(Catholic World News) The leadership of the Knights of Columbus (K of C) has forbidden local councils to take any action against members of the Catholic fraternal organization who support legalized abortion or same-sex marriage. A Massachusetts K of C member had proposed a resolution, to be taken up by the group’s state convention, calling for the suspension of membership of any politician who gave public support to abortion and same-sex marriage. That resolution was declared inappropriate by the Supreme Advocate of the K of C, John Marrella.In a letter to the Massachusetts K of C leadership, Marrella declared that “a subordinate council may not impose fraternal discipline with respect to a public figure’s official actions on matters pertaining to faith and morals. Rather, any such discipline must be made by or at the direction of the Supreme Board of Directors.”“We recognize that some of our members who are public figures may use their public position to advocate or support policy positions that are contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church on matters of faith and morals,” Marrella conceded in his letter. He went on to admit that such public advocacy “contradicts the Catholic identity and mission of the Order.”Nevertheless, the top legal official of the K of C said that any action taken against K of C members who are public figures would “necessarily affect the entire Order.” For that reason, he said, any disciplinary action should be taken by the group’s top leadership.Marrella went on to say that the K of C would not go further than the American bishops in taking public action against members whose public stands conflict with Church moral teachings. “If the public figure’s bishop has not excommunicated him for his public positions on issues relating to matters of faith and morals, it would be highly inappropriate for the Knights of Columbus to do so,” he wrote.
Now I realize my post title is over the top, but this is certainly a decision Moloch would be down with.
Too bad, I expect better from the K of C. Actually it affects more than the entire order, but all of those scandalized by this action, or inaction to be exact. The example that it would be inappropriate to take action on someone only if they are excommunicated by their bishop is to basically say they will do nothing. What aspect of Catholic Moral Theology says a private group can only expel a member if they are excommunicated? The K of C has their own laws which they are quite able to enforce and certainly would not have to be parallel actions with their bishop. They don’t require the local bishop to give permission for a new member to enter or for that matter for a member to be expelled or suspended. So by this they are basically saying that if a member stopped paying their dues they could get suspended or expelled (which I am confident would happend), but if they support the murder of the unborn then no action will be taken.
For example by their own rules.
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.)
1. Who shall fail to remain a practical Catholic in union with the Holy See
Certainly a member who supports abortion or other intrinsic evils is not in union with the Holy See and are not a practical Catholic – but a practical heretic. They could certainly give such a member a trial or a hearing to discern the truth as to what that member supports before suspending or expelling them. It seems to me though that a Catholic politician who has voted for intrinsic evils has a record as evidence that they are not in union with the Holy See. I would think that every effort should be made to persuade such a member, but if they remain defiant to the Magisterial teaching of the Church they are not a fitting member of the K of C and would give scandal if they are allowed to remain a member. It is a spiritual work of mercy to rebuke a sinner and it is a sin of omission to do nothing.
Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson, who from all that I know is a very good man, must take action on this and not let it stand.
Sante Pater
28 comments
Well, I’m sad to hear that. My beloved grandfather and uncle were both Knights and were proud to be so. I’ve been trying to convince my husband to be one. After reading this I have lost a bit of my enthusiasm.
This issue would have more oomph if a particular council actually would take the necessary action instead of just talking about it. Rather than introduce a resolution to the state, the council of the member in question needs to boot him out according to the by-laws already in effect. Then, if the individual protests, the issue could go up the chain of command.
Thats the fastest road to irrelevancy. What are they thinking?
My connection with the K of C was very brief — when I noticed the blindfolds while awaiting initiation I left. I saw (so to speak) no Catholic purpose in submitting myself to such silliness.
The Knights are a excellent group of men doing the Lords will most of the time. Those who do not live up to Catholic faith should be tossed from Knights and the Catholic church. Bishops you need to get your act together and lead!
What in God’s green earth are you talking about? The Supreme Advocate’s letter is a decision of an administrative nature outlining the level of organization at which disciplinary matters are to be handled. He says disciplinary matters of this type are to be handled by the Supreme Council, not by local councils. Local councils have quite limited powers to expel or suspend members in any case, so it is not inconsistent to reserve these particular cases to Supreme. Your discussion of these events is a gross mischaracterization. It is akin to saying that because adjudication of crimes of solicitation in the confessional are reserved to the Holy See that the Church is not concerned with whether people perpetrate such crimes. I expect more from this site.
Does Section 162 state that only the Supreme Council has the authority to kick the man out? My opinion is that the Priest should speak with the wayward Catholic first, if he continues to be against the Church’s teaching then taking away his K of C membership is the least of the penalties that could be invoked. Unless the Supreme Council is the only authority to take this action then the local council should be able to make a stand. In order to be a member of the K of C’s you must be a practicing Catholic in good standing, if you support abortion, etc. you should go find another religion that condones the killing of innocent children.
I thought about joining, but this makes me rethink.
Marrella went on to say that the K of C would not go further than the American bishops
And if the bishops were shepherd of heroic virtue, that would be just fine. But the reality is that the bishops are timid, diffident, and confused. They look to the laity for cover — especially to prominent and influential laity. The bishops are unable to ask for this help and the KoC are somehow unable to see this and take the initiative. Or else they really ARE the KoM.
Our Bishops let us down, our priests are falling away and now the Knights follow
I sent a letter to the SK Carl Anderson for clarification from the statement of J. Marrella. If I don’t get any very good explanation, I will resign as a chaplain to our local KofC council and relinquishing my lifetime membership
relinquish not relinquishing
As a life member of the KofC, this makes me most unhappy. I’ve seen local KofC councils take stronger action against a member for nothing more than that the local pastor doesn’t like him. The order’s magazine every month has strong anti abortion articles.
can you say scandle?
Jeff writes: Too bad, I expect better from the K of C.
How can you expect the Knights to succeed where the bishops have failed? Their Supreme Chaplain, Archbishop William Lori, has approved the administration of Plan-B to rape victims in Catholic hospitals. One of their most important founding principles is unity with the bishops.
The question to ask is what will the top Knight councils do if the local councils expel someone who has been denied communion by their local Bishop. Will the top Knights councils allow a local council to act in solidarity with the local bishop? I would guess yes but time will tell.
Jeff wrote: So by this they are basically saying that if a member stopped paying their dues they could get suspended or expelled (which I am confident would happend)
Not so, the Supreme Council displays great reluctance to have anyone leave the order for any reason. They have even rejected requests from knights to leave the order because the knights used a “form letter” requesting to leave. Supreme Council insisted that the request be composed by the knight wishing to leave.
If pro-life Catholics want to people charge ahead without support from the bishops, they need to ask themselves the same question they ask the liberal Catholics: “why bother being Catholic if you are going to ignore the Magisterium”?
I appreciate what the national KofC stands for but the local chapters are nothing more than drinking clubs for their members. And I’m not surprised by this. Our local chapters has a man who is still married to his wife and living in sin with another woman. These two act as a couple and are visible in their Church and yet they do nothing but cause scandal by having this man as a member.
There is a great battle going on in our world and it’s not a military battle. Public officials that are supposedly Catholic and support abortion should not only be admonished and turned away from receiving the Host, their K of C membership should be rescinded until they come back to the light.
Honestly, folks… the inquisition is so 15th century.
It’s a fraternal order, – not a daily tribunal or a preview of the Judgment Day.
It isn’t about who’s-in, who’s-out. It’s about working with other Knights, and being impacted by good examples.
Because of this, I’ve seen so many friends come closer to the faith through the Knights.
In my experience, the Knights are more pro-life, more supportive of Catholic values than anyone else.
Is it really a scandal for the Knights to a) say that in the interest of unity, charity and fraternity — their principles — the removal of controversial public figures must be made prudently at the highest level of authority and b) stand with their local bishops?
I’m so tired of hearing arguments that it’s time to be “more Catholic” than the bishops and make their pastoral decisions for them. I’m glad the Knights of Columbus choose to be, in the words of Cardinal George’s new book, “simply Catholic,” 100% pro-life and in unity with the Church.
How many of us know priests/bishops who are
knights? How would all of that work with what
is going on here?
The Masonknights can do whatever they wish.
When the group opened its doors to those Catholics that joined the Freeemasons, it automatically excommunicated itself.
They need to go the way of the Charismatics and the Cursillistas.
*
I’ve forwarded this news around to the men in our local council – and I’ll be watching to see what develops from it. I may have to choose Fr Gary V’s response and relinquish membership.
I have been a member of the Knights less than a year and claim no expertise about the organization, but I would offer a few reflections.
Some of the rituals are silly.
I belong to a new council that does not have and has no desire to have a private club/bar. The comment about it being nothing but a drinking club is uncharitable. Some councils may have lost their charitable focus but there is no denying that parishes that have councils benefit greatly from the work the Knights do directly or indirectly for them.
The problem with members who are pro- abortion politicians is that they ignore the magisterium. Are the Knights as a whole now to be condemned because they defer to members of the magisterium?
My father (rest in peace) returned to the Church 10 years before he died, and he joined the K of C, but then resigned after seeing that some of their members are pro choice, making apologetics for abortion. This is how the Church loses faithful Catholics: By “tolerating” those who hold heretical (yes, I’m using that word) beliefs and doctrines that are contrary to the Gospel.
Good bye, good men, indeed.
Well, it really is a council by council thing. Our KoC council is about as pro-life as you can get. They close each meeting with a prayer to end abortion.
Where was this other council, in Massachussettes? Why am I not surprised.
For everyone who thinks that the KofC is reserving tossing members for the leadership, reread the article. They have said that they won’t toss members because the bishops won’t excommunicate them. A cop out if I ever saw one.
I’m not renewing my membership.
Speaking of Moloch…where has he been hiding? Is he going to blogfade after all? 🙂