Talk:Humanum genus
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 20, 2007, April 20, 2008, April 20, 2009, April 20, 2010, and April 20, 2016. |
Untitled
editI am especially interested in the encyclical "Humanum Genus" that was issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1884. In that encyclical, Pope Leo XIII outlines very specifically his objections, and the Church's historical objections, to Freemasonry. Would it not be a good idea to quote from that encyclical? PGNormand 23:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The sentence "Because of the secrecy inherent in freemasonry, it was perceived to have an enormous amount of secret discipline of its members - which was seen by the Pope as enslavement. So although individual Masons were decent people, they were being led to do evil things" seems to be POV in favor of the encyclical. I think it should be reworded. Just a suggestion. FDR | MyTalk 7:34 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I decided to go ahead reword. FDR | MyTalk 15:33 14 August (UTC)
I removed the section titled "Condemnation of Jefferson Principles". It gave the impression that in having disagreement with Freemasonic philosophy the Church is anti-American. Its easy to extract out small quotes from Church documents and twist them to a different purpose than intended. It appeared to me this is what had happened with this section. The quotes taken were not condemnations, but spun as such in the title and mood of the text. What is more objective, and exists in the page as reference to "Christianity and Freemasonry", is a point by point summary of the differences between Freemasonry and Catholic teaching and the reasoning behind the Catholic position. Regards, Jjfraney 17:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Those quotes have no sense of condemnation. They are pretty much just statements of what Jefforsonian thoughts are. I supposed there is some context in the original that attempts to link these statements but as they are, these quotes are misleading and/or useless. 128.227.48.121 (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Outline?
editThis article does not describe the encyclical, it just notes some points of interest and does so mostly from an adversarial perspective. It would be nice if a summary and outline of the encyclical is given first and then have flushed out points of interest and arguments given subsequently. Chrismon 23:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Unsourced, factually erroneous and POV material
editThere is material in this article which misrepresents both the encyclical and Jeffersonian principles. The encyclical's critique is of the Masonic view (real or perceived) that popular will is the sole source of sovereignty: "that it is an act of violence to require men to obey any authority other than that which is obtained from themselves"..."the source of all rights and civil duties is either in the multitude or in the governing authority when this is constituted according to the latest doctrines". (Hum. Gen. par. 22) This is not a critique of Jeffersonian priciples. If one looks at the Declaration of Independence, the source of rights, duties and sovereignty is not solely in the people (i.e. social contract) but also in natural law (rights "endowed by their Creator"). Thus the article has unsourced statements attributing to both the encyclical and to Jeffersonian principles things they do not say. They are unsourced, erroneous, POV and I am deleting them.Mamalujo (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Current stand of Catholic Church vis-a-vis Freemasonry?
editThe article states, I believe inaccurately: "It had long been a practice of the church to forbid Catholics from becoming Freemasons, often backed up by contemporary governments. This remains the official stand of the Roman Catholic Church to this day." While the first part of this statement appears to be true, I recall reading news reports within the last 12 months or so that the Catholic Church had recently made an official statement that it does not condemn Freemasonry per se or prohibit membership in Freemasonry per se. -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC))
I have removed another comment here that was not discussing this topic (Current stand of Catholic Church vis-a-vas Freemasonry?) at all, it was only the paranoid ramblings of an anti-Masonic lunatic. Gotham77 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Joseph Ratzinger (before becoming Pope) did a document which showed that the ban on Freemasonry was still in force. It was approved by John Paul II. 186.29.210.12 (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Actual titles: "Humanum Genus Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Freemasonry"; "Capture of Rome"
editThe official title of the 1884 papal encyclical per online Vatican webpage is Humanum Genus Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Freemasonry --- this title, Humanum Genus Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Freemasonry within the Wiki Article Humanum genus has been accompanied by reference link to the Holy See web page, but this reference to the official title of the papal encyclical seems to keep getting blanked out of the lead paragraph.
Also the "Capture of Rome" is the name/title of the actual September 20, 1870 battle and the inline link back to the Wikipedia Capture of Rome article is being incorrectly edited (and edited out of context as there have been multiple captures of Rome).Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2015
- Clearly you don't know how encyclicals are titled and labeled at the Vatican website. "Humanum Genus Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Freemasonry" is most definitely NOT the "full" or "actual" title. It's "Humanum genus", period. Thanks for the reference, though. I reverted to its proper name. Crusadestudent (talk) 04:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
WAY too many images
editI nominate Breccia di Porta Pia Ademollo, the portrait of Garibaldi, the "allegorical photograph", and the image of the Coat of Arms of the Grand Orient de France for deletion ASAP. This article is way too cluttered with images for its own good. If no one expresses disagreement in the next day or two, I'll go ahead and do it myself. Crusadestudent (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I did it. Deus vult! Crusadestudent (talk) 10:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)