Archbishop for U.S. military personnel: Morally acceptable for troops to defy orders
Timothy Broglio, Catholic archbishop responsible for U.S. military personnel, argued that it was morally acceptable for service members to disobey orders that go against their conscience. He expressed concern that troops could end up in a situation that they find morally questionable. However, Broglio acknowledged that doing so would put these service members in a bad situation. He also drew a distinction between “moral objection” vice what is legal regarding which orders could be defied.
From Military Times:
Timothy Broglio — who has served as the archbishop for the military services since 2007 — admitted in a BBC interview on Sunday that he was worried about the troops in his pastoral care “because they could be put in a situation where they’re being ordered to do something which is morally questionable.”
“It would be very difficult for a soldier or a Marine or a sailor to, by himself, to disobey an order … but strictly speaking, he or she would be, within the realm of their own conscience, it would be morally acceptable to disobey that order,” he said.
He went on to note, however, that such an isolated act of conscience would be “perhaps putting that individual in an untenable situation — and that’s my concern.”
Asked about President Donald Trump’s effort to annex Greenland, the autonomous Danish territory, Broglio echoed the condemnation voiced by the upper echelon of the Catholic church over the administration’s foreign policy.
“It does not seem really reasonable that the United States would attack and occupy a friendly nation,” he said. “I think it tarnishes the image of the United States in our world.”
Each service member swears an oath of enlistment to “support” and “defend” the constitution, not the commander in chief. Under U.S. military law, troops are required to disobey orders that are “manifestly” or “patently” unlawful, though such cases are legally complex. Brenner Fissell, vice president of the National Institute of Military Justice and professor of law at Villanova, emphasized the system is legal, not theological.
“The United States law does not track Catholic ethics,” Fissell said in an interview with Military Times. “There is a concept called conscientious objection, which is when you are opposed morally to war, but the United States does not recognize selective conscientious objections which is when you identify specific wars or deployments you don’t want to participate in.”
Additional Reading:
Noury, T. (2026, January 20). Archbishop says it’s ‘morally acceptable’ for troops to defy orders. Military Times. Link.
Category: Donald Trump, Military issues, Society
The Roman Catholic Church has lost even the pretense of moral authority.
Of course, one could argue that they lost that a long time before Martin Luther.
The Roman Catholic Church and the protestant denominations have lost the pretense of moral authority. Martin Luther would see in today’s Protestant churches what he saw in the Catholic churches in his day. Both have become similar to what the Pharisees of Jesus’s time were.
There are Catholic and Protestant congregations who do their best to stay in line with what churches are meant to do, but too many are bowing down before false idols. We went from Jesus refusing to redistribute an inheritance to some church leaders saying, “Share some of your privilege”.
Bishop Talbert Swan is an example of a church leader ministering to false idols:
To be fair, he’s absolutely right…military members may be morally justified in defying orders that offend their sensibilities.
As long as they’re willing to accept the LEGAL consequences of doing so…i.e. court martial, stripping of rank and privileges, dishonorable discharge, prison, perhaps even execution.
Having a subjective moral justification for some action (or lack thereof) has no bearing on the objective legal ramifications of such action.
With that said, I didn’t read the whole article. If he’s claiming that defying orders over a moral objection should be excused and no consequences entail, he’s dead wrong.
Nope, he more or less echoes your position: morally, disobeying what you consider an illegal order but he worries that someone who does so may run afoul of the military system. Like the TEXT of when Kelly et al did it, what he literally states is 100% correct. The rub comes if someone objects/disobeys to an order found to be legal and moral – they are in legal trouble.
https://youtu.be/1ZzCHKfx6Os
Location, location, location, in this video Dr. Heiser shows that they all got it wrong and Mt Hermon and the base, Grotto of pan was where the Church would be built, the rock was neither Peter or Christ.
Mt. Hermon and that area of Bashan held underworld overtones in ancient times.
The early Church was called “the way” for those who followed the ways of the Lord and then Christians in Antioch in the early 40’s AD, wasn’t till the 4th century you get Catholic Christians, I’ll just be a Christian.
” HEY EVERYBODY…. LET’S PLAY…”U”….”C”….”M”….”J” !!!! ”
(Right Mark Kelly?!?!?)
Easy to talk shit when you don’t have to be the one dealing with consequences.
Where was his concern when it was revealed that the church he belongs to was involved in abusing scores of young boys, then tried to ignore and cover it up?
He can shove that moral superiority up his ass.
Your “moral authority” in refusing an order does not trump the UCMJ. So, go ahead. Make your choice. Follow a lawful order, or follow your conscience. Remember, in making your choice, you also choose to accept the consequences. It’s called “free agency”.