of Knights and bishops... and getting rooked

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | May 20, 2010

When I think of knights, I think of lances and armor, jousting and swordplay. I think of heroic quests, and yes, even of crusades.

Or else I think of the Knights of Columbus. That's a different matter altogether, unfortunately. 

Knights are--or should be--men oriented toward a mission, and there is no mission more noble than the defense of innocent people who cannot defend themselves. In contemporary American society the defense of human life--the protection of the unborn--is a quest tailor-made for men with strong sense of Christian mission and chivalry.

The Knights of Columbus are, and always have been, strongly supportive of the right to life in their public statements. So it has long been a mystery to me why the K of C allows some politicians to continue their membership even while those politicians promote legalized abortion: in flagrant defiance of the teachings of their Church and the public statements of their fraternity.

Is it possible to be a Catholic "knight" who favors not the protection, but the extermination of the helpless unborn? Evidently, yes.

The national directive from K of C leadership, warning local councils that they cannot suspend the membership of abortion supporters, is couched in neutral language, suggesting that any such move to oust a member must be approved at the very top levels of the fraternal order. But are the top leaders of the K of C ready to take action? To the best of my knowledge they have never yet ousted a member because of his support for abortion. If the local councils are forbidden to act, and the national leadership is unwilling to act, then the disgrace will continue: prominent men who support the killing of the unborn will be allowed to parade around in the guise of Catholic knighthood.

In his attempt to justify this policy of inaction, Supreme Advocate John Marrella writes: "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." [The full text of the Marrella letter to the Massachusetts K of C leadership can be found below.]

Well, yes. It would be "highly inappropriate" for the Knights of Columbus to excommunicate a member. It would also be impossible.

The Knights do not have the authority to deprive their members of the sacraments, nor is anyone suggesting that they should do so. What some K of C members do suggest is that pro-abortion politicians should be deprived of the privileges of membership in a private fraternal organization. 

The Knights should look to their bishops for leadership on questions of faith and morals. But on questions of practical politics--the realm of the laity--the Knights should set their own course. Let the bishops decide whether an individual Catholic has separated himself from the Church. But the Knights can decide for themselves whether a man has separated himself from their fraternity.

The Knights set their own standards for membership. Some members have been removed from the rolls for failure to pay their dues; some have been ejected because they engaged in public attacks on the order. Are these more serious offenses than support for abortion? 

If the Knights of Columbus are engaged in mounting a serious crusade--not merely in putting together a congenial social network or a successful insurance business--they must adopt some serious internal discipline. It's impossible to fight a crusade effectively as long as enemies are welcome within your own ranks.

From time to time a friend asks me why I've never expressed interest in joining the K of C. Now you know why. Let me know when they get serious.

NOTE #1: In response to these comments, the Knights of Columbus have issued a statement that can be found here.

NOTE #2: The following is the full text of a letter from the Supreme Advocate of the Knights of Columbus, John A. Marrella, responding to a question from the group's state leadership in Massachusetts about the suitability of a resolution that had been proposed for discussion at the state convention, calling for suspension of those members who are engaged in public support for legal abortion.

You have asked our opinion with respect to a proposed resolution calling on the State Deputy to summarily suspend certain public figures who are members of the Knights of Columbus and who have publicly taken positions contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church.  For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that the proposed resolution would be imprudent and contrary to the policy of the Knights of Columbus Supreme Council.

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.  We further recognize that such conduct may cause confusion in that, among other things, it contradicts the Catholic identity and mission of the Order.  We also recognize that such conduct can be the source of internal dissension within councils and among members.  

We understand that some subordinate councils have the impulse to address real or perceived scandal caused by members who are public figures.  Because of the public stature of such members, however, decisions to summarily suspend the member necessarily affect the entire Order.  For this reason, 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, which will consider the prudence of addressing the conduct of the public figure in light of the overall good of the Order.

The reason for this is straightforward.  Any action by a state council likely will be understood by the public as an action of the Supreme Council on behalf of the entire Order.  Of course, subordinate councils, including state councils, do no have the authority to speak on behalf of the entire Order with respect to such matters.  To the extent that any subordinate council addresses the public acts of particular public figures, they may do so only at the express direction of and in concert with the Supreme Board of Directors, only in the rarest of circumstances, and only after careful consideration of all possible ramifications relating to the good of the Order.

Finally, the Order must be sensitive to the role of the bishops, with whom we stand in solidarity.  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.

We thank you for bringing this important matter to our attention.  Please do not hesitate to contact us if you wish to discuss this matter further.

Sincerely and fraternally,

John A. Marrella

Supreme Advocate and General Counsel