“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