Sunday, November 16, 2025

ON THE IRRECONCILABILITY BETWEEN CHRISTIAN FAITH AND FREEMASONRY

By Tim Rohr

Given the current debate about Freemasonry on this blog, it may be useful to set out relatively recent official Catholic Church teaching on the matter. So we copy here the following document on the "Irreconcilability between Christian faith and Freemasonry."


REFLECTIONS A YEAR AFTER DECLARATION OF CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Irreconcilability between Christian faith and Freemasonry

(Emphases added)

On 26 November 1983 the S. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (S.C.D.F.) published a declaration on Masonic associations (cf. AAS LXXVI [1984], 300). At a distance of little more than a year from its publication, it may be useful to outline briefly the significance of this document.

Since the Church began to declare her mind concerning Freemasonry, her negative judgment has been inspired by many reasons, both practical and doctrinal. She judged Freemasonry not merely responsible for subversive activity in her regard, but from the earliest pontifical documents on the subject and in particular in the Encyclical Humanum Genus by Leo XIII (20 April 1884), the Magisterium of the Church has denounced in Freemasonry philosophical ideas and moral conceptions opposed to Catholic doctrine. For Leo XIII, they essentially led back to a rationalistic naturalism, the inspiration of its plans and activities against the Church. In his Letter to the Italian people Custodi (8 December 1892), he wrote: «Let us remember that Christianity and Freemasonry are essentially irreconcilable, so that enrollment in one means separation from the other».

One could not therefore omit to take into consideration the positions of Freemasonry from the doctrinal point of view, when, during the years from 1970‑1980, the Sacred Congregation was in correspondence with some Episcopal Conferences especially interested in this problem because of the dialogue undertaken by some Catholic personages with representatives of some Masonic lodges which declared that they were not hostile, but were even favourable, to the Church.

Now more thorough study has led the S.C.D.F. to confirm its conviction of the basic irreconcilability between the principles of Freemasonry and those of the Christian faith.

Prescinding therefore from consideration of the practical attitude of the various lodges, whether of hostility towards the Church or not, with its declaration of 26 November 1983 the S.C.D.F. intended to take a position on the most profound and, for that matter, the most essential part of the problem: that is, on the level of the irreconcilability of the principles, which means on the level of the faith, and its moral requirements.

Beginning from this doctrinal point of view, and in continuity, moreover, with the traditional position of the Church as the aforementioned documents of Leo XIII attest, there arise then the necessary practical consequences, which are valid for all those faithful who may possibly be members of Freemasonry.

Nevertheless, with regard to the affirmation of the irreconcilability between the principles of Freemasonry and the Catholic faith, from some parts are now heard the objection that essential to Freemasonry would be precisely the fact that it does not impose any «principles», in the sense of a philosophical or religious position which is binding for all of its members, but rather that it gathers together, beyond the limits of the various religions and world views, men of good will on the basis of humanistic values comprehensible and acceptable to everyone.

Freemasonry would constitute a cohesive element for all those who believe in the Architect of the Universe and who feel committed with regard to those fundamental moral orientations which are defined, for example, in the Decalogue; it would not separate anyone from his religion, but on the contrary, would constitute an incentive to embrace that religion more strongly.

The multiple historical and philosophical problems which are hidden in these affirmations cannot be discussed here. It is certainly not necessary to emphasize that following the Second Vatican Council the Catholic Church too is pressing in the direction of collaboration between all men of good will. Nevertheless, becoming a member of Freemasonry decidedly exceeds this legitimate collaboration and has a much more important and final significance than this.

Above all, it must be remembered that the community of «Freemasons» and its moral obligations are presented as a progressive system of symbols of an extremely binding nature. The rigid rule of secrecy which prevails there further strengthens the weight of the interaction of signs and ideas. For the members this climate of secrecy entails above all the risk of becoming an instrument of strategies unknown to them.

Even if it is stated that relativism is not assumed as dogma, nevertheless there is really proposed a relativistic symbolic concept and therefore the relativizing value of such a moral-ritual community, far from being eliminated, proves on the contrary to be decisive.

In this context the various religious communities to which the individual members of the lodges belong can be considered only as simple institutionalizations of a broader and elusive truth. The value of these institutionalizations therefore appears to be inevitably relative with respect to this broader truth, which instead is shown in the community of good will, that is, in the Masonic fraternity.

In any case, for a Catholic Christian, it is not possible to live his relation with God in a twofold mode, that is, dividing it into a supraconfessional humanitarian form and an interior Christian form. He cannot cultivate relations of two types with God, nor express his relation with the Creator through symbolic forms of two types. That would be something completely different from that collaboration, which to him is obvious, with all those who are committed to doing good, even if beginning from different principles. On the one hand, a Catholic Christian cannot at the same time share in the full communion of Christian brotherhood and, on the other, look upon his Christian brother, from the Masonic perspective, as an «outsider».

Even when, as stated earlier, there were no explicit obligation to profess relativism as doctrine, nevertheless the relativizing force of such a brotherhood, by its very intrinsic logic, has the capacity to transform the structure of the act of faith in such a radical way as to become unacceptable to a Christian, «to whom his faith is dear» (Leo XIII).

Moreover, this distortion of the fundamental structure of the act of faith is carried out for the most part in a gentle way and without being noticed: firm adherence to the truth of God, revealed in the Church, becomes simple membership, in an institution, considered as a particular expressive form alongside other expressive forms, more or less just as possible and valid, of man’s turning toward the eternal.

The temptation to go in this direction is much stronger today, inasmuch as it corresponds fully to certain convictions prevalent in contemporary mentality. The opinion that truth cannot be known is a typical characteristic of our era and, at the same time, an essential element in its general crisis.

Precisely by considering all these elements, the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation affirms that membership in Masonic associations «remains forbidden by the Church», and the faithful who enrolls in them «are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion».

With this last statement, the Sacred Congregation points out to the faithful that this membership objectively constitutes a grave sin and by specifying that the members of a Masonic association may not receive Holy Communion, it intends to enlighten the conscience of the faithful about a grave consequence which must derive from their belonging to a Masonic lodge.

Finally, the Sacred Congregation declares that «it is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above». In this regard, the text also refers to the Declaration of 17 February 1981, which already reserved to the Apostolic See all pronouncements on the nature of these associations which may have implied derogations from the Canon Law then in force (Can. 2335). In the same way, the new document issued by the S.C.D.F. in November 1983 expresses identical intentions of reserve concerning pronouncements which would differ from the judgment expressed here on the irreconcilability of Masonic principles with the Catholic faith, on the gravity of the act of joining a lodge and on the consequences which arise from it for receiving Holy Communion. This disposition points out that, despite the diversity which may exist among Masonic obediences, in particular in their declared attitude towards the Church, the Apostolic See discerns some common principles in them which require the same evaluation by all ecclesiastical authorities.

In making this Declaration, the S.C.D.F. has not intended to disown the efforts made by those who, with the due authorization of this Congregation, have sought to establish a dialogue with representatives of Freemasonry. But since there was the possibility of spreading among the faithful the erroneous opinion that membership in a Masonic lodge was lawful, it felt that it was its duty to make known to them the authentic thought of the Church in this regard and to warn them about a membership incompatible with the Catholic faith.

Only Jesus Christ is, in fact, the Teacher of Truth, and only in him can Christians find the light and the strength to live according to God’s plan, working for the true good of their brethren.

19 comments:

  1. A long document does not change the simple truth that a Catholic’s conscience, formed honestly before God, guides their life and that no blog post gets to overrule the personal relationship a believer has with Christ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's protestantism. We are not required to "form our conscience before God,." That's what protestants do. As Catholics we are required to form our conscience "guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church." CCC 1758. The above document is the "authoritative teaching of the Church," and it is consistent with centuries of similar pronouncements.

      Delete
    2. Tim, the Catechism requires Catholics to form their conscience with Church teaching, but it also requires them to follow that conscience before God. That is Catholic moral theology, not Protestantism. Ignoring half the teaching does not make the other half stronger.

      Treating a disciplinary document as if it were unchanging dogma, and acting as though personal moral responsibility disappears once a blog quotes an old declaration, is not how the Church actually works. Conscience, reason, and sincere faith are part of the Catholic tradition, whether you acknowledge them or not.

      I follow the Church, I follow my conscience, and I answer to God.
      That is Catholic and that is enough.

      Delete
    3. Well, one thing for sure, the way you think is right in line with the majority of Catholics these days. So you're in good company. "Wide is the path..." Matthew 7:13-14

      Delete
    4. Tim, quoting “wide is the path” is not an argument. It is a way to avoid engaging the actual teaching I pointed out. The Church does not judge the state of a person’s soul by blog comments or by how many people agree with them. It judges by sincerity of conscience, authentic faith, and how they live the Gospel.

      Staying faithful is not about picking the narrowest interpretation. It is about seeking God with honesty. That is the path I walk, and it is the one the Church actually teaches.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous said, "I follow the Church, I follow my conscience, and I answer to God.
      That is Catholic and that is enough."

      You're obviously not following the Church in these matters pertaining her authoritative teaching simply by your very clear refusal to acknowledge her. Your arguments are clearly protestations of her authority which were very clear in the document: "Precisely by considering all these elements, the Declaration of the Sacred Congregation affirms that membership in Masonic associations «remains forbidden by the Church», and the faithful who enrolls in them «are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion».

      What part of "I follow the Church," while not following the Church is following the Church?

      Delete
    6. Thus "wide is the path..."

      Delete
    7. Jose, you are taking one Church document and acting like it replaces everything else the Church teaches about conscience and moral responsibility. That is not how the Catholic faith works. The Church does not give bloggers the authority to decide who is in sin or who can receive Communion. A Catholic must follow Church teaching, but they must also follow their conscience before God. Ignoring that part does not make your argument stronger.

      Delete
  2. Majority of Catholics these days are cafeteria Catholics. Their conscience is compromised by worldly desires and ambitions. They will find out come Judgment Day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Labeling other Catholics as “cafeteria Catholics” and deciding whose conscience is “compromised” is not holiness. It is pride. The Church teaches that God alone judges the heart, and no anonymous commenter has the authority to declare whose faith is real or whose salvation is secure. A sincere conscience before God is not cafeteria faith. It is Catholic teaching, and it deserves more respect than casual threats about Judgment Day.

      Delete
    2. No one is judging your "heart" - especially when you won't say who you are. We are judging what the Catholic Church clearly teaches with your rejection of what the Catholic Church clearly teaches, and in this case, especially because two of you want to be our next governor.

      Delete
    3. Mr. Anonymous Freemason's approach to the formation of a Catholic conscience, which he thinks allows him to dismiss a clear command of the Church, reminds me of the logic used by Catholic pro-abortion politicians. It can be used to justify anything.

      Delete
    4. Chuck, comparing a Catholic who follows both Church teaching and conscience to a pro-abortion politician is not an argument, it is an exaggeration meant to replace reasoning with shock value. The Church does not teach that conscience is optional or dangerous. It teaches that a well-formed conscience is the foundation of every moral decision. Claiming that this “allows someone to justify anything” shows a misunderstanding of Catholic moral theology, not a flaw in the conscience itself. When the comparison has to jump straight to abortion to make a point, that is the clearest sign that the argument has no real footing.

      Delete
    5. Quit the obfuscation. Abortion is more heinous than Masonic membership but the moral calculus you use to justify your choice to be a freemason is the same as that employed by a Catholic who supports legal abortion demand: your conscience trumps clear Catholic teaching.

      Delete
    6. Chuck, I have to admire the creativity. It takes real imagination to turn a discussion about a fraternal organization into a grand statement about abortion policy. If two completely different issues require the same “moral calculus” in your view, that says more about the stretch of the comparison than about the strength of the argument.

      A well-formed conscience does not “trump” Church teaching, and the Church has never taught that it does. But it also does not vanish every time someone tries to force unrelated topics into the conversation.

      Delete
    7. At this point, we should probably speak more about conscience and its proper formation. St. Pope John Paul II said:

      "Because of the nature of conscience, the admonition always to follow it must immediately be followed by the question of whether what our conscience is telling us is true or not. If we fail to make this necessary clarification, conscience – instead of being that holy place where God reveals to us our true good – becomes a force which is destructive of our true humanity and of all our relationships. Thus it is precisely a defense of the dignity of conscience and of the human person to teach that consciences must be formed, so that they can discern what actually does or does not correspond to the 'eternal, objective and universal divine law' which human intelligence is capable of discovering in the order of being."

      Our consciences, then, do not "create" truth. Our consciences either conform to the truth in any specific instance or they do not. The decision of a Catholic man to become a Freemason then, contradicts the truth that membership is irreconcilable with Christian discipleship. "Fraternity" is hardly the issue. There are many such examples of individual Catholics contradicting the truth. Procuring, assisting or promoting abortion. Or the decision to contracept. Nonetheless, Dear Mr. Brave Anonymous Freemason, your soul is in danger.

      Delete
    8. Chuck, thank you for the quote from St. John Paul II. It is a good reminder that conscience must be formed, tested, and measured against the fullness of Church teaching. What it does not say is that private individuals get to decide when someone else’s conscience has failed. Formation is guided by the Church and examined before God, not determined by commenters assigning danger to someone else’s soul.

      I understand that you believe you already know the “truth” of my conscience, my intention, and even my eternal destiny. But that is exactly what John Paul II was warning against. Conscience does not “create truth,” and neither do personal assumptions presented as certainty.

      You can warn, you can quote, you can express concern.
      But declaring another Catholic’s soul “in danger” based on your interpretation is not authority. It is overreach dressed up as doctrine.

      Delete
    9. At this point we probably should address how to form one’s conscience in conformity with the truth. Here are some ideas:
      * Study Sacred Scripture and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If the Catechism is too encyclopedic, I recommend Bishop Schneider’s “Credo.” Very easy to read and it addresses current issues.
      * Engage in catechesis and ongoing education. Anything like that at your parish?
      * Practice prayerful reflection and examination of conscience.
      * Seek spiritual direction and counsel from wise advisors.
      * Participate actively in the sacraments, especially Penance and Eucharist.
      * Listen to preaching, homilies, and the Magisterium, e.g. recordings of homilies and teachings from bishops and popes address contemporary issues like family life or social justice. Plenty of these online.

      Delete
  3. If you let your conscience decide what is right and wrong instead of what you're Church clearly states, then you're Protestant and not Catholic. You know better than the Catholic Church. Do as other Protestants do and create your own church.

    ReplyDelete