Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 Catholicism and Freemasonry is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Date of review: 21 August 2006

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Catholicism and Freemasonry article.
This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Freemasonry To-do:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

To-do list for Catholicism and Freemasonry:

 edit - history - watch - refresh

Article Ready Text

  • Replace Avowedly anti-clerical groups such as the carbonari in the Papal States are alleged to have followed a Masonic agenda as well as having based their organisation on Masonic forms. with The avowedly anti-clerical [[carbonari]] based their organisation on Masonic forms<ref>"The similarity between the secret society of the Carbonari and Freemasonry is evident. Freemasons could enter the Carbonari as masters at once." from [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03330c.htm Carbonari] from the [[Catholic Encyclopedia]].</ref> and the Church believed that they followed a Masonic agenda<ref name="fmcarb">"Similarly, Freemasonry, together with the Carbonari, cooperated in the Italian revolutionary movement of the nineteenth century" from [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm Masonry (Freemasonry)] in the [[Catholic Encyclopedia]]. This claim does not appear in subsequent editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia, although it does mention the Carbanaros [[Giuseppe Garibaldi]] and [[Giuseppe Mazzini]] as anti-clerical Masons.</ref>.

Further Work Needed

  • Weasel: It is alleged that Masonic initiation rituals for the Scottish Rite degrees (commonly thought of as being "higher" or "advanced" degrees[10], although this is strongly denied by the Scottish Rite[11]) are anti-Catholic.
  • Weasel: It is alleged[34] that anti-Catholicism becomes more pronounced in the appendant bodies, commonly called "higher" or "advanced" degrees
  • 1918 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia alleged that the Papal tiara is trampled
  • The Catholic Encyclopedia alleges that the Masonic book "La Franc-Maçonnerie, écrasée" in 1746 predicted the program of the French Revolution
  • A related allegation is that lower degree initiates could be manipulated into directions—particularly against either Catholicism or Christian belief—of which they are unaware
  • This allegation was not repeated in the 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia
  • 1980 German bishops conference produced a report on Freemasonry listing twelve points and allegations
  • Among the allegations were that Freemasonry denies revalation
  • Freemasonry has been commonly asserted
  • opinions as common actions of beliefs
  • Find reference to "clop. of Fraternities (p 160)" for First, the oath of secrecy by which the member binds himself to keep secret whatever also this oath binds the member to blind obedience, which is symbolized by a test. Such an obedience is against the law of man's nature, and against
  • Find out decrees mentioned in dangerous character and tendencies of secret organizations among students did not escape the vigilance of the Holy See, and Pius VIII (24 May, 1829) raised his warning voice concerning those in colleges and academies, as his predecessor, Leo XII, had done in the matter of universities http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14071b.htm
  • Find note [134] quoted in Masonry propagates no creed, except its own most simple and sublime one taught by Nature
  • Find note [136] quoted in It should be noted, that the great majority of Masons are far from being
  • Footnotes [158] and [159] for If the Bloc has been established, this is owing to Freemasonry and to the discipline learned in the lodges. The measures we have now to urge are the separation of Church
  • Fotnote [155] for They also instigated the "Kulturkampf". The celebrated jurisconsult and
  • Footnote [152] for See Congrés Intern. of Paris, 1889, in "Compte rendu du Grand Orient
  • [71] and [72] (also refers to p. 192) for Already in 1746 in the book "La Franc-Maçonnerie, écrasée
  • [163] for Masonry, which prepared the Revolution of 1789, has
  • [157] for Freemason's Chronicle, 1889, I, 81 sq and
  • [157] for French Masonry and above all the Grand Orient of France has displayed the most systematic
  • [159] for The Republic must rid itself of the religious congregations, sweeping them off by a
  • Could [161] be incorporated?
  • Add section on Catholic reactions to the Masonic reading of Canon law
  • Incorporate In good faith many of these men asked their pastor and/or bishop for permission to join the lodge. from Law Letter
  • Incorporate Some converts were received into the church during these years and were not asked to relinquish their Masonic affiliation. from Law Letter
  • Incorporate (In Freemasonry no one is supposed to be solicited to join the lodge, and no one is supposed to become a Mason by the consent of another. Some Masons viewed the 1974 statement by Cardinal Seper as requiring Catholics to obtain the consent of the bishop in order to petition for membership and as such this constituted unMasonic conduct). from Law Letter
  • Incorporate Membership in Masonic-related organizations such as the Eastern Star should be discouraged, but does not carry the same penalty of exclusion from the eucharist. from Law Letter
  • Incorporate Otherwise the position of the church remains what it has been for many years: Catholics in the United States and elsewhere may not be Freemasons. from Law Letter
  • Incorporate from NCE, One of the leading figures in American Freemasonry, Gen. Albert Pike (1809-91), called the papacy a "deadly, treacherous enemy," and in his letter dated Dec. 28, 1886, to the Italian Grand Commander Timoteo Riboli, he wrote, "The Papacy has been for a thousand years the torturer and curse of Humanity, the most shameless imposture, in its pretense to spiritual power of all ages."
  • Investigate The National Christian Association was formed in 1874 to coordinate Protestant opposition to secret societies. From the NCE
  • Incorporate from NCE, Several Roman Catholics served as grand masters of the English lodge during the 18th century. The Catholic Duke of Norfolk became grand master in 1730. Another prominent Catholic Freemason was Viscount Montagu. Robert Edward, the ninth Lord Petre, who was considered the head of the Catholic community in England, became a grand master in 1772 and held that office for 5 years. The Marquess of Ripon resigned the grand mastership in 1874 when he joined the Catholic Church.
  • Incorporate The Grand Lodge of Ireland, formed in 1725, is the second oldest in the world. It has preserved some Christian elements in its ritual such as the Lord's Prayer. For some years Roman Catholic laymen and priests participated in these lodges, since the papal bull of 1738 was not promulgated in Ireland until late in the century. The Irish patriot Daniel O'Connell was initiated in 1799 and served as master of Lodge No. 189 in Dublin. He later renounced his Masonic ties when the attitude of the Church was made known. from NCE
  • Incorporate The use of solemn oaths taken on the Bible in order to join a fraternal society or advance to its higher degrees has never been countenanced [by the Catholic Church]. Objectively speaking, those who swear such oaths are guilty of either vain or rash swearing. from Pastoral problems
  • Incorporate Hannah posed the basic dilemma of the Masonic oaths when he wrote: Either the oaths mean what they say or they do not. If they do mean what they say, then the candidate is entering into a pact consenting to his own murder by barbarous torture and mutilation should he break it. If they do not mean what they say, then he is swearing high-sounding schoolboy nonsense on the Bible, which verges on blasphemy. (Darkness Visible, p. 21). from Pastoral problems
  • Incorporate from NCE Facing the hostility of the Church, the French lodges tended to atheism and anticlericalism from the beginning.

Sources

  • Add points to do list from New Catholic Encyclopedia, First Edition.
  • Add points on to do list from German pastoral letter (if there are any)
  • Go through this source to see if there is any material (watch for POV matters)
  • See if any of these pages are reflective of Catholic teaching. (Feeneyite site so many of the pages will not actually be Catholic - quite a few of the links are also anti-semitic).

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:


Contents

[edit] Blanchard

As Blanchard is a book, which is not commonly available, then we really need a quotation. I have a strong feeling that Blanchard is not saying (let alone "demonstrating") what some editors would like it to say. If it were on the web then it would be better. Let's try to avoid verifiaphobia. JASpencer 09:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's readily available from Amazon, actually, and it probably is on the web. I'm also pretty sure I quoted the material here on WP when I added the citation to one of the article talk pages, so maybe Blueboar can find it. If not, I think it's old enough to be public domain, and I can scan the material if that's the case. As a note, all the book is is the Cerneau degrees and Blanchard's commentary, so it's hard not to get it to say what the author is saying. MSJapan 12:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
MSJ... you did indeed post some of the info on this... and it was in this very talk page. (see above: "At long last, the Blanchard citation!") You gave us the page number and the ISBN number ... so I guess all we need now is the publisher and publishing date. I will update the citation with what info we have so far... Would it be easy for you to give us the rest, or should I try to locate a copy at my library? As for including a quote... well that is JAS's style and not mine. If he wants to quote it, I suppose he can. Nothing in the citation guidelines requires it. Blueboar 13:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it the quote here [1]. If that's the case it's a claim and not a demonstration. JASpencer 13:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
No, although that does remind me of some of the problems of verification that we had, and why we started taking a look at Blanchard in the first place (ie the CE attributing words to Pike that did not appear in Pike's work). No, what I am referring to is on the extant talk page above ("At long last, the Blanchard citation!") where MSJ quotes from Blanchard. Blueboar 14:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
So it's this quote
Thrice Puissant Grand Master: (Passing ovwer to the Tiara.) This represents the Tiara of the cruel and cowardly Pontiff, who sacrificed ot his ambition the illustrious order of those Knights Templars of whome we are the true successors. A crown fo gold and precious stones ill befits the humble head of one who pretends to be successor, the Vicar, of Jesus of Nazareth. It is therefore the crown of an imposter(sic), and it is in the name of him who said "neither be ye called Masters," that we trample it under our feet. TPGM:(To candidate.) Are you disposed to do the same? Candidate: I am. (Thrice Puissant Grand Master then throws the Tiara on the floor and tramples on it, the candidate and all the Knights also trample on it, when all the Knights brandishing their poniards exclaim:) All: Down with imposture! (286)
So it also happened in the Cerneau degree. I'm sure that Blanchard also claims that it only happened in the Cerneau degree, but that would need a quote. If a quote can't be provided then I think it should go until one is. JASpencer 14:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
We also have the fact that editors are being told to conduct their own original research on this. If there is no quote then the reader has to buy the book and (if he or she has the right version) then look up the text. Much easier to give the quote. JASpencer 14:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
You miss the point... If you go back and look at the entire discussion on this section (including what is in the archives), we have a problem... the Catholic Encyclopedia says (in essence): The Kadosh degree includes the trampling of Papal Tiaras. They cite Pike to prove this. However, when you look at Pike, you find that he does not say anything about trampling tiaras. In otherwords, the CE made a demonstratable mistake. So where does this idea that the Kadosh degree includes trampling and anti-papal elements come from? The logical answer is: It comes from Blanchard's Scotch Rite exposé, which does contain trampling on a tiara, and can easily be mistaken for being an exposé of the Scottish Rite.
As for your complaint that we are asking editors to conduct "original research" ... Where do we ask anyone to do that? If you are complaining about my suggestion that you go to a library, I am certainly not asking you to do original resarch (if you tried to include original research in Wikipedia, I would jump all over it and delete it in a heart beat.) I suppose I am asking you to do some research. But there is a big difference. Conducting research is highly encouraged at Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia for that matter)... Perhaps you are not clear on what constitutes original research? If so, please read WP:NOR Blueboar 15:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
But your asking for the research to be done each time over again. If you had a quote (and I'm starting to seriously worry why everyone seems unable to provide one) then this would not be the case.
OK it wasn't a good idea to quote WP:NOR. The burden on a questioning reader would be intolerable, especially for what is a rather odd and surprising theory (after all this is not one that seems to be anywhere else). It really should be properly quoted.
WP:V says "Direct quotes, used as a method of easing factual verification, can be provided (in whatever format is agreed on by the main editors of the article) for any statement.

"

JASpencer 16:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Blanchard Text

I've removed the Blanchard text until the quote can be provided:

However, it can be demonstrated that these anti-Catholic elements do not form part of the rituals of the Scottish Rite, but are instead taken from Jonathan Blanchard's ''Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated'', an exposure of Cerneauism (an illegitimate pseudo-Masonic organization founded by Joseph Cerneau and chiefly active in the 1800s).<ref name=scotch>Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated, by Jonathan Blanchard, p. 286, ISBN 1930097387</ref>

JASpencer 14:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of removing the whole dubious text, I'll remove the citation which reads as follows:
<ref name=scotch>Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated, by Jonathan Blanchard, p. 286, ISBN 1930097387</ref>
The language of the sentence will need to be toned down such as: "it can be demonstrated".
JASpencer 14:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What is your justification for removing the citation? The book exists, and we give people enough information to obtain a copy if they wish to cite check. Yes, it could be put into a more standard citation format, and once I have that information (publisher and date etc.) I will do so. Blueboar 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the citation because I thought that it would be inflamatory to remove the main text immediately. This is an unusual theory in a controversial area and should be properly quoted rather than saying "trust me". Of course we could combine this in with the RFC that will go on Catholic Insight. JASpencer 16:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Not including a quote is not a valid justification for removing a citation... can you point to a wikipedia guideline or policy that says we must quote from our sources? I know that it is your oppinion that we should ... and you are free to include one if you wish. But I can not find anything that says a quote is required. The book exists, it is on Amazon and available in public libraries. We give other editors enough information to obtain it if they need to. That is all that is required. Unlike the Catholic Insite page, it meets WP:RS (and all other guidelines and policies). Blueboar 16:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a rather unusual, and convenient, theory on a controversial area. Put bluntly - I don't believe it, at least in the form written here. Any way we're both getting far too bothered on this, let's have an outsider to comment. JASpencer 16:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Disputed text before an RFC

I'm going to remove the two sets of disputed text before starting the RFC.

However, it can be demonstrated that these anti-Catholic elements do not form part of the rituals of the Scottish Rite, but are instead taken from Jonathan Blanchard's ''Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated'', an exposure of Cerneauism (an illegitimate pseudo-Masonic organization founded by Joseph Cerneau and chiefly active in the 1800s).<ref name=scotch>Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated, by Jonathan Blanchard, p. 286, ISBN 1930097387</ref>

and:

or alternatively that a skull with a Papal tiara is stabbed

The followigng two proposed references for the above text have also been removed:

<ref name="fisher">"The Scottish Rite's Knight Kadosh Degree (30th), honors de Molay. In that Degree's initiation ceremony, the candidate faces a table on which are three skulls. One is adorned with a papal tiara, a second has a regal crown, and the third skull is festooned with a laurel wreath, representing Jacques de Molay. The Grand Master of the Degree stabs the skull with the papal tiara as the candidate shouts 'Down with Imposture! Down with crime!' [http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/fisher1.htm On Freemasonry and Other "Paranoid Fantasies"] by Paul Fisher, originally printed in the Remnant, hosted by Catholic Insight</ref>


<ref name="evangelising">"The Scottish Rite, an appendant Masonic body, in its Knight Kadosh (30th) degree, requires that the candidate stab a skull with a papal tiara, and a skull on which is a crown, saying, “Down with imposture! Down with crime!” In the fourth oath the Knight Kadosh again focuses on the “cruel and cowardly Pontiff, who sacrificed to his ambition the illustrious order of those Knights Templar of whom we are the true successors.” All present then trample on the papal tiara while shouting “Down with imposture!”" [http://www.secondexodus.com/html/evangelization/evangelizingfreemasons.htm How Catholics Can Evangelize Freemasons] from Second Exodus</ref>

[edit] Request for Comment

A request for comment has been logged on two seperate questions, however because they are both in the same area, involve the same main protagonists and are on very similar issues of policy it was thought that it would be better to have a single RFC filed. Please feel free to comment on only one area if you feel that it would be better to do this. JASpencer 16:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background

In the Scottish Rite, an appendant body to Freemasonry, there are a number of degrees. The initiation to the Kadosh (30th) degree is alleged by a number of (mainly Catholic) sources to involve either the trampling of a Papal tiara or the stabbing of a skull which has a Papal tiara. JASpencer 16:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Issue:Reliable Sources

Question: Should the Reliable Sources policy regarding self published material be used to exclude material that is (1) reprinted from a published magazine and (2) clearly stated as an allegation. JASpencer 16:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of its ownership, method of verifying facts, etc., I would suggest Catholic Insight is not a reliable source, because when they purportedly reprinted an article from The Remnant they neglected to state the date, issue, volume, or page numbers of the original publication. This makes it very difficult to verify whether the article exists at all, or if so, was correctly reprinted. Such a gross departure from normal writing standards in and of itself proves Catholic Insight is an unreliable source, at least with respect to its purported reprint. --Gerry Ashton 21:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Issue:Blanchard Citation

Question: Is a quotation necesary for a citation of an unusual and controversial theory that is contained in an offline book. JASpencer 16:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A slight correction, the book in question does not contain a theory ... the citation is to where Blanchard's book contains the actual anti-catholic statements themselves. The citation is being used as a primary source citation to back the fact that these words are, in fact, in the Blanchard Book. Given that, the question does remain... Is it necessary to quote from the book? Blueboar 19:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, the quote rule, i.e. "You must quote from this for it to count, even if we all agree it does say what you claim it does" is simply invalid no matter how you swing it. On Wikipedia, we paraphrase books all the time. If you wanted to simply say "Blanchard in his book "Whatever" mentions Anti-Catholic elements in Cerneauism", then I think that would be fine.
The problem is, you're trying to say a LOT more than that. You're saying at least four different things in that sentence: 1) Anti-Catholic elements are not found in Scottish Rite. 2) They are found in the Blanchard book on Cerneauism 3) Cerneauism is not a legitimate Masonic organization and 4) (very strongly implied) The reason the Scottish Rites have been accused of this things is by a misunderstanding caused by this book. My very strong guess is that the Blanchard book can only verify #2. Thought #3 is left unverified, but it seems like it would non-controversial and easy to back up with some source on Cerneauism -vs- Scottish Rite. (Blanchard might cover this). But #1 is VERY controversial-- so you'd need to convince people that the book really does say that (and even if we agreed with you, we'd need to NPOV it down a bit). And I think it's a metaphysical

impossibility for the Blanchard book to cover #4). By my count, I think #1, #3, and #4 are all "original research" as of this moment.

So, the short answer is.. "No. As long as everyone agrees that the book really DOES say what you claim it does, then there is no rule that you have to quote from it in order to be able to use it."
But the longer, more correct answer is "Right now, there isn't agreement that the book really does say what you claim it does, so.. you need to be able to prove that somehow. A quote would be one way you could do it, but secondary sources that summarize the book in sufficient detail would also work."
I suggest you find someone who says "This is the book that started the whole misunderstanding" and cite them. I'm sure this isn't really your original research. Just find where you read that and cite them, and call it good. (being sure to say the whole thing is "their opinion" not a "demonstrable fact".
--Alecmconroy 20:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
OK... so Blanchard can be used... and a quote is not mandatory, but the underlying statement I make that uses Blanchard as a cite needs work and further corroboration. Got it. And looking at it again, I agree. Blueboar 21:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Comment

[edit] First Issue

Okay.. so, before I could answer your specific query about the First Issue, let me ask: was the original work self-published? or just the reprint? or both?

I found some instances of the stabbed skull allegation: [2][3] [4][5] [6]

And of course, there are plenty of stomping on tiara stories and a few variants involving skulls and tiaras. Taking the sum total of all that into account, I'd say that in the absence of any evidence saying that that allegation is NOT made, I think we're safe in saying that the allegation has been indeed been made. I think the sum total all the comments allows us to survive No Original Research.

So, let's just accept as fact that Fisher and a handful of other HAVE made this allegation. That still leaves the bigger concern that I have: whether this allegation is Notable. I mean, do we have any evidence that there are more than five human beings on the face of the earth who believe this? I think it all comes down to how notable Remnant and Fisher are. Google searches on Remnant don't appear promising, and their website makes it hard to determine. Do we know what their circulation is? Same deal with Marty Barrack-- he's a webmaster, but is he notable?

I dunno, I think it could go either way. I _guess_ I'd say error on the side of including it, but I don't know the people involved, so. But let's say, okay, we say it survives Notability.

But now we come to the NPOV issue. This allegation is a tiny minority. That I can't find more than a half-dozen mentions of it anywhere on the entire internet means practically nobody seriously believes this. We can _just barely_ justify including the allegation itself (and maybe we shouldn't), but I don't think we can justify seriously considering the factuality of the allegation itself right now. So, all told, I'd suggest wording more or less like this:

"And one Catholic writer has even claimed that a skull with a Papal tiara is stabbed during the ceremony (ref), though few sources give this specific allegation much creedence."

Wording it like that, as we'd have to, I don't know that the original editor who added it would still even want it in the article. But if so, I think it would be okay to have a sentence like that.. maybe?

Okay.. so, before I could answer your specific query about the First Issue, let me ask: was the original work self-published? or just the reprint? or both?
Original work was in the Remnant, reprint was self published. JASpencer 18:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it all comes down to how notable Remnant and Fisher are.
The Remnant was (probably the first) Traditionalist Catholic Magazine and I believe its a branch for the Wanderer. [7]. I'm not sure about Fisher as I have not read his book. JASpencer 18:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
As the other party in this RFC... I would like to thank User:Alecmconroy for his reply... it is helpful. On issue 1, I would say that Fisher is a nut, but he is a notable nut. He is a prominent and published Anti-mason. So, I have no problems with something along the lines of "And one writer (-not sure if he is Catholic-) has even claimed that ..." etc. JASpencer has assured me that the Remnant is notable. At this point I have no way to tell, so I will assume good faith and say it is. Thus, I have no problem with citing to the Remnant. My only issue here is that the web pages JAS has been using to link to have not met WP:RS. Citing directly to the Remnant solves that issue. Blueboar 19:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second issue

Couple problems with this one.

Not having a direct quote is not, in and of itself, a reason to exclude a source. If everyone agrees the book says something to that effect, then the book says it, and it survives NOR.

But, we're not out of the woods. The sentence says (in so many words): "It can be demonstrated that these claims aren't part of Scottish Rite, but were actually taken from Blanchard's book on Cerneauism." To justify that, we cite Blanchard's very same book on Cerneauism. But, not having read the book, I think I can safely say that the book probably does not include a discussion of how it will be inadvertantly misused in the future. Obviously, there could be some "Foreword to the Third Edition" that I don't know about, but on the face of it, I'm highly skeptical that THIS book actually says that.

As it is, I think you're essentially saying "I read through this book, and I'm confident that this is where these things came from". But that can't survive NOR. Saying "This legend came from this book" is a VERY strong statement. Maybe the legend existed before the book, and that book just repeated it. Maybe that book used that legend, the legend died out, and then another book revived it. Or maybe the story's true, and the reason a book on Cerneauism would have the same legend that would crop up about Scotish Rite is that both Cerneauism and Scotish right did it.

So, if we want this in there, we need to 1) find a reliable source who actually says that book was the source of the legend. and 2) tone down the language so that the sentence explicitly attributes this belief to SOMEONE, rather than declaring it as fact by saying "it can be demonstrated".

I wish I had more time, I'd pitch in and try to find such a source, but I gotta run.

I hope this helped! :)

--Alecmconroy 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for looking over this. I can live with both of these ideas. On the stabbing of the skull could we put the proposed text into a footnote? Not that bothered by it any way. JASpencer 18:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
This is what I'd propose as a footnote at the end of the sentence:
<ref name="stabskull">One Catholic writer, Paul Fisher, has claimed that a skull with a Papal tiara is stabbed during the initiation ceremony [http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/fisher1.htm On Freemasonry and Other "Paranoid Fantasies"], though few sources give this specific allegation much credence."</ref>
Or perhaps let's not bother. JASpencer 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that if a sentence is appropritate to be in the main article, it's probably appropritate to in a foonote. But I can't tell you if it's worth the bother. Wikipedia footnotes aren't like footnotes in a book-- practically no one reads them. --Alecmconroy 20:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources

First someone please archive old discussions, this page is 70K which is too humungeously humungeos. Second, I came here because of an RfC posted to the Talk page of WP:RS. Here are my thoughts, posted there, and here:

I went to the cited page and here is what I found "In his article regarding Vatican II in the February 28th issue of The Remnant, Michael Matt refers to Michael Davies article in which he seems to suggest that "Masonic conspiracies" are part of "paranoid Traditional Catholic fantasies." With that in mind, allow me to offer a bit of history of prior Papal concern regarding Freemasonry and similar secret societies." This is the only time "Remnant" appears. The interior quotes however do not represent quotes from the cited article. This can be seen by the use on the cited page of "seems to suggest" which implies that the situation is not clear. That by itself is enough to cast doubt on the cited page as representing what *that* article actually states. Wjhonson 19:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Wjhonson... just so I am clear. Are you saying that a) the Remnant is unreliable, b) the article in the Remnant is unreliable, or c) the web-based copy of the article in the Remnant is unreliable? Blueboar 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
To clarify my comments. The cited page says "seems to suggest" then in quotes it puts the following disjointed pieces: "Masonic conspiracies", and "paranoid Traditional Catholic fantasies". Based on this, we *may* be able to state, that both of those quoted pieces actually exist in the underlying article cited, but we may *not* state that they occupy the relationship to each other that the cited page is purporting. In other words, the actual underlying quote may say something like "...and other Masonic conspiracies. I want to speak more about paranoid Traditional Catholic fantasies...." In this case, the relationship of one piece to the other is not obvious, that inference has to be drawn, and it may be a logical reach. That is why, thesis of the kind presented on the cited page, need to quote a source in full, to make clear exactly what the underlying author was saying and only THEN add their layer of commentary. In this case, we simply cannot tell from the tiny quoted snippets, what the underlying author actually said. The cited page, as a blog or other self-published article by a person not known as a widely acknowledge authority in this field, cannot be made a WP:RS although we may warrant his claim of having read the underlying article and accurately cite that such an article exists. We cannot then make the jump from that bland statement to the more severe one, that he/she is accurately representing what that article said, *unless* we can see a fuller quote. Wjhonson 20:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Wjhonson I think this means that you feel that the Fisher article is not OK as it disjointedly quotes things out of context. Please correct me if I am wrong. Blueboar 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
We can say "Fisher says that there is an article in this magazine, by this person" but we can't use Fisher to confirm or deny what that article states. So Fisher is OK as a source to cite that the article exists only, not for what the article says. That's my opinion. Once the article is retrieved, Fisher then would become a useless citation. Wjhonson 21:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh... I see what you are saying. Im not sure if this answers our debate over reliablility of the link to Fisher... but it sure raises warning flags as to whether Fisher is reliable. Blueboar 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that the article Fisher is not a Catholic critic of Freemasonry? Or that he can't be quoted? Or what? JASpencer 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Better Source for Refutation

The problem is that while Blanchard's book makes the distinction (he calls it "Scotch Rite" on the frontispiece [which there is a picture of on p. 49 of DeHoyos and Morris Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry? on (ISBN 1590770307)], although the cover says "Scottish Rite"), Blanchard and the critics who source from him do not - "Scotch Rite" was a fringe group started by those who disagreed with the Scottish Rite, who were the Cerneauists.

Furthermore, Blanchard was claimed by another author (Ankerberg) to be a former Sovereign Grand Commander and 33rd degree Mason. He was never even a member of the Fraternity. Dehoyos and Morris also state that "Rev. Jonathan Blanchard wrote the historical sketch and analysis." (p. 48) This should help to clear up "does the book say what it seems to say?"

As a note, DeHpoyos and Morris say Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia also explains Cerneauism and the various names it used. I'll see if I've got it, but I may only have Waite's version.

DeHoyos and Morris have a slightly more detailed explanation on Cerneau Councils in Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry? on pgs. 78-80 (ISBN 1590770307), most notably:

"In 1813, the Supreme Council at Charleston organized another Supreme Council in New york. From its beginnng however, the latter Supreme council was forced to contend with a rival body of dubious authority organized by a Frenchman named Joseph Cerneau. Without going into detail, Cerneau's group claimed authority over the Scottish Rite degrees, even though it had never been properly chartered. although the two bodies would contend for membership until 1867 - when they eventually merged - it is important to bear in mind that the Cerneau group is considered to have been "irregular" (illegitimate) by the majority of Masonic historians. Because they were both "Masonic," the ceremonies and rituals of both groups had similarities, but they were not the same." (p. 78)

Therefore, since the Cerneau group ceased to exist in 1867, the rituals were no longer valid, hence, any criticisms made after that time (such as those by Blanchard) have no validity. Also, on page 79, referring to Masonic Monitors (which is what Blanchard's book and other exposes really are, if you think about it): "In considering these books, it is important to remember that Scottish Rite monitors reflected the ceremonies practiced in the year un which they were published, and were rarely updated to conform to subsequent ritual revisions." (p. 79) MSJapan 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Catholic Church source is being used?

Is there any recent times statement at all from the Catholic Church, a public declaration of any kind from the official Catholic Church about Freemasonary? The article presents the Catholic Church has a stance, but the article (as far as I've been able to figure) does not cite the Catholic Church. Instead, the article implys (and does so often) the Catholic Church took a stance in 1913 and hasn't said a word since. Personal opinions abound, a few are cited. But the Catholic Church's official position, well, that's implied and not stated, as well as I'm able to figure from reading the article. What did I miss? Terryeo 00:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Quaesitum Est: 1981... issued by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith... which states "Therefore the Church’s 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 enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion." Unfortunately.
And after Quaesitum Est the statements of the German and American bishops Conferences and the Los Angeles Diocesan public letter in the late 1990s. Factually. JASpencer 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old vs. new Catholic Encyclopedia

This article cites the 1918 Catholic Encyclopedia a lot. This has always bothered me. As a general rule, one should always cite the most recent edition of a reference book, since information changes and becomes out of date. Technically, I could challenge any citation to an out of date reference book under WP:RS, and insist that the newer version be used. However, in many cases the old CE is used to back the fact that it said something. This to me is acceptable. So, I have settled for a compromise... where there has been a significant change between the statements in the CE and what is in the updated New Catholic Encyclopedia, I have tried to leave the citation... and simply add a statement that the claim was dropped or changed in the subsequent editions (citing the 1967 ed. for references to the Freemasonry article, since there is no Freemasonry article at all in the 2002 ed.) Blueboar 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dropped sounds like a conscious decision, and there's (to put it mildly) no proof of that. I prefer "does not appear in" or words to that effect. JASpencer 19:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is obvious that it was very much a conscious decision by the editors of the New CE... I am sure they did not just type away willy nilly as they pleased ... I am sure that they reviewed the old edition very carefully (it's what editors do when they are updating an encyclopedia). They could have included any of the information listed in the 1913 ed. if they wished to do so, but chose not to include certain statements. Others they chose to include but to reword (There are a quite a number of negative claims about Freemasonry that they repeat), and a few things were repeated verbatum. To me it is obvious that the editors of the NCE "dropped" certain claims.
That said, I can live with "does not appear in".
Got a citation for that?
Unless the New Catholic Encyclopedia contradicts the Catholic Encyclopedia, can't we simply put the non-appearence of this in the Footnotes?
JASpencer 22:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the advice I recieve at WP:RS... we should always cite to the most recent edition of a reference work... however, when the claim is that an older edition made a claim that does not appear in the more recent ed. we should mention allow the claim, but mention (in the article) that more recent eds. drop the claim. so no, it should not be put in a foot note but mentioned in the text on an equal footing with the claim. Blueboar 02:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Would you be able to quote that and link to it please? All I can find is
Dictionary of National Biography and as to later editions of CE which do not include the allegation, yes you can remove the allegation based on CE removing theirs *provided that* they have an article on this subject whatsoever. If they've removed the entire article, then no. In my opinion. Wjhonson 01:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
A slight modification, which may satisfy all parties. "Although the 1918 Catholic Encyclopaedia states.... this allegation was removed from the 1931 version and does not appear in the current version..." Personally I think that historical claims of this nature, that is, the history of the ideas, is interesting enough for the article. But it's your call. Wjhonson 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
JASpencer 22:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
If this is the advice that you're refering to I'd point out a number of things in it.
(1) It's not been made clear (I assume that you don't know) that the Catholic Encyclopedia (which has one edition, the 1913 edition plus supplements) and the New Catholic Encyclopedia (the 1967 edition is the first edition and the 2002 edition is the second) are not subsequent editions but different projects by different and non-continuous teams, although I'm cool with the idea that they should be regarded, to an extent, as subsequent editions - they are still not the same as editions of the Britanicca in that articles are totally rewritten and issues like Freemasonry in France or Italy are no longer of burning import. This was an entirely different team half a century later.
(2) The Kadosh degree is not mentioned at all in the NCE article (apart from a diagram of the Scottish Rite hierachy). So the allegation not appearing in the NCE should be mentioned in this sense. The present text could at least suggest that the Kadosh degree is dealt with but there is no claim on the poinards and tiaras, etc.
(3) The fact that it is not mentioned could be down to a large number of reasons and any mention of this should make clear that this is the case. It is not simply that they found this untrue, but also that the ceremony may have changed in the fifty years (and this seems at least as likely) or that the Church's disapproval of Freemasonry may have shifted.
(4) There seems to be no mention of the idea that what is essentially an interesting argument about sources should not be in footnotes, or am I wrong?
(5) The references to the non-existent article in the 2002 Encyclopedia should have been taken out.
(6) Link and quote does help when you are refering to advice as it does when refering to footnotes in controversial articles. Vague references just create suspicion.
JASpencer 22:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arlington Catholic Herald

Coming from WP:RS, I observe that the article is not citing the Arlington Catholic Herald; it cites a website which claims to cite the Herald, a rather different thing. In any case, is this Fr. Sanders notable? Has he magisterium? Septentrionalis 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying here - that EWTN is an unreliable source on Catholicism in the US? There seems to be a move to make absence seem like an actual fact. Does silence really equal consent? JASpencer 22:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
From what I understand (JAS can correct me if I have my facts wrong)... Fr. Saunders did indeed write the cited claims which appeared in the Arlington Catholic Herald. I would call the Arlington Catholic herald a reliable source on Catholic opinions. EWTN is also a reliable source for Catholic opinions. So, given my understanding of WP:RS, the convenience link should indeed remain (with proper citing of EWTN as the host site, which has been added). As to whether Fr. Sauders is notable or reliable... that is a different issue. However, the article now makes it clear that this claim is his opinion. The reader can make their own mind up.
By the way, JAS, technically you should only cite to the Arlington Catholic Herald if you have read the Arlington Catholic Herald. Otherwise you should really cite to EWTN and note that it is a copy of an article from the ACH. At least that is how I read the guidelines. The rules on Convenience Links are not well written at the moment (it is a controvercial subject, and in trying to please all parties, they have ended up with something that is a bit disjointed). I am not going to make a fuss over this, however. The cite is fine with me. Blueboar 22:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind citing EWTN rather than the Arlington Catholic Herald, or vice versa. The importance with this in relation to the relationship between the RCC and FM is that the allegation is still current. JASpencer 22:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand that... and it is clear that Fr. Sauders does make the allegation (although since Fr. Sauders does not cite his sources, I suspect that he is simply repeating what he read in the old CE). I was not sure about the rules on Convenience links (citing one source, but linking to another) and asked someone at WP:RS to pop over and comment. If he had said that what you did was impropper, I would have allowed the allegation and the citation to the ACH without a link, as the ACH is definitely reliable. In any case... It is up to you. If you want, go read WP:RS and cite it whichever way you think is correct. I am not going to challenge it in either form. (see, I can be reasonable sometimes!)  :>) Blueboar 23:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to the New Catholic Encyclopedia

As the New Catholic Encyclopedia (Edition 1) now seems to be uncontroversial, should we quote to a convenience link either at trosch.org or bessel.org? JASpencer 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope. 1) Trosch.com is an unreliable source in that it that adds commontary to the original text (which I have checked) and highlights sections for empysis. It is therefore not a true copy of the original. 2) I do not see any indication that he has permission to copy the NCE article on his site, which may be a violation of copyright laws (it does give permission to copy his site, but he should also include a "reprinted by permission" statement) ... In the US, courts have supported the view that knowingly and intentionally linking to material that infringes copyright is a form of contributory infringment. Essentially they found that you can't get around the fact it is illegal for you to host something by simply directing traffic to some other site that is illegally hosting the same material. Wikipedia has to be very careful not to violate copyright laws. 3) Bessel copies Trosch in its entirety (including Trosch's commentatry). His page might be acceptable as a convenience link to trosch, but not as one to the NCE. Blueboar 22:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
When you say that it adds commentary, have you found the commentary interspersed with the text or simply in the introductory comments? I find the commentary in two areas: (1) at the beginning (which could be more clearly seperated, agreed) and the underlining and emboldening which the webmaster admits to adding. Both these issues are either not problems in Bessel. If there is any innacuracy in the main text beyond honest typos then point it out, otherwise I'm not worried about it.
Noted about copyright - but surely there's a fair use policy, especially for an encyclopedia that is out of use. Is there any wikipedia page where one can ask for advice on this? JASpencer 07:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taking out second edition

I've taken out the second edition citations. I'm not too bothered about it being in the footnotes, but the advice from WP:RS seems quite clear on this. JASpencer 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What advice are you talking about? Blueboar 22:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Your statement cannot be understood unless one takes the trouble to look up whatever discussions on whatever scattered talk pages you engaged in. Can you restate here what was wrong with the second edition citations? --Gerry Ashton 22:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe he is discussing this edit: here where in a citation to the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) he deleted the words: "The most recent edition (2002) does not contain any article on Freemasonry." I am not going to revert it until he has had a chance to explain. Blueboar 23:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not an issue to go to the barricades over but I took wjhonson's words:
Dictionary of National Biography and as to later editions of CE which do not include the allegation, yes you can remove the allegation based on CE removing theirs *provided that* they have an article on this subject whatsoever. If they've removed the entire article, then no. In my opinion. Wjhonson 01:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be far more clear cut than any argument for not putting notes about sources in the footnotes, rather than the main text. I simply thought that it would be uncontroversial. JASpencer 20:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
JAS, You left out what Wjohnson wrote immediately following the post that you mention above...
  • A slight modification, which may satisfy all parties. "Although the 1918 Catholic Encyclopaedia states.... this allegation was removed from the 1931 version and does not appear in the current version..." Personally I think that historical claims of this nature, that is, the history of the ideas, is interesting enough for the article. But it's your call. Wjhonson 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
It was this advice that caused me to include the comment that the 2002 verision did not contain any article... I took his comment to mean that, that with reference materials such a encyclopedias one should generally cite to the most recent version, but if the most recent version does not contain an article on the topic, cite to the most recent version that does, and mention that subsequent versions do not have an article. I only add this to be as informative and accurate in citation as possible (if I am going to hold you to accuracy and reliability in citations, I should do the same with my own after all). Since you say you do not object strongly... and since I do not insist strongly (there is not a set policy that says we have to do it one way or the other)... let me ask this: What is your minor objection to the statement? Why did you cut it? Blueboar 01:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
There's honestly no real objection (if it were in the main article I would think it would clutter, but I've no objection to it appearing in the footnotes) and I've put it back. I was just trying to get the uncontroversial stuff out of the way first. Apologies if I've misread wjhonson's comments above. JASpencer 06:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opus Dei

Now that Imacomp has moved on, why is Opus Dei in the article as in:

However, the Catholic Church itself controls [[Opus Dei]],<ref name = "opusdei">[http://www.opusdei.org Official web page of Opus Dei]"Opus Dei is a personal prelature of the Catholic Church."</ref> which is alleged to be oath bound,<ref name="opusoath">"The supernumeraries are, for the most part, married and appear to live normal lives. But as members of Opus Dei they are under solemn oath to "always consult their superiors in regard to professional, social and other questions, even those which do not constitute a matter of a direct vow of obedience" (Article 58)." OPUS DEI: THE PAPAL UNDERGROUND by Thomas Lawton Jones. Found on [http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/OpusDei.html this web page]. Note that the oath cited is no longer in use, having been replaced by the Particular Law of 1982 when Opus Dei was made a personal prelature of the Church.</ref> and supports the activities of the [[Knights of Columbus]] which some consider to be an oath bound society.<ref name="biblebelievers">[http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesuits.htm The Oath of the Knights of Columbus, Knights of Malta and Rhodes] (This is an extract of the Congressional Record of the [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. House of Representatives]] dated February 15, 1913, where the oath is entered as purported to be of the Knights of Columbus—according to [http://www.masonicinfo.com/KofC.htm Masonicinfo.com], a pro-masonic web page, this Oath is a fake placed into the Record by anti-Catholics.)</ref>

If there was someone contrasting the Church's attitude to Freemasonry to either Opus Dei or the Knights of Columbus then it should be stated that "x has pointed out that". Otherwise this is simply a matter of opinion by an editor.

It could be argued that it falls under WP:NOR JASpencer 20:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Also this text in the same section:

In response to the accusations of [[communism|communists]], the [[Parliament of Italy|Italian Parliament]] in 1987 declared that Opus Dei is not a secret society neither "in law nor in fact", for the Catholic prelature provides information about their activities and their directors. Under similar reasoning, Freemasons claim that they also would not, and do not qualify as a secret society.<ref name="UGLEinfo">[http://www.grandlodge-england.org/masonry/A2L-secret-society.htm "Is Freemasonry a Secret Society?"] page from the United Grand Lodge of England website.</ref> Grand Lodges provide similar information about their Officers and activities.<ref name="UGLEinfo2">As is clearly stated on the [http://www.grandlodge-england.org/masonry/A2L-secret-society.htm webpage] of the United Grand Lodge of England: "The rules and aims of Freemasonry are available to the public. The Masonic Year Book, also available to the public, contains the names of all national office-holders and lists of all lodges with details of their meeting dates and places. The meeting places and halls used by Freemasons are readily identifiable, are listed in telephone directories and in many areas are used by the local community for activities other than Freemasonry. Freemason's Hall in London is open to the public and 'open days' are held in many provincial centres. The rituals and ceremonies used by Freemasons to pass on the principles of Freemasonry to new members were first revealed publicly in 1723. They include the traditional forms of recognition used by Freemasons essentially to prove their identity and qualifications when entering a Masonic meeting. These include handshakes which have been much written about and can scarcely be regarded as truly secret today; for medieval Freemasons, they were the equivalent of a 'pin number' restricting access only to qualified members. Many thousands of books have been written on the subject of Freemasonry and are readily available to the general public. Freemasonry offers spokesmen and briefings for the media and provides talks to interested groups on request. Freemasons are proud of their heritage and happy to share it."</ref>

JASpencer 21:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that it has been proven that the accusation against the KofC is bogus, I would say go ahead and remove it. But the Opus Dei stuff is indeed relevant. Many people think that Opus Dei is a "Secret Societey", and thus the Church has a double standard (their secret societies are OK... but not ones that they disapprove of) ... in responce to that allegation it was pointed out that the Italian courts have ruled that Opus Dei is a secret society - for very specific reasons... But those same reasons would apply to Freemasonry. Thus, if one objects to Opus Dei being called a Secret Society for those reasons, then one should not call Freemasonry a Secret Society for those same reasons. Blueboar 01:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I know that you think that Opus Dei is relevant, and I can understand why you would think so. But does that make it worthy of inclusion? I would say that if someone has drawn the comparison either with Freemasonry or with the Church's teaching on Secret Societies then it should be kept in. Otherwise it's in because a couple of Masonic editors (no one active at the moment on this page) wanted it in. So in effect it's an opinion.
Ironically I believe that the KoC is more relevant because to me it's quite clear that the various Knights fraternities were set up as a Catholic alternative to Freemasonry. I'll remove the citation any way. JASpencer 06:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Footnote 8 is a reference to something called "OPUS DEI: THE PAPAL UNDERGROUND" by Thomas Lawton Jones. The reference does not indicate what this thing is, whether a book, flyer, or whatever. It says it was "found on" a web page, which turns out to be an Angelfire personal web page. If an editor has this publication in hand and can say it is a reliable source, then the footnote should be revised accordingly, otherwise the allegation that Opus Dei is oath-bound should be removed from the article. (In case anyone is wondering, I have no ax to grind concerning Opus Dei or Freemasons, but I'll never forgive Anglefire for their pop-ups.) --Gerry Ashton 01:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Replaced footnote with citation request. Will remove oath bound allegation unless citation appears. JASpencer 06:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, if someone can provide a citation for Blueboar's belief that Many people think that Opus Dei is a "Secret Societey", and thus the Church has a double standard then it should stay. Other wise it really should go. JASpencer 10:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I've put Blueboar's contention that many people feel that the church has a double standard:
Many people believe that the Catholic Church operates a double standard[citation needed] as it controls Opus Dei,
Otherwise the Opus Dei stuff really should not be there. It shouldn't be there because it's not cited, but I'll allow some time for someone to find a citation. JASpencer 10:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I did find a link in which people speculate that the acceptance of Opus Dei is a double standard-- a google search on "opus dei" and freemansons will probably find you more. I have my own skepticism about the importance of this allegation though-- surely it is the alleged anti-catholic nature of freemasonry that is the source of the tension, and I wouldn't expect the church to oppose an overtly pro-catholic secret society (if, indeed, that's what OD is). --Alecmconroy 11:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I found quite a few references to a similarity between the two groups but none of them to the double standard - most of them were criticisms of Opus Dei for being elitist (and not really using Freemasonry as anything other than a throwaway insult) or in some cases for being possibly occult. Well done on finding the "Ronald Bruce Meyer" link.
As this is a self published site by someone with no claim to being a specialist in either the Catholic Church or Freemasonry, what is his standing? I'll wait a while and start a new debate on this. JASpencer 11:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if it is a reliable source or not... he has lectured on stuff like this, so may qualify as an expert. I think it is reliable if it is noted that this is his claim (we would have to find another source to say that the view is wide spread). Perhaps we should ask someone at WP:RS to pop over and take a look. Blueboar 12:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well this is his biography:
I am a broadcaster on FreethoughtRadio.com, where The Freethought Almanac was developed and where it was first heard. I have studied the history of religion and social progress as an independent scholar since 1978. I am an autodidact, not by any means an expert on the subject, but I know the experts. Some of my chief sources are A Rationalist Encyclopædia (1948) by Joseph McCabe (1867-1955, online version in production) and A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1895) by Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), The Popes and Their Church by McCabe (1918/1953), and the Catholic Encyclopedia (1909/1967). Also consulted are more recent works, including 2000 Years of Disbelief (1996) by James A. Haught, specific biographies and many others.
and:
Ronald Bruce Meyer has been a writer and professional broadcaster since 1975, but has worked variously as a contract negotiator, fast-food counter help, live theater custodian, private detective, professor of speech communication, quality assurance specialist, real estate salesperson, recording studio director, researcher / fact checker, restaurant host, retail sales associate, secretary, security guard, stage actor, and swimming and lifesaving instructor. A former Eagle Scout, Explorer Scout and OA Brotherhood member, Meyer is proudest of his voice-over repertoire and his versatility as an announcer, having hosted classical, country-western, pop/top 40, easy listening, and news/public affairs formats.
Meyer was born in Baltimore, Maryland, USA, on 23 November 1954. In 1975 he earned his Associate in Arts degree, concentrating in speech and theater, and was active in student government, public speaking, readers theater, drama, and oral interpretation of literature. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1977, concentrating on mass communications with radio and TV broadcasting production courses. Meyer earned a Master of Arts degree in government and politics in 1989. He worked 14 years with and for the blind, both as a reader and books-on-tape producer.
Meyer's favorite quote is: "The United States is no more a Christian nation because most of its citizens are Christians than it is a 'white' nation because most of its citizens are white. We are Americans because we practice democracy and believe in republican government, not because we practice revealed religion and believe in Bible-based government."
I see nothing about lecturing on his website, although I could very well have missed it - he's an "independent scholar" and a voice over artist and so the sort of person who would love to give his views to an audience.
He seems to be a low rent Dan Brown. I'm not actually against quoting him, but I really think that it doesn't justify the whole paragraph. Couldn't we find someone a little more, well, heavyweight.
JASpencer 13:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd wager that this does count as a 'reliable source' for a sentence saying "some people claim..."-- but nothing I've seen so far makes me think it's a notable source that really merits a mention. --Alecmconroy 13:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
"some" is a weasle word and should be avoided. It says on his website that he is a Public Speaker. I don't know if he has spoken on the subject of Freemasonry, but he has certainly written about it... so perhaps: "Public Speaker and writer..." is a better discription? It does go to the point that people do think Opus Dei is a secret society... even if this reputation is unwarrented (as is also the case with Freemasonry). This does indicate that the Church's condemnation of "secret societies" is selective... ie, it is opposed to societies that are secret from the Church. Perhaps indsead of trying to delete the reference we can work out a compromise language that you feel is less POV? Blueboar 14:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Village Atheist may be a better description. I have made speeches in front of people and I could start a blog - and write about Freemasonry. Would that make me a "Public speaker and writer"? Would that mean I could claim to be an authority in this article?
On the Opus Dei allegation I know that this means a lot to you, but Wikipedia is not about recycling your or my pet peeves - it's about creating an encyclopedia. JASpencer 16:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
A further thought - are we not simply creating what amounts to a self reference? His writing on Freemasonry should be quoted because he's an expert on Freemasonry and he's an expert on Freemasonry because he's written stuff on the web about Freemasonry - or he should be quoted because he's written on the subject. How is this different from quoting a personal web page of a non-expert? He's also unlikely to be a regular Freemason as he is obviously one of Anderson's "stupid atheists".
Now as Alec pointed out, there has been one person who alleges a double standard - as Blueboar and Imacomp originally did on this article. Does this meet the notability standards? I don't know. JASpencer 18:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

(Losing Indent) Where are we going on this? I see four options:

1. Remove it with the option that it can be readded later. 2. Find a more notable source 3. Show that Ronald Bruce Meyer is worth quoting 4. Refer this to the talk page on WP:RS.

Anyone have any ideas? JASpencer 09:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, except for the fact that you left out an option - 5. Leave it as is. But I can understand why that is not an option in your book.  :>)
In all seriousness... I will add one more option... 5. Revise it.
Let me work on this section a bit. I may be able to come up with better wording and better sources that will satisfy your concerns, while still addressing mine. Oh, on a completely unrelated note ... why do you keep calling Meyer an atheist? I didn't see a

nything in his page that indicated that, but perhaps I missed something (I am also not sure why it matters). Blueboar 11:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Why he's called an atheist... He writes the freethought almanac, he calls 9/11 a "faith based initiative", he calls religion "humanity's nemesis", he broadcasts on FreethoughtRadio.com. Yep, he's Godless. JASpencer 15:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
On the section, taking it out doesn't mean it can never come back in. I may be putting some of the stuff about American nativists back in that I took out a few weeks ago. (Still not found anything t on the Orange Order being a source of suspicion). I would say if you do find something a bit more substantial than Meyer then put some real thought on how much space this merits. There really is not much muttering about the church operating a double standard because the sececy is a seconday (although still important) objection.
I'm not sure how suitable it would be for this article but there seems to be a lot of Catholic criticism about Opus Dei because it's seen as following many Masonic patterns. Even the religious indifferentism. JASpencer 15:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I see. Well it certainly would be safe to call him anti-religious, and I can see why you might call him an atheist (I don't think we should do so in the article, however... at last not without something concrete to back it up, such as a self-declaration of Atheism on his part.) However, that does open up another question... if he is a broadcaster / radio commentator, that would make him fairly notable.
In any case, I am going to think about how to re-word the entire "secret society" section. I would like to keep the stuff about double standards and Opus Dei (it is relevant from a masonic POV after all), but I am not wedded to it. I don't think we need to get into Opus Dei in depth, however... Give me some time to think about things and do more research. Hopefully we can come up with wording that satifies both of us. Blueboar 15:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Not that notable, it's a purely internet station [8] - one step up from podcasting. I don't mind the idea that Opus Dei may point to some double standard, but if it is important from a Masonic pov surely there must be something on the internet from someone of note. JASpencer 16:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pius IX

In Kulturkampf the text appears This Papal encyclical is best understood in the context of Pius IX's pontificate. Has there been any one who's said this other than a wikipedia editor? JASpencer 21:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Now deleted. JASpencer 20:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discrete Society

I'm not clear why this text is in:

The accusation that Freemasonry is a secret society is mainly due to its high regard for discretion.<ref name="EZW">Matthias Pöhlmann: ''Verschwiegene Männer'', Protestant Centre for Religious and Ideological Issues of the [[Evangelical Church in Germany]]</ref> The German historian Dieter A. Binder tells us “Lodges are closed societies, but not secret societies” and says that the historical correct description would be "Discreet Society”.<ref name="Binder">Dieter A. Binder: ''Die diskrete Gesellschaft, Geschichte und Symbolik der Freimaurer'', Innsbruck 2004</ref>

There's no real link made to this being an answer to Catholic criticisms - it just seems to b the opinion of an editor. I also have problems with the use of unquoted foreifn language sources. JASpencer 22:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will assume that this was added by Webmaster (our German editor who is involved with what my GL would call an irrelgular lodge in Germany ... In any case, it is not just the opinion of an editor, since it has a citation... it seems to add a German perspective on on the issue of whether Freemasonry is a "Secret Societey" - indicating that UGLE and those in affiliation with it are not the only GLs to object to the "Secret Society" label. Blueboar 00:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So it would suit the Freemasonry article. However it does not seem to be a direct response to the Catholic contention that Freemasonry is unacceptable for Catholics because it is a secret society. If there were a quote (and what's with the phobia about quotes - but that's another issue) that said "In response to Catholic critics that FM is unsuitable to join..." then that would be acceptable, and I'm sure that some variation of this would also work. However as it stands it simply seems to be along the lines of "FM is condemned for being secret, however some expert in possibly a different context says its more subtle than that." JASpencer 06:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be in the context of spedifically responding to the Church's allegation, The church is not the only one to say FM is a secret society. This is a reliable statement from a reliable source that is being used to counter all allegagions (from the church or otherwise) that Freemasonry is a secret society. Blueboar 11:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
For a start the Catholic Church's worries (and even perceptions) about Masonic secrecy overlap but are not identical with, for example, Stephen Knight's. It is odd that you think that the Catholic Encyclopedia is unreliable about the Catholic attitude to Freemasonry, but two unknown German authors are. JASpencer 12:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The CE may have been reflective of Catholic attitudes towards Freemasonry for the time it was written, but it is very very out of date. The 67 NCE is a better guide for the "official" view today... and even that does not reflect the attitude of the average Catholic. The typical Catholic (in the US at least) has a very positive view of the Craft. Blueboar 15:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Your dislike of the CE is noted, although I would say that it is probably the most thorough treatment of Catholic views towards Freemasonry. I do think that there's more than a little wishful thinking going on about attitudes towards Freemasonry within the Church. However that's not the main issue.
The discreet society stuff at the moment not rooted in the Catholicism and Freemasonry debate as there seems to be nothing that addresses Catholic concerns about for example lying in a confessional or "blind obedience". It could go in the Freemasonry article, but not here. JASpencer 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
In looking at the section and the footnotes again, I notice that somewhere along the line a citation to UGLE was cut. That cition was a direct response from a Masonic Body that said Masonry was not a Secret Society... the german stuff (if I remember correctly) was added as a second citation to show that this view was not just that of one Masonic Body. In otherwords, it was not originally the main citation. It is another section that has become muddled. Do me a favor... finish any rewording of that section you may need to do, but leave the German stuff for now... when you are done, let me know and I will reword the "Masonic responce" You may find your concerns have been addressed. Blueboar 16:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem the Discrete society stuff can wait. The disembodied status would explain why it reads a bit weirdly. JASpencer 16:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Returning to this (and I'm prepared to wait for a while) WP:NOR says that original research includes Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Now I have no problem with the Discrete Society stuff appearing in the general Freemasonry article but as this does not seem to address specific Catholic concerns about secrecy this does seem like it is trying to advance an argument using a synthesis. I have got into trouble for this in the past. I would also not have trouble with the quotes being put in if the books, or someone commenting on these books, had put these in context on the Catholic ban on Freemasonry.

I'd also really like quotes so that they could be translated. But as I said I don't think that this is relevant to the Catholic Encyclopedia unless we can find a link into Catholicism and Freemasonry.

Isn't the link from UGLE enough?

JASpencer 21:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll delete this in the next couple of days and move it to the talk page. JASpencer 21:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I have reworded it and put it back in a different form... it shows that Freemasonry's distinction between "private" and "secret" is not unique... it is shared by others. I am willing to work with you on how to include it... but I think it should be included. Blueboar 13:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update on Kadosh Degree - The CE is completely wrong

Well, I finally found the time to get to the library and check Pike's actual words... I have read through the original ritual for the Kadosh Degree (yes, Pike's ritual... not the recent revised ritual or the Northern Jurisdiction ritual) and, as I figured, it does not contain any trampling or stabbing of papal tiaras. I have added a statement to that effect into the article.

I also searched through Pike's degree to find any of the phrases quoted in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. They are not there. Now, I will not go so far as to say the CE made this all up... it is possible that they are quoting some other book by Pike (I have checked everything I know of, but I suppose there is some obscure book by pike out there that I do not know of) ... but they are wrong in linking the phrases to the Kadosh Degree.

Given this, I have to question the accuracy and reliablility of the entire Catholic Encyclopedia's Freemasonry article. If it gets it's facts so utterly wrong on the Kadosh degree, how can we rely on it to be reliable on other claims. I am tempted to simply delete them as unreliable... However, I do not think we need to go quite that far. I don't think the editors of the CE included these errors deliberately - I think they actually believed that what they were writing was true. So, while the CE is unreliable for fact statements, it is reliable, in a historical context... for citation of what the official Catholic view was at the time. Thus, I will not challenge citations from the 1913 CE where they are referencing historical view points (ie what the church thought was true in 1913). I will either challenge or change any citations to the CE that are used to back statements not put into a historical context. Blueboar 12:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We've been here before. Remember "The New Catholic Encyclopedia does not even HAVE an article on Freemasonry!"? With due respect, Pike wrote a lot and the chances of missing something hidden in Pike's massive amount of work is very high.
Besides, the only things you can really say is what primary or secondary sources say. If there's an expert on Pike or some prominent Freemason who denies it then they can be quoted. If no one else says this then this can be said. If there's a specific reference that's wrongly quoted then this can be said. But "Blueboar went to the library and couldn't find it" may, just may, fall under WP:NOR. This is especially so considering how much Pike wrote. Just a thought.
Obviously as long as the Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as a source on the Catholic Church's beliefs in the early 1900s. Or are is anyone claiming otherwise?
JASpencer 12:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
My point is that the CE uses what may be quote from Pike in a very inaccurate and unreliable way... it says:
  • "The Kadosh (thirtieth degree), trampling on the papal tiara and the royal crown, is destined to wreak a just vengeance on these 'high criminals' for the murder of Molay [128] and 'as the apostle of truth and the rights of man' [129] to deliver mankind 'from the bondage of Despotism and the thraldom of spiritual Tyranny'."
The CE implies that the phraises "high criminals", "as the apostle of truth and the rights of man" and "from the bondage of despotism and the thraldom of spiritual Tyranny" come from the Kadosh Degree. They cite Pike as the author and place them in the context of the Kadosh Degree. However, these words do not appear anywhere in the Kadosh degree. Nor do they appear in Pike's commentary on the degree in Morals and Dogma. While they may come from some other book by Pike, we have no way of knowing what the context was. For all we know, Pike was talking about Babilonian priest kings. What we can say is that they are not included in the Kadosh Degree. Thus, the CE is unreliable as far as the Kadosh degree is concerned. And if it is unreliable there, can we call it reliable elsewhere?
As for sources... I have cited the ultimate primary source... the actual Kadosh Degree ritual writen by Pike. I have included the ISBN number, so you can go search this for yourself. It is not original research to say that something is not in a book when you can cite the actual book to back the statement up. Blueboar 13:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Like you I was not quite sure what the citations refered to as they are so incredibly confusing. I've gone through the article as follows:
(1) The citations that they are using are 128 and 129, which read as [128] Ibid., IV, 474 sq. and [129] Ibid., IV, 478.
(2) The closest preceding "non ibid" footnote is 125 which reads [125] (4), I, 288 sq.
(3) This is immediately preceded by footnote 124 which reads [124] Pike (4), III, 81; (1), 291; Ragon, l. c., 76-86. Which would almost certainly mean 125 is refering to Pike (4), whatever that is.
(4) So the footnotes are refering to pages 474 and 478 of Volume IV of Pike (4)
(5) In the Bibliography we find the following notations under Historical:
PIKE, (1) Morals and Dogma of the A. A. Scot. Rite of Freemasonry 5632 (1882); IDEM, (2) The Book of the Words 5638 (1878); IDEM, (3) The Porch and the Middle Chamber. Book of the Lodge 5632 (1872); IDEM, (4) The Inner Sanctuary (1870-79); (Idem means the same author in Latin)
(6) So it is quite clear that Pike (4) Refers to The Inner Sanctuary (1870-79)
Now, I have no knowledge of this publication. Was it a periodical of some kind (which would account for the extenuated dates and the fact that it was in large volumes)? Did the Magnum Opus have any direct link with this? I've done a few cursory Google searches and nothing much has turned up either way. There are a couple of Google searches that turn up something on the Inner Sanctuary but nothing about any link to the Magnum Opus. Perhaps if you've got a copy you could quote what the relationship (if any) is.
I think that at the moment it is likely that the Magnum Opus and the Inner Sanctuary are not the same thing and so we are comparing apples and oranges here when we are saying that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not agreeing to a source that it doesn't seem to have cited.
JASpencer 17:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Two of the Google hits. Bible Probe has a quote that it purports to be from Pike's Inner Sanctuary (which is not from the Catholic Encyclopedia) and the Scottish Rite Journal has a book review of a work by Art de Hoyos called "The Inner Sanctuary: The Revised Standard Pike Ritual for the Obligatory Degrees". There really isn't much on The Inner Sanctuary. JASpencer 17:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The "The Inner Sanctuary: The Revised Standard Pike Ritual for the Obligatory Degrees" being reviewed by Art DeHoyos is the revised Scottish Rite ritual they came up with in the year 2000. And I suspect that the Bible Probe site is actually taking its information from the CE (you quote the same passage as "Pike as quoted in the CE" in one of your footnotes) Blueboar 23:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
However, one of the points BB makes is that there is no tiara or crown trampling present in the ritual, as published. Without that context any quote from another volume still doesn't make sense, since it appears to refer to something that doesn't happen in the ritual. The Catholic Encyclopedia appears to conflate possible commentary from one which may or may not be associated with the other. For example who inserted (30th Degree) after Kadosh, is that in the original pike writing, or was it added as 'explanation' within the Catholic Encyclopedia?ALR 17:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
ALR, those could be fair enough points. The CE could be conflating commentary with actual ritual. However Blueboar's research tells us nothing of the sort.
What Blueboar says in the Title is "The CE is completely wrong". That's because the source that he reasonably assumed the CE was quoting was not in fact what the CE was quoting. I'm not denigrating anyone, I was clueless on exactly what they were quoting until today - and I think that goes for every active editor on this topic. (Preciousheart.net makes a similar mistake).
What Blueboar's research shows us is that one work of Pike's - the Magnum Opus - omits what the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that another work of Pike's - Volume IV of the Inner Sanctuary - contains.
The ommission may be worth noting, but to avoid distress the watchword should be caution.
JASpencer 17:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest that the issue is more significant than you imply. BBs checks have indicated that the ritual itself does not include these actions, therefore any comment that alludes to these actions is not related to the ritual in use. It undermines the whole argument. It may be that Pike is commenting on another ritual, but that is not what is implied from the quotations that you have provided. I'm prepared to concede, as it appears that BB is, that the editors of the Catholc Encyclopedia merely misunderstood the nature of Freemasonry and made a mistake, rather than intentionally representing material to support the RCCs political position. But it does appear that there is a significant issue with what has been suggested..ALR 22:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


If what you say is true, then the CE was not just mistaken in alleging that the Kadosh degree involves "trampling on the papal tiara and the royal crown"... they KNEW they were wrong, and purposely mislead their readers. To quote from one book (Inner Sanctuary) and insinuate that it comes from another (Pike's ritual) is close to being fraud. For the moment, I will give the original editors the benefit of the doubt and continue to call it a "mistake". And I will attempt to get a hold of a copy of Inner Santuary and see what the context of these quotes is. (I am getting really tired of critics of Freemasonry misquoting Pike and taking his statements out of context). Blueboar 18:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, it's conflating Blanchard's expose on Cerneau SR with Pike. I've got the quotes from Blanchard above, which do involve the trampling of the tiara. Therefore, the CE is correct in that the quote appears in an SR ritual, but it is neither the SR ritual that has been used since 1867 (as DeHoyos states in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry, Cerneau merged with regular SR in 1867), nor was it most likely ever an SMJ or NMJ ("mainstream") ritual. It is possible that Pike was refuting the Cerneau ritual in Inner Sanctuary, but we need the rest of the context involved, I think. I will enquire as to whether my GL library has Inner Sanctuary, but it's going to take a few weeks. MSJapan 19:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
MSJ... that would be really good if we can find this. Despite the heat generated I think the fact that the citation "code" for the CE has been cracked is actually a good achievement and in the long run will take this article, and others, forward. JASpencer 08:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
JAS... I have had a chance to calm down, and I do appologize for ranting above... It's jut that I think it is a bit rediculous to dismiss the fact that the CE got it wrong, by stating: "What Blueboar's research shows us is that one work of Pike's - the Magnum Opus - omits what the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that another work of Pike's - Volume IV of the Inner Sanctuary - contains." I think you misunderstand what Magnum Opus is. It is not just "one work of Pike's". Magnum Opus is his actual ritual for the Scottish Rite. In otherwords it is definitive for what actually happens in the Scottish Rite (or rather, since the ritual was revised a few years ago, it is definitive for what happened until recently... but it is certainly definitive for the time that the CE was written). This is not a case of confused sources, or misplaced quotes, it is a case of the CE making an allegation... one that has been proven to be utterly incorrect. Blueboar 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Before we go any further we should put this argument in context. Originally it was said "The CE is completely wrong" because it didn't agree with "Pike's actual words" and that there was an absence of "any of the phrases quoted in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia". It then went on "to question the accuracy and reliablility of the entire Catholic Encyclopedia's Freemasonry article". The strong implication was that the CE either misquoted Pike or made the sources up.
Now a throwaway phrase was made "it is possible that they are quoting some other book by Pike" which has proven true. And this is now the basis for a different argument - that the Catholic Encyclopedia did not quote Magnum Opus when it should have done so.
Am I correct that the original argument - that the phrases used did not reflect "Pike's actual words" has been abandoned and that everyone accepts that the Catholic Encyclopedia was citing the Inner Sanctuary?
JASpencer 08:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Funny you should use the phrase "put this argument in context"... because that is exactly my problem with the CE... taking Pike's words out of context.
My earlier rant was written in frustration and a little bit of anger. You are partly-correct in stating how my views have changed after reflection. I still maintain that the phrases do not reflect "Pike's actual words" in the context of the Kadosh Degree. I do now admit that they may reflect "Pike's actual words" in the context of Inner Sanctuary. It still does not change my lack of trust in the CE. However, I will not challenge the citations to the CE at this moment. I have to see what Inner Sanctuary says, and what context the quoted phrases are in. Blueboar 12:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for that, Blueboar. So would I be right in saying that your point of contention with the CE is that it does not cite the "Magnum Opus" in relation to the Kadosh degree? The CE in it's bibliography says on Pike:
"His great work -- his Magnum Opus -- as he called it", says the New Age (1910, I, 54), "was The Scottish Rite Rituals, as they were revised and spiritualized by h

im."

There's no more mention of either Scottish Rite Rituals or Magnum Opus as a title. The four books quoted in the bibliography are:
PIKE, (1) Morals and Dogma of the A. A. Scot. Rite of Freemasonry 5632 (1882); IDEM, (2) The Book of the Words 5638 (1878); IDEM, (3) The Porch and the Middle Chamber. Book of the Lodge 5632 (1872); IDEM, (4) The Inner Sanctuary (1870-79)
Is the Magnum Opus any of the first three books? I presume not.
I also note that the Magnum Opus is his first edition. Amazon says that the Kessinger edition (which uses the ISBN number 1564592456) is a facsimile of the 1857 edition, while the Inner Sanctuary article that the CE quoted would be written some time in the 1870s. Could this be material?
JASpencer 15:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You are correct that Magnum Opus is not one of the books cited in the CE. Actually, it may not be the title of the original. It may be a title given to it by Kessinger Publishing Co. for the reprint. The original may not have had a title (I did not see a title page included on the Kessinger version). It was called Pike's Magnum Opus or Great Work by others, but I do not know what it was called in the original. As for whether Inner Sanctuary is material... until I find a copy of the book, I can not answer that. Blueboar 16:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about my badly worded question. Could the fact that the quoted Inner Sanctuary work was written about twenty years after the Magnum Opus be important. On Kessinger's site they say about one of their Pike's "Liturgies of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, Parts 2-4 (4th - 30)" say "students of the rituals may compare this work with the Magnum Opus to trace the evolution of the degrees". Similarly Kessinger calls the Magnum Opus Pike's "first revision of the complete rituals of the Scottish Rite".
Is the Magnum Opus the last word on Pike's rituals?
JASpencer 16:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, Yes. Blueboar 21:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
We really need to tone down the language in "Both the Catholic Encyclopedia's and Father Sauders' allegations are mistaken.". They are (or the CE is) quoting a different source. The jury is out on whether it is corrrect or not. JASpencer 17:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
How about:
Both the Catholic Encyclopedia's and Father Sauders' allegations are at variance with Pike's ritual in ''The Magnum Opus''<ref> Pike, Albert; ''The Magnum Opus or Great Work''; Facsimile of 1857 Ed edition (March 1997); Kessinger Publishing Co.; ISBN 1564592456 This is a reprint of Pike's ritual for the Scottish Rite, adopted by the AASR U.S. Southern Jurisdiction and used until the year 2000.</ref>, which does not include any mention of the papal tiara.
JASpencer 17:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I very much disagree. The jury is not still out... it has reached a verdict. I am being generous by allowing for the possiblility that the CE and Saunders are mistaken and not purposefully twisting the facts and lying. You can not get around the fact that the ritual written by Pike DOES NOT MENTION TIARAS!!!! Perhaps Pike talks about tiaras in some other context or in some other book... but that is not the ritual. The ritual is what accually happens in the degree. if it is not in the ritual, it does NOT happen. I don't really care what other book the CE is quoting. If it isn't in the ritual it does not happen.
Both the CE and Saunders claim that tiaras are trampled in the degree... the ritual does not include that. Face it, the CE and Saunders are WRONG... or, to be generous "they are mistaken". I don't see how I can put it any clearer. Where is there room for debate?
To me, it is obvious that the mistake they made was to confuse Pike's ritual for the one discussed in Blanchard, but I am still trying to connect the dots on that before I put that in the article. Blueboar 20:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
For a start CE does quote Pike, and later writing than the 1857 version that we're discussing. The idea that this is not a description of the ritual is speculation. Secondly the Magnum Opus that is being quoted (ISBN 1-56459-245-6) is described by Kessinger [9] as the first revision and not the final revision of Pike's. So yes, the jury is out. JASpencer 21:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Ooooh... I see what you are getting at now... you think that there might be some other, later, ritual than Magnum Opus? That perhaps Inner Sanctuary is this later ritual? Interesting idea. As far as I know, Magnum Opus is it... but I do have to admit that I can not state this as fact. So... now that you have explained yourself better (and thank you for that), I will back down from my insistance on "mistake". Go with your suggested wording above.
I think you are clutching at straws... The Cerneau ritual, which does talk about trampling tiaras, predates Pike. Pike hated it. But let's assume (for the sake of discussion) that such trampling was common to the various Scottish Rite rituals that Pike was looking at when he created Magnus Opus. If Pike dropped it in his first revision, I find it highly unlikely that he would have put it back when creating any further revisions. Sigh... back to the library. Blueboar 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry that I wasn't as clear as I should have been. We really need to see the Inner Sanctuary. I fully accept that it could be that they got some lecture or explanation and took it as a ritual, but they definately did quote it as if it were a ritual. JASpencer 21:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Which is exactly why I was so frustrated about your not seeing that, since it was not in the ritual, they had to have made a mistatke. For now we can call it a "variance", but I fully expect that I will be returning it to "mistake" before too long. Blueboar 21:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this on BB's talk page, but as I've found the correct section here...I just got Magnum Opus in the mail from Amazon, and it is definitely Pike's ritual for all the degrees, in plain text. Therefore, at best, Inner Sanctuary is a later (posthumous?) ritual revision, and at worst, it's a completely different book. I'm still trying to track it down. MSJapan 23:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] archiving

I have archived some of the discussion Blueboar 12:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a thought

I can see that this article is the result of much protracted struggle. Sometimes too many cooks spoil the soup though.

The impression I get as a reader is that this is an article with a laundry list of semi-contextualized condemnations by the Catholic Church, followed by 94 footnotes explaining why the Church is all wrong. It comes across like a Mason trying to prove Catholics are hypocrites and paranoiacs, and like a brochure to convince Catholics to come join the Masons.

I'm not accusing, or saying anyone meant it to be that...I'm just pointing out that the end result of back-and-forth comes across like that to at least some readers.

Perhaps starting over would be a good idea: get a knowledgeable, reasonable Catholic scholar to write a comprehensive and contextualized piece on the condemenation, its reasons and history, leaving people of history to have their say about what they thought, then have a reasonable Masonic response. Let's say that the Masons were not actually behind the JFK assasination (to pick a neutral, absurd example), but it matters that Pope Irving II THOUGHT they were and so said....blah blah blah, instead of having a 300 word footnote explailang why Pope Irving is an idiot and how therefore his laws should have no efefct...balh blah blah.

And what's with the "Yeah, well, what about Opus Dei?" crap? OD is controversial within the Church, but it is a church organization, making it an entirely different animal. Whatever criticisms of OD, and there are many and justified in my opinion, they are in the context of OD as a specifically Catholic organization. Though some of the words are similar, the whole context of OD is different from the Mason issue.

Does any of what I'm saying make sense?HarvardOxon 16:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The idea of getting in a neutral scholar has come across before from another (long departed) user but did not gain much popularity, before considering that wikipedia doesn't do this for any article. I think that we better go along with the current method of muddling through. Thanks for contributing. JASpencer 17:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
HarvardOxon, I do understand what you are saying... let me answer your comments from a Masonic POV... To Masons, this article started out as nothing but a list of condemnation by the Church... comdenmations that Masons feel have no validity. It came across as a highly POV attack on Freemasonry. So a number of editors who are Freemasons have insisted on including the Masonic POV as well. It has ended up being an article where one group of editors post an accusation about Freemasonry, and another group posts a counter to the accusation.
As for the footnotes... those were the idea of one particular editor (long story there), I would be happy to get rid of most of them. However, your portrayal of them as "94 footnotes explaining why the Church is all wrong" is not quite accurate in my eyes. If you look at them carefully, more than half (especially the longer ones) explain why Freemasonry is "all wrong".
I agree that perhaps the best thing would be to start over from scratch... and for each side to debate how to say what should go into the article on the talk page, and then post a ballanced NPOV consensus version. I am not sure that is possible, however. There are a lot of emotions wrapped up in this. Blueboar 20:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree I'm afraid. I don't believe that starting from scratch will do anything other than intensify the situation. Also the fondness for footnotes may make us seem like a bunch of Nineteenth Century German historians with a poor social life, but this is a very controversial topic and "I don't believe you" is heard more than once. Citations would be back, like it or not. I would also say that the standard of research (not the style of writing or the brotherly fellow feeling) on this article is probably higher than on most others, because the weather or the time of day would be challenged by one side or the other. In the end if you don't like Footnotes you don't have to read them.
I think that as things are calming down here we could try to discuss what gaps there are in this article and start moving on. The way through this is to try and let people know what you are doing in advance (hence the To Do list) and to try to avoid the name calling which hardly makes editing easier. JASpencer 20:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Examination Request

Copyright examination has been requested for the material described below. If you are confident that the material is free of copyright concerns based on Fair Use or other considerations, feel free to add it directly to the article. If you do so, or alternatively if you believe it cannot legally be added, please post your analysis below.

Is a convenience link to the New Catholic Encyclopedia article on Freemasonry acceptable from either of these two sites:

Please note that there is also a debate about reliability. This is purely about copyright. JASpencer 19:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Not from Bessel, as Bessel takes from Trosch. I don't like the stance that Trosch takes (it biases the reader before he/she reads the article), but it is there, and I would assume it's accurate. Does NCE not have a website? MSJapan 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There is definitely a reliablility issue on Trosch... but as you say, that is another issue. I really don't know on copyright. I don't see any "reproduced with permission" statement on Trosch. He gives permission to copy his page (so Bessel has permission to copy Trosch), but does not indicate that he has permission to copy the NCE. I have been able to compare what he has with a reference copy of the NCE at the library... and he does seem to have copied accurately (except for the addition of his underlining). I think someone who really knows copyright law will have to take a look. Blueboar 20:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation Request

A citation request was removed from the following sentence:

is not known if this skull represents a Papal skull or the skull of Jacque DeMolay, the last Grand Master of the historic Knights Templar

... with the comment "See Talk Page". I'm not clear where this is on the Talk Page. JASpencer 19:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No idea either, but it's not a statement of fact. However, IIRC from reading Blanchard, it's supposed to be DeMolay. MSJapan 20:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It's below. I'll answer there. JASpencer 20:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, I got called away in the middle of writing my explanation. A little patience please. :>) Blueboar 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stabbed skulls

JAS has asked for a citation on "It is not known if this skull represents a Papal skull or the skull of Jacque DeMolay, the last Grand Master of the historic Knights Templar." How can you cite something that is not known? The only person who could know who's skull it is is Pike, and he does not discuss why he put a skull in his incongraphy. Now, getting into Original Research territory (ie reading the ritual and Morals and Dogma and drawing a logical conclusion) it is probable that Pike intended it to represent DeMolay... Pike clearly feela that DeMolay was betrayed (primarily by King Phillip, but he does not spare Clement) - thus the stabbed skull can be seen a symbol to represent that betrayal. I know this is OR... but it is logical OR. It is at least as logical as saying it is a papal skull. The fact is we don't know who's skull is represented. However, I have another solution to this... why mention the symbol at all? The line was added to the article when Paul Fisher's contention that it a papal skull is stabbed was more prominently mentioned. It is a way of implying that Fisher's has some validity. The article concedes that his interpretation is not highly regarded, and he has been relegated to a footnote ... Perhaps the entire bit should be removed? Including it without Fisher is meaningless, and including it with Fisher, as an impliction that he is correct, is just as much original research and speculation as what I put. Blueboar 20:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

On citation you could put the cite both works with conflicting views.
Which text do you wish to remove? JASpencer 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
From "In the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite, a stabbed skull..." all the way to "...Grand Master of the historic Knights Templar." In my eyes, The first part is only there to imply that Fisher may be correct, which is OR as much as my addition of the interpretation that it is DeMolay. Blueboar 20:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The deletion is fine. JASpencer 21:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Finally... something we agree on! Now if I could only get you to agree to cutting the entire section! Blueboar 21:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an allegation which seemed to cause friction. It is very notable. JASpencer 21:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pike versioning

JAS, you've put in a very contrived discussion of the pike versions implying that the initial version which BB has inspected was not used by SJ as a valid ritual. The implication from the wording is that whilst the inspected version does not have the ritual element being duscussed within it, a later revision may have. Do you have anything to suggest that the initial version as inspected by BB differs that significantly from the later versions, or that the initial publication was not used for some reason? It seems to me that like an effort to undermine the work done by BB to inspect the ritual.ALR 21:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take it out if it's controversial. The Kessinger version that's quoted is noted as the "first revision". JASpencer 21:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
JAS... the way you have it (as part of the footnote) is eminently acceptable to me. As I said above, you raise an interesting, if unlikely, possibility. I will not be as strident about this until I have reviewed later versions of the Pike Ritual. But fair warning, if it turns out that the tiara trampling bit is not in that either... I will be very peeved. Blueboar 21:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
We need to see the Inner Sanctuary which is what the CE quotes, as well as the Magnum Opus. JASpencer 21:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You make the assuption that Inner Sanctuary is ritual... yes, we should look at Inner Sanctuary if we can find it, but it is the Ritual that is key, as that determines what actually is said and done in the degree. If we assume that Inner Sanctuary is not a later revision of the Ritual, looking at Inner Sanctuary will only explain why the mistake happened. Blueboar 22:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm certainly not making any assumption about TIS being ritual, I'm making the assumption that the CE is treating it as ritual. It may be ritual or may not. We'll see. JASpencer 22:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Kessinger doesn't seem to have this book as a reprint, BTW, which is intersting, because they've got Legendas, and a few non-Masonic Pike things as well. Also, I think it is important to note that the only sites that seem to note this title are anti-Masonic evangelical type sites, and I would assume they're all therefore sourced from one place, that being the CE (unfortunately). I also can't find a listing of all Pike's stuff online - Kessinger has a whole book on that. So, we're going to have to let this sit for a bit until resources become available to come to a conclusion one way or the other. MSJapan 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: Google Books has it, and if you have a GMail account you can view the pages of the Bibliography that have the Inner Sanctuary entries (pp. 91-92). MSJapan 01:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I would assume that Kessinger don't reprint it because it's so long (at least four volumes written over ten years). I thought that there was a quote (from Bible Probe) that did not appear in CE, but it did. I caught this reference which doesn't appear in the CE: here. An awful lot of the most quoted Pike sayings seem to come from the Inner Sanctuary (like the Babylonian darkness or there has never been a false religion. I'll look into Google Books, thanks for the tip. JASpencer 18:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Would there be any Masonic history bulletin boards that people can ask about this work? JASpencer 20:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I can try the Scottish Rite Research Society. Somebody there should know. MSJapan 23:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
That would be good. The lengthy time over which the Inner Sanctuary has been written seems to point to a periodical. As these are citations for probably the most common source for the anti-Catholicism in the Kadosh degree (the stabbing of the skull probably has a different source) then it would be good to see the source. What I should try to do is track down the citations for all the Catholic Encyclopedia citations in WP (excuse the convuluted English). We could then get some other issues sorted out. JASpencer 08:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Start Class or B Class

We're listed as start class for the Freemasonry and Catholicism projects. I did this originally because (a) I'm stingy with these marks for the Catholicism project and (b) when FM came on as B class I levelled down rather than up.

I've made them both into B class. Any objections? JASpencer 20:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that is a good assessment. Blueboar 22:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pruning Opus Dei paragraph

Although I would like a better source for the accusation of double standards, I believe that the rest of the paragraph is far more objectionable:

In response to the accusations of [[communism|communists]], the [[Parliament of Italy|Italian Parliament]] in 1987 declared that Opus Dei is not a secret society neither "in law nor in fact", for the Catholic prelature provides information about their activities and their directors.{{fact}} Freemasons claim that they also would not, and do not qualify as a secret society using similar reasoning.<ref name="UGLEinfo">[http://www.grandlodge-england.org/masonry/A2L-secret-society.htm "Is Freemasonry a Secret Society?"] page from the United Grand Lodge of England website.</ref> Grand Lodges provide similar information about their Officers and activities.<ref name="UGLEinfo2">As is clearly stated on the [http://www.grandlodge-england.org/masonry/A2L-secret-society.htm webpage] of the United Grand Lodge of England: "The rules and aims of Freemasonry are available to the public. The Masonic Year Book, also available to the public, contains the names of all national office-holders and lists of all lodges with details of their meeting dates and places. The meeting places and halls used by Freemasons are readily identifiable, are listed in telephone directories and in many areas are used by the local community for activities other than Freemasonry. Freemason's Hall in London is open to the public and 'open days' are held in many provincial centres. The rituals and ceremonies used by Freemasons to pass on the principles of Freemasonry to new members were first revealed publicly in 1723. They include the traditional forms of recognition used by Freemasons essentially to prove their identity and qualifications when entering a Masonic meeting. These include handshakes which have been much written about and can scarcely be regarded as truly secret today; for medieval Freemasons, they were the equivalent of a 'pin number' restricting access only to qualified members. Many thousands of books have been written on the subject of Freemasonry and are readily available to the general public. Freemasonry offers spokesmen and briefings for the media and provides talks to interested groups on request. Freemasons are proud of their heritage and happy to share it."</ref>

For a start neither Opus Dei, the Italian Parliament nor any defender of Opus Dei seems to be making a counter claim to Ronald Bruce Meyer, or any other claim to be pseudo-Masonic due to their secrecy - so it's not relevant. Secondly it's not cited (citation request now added). Thirdly the stuff from the UGLE is not any type of officicial Lodge counter-rebuttal, although it is written in this way. And finally it is close to (in my opinion over the line of) either original research or opinion.

I'll take this out tomorrow unless anyone's got a really good reason for keeping it. The introductory sentance about the double standard will stay for now.

JASpencer 17:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can completely remove it... but perhaps we can re-word it so things are clearer. The church clearly has issues with Secret Societies. Most people, however, see Opus Dei as being a Secret Society. If this is not a double standard, there is at least a mixed message being sent. The Church has answered such allegations about Opus Dei by pointing to the Italian Parliament's rulling... but the crietera cited in that rulling would apply to Freemasonry as well. You can't have it both ways. Either Opus Dei is a Secret Society (in which case there is a double standard) or it is not (in which case neither is Freemasonry).

Perhaps we should rework this line by line... what is your first objection? Blueboar 18:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well first off, the Italian Parliament report does not seem to address Opus Dei's supposed "secret" status being at variance with the Church's ban on secret societies. Of course we can't tell because there's no source at the moment, but I doubt that the Italian Parliament (or any Parliament for that matter) would try to define a matter of Catholic discipline. JASpencer 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I can see where you are coming from on this... and you do have a point. I'm not yet at a stage where I can completely let the paragraph go, but it definitely needs to be reworked in some way. Let me think about this overnight and see if I can rephrase things in a way that is more acceptable to you. (given what you have said so far, I'm not overly confident that I can do so, but it is worth a shot). The one thing that must definitely stay is the UGLE statement about not being a secret society... it may not answer the church's issues directly... but it does make it clear that Freemasonry does not consider itself a secret society, even if the Church does. Blueboar 19:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The UGLE statement should really be a response to the Church or some other religious objection to the Secret Society status. However the fact that the UGLE does not regard FM as secret is worth noting.
As far as I can understand their thinking they believe that the Secret Society objection (when aware of it at all) is not a religious one. There are religious objections (occultism, anti-clericalism, perhaps religious indifferentism) which they deny with various levels of confidence. On the other hand the UGLE sees the secrecy objection as one that comes from the anti-establishment left (as this is after all England where FM is seen as correlating with the Establishment). The twain don't meet for the UGLE.
Perhaps a line beneath the list of objections such as:
Although not directly answering all the above criticisms, the [[United Grand Lodge of England]] denies that Freemasonry is a secret society.<ref name="UGLEinfo2">"The rules and aims of Freemasonry are available to the public. The Masonic Year Book, also available to the public, contains the names of all national office-holders and lists of all lodges with details of their meeting dates and places. The meeting places and halls used by Freemasons are readily identifiable, are listed in telephone directories and in many areas are used by the local community for activities other than Freemasonry. Freemason's Hall in London is open to the public and 'open days' are held in many provincial centres. The rituals and ceremonies used by Freemasons to pass on the principles of Freemasonry to new members were first revealed publicly in 1723. They include the traditional forms of recognition used by Freemasons essentially to prove their identity and qualifications when entering a Masonic meeting. These include handshakes which have been much written about and can scarcely be regarded as truly secret today; for medieval Freemasons, they were the equivalent of a 'pin number' restricting access only to qualified members. Many thousands of books have been written on the subject of Freemasonry and are readily available to the general public. Freemasonry offers spokesmen and briefings for the media and provides talks to interested groups on request. Freemasons are proud of their heritage and happy to share it." From the [http://www.grandlodge-england.org/masonry/A2L-secret-society.htm United Grand Lodge of England webpage]</ref>
Which is all that really needs to be said. (By all means shorten the quote if you feel that it would do better).
The last two paragraphs could then go.
JASpencer 19:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
After reflection, I have removed the Opus Dei stuff, at least for now. I am going to do more research on this and may add it back in revised form later. Blueboar 15:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Proably for the best. It's a fairly obvious comparison and there must be something out there on this from someone a bit more notable than the voice man. JASpencer 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaps in History

In the To Do list it had an item that went along the lines of editing the history "so as to provide a history of the 'relationship' between the two groups rather than the POV "hit list" that is there right now." Now the times when the two groups have taken lumps out of each other are very important. Notwithstanding that any POV issues should be dealt with (although they can be raised individually) I'd really be interested to see what people perceive as the gaps in the history between the two groups.

I know it's not normal practice, but could I ask if we could try to hammer them out here first before going on to the main article as this could open up an edit war.

I'm also taking the item out of the to do list.

JASpencer 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the comment was added by User:Amicuspublilius, who never came back to edit the article. I agree with his comment, however. Not that much is really missing, but that the article is indeed a Hit List (and to be fair, this applies to both Points of View). This may be my gut reaction to the bullet point style you tend to use... (and, I admit, that I have used in return) rather than a more narrative style. As to gaps... I think we could use more background information on the historical material... what was the political situation in Italy, France, and Mexico that led some Freemasons to become actively involved in Liberal Democratic political movements. to what degree were these movements something inspired by Freemasonry, and to what degree was Freemasonry reacting to events. Things like that. This will put the Church's reactions into proper historical context. Blueboar 22:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discrete Society 2

Can we not simply remove this to the talk page as

  • it's not clear why this fits in
  • it seems to violate WP:NOR by synthesising sources
  • foreign language sources are not quoted
  • the UGLE quote should be enough

JASpencer 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this in the next couple of days unless there's an objection. JASpencer 22:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed. JASpencer 07:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The Paragraph was:
The accusation that Freemasonry is a secret society is mainly due to its high regard for discretion.<ref name="EZW">Matthias Pöhlmann: ''Verschwiegene Männer'', Protestant Centre for Religious and Ideological Issues of the [[Evangelical Church in Germany]] {{request quote}}</ref> The German historian Dieter A. Binder tells us “Lodges are closed societies, but not secret societies” and says that the historical correct description would be "Discreet Society”.<ref name="Binder">Dieter A. Binder: ''Die diskrete Gesellschaft, Geschichte und Symbolik der Freimaurer'', Innsbruck 2004 {{request quote}}</ref>
JASpencer 07:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin Lodge section

I have shifted the section on France to go before the section on Italy... Purely for historical timeline reasons (the French Revolution came before Italian unification). No other changes made. Blueboar 15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. We really should hammer out something on the Latin Lodges at some time - perhaps a seperate article on this rather important phenomenen. How was your father's funeral by the way? JASpencer 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we need to work on this section. To me, there is no doubt that the developement of Continental/Latin Freemasonry is central to understanding why the Church has such an anti-Masonic stance today. This needs to be fleshed out. From the Masonic POV, it is important to indicate that Anglo/American Freemasonry is not at all the same as Contintental/Latin Freemasonry. From a historical POV, most of the Church's issues with FM developed in reaction to how Continental/Latin FM grew and developed. (Note, I am not trying to imply that the Church approves of the Anglo/American branch... I do understand that the Church has issues with FM in general, and not just with one branch or another. However, it is true that the Church has fewer issues with Anglo/American FM than with Continental/Latin FM)
And thanks for the kind words Re: my dad. The service was beautiful... he would have approved. Blueboar 17:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The Latin angle is certainly a popular one out there, especially with the more serious Masonic historians - although I've said before that I think it's overplayed. It must be stated that this is a theory unless there's a Vatican document saying that the Grand Oient are worse than the UGLE lodges.
I'm glad that the funeral was fitting. JASpencer 20:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Why does it have to be a Vatican document?... I would think that a Masonic statement or even an analysis of the issue by a serious historian would be acceptable. It is clear that the Vatican does not recognize the difference between Anglo/American GLs and Continental/Latin GOs, but others do see the difference (especially Masons). As long as we properly attribute and cite who is saying what, we should be able to present both views. Blueboar 12:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I was unclear. I think that we should either have a Vatican document (or something else from the curia) saying that Rome thinks that the Latin Lodges are worse OR we state it as a theory with all the proper attribution or citation. I've no problem with including it, as long as it is clearly labelled as a theory. I think that's roughly what you were saying in the previous comment, so I don't think we have a problem there. JASpencer 14:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am not sure that "theory" is the correct word ... that implies a degree of speculation that does not quite fit with the historical facts ... However, I am not quite sure what the right word would be. "View" or "Opinion" perhaps. (we can hash this out later)
While it is clear that Continental/Latin Freemasonry was (and is) far more political than Anglo/American Freemasonry (which bans political and religious discussion from its meetings), it is also clear that the Church does not recongnize this distinction. I am sure that we can come up with a ballanced and accurate discription of this that will not over-play one POV or the other. The point is to put Freemasonry's involvement in the various nineteenth century nationalist movements, and the Church's reaction to this involvement, into a proper historical context. Blueboar 16:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Well the Catholic view seems to be that there is a difference but this is a difference in method. JASpencer 19:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Explain please... I'm not sure what you mean. Blueboar 19:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll simplify (bear in mind that the Church's view is more subtle) - in Catholic countries Freemasonry is up against a centralised and determined opponent of religious indifferentism and needs to oppose it directly. In Protestant countries the existence of Protestant churches means that the Churches need to be liberalised and "guided". JASpencer 19:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Teaching

A question that pops up on the Talk pages every now and again is what is the current Cathiolic Church position on Freemasonry. If no one has any objections I think that we should put a section at the top explaining that Quaestium Est says that any Catholic who becomes a Freemason under any juridstiction is committing a grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion. JASpencer 16:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. I would suggest something along the lines of:
"The Catholic Church has often been seen to be in conflict with Freemasonry. The Church forbids Catholics from becoming Freemasons while Freemasonry allows Catholics to become members.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law explicitly declared that joining Freemasonry entailed automatic excommunication. This clear language, however, was amended in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which did not explicitly name Masonic orders among the secret societies it condemns. Canon 1374 stated in part: 'A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.' This omission caused both Catholics and Masons to wonder whether the ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons was still in place, especially after the perceived liberalisation of Vatican II. Many Catholics joined the fraternity, basing their membership on a permisive interpretation of this Canon Law and justifying their membership by their belief that Freemasonry does not plot against the Church.
However, the 1981 letter: Clarification concerning status of Catholics becoming Freemasons to the United States Bishops, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and authored by the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), clarified the Church's stance by stateing that the prohibition against Catholics joining Masonic orders remains. This was reinforced by the 1983 document Quaesitum est which states: 'The faithful, who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion...'"
This puts the entire issue of "Can Catholics become Masons?" up front. It clearly explains that there was confusion, what that confusion was, and that the confusion has been cleared up... and, more importantly answers the question with a firm (and factual) "According to the Church, No." Blueboar 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking something more along the lines of putting Quaestium Est up front and then talking about the confusion afterwards. I do think that the confusion should be covered higher up than it currently is, but the current situation should be up front. I've rearranged your words into the order that I'd like. There's still a couple of things to iron out, but this is how I see the order:
The Catholic Church has often been seen to be in conflict with Freemasonry. The Church forbids Catholics from becoming Freemasons while Freemasonry allows Catholics to become members.
The 1983 document Quaesitum est states: 'The faithful, who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion...'" This reinforced a 1981 letter "Clarification concerning status of Catholics becoming Freemasons" to the United States Bishops, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and authored by the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), clarified the Church's stance by stating that the historic prohibition against Catholics joining Masonic orders remained.
The documents from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith were felt to be needed due to recent confusion. The 1917 Code of Canon Law explicitly declared that joining Freemasonry entailed automatic excommunication. This clear language, however, was amended in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which did not explicitly name Masonic orders among the secret societies it condemns. Canon 1374 stated in part: 'A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.' This omission caused both Catholics and Masons to wonder whether the ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons was still in place, especially after the perceived liberalisation of Vatican II. Many Catholics joined the fraternity, basing their membership on a permisive interpretation of this Canon Law and justifying their membership by their belief that Freemasonry does not plot against the Church.
JASpencer 19:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Your version is fine by me. Note that if we put this all in the intro, we should not simply repeat it lower down. I'll leave it to you to figure out how to cut/reword the section entitled "Catholic Ban, Historically" Blueboar 19:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
My version isn't fine with me, but I'll work on it. JASpencer 19:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
How about this:
=Current Position=
The current position of the Catholic Church is stated in the 1983 document [[Quaesitum est]] which states: 'The faithful, who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of [[grave sin]] and may not receive [[Holy Communion]]...'"'' This was written by the [[Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]] and approved by both [[Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger]] and [[Pope John Paul II]].<ref>Quaesitum est reinforced [[Clarification concerning status of Catholics becoming Freemasons]] which was written in 1981 from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Bishops Conference of the United States which clarified the Church's stance by stating that the historic prohibition against Catholics joining Masonic orders remained.</ref>
The documents from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith arose due to confusion in the 1970s and early 1980s. The 1983 Code of Canon Law, which did not explicitly name Masonic orders among the secret societies it condemns.<ref>Canon 1374 stated in part: 'A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.'</ref> This was in contast with the clear language in the 1917 Code of Canon Law which explicitly declared that joining Freemasonry entailed automatic excommunication. The change caused both Catholics and Masons to wonder whether the ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons was still in place, especially after the perceived liberalisation of Vatican II. Many Catholics joined the fraternity, basing their membership on a permisive interpretation of this Canon Law and justifying their membership by their belief that Freemasonry does not plot against the Church.
JASpencer 19:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That works for me as well. Blueboar 23:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German Bishops' Conference

I've added some text on the German Bishop's conference. I think the first thing that is going to grab people is that I've not put alleged on almost every line (which doesn't exactly make for great prose). The first sentence should make clear that these are allegations, not stated facts. JASpencer 08:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it from a bullet point list to a numbered list, which ties it into the opening statement much better. I also added "That..." (which achieves the same goal as sticking "It is alleged that..." but in a more elegant way). Blueboar 12:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The amendments are fine. I've taken out the "That's" from the two prohibitions. But the text is going to need to be worked on. Some other day. (Also changed the "was not" to "may have been lifted", partly to avoid a double negative partly to convey some of the confusion).
Why was the paragraph reordered so that Ratzinger's 1981 reply was before the 1980 bishop's conference? No problem with it as such but just curious.
JASpencer 13:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Reordered because Ratzinger was a direct reply to the idea that the 1974 pronouncement and the 1983 Canon Law change allowed Catholics to become Masons... it fit better there. Also, the German Bishops section seemed to go better with the American Bishops section. Blueboar 13:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
In my unsourced opinion I think the fact that Ratzinger was in some way involved in the German Bishops conference report had something to do with the fact that he seemed to move so quickly on the clarification. He moved from Cologne to Rome in 1981 - sandwiched by the German Bishop's report and the clarification. However I'm loath to make the connection in the article as without some commentary on the web it would break WP:NOR. JASpencer 13:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you may be correct that the German Bishop's report influenced Ratzinger's clarification. Please do conduct further research on this. If it turns out to be verifiable, then it may make sense to re-order and slightly reword the two paragraphs if only to explain how the clarification (and subsequently Quaestum Est) developed. Blueboar 13:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Pike writings of utility....

According to the Bibliography of Writings of Albert Pike, compiled by Ray Baker Harris, published by Kessinger(ISBN 1564594483), Pike's got about 36 separate documents classified under "Cerneau Controversy." They will bear looking at.

I also have information for The Inner Sanctuary. It appears in the "Ritualistic and Ceremonial" section of the Bibliography. Each volume was reprinted several times, and the page counts differ considerably. Part I is subtitled "The Book of the Lodge of Perfection". Part II is subtitled "The Book of the Second Temple", except for one where it is subtitled "Latomopolis", Part III is subtitled "Latomopolis" and Part IV is subtitled "The Book of the Holy House". It seems that the last volume was retitled Ritual Part V, The Inner Sanctuary and was subtitled "The Book of the Great Light". Some of these volumes are upwards of 500 pages apiece, so I don't see them going on Wikisource even if they are available. There is also a disclaimer at the head of the section that some of the material in the section was reprinted with explanatory material not written by Pike. MSJapan 14:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that if this was a periodical of some kind then it would be in an article that could be put on Wikisource. However, it could be possible to put a chapter or two on to Wikisource. Thanks for looking this up. JASpencer 14:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Nom Failed

I think the article shows promise, but needs a lot of work before it attains GA status. I'm impressed with the documentation. The article fails in two critical ways. First, the lead is way too short for an article of this size. (see WP:LEAD for suggestions). Second, the language does not flow well. It reads like a series of bullet points rather than an essay.

Not critical for GA status:

Try to avoid using passives (example: "is seen by the Catholic Church") and participles (example: as "having based") While these constructions are correct English, English readers find them hard to absorb (these constructions give off a 'fuzzy" feeling).

Reread the article in the light of its Catholic Encyclopedia source. If substantial stretches are verbatim from that article still, paraphrase them.

Also, images would help a bunch.

Once you've gotten to the first two suggestions, please renom. --CTSWyneken(talk) 10:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taking sources on trust

I'm afraid that the Binder quote is simply unacceptable unless there's a quote in German. I'm going by WP:RS when it says "Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly." I simply don;t trust the editor who originally put this in as he's shown bad faith in the past. JASpencer 18:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I must stress that the editor who originally put this in is not one of the editors who currently edits this page. JASpencer 07:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Dieter Binder

According to this reference here, if the intro to it is accurate, it would seem that he is indeed a Freemason. MSJapan 01:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you MSJ. My German is rather poor but if "Mein Herren" is the equivalent of saying my brothers then he would seem to be a Freemason. JASpencer 07:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
'Mein Herren' simply means 'My gentlemen'... he does however starts his speech with 'Erhwürdiger Meister', which translates roughtly as 'Venerable Master', a form of adress I think it's unlikely that a non-mason would use. A quick and dirty google translation can be read here (allthougt it suffers from all the common flaws of machine translations). WegianWarrior 07:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. Told you my German was poor. JASpencer 12:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that this definitively proves he is a Mason... This looks like an address given to a group of Masons, and Dr. Binder may have known the masonic convention of "addressing the chair" (ie the Master). I know this can happen... several years ago my lodge had a non-Mason historian come to our annual dinner to talk about New York City in the 1780s and 90s (when we were founded)... After being introduced, he knew enough to open his talk with "Thank you Worshipful Master".
Dr. Binder is a noted historian... and he obviously has studied Freemasonry in order to write this essay. I think it would be quite likely that he would know Masonic conventions. The statement that he is not a Freemason comes from Webmaster@sgovd.org, our German editor. I think it is likely that he would know if Dr. Binder was a Freemason or not (the way we would know if someone who addressed our lodge was a Brother in the US or UK). I will shoot him a message and ask how he knows. Blueboar 12:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't remember webmaster ever claiming that Binder was or was not a Freemason. These are his three edits on the area:
JASpencer 15:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

But Webmaster did include a statement that he was not a Freemason on a similar part of the Freemasonry article. I have to admit that I do not know Dr. Binder's status one way or the other. I will contact Webmaster and ask for clarification. I agree that we need to find out for sure, since I used Dr. Binder as corroboration that some non-masons agree with UGLE's distinction between Private and Secret. If he IS a Freemason, that would indeed change things, and probably shift me towards dropping using him as a citation. Blueboar 16:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. It was puzzling me as to why he was put in as a non-Mason just now. JASpencer 16:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear brethren, Dr. Binder is no mason, but the modern co-author of the german main important Eugen Lennhoff/Oskar Posner/Dieter A. Binder: Internationales Freimaurerlexikon, Überarbeitete und erweiterte Neuauflage der Ausgabe von 1932, München 2003, 951 S., ISBN 3-7766-2161-3, who actualised the old book of 1932.
He wrote also an own book about freemasonry.
Fraternally Yours http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Penta 84.149.246.252 16:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


According to the given source above, Dieter A. Binder says in the introduction of his lecture:
Vielleicht erscheint dem einen oder anderen von Ihnen die Ankündigung eines Vortrages, den ein Profaner zu diesem Thema und in diesem Rahmen zu halten beabsichtigt, wie der Versuch eines Vegetariers vor Gourmets über die Vorzüge eines argentinischen T-Bone-Steaks zu sprechen.
So he calls himself a "Profaner" which is a term of a non-initiated person and not a Freemason. He compares his lecture with a lecture by a vegetarian in front of gourmets about the advantages of an Argentinian T-bone steak. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed citation request. JASpencer 22:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To do list

JAS... the to do list is almost as long as the article itself. I know there is a lot you want to do to improve the article, but I think the list is really overly long to include on the page. Have any of the items been completed? If so, could you remove them from the list? If not, perhaps some prioritizing is in order? I would suggest that you start your own "still to do" list in a sand-box somewhere, and just put what you think are the most important items on actual list? That may help everyone to focus on what needs to get done. Just a thought Blueboar 01:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing them while they're being done. I'm limiting myself to one edit a day so that nothing is seen as being done too quickly or as a surprise. JASpencer 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
OK... It was just a comment. Could we work out a priority system? Then I might be able to help take care of some of this on my end (obviously not the controvercial stuff... but a lot of it are additions that I have no problem with.)
Well I've put it on to three levels, article ready text, needs more work and sources. I'm usually putting in the top article ready text at the top of the list, one a day. JASpencer 19:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
That works Blueboar 22:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Many Catholics

OK... what is the objection to "There has never been a Masonic prohibition against Catholics joining the fraternity, and many Catholics have done so"? It seems to be the word "many", but I could be misinterpeting the objection. There are probably thousands of Catholics who have joined Freemasonry (I would guess over a thousand in Italy alone). Do you really doubt the statement is factual?

I think the adjective "many" is open to more than one interpretation. There are a billion Catholics (give or take a hundred million). If every Freemason was a Catholic that would mean that 0.4% of the worlds Catholics were Freemasons. What is meant by "many"? JASpencer 18:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
To me "many" means a large number... more that "a few"... If you need a number, I could say "thousands", but to me that would give the statment even more weight than I intend to imply (to me saying there are "thousands" of Catholic Freemasons sounds more impressive than just saying that there are "many" Catholic Freemasons). If it is the percentages that bother you, I suppose we could swap it and say something like, "...and many Freemasons are Catholics". I am sure that there is a larger percentage of Freemasons who are Catholic than Catholics who are Freemasons.Blueboar 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not the percentages that bother me. It's the inexactness that drives me to distraction. So a Masonic author claims that "many Catholics have left", that's fine as it is verifiable (as long as you say who said it). Figures show that so many thousands have left. Also fine - but say so many thousands rather than many. The Catholic church or some third party author says so. In that case I don't think there would be a problem saying just "many". I think the problem is that adjectives are not seen as being cited when they can have massive POV implications. JASpencer 19:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I doubt anyone has counted the numbers. Especially since Freemasonry does not ask what religion you are before you join. They only ask if you believe in God. Obviously this is not just the opinion of one Masonic scholar (which is why I reverted you)... there are certainly a whole bunch (how's that for non-specific - sorry) of Catholic Masons... a few are editors to these very pages. Unfortunately, I can not think of a way to be more definitive. Can you suggest a better wording? Blueboar 19:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
We don't ask that. Gods, if we did about 80% of my London lodge wouldn't be in! ALR 19:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the data would be available, I know neither UGLE or GLoS ask the question on the application form. We specifically avoid the discussion in the interview because it's not important, as long as the candidate can answer yes to 'Do you belive in a Supreme Being'. I do recognise that some of the US GLs have additional caveats about that which force one towards 'Are you a Christian', but even they layer that in several questions so don't ask it explicitly.
I'd imagine that the proportion of RCs who are FMs is decreasing over time anyway, when the original prohibitions came in the majority of FMs would have been RC therefore a political threat, but now the RCCs power base is significantly diminished and FMs membership is a lot more diverse. That in itself is probably of little more than intellectual interest and there are more significant things to investigate.
fwiw, in my experience the proportion of RC in the appendant bodies like Antient and Accepted Rite, Royal Order, SRIA is probably higher than the proportion in craft lodges. It's about 10% in my craft lodges and closer to 50% in my SRIA college, about 40% in my A&AR Chapter and similar in the RoS.
ALR 19:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
ALR - the 'Do you belive in a Supreme Being?' question is what I meant. As far as I know, no US GL or lodge specificly asks if you are a Christian. Blueboar 20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The cited claim is not from an unbiased source - or a biased source writing against his own bias. Therefore it should state where the claim comes from. I think that it's getting to be a habit to throw in questionable adjectives ("many", "probable", etc) and because it's quoted in an Idiot's guide to assume that it's unquestionable. JASpencer 19:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
And the RCC is not an unbiased source? The point has been made a couple of times about understanding the cultural context within which the various vlaims by the RCC have been made. The absence of that contextual discussion appears to be leading to an imbalance in how sources are described here.
I'll concede that I'm very cynical about organisations in general, and church hierarchies in particular, but realistically how much of the RCCs objection is about relative political influence, historically?
ALR 19:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
JAS...I am going to respond to your comments in reverse order... first the Idiot's Guide... The people who edit the Idiot's Guide's series have an interest in ensuring that only factual information gets put into their books. I am sure that they fact check everything before they publish. The books may not cover a subject in great depth, but they do contain accurate information on the subject, written by noted scholars in the subject field. Dr. Morris is very highly regarded as an expert on Freemasonry. If he says that "many" Catholics have joined Freemasonry (and he does), you can believe it.
Now for the charge of bias... by your reasoning, ANYTHING written by a Mason would be biased. I suppose I could say the same thing about Catholic sources. The thing is, this is not a statement of biased oppinion... it is a simple factual observation. It is a "the sky is blue" kind of statement. It really doesn't even NEED a citation. Seriously, do you really think that there are NOT many Catholic Masons? They may have joined in violation of church edicts, they may be technically excommunicated, but they do exist. Their existence does not have anything to do with bias. Blueboar 20:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Many is a word that can mean a multitude of things. I have no problem if we say that a Masonic author says this, or if there was something to back it up. However it is subjective. In the big scheme of things the number of Catholic Freemasons is never going to be large because the number of Freemasons to Catholics worldwide is about 4 million to 900 million - about 0.5%. So the statement "many" needs to be qualified. And yes the Idiot's Guide is a biased source. You would hardly expect the Idiot's Guide to Catholicism to be treated uncritically if it said that "many" Masons had renounced Freemasonry for Catholicism. JASpencer 20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if that statement was in an Idiot's guide, I would tend to believe it. As I said, their information may not tell the complete story, but it is accurate. To say that the book is bias, just because the author is a Mason is rediculous. The editors would not let the statement stand if it were not factual.
But we really don't need the citation. AGAIN... it is a "the sky is blue" statement. there ARE many catholics who have become Masons. It may not be a large number compared to the entire Catholic Population... but several thousand is not a small number. I am trying to be reasonable here, so I have provided a citation, but it is not really needed ... and ONCE AGAIN if you don't like "many" come up with a better wording. Blueboar 20:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
"Masonic scholars say that many" is exact (if he did say many). However if you don't want to mention the source of this then "some" would be acceptable. JASpencer 21:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I have the same problem with "some" as you do with "many"... to me that sounds like it is only a small hand full, when it is far more than that. Is there a word for what falls between "some" and "many"? (and thank you for trying to work this out) Blueboar 22:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
"Masonic scholars claim that many" is fine with me. It is a claim. If you could find some estimate of Catholic participation in lodges that would also be fine. An unqualified "many" drives me to distraction. JASpencer 08:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's just take "many" away, so the sentence starts with "Catholics". JASpencer 09:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out a middle road here... Would you have a problem with:

  • "There has never been Masonic prohibition against Catholics joining the fraternity. Many Freemasons are Catholics." ?

Blueboar 13:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer if it were more exact, but for the moment that's fine. JASpencer 13:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the fact that the sky is blue is cited. JASpencer 21:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not entirely true though is it? The reason that we perceive the sky as blue in the visible region of the electromagnetic spectrum is cited, but 'the sky is blue' isn't!ALR 21:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Proving that the statement "the sky is blue" is a perfectly valid citation request. JASpencer 22:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd disagree. The citation is on the reason, not the statement.ALR 22:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and I did a quick skirmish to check if it was you that had requested it, but it seems to have been there a while. Yes I'm cynical....ALR 22:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't go giving me ideas. However being "obvious" is not a reason to delete a citation request. JASpencer 22:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is a Catholic Mason an Oxymoron?

Has anybody considered that "many Catholics" does not encompass that they have been excommunicated for doing so (i.e. so they are not eligible to be described as "Catholic"?) Slac speak up! 06:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been considered a few times. I'm not sure whether excommunication in itself means that you are not a Catholic as reconciliation is always possible. Besides I haven't seen anything from the Catholic church itself saying anything along the lines of "they may describe themselves as Catholic, but because they're automatically excommunicated they're not". I would be unhappy with the article adopting the tone that Catholics stop being Catholics once they go into the lodge (and are aware of the Church's prohibitions) unless I saw something from the Church saying that this was the case. That they are not Catholics in good standing, fine. That they are forbidden from taking communion, also fine. But not that they are not Catholics. JASpencer 08:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Also it's disputed that Ratzinger's statement meant excommunication per se, or some incredibly similar policy that was somehow not excommunication. (I'm sceptical about that interpretation, but it's out there). JASpencer 08:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
This is more of an RCC process question. If one does 'something' which would result in excommunication, is that automatic or is there a process by which it is formalised? Essentially does it require someone to 'tell the priest', although in at least one case I can think of he wouldn't need to be told, he'd know who else sat in lodge with him.
Again from my own experience those RCs who are members, particularly of the appendant bodies, are fairly active members of the church as well, although that seems to be the case regardless of individual faiths. Clearly it's up to their own conscience that they reconcile the two however excommunication would mean much more to these individuals than to the nominal RC who never attends chapel.
ALR 08:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Excommunication is, at least in larger part, what is known in Canon Law as a "medicinal penalty." The purpose of it (oddly enough) is NOT to kick you out of the Church, but to kick you in the ass so that you will return to the Church.

The idea is that someone who has done something that warrants excommunication needs to be grabbed by the lapels (spiritually) and shaken up so that they understand just how serious a thing they have done. Though they are barred from actually receiving the sacraments, they are not barred from attending services -- they are not "no longer Catholics." It is very much the same as a loving, but pissed off, dad sending a kid to his room without supper "until you can come down here and apologize for what you've done." The goal of the shove of excommunication is the embracing of the returning sheep, so to speak.

As for ALR's question, there are two processes. Excommunication ferendae sententiae comes as a result of a court decision -- there has been a canonical allegation, a trial, and the sentence is excommunication until the person changes his or her actions. Excommunication latae sententiae is that which occurs from the very act itself -- if a Catholic doctor performs an abortion, or a Catholic bishop runs off and ordains another bishop in defiance of the pope, for instance, those people are automatically excommunicated from that moment.

What if the crime is "occult" -- not in the sense of ouija boards and demons, but in the technical sense of hidden, unknown. In the case of a latae sententiae penalty, it still binds from the moment of the act, but the only person who would be aware of it is the person himself or herself. It would therefore be a matter of conscience, and hard as it may be to believe, many people who do such things do later feel guilt and remorse and dishonesty and a sense of sadness over their secret defiance of the Church and approach a priest in Confession to have the excommunication lifted and the "crime" forgiven.

I know this board is full of discussion of this, but let me re-emphasize as others have pointed out, for many catholics who oppose Masonic membership, it is not oiut of conspiracy theories or hatred. They really do see Masonry as a quasi-rationalistic semi-deistic generic indifferentist religion or religious body. Hence, becoming a Mason is, for them, the same as a Catholic saying he has become a Unitarian, or a Reconstructionist Jew -- nice people all, and all mean well, but though a Mason may not see it this way, to a Catholic it is often seen as a declaration that all that stuff that catholics believe isn't so important. That doesn't make a Unitarian a bad person, but he can't really call himself a believer in Catholicism either,HarvardOxon 08:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

HarvardOxon, that is one of the most reasoned and well written explanations of excommunication and its relation to joining Freemasonry that I have read in a LONG time. Thank you. Blueboar 12:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou, that's useful. The implications bear some thinking about with respect to those RCs who choose to continue both their craft activities and church activities in parallel.ALR 19:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Section

According to the style guide WP:LEAD we should have "three or four paragraphs" as a lead section on an article of this size and it "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Any suggestions what it should cover? JASpencer 19:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... good question. The entire article can be summarized as "The Church says Catholics should not become Masons, and Masons disagree ... here's why." With the exception of the "here's why" that is what our intro basically says. One problem is that the article is essentially a list of allegations and responses. It is hard to write a good intro to that. The Article does not really have a unifying theme except for the fact that the Church disaproves of Masonry. I'll think about it some, and will post any suggestions I have here. Blueboar 19:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could talk about the anti-clericalism of the Latin Lodges, the perceived esotericism of Masonic rituals, etc. JASpencer 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

We already say that Freemasonry is accused of being anti-clerical. And the esotericim is not really a major theme in the article, only one of many smaller themes. As I said above, part of the problem is that the article jumps around from accusation to accusation... there really isn't a unifying theme other than opposition from the church. To write a good intro, we would really have to re-structure the article so it flows from one topic to another in a more logical form. I'm not sure that can be done. Blueboar 20:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
What about the part in Christianity and Freemasonry:
The most persistent critic<ref name="RCChurch">The Catholic Church has continually prohibited members from being Freemasons since [[In Eminenti Secula]] in 1739</ref> of Freemasonry has been the Catholic Church. Since the early 1700's, the Vatican has issued several papal bulls, banning membership of Catholics from Freemasonry under threat of excommunication - a penalty that still applies for all Catholics active in Freemasonry.
The Church argues that Freemasonry's theology discourages Christian dogmatism and that it is at many times and places anti-clerical in intent.<ref name="GrdFra">"French Masonry and above all the Grand Orient of France has displayed the most systematic activity as the dominating political element in the French "Kulturkampf" since 1877." From [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm Masonry (Freemasonry)] from the Catholic Encyclopedia</ref> The 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia argued that some of the ceremonial is anti-Catholic.<ref name="CEkadosh">"The Kadosh (thirtieth degree), trampling on the papal tiara and the royal crown, is destined to wreak a just vengeance on these "high criminals" for the murder of Molay [128] and "as the apostle of truth and the rights of man" [129] to deliver mankind "from the bondage of Despotism and the thraldom of spiritual Tyranny"." From the article [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm Masonry (Freemasonry)] in the [[Catholic Encyclopedia]]</ref> However this claim does not appear in subsequent editions.
JASpencer 20:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Do me a favor, repost that without the citations (I find it very difficult to follow the main text when the citations are copied). Blueboar 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
The most persistent critic[1] of Freemasonry has been the Catholic Church. Since the early 1700's, the Vatican has issued several papal bulls, banning membership of Catholics from Freemasonry under threat of excommunication - a penalty that still applies for all Catholics active in Freemasonry.
The Church argues that Freemasonry's theology discourages Christian dogmatism and that it is at many times and places anti-clerical in intent.[2] The 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia argued that some of the ceremonial is anti-Catholic.[3] However this claim does not appear in subsequent editions.
JASpencer 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I've put the text here Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry/to do/Controversy
This actually works for me. I do have a problem with the phrase "Freemasonry's theology" since Freemasonry does not have a theology (appropriate, since it is not a religion)... perhaps "practices" is a better word? (we can work on this, and once we find a better word, I will change it on the Christianity and Freemasonry page as well). Other than that, I could see using it here... it would probably have to be tweeked and prodded a bit further... but it would give us something to work with. Blueboar 20:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Beliefs rather than theology? However, theology does not mean that you have a religion, it just means a view of God. But I'm not going to make a point of this. JASpencer 21:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I think, though, that the real key is that Freemasonry as a group has no theology or beliefs - it only requires that its members do, and what an individual member's theology is doesn't matter, as it's not something discussed in Lodge. So to even mention it is a bit messy. MSJapan 21:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps "Philosophy"? Blueboar 21:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Philosophy works. JASpencer 08:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we have an intro then... go ahead and post it. Blueboar 12:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Posted. JASpencer 16:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De-bulleting

I've taken out bullet points in a number of areas:

  • Secret Societies here
  • Catholic position towards Freemasons here
  • German Bishops Conference here
  • Separation of Church and State here
  • French Revolution here
  • 1905 Separation of Church and State here

Anyone have any objections to posting these?

JASpencer 17:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll put these in tomorrow if no one objects. JASpencer 09:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem with any of these... I generally prefer a narrative form over bullet points. Blueboar 13:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words

This article uses the word "alleges" and its variants 12 times, "it has been said" several others, and presents opinions as common actions of beliefs -70.19.25.234 18:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

True. The article is primarily about such allegations. Blueboar 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
That's the subject. Although I'd tend to agree with the assessment that it's fairly weaselly, but that's structural rather than content alongside the lack of contextualising material or discussion.ALR 19:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure you can get away from being weaselly on this... primarily the article is about the fact that the Catholic Church says certain things about Freemasonry are true, and that Freemasonry denies that they are true. I'm not sure you can cover this material without the use of "alleges" and other weasle words... one side or the other on this issue would shout "Blatant POV" if you did. If someone could tell me a better way to do this, I would appreciate it. Blueboar 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I've reduced nesting since I was responding to the original IP. My main issue is one that I've rehearsed a few times. At the moment it's pretty much a bulleted list, there is no context for any of the allegations and the structure, means that it's statement/ footnote based. to the casual reader who is unlikely to read footnotes it can easily come across as quite weaselly and NPOV. At the moment it adheres to the letter of WP:POV but not the spirit, which quite reasonably leads to these statements. However I'm wary about paying to much attention to annon IPs.ALR 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing Belgium:

====Belgium====
{{unreferenced}}
In 1990 a parliamentary majority of liberal-democrats and social-democrats legalised abortion in Belgium. The present coalition government of liberal-democrats and social-democrats, which serves its second term, has legalised [[euthanasia]] and [[gay marriage]]. A big majority of cabinet members and members of parliament of these parties belong the continental masonic lodges. The coalitian government and its [[Cultural marxism|cultural marxist]] policies have been induced by Belgian freemasonry, which is overwelmingly atheistic. {{fact}}

This can go back when referenced. I've done a quick search on Google and although there's an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia which links some anti-clerical measures to Freemasonry, but obviously nothing to do with 1990. JASpencer 20:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Reading this article, it seems to me (and yes, I'm Catholic) that it has some major NPOV problems. Specifically, it seems to be a sort of point-counterpoint view of the issues: the Catholic Church says ______, but in fact ______. While it can be said that this is simply making both viewpoints clear, the problem is that when it is consistently phrased in this way, it seems more like an essay on why the Catholic Church is wrong to oppose Freemasonry.

Further, it is extremely difficult to substantiate any of the claims made by the Catholic Church or the Freemasons, as Freemasonry is a closed society. Since outsiders are not invited to know the rituals or secrets of Freemasonry and insiders are not allowed to share them, it is very difficult to substantiate any claims involving, for instance, the alleged desecration of the Papal tiara. The bottom line here is, I don't really know what can be done about this article, but as it stands, it is certainly not neutral. Phil Bastian 13:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Phil, what is interesting is that both sides seem to feel that this article is overly POV. Masons object because of what they see as unfounded insinuations and allegations that they know not to be true. Catholics object because these allegations are refuted (which gives the article a 'pro-masonic' tone). I wish I knew how to solve the issue short of a complete re-write, but I don't. Blueboar 14:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pacem In Terris

I've moved the Pacem In Terris reference to here to see if we can hammer this out. The sentence starts "Freemasons believe in the Right to worship God according to one's concience" and the removed text continues:

, an idea supported by the Church.<ref>Expressed well in Pope John XXIII's encyclical [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html Pacem In Terris] "Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public. According to the clear teaching of Lactantius, 'this is the very condition of our birth, that we render to the God who made us that just homage which is His due; that we acknowledge Him alone as God, and follow Him. It is from this ligature of piety, which binds us and joins us to God, that religion derives its name.'"</ref>

The idea that the church agrees with Masonic ideas of religious indifference may be popular with the Society of St. Pius V but it is not likely to be one supported by the church. This extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence such as "The church does not disagree with the Masonic idea of the Right to worship God in your own way". Otherwise this looks like it's Original Research.

JASpencer 18:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a second... let's have the entire sentence please. What I wrote was:
  • "Freemasons believe in the Right to worship God according to one's concience, an idea supported by the Church" (ref to Pacem In Terris).
I never said the Church supports religious indifference (neither do the Masons, but that is a different issue) ... I chose the words "Right to Worship God According To One's Concience" deliberately ... as that is a direct quote from Pacem In Terris. Are you saying that the Church disagrees with this right? Blueboar 18:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I say that the two bodies may well understand the idea differently. As the next sentence reads "The fraternity does not define God, but rather leaves it up to the member's individual faith to do so." That is certainly not the Catholic position. Also the "right dictates" point to a different understanding - the idea that these right dictates will lead to Catholic truth. JASpencer 19:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You are evading the point... According to Pacem In Terris: "among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public." Is this, or is this not, a statement that the Church agrees with? Blueboar 19:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is trying to pull things out of context to prove a point too much. While the Church may state that one may worship as one sees fit, in context with other RCC documentation, I would think that the implication is "as long as it is within the confines of the teachings of the Church". In short, we can't view a single document outside of its larger context, so I think we should leave it out as per JASpencer's original removal. MSJapan 19:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks MSJ. The Catholic church's view towards religious tolerance is nuanced. I can pull together a partial reading list if anyone wants one. JASpencer 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with leaving it out if that is consensus, but I do want to understand this, so let us discuss further please... when I read Pacem In Terris, my first reaction was "hey, this is what Masons believe"... I mean, it sounds fairly cut and dried. It sounds like support for Freedom of Religion, which is certainly a Masonic ideal. So what am I misunderstanding? Blueboar 19:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Before I answer that, let me say that this is my own personal interpretation from reading Pacem_in_Terris as a non-Catholic, and it does seem somewhat of a conflicted document. PiT was written during the Cold War, and it seems to address how human rights should apply to all people, not just Catholics, in order to achieve peace. However, it does have religious underpinnings simply because it was written by the Pope and draws on the New Testament for support. My sense of the encyclical is that no person or government should infringe on the moral, social, and religious rights of others, and by following the will of G-d and Christian principles, this can be achieved. It therefore has nothing to do with anything regarding secret socieites as the Church sees them. MSJapan 20:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It's the why that's important. Even in the quote the idea of "right dictates" (that's right as in right vs. wrong, and dictates as in dictation) is important. This is the view that the right dictates, together with plenty of help from the visible church, will gradually lead the honest man to the truth - and that is not a general belief in God but the whole dogmatic doctrinaire Roman Catholic package. "Error has no rights".
You also have the issue of the Social Reign of Christ, which is the Catholic doctrine that the best state is a Catholic confessional state (admittedly not something that is stressed today). The seperation of church and state is seen as unnatural. Thus religious tolerance is an issue. Is it allowed because every religious view, no matter how bizarre or harmful, should be equal before the law or is it because mandating religion would be an assault on concience and free will?
I'm afraid I've got to collect the wife now, but I can get back to you later if this seems incomplete. (I haven't even started on the Trads). JASpencer 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Obviously this is going to take more discussion... because so far you have told me nothing that conflicts with Masonry. Is it possible that you are assuming a "why" for Masonry that does not actually exist? Blueboar 20:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you say that the reason why FM proposes that religion should be free is that it "does not define God, but rather leaves it up to the member's individual faith to do so"? Also don't FM's believe in the seperation of church and state? JASpencer 20:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems you do have a misunderstanding about the whys in Freemasonry. The fact that Freemasonry "does not define God, but rather leaves it up to the members individual faith to do so" is NOT an outgrowth of a Masonic belief in Freedom of Religion, but rather the reverse is true. The belief in Freemdom of Religion is an outgrowth of the fact that we leave definitions of God and how to worship Him up to religious institutions such as the Church. Since Masonry has men of different religious faiths as members, that means we must leave definitions of God to each members' individual faith.
Before I go on, let me clarify something ... Freemasonry, as an institution, does not actually take a stance on Church and State, nor does it declare that Religion should be Free. What it does say is that IN THE LODGE (an important distinction) we are not to discuss religion or hold any one religion as being "correct" or "true"... the reason why we do not do this is because men of different religious opinions are present and such discussions would lead to disharmony and argument. Freemasonry is about bringing men together, not seperating them.
That said, I don't think many Masons would disagree with the statement that Freemasons (as opposed to Freemasonry) usually support the concept of Freedom of Religion. This is considered a "Good Thing" in today's world. Most modern Governments support this concept. However, men do not join the fraternity because it teaches Religious Freedom... rather they join because they already have a concept of religious freedom which involvement in the fraternity supports.
Getting back to Pacem In Terris... When Pope John says "among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public." Is he not expressing a belief in religious toleration? I understand that the Church hopes that the "right dictates" will lead all men to Jesus (and specificly to the Catholic Church), but am I wrong in thinking that John is saying until this happens we need to be tolerant and respect the beliefs of others? If so, I still don't see any conflict with Masonry. Blueboar 22:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to deal with this point by point.
The fact that Freemasonry "does not define God, but rather leaves it up to the members individual faith to do so" is NOT an outgrowth of a Masonic belief in Freedom of Religion, but rather the reverse is true. The belief in Freemdom of Religion is an outgrowth of the fact that we leave definitions of God and how to worship Him up to religious institutions such as the Church.
And that's precisely the difference. The church rejects this idea as a denial of the importance of doctrinal truth. It's all much of a muchness. Think of the way many Americans viewed France during the Iraq war - you're either with us or...
But Freemasonry doesn't deny the importance doctrinal truth... it simply says that the lodge is not the place to discuss it. Religious "truth" is not relevant to the program... The same way a bird watching society does not discuss doctrinal truth, but instead discusses birds. As to your last statement, this assumes that Freemasonry is against the Church. It isn't. Freemasonry is highly in favor of religion in general, and that includes the Church (to borrow your analogy... it would be like being FOR the allied coalition in Iraq, but not saying whether the US, British, Italians or Turks, are doing the best job).
Before I go on, let me clarify something ... Freemasonry, as an institution, does not actually take a stance on Church and State, nor does it declare that Religion should be Free.
I'm confused doesn't this contradict what you earlier wrote "Freemasons believe in the Right to worship God according to one's concience." As Pacem In Terris was talking specifically about the way the state should act not how, say, Church institutions or families should act.
Not at all... (And this is perhaps highlights a common misunderstanding that religious institutions have about the fraternity)... you see Freemasonry does not tell its members what to believe. It isn't about belief... It leaves belief to religious institutions such as the Church. I probably should not be using the term "believe" at all... perhaps it would clarify things for you if I changed it to: "Freemasons support the concept of right to worship God according to one's concience." This isn't something that the fraternity taught them... it is something they brought with them when they joined the fraternity.
That said, I don't think many Masons would disagree with the statement that Freemasons (as opposed to Freemasonry) usually support the concept of Freedom of Religion. This is considered a "Good Thing" in today's world. Most modern Governments support this concept.
That's not anything like "Freemasons believe in the Right to worship God according to one's concience."
How not? Isn't "The Right to Worship God According To One's Concience" the same thing as Freedom of Religion? or is the word "believe" confusing the issue again? Again, if I change it to "support" is my statement clearer?
Getting back to Pacem In Terris... When Pope John says "among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public." Is he not expressing a belief in religious toleration? I understand that the Church hopes that the "right dictates" will lead all men to Jesus (and specificly to the Catholic Church), but am I wrong in thinking that John is saying until this happens we need to be tolerant and respect the beliefs of others? If so, I still don't see any conflict with Masonry.
The problem is the why. It's not simply a pious hope that people will come to the church, it's an expectation. If the church believed that religious freedom would lead people into error and endanger their souls then how could it say that this was a good thing? After all the church does not say that parents should leave a moral vacuum for children in the name of religious freedom, on the contrary parents who act like that are in grave dereliction of their duties.
I still see no contradition... obviously the Church does not believe that religious freedom will lead people into error, since Pacem In Terris clearly implies that religious toleration and freedom is a good thing. As I unserstand it, the Church believes that religious freedom will bring people to the Catholic Church. Freemasonry has no problem with this. Freemasonry is happy to leave the safety of men's souls up to the religious institutions such as the Church. That's what the Church is FOR... and it isn't what the Lodge is for. And I can not think of a single Freemason who would disagree with you in saying that parents should not leave a moral vacuum for their children in the name of religious freedom. (Of course a Jewish Mason, for example, would obviously say that bringing his children up to be good Jews is not the same as leaving them in a Moral Vacuum... but that is a religious issue and has nothing to do with Freemasonry.)
Right or wrong this is how the church sees FM. By providing what it sees as pseudo-religious instruction outside the church it is behaving in the same way as those negligent parents.
JASpencer 22:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
OK... I can accept that this is how the Church sees it. I do think they are mistaken in thinking that Freemasonry provides instruction ... but I can understand the point of view given that mistake.
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this ... I do understand where you are coming from a bit better after such discussions, and you have given me some things to think about. Hopefully I have done the same for you. One thing that is becoming clear is that (in some ways) we are not really speaking the same language here. Even simple words such as "believe" have different connotations and nuances. I guess the only way through this is to rationally discuss and explain where we are coming from.

As far as the article goes... I am going to revert the section back to what it was prior to my initial edit on the subject. I think we can agree on that. Blueboar 02:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The Catholic view of Freedom of Religion is a complicated and nuanced one, as any view on the freedom of religion would be (should school prayer be allowed or the ten commandments displayed - for two examples of this). Essentially freedom to worship does not imply that religions are equal or that a neutral view of religion should (or indeed could) be taken. JASpencer 23:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I can appreciate that. I guess I just need to blow off some steam about what irks me about accusations of religious indefference. It misinterprets Freemasonry's position on this issue... you see, Freemasonry doesn't say or imply that religions are equal or take a neutral veiw of religion... The Craft simply says that in the lodge we don't discuss the topic. This is not done because of any belief that all religions are equal (Freemasonry does not actually say anything about this anywhere in its rituals), but (as I said above) because such discussions will cause disharmony and argument. Essentially everyone agrees to disagree while we are meeting. That is why we use neutral form when addressing God... It isn't that we have a neutral God, or that we are indifferent to religious belief ... it's because we don't want to offend our brothers who may believe differently than we do. It isn't that we are indifferent, it's that we are asked to be tolerant of differences while we are together.
Please understand that I am going on and on about this not to try to convince you that the Church is wrong on this issue (although, obviously I think it is), nor is it an argument to get rid of the section in question... I do understand that it is an accurate (if simplistic) depiction of the Church's stance towards Freemasonry. 'Nuff said... for now :>) Blueboar 01:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: the todo

I've noticed that we still have some AASR weasel issues with anti-Catholic wording. I think that there is an objective and citable way out of this wrt the minority Cerneau irregularity being at odds with the majority regular Masonic world, but no one seems to be buying into that, despite citations from Blanchard's Cerneau (which is anti-Catholic and has the tiara), Pike's Magnum Opus (which is nothing like Cerneau), and DeHoyos' comments on Cerneauism vs. Pike. In short, I feel that the incorrect allegation can be addressed without violating OR, so I'd like to know what the objection is. MSJapan 19:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

While weasel words need to be addressed, the Catholic Encyclopedia directly cites Pike and does not cite Blanchard. JASpencer 19:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
But IIRC, what CE attributes to Pike is actually Blanchard if you look at Blanchard vs. Pike in the original. Or were we looking for a different book besides Magnum Opus? MSJapan 19:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we are looking for a different book. The CE quotes something called Inner Sanctuary. From what I can gather (talking with members of the Scottish Rite), this could be a later revision by Pike. I have looked all over for it, but have not located a copy, so I can not say for sure if it is a ritual (and if so if it is closer to Magnum Opus or the Cerneau ritual in regards to the anti-catholic stuff). What I have seen is a copy of the current ritual (circa 2004). THAT ritual definitely does not contain any anti-Catholic elements (it is very close to what is done in the Northern Jurisdiction). In other words... all of this discussion is about outdated, obsolete material. Blueboar 20:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I suspected that it was outdated (hence the recent change to the Scottish Rite sentence). However it was a past source of contention. I suspect there is considerable truth to the CE's allegations - but that's for a later time. JASpencer 22:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll put that on my to-do list. I don't have the book, but I bet the GL Library does. Hopefully I can follow up on this by Friday of next week. MSJapan 01:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening line

Currently the opening line reads: "The Roman Catholic Church has been an outspoken critic of Freemasonry, and Freemasonry has been seen as anti-clerical." This is a bit clunky ... but before I rewrite it, I have a question. Does the Church currently view Freemasonry as being anti-clerical? Or is the current stance more nuanced (with an answer more along the lines of: "yes... however..."). Depending on the answer, may I suggest one of the following:

  1. The Roman Catholic Church has been an outspoken critic of Freemasonry, and views Freemasonry as being anti-clerical.
  2. The Roman Catholic Church has been an outspoken critic of Freemasonry, and has seen Freemasonry as being anti-clerical.

Both of these seem to flow better to my ear. Blueboar 02:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/t/Talk%7ECatholicism_and_Freemasonry_8764.html"