Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

POV Forking is not the answer

JASpencer, creating a POV fork (Latin Freemasonry) to contain the stuff that is likely to be cut from this article for being overly POV and OR is not the answer.

I also have a problem with the title of your new article ... I have only found one source that uses the term "Latin" Freemasonry. It is far more common to call it "Continental" Style Freemasonry (ie the Style of Freemasonry that grew out of the Grand Orient de France or GOdF on the contintent of Europe), or "Oriental" Freemasonry (as most of the governing bodies of that branch of Freemasonry style themselves with the name "Grand Orient")... I realize that these are somewhat confusing "terms of art" used in Masonic Scholarship (confusing, because there are both "Anglo-style" or "Mainstreem" Masonic jurisdictions and "Continental style" Masonic jurisdictions on the Continent of Europe, and because not all "Continental" style jurisdictions call themselves "Orients", while a few Anglo style jurisdiction do call themselves "Orients"... so the terminology is not very exact)... but they are the terms of art that are used. It can be argued that your title is POV, in that it reflects the views of only one scholar (one that admits that he is not a historian or even a "profound Masonic Scholar"). It is also a bit POV in that it lumps all the different forms of Freemasonry that exist or existed in any given "Latin" country together and tars them with the same brush. However, if you change the title to "Continental style" Freemasonry... you would have to talk about more than just Latin/Catholic countries, and about a lot more than just the allegations that it was anti-clerical. Blueboar 15:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Latin Freemasonry

The content from the above named article seems to have been copied from this article. As the concerns regarding WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:Undue weight on that content have not yet been addressed adequately in this article itself, I cannot see that there is any just reason to move it so that those concerns are spread over a number of pages before being addressed. John Carter 21:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Either that, or delete Latin Freemasonry out right, as being a blatant POV fork. Blueboar 21:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree There is a seperate strand of Freemasonry that is "in amity" with the Grand Orient de France and is not recognised by the United Grand Lodge of England. If there had not been an understandable cultural bias against "irregular" lodges then this would have had an article years ago. JASpencer 22:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps true. However, it would almost certainly not have the content that it currently has. Certainly, if you can produce reliable verifiable sources, I believe that all parties would welcome the creation of the new article. However, that does not resolve the existing content issues. John Carter 22:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

John, currently there are 43 sources and no citation requests for this article. I'm not saying that quality means quantity, but to say - as is frequently done on this page - that there is a need for verifiable sources is at least on the face of it, met. I don't believe that lack of sources is a problem. JASpencer 22:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

JAS... it isn't the lack of sourcing that is the problem, its the way the sources are used and misused. There are conclusions made that are not alwasys fully supported by the sources... statements in the sources that have been "cherry picked" and taken out of context, sources have been strung together to form original conclusions and sythesis. In many cases, the sourcing sticks to the letter of NOR, but seriously violates the spirit of that policy. And we have not even gotten into the POV issues. I don't think the problem is verifiablilty (or even WP:RS)... its NOR and NPOV. If you have not reviewed these policies recently, please do so. Blueboar 00:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone who still thinks that the articles should be merged? We seem to have moved beyond that. Correct me if I'm wrong. JASpencer 14:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to put the merger on hold for now... it depends on what happens with the two articles and what kind of edits are made. Both articles will need major work. Blueboar 14:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think there are still issues about it, and removing the tag some forty minutes after suggesting a conclusion is over-hasty.

I think it's generally accepted that there would be value in an article on irregular freemasonry, although there are concerns over titling and substantive content. The main issue at the moment remains the RCCs position on it, and it can quite reasonably be handled in this article, given the direction that it seems to be going. Alluding to the point already made, although in a slightly different context, quantity does not imply quality. The proliferation of articles which boil down to The RCC doesn't like FM probably needs to stop; consolidate the issue down to one.

ALR 15:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough about the speed. I just assumed that Blueboar was the only person who may still believe that there is no value in an article on liberal freemasonry. I was over hasty and I apologise. If, however, we can agree that there is some value to an article on this subject then the rest is a content dispute, and a merger is not appropriate.

So ALR, why do you think that we should have a merger?

JASpencer 15:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons why I don't think it's entirely appropriate to try to railroad a decision, and that the two articles should remain associated in this way until such time as a stable conclusion is reached.

Once that state is achieved then it may be entirely appropriate to merge that article with another, leave it as a simple statement and refer to a main article, redirect it, or delete it entirely. Now I'm sure that the suggestion could be made that strict compliance with the letter of plicy would allow the discussion to be taken elsewhere, however I would suggest that the purpose of what's going on is to assure a verifiable, reasonable and proportionate treatment and fragmenting activities doesn't really support that at present.

ALR 17:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

JAS... I never said there was no value in an article on Latin/Liberal/Continental/etc. Freemasonry. There might be, and I am willing to consider the issue. I just think it is premature. It is more a question of timing than anything else. Your timing made it seem as if that article was a POV fork of this article. I accept your assurance that this was unintentional. Never the less, I would prefer to settle the issues with this article before focussing on the new one. The merge tag simply tells us that the matter is under discussion. I agree with ALR... let's not rush things. Blueboar 17:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

MAJOR cut back on article

Based upon the comments from my RfC and being BOLD, I have deleted out all the potentially objectionable stuff that discusses the allegations and reasoning etc. My edit cuts out all the "Catholics say this, Freemasons say that" arguments and rebuttals that has mired this article in POV OR for so long. I think what is left (discussion of the various well documented encyclicals and Church pronouncements that have formed the RCC's stance through the centuries) is all sound as far as NOR is concerned ... but some tweeking may still be needed. It may still be a bit one sided ... but then the article is about the Church's stance and so will be one sided no matter what is done. At least now the POV being expressed is based on solid fact and "official documents" and does not go into anyone's speculation or opinion. Blueboar 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, you've taken out a whole load of verifiable positions and it makes the Church seem as if it's picking on Freemasonry for little reason. I'm sure that's unintentional, but the reasons why the Church objects (and objected) to Freemasonry should be seperated out from a simple list of encyclicals. JASpencer 15:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And another matter, where is this RFC? I have not seen a single link to this. At the very least it should be on the talk page. JASpencer 15:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't file a formal RfC... but as I explaind on your talk page, I asked for comments and assistance from the folks at WP:NOR and WP:NPOV... that is why Jossi, John Carter and others have come here. You can see their replies above, and on the talk pages of both Policies. As for the verifiable positions... the problem is that each individual statement may bey verifiable, but strung together as they were, they formed (to use Jossi's term) "A POV and NOR nightmare". The aricle took selected quotations out of context, from different documents written in different eras, and strung them together. Some of what was included is not based on anything "official" but on the opinion of individual churchmen and theologians (some with very conservative views that do not reflect the views of the bulk of Catholicism). All of that put together makes it OR (see WP:SYNT).

The reasoning behind the Church's ban continued ban is extremely nuanced. It has undergone subtle shifts through the centuries. It would need a LOT more discussion than a simple bullet point list that to do that topic justice. We would also need a full discussion of these reasonings looked at from the Masonic side... unfortunately, that is more difficult, because Freemasonry tends not to bother responding to what the Church says. Freemasons know through experience that most of the reasons that the Church has expressed through the years are not really valid, but they have not written much about it. So balancing the article will be difficult. What is uncontrovercial is that the Church, for many varied reason, has opposed and continue to oppose Freemasonry. Beyond that we get into speculation, allegation, rumor, and belief and away from documentable fact.

Finally, remember that there is more to adding material to an article than just its verifiability. Wikipedia has several policies that are equally important... WP:NPOV and WP:NOR have to be considered as well. Blueboar 16:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

But we do need a simple list on why the Catholic Church opposes Freemasonry today. To take this away seriously detracts from the article. The Catholic church has given a number of reasons, within the last thirty years, as to why it is absolutely forbidden to become a Freemason, these should be in the article - and not simply a note at the end saying that the current position of the Church is that you aren't allowed to join a lodge. JASpencer 16:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

NO... I just explained this... a simple list exacerbates the OR and POV problems. It is uncontested that the Church bans Catholics from becoming Freemasons. Why does not matter. "Why" gets us into conjecture, speculation, allegation, rumor, "Belief" and all those other POV and OR issues. We should leave it at bald fact. Blueboar 16:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does matter, that's why we're here. And as long as each of the reasons is verified by a recent official source there is no need to worry about conjecture, rumour, etc. JASpencer 16:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

For future reference the rather overdone edit is here. JASpencer 16:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"Why" might be why you're here. But I don't think it help the article. Trying to explain "why" is what led to this nightmare. It needs to be rethought. For one thing, there is already some discussion of the "why"... The sections on Ratzinger's reply, the German Bishops Conference and the Report of the American Bishops conference contain whys... not to mention the text of Quaesitum est. I don't mind that, because it keeps the "why" in context of the document. A reader who wants to know "why" can easily find out by following the various links. But a seperate list of "whys" will get us back to taking things out of context... and forming an OR synthesis. Blueboar 17:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, I don't think that you or any of the Masonic editors can seriously play more neutral than thou. Any way the idea that you suprress important information because it "can't" be dealt with through NPOV is a poor argument, that would cut back every discussion of philosophy, theology and scientific theory on Wikipedia. These questions can be dealt with through WP:V and WP:NPOV. JASpencer 17:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not exactly neutral yourself, you know :>) ... Neither camp can be fully neutral here... that's why I asked for outside opinions. But when those opinions are overwhelmingly saying that this article is a mess... using phrases like "NOR and POV nightmare", it should tell us that there is a serious problem with this article. It needs to be majorly rethought.

I agree that we need to keep to WP:V and WP:NPOV (especially the part about Undue Weight). But I also think we need to pay close attention to WP:NOR. All of our policies and guidelines need to be considered. We also need to go beyond strick adhearance to the letter of these policies and guidelines, and consider their intent as well.

When I first notified you about this debate (on your talk page), I suggested that we would need a mediator. I still think this is the case. Blueboar 17:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

This still doesn't answer the question about deleting the bones of an article because it "can't" be NPOV. It's seriously unbalanced the article and it relies on an argument that would mean that Wikipedia could never advance beyond noting dates, currencies and capital cities. JASpencer 18:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the major rational behind my being so bold was based on the WP:NOR problems and less on the WP:NPOV. Blueboar 18:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there may well have been greater than required cuts to the article. However, even at this stage, the article should not be too clearly POV, and without having the "rebuttal" information available, which (I think) probably exists, it would seem to be required to ensure that the article meets NPOV requirements. Having said that, I'm not entirely sure how to ensure that the article remain NPOV. While I acknowledge Blueboar's statement that the simple fact that the perpretrators of certain activities were Masons doesn't mean that it was approved by Freemasonry as a whole, I think we would reasonably need some kind of acceptable source to verify that. I acknowledge how difficult that might be in the area of Freemasonry, given the, so far as I know, comparative lack of documentation often available. However, that isn't cause to say that the information can't be included if it were to prove to be the case that no such evidence that Freemasonry were not "officially" invovled can be found. I realize that we are running into the difficulty of saying that "they're all alike" here, but if we can't find any contrary information, even if the info available might seem to be POV, that would be what the evidence available indicates, and as such would be perfectly acceptable. What I think is probably needed here is some sort of formal statement from a member, preferably a leader, of Freemasonry indicating that it is clearly the case that members do not always do what higher-ups indicate. Unfortunately, based on information on some of the oaths of Freemasonry I have read, that might be difficult to prove. This is a quagmire, and I hope everyone involved realizes that. John Carter 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That is why I decided to be bold and cut so much. I cut out the part that quagmires us, and left the parts that are uncontested beyone any doubt. Look, I am not trying to be unresonable here... I am not completely against discussing some of the reasonings and history... but I do care about how that is done. It can't end up being OR, and it has to be neutral and balanced. By being bold and cutting everything that is even remotely objectionable, it gives us something to build upon. We can re-start the conversation from scratch... call in third parties when we disagree and, perhaps, create an article that all sides can live with. Blueboar 18:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning to imply that you were. I was just noting the difficulties invovled. Also, honestly, I think we can expect the Catholicism project, which has 221 members, to produce their information much more quickly than the Freemasonry project, which I think has 15? The fact that one side can produce such information much more quickly than the other doesn't mean that we should let NPOV be pushed aside. John Carter 18:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that any attempt to discuss the reasons for Catholic objections is now going to be labelled original research, no matter how well sourced. This produces an incredibly unsatisfactory article that essentially says "Catholicism disapproves of Freemasonry because, well, it always has". JASpencer 18:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Like I already said, I am a practicing Catholic, and I have no intention of allowing that situation to arise. Under the circumstances, it would reasonably be expected that one side will be able to gather its argument together much more quickly, thus violating POV. Giving one side a bit longer is not the same as giving them an open-ended right to declare "wait a bit longer". John Carter 19:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding all of that, there are significant structural differences which create a challenge. The RCC is directed from a single authority in Rome, Freemasonry is divided into a number of different groupings within which there is no overarching head. Grand Lodge in London cannot speak for Washington, despite being in amity, equally the Grand Orient in Paris cannot speak for the corresponding Grand Orient in Italy.

Within those divisions there are certain doctrinal differences which mean that the organisations don't even recognise one another as legitimate.

ALR 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

JAS... you and I have a long history of butting heads over this article. I don't think either of us can be dispasionate, and right now I think that is what is needed. Why don't we both take a step back, and let some other members of the Catholicism project and the Freemasonry Project be heard from. Then we can all work together on rebuilding the article. Blueboar 19:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want everyone to know that I've nominated the article for the WP:ACID collaboration above. With any luck we can get a few other people involved that way. Certainly, however, it wouldn't hurt if any parties already interested in the article added their names there. John Carter 19:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Done... Blueboar 19:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

Given the litany of RCC complaints I think it's probably worth exploring what we're going to be looking for from sources. No GL actually dignifies the RCCs position with a detailed response, or indeed any response in most cases. Clearly some individual authors will consider each argument. In the main they don't speak from an official position, or consider all flavours of Freemasonry (masculine, androgynous, feminine, requiring a GAOTU or not requiring a GAOTU) thus they're not actually adequate for the purposes of the article.

There is a possibility that papers written at Sheffield University might meet the requirements, but access to those becomes an issue.

We could of course pitch the article as very much an RCC centric and caveat any statement accordingly, capping with the clause that FM isn't unified therefore no-one can speak for it and nobody in authority responds to these claims anyway.

ALR 20:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A perfect example of what we are talking about

Yesteday evening, JAS added the following line to the section on "Freemasonry's position": "Some Continental jurisdictions, such as France and Italy, have had a more anti-clerical official position."... He gave us no source to back the statement up. With no source it is clearly both POV and OR. I have deleted it.

I seriously question whether anti-clericism was ever an "official position", for any jurisdiction. There may well have been individual Grand Masters or other prominent Masons who made Anti-clericial (political) statements... but were they making these statements on behalf of their Jurisdiction, or were they making them as individuals? That makes a big difference.

If there is a source, it would have to be an "official" document from a Grand Lodge or Grand Orient for it to be included in the section. Otherwise, it is mearly third party's opinion that the official position is anti-clerical, and that would have to go into a different section.

Finally, to do the topic justice we would have to mention the fact that since the late 1700s there have been multiple, competing jurisdictions in both France and Italy. Some of which were openly anti-clerical (or more correctly, knowing the politics of the time, against Church involvement in Government - which is a subtley different thing). Others, however, supported the Pro-Church side of the political debate. Context is everything here. Blueboar 13:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Would the participation of the largest masonic body in France in a large secularist demonstration be worthy of mention? I fully recognise that the GOdF are non-UGLE (would that make them PRETTE? I'll get my coat) but the perceived anti-clericalism of the Latin Lodges - and its contrast with the English speaking lodges - is an important part of the story. Indeed most masonic accounts I've read have treated it as almost the only important part of the story. JASpencer 21:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be worth a lot more that a mention... It might not rate any mention. It depends on what the sources say. Once again, the context is everything. What was the demonstration about? Was it predominantly poitical or religious in nature? Under what circumstances did the masonic body (I presume you are talking about the GOdF?) participate in the domonstration? Did this body intend their participation to be an anti-clerical statement, or is that simply how the Church viewed their participation? Did participation represent the "official position" of the entire body, or just the views of a segment of the body? Did someone speak at this demonstration on behalf of the body, and if so who? And if so, did they have authority to do so. Did participation lead to a later "official statement"? Did participation start yet another round of schism in French Freemasonry (and thus not reflect the position of all Freemasons)? What do Masonic sources tell us about the demonstration and the masonic bodies participation in it? What do Church sources tell us about this? What do independant third party (ie non-masonic and non-Church) sources say about it?... These are all important questions that would need to be examined, and probably addressed in the article if we mention this demonstration.

It also depends on where in the article you want to mention it (Are we still talking about the "Freemasonry's position" section, or are we talking about some other section?). It also depends on how you mention it. A blunt statement that the Freemasons participated and, thus, were Anti-clerical would certainly be OR without attribution as to who makes this conclusion. On the other hand, if the Church views this demonstration as an important event that in part crystalized its perception of Freemasonry (and thus it's stance), I could see that view being discussed. We would need sources telling us that this was the reaction of the Church to the demonstration.

So far, you have not given us any sources to work with on this issue. Blueboar 03:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

On a minor point, I think it should be mentioned that OR only really applies to statements in an article which are not at all stated in the sources. Calling something which actually is sourced, but not separately referenced, is not necessarily OR. I think it might help the discussion if WP:OR, WP:POV, and/or WP:SYNTH were used when specifically appropriate, as calling something OR when it may simply be not yet specifically sourced can be confusing. John Carter 14:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no... It depends on what the sources actually say. What I am particularly worried about is synthetic statements, and taking material from several sources out of context and forming conclusions that are not actually stated in the sources. This was common in the old version of the article, and is something I want to avoid in any re-write of the article.

Look, I am not trying to say that there was never an element of Anti-cleriscism in the Continental jurisdictions... nor trying to block appropriate discussion of this... I am simply trying to point out that making blunt sweeping statements about Freemasonry (whether as a whole, or in discussing it's various "branches") inevitably results in the statement being both OR and POV. To make it not OR we need sources that tie all the various bits and pieces together. So far, I have not seen any. To make it not POV, all the shades of grey need to be explored. This is a complex topic, and that complexity needs to be discussed in full. Not relegated to short sweeping statements. Blueboar 15:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if anything I said was seen as being critical. I can agree that synthezing information is very problematic. Syncretion of information can even at times result in disciplinary actions, like one case currently before ArbCom in which I am involved. It is something which can and should be commented on, and removed whenever specific sources specifically making those statements are not produced. However, there could be I suppose cases in which it wouldn't be syncretionary. It doesn't help that the Freemasonry article in it's first sentence refers to freemasonry as a "fraternal organization", indicating it is all the same organization, though. If, forever, a statement were made about the Grand Lodge of England regarding a time when it was the only Grand Lodge, perhaps regarding an issue which wasn't known to be disputed by the lodges that didn't join it, such a statement might not be OR, although it could require clarification depending on subsequent developments. And I wasn't implying at all that your motivations for your comments and actions weren't completely above board. I'm just pointing out that there might be cases where a potentially "sweeping" statement might be used. I would agree it should be used in only very clear, specific, circumstances, though. John Carter 15:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OK... I get what you are saying. I suppose I am still reacting a bit to the article that was, and not to the article that might be. I will try to focus on the future. Blueboar 15:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"I am not trying to say that there was never an element of Anti-cleriscism in the Continental jurisdictions". How would you phrase this in the article? I'm open to suggestions. JASpencer 19:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be more useful to focus on finding a source which states either that the RCC assesses that specific GL/ GOs were explicitly anti-clerical, or one which self defines a GL/ GO as such. Clearly an independent assessment of that would also meet the requirement, although would require a caveat to be representative.

ALR 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And that is the whole point here. What we say needs to reflect what the sources say. We should not be writing things and then finding sources to back what we wrote... we should be doing "source based research", finding out what the majority of reliable sources say on the topic and then writing articles that accurately reflect what those sources say. Blueboar 02:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The position of Freemasonry

Recognising that UGLEs statements only specifically apply to UGLE and to be truly representative we'd need to gain a reference about the RCC from every GL in existence, is there a risk that the statement ends up disproportionatly referenced? Now clearly by being selective we end up with the potential inference that there might be a GL, somewhere, which prevents RCs from being initiated. I'd like to turn it round. Given that the requirement is for a belief in a Supreme Being (or none in the irregular tradition which styles itself Freemasonry) then surely the absence of any prohibition is implicit. Can anyone provide an explicit reference to any GL, regular or irregular, which prevents RCs from being initiated? I appreciate that someone is likely to suggest that the inference I've just made is synthesis, however I think there is more value, during the discussion, in actually trying to demonstrate that which is currently inferred in the text that's been put in place this evening.

ALR 22:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

ALR, the misrepresentation in that paragraph is not that most masonic bodies do not run an Affaire Des Fiches, they clearly don't (although some did), but that it gives an impression that Freemasonry at all times and all places has "maintained a dignified silence" on the matter. This was not the case as is well known. JASpencer 22:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think misrepresentation is a bit strong if you're going to cite one example, and following the link in that article onwards I'd suggest that article is entirely blameless on that front either. Particularly since it doesn't pertain to the question I asked.

Can you provide any evidence at all which indicates that any GLs or GOs (I'll make it easier and say I'm not too bothered at this stage whether regular or irregular) bar RCs from membership?

TIA

ALR 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Affaire Des Fiches? Not really the main issue. The issue is that the idea that Freemasonry is simply defined by a rather bewildered near silence is not the whole story. The attitude of many branches of "irregular" Freemasonry is rather important here. Any way I've moved some text around in the article and will see what happens. JASpencer 22:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"The attitude of many branches of 'irregular' Freemasonry is rather important here." I don't disagree in any way with that statement ... and we can banter about what that attitude might or might not have been all we want here on the talk page... but to add anything about it to the article, you have to have solid sources that discuss that attitude. Otherwise you end up with OR. Blueboar 02:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

JAS... your recent addition to the Position of Freemasonry section is misplaced. Neither what you wrote, nor the sources supporting what you wrote reflect Freemasonry's position, ...rather they reflect the Church's view of the differences between various Masonic jurisdictions, a very different matter indeed. I have moved it to its own little sub section for now. Blueboar 02:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

JAS, the fact that the GOdF received files collected by the French Government from a member of government staff is not evidence of corporate anti-clericalism. The source linked to from the Affaire de Fiches article is not clear on why those files were passed on.

So you've managed to come up with one example which the RCC might use to support the contention that the GOdF has an official policy of anti-clericalism. That still doesn't answer the question, have you got anything which indicates that any GL or GO bars RCs from membership?

ALR 09:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a misplaced question, but I'm not sure that there would ever necessarily be such a requirement. As I understand it, the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps among others, explicitly forbids any of its members from being both Roman Catholic (in terms of receiving the sacraments) and Freemasons. So, in effect, there would not be any need for such a ban, because anyone who was a "serious", observant Roman Catholic would not consider becoming a Mason in any event. I'm fairly sure the NAACP doesn't have an explicit ban on members of the Ku Klux Klan joining either. There would be no need to have one. As such, I think that the above question could be perhaps a bit misleading, as it seems to ignore that the Freemasons would not have to take such action, as the other side acted first. That isn't saying that they might not consider barring an observant Roman Catholic were it possible for one to apply for membership, simply that as outside circumstances have developed they have no need to. John Carter 13:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

JAS took issue with the use of a UGLE statement as being representative, and I suspect that he recognises that a number of RCs are members of the craft and related organisations. My own experience is that they tend to be observant, and highly active in their faith.

The position of regular Freemasonry is that anyone who professes a belief in a Supreme Being is free to join, however that in the past wasn't explicit enough to satisfy the direction of this particular article. UGLE states a position, par tof the reason for that is a public misconception over RCs membership, it's quite common in the UK for people to construe the RCCs position as a ban on RCs by FM.

I would be quite content to state that Regular FM considers anyone for membership who meets the requirements, the implication being that RCs are free to join. However it is highly likely that statement could be construed as synthesis or OR.

I don't actually think the point is a sensible use of time, however I am as wary of allowing insinuation into the article as much as I am the volume of OR which was there in the past.

ALR 14:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum, the phrasing suggests that whilst in principle there is no need, there might be a desire to bar RCs. That's also an inference I would not wish to see in the article without some solid justification, or a caveat that it's the RCCs assessment.

ALR 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

John, your comment is off base in several ways. Frist, by limiting itself to "serious", obervant Catholics, you leave out those who might be considered "Cafetiria" Catholics... less "serious" or "observant" Catholics who don't always follow Church teachings. They might well (and frequently do) consider joining a Masonic Lodge. It also assumes something about Freemasonry that just isn't true. I would be willing to say that if an observant Catholic wished to join a Masonic Lodge (even an irregular Continental Lodge), he would be welcomed. Over the centuries millions of observant Catholics have become, and continue to become Masons, both regular and irregular (who do you think made/makes up the majority of membership in all those "Latin" lodges JAS is concerned about.)

About the only time where I could see a Lodge turning down a Catholic applicant because of his Catholicism would be if the man wanted to join, but his wife objected on religious grounds. Mason's often turn down candidates if it turns out the wife has a problem with his joining. Blueboar 15:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You are also off base in your KKK vs. NAACP analogy. In that case you are dealing with mutually opposed groups. They are in a sence mutually exclusive foes. A member of the KKK would never think of joining the NAACP... nor would a member of the NAACP think of joining the KKK. With our situation, however, we have a very different situation. While the Church officially opposes Freemasonry, Freemasonry does not return the favor. It is a one sided conflict. Blueboar 15:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Not in all cases, and I was trying to limit myself to those specific instances. That's why I intentionally specified only the "committed" RCs. I do note that there has, from what I've heard, always been a very inimical relationship between some Italian Freemason bodies and the Roman church. I know in that particular instance, the likelihood of an "committed" RC joining those lodges is nil from the word go, given the history of animus between the two bodies. In cases like that, there would be no need to "ban" a committed RC from Freemasonry, because the request would not be made in the first place, as other similar organizations exist within Catholicism, like the Knights of Columbus and similar organizations. Any request that would be made could be seen as being a "victory" for the Masons in winning a "convert" from the Catholicism they frown upon. So, in effect, any "committed" Catholic wouldn't apply for membership in those Masonic bodies, and there would be no need to create procedures for such events, as they wouldn't arise in the first place. It is one thing to say, for instance, the NAACP doesn't have specific procedures to ban KKK members. However, Freemasons do have some requirements for being offered membership, and someone who disagreed with the principles of a given body could be easily, if perhaps indirectly, blackballed on that basis. Such "officially unofficial" bans are present in numerous organizations. While there may be no official statement from the body to a given effect, that doesn't mean that, in practice, such things cannot and do not happen. In such cases, only unofficial sources would exist, but, if reputable, I think they would be reasonably included. I cannot however say that I know such sources to exist, however, just pointing out the possibility. John Carter 16:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I see another of the issues here, one I alluded to above but wasn't specific about. Private Lodges are just that, private. Grand Lodges set the policy requirements for membership, and within what I describe as Regular GLs they broadly align in general and specifically align over things like gender, belief in a SB etc.

Individual members within a lodge may have a private position which would lead them to blackball a candidate, but it's the individual who does so. It does depend on local byelaws how many would be required to bar a candidate; in England and Scotland that's generally three.

I hope that helps to advance the discussion.

ALR 16:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

John, I think your hypothetical is off base... primarily because (as long as the Church maintains the ban) a "committed" Catholic wouldn't ask to join in the first place. By your definition, if he did, he would no longer be "committed".

I do want to comment on your statement: "Freemasons do have some requirements for being offered membership"... For one thing, Freemasons don't "offer" membership to people. It has been long tradition that a potential candidate for Masonry ISN'T asked to join. Instead we have to wait until he asks us. Secondly, yes there are membership requirements... but having (or not having) a particular religious faith isn't one of them. "Mainstream" lodges only ask one religious question: "Do you believe in God"?... that's it. As far as your religion is concerned, if you say yes, Masonry will accept you. Period end of discussion. Irregular Masonry does not even ask that question (or if they do, phrase it in a way that allows them to accept Atheists). That is the "Official" position. It was put in place at the very start of Freemasonry (long before any Catholic ban). The idea was that issues of religion lead to disharmony and argument, so we (being all about brotherhood and friendship) don't talk about such issues. In other words, your supposition that we don't bar Catholics because "there is no need to do so" (as they will bar themselves) is off base... we were founded on the principal of inclusiveness... that Catholics and Protestants (later expanded to include Jews, Muslems, Hindus, and in continental jurisdictions, even Atheists) were all welcome.

That said, ALR does have a point. I suppose that an individual Mason or group of Masons could vote to blackball a candidate based on his being Catholic. We are a human institution... and individual humans are prone to every type of human fault, including religious bigotry. All I can say is that such an act would go against the very prinicpals of Freemasonry itself, and if it could be proven that a candidate was blackballed on the basis of his being a Catholic, the brethren involved could be brought up on Masonic charges and either be expelled or seriously repremanded.

No, I am willing to make sweeping statements on this... FREEMASONRY has always accepted Catholics. It is part of our core beliefs. If there is a body that doesn't... it no longer can be considered Masonic.

This does not mean that everything has been hunky-dory between the Vatican and individual Grand Lodges and Grand Orients. There certainly have been tensions through the years. But does it equate to "opposition"? That is a much more difficult question. Blueboar 20:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Some years ago, my employer at the time went out of his way to indicate that he thought I would make a good candidate for the local Lodge, which I was not in a position to accept, as a Catholic. On that basis, I assumed such "offers" were standard procedure. If they are not, as you indicate, my apologies for my misstatement. John Carter 20:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem... I suppose this is a matter of semantics... while we are not supposed to solicit people (by asking them to join)... we can "bend" the rules by talking about the idea and indicating that "if they were to ask their request would probably be met with favor (hint hint)". If they don't follow up on the hint by asking, we don't press the issue. Blueboar 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in GLMA, there was ruling from the GM a few years back that a Brother COULD invite a man to join, if he thought him a good potential. It just HAD to not be PRESSURE. An invite, not made repeatedly. A man had to come because he wanted to, not because someone cajoled him to. It was ruled that an invite does not violate "free will and accord".--Vidkun 16:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Quotation request

JAS has requested the text of the citation from S. Brent Morris's Complete Idiots Guide to Freemasonry. I am going to provide it here, instead of in the article. As JAS may remember from previous discussion we have had, I absolutely detest his habit of providing little bits of text for each citation... Without meaning to imply that JAS is doing so on purpose, I feel that this is often done as a way to cover for improperly cherry picking and using the quoted material out of context ... thus facilitating OR and POV. I will not play that game. If someone wishes to see the citation, they can go obtain it for themselves and read it in its entirely and in context. (note for the above reasons, I will delete the following if it is moved to the article.)

on p. 207. within the context of a more complete discussion of the Catholic ban, Morris writes: "During the Pontificate of Paul VI (1963-1978) local and church authorities were allowed to decide if Freemasonry in their areas violated Canon 2335. Freemasonry never formally prohibited Catholics from joining, but centuries of name calling left bitter feelings on both sides. Nonetheless, with case-by-case approval by local Church authorities, many Catholics became Freemasons."

To explain one change from the original, JAS may remember that originally this article had followed Dr. Morris's wording, and said "Many Catholics are Freemasons"... but it was switched when he objected to this wording because the several thousand Catholics who became Freemasons at the time Morris is discussing do not form "many" when compared to the total number of Catholics world wide. We agreed that switching it was more accurate (the number of Catholic who joined the fraternity does equate to "many" when compared to the total number of Freemasons). Blueboar 21:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I remember that now. I find your dislike of quotes, especially in offline sources, almost as damaging as other editors' dislike of referencing. JASpencer 21:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A good example of taking things out of context

At the moment, the article includes the following rather startling statement: "A Catholic spokesman has contended that the major Masonic jurisdictions in Europe and Latin America were "anti-clerical from the start" and as hostile to practicing Catholics as the Ku Klux Klan was to African Americans."

The citation is to The Pastoral Problem of Masonic Membership by William Whalen. A quotation from this document is included...

• Although the 1981 clarification by the Sacred Congregation came shortly after the exposure of the P2 conspiracy, nothing in the statement indicated that its intent was limited to Italian or continental Masonry. An estimated 30,000 Masons belong to five hundred lodges within three jurisdictions in Italy. Everyone knows that the Grand Orient Lodges of Europe and Latin America have been anti-clerical from the start. For the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to advise Catholics against joining these Grand Orient Lodges would be like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People advising blacks against applying for membership in the Ku Klux Klan. Those who say that the Church really directs her condemnation against the Grand Orient Lodges must assume that the Vatican does not know that Freemasonry is English in origin and overwhelmingly English-speaking in membership.

I think the statement slightly mis-states the source. Secondly, when you put the source back into context of the larger document, it takes on slightly different conotations... here is the entire passage:

Reasons for Condemnation

"The March II, 1985 issue of L'Osservatore Romano carried an article titled "Irreconcilability Between Christian Faith and Freemasonry" as a comment on the November 26, 1983 declaration. In part, the Vatican newspaper said a Christian "cannot cultivate relations of two types with God nor express his relation with the Creator through symbolic forms of two types. That would be something completely different from that collaboration, which to him is obvious, with all those who are committed to doing good, even if beginning from different principles. On the one hand, a Catholic Christian cannot at the same time share in the full communion of Christian brotherhood and, on the other, look upon his Christian brother, from the Masonic perspective, as an 'outsider.'"

Some have suggested that the reaffirmation of the historic condemnation by the Church was prompted by the P2 scandal. Grand Master Licio Gelli directed this secret Masonic Lodge known as Propaganda Two or P2, whose aim seems to have been to restore fascism in Italy and to bolster right-wing governments in Latin America. When Italian police raided his villa in 1981, they discovered the Lodge's membership roster, which listed 953 people, including the heads of Italy's intelligence agencies, generals, cabinet ministers, judges, bankers, industrialists and the like. Gelli had persuaded a number of individuals, such as financier Roberto Calvi, that membership in the Masonic Lodge was now allowed by the Church. Actually, it appears that the P2 Lodge plotted more against the Italian state than [against] the Church, although the Masonic financiers who were called in to handle the Vatican's investments (such as Sindona) cost the Church many millions of dollars. The P2 case did demonstrate that Masonic secrecy could camouflage and facilitate conspiracies of the political right, even in the shadows of St. Peter's.

On the other hand, a recent book by Stephen Knight alleges that the KGB used the secrecy and networking of English Freemasonry to place spies in top intelligence jobs. It encouraged its operatives to try to join Masonic Lodges to gain preferential treatment in their careers. In particular, the author charges that Freemasons propelled Sir Roger Hollis into a series of rapid promotions, which led to his being named head of M15 counterintelligence in 1956. A book by Chapman Pincher, published in 1981, attempted to prove that Hollis was a Soviet agent. Knight's book was published in the United States in November, 1984 by Stein and Day of New York under the title The Brotherhood: The Secret World of Freemasons.

Both the right and the left have seen the advantages of using the Masonic organizations to further their causes. At one time. Masonry was known as a chief bulwark of republican forms of governments. Actually, in the United States today most observers would probably label the Lodges as both politically reactionary and racist.

Although the 1981 clarification by the Sacred Congregation came shortly after the exposure of the P2 conspiracy, nothing in the statement indicated that its intent was limited to Italian or continental Masonry. An estimated 30,000 Masons belong to five hundred lodges within three jurisdictions in Italy. Everyone knows that the Grand Orient Lodges of Europe and Latin America have been anti-clerical from the start. For the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to advise Catholics against joining these Grand Orient Lodges would be like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People advising blacks against applying for membership in the Ku Klux Klan. Those who say that the Church really directs her condemnation against the Grand Orient Lodges must assume that the Vatican does not know that Freemasonry is English in origin and overwhelmingly English-speaking in membership. Of the estimated six million members in all the various types of Masonic Lodges worldwide, about four million live in the United States, 750,000 in the United Kingdom, 250,000 in Canada, and 400,000 in Australia and New Zealand. Perhaps nine out of ten Masons live in an English-speaking country.

For U.S. bishops and priests, the pastoral problem not only involves those Catholic laymen who joined Masonic lodges during the period of confusion in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It extends to the general public. Catholic and non-Catholic, which does not understand why the Catholic Church, in an era of ecumenism, persists in condemning an organization often known for its charities and good works. We have no reason to doubt the testimony of so many American Masons that they have never heard a word of criticism of the Roman Church in lodge meetings or functions. In fact, Masonry rules out discussions of religion and politics in the Lodge."

And if you look at the rest of the document, it turns out that the source is a bit more of an anti-masonic conspiracy theory rant than a "dispassionate" examination of the issues. I have to question our article calling Whalen a "Catholic Spokesman"... does he really speak for all Catholicism? Blueboar 21:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, this statement that may or may not be an "anti-masonic conspiracy theory rant" was commissioned by the American bishop's conference and sent out with the 1985 letter under Cardinal Law's authority. Whalen was a Catholic Spokesman and he may not speak for every single Catholic but he does speak, at least in regards of Freemasonry circa 1985, for the Catholic Bishops in the United States of America. JASpencer 23:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, as I remember, he was a professor of religion at the University of Indiana and wrote quite a number of works dealing with the versions of Christianity native to the United States, of which the majority of the full books (not counting pamphlets, etc.), are counted as being very well researched and referenced. I believe that under the circumstances he very likely qualifies as a reliable sourceas per WP:RS. Also, frankly, given his credentials, I believe he probably qualifies as more than simply a spokesman, but as a reputable scholar who meets WP:V and WP:RS in his own right. John Carter 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yikes... that slightly scares me. Given how much he repeats the conspiracy theory stuff, stuff that has been totally discredited as if it were accepted fact, that really makes me worried for the future of the Church. I mean I thought everyone knew that P2 was not a legit Lodge, and that no one took knights claims seriously... what's next? Leo Taxil wasn't a fraud? Freemasons are the Illuminati and they worship the Devil? Sigh, OK... so even an official spokesman can be unbelievably gullible... and I suppose he is (or at least was) a legit Catholic spokesman. It still doesn't negate my point... when you take the passage that was quoted, and put it into the context of the entire document, its meaning and impact slightly changes. And it definitely is not the same intent as the short sentence it is being used to support. Blueboar 01:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have slightly changed the statement around to directly attribute and quote Whalen's words instead of our interpretation of his words. I think Whalen is over simplifying a very complex issue... but, as you say, he was offical. Blueboar 01:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his official status doesn't mean much per se. However, he pretty clearly does meet the standards of an independent, third-party source (independent from the Masons, anyway), who can meet Verifiability and reliability standards. That's about all that's required. WP:Undue weight might be a factor, but to establish that we would need to see third-party sources which would seem to contradict him. John Carter 01:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the report was comissioned by the Conference, then it's not third party, he's writing on behalf of his client.

I'd suggest that there is an issue with how the quotation is used at present, even the excerpt used in the notes is clearly not particularly rigorous. I do recognise that WP:RS is pretty weak in this area, but I'm not particularly supportive of stating that an author is inherently reliable or what he says is inherently verifiable just because of who he is. I'm afraid that everbody knows... just isn't a convincing argument.

I don't have a big issue with the inclusion, because it's clearly a position supported by the conference. It should probably be caveated to make clear that it was commissioned on behalf of and the statement used is his opinion.

ALR 11:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for my earlier misstatement. John Carter 14:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to have it phrased as a "statement of opinion"... I'll have to dig out my copy of Jasper Ridley"s The Freemasons. As I remember, he goes into some depth in his discussion of the whole "Continental" style Freemasonry issue, and talks about the relationship between the Grand Orient of Italy and the Papacy in particular. It provides a historian's view point, that is a bit different from Whalen's. Blueboar 13:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

One question which might be relevant here. If reliable, verifiable, third-party outsiders were to make a statement regarding policies and activities of the Freemasons, perhaps even indicating that such policies and activities were in fact the accepted norm, but the rules of Freemasonry itself as they have been released for public consumption did not explicitly state them, but also did not say anything which would seem to contradict them, would anyone argue that it would be inappropriate to state them. I only state this because as we all know from the history of the 20th century, specifically regarding the "democratic" policies of several communist countries, and such works as A Few Good Men, it can be and often is the fact that some of the most important "rules" of any organization are never formally written down. John Carter 14:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Um... I am not sure what you are getting at. In this case, the "rules" have been written down... and can be sourced (we have Constitutions and "official" statements from multiple Grand Lodges and Grand Orients). The written rules state that Freemasonry accepts men of all faiths... that includes Catholics. Are you claiming that some source somewhere speculates that there are secret unwritten rules contradicting these written rules? If so, I would say that the "official" sources trump any speculation from an outsider. Blueboar 17:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. What I'm asking is, if a source who is a third-party who would seem to meet the Verifiability and Reliability requirements were to say such a thing, would there be any objections to mentioning it. I'm not really trying to address Freemasonry per se here, but do note that several countries have written laws regarding certain things which the governments themselves are regularly accused of either ignoring or exceeding. If such a source were found who seemed to meet such qualifications, how should it be included, if at all? Primarily asking from the theoretical standpoint, but I can't rule out the possibility of such sources existing for some things somewhere. As an active and practicing Catholic, I would favor inclusion of such content in relevant articles regarding that group as well, although I haven't worked with that many articles related to the subject and don't know if I have yet or not. John Carter 17:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally speaking I don't believe that an individual is inherently reliable or verifiable, although I realise I'm out of step with what's said on WP:RS on that matter. I bailed out of any participation when it became clear what direction the policy/ guideline were taking.

With all that in mind it's a claim, since it's not demonstrably verifiable.

ALR 17:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is helpful to discuss hypotheticals. There are too many variables. I suppose there could be a situation where such a source is so impecable that I would have no grounds to object. I can also see a lot of hypothetical situations where I would strongly object. So, I'm not going to agree or disagree to something that is hypothetical. For one thing, it may never be a reality. Let's deal with this question if and when we need to... if and when we are dealing with an actual source that someone actually wants to use. Blueboar 17:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Current revision

I think the most recent change to the article could potentially be POV. We don't actually have a direct source that I know of saying what Whalen's opinion is. Also, I cannot see how the removal of the first three words, which are significant in terms of the quote, can really be justified. I can see that it might be possible to add content prior to the quote indicating that there is a historical dsipute between the two bodies, but the revision of the sourced statement in a potentially POV way is not a good practice in general. The preceding introduction would probably be sufficient to establish that the source is coming from a specific viewpoint, and is probably enough to establish that the subject is not necessarily neutral. John Carter 17:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that Whalen wrote it, I think we can assume that he was expressing his opinion. I agree that it is a significant opinion in that he writes it as a Catholic spokesman... but it is an opinion and not proven fact. We need to make that clear. In the case of the words "Everyone knows that..." it is clearly just Whalan's opinion. Here, he is not even speaking as a spokesman for the Chruch... or are you saying that it is the official Catholic position that "Everyone knows" ? I cut those words because they really are not important... what is important is that the Church feels that the rest of the sentence is true.Blueboar 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That is one person's opinion, and in this case could very easily be seen as simply a statement of the unacceptable idea WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. No individual has the right to determine, on their own without prior consultation, as was seemingly done here, how to alter a directly quoted sentence to more readily conform to their own POV. The writer chose to phrase the statement the way he did. Like I said, I can see additional content being added earlier to indicate that the Roman Catholic church has stated that Freemasonry is a grand conspiracy and whatever else, but no one person has the right to cherrypick words so that it effectively softens the blow of the removed words, nor does any one person in a collaborative effort like wikipedia have the authority or right to determine what they will "allow" another editor to add, in terms of verifiable, sourced information. If you want to discuss making such changes, fine, I urge you to do so. But, as is, the words which you removed probably serve to indicate to non-Catholics that the writer wasn't completely objective better than your revision did, and your revision can be seen to have made the original quote less objectionable. Also, I think it would be reasonable to explicitly seek the input of others before making such changes in sourced material. John Carter 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar. In this case I don't think it's appropriate to crop the quote, the section remains a statement of the RCC position based on the US Conference. If the Bishops choose to use that piece of scholarship to support their conclusions then that is entirely up to them. Personally I find it surprising that they should draw attention to the lack of intellectual rigour applied,. but that's just me. I'm sure someone, somewhere, thinks that the paper is a comprehensive, well researched product ;) All that's required is sufficiant caveating around the statement to make clear that it is not independent. It might actually be worth increasing the volume quoted, I'm also not keen on tucking contentious material away in footnotes.

I still think it's worth considering a re-titling of the entire article to reflect the RCC emphasis.

ALR 20:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-clerical vs. Anti-Catholic

Is there a difference between being Anti-clerical and being Anti-Catholic? If so, would a discussion of the difference help us in establishing a more neutral tone? Blueboar 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A neutral "tone" is not what is required, but rather neutral content. While there is potentially a difference between the two terms (there are clerics in the Lutheran church and others as well), the single best way to ensure that there continues to be neutral input is probably if editors do not on their own seek to alter direct quotes or attempt to change the content of the article to be less than neutral. Frankly, your last change was very possibly the worst thing that could be done to help ensure that neutral input remain in the article, and I suggest that you revert your non-consensus change as a demonstration of good faith. Changes in content should be discussed on the talk page before being made. John Carter 18:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well... I will put back the "Everyone knows that..." phrase, since it is part of Whalen's wording. But given that the quote is an opinion, and is not a proven fact I am going to keep it phrased as an opinion (after all, even if there is only one person in the entire world that does not agree with what Whalen says, then it is not a fact that "Everyone knows"). Blueboar 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to my question... Whether we talk about "tone" or "content" (and I think both are important, as the tone of an article can skew it towards being NPOV just as much as the content)... if we can differentiate between being Anti-clerical and Anti-Catholic, we would be presenting a clearer picture of what was going on in European Freemasonry in the 1800s. The historical Anti-clerical politics of some of the European Grand Orients, were not Anti-Catholic in nature. This should be mentioned if we are going to talk about how they were and were not Anti-clerical. Blueboar 18:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

From what you have said above, you would seem to have some evidence to support such a contention. If you have it, then certainly it could reasonably be added. I would assume that such content would either indicate opposition to other churches as well, with perhaps specific evidence relating to at least one non-Catholic church, or specifically indicate opposition to religious clerics in general way, although perhaps in a country where Catholic clerics were the only readily apparent ones. For the latter, I think it would help if there were a direct quote from somebody saying something like "We oppose giving any degree of secular authority to religious employees" (or something similar), to make it clear that at least theoretically they did oppose all such clericalism, even if in practice only Catholics might have been targeted as a result of population factors. John Carter 18:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we are talking about your later example... countries where Catholic clerics were the only readily apparent ones (the various Italian states of the time come especially to mind). But this is why I ask my question in the first place... before I go an spend time looking for sources, I want to know if we can even agree on the definition of terms... is there a difference between Anti-clericism and Anti-Catholicism in this instance. And perhaps more importantly, does/did the Church see them as being different, and if so what are/were the differences? Blueboar 19:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The page Anti-clericalism indicates that there is such a difference. Also, I think the Roman Catholic church (I'm presuming that's the "Church" you're talking about) does recognize that anti-clericalism directed at Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East clergy has been known to exist as well, with in some cases several clerics being killed as a result. What would be desirable would be a statement of the kind I mentioned, which opposes any ties between church and state or whatever, to indicate that they weren't "selectively enforcing" an opinion against the Roman Catholics. But coming from the Saints WikiProject, I know that there are several instances of oppression of non-Catholic churches as well, and I have no doubt that the church does recognize that, and that individual members of the church would do so as well. In some of those cases, though they might like a bit of proof. If I don't see such a comment, let me know, and I'll prove to them that such behavior has been demonstrated against other churches as well as just the RC church. John Carter 19:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Now this is interesting... while reading the Anti-clericism article I came across Laïcité... I wonder if this is not actually a more accurate term. I doubt that there is a Masonic document that says "what we are doing is Laïcité and not Anti-clericism" or anything (at least I don't know of one) but the definition and discription that the article uses seems to fit with the historical fact a lot better than Anti-clericism. So perhaps we should be using that term instead? Your thoughts? Blueboar 20:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL... just as I wrote that last bit... JASpencer adds: "The Grand Orient de France publicly campaigns for "laïcité" and a restriction on the Catholic Church's role in politics." to the article. I have no objection to the statement at this time (it seems to be accurate). However, given John's comment about adding things without discussion (see below), I will request that any further additions JASpencer wishes to make be discussed here first. Goose and Gander and all that. Blueboar 20:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I entered this before reading the talk page. I don't like the idea of a freeze as the current article seems to read as if the Catholic Church is just banning Freemasonry in pique, but for the sake of peace I will abide with this. JASpencer 20:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict response to Blueboar) That page is being suggested for merging, and I'd want to make sure that the page remains separate before establishing any links to it. Whether "each individual [within the public sphere] should appear to be devoid of ethnic, religious or other particularities", which is another condition of Laïcité, is directly relevant to Freemasonry, I don't know. Also, I think in at least some cases, the line between the two terms can be vague. Thinking particularly here of cases where the church already has influence in the public sphere, as in those cases an adherent of Laïcité could also be described as anti-clerical. I guess the best way to answer that is that this statement, "Laïcité does not necessarily imply, by itself, any hostility of the government with respect to religion. It is best described a belief that government and political issues should be kept separate from religious organizations and religious issues (as long as the latter do not have notable social consequences)", seems to me to indicate that the word is the equivalent of the phrase "separation of church and state". If Freemasonry's historical opposition to "clerics" has been solely and exclusively based on that idea, then I would have no reservations, although I might prefer the latter, more comprehensible, phrase to the word. If that hasn't been the case, though, I would oppose it as misleading. Granted, that would involve qualifiers for irregular lodges, etc., but that's no real problem. I'm afraid I don't know the factual history of Freemasonry well enough to be able to directly answer that myself, but wouldn't mind if it were appropriate. Also, it isn't really "adding" material which anyone can object to, and I don't think I did, but making changes in existing content, particularly quotes, to make them appear more NPOV is another thing entirely. No one would I think favor a freeze on addition of content which covers relevant material not already adressed in the article, but making changes to existing content which appears to change that content's meaning without prior approval is another matter. John Carter 20:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I really would like to discuss any significant changes or additions before they are made. We are going to be talking about controvercial material, and it will solve all sorts of problems if we bounce drafts off of each other ... and discuss exactly how things should be phrased first. Blueboar 21:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)