Talk:Knights of Columbus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

(New quotes at the bottom, please. --SarekOfVulcan 02:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC))

Compliment

Fine job on the article. Paul 20:38, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

Pitchka reverted my edit saying Freemasonry is not anti-Catholic. He later changed it to say that Freemasonry was formerly anti-Catholic. I assert, as a Master Mason, that there is nothing in the Lodge that is or was Anti-Catholic. Some anti-Catholics were prominent Masons at times, but their opinions are by no means the opinions of Masonry as a whole. His actions are rather POV. You can see on his user page that he is a staunch Catholic. He is also a stanch critic of the Masons. It is Canon Law that states that Masons are anti-Catholic. It is the Catholic Church who perceives that the Masons are opposed to them. Such opinions cannot be substantiated by the ritual. I avoided the issue altogether, but he decided to put it back in. What do I do to resolve this? 24.5.54.209 23:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

You could file a Wikipedia:Request for comment about the actions, but as an anonomous editor complaining about a logged in one, it will be more dificult to persuade people to take it seriously. If you create an account, and edit in good faith here and else where you might be interested, perhaps Pitchka will decide to open a dialogue on the subject. There are also other benefits to becoming a regular member of the community. Most of all, don't be discouraged because of what you percieve as one stubborn editor. Gentgeen 23:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, am I being labeled a stubborn editor because I changed this persons edit? Not only have I found mentioned on a Masonry site written by a freemason that in the past they were anti-Catholic, but I also have from other sources that this was the case. My grandfather, in fact, was a Freemason. I also know that even earlier many of the Masons also doubled as Klan members in the South, but I'm sure this anon would say that wasn't reflected in the ritual either but it doesn't make it any less true. He obviously is out to put Freemasonry in a good light. Dwain 02:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

What websites claim that Freemasonry was anti-Catholic at one point in time?

What does the Klan have to do with anything? Sure.... there were Masons who were in the Klan in the South. There were also Masons who opposed the Klan in the North. Why does it matter if some Masons were Klan members or not? Why does it matter if some Masons were anti-Catholic or not? You are making accusations against the movement as a whole, not individual members. What you're doing is like someone saying that all Roman Catholics adhere to liberation theology because sizable numbers of Catholics adhere to it in certain areas. It isn't a representation of Roman Catholicism as a whole.

Would you be happy if the page were edited to say that the Roman Catholic Church believed that the Masons were opposed to them and then link to the Catholicism and Freemasonry web page? I know I would be. That's essentially what my edit was, anyway.

As for me out to put Masonry in a good light, I've admitted I'm a Mason. I can take and understand criticism of my order. Such things are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. However, what you're trying to do is state the Roman Catholic Church's opinion on the issue as fact. Their opinion is certainly relevant to this article, because it was that opinion that lead to the creation of the Knights of Columbus. However, their opinion should not be stated as fact, as there is much disagreement about it. 24.5.54.209 07:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

There were two main reasons for the Church to teach against the faithful joining a Masonic or Masonic-like organization. From Humanum Genus: first, Masonic secrecy and oaths were deemed to be a practical rejection of both spiritual and secular authorities; second is the claim that their "fundamental doctrine...is that human nature and human reason ought in all things to be mistress and guide" which is in direct conflict of the belief in divine revelation. Did the Masons actually claim to oppose the Catholic Church? I don't know. Were their perceived goals in conflict with Christianity? I would say yes. So, unless there is good reference data from an independent observer that the Masons actively tried to damage the Church, the fair statement would be: Freemasonry was discouraged by church hierarchy because they considered it to be anti-Catholic, and was banned by Pope Leo XIII in 1884.

My 2 cents. --Eoghanacht 12:37, 2005 July 18 (UTC)

Note that Humanum Genus also complains about public schools and the separation of church and state.--SarekOfVulcan 14:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• "I assert, as a Master Mason, that there is nothing in the Lodge that is or was Anti-Catholic." Yeah, except its members. I get it now! Thanks for the clarification. Dwain 17:07, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

That's stupid. The Masons simply reflected the opinions of the general populace at the time [1]. The same thing could be said of certain governments. The same thing could be said about nearly every single social and professional organization in certain areas at certain times. Masonry, as a whole, took no opinion on the issue. It was totally irrelevant to their operation, so they didn't concern themselves with it. What lodge members said or did on their own time is irrelevant to Masonry. Why can't we go with Eoghanacht's statement? It seems fair enough for me. It describes why the order was created. It doesn't make a judgment on the issue of anti-Catholicism and Freemasonry, which is certainly up for debate. 24.5.54.209 19:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you register? Or are you already? Dwain 22:16, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to the issue I have. How is that a response to my last comment? 24.5.54.209 17:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Since Pitchka seems to want to make me look like an idiot by making it look like I didn't read his comment [2] and he won't discuss this anymore, I am proposing the following edit. Unless there are any objections, I'll make it tomorrow. It seems like a reasonable, NPOV statement, unlike the loaded and misleading statement currently up there.

"The organization was also intended to provide an alternative for Catholics to membership in a Masonic lodge—Freemasonry, which was an organization that consisted of many anti-Catholics at the time, was discouraged by church hierarchy, and banned by Pope Leo XIII in 1884." turns into "The organization was also intended to provide an alternative for Catholics to membership in a Masonic Lodge, which was discouraged by the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy and banned by Pope Leo XIII in 1884 because they believed Freemasonry to be anti-Catholic." 24.5.54.209 08:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It is somewhat ironic this has turned into a forum for Freemasonry more than Knights of Columbus......first off, good article.

Second, for a history of Masonic anti-Catholic activity in the US, I would encourage a read of "Behind the Lodge Door" by Paul A. Fisher. If one wishes to read why the Church sees them as anti-Catholic (and a Pope, I believe, would be a "credible expert" on matters of anti-Catholicism) one can consult over one-hundred years of Papal documents regarding their activities and aims at various times.

Third, whether one accepts the anti-Catholic action as originating whithin the order or from persons apart from the order, the Masonic oaths, whether ritualistic or not, are diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching. If they are meant to be real, than God is called upon to witness to an oath that professes beliefs and actions the Church teaches he has condemned; and if they are symbolic, than a Freemason makes a mockery of God by calling on Him to witness to what amounts to a joke. Either way, from a Catholic (or Christian, in general) point of view it is a violation of the 2nd Commandment, and therefore sets them against Catholic doctrine. They are therefore "anti-Catholic," anti meaning against, in nature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pitchka (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 October 2005.

The article is hardly a forum for freemasonry -- it mentions it once, and hardly in a complimentary manner. You and others keep trying to make it even less complimentary, and this is not the article to do it in. Catholicism and Freemasonry is the appropriate place, which you have already found and edited. --SarekOfVulcan 22:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to sign - it was not a post by Pitchka, but by myself. I wasn't trying to degrade masonry, merely trying to point out potential reasons why the Church does not allow members to join the Masonic societies - that includes KofC members, who make a pledge to uphold the Pope, the Church, and its teachings. When I make a comment such as "makes a mockery of God," notice it is followed up shortly with the statement "from the Catholic...Christian...point of view". DonaNobisPacem 07:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I think this article would be helped if more sources were related. Digby 20:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

masons go home

I wish these freemasons would just dry up and build a wall or something. Honestly, I've never seen anything like it. It's not enough to just write about their own organization, no they want to come around and write their propaganda here too!

Actually, I am writing about my own organization. I'm a 3rd-degree Knight, and a 3rd-degree Freemason.--SarekOfVulcan 02:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The Knights of Columbus is a great organization that follows Christianity. Unlike the masons people don't swear to protect their organization by any means necessary and it does not print special versions of the bible in order for the bible to be in line with masonic beliefs. The Knights don't use pentagrams as part of their symbolism either!

Actually, Masons don't swear to protect the organization by any means necessary, and a typical "Masonic" bible is just a King James edition with frontispieces for signatures of the presiding officers along with supplemental material on King Solomon's Temple.

Besides, I've read books about cults that state that hexagrams are worse than pentagrams. What's that say about Judaism? -- Sarek

What's a vulcan freemason look like? Does he have pentagrams for ears? This link here lets freemasons talk for themselves and gives examples of why freemasonry is its own religion and not in line with Christianity [3] Sniptilgrab 02:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Freemasonry is not a religion. Every Mason brings his own religion to the Lodge, and prays to God in his own way. I know Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Masons personally. -- Sarek again

Well, Dr. Albert G. Mackey, a mason, and an expert on freemasonry states in his book Encyclopedia of Freemasonry that freemasonry is a religion. He strongly argues point by point what a religion is and then attributes freemasonry as fitting the definition. It figures that you would right off attack the Jewish religion that is typical of people of your ilk. Oh, but that’s right you love Jews and Catholics don’t you, you know a couple! Dr. Mackey also says that “some slight but necessary modifications” are made by the masons in Scripture. So that exposes you as either a liar or one who is ignorant in the ways of your beloved masonry. Why don’t you spend your time editing the masonry article. You don’t see me editing your freemasonry page. On second thought maybe I might, I have a lot that I think I could contribute to the article! Sniptilgrab 15:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

No one man speaks for Freemasonry. Just because Mackey says it's a religion doesn't make it so.--SarekOfVulcan 16:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, those "slight but necessary" modifications aren't in Scripture, they're in the lessons we take from Scripture. There is no change to our core religious beliefs. Long before I joined the Lodge, I believed in an infinite God, which means that there are an infinite number of correct ways to worship Him. Some of the material attacking Masonry presupposes that if you're not Christian (and they don't usually define Catholics as Christian), you're going to hell. --SarekOfVulcan 16:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

"Practical" vs "Practicing"

Rather than go from wprding which is slightly confusing to that which is slightly inaccurate, why not un-hide the note explaining the KoC usage, possibly with some added bit on the 19th century use of "practical? Anmccaff (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)