Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry/Archive06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Just a thought

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Copyright Examination Request

During Copyright examination of content possibly useful for the article, copyright status didn't seem to allow Wikipedia inclusion. Discussion can be read below. Note that this is not a final decision. The case can simply be misinterpreted and the situation may change over time.

If you find proof or know for sure that the material is free of copyright concerns based on Fair Use or other considerations, feel free to add it directly to the article. If you do so please post your analysis below.

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

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

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

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

[edit] Citation Request

A citation request was removed from the following sentence:

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

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

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

[edit] Stabbed skulls

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

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

[edit] Pike versioning

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

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

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

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

[edit] Start Class or B Class

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

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

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

[edit] Pruning Opus Dei paragraph

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

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

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

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

JASpencer 17:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Gaps in History

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

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

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

JASpencer 19:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Discrete Society 2

Can we not simply remove this to the talk page as

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

JASpencer 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Latin Lodge section

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

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

[edit] Current Teaching

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

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

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

[edit] German Bishops' Conference

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] GA Nom Failed

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

Not critical for GA status:

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

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

Also, images would help a bunch.

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

[edit] Taking sources on trust

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

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

[edit] Dr. Dieter Binder

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

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

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

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


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

[edit] To do list

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

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

[edit] Many Catholics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blueboar 13:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Is a Catholic Mason an Oxymoron?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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