Posted on 07/10/2007 5:36:33 AM PDT by markomalley
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.
Where is your sarcasm tag? :-)
Democrat FIRST......CAtholic SECOND!!!
As I saw on a car recently, you cannot be Catholic and Pro-Abortion at the same time.......I suppose that goes for gay-marriage, too......
This is a disgrace.
The K of C is shocked that there are many “Kennedy Catholics” in Massachusettes?
“Cafeteria Catholics” comes to mind. They pick and choose which things they want to embrace
The Knights should tear off their epaulets and break their swords.
But you can decide whether or not to kick someone out of the Knights. What's stopping you?
KofC ping!
So what the Knights are saying is if one of their members supports NAMBLA they as a group could do nothing about it. Kick them out, show some spine.
I don’t care if they were Knights of Columbus or Knights of the Round Table,the fact is they effectively took away our right to decide with a vote the fundamental definition of marriage and that totally pissed me off !!!
There is never any question that evil is in the world.
The only question is how do good men respond do it.
Ok Knights, the ball is in your court. What are you going to do?
The KoC has a real opportunity here.
They can stand up and censure/eject those “members” who obviously don’t share their values, or they can suck it up and continue to reap PR advantage by having “nominal” members who are legislators.
Belonging to the Catholic Church is a choice that involves personal commitments and beliefs. The doctrines of the Church are not optional.
Catholic politicians need to be able to reconcile their religion with their political positions. To do otherwise is blasphemy. If they are unable to reconcile their beliefs, the honest and decent thing to do would be to either leave politics or leave the Church.
The K of C should know by now that a politician is a person without convictions — especially religious. Opportunism is the name of the game.
I knew something was very different about Massachuetts since 1972 when it was the only state won by McGovern in the 1972 Presidential election.
You beat me to it. For many demo/sociaists their party is their religion and their religion is only a social club.
Hey, I’m sure this cuts both ways and it all balances out. For every Knight of Columbus who votes for abortion and/or same-sex “marriage”, there’s probably a legislator who belongs to the ACLU, NARAL, or GLAAD and votes conservative on those issues.
Yes, I’m being sarcastic. The thing is, no self-respecting conservative would stoop so low as to even pretend to agree with an abomination like NARAL to win an election. But the Knights are a wholesome, family organization, so plenty of politicians pay lip service, or even join, the group. It looks good on their resume when courting the votes of normal people.
Conservatives would feel they were crawling into the sleaziest gutter in town to join GLAAD, even as a pretence. We couldn’t live with ourself being so hypocritical. But to a “liberal” such double dealing is just a typical day’s work. It’s why politicians often turn out to be more “liberal” than expected, but never the opposite.
Here’s something from the latest Crisis Magazine about Rick Santorum discussing life (when it starts) with Barbara Boxer, an (automatically) excommunicated Catholic...
“Santorum is the one guy who is willing to pull the trigger. Other people talk about it, but he does it.” The senator projected the power of this new pro-life offensive in a 1999 Senate debate on partial-birth abortion. There he dueled with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California), creating a dramatic moment of intense political theater:
Santorum: What we are talking about here with partial birth, as the senator from California knows, is a baby is in the process of being born—
Boxer: “The process of being born.” This is why this conversation makes no sense, because to me it is obvious when a baby is born. To you it isn’t obvious.
Santorum: Maybe you can make it obvious to me. So what you are suggesting is if the baby’s foot is still inside of the mother, that baby can then still be killed.
Boxer: No, I am not suggesting that in any way!
Santorum: I am asking.
Boxer: I am absolutely not suggesting that. You asked me a question, in essence, when the baby is born.
Santorum: I am asking you again. Can you answer that?
Boxer: I will answer the question when the baby is born. The baby is born when the baby is outside the mother’s body. The baby is born.
Santorum: . . . But, again, what you are suggesting is if the baby’s toe is inside the mother, you can, in fact, kill that baby.
Boxer: Absolutely not.
Santorum: OK. So if the baby’s toe is in, you can’t kill the baby. How about if the baby’s foot is in?
Boxer: You are the one who is making these statements.
Santorum: We are trying to draw a line here.
Boxer: I am not answering these questions! I am not answering these questions.
The higher the Catholic population of a state, the higher the number of offices filled with Democrats.
Yes, it would be unreasonable to expect the Knights to expel pro abortion/homosexual advocates. It would offend too many Bishops, apparently.
Uhh...Barbara Boxer is not a Catholic.
“As for me, I think it’s about time the Knights change their by-laws for those knights who choose to enter public life!”
Sorry to disagree. Here’s the essential quote:
“’We as laymen do not presume to decide whether other laymen are Catholics or not,’ he said.”
As a past and current Grand Knight of my Council, I don’t have any interest in being the arbiter of the Catholicity of individual Catholic men in my Council.
It's an untenable situation for a layperson with absolutely no special competence in dealing with this issue.
sitetest
Let me know if you want on or off this ping list.
You are right. She is Jewish...
It's an untenable situation for a layperson with absolutely no special competence in dealing with this issue.
That's an excellent point. The only person who is really in any position to judge the "Catholicity" of a person, besides God Himself, is a member of the clergy such as a priest or bishop.
It absolutely should not be the job of a member of a local council, be it the GK, DGK, etc., to expel someone from the organization for not being a true Catholic.
“Round up the usual suspects.”
Excuse me, but there are serious consequences for those who bring shame or scandal upon The Order....and indeed by PUBLICLY flying in the face of the teachings of our Church and Our Holy Father they have done that.
But what he says is still true. A person who calls himself Catholic assumes certain obligations, just as one who gets married assume certain obligations.
All men have fall short, but they are obligated to strive toward the goal nonetheless. These pols have done something much like that of the mayor of Los Angeles. Their action a slap in the face to the leaders of the Knights.
Will the Knights have the gumption to act accordingly?
As for the KofC, as a private organization, they should have the right to remove members who don’t fit into their organizations focus. My question was regarding the statement that anyone who goes against The Church by not denouncing abortion, gay marriage or birth control, not being a Catholic anymore. If that is the litmus test, not going against ANY of the Church’s position on those issues, then there are many more Catholics to be censured or excommunicated yet.
As for the KofC, as a private organization, they should have the right to remove members who don’t fit into their organizations focus. My question was regarding the statement that anyone who goes against The Church by not denouncing abortion, gay marriage or birth control, not being a Catholic anymore. If that is the litmus test, not going against ANY of the Church’s position on those issues, then there are many more Catholics to be censured or excommunicated yet.
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.
What about someone whose behavior is very much at odds with what is expected of a knight?
Abortion and gay rights are issue of great moment. Adultery is usually a small, tawry affair which is the concern of only a small circle. In other words, a private affair. But it can become a public affair. like the affair between the mayor of Los Angeles and the TV celebrity. I must say that by not speaking out against public sinners like the Senator from Massachusetts the bishops have not done their duty to those whose sins don’t make the headlines. IMHO, so many bishops grew up in Democratic families that they don’t want to face the fact that Democrats will listen to them only when it serves the purposes of the Democratic Party. Probably at least some of these appeasers know that the Dims think of the Church as “the enemy.” They think that by supporting Democratic causes they can keep the enemy off their backs. At the same time, they don’t trust the Republican Party and for good reason.
“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.”
True, but they should be able to decide who are Knights and who are not, and should be allowed to kick out those that violate the group’s principles.
LOL! I'm shocked that THEY'RE shocked. Those folks are all over the place!
“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
Profiles in courage. This has nothing to do with being an "arbiter of the Catholicity" but rather the leader you were elected to be. These so-called Knights should be expelled from the organization for their objective and scandalous rejection of the organization's stated ideals.
It's an untenable situation for a layperson with absolutely no special competence in dealing with this issue.
These sixteen traitorous Knights will be lucky if their chapter has as cowardly a Grand Knight. So much for the ideals of knighthood.
“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
< /sarcasm >
Without giving anything away that might get ME tossed. I don’t know what degree any off these aforementioned Knights are. I know Rep. Fallon very well and we tried to get him to vote our way. This vote however would certainly keep them from advancing.
Without giving anything away that might get ME tossed. I don’t know what degree any off these aforementioned Knights are. I know Rep. Fallon very well and we tried to get him to vote our way. This vote however would certainly keep them from advancing.
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.