Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 12

Philippine Bishops Conference
Bishop Emilio Z. Marquez, of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lucena, said he refused Catholic funeral rites for Governor Rafael Nantes in 2010. Nantes was both a convert to Protestantism and a member of a masonic association. Quoting 1983 CIC canon 1184, Marquez told Union of Catholic Asian News (UCANews) that if publicly known "apostates, heretics, and schismatics," have not shown repentance before death, then Catholic Church funeral rites must be denied.

It is unclear from the source if Marquez refused Catholic funeral rites for Nantes in 2010 because of his conversion to Protestantism, or masonic association, or both.

According to the CBCP 1990 norms, "any Catholic who belonged to any Masonic association" may be denied Catholic funeral rites, unless they showed repentance before they died. While each case should consider the "individual situation of a Catholic Mason," "A Catholic publicly known to be an active official or member of any Masonic association is expected to discontinue such membership after being warned with an interdict or else be refused the Sacraments and funeral rites."

The 2003 CBCP plenary meeting enacted a general decree that, according to UCANews, "any Catholic who is a 'convinced member of Freemasonry, notoriously adhering to the Masonic vision' be already considered excommunicated according to Canon 1364 of Church law. Such person, according to Canon 1331, is forbidden to celebrate or receive the sacraments and to hold any Church office, ministry or governing function." Citing 1983 CIC canon 455, the CBCP, according to UCANews, "decided to strictly disallow [...] Masons from being witnesses in marriage."

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC); modified 15:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC).


 * Is this a suggested addition? The third paragraph looks promising, though I'm not sure the whole thing (especially the first two paragraphs) is relevant/non-redundant.  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 23:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, a parked suggestion. I think finding some current examples, i.e. 2010s, would be good. The first two ¶s are an attempt at that but it needs better source. Also, there is a 1984 letter from the Apostolic Penitentiary about profaning the Eucharist that I would like to add – once I find a good source. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Profaning the Eucharist? Blueboar (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm eager to see where that leads. Could be interesting.  Not the first thing I'd have guessed would be relevant.  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 23:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? He became a Protestant. How would he ever be given a Catholic funeral? Freemasonry is almost irrelevant. It becomes an issue only because of shifting attitudes to Freemasonry in the Philippine church and the arbitrary decision of a blogger to make this about the craft. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't necessarily a likely scenario, but if he showed signs of repentance of his heresy (i.e. Protestantism), he would not have been denied a Catholic funeral on that basis—making Masonry relevant. If not, he'd have two strikes against him, so to speak, instead of just the one.  I don't see that in the source and I don't really know anything about this case, but it's theoretically possible.  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 00:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We're now into pure speculation. "Theoretically possible" isn't WP. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I never said it should be included without RS. I was just explaining how it could happen, since you asked.  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 18:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 21st century examples showing the application of current norms (in the 1983 CDF decree) and protocols (in episcopal conference documents) are relevant. I think they will be found in foreign language news sources. As an aside, some Protestants are given Catholic funeral rites (e.g. ), remember that it is the families who usually arrange funerals of their deceased who could have shown repentance. Nantes was a schismatic because of his conversion to Protestantism – schism is not the same as heresy. It is not speculation; Marquez did refuse Catholic funeral rites for Nantes in 2010; the precise reason is not clear. That is why it is on the talk page and not in the article. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, Catholicism considers Protestantism both schismatic and heretical. Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; talk &#x7C; contribs) 18:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * yes, "Profaning the Eucharist". All I found was Benimeli 2014, p. 150. Benimeli identifies the document by protocol number and includes an uncited quote about it, attributed to "as someone has written about it" that is not found in a searches. I think it questionable especially since Benimeli's surrounding content reads like personal rant that does not actually quote, or fully cite, the 1984 Apostolic Penitentiary document. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, as stated "the precise reason is not clear". Attribution of all or part of the reason to membership of a masonic organisation is therefore speculation. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. Now, speculation can be included, if it the speculation of a relevant and noteworthy source.  The key is to include it with in text attribution ("According to X, this was because he was a Freemason")... But we can not state the speculation as being unattributed fact ("This was because he was a Freemason") ... Even if the speculation is likely to be accurate. See: WP:No original research, and WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think both of you may be misunderstanding. I am not suggesting to add speculation. I agree with both of you – I understand WP:OR, WP:SOURCES, etc. I parked this here to see if it will develop and to get some feedback. I think the Nantes part will likely not be includable; the Philippine bishops part likely will. Searching about how episcopal conferences in other parts of the world apply the current norms may also provide results that are not includable. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Spanish Bishops Conference
In 2006, Rectified Scottish Rite Masons in Spain called on the Spanish Episcopal Conference "to review the decree of excommunication imposed on Catholics who practice Masonry," according to Catholic News Agency.

It is not clear to me if this is about the 1983 canon law and the 1983 CDF decree, or about Spanish pastoral guidelines for the implementation of doctrine in the 1983 canon law and the 1983 CDF decree. I parked it here to see if it can be clarified.

—BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As long as we are looking for clarification, we should probably look into which "Rectified Scottish Rite" this refers to - there are multiple, competing groups that use the name "Rectified Scottish Rite" (or some variant thereof)... and I doubt it was the UK based version that is linked to above. From the Church's point of view, and in the context of the Spanish Bishops conference, this probably does not matter (since the Church tends to lump all Masons together)... but it would be good to know as background. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * good point, I suggested "Rectified Scottish Rite Masons in Spain" to describe the combination of "The head office of Masons in Spain is calling on the Spanish bishops' Committee on the Doctrine of the Faith to review the decree of excommunication imposed on Catholics who practice Masonry" and "In a press release, the Spanish masons said that the Church is committing an 'injustice' in their case, because the Masonic system to which they belong—the Rectified Scottish Rite (RSR) [...]". "Rectified Scottish Rite Masons in Spain" is, in my opinion, is a good description. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah... "The head office of Masons in Spain" is definitely inaccurate - at best it was "the head office of one of several Masonic side degree organizations in Spain". So specifying more exactly is a good idea. However, knowing Masonic history, it is quite likely that there is more than one group claiming to be the "Rectified Scottish Rite" operating in Spain.  We should find out which one.
 * My primary concern is with linking.... Our article on Rectified Scottish Rite is focused purely on the UK version... And I don't know if any of the versions operating in Spain are associated with the British group in any way. If we do end up mentioning the Spanish group in this article, it would probably be best to not link the name to the article on the UK group. Blueboar (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * the Rectified Scottish Rite article has no citations (I added ). There is a Spanish Wikipedia article: Rito Escocés Rectificado. Gran Priorato de Hispania mentions masons petitioning the bishops conference in 2006 but no mention of petitioning in 2010. I searched and  and  and  – but I'm not sure if there is a reliable source using those keywords. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Google Books
Max Heindel's Catholicism and Freemasonry and a book on Freemasonry and Christian Fellowship by Joseph Goffe, which might be pertinent, are available for free on Google Books. MSJapan (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * thank you for the suggestions.
 * The full title of your first suggestion is Freemasonry and Catholicism: an exposition of the cosmic facts underlying these two great institutions as determined by occult investigation. It is problematic because it is "determined by occult investigation" – i.e. historically unverifiable since it is known through magic, alchemy, clairvoyance, initiation, etc. I skimmed through it and see that it is fringe (in line with Blavatskian style theosophy) and has content about the mythical Atlantis.
 * Report on Christian Fellowship with Freemasonry, made to the convention assembled at Boston, May 19, 1831, i.e. written durring the period when the Anti-Masonic Party was active. The 8 page report is not about Catholic doctrine and does not include the term Catholic. Based a Google search, I think the author is a Congregationalist. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Kulturkampf revisited
Several discussions on this topic are archived:, , , , , ,

Historian Stefan-Ludwig Hoffmann wrote that "the political conflicts of the Kulturkampf were not the sole reason that the Catholic Church began to regard Masonic lodges in the 1860s as an 'ultimate' enemy." The papal pronouncements "indicate that the Catholic Church regarded Masonic lodges as a kind of political cipher for the modern world." According to Hoffmann, "there was a clear affinity between Masonic lodges, liberalism, and reformist Old Catholicism — the three 'bourgeois mortal enemies' of political Catholicism" in southwestern Germany, which was mostly Catholic. Masonic associations were "appealing to religious dissenters." Political Catholicism, which was anti-Masonic, "gained momentum" after the German revolutions of 1848–49. Freemasons "portrayed the Catholic Church, in particular the Jesuit Order, as a secret opponent of progress." Beginning in the 1860s, polemics were developed by Catholics such as Wilhelm Emmanuel Freiherr von Ketteler, bishop of Mainz, and Alban Stolz; and by liberal Freemasons such as Johann Kaspar Bluntschli and. By 1871, "Masonic lodges and the Catholic Church now regarded each other as ultimate metaphysical enemies." German Freemasons "proved to be embittered kulturkämpfer" whose anti-Catholicism was "no less strident" than their French or Italian counterparts. They employed a "surprisingly violent" language "far exceeding the political calculus of Bismarck." That language "transformed the conflict between church and state into an existential opposition."

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do any of these sources identify which branch of German Freemasonry they are talking about? Or do they (like so many sources) simply lump all Freemasons together.  There were (and still are) multiple Grand Lodges in Germany during the era we are talking about.  Some were more liberal than others, and some were more outspoken than others on religio-political issues.  Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * it is a scholarly evaluation. Do you have a source that contradicts this? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Not contradict, but perhaps we can give what Hoffman says more context... for example: Hoffman focuses on Bluntshili... so, let's examine him a bit more... Hoffman correctly calls him a "liberal Freemason". That is actually an understatement. Bluntshili was an extremely liberal Freemason. He was Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Sun (based in Bayreuth), which Gould calls one of the most liberal in Germany. Sounds impressive, until you realize that the Grand Lodge of the Sun consisted of only about 10 lodges in total.  In other words, while Bluntshili may have been an "extreme kulturkampfer" and anti-catholic... his views did not represent the attitudes of the entirety of Freemasonry. In fact, he represented only a very small but outspoken extremist wing of Freemasonry.
 * What Hoffman does is quite common with academics who study Freemasonry's role in political/social history... most academics don't understand how fractured Freemasonry was (and is). The academic, trying to "prove" that Freemasons thought X about subject Y, can usually find Freemasons who did (or do) think X about Y. But all to often the academic stops there... and does not look to see if there were Freemasons who disagreed.  Having "proved their hypothesis" they don't look for Freemasons who didn't think X about Y, and instead thought Z.  The academic all to often assumes Freemasonry is some unified entity, with a membership that marches in lock step... nothing is further from the truth. Blueboar (talk) 12:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, "What Hoffman does is quite common with academics who study Freemasonry's role in political/social history" yet you write that "most academics don't understand how fractured Freemasonry was"? It seems quite fringy to agree that Hoffman follows scholarly consensus but that the scholarly consensus is wrong. I think you are making a kind of type–token distinction into a red herring. Masonic association is a type and not an instance of a type, which is a grand lodge or a lodge. Also, Hoffman did not restrict his writing to Bluntshili. His book is a social history about how the culture interacted with the government. In his introduction, he "wanted to explore the unintended political consequences of Enlightenment ideas and practices in an age characterized by the advent of nationalism, anti-Semitism, and social discord. The self-image of Freemasons as civilizing agents, acting in good faith to promote the idea of universal brotherhood, was contradicted not only by their sense of exclusivity. (p.9)"


 * His "book appeared simultaneously with other critical accounts of the actual workings of civil society in nineteenth-century Europe."(p. 9) Do you know of any 21st century scholarly works that go against 21st century scholarly consensus? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about consensus.... What I am pointing out is flawed methodology. Any historical conclusion based on flawed methodology is meaningless (whether it agrees with consensus or not). Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * the scholars methodology is flawed, or Hoffmann's methodology is flawed? Can you provide a link to a reliable source that claims that either the 21st century scholarly consensus or Hoffmann uses flawed methodology? I do not find claims of flawed methodology in my searches. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

June 2016 primary sources tag
tagged the article with (used where "information or analysis that you believe is improperly or unnecessarily supported by a primary source"). I added this section to discuss that tag and identify the problems. The article is about Catholic Church doctrine which is obviously transmitted through documents. It is reasonable to include those primary sources in this article. What "information or analysis" is "improperly or unnecessarily supported by a primary source"? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

June 2016 third-party tag
tagged the article with (used "to identify articles that name sources, but that are biased because every source named has a very close connection to the subject"). I added this section to discuss that tag and identify the problems. The article is about Catholic Church doctrine which is obviously transmitted through documents. It is reasonable to include Catholic Church documents as sources in this article. What content or source is unreliable? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As it is the article presents a purely Catholic view on the subject and there are several sections which simply have no source.


 * For example the following text is supposedly sourced: "The ban in In eminenti apostolatus was reiterated and expanded upon by Benedict XIV (1751), Pius VII (1821), Leo XII (1826), Pius VIII (1829), Gregory XVI (1832), Pius IX (1846, 1849, 1864, 1865, 1869, 1873), and notably Pope Leo XIII in the encyclical Humanum genus (1884)." A closer look reveals that the supposed source is the 1884 document by Leo XIII and makes no reference to the other Popes mentioned.


 * We need sources which do not simply reiterate the Catholic doctrine and are not primary ones. Dimadick (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * yes, it is "purely Catholic view on the subject" because the article is about Catholic Church doctrine – a purely Catholic subject.
 * , the article contains text from which has a "Action of state and Church authorities" section. That section provides a list and states "These pontifical utterances from first to last are in complete accord, the latter reiterating the earlier with such developments as were called for by the growth of Freemasonry and other secret societies." Do you think that 300 years of doctrine would not have development?
 * I disagree with you about sources: the article is about Catholic Church doctrine and should reiterate it – the doctrine is what is being described – if you know of Masonic sources that explain the Catholic Church doctrine better than the Catholic Church and Catholic commentaries please provide some links so they can be included. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Anticlericism revisited
Many discussions that touch on this topic are archived:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,.

21st century encyclopedic sources state that anticlericism is an aspect of Masonic association:
 * "Probably under the influence of the increasingly anti-Catholic stands of Freemasons influenced by the so-called Scottish rite, Latin American Freemasonry developed into a liberal, anticlerical force that fought for modernization and secularization, and paid preferential attention to education."
 * "Anticlericalism is common among Masons in the Continental tradition, which is the one most often followed in Latin America. Anticlericalism can mean active hostility to the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH and its clergy, as in MEXICO, or a more limited hostility to any public or political role for the church."
 * "Freemasonry is an international movement with roots in medieval European laborers' guilds that in the modern era often took on a coloration of anticlericalism or anti-Catholicism."

Several of the discussions were about removal of content from the 1910 article in Catholic Encyclopedia.

I from Peter Stravinskas' review of David Hackett's That religion in which all men agree. Stravinskas wrote that "In addition to concerns about its revolutionary aspects, theological objections were raised and deemed far more weighty than the more political dimensions. Religious indifferentism and universalism, confused and confusing religious positions, pagan influences, anti-clericalism, and extreme rationalism formed the heart of papal objections, which bans have perdured into contemporary Catholicism, along with similar prohibitions in Eastern Orthodoxy and many other conservative Christian bodies."

This is an important facet that was repeatedly removed over the last decade from this article.

–BoBoMisiu (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is also worth pointing out that Bolivar was anti-clerical AND anti-masonic. In fact, the anti-clericalism of the men who shaped an independent South America sprang from the perverse conservatism of a church that always seemed to support the status quo. In Europe, Freemasons in France and Germany were actively developing a more catholic-friendly branch of Freemasonry when the arrests and repression started. Keeping the church out of politics was essential for the survival of Continental Freemasonry, and in the interest of balance, this ought to be mentioned. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Never knew that Bolivar was Anti-Masonic... Surprising, given that he was a Mason. Sources? Blueboar (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * He sort of went off the idea after he was almost assassinated in 1828. His response was to ban all secret societies. Enjoy. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Carroll
according to The New Age Magazine (1933 v. 41, p. 305; 1935 v. 43, p. 307): "Daniel Carroll, member of the Continental Congress from Maryland, was initiated in Maryland Lodge No. 16, at Baltimore, May 9, 1780." Also search for "Daniel Carroll" freemason in Google Books. Can you provide a contra-citation? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Whoops... thanks for questioning my tag... I got my Carroll's confused. I was thinking of Daniel's cousin Charles Carroll of Carrollton (there is debate as to whether Charles was a Freemason or not - with the majority opinion among historians being: "not"... but it seems there is no debate about Daniel.)  Mea maxima culpa. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Purport 1958 quote by Pope Pius XII
Pope Pius XII purportedly wrote, or said, that "the roots of modern apostasy lay in scientific atheism, dialectical materialism, rationalism, Illuminism, laicism, and Freemasonry -- which is the mother of them all ..." This quote attributed to a 1958 address by Pius XII seems to originate with:

This seems to be a self published work. There is not enough available information to verify the quote. A shows it began to appear on anti-Masonic websites in 2001. I think since the quote seems not to have been published prior to the one 1991 self published work, it should not be included in the article without finding a reliable Italian language original quote. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Interpretation of 1974 CDF reply in Madison
A web page by William G. Madison includes an unreferenced quote about the 1974 CDF reply: This is an interpretation that I think was taken from either

I tagged the Madison reference with because of that.

The interpretation found in Madison is not precise since the CDF only reiterated the existing canon and had not "ruled that Canon 2335 no longer automatically bars a Catholic from membership of masonic groups". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that the interpretation is based on Knight or Hamill? Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hathi search for a long quote and publication years. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I found a secondary source and . –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Published rumors or leaked interpretations from unnamed sources in 1968
In March and May 1968 (I added both references in ), The Tablet published that Vatican sources, not identified by name, had been "quoted as saying that Catholics are now free to join the Masons in the United States, Britain and most other countries of the world." Despite that, according to those sources, not identified by name, "the European Grand Orient Lodge of Masons, established primarily in Italy and France, is still considered anti-Catholic or, at least, atheistic."

Vatican sources, not identified by name, said that 1917 CIC canon 2335 was not abrogated, but that the CDF has let it be known that Catholics joining the Freemasons are no longer automatically excommunicated. . . the Church's new attitude has been in effect for more than a year'."

According to a March 1968 The Tablet article, "word leaked out that the Vatican had adopted a new attitude and was no longer applying in every case an old law automatically excommunicating Catholics who joined the Freemasons." "The Vatican has adopted the stand that it is 'possible but not advisable' for Catholics to join the order of Freemasons in countries where the Masons are not anti-Catholic, according to informed Vatican sources," not identified by name. "They gave this clarification of the Vatican position because of some confusion in various parts of the world about this issue."

The Tablet published in May 1968 that "according to well-informed sources," not identified by name, "the new attitude remains almost a private matter within the" CDF. Moreover, since March 1968, "the report has been periodically challenged in various parts of the world" and "some Catholic officials  have said that they knew of no new attitude on the part of the Vatican."

The sources, not identified by name, said that a CDF reply, in a private letter to a Scandinavian bishop, not identified by name in The Tablet, was, in the words of the The Tablet, "the only official document on the subject and no instruction had been sent to bishops elsewhere. Publicly, the Vatican had only said it was not considering 'profound changes' in Canon Law on the subject."

The secretary of the Scandinavian Bishops Conference (CES), Bishop John Willem Gran, of Oslo, replied to The Tablet May 1968 article and wrote in June 1968 that the misrepresentations of fact found in the May 1968 article originated in a Le Monde article and were "repeated in many Catholic papers all over the world."

After an investigation in CES countries, the CES was "satisfied that there was nothing anti-clerical or atheistic in the character of Scandinavian Freemasonry. On the contrary, the Swedish system, which is followed in all these countries, demands that a Freemason shall not only believe in God, but be, moreover, a professed Christian." Then, in 1967, after their investigation, the CES "decided to avail themselves of the" norms in De Episcoporum Muneribus "which empowers bishops in special cases to dispense from certain injunctions of Canon Law."

These rumors or leaked interpretations seem important to the late 1960s narrative but I don't want to give too much WP:WEIGHT to them. any suggestions about how to add this? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC); 01:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I can only add that the Roman Catholics that I have met in masonic circles believed the rumours to be true. One was excommunicated for marrying a divorcee, the others simply avoid mentioning their membership as they regard "tolerance" as a local policy that can change from week to week. The same narrative is still current. Just difficult to reference. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In the context of the narrative we are telling here in this article, I think the rumors are important to mention. It does not really matter whether the rumors were accurate or not, what matters is simply that they existed and were thought to be accurate at the time.  Accurate or not, they led to a fair number of Catholics thinking that the ban on Freemasonry was being lifted... they are part of the reason why the Church felt it necessary to clarify things in the 1980s.  The rumors are part of the story (whether we focus the story on a Church perspective, or a Masonic perspective). They need to be mentioned because they help explain subsequent events.  We don't need to explain why the rumors were right or wrong... but we do need to note that they existed, and note how that existence influenced subsequent events. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Different word needed
The section on the German Bishops conference starts with: The word "beliefs" is problematic. Freemasonry does not have "beliefs" (any more than say, the United States Congress or General Motors has beliefs). Perhaps some other word would be more appropriate. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "In 1980, after six years of dialogue with representatives of the United Grand Lodges of Germany and investigation of Masonic beliefs and rituals, the DBK produced a report..."
 * the term beliefs is appropriate. According to some academic sources speculative masonry is a gnostic occult movement, and Masonic studies is a field in the academic study of new religious movements.


 * –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And do any of these sources happen to say what the so called "beliefs" of freemasonry might be? Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In this context, "alleged beliefs" would be entirely appropriate. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not a mason but I have read that, depending on the form of masonry and depending on the lodge, there is generally a requirement to believe in a deity. I read that there is a "faith in the immortality of the soul" (A Masonic Funeral ServiceFounding Freemasons, p. 7). A belief in the brotherhood of all men (Founding Freemasons, p. 7). The resurrection of the body (Masonic Bible quoted in Why Catholics Cannot Be Masons, p. 45)
 * Separately, the DEK conclusions are discussed in . –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We are now on shaky ground. Many masonic jurisdictions have a requirement for some sort of vague belief in a deity. The Grand Orients that have had to fight the Vatican tooth and nail for their very existence have no such requirement.
 * On another tack, I have a major problem with Whalen (1985) which cites Stephen Knight (author), whose claims are considered laughable by real historians. This makes Whalen, at best, a poor researcher - at worst, a deliberate liar. Can we find a better reference? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * no, "shaky ground" the discussion about the term belief is specific to the conclusions of the German bishops. It is not a bait-and-switch into an  ad hominem about authors not mentioned in the sources discussing the German bishops conclusions. These are two separate discussions.
 * Please cite your sources about Whalen so I can discuss specifics. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * BoBo... What you talk about (having belief in God) is indeed a prerequisite for membership in many (not all) Masonic jurisdictions... But Freemasonry does not define that belief. Freemasonry does not teach belief... it is something members have already have ... before they join... Their belief in God is taught to them by institutions like the Catholic Church. It's something a mason gets from his religious institution (whatever that may be) and brings with him when joining Freemasonry. And Freemasonry does not try to change the beliefs a member already has.

Note that the Boy Scouts have a similar requirement (or at least they did back when I was a lad). Yet no one claims that the Scouts are a religion. Or that they have "beliefs". Blueboar (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am only describing what reliable, generally contemporary, sources state. I cite my sources. Personal incredulity needs to be cited. Again, the discussion is about the conclusion of the German bishops based in part on years of discussions with representatives of the United Grand Lodges of Germany. It is limited to those cited specifics. It is not about some red herring boy scouts or vague "shaky ground". The Catholic Church recognizes the fragmentation in masonry and masonic differences, e.g. Swedish Rite vs Orients, etc. As far as the termbeliefs, I cited two reliable sources. Moreover, Melton 2001 and Lewis & Tøllefsen 2016 point to masonry studied as a religion. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And to counter that, there are authoritative sources that have concluded that Freemasonry is not a religion, and does not have "beliefs"...
 * First there is the fact that Freemasonry itself explicitly self-identifies as not being a religion - Multiple Grand Lodges have repeatedly stated that "Our purpose as Freemasons is not that of a religion. Freemasonry lacks the basic elements of religion. Freemasonry is not a religion nor is it a substitute for religion." (the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon's website has a very detailed explanation as to why it isn't: see here... and the United Grand Lodge of England explains: "All Freemasons are expected to have a religious belief, but Freemasonry does not seek to replace a Mason’s religion or provide a substitute for it. It deals in a man’s relationship with his fellow man not in a man’s relationship with his God.")
 * Then there are rulings of various courts of law... On at least two occasions the courts have ruled that Freemasonry does not qualify for tax exemptions that are available to religious institutions... specifically because Freemasonry isn't a religion.
 * That said... I do understand that it is possible to study Freemasonry as if it were a religion... and doing so reinforces the conclusion that it must be a religion. However, these studies invariably make the classic error of analysis that is warned against in basic anthropology classes: allowing your preconceptions to affect your analysis, and thus your conclusion.  Those who spend their lives studying religion will find religion in all they study. If you are not familiar with "Body rituals of the Nacirema"], I recommend reading it - it is a classic demonstration of how non-religious practices can be misconstrued ... and the errors that can affect one's conclusions when you don't filter out preconceptions).  [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Masonic teachings are a form of Western esotericism and mysticism, in other words, esoteric spirituality. They include "a speculative esoteric cosmology with borrowed symbols from the stone workers as religious symbols." According to J. Gordon Melton, scholars in the late-20th century included Western esotericism in their reinterpretation of the history of Western religions. 17th century Rosicrucianism is the foundation of speculative Freemasonry which, likewise, is a foundation of esoteric developments during the 19th century occult revival: neo-Templarism and ritual magic, "most notably the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn."
 * According to Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, "Rosicrucianism supplied the myth of a secret society cultivating hermetic sciences, Freemasonry provided a vehicle for the historical transmission of theosophical and alchemical traditions."
 * There are "significant variations in different locations. In such countries as England and Italy, Freemasonry continues as an esoteric group, whereas in France, Freemasonry developed into a post-revolutionary atheist organization assuming the public persona of a fraternal group, though it was much more than that."
 * It does not fit in the categories of the church–sect–cult typology.(Taves & Kinsella 2014, p. 87) the premise that Freemasonry is not a religion "illustrates a typical conceptual pattern".(Taves & Kinsella 2014, pp. 89–90, especially p. 90)
 * Masonic beliefs, seem to me, to those of "that Religion in which all Men agree." "Brotherhood rests upon a basis of religion. Every Mason must believe in a Supreme Being, the V.S.L. must be open at every meeting of the Lodge. Before engaging in any important undertaking a Mason should seek aid and guidance through prayer to the Great Architect of the Universe. This is religion, but not a religion. It is faith—but not worship attached to any one altar. It is the ground which underlies all religions, all churches, all creeds, all sects." "As speculative masonry emerged, it espoused the idea that masonry was a restatement of the ancient religion of human-kind."
 * Masonic beliefs, seem to me, to those of "that Religion in which all Men agree." "Brotherhood rests upon a basis of religion. Every Mason must believe in a Supreme Being, the V.S.L. must be open at every meeting of the Lodge. Before engaging in any important undertaking a Mason should seek aid and guidance through prayer to the Great Architect of the Universe. This is religion, but not a religion. It is faith—but not worship attached to any one altar. It is the ground which underlies all religions, all churches, all creeds, all sects." "As speculative masonry emerged, it espoused the idea that masonry was a restatement of the ancient religion of human-kind."


 * –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC
 * The most telling three words in what you just posted are "seems to me"... You are engaged in a classic case of WP:SYNTH... Cherry picking statements out of context and linking them to support your preconceived conclusions. it is pointless to discuss further. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This reference, cited by you (William Whalen 1985), quotes Stephen Knight (author) as if any of his work was a creditable reference. Knight is only used as a "reliable" source by conspiracy nuts. This makes Whalen, in turn, a highly suspect source. Perhaps you could supply a better reference.
 * On the other matter, I don't dispute the words of the German Bishop's conference. However, when their findings are demonstrably WP:Complete Bollocks, this needs pointing out in the interest of balance. I believe Blueboar is correct. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * no your red herring doesn't make Whalen "a highly suspect source" – he is an expert on the subject and obviously was commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The quote in Whalen is: Please cite a source that discredits Whalen about this report. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Knight wrote his work on Jack the Ripper as a joke. When it made him a shedload of money, he discovered he had painted himself into a corner. Rather than recant, he continued to publish more fuel for conspiracy loonies. He made a lot of stuff up. Nobody, absolutely nobody with any credibility, would pretend that he is a reliable source. Why oh why does Whalen?

What on earth is the "Masonic Bible"? I can't think of a single version of the third degree that mentions the resurrection of the body. The list goes on. I don't care how respected your sources are in Catholic circles, a lie is a lie. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I see you have not cited any source that discredits Whalen about this report. I see just more ad hominem with nothing substantive.
 * Please do a Google search for "masonic bible", they are sold in masonic supply houses.
 * The Masonic Bible states: "The doctrine of the resurrection of the body to a future and eternal life constitutes an essential dogma of the religious faith of Freemasonry. It is more authoritatively inculcated in the symbolism of the Third Degree than is possible by any dogmatic creed."(Masonic Bible, quoted in Salza 2011, p 45) –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC); modified 00:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * There are many KJVs sold as masonic bibles. Mine was presented to me when I became Master of my lodge, and contains no such statement. There is no specific "Masonic Bible". If you have one, please state the publisher and date. Mine is Collins 1951.


 * The two largest Continental observances don't require a bible, or a belief in God. Even in "regular" lodges, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and Jews participate and can elect to take their oath on their own Holy Book. If there was a "Masonic Bible", they wouldn't read it. This is a total red herring.


 * Whalen quotes Knight. Knight is garbage. Garbage in, garbage out. Please justify the inclusion of this appalling material in the article. You made the edit, not me. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)


 * To explain further: A "Masonic Bible" (not the Masonic Bible) is nothing more than a standard Bible (usually the King James Version) with some extra pages and annotations in the margins. this webpage explains it well.  It is important to understand that there are many different "Masonic Bibles" out there... each with different editors, who add different things in the annotations, and extra pages.  Think of how different students in a bible studies class might make notes in the margin of their copy of the bible... each will make different annotations and make different comments.
 * It does not surprise me that there is a Masonic Bible who's editor states what BoBo says ... it is all but a direct quote from the entry on Resurrection found in Mackey's Encylopedia of Freemasonry... to quote:
 * "Resurrection - The doctrine of a resurrection to a future and eternal life constitutes an indispensable portion of the religious faith of Freemasonry. It is not authoritatively inculcated as a point of dogmatic creed, but is impressively taught by the symbolism of the Third Degree."
 * Note the second sentence of Mackey's definition (which is omitted in what BoBo quotes)... it is important in the context of this discussion. Blueboar (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * the the version cited in Salza is: Heirloom Masonic Bible (Master reference ed.). Wichita, KS: DeVore & Sons. 1988.
 * Regardless of the source or inadequate attribution, I think that encyclopedic resurrection entry adds a widely circulated description.
 * I think this sided discussion is drifting away from the actual German bishops conclusions, which include one conclusion about "The Masonic Rituals" and 11 other conclusions mostly about beliefs such as "The Masonic World View", "The Masonic Notion of Truth", "The Masonic Notion of Religion", "The Masonic Notion of God", etc. Ganley, in the cited link, writes "there seems to be a significant difference between the beliefs, principles, and actions of the Masonic groups in Europe as opposed to the United States." –BoBoMisiu (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * many authors write works in different categories, genres, and forms; it is a logical fallacy to conflate a writer's individual works. I don't have justify anything, Whalen is the work that is central to the USCCB conclusions about masonic association in the United States, it is a WP:SUBPOV and deserves WP:DUE weight – you can WP:RFC from a wider audience if you like. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC); modified 12:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Again with the Bishops' conferences. Let's be clear, the Roman Catholic church has persecuted Freemasons for 280 years, a process involving torture, murder and lies. The pattern was set in the 1740s with a mixture of truth and fable, and has not changed since. Nobody is about to admit they are wrong, so the lies have to continue. The Roman Catholic church, its organs and the organisations it supports are not good sources on the aims, objectives or rituals of Freemasonry.
 * We can accept that the Church is a good source on Church attitudes and policies towards Freemasonry, but there it stops. We can only expect such an organisation to disseminate information on Freemasonry that conforms to their narrow view. As verifiable indicators of masonic history, ritual or beliefs, your references are not worth the paper they are printed on. We have a body of men who routinely covered up institutional abuse and paedophilia for decades. Truth was never high on their agenda. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * please cite your sources for "As verifiable indicators of masonic history, ritual or beliefs, your references are not worth the paper they are printed on." The rest of you comment is just red herrings and straw men with ad hominem argumentation throughout. Point out what is erroneous and cite your sources. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You put the sources in. It is for you to justify the use of deliberately antagonistic sources. It is for you to convince the rest of us that an organisation with a lamentable history of double standards can be trusted in respect of a number of smaller organisations they have being trying to suppress for centuries.
 * Red herrings, straw men, ad hominem - all WP:Weasel words. You are defending the indefensible. You are continuing a campaign of lies and persecution almost three centuries old. You need to find supporting references from outside the Catholic church, a problem Whalen wrestled with, and came up with a discredited author who made a lot of money by frightening people. There is no good faith (pardon the pun) between the Church and masonry. It is you that needs to show that your references are valid. I don't think you can. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * please read what I wrote. Then point out what is erroneous and cite your sources. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

My criticism of Whalen stands - he used a genuinely terrible source. As long as this drivel doesn't appear in the body of the article, please suit yourself. The article seems now to be about Catholic doctrine. As long as Catholic sources are not used as factual statements about masonic practice, I'm happy. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * the article describes, in part, what Masonry is factually. The specific descriptions in this article are from the perspective of the Catholic Church.
 * I am not a Mason, but, I believe that Masonry is supposed to be about something more than a club where men perform empty rituals. From what I have read, it has a spiritual facet which uses its rituals for a kind of personal development. I think both of your efforts to remove or minimize content about what it is, makes the article less informative about an obvious esoteric mission. The historic incompatibilities still exist. Although research about the esoteric roots of the Enlightenment was published in the mid 20th century – i.e. a half century ago – and many Gnostic texts were discovered before that, edits about "belief" and "alleged" and "not a religion" are 19th century narratives unsupported by modern scholarship. I respect that both of you make sure that the content is "open for the public" and "on the level" but other editors, such as myself, have not made oaths to do that.
 * I will be expanding the article with well cited descriptions about the specific incompatibilities that the Catholic Church describes. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that the article now reads like a telephone directory, and the casual reader will probably lose the will to live early in the text. You should also be aware that the verified criminal activities of various branches of the Catholic church make them an unreliable reference as to fact, as their hierarchy did nothing to stop a long list of outrages against basic human rights. Can I believe the "truth" of an organisation that laundered money for organised crime, that enslaved unmarried mothers and sold their children? An organisation that can look the other way while its officers and representatives abuse their charges does not deserve credibility.
 * The "spiritual facet" of Freemasonry varies widely from lodge to lodge, and ironically is stronger in the Grand Orients that admit atheists. Crashing generalisations don't work, and your "facts" come from people who by their very faith, have no practical knowledge of Freemasonry. Please expand - but be careful as to the external verification of Catholic "truths" about Freemasonry. Wikipedia cannot afford to publish libellous material. The United Grand Lodge of England have stopped being passive about unsubstantiated anti-masonic claims. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Sacramental character of Masonic rituals
you to "The alleged sacramental character of Masonic rituals". The DBK did not allege but concluded after six years of dialog with Masonic representatives.

In a similar manner, Whalen (1967, p 137) wrote that "Freemasonry displays all the elements of religion, and as such it becomes a rival to the religion of the Gospel. It includes temples and altars, prayers, a moral code, worship, vestments, feast days, the promise of reward or punishment in the afterlife, a hierarchy, and initiation and burial rites."

Every aspect of Whalen's description is verifiable. For example, "feast days" are a facet of the religion.

Masonic religious observance ceremonies, e.g. within the Grand Lodge of Montana, "during the month of January all Montana Lodges pursuant to Montana Code § 25060. A., are required to hold and conduct a Saints John Day observance." These ceremonies are not celebrated as a theologically Christian holiday but linked to astronomical events as "a symbol of control of conduct" of which the "esoteric explanation of this symbol" is explained in the Masonic first degree.(grandlodgemontana.org) Saints John the Baptist and John the Evangelist are symbolic (not in person) patron saints of Masonry.(Mackey Encyclopedia, p. 775, masonicdictionary.com)

Symbolism is used to convey the meaning of the "hidden truth which modern Freemasonry has inherited from those schools of the secret wisdom of antiquity" to people who are worthy and conceal the meaning from people who are unworthy.(masonicdictionary.com) An "example of this [...] hidden behind the [...] references [...] in our work to the two characters which are the subjects of the present paper. I [...] would emphasize my belief that this represents only a fraction of the real lesson. Their festivals, engrafted [...] upon the [...] solstitial festivals [...] in the Light-religions of antiquity, give us a [...] statement of the whole philosophy of Masonry, which is a mystery-drama of human life. [...] they give us [...] the [...] relation of man with the phenomena of the visible universe, - [...] microcosm in [...] macrocosm. For [...] Masonic purposes, it matters little what particular story we ascribe to these dates; the fact of our observance of them as ancient festivals [...] preserves the spirit of the symbolism; and whether we observe them as the midsummer and midwinter solstices under the beautifully poetical phraseology of the Osiric, Eleusinian or Druidic Mysteries, or as the feast days of Christian saints [...] the [...] lesson is the same."masonicdictionary.com "It is [...] in harmony with the spirit of 'that religion in which all men agree' and is therefore really Masonic. Their festivals [...] upon the two extremes of the year [...] give us a key to the whole philosophy of Masonry."(masonicdictionary.com)

A youtube video of an open Masonic ceremony clearly shows that "The sacramental character of Masonic rituals" can be an obvious interpretation even for a non-Mason.

Why add alleged? –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Church defines the Sacraments as: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony... which of these do you think is being performed in that video?
 * And what, pray tell, do you think occurs at a St. John's day observance? In what way is it sacramental?  Is celebrating St. Valentine's Day by taking your wife to dinner a sacrament?
 * FYI ... the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of Montana do mandate meeting on St. John's day ... ie that is the date they have chosen to hold their Annual Communication. All Grand Lodges require that their annual meeting be held on a specific day of the year (the specificc day varies).  Montana chose St. John's day, obviously because that is the day when the original Grand Lodge of England was founded in 1717 - That first Grand Lodge was formed (by four Lodges meeting in London) specifically to coordinate and plan a joint feast.
 * Your efforts remind me of how conspiracy theorists operate... they start with a conclusion (say: "The government was behind 9/11"), and then try to find "proof" to support the conclusion. If some bit of "proof" is challenged or debunked... no worries... the conclusion must still be valid, they just picked the wrong bit of "proof".  They never think to ask whether the conclusion they started with might not be valid.  Note that I am not saying that you are a conspiracy theorist... but simply that you are engaging in the same flawed reasoning that conspiracy theorists typically engage in. You have convinced yourself that Freemasonry is a religion, and nothing anyone else says will convince you to change your mind.  We can spend time debunking your attempts to "prove" your contention, but that won't make any difference, you will simply react with "OK, perhaps that does not prove I am right, but this does... ad infinitem".
 * Look, I get it... the powers that be in Church are of the opinion that Freemasonry is some sort of alternate religion... that's their opinion, reached after studying the Fraternity. That opinion is important to mention, because it explains the Church's continued Anti-Masonic attitude.  However... an opinion is just an opinion, and not universally universally accepted fact.  Wikipedia's NPOV policy insists that we present opinions as being opinions, and not present them as univesrally accepted facts.  We must attribute opinion to the oppinion holder, and not state them as fact in Wikipeia's voice. Thus we can not say "Freemasonry is X"... but instead we have to say: "The Church is of the opinion that Freemasonry is X"  (or other hedged ways of expressing it).  Hope that helps explain why "alleged" is added. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


 * no, you do not see conspiracy – read what I wrote.


 * Fiddlersmouth added alleged to "The sacramental character of Masonic rituals". "The DBK did not allege but concluded after six years of dialog with Masonic representatives."
 * "In a similar manner, Whalen wrote that 'Freemasonry includes  worship,  feast days,  and initiation and burial rites'."
 * Feast days are part of the religion.
 * For example, within the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Montana, all lodges are required to conduct ceremonies which "are not celebrated as a theologically Christian holiday but linked to astronomical events as 'a symbol of control of conduct' of which the 'esoteric explanation of this symbol' is explained in the Masonic first degree.grandlodgemontana.org
 * An example of symbolism, used to convey the meaning about "references [...] in our work to the two  characters." Their festivals, which are grafted to the solstice festivals "in the Light-religions of antiquity, give us a [...] statement of the whole philosophy of Masonry, which is a mystery-drama of human life. [...] they give us [...] the [...] relation of man with the phenomena of the visible universe, - [...] microcosm in [...] macrocosm. For [...] Masonic purposes, it matters little what particular story we ascribe to these dates; the fact of our observance of them as ancient festivals [...] preserves the spirit of the symbolism; and  we observe them as the [...] solstices [...,] the [...] lesson is the same."masonicdictionary.com "It is [...] in harmony with the spirit of 'that religion in which all men agree' and is therefore really Masonic. Their festivals [...] give us a key to the whole philosophy of Masonry."masonicdictionary.com


 * I may not have written precisely enough but you are conflating two facets of what I wrote:
 * my example of a Masonic feast day
 * the youtube video of an open Masonic ceremony which clearly shows that The sacramental character of Masonic rituals' can be an obvious interpretation."
 * A sacramental is an ex opere operandis sign or "analogous religious practices" with spiritual effects that resembles a sacrament. Examples of sacramentals include: blessing of baptismal water and blessing of holy oils.
 * Everything in masonry is symbolic. Everything physical thing, e.g. oil, salt, wine, represents some Masonic symbolic nature. A shows that physical things, contained in ritual vessels, are used in a lodge "consecration ritual". A portable symbolic object called "the lodge" is also used. The video shows (from about 26m 16s) some type of invocation, some type of offerings of the physical things contained in the ritual vessels, and the religious use of incense in a censer (28m30s–33m39s), closing doors of a special place (37m20s)


 * Hints of the sacramental nature of ritual can be found online.
 * "The ceremony should mean [...] that the symbolic sacrifice will be made real [...] an effective instrument in the hands of the builders. [...] A man and a woman may be married [...] without the blessing of God; so could a lodge be constituted, [...] without the ceremony of consecration. [...] matrimony is [...] considered [...] a sacrament, [...] solemnized with the blessing of the Most High, [...] so is the creation of a new lodge [...] performed when it has been consecrated by the pouring of the corn, the wine, the oil [...]"
 * In an initiation, "the assembled [...] should [...] be notified [...] that they [...] engage in a [...] solemn act [...] to the intent that what is done and signified ceremonially may be realized spiritually [...] to whom they desire to minister. [...] the ceremonial preparation of the candidate before being brought into the Lodge should be treated, [...] but as a profoundly sacramental act, in the significance of which both the officiating deacons and the candidate himself should be instructed."
 * "it has been indicated that the customary practice of refreshment and social conviviality is not only practically useful, but has a deep sacramental value."
 * "[...] the Order's real significance, [... as] a source of light and guidance to many [...] who have realized and profited by its implications, and some of who from the portal of the Craft, have passed [...] to more advanced methods [...] of spiritual instruction. A sacramental system is not invalidated by the default of those accepting its jurisdiction; [...] not a few Masons have won to the Light despite the surrounding darkness of their Brethren."
 * "[...] the Mysteries - as a science of life and an art of [...] living [...] to qualify for [] attaining ultra-natural life [] will [...] be restored. [...] the tide [...] has been [...] against the tradition of regeneration into [...] ultra-natural life, [...] the Christian Church is [...] a steward of the Mysteries [...] but [...] there has been failure [...] to realize them [...] the narrative in the Gospels, [...] is a drama of Initiation [...] previously had been [...] conceal[ed in] the Mystery-schools, became, at the Incarnation, objectified, universalized and made generally accessible ; [...] the Gospels became a manual of Initiation [...] The [...] cycle of the Church's year, [...] is a true chart of the path to be followed by those who [...] seek initiation under the mastership of the Great Hierophant and Exemplar of regenerative science; [...] in the Sacrament of the Altar [...] under different symbolism, the actual process of Initiation and the same transmutative changes in the body and mind of the recipient as are emblematized to the Masonic candidate in the Craft Degrees."
 * "The Masonic system was devised [...] as a [...] school in which [...] Gnosis might be learned and an [...] acquaintance made with the science of human regeneration. [...] every voluntary participant in them stands imperishably impressed with the memory of them. The maxim 'Once a Mason, always a Mason' expresses an occult truth not realized by those who are unaware of the subjective value and persistence of one's deliberated objective actions; [...] the Church implies the same truth when it deems the act of sacramental baptism to bring a given soul within the fold of Christ for ever. In each case, [...] especially [...] when the [...] will of the neophyte assents to the act, a new addition is made to the group-soul of the community into which the individual becomes incorporated; and, in the case of the Masonic initiate, the aggregate and volume of what we have termed the Masonic Consciousness is enlarged."
 * "[...] the sprig of Acacia will grow in our hearts, if we cultivate it, [...] and [...] will be not a symbol but a sacrament in the house of our pilgrimage."


 * Philip M. Katz compares a Masonic ritual from Ancien Régime France to the eucharist, in Freemasonry in context: "Special attention should be paid to this word oblation, a technical term for various aspects of the Eucharistic ritual, and thus not one to be used lightly. Indeed, what happens next can only be described as an imitation of that sacrament." The language used in the ritual is "we demand that you participate in the symbolic offering of the heart of this respectable master which we have preserved in the form of a mystic substance ever since the assassination. Do you have the strength to swallow the morsel of his heart which will be presented to you, which all faithful Masons have received, but which cannot remain in the body of liars?"


 * I am sure that knowledgable masons could provide better sources. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Quoting snippets out of context to the prove your contention is another tactic often used by Antimasonic conspiracy theorists. Keep it up and you may yet qualify for a tin foil hat. Blueboar (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not proving anything, the snippets are on this talk page to colaberate with other editors in a search for better references about the sacramental nature of ritual. They are, as I described, "Hints of the sacramental nature of ritual can be found online". I think, so far, Katz's chapter in Freemasonry in context is a good source for its historical example of a ritual with sacramental nature. I think might develop into a footnote in this article. I have to learn the jargon before I can design effective searches – that is why my discussions about sources on this talk page are amateurish. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Something to emulate
I would like to draw everyone's attention to this blog posting ... it is a transcript of a speech given by Rev Mr. John J. McManus, JD, JCL (to a Masonic lodge in Georgia). Yes, I know that this would not be considered a reliable source for a citation (since it is hosted on a blog)... but it is still worth looking at. I draw it to your attention more as an example of how it is possible to present this topic concisely, accurately, and informatively... without trying to "prove" which side is right or wrong. While clearly discussing the topic from a specific POV (that of the Church) the author takes a neutral tone... attributing opinions to those who hold them. We could do well to emulate this presentation here in our article. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning Propaganda Due
While the P2 scandal probably did influence Catholic attitudes towards Freemasonry... if we are going to mention it in this article, I think it important to get the historical facts right. At the time of the scandal, P2 was NOT a legitimate Masonic Lodge. It's charter had been withdrawn by the Grand Orient of Italy, and it's leadership had been expelled. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * the point is about the obligation of "Masonic secrecy" not about the organizational relationships between various Masonic groups. I agree with you that the lodge became clandestine. But, it is a type of no true Scotsman fallacy – to argue, from the premise that a withdrawal of perceived lodge legitimacy by the franchising grand orient, to the conclusion that the lodge is somehow not masonic or that the obligation of "Masonic secrecy" somehow was changed or eliminated within that lodge. Maybe adding the qualifier clandestine would clarify the organizational relationship. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Making a general case out of P2 is simply unacceptable. The problem wasn't masonic secrecy, it was the nature of the lodge. The idea was that famous people (and prominent Catholics) could become masons and nobody would know. Their membership and activities were closed even to the Grand Orient. Gelli realised that there would be no accountability, there is no way of knowing, at present, what happened when he turned the lodge into a monster, or measuring the complicity of the governing body. The source is an unreliable spokesman for the anti-masonic views of the church. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * here is the actual sentence I added:
 * This is in Whalen: "The P2 case did demonstrate that Masonic secrecy could camouflage and facilitate conspiracies of the political right, even in the shadows of St. Peter's."
 * The quote is about "Masonic secrecy" – as Fiddlersmouth wrote: "there would be no accountability, there is no way of knowing".
 * Jeffrey M. Bale wrote in Patterns of Prejudice:
 * "[...] a secret Masonic lodge in Italy had infiltrated all of the state's security agencies and was involved in promoting or at least exploiting acts of neo-fascist terrorism in order to help condition the political system and strengthen its own influence in the corridors of government, most readers would probably assume that that they were joking or accuse them of having taken leave of their senses. [...] Nevertheless, [...] such a lodge did in fact exist. It was known as Loggia Massonica Propaganda Due (P2), was affiliated with the Grand Orient branch of Italian Freemasonry, and was headed by a former Fascist militiaman [...] In all probability smaller entities similar to P2 still exist today in an altered form, albeit not always promoting an authoritarian or rightist political agenda, even though that particular 'covered' lodge in Italy was officially outlawed in 1982. [...] There is no doubt that specialists in late twentieth-century Italian politics who fail to take account of the activities of P2, [...] are missing an important dimension of political life in those countries at particular historical junctures. Nevertheless, neither of these two important organizations has been thoroughly investigated by academics. [...] as is so often the case, investigative journalists have done most of the truly groundbreaking preliminary research.pp. 57–58
 * Clearly, the lodge was used, as Whalen wrote, to "camouflage and facilitate conspiracies".
 * Fiddlersmouth's opinion about this author, Whalen, had been discussed recently at . There, of "misquoting sources". I think that page is best to discuss the author. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My issue isn't that you misquote the sources, but that the sources are inaccurate (and thus unreliable) in calling P2 "Masonic". Blueboar (talk) 11:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * it was masonic. See snippets, selected from what look like scholarly sources, found in a Google Scholar search for "Propaganda Due" "p2":
 * "The primary organizations involved in these anti-constitutional activities were [....] the Propaganda Due (P2) masonic lodge [...]"
 * "Between the early 1970s and 1981, an international masonic lodge called Propaganda Due (P2) operated as a cover, as well as in its own right, for a large number of illegal economic and political activities, ranging from the trafficking in arms and drugs to terrorism, from illegal lobbying to fraud and corruption."
 * "The fall of the Forlanni government, [...], was due to the exposure of the 'secret masonic' lodge P2"
 * "Around the same time, links were forged between some Mafiosi and the highly secretive 'Propaganda Due'or P2 Lodge–a 'deviated' branch of Freemasonry. [...] Acting like a parallel state [...] the lodge conspired to destabilize democratically elected governments [...]"
 * "[...] the notorious Propaganda Due or P2 network that pretended to be a mere Masonic Lodge [...]"
 * "One may justifiably dismiss traditional histrionic anti-Masonic conspiracy theories, but this should not lead one to deny that particular lodges of Freemasons—such as the right-wing Propaganda Due (P2) lodge in Italy—have in fact engaged in secret plotting to influence [...]"
 * "The real issue concerns the role of 'occult' forces behind the neo- Fascist/SID nexus. In 1980-81 the Italian public became aware of a secret masonic lodge known as Propaganda Due (P2) whose leader, Licio Gelli, was identified as a puppetmaster of Italian politics."
 * "[...] the illegal masonic lodge Propaganda Due (P2). P2, [...] was such a prominent player in Italian politics since the 1960's, that it was often regarded as a state within a state. P2 was involved in every aspect of Italian politics until the 1982 collapse of Banco Ambrosiano. In fact, many people believe that P2 was responsible for the death of Pope John Paul I,"
 * It is clearly described as masonic. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, lots of people do think of P2 as "Masonic"... especially anti-Masonic conspiracy theorists. That is because at one time P2 was Masonic.  But then it got taken over by Licio Gelli, and he turned it into something else... something non-Masonic.  This is why, in 1976, the Grand Orient yanked P2's charter. To put this in terms that you might understand, you could think of the Grand Orient's withdrawal of P2's charter as the Masonic analogy to declaring P2 heretical. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

is your point that a masonic group becomes less masonic when other masonic groups withdraw their recognition? Masons categorize organizational relationships between various Masonic groups too: i.e. regular, irregular, clandestine, etc. The P2 lodge was regular, i.e. part of that grand orient, and became clandestine, i.e. not part of that grand orient. Of course, Anglo-masonry rejects – I think most if not all – grand orient groups since the second-half of the 19th-century, but grand orient groups are nevertheless continue to be classified as masonic in the 21st-century. These is a high degree of separation and autonomy between the many types of masonic groups. Moreover, masonic association, especially in Europe and Latin America, has a long history of subversion which lead to condemnation by many civil governments. Based on searching the reliable literature, describing P2 as non-masonic is fringe and not mainstream. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not an issue of some "other" Masonic group withdrawing recognition... the issue is that the parent body that issued P2's charter in the first place (the Grand Orient) declared P2 shut down and expelled its membership from the fraternity. Imagine that the Catholic Church discovered that a particular parish was engaged in heresy... after examination the Church authorities might shut down the parish, and excommunicate it's parishioners.  If the congregation of that parish continued to meet and practice their heresy, would it be right to continue to call them "Catholics?"  Of course not. Blueboar (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not my problem. P2 was more a problem of the Catholic church than it was for the Grand Orient. A Catholic source blaming Freemasonry in general for the criminal activities of a renegade lodge without mentioning the involvement of the Vatican Bank in the whole debacle is pure hypocrisy. Where would Gelli, Sindona, and Calvi have started without their associate, archbishop Paul Marcinkus? Glass houses, stones... Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * is "The scandal illustrated 'that Masonic secrecy could camouflage and facilitate conspiracies' in the late 20th-century."
 * Both of your comments distract from the question at issue in the sentence and are not relevant to the sentence which I added. The sentence I added has a citation. It is a well-documented scandal. I have in this discussion and can provide more. All I read in your opposition to the sentence is unsupported personal incredulity. In review:
 * there was scandal
 * there was masonry
 * there was secrecy
 * there was camouflage
 * there was facilitating
 * there was conspiracy
 * it happened in the late 20th century
 * Each word individually is supportable with additional citations and the entire sentence is both currently cited and supportable with additional citations. I will revert, add Bale as a supporting citation, and tag the sentence with discuss – neither of you have shown anything that supports your opinions. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * yes, there was a scandal
 * yes, there was secrecy
 * yes, there was conspiracy
 * but no... it was not Masonic Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As previously discussed, the citation used is blatantly POV, and happily uses discredited references. P2 was a perfectly good masonic lodge until it was taken over by a leading Catholic businessman with strong Vatican connections and turned into the nerve centre of a criminal empire. It was expelled from the Grand Orient. Licio Gelli was still some sort of Freemason. When was he excommunicated? When was he refused mass? No, he had a good Catholic send-off when he died. Was P2 an exception to the ban? Yes, there was conspiracy, but the only stuff the police could nail down involved the Vatican Bank. Do we want to report this in a balanced manner, or just drop it? This doesn't warrant a detailed discussion of an organisation with its own article. Again, there are better references than a clearly POV Vatican propagandist. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * there are at least three competing franchise of Freemasonry in Italy: the Grand Orient of Italy (chartered P2), the Regular Grand Lodge of Italy, and the Gran Loggia d'Italia. Each is masonic except to those masons who are obliged by their oath to exclude them. Each grand lodge is an independent franchise and can withdraw recognition from another grand lodge to distance themselves from some distasteful idea – each is no less masonic after another withdraws recognition of it. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * not one.
 * Whalen, who you call "a clearly POV Vatican propagandist" who "happily uses discredited references", has a discussion where you can cite the sources which support your opinion of him and his work. Whithout support for your opinion, this is an ad hominem and a red herring against Whalen as far as I see – in contrast to your opinion, Whalen is a source in the bibliography of the "Freemasons" article in Encyclopedia of Religion. Which is among "Library Journal's picks of the most important reference works of the millennium -- with the Encyclopedia Judaica and the New Catholic Encyclopedia -- [...] and is widely regarded as the standard reference work in the field."
 * "This doesn't warrant a detailed discussion of an organisation with its own article" is a straw man. I added one sentence which links to an example. There is no detailed discussion in this article. Adding one sentence is appropriate.
 * The P2 and Gelli articles have separate talk pages too.
 * –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point... the fact that there are several branches of Freemasonry active in Italy is irrelevant... because, after it's charter was withdrawn in 1976, P2 did not belong to any of them. It was kicked out of Freemasonry entirely.  It was no longer part of the fraternity... no matter which branch of Freemasonry you are talking about.  Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand what happened. P2 become a clandestine lodge and continued its work. I cannot change the reliable consensus that P2 is categorized as masonic. I added the qualifier clandestine to the sentence, even though P2 also machinated against the state during the period it was a regular lodge. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't understand what a regular lodge is. Whalen is the Vatican's attack dog on masonry, just google him. He publishes in POV Catholic periodicals. Please find me an article on masonry by Whalen that doesn't include deliberate half-truths or rely on sources from conspiracy nuts. Bale does NOT mention masonic secrecy as a factor, he says that the Lodge was secret, which is quite different and not normal. You are still making a general case from one errant lodge. And that's your third revert. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * . Start citing sources that support your opinions. Ad hominem comments are not arguments but logical fallacies. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Whalen's work starts from the presumption that Freemasonry is somehow wrong. This makes him POV. An article that starts by describing masonry as a "Pastoral problem" cannot be neutral. That's not ad hominem, the starting point of the work is transparently POV. Bale does not support your statement, he says something else. And you have now officially crossed the line into edit warring. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * no I am not edit warring. I am contributing content and discussing what I add. I think you should ask for a broader consensus about your opinions.
 * Yes, Whalen's report was commissioned to describe a pastoral problem. That does not make it less reliable or less factual. Whalen's report describes the subject from a Catholic point of view. That does not make it less reliable or less factual.
 * You are making a genetic fallacy by rejecting Whalen. Personal incredulity is also a logical fallacy.
 * As I just wrote, . I have have cited references, you have not. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * uses the term "the secret P2 lodge" and states in the circumstances of the case that:
 * "[...] the disciplinary section of the National Council of the Judiciary [...] stated that from 1982 onwards it should have been possible to 'have a clear idea of the loss of integrity resulting from membership of the Freemasons ... because of the degeneration brought about when a number of people came together within the P2 lodge with plans to take control of the public authorities and subvert democratic institutions, and because of the collusion of certain Masonic lodges with the Mafia and organised crime'. [...] The decision also stated that it was contrary to disciplinary rules for a judge to be a Freemason, for the following reasons: the incompatibility between the Masonic and judicial oaths, the hierarchical relationship between Freemasons, the 'rejection' of State justice in favour of Masonic 'justice' and, lastly, the indissoluble nature of the bond between Freemasons, even in the case of a member who wished to leave the organisation"(§13).
 * A dissenting opinion described it as P2', a secret and deviant Masonic lodge."
 * A citation to Maestri v. Italy points to description of "Masonic secrecy". –BoBoMisiu (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried to warn you, multiple reverts before consensus constitute edit warring. Now do you believe me? You are still trying to make a general case from one specific lodge. There is a difference between masonic secrecy and an entirely secret lodge, especially (in this context) one tacitly supported by the head of the Vatican bank and elements of the Curia. I don't have to "prove" that Whalen is POV when the author explicitly states it himself.
 * Your edit warring, your hectoring contributions to talk pages, your misuse of references, and your continual harping on single subjects with no regard to real research make it difficult to assume good will. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, for Catholicism or Freemasonry. Please respect those of us who try to keep it so. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * please take the last paragraph you just wrote, read it carefully, and apply it to yourself. YOU are also edit-warring. To openly accuse BoBo of edit-warring while you continue to revert is the pot calling the kettle black. Now you have made a revert while BoBo is blocked and there is still a WP:BRD discussion active. You have failed to abide by the terms of BRD. You will be reported for edit-warring if you touch the article one more time without consensus. I don't care if you are at or below WP:3RR. You have been warned, now behave yourself. Perhaps you are too close to this subject and you need to take a break in order to think about what you are doing. There is no WP:DEADLINE here, and the article will still exist next week and next month. Consider it an opportunity to enjoy the prestige of a clean block log while you still have the chance. Elizium23 (talk) 04:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

POV and OR - footnote to the footnote
This is a slightly different issue, so I thought I would start a new sub-thread for it. Even if we do discuss P2 in this article, I have an issue of discussing it where Bobo wants to do so. Let's look at the section and paragraph under discussion. The section is discussing the confusion over the Church's stance on Freemasonry that existed after Vatican II. The specific sentence in question starts with:


 * News reports about the subject "apparently caused" confusion.

This statement is followed by a citation and a footnote. The footnote (quoting Calderwood) does (tangentially) relate to that statement, giving an example of Media causing confusion... saying: While I do think it odd to mention a 1981 event in a footnote focused on media coverage that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, I don't really have a serious problem with this footnote. It is discussing media coverage, and clarifying a change that was noted by the media (the media noting that the church was more favorable to Freemasonry in the 60s and 70s, but taking a less favorable attitude after that date.)
 * "For example, during the 20 years after Vatican II, the British press "regularly reported, with amazement," about a pending rapprochement which contrasted with a Catholic toughening after the 1981 Propaganda Due (P2) secret lodge scandal and revelations of its machination against the state."

However, what I really object to is the next part that Bobo wants to add... a second part to the footnote (really a footnote to the footnote), saying: This is a non-sequitor. It has nothing to do with media coverage causing confusion, nor the general confusion that existed after Vatican II. There is no reason to include this footnote to the footnote... except to coatrack on a gratuitous POV attack on "Masonic secrecy". This sort of coatracking violates WP:NPOV.
 * The scandal illustrated "that Masonic secrecy could camouflage and facilitate conspiracies" in the late 20th-century"

On top of this NPOV problem, we also have the problem that the POV addition is not a qoute, but a synthesis of two separate sources (Whalen and Bale). That is a WP:NOR violation. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * no, "footnote focused on media coverage that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s". It is not "odd to mention a 1981 event" since it was both the year the P2 conspiracy was exposed after Italian police discovered the membership roster of P2 and the year of CDF clarification. No, the content I added is neither "NPOV problem" nor "a synthesis of two separate sources" nor "WP:NOR violation". Read Whalen 1985. Which points do you think need better references to better integrate it in your opinion? —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Note the use of color coding for mapping

In body of article:
 * ""News reports about the subject "apparently caused" confusion."

In first sentence of footnote:
 * "For example, during the 20 years after Vatican II, the British press "regularly reported, with amazement," about a pending rapprochement which contrasted with a Catholic toughening after the 1981 Propaganda Due (P2) secret lodge scandal and revelations of its machination against the state."

In second sentence of footnote:
 * "The scandal illustrated 'that Masonic secrecy could camouflage and facilitate conspiracies' in the late 20th-century."

In Bale 2007:
 * "a secret Masonic lodge [...] infiltrated [...] the state's security agencies and was [...] promoting or [...] exploiting [...] terrorism [...] such a lodge did [...] exist. It was [...] Propaganda Due (P2), [...] affiliated with [...] Freemasonry, and was headed by a former Fascist militiaman [...] In all probability smaller entities similar to P2 still exist today in an altered form, [...] even though that [...] lodge [...] was [...] outlawed in 1982. [...] specialists [...] who fail to take account of the activities of P2, [...] are missing an important dimension of political life [...] at particular historical junctures. [...]" (pp. 57–58)

In Calderwood 2013:
 * "For the next 20 years, the press in England and Wales regularly reported, with amazement, that the icy relations between the two organisations were thawing."(pp. 133–135)
 * "[...] strengthened the arguments of those opposed to the introduction of a softer policy towards freemasonry [...] Conservative forces within the church were further strengthened by the revelations of the P2 scandal [...] the press [...] continued to run confidently optimistic reports and, as late as [January] 1983, The Daily Express published [...] that 'Catholics who join the Freemasons [...] no longer face automatic excommunication' [...]"(p. 134)

In Whalen 1985 (the report which is central to most criticism and stonewalling against my contributions in the article):
 * "Since many bishops stated [...] that confusion had been generated by a perceived change of approach [...], we hope that the information you find here will be a useful clarification."
 * "[...] first we should take a brief look at the documents which created the recent confusion."
 * "[...] Seper, [...] letter [...] 1974, [...]"
 * "[...] letter made no reference to the traditional objections to Freemasonry, namely its religious naturalism and its oaths. [...]"
 * "As late as [...] 1984, [...] columnist for the Catholic press [...] assuring [...] that Catholics 'may [...] hold membership in organizations, Masonic [...]' Would that it were so. [...]"
 * "examine the reasons [...] in the American context. [...] worldwide Freemasonry shares many beliefs and customs but is not a unified organization; it includes [...] irregular lodges such as the Italian P2 lodge; [...]"
 * "Some [...] suggested that the reaffirmation of the historic condemnation [...] was prompted by the P2 scandal. [...] Italian police [...] in 1981, [...] discovered the [...] membership roster, [...] Gelli [...] persuaded [...] individuals, [...] that membership in the Masonic lodge was now allowed by the church. [...] it appears that [...] P2 [...] plotted more against the [...] state than the church, although [...] Masonic financiers [...] handle[d] [...] Vatican's investments [... had] cost the church many millions of dollars. The P2 case did demonstrate that Masonic secrecy could camouflage and facilitate conspiracies of the political right even in the shadows of St. Peter's."
 * "Although the 1981 clarification [...] shortly after [...] exposure of the P2 conspiracy, nothing in the statement indicated that its intent was limited to Italian or continental Masonry."

In Maestri v. Italy 2004 ( but not into article yet):
 * "[...] the disciplinary section of the National Council of the Judiciary [...] stated that from 1982 onwards it should have been possible to 'have a clear idea of the loss of integrity resulting from membership of the Freemasons ... because of the degeneration brought about [...] within the P2 lodge with plans to take control of the public authorities and subvert democratic institutions, and because of the collusion of certain Masonic lodges with the Mafia and organised crime'. [...] also [...] it was contrary to disciplinary rules for a judge to be a Freemason, for the following reasons: the incompatibility between the Masonic and judicial oaths, the hierarchical relationship between Freemasons, the 'rejection' of State justice in favour of Masonic 'justice' and, lastly, the indissoluble nature of the bond between Freemasons, even in the case of a member who wished to leave the organisation"

In Mahmud 2012a and 2012b (and previously neither added on talk page nor into article yet):
 * "[...] secrecy [...] become a liability for Freemasons operating in some contemporary democratic countries, where notions of transparency and democracy are deployed against their secretive practices . Conducting fieldwork among Italian Freemasons in the early 21st century, I was [...] aware of the socio-historical contradictions that characterize Masonic relations with the state. [...] for instance, [...] was discussing with a group of [...] Freemason[s] [...] what they all agreed were 'ridiculous' accusations of political corruption levied against the lodges by mass media. 'I guess it's true,' he [...] conceded [...], 'that from a historical viewpoint, we have had a tendency to carry out revolutions.' Although everyone laughed, reminding me and each other that according to Masonic rules neither politics nor religion should be discussed in the lodges, it is precisely their long history of revolutionary engagements that has made the Italian state so suspicious of Freemasons."(Mahmud 2012b, p. 1181 and sic passim but not quoted yet)
 * "there are valid reasons for the resilience of anti-Masonic conspiracy theories in Italy" (Mahmud 2012b, p. 1187)
 * "covert Masonic lodge" "In the pyramidal structure of Freemasonry, a covert lodge operates as a secret society within a secret society." (Mahmud 2012b, p. 1187)
 * Lilith Mahmud described the P2 as "the very embodiment of long held fears about Freemasonry: a brotherhood of men conspiring to bring about a new world order through oligarchic control of the financial markets, the media, the military, and the governments of individual countries." (Mahmud 2012b, p. 1188)
 * "At the turn of the 21st century, [...] G.O.I.—the same organization that had produced the P2 in the first place—made a radical decision. [...] The formerly secret society [...] decided to go transparent." (Mahmud 2012b, p. 1195)
 * "At the turn of the 21st century, [...] G.O.I.—the same organization that had produced the P2 in the first place—made a radical decision. [...] The formerly secret society [...] decided to go transparent." (Mahmud 2012b, p. 1195)

In Paoli 1994 ( previously neither added on talk page nor into article yet):
 * This source will be used later to reply to Fiddlersmouth about "Making a general case out of P2 is simply unacceptable". In this discussion, it can be an additional citation to show P2 is not a singular example but a well documented case of a pattern, i.e. the P2 "scandal illustrated".
 * "The power of [...] 'ndrangheta families is [...] enhanced by the membership of some of the most influential mafia bosses in secret Freemasonry lodges." According to the Antimafia Commission, [...] At the local level the pattern appears to be similar to that of the most famous secret lodge, the P2 [...] which [...] designed and implemented subversive plans, plotted in view of acculumating power and adopted unscrupoulous policies of alliances, also with far-right terrorist movements'." "[...] investigators believe that in Calabria there are also secret lodges at work, even though they point out how difficult is to assess the size of the phenomenon and the true extent to which such lodges are separate from the regular ones. Indeed, there does not seem to be a clear cut distinction between the two types of lodges." (p. 235) —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Nobody could reasonably disagree that "secret lodges" are a problem. You simply can't equate this with "Masonic secrecy" when the lodge involved (the others, by the sources given are rumours) has nothing to do with mainstream masonry. Again, Whalen starts from the assumption that Freemasonry is a problem. That's not neutral. The other references are about secret lodges, and don't support Whalen's statement. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:59, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is a case which "may be just one well-recognized point of view". No one has presented a WP:SUBSTANTIATEd alternative point of view. There are personal opinions discussed but nothing WP:VERIFIABLE is presented.
 * you write "You simply can't equate this with "Masonic secrecy" when the lodge involved [...] has nothing to do with mainstream masonry. The term Masonic secrecy can be read in more than one way, both ways are valid.
 * Which "mainstream masonry"? As Whalen wrote there are various forms of Masonry beyond the regular. There is no reason to restrict content to your personal parameters when the contributed content and sources do not.
 * Maybe I am assuming too much.
 * that "Whalen's work starts from the presumption that Freemasonry is somehow wrong. This makes him POV. An article that starts by describing masonry as a "Pastoral problem" cannot be neutral."
 * I will start from the basics. The term problem is synonymous with the term question. It is a neutral term, e.g, list of unsolved problems in philosophy. Writing "pastoral problem" is equivalent to writing "pastoral question." It does not assume anything. Using the term does not assume a lack of neutrality.
 * Your claims of an alternative view that contrasts with Whalen's view are unsubstantiated. Your claims about Whalen are unsubstantiated. Support your opinions with citations. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC); modified 14:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You are both missing the point of this sub-thread... my concern here is that the second sentence of the footnote has nothing to do with the sentence in the text it is attached to:
 * In body of article:
 * ""News reports about the subject "apparently caused" confusion."
 * In the second sentence of footnote:
 * "The scandal illustrated 'that Masonic secrecy could camouflage and facilitate conspiracies' in the late 20th-century."
 * For the sake of discussion, let us assume that the second sentence of the footnote is completely accurate... it still has no connection to "News reports" causing "confusion"... since the reports in question (those in the mid to late 1960s) could not have mentioned the scandal (the scandal did not exist until 20 years later).
 * At best, the footnote is misplaced - it out of context with the sentence it is attached to, since the reports that are being talking about were commenting on the (short lived) warming of relations that took place after Vatican II... again 20 years  before the P2 scandal broke.   Neither the P2 scandal, nor the broader issue of "Masonic secrecy" had anything to do with that apparent warming of relations... nor how the press was reporting on it. It may be that the P2 scandal should be mentioned ... but if so, it should be mentioned later in the article... so that it is placed in proper historical context. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * the footnote sentences are an intersection of other concepts included in the article. I think P2 should remain only a footnote in this article but there should be some context. A reader of the article will not see this as isolated. The body sentence and both note sentences are in section which describes the post conciliar confusion about the application of 1917 CIC canon 2335: "Those giving their name to masonic sects or other associations of this sort that machinate against the Church or legitimate civil powers contract by that fact excommunication simply reserved to the Apostolic See" (as translated in Peters 2001, p. 740).
 * there was post conciliar confusion, before 1981 P2 scandal, because news contradicted the facts about the application of 1917 canons and post conciliar norms
 * there was post conciliar confusion, after 1981 P2 scandal, because news contradicted the facts about the toughening illustrated by the 1981 CDF declaration
 * 1917 CIC canon 2335 is, in part, about machination against "legitimate civil powers", e.g. the state, and 1981 P2 scandal is about machination against the state
 * The reader sees that P2 is a well documented late 20th century example of a case in which 1917 CIC canon 2335 would apply. The scandal is notorious and the second sentence describes what the scandal illustrates, i.e. "that Masonic secrecy could camouflage and facilitate conspiracies", in Whalens words. The Masonic secrecy exposed 1981 is part of the continuum of three centuries of Catholic doctrine against this type behavior that dates back to Clement XII in 1738 who condemned masonic association, in part, because they "conceal in inviolable silence whatever they secretly do together." A plain reading demonstrates that scholars do not restrict the meaning of masonic secrecy as insists, but use it in the way Whalen does to describe the activities and behavior. The term conspiracy is by definition secret behavior by more than one person. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Anthropologist Lilith Mahmud described P2 as "the very embodiment of long held fears about Freemasonry: a brotherhood of men conspiring to bring about a new world order through oligarchic control of the financial markets, the media, the military, and the governments of individual countries."(Mahmud 2012b, p. 1188)

Mahmud wrote that her 2004 to 2006 fieldwork "made the question of Masonic secrecy especially urgent, often with seemingly paradoxical consequences" for her subjects and her research. Mahmud described a "discursive disconnect between [...] perspectives" of Masons, who "insisted that theirs was [...] not a secret society", and "a dominant discourse in Italian media, fueled by [...] political scandals involving Freemasons, has long portrayed the lodges as secret societies of powerful men running the country from behind the scenes." This expression of contradictory ideas had "epistemological consequences for research." Mahmud gave an example of this inconsistency. She wrote that a female Mason she interviewed "claim[ed] that Freemasonry is everywhere and therefore not secret, even as she recognized its uncanny ability to elude state surveillance." (Mahmud 2012a, p. 426) Mahmud adopted the term discretion to describe Masonic secrecy in her analyses; her fieldwork subjects used the term discretion "in their attempts to explain the many forms of concealment and revelation underlying their practices, as they also resisted the discourse of 'secrecy' that was often deployed against them by Italian state institutions and mass media." She observed "the practices of discretion" among her fieldwork subjects. (Mahmud 2012a, p. 429)

Professor Natalie Bayer wrote that for members, "the leaders of freemasonry in Russia commonly justified the need for secrecy by moral considerations [...] Often, Russian freemasons described freemasonry not as a secret society, but as a 'modest' society, meaning that true freemasons did not boast about their knowledge and good deeds [...] In this sense, in Margaret Jacob's words, masonic secrecy can be considered as 'an extreme form of privacy' (Jacob, Strangers Nowhere in the World. The Rise of Cosmopolitanism in Early Modern Europe (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), p. 101). [...]"

Douglas Smith wrote that the "Masonic secrecy has proven especially difficult to explain and has prompted various interpretations of its supposed purpose. [...] Masons were less concerned with keeping the lodges' existence secret than on shrouding their lodge activities in secrecy. [...] secrecy was anathema to the logic of the public sphere which was grounded in the principles of openness and inclusiveness. This tension raises the question of Masonic secrecy's function." (, p. 291). "[...] Masonic secrecy, a practice that threatened the new culture of public discussion" (p. 254). –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Bobo... when you say: "the footnote sentences are an intersection of other concepts"... exactly, and that is the problem. By intersecting these concepts in the footnote, and (more importantly) placing the footnote where you have, you are not actually providing context... but are instead are muddying the waters by inserting events out of sequence... discussing them out of context. The line about news reports causing confusion is supported by a source written 1968 ... and that source is talking about specific events that occurred in 1967-1968.  If you want to insert a footnote about events that took place in 1981, you should wait until the sequence of events outlined in the article gets to 1981.  Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * you are combining details into a complex question fallacy, a kind of false dilemma.
 * We agree that "the footnote sentences are an intersection of other concepts" already in in the article.
 * We disagree that "intersection of other concepts" is a problem:
 * I think the "intersection of other concepts" is appropriate and does provide context. Read my previous edits in this discussion.
 * I think the location of the footnote is appropriate and does provide context. Read my previous edits in this discussion.
 * What have I muddied?
 * I am not "inserting events out of sequence" – there was a time span of confusion. It was not a single event of confusion but a time span after Vatican II, i.e. after 1968. P2 was exposed in 1981 and it machinated during that time span after Vatican II.
 * I am not "discussing them out of context" or out of sequence – there was a time span of confusion. I think it is appropriate to introduce it at beginning of the confusion.
 * I agree the reference should be improved to show the confusion occurred over a time span:
 * A closer reading of Calderwood 2013 may produce more. Condon can also be shifted from the Further reading § into the Reference § (possibly  or pages).
 * I assume,, based on a continuing lack of any citations, that no WP:SUBSTANTIATEd alternative point of view is presented. against my edits of "NPOV problem" and "a synthesis of two separate sources" and "WP:NOR violation" remain opinions. I think you are filibustering. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Bobo, I am not combining anything... I'm objecting to combining things. Blueboar (talk) 09:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * why did you ? I had suggested an improved reference addressing your concern about the body sentence., you never WP:SUBSTANTIATEd that there even is an alternative point of view to the one presented you have not cited a single contradictory source.
 * against my edits of "NPOV problem" and "a synthesis of two separate sources" and "WP:NOR violation" remain opinions.
 * I think you are using an imagined lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. The sentences WP:ASSERT facts or conclusions by others. You provided only personal opinions (never citing any sources); I replied to all your questions with answers (citing reliable scholarly sources); yet, you removed the entire note. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are using an imagined lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. The sentences WP:ASSERT facts or conclusions by others. You provided only personal opinions (never citing any sources); I replied to all your questions with answers (citing reliable scholarly sources); yet, you removed the entire note. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sigh... OK I am going to take a different approach to resolving the issue. Instead of removing the footnote, I will replace it with something more appropriate.
 * The sentence that opens the paragraph in question states: "News report]s about the subject "apparently caused" confusion." This is cited to the March 23, 1968 edition of the Tablet ... The footnote that follows starts off with "For example...", which means we want the footnote to give an actual example of the news reports that this Tablet article is talking about.  Now, it happens that this March 23 Tablet article directly points us to the specific news reports that it says caused confusion... those discussed a few weeks earlier in the March 16th, 1968 edition of the Tablet.
 * So... I have replaced the contentious example (which was not really an example at all, but editorial commentary) with an example that is much more appropriate... the actual news reports that are pointed to in the March 23 Tablet (ie the March 16 Tablet). Hopefully this will end the debate. Blueboar (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * no, you did not "replace it with something more appropriate" ; to justify  of over two decades span of news reports (cited with Calderwood 2013, pp. 133–134) into a single event; and you removed the citation to that fact (Calderwood 2013).
 * I . which does address your concern. Instead .  and asked . You never replied. Now you do this.
 * I to that. Please address my previously suggested citation improvement. Also, as I asked you previously, would moving Condon (2015) into the references help?
 * , you never WP:SUBSTANTIATEd that there even is an alternative point of view to the one presented. against my edits of "NPOV problem" and "a synthesis of two separate sources" and "WP:NOR violation" remain. Please provide some citations. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ...and sigh again... Since Bobo insists on Edit Warring, let's try yet a different approach: expanding the text and only slightly amending the footnote, to put all this in better context (see this diff... Bobo, is this acceptable? Or are you going to continue to edit war to keep your preferred language? Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * no, I am not edit warring. Your approach has been the same : your approach is removal.
 * What I wrote before applies to.
 * Now, instead of engaging about any of, of WP:OWN.
 * I that I . I also improved your references of existing sources into s – we can now see clearly what is coming from each source. Nevertheless, the long quote you added from Tablet 1968a ("Go-ahead for Catholic Masons", 1968-03-16) was denied by the Vatican on the day of publication and a retraction published after 7 days in Tablet 1968b ("Change on Masonry denied", 1968-03-23). I feel that quote gives WP:UNDUE weight to news from unnamed sources.
 * As I pointed out multiple time before (e.g. ), you never WP:SUBSTANTIATEd that there even is an alternative point of view to the one presented. against my edits of "NPOV problem" and "a synthesis of two separate sources" and "WP:NOR violation" remain. As I asked multiple times before, please provide some citations. Also, as I asked you previously, would moving Condon (2015) into the references help? I will begin adding material and reference improvements from the talk page into the article later this week. I hope that should give you enough time to WP:SUBSTANTIATE any of your concerns with citations. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - BoboMisiu has been (again) been blocked for edit warring (this time for 72 hours). Blueboar (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Do we need the section on the US?
I am wondering why we have a seperate section on Enforcement in the United States? I am sure we could find examples of the Church enforcing the ban in every country where Catholicism and Freemasonry co-exist... so what is so special about the situation in the US that we need to highlight it? Also, the section seems to be a hodge-podge of stuff that only tangentially relate to the topic of this article. Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, since no one can answer why we need it, I will assume we don't. I have removed the section as being unnecessary and extraneous.  See: this diff. Blueboar (talk) 11:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)