Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry/Archive05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Orange order and other recent edits

Freemasonry specifically denies any connection to the Orange Order. It is fine to include historian Jim Smyth's claims (as long as it is clear that they are simply his theories)... but to state a connection as fact, when there is a counter claim that this is not so, is wrong. Blueboar 00:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

without a clear indication of hwta he says it's difficult to judge the reliability of the phrasing. The Orange Orders founders were Masons, so inevitably they used the form and structure of Freemasonry, and many of the early members were also Freemasons. However using that logic it would be reasonable to claim a close relationship between Freemasonry and the Royal and Ancient. If OTOH there is evidence of fraternal relationships between the two bodies at a representative level that's a different issue.ALR 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This is what Jim Smyth said:
The fledgling Orange Order (and the Defenders) borrowed wholesale from Masonic practice and terminology. Orange ?lodges?, ?masters?, ?grand masters?, ?oaths?, ?signs? ?degrees?, ?warrants? and ?brethren? all have a clear Masonic lineage. The ubiquity of masonry impressed contemporaries. Sketching in the background to the Battle of the Diamond Musgrave alleged that ?in the year 1795, the Romanists, who assumed the name of masons, used frequently to assemble in the neighbourhood of Loughgall, Charlemont, Richill, Portadown, Lurgan . . . and robbed the Protestants of their arms?. On 18 September, three days before the battle, a local gentleman informed the Dublin government that ?the Protestants who call themselves Freemasons go in lodges and armed?, while 40 years later a witness before a parliamentary inquiry recalled that the first Orangemen had employed secrecy ?to afford protection, if they could, to those who refused to join the United Irishmen; for every act of intimidation was used, and the fondness of the people for associating together, their attachment to Freemasonry, and all those private associations, gave a particular zest to this mode of keeping them to their allegiance.? James Wilson and James Sloan, who along with ?Diamond? Dan Winter, issued the first Orange lodge warrants from Sloan?s Loughgall inn, were masons.
The question marks are obviously various punctuation marks. JASpencer 21:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Suggests to me that the early Orange Order were Masons and proud of that fact, I'm not convinced that it suggests anything more than that.ALR 21:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
That's still a (strong) informal link between the early Orange Order and Irish Freemasonry. Blueboar seems to be saying that this is merely a theory. Perhaps I've misread him. JASpencer 21:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You'd probably need to dig into the membership numbers to infer the level of influence and whether the FM membership offered anything more than structure and form. The phrasing you have implies a philosophical influence, but if you look at the OOs own history it's clear that the split was because there was a philosophical/ political difference.ALR 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The philisophical affinity between the (Armagh) Freemasons and the early Orange Order was a shared commitment to the Established order. JASpencer 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I take it you're looking for something to indicate whether that was the philosophy of Freemasonry as a corporate entity or a collection of individuals who were also Freemasons? The current phrasing indicates that you see it as the former, although you do caveat it here in talk.ALR 22:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
To be honest I don't care too much for the link to the Orange Order. It's simply a common source of Catholic suspicion towards Freemasonry. It's certainly not the main criticism of Freemasonry. After all the Orange Order can't be accused of being religiously indifferent. However, the link is there - and it's a source of suspicion. JASpencer 22:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecesary Quotation

I'm not sure why the following quote has to be in the article rather than the reference:

"There are numerous fraternal orders and Friendly Societies whose rituals, regalia and organisation are similar in some respects to Freemasonry's. They have no formal or informal connections with Freemasonry."

Someone care to elucidate?

JASpencer 21:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it directly contradicts the claims made by those who say there is (or was) a connection between the Orange Order and Freemasonry. As such it should not be hidden away in the footnotes. It isn't as if it is a very long quotation. But if you insist, I can paraphrase what it says in the main text and put the exact quote in the footnotes. Blueboar 22:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Err, no. It doesn't say that there was never a link (that would be a direct contradiction) but that there isn't a link now. The two statements don't contradict each other, Jim Smyth says in their early days there were links between the Orange Order and Freemasons and the UGLE and denies current links. It would be much easier to say something along the lines of "There used to be strong informal links between Freemasonry and the Orange Order at the beginning (ref Smyth) although there are no current links, either formal or informal. (ref UGLE)" JASpencer 22:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
No he didn't. His phrasing allows the reader to infer that but there does not appear to be a statement by the author. The informal link is not supported by the citation. The only informal link is that individuals were members of both, and lifted the form and structure of FM.ALR 22:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well that's three informal links - membership, form and structure. I think that it's undeniable that the Orange Order would not have existed if Freemasonry was not pre-existing. JASpencer 22:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I think the Orange Order would have been created in some form even without Masonic models to follow (assuming they did).--SarekOfVulcan 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
JAS... you are confusing a indirect link with direct connection. Look at it this way... Freemasonry based its forms on the medieval guilds, which in turn based their structures and forms on the the monastic orders. By your logic, the Orange Order and the Carbonari have an informal link to the Benedictines and Franciscans. But I don't see you including a section on "Catholic objections to Monks". No, what you are doing is trying to say that the Orange Order and Carbonari were influenced by Freemasonry is far more than just its forms and structure. You are trying to say that their political agendas were influenced by Freemasonry... indeed that they are part of Freemasonry. That is where things fall apart for you, because they are not part of Freemasonry and never were, you dont have any evidence to prove the contention. You have to rely on inferrece. Blueboar 00:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If the Orange Order were formed by a number of Benedictines and directly modelled themselves on monastic communities then this would be an informal link. It probably does not count for the Benedictines, although there's not a single historical account that I've seen that says that this doesn't apply for the Amagh Freemasons. JASpencer 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Counter claim?

How is the UGLE's denial of present connections a counter-claim to past links? JASpencer 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't demonstrated any evidence of past links other than phrasings which encourage the reader to infer those. Whilst I can understand BBs point about highlighting it I don't see the requirement should the assertion of a link be reasonably presented.ALR 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
UGLE denies ANY "formal or informal connection"... some sort of past link would be a connection. Thus the statement applies to both past and present. Blueboar 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not the claim at all. For example it would also mean that they never had any link to the Oddfellows - [1] which would be odd indeed. Besides it's not just Smyth who claims a link to early Orangeism and Freemasonry. I doubt that the UGLE would put something they know to be untrue (and even more so I doubt if it would be something that would put in something so easy to disprove). I think that the words should be read as they are written, and not expanded upon. JASpencer 22:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
But that IS the claim. And it is indeed true that there was never a connection to the Oddfellows... I am not saying that the Oddfellows or Orange Order didn't copy from Freemasonry... Lots of organizations have done this... what I am saying is that this does not create any kind of tie. Freemasonry is not responsible for someone copying its structure, rituals and terminology. As far as Freemasonry goes, there is no tie and never was. Lots of people can claim that something has a tie to Freemasonry, it does not make it true. Blueboar 23:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that we disagree on what constitutes an informal link. A substantial cross-over of members due to the fact that they were originally Freemasonry - as the Orange Order and the Odd Fellows had would be an informal link. I'm still puzzled why you are reading the present tense as past tense. JASpencer 21:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Risorgimento

Expanded this a bit: does it suffice for the ToDo?--SarekOfVulcan 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characteristics of a Secret Society

The term "characteristics of a secret society" was deliberately chosen to avoid the weasel words "alleged", etc. I know that FM denies being a secret society, but no one seriously claims that members are allowed to reveal their obligations or mode of recognition. These are characteristics of secret society. What is there to be "alleged" or "seen as"? JASpencer 22:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If you define "secret societey" as having "secret handshakes" or taking an obligation (all of which have long been known to the public), then I suppose you would be correct in calling Freemasonry a secret society. But I would argue that a handshake does not a secret society make. To me the key charactaristic is meeting IN SECRET... which no one seriously claims applies to the Freemasons (kinda hard to miss that Great big building with a Square and Compass prominently displayed on it, you know). I would also include not knowing who the members are (Bumper sticker? What bumper sticker?). The reason why Freemasonry denies being a secret society is that IT ISN'T ONE. But... I will admit that we are frequently seen as one. So "Alleged" or "seen as" is an accurate statement. Blueboar 23:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not my argument. A secret initiation oath (obligation) is a characteristic of a secret society, not the characteristic argument. Same goes for handshakes and other signals designed only to be noticed by initiates. JASpencer 19:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
My point is that both the oaths and the handshakes are no longer secret. They have been written about since the 1700s. I suppose you could say that Freemasonry was a secret society in the very beginning... but to say it is now is rediculous.
The distiction that UGLE makes about being a "private" society is important. According to most dictionary definitions of "Secret Society", a secrect society requires its members to keep its secrets. There is no requirement in Freemasonry that says Freemasons MUST not divulge what is contained in the obligations or what the secret hand shakes and pass words are. Only the admonition that they should not. For example, A Freemason may certainly discuss everything with his Priest, and many Freemasons divulge everything to their wives (I know many Masonic wives who are better at the ritual than their husbands). In fact, in both cases they are often encouraged to do so by the Grand Lodge (the idea is that Masonry should not come between a man and his God, or a man and his wife).
In a "private" society, on the other hand, a member simply chooses not to discuss things that are done in the privacy of its meetings. It is left to their own judgement and discretion. This is the case in Freemasonry. Blueboar 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
If the oaths and modes of recognition (which include more than handshakes) are not secret, could you show somewhere on the internet which accurately portrays them? JASpencer 21:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
What BB hasn't drawn out is that whilst one can be aware that the modes of recognition are in the public domain one has also obligated oneself not to divulge them, and that would include pointing to where they might be. The impact of the obligation is now no longer the traditional penalty but of seeing oneself as a 'wilfully perjured individual, void of all moral worth and unfit for the company of worthy men'. It becomes a test of ones fidelity, which is rather in keeping with the metaphysical and philosophical nature of the craft.ALR 21:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
And how is this not a characteristic of a secret society? Opus Dei, which has been put down as a secret society by some of the pro-Masonic editors does not hide how its members join. JASpencer 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, which is better "Is alleged to be a secret society" or "has some characteristics of a secret society". JASpencer 22:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
In a day or so I'll change it back to "characteristics of a secret society". "Alleged to have characteristics of a secret society" is a bit weasely. JASpencer 18:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masonic Forms

Where is there a denial that either the Orange Order or the Carbonari based their organisation on Masonic forms? That the actual nature of the continuing influence is controversial I can understand, but why the weasel words on the form of organisation? JASpencer 23:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


Where is there a weasle word? I don't see anything weasly about "There is no formal or informal connection". Seems fairly definite to me.
That said, I do understand why you are not happy with the UGLE quote... You are using inferrence to try prove that Freemasonry is "Pro-Protestant", and thus anti-catholic and anti-clerical. You take a valid, but irrelevent, claim (that there is evidence to show that the Orange Order or the Carbonari copied the forms, terminology and structure of Freemasonry in creating their fraternities), to try to (incorrectly) infer that Freemasonry must therefore have influenced the political agendas of these fraternities. But if Freemasonry categorically denies that there is any connection, it weakens your inferrence. Blueboar 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The present tense means that it is in the present, not the past. It's best to read statements in their plain sense first rather than expansively reading your own views.
As far as the reasons for wanting the quote in the footnote - what paranoid tosh. May I point you to WP:AGF and WP:NPA? I know that you are unlikely to apologise for this behaviour but you should reflect on it.
JASpencer 19:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
JAS, You started all of this discussion with a question (see above):
  • "I'm not sure why the following quote has to be in the article rather than the reference:" (JASpencer 21:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC))
That is why I assumed you wanted to move the quote to the foot notes. Did I misunderstand? No personal attack was inteded, and I always assume good faith. Blueboar 21:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that it (and the Jim Smyth text) was overdoing the paragraph. I like moving interesting but unnecesary arguments and text into the footnotes, it simply reads better. As I see no contradiction in what Jim Smyth says about the 1790s and what the UGLE say (in the present tense) about today's situation, so both are interesting and should be cited, but there's no need to put it in the main article. I don't think that I can be accused of disliking quotes. I hardly see that in your outburst about wishing to suppress uncomfortable information as being assuming good faith. JASpencer 21:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Um... I'm confused... What outburst? Blueboar 23:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This outburst: That said, I do understand why you are not happy with the UGLE quote... You are using inferrence to try prove that Freemasonry is "Pro-Protestant" and it goes on. If you were to read this cold then the it would seem that I was trying to get rid of evidence rather than move it into a footnote. JASpencer 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Higher degrees"

There are three reasons why I have been deleting the reference to the Scottish Rite being "higher" degrees in the Specific Criticisms of Freemasonry by the Church section. 1) It is wrong (as is fully discussed later in the article) 2) The issue of "higher" Degrees is fully explained below in the Anti-Catholicism and The Scottish Rite section. That section also includes a proper explanation/refutation that points out the error of thinking of the Scottish Right degrees are "higher". To include it in the brief list at the start of the article, without any explanation/refutation would give an uninformed reader skimming the article the impression that these degrees ARE in some way "higher". We do have an obligation not to present erronious information. 3) Even if these degrees were "higher" there is no need to include that information as a parenthetical remark in the "Specific Criticisms" section. The criticism is that the Scottish Rite is Anti-Catholic, not that it's degrees are "higher" (or even "advanced")... after all, the York Rite degrees are also sometimes (erroniously) called higher degrees, and yet the Church does not mention this as a criticism of the York Rite. Blueboar 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The very idea of Master Masons all being equal is controversial. It's not just Albert Pike talking about Egyptian darkness, but critics of Freemasonry say that Craft Lodge Masons are intentionally misled about the equality of Master Masons by the higher degrees by those who control them. JASpencer 20:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand the argument... and that it is controvercial and an argument made by Church critics is not denied. But it is tangential to the Specific Criticism as listed... take away the parethetical remarks and the criticism reads: Masonic initiation rituals for the Scotish Rite degrees are anti-Catholic. In other words, if it were not for the supposed anti-catholic elements in Scottish Rite, the church would not have any problems with the degrees being "higher" or not (It certainly doesn't have this issue with the York Rite degrees, which are also frequently mislabeled as being "higher").
Really my problem with this is a styalistic one... I don't mind discussing the whole "higher" degree issue in the article... I just dont think it should go in the "Specific Criticisms" section. That is like an index to the rest of the article. It highlights the key criticisms. The argument about the SR being "higher" and misleading the "lower" Masons is not a key criticism... Since it is dependant on the key "Anti-Catholic" criticism, it is a side issue better discussed in the main SR section and not in the "specific criticisms". Blueboar 21:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that the alleged anti-Catholic elements of the Higher Degree initiations are the icing on the cake for the Church. The idea is that many lower degree Freemasons are misled by a "myth" of equality among third degree Masons as well as a false picture of an institution inoffensive to church goers. As the Mason moves up the "mask is ripped off" (or something like that) to quote Leo XIII. To be fair the Evangelical critics put more credence in this. JASpencer 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Now we've had some time to cool down I've replaced "mislabelled" to Sarek's less POV "thought of". I don't particularly want to go to an RFC on this, but if we can't get to some sort of concensus on whether to avoid controversial terms. JASpencer 22:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm finding some of the responses here to be somewhat disproportionate in relation to the 'heat' (or absence of) in the discussion. Notwithstanding that I don't see mis-labelled as an appropriate description in this context, particularly when there are documentary references which indicate that the 'higher' terminology is inaccurate. Mis-labelled carries an emotional weight which would suggest an intentional mis-representation, whereas in most cases it's purely a lack of understanding of the, sometimes opaque, relationships between Freemasonry and its' appendant bodies. I'm conscious that you don't appear to accept the document which has been referenced regarding the relationship but I would suggest a reasonable wording of commonly, but mistakenly, described. If I'm misinterpreting your words then I'm sorry about that.ALR 06:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
JAS, if you feel that the criticism that those who have taken the "higher" degrees mislead those who have only taken the "lower" ones is more important, and that the "alleged" Anti-Catholic elements are simply "icing on the cake"... then the statement in the "Specific Criticisms" section should be changed to reflect that. I would suggest something like: "It is alleged that Masons who have taken the Scotish Rite degrees (commonly thought of as being "higher" or "advanced" degrees) intentionally mislead those who have only taken the "lower" Master Mason degrees.(See Below)"
However, this causes another problem... while the section on the Scotish Rite does mention the theory about SR misleading blue lodge, it does so only in passing. The bulk of that section is primarily about supposedly Anti-Catholic elements in the Kadosh degree. In other words, the article (as it is currently written) does not match your interpretation of which criticism is more important. Perhaps it needs a major re-write?Blueboar 12:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Also... You still have not addressed how this all jibes with the lack of criticism for the York Rite (also "commonly thought of as being 'higher' or 'advanced'")... and perhaps you will also address why the the Church does not make similar allegations about the Shrine. Until very recently one had to have completed either the York or Scotish Rites to join that body. Surely, taking the Church's allegations to their logical conclusion, if the Scotish Rite is secretly controling and misleading Blue Lodge because it is "higher", the Shrine must be secretly ruling Scotish Rite for the same reasons? Blueboar 12:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The reference is not actually saying that Master Masonry is the highest degree - just that only the UGLE deals with its own business. There really should be something that addresses whether the degrees that have a number greater than three are in fact advanced on three (as the arithmetic suggests). JASpencer 12:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Done... And you still have not answerd my question... what about the YORK RITE degrees?... York Rite does not number it's degrees, and yet uninformed people call them (erroniously) "higher" as well. Does the Church say that the York Rite misleads "lower" degree Masons... and does it believe that the Shrine is misleading the Scottish Rite? Blueboar 14:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see that as a reasonable representation of the reference, the statement is from the three home GLs, I've referenced it from the UGLE publication because that's what I have, and it pertains to regularity. Essentially UGLE,GLoS and GLI take that view and recognise only GLs which take the same position, that's clear from the pdf that's linked to so I find it strange that you choose to repreent the issue in this way.
What the statement means that even if a 33 degree holder tried to claim some authority over me (a Past Master) in a craft context I could reasonably cite the reference to indicate that he couldn't. As an example, I'm a Tyler of one of the lodges I belong to, responsible for ensuring that those seeking to gain entry are entitled and suitably attired for the degree they hold. Should someone appear at a meeting dressed in 33 degree, or indeed any A&AR, regalia, I wouuldn't allow him into the Lodge until such time as he was dressed as a Craft Mason (ie in the third degree).ALR 17:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I have added a statement from the Northern Jurisdiction that explicitly states that Master Mason is the "highest" degree. The UGLE statement can be seen as a statement that supports that. Between these two citations, we have clearly shown that the idea that the "higher" numbered degrees equal "higher" in authority is erroneous. Blueboar 17:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving "Links to Militant Protestantism"

I'm going to take out this section for the following reasons:

  • It has little to do with the core Catholic critique of Freemasonry which is that Freemasonry encourages religious indifferentism and anti-clericalism.
  • There are to my knowledge no Church documents on the Orange Order, let alone it's links with Freemasonry. Same for the American nativist organisations.
  • Although it affects the attitude of some Catholics in the pews towards Freemasonry, there's no citation for this.

If there's any church documents found or citations on the

The links between Freemasonry and the Orange Order are of interest to those trying to study why the Orange Order or has Lodges, degrees, oaths, initiations, appendent bodies. It may also help to explain the opposition of some Evangelical Prods to the Orange Order.

The section has been moved to:

User:JASpencer/Orange

Revert and discuss if you disagree.

JASpencer 19:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No objection... I would say that many of the arguments we made against implying a link to the Orange Order also apply to implying a link to the Carbonari... again, you can not cite a direct link so you must imply one by pointing out an overlap in membership. However, it is true that the Church certainly saw a direct link between the Carbonari and Italian Freemasonry, (the Church has issued many statements to this effect), and that means that there is a much better case for inclusion of the allegation. We still need to explore why the Church drew this conclusion, and to what degree it was true... but that is for another time. Blueboar 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Many of the arguments apply to the carb? The three arguments were little to do with religious indifference, no church documents and no citations for affecting Catholic attitudes. The carb have all three in one document Ecclesiam a Jesu Christo. JASpencer 09:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Risorgimento

Ok, I made the cardinal error here of using Wikipedia as a source for an article. The line I cited, though, has a cite of its own, but I don't have access to the book at the moment to confirm that's what it said.--SarekOfVulcan 20:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional problems with the Scotish Rite section

The allegation that the Scotish Rite includes a point where "a skull with a Papal tiara is stabbed" is backed with a citation to the Second Exodus website... unfortunately, that site must be considered a non-reliable source under WP:RS Self-published sources. The site is owned and opperated by Marty Barrack (see the copywrite info at the bottom of the home page), the author of the book Second Exodus, and it clearly states that "The Second Exodus book is the primary source of Second Exodus information". The claims made on his site have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking. Even if one were to claim that Mr. Barrack is a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise" (which I would question), the site fails WP:RS under the sub-heading of "Self-published sources as secondary sources". I would also point out the next section of WP:RS - Partisan Websites. I think this qualifies as partisan.

All that said, While I could delete the underlying statement as well as the citation... in the interest of good faith, I will instead simply flag it as "citation needed" to give people time to find a better (reliable) source. Blueboar 22:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an allegation of what happens. As long as it is made clear that it is an allegation then there should be no problem. The Kadosh degree is a source of suspicion from Catholics and should be adequately covered. JASpencer 23:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
That is fine... locate a reliable source to back the statement up and the statement can remain. I am not doubting that the claim is made. I am only saying that, under wikipedia guidelines, that particular source can not be used. Blueboar 02:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
If it's clear that it's an allegation then we are reporting on the fact that it is alleged - not on the fact that it is done. Reporting on the allegation means that the second exodus website is a primary source, which is allowable for self published websites. If we were saying that it was what actually went on in there then second exodus would be a secondary source, and so not allowable. JASpencer 11:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe we addressed this already with the Blanchard citation of which degree it was, and the DeHoyos citation that said degree was from a fringe Masonic organization who simply didn't like mainstream Scottish Rite, and which a) no longer exists and b) never had a foothold in the first place (they were only in a few Southern states at most). So, as the allegation hasn't been valid for over 100 years, what's the issue with using this Second Exodus stuff? We don't need it. MSJapan 12:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
MSJapan, thanks for reminding me. The De Hoyos "citation" desperately needs a quote or an online reference. Nothing "can be demonstrated" by simply pointing to a book. Without it the sentence needs to go. JASpencer 18:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually... the citation is not to De Hoyos (that was removed in favor of a direct citation to Blanchard)... And no, we do not need an on-line reference or quote (one would be nice). As long as the book is accessible at the local library it meets WP:RS... What we do have to do is provide proper citation info (publisher, date, page ref. etc.)... MSJ, since you have a copy of the book, could you provide this? Blueboar 18:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
JAS, I will grant you this... as a primary source reference to the fact that Marty Barrack makes an allegation, it could be included. But only if you specify who's oppinion you are citing (attribution is an important part of WP:RS). You would have to change the wording to something like: ... "Marty Barrack, a Catholic evangelist, makes an unsubstantiated allegation that a skull with a Papal tiara is stabbed during the initiation." However, I would still say that Mr. Barrack's oppinion is not reliable and is definitely Partisan. Blueboar 15:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The point is is this an allegation that is made by Catholics? Are we going to pretend that this suspicion isn't there? JASpencer 18:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, no... the allegation of stabbing a Papal Skull is made by A Catholic (Mr. Barrack). If others make this claim, you can cite them. But the issue is not whether the claim is made or not... the issue is that the particular source you use to cite that it is made is unreliable. Note that I have not, yet, removed the statement itself from the article. Go find a reliable source for it. Blueboar 18:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you tried to find a reliable source ... but while Fisher (of "behind the lodge door" fame) might be reliable, the host site you link to is not. It gives us no info on who runs the site... so we do not know if there has been any independant fact checking or if they have transcribed Fisher's statement correctly. The only indication of who runs the site is that "mario.website@spamslicer.com" is listed as the email contact. Try again. Blueboar 19:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This is getting silly. Please read the introduction to the article again. Mario Derkson is (by all accounts) a bit of a kook, but it is not his work that we are looking at here - but work written by Fisher and published by the Remnant. The Remnant is a mainstay of the American Catholic scene. JASpencer 20:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Then cite directly to the Remnant and forget the link to Catholic Insite. Please understand that my issue is not with the claim, but with the sources being used to verify the claim. They have to be reliable under WP:RS. In this case, simply linking to a page where the claim is repeated does not follow WP:RS. Blueboar 20:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't have access to the Remnant. I don't live in the States and it's not on the net. I think that unless the Remnant is on the web then we should go for an article in which the copywrite information makes it clear that it has been taken from the Remnant. It does seem to be concentrating on one irrelevant factor to remove a factual claim (albeit that an allegation is made). JASpencer 09:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Try your local library. If the Remnant is as as much of a "mainstay of the American Catholic scene" as you say (and I am not doubting you), the library should carry it - or be able to obtain it through inter-library loan. One problem with using the web to cite material (especially on controvercial topics such as Masonry) is that there are a lot of unreliable pages out there. Anyone can say anything on a web page, and there is no system of fact checking or accountability. WP:RS does not allow us to cite to something just because someone put it on a web page. Even things that might be reliable in print format have to be questioned when they are copied onto unreliable pages, as there is no way to know if the web host copied correctly ... That is why WP:RS is so firm about how you use web pages, and what kinds of sites are to be considered reliable and what kinds are not. Blueboar 13:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that this can go anywhere any more. I think we need to get a third part in through an RFC. JASpencer 13:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(Moving my comment to the request for comments section.) Gerry Ashton 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/t/Talk%7ECatholicism_and_Freemasonry_Archive05_dab6.html"