This is an archive of past discussions for the period 2008–2015. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
OK, I have provided three different (American) Catholic spokesmen - William Whalen, Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza and Father William Saunders, who have stated that from the church's point of view Continental Freemasonry is seen as more virulently anti-clerical, and some UGLE freemasons - the Belgian Grand Lodge - who have agreed with this. I think that the OR tag can come off. This is not covered by WP:SYNTH any more. JASpencer (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
You are right. --Stijn Calle (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm deleting the OR tag. JASpencer (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Other religions and Freemasonry
The difficulties with Masonry are not exclusively limited to Catholic Christianity, there has also been a significant amount of controversy with Islam and Judaism, to the extent that these topics would need to be further explored as well. ADM (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, we already have a Christianity and Freemasonry article to discuss the objections that other branches of Christianity have. This is a sub-article of that, to deal specifically with the issues that the Catholic Church has with Freemasonry. As for Islam and Judeism... these are discussed (in brief) at the main Freemasonry article. If there is enough material (backed by reliable sources, of course) to create seperate "Islam and Freemasonry" or "Judeism and Freemasonry" articles, feel free to do so. Blueboar (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Canon 2335
There are already articles on canons that pronounce excommunications, such as canon 1398 and canon 915. It might also be appropriate to write a corresponding article on canon 2335, which was long used to excommunicate Masons, who are still de jure forbidden from approaching communion because of similar legislation. ADM (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Be bold... write it. Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
By the way, the current legislation is found under canon 1374. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ADM (talk • contribs) 11:28, 1 April 2009
John Paul II and B'nai Brith
Does John Paul II meeting with members of B'nai Brith count as a gesture of reconciliation towards Masons ? Some people made a big deal about this, but it doesn't seem like it was an actually settling of issues between the Church and the Lodges. He also apparently met with members of the Trialteral Commission. [1]ADM (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
And to give a more direct answer... No, neither meeting has anything to do with Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Masonic views on cremation
Another interesting issue would be to try and explain what are Masonic views on cremation. I have no way of knowing for sure, but some of the more radical Christians have alleged that Masons are big friends of cremation. [2]ADM (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not involved with Masonry. Some Masons will be cremated, some won't, just like in the general public. It's between you, your family, and God.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Freemasonry has no view as to cremation. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I could see how, in the past, it might have been the case that Freemasons opted for cremation. A hundred years or so ago, cremation was seen as being a way people could ridicule the resurrection of the body, and, at various times, a lot of Freemasons have had fairly strong anti-Catholic feelings. But it is one thing to say that any member or members of a group has an opinion, and quite another to say that in some way the group as a whole has such opinions or tries to impose them on its members. Unless reliable sources can be found which clearly indicate that officials of Freemasonry actively encouraged or dictated cremation to their members, all it looks like to me is that maybe, at a time when there was a significant amount of anti-Catholic sentiment in lots of areas, Freemasons shared that sentiment. On that basis, I can't see adding anything specific about Freemasons until such time like the one suggested above is found. And if it is found, any additional material should only indicate that Freemasons objected to it at the time they did, unless further evidence can be found that in some way the suggestion/ruling/whatever still stands or is actively discussed. Blueboar has struck me in particular as being very knowledgable about what reliable sources say about Freemasons, and I tend to think that if he says Freemaonry has no position on cremation, it doesn't. If Masonic Appendant Bodies are found in reliable sources to oppose cremation, I don't think anyone would oppose adding that information, provided it specified only the appendant bodies, not "regular" Freemasonry. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I have to remind both ADM and John that not everything in life (or in this case, death) equates to taking a position for or against the Catholic Church. The fact is, Freemasonry takes no position on cremation. Individual Freemasons may be in favor of cremation or against it, according to their own religious beliefs. Cremation is a religious issue... and Freemasonry is not a religion. To understand why Freemasonry takes no position, consider the fact that Freemasonry is made up of men of many faiths. If the fraternity was to come out against cremation it would offend Hindu Masons (who believe that cremation is manditory), if it came out for cremation, it would offend Catholic (and some Protestant) Masons who belong to faiths that are against it. So... it takes no position at all, remaining silent on the matter and leaving such determinations for the individual to figure out according to doctrines of their own faith. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Reasonable. However, I do think that what you're speaking of is current practice. If (which I think very unlikely, but just thinking theoretically) if reliably sourced evidence could be found indicating that previously, some official of standard Freemasonry indicated that cremation were the "preferred" form of body disposal, then I guess that information could be included. Personally, like I said, I know you to be a reputable editor. If you say it doesn't exist now, I have no doubt that it doesn't. And, in all honesty, if it were me, I wouldn't waste the time of trying to find anything in historical records, because I'm certain that you would have yourself mentioned any evidence indicating a preference for cremation if you knew one to exist. So I very seriously doubt that there is any real connection between the two. While there is the possibility of like-minded individuals acting in similar ways, and that could have happened previously, unless there were some sort of reliable source indicating that there was an official statement from a Freemason encouraging or dictating such behavior, all it would be would be like-minded people acting similarly, and making any statements based on that weak premise would almost certainly be a violation of WP:UNDUE. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I think we're getting confused between UGLE freemasonry and Latin Freemasonry. ADM is clearly interested in the second movement and Blueboar "speaks" for the UGLE style. There is something in the whole cremation and Freemasonry thing, although most of us were probably children (or not born) when the situation changed. A few facts:
The Catholic church forbade cremation until 1963. In fact almost all Christian denominations forbade cremation until the early twentieth century.
The early cremationist movement was specifically anti-Christian
The Italian lodges, at least, were involved in promoting cremation ([3])
In 1892 the Archbishop of Freiburg put three conditions on when it was permissable for Catholics to materially co-operate with cremation, and one of the three conditions was "that cremation be not looked upon as a distinctive mark of a Masonic sect" (Cremation, from the Catholic Encyclopedia)
Even today Catholic traditionalists such as the SSPX put Freemasonry as the motive force behind cremation and proof of the anti-Christian intent of the cremation movement
Is cremation ordered upon all Freemasons? Clearly not. Were many freemasons strongly involved in the cremationist movement, for similar anti-clerical motives that had driven them to freemasonry? Yes. Were the masonic associations an important factor in the RCC's attitudes towards cremation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century? Clearly the were.
I don't know if it needs great coverage, let alone how it would be done, but don't assume that because the American grand lodges have no real beef about cremation, that it wasn't important to a large number of freemasons in a different place and a different time, and that this was immaterial in its relations to the Catholic church.
(outdent) Fascinating, JA. Thanks for the details. Just found the following info at Google books (you cited from earlier in the book above):
The cremationist debate...originated...with the birth of the Italian Unitarian state. The basic pillars of the project...were doctors and liberals, Milanese thinkers and freemasons. At the end of the 1860s the debate established itself in international medical conventions.... After 1874 the task of promoting cremation was handed over from the circles of 'liberal thought' to freemasonry which...committed itself to the greater promotion of cremation in the municipalities.... [Grand Master Giuseppe Mazzoni] urged 'all the lodges and all the masonic bodies to energetically engage in this major issue, as nobody could avoid its extraordinary importance.' In the circular, Mazzoni...stressed that the greatest effort should be made in converting public opinion, and that cremation was 'a new step towards the route of civil progress.'
I'll have to read up on this a bit more.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting... and I agree it is worth reading more. Given this paragraph, I would have to admit that a very specific statement as to a historical stance taken by Italian Freemasonry in the 1870s might be possible. Historical context is important. When we talk about Italy Freemasonry during the Risorgimento, we are not talking about Italian Freemasonry today... and we are definitely not talking about Freemasonry as a whole.
That said, I do think we need to be careful in assinging motives to people, and not to assume that Freemasons did things that might be seen as Anti-clerical because they were Freemasons (even during the Risorgimento). To make a cause and effect statements as to motive, we would need very strong sources that specifically make the connection. We should not "read between the lines" of our sources.... For example, the NYT article on Garabaldi that JAS points to does not say that he was cremated because he was a Freemason... it would be OR to say so. Likewise, the article on the Argentinian cremationists does not say that these men were supporters of cremation because they were Masons... if anything it implies that they were supprters of the practice for other reasons (although even that is reading something into the article that isn't really there).
In other words, if something on this were to be added to the article, great care would have to go into exaclty what is said and how it is phrased, to avoid slipping into a WP:NOR violation. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The Grande Oriente d'Itallia didn't think that Garibaldi's support had nothing to do with Freemasonry. http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/garibaldi_g/garibaldi.html Cremation is an interesting side alley of the whole relationship, but also a useful illustration to us that what we think of as uncontroversial today was not at a different place and time, like Nineteenth Century Italy. There's a more detailed piece here on Garibaldi's cremation. 00:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
GOdF opens its mouth...
...and firmly plants its foot in it. GOdF has issued a statement condeming Benedict's recent comments on condoms and Aids. Sigh... for a US perspective, see Christopher Hodapp's blog (the entry is entitled: "French Freemasons vs. The Pope. Again"). While that reflects Hodapp's personal view on the matter, he has some very good points, and reminds us why Anglo/American Freemasonry stays the hell away of discussions relating to politics and religion.
OK... a note AMD and JAS... before you go rushing off to add this to the article (and, sadly, I would agree that an official statement by the GOdF merits inclusion), please remember that the Grand Master of GOdF does not speak for all of Freemasonry. Nor does he even speak for all of the Continental Style Grand Lodges and Grand Orients. NOR is his stance the same as every Freemason in the GOdF. While he may speak in an official capacity for the Grand Orient, many French Freemasons will and do disagree with him (I would not be at all surprised if this didn't end up as cause for yet another schism in French Freemasonry).
Also, my point about assigning motives made in the previous thread is still apt. While the statement is definitely a criticism of the Pope, and will be seen by the Church as being anti-clerical in tone... do not assume that this statement was issued because of Anti-clerical motivations. If you read the Grand Master's statement it is clear that the motivation behind it is health related, and not inspired by religious issues. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
A lot of people would argue that the Communist Party is anti-religious, but I would also be ready to argue that the GOdF has done much more harm to the Church than anything related to communism. Hence the historic excommunication of both. ADM (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
That is a fairly extreme statement, and I would have to see reliable sources for any such argument to be added to the article... but if (for the sake of disscussion) we assume it is true, the next question is whether the GOdF intended to harm the Church, or whether that harm was simply a by-product of other goals (we do have to be careful not to look at these issues from a purely Church based perspective). Blueboar (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
They simultanously oppose clericalism and promote secular humanism, since many of their agnostic members feel that Christianity is just too dogmatic to be humanist. Their official motto is also Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, proclaimed during the uneasy moments of French Revolution. Some anti-masonic writers have also asserted that this motto is merely a secularized, politicized and non-dogmatic version of Jahbulon (Yahve-Baal-Osiris), a counterfeit version of the Holy Trinity. ADM (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Since that derivation of Jahbulon has been thoroughly debunked, that tells us how seriously to take the assertion of equality. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Public school controversies
In France and Belgium, there was a notable controversy at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century on the role of Masons in the establisment of a public school system. The idea was that since Masons were said to have played an important part in the founding of the Republic, the education system should allow a good deal of space for Masonic public educators. The educators were known as the Black Knights (Hussards noirs) because their particular attire and devotion to secularist values. Conversely, all Catholic involvement in the education system was restricted or forbidden because of its seemingly religious character. This issue was for a long time at the forefront of difficult Church-State relations on the continent, and better access to private education was only granted in the 1980s after a long period of domination by the public sector. There were also similar issues in Mexico after the signing of the 1917 constitution. ADM (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Public vs Church run education was indeed a big issue in traditionally Catholic countries during the periods you talk about, and many (but not all) Masonic Grand bodies in those countries (in both the GOdF wing and the UGLE wing of Freemasonry) came out in favor of public education. Once again, however, we have to be careful about assigning motive. There were a host of reasons to support one side or the other in that debate (and there were Freemasons on both sides of the debate)... some of these reasons were Anti-clerical, but others were not (yes I know the Church may not have seen it that way, especially at the time, but it is still a valid statement). We have to remember to place any discussion of historic events into their historic context. Blueboar (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Alleged Masonic suppression of the Holy See
Another issue on this topic would be to try and discuss allegations that secret societies were responsible for the suppression of the Holy See during the papacy of Pius IX, which Garibaldi likened to a rival secret society. According to Jasper Ridley, at the 1867 Congress of Geneva, Garibaldi referred to "that pestilential institution which is called the Papacy" and proposed giving "the final blow to the monster". ADM (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Quote farming is a form of original research. That said, Jasper Ridley is definitely a reliable source. He (correctly) points out that there were Freemasons on all sides of the political debates surrounding the Unification of Italy (including many who supported the Papacy). And Ridley definitely does not allege that "secret societies were responsible for the suppression of the Holy See." Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Have to agree. And old example of bad Biblical quote farming I know of is "Judas went out and hanged himself." "Go, thou, and do likewise." Kinda gives an entirely different meaning than either one would on its own. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
My favorite example is to quote the US Constitution, which clearly states: "Congress shall pass no law". Sometimes I wish the framers had stopped there. :>) Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
There needs to be more articles (or more stub articles) on the various Grand Orient organizations and their relationships with the Church. Go ahead, be bold and write them!--Vidkun (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Vidkun... don't just complain that articles are missing... be bold and write them ... However, as you do so, don't forget the need to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and Policies ... especially WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
There can be non-fundamental differences between various G.O. or G.L. organizations and the RCC, but their is no fundamental difference in the principal attitude of the RCC towards them: if a catholic becomes a member of them, he or she is automatically excommunicated. Dual membership is never allowed. --Stijn Calle (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually... not quite right. The Church imposes an interdict, not excommunication. Catholic Masons remain in the Church, they just may not recieve communion. It is a subtle, but important distiction. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Not being allowed to go to communion = being in a state of deadly sin => If you die in this state, ceteris paribus, you go to hell. --Stijn Calle (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
In Belgium, male, female and mixed masonry organizations DID substantially cooperate and were instrumental in changing the law on abortion. This is admitted in historical writings of masonic origin (in Dutch or in French). I have no doubt in other countries, the same thing happened. --Stijn Calle (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Don't assume... If you write an article on this, provide sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be a good idea to create these. Try to make sure that you have a source for each one. If you need any help just leave a message on my page. JASpencer (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
On abortion: Les Amis Philanthropes (n° 1) Bruxelles (GOB) Les Amis Philanthropes: Histoire d’une loge de 1876 à 1998 1e Les Amis Philanthropes Bruxelles (BE) 1999
On cremation, abortion, euthanasia, divorce etc: Poma Karel baron Actie Vrijmetselaren ... Roularta Books Zellik (BE) 1995 9054661852
CONCERNING WP:SYNT. Please read and check my two references. In the first they soundly admit their involvement (in french), in the second, they boast about a whole range of topics they influenced (dutch). It is NO original research, but it are referenced statement of facts of the original parties involved. --Stijn Calle (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You need to go back and read WP:SYNT... statements can be cited to reliable sources and still consitute an improper form of Original Research. What you are missing is the relevance to the article. What is the tie to the topic of "Catholicism and Freemasonry"? The GOB might well have actively influenced the government of Belgium, but unless the books specifically say that for anit-Catholic reasons (or for some other reason that is tied directly to the Church) then it is SYNT to mention it. This article is not entitled: "List of political issues on which the Church and various Masonic Bodies were on opposing sides". Blueboar (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Problems in the Philippines
I recently read an unusual article on a modern-day conflict between the Church and the Masons in Philippines. Of course, the source on hand could be considered extremist, but this is only because it is a rather secret affair and because it is a very ancient and deep conflict. Anyways, there ought to be an article describing the Grand Lodge of the Philippines and its relationships with Church and State. [4]ADM (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Why? What's special about the Grand Lodge of the Phillippines and its relationship to the Church?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The majority of Catholic countries have Grand Orient Latin lodges in them, while on the contrary the Philippines is perhaps the only Catholic country apart from Ireland in which an Anglo-American Grand Lodge is present. ADM (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
You mean Catholic countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, and France (and others in Europe)? Or perhaps you mean Catholic countries such as are found in Central America andSouth America? Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I think he means that the Grand Orients are dominant and that the UGLE aligned masons are comparitively small. I'm not sure if that's true in every case, but it's broadly true. JASpencer (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with you that this used to be the case... but I am not sure if it is even broadly true anymore. Over the last 20 years, UGLE style freemasonry has been growing dramatically in Central and South America, while it is declining in Europe (but then, in Europe, GOdF style has been shrinking as well). I would need to see the latest membership numbers to know who is "on top". Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Masonic views on science
This section is in line with the previous message on Masonic views on cremation. It does seem fairly accurate to say that many Masons have promoted the idea that religion and science are totally incompatible and utterly irreconcilable. See for example the article conflict thesis, where Catholicism is singled out as incompatible with science, while Islam, Judaism and Protestantism are not. When you read the conflict thesis, the debate on Religion vs. Science almost plays out in the same way as Catholicism vs. Freemasonry, just like in a Dan Brown novel. ADM (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Who knows, there are stories out there on Galileo being a friend of the pre-modern Rosicrucians (aka Newton et al). ADM (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Um... ADM, Galileo died a year before Newton was born... it is unlikely that they were friends, dispite the stories you may have read.
As for Masonry's views on science... I think it is safe to say that Masons are solidly in favor of Science. So is the Church (with one or two notable specific exceptions).
I am reminded of a comment made by a noted Vatican astronomer (this was back in the 60s or 70s when the Big Bang theory was relatively new)... he said something along the lines of: "There is no conflict between Science and Religion... Science tells us how the universe was created, Religion tells us why it was created." Blueboar (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
"Catholicism" or "The Catholic Church"?
Something that has always bothered me is the discord between the title of this article and it's contents... the title talks about "Catholicism", while the article mostly talks about the "Catholic Church" ... and most of that refers specifically to the Papacy and the Vatican hierarchy. I realize that these two concepts are intertwined (especially from the point of view of the hierarchy and the Pope)... but they are not quite synonimous.
Should we perhaps change the name of the article? Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
That strikes me as a good idea, as in the past 300 years there have been a number of independent Catholic movements. It should probably be "The Vatican and Freemasonry" to be even more clear.Father.rassbach (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I oppose a name change. The first proposal is a distinction without a differnce. By Catholic doctrine the Church is more than the hierarchy, or even the clerics - it is all the faithful. The name change although technically acceptable, would seem to support this mistaken impression. As far as changing it to "The Vatican and Freemasonry", that name would be inaccurate and too narrow. The article has lots of subjects which are not about the Vatican, i.e. the American Bishops, the German Bishops, the Anslow affair, Catholic fraternal groups, and relations in Latin countries.Mamalujo (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
oppose per Mamalujo's excellent reasoning.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Mamalujo: The church is more than the hierarchy, but Catholicism is more than the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps the addition of 'Roman' to Catholicism or Roman Catholic Church would be appropriate. There are several Catholic organizations (the Liberal Catholic Church being one) that do not have any doctrines relating to Freemasonry.Father.rassbach (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
That seems entirely unnecessary. While there are other denominations which consider themselves Catholic (with a capital C and others with a small c - Anglican, etc.), there is no risk of confusion here. When one speaks of Catholicism or the Catholic Church, people know exactly what is being spoken of. Although names Catholic Church and Roman Catholic Church are equally acceptable, on Wikipedia the urge to append the name with the appellation "Roman" is typically not about clarity but about POV. I'm not saying that is the case with you, as I assume good faith, but I do feel it is unnecessary and potentially POV.Mamalujo (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
What prompted me to raise this is NO Masonic Grand Body (even outspoken ones such as GOdF) has ever been against "Catholicism" ... but several Grand Bodies have, through the years, taken political stances that have been on the opposing side of the issue from that taken by the Vatican. The name of the article will impact whether such situations should be discussed in this article... whether they are relevant to the article's topic or not. The recent condemnation by GOdF of Benedict's comments about condoms and aids is a prime example. The Grand Master was criticizing the Pope ... not Catholicism. So would it really be appropriate to mention it? (I know I said above that it probably is... but I am having second thoughts).Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a hard one, and I know that some people might be inclined to not give my comment much weight, but here it is anyway.
I guess I support keeping the current name, although I'm not really thrilled with it. WP:NAME seems to indicate that a short, unambiguous title is preferred. I acknowledge that Catholicism as per that article isn't the RCC, and that could be misleading to some. That can be dealt with by being more specific in the first sentence, though, which is easily allowed. The disadvantage of using Roman Catholicism or anything similar is that it fails to take into account some of the Independent Catholic and Old Catholic movements which hold the same beliefs, and are, presumably, "opposed" for the same reasons in some cases. I can't point toward any specific examples of the Freemasons ever getting into direct disagreement with any of those groups, although I suppose some of you Masons might one way or another. Even if there haven't been any real disagreements there to date, there probably still is a disagreement, if not an obvious one, between those groups, if the old or traditional Catholics hold the same beliefs.
If someone can indicate to me that either many of the old or independent Catholics have differing beliefs, or whether Freemasonry as such (whatever that means) has never explicitly made statements opposing a belief of old or independent Catholics, then I would be more than willing to change my opinion. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Well this gets us into one of my pet peeves with this article... whether we are talking about purely the Roman Catholics, or are including the independants (or even using the broadest interpretation, which would also include the Anglicans)... Masonic Grand Lodges rarely if ever oppose a belief. Some have, however, opposed a political stance taken by the Church based upon a belief. I suppose what I am getting at is this: about half of this article discusses situations where a Masonic body has been in political opposition to the Church... but this is not the same thing as being opposed to Catholicism (however you want to define that term). If we retain the current title, then we should limit what we talk about to situations where Catholicism and Freemasonry have been in direct opposition to each other (which is a some what one sided conflict). If we want to continue to discuss the political opposition, I think we need to re-think the title, to focus on the Catholic Church as a political entity. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Belgium
I'm surprised that Belgium does not have a sub-section of it's own as the Lodge v Church battles were particularly bruising there (perhaps because they were less one sided?). The GOB is probably one of the Grand Orients with more 'form' in the lodge vs altar fights. However the stuff about abortion while interesting, really should be very well cited before coming in, and although I think Blueboar can sometimes be too stringent and far too literal on synthesis, I think he was right there.
However this is an important area which should be covered particularly considering that the GOB is probably one of the more dominant of the Latin Lodges in its territory while at the same time being one of the most suspicious of the church.
Again, this article isn't entitled "List of every time a Masonic Grand body took a stance that was on the opposing side of a political issue from the Church"... WP:OR says you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article. I removed the material in question because neither the source nor what the source was talking about were directly related to the topic of Catholicism and Freemasonry. If there are sources that directly discuss the relationship between GOB and the Church - whether from the GOB perspective, the Church perspective, or (preferred) from a neutral perspective, then we can certainly cite it and include what it says.
What we can not do is insert our own thinking into the article. While you might feel that the Masons' stance on cremation, abortion, etc. relates to this topic, we can not discuss it unless a reliable source makes a direct connection. Blueboar (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying that you didn't. In fact I agreed on your reasoning on that particular call. I'm just trying to put in something about Belgium. JASpencer (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
And, as I said, that is fine... provided it can be cited to a reliable source that directly connects it to the topic of the article. Your recent addition about the Free University of Brussels, for example, seems to meet that requirement. Blueboar (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Get Us Out of Here!
There is a book by Dr. Nicky Eltz that has quite a long section on the view of freemasonry by the Catholics. The book, entitled Get Us Out of Here!, is a series of interviews conducted between Dr. Eltz and a Roman Catholic woman, Maria Simma. She provides examples, quotes, and important details regarding freemasonry, and there are many references in the index of the book to prove these quotes and examples. There is too much for me to put into this article, but if someone would kindly read the book and list these examples, there will be a better explanation as to why the Roman Catholic church forbids freemasonry. -Mia( I can be contacted at linkinparkgurrl51 on fanfiction.net. I do not wish to disclose personal information here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.153.34 (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
And a Roman Catholic woman is an "authority" on a male-only fraternity in what way that any other particular detractor isn't? MSJapan (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, according to the website, Maria Simma is an Austrian mystic, not a Roman Catholic. It's also very much WP:SPS. MSJapan (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the fact that someone is a woman makes her unreliable for presenting the Catholic POV ... a woman could be a an expert on Church history, theology, etc. after all ... but I do agree that this particular woman is not a reliable source. Besides, there are a lot of better, solidly reliable sources that we can use to explain the Catholic POV. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Maria Simma's revelations are in contradiction with the church magisterium. She is not to be referenced as a source for the catholic view regarding freemasonry!--Stijn Calle (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
(wow... when Stijn, MSJ and I all agree, that says a lot!) Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Church and State
There seems to be quite a lot of wishful thinking here.
There are two quotes brought in to show that the Vatican agrees with Freemasonry, which even before considering what the sedevacantists would consider this to "prove", is obviously personal interpretation. Neither of the quotes says anything about the relationship with Freemasonry, and this is important. The Church would not, for example, call for the end of church schools while many Grand Orients still do.
You also have the rupture or continuity issue with Vatican II. Vatican II did not set up a new church with a new body of doctrine, although many conservatives (and the current Pope) complain that some people act as if it did. So talking about a "shift" in doctrine is controversial.
There was a debate about the traditionalist concept of religious toleration against the more liberal concept of religious liberty which the traditionalists said could open up a seperation of church and state, and I'm sure that there's probably a mention of the goals of freemasonry in some of the traditionalist critique. However this is not related in the article.
I'm minded to delete all the paragraphs dealing with the post Vatican II period unless this is tied in with Freemasorny.
The sedevacanists are a distinct minority, so please don't use them to reflect the entire Church, or the Vatican. You are correct that the shift in how the vatican looks at the relationship between church and state did not occur out of the blue after Vatican II... it evolved over the entire 20th century. And today it is remarkably similar to the stance that Freemasonry takes.
As for deleting material dealing with post Vatican II "unless this is tied in with Freemasonry"... fine... but in which case don't complain if I delete anything from pre-Vatican II unless it is specifically tied to Freemasonry (which would include the rest of the section and about 80% of the "By country" history stuff). Blueboar (talk) 11:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I don't think the two views of separation of chuch and state are that close at all. The French system of laicite was largely the creation of French masons. Now that system has been criticised by both Benedict XVI and President Sarkozy as being hostile to faith. If you look at the separation of church and state article under the section on friendly and hostile separation I think this is where the divide lies and always lied. The church criticised freemasonry for wanting a purely secular public sphere, for banishing God and religion from the public square. There is a big difference between a total or strict separation of church and state and what the Church or writers like Maritain or Murray see as the right relationship. Mamalujo (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
How to integrate the information into a more nuanced exposition? Mamalujo, as does the article, points the finger at Freemasons for the French system and there are indeed Church documents that deal with this along with passages from "Gaudium et Spes": see Church Backs a Balanced Secularity, Says John Paul II which was issued for the 100th anniversary of the law that introduced the separation of the Church and state in France. Pope Benedict XVI also mentioned France recently in Pope: Church-State Separation a Sign of Progress and in Pope Urges Rethinking Church-State Relationship. Blueboar's edit doesn't say that doctrine has changed though to avoid contention "development of doctrine" might be a better way of putting it so he can draw from a rich source of Catholic scholarly refs to back it up. An on-line article by Avery Cardinal Dulles in Religious Freedom: Innovation and Development covers this. Since I'm not familiar with Masonic writing I can't contribute a ref for Blueboar's assertion that Catholic and Masonic teaching has moved closer together in this area. In an article which to an outsider seems to portray both groups in a very negative way, the world viewed from the trenches, it might be a constructive addition.
This leads me to the article in general. "Confrontations Between [Roman?]Catholics and Freemasons" seems to be a more accurate title for the article rather what the present one suggests. Can neither "side" see anything good in the other? This seems to be against the spirit of what the Catholic Church teaches in the way of dialogue and recognition of whatever is good in other bodies. There are a number of things that trouble me in the article but for the moment will restrict myself to footnotes 84, 95 which has user contributions to the linked article that effectively demonize Freemasons, it makes Catholicism look a museum filled with paranoid people who hate imo. Taam (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm a Catholic Freemason, so obviously the "sides" can be reconciled. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Don't you think the viewpoints of those who self-identify as Catholic Mason's should also be represented in the article? Taam (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Short answer is that it's not possible. The long answer is that there's a definite orthodoxy argument that I could see coming up in theory, assuming a source could be found, and that is: "If to be a practicing Roman Catholic, one must follow all the Canon Law, becoming a Mason results in excommunication, and therefore one is no longer Roman Catholic and cannot identify as such regardless of what they might think, because the Roman Catholic Church no longer considers them to be Roman Catholic." It's a fair argument, by the way - I can see how anyone in any religion might get offended by another person claiming to identify as that religion and then taking a position opposed to its teachings, and I'm not talking only Roman Catholics or only Christians here; see Jews for Jesus as an example. So I think it's too easy to undermine, in the same way that many anti-Masons write books claiming to be ex-members of high rank, and yet turn around and claim that they had no understanding of what it was that eventually (and I means years after the fact) seemed incompatible to them. They also tend to exaggerate their accomplishments in the Fraternity. MSJapan (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You do realize how offensive your "short answer" is, right? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a point of clarification. Excommunication, at least in Catholicism, does not mean one is "kicked out" of the Church and is no longer a Catholic. Subjects of the Church are always such. Although an excommunicant is to no longer receive the sacraments, one remains a member of the Church and, for example, is still obliged to follow the precepts of the Church, such as to attend Mass on Sunday and Holy Days of obligation. The intention is always to encourage repentance and reentry into full communion so that the excommunicant may legitimately have access to the sacraments and the grace which God imparts through them. Mamalujo (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. MSJapan (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe there was a true consensus for the change of name - not long before the supposed consensus the same suggestion was made and rejected. Nor does the change of name make sense. It is not only a Papal ban but a ban by the Church itself, moreover changing the name also narrows the subject in a very POV sort of way. The previous article was about Catholicism and Freemasonry - this new subject is drastically narrowed. Essentially the article and its sourced material was deleted without going through the proper procedures. Mamalujo (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Um... no... it is a Papal ban. The issue has never been discussed by a Church Counsel, so it is a top down edict from the Pope. As for moving/redirecting the page... this was proposed by a neutral third party who had absolutely no connection to either side in the dispute. Due notice of the move/redirect was given on the talk page, several weeks passed between the proposal and taking action. The only comments made during that waiting period were in favor of the proposal. Thus, there was a consensus to move/redirect the material. Blueboar (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
That explanation could come straight out of the Orange Order. The "Papal" ban in the title is implying that it is not a Catholic ban really and that Catholics who join the Freemasons are not in mortal sin and are not excommunicating themselves and are only deviating from some personal opinion of the Pope. It should be "Catholic ban on Freemasonry". JASpencer (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Well... this takes us back to an argument that occured almost two years ago... but the penalty for a Catholic joining the Masons is interdict, not excommunication. There is a subtle distinction. And quite frankly, there is debate as to whether joining the Freemasons actually is a mortal sin... certainly the Pope says so (or at least he did before he became Pope, when he was heading up the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I doubt he has changed his mind). But other in the Church have disagreed with that stance. There is far from unanimity on this issue. Now, the Pope being who he is, what he says carries a huge amount of weight... however, he has not spoken Ex Cathedra on the issue. It is not Catholic dogma nor Cannon Law. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Older version
I've kept a record of the better sourced version here. JASpencer (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I propose we return the name and the deleted sourced material. Then, if editors wish to do so, we do a rewrite as was proposed, rather than deleting vast portions of sourced material which some editors simply do not like. Mamalujo (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Strongly object to returning to the old article... The redirect was proposed by a neutral third party who was acting as a mediator... it was discussed fully on the old talk page and reflected consensus. Blueboar (talk) 00:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
So that there is a record of the discussions in question, I have moved/redirected the old talk page as the first Archive page for this talk page. You can access it by clicking on the link in the banner box at the top of this page. Blueboar (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there was really a consensus for the move/name change and the largescale deletion of sourced material is not justified. The name change had been recently proposed and rejected. Mamalujo (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Look at the archived discussion... there was indeed a consensus. Furthermore, I waited two entire weeks after it was proposed before I carried out the move/redirect. There was not one single opposing comment in those two weeks. To complain about it after the fact is quite simply crying over spilt milk. Suggest you try improving this article, instead of complaining that it isn't the old article. Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest you'd read WP:NPA. Your taunting shows that you need a bit of a refresher. For the record the name is very biased, whatever the fortnightly concensus. JASpencer (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
If you believe I have made personal attacks, or done anything else wrong... please feel free to report me at WP:ANI. As for the name being biased, I disagree ... but will listen to suggestions. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Your title, Papal ban of Freemasonry implies that it is merely a Papal dictate which Catholics can ignore and still receive communion, etc, which after all most Freemasons seem to believe. It is in fact a Prohibition on Catholics becoming Freemasons which has been enforced at a number of levels of the church, and not just in the papacy. JASpencer (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Enforcement of a ban does not change the origin of the ban. If the Pope issued an Encyclical saying that, as of today, it was OK for Catholics to join Freemasonry, then there would no longer be a ban to enforce. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Masonic stance towards the Church
I am removing the paragraph on the Masons allowing Catholics, simply because with the new focus (the history and current status of the Papal ban of Freemasonry) it is irrelevant. Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Inquisition
How is the 1736 investigation of a lodge by the Inquisition connected to the topic of Papal bans of Freemasonry? If we are going to mention this investigation, we need to a) establish that there is a direct connection to the topic of the article and b) cite a source that establishes that connection (not one that mearly says the investigation happened). Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Firstly this demonstrates how poor the title is. The whole Catholic church prohibits its members from becoming Freemasons on pain of excommunication, it is not simply a "Papal ban". However, the Florentine case was what started the whole prohibition. So the information is even valid as part of the ahistorical "Papal ban". That's why this sourced and relevant information is being reinstated. So the suppJASpencer (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
If the investigation led directly to the issuance of Eminenti Apostolatus Specula (which from the source you give, seems to the case)... then I have no problem mentioning it. My point was that we needed to clearly make the connection in the text of the article and support it with a source.
I am going to be quite strict in applying WP:NOR with this article. To discuss something in this article it must be directly related to the topic of the article, and that direct relationship must be clearly supported by a source that states the connection. No more synthetic statemets. No more OR. Blueboar (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The last comments are instructive and I'd like to point you to this policy WP:OWNJASpencer (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Insisting that an article adhear to Wikipedia policy is not OWNership. I am being strict because previous itterations of this article were filled with OR (especially synthesis) and POV. Anyone is free to add information to this article... provided they do so in a way that adhears to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sorry if you do not like that. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Just read WP:OWN and can the sarcasm. Trying to inflame other contributors is not very good behaviour. JASpencer (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I have read WP:OWN many times and know it well. Insisting that an article adhears to Wikipedia policy is not OWNership. Blueboar (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
List of Cardinals alleged to be Freemasons
I was thinking it might be a good idea if we had an article entitled list of Cardinals alleged to be Freemasons. This might sound a tad strange, but there is in fact a vast history of Cardinals who have been accused of having ties to Masonic associations, it dates back to the early 1800s. For instance, one of the notable affairs occured during the P2 scandal[5], where over 50 Cardinals were then alleged to have been members of the Propaganda Due society. Apart from this, there have been notable allegations against Mariano Rampolla[6] and Angelo Roncalli[7], in 1903 and 1958 respectively. Even Cardinal Giovanni Maria Mastai-Ferretti[8] was alleged to have ties to the lodges. The most recent allegation appears to have launched against Cardinal Christoph Schönborn in 2009, due to the perception that he participated in Masonic rituals with his father [kreuz.net/article.9768.html]. A related issue is that several Cardinals were also alleged to have made a few Masonic handshakes. [9][10]ADM (talk) 04:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I think not... for one thing it sounds as if some of this would violate WP:BLP. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the links, none of that material is from anywhere considered reliable, and let's put it this way (which would really wipe out any "secret society" claims whatsoever): if people who are not Masons see an alleged "Masonic handshake" and know what it is, it's not very secret, is it? Conversely, if Masonry is a big bad really secret society, how would a non-Mason know what a "Masonic handshake" is without having been a Mason and thereby showing himself as a hypocrite for "outing" other Masons and keeping his own membership a secret? Interesting quandary, is it not? MSJapan (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that quandary makes sense ... that's like saying do you have to be a Nazi to criticize Nazis, do you have to be a Communist to criticize Communists, do you have to be Black to criticize Black people, etc. ADM (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that MSJ is saying that for Wikipedia to discuss these allegations, we would need a lot more than rumor and hearsay reports that someone was seen giving a "secret" handshake that isn't all that secret to begin with (you can find it fully discribed in under five minutes on the internet). For all we know, giving Masonic handshakes is an inside joke among the Cardinals... their way of making fun of the Masons. In short, we don't have enough to base an article on, as we don't have any reliable sources... and, in the case of any living Cardinals repeating these allegations without reliable sources would violate BLP.
Personally, I would love to see a few Masons in the College of Cardinals. I am not holding my breath. Blueboar (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
German Bishops Conference report, characterization of
In my experience, when a Bishops Conference issues a report, its findings are rarely described as "allegations" as we do in our article. "Allegation" is more proper to a judicial proceeding, like a trial. Bishops reports may contain "statements", "findings", "conclusions", "points", "recommendations", "decisions", etc., but you rarely find these described, as we have, as "allegations". I recommend that we change "allegations" and "allege" to the customary and more neutral terms I've listed. --Kenatipospeak! 16:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the Freemasons definitely disagree with the factual accuracy of a lot of what the Bishop's Conference report says. From their POV, the report was full of unsubstantiated allegation. That said, I can understand your concern that using that word biases the article towards the Masonic viewpoint. However, "findings" is also a legal term, more appropriate to a judicial proceeding (as in "a finding of fact"). And using it would bias the article towards the Church's viewpoint.
I suppose we need to find a word that lies between allegation (with its POV implication of untruth) and finding (with its POV implication of truth). We need a word that implies opinion. Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
indicated? MSJapan (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
"An allegation (also called adduction) is a claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims to be able to prove." Seems accurate to me. PeRshGo (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The situation was not a "pleading", so, on that basis, it is not accurate. Like I said, this was not a legal proceeding. --Kenatipospeak! 02:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
If the article said "The bishops conference report stated that Freemasonry was incompatible with Catholic doctrine", who would not understand that the bishops were expressing an opinion? --Kenatipospeak! 02:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
It’s very difficult to describe interpretations of canon law without the usage of legal terms because despite the religious nature of the bishops’ position, in essence it’s a legal decision. PeRshGo (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
A bishop wouldn't need to interpret canon law to compare what the Church believes with what Freemasonry believes. A bishop knows what the Church believes (but it might take him six or seven years, like it took the German bishops, to figure out what Freemasonry believes - a "subjective relativism" probably makes for movable landmarks). --Kenatipospeak! 01:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Canon law is what the church believes. PeRshGo (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
At this point, I'll just note that there is nothing in the Creeds about Freemasonry. Which is why I feel that it is important to make a distinction between "The Church" and "The Vatican".
That said... Kenatipo, I think you are starting with a flawed assumption... that Freemasonry has "beliefs"... it doesn't. It presents its members with broad philosophical and moral concepts - charity, brotherly love and affection, rectitude of conduct, equality of man, fortitude, prudence, temperance and justice, etc - and it encourages its members to think about these concepts and apply them as they think best. But it does not tell them how to do this, or to believe in these things. Freemasonry has no dogma, no Creed, no beliefs. It does not say "do this"... it says "think about this". Religions tell people what to believe, and Freemasonry isn't a religion. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not very encouraging to find that Freemasonry doesn't believe in charity, brotherly love and affection, rectitude of conduct, equality of man, fortitude, prudence, temperance and justice, etc. And, insisting on making a distinction between the Church and the Vatican may indicate that one's understanding of what the Church is, and how it works, is incomplete. --Kenatipospeak! 00:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
"I suppose we need to find a word that lies between allegation (with its POV implication of untruth) and finding (with its POV implication of truth)." Blueboar, you reverted me when I changed "allegation" to something I thought more neutral. You have acknowledged that "allegation" has a POV implication of untruth. I made several suggestions, but am not interested in edit-warring with you. As I see it, the ball is in your court. --Kenatipospeak! 18:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Confusion?
OK... I am confused... The section entitled "Seper's Clarification" states:
"In February 1981, under Cardinal Seper, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a letter to the United States Bishops, entitled Clarification concerning status of Catholics becoming Freemasons which said the private letter of 1974, on becoming public, had "given rise to erroneous and tendentious interpretations."
This conflicts with the linked article, which states that the Clarification was issued by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict). Is it possible that we are conflating two separate "clarifications" (one from Seper and one from Ratzinger)? Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you're remembering a previous version of the "Clarification" article which mistakenly said Ratzinger issued it. I noticed the error and fixed it a few days ago. Just a few minutes ago I moved the sentence about Ratzinger's 1983 follow-up to the end of the article. --Kenatipospeak! 15:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
That's not right, either: I just looked at an earlier version and it doesn't say Ratzinger issued the "Clarification", but there was that error on some other article. --Kenatipospeak! 15:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
OK... so let me see if I get the time line correct...
1974 - Seper sends the "private letter" (saying it might be OK for Catholics to join Freemasonry, if they don't plot against the Church)
1981 - Seper issues his "Clarification" (saying essentially "I was wrong... its still not OK for Catholics to join Freemasonry).
1983 - Razinger issues the Declaration on Masonic Associations expanding on the "clarification" and reinforcing that the ban is still in place.
Is this essentially correct? Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it is essentially correct. But, I find it illogical that an outfit with no creed, beliefs or dogma would characterize the German Bishops report as "negative". I mean, if you don't believe in anything, then aren't all opinions equal? There are no positive or negative opinions in that view of reality. The other footnote is that the German Bishops spent 6 years investigating German Freemasonry, including meetings with Masters of the German lodges, so they get credit for due diligence. --Kenatipospeak! 00:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Freemasons don’t adhere to any specific set of political beliefs either, but if a political organization released a statement saying that Freemasons deny the holocaust I’m fairly certain they’d consider that negative. PeRshGo (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I just want to address the misunderstandings that I detect behind Kenatipo's "I find it illogical that an outfit with no creed, beliefs or dogma would characterize the German Bishops report as "negative". I mean, if you don't believe in anything, then aren't all opinions equal?"
The fact that Freemasonry does not have a creed, beliefs, or dogma does not mean its members "don't believe in anything". Freemasonry leaves the matter of beliefs, creeds and dogmas up to the individual member. As individuals, Freemasons do have beliefs. A Christian who joins Freemasonry remains a Christian, and will continue to hold his Christian beliefs; A Jew who joins Freemasonry remains a Jew, and will continue to hold his Jewish beliefs; A Muslim who joins Freemasonry remains a Muslim, and will continue to hold his Muslim beliefs; etc. Joining Freemasonry does not change your religious beliefs in any way. In other words, it isn't that Freemasons "don't believe in anything"... its that Freemasonry does not tell its members what they should believe.
That said, Freemasonry does encourage its members to be tolerant of other people's beliefs (even though they may personally think those other beliefs are erroneous), and it does have a firm rule that (in the lodge) the topic of religion should not be discussed (this is to avoid getting into arguments or debates over religious issues, which might disrupt the harmony and good fellowship between members). Hope this clarifies your misunderstanding. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's see if I get your drift: An Atheist who joins Freemasonry remains an Atheist, and will continue to hold his Atheistic beliefs; a Satanist who joins Freemasonry remains a Satanist, and will continue to hold his Satanic beliefs; a Ku-Kluxer who joins Freemasonry remains a Klansman, and will continue to hold his Klannish beliefs; neat! (I think you've gone a long way toward proving that the German Bishops so-called "allegations" 1, 2, 3, 6 and 10 are true). --Kenatipospeak! 18:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
As far as the point I was trying to make goes, you do get my drift. Joining masonry will not change anyone's beliefs. Whether the lodge would elect an Atheist, a Satanist, or a Klansman to the lodge in the first place is another matter.
However, all that said, you are missing the larger point. Freemasonry does not teach that all religious beliefs are equal ... it does not teach anything about religious belief - except that (within a masonic context) we should respect the fact that other people may not share our belief... that because people can disagree over religious belief Masons should not discuss the topic in lodge. A Catholic Freemason is free to fervently believe that Catholicism is 100% correct, and the only true faith, etc... and he is free to believe that all other denominations and faiths are in error. No one will tell him otherwise. He is simply asked to that opinion to himself, so as to not cause a fight with someone who believes otherwise. The same goes for a Protestant, a Muslim, a Hindu ... and yes, even a Satanist. Blueboar (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
German bishops again...
This section needs some work - half the sources in the article are in this section, and come from various statements quoted from a secondary source by a third party on an EWTN television program. This is a tertiary source, and very suspect as such. Basically, Gantley is referring to Jenkins' article, who referred to the report. I would much rather see the report itself cited here, or at least Jenkins' article, rather than comments from a television show. MSJapan (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I have Jenkins' article, and I will go through and update accordingly in a few days after I've had a chance to compare. MSJapan (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I think I'm going to end up reorganizing things, based heavily on Jenkins. He does a very good job of outlining the entire history of the bans, and I like the itemized approach. Things are definitely not as cut-and-dried as they would appear, even according to Jenkins, who really takes a fair approach. It turns out that some of the "confusion" was due to dialogue that changed opinions in certain respects, which is not apparent in the article at present, and would indicate bias. If Jenkins is RS, then the rest of his info should be too, and the hardline approach shown in the article is incorrect.
I also like the idea of following the historical progression, since the way we have it now is good for In eminenti, but then sort of lumps the next 200 years of material into one paragraph. The following is a "check chart" of what we should have in here:
In eminenti, 1738, Clement XII
Providas, 1751, Benedict XIV
Ecclesiam Christi, 1821, Pius VII
Quo graviora, 1826, Leo XII
Mirari vos, 1832, Gregory XVI
Apostolicae Sedis, 1869, Pius IX (and other items not enumerated)
Humanum genus, 1884, Leo XII
1917 Canon Law, specifically 2335 and 2336
1970 Lichtenau Declaration (Seper, et al. in the article)
German Bishops' Conference document, 1980 (as a note, Jenkins translates and sources the twelve points, which is exactly what we want here)
Canon Law 1980 1326
Declaratio de quibusdam associationibus vel coadunationibus quae omnibus clericis prohibentur, March 8, 1982
Seper's 1981 letter
Canon Law 1983 1364 and 1374
1983 Congregation on Doctrine of the Faith letter
Pastoral Research and Practices Committee Report, "Masonry and Naturalistic Religion", 1985
Lastly, I would note that Jenkins indicates that canonists are not united in their opinions (with examples), which is also not enumerated in this article. In short, this article is presented as hard and fast rules, when it is in fact, like most legal processes, unclear at times. MSJapan (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me... is Jenkins article available on line? I would love to read it. Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I am Gantley. Quoting me is misleading as it appears that I am the source of the words, but the words are from the German bishops as translated by Jenkins. The Jenkins article is published in The Jurist, the canonical journal of the School of Canon Law of The Catholic University of America. It is copyrighted so I don't have authority to post it on line. Citing my comments while answering questions on the EWTN web site is not a professional citation. Citing the actual source is. MSJapan states that this section needs improvement, which is what I am trying to provide. The comment also above "Jenkins translates and sources the twelve points, which is exactly what we want here." That is what I am attempting to provide. (Codexiuriscanonici)
I'm going to assume you are Gantley just for pronoun's sake. Here's the problem (several, actually). The "original version" attributed the quotations to statements made on the website by you, not necessarily works you wrote, which is perfectly fine (the citation indicates Jenkins in the first place, but the editor did not get it from Jenkins). The end result is that, while convoluted, the citation is correct.
There have been two subsequent edits of different character:
The first change (made by LamellaX) attributed the words directly to Jenkins' article as the source, but it left your name in there and cited the entire 20 pages of the article. That was incorrect, as it clearly misattributes the source to you, and is an incorrect citation for the article.
The latest edit appears to get it right (I'll need to find the source document, which I do have), but I would point out that this edit is materially different from LamellaX's changes. MSJapan (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Italian Bishops conference
While we are working to improve the section on the German Bishops conference, I would encourage some research and inclusion of the Italian Bishops conference, which happened around the same time and came to a very different conclusion. Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Was this before or after the CDF reaffirmed the ban? If it was before I'd suggest that it was an historical oddity unless someone shows that the CDF statement was made in some way as a reaction to the conference's decisions (probable). The German bishop's conference's conclusions were interesting not because they said that Freemasonry was bad, but because it foreshadowed the CDF and it has been quoted quite a few times in explaining the modern day ban. The Italians clearly have not and so there could be a danger of original research here (as there are few secondary sources on this). JASpencer (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I certainly don't want original research... which is why I was asking people to do some actual acceptable research and look into it. Blueboar (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Freemasons cannot receive Holy Communion
A correction to the opening paragraph is required. The last sentence states, "However, there is no prohibition on Freemasons taking Holy Communion in the Canon Law of the church". Referring to the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law, "Can. 915 - Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion."
Also, referring to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, November 26, 1983 (Joseph Card. Ratzinger):
“Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.”
This portion of the Code of Canon Law, coupled with the statement of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, clearly indicate individuals who are members of the Freemasons most certainly cannot receive Holy Communion.
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Reference:
[2]
148.177.1.213 (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Douglas Hoffman
5/8/2015
Actually, there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the article vis a vis the sources. Ratzinger's clarification does indeed say what it says about the state of a member. However, the need for the letter is explained in its first paragraph, where it clearly indicates that Freemasonry isn't expressly addressed in the "new" Code of Canon Law. So, yes, the letter may indicate that a member is in a state of grave sin, but Canon Law does not, which is what the article says as well. MSJapan (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This discussion betrays an incomplete understanding of both Catholic theology and the Church's approach to Masonry. The title of the article is misleading because this article not only discusses the opposition of the Papacy to Masonry, but the approach of several other organs and officials within the church hierarchy as well. Although the Papal condemnation of Masonry is a significant part of this article, the article also discusses the issue from other angles-- the approach of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith being one. Calling it simply the "Papal Ban of Freemasonry" is too restrictive, because the scope of this article covers the relationship between the Catholic Magisterium and Masonry from several angles. Additionally, because the position of the Magisterium on fundamental issues of faith as solemnly proclaimed is, in fact, the position of the Church itself (according to principles of Catholic theology), it is not really honest to limit the Magisterium's approach (as described in this article) to a simple "Papal Ban." Not even every document that has been released by the Popes on Masonry has been a "ban," strictly speaking. Also, the solemn pronouncement of a Pope on a matter of faith is itself one of the Magisterium's most authoritative forms of teaching. This article covers a number of pronouncements, documents, theological points, and historical situations aside from merely the ban that was proclaimed on Masonry. I am going to request, therefore, that the title of this article be changed to "The Catholic Church and Freemasonry." Indefatigable2 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Then how about you get consensus before moving it? MSJapan (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2016
To be honest, I haven't edited Wikipedia for quite some time, and wasn't precisely sure how the "move page" tab worked, or if it automatically finalized the page move. But the edit is made now, at any rate. Go through the discussion and add more points if you think what I have said is incorrect, and perhaps revert the title it in the near future if in your honest estimation the change is wrong. But it seems, to me, that my edit should have been relatively uncontroversial. In the meantime I will continue to add more information to the article, cited as best as I am able--as I believe my previous edits were. Indefatigable2 (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I have to object to the new title because of the "and"... Please read WP:Article titles... And read carefully the section about titles containing the word "and".
That title is too wordy in my opinion. Perhaps simply Position of the Catholic Church on Freemasonry. Because this article discusses not only the position of the Magisterium, but the position of individual Cardinals and bishops as well. Indefatigable2 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Note - Discussion moved to new thread. Carry on. MSJapan (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I liked your edit, Jujutsuan, especially bringing in the Catholic Church topic box, but this is my suggestion for the title. Indefatigable2 (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I felt "Freemasonry in the Catholic Church" was also not entirely accurate for this article. Indefatigable2 (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
No hard feelings. Since we're playing Musical BOLD Titles and all... Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 23:27, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, should have left that line in the discussion at the top where it belonged. MSJapan (talk) 01:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I can live with the current suggestion (Position of the Catholic Church on Freemasonry). Blueboar (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
German Bishops Conference
This has 12 citations to the same document because it's effectively reproducing the bulk of the source in the refs. That's excessive detail, and we can't do that. I'm changing it to one, and if somebody wants to read the source to get the specifics, they can; that's what the citation's function is. FYI, those references and direct quotes made up over 6400 bytes of information, which is far too much for four sentences of text. MSJapan (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@MSJapan:you removed the content instead of consolidating the references. The 1980 conclusions by the German bishops are cited in later church documents, e.g. the 1985 by United States bishops. You removed the reasons why the Catholic Church concluded there is an incompatibility. I disagree with you that there is too much detail in the paragraph that you removed:
Among the allegations were that Freemasonry denies revelation[19] and objective truth.[20] They also alleged that religious indifference is fundamental to Freemasonry,[21] that Freemasonry is Deist,[22] and that it denies the possibility of divine revelation,[23] so threatening the respect due to the Church's teaching office.[24] The sacramental character of Masonic rituals was seen as signifying an individual transformation,[25] offering an alternative path to perfection[26] and having a total claim on the life of a member[27] It concludes by stating that all lodges are forbidden to Catholics,[28] including Catholic-friendly lodges[29] and that German Protestant churches were also suspicious of Freemasonry.[30]
The paragraph identified the 12 conclusions by the German bishops in a reasonable manner with a link to a more descriptive English language translation, reproduced from a 1996 article in a canon law journal, of each conclusion:
Masonic world view: "Masons promote a freedom from dogmatic adherence to any one set of revealed truths. Such a subjective relativism is in direct conflict with the revealed truths of Christianity."
"Masonic Notion of Truth": "Masons deny the possibility of an objective truth, placing every truth instead in a relative context."
"Masonic Notion of Religion": "Masonic teaching holds a relative notion of religions as all concurrently seeking the truth of the Absolute."
"Masonic Notion of God": is deistic "which excludes any personal knowledge of the deity."
"The Masonic Notion of God and Revelation. The deistic notion of God precludes the possibility of God's self-revelation to humankind."
"Masonic Toleration": is relativism about ideas that "teaches them to be tolerant of ideas divergent or contrary to their own. Such a principle not only threatens the Catholic position of objective truth, but it also threatens the respect due to the Church's teaching office."
Masonic rituals: rituals associated with the three blue lodge degrees "have a clear sacramental character about them, indicating that an actual transformation of some sort is undergone by those who participate in them."
"Perfection of Humankind": "Masonic rituals have as an end the perfection of mankind. But Masonry provides all that is necessary to achieve this perfection. Thus, the justification of a person through the work of Christ is not an essential or even necessary aspect of the struggle for perfection."
"Spirituality of the Masons": "The Masonic Order makes a total claim on the life of the member. True adherence to the Christian faith is thereby jeopardized by the primary loyalty due the Masonic Order."
"Diverse Divisions within the Masons": lodges have "varying degrees of adherence to Christian teaching. Atheistic lodges are clearly incompatible with Catholicism. But even those lodges comprised of Christian members seek merely to adapt Christianity to the overall Masonic world-view."
"Masons and the Catholic Church": "Catholic-friendly lodges [...] are not compatible with Catholic teaching, and [are forbidden]."
"Masons and the Protestant Church": "While a 1973 meeting of Protestant Churches determined that individual Protestants could decide whether to be members of both the Christian Church and the Freemasons, it included in its decision the caveat that those Christians must always take care not to lessen the necessity of grace in the justification of the person."
I think the paragraph should have been reformatted into a list (like the reproduced translation) with more MOS:LINKs, well sourced commentary and text from previous documents to show the 300 years of continuous Catholic Church doctrine which rejects Masonic philosophy and praxis. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
And I think that's your point - you want to simply show that which you don't agree with, and that's all you want to do. Therefore, you're going to put as much detail as possible in to show why you're "right." I can find several areas where the assertions made by the Conference are in fact incorrect, but you're not going to be interested in that. All you want to show is one point of view that you believe is correct. So that's a problem. Secondly, we are an encyclopedia. We are a summary, not a word-for-word transcription of material elsewhere, nor a synthesis of a whole lot of sources. If somebody wants the information, they can go to the source and get it. This is the problem when an editor can't adhere to NPOV. MSJapan (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 21 June 2016
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: restore status quo (i.e. no consensus), which will mean a move back to Papal ban of Freemasonry. This is an absolute mess and clearly discussions are still ongoing about what the actual scope of this article should be. Once that is figured out this can be brought back to RM as needed. In the meantime, we'll restore the status quo (in line with standard practice) in order to give it some stability. Jenks24 (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I did not "heavily edit the article," I added some sentences in the introduction, added some images, and added some citations, and although I made many edits most of these are simple alterations in semantics or reversions of my own edits. I have added nothing but well cited, authoritative statements of the church. It's disingenuous to say "I heavily edited the article," and to be fair, I was reverted once, by one user, whose objections to my edits were not entirely accurate. If you read though my explanation and, in your honest estimation, find that my title change was wrong, feel free to change it back. Indefatigable2 (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Jujutsuan: Yes, but I hope this stops soon. This request is getting outdated. — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 23:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
@Andy M. Wang: I personally think it should be closed and an RM or RfC or something opened on the talk page of the article in question. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 23:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Three moves in 3.5 hours is a problem. The fact of the matter is that Indefatigable2 made over 30 edits to the page in short span of time, was asked to discuss, reverted the edits instead, made another huge series of edits, and now the page has been moved several times. Prior to the other day, this was a stable article. MSJapan (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a request to revert an undiscussed move. (permalink). — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 02:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - This a clear violation of WP:NPOV. We simply do not write articles presenting only one side of the argument. We are also not going to keep moving this page all around Wikipedia because someone didn't think it through the first time. MSJapan (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
::::Comment Nomination has been modified since this vote was cast. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
Then the current title is no better, when you put it that way. Leaving what the Church's position is unnamed in the title is just a more clickbaity version of the same NPOV problem. Any ideas? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 01:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
That's one bit of WP jargon I haven't come across yet. Is there a shortlink where I can read about that? Or could you explain it briefly? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 01:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
In short, the page we want to go to has an edit history we have to keep because of licensing. See WP:HISTORYMERGE. MSJapan (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Wait, this wasn't a cut-and-paste merge, though. Wouldn't we be better off reverting to some former version and moving the article (normally) to that old title until we figure out a new one? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
We can't overwrite that article history, and now that I'm looking at the edit history, there's something wrong with it, so I think somebody did cut and paste move somewhere. I'm going to need to go to the tech desk. MSJapan (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but that's only part of it - it looks like the content ended up in several different places, and some stuff got "lost" along the way. AFAICT, something needs to be fixed regardless of this move discussion, so I've left a message at the Help Desk to try to get it looked at. Long story short, I think the article history there has to be merged into several articles, and I don't have the understanding of article history flow to go anywhere near it. MSJapan (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
If we want to go the concise but POV route... Perhaps Anti-Masonry and the Catholic Church. Under that title, it could be a companion piece to our existing Anticlericalism and Freemasonry. (ok... I'm only half serious about this suggestion... But at least one Non-neutral title would balance the other). Blueboar (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I saw this right after amending the nomination. What do you think of it? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem with your second attempt is that "relations" makes it seem as if there is some sort of conversation, when there isn't. The "relations" can be summed up as follows: The Church has a problem with Freemasonry, while Freemasonry has no problem with the Church. The Church says its members can not be Freemasons, while Freemasonry says its members can be Catholics. That's it in a nut shell. The rest is simply POV Blueboar (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
There's no policy violation in documenting each side's POV. The only violation would be to endorse one or the other. And are you really suggesting there's no history of dialogue, or even of statements and declarations thrown back and forth (whether positive or negative), to document in this article? When have the Masons said they have no problem with the Catholic Church? Put that in. When has the Church spoken out against the Masons or banned or re-banned its faithful from joining, or clarified its position? Put that in. Etc. etc. Boom, relations. Bad relations, but relations nonetheless. And certainly not "simply POV" as you suggest. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 03:47, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
To potential uninvolved closers: this looks like a no-consensus call. If the article is moved back to the "Papal ban" title, be wary of updating talk page archiving and subpages, but also know the title from a very long time ago, "Catholicism and Freemasonry". In my own observation (might not be perfectly objective), Indefatigable2 has essentially done a drive-by edit/move last week and has now again become some sort of sleeper account. I mean no disrespect to this user, however. Pinging involved @MSJapan, Blueboar, and Jujutsuan: for awareness. — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 23:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Before we can determine which title to have for this article, we need to reach a consensus as to what this article is supposed to be about. In it's most stable form (under the title Papal ban of Freemasonry) the article was focused narrowly... answering the question: "What has the Vatican said about Freemasonry?" through the years. Now, it seems that some editors wish to shift to a broader focus... answering the question: "Why does the Church ban Freemasonry?". That shift of focus actually changes the underlying topic of the article. So... I support returning the title to Papal ban of Freemasonry - at least temporarily... while we discuss what the topic of the article should be. Once we have reached consensus on that question, then we can discuss whether we need to change the title. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Single-section article?
I understand that everything this article currently includes rightly belongs under "History", but shouldn't this be expanded to include other stuff as well? Criticisms, theological reasons (if any exist), etc.? I'll throw an expand tag on the page. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 05:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this. I have researched and wrote a section giving an overview on the Church's views, but reverted it because I thought it was far too much to add without a discussion. If anyone would like to look it over, they can find it here [11]Indefatigable2 (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's some of the issue, and why it should have been discussed first. I'll point out that historically, this was a very contentious article; AFAIK, all the material that you claims shows "a poor understanding of Catholicism" was added by an avowed Catholic editor. So there's always the possibility that your interpretation may vary. Secondly, by making the article specifically about the "Catholic position" instead of the Papal bans, you've made it a) POV, and b) very hard to expand. It's POV because it has to now specifically focus on official statements of the Church, and if it doesn't (criticism, etc.) it can't be added because it's very clearly not the position of the Church, is it? If John Smith criticizes "the Church's position", the article's not about "the Church's position" anymore; it's now about the position and the criticism, which isn't reflected in the title. This sort of thing is what happens when you come in and go gangbusters on an article and don't discuss anything with anyone until after you've done what you wanted. So now that this is a "one-paragraph article?, and 83 edits have been made to the page in two days, along with 3 or 4 pagemoves, now we have to figure out what to do. There's a sandbox and a talk page for a reason.
I'm going to be blunt, because I've got a decade of experience here with which to back up the statement: when I see one editor who has been on WP for two months and can't pass an AFC, along with another editor who hasn't edited in two years come in and make wholesale changes to a relatively stable article, I start to have WP:COMPETENCE concerns, because I don't think either of you really have a handle on what you're doing or how to do it. Frankly? Title moves aside, we need to go all the way back to before either of you edited anything, and deal with it from there, on the talk page, piece by piece, and then figure out what to call it afterwards. There's no time limit on any of this, and you should have stopped when User:Fiddlersmouth asked you to stop, because that's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. MSJapan (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Whoa, there big boy. Let's avoid venturing anywhere close to wp:HIGHMAINT, shall we? Aside from onewp:BOLD page move that didn't even stick for an hour, I've made a couple of copy edits here, pointed out the one-note nature of the article, and that's about it. And former WP retiree Indefatigable2 was gracious enough to self-revert a large portion of his recent edits (not sure if he got all of them, but he reverted in good faith) to avoid a firestorm. Now, why don't we try to fix the mess this article is in rather than pointing fingers? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 06:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
(Seriously, though. Do you always do "opposition research" when replying to a comment about expanding an article?) Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 06:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
MSJapan, thank you for the criticism, (and thank you as well Jujutsuan ) but I don't understand why you are complaining about the article having a POV when all that changing the title to "Position of the Catholic Church on Freemasonry" does is give the article a wider latitude than if it were simply about the "Papal ban." To begin with, this was an article inherently on a point a view, no matter which of those two titles it adopted. (Aside from anyone's personal POV). If you think anything I added was inaccurate, feel free to peruse the sources I added, but me spreading a personal bias and me spreading the declared POV of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church (which, when solemnly proclaimed, is conventionally referred to as the position of the Church itself) are two different things. The article already had to focus on "official statements of the church" before the name change, but the difference is that now the article's title is more accurate and can be expanded to cover more than simply the "Papal bans." And the hierarchy has supported the position of the Popes on Masonry in other ways, and all of those pronouncements can be criticized just as easily now as when the article narrowly and inaccurately was entitled "Papal ban." As I mentioned before, not all of the pronouncements of the Papacy on Masonry have been bans, and not all of the statements of the Magisterium and hierarchy on Masonry have been from the Pope. And, in that previous discussion, I was not referring to one user in particular, but if one is alleging that the teaching authority of the Church, when it makes solemn pronouncements on matters of faith and theology, lacks the ability to define what the Church believes (the Church that they themselves head), then I would say we indeed are misunderstanding Catholic theology.Indefatigable2 (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
On a related subject, the "stability" of an article does not always mean it does not have quality problems. It also means that nobody has bothered to improve it yet. In this case it has been rated as a "start" article for quite some time. It also has some some sourcing problems.:
The section "Reiteration of ban on membership by subsequent popes" covers papal proclamations and documents from 1751 to 1884, but the only source provided is the text of a document dating to 1884 and taken from a Vatican-affiliated website. That seems to be a primary source and per Wikipedia:No original research: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
Please note: "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain," i.e. Catholic Encyclopedia, The section is from Catholic Encyclopedia. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
Also the rest of the text of the Paragraph "Reiteration of ban on membership by subsequent popes" has nothing to do with "papal bans". It has to do with including Masonry-related books in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. Which is only mentioned in a note instead of the main body of the text. In any case, the controversial Index was last updated in 1948 and abolished in 1966. Secondary sources are needed, and probably mention that the Catholic Church no longer explicitly bans books.
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
The index was replaced by other norms. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
The paragraph "Uncertainty following the Second Vatican Council" should probably be marked for Weasel words: "This advice led some Catholics to believe (mistakenly, according to subsequent clarifications) that the prohibition was no longer in force" Which Catholics and when were clarifications published? This does not seem to be covered by the cited source.
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
I agree, out with the weasle. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
The paragraph "German Bishops' Conference", unsurprisingly, has nothing to do with papal bans on membership. It has to do with Anti-Masonry allegations published by the German Bishops' Conference. Secondary sources are needed, and it is probable that the Conference has no authority outside Germany. Also one sentence is sourced but may be off-topic: "German Protestant churches were also suspicious of Freemasonry".
The section "Šeper's clarification" is sourced to a website rather than a previously published source. It is the website of the EWTN Global Catholic Network, which may or may not be a reliable source. I have not seen it used as a main source on many articles, but I may be overlooking something.
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
EWTN is reliable and contains citations within the text to source documents. The page contains two items verbatim:
1981 Declaration concerning status of Catholics becoming Freemasons.[12]
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
The section "Revised Code of Canon Law" has two outstanding problems. It quotes a section of Canon law from 1983, but no source is provided for the quotation. Second, the quotation does not even explicitly state anything about Masonry. It is a generic statement on "A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty". Frankly, this would include just about any Anti-Catholic organisation. If it is implied this is about Masonry, who is making the interpretation?
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
Yes, the code is specifically about "an association which plots against the Church" – there is centuries of interpretation about what is a secret society. There are general norms about how the code functions but that is beyond the scope of this article. I added two commentaries about the abrogated 1917 CIC into Declaration concerning status of Catholics becoming Freemasons, if you are wondering about how to search for additional sources. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
The section "Declaration on Masonic Associations" quotes a primary source, but provides no secondary sources at all.
The section "Continued ban after the declaration" contains three paragraphs. The first paragraph concerns a 1985 statement by the "U.S. Catholic Conference Bishops' Committee on Pastoral Research and Practices", but provides no source at all for its contents. The second paragraph concerns contradictory statements on the issue by "Reverend Thomas Anslow", but is sourced only on primary sources. The third paragraph concerns the Church's call for disciplinary measures on Catholic priests who are secretly Freemasons, based on two secondary sources. The problem is that one of the sources is the biased and potentially unreliable Zenit News Agency and the other is the Catholic World News magazine, a conservative publication with apparent connections to The Heritage Foundation. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources: "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. ... Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
@JASpencer: can you point to something you have found that is not a fact?
The 1985 report is Whalen's report – it is cited previously in the article and a link is included
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
This article needs better sources, some historical context, and a more secular perspective. Dimadick (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not getting involved with this section as my blood pressure is fine, but.... However I've put in three sections from the old Catholicism and Freemasonry article:
The current position of the Catholic Church - this is oddly missing. There may be some updating on this as this was I think last updated six years ago. Really there needs to be something there saying what the position is - Catholics becoming Freemasons are automatically excommunicated and the church says it does this for x, y and z theological reasons
The position of Freemasonry - Clearly Necessary although this is quite sparse at the moment. There's little hint that there is a range of responses from the "I don't know why you're picking on us" (perhaps I paraphrase unfairly) from the UGLE aligned lodges to the reasonably active anticlericalism of the GOdF aligned lodges - which is very important.
Catholic Fraternal Societies - A very interesting side effect of this all - and with us today particularly in the US with Knights of Columbus. I don't think that this is too controversial.
Relationship with Continental Freemasonry. This is the bit that's not in. Although this subject is absolutely integral to understanding the whole thing (and a lot of UGLE freemasons think that this is almost the only part of the story - something I constantly hear at work or socially) the stuff that came over from the historic Catholicism and Freemasonry article was so disputed that I took it out again.
By the way the title change is a real improvement. Well done.
Thank you for the clear, well written intro section, JASpencer. Better than I would have done. Indefatigable2 17:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
POV Caution
One concern I have with expanding the scope of the article is that we could easily (unintentionally) transform this article into a POV rant (effectively turning it into 101 reasons why Catholics should not join Freemasonry). I am not saying that any of us are intentionally trying to skew the POV of the article... just cautioning that we could end up doing so if we are not very, very careful. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I felt that if each authority was well cited, and the section made the source of each viewpoint clear, there should be no problem with an overview section. I think it would give context for the rest of the article, and since the relationship between the Catholic Church and Masonry has many distinct aspects, the home for such information would be this article (rather than any other article). I wrote a small intro section, and researched and wrote a section on the doctrinal relationship between Masonry and the Catholic Church in the 18th century. I will put the suggestions up here, and if no one has any objections, I will edit the article to include the new info. Indefatigable2 16:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Here are some of the proposed edits:
The objections of Catholic authorities to Freemasonry center on the fraternity's oaths, alleged non-Christian portrayal of God, "sacramental" rituals, alleged affirmation of relativism, and the nature of the bond that members of lodges promise to one another.[2][3] The anti-Catholic, anti-religious, and secularist activities of some lodges, particularly in the Grand Orient of France and Grand Orient of Italy are also an oft-cited objection, but over the past half century a number of authorities within the Catholic Church have said that the principles of British and American Masonry are also unacceptable.[4] The position expressed by the German Bishops' Conference in its 1980 study on Masonry and assented to by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1985 is that "In-depth research on the ritual and on the Masonic mentality makes it clear that it is impossible to belong to the Catholic Church and to Freemasonry at the same time." [5][6]
John Carroll, first Archbishop of Baltimore and first Archbishop in the United States, who discussed recent Papal pronouncements about Freemasonry in a latter to a Catholic layman in 1794 A number of apparently committed Catholics enrolled in Masonry in Europe and the United States during the eighteenth century, notwithstanding the proclamations of Clement XIII and Benedict XIV. [8] Prior to the later Papal pronouncements of the nineteenth century, the scope of the Papal prohibition on Masonry was not entirely clear across the Catholic world, partially due to the manner in which Papal decrees were promulgated at that time, the limitations of communication in the eighteenth century, and uncertainty over the nature of the views propounded by the Pope.[9][10] However, the announcements of Pope Leo XII in 1825, Pope Pius VIII in 1829, and Pope Gregory XVI in 1832 seem to have been more widely accepted as authoritative and universal, even though the positions propounded in the original constitution were already valid, theologically speaking, for the entire Church. In America, Ireland, and Austria, a number of Catholics (some of them noteworthy, such as Mozart) had become Masons during this time, a phenomenon noted by John Carroll, first Archbishop in the United States, who remarked in a letter to a layman in 1794 that notwithstanding the confusion surrounding the recent Papal pronouncements, those pronouncements constituted a "very serious warning to all good Christians not to expose themselves to [the] dangers" surrounding Masonry.[11][12]Indefatigable2 16:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Referring again to user:Blueboar's opening paragraph, again this is solely the point of view of the Catholic church, with no reference to the struggle of the Italian and French Freemasons to survive in the face of state/church opposition. An organisation that started life in fear of the inquisition might well be indisposed to church involvement in politics. Depicting this as anti-clerical is dubious. No mention of execution or torture? We're now POV.
Changing the title of an article without consensus isn't bold, it's just rude. The WP cycle is edit, revert, discuss. If you are reverted, don't hit "undo", discuss. However reverting a title isn't a simple "undo". It is normal and polite to discuss page moves and achieve consensus before changing the title. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Procedural close. WP:IAR. Please make comments in the first RM that opened on 21 June. Also, please read MOS:CAPS. (non-admin closure) — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 22:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone consider this proposal an improvement? Indefatigable2 17:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - This is getting very disruptive at this point. Seriously, this needs to stop. MSJapan (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Friend, I only offered this because several people expressed an opinion the the current title could be improved, and the old vote seemed to have stagnated. Indefatigable2 17:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Indefatigable... Please review WP:RM... Formal move requests often take many days (even weeks) to resolve. It is an intentionally slow and deliberate process. It would help if you gave people time to fully discuss one proposal before you make another. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Status update...
The history merge is complete, so at least that is squared away. There have been many comments on the content, and I'd rather deal with that than waste time on move discussions, so I think we're going to set that aside for now.
That being said, the end result of this article is not going to be a one-sided statement of why Catholics shouldn't be Freemasons, sourced entirely to Vatican documents. That's POV, and it gives the impression that all these things were done in a vacuum. However, whatever one considers the Roman Catholic Church to be now, it was at one time a political machine as well. As it stands, the historical portion following through the various papal pronouncements is good as a starting point. However, there's context involved, so we can't simply jump from one statement to the next. The Pope (whichever one it was at the time) didn't just wake up one day and say, "Gee, I think I'll condemn Freemasonry today." There should be a reason for all of it, and we need to address that, and at the very least, we can go to secondary sources about the various papal bulls.
So here's a non-exhaustive list of topics we need to address:
Cerneau's Scottish Rite in particular (which I know there are books on for sure)
We can add more as we go along, and we can rewrite the lede when we know what the content is. MSJapan (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
This list looks like a very good starting point. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 06:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree... But there is a huge potential POV problem with discussing "why". We can all agree that something occurred (the Pope issuing an encyclical, for example)... but why it occurred often depends on POV. We can discuss viewpoints as to why something occurred, but it is important to present those viewpoints as opinion, and not as fact. Blueboar (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course. That's how all WP articles are (supposed to be) written. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 12:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
RfC on article scope
What should the scope of this article be, with particular attention to the recent discussions on this talk page?Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 06:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has concluded that the article has already been expanded to include historical and current views that the Catholic church holds towards Freemasonry, and the scope should remain so. The current title no longer represents the article scope accurately, but this discussion has deliberately left out the decision on a new article title which was meant to be made after this discussion is closed. Deryck C. 21:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment I believe this article's scope should be inclusive of the entire history of interaction between the Catholic Church and Freemasonry. This includes documenting papal bans, Church statements (and clarifications), Masonic responses, and RS-citable rationales on both sides. Perhaps split into "History", "Catholic views on Freemasonry", and "Masonic views of the Catholic Church" sections, or similar, if it becomes appropriate as the article grows. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 06:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps needless to say given my comments above, but I agree. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 08:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't have much of a stake in the scope of this article. Certainly do hope this RfC sees a good resolution on it and article titling to avoid the unneeded bold move / subpage cleanup. Cheers. :) — Andy W.(talk ·ctb) 16:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment Completely agree. The relationship between masons and Catholics varies widely according to date and region. We need, eventually, to explore the very different interactions in different countries, and surely document the Jacobite lodges and Cardinal Fleury. A more inclusive title would be nice, but the current one at least addresses the central issue. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I skimmed the article and the archives. I think the title does not reflect the topic presented in both – it could be "Catholic Church doctrines about Freemasonry" or a broader "Catholic Church doctrines about secret societies" with an explanation based on the doctrines. Esoteric beliefs are not described in the article, yet those spiritualities are part of the incompatibility. The history of the 19th century culture wars is missing. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we should as much as possible avoid making this article one-sided. I think something in the vein of "Catholic Church–Freemasonry relations", if not that exact title, would therefore be better. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jujutsuan: the article does not explain the why. The why is Catholic Church doctrines. Including that does not make the article one sided – what are those doctrines? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@BoBoMisiu: Oh, I don't disagree. I definitely want the why included; what I meant about not making it one-sided is that the other side of the story should be included as well—if, as another user has suggested in one of the previous discussions, the Masons have no problem with the Church, we should detail that just like we detail the Church's side of the story. When have they said they have no issue, why (IIRC Masonry requires belief in God as a condition for membership, though it doesn't specify which religion), how has their perspective developed, etc.? Therefore the title you suggested would be overly restrictive and one-sided. But again, I absolutely would want that content included. We don't really disagree at all, as far as I can tell. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 14:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Jujutsuan: Oh yes, I agree, the Masonic beliefs should be described; I did not think to exclude them. But a requirement to believe in any god is a type of indifferentism – the why is Catholic Church doctrines. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
This is the sort of POV misinformation that I am concerned about. Freemasonry does NOT require an indifferentist belief in "any God" (In fact the majority of Freemasons, world wide, have standard Trinitarian, Christian beliefs). What Freemasonry requires is simply that you respect the religious beliefs of others... Even though you may think their beliefs are wrong. Blueboar (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Blueboar: its neither POV nor misinformation, the requirement is belief in any undefined supreme being. Each member's undefined supreme being is the equivalent of every other member's undefined supreme being. That fits the Catholic Church definition of indifferentism. Its a fallacy of composition to think that if individual Masons are Christian then the groups, i.e. individual lodges, have those beliefs too. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Nope, there is no such requirement. Mason's are NOT taught that one member's undefined supreme being is the equivalent of another member's undefined supreme being. I do understand that the Church thinks that Freemasonry has such a teaching... And I would agree that IF Freemasonry did have such a teaching, THEN it would be guilty of indifferentism (as defined by the Church)... But it doesn't have such a teaching. Blueboar (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
@Blueboar: That supreme being is undefined and each members beliefs are equivalent. Some quotes are:
"In the 1830's the Duke of Sussex proclaimed that the Hindu gods were the personification of a single Supreme Being and that the religion of the Single Mason was his own concern. This allowed the native Indians to join the Craft."[18]
"Masonry thus teaches indifferentism, or the belief that one religion is as good as any other religion. Leo XIII's condemnation of Freemasonry on the grounds of indifferentism ..."[19]
"Catholic involvement with Masonry is somewhat convoluted. With its 1717 re-founding, many Catholics in Europe became members. In less than two decades, however, papal condemnations began to appear. In addition to concerns about its revolutionary aspects, theological objections were raised and deemed far more weighty than the more political dimensions. Religious indifferentism and universalism, confused and confusing religious positions, pagan influences, anti-clericalism, and extreme rationalism formed the heart of papal objections, which bans have perdured into contemporary Catholicism, along with similar prohibitions in Eastern Orthodoxy and many other conservative Christian bodies."[20]
"The peculiar, 'unsectarian' (in truth, anti-Catholic and anti-Christian) naturalistic character of Freemasonry, by which theoretically and practically it undermines the Catholic and Christian faith, first in its members and through them in the rest of society, creating religious indifferentism and contempt for orthodoxy and ecclesiastical authority."[21]
Popes Gregory XVI and Leo XII, "deplores the religious indifferentism and the false ideas of tolerance propagated by secret societies."[22]
"Freemasonry is incompatible with the Catholic faith. Freemasonry teaches a naturalistic religion that espouses indifferentism, the position that a person can be equally pleasing to God while remaining in any religion."[23]
"Masonry is a parallel religion to Christianity. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, 'Freemasonry displays all the elements of religion, and as such it becomes a rival to the religion of the Gospel. It includes temples and altars, prayers, a moral code, worship, vestments, feast days, the promise of reward or punishment in the afterlife, a hierarchy, and initiation and burial rites'."[24]
The article can clearly have more background about why. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
First of all, when I mentioned this it had a big "IIRC" in front of it. So the way to handle this is to find the most reliable sources, and document the case each side makes and their responses to each other. That way it's clear (if supported by sources) that the CC thinks the Masons practice indifferentism, but the Masons reject the accusation; and in both cases, why. No POV, no misinformation, just historical fact—but with a broad enough scope to handle both sides fairly. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Why does this constantly come back to "what should we call the article?" What part of "write the article and figure the title out later" is so hard to comprehend? Catholicism and Freemasonry is open, at which point you can write whatever you want, because there's nothing in there to imply a thing. Also, I hate to tell you, a lot of it is one-sided; Freemasonry has never issued bulls against the Catholic Church, nor does it have a Code of Canon Law that it needs to enforce upon its membership. The opposite, however, is not true. BoBoMisiu is entirely correct that there was a context to all of this that is sorely lacking. I have provided some starting points, but arguing about the title isn't going to fix the article. MSJapan (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I thought it was "decide the scope, fix the title, but keep writing the article"? (See the 21 June RM closer's comment.) Wasn't that the point of there being an RfC?? Also, the title isn't "Catholicism and Freemasonry"; and if it were, that would ought to have its own RM to deal with the WP:AND problem it would have. Blueboar seems pretty insistent that some of the off-hand comments BoBoMisiu and I have made are incorrect or misrepresentative of Masonry; perhaps he has some sources in mind we could use to build a section on the Masons' side of the argument? Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, first of all, the "problem" is clearly a) interpretive, and b) wholly on the side of the RCC. I read the article on Indifferentism as far as Catholicism goes, and it comes down to the fact that "belief in a Supreme Being", when not referring to said Supreme Being held in veneration by the RCC, is "religious indifferentism"; e.g. "if you are not Catholic, you're following a false belief." However, one could make the argument that if there's only one "Supreme Being", then it's really the same one for everybody, but that's getting into WP:SYNTH territory, as that argument has not been made in either Catholic or Masonic circles.
However, I'm a bit confused on indifferentism; the RCC no longer teaches that the Jews killed Christ, and multiple Popes in modern times seem to have no problem with other religions. That is exactly the standpoint that Freemasonry takes. However, Masonic documents don't interpret the statement, and don't enumerate, so you're not going to find much in the way of "interpretive Masonic text" on the matter. That's also sort of the crux of the "problem" you're going to find: The Pope at whatever time goes, "Freemasonry is bad", and Freemasons basically ignore him, because what the Pope says doesn't matter to non-Catholics, and there supposedly aren't any Catholics in Freemasonry in the first place, right? So it's going to be very one-sided in terms of what you will find. Nevertheless, I provided a list of topics to be covered, so let's start with that. The goal is an objective article; that doesn't mean we avoid criticism, but that we show both sides. However, universal criticism is universal criticism. MSJapan (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
@MSJapan:"if you are not Catholic, you're following a false belief." is only partially right. Not every belief that non-Catholics assent to is a false belief. Some are incompatible some are not. For example, see Unitatis redintegratio § Separated brethren where I described some differences and Vatican II understanding of degrees of separation. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
Another aspect is that indifferentism can be committed by Catholics, even by the CC's interpretation. If I were to say "I'm Catholic, but I think that all (or some) other religions are equally valid paths to God/the Supreme Being", that would be indifferentism. In fact it's more concerned with Catholics' views than with those of other religions—those are generally classified simply as heresies or false religions, not as indifferentists. Though there could theoretically be indifferentism within those other religions ("I'm Buddhist but...", "I'm Muslim but...", etc.); and each of those religions could very well be completely fine with it, or not—it would depend on their theology.
Well the popes do still have a "problem" with other religions, in that they're not Catholicism. They might look to have dialogue and good relations with them, to be tolerant of them, but the popes don't accept them per se as true or theologically/ecclesiologically sound; if a pope were to do that, it would be heretical (yes, popes can commit heresy, just not ex cathedra).
There very well could be Catholic Masons; they'd be excommunicated latae sententiae (if they joined prior to 1983) or in a state of mortal sin (if they joined since 1983), but still Catholics. In fact the possibility of "leaving" the Catholic Church is pretty much nonexistent; the seal of baptism is considered permanent. But that's another whole messy subject.
I can't say I "agree" or "disagree" about the number of sources we'll find; I simply don't know firsthand. But I do agree we should aim for as broad and objective an article as possible, and that list is a good place to start. I support using it as an initial basis for expansion. But since we'll find some information from the Masons' perspective, I still think the title should be more neutral than "Catholic doctrines about..." Even if the "relationship" isn't warm and cuddly, it's still a relationship / there are still "relations". It just so happens that the Church is hostile and the Masons are rather indifferent. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 20:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Step 1 - Before we can discuss content, we need to agree on focus... Is this primarily to be a history article (culminating in a brief statement of current status)... or is it to be primarily a "current status" article (with a bit of history as background info)? Personally, my inclination is for it to focus on history. Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree we should focus on history. It's far more interesting. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 01:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
We actually need both. History most important, but the opacity of the current status needs mentioning. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
This weak article name really should be changed. It is by no means neutral, and I can't see how anyone sees that it is. Once that is sorted the scope will slowly fall in place. JASpencer (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@JASpencer: Everyone knows the name is bad. We're trying to find a better scope so we can then change the name. Please review the previous discussions to see why we reverted to this name. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Step 2 - find sources. The current article relies heavily on primary source material (the actual text of various documents issued by the Church). This was acceptable as long as the scope focused on what the Church has said over time... but if we are going to expand the scope and explain why the Church said it (and especially if we want to place all that in proper historical context)... then we need to shift the predominance of our sourcing to reliable secondary sources. I think it would be beneficial to take some time to discuss what sources are out there... see if we can reach consensus on which we think are reliable (and which are not reliable) and discuss what they say. I know that Jasper Ridley's book The Freemasons contains a decent chapter on the relations between Italian Freemasonry and the Church during the 19th century. What other sources would people recommend? Blueboar (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I really can't find a single source that deals adequately with the subject, which is close to my personal field of research. Obliquely, Bernheim's Ramsay et ses deux discours and more direcly Conti's Storia della Massoneria Italiana. There may be more accessible stuff on Ireland, where the ban only became an issue in the 1820s. The best English language source I've found is the discussion in Cooper's book on Cagliostro. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment - it is all well and good to say "the scope should focus on X"... But if we don't have enough sources to support an article with scope X, then we can't write one with that scope. Blueboar (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a general problem with Freemasonry. Pro and anti fantasists, optimistic analysis and dating, and very few reliable sources, with still fewer reliable parameters to judge the reliability of the source mean low quality masonic sources. On this subject,the Catholic ones are frequently primary or don't mention the Inquisition. I'm not certain where this leaves us. We have an inadequate article that doesn't even mention Cardinal Fleury. Perhaps we should wait until we have an article worth arguing about before fixing scope and title? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Disagree. Without fixing the scope, we can't fix the title; if we can't fix the title, we can't expand the article without risking someone coming along and saying that what we add doesn't belong in an article on X, and reverting. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 12:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
In that case, we have to move towards a comprehensive study of the interactions between Roman Catholicism and Freemasonry from the 1720s to the present, which seems to be the consensus emerging at the start of this discussion before it drowned in minutiae. Freemasonry and Roman Catholicism or vice versa wouldn't be a bad start. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Fiddler, the problem with "Freemasonry and Roman Catholicism" (or "Roman Catholicism and Freemasonry") is that WP:Article titles#Titles containing "and", tells us to not juxtapose two unrelated topics using the word "and". Blueboar (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![[1]](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.garykah.org/images/assisi.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.garykah.org/pope2.htm&usg=__EndK3Nnk8bruF0mRUbGbftLbG2o=&h=325&w=340&sz=51&hl=en&start=3&sig2=I1oObNjF8FHweZWCHnuulw&um=1&tbnid=-17BcApUj-6-lM:&tbnh=114&tbnw=119&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djohn%2Bpaul%2BII%2Bb%2527Nai%2Bbrith%2B1984%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1&ei=313ISZjhFZWUMaDWldsD){kind=link}
![[9]](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.destroyfreemasonry.com/antipope-paul-6-masonic-handshake.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.destroyfreemasonry.com/overview.htm&usg=__5V4TnQKbHSbSIFnvMbX2uySbClw=&h=396&w=404&sz=30&hl=fr&start=1&um=1&tbnid=4ZstTqtjalIM5M:&tbnh=122&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dratzinger%2Bjoseph%2Bhandshake%2Bmasonic%26hl%3Dfr%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1){kind=link}
![[10]](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q64/djhook64/goodmasonpope.jpg&imgrefurl=http://troyspace2.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/the-vaticans-open-but-false-policy-on-masonry-the-roman-church/&usg=__5VnRacp_6nxRVVPsaZBv56DHQGA=&h=399&w=554&sz=29&hl=fr&start=6&um=1&tbnid=_uRn-bQxUUZ9aM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dratzinger%2Bjoseph%2Bhandshake%2Bmasonic%26hl%3Dfr%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1){kind=link}