Big Army silences Big Catholicism
Over at the National Review, they report that last weekend the Army instructed catholic chaplains to not read from the pulpit the letter that Archbishop for the US Military Services Timothy Broglio wrote to instruct Catholics to resist the mandate from the Department of Health and Human Services requiring Catholics as well as everyone else to ignore their religious beliefs and their conscience on insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs.
The Army’s Office of the Chief of Chaplains subsequently sent an email to senior chaplains advising them that the Archbishop’s letter was not coordinated with that office and asked that it not be read from the pulpit. The Chief’s office directed that the letter was to be mentioned in the Mass announcements and distributed in printed form in the back of the chapel.
Following a discussion between Archbishop Broglio and the Secretary of the Army, The Honorable John McHugh, it was agreed that it was a mistake to stop the reading of the Archbishop’s letter. Additionally, the line: “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law” was removed by Archbishop Broglio at the suggestion of Secretary McHugh over the concern that it could potentially be misunderstood as a call to civil disobedience.
I’m pretty sure that God [whatever name your God uses] doesn’t want us to have abortions (what with Him being known as The Creator and everything), but I object to government sponsorship of abortions on completely secular Constitutional grounds, specifically, the fifth amendment which says “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” and there’s no due process involved in abortions. So the religion thing aside, it’s unconstitutional for the government to sponsor the killing of the unborn.
I think it’s also unconstitutional for Big Army to interfere with the free exercise of religion. And if they’re so concerned about “civil disobedience” why didn’t Big Army prosecute Dan Choi when he chained himself to the White House fence while in uniform? Is some civil disobedience OK, while some is not? Can we get a list of Army-approved civil disobedience actions?
Category: Military issues
Mixed messages. It’s what the military’s Diversity Zampolits thrive on.
I think Chaplain Waters is spinning in his grave.
The Army’s best policy when it comes to religion is to turn a blind eye, excepting where it poses an actual threat to the organization as a whole. Prayer is an important part of being a Soldier. The Chaplain is an important part of the Army. The second the Army becomes corrosive to the relationship between Chaplains and their soldiers, we have hurt (badly in my opinion) our ability to fight.
Not to mention the fact this runs contrary to the First Amendment. UCMJ/Army Regs or not, this is bullshit.
Waiting for Joe to flap his cocksucker any time now…
Jonn–lemme help you out:
Disapproved civil disobedience actions:
–Smoking cigarette in public, while in uniform, etc.
–Profession of belief in God.
–Speaking out about Big Army or being critical of members of chain of command. (Actually I kind of agree with this one when not addressing them with C-of-C first.)
–Missing movement or going over the hill.
Approved civil disobedience actions:
–Smoking cock in public, while in uniform, etc.
–Yelling “Allah Akbar” while shooting and killing 14 people.
–Stealing and making public several hundred thousand classified documents because boyfriend left you.
–Missing movement or running off to Canada and crying the poorass to any news outlet that will waste column-inches on your pontification of how Iraq is so “wrong” even though you’ve never been near there.
I think Big Army is wrong in this case. Allowing the letter to be read does not harm military readiness nor cause conflict within government.
Though I would amend one of Doc’s sentences to read “prayer is an important part of of being a Solider to many”.
What is this China? The Adminstration continues to weaken the military’s impact on society and now the Catholic Chruch is public enemy #1 as well.
The Secretary of the Army has forgotten that Catholic Chaplains are Catholic Priests first, soldiers second. They serve at the convenience of their bishop. If the Army attempts to prevent Catholic Chaplains from living and professing their faith, it may soon find itself with no Catholic Chaplains. As a Catholic Marine, having no Priests available while on deployment would have weighed very negatively on my decision to reenlist. Conversely, the Catholic Chaplains I’ve encountered have been, almost without exception, some of the finest officers and Priests I’ve met. They are there because they want to be and are committed to serving the soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen to the very limit of their human ability and beyond (see Fr. Vincent Capodanno, Medal of Honor recipient) but would never forsake their faith and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
“We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law” isn’t a call to civil disobedience. It is a statement that the Church leaders will not comply with the law. It is akin to a 1SG telling his NCO’s that if the battalion commander insists in giving orders that violate the UCMJ, I will refuse to comply.
Neither Soldiers nor Catholics are required to obey an immoral order.
Will they now read the letter this Sunday? Check or checkmate, and by whom? This is a power game of religion and politics. Our rights being eroded daily.
According to the Army:
The Army became aware of the Archbishop’s letter last Friday (Jan. 27) and was concerned that the letter contained language that might be misunderstood in a military setting. The Army asked that the letter not be read from the pulpit. Instead, the letter would have been referenced in announcements and made available in the back of the chapel for the faithful, if they wished, as they departed after the Mass. The Army greatly appreciates the Archbishop’s consideration of the military’s perspective and is satisfied with the resolution upon which they agreed.
We cater to the religious needs of the prisoners we capture on the battlefield. But when our own soldiers receive a message from their church, it is verboten? It’s not like they were receiving a fatwah or anything.
I’m a civvie, but I would think soldiers would eventually find this information. It would come from friends and family. Then, they would also find out about this pussy-ass move. Talk about a morale unbooster. And doesn’t the U.S Code say something about affecting the morale of the soldiers?
I don’t know if the Army Chaplains can be counted on for much. A couple years ago I attended an Episcopal Easter service conducted by an Army Chaplain, and when we recited our sins, in addition to reciting the standard “we have sinned against you, we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves” he had added several bullets along the lines of “we’re sorry we exploit poor people,” etc.
There are a couple of long-standing principles at work here: Civilian control of the military, loyalty, and duty. Elections have consequences is another principle.
Chaplains are soldiers, sailors, coasties and airmen first. The Chaplain corps is the American polity’s official body of servicemembers who serve as priests, rabbis, imam, pastors, and such. Our present government is run by a man who, no shit, introduced legislation while in Illinois to permit doctors to perform what he called abortion – after the birth of the child. He voted for this legislation 4 times – twice more than even his closest allies. Obama is in charge of our Chaplains, and he doesn’t like babies.
Our military is controlled by civilians. They are expected to be loyal to our government first, and “Rome” whenever doing so doesn’t interfere with their military service. Chaplains have a duty to obey, even with their faith and free exercise of religion is completely opposite.
Best way to help our military, and restore our Constitution to its position of pre-eminency, is to vote for anyone but Democrats.
Regarding the Constitutionalism and politicization of abortion, I always like to remind people that, regarding religion, there is a part to the first amendment that comes after the comma. Yes, every knows that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Do they also know that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof?
We lost a lot of our normal rights as citizens when we enlisted – particularly those concerning our right to express our opinions freely and openly when given a lawful order. However, the right to worship was a right which the military establishment decided a LONG time ago was one worth affording to members because it enhanced good order. It compliments the military mission. It comforts those in harm’s way.
Of course all those whose agenda is the destruction of societal norms and all which has made this country great are going after military chaplains. They are after religion in general. And everything else that results in moral behavior – especially in the military.
My original position stands, but I have to part ways with the premise of an overarching, nefarious conspiracy against religion.
OWB – “Of course all those whose agenda is the destruction of societal norms and all which has made this country great are going after military chaplains. They are after religion in general. And everything else that results in moral behavior – especially in the military.”
I don’t doubt that there are some who want exactly what you state, it’s almost a statistical given that somebody would desire that. But I also have no doubt that you probably include the far larger percentage of those who want your right to worship protected as inviolable, but don’t want to be legally restricted by your religious beliefs.
Societal norms of what constitutes moral behavior evolve over time, whether one likes it or not. In the western world, societal norms have been generally biblically based, yet still evolved. If the norms that you subscribe to at present time are of a tangible quality, why not the norms a few hundred years ago? If the biblically based norms of the past are flawed when compared against the concepts of freedom and liberty, could not the present conceptions be flawed as well?
Finally, there is a danger in blindly accepting the religious position to be the default positive, especially when promoted by politicians.
That the Catholic Chaplains wanted to use the pulpit to state overt incitement to disobey a law isn’t particularly troubling to me, as the law doesn’t by and large affect those preaching or being preached to, so unlawful behavior isn’t likely to result. But if one were to switch the subject from one of religion to something else, it would likely find more opposition based on that principle.
There is a consipiracy against religion – which is present with or without an Administration (this one is the worst in my lifetime)that seeks to put it in the closet. I’m just a simple irish soldier boy so i’ll let CS Lewis do the talking:
And all the time—such is the tragi-comedy of our situation—we continue to clamour for those very qualities we are rendering impossible. You can hardly open a periodical without coming across the statement that what our civilization needs is more ‘drive’, or dynamism, or self-sacrifice, or ‘creativity’. In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.
Different century same old sh*t.
[…] Big Army silences Big Catholicism – This Ain’t Hell […]