User:DonaNobisPacem/Works in Progress

Hi all - this is simply a page where I am working on large portion of text, before adding them to an article. This allows me to work on various pieces piece-meal, collect sources, edit, etc outside of the actual article to avoid thousands of posts as I tweak my work.

To get to my user page, please click here.

Hope Alive

- write an article on Hope Alive, a therapy program founded by Dr. Philip Ney

Knights Templar - history rewrite.

Task 1: Trial/suppression of order.

My sources are, unless otherwise stated, Malcolm Barber's "The New Knighthood," Peter Partner's "Murdered Magicians," and the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. Barber was the primary reference; when either Partner or the Encyclopedia were used as reference, I checked the for conflict with Barber's book; if there was conflict, I defaulted to Barber's account.

Starting with my bulleted list from Talk:Knights Templar, I am going to rewrite into an article.

• On Friday October 13, 1307, Philip IV ordered the arrest of the Templars in France (most of whom were elderly, infirm, or serving brothers). The most likely motivation is desiring the wealth of the Order, but paired with a belief in the Order's heretical practices. The latter is given weight by the earlier expulsion of the Jews (he seized their wealth, but also believed they were desecrating the host), and his earlier actions against Pope Boniface VIII and Guichard, Bishop of Troyes; he was motivated by the belief the pope and the bishop were heretics. He was most likely under the influence of William of Nogaret (excommunicated for the kidnapping of Pope Boniface VIII) and other ministers, as well as French nobility who wanted to gain Templar lands and lessen Church authority. The common strand that runs through all of these events is Philip IV’s belief that he was the saviour of the “true Christianity of the sacred realm of France” from the heretical and diabolical actions of Boniface VIII, Guichard, the Jews, and lastly the Templars.
• The justification for the trial was given as the "revelations" of a few members who had lost their habit. The charges included spitting, trampling, or urinating on the cross; while naked, being kissed obscenely by the receptor on the lips, navel, and base of the spine; heresy and worship of idols; institutionalized homosexuality; and also accusations of contempt of the Holy Mass and denial of the sacraments
• Royal officials, acting nominally under the Inquisition but in reality under the direction of the French crown, began an investigation using torture. In one month of investigations, only 4 of 138 members denied the charges. Including those who confessed were Jacques de Molay, Hugh of Pairaud, the Visitor of the Temple in the West, and Geoffrey of Charney, the Preceptor of Normandy. Within weeks of their arrests Templars were brought into the public to confess to their crimes. The credibility of the trials is (obviously) dubious, as is made obvious by the confessions of knights such as John of Tour (read the book for more details :) )
• Objecting to the disregard of his authority, Clement annulled the proceedings, and suspended the powers of the French bishops and their inquisitors. But bowing to public (that part is important) and royal pressure, Clement eventually ordered a general arrest of Templars outside of France. He then started an investigation: within a month, several leaders recanted their testimonies; the pope stopped proceedings, and the trial stagnated for six months.
• In June 1308, not too pleased with how things were going, Philip arranged for 72 carefully selected Knights to give testimony before the Pope at Poitier. The Pope was sufficiently worried by their testimony to begin a two-part investigation: one in individual dioceses, to determine the guilt of the individual members of the order, and the other a papal investigation to determine the guilt of the Order as a whole. These proceeded at a rather slow pace, further aggravating Philip.
• In February 1310, thirty-two Templars led by Peter of Bologna, the procurator of the Order for the papacy, and Renaud of Provins, mounted an effective defence of the order. Philip IV then arranged for fifty-four Templars who had recanted their earlier admission of guilt to be handed over to secular authorities and burned as relapsed heretics in dioceses where the bishops largely owed their position to the patronage of the king. After this, Templars sent before the papal commission were carefully selected by French authorities to be those who had already confessed to heresy in the French proceedings (as evidenced by Templars from the Diocese of Cleremont.
• Despite the poor defense of the Order, when the papal commission ended its proceedings on June 5, 1311, it found no evidence that the Order itself held heretical doctrines, or used a "secret rule" apart from the Latin and French rules. On October 16, 1311, at the General Council of Vienne held in Dauphiné, the council voted for the maintanence of the Order. At this time, although not all diocesan processes had finished, aside from a few convictions in Italy and the convictions in France, virtually no Templars were convicted of heresy. In France, the initial confessions, though the process had been annulled, were considered to be established fact; and various sentences of imprisonment were handed out to those considered relapsed or impenitent. No further Knights were burned, other than Molay and one other upper official.
• On March 22, 1312, Clement V promulgated the bull Vox in excelsis in which he stated that although there was not sufficient reason to condemn the Order, for the common good, the hatred of the Order by Philip IV, the scandal brought about by their trial, and the likely dilapidation of the Order that was likely to result from the trial, the Order was to be suppressed by the pope’s authority over it. It is important to note it was not condemned by the Church.
• This was followed by the bull Ad Providum on May 2, 1312, which granted all of the Order's lands and wealth to the Hospitallers so that its original purpose could be met. Philip held onto some lands until 1318, and in England the crown and nobility held a great deal until 1338; in many areas of Europe (including England), the land was never given over to the Hospitaller Order, instead taken over by nobility and monarchs in an attempt to lessen the influence of the Church and its Orders. Of the knights who had not admitted to the charges, against those whom nothing had been found, or those who had admitted but reconciled to the Church, some joined the Hospitallers (even staying in the same Templar houses); others joined Augustinian or Cistercian houses; and still others returned to secular life with pension. In Portugal and Aragon, the Holy See granted the properties to two new Orders, the Order of Christ and the Order of Montessa respectively, made up largely of Templars in those kingdoms. In the same bull, he urged those who had pleaded guilty be treated “according to the rigours of justice, tempered by a generous mercy.”
• Molay and his first three dignitaries were found guilty as individuals by the papal commission. They were brought into public to recant of their crimes, after which they were to be imprisoned for life; Molay and Geoffrey of Charney instead denied the charges. Molay announced the innocence of the Order, and offered his life for his false testimony of heresy. Both were seized by French secular authorities as relapsed heretics and burned before the royal palace in 1314. Interestingly enough, there is evidence that the cardinals of the papal commission at one point in 1308 falsified his testimony, saying he plead guilty when he had in reality plead innocent in that appearance, to prevent him from being burned at by French authorities as a relapsed heretic (many in the Order and the Church heirarchy thought the Order would be found innocent, and resume its prior position when the papal commission ended).

Task 2: Early History

Task 3: Organisation of Order

Task 4: List major battles

Task 5: List major fortresses with Wikipedia links - Outremer, Avalon/Portugal, Europe

---

Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry

- can KofC knights be masons, and vice versa? Done

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A letter from Cardinal Bernard Law in 1996 [1], similar to those released by episcopal conferences in other countries, confirmed that a Catholic could not be a Freemason. In the letter, he does address "exceptional cases" (that require pastoral consent):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

various tabs for my user page

Please click here to add a new comment section.