Knights Of Columbus Opens Their Own Cafeteria
And what an expanded menu they have
I'm a Fourth Degree member of the Knights of Columbus. I haven't been active in The Knights for years now. I've been toying with the idea of possibly getting back with the K of C... but after finding out a few things, I think I'll happily remain on the inactive file.
You see, I found at my parish a copy of Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics put out by Catholic Answers. Per usual, Catholic Answers uses only the official teaching of The Church. With that said, they've stated that the "Five Non-Negotiables for Catholic Voters" are as follows;
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual "Marriage"
Period.
Unfortunately, Knights of Columbus has taken it upon themselves to add onto the list.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that we will continue to speak out to our elected representatives about our continued opposition to the death penalty.
As I've made abundantly clear on this blog many, many times... Catholics most certainly can be in favor of the death penalty in cases of extreme gravity. That's the official teaching of The Church.
I for one, don't need the K of C telling me that "we" must continue to be opposed to something that the official teaching of the Church has always allowed.
And what an expanded menu they have
I'm a Fourth Degree member of the Knights of Columbus. I haven't been active in The Knights for years now. I've been toying with the idea of possibly getting back with the K of C... but after finding out a few things, I think I'll happily remain on the inactive file.
You see, I found at my parish a copy of Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics put out by Catholic Answers. Per usual, Catholic Answers uses only the official teaching of The Church. With that said, they've stated that the "Five Non-Negotiables for Catholic Voters" are as follows;
1. Abortion
2. Euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual "Marriage"
Period.
Unfortunately, Knights of Columbus has taken it upon themselves to add onto the list.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that we will continue to speak out to our elected representatives about our continued opposition to the death penalty.
As I've made abundantly clear on this blog many, many times... Catholics most certainly can be in favor of the death penalty in cases of extreme gravity. That's the official teaching of The Church.
I for one, don't need the K of C telling me that "we" must continue to be opposed to something that the official teaching of the Church has always allowed.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
7:19 AM
7 Comments:
Fiddle, faddle. The K of C does a lot of good for the Church. Give it a break. If you don't like their suggestions re the death penalty, don't listen to it. You cannot expect everyone to march in lock step. I, for one, think the death penalty in the US does more bad than good. It should be reserved for situations where not to impose it would lead to societal breakdown.
Anon,
Just disregard the fact that they've officially come out against something that The Church has always conditionally sanctioned, huh?
That doesn't even bother you.... just a little?
Even you yourself gave it conditional approval. But don't tell the K of C that.
C'Mon, Caveman, it's a prudential political and moral judgement. The Catechism says that places that don't have to use the death penalty, shouldn't. It doesn't say which places those are. As you know, whether or not we need the death penalty is a prudential judgement.
I happen to think we don't need it in the U.S., and I support legislative efforts to end the death penalty voluntarily. That is, I think, a reasonable political position.
The resolutions adopted by the KofC at its gatherings are informed by Catholic teaching but are not, themselves, Catholic teaching. The KofC has, corporately, chosen to oppose the death penalty in its legitimate participation in the political process in the nations where its members reside, especially the U.S.
This represents the consensus of the KofC leadership, but is subject to change, if those leaders should be persuaded to change their minds or if the leaders themselves change.
I doubt this position is the result of a unanimous vote; that is, I'm sure that some who voted on it opposed it. It is certainly not binding on the individuals in the membership. No one thinks that every Knight approves every item of the KofC political agenda.
So come on back to the Knights. We always need a few good men.
No can do, Paul. I find what the K of C did was far from being a prudential judgement. If they really wanted to be prudent, then they simply could have echoed what the CCC states, specifically, that the DP is authorized in cases of extreme gravity, etc. If the Knights would have done that, I would have been in full agreement. But they didn't.
I find it disturbing that this Catholic organization has taken it upon itself to go beyond the already narrow window that The Church has established.
In fact, if the Knights wanted to honestly vote upon a real "pro-life" issue, then why didn't they also pass a resolution supporting Victim's Rights for those who have been the target of Capital Offenders?
When it comes to the DP, The Knights of Columbus are just like the USCCB... they care more about the murderer, and seem to forget that there are those who were actually murdered.
By the way, just to toss another log on the fire... His Excellency Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn had this to say; "While the bishops argue against capital punishment, he said, Catholics may disagree without separating themselves from the Church community."
The resolution that The Knights passed doesn't even have that provision. You're either with them, or against them.
If that's the way they want it, then fine, I'm against them.
But in all sincerity, Paul, you know I value your posts (thoughts and opinions) on this blog at all times.
signed,
Your Brother Knight, the Caveman
But Caveman, don't mistake the KofC Supreme Council for the Church. The Supremes' agenda is not prescriptive for the membership. We're not asked to pledge ourselves to it. It's not the moral "teachings" of the KofC.
That's a political agenda, the work the KofC hopes to accomplish in the secular world. You and I are free to vote or even work against any part of it.
Yes, nations have a right to use the death penalty. Whether we in the USA should exercise that right is a seperate question, which I think we ought to have a debate on. Maybe your side will win. Maybe mine will.
From a purely political standpoint, even if I shared your view that the DP is an indispensible part of our criminal justice system, I'd trade it away in a heartbeat to get a ban on all abortions.
And the KofC's record on the abortion issue is pretty damn good.
No one's asking you to set aside your moral or political convictions. I -- me, your bloggin' buddy and brother knight Paul -- I am asking you to set aside a bit of your pride, show a little knightly humility, and come back to the Knights. Make common cause where you can.
It'll do your heart good.
Paul,
We all know that the K oc C is taking it's que from the USCCB on this particular topic. As much as I hate to "what if"... let me just as "what if the Knights followed the USCCB's call for 'bridges and not fences' at the US-Mexican border? "What if" the Knights adopted a 'oh what the hell.... let 'em ALL IN' resolution?
I have a funny felling I know what the response would be from bucoup members, possibly even you, would be.
Even better... what if the Knights were to donate the $335,000 to the USCCB to 'study the reasons for clerical sexual abuse'? Membership would drop like a stone, and we both know it.
If either of the above were to (inconcievably) happen, could I not say to any given Knight, "The Supremes' agenda is not prescriptive for the membership. We're not asked to pledge ourselves to it. It's not the moral "teachings" of the KofC."
That would go over like a turd in the punchbowl.
Bottom line, the Knights have stepped over the line. They took it upon themselves to go beyond the official teachings of The Church. And as you can tell, that doesn't go over big with me.
You asked me to set aside a bit of your pride. Paul, I could ask of you the very same thing. But I won't. You also asked me to show a little knightly humility. Paul, I could ask you to show a little knightly moral courage, but I won't.
Like I've said from the beginning, the Knights stepped over the line. All they had to do was echo Church Teaching on this particular topic, and I would have been in full agreement... but they didn't.
As you know, I'm a Traditionalist. Many Trads are often accused of thinking we are 'more Catholic than the pope'. That sword cuts both ways. Looks as if the K of C thinks that some of their official stances are more Catholic than the Catholic Church's.
I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Paul.
I've often wondered about these Knights of Columbus... How did they come into being? Are they a true order of knighthood? If so, their duty is to defend the Faith. If so, why are they espousing non-Catholic doctrines?
Or, are they simply another organ of the Novus Ordo espousing "Modernism" and "OEcumenism" but "tolerance for all except traditionalists"?
Questions... questions that need answering...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home