Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 6

Orange order and other recent edits
Freemasonry specifically denies any connection to the Orange Order. It is fine to include historian Jim Smyth's claims (as long as it is clear that they are simply his theories)... but to state a connection as fact, when there is a counter claim that this is not so, is wrong. Blueboar 00:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * without a clear indication of hwta he says it's difficult to judge the reliability of the phrasing. The Orange Orders founders were Masons, so inevitably they used the form and structure of Freemasonry, and many of the early members were also Freemasons.  However using that logic it would be reasonable to claim a close relationship between Freemasonry and the Royal and Ancient.  If OTOH there is evidence of fraternal relationships between the two bodies at a representative level that's a different issue.ALR 21:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what Jim Smyth said:
 * The fledgling Orange Order (and the Defenders) borrowed wholesale from Masonic practice and terminology. Orange ?lodges?, ?masters?, ?grand masters?, ?oaths?, ?signs? ?degrees?, ?warrants? and ?brethren? all have a clear Masonic lineage. The ubiquity of masonry impressed contemporaries. Sketching in the background to the Battle of the Diamond Musgrave alleged that ?in the year 1795, the Romanists, who assumed the name of masons, used frequently to assemble in the neighbourhood of Loughgall, Charlemont, Richill, Portadown, Lurgan . . . and robbed the Protestants of their arms?. On 18 September, three days before the battle, a local gentleman informed the Dublin government that ?the Protestants who call themselves Freemasons go in lodges and armed?, while 40 years later a witness before a parliamentary inquiry recalled that the first Orangemen had employed secrecy ?to afford protection, if they could, to those who refused to join the United Irishmen; for every act of intimidation was used, and the fondness of the people for associating together, their attachment to Freemasonry, and all those private associations, gave a particular zest to this mode of keeping them to their allegiance.? James Wilson and James Sloan, who along with ?Diamond? Dan Winter, issued the first Orange lodge warrants from Sloan?s Loughgall inn, were masons.
 * The question marks are obviously various punctuation marks. JASpencer 21:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Suggests to me that the early Orange Order were Masons and proud of that fact, I'm not convinced that it suggests anything more than that.ALR 21:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's still a (strong) informal link between the early Orange Order and Irish Freemasonry. Blueboar seems to be saying that this is merely a theory. Perhaps I've misread him.  JASpencer 21:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You'd probably need to dig into the membership numbers to infer the level of influence and whether the FM membership offered anything more than structure and form. The phrasing you have implies a philosophical influence, but if you look at the OOs own history it's clear that the split was because there was a philosophical/ political difference.ALR 21:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The philisophical affinity between the (Armagh) Freemasons and the early Orange Order was a shared commitment to the Established order. JASpencer 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I take it you're looking for something to indicate whether that was the philosophy of Freemasonry as a corporate entity or a collection of individuals who were also Freemasons? The current phrasing indicates that you see it as the former, although you do caveat it here in talk.ALR 22:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest I don't care too much for the link to the Orange Order. It's simply a common source of Catholic suspicion towards Freemasonry.  It's certainly not the main criticism of Freemasonry.  After all the Orange Order can't be accused of being religiously indifferent.  However, the link is there - and it's a source of suspicion. JASpencer 22:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unnecesary Quotation
I'm not sure why the following quote has to be in the article rather than the reference:


 * "There are numerous fraternal orders and Friendly Societies whose rituals, regalia and organisation are similar in some respects to Freemasonry's. They have no formal or informal connections with Freemasonry."

Someone care to elucidate?

JASpencer 21:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it directly contradicts the claims made by those who say there is (or was) a connection between the Orange Order and Freemasonry. As such it should not be hidden away in the footnotes. It isn't as if it is a very long quotation. But if you insist, I can paraphrase what it says in the main text and put the exact quote in the footnotes. Blueboar 22:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Err, no. It doesn't say that there was never a link (that would be a direct contradiction) but that there isn't a link now.  The two statements don't contradict each other, Jim Smyth says in their early days there were links between the Orange Order and Freemasons and the UGLE and denies current links.  It would be much easier to say something along the lines of "There used to be strong informal links between Freemasonry and the Orange Order at the beginning (ref Smyth) although there are no current links, either formal or informal. (ref UGLE)" JASpencer 22:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No he didn't. His phrasing allows the reader to infer that but there does not appear to be a statement by the author.  The informal link is not supported by the citation.  The only informal link is that individuals were members of both, and lifted the form and structure of FM.ALR 22:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that's three informal links - membership, form and structure. I think that it's undeniable that the Orange Order would not have existed if Freemasonry was not pre-existing. JASpencer 22:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think the Orange Order would have been created in some form even without Masonic models to follow (assuming they did).--Sar e kOfVulcan 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * JAS... you are confusing a indirect link with direct connection. Look at it this way... Freemasonry based its forms on the medieval guilds, which in turn based their structures and forms on the the monastic orders.   By your logic, the Orange Order and the Carbonari have an informal link to the Benedictines and Franciscans.  But I don't see you including a section on "Catholic objections to Monks".  No, what you are doing is trying to say that the Orange Order and Carbonari were influenced by Freemasonry is far more than just its forms and structure.  You are trying to say that their political agendas were influenced by Freemasonry... indeed that they are part of Freemasonry.  That is where things fall apart for you, because they are not part of Freemasonry and never were, you dont have any evidence to prove the contention.  You have to rely on inferrece. Blueboar 00:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


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

Counter claim?
How is the UGLE's denial of present connections a counter-claim to past links? JASpencer 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You still haven't demonstrated any evidence of past links other than phrasings which encourage the reader to infer those. Whilst I can understand BBs point about highlighting it I don't see the requirement should the assertion of a link be reasonably presented.ALR 22:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * UGLE denies ANY "formal or informal connection"... some sort of past link would be a connection. Thus the statement applies to both past and present. Blueboar 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not the claim at all. For example it would also mean that they never had any link to the Oddfellows -   which would be odd indeed.  Besides it's not just Smyth who claims a link to early Orangeism and Freemasonry.  I doubt that the UGLE would put something they know to be untrue (and even more so I doubt if it would be something that would put in something so easy to disprove).  I think that the words should be read as they are written, and not expanded upon. JASpencer 22:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But that IS the claim. And it is indeed true that there was never a connection to the Oddfellows... I am not saying that the Oddfellows or Orange Order didn't copy from Freemasonry... Lots of organizations have done this... what I am saying is that this does not create any kind of tie. Freemasonry is not responsible for someone copying its structure, rituals and terminology.  As far as Freemasonry goes, there is no tie and never was.  Lots of people can claim that something has a tie to Freemasonry, it does not make it true. Blueboar 23:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that we disagree on what constitutes an informal link. A substantial cross-over of members due to the fact that they were originally Freemasonry - as the Orange Order and the Odd Fellows had would be an informal link.  I'm still puzzled why you are reading the present tense as past tense. JASpencer 21:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Risorgimento
Expanded this a bit: does it suffice for the ToDo?--Sar e kOfVulcan 22:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics of a Secret Society
The term "characteristics of a secret society" was deliberately chosen to avoid the weasel words "alleged", etc. I know that FM denies being a secret society, but no one seriously claims that members are allowed to reveal their obligations or mode of recognition. These are characteristics of secret society. What is there to be "alleged" or "seen as"? JASpencer 22:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you define "secret societey" as having "secret handshakes" or taking an obligation (all of which have long been known to the public), then I suppose you would be correct in calling Freemasonry a secret society. But I would argue that a handshake does not a secret society make.  To me the key charactaristic is meeting IN SECRET... which no one seriously claims applies to the Freemasons (kinda hard to miss that Great big building with a Square and Compass prominently displayed on it, you know).  I would also include not knowing who the members are (Bumper sticker? What bumper sticker?).  The reason why Freemasonry denies being a secret society is that IT ISN'T ONE.  But... I will admit that we are frequently seen as one.  So "Alleged" or "seen as" is an accurate statement. Blueboar 23:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not my argument. A secret initiation oath (obligation) is a characteristic of a secret society, not the characteristic argument. Same goes for handshakes and other signals designed only to be noticed by initiates.  JASpencer 19:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is that both the oaths and the handshakes are no longer secret. They have been written about since the 1700s.  I suppose you could say that Freemasonry was a secret society in the very beginning... but to say it is now is rediculous.
 * The distiction that UGLE makes about being a "private" society is important. According to most dictionary definitions of "Secret Society", a secrect society requires its members to keep its secrets.  There is no requirement in Freemasonry that says Freemasons MUST not divulge what is contained in the obligations or what the secret hand shakes and pass words are.  Only the admonition that they should not.  For example, A Freemason may certainly discuss everything with his Priest, and many Freemasons divulge everything to their wives (I know many Masonic wives who are better at the ritual than their husbands).  In fact, in both cases they are often encouraged to do so by the Grand Lodge (the idea is that Masonry should not come between a man and his God, or a man and his wife).
 * In a "private" society, on the other hand, a member simply chooses not to discuss things that are done in the privacy of its meetings. It is left to their own judgement and discretion.  This is the case in Freemasonry. Blueboar 20:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If the oaths and modes of recognition (which include more than handshakes) are not secret, could you show somewhere on the internet which accurately portrays them? JASpencer 21:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What BB hasn't drawn out is that whilst one can be aware that the modes of recognition are in the public domain one has also obligated oneself not to divulge them, and that would include pointing to where they might be. The impact of the obligation is now no longer the traditional penalty but of seeing oneself as a 'wilfully perjured individual, void of all moral worth and unfit for the company of worthy men'.  It becomes a test of ones fidelity, which is rather in keeping with the metaphysical and philosophical nature of the craft.ALR 21:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And how is this not a characteristic of a secret society? Opus Dei, which has been put down as a secret society by some of the pro-Masonic editors does not hide how its members join. JASpencer 21:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, which is better "Is alleged to be a secret society" or "has some characteristics of a secret society". JASpencer 22:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In a day or so I'll change it back to "characteristics of a secret society". "Alleged to have characteristics of a secret society" is a bit weasely. JASpencer 18:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Masonic Forms
Where is there a denial that either the Orange Order or the Carbonari based their organisation on Masonic forms? That the actual nature of the continuing influence is controversial I can understand, but why the weasel words on the form of organisation? JASpencer 23:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is there a weasle word? I don't see anything weasly about "There is no formal or informal connection".  Seems fairly definite to me.
 * That said, I do understand why you are not happy with the UGLE quote... You are using inferrence to try prove that Freemasonry is "Pro-Protestant", and thus anti-catholic and anti-clerical. You take a valid, but irrelevent, claim (that there is evidence to show that the Orange Order or the Carbonari copied the forms, terminology and structure of Freemasonry in creating their fraternities), to try to (incorrectly) infer that Freemasonry must therefore have influenced the political agendas of these fraternities.  But if Freemasonry categorically denies that there is any connection, it weakens your inferrence. Blueboar 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The present tense means that it is in the present, not the past. It's best to read statements in their plain sense first rather than expansively reading your own views.
 * As far as the reasons for wanting the quote in the footnote - what paranoid tosh. May I point you to WP:AGF and WP:NPA?  I know that you are unlikely to apologise for this behaviour but you should reflect on it.
 * JASpencer 19:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * JAS, You started all of this discussion with a question (see above):
 * "I'm not sure why the following quote has to be in the article rather than the reference:" (JASpencer 21:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC))
 * That is why I assumed you wanted to move the quote to the foot notes. Did I misunderstand?  No personal attack was inteded, and I always assume good faith.  Blueboar 21:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that it (and the Jim Smyth text) was overdoing the paragraph. I like moving interesting but unnecesary arguments and text into the footnotes, it simply reads better.  As I see no contradiction in what Jim Smyth says about the 1790s and what the UGLE say (in the present tense) about today's situation, so both are interesting and should be cited, but there's no need to put it in the main article.  I don't think that I can be accused of disliking quotes.  I hardly see that in your outburst about wishing to suppress uncomfortable information as being assuming good faith. JASpencer 21:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... I'm confused... What outburst? Blueboar 23:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This outburst: That said, I do understand why you are not happy with the UGLE quote... You are using inferrence to try prove that Freemasonry is "Pro-Protestant" and it goes on. If you were to read this cold then the it would seem that I was trying to get rid of evidence rather than move it into a footnote.  JASpencer 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Higher degrees"
There are three reasons why I have been deleting the reference to the Scottish Rite being "higher" degrees in the Specific Criticisms of Freemasonry by the Church section. 1) It is wrong (as is fully discussed later in the article) 2) The issue of "higher" Degrees is fully explained below in the Anti-Catholicism and The Scottish Rite section. That section also includes a proper explanation/refutation that points out the error of thinking of the Scottish Right degrees are "higher". To include it in the brief list at the start of the article, without any explanation/refutation would give an uninformed reader skimming the article the impression that these degrees ARE in some way "higher". We do have an obligation not to present erronious information. 3) Even if these degrees were "higher" there is no need to include that information as a parenthetical remark in the "Specific Criticisms" section. The criticism is that the Scottish Rite is Anti-Catholic, not that it's degrees are "higher" (or even "advanced")... after all, the York Rite degrees are also sometimes (erroniously) called higher degrees, and yet the Church does not mention this as a criticism of the York Rite. Blueboar 23:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The very idea of Master Masons all being equal is controversial. It's not just Albert Pike talking about Egyptian darkness, but critics of Freemasonry say that Craft Lodge Masons are intentionally misled about the equality of Master Masons by the higher degrees by those who control them. JASpencer 20:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the argument... and that it is controvercial and an argument made by Church critics is not denied. But it is tangential to the Specific Criticism as listed... take away the parethetical remarks and the criticism reads: Masonic initiation rituals for the Scotish Rite degrees are anti-Catholic.  In other words, if it were not for the supposed anti-catholic elements in Scottish Rite, the church would not have any problems with the degrees being "higher" or not (It certainly doesn't have this issue with the York Rite degrees, which are also frequently mislabeled as being "higher").
 * Really my problem with this is a styalistic one... I don't mind discussing the whole "higher" degree issue in the article... I just dont think it should go in the "Specific Criticisms" section. That is like an index to the rest of the article.  It highlights the key criticisms.  The argument about the SR being "higher" and misleading the "lower" Masons is not a key criticism... Since it is dependant on the key "Anti-Catholic" criticism, it is a side issue better discussed in the main SR section and not in the "specific criticisms". Blueboar 21:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that the alleged anti-Catholic elements of the Higher Degree initiations are the icing on the cake for the Church. The idea is that many lower degree Freemasons are misled by a "myth" of equality among third degree Masons as well as a false picture of an institution inoffensive to church goers.  As the Mason moves up the "mask is ripped off" (or something like that) to quote Leo XIII.  To be fair the Evangelical critics put more credence in this. JASpencer 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Now we've had some time to cool down I've replaced "mislabelled" to Sarek's less POV "thought of". I don't particularly want to go to an RFC on this, but if we can't get to some sort of concensus on whether to avoid controversial terms. JASpencer 22:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I'm finding some of the responses here to be somewhat disproportionate in relation to the 'heat' (or absence of) in the discussion. Notwithstanding that I don't see mis-labelled as an appropriate description in this context, particularly when there are documentary references which indicate that the 'higher' terminology is inaccurate.  Mis-labelled carries an emotional weight which would suggest an intentional mis-representation, whereas in most cases it's purely a lack of understanding of the, sometimes opaque, relationships between Freemasonry and its' appendant bodies.  I'm conscious that you don't appear to accept the document which has been referenced regarding the relationship but I would suggest a reasonable wording of commonly, but mistakenly, described.  If I'm misinterpreting your words then I'm sorry about that.ALR 06:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * JAS, if you feel that the criticism that those who have taken the "higher" degrees mislead those who have only taken the "lower" ones is more important, and that the "alleged" Anti-Catholic elements are simply "icing on the cake"... then the statement in the "Specific Criticisms" section should be changed to reflect that. I would suggest something like:  "It is alleged that Masons who have taken the Scotish Rite degrees (commonly thought of as being "higher" or "advanced" degrees) intentionally mislead those who have only taken the "lower" Master Mason degrees.(See Below)"
 * However, this causes another problem... while the section on the Scotish Rite does mention the theory about SR misleading blue lodge, it does so only in passing. The bulk of that section is primarily about supposedly Anti-Catholic elements in the Kadosh degree. In other words, the article (as it is currently written) does not match your interpretation of which criticism is more important.  Perhaps it needs a major re-write?Blueboar 12:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also... You still have not addressed how this all jibes with the lack of criticism for the York Rite (also "commonly thought of as being 'higher' or 'advanced'")... and perhaps you will also address why the the Church does not make similar allegations about the Shrine. Until very recently one had to have completed either the York or Scotish Rites to join that body. Surely, taking the Church's allegations to their logical conclusion, if the Scotish Rite is secretly controling and misleading Blue Lodge because it is "higher", the Shrine must be secretly ruling Scotish Rite for the same reasons? Blueboar 12:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The reference is not actually saying that Master Masonry is the highest degree - just that only the UGLE deals with its own business. There really should be something that addresses whether the degrees that have a number greater than three are in fact advanced on three (as the arithmetic suggests). JASpencer 12:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done... And you still have not answerd my question... what about the YORK RITE degrees?... York Rite does not number it's degrees, and yet uninformed people call them (erroniously) "higher" as well.  Does the Church say that the York Rite misleads "lower" degree Masons... and does it believe that the Shrine is misleading the Scottish Rite? Blueboar 14:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see that as a reasonable representation of the reference, the statement is from the three home GLs, I've referenced it from the UGLE publication because that's what I have, and it pertains to regularity. Essentially UGLE,GLoS and GLI take that view and recognise only GLs which take the same position, that's clear from the pdf that's linked to so I find it strange that you choose to repreent the issue in this way.
 * What the statement means that even if a 33 degree holder tried to claim some authority over me (a Past Master) in a craft context I could reasonably cite the reference to indicate that he couldn't. As an example, I'm a Tyler of one of the lodges I belong to, responsible for ensuring that those seeking to gain entry are entitled and suitably attired for the degree they hold. Should someone appear at a meeting dressed in 33 degree, or indeed any A&AR, regalia, I wouuldn't allow him into the Lodge until such time as he was dressed as a Craft Mason (ie in the third degree).ALR 17:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added a statement from the Northern Jurisdiction that explicitly states that Master Mason is the "highest" degree. The UGLE statement can be seen as a statement that supports that.  Between these two citations, we have clearly shown that the idea that the "higher" numbered degrees equal "higher" in authority is erroneous. Blueboar 17:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving "Links to Militant Protestantism"
I'm going to take out this section for the following reasons:


 * It has little to do with the core Catholic critique of Freemasonry which is that Freemasonry encourages religious indifferentism and anti-clericalism.
 * There are to my knowledge no Church documents on the Orange Order, let alone it's links with Freemasonry. Same for the American nativist organisations.
 * Although it affects the attitude of some Catholics in the pews towards Freemasonry, there's no citation for this.

If there's any church documents found or citations on the

The links between Freemasonry and the Orange Order are of interest to those trying to study why the Orange Order or has Lodges, degrees, oaths, initiations, appendent bodies. It may also help to explain the opposition of some Evangelical Prods to the Orange Order.

The section has been moved to:

User:JASpencer/Orange

Revert and discuss if you disagree.

JASpencer 19:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No objection... I would say that many of the arguments we made against implying a link to the Orange Order also apply to implying a link to the Carbonari... again, you can not cite a direct link so you must imply one by pointing out an overlap in membership. However, it is true that the Church certainly saw a direct link between the Carbonari and Italian Freemasonry, (the Church has issued many statements to this effect), and that means that there is a much better case for inclusion of the allegation. We still need to explore why the Church drew this conclusion, and to what degree it was true... but that is for another time. Blueboar 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Many of the arguments apply to the carb? The three arguments were little to do with religious indifference, no church documents and no citations for affecting Catholic attitudes.  The carb have all three in one document Ecclesiam a Jesu Christo.  JASpencer 09:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Additional problems with the Scotish Rite section
The allegation that the Scotish Rite includes a point where "a skull with a Papal tiara is stabbed" is backed with a citation to the Second Exodus website... unfortunately, that site must be considered a non-reliable source under WP:RS Self-published sources. The site is owned and opperated by Marty Barrack (see the copywrite info at the bottom of the home page), the author of the book Second Exodus, and it clearly states that "The Second Exodus book is the primary source of Second Exodus information". The claims made on his site have not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking. Even if one were to claim that Mr. Barrack is a "well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise" (which I would question), the site fails WP:RS under the sub-heading of "Self-published sources as secondary sources". I would also point out the next section of WP:RS - Partisan Websites. I think this qualifies as partisan.

All that said, While I could delete the underlying statement as well as the citation... in the interest of good faith, I will instead simply flag it as "citation needed" to give people time to find a better (reliable) source. Blueboar 22:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an allegation of what happens. As long as it is made clear that it is an allegation then there should be no problem.  The Kadosh degree is a source of suspicion from Catholics and should be adequately covered. JASpencer 23:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That is fine... locate a reliable source to back the statement up and the statement can remain. I am not doubting that the claim is made.  I am only saying that, under wikipedia guidelines, that particular source can not be used. Blueboar 02:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's clear that it's an allegation then we are reporting on the fact that it is alleged - not on the fact that it is done. Reporting on the allegation means that the second exodus website is a primary source, which is allowable for self published websites.  If we were saying that it was what actually went on in there then second exodus would be a secondary source, and so not allowable.  JASpencer 11:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe we addressed this already with the Blanchard citation of which degree it was, and the DeHoyos citation that said degree was from a fringe Masonic organization who simply didn't like mainstream Scottish Rite, and which a) no longer exists and b) never had a foothold in the first place (they were only in a few Southern states at most). So, as the allegation hasn't been valid for over 100 years, what's the issue with using this Second Exodus stuff?  We don't need it. MSJapan 12:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * MSJapan, thanks for reminding me. The De Hoyos "citation" desperately needs a quote or an online reference.  Nothing "can be demonstrated" by simply pointing to a book.  Without it the sentence needs to go. JASpencer 18:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually... the citation is not to De Hoyos (that was removed in favor of a direct citation to Blanchard)... And no, we do not need an on-line reference or quote (one would be nice). As long as the book is accessible at the local library it meets WP:RS... What we do have to do is provide proper citation info (publisher, date, page ref. etc.)... MSJ, since you have a copy of the book, could you provide this? Blueboar 18:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * JAS, I will grant you this... as a primary source reference to the fact that Marty Barrack makes an allegation, it could be included. But only if you specify who's oppinion you are citing (attribution is an important part of WP:RS).  You would have to change the wording to something like: ... "Marty Barrack, a Catholic evangelist, makes an unsubstantiated allegation that a skull with a Papal tiara is stabbed during the initiation."  However, I would still say that Mr. Barrack's oppinion is not reliable and is definitely Partisan. Blueboar 15:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is is this an allegation that is made by Catholics? Are we going to pretend that this suspicion isn't there?  JASpencer 18:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, no... the allegation of stabbing a Papal Skull is made by A Catholic (Mr. Barrack). If others make this claim, you can cite them. But the issue is not whether the claim is made or not... the issue is that the particular source you use to cite that it is made is unreliable.  Note that I have not, yet, removed the statement itself from the article.  Go find a reliable source for it. Blueboar 18:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, you tried to find a reliable source ... but while Fisher (of "behind the lodge door" fame) might be reliable, the host site you link to is not. It gives us no info on who runs the site... so we do not know if there has been any independant fact checking or if they have transcribed Fisher's statement correctly. The only indication of who runs the site is that "mario.website@spamslicer.com" is listed as the email contact. Try again. Blueboar 19:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is getting silly. Please read the introduction to the article again.  Mario Derkson is (by all accounts) a bit of a kook, but it is not his work that we are looking at here - but work written by Fisher and published by the Remnant.  The Remnant is a mainstay of the American Catholic scene.  JASpencer 20:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then cite directly to the Remnant and forget the link to Catholic Insite. Please understand that my issue is not with the claim, but with the sources being used to verify the claim. They have to be reliable under WP:RS. In this case, simply linking to a page where the claim is repeated does not follow WP:RS. Blueboar 20:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have access to the Remnant. I don't live in the States and it's not on the net.  I think that unless the Remnant is on the web then we should go for an article in which the copywrite information makes it clear that it has been taken from the Remnant.  It does seem to be concentrating on one irrelevant factor to remove a factual claim (albeit that an allegation is made).  JASpencer 09:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Try your local library. If the Remnant is as as much of a "mainstay of the American Catholic scene" as you say (and I am not doubting you), the library should carry it - or be able to obtain it through inter-library loan. One problem with using the web to cite material (especially on controvercial topics such as Masonry) is that there are a lot of unreliable pages out there.  Anyone can say anything on a web page, and there is no system of fact checking or accountability. WP:RS does not allow us to cite to something just because someone put it on a web page. Even things that might be reliable in print format have to be questioned when they are copied onto unreliable pages, as there is no way to know if the web host copied correctly ... That is why WP:RS is so firm about how you use web pages, and what kinds of sites are to be considered reliable and what kinds are not.  Blueboar 13:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that this can go anywhere any more. I think we need to get a third part in through an RFC.  JASpencer 13:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(Moving my comment to the request for comments section.) Gerry Ashton 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Blanchard
As Blanchard is a book, which is not commonly available, then we really need a quotation. I have a strong feeling that Blanchard is not saying (let alone "demonstrating") what some editors would like it to say. If it were on the web then it would be better. Let's try to avoid verifiaphobia. JASpencer 09:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's readily available from Amazon, actually, and it probably is on the web. I'm also pretty sure I quoted the material here on WP when I added the citation to one of the article talk pages, so maybe Blueboar can find it.  If not, I think it's old enough to be public domain, and I can scan the material if that's the case.  As a note, all the book is is the Cerneau degrees and Blanchard's commentary, so it's hard not to get it to say what the author is saying. MSJapan 12:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * MSJ... you did indeed post some of the info on this... and it was in this very talk page. (see above: "At long last, the Blanchard citation!") You gave us the page number and the ISBN number ... so I guess all we need now is the publisher and publishing date. I will update the citation with what info we have so far... Would it be easy for you to give us the rest, or should I try to locate a copy at my library?  As for including a quote... well that is JAS's style and not mine.  If he wants to quote it, I suppose he can.  Nothing in the citation guidelines requires it. Blueboar 13:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it the quote here . If that's the case it's a claim and not a demonstration. JASpencer 13:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, although that does remind me of some of the problems of verification that we had, and why we started taking a look at Blanchard in the first place (ie the CE attributing words to Pike that did not appear in Pike's work). No, what I am referring to is on the extant talk page above ("At long last, the Blanchard citation!") where MSJ quotes from Blanchard. Blueboar 14:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So it's this quote
 * Thrice Puissant Grand Master: (Passing ovwer to the Tiara.) This represents the Tiara of the cruel and cowardly Pontiff, who sacrificed ot his ambition the illustrious order of those Knights Templars of whome we are the true successors. A crown fo gold and precious stones ill befits the humble head of one who pretends to be successor, the Vicar, of Jesus of Nazareth. It is therefore the crown of an imposter(sic), and it is in the name of him who said "neither be ye called Masters," that we trample it under our feet. TPGM:(To candidate.) Are you disposed to do the same? Candidate: I am. (Thrice Puissant Grand Master then throws the Tiara on the floor and tramples on it, the candidate and all the Knights also trample on it, when all the Knights brandishing their poniards exclaim:) All: Down with imposture! (286)
 * So it also happened in the Cerneau degree. I'm sure that Blanchard also claims that it only happened in the Cerneau degree, but that would need a quote.  If a quote can't be provided then I think it should go until one is. JASpencer 14:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We also have the fact that editors are being told to conduct their own original research on this. If there is no quote then the reader has to buy the book and (if he or she has the right version) then look up the text.  Much easier to give the quote. JASpencer 14:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You miss the point... If you go back and look at the entire discussion on this section (including what is in the archives), we have a problem... the Catholic Encyclopedia says (in essence): The Kadosh degree includes the trampling of Papal Tiaras.  They cite Pike to prove this.  However, when you look at Pike, you find that he does not say anything about trampling tiaras.  In otherwords, the CE made a demonstratable mistake.  So where does this idea that the Kadosh degree includes trampling and anti-papal elements come from?  The logical answer is: It comes from Blanchard's Scotch Rite exposé, which does contain trampling on a tiara, and can easily be mistaken for being an exposé of the Scottish Rite.
 * As for your complaint that we are asking editors to conduct "original research" ... Where do we ask anyone to do that? If you are complaining about my suggestion that you go to a library, I am certainly not asking you to do original resarch (if you tried to include original research in Wikipedia, I would jump all over it and delete it in a heart beat.) I suppose I am asking you to do some research. But there is a big difference.  Conducting research is highly encouraged at Wikipedia (or any encyclopedia for that matter)...  Perhaps you are not clear on what constitutes original research?  If so, please read WP:NOR Blueboar 15:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But your asking for the research to be done each time over again. If you had a quote (and I'm starting to seriously worry why everyone seems unable to provide one) then this would not be the case.
 * OK it wasn't a good idea to quote WP:NOR. The burden on a questioning reader would be intolerable, especially for what is a rather odd and surprising theory (after all this is not one that seems to be anywhere else).  It really should be properly quoted.
 * WP:V says "Direct quotes, used as a method of easing factual verification, can be provided (in whatever format is agreed on by the main editors of the article) for any statement.

"
 * JASpencer 16:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing Blanchard Text
I've removed the Blanchard text until the quote can be provided:

 However, it can be demonstrated that these anti-Catholic elements do not form part of the rituals of the Scottish Rite, but are instead taken from Jonathan Blanchard's Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated'', an exposure of Cerneauism (an illegitimate pseudo-Masonic organization founded by Joseph Cerneau and chiefly active in the 1800s). ''

JASpencer 14:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Instead of removing the whole dubious text, I'll remove the citation which reads as follows:
 * The language of the sentence will need to be toned down such as: "it can be demonstrated".
 * JASpencer 14:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * JASpencer 14:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What is your justification for removing the citation? The book exists, and we give people enough information to obtain a copy if they wish to cite check. Yes, it could be put into a more standard citation format, and once I have that information (publisher and date etc.) I will do so. Blueboar 15:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the citation because I thought that it would be inflamatory to remove the main text immediately. This is an unusual theory in a controversial area and should be properly quoted rather than saying "trust me".  Of course we could combine this in with the RFC that will go on Catholic Insight. JASpencer 16:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not including a quote is not a valid justification for removing a citation... can you point to a wikipedia guideline or policy that says we must quote from our sources? I know that it is your oppinion that we should ... and you are free to include one if you wish.  But I can not find anything that says a quote is required.    The book exists, it is on Amazon and available in public libraries.  We give other editors enough information to obtain it if they need to.  That is all that is required.  Unlike the Catholic Insite page, it meets WP:RS (and all other guidelines and policies). Blueboar 16:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a rather unusual, and convenient, theory on a controversial area. Put bluntly - I don't believe it, at least in the form written here.  Any way we're both getting far too bothered on this, let's have an outsider to comment. JASpencer 16:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing Disputed text before an RFC
I'm going to remove the two sets of disputed text before starting the RFC.


 *  However, it can be demonstrated that these anti-Catholic elements do not form part of the rituals of the Scottish Rite, but are instead taken from Jonathan Blanchard's Scotch Rite Masonry Illustrated, an exposure of Cerneauism (an illegitimate pseudo-Masonic organization founded by Joseph Cerneau and chiefly active in the 1800s). 

and:


 *  or alternatively that a skull with a Papal tiara is stabbed 

The followigng two proposed references for the above text have also been removed:





Request for Comment
A request for comment has been logged on two seperate questions, however because they are both in the same area, involve the same main protagonists and are on very similar issues of policy it was thought that it would be better to have a single RFC filed. Please feel free to comment on only one area if you feel that it would be better to do this. JASpencer 16:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

First Issue:Reliable Sources
Question: Should the Reliable Sources policy regarding self published material be used to exclude material that is (1) reprinted from a published magazine and (2) clearly stated as an allegation. JASpencer 16:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of its ownership, method of verifying facts, etc., I would suggest Catholic Insight is not a reliable source, because when they purportedly reprinted an article from The Remnant they neglected to state the date, issue, volume, or page numbers of the original publication. This makes it very difficult to verify whether the article exists at all, or if so, was correctly reprinted. Such a gross departure from normal writing standards in and of itself proves Catholic Insight is an unreliable source, at least with respect to its purported reprint. --Gerry Ashton 21:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Second Issue:Blanchard Citation
Question: Is a quotation necesary for a citation of an unusual and controversial theory that is contained in an offline book. JASpencer 16:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A slight correction, the book in question does not contain a theory ... the citation is to where Blanchard's book contains the actual anti-catholic statements themselves. The citation is being used as a primary source citation to back the fact that these words are, in fact, in the Blanchard Book.  Given that, the question does remain... Is it necessary to quote from the book? Blueboar 19:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the quote rule, i.e. "You must quote from this for it to count, even if we all agree it does say what you claim it does" is simply invalid no matter how you swing it. On Wikipedia, we paraphrase books all the time.  If you wanted to simply say "Blanchard in his book "Whatever" mentions Anti-Catholic elements in Cerneauism", then I think that would be fine.


 * The problem is, you're trying to say a LOT more than that. You're saying at least four different things in that sentence:   1) Anti-Catholic elements are not found in Scottish Rite.  2) They are found in the Blanchard book on Cerneauism 3) Cerneauism is not a legitimate Masonic organization and 4) (very strongly implied)  The reason the Scottish Rites have been accused of this things is by a misunderstanding caused by this book.  My very strong guess is that the Blanchard book can only verify #2.  Thought #3 is left unverified, but it seems like it would non-controversial and easy to back up with some source on Cerneauism -vs- Scottish Rite. (Blanchard might cover this).  But #1 is VERY controversial-- so you'd need to convince people that the book really does say that (and even if we agreed with you,  we'd need to NPOV it down a bit).  And I think it's a metaphysical

impossibility for the Blanchard book to cover #4). By my count, I think #1, #3, and #4 are all "original research" as of this moment.


 * So, the short answer is.. "No.  As long as everyone agrees that the book really DOES say what you claim it does, then there is no rule that you have to quote from it in order to be able to use it."


 * But the longer, more correct answer is "Right now, there isn't agreement that the book really does say what you claim it does, so.. you need to be able to prove that somehow.  A quote would be one way you could do it, but secondary sources that summarize the book in sufficient detail would also work."


 * I suggest you find someone who says "This is the book that started the whole misunderstanding" and cite them. I'm sure this isn't really your original research.  Just find where you read that and cite them, and call it good. (being sure to say the whole thing is "their opinion" not a "demonstrable fact".


 * --Alecmconroy 20:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK... so Blanchard can be used... and a quote is not mandatory, but the underlying statement I make that uses Blanchard as a cite needs work and further corroboration. Got it.  And looking at it again, I agree.   Blueboar 21:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

First Issue
Okay.. so, before I could answer your specific query about the First Issue, let me ask: was the original work self-published? or just the reprint? or both?

I found some instances of the stabbed skull allegation:  

And of course, there are plenty of stomping on tiara stories and a few variants involving skulls and tiaras. Taking the sum total of all that into account, I'd say that in the absence of any evidence saying that that allegation is NOT made, I think we're safe in saying that the allegation has been indeed been made. I think the sum total all the comments allows us to survive No Original Research.

So, let's just accept as fact that Fisher and a handful of other HAVE made this allegation. That still leaves the bigger concern that I have: whether this allegation is Notable. I mean, do we have any evidence that there are more than five human beings on the face of the earth who believe this? I think it all comes down to how notable Remnant and Fisher are. Google searches on Remnant don't appear promising, and their website makes it hard to determine. Do we know what their circulation is? Same deal with Marty Barrack-- he's a webmaster, but is he notable?

I dunno, I think it could go either way. I _guess_ I'd say error on the side of including it, but I don't know the people involved, so. But let's say, okay, we say it survives Notability.

But now we come to the NPOV issue. This allegation is a tiny minority. That I can't find more than a half-dozen mentions of it anywhere on the entire internet means practically nobody seriously believes this. We can _just barely_ justify including the allegation itself (and maybe we shouldn't), but I don't think we can justify seriously considering the factuality of the allegation itself right now. So, all told, I'd suggest wording more or less like this:


 * "And one Catholic writer has even claimed that a skull with a Papal tiara is stabbed during the ceremony (ref), though few sources give this specific allegation much creedence."

Wording it like that, as we'd have to, I don't know that the original editor who added it would still even want it in the article. But if so, I think it would be okay to have a sentence like that.. maybe?


 * Okay.. so, before I could answer your specific query about the First Issue, let me ask: was the original work self-published?  or just the reprint?  or both?
 * Original work was in the Remnant, reprint was self published. JASpencer 18:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it all comes down to how notable Remnant and Fisher are.
 * The Remnant was (probably the first) Traditionalist Catholic Magazine and I believe its a branch for the Wanderer. . I'm not sure about Fisher as I have not read his book.  JASpencer 18:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As the other party in this RFC... I would like to thank User:Alecmconroy for his reply... it is helpful. On issue 1, I would say that Fisher is a nut, but he is a notable nut.  He is a prominent and published Anti-mason.  So, I have no problems with something along the lines of "And one writer (-not sure if he is Catholic-) has even claimed that ..." etc.  JASpencer has assured me that the Remnant is notable.  At this point I have no way to tell, so I will assume good faith and say it is.  Thus, I have no problem with citing to the Remnant.  My only issue here is that the web pages JAS has been using to link to have not met WP:RS.  Citing directly to the Remnant solves that issue. Blueboar 19:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Second issue
Couple problems with this one.

Not having a direct quote is not, in and of itself, a reason to exclude a source. If everyone agrees the book says something to that effect, then the book says it, and it survives NOR.

But, we're not out of the woods. The sentence says (in so many words): "It can be demonstrated that these claims aren't part of Scottish Rite, but were actually taken from Blanchard's book on Cerneauism." To justify that, we cite Blanchard's very same book on Cerneauism. But, not having read the book, I think I can safely say that the book probably does not include a discussion of how it will be inadvertantly misused in the future. Obviously, there could be some "Foreword to the Third Edition" that I don't know about, but on the face of it, I'm highly skeptical that THIS book actually says that.

As it is, I think you're essentially saying "I read through this book, and I'm confident that this is where these things came from". But that can't survive NOR. Saying "This legend came from this book" is a VERY strong statement. Maybe the legend existed before the book, and that book just repeated it. Maybe that book used that legend, the legend died out, and then another book revived it. Or maybe the story's true, and the reason a book on Cerneauism would have the same legend that would crop up about Scotish Rite is that both Cerneauism and Scotish right did it.

So, if we want this in there, we need to 1) find a reliable source who actually says that book was the source of the legend. and 2) tone down the language so that the sentence explicitly attributes this belief to SOMEONE, rather than declaring it as fact by saying "it can be demonstrated".

I wish I had more time, I'd pitch in and try to find such a source, but I gotta run.

I hope this helped! :)

--Alecmconroy 18:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for looking over this. I can live with both of these ideas.  On the stabbing of the skull could we put the proposed text into a footnote?  Not that bothered by it any way. JASpencer 18:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what I'd propose as a footnote at the end of the sentence:
 * Or perhaps let's not bother. JASpencer 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps let's not bother. JASpencer 18:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say that if a sentence is appropritate to be in the main article, it's probably appropritate to in a foonote. But I can't tell you if it's worth the bother.  Wikipedia footnotes aren't like footnotes in a book-- practically no one reads them. --Alecmconroy 20:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Rfc on Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources
First someone please archive old discussions, this page is 70K which is too humungeously humungeos. Second, I came here because of an RfC posted to the Talk page of WP:RS. Here are my thoughts, posted there, and here:
 * I went to the cited page and here is what I found "In his article regarding Vatican II in the February 28th issue of The Remnant, Michael Matt refers to Michael Davies article in which he seems to suggest that "Masonic conspiracies" are part of "paranoid Traditional Catholic fantasies." With that in mind, allow me to offer a bit of history of prior Papal concern regarding Freemasonry and similar secret societies." This is the only time "Remnant" appears.  The interior quotes however do not represent quotes from the cited article.  This can be seen by the use on the cited page of "seems to suggest" which implies that the situation is not clear.  That by itself is enough to cast doubt on the cited page as representing what *that* article actually states. Wjhonson 19:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wjhonson... just so I am clear. Are you saying that a) the Remnant is unreliable, b) the article in the Remnant is unreliable, or c) the web-based copy of the article in the Remnant is unreliable? Blueboar 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To clarify my comments. The cited page says "seems to suggest" then in quotes it puts the following disjointed pieces: "Masonic conspiracies", and "paranoid Traditional Catholic fantasies".  Based on this, we *may* be able to state, that both of those quoted pieces actually exist in the underlying article cited, but we may *not* state that they occupy the relationship to each other that the cited page is purporting.  In other words, the actual underlying quote may say something like "...and other Masonic conspiracies.  I want to speak more about paranoid Traditional Catholic fantasies...."  In this case, the relationship of one piece to the other is not obvious, that inference has to be drawn, and it may be a logical reach.  That is why, thesis of the kind presented on the cited page, need to quote a source in full, to make clear exactly what the underlying author was saying and only THEN add their layer of commentary.  In this case, we simply cannot tell from the tiny quoted snippets, what the underlying author actually said. The cited page, as a blog or other self-published article by a person not known as a widely acknowledge authority in this field, cannot be made a WP:RS although we may warrant his claim of having read the underlying article and accurately cite that such an article exists.  We cannot then make the jump from that bland statement to the more severe one, that he/she is accurately representing what that article said, *unless* we can see a fuller quote. Wjhonson 20:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wjhonson I think this means that you feel that the Fisher article is not OK as it disjointedly quotes things out of context. Please correct me if I am wrong. Blueboar 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We can say "Fisher says that there is an article in this magazine, by this person" but we can't use Fisher to confirm or deny what that article states. So Fisher is OK as a source to cite that the article exists only, not for what the article says.  That's my opinion. Once the article is retrieved, Fisher then would become a useless citation. Wjhonson 21:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh... I see what you are saying. Im not sure if this answers our debate over reliablility of the link to Fisher... but it sure raises warning flags as to whether Fisher is reliable.  Blueboar 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the article Fisher is not a Catholic critic of Freemasonry? Or that he can't be quoted? Or what?  JASpencer 22:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

A Better Source for Refutation
The problem is that while Blanchard's book makes the distinction (he calls it "Scotch Rite" on the frontispiece [which there is a picture of on p. 49 of DeHoyos and Morris Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry? on (ISBN 1590770307)], although the cover says "Scottish Rite"), Blanchard and the critics who source from him do not - "Scotch Rite" was a fringe group started by those who disagreed with the Scottish Rite, who were the Cerneauists.

Furthermore, Blanchard was claimed by another author (Ankerberg) to be a former Sovereign Grand Commander and 33rd degree Mason. He was never even a member of the Fraternity. Dehoyos and Morris also state that "Rev. Jonathan Blanchard wrote the historical sketch and analysis." (p. 48) This should help to clear up "does the book say what it seems to say?"

As a note, DeHpoyos and Morris say Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia also explains Cerneauism and the various names it used. I'll see if I've got it, but I may only have Waite's version.

DeHoyos and Morris have a slightly more detailed explanation on Cerneau Councils in Is It True What They Say About Freemasonry? on pgs. 78-80 (ISBN 1590770307), most notably:


 * "In 1813, the Supreme Council at Charleston organized another Supreme Council in New york. From its beginnng however, the latter Supreme council was forced to contend with a rival body of dubious authority organized by a Frenchman named Joseph Cerneau.  Without going into detail, Cerneau's group claimed authority over the Scottish Rite degrees, even though it had never been properly chartered.  although the two bodies would contend for membership until 1867 - when they eventually merged - it is important to bear in mind that the Cerneau group is considered to have been "irregular" (illegitimate) by the majority of Masonic historians.  Because they were both "Masonic," the ceremonies and rituals of both groups had similarities, but they were not the same." (p. 78)

Therefore, since the Cerneau group ceased to exist in 1867, the rituals were no longer valid, hence, any criticisms made after that time (such as those by Blanchard) have no validity. Also, on page 79, referring to Masonic Monitors (which is what Blanchard's book and other exposes really are, if you think about it): "In considering these books, it is important to remember that Scottish Rite monitors reflected the ceremonies practiced in the year un which they were published, and were rarely updated to conform to subsequent ritual revisions." (p. 79) MSJapan 22:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What Catholic Church source is being used?
Is there any recent times statement at all from the Catholic Church, a public declaration of any kind from the official Catholic Church about Freemasonary? The article presents the Catholic Church has a stance, but the article (as far as I've been able to figure) does not cite the Catholic Church. Instead, the article implys (and does so often) the Catholic Church took a stance in 1913 and hasn't said a word since. Personal opinions abound, a few are cited. But the Catholic Church's official position, well, that's implied and not stated, as well as I'm able to figure from reading the article. What did I miss? Terryeo 00:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Quaesitum Est: 1981... issued by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith... which states "Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion." Unfortunately.


 * And after Quaesitum Est the statements of the German and American bishops Conferences and the Los Angeles Diocesan public letter in the late 1990s. Factually.  JASpencer 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Old vs. new Catholic Encyclopedia
This article cites the 1918 Catholic Encyclopedia a lot. This has always bothered me. As a general rule, one should always cite the most recent edition of a reference book, since information changes and becomes out of date. Technically, I could challenge any citation to an out of date reference book under WP:RS, and insist that the newer version be used. However, in many cases the old CE is used to back the fact that it said something. This to me is acceptable. So, I have settled for a compromise... where there has been a significant change between the statements in the CE and what is in the updated New Catholic Encyclopedia, I have tried to leave the citation... and simply add a statement that the claim was dropped or changed in the subsequent editions (citing the 1967 ed. for references to the Freemasonry article, since there is no Freemasonry article at all in the 2002 ed.) Blueboar 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dropped sounds like a conscious decision, and there's (to put it mildly) no proof of that. I prefer "does not appear in" or words to that effect. JASpencer 19:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, it is obvious that it was very much a conscious decision by the editors of the New CE... I am sure they did not just type away willy nilly as they pleased ... I am sure that they reviewed the old edition very carefully (it's what editors do when they are updating an encyclopedia). They could have included any of the information listed in the 1913 ed. if they wished to do so, but chose not to include certain statements. Others they chose to include but to reword (There are a quite a number of negative claims about Freemasonry that they repeat), and a few things were repeated verbatum.  To me it is obvious that the editors of the NCE "dropped" certain claims.
 * That said, I can live with "does not appear in".


 * Got a citation for that?
 * Unless the New Catholic Encyclopedia contradicts the Catholic Encyclopedia, can't we simply put the non-appearence of this in the Footnotes?
 * JASpencer 22:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the advice I recieve at WP:RS... we should always cite to the most recent edition of a reference work... however, when the claim is that an older edition made a claim that does not appear in the more recent ed. we should mention allow the claim, but mention (in the article) that more recent eds. drop the claim. so no, it should not be put in a foot note but mentioned in the text on an equal footing with the claim. Blueboar 02:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you be able to quote that and link to it please? All I can find is
 * Dictionary of National Biography and as to later editions of CE which do not include the allegation, yes you can remove the allegation based on CE removing theirs *provided that* they have an article on this subject whatsoever. If they've removed the entire article, then no. In my opinion. Wjhonson 01:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 
 * A slight modification, which may satisfy all parties. "Although the 1918 Catholic Encyclopaedia states.... this allegation was removed from the 1931 version and does not appear in the current version..." Personally I think that historical claims of this nature, that is, the history of the ideas, is interesting enough for the article. But it's your call. Wjhonson 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 
 * JASpencer 22:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If this is the advice that you're refering to I'd point out a number of things in it.
 * (1) It's not been made clear (I assume that you don't know) that the Catholic Encyclopedia (which has one edition, the 1913 edition plus supplements) and the New Catholic Encyclopedia (the 1967 edition is the first edition and the 2002 edition is the second) are not subsequent editions but different projects by different and non-continuous teams, although I'm cool with the idea that they should be regarded, to an extent, as subsequent editions - they are still not the same as editions of the Britanicca in that articles are totally rewritten and issues like Freemasonry in France or Italy are no longer of burning import. This was an entirely different team half a century later.
 * (2) The Kadosh degree is not mentioned at all in the NCE article (apart from a diagram of the Scottish Rite hierachy). So the allegation not appearing in the NCE should be mentioned in this sense.  The present text could at least suggest that the Kadosh degree is dealt with but there is no claim on the poinards and tiaras, etc.
 * (3) The fact that it is not mentioned could be down to a large number of reasons and any mention of this should make clear that this is the case. It is not simply that they found this untrue, but also that the ceremony may have changed in the fifty years (and this seems at least as likely) or that the Church's disapproval of Freemasonry may have shifted.
 * (4) There seems to be no mention of the idea that what is essentially an interesting argument about sources should not be in footnotes, or am I wrong?
 * (5) The references to the non-existent article in the 2002 Encyclopedia should have been taken out.
 * (6) Link and quote does help when you are refering to advice as it does when refering to footnotes in controversial articles. Vague references just create suspicion.
 * JASpencer 22:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Arlington Catholic Herald
Coming from WP:RS, I observe that the article is not citing the Arlington Catholic Herald; it cites a website which claims to cite the Herald, a rather different thing. In any case, is this Fr. Sanders notable? Has he magisterium? Septentrionalis 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're saying here - that EWTN is an unreliable source on Catholicism in the US? There seems to be a move to make absence seem like an actual fact.  Does silence really equal consent? JASpencer 22:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I understand (JAS can correct me if I have my facts wrong)... Fr. Saunders did indeed write the cited claims which appeared in the Arlington Catholic Herald. I would call the Arlington Catholic herald a reliable source on Catholic opinions. EWTN is also a reliable source for Catholic opinions. So, given my understanding of WP:RS, the convenience link should indeed remain (with proper citing of EWTN as the host site, which has been added).  As to whether Fr. Sauders is notable or reliable... that is a different issue.  However, the article now makes it clear that this claim is his opinion.  The reader can make their own mind up.


 * By the way, JAS, technically you should only cite to the Arlington Catholic Herald if you have read the Arlington Catholic Herald. Otherwise you should really cite to EWTN and note that it is a copy of an article from the ACH. At least that is how I read the guidelines.  The rules on Convenience Links are not well written at the moment (it is a controvercial subject, and in trying to please all parties, they have ended up with something that is a bit disjointed).  I am not going to make a fuss over this, however.  The cite is fine with me. Blueboar 22:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mind citing EWTN rather than the Arlington Catholic Herald, or vice versa. The importance with this in relation to the relationship between the RCC and FM is that the allegation is still current. JASpencer 22:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand that... and it is clear that Fr. Sauders does make the allegation (although since Fr. Sauders does not cite his sources, I suspect that he is simply repeating what he read in the old CE). I was not sure about the rules on Convenience links (citing one source, but linking to another) and asked someone at WP:RS to pop over and comment.  If he had said that what you did was impropper, I would have allowed the allegation and the citation to the ACH without a link, as the ACH is definitely reliable.  In any case... It is up to you.  If you want, go read WP:RS and cite it whichever way you think is correct.  I am not going to challenge it in either form. (see, I can be reasonable sometimes!)  :>) Blueboar 23:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to the New Catholic Encyclopedia
As the New Catholic Encyclopedia (Edition 1) now seems to be uncontroversial, should we quote to a convenience link either at trosch.org or bessel.org? JASpencer 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope. 1) Trosch.com is an unreliable source in that it that adds commontary to the original text (which I have checked) and highlights sections for empysis.  It is therefore not a true copy of the original.  2) I do not see any indication that he has permission to copy the NCE article on his site, which may be a violation of copyright laws (it does give permission to copy his site, but he should also include a "reprinted by permission" statement) ... In the US, courts have supported the view that knowingly and intentionally linking to material that infringes copyright is a form of contributory infringment. Essentially they found that you can't get around the fact it is illegal for you to host something by simply directing traffic to some other site that is illegally hosting the same material. Wikipedia has to be very careful not to violate copyright laws. 3) Bessel copies Trosch in its entirety (including Trosch's commentatry).  His page might be acceptable as a convenience link to trosch, but not as one to the NCE. Blueboar 22:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When you say that it adds commentary, have you found the commentary interspersed with the text or simply in the introductory comments? I find the commentary in two areas: (1) at the beginning (which could be more clearly seperated, agreed) and the underlining and emboldening which the webmaster admits to adding.  Both these issues are either not problems in Bessel.  If there is any innacuracy in the main text beyond honest typos then point it out, otherwise I'm not worried about it.
 * Noted about copyright - but surely there's a fair use policy, especially for an encyclopedia that is out of use. Is there any wikipedia page where one can ask for advice on this? JASpencer 07:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking out second edition
I've taken out the second edition citations. I'm not too bothered about it being in the footnotes, but the advice from WP:RS seems quite clear on this. JASpencer 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What advice are you talking about? Blueboar 22:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your statement cannot be understood unless one takes the trouble to look up whatever discussions on whatever scattered talk pages you engaged in. Can you restate here what was wrong with the second edition citations? --Gerry Ashton 22:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe he is discussing this edit: here where in a citation to the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) he deleted the words: "The most recent edition (2002) does not contain any article on Freemasonry." I am not going to revert it until he has had a chance to explain. Blueboar 23:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not an issue to go to the barricades over but I took wjhonson's words:
 * Dictionary of National Biography and as to later editions of CE which do not include the allegation, yes you can remove the allegation based on CE removing theirs *provided that* they have an article on this subject whatsoever. If they've removed the entire article, then no. In my opinion. Wjhonson 01:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to be far more clear cut than any argument for not putting notes about sources in the footnotes, rather than the main text. I simply thought that it would be uncontroversial. JASpencer 20:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * JAS, You left out what Wjohnson wrote immediately following the post that you mention above...
 * A slight modification, which may satisfy all parties. "Although the 1918 Catholic Encyclopaedia states.... this allegation was removed from the 1931 version and does not appear in the current version..." Personally I think that historical claims of this nature, that is, the history of the ideas, is interesting enough for the article. But it's your call. Wjhonson 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It was this advice that caused me to include the comment that the 2002 verision did not contain any article... I took his comment to mean that, that with reference materials such a encyclopedias one should generally cite to the most recent version, but if the most recent version does not contain an article on the topic, cite to the most recent version that does, and mention that subsequent versions do not have an article.  I only add this to be as informative and accurate in citation as possible (if I am going to hold you to accuracy and reliability in citations, I should do the same with my own after all).  Since you say you do not object strongly... and since I do not insist strongly (there is not a set policy that says we have to do it one way or the other)... let me ask this: What is your minor objection to the statement?  Why did you cut it? Blueboar 01:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's honestly no real objection (if it were in the main article I would think it would clutter, but I've no objection to it appearing in the footnotes) and I've put it back. I was just trying to get the uncontroversial stuff out of the way first.  Apologies if I've misread wjhonson's comments above. JASpencer 06:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei
Now that Imacomp has moved on, why is Opus Dei in the article as in:


 *  However, the Catholic Church itself controls Opus Dei, which is alleged to be oath bound, and supports the activities of the Knights of Columbus which some consider to be an oath bound society. 

If there was someone contrasting the Church's attitude to Freemasonry to either Opus Dei or the Knights of Columbus then it should be stated that "x has pointed out that". Otherwise this is simply a matter of opinion by an editor.

It could be argued that it falls under WP:NOR JASpencer 20:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Also this text in the same section:


 *  In response to the accusations of communists, the Italian Parliament in 1987 declared that Opus Dei is not a secret society neither "in law nor in fact", for the Catholic prelature provides information about their activities and their directors. Under similar reasoning, Freemasons claim that they also would not, and do not qualify as a secret society. Grand Lodges provide similar information about their Officers and activities. 

JASpencer 21:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that it has been proven that the accusation against the KofC is bogus, I would say go ahead and remove it. But the Opus Dei stuff is indeed relevant.  Many people think that Opus Dei is a "Secret Societey", and thus the Church has a double standard (their secret societies are OK... but not ones that they disapprove of) ... in responce to that allegation it was pointed out that the Italian courts have ruled that Opus Dei is a secret society - for very specific reasons... But those same reasons would apply to Freemasonry.  Thus, if one objects to Opus Dei being called a Secret Society for those reasons, then one should not call Freemasonry a Secret Society for those same reasons. Blueboar 01:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I know that you think that Opus Dei is relevant, and I can understand why you would think so. But does that make it worthy of inclusion?  I would say that if someone has drawn the comparison either with Freemasonry or with the Church's teaching on Secret Societies then it should be kept in.  Otherwise it's in because a couple of Masonic editors (no one active at the moment on this page) wanted it in.  So in effect it's an opinion.
 * Ironically I believe that the KoC is more relevant because to me it's quite clear that the various Knights fraternities were set up as a Catholic alternative to Freemasonry. I'll remove the citation any way. JASpencer 06:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Footnote 8 is a reference to something called "OPUS DEI: THE PAPAL UNDERGROUND" by Thomas Lawton Jones. The reference does not indicate what this thing is, whether a book, flyer, or whatever. It says it was "found on" a web page, which turns out to be an Angelfire personal web page. If an editor has this publication in hand and can say it is a reliable source, then the footnote should be revised accordingly, otherwise the allegation that Opus Dei is oath-bound should be removed from the article. (In case anyone is wondering, I have no ax to grind concerning Opus Dei or Freemasons, but I'll never forgive Anglefire for their pop-ups.) --Gerry Ashton 01:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Replaced footnote with citation request. Will remove oath bound allegation unless citation appears. JASpencer 06:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, if someone can provide a citation for Blueboar's belief that Many people think that Opus Dei is a "Secret Societey", and thus the Church has a double standard then it should stay. Other wise it really should go. JASpencer 10:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've put Blueboar's contention that many people feel that the church has a double standard:
 * Many people believe that the Catholic Church operates a double standard as it controls Opus Dei,
 * Otherwise the Opus Dei stuff really should not be there. It shouldn't be there because it's not cited, but I'll allow some time for someone to find a citation. JASpencer 10:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I did find a link in which people speculate that the acceptance of Opus Dei is a double standard-- a google search on "opus dei" and freemansons will probably find you more. I have my own skepticism about the importance of this allegation though-- surely it is the alleged anti-catholic nature of freemasonry that is the source of the tension, and I wouldn't expect the church to oppose an overtly pro-catholic secret society (if, indeed, that's what OD is). --Alecmconroy 11:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I found quite a few references to a similarity between the two groups but none of them to the double standard - most of them were criticisms of Opus Dei for being elitist (and not really using Freemasonry as anything other than a throwaway insult) or in some cases for being possibly occult. Well done on finding the "Ronald Bruce Meyer" link.
 * As this is a self published site by someone with no claim to being a specialist in either the Catholic Church or Freemasonry, what is his standing? I'll wait a while and start a new debate on this.  JASpencer 11:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it is a reliable source or not... he has lectured on stuff like this, so may qualify as an expert. I think it is reliable if it is noted that this is his claim (we would have to find another source to say that the view is wide spread).  Perhaps we should ask someone at WP:RS to pop over and take a look. Blueboar 12:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well this is his biography:
 * I am a broadcaster on FreethoughtRadio.com, where The Freethought Almanac was developed and where it was first heard. I have studied the history of religion and social progress as an independent scholar since 1978. I am an autodidact, not by any means an expert on the subject, but I know the experts. Some of my chief sources are A Rationalist Encyclopædia (1948) by Joseph McCabe (1867-1955, online version in production) and A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1895) by Andrew Dickson White (1832-1918), The Popes and Their Church by McCabe (1918/1953), and the Catholic Encyclopedia (1909/1967). Also consulted are more recent works, including 2000 Years of Disbelief (1996) by James A. Haught, specific biographies and many others.
 * and:
 * Ronald Bruce Meyer has been a writer and professional broadcaster since 1975, but has worked variously as a contract negotiator, fast-food counter help, live theater custodian, private detective, professor of speech communication, quality assurance specialist, real estate salesperson, recording studio director, researcher / fact checker, restaurant host, retail sales associate, secretary, security guard, stage actor, and swimming and lifesaving instructor. A former Eagle Scout, Explorer Scout and OA Brotherhood member, Meyer is proudest of his voice-over repertoire and his versatility as an announcer, having hosted classical, country-western, pop/top 40, easy listening, and news/public affairs formats.
 * Meyer was born in Baltimore, Maryland, USA, on 23 November 1954. In 1975 he earned his Associate in Arts degree, concentrating in speech and theater, and was active in student government, public speaking, readers theater, drama, and oral interpretation of literature. He earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1977, concentrating on mass communications with radio and TV broadcasting production courses. Meyer earned a Master of Arts degree in government and politics in 1989. He worked 14 years with and for the blind, both as a reader and books-on-tape producer.
 * Meyer's favorite quote is: "The United States is no more a Christian nation because most of its citizens are Christians than it is a 'white' nation because most of its citizens are white. We are Americans because we practice democracy and believe in republican government, not because we practice revealed religion and believe in Bible-based government."
 * I see nothing about lecturing on his website, although I could very well have missed it - he's an "independent scholar" and a voice over artist and so the sort of person who would love to give his views to an audience.
 * He seems to be a low rent Dan Brown. I'm not actually against quoting him, but I really think that it doesn't justify the whole paragraph.  Couldn't we find someone a little more, well, heavyweight.
 * JASpencer 13:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd wager that this does count as a 'reliable source' for a sentence saying "some people claim..."-- but nothing I've seen so far makes me think it's a notable source that really merits a mention. --Alecmconroy 13:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "some" is a weasle word and should be avoided. It says on his website that he is a Public Speaker. I don't know if he has spoken on the subject of Freemasonry, but he has certainly written about it... so perhaps: "Public Speaker and writer..." is a better discription?  It does go to the point that people do think Opus Dei is a secret society... even if this reputation is unwarrented (as is also the case with Freemasonry).  This does indicate that the Church's condemnation of "secret societies" is selective... ie, it is opposed to societies that are secret from the Church.  Perhaps indsead of trying to delete the reference we can work out a compromise language that you feel is less POV? Blueboar 14:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Village Atheist may be a better description. I have made speeches in front of people and I could start a blog - and write about Freemasonry.  Would that make me a "Public speaker and writer"?  Would that mean I could claim to be an authority in this article?
 * On the Opus Dei allegation I know that this means a lot to you, but Wikipedia is not about recycling your or my pet peeves - it's about creating an encyclopedia. JASpencer 16:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A further thought - are we not simply creating what amounts to a self reference? His writing on Freemasonry should be quoted because he's an expert on Freemasonry and he's an expert on Freemasonry because he's written stuff on the web about Freemasonry - or he should be quoted because he's written on the subject.  How is this different from quoting a personal web page of a non-expert?  He's also unlikely to be a regular Freemason as he is obviously one of Anderson's "stupid atheists".
 * Now as Alec pointed out, there has been one person who alleges a double standard - as Blueboar and Imacomp originally did on this article. Does this meet the notability standards?  I don't know.  JASpencer 18:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

(Losing Indent) Where are we going on this? I see four options:

1. Remove it with the option that it can be readded later. 2. Find a more notable source 3. Show that Ronald Bruce Meyer is worth quoting 4. Refer this to the talk page on WP:RS.

Anyone have any ideas? JASpencer 09:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, except for the fact that you left out an option - 5. Leave it as is. But I can understand why that is not an option in your book.  :>)
 * In all seriousness... I will add one more option... 5. Revise it.
 * Let me work on this section a bit. I may be able to come up with better wording and better sources that will satisfy your concerns, while still addressing mine. Oh, on a completely unrelated note ... why do you keep calling Meyer an atheist?  I didn't see a

nything in his page that indicated that, but perhaps I missed something (I am also not sure why it matters). Blueboar 11:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why he's called an atheist... He writes the freethought almanac, he calls 9/11 a "faith based initiative", he calls religion "humanity's nemesis", he broadcasts on FreethoughtRadio.com. Yep, he's Godless. JASpencer 15:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On the section, taking it out doesn't mean it can never come back in. I may be putting some of the stuff about American nativists back in that I took out a few weeks ago.  (Still not found anything t on the Orange Order being a source of suspicion).  I would say if you do find something a bit more substantial than Meyer then put some real thought on how much space this merits.  There really is not much muttering about the church operating a double standard because the sececy is a seconday (although still important) objection.
 * I'm not sure how suitable it would be for this article but there seems to be a lot of Catholic criticism about Opus Dei because it's seen as following many Masonic patterns. Even the religious indifferentism.  JASpencer 15:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. Well it certainly would be safe to call him anti-religious, and I can see why you might call him an atheist (I don't think we should do so in the article, however... at last not without something concrete to back it up, such as a self-declaration of Atheism on his part.)  However, that does open up another question... if he is a broadcaster / radio commentator, that would make him fairly notable.
 * In any case, I am going to think about how to re-word the entire "secret society" section. I would like to keep the stuff about double standards and Opus Dei (it is relevant from a masonic POV after all), but I am not wedded to it.  I don't think we need to get into Opus Dei in depth, however... Give me some time to think about things and do more research. Hopefully we can come up with wording that satifies both of us. Blueboar 15:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that notable, it's a purely internet station - one step up from podcasting. I don't mind the idea that Opus Dei may point to some double standard, but if it is important from a Masonic pov surely there must be something on the internet from someone of note. JASpencer 16:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Now deleted. JASpencer 20:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Discrete Society
I'm not clear why this text is in:


 *  The accusation that Freemasonry is a secret society is mainly due to its high regard for discretion. The German historian Dieter A. Binder tells us “Lodges are closed societies, but not secret societies” and says that the historical correct description would be "Discreet Society”. 

There's no real link made to this being an answer to Catholic criticisms - it just seems to b the opinion of an editor. I also have problems with the use of unquoted foreifn language sources. JASpencer 22:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will assume that this was added by Webmaster (our German editor who is involved with what my GL would call an irrelgular lodge in Germany ... In any case, it is not just the opinion of an editor, since it has a citation... it seems to add a German perspective on on the issue of whether Freemasonry is a "Secret Societey" - indicating that UGLE and those in affiliation with it are not the only GLs to object to the "Secret Society" label. Blueboar 00:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So it would suit the Freemasonry article. However it does not seem to be a direct response to the Catholic contention that Freemasonry is unacceptable for Catholics because it is a secret society.  If there were a quote (and what's with the phobia about quotes - but that's another issue) that said "In response to Catholic critics that FM is unsuitable to join..." then that would be acceptable, and I'm sure that some variation of this would also work.  However as it stands it simply seems to be along the lines of "FM is condemned for being secret, however some expert in possibly a different context says its more subtle than that." JASpencer 06:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it needs to be in the context of spedifically responding to the Church's allegation, The church is not the only one to say FM is a secret society. This is a reliable statement from a reliable source that is being used to counter all allegagions (from the church or otherwise) that Freemasonry is a secret society. Blueboar 11:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For a start the Catholic Church's worries (and even perceptions) about Masonic secrecy overlap but are not identical with, for example, Stephen Knight's. It is odd that you think that the Catholic Encyclopedia is unreliable about the Catholic attitude to Freemasonry, but two unknown German authors are.  JASpencer 12:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The CE may have been reflective of Catholic attitudes towards Freemasonry for the time it was written, but it is very very out of date. The 67 NCE is a better guide for the "official" view today... and even that does not reflect the attitude of the average Catholic. The typical Catholic (in the US at least) has a very positive view of the Craft. Blueboar 15:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Your dislike of the CE is noted, although I would say that it is probably the most thorough treatment of Catholic views towards Freemasonry. I do think that there's more than a little wishful thinking going on about attitudes towards Freemasonry within the Church.  However that's not the main issue.
 * The discreet society stuff at the moment not rooted in the Catholicism and Freemasonry debate as there seems to be nothing that addresses Catholic concerns about for example lying in a confessional or "blind obedience". It could go in the Freemasonry article, but not here. JASpencer 16:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In looking at the section and the footnotes again, I notice that somewhere along the line a citation to UGLE was cut. That cition was a direct response from a Masonic Body that said Masonry was not a Secret Society... the german stuff (if I remember correctly) was added as a second citation to show that this view was not just that of one Masonic Body.  In otherwords, it was not originally the main citation.  It is another section that has become muddled.  Do me a favor... finish any rewording of that section you may need to do, but leave the German stuff for now... when you are done, let me know and I will reword the "Masonic responce"  You may find your concerns have been addressed.  Blueboar 16:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem the Discrete society stuff can wait. The disembodied status would explain why it reads a bit weirdly.  JASpencer 16:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Returning to this (and I'm prepared to wait for a while) WP:NOR says that original research includes Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Now I have no problem with the Discrete Society stuff appearing in the general Freemasonry article but as this does not seem to address specific Catholic concerns about secrecy this does seem like it is trying to advance an argument using a synthesis. I have got into trouble for this in the past. I would also not have trouble with the quotes being put in if the books, or someone commenting on these books, had put these in context on the Catholic ban on Freemasonry.

I'd also really like quotes so that they could be translated. But as I said I don't think that this is relevant to the Catholic Encyclopedia unless we can find a link into Catholicism and Freemasonry.

Isn't the link from UGLE enough?

JASpencer 21:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll delete this in the next couple of days and move it to the talk page. JASpencer 21:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reworded it and put it back in a different form... it shows that Freemasonry's distinction between "private" and "secret" is not unique... it is shared by others. I am willing to work with you on how to include it... but I think it should be included. Blueboar 13:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Update on Kadosh Degree - The CE is completely wrong
Well, I finally found the time to get to the library and check Pike's actual words... I have read through the original ritual for the Kadosh Degree (yes, Pike's ritual... not the recent revised ritual or the Northern Jurisdiction ritual) and, as I figured, it does not contain any trampling or stabbing of papal tiaras. I have added a statement to that effect into the article.

I also searched through Pike's degree to find any of the phrases quoted in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. They are not there. Now, I will not go so far as to say the CE made this all up... it is possible that they are quoting some other book by Pike (I have checked everything I know of, but I suppose there is some obscure book by pike out there that I do not know of) ... but they are wrong in linking the phrases to the Kadosh Degree.

Given this, I have to question the accuracy and reliablility of the entire Catholic Encyclopedia's Freemasonry article. If it gets it's facts so utterly wrong on the Kadosh degree, how can we rely on it to be reliable on other claims. I am tempted to simply delete them as unreliable... However, I do not think we need to go quite that far. I don't think the editors of the CE included these errors deliberately - I think they actually believed that what they were writing was true. So, while the CE is unreliable for fact statements, it is reliable, in a historical context... for citation of what the official Catholic view was at the time. Thus, I will not challenge citations from the 1913 CE where they are referencing historical view points (ie what the church thought was true in 1913). I will either challenge or change any citations to the CE that are used to back statements not put into a historical context. Blueboar 12:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We've been here before. Remember "The New Catholic Encyclopedia does not even HAVE an article on Freemasonry!"?  With due respect, Pike wrote a lot and the chances of missing something hidden in Pike's massive amount of work is very high.
 * Besides, the only things you can really say is what primary or secondary sources say. If there's an expert on Pike or some prominent Freemason who denies it then they can be quoted.  If no one else says this then this can be said.  If there's a specific reference that's wrongly quoted then this can be said.  But "Blueboar went to the library and couldn't find it" may, just may, fall under WP:NOR.  This is especially so considering how much Pike wrote.  Just a thought.
 * Obviously as long as the Catholic Encyclopedia is quoted as a source on the Catholic Church's beliefs in the early 1900s. Or are is anyone claiming otherwise?
 * JASpencer 12:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is that the CE uses what may be quote from Pike in a very inaccurate and unreliable way... it says:
 * "The Kadosh (thirtieth degree), trampling on the papal tiara and the royal crown, is destined to wreak a just vengeance on these 'high criminals' for the murder of Molay [128] and 'as the apostle of truth and the rights of man' [129] to deliver mankind 'from the bondage of Despotism and the thraldom of spiritual Tyranny'."
 * The CE implies that the phraises "high criminals", "as the apostle of truth and the rights of man" and "from the bondage of despotism and the thraldom of spiritual Tyranny" come from the Kadosh Degree. They cite Pike as the author and place them in the context of the Kadosh Degree.  However, these words do not appear anywhere in the Kadosh degree.  Nor do they appear in Pike's commentary on the degree in Morals and Dogma.  While they may come from some other book by Pike, we have no way of knowing what the context was.  For all we know, Pike was talking about Babilonian priest kings.  What we can say is that they are not included in the Kadosh Degree.  Thus, the CE is unreliable as far as the Kadosh degree is concerned.  And if it is unreliable there, can we call it reliable elsewhere?
 * As for sources... I have cited the ultimate primary source... the actual Kadosh Degree ritual writen by Pike. I have included the ISBN number, so you can go search this for yourself.  It is not original research to say that something is not in a book when you can cite the actual book to back the statement up. Blueboar 13:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Like you I was not quite sure what the citations refered to as they are so incredibly confusing. I've gone through the article as follows:
 * (1) The citations that they are using are 128 and 129, which read as [128] Ibid., IV, 474 sq. and [129] Ibid., IV, 478.
 * (2) The closest preceding "non ibid" footnote is 125 which reads [125] (4), I, 288 sq.
 * (3) This is immediately preceded by footnote 124 which reads [124] Pike (4), III, 81; (1), 291; Ragon, l. c., 76-86. Which would almost certainly mean 125 is refering to Pike (4), whatever that is.
 * (4) So the footnotes are refering to pages 474 and 478 of Volume IV of Pike (4)
 * (5) In the Bibliography we find the following notations under Historical:
 * PIKE, (1) Morals and Dogma of the A. A. Scot. Rite of Freemasonry 5632 (1882); IDEM, (2) The Book of the Words 5638 (1878); IDEM, (3) The Porch and the Middle Chamber. Book of the Lodge 5632 (1872); IDEM, (4) The Inner Sanctuary (1870-79); (Idem means the same author in Latin)
 * (6) So it is quite clear that Pike (4) Refers to The Inner Sanctuary (1870-79)
 * Now, I have no knowledge of this publication. Was it a periodical of some kind (which would account for the extenuated dates and the fact that it was in large volumes)?  Did the Magnum Opus have any direct link with this?  I've done a few cursory Google searches and nothing much has turned up either way.  There are a couple of Google searches that turn up something on the Inner Sanctuary but nothing about any link to the Magnum Opus.  Perhaps if you've got a copy you could quote what the relationship (if any) is.
 * I think that at the moment it is likely that the Magnum Opus and the Inner Sanctuary are not the same thing and so we are comparing apples and oranges here when we are saying that the Catholic Encyclopedia is not agreeing to a source that it doesn't seem to have cited.
 * JASpencer 17:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Two of the Google hits. Bible Probe has a quote that it purports to be from Pike's Inner Sanctuary (which is not from the Catholic Encyclopedia) and the Scottish Rite Journal has a book review of a work by Art de Hoyos called "The Inner Sanctuary: The Revised Standard Pike Ritual for the Obligatory Degrees". There really isn't much on The Inner Sanctuary. JASpencer 17:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The "The Inner Sanctuary: The Revised Standard Pike Ritual for the Obligatory Degrees" being reviewed by Art DeHoyos is the revised Scottish Rite ritual they came up with in the year 2000. And I suspect that the Bible Probe site is actually taking its information from the CE (you quote the same passage as "Pike as quoted in the CE" in one of your footnotes) Blueboar 23:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * However, one of the points BB makes is that there is no tiara or crown trampling present in the ritual, as published. Without that context any quote from another volume still doesn't make sense, since it appears to refer to something that doesn't happen in the ritual.  The Catholic Encyclopedia appears to conflate possible commentary from one which may or may not be associated with the other.  For example who inserted (30th Degree) after Kadosh, is that in the original pike writing, or was it added as 'explanation' within the Catholic Encyclopedia?ALR 17:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ALR, those could be fair enough points. The CE could be conflating commentary with actual ritual.  However Blueboar's research tells us nothing of the sort.
 * What Blueboar says in the Title is "The CE is completely wrong". That's because the source that he reasonably assumed the CE was quoting was not in fact what the CE was quoting.  I'm not denigrating anyone, I was clueless on exactly what they were quoting until today - and I think that goes for every active editor on this topic.  (Preciousheart.net makes a similar mistake).
 * What Blueboar's research shows us is that one work of Pike's - the Magnum Opus - omits what the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that another work of Pike's - Volume IV of the Inner Sanctuary - contains.
 * The ommission may be worth noting, but to avoid distress the watchword should be caution.
 * JASpencer 17:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest that the issue is more significant than you imply. BBs checks have indicated that the ritual itself does not include these actions, therefore any comment that alludes to these actions is not related to the ritual in use.  It undermines the whole argument.  It may be that Pike is commenting on another ritual, but that is not what is implied from the quotations that you have provided.  I'm prepared to concede, as it appears that BB is, that the editors of the Catholc Encyclopedia merely misunderstood the nature of Freemasonry and made a mistake, rather than intentionally representing material to support the RCCs political position.  But it does appear that there is a significant issue with what has been suggested..ALR 22:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If what you say is true, then the CE was not just mistaken in alleging that the Kadosh degree involves "trampling on the papal tiara and the royal crown"... they KNEW they were wrong, and purposely mislead their readers. To quote from one book (Inner Sanctuary) and insinuate that it comes from another (Pike's ritual) is close to being fraud.  For the moment, I will give the original editors the benefit of the doubt and continue to call it a "mistake".  And I will attempt to get a hold of a copy of Inner Santuary and see what the context of these quotes is.  (I am getting really tired of critics of Freemasonry misquoting Pike and taking his statements out of context). Blueboar 18:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, it's conflating Blanchard's expose on Cerneau SR with Pike. I've got the quotes from Blanchard above, which do involve the trampling of the tiara.  Therefore, the CE is correct in that the quote appears in an SR ritual, but it is neither the SR ritual that has been used since 1867 (as DeHoyos states in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Freemasonry, Cerneau merged with regular SR in 1867), nor was it most likely ever an SMJ or NMJ ("mainstream") ritual.  It is possible that Pike was refuting the Cerneau ritual in Inner Sanctuary, but we need the rest of the context involved, I think.  I will enquire as to whether my GL library has Inner Sanctuary, but it's going to take a few weeks. MSJapan 19:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * MSJ... that would be really good if we can find this. Despite the heat generated I think the fact that the citation "code" for the CE has been cracked is actually a good achievement and in the long run will take this article, and others, forward.  JASpencer 08:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * JAS... I have had a chance to calm down, and I do appologize for ranting above... It's jut that I think it is a bit rediculous to dismiss the fact that the CE got it wrong, by stating: "What Blueboar's research shows us is that one work of Pike's - the Magnum Opus - omits what the Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that another work of Pike's - Volume IV of the Inner Sanctuary - contains." I think you misunderstand what Magnum Opus is.  It is not just "one work of Pike's".  Magnum Opus is his actual ritual for the Scottish Rite.  In otherwords it is definitive for what actually happens in the Scottish Rite (or rather, since the ritual was revised a few years ago, it is definitive for what happened until recently... but it is certainly definitive for the time that the CE was written).  This is not a case of confused sources, or misplaced quotes, it is a case of the CE making an allegation... one that has been proven to be utterly incorrect. Blueboar 23:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Before we go any further we should put this argument in context. Originally it was said "The CE is completely wrong" because it didn't agree with "Pike's actual words" and that there was an absence of "any of the phrases quoted in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia".  It then went on "to question the accuracy and reliablility of the entire Catholic Encyclopedia's Freemasonry article".  The strong implication was that the CE either misquoted Pike or made the sources up.


 * Now a throwaway phrase was made "it is possible that they are quoting some other book by Pike" which has proven true. And this is now the basis for a different argument - that the Catholic Encyclopedia did not quote Magnum Opus when it should have done so.


 * Am I correct that the original argument - that the phrases used did not reflect "Pike's actual words" has been abandoned and that everyone accepts that the Catholic Encyclopedia was citing the Inner Sanctuary?


 * JASpencer 08:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny you should use the phrase "put this argument in context"... because that is exactly my problem with the CE... taking Pike's words out of context.
 * My earlier rant was written in frustration and a little bit of anger. You are partly-correct in stating how my views have changed after reflection. I still maintain that the phrases do not reflect "Pike's actual words" in the context of the Kadosh Degree. I do now admit that they may reflect "Pike's actual words" in the context of Inner Sanctuary.  It still does not change my lack of trust in the CE.  However, I will not challenge the citations to the CE at this moment.  I have to see what Inner Sanctuary says, and what context the quoted phrases are in.  Blueboar 12:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that, Blueboar. So would I be right in saying that your point of contention with the CE is that it does not cite the "Magnum Opus" in relation to the Kadosh degree? The CE in it's bibliography says on Pike:
 * "His great work -- his Magnum Opus -- as he called it", says the New Age (1910, I, 54), "was The Scottish Rite Rituals'', as they were revised and spiritualized by h

im."''


 * There's no more mention of either Scottish Rite Rituals or Magnum Opus as a title. The four books quoted in the bibliography are:
 * PIKE, (1) Morals and Dogma of the A. A. Scot. Rite of Freemasonry 5632 (1882); IDEM, (2) The Book of the Words 5638 (1878); IDEM, (3) The Porch and the Middle Chamber. Book of the Lodge 5632 (1872); IDEM, (4) The Inner Sanctuary (1870-79)
 * Is the Magnum Opus any of the first three books? I presume not.
 * I also note that the Magnum Opus is his first edition. Amazon says that the Kessinger edition (which uses the ISBN number 1564592456) is a facsimile of the 1857 edition, while the Inner Sanctuary article that the CE quoted would be written some time in the 1870s.  Could this be material?
 * JASpencer 15:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct that Magnum Opus is not one of the books cited in the CE. Actually, it may not be the title of the original.  It may be a title given to it by Kessinger Publishing Co. for the reprint.  The original may not have had a title (I did not see a title page included on the Kessinger version).  It was called Pike's Magnum Opus or Great Work by others, but I do not know what it was called in the original.  As for whether Inner Sanctuary is material... until I find a copy of the book, I can not answer that. Blueboar 16:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about my badly worded question. Could the fact that the quoted Inner Sanctuary work was written about twenty years after the Magnum Opus be important.  On Kessinger's site they say about one of their Pike's "Liturgies of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, Parts 2-4 (4th - 30)" say "students of the rituals may compare this work with the Magnum Opus to trace the evolution of the degrees".  Similarly Kessinger calls the Magnum Opus Pike's "first revision of the complete rituals of the Scottish Rite".
 * Is the Magnum Opus the last word on Pike's rituals?
 * JASpencer 16:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, Yes. Blueboar 21:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We really need to tone down the language in "Both the Catholic Encyclopedia's and Father Sauders' allegations are mistaken.". They are (or the CE is) quoting a different source.  The jury is out on whether it is corrrect or not. JASpencer 17:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * How about:
 *  Both the Catholic Encyclopedia's and Father Sauders' allegations are at variance with Pike's ritual in The Magnum Opus, which does not include any mention of the papal tiara. 
 * JASpencer 17:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I very much disagree. The jury is not still out... it has reached a verdict.  I am being generous by allowing for the possiblility that the CE and Saunders are mistaken and not purposefully twisting the facts and lying.  You can not get around the fact that the ritual written by Pike DOES NOT MENTION TIARAS!!!!  Perhaps Pike talks about tiaras in some other context or in some other book... but that is not the ritual.  The ritual is what accually happens in the degree.  if it is not in the ritual, it does NOT happen.  I don't really care what other book the CE is quoting.  If it isn't in the ritual it does not happen.
 * Both the CE and Saunders claim that tiaras are trampled in the degree... the ritual does not include that. Face it, the CE and Saunders are WRONG... or, to be generous "they are mistaken".  I don't see how I can put it any clearer.  Where is there room for debate?
 * To me, it is obvious that the mistake they made was to confuse Pike's ritual for the one discussed in Blanchard, but I am still trying to connect the dots on that before I put that in the article. Blueboar 20:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For a start CE does quote Pike, and later writing than the 1857 version that we're discussing. The idea that this is not a description of the ritual is speculation.  Secondly the Magnum Opus that is being quoted (ISBN 1-56459-245-6) is described by Kessinger  as the first revision and not the final revision of Pike's.  So yes, the jury is out.  JASpencer 21:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ooooh... I see what you are getting at now... you think that there might be some other, later, ritual than Magnum Opus? That perhaps Inner Sanctuary is this later ritual? Interesting idea. As far as I know, Magnum Opus is it... but I do have to admit that I can not state this as fact.  So... now that you have explained yourself better (and thank you for that), I will back down from my insistance on "mistake".  Go with your suggested wording above.
 * I think you are clutching at straws... The Cerneau ritual, which does talk about trampling tiaras, predates Pike. Pike hated it.  But let's assume (for the sake of discussion) that such trampling was common to the various Scottish Rite rituals that Pike was looking at when he created Magnus Opus.  If Pike dropped it in his first revision, I find it highly unlikely that he would have put it back when creating any further revisions.  Sigh... back to the library. Blueboar 21:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry that I wasn't as clear as I should have been. We really need to see the Inner Sanctuary.  I fully accept that it could be that they got some lecture or explanation and took it as a ritual, but they definately did quote it as if it were a ritual. JASpencer 21:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is exactly why I was so frustrated about your not seeing that, since it was not in the ritual, they had to have made a mistatke. For now we can call it a "variance", but I fully expect that I will be returning it to "mistake" before too long. Blueboar 21:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned this on BB's talk page, but as I've found the correct section here...I just got Magnum Opus in the mail from Amazon, and it is definitely Pike's ritual for all the degrees, in plain text. Therefore, at best, Inner Sanctuary is a later (posthumous?) ritual revision, and at worst, it's a completely different book. I'm still trying to track it down. MSJapan 23:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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