Talk:Declaration Concerning Status of Catholics Becoming Freemasons

Untitled
Please expand... what was Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) trying to clarify, and what did he say? Blueboar 00:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Content of letter
From, here is the actual content of the letter:

CLARIFICATION CONCERNING STATUS OF CATHOLICS BECOMING FREEMASONS

Issued by the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, February 17, 1981.

On 19 July 1974 this Congregation wrote to some Episcopal Conferences a private letter concerning the interpretation of can 2335 of the Code of Canon Law which forbids Catholics, under the penalty of excommunication, to enroll in Masonic or other similar associations.

Since the said letter has become public and has given rise to erroneous and tendentious interpretations, this Congregation, without prejudice to the eventual norms of the new Code, issues the following confirmation and clarification:

1) the present canonical discipline remains in full force and has not been modified in any way;

2) consequently, neither the excommunication nor the other penalties envisaged have been abrogated; 

3) what was said in the aforesaid letter as regards the interpretation to be given to the canon in question should be understood-as the Congregation intended-mere]y as a reminder of the general principles of interpretation of penal laws for the solution of the cases of individual persons which may be submitted to the judgment of ordinaries. 1t was not, however, the intention of the Congregation to permit Episcopal Conferences to issue public pronouncements by way of a judgment of a general character on the nature of Masonic associations, which would imply a derogation from the aforesaid norms.

Rome, from the Office of the S. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 17 February 1981.

The same link also mentions the clarification given AFTER the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated - basically it was a repeat of the above letter, with an addition explaining why Freemasonry was not mentioned explicitly in the Canon. In his 1996 letter, Cardinal Bernard Law of the USCCCB referenced the 1983 letter :

''The most recent statement was given by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Nov. 26, 1983. In part it declared, "The church's negative position on Masonic associations therefore remains unaltered since their principles have always been regarded as irreconcilable with the church's doctrine." The document added that "Catholics enrolled in Masonic associations are involved in serious sin and may not approach holy communion." ''DonaNobisPacem 19:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Ban on Membership
(Copied from Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry)

I think this section needs work. The confusion as to whether the revisions to the Code of Cannon Law applies to more that "a few people". There is indeed great confusion, among Freemasons and Catholics alike. Given the Pope's statements (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) on the subject, I fully expect that clarification will soon be forthcoming... but until it does, the confusion still exists. Please understand that I am not trying to imply that the Church now says that it is OK for Catholics to join Freemasonry (although I wish it would). Just that there is more than just a few people who are confused. and because of this, I feel that the issue deserves more explanation than it currently has. We should explain why the recent changes to Cannon Law led people to think that it might be OK for Catholics to become Freemasons, and how the Pope's (Cardinal Ratzinger's) comments contradicted this impression. Also, while I agree that there still is (sadly) a ban in place, the section (as it reads now) implies that excommunication is still the penalty for violating this ban. I am fairly sure that this is erronious. Joining non-approved fraternities like Freemasonry is considered "a serious sin" but is no longer an excommunicatable offence (or something along those lines... I do not have a copy of the Law in front of me, so my wording may be off).Blueboar 00:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, as I read it, it says that some people thought that excommunication was still the penalty, and that Cardinal Ratzinger had clarified that it was not automatic. Do you disagree that this is what the phrasing says?--SarekOfVulcan 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes... I took phrasing to imply that Cardinal Ratzinger's correcton stated that excommunication was still in effect. Perhaps my recent edits will be an acceptable re-wording.  However, I still would like to see a fuller explanation of this issue (at least one that will better reflect current confusions, until the Vatican speaks to the issue). Blueboar 01:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. I was confusing two of the sources here.--SarekOfVulcan 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the issue whether there is automatic excommunication? JASpencer 17:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article Clarification concerning status of Catholics becoming Freemasons, and I suggest that we work on that article and work through that talk page first, then return to this page once a concensus has been reached. JASpencer 17:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly what was the original position, secondly how did the "confusion" deviate from the original position and thirdly does the clarification in fact go back to the original position?
 * JAS... Now that I have had a chance to see a transcription of the actual letter (which you included in a link at the "Clarification" page above - thank you) I am willing to back down and admit I was wrong. Cardinal Ratzinger's letter does indeed imply that excomunication is still the penalty. So the only remaining issue is beafing up the explanation of what he was clarifying and why it confused people (and perhaps why people are still confused).  On a purely styalistic note, I hope you approve of my moving the discussion of this topic out of 'Ban on Membership' to a location lower down on the page... The article progresses in chronological/historical order, and the "Ban" section covers the 1700s or 1800s.  Cardinal Ratzinger's letter belongs in a later section, after the 1981 revisions to the Cannon Law. Blueboar 23:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (Credit for posting goes to DNB). Here's my take: (1) The original position was in the 1917 Canon Law which stated the Catholics were forbidden from joining any Masonic lodges under pain of excommunication, (2) the confusion arose in that Masonic lodges were not specifically mentioned so that it was assumed that they were no longer automatically forbidden to Catholics, (3) the clarification did restate the original automatic prohibition on Catholics both from the Vatican and (four years later) from the US bishop's conference. JASpencer 23:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Article-worthy?
All this seems to be is a summary of a link. Wouldn't it be better to put it back in the main article and just put the link tere, or is there a WP policy regarding separate articles for papal encyclicals and letters? MSJapan 04:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For those trying to reconcile Freemasonry and Catholicism I think this is a crucial document. It is also the most recent document that has come from the Vatican on the issue of Freemasonry.  Admittedly, the lead up to and the fallout from this do need work. JASpencer 19:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Issuer error
I found
 * The Clarification concerning status of Catholics becoming Freemasons was a 1981 letter from then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger  reiterating the Church's prohibition on Catholics becoming Freemasons. The letter was followed in 1983 by Quaesitum est.

but i am replacing the portion in which i have increased the character size, with
 * ... a February 1981 letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

and closing the 'graf with
 * ... Quaesitum est, issued by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who had become the Congregation's prefect in November 1981.

As to the change, i take it to be simply the result of confusion by an editor, since i can find no evidence for JCR's Feb '81 role except in info clearly copied from our articles, and in fact unlikely in light of info in sources we have cited. As to the wording, i have added more detail that i would have thot necessary otherwise, bcz of the need (and, if you like, WP's responsibility!) to contradict as clearly as possible the mistaken account that we have been propagating. I am undertaking similar changes in the following articles:
 * Joseph Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (lead secn)
 * Catholicism and Freemasonry

But note that in the case of Quaesitum est, which has it right already, i am not at this point adding the further details in that accurate article. --Jerzy•t 04:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "JR as P... CDF" was not in error in this respect, except by omission. --Jerzy•t 04:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)