Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 1

message: OK, it is time to seriously address some long standing issues with this article.  The current version of the article has POV problems, synth issues, relevance issues, and a host of other problems. In my opinion, these will not be resolved with minor tweeks.  The problems are just too large.
Some of the issues I have include:
*POV Tone problems... the tone is overly POV in discussing both sides of the issue.  We alternate between trying to prove that that the Church is "right" to ban Freemasonry and trying to prove that it is "wrong" in doing so.  
*Synth and relevance problems... also affecting both viewpoints... there are a lot of assumptions being made in the current article.  For example, the assumtpion that "Historical figure X was a Mason" and "Historical figure X did Anti-clerical things" are related.  We need solid sources to make such connections.  We also need to examine the chicken and egg issue... were historical figures Anti-clerical because they were Masons, or did they become Masons because they were Anti-clerical... or is it just coincidence?  Again, we need sources and not inuendo and supposition.
*Over stating the Church's view and understating the Masonic view... we have a problem here that needs to be resolved: there has been a lot written by the Church on this topic, and very little written by the Masons... how do we achieve neutrality in what we write given this disparity?
*Over reliance on outdated materials... The article relies too heavily on things like the Catholic Encyclopedia... great sources for discussing Church thinking of a century ago (less great when it comes to discussing the state of Freemasonry a century ago), but not for reflecting how things are today (Church thinking has subtlely changed in the last century, as much as some in the Church might wish it to be otherwise, and Masonry has changed dramatically in those years).  We need to address this.
:—This is part of a comment by Blueboar  which was interrupted by the following: 
::You are mistaken.  Fundamentally the teachings of the RCC never change.  The Depositum fidei can only expand, and be clarified, not shrunk.  Nor otherwise (in opposition) interpreted then before.  1 day or a thousand years do not matter in this case.  The only 'evolution' in morals and dogma is quantitatively, it is expanded, but never contradicted.  Thus the info from the CE is as actual as it was the day it was written. --Stijn Calle (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be fair to Blueboar he is saying that "thinking" has changed and not the deposit of faith. Words can have very precise meaning in Catholic theology so to find common ground, as mentioned earlier, it might be better to use phrases like "development of doctrine". Taam (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly... perhaps it is better to say that while the doctrine and teachings of the Church does not change, the interpretation of its doctrine and teachings has changed over time and will continue to change. Blueboar (talk) 15:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Well I for one commend your efforts. I started to look up notable Catholic sources that were less belligerent in tone that I thought might be useful for the article but in the interest of NPOV I also tried to find other Catholic views that were critical of these sources. At this point I gave up since I would not pollute my thoughts, never mind this page with such darkness. A person who seemed to display all what Christians normally describe as "holiness" being described...well I'm sure you can guess... because, like the precepts in Vatican II, he was open to dialogue and could see the goodness in all people no matter their beliefs.Taam (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the support.  Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Catholic sources that were less belligerent in tone.  If the radical opposition of the RCC towards freemasonry is a fact, belligerent words are normal.  To try to search for less threatening words would in this case be an effort to violate NPOV.  Belligerent words are correct words if they espress correctly the opinions in question.  The citations in the article are good ones and should be kept. --Stijn Calle (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Stijn... I think what you are trying to say is that if belligerant language reflects the viewpoint of the Church, then we should acknowledge that belligerance.  I totally agree with that in concept... we should reflect viewpoints accurately.  However, I think what Taam is pointing out is that some Catholic sources use belligerant language that doesn't accurately reflect the normal viewpoint of the Church.  These are sources that reflects the viewpoint of an extreme fringe of the Church.  We can certainly discuss this fringe view, but we need to identify it as being a fringe viewpoint if we do discuss it. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not as if the (fixed) opinions of the RCC are here written in beligerent form originating from 'extremist interpretations' inside the church, whilst these (fixed) opinions have a more liberal (less beligerent) formulation in mainstraim church teachings.  There is NO evolution of interpretation of church teaching that is fundamentally or qualitatively.  There exists only expanding of information, NEVER contradicting earlier teachings. These beligerant expressions can be found in papal documents, and other official documents of the highest church hierarchy.  They are NOT expressions of a fringe within the church.  Belligerency is a factual attitude of the church towards fundamental beliefs that it does not accept and are perilous to the salvation of one's soul.  --Stijn Calle (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  All I would add to Blueboar's comments is that any changes to the article should be mindful of not ripping out parts of old Papal documents (and I suppose the old Catholic Encyclopedia) the language which relates to the socio-political context of that era, and projecting them into the 21st century as representative of how the Church now relates to the world. During the 20th century the language of anathema and condemnation became muted in Church documents to reflect realities of the modern world and how to engage with it, on common ground for the common good, whilst respecting divergent takes on honestly held beliefs. I'm sure nobody here needs reminded how the lessons of history conditioned this. I think the current Pope writes about "Charity in Truth" which seems to resonate with similar ideas set out in Vatican II. Taam (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing serious issues... a complete re-boot? 

message: Recently on Father Benedict Groeschel's TV show, Sunday Night Live, a Catholic Mason called in stating his concern for his soul and obedience to the Church, despite his feeling that Masonry had no conflict with the Church.  Father Groeschel stated that, although initiation into Freemasonry is still prohibited, today we are more interested than in the past in avoiding contentiousness.  Then he advised the caller to write to his bishop, saying that the bishop may refer him on to Rome.  He seemed to be implying that the bishop or the Vatican could give the man a dispensation from the prohibition or at least from the sanctions which membership incurs (He didn't seem to be advising that the man renounce Freemasonry). Does anyone know about this or have RS on it?  If such dispensations are sometimes given perhaps it should be addressed here.  Mamalujo (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any sort of dispensation available (at least I have never heard of one). I suppose a priest could grant absolution at confession, but that is not the same thing.  If the caller did contact his bishop or the Vatican, he would probably be advised to resign from the fraternity.  He would probably get a similar answer if he asked someone at his Masonic Grand Lodge... if being a Mason is dragging on his concience, and if he can not reconcile his personal religious beliefs with his membership in the fraternity, then he should resign from the fraternity. Faith should always come first. Blueboar (talk) 18:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispensation from the sanctions imposed by membership in Freemasonry? 

message: I think one of the remaining issues is that many Church leaders would certainly like to see more separation of Lodge and State, i.e. there are still many of them who disapprove of things like government-sponsored funds going to Masonic lodges. In France, many public officials apparently have no qualms about giving public money to Masonic associations.  ADM (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a seperate issue (and one that would need more than a blog posting as a ref to include in the article). Blueboar (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no evidence of any opinion on this from Church leaders so it doesn't fit in here.  JASpencer (talk) 19:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of Lodge and State 

message: This was suggested above, but I want to highlight it in its own section... Proposed: that the current content be moved to Papal ban of Freemasonry and the title be redirected to Christianity and Freemasonry.  Discussion? Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will take the lack of reply as consensus for the proposal.  Last call to state an objection. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It probably would have helped to have it listed at Wikipedia:Proposed moves. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't necessarily object to the move myself, as Christianity and Freemasonry is probably a more inclusive title. I was just pointing out that, I think, that most of the discussion regarding such moves tends to arise from being listed there. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Then you're going to have to be put on the spot to give some direction as to what we should do with it and how.  The article has never really been satisfactory, because the POV has been claimed to have gone one way, and then it swings back in the other.  I think we're going to have to start from scratch material-wise, but I for one don't know what's good and what isn't. MSJapan (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move and redirect