Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

To Do List

I'm adding a to do template so that editors can see the general direction in which the article is going and we can minimise the surprises. This may calm down the editing wars.

Do other editors think that this will be useful? JASpencer 08:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me... the pessimist in me would not be surprised to find us arguing just as much over what should go into the "to do" list, but you may be right that such a list would calm things down. It is worth a try. Blueboar 12:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course there will be some disagreement but the idea is to see what sort of stuff we can agree on, and perhaps make feelings known before anything starts up. The real problem is that one editor is not arguing at all but simply deleting large areas without discussion. JASpencer 12:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do we have to follow you? I'll do my own thing thanks. Imacomp 13:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Co-operation duly noted. JASpencer 13:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

So what? Am I in danger? Imacomp 13:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh? JASpencer 13:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. That is what everyone else thinks, except you. Imacomp 13:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Like Blueboar "It is worth a try". Your editing is becoming odder and odder. Happy Easter by the way. JASpencer 14:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Add this to the to do list, to add? Leo XIII awarded a gold medal [1] to a fashionable 19th century cocaine-laced wine called Vin Mariani. (Note Paolo Mantegazza a prominent Italian neurologist, physiologist and anthropologist, isolatied of cocaine from coca leaves and experimentally tested it on himself in 1859. Afterwards, he wrote a paper titled Sulle Virtù Igieniche e Medicinali della Coca e sugli Alimenti Nervosi in Generale ("On the hygienic and medicinal properties of coca and on nervous nourishment in general"). described the effect of cocaine on cognition.) Imacomp 21:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI 'n' WW2. Just how clean can a War Record get? A few facts cited would help. Has he tried to make up for the lack of active service later on, when heading up the "Holy Office"? Imacomp 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A To Do box has been added at top of this Talk Page (I checked out some other articles that have such lists, and they keep them on the talk page and not in the article - this seems to make sense to me). Blueboar 17:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Blueboar it makes more sense. JASpencer 19:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Papal Documents

I have been checking out (primarily at this site) the various papal documents listed as prominently dealing with Freemasonry, and I have a few comments... first, there are one or two which do not seem to be locatable (this could be a fault with the site I am visiting, but I could not locate them through a more general google search either). At least one has not been translated into English, so we have no way of being sure it actually says anything about Freemasonry. If possible, could someone please provide citations for these documents so I can see which ones actually do discuss Freemasonry.

On that note: "Traditi Humilitati" talks about secret societies in general, but does not mention Freemasonry specificly.

Then there are several that do not mention Freemasonry at all:

• Mirari Vos
• Qui Pluribus
• Quanta Cura
• Esti Nos

Unless someone can convince me that these actually do discuss Freemasonry, I will remove them. Blueboar 23:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed ... I left in Quanta Cura because, on double checking, it does talk of Secret Societies and thus could touch on Freemasonry. There are enough Papal documents that DO discuss Freemasonry, that we do not need to "pad" the list with those that do not. Blueboar 22:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Mirari Vos is probably the hardest one of the three, as it doesn't mention Freemasonry but it is quoted in quite a few Catholic denunciations of Freemasonry (for example Ratzingers clarification in 1987). This is because Mirari Vos's charge of religious indifferentism is a core charge against Freemasonry. As Reid McInvale said "This encyclical does not mention Masonry, but religious indifferentism is one of the charges often leveled against Freemasonry in papal pronouncements. Some Roman Catholic authorities identify this pronouncement as anti-Masonic."

• Qui Pluribus. In Paragraph 13 it talks about "secret sects who have come forth from the darkness to destroy and desolate both the sacred and the civil commonwealth". We know who he meant. He also says that his predecesors warned against these sects in the past quoting Providas, Ecclesiam a Jesu Christo and Ubi graviora - all anti-Masonic texts. It is also quoted as one of the anti-Masonic texts of predecesors in Humanum Genus. I've put some stuff from Reid McInvale in the article on the encyclical.

• Etsi Nos. It talks about "A pernicious sect, of which the founders and chiefs neither hide nor even mask their desires, has established itself for some time back in Italy; after having declared war against Jesus Christ it is attempting to rob the people of their Christian institutions". It also talks about "It is even reported that this year it is about to receive the deputies and leaders of the sect which is most embittered against Catholicism, who have appointed this city as the place for their solemn meeting." William Madison sees it as one of the more important of Leo XIII's pronouncements on Freemasonry. John Courtney Murray has an interesting discussion on Leo's attitude towards Freemasonry where Etsi Nos is quoted as one of the many anti-Masonic documents (although not a main one).

JASpencer 09:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You would have to demonstrate to me that the "sect" being discussed in Qui Pluribus and Esti Nos is indeed Freemasonry. Given the time that they were written, I would interpret them as referring to the Carbonari... which, while similar, were NOT Masonic. As for Mirari Vos... it discusses a lot more than religious indifferentism. It is really an attack on the development of modern Democratic government in the latin world. The fact that parts of it have been used to support subsequent Anti-masonic statements is besides the point.

The line that leads into the list states: "A number of papal documents deal with Freemasonry, the most prominent include:" (bolding mine). To me, this means that we are not going to including EVERY papal document that deals with Freemasonry (even tangentially). We are going to limit the list to those that are "prominent". Mirari Vos does not deal with Freemasonry at all, and the other two (if you accept the idea that they talk about Freemasonry and not the Carbonari or some other "sect") are not prominent.

In fact, to be completely NPOV about this... I would suggest cutting a few of the others that DO specificly mention Freemasonry... and focus the readers attention on just those that really spell out the Vatican's view in the most effective manner. By listing every encyclical that might refer to Masonry (as you do), the reader comes away thinking: "gee, these nineteenth century Popes seem a bit obscessed with Freemasonry" and will lump them with the modern conspiracy nutters.

FYI

On a lighter note... check out the Rebecca Brown article ... I guess we fellow satanists had better stop all this in-fighting.  :>) Blueboar 18:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The faithful, who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.

Added Quaesitum est. This is a Roman Catholic Declaration on Masonic Associations. It is especially interesting to note that its prefect is Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger better known now as Pope Benedict XVI. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 22:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)]

Is this the same as the letter to American Bishops? Or is one a reiteration of the other? If so, I would suggest moving the Quaesitum est reference to the section on that (later in the text). Blueboar 00:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK... I think I answered my own question (not the same thing) ... but Quaesitum est is already mentioned later in the article. I don't think it needs to be mentioned twice. I am going to merge the two references. Blueboar 00:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Many Catholic Masons in the US choose to rely on the letter of the law." Sorry, I simply can’t understand what it means.

Humanum Genus

I have gotten a copy of Humanum Genus that was published by AASR SMJ together with Pike's reply and the Supreme Council's comments in one booklet. I'll add in material about it once I get a chance to read it. MSJapan 02:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to add this document to Wikisource? JASpencer 09:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure that out. It's a little bit of a gray area: the original dates from 1884 (which would make it public domain), but it was reprinted in 1962 with a new notice that it was to be given to those who received the 30th and above in order to understand that the issues between Pike and Leo XIII were stil unresolved (which means it's technically a new edition and therefore subject to copyright). However, there is no copyright notice. I may have to email somebody in SMJ to find out. MSJapan 13:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Prohibition on Secret Societies

I do not think that this section is disputed amymore. Tag removed. Ok? Imacomp 21:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Catholicism and Freemasonry, The total Article

Is it time to remove the "Disputed Tag"? Imacomp 21:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. The article still needs some work, but I don't think it needs the tag. Blueboar 01:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. "POV" tag removed from article header Imacomp 17:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Links to Militant Protestantism - Section edited to reflect citations. Un-cited speculation deleted, as per Wiki protocols. FM welcomes catholic members. Imacomp 20:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"To do" section

I tend to agree with Imacomp that the "to do" list at the top of this page should go, as it is not being followed. The same items have been listed for almost a month with no forward movement on them. The point of a "to do" window is to remind people of tasks which need to be done to make the article better. If no one does the tasks, it does not serve its purpose. In this case, it was included by JASpencer as a list of things he wanted to do, but has not done (yet?). Before deleting it, however, I do want to give him a chance to respond. Blueboar 01:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, it has been two days since Imacomp deleted the "to do", and a full day since I restored it. Since JASpencer does not seem to be around to respond, I am going to cut the material, but leave the box for future use of editors (I still think it is a nice idea... just under used). If anyone objects, they can always revert. Blueboar 12:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

At long last, the Blanchard citation!

I keep forgetting to do this every time I get the opportunity, so here it is (BTW, this is note 83 in the article where this is asked for). Also for the citation, the ISBN on the book is 1930097387.

After the oath (which I have elided), it says:

Thrice Puissant Grand Master: "Rise and imitate me (He then stabs the skull crowned with a tiara and says:) Down with imposture, down with crime." (260) (This seems to be the "moral" of the degree, and the phrase does appear a few more times.)

A similar thing happens to "a skull wreathed with laurel" and "a skull surmounted with a regal crown" (261)

Later, on 286, there is trampling on a crown said to represent that of "Philip the Fair, King of France", and then here's the papal bit:

Thrice Puissant Grand Master: (Passing ovwer to the Tiara.) This represents the Tiara of the cruel and cowardly Pontiff, who sacrificed ot his ambition the illustrious order of those Knights Templars of whome we are the true successors. A crown fo gold and precious stones ill befits the humble head of one who pretends to be successor, the Vicar, of Jesus of Nazareth. It is therefore the crown of an imposter(sic), and it is in the name of him who said "neither be ye called Masters," that we trample it under our feet. TPGM:(To candidate.) Are you disposed to do the same? Candidate: I am. (Thrice Puissant Grand Master then throws the Tiara on the floor and tramples on it, the candidate and all the Knights also trample on it, when all the Knights brandishing their poniards exclaim:) All: Down with imposture! (286)

and that's just about the end of the play. The TPGM has a few sentences and then closes.

MSJapan 21:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, MSJapan... I have amended the statement and the citation to reflect this information (removing Art deHoyos and directly citing Blanchard). However, given this, I now wonder whether we should not consider deleting the Kadosh degree statement entirely (and possibly the entire Scottish Right section) as erronious. Any comments? [[User:Blueb

oar|Blueboar]] 01:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is erroneous, to a point (due to ignorance of context, mostly, because it's clearly the people involved in the KT incidents they're talking about and not every Pope or King), but the problem is that that is what the whole criticism is based upon

. Since deHoyos cites it, we can't really leave it out either. I think that as long as sources are clarified, it should be fine. TBH, a lot of the claims are erroneous when put back in their proper context, but in this article we're dealing with existence, not validity. MSJapan 03:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Kadosh degrees exist (as a sequence of degrees dealing with the three ruffians after the murder of the builder etc) although the inclusion has to make clear the relationship between this ritual and those actually worked. One of the challenging aspects is that when we consider the plethora of degrees and rituals worked across FM in the 18th and 19th Centuries with similar names etc then someone could extract something from a ritual long dead and claim it is Masonry. The claim could be considered as correct but is meaningless without the caveat that it may never have been worked.ALR 07:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

to do comments by Amicuspublilius

I have restructured the article with a few (hopefully uncontroverial) deletions. I'd like to see how one can reedit the history section so as to provide a history of the 'relationship' between the two groups rather than the POV "hit list" that is there right now.

Also, I don't quite want to delete the Mexico or Risorgimento sections, and would like to see them edited to provide a clearer delineation of why they are important, chiefly that they both represent large frontal assaults on the church establishment and rapid, forced secularization. However, they seem better suited for paragraphs in one section rather than protracted sections themselves. (copied from "to do" list as added by User:Amicuspublilius 02:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

I hope you don't mind that I re-worded your contribution to the "to do" list... I think I was able to correctly summarize your points and turn them into accurate bullet points. Good to have you on the editing team. I agree completely about the POV "hit list". As a Freemason, I have long had serious issues with the POV tone of much of the material here (mostly due to the additions of one particular editor). Much of the writing seems directed towards defending the Church's opposition to Freemasonry, rather than explaining it.

As to the Mexico and Risorgimento sections... I also agree, and hope we can work together to fully explain these movements, and how they negatively affected the relationship between Freemasonry and the Church. One issue we need to address is WHY the church felt that Freemasonry was behind these nationalist movements. And to be NPOV about it, we do need to raise the question of how much Freemasonry actually was behind the nationalist movements (less than the article currently implies, more than most Freemasons want to admit). Oh, there is no doubt that the Church felt it was... a look at the number and timing of the various Anti-masonic encyclicals shows that it did... but, at the moment, the article simply implies the link by listing the leaders of the nationalist movements who were Freemasons... as if to say: "see, see... Freemasons = Anticlerical nationalists". The issue is much, much more complicated. Blueboar 21:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)