Dr. Jeff Mirus has it exactly right on the Knights of Columbus controversy:
It may be true that the first step toward a just social order is clear Catholic teaching by the clergy. But the second step is the day’s own trouble for the laity, the application of Catholic teaching in all the concrete dimensions of daily life. It is laymen who are expected to draw the lines that may not be crossed—not in terms of what the Church teaches, but in terms of the proper response when that teaching is ignored and our culture is subverted by those who participate in social and political life. It is laymen who are called to make it clear that if you want to be honored in our circles, you cannot campaign against what we stand for. And if you do, you will be corrected. And if you refuse correction, you will no longer be able to enjoy our company, our camaraderie, our sympathy and our support.
The whole article is here. I am especially impressed by Dr. Mirus' emphasis on the responsibility of the laity in defending Church teaching.
It may be true that the first step toward a just social order is clear Catholic teaching by the clergy. But the second step is the day’s own trouble for the laity, the application of Catholic teaching in all the concrete dimensions of daily life. It is laymen who are expected to draw the lines that may not be crossed—not in terms of what the Church teaches, but in terms of the proper response when that teaching is ignored and our culture is subverted by those who participate in social and political life. It is laymen who are called to make it clear that if you want to be honored in our circles, you cannot campaign against what we stand for. And if you do, you will be corrected. And if you refuse correction, you will no longer be able to enjoy our company, our camaraderie, our sympathy and our support.
The whole article is here. I am especially impressed by Dr. Mirus' emphasis on the responsibility of the laity in defending Church teaching.
I would emphasis one essential flaw in the KC's defense of their policy: critics of the policy are not asking the KC's to conduct investigations into the beliefs of every Knight in order to determine whether or not he is orthodox. The problem comes when Knights who are also public figures take stands against Church teaching. A Knight is a pro-abortion state governor not only risks his immortal soul by supporting abortion, he risks being held eternally responsible for those who may be lead to believe that since a Knight is pro-abortion, abortion must an acceptable practice in the eyes of the Church.
Whether or not any individual Knight should resign in protest against this policy boils down to a prudential judgment: will my resignation bring about a change in the policy? My choice would be to stay and fight. Work to change the policy through normal channels. There's always the chance that this will become a losing battle. Then you would have to make another judgment: am I giving my consent to the policy by remaining?
Follow HancAquam ------------>