Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Addressing serious issues... a complete re-boot?

OK, it is time to seriously address some long standing issues with this article. The current version of the article has POV problems, synth issues, relevance issues, and a host of other problems. In my opinion, these will not be resolved with minor tweeks. The problems are just too large.

Some of the issues I have include:

• POV Tone problems... the tone is overly POV in discussing both sides of the issue. We alternate between trying to prove that that the Church is "right" to ban Freemasonry and trying to prove that it is "wrong" in doing so.
• Synth and relevance problems... also affecting both viewpoints... there are a lot of assumptions being made in the current article. For example, the assumtpion that "Historical figure X was a Mason" and "Historical figure X did Anti-clerical things" are related. We need solid sources to make such connections. We also need to examine the chicken and egg issue... were historical figures Anti-clerical because they were Masons, or did they become Masons because they were Anti-clerical... or is it just coincidence? Again, we need sources and not inuendo and supposition.
• Over stating the Church's view and understating the Masonic view... we have a problem here that needs to be resolved: there has been a lot written by the Church on this topic, and very little written by the Masons... how do we achieve neutrality in what we write given this disparity?
• Over reliance on outdated materials... The article relies too heavily on things like the Catholic Encyclopedia... great sources for discussing Church thinking of a century ago (less great when it comes to discussing the state of Freemasonry a century ago), but not for reflecting how things are today (Church thinking has subtlely changed in the last century, as much as some in the Church might wish it to be otherwise, and Masonry has changed dramatically in those years). We need to address this.

—This is part of a comment by Blueboar (of 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following:

You are mistaken. Fundamentally the teachings of the RCC never change. The Depositum fidei can only expand, and be clarified, not shrunk. Nor otherwise (in opposition) interpreted then before. 1 day or a thousand years do not matter in this case. The only 'evolution' in morals and dogma is quantitatively, it is expanded, but never contradicted. Thus the info from the CE is as actual as it was the day it was written. --Stijn Calle (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to Blueboar he is saying that "thinking" has changed and not the deposit of faith. Words can have very precise meaning in Catholic theology so to find common ground, as mentioned earlier, it might be better to use phrases like "development of doctrine". Taam (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly... perhaps it is better to say that while the doctrine and teachings of the Church does not change, the interpretation of its doctrine and teachings has changed over time and will continue to change. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

These are just some of the larger problems... there are others. I have come to the conclusion that the only way to fix this article is to do a complete re-write.

I am hopeful that we can reach something both sides can agree to if we are willing to abandon the current language and structure, and work together in a step by step fashion... all it will take is for everyone to all assume good faith, and respect differeing opinions (this does not mean we have to agree with differing opinions... just respect them).

Is anyone outright opposed to the attempt? Blueboar (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I for one commend your efforts. I started to look up notable Catholic sources that were less belligerent in tone that I thought might be useful for the article but in the interest of NPOV I also tried to find other Catholic views that were critical of these sources. At this point I gave up since I would not pollute my thoughts, never mind this page with such darkness. A person who seemed to display all what Christians normally describe as "holiness" being described...well I'm sure you can guess... because, like the precepts in Vatican II, he was open to dialogue and could see the goodness in all people no matter their beliefs.Taam (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Catholic sources that were less belligerent in tone. If the radical opposition of the RCC towards freemasonry is a fact, belligerent words are normal. To try to search for less threatening words would in this case be an effort to violate NPOV. Belligerent words are correct words if they espress correctly the opinions in question. The citations in the article are good ones and should be kept. --Stijn Calle (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Stijn... I think what you are trying to say is that if belligerant language reflects the viewpoint of the Church, then we should acknowledge that belligerance. I totally agree with that in concept... we should reflect viewpoints accurately. However, I think what Taam is pointing out is that some Catholic sources use belligerant language that doesn't accurately reflect the normal viewpoint of the Church. These are sources that reflects the viewpoint of an extreme fringe of the Church. We can certainly discuss this fringe view, but we need to identify it as being a fringe viewpoint if we do discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not as if the (fixed) opinions of the RCC are here written in beligerent form originating from 'extremist interpretations' inside the church, whilst these (fixed) opinions have a more liberal (less beligerent) formulation in mainstraim church teachings. There is NO evolution of interpretation of church teaching that is fundamentally or qualitatively. There exists only expanding of information, NEVER contradicting earlier teachings. These beligerant expressions can be found in papal documents, and other official documents of the highest church hierarchy. They are NOT expressions of a fringe within the church. Belligerency is a factual attitude of the church towards fundamental beliefs that it does not accept and are perilous to the salvation of one's soul. --Stijn Calle (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

All I would add to Blueboar's comments is that any changes to the article should be mindful of not ripping out parts of old Papal documents (and I suppose the old Catholic Encyclopedia) the language which relates to the socio-political context of that era, and projecting them into the 21st century as representative of how the Church now relates to the world. During the 20th century the language of anathema and condemnation became muted in Church documents to reflect realities of the modern world and how to engage with it, on common ground for the common good, whilst respecting divergent takes on honestly held beliefs. I'm sure nobody here needs reminded how the lessons of history conditioned this. I think the current Pope writes about "Charity in Truth" which seems to resonate with similar ideas set out in Vatican II. Taam (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispensation from the sanctions imposed by membership in Freemasonry?

Recently on Father Benedict Groeschel's TV show, Sunday Night Live, a Catholic Mason called in stating his concern for his soul and obedience to the Church, despite his feeling that Masonry had no conflict with the Church. Father Groeschel stated that, although initiation into Freemasonry is still prohibited, today we are more interested than in the past in avoiding contentiousness. Then he advised the caller to write to his bishop, saying that the bishop may refer him on to Rome. He seemed to be implying that the bishop or the Vatican could give the man a dispensation from the prohibition or at least from the sanctions which membership incurs (He didn't seem to be advising that the man renounce Freemasonry). Does anyone know about this or have RS on it? If such dispensations are sometimes given perhaps it should be addressed here. Mamalujo (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any sort of dispensation available (at least I have never heard of one). I suppose a priest could grant absolution at confession, but that is not the same thing. If the caller did contact his bishop or the Vatican, he would probably be advised to resign from the fraternity. He would probably get a similar answer if he asked someone at his Masonic Grand Lodge... if being a Mason is dragging on his concience, and if he can not reconcile his personal religious beliefs with his membership in the fraternity, then he should resign from the fraternity. Faith should always come first. Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sub page set up for Drafting the rewrite

I have set up the following page: Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry/Draft of re-write of article as a place for us to work on a new version of the article... nothing is there yet, I simply wanted to be up-front and tell people that I am moving forward with a rewrite... I'll try to create an initial draft over the next few days (unless someone beats me to it) and let you know when it is done... then, of course, everyone can rip my hard work to shreds, comment on how POV/poorly written/poorly sourced etc. it is... and then we can start the process of edit warring over changes :>) I do recommend that we leave the existing article in place while we debate the replacement. We can swap things out once we are all happy with the rewrite. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK... I have created an initial version of the rewrite... at this point less a rewrite as a restructuring. We have a lot more to do, but at least we have a starting point. Please drop by and opine (use the talk page attached to the Draft, rather than cluttering up this page). Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The talk page is the draft. JASpencer (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what JASpencer said, although at first I misunderstood what he meant. I thought he meant that THIS talk page is the draft, and that a subpage shouldn't be made, then I looked at how the draft is set up - properly, so that it is not a subpage of the ARTICLE, but a sub page of the TALKPAGE, which means it is IN talkspace, not article space, and has no additional discussion page.--Vidkun (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OOPS... Good point... I had not realized that this was how things automatically set up. sorry about that.

OK, I have moved the initial DRAFT to the article page (Catholicism and Freemasonry/Draft of re-write of article), which leaves the attached talk page free for discussions. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It really should NOT be in as a subpage of the article, Blueboar. see here.--Vidkun (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So where should it be?... I don't want to move it to my user space, because I want to avoid the appearance that the end result is "my" version... I want everyone to be involved in rewriting. Blueboar (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's supposed to be where you originally had it - in as a subpage of a talk page.--Vidkun (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, do not feel we need a rewrite. What is the purpose? What are we intendending to change? The current version is actually the product of much reworking and I think it's pretty good. Mamalujo (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's an essay really, and one that can be more aggresively edited by the author. JASpencer (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm not sure what you mean. Mamalujo (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

more on Church and State

At the moment the section discusses what the view of the Church 100 years ago was (citing sources written almost 100 years ago.) I contend that this has no relevance to today... Please provide some indication that the Church sees Freemaonry's stance on Church and State in the same light that it did back then... otherwise I will delete the section as being outdated and irrelevant. Blueboar (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for now, never mind... I'll just omit it in the rewrite draft (if you want it there... please provide some relevance to modern day attituds.) Blueboar (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can find someone who says that the attitudes towards church and state are no longer an issue then go ahead and cite them. Otherwise it really is an editor's opinion, no matter how "obvious" it appears. JASpencer (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, I just realized that this entire section is a WP:SYN violation. It links disperate sources together in an attempt to make an argument that is not stated in the various sources. I am cutting it. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly, please. Are you really saying that church and state where not prominent in most church condemnations of freemasonry? The point that I would like us to get to is not removal of information but some idea of current thinking, which is by common consent the hole in the section. There does seem to be an absence in church commentary on freemasonry and its relationship to church and state in the last sixty years or so, and that in itself is significant. However how do we reflect the apparent indifference of the church? By pretending it was never concerned about this? JASpencer (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I am quite serious... the section is a WP:SYN violation. There are several implied arguments being interwoven in this section... 1) that statements made by the Church over 100 years ago have relevance today. 2) That the Church's current stance on the seperation of Church and State is the same as it was 100 years ago. 3) That the modern stance of Freemasonry over the issue of the seperation of Church and State is the same as it was 100 years ago. All leading to the implied conclusion that the Church still condemns Freemasony over this issue. If we are going to discuss all these things in conjuction with each other... then we need a modern source that examines all of these disperate arguments and reaches the same conclusion. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) As this is partially a historical article then what the church or grand lodge said 100 years ago is still important. (2) The difference between what was said then and what is said now is an issue, but not one to be dealt with by "I wish it thus" deletions or mini (flawed) essays on the "evolution" of Church doctrine. It needs some authorities to be brought on it. (3) The stance of freemasonry on church and state is not really addressed in the deleted area although the difference between inert Anglo masonry and active Latin masonry is pretty much the same today (although the boundaries between the two schools may be different).

The church did see freemasonry's desire for the seperation of church and state as one of the problems of the institution. We have an authority on that. Those two facts aren't in doubt. To argue that we need a "modern" source to say what we all accept is tosh. What we need is some way of saying what the Church does(n't) say today and (perhaps accidentally) provocative deletions are not the way to get to this.

That's why I'm going to reverse the deletion. It would be better to deal with this constructively rather than to just delete what you don't like.

JASpencer (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

(1)WHY is what was said 100 years ago still important? (2)and (3) But the article does (indirectly) discuss Freemasonry's stance (or at least the stance of one Grand Lodge)... it is quoted it in the foot notes. However, this modern statement is juxtaposed with Church statements from 100 years ago... by doing this you set up an improper sythesis. The implied conclusion being that what the Church was talking about 100 years ago is the same thing that modern Freemasons are talking about... and so the Church's views on the Separation of Chruch and State from 100 years ago apply to modern Freemasonry. I won't edit war over this... I will take it to NORN and ask for third party opinions. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Separation of Church and State section

Please see the arguments in the section above, and comment below. Blueboar (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this the contested text? (i.e. it hasn't changed since the RFC was filed?)

One form of OR (if present) would occur if any of the sources was not explictly addressing Freemasonry's appeal for the separation of church and state. The key terms are A) Freemasonry's appeal, and B) Separation, and sources must be in that context. Is this given?

Secondly, rather than reporting what RSs have said, the section is itself argumentative. That's OR.

And, although the first sentence states 18th/19th century, its unclear whether the rest is also in reference to the 18th/19th century. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, if this is supposed to be an RfC, isn't it supposed to filed as such on the RfC page? John Carter (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, since it was purely a WP:NOR issue, I posted a request for comment at WP:NORN, rather than in the main RFC page.Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable answer. Is Fullstop right regarding the contested text? Per your comments on the NORN, I would have to say that linking the various statements is probably not right, unless one of the later sources explicitly refers to the earlier sources. But at least regarding statements of the Catholic Church, I think it is the case that any statements which that body makes which aren't more or less specifically "overruled" at a later date are still valid. In this case, the statements of Vatican II that John Courtney Murray helped get through, which indicated that separation of church and state were not things that the church itself saw as being necessarily opposed to its principles in Dignitatis Humanae Personae could be seen as indicating that Catholics themselves no longer see separation of church and state as an evil. Regarding the statement of one Grand Lodge, if that statement is itself phased so as to indicate the statement is relevant more broadly than that single lodge, that would probably be changed. I couldn't find exactly what was being spoken of there, though. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes... no edits have been made to the text since I posted the request at WP:NORN. JASpencer and I were reverting each other about this (see our comments on this in the section above), and I decided to stop the edit war and seek third party opinions instead.

Since it seems that both you and Fullstop agree that there is an OR problem, the next question becomes what do we do about it? Can it be fixed or should we simply delete the section? Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not how I read John's comment at all, Blueboar. The problem is that you are conflating two seperate disputes in one article. Question 1 is whether the Catholic Church's views on church and state have changed and whether this affects its attitude towards freemasonry and question two is whether pointing out that the Catholic Church had stated that church and state was a problem constitutes original research. John was answering question one (which if I remember you were claiming was perfectly legitimate). JASpencer (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Date is not necessarily a problem if that context is clear. That is however not so.
2. reading specifities into sources is OR, and thus constitutes a NOR violation. For example source [58] (first in that section) is a quotation from Leo XIII Humanum Genus that reads: "It is held also that the State should be without God; that in the various forms of religion there is no reason why one should have precedence of another; and that they are all to occupy the same place." This is not specific to freemasonry (its actually a general theme of the enlightenment), which in fact the first sentence of that very same paragraph, and the first sentence of the next clearly note. Further, that encyclia has nothing to do with separation of church and state but is in fact a list of perceived symptoms of Freemasonry's (alleged) "wish to destroy the religion and the Church which God Himself has established". Even if Leo had concluded that Freemasonry supported separation of church and state (which Leo does not do), it would not actually reflect "the Church frequently criticized Freemasony for its support of a strict separation of church and state", which is what Leo is being cited for.
3. "Such strict separation of church and state..." is an artifice. It presupposes (and causes the reader to presuppose) that the previous sentence established a fact, when in fact it did not do so.
4. That section makes generalizations that are not verifiable. For example:
   Who says "In recent years Catholic condemnations of Freemasonry have shown less emphasis on the political aspect of Freemasonry" ?
   Who says "Throughout the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, the Church frequently criticized Freemasony for its support of a strict separation of church and state" ?
   Who says "manifesting a religious indifferentism which did not accept any religion as true or revealed" ? The accompanying "sources" do not substantiate those claims. That in turn constitutes a NOR violation.
5. using sources as examples to assert something is OR, and thus constitutes a NOR violation. For example (first sentence), "the Church frequently criticized Freemasony for its support of a strict separation of church and state". This is not followed by a source that states anything like "the Church frequently criticized ..." Instead, it is followed by examples of criticism, from which the editor(s) concluded that "the Church frequently criticized...". Even if properly cited, this is OR, and thus a NOR violation. In that section, every source being "cited" is being abused in this fashion.
   Moreover, misrepresenting examples -- as if they were sources that already make conclusions -- is not even permissible in legitimate OR, leave alone on WP where OR is altogether prohibited.

As it stands (because of the extensive abuse of sources) every sentence in that section is invalid. For the message to be valid, the editor(s) need to use reliable sources that already thematisize (i.e. review) the Church's critique of Freemasonry's position on the Separation of church and state. Someone else has to have previously arrived at the conclusions presently being made in that section. Those sources may then be cited for their conclusions. A Wikipedia article may not itself arrive at conclusions. Wikipedia articles may not state anything that has not been said before. Wikipedia articles may not join together what has not been joined before. And, the greatest crime that anyone can make in academic writing is a misrepresentation of sources.

On Wikipedia, the only legitimate use of sources is an on-topic and accurate summary of what each source independently says. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Then we have the second citation for the first sentence... "Freemasonry Does Not Support any particular political position. It has long stood for separation of Church and State, and has been a champion of Free Public Education." From a speech given by Bill Jones Grand Master of Arkansas, 1996". I assume that this is being used to support the idea that Freemasons support the concept of separation of Church and State. However, it is misplaced here. How can a statement issued by a Grand Master in the late 20th century have any relationship to Church criticisms from the 19th and early 20th century? It is obviously tossed in to make it appear that the earlier Church criticisms are in some way valid today; essentially saying to the reader "see... A Grand Master says Freemasons support the separation of Church and State, so Humanum Genus must have been right!" Placing the two quotes side by side invites the reader to make a comparison, one that omits the context in which each statement was given. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The date of sources is not per-se a problem. That is, if source A says X, and source B says X, then both sources can safely be cited for both saying X, and it does not matter whether A and B are from the same period. HOWEVER, in this case, source A and source B are not both saying X. Indeed, neither is saying anything like what they are being cited for.

Thus, objectively speaking, the fatal flaw in the citation of that source is simply that

"Freemasonry Does Not Support any particular political position. It has long stood for separation of Church and State, and has been a champion of Free Public Education."

does not in any way reflect what it is being "cited" for. It is being "cited" for

"Throughout the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries, the Church frequently criticized Freemasony for its support of a strict separation of church and state."

This is a either a gross misrepresentation of the source, or it is an attempt to provide a "source" for what the editor made up. In either case, it is dishonest, and as such constitutes an attempt to undermine the integrity of the encyclopedia.

The problem seems to be chronic: a cursory review of the article shows that it is absolutely littered with such dishonesty, and it is patently evident (to me) that someone was/is misusing this article to forward his thoughts to the world.

Additionally, a brief look at the so-called "references section" shows only one (or perhaps two) reliable sources. I cannot say whether these are being used correctly. But the majority of the other sources are being abused in exactly the same manner as noted two sections above this one.

Thus, it would seem the "Separation_of_church_and_state" section is really just an acute symptom of a greater problem. Gettting rid of it will require the article to be written from scratch, this time without the pernicious/pervasive abuse of sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; articles need objective reporting of existing content, not argumentative claptrap that some "genius" cobbled together. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I can't really find fault with that statement, so perhaps we should not RFC a particular item, but effectively audit and rewrite the whole article instead? MSJapan (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have started just such a rewrite already... see: Catholicism and Freemasonry/Draft of re-write of article. In the meanwhile, I am going to delete the section on Church and State (again). Fullstop's detailed analysis confirms my feeling that it is beyond fixing with anything less than a complete rewrite. Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have worked on the rewrite a bit more, removing the OR and argumentative language. I would like to formally propose that we replace the current language with what is there, and use that as the basis for continued work. Any objections? Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hearing none... I shall so proceed. Blueboar (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the rewrite

Apologies for taking so long to respond, but I felt the need to educate myself on the subject before venturing an opinion on content.

The draft/current version is better, but not free of problems, albeit of another sort (The previous state of the article also had most of these problems)

• The draft/current version is restricted to a list of the Vatican's injunctions against Freemasonry. But papal edicts against Freemasonry do not constitute a discussion of Catholicism and Freemasonry. That list would perhaps be more appropriate in an article titled "Papal edicts against Freemasonry."
  The former version also demonstratively missed the point in that strange section titled "Relationship between Catholicism and Continental Freemasonry" section. Its redundant when the whole article is (ostensibly) about the relationship between Catholicism and Freemasonry". The geographic division was also invalid, and just as contrived as, say, a subsection titled "French Catholicism and Freemasonry".
• Both versions go overboard with sub-sectioning, by which they effectively turn the subject into a power-point presentation. The lack of a coherent narrative encourages interpolations, i.e. OR. Lack of coherence leaves the reader confused, and the bullet lists merely serve to impress upon the reader the idea that the Popes were a bunch of uninformed dimwits.
• Lack of context. The Papal edicts were not made on a whim, nor where they made in isolation from historical events of their time. The papal prohibitions have a backstory, and each action resulted in a reaction (which in turn had another reaction, and so on). One reason for those edicts appears in Leo XIII's denunciation of Freemasonry as "the permanent personification of revolution". In essence, what Leo was referring to was the revolution against the Vatican's notions of (infallibile!) moral and temporal superiority, viz. the ideas that were discarded during the Enlightenment. What Leo denounced as "the great error of the age" in 1901, we call "secularization" or "religious equality", and which is/was a thorn in the Vatican's side. These issues need to be explained.
• Both versions are lopsided.
  • While Freemasons were the visible antithesis of institutionalized religion (i.e. of the Vatican), it is not safe to suppose that the Vatican's position on Freemasonry is co-eval with Catholicism's position on Freemasonry. This may be exemplified by the fact that when, in 1794, the Bishop of Baltimore was asked for his opinion on the papal prohibitions against Freemasonry, he replied "I do not pretend that these decrees are generally received by the Church."
  • Even so, the title of the article is "Catholicism and Freemasonry", not "Catholics on Freemasonry". The relationship between them is a two-way road. By way of example: Masons have been (or claim to have been, or are perceived to have been) instrumental in precipitating the founding of the French, Italian, Portuguese, Mexican, Brazilian (etc) republics. These events went hand-in-hand with anti-clericalism, and the revolutions occurred at the expense of the clergy who had shared power with the former feudal/semi-theocratic regimes. Then there are the reciprocal myths that Masons and Jesuits subscribe to, which make the other party responsible for their suppression; indeed, each side even subscribes to the other side's myth. Masons are perceived to have had a role in the anti-Catholic hysteria of the early 20th century United States, just as Boston's Catholics are perceived to have engendered the antimasonic movement of the 1820s.
• Quality of sources is terrible. Both versions just vaccumn together titbits found elsewhere on the web. Like any dust bag, all they collected was condensed dirt, indiscriminately gray. But an encyclopedia article's job is to inform, and that means that editors need to distill relevant reliable sources, and not what readers can find with any old search engine.
  What follows is a list of the papers I read in the last two days.
  • Lyttle, Charles H. (1940), "Historical Bases of Rome's Conflict with Freemasonry", Church History, 9 (1): 3–23.
  • Cumming, Ian (1954), "Freemasonry and Education in Eighteenth Century France", History of Education Journal, 5 (4): 118–123.
  • Davis, David Brion (1960), "Some Themes of Counter-Subversion: An Analysis of Anti-Masonic, Anti-Catholic and Anti-Mormon Literature", The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 47 (2): 205–224.
  • Gribbin, William (1974), "Antimasonry, Religious Radicalism, and the Paranoid Style of the 1820's", The History Teacher, 7 (2): 239–254.
  • Modras, Ronald (1996), "The Interwar Polish Catholic Press on the Jewish Question", Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 548: 169–190.

Editors who would like to have a copy of these should send me mail. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair comments. And a lot to digest.

I do have one reply at the moment (I am sure I will come up with others later)... it goes to the issue of Anglo/American vs. Continental Freemsonry. I do think there is a valid line to be drawn here. You see, it is incorrect to talk about a unified Freemasonry. There are actually two very seperate forms of Freemasonry, with very different histories of how they interacted with the Church. You say "The papal prohibitions have a backstory, and each action resulted in a reaction (which in turn had another reaction, and so on)"... this is true, but the reaction is not the same when you look at these two branches of Freemasonry.

The Continental form of Freemasonry is a minority world wide but, since it tends to be common in Catholic countries is what the Church tends to notice. The Continental Grand bodies have been quite outspoken on religio-political issues over the years, and during the 19th and early 20th centuries there was something of a spiral effect going on: The Church would issue a condemnation of Freemasonry, those with anti-clerical leanings then see Freemasonry as something worth joining, which causes more condemnations, which attract more anti-clerical people to Freemasonry... etc. There is a good discription of this effect in Jasper Ridley's book "The Freemasons".

A different reaction occured in the Anglo/American form of Freemasonry (which forms the majority of Freemasonry world wide). These Grand Lodges do not comment on religious or political issues. Here, the only official reaction to Papal condemnation has been absolute and utter silence (unofficial reactions have ranged from mild statements of regret to, recently, polite attempts to "correct" what are seen as misrepresentations of Freemasonry).

In other words, for the majority of Freemasonry, the relationship between Chruch and Freemasonry has NOT been a two-way road. It has been decidedly ONE way... all from the Church. The Church has been focused on an outspoken minority of Freemasonry.

This differnce may explain why there is more acceptance of Freemasonry among American Clergy (not to mention the layity) than there is from European Clergy and the Vatican. When they think of, and talk about Freemasonry, they are actually disussing two different things. Unfortunately, I am not sure if anyone has published an analysis of this, so (while important to understanding what is going on) we can not discuss it in the article. Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Re: the distinction between Grand Lodge and Continental:

Ok, but such distinctions then need to be explained. Moreover, the reactions to the Vatican may be different, but the Vatican does not differentiate. On the contrary, the Vatican's statements are explicitly all-encompassing, e.g. "whatever name they go by" (Clement XII), or "several organized bodies which, though differing in name, in ceremonial, in form and origin, are nevertheless so bound together by community of purpose and by the similarity of their main opinions" (Leo XIII). The same sort of general hand-waving ("sect of the same sort", "other such societies" etc) occurs in statements from Benedict XIV, Pius VII, VIII, IX, and Gregory XVI.

Of course, perceptually the Vatican's attacks on Freemasonry may seem to be addressed to the lodges in predominantly Catholic countries, which is presumably where the attacks are most keenly felt. After all, predominantly Catholic countries have predominantly Catholic lodges. However, this is not limited to (say) Italy where the Freemasonry is primarily "continental", but applies to (say) Ireland as well, where the lodges are almost all with English/Scottish constitutions. Poland -- another arch-Catholic country -- has twice as many Scottish rites lodges as Grand Oriental lodges. Then there are those countries in which the Eastern Catholic Churches are strong. Thus, considered collectively, I don't see a 1:1 relationship between "predominantly Catholic countries" and "continental" Freemasonry. While "continental" Freemasonry latter is typically found in countries that predominantly Catholic, predominantly Catholic countries aren't necessarily (or even typically) limited to "continental" Freemasonry.

• Re: the relationship between Church and Freemasonry being decidedly one way:

Even if the Grand Lodges do not comment on religious or political issues, this "absolute and utter silence" is not necessarily an indication of a lack of response. Responses don't necessarily have to be spoken, nor do that have to be officially made. An example of a response (or perceived response) is polemically described by Leo: "Now, these no longer show a desire to remain concealed; for they hold their meetings in the daylight and before the public eye, and publish their own newspaper organs." Thus, even if the Masons did not comment with words, they (were perceived to) respond with actions.

It may also be that things only appear one way. This could be due to the reliance on primary sources. On the one hand there is a Vatican that apparently can't help pontifying on the evil in all but itself. On the other hand there is a society that is closemouthed by design. Under such circumstances, the reliance on primary sources is destined to be a onesided depiction -- perforce one in which the Vatican says everything, and the Freemasons say nothing.

The reliable sources have a more varicolored picture, and -- to me -- a more reasonable and rational one. This is a picture in which the reasons for the papal polemic are apparent (it is not just a product of the Vatican's own chauvinistic convictions); and in which Catholicism is not necessarily equal to what Rome doth spew.

Suggestion: move the current content to "Papal edicts against Freemasonry". "Catholicism and Freemasonry" can redirect to "Christianity and Freemasonry" until RSs can be found. (my offer to forward material stands) -- Fullstop (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point... part of the problem is that the official Catholic opposition to Freemasonry does not distinguish between Anglo/American and Continental branches... but another part is the way Freemasonry responds to that opposition. There are three distinct perspectives on this topic. The Church's perspective, the Continental Masonic perspective, and the Anglo/US Masonic perspective. Blueboar (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

oops. I did misunderstand. Sorry about that. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the suggestion to move content and redirect ... I don't have a problem with that in principle. I have long thought that this article should be renamed. Perhaps something like: Papal ban of Freemasonry would be more appropriate?Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK... I want to make sure that JASpencer (who was essentially the main contributer to the pre-rewrite version of the article) is notified and has had a chance to opine on this before any action is taken. I will leave him a message. Blueboar (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Having looked over the comments as well, I agree with a need for better sourcing. However, I think we have a fundamental problem with how we are delineating the scope of the article. I agree that we need to address the divide in Anglo vs. Continental Freemasonry, but we also need to decide what we mean by "Catholicism" in general. Every religion has some difference of opinion within it, but if we are talking about Roman Catholicism, the official position would have to come from the Vatican, otherwise we are starting to deal with local interpretations of Canon Law and probably a lot more besides. So what is it we are trying to convey with the title "Catholicism and Fremasonry"? MSJapan (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume that 'Catholicism' means 'Roman Catholic' here. But it does not follow that the article is then restricted to (only) reiterating the Vatican's announcements.

Reactions/interpretations of those edicts (including reactions/interpretations from Roman Catholics) are also on-topic. What the article needs to do is use reliable sources; sources that discuss the edicts will also discuss their impact. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK... two weeks ago, I left a note on JAS's talk page about the move/redirect idea... No reply (he seems to be away from Wikipedia). I will give him one last chance to comment, and make the proposal more prominent (see below). Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Separation of Lodge and State

I think one of the remaining issues is that many Church leaders would certainly like to see more separation of Lodge and State, i.e. there are still many of them who disapprove of things like government-sponsored funds going to Masonic lodges. In France, many public officials apparently have no qualms about giving public money to Masonic associations. [1] ADM (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a seperate issue (and one that would need more than a blog posting as a ref to include in the article). Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

There's no evidence of any opinion on this from Church leaders so it doesn't fit in here. JASpencer (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move and redirect

This was suggested above, but I want to highlight it in its own section... Proposed: that the current content be moved to Papal ban of Freemasonry and the title be redirected to Christianity and Freemasonry. Discussion? Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I will take the lack of reply as consensus for the proposal. Last call to state an objection. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

OK... DONE. Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It probably would have helped to have it listed at Wikipedia:Proposed moves. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh... sorry if I have messed things up, John. I was not aware that there was a proceedure to follow. If you feel that my move and redirect should be undone, and proper proceedure followed, please do so. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to the move myself, as Christianity and Freemasonry is probably a more inclusive title. I was just pointing out that, I think, that most of the discussion regarding such moves tends to arise from being listed there. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I for one have a highly object to the way this article was decimated and then redirected to two different articles. The "Papal Ban" article is a joke. It isn't a papal ban. It is a a ban by the Church. Also, the small portion of the Christianity and Freemasonry article which deals with Catholicism, omits large portions of important material as does the Papal Ban article. Quite frankly the whole process has a POV stink to it. Mamalujo (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Then you're going to have to be put on the spot to give some direction as to what we should do with it and how. The article has never really been satisfactory, because the POV has been claimed to have gone one way, and then it swings back in the other. I think we're going to have to start from scratch material-wise, but I for one don't know what's good and what isn't. MSJapan (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)