What does knighthood have to do with holiness?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neoplatonist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Neoplatonist

Guest
In reading about the different papal orders of knighthood, it appears that many of them are reserved for dignitaries, aristocrats, and heads of state. Why would such a high honor in the church be more deserved by the wealthy and the powerful?

If this is more than a mere hold-over representing the Church’s longing for a bygone era, what does it mean in the modern conceptual framework of the Church? Are they meant to be seen as role models of Catholic action in the world? Are they more devoted defenders of the faith than, say, Catholic schoolteachers or youth ministers?

How do we reconcile a model of virtue that holds up both the wealthy knight-aristocrat and the mendicant brother?
 
See “Knights of Columbus.” Good faithful men, worldly riches not required.
 
Neoplatonist said:
In reading about the different papal orders of knighthood, it appears that many of them are reserved for dignitaries, aristocrats, and heads of state. Why would such a high honor in the church be more deserved by the wealthy and the powerful?

If this is more than a mere hold-over representing the Church’s longing for a bygone era, what does it mean in the modern conceptual framework of the Church? Are they meant to be seen as role models of Catholic action in the world? Are they more devoted defenders of the faith than, say, Catholic schoolteachers or youth ministers?

How do we reconcile a model of virtue that holds up both the wealthy knight-aristocrat and the mendicant brother?
Click to expand...
I don’t know about the men in today’s orders, but at some points in history such positions were much more reflective of social status and wealth, not just in the church, but in civil government as well.
 
Exactly. It seems that if I want to rise in the eyes of the Church, I should become a wealthy aristocrat who supports them. (I long ago gave up on my odds of becoming a saint or a doctor of the Church.)

I mean, come on, who doesn’t want the Church, infused with the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, to think them among the best of men? [figuratively male]
 
It seems unfortunate, in a way, because the ideal of knighthood is one that fires the imagination of children (of all ages), and the Church could definitely use some imagination firing in classrooms everywhere. What other image do we have to work with to make kids fantasize and marvel at a life in service to the Church?

There are saints, of course, but how many kids ever meet a saint or even know someone who knows someone who has? Knights are something that could be familiar at a much smaller degree of separation than saints, though!
 
Neoplatonist said:
An interesting case, but K of C hardly has the prestige or honor of those knighthoods bestowed by or under the protection of the pope. The question is, why are the higher/-est orders limited to aristocrats and neo-aristocrats?
Click to expand...
I expect that is because they have paid their dues, probably a good deal more than the $70 a year required of a Knight of Columbus. Their dues may include not just cash, but special services rendered to the Vatican in the form of labor, time, knowledge, and expertise.

As a Knight of Columbus I tip my hat to them. :tiphat:
 
Charlemagne_III said:
I expect that is because they have paid their dues, probably a good deal more than the $70 a year required of a Knight of Columbus. Their dues may include not just cash, but special services rendered to the Vatican in the form of labor, time, knowledge, and expertise.

As a Knight of Columbus I tip my hat to them. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
Part of my question, though, is why does working as an envoy to the Vatican, or whatever, count as greater service to the Church and the faith than, say, a career as a committed Catholic school teacher? If you add up the amount of salary that a Catholic teacher gets paid less than the public schoolteachers in their district year after year after year, and then look at that as a percentage of their total income, the contributions of the aristocrats would be blown out of the water.

Not to mention the unpaid hours teachers spend at bake sales, committee meetings, talking and meeting with parents, and on and on. The volunteer hours, again, as a percentage of a teacher’s free time would be an embarrassment to most of the recognized knights in the prestigious orders.

This gives the impression that the talk of the Widow’s Mite as a parable of virtue is just empty talk they throw at the pews to boost the weekly basket, and really has nothing to do with holiness.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
I expect that is because they have paid their dues, probably a good deal more than the $70 a year required of a Knight of Columbus. Their dues may include not just cash, but special services rendered to the Vatican in the form of labor, time, knowledge, and expertise.

As a Knight of Columbus I tip my hat to them. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
The K of C is a fine organization in my area, but I’m a bit confused by the various levels being dependent on social class. Is that true? If it is that is very troubling in this day as it is a throwback that we could really do without.
 
oldcelt said:
The K of C is a fine organization in my area, but I’m a bit confused by the various levels being dependent on social class. Is that true? If it is that is very troubling in this day as it is a throwback that we could really do without.
Click to expand...
There are no levels within K of C dependent on social class.
 
Neoplatonist said:
Part of my question, though, is why does working as an envoy to the Vatican, or whatever, count as greater service to the Church and the faith than, say, a career as a committed Catholic school teacher? If you add up the amount of salary that a Catholic teacher gets paid less than the public schoolteachers in their district year after year after year, and then look at that as a percentage of their total income, the contributions of the aristocrats would be blown out of the water.

Not to mention the unpaid hours teachers spend at bake sales, committee meetings, talking and meeting with parents, and on and on. The volunteer hours, again, as a percentage of a teacher’s free time would be an embarrassment to most of the recognized knights in the prestigious orders.

This gives the impression that the talk of the Widow’s Mite as a parable of virtue is just empty talk they throw at the pews to boost the weekly basket, and really has nothing to do with holiness.
Click to expand...
You sound jealous. Who is making any claims of greater sanctity on the part of these men who are given a knighthood by the Church? Is it wrong for the Church to endow certain honors upon certain people who do particular services for the Church, even if, in certain instances, they may give less of their time, effort, and trouble than some other, unrecognized people may?

You remind me of the parable of the vineyard where the master hires some workers in the morning, some in the midday, and some in the evening, but chose to give the same reward to all who worked for him. Why are you angry with those to whom the Church has deigned to give more? It is a gift; the master of the vineyard is the one giving, not those who work.

These people who have been given particular honors were given them because of duty rendered. Do you begrudge them that honor? Should we abolish all honors entirely and say that everyone, from the Pope down to the altar servers, have an equivalent level of dignity and honor in the Church?

I think that this thread is encouraging envy: the sin of begrudging a legitimate good which other people have. Just because lay persons may not receive earthly reward for the services rendered to the Church does not mean, by any means, that their eternal reward will be mitigated in Heaven; on the contrary, those who do great services to the Church but remain completely unknown and hidden from the world are those who will have the greatest merit.
 
davidv said:
There are no levels within K of C dependent on social class.
Click to expand...
I think he is referring to my initial point about other orders of knighthood being awarded only to members above a certain socio-economic level.
 
dshix said:
You sound jealous. Who is making any claims of greater sanctity on the part of these men who are given a knighthood by the Church? Is it wrong for the Church to endow certain honors upon certain people who do particular services for the Church, even if, in certain instances, they may give less of their time, effort, and trouble than some other, unrecognized people may?

You remind me of the parable of the vineyard where the master hires some workers in the morning, some in the midday, and some in the evening, but chose to give the same reward to all who worked for him. Why are you angry with those to whom the Church has deigned to give more? It is a gift; the master of the vineyard is the one giving, not those who work.

These people who have been given particular honors were given them because of duty rendered. Do you begrudge them that honor? Should we abolish all honors entirely and say that everyone, from the Pope down to the altar servers, have an equivalent level of dignity and honor in the Church?

I think that this thread is encouraging envy: the sin of begrudging a legitimate good which other people have. Just because lay persons may not receive earthly reward for the services rendered to the Church does not mean, by any means, that their eternal reward will be mitigated in Heaven; on the contrary, those who do great services to the Church but remain completely unknown and hidden from the world are those who will have the greatest merit.
Click to expand...
Sorry if you think this thread promotes envy or whatever. If you’ll look back carefully at the OP, the point of my question is about what this means in terms of the modern Church. I am trying to understand how we reconcile two contradictory paradigms of service and excellence. Do you actually have any thoughts in that direction?

And yes, if in the story of the vineyard the people who got paid more were all kings and princes and ambassadors, I would have a serious problem reconciling that story with the other claims of the Church as well.
 
If the Church’s model of an ideal world is NOT a return to medieval feudalism, then why continue to confer its highest awards as if it were? Let the Pope give out some other award, accorded more prestige, for something more in keeping with its professed paradigm of an excellent person.
 
Neoplatonist said:
In reading about the different papal orders of knighthood, it appears that many of them are reserved for dignitaries, aristocrats, and heads of state. Why would such a high honor in the church be more deserved by the wealthy and the powerful?

If this is more than a mere hold-over representing the Church’s longing for a bygone era, what does it mean in the modern conceptual framework of the Church? Are they meant to be seen as role models of Catholic action in the world? Are they more devoted defenders of the faith than, say, Catholic schoolteachers or youth ministers?

How do we reconcile a model of virtue that holds up both the wealthy knight-aristocrat and the mendicant brother?
Click to expand...
Well, if the honour is at least partially given for the benefit of other people of similar status (so that they would be encouraged to be good Catholics, generally virtuous etc.), then, I suppose, it might make sense to choose the honour accordingly… If the goal is to make someone who is already “wealthy and powerful” noticeable among other people who are also “wealthy and powerful” (so that he would become a “role model” to them), then we probably need a more impressive reward than the one we need to make a schoolteacher noticeable among other schoolteachers…

For that matter, I wonder: to what extent similar encouragement of generosity among the “wealthy and powerful” is effective in fighting poverty…?
 
MPat said:
Well, if the honour is at least partially given for the benefit of other people of similar status (so that they would be encouraged to be good Catholics, generally virtuous etc.), then, I suppose, it might make sense to choose the honour accordingly… If the goal is to make someone who is already “wealthy and powerful” noticeable among other people who are also “wealthy and powerful” (so that he would become a “role model” to them), then we probably need a more impressive reward than the one we need to make a schoolteacher noticeable among other schoolteachers…

For that matter, I wonder: to what extent similar encouragement of generosity among the “wealthy and powerful” is effective in fighting poverty…?
Click to expand...
Interesting thought. I wonder if giving the Catholic knighthood to the prince of country x would really make the prince of country y even a tiny bit more likely to support the Catholic causes if he did not already. I’m skeptical, but it is interesting to consider.
 
I also have a particular interest in things that make anyone seem amazing to young people coming up after them. Since most young people never meet any princes or diplomats, the current practice has little future-impact in that regard.

Of course, in an earlier age, there were knights in every district.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top