Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 1

Canon 2335

There are already articles on canons that pronounce excommunications, such as canon 1398 and canon 915. It might also be appropriate to write a corresponding article on canon 2335, which was long used to excommunicate Masons, who are still de jure forbidden from approaching communion because of similar legislation. ADM (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Be bold... write it. Blueboar (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Grand Orients and Feminine Lodges

There needs to be more articles (or more stub articles) on the various Grand Orient organizations and their relationships with the Church. See for example Grand Orient of Mexico, Grand Orient of Argentina, Grand Orient of Brazil, Grand Orient of Columbia, Grand Orient of Cuba, Grand Orient of Greece, Grand Orient of Spain, Grand Orient of Chile, Grand Orient of Lebanon, Grand Orient of Peru, Grand Orient of Poland, Grand Orient of Portugal, Grand Orient of Russia, Grand Orient of Switzerland, Grand Orient of Uruguay, Grand Orient of Venezuela, Grand Orient of Turkey. Another interesting point would be to try and clear up allegations that Feminine Lodges have played a major role in legislation on abortion. ADM (talk) 18:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be more articles (or more stub articles) on the various Grand Orient organizations and their relationships with the Church. Go ahead, be bold and write them!--Vidkun (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Vidkun... don't just complain that articles are missing... be bold and write them ... However, as you do so, don't forget the need to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and Policies ... especially WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS. Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There can be non-fundamental differences between various G.O. or G.L. organizations and the RCC, but their is no fundamental difference in the principal attitude of the RCC towards them: if a catholic becomes a member of them, he or she is automatically excommunicated. Dual membership is never allowed. --Stijn Calle (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually... not quite right. The Church imposes an interdict, not excommunication. Catholic Masons remain in the Church, they just may not recieve communion. It is a subtle, but important distiction. Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Not being allowed to go to communion = being in a state of deadly sin => If you die in this state, ceteris paribus, you go to hell. --Stijn Calle (talk) 06:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In Belgium, male, female and mixed masonry organizations DID substantially cooperate and were instrumental in changing the law on abortion. This is admitted in historical writings of masonic origin (in Dutch or in French). I have no doubt in other countries, the same thing happened. --Stijn Calle (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't assume... If you write an article on this, provide sources. Blueboar (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

On abortion: Les Amis Philanthropes (n° 1) Bruxelles (GOB) Les Amis Philanthropes: Histoire d’une loge de 1876 à 1998 1e Les Amis Philanthropes Bruxelles (BE) 1999

On cremation, abortion, euthanasia, divorce etc: Poma Karel baron Actie Vrijmetselaren ... Roularta Books Zellik (BE) 1995 9054661852

--Stijn Calle (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

CONCERNING WP:SYNT. Please read and check my two references. In the first they soundly admit their involvement (in french), in the second, they boast about a whole range of topics they influenced (dutch). It is NO original research, but it are referenced statement of facts of the original parties involved. --Stijn Calle (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to create these. Try to make sure that you have a source for each one. If you need any help just leave a message on my page. JASpencer (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems in the Philippines

I recently read an unusual article on a modern-day conflict between the Church and the Masons in Philippines. Of course, the source on hand could be considered extremist, but this is only because it is a rather secret affair and because it is a very ancient and deep conflict. Anyways, there ought to be an article describing the Grand Lodge of the Philippines and its relationships with Church and State. [1] ADM (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? What's special about the Grand Lodge of the Phillippines and its relationship to the Church?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The majority of Catholic countries have Grand Orient Latin lodges in them, while on the contrary the Philippines is perhaps the only Catholic country apart from Ireland in which an Anglo-American Grand Lodge is present. ADM (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean Catholic countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, and France (and others in Europe)? Or perhaps you mean Catholic countries such as are found in Central America andSouth America? Blueboar (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he means that the Grand Orients are dominant and that the UGLE aligned masons are comparitively small. I'm not sure if that's true in every case, but it's broadly true. JASpencer (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

John Paul II and B'nai Brith

Does John Paul II meeting with members of B'nai Brith count as a gesture of reconciliation towards Masons ? Some people made a big deal about this, but it doesn't seem like it was an actually settling of issues between the Church and the Lodges. He also apparently met with members of the Trialteral Commission. [2] ADM (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And just what is the connection between a Jewish service organisation, a private organisation that fosters international cooperation and masonry? Reliable sources please... WegianWarrior (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And to give a more direct answer... No, neither meeting has anything to do with Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Masonic views on cremation

Another interesting issue would be to try and explain what are Masonic views on cremation. I have no way of knowing for sure, but some of the more radical Christians have alleged that Masons are big friends of cremation. [3] ADM (talk) 04:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not involved with Masonry. Some Masons will be cremated, some won't, just like in the general public. It's between you, your family, and God.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Freemasonry has no view as to cremation. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I could see how, in the past, it might have been the case that Freemasons opted for cremation. A hundred years or so ago, cremation was seen as being a way people could ridicule the resurrection of the body, and, at various times, a lot of Freemasons have had fairly strong anti-Catholic feelings. But it is one thing to say that any member or members of a group has an opinion, and quite another to say that in some way the group as a whole has such opinions or tries to impose them on its members. Unless reliable sources can be found which clearly indicate that officials of Freemasonry actively encouraged or dictated cremation to their members, all it looks like to me is that maybe, at a time when there was a significant amount of anti-Catholic sentiment in lots of areas, Freemasons shared that sentiment. On that basis, I can't see adding anything specific about Freemasons until such time like the one suggested above is found. And if it is found, any additional material should only indicate that Freemasons objected to it at the time they did, unless further evidence can be found that in some way the suggestion/ruling/whatever still stands or is actively discussed. Blueboar has struck me in particular as being very knowledgable about what reliable sources say about Freemasons, and I tend to think that if he says Freemaonry has no position on cremation, it doesn't. If Masonic Appendant Bodies are found in reliable sources to oppose cremation, I don't think anyone would oppose adding that information, provided it specified only the appendant bodies, not "regular" Freemasonry. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to remind both ADM and John that not everything in life (or in this case, death) equates to taking a position for or against the Catholic Church. The fact is, Freemasonry takes no position on cremation. Individual Freemasons may be in favor of cremation or against it, according to their own religious beliefs. Cremation is a religious issue... and Freemasonry is not a religion. To understand why Freemasonry takes no position, consider the fact that Freemasonry is made up of men of many faiths. If the fraternity was to come out against cremation it would offend Hindu Masons (who believe that cremation is manditory), if it came out for cremation, it would offend Catholic (and some Protestant) Masons who belong to faiths that are against it. So... it takes no position at all, remaining silent on the matter and leaving such determinations for the individual to figure out according to doctrines of their own faith. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable. However, I do think that what you're speaking of is current practice. If (which I think very unlikely, but just thinking theoretically) if reliably sourced evidence could be found indicating that previously, some official of standard Freemasonry indicated that cremation were the "preferred" form of body disposal, then I guess that information could be included. Personally, like I said, I know you to be a reputable editor. If you say it doesn't exist now, I have no doubt that it doesn't. And, in all honesty, if it were me, I wouldn't waste the time of trying to find anything in historical records, because I'm certain that you would have yourself mentioned any evidence indicating a preference for cremation if you knew one to exist. So I very seriously doubt that there is any real connection between the two. While there is the possibility of like-minded individuals acting in similar ways, and that could have happened previously, unless there were some sort of reliable source indicating that there was an official statement from a Freemason encouraging or dictating such behavior, all it would be would be like-minded people acting similarly, and making any statements based on that weak premise would almost certainly be a violation of WP:UNDUE. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we're getting confused between UGLE freemasonry and Latin Freemasonry. ADM is clearly interested in the second movement and Blueboar "speaks" for the UGLE style. There is something in the whole cremation and Freemasonry thing, although most of us were probably children (or not born) when the situation changed. A few facts:

The Catholic church forbade cremation until 1963. In fact almost all Christian denominations forbade cremation until the early twentieth century.

The early cremationist movement was specifically anti-Christian

Many of these early cremationists were prominent Freemasons for whom anti-clericalism was an important part of their masonic affiliations (Garibaldi is a prominent example and the early cremationists in Argentina are a less prominent example)

The Italian lodges, at least, were involved in promoting cremation ([4])

In 1892 the Archbishop of Freiburg put three conditions on when it was permissable for Catholics to materially co-operate with cremation, and one of the three conditions was "that cremation be not looked upon as a distinctive mark of a Masonic sect" (Cremation, from the Catholic Encyclopedia)

The Archbishop of Cambrai also equated pressure for cremation with Freemasonry

Even today Catholic traditionalists such as the SSPX put Freemasonry as the motive force behind cremation and proof of the anti-Christian intent of the cremation movement

Is cremation ordered upon all Freemasons? Clearly not. Were many freemasons strongly involved in the cremationist movement, for similar anti-clerical motives that had driven them to freemasonry? Yes. Were the masonic associations an important factor in the RCC's attitudes towards cremation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century? Clearly the were.

I don't know if it needs great coverage, let alone how it would be done, but don't assume that because the American grand lodges have no real beef about cremation, that it wasn't important to a large number of freemasons in a different place and a different time, and that this was immaterial in its relations to the Catholic church.

JASpencer (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Fascinating, JA. Thanks for the details. Just found the following info at Google books (you cited from earlier in the book above):

The cremationist debate...originated...with the birth of the Italian Unitarian state. The basic pillars of the project...were doctors and liberals, Milanese thinkers and freemasons. At the end of the 1860s the debate established itself in international medical conventions.... After 1874 the task of promoting cremation was handed over from the circles of 'liberal thought' to freemasonry which...committed itself to the greater promotion of cremation in the municipalities.... [Grand Master Giuseppe Mazzoni] urged 'all the lodges and all the masonic bodies to energetically engage in this major issue, as nobody could avoid its extraordinary importance.' In the circular, Mazzoni...stressed that the greatest effort should be made in converting public opinion, and that cremation was 'a new step towards the route of civil progress.'

I'll have to read up on this a bit more.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting... and I agree it is worth reading more. Given this paragraph, I would have to admit that a very specific statement as to a historical stance taken by Italian Freemasonry in the 1870s might be possible. Historical context is important. When we talk about Italy Freemasonry during the Risorgimento, we are not talking about Italian Freemasonry today... and we are definitely not talking about Freemasonry as a whole.

That said, I do think we need to be careful in assinging motives to people, and not to assume that Freemasons did things that might be seen as Anti-clerical because they were Freemasons (even during the Risorgimento). To make a cause and effect statements as to motive, we would need very strong sources that specifically make the connection. We should not "read between the lines" of our sources.... For example, the NYT article on Garabaldi that JAS points to does not say that he was cremated because he was a Freemason... it would be OR to say so. Likewise, the article on the Argentinian cremationists does not say that these men were supporters of cremation because they were Masons... if anything it implies that they were supprters of the practice for other reasons (although even that is reading something into the article that isn't really there).

In other words, if something on this were to be added to the article, great care would have to go into exaclty what is said and how it is phrased, to avoid slipping into a WP:NOR violation. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Grande Oriente d'Itallia didn't think that Garibaldi's support had nothing to do with Freemasonry. http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/garibaldi_g/garibaldi.html Cremation is an interesting side alley of the whole relationship, but also a useful illustration to us that what we think of as uncontroversial today was not at a different place and time, like Nineteenth Century Italy. There's a more detailed piece here on Garibaldi's cremation. 00:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

GOdF opens its mouth...

...and firmly plants its foot in it. GOdF has issued a statement condeming Benedict's recent comments on condoms and Aids. Sigh... for a US perspective, see Christopher Hodapp's blog (the entry is entitled: "French Freemasons vs. The Pope. Again"). While that reflects Hodapp's personal view on the matter, he has some very good points, and reminds us why Anglo/American Freemasonry stays the hell away of discussions relating to politics and religion.

OK... a note AMD and JAS... before you go rushing off to add this to the article (and, sadly, I would agree that an official statement by the GOdF merits inclusion), please remember that the Grand Master of GOdF does not speak for all of Freemasonry. Nor does he even speak for all of the Continental Style Grand Lodges and Grand Orients. NOR is his stance the same as every Freemason in the GOdF. While he may speak in an official capacity for the Grand Orient, many French Freemasons will and do disagree with him (I would not be at all surprised if this didn't end up as cause for yet another schism in French Freemasonry).

Also, my point about assigning motives made in the previous thread is still apt. While the statement is definitely a criticism of the Pope, and will be seen by the Church as being anti-clerical in tone... do not assume that this statement was issued because of Anti-clerical motivations. If you read the Grand Master's statement it is clear that the motivation behind it is health related, and not inspired by religious issues. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people would argue that the Communist Party is anti-religious, but I would also be ready to argue that the GOdF has done much more harm to the Church than anything related to communism. Hence the historic excommunication of both. ADM (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That is a fairly extreme statement, and I would have to see reliable sources for any such argument to be added to the article... but if (for the sake of disscussion) we assume it is true, the next question is whether the GOdF intended to harm the Church, or whether that harm was simply a by-product of other goals (we do have to be careful not to look at these issues from a purely Church based perspective). Blueboar (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

They simultanously oppose clericalism and promote secular humanism, since many of their agnostic members feel that Christianity is just too dogmatic to be humanist. Their official motto is also Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, proclaimed during the uneasy moments of French Revolution. Some anti-masonic writers have also asserted that this motto is merely a secularized, politicized and non-dogmatic version of Jahbulon (Yahve-Baal-Osiris), a counterfeit version of the Holy Trinity. ADM (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since that derivation of Jahbulon has been thoroughly debunked, that tells us how seriously to take the assertion of equality. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Public school controversies

In France and Belgium, there was a notable controversy at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century on the role of Masons in the establisment of a public school system. The idea was that since Masons were said to have played an important part in the founding of the Republic, the education system should allow a good deal of space for Masonic public educators. The educators were known as the Black Knights (Hussards noirs) because their particular attire and devotion to secularist values. Conversely, all Catholic involvement in the education system was restricted or forbidden because of its seemingly religious character. This issue was for a long time at the forefront of difficult Church-State relations on the continent, and better access to private education was only granted in the 1980s after a long period of domination by the public sector. There were also similar issues in Mexico after the signing of the 1917 constitution. ADM (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Public vs Church run education was indeed a big issue in traditionally Catholic countries during the periods you talk about, and many (but not all) Masonic Grand bodies in those countries (in both the GOdF wing and the UGLE wing of Freemasonry) came out in favor of public education. Once again, however, we have to be careful about assigning motive. There were a host of reasons to support one side or the other in that debate (and there were Freemasons on both sides of the debate)... some of these reasons were Anti-clerical, but others were not (yes I know the Church may not have seen it that way, especially at the time, but it is still a valid statement). We have to remember to place any discussion of historic events into their historic context. Blueboar (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Masonic suppression of the Holy See

Another issue on this topic would be to try and discuss allegations that secret societies were responsible for the suppression of the Holy See during the papacy of Pius IX, which Garibaldi likened to a rival secret society. According to Jasper Ridley, at the 1867 Congress of Geneva, Garibaldi referred to "that pestilential institution which is called the Papacy" and proposed giving "the final blow to the monster". ADM (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote farming is a form of original research. That said, Jasper Ridley is definitely a reliable source. He (correctly) points out that there were Freemasons on all sides of the political debates surrounding the Unification of Italy (including many who supported the Papacy). And Ridley definitely does not allege that "secret societies were responsible for the suppression of the Holy See." Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree. And old example of bad Biblical quote farming I know of is "Judas went out and hanged himself." "Go, thou, and do likewise." Kinda gives an entirely different meaning than either one would on its own. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My favorite example is to quote the US Constitution, which clearly states: "Congress shall pass no law". Sometimes I wish the framers had stopped there. :>) Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Masonic views on science

This section is in line with the previous message on Masonic views on cremation. It does seem fairly accurate to say that many Masons have promoted the idea that religion and science are totally incompatible and utterly irreconcilable. See for example the article conflict thesis, where Catholicism is singled out as incompatible with science, while Islam, Judaism and Protestantism are not. When you read the conflict thesis, the debate on Religion vs. Science almost plays out in the same way as Catholicism vs. Freemasonry, just like in a Dan Brown novel. ADM (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Two words -- Galileo Galilei.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Who knows, there are stories out there on Galileo being a friend of the pre-modern Rosicrucians (aka Newton et al). ADM (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Um... ADM, Galileo died a year before Newton was born... it is unlikely that they were friends, dispite the stories you may have read.

As for Masonry's views on science... I think it is safe to say that Masons are solidly in favor of Science. So is the Church (with one or two notable specific exceptions).

I am reminded of a comment made by a noted Vatican astronomer (this was back in the 60s or 70s when the Big Bang theory was relatively new)... he said something along the lines of: "There is no conflict between Science and Religion... Science tells us how the universe was created, Religion tells us why it was created." Blueboar (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Catholicism" or "The Catholic Church"?

Something that has always bothered me is the discord between the title of this article and it's contents... the title talks about "Catholicism", while the article mostly talks about the "Catholic Church" ... and most of that refers specifically to the Papacy and the Vatican hierarchy. I realize that these two concepts are intertwined (especially from the point of view of the hierarchy and the Pope)... but they are not quite synonimous. Should we perhaps change the name of the article? Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That strikes me as a good idea, as in the past 300 years there have been a number of independent Catholic movements. It should probably be "The Vatican and Freemasonry" to be even more clear.Father.rassbach (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I oppose a name change. The first proposal is a distinction without a differnce. By Catholic doctrine the Church is more than the hierarchy, or even the clerics - it is all the faithful. The name change although technically acceptable, would seem to support this mistaken impression. As far as changing it to "The Vatican and Freemasonry", that name would be inaccurate and too narrow. The article has lots of subjects which are not about the Vatican, i.e. the American Bishops, the German Bishops, the Anslow affair, Catholic fraternal groups, and relations in Latin countries.Mamalujo (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

oppose per Mamalujo's excellent reasoning.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Mamalujo: The church is more than the hierarchy, but Catholicism is more than the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps the addition of 'Roman' to Catholicism or Roman Catholic Church would be appropriate. There are several Catholic organizations (the Liberal Catholic Church being one) that do not have any doctrines relating to Freemasonry.Father.rassbach (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)