This question piqued my interest – as is probably apparent, it’s well outside my usual subject matter – and I did a bit of digging, mostly out of curiosity. I’m by no means qualified to give you much insight into what did cause the French Revolution, but given you’ve asked for help on a specific claim, I thought I may as well set your mind at rest.

To begin with, the book your teacher has cited is not a reputable source. While my own French is mediocre at best, I did my best to browse through some scholarly book reviews, and I have rarely seen such disdain and frustration on the part of scholarly historians. I was particularly taken with one review (by Hervé Leuwers, I've done my best to translate it) in the Annales historiques de la Révolution française:

There are books that a journal devoted to research and scientific debate should not discuss; the Black Book of the French Revolution is one of them. But it is on the shelves of the booksellers, appears in the press and on Internet sites... The title, the date of release (January 21) and the contents leave little doubt, and any historian, any informed reader will quickly understand its nature and react with anger or contempt. If the only issue was the ignorance of the authors, or the commercial motives of the publisher, silence would no doubt be appropriate; but when such manipulations try to disguise themselves as historical discourse, silence is no longer appropriate.

Essentially, the book – written from an rigidly Catholic, socially conservative perspective – seeks to blame the French Revolution for everything from secularisation to Stalin to the Holocaust. It is not a serious work of history, and the apparent desire to blame Freemasonry for the Revolution fits into this particular conspiratorial mindset (part of my interest in looking into this was the Freemasonry angle – there is a particular strain of Spanish Catholic thought that is deeply suspicious of Freemasonry in the mid-20th century as well, and it apparently hasn't quite gone away).

The credibility of this particular book aside, it did not invent the idea that Freemasons conspired to destroy the Catholic Church via revolution. In fact, connections between Freemasonry and revolutionary beliefs were once highly influential in historical discourse in the immediate aftermath of the Revolution, up until the early twentieth century. A slightly more sane historian, Kenneth Loiselle, summarised the basic narrative (or ‘distorted caricature’) thusly:

From its earliest history in France it was said there was something insidious about Freemasonry. Anglophile freethinkers of a deist or even atheist spirit clandestinely gathered in Masonic lodges and, in spite of tight police surveillance, hatched their dark plot against Church and Throne. The order’s triumph lay in its deceptiveness. To the king and public at large, it portrayed itself as a benign organization of sociability with a penchant towards the occult. Within the walls of the lodge, however, brethren hammered away mercilessly against the French monarchy and openly preached and practised democratic republicanism: laws were devised, constitutions drafted and elections held. Ignorant of Freemasonry’s true purpose, the government permitted its expansion and, as the eighteenth century advanced, so too did the Masonic project to topple the ancien régime. On the eve of the Revolution, the French and Masonic mentality, at least among the elites, had become one. It thus came as no surprise that the Masonic model of politics directly influenced the Third Estate to break away from its traditional role in the Estates General, in order to establish the National Assembly. With the creation of this body, France had become a Masonic government.

Although in more recent decades no one (except Escande apparently) still believed the Revolution was a deliberate Masonic plot, some scholars did still hold that there was some rather intangible causal relationship between Freemasonry and revolution. More recent scholarship has done something to flesh some actual links out – Margaret Jacob, writing in 1991, points to the affinities between Masonic and Republican cultures, such as internal democracy and adherence to a set of codified laws, but this was at most one influence among many on revolutionary political cultures. Others have pointed out that the Revolution itself was immensely harmful to Masonic life in France, as it was to many pre-Revolution spheres of civil and associational society. Loiselle’s more recent work has highlighted the extent that there was really no monolithic Masonic presence in France, and Freemasons had no coherent response to the Revolution. In other words, not only did Freemasons not plot the French Revolution in advance, they couldn’t even agree on a collective response to it after it had begun.

Sources

Kenneth Loiselle, ‘Living the Enlightenment in an Age of Revolution: Freemasonry in Bordeaux (1788-1794)’, French History 24:1 (2009), pp. 60-81.

Margaret Jacob, Living the Enlightenment: Freemasonry and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Europe (Oxford, 1991).

Hervé Leuwers, ‘Renaud Escande, dir., Le livre noir de la Révolution française’, Annales historiques de la Révolution français, 351 (2008), PP. 225-227.