Talk:Rosario Francesco Esposito

Notability

I have to question whether notability has really been established here. Esposito is hardly the first Catholic Priest to have become a Freemason. As this article points out... there have been others. It may not be a very common event, given the Church's stance on Freemasonry, but it has happened enough that one priest joining is not really notable.

Reading between the lines, I think the real issue - the thing that might make him notable, is how the Church reacted to the news of his membership. From what I gather, the news of his membership caused some public statements to be issued, statements that reaffirmed the long standing ban on Catholics becoming Freemasons. Those statements might make Esposito more notable than other priests who joined. But the link between Esposito and those statements needs to take center stage in order to establish that notability. Blueboar 15:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that this article should stay, it is shocking for someone to be a catholic priest and freemason. The fact that anyone joins free masonry is notable becouse it is contraversial topic. Bible beliver

Um... given that the fraternity of Freemasonry has well over a million members, I don't see the fact that anyone joins the fraternity as being notable. However, it might be argued that it is notable that a Catholic Priest did so... hardly unique... but quite possibly notable. My point was not to say that the article should be deleted, but simply to say that we need a better explanation of why Esposito's joining the fraternity is notable. At the moment, all the article really says is... he became a Freemason and the Church objects to Freemasonry. The average reader is going to say: "So what? Why is that special? Lots of people, including Priests do things that the Church does not approve of. Why is this situation different? What makes it notable?" We need to answer those questions. Blueboar 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

However if you get a very public denunciation from the head of the Apostolic Penitentiary and a call for him to be disciplined, I think that is noteworthy. The CWN article said that he was involved with the recent church teaching on Freemasonry, so it's quite big news in Church circles. If anyone reads Italian better than I do there also appears to be quite a few references out there in Italian. As much as I personally dislike this (it's washing my Church's dirty linen in public) I wouldn't delete this straight off. JASpencer 18:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

But the article, as it is now does not, does not state any of this. The article does not discuss this "very public denunciation". That goes to my point. The article needs improvement, not deletion. At the moment, the article does not state why this guy is notable. It simply says he was a Freemason, which is not enough. The Church's reaction to his being a Freemason is the key. That is what makes him notable. Someone who knows the facts needs to add to the article and make it clearer why all of this is notable. Blueboar 23:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it's in the article at the moment:

On March 1 2007 Bishop Gianfranco Girotti, the regent of the [[Apostolic Penitentiary]] made a statement that membership of Masonic organisations "remains forbidden" to Catholics,<ref>[http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=49651 Masonic lodge membership is gravely sinful, Vatican official says] - [[Catholic World News]]</ref> and called on priests who had declared themselves to be Freemasons to be disciplined by their direct superiors.<ref>[http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=103884 Regent Restates Vatican's Anti-Masonry Position], [[Zenit News Agency]], 2007-03-02</ref>'

JASpencer 23:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

What is missing is the connection between Esposito's anouncement that he was a Freemason and Girotti's statement. Reading between the lines, it sounds like there is a direct connection... that Girotti's statement was made because of Esposito's anouncement, (or possibly vise-versa?). If so, that would indeed be notable. We need to make that connection for the reader. Blueboar 23:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Connection made. The article cited said that this was a reaction, so I made the connection clear in the text. JASpencer 08:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Much better... thanks. Can we add some follow-up? What happened to Esposito after Girotti's statement... did he resign from Freemasonry? Did he remain a Freemason? Was he punished by the Church hirarchy? Etc. Blueboar 13:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking myself. I have no idea as yet. The Paulists are a very liberal order, but Benedict is also very insistent - so I don't know where things are yet. JASpencer 15:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Update

It seems that he died about two weeks ago and the Paulines did put out an obituary. It's not clear from the obituary whether or not he was disciplined.

Fr. Rosario took to heart the dialogue between the Church and Masonry, on which he wrote various works (the first was La Massoneria e l’Italia in1956). He intentionally mirrored and cultivated this dialogue, seeing in them a “suggestive emblem of Church-World dialogue. He encountered misunderstandings and sufferings, often also stimulated by his impetous manner of unsheathing the weapons of reason. On the other hand, the purity and provocation formed part of his character: he said and wrote clearly what he thought and in which he believed; and punctually took account of the reactions of his interlocutors. Yet all was done with a Pauline priestly heart “in order to give glory to God and peace to men”, even if “in the journey of dialogue I know I have not always been at the top of the situation”.

Not at all clear. All that is clear is that he was not thrown out of the order (perhaps due to age) although to be fair they were asked to discipline, not expel, him. It's also not clear whether he died a Mason. JASpencer 17:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright question

I have set up a Temporary subpage without the offending text at Talk:Rosario Francesco Esposito/Temp

JASpencer (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

While I could be wrong (I am not an expert on copyright law)... I am not sure if quoting a few lines from one paragraph of an obituatry is a violation of copyright. What if we set it up as a quote, with attribution and proper citation? Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If that works then fine. But it's really, really bad English (I'm sure that the Italian is better). As well as poor English (and attribution) the obituary talks about other things than his attitude to Freemasonry, which is in the second to last paragraph. JASpencer (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I pose that as a question, not really a suggestion. I agree that the English is not all that great (I am not really sure what the obit is trying to say) ... and I am not sure if it really adds anything to the article to quote it. All I am really saying is that, if people want to quote it, I think we can do so without violating copyright. But I also would not object to removing it either. Blueboar (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That makes sense. I'm going to delete this now as it will unbalance the article. If Ipenar has a better suggestion for how the obituary could be used then fine. JASpencer (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)