::{{ping|Fiddlersmouth}} {{diff|Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry|prev|742990736|I previously quoted the sentence I added, the sentence in Whalen, and an extended quote from Bale}}. Start citing sources that support your opinions. ''Ad hominem'' comments are not arguments but logical fallacies. –[[User:BoBoMisiu|BoBoMisiu]] ([[User talk:BoBoMisiu|talk]]) 00:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
::{{ping|Fiddlersmouth}} {{diff|Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry|prev|742990736|I previously quoted the sentence I added, the sentence in Whalen, and an extended quote from Bale}}. Start citing sources that support your opinions. ''Ad hominem'' comments are not arguments but logical fallacies. –[[User:BoBoMisiu|BoBoMisiu]] ([[User talk:BoBoMisiu|talk]]) 00:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|BoBoMisiu}} Whalen's work starts from the presumption that Freemasonry is somehow wrong. This makes him POV. An article that starts by describing masonry as a "Pastoral problem" cannot be neutral. That's not ad hominem, the starting point of the work is transparently POV. Bale does not support your statement, he says something else. And you have now officially crossed the line into edit warring. [[User:Fiddlersmouth|Fiddlersmouth]] ([[User talk:Fiddlersmouth|talk]]) 00:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|BoBoMisiu}} Whalen's work starts from the presumption that Freemasonry is somehow wrong. This makes him POV. An article that starts by describing masonry as a "Pastoral problem" cannot be neutral. That's not ad hominem, the starting point of the work is transparently POV. Bale does not support your statement, he says something else. And you have now officially crossed the line into edit warring. [[User:Fiddlersmouth|Fiddlersmouth]] ([[User talk:Fiddlersmouth|talk]]) 00:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Fiddlersmouth}} no I am not edit warring. I am contributing content and discussing what I add. I think you should ask for a broader consensus about your opinions.
::::Yes, Whalen's report was commissioned to describe a ''pastoral problem''. That does not make it less reliable or less factual. Whalen's report describes the subject from a Catholic point of view. That does not make it less reliable or less factual.
::::You are making a genetic fallacy by rejecting Whalen. Personal incredulity is also a logical fallacy.
::::As I just wrote, {{diff|Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry|prev|742990736|I previously quoted the sentence I added, the sentence in Whalen, and an extended quote from Bale}}. I have have cited references, you have not. –[[User:BoBoMisiu|BoBoMisiu]] ([[User talk:BoBoMisiu|talk]]) 01:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Papal ban of Freemasonry was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 21, 2006). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Name discussion June 2016
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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".
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [1]Indefatigable2 (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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.
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.[2]
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.
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
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.
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)[reply]
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. Indefatigable216:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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]Indefatigable216:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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. Indefatigable217:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
"You must believe in a Supreme Being."[4][5][6][7]
"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."[8]
"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 ..."[9]
"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."[10]
"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."[11]
Popes Gregory XVI and Leo XII, "deplores the religious indifferentism and the false ideas of tolerance propagated by secret societies."[12]
"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."[13]
"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'."[14]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
Philippine Bishops Conference
Bishop Emilio Z. Marquez, of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lucena, said he refused Catholic funeral rites for Governor Rafael Nantes in 2010.[1] Nantes was both a convert to Protestantism and a member of a masonic association.[1] Quoting 1983 CIC canon 1184,[2] Marquez told Union of Catholic Asian News (UCANews) that if publicly known "apostates, heretics, and schismatics," have not shown repentance before death, then Catholic Church funeral rites must be denied.[3]
It is unclear from the source if Marquez refused Catholic funeral rites for Nantes in 2010 because of his conversion to Protestantism, or masonic association, or both.
According to the CBCP 1990 norms, "any Catholic who belonged to any Masonic association" may be denied Catholic funeral rites, unless they showed repentance before they died.[3][4][2] While each case should consider the "individual situation of a Catholic Mason,"[5] "A Catholic [who is] publicly known to be an active official or member of any Masonic association is expected to discontinue such membership after being warned with an interdict or else be refused the Sacraments and funeral rites."[5]
The 2003 CBCP plenary meeting enacted a general decree that, according to UCANews, "any Catholic who is a 'convinced member of Freemasonry, notoriously adhering to the Masonic vision' be already considered excommunicated according to Canon 1364 of Church law. Such [an excommunicated] person, according to Canon 1331, is forbidden to celebrate or receive the sacraments and to hold any Church office, ministry or governing function."[5][6][7] Citing 1983 CIC canon 455,[8] the CBCP, according to UCANews, "decided to strictly disallow [...] Masons from being witnesses in marriage."[5]
^ ab Written at Quezon City, Philippines. "Bishop refuses Catholic burial for politician". ucanews.com. Bangkok, Thailand: Union of Catholic Asian News. 2010-05-24. Archived from the original on 2016-07-17. Retrieved 2016-07-17. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
Is this a suggested addition? The third paragraph looks promising, though I'm not sure the whole thing (especially the first two paragraphs) is relevant/non-redundant. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 23:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jujutsuan: yes, a parked suggestion. I think finding some current examples, i.e. 2010s, would be good. The first two ¶s are an attempt at that but it needs better source. Also, there is a 1984 letter from the Apostolic Penitentiary about profaning the Eucharist that I would like to add – once I find a good source. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? He became a Protestant. How would he ever be given a Catholic funeral? Freemasonry is almost irrelevant. It becomes an issue only because of shifting attitudes to Freemasonry in the Philippine church and the arbitrary decision of a blogger to make this about the craft. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't necessarily a likely scenario, but if he showed signs of repentance of his heresy (i.e. Protestantism), he would not have been denied a Catholic funeral on that basis—making Masonry relevant. If not, he'd have two strikes against him, so to speak, instead of just the one. I don't see that in the source and I don't really know anything about this case, but it's theoretically possible. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 00:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
@Fiddlersmouth: 21st century examples showing the application of current norms (in the 1983 CDF decree) and protocols (in episcopal conference documents) are relevant. I think they will be found in foreign language news sources. As an aside, some Protestants are given Catholic funeral rites (e.g. Brother Roger § Death), remember that it is the families who usually arrange funerals of their deceased who could have shown repentance. Nantes was a schismatic because of his conversion to Protestantism – schism is not the same as heresy. It is not speculation; Marquez did refuse Catholic funeral rites for Nantes in 2010; the precise reason is not clear. That is why it is on the talk page and not in the article. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is out of chronological order. Participation is welcome by anyone wishing to comment. This box is simply for organization.
Out of chronological order discussion thread ends here.
@Blueboar: yes, "Profaning the Eucharist". All I found was Benimeli 2014, p. 150. Benimeli identifies the document by protocol number and includes an uncited quote about it, attributed to "as someone has written about it" that is not found in a searches. I think it questionable especially since Benimeli's surrounding content reads like personal rant that does not actually quote, or fully cite, the 1984 Apostolic Penitentiary document. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, as stated "the precise reason is not clear". Attribution of all or part of the reason to membership of a masonic organisation is therefore speculation. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree. Now, speculation can be included, if it the speculation of a relevant and noteworthy source. The key is to include it with in text attribution ("According to X, this was because he was a Freemason")... But we can not state the speculation as being unattributed fact ("This was because he was a Freemason") ... Even if the speculation is likely to be accurate. See: WP:No original research, and WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar and Fiddlersmouth: I think both of you may be misunderstanding. I am not suggesting to add speculation. I agree with both of you – I understand WP:OR, WP:SOURCES, etc. I parked this here to see if it will develop and to get some feedback. I think the Nantes part will likely not be includable; the Philippine bishops part likely will. Searching about how episcopal conferences in other parts of the world apply the current norms may also provide results that are not includable. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me if this is about the 1983 canon law and the 1983 CDF decree, or about Spanish pastoral guidelines for the implementation of doctrine in the 1983 canon law and the 1983 CDF decree. I parked it here to see if it can be clarified.
As long as we are looking for clarification, we should probably look into which "Rectified Scottish Rite" this refers to - there are multiple, competing groups that use the name "Rectified Scottish Rite" (or some variant thereof)... and I doubt it was the UK based version that is linked to above. From the Church's point of view, and in the context of the Spanish Bishops conference, this probably does not matter (since the Church tends to lump all Masons together)... but it would be good to know as background. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: good point, I suggested "Rectified Scottish Rite Masons in Spain" to describe the combination of "The head office of Masons in Spain is calling on the Spanish bishops' Committee on the Doctrine of the Faith to review the decree of excommunication imposed on Catholics who practice Masonry" and "In a press release, the Spanish masons said that the Church is committing an 'injustice' in their case, because the Masonic system to which they belong—the Rectified Scottish Rite (RSR) [...]". "Rectified Scottish Rite Masons in Spain" is, in my opinion, is a good description. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah... "The head office of Masons in Spain" is definitely inaccurate - at best it was "the head office of one of several Masonic side degree organizations in Spain". So specifying more exactly is a good idea. However, knowing Masonic history, it is quite likely that there is more than one group claiming to be the "Rectified Scottish Rite" operating in Spain. We should find out which one.
My primary concern is with linking.... Our article on Rectified Scottish Rite is focused purely on the UK version... And I don't know if any of the versions operating in Spain are associated with the British group in any way. If we do end up mentioning the Spanish group in this article, it would probably be best to not link the name to the article on the UK group. Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Max Heindel's Catholicism and Freemasonry and a book on Freemasonry and Christian Fellowship by Joseph Goffe, which might be pertinent, are available for free on Google Books. MSJapan (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Historian Stefan-Ludwig Hoffmann wrote that "the political conflicts of the Kulturkampf were not the sole reason that the Catholic Church began to regard Masonic lodges in the 1860s as an 'ultimate' enemy." The papal pronouncements "indicate that the Catholic Church regarded Masonic lodges as a kind of political cipher for the modern world."[1]: 140 According to Hoffmann, "there was a clear affinity between Masonic lodges, liberalism, and reformist Old Catholicism — the three 'bourgeois mortal enemies' of political Catholicism" in southwestern Germany,[1]: 140 which was mostly Catholic.[1]: 33 Masonic associations were "appealing to religious dissenters."[1]: 55 Political Catholicism, which was anti-Masonic, "gained momentum" after the German revolutions of 1848–49.[1]: 136 Freemasons "portrayed the Catholic Church, in particular the Jesuit Order, as a secret opponent of progress."[1]: 136 Beginning in the 1860s, polemics were developed by Catholics such as Wilhelm Emmanuel Freiherr von Ketteler, bishop of Mainz, and Alban Stolz; and by liberal Freemasons such as Johann Kaspar Bluntschli and de [Jacob Venedey]. By 1871, "Masonic lodges and the Catholic Church now regarded each other as ultimate metaphysical enemies." German Freemasons "proved to be embittered kulturkämpfer" whose anti-Catholicism was "no less strident" than their French or Italian counterparts.[1]: 136 They employed a "surprisingly violent" language "far exceeding the political calculus of Bismarck." That language "transformed the conflict between church and state into an existential opposition."[1]: 136
Do any of these sources identify which branch of German Freemasonry they are talking about? Or do they (like so many sources) simply lump all Freemasons together. There were (and still are) multiple Grand Lodges in Germany during the era we are talking about. Some were more liberal than others, and some were more outspoken than others on religio-political issues. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not contradict, but perhaps we can give what Hoffman says more context... for example: Hoffman focuses on Bluntshili... so, let's examine him a bit more... Hoffman correctly calls him a "liberal Freemason". That is actually an understatement. Bluntshili was an extremely liberal Freemason. He was Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Sun (based in Bayreuth), which Gould calls one of the most liberal in Germany. Sounds impressive, until you realize that the Grand Lodge of the Sun consisted of only about 10 lodges in total. In other words, while Bluntshili may have been an "extreme kulturkampfer" and anti-catholic... his views did not represent the attitudes of the entirety of Freemasonry. In fact, he represented only a very small but outspoken extremist wing of Freemasonry.
What Hoffman does is quite common with academics who study Freemasonry's role in political/social history... most academics don't understand how fractured Freemasonry was (and is). The academic, trying to "prove" that Freemasons thought X about subject Y, can usually find Freemasons who did (or do) think X about Y. But all to often the academic stops there... and does not look to see if there were Freemasons who disagreed. Having "proved their hypothesis" they don't look for Freemasons who didn't think X about Y, and instead thought Z. The academic all to often assumes Freemasonry is some unified entity, with a membership that marches in lock step... nothing is further from the truth. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: yes, "What Hoffman does is quite common with academics who study Freemasonry's role in political/social history" yet you write that "most academics don't understand how fractured Freemasonry was"? It seems quite fringy to agree that Hoffman follows scholarly consensus but that the scholarly consensus is wrong. I think you are making a kind of type–token distinction into a red herring. Masonic association is a type and not an instance of a type, which is a grand lodge or a lodge. Also, Hoffman did not restrict his writing to Bluntshili. His book is a social history about how the culture interacted with the government. In his introduction, he
wanted to explore the unintended political consequences of Enlightenment ideas and practices in an age characterized by the advent of nationalism, anti-Semitism, and social discord. The self-image of Freemasons as civilizing agents, acting in good faith to promote the idea of universal brotherhood, was contradicted not only by their sense of exclusivity. (p.9)
His "book appeared simultaneously with other critical accounts of the actual workings of civil society in nineteenth-century Europe."(p. 9) Do you know of any 21st century scholarly works that go against 21st century scholarly consensus? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was not talking about consensus.... What I am pointing out is flawed methodology. Any historical conclusion based on flawed methodology is meaningless (whether it agrees with consensus or not). Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: the scholars methodology is flawed, or Hoffmann's methodology is flawed? Can you provide a link to a reliable source that claims that either the 21st century scholarly consensus or Hoffmann uses flawed methodology? I do not find claims of flawed methodology in my searches. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
June 2016 primary sources tag
Dimadick (talk·contribs) tagged the article with {{primary sources}} (used where "information or analysis that you believe is improperly or unnecessarily supported by a primary source") in June 2016. I added this section to discuss that tag and identify the problems. The article is about Catholic Church doctrine which is obviously transmitted through documents. It is reasonable to include those primary sources in this article. What "information or analysis" is "improperly or unnecessarily supported by a primary source"? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
June 2016 third-party tag
Dimadick (talk·contribs) tagged the article with {{third-party}} (used "to identify articles that name sources, but that are biased because every source named has a very close connection to the subject") in June 2016. I added this section to discuss that tag and identify the problems. The article is about Catholic Church doctrine which is obviously transmitted through documents. It is reasonable to include Catholic Church documents as sources in this article. What content or source is unreliable? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As it is the article presents a purely Catholic view on the subject and there are several sections which simply have no source.
For example the following text is supposedly sourced: "The ban in In eminenti apostolatus was reiterated and expanded upon by Benedict XIV (1751), Pius VII (1821), Leo XII (1826), Pius VIII (1829), Gregory XVI (1832), Pius IX (1846, 1849, 1864, 1865, 1869, 1873), and notably Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical Humanum genus (1884)." A closer look reveals that the supposed source is the 1884 document by Leo XIII and makes no reference to the other Popes mentioned.
@Dimadick: yes, it is "purely Catholic view on the subject" because the article is about Catholic Church doctrine – a purely Catholic subject.
As I pointed out to you, the article contains text from Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). "Masonry (Freemasonry)". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. which has a "Action of state and Church authorities" section. That section provides a list and states "These pontifical utterances from first to last are in complete accord, the latter reiterating the earlier with such developments as were called for by the growth of Freemasonry and other secret societies." Do you think that 300 years of doctrine would not have development?
I disagree with you about sources: the article is about Catholic Church doctrine and should reiterate it – the doctrine is what is being described – if you know of Masonic sources that explain the Catholic Church doctrine better than the Catholic Church and Catholic commentaries please provide some links so they can be included. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
21st century encyclopedic sources state that anticlericism is an aspect of Masonic association:
"Probably under the influence of the increasingly anti-Catholic stands of Freemasons influenced by the so-called Scottish rite, Latin American Freemasonry developed into a liberal, anticlerical force that fought for modernization and secularization, and paid preferential attention to education."[1]
"Anticlericalism is common among Masons in the Continental tradition, which is the one most often followed in Latin America. Anticlericalism can mean active hostility to the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH and its clergy, as in MEXICO, or a more limited hostility to any public or political role for the church."[2]
"Freemasonry is an international movement with roots in medieval European laborers' guilds that in the modern era often took on a coloration of anticlericalism or anti-Catholicism."[3]
Several of the discussions were about removal of content from the 1910 article in Catholic Encyclopedia.
I quoted in July 2016 from Peter Stravinskas' review of David Hackett's That religion in which all men agree. Stravinskas wrote that "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."
This is an important facet that was repeatedly removed over the last decade from this article.
References
^Jaksí, Iván (2008). "Masonic orders". In Kinsbruner, Jay; Langer, Erick D. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Latin American history and culture. Vol. 4 (2nd ed.). Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons. pp. 406–408. ISBN9780684312705 – via Gale Virtual Reference Library.
^King, Stewart R. (2012). "Freemasonry". In King, Stewart R. (ed.). Encyclopedia of free blacks and people of color in the Americas. Vol. 1. New York: Facts on File. pp. 309–310. ISBN9780816072125 – via Gale Virtual Reference Library.
^Flinn, Frank K., ed. (2007). "Freemasonry". Encyclopedia of Catholicism. New York: Facts on File. pp. 294–295. ISBN9780816054558 – via Gale Virtual Reference Library. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
It is also worth pointing out that Bolivar was anti-clerical AND anti-masonic. In fact, the anti-clericalism of the men who shaped an independent South America sprang from the perverse conservatism of a church that always seemed to support the status quo. In Europe, Freemasons in France and Germany were actively developing a more catholic-friendly branch of Freemasonry when the arrests and repression started. Keeping the church out of politics was essential for the survival of Continental Freemasonry, and in the interest of balance, this ought to be mentioned. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: according to The New Age Magazine (1933 v. 41, p. 305; 1935 v. 43, p. 307): "Daniel Carroll, member of the Continental Congress from Maryland, was initiated in Maryland Lodge No. 16, at Baltimore, May 9, 1780." Also search for "Daniel Carroll" freemason in Google Books. Can you provide a contra-citation? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops... thanks for questioning my tag... I got my Carroll's confused. I was thinking of Daniel's cousin Charles Carroll of Carrollton (there is debate as to whether Charles was a Freemason or not - with the majority opinion among historians being: "not"... but it seems there is no debate about Daniel.) Mea maxima culpa. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Purport 1958 quote by Pope Pius XII
Pope Pius XII purportedly wrote, or said, that "the roots of modern apostasy lay in scientific atheism, dialectical materialism, rationalism, Illuminism, laicism, and Freemasonry -- which is the mother of them all ..." This quote attributed to a 1958 address by Pius XII seems to originate with:
Fisher, Paul A. (1991). Their God is the Devil: a study of papal encyclicals and Freemasonry. Baltimore, MD: American Research Foundation. p. 53. OCLC28844274.
This seems to be a self published work. There is not enough available information to verify the quote. A Google search for "roots of modern apostasy lay in scientific atheism" shows it began to appear on anti-Masonic websites in 2001. I think since the quote seems not to have been published prior to the one 1991 self published work, it should not be included in the article without finding a reliable Italian language original quote. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ruled that Canon 2335 no longer automatically bars a Catholic from membership of masonic groups... And so, a Catholic who joins the Freemasons is excommunicated only if the policies and actions of the Freemasons in his area are known to be hostile to the Church.
This is an interpretation that I think was taken from either
Knight, Stephen (1984). The brotherhood: the secret world of the Freemasons. New York: Stein and Day. p. 250. ISBN9780812829945.
Hamill, John (1986). The Craft: a history of English Freemasonry. Leighton Buzzard: Crucible. p. 148. ISBN9780850304602.
I tagged the Madison reference with {{tertiary}} because of that.
The interpretation found in Madison is not precise since the CDF only reiterated the existing canon and had not "ruled that Canon 2335 no longer automatically bars a Catholic from membership of masonic groups". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Published rumors or leaked interpretations from unnamed sources in 1968
In March and May 1968 (I added both references in this edit), The Tablet published that Vatican sources, not identified by name, had been "quoted [by someone not identified in The Tablet] as saying that Catholics are now free to join the Masons in the United States, Britain and most other countries of the world."[1]
Despite that, according to those sources, not identified by name, "the European Grand Orient Lodge of Masons, established primarily in Italy and France, is still considered anti-Catholic or, at least, atheistic."[1]
Vatican sources, not identified by name, said that 1917 CIC canon 2335 was not abrogated, but that the CDF "'has let it be known that Catholics joining the Freemasons are no longer automatically excommunicated . . . the Church's new attitude has been in effect for more than a year'."[1]
According to a March 1968 The Tablet article, "word leaked out that the Vatican had adopted a new attitude and was no longer applying in every case an old law automatically excommunicating Catholics who joined the Freemasons."[2]
"The Vatican has adopted the stand that it is 'possible but not advisable' for Catholics to join the order of Freemasons in countries where the Masons are not anti-Catholic, according to informed Vatican sources," not identified by name.[3]
"They [sources, not identified by name] gave this clarification of the Vatican position because of some confusion in various parts of the world about this issue."[3]
The Tablet published in May 1968 that "according to well-informed sources," not identified by name, "the new attitude [...] remains almost a private matter within the" CDF.[3] Moreover, since March 1968, "the report [based on sources, not identified by name, of a change] has been periodically challenged in various parts of the world" and "some Catholic officials [not identified by name] have said that they knew of no new attitude on the part of the Vatican."[3]
The sources, not identified by name, said that a CDF reply, in a private letter to a Scandinavian bishop, not identified by name in The Tablet, was, in the words of the The Tablet, "the only official document on the subject and no instruction had been sent to bishops elsewhere. Publicly, the Vatican had only said it was not considering 'profound changes' in Canon Law on the subject."[3]
The secretary of the Scandinavian Bishops Conference (CES), Bishop John Willem Gran, of Oslo, replied to The Tablet May 1968 article and wrote in June 1968 that the misrepresentations of fact found in the May 1968 article originated in a Le Monde article and were "repeated in many Catholic papers all over the world."[4]
After an investigation in CES countries, the CES was "satisfied that there was nothing anti-clerical or atheistic in the character of Scandinavian Freemasonry. On the contrary, the Swedish system, which is followed in all these countries, demands that a Freemason shall not only believe in God, but be, moreover, a professed Christian."[4] Then, in 1967, after their investigation, the CES "decided to avail themselves of the" norms in De Episcoporum Muneribus "which empowers bishops in special cases to dispense from certain injunctions of Canon Law."[4][5]
Thanks. I can only add that the Roman Catholics that I have met in masonic circles believed the rumours to be true. One was excommunicated for marrying a divorcee, the others simply avoid mentioning their membership as they regard "tolerance" as a local policy that can change from week to week. The same narrative is still current. Just difficult to reference. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of the narrative we are telling here in this article, I think the rumors are important to mention. It does not really matter whether the rumors were accurate or not, what matters is simply that they existed and were thought to be accurate at the time. Accurate or not, they led to a fair number of Catholics thinking that the ban on Freemasonry was being lifted... they are part of the reason why the Church felt it necessary to clarify things in the 1980s. The rumors are part of the story (whether we focus the story on a Church perspective, or a Masonic perspective). They need to be mentioned because they help explain subsequent events. We don't need to explain why the rumors were right or wrong... but we do need to note that they existed, and note how that existence influenced subsequent events. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Different word needed
The section on the German Bishops conference starts with:
"In 1980, after six years of dialogue with representatives of the United Grand Lodges of Germany and investigation of Masonic beliefs and rituals, the DBK produced a report..."
The word "beliefs" is problematic. Freemasonry does not have "beliefs" (any more than say, the United States Congress or General Motors has beliefs). Perhaps some other word would be more appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: the term beliefs is appropriate. According to some academic sources speculative masonry is a gnostic occult movement,[1] and Masonic studies is a field in the academic study of new religious movements.[2]
References
^Melton, J. Gordon, ed. (2001). "Freemasonry". Encyclopedia of occultism and parapsychology. Vol. 1 (5th ed.). Detroit: Gale. p. 607. ISBN9780810385702 – via Gale Virtual Reference Library. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
^Lewis, James R.; Tøllefsen, Inga B. (2016). "Introduction". In Lewis, James R.; Tøllefsen, Inga B. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements. Vol. 2. Oxford University Press. pp. 2–3. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190466176.001.0001. ISBN9780190466176 – via Oxford Handbooks Online. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
We are now on shaky ground. Many masonic jurisdictions have a requirement for some sort of vague belief in a deity. The Grand Orients that have had to fight the Vatican tooth and nail for their very existence have no such requirement.
On another tack, I have a major problem with Whalen (1985) which cites Stephen Knight (author), whose claims are considered laughable by real historians. This makes Whalen, at best, a poor researcher - at worst, a deliberate liar. Can we find a better reference? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiddlersmouth: no, "shaky ground" the discussion about the term belief is specific to the conclusions of the German bishops. It is not a bait-and-switch into an ad hominem about authors not mentioned in the sources discussing the German bishops conclusions. These are two separate discussions.
BoBo... What you talk about (having belief in God) is indeed a prerequisite for membership in many (not all) Masonic jurisdictions... But Freemasonry does not define that belief. Freemasonry does not teach belief... it is something members have already have ... before they join... Their belief in God is taught to them by institutions like the Catholic Church. It's something a mason gets from his religious institution (whatever that may be) and brings with him when joining Freemasonry. And Freemasonry does not try to change the beliefs a member already has.
Note that the Boy Scouts have a similar requirement (or at least they did back when I was a lad). Yet no one claims that the Scouts are a religion. Or that they have "beliefs". Blueboar (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: I am only describing what reliable, generally contemporary, sources state. I cite my sources. Personal incredulity needs to be cited. Again, the discussion is about the conclusion of the German bishops based in part on years of discussions with representatives of the United Grand Lodges of Germany. It is limited to those cited specifics. It is not about some red herring boy scouts or vague "shaky ground". The Catholic Church recognizes the fragmentation in masonry and masonic differences, e.g. Swedish Rite vs Orients, etc. As far as the termbeliefs, I cited two reliable sources. Moreover, Melton 2001 and Lewis & Tøllefsen 2016 point to masonry studied as a religion. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to counter that, there are authoritative sources that have concluded that Freemasonry is not a religion, and does not have "beliefs"...
First there is the fact that Freemasonry itself explicitly self-identifies as not being a religion - Multiple Grand Lodges have repeatedly stated that "Our purpose as Freemasons is not that of a religion. Freemasonry lacks the basic elements of religion. Freemasonry is not a religion nor is it a substitute for religion." (the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon's website has a very detailed explanation as to why it isn't: see here... and the United Grand Lodge of England explains: "All Freemasons are expected to have a religious belief, but Freemasonry does not seek to replace a Mason’s religion or provide a substitute for it. It deals in a man’s relationship with his fellow man not in a man’s relationship with his God.")
Then there are rulings of various courts of law... On at least two occasions the courts have ruled that Freemasonry does not qualify for tax exemptions that are available to religious institutions... specifically because Freemasonry isn't a religion.
That said... I do understand that it is possible to study Freemasonry as if it were a religion... and doing so reinforces the conclusion that it must be a religion. However, these studies invariably make the classic error of analysis that is warned against in basic anthropology classes: allowing your preconceptions to affect your analysis, and thus your conclusion. Those who spend their lives studying religion will find religion in all they study. If you are not familiar with [[Nacirema|"Body rituals of the Nacirema"], I recommend reading it - it is a classic demonstration of how non-religious practices can be misconstrued ... and the errors that can affect one's conclusions when you don't filter out preconceptions). Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are "significant variations in different locations. In such countries as England and Italy, Freemasonry continues as an esoteric group, whereas in France, Freemasonry developed into a post-revolutionary atheist organization assuming the public persona of a fraternal group, though it was much more than that."[3]
Masonic beliefs, seem to me, to those of "that Religion in which all Men agree."[7] "Brotherhood rests upon a basis of religion. Every Mason must believe in a Supreme Being, the V.S.L. must be open at every meeting of the Lodge. Before engaging in any important undertaking a Mason should seek aid and guidance through prayer to the Great Architect of the Universe. This is religion, but not a religion. It is faith—but not worship attached to any one altar. It is the ground which underlies all religions, all churches, all creeds, all sects."[8] "As speculative masonry emerged, it espoused the idea that masonry was a restatement of the ancient religion of human-kind."[9]
References
^Melton 2009, p. 692. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMelton2009 (help)
^Melton 2009, p. 691. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMelton2009 (help)
^ abMelton 2009, p. 687. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMelton2009 (help)
The most telling three words in what you just posted are "seems to me"... You are engaged in a classic case of WP:SYNTH... Cherry picking statements out of context and linking them to support your preconceived conclusions. it is pointless to discuss further. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This reference, cited by you (William Whalen 1985), quotes Stephen Knight (author) as if any of his work was a creditable reference. Knight is only used as a "reliable" source by conspiracy nuts. This makes Whalen, in turn, a highly suspect source. Perhaps you could supply a better reference.
On the other matter, I don't dispute the words of the German Bishop's conference. However, when their findings are demonstrably WP:Complete Bollocks, this needs pointing out in the interest of balance. I believe Blueboar is correct. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiddlersmouth: no your red herring doesn't make Whalen "a highly suspect source" – he is an expert on the subject and obviously was commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The quote in Whalen is:
On the other hand, a recent book by Stephen Knight alleges that the KGB used the secrecy and networking of English Freemasonry to place spies in top intelligence jobs. It encouraged its operatives to try to join Masonic Lodges to gain preferential treatment in their careers. In particular, the author charges that Freemasons propelled Sir Roger Hollis into a series of rapid promotions, which led to his being named head of M15 counterintelligence in 1956. A book by Chapman Pincher, published in 1981, attempted to prove that Hollis was a Soviet agent.
@BoBoMisiu:Knight wrote his work on Jack the Ripper as a joke. When it made him a shedload of money, he discovered he had painted himself into a corner. Rather than recant, he continued to publish more fuel for conspiracy loonies. He made a lot of stuff up. Nobody, absolutely nobody with any credibility, would pretend that he is a reliable source. Why oh why does Whalen?
What on earth is the "Masonic Bible"? I can't think of a single version of the third degree that mentions the resurrection of the body. The list goes on. I don't care how respected your sources are in Catholic circles, a lie is a lie. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiddlersmouth: I see you have not cited any source that discredits Whalen about this report. I see just more ad hominem with nothing substantive.
Please do a Google search for "masonic bible", they are sold in masonic supply houses.
The Masonic Bible states: "The doctrine of the resurrection of the body to a future and eternal life constitutes an essential dogma of the religious faith of Freemasonry. It is more authoritatively inculcated in the symbolism of the Third Degree than is possible by any dogmatic creed."(Masonic Bible, quoted in Salza 2011, p 45) –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC); modified 00:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are many KJVs sold as masonic bibles. Mine was presented to me when I became Master of my lodge, and contains no such statement. There is no specific "Masonic Bible". If you have one, please state the publisher and date. Mine is Collins 1951.
The two largest Continental observances don't require a bible, or a belief in God. Even in "regular" lodges, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and Jews participate and can elect to take their oath on their own Holy Book. If there was a "Masonic Bible", they wouldn't read it. This is a total red herring.
Whalen quotes Knight. Knight is garbage. Garbage in, garbage out. Please justify the inclusion of this appalling material in the article. You made the edit, not me. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To explain further: A "Masonic Bible" (not the Masonic Bible) is nothing more than a standard Bible (usually the King James Version) with some extra pages and annotations in the margins. this webpage explains it well. It is important to understand that there are many different "Masonic Bibles" out there... each with different editors, who add different things in the annotations, and extra pages. Think of how different students in a bible studies class might make notes in the margin of their copy of the bible... each will make different annotations and make different comments.
It does not surprise me that there is a Masonic Bible who's editor states what BoBo says ... it is all but a direct quote from the entry on Resurrection found in Mackey's Encylopedia of Freemasonry... to quote:
"Resurrection - The doctrine of a resurrection to a future and eternal life constitutes an indispensable portion of the religious faith of Freemasonry. It is not authoritatively inculcated as a point of dogmatic creed, but is impressively taught by the symbolism of the Third Degree."
Note the second sentence of Mackey's definition (which is omitted in what BoBo quotes)... it is important in the context of this discussion. Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar and Fiddlersmouth: the the version cited in Salza is: Heirloom Masonic Bible (Master reference ed.). Wichita, KS: DeVore & Sons. 1988.
Regardless of the source or inadequate attribution, I think that encyclopedic resurrection entry adds a widely circulated description.
I think this sided discussion is drifting away from the actual German bishops conclusions, which include one conclusion about "The Masonic Rituals" and 11 other conclusions mostly about beliefs such as "The Masonic World View", "The Masonic Notion of Truth", "The Masonic Notion of Religion", "The Masonic Notion of God", etc. Ganley, in the cited link, writes "there seems to be a significant difference between the beliefs, principles, and actions of the Masonic groups in Europe as opposed to the United States." –BoBoMisiu (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiddlersmouth: many authors write works in different categories, genres, and forms; it is a logical fallacy to conflate a writer's individual works. I don't have justify anything, Whalen is the work that is central to the USCCB conclusions about masonic association in the United States, it is a WP:SUBPOV and deserves WP:DUE weight – you can WP:RFC from a wider audience if you like. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC); modified 12:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BoBoMisiu:Again with the Bishops' conferences. Let's be clear, the Roman Catholic church has persecuted Freemasons for 280 years, a process involving torture, murder and lies. The pattern was set in the 1740s with a mixture of truth and fable, and has not changed since. Nobody is about to admit they are wrong, so the lies have to continue. The Roman Catholic church, its organs and the organisations it supports are not good sources on the aims, objectives or rituals of Freemasonry.
We can accept that the Church is a good source on Church attitudes and policies towards Freemasonry, but there it stops. We can only expect such an organisation to disseminate information on Freemasonry that conforms to their narrow view. As verifiable indicators of masonic history, ritual or beliefs, your references are not worth the paper they are printed on. We have a body of men who routinely covered up institutional abuse and paedophilia for decades. Truth was never high on their agenda. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiddlersmouth: please cite your sources for "As verifiable indicators of masonic history, ritual or beliefs, your references are not worth the paper they are printed on." The rest of you comment is just red herrings and straw men with ad hominem argumentation throughout. Point out what is erroneous and cite your sources. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You put the sources in. It is for you to justify the use of deliberately antagonistic sources. It is for you to convince the rest of us that an organisation with a lamentable history of double standards can be trusted in respect of a number of smaller organisations they have being trying to suppress for centuries.
Red herrings, straw men, ad hominem - all WP:Weasel words. You are defending the indefensible. You are continuing a campaign of lies and persecution almost three centuries old. You need to find supporting references from outside the Catholic church, a problem Whalen wrestled with, and came up with a discredited author who made a lot of money by frightening people. There is no good faith (pardon the pun) between the Church and masonry. It is you that needs to show that your references are valid. I don't think you can. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My criticism of Whalen stands - he used a genuinely terrible source. As long as this drivel doesn't appear in the body of the article, please suit yourself. The article seems now to be about Catholic doctrine. As long as Catholic sources are not used as factual statements about masonic practice, I'm happy. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar and Fiddlersmouth: the article describes, in part, what Masonry is factually. The specific descriptions in this article are from the perspective of the Catholic Church.
I am not a Mason, but, I believe that Masonry is supposed to be about something more than a club where men perform empty rituals. From what I have read, it has a spiritual facet which uses its rituals for a kind of personal development. I think both of your efforts to remove or minimize content about what it is, makes the article less informative about an obvious esoteric mission. The historic incompatibilities still exist. Although research about the esoteric roots of the Enlightenment was published in the mid 20th century – i.e. a half century ago – and many Gnostic texts were discovered before that, edits about "belief" and "alleged" and "not a religion" are 19th century narratives unsupported by modern scholarship. I respect that both of you make sure that the content is "open for the public" and "on the level" but other editors, such as myself, have not made oaths to do that.
Please be aware that the article now reads like a telephone directory, and the casual reader will probably lose the will to live early in the text. You should also be aware that the verified criminal activities of various branches of the Catholic church make them an unreliable reference as to fact, as their hierarchy did nothing to stop a long list of outrages against basic human rights. Can I believe the "truth" of an organisation that laundered money for organised crime, that enslaved unmarried mothers and sold their children? An organisation that can look the other way while its officers and representatives abuse their charges does not deserve credibility.
The "spiritual facet" of Freemasonry varies widely from lodge to lodge, and ironically is stronger in the Grand Orients that admit atheists. Crashing generalisations don't work, and your "facts" come from people who by their very faith, have no practical knowledge of Freemasonry. Please expand - but be careful as to the external verification of Catholic "truths" about Freemasonry. Wikipedia cannot afford to publish libellous material. The United Grand Lodge of England have stopped being passive about unsubstantiated anti-masonic claims. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sacramental character of Masonic rituals
@Fiddlersmouth: you added alleged to "The alleged sacramental character of Masonic rituals". The DBK did not allege but concluded after six years of dialog with Masonic representatives.
In a similar manner, Whalen (1967, p 137) wrote that "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."
Every aspect of Whalen's description is verifiable. For example, "feast days" are a facet of the religion.
Masonic religious observance ceremonies, e.g. within the Grand Lodge of Montana, "during the month of January all Montana Lodges pursuant to Montana Code § 25060. A., are required to hold and conduct a Saints John Day observance." These ceremonies are not celebrated as a theologically Christian holiday but linked to astronomical events as "a symbol of control of conduct" of which the "esoteric explanation of this symbol" is explained in the Masonic first degree.(grandlodgemontana.org) Saints John the Baptist and John the Evangelist are symbolic (not in person) patron saints of Masonry.(Mackey Encyclopedia, p. 775, masonicdictionary.com)
Symbolism is used to convey the meaning of the "hidden truth which modern Freemasonry has inherited from those schools of the secret wisdom of antiquity" to people who are worthy and conceal the meaning from people who are unworthy.(masonicdictionary.com) An "example of this [...] hidden behind the [...] references [...] in our work to the two characters which are the subjects of the present paper. I [...] would emphasize my belief that this represents only a fraction of the real lesson. Their festivals, engrafted [...] upon the [...] solstitial festivals [...] in the Light-religions of antiquity, give us a [...] statement of the whole philosophy of Masonry, which is a mystery-drama of human life. [...] they give us [...] the [...] relation of man with the phenomena of the visible universe, - [...] microcosm in [...] macrocosm. For [...] Masonic purposes, it matters little what particular story we ascribe to these dates; the fact of our observance of them as ancient festivals [...] preserves the spirit of the symbolism; and whether we observe them as the midsummer and midwinter solstices under the beautifully poetical phraseology of the Osiric, Eleusinian or Druidic Mysteries, or as the feast days of Christian saints [...] the [...] lesson is the same."masonicdictionary.com "It is [...] in harmony with the spirit of 'that religion in which all men agree' and is therefore really Masonic. Their festivals [...] upon the two extremes of the year [...] give us a key to the whole philosophy of Masonry."(masonicdictionary.com)
A youtube video of an open Masonic ceremony clearly shows that "The alleged sacramental character of Masonic rituals" can be an obvious interpretation even for a non-Mason.
The Church defines the Sacraments as: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony... which of these do you think is being performed in that video?
And what, pray tell, do you think occurs at a St. John's day observance? In what way is it sacramental? Is celebrating St. Valentine's Day by taking your wife to dinner a sacrament?
FYI ... the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Montana do mandate meeting on St. John's day ... ie that is the date they have chosen to hold their Annual Communication. All Grand Lodges require that their annual meeting be held on a specific day of the year (the specificc day varies). Montana chose St. John's day, obviously because that is the day when the original Grand Lodge of England was founded in 1717 - That first Grand Lodge was formed (by four Lodges meeting in London) specifically to coordinate and plan a joint feast.
Your efforts remind me of how conspiracy theorists operate... they start with a conclusion (say: "The government was behind 9/11"), and then try to find "proof" to support the conclusion. If some bit of "proof" is challenged or debunked... no worries... the conclusion must still be valid, they just picked the wrong bit of "proof". They never think to ask whether the conclusion they started with might not be valid. Note that I am not saying that you are a conspiracy theorist... but simply that you are engaging in the same flawed reasoning that conspiracy theorists typically engage in. You have convinced yourself that Freemasonry is a religion, and nothing anyone else says will convince you to change your mind. We can spend time debunking your attempts to "prove" your contention, but that won't make any difference, you will simply react with "OK, perhaps that does not prove I am right, but this does... ad infinitem".
Look, I get it... the powers that be in Church are of the opinion that Freemasonry is some sort of alternate religion... that's their opinion, reached after studying the Fraternity. That opinion is important to mention, because it explains the Church's continued Anti-Masonic attitude. However... an opinion is just an opinion, and not universally universally accepted fact. Wikipedia's NPOV policy insists that we present opinions as being opinions, and not present them as univesrally accepted facts. We must attribute opinion to the oppinion holder, and not state them as fact in Wikipeia's voice. Thus we can not say "Freemasonry is X"... but instead we have to say: "The Church is of the opinion that Freemasonry is X" (or other hedged ways of expressing it). Hope that helps explain why "alleged" is added. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: no, you do not see conspiracy – read what I wrote.
Read what I previously wrote
Fiddlersmouth added alleged to "The alleged sacramental character of Masonic rituals". "The DBK did not allege but concluded after six years of dialog with Masonic representatives."
"In a similar manner, Whalen [...] wrote that 'Freemasonry [...] includes [...] worship, [...] feast days, [...] and initiation and burial rites'."
Feast days are part of the religion.
For example, within the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Montana, all lodges are required to conduct ceremonies which "are not celebrated as a theologically Christian holiday but linked to astronomical events as 'a symbol of control of conduct' of which the 'esoteric explanation of this symbol' is explained in the Masonic first degree.grandlodgemontana.org
An example of symbolism, used to convey the meaning about "references [...] in our [Masonic] work to the two [Saint John] characters." Their festivals, which are grafted to the solstice festivals "in the Light-religions of antiquity, give us a [...] statement of the whole philosophy of Masonry, which is a mystery-drama of human life. [...] they give us [...] the [...] relation of man with the phenomena of the visible universe, - [...] microcosm in [...] macrocosm. For [...] Masonic purposes, it matters little what particular story we ascribe to these dates; the fact of our observance of them as ancient festivals [...] preserves the spirit of the symbolism; and [regardless of how] we observe them as the [...] solstices [...,] the [...] lesson is the same."masonicdictionary.com "It is [...] in harmony with the spirit of 'that religion in which all men agree' and is therefore really Masonic. Their festivals [...] give us a key to the whole philosophy of Masonry."masonicdictionary.com
I may not have written precisely enough but you are conflating two facets of what I wrote:
my example of a Masonic feast day
the youtube video of an open Masonic ceremony which clearly shows that "'The alleged sacramental character of Masonic rituals' can be an obvious interpretation."
A sacramental is an ex opere operandis sign or "analogous religious practices" with spiritual effects that resembles a sacrament. Examples of sacramentals include: blessing of baptismal water and blessing of holy oils.[1][2]
Everything in masonry is symbolic. Everything physical thing, e.g. oil, salt, wine, represents some Masonic symbolic nature. A Google search for "elements of consecration" shows that physical things, contained in ritual vessels, are used in a lodge "consecration ritual". A portable symbolic object called "the lodge" is also used. The video shows (from about 26m 16s) some type of invocation, some type of offerings of the physical things contained in the ritual vessels, and the religious use of incense in a censer (28m30s–33m39s), closing doors of a special place (37m20s)
Hints of the sacramental nature of ritual can be found online.
For example, on phoenixmasonry.org
"The [consecration] ceremony should mean [...] that the symbolic sacrifice will be made real [...] an effective instrument in the hands of the builders. [...] A man and a woman may be married [...] without the blessing of God; so could a lodge be constituted, [...] without the ceremony of consecration. [...] matrimony is [...] considered [...] a sacrament, [...] solemnized with the blessing of the Most High, [...] so is the creation of a new lodge [...] performed when it has been consecrated by the pouring of the corn, the wine, the oil [...]"[15]
In an initiation, "the assembled [...] should [...] be notified [...] that they [...] engage in a [...] solemn act [...] to the intent that what is done and signified ceremonially may be realized spiritually [...] to whom they desire to minister. [...] the ceremonial preparation of the candidate before being brought into the Lodge should be treated, [...] but as a profoundly sacramental act, in the significance of which both the officiating deacons and the candidate himself should be instructed."[16]
"it has been indicated that the customary practice of refreshment and social conviviality is not only practically useful, but has a deep sacramental value."[17]
"[...] the Order's real significance, [... as] a source of light and guidance to many [...] who have realized and profited by its implications, and some of who from the portal of the Craft, have passed [...] to more advanced methods [...] of spiritual instruction. A sacramental system is not invalidated by the default of those accepting its jurisdiction; [...] not a few Masons have won to the Light despite the surrounding darkness of their Brethren."[18]
"[...] the Mysteries - as a science of life and an art of [...] living [...] to qualify for [] attaining ultra-natural life [] will [...] be restored. [...] the tide [...] has been [...] against the tradition of regeneration into [...] ultra-natural life, [...] the Christian Church is [...] a steward of the Mysteries [...] but [...] there has been failure [...] to realize them [...] the narrative in the Gospels, [...] is a drama of Initiation [...] previously had been [...] conceal[ed in] the Mystery-schools, became, at the Incarnation, objectified, universalized and made generally accessible ; [...] the Gospels became a manual of Initiation [...] The [...] cycle of the Church's year, [...] is a true chart of the path to be followed by those who [...] seek initiation under the mastership of the Great Hierophant and Exemplar of regenerative science; [...] in the Sacrament of the Altar [...] under different symbolism, the actual process of Initiation and the same transmutative changes in the body and mind of the recipient as are emblematized to the Masonic candidate in the Craft Degrees."[19]
"The Masonic system was devised [...] as a [...] school in which [...] Gnosis might be learned and an [...] acquaintance made with the science of human regeneration. [...] every voluntary participant in them stands imperishably impressed with the memory of them. The maxim 'Once a Mason, always a Mason' expresses an occult truth not realized by those who are unaware of the subjective value and persistence of one's deliberated objective actions; [...] the Church implies the same truth when it deems the act of sacramental baptism to bring a given soul within the fold of Christ for ever. In each case, [...] especially [...] when the [...] will of the neophyte assents to the act, a new addition is made to the group-soul of the community into which the individual becomes incorporated; and, in the case of the Masonic initiate, the aggregate and volume of what we have termed the Masonic Consciousness is enlarged."[20]
"[...] the sprig of Acacia will grow in our hearts, if we cultivate it, [...] and [...] will be not a symbol but a sacrament in the house of our pilgrimage."[21]
Philip M. Katz compares a Masonic ritual from Ancien Régime France to the eucharist, in Freemasonry in context: "Special attention should be paid to this word oblation, a technical term for various aspects of the Eucharistic ritual, and thus not one to be used lightly. Indeed, what happens next can only be described as an imitation of that sacrament."[3]: 165 The language used in the ritual is "we demand that you participate in the symbolic offering of the heart of this respectable master which we have preserved in the form of a mystic substance ever since the assassination. Do you have the strength to swallow the morsel of his heart which will be presented to you, which all faithful Masons have received, but which cannot remain in the body of liars?"[3]: 180
References
^Cross, F. L; Livingstone, E. A., eds. (2005). "sacramentals". The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press (published 2009). ISBN9780192802903. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^Scribner, Robert W. (1996). "Sacramentals". The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation. Oxford University Press (published 2005). ISBN9780195064933. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
^ abKatz, Philip M. (2004). "Freemasonry under the cloak: a Masonic text of the Old Regime". In Hoyos, Arturo de; Morris, S. Brent (eds.). Freemasonry in context: history, ritual, controversy. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. ISBN9780739107812. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
Quoting snippets out of context to the prove your contention is another tactic often used by Antimasonic conspiracy theorists. Keep it up and you may yet qualify for a tin foil hat. Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: I am not proving anything, the snippets are on this talk page to colaberate with other editors in a search for better references about the sacramental nature of ritual. They are, as I described, "Hints of the sacramental nature of ritual can be found online". I think, so far, Katz's chapter in Freemasonry in context is a good source for its historical example of a ritual with sacramental nature. I think might develop into a footnote in this article. I have to learn the jargon before I can design effective searches – that is why my discussions about sources on this talk page are amateurish. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Something to emulate
I would like to draw everyone's attention to this blog posting ... it is a transcript of a speech given by Rev Mr. John J. McManus, JD, JCL (to a Masonic lodge in Georgia). Yes, I know that this would not be considered a reliable source for a citation (since it is hosted on a blog)... but it is still worth looking at. I draw it to your attention more as an example of how it is possible to present this topic concisely, accurately, and informatively... without trying to "prove" which side is right or wrong. While clearly discussing the topic from a specific POV (that of the Church) the author takes a neutral tone... attributing opinions to those who hold them. We could do well to emulate this presentation here in our article. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning Propaganda Due
While the P2 scandal probably did influence Catholic attitudes towards Freemasonry... if we are going to mention it in this article, I think it important to get the historical facts right. At the time of the scandal, P2 was NOT a legitimate Masonic Lodge. It's charter had been withdrawn by the Grand Orient of Italy, and it's leadership had been expelled. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: the point is about the obligation of "Masonic secrecy" not about the organizational relationships between various Masonic groups. I agree with you that the lodge became clandestine. But, it is a type of no true Scotsman fallacy – to argue, from the premise that a withdrawal of perceived lodge legitimacy by the franchising grand orient, to the conclusion that the lodge is somehow not masonic or that the obligation of "Masonic secrecy" somehow was changed or eliminated within that lodge. Maybe adding the qualifier clandestine would clarify the organizational relationship. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Making a general case out of P2 is simply unacceptable. The problem wasn't masonic secrecy, it was the nature of the lodge. The idea was that famous people (and prominent Catholics) could become masons and nobody would know. Their membership and activities were closed even to the Grand Orient. Gelli realised that there would be no accountability, there is no way of knowing, at present, what happened when he turned the lodge into a monster, or measuring the complicity of the governing body. The source is an unreliable spokesman for the anti-masonic views of the church. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The scandal illustrated "that Masonic secrecy could camouflage and facilitate conspiracies" in the late 20th-century. — User:BoBoMisiu2016-10-05T19:34:17
This is in Whalen: "The P2 case did demonstrate that Masonic secrecy could camouflage and facilitate conspiracies of the political right, even in the shadows of St. Peter's."[22]
The quote is about "Masonic secrecy" – as Fiddlersmouth wrote: "there would be no accountability, there is no way of knowing".
"[...] a secret Masonic lodge in Italy had infiltrated all of the state's security agencies and was involved in promoting or at least exploiting acts of neo-fascist terrorism in order to help condition the political system and strengthen its own influence in the corridors of government, most readers would probably assume that that they were joking or accuse them of having taken leave of their senses. [...] Nevertheless, [...] such a lodge did in fact exist. It was known as Loggia Massonica Propaganda Due (P2), was affiliated with the Grand Orient branch of Italian Freemasonry, and was headed by a former Fascist militiaman [...] In all probability smaller entities similar to P2 still exist today in an altered form, albeit not always promoting an authoritarian or rightist political agenda, even though that particular 'covered' lodge in Italy was officially outlawed in 1982. [...] There is no doubt that specialists in late twentieth-century Italian politics who fail to take account of the activities of P2, [...] are missing an important dimension of political life in those countries at particular historical junctures. Nevertheless, neither of these two important organizations has been thoroughly investigated by academics. [...] as is so often the case, investigative journalists have done most of the truly groundbreaking preliminary research.pp. 57–58
Clearly, the lodge was used, as Whalen wrote, to "camouflage and facilitate conspiracies".
My issue isn't that you misquote the sources, but that the sources are inaccurate (and thus unreliable) in calling P2 "Masonic". Blueboar (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The primary organizations involved in these anti-constitutional activities were [....] the Propaganda Due (P2) masonic lodge [...]"[23]
"Between the early 1970s and 1981, an international masonic lodge called Propaganda Due (P2) operated as a cover, as well as in its own right, for a large number of illegal economic and political activities, ranging from the trafficking in arms and drugs to terrorism, from illegal lobbying to fraud and corruption."[24]
"The fall of the Forlanni government, [...], was due to the exposure of the 'secret masonic' lodge P2"[25]
"Around the same time, links were forged between some Mafiosi and the highly secretive 'Propaganda Due'or P2 Lodge–a 'deviated' branch of Freemasonry. [...] Acting like a parallel state [...] the lodge conspired to destabilize democratically elected governments [...]"[26]
"[...] the notorious Propaganda Due or P2 network that pretended to be a mere Masonic Lodge [...]"[27]
"One may justifiably dismiss traditional histrionic anti-Masonic conspiracy theories, but this should not lead one to deny that particular lodges of Freemasons—such as the right-wing Propaganda Due (P2) lodge in Italy—have in fact engaged in secret plotting to influence [...]"[28]
"The real issue concerns the role of 'occult' forces behind the neo- Fascist/SID nexus. In 1980-81 the Italian public became aware of a secret masonic lodge known as Propaganda Due (P2) whose leader, Licio Gelli, was identified as a puppetmaster of Italian politics."[29]
"[...] the illegal masonic lodge Propaganda Due (P2). P2, [...] was such a prominent player in Italian politics since the 1960's, that it was often regarded as a state within a state. P2 was involved in every aspect of Italian politics until the 1982 collapse of Banco Ambrosiano. In fact, many people believe that P2 was responsible for the death of Pope John Paul I,"[30]
Yes, lots of people do think of P2 as "Masonic"... especially anti-Masonic conspiracy theorists. That is because at one time P2 was Masonic. But then it got taken over by Licio Gelli, and he turned it into something else... something non-Masonic. This is why, in 1976, the Grand Orient yanked P2's charter. To put this in terms that you might understand, you could think of the Grand Orient's withdrawal of P2's charter as the Masonic analogy to declaring P2 heretical. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: is your point that a masonic group becomes less masonic when other masonic groups withdraw their recognition? Masons categorize organizational relationships between various Masonic groups too: i.e. regular, irregular, clandestine, etc. The P2 lodge was regular, i.e. part of that grand orient, and became clandestine, i.e. not part of that grand orient. Of course, Anglo-masonry rejects – I think most if not all – grand orient groups since the second-half of the 19th-century, but grand orient groups are nevertheless continue to be classified as masonic in the 21st-century. These is a high degree of separation and autonomy between the many types of masonic groups. Moreover, masonic association, especially in Europe and Latin America, has a long history of subversion which lead to condemnation by many civil governments. Based on searching the reliable literature, describing P2 as non-masonic is fringe and not mainstream. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an issue of some "other" Masonic group withdrawing recognition... the issue is that the parent body that issued P2's charter in the first place (the Grand Orient) declared P2 shut down and expelled its membership from the fraternity. Imagine that the Catholic Church discovered that a particular parish was engaged in heresy... after examination the Church authorities might shut down the parish, and excommunicate it's parishioners. If the congregation of that parish continued to meet and practice their heresy, would it be right to continue to call them "Catholics?" Of course not. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my problem. P2 was more a problem of the Catholic church than it was for the Grand Orient. A Catholic source blaming Freemasonry in general for the criminal activities of a renegade lodge without mentioning the involvement of the Vatican Bank in the whole debacle is pure hypocrisy. Where would Gelli, Sindona, and Calvi have started without their associate, archbishop Paul Marcinkus? Glass houses, stones... Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar and Fiddlersmouth:the sentence I added is "The scandal illustrated 'that Masonic secrecy could camouflage and facilitate conspiracies' in the late 20th-century."
Both of your comments distract from the question at issue in the sentence and are not relevant to the sentence which I added. The sentence I added has a citation. It is a well-documented scandal. I have provided material supporting the sentence in this discussion and can provide more. All I read in your opposition to the sentence is unsupported personal incredulity. In review:
there was scandal
there was masonry
there was secrecy
there was camouflage
there was facilitating
there was conspiracy
it happened in the late 20th century
Each word individually is supportable with additional citations and the entire sentence is both currently cited and supportable with additional citations. I will revert, add Bale as a supporting citation, and tag the sentence with {{discuss}} – neither of you have shown anything that supports your opinions. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As previously discussed, the citation used is blatantly POV, and happily uses discredited references. P2 was a perfectly good masonic lodge until it was taken over by a leading Catholic businessman with strong Vatican connections and turned into the nerve centre of a criminal empire. It was expelled from the Grand Orient. Licio Gelli was still some sort of Freemason. When was he excommunicated? When was he refused mass? No, he had a good Catholic send-off when he died. Was P2 an exception to the ban? Yes, there was conspiracy, but the only stuff the police could nail down involved the Vatican Bank. Do we want to report this in a balanced manner, or just drop it? This doesn't warrant a detailed discussion of an organisation with its own article. Again, there are better references than a clearly POV Vatican propagandist. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: there are at least three competing franchise of Freemasonry in Italy: the Grand Orient of Italy (chartered P2), the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy, and the Gran Loggia d'Italia. Each is masonic except to those masons who are obliged by their oath to exclude them. Each grand lodge is an independent franchise and can withdraw recognition from another grand lodge to distance themselves from some distasteful idea – each is no less masonic after another withdraws recognition of it. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whalen, who you call "a clearly POV Vatican propagandist" who "happily uses discredited references", has a Talk:William J. Whalen § Negative assessments of work discussion where you can cite the sources which support your opinion of him and his work. Whithout support for your opinion, this is an ad hominem and a red herring against Whalen as far as I see – in contrast to your opinion, Whalen is a source in the bibliography of the "Freemasons" article in Encyclopedia of Religion.[31] Which is among "Library Journal's picks of the most important reference works of the millennium -- with the Encyclopedia Judaica and the New Catholic Encyclopedia -- [...] and is widely regarded as the standard reference work in the field."[32]
"This doesn't warrant a detailed discussion of an organisation with its own article" is a straw man. I added one sentence which links to an example. There is no detailed discussion in this article. Adding one sentence is appropriate.
The P2 and Gelli articles have separate talk pages too.
You are missing the point... the fact that there are several branches of Freemasonry active in Italy is irrelevant... because, after it's charter was withdrawn in 1976, P2 did not belong to any of them. It was kicked out of Freemasonry entirely. It was no longer part of the fraternity... no matter which branch of Freemasonry you are talking about. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: I understand what happened. P2 become a clandestine lodge and continued its work. I cannot change the reliable consensus that P2 is categorized as masonic. I added the qualifier clandestine to the sentence, even though P2 also machinated against the state during the period it was a regular lodge. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BoBoMisiu: You obviously don't understand what a regular lodge is. Whalen is the Vatican's attack dog on masonry, just google him. He publishes in POV Catholic periodicals. Please find me an article on masonry by Whalen that doesn't include deliberate half-truths or rely on sources from conspiracy nuts. Bale does NOT mention masonic secrecy as a factor, he says that the Lodge was secret, which is quite different and not normal. You are still making a general case from one errant lodge. And that's your third revert. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BoBoMisiu: Whalen's work starts from the presumption that Freemasonry is somehow wrong. This makes him POV. An article that starts by describing masonry as a "Pastoral problem" cannot be neutral. That's not ad hominem, the starting point of the work is transparently POV. Bale does not support your statement, he says something else. And you have now officially crossed the line into edit warring. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiddlersmouth: no I am not edit warring. I am contributing content and discussing what I add. I think you should ask for a broader consensus about your opinions.
Yes, Whalen's report was commissioned to describe a pastoral problem. That does not make it less reliable or less factual. Whalen's report describes the subject from a Catholic point of view. That does not make it less reliable or less factual.
You are making a genetic fallacy by rejecting Whalen. Personal incredulity is also a logical fallacy.
