Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Lead Section

According to the style guide WP:LEAD we should have "three or four paragraphs" as a lead section on an article of this size and it "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Any suggestions what it should cover? JASpencer 19:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... good question. The entire article can be summarized as "The Church says Catholics should not become Masons, and Masons disagree ... here's why." With the exception of the "here's why" that is what our intro basically says. One problem is that the article is essentially a list of allegations and responses. It is hard to write a good intro to that. The Article does not really have a unifying theme except for the fact that the Church disaproves of Masonry. I'll think about it some, and will post any suggestions I have here. Blueboar 19:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could talk about the anti-clericalism of the Latin Lodges, the perceived esotericism of Masonic rituals, etc. JASpencer 19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

We already say that Freemasonry is accused of being anti-clerical. And the esotericim is not really a major theme in the article, only one of many smaller themes. As I said above, part of the problem is that the article jumps around from accusation to accusation... there really isn't a unifying theme other than opposition from the church. To write a good intro, we would really have to re-structure the article so it flows from one topic to another in a more logical form. I'm not sure that can be done. Blueboar 20:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the part in Christianity and Freemasonry:

The most persistent critic<ref name="RCChurch">The Catholic Church has continually prohibited members from being Freemasons since [[In Eminenti Secula]] in 1739</ref> of Freemasonry has been the Catholic Church. Since the early 1700's, the Vatican has issued several papal bulls, banning membership of Catholics from Freemasonry under threat of excommunication - a penalty that still applies for all Catholics active in Freemasonry.

The Church argues that Freemasonry's theology discourages Christian dogmatism and that it is at many times and places anti-clerical in intent.<ref name="GrdFra">"French Masonry and above all the Grand Orient of France has displayed the most systematic activity as the dominating political element in the French "Kulturkampf" since 1877." From [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm Masonry (Freemasonry)] from the Catholic Encyclopedia</ref> The 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia argued that some of the ceremonial is anti-Catholic.<ref name="CEkadosh">"The Kadosh (thirtieth degree), trampling on the papal tiara and the royal crown, is destined to wreak a just vengeance on these "high criminals" for the murder of Molay [128] and "as the apostle of truth and the rights of man" [129] to deliver mankind "from the bondage of Despotism and the thraldom of spiritual Tyranny"." From the article [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm Masonry (Freemasonry)] in the [[Catholic Encyclopedia]]</ref> However this claim does not appear in subsequent editions.

JASpencer 20:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Do me a favor, repost that without the citations (I find it very difficult to follow the main text when the citations are copied). Blueboar 20:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The most persistent critic of Freemasonry has been the Catholic Church. Since the early 1700's, the Vatican has issued several papal bulls, banning membership of Catholics from Freemasonry under threat of excommunication - a penalty that still applies for all Catholics active in Freemasonry.

The Church argues that Freemasonry's theology discourages Christian dogmatism and that it is at many times and places anti-clerical in intent. The 1913 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia argued that some of the ceremonial is anti-Catholic. However this claim does not appear in subsequent editions.

JASpencer 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put the text here Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry/to do/Controversy

This actually works for me. I do have a problem with the phrase "Freemasonry's theology" since Freemasonry does not have a theology (appropriate, since it is not a religion)... perhaps "practices" is a better word? (we can work on this, and once we find a better word, I will change it on the Christianity and Freemasonry page as well). Other than that, I could see using it here... it would probably have to be tweeked and prodded a bit further... but it would give us something to work with. Blueboar 20:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Beliefs rather than theology? However, theology does not mean that you have a religion, it just means a view of God. But I'm not going to make a point of this. JASpencer 21:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think, though, that the real key is that Freemasonry as a group has no theology or beliefs - it only requires that its members do, and what an individual member's theology is doesn't matter, as it's not something discussed in Lodge. So to even mention it is a bit messy. MSJapan 21:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps "Philosophy"? Blueboar 21:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy works. JASpencer 08:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we have an intro then... go ahead and post it. Blueboar 12:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Posted. JASpencer 16:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

De-bulleting

I've taken out bullet points in a number of areas:

• Secret Societies here

• Catholic position towards Freemasons here

• German Bishops Conference here

• Separation of Church and State here

• French Revolution here

• 1905 Separation of Church and State here

• Risorgimento here

Anyone have any objections to posting these?

JASpencer 17:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll put these in tomorrow if no one objects. JASpencer 09:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem with any of these... I generally prefer a narrative form over bullet points. Blueboar 13:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

This article uses the word "alleges" and its variants 12 times, "it has been said" several others, and presents opinions as common actions of beliefs -70.19.25.234 18:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

True. The article is primarily about such allegations. Blueboar 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the subject. Although I'd tend to agree with the assessment that it's fairly weaselly, but that's structural rather than content alongside the lack of contextualising material or discussion.ALR 19:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can get away from being weaselly on this... primarily the article is about the fact that the Catholic Church says certain things about Freemasonry are true, and that Freemasonry denies that they are true. I'm not sure you can cover this material without the use of "alleges" and other weasle words... one side or the other on this issue would shout "Blatant POV" if you did. If someone could tell me a better way to do this, I would appreciate it. Blueboar 19:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced nesting since I was responding to the original IP. My main issue is one that I've rehearsed a few times. At the moment it's pretty much a bulleted list, there is no context for any of the allegations and the structure, means that it's statement/ footnote based. to the casual reader who is unlikely to read footnotes it can easily come across as quite weaselly and NPOV. At the moment it adheres to the letter of WP:POV but not the spirit, which quite reasonably leads to these statements. However I'm wary about paying to much attention to annon IPs.ALR 19:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing Belgium:

====Belgium====

{{unreferenced}}

In 1990 a parliamentary majority of liberal-democrats and social-democrats legalised abortion in Belgium. The present coalition government of liberal-democrats and social-democrats, which serves its second term, has legalised [[euthanasia]] and [[gay marriage]]. A big majority of cabinet members and members of parliament of these parties belong the continental masonic lodges. The coalitian government and its [[Cultural marxism|cultural marxist]] policies have been induced by Belgian freemasonry, which is overwelmingly atheistic. {{fact}}

This can go back when referenced. I've done a quick search on Google and although there's an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia which links some anti-clerical measures to Freemasonry, but obviously nothing to do with 1990. JASpencer 20:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Reading this article, it seems to me (and yes, I'm Catholic) that it has some major NPOV problems. Specifically, it seems to be a sort of point-counterpoint view of the issues: the Catholic Church says ______, but in fact ______. While it can be said that this is simply making both viewpoints clear, the problem is that when it is consistently phrased in this way, it seems more like an essay on why the Catholic Church is wrong to oppose Freemasonry.

Further, it is extremely difficult to substantiate any of the claims made by the Catholic Church or the Freemasons, as Freemasonry is a closed society. Since outsiders are not invited to know the rituals or secrets of Freemasonry and insiders are not allowed to share them, it is very difficult to substantiate any claims involving, for instance, the alleged desecration of the Papal tiara. The bottom line here is, I don't really know what can be done about this article, but as it stands, it is certainly not neutral. Phil Bastian 13:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Phil, what is interesting is that both sides seem to feel that this article is overly POV. Masons object because of what they see as unfounded insinuations and allegations that they know not to be true. Catholics object because these allegations are refuted (which gives the article a 'pro-masonic' tone). I wish I knew how to solve the issue short of a complete re-write, but I don't. Blueboar 14:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Pacem In Terris

I've moved the Pacem In Terris reference to here to see if we can hammer this out. The sentence starts "Freemasons believe in the Right to worship God according to one's concience" and the removed text continues:

, an idea supported by the Church.<ref>Expressed well in Pope John XXIII's encyclical [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html Pacem In Terris] "Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public. According to the clear teaching of Lactantius, 'this is the very condition of our birth, that we render to the God who made us that just homage which is His due; that we acknowledge Him alone as God, and follow Him. It is from this ligature of piety, which binds us and joins us to God, that religion derives its name.'"</ref>

The idea that the church agrees with Masonic ideas of religious indifference may be popular with the Society of St. Pius V but it is not likely to be one supported by the church. This extraordinary claim needs extraordinary evidence such as "The church does not disagree with the Masonic idea of the Right to worship God in your own way". Otherwise this looks like it's Original Research.

JASpencer 18:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a second... let's have the entire sentence please. What I wrote was:

• "Freemasons believe in the Right to worship God according to one's concience, an idea supported by the Church" (ref to Pacem In Terris).

I never said the Church supports religious indifference (neither do the Masons, but that is a different issue) ... I chose the words "Right to Worship God According To One's Concience" deliberately ... as that is a direct quote from Pacem In Terris. Are you saying that the Church disagrees with this right? Blueboar 18:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I say that the two bodies may well understand the idea differently. As the next sentence reads "The fraternity does not define God, but rather leaves it up to the member's individual faith to do so." That is certainly not the Catholic position. Also the "right dictates" point to a different understanding - the idea that these right dictates will lead to Catholic truth. JASpencer 19:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are evading the point... According to Pacem In Terris: "among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public." Is this, or is this not, a statement that the Church agrees with? Blueboar 19:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is trying to pull things out of context to prove a point too much. While the Church may state that one may worship as one sees fit, in context with other RCC documentation, I would think that the implication is "as long as it is within the confines of the teachings of the Church". In short, we can't view a single document outside of its larger context, so I think we should leave it out as per JASpencer's original removal. MSJapan 19:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MSJ. The Catholic church's view towards religious tolerance is nuanced. I can pull together a partial reading list if anyone wants one. JASpencer 19:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with leaving it out if that is consensus, but I do want to understand this, so let us discuss further please... when I read Pacem In Terris, my first reaction was "hey, this is what Masons believe"... I mean, it sounds fairly cut and dried. It sounds like support for Freedom of Religion, which is certainly a Masonic ideal. So what am I misunderstanding? Blueboar 19:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Before I answer that, let me say that this is my own personal interpretation from reading Pacem_in_Terris as a non-Catholic, and it does seem somewhat of a conflicted document. PiT was written during the Cold War, and it seems to address how human rights should apply to all people, not just Catholics, in order to achieve peace. However, it does have religious underpinnings simply because it was written by the Pope and draws on the New Testament for support. My sense of the encyclical is that no person or government should infringe on the moral, social, and religious rights of others, and by following the will of G-d and Christian principles, this can be achieved. It therefore has nothing to do with anything regarding secret socieites as the Church sees them. MSJapan 20:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the why that's important. Even in the quote the idea of "right dictates" (that's right as in right vs. wrong, and dictates as in dictation) is important. This is the view that the right dictates, together with plenty of help from the visible church, will gradually lead the honest man to the truth - and that is not a general belief in God but the whole dogmatic doctrinaire Roman Catholic package. "Error has no rights".

You also have the issue of the Social Reign of Christ, which is the Catholic doctrine that the best state is a Catholic confessional state (admittedly not something that is stressed today). The seperation of church and state is seen as unnatural. Thus religious tolerance is an issue. Is it allowed because every religious view, no matter how bizarre or harmful, should be equal before the law or is it because mandating religion would be an assault on concience and free will?

I'm afraid I've got to collect the wife now, but I can get back to you later if this seems incomplete. (I haven't even started on the Trads). JASpencer 20:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously this is going to take more discussion... because so far you have told me nothing that conflicts with Masonry. Is it possible that you are assuming a "why" for Masonry that does not actually exist? Blueboar 20:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you say that the reason why FM proposes that religion should be free is that it "does not define God, but rather leaves it up to the member's individual faith to do so"? Also don't FM's believe in the seperation of church and state? JASpencer 20:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems you do have a misunderstanding about the whys in Freemasonry. The fact that Freemasonry "does not define God, but rather leaves it up to the members individual faith to do so" is NOT an outgrowth of a Masonic belief in Freedom of Religion, but rather the reverse is true. The belief in Freemdom of Religion is an outgrowth of the fact that we leave definitions of God and how to worship Him up to religious institutions such as the Church. Since Masonry has men of different religious faiths as members, that means we must leave definitions of God to each members' individual faith.

Before I go on, let me clarify something ... Freemasonry, as an institution, does not actually take a stance on Church and State, nor does it declare that Religion should be Free. What it does say is that IN THE LODGE (an important distinction) we are not to discuss religion or hold any one religion as being "correct" or "true"... the reason why we do not do this is because men of different religious opinions are present and such discussions would lead to disharmony and argument. Freemasonry is about bringing men together, not seperating them.

That said, I don't think many Masons would disagree with the statement that Freemasons (as opposed to Freemasonry) usually support the concept of Freedom of Religion. This is considered a "Good Thing" in today's world. Most modern Governments support this concept. However, men do not join the fraternity because it teaches Religious Freedom... rather they join because they already have a concept of religious freedom which involvement in the fraternity supports.

Getting back to Pacem In Terris... When Pope John says "among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public." Is he not expressing a belief in religious toleration? I understand that the Church hopes that the "right dictates" will lead all men to Jesus (and specificly to the Catholic Church), but am I wrong in thinking that John is saying until this happens we need to be tolerant and respect the beliefs of others? If so, I still don't see any conflict with Masonry. Blueboar 22:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to deal with this point by point.

The fact that Freemasonry "does not define God, but rather leaves it up to the members individual faith to do so" is NOT an outgrowth of a Masonic belief in Freedom of Religion, but rather the reverse is true. The belief in Freemdom of Religion is an outgrowth of the fact that we leave definitions of God and how to worship Him up to religious institutions such as the Church.

And that's precisely the difference. The church rejects this idea as a denial of the importance of doctrinal truth. It's all much of a muchness. Think of the way many Americans viewed France during the Iraq war - you're either with us or...

But Freemasonry doesn't deny the importance doctrinal truth... it simply says that the lodge is not the place to discuss it. Religious "truth" is not relevant to the program... The same way a bird watching society does not discuss doctrinal truth, but instead discusses birds. As to your last statement, this assumes that Freemasonry is against the Church. It isn't. Freemasonry is highly in favor of religion in general, and that includes the Church (to borrow your analogy... it would be like being FOR the allied coalition in Iraq, but not saying whether the US, British, Italians or Turks, are doing the best job).

Before I go on, let me clarify something ... Freemasonry, as an institution, does not actually take a stance on Church and State, nor does it declare that Religion should be Free.

I'm confused doesn't this contradict what you earlier wrote "Freemasons believe in the Right to worship God according to one's concience." As Pacem In Terris was talking specifically about the way the state should act not how, say, Church institutions or families should act.

Not at all... (And this is perhaps highlights a common misunderstanding that religious institutions have about the fraternity)... you see Freemasonry does not tell its members what to believe. It isn't about belief... It leaves belief to religious institutions such as the Church. I probably should not be using the term "believe" at all... perhaps it would clarify things for you if I changed it to: "Freemasons support the concept of right to worship God according to one's concience." This isn't something that the fraternity taught them... it is something they brought with them when they joined the fraternity.

That said, I don't think many Masons would disagree with the statement that Freemasons (as opposed to Freemasonry) usually support the concept of Freedom of Religion. This is considered a "Good Thing" in today's world. Most modern Governments support this concept.

That's not anything like "Freemasons believe in the Right to worship God according to one's concience."

How not? Isn't "The Right to Worship God According To One's Concience" the same thing as Freedom of Religion? or is the word "believe" confusing the issue again? Again, if I change it to "support" is my statement clearer?

Getting back to Pacem In Terris... When Pope John says "among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public." Is he not expressing a belief in religious toleration? I understand that the Church hopes that the "right dictates" will lead all men to Jesus (and specificly to the Catholic Church), but am I wrong in thinking that John is saying until this happens we need to be tolerant and respect the beliefs of others? If so, I still don't see any conflict with Masonry.

The problem is the why. It's not simply a pious hope that people will come to the church, it's an expectation. If the church believed that religious freedom would lead people into error and endanger their souls then how could it say that this was a good thing? After all the church does not say that parents should leave a moral vacuum for children in the name of religious freedom, on the contrary parents who act like that are in grave dereliction of their duties.

I still see no contradition... obviously the Church does not believe that religious freedom will lead people into error, since Pacem In Terris clearly implies that religious toleration and freedom is a good thing. As I unserstand it, the Church believes that religious freedom will bring people to the Catholic Church. Freemasonry has no problem with this. Freemasonry is happy to leave the safety of men's souls up to the religious institutions such as the Church. That's what the Church is FOR... and it isn't what the Lodge is for. And I can not think of a single Freemason who would disagree with you in saying that parents should not leave a moral vacuum for their children in the name of religious freedom. (Of course a Jewish Mason, for example, would obviously say that bringing his children up to be good Jews is not the same as leaving them in a Moral Vacuum... but that is a religious issue and has nothing to do with Freemasonry.)

Right or wrong this is how the church sees FM. By providing what it sees as pseudo-religious instruction outside the church it is behaving in the same way as those negligent parents.

JASpencer 22:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

OK... I can accept that this is how the Church sees it. I do think they are mistaken in thinking that Freemasonry provides instruction ... but I can understand the point of view given that mistake.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this ... I do understand where you are coming from a bit better after such discussions, and you have given me some things to think about. Hopefully I have done the same for you. One thing that is becoming clear is that (in some ways) we are not really speaking the same language here. Even simple words such as "believe" have different connotations and nuances. I guess the only way through this is to rationally discuss and explain where we are coming from.

As far as the article goes... I am going to revert the section back to what it was prior to my initial edit on the subject. I think we can agree on that. Blueboar 02:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that. The Catholic view of Freedom of Religion is a complicated and nuanced one, as any view on the freedom of religion would be (should school prayer be allowed or the ten commandments displayed - for two examples of this). Essentially freedom to worship does not imply that religions are equal or that a neutral view of religion should (or indeed could) be taken. JASpencer 23:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. I guess I just need to blow off some steam about what irks me about accusations of religious indefference. It misinterprets Freemasonry's position on this issue... you see, Freemasonry doesn't say or imply that religions are equal or take a neutral veiw of religion... The Craft simply says that in the lodge we don't discuss the topic. This is not done because of any belief that all religions are equal (Freemasonry does not actually say anything about this anywhere in its rituals), but (as I said above) because such discussions will cause disharmony and argument. Essentially everyone agrees to disagree while we are meeting. That is why we use neutral form when addressing God... It isn't that we have a neutral God, or that we are indifferent to religious belief ... it's because we don't want to offend our brothers who may believe differently than we do. It isn't that we are indifferent, it's that we are asked to be tolerant of differences while we are together.

Please understand that I am going on and on about this not to try to convince you that the Church is wrong on this issue (although, obviously I think it is), nor is it an argument to get rid of the section in question... I do understand that it is an accurate (if simplistic) depiction of the Church's stance towards Freemasonry. 'Nuff said... for now :>) Blueboar 01:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

re: the todo

I've noticed that we still have some AASR weasel issues with anti-Catholic wording. I think that there is an objective and citable way out of this wrt the minority Cerneau irregularity being at odds with the majority regular Masonic world, but no one seems to be buying into that, despite citations from Blanchard's Cerneau (which is anti-Catholic and has the tiara), Pike's Magnum Opus (which is nothing like Cerneau), and DeHoyos' comments on Cerneauism vs. Pike. In short, I feel that the incorrect allegation can be addressed without violating OR, so I'd like to know what the objection is. MSJapan 19:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

While weasel words need to be addressed, the Catholic Encyclopedia directly cites Pike and does not cite Blanchard. JASpencer 19:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

But IIRC, what CE attributes to Pike is actually Blanchard if you look at Blanchard vs. Pike in the original. Or were we looking for a different book besides Magnum Opus? MSJapan 19:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are looking for a different book. The CE quotes something called Inner Sanctuary. From what I can gather (talking with members of the Scottish Rite), this could be a later revision by Pike. I have looked all over for it, but have not located a copy, so I can not say for sure if it is a ritual (and if so if it is closer to Magnum Opus or the Cerneau ritual in regards to the anti-catholic stuff). What I have seen is a copy of the current ritual (circa 2004). THAT ritual definitely does not contain any anti-Catholic elements (it is very close to what is done in the Northern Jurisdiction). In other words... all of this discussion is about outdated, obsolete material. Blueboar 20:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspected that it was outdated (hence the recent change to the Scottish Rite sentence). However it was a past source of contention. I suspect there is considerable truth to the CE's allegations - but that's for a later time. JASpencer 22:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll put that on my to-do list. I don't have the book, but I bet the GL Library does. Hopefully I can follow up on this by Friday of next week. MSJapan 01:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Opening line

Currently the opening line reads: "The Roman Catholic Church has been an outspoken critic of Freemasonry, and Freemasonry has been seen as anti-clerical." This is a bit clunky ... but before I rewrite it, I have a question. Does the Church currently view Freemasonry as being anti-clerical? Or is the current stance more nuanced (with an answer more along the lines of: "yes... however..."). Depending on the answer, may I suggest one of the following:

1. The Roman Catholic Church has been an outspoken critic of Freemasonry, and views Freemasonry as being anti-clerical.
2. The Roman Catholic Church has been an outspoken critic of Freemasonry, and has seen Freemasonry as being anti-clerical.

Both of these seem to flow better to my ear. Blueboar 02:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Idolatry

What about the nature of the oaths taken upon becoming a Freemason? When one swears to an unknown authority like that, it is against what a Catholic believes. When one swears to put the lodge before all else, one is committing idolatry- which Christians, Jews, Muslims, and probably most everyone else is against. Also, what about the fact that most very low-degree members seem to be clueless about the Freemasons' nature? This is common- good Protestant men who just want to help others, and a few who are against the Church. Also, would it possibly to mention St. Maximilian Kolbe and his Knights of the Immaculata? He started that group because a group of Freemasons were demonstrating in Rome with clearly anti-Catholic and anti-Christian messages, like having a picture of satan trampling St. Michael the Archangel. poopsix 07:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You have some misconceptions about Freemasonry. Freemasons do not swear to an unknown authority (they swear their obligations in the name of God - and in the case of the York Rite degrees, do so specificly in the name of Christ) and they do not swear to put the lodge before all else. There is no idolatry in Masonry.

As for what you call the "fact" that low-degree members are clueless about Freemasonry's nature... you mis-understand the nature of "higher" degrees. For one thing, there are not "higher" or "lower" degrees, at least not in the way you imply. The highest degree is the Third Degree - all others are considered "further" or "appendant", meaning they do not confer higher rank, authority or status.

That said... it is true that in Italy, especially in the mid to late 1800s, the Grand Orient of Italy was quite anti-clerical (which is a bit different than being anti-Catholic or anti-Christian). But you leave out the fact that this attitude lead to the formation of the Grand Lodge of Italy, which was formed by Masons who were far more pro-church. This issue is hardly the black and white situation you imply exists. Blueboar 14:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Mexico and Cristeros

What about the Freemason influence in Mexico which resulted in mass genocide of Catholics? In the article it sounds as if it was merely coincidental with Freemasons running the government of a mostly Catholic country. This was the time of the Cristeros. poopsix 08:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What mass genocide of Catholics? And what were/are the Cristeros? Blueboar 14:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have done a little research. According to the article on the Cristeros, they were against the Mexican constitution of 1917. That article does not mention Freemasonry at all, so this may be a bit of a stretch. That said, I suppose that if one could find a source that directly ties Freemasonry to that constitution or to the goals of the Cristeros some mention of them would be appropriate. Blueboar 14:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Freemasons and the Inquisition

The Inquisition was hardly a shining point for Catholics, but it wasn't the overpowering evil most consider it to be. Would it be possible to add a Catholic POV into this section? What were those men sentanced to the galley for? What huge evil had they committed? Were they leading large numbers of Catholics away from the faith? There has to be a good reason, because most of the people who were under suspicion by the Inquisition got away with only a penance, while the death sentance was reserved for only the worst and most unrepentant. poopsix 08:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Question on meaning

In copy editing the Religious Indifferentism section I came across this, which seems to be an incomplete sentence:

The Catholic church claims that what it sees as Freemasonry's refusal to hold one faith as being superior to any others,[28] while at the same time insisting on what the Church views as pseudo-religious rituals[29] to inculcate an indifference to religion.[28]

I seem to be missing a verb in this sentence and I don't want to change any meaning.

My guesses are:

The Catholic church claims that (what it sees as Freemasonry's refusal to hold one faith as being superior to any others,while at the same time insisting on what the Church views as pseudo-religious rituals to inculcate an indifference to religion) does something??

-or-

The Catholic church claims that what it sees as Freemasonry's refusal to hold one faith as being superior to any others, while at the same time insisting on what the Church views as pseudo-religious rituals, to inculcate inculcates an indifference to religion.

Thanks, Henitsirk 20:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be the latter of the two. Thanks for asking. Blueboar 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's got an extra verb, actually. Try this: "The Catholic Church claims that Freemasonry's refusal to hold one faith as being superior to any others, while at the same time insisting on what the Church views as pseudo-religious rituals, inculcates an indifference to religion." MSJapan 23:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... sounds good as far as grammar goes - but mistates the facts a bit... Freemasonry does not "refuse" to hold one faith as being superior... it simply leaves such issues up to the individual. The closest it comes to a refusal is the rule that, when in lodge, it's members not discuss religion. MSJ's language implies that they do "refuse". However, I do agree that the Chruch thinks Freemasonry refuses... I think the problem is that the sentence is overly convoluted and is trying to say too much in one sentence. What if we break it up:

• "The Catholic Church claims that Freemasonry refuses to hold one faith as being superior to any others, and that Freemasonry insists on pseudo-religious rituals. It claims that this inculcates an indifference to religion." Blueboar 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Reign of Terror

User:Mamalujo added some info about the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution. I reverted it as being POV, he undid my revision with the comment: "Not POV, but mere factual documentation of deaths in tribunals of the Reign of Terror". User:WegianWarrior re-reverted with the comment: "cant see it has much to do with the subject of this article." Before we get into a pointless revert war... let's discuss.

I felt this was a POV addition because it implied that Freemasons were somehow behind the Reign of Terror. The fact of the matter is that there were Freemasons on all sides of the French Revolution... yes, some of the Radicals may have been Freemasons, but there were Freemasons who were Moderates and Freemasons who were Royalists as well. French Freemasonry was just as fragmented before the revolution, and ended up in just as much chaos and confusion after the revolution, as the rest of French society. In fact, French Freemasonry was somewhat supressed during the reign of terror and did not really return until Napoleon took power.

That said, I think WegianWarrior's comments are more to the point... the information that was added information has nothing to do with the subject of the relationship between Catholicism and Freemasonry. The additon is irrelevant. Blueboar 14:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If there's someone who says both that the French Revolution was inspired by Freemasonry and that it killed a lot of Catholics then this should be included. Actually I think that there are people who say exactly that. Otherwise pointing out that the Revolution killed a lot of Catholics and was inspired by Freemasonry may both be true but linking them together is illegitimate. JASpencer 18:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

JAS - No, that's not what the edit says. In fact, the problem was that the edit didn't make a link ... it just talked about how many people died in the reign of terror. See this edit difference and you will see what we are talking about. My problem was that without a citation to link this information to the history of bad blood between Catholicism and Freemasonry, the information is either irrelivant or missleading (in implying a connection without giving it an attribution).

If there was a source that makes the connection presented, then I would be less eager to delete out of hand. Blueboar 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I accept that the edit was saying something that it could not back up, but if the editor is looking to see why his/her edit was removed - then some interpretation of the ground rules would be helpful. JASpencer 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Many Freemasons are Catholics

It seems there is some objection to the inclusion of the wording "Many Freemasons are Catholic." Let me give some history of this wording...

When I added this sentence, I originally quoted directly from the source... saying that "Many Catholics are Masons"... this led to a brief edit war not dissimilar to what is happening now. It was pointed out to me that this was statistically inaccurate and, the way it is stated, skews the facts. After all, when you consider that there are millions of Catholics, the number who happen to be Masons does not constitute "many".

However, if you flip the statement and talk about this same statement from Freemasonry's view, ie the percentage of Masons who are Catholic, it is an accurate statement... There are thousands of Masons who happen to be Catholic (consider that there are something like 20 thousand Masons in Latin America, almost all of which are Catholic, and you get the idea. And this ignores the thousands of Catholic Masons in other parts of the world). - Thus, the percentage of Masons who happen to be Catholic does indeed constitute "many". So... the current wording is already a compromise... a restating of what the citation says to better fit the facts and to be NPOV.

As for "Idiot's Guide"... I disagree with the idea that it is not a reliable source... Brent Morris is definitely considered an expert on Masonic history and especially on debunking Anti-masonic myths. He has written numerous scholarly papers, published in various peer reviewed Masonic journals (the equivalent of accademic journals, when it comes to the topic of Masonry)... he has appeared on mumerous TV documentaries about Masonry, and has often been interviewed by newspapers. That is why the folks who publish the "Idiot's Guide" series asked him to write the one on Freemasonry. They considered him an expert. Don't let the name fool you... in this case the Idiot's Guide is definitely a reliable source. Blueboar 12:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A recent IP editor has decided that there needed to be clarification that Masonry not opposing Catholic membership is only Masonry's position. What part of "Freemasonry's position" in the section header was misunderstood?--Vidkun 19:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be consisent. The sections that address the Church's position all start with "The Catholic Church considers...", "The Catholic Church regards...", etc., even though the headings make it clear in THOSE sections that it is about the Church's position on the topics. To not do the same with the earlier section is inconsistent, especially if it is going to include statements like "Many Freemasons are Catholic" or "There has never been...". It could easily confuse the reader into thinking that one is an objective fact, as opposed to a position of one of the parties. --24.249.200.108 19:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

While I would disagree with quantitative statements to a point, a position is an objective fact - unless you want to dispute the Catholic prohibition on Freemasonry, or perhaps the stated non-denominational nature of Masonry? These are objective facts and positions, so I fail to see the problem. It's like disputing "some apples are red" because it's not clear which group of apples we're talking about or something. MSJapan 19:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate 24.249.200.108/ Anietors position, I don't think the answer is making the wording any more clumsy than it already is. The solution is probably to go through and weed out the tortuous wording around the RCC, rather than add needless and loaded caveats around Freemasonry.

fwiw I'm not keen on Freemasonry contents that... The rules for entry make no mention of RCC membership, it is implicit that RCs can join and in fact I'd suggest that stating it as a contention probably needs citation and falls foul of the lack of a single authority with respect to Freemasonry issue.

The section title is probably inappropriate in fact. Freemasonry just doesn't have a position on the RCC, whereas the RCC has a position on Freemasonry, which many ignore. How about titling the section along the lines of Masonic membership conditions and it the point should become moot.

ALR 19:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually it isn't true that all the Catholic sections start with "The Church considers" etc.... the section on the Chruch's position starts:

"The Catholic Church's most recent statement on Freemasonry was released in the 1983 document Quaesitum est, written by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and approved by Pope John Paul II. This document remains the most current standing reference on the Church's policy on Freemasonry." It then quotes Quaesitum est in saying "The faithful, who enroll in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion...."

This is not prefaced with "The Church considers" etc. ... it is a statement of fact about the position of the Church towards Freemasonry... in the same way that the section on Freemasonry's position is a statement of fact about the position of Freemasonry towards Catholics. Yes, these two statements are inconsistant... but they are true never the less. Blueboar 20:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we re-write?

One of ALR's comments (above) has me once again thinking that this article needs a complete re-write. At the moment it consists of allegations, arguments and counter arguments from each side, which makes it very POV. I have noticed that Catholics seem to feel it is biased towards Freemasonry's POV while Freemasons tend to feel it is biased towards the Catholic view. I think both are right... which POV the article over indulges in depends on which section you are reading... and so while I suppose you could say that in a way they ballance out into an over all NPOV... the article is really just a POV mess of he said/she said arguments and counter arguments.

What we should have is a dispassionate and neutral discussion of the relations between Freemasonry and the Catholic Church, both through history and today ... with neither side trying to prove a point or say "this view is correct". To do that, I think we need to consider a complete re-write. Over the next few weeks I will attempt a draft version of what I have in mind on my user-talk page (or rather a sub-page attached to it), Once I have the basic structure laid out, I will let everyone know and open it to comments and suggestions from both sides. If we can reach a version that everyone agrees with, we can replace the text here with that rewrite. (and if not... well, we can always just keep arguing back and forth here). Blueboar 20:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that a re-write may be a good idea. I also think that we should discuss what this article is really supposed to be about. As Blueboar points out, both "sides" have POV gripes with the article as written. Some sections read as an apologetic of Catholic condemnation, and others as attempts to refute the Church's criticisms. The article suffers from extreme schizophrenia. The title implies that the article is about the relations between Freemasonry and the Catholic Church, again, as Blueboar points out. But reading the article, it is clear that it has become a battle between those that want the article to be, essentially, Catholic Church's Criticisms of Freemasonry, or Freemasonry's Response to Catholic Criticisms. I suspect that creating a "dispassionate and neutral discussion" is going to be a difficult thing to achieve...but it is certainly worth a try. But emphasizing what this article is NOT, during this discussion period, will hopefully help guide us forward. --Anietor 21:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

We could try re-titling it to something along the lines of The RCCs position on Freemasonry.

That would allow it to be pretty POV since the RCC has a central authority which defines doctrine, whereas FM doesn't, and indeed doesn't really have a position on the RCC.

ALR 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would certainly clarify what the article is about. I suspect, however, that there would be considerable resistance to such a shift. There will then be an ongoing battle about whether Freemason responses should be included in the article, or there will have to be yet another article to include such responses. I wonder if any of the editors from when the article was first created are able to provide some input as to how the article first came into being. Looking back at its creation in April, 2005, it appears that it was focused mainly along the lines of the proposed title "The RCC position of Freemasonry", but for better or worse, developed into what it is today. --Anietor 22:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mexico (as a representative for other issues)

I am becoming increasingly bothered by the section on Mexico (other sections as well, but that one is the most egregious). It seems we are back to the old problem of listing every anti-clerical thing that ever happened, and blaming it on the Freemasons. This is very POV. I also see NOR issues.

I understand that the Church feels is that, since a lot of the Mexican politicians at the time were Freemasons, then Freemasonry must have been behind their actions... and I don't mind a statement to that effect. But at least make it a statement of opinion/allegation and not a statement of fact... there is no evidence to say that the Freemasonry was behind any of the individual claims beign made. We are getting into WP:No Original Research territory here... particularly WP:SYNT (the synthesis beign that A- a politician did something Anti-clerical, B- the polititian was a Freemason, and thus C- Freemasonry did something anti-clerical.) In addition, you neglect the general anti-clerical mood of the time, and do not talk at all about liberal politicians who were not Freemasons (and I can assure you there were many).

I think I am going to have to raise this at both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and ask for advice and possibly mediation here. Blueboar 00:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree that this is NOR/POV minefield. I would suggest stubifying the article and attempt a full re-write as an option to be considered. Sometimes it is simply not possible to "fix" an article that is in such poor shape. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The strong connection between Freemasonry and politics, particularly anticlericalism, in Mexico is well documented, including by Masons. The exceptions to the section as OR and SYN are not well founded. Consider this excerpt from a speach by a Mexican Mason on the Mexican Craft, politics and religion:

As the 19th Century went on, Mexican Masonry embraced the degree system authored by Albert Pike and grew ever more anticlerical, regardless of Rite. Meanwhile the two major political parties, Liberal and Conservative had developed. There were Masons in both, but predominantly among the Liberals. The great Mexican leader of the Nineteenth Century was, of course, Benito Juárez. When a new constitution was approved in 1857 that curtailed the power of the Roman Catholic Church, a Conservative rebellion started yet another civil war, known as the Reform War. When it ended with a Liberal victory in 1861, the Reform Laws were implemented, which included separation of Church and State, freedom of worship, civil marriage, and secularization of Church properties.

The exhausted country, however, was not granted respite. A new emperor, the Austrian Archduke Maximilian, was imposed in 1862 by French Emperor Napoleon III, with connivance of Mexican Conservatives. Again, Benito Juarez and his Liberals led the fight against the French occupation army and the second Mexican emperor ended like the first, before a firing squad, in 1867.

This may well have been the highest point of Freemasonry in Mexico, as most of the prominent actors in these crucial 10 years were Masons. The Lodges no longer acted directly in politics as earlier in the century, but the individual Masons certainly did, each in his sphere of activity.

When Benito Juarez died, Mexico passed into the hands of Porfirio Díaz, also a Freemason. Paradoxically a liberal and a dictator at the same time, he upheld the secular principles of the liberal constitution while repressing political freedom. He also sought to bring some order out of the chaos of the Freemasonry of his time by creating a nationwide Gran Dieta or Grand Diet in which both Scottish and York Rite Masons participated. Before being dissolved later in the century, this body originated the regular Grand Lodges of the Mexican Republic. Indeed, the charters of some of the constituent Lodges of our York Grand Lodge of Mexico bear the signature of Porfirio Diaz.

After the defeat and exile of the dictator in the 1910 revolution, a succession of Presidents who were Masons and strongly anticlerical ruled the country under the 1917 Constitution that maintained substantially the same liberal principles of 1857. In the late 1920's a new crisis arose with the Church when it publicly repudiated the Constitution. In retaliation, the government attempted to fully enforce the anticlerical measures of the Constitution. A bloody rebellion arose in central Mexico by bands of Catholic sympathizers, known as Cristeros, often led by gun-toting priests, until a negotiated peace was eventually arranged with the Church.

These two great crises of Church and state, the Reform War of the 1850's and Cristero Rebellion of the late 1920's left a profound imprint on the national consciousness. They are the root of the strongly anticlerical position of many Mexican Freemasons that sometimes puzzles their brethren from other countries.

Recent presidents of Mexico have not been Masons, but a number of the Grand Lodges are and, the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite are closely identified with the ruling party "Partido Revolucionario Institucional" (PRI). Moreover, in individual states, from time to time the governor or ruling clique has given the Masons money for new temples, youth work, and even as honorariums to Lodge officers. In many Mexican states there are competing Grand Lodges, some of which base their legitimacy on not being identified with politics or women Lodges.

When we look back in time, and realize that from the very start Mexican Masonry was split into competing groups, based on political allegiances, and that presidents of Mexico used Masonry to strengthen their political position, we can understand a little better just why Mexican Masonry has gone down the road that it has. As for its anti clericalism, the wealth and power of the Church meant that it was much more feared than in the United States.

Mamalujo 18:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

First, could you please list the source of that quote, and say when it was written... that would make a difference. But in any case... I think you are making more of the quote than it is worth. I don't think anyone doubts that Anti-clericalism was a big issue in Mexican politics in the 1800s and early 1900s. The Church was strongly identified with Conservative politics in Mexico. Thus Liberal politicians opposed the Church (ie were anti-clerical). But that does not mean that any Liberal politician who was a Freemason was Anti-clerical because he was a Freemason. First of all, the document does not actually say this. It says that there were Freemasons in both parties. However, it goes on to say that all this political upheaval influenced Mexican Freemasonry. I think the passage you are quoting is actually stating things backwards from what you seem to claim... that many Mexican Freemasons had become (at the time that this quote was written) Anti-clerical, because of the politics and history of Mexico. Not that Anti-clerical Freemasons caused the politics and history, or that all Mexican Freemasons are (or rather were) Anti-clerical. It certainly isn't the case today. Blueboar 22:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is a POV and NOR nightmare

I read this article in its entirety, and it is simply an article that needs to be evaluated seriously for its violations of WP:NOR. I am not sure what would be the best way forward, if an AfD, or a making this into a stub. In either case, the article needs to be re-written. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been saying this for about a year. I think the topic is notable enough that it should not be put up for AfD, but I am concerned that even a stub will end up being a laundry list of reasons why Freemasonry is bad and Catholics should not join it (and counter argument as to why Freemasonry isn't bad). Believe it or not, the article used to be much worse. All that said, I think it will take a strong and neutral hand to create something that is NPOV and well sourced. Perhaps stubifying, and rebuilding under the guidance of a Mediator will help. Blueboar 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The first part of the article is not that bad, but the sections about the countries is pretty bad. First step would be to delete these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the subject itself, which is mostly the Catholic Church's POV on Freemasonry. It's not like there's been some sort of military conflict between the two, and it appears that Freemasonry does not have any formal POV of Catholicism (or at least, a POV that's documented as well as the Church's). LotR 21:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope... Freemasonry most definitely does not take a stance on the Catholic Church (or any other religion). In fact Freemasons are barred from discussing religion at all in the lodge (that is documented). The closest they come to a "stance" are some statements of regret that the Church takes the stance that it does, and statements that (as far as the Fraturnity is concerned) Catholics may join if they wish to. There are a few "appologies" (ie defenses of Freemasonry) demonstrating how some of the things the Church claims about Freemasonry are not true, and repeated statements about how "Freemasonry is not a religion, nor a substitute for religion". But that is about it. It is a very one sided conflict. (Until fairly recently, the Masonic responce to any criticism was to ignor it... thus, there is very little from the Masonic side of any argument. Frustrating in any "Freemasonry and..." type article.)

As for deleting the second half of the article... I am not going to do so until we have heard from some of the other editors who have contributed... especially those writing from the "catholic perspective". Blueboar 21:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, while the Kulturkampf and Josephinism could probably be removed without changing anything within the article - the Latin Lodges are a big part of the story. There is a school of thought that the behaviour of the Latin Lodges was the only legitimate grievance that the Catholic Church has with Freemasonry. JASpencer 22:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There is also a school of thought that the church opposition to freemasonry is more about power than philosophical and theological objections. But how could that be, the RCC has never been all that interested in temporal power, has it ;)

ALR 10:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The objection raised here is that "the article is a POV and NOR nightmare." My observation is that the article, by it's very subject matter, will tend to be somewhat one-sided, as the subject itself is about the Catholic Church's position on Freemasonry, which basically maintains (in several verifiable publications) that Masonry is incompatible with Catholicism. While there are some individual Freemasons that beg to differ, it seems there are no official published, verifiable Masonic statements saying much of anything, one way or the other. So, I would be in favor of trimming the article back. LotR 13:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that most freemasons will quite happily acknowledge the fact that the RCC has a rather hostile position to the craft in general. That is not in doubt. As you highlight above, regular freemasonry does not have a position on the RCC specifically, merely highlighting that membership of the RCC isn't a bar to initiation into freemasonry. The distinction is important, the RCC put a lot of time and effort into condemning freemasonry, regular freemasonry is quite content to let the RCC crack on and do so without feeling the need to dignify it with a response.

Many freemasons and other scholars of freemasonry contend that the RCCs reasoning is specious.

I would agree that the article would benefit from trimming back, although I would observe that some display a degree of ownership of the article and take a rather more purist, perhaps excessivly rigorous, approach to verification of content with respect to one side of the debate.

I observed in a previous comment in this talk page that most of the POV issues could be resolved by just renaming the article to something along the lines of The RCC position on Freemasonry.

ALR 19:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What you have just said is a POV, albeit one that is less well documented, which again is the crux of the matter. Indeed, without the Catholic Church's published statements on the matter, there would be no article. For what it's worth, I agree that a change in title would be good. I had independently thought that in my postings, but couldn't think of a good alternative title -- I think The RCC position on Freemasonry is one possibility. LotR 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

What you have just said is a POV, can I ask which bit? Unless I'm very much mistaken opinions are not banned, yet.

ALR 20:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No one has said that opinions are banned -- obviously we all have opinions. I'm just harping on about the topic itself, which is, unfortunately, pretty much one sided. LotR 12:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

np, I'm just curious about what you're assessing is POV from my comments previously. It's essentially just a statement of the article, without feeling the need to bog it down in excessively verbose quotations :)

It is pretty much one sided, because it's only the RCC which puts effort into it.

Personally I'd quite happily gut the article down to a core statement, without over-egging the RCC statements. I've never really seen the value in the article anyway.

ALR 13:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that's partly what I'm getting at -- the article is too bloated for an encyclopedia, considering the topic. And, as a side note, the Catholic Church's writings were not restricted to Masonry -- they held same opinion of other such organizations, Masonry being one of the most prominent. LotR 20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the assertions of OR and SYN is that they are just not well founded. The fact that Blueboar picked Mexico as an example is telling. The facts may appear egregious, but they are facts. The Scottish Rite and the "Yorkistas" actually served as proto political parties in Mexico in the 19th century. It is well documented, indeed it is admitted by honest Masons, that Freemasonry in Mexico was strongly anticlerical. It is also an historical fact that the most prominent of those who pushed for the enactment and enforcement of anticlerical laws and executive action were Masons. The exerpts from the speach on Mexican Freemasonry's Encounters with Religion and Politics by Oscar J. Salinas E., Senior Grand Warden-York/Mexico shows that the section is not OR, SYN or POV. Mamalujo 19:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a link to the entire document, Mamalujo... it is a perfect example of how a source can be misused by "cherry picking" parts of it out of context to promote OR and POV... to put it into context, the document you cite is an address made by the former leader of a particular faction of Freemasonry in Mexico, one that is considered irregular (and thus not Masonic) by the majority of Freemasonry. His intent is to convince regular lodges to change their minds and declair his branch regular. He does not say that Freemasonry in Mexico was anti-clerical... he says that certain factions of Freemasonry in Mexico were. Let me quote the address... and include some parts that you conveniently left out of your quotation above (I highlight some important points). He says:

"When we look back in time, and realize that from the very start Mexican Masonry was split into competing groups, based on political allegiances, and that presidents of Mexico used Masonry to strengthen their political position, we can understand a little better just why Mexican Masonry has gone down the road that it has. As for its anti clericalism, the wealth and power of the Church meant that it was much more feared than in the United States.

I say all this not to excuse the situation, but to help explain the situation. In past years the bottom line was that Mexican Masonry appeared in most cases to be irregular in comparison with American Masonry. Some even accused Mexican Masons of "never really understanding Freemasonry" and of "possessing Latin minds incapable of grasping Freemasonry". However, I would like to close with some thoughts about that.

When people, particularly profanes, speak of "Masonry" in general terms, they have not idea of the concept of regularity. There is a great number o spurious bodies, large and small. Some of them are totally self-generated, like the feminine Grand Lodges. Others are created by dissidents from regular Grand Lodges, often using the same name to add to the confusion. A typical example would be a losing candidate for Grand Master who does not accept his defeat and takes his followers away with him to start a new Grand Lodge. These irregular bodies are the ones that make the most noise with political, usually radical, declarations in the media, and their public presence is out of proportion to their numbers in terms of membership. Quite obviously, none of them have a charter from a regular Grand Lodge.

Now, I admit that I am "cherry picking" here just as much as you did with your quotation... but at least I am not adding it to the article or trying to use it as a citation. That makes a big difference. The point of my selection is to point out that one can not tar all of Freemasonry with the same brush. I don't think that anyone is denying that individual Mexican Freemasons were political or Anti-clerical. And in fact, certain Masonic splinter groups became very political (some Anti-clerical, some very pro-clerical). But it misuses the source to say that FREEMASONRY, as a concept, and as a whole, followed any single political or religious leaning. Saying so is a form of Original Research.

This article if filled with examples like that. All sorts of statements are taken out of context. In several other cases, what a given source itself says is relected accurately, but the material that the source based its statements on was clearly taken out of context. Blueboar 20:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)