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.

Congratulations on your installation and good luck for this fraternal year!

(BTW, I'm just a schmuck in my council. Do quite a few fundraisers. Every rare now and again go to a social function. Usually don't do the meetings)

Here's a couple of things that I dug up for your consideration:

The Grand Knight's Handbook states, on page 60-61,

WITHDRAWAL — The withdrawal transaction cannot be reported by using the Form #100. Rather, a personal signed communication from the member requesting withdrawal (resignation) is required to be sent to the council or assembly and forwarded to the Supreme Council office. A member can resign whether he is current in dues or in arrears. The only stipulation is that he must be eligible for re-entry as of the date he files his letter of withdrawal with the council or assembly. Withdrawal is not an option for a felon, nonpractical Catholic, or someone who has been suspended or expelled under Section 162 of the Order’s Laws. Those members who apply for and are granted a withdrawal do not maintain continuous membership. The membership record will reflect a break in service.

Source: Knights of Columbus website

The pamphlet, "These Men They Call Knights" states the following:

Misconduct and Nonfeasance Of Members and Officers
Sec. 162. Any member of the Order who after trial, excepting where it is provided that no trial shall be had, shall be found guilty of the conduct specified in the subdivisions following shall be fined, suspended or expelled as set forth therein, to wit: (The reader is referred to the "Charter, Constitution, Laws" for the specific misconducts specified by Sec. 162.)
Ipso Facto Forfeiture - Members
Sec. 168. Any member of this Order shall, ipso facto, forfeit his membership in the Order--
Failure to Remain a Practical Catholic
1. Who shall fail to remain a practical Catholic in union with the Holy See.
Failure to Pay Contributions or Assessments
2. Who fails to pay any per capita or special assessment levied by the Supreme Council or Board of Directors within thirty days from the date of mailing or transmitting the n6tice for such assessment by the Financial Secretary of his council.
Failure to Pay Dues
3. Who shall fail to pay his dues to his council within three months after the same are levied and payable (other than assessments levied by the Supreme Council, Board of Directors or for death benefit assessments or contributions); or
Conviction of a Felony
6. Who is convicted of a felony by a court of competent authority.
Special Consideration Granted
7. When an insurance membership of two or more years standing shall be forfeited on any account…
Effect of Suspension of Members
Sec. 169. (a) No suspended member, nor his administrators, executors or beneficiaries, during the time of such suspension and until reinstatement, shall have any claim of any description whatever against the council, or the Order, nor shall he be admitted to meetings of the council, or be entitled to any of the privileges of membership whatever until reinstated according to law, provided that, if the member has been an insurance member, and is entitled to continuance of his insurance under the automatic assessment or contribution loan provisions or under the terms of any nonforfeiture option set forth in his insurance certificate, such expulsion, suspension or forfeiture of membership shall not terminate his insurance unto the expiration of the period during which it is thus continued in force and further provided that unless the certificate is being kept in force because of the election of an option providing for paid-up insurance in a reduced amount or extended term insurance the insurance may be continued in force by cash payment of any required assessments or contributions and/or automatic per capita taxes where applicable. While the insurance is thus continued, the member shall be classed as an "inactive insurance member" as defined in Section 69.
(b) Any member who shall incur the penalty of explusion for any reason whatever, or who shall incur the penalty of forfeiture of membership for the reasons set forth in subdivision 6 of Section 168, shall never again be eligible to membership in the Order without the approval of the Board of Directors, upon petition and for cause shown.
Right to Trial
Sec. 170. Members of the Order shall not be fined, suspended for a fixed term, expelled or removed from office without trial, as hereinafter provided, except -
1.In all cases specified by the laws and rules of the Order, as laid down for the government of councils and members where it is or shall be decreed that for any act done or omitted to be done by a member he shall ipso facto forfeit his membership.
2.In all cases, as by law provided, where members may be summarily suspended by the Board of Directors, Supreme Knight, or state, district or territorial deputies.

Source: numerous council websites. This one taken from the Council 10563 (Seton Hall) site.

The Charter, Constitution, and Laws are not available online (my bad for not having my own copy), but I was able to find the following online:

Sec 162. Misconduct and Nonfeasance of Members and Officers
Any member of the Order who after trial, excepting where it is provided that no trial shall be had, shall be found guilty of the conduct specified in the subdivisions following shall be fined, suspended, or expelled as set forth therein, to wit: revealing work, misappropriation of funds, divulging cause of rejection, insubordination, giving scandal, refusal to testify, publishing detrimental matter, using the name of the Order, compensation of members of athletic teams, alcoholic excesses, printing or altering membership card, false charges, false statements, slander, failure to comply with laws, misfeasance or nonfeasance, and other causes …

Source: the Texas State Council's Education Director's website (a PowerPoint training class for District Deputies).

Perhaps if you have a printed copy you could verify the above for me.

As to the Catholicity of a member, I understand that this would involve the Chaplain. I am wondering what sort of communication you have with your chaplain so that he could "make the call," when appropriate. "Making the call" could include counsel, reproof, fraternal correction, or advising you, the Grand Knight, that the member in question can no longer be considered a 'practical Catholic.' (For example, if you have a Knight who remarries, you might not know if that Knight married in the Church or not...but the Chaplain would. Will he communicate that fact to you? If you are aware that a Knight is acting against the teachings of the Church, are you (privately) communicating that to the Chaplain?) This Catholicity criterion is only going to work if you have good communication going.

But, you'll note from what I posted, merely not paying dues and not getting a ruling about Catholicity are not the only two ways that a member can be disciplined. Section 162, it seems to me, would apply in a number of cases. One of the criteria therein is 'scandal.' Are these members bringing scandal upon the Order? Section 162 is a separate criterion from Catholicity (which is an ipso facto forfeiture of membership.

One thing on scandal. It is scandal to the Order NOT scandal to the Church. The fact that these folks voted the way they did was not scandalous, in of itself. It becomes scandalous if these folks made it publicly known that they were Knights of Columbus...driving around with a KofC License Tag on their car, wearing KofC apparel, citing KofC membership on their campaign websites, and so on, and then, while doing that, voted the way they did.

For example the Political Graveyard website lists both Biden and Dingel as members of KofC. Yet, if you go to either of their websites, they don't identify themselves as members. I would assume that they likewise would not do so on their campaign websites. In fact, the only way that I know of their membership was through the Political Graveyard. As a result, while their behavior in voting pro-abort, is objectively sinful, it is not scandalous to the KofC. (If they, in a campaign year, started advertising that they were KofC members, then their behavior would be scandalous)

Dear markomalley,

Thanks for the excellent post.

“Congratulations on your installation and good luck for this fraternal year!”

Thank you very much! Pray for me!

“(BTW, I’m just a schmuck in my council. Do quite a few fundraisers. Every rare now and again go to a social function. Usually don’t do the meetings)”

May I humbly suggest that if you already do a lot of fundraisers for your Council, you should consider offering yourself for Council leadership positions. The Order needs men like you in leadership positions.

Anyway, as you can see, formal proceedings against men happen at levels above the Council level:

“2.In all cases, as by law provided, where members may be summarily suspended by the Board of Directors, Supreme Knight, or state, district or territorial deputies.”

The lowest competent officer to suspend a member is a District Deputy. That’s the guy to whom I personally report. He’s in charge of a District of Councils, usually compromising four to six individual Councils.

“As to the Catholicity of a member, I understand that this would involve the Chaplain. I am wondering what sort of communication you have with your chaplain so that he could ‘make the call,’ when appropriate. ‘Making the call’ could include counsel, reproof, fraternal correction, or advising you, the Grand Knight, that the member in question can no longer be considered a ‘practical Catholic.”

If my Council Chaplain were to inform me that a man was no longer a practical Catholic, and that he - the Chaplain - believed that the man was no longer seeking good faith full communion with the Catholic Church, I would immediately notify my District Deputy to ask for a formal suspension. If circumstances dictated, I’d go further and ask the District Deputy to begin the process for a trial.

If the bishop of the man’s diocese were to publicly discipline the man by exclusion from the Blessed Sacrament, or interdict, or notice of excommunication, whether latae sententiae, or ferendae sententiae, I’d notify our Council Chaplain and ask the District Deputy to immediately suspend the member, at least temporarily. If the Chaplain disagreed with the bishop, I’d let them figure it out, but in all cases, I’d ultimately obey the judgments of the bishop, as expressed through the State Chaplain, as the State Chaplain is the superior of the Council Chaplain, and cannot serve without the permission and authority of the local ordinary.

But I don’t believe for a minute that the State Council would proceed with the suspension of a member for becoming a non-practicing Catholic without the specific guidance of at least the man’s Council Chaplain that the man was no longer a practicing Catholic.

“(For example, if you have a Knight who remarries, you might not know if that Knight married in the Church or not...but the Chaplain would. Will he communicate that fact to you? If you are aware that a Knight is acting against the teachings of the Church, are you (privately) communicating that to the Chaplain?) This Catholicity criterion is only going to work if you have good communication going.”

You’re absolutely right. I won’t tell you that it always works as it should. Kinda like the rest of life.

Relationships between Councils and their Chaplains vary from almost non-existent to very close. But then again, the lives of Councils vary from almost non-existent to very active and fruitful.

My own Council is going through a period of challenge where either we’re going to whither or we’re going to renew our once dynamic Council life. I’d appreciate your prayers that during my term, we manage to do the latter, rather than fall to the former.

I don’t know how it goes in every Council, but I’ll tell you my experience. We’ve had two Chaplains, both of whom have been the pastors of our local parish.

Our first pastor/Chaplain was an enthusiastic backer of the Council, and also had a pretty good knowledge of his flock. But he was a live-and-let-live kind of guy, and I’m not certain that I would have made the same pastoral judgments in all cases that I saw him make. But he knew more about circumstances than I did, and after all, it was his within his authority to make the judgments he made.

However, I had little to talk to him about in this regard. I know that we have a few men who are divorced and remarried, but as far as I know, they all received declarations of nullity for any previous marriages. We don’t have anyone who I could say is a public heretic (although I’m sure many aren’t particularly-well versed in Catholic teaching and theology).

Our current Chaplain/pastor is perhaps a little more of a stickler. As well, he takes a more detailed interest in the affairs of our Council. When I discuss various members with him - and he often grills me in detail about the members - he has a set of books with him where he’s recorded who is registered in the parish. And who is not. Who is giving regularly. And who is not. And there is other information there that he keeps to himself - as a priest is obligated to do. He views himself as the spiritual director of every Catholic in the parish. I know this because he has, ahem, informed me that he is MY spiritual director. LOL.

I think that if a man were to fall into a state of no longer being a practical Catholic, he would work long and hard with that man to bring him back to the fold before asking the Knights to act. I think that our priest would walk a thousand miles to reclaim that man for Christ and the Church before taking any formal action against the man.

But I firmly believe that at some point, he would take action.

And that is the judgment I expect from our priest, as our pastor and our Chaplain, and the judgment on which I rely.

Whether I agree with him in every decision or not.

“But, you’ll note from what I posted, merely not paying dues and not getting a ruling about Catholicity are not the only two ways that a member can be disciplined. Section 162, it seems to me, would apply in a number of cases. One of the criteria therein is ‘scandal.’ Are these members bringing scandal upon the Order? Section 162 is a separate criterion from Catholicity (which is an ipso facto forfeiture of membership.”

I understand, but in my mind - and the minds of the Knights with whom I’ve discussed this, it’s a distinction without a difference.

Why is it a scandal? Because these men are violating fundamental precepts of our Order.

Why are these particular precepts that they’re violating so fundamental to our Order? Precisely because they are irreformable Catholic moral teaching.

Only by pretending that these precepts are NOT our precepts because they are Catholic teaching could we act on their violation without the guidance of the hierarchy.

There are precepts of the Order that aren’t a matter of explicity Church teaching. For instance, I know of a case where a man was thrown out of the Order for publicly, obstinately bad-mouthing the insurance program.

State and Supreme didn’t need the input of priests to can the man. The man was lying about the good name of our insurance program, and using his membership as a Knight, attempting to bring the program into disrepute.

As caring and protecting Catholic families through our insurance company is a fundamental mission of the Order, it was easy to see why he should be thrown out.

But it certainly wasn’t a judgment on his Catholicity. I don’t know of any explicit Catholic moral teaching saying that folks have to endorse the Knights of Columbus insurance program.

The fact that the homosexual marriage issue is, at its base, a matter of explicit Catholic moral doctrine, makes it difficult for us laypersons in the Knights to deal with in the absence of direct, specific guidance from the hierarchy.

Similarly, there’s another “third rail” to this issue, and that’s its nexus with politics. Although we endorse specific social policies, and encourage legislation to achieve them, our Constitution and by-laws prevent us from engaging in “partisan politics” (plus - it would probably violate federal tax law). Are you a Fourth Degree Knight? If you are, recall what you promised.

This doesn’t make it, by itself, impossible to deal with folks like these legislators, but it makes it a good deal more difficult.

Look - I’m a pretty hardline conservative on most stuff - from foreign and military policies to taxes to social conservative stuff. But as Grand Knight, and as a long-time Council officer, I lead folks of different political persuasions. Thus, I’ve always been scrupulously careful never to make any decision that could appear to be favoring one side or another in partisan politics.

Except that at all times, we proclaim and support the culture of life.

Let me finish this overly-long post, markomalley, by suggesting to you that greater participation in your Council and the Order would improve the Order. There are men in the Order whose Catholicism is perhaps... lukewarm. There are never enough ardent Catholics in the Order.

Rather than considering leaving the Order, consider fighting to make the Order better, from the inside.

It can be done (but often the Order changes nearly as slowly as the Church - so patience IS required).

sitetest

Thanks for the detailed post.

I don’t have time to dedicate to being in the leadership functions for the next few years. (The nice thing about doing fundraisers is that I can do...if I have time. But if I don’t, then I can say “no.” If I take on a leadership role, “no” is not an option until the end of the fraternal year)

Not to say never...but not for the next couple of years.

I agree with what you’re saying as to fraternal correction. That is a must and I certainly would hope that this happens on a more-or-less typical basis. Dedicating the time to the adult catechesis (and correction is part of that) is really important. Frankly, I don’t see it...but I hope that this is due to my being in the periphery rather than it not happening.

The reason I’m so aggravated about this is that in my council we had such a legislator a few years ago. He made great hay in his election campaign about how solidly pro-life he was, how he was a solid Catholic, Knights of Columbus member, and so on. Being Maryland, he was able to vote pro-life on a lot of bills. But when one, that was actually somewhat close, came up a couple of years ago, he was one of the deciding votes. And he voted the wrong way. There were a number of members of our council who felt totally betrayed by this...and we wanted the council to let him know that we were not happy with his decision. Not a matter of suspension or expulsion, but simply a matter of providing the fraternal correction. The leadership in the council was unwilling to even consider the matter. Not because it wasn’t their place to judge the man’s Catholicity, but because they didn’t want to get involved in politics. (This is rather ironic as the Knights as an organization takes political positions on many issues, from the Pledge of Allegiance to pro-life politics to — recently — immigration) In fact, when a motion to do so was put forward, it was initially ruled out of order...but when pressed, it was shunted to the executive committee and then quashed there.

Had the GK or another leader advised me that they were taking some sort of action — talking with the person...or anything, literally ANYTHING else, I wouldn’t be as frustrated. But...they didn’t feel that they should get involved in politics. The way they put it was not as a principled stand. The way they put it appeared to be due to a lack of moral courage (I could be wrong, but that’s my perception).

Very frustrating.

So when I see this type of issue come up, I consistently go back to that experience and consider the frustration that came up from that experience.

Thought you should know why I’m as involved in this one as I am.

Dear markomalley,

Leadership - you might be surprised that there are any number of leadership positions that take minimal amounts of time. If you’re already working lots of fundraisers, you’re already committing the time. But in any event, on behalf of Grand Knights everywhere, thanks for coming out to help. If half our Knights did that, we’d get three times as much stuff done as we do.

About your experience in your Council, I’m sorry to hear that. I don’t know how the resolution was crafted, so I can’t say what I’d have done as Grand Knight.

I don’t think that as Grand Knight I’d have mentioned someone by name.

Remember that as Knights, as Councils, as an Order, we take positions on poliCIES, but not poliTICS. Thus, we can say, “It’s important that SR.989 is passed to protect unborn life.” But we can’t say, “State Sen. Hornblower voted against SR.989, and thus, he’s a bad guy!”

If I had a wayward legislator in my Council, direct fraternal correction would have occurred privately. I’d have tried to get my Chaplain involved in it, as well.

In terms of motions or resolutions in the Council, I think I’d have permitted something like this:

“Whereas the protection of unborn human beings in the State of Maryland would have been enhanced by the passage of SR.989, and

“Whereas all good Catholics in the legislature had an absolute moral obligation to uphold the Culture of Life by voting in favor of SR.989 to protect in law unborn human life, and

“Whereas in the recent vote on SR.989, several legislators who call themselves Catholic and Knights of Columbus, voted against this important legislation,

“We condemn the compromise with the Culture of Death that their votes represent."

And I’d call it a day.

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.