Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Opening line

As it is currently written, the opening line of this article reads: Catholicism and Freemasonry have often seemed to be in conflict, with Freemasonry tending to anticlericalism and the Roman Catholic Church forbidding Catholics from becoming freemasons. The phrase with Freemasonry tending to anticlericalism is a bit POV in my opinion. From my understanding of Freemasonry, it is not anticlerical. Perhaps the line should be changed to 'with Freemasonry being seen as tending to anticlericalism' to make it clear that this is the Church's view of the issue and not a simple statement of fact. Blueboar 18:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Having read the sources for anticlericalism, including the WP article and the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Catholic Church doesn't see Masonry as anticlerical - it sees it as incompatible with the belief system. Masonry isn't even mentioned in connection with anticlericalism in any reputable source. So, I think that needs to come out altogether, as it's not even a supported POV, much less a supported fact. MSJapan 19:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Not true - "It is known by all who are familiar with the history of the country that anti-clericalism has had in Italy the importance and the strength conferred upon it by Masonry and Liberalism when these were the powers ruling Italy" (emphasis mine). This is from an encyclical of Pope Pius XI [1]. In a historical context, the Church has often seen Masonic movements as being responsible for anti-clericalism, and the open line reflects that historical perception. It could be reworded to "with the Church perceiving Freemasonry as tending to anticlericalism." DonaNobisPacem 19:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur with DonaNobis, many active Catholics - even today - see Freemasonry at the root of a lot of anti-clericalism. At the very least this is a large source of the hostility between the two. The fact that the Carboneri were at least staffed by Freemasons at least gives some credance to this. I know it's 150 years ago, but to the Catholic Church that's not so long ago. The French Revolution is also seen by the Church as having a strong Masonic influence.

The church does also dislike what it sees as the "deist" bias of freemasonry. However, I think it's clear that the Catholic Church regards the Masons as anti-clerical.

The question is does Freemasonry actually veer towards anti-clericalism? To be clear this is not atheism, but a belief in weakening the social power of the church - moves against church schools, against the church monopoly of marriage, a "wall of seperation" between church and state. --JASpencer 00:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the "Freemasons and anticlericalism" argument seems to be limited to very specific times and places (I knew of Third Republic France, but Italy as well, it seems). However, the arguments that are made to support the idea attempt to generalize it as a universal phenomenon that occurs in every country in every time, and the later encyclicals (at least as far as the Catholic Encyclopedia goes, don't seem to raise the argument in that sense. Would it be fair to clarify that material as a limited historical item? Furthermore, if that is the definition of "anti-clericalism", there are plenty of groups that fall into that category, and to my knowledge, Freemasonry would not be one of them. MSJapan 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That is the definition, basically - read Anti-clericalism. I don't know that I agree on your point about limited to very specific times and places - from the Catholic encyclopedia article on Freemasonry, I got:

"...there are a great many German and not a few American Masons, who evidently favour at least the chief anti-clerical aims of the Grand Orient party...A. Pike, as the Grand Commander of the Mother Supreme Council of the World (Charleston, South Carolina) lost no opportunity in his letters to excite the anti-clerical spirit of his colleagues. In a long letter of 28 December, 1886, for instance, he conjures the Italian Grand Commander, Timoteo Riboli, 33, the intimate friend of Garibaldi, to do all in his power, in order to unite Italian Masonry against the Vatican." The article goes on to cite American masonic literature as examples of its inherent anti-clerical tendencies.

Writers such as Paul Fisher have argued that American Freemasonry and its individual members were anti-clerical throughout the 19th and 20th century. I am not saying definitively that Freemasonry as an organisation or its individual members necessarily are; the issue here is why the Church is in opposition to them, and perceived anti-clericalism, even throughout the 20th century, is an integral part of that opposition.DonaNobisPacem 07:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

See Taxil hoax regarding the Pike letter, and "perceived" is fine, as long as it is stated as "perceived". As it stands, it is stated as a fact, not a perception, and if there's nothing definitive, it can't really be a fact. MSJapan 07:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking it over - my only concern with "perceived" is I don't think that there's much (if any) debate over masonic participation in the anti-clerical actions in Italy, for instance - while whether they still are may be disputed now, I think there are also undisputed anti-clerical actions undertaken in the past...and yet I know there would be objections to something like "with Freemasonry's history of anti-clericalism." DonaNobisPacem 20:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Churches do not have a monopoly on marriage, so Freemasonry can hardly be attacking something that doesn't exist.--SarekOfVulcan 00:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

We also have a problem where it comes to who we are talking about when we use the term 'Freemasonry'. You see, Freemasonry has schismed and split into several factions through the years. It is true that there are branches of Freemasonry that were historically very anti-clerical (this is especially true of certain Grand Orients)... and I think you are correct in stating that some still are. But these branches do not represent all of Freemasonry. For example, In Italy there are currently (at least) three bodies claiming to be the official Grand Lodge of Italy. None of them recognize each other as being legitimate Freemasons, and only one is overtly anti-clerical. But another is most definitely NOT anti-clerical (it split off over that exact issue). I would even say that the majority of Freemasons are NOT anti-clerical.

But all this does not really go to the point I originally raised. It is not relevant whether Freemasonry is or is not anti-clerical. What is relevant is that the Church says it is. As long as this is stated in such terms, I am content. I will let others come up with the exact language. Blueboar 19:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're not talking about the Republican or Democratic party - with institutional memories of roughly fifty years. We're talking about the Catholic Church which has probably the longest institutional memory of any functioning entity in the world today. So if freemasons were involved in the French Revolution, the ending of the Papal States or Jefferson's "wall of seperation" within fify years, then the Catholic Church will still hold it against them. --JASpencer 21:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, if one reads the intro, it is kind of sloppy anyways, so let's start from scratch. We have some established facts; various masonic organizations have participated in anti-clerical activity in the past, and as recently as the 20th century masonic publications (I am aware of some in the southern States, at least) have published anti-clerical articles. The church also objects to masonic membership for the reasons listed later in the article, not just anti-clericalism. The 'seemed to be in conflict' is innaccurate, as the fact that the Church still prohibits masonic membership, and has in the past, has put it into conflict with masons even if masons did not recognize the conflict. So basically, the article entry should read something like:

"Catholicism and Freemasonry have often been in conflict, with various masonic organizations historically participating in anti-clerical activity, and the Roman Catholic Church forbidding Catholics from becoming Freemasons for a variety of reasons. The conflict has most been recently marked by confusion over the wording of the revised Code of Canon Law in 1983, and the subsequent response from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."

The anti-clerical note should be placed with the rest of the churches objections - I am still dubious of using "perceived" because of the historical facts, but it could be worded to the effect of

"Historically, some masonic organisations have tended towards anti-clericalism."

We then leave out whether or not they currently are - I know a number of members who are anti-clerical, but as to current publications/lodge protocols, I have no idea. How does that suit everyone? DonaNobisPacem 01:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks generally good, but I'd kind of like more cites on the anti-clericalism. "various...historically participating" is approaching WP:WEASEL.--SarekOfVulcan 01:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree... it does look good. And I agree tha if you give examples of historic anti-clericalism by the 'various' Masonic organizations it would look even better. I think what I really objected to was the blanket statement of "Freemasonry tending towards"... your suggestions all ease those objections. Thanks for your understanding, folks. A nice NPOV approach to what, by definition, is a somewhat POV subject matter. Well done. Blueboar 05:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(shifting indent left) No worries - if I add the anti-clerical statement, there will definitely be sources. I don't want to just add statements and not be able to back them up. It will also be important to include info stating that although masons have participated in anti-clerical activity, it is disputed today how much the organisations backed up there participation. DonaNobisPacem 17:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Categorisation

How is the category Category:Catholic ecumenical and interfaith relations less relevant than Category:Catholic theology and doctrine? The first is a child category of the second.

From the viewpoint of the Roman Catholic Church Freemasonry is another religious belief system - which is why Catholics are not allowed to become members. --JASpencer 18:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much that they regard it as another religious belief system, but that they see it as accepting certain doctrines (such as naturalism or deism). DonaNobisPacem 20:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This from a Masonic source:

Influenced by the statements of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the reversal of the short lived drift toward ecumenicism, in 1985 the United States Bishops Committee for Pastoral Research and Practices published a report entitled "Masonry & Naturalistic Religion"39. The Pastoral Research & Practices Committee Report states that while one can no longer be excommunicated for being a Mason, it is none the less sinful to belong to Masonic organizations. The rationale is that the principles of Masonry are irreconcilable with those of the church. The report goes on to quote a six year study of Masonry by the bishops of Germany and the study of American Masonry by Professor William Whalen.40 The Committee Report quotes those sources as stating that the principles and basic rituals of Masonry embody a naturalistic religion, active participation in which is incompatible with Christian faith and practice. Those who knowingly embrace such principles are "committing serious sin". (Footnotes in the original document). JASpencer

I've created a new category Category:Catholicism and Freemasonry

Knights of Columbus, again

I'm sorry to reopen this but the present text is too vague to be unsatisfactory.

What I have done is asked a question on a Knights of Columbus forum:

http://forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?p=488802#488802

--JASpencer 18:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Dicussion forums are not citeable. All you are doing here is trying to hurt me, and let me tell you, I really appreciate it. Loads.--SarekOfVulcan 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sarek, I'm not trying to hurt anyone, please don't get so personal about this. I want to see if there is any authoritative policy that these people can link to saying whether Masons are allowed in to the Knights, or whether only practicing Catholics can join the Knights. I am not, repeat not seeking to use something in a discussion forum. --JASpencer 21:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Basically, you're telling me I'm not a practicing Catholic by pursuing this. It's hard not to take it personally. I'm a sinner in far too many ways, but because of God's infinite mercy, there is a chance that I will be forgiven and accepted into heaven. If there's anything that's going to keep me out, I really don't think that believing in the separation of church and state is going to be it.--SarekOfVulcan 22:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there. I am not aiming at you personally, and if you get the impression that I am then I apologise. However the issue of whether Freemasonry is compatible with Catholicism is important and should not get caught up in hurt feelings. Do you really think that the present sentance is anywhere near satisfactory?

It has been alleged that certain Catholic fraternal orders, including a number of State Chapters of the American Knights of Columbus allow Freemasons as members, although similar policies have attracted reprimands from Catholic bishops when they have been made public in other cases.

I understand that Freemasonry is less associated with a Protestant establishment as it is over here or with the anti-clerical movements of the Latin countries, but the question of whether Masonry is rotten at its core is surely worth persuing.--JASpencer 21:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that sentence is satisfactory, but it is probably the best compromise between me and people who don't think I exist. :-) NPOV must be satisfied.--SarekOfVulcan 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean being so vague that you aren't actually saying anything. I'm trying to iron this out. --JASpencer 22:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeargh! This is frustrating that this keeps coming up. Sarek, before I write this, I want to make it clear this is not a personal vendetta - I simply want to lay out the facts and seek consensus. JASpencer - I do not necessarily agree with this coming up again, as under the KofC page it is stated what membership requirements are, and consensus was to leave it at that.

I always seem to step on toes that I do not care to step on here, but I will try to set out a review of sourced info, and then we'll seek consensus (as this is a bit more broad of an issue than JUST KofC membership):

1.) The Catholic Church's current Code of Canon law (1983) does not mention that a Catholic cannot be a Freemason, or vice versa, explicitly.

2.) After the Code was promulgated, a letter was released by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that stated Masonic organisations were not mentioned explicitly due to an editorial criterion, which blanketed them in with other organisations; and that Masonic membership was still not allowed by practical Catholics (although the ban of excommunication is not in place as in the 1917 Code, it is stated that a Catholic who becomes a Mason is in grave sin and could not receive communion).

3.) The only KofC membership requirement is: "Only practical Catholics in union with the Holy See shall be eligible to and entitled to continue membership in the Order. An applicant for membership shall be no less than 18 years of age on his last birthday." (Section 101 in the Laws of the Order, cited from Grand Knight's Handbook).

4.) A practical Catholic is defined in These Men They Call Knights as one who obeys the five precepts of the Church (attend mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation, receive communion at least during the Easter season, receive Sacrament of confession at least once/year, keep holy the days of obligation, and observe prescribed days of fasting and abstinence) and keeps God's commandments

4.) The Grand Knight's Handbook goes on further to state that:

"A practical Catholic in union with the Holy See is one who, in general, regulates his life according to the teachings of Christ and the Church, and endeavors to observe the commandments of God and of the Church.

A practical Catholic strives to have a greater knowledge of the teachings of Christ and his Church, and to accept, respect and defend the Church's authority (vested in the Supreme Pontiff, the hierarchy and clergy united with him) to teach, govern and sanctify the faithful.

A practical Catholic gives material and moral support to the Church and her works on all levels, promoting the programs of the parish and diocese and comes to the aid of the missions, the needy, the underprivileged; espousing and advancing the just causes of minority groups; endeavoring to eliminate unjust discrimination, prejudice, etc.; supporting the Church in her defense of marriage and family life and her crusades against divorce, abortion, pornography and all the evils of today.

If a Catholic marries outside the Church, that is, contrary to the laws of the Church, he ceases to be a practical Catholic and hence may not be a member of the Knights of Columbus. A man who, living in a valid marriage, obtains a civil divorce and remarries outside the Church ceases to be a practical Catholic and hence loses his right to join or continue in the Order of the Knights of Columbus. If his former marriage is declared null by the Church and he remarries validly according to the Church's laws, he may be reinstated in the Order.

A Catholic who is a member of a forbidden, secret society is not a practical Catholic and hence may not become a member of the Knights of Columbus.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS -- If a member of the Order is married, he should be a faithful and devoted husband and father. Married or unmarried, the knight should always be an exemplary Catholic gentleman and a dutiful patriotic citizen."

So what the issue here is whether or not the Church says if a practical Catholic would have to accept the letter from the Sacred Congregation had papal approval (note NOT the KofC - as if the Church says so, the constitution of the KofC automatically follows suit, in that they "accept, respect and defend the Church's authority (vested in the Supreme Pontiff, the hierarchy and clergy united with him).") Juxtaposed is the fact that Catholic/KofC Masons believe that if Masonic membership was not allowed, it would have been explicitly stated in the Canon law; and that the letter from the Sacred Congregation is not binding.

A letter from Cardinal Bernard Law in 1996 [2], similar to those released by episcopal conferences in other countries, confirmed that a Catholic could not be a Freemason. In the letter, he does address "exceptional cases" (that require pastoral consent):

"Perhaps some accommodations may be made for pastoral reasons in exceptional cases. Converts might be permitted to retain passive membership. Those Catholic men who joined the lodge in good faith during the recent years of confusion might be offered the same option. Membership in Masonic-related organizations such as the Eastern Star should be discouraged, but does not carry the same penalty of exclusion from the eucharist [because they do not swear masonic oaths]. Otherwise the position of the church remains what it has been for many years: Catholics in the United States and elsewhere may not be Freemasons."

In this case, "passive membership" is addressed based on a 1911 precedent:

"1. If petitioners gave their names to the sect in good faith before they knew it was condemned.

2. If there is no scandal or if it can be removed with an appropriate declaration, they can remain in the sect passively and for a time so they do not lose the right to benefits, abstaining from communion with the group and from any participation, even material.

3. If serious harm would result for them or their family from their renunciation.

4. If there is no danger of perversion for them or their family, especially in the case of sickness or death.

This possible solution is far from perfect. In effect the church is saying that if an individual meets these conditions he may pay his dues but not attend meetings, read Masonic literature, consent to a Masonic funeral, etc."

I couldn't find any literature after 1996 on whether or not passive membership has been allowed, and this letter pertains only to the US (as certain ecclesiastical bodies have authority in various geographical areas without needing to consult the Vatican, in so much as any decision does not contradict established Church teaching).

Although an email to the Supreme Council of the K of C will result in the response that a Mason cannot be/become a member of the K of C and vice versa, this is not a good enough source for a Wikipedia article (it qualifies as original research); and explicit denial of membership to a Mason is not published in any (recent) K of C documents - rather, we only have the statement "A Catholic who is a member of a forbidden, secret society is not a practical Catholic and hence may not become a member of the Knights of Columbus," and then the letter from the Sacred Congregation. To put the two together, I have been informed, is also original research.

So that's where it stands. WITHOUT doing original research, let's try to reach a consensus on this, as it seems to be a bunfight (to borrow JA's terminology) that is not going to end. DonaNobisPacem 08:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we need to get some sort of arbitration here. Alternatively we could simply delete the line until we hammer something adequate. However, let's try to deconstruct this paragraph:

It has been alleged that certain Catholic fraternal orders, including a number of State Chapters of the American Knights of Columbus allow Freemasons as members, although similar policies have attracted reprimands from Catholic bishops when they have been made public in other cases.

After all if you look at the whole sentence there are two claims - (A) The KofC allow Freemasons as members (the implicit idea is that it is done consciously and (B) that other fraternal orders (in this case the Australian Knights of the Southern Cross) have been reprimanded for similar cases.

In the first claim we have to look at what we are actually saying. Are we saying that the Knights of Columbus is allowing in Masons although not officially admitting it? Is there really any point in saying this? There are communicating Catholics, indeed active and devout priests, who are also practicing homosexuals. Does this mean that the Catholic church has changed its mind on homosexuality? Well, no.

On the other hand are we saying that there is an official policy for allowing in Freemasons to the Knights? Now that is certainly worth noting. However there is simply no public evidence for this. The source of this is a letter sent to Sarek that Knights are allowed into his State Chapter:

the leader of my parish's council (well, council-to-be) confirmed this at the state level before I joined the KofC. From a letter that was sent out to the candidates by the organizer:

"At one time members of the order of Masons could not be in the Knights of Columbus. That is no longer true. In fact one of our candidates is a Mason." --SarekOfVulcan 20:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand DonaNobis has got an article from the Supreme Council of the Knights saying:

"No Knight may join the Masons and no Mason may join the Knights."

Now this doesn't point to either side lying, but a great internal inconsistency within the Knights. This points more to the first idea (that some branches and chapters are turning a blind eye to Freemasons) rather than the second that there is an official policy of doing so. It also should be noted that both positions are relying on original research.

The second claim has a public source - a published episcopal letter - but it is meaningless if the first claim is absent.

So, here's my suggestion. We temporarily delete this paragraph and try to to bash it out in the comments page until we get some consensus - based on published evidence.

I see two alternatives. Firstly, ask for some external arbitration. Or (in my opinion worst of all) we could allow a deeply flawed and, due to its ambiguity, misleading, statement to continue in the article.

What say you all? --JASpencer 23:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted the paragraph: you're right. Any way we try to write it will violate WP:NOR, until the Knights take a published position instead of having everybody extrapolate from "practical Catholic".--SarekOfVulcan 00:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Sarek. Who's going to kick this off? --JASpencer 09:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And I want to thank everyone for being kind and considerate with this topic. It is one that people on both sides feel strongly about. On another page the discussion would have resulted in revision wars and personal attacks. Not here. Here, every one stayed calm and professional. Well done my Brothers (both Masonic and In Christ.) Blueboar 14:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Inquisition and Freemasonry

I've lifted a few lines from the Anti-Masonry article(Two of these stories seem to have been lifted from this masonic source) . The lines are at the moment rather unsatisfactory :

• Which Florentine lodge did Tomasso Crudeli belong to?
• Was Crudeli also a freethinker? This local link seems to claim that he was. So was he put to death for his membership of the lodge or his anti-Catholic beliefs?
• Was Emininte a response to the Florence episode? The timings seem to be close, but I don't want to speculate here.
• Was Coustos accused of any heresy other than freemasonry?
• Why did the Spanish not move against freemasonry before 1815?

Sources

I've put in in a few new sources on the main page which may have some interesting things to say - on both sides. This may be a profitable seam to plough. This discussion forum also has a number of links - although it is admittedly rather sparse on the masonic side [3]. --JASpencer 23:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Geographical Differences

It might be an idea to explore in this article the geographical differences. There seem to be three quite different attitudes. (1) The Protestant regions, places like Sweden and the UK - where for historical reasons Freemasonry has been associated with a Protestant state religion, (2) the Latin regions - France, Mexico, Italy, Portugal, etc - where Freemasonry was (in many cases is) fiercely anti-clerical and (3) the New World where Freemasonry seems to have largely lost its religious traction outside the Catholic issue.

The talk page appears to be quite informative on this issue, but the main page is sparse. It seems to be a big issue with Masonic historians who say that being a Mason in the US is far less an anti-Catholic statement than being a Mason in Northern Ireland or France. --JASpencer 00:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

An excellent idea. That would certainly solve some of my concerns about blanket, "all Masons are the same", type statements. Good luck, and if you need info on the Masonic side of the questions (especially from the US point of view), please feel free to ask. Now, If I could only get the Vatican to see the difference! :>) Blueboar 00:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Good blog post on Catholicism and Freemasonry

http://www.lily.org/blog/2005/10/freemasonry-and-catholic-church.html --SarekOfVulcan 17:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Can't read it. Sorry. --JASpencer 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the Google cache version. (also slightly updated link above, but it doesn't seem to be working at the moment).--SarekOfVulcan 23:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have my thoughts on this, and if I can be bothered I'll put them on his comments page. Thanks for the heads up. --JASpencer 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ban on Membership

Moved to Talk:Clarification concerning status of Catholics becoming Freemasons

Suggestion: Christianity and Freemasonry

Apart from the "anti Catholicism of the higher degrees", most parts of the "Theological objections" could hold just as well for most Christian objections to freemasonry. Unless anyone has an objection, I'm going to start a new article, moving these areas out unless there is a specific "Catholic" objection. JASpencer 17:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with someone starting a new article if you really feel that one is needed, but I would not remove the "Theological objections" section from this one. These objections are an intrigal part of why the Catholic Church has banned Catholics from joining the fraternity. Yes, there are members of other denominations of Christianity who have similar or even identical objections, but the Catholic Church is the only one (that I know of) that has come right out and formally implimented a ban. Those objections are important to understanding why this was done. Blueboar 19:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of Protestant churches that have banned or condemned freemasonry. This Masonic text lists the (now merged) Wesleyan Methodists, the English Methodist Conference and the Church of England synod.

There are a number of churches that Wikipedia lists as being hostile to freemasonry Church of the United Brethren in Christ, the Free Methodist Church, the Free Reformed Churches in North America and the Free Church of England. All of them fairly small, but with long standing objections.

This anti masonic site lists a number of denominations that it claims forbid freemasons.

None of this is to say that the anti-Masonic is the majority stance among Protestants, just to say that there is a large anti-Masonic tendency among Protestant, particularly low church evangelicals. JASpencer 23:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Again... start a new page if you must. THIS one is for Catholicism and Freemasonry. Blueboar 00:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that at some point, and I'll try to find a way of paring down the theological objections here.JASpencer 13:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Done.JASpencer 20:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Kadosh degree

and since JAS has brought it up, I also have a question... do we have a source for the allegation about the Kadosh degree? Is it the Church that says this, or someone else? I am not saying that it should be deleted or even cited in the article... if the Church includes this as one of their objections, it should indeed be included. I simply would like to know the context of the allegation. Blueboar 19:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got a script for it (Amazon again), but no guarantee that it is the version that was questionable. I'll take a look and see. MSJapan 20:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

MSJapan - If you are talking about having a script for the Kadosh degree ... that's not what I was asking about. I am not worried about the truth or non-truth of the alligation (while it does not sound like something that Masons would do, that is another issue entirely)... I was interested in finding out more about the alligation itself. Who made the alligation? Is it part of a Papal Bull? Rumor? that sort of thing.Blueboar 20:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of sources on the internet on this, I'm not sure about the veracity:

This purports to be from Albert Pike http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/md/md31.htm

This claims to be a letter sent via the Southern Baptist Convention (although I'm not sure about how realistic the website is) http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/holly.html

This source claims to be from a Catholic evangelist http://www.secondexodus.com/html/evangelization/evangelizingfreemasons.htm

This site is a sedevacantist site that believes that the post Vatican II church is in fact irredeemably Masonic. However the original article comes from the Remnant which is far more sensible. http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/fisher1.htm

This article is actually from a Masonic source. It doesn't have the wording that appears in the other sources, or any wording to be honest, but it does allude to the oath http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/the_builder_1915_july.htm

And so you likewise complete your obligations and swear implacable hatred to the enemies of that Order which was the pattern of all the virtues; and we now have the obligation of employing all our forces for the total ruin of evil and priestly tyrants, upon whose heads must fall the blood of Jacques de Molay and his martyred companions.

(I hope you don't mind but I've seperated the Kadosh stuff out as it's a seperate issue.

JASpencer 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedian Masons generally don't consider FreemasonryWatch to be a reliable site for the purposes of WP:V, because any accurate information there is thoroughly mixed in with conspiracy theory.--SarekOfVulcan 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a response to the Holly letter above: http://www.preciousheart.net/freemasonry/Holly.htm --SarekOfVulcan 22:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sarek, I don't think it matters which website the letter is published on, the letter was not written by the website, but by James L Holly who is fairly respected. I've looked through the rebuttal very quickly but it doesn't mention anything about the tiara. Does it deny that this happens, or does it contextualise it? Could you please provide a quote from the document? JASpencer 23:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't appear to address that specifically, and as I haven't gone through that degree, I have no knowledge of it myself. I just wanted to point out that Holly, in general, isn't a reliable source. When the committee appointed by the SBC to study Masonry was about to report the "wrong" answer, he forced the appointment of a committee that would give the answer he was looking for. http://masonicinfo.com/holly.htm --SarekOfVulcan 23:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. So, given the sources, this is more of a general "problems some Christians have with stuff they have heard Freemasons do in their degrees" objection, and not something officially cited by the Church as being objectionable. Got it. In that case, I may want to revisit the validity of the claim (I have to do some research of my own) and to work on the wording of the "objections" section. In the meantime, Carry on. Blueboar 23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's why the script is important, though. If an allegation is not based on fact, it needs to be mentioned. Legitimate concerns are one thing, while fictional ones are onother thing entirely. MSJapan 02:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The article mentioned in Phoenix Masonry "THE MYSTIC LADDER" talks about the Knights Kadosh (to candidates for the degree?) inititation commemorating an emnity between the Knights Templar and Philip the Fair and Pope Clement V (crown and tiara) and then says that they are to "swear implacable hatred to the enemies of that Order". It also talks about "the total ruin of evil and priestly tyrants". I wonder who that would be?

It is clear that in American masonry in 1915 that the Knight Kadosh order DID involve anti-papal oaths. The initiation may have subsequently been cleaned up - I don't know. However this is not some fantasy allegation. THE MYSTIC LADDER

Albert Pike's book also is a Masonic source that explicitly mentions the Papal tiara in relation to the Kadosh degree. "Thus the Order of Knights of the Temple was at its very origin devoted to the cause of opposition to the tiara of Rome and the crowns of Kings, and the Apostolate of Kabalistic Gnosticism was vested in its chiefs."

If the Kadosh degree did not involve the crown and tiara, why did Masonic publications allude to it? JASpencer 18:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Catholic sources: The Catholic Encyclopedia and Father William Saunders. JASpencer 18:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

JAS - Since I have never even heard of the Kadosh degree before reading this article, I freely admit that I do not know if a crown or tiara is involved. That's why I need to resarch more. At the moment, I am going by gut reaction... it simply does not sound like something Freemasons would do. As for "the mystic ladder", first, note that it was translated from Spanish, with no citation as to who actually wrote it. That makes me skeptical. Blueboar 18:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh... and thanks for the citations from Catholic sources. I am now happier about this being something that the Church actually accuses Freemasonry of doing. I can now accept the wording of the accusation as it appears in the Article. The fact of the accusation (as opposed to the truth behind it) makes it worthy of inclusion. It also changes how any responce would be worded. Blueboar 19:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, this is from a masonic source and translated by a recognised Freemason Edwin A Sherman (more details of him here). This site, which seems to be from an occult pro-Masonic site [4] claims to have some text from Kadosh initiation directly claims that the crown and tiara are trampled upon.

BTW, here's another Catholic source on the Kadosh degree.

You have two masonic sources - one from the nineteenth century and one from the early twentieth century. The Catholic Encyclopedia article is also early twentieth century which is itself quoting Albert Pike as it's source on the crown and tiara. If the Kadosh initiation doesn't involve trampling the Papal tiara while denouncing the Pope's "imposture" it is fairly clear that at least in Scottish Rite Masonry it did. JASpencer 22:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said... I need to do more research on the degree in question before I comment further. Except to say that I do not put much faith in the accuracy of websites that list the X-files in their footnotes.Blueboar 00:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not put much faith in the accuracy of websites that list the X-files in their footnotes. Which site? And could you be playing the man rather than the ball - the "source" is not just the website that hosts the content but the content itself.JASpencer 13:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

On the Kadosh degree I've tried to summarise the current state of debate on here within the article:

It is alleged that anti-Catholicism becomes more pronounced in the higher degrees of Scottish Rite Masonry. Masonic sources from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries state that the initiation to the "Kadosh", or thirtieth degree of Masonry, involves trampling on a crown and a papal tiara to deliver mankind "from the bondage of Despotism and the thraldom of spiritual Tyranny". The "spiritual tyranny" is explained as the Catholic faith. It is unclear whether the Kadosh initiation currenly involves anti-clerical oaths.

I've also tacked on a second paragraph to explain the context of these allegations. JASpencer 13:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've got the source - it's a book called "Scottish Rite Masonry" [5] by a Charles A. Blanchard (no author given in the book; that's an Amazon cite for v. 1) and with intro and commentary by a J. Blanchard, President of Wheaton College (from inside cover). Now oddly enough, if you google "Charles Blanchard" he is the second president of Wheaton, and J. Blanchard is his father, first president of Wheaton.

Now, I've read two revisions of the 30th degree script for AASR NMJ, and it's absolutely nothing at all like what's in Blanchard's book. I think "Scotch Rite" has been confused with "Scottish Rite" (Amazon UK calls the same book Scotch Rite here, and that's what it says inside the cover of the book as well). Scottish Rite doesn't have a "Thrice Puissant Master" for that degree (it's too French a word :)). I know Art deHoyos talks about this here, and says "an exposé of the Cerneau 33º ritual in Jonathan Blanchard's Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated, which has been in print since 1888".MSJapan 20:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I apparently forgot to finish my explanation. Cerneauism is not the same as what is considered Freemasonry, and it's not Scottish Rite (it's a short-lived competitor). According to DeHoyos again, Cerneauism is: "a Masonic movement in the nineteenth century that violently opposed legitimate Scottish Rite Masonry in the United States. Whatever similarities may exist between Cerneau and Scottish Rite rituals are objects of curiosity and a source of Masonic research papers."

"Numerous references to the Cerneau Supreme Council occur throughout the book. Confusing Cerneauism with regular Scottish Rite Masonry is like confusing the Church of Christ with the Church of Christ, Scientist. Their names are alike and their orders of worship are superficially similar, but they are fundamentally different denominations. It is shallow research to accept Blanchard's book without question. It is incompetent to confuse the Cerneau Supreme Council with regular Scottish Rite Masonry. It is irresponsible to accuse Scottish Rite Masons on the basis of an irrelevant book (the reader will find more information on Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated in the section "Jonathan Blanchard and the Scottish Rite" in our chapter on John Ankerberg and John Weldon)."

So, while the claim is fair, the basis of the claim is incorrect, i.e., it attributes the viewpoint of a Masonic fringe pseudo-AASR to the mainstream AASR. In any event, Cerneauism apparently did not survive the 19th century, and I think for purposes of NPOV it might be useful to state the fact as well as the claim - the material is all in that DeHoyos page I cited above.MSJapan 02:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that both Albert Pike and Edwin Sherman are both reliable authorities on the Scottish Rite, at least within the United States in the late nineteenth - early twentieth century. JASpencer 19:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That is correct, but Pike is doing a debunk on the Cerneauist faction. What he is saying is that the Kadosh people heard about was not the accepted and legal Scottish Rite version, but a fringe Cerneauist (and therefore non-mainstream, unaccepted or whatever you prefer) version. So the claim is correct, but the source is wrong. MSJapan 20:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What is a debunk of the Cerneauist faction? The quotation, the chapter on the Knight Kadosh or the whold book? JASpencer 20:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's specifically the Kadosh chapter, as that was the one that caused all the furor, and the quote is a lead-in. However, since it will take me well over a month to get through 812 pages of Pike, I will add that there could possibly be more stuff elsewhere, but I doubt it because of the nature and origin of M&D. Also, info on Cerneau: [6] MSJapan 05:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but I can only see this line in reference to Cerneauism "Yarker received letters-patent for the Cerneau Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite from Theo. H. Tebbs of the Combined Canadian S.G.C. of that Rite on January 12, 1884.". Is there anything else there on Cerneauism, perhaps under a different name? JASpencer 15:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No. There wasn't much to it other than that it was a competing set of 29 degrees. However, having read the relevant chapter, it seems I was mistaken - Pike is talking about oppression of the Templars by Pope Clement V, and I'm really not sure what he is getting at re: the tiara comment, because he says it and leaves it without explanation.

As a further useful note (which is probably in the Proceedings for the year and can be cited): in 2004, the US Northern Masonic Jurisdiction removed the 30th degree and put a revised version of the 31st in its place. I would have to ask re the SMJ, as their layout is different. So, whether or not the allegation was historically true, it is no longer valid with respect to 15 states, as the ritual is no longer used. MSJapan 04:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A few items that need to be addressed....

This article generalizes that "Jacobin clubs modeled themselves on Masonic lodges". However, the actual Jacobin Club article says that only some of the clubs located outside of Paris had continuity with Masonic lodges. Therefore, the statement is misleading.

On another note, why is Garibaldi and Freemasonry linked on here? If his politics derivved from his membership, that just means that that is what he thought was right, not that he was acting in any capacity as a political agent for a lodge. That would be the same as saying his politics derived from his moral education at church, really. In short, I don't see the connection.

Finally, I notice the article is not addressing the Sedevacantist claim that John Paul II was a Freemason, although it is a major tenet of what caused the movement (or so it seems), along with Vatican II. MSJapan 20:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes the direct continuation of many lodges is a far stronger reason for suspicion (justified or otherwise) by the Catholic Church than similarity of organisation.

Garibaldi's anti-clerical and republican politics were much of a piece with his Masonic affiliations. As Blueboar has pointed out on these pages before Latin freemasonry is far more vocally anti clerical than its English speaking counterparts. This piece (written by the Italian Grand Orient, translated by a Canadian lodge) gives an insight from a sympathetic viewpoint. The Risorgiomento was treated by the Catholic Church as proof positive that freemasonry was fiercely anti-Papal.

And yes, the sedevacantist point should be raised (although I thought it was about John XXIII or Bugnini, not John Paul II), although I'm no expert in this area. It's a very important part, probably the main part, of the sedevacantist critique. I left a link at the end of the article hoping that I'd get a trad to expand on it. JASpencer 23:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've made a change on the Jacobins. JASpencer 23:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It was John XXIII. My mistake. Also, given that Masonic jurisdictions are independent of one another, if there is a distinction (such as particular areas being more anticlerical than others), I think it needs to be stated, as otherwise it becomes a generalization that can be easily disproven. I wouldn't consider American Freemasonry to be anti-clerical, nor English, but England has had plenty of issues with the Catholic Church. :) Thanks for making the change on Jacobins. MSJapan 01:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There's something to that, definately. I tend to find some of the better Masonic apologetics do strongly tend to go that way. I think that one has to be careful here though, as this explanation can (whether accidentally or not) overlook the very real theological objections that the Vatican has to Freemasonry in principle. JASpencer 18:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what JAS is saying here. From the Vatican's standpoint (at least at the moment) all of Freemasonry is viewed as being anticlerical. As long as the article makes it clear that this is the Vatican's view (and not a statement of fact) we need to include the charge. I think it might be time to begin a section entitled: "Freemasonry's responce" or something of that sort. At the moment the only line representing Freemasonry's side of the story is "There is no Masonic prohibition against Catholics." Blueboar 14:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, the Vatican doesn't just see Freemasonry as anti-clerical, but the main thrust of it's criticism is that it freemasonry is hostile to dogmatic Christianity. JASpencer 23:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said that Anti-clericism was the only issue... I was just using it as an example since you mentioned it. My real point was that I think it is time to add a section outlining what Freemasonry says in reply to the Church's concerns.Blueboar 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm simply a bit sensitive to the idea that anti-clericalism is the only, or even the major, stated reason for Catholic opposition to Masonry. (Clearly it plays a large part in Catholic opposition, especially among the Catholic laity) JASpencer 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem... I can understand being sensitive on this subject :) Blueboar 13:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Knights Templar section saying they were disbanded for heresy is incorrect. Their disbanding was primarily due to the monetary greed of Philip the Fair of France. Maybe their were other claimed reasons, but they may very likely have been a coverup for the French King. Could someone else correct this, as I have not been involved in the discussions about this page?JBogdan 09:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Orange order

Please provide evidence that the Church considers the Orange Order to be Masonic. As far as I know it isn't. (There may be overlap in membership between Orange Lodges and Masonic Lodges in Northern Ireland, but I do not think there is any direct tie).Blueboar 23:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not. Overlap exists, and while it is possible the Orange Order's roots lay in the lodges of Northern Ireland (when the Order started), to make a general statement of it being Masonic when no Masonic body recognizes it as such is at the very least a questionable statement. MSJapan 03:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote this to take out ambiguity and provided a citation. It appears as if the links were a bit more intimate at the foundation of the Orange Order so I may rewrite this. How much this does anything other than create suspicion I'm not sure, although it certainly creates a bit of suspicion. Freemasonry is also a badge of support for the Unionist establishment in Northern Ireland, although I'm not too worried about putting that in.JASpencer 12:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I can understand how belonging to a Masonic Lodge might be big in Northern Ireland (this not a statement of fact... just my uninformed oppinion)... Freemasonry started in England (and Scotland), and thus can be associated with "all things English". Yes, there may be overlap in membership, but that does not make a direct link between the Orange Order and Freemasonry. If it did, you would have to also say that the Knights of Columbus is a Masonic organization because there is overlap in membership. And we know that is not the case. Blueboar 19:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the citation? Did you read the changes made? JASpencer 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes... although I have to ask, what citation? There was only a link to the Orange Order article here at Wikipedia, and that did not mention Masonry at all.Blueboar 00:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

civil marriage

Please give a citation that supports the statement that Freemasonry supports civil marriage or is opposed to Church marriage. That is definitely not the stance in my Jurisdiction, and never has been. Blueboar 19:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you delete first rather than ask the question here beforehand? Do you think that this is a civil way to do this? JASpencer 22:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Civil enough for WP:V, at least. Note item 2 of the policy.--SarekOfVulcan 22:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sarek, that's not civility it's rule-quoting rudeness. "If the article has many unsourced statements that have been there a long time, you may request sources on the talk page before removing them". Yes I did see "may". The fact that a citation had been previously supplied in Christianity and Freemasonry does point to a certain bloody mindedness. JASpencer 22:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the Mexico addition and put in a citation to Etsi Nos. Firstly this article is about what the church says about Freemasonry, and what Freemasonry says about the church. Secondly Wikipedia is not about original research about an individual Mason's subjective experience of their own lodge. Thirdly it's plain good manners to say beforehand if you want to take out long standing text. I suppose expecting better was too hopeful. JASpencer 23:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on your definition of "long-standing". It doesn't seems to predate your current article-improvement edits, but I suppose it might have been standing somewhere else first.--SarekOfVulcan 23:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a second, folks. I have criticized JAS for doing exaclty what I did. On a somewhat controverical subject like this, I think we should discuss changes before we make them. My appologies. Now, I have read the citation carefully, and I can not find anywhere where it says Masons are supporting civil marriage. Please point out to me the paragraph and line where it says that. I will hold off on deleting the statement for now. Blueboar 00:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that Blueboar. I got hot under the collar because I thought that we were playing by two different sets of rules. On the Civil Marriage theme it is an item in the list with the introduction:

The church also saw this separation of the state from the church as manifesting a "Religious Indifferentism" which did not accept any religion as true or revealed. Some specific areas which freemasons were accused of aiming for a separation of church and state were:

I would suggest making the intro clearer (if that is indeed needed) rather than looking at the item. The church clearly saw civil marriage as a Masonic initiative (with justification in some of the Latin countries) and clearly saw this as having an anti-clerical motivation. JASpencer 17:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps a reworded intro would make things clearer. Your call. About where in the citation is the paragraph? (it is a long document after all. I am not saying it is not there, I'm just having difficulty finding it). Blueboar 18:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Citations modified. There is accompanying text there as well which you could copy and paste and then search down Etsi Nos. It's just above Item 3 (not sure how to cite Papal documents).JASpencer 18:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, found the line that talks about civil marriage in this paragraph:

"In the midst of the populations of Italy, which have always been so constant and steadfast in the faith of their fathers, the liberty of the Church is wounded on all sides; everyday efforts are redoubled in order to efface from the public institutions that Christian stamp and character which has always, and with good reason, been the seal of the glories of Italy. Religious houses suppressed, the goods of the Church confiscated, marriages contracted in despite of the laws and without the rites of the Church, the position of the religious authorities as to the education of the young utterly ignored—in fine, a cruel and deplorable war without limit and without measure declared against the Apostolic See, a war on account of which the Church is weighed down by inexpressible suffering, and the Roman Pontiff finds himself reduced to extreme anguish. For, despoiled of his Civil Princedom, he has of necessity fallen into the hands of another Power."

So I agree that Pope Leo XIII was definitely unhappy with what was going on in Italy at the time. What I do not find anywhere in the encyclical are the words Mason, or Freemason, or anything like that. However, I do find refference to a "pernicious sect". In all honesty, as an historian, I do have to agree that (given what was going on in Italy at the time) he was probably referring to Freemasonry as he understood it. So... I no longer have any objections to the statement being included. That said... as with the anti-clerical accusations, I would hope that this article will be NPOV enough to admit that this was a charge that developed due to the political stance that SOME Italian Freemasons took in the 1800s, and does not reflect current Masonic attitudes (or at least not in most jurisdictions). Thanks for your patience... on to the next quibble! Blueboar 01:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I could find a Masonic source on the "pernicious sect" reference being seen as Masons. I think the Catholic Encyclopedia goes along with this as well. On the Latin lodges relatively greater anti-clericalism, that certainly does need to be covered, but probably as a seperate section rather than continually modifying the other parts of the article with "in Italy", "in Mexico", "in France", etc. JASpencer 13:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. As I said in other discussions here, I do wish the Vatican would come to understand that not all forms of Masonry are the same, and thus not tar us all with the same brush... but I am not going to hold my breath waiting for it. I actually agree with you on creating a seperate "what the Masons say" section to balance the the article and keep things NPOV. It does not need to be long, just accurate (and properly cited of course). Blueboar 14:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not actually saying that we need a "what the Mason's say" section - we may, we may not. What I was talking about was some contribution on the phenomenen of the anti-clericalism of the Latin lodges - which does seem to leave a lot of Anglo-Saxon masons nonplussed by the ferocity of the Catholic response (including many of the editors here). JASpencer 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we are talking about the same thing form different directions. More discussion may be needed as to the best way to present all of this in a NPOV way, but we are talking the same goal. Blueboar 04:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of adding a new section on this I've modified the anticlericalism section to give it more of a Latin flavour. I think that we can add to this over time. I would say in advance that this could get a bit heated. Do remember that although not the central part of the Church's critique of Freemasonry, it's pretty close to it's heart and is a main driver of the perception that the Catholic laity have towards Freemasonry.JASpencer 12:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No need for it to get heated. If everyone works together and respects eachother's comments here on the talk page, then we will be able to write a NPOV article. The modification to the anticlericalism section looks good. It may need tweeking, but it is a good beginning. Blueboar 13:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it's going to have a lot of new material coming on to it, I would think. And then you'd get questions of how much Masonry had to do with the Spanish Republican government, the Portuguese government's erly reaction to the Fatima apparitions, the Italian Church-state stand off, the 1905 French law of seperation, Mexico's persecution of the church, etc, etc, etc. There are, let us say, areas for debate and interpretation.JASpencer 13:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. We can debate and interpret when the time comes, and then modify the article as needed.Blueboar 13:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I'd appreciate a couple of citation for the additions from MSJapan:

• Tommaso Crudeli's cause of death
• Atheists still not being able to join Masonic lodges

JASpencer 23:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll take out the Crudely cause of death until there's a citation. On the atheists not being able to join lodges I'll add something like "in the USA". I'll leave it for a day, though to let someone else improve it.JASpencer 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Crudeli is here, and as a note, there's an entire institute in Italy just for him. You might want to reword a bit, though, as my version has a bit more expliation than the source does.

I'm certain that the original source for denial of atheists is either Preston or Anderson's Constitutions (I think the latter), but the terms in Anderson don't seem as strong as I'm sure would be desired, so here's newer article from the Southern Masonic Jurisdiction AASR on the topic that states it unequivocally. MSJapan 00:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the Crudeli quote, and please cite this in the article.

To me the importance of Crudeli is that he was the first person who seems to have made the connection between heresy and freemasonry apparent to the Vatican, rather than how close his death was to his imprisonment. The question also comes, was Crudeli condemned for heresy or lodge membership? (Masonic histories understandably stress the latter).

So is the Masonic prohibition on atheism something that applies to "regular" lodges - and what does regular mean? I have only the haziest idea. I just want to reconcile why the French seem to allow in atheists.

Ironically, Crudeli is taken as a hero among atheists which ties up these two discussion rather neatly. JASpencer 15:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Crudeli added, and while the atheism prohibition definitely applies to regular Freemasonry, it is also possible it applies to some irregular Masonic jurisdictions as well. The definition thereof is in Regular Masonic jurisdictions, I believe. As far as the article goes, though, the objections are usually directed towards mainstream regular Freemasonry. MSJapan 04:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

the objections are usually directed towards mainstream regular Freemasonry I don't believe that this is the case with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is opposed to Freemasonry per se, and some of the most vicious fights have been with some of the irregular Latin lodges - such as the Grand Orient de France. JASpencer 21:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Orange order citation

Since the statement about the supposed ties between the Orange Order and Freemasonry comes not from a Church document, but from an essay by a historian at Trinity, Dublin, I felt it was important to point out more clearly who made the statement. It seems more factual and NPOV this way. Blueboar 02:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing Citation Requests

Section: Introduction Quote: Catholicism and Freemasonry have often seemed to be in conflict, with Freemasonry being seen as tending to anticlericalism and the Roman Catholic Church forbidding Catholics from becoming Freemasons. Reason: This is a claim made in the rest of the article lays out.

Section: Original Prohibition Quote: The Protestant origin of the organization Reason: This would be covered in the previous citation request

Section: Original Prohibition Quote: that it was an object of suspicion to the Catholic church authorities from the outset Reason: This is laid out in the rest of the section

Section: Original Prohibition Quote: but accepted Italian members Reason: This is laid out in the next paragraph (Tommaso Crudeli)

Section: Allegations of Deism Quote: One of the persistent Catholic criticisms of Freemasonry is that it advocates a deist or naturalist view of Creation Reason: This introductory sentence is elaborated in the rest of the section

Section: Allegations of Deism Quote: One piece of evidence that is said to attest to this deism is the prominent role of geometry in Masonic ritual Reason: The citation is in the next paragraph

Section: Religious Indifferentism Quote: Masonic behaviour is seen as a denial of the truth of Christian revelation Reason: The same citation is asked for at the end of the sentence

Section: Anti-Catholicism of Higher Degrees Quote: It is alleged Reason: This introductory sentence is elaborated in the rest of the section

Section: Anti-Catholicism of Higher Degrees Quote: that anti-Catholicism becomes more pronounced in the higher degrees of Scottish Rite Masonry Reason: This introductory sentence is elaborated in the rest of the section - as above

Section: Anti-Catholicism of Higher Degrees Quote: A related allegation is that lower degree initiates could be manipulated into directions Reason: The same citation is asked for at the end of the sentence

Section: Anti-Catholicism of Higher Degrees Quote: - particularly against either Catholicism or Christian belief Reason: The same citation is asked for at the end of the sentence - as above

Allegations that Freemasonry is a new religion

I've added a main section for Christianity and Freemasonry and will take all the citations from the section here as it should go to the main article.

I would not worry too much about all of these citation requests... the user who posted them has gone through all of the articles that even remotely critisize Masonry and has gummed up each page with citation requests. While I agree that citations are needed to back our statements, I do not think every sentence needs to be cited. This is obviously an overzelous POV attack. As a contributor with a definite personal POV (pro Masonic) but who wants a NPOV article, I think that it would be OK to simply delete all the requests. We can go back to our accepted method of requesting individual citations for specific statements on the Talk page, where they can be properly discussed and agreed upon prior to inclusion in the article. Blueboar 02:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

In general citations are good, so I don't want to take away every citation request. a lot of them are valid. The only caveat I would have is that taking out so many lines with citation requests in a short time would unbalance the article. JASpencer 09:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Citations are definitely good, on that we can all agree. Over citing, however, can ruin an article. Not every sentence or statement needs to be cited, especially if the same citation can be used for an entire paragraph or for several statements in a row. I was simply trying to point out that we have a good working method for requesting citations (asking on the talk page and then discussing) and that we should continue to follow it. Blueboar 15:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think that asking for a citation is a far more open way of doing this. It means that citation requests are far more open to the reader and that the benefit of doubt is with the person asking for the citation. If you think that a citation request is unreasonable then you can also state your case on the talk page. JASpencer 19:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Interfering with citations

Why is Imacomp altering direct quotations? I don't like accusing others of vandalism, but... JASpencer 15:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Citation requests on "Christian religious opposition"

I've put in a main article reference. I think that the citation requests are now superflous. Any objection to removing them? JASpencer 16:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp: A clarification

I know this is going to look suspicious, but Imacomp is not a sock puppet of mine, although I can't speak for the other non-Masonic editors. I only wish I had the wit and imagination. JASpencer 16:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If I had half the wit... I'd be a half-wit. (no comments please)  :) Blueboar 00:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Things Catholics Are Asked About

This source makes claims that have been shown to be factually incorrect (Masonic unification, what Freemasonry is about, etc.) even by sources such as The Catholic Encyclopedia. Things is attributing intent to quotes in directions existing only ot the author of Things, and I think it is far too POV (and hyperbolic) to be presented as a legitimate source of information. Notably, the author ignores Rev. George Oliver's title, and uses wildly date and country disparate sources, and yet ascribes them as authoritative. I hadn't heard of the Oliver book before this, so there's clearly something going on regarding agenda in this source, and I don't think it's encyclopedically appropriate, especially since the claims made are examined in a much more NPOV manner within the article.MSJapan 19:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This is an historic document laying out what many Catholics thought about Freemasonry in the period leading up to the Al Smith presidential bid. It's madness to take it out rather than qualify it. And yes the agenda of the source is that it is a Catholic apologetic. JASpencer 17:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts we should be moving the external links to the citations anyway, which I've done. After all if we don't want to cite them why are they in the external links? JASpencer 18:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends... if you are using it to directly support a statement then, yes, it would go in as a citation... if you are simply using it as further information on the general topic, then it could go into an external "see also" set of links. However, if you use it as a citation then you do have to address MSJapan's concerns about veracity. Blueboar 01:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

1905 French anti-clericism

Once again, I have to make a plea that it be noted that not all Masonry is alike... The recently added quotations from the Grand Orient of France is a case in point. What would you expect from an organization that admits avowed atheists! Of course they are Anti-clerical. I can understand why the Church would object to this. So does Masonry. It is stuff like this that made Regular Masonic Jurisdictions withdraw recognition from the Grand Orient of France, and brand them as irregular. These statements do not reflect the attitude of the vast majority of Masonry (both as individuals and officially as Grand Lodges). Please make it clear that, once again, the Church is objecting to a MINORITY viewpoint, expressed by a renegade faction. Blueboar 23:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair point. MSJapan 05:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, the main idea - that the Latin lodges are more anticlerical than the English speaking lodges - is a fair point. It may have informed the Church's disapproval of Freemasonry (as Anglicanism's base in the English speaking world could allow for it's relative leniancy towards Freemasonry per se). It's certainly an interesting area - although one IMO overplayed by Masonic historians. For example the Church has real doubts about oath bound secret societies, the the perceived theology of Freemasonry, the links –albeit imperfect- with the Latin lodges, etc. It is no coincidence that most of the recent church rulings on Freemasonry has concerned the “difficult cases” in the English speaking world rather than the more clear cut Latin cases. It's certainly a subject that should be explored on this page.JASpencer 12:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No argument with any of that. I do understand that there are things in regular "Anglo-based" Freemasonry that the Church has issues with, and these should indeed be discussed in the article. My point is that where the Church is basing its criticism on things that only "Latin" lodges do or say (I hate that term, but can not find a better one), this be pointed out. Blueboar 18:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That was the idea of organising France, Italy, etc among the 'Anti-Clericalism among the "Latin Lodges"' section in. If you think you can make the distinction clearer then please do.JASpencer 18:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA

Looking at the citations, why not just cut and paste the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA here? Imacomp 00:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem here? According to this statement: Wikipedia:Using_Catholic_Encyclopedia_material usinge material from this source is perfectly acceptable. I've added the Catholic tab. It's certainly no basis for a NPOV or accuracy dispute. JASpencer 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Knights Templar

This section is a bit much perhaps - although the Freemason's use of Knights Templar lore is well known, it comes under more criticism from historians than it does the Church, as far as I am aware - especially as the papal investigators actually voted for the maintenance of the Order at the Council of Vienne, having found nothing inherently wrong with the Order: Clement suppressed (basically, dissolved) it due to the hatred of Philip V, public scandal caused by the trial, and the likely decline of the Order due to the trial.....so it wasn't dissolved as a result of heresy per se (see the Knights Templar (military order) for more detail). I think the issue is more the fact that the Freemasons try to indicate the Church unfairly suppressed the Order, and tortured/executed its members, when in reality the impetus came from the French crown under Philip V.

Anyways - unless a credible Church source can be cited giving this as a reason for the Church's disapproval, I would say nix the section. DonaNobisPacem 07:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

DNP the citation at the end of this paragraph reads:

"Soon after 1750, however, as occult sciences were ascribed to the Templars, their system was readily adaptable to all kinds of Rosicrucian purposes and to such practices as alchemy, magic, cabala, spiritism, and necromancy." from Freemasonry (Masonry) in the Catholic Encyclopedia

Would this be a credible Church source? JASpencer 12:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Roman Church source perhapse, but not credible on the subject. Just about as one sided POV as one can get. Imacomp 15:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Only one Book is authentically authoritative to Christians, and its not the Catholic Encyclopaedia. Imacomp 15:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp, this is about Catholicism and Freemasonry.

Do you propose not quoting any Catholic or Masonic sources in this article because they are bound to be one sided? JASpencer 17:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, not here, no. The criticism is against Rosicrucians, not Freemasons, so it's not really valid. Masonry and Rosicrucianism are not the same, and there is no way you're going to credibly be able to ascribe alchemy, magic, etc., to mainstream Freemasonry. I'm not even sure if you can ascribe it to Rosicrucianism either, for that matter, but I don't really know that much about it to state anythingg with any authority. MSJapan 16:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

MSJapan, the citation was to back up the statement that because "One of the founding legends of Freemasonry is that Freemasonry could trace its origins to the Knights Templars" that this is "seen by some Catholics as an overt endorsement of heresy". You may not think that those criticisms are fair - but that is not the issue. The issue is whether the Knights Templars legend (1) created some suspicion among Catholics and (2) why this was so. I think the citation answers both those points. JASpencer 17:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

DNP - added citation request and disputed-section tab. I'd be quite glad to put this in a scratch pad so that we can kick this around for a week and reinsert it into the article. JASpencer 17:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Go on then... see ya next week? Imacomp 22:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved to Catholicism_and_Freemasonry/Scratch. Will be back next week. JASpencer 23:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I am not disputing that various Masonic personages/organisations have tried to claim descendency/affiliation with the Knights Templars (the German Masons in the 17th century were the first to claim direct descent, if I remember correctly). My only question was whether or not there is sufficient criticism from the Church on this point to include it (and I think my above comment wandered all over the place into irrelevencies of Masonic interpretation instead of making that point). As to the Catholic Encyclopedia being used as a source in this regard - some caution has to be exercised due to the date (1913) of the Encyclopedia - some information is now outdated or since modified/added to - but in general it provides a good idea of the Church's viewpoint, especially in a historical context. DonaNobisPacem 05:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality and factual accuracy

This article is neither neutral nor factually accurate. Imacomp 11:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you give examples please? JASpencer 12:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless I have an objection by tomorrow I'm removing the tag. JASpencer 12:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

For objections, see above. Imacomp 15:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a non-answer. Please ennumberate the problems in this section otherwise the tab goes tomorrow. References to other talk areas are fine, but we need to have some meat here. JASpencer 17:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"...otherwise the tab goes tomorrow." Bet it comes back as well... Imacomp 22:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"...this section...". I'll put posts anywere on the talk page that I please, as per my editorial perogative. So yah boo to you. Imacomp 22:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Bet it comes back as well. Fine. Does anyone know anything about WP:DR? Looks like Imacomp is incapable of being civil or constructive. How's the sock check going?

JASpencer 23:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well... I do have to say that the article is a bit one sided (that side is mostly presented in a neutral NPOV way in my opinion, but one sided it is). I have been busy on other pages where the neutrality is more questionable, or I would have addressed it. Essentially, a short "What the Freemasons say in reply to these critisims" section would ease my concerns. Perhaps I or one of the other Masons who edit these related pages can find time to work on it with all of you, once the hoopla at the Freemasonry page dies down. Blueboar 01:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

3 editors say remove, 1 says keep. No reasons given (yah boo sucks doesn't count). Removing tab. JASpencer 17:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality and factual accuracy

I've got some other issues with this article in general.Imacomp 18:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The atrophied tautology of argument and internal inconsistency of grammatical prose tends to negate any expositive revelations or antediluvian taxonomical development. This is still a pseudo academically bankrupt and plagiaristic attempt at pontifical evangelism promulgated in unsophisticated neo-theological and unsubstantiated application of delegated divine prerogative. There is a substantive inaccuracy in the application of even demountable ecclesiastical paradigms when the subject is explicitly a non-ecclesiastical and constitutionally heterogeneous secular phenomenon that only appeals to a personal non-corporate deity entity, in some manifestations practiced, whilst actively or passively denouncing such practices, in other bi-laterally antagonistic manifestations. I hope that makes my reasons for placing the tag on the article clear. Imacomp 18:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it ... why didn't you say so before? Blueboar 19:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

To sum up: your argument with the article as it stands is that it allows Catholics to contribute. JASpencer 21:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what he's saying is that the article needs to be checked for spelling and internal consistency, and that it suffers from only posing arguments that prove themselves, and he also believes the article is POV in that it leans heavily towards favoring the Catholic Church as "correct" (by basing the article at times on claims made and taking the claims as accurate without addressing the factual inaccuracies behind the claims), as well as applying religious ideas to what is ostensibly not a religion. I'm sure I missed something, but I can't untie that next-to-last sentence, probably because I haven't taken my Generals yet. MSJapan 21:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And he provides no examples just blanket accusations.JASpencer 22:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#How_to_initiate_an_NPOV_debate?

If you come across an article whose content does not seem to be consistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, use one of the tags below to mark the article's main page. Then, on the article's talk page, make a new sectioned titled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article.

Any clear and exact explanations?JASpencer 22:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute

The accuracy of an article may be a cause for concern if:

• it contains a lot of unlikely information, without providing references.
• it contains information which is particularly difficult to verify.
• in, for example, a long list, some errors have been found, suggesting that the list as a whole may need further checking.
• it has been written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic.

Any evidence provided? JASpencer 22:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

From Charges of a FREE MASON

You shall be cautious in your Words and Carriage, that the most penetrating Stranger shall not be able to discover or find out what is not proper to be intimated, and sometimes you shall divert a Discourse, and manage it prudently for the Honour of the worshipful Fraternity.

Hmmm. JASpencer 22:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

MS Japan I took a bet with myself that you would "get it". Blueboar you got the "joke" encrypted, for extra credit. Well done Brethren. So is the article retrievable? I’m not overly bothered, but I do not think others are safe hands or competent to try - either here, of at Freemasonry. I’m not Anti-Catholic (ie, Church of Rome) I’m just Anti-anti-Masonic. If anti-Masons want to "play", they need to hire-in some help with better cognitive powers. QED. (In my opinion, as a dyslexic with an RSA 1 in typing). NOTE: I outsourced the “paragraph” to a 12 year-old, then edited and posted it myself. :) Enjoy, peace and Brotherly Love. Imacomp 23:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Oh St Morgan save us!" The Masons are about, ha ha. Imacomp 07:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

So it's "I'm not anti-Catholic but I don't think they should edit an article relating to Catholicism"?

You have simply not provided any concrete examples. You still confine yourself to personal comments. I have restrained myself from this, and I will try to keep doing so. I do think that you should try to do the same.JASpencer 14:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not doing much editing these days (see my user page for details), but I have been checking in here periodically - and in this case, I have to agree somewhat with JASpencer. What tends to make an article NPOV is the contributions of many editors, not just one (we don't overcome our biases that easily). If there are objections to info on the page:

1.)State your specific objection

2.)State a possible revision

3.)Give a source

I simply haven't seen much of that here - there's been a lot of complaining in very general terms, but very little in the way of specific details. I've also noticed that 99% of contributions in the history are JASpencer's - if you want to try and get a different POV represented, start contributing more! Finally, Imacomp - JASpencer is a very long-time contributor - show a bit more respect to established editors, and perhaps you will come to a mutual understanding faster, rather than constantly butting heads. Cheerio (and hope you get your issues sorted out), DonaNobisPacem 06:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say that Imacomp has had plenty of opportunity to provide some more concrete areas of concern and he has failed to do so. Now I don’t think that he’s too dim to be able to do this, he’s uninterested in doing this. He’s more interested in keeping the tag over the article than he is in ironing out any problems within it. It is becoming clearer that this is simply a spoiling tactic. Now I’m fairly sure that if I saw a Catholic editor behaving in the same way I’d call him up on it – not just for the sake of Wikipedia standards but because he makes my group look bad. With the exception of ALR, I’ve really not seen any of the Masonic editors trying to rein him in. JASpencer 13:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No specific objections to justify the tag, so the tag should go. Will give a day for objections. If the tag is put on without any specific objections then I will treat it as vandalism.JASpencer 09:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sedevacantist claims

Do they really belong here? They're pretty much "out there" from both the Catholic and Masonic POVs--SarekOfVulcan 06:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think MSJapan raised the issue. Sedevantism is a growing movement and very much powered by the Masonic Vatican claims. Even some of the trads in communion with Rome - such as Christian Order and Michael Davies have said similar things - especially in connection with Cardinal Bugnini. JASpencer 12:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that Bro. Cardinal Bugnini? Erm... I never met him at that Vatican Ladies Night.Imacomp 23:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"no higher degree"

Reguarding the statement: "Catholic critics of Freemasonry claim that Freemasons in lower degrees are deceived as to what higher-degree Masonry involves." To which Sarek added: "This arguement ignores the Masonic teaching that there is no higher degree than the 3rd, or Master Mason degree." JASpencer asks: "Does the argument ignore, misunderstand or is simply not relevant to the 'no higher degree' statement"? It is relevant, and it both misunderstands and deliberatly ignores. First, this may just be a question of symantics... I will admit that there are critics who are legitimately ignorant of the facts, and assume that just because a degree has a higher number it is therefore "higher" in Masonry. That is a misunderstanding. However, the Vatican is not ignorant of the facts. It has studied Freemasonry in depth, and can only be deliberately using the term "higher degrees" when making this point. That said... it is true that the claim is made... so it needs to be reworded to something like: "Catholic critics of Freemasonry claim that Freemasons who have not joined the Appendant bodies are deceived as to what those Appendant bodies involve." Blueboar 15:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, but it's a bit of a mouthfull. Is there any way of getting the idea (that's certainly common - and not just among the religious critics) that the appendant bodies are in charge of the lower craft lodges. And then there's Pikes views about Babylonian darkness.JASpencer 20:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well... I suppose you would have to state something like: "Dispite the fact that Freemasonry has stated that there is no degree higher than the 3rd (Master Mason) degree, many critics of Freemasonry believe that the degrees of the Scottish Right or York Rite are 'higher' than, or have authority over, these basic three degrees{citation}. These critics usually refer to the York and Scottish Rite degrees as being "higher" and the basic three as being "lower". This assumption may be due to the Scottish Rite practice of numbering its degrees sequentially from 4 to 32, with an honorary 33rd degree." With that preface you could then (perhaps) make your statement with only the addition of quotation marks around the words "Higher" and "Lower". That way it is clear that the words are part of the claim and not fact.

As for Pike... he is but one individual. What is in that book is simply HIS oppinion and not that of anyone else. In fact, there is a statement about this from the Southern Jurisdiction in the preface of Morals and Dogma... I will have to look it up to give you the exact wording, but basicly it says: This book makes many claims... These are Pike's claims and only his. You can make up your own mind. So Pike can have any view that he wants... it doesn't mean that's what Masons believe. Blueboar 21:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to need to think about how this is done. The dogma of master masonry being the highest rite AND the idea that "lower" degrees are deliberately kept in the dark about their "lowly" status is quite common. It needs to be put in somehow and I'm sure that between us we can make it lucid. JASpencer 22:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh... I am not disagreeing that many Catholics (and non-Catholics) think that a 32nd degree Mason "out ranks" a 3rd degree. And as long as the Article states that this is a misconception, I have no problem discussing claims that arise from that misconception. Same with Pike... The church may well think that his ideas define what Masons believe. I will simply point out the following statement from the Supreme Council AASR (found in the preface of every copy of Morals and Dogma): "Everyone is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound" In other words, Pike is a load of horse dung. As long as it is clear that this is not (pardon the expression) Dogma for Freemasons, and as long as you are quoting Pike accurately and in context, I can agree that his statements gave rise to serious issues with the Church. Blueboar 00:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

On Pike I think that you would have to make sure that you are not contradicting the Albert Pike article. The article at least implies that he is still held in high esteem and there seems to be no contradictory view on his status within Freemasonry. JASpencer 09:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the text of the article to bring in appendant bodies and craft lodges, and to say that the assertion is that craft lodge masons are mislead as to both the philosophy and power of the appendant bodies. Now the section contradicts itself, but I'll give it 24 hours before deleting the text. JASpencer 09:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Added citation for "no higher degree" - directly from AASR Southern Jurisdiction. You can't get more official than that. As to the section contradicting itself... Can't help it if you write contradictary statements. :>) Blueboar 15:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not write the contradictory statement, I rewrote the original statement. I'm just keen that I don't delete Sarek's text without debate. All moot now.JASpencer 16:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic or just Catholic

There seems to be a fondness for changing everything here that says "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic". I've stopped reverting these changes until we have some concensus. Why does "Roman" need to be inserted before "Catholic" time and again? I'm genuinely interested.

My take is that if the opening paragraph refers to the Roman Catholic Church then the rest of the article is clear on the subject. We are not talking about all churches that use the Apostle's creed.

JASpencer 08:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No justification for just Catholic on Wiki, as this is POV. The Roman Church is not the Universal/Catholic Church, except in its own ranks, in Christianity - let alone all religions. How would you like Freemasonry to claim it was the universal and exclusively true philosophy? Imacomp 11:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

..."all churches that use the Apostle's creed"... are call Apostolic, not Catholic. Imacomp 13:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No justification for just Catholic on Wiki, as this is POV. Have you got any wiki policy that says that? JASpencer 19:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The POV policy. Look it up. (This is not the Catholic apologetics book you are fond of, and not all wiki readers are of the Roman Church). Imacomp 22:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets have the article "Totally Tag" back over this Imacomp 22:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: 22:37, 12 March 2006 JASpencer.I rv. vandalism of JASpencer who does not head discussions, but calls posted discussed fact tags by me as vandalism. Go figure? Imacomp 23:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's try again. Where does it say that Catholics should be referred to as "Roman Catholics" at all times. A specific quote would be nice. Not expected, but nice.

On the total tag, we're debating your abusive epipehts that are still in the article. So either you remove all these statements and put the tag on, or you can wait for me to do it, if I feel like it, on the unedited article.JASpencer 22:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"abusive epipehts" What are you on about? Erm, we are short on facts again. Imacomp 23:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, as an Episcopalian, I have to say that Imacomp has a point... the Roman Catholic Church is not the only denomination to call themselves "Catholic". Epicopalians and the rest of the Anglican communion do too. Yes, Rome disagrees... and yes, colloquially when people say Catholic they mean Rome... But the point is that asking us to make the distiction is valid. Blueboar 23:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Imacomp 23:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the tag... Without going into the merits or the lack of merits of adding the total tag... I do need to point to WP:vandalism policy which says:

• Improper use of dispute tags - Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus.

So, the question is... is there a legit dispute going on? I think so (although I am less sure that a "total" tag is the correct one... there are some things I think are accurate). I also think we can work to reach consensus. So my feeling is, let's leave the tag for now, and then see where we are in a day or two. Blueboar 23:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic would be more accurate in some sense - the Anglicans, and some other Christian denominations, in the Apostle's creed use catholic (with a small 'c' as opposed to the capital 'C' in the Roman Catholic rendition) to state universality; and there are others, such as the Old Catholic Church, the Orthodox churches, the Sedevacantists, the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre (who, to increase confusion, also call themselves Roman Catholics) - all call themselves Catholic, although usually not in an identification of their denomination, but rather in the sense of being universal (the true meaning of the word) or the true Church. In identifying themselves as a denomination, these groups would use titles other than Catholic, as the traditional understanding of the word Catholic (with a capital c) on its own is usually taken to mean "Roman Catholic" (I have never heard an Anglican, Protestant, or member of an Orthodox church say they go to a Catholic church - and even Lefebvre-ites I have known usually identify themselves as "Latin Rite Catholics," or some other such title). It is probably more encyclopedic to stick to Roman Catholic, or alternately "the Church" (which in an article on Roman Catholicism and Freemasonry would be acceptable), but really not necessary - the article title, for instance, states simply "Catholicism and Freemasonry," and no one has ever questioned whether or not we are talking about the Roman Catholic church until now. Wikipedia allows for common usage of words, so lets not argue semantics, and stick to common sense (which Wikipedia supports using) - either/or should be fine in the context of this article. DonaNobisPacem 06:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

PS - particularly when the article Wiki-links to the article on Roman Catholicism. DonaNobisPacem 06:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, can you find anywhere where your "Bro." SnF Imacomp actually points to anything specific? The total tag should have specific objections. I'll give it 24 hours, but it will be coming down again. I don't mind working through a proper complaint, but you know as well as I do that he has more interest in getting rid of the article than in improving it. JASpencer 12:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

DNP - how about we change the title of the article. Then Catholic can be acceptable short hand. It's not really an issue, but the user who put the changes in will probably want to put "Roman Church" in soon, as he's tried before. JASpencer 12:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

JAS - I'm not going to try to get into Imacomp's mind as to why he put a total tag. I probably would have used something less agressive, but then I suspect that I am a less agressive person. It is obvious that there are serious POV issues here (on both sides). Some sort of tag is needed until those issues can be resolved. I also suspect tht if you remove the current tag unilaterally, it will just be put right back in again... and the accusations about "vandalism" will never end. I know it is annoying to you... but there is a parallel with the merge tags on all the other anti pages. While there was strong concensus against the merge idea, we had to leave the tag on the page far longer than most people wanted, because at least one editor felt that the issue had not been settled. I would advise leaving it for now, and find out if it can be downgraded to something less stridant. I would agree that more specific objections would help. Blueboar 13:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

“…can you find anywhere where your "Bro." SnF Imacomp actually points to anything specific?” horse’s arse sock/meat puppet JASpencer you seem to be discussing the specific point of adding “Roman” consistently to “Catholic”. So you must be writing in your sleep, if you do not recognise this as a specific point. QED (And if you do not like personal abuse, stop handing it out). Imacomp 16:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, specific objections would not just "help", they would justify the tag. The problem is that the issues would be dealt with, so they are not provided. Imacomp is not interested in improving the article (see contribution above). Do you really think that Imacomp will give specific objections? And give an answer as if it wasn't raining. JASpencer 17:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I may not agree with his style of complaining (there is no Wiki policy against haveing an abrasive persona) ... but I do have to say that "Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic" is awfully specific in my book. Beyond that, I am not going to get pulled into a "JASpencer v. Imacomp" fight. Yes, Imacomp is a gad fly... he is going to make you justify everything that goes in this article. But think about it for a second... if he is so worked up that he is tagging the article right and left, and making snide comments... then maybe there is something wrong with the article. You and he (or even I) may not agree about what that something is... but it sure is a sign that something is askew. Blueboar 01:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think for a minute that there is not a lot in this article that could not be improved. I just would like to be told what - in terms other than "No Papists on Wikipedia". I'd also say that you're being rather craven in not saying anything on Imacomps behaviour. (After all there is JASpencer 12:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

JASpencer, will 40 Days of Lent or should we say Lightbringer doing anything here?Imacomp 10:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't know. I'm not keen on him or her doing anything here - he's a Catholic version of you. Will wikipedia degenerate to your/LB's level? It's not in my hands. JASpencer 12:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you think I'm being "craven". The key is that I think he makes some good points, even if his methods are not the same as mine. You know he is going to be confrontational, accept that, and look behind the words he writes to what he is trying to say (it is more than "No Papists"). Blueboar 16:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

He's rude, not just confrontational. However the point is - should the Total tag be put on without any specific criticisms? Yes or no? JASpencer 17:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

In gerneral, I would tend to say no. However, in this case Imacomp did give something specific... the need to add the word "Roman" to Catholic. I would also accept a total tag in the case of a blatantly POV article. I, personally, do not think it would be justified in this case. However, Imacomp may disagree. If so, we will discuss it. As for his being "rude"... OK, so some people are rude. So what. My reaction to rudeness is to be extra nice and polite in reply, in the hopes that the rude person will calm down and respond in kind. Blueboar 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

However, in this case Imacomp did give something specific... the need to add the word "Roman" to Catholic. Need - that's tosh. However it is being discussed and what's more his interpretation is the one that is currently on the page.

If so, we will discuss it. He hasnt and he won't. What's more that is his suspected sockmaster's interpretation of the solemn oaths he's taken as a Freemason. JASpencer 19:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"his suspected sockmaster's interpretation" Only by you JASpencer and ALR. I add value to articles, when not being rubbished. Imacomp 22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And MSJapan. And Seraphim. You are still not pointing to any problem on the article. JASpencer 22:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Pike and sympathy

I have a few problems with the most recent additon (a quote from Pike)... first there is a general objection to citing quotes second hand. The citation is actually to the Catholic Encyclopedia and not to Pike. I do not doubt that the Catholic Encyclopedia quoted him accurately... I just object to this practice in general terms. Because many second hand sources don't quote Masonic authors correctly, we should be wary of using them. We should hunt down the original and cite that. Then there is a more specific problem... As I have said frequently, Pike is but one man. He did not and does not speak for all of Masonry. Like any cross section of society, Freemasonry has it's bigots... I think Pike was one. He definitely shows an Anti-Catholic viewpoint. But (and this is a big BUT)... just because he may have been a bigot does not make all American Freemasons in the late 1800s bigots. And the inclusion of the quote certainly implies that all American Freemasons are bigots today. I have slightly amended the citation note to highlight these concerns (to make it clearer that Pike was only one person, who spoke only for himself. However, I would feel better if the quote were not used at all. Blueboar 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is did Pike speak for American Masonry in the late nineteenth century not now? The clash between the church and newly-unified state was in that time, not now. Pike was certainly held in greater esteem then than he is now, as was understandable he was the long standing head of the Scottish Rite body for half the US. The builder magazine (1915-1930) also was very complimentary towards him - and I've never seen them say "but he's only one Mason among many and you shouldn't take his hard sayings too seriously" - although it may be lurking there somewhere. Mackey and Pike were also very close. Quoting Pike is not a claim that any Mason today is bound by Pike's religious views, nor is it a claim that all Masons in Ninenteenth century America shared these views - but Pike was probably the most eminent and influential figure in late Nineteenth Century Masonry and in the Nineteenth Century debate between the lodge and the Church, his fiercely anti-Papal views mattered.

On the issue of quoting from a secondary source - yes the original should be hunted down, but the best should not be the enemy of the good. As long as the quote is valid, it should be used. 13:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are over emphisizing Pike's importance. Even in the 19th century, Pike could not speak for Freemasonry. No one could or can do that. The closest that anyone ever comes to doing so is a Grand Master of one of the many Grand Lodges (which Pike was not)... and then he can only speak for his jurisdiction during his term of office... other Grand Masters, in other jurisdictions, or in other times are free to completely disagree. OK... I suppose it is valid to say that Pike could speak for AASR SJ during the mid 1800s, but as we have repeatedly pointed out, that is NOT Freemasonry as a whole. You can't even say that he spoke for US Scottish Rite Masons at the time, because he had no authority in the Northern Jurisdiction.

Please note that I am not trying to say that Pike wasn't anti-catholic... I suspect that he was (it was sadly not uncommon in mid-1800s USA). What I am concerned about is the use of Pike quotes (or any other quote for that matter) to insinuate that Freemasonry was/and thus is/ anti-catholic as well. I believe you when you say that is not your intent... but in the context of this article (which is very negative in its view of Freemasonry if not POV), that is how it comes across. Let me think about the issue for a while... perhaps I can come up with language that solves my problem and meets with your approval. Blueboar 14:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A follow-up thought on Pike... one that goes to your statement that Pike's views mattered: I suspect that the only reason that Pike's views ever came to the attention of the Vatican was due to his being used in the Taxil Hoax (which occured after Pike had died). I would be interested to find out if the Vatican had even heard of him during his lifetime. On the Masonic side, almost as soon as Pike died, the Southern Jurisdiction began to distance themselves from his views. The preface from Morals and Dogma includes a specific statement saying (in effect), "this is Pike's oppinion and not that of AASR". I doubt they would have included such a statement if he was as influential as you imply. Blueboar 15:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Pike was the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Souther Jurisdiction for many years of the Scottish Rite. Now that may be an honorary position, but it certainly sounds important to those of us without leather aprons. For sixty years Morals and Dogma was given to all who joined the Southern jurisdiction of the Southern Rite. He's described by the California Freemason as "the all-time Goliath of Freemasonry" and by masonicinfo.com as "among the most influential Masons of his time". He was an important figure, and in late nineteenth century Masonry it mattered what he thought. JASpencer 14:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite accounts for less than 20% of American Freemasonry... even at the time, most Freemasons NEVER HEARD of Albert Pike. He is know to scholars because he wrote a great big book full of his musings on comparative mythology. The only reason he is not long forgotten is that he was used by Taxil in his hoax. Even when Morals and Dogma was given to those who joined SJ, most of them never even opened it. In short... Pike is overblown by Anti-masons. but all this is besides the point ... the real point is that you are using his quotes to insinuate that there is currently a bias against Cathlics in modern American Freemasonry, which is not true. It is true that you don't actually say this... but given the context, you hint at it strongly. So... either cut the quote or majorly change the sentence it is linked to to make it VERY clear that the author was but one person, with little authority in American Freemsonry... and that his bias is not to be taken as speaking for the entire fraternity, then or now. I may have to tag this. Blueboar 17:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, the point is that the Catholic Church (especially in the late 19th-early 20th Century) thought that Freemasonry in the less anti-clerical countries was very sympathetic to the Latin lodges and their anti-clerical actions. It may have been inappropriate to quote Pike, but they did quote Pike.

I have change the "a Freemason" to "the eminent and influential Freemason Albert Pike". He is claimed to be influential on Masonic sites. I didn't find a Masonic site that says that Albert Pike was in fact a mad old coot, and I did look a bit. If there is please cite it (and I would suggest that you try to change the Albert Pike page first as otherwise the two pages will contradict one another). JASpencer 19:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it would be good to sort out how influential Pike was in Freemasonry. This is clearly a big issue in the religious criticism of Masonry. I know your view of Pike but I would respectfully suggest that this is not the unanimous Masonic view. I have a feeling it is not the majority view, but am prepared to be proved wrong. JASpencer 19:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added some dates to give context to show that this was in the past. I hope that this removes any implied bias to claim that Pike speaks for Freemasons now. JASpencer 19:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Still not acceptable... still implies that today's masonry agrees with what Pike said. Have deleted the entire section until this debate is cleared up. Blueboar 23:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you disagree that the quote "Today, some Masons will diminish Pike's importance so as to deflect the charges of anti-Masons. There is no doubt, though, that he was among the most influential Masons of his time." from masonicinfo.com is relevant to Pike's influence on Freemasonry in the late Nineteenth century? I would find it hard to see that being justified. JASpencer 00:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar do you disagree with the idea that Pike was "among the most influential Masons of his time"? If he was then it seems that he should be cited. JASpencer 17:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I most definitely disagree. Although I will allow the hesitation to say that it depends on what you say his influence was... as the man who basicly recreated the Scotish Rite in the Southern US in a form he liked, and as the man who helped that organization to grow into the largest Scotish Rite Jursidiction in the world... sure, he was infuential. As a ritualist, comparative Mythologyst, writer, scholar, etc... I would have to say that he was not all that influential, even in his own time. Outside his Jurisdiction no one paid him any attention. And certainly he is not influential at all today... the AASR Southern Jurisdiction no longer uses his rituals or his writing. As you are using him to make statements about the entire fraternity, I would have to say that he is most definitely NOT influential. Imfamous, perhaps, but influential... no. 00:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted once or twice now to clarify the relationship between the Scottish Rite and Freemasonry, it appears that I've not been succesful. Despite that I'll try again. SR is an appendant body to Freemasonry, it draws its membership from Master Masons but has no authority over the craft, take a look at Regular Masonic jurisdictions for UGLEs view that it recognises no higher authority or Supreme Council. Pike wrote on the Scottish Rite in the Southern USA, hence his writings have no authority over Freemasons in the craft and indeed SR/ A&AR masons outside the SJ.

As to the veracity of Pikes writings, it's likely that a member of Quatuor Coronati has written something on him, I'll take a look at the copies of AQC I have later on, but I only have about 10 years worth of them, so it might involve going to Great Queen Street to take a look at the library. As to the level of acceptance his words have within the community. I would suggest that it is more likely that those who actively participate in the discussion or promotion of FM on the web are also active Masons, hence more likely to be involved or associated with the appendant bodies or the running and government of the craft. These brethren are more likely to be aware of additional sources such as Pike. As such the impression given from web sources is unlikely to be representative of Freemasonry as a whole, as Blueboar points out the proportion of Masons who are members of the SR is relatively small.

The fact remains that this distinction is not drawn by various sources hostile to Freemasonry, it should be clear that to do so would weaken the arguments, engaging in a detailed and subtle discussion of the relationship between various organisations which use symbolism in a range of ways does not lend itself to tabloid style condemnation.ALR 09:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar: Firstly thanks for replying. If we are taking out some text “to discuss” then it is rather strange when the discussion stops at that very stage.

The issue is whether Pike was ‘’representative’’ and ‘’influential’’ within Freemasonry in the ‘’’late Nineteenth Century’’’, not today.

Pike may be a mad old coot who no-one listened to in the late Nineteenth Century, but that is at the moment an uncited view (although that will probably change), whereas the idea that he was influential is not only attested by the Catholic Encyclopedia (making the quote citeable ’’for that reason alone’’ in an article which is largely about ‘’Catholic attitudes towards Freemasonry’’) but is also attested by two Masonic apologist sites – meaning that it was at least arguable that the Catholic Encyclopedia was reasonable in putting the quotation in as representative. Masonicinfo.com and California Freemason may be less important in the Masonic scheme of things than the Masonic editors who edit here, but they are more citable.

JASpencer 13:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

ALR, points taken. However (1) does any of this mean that Pike wasn’t taken as representative by the Catholic Church? No and for this reason alone the quote should be included. (2) Does it mean that Pike was not influential in the late Nineteenth Century as opposed to the early Twenty First? No (and masonicinfo.com directly contradicts this idea). (3) Are any of the arguments by you and Blueboar sourced and cited? No.

If you want to add something in saying “Yes, the croppies point to Pike, but Masons think he’s a couple of apples short of a full picnic.[455]” or words to that effect, please do. JASpencer 13:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that several of the points we've made are referenced as part of the broader development of the group of related articles however the pertinent points here are:

Pike spoke for the SJ of the SR. Blueboar may be able to provide that as a positive statement. I would suggest it's a little disingenuous to ask for a negative citation. Your argument to be that this had a significant influence on Craft Masonry at the end of the 19th Century. I think it'll be a struggle to find a citation that says that it doesn't apply to Craft Masonry worldwide, given the absence of any global FM hierarchy, but it can be demonstrated that the potential influence is much smaller than is implied.

Craft Masonry recognises no higher authority is made clear in the Regular Masonic jurisdictions article where the Aims and Relationships of the Craft are both linked and included. UGLE is not in amity with any GL which recognises the higher authority of a Supreme Council. Given that the list of GLs in amity with UGLE includes both Grand Lodges and Prince Hal Grand Losges in all the US states covered by SJ it can be seen that SJ has no authority over the craft within it's geographic constraints.

As to the RCC reinforcing it's own position by conflating SJ SR with Craft Masonry? I'd suggest that it is reasonable to state the RCC position but to make clear in the article where the arguments presented by the RCC do not accurately reflect the reality of the organisation. That allows the reader to come to their own conclusions.

As to your last point, IMO it doesn't matter what Pike said, the point is that it has little to do with the Craft Masonry which the vast majority of Masons belong to. I'm not sure what the statistics are but feel sure that compiling and analysing them would probably constitute original research. I know there was a peper delived to Quatuor Coronati about 4 years ago which analysed trends in Craft membership numbers but that wouldn't apply. For the UK I suppose one could compare the numbers of lodges, the numbers of A&AR Chapters.ALR 13:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's try this again...

• Pike is a beloved figure for those who are members of the Southern Jurisdiction AASR... he basicly founded the organization as we know it. So, of course, nobody wants to say he was a loony old coot on Masonic web sites.
• Pike was influential devising the rituals of the SJ AASR. BUT...
• AASR is but a tiny part of Freemasonry. The vast majority of Freemasons world wide do not belong to any verison of Scottish Rite, and indeed have never even heard of it or of Pike... This was even more true in the 1800s when they didn't have instant communications and web pages etc. to look things up on.
• In the US, only about 30% of all Freemasons belong to Scottish Rite ... and about half of these belong to the Northern Jurisdiction, over which Pike NEVER had any influence. This was also true in the 1800s.
• Pike HAS become known to Anti-Masons, because Leo Taxil used his name in his Hoax. But for that, Pike would probably be long forgotten.
• Because he appeared in Taxil's Hoax, Anti-Masons have poured through his obscure (and at times bizzar) writings looking for quotes that they can take out of context to say: "see Masons believe such and such". If they can not find a quote they like, they will make one up... because they know that few people will bother to open Pike's great big heavy book and verify it.

IN SHORT: In the 1800s, Pike had very little influence on Freemasonry. Today he has even less. However, Pike has had a huge influence on Anti-Masonry. If you want to say something along those line fine, but make sure that you tripple check anything you quote Pike as saying... because we will be cite checking you. Blueboar 13:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that you have both missed the point. I asked you for a citation that said what you have. If Pike is not influential in Freemasonry and his name has been misused by anti-Masons then surely there must be some credible Masonic source that says "We love Pike, but he's mad", or words to that effect. I tell you what, if you can do that I will go over the the Albert Pike page and put that in. (I'd suggest that you do the same with all this stuff). At the moment it is your views of Pike's relevance that are driving this. Just provide a citation. JASpencer 21:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Archive 2

We really should archive this page. As there are quite a few discussions going on I suggest that all topics that are not on the list below are archived into "Archive 2". Please add sections that you believe are still current, these will not be archived:

• Anti Catholic Quotations JASpencer 21:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Pike and sympathy JASpencer 21:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Roman Catholic or just Catholic JASpencer 21:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Disputed neutrality and factual accuracy (x2) JASpencer 21:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Knights Templar JASpencer 21:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
• Replacing the Tab JASpencer 23:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll archive these some time mid-week. JASpencer 21:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti Catholic Quotations

As they seem to feature in quite a few Catholic articles, I'm going to put in a number of anti-Catholic quotes from Masonic publications and eminent Freemasons. Does anyone have any objections or questions? JASpencer 15:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It would depend on where they came from, if they quote the authors accurately, and what they say. Again, even an eminent Freemason only speaks for himself and not for the Fraternity. But until I see them, I am not going to be able to approve or object. Blueboar 17:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As above, it very much depends on the source, where it's coming from, and if it's accurate. Furthermore, there's no such thing as an "eminent Freemason"; even if one is a Grand Master, you don't matter outside your juridiction, and you're not any "better" than anyone else. Furthermore, if someone is eminent for some reason and also a Freemason, this does not make the quotation that of an "eminent Freemason". Even writing a lot of books is no standard for "eminence" - only Masons who are interested in research even get into the written material that others have written. In short, your phrasing is most likely weaseling, and I would suggest said quotes are put here on Talk and fact-checked first. MSJapan 18:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well saying "a Freemason" is weaseling as well to the religious critics. Pike is quoted by plenty of religious critics because he was seen as influential. Also Masonic sources (The Builder, Mackey, etc) quote him as some authority. The quotes that I've used are from Masonic sites.

I actually expected to find quotes that said that Pike wasn't influential, expecting the Masonic editors here to be vaguely representative of a Masonic "party line". To your credit you're not, you seem to be pretty much out on a limb. Both California Freemason and masonicinfo.com are Masonic sites. The latter has been cut and pasted (I think by Masonic editors) to wikipedia articles, and I would say it is only slightly less partisan than freemasonrywatch. Both have a pro-Masonic agenda. The quotes are verifiable and I can't see what further "fact checking" is required. JASpencer 19:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

On Pike... I can give you one "Official" statement... that placed in the preface of Morals and Dogma by Pike's own AASRSJ:

"In preparing this work, the Grand Commander has been about equally Author and Compiler; since he has extracted quite half of its contents from the works of the best writers and most philosophic or eloquent thinkers. Perhaps it would have been better and more acceptable if he had extracted more and written less."

The Preface goes on to say:

"Everyone is entirely free to reject and dissent from whatsoever herein may seem to him to be untrue or unsound".

I would say that these sentences were included specificly to discourage people from seeing Pike as being "influential". Now... if you want to say that various non-masons and anti-masons have seen him as being influential, that could be acceptable (I would have to see how you write it). As long as it is clear that this is someone else's oppinion I could see including the quote. Blueboar 23:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's break it down: Pike is a influential historical figure, yes. However, his book has *not* been in print for at least 40 years. Furthermore, he is talking about Scottish Rite, and not Craft Freemasonry, and furthermore AASR as it was over 100 years ago in the Southern Jurisdiction, which has nothing to do with how the Northern Jurisdiction operates. Now, there are clearly issues with his work - if Pike was so influential (and therefore "correct"), the AASR SMJ wouldn't not have changed his book out for something else. I would guess that Pike's influence comes from the changes he made to AASR in his jurisdiction rather than any literary contributions, and as the sources you give do not qualify exactly what his influence was, to give a possibly "anti-Catholic" quote and attribute it to an "influential Mason" who lived in the late 1800s is clearly trying to tell the reader it pertains today in general, which it most certainly does not. This is not "Catholicism and the Scottish Rite", and if you want to use Pike, you're going to need a lot of qualifying statements. MSJapan 23:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I've put the Pike comment (19:31, 18 March 2006) in the wrong section. You don't mind if I move it up to Pike and sympathy? I'll do it tomorrow to give time for any objections. JASpencer 23:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Replacing the Tab

As far as I can see the only reason for the total tab is whether the term "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic" should be used. This is not a factual dispute and so should be changed to a POV tab. Are there any more specific tabs for terminology disputes?

I will replace the total tab with a POV tab in two days unless there are any objections. JASpencer 21:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I object, and you did not ask for any qualification as to why, so the tag remains.Imacomp 10:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are playing the game. Well done. OK so are there any objections apart from whether we use Catholic or Roman Catholic? Now I'll wait until Tuesday before changing the tag. JASpencer 15:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

JASpencer aka the defined WP:DICK. "Now I'll wait until Tuesday before changing the tag." Mmmm I wonder if the tag will change, or just go back? Imacomp 18:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

But why? POV is the issue that you've got here. Why do you need to appear as if your beyond reason? JASpencer 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Orange Order... again

We seem to be going in circles where it comes to Links to Militant Protestantism. Let me put this plainly: FREEMASNRY IS NOT FORMALLY CONNECTED IN ANY WAY TO THE ORANGE ORDER. There may be lots of similarities between to two groups, and they may have an overlap of membership in Northern Ireland, but they are NOT FORMALLY CONNECTED. It does no good to put a fact tag on that statement. I doubt there is anything that could be cited... no one keeps records to show all the groups that AREN'T part of some other group... they keep records of those who ARE. All I can say is that the Orange Order will not be on any Grand Lodge's list of recognized jurisdictions. To ask for a citation to prove this negative would be like asking for a citation that says the Knights of Columbus are not formally connected to Freemasonry. Blueboar 14:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So it's an uncited assertion (entered by Imacomp). Remove it. The KoC (Atlanta council) say "The Knights of Columbus is not a, nor is it affiliated with any, Masonic organization (for more information on Freemasonry read Humanum Genus)". Surely the Freemasons and/or Orange order could find something similar? JASpencer 15:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, much to my surprise, I have found a citation from the Orange Order side... Not surprisingly, I did not find one from Freemasonry ... Please note that we also do not list the fact that there is no formal connection between Freemasonry and IBM, the Girl Scouts, NASA, Major Leage Baseball, or the East Puddleby Historical Society. Do we need citations for these as well? Blueboar 16:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to make the point that East Puddleby Historical Society was no longer linked to Freemasonry, although it's Masonic antecedants were a source of suspicion for the Catholic church then that would have to be cited. Otherwise I think we'll leave it. JASpencer 17:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

How did you find out about East Puddleby WP:DICK/JASpencer? Now the "Grey Aliens" will have to move home. :( Imacomp 19:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Catholicism of Higher Degrees

I have removed the citations from Pike and from The Builder, as they do not mention anything about trampling papal tiaras. Also, the anti-papal statements are talking about the attitude of the historical Knights Templars, and not Freemasonry. I have also asked for the full text of Pikes statement about tyrany (Please do not just give a snippet, but give the full paragraph or even several paragraphs so we can see the context of the quote). I suspect that Pike is discussing history there as well. If so, I think the entire bit about the Kadosh degree will have to either be re-worked (and cited with something reliable) or cut entirely. Blueboar 14:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... coming up with the proper quote may be more difficult than I hoped... Just so we know what I am talking about. The quote in question is: "from the bondage of Despotism and the thraldom of spiritual Tyranny" and is cited: "Quoted from The Catholic Encyclopedia article Masonry (Freemasonry), citing Pike, Morals and Dogma, volume IV, page 476" I did a key word search through the version of Morals and Dogma that is at Sacred Texts (which has been discussed before as a site that gets quotes right) and did not find the quote in any chapter, much less the one on Knights of Kadosh. ... could it be that the CE got the quote wrong? If so, it will have to be cut. It also would bring into question any secondary citations from the CE. if they got this one wrong, who knows what else they mis-quote. Blueboar 15:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not there, and I just read through the chapter myself in the paper copy I have. That chapter is all about the Templars, and Pike is denouncing a lot of critics if you look carefully at what's in quotes and what isn't. There's also no volume 4 of Morals and Dogma. It might be Legendas, but it's probably the wrong volume to have the 30th in it. I bet it's The Ancient Scottish Rite by Blanchard, which was the Cerneauist (and therefore "Not Accepted" ritual, which is why in the US it's "Ancient and Accepted". MSJapan 15:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Then I am going to remove the citation. Given the number of mis-quotes, the section either needs to be completely re-writen or cut. I also think we need to check every citation where the CE is quoting a Masonic author... I am beginning to seriously doubt the reliablility of the CE in this context. It certainly is authorative and reliable for citation on what Catholics in 1913 believed, but may have problems when quoting others. Blueboar 16:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

I am not fond of massive reversions, but there are a massive number of undiscussed and unsourced changes. I apologise to those users who have lost edits. JASpencer 17:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added mine back in since I did discuss them on the talk page (see above). Blueboar 18:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

and I accept your edit on "the Church feels that"... "says" is a much better word (the point of my edit was to clarify that it was the Church's stance we are talking about... and you kept that).

I will re-insert the NPOV edits I made, and stated above, to counter the POV reverts, without taking out other edits. Imacomp 00:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hitler

In addition to my comments above, under Kulturkampf - many editors have become upset over the crediting of individual Mason's writings to the order as a whole. Let's extend the same criticism in the other direction - and not make the writings of Hitler, a non-practicing Catholic at the time he wrote Mein Kampf (though self-identified as Christian), and a vehement anti-Catholic during his dictatorship, reflective of the Church simply because he was baptized/raised Catholic.DonaNobisPacem 01:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You have not provided anything to support what you have posted above. Please ref and cite. Imacomp 01:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Was Hitler a Freemason? He may have passed one in the street as well? What does "self-identified as Christian" look like? You are sure it was not Catholic? Imacomp 01:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Self-identified" is simply a term for someone who calls themselves something, regardless of practice. There is a notorious speech of Hitler's in April 1922 in which he repeatedly says "as a Christian." (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942) - note he did not call himself a Catholic. But as for labelling him a Christian, or a Catholic - his speech, in which he calls himself a Christian, cannot be taken at face value (he also spoke before the Reichstag, promising no one in Germany would ever be persecuted for their religion).......hence the term "self-identified." As well, In "Hitler's Secret Conversations," and "Hitler's Table Talk" (taken from conversation transcripts requested by Bormann - himself an anti Catholic - and not to be confused with the later hoax of Hitler's Diaries) Hitler is reported to have slammed institutionalized Christianity several times. I also found a few claims that the German conference of Catholic bishops excommunicated Nazi party members in 1930 but could not find any sources - is anyone aware of any such event? Regardless, they told Catholics not to vote for any Nazi party member in the 1932 election. In addition, for his numerous actions, Hitler was excommunicated ipso fact (by virtue of committing the actions). I think it is pretty safe, all things considered, to NOT consider him a practicing Catholic.

Balancing out NPOVly

Note my several last edits. Please read them, before commenting, reverting, or whatever. Imacomp 11:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits to 14:09, 23 March 2006 Blueboar is a good review and revision of my stated edits above. Imacomp 16:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Kulturkampf: Rudolf Virchow, a leading Freemason? Not proven. Needs citation, hence fact tag. Imacomp 08:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Rite

It has been about a week now... and since the material about the Kadosh degree etc, that was supported by bogus citations, has not been given any other citation, I have removed it. Put it back if and when you find proper citations to back it up. Blueboar 18:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

OK... that is a bit more like it. I have added some language to make it clear that these are allegations and not proven fact... but the citations do support the fact that the alligations are made and by whom. I will look for counter citations etc., but for now I am satisfied. Thank you. Blueboar 03:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

nor say that members of the Scottish Rite agree with these sentiments. I've removed this for the moment as the citation clearly talks about swearing emnity - surely there must be some agreement towards sentiments if you are swearing a solemn oath? Peraps some less confusing language would help. JASpencer 15:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and will either replace the line or reword it ... I agree that there is an allegation made by evangelical anti-masons that Scottish Rite Masons swear an oath of emnity against the Church, but you have not presented evidence that they actually do swear such an oath, nor that the ritual actually includes any anti-Catholic sentiments. Blueboar 16:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No Blueboar you don't understand. What I'm saying is that if they do swear an oath (yes, I know it's a secret oath and there's no reliable source) then they agree with their sentiments. The idea that someone would swear an oath of emnity and then not agree with it is on the face of it bizarre idea, which at the least needs some explanation. JASpencer 20:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

wrt Blueboars last amendment. I was quite specific about not saying that GLs state their superiority, since there may be some which do not. However UGLEs requirements for recognition state that and it can be inferred that any GL in amity with UGLE is Sovereign.ALR 16:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be willing to bet that ALL GLs claim sovereignty in their jurisdiction, and that none place themselves under any "higher" body... to disprove this statement, it would be nessesary to cite a GL that actually does place itself under "higher" degrees. I can say that NO US Grand Lodge does. Blueboar 17:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That's likely, but there might be some who don't specifically state it. The only one that I can think of is LDH which works the Scottish Rite, but that's irregular as far as UGLE et al are concerned.ALR 17:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation quote request

A quote request was placed on the first citation in the "Allegations that Freemasonry is a new religion" section. The line in the article to which the citation refers is: "Freemasonry has a non-dogmatic nature and explicitly states that it is not a religion, or substitute for religion." The citation links to the UGLE website, which reads: "Basic Statement - Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for religion. It demands of its members a belief in a Supreme Being but provides no system of faith of its own. Freemasonry is open to men of all religious faiths. The discussion of religion at its meetings is forbidden." I fail to see how there could be any confusion as to the interpretation of this quote, but since the tag was placed, I have provided it here as instructed. Blueboar 17:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)