Talk:Knights of Columbus/Archive 2

masons go home!
I am truly annoyed with the tactics that confirmed masons are using to frustrate and interfere with this article and talk page! I wish these freemasons would just dry up and build a wall or something. Honestly, I've never seen anything like it. It's not enough to just write about their own organization, they want to come around and write their propaganda here too! The Knights of Columbus is a great organization that follows Christianity. The masons that have been posting here are little people and certainly don't give themselves a good name. Knights of Columbus members don't swear to protect their organization by any means necessary and it does not print special versions of the bible in order for the bible to be in line with masonic beliefs as Dr. Albert G. Mackey, a mason and an expert on masonry states. He further states that Freemasonry is a religion. The Knights don't use pentagrams as part of their symbolism either! Then some Vulcan want-a-be attacks the Jewish religion, showing his true bigotry, trying to defend the pentagram. What's a vulcan freemason look like by the way? Does he have pentagrams for ears? This link here lets freemasons talk for themselves and gives examples of why freemasonry is its own religion and not in line with Christianity: Sniptilgrab 17:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you!!! And thanks for the link it is a good one. It certainly exposes the group for what they are!!! I know exactly who you are talking about don't like him get you. I also want to point out the fact that they will lie to protect their group as do the Scientologists or any of these fringe/cultic groups. I believe that any articles that memebers of these type of groups touch are tainted with their biases and propaganda. The Knights are a good organization they raise a lot of money for charity and don't advertise as much as some of these groups. Are yu a member? You are right, I can't beleieve how this guy comes right out and shws his prejudice against the Jews like that!!! That is only just scratching the surface. Don't keep talking to these guys thow because it nly encourages them!!! Dwain


 * Actually, I am writing about my own organization. I'm a 3rd-degree Knight, and a 3rd-degree Freemason. Masons don't swear to protect the organization by any means necessary, and a typical "Masonic" bible is just a King James edition with frontispieces for signatures of the presiding officers along with supplemental material on King Solomon's Temple. It is not modified, and Mackey does not state that it is, even in the DoUKnow link that you post.
 * Mackey may have stated that Freemasonry is a religion, but that's one man's opinion: millions of Masons would state otherwise. Every Mason brings his own religion to the Lodge, and prays to God in his own way. I know Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish Masons personally.
 * You complain about Masons using pentagrams (which isn't particularly accurate): I've read books about cults that state that hexagrams are worse than pentagrams. Does that mean that Judaism is worse than Freemasonry? (BTW, thanks for the idea for my Halloween costume!) --SarekOfVulcan 17:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

WP:NPA

You CANNOT be a Mason and a Knight of Columbus. You can be a Mason and a Knight Templar. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.231.199.201 (talk • contribs).


 * If one really wants to learn more about this issue, and why there is no statement on this in the article, go to Talk:Catholicism_and_Freemasonry/Archive02 and read the ensuing discussion on KofC/masonic membership. Besides, the article here makes the one and only point necessary; a member must be a practising Catholic - that is really all it needs to state.DonaNobisPacem 09:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems the Freemasons are angry someone vandalized their article and it lost features article status.
 * No, not particularly.--Sar e kOfVulcan 07:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding membership to Knights of Columbus, practical Catholics and Freemasonry, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaesitum_est —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.161.224.10 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28 November 2006 EST

"Strong right arm"
Nice edit, EKMichigan. That's better phrasing for that point in the article, IMHO.--SarekOfVulcan 16:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Practical Catholics
I agree with the anon deletion: we don't need that level of detail in an encyclopedia.--SarekOfVulcan 04:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Particularly as the intro already states that membership is open to "practical Catholics." The definition of what a practical Catholic does not need to be spelled out term by term - someone can go look the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or some such resource, if they need the specifics.DonaNobisPacem 06:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the wikifying, Sarek.DonaNobisPacem 07:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * NP. I figured it had to be an article, so I wanted to save the next person to come along the lookup effort. Suppose I could have posted a reply instead of changing yours, but it seemed more efficient.--SarekOfVulcan 07:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So, what is a "practical Catholic"? How do you expect anyone who doesn't have extensive knowledge of Catholicism to know? This is a very weird part of the article and at the very beginning too. There at least needs to be some sort of link to an explanation if it isn't explained in the article. Theshibboleth 10:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A "practical," or practicing Catholic is one who abides by all of the teaching of the Magisterium - ie, one who follows all dogmatic teachings of the Church (as are detailed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church).DonaNobisPacem 22:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So much for not contributing any more over the holidays (that lasted what, 30 sec?) - I added the definition of practical Catholic after the comment by Theshibboleth, but I agree with Sarek and my earlier comments - it's too much detail to have, particularly in the intro. Could we footnote it (if so, I would not be sure how)?  Or the fact that it's on the talk page is perhaps enough?DonaNobisPacem 06:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You do it with the and  pair of tags. (I can never remember which goes where, but the footnote is the one that gives a carat pointing up.) If I can dig out my "Welcome to the KofC" brochure, I'll quote exactly what it says about practical Catholics, unless you beat me to it.--SarekOfVulcan 07:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There. How do you like that phrasing?--SarekOfVulcan 07:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I love indenting! That's great Sarek - mighty impressed.  I think that the info provided is good, KofC supplied, and not mucking up the intro.  Excellent work!DonaNobisPacem 08:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The KofC and the UN
I just removed the reference in the article to the Knights of Columbus being an observer to the United Nations. Although the KofC is registered with the UN as an non-governmental organization, it is not on the list of non-member observers -- perhaps the poster was mistaking the Knights of Columbus with the Knights of Malta. &mdash; Eoghanacht  talk 14:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok - I just wikifed the link, I hadn't heard of them being an observer but I just wikified it anyway. Thanks for correcting. JG of Borg 16:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion on terminology?
I am going to suggest possibly listing the Knights under the list of Friendly Societies, and maybe add something to that effect in the main article. By the way, so you know my POV, I WAS a member of the Knights of Columbus, and GK of my college council, and did a little bit of research about. I am now a Mason, and I am not here to push a Masonic diatribe. What I will suggest, is a look at Faith and Fraternalism (the name of the author escapes me right now). The issues regarding sick benefits, death and burial benfits, and support for widows and orphans, would put the Knights more in line with the Friendly Societies that existed in the 1800's in the US (Oddfellows etc), than in direct opposition to the Masons, who did NOT offer those sort of supports for members. I recognize that the accepted commentary is that "the Knights were made so Catholics wouldn't join the Masons," but that doesn't fit the facts of the lack of insurance companies, HMO's and paid sick time, which resulted in the creation of mutual benfit societies, many of which Catholics were forbidden to join. The issues regarding Catholics being forbidden by the Church to become Masons is such a long and tedious one, with neither side really agreeing that the other side even has a valid POV, but it doesn't really answer the mail on what was happening with the Foresters, the Sarsfield Guards etc.--Vidkun 15:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

JFK? Bush?
Would it be worth mentioning somewhere that President John F. Kennedy was a Knight? Also, I am confused about the section on Politics. How is it that the KofC can claim to be unbaised toward any one candidate or party, yet invite Bush to speak at their annual convenion just months before the 2004 election. It seems to me to be a clear-cut endorsement of the President's candidacy for a second term. Perhaps I'm mistaken. Anyone know how Anderson juxtaposed this event with the Knight's rules regarding this matter?


 * The KofC invites the head of state of every country it operates in to come and address the annual supreme convention. Most of the time, they send a recorded message, but Bush decided to actually show up in 2004. His decision to show up was probibly politically motivated, but the decision to invite him was just normal operating procedure. Clinton sent eight video tapes, which were played to the annual conventions during his presidency, but he could have chosen to show up, if he wanted to. The same is true for the Governor-General of Canada, the President of the Philipines, and the President of Mexico, among others. Gentgeen 08:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a section for famous Knights... I only know of a couple (listed), but a friend of mine knows several others.  I'll see what I can do to get them added to the list.  From what I've heard, all male Catholics on the Supreme Court are currently KOC members, but that's not verified...  Clint 08:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Squires
The squires are actually a part of (in that they are administered by) the KofC - so they should probably not be under "similar Organisations." DonaNobisPacem 05:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Supreme organizing the Squirettes, or are just some local councils doing so? If it is not a Supreme initiative, it should be removed.


 * I'm not actually aware of a Squirettes program - I didn't know anything, positive or negative, about them being formed, so I didn't remove it from the article. Perhaps the KofC website could offer more info?DonaNobisPacem 23:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I understand, the Squirettes aren't officially condoned by Supreme but were tolerated due to the lack of Catholic Daughter youth organizations. In light of the developing CDA youth groups, the Squirettes will probably fade out... Clint 08:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a seperate pages for the Columbian Squires.

Fourth Degree
I am not sure demoting the 4th degree to a subsection was a good move. It seems to me (as a 4th degree Knight, but one not active in the assembly) that the 4th degree is distinct enough to merit its own section.


 * I understand where you're coming from (as a fourth degree knight myself), but from the way I originally reworked that section of the page, it seemed better for organizational purposes to put the fourth degree under the other degrees. Clint 08:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

College Councils
I think we are getting close to the point when we can break off thed College Councils section into its own article. Its not quite there yet, but I think it has potential. Briancua 13:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

A new edit was just made in the Criticism section regarding college councils. I was going to revert it as unsourced, but then noticed that none of that first paragraph has any sources. Should this stay as is, or should the entire first paragraph regarding criticism of college councils be removed as unsourced material? Jim Miller 21:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

famous knights
I alphabatized and legthened the list of famous Knights. I included everyone in the K of C category, except minor politicians. If it grows any longer I think we should move it into its own category. Briancua 20:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Secret Society?
THere is no indication in this article that the organization is a secret society, I think it should be substantiated or the categorization should be removed. Judgesurreal777 21:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A secret society isn't one where no one is to know you are a member, a secret society, according to wikipedia, anyway, is one where some aspects of it are a secret. All the cerimonies of the K of C are restricted to the membership, and so it does qualify as a secret society.  I added that info in the top paragraph.  Briancua 02:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the "wikipedia" definition, the U.S. Congress is a secret society (national security briefings are closed-door), as is the College of Cardinals. &mdash; Eoghanacht  talk 13:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Now that opens a interesting can of worms. Coca Cola?  Microsoft?  Virtualy any business that keeps trade secrets would then fall into this category as well.Ultimate ed 01:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to take it out, or if someone else did I wouldn't complain. It was added into the SS category, and Judgesurreal questioned it, so I put in the bit at the top, but I'm not married to it. Briancua 03:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Knights make a point of distinguishing exactly what makes them secret and how they are not a completely secret society. After First Degree initiations in my area of Galveston-Houston are concluded and the meeting has ended, someone usually addresses the fact that the Knights only hold their business meetings and ceremonials behind closed doors, but everything else is opened to everyone... Clint 05:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the last paragraph a bit. Also, can someone show me where JPII and Benedict have called us the strong right arm?


 * Clint, I would say, to an external reader/viewer, that's a distinction without a difference.-Vidkun 17:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say, from the fact that the initiation ceremonials are kept secret from non members, that it should be cinsidered to have the same encyclopedic status as the Masons, that is, a secret society. I doubt you would find any but diehard anti-corporate writers who would call Microsoft a secret society, but there are numerous non-Knights who would consider the secrecy surrounding the degrees to be sufficient for the categorisation as a secret society.--Vidkun 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the K of C belongs on the list of secret societies. If it does, then the part of the secret society article about the Polish Constitution needs to be removed. Either way, there is a paradox between the definition and the fact that the K of C freely operates in Poland under the same rules of secrecy as it does in other countries.-Jim Miller 20:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * From the quote about the Polish constitution, it defines a secret society as one with hidden membership or structure. Neither is secret in the KofC, only certain ceremonials -- and the secrecy is not binding if in conflict with civil or religious duties.  Personally I do not think the KofC is a "secret society", however I find no paradox here. &mdash;  Eoghanacht  talk 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * and the secrecy is not binding if in conflict with civil or religious duties Nor is it in Masonic Obligations, yet that is not seen as sufficient to remove them from the list of secret societies on wikipedia.--Vidkun 20:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

members
It was just a few months ago that we reached 1.7 milion members - I don't think we possibly could have reached 2 million members yet. If we had, as a GK I'm sure I would have heard about it since I heard about the 1.7. I like the clarification about the secret socity. Briancua 02:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

foundation and opposition to Freemasonry
I think the wording is a little simplistic on the foundation being about Catholics not being allowed to join the unions etc (by those groups) and being forbidden by the Church to join the Masons. A quick read through Faith and Fraternalism especially the first three chapters, shows that there were numerous sick/death benefit societies, also known as friendly societies that were taking care of their members during times of hardship. Catholics were forbidden by the Church, and some of the groups themselves, and, occasionally BOTH, from joining these groups (like the Oddfellows) which left Catholics in positions of financial danger in case of illness or death. F&F posits that it was more the need for benefit societies than opposition to Masonry that led to the creation of the Knights, deriving (by concept) from the Massachusetts Catholic Order of Foresters who would not grant permission to form a Court in Connecticut (the Forestry article sort of gets this one out of order, as there WAS an all Catholic Forestry group in the US) which led to the creation of the Connecticut Catholic Order of Foresters, and deriving (by membership) from the Red Knights, most of whom were former members of a Connecticut Militia unit, the Sarsfield Guards, predominantly an Irish Catholic Regiment. I'll provide sourcing (pages) when I find my research paper I wrote for a Lodge a number of years ago. No, I am not going to present original research, but cited quotes from F&F.--Vidkun 17:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, here is what I have. Some of the wording may be considered original research, but the sourcing for the facts is all from Christopher J. Kauffmann's book Faith and Fraternalism:  The History of the Knights of Columbus 1882-1982 (Harper and Row, NYC NY, 1982.


 * During this time period (early to mid 1800s), numerous fraternal organizations sprung up that had mutual assistance and insurance programs. One group that had already existed in the early eighteenth century and provided mutual fraternal assistance, but not insurance, among its members was Freemasonry, which the Catholic Church had denounced.  Freemasonry "represented a response to men's social need to organize themselves into some kind of brotherhood during a period when the predominant social ethic was becoming individualism." (Kauffmann, pg 8)  However, Kauffmann notes that some of the reasons behind the proscription of Freemasonry by the Church was that "individualistic, theistic, and anti-Catholic, the Masons organized a collective force infused with brotherhood based on elaborate ritual." (pg 8)  Other fraternal organizations adopted Freemasonic ideal such as a three degree ritual program, secret modes of recognition, and pledges of mutual assistance in times of need.  These pledges of assistance gave rise to fraternal insurance companies, which offered set amounts of money during a member's sickness, and paid benefits to his family upon his death.
 * In an attempt to prevent Catholic men from joining these proscribed groups, Irish Catholic leaders formed their own fraternal insurance organizations, such as the Massachusetts Catholic Order of Foresters (MCOF, founded in 1879) and the Catholic Benevolent League (CBL, founded in Brooklyn in 1881) (pg 9). These were primarily death benefit societies, which had certain fraternal features such as initiations and legends, usually of "old world" origins.  The Knights of Columbus started as such a group, but focused on an American Catholic future, not a European past.
 * The immediate predecessors to the Knights of Columbus were the Red Knights who were founded in 1874. Most of their membership came from an Irish Catholic Connecticut militia unit, the Sarsfield Guards, commanded by James T. Mullen.  The Red Knights had as their goal "the advancement and mutual improvement of the young men of our race [... and] to bring about an acquaintance and maintain a feeling of friendship and brotherly love between men of our race."(pg 10)  In 1880 the Red Knights disbanded for various reasons.  However, many of the first Knights of Columbus were former members of the Red Knights. (pg 11)
 * Another type of group prevalent in Irish-American life of those times was that of the temperance society. 1881 found Father Michael J. McGivney (the curate of St. Mary' Church in New Haven) operating as a chaplain to one of these groups.  In the fall of that year, Fr. McGivney attempted to link this group with the secular Ancient Order of Foresters, who derived their legendry from Robin Hood and his Merry Men.  This was done in an attempt to spark interest in a Catholic fraternal insurance group; however, when he requested permission for this incorporation from his superior, Bishop Lawrence S. McMahon, he was denied.  In the same time period, two groups of laymen (including many former Red Knights) began meeting to discuss this idea.  One group met in law offices at 157 Church St., New Haven, and the other met in the basement of St. Mary's Church, where Fr. McGivney was assigned.  It is to be noted that Fr. McGivney convened the St. Mary's group meeting himself. (pg 1)  This first meeting took place on the second of October, 1881, and at a later meeting, it was decided that Fr. McGivney should enquire as to the feasibility of joining either the Massachusetts Catholic Order of Foresters or the Catholic Benevolent League in Brooklyn.  Both groups turned them away, saying they did not want to accept them as insurance risks. (pgs 13-14)  On the second of February, 1882, they formed the first Court of the Connecticut Catholic Order of Foresters; within that same week they decided on a new name, based on an idea that Fr. McGivney had suggested.  He felt their group should reflect Catholic contributions to America, and recommended the use o Columbus in the group's titles, which emphasized Columbus as the Catholic first discoverer of the New World.  Combining that and the fact that many of the members were former Red Knights, the group decided to name themselves the Connecticut Knights of Columbus.(pg 15)


 * That's my contribution for some source information, but not for wording.--Vidkun 17:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Failing
No book references, and two "endnotes". See WP:CITE, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 16:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Endonotes are another word for references. At current, you have 2 references. References are used to cite facts in an article. You have 2. Cheers, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 17:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Get more. Please read WP:CITE, H ig hway Rainbow Sneakers 20:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a bunch of references from Faith & Fraternalism & reorganized the page a little. If someone else wants to add some, we can resubmit it for GA status, or maybe ask for a peer review. Briancua 18:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Top Paragraph
What do you think about making the first sentance say "The Order of the Knights of Columbus" instead of just "The Knights of Columbus"? On the disam page for order there is no mention of the type of Order we are, but the article refers to the KofC as an Order a number of times.

The section about priests observing is just incorrect. Clergy are subject to regular membership procedures, but out of respect for their ecclesiastical position, are permitted to undergo the very same rituals by process of observation. Is there a way to clarify this wording? Jim Miller 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Columbus's Heritage
I have seen programs on and read text about how Columbus might have had Jewish heritage or was a converted Jew. I'm not giving any credibility to these theories, but wouldn't that be ironic for the KoC? -- ßott  e   siηi  (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ironic? Hardly. Jesus was Jewish, after all...--Sar e kOfVulcan 22:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ironic? Why? KofC is not antisemitic, neither is Catholicism. Are you in the right place? Cravenmonket 16:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I never implied that the KoC was antisemitic. It's about a catholic organisation being based around a a man who was (maybe) a practicing Jew. --  ßott  e   siηi  (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * See my note above. :-)--Sar e kOfVulcan 03:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole of Christianity is based around a man who was a practicing Jew.Cravenmonket 15:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Political activities
"councils are prohibited from engaging in candidate endorsement and partisan political activity." Is this because of a decision by the leadership council? Or is this only practiced by U.S. councils in order to comply with U.S. tax law (i.e. non-profits that endose political candidates have their non-profit status revoked)? Lyrl 23:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead
I moved this sentence from the lead here:


 * Knights are known for their strong Catholicity and have been called the "strong right arm of the Church."

The first clause, besides using what seems to me an undefinable (at least in an encyclopedic way) adjective "Catholicity", is subjective, that is to say, not a neutral point of view. The second clause uses weasel words to support an unsourced quotation. MarkBuckles 07:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Anchorman
The Knights of Columbus is mentioned in [Anchorman] - should there be a pop culture reference section?EunuchOmerta 03:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

One reference doesn't justify an entire section... while that one is a popular one, are there any less well known pop culture references to the Knights? Clint 07:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed?
I suggest this article might benefit from a disambiguation note distinguishing it from the United Kingdom Catholic organization "Knights of St Columba". 193.63.239.165 08:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be disinclined to support such a disambig if only because of similarity in name; a few International Alliance of Catholic Knights organizations are similar to "Columbus": St. Columbanus, St. Columba, St. Mulumba. I think a link to any Knights of Saint Columba page under Similar organizations would suffice. --Derek 22:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Notre Dame Council - longest continually running?
When I was GK of Mount Saint Mary's College and Seminary Council 1965, we had the distinct understanding that Notre Dame's council was not continous - that it lapsed during WWII.Helmar63 17:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)