Talk:Quaesitum est

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
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


Catholicism Portal
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.

[edit] Copyright

Does anyone know if a Vatican Declariation can be freely published anywhere? [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 14:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)]

There are a few points here:
  • This seems to be objecting to quoting from Canon Law. It seems bonkers
  • Wegian Warrior really should be invited to comment on just why he's put this copyright warning on, I can't see it merits any warning (see above)
  • The Vatican has until Deus Caritas Est not insisted on Copyright
  • The 1917 Code of Canon Law is out of time for copyright
  • This should be merged with Clarification concerning status of Catholics becoming Freemasons which could get rid of the specific problems
  • In the area of Catholicism and Freemasonry there has been a history of mischievous edits - and this could be one of those. But let's assume good faith.
JASpencer 20:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It boils down to this: Part of the article was (and now again is, I see) a word for word copy of the document at the Vatican website. While no copyright info is present on that page, it's common to assume that (and I qoute from WP:CV): Copyright exists automatically upon creation in a tangible form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is in the public domain, licensed with the GFDL, or is otherwise compatible with the GFDL, makes material reusable under current policy, unless it is inherently in the public domain due to age or source.. From what I can see, there is no mention on the website of the Holy See that the documents on the website falls under GFDL or PD. Therefore, I marked the section as a possible copyvio. Off course, if you can source otherwise, I'm happy to agree to taking the tag down - however, since it is a reproduction of a exciting source document, it may actually fall more naturally under Wikisource if we can legaly reproduce it at all. WegianWarrior 08:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subjective or Objective Interpretation

I believe that the Canon Law cited is inaccurate and does not pertain to Freemasonry in any way, shape or form. I put it to you that the only grounds by which one can accertain this subjective reasoning that it is in some way linked to Freemasonry is purely on the bias and assumptional grounds that it is so.

Can. 1374 A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; one who promotes or takes office in such an association is to be punished with an interdict.

A person who joins an association which plots against the Church .. this is a subjective question. That being said we are in a catch 22 scenario where only a member of the society in question could clarify whether or not they plot against the Church; further the question is raised as to the legitimacy of their claims. As this is negated by the question of legitimacy, then it is conclusive to say that we cannot accertain whether Freemasonry plots against the Church (assumption that this Canon Law is applied non-retroactively).

Therefore, it stands to reason that this Canon Law does not apply to Freemasonry. To do so would go against all logic and reason. To set things clear, I am a Freemason and a Roman Catholic, whilst my testimony as to what I have seen and heard has no purposeful application in this situation; I can safely say that it is not just on interpretive grounds that I think this Law is being misappropriated but also on evidentiary grounds. Jachin 06:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, did you actually read Quesitum est on http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19831126_declaration-masonic_en.html ? I know it was removed from the page, but it is back in now. I hope that is okay. Quesitum est was specifically designed by the Holy See to answer questions about Can. 1374. and the older Can. 2335. I think Quesitum est makes it clear that canon 1374 applies to freemasons. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 08:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)]

That is one mans interpretation and considering his prior association with organisations that used to gas Freemasons I think the vested interest and neutrality of his judgement is rather moot. Further as illustrated above, I believe that no reasonable person would interpret that passage to pertain to Freemasonry if it weren't for Ratzingers commentary on the matter. Jachin 08:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Jachin, it is not just one man's interpretation. It is actually right out of the Holy See, Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. [[[User:Simonapro|Simonapro]] 10:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)]

If this is a sourced document, and the opinions are also sourced, where's the citations? You seem to have only inserted part of the document in the first place, and there's no indication that the opininos stated aren't just yours. MSJapan 13:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article has any opinions of the contributors. It just has official statements from the Holy See. (Simonapro 21:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC))