Diogenes puts it succinctly.
So the Knights of Columbus won’t go further than the bishops go. If the bishop hasn’t excommunicated Senator Mengele, the Knights won’t suspend his membership. If the bishops say it’s OK, it’s OK with the Knights.
So if the K of C had been active in England in the 1530s, following the same policies, would they have followed their bishops’ lead in accepting the title of King Henry VIII as legitimate head of the Church in England? Or would they have supported a lonely layman who rejected that claim?
Thomas More, you will recall, was a Knight– although not of Columbus. Today he’s generally known by another title, having gained membership in a still more elite fraternity
It wasn’t just a layman, there was Bishop Fisher too. 1 Bishop stood up, the rest caved.
Good for the one Bishop, maybe more will stand with the truth and quit being so politically correct and dare I say, Liberal.
The Knights of Columbus were founded to draw men out of the masons and devote themselves to their God, their family, their priests, and their bishops. None of their teachings on charity, unity, fraternity, patriotism speak encourage them to correct, challenge, or in any way criticize their priests or bishops. Attempting to succeed where the bishops failed has simply been outside their mandate since their foundation.
There have been plenty of Saints who have succeeded when their bishops erred in their duties (St. Thomas More and St. Athanasius come to mind). There’s no reason why we can’t follow in their footsteps – other than that we don’t really want to.
But should any kind of order (lay or religious) including “correcting the bishops” as part of their mandate?
That being said I really wonder which of the following 3 criteria is least important for the order:
2. 18 years or older
3. practical catholic
My husband thought about being a knight. So far one good priest and one layman have told him to forget it. The KofC aint what it once was.