Knights shocked by members who voted against Mass. marriage amendment

New Haven, Jul 9, 2007 / 10:50 am (CNA).- The Knights of Columbus was shocked to learn that 16 of its members, who hold political office in the Massachusetts Legislature, voted against the same-sex marriage amendment in June.

The June 14 vote, which decided whether same-sex marriage would be put on the 2008 ballot, got only 45 votes — five votes shy of the 50-vote requirement.

"It is certainly embarrassing to the order and to every Knight out there who is firm in his support of traditional marriage and the right to life," Pat Korten, vice-president for communications for the Knights, told LifeSiteNews.com.

The 16 Knights who voted to defeat the marriage amendment include: Speaker of the House Sal Dimasi; House Majority Leader John Rogers; Reps. Garrett Bradley, Bob Deleo, Stephen Di Natale, Chris Donelan, Christopher Fallon, Kevin Honan, Charles Murphy, Angelo Puppolo, Bob Spellane, Bob Nyman, and Paul McMurtry; Senators Tom McGee, Michael Knapik, and Michael Morrissey.

Among these, seven are rated "pro-choice" by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts' Advocacy Fund: Dimasi, Bradley, Donelan, Honan, Murphy, Spellane, and McGee.

The Knights of Columbus had led the statewide drive to collect 170,000 petitions in support of the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Furthermore, 500 Knights delegates at the state convention had unanimously approved a resolution demanding that the Legislature allow a ballot for citizens to decide the fate of same-sex marriage.

Korten says the Knights can only employ fraternal correction and prayer in this case.

A Knights member must be 18 and a practicing Catholic “who is recognized as such by the local Church where he goes or the ordinary of the diocese," said Korten.

It is up to the diocese or the Church hierarchy to decide whether these lawmakers are no longer Catholic, Korten told LifeSiteNews.com. "We as laymen do not presume to decide whether other laymen are Catholics or not," he said.

Dear markomalley,

“However, I have attempted in times past, and suggest again, that it would be appropriate to identify, fraternally reprove, attempt to fraternally correct in a spirit of charity and unity, and ultimately have a internal judicial process to suspend the membership of individuals who are in public life, make their membership in the Knights of Columbus a matter of public record, and then turn around and take public positions that are contrary to the clear and unambiguous teachings of the Church. (i.e., the five non-negotiables).”

Here are a couple of problems with the idea.

First, it presupposes a greater formality and structure than often exist at the Council level. I can’t even imagine who would be willing to take on the role of Grand Inquisitor. I know that I wouldn’t. I can’t even begin to imagine setting up standing formal “courts” and “judicial processes.”

Second, you mention “five non-negotiables.” Well, once we get started, why stop there? How about folks who might publicy affirm the use of non-abortifacient contraceptives? How about folks who express ideas that are otherwise clearly heretical? How about politicians or others in public life who occasionally attend Protestant services on Sunday, rather than Catholic Mass, because they’re politicking for office?

Heck, what happens when liberal Democrat Knights lobby Supreme to add to your "five non-negotiables" things like support for welfare programs, opposition to the war in Iraq, etc.? Once you admit that the Supreme Council has the competence to deny or suspend membership to men based on its definitions of sufficient Catholicity, who is to say that they can't make those judgments as they see fit?

Third, it shows absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING of how the Knights of Columbus really operates, on the ground, at the Council level. At that level, men give the benefit of the doubt to other men in the Council that if the Council Chaplain (always a priest) said that the man is a “practical Catholic in communion with Rome,” that he is, indeed, a Catholic in good standing.

If a Knight sees something that’s discordant with that view, he might privately chat with his Brother Knight. He might even bring it to the attention of the Council Chaplain, if it’s very serious. But beyond that, a man assumes that the Chaplain will then work the Brother Knight, and will deal with it as it should be dealt with.

If the Chaplain FAILS to act appropriately, IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE LAITY IN THE COUNCIL TO FULFILL THE PROPER ROLE OF THE CHAPLAIN, WHO IS ALWAYS A PRIEST!

“You are NOT determining the Catholicity of anybody.”

That’s baloney. You’re specifically tying your criteria to things that determine Catholicity. You’re saying that these are crucial issues that alienate Catholics from the Church. Of course, you’re right!

But IT’S NOT THE JOB OF THE LAYPEOPLE OF THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS TO DO THE JOB OF THE PRIESTS AND BISHOPS!!!

If you want us to throw folks out, or suspend folks from membership, get the local bishop to first excommunicate the politician, or even just ban him from receiving the Blessed Sacrament. Get the parish priest to forbid the man from receiving the Blessed Sacrament. THEN we’ll act.

Folks around here see that the bishops don’t do their job, so they try to foist that job off on us.

No dice.

As a Fourth Degree Knight, and a long-term Council officer, I know that this idea would rip the Knights to shreds.

Why don’t you get on the folks WHOSE JOB IT IS to determine whether a man is a “practical Catholic”? Priests and bishops!

Grand Knight sitetest, PGK

Dear Ronaldus Magnus,

“This has nothing to do with being an ‘arbiter of the Catholicity’ but rather the leader you were elected to be.”

Well, first, Grand Knights don’t have the capacity to expel members. That occurs at paygrades considerably higher.

Second, what’s being suggested here is that men should be expelled because they fail to meet up to the Church’s standards of orthodoxy concerning the issue of life. You state that, no it's not that they're being insufficiently Catholic, but that they're "reject[ing] the organization's stated ideals."

But that's completely disingenuous. They are our stated ideals precisely because they are Church teaching. They are our stated ideals precisely because they are directly Catholic moral teaching. The only reason the rejection of these ideals by these men matters is because they are matters of Catholic moral teaching.

And yet, these are men who are still permitted by their local pastors and bishops to approach the Blessed Sacrament.

To suggest that the Knights should expel these men is to suggest that the Knights should independently judge whether these men are “practical Catholics,” coming to different conclusions than their pastors and bishops.

“These sixteen traitorous Knights will be lucky if their chapter has as cowardly a Grand Knight. So much for the ideals of knighthood.”

You insult Grand Knights generally out of what I assume is ignorance - a lack of knowledge - than out of a lack of charity. Grand Knights don’t have the authority to expel members.

The ideals of knighthood include respect for hierarchical authority, especially that of the Holy Catholic Church. In spiritual matters, we defer to the hierarchy.

Clearly, whether or not a Catholic man supports the cause for life is a spiritual matter. In this case, it’s a spiritual matter that’s entwined in political issues.

Of course, we could pretend that we’re NOT judging the Catholicity of these men, that these are NOT issues of spiritual matters. We could pretend that this is just about politics.

In fact, that’s how these politicians would like folks to see it - that they are “personally pro-life,” but this is just politics. And, they may even claim to believe and accept the principles that guide the Supreme Council on these issues. They would say that they merely disagree as to how to best achieve those principles.

If we pretend, as you wish, that we’re not involved in judging whether a man is adhering to Catholic moral teaching, then we could judge him strictly on his politics.

Except that that isn’t permitted in the Knights of Columbus. No Knight may judge another Knight, as a Knight, based on his politics.

And it's a good thing that we are obligated to conform to that principle. There would be very little by way of active Council life if partisan politics were permitted to enter the Council.

Again, folks here want the Knights to do the job of the priests and bishops. The priests and bishops refuse to discipline these men for their actions. Okay, then, what's the next best thing? Well, how about throw them out of the Knights of Columbus? We can't get the priests and bishops to discipline these men, maybe we can shame or otherwise coerce the Knights into doing the work that the priests and bishops just won't do.

But, if the Knights were stupid enough to take on that task, we would quickly lose our own fidelity to the Catholic Church, and we would destroy the Order, as well.

sitetest

Well, first, Grand Knights don’t have the capacity to expel members.

I would suspect that has something to do with Grand Knights like you who are so cowardly they wouldn't want that authority.

Second, what’s being suggested here is that men should be expelled because they fail to meet up to the Church’s standards of orthodoxy concerning the issue of life.

No. They deliberately and scandalously failed to meet the Order's standards of behavior.

But that's completely disingenuous.

Kettle...black

They are our stated ideals precisely because they are Church teaching.

Your stated origin of the standards in no way excuses the Order and their chapter for failing to maintain those standards.

They are our stated ideals precisely because they are directly Catholic moral teaching.

Repeating, your stated origin of the standards in no way excuses the Order and their chapter for failing to maintain those standards.

The only reason the rejection of these ideals by these men matters is because they are matters of Catholic moral teaching.

It is a scandal for the Church that they call themselves Catholic. It is a scandal, particular for cowardly Grand Knights, that they can still call themselves Knights.

And yet, these are men who are still permitted by their local pastors and bishops to approach the Blessed Sacrament.

You keep blaming the Church for not acting first. Sadly, these repeated attempts to redirect blame is even more cowardly.

To suggest that the Knights should expel these men is to suggest that the Knights should independently judge whether these men are “practical Catholics,”

Not at all. To suggest that the Knights should expel these men is to suggest that the Knights should independently judge whether these men are worthy Knights. Based upon what you have written here, I doubt you could understand.

You insult Grand Knights generally...

No I don't. Just their Grand Knights, and those like you.

Grand Knights don’t have the authority to expel members.

Again, I would suspect that has something to do with Grand Knights who exhibit the same cowardice you have here.

The ideals of knighthood include respect for hierarchical authority, especially that of the Holy Catholic Church. In spiritual matters, we defer to the hierarchy.

This is totally irrelevant to the Order's duty to insure that its members uphold its ideals. You keep trying to pass the buck.

Clearly, whether or not a Catholic man supports the cause for life is a spiritual matter.

Spoken EXACTLY like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, and just as obviously untrue as when they are the ones mumbling it.

Of course, we could pretend that we’re NOT judging the Catholicity of these men, that these are NOT issues of spiritual matters.

It has nothing to do with their Catholicity.

We could pretend that this is just about politics.

We don't need to. Despite your desperate equivocation, this matter is simply about the standards of the Order and the failure of its leaders to enforce them.

In fact, that’s how these politicians would like folks to see it

Maybe, but that's definitely how cowardly Grand Knights would like to see it.

And, they may even claim to believe and accept the principles that guide the Supreme Council on these issues.

This issue need not go beyond the local chapter level. Let these cretins appeal their expulsions to the Supreme Council if they are that shameless.

They would say that they merely disagree as to how to best achieve those principles.

That would only work if the members of the Supreme Council were as cowardly as your writings here.

If we pretend, as you wish, that we’re not involved in judging whether a man is adhering to Catholic moral teaching, then we could judge him strictly on his politics.

Again, you pathetically and falsely attempt to pass the buck off on the clergy.

Except that that isn’t permitted in the Knights of Columbus. No Knight may judge another Knight, as a Knight, based on his politics.

This isn't about religion or politics, just the standards of the Order. Any Knight who wasn't a coward could see this.

And it's a good thing that we are obligated to conform to that principle.

If it is in fact a principle, it would only be good for Grand Knights as cowardly as you purport to be.

There would be very little by way of active Council life if partisan politics were permitted to enter the Council.

We would certainly have fewer members like you if we upheld the standards for the Order.

Again, folks here want the Knights to do the job of the priests and bishops.

No, it just the cowardly Grand Knight like you who want the priests and bishops to do your job for you.

The priests and bishops refuse to discipline these men for their actions.

So would you. You sound like a hypocrite to me.

Okay, then, what's the next best thing?

You mean the second best thing to cowardly Grand Knights like you doing their job? Probably their resigning their leadership positions.

Well, how about throw them out of the Knights of Columbus?

You mean the cowardly Grand Knights like you? That would certainly be a start.

We can't get the priests and bishops to discipline these men, maybe we can shame or otherwise coerce the Knights into doing the work that the priests and bishops just won't do.

It they are anything like you, I'm sure that they are too cowardly for shame to be effective.

But, if the Knights were stupid enough to take on that task, we would quickly lose our own fidelity to the Catholic Church, and we would destroy the Order, as well.

If the Order's leadership is as cowardly and pathetic as you seem to be, the Order is already totally destroyed.

In that your last post is little more than a long-running insult of the Knights of Columbus, Grand Knights generally, and me, personally,

My contempt has been limited primarily to these sleazy politicians and you for your pathetic defense of their continued membership in the Order.

I think I’ll refrain from further posting to you.

Given your professed cowardice in the face of any confrontation, this would certainly be in character for you.

Please don’t post to me again.

What a cowardly attempt at getting the last word, I have a right to reply if you post to me. Slink away if you want.

It's too bad you can't have this discussion without offering repeated insults that display your lack of knowledge about the subject about which you speak.

You continue to shirk any form of accountability for your alleged leadership position and instead cowardly try to fluff off responsibility on the clergy. It’s the same “not my job” attitude that led a few pathetic bishops to move pedophile priests to unsuspecting parishes in order to avoid confrontation rather than fire them and cooperate with their prosecutions. It’s clear that my attempts and other attempts on this thread to shame you into any sort of admission of personal responsibility. It is impossible to shame someone without honor. You are a disgrace to the Order.

Dear markomalley,

We had our Council meeting last night, and I brought this topic up with some of the men at the meeting. These include a few Past Grand Knights, a couple of Former District Deputies, a couple of Past Faithful Navigators, and our current District Warden, as well as regular members.

Everyone pretty much agreed that it was terrible that these folks in Massachusetts voted as they did. Most thought that their priests or bishops should publicly discipline these guys.

None thought it was appropriate that the Knights of Columbus should suspend or expel these men based on their votes in the legislature.

Without prompting, several men made the point that it seems that folks want to push the job of the bishops and priests onto the Knights. Several also made the point that this would be an inappropriate role for laypeople.

None made a distinction between “bringing public scandal upon the organization” and judging Catholicity.

We’re having our Council Installation on Sunday. I’ll see some higher State Officers, as well as other Grand Knights, Faithful Navigators, District Deputies, and an array of Pasts and Formers. I plan to ask the opinion of as many men as I can, and will let you know what I find.

Once I do, I’ll try to give a better explanation of why I believe that the structure, the organization, and the Catholicity of the Knights militates against the Order directly acting against Knights in these sorts of situations.

However, part of it comes down to this: the Knights is a fraternal, service organization for Catholic men. It isn’t, and was never envisioned, as an enforcer, or even an educator of Church teaching. Our charism don’t include Church governance or catechesis (not that some catechesis doesn’t happen informally). The Order looks to the competent enforcement authority of the Church, and relies on it. When the hierarchs of the Church fall down in their job (and in my opinion, they most certainly have done just that), the Order suffers in that it’s possible that we may have members who don’t really belong in our Order.

But that doesn’t mean that we can go out and “do it yourself” for the role that the hierarchy rightly should play.

sitetest

Dear markomalley,

No problem. I’m asking as much for myself as for anyone else. I have my view of it, and you have a significantly different view of it.

So, I thought I’d ask a bunch of folks heavily involved in the Knights - a diverse group - and see what folks think. Maybe I’m wrong! Maybe there would be a way to do this! I can’t see it, but heck, folks who have been Knights longer than me, or who have risen higher than me, may have insights that I don’t.

I’ll be taking to a Past State Deputy, someone who is aggressively pro-life and very much opposed to the culture of the current era. He’s a real impassioned firebrand, especially about this constellation of issues, and quite unafraid to create trouble and controversy. It was a real treat to watch how he shook things up during his two-year term. LOL. I think he actually accomplished a few things.

But if anyone in the upper echelons of our State Council might take your view of things, it would be him.

Perhaps he might persuade me of a different viewpoint.

Failing that, he may be better able to explain to me what I mostly just feel in my gut - which is that it would be inappropriate to suspend or expel Knights under these circumstances.

I will get back to you next week, to tell you what I’ve learned.

sitetest

OK.

Look, the only thing that really concerns me here is that we have a situation where, on one hand, these people in public life (i.e., politics) are members of an organization, such as KofC, and use that affinity to garner votes from other folks who are also in KofC or who are sympathetic to the aims of KofC (”Well, gee, Mabel. Joe Blow is in the Knights...so he’s got to be a solid Catholic. That’s good enough for my vote!”). They then turn around and vote with their political caucus...including on a life issue (abortion) or a family issue (gay marriage, etc.)...they then go back to the constituency and say “I’m a member of K of C!”

Imagine this analog: a guy gets recruited while in college. He finishes up his school, goes to med school, and gets licensed as a gynecologist. He then opens up a chain of abortion mills. All the time he stays a member. He speaks in front of pro-abortion groups. He lists K of C in his bio for whatever reason. He has a K of C license plate on his car.

Now what’s a bystander going to think? Maybe that K of C is not nearly as serious about being pro-life as they claim to be? And what’s the message to the membership? That it’s OK to be pro-abort and a Knight? That it’s OK to be pro-gay and a Knight?

That’s the problem with public scandal. It’s not about the individual Knight who’s in public life. It’s about the impact on the organization and the impact on the other members within that organization.

As regards bishops disciplining their flock:

Here’s one point to consider: Canon 1398 states that the penalty for abortion is latae sententiae excommunication. That is also the penalty for apostacy, heresy, and schism. The bishop doesn’t need to do anything regarding those cases, as they are latae sententiae.

Also, Canon 1318 states: “A legislator is not to threaten latae sententiae penalties except possibly for certain singularly malicious delicts which either can result in graver scandal or cannot be punished effectively by ferendae sententiae penalties...”

And Canon 1393 states: “A person who violates obligations imposed by a penalty can be punished with a just penalty.”

Those two canons have a fairly profound effect on tempering the bishops, as it could be perceived that the only way that they could lawfully penalize one of these political folks who vote pro-abort is through an ecclesial trial.

I’m not trying to make an excuse for a wimp bishop...but I don’t think it’s quite as simple as we laypeople sometimes perceive it to be.

The above is my attitude toward the subject. Not just as pertains to the knights, but to any organization. I realize that I’m in the minority, and I am not in the hierarchy at all, so it’s not my place to try to convince them. I either need to adapt, I need to suck it up and keep my mouth shut, or I need to turn in my membership card. One of the three.

Dear markomalley,

Here’s the problem with your analogy. An abortionist directly incurs the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae. A man admits he performs abortions, the world knows he’s excommunicated. It’s specifically denoted in Canon Law. No fuss, no muss, no guesswork.

One hopes that no one will wittingly give him the Blessed Sacrament should he actually go to Mass and go to receive Communion. I’ve never heard of an abortionist actually going to Mass, so I can’t say what would likely happen based on past history.

However, there’s little to obfuscate. It’s right there in Canon Law.

Thus, there really isn’t any judgment to make in the case of such a man. It’s easy enough to say that a man who performs abortions is clearly not a “practical Catholic in communion with the pope,” since it’s clear that he’s excommunicated.

Unfortunately, Canon Law doesn’t spell out so clearly who else might be excommunicated latae sententiae. Heretics and apostates? Well, who is a heretic or an apostate? I assume we mean formal heretics, not material heretics, right? I mean, heck, most of us get some point of Catholic teaching a little mixed up here or there. Ask me too closely about all those mono-heresies and I’ll have to retreat to my theology books before I give you an answer. For most of us, if you probe too deeply, you’ll get us to wander into material heresy most days.

But most of us are more than happy to be corrected when we get a little mixed up here and there, or even when we get pretty mixed up here and there.

The thing is, the determination of who is a formal heretic is INHERENTLY a task of the hierarcy.

I’ve known many Knights in my life whose theology was off-the-mark in some way or other, and in matters closer to the root of our Faith than the matters of the culture of life.

But even as Grand Knight, I had no authority or office to declare anyone a formal heretic, not even when they persisted arguing ideas that were clearly heretical.

I knew a guy I used to bowl with who denied the Real Presence, among other things. I mean, my gosh! That’s pretty basic! He claimed that Vatican II had done away with all that transubstantiation stuff, etc.

I was Grand Knight at the time. Should I have moved to suspend/revoke this fellow’s membership in the Order? Should I have brought this to the attention of my District Deputy, called the State Deputy (if you want to suspend or revoke membership, the State Deputy has to be involved)?

He publicly proclaimed heresy. Another fellow disputed with him, and tried to correct him in his erroneous belief. He gave all outward appearance to reject true teaching. Obstinate heresy! Formal heretic!

Well, I didn’t.

It just wasn’t my place. Our Council Chaplain, who was also the pastor of our parish, knew the guy - he was a hard worker in our parish - and knew his deficiencies in theology. What transpired between our priest and the man - I’ll call him “John” - is beyond my knowledge. I knew that they were close, and that John confided in our priest. I don’t know what passed between them.

NOT MY BUSINESS.

All I know is that my pastor assured me that John was all right, and I should have no qualms about his Catholicity.

And we all continued to work side-by-side, and got lots of good stuff done for our parish.

A few years later, we were all sitting around the church hall after a meeting one night, drinking beer. We were just shooting the breeze, and the subject of Catholic education came up. John spoke and said something to the effect of, “Yeah, a lot of you guys are really lucky that you got a good Catholic education. Growing up, I didn’t get a good Catholic education. But I learn a lot from you guys, I’ve learned some things being a Knight with you guys that I didn’t really know before. I’m a better Catholic for it.”

He then specifically mentioned the doctrine of the Real Presence. Although the night John was arguing at the bowling alley with the other fellow, John seemed adamant in holding heretical beliefs, the other fellow’s words appeared to have sunk in. Perhaps John privately discussed the matter with our priest, and dociley accepted correction from him. I don't really know. IT WASN'T MY BUSINESS. It did become clear, however, that although he appeared to persist in heresy, his argument that night had worked to change his belief, and to belief a very central, basic tenet of Catholicism.

But we had no way to know that, until John volunteered years later that he’d abandoned heretical belief.

Shortly after, John was diagnosed with cancer, and was dead in four months.

Markomalley, I cannot tell you what an impression this made on me. Clearly, this man gave the appearance of being a very poor Catholic, even of possibly being a formal heretic.

Yet, it was his participation in the Knights that made him a better Catholic. Perhaps, in some way, it was his participation in the Knights that helped to prepare him for his own death. I’ll never forget his death notice, markomalley. It mentioned that immediately before he died, he received the Blessed Sacrament from his priest, and said, “fortified by the Sacraments, he died.”

I know that at his death, he knew precisely Who it was that he received.

sitetest

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.