Talk:Humanum genus

message: I am especially interested in the encyclical "Humanum Genus" that was issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1884. In that encyclical, Pope Leo XIII outlines very specifically his objections, and the Church's historical objections, to Freemasonry. Would it not be a good idea to quote from that encyclical? PGNormand 23:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Those quotes have no sense of condemnation. They are pretty much just statements of what Jefforsonian thoughts are. I supposed there is some context in the original that attempts to link these statements but as they are, these quotes are misleading and/or useless. 128.227.48.121 (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article does not describe the encyclical, it just notes some points of interest and does so mostly from an adversarial perspective.  It would be nice if a summary and outline of the encyclical is given first and then have flushed out points of interest and arguments given subsequently.  Chrismon 23:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outline? 

message: There is material in this article which misrepresents both the encyclical and Jeffersonian principles.  The encyclical's critique is of the Masonic view (real or perceived) that popular will is the sole source of sovereignty: "that it is an act of violence to require men to obey any authority other than that which is obtained from themselves"..."the source of all rights and civil duties is either in the multitude or in the governing authority when this is constituted according to the latest doctrines". (Hum. Gen. par. 22)   This is not a critique of Jeffersonian  priciples.  If one looks at the Declaration of Independence, the source of rights, duties and sovereignty is not solely in the people (i.e. social contract) but also in natural law (rights "endowed by their Creator").  Thus the article has unsourced statements attributing to both the encyclical and to Jeffersonian principles things they do not say.  They are unsourced, erroneous, POV and I am deleting them.Mamalujo (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced, factually erroneous and POV material 

message: The article states, I believe inaccurately: "It had long been a practice of the church to forbid Catholics from becoming Freemasons, often backed up by contemporary governments. This remains the official stand of the Roman Catholic Church to this day."  While the first part of this statement appears to be true, I recall reading news reports within the last 12 months or so that the Catholic Church had recently made an official statement that it does not condemn Freemasonry per se or prohibit membership in Freemasonry per se.  -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current stand of Catholic Church vis-a-vis Freemasonry? 

message: The official title of the 1884 papal encyclical per online Vatican webpage is Humanum Genus Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Freemasonry --- this title, Humanum Genus Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Freemasonry within the Wiki Article Humanum genus has been accompanied by reference link to the Holy See web page, but this reference to the official title of the papal encyclical seems to keep getting blanked out of the lead paragraph.
Also the "Capture of Rome" is the name/title of the actual September 20, 1870 battle and the inline link back to the  Wikipedia Capture of Rome article is being incorrectly edited (and edited out of context as there have been multiple captures of Rome).Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2015
:Clearly you don't know how encyclicals are titled and labeled at the Vatican website.  "Humanum Genus Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Freemasonry" is most definitely NOT the "full" or "actual" title.  It's "Humanum genus", period.  Thanks for the reference, though.  I reverted to its proper name.  Crusadestudent (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual titles: "Humanum Genus Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Freemasonry"; "Capture of Rome"

message: I nominate Breccia di Porta Pia Ademollo, the portrait of Garibaldi, the "allegorical photograph", and the image of the Coat of Arms of the Grand Orient de France for deletion ASAP.  This article is way too cluttered with images for its own good.  If no one expresses disagreement in the next day or two, I'll go ahead and do it myself.  Crusadestudent (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it.   Deus vult!   Crusadestudent (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAY too many images