Talk:Humanum Genus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

I 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)

[edit] Outline?

This 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)

[edit] Unsourced, factually erroneous and POV material

There 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)