Knights of Columbus Battle To Expel Pro-Abort Politician Members

DALLAS — As the American Catholic Church hierarchy contends with notorious pro-abortion Catholic politicians — who publicly defy Church teaching in their political lives while flaunting their Catholicism by receiving Communion — state delegates of the Knights of Columbus are contending with a proposal to expel member Knights in politics who support abortion rights.

This issue has been simmering in the Knights of Columbus for decades. But this year, as delegates meet in Dallas from August 3 to 5 for their national convention, a determined group of Knights from California and other states was expected to force the issue at the national convention.

Resolution N. 48 was submitted by ten KC councils in California; it was passed at the California KC State Convention in May. The resolution requires ipso facto forfeiture of membership for any public official who promotes abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, or assisted suicide.

As The Wanderer went to press on July 29, proponents of the measure were planning to go public to the international media covering the conference, and even to engage in public demonstrations to denounce any efforts to suppress the measure.

In California, two examples that Knights focused on were Los Angeles Assemblyman Rudy Bermudez and Orange County Assemblyman Lou Correa, both of whom have long public voting records supporting abortion and even celebrating the Roe v. Wade decision in legislative acts.

Bermudez publicly lists on his web site that he is a member of the Norwalk Knights of Columbus as he compiles a nearly perfect pro-abortion voting record. He has been recognized by Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California for his "unwavering 100% commitment to reproductive choice and family planning during the 2002 legislative year."

Correa, a member of the Garden Grove Council voted in four recent legislative sessions to give $200,000,000 to unrestricted Medi-Cal funding for abortion.

On a national level, the collaboration of Knight-politicians — who enjoy the privileges, honors, and benefits of the Knights of Columbus membership — in the "culture of death" machine is a scandal not only to all Knights, but to the entire Church in the United States.

For years, charges have flown that the Knights have an operative "house rule" on the matter of pro-abortion Knights who hold political office, which requires members not to raise the issue of a member’s personal or even public position on abortion.

Several years ago, a Massachusetts Knight obtained a tape recording featuring KC member Joe Mauro, now retired but then executive vice president of agencies and marketing for the national office, stating: "The house rule is anybody who writes you, or talks to you about it [abortion], I’d prefer you kept silent on the issue."

The tape surfaced after an outspoken pro-life insurance field agent, John O’Gorman, was forced out of the Knights following his pro-life activism.

One decisive action against a pro-abortion Catholic politician was taken by the late Bishop James McHugh, when he was bishop of Camden, N.J. He forced the state’s pro-abortion Gov. Jim Florio to resign from the Knights.

In 2001, when the Supreme Council of the International Knights of Columbus met in Toronto, with 2,000 members in attendance, a New York chapter called on the Knights to take more vigorous action against politicians who are pro-abortion. Ed McKee, co-chairman of this New York Council, said that they were getting nowhere with tactics employed at the time.

However, Canadian Phil Zakoor, chief administrative officer of the Ontario State Council, objected to the New York resolution calling for such things as advertisements at election times to encourage pro-life voting.

In a speech to the organization the next day, Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson acknowledged that the order has the resources to do more to defend life than it has done; the Knights of Columbus would continue its "defense of human life at all stages, from conception to natural death."

The battle likely to be waged in Dallas is closely related to the hierarchy’s own stance, since the Knights and the hierarchy have appeared to be passing the buck back and forth on this matter for years, and now the buck seems to be stopped in both camps.

Supreme Knight Anderson, on his way to Dallas, was unavailable for comment, as was his spokesman Paul McGlinchey.

narses, fyi: It was the KofC who got "Under God" in the Pledge. Check it out.

Knights Defend 'under God' in Pledge
Printer-friendly version

12/23/2003

NEW HAVEN, CT — Stating that the fundamental self-understanding of the United States — from the Declaration of Independence through everyday practices by Congress and the president — is in jeopardy, the Knights of Columbus, which led the effort to persuade President Dwight D. Eisenhower and the U.S. Congress in the 1950s to add the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, has filed a friend of the court brief before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of United States of America v. Newdow. In that case, a divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared mandatory recitation of the pledge unconstitutional because of the words "under God."

The opinion of the 9th Circuit Court, the Knights argue, "threatens not only one patriotic rite and one particular federal statute." The opinion "challenges the American principle that fundamental rights are inalienable by the State because they exist prior to the State," the Knights said in their brief.

If reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because it refers to a nation "under God," the brief continues, "then reciting the Declaration of Independence, which refers to the Creator as the source of rights, is surely cast in doubt." The nation's "self-understanding," the brief concludes, would then be called into question.

The Knights' brief notes that in prior judgments the court has affirmed the role of religion in American life without establishing or endorsing a state religion. Presidents, too, the brief states, have enjoined God in inaugural addresses and other public speeches.

Calling the 9th Circuit Court's decision "at war" with tradition, the brief argues that the Supreme Court should overturn the appeals court's ruling.

The brief was signed by Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson, who holds a law degree and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, and Supreme Advocate Paul R. Devin, along with Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law Professor Robert Destro. The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed the brief on behalf of the Knights.

http://www.kofc.org/news/releases/detail.cfm?id=3107

Ah, you have a good memory.

According to Chris "Raven Moon" the Salem K of C is still renting out their hall to pagan groups. He has since been banned from the FR and I can no longer communicate with him.

Hypocrisy at the Knights of Columbus in Salem (11/20/03)
Dear Mr. Ledbetter,

This evening, November 22, at about 10pm on a tip from a friend, I drove by the Knights of Columbus hall in Salem and I would like to share with you what I saw. I saw a group of black clad Witches, draped in capes and robes, smoking on the steps of your Salem chapter's building. I had to do a double take because my understanding was that you did not want Witches to hold events in your building. I know this because you cancelled one of our events for Festival of the Dead that was to be held there on November 1 at the same hall where I saw Witches gathering this evening for what would transform your hall into "sacred space." The Salem Evening News even did a cover story on your cancellation of our event only two weeks before it was to be held, after us having had it booked there for almost eight months.

The event in question can be found at the following Web page:

http://www.lauriecabot.com/reunion2003.html

I know that this is the event that was held there because I have spoken to one of the event coordinators and to several of the attendees who informed me that they were going there. I am very likely to obtain pictures of this event as proof of the presence of this Witchcraft event for all concerned before long.

What I think everyone who has been copied on this email, which features important voices on both the Catholic and Witchcraft sides of this issue, might like to know is why you would cancel our event under the pressure of outside forces, in order to uphold a certain kind of moral code that you claim to hold true to, only to then hold another Witchcraft-related event in that same hall. I happen to know that when you cancelled our event, under pressure from groups who said that such events should not be held in your hall, that this other event was already booked and that you kept this fact from each and every protester that you made promises to that you would remove our event from your venue. So, I think it should become apparent to each and every person copied on this list that the issue was not the moral underpinnings of a Witchcraft event being held at the Knights of Columbus, but the fact that our event was public and this other event was not. Ms. Sandra M. Power's November 1 event spoke of the "power of Witchcraft." The other event in question speaks of "30 years of magick and mystery," "sacred space," "Pagan music," [which, by definition, is religious and ritualistic in tone], and "magickal door prizes." Exactly what about any of this does not sound like Witchcraft to you, Mr. Ledbetter? I am quite sure that the event held at your hall this evening was an enjoyable and magickal time for those who participated, and I have no problem with the content of their event. My problem is that your "strict moral code" found a loophole for them that you could not find for Ms. Power.

I attended a second holding of Sandra M. Power's event this evening because I missed the first one. She held it for three people who did not attend on November 1 because nobody at the Salem Knights of Columbus told them of the new location (even though they knew of it). It was a beautiful and special evening of self-help and transformation and the three attendees and I felt privileged to enjoy it in an even more intimate setting.

It deeply saddens and shocks me to discover that the staunch and rigid Catholic ethics that the Knights of Columbus claim to uphold are so easily moldable to whoever exerts the most pressure, be they Catholic or Witch. Thankfully, our event was held in spite of you, and was a meaningful and spiritual time for all involved, but it has definitely left a very bad taste in my mouth regarding how consistently you uphold the morals you claim to cling so strongly to.

Sincerely,
Christian Day
Festival of the Dead
Salem, MA

p.s. - As a minor piece of clarity for the benefit of each person copied on this email, I would like to include your words from your official release on the subject of this issue when you cancelled our event, found at:

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/misc_20031023.html

"As Knights of Columbus, the Massachusetts State Board of Officers of the Knights of Columbus states that nothing relating to witchcraft should ever be presented in a Knights of Columbus venue."

Perhaps each person copied on this email would like to know how you see a "Witches' reunion" as "nothing relating to Witchcraft."

This just formalizes their standards, and gets rid of one more place for CINOs to hide. They are to be commended for this, not attacked.

Great. I'm happy to commend them, it's the right thing to do.

I'm not a Catholic so I don't know how the church's chain of authority works. Cannot the Pope simply order the cardinals and bishops to deny communion to professing Catholic politicians who vote for legitimization of sins such as abortion and sodomy? I have only attended two Catholic masses in my life, and at neither one was any question asked before an unknown person was given communion. Who decides who is or isn't eligible to partake?

In my loosely organized denomination anyone living in unrepented sin is politely asked to refrain from taking the cup and the bread. But AFAIK no one is ever forcibly denied it if he or she insists on taking it. I guess Paul's statement that one who takes communion unworthily eats and drinks damnation to himself is considered warning enough. It just seems to me that a more well disciplined church hierarchy such as the RCC would enforce the decrees of it's leadership somewhat better than we do.

Please understand, I am not criticizing your Church, I'm just curious as to why it's position on such an important issue as allowing holy communion to be given to pro-abortion politicians doesn't seem to be generally enforced. And don't think I'm pointing fingers. We protestants also have more than our share of sheep in wolves clothing in our ranks.

Cannot the Pope simply order the cardinals and bishops to deny communion to professing Catholic politicians who vote for legitimization of sins such as abortion and sodomy?

Yes, the Pope can order cardinals and bishops to deny communion. Better yet, he can order Kerry himself to refrain from communion. But reality isn't that simple, for several reasons. One is that the Church wants all souls to be saved, which does include John Kerry. The goal of the Church is to convert Kerry, not just wash their hands of him. If the Church denies him communion, he may give up on his faith entirely, which is something the Church doesn't want. And as for ordering bishops to refrain from giving communion, the Pope can do that too. I do hope he does come down harder on the bishops, especially in the US.

I have only attended two Catholic masses in my life, and at neither one was any question asked before an unknown person was given communion. Who decides who is or isn't eligible to partake?

Technically, there was a question asked, and only a Catholic can anwser it, before they recieve communion, but let's ignore that. In any ordinary Mass, it would be pretty much as you describe your own denomination. Catholics should examine their own conscience before accepting communion, and if they know they are in a state of sin, should not recieve the sacrament.

Because most people's sins are not public knowledge, the priest can't be sure if people are recieving communion who should not, so they give communion to all. What is causing a public scandal in Kerry's case is that his public statements themselves are contrary to Catholic faith, so everyone in the Church knows his soul is not in the state of grace required to recieve the sacrament.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.