This is an archive of past discussions about Papal ban of Freemasonry. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Archive as of 5/18/06

Why the Opus Dei citation is being removed

Yes remove Opus Dei. Thanks. Oh are you on about here? Then No. Imacomp 19:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Where does the Opus Dei website say that it is an oath bound secret society? It seems a rather odd citation. The website named says in How does one join Opus Dei? that "Members join by a contractual commitment rather than by vows" and in What about the criticism of Opus Dei? it has a section entitled Myth: Opus Dei is a secret society. Now there may be some people who say that Opus Dei is lying, but they should be quoted rather than the Opus Dei website. I think the citation should be replaced with something that does say that Opus Dei is an oath bound secret society, rather than something that says precisely the opposite. That's why I'm replacing it with the citation request. JASpencer 17:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The citation is to show that Opus Dei is controled by the Church, not that it is an oath bound secret society. If you need it I will find a citation for the secret society part. Blueboar 20:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I would like that Blueboar. But no rush. :) Imacomp 20:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation provided. Blueboar 20:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice.Imacomp 21:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh how POV of you. It was cited by Blueboar. Imacomp 21:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei is a Personal Prelature of the Church, meaning its members operate under the spiritual direction of its prelate (although they are still obligated to obey the local ecclesiastical authority of their bishop as well). If you want a reliable source stating they are NOT an oath-bound secret society, try John L. Allen, Jr.'s new book Opus Dei: an Objective Look Behind the Myths and Reality of the Most Controversial Force in the Catholic Church (look here for more details)[1]. In Catholic circles, Allen is not known for his conservative views either, which has given his work on Opus Dei a lot of credence.

Because there is no concrete proof that Opus Dei is an oath-bound secret society (only than outside allegations), I have reworded that section to reflect the fact.DonaNobisPacem 21:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC

I should also point out - it is a "personal vow," as opposed to an oath, that is taken by the members, meaning it is not binding (as are the vows of holy orders, for instance).DonaNobisPacem 22:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I see, so its like the Masonic obligation then? Imacomp 22:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is that in the Masonic order, one takes an oath not to reveal any information about Lodge meetings (I am not aware if their are any other oaths of secrecy), which the Church feels could prevent a member from confessing necessary info in the confessional - whereas with the personal vow of Opus Dei, their is nothing that prevents a member from talking about all aspects of the Order with their spiritual director/confessor.DonaNobisPacem 22:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in the Obligation regarding not talking about Lodge meetings - only the secrets already mentioned. If that's an issue, then wouldn't working for a company with an NDA be considered "anti-Catholic"? It comes down to the same thing. The difference being that divulging Masonic secrets gets you expelled/suspended/reprimanded, while violating an NDA gets you sued or thrown in prison. MSJapan 22:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason that "some allege" was removed from the claim that Opus Dei is oath bound? I would argue it is a minority POV that that is the case - considering neither Opus Dei, nor the Church, nor critical writers such as John Allen have claimed as such. Many criticisms I have read about Opus Dei have never claimed it is oath bound, although they do think the members are not forthcoming in revealing membership (a different claim)......

I would think the main point here - neither Opus Dei nor the Church say it is an oath-bound secret society - therefore, unless it can be proven conclusively by an outside source to be otherwise (which I have not seen any reliable sources claim), any other statement should read "alleged." DonaNobisPacem 22:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"The Church" Do you mean the Church of Rome? "The Church feels..." I thought that was confined to a minority of Clergy these days? This does not answer the asertion that Opus Dei is a Secret Society, and makes "Masonic" style obligations. Imacomp 22:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the Church of Rome? Now in what circles do we usually hear that sort of language these days? Are you some sort of parody Imacomp? JASpencer 22:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You tell me, and give a proper citation, please. Imacomp 01:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Whoa, I started checking out some sources - since when is:

biblebelievers.org a reliable source on the Knights of Columbus (considering the page also claims the Jesuits are a military order of the Church ready to assassinate its enemies)

Thomas Lawton Jones a reliable source on Opus Dei?

I would suggest editors seriously check out their sources before posting.....in regards to the Opus Dei part of the article (which caught my eye, as I periodically edit that article) I would suggest taking a look at the Wikipedia article - although it cannot be quoted as a source, it is an extremely well sourced article, and could act as a "source of sources," and gives one a balanced feel for the praise/criticism of Opus Dei.DonaNobisPacem 22:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Bible believers are a reliable source on what the critics of KoC believe, surely? It is bad form for a masonic editor (I'm not sure whether it was Blueboar or Imacomp) to remove a contrary assertion from of all places masonicinfo.com . JASpencer 22:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

True to some degree - but it is important to note minority viewpoints as such. Part of the difference is that the KofC receives far less conspiracy criticisms than the Masonic ones, so those criticisms need to be emphasized as being held by a small minority (as per WP:NPOV......and I personally would not use masonicinfo.com as a reliable source anyways, but rather as an anecdotal one (ie, "some people believe this......."). If I wanted to present a reasonable criticism of the Masonic order, I would choose to rely on more conventional/academic/respected sources.DonaNobisPacem 22:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And it is also important to note that if what a person believes is believable - ie, is there evidence to back it up (such as the fact the 1913 congressional hearing rejected the KofC oath as a bogus hoax by anti-Catholics, a fact easy enough to find but Biblebelievers neglects to mention)DonaNobisPacem 22:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed masonicinfo is a joke, although a useful source on what Freemasons think. Bible Believers does say what a minority of extreme Prods believe. The fact that it was dismissed as bogus should be put in, however you may want to see User_talk:Skull_'n'_Femurs and this little factoid it may seem easy to understand. JASpencer 23:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Blueboar, it was Imacomp that removed the valid information. I do apologise. JASpencer 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem... I have no objections to the quote from Masonicinfo. I would prefer that they both go in ... the first to show that there are indeed some who tar the KofC with the same broad brush as they do Masonry... and the second to show that Masonry is not one of these anti-catholic groups. Blueboar 22:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I can totaly understand Catholics and especially members of the KofC being a bit peeved by this bogus "oath" ... Freemasonry faces this kind of attack for its rituals all the time. Blueboar 23:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I try not to make such claims.....DonaNobisPacem 05:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I know (and I thank you for it) ... too bad others do. Blueboar 14:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added the fact that this oath is a fake to the footnote. Blueboar 01:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Kulturkampf without the POV propaganda

The vigorous campaign of the Prussian state against the church was first defined by Bismarck's opponent, Rudolf Virchow(ref) name="virchrow" A leading German anthropologist, Rudolf Virchow, characterized Bismarck's struggle with the Catholic Church as a Kulturkampf--a fight for culture--by which Virchow meant a fight for liberal, rational principles against the dead weight of medieval traditionalism, obscurantism, and authoritarianism." from The Triumph of Civilization by Norman D. Livergood (/ref), a prominent Prussian Liberal and a leading Freemason (ref) name="virchrow" "Masons in Germany, Dr. Rudolf Virchow and Dr. Feodor Jagor" from The Masonic Life of Dr. Jose Rizal by Fred Lamar Pearson, editor of the Masonic Messenger of Georgia(/ref). Just in case it was "reverted" to the lies. Imacomp 00:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

All my last group of edits are NPOV, unless you are both a Roman Catholic and Anti-Mason. Imacomp 01:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hitler was a non-practising Catholic by the time he wrote Mein Kampf (although he self-identified himself as Christian at that time, and periodically throughout his dictatorship) - should he really be identified as such? It would perhaps be more accurate to say "Adolf Hitler, of Catholic upbringing, wrote in Mein Kampf (at which time he was non-practicing)....."

I know it's wordy - but in my opinion it is not really accurate to identify him as Catholic after his youth...DonaNobisPacem 05:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Virchrow and the Prussian liberals did start opposing Bismarck after unification and the Kulturkampf but in the period immediately after unification they did co-operate. As the Columbia Encyclopedia says:

Bismarck’s influence upon German domestic affairs was no less apparent than his international stature. The empire, soon after its establishment, was disturbed by the Kulturkampf, a fierce struggle between the state on the one hand and the Roman Catholic Church and Catholic Center party on the other. The conflict initiated a period of cooperation between Bismarck and the liberals, who were violently anticlerical. However, the struggle lost intensity after Bismarck failed to break the power of the Center party, which made large gains in the Reichstag in 1878. The detente with the liberals foundered in the late 1870s after Bismarck’s refusal to appoint three liberals to his ministry and his adoption of protective tariffs in place of the liberals’ free trade position.

Bismarck, Otto von, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05

Also:

Meanwhile, what remained of the National Liberals continued to capitulate on one issue after another. Even before the Secession, the National Liberals were the leading faction supporting Bismarck's Kulturkampf (struggle of cultures) against the Catholic Church. This anti-Catholic crusade was also taken up by the Progressives, especially Rudolf Virchow, though Richter himself was tepid in his occasional support. The National Liberals endorsed the anti-socialist laws; Bismarck's abandonment of free trade and his introduction of the welfare state; the coerced Germanization of the Poles in eastern Prussia; colonial expansion and Weltpoltitik; and the military and especially naval build-up under Wilhelm II.

Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century by Ralph Raico

Just because Virchrow and the other Liberals opposed Bismarck at many other times and on many issues, the point we are talking about is the Kulturkampf. JASpencer 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Kulturkampf and Rudolf Virchow disagree with you, and agree with me. Why not go and have it out with them first. The point is you tried to use a very strange way to link Freemasonry to this issue. I'm only shocked that Bismarck was not linked to Freemasonry, as he may have once passed one in the street. Imacomp 00:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No they don't. article doesn't mention the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rudolf_Virchow&oldid=41694691%7C

Kulturkampf] and vice versa.JASpencer 21:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Kulturkampf section edited to reflect the actuality of the cited references. Imacomp 13:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Something is confused. I don't know why we've gone from a given name to "a Masonic writer" - if we have a citation, we have a name. Also, it isn't Livergood who is a Mason, but Virchow, so the change is wrong anyway. This, BTW, JASpencer, is why I would rather point you (and others) at a source rather than simply make the changes. That way, one has to read the source and get the information for oneself

, which will avoid errors like this. MSJapan 14:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there's another issue. Why are we using The Builder when we should be using the SRJ link for the Virchow reference? It's kind of weaselly to do that, mainly because I for one have no idea who published The Builder, and some of their articles are definitely questionable, if only due to age and a lack of good research. If The Builder was not a mainstream Masonic publication, to call it Masonic is misleading. MSJapan 14:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I don't understand why the section is there at all. I'm sure you could find Freemasons on both sides of the debate, and unless one speaks as a representative of Freemasonry eg Grand Secretary or Grand Master in an official capacity then ones views are ones own. It strikes me as an odd section merely added to lend bulk to the article?ALR 15:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Virchow was important in the Kulturkampf in that he added an ideological edge (indeed coining the term). Instead of being a slap down to a Church that was seen as a threat to the unity of a newly stable state, as Bismarck saw it, or a reassertion of the Lutheran nature of the Prussian core, as the Conservatives (at first) saw it, the Liberals - most prominently Virchow - saw it as an anti-clerical crusade. In fact it was a cornerstone of an otherwise rather unnatural alliance between the Liberals and Bismarck. I think that it as least arguable that the otherwise paradoxical enthusiastic support by Classical Liberals of what were mostly illiberal measures against the church were at least influenced by the Masonic affiliation of many of those parties. And yes, I'm sure some of the Old Prussian lodges were getting very twitchy towards the end of the Kulturkampf due to their Lutheran allegiances. JASpencer 17:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, then make that clear in the section. As it stands it's just padding. Whilst I can see where you're coming from I'm not convinced that you can actually demonstrate it.ALR 17:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You "think that it as least arguable" and you are "sure". But there's no evidence that German lodges were considerably influenced at all by that. Virchow saw it not as an anti-clerical crusade, but as a conflict between his progressive and scientific point of view and the traditional dogmatic point of view of the Roman Catholic church. Virchow was a member of the Deutsche Fortschrittspartei and a rival of Bismarck (Bismarck even demanded a duel, but it never took place). There is no evidence that he was a freemason. --webmaster@sgovd.org, Germany, 84.61.7.55 01:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote in Religious indiferentism

I have removed one more Pike quote... that at the end of the Religious Indifferentism section. The section reads (without the footnotes): "Masonic behaviour is seen as a denial of the truth of Christian revelation and Christ's guarantee of orthodoxy to the Roman Catholic church. (Though rather, all Reformed Christians would deny the exclusive right of Roman Catholicism to the claim. Private individual Freemasons may or may not be in agreement, as reformed Christians)." However the reference quoted Pike and read: "Masonry propagates no creed, except its own most simple and sublime one taught by Nature and Reason. There has never been a false Religion on the world." This does not seem to follow or be connected to what is said in the section. I will assume that the text was changed at some point, but not the citation. If it is going to be used to back up a statement, however, I will ask that the citation give where Pike said this, so I can verify it. Blueboar 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp's edit; Blueboar's "discovery". Why?. Pike reinserted. JASpencer 22:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is about the relationship between Catholicism and Freemasonry and not another religion. Reformed churches stuff taken out until some relevance can be proven for this article. JASpencer 22:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I will leave the Pike quote for now (at least I can now understand why it was included). I would still like to know what document the Pike quote is from... given the previous inaccuracy of the CE in quoting Pike, I need to check the original source. I will add a quote request tag. Blueboar 02:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Still no quote posted here. Please provide or I will delete the citation. Blueboar 01:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Higher degrees... one more quote

I have a problem with the citation that starts off the section on the higher degrees... the sentence reads: It is alleged that anti-Catholicism becomes more pronounced in the appendant bodies, commonly called "higher" degrees, of Scottish Rite Masonry and the citation states: "It should be noted, that the great majority of Masons are far from being "initiated" and "are groveling in Egyptian darkness". How does this support what is being said? Note that I did not remove the citation this time, as the Catholic Encyclopedia may well say this. I just don't understand how this citation supports what is being said. I fully believe that some Catholics think the "higher degrees" are anti-catholic... but how does "groveling in Egyptian darkness" demonstrate this? surely there is a better citation

I will give it a few more days... but If no one responds, the quote will go. Blueboar 02:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it supposed to indicate a belief that the higher degrees are more anti-Catholic, or have some "special knowledge," while the lower degrees are more ignorant of this "special knowledge" (that is a claim that I have oft heard repeated - lower degrees are lackeys, who perform charitable work, etc, while higher degrees in appendant bodies think they are "enlightened" and are much more anti-Catholic, etc)?DonaNobisPacem 06:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh... then that needs to be made clearer... especially who said it, since it is in quotes in the CE I assume it is from some document."

Oath-bound/Secret societies

My apologies, but the source given to the reference to Opus Dei is taken from the Constitution of 1950 which have been totally discarded. Opus Dei is a prelature with a Vatican-established Particular Law of 1982, and there are no oaths in this law. Also, the Italian Parliament in 1987 has declared that Opus Dei is not a secret society as alleged by the Italian communists. The Italian parliament said it is neither secret "in law and in fact." Some of the reasons: if we are able to contact them, if they have public listing of their addresses, names of directors, etc., then they are not secret. I am erasing any reference therefore to Opus Dei in this section. Lafem 08:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to revert your deletion... The point of including Opus Dei (as well as KofC) is that many Anti-Catholics believe that they do have an oath... and that they feel that there is a double standard going on... the Church bans societies such as Freemasonry, while allowing its own societies. I can agree that the seciton should be re-worded ... but to keep things NPOV, something about that double standard needs to be included. If you want to clarify the passage with a citation showing that this beleif is unfounded, please do.Blueboar 14:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

By Lafern's reasoning, Masonry isn't a secret society either, so it sort of defeats part of the ban, thus we would have to talk about the double standard or be guilty of a logical fallacy. I personally don't mind adding qualifications to statements in order to clarify boundaries, and maybe that's the road to take here. MSJapan 04:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

But in Masonry, isn't their some pledge of secrecy? Lafem was pointing out there is no oaths (of any sort) in the 1982 Particular Law.DonaNobisPacem 04:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In Masonry, the only "secrets" are the various modes of recognition, and that's all - the oaths specifically say that they do not affect any responsibility you have to G-d, your country, your neighbor, or yourself (the latter inclusive of family as well). Other than that, there's actually plenty of publicity regarding Masonry, whicxh is why i would protest is being labelled as a "secret society" in its modern form. What I'm really getting at though, is that to cut Opus Dei off at 1982 is a bit POV, as it has clearly been around a lot longer in a possibly different but definitely related form (an issue related to another Freemasonry-related WP article, would you believe); so, while I'm willing to accept that theories and critiques may no longer be valid, they should still be stated, as that is precisely what is being done in the other Freemasonry articles, and I think we need a standard policy for fairness' sake. It's simply not right to go "Oh, Opus Dei isn't the same, so prior to 1982 doesn't matter, but the fringe anti-Papist Scottish Rite that died out 150 years ago needs to stay in, because it's obviously a valid complaint", and I don't want to have to go screaming about NPOV if I can help it. MSJapan 05:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying ignore it - but as it stands, the article does not indicate that the oath in the source is no longer used. So, I guess that is what I shall point out......DonaNobisPacem 05:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Having read over the oath cited, I am not sure what secrecy has to do with it, anyways - it simply says they will consult their spiritual director on a number of matters. One, it does not say they are obligated to follow their advice, and two, it does not refer to secrecy....the oath cited would not prevent a person from confessing anything, from exercising freedom of choice, etc......DonaNobisPacem 05:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Same with Masonic oaths. Also, just to nitpick to illustrate a point, you are right assuming that Opus Dei is in fact following its Particular Law. I believe the Knights Templar were ostensibly burned for something relating to not following certain Laws a while back. :) I could also claim that unless you ask someone in Opus Dei to verify, you don't know, and even then, "they would say that, you know". I'm not arguing semantics, though, only trying to illustrate that some things need to be taken as a given (or cited to equal degree) on both sides of the equation if we want a balanced article. This affects whether we consider the fact of a claim made to be valid vs. the factg of validity of the claim as the barometer for inclusion. MSJapan 05:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I get what you're saying - as I said to Blueboar earlier, I have tried not to make edits on this page that can't be shown to have validity (and if it is simply the statement of a claim, I try to point it out as just that - a POV). And just an FYI (as I used to be a frequent editor on the Knights Templar page) - they weren't burned b/c they didn't follow their Rule, it was because Philip IV had a vendetta against them...... : ) DonaNobisPacem 06:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

(indent left) I would, however, invite any wishing to contribute on the Opus Dei matter to go to the Opus Dei article - obviously it can't be used as a source, but it is an article that has had a number of pro- and anti- Opus Dei editors working on it, and has come to an amazingly balanced article - it gives a good idea of the criticisms, which tend not to focus on the secrecy.....but I digressDonaNobisPacem 06:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Just so everyone is clear... I have no problem with rewriting this section. The Church does have a legitimate issue with any society that contains "secret" oaths that a member could not discuss with his or her confessor. So the section topic is definitely valid. The question is whether Freemasonry really falls into that category or not. There is debate over the issue, and that needs to be discussed. Part of that debate (and thus part of the discussion) includes the perception of a double standard where it comes to specificly Catholic "secret" (or at least secretive) societies. Blueboar 13:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Applicability of Pike

OK, given that it has already been demonstrated that Pike had no authority over regular craft Masonry I have managed to dig up a reference which indicates the Antient and Accepted Rite ritual (Scottish Rite to the colonials ;) ) as used in Northern Jurisdiction and England and Wales wasn't written by him.

The A&AR ritual was originally documented by Etienne Morin and Henry Andrew Franken in 1771. The manuscript is held by Supreme Council for England & Wales. Franken then added to that in 1783, the manuscript being held by SC US Northern Jurisdiction, Lexington MA.

I'm not sure when NJ split from SJ, but SC of England&Wales was formed in 1845 under the authority of US NJ. Pike didn't assume the office of Sov Gd Commander SJ until 1859, and as Supreme Councils are Sovreign clearly Pike would have had no authority over either NJ or any SC derived from NJ. Indeed following the issuing of the patent NJ wouldn't have any authority over its daughter SCs. Morals and Dogma wasn't published until 1872.

From that timeline it can be demonstrated that regardless of the influence of Pike within Southern Jurisdiction he had no authority over other Supreme Councils.

The source is a privately printed document by SC England & Wales, published in 1960, reprinted 1990. A&AR The intermediate degrees.

Now I appreciate that the impact of this will probably be played down because it is a privately printed source and so not easily available to the public, however it does exist. I also appreciate that it could be suggested that the conclusions I'm approaching may constitute orginal research, but I'm sure the material could be included to inform the reader.

I'm copying this across to the Catholicism article as well.ALR 23:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Secret Society?

According to the Grand Lodge of Englands web site (which is cited), the activities, officers, AND the rituals (including the Oaths) of Freemasonry have been public knowledge for many many years... thus, the claim that Freemasonry is not a Secret Society is referenced and cited. I am sorry if this citation blows a hole in the Church's claim that we are, but them's the facts. Blueboar 17:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly the oaths are within the site that I saw. I may have missed it so perhaps you could point me to something other than an assertion? JASpencer 12:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I may have missed where your suggesting that FM is a Secret Society so I'm potentially behind the curve. Noting that the section on Catholic prohibition is quite general, and doesn't provide a positive citation, I'd be grateful if you could indicate where a supporting obligation is found? Mind you I'd imagine that a public statement on the public website of an organisation is pretty good, if circumstancial, evidence that an organisation is not secret.ALR 12:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If freemasonry isn't a secret society, can you link me to the page with the oaths? Seems like it's kinda silly to have a freemasonry article without the core oaths that masons take, I thought they were secret, but now that apparently they are public they should definatly be included in the main article. Seraphim 03:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary and impossible. First of all, as you well know, the ritual is not standardized, so there's no one definitive oath. Now, if you want a source for oaths, we can certainly provide the ISBNs for the rituals available through Lewis Masonic or Amazon UK (which will only pertain to UGLE), or the Web of Hiram (which is clearly a public posting, but is also most likely only UGLE). However, all of these sources are sufficiently public for purposes of the statement. Also, you're misinterpreting again - there is an important distinction between a "secret society", and a "society with secrets". Freemasonry clearly has a public presence, and the classification of a secret society is extremely vague (see Secret society). No Mason hides their membership unless there is a very good reason to do so, and the rituals themselves aren't secret if the books are being sold by GLs online without any sort of checks on who's buying what. MSJapan 04:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We don't use Oaths, we have Obligations.ALR 06:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a convincing argument why an articulation of the miscellany of obligations taken throughout Freemasonry might usefully contribute to any of the articles in the Freemasonry related portfolio? Any organisation has a right to protect certain information and various Grand Lodges are specific about what information they consider to be private, the majority of other information is freely available with very little effort. If this passes the test for a Secret Society then it seems clear to me that most publically stated companies, government departments, educational establishments and indeed charities could be considered as Secret Societies. I have already pointed you, per your request, at one route to get hold of Emulation ritual, although I note you have never acknowledged that I responded to that request. I would suggest that it is now incumbent on you to do some work on your own should you wish to go further with that research, although to be sure it might be worth taking up Vidkuns offer to point you towards androgynous or feminine freemasonry in Ma. (noting that I certainly do not mean OES by that). We've already had extensive discussion about the nature and practice of Freemasonry and I'm disappointed in how little progress we have managed in that discussion, since the question appears to be right back at square one, this might perhaps reflect the complexity of the worldwide existence of the order, or it may be that those of us who do understand it are having diffiuclty communicating that understanding in a meaningful way. That last perhaps illustrates that the fundamental of Freemasonr cannot be communicated in language but is participatory.ALR 13:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not an oath, but a vow at least here in Germany. By its vow, a Mason is bound to discretion concerning Masonic identification marks, rituals and privacy, to ethics and fraternalism. This certainty is a basic requirement for a free intercourse of thoughts and freedom of expression. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 04:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point... in NY it is not an "Oath" but an "Obligation" as well. It is a small but important difference. Seraphim, there are a lot of examples of exposés that have divulged the Obligations of Freemasonry... as you well know. You are already familiar with Duncan and Morgan. As MSJapan states, there are others that are publicly available as well. While they have changed over the years, and while the exact wording differs from Jurisdiction to Jurisdiction (which is why any one exposé can not be included in the article as an example of "oooh look... Masonic Secrets!"), they all follow the same basic pattern... Support your brethren in need, act honestly and honorably, respect the traditions of the Craft, don't gosip if a brother shares a confidence, and keep private the grips and words, etc. Sometimes there is a symbolic penalty attached, sometimes there is not. Nothing is really SECRET about this. But even if the Obligations were not publicly available, Freemasonry would still not be a secret society, neither "in law nor in fact." The parallel to Opus Dei is apt. Just as the Catholic prelature provides information about Opus Dei's activities and directors, so do the various Grand Lodges provide information about Freemasonry's activities and directors. Yes, we keep some things private... as does the Catholic Church, Microsoft, your neighborhood Block Association, or any other organization. Privacy does not make something a Secret Society (although sometimes I wonder about Microsoft). Blueboar 13:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"According to the Grand Lodge of Englands web site (which is cited), the activities, officers, AND the rituals (including the Oaths) of Freemasonry have been public knowledge for many many years... thus, the claim that Freemasonry is not a Secret Society is referenced and cited. " I'm just saying, since freemasonry isn't a secret society (which is defined as "A secret society is an organization that requires its members to conceal certain activities—such as rites of initiation —from outsiders. Members may be required to conceal or deny their membership, and are often sworn to hold the society's secrets by an oath.") then there should be no objections to posting some of the content of "the rituals (including the Oaths)" since apparently it's "been public knowledge for many many years". Seraphim 16:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to find a citation that provides a comprehensive and meaningful contribution and actually adds some value then.ALR 16:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe any exist. However apparently some of the editors here are insisting that Freemasonry is not a secret society, that means that they feel that there is a Reliable Source that exposes all of the masonic secrets, I was just wondering what that source was. Seraphim 17:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to get sensations of Deja Vu here, although you might like to reread the last sentence or two of my contribution to this debate, above. You might also care to read the introductory paragraphs in the Freemasonry article. I do know of sources which discuss the mundane items which we consider private, however I also understand what the secret of Masonry is and am utterly convinced that it cannot be articulated in a manner which complies with WP:RS. You seem to be obsessed by the idea that there are items which could be captured in this way, and I am of the opinion that view is so firmly embedded that no matter how much informed discussion we undertake it's not going to change. I have to say that if you really want to know what the secret of Masonry is, then you have to experience the initiation. That is available to you, although as I stated above it's not something you'll get from OES.ALR 17:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We are getting off topic.... Let's go back to the statement in the article that generated this discussion: "... the Italian Parliament in 1987 declared that Opus Dei is not a secret society neither "in law nor in fact," for the Catholic prelature provides information about their activities and their directors. Under similar reasoning, Freemasons claim that they also would not, and do not qualify as a secret society. Grand Lodges provide similar information about their Officers and activities." Seraphim, what about this statement do you question? Blueboar 18:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are able to read German, you can read the complete initiation ritual of Friedrich Ludwig Schröder (AFAM) that includes the Obligation here: http://www.stelling.nl/vrijmetselarij/schroedersches_r1.html

I'm sure if you are able to use Google, you'll find this in English, too. Now what?

--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The point that I was trying to make is that saying that Freemasonry is not a secret society is rediculious. There are secrets, that are protected, that people vow to protect. Seraphim 19:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Equally because you don't understand what the secret is, you continue to pick away in the wrong direction to really gain any knowledge. MSJ has already highlighted that there is a difference between a Secret Society and a Society with Secrets, the Craft is the latter as are most commercial firms many government departments, it's just that breaching our obligation results in one being a 'wilfully perjured individual, void of all moral worth' whereas breaching ones obligation to ones employer, the employment contract, results in the need to find another employer, or a good defence lawyer. So I'd contend to suggest that because there are certain things that the craft would prefer remain private is in any way exceptional is also ridiculous.ALR 19:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does nobody remove this wrong information here: Secret society? The complete article is just a list and the short definition is completely wrong. Initiation society is not a synonym of secret society. There are Freemasons in Poland, but according to this article Freemasonry would be illegal in Poland, but that's not the case at all:

--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The defination of a secret society from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language "An organization, such as a lodge, that requires its members to conceal certain activities, such as its rites of initiation, from outsiders." freemasonry is a secret society, the "society with secrets" thing is just made up gibberish. Just because people know about the society and that they are visible to the public doesn't make them a secret society, we have a secret society on campus here, and everyone knows where they meet, how they choose members, and they show up at events. Seraphim 21:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Then the definition isn't very effective, is it? The WP article, at least, admits that the definition of a secret society is far too wide-ranging in its applicability. As has been shown, it is applicable in places where it would be nonsensical if it were really to apply. However, why again are we playing semantics, especially with regards to questions that have already been answered numerous times? MSJapan 21:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The section of the Article that we are talking about does not use the American Heritage Dictionary's definition. The Article is very specific in how it defines a Secret Society... It uses what the Italian Courts said in relation to Opus Dei. "That it provides information about their activities and their directors". And by THAT definition Freemasonry is not a Secret Society. However, even if we take the American Heritage definition, Freemasonry does not meet the criteria... Freemasons may promise not to share the passwords and handshakes and things like that... but 1) these are not activities they are symbols, and 2) even if you want to say they are "activities", Freemasons are not REQUIRED to keep them from outsiders. In fact we are encouraged to share everything with our wives and loved ones (as our committment to them is more important than our commitments to the Lodge). We may certainly discuss all of it all with our Priests, Rabbis or other religious leaders (our committment to God is greater than any committment to the Lodge). Blueboar 22:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the jahbulon article when people were attempting to redefine the word Literature, you can't redefine a word just because it's defination isn't how you interperate the word. Yeah under that particular defination of the word freemasonry isn't a secret society, however that is not the actual defination of the term. Masonic Ritual = Activities, which masons agree to keep secret. The fact that some information has been leaked doesn't all of asudden make it a non secret society. Going by the common defination of secret society freemasonry is and has always been a secret society. Seraphim 22:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A Germany dictionary "Mackensen" defines "Geheimbund" = Secret Society simply as an illegal organization. Another dictionary defines "Geheimbund" as an organization where it's goals (and) purpose (and) members (and) constitution (and) custom are for members only and only known by the initiate. So all this does not apply to Freemasonry. But it might be a secret society in totalitarian countries if you follow the first definition. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Different words mean different things in other cultures. This is the English version of wikipedia, we use the English defination of words (words don't mean the same thing in other languages). If you would like to make the relevant changes to the german freemasonry article feel free to do so. Seraphim 05:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So you claim to remove the polish law and all interwiki links of Secret society? Feel free to do so. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The definition in Concise Oxford is noun - an organization whose members are sworn to secrecy about its activities., now it's not clear from that definition whether that applies to all of it's activities or merely a subset of them. Given the lack of qualification it can reasonably be inferred that it means all rather than some. Given that Masons are obligated to protect the secrets and not the activities, and that the nature of the secrets are well defined according to each GL Jurisdiction then it is arguable whether the definition is appropriate and the description society with secrets is a more appropriate designation. However as this particular little debate isn't really about whether the craft is really a secret society or not, but whether we'll tell you what the secrets are, I'll repeat for a third time in this particular instance of the debate that the only way to find out is to put in the effort and undergo the ritual within which the secret is communicated. That is the only way to find out, anything that can be easily communicated in words is merely mundane.ALR 07:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the argument was about the Church calling Freemasonry a secret society. Which is clearly is. Seraphim 07:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I note that, for a third time, you fail to address the substance of my point which demonstrates that, whilst it could be debated wither way, the weight of evidence would tend to suggest that it's not. Forgive me for being somewhat more cynical about your motives for participating in this discussion though, you've asked a question to which you've already had the answer but appear unwilling to actually pt in any effort to follow through on that. It's not clear what you're studying, but not all reliable sources are available on the web and I am surprised that you appear to believe that they are.ALR 08:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So now you're going to stick to the main argument because you can't support your position? MSJapan 08:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wha? My position is that freemasonry is a secret society. ALR copied the defination from the Oxford dictionary that says "an organization whose members are sword to secrecy about its activities", freemasonry clearly falls under that. Masons are charged with keeping the ritual secret. I'm sure if we look at enough dictionaries, for example that german one, that you can find a defination that doesn't cover freemasonry, however the purpose of wikipedia is to inform rather then obsfucate. If someone reads the article they immediatly know what a secret society is, saying "society with secrets" just ends up confusing people. Seraphim 08:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Masons are obligated to keep the secrets, secret. The ritual and the secrets are different things and as Blueboar highlights there is no prohibition of acknowledging membership or talking about many of our activities. The main reason for being discreet about the ritual is that in order to convey the secret, which you wrongly think is a mundane external, the ritual should be as unknown as possible to the candidate. Should one go into it with preconceived ideas then the impact would be lessened, There is probably a study in the corpus of psychology material appropriate to that but since I'm a Management Consultant, not a psychologist, I'm not going to search it out. We could reasonably discuss it, but we choose not to out of respect for those who wish to enter into the ritual in good faith and in order to assure that they get the most from the experience.ALR 08:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the ritual is so secret, and we are sworn to keep it as such, why can one find copies all over the place in bookstores, Amazon, EBay, and so on? Why is it even printed? Once again, incorrect assumption on your part that does not fit the facts. Also, it's very informative if Freemasonry (and many other groups, for that matter), do not fit the definition of a "secret society", because it shows that there is a fundamental issue with the definition. Calling a group a secret society has a negative connotation, and trying to fit a group to that idea when it doesn't fit is obfuscation. MSJapan 08:35, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe i've ever stated that all of the ritual is secret, cause that would just be silly. The fact that secrets do exist, and that groups like UGLE say "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 worshipul fraternity" makes freemasonry fit the 2 requirements for a secret society, number 1 there are secrets, and number 2 members must protect them. It's rather simple. Seraphim 08:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the difference between that which one is obligated to protect, and that which it is imprudent to communicate indiscriminately, is unclear to you. Now I'm not sure how to put that in terms which offer a greater degree of clarity than what I've said above. They're not the same, for the reasons I previously articulated.ALR 08:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

All that matters is that there are secrets that members are obligated to protect. Seraphim 09:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So you're now suggesting that the USMC, NSA, CIA, USAF, US Department of Energy are all Secret Societies?ALR 09:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If that is all it takes for an organisation to be a 'secret society', then I guess you would consider the Royal Norwegian Air Force to be a secret society as well... after all, there is lots of things I have been told / learned at work which I'm not at liberty to discuss, and have even sworn an oath to keep secret. Your logic is severly flawed. WegianWarrior 09:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic... OK, Seraphim, let's take your concept of Secret Society and see where it lead us. I looked at the Opus Dei website, and it does not contain the vows that it's members take. It does not give an outsider any clue as to how it's inner workings are conducted. Would it be correct to say that you disagree with the Italian Courts and that you would put Opus Dei into the Secret Society category? I also note that the KofC does not post their rituals on line... so do you feel that the Knights of Columbus are a Secret Society? And finally, in trying to prove your point, above, you quote a passage from UGLE ritual... if we are so secret, how in the world did you ever know that quote? Blueboar 13:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The point Seraphim quoted is, I would suggest, at least second hand. The first time it was quoted was when SnF lost the plot and started disrupting the edit process. It's from Anderson, not from UGLE ritual. S/he appears to be using it without appreciating its' cotext in an effort to bolster a fairly weak argument(if I was feeling cynical about his/ her motives I might make reference to WP:POINT, but I'm still feeling generous and tending towards WP:AGF).ALR 13:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you do some research before assuming things. It's on page 158 of the UGLE craft rules (last updated in 2005)found here. According to the UGLE craft rules the charges are read "at the making of new brethren or when the master shall order it". There's no "out of context".Seraphim 17:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Andersons, not Ritual. The link you cite is the Book of Constitutions which contains a number of things, the Aims and Relationships of the Craft, the actual regulations for the conduct of Craft, Provincial and Grand Lodge, illustrations of the jewels of office etc, and a copy of Andersons Charges. It isn't a ritual book, and as such isn't something that the candidate obligates himself with respect to. It does, however, provide some general guidance and you'll note above that I addressed how it should be understood. There are Secrets which the candidate obligates himself to protect and there is ritual which, out of respect for the experience of future candidates, it is imprudent to discuss, because it would dilute their experience undergoing the ritual and reduce the impact of the real secret that is communicated during that process. So yes, you did use it out of context but I'm assuming that's because you haven't got the understanding of the subject which comes from actually undergoing and working ritual.ALR 17:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

At this point I think it is worthwhile to back up our statements with a quote or two... From the UGLE website:

Q Why are you a secret society?

A We are not, but lodge meetings, like those of many other groups, are private and open only to members. The rules and aims of Freemasonry are available to the public. Meeting places are known and in many areas are used by the local community for activities other than Freemasonry. Members are encouraged to speak openly about Freemasonry.

Q What are the secrets of Freemasonry?

A The secrets in Freemasonry are the traditional modes of recognition which are not used indiscriminately, but solely as a test of membership, e.g. when visiting a Lodge where you are not known.

Q Why do Freemasons take oaths?

A New members make solemn promises concerning their conduct in Lodge and in society. Each member also promises to keep confidential the traditional methods of proving that he is a Freemason which he would use when visiting a lodge where he is not known. Freemasons do not swear allegiances to each other or to Freemasonry. Freemasons promise to support others in times of need, but only if that support does not conflict with their duties to God, the law, their family or with their responsibilities as a Citizen.

Q Why do your 'obligations' contain hideous penalties?

A They no longer do. When Masonic ritual was developing in the late 1600s and 1700s it was quite common for legal and civil oaths to include physical penalties and Freemasonry simply followed the practice of the times. In Freemasonry, however, the physical penalties were always symbolic and were never carried out. After long discussion, they were removed from the promises in 1986.

Any questions? Blueboar 18:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is pointless, your argument is silly. The source of that quote doesn't mean anything, the fact that it is read to every single new mason is the only thing that is relevant here. I was pointing out that it is not second hand, it's published "by the Order of the Grand Lodge" and is in the section of the book of constitutions that is clearly labled "craft rules" [2]. I also find it funny that now you are attempting to seperate the secrets from the ritual (there are secrets... and there is ritual), however [3] in the past you were adamant that the secrets are part of ritual. Seraphim 18:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Secrets are part of the ritual, but the ritual is not, on the whole, secret. That's been said to you on a number of occasions. AS to whether Andersons rules are read at the making of every new Mason, I'll leave it up to you to find out if that is the case or not, however I would reiterate that one must understand the environment within which the obligation, the candidate takes, applies and how that might relate to other guidance available. By suggesting that my argument is silly, you highlight that you're not ready for this particular level of debate, on a topic which you do not really understand, and cannot understand without undertaking the work required. That is not meant as an attack, although of course you are at liberty to interpret it as such should you wish to do so, merely an observation that the topic is complex, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbol; until such time as you appreciate that allegory and symbol then there is inevitable difficulty in dealing with a reasonably abstract concept.ALR 18:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And to refocus us again on this article and the topic that started this all ... let me restate that I looked at the Opus Dei website, and it does not contain the vows that it's members take. It does not give an outsider any clue as to how it's inner workings are conducted. So... Seraphim, would it be correct to say that you disagree with the Italian Courts, and that you would put Opus Dei into the Secret Society category? I also note that the KofC does not post their rituals on line... so do you feel that the Knights of Columbus are a Secret Society? Blueboar 18:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything on either Opus Dei or the KoC that shows that their members take an oath to protect secrets of the organization. Seraphim 19:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a formal declaration that has to be signed. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

@ Seraphim:

Now what makes Freemasonry a Secret society in your opinion? What are the criteria in your definition of Secret society?

The Nazis had believed like you in a Masonic secret. 1935 they forbade Freemasonry. Loges as in Hamburg became anti-masonic museums. Rolf Appel tells us, how Nazis assigned a company in 1937 to break the Masonic temple of Hamburg off. The workers were assigned to break each stone open and regard it, because there had to be a masonic secret nevertheless. The inhabitants of Hamburg found it amusing, when the workers opened each stone, before they threw it away.

--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"An organization, such as a lodge, that requires its members to conceal certain activities, such as its rites of initiation, from outsiders." that's the defination of secret society from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, the oxford defination is similar. Freemasonry fits it perfectly. It's an organization in which members are required to conceal certain information. For example, masons are taught passwords and signs, and use the passwords and signs in ceremonies, which are considered to be secret and are protected. Seraphim 19:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So every company with (internet-)passwords and keys that requests secrecy by its employees is a Secret society, too? Sorry, but this definition is silly. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly neither oaths nor obligations are not mentioned as being common knowledge on the cited page, secondly the UGLE rulebook has the term obligation as being synomous with promise and obligation - so talk about no oaths is disingenuous, thirdly the UGLE defines the obligations as "undertakings to help keep secret a Freemason's means of recognition, and to follow the principles of Freemasonry". The idea that the Freemasons are only as secret as Opus Dei are obviously dear to Freemasons here - but at least in the case of the obligations this doesn't appear to be true. Surely a society that obliges its members to keep secret means of recognising other members would be defined by any non-Masonic source as secret? JASpencer 20:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree with the conclusion, perhaps not surprisingly. The connotations of an oath are somewhat different from the connotations of an Obligation, yes either one constitutes a promise however the usages communicate different perspectives. As to the rest, I think I've covered that several times in response to Seraphim in this thread.ALR 20:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

JAS... The Opus Dei thing is not really all that dear to me ... it's just a handy target used to point out the perseption of a double standard. heck... If I wanted to get creative, I could call the priesthood a Secret Society, since they are obligated not to divulge what others tell them in confessional, and thus are required to keep secrets. It all depends on how you define Secret Society. As to your statement that the cited page does not specificly say that the obligations (or oaths... I won't quibble) are common knowlege. Common, perhaps not... but available to the public, yes. the citation says: "The rituals and ceremonies used by Freemasons to pass on the principles of Freemasonry to new members were first revealed publicly in 1723". That would include the obligations or oaths. (it would also include the parts that Freemasons consider "secret", ie the handshakes, and arm wiggles and silly words.) So, yes, the citation does back up the statement. Blueboar 21:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now I know where your confusion comes from. It's not that the people are expected to keep some information secret that makes a group a secret society. It's certain types of secrets that must be protected, secrets about the groups activities. In the case of the priesthood keeping their discussion in confession secret, they aren't keeping information about what they do secret, they are keeping information that other people gave them secret. If you just believe keeping any secrets makes a group a secret society, then we could call lawyers, doctors, priests, all sorts of groups secret societies which would be silly. Seraphim 21:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, since you have clearly stated what the criteria are for a secret society, you've proven the point we've been trying to make all along. People know what Masons do - activities are not kept secret. The secrets, OTOH, is precisely information given to someone, which you claim is unimportant. Also, you admit that it is not the content of the activity that is important, either, rather the admission of the activity; otherwise, priests in confession would be secret, as an outsider does not know what was said, and all company board meetings would be secret. This is precisely how Masonry works, as quoted. MSJapan 21:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's secrets about the groups activities. All masonic activities are not made public. For example since the secrets are part of ritual, it's fairly obvious that parts of ritual are kept secret. Merely giving someone information is not enough to make it a secret society, when you change it into a secret ceremony it is. Seraphim 22:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

. Common, perhaps not... but available to the public, yes. Point them out please. JASpencer 19:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

you've proven the point we've been trying to make all along. Is that an admission of agenda pushing? JASpencer 19:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we are getting away from the point - the article is arguing why the Church objects to Freemasonry. As far as I am aware, the Church docs. on Freemasonry as of late have tended to focus on aspects other than secrecy (perhaps b/c of changes within the organisation over time?) - but for now, the Church, at least, sees the organisation as secret. So that should be mentioned in the article, because that is the point of the article. It SHOULD NOT be stated that under the Italian government's decision, Freemasonry is not a secret society; unless we find a reliable source that says exactly that, it falls under original research. HOWEVER - there is nothing preventing us from inserting the fact of the Italian government's decision, and then stating that the Lodge publishes lists of officers, rituals, and activities.....

One question I have, though - although the rituals are in print, in bookstores, as mentioned above - are any of them actually published by the Lodge for public reading? There is a difference. As to the claim that the Opus Dei "oaths" (properly called a personal vow, the difference being in the binding nature of the personal vow compared to an oath) are not published - the Opus Dei constitution can be obtained from the Vatican, and I believe from the organisation itself, upon request (I think you might be able to find it at vatican.va? I remember this discussion came up at Talk:Opus Dei quite some time ago). Of course, being a Vatican document, it's in Latin, but there are those out there who can still translate it...and the constitution, as far as I am aware, states the personal vows the members (numeraries/supernumeraries) make.

As to the argument of the KofC - you are right, their rituals are not published for the same reason as is given above in regards to Masonic ones (impact on new members) - the difference being, they are approved by Catholic clergy (in fact, the founder was a priest), so the Church has the assurance that no content is contrary to Church teaching. DonaNobisPacem 07:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So the Church determines what is a Secret Society and what is not? Shouldn't that double standard be mentioned in the article? Blueboar 12:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

More on Kadosh degree

I found this website which perports to give the version of the Kadosh degree as it is done in the US Northern Jurisdiction. I can not vouch for it's authenticity, as I have never taken any Scottish Rite degrees... but it is at least a valid as any other ritual found on the internet. If you accept it as valid, it does indicate that the claims about the Kadosh degrees made by Catholic critics of Freemasonry are not true as far as the Northern Jurisdiction goes. No stabbing of skulls or trampling of tiaras mentioned. On the other hand, while this site does talk about all the things that are claimed ... it will be noted if you go to the main page of the site it becomes clear that this is not an acutal Masonic site, but some "illuminati" group that has borrowed the trappings and degree names of the Scottish Rite for its wacko rituals. I don't trust any of this as a citation for the article... I can not call them reliable sources, but they do reinforce my feeling that this whole claim is either made up out of whole cloth, or caused by a great misundertanding. Blueboar 05:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I do know NMJ, and that site is also old. I've read a few newer versions, and they don't match that at all. IIRC, the degree was last rewritten in the 1950s, but as I mentioned before, the tiara stuff comes from J. Banchard's Scotch/Scottish (depends on where you look) Rite, and it's the ritual used by the Cerneauist faction (Google it), which was short-lived and died out over a hundred years ago. DeHoyos addresses this, I think, and I have the Blanchard book (I got it a long time ago because I thought it was the real AASR stuff), and it is in there. MSJapan 06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added a statement on this and a citation to DeHoyos. Once again... misinformation, misattribution and out right lying from the Antis. Typical Blueboar 19:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

And since there is a quote request... "Rev. Blanchard's outdated book was actually an exposure of Cerneauism, an illegitimate pseudo-Masonic organization founded by Joseph Cerneau and chiefly active in the 1800s. Oaths of fealty and other references to the Cerneau "Supreme Council" appear repeatedly throughout Blanchard's exposure". Says it all really. Blueboar 19:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

my feeling that this whole claim is either made up out of whole cloth, or caused by a great misundertanding. I have no idea whether the Scottish Rite does involve stabbing of skulls or trampling tiaras. My suspicion is that something similar happened in the Southern Jurisdiction a hundred years ago by has now been quietly dropped - for reasons of taste more than PR. However it is certainly not made up out of whole cloth, Pike mentions it and the Builder mentions it. JASpencer 19:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again... misinformation, misattribution and out right lying from the Antis. Typical. Can I refer you to WP:NPA? JASpencer 19:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Article re-ordered

Sections on same theme put together and re-ordered to follow a logical progression. Imacomp 12:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Protestant origins

The Origins of Freemasonry are not well enough known to be able to attribute them to a Protestant ethic. The origins of the structured Grand Lodge system are visible in the period but we have no clear indications prior to that. The earliest mentions of Freemasonry are in periods of RCC dominance in the socio-political environment but the relationship between the operative craft and speculative craft are unclear. I'm wary of categorical statements of Freemasonry as being Protestant. Influenced by protestant philosophy perhaps, but no stronger than that.ALR 16:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Para removed, as alleged stuff by Fr. Saunders not historical ref and "Prod" POV not suported. So para does not cover any of the subject of the section. Imacomp 16:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Same (modifed) para removed. To put in a para of rubbish, then ask others to prove it(dotting fact tags about), is just silly. Imacomp 16:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, you want it removed. Fine. Again one must ask, are you saying that England in the early Eighteenth Century was anything but staunchly Protestant? JASpencer 12:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

From personal knowledge, there are still Catholics in England today, and CofE is of course neither Catholic nor Protestant, so those denominations had to have been in England before today, so I would say that yes, 18th century England was not staunchly Protestant. MSJapan 04:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the Church of England itself "At the Reformation the Western Church became divided between those who continued to accept Papal authority and the various Protestant churches that repudiated it. The Church of England was among the churches that broke with Rome.". JASpencer 19:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, there were two sorts of Freemasonry. Those older Scottish/ Irish Lodges of Jacobites and those who founded the first Grand Lodge. Jacobites came to France and invented similar high degrees as the Irish Lodges. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Jacobite influence is certainly very interesting - both because it shows a considerable early Catholic involvement and it helps to explain some of the Church's worry about a channel for some of their more zealous followers (I believe in Eminenti mentioned). That is something that can be explored - however in the present agenda pushing and concerted blanking I don't think it's going to happen.

However the idea that the excised paragraph tried to put forward was an explanation for why the Catholic Church had an initial (well 20 years, which was a short time then) suspicion of a Lodge that was controlled and originated one of their primary religious enemies. Think of how the American government in 1965 would treat some fraternity controlled in Russia (or vice versa). However this is actually a "contextual" reading of Catholic attitudes towards Freemasonry - favoured by Masonic works such as the Miter and Trowell, and the article moves towards a dogmatic intepretation - favoured by Catholic authors. So it's not worth sweating over. JASpencer 20:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The jacobite influence is discussed in a number of Quatuor Coronati papers, it's also touched on in Temple and the Lodge by Baigent and Leigh, and in Born in Blood by John J Robinson. There is a very clear influence, predominantly through the Antients Grand Lodge and in some of the appendant bodies which have quite a strong RC character. The majority of it has been excised from the craft as part of the de-christianisation under the Duke of Sussex as Grand Master.ALR 22:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Jacobite influence. Jacobites were Catholic plotters in France, Rome, etc - in the service of the Scottish exiled "King(s)". Imacomp 22:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW: There's a "Lichtenauer Erklärung" - a statement signed by several German representatives of the Catholic Church and of the Freemasons in 1970: http://www.sgovd.org/wiki/Lichtenauer_Erkl%C3%A4rung

--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you summarize it in English :>) (for us barbarians who don't know our German). Blueboar 00:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll try, it's quite long. :-) --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Lichtenauer Erklärung

Now here's some sort of summary of the Lichtenauer Erklärung. ;-)

The preamble declares that Freemasons have no own definition of God since masonry is no religion and teaches no religion. Masonry claims an ethical way of life without dogmata by symbols an rituals. [...]

Masonry provides freedom of conscience, belief etc. [...]

Part I describes problems of the 12th and 13th century that delivered material for nationalism, facism and anti-freemasonry for the first part of the 20th century even through the catholic church but without intention. [etc.]

Part II declares that there were also faults made by Freemasons but it is expected that errors cannot be used today to blame all Freemasons because of errors made by individuals or groups centuries ago.

Part III: Conventionality and prejudice go hand in hand and no conventionality is more persistent than the religious conventionality. Consequence is a growing gap between conventional christianity and the fast changing human society, including Freemasonry that becomes more and more problematic and deeper. Having recognized this is one of the greatest contributions of the second vatican council but sadly without conclutions connected to Freemasonry.

Part IV: Society lacks of unity and although Freemasonry is no religion, masons cannon ignore questions to God as nobody can. But Freemasonry demands for moral responsibility by its members.

Part V: All religions are interconnected by a growing and worldwide threat of their existence by a denial of a man's dignity and human rights by pseudo-religous ideologies. The best proof is the encounter of pope Paul VI with other leaders of other religions. Freemasonry is also involved by this crisis and is aware of all connections agains prejudices, coercion, oppression and truth faking programs.

Part VI: We are aware of all old antagonisms that caused conviction of Freemasonry. There's no reason to keep those antagonizms alive. That's the reason why we have welcomed the beginning of a dialog honestly that made agreements possible despite the fact of antagonisms. We have understood the "Yes" to men as the base of the dialog.

Part VII: Arguments why antagonisms about "truth" are not a reason to avoid a dialog on the basis of Anderson's Constitution and a dokument about a dialog with faithless people.

Part VIII: Freemasons don't understand - because of that - why laws of the catholic church convicts them whereas there's no law and no restriction in Freemasonry regarding Catholics.

Part IX. Perception, that papal bulls and canonic law concerning Freemasonry are only of historical importance and are but no longer up-to-date because they are not justifyable by a church that teaches to love your brother and by those reasons illustrated before.

Lichtenau, den 5. Juli 1970

--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. But which German Catholics signed this and what was their position within the church?

Did this have any influence on the subsequent German Bishops Conference condemnation of Freemasonry?

JASpencer 19:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Equally which representatives of Freemasonry? Not that I have any problem with the sentiment expressed but was it signed both by representatives which would be considered regular and irregular (according to the UGLE definition), and if irregular based on which criterion?ALR 09:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Regular". --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, as a matter of interest are there business level dealngs between the various Regular and irregular GLs in Germany in the same way that there are in the UK?ALR 09:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This document seems to be almost forgotten. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now attained the permission to publish the signees of the Lichtenauer Erklärung here:

Germany: United Grand Lodges of Germany

Dr. Ing. Theodor Vogel, P.G.M. UGLoG
Rolf Appel, member of the senate of the UGLoG
Ernst Waler, member of the senate of the UGLoG
Prof. Dr. Karl Hoede, Past Grand Orator

Switzerland: Swiss Grand Lodge ALPINA

Dr. Alfred Rossli, Past Grand Secretary ALPINA
Franco Fumagalli, W.M. ALPINA

Austria: Grand Lodge of Austria

Dr. Kurt Baresch, Dep. Grand Master GLoA
Prof. Dr. Ferdinand Cap, P.W.M. GLoA
Rüdiger Vonwiller, P.W.M. GLoA

Members of the theological commission of the Catholic Church

Dr. Johannes B. de Toth, apostolic protonotar., prebendary of Lateran, Rome
Dr. Engelbert Schwarzbauer, papal prelate, professor of theology, Linz/Donau
Dr. Herbert Vorgrimler, professor of theology, Luzern-Freiburg

--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of de Toth or Schwarzbauer but Vorgrimler was a acolyte of Karl Rahner. I'm amazed that the Sedes never picked up on it, as they'd have had a field day. JASpencer 19:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Jacobites

If there were Masonic Jacobites who supported Charles Edward Stuart, they ought to be quite surprised by the encyclica Eminenti Apostolatus Specula. According to my encyclopedia "Lenning" from 1900, Karl Eberhard von Wächter, a Mason and Kanzler der VIII. Provinz of the de:Strikte Observanz met Charles Edward Stuart since they were sure he was one of the Unbekannte Oberen as claimed by Freiherr von Hund. The signed protocol was given to Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg. (Lenning tells us nothing about its contents.) When Herzog von Södermanland corresponded with Charles Edward Stuart because of his election to the Heermeister der VII. Provinz and wanted him to confirm this, Charles Edward Stuart consulted von Wächter, perhaps because of the encyclica and since he was dependent from the pope and lived in Italy. There was no more chance to get back the throne to that time, so it would have been not a good idea to confirm any connection to the Strikte Observanz. The encyclopedia tells us that there was a lodge that kept copies of this correspondence. But the Nazis confiscated all documents in the second world war. If they still exist these documents should be part of the Freimaurerbestände im Geheimen Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz or in posession of one of the Masonic Museums.

--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 01:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Virchow

Only JASpencer wants Virchow to be a Mason, for his own ends. Austin Craig is cited here as he is the only (itself an alligation that is unsoported) ref found. If Virchow was a Mason then the ref makes him a Latin type Mason at most.Imacomp 17:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Just in case I get blocked again, on a 3RR etc., look out for Lighbringer sock(s). Not that I'm saying that is what anybody wants, but that is what happened last time was it not JASpencer? Imacomp 17:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that Virchow wasn't a Freemason? JASpencer 12:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There's only two sources that unequivocally state he is, and this article and the citation used here are them. However, I would figure that Virchow would be in the German book I have, so I'll take a look. MSJapan 04:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Two Masonic sources. If I found myself condoning the deletion of all facts that I didn't like by Lightbringer because they had less than three sources (from my religious denomination of course) I couldn't look myself in the mirror. I'd consider myself to be a poor and partisan historian - no matter what my correligionists said. JASpencer 19:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Virchow is not mentioned as a freemason by the Internationales Freimaurerlexikon (Latest, very comprehensive) nor by Lenning (Oldest ~1900, even more conprehensive). Both books refer him as the creator of the word "Kulturkampf". Additionaly, he's not mentioned here: http://www.internetloge.de/arst/masons1.htm#V

The only link to freemasonry I see is by his Masonic friend Heinrich Schliemann. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Webmaster@sgovd.org Thanks for joining in. Please note that my German/English is via an auto-translation plus a very little knowlege :) Imacomp 21:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, what relevance do Craig's comments have here? I personally don't see the connections between Kulturkampf, Rizal, the Phillipines, and Catholicism. MSJapan 03:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

SGOvD, No need to appologize for your English, Your translator works just fine, and if there is confusion about what you say, we will ask for clarification. I am glad you are with us here. Since most of us are from England or the United States, our views on Freemasonry (positive and negative) tend to focus on how things are in those nations. You contribute an international view that is important. Thanks. Blueboar 13:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There's only two sources that unequivocally state he is. So MSJapan why are these two masonic sources uncitable? JASpencer 19:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1) It is citable and verifiable that Virchow was a Freemason - it is there are two sources without any agenda (on this matter) that state it.

You didn't read carefully enough - they're not Masonic sources. One source is the Rizal article, within which Virchow is not claimed to be a Mason, and the other is this article, which claims Virchow is a Mason based on a source that doesn't claim it. Virchow's not in the well-known German books, so he's probably not a Mason.

"men as esteemed in Masonry as they were eminent in the scientific world" is fairly clear that he was a Mason (or perhaps he wasn't a scientist). The second source was the [Scottish Rite Journal http://srjarchives.tripod.com/1998-10/PEARSON.HTM], which admittedly seems to have been taken out, "It was a heady atmosphere for the young Brother, and Masons in Germany, Dr. Rudolf Virchow and Dr. Feodor Jagor, were instrumental in his becoming a member of the Berlin Ethnological and Anthropological Societies." which had been in the first edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholicism_and_Freemasonry&oldid=42197124#_note-virchrow I apologise for refering to a now absent source

So as I was saying two Masonic sources. The Builder and Scottish Rite Journal are both Masonic, are they not? JASpencer 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Not nessesarily... both are sites run by Masonic entities... but the articles that are reprinted there are not all from Masons. The editors will print a non-Masonic article if they think it would be of interest to Masons. Blueboar 00:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

2) Virchow's support of the Kulturkampf was notable on a personal level - the repressive laws violated his otherwise consistent classical liberalism and his opposition to Bismarck.

"No one man speaks for Freemasonry" - where's the connection?

I was talking about a personal level. It is notable because it was entirely inconsistent. Why? JASpencer 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

3) Was Virchow's support of Kulturkampf importamt? Yes as he transformed it from a pragmatic slapdown of a troublesome church to an ideological "War of Cultures". The term Kulturkampf not only energised the anti-Catholic movement it also rallied Catholic support for their church, eventually created Conservative opposition from support and gave the Vatican a remarkable symbol of persecution.

Fine, but it's got no verifiable connection to Masonry.

So Virchow is important. JASpencer 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

4) Was this inconsistent line due to his Freemasonry? It's likely as it follows the pattern of Nineteenth Century Latin Lodge anti-clericalism.

There's no evidence he was a Mason.

Firstly the Builder was evidence even if read deliberately obtusely. You were just denying it was citeable. JASpencer 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know if he was a member of a (pro-Latin) humanitarian lodge or a (regular) Old Prussian Lodge.

Or not at all, for that matter.

On the Rizal quotes this is a red herring as even a twelve year old will know. The point about these quotes is that they are by Masonic authors who deal with the Masonic influences on a Masonic hero - Rizal. If it were about Garibaldi it would be equally valid.

JASpencer 19:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't actually made clear why it's important, either here or in what was put into the article. I'm sure you could find examples of Freemasons on both sides of most political debates and use them to push a particular agenda, subject to what it is you're trying to suggest with the contribution.ALR 21:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Virchow wasn't just on one side of this - he was the man who coined the term - Culture War - to put the power of the "progressive" state against the Catholic Church (certainly not Bismarck's intent). That's why Virchow was important. His Freemasonry may have been coincidental with his classical anti-clericalism that the Church often accused Freemasonry of promoting, but in the context of this article it is definately relevant. I accept that German freemasonry was split - and would become more so with the Latin schism. JASpencer 22:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

See my interlinear comments above. I think you didn't read the source carefully enough. MSJapan 22:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My response above. The confusion seems to be that you are unaware of a previous source that was subsequently deleted (may have been by me - so no accusation of blanking of inconvenient information). JASpencer 22:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a question... why is German Kulturkampf important to THIS article? Even if the man who coined the term was a Mason, how does it fit into the relationship between the Catholic Church and Masonry? Blueboar 00:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is to tie in the anti-Catholic sentiment of the Kulturkampf to some sort of basis in Masonic philosophy, but I don't see it. Virchow, Mason or not, was not acting as a Mason, and the sentiment was certainly more widespread than a Lodge, and there is furthermore no Masonic connection, either overt or implied, made by anyone that I can reasonably find. Now, the reason I don't particularly like The Builder as a resource is because Phoenix Masonry is a type of non-mainstream Masonry (as I said before, it has nothing to do with Masonry in Phoenix, AZ; it's its own branch of possibly irregular Freemasonry), and their interpretation of certain things is different than what would be considered "mainstream" thought. I've read some of the articles, and there are lots of things that I've neither seen nor heard of anywhere else, and so, to take it as an either an accepted or accurate source is very debatable in my mind. I also have an issue with "research" in general from that period in time; in many areas (not just Masonry), a lot of things were speculated upon and stated as fact, when there was in fact no proof (The Builder also claims Jefferson was a Mason, which there is no evidence for, perhaps based on his name being in a Visitor's Register). This is especially true when you consider how many Masonic writers were speculating on origins and symbolism that they had no support for. Therefore, anything in material from that time really needs to be substantiated somewhere else that is more reliable or contemporary. Finally, I would think that if Virchow was so important (which he was) and a Mason (which I believe is debatable, if not incorrect), he should appear in some easily locatable source, German-language or otherwise, and he doesn't, as per SGOvD's earlier comment. As I said, the only hits I got on Google were for this WP article and the piece on Rizal, which does not claim Virchow was a Mason.

So, in short, I don't really see a verifiable Masonic connection to either Virchow or Kulturkampf, and it is not a given that all anti-Catholic movements are or were Masonically inspired. Furthermore, IIRC, Germany today is mostly Catholic in many areas (or so I was told), so Kulturkampf does not appear to have amounted to much as far as anti-Catholic movements go, though it did have effects in other areas. MSJapan 04:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Builder, it was not originally published by Phoenix Masonry but by the National Masonic Research Society which was under the auspices of the Grand Lodge of Iowa. So whatever claims the wider website makes it doesn't affect the citability of The Builder.

The Scottish Rite Journal would also count as a verifiable source http://srjarchives.tripod.com/1998-10/PEARSON.HTM , not mentioned by MSJ

These are two sources that are friendly to Freemasonry, written by Freemasons and with more credibility within Masonic circles than this Talk Page. They both say Virchow was a Freemason, although one could be indirect to someone who knew nothing about Virchow's scientific career.

I'm not sure that I see the relevance to Virchow's Masonic membership, to your points about the strength of Catholicism in Germany or the idea that not all anti-Catholic movements were Masonically inspired.

I'm putting this in with a double citation. You seem to be the only editor who argues that Virchow was not a Freemason. Taking aside his anti-Catholic bigotry he seemed to be quite an accomplished man, so I don't see why you are trying to deny his membership. JASpencer 07:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I did a word search in the Pearson article from the Scottish Rite Journal... I got one hit on Virchow: "Bro. Rizal departed Spain in July 1885 to further his ophthalmology studies in France and Germany. For the next two years, he met and associated with the leading minds of Paris, Leipzig, Berlin, and Heidelberg. It was a heady atmosphere for the young Brother, and Masons in Germany, Dr. Rudolf Virchow and Dr. Feodor Jagor, were instrumental in his becoming a member of the Berlin Ethnological and Anthropological Societies. While in Germany, Rizal acquired additional Masonic Degrees" While I can understand that this paragraph could be construed as saying that Virchow was a Mason... it is not conclusive. You can also read it as saying that Virchow was one of the "leading minds" that made the atmosphere heady for Masons in Germany (ie referring to Rizal and not Virchow). I agree that without further evidence, one can not definitively say that Virchow was a Mason. I also come back to my original question... even if he was a Mason... so what? How does this fit in to the article? Blueboar 13:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How about this radical idea, why don't we actually take words at their most obvious meaning? So take "Masons in Germany, Dr. Rudolf Virchow and Dr. Feodor Jagor" to mean that Virchow and Jagor were actually Masons living in Germany. Strange, isn't it? How about this one: "men as esteemed in Masonry as they were eminent in the scientific world" to mean that they were esteemed Masons and eminent scientists - and as Virchow is named as the only example perhaps we could even take it that they meant, well, Virchow.

I know it's simplistic to actually read things in the order in which they are presented at the time, rather than how they are most convenient to whatever argument is convenient put forward at the moment you are writing, but WP:NPOV seems to like it this way.

Anyway I must thank you for giving me a good laugh. JASpencer 18:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad you found it amusing. Seriously, I don't really care if Virchow was a Mason ... I still don't understand why his being a Mason or not is important to the Catholicism and Freemasonry article. Blueboar 18:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand why his being a Mason or not is important to the Catholicism and Freemasonry article. A legitimate question, which I've addressed before and will be glad to address again - although I think that should be started in a new section. However the question is whether these two sources say whether Virchow was a Mason, and it takes some vivid imagination to say otherwise. JASpencer 18:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not important and it's wrong as I already prooved several times. None of these sources say that he was a Mason and it takes some vivid imagination to interpret these textes to say he was a mason:

"Bro. Rizal […] It was a heady atmosphere for the young Brother [Rizal], and Masons in Germany, [and] Dr. Rudolf Virchow and Dr. Feodor Jagor, were instrumental in his [Rizal] becoming a member of the Berlin Ethnological and Anthropological Societies. While in Germany, Rizal acquired additional Masonic Degrees."

--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So if you insert and delete words at will then it says something different from what it says if you don't insert and delete words at will. You're so funny. JASpencer 20:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it says something different. I had to add these words since you ripped them out of context. This is eristic. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The obvious reading is almost always the best one. Adding and deleting words (especially using Babelfish) is not the most convincing way of arguing against this. JASpencer 20:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Eristic. -> qed. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Taxil hoax - completely missing

The Taxil hoax isn't mentioned at all. Leo Taxil was the inventor of most false rumors that are discussed here. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

True... and it should be discussed. Please feel free to add a section on it. Blueboar 20:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes please do. :) Imacomp 21:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation

One of the issues here is that criticism of Freemasonry demands literal interpretation of the available material, whereas Freemasonry, being an allegorical and symbolical system, is not well served by literal interpretation. As Christ used parable to communicate his message with layers of meaning appropriate to those of the flock who had differing degrees of knowledge, experience and understanding so Masonry uses a similar system (from Mashal in Hebrew) to communicate it's content. The over-literal interpretation does not allow even a recognition of layered meaning meaning that actually those of us who do appreicate that, from our own experiences, are talking a different language from those who haven't had that experience. It does rather tend to suggest that some of the issues under debate are never going to reach a reconciliation, but then the topic is the Roman Catholic Church in relation to the craft, and the RCC does tend to reserve interpretation for only a select few. :( ALR 21:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a page about Rosicrucianism but Catholicism and Freemasonry. The Catholic position is clear on Freemasonry although the reasons why are complex. There is no allegory on the Canon Law prohibition. JASpencer 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Your last is the point I'm making, the RCC prohibition is clear cut. Although widely ignored, I've just come from a SocRos meeting with a number of RC brethren including one priest. The difficulty with any elaboration on that prohibition immediately runs straight into the fact that FM is full of allegory, in the craft degrees predominantly around the Old Testament, in some of the appendant bodies more explicitly Christian and in fact RCC influenced in a couple (an interesting irony). With that in mind, reconciling the two positions to make an article which is wholly acceptable to both your agenda and the understanding of those who have undergone the work is close to impossible; you ask for printed citations, we appreciate that the understanding does not lie in the printed word.ALR 21:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:V. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Sorry. JASpencer 22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's no more than an observation, surprised you took it as anything else.ALR 22:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to your first point about allegory, not to your point about Catholics indulging in heresy and/or Freemasonry. JASpencer 07:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well there you go, it rather suits the approach you appear to be taking at the moment. It's easy to comdemn Freemasonry by taking things literally.ALR 09:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Masonic Sources

There seems to be different uses of the terms "Masonic sources". I tend to use the term for sources that are authored by Freemasons, maintained by Freemasons and attempt to portray the fraternity in a sympathetic light. What are the Masonic editors definition of Masonic sources, and how would they classify what I term as Masonic sources? JASpencer 08:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Not all sources attributable to masonic authors are comparable, some have a very clear agenda, and some lack a degree of academic rigour. Indeed some sources which are attributable to masonic authors are critical of the fraternity in various ways. Many of the early works lacked discipline and made some fantastic claims about origins etc without any demonstrable authority. The reason for the formation of Quatuor Coronati Lodge, London in the 1890s, was to provide a framework for a more disciplined approach to Masonic research. There is also some modern material which lacks discipline, such as the Hiram Key etc, which I owuld not consider as a credible source, despite being authored by two Masons. They build a theory in one chapter, then in the next claim to have proved it and build yet more theory based around that claim.

Your sourcing which you attribute to Masons appears to treat all as having equal validity. I can understand why that might be the case given that you lack the depth of understanding of the fraternity and it's associated culture that those of us who choose to declare our affiliation do, indeed given the scale of the topic those of us who do declare our affiliations have only an understanding of a portion; my own area is English/ Scottish Masonry and I tend to focus on the philosophy and meaning of ritual, the use of ritual and a couple of the Christian appendant bodies. As a result I would tend not to use personal websites unless I could corroborate what is being said with a formal position from one of the Grand Lodges or the governing body of an appendant body.

Sources I'd consider reliable; the proceedings of one of the credible Masonic Research Lodges (Quatuor Coronati, Manchester Lodge of Masonic Research et al),, The Cornerstone Society, The Philalethes and authors considered as reliable by those bodies; Neville Barker Cryer etc. In terms of Magazines, the article itself needs to be considered, rather than the magazine. Both Masonic Quarterly and Freemasonry Today have carried articles on Le Droit Humain and the Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons, with a lack of rigour applied to those articles they could easily be used to demonstrate that Freemasonry admits women and/ or atheists indiscriminately.

As a complicating factor, some of those sources have more or less credibility depending on the aspect of Freemasonry beibng considered. For historical purposes I would prefer to corroborate the Cornerstone Society whereas for philosophy and meaning I would tend to corroborate QC.

Not the simple list I suspect you were hoping would be usable to suit your agenda, but it rather illustrates my previous point about interpretation of the craft, and indeed the bodies appendant to Freemasonry.ALR 09:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That wonderful irregular noun again, I have an understanding, you have an agenda. That's funny. Seriously if you want an article that only allows Freemasons to edit then start your own version of Wikipedia. The idea that you can only allow Freemasons to edit an article about Freemasonry (or a Catholic to edit an article about Catholicism) is foreign to the open-source philosophy of Wikipedia.

By the way I've never hid that I'm a Catholic - although I fully accept that you may not have seen this. I'm not sure why you're getting het up about this.

Anyway thanks for the explanation. JASpencer 19:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for non-masons to edit, particularly someone who has an understanding of something which allows us to generate an article portfolio which is comprehensive and balanced. In that sense I'm grateful for the effort you have put in to developing the Anti-Masonry article from what it was. However in my opinion you have gone beyond that balance and there are four reasons why I would suggest you appear to be demonstrating an agenda:

You have previously declared, at the same time as declaring yourself to be RCC, that you disagree with FM. You didn't articulate why, however yesterday you appeared to conflate Freemasonry with heresy.
On two different topics you appear to wish to inject material with is only tangentially related to Freemasonry. Your justification on the talk page is very different from the edit you place on the article page; a rich explanation cf a bland statement with no supporting analysis.
Your explicit enthusiasm for citations which could easily be presented as defensive, hence less reliable. This as an alternative to acknowledging that lack of evidence is more illustrative of the absence of a relationship than an explicit statement of that absence.
It can reasonably be inferred from your statements that you do not believe that an editor who declares himself (or presumably herself if someone appears from that side of the craft) to be a Freemason is in a position to contribute in a balanced manner and, IMO, have been consistently confrontational. This may be as a result of a preconception, or it may be predicated on the behaviour of a minority who chooses not to collaborate but disrupt.

Incidentally I note that you appear to interpret my response in a manner which I did not intend. That may or may not be what you would wish to represent in an open dialogue but I shall assmue that I have failed to make myself clear. Freemasonry is a participatory system, one can only have real understanding by undergoing the ritual. In that sense I have an understanding because I have both undergone the trial and have taken others through the trial. You have not undergone the same trial, although I appreciate you may have been through your own within the RCC and perhaps some of the orders associated with the RCC. I would not claim to have an understanding of, for example, the Knights of St Columbas or Opus Dei because I have not undergone their ritual and I appreciate that the experience goes far beyond the written word. I answered your question in good faith however if I have misinterpreted your motives based on my assessment of your more recent espoused desires then I shall apologise.

I'm not getting het up about anything, but it's interesting to note that you might suggest otherwise. I will concede that I am extremely cynical about why one might devote this much time to the topic; I am a former moderator of a forum site where similar issues were debated, I have some experience of related newsgroups which are little more than trollpits nowadays and I had to take a former employer to an industrial tribunal over the topic.ALR 22:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no source that Virchow was a freemason.

JASpencer cited:

"It was a heady atmosphere for the young Brother, and Masons in Germany, Dr. Rudolf Virchow and Dr. Feodor Jagor, were instrumental in his becoming a member of the Berlin Ethnological and Anthropological Societies." From Dimasalang: The Masonic Life Of Dr. Jose P. Rizal By Reynold S. Fajardo, 33° by Fred Lamar Pearson, Scottish Rite Journal, October 1998 and "Rizal's Berlin associates, or perhaps the word "patrons" would give their relation better, were men as esteemed in Masonry as they were eminent in the scientific world--Virchow, for example." in JOSE RIZAL AS A MASON by AUSTIN CRAIG, The Builder Magazine, :August 1916 - Volume II - Number 8"

Virchow might have been a sponsor, but not a Freemason. A lot of people claim that Beethoven or Schiller were freemasons, too. But there's no proof, no primary source for that at all. Rizal may be sponsered by Virchow but this does not make him a Freemason. See also: Talk:Rudolf Virchow --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Bro. Rizal departed Spain in July 1885 to further his ophthalmology studies in France and Germany. For the next two years, he met and associated with the leading minds of Paris, Leipzig, Berlin, and Heidelberg. It was a heady atmosphere for the young Brother, and Masons in Germany, Dr. Rudolf Virchow and Dr. Feodor Jagor, were instrumental in his becoming a member of the Berlin Ethnological and Anthropological Societies. While in Germany, Rizal acquired additional Masonic Degrees."

http://srjarchives.tripod.com/1998-10/PEARSON.HTM says:

That means that the young Brother was the Freemason Rizal. The following is a listing: Masons were instrumental for Rizal for becoming a member of these Societies, but also the scientist Virchow and Jagor. So this doesn't say that Virchow was a freemason.

--SGOvD webmaster (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that putting in the less obvious reading in as authorative is rather suspicious.

I'm not sure why there's such a desire to exclude Virchow as a Freemason, however this page is getting rather illustrative. I'll say no more. JASpencer 19:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

If your speculations about your sources were correct, you should be at least able to give us a source of Virchow's Lodge where he was initiated. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, it's not my speculations but the "speculations" of the Scottish Rite Journal and the Builder magazine which are slightly more authorative than you. This is not about which Lodge Virchow was intitiated in but whether he was recognised as a Mason by other Freemasons (at least in magazine article - I have no idea whether he was a UGLE type Mason or one of those atheist ones). JASpencer 22:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it important

OK... this thread is NOT for discussing whether or not Virchow was a Mason. This thread is for discussing why any connection he might have to Masonry is important for this article. I really know nothing about Kulturekampf or Virchow (the discussions above were the first I had ever heard of him). From what I gather, part of Kulturekampf involved some form of an attack on the Roman Catholic Church in late 1800s Germany. So what does this have to do with Freemasonry? Blueboar 19:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK this is why I think Virchow's Freemasonry is worthy of inclusion:

1) Virchow's support of the Kulturkampf was importamt as he transformed it from a pragmatic slapdown of a troublesome church to an ideological "War of Cultures". The term Kulturkampf not only energised the anti-Catholic movement it also rallied Catholic support for their church, eventually created Conservative opposition from support and gave the Vatican a remarkable symbol of persecution.

2) Virchow's support of the Kulturkampf was notable on a personal level - the repressive laws violated his otherwise consistent classical liberalism and his opposition to Bismarck.

3) This inconsistent line follows the alleged pattern of Nineteenth Century Latin Lodge anti-clericalism.

JASpencer 20:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This speculative Virchow part was put by JASpencer in almost every Masonic article plus the Virchow article and the relevance withdraws my knowledge and - there's no conclusion for that claim. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A word in your ear, SGOvD, this is specifically not about the factual argument of Virchow's freemasonry. Please see Blueboar's comment. JASpencer 20:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok... I can see why Virchow is important to Kulturekampf. I can see why Kulturekampf is important to the Catholic Church. But how does this tie into Freemasonry? Are you are trying to make the argument that he did all this BECAUSE he was a Freemason? Blueboar 20:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually no. I'm just saying that this could be part of the explanation. The anti-clericalism was an important part of the Catholic case against Freemasonry at that time.

It is also rather important to note that this is quite inconsistent with both his classical liberalism and his opposition to Bismarck (as both Imacomp and webmaster have pointed out). JASpencer 20:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I think SGOvD webmaster is far more credible in the take on the Virchow material, in that it amounts to a conspiracy theory. Freemasonry is historically “attributed” by “sources” to Virchow, without citing original proof, for the "sources" political ends in Latin opposition to the Roman Catholic Hierarchy’s hold on South America. JASpencer is using those sources for the exact opposite position of "blaming" Freemasonry for "turning" Liberal Virchow "bad" on this single issue of the Kulturkampf. Actually Virchow’s Liberalism, defining of the Kulturkampf, and involvement, are consistent with his background in Science at that stage in history; without involving a Freemasonic conspiracy. JASpencer’s seeding of this conspiracy on Wiki is consistent with his anti-Masonic and pro-Catholic take within the corpus of JASpencer’s work. Imacomp 21:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, for what it is worth, I would be quite happy to have the eminent Virchow among past Brethren - but I do not know of any Lodges that perform "Post Mortem" initiations. That "ceremony" is only performed by conspiracy theorists on the outside of Freemasonry. Imacomp 21:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like original research to me, but that's not really the point. Might have been a factor is pretty shaky justification for including it. Virchow may have been a Freemason; that may have been because he found like minded people in which case his Freemasonry would be an adjunct to his personal philosophical and poilitical views. It may have given him exposure to philosophical and political views which may have influenced him, however given the evidence presented thus far there is little to suggest he wouldn't have had that exposure anyway through his professional network. I'd also dispute that a classical liberal outlook is inimical to anti-clericalism; liberalism sees little need for a command and control hierarchy but devolves to the individual.ALR 22:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So... if I read what JAS is saying correctly, the inclusion of the Kulturekampf section in this Article is based on the fact that 1) Kulturekampf was anti-clerical and 2) Virchow (who was involved in it) might have been Mason and might have been influenced by Freemasonry. JAS, if that is what you are trying to say, then I think you need to do more to prove the link between Kulturekampf and Freemasonry. Even if Virchow was a diehard Mason, you would have to show a more direct link. The fact that one person who was involved in the kulturekampf movement was (possibly) a Mason is not nearly enough evidence. I think you are stretching for connections between every Anti-clerical movement and Freemasonry. Blueboar 23:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar Exactly. Imacomp 23:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this supposed connection exactly what I pointed out earlier? Anyhow, while the information might be there, making the connection is original research, as no one else has done it. The allegation is furthermore predicated on Virchow being a Mason, which he does not appear to be, and then on Virchow specifically using his Masonic philosophy as a basis for political and anti-clerical action, which we also have no direct proof of from any source. So no original research is certainly in play here. BTW, this is exactly the argument made about the Founding Fathers of the US, being that "the country was founded on Masonic principles" rather than realizing that those men had these ideas and thought processes before they were Masons. The Fraternity was amenable to their established thinking, not the other way around.

The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia claim that the Kulturkampf was instigated by Masonic lodges – in full. Masonry (Freemasonry) “In order to appreciate rightly the activity of Freemasonry in Germany, Sweden, Denmark and England, and in France under the Napoleonic regime, the special relations between Freemasonry and the reigning dynasties must not be overlooked. In Germany two-thirds of the Masons are members of the old Prussian Grand Lodges under the protectorship of a member of the Royal Dynasty, which implies a severe control of all lodge activity in conformity with the aims of the Government. Hence German Freemasons are scarcely capable of independent action. But they certainly furthered the movement by which Prussia gradually became the leading state of Germany, considered by them as the "representative and the protector of modern evolution" against "Ultramontanism", "bigotry", and "Papal usurpations". They also instigated the "Kulturkampf". The celebrated jurisconsult and Mason, Grandmaster Bluntschli, was one of the foremost agitators in this conflict; he also stirred up the Swiss "Kulturkampf". At his instigation the assembly of the "Federation of the German Grand Lodges", in order to increase lodge activity in the sense of the "Kulturkampf", declared, 24 May, 1874: "It is a professional duty for the lodges to see to it, that the brethren become fully conscious of the relations of Freemasonry to the sphere of ethical life and cultural purposes. Freemasons are obliged to put into effect the principles of Freemasonry in practical life and to defend the ethical foundations of human society, whensoever these are assailed. The Federation of the German Grand Lodges will provide, that every year questions of actuality be proposed to all lodges for discussion and uniform action". (155) German Freemasons put forth untiring efforts to exert a decisive influence on the whole life of the nation in keeping with Masonic principles, thus maintaining a perpetual silent "Kulturkampf". The principal means which they employ are popular libraries, conferences, the affiliation of kindred associations and institutions, the creation, where necessary, of new institutions, through which the Masonic spirit permeates the nation. (156) A similar activity is displayed by the Austrian Freemasons.

(155) Gruber (5), 6; Ewald, "Loge und Kulturkampf".

(156) See Herold, No. 37 and 33 sqq.”

The two references are not traceable in the form given at the end of the Encyclopedia article. This section is just a snapshot the Roman Catholic position on European political affairs, in 1913 rather than saying anything important about Freemasonry. Did World War I and II change this view? I do not know. (Ref 156, as cited, reads like a precursor to the Nazi reports linking Jewry to Freemasonry in the 1920s and 1930s! See Freemasonry). What about the present day? Is this a research project for someone, perhaps? The Kulturkampf/Freemasonry connection remains a propaganda conspiracy theory, in my view. Imacomp 23:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You know... I am beginning to think that a new, updated version of the Catholic Encyclopedia is needed. The 1913 version seems to find Masonic plots under every stone! I am sure that if it had been put out a few years later, it would have pinned the assasination of Arch-Duke Franz Ferdinand on the Masons as well. Blueboar 23:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been thinking about all of this Kulturkampf stuff... not as a Mason, but as an editor. To me, the only sentence in the entire section that has any real bearing on the topic of this article is: "The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia claims that the Kulturkampf was instigated by Masonic lodges." That, at least, is a verifiable statement (I will not go into whether the CE is correct or not... the fact that it makes the claim is clear). But I have to ask if this statement really adds anything to the article? The charge that Masonry (or at least some branches of it) was Anti-clerical during the 1800s is made (and better supported) in several other sections. In my opinion the Kulturkampf section is confusing, and does not add anything to the article. So, IS it really that crucial to have this section in the Article? If not, I would suggest that we cut through all the crap over "is he or isn't he", by simply removing the entire section. Blueboar 02:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, simply remove the entire section. Imacomp 18:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So now we accept that the only way to read these sources credibly is to accept that Virchow was named as a Mason (hence the cut the c**p stuff) but that that the repressive measures of the Kulturkampf are entirely of a piece with his classic liberal philosophy?

I disagree. While I accept that Nineteenth Century classical liberalism often found itself in conflict with the Church, it was rarely inconsistent on the issue of actual repression of the Catholic Church - as could be seen by the behaviour of English Liberals on the various Catholic emancipation issues. Of course it may be

JASpencer 20:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I never said I accepted the sources... to me what is crap is this entire argument in BOTH directions. I DON'T CARE if Virchow was a Mason or not! if you want to show that Kulturkampf was indeed a Masonic Plot you are going to have to demonstrate significantly more proof than a passing remark in a biased and out dated encyclopedia, and the fact that one man MAY or MAY NOT have been a Mason. Blueboar 23:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

A single person cannot represent Freemasonry as one priest cannot represent the Catholic Church. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there any source that prooves that Freemasonry has something to do with Kulturkampf? Anything else would be original research. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Pro for a removal in view of a Wikipedia:Consensus. This Catholic Encyclopedia represents the the opinion of the Catholic Church of 1913 at best and the Kulturkampf ended with the Weimarer Verfassung. Still today we have no real secularism in Germany in contrast to France, the Protestant and Catholic organizations teach children at school - paid by the country and they get taxes directly via the tax offices. If your parents were members, you automatically pay taxes too until you declare you no longer want to be a member. So this Kulturkampf even failed in my opinion. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

And what about Etsi multa? JASpencer 20:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't claim, that Kulturkampf had something to do with Freemasonry. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is even older than Humanum Genus. Etsi multa that "[…] condemned Freemasonry, which was blamed for the widespread attack on the Catholic Church, accusing it of being "the Synagogue of Satan"".

The Catholic Church believed a lot of tales in that time like the Taxil hoax. Léo Taxil even gained an audience with Leo XIII...

And you forgot Syllabus of Errors...

The German poet and Freemason de:Emil Rittershaus wrote "Dem Papste!" An answer of a Freemason to the encyclical of Pope Pius IX. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

OK... going on WP:BOLD I am forcing the issue by cutting what I consider to be the extraneous material. I will leave in the first two sentences as these are verifiable and do have bearing on the article. If this is reverted, then I expect a clear explanation for why a discussion of Virchow is important to the article and the section. Blueboar 18:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Virchow as a Freemason was verifiable, two sources. You said it wasn not important. This is dissimulation.

Etsi Multis is also verifiable, but you still did nothing about your brothers getting rid of that. I protested when Lightbringer was being a prat - because I'm a better historian than I am a partisan. At one time I thought you had some promise. JASpencer 22:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but JASpencer, are you a meat or a sock of Lightbringer? Imacomp 22:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You miss my point... this is not a partisan thing. I DON'T CARE IF VIRCHOW WAS A MASON OR NOT... you have not made a convincing case to link kulturkampf to Masonry. The entire section was weak. I only left in the first two sentences because they were difinitively verifiable as written and so will take more discussion. Blueboar 00:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ewald Gruber: "Loge und Kulturkampf"

Found something to Ewald Gruber here: [4]

Buchbeschreibung: Vlg. Rudolf Abt, München/Wien, 1899. OBrosch. 8. Lieferung 1,2,4 u. 5 - Lieferung 1: Loge und Kulturkampf. VIII, 56 S. mit Porträt des Autors. - Lieferung 2: Geschichte der Freimaurerei in Deutschland. S. 60-104. - Lieferung 4: Geschichte der Freimaurerei in Deutschland. S. 153-200. - Lieferung 5: Geschichte der Freimaurerei in Deutschland. S. 201-248. - Wolfstieg 1247. Antimaurerische Schrift mit sehr viel Material gegen die Freimaurerei. Ewald soll das Pseudonym eines Pfarrers Schwarz in Ottenbach sein. - Unbeschnittene und teilweise unaufgeschnittene Expl., kl. Randläsuren, Rückendeckel mit Bibliotheksmarken, sonst innen sauber. Buchnummer des Verkäufers 500292

This says that this is a book mainly against Freemasony and Ewald Gruber is meant to be a pseudonym of pastor "Schwarz" from Ottenbach. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

ABrowne? Lightbringer!

ABrowne. Now you are making it too easy! You are Lightbringer! Spotted in three edits! Imacomp 20:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

So JASpencer, are you a meat or a sock of Lightbringer? Imacomp 22:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Well guys here is what JASpencer would like the world to be like (again). Check his "my contributions". He added at Etsi multa (see page History):

Etsi multa - On The Church In Italy, Germany, And Switzerland was published by Pope Pius IX on 21 November, 1873. It condemned Freemasonry, accusing it of being "the Synagogue of Satan".

"Some of you may perchance wonder that the war against the Catholic Church extends so widely. Indeed each of you knows well the nature, zeal, and intention of sects, whether called Masonic or some other name. When he compares them with the nature, purpose, and amplitude of the conflict waged nearly everywhere against the Church, he cannot doubt but that the present calamity must be attributed to their deceits and machinations for the most part. For from these the synagogue of Satan is formed which draws up its forces, advances its standards, and joins battle against the Church of Christ." {ref}Para 28, Etsi Multa{/ref}

Text of Etsi Multa

Would you like Pius IX (read his bio. Wow what a horror!) to be your Pastor? (Was Hitler a Pope in a past life?)(Erm YES that was "synagogue of Satan") YIKES!!! Imacomp 23:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing sourced text

Why is the New Catholic Encyclopedia and Etsi Multa being removed? These are fully sourced. JASpencer 20:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

where? Blueboar 20:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Think Imacomp did it, surprise surprise, then it got lost in the sock-mobbing of this morning.ALR 20:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp started it, the irregular webmaster continued and Wegian Warrior. JASpencer 21:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me just point out that I 'removed' it as a revert of a known sock of Lightbringer - refer to Essjay's comment on WP:ANI. WegianWarrior 08:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The repetitious text is unnecesary, but one of the Masonic edits (I hesitate to use that term - but it's the case here, no matter how irregular he may be) claimed twice that a Papal Encyclical addressing German persecution of the Church in 1873 was not about the Kulturkampf. JASpencer 21:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

All I can say is, whoever did it... if what was removed was the link to the Trosch page that quotes the New Catholic Encyclopedia (as opposed to a link to the acutal encyclopedia itself) ... I would support what was done. First, we have no way to know if this is an accurate quoting of the NCE... and second, the page starts off with an introduction that is definitely NOT part of the NCE (although cleverly designed to look like it is). With this in mind the citation becomes a second hand source... and thus questionable in its verifiablilty and veracity. The only way I would not cut the citation myself would be if we change the statement about the NCE to something like "according to the web site Trosch.com, the NCE says..." Blueboar 21:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Just checked the links ... we are not talking about the same thing... I would like to talk about the Trosch site, but will start a new topic to do so. Blueboar 21:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why were you so fond of Trosch before if you think that it's only fit to be deleted? That would only mean removing a whole set of Christian denominations who disapprove of Freemasonry a couple of weeks later. This doesn't make sense.

Let's see how long the reference to Etsi Multa is safe.

Oh we also have the same pattern here, here and here. I'm not changing because I don't have time. JASpencer 21:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not go away mad JASpencer sock o' Lightbringer. Just go away. Imacomp 07:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

JASpencer "I'm not changing because I don't have time." Try giving up on the multi socking. Imacomp 07:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp have you ever presented any evidence for this assertion about sock puppets? Until you do please desist from Personal Abuse. JASpencer 19:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar and MSJapan, I'm afraid that this is really stupid. Would you trust Imacomp or Lightbringer to say that they had seen it in the library, honest guv. I wouldn't. Websites can be checked there and then. JASpencer 19:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

JASpencer is Lightbringer. So above he is saying that he would not trust himself in a Library. How quaint? Imacomp 00:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Another set of sourced information taken out here. Why is it done so often? JASpencer 20:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Further comments about Trosch.com should go in the section below ... let's not get comments on different topics strung out all over the place where no one can find them. Blueboar 23:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, it was about Etsi Multa text and refences being removed. Sorry I didn't make myself clear. Anyway I'm sure you'll find some way to defend what you'd (rightly) deplore if it came from a cowan. JASpencer 19:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp, can you please provide some evidence of the sock accusations? JASpencer 19:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

New Catholic Encyc. or Trosch.com?

There is a statement in the Kulturkampf section about the New Catholic Encyclopedia repeating what the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia says... I have a problem with the link on the citations... it is to Trosch.com, which is a bit far out there even by Conservative Catholic Anti-masonry standards. First, we have no way to know if this is an accurate quoting of the NCE... and second, the webpage starts off with an introduction that is definitely NOT part of the NCE (although designed to look like it is). With this in mind the citation becomes a second hand source... and thus questionable in its verifiablilty and veracity. We need to change the statement about the NCE to something like "according to the web site Trosch.com, the NCE says..." Alternatively, we could do a direct quote from the NCE, properly cited so it could be verified, but without a weblink. Blueboar 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We've had this argument before on another page but the positions were reversed. JASpencer 21:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes we have discussed the Trosch page before, but my position is the same ... on the other Article I was arguing that we should link to the original source of a quote by Paul Bessel... he quoted from the Trosch page, so I felt that the citation should link to the original. Same here... only in this case we are going back a step further. Trosch claims to quote the NCE, so we should link directly to the NCE. If that is not on line, then we should have a non-linked citation to the print version. When one source quotes another, we should always cite the original document if at all possible. If not possible, we need to make it clear in the citation that the quote is second hand and may have errors. We know that at least some Anti-Masonic cites deliberately mis-quote documents. Thus, I am leary about ALL Anti-masonic cites. Second hand sources (especially on "controvercial" topics such as the this) should be avoided like the plague. Blueboar 12:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it must be available in print in most libraries. Why not go right to the source and avoid the web problem? MSJapan 22:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed wacko link that did not point to any Encyclopedia. Imacomp 08:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

More sourced information taken out simply because it disagrees with you. JASpencer 19:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Above, JASpencer wrote: "Blueboar and MSJapan, I'm afraid that this is really stupid. Would you trust Imacomp or Lightbringer to say that they had seen it in the library, honest guv. I wouldn't. Websites can be checked there and then. JASpencer 19:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)" Since this discussion should take place in one thread....

I don't trust any quote that is put on these pages. I will check them all out, no matter who posts them. That does not change the fact that we should always quote the original if possible, rather than use a second hand source. Especially given the amoung of misinformation that is out there on this topic. If that means that someone has to go to the library to double check that the document actually says what we say it does, so be it. That is what scholars did for thousands of years prior to the invention of the internet. If it was good enough for them, it should be good enough for us. Blueboar 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It's been peer reviewed by Bessel who introduces it. Do you think for a second he wouldn't call it a fraud if it was false? I know you are obliged to agree with Imacomp, but I wouldn't trust him or Lightbringer.

The point about the internet is vital. This is supposed to be a verifiable site not to be taken on trust. Books are far, far less verifiable than the internet.

JASpencer 19:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh how little you still understand about the nature of obligations, despite all your research. Looks to me like your trying to put words in peoples mouths.

Anyway, to the point of the thread. I'd suggest that where a site is citing something else then there is scope for a justifiable debate over it's reliability. Where it sources material elsewhere then it seems reasonable to go to that source, to assure that the quotation is taken in context. Where two sources are reasonably comparable in terms of reliability then of course an online reference would be preferred, for ease of use as much as anything else, but a preference for online sources merely because it takes some effort to validate offline leaves one vulnerable to the suggestion that one misrepresents the material.

But I would agree about having less trust in Imacomps contributions; he succesfully argued out (well, brute forced until everyone moved onto something more productive) a perfectly reasonable discussion of doubt regarding the whole forget-me-not issue because it rather undermined his contribution under his previous nym.ALR 19:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I've offended you and I will try to keep myself in check. I'm a bit angry that an otherwise good editor like Blueboar has been reduced to parroting support for whatever stupidity Imacomp gets up to next. It may be unfair to infer that to Freemasonry, as it would be to infer Skull 'n' Femurs blanking out of perfectly good text to it, but it is a natural reaction.

The idea that we keep out the New Catholic Encyclopedia until it's been checked in the library is dangerous as you will get one person saying it's in there and another person saying that it's not and anyone attempting to verify it will be told that he or she is serving one agenda or another. You know where this will end.

WP:RS says "Are they available to other editors to check? If not, inclusion is probably not appropriate. Note, however, that they need not be online; availability through a library is sufficient." Sufficient, not necesary. Blueboar and MSJapan suggest making it far less available - especially to editors outside the States - like you for example.

Bessel (http://bessel.org/cathnewency.htm) is important, not because he's particularly trustworthy (although he is better then masonicinfo) but that his job is to call foul on frauds that Imacomp/Blueboar claim that this could be.

Similarly WP:V says ""Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia." The fact that it's in two seperate sources - one hostile to the ethos of the article - is better than many of the other claims made on the masonic pages.

As I keep on saying of many of the sourced text that are removed - would you like a non-Masonic editor to learn that trick. I'm content to follow Matthew 5:39, and I've consistently advised that other editors do so too - but not everyone takes my advice. JASpencer 20:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect we have different interpretations of what Blueboar said. As I see it he has no objection to including the material, but to source it from the text itself rather than second hand. As long as it has an ISBN then it can be obtained. Although it's not out of the question that it's in the library of one of the orders that I belong to. If it can be confirmed that the quotation is as represented by Trosch then use either of the two sources as an accurate rendition, given the precedent then quote Trosch because Bessel quotes that.

With respect to verifiability; are you suggesting that should a site clearly misquote another source then it still passes that criterion? If you were to word it as Trosch says that the NCE says foo then fair enough, but that's not how it's worded at the moment. I'm happy with the article saying that the NCE says foo, as long as we can be sure that is what it says. The fact that what it says is, assuming that the quotation is correct, complete garbage is a different issue. That representation of the evidence can reasonably be handled in the text, but I would suggest that it does a disservice to the NCE not to assure ourselves that the quotation is accurate.

I'd acknowledge the point about needless disruption, but since the second checkuser was unable to demonstrate conclusively a violation of ban then we're stuck with it until someone puts in a succesful Conduct RFC, whilst I don't like what he's doing, I'm not the subject of any more than the occasional attack. As a veteran of JANET bulletin boards and usenet, and former moderator of a political discussion forum, what's been said to me has been pretty mild.ALR 20:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you ALR... you have summed up my statements beautifully. Blueboar 21:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your suggestion on this is reasonable, although for aesthetic reasons I'd prefer to put something like this within the footnote - I think it's unlikely to be a misquote. After all why would Trosch go to so much trouble to fabricate a rather weak condemnation of Freemasonry's involvement in the Kulturkampf? And why would Bessel miss out on such an easy target? JASpencer 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is why I started all this as a new topic and did not continue it as part of the whole Kulturekampf discussion... my concerns have nothing to do with Kulturkampf. It is purely a citation issue. I would not be surprised to discover that the quote was indeed accurate on the Trosch.com page, but because I don't KNOW that to be the case (yet), I am warry of it. Thus, I would feel better about this quote if it were cited to its original rather than to a second hand site that brings it into question. Blueboar 01:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well ... Today I took myself down to the New York Public Library, with the intention of pulling and copying the article on Freemasonry from the New Catholic Encyclopedia. My goal was to see if the Trosch.com site had indeed quoted it accurately, and to give JASpencer what I would consider to be the correct citation information for his statement that the NCE repeats the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia's claims regarding Freemasonry's connections to Kulturkampf. To be honest, I did expect to find that Trosch.com had "tweaked" the quote... either changing little bits, or perhaps selectively editing things out so that Freemasonry was cast in a poorer light than in the original. Instead I found out something even worse... The New Catholic Encyclopedia does not even HAVE an article on Freemasonry! In other words... the Trosch.com page is a complete fraud. Now... I want to make one thing clear: I am not accusing JASpencer of bad faith here... I am sure he did not know that Trosch.com was completely bogus. However, this does show how using the internet as a reference library can lead to errors. This is not the first time this has happened (it is only the most blatant). From the beginning, I have been concerned about cite checking quotes. I now must insist that we only quote original documents, and no longer rely on what some anti-Masonic (or even pro-Masonic) web site posts. Blueboar 21:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Was this the 1967 version or the 2002 version? JASpencer 22:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

News story on the release of the 2002 version http://www.cathnews.com/news/210/167.php

Ah... To be honest, I don't know what version I was looking at... I did not know that there were multiple versions and simply asked for the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Given the nature of libraries, they probably have the most recent version, as that would be the most authorative and up-to-date. Hmmm... in which case, I may have to slightly back off on my condemnation of Trosch.com. I suppose it IS possible that the older version might have had an article on Freemasony that was dropped in the newest one... Unlikely, but possible. A lot does change in forty years. And it would follow a progression... Freemasonry is very harshly condemned in 1913, less harshly condemned in 1967, and not even considered worth mentioning in 2002. Perhaps this mirrors a change in attitude by the Church that should be mentioned in our article. Blueboar 00:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would someone with the intelligence and learning to put together the disputed article then go and put it on the Trosch page (together with the graphics, links and delineated introduction)? And why would they make the condemnation weaker? It makes less sense than an excising of the article between 1967 and 2002.

On the issue of the move of attitue, it is interesting, but you'd have to be careful on saying that this is an official move. Although NCE (presumably) has the Nihal Obstat, which translates as "Nothing Hinders", meaning that a Bishop has said that there is nothing that contradicts Catholic doctrine (sadly not a guarantee, but I digress) it was put together by the Catholic University of America - which is attached to the church but it is not the hierachy.

We also have to be careful with WP:NOR, which is a shame as this is quite illustrative of a tension between liberal and conservative elements on the issue within the American church. Perhaps this could be published somewhere else and then we could cite it? (If you do that, put this through the talk page as you aren't allowed to cite your own work).

On the issue of having to cite the original text I think this does show that there are different versions in the world of print - although I admit that there isn't the drastic doubt that these two editions introduce. The verifiability of internet text is a far bigger advantage. JASpencer 07:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I went to the central Library for my County and they only have the second edition of the New Catholic Encyclopedia (published 2002). I can confirm that this edition does not have either Masonry or Freemasonry in the encyclopedia.

However to stress again, the claim in Trosch.org is that the text came from the 1967 edition. The publishers of the New Catholic Encyclopedia have claimed that the second edition is "completely revised and updated". JASpencer 11:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, have you h

ad any luc k with finding this? JASpencer 17:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Not yet. The 1967 edition is proving very hard to find. I will keep looking. Blueboar 18:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I've tracked a copy down out of town. I don't like going into Libraries today as it's like entering into commerce (Good Friday and all) but I could find something for you on Saturday.

It does show why Wikipedia prefers citations from web pages to those from books (especially out of print books). JASpencer 18:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to try to help track this down. I do agree that it is indeed easier to cite to a web page but I still think it is worth tracking down and citing the original in this case. I feel it is important to verify if the trosch site is accurate, as Trosch is the only web site that claims to quote this section of the 1967 edition (I don't count Bessel as he is quoting Trosch). Blueboar 22:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp Admits...

I’m infallible. I know because I’ve just read it here. I wrote it, and I'm infallible, so this must be true. Imacomp 00:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp... how many times to we have to tell you... the standard at Wikipedia is not truth but verification. You have to get someone ELSE to say you are infallible on their website so you can cite it, add a link, and then quote it in a foot note. Blueboar 12:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Come on Blueboar, you act as if Imacomp is infallible. Or a couple of degrees higher than you.JASpencer 19:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm the Grand Master of the Catenians? Follow the "link" and see. Imacomp 20:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean he's NOT?... but, but... he just told me he was... boy, now I'm confused. I don't know who to trust. (in the words of the immortal Foghorn Leghorn: it's a joke, son, a joke) Blueboar 20:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a serious point about the Catenians, KoC, KSC, etc, in that it seems quite clear that they at least in part were aping Freemasonry. In the 1960s they seem to have moved away from a lot of the ritualism and secrecy, but the history of these organisations is an interesting question for the church. Sadly questions like these (and the role of Jacobitism and the differences or otherwise with Latin Masonry) will not be properly addressed for a long time. All interesting areas, but as long as a certain poster is allowed to stop growing up the whole page will bog down. JASpencer 20:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Do not be so hard on yourself JASpencer. After all you do seem to show a kind of rudimentary intelligence. Imacomp 20:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation Requests

In a couple of days I will list out the outstanding citation requests with a view to deleting the text. JASpencer 08:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Denslow Quote

Webmaster, the quote requested was from the book, not the quote from Campillo. Thanks. JASpencer 13:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote request

JASpencer has requested a quote for the following statement: Masonic Scholar Art deHoyos claims to have demonstrated that these anti-Catholic elements do not form part of the rituals of the Scottish Rite, but are instead taken from Jonathan Blanchard's Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated, an exposure of Cerneauism (an illegitimate pseudo-Masonic organization founded by Joseph Cerneau and chiefly active in the 1800s). there is a link in the foot note: Jonathan Blanchard and the Scottish Rite from "Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry". The problem with providing the quote as requested is that the link is not to a short, one sentence (or even a one paragraph) statement ... deHoyos has written an entire essay on this topic. To copy it and put it here would be rediculous. Go click on the link and read the essay... If you do not agree that the article that is linked backs up the statement, then we have something to discuss... but the quote request itself can not be complied with. Blueboar 13:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No habilitation of a professor needs quotes for every sentence. And this is an encyclopedia, not a habilitation. References are sufficient for everyone who can read. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what Webmaster means by "habilitation" (this is not a word that comes up in common english... perhaps there is a translation issue?)... but I think I understand what he is saying... we do not need to put a quote into every footnote. I agree. JASpencer, I'm not sure you understand what a quotation request is for... The quotation request template: ^{[need quotation to verify]} is designed to highlight questionable citations... it says clearly that we should post the citation to the talk page for discussion of interpretation. It does not mean that we should add snippets of what we are citing to to the foot note. What if we are citing to an entire book? Do you want us to copy the book in the footnotes? At the rate you are going, we would end up with a references section that is longer than the actual article! The whole POINT of linking citations is that the reader can click on the link for further information that backs up the statements we make in the article. Blueboar 13:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean habilitation. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah... thanks for the link. Now I understand. And you are correct. This is not a habilitation. Blueboar 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

deHoyos has written an entire essay on this topic. He hasn't. The article talks about Blanchard but in relation to a book written Secret Teachings of the Masonic Lodge: A Christian Perspective which is written by a Baptist minister and a collaborator (not sure of the denomination). I can't see it mentioning the purported anti-Catholicism of the Scottish Rite or the Kadosh degree in particular. So it is a legitimate question - how does this citation show that "these anti-Catholic elements do not form part of the rituals of the Scottish Rite" without going over WP:NOR? It is a legitimate question.JASpencer 14:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK... now I understand what your question is... (see, asking here where you can explain what confuses you is much better than simply slapping a quotation request on the article.) The deHoyos article claims that the rituals in question do not come from the Scottish Rite, but are from Blanchard's Scotch Rite exposé of Cerneauism. He then goes on to show how various Anti-masons have misunderstood or misused this difference. It is true that he does not explicitly say "the folling bits of ritual: (quote ritual taken out of context), are not part of the Scottish Rite"... instead he says that the entire expose that Anti-masons base their claims on are from Blanchard. This is why you need to link to the entire article and not just quote a small part of it. Blueboar 14:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an extrapolation of what de Hoyos says. It falls foul of WP:NOR and should be deleted. JASpencer 16:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree... I think deHoyos goes directly to the point. He clearly points out that the ritual we are talking about is not part of Scottish Rite. Blueboar 20:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, if deHoyos falls fowl of NOR, as an extrapolation... then about 3/4 of the citations for this article do so as well. A lot of them are Catholic extrapolations of what the Masonic Rituals say. Blueboar 21:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar, am I right in thinking that you have changed your mind on this? I do not think that citing the page violates WP:NOR, just that without some original research it fails to back up the point. JASpencer 21:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly... I don't think we need to quote deHoyos... we need to cite Blanchard first, and THEN cite deHoyos. Along with that would be a re-writing of the statement. Something along the lines of: "These anti-Catholic elements, however, do not form part of the rituals of the Scottish Rite, but are instead taken from Jonathan Blanchard's Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated, <cite to Blanchard> an exposure of Cerneauism (an illegitimate pseudo-Masonic organization founded by Joseph Cerneau and chiefly active in the 1800s as discussed by Masonic Historian Art deHoyos in his essay "Is It True What They Say About Freemasons"<cite to deHoyos>)." I still don't think it is needed to add quotations from these works, as the reader can click on the link to deHoyos, and the Blanchard quote was already quoted (allbeit with an incorrect attribution) in the previous citations. Alternatively, we could cut the quotation in the previous citations and put it with the Blanchard citation (I prefer this, since Blanchard is not available on line while the previous citations you put in are.) Otherwise we simply would be quoting exact same same bit of ritual, with the citation to two different sources. Blueboar 01:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The need for quotations in footnotes and citations?

OK... I want to take this to a different level, divorced from any specific citation or footnote. We need to create a consensus policy for the various Freemasonry related articles regarding citations and footnotes. JASpencer seems to feel that every citation and footnote should contain a quotation. I disagree. I feel it is enough to cite a link to where the statement that we make in this article can be found (or where clear support for the statement can be found if we are not actually quoting something). I find all the quotations in the footnotes to be clunky, overly burdensome, and potentially misleading (the potential is there for someone to take a snippet from what is said in a source, quote the snippet here (out of context) to support a statement, when in fact the original in the source does not support what is being said here at all). So, I want to toss this debate out to all the editors. Do you think we need all these quotations in the citations?... please explain your view so we can come to some consensus. You can use an example if needed, but let's not get bogged down debating the examples. Blueboar 15:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

PS... I have added a similar request on the other Freemasonry related pages and have asked people to comment here. Blueboar 15:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No.The usage of a footnote is to direct a reader to a source, not to give them the source text. They're supposed to be small and unobtrusive. If a quote is important enough to be considered as integral to a footnote, it probably belongs in the article. If it's not that important, we don't need it at all. Fottnotes are there to expressly prevent huge messy articles and citations. MSJapan 15:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The template instructions of Template:Request quote say: “Please add this template after an unquoted interperation of a source that you think may be inaccurate. This is used to request that a quote from the cited source be provided on the Discussion page so that it may be verified that the source has been interpreted correctly. This is particularly helpful for sources that are not available online or are difficult to obtain in order to check the editor's interpretation.”

This is why I removed e.g. this "Quote Request" [5] and I will remove others like this. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that every citation needs a quotation, but that many here should. There are three areas where I think it is important.

Firstly when the source is not available on-line. I don't think there is any argument on that one.

Secondly it is important in a source which may only tangenitally deal with this issue. An example would be the Virchow quote. This was dealing with Rizal and so it is not obvious from the unexplained source.

Thirdly it is just good defensive editing. The example of de Hoyos above is an example of a source not saying what the accompanying text says. If a quotation is included it does two things it forces the editor to make sure that the text reflects what the source says which is vital under WP:NOR. I found that I had to do yesterday on Mexican presidents. It also means that suspicious editors and readers can instantly see what the footnote claims to prove.

An alternative strategy could be to remove all questionable sources to the talk page without warning. I want to avoid that as it would create far more heat than light. It would also allow cover for some of the more unscrupulous editors to simply remove all content of which they disapprove. For that reason alone I want to avoid it. Think Lightbringer. Think Skull 'n' Femurs. Quotation requests are a far better way to follow to the source.

One last word, there is nothing wrong with the idea of footnotes taking up more room than the prose. JASpencer 16:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just found this from WP:CITE "Direct quotes, used as a method of easing factual verification, can be provided (in whatever format is agreed on by the main editors of the article) for any statement." Which says a lot of what I was wittering on about. JASpencer 16:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

wm@sgovd - I know that it may not be the case on other wikipedias but on the English wikipedia it is considered bad manners to pre-empt a discussion. Please don't delete all quote requests just as the discussion started. I know it wasn't meant badly but please let us come to a concensus first. JASpencer 17:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No. A footnote is to direct a reader to a source, not to give them the source text. I don't think that any citation needs a quotation. If it needs to be said, then say it in the main part. Imacomp 18:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Removing requests contradicts Wikipedia policy on so no matter what the "concensus" is here, it won't get through as it contradicts WP:CITE. Furthermore this policy should especially not be ignored in an article prone to cowboy editors making very dodgy claims. It is far less aggressive than simply removing quotes from the article. JASpencer 19:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Apart from me, the invitation seems to have forgotten non-masonic editors such as User:DonaNobisPacem and User:SeraphimXI. I'm sure it's an oversight but if only Masonic editors are alerted (plus me of course) then there can be no concensus, especially one that contradicts Wikipedia policy. JASpencer 19:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

JAS... no "invitations" have gone out to anyone, Masonic or otherwise. I did you the courtesy of giving you a special notice on your talk page because we have both have been invovled in this issue from the beginning of the discussion. I have not specially "alerted" any other editor. To spread the word about this discussion, I posted a comment about it on the talk page for all of the Freemasonry related Articles. I did so for two reasons: 1) This issue crosses over to all of these articles, and so discussion should involve all of the editors to these pages. 2) Since the same people edit all of these pages, I wanted to be sure that they all (Seraphim included) would have lots of ways to find out about this informal poll. In fact, I would say that DonnaNobisPacem is the only regular editor to this page who does not also edit the other Freemasonry related pages. Feel free to specially notify him (or is it her?). Finally, I asked that they all comment here, because it will be easier to have the discussion located on one page, rather than on all of the pages. I resent the insinuation that I am trying to stack the deck or circumvent Wiki policy in some way. Blueboar 20:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you resent it, but even if it is unconcious (which I'm sure it is) if WP:CITE says that quotations should be shown and you say that there should be some concensus that say that there shouldn't then you are trying to bypass the policy. My understanding of either the intent or the force of WP:CITE on quotations may be wrong, but if it is right then you are trying to circumvent Wikipedia policy, albeit for well meaning reasons.

On the other hand I apologise completely for any insinuation that you are trying to stack the deck. I failed to assume good faith and for that I apologise. JASpencer 20:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I obviously don't read WP:CITE the same way as you do. Where does it say that you should quote your citations in the citation footers? I agree that things should be cited. The question HOW it should be cited. I feel it is usually enough to simply cite to a webpage or article where support for what is stated in our articles can be found. I do agree with you that when citing to a book (which is harder to check) or something not easily available it is helpful to quote it. But I think that is the exception to the rule. If you look at other articles, they do not put lots and lots of quotes in their citations. Are they all in violation of WP:CITE? Blueboar 20:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum... you may want to check out Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style... no quotations are mentioned. Blueboar 20:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Having a relevant quotation in a footnote does not seem to be clunky. Mixing citations and footnotes may be more clunky. The following part of the style manual comments on guidelines for how to split the Footnotes section and the References section so that citations are separate from quotations/comments. Wikipedia:Cite_sources#Complete_citations_in_a_.22References.22_section You may also want to have a look at the <ref> element and the {{cite web ... {{cite book ... etc templates for organising your references and footnotes. Ans e ll 23:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Direct quotes, used as a method of easing factual verification, can be provided (in whatever format is agreed on by the main editors of the article) for any statement." It talks about the format being agreed, not the need. Any statement.

In an article as contentious as this it is true that fewer websites are going to be taken on trust and the actual quotes are going to be asked for.

For the record I have no problem in anyone asking for quotes from citations that I provide. If I can't provide the quotes after being asked then the citation should be removed. I just can't see why other editor's are so scared of providing quotes for their citations. JASpencer 15:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective I can see some value in having the citations listed, given the contentious nature of the topic it's useful to have things made clear. OTOH I can see a number of drawbacks with it; it becomes very easy to obfuscate the issues by throwing lengthy quotes at it, a single quotation contextualises, but equally has it's own context. I'd also caution the content, in a system where much of the understanding is experiential then quotations without experience have limited value. That applies in both directions.

I do think that the use of citation requests from quoted websites appears to be a means to excise portions of text, few websites mentioned are excessive in length and my view is that reading the whole thing is a more useful exercise than asking for an excerpt. I'd suggest that there have been examples where a quotation has been requested without even visiting the site cited, which leads me to question the intent of the request.

The area where I do have a concern at the moment is presentation of those quotations. It does seem to me to be a bit of a cop-out to rely on footnotes to the extent where nearly 50% of page length is supporting material. This page is a useful example, the title implies a discussion of the relationship between the RCC and FM, the page itself is very much the RCC position on Freemasonry with anything tempering that position being relegated to a footnote. Whilst it shouldn't be be difficult to come up with a balanced article which presents the arguments without a reliance on footnotes I do acknowledge that these topics do get bogged down in discussion.

Notwithstanding all that I would agree with JAS, above, about removing quotation requests without actually providing the supporting material. That is needlessly inflammatory, what we're trying to do is come up with a portfolio of balanced and comprehensive articles which fairly represent the craft, it's extended systems and the criticisms of it.ALR 19:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This is really a debate about style, and not about content. I feel that if something is worth quoting in a citation, then it is worth quoting in the main text of the article. I feel that the citation should be simply a link to verification that the quote is accurate. Then there is the situation where a citation is not pointing to a direct quote... but pointing to an entire passage or chapter of a book that in it's entirety supports what is stated in our article. What would we do in these situations... quote the entire passage or chapter? Please note that I am not against including quotations in our footnotes and citations... I simply do not think they should be required. Blueboar 13:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a debate about style, not content. Quotations may be helpful to illustrate a point, or they may be necesary to prove a point - and this is what should decide their positioning. A citation that claims that (shall we say) the Vatican regarded Freemasonry as a force behind the Kulturkampf should have the one or two sentences in the citation. Whether they help to illustrate the point is an entirely seperate question, as they may be rather dense prose (as nineteenth century Latin translated into nineteenth Century English about Nineteenth Century German events is likely to be). However the soundbite "synagogue of Satan" does illustrate the point, even when shorn of the paragraph of dense text that surrounds it. JASpencer 21:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

If a quotation is needed to illustrate a point or prove a point, shouldn't it be included in the main text and not tucked away in a citation footnote? Again, I am not saying that quotations are bad or that they should not be in our articles (or even in the occasional footnote) ... just saying that generally they should not be put in with the citations. Blueboar 16:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Illustrating a point - yes. Proving a point - rarely.

I would also say that illustrating the point is voluntary, proving it is compulsory. JASpencer 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Here, I have to remind you something that constantly frustrates me ... "proving a point" is NOT compulsory on Wikipedia. I often wish it were... because if it were, we would not have half the issues we do with all the Lightbringer Socks. The criteria for inclusion is verification, not "proof". As long as a statement can be verified (ie cited), it does not HAVE to be "proved" with a quotation in a footnote. That said, I agree that we, as a group of editors who work on common pages, can set higher standards for ourselves in the articles we edit, which is why I have raised this issue ... to get some consensus on what standards we, as a group, want to impose on ourselves. I set a high bar for my own contributions. I generally like "proof"... I just think any "proof" belongs in the main text, while the citation would simply be a link to, or info on the supporting document. Blueboar 13:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Badly worded, agreed, how about "verifying a fact"? Illustrating a point - yes. Verifying a fact - rarely. Clogging up the main text so that's it's an unreadable mush - never. JASpencer 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've given this issue a lot of thought - both in regards to this article and other articles relating to Freemasonry - and the best answer I can come up with is: It depends. Sometimes it makes sense to have a citation in the body of the article, sometimes it makes sense to have it in a footnote, and sometimes it makes no sense to have one at all (espesially when it comes to referencing websites). WegianWarrior 15:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

I'd just like to add a little about my view of this issue, little as I know about it. You guys seem to be arguing over two things: whether to have the quotes or not, and if to include them, how to include them.

With the former, it's clear to me that it is much better to have the quotes than to not to- readers may like to read some of the original texts, such as they may be (what good would an article on Hamlet be, say, without any quotes from the play?), and they're useful for adding information an editor may not like to add because they don't feel like restating the quote's information, or it is too troublesome, or because they feel it borders on plagiarism- not to mention the usefulness of referencing. Besides, quotes can always be easily removed if need be, whereas if the person adding it does not add the quote along with the information, it is quite possible no one will ever get around to it, because there are simply so many more pressing issues on Wikipedia and in life.

As for the latter... I don't know much about the aesthetics of these particular quotes and articles, but I've never had or seen any problems with adding lengthy quotes or comments to footnotes. --maru (talk) contribs 03:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose my difficulty with all of this is a conflation of footnotes and citations. I have no problem with having quotations (provided they do support the statements made) ... and I will even agree that sometimes it does make sense to have them as footnotes (although not nearly as frquently as is currently done here). Again, this is a stylistic issue: I don't like combining footnotes (which are really a continuation of the text) and citations. If there were some way to split the two, to have seperate footnotes and citations, I would have less problems with sticking the quotes in footnotes. Blueboar 15:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Other stuff

Moving comments that really don't add to the discussion above. Blueboar 21:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm sure the "Ace Sockmeister" can pass it on - to himself. ;) Imacomp 20:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Imacomp, please provide evidence for your assertion. JASpencer 20:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

What? Imacomp 20:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for your assertion that I am a sock.JASpencer 20:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please provide your evidence for what you have asserted above. Imacomp 20:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... not sure what this is all about Blueboar 21:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC) And Imacomp... are you SURE you are not Victor Hugo? I could have sworn... Blueboar 21:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought we had to post here now? Priory of Sion 'n' stuff. As true as I'm Victor Hugo. Imacomp 21:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK... you have officially confused me. (and I usually do get your inside jokes). Oh well... Never mind. not important. Move along... there is nothing to see here. Blueboar 21:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

See Priory of Sion 'n' History. I do not want to give the end away. :) Actually the point is that before you moved my comment to this section, I was making the point that one wacked ref is not evidence. Imacomp 21:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh... now I get it. sort of. Never mind. Blueboar 21:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Art deHoyos

I don't see where in the cited articles it mentions the Kadosh degree, anti-Catholic elements or any mention of the Papal tiara, hence the citation request. Perhaps there is evidence showing that these allegations originally come from Blanchard, which would be the sort of citation I'm looking for. Thanks. JASpencer 15:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got Blanchard's books. Do you want the pages for the entire degree, or do you want the tiara page specifically? MSJapan 02:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand now what JAS is concerned about... rereading the section in question, I have to admit that there is a logic gap. While we may understand that deHoyos is referring to the Blanchard exposé, a non-informed reader may not make the connection. We need to make this connection explicit. In other words, we need a statement backed by a citation to show that the ritual that is quoted by the Catholic Encyclopedia and Second Exodus does indeed come from Blanchard. Then we can incorporate what deHoyos says about Blanchard. So... MSJapan, please do give us the citation info from Blanchard's book, and any other links that might be useful. Blueboar 12:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboar you put your finger on my concern there. JASpencer 21:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Relations between Regular and Latin Freemasonry

Blueboar, as we discussed some time ago I'm starting up a section on the relationship between the Latin Lodges and Anglo-Saxon regular masonry. I was hoping to wait until this area had calmed down, but it looks like we'll have to wait a while for that. JASpencer 15:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good... I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

On a similar topic, when discussing Latin Lodges, I think that we need to better explain the nationalist/democratic movements of the Nineteenth Century, and how (and why) the political situation in those contries affected how the Church viewed Freemasonry. As the article now stands, we list all the Papal encyclicals etc. that criticise Freemasonry, and we outline what they say... but we do not fully explain the historical context of WHY those encyclicals were written, or WHY the Papacy singled out Freemasonry as a foe. We need to discuss how these pro-democratic/pro-nationalist movements directly challenged the Church's political authority and, in the case of Italy, threatened the the Papacy's temporal power (and eventually conquored it's territorial State). We need to better explain how Freemasonry was (and was not) behind or involved in these movements. In other words, we need to give better historical background info. Blueboar 13:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Blueboar,

I agree that context would be good here. I do think that some of the Masonic histories overplay this reading of events (and especially the uniqueness of Latin anticlericalism), but there is still some merit in that version.

(Oddly the contextual reading of the early bans was totally excised - but that's a danger of not reigning in your more zealous editors). JASpencer 20:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That implies a degree of cohesion and would suggest that you seem to think there is some form of organised editing bloc. All edit WP in their own right and since nobody WP:OWNs the content once it's up then anyone can do what they want with it.

From my first reading of the Texas Lodge of Research stuff it looks like the quote contained in the extract is more damning of American FM than anything else. I'll concede that the service aspects in the US are promoted much more than elsewhere, but I'd hardly say that most join just for social or business reasons.ALR 21:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a bloc so much as an indulgence towards disruptive editors that would not be extended towards them if they were not seen to being "on side". JASpencer 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

JAS, From your comment, I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing when we speak of "context". What I would like to work on is a discussion of the political situation in France, Italy and some Latin American nations during the 1800s. The fact that many of these nations were split between conservative, pro-monarchy factions (usually supported by the Church) and liberal democratic factions (often, but not always, anti-clerical as the Church was a major land owner and seen as being opressive and anti-democratic). I especially want to point out the fact that the Papacy was a landed monarchy in central Italy, and that part of the Unification and democratization of Italy involved conquoring the Papal States and taking them away from the Pope. It is in this context that the Papacy branded Freemasonry as the institution that was behind all it's woes. Thus the viemence behind the Church's attacks on the Craft. ... Or something along those lines. Blueboar 00:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, discussion on the political context of the Latin countries would be useful (although I believe that most discussions of this overplay the significance), but the political context of Europe in the period between 1734 and 1739 would also be useful. Contextual readings of the relationship between Freemasonry and Catholicism (ie earlier Freemasonry was a bit risque and Latin Freemasonry was hostile, but now it's all OK - especially when English is spoken) abound among the less anticlerical Masonic historians and even among some more liberal Catholics. However you will not get any reasonable discussion on a contextual reading (something that Wikipedia's style is biased towards) while you have editors who delete on sight. JASpencer 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If we work together on this contextual information, and write it in a truely NOPV form, then it should not be deleted on sight by anyone. Blueboar 13:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing should be deleted on sight, but as you know it has been, not once but twice. JASpencer 09:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Numerous A&AR issues

Given the dominance of Pike related issues in this and related topics I've been digging around, I picked up a copy of 'History of the Rose Croix in england and Wales' by Brig ACF Jackson today when I was in London and have identified a number of points from it; I'll lift out quotes when I've had a more thorough read of the sections. The main points that I'll draw attention to; there is a discussion of the likely Jesuit influence on the early degrees in France, this is predicated on another source so I'll need to go over it again, Pikes' rituals are not used in the Europe, Northern Jurisdiction chaps need to find something themselves but it can reasonably be inferred from the text that it doesn't apply there either, the synopsis of the two degrees debated, the Noachite and Kadosh, do not reflect that stated at present, indeed the discussion of the Noachite specifically states that the Pike version is very different. There is also a fairly detailed discussion of timelines with respect to the development of ritual which would suggest that the difference is Pikes, not retrospective everywhere else. Usefully there is also a reasonable amount on the political situation in France which puts some flesh around the relationships between London and Paris, but that's a different topic.ALR 17:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesuits from Paul Naudon. Histiore, Rituels et Tuiler des Hauts Grades Maconniques 3rd Ed 1984 quoted in ACF Jackson. Rose Croix, A history of the Ancient and Accepted Rite for England and Wales, 2nd Ed 2005. Nothing is more certain than that the Stuarts and the Jesuits, who were their best supporters, use the Ecossais Masonic Lodges whose respect for tradition and for Catholicism served their cause: and that the high degrees favoured this action.

Pike from Jackson, in a discussion of revisions to the degrees of the A&AR: Complete revision and de-Christianisation a little later by Albert Pike, Grand Commander Southern Jurisdiction USA. These are not used by Supreme Counsils in Britain and by few Continental Supreme Councils, though they git wide publicity because of the extensive writings and influence of the author

Church hostility again from Jackson and much more difficult to discern. It seems that some of the rituals, specifically the Kadosh, were modified by the irregular Grand Orient in France. This comes up in a number of places, chunky book, and it appears that this is the ritual that MSJ is referring to. Towards the end of the XIX century, when relations in France between Church and State were at their lowest ebb, the 'liberal-minded' members of the Grand Orient and its Council of Rites changed the ritual of this degree and used it for deliberate attacks on the Church I'll need to hack through more to get a better appreciation of the implications of that. In terms of timing I can now see where some conflation with Pike might have occured.ALR 21:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Undiscussed deletion

I have reverted this edit because such a massive deletion should be discussed first. JASpencer 19:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

And he's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catholicism_and_Freemasonry&diff=48168312&oldid=47998143 done it again]. Because I have a rather stupid faith in human nature, I'm giving another editor the chance to revert back. JASpencer 09:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to revert back... I don't see any change between the two edits you linked to. It looks like you have both been reverting back and forth between two identical versions (which leads me to question both of you on AGF... are you getting into a revert war because of who made the edit, and not looking at what was edited?). As for the original mass deletion, I agree that it should have been discussed. So, let's discuss it now ... make your cases... Imacomp, why did you cut the material? JASpencer, why should we keep it? Blueboar 13:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Err, yes my previous (announced) reversion didn't actually revert properly. Ignoring that a reversion is invalid if it doesn't give reasons - in a complicated case like this within the talk page, these are the reasons among the information that Imacomp removed:

Three more encyclicals on Freemasonry (taken from the list at the Grand Lodge of British Columbia)
A text and verifiable source for the 1917 Canon Law ban on Freemasonry
A further ban from the 1917 Canon Law on Masonic books
Subheadings for the Post Vatican II period
Information on the German Bishop's conference of 1980
An ennumerated list from the German Bishop's conference of objections to Freemasonry
Permission to join Freemasonry from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles which was later retracted, which is the most up to date item in the current article
The text that we were discussing about regulations between Latin and English speaking Freemasonry

All of this is pertinent information to this article and I can't see any POV problems with it. The fact that Imacomp can't articulate why he wanted it removed does show that it was done on sight (as the history of the Imacomp reversion also shows). JASpencer 17:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

24 hours and no response. JASpencer 16:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Need we remind you that it is both Holy Week and Passover? I think everyone is off being religious. Give people a bit of time to attend to their spiritual needs. Blueboar 20:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

DEpends on whether one is Christian or not, I'm sure there are some who aren't.ALR 20:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Blueboar I didn't mean to be sharp with the masonic editors in general (and re-reading this it appeared that way). I was pointing out that Imacomp has been active in other areas of the encyclopedia and has not deigned to respond to rather serious allegations about his behaviour. It's not just impolite, it's rather stupid. JASpencer 14:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Unless Imacomp responds in a day I'll start adding the text back in, unless anyone has a specific objection. I think there has been a sufficient time to cool down and the additions aren't that controversial. JASpencer 17:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've started reinserting Imacomp's undiscussed deletion, starting with the less controversial stuff. The last edit has been reordering the Post Vatican II entries so that (1) it seperates off the status of Catholics within Freemasonry and (2) the Post Vatican II area is likely to get larger.

I've also put in a couple of minor grammatical corrections.

Let's see if it gets deleted without discussion.

I will be putting in the following in order:

1. A reference to the 1917 Canon 2335
2. Three Papal encyclicals that relate to Freemasonry
3. The 1917 Canon that prohibited books friendly to Freemasonry
4. Reinserting fact tags on Pius IX and Cerneuism (with explanations in Talk Page)
5. Reinserting in the "Relations with Regular Freemasonry" section that was discussed (and welcomed) above
6. Adding in the confusion about the diocese of Los Angeles - the most recent public ruling on Freemasonry within the Catholic Church
7. Reinsert German Bishops conference - including findings which I believe to be a neat summary of current Catholic objections

I am putting them in in the order above - which I perceive to be from the least controversial to the most (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm broadcasting this in advance so that it is seen that these changes are not undiscussed and any editor can raise questions. I'll be doing two each day.

JASpencer 07:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course if anyone else wants to add any of this in I would view it as a sign of good faith. JASpencer 07:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

A defence of Quotations

After some thought, here are the reasons why I believe that quotations should be frequently requested.

Just as you would not dream of citing a book without page numbers, so in long html pages a quotation acts as a way of locating the proof of the claim
In texts that only deal indirectly or in passing with the subject matter it shows precisely what the claim is.
It cuts down, without entirely eliminating, differences in interpretation
It catches out the less scrupulous editors who simply cite vaguely related web pages saying that they "prove" a contentious "fact"
It is less confrontational than removing text to the talk page (although this is often not done here)
It easier to verify a quote that you rely on than it is to rely on a whole page
If the text subsequently changes on the page then it is easier to verify just what an editor meant three, four or five years ago.
To simply remove quotations with no explanation reeks of a poor case. To call for this as a policy seems to show a flight from the truth.
An editor is more likely to adjust a partially correct claim to match a quotation than he or she is to adjust it to match some vague page
Verifiability does not rely on vague Roe v Wade style emanations on a page or website but on specific facts. Facts are more quotable than sentiments.
If you are relying on the spirit of what a document says then you shouldn't be citing it
WP:V says that quotations can be asked for. That in itself should make editors as wary of removing quotation requests as of removing citation requests
Less scrupulous editors will use the desire to remove quotation requests and so limit verifiability, as an excuse to remove citation requests
Quotation requests are far less obtrusive than citation requests, so removing one of the few justifications for removing citation requests
If an editor is asking for a quotation, there's a high chance that he can't see it on the web page
There is simply no excuse for not quoting a specific claim made in a book. These are not nearly as accesible and are far less verifiable

I've been asked to think what it would be like if I was in a Mason's shoes. Well imagine if it wasn't me that you were dealing with but a Lightbringer type - or a number of non-sock Lightbringer types - with wild claims and an unwillingness to prove them any more than what they regard the letter of the law demanding them to. Do you think that this editor would listen to your demands for quotations or simply relay back to you the "decision" that was made. Yes, you will have changed your stance since as the less academic approach would no longer suit, but the precedent would be set.

Verifiability may be an awkward protection for an awkward minority, but there is no guarantee that you will always remain in the majority. It may be your protection in the future.

JASpencer 17:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you say. Again, I think you may be misundertanding what I am talking about. I don't have a problem with quotations (provided that they are indeed accurate to the source, and truely support what is being discussed). My issue is WHERE the quotations should go. I don't think quotations should be hidden away at the bottom of the article as footnotes attached to the citations ... I think they should be integrated into the main text so they directly support what is being said.

Tell you what... I will pick a section that incorporates a number of citations and quotes, and I will re-write it (on a sand box page or offline) the way I think it should be done. I will then post it here so that you can see what I am talking about, and you can comment on why you do or do not like my way of doing things. Blueboar 18:30, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what you post. The problem with an article like this is that it will get clogged with "proof quotes" which clog up the article and could quite easily go into the footnotes. JASpencer 18:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Posted... see below for the link. Blueboar 20:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Example of how to put quotes in main article

I have created the sub page Catholicism and Freemasonry/example to show what I am talking about when I say that we should have quotations directly in the main article and not hidden away in the citations as footnotes. I took the section on Allegations that Freemasonry is a new religion and have re-written it the way I would prefer to see things done. Please look at it, and compare it the section here. For ease of locating discussion I would suggest that any further discussion of my example take place on the talk page attached to that sub page. Blueboar 23:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmph... I can not seem to get the references (ie the cleaned up citations without the quotes) to show up at the bottom of my page! perhaps one of you could see what I might have done wrong?

OK... all fixed.Blueboar 00:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Stylistically it's far too clunky. Glad to have my hunch confirmed though. Thanks. JASpencer 15:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

We will have to agree to disagree then... since I don't like your preferred system for exactly the same reason. I will be interested to see what others have to say. Blueboar 17:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Bet they won't say seek clarification centrally. JASpencer 17:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... I get that you are making a joke... but I don't really understand what you mean. Can you explain "seek clarification centrally"? Blueboar 19:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I chose not to toddle off and consult the janitorial staff, so this is my view. Not much change from what I posted above though.

Given the contentious nature of the topic it is useful to be fairly disciplined about referencing, and if that means substantiating a reference by providing a quote to discuss around then that's fine. I note that having this debate is being somewhat simplified by JAS to suggest there is an unwillingness to substantiate material though, which strikes me as a little disingenuous; the issue is not substantiation, but how to represent that substantiation.
Despite that I see what I interpret as overuse of the citation process where it appears to be used not to clarify what is at the link, but as a stick to beat editors with. In some instances it appears that the link provided hasn't been followed to check, before asking for a quotation.
It shouldn't be beyond the wit of a reasonably articulate editor to weave that substantiation into the text in a manner which supports the readability of the article. Personally I find both methods of stating a quotation in the article to be clunky:

In line quotation breaks up the readability and it doesn't flow. With the need for many quotes then the reader will potentially give up quite quickly when the article becomes a chore to read.
Quotation in a footnote can easily be used to hide issues as an excess of footnotes leads to scrolling up and down the article which in itself disrupts the readability of the article, to the extent that the casual reader probably won't bother reading the footnotes. That allows one to present a POV article, balanced in the footnotes.

There is a risk that in trying to weave the issues together one approaches original research by providing a level of analysis of the material which isn't easily verifiable in its own right. One must be cognisant of that risk but I would suggest that it is unwise to avoid doing so because of that. The act of collaborative editing should allow a balance to be found. I do recognise that some editors are not acting in a collaborative manner, which reflects poorly on their own standing.ALR 20:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ALR... that was a nicely balanced critic. And gives me something to think about. Blueboar 01:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Blueboar's version is any more cluttered than what we have now, and I think it's actually a lot clearer for the reader. MSJapan 23:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply MSJ. Blueboar 01:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of article readability/conciseness, I think most quotes (ie, sources) belong in footnotes, unless the particular wording of the quote is desired, in which case you use it in the article. The point of the article is to simply state the facts of the relationship between Catholicism and Freemasonry, not become an accumulation of quotes on that relationship - it should not become an argument supporting the facts presented. What we are especially trying to avoid is having "Catholicism says blah blah blah," and then following it up with a quote supporting (and therefore repeating) the preceeding statement - that definitely belongs in a footnote. So there's my two cents - hopefully it helps.DonaNobisPacem 21:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation issue - Father Sauders

While re-writing my version of the New Religion section, I noticed that the citation to Father Sauders's article in the Arlington Catholic Herald is incomplete. I assume this is a newspaper or periodical magazine... so we need to add the issue or date of publication info. This is true no matter what format we may like on dealing with the Quotation. Blueboar 00:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Added onto page. How long before this gets taken off? JASpencer 15:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Blueboar 17:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)