Is Freemasonry Inherently Unchristian?

"These aforesaid Societies or Conventicles have caused in the minds of the faithful the greatest suspicion, and all prudent and upright men have passed the same judgment on them as being depraved and perverted. For if they were not doing evil, they would not have such a great hatred of the light. Indeed, this rumour has grown to such proportions that in several countries, civil authorities have forbidden these societies as being against public security, and for some time past, they have appeared to be prudently eliminated."

Strong words. Indeed, what does being "prudently eliminated" actually mean? It must be persecution and repression, of that there can be little doubt. However, do these words from the eighteenth century remain relevant today? 

It is undoubtedly true that Freemasonry is neither "depraved" nor "perverted", and neither is it actively banned in any democratic country nowadays. Indeed, where it is banned tells us more about the status in which human rights are held generally, such as in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. One must question, therefore, why the Vatican wishes to occupy the same space as Wahabi regimes. The obvious point is that the Vatican is a theocracy, like them, albeit its anti-masonic reasoning differs significantly. The papal ban, of course, has nothing to do with Freemasonry's charitable work and altruism, nor does it acknowledge that most masons meet socially and rehearse rituals they do not understand nor are interested in understanding. You would think that would be enough to protect masonry, but sadly not.

Most of the concerns of the Papacy in 1738 were directed either at a type of Freemasonry or the activity of Freemasonry current at that time. Indeed, what appears to have caused the most offence to Rome was the secrecy in which lodges convened – their tiling – and the infiltration of masonry by men interested in political subterfuge in such a way as to militate against what many at the time regarded to be the divinely ordered governance of society – namely the divine right of kings to govern and for the Catholic Church to be the natural religion alongside them. We can see how influential Freemasonry was in toppling the crowns of England in America and France in the French Revolution and how "dangerous" masonry was perceived to be to the establishment. Admittedly, England was an Anglican domain, which explains why the Revolutionaries were given support from a Catholic French king who later regretted doing so, both fiscally and in terms of setting a (fatal) precedent for himself. However, it is also true that Catholic suspicion of masonry has long run deep in continental Europe. This was not helped by organisations such as the secretive Illuminati recruiting from within Freemasonry. Nevertheless, there were Catholic Freemasons aplenty in France, and the lodges assembled about the court at Versailles in pre-Revolutionary France, enough for us to understand that the prohibition on Catholic membership was not enforced particularly well or taken too seriously. It also explains why members of the clergy themselves often joined lodges (we need only remind ourselves of the Elus Coens' Abbe Fournie and his eponymous uncle, the Grand Prior Rozier of the Augustinian Priory of Paris, as being among their number).

Yet, here we are in the twenty-first century, and the papal ban not only continues but is regularly refreshed in the minds of the laity by the Church authorities. Why is that? The Church does not like secret societies of any guise outside its boundaries, but there is more to it than this. Secular governments and secret think tanks are also beyond its grasp, yet it does not ban them. Given that there are far more pressing problems afoot for the Church today than Freemasonry, what about Masonic teaching that is so intrinsically unchristian, let alone uncatholic? The response must go beyond secrecy, secularism, and, ultimately, authority; there has to be a doctrinal reason for the Church's censure of Catholic membership in masonry. This is met with criticism of Freemasonry in the Eastern Orthodox Churches and many Protestant denominations of the West. From a Catholic perspective, the words of the late Benedict XVI resonate when, as Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Prefect of Rome, he approved the Declaration issued by the Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith on 26 November 1983, stating that:

"The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion."

It cannot be made any more transparent as far as the Catholic Church is concerned: Freemasonry and Catholicism are incompatible. This is not to say the Freemason is unchristian. It says there is something inherently unchristian about the organisation he belongs to. The Declaration was reaffirmed by the present Pope, Francis, in 2023 when the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith reiterated the prohibition at the behest of Filipino bishops concerned about the spread of Freemasonry, and who sought the authority of the Pope to educate Catholics as to the existing rules prohibiting masonic membership. The Dicastery signed by Francis stated,

"On the doctrinal level, it should be remembered that active membership in Freemasonry by a member of the faithful is forbidden because of the irreconcilability between Catholic doctrine and Freemasonry."

However, the excommunication of Freemasons by the Church courts is not on the cards, mainly because there are more pressing concerns for its limited resources to pursue, most notably the issue of abortion and the systemic attack on the institution of marriage in Western society. Catholics who are Freemasons are, therefore, required by the Church to 'self-police' by abstaining from receiving communion until they have quit masonry and taken confession. Otherwise, to take communion as a Freemason is to commit a mortal sin. Before we look at non-Catholic representations on the subject, let us consider what is the difference between self-excommunication, formal excommunication, grave sin and mortal sin in the Catholic Church because there are differences. Indeed, if grave sin is enough to forbid receiving the Eucharist but not to be expelled from the Church, why does the Church take this view and on what grounds does it take them?

There is a difference between "grave sin" and "mortal sins" in Catholic doctrine. For a sin to be mortal, there must be full knowledge and deliberate consent to participate in it. It is a little like the legal doctrine known as mens rea for a crime – literally a "guilty mind" - to plot and plan something with malice aforethought (the guilty mind itself). If we liken the actus reus act to sin, we can see a clear difference between the act/sin and the participant/ sinner. Therefore, A mortal sin contains three components: the intention to sin, the sin itself, and a sin of sufficient gravity to fall into a category deemed mortal. It is a little like the difference between having the mens rea (plan) to steal (action) a packet of playing cards from a shop and plotting someone's murder. So sins, like crimes, have gradients of severity in Catholic theology. A grave sin breaks one or more must-nots in the Mosaic Decalogue, or Ten Commandments of Moses. By way of a reminder, these are:

• You shall wordship no other gods than God
• You shall not worship idols
• You shall not blaspheme
• You shall keep the Sabbath sacrosanct
• You shall honour your mother and father
• You shall not commit murder
• You shall not commit adultery (including in the heart, by commandment of Christ)
• You shall not steal
• You shall not lie (bear false witness against your neighbour)
• You shall not be jealous

Prior to the Decalogue, God had given seven laws known as the "Noahide Commandments" to the gentile nations, namely:

• To establish law
• To not blaspheme
• Not to commit idolatry
• Not to sexually promiscuous
• Not to murder
• Not to steal
• And not eat the flesh of a living animal

In Judaism, the commandments expanded into a list of at least 613 commandments that are believed to be taught by the Torah and which Jews are to follow. In Catholicism, however, we can see that breaking one of the canonical commandments defines a grave sin. What makes that sin mortal is the intention behind it. So, it follows that all mortal sins are grave sins, but not all grave sins are mortal. Why the difference? It is a question of authority for the Catholic Church, far more than it is a matter of disagreement with the perceived universalism and synergistic teachings of Freemasonry.

Book IV, Title III, Canon 916 of the current Code of Canon Law states that,

"A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible."

"Those who have been excommunicated from the Church after the imposition of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grace sin are not to be admitted to holy communion." (Canon 915) 

It follows that, upon being made aware of a grave sin, a communicant must cease taking Mass until the cessation and confession of the sin. In the instance to cease membership of Freemasonry and receive the sacrament of confession. It follows that Catholics who knowingly continue in the craft and are made aware  of the Declaration, no longer commit a grave but a mortal sin. So, the shift focuses from the sin to the sinner, from the act to the participant, who chooses to rebel against the authority of the Church by breaking its law.

This is an important point because the Catholic Church does not take excommunication lightly (but neither is excommunication ever intended to be permanent).  This is because there are two types of excommunication: one minor, which takes place at the moment of the mortal sin itself, and the other major, which an ecclesiastical court imposes. Both necessitate a prohibition from receiving holy communion; which the sacrament of confession remedies. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, excommunication "is the most serious penalty the Church can inflict", but notes that it is "a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty."  The idea is that excommunication is corrective, not punitive. The Encyclopaedia states,

"Such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction. Meanwhile, his status before the Church is that of a stranger. He may not participate in public worship or receive the Body of Christ or any  sacraments."

The latter type of excommunication is rare and focuses mainly on schismatics and pro-abortionists. This takes us to the critical issue that the Church appears to take a formal, official view of Freemasonry yet does little to actively excommunicate Freemasons using the ecclesiastical courts. So, it is left as a matter of conscience to Freemasons, who should, therefore, cease taking holy communion and remain in minor excommunication until they leave masonry and attend confession for their grave (and indeed, once they are aware of it) mortal sin. Why, then, does the Church disregard Freemasons within its ranks and not openly chase them out of its doors? Firstly, the Church does not seek to chase anyone away openly; it simply states that those in grave or mortal sin and who are not formally excommunicated should police themselves and not take holy communion. They are still welcome to attend its services, and must help them return to full communion and full receipt of sacramental grace. Baptismal vows on behalf of an infant and baptismal vows are confirmed by the Sacrament of Confirmation and cannot, after all, be undone. They stand inviolable and last for life. What the Church takes exception to in Freemasonry needs to be considered, and, while on paper it is a grave sin to be a mason, and a mortal one to be in continuance on it once a mason knows the Church's teachings in that regard, there is a tacit understanding in the Church that masonic membership is not as bad as apostacy or encouraging others away from the Faith. A cursory glance at any list of significant excommunications in the twenty-first century is enough to demonstrate this point. 

Therefore, the Church appears to treat Freemasonry in the same way as it has its mystics and other oddities down the centuries: “keep quiet, do not make a fuss, and we will turn a blind eye". This, one could argue, is a reasonable fait accompli for both the errant Freemason and his parish priest alike ("Do not ask, and I will not tell" is how it goes). This does not absolve the Freemason from asking why the Church requests he abstain from taking holy communion and why it teaches that his soul is in mortal danger. Aside from the fact that any secret society operating outside of the Church is questionable where Rome is concerned because its authority is absolute, the question brings us to why other mainstream Christian churches question Freemasonry if indeed they do at all. For the Catholic mason, the Church says no, and no it must be. That is the basis of its apostolic authority to “bind or loose” as it sees fit. The Church, however, appeals to the conscience of the masonic Catholic to depart Freemasonry and to end his voluntary excommunication.

Article (c) M.R. Osborne 2025