K of C chief’s politicking draws dissent
The leader of the Knights of Columbus, Carl Anderson, seems to be facing some dissent within the ranks over his politicking in the presidential race. A group calling itself “Knights for Obama” has set up a Web page “responding to those who have tarnished the great reputation of the Knights of Columbus by dragging its 1.3 million members into tacit endorsement of the Republican candidate in this crucial Presidential election.” The quotes from a few members of the K of C are worth noting.
Anderson jumped into the presidential campaign with his letter to Joseph Biden in September. It chastised the VP candidate for comments he made concerning church teaching on abortion and invited him in for a chat.
The letter and the invite were all well and good, and I think Biden’s statements show he might profit from some theology instruction. But Anderson’s political intention was obvious, given that he advertised his letter in some shrewdly targeted campaign “battleground” locales – in newspapers in Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, Pa., among others.
Anderson is certainly familiar with presidential politics. During the 1980s, he served as an aide to Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and then as a special assistant to President Reagan and acting director of the White House Office of Public Liaison. Anderson’s spokesman at the K of C, Patrick Korten, was a spokesman for Reagan’s attorney general, Edwin Meese III.
The Knights took a strong anti-abortion position long before Anderson came to head the organization – but Anderson’s decision to advertise his rebuke of the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in the heavily Catholic battleground counties of a battleground state crossed the line into partisan political activity. It’s no wonder that some members are speaking out.
Nice to see some Knights speaking out against this. I assume I am not alone in remembering Anderson’s thanking Bush in 2004 for “restoring moral integrity to the office of president.” (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/03/bush.catholics/index.html)
I had thought–mistakenly, it seems–that as the second disastrous Bush term draws to a close, his Catholic enablers of ’04 would be a little wiser, a little more cautious, a little less partisan. (I see Deal Hudson’s back in the news, as well!)
I didn’t know about Anderson’s background (Jesse Helms, Reagan). It explains a recent talk he gave where every reference was “Catholics and evangelicals,” which I found puzzling. I would think Anderson could content himself with speaking for Catholics and leave the evangelicals to speak for themselves.
Geez, I always thought the Knights were a kind of benevolent and dopey organization for men who wanted to organize fish frys, run Bingo, and wear white gloves and funny hats–like the Masons and Shriners without the secret handshakes and grandmothers who walk in the East or whatever it is.
Over in Owosso, their lodge (or whatever you call it) is right next door to Planned Parenthood. The KofC put up a huge sign facing the PP parking lot that says “Choose Life,” but I had no idea they were a hotbed of political import and controversy.
it’s hard for me to see how Anderson speaks for his organization.
Obcviously, there will be a variety of views among members.
NPR reported this morning though that while support for McCain is slipping in most groups, it remains strong among white catholics.
Who polulate the Knights predominantly???
This is just another in a series of threads on one issue politics in the Church. I continue to beleive that the appraoch is counterproductive to the full Church teaching.
Obviously, I’m also not interested in being in the K of C.
Jean,
The Knights aren’t a bunch of yokels. They do a great amount of charitable work. It’s not just a bunch of “funny hats.”
What really ticks me off is that you can’t seem to find one voice in the American Catholic Church lately – Carl Anderson, Deal Hudson, Richard John Neuhaus, George Weigel, et al., who doesn’t have ties to some kind of evangelical organization. My question is: where is their basic loyalty? Is it to some of syncretistic American-style civil religion or is it to the Catholic Church?
Laura, EVERYbody where I live is a yokel, including the Knights, who march in local parades with their hats and capes playing kazoo-type things, and the Shriners in their fezzes driving mini-cars and honking their horns.
I share your concern, and have done all over this blog since practically its inception, that Catholics are buddying up to fundamentalists and evangelicals, who push a kind of “family values” religion based on misinterpretations of Scripture and a one-sided view of American history, and who mostly think Catholics are barely Christians.
The KCs are also big ($1 mm plus) donors to the “Yes on Prop 8″ campaign here in California. My partner has been a member for about 10 years (don’t ask me why!), but wrote a letter of resignation once he discovered how his money was being spent.
To cut through all of this one can understand the absurdity by the fact that Anderson served in the Reagan and Bush White House. His resume is totally partisan while his motives are purely political.
My experience of the Knights has been more or less the same as Jean’s. I guess what I’m trying to think through is: should an organization like the Knights, which (as I understand it) is primarily dedicated to good works and community service, inject itself into partisan politics? (Whether they have entered the fray is perhaps another question: can their Grand Poobah speak publicly about politics without speaking for the Knights? For that matter, can an organization called “Knights for Obama” support whatever they support without speaking on behalf of the Knights?)
I can see some good practical reasons for a community-service organization dialing down the politics.
Raber, who was once asked to join the Knights and knows a lot of them, points out that in addition to doing a good deal of charity work, they also raise gobs of money that goes directly to the Vatican.
His take is that this kind of high-profile fund-raising, as well as their strong pro-life stance, has pulled them into political deep waters, both for McCain and for Obama. He sees this as divisive for the Knights as an organization, and possibly a threat to their ability to focus on common goals in the future.
The Knights of Columbus is an excellent organization, one I believe every Catholic American man ought to consider joining. (Actually, they should probably go ahead and join it if they don’t have a compelling reason not to.)(Fear of wearing a plumed hat in public is not a compelling reason not to join, since only Fourth Degree knights do that, and most knights stop at the Third.)
It would be nice if, at least occasionally, Commonweal Catholics could be as appalled by abortion as they are by other Catholics who point out that the Democratic Party is fervently pro-abortion.
My impression is that the KofCers are a bunch of “follow the leader” types, i.e., whatever Rome says is true, and if you disagree, you’re not being true to your faith.
I’ll pass.
IT SEEMS THAT OUR SUPREME COMMANDER CARL ANDERSON HAS A SHORT MEMORY OR A SELECTED MEMORY LIKE V.P. WANNABE SARAH PALIN.
IF OUR SUPREME COMMANDER IS GOING TO BACK JOHN MCCAIN THEN HE BETTER CHECK MCCAIN’S TIES TO TWO ANTI-CATHOLIC TV PREACHERS.
JOHN MCCAIN WENT AFTER THE ENDORSEMENT OF THESE PREACHERS(?) WHILE THEY WERE CALLING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THE “WHORE” OF THE WORLD. OR IS IT THE “GREAT WHORE”? ANY WAY IS THAT THE KIND OF LEADER WE WANT TO LEAD OUR GREAT COUNTRY? BUT TO BE FAIR, JOHN DID DISAVOW THEM AFTER ALL OF THE GREAT HEAT HE GOT FROM THE PRESS AND OTHERS. AND THEY DISAVOWED JOHN MCCAIN.
THEN JOHN MCCAIN WENT RUNNING TO BILLY GRAHAM FOR AN ENDORSEMENT. GUESS WHAT? BILLY GRAHAM DOES NOT ENDORSE. POOR JOHN LOOK LIKED A DEER IN HEADLIGHTS.
NOW FOR SARAH PALIN. SHE WAS INVESTIGATED BY HER OWN PARTY(REPUBLICAN) FOR ABUSE OF POWER. A SPECIAL INVESTIGATOR FOUND THAT SHE DID ABUSE HER POWER AS GOV. OF ALASKA. POOR POOR SARAH.
NOW FOR TODD. HE BELONGED TO A GROUP THAT WANTED ALASKA TO SEPARATE ITSELF FROM OUR GREAT COUNTRY. THE GROUPS FOUNDER HAS NO LOVE FOR OUR COUNTRY NOR OUR GREAT FLAG.
BUT SHE COMPLAINS ABOUT OBAMA CONNECTIONS WITH AYERS WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE. WHAT DOES SHE SAY? HE IS PALING AROUND WITH A TERRORIST .
WHICH IS MORE DANGEROUS? A HUSBAND OF A GOV OF ALASKA WHO WANTS ALASKA TO SEPARATE ITSELF FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? OR BILL AYERS WHO DID HIS DIRTY DEEDS WHEN OBAMA WAS 8 YEARS OLD?
TRUE THEY WERE ON THE SAME BOARD BUT THAT BOARD WAS SET UP BY A REPUBLICAN WITH REPUBLICANS ALSO SERVING ON THE BOARD. ARE THEY, THE REPUBLICANS, ALSO IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS OBAMA? ONLY SARAH AND JOHN MCCAIN CAN ANSWER THAT.
HEY CARL, BEFORE YOU ENDORSE CHECK OUT ALL THE FACTS.
BTW: DID WE NOT HAVE AN UNITED STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT RESIGNED AMIDST A CORRUPTION PROBE OF HIS OFFICE THAT WAS A KNIGHT?
REMEMBER CARL, SEN. OBAMA IS ALSO ENDORSED BY A 4TH DEGREE KNIGHT BY THE NAME OF SEN. BOB CASEY JR. ARE YOU GOING TO SCOLD HIM ALSO?
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WANTS TO CONTROL OUR GOVERNMENT THEY MEAN TO DO IT BY HOOK, CROOK, OR SCARE.
THANK YOU ALL WHO HAVE STUCK UP FOR FAIRNESS IN THIS ELECTION.
One of the main goals of the Knights of Columbus is to support our Church, the Pope, and our bishops. Mr. Anderson’s comments were directly in line with the teachings of the Church and comments made by some of our more faithful bishops. He made no endorsement (despite what many of you may infer to the contrary), and quite frankly his comments reflect the views of every Knight that I know.
If the “Knights for Obama” are really that worked up by someone who follows the teachings of the Church, then maybe they should rethink their membership in the Knights of Columbus.