And that's why I suggested in the initial post that the by-laws of the organization need to be changed.
You are NOT determining the Catholicity of anybody. That is a matter of Canon Law, of which neither of you are qualified to speak (unless you are a canon lawyer).
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).
It is not a matter of judging the Catholicity of the member (thus the action would be a suspension, not a revocation, of membership). It would be a matter of bringing public scandal upon the organization and the membership. And calling a halt to that scandal.
And, by the way, this would not only apply to politicians, but to anybody who was a knight and was in public life.
Right. Since the Knights require members to be Catholic, they must hold members to that standard.
“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
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