level and rank, one would also find many active and pious Protestants of different denominations.
While it is true not all Freemasons are critical of Christianity, and some are indeed active Christians, all Freemasons maintain an approach to the question of truth that is incompatible with what the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations think about dogma. In fact, in addition to its positive limitation, Masonic discussion also has a negative one: everything can be questioned through the Masonic method except the method itself. Those who would maintain that there are dogmas proclaimed as such by a religious authority that should be accepted by faith and excluded from discussion would automatically place themselves outside the Masonic method.
It is in this sense that a Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy, Armando Corona (1921–2009), could declare in 1992 that the “fundamental Masonic principle” is that “there is no single religion to arrive at Salvation,” while “the Catholic Church has dogmas and considers its own the only true religion.” In another Masonic “family,” that of the Grand Orient of France, a prominent ideologist, Alain Gérard, confirmed that Freemasonry “is neither a religion nor a philosophy, but only a method.” This method, according to Gérard, would not prevent anyone from having well-defined opinions but requires everyone to “question” their opinions when lodge work begins, accepting the hypothesis that they may possibly be false or may be subsumed into a higher synthesis. The Masonic method “does not mean that one does not have clear ideas; it only means that one accepts to question them. This questioning cannot really take place if one first declares that, whatever the outcome of the discussion, there are points on which one will continue to be convinced that one is right.”
No better exposition could be made of a position shared by all Masonic families. Those who accept the Masonic method must be willing to put their ideas on the table, “put them into question,” and accept that they may be proved as not unquestionably and unequivocally true. Herein lies the root of the problem. The Catholic Church and other Christian churches believe that some of the truths they teach are not of human but divine origin. They are “dogmas” that as such cannot be “put into question” without excluding a priori the prospect of revising or abandoning them.
Masonic authors often do not accept the expression “relativism,” considering it unfair and referring to a kind of disregard for truth that they do not in fact profess. They observe that, on the contrary, there have been in history numerous Freemasons so convinced of an idea, be it national, political, or social that they gave their lives for it. Perhaps there is a confusion here between two different philosophical categories: skepticism and relativism. The theoretical skeptic thinks that there is no such thing as truth, and the practical skeptic that if there is, it is impossible to ascertain. The relativist is sometimes sincerely attached to a relative truth but, in spite of this, regards truth as something dependent on an independent variable that, as such, determines it. To claim that the Masonic method lies within the horizon of relativism is not to accuse Freemasons of denying the existential relevance of truth or of not feeling strongly about it. It only means that the Masonic method promotes a view of truth as relative and conditioned by independent variables that determine it: and this, precisely, is one of the possible definitions of relativism.
It is in this sense that the Masonic method is related to the sociological origin of Freemasonry and its success. In one of the most serious investigations of the socio-historical significance of Freemasonry in the United States, historian Lynn Dumenil attributed the success of the Masonic brotherhood there in the 19th century precisely in its offering safety to those who wanted to believe in “something” without committing themselves to any immutable dogma or belief.
The Vatican statements against Freemasonry of the 18th and 19th century had mostly in mind Freemasonries in Italy, France, Spain, Latin America that were anti-clerical and anti-Catholic and disregarded the prohibition in the Anderson Constitutions to avoid attacking specific religions or churches and becoming involved in politics. This eventually led to their separation from British and American Freemasonry, which maintained the original Anderson model.
Invariably, early Vatican documents noted the Masonic anti-clericalism and attacks against the Catholic Church. In the 20th and 21st century, however, the Vatican became willing to acknowledge that there were different Freemasonries and only some of them maintained an anti-Catholic attitude or spent their energies, as it typically happened in France, in promoting laws in the field of sexuality and the family that the Catholic Church opposed. However, as mentioned in the first article of this series, after dialogues between Catholic and Masonic leaders and intellectuals in several countries, the Vatican decided to maintain the prohibition.
The Vatican remained persuaded that what different Freemasonries have in common is the method, just as many calculators may have in common the same program, or programs with such modest variations that they can be considered minor. What comes out of the program may vary depending on the data entered. Different obediences and different Freemasonries may take different positions on almost any issue, but the method remains common. For the Vatican approach adopted in the 1983 Declaration on Freemasonry, which on November 13 Pope Francis reaffirmed, the program has a virus. It is not even necessary to examine the results of the Masonic method country by country and lodge by lodge. It is the method itself that is incompatible with the Catholic faith, the Vatican believes.
According to the 1983 document that Pope Francis now says is still in force, although the new 1983 Code of Canon Law no longer spoke of “excommunication” for Freemasons, in fact “the negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.” Exceptions may not be granted by local Bishops.
Some Freemasons argued that from the fact that the word “excommunication” was no longer used in the new Code of Canon Law it could be inferred that Catholics today can freely become Freemasons. The new statement by Pope Francis confirms that such is still not the case.
On the other hand, the new Catholic teaching on Freemasonry is not the same of the one the Popes proclaimed in the 18th or the 19th century. At that time, Catholics were told they cannot join Freemasonry because it promoted an anti-clerical and anti-Catholic ideology. Today, Catholics are told they cannot join Freemasonry because, even if it includes members and entire national organizations that are not anti-Catholic and may even be admirable for their charitable deeds and share several positions with the Catholic Church, the anti-dogmatic method they teach is incompatible with the dogma-based attitude that should be typical of faithful Catholics. No matter how much some media hails the “liberalism” of Pope Francis, the statement on Freemasonry confirms that he remains persuaded that Catholicism cannot exist without non-questionable dogmas. Those who think otherwise have plenty of other religions and organizations to join.
Massimo Introvigne (born June 14, 1955 in Rome) is an Italian sociologist of religions. He is the founder and managing director of the Center for Studies on New Religions (CESNUR), an international network of scholars who study new religious movements. Introvigne is the author of some 70 books and more than 100 articles in the field of sociology of religion. He was the main author of the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia (Encyclopedia of Religions in Italy). He is a member of the editorial board for the Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Religion and of the executive board of University of California Press’ Nova Religio. From January 5 to December 31, 2011, he has served as the “Representative on combating racism, xenophobia and discrimination, with a special focus on discrimination against Christians and members of other religions” of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). From 2012 to 2015 he served as chairperson of the Observatory of Religious Liberty, instituted by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in order to monitor problems of religious liberty on a worldwide scale.
