Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry

Archives
Archive 1 (May 28, 2005 to December 27, 2005) Archive 2 January and February 2006 Archive 3 March - April 2006 Archive 4 April - June 2006 Archive 5 July Archive 6 August -

Contents 1 Lead Section 2 De-bulleting 3 Weasel words 4 NPOV 5 Pacem In Terris 6 re: the todo 7 Opening line 8 Idolatry 9 Mexico and Cristeros 10 Freemasons and the Inquisition 11 Peer Review 12 Question on meaning 13 Reign of Terror 14 Many Freemasons are Catholics 15 Should we re-write? 16 Mexico (as a representative for other issues) 17 This article is a POV and NOR nightmare 18 POV Forking is not the answer 19 Proposed merger with Latin Freemasonry 20 MAJOR cut back on article 21 Sourcing 22 A perfect example of what we are talking about 23 The position of Freemasonry 24 Quotation request 25 A good example of taking things out of context 26 Current revision 27 Anti-clerical vs. Anti-Catholic 28 Discussion of revisions before making them 29 We need a proper discussion of the anti-clericalism of the Latin Lodges 30 Why is the merge tag still there? 31 Wholesale deletion of sourced material 32 Disputed addition 33 OR danger? 34 Odd article 35 Moving things forward 36 Name Change? 37 Mexico... revisited 38 Mexico, yet again 39 Where is the Original Research? 40 Intro to the Germany sub-section 41 France 42 Not Simply seperation of Church and State 43 OR and Continental Freemasonry

[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

• Risorgimento 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)

[edit] Idolatry

What about the nature of the oaths taken upon becoming a Freemason? When one swears to an unknown authority like that, it is against what a Catholic believes. When one swears to put the lodge before all else, one is committing idolatry- which Christians, Jews, Muslims, and probably most everyone else is against. Also, what about the fact that most very low-degree members seem to be clueless about the Freemasons' nature? This is common- good Protestant men who just want to help others, and a few who are against the Church. Also, would it possibly to mention St. Maximilian Kolbe and his Knights of the Immaculata? He started that group because a group of Freemasons were demonstrating in Rome with clearly anti-Catholic and anti-Christian messages, like having a picture of satan trampling St. Michael the Archangel. poopsix 07:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You have some misconceptions about Freemasonry. Freemasons do not swear to an unknown authority (they swear their obligations in the name of God - and in the case of the York Rite degrees, do so specificly in the name of Christ) and they do not swear to put the lodge before all else. There is no idolatry in Masonry.

As for what you call the "fact" that low-degree members are clueless about Freemasonry's nature... you mis-understand the nature of "higher" degrees. For one thing, there are not "higher" or "lower" degrees, at least not in the way you imply. The highest degree is the Third Degree - all others are considered "further" or "appendant", meaning they do not confer higher rank, authority or status.

That said... it is true that in Italy, especially in the mid to late 1800s, the Grand Orient of Italy was quite anti-clerical (which is a bit different than being anti-Catholic or anti-Christian). But you leave out the fact that this attitude lead to the formation of the Grand Lodge of Italy, which was formed by Masons who were far more pro-church. This issue is hardly the black and white situation you imply exists. Blueboar 14:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico and Cristeros

What about the Freemason influence in Mexico which resulted in mass genocide of Catholics? In the article it sounds as if it was merely coincidental with Freemasons running the government of a mostly Catholic country. This was the time of the Cristeros. poopsix 08:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What mass genocide of Catholics? And what were/are the Cristeros? Blueboar 14:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have done a little research. According to the article on the Cristeros, they were against the Mexican constitution of 1917. That article does not mention Freemasonry at all, so this may be a bit of a stretch. That said, I suppose that if one could find a source that directly ties Freemasonry to that constitution or to the goals of the Cristeros some mention of them would be appropriate. Blueboar 14:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasons and the Inquisition

The Inquisition was hardly a shining point for Catholics, but it wasn't the overpowering evil most consider it to be. Would it be possible to add a Catholic POV into this section? What were those men sentanced to the galley for? What huge evil had they committed? Were they leading large numbers of Catholics away from the faith? There has to be a good reason, because most of the people who were under suspicion by the Inquisition got away with only a penance, while the death sentance was reserved for only the worst and most unrepentant. poopsix 08:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on meaning

In copy editing the Religious Indifferentism section I came across this, which seems to be an incomplete sentence:

The Catholic church claims that what it sees as Freemasonry's refusal to hold one faith as being superior to any others,[28] while at the same time insisting on what the Church views as pseudo-religious rituals[29] to inculcate an indifference to religion.[28]

I seem to be missing a verb in this sentence and I don't want to change any meaning.

My guesses are:

The Catholic church claims that (what it sees as Freemasonry's refusal to hold one faith as being superior to any others,while at the same time insisting on what the Church views as pseudo-religious rituals to inculcate an indifference to religion) does something??

-or-

The Catholic church claims that what it sees as Freemasonry's refusal to hold one faith as being superior to any others, while at the same time insisting on what the Church views as pseudo-religious rituals, to inculcate inculcates an indifference to religion.

Thanks, Henitsirk 20:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be the latter of the two. Thanks for asking. Blueboar 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's got an extra verb, actually. Try this: "The Catholic Church claims that Freemasonry's refusal to hold one faith as being superior to any others, while at the same time insisting on what the Church views as pseudo-religious rituals, inculcates an indifference to religion." MSJapan 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... sounds good as far as grammar goes - but mistates the facts a bit... Freemasonry does not "refuse" to hold one faith as being superior... it simply leaves such issues up to the individual. The closest it comes to a refusal is the rule that, when in lodge, it's members not discuss religion. MSJ's language implies that they do "refuse". However, I do agree that the Chruch thinks Freemasonry refuses... I think the problem is that the sentence is overly convoluted and is trying to say too much in one sentence. What if we break it up:

• "The Catholic Church claims that Freemasonry refuses to hold one faith as being superior to any others, and that Freemasonry insists on pseudo-religious rituals. It claims that this inculcates an indifference to religion." Blueboar 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reign of Terror

User:Mamalujo added some info about the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. I reverted it as being POV, he undid my revision with the comment: "Not POV, but mere factual documentation of deaths in tribunals of the Reign of Terror". User:WegianWarrior re-reverted with the comment: "cant see it has much to do with the subject of this article." Before we get into a pointless revert war... let's discuss.

I felt this was a POV addition because it implied that Freemasons were somehow behind the Reign of Terror. The fact of the matter is that there were Freemasons on all sides of the French Revolution... yes, some of the Radicals may have been Freemasons, but there were Freemasons who were Moderates and Freemasons who were Royalists as well. French Freemasonry was just as fragmented before the revolution, and ended up in just as much chaos and confusion after the revolution, as the rest of French society. In fact, French Freemasonry was somewhat supressed during the reign of terror and did not really return until Napoleon took power.

That said, I think WegianWarrior's comments are more to the point... the information that was added information has nothing to do with the subject of the relationship between Catholicism and Freemasonry. The additon is irrelevant. Blueboar 14:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's someone who says both that the French Revolution was inspired by Freemasonry and that it killed a lot of Catholics then this should be included. Actually I think that there are people who say exactly that. Otherwise pointing out that the Revolution killed a lot of Catholics and was inspired by Freemasonry may both be true but linking them together is illegitimate. JASpencer 18:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

JAS - No, that's not what the edit says. In fact, the problem was that the edit didn't make a link ... it just talked about how many people died in the reign of terror. See this edit difference and you will see what we are talking about. My problem was that without a citation to link this information to the history of bad blood between Catholicism and Freemasonry, the information is either irrelivant or missleading (in implying a connection without giving it an attribution).

If there was a source that makes the connection presented, then I would be less eager to delete out of hand. Blueboar 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I accept that the edit was saying something that it could not back up, but if the editor is looking to see why his/her edit was removed - then some interpretation of the ground rules would be helpful. JASpencer 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Many Freemasons are Catholics

It seems there is some objection to the inclusion of the wording "Many Freemasons are Catholic." Let me give some history of this wording...

When I added this sentence, I originally quoted directly from the source... saying that "Many Catholics are Masons"... this led to a brief edit war not dissimilar to what is happening now. It was pointed out to me that this was statistically inaccurate and, the way it is stated, skews the facts. After all, when you consider that there are millions of Catholics, the number who happen to be Masons does not constitute "many".

However, if you flip the statement and talk about this same statement from Freemasonry's view, ie the percentage of Masons who are Catholic, it is an accurate statement... There are thousands of Masons who happen to be Catholic (consider that there are something like 20 thousand Masons in Latin America, almost all of which are Catholic, and you get the idea. And this ignores the thousands of Catholic Masons in other parts of the world). - Thus, the percentage of Masons who happen to be Catholic does indeed constitute "many". So... the current wording is already a compromise... a restating of what the citation says to better fit the facts and to be NPOV.

As for "Idiot's Guide"... I disagree with the idea that it is not a reliable source... Brent Morris is definitely considered an expert on Masonic history and especially on debunking Anti-masonic myths. He has written numerous scholarly papers, published in various peer reviewed Masonic journals (the equivalent of accademic journals, when it comes to the topic of Masonry)... he has appeared on mumerous TV documentaries about Masonry, and has often been interviewed by newspapers. That is why the folks who publish the "Idiot's Guide" series asked him to write the one on Freemasonry. They considered him an expert. Don't let the name fool you... in this case the Idiot's Guide is definitely a reliable source. Blueboar 12:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A recent IP editor has decided that there needed to be clarification that Masonry not opposing Catholic membership is only Masonry's position. What part of "Freemasonry's position" in the section header was misunderstood?--Vidkun 19:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be consisent. The sections that address the Church's position all start with "The Catholic Church considers...", "The Catholic Church regards...", etc., even though the headings make it clear in THOSE sections that it is about the Church's position on the topics. To not do the same with the earlier section is inconsistent, especially if it is going to include statements like "Many Freemasons are Catholic" or "There has never been...". It could easily confuse the reader into thinking that one is an objective fact, as opposed to a position of one of the parties. --24.249.200.108 19:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

While I would disagree with quantitative statements to a point, a position is an objective fact - unless you want to dispute the Catholic prohibition on Freemasonry, or perhaps the stated non-denominational nature of Masonry? These are objective facts and positions, so I fail to see the problem. It's like disputing "some apples are red" because it's not clear which group of apples we're talking about or something. MSJapan 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate 24.249.200.108/ Anietors position, I don't think the answer is making the wording any more clumsy than it already is. The solution is probably to go through and weed out the tortuous wording around the RCC, rather than add needless and loaded caveats around Freemasonry.

fwiw I'm not keen on Freemasonry contents that... The rules for entry make no mention of RCC membership, it is implicit that RCs can join and in fact I'd suggest that stating it as a contention probably needs citation and falls foul of the lack of a single authority with respect to Freemasonry issue.

The section title is probably inappropriate in fact. Freemasonry just doesn't have a position on the RCC, whereas the RCC has a position on Freemasonry, which many ignore. How about titling the section along the lines of Masonic membership conditions and it the point should become moot.

ALR 19:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it isn't true that all the Catholic sections start with "The Church considers" etc.... the section on the Chruch's position starts:

"The Catholic Church's most recent statement on Freemasonry was released in the 1983 document Quaesitum est, written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II. This document remains the most current standing reference on the Church's policy on Freemasonry." It then quotes Quaesitum est in saying "The faithful, who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion...."

This is not prefaced with "The Church considers" etc. ... it is a statement of fact about the position of the Church towards Freemasonry... in the same way that the section on Freemasonry's position is a statement of fact about the position of Freemasonry towards Catholics. Yes, these two statements are inconsistant... but they are true never the less. Blueboar 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Should we re-write?

One of ALR's comments (above) has me once again thinking that this article needs a complete re-write. At the moment it consists of allegations, arguments and counter arguments from each side, which makes it very POV. I have noticed that Catholics seem to feel it is biased towards Freemasonry's POV while Freemasons tend to feel it is biased towards the Catholic view. I think both are right... which POV the article over indulges in depends on which section you are reading... and so while I suppose you could say that in a way they ballance out into an over all NPOV... the article is really just a POV mess of he said/she said arguments and counter arguments.

What we should have is a dispassionate and neutral discussion of the relations between Freemasonry and the Catholic Church, both through history and today ... with neither side trying to prove a point or say "this view is correct". To do that, I think we need to consider a complete re-write. Over the next few weeks I will attempt a draft version of what I have in mind on my user-talk page (or rather a sub-page attached to it), Once I have the basic structure laid out, I will let everyone know and open it to comments and suggestions from both sides. If we can reach a version that everyone agrees with, we can replace the text here with that rewrite. (and if not... well, we can always just keep arguing back and forth here). Blueboar 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that a re-write may be a good idea. I also think that we should discuss what this article is really supposed to be about. As Blueboar points out, both "sides" have POV gripes with the article as written. Some sections read as an apologetic of Catholic condemnation, and others as attempts to refute the Church's criticisms. The article suffers from extreme schizophrenia. The title implies that the article is about the relations between Freemasonry and the Catholic Church, again, as Blueboar points out. But reading the article, it is clear that it has become a battle between those that want the article to be, essentially, Catholic Church's Criticisms of Freemasonry, or Freemasonry's Response to Catholic Criticisms. I suspect that creating a "dispassionate and neutral discussion" is going to be a difficult thing to achieve...but it is certainly worth a try. But emphasizing what this article is NOT, during this discussion period, will hopefully help guide us forward. --Anietor 21:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We could try re-titling it to something along the lines of The RCCs position on Freemasonry.

That would allow it to be pretty POV since the RCC has a central authority which defines doctrine, whereas FM doesn't, and indeed doesn't really have a position on the RCC.

ALR 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would certainly clarify what the article is about. I suspect, however, that there would be considerable resistance to such a shift. There will then be an ongoing battle about whether Freemason responses should be included in the article, or there will have to be yet another article to include such responses. I wonder if any of the editors from when the article was first created are able to provide some input as to how the article first came into being. Looking back at its creation in April, 2005, it appears that it was focused mainly along the lines of the proposed title "The RCC position of Freemasonry", but for better or worse, developed into what it is today. --Anietor 22:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico (as a representative for other issues)

I am becoming increasingly bothered by the section on Mexico (other sections as well, but that one is the most egregious). It seems we are back to the old problem of listing every anti-clerical thing that ever happened, and blaming it on the Freemasons. This is very POV. I also see NOR issues.

I understand that the Church feels is that, since a lot of the Mexican politicians at the time were Freemasons, then Freemasonry must have been behind their actions... and I don't mind a statement to that effect. But at least make it a statement of opinion/allegation and not a statement of fact... there is no evidence to say that the Freemasonry was behind any of the individual claims beign made. We are getting into WP:No Original Research territory here... particularly WP:SYNT (the synthesis beign that A- a politician did something Anti-clerical, B- the polititian was a Freemason, and thus C- Freemasonry did something anti-clerical.) In addition, you neglect the general anti-clerical mood of the time, and do not talk at all about liberal politicians who were not Freemasons (and I can assure you there were many).

I think I am going to have to raise this at both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and ask for advice and possibly mediation here. Blueboar 00:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree that this is NOR/POV minefield. I would suggest stubifying the article and attempt a full re-write as an option to be considered. Sometimes it is simply not possible to "fix" an article that is in such poor shape. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The strong connection between Freemasonry and politics, particularly anticlericalism, in Mexico is well documented, including by Masons. The exceptions to the section as OR and SYN are not well founded. Consider this excerpt from a speach by a Mexican Mason on the Mexican Craft, politics and religion:

As the 19th Century went on, Mexican Masonry embraced the degree system authored by Albert Pike and grew ever more anticlerical, regardless of Rite. Meanwhile the two major political parties, Liberal and Conservative had developed. There were Masons in both, but predominantly among the Liberals. The great Mexican leader of the Nineteenth Century was, of course, Benito Juárez. When a new constitution was approved in 1857 that curtailed the power of the Roman Catholic Church, a Conservative rebellion started yet another civil war, known as the Reform War. When it ended with a Liberal victory in 1861, the Reform Laws were implemented, which included separation of Church and State, freedom of worship, civil marriage, and secularization of Church properties. The exhausted country, however, was not granted respite. A new emperor, the Austrian Archduke Maximilian, was imposed in 1862 by French Emperor Napoleon III, with connivance of Mexican Conservatives. Again, Benito Juarez and his Liberals led the fight against the French occupation army and the second Mexican emperor ended like the first, before a firing squad, in 1867. This may well have been the highest point of Freemasonry in Mexico, as most of the prominent actors in these crucial 10 years were Masons. The Lodges no longer acted directly in politics as earlier in the century, but the individual Masons certainly did, each in his sphere of activity. When Benito Juarez died, Mexico passed into the hands of Porfirio Díaz, also a Freemason. Paradoxically a liberal and a dictator at the same time, he upheld the secular principles of the liberal constitution while repressing political freedom. He also sought to bring some order out of the chaos of the Freemasonry of his time by creating a nationwide Gran Dieta or Grand Diet in which both Scottish and York Rite Masons participated. Before being dissolved later in the century, this body originated the regular Grand Lodges of the Mexican Republic. Indeed, the charters of some of the constituent Lodges of our York Grand Lodge of Mexico bear the signature of Porfirio Diaz. After the defeat and exile of the dictator in the 1910 revolution, a succession of Presidents who were Masons and strongly anticlerical ruled the country under the 1917 Constitution that maintained substantially the same liberal principles of 1857. In the late 1920's a new crisis arose with the Church when it publicly repudiated the Constitution. In retaliation, the government attempted to fully enforce the anticlerical measures of the Constitution. A bloody rebellion arose in central Mexico by bands of Catholic sympathizers, known as Cristeros, often led by gun-toting priests, until a negotiated peace was eventually arranged with the Church. These two great crises of Church and state, the Reform War of the 1850's and Cristero Rebellion of the late 1920's left a profound imprint on the national consciousness. They are the root of the strongly anticlerical position of many Mexican Freemasons that sometimes puzzles their brethren from other countries. Recent presidents of Mexico have not been Masons, but a number of the Grand Lodges are and, the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite are closely identified with the ruling party "Partido Revolucionario Institucional" (PRI). Moreover, in individual states, from time to time the governor or ruling clique has given the Masons money for new temples, youth work, and even as honorariums to Lodge officers. In many Mexican states there are competing Grand Lodges, some of which base their legitimacy on not being identified with politics or women Lodges. When we look back in time, and realize that from the very start Mexican Masonry was split into competing groups, based on political allegiances, and that presidents of Mexico used Masonry to strengthen their political position, we can understand a little better just why Mexican Masonry has gone down the road that it has. As for its anti clericalism, the wealth and power of the Church meant that it was much more feared than in the United States.

Mamalujo 18:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

First, could you please list the source of that quote, and say when it was written... that would make a difference. But in any case... I think you are making more of the quote than it is worth. I don't think anyone doubts that Anti-clericalism was a big issue in Mexican politics in the 1800s and early 1900s. The Church was strongly identified with Conservative politics in Mexico. Thus Liberal politicians opposed the Church (ie were anti-clerical). But that does not mean that any Liberal politician who was a Freemason was Anti-clerical because he was a Freemason. First of all, the document does not actually say this. It says that there were Freemasons in both parties. However, it goes on to say that all this political upheaval influenced Mexican Freemasonry. I think the passage you are quoting is actually stating things backwards from what you seem to claim... that many Mexican Freemasons had become (at the time that this quote was written) Anti-clerical, because of the politics and history of Mexico. Not that Anti-clerical Freemasons caused the politics and history, or that all Mexican Freemasons are (or rather were) Anti-clerical. It certainly isn't the case today. Blueboar 22:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is a POV and NOR nightmare

I read this article in its entirety, and it is simply an article that needs to be evaluated seriously for its violations of WP:NOR. I am not sure what would be the best way forward, if an AfD, or a making this into a stub. In either case, the article needs to be re-written. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been saying this for about a year. I think the topic is notable enough that it should not be put up for AfD, but I am concerned that even a stub will end up being a laundry list of reasons why Freemasonry is bad and Catholics should not join it (and counter argument as to why Freemasonry isn't bad). Believe it or not, the article used to be much worse. All that said, I think it will take a strong and neutral hand to create something that is NPOV and well sourced. Perhaps stubifying, and rebuilding under the guidance of a Mediator will help. Blueboar 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The first part of the article is not that bad, but the sections about the countries is pretty bad. First step would be to delete these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the subject itself, which is mostly the Catholic Church's POV on Freemasonry. It's not like there's been some sort of military conflict between the two, and it appears that Freemasonry does not have any formal POV of Catholicism (or at least, a POV that's documented as well as the Church's). LotR 21:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope... Freemasonry most definitely does not take a stance on the Catholic Church (or any other religion). In fact Freemasons are barred from discussing religion at all in the lodge (that is documented). The closest they come to a "stance" are some statements of regret that the Church takes the stance that it does, and statements that (as far as the Fraturnity is concerned) Catholics may join if they wish to. There are a few "appologies" (ie defenses of Freemasonry) demonstrating how some of the things the Church claims about Freemasonry are not true, and repeated statements about how "Freemasonry is not a religion, nor a substitute for religion". But that is about it. It is a very one sided conflict. (Until fairly recently, the Masonic responce to any criticism was to ignor it... thus, there is very little from the Masonic side of any argument. Frustrating in any "Freemasonry and..." type article.)

As for deleting the second half of the article... I am not going to do so until we have heard from some of the other editors who have contributed... especially those writing from the "catholic perspective". Blueboar 21:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, while the Kulturkampf and Josephinism could probably be removed without changing anything within the article - the Latin Lodges are a big part of the story. There is a school of thought that the behaviour of the Latin Lodges was the only legitimate grievance that the Catholic Church has with Freemasonry. JASpencer 22:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There is also a school of thought that the church opposition to freemasonry is more about power than philosophical and theological objections. But how could that be, the RCC has never been all that interested in temporal power, has it ;)

ALR 10:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The objection raised here is that "the article is a POV and NOR nightmare." My observation is that the article, by it's very subject matter, will tend to be somewhat one-sided, as the subject itself is about the Catholic Church's position on Freemasonry, which basically maintains (in several verifiable publications) that Masonry is incompatible with Catholicism. While there are some individual Freemasons that beg to differ, it seems there are no official published, verifiable Masonic statements saying much of anything, one way or the other. So, I would be in favor of trimming the article back. LotR 13:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that most freemasons will quite happily acknowledge the fact that the RCC has a rather hostile position to the craft in general. That is not in doubt. As you highlight above, regular freemasonry does not have a position on the RCC specifically, merely highlighting that membership of the RCC isn't a bar to initiation into freemasonry. The distinction is important, the RCC put a lot of time and effort into condemning freemasonry, regular freemasonry is quite content to let the RCC crack on and do so without feeling the need to dignify it with a response.

Many freemasons and other scholars of freemasonry contend that the RCCs reasoning is specious.

I would agree that the article would benefit from trimming back, although I would observe that some display a degree of ownership of the article and take a rather more purist, perhaps excessivly rigorous, approach to verification of content with respect to one side of the debate.

I observed in a previous comment in this talk page that most of the POV issues could be resolved by just renaming the article to something along the lines of The RCC position on Freemasonry.

ALR 19:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What you have just said is a POV, albeit one that is less well documented, which again is the crux of the matter. Indeed, without the Catholic Church's published statements on the matter, there would be no article. For what it's worth, I agree that a change in title would be good. I had independently thought that in my postings, but couldn't think of a good alternative title -- I think The RCC position on Freemasonry is one possibility. LotR 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What you have just said is a POV, can I ask which bit? Unless I'm very much mistaken opinions are not banned, yet.

ALR 20:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No one has said that opinions are banned -- obviously we all have opinions. I'm just harping on about the topic itself, which is, unfortunately, pretty much one sided. LotR 12:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

np, I'm just curious about what you're assessing is POV from my comments previously. It's essentially just a statement of the article, without feeling the need to bog it down in excessively verbose quotations :)

It is pretty much one sided, because it's only the RCC which puts effort into it.

Personally I'd quite happily gut the article down to a core statement, without over-egging the RCC statements. I've never really seen the value in the article anyway.

ALR 13:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that's partly what I'm getting at -- the article is too bloated for an encyclopedia, considering the topic. And, as a side note, the Catholic Church's writings were not restricted to Masonry -- they held same opinion of other such organizations, Masonry being one of the most prominent. LotR 20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the assertions of OR and SYN is that they are just not well founded. The fact that Blueboar picked Mexico as an example is telling. The facts may appear egregious, but they are facts. The Scottish Rite and the "Yorkistas" actually served as proto political parties in Mexico in the 19th century. It is well documented, indeed it is admitted by honest Masons, that Freemasonry in Mexico was strongly anticlerical. It is also an historical fact that the most prominent of those who pushed for the enactment and enforcement of anticlerical laws and executive action were Masons. The exerpts from the speach on Mexican Freemasonry's Encounters with Religion and Politics by Oscar J. Salinas E., Senior Grand Warden-York/Mexico shows that the section is not OR, SYN or POV. Mamalujo 19:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a link to the entire document, Mamalujo... it is a perfect example of how a source can be misused by "cherry picking" parts of it out of context to promote OR and POV... to put it into context, the document you cite is an address made by the former leader of a particular faction of Freemasonry in Mexico, one that is considered irregular (and thus not Masonic) by the majority of Freemasonry. His intent is to convince regular lodges to change their minds and declair his branch regular. He does not say that Freemasonry in Mexico was anti-clerical... he says that certain factions of Freemasonry in Mexico were. Let me quote the address... and include some parts that you conveniently left out of your quotation above (I highlight some important points). He says:

"When we look back in time, and realize that from the very start Mexican Masonry was split into competing groups, based on political allegiances, and that presidents of Mexico used Masonry to strengthen their political position, we can understand a little better just why Mexican Masonry has gone down the road that it has. As for its anti clericalism, the wealth and power of the Church meant that it was much more feared than in the United States.

I say all this not to excuse the situation, but to help explain the situation. In past years the bottom line was that Mexican Masonry appeared in most cases to be irregular in comparison with American Masonry. Some even accused Mexican Masons of "never really understanding Freemasonry" and of "possessing Latin minds incapable of grasping Freemasonry". However, I would like to close with some thoughts about that.

When people, particularly profanes, speak of "Masonry" in general terms, they have not idea of the concept of regularity. There is a great number o spurious bodies, large and small. Some of them are totally self-generated, like the feminine Grand Lodges. Others are created by dissidents from regular Grand Lodges, often using the same name to add to the confusion. A typical example would be a losing candidate for Grand Master who does not accept his defeat and takes his followers away with him to start a new Grand Lodge. These irregular bodies are the ones that make the most noise with political, usually radical, declarations in the media, and their public presence is out of proportion to their numbers in terms of membership. Quite obviously, none of them have a charter from a regular Grand Lodge.

Now, I admit that I am "cherry picking" here just as much as you did with your quotation... but at least I am not adding it to the article or trying to use it as a citation. That makes a big difference. The point of my selection is to point out that one can not tar all of Freemasonry with the same brush. I don't think that anyone is denying that individual Mexican Freemasons were political or Anti-clerical. And in fact, certain Masonic splinter groups became very political (some Anti-clerical, some very pro-clerical). But it misuses the source to say that FREEMASONRY, as a concept, and as a whole, followed any single political or religious leaning. Saying so is a form of Original Research.

This article if filled with examples like that. All sorts of statements are taken out of context. In several other cases, what a given source itself says is relected accurately, but the material that the source based its statements on was clearly taken out of context. Blueboar 20:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Forking is not the answer

JASpencer, creating a POV fork (Latin Freemasonry) to contain the stuff that is likely to be cut from this article for being overly POV and OR is not the answer.

I also have a problem with the title of your new article ... I have only found one source that uses the term "Latin" Freemasonry. It is far more common to call it "Continental" Style Freemasonry (ie the Style of Freemasonry that grew out of the Grand Orient de France or GOdF on the contintent of Europe), or "Oriental" Freemasonry (as most of the governing bodies of that branch of Freemasonry style themselves with the name "Grand Orient")... I realize that these are somewhat confusing "terms of art" used in Masonic Scholarship (confusing, because there are both "Anglo-style" or "Mainstreem" Masonic jurisdictions and "Continental style" Masonic jurisdictions on the Continent of Europe, and because not all "Continental" style jurisdictions call themselves "Orients", while a few Anglo style jurisdiction do call themselves "Orients"... so the terminology is not very exact)... but they are the terms of art that are used. It can be argued that your title is POV, in that it reflects the views of only one scholar (one that admits that he is not a historian or even a "profound Masonic Scholar"). It is also a bit POV in that it lumps all the different forms of Freemasonry that exist or existed in any given "Latin" country together and tars them with the same brush. However, if you change the title to "Continental style" Freemasonry... you would have to talk about more than just Latin/Catholic countries, and about a lot more than just the allegations that it was anti-clerical. Blueboar 15:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger with Latin Freemasonry

The content from the above named article seems to have been copied from this article. As the concerns regarding WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:Undue weight on that content have not yet been addressed adequately in this article itself, I cannot see that there is any just reason to move it so that those concerns are spread over a number of pages before being addressed. John Carter 21:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Either that, or delete Latin Freemasonry out right, as being a blatant POV fork. Blueboar 21:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree There is a seperate strand of Freemasonry that is "in amity" with the Grand Orient de France and is not recognised by the United Grand Lodge of England. If there had not been an understandable cultural bias against "irregular" lodges then this would have had an article years ago. JASpencer 22:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps true. However, it would almost certainly not have the content that it currently has. Certainly, if you can produce reliable verifiable sources, I believe that all parties would welcome the creation of the new article. However, that does not resolve the existing content issues. John Carter 22:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

John, currently there are 43 sources and no citation requests for this article. I'm not saying that quality means quantity, but to say - as is frequently done on this page - that there is a need for verifiable sources is at least on the face of it, met. I don't believe that lack of sources is a problem. JASpencer 22:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

JAS... it isn't the lack of sourcing that is the problem, its the way the sources are used and misused. There are conclusions made that are not alwasys fully supported by the sources... statements in the sources that have been "cherry picked" and taken out of context, sources have been strung together to form original conclusions and sythesis. In many cases, the sourcing sticks to the letter of NOR, but seriously violates the spirit of that policy. And we have not even gotten into the POV issues. I don't think the problem is verifiablilty (or even WP:RS)... its NOR and NPOV. If you have not reviewed these policies recently, please do so. Blueboar 00:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone who still thinks that the articles should be merged? We seem to have moved beyond that. Correct me if I'm wrong. JASpencer 14:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to put the merger on hold for now... it depends on what happens with the two articles and what kind of edits are made. Both articles will need major work. Blueboar 14:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there are still issues about it, and removing the tag some forty minutes after suggesting a conclusion is over-hasty.

I think it's generally accepted that there would be value in an article on irregular freemasonry, although there are concerns over titling and substantive content. The main issue at the moment remains the RCCs position on it, and it can quite reasonably be handled in this article, given the direction that it seems to be going. Alluding to the point already made, although in a slightly different context, quantity does not imply quality. The proliferation of articles which boil down to The RCC doesn't like FM probably needs to stop; consolidate the issue down to one.

ALR 15:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough about the speed. I just assumed that Blueboar was the only person who may still believe that there is no value in an article on liberal freemasonry. I was over hasty and I apologise. If, however, we can agree that there is some value to an article on this subject then the rest is a content dispute, and a merger is not appropriate.

So ALR, why do you think that we should have a merger?

JASpencer 15:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons why I don't think it's entirely appropriate to try to railroad a decision, and that the two articles should remain associated in this way until such time as a stable conclusion is reached.

Once that state is achieved then it may be entirely appropriate to merge that article with another, leave it as a simple statement and refer to a main article, redirect it, or delete it entirely. Now I'm sure that the suggestion could be made that strict compliance with the letter of plicy would allow the discussion to be taken elsewhere, however I would suggest that the purpose of what's going on is to assure a verifiable, reasonable and proportionate treatment and fragmenting activities doesn't really support that at present.

ALR 17:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

JAS... I never said there was no value in an article on Latin/Liberal/Continental/etc. Freemasonry. There might be, and I am willing to consider the issue. I just think it is premature. It is more a question of timing than anything else. Your timing made it seem as if that article was a POV fork of this article. I accept your assurance that this was unintentional. Never the less, I would prefer to settle the issues with this article before focussing on the new one. The merge tag simply tells us that the matter is under discussion. I agree with ALR... let's not rush things. Blueboar 17:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MAJOR cut back on article

Based upon the comments from my RfC and being BOLD, I have deleted out all the potentially objectionable stuff that discusses the allegations and reasoning etc. My edit cuts out all the "Catholics say this, Freemasons say that" arguments and rebuttals that has mired this article in POV OR for so long. I think what is left (discussion of the various well documented encyclicals and Church pronouncements that have formed the RCC's stance through the centuries) is all sound as far as NOR is concerned ... but some tweeking may still be needed. It may still be a bit one sided ... but then the article is about the Church's stance and so will be one sided no matter what is done. At least now the POV being expressed is based on solid fact and "official documents" and does not go into anyone's speculation or opinion. Blueboar 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, you've taken out a whole load of verifiable positions and it makes the Church seem as if it's picking on Freemasonry for little reason. I'm sure that's unintentional, but the reasons why the Church objects (and objected) to Freemasonry should be seperated out from a simple list of encyclicals. JASpencer 15:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And another matter, where is this RFC? I have not seen a single link to this. At the very least it should be on the talk page. JASpencer 15:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't file a formal RfC... but as I explaind on your talk page, I asked for comments and assistance from the folks at WP:NOR and WP:NPOV... that is why Jossi, John Carter and others have come here. You can see their replies above, and on the talk pages of both Policies. As for the verifiable positions... the problem is that each individual statement may bey verifiable, but strung together as they were, they formed (to use Jossi's term) "A POV and NOR nightmare". The aricle took selected quotations out of context, from different documents written in different eras, and strung them together. Some of what was included is not based on anything "official" but on the opinion of individual churchmen and theologians (some with very conservative views that do not reflect the views of the bulk of Catholicism). All of that put together makes it OR (see WP:SYNT).

The reasoning behind the Church's ban continued ban is extremely nuanced. It has undergone subtle shifts through the centuries. It would need a LOT more discussion than a simple bullet point list that to do that topic justice. We would also need a full discussion of these reasonings looked at from the Masonic side... unfortunately, that is more difficult, because Freemasonry tends not to bother responding to what the Church says. Freemasons know through experience that most of the reasons that the Church has expressed through the years are not really valid, but they have not written much about it. So balancing the article will be difficult. What is uncontrovercial is that the Church, for many varied reason, has opposed and continue to oppose Freemasonry. Beyond that we get into speculation, allegation, rumor, and belief and away from documentable fact.

Finally, remember that there is more to adding material to an article than just its verifiability. Wikipedia has several policies that are equally important... WP:NPOV and WP:NOR have to be considered as well. Blueboar 16:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

But we do need a simple list on why the Catholic Church opposes Freemasonry today. To take this away seriously detracts from the article. The Catholic church has given a number of reasons, within the last thirty years, as to why it is absolutely forbidden to become a Freemason, these should be in the article - and not simply a note at the end saying that the current position of the Church is that you aren't allowed to join a lodge. JASpencer 16:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

NO... I just explained this... a simple list exacerbates the OR and POV problems. It is uncontested that the Church bans Catholics from becoming Freemasons. Why does not matter. "Why" gets us into conjecture, speculation, allegation, rumor, "Belief" and all those other POV and OR issues. We should leave it at bald fact. Blueboar 16:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does matter, that's why we're here. And as long as each of the reasons is verified by a recent official source there is no need to worry about conjecture, rumour, etc. JASpencer 16:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference the rather overdone edit is here. JASpencer 16:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Why" might be why you're here. But I don't think it help the article. Trying to explain "why" is what led to this nightmare. It needs to be rethought. For one thing, there is already some discussion of the "why"... The sections on Ratzinger's reply, the German Bishops Conference and the Report of the American Bishops conference contain whys... not to mention the text of Quaesitum est. I don't mind that, because it keeps the "why" in context of the document. A reader who wants to know "why" can easily find out by following the various links. But a seperate list of "whys" will get us back to taking things out of context... and forming an OR synthesis. Blueboar 17:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, I don't think that you or any of the Masonic editors can seriously play more neutral than thou. Any way the idea that you suprress important information because it "can't" be dealt with through NPOV is a poor argument, that would cut back every discussion of philosophy, theology and scientific theory on Wikipedia. These questions can be dealt with through WP:V and WP:NPOV. JASpencer 17:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not exactly neutral yourself, you know :>) ... Neither camp can be fully neutral here... that's why I asked for outside opinions. But when those opinions are overwhelmingly saying that this article is a mess... using phrases like "NOR and POV nightmare", it should tell us that there is a serious problem with this article. It needs to be majorly rethought.

I agree that we need to keep to WP:V and WP:NPOV (especially the part about Undue Weight). But I also think we need to pay close attention to WP:NOR. All of our policies and guidelines need to be considered. We also need to go beyond strick adhearance to the letter of these policies and guidelines, and consider their intent as well.

When I first notified you about this debate (on your talk page), I suggested that we would need a mediator. I still think this is the case. Blueboar 17:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This still doesn't answer the question about deleting the bones of an article because it "can't" be NPOV. It's seriously unbalanced the article and it relies on an argument that would mean that Wikipedia could never advance beyond noting dates, currencies and capital cities. JASpencer 18:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the major rational behind my being so bold was based on the WP:NOR problems and less on the WP:NPOV. Blueboar 18:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there may well have been greater than required cuts to the article. However, even at this stage, the article should not be too clearly POV, and without having the "rebuttal" information available, which (I think) probably exists, it would seem to be required to ensure that the article meets NPOV requirements. Having said that, I'm not entirely sure how to ensure that the article remain NPOV. While I acknowledge Blueboar's statement that the simple fact that the perpretrators of certain activities were Masons doesn't mean that it was approved by Freemasonry as a whole, I think we would reasonably need some kind of acceptable source to verify that. I acknowledge how difficult that might be in the area of Freemasonry, given the, so far as I know, comparative lack of documentation often available. However, that isn't cause to say that the information can't be included if it were to prove to be the case that no such evidence that Freemasonry were not "officially" invovled can be found. I realize that we are running into the difficulty of saying that "they're all alike" here, but if we can't find any contrary information, even if the info available might seem to be POV, that would be what the evidence available indicates, and as such would be perfectly acceptable. What I think is probably needed here is some sort of formal statement from a member, preferably a leader, of Freemasonry indicating that it is clearly the case that members do not always do what higher-ups indicate. Unfortunately, based on information on some of the oaths of Freemasonry I have read, that might be difficult to prove. This is a quagmire, and I hope everyone involved realizes that. John Carter 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That is why I decided to be bold and cut so much. I cut out the part that quagmires us, and left the parts that are uncontested beyone any doubt. Look, I am not trying to be unresonable here... I am not completely against discussing some of the reasonings and history... but I do care about how that is done. It can't end up being OR, and it has to be neutral and balanced. By being bold and cutting everything that is even remotely objectionable, it gives us something to build upon. We can re-start the conversation from scratch... call in third parties when we disagree and, perhaps, create an article that all sides can live with. Blueboar 18:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning to imply that you were. I was just noting the difficulties invovled. Also, honestly, I think we can expect the Catholicism project, which has 221 members, to produce their information much more quickly than the Freemasonry project, which I think has 15? The fact that one side can produce such information much more quickly than the other doesn't mean that we should let NPOV be pushed aside. John Carter 18:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that any attempt to discuss the reasons for Catholic objections is now going to be labelled original research, no matter how well sourced. This produces an incredibly unsatisfactory article that essentially says "Catholicism disapproves of Freemasonry because, well, it always has". JASpencer 18:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Like I already said, I am a practicing Catholic, and I have no intention of allowing that situation to arise. Under the circumstances, it would reasonably be expected that one side will be able to gather its argument together much more quickly, thus violating POV. Giving one side a bit longer is not the same as giving them an open-ended right to declare "wait a bit longer". John Carter 19:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding all of that, there are significant structural differences which create a challenge. The RCC is directed from a single authority in Rome, Freemasonry is divided into a number of different groupings within which there is no overarching head. Grand Lodge in London cannot speak for Washington, despite being in amity, equally the Grand Orient in Paris cannot speak for the corresponding Grand Orient in Italy.

Within those divisions there are certain doctrinal differences which mean that the organisations don't even recognise one another as legitimate.

ALR 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

JAS... you and I have a long history of butting heads over this article. I don't think either of us can be dispasionate, and right now I think that is what is needed. Why don't we both take a step back, and let some other members of the Catholicism project and the Freemasonry Project be heard from. Then we can all work together on rebuilding the article. Blueboar 19:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want everyone to know that I've nominated the article for the WP:ACID collaboration above. With any luck we can get a few other people involved that way. Certainly, however, it wouldn't hurt if any parties already interested in the article added their names there. John Carter 19:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Done... Blueboar 19:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

Given the litany of RCC complaints I think it's probably worth exploring what we're going to be looking for from sources. No GL actually dignifies the RCCs position with a detailed response, or indeed any response in most cases. Clearly some individual authors will consider each argument. In the main they don't speak from an official position, or consider all flavours of Freemasonry (masculine, androgynous, feminine, requiring a GAOTU or not requiring a GAOTU) thus they're not actually adequate for the purposes of the article.

There is a possibility that papers written at Sheffield University might meet the requirements, but access to those becomes an issue.

We could of course pitch the article as very much an RCC centric and caveat any statement accordingly, capping with the clause that FM isn't unified therefore no-one can speak for it and nobody in authority responds to these claims anyway.

ALR 20:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A perfect example of what we are talking about

Yesteday evening, JAS added the following line to the section on "Freemasonry's position": "Some Continental jurisdictions, such as France and Italy, have had a more anti-clerical official position."... He gave us no source to back the statement up. With no source it is clearly both POV and OR. I have deleted it.

I seriously question whether anti-clericism was ever an "official position", for any jurisdiction. There may well have been individual Grand Masters or other prominent Masons who made Anti-clericial (political) statements... but were they making these statements on behalf of their Jurisdiction, or were they making them as individuals? That makes a big difference.

If there is a source, it would have to be an "official" document from a Grand Lodge or Grand Orient for it to be included in the section. Otherwise, it is mearly third party's opinion that the official position is anti-clerical, and that would have to go into a different section.

Finally, to do the topic justice we would have to mention the fact that since the late 1700s there have been multiple, competing jurisdictions in both France and Italy. Some of which were openly anti-clerical (or more correctly, knowing the politics of the time, against Church involvement in Government - which is a subtley different thing). Others, however, supported the Pro-Church side of the political debate. Context is everything here. Blueboar 13:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Would the participation of the largest masonic body in France in a large secularist demonstration be worthy of mention? I fully recognise that the GOdF are non-UGLE (would that make them PRETTE? I'll get my coat) but the perceived anti-clericalism of the Latin Lodges - and its contrast with the English speaking lodges - is an important part of the story. Indeed most masonic accounts I've read have treated it as almost the only important part of the story. JASpencer 21:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth a lot more that a mention... It might not rate any mention. It depends on what the sources say. Once again, the context is everything. What was the demonstration about? Was it predominantly poitical or religious in nature? Under what circumstances did the masonic body (I presume you are talking about the GOdF?) participate in the domonstration? Did this body intend their participation to be an anti-clerical statement, or is that simply how the Church viewed their participation? Did participation represent the "official position" of the entire body, or just the views of a segment of the body? Did someone speak at this demonstration on behalf of the body, and if so who? And if so, did they have authority to do so. Did participation lead to a later "official statement"? Did participation start yet another round of schism in French Freemasonry (and thus not reflect the position of all Freemasons)? What do Masonic sources tell us about the demonstration and the masonic bodies participation in it? What do Church sources tell us about this? What do independant third party (ie non-masonic and non-Church) sources say about it?... These are all important questions that would need to be examined, and probably addressed in the article if we mention this demonstration.

It also depends on where in the article you want to mention it (Are we still talking about the "Freemasonry's position" section, or are we talking about some other section?). It also depends on how you mention it. A blunt statement that the Freemasons participated and, thus, were Anti-clerical would certainly be OR without attribution as to who makes this conclusion. On the other hand, if the Church views this demonstration as an important event that in part crystalized its perception of Freemasonry (and thus it's stance), I could see that view being discussed. We would need sources telling us that this was the reaction of the Church to the demonstration.

So far, you have not given us any sources to work with on this issue. Blueboar 03:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

On a minor point, I think it should be mentioned that OR only really applies to statements in an article which are not at all stated in the sources. Calling something which actually is sourced, but not separately referenced, is not necessarily OR. I think it might help the discussion if WP:OR, WP:POV, and/or WP:SYNTH were used when specifically appropriate, as calling something OR when it may simply be not yet specifically sourced can be confusing. John Carter 14:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no... It depends on what the sources actually say. What I am particularly worried about is synthetic statements, and taking material from several sources out of context and forming conclusions that are not actually stated in the sources. This was common in the old version of the article, and is something I want to avoid in any re-write of the article.

Look, I am not trying to say that there was never an element of Anti-cleriscism in the Continental jurisdictions... nor trying to block appropriate discussion of this... I am simply trying to point out that making blunt sweeping statements about Freemasonry (whether as a whole, or in discussing it's various "branches") inevitably results in the statement being both OR and POV. To make it not OR we need sources that tie all the various bits and pieces together. So far, I have not seen any. To make it not POV, all the shades of grey need to be explored. This is a complex topic, and that complexity needs to be discussed in full. Not relegated to short sweeping statements. Blueboar 15:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if anything I said was seen as being critical. I can agree that synthezing information is very problematic. Syncretion of information can even at times result in disciplinary actions, like one case currently before ArbCom in which I am involved. It is something which can and should be commented on, and removed whenever specific sources specifically making those statements are not produced. However, there could be I suppose cases in which it wouldn't be syncretionary. It doesn't help that the Freemasonry article in it's first sentence refers to freemasonry as a "fraternal organization", indicating it is all the same organization, though. If, forever, a statement were made about the Grand Lodge of England regarding a time when it was the only Grand Lodge, perhaps regarding an issue which wasn't known to be disputed by the lodges that didn't join it, such a statement might not be OR, although it could require clarification depending on subsequent developments. And I wasn't implying at all that your motivations for your comments and actions weren't completely above board. I'm just pointing out that there might be cases where a potentially "sweeping" statement might be used. I would agree it should be used in only very clear, specific, circumstances, though. John Carter 15:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OK... I get what you are saying. I suppose I am still reacting a bit to the article that was, and not to the article that might be. I will try to focus on the future. Blueboar 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"I am not trying to say that there was never an element of Anti-cleriscism in the Continental jurisdictions". How would you phrase this in the article? I'm open to suggestions. JASpencer 19:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be more useful to focus on finding a source which states either that the RCC assesses that specific GL/ GOs were explicitly anti-clerical, or one which self defines a GL/ GO as such. Clearly an independent assessment of that would also meet the requirement, although would require a caveat to be representative.

ALR 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And that is the whole point here. What we say needs to reflect what the sources say. We should not be writing things and then finding sources to back what we wrote... we should be doing "source based research", finding out what the majority of reliable sources say on the topic and then writing articles that accurately reflect what those sources say. Blueboar 02:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The position of Freemasonry

Recognising that UGLEs statements only specifically apply to UGLE and to be truly representative we'd need to gain a reference about the RCC from every GL in existence, is there a risk that the statement ends up disproportionatly referenced? Now clearly by being selective we end up with the potential inference that there might be a GL, somewhere, which prevents RCs from being initiated. I'd like to turn it round. Given that the requirement is for a belief in a Supreme Being (or none in the irregular tradition which styles itself Freemasonry) then surely the absence of any prohibition is implicit. Can anyone provide an explicit reference to any GL, regular or irregular, which prevents RCs from being initiated? I appreciate that someone is likely to suggest that the inference I've just made is synthesis, however I think there is more value, during the discussion, in actually trying to demonstrate that which is currently inferred in the text that's been put in place this evening.

ALR 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

ALR, the misrepresentation in that paragraph is not that most masonic bodies do not run an Affaire Des Fiches, they clearly don't (although some did), but that it gives an impression that Freemasonry at all times and all places has "maintained a dignified silence" on the matter. This was not the case as is well known. JASpencer 22:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think misrepresentation is a bit strong if you're going to cite one example, and following the link in that article onwards I'd suggest that article is entirely blameless on that front either. Particularly since it doesn't pertain to the question I asked.

Can you provide any evidence at all which indicates that any GLs or GOs (I'll make it easier and say I'm not too bothered at this stage whether regular or irregular) bar RCs from membership?

TIA

ALR 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Affaire Des Fiches? Not really the main issue. The issue is that the idea that Freemasonry is simply defined by a rather bewildered near silence is not the whole story. The attitude of many branches of "irregular" Freemasonry is rather important here. Any way I've moved some text around in the article and will see what happens. JASpencer 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"The attitude of many branches of 'irregular' Freemasonry is rather important here." I don't disagree in any way with that statement ... and we can banter about what that attitude might or might not have been all we want here on the talk page... but to add anything about it to the article, you have to have solid sources that discuss that attitude. Otherwise you end up with OR. Blueboar 02:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

JAS... your recent addition to the Position of Freemasonry section is misplaced. Neither what you wrote, nor the sources supporting what you wrote reflect Freemasonry's position, ...rather they reflect the Church's view of the differences between various Masonic jurisdictions, a very different matter indeed. I have moved it to its own little sub section for now. Blueboar 02:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

JAS, the fact that the GOdF received files collected by the French Government from a member of government staff is not evidence of corporate anti-clericalism. The source linked to from the Affaire de Fiches article is not clear on why those files were passed on.

So you've managed to come up with one example which the RCC might use to support the contention that the GOdF has an official policy of anti-clericalism. That still doesn't answer the question, have you got anything which indicates that any GL or GO bars RCs from membership?

ALR 09:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a misplaced question, but I'm not sure that there would ever necessarily be such a requirement. As I understand it, the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps among others, explicitly forbids any of its members from being both Roman Catholic (in terms of receiving the sacraments) and Freemasons. So, in effect, there would not be any need for such a ban, because anyone who was a "serious", observant Roman Catholic would not consider becoming a Mason in any event. I'm fairly sure the NAACP doesn't have an explicit ban on members of the Ku Klux Klan joining either. There would be no need to have one. As such, I think that the above question could be perhaps a bit misleading, as it seems to ignore that the Freemasons would not have to take such action, as the other side acted first. That isn't saying that they might not consider barring an observant Roman Catholic were it possible for one to apply for membership, simply that as outside circumstances have developed they have no need to. John Carter 13:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

JAS took issue with the use of a UGLE statement as being representative, and I suspect that he recognises that a number of RCs are members of the craft and related organisations. My own experience is that they tend to be observant, and highly active in their faith.

The position of regular Freemasonry is that anyone who professes a belief in a Supreme Being is free to join, however that in the past wasn't explicit enough to satisfy the direction of this particular article. UGLE states a position, par tof the reason for that is a public misconception over RCs membership, it's quite common in the UK for people to construe the RCCs position as a ban on RCs by FM.

I would be quite content to state that Regular FM considers anyone for membership who meets the requirements, the implication being that RCs are free to join. However it is highly likely that statement could be construed as synthesis or OR.

I don't actually think the point is a sensible use of time, however I am as wary of allowing insinuation into the article as much as I am the volume of OR which was there in the past.

ALR 14:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum, the phrasing suggests that whilst in principle there is no need, there might be a desire to bar RCs. That's also an inference I would not wish to see in the article without some solid justification, or a caveat that it's the RCCs assessment.

ALR 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

John, your comment is off base in several ways. Frist, by limiting itself to "serious", obervant Catholics, you leave out those who might be considered "Cafetiria" Catholics... less "serious" or "observant" Catholics who don't always follow Church teachings. They might well (and frequently do) consider joining a Masonic Lodge. It also assumes something about Freemasonry that just isn't true. I would be willing to say that if an observant Catholic wished to join a Masonic Lodge (even an irregular Continental Lodge), he would be welcomed. Over the centuries millions of observant Catholics have become, and continue to become Masons, both regular and irregular (who do you think made/makes up the majority of membership in all those "Latin" lodges JAS is concerned about.)

About the only time where I could see a Lodge turning down a Catholic applicant because of his Catholicism would be if the man wanted to join, but his wife objected on religious grounds. Mason's often turn down candidates if it turns out the wife has a problem with his joining. Blueboar 15:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are also off base in your KKK vs. NAACP analogy. In that case you are dealing with mutually opposed groups. They are in a sence mutually exclusive foes. A member of the KKK would never think of joining the NAACP... nor would a member of the NAACP think of joining the KKK. With our situation, however, we have a very different situation. While the Church officially opposes Freemasonry, Freemasonry does not return the favor. It is a one sided conflict. Blueboar 15:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not in all cases, and I was trying to limit myself to those specific instances. That's why I intentionally specified only the "committed" RCs. I do note that there has, from what I've heard, always been a very inimical relationship between some Italian Freemason bodies and the Roman church. I know in that particular instance, the likelihood of an "committed" RC joining those lodges is nil from the word go, given the history of animus between the two bodies. In cases like that, there would be no need to "ban" a committed RC from Freemasonry, because the request would not be made in the first place, as other similar organizations exist within Catholicism, like the Knights of Columbus and similar organizations. Any request that would be made could be seen as being a "victory" for the Masons in winning a "convert" from the Catholicism they frown upon. So, in effect, any "committed" Catholic wouldn't apply for membership in those Masonic bodies, and there would be no need to create procedures for such events, as they wouldn't arise in the first place. It is one thing to say, for instance, the NAACP doesn't have specific procedures to ban KKK members. However, Freemasons do have some requirements for being offered membership, and someone who disagreed with the principles of a given body could be easily, if perhaps indirectly, blackballed on that basis. Such "officially unofficial" bans are present in numerous organizations. While there may be no official statement from the body to a given effect, that doesn't mean that, in practice, such things cannot and do not happen. In such cases, only unofficial sources would exist, but, if reputable, I think they would be reasonably included. I cannot however say that I know such sources to exist, however, just pointing out the possibility. John Carter 16:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I see another of the issues here, one I alluded to above but wasn't specific about. Private Lodges are just that, private. Grand Lodges set the policy requirements for membership, and within what I describe as Regular GLs they broadly align in general and specifically align over things like gender, belief in a SB etc.

Individual members within a lodge may have a private position which would lead them to blackball a candidate, but it's the individual who does so. It does depend on local byelaws how many would be required to bar a candidate; in England and Scotland that's generally three.

I hope that helps to advance the discussion.

ALR 16:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

John, I think your hypothetical is off base... primarily because (as long as the Church maintains the ban) a "committed" Catholic wouldn't ask to join in the first place. By your definition, if he did, he would no longer be "committed".

I do want to comment on your statement: "Freemasons do have some requirements for being offered membership"... For one thing, Freemasons don't "offer" membership to people. It has been long tradition that a potential candidate for Masonry ISN'T asked to join. Instead we have to wait until he asks us. Secondly, yes there are membership requirements... but having (or not having) a particular religious faith isn't one of them. "Mainstream" lodges only ask one religious question: "Do you believe in God"?... that's it. As far as your religion is concerned, if you say yes, Masonry will accept you. Period end of discussion. Irregular Masonry does not even ask that question (or if they do, phrase it in a way that allows them to accept Atheists). That is the "Official" position. It was put in place at the very start of Freemasonry (long before any Catholic ban). The idea was that issues of religion lead to disharmony and argument, so we (being all about brotherhood and friendship) don't talk about such issues. In other words, your supposition that we don't bar Catholics because "there is no need to do so" (as they will bar themselves) is off base... we were founded on the principal of inclusiveness... that Catholics and Protestants (later expanded to include Jews, Muslems, Hindus, and in continental jurisdictions, even Atheists) were all welcome.

That said, ALR does have a point. I suppose that an individual Mason or group of Masons could vote to blackball a candidate based on his being Catholic. We are a human institution... and individual humans are prone to every type of human fault, including religious bigotry. All I can say is that such an act would go against the very prinicpals of Freemasonry itself, and if it could be proven that a candidate was blackballed on the basis of his being a Catholic, the brethren involved could be brought up on Masonic charges and either be expelled or seriously repremanded.

No, I am willing to make sweeping statements on this... FREEMASONRY has always accepted Catholics. It is part of our core beliefs. If there is a body that doesn't... it no longer can be considered Masonic.

This does not mean that everything has been hunky-dory between the Vatican and individual Grand Lodges and Grand Orients. There certainly have been tensions through the years. But does it equate to "opposition"? That is a much more difficult question. Blueboar 20:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Some years ago, my employer at the time went out of his way to indicate that he thought I would make a good candidate for the local Lodge, which I was not in a position to accept, as a Catholic. On that basis, I assumed such "offers" were standard procedure. If they are not, as you indicate, my apologies for my misstatement. John Carter 20:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem... I suppose this is a matter of semantics... while we are not supposed to solicit people (by asking them to join)... we can "bend" the rules by talking about the idea and indicating that "if they were to ask their request would probably be met with favor (hint hint)". If they don't follow up on the hint by asking, we don't press the issue. Blueboar 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in GLMA, there was ruling from the GM a few years back that a Brother COULD invite a man to join, if he thought him a good potential. It just HAD to not be PRESSURE. An invite, not made repeatedly. A man had to come because he wanted to, not because someone cajoled him to. It was ruled that an invite does not violate "free will and accord".--Vidkun 16:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation request

JAS has requested the text of the citation from S. Brent Morris's Complete Idiots Guide to Freemasonry. I am going to provide it here, instead of in the article. As JAS may remember from previous discussion we have had, I absolutely detest his habit of providing little bits of text for each citation... Without meaning to imply that JAS is doing so on purpose, I feel that this is often done as a way to cover for improperly cherry picking and using the quoted material out of context ... thus facilitating OR and POV. I will not play that game. If someone wishes to see the citation, they can go obtain it for themselves and read it in its entirely and in context. (note for the above reasons, I will delete the following if it is moved to the article.)

on p. 207. within the context of a more complete discussion of the Catholic ban, Morris writes: "During the Pontificate of Paul VI (1963-1978) local and church authorities were allowed to decide if Freemasonry in their areas violated Canon 2335. Freemasonry never formally prohibited Catholics from joining, but centuries of name calling left bitter feelings on both sides. Nonetheless, with case-by-case approval by local Church authorities, many Catholics became Freemasons."

To explain one change from the original, JAS may remember that originally this article had followed Dr. Morris's wording, and said "Many Catholics are Freemasons"... but it was switched when he objected to this wording because the several thousand Catholics who became Freemasons at the time Morris is discussing do not form "many" when compared to the total number of Catholics world wide. We agreed that switching it was more accurate (the number of Catholic who joined the fraternity does equate to "many" when compared to the total number of Freemasons). Blueboar 21:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I remember that now. I find your dislike of quotes, especially in offline sources, almost as damaging as other editors' dislike of referencing. JASpencer 21:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A good example of taking things out of context

At the moment, the article includes the following rather startling statement: "A Catholic spokesman has contended that the major Masonic jurisdictions in Europe and Latin America were "anti-clerical from the start" and as hostile to practicing Catholics as the Ku Klux Klan was to African Americans."

The citation is to The Pastoral Problem of Masonic Membership by William Whalen. A quotation from this document is included...

• Although the 1981 clarification by the Sacred Congregation came shortly after the exposure of the P2 conspiracy, nothing in the statement indicated that its intent was limited to Italian or continental Masonry. An estimated 30,000 Masons belong to five hundred lodges within three jurisdictions in Italy. Everyone knows that the Grand Orient Lodges of Europe and Latin America have been anti-clerical from the start. For the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to advise Catholics against joining these Grand Orient Lodges would be like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People advising blacks against applying for membership in the Ku Klux Klan. Those who say that the Church really directs her condemnation against the Grand Orient Lodges must assume that the Vatican does not know that Freemasonry is English in origin and overwhelmingly English-speaking in membership.

I think the statement slightly mis-states the source. Secondly, when you put the source back into context of the larger document, it takes on slightly different conotations... here is the entire passage:

Reasons for Condemnation

"The March II, 1985 issue of L'Osservatore Romano carried an article titled "Irreconcilability Between Christian Faith and Freemasonry" as a comment on the November 26, 1983 declaration. In part, the Vatican newspaper said a Christian "cannot cultivate relations of two types with God nor express his relation with the Creator through symbolic forms of two types. That would be something completely different from that collaboration, which to him is obvious, with all those who are committed to doing good, even if beginning from different principles. On the one hand, a Catholic Christian cannot at the same time share in the full communion of Christian brotherhood and, on the other, look upon his Christian brother, from the Masonic perspective, as an 'outsider.'"

Some have suggested that the reaffirmation of the historic condemnation by the Church was prompted by the P2 scandal. Grand Master Licio Gelli directed this secret Masonic Lodge known as Propaganda Two or P2, whose aim seems to have been to restore fascism in Italy and to bolster right-wing governments in Latin America. When Italian police raided his villa in 1981, they discovered the Lodge's membership roster, which listed 953 people, including the heads of Italy's intelligence agencies, generals, cabinet ministers, judges, bankers, industrialists and the like. Gelli had persuaded a number of individuals, such as financier Roberto Calvi, that membership in the Masonic Lodge was now allowed by the Church. Actually, it appears that the P2 Lodge plotted more against the Italian state than [against] the Church, although the Masonic financiers who were called in to handle the Vatican's investments (such as Sindona) cost the Church many millions of dollars. The P2 case did demonstrate that Masonic secrecy could camouflage and facilitate conspiracies of the political right, even in the shadows of St. Peter's.

On the other hand, a recent book by Stephen Knight alleges that the KGB used the secrecy and networking of English Freemasonry to place spies in top intelligence jobs. It encouraged its operatives to try to join Masonic Lodges to gain preferential treatment in their careers. In particular, the author charges that Freemasons propelled Sir Roger Hollis into a series of rapid promotions, which led to his being named head of M15 counterintelligence in 1956. A book by Chapman Pincher, published in 1981, attempted to prove that Hollis was a Soviet agent. Knight's book was published in the United States in November, 1984 by Stein and Day of New York under the title The Brotherhood: The Secret World of Freemasons.

Both the right and the left have seen the advantages of using the Masonic organizations to further their causes. At one time. Masonry was known as a chief bulwark of republican forms of governments. Actually, in the United States today most observers would probably label the Lodges as both politically reactionary and racist.

Although the 1981 clarification by the Sacred Congregation came shortly after the exposure of the P2 conspiracy, nothing in the statement indicated that its intent was limited to Italian or continental Masonry. An estimated 30,000 Masons belong to five hundred lodges within three jurisdictions in Italy. Everyone knows that the Grand Orient Lodges of Europe and Latin America have been anti-clerical from the start. For the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to advise Catholics against joining these Grand Orient Lodges would be like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People advising blacks against applying for membership in the Ku Klux Klan. Those who say that the Church really directs her condemnation against the Grand Orient Lodges must assume that the Vatican does not know that Freemasonry is English in origin and overwhelmingly English-speaking in membership. Of the estimated six million members in all the various types of Masonic Lodges worldwide, about four million live in the United States, 750,000 in the United Kingdom, 250,000 in Canada, and 400,000 in Australia and New Zealand. Perhaps nine out of ten Masons live in an English-speaking country.

For U.S. bishops and priests, the pastoral problem not only involves those Catholic laymen who joined Masonic lodges during the period of confusion in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It extends to the general public. Catholic and non-Catholic, which does not understand why the Catholic Church, in an era of ecumenism, persists in condemning an organization often known for its charities and good works. We have no reason to doubt the testimony of so many American Masons that they have never heard a word of criticism of the Roman Church in lodge meetings or functions. In fact, Masonry rules out discussions of religion and politics in the Lodge."

And if you look at the rest of the document, it turns out that the source is a bit more of an anti-masonic conspiracy theory rant than a "dispassionate" examination of the issues. I have to question our article calling Whalen a "Catholic Spokesman"... does he really speak for all Catholicism? Blueboar 21:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, this statement that may or may not be an "anti-masonic conspiracy theory rant" was commissioned by the American bishop's conference and sent out with the 1985 letter under Cardinal Law's authority. Whalen was a Catholic Spokesman and he may not speak for every single Catholic but he does speak, at least in regards of Freemasonry circa 1985, for the Catholic Bishops in the United States of America. JASpencer 23:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, as I remember, he was a professor of religion at the University of Indiana and wrote quite a number of works dealing with the versions of Christianity native to the United States, of which the majority of the full books (not counting pamphlets, etc.), are counted as being very well researched and referenced. I believe that under the circumstances he very likely qualifies as a reliable sourceas per WP:RS. Also, frankly, given his credentials, I believe he probably qualifies as more than simply a spokesman, but as a reputable scholar who meets WP:V and WP:RS in his own right. John Carter 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes... that slightly scares me. Given how much he repeats the conspiracy theory stuff, stuff that has been totally discredited as if it were accepted fact, that really makes me worried for the future of the Church. I mean I thought everyone knew that P2 was not a legit Lodge, and that no one took knights claims seriously... what's next? Leo Taxil wasn't a fraud? Freemasons are the Illuminati and they worship the Devil? Sigh, OK... so even an official spokesman can be unbelievably gullible... and I suppose he is (or at least was) a legit Catholic spokesman. It still doesn't negate my point... when you take the passage that was quoted, and put it into the context of the entire document, its meaning and impact slightly changes. And it definitely is not the same intent as the short sentence it is being used to support. Blueboar 01:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have slightly changed the statement around to directly attribute and quote Whalen's words instead of our interpretation of his words. I think Whalen is over simplifying a very complex issue... but, as you say, he was offical. Blueboar 01:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his official status doesn't mean much per se. However, he pretty clearly does meet the standards of an independent, third-party source (independent from the Masons, anyway), who can meet Verifiability and reliability standards. That's about all that's required. WP:Undue weight might be a factor, but to establish that we would need to see third-party sources which would seem to contradict him. John Carter 01:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the report was comissioned by the Conference, then it's not third party, he's writing on behalf of his client.

I'd suggest that there is an issue with how the quotation is used at present, even the excerpt used in the notes is clearly not particularly rigorous. I do recognise that WP:RS is pretty weak in this area, but I'm not particularly supportive of stating that an author is inherently reliable or what he says is inherently verifiable just because of who he is. I'm afraid that everbody knows... just isn't a convincing argument.

I don't have a big issue with the inclusion, because it's clearly a position supported by the conference. It should probably be caveated to make clear that it was commissioned on behalf of and the statement used is his opinion.

ALR 11:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for my earlier misstatement. John Carter 14:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to have it phrased as a "statement of opinion"... I'll have to dig out my copy of Jasper Ridley"s The Freemasons. As I remember, he goes into some depth in his discussion of the whole "Continental" style Freemasonry issue, and talks about the relationship between the Grand Orient of Italy and the Papacy in particular. It provides a historian's view point, that is a bit different from Whalen's. Blueboar 13:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

One question which might be relevant here. If reliable, verifiable, third-party outsiders were to make a statement regarding policies and activities of the Freemasons, perhaps even indicating that such policies and activities were in fact the accepted norm, but the rules of Freemasonry itself as they have been released for public consumption did not explicitly state them, but also did not say anything which would seem to contradict them, would anyone argue that it would be inappropriate to state them. I only state this because as we all know from the history of the 20th century, specifically regarding the "democratic" policies of several communist countries, and such works as A Few Good Men, it can be and often is the fact that some of the most important "rules" of any organization are never formally written down. John Carter 14:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Um... I am not sure what you are getting at. In this case, the "rules" have been written down... and can be sourced (we have Constitutions and "official" statements from multiple Grand Lodges and Grand Orients). The written rules state that Freemasonry accepts men of all faiths... that includes Catholics. Are you claiming that some source somewhere speculates that there are secret unwritten rules contradicting these written rules? If so, I would say that the "official" sources trump any speculation from an outsider. Blueboar 17:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. What I'm asking is, if a source who is a third-party who would seem to meet the Verifiability and Reliability requirements were to say such a thing, would there be any objections to mentioning it. I'm not really trying to address Freemasonry per se here, but do note that several countries have written laws regarding certain things which the governments themselves are regularly accused of either ignoring or exceeding. If such a source were found who seemed to meet such qualifications, how should it be included, if at all? Primarily asking from the theoretical standpoint, but I can't rule out the possibility of such sources existing for some things somewhere. As an active and practicing Catholic, I would favor inclusion of such content in relevant articles regarding that group as well, although I haven't worked with that many articles related to the subject and don't know if I have yet or not. John Carter 17:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally speaking I don't believe that an individual is inherently reliable or verifiable, although I realise I'm out of step with what's said on WP:RS on that matter. I bailed out of any participation when it became clear what direction the policy/ guideline were taking.

With all that in mind it's a claim, since it's not demonstrably verifiable.

ALR 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is helpful to discuss hypotheticals. There are too many variables. I suppose there could be a situation where such a source is so impecable that I would have no grounds to object. I can also see a lot of hypothetical situations where I would strongly object. So, I'm not going to agree or disagree to something that is hypothetical. For one thing, it may never be a reality. Let's deal with this question if and when we need to... if and when we are dealing with an actual source that someone actually wants to use. Blueboar 17:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current revision

I think the most recent change to the article could potentially be POV. We don't actually have a direct source that I know of saying what Whalen's opinion is. Also, I cannot see how the removal of the first three words, which are significant in terms of the quote, can really be justified. I can see that it might be possible to add content prior to the quote indicating that there is a historical dsipute between the two bodies, but the revision of the sourced statement in a potentially POV way is not a good practice in general. The preceding introduction would probably be sufficient to establish that the source is coming from a specific viewpoint, and is probably enough to establish that the subject is not necessarily neutral. John Carter 17:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that Whalen wrote it, I think we can assume that he was expressing his opinion. I agree that it is a significant opinion in that he writes it as a Catholic spokesman... but it is an opinion and not proven fact. We need to make that clear. In the case of the words "Everyone knows that..." it is clearly just Whalan's opinion. Here, he is not even speaking as a spokesman for the Chruch... or are you saying that it is the official Catholic position that "Everyone knows" ? I cut those words because they really are not important... what is important is that the Church feels that the rest of the sentence is true.Blueboar 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That is one person's opinion, and in this case could very easily be seen as simply a statement of the unacceptable idea WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. No individual has the right to determine, on their own without prior consultation, as was seemingly done here, how to alter a directly quoted sentence to more readily conform to their own POV. The writer chose to phrase the statement the way he did. Like I said, I can see additional content being added earlier to indicate that the Roman Catholic church has stated that Freemasonry is a grand conspiracy and whatever else, but no one person has the right to cherrypick words so that it effectively softens the blow of the removed words, nor does any one person in a collaborative effort like wikipedia have the authority or right to determine what they will "allow" another editor to add, in terms of verifiable, sourced information. If you want to discuss making such changes, fine, I urge you to do so. But, as is, the words which you removed probably serve to indicate to non-Catholics that the writer wasn't completely objective better than your revision did, and your revision can be seen to have made the original quote less objectionable. Also, I think it would be reasonable to explicitly seek the input of others before making such changes in sourced material. John Carter 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar. In this case I don't think it's appropriate to crop the quote, the section remains a statement of the RCC position based on the US Conference. If the Bishops choose to use that piece of scholarship to support their conclusions then that is entirely up to them. Personally I find it surprising that they should draw attention to the lack of intellectual rigour applied,. but that's just me. I'm sure someone, somewhere, thinks that the paper is a comprehensive, well researched product ;) All that's required is sufficiant caveating around the statement to make clear that it is not independent. It might actually be worth increasing the volume quoted, I'm also not keen on tucking contentious material away in footnotes.

I still think it's worth considering a re-titling of the entire article to reflect the RCC emphasis.

ALR 20:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-clerical vs. Anti-Catholic

Is there a difference between being Anti-clerical and being Anti-Catholic? If so, would a discussion of the difference help us in establishing a more neutral tone? Blueboar 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A neutral "tone" is not what is required, but rather neutral content. While there is potentially a difference between the two terms (there are clerics in the Lutheran church and others as well), the single best way to ensure that there continues to be neutral input is probably if editors do not on their own seek to alter direct quotes or attempt to change the content of the article to be less than neutral. Frankly, your last change was very possibly the worst thing that could be done to help ensure that neutral input remain in the article, and I suggest that you revert your non-consensus change as a demonstration of good faith. Changes in content should be discussed on the talk page before being made. John Carter 18:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... I will put back the "Everyone knows that..." phrase, since it is part of Whalen's wording. But given that the quote is an opinion, and is not a proven fact I am going to keep it phrased as an opinion (after all, even if there is only one person in the entire world that does not agree with what Whalen says, then it is not a fact that "Everyone knows"). Blueboar 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to my question... Whether we talk about "tone" or "content" (and I think both are important, as the tone of an article can skew it towards being NPOV just as much as the content)... if we can differentiate between being Anti-clerical and Anti-Catholic, we would be presenting a clearer picture of what was going on in European Freemasonry in the 1800s. The historical Anti-clerical politics of some of the European Grand Orients, were not Anti-Catholic in nature. This should be mentioned if we are going to talk about how they were and were not Anti-clerical. Blueboar 18:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

From what you have said above, you would seem to have some evidence to support such a contention. If you have it, then certainly it could reasonably be added. I would assume that such content would either indicate opposition to other churches as well, with perhaps specific evidence relating to at least one non-Catholic church, or specifically indicate opposition to religious clerics in general way, although perhaps in a country where Catholic clerics were the only readily apparent ones. For the latter, I think it would help if there were a direct quote from somebody saying something like "We oppose giving any degree of secular authority to religious employees" (or something similar), to make it clear that at least theoretically they did oppose all such clericalism, even if in practice only Catholics might have been targeted as a result of population factors. John Carter 18:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we are talking about your later example... countries where Catholic clerics were the only readily apparent ones (the various Italian states of the time come especially to mind). But this is why I ask my question in the first place... before I go an spend time looking for sources, I want to know if we can even agree on the definition of terms... is there a difference between Anti-clericism and Anti-Catholicism in this instance. And perhaps more importantly, does/did the Church see them as being different, and if so what are/were the differences? Blueboar 19:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The page Anti-clericalism indicates that there is such a difference. Also, I think the Roman Catholic church (I'm presuming that's the "Church" you're talking about) does recognize that anti-clericalism directed at Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East clergy has been known to exist as well, with in some cases several clerics being killed as a result. What would be desirable would be a statement of the kind I mentioned, which opposes any ties between church and state or whatever, to indicate that they weren't "selectively enforcing" an opinion against the Roman Catholics. But coming from the Saints WikiProject, I know that there are several instances of oppression of non-Catholic churches as well, and I have no doubt that the church does recognize that, and that individual members of the church would do so as well. In some of those cases, though they might like a bit of proof. If I don't see such a comment, let me know, and I'll prove to them that such behavior has been demonstrated against other churches as well as just the RC church. John Carter 19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Now this is interesting... while reading the Anti-clericism article I came across Laïcité... I wonder if this is not actually a more accurate term. I doubt that there is a Masonic document that says "what we are doing is Laïcité and not Anti-clericism" or anything (at least I don't know of one) but the definition and discription that the article uses seems to fit with the historical fact a lot better than Anti-clericism. So perhaps we should be using that term instead? Your thoughts? Blueboar 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL... just as I wrote that last bit... JASpencer adds: "The Grand Orient de France publicly campaigns for "laïcité" and a restriction on the Catholic Church's role in politics." to the article. I have no objection to the statement at this time (it seems to be accurate). However, given John's comment about adding things without discussion (see below), I will request that any further additions JASpencer wishes to make be discussed here first. Goose and Gander and all that. Blueboar 20:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I entered this before reading the talk page. I don't like the idea of a freeze as the current article seems to read as if the Catholic Church is just banning Freemasonry in pique, but for the sake of peace I will abide with this. JASpencer 20:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict response to Blueboar) That page is being suggested for merging, and I'd want to make sure that the page remains separate before establishing any links to it. Whether "each individual [within the public sphere] should appear to be devoid of ethnic, religious or other particularities", which is another condition of Laïcité, is directly relevant to Freemasonry, I don't know. Also, I think in at least some cases, the line between the two terms can be vague. Thinking particularly here of cases where the church already has influence in the public sphere, as in those cases an adherent of Laïcité could also be described as anti-clerical. I guess the best way to answer that is that this statement, "Laïcité does not necessarily imply, by itself, any hostility of the government with respect to religion. It is best described a belief that government and political issues should be kept separate from religious organizations and religious issues (as long as the latter do not have notable social consequences)", seems to me to indicate that the word is the equivalent of the phrase "separation of church and state". If Freemasonry's historical opposition to "clerics" has been solely and exclusively based on that idea, then I would have no reservations, although I might prefer the latter, more comprehensible, phrase to the word. If that hasn't been the case, though, I would oppose it as misleading. Granted, that would involve qualifiers for irregular lodges, etc., but that's no real problem. I'm afraid I don't know the factual history of Freemasonry well enough to be able to directly answer that myself, but wouldn't mind if it were appropriate. Also, it isn't really "adding" material which anyone can object to, and I don't think I did, but making changes in existing content, particularly quotes, to make them appear more NPOV is another thing entirely. No one would I think favor a freeze on addition of content which covers relevant material not already adressed in the article, but making changes to existing content which appears to change that content's meaning without prior approval is another matter. John Carter 20:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I really would like to discuss any significant changes or additions before they are made. We are going to be talking about controvercial material, and it will solve all sorts of problems if we bounce drafts off of each other ... and discuss exactly how things should be phrased first. Blueboar 21:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of revisions before making them

It is in fact suggested that revisions be discussed in advance. I sincerely hope that all interested parties realize that is the case, and will actually seek to acquire consensus before making such changes again. Thank you. John Carter 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We should indeed discuss any addition before we add it. As a word of explanation... my edit over the "everyone knows" bit was not actually a revision. I added the quote to the article in the first place (feeling that quoting Whalen's words was better than our summarizing them). While I over-steped in cutting the words "Everyone knows that..." from the quote, the rest of my edit was simply a further editing my own original edit. I did not think that would be controvercial. It obviously was. My appologies. I will discuss from now on. Blueboar 18:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this will have the effect of freezing the article in its unbalanced state, but we will see. I will abide with this for the sake of a peaceful life, but that doesn't mean that I think it will improve the article. JASpencer 21:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I misread this. I am far happier with prior discussions on revisions of material which I don't think will have the same dead hand effect. JASpencer 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We need a proper discussion of the anti-clericalism of the Latin Lodges

This is a massive gap in the current article which needs to be addressed. JASpencer 20:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was what, in part, the last two days of talk page discussion have been working towards. In any case, I agree that a proper discussion is needed. To get us started, let's settle a the name issue. I question the term "Latin Lodges". I realize that a few (I think it's three) scholars have used the term or some variant thereof, but the majority of Masonic Scholars use "Continental" or "Oriental" (or simply "irregular" but that reflects a particular POV that we should avoid). For one thing, that branch of Freemasonry is found in other areas besides "Latin" countries... it is in Germany and the Netherlands, several African nations, Turkey, and historically was found in Poland and Russia. It is misleading to call it "Latin". I have also raise the issue (above) as to whether Anti-clericims is really the right term, or whether laïcité is really more correct. I do realize that the Church uses the "Anti-clerlicism". I am just tossing that out for thought.

To move us a bit forward, why don't you draft up some proposed language for the rest of us to look at and comment upon. Blueboar 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, then don't use the term Latin Lodges (although Latin Freemasonry has been indisputably anticlerical and political and often downright anti-Catholic). The fact of the matter is that much of the incidents of anticlericalism, which was previously arranged in this article by country and which has since been deleted, were actions which Masons took credit for, not as individuals, but as a collective. Blueboar, you claim that by making the connection between the anticlerical actions of individuals who happened to be Masons and Freemasonry we are dealing with OR and SYN. But there are actually many instances, reported in reliable secondary sources, of Masonry itself claiming this connection. Moreover, even if Masons didn't claim or admit the connection, but the Church has, the article should state so. Mamalujo 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the merge tag still there?

It seems that there is no one who actually says that this is not an article worthy topic, but there are content disputes or as a placeholder to sort out this article. Can anyone suggest why a merger is still on the cards? JASpencer 20:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was settled ... An article on Continental/GOdF style Freemasonry is a topic worthy of an article... but the specific article named Latin Freemasonry is not the right article for that topic. As that article stands now, it is a POV fork of this article. And as such, it remains under consideration for merger. And I don't want to focus on that article or the merger issue until we have made significant progress at settling all the problems with this article. It is a matter of priorities. I see no reason why we have to rush. The tag can wait until we have time to properly discuss things. Let's wait and see what developes. Blueboar 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well if no one's focussing on the merger then why don't we remove that and come back to it? It seems like this is essentially a content dispute. JASpencer 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No, because I would like anyone who comes across that article to know that it is being considered for merger. Blueboar —Preceding comment was added at 21:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So why should it be merged? Do you really believe that it is the same subject? Let's put the content dispute aside for the moment. JASpencer 21:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I just said that I don't want to get into a discussion about merger until this article is settled. But to address your question... yes, as the article currently stands, I do think it is the same subject. That may not be the ulimate goal... but for now it is the reality. Why the rush to get rid of the tag? Let it sit for a few more weeks. When we are done with this ariticle, we can address the problems with that one. Blueboar 21:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the tag was introduced when the article was unbalanced because of the text on there, and it is now considerably different. I don't like the use of tags as placeholders. JASpencer 22:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... ok, tell you what... go deal with that article first then. If you can get it to a point where it is no longer a POV fork of this article, I will agree to remove the tag. You can start by changing the name as is being discussed on that article's talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved the discussion to the project talk page

fwiw I'm still not keen on splitting the problems up, until such time as we've reached a conclusion the association should remain, IMO. I dobn't actually understand the unseemly haste to disassociate.

ALR 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wholesale deletion of sourced material

While I understand an editor's prerogative to be bold, the deletion of the entire second half of the article was not warranted nor done by consensus. All of the subjects covered were in fact criticisms of Freemasonry by the Church and that is supported by secondary sources. As to the details in some of the sections, some of it may have been arguably improper but that does not mean the baby should be thrown out with the bath water. For example, the Affaire des fiches indisputably involved the French Lodges' participation in discrimination against French military officers who were practicing Catholics. The section is not OR, SYN or POV. Deleting references to the Kulturkampf, anticlericalism in France, the suppression of the Church in Mexico and the like is a highly POV edit. These are in fact very important criticisms of Freemasonry by the Church. Removing them from the article makes it deceptively misleading and factually erroneous by omission. By the way, many of the assertions in this discussion that it was just individuals, who happened to be Masons, and not Masonic institutions themselves which engaged in anticlericalism (hence the claim of OR, SYN and POV) are just plain factually erroneous. The historical records are replete with statements in Masonic publications and statements from the lodges which support the Masonic involvement in anticlericalism. Consider this from and article in the Historical Text Archive: "Historians, especially those who have specialized in ecclesiastical history, are in fairly general agreement that it was during the 1824-1830 period that the Masonic groups began to work on definite plans to remove the Church from its preeminent position in Mexican life. Just as in Europe, properties would be confiscated, the bishops would be exiled, the religious orders of men and women would be suppressed, education laicized, and the government declared free of all clerical influence." I believe the deleted portion of the article should be reintroduced and concerns with the details addressed on an individual basis.Mamalujo 18:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Would only note that the above quote from Paul V. Murray was an addressed delivered at some unspecified location. While I would welcome any reliable verifiable sources to the article, I'm not sure that this individual, about whom I know nothing, qualifies as one, whether the address was delivered at a place where POV statements would be welcome or even possibly encouraged, etc. If evidence suggesting that the source were reputable were produced, that would be different. John Carter 18:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You will note that the article (yes, based on a speach) is carefully sourced and footnoted. It includes sources such as Spanish language histories of Mexican Masonry. The author was a founder and the president of Universidad de las Américas, A.C.. It is a reliable source. Regardless, the same can be found in many other reliable secondary sources. Mamalujo 19:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. However, as per the page WP:RS, I'm still not sure it meets the requirements for reliable sources displayed on that page. The citations show that it is verifiable, but verifiability is not the same thing. If other sources saying the same thing can be found, however, that do meet the RS and verifiability guidelines, I have no doubt that they would qualify for inclusion. John Carter 19:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, citations do go to verifiability, but as you will note on the page WP:RS they also play a part in detirmining reliability. Moreover, such an article by a history professor who is was a founder and president of a university in Mexico is a reliable source. But we are on a tangent. I had not posted the quoted paragraph in the article but on the talk page to show that the asserted OR and SYN in the section on Mexico were no such thing. The point of my post is that the entire section on "Sources of Catholic antagonism" which was well sourced was completely deleted without consensus or adequate justification. I know that a portion of that subject matter now appears in the article on Latin Masonry which might be a proper article. Nonetheless, some reference to those "Sources of Catholic antagonism" is needed in this article. What I'm trying to discuss is not whether Murray is a reliable source but whether all the sourced matter in the article should have been deleted and whether it shoud be reinserted and any flaws should be dealt with individually. 69.111.85.126 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the conditions of reliability which you seem to have overlooked is where and under what conditions the speech was made. Clearly, a member of a partisan assembly speaking to only partisans of a given position will not in any way be counted as "reliable". We don't quote Rowan Williams' sermons in articles as reliable sources, even if he qualifies as a reliable source regarding his published, academically peer-reviewed works. Without knowing the circumstances in which this speech was made, it cannot be said that something similar may not have been the case here. I don't necessarily disagree with you on the later points you make, because I also think such wholesale removal is probably uncalled for without previous RfCs or similar outside input, but my statement above points out the difference between "sourced material" and "reliably sourced material", which is the bone of contention here. The question of the reliability of those specific sources hasn't yet been addressed. John Carter 21:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Some of the material may have been better removed but there is no bar for re-entering data. This article probably needs a gradual reintroduction of data any way. JASpencer 21:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Remember the comments by neutral third parties such as Jossi?... Remember how he called this article a POV and NOR nightmare? Several people who have no axe to grind on this issue expressed similar opinions. They thought the choice was between stubifying and simply deleting the article. I was perfectly justified in cuting so much; I could have cut more. To explain again, the text was removed because of NOR and NPOV violations, not RS or V violations. Rewrite the material in a NPOV way that avoids OR and there should be no problem. Blueboar 23:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there is also the burden on individuals such as yourself to ensure that the countervailing viewpoint is presented as well. I would hardly expect a member of the Catholicism project, like JAS, to go out of his way to try to find information on an organization which he apparently opposes. Also, the comments you appear to be referring to seem to have been made in July? Under such circumstances, with the changes occuring several months after comments, I think an additional RfC might be called for. If such content is not presented over the long term, then it might even be possible to assume that there is no contrary viewpoint, and could even, potentially, be seen as purposefully not seeking to include content for the purposes of thus being able to remove other content. And I do think all such "revisions", even the one you just made today, should have consensus of the existing editors to an article, and any other interested parties, before they are made. Citing comments of months ago regarding the current content could be seen as reaching, maybe? Otherwise, one could give the impression that one has decided that one's own opinion is all that matters, maybe kind of like WP:OWN? A current RfC, third opinion, or otherwise would not be out of line. However, even there, if one side of a contention issue is presented, and no explicit evidence of a sourced contrary position can be presented, then even potentially POV material, if it is adequately sourced, should be included, as there would be no explicit, clear evidence of adequate third-party support for such contentions. John Carter 23:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to the comments made around Nov. 1st... just last week (see above)... I had posted a querry about the OR and POV problems I saw with this article on both the WP:NOR and WP:NPOV talk pages. Several editors took a look and expressed comments like: "This article is a POV and NOR nightmare" (used as a section header on this talk page by one of WP:NOR's more active and respected editors). It was these comments that caused me to act and do a Major cut of material, not any comments made months ago. The fact that similar comments were made months ago simply tells me that this was a long standing problem, one that should have been addressed and fixed months ago. Blueboar 00:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We can probably reintroduce some of the material with a concern for the objections which have been raised, specifically including Blueboar's and Jossi's, and with all editors making an effort to write for the "opposition". For example, probably in the Mexico section a listing of the number of priests killed and so on, which is appropriate in an article in the Cristero War or on the persecution of the Church in Mexico, might not be appopriate here. The obvious argument being that such events have a much more tenuous connection to Freemasonry than did the not uncommonly admitted anticlericalism and political involvement of the Lodges there. If we reintroduce the matters which are necessary for a complete article on the subject with care to omit matters which can be fairly argued as OR, POV and SYN, allowing for the views of both sides, we can probably reach a version which is acceptable to all editors.Mamalujo 01:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, you cut without agreement and now you wish for every change to be discussed. It may not be your intention but it will fossilize the page into a slightly expanded list of dates making the Catholic case against communicants becoming Freemasons appear irrational. It wasn't what John suggested and it won't work. JASpencer 15:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reintroduced much of the deleted text. I know that it may not be acceptable to all editors in its present form, but let's deal with the issues individually. Blueboar has to understand that an article about Catholicism and Freemasonry is going to have Catholic criticisms. In a previous editing dispute, the Freemasonry article itself had a comment regarding the Morgan affair that "[d]espite the fact that no evidence was ever brought forward to implicate Freemasonry, these accusations helped an Anti-Masonic movement grow". Now this statement was patently false, yet Blueboar constantly removed the undisputed fact that three Masons confessed, were convicted and served time for crimes related to Morgan's disappearance (though not his death). You'll also note that the article today has no reference to Morgan's disappearance nor the convictions but only a oblique reference to the affair in a paragraph beginning in a false light with a discussion of "hoaxes" (Granted the article on Morgan does have most of the facts of the matter). That kind of white-washing should not happen with this article. Properly sourced criticisms by the Church, in their historical context, belong in the article. Mamalujo 01:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear... I NEVER objected to this article containing Catholic criticisms of Freemasonry, or a discussion of them. I agree that this is appropriate to do in an article on this subject. What I objected to (and still object to) was the manner in which these criticisms and discussions were/are presented. I especially objected to the amount of WP:Original Research that was (and now, once again, is) contained in the article.

Given that I am a Freemason, I understood that I approach this topic with my own POV. And I realized that my objections could be skewed by that POV... so I asked for and recieved neutral third party comments... The comments came from well respected Wikipedia editors (some of whom are Admins) who fully understand the policies and guidlines we all have to follow. These comments expressed dismay at the amount of OR and POV that was in this article, calling the article a "POV and OR nightmare". The recommendation of these neutral editors was to either delete this article, or cut it back to a stub.

I did neither... instead I cut the article significantly, deleting the areas that contained the worst OR and POV violations. My goal all along has been for us to slowly and carefully replace the deleted sections in a way that accurately and fairly discusses the situation without violating NOR or NPOV. I do not want to "white-wash" the article... I want to rebuild it properly. Mamalujo's revision simply returns us to the "nightmare" we had prior to my action. I am going to let the revision stand for now... but if no progress is made towards correcting the POV and NOR "nightmare", I reserve the right to gut the article again. I suggest that everyone read up on the relevant policies.

Again... my objection is not over what is said in this article... the problem is how it is said. Blueboar 15:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem was, Blueboar, that you called for other editors to discuss any changes on the talk pages while aggresively editing the page. In effect you were freezing the page. I tried to work with you and if I had any confidence that you would have worked with me I would have reverted Mamalujo. Aggressive editing is fine, but it doesn't do much to engender trust. JASpencer 19:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed addition

I have to object to JAS's most recent addition of: "Some Freemasons who are aligned to the United Grand Lodge of England believe that the French position was close to being anticlerical", especially in the Freemasonry's position section. First, this is one essayist... not "Some Freemasons". The mention of UGLE makes the sentence sound like they are expressing an official position of UGLE. And the quote that was supplied with the citation does not even contain any mention the French position that was outlined in the previous sentence.

The quote provided was:

• "The fifth point, advocating or condoning overthrow of Church and State, may possibly have some basis if one makes the error of equating the Italian Masonry of the period with the entire Masonic Fraternity. From their founding, the Latin Grand Lodges, if not explicitly anticlerical, were strongly (at times, militantly) political. Thus it is quite possible that there may have been some basis in fact for the charge." (taken from The Miter and The Trowel, by William G. Madison.

Bro. Madison is one Mason, expressing his opinion. He is not a spokesman for Freemasonry, and does not represent any Grand Body. He is not a reliable source for any sort of official Masonic position on the relationship between Freemasonry and the Catholic Church. So it definietly does not belong in the "Freemasonry's position" section. I actually have to question (although less strenuously) whether he is all that a good of a source at all? I note that just below the quoted text, Madison states of himself...

• "I am neither a professional historian nor a profound scholar."

This addition was clearly taking a source out of context... using it to support a rather POV statement that it does not actually support... which is clearly a WP:NOR violation. It is difficult to assume good faith when such clear violations as this are added to the article. I have removed the objectionable material... and remind everyone (myself included) that this is why things need to be discussed here before they are added to the article. Blueboar 00:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that the individual's own statements regarding himself clearly disqualify him as a reliable source. John Carter 00:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Madison was quoted as someone who has clearly no axe to grind against Freemasonry, and who wrote a biased but readable introduction to the Masonic v Catholic argument. He has been used in various articles as a source with little complaint. I took some care not to give any official attribution. I would also say that there is little serious doubt that Liberal Freemasonry was anticlerical. It may have died down since the rise of communism and the UGLE may not agree with it, but it was the case. I don't mind if people want citations, but I do not care for the petulance and name calling displayed here. JASpencer 15:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No objections seeing him quoted as a non-expert outsider to the discussion. Also, if it can be demonstrated that he was seen as being sufficiently reliable to be cited or quoted in an apparently reliable source, then a quotation citing that he was quoted elsewhere would probably be acceptable, if he's the best quote available there. John Carter 15:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR danger?

Are editors here getting too close to WP:OR for comfort? Is this article is an analysis of the criticism of the Church against Freemasonry? Is this article a rebuttal of that criticism by Freemasonry adherents? Is this an article on anti-clericalism? Or is it a stew of all of these in an article that does not represent an analysis as published in reliable sources? It seems to me to be the latter... I would suggest that rather than quote this proponent or that critic, that you endeavor in finding literature in which the tension between the Church and Freemasonry has been described, and stick exclusively to that. Otherwise, this article will feature perennial dispute tags. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WIlliam Joseph Whelan is listed as being the author of the book Christianity and American Freemasonry. Considering he is officially the publications director and associate professor of communications at Purdue University, and one of his works on Quakerism has recently been reprinted by the Quakers themselves, I have to say that his reputation is probably good enough that if any of the content of that book is relevant, it could probably be counted as being from a reliable source. John Carter 15:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

John... I don't think anyone is saying Whelan isn't a reliable source (OK, to be accurate, I did question it... but you convinced me that he was reliable and have dropped that question). In fact, I will go a step further and say that most of the sources are reliable (there may be one or two that are questionable). The problem isn't with the sources, but how they are used. The problem isn't with WP:RS or even WP:V... it's with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV Blueboar 15:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't meaning to imply otherwise. Was just trying to find a source which might deal with the issues which could be seen as being from a reliable source, as per the first comment in this thread. Unfortunately, I don't know if the book in question actually deals with this subject at all, and that was the one of the few names that seemed to me to have any sort of academic credentials at all. I notice that there are more books by Robert Lomas as well, and an apparent "tell-all" by former Worshipful Master Jack Harris, but I'm not sure about them qualifying as "reliable". Alibris counts Freemasonry and the Vatican as being a 5 of 5 for reliability, but I've never heard of it or the author so I can't say anything about it. Jasper Ridley's book The Freemasons seems to be fairly highly reputable as hell. Just trying to find a few sources which might be agreed upon here. John Carter 16:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd article

I first looked at this article a couple weeks ago when Blueboar posted an RfC. I was, frankly, very confused by it. My impression was, "This sure is an odd article." I couldn't figure out why it existed at all. Is the opinion of the Catholic church on every group or religion that is not the Catholic church inherently worthy of an article? Are there articles on "Catholicism and Islam," "Catholicism and Buddhism," "Catholicism and the Mormons"? Should Wikipedia contain an article on each opinion of one group on every other group? To my mind, it seems absurd. It seems like this article should be merged into an article on Catholicism or shortened to a couple paragraphs at most. The only thing I could figure out is that there must be some context that I'm unaware of. If so, seems like that should be included in the article. Is it the book The DaVinci Code or something? TimidGuy 16:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is probably a lot of context of which you are perhaps not aware of. Freemasonry seems to have been almost created to be a voice disagreeing with the presence of the secular power of the Catholic Church, and the Catholics have responded with similar less-than-charitable comments. The recent history of Catholicism and Freemasonry in Italy especially, but elsewhere as well, gives the impression that they're basically at each other's throats as often as not. Particulary in Italy, seemingly, Freemasonry seems to be one of the leading voices against the secular influence of the Church, sometimes to possible extremes. Also, with the exception of other Christian denominations, and not even all of them, the only other groups which I know of which Roman Catholics have considered completely objectionable are witches and Satanists, and I think there is at least content, and probably articles, regarding that antipathy as well. John Carter 16:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

TimidGuy... there is one big difference... Unlike Islam or Buddhism or the Mormons, Freemasonry doesn't consider itself a religion. So, unlike Islam or other faiths, people who join the fraternity don't convert... they retain whatever faith they had prior to joining. A Catholic who joins Freemasonry remains a Catholic. This is something the Church disagrees with.

John, I do have to quibble with your statement that Freemasonry seems to have been created to be anti-clerical. First, that statement ignores the very large segment of Freemasonry that does not discuss either religion or politics, and has never been Anti-clerical. Second, the anti-clerical elements in Continental Freemasonry are a relatively recent development... Freemasonry existed for some two hundred years before the secular power of the Church became a political issue.

If you look at the encyclicals, the Church's original objection had more to do with Freemasonry being "secret"... the jist being that if they meet behind closed doors, they must be up to no good. The whole "Continental Masonry opposing the secular power of the Church" thing was a much later developement arising out of 19th Century European politics and nationalist movements. On that issue, Jasper Ridley has some interesting things to say... in essence, he feels the Church created it's own nemisis ... the theory runs as follows (I am paraphrasing here): The Church condemns Freemasonry, which draws the attention of those who for political reasons have issues with the Church. If the church doesn't like it, opponents of the Church want to join it. As more Anti-clerical opponents join the Fraternity, they shift its focus in more Anti-clerical directions, which then causes the Church to issue more condemnations, which attracts more Anti-clerical opponents... etc. etc. Blueboar 19:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Responses: (1) I never said it was "anti-clerical", but rather that it opposed church intervention in matters of state. (2) Comments about what Freemasons are today have little if anything to do with the foundation of the society several hundred years ago. (3) While I agree with some of the statements to the effect that Freemasonry doesn't consider itself a religion, I would think that if verifiable, reliable third-party sources do make such a statement (I don't know) then the "press release" statement of Freemasonry which might contradict it would take second place to the independent source. Regarding the contention that Freemasonry existed a few hundred years before church power became an issue, I would love to see references to substantiate that, because as a Catholic I know that complaint has been made off and on pretty much since the Crusades, and certainly since the Renaissance. However, I would grant that Freemasonry did seem to for lack of a better phrase arise from the cultural milieu of the Renaissance, and that if we can find sources for phrasing like that such a statement would probably be acceptable to at least some parties, including me. John Carter 20:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

And I am saying: 1) The earliest that any branch of Freemasonry could be said to be "oppose church intervention in matters of state" was during the French Revolution... and even that is a stretch, as the Fraternity closed itself down rather than get involved. 2) I agree. that was the point of my comment too. 3) It isn't a "press release"... it is official policy. 4) How can any complaint about Freemasonry be made since the Crusades or the Renaissance? Freemasonry did not even exist at that time. The earliest refereneces to Freemasonry, even in its proto-fraternal form, date from the early 1600s (there are some debatable possible references from Scotland that date to the 1500s... but these seem to be dealing with operative stone masons and not Freemasons). If you have evidence that dates Freemasonry to the Crusades or even the Renaissance, please tell us... you will revolutionize Masonic historiography. Blueboar 20:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(4) was referring to the separation of Church and state being as old as the Crusades, not to masonry in particular. What I was attempting to say, evidently badly, was that the complaints regarding separation of church and state are that old. And regarding (3) official policies are repeatedly found to have several unofficial caveats which aren't directly mentioned in the official policy. Should reliable third-party sources indicate that the policy is dodged or ignored with any degree of consistency, regardless of official statements from what could be called the party with the greatest COI possible, the group itself, then they would take priority. Ever hear how many times the US government has violated official policy? Similar complaints have been filed, and won, against several other organizations and companies for regularly ignoring or dodging their policies, in things like hiring, retention of employees, etc. etc. etc. It happens rather distressingly often, with several groups, not just, ore even necessarily including, the Freemasons. John Carter 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. Right now the article basically says, The Catholic church hates Free Masons. And a naive reader's response is, "So what? There are probably many things that the Catholic church dislikes." It just doesn't feel NPOV -- as if the whole point of the article is to kick around Free Masons. Yes, it's sourced, but it doesn't sound encyclopedic. It reads like a litany of dislikes and offenses. If what John says is true, then the lead should be different. Something like, "There is a history of discord between the Catholic Church and Free Masons, though current-day Free Masons accept any religion and see no conflict." If the Masons historically had criticisms, those should be presented from the Masons' point of view. Right now it's completely one sided. I don't think a detailed history of the Catholic ban is warranted. Why not condense that to a paragraph, stating the current position and then stating that this position was originally created xxx and reaffirmed by specific Councils and Encyclicals or whatever? (It pains me to be so freely offering an opinion about something I know nothing about. I only offer it in case the view of a neutral and naive party familiar with Wikipedia is helpful.) TimidGuy 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally agree with most of your comments above, actually. Right now the difficulty seems to be that the sources which have to date been available and used have tended to present one side better than the other. However, I think you can understand that however valuable balancing information is, if the sources you've got don't give it you really can't put in the article. On the completion of my own current tasks I'm going to try to find such sources, but can't be sure how many will be available or for that matter even exist until then. John Carter 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim, Freemasonry is quite different from, say, Islam, in that Islam would ask a Catholic to renounce their Catholicism. Freemasonry would not, publicly or privately. So there has always been a "danger" to the Catholic Church of Catholics falling away. This is probably the most troublesome single religious ban for freemasons (it certainly seems to generate a lot of heat).

The Catholic Church has also, rightly or wrongly, put a lot of the blame for its loss of influence in Catholic parts of Europe and America on Freemasonry. I personally think there's some merit in some of those charges

As to why do an article for the Catholic view on anything important, well it has one billion adherants. So if it is involved in a centuries old dispute it will affect at least hundreds of thousands of people almost by definition, and it is going to be notable.

JASpencer 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much -- it's rare in Wikipedia to have people actually listen to the points one is laboring to make. I appreciate your cordial and thoughtful responses. John, thanks. That would be great if the article could be more balanced in this way.

JASpencer, I feel like you're exactly making my point. When I first read this article, I felt like I was reading Catholic doctrine. And Wikipedia just didn't seem to be the right forum for that. I felt like I was reading a Catholic web site (which may be the appropriate venue). Yes, this issue is indeed relevant to hundreds of thousands of people, but Wikipedia is supposed to be relevant to the general reader. This article needs to be cast in a way that it's relevant to a general audience. It seems like the way to accomplish that would be to shorten it, put it in an appropriate context, and present both points of view according to Wikipedia policy on NPOV.

Looking at the history of this article, I see you've done a lot of work on it. Apologies for my pointed comments. I'm just trying to articulate how it appears to the fresh eyes of an experienced reader and writer. TimidGuy 12:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

De-indenting so as to not lose this in the other comments - JohnCarter, you said Freemasonry seems to have been almost created to be a voice disagreeing with the presence of the secular power of the Catholic Church and I wonder what your source for that claim is.--Vidkun 17:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that sources had to be supplied for comments on talk pages. The statement was intended as a simplification of the more complicated history, and by definition all such simplifications are to at least some degree inaccurate. Having said that, the Englightenment out of which Freemasonry often tries to trace its roots very much included opposition to secular power of the RC church. I do however think that requesting sources for comments on talk pages which are not apparently intended for inclusion in the article itself is perhaps being a bit too excessive? :) John Carter 17:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation aren't required for talk pages. But it's an extraordinary claim that FM was created in opposition to the secular voice of the RCC. In fact, it's so extraordinary a claim as to be almost a conspiracy theory - FM designed to destroy the RCC's power. The Enlightenment had a lot of foundational idea, opposition of RCC secular power was neither the only one, nor the greatest one.--Vidkun 17:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is, and actually it isn't a claim I even made. I did say, to quote the statement you quoted above, "seems to have been almost created to be a voice disagreeing with the presence of the secular power of the Catholic Church". Granting a little rhetorical flourish, please note that the statement did not rule out the possibility of other concerns, or even the possibility of those concerns being of greater weight. And I would think that overreacting to a simplification made for the purposes of brevity is probably a much more likely cause for conspiracy theories than the statements themselves. Having said that, I thank you for having indicated just how readily and easily such simplifications can be misinterpreted, and for giving me the opportunity to claify. John Carter 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Folks, let's not start playing the conspiracy card... Assume good faith. John, may I suggest that rehtorical flourishes and simplifications for the purposes of brevity do not help when discussing this aritle. This is a very complicated subject, from both points of view... and trying to oversimplify things will not help clarify this complexity. Such comments come across as being blindly POV. I know that wasn't your intent, but that is how it reads.

Let's focus on what TimidGuy has to say... the article suffers from extreme Undue Weight problems. It is very heavy on the Catholic view point and it needs some sort of balance. Unfortunately, I am not sure if that balance is possible. During the centuries that the Church has been issuing increasingly harsher condemnations of Freemasonry, the fraternity has simply not responded. It is difficult to write a NPOV article when there is a ton of documentation presenting one POV, but so little representing the other. Can anyone suggest a solution to this problem? Blueboar 19:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not one that may appeal to a lot of people. One approach would be to say in the opening that the one side has repeatedly issued statements regarding the other, but that the other has not responded in kind. That might technically meet undue weight restrictions, if such is said before any of the arguments themselves are presented. Also, of course, if various individuals who could be seen to at least potentially speak for Freemasonry made comments regarding Freemasonry's views, they could be included as well. I know that many of these might not meet the standard of "official statements", but if they come from someone who is potentially in a position to speak for the group they could reasonably be included. Alternately, it might be possible to separate out some of the content into a Roman Catholic statements regarding Freemasonry or something similar. If that article were to link back to the main article, and make it clear in the article itself that what is being presented is only one side.

Like I said, they're not necessarily going to be solutions that will please everyone, but I think they might be the best options available. John Carter 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Blueboar, for getting things back on track. It may go beyond UNDUE. Seems like the article needs more context. The background explanations in this discussion have been interesting and meaningful, and are the sort of context that would help -- if it can be sourced.

Here's an idea: I did a search on "Freemasons Catholic Church" in Google News archives. There has been much coverage in the media of the conflict. Media typically try to give both sides of a story. For example, a controversy in Nebraska in the 1990s when some Catholics were threatened with excommunication for being Freemasons. There was some criticism of the Catholic church being heavy handed in proscribing association with a wide range of groups. Most of the articles were pay per view, so one would likely need to go to a library to use an index like Lexis/Nexis to get quick access to the full text of numerous articles. TimidGuy 21:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Might work, although the problem which might arise there would be the possibility of laying too much emphasis on the more recent incidents. Personally, I think it might work best to put a section on the "History of relations" or whatever directly after the intro. This could indicate the causes of tension from the beginning, and include references to the various official, unofficial, and semi-official statements which might be available in basically chronological order, perhaps up to the original ban. Then discussion of the ban and its effects on both sides, ending the article with the most recent incidents. Such a format might be most likely to indicate how both sides responded to incidents, even if all that is stated from the Freemasonry POV is something to the effect that "no official statements were made". Having said that, though, I do think that if any recognized leader of Freemasony made statements relative to particular developments as they were made, those statements could be included in lieu of "official statements" per se. John Carter 21:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, John. These are some good ideas. It just occurred to me that there are other important viewpoints that also might be represented. These could include Catholics who are also Freemasons and don't see a conflict. It's likely that their viewpoint is represented in these articles. Also, as with everything else within the Catholic church, there are probably liberal priests and bishops who are on record as disagreeing with the church's position on Freemasons. That could go in as well. I don't think we'll want to go into a lot of historical detail but, yes, the reader is curious what's going on and what the causes of the tensions are. TimidGuy 22:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems which should be addressed is the apparent fact (I'm not a mason, I don't know directly myself) that one has to take some sort of oath to the effect that one will accept death if one reveals secrets of Masonry. Like I said, I don't know the exact quotes used, although I can probably find sources which indicate it. Making a solemn oath of that type, particularly if it isn't meant completely, is a sin, and demanding someone commit such a sin to join is reason enough for the Church to oppose joining a group you have to "sin" to enter. John Carter 22:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually that isn't a fact. There is something that can be considered an "oath" (we call it an "obligation"), sworn on whatever holy book is appropriate for the member taking it... in which Masons promise to keep the secrets of Freemasonry (which are things like the "secret" hand shakes and passwords) and to support poor, distressed brothers in need and stuff like that. But, as a Mason, I can definitely reassure you that these obligation definitely do not involve swearing to accept death if one violates the obligation. Blueboar 02:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Granted. I do wonder about the phrase which I have heard, even in reference to Propaganda Due and other branches of Freemasonry, where one indicates that one will accept being hanged with stones in one's pockets (or some similar phrasing) if one violates the oath. I do remember specifically how some party whose name I can't remember right now was hanged from a bridge in London with stones in his pockets and that it was reported in several sources that such a hanging was in accord with an oath of the Freemasons. And, in any event, many religious groups would indicate that whatever the Masons call it, the specific phrasing of the oath might be such as to seemingly place undue importance on the oath, which could itself be considered a violation of some commandment or other, probably a variation on the commandment on swearing false oaths, on the basis of ascribing undue importance to this particular oath. And, while not disagreeing with you regarding your own oath/obligation, I have to wonder whether, given the various sources which have indicated the existence of such an oath at some time, whether it might not simply be a peculiarity of your own lodge and/or a comparatively recent development that such phrasing has been removed. Like I said, though, right now I'm still working on tagging the seemingly endless number of articles about rodents, and it'll be awhile before I can find the sources again. John Carter 14:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It's more a case of "I'd rather have such and such done to me than reveal the secrets..." And there is never a command to perform any such penalties on someone else. Suspension or expulsion from the lodge is the highest penalty that lodges can inflict.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

These could include Catholics who are also Freemasons -- not only am I a Catholic and a Freemason, but I'm also a member of the Knights of Columbus. Before joining, I asked if it was acceptable, and the answer was given at the state level that there was no bar to my becoming a Knight.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just for the purposes of clarification, I'm assuming the "Knight" in question is a reference to the Knights of Columbus. Thanks for the clarification. By the way, I finally figured out what your signature is. I can't believe it took me this long, though. And I have noted elsewhere that there seem to have been significant loosening on the restrictions on Catholic involvement in Freemasonry within the US, because the disputes in this country aren't as hot as they are elsewhere. I'm not sure whether such applies elsewhere as well, thinking particularly of Italy here. Whether the same holds historically and elsewhere could potentially be a different matter.John Carter 15:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus emerging that this article isn't in accord with Wikipedia policies. I really hope that JASpencer will share his thoughts.

It seems like we agree, so far, that there are issues of NPOV. Also, those who've offered helpful explanations of the background of the tension between the Church and Freemasonry seem to share the opinion that the article could use more context. On the other hand, this article has an integrity of its own, and John's suggestion that the current article could be moved to a subarticle titled Roman Catholic statements regarding Freemasonry definitely merits consideration. The current article would then be a more general, and not necessarily long, treatment of the historic and ongoing tension between the Church and Freemasonry. Sources could be media coverage of the conflict, commentary by heterogenous voices within the Church (but perhaps avoiding apostate POV, since that's often more personal than meaningful), and also possibly commentary by academicians (historians, sociologists?) who are neither Catholic nor Freemason but who've studied the situation. There must be a body of such commentary. It may also be interesting to include reference to the Da Vinci Code. But I'm getting ahead of things. If we have a consensus for some kind of change, then we could start a new thread to discuss the next steps. TimidGuy 16:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what Dan Brown's agenda-driven distortion of Christianity would have to offer on this already odd subject. I've said it above and I'll say it again: This article is going to be POV by its very topic, which is the Catholic POV on Freemasonry, which is simply that the two aren't compatible. The Catholic Church has no power to prevent a man from becoming a Freemason -- it just says that if one makes that choice, he revokes his status as a Catholic in good standing -- this is its well-documented stance. Masonry has no publications on its stance, other than any man is free to join without having to revoke membership in his religion. We certainly don't want the article to become a gossip sheet. LotR 18:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees with what LotR just said... and if that was all the article said, we would not have any arguments. But in the attempt to write a good article that does the topic justice, we include discussion of why the Church holds this view. This is where things get tricky, and we get into the POV and NOR issues. The Church has reasons that are valid from its viewpoint, but are not valid from the viewpoint of Freemasonry. Blueboar 19:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Lot. Yes, maybe not appropriate to include Dan Brown. But any general reader coming to the article would sure be curious how that fits in. It would be great if it could be acknowledged in some way -- given that it's been such a huge cultural phenomenon -- even if we just find a source saying that it doesn't have any relationship to fact. (I haven't read the book nor have I seen the movie, and don't really have any interest in it.)

Regarding POV, I feel like I've given a number of examples of how this article need not be constrained by Catholic POV vs. Freemason POV. There a range of metasources that could be tapped that represent multiple points of view. I feel like if I spent an hour or two using standard and online reference tools, I could quickly turn up a lot of material. I'm starting to find this to be a fascinating topic, thanks to the background information people have been offering. It could go quite a bit beyond a list of Roman Catholic statements on Freemasonry. And it would, I believe, give a fuller picture and would be more fair to all points of view. TimidGuy 19:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim, you said you wanted some comment from me on an emerging concensus. What sort of concensus do you perceive? I'm not really sure that I see one apart from let's not deal with Dan Brown for the moment. I do accept that OR has developed over time, and the subject is a POV minefield (neither of which are themselves reasons to ignore a subject) but I'm not sure if there's any concensus beyond that. JASpencer 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, TimidGuy, I can understand the reasoning for tying pop-culture into an article (many articles even have sections along these lines), but in this case I just think it could only be counterproductive. Your proposal to find 3rd party views on this topic also sounds reasonable and may help. I don't disagree with Blueboar either, as well as most of the thread here. The Brown novel just raised a red flag. LotR 03:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Lot, for your positive feedback regarding my suggestion on third-party views. I agree, let's drop the idea of Dan Brown. TimidGuy 12:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving things forward

I think we are moving in the right direction... and I would like to thank TimidGuy for his willingness to help us sort out the NPOV and OR issues... I think his comments helped break some of the deadlock. It is my opinion that while this article's topic is indeed valid and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, it essentially needs a complete rethinking and rewrite.... or at least a draft of one that could be integrated and merged with material currently in this article. I am going to attempt such a draft on my user pages. What with the Thanksgiving holiday coming up here in the US next week, this may take me a while... but I will try to have a first draft for people to look at and think about sometime shortly after that. Keep moving things forward in the meantime. Blueboar 18:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Blueboar, for working on a draft. TimidGuy 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I may also try to draft a couple sections in the coming week or two. I feel like I need to give an example of what I'm saying. TimidGuy 15:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name Change?

Do people think that a name change to, say, "Roman Catholic statements regarding Freemasonry" will quieten some of the POV issues? I think that there are a couple of issues - not necesarily problems.

Firstly this page at the moment is not simply about RC statements. There is also the reasons for the Catholic view on Freemasonry, the Masonic response (which is severely underdeveloped), the effect on Catholic fraternal societies and the rather special cases of the Latin lodges.

I'm sure other issues would arise. However if a name change would help cool things down then I'd be interested.

JASpencer 20:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't quite what was proposed. What I thought I was saying was that much of the content regarding the specifically Catholic responses to Freemasonry might be moved to a separate article, and that the article here be reconstructed to basically present the history of the relationship between the two groups, indicating how the disputes between them arose, later developments, and so on. The other article would primarily cover the specific RC documents and responses to Freemasonry, as it seems that there is much more potential content relating to that subject which might create an unbalanced perspective within the single article. John Carter 20:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That makes far more sense. JASpencer 21:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Make it a subarticle associated with this article. Then, as Blueboar said, a rethinking and rewrite of the current article. But I think it could go beyond presenting a history, as I've indicated in my other posts. There is other material and other viewpoints that could be brought to bear. Will be eager to hear what Blueboar thinks about this division. TimidGuy 22:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about a split ... From a Masonic POV, this topic is already over covered. The issue of Catholic opposition to Freemasonry is dicussed at Freemasonry, at Anti-masonry, at Christianity and Freemasonry and since JAS is starting to create articles on various Continental/Liberal lodges, I am sure it is going to be discussed there as well. Do we really need yet another article about the simple fact that the Church says "Catholics May Not Join Freemasonry"? However, I won't say an absolute no to the idea. I'll have to think about it. Blueboar 23:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if the separate article were created, it would probably at least ensure that the content it contains wouldn't be repeated in any of the other articles. It might link to them, but there would be no purpose in repeating content across multiple articles, and creating one centralized place for much of it would probably reduce the content in the others to a simple summary section. John Carter 23:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico... revisited

The section on Mexico is much better... but still has some fundamental problems. For one thing it lumps all of Mexican Freemasonry together... a serious error that blurs the facts, because it takes things out of context. During the time period we are talking about, there were at least four Grand bodies in Mexico (The Grand Orient, the York Grand Lodge, the Scottish Rite Grand Lodge, and the Rectified Scottish Rite Grand Lodge)... and several small schismatic bodies that split off from these. These all took very different political positions. So when we say that a given politician was a Freemason, I think we have to ask which Freemasonry are we talking about? To give you some idea of what I am talking about... this history of Mexiscan Freemasonry is posted on the web page of the York Grand Lodge. Blueboar 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I started to read this, but could not get through more than a third. Perhaps I'm too tired. JASpencer 23:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... it is heavy going... but that goes directly to what I am trying to say... Understanding the twists and turns of Mexican Freemasonry is not an easy task, and yet it is an important factor in understanding the situation and presenting it with a neutral point of view. Our article only tells part of the story. For example... do we know which branch of Mexican Freemasonry wrote that July 12, 1926 communique we quote... did they really have authority to speak for "International Masonry", or were they only speaking on behalf of a small splinter body that did not represent the majority of Mexican Freemasons. In fact, the question has to be asked, are we even sure it came from Freemasonry? I don't doubt that the communique appeared in the paper ... but do we know who actually wrote it? Did any Masonic body ever claim to have authored it? Without knowing these things, we skew the article by mentioning it. Blueboar 03:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's correct to say that we skew the article by mentioning it, as it seems to have had a notable impact, although it might be reasonable to add that it might not be possible to confirm that the statement came from who it said it did, if that is true. Regarding the official positions taken by the various bodies, they should be mentioned, as should the actions of any of the various members of those bodies, if those individuals exact membership can be determined with any reliability. Regarding the statement's "official" status, I once again note that official statements are not the only sources, or even best sources, for wikipedia content. If the content is included in reliable, verifiable third-party sources, those are the best possible sources. As noted before, "official" statements from any body are very often themselves deliberately misrepresentative of the facts for various reasons, either because of confidentiality of information, potential legal liability, attempts to influence public opinion, etc. Overreliance on such generally acknowledged not wholly accurate "official" statements from any organization is probably at least as skewing as anything else. John Carter 16:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying we should delete it (at least not without knowing a lot more about it)... but we should try to attribute it, or in the event that it is unatributable, we should comment on that fact.

My point is that without attribution, the communique is a bit suspect... It could have written by a legitimate Masonic source... it could have been written by an "illegitimate" Masonic source (ie someone who did not have the authority to speak for "international Masonry") ... or it could have been written someone with no connection to Freemasonry at all, someone trying to discredit the Fraternity. We may never know which is the case... but it is worth looking into.

I think I need to go and do more research on this communique... since the quote comes to us second hand (ie we are not directly citing the July 12, 1926 article that appeared in La Tribuna, but are actually quoting F. M. Algoud's "1600 Young Saints, Young Martyrs" which in turn quotes from La Tribuna) I need to find out a bit more... there are always potential problems with quoting second hand. Did Algoud quote the communique accurately? Did we quote Algoud accurately? Is there any context to either quote that would be relevant to our discussion? Until I know a bit more, I have questions. I don't think those questions rise to the level of legitimately basing an objection on them... we do have to assume that Algoud is a reliable source and got things right... but for me to be happy, I need to answer those questions... essentially I need to find out if we are telling the full story. That's all. -- Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Considering the document is almost certainly a translation anyway, it would be nice to know if the translation could be faulty, particularly the phrase "International Masonry". Also, if the press using the statement indicated that they considered the source reliable, or if they made no such statements regarding their perception of the validity of the source, that would reasonably be included as well. Another matter would be in what kind of press the statement appeared. If it appeared only in Catholic press, for instance, I would think that might make it rather more suspect. Sorry, I don't know what "slant" La Tribuna might have had. -- John Carter (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Good points... looks like I'll have to schedule a trip to the NY Public Library and do some background research. -- Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, the quote comes from an article in the Angelus, which in turn is the English language magazine for the Society of St. Pius X, a large - mainly French - Catholic traditionalist group which is in impaired communion with Rome. The article itself is here although you will need a free subscription to get in. The article follows from a lecture given in French, and although the article does not say that it is translated from French there is nothing to indicate otherwise and I think it is safe to assume that it is a French translation. Thus the " 1600 Young Saints, Young Martyrs," is likely to be a translation of a French title. I think the next step to tracking this down will be to find either the book in question (which is probably French) or the French original article which will almost certainly have appeared in a French SSPX publication between 1997 and 2002. JASpencer (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ain't Google wonderful. The title of the book in French is "1600 JEUNES SAINTS, JEUNES TEMOINS : DE LEUR FOI, DE LEUR IDEAL, DE TOUJOURS ET DE MAINTENANT", the link is here. JASpencer (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, the New York public library has this book in its research section : http://catnyp.nypl.org/record=b4008952 JASpencer (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So we are actually getting it third hand? If I understand what you are saying, we actually get this from the Angelus, which got it from a book in french, which in turn gets it from a spanish language newspaper? This does not make me happy. I am leaning more towards challenging it. At minimum, we should include the Angelus in our citation, and note the chain of translation. It affects the reliability of the quote. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I included the Angelus in the citation earlier. I've tidied up the citation, which hopefully makes this clearer and added a note about the translation. JASpencer (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that is better. I'm still not fully happy, but I can leave it be for now. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it because of the lack of context, the fact that it is a dual translation and the fact that we don't know who said it. I'm sure that someone did say something like this but I don't think that the quote is safe. Here's the text:

On July 12, 1926, the following communique appeared in the press: <blockquote>"International Masonry accepts responsibility for everything that is happening in Mexico, and is preparing to mobilize all its forces for the methodic, integral application of the agreed upon program for this country." <ref>La Tribuna, July 12, 1926, quoted by [[François-Marie Algoud]], ''''Mille six-cents jeunes saints, jeunes témoins'', 1994, ISBN 2-85190-082-X, cited as footnote 18 in [http://www.storialibera.it/epoca_contemporanea/ideologia_e_totalitarismi/messico_1926-1929/the_cristeros.html#18 The Cristeros: 20th century Mexico's Catholic uprising], by Olivier Lelibre, [[The Angelus]], January 2002. Note that this is a translation from Spanish to French to English.</ref></blockquote> —Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs) 16:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico, yet again

I have a question as to whether the first part of the first sentence of this section (which reads "The Mexican government's campaign against the Catholic Church after the Mexican Revolution coincided with a succession of presidents who were strongly anticlerical freemasons."). I think it is overly POV and OR ... Upon what basis are we saying that a "government campaign against the Catholic Church" actually existed? I think we need to establish that there was in fact such a "campaign". Is the "fact" of such a campaign simply a "view point" of the Church, or something that non-Church historians agree occured? Assuming that there was in fact such a campaign, I think we should discuss it in context of Mexican History. What caused such a "campaign"? Was it directed at the Church as an institution, or at the Church's influence in temporal society? As it is, the statement just hangs out there with no supporting source or background discussion. Blueboar 15:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The citation is for the Oscar J Salinas article, a Masonic historian who seems quite sympathetic towards the revolutionaries:

After the defeat and exile of the dictator in the 1910 revolution, a succession of Presidents who were Masons and strongly anticlerical ruled the country under the 1917 Constitution that maintained substantially the same liberal principles of 1857. In the late 1920's a new crisis arose with the Church when it publicly repudiated the Constitution. In retaliation, the government attempted to fully enforce the anticlerical measures of the Constitution. A bloody rebellion arose in central Mexico by bands of Catholic sympathizers, known as Cristeros, often led by gun-toting priests, until a negotiated peace was eventually arranged with the Church.

At least the quoted text seems to be a fairly orthodox reading of the revolution (although no mention of the Calles Law). JASpencer 20:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

But Salinas does not talk about a "campaign against the Church" by the Mexican Government. It is that phrasing that I am questioning and saying needs more discussion. What is this "campaign"? Blueboar 21:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So "the government attempted to fully enforce the anticlerical measures of the Constitution" was not a campaign against the Church? JASpencer 21:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily... I think it is a matter of one's POV and interpretation. I can understand that the Church might have felt that enforcing these provisions in Mexico's Constitution demonstrated that there was a "campaign" against it. If so, we can say that, and source it. Liberals no doubt had a very different take on things... they probably saw it as a "campaign" in favor of democracy and freedom or something. We should state that and source it. On the other hand, there are probably people who don't see any "campaign" happening here... Constitutional Scholarship would probably say they were simply enforcing the "Law of the Land". Indeed, I am sure there are many ways to look at the situation. My point is that we only present one of them, and do so without any context. We only present one POV. We also present it in a rather blunt statement, and I think we need such a statement to be supported better... the interpretation that enforcing these laws constituted a "campaign against the Church" needs to be supported ... otherwise it is OR. Blueboar 01:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that there is not so much an issue with the detail, but with the entire section. The implication that the political activities of individuals reflects the position of any masonic body appears to be OR. The present representation of the situation is quite skewed, it makes no explicit recference to a source indicating that a FM organisation held a policy, but rather allows the reader to infer such from the wording.

Slightly disingenuous, although unsurprising, IMHO.

ALR 21:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So what happened in Mexico's history after independence had nothing to do with the Masonic allegiances of its players? JASpencer 19:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is that you haven't managed to demonstrate a causal relationship, if you can do so then that's fine. At the moment the wording resorts to implication.

ALR 19:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The the Masonic membership of influential Mexican politicians may or may not have played a role in Mexico's history (my personal feeling is that it did, but not nearly to the extent you seem to feel it did, there were other factors involved as well.) ... ALR's point is that we can not assert such a connection in a Wikipedia article without citing reliable sources that directly make the connection. To do so constitutes Original Research. Blueboar 23:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've set down an introduction here with the Cardinal O'Connor "Masonic conspiracy" statement, do you think we can build round that? I know it's not the direct causal relationship, but there was a strong feeling (still is) among Catholics that the Masonic affiliations of various revolutionaries inspired their anticlericalism. JASpencer 09:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly an improvement... you have improved things on two fronts: first you tone down the "campaign against the Church" language (it was a bit hyperbolic), and second you have attributed the view point. Instead of bluntly saying that there was a connection between the anti-clerical actions of various Mexican politicians and their membership in the fraternity (a statement which would need a very solid source to keep it from being overly POV and OR), you now state that it is the opinion of prominent church officials that this was true - a very different kettle of fish, and not OR as an individual statement.

The article still suffers from WP:SYNT in general (taking a bunch of previously unrelated items and grouping them together to make a point)... but we can deal with that in a seperate thread. Blueboar 13:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the Original Research?

I think that it would be a good idea to isolate the various instances of WP:OR so the simple ones can be fixed and the others can be marked. JASpencer (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The most obvious and glaring problems lie in the "The Relationship between Catholicism and Freemasonry by Country" section... in each sub-section we have disperate cited facts being put together to form a Synthesis - see WP:SYNT, a part of WP:NOR, which reads:

• Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research. Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly.

I see this as occuring in each of the "by country" sub-sections. What is needed in each sub-section would be a source that ties all of the disperate facts together. Blueboar (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've put an OR tag on the "by country" section. I propose removing the OR tag from the top of the article as it is already in the offending section. JASpencer (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That is OK with me. It has been some time since I looked through the article with a critical eye towards OR ... and there may be some small OR issues with the other sections of the article, but I think they are minor compared to the problems in the "by country" section. Let's fix the most glaring stuff first, and revisit other sections later. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro to the Germany sub-section

The intro to the Germany sub-section comes directly from the lead sentences of the Kulturkampf article. If you feel tht this is OR please raise the issue at that article. What is potentially OR is making a connection between Kulturekampf, Masonry and the Church... and the synthesis involved with linking this to the facts in all the other "by country" sub-sections. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The point about the introduction was that the article is about the relationship between Catholicism and Freemasonry and not about the Kulturkampf. I've put the explanation to the end. The Catholic Encyclopedia and the Pope both claimed that the Kulturkampf was at least partially Masonic in inspiration.JASpencer (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] France

I have removed the following... first worded as:

• "The Grand Orient of France in recent years has demanded meetings with the President of France when it was worried that state policy was too friendly towards the Catholic Church. <ref>[http://www.liberation.fr/actualite/societe/302567.FR.php Sarkozy tient à la séparation de l’Eglise et de l’Etat], CATHERINE COROLLER, 9 January 2008; cited by [[Christopher Hodapp]], [http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2008/01/french-president-to-meet-with-grand.html Freemasons For Dummies]</ref><ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/08/international/worldspecial2/08france.html France Urged to Skip Official Papal Honors], [[New York Times]], April 8, 2005</ref>"

and then changed to:

• The Grand Orient of France in recent years has demanded meetings with the President of France when it was worried that state policy was giving undue respect to the Pope" (with the same citations)

I have multiple problems with this... first, neither statement is supported by the citations. The articles do not state that the GOdF approached Sarkozy about concerns about the state being "too friendly towards the Catholic Church" or "giving undue respect to the Pope". Applying such motivations to the meeting is reading something into the request that isn't stated in the sources... and that is clearly OR. Second, it simply adds another piece to the WP:SYN problems that plague this article. Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No other church or religion was mentioned. The second article was clear from the headline that this was about any "Papal Honors" or honour/respect being shown to the (dead) Pope. The first has the headline about Church and State (or l'Eglise et l'Etat) but in Hodapp's translation it is clear that it is about Sarkozy's visit to Rome. Again symbolic, again involving the Pope. Seperation of Church and State is missing out on the specific causes of these meetings. JASpencer (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

But according to the sources, concern for the Separation of Church and State is exactly what the meeting was about. You are applying motivations that are not stated in the sources. That is OR. Blueboar (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

But it is seperation of the French State and the Catholic Church that these two meetings were concerned with, not some general point about religion. It was also utterly symbolic. These were not questions about schooling or even what sort of uniform one wore, but about flags flying at half mast and State visits. But the main reason why they are interesting is that they are very recent and so show a current attitude that many other historical anticlerical lodges perhaps don't show. JASpencer (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

It is still OR. You are assuming motivations that are not mentioned in the sources. You are applying your own interpretation of what the motivations were. That is the very definition of OR. Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OR doesn't apply to Talk Pages. The fact is that these incidents that clearly related to the subject were removed due to, well why? JASpencer (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree... OR doesn't apply to talk pages. You are free to speculate as to motives all you want here on the talk page. Just don't put it into the article... your contention that these incidents are 'clearly related to the subject" is not backed by the sources you provided. Including them in the article is OR. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not Simply seperation of Church and State

I believe that this edit was ill advised. This is not OR when it's coming from sources such as Hodapp and the NYT, perhaps we could say what each of the meetings was about (although no doubt it would be attacked as undue weight) but I don't think that it's a stretch to say that they both involved (1) the French President at the time, (2) the GOdF, (3) they were both about the attitude of the President towards the Pope and (4) they were about symbolic issues (flags at half mast on John Paul II's death and Sarkozy's state visit to the Vatican. Seperation of church and state makes it sound like crib scenes in front of fire stations, this was about the Catholic Church and the French State.

"Showing undue respect to the Pope" was precisely what they were complaining about. I don't see why these should be deleted.

JASpencer (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is your opinion of what they were complaining about... it is not what is stated in the sources. You are applying motivation that is not backed by a source. That is OR. Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

See my answers above. JASpencer (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OR and Continental Freemasonry

Has the introduction to Catholicism_and_Freemasonry#The_Relationship_between_Catholicism_and_Continental_Freemasonry improved the problems with Original Research? JASpencer (talk) 20:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to move the WP:OR tag to sub-sections within this area. JASpencer (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

While the intro is better... The OR problem still exists... the entire continental Freemasonry section is one bigWP:SYNT violation. The problem is in how the entire section is set up, and less with each individual sub-section. By taking unconnected events in disperate countries and placing them side by side, you create an original synthesis. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYN says "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." I don't think that this applies to the introduction at all. JASpencer (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, each individual piece of the section is essentially fine on its own... the synt issues come from the way they are linked together. We have seperate, distinct events that are being improperly linked together. Thats why I tagged the entire section and not just one or two parts of the section. Tell you what, I will have some free time later this week... Let me see if I can re-work the section into a form that I think will avoid the Synt issues (not sure if I can, but I will try). I'll post my attempt on my talk page and let you know when I have completed it... if you like it we can swap it in, and if not... well, we can always continue to argue about what is currently here. :>) Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)