Talk:Letter to U.S. Bishops Concerning Masonry

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion: Interfaith This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Christianity: Texts / Catholicism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance). Freemasonry Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. ◆  WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard": Improve to Featured Article status Freemasonry Tracing board Isaac Newton University Lodge Societas Rosicruciana in Anglia Operative Masonry Primitive Scottish Rite Add content to stubs… Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc. Requests [Watch this list] Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable) Participate in articles listed for deletion Need images Scottish Rite York Rite Sovereign Grand Lodge of Malta New Article to be created Adonhiramite Rite Portuguese Rite Brazilian Rite Irish Rite Moorish Rite Rite Français Moderne Rétabli

I'm wondering if we need to add a critique section, because there seem to be some pretty blatant errors in the document.

First of all, it references can. 1364 (which is about penalties for apostates and heretics), when it should be referencing 1374 (the one on secret societies).

It also has research errors - Jews aren't barred from the whole of York Rite, and certainly were not at the time when the letter was written (1985). I find it very interesting that the York Rite (which is not an American rite as stated in the letter), about which little has been written (all things considered) was completely ignored by the Church research.

The letter also suffers from using the Scottish Rite Southern Jurisdiction as an exemplar for all of Scottish Rite in the US, when the NMJ is very different, and conflating the bodies of AASR and Craft.

Also: "The masons of early medieval times were Catholics, like almost everyone else in Europe." That's a pretty bold statement, and probably untrue, and borders on revisionist history.

"In U.S. Freemasonry all women, men under 21 and blacks are barred from Masonic initiation in regular lodges." The first 2/3 were right at the time, and now the last 2/3 are wrong, but age depends on the jurisdiction. Again, the charge of racism was probably more true in the South, but the Church also did not concern itself with Prince Hall Masonry, also about which little has been written.

The letter also uses Pike as an authority on regular Blue Lodge Masonry, which is not true, especially since the letter takes passages from higher degree sections (as one can tell from the page citations).

The "blood oaths" were out of date fifteen or twenty years prior to the letter, so the evidence of "blasphemy on the Bible" that is used to support the claim of "no swearing" is not really valid, although the underlying principle is valid.

I believe that all of this can be proven by primary sources and won't be violating NOR. MSJapan 14:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way to escape WP:NOR would be to reference published critiques of the letter. Synthesising published sources would be Original Research (or at least RFC generating). JASpencer 17:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]