Talk:Papal ban of Freemasonry/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 28, 2005 and December 27, 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Catholicism and Freemasonry/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. SarekOfVulcan 01:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Knights of Columbus

It has been alleged that:

-- in fact, the Catholic Knights of Columbus order allows Masons as members

This implies that this is a matter of KoC policy.

This has been removed and I would suggest that this is not reinserted until some proof has been given. As far as I understand (1) membership of the Knights of Columbus is restricted to Roman Catholics and (2) Roman Catholics are not allowed to be Freemasons. That communicating RCs are Freemasons there can be no doubt, but this is not the same as the church allowing its members to belong to the order. The same situation applies to the Knights of Columnus.

JASpencer 11:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Re-added. the leader of my parish's council (well, council-to-be) confirmed this at the state level before I joined the KofC. From a letter that was sent out to the candidates by the organizer:

"At one time members of the order of Masons could not be in the Knights of Columbus. That is no longer true. In fact one of our candidates is a Mason." --SarekOfVulcan 20:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The Australian equivalent of KoC, the Knights of the Southern Cross, has got itself into an awful lot of trouble for coming out with this view. In this episcopal letter. A sample:

The Church has never condemned the various philanthropic works that Masonic lodges promote or are engaged in, just as the Church has never condemned the philanthropic works done by other Christian denominations and religions. But the Church does not approve all the tenets of other denominations and religions, and she never gives approval for Catholics to join other denominations or religions.

JASpencer 12:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, then it's a good thing that Masonry is neither a religion nor a denomination. :-) --SarekOfVulcan 14:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Did you actually read the letter? I thought it was crystal clear on this. The Vatican responded by issuing a declaration on 26 November 1983 which stated that the Church’s attitude to Freemasonry has not changed; that Catholic membership is still prohibited; that Masonic principles are still contrary to Catholic teaching; and that it is sinful for Catholics to become Freemasons, even though that sin no longer carries the harsh penalty of excommunication which is still attached to certain very grave sins.

As we are dealing with one episcopal letter that is in the public domain against a letter from an office holder in KoC which is not in the public domain I think that we can safely excise the KoC comment. JASpencer 16:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, here comes my two cents......from [1]:

"Catholic men in union with the Holy See over 18 years of age. QUALIFICATIONS FOR MEMBERSHIP The qualifications for membership in the Knights of Columbus are set down in Section 101 of the Laws of the Order. They are as follows: "Only practical Catholics in union with the Holy See shall be eligible to and entitled to continue membership in the Order. An applicant for membership shall be no less than 18 years of age on his last birthday." There are no other requirements. Nothing is said about the candidate's profession, education, national background, the color of his skin, his nationality, his cultural level, or his financial status. PRACTICAL CATHOLIC -- Guidelines have been established to assist in judging the practical Catholicity of an applicant or member. These guidelines will help the grand knight perform his duties as an informed and responsible Catholic gentleman when conducting sessions of his council's admissions committee. The main components of this requirement are as follows: A practical Catholic in union with the Holy See is one who, in general, regulates his life according to the teachings of Christ and the Church, and endeavors to observe the commandments of God and of the Church. A practical Catholic strives to have a greater knowledge of the teachings of Christ and his Church, and to accept, respect and defend the Church's authority (vested in the Supreme Pontiff, the hierarchy and clergy united with him) to teach, govern and sanctify the faithful. A practical Catholic gives material and moral support to the Church and her works on all levels, promoting the programs of the parish and diocese and comes to the aid of the missions, the needy, the underprivileged; espousing and advancing the just causes of minority groups; endeavoring to eliminate unjust discrimination, prejudice, etc.; supporting the Church in her defense of marriage and family life and her crusades against divorce, abortion, pornography and all the evils of today. If a Catholic marries outside the Church, that is, contrary to the laws of the Church, he ceases to be a practical Catholic and hence may not be a member of the Knights of Columbus. A man who, living in a valid marriage, obtains a civil divorce and remarries outside the Church ceases to be a practical Catholic and hence loses his right to join or continue in the Order of the Knights of Columbus. If his former marriage is declared null by the Church and he remarries validly according to the Church's laws, he may be reinstated in the Order. A Catholic who is a member of a forbidden, secret society is not a practical Catholic and hence may not become a member of the Knights of Columbus. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS -- If a member of the Order is married, he should be a faithful and devoted husband and father. Married or unmarried, the knight should always be an exemplary Catholic gentleman and a dutiful patriotic citizen. DETERMINING QUALIFICATION -- Before a candidate is presented for membership, his sponsor should be sure that the candidate possesses and manifests the necessary qualifications for membership. These are then appraised by the admissions committee and a subsequent ballot by the membership determines acceptance or rejection. This is in keeping with the lodge system under which the Order of the Knights of Columbus operates. If questions arise at any time during the admissions process as to the candidate's practical Catholicity, the proposer or the admissions committee should consult with the candidate's pastor. (source - Grand Knight's Handbook 2002-2003, page 70-71)"

Note the Grand Knights Handbook states that "A practical Catholic strives to have a greater knowledge of the teachings of Christ and his Church, and to accept, respect and defend the Church's authority (vested in the Supreme Pontiff, the hierarchy and clergy united with him)..." The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a part of the Church hierarchy, and therefore the Constitution requires that Knights "accept, respect and defend" its teachings. The handbook goes on to state that "A Catholic who is a member of a forbidden, secret society is not a practical Catholic and hence may not become a member of the Knights of Columbus." So if the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a part of the Church heirarchy, states that Catholics are not permitted to become Masons, the handbook EXPLICITLY states a Mason cannot become a Knight, or vice versa. Therefore it is NOT original research (as asserted in the revert). DonaNobisPacem 07:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sarek - the Church heirarchy has forbidden membership in Masonic organizations. The Grand Knight's Handbook say Knights cannot join organizations that are forbidden by the Church. So how is it not explicit that Knights are not permitted to join Masonic organizations?DonaNobisPacem 08:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As I recall the timeline, that Canon went into effect _after_ the letter from the Congregation. If they wanted it to apply to Freemasonry, they could have changed it back before it was promulgated.--SarekOfVulcan 15:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

To avoid interpretation, I decided to get it straight form the horses mouth. I emailed Supreme Council, at info@k0fc.org (the email on the Supreme Council website). As the governing body of the KofC, they replied:

"No Knight may join the Masons and no Mason may join the Knights."

If that isn't explicit, I don't know what is. However - I will not edit the page until you have had a chance to respond. DonaNobisPacem 15:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW - in researching some dates - the Congregation issued a clarification on Masonic membership in 1981, due to confusion over a letter from a Cardinal of the congregation in 1974. The new Canon was promulgated on 25th of January 1983 [2]; on Nov 26, 1983, the Congregation re-issued a clarification (approved by the Pope) on Masonic membership. The letter stated that Masonic membership was not specifically mentioned due to an 'editorial criterion' (ie, not a mistake) that included Masonic membership under a more general grouping.[3]DonaNobisPacem 16:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking for input re: the response received from the Supreme Council of the KofC. Is that good enough explicit documentary info to write in that officially the KofC organization does not permit Knights to join Masonic organizations or vice versa?DonaNobisPacem 05:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

While I believe that you received that letter, I don't consider that encyclopedic. If they were to put it on their FAQ, that would be properly citeable. Note the discussion elsewhere on this page about the email I received being citeable.--SarekOfVulcan 06:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense - I started thinking about it, and leaning in that direction - hence no edit. I think I'll just drop it, as 1.) b/c for both of us it seems to be a somewhat personal issue, edits would never end, and 2.) as it is it doesn't state that the KofC officially allows them, so technically it's NPOV. Take it easy, Sarek.DonaNobisPacem 06:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. God bless.--SarekOfVulcan 06:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I hate to start this bunfight again, but I think that the article is at the very least misleading on the subject of Knights of Columbus.

Thread 1

Thread 2

It's part of a sub-forum devoted specifically to the Knights of Columbus http://forum.catholic.org/viewforum.php?f=64 .

I'm not American, so if there is an American Catholic who wants to raise this discussion to their attention, please go ahead. The present status quo seems to rest on the fact that the K of C don't publish a prohibition on Masons joining. --JASpencer 23:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you think is misleading.

It has been alleged that certain Catholic fraternal orders, including a number of State Chapters of the American Knights of Columbus allow Freemasons as members, although similar policies have attracted reprimands from Catholic bishops when they have been made public in other cases.

Seems pretty clear to me. --SarekOfVulcan 23:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly it's libellous. If the Knights of Columbus are allowing "out" Freemasons in then they are not restricting their membership to "practical Catholics". Either the Knights are lying about their restriction of membership or they are, well, restricting membership.

--JASpencer 23:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Undocumented Allegations

The allegation "and certain State Chapters of the Catholic Knights of Columbus order allow Masons as members" is not documented and is very controversial if true. As other fraternal Catholic orders have been repremanded by their bishops when they stray from church teaching on Freemasonry it is likely that if this policy were made public then these State Chapters would also be in trouble.

I'm going to change it to the following:

". It has been alleged that certain Catholic fraternal orders, for example certain State Chapters of the American Knights of Columbus allow Freemasons as members, although these policies have attracted reprimands from Catholic bishops when they have been made public."

A bit long winded but I think that it puts both sides of the argument.

Umm, if they're "alleged", how did they attract reprimands? --SarekOfVulcan 17:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "similar policies" rather than outright dual membership is better. The Australian case did not involve (I believe) dual membership. JASpencer 12:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "alleged" should remain in as it is in effect undocumented unless the letter is published. JASpencer 12:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deism

A fundamental critique of Freemasonry from both the Catholic and the Christian Fundamentalist perspectives has been an allegation of Deism, as opposed to a dogmatic acceptance of Jesus Christ as Son of God. To remove this line, rather than modifying it, from a list of Catholic criticisms of Freemasonry is dangerous.

I will assume that the person who removed it did not notice the context in which this critique was put in. It was not an objective statement of fact about Freemasonry but a report on what the Catholic Church through the Centuries has said on Freemasonry.

JASpencer 11:52, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

It previously was phrased as an objective statement. I'm good with the addition of "alleged". --SarekOfVulcan 20:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Ban on membership - English dioceses

Please provide a source/sources (ie, documentation published by the dioceses referred to) to back up the claim that some English dioceses do not require Catholics being admitted into the Church/desiring full communion to give up membership in the Masons - this is a contentious issue, and all posts should be verifiable with sources.DonaNobisPacem 18:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Pending sources, the following section will be removed:

"Some Roman Catholic diocesan authorities in England do not consider Lodges under the jurisdiction of UGLE as "..an association which plots against the Church.." and make no requirement for resignation for those wishing to be admitted or readmitted to full communion with the Catholic Church."

If sources from the relevant dioceses can be given to indicate official policy, the section can be added back in.DonaNobisPacem 22:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As an English Catholic I've never seen this. There would be a firestorm if our (admittedly liberal) hierachy ever tried this publicly. --JASpencer 10:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)