Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 6

message: I'm not sure why the following quote has to be in the article rather than the reference:
:"There are numerous fraternal orders and Friendly Societies whose rituals, regalia and organisation are similar in some respects to Freemasonry's. They have no formal or informal connections with Freemasonry." 
Someone care to elucidate?
JASpencer 21:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, no.  It doesn't say that there was never a link (that would be a direct contradiction) but that there isn't a link now.  The two statements don't contradict each other, Jim Smyth says in their early days there were links between the Orange Order and Freemasons and the UGLE and denies current links.  It would be much easier to say something along the lines of "There used to be strong informal links between Freemasonry and the Orange Order at the beginning (ref Smyth) although there are no current links, either formal or informal. (ref UGLE)" JASpencer 22:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No he didn't.  His phrasing allows the reader to infer that but there does not appear to be a statement by the author.  The informal link is not supported by the citation.  The only informal link is that individuals were members of both, and lifted the form and structure of FM.ALR 22:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's three informal links - membership, form and structure.  I think that it's undeniable that the Orange Order would not have existed if Freemasonry was not pre-existing. JASpencer 22:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think the Orange Order would have been created in some form even without Masonic models to follow (assuming they did).--SarekOfVulcan 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JAS... you are confusing a indirect link with direct connection.  Look at it this way... Freemasonry based its forms on the medieval guilds, which in turn based their structures and forms on the the monastic orders.   By your logic, the Orange Order and the Carbonari have an informal link to the Benedictines and Franciscans.  But I don't see you including a section on "Catholic objections to Monks".  No, what you are doing is trying to say that the Orange Order and Carbonari were influenced by Freemasonry is far more than just its forms and structure.  You are trying to say that their political agendas were influenced by Freemasonry... indeed that they are part of Freemasonry.  That is where things fall apart for you, because they are not part of Freemasonry and never were, you dont have any evidence to prove the contention.  You have to rely on inferrece. Blueboar 00:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If the Orange Order were formed by a number of Benedictines and directly modelled themselves on monastic communities then this would be an informal link.  It probably does not count for the Benedictines, although there's not a single historical account that I've seen that says that this doesn't apply for the Amagh Freemasons.  JASpencer 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecesary Quotation 

message: How is the UGLE's denial of present connections a counter-claim to past links?  JASpencer 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still haven't demonstrated any evidence of past links other than phrasings which encourage the reader to infer those.  Whilst I can understand BBs point about highlighting it I don't see the requirement should the assertion of a link be reasonably presented.ALR 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UGLE denies ANY "formal or informal connection"... some sort of past link would be a connection.  Thus the statement applies to both past and present. Blueboar 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the claim at all.  For example it would also mean that they never had any link to the Oddfellows -   which would be odd indeed.  Besides it's not just Smyth who claims a link to early Orangeism and Freemasonry.  I doubt that the UGLE would put something they know to be untrue (and even more so I doubt if it would be something that would put in something so easy to disprove).  I think that the words should be read as they are written, and not expanded upon. JASpencer 22:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that IS the claim. And it is indeed true that there was never a connection to the Oddfellows... I am not saying that the Oddfellows or Orange Order didn't copy from Freemasonry... Lots of organizations have done this... what I am saying is that this does not create any kind of tie.  Freemasonry is not responsible for someone copying its structure, rituals and terminology.  As far as Freemasonry goes, there is no tie and never was.  Lots of people can claim that something has a tie to Freemasonry, it does not make it true. Blueboar 23:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we disagree on what constitutes an informal link.  A substantial cross-over of members due to the fact that they were originally Freemasonry - as the Orange Order and the Odd Fellows had would be an informal link.  I'm still puzzled why you are reading the present tense as past tense. JASpencer 21:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Counter claim?

message: Expanded this a bit: does it suffice for the ToDo?--SarekOfVulcan 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risorgimento 

message: I'm going to take out this section for the following reasons:
* It has little to do with the core Catholic critique of Freemasonry which is that Freemasonry encourages religious indifferentism and anti-clericalism.
* There are to my knowledge no Church documents on the Orange Order, let alone it's links with Freemasonry.  Same for the American nativist organisations.
* Although it affects the attitude of some Catholics in the pews towards Freemasonry, there's no citation for this.
If there's any church documents found or citations on the 
The links between Freemasonry and the Orange Order are of interest to those trying to study why the Orange Order or has Lodges, degrees, oaths, initiations, appendent bodies.  It may also help to explain the opposition of some Evangelical Prods to the Orange Order.  
The section has been moved to:
User:JASpencer/Orange
Revert and discuss if you disagree.
JASpencer 19:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the arguments apply to the carb?  The three arguments were little to do with religious indifference, no church documents and no citations for affecting Catholic attitudes.  The carb have all three in one document Ecclesiam a Jesu Christo.  JASpencer 09:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving "Links to Militant Protestantism"

message: Ok, I made the cardinal error here of using Wikipedia as a source for an article. The line I cited, though, has a cite of its own, but I don't have access to the book at the moment to confirm that's what it said.--SarekOfVulcan 20:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risorgimento 

message: The allegation that the Scotish Rite includes a point where "a skull with a Papal tiara is stabbed" is backed with a citation to the Second Exodus website... unfortunately, that site must be considered a non-reliable source under WP:RS Self-published sources.  The site is owned and opperated by Marty Barrack (see the copywrite info at the bottom of the home page), the author of the book Second Exodus, and it clearly states that "The Second Exodus book is the primary source of Second Exodus information".  The claims made on his site have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking.   Even if one were to claim that Mr. Barrack is a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise" (which I would question), the site fails WP:RS under the sub-heading of "Self-published sources as secondary sources".  I would also point out the next section of WP:RS - Partisan Websites.  I think this qualifies as partisan.
All that said, While I could delete the underlying statement as well as the citation... in the interest of good faith, I will instead simply flag it as "citation needed" to give people time to find a better (reliable) source.  Blueboar 22:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an allegation of what happens.  As long as it is made clear that it is an allegation then there should be no problem.  The Kadosh degree is a source of suspicion from Catholics and should be adequately covered. JASpencer 23:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is fine... locate a reliable source to back the statement up and the statement can remain.  I am not doubting that the claim is made.  I am only saying that, under wikipedia guidelines, that particular source can not be used. Blueboar 02:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's clear that it's an allegation then we are reporting on the fact that it is alleged - not on the fact that it is done.  Reporting on the allegation means that the second exodus website is a primary source, which is allowable for self published websites.  If we were saying that it was what actually went on in there then second exodus would be a secondary source, and so not allowable.  JASpencer 11:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe we addressed this already with the Blanchard citation of which degree it was, and the DeHoyos citation that said degree was from a fringe Masonic organization who simply didn't like mainstream Scottish Rite, and which a) no longer exists and b) never had a foothold in the first place (they were only in a few Southern states at most).  So, as the allegation hasn't been valid for over 100 years, what's the issue with using this Second Exodus stuff?  We don't need it. MSJapan 12:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MSJapan, thanks for reminding me.  The De Hoyos "citation" desperately needs a quote or an online reference.  Nothing "can be demonstrated" by simply pointing to a book.  Without it the sentence needs to go. JASpencer 18:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually... the citation is not to De Hoyos (that was removed in favor of a direct citation to Blanchard)... And no, we do not need an on-line reference or quote (one would be nice).  As long as the book is accessible at the local library it meets WP:RS... What we do have to do is provide proper citation info (publisher, date, page ref. etc.)... MSJ, since you have a copy of the book, could you provide this? Blueboar 18:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: JAS, I will grant you this... as a primary source reference to the fact that Marty Barrack makes an allegation, it could be included.  But only if you specify who's oppinion you are citing (attribution is an important part of WP:RS).  You would have to change the wording to something like: ... "Marty Barrack, a Catholic evangelist, makes an unsubstantiated allegation that a skull with a Papal tiara is stabbed during the initiation."  However, I would still say that Mr. Barrack's oppinion is not reliable and is definitely Partisan. Blueboar 15:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is is this an allegation that is made by Catholics?  Are we going to pretend that this suspicion isn't there?  JASpencer 18:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no... the allegation of stabbing a Papal Skull is made by A Catholic (Mr. Barrack). If others make this claim, you can cite them.  But the issue is not whether the claim is made or not... the issue is that the particular source you use to cite that it is made is unreliable.  Note that I have not, yet, removed the statement itself from the article.  Go find a reliable source for it. Blueboar 18:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is getting silly.  Please read the introduction to the article again.  Mario Derkson is (by all accounts) a bit of a kook, but it is not his work that we are looking at here - but work written by Fisher and published by the Remnant.  The Remnant is a mainstay of the American Catholic scene.  JASpencer 20:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then cite directly to the Remnant and forget the link to Catholic Insite.  Please understand that my issue is not with the claim, but with the sources being used to verify the claim. They have to be reliable under WP:RS. In this case, simply linking to a page where the claim is repeated does not follow WP:RS. Blueboar 20:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have access to the Remnant.  I don't live in the States and it's not on the net.  I think that unless the Remnant is on the web then we should go for an article in which the copywrite information makes it clear that it has been taken from the Remnant.  It does seem to be concentrating on one irrelevant factor to remove a factual claim (albeit that an allegation is made).  JASpencer 09:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try your local library. If the Remnant is as as much of a "mainstay of the American Catholic scene" as you say (and I am not doubting you), the library should carry it - or be able to obtain it through inter-library loan.  One problem with using the web to cite material (especially on controvercial topics such as Masonry) is that there are a lot of unreliable pages out there.  Anyone can say anything on a web page, and there is no system of fact checking or accountability. WP:RS does not allow us to cite to something just because someone put it on a web page. Even things that might be reliable in print format have to be questioned when they are copied onto unreliable pages, as there is no way to know if the web host copied correctly ... That is why WP:RS is so firm about how you use web pages, and what kinds of sites are to be considered reliable and what kinds are not.  Blueboar 13:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that this can go anywhere any more.  I think we need to get a third part in through an RFC.  JASpencer 13:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional problems with the Scotish Rite section 

message: In the Scottish Rite, an appendant body to Freemasonry, there are a number of degrees.  The initiation to the Kadosh (30th) degree is alleged by a number of (mainly Catholic) sources to involve either the trampling of a Papal tiara or the stabbing of a skull which has a Papal tiara. JASpencer 16:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: Question: Should the Reliable Sources policy regarding self published material be used to exclude material that is (1) reprinted from a published magazine and (2) clearly stated as an allegation.  JASpencer 16:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of its ownership, method of verifying facts, etc., I would suggest Catholic Insight is not a reliable source, because when they purportedly reprinted an article from The Remnant they neglected to state the date, issue, volume, or page numbers of the original publication. This makes it very difficult to verify whether the article exists at all, or if so, was correctly reprinted. Such a gross departure from normal writing standards in and of itself proves Catholic Insight is an unreliable source, at least with respect to its purported reprint. --Gerry Ashton 21:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Issue:Reliable Sources

message: First someone please archive old discussions, this page is 70K which is too humungeously humungeos.  Second, I came here because of an RfC posted to the Talk page of WP:RS.  Here are my thoughts, posted there, and here:
:I went to the cited page and here is what I found "In his article regarding Vatican II in the February 28th issue of The Remnant, Michael Matt refers to Michael Davies article in which he seems to suggest that "Masonic conspiracies" are part of "paranoid Traditional Catholic fantasies." With that in mind, allow me to offer a bit of history of prior Papal concern regarding Freemasonry and similar secret societies."  This is the only time "Remnant" appears.  The interior quotes however do not represent quotes from the cited article.  This can be seen by the use on the cited page of "seems to suggest" which implies that the situation is not clear.  That by itself is enough to cast doubt on the cited page as representing what *that* article actually states. Wjhonson 19:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wjhonson... just so I am clear.  Are you saying that a) the Remnant is unreliable, b) the article in the Remnant is unreliable, or c) the web-based copy of the article in the Remnant is unreliable? Blueboar 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify my comments.  The cited page says "seems to suggest" then in quotes it puts the following disjointed pieces: "Masonic conspiracies", and "paranoid Traditional Catholic fantasies".  Based on this, we *may* be able to state, that both of those quoted pieces actually exist in the underlying article cited, but we may *not* state that they occupy the relationship to each other that the cited page is purporting.  In other words, the actual underlying quote may say something like "...and other Masonic conspiracies.  I want to speak more about paranoid Traditional Catholic fantasies...."  In this case, the relationship of one piece to the other is not obvious, that inference has to be drawn, and it may be a logical reach.  That is why, thesis of the kind presented on the cited page, need to quote a source in full, to make clear exactly what the underlying author was saying and only THEN add their layer of commentary.  In this case, we simply cannot tell from the tiny quoted snippets, what the underlying author actually said. The cited page, as a blog or other self-published article by a person not known as a widely acknowledge authority in this field, cannot be made a WP:RS although we may warrant his claim of having read the underlying article and accurately cite that such an article exists.  We cannot then make the jump from that bland statement to the more severe one, that he/she is accurately representing what that article said, *unless* we can see a fuller quote. Wjhonson 20:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wjhonson I think this means that you feel that the Fisher article is not OK as it disjointedly quotes things out of context.  Please correct me if I am wrong. Blueboar 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can say "Fisher says that there is an article in this magazine, by this person" but we can't use Fisher to confirm or deny what that article states.  So Fisher is OK as a source to cite that the article exists only, not for what the article says.  That's my opinion. Once the article is retrieved, Fisher then would become a useless citation. Wjhonson 21:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh... I see what you are saying.  Im not sure if this answers our debate over reliablility of the link to Fisher... but it sure raises warning flags as to whether Fisher is reliable.  Blueboar 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that the article Fisher is not a Catholic critic of Freemasonry? Or that he can't be quoted?  Or what?  JASpencer 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rfc on [[Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources]] 

message: The problem is that while Blanchard's book makes the distinction (he calls it "Scotch Rite" on the frontispiece [which there is a picture of on p. 49 of DeHoyos and Morris Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry? on ()], although the cover says "Scottish Rite"), Blanchard and the critics who source from him do not - "Scotch Rite" was a fringe group started by those who disagreed with the Scottish Rite, who were the Cerneauists.  
Furthermore, Blanchard was claimed by another author (Ankerberg) to be a former Sovereign Grand Commander and 33rd degree Mason.  He was never even a member of the Fraternity.  Dehoyos and Morris also state that "Rev. Jonathan Blanchard wrote the historical sketch and analysis." (p. 48)  This should help to clear up "does the book say what it seems to say?"
As a note, DeHpoyos and Morris say Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia also explains Cerneauism and the various names it used.  I'll see if I've got it, but I may only have Waite's version.
DeHoyos and Morris have a slightly more detailed explanation on Cerneau Councils in Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry? on pgs. 78-80 (), most notably:
:"In 1813, the Supreme Council at Charleston organized another Supreme Council in New york.  From its beginnng however, the latter Supreme council was forced to contend with a rival body of dubious authority organized by a Frenchman named Joseph Cerneau.  Without going into detail, Cerneau's group claimed authority over the Scottish Rite degrees, even though it had never been properly chartered.  although the two bodies would contend for membership until 1867 - when they eventually merged - it is important to bear in mind that the Cerneau group is considered to have been "irregular" (illegitimate) by the majority of Masonic historians.  Because they were both "Masonic," the ceremonies and rituals of both groups had similarities, but they were not the same." (p. 78)
Therefore, since the Cerneau group ceased to exist in 1867, the rituals were no longer valid, hence, any criticisms made after that time (such as those by Blanchard) have no validity.  Also, on page 79, referring to Masonic Monitors (which is what Blanchard's book and other exposes really are, if you think about it): "In considering these books, it is important to remember that Scottish Rite monitors reflected the ceremonies practiced in the year un which they were published, and were rarely updated to conform to subsequent ritual revisions." (p. 79) MSJapan 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Better Source for Refutation

message: In Kulturkampf the text appears This Papal encyclical is best understood in the context of Pius IX's pontificate.  Has there been any one who's said this other than a wikipedia editor? JASpencer 21:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now deleted. JASpencer 20:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pius IX

message: I have archived some of the discussion Blueboar 12:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  archiving