Being in the military

[Brendan]

Where does the Catholic Church teach that destroying people is ok?.

Have you looked at the Council of Trent’s statement on the 5th Commandment

Killing In A Just War

In like manner, the soldier is guiltless who, actuated not by motives of ambition or cruelty, but by a pure desire of serving the interests of his country, takes away the life of an enemy in a just war.

Furthermore, there are on record instances of carnage executed by the special command of God. The sons of Levi, who put to death so many thousands in one day, were guilty of no sin; when the slaughter had ceased, they were addressed by Moses in these words: “You have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord”.

 

[Brendan]

Jesus laid down his life for love. But he did so without the sword, and he explicitly stated to do so without the sword. “He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.”

But when He was sending the Apostles out to preach the Word, He sent them armed. In fact, He told them to sell their cloak and buy a sword

When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

(Luke 22:36)

 

[DebChris]

There are Saints who have left military life to follow Christ. Yes, a Catholic may claim conscious objector status on that basis.
On the other hand, not all are called to reject military life. I like the reasoning given by a military chaplain that I posted earlier. It may be the person’s role to come to the protection of the waylaid stranger 20 minutes before the Samaritan passed by. My own family has been both Catholic and military. The way I saw training is the same as I see learning first aid. You are prepared at any moment while maintaining the hope that it will never be put to use.
While Jesus never raised arms against another, while he laid down his own life for our salvation, he was also quick to defend those whom other rejected. Look no further than the sinful woman who washed his feet.
Any person who does choose military life should look at his/her motives. The OP is doing exactly that.
There was a young man who attended my daughter’s high school. He was gung ho about joining the military, about going to war, that is until he actually joined. Once in the military his whole attitude toward war and fighting changed. A soldier knows his life is on the line. As General Swartzkopf said before the first Gulf war, “A soldier who loves war is dangerous, indeed.” Most soldiers I know hate war and long for peace.

 

[HAnne]

Perhaps, in some small way, I can offer you some advice.

I’m the descendant of many generations of Catholics. I’m also the descendant of a family who has served their countries (USA and Italy) very proudly both in times of peace and in times of war. Same family members. All Catholics, all military or police…sometimes both. I married a Catholic soldier in the Cavalry. Nope - we’re not talking light duty MOS - we’re talking about someone who served as a gunner in multiple conflicts.

As you can already see here, there are two schools of thought. Both are valid in the eyes of the beholder. I do not attempt to justify either side of this, but rather to give you the view from the woman who supports these amazing people who are willing to make such great sacrifices, perhaps even their souls according to some, to keep us and others safe.

My beloved Catholic loved ones have had to go to the some of the hardest confessions on earth and say exactly what you are afraid to have to say. “Bless me, Father, for I have sinned. It has been X days since my last confession. I have committed the sin of taking someone’s life.”

I can’t imagine sitting in their shoes at that moment. I truly can’t. I can hardly bring myself to kill a spider. If it isn’t poisonous, I trap it in a cup and put it back outside.

Once, when I was struggling greatly with being married to and related to suh men, a very wise chaplain once asked me what I thought of my husband’s service, and those in my family who came before him. He asked me, in Biblical terms, what were they doing and to check back with him later in the week.

These men weren’t killing just to kill. They were protecting OTHERS. They were trying to create PEACE. They are peacemakers.

Others know in their hearts they have been CALLED to this duty…BY GOD…and yet they are criticized daily for their choices by those who would call them men who do not follow Christ.

When out on their rounds and tours of duty, they must show mercy many times over - to protect the innocent and preserve justice. Even when they mourn the loss of their own, they show mercy.

They must accept orders - regardless of what they agree with or not. They are humble servants.

They seek to create a society that is right and just…and they do it with every ounce of their might and strength every single day so that my son and I can live in peace.

Sound familiar?

Matthew 5:1-12

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into the mountain: and when he had sat down, his disciples came unto him:

2 and he opened his mouth and taught them, saying,

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called sons of God.

10 Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets that were before you.

 

[GratefulFred]

This retired US Air Force Chief Master Sergeant sends a sharp salute to HANNE. Well said. Others have posted good comments as well.

About 1.500 years ago St Augustine wrote out the “Principles of a Just War.” Those principles still apply today. Just War implies unjust wars also exist.

Were the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the US Indian Wars, WW I, and WW II that gave us all the America and much of the world we enjoy today Just Wars? Did our leaders have the Principles of a Just War in mind when they chose to fight those wars? Was each battle and individual effort compliant with those Principles?

Same questions for the more recent wars in Korea, Vietnam (mine), Iraq, and Afghanistan and other conflicts where our forces have killed and been killed.

There are no easy answers.

A common question in the late 60s was “What if they gave a war and nobdy came?”

The answer is, “They would win.” This is true because they gave the war. And no one fought back. We often over look the aspect of “self-defense” in the wars America has chosen to fight. We have fought for our own self defense and for the defense of others. Except for the US Indian wars, we have not fought to subjugate others but rather for Freedom and Justice.

No war has or could be fought with a perfect separation of combatants and non-combatants. But America has done the very best of any country by far in trying to limit needless death, from ‘smart bombs’ to rules of engagement, to courts martial for violations.

Cadet, not all can or should serve in the US Military. But we need young men and women with your sense of Moral Code in the US Military so that we continue to develop strong leaders who will not willingly violate the UCMJ in the conduct of their duties.

It wasn’t always easy.
It wasn’t always fair.

Freedom called.
We answered.

We were there.

 

[Vince1022]

Have you looked at the Council of Trent’s statement on the 5th Commandment

Yes.

But I also look at what the Church teaches today which of course incorporates everything the Church has taught from tradition.

For instance, refer to the Catholic Catechism, Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae, and perhaps most relevantly his comments on the was in Iraq that the U.S. initiated.

There have been a lot of changes in the Church since Trent! Just has the Church continued to teach, and develop, following the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, etc. Right?

 

[Vince1022]

But when He was sending the Apostles out to preach the Word, He sent them armed. In fact, He told them to sell their cloak and buy a sword

(Luke 22:36)

Are you suggesting that one passage, in and of itself, apart from the whole of the Christian Tradition—and perhaps more significantly, in the context of Scripture —, is definitive as a response on this thread? Really?

 

[Vince1022]

And military people put their lives on the line EVERY single day for the love of their fellow man. Not every single person in the military is combat. That’s not my husband’s job description. The military is much more than “living by the sword.” I take it you would never be a policeman either.

Maybe some do. But my impression is that (in the U.S.) military people lay their life on the line because they’re ordered to.

Is that not correct?

They don’t really go to their death for love of their fellow man, do they? I love my fellow “man” (human) but that does not inspire nor require me to die for them in my daily life.

People in the military (which I was) follow orders. They aren’t asked if they agree. They aren’t asked why. They are ordered, and they obey.

Sure, they may have such noble ideals as serving their fellow human. But do those issuing orders they are obliged to follow have the same moral perspective? Not likely.

 

[Vince1022]

Cadet, not all can or should serve in the US Military. But we need young men and women with your sense of Moral Code in the US Military so that we continue to develop strong leaders who will not willingly violate the UCMJ in the conduct of their duties.

Yes it’s not always easy.

But don’t we also…and perhaps more importantly, as Catholics,…need young men and women whose moral code is formed first by the teachings of the Church, and only second by the nation/state?

 

[Orleans_Attny]

I really don’t mean any offense, but in the Air Force, the likelihood that you could take a life in war is…well…not very likely.

That’s just not true.

Signed active-duty, Afghanistan Vet.

Pax,
OA

 

[Orleans_Attny]

. . . My husband was deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan to help make the lives of the people in those two countries better than what they had before. His job is to help those people become independent from the dictator type governments that were in place. His job was and still is to build roads and energy sources and schools for girls where there never was any before. He is willing to put his life on the line in dangerous areas to help people he may never meet in his life time. If that doesn’t meet the definition of what a Catholic would do for someone’s brother, someone’s cousin, someone’s son, someone’s friend, someone’s lover, what does?

But that wasn’t the reason that your husband (or me) was sent there by our government. We were sent there to capture or kill the enemy and to deny them a base of operations and to disrupt their command and control structure.

What you’re referencing are the side benefits to the means that we used to accomplish our goal.

But we shouldn’t confuse the two. Our can has never . . . and I submit, won’t ever . . . care enough about the people of Afghanistan to let that caring drive our foreign policy. Without 9/11 (or some other attack) we would have been content to leave the Taliban in power - with all the attendant social outrage - until the end of times.

Pax,
OA

 

[Orleans_Attny]

I’m on active duty now. My father raised me to join the military. I went to an academy. I got off active duty and entered the civilian world. And then I returned to active duty, and I’ll probably retire after a career. I’ve been to Afghanistan once. I’m presently forward deployed, and I’ll probably be going back to Afghanistan or Pakistan or the Horn of Africa in the next couple years.

I’ve struggled with this question. And I imagine that all the other Veterans in this thread have struggled with it.

But you’ve got to answer it for yourself; just like we did.

Consider, however, that that we’re talking about military service, so certain principles apply:

1. You have to be willing to take a direct part in the killing of a human being. That’s the first requirement of the military.
2. As an officer you have to be willing to send your own men and women to their certain deaths.
3. Though we don’t target innocents, don’t decieve yourself. Without any doubt, we take military actions that are 100% certain to kill innocent noncombatants. Every time we target a powerplant or other infrastructure we kill noncombatants. There is no rule that says we can’t - in many cases it would be irresponsible to have a zero-tolerance rule for the killing of innocents. As a matter of the Law of Armed Conflict, part of the proportionality aspect of targeting considers the cost/benefit ratio of killing innocents along with our target. Those calls are made by officers at the tactical level, in many cases. And you might be taking part in that decision.
4. Our government doesn’t govern its foreign policy by the Just War Doctrine. You could easily find yourself fighting in a war that the Pope says is immoral and that clearly doesn’t meet the Just-War elements. I’d submit that most of our “wars” haven’t strictly met the JW elements.

I don’t think there is much arguing about those 4 points. Whether or not you can be a military officer . . . a person whose principle vocation is to conduct violent diplomacy . . . is up to you. I don’t think there exists a cut-and-dried answer to your question.

Peace be with you, and good luck with your decision.

OA

 

[Vince1022]

That’s just not true.

Signed active-duty, Afghanistan Vet.

Pax,
OA

Excellent point. Thanks.

Not to mention the obvious question of “so what” – meaning, if one is in the armed services during war, the taking of lives is what one is supporting, however proximately or remotely.

 

[joandarc2008]

With all due respect to the OP I think your time for discerning whether or not to join the military is done. You are in as an ROTC cadet to some degree because you have a contract. I am speaking as someone who has served - and we are also called to fulfill our civil duty which you incurred voluntarily.

I served in Iraq - I am a disabled vet - and I would not change it as it has changed me for the better as it has brought me closer to God. I was a medic. Before I left I was converting to Chaplain’s Assistant.

Now, what you can do is discern your job in the military - medical, personnel, military police, etc. so that you will be in the best place that you feel will meet with your moral obligations. (Obviously as a Catholic Chaplains Corps on the Officer level is out unless you are male - and plan on going to seminary but I did not get that from your post) You can serve your minimum obligation and be done.

God bless.

 

[DebChris]

Maybe some do. But my impression is that (in the U.S.) military people lay their life on the line because they’re ordered to.

Is that not correct?

They don’t really go to their death for love of their fellow man, do they? I love my fellow “man” (human) but that does not inspire nor require me to die for them in my daily life.

People in the military (which I was) follow orders. They aren’t asked if they agree. They aren’t asked why. They are ordered, and they obey.

Sure, they may have such noble ideals as serving their fellow human. But do those issuing orders they are obliged to follow have the same moral perspective? Not likely.

“I was just following orders” has not been an acceptable defense since Andersonville. A serviceman vows to obey lawful orders and is duty bound to refuse unlawful orders.

That’s just not true.

Signed active-duty, Afghanistan Vet.

Pax,
OA

I’m on active duty now. My father raised me to join the military. I went to an academy. I got off active duty and entered the civilian world. And then I returned to active duty, and I’ll probably retire after a career. I’ve been to Afghanistan once. I’m presently forward deployed, and I’ll probably be going back to Afghanistan or Pakistan or the Horn of Africa in the next couple years.

I’ve struggled with this question. And I imagine that all the other Veterans in this thread have struggled with it.

But you’ve got to answer it for yourself; just like we did.

Consider, however, that that we’re talking about military service, so certain principles apply:

1. You have to be willing to take a direct part in the killing of a human being. That’s the first requirement of the military.
2. As an officer you have to be willing to send your own men and women to their certain deaths.
3. Though we don’t target innocents, don’t decieve yourself. Without any doubt, we take military actions that are 100% certain to kill innocent noncombatants. Every time we target a powerplant or other infrastructure we kill noncombatants. There is no rule that says we can’t - in many cases it would be irresponsible to have a zero-tolerance rule for the killing of innocents. As a matter of the Law of Armed Conflict, part of the proportionality aspect of targeting considers the cost/benefit ratio of killing innocents along with our target. Those calls are made by officers at the tactical level, in many cases. And you might be taking part in that decision.
4. Our government doesn’t govern its foreign policy by the Just War Doctrine. You could easily find yourself fighting in a war that the Pope says is immoral and that clearly doesn’t meet the Just-War elements. I’d submit that most of our “wars” haven’t strictly met the JW elements.

I don’t think there is much arguing about those 4 points. Whether or not you can be a military officer . . . a person whose principle vocation is to conduct violent diplomacy . . . is up to you. I don’t think there exists a cut-and-dried answer to your question.

Peace be with you, and good luck with your decision.

OA

I would be worried about any man/woman who does not struggle with the dilemma between an ideal world and the reality that is faced on a day to day basis.
As stated, there is no cut and dry answer.

The hero stories that I most remember from childhood are not those who destroyed the enemy. More often than not, it is the selfless soldier who threw himself on the the grenade, saving his platoon in the process. It is the medic who treated battlefield casualties regardless of political allegiance.

I am thankful that there is a concerted effort today to separate the soldier from the politics that places our young (and not so young) men and women in harm’s way. Flashback a generation and you find veterans returning from an unpopular war bombarded at home with calls of “baby killer.” Many were drafted; they did not volunteer. The choice these men faced was one of entering the service or taking the course of a “coward” by fleeing to Canada. Even those who chose conscious objector status were often jeered as “cowards.”

 

[PatriceA]

But that wasn’t the reason that your husband (or me) was sent there by our government. We were sent there to capture or kill the enemy and to deny them a base of operations and to disrupt their command and control structure.

What you’re referencing are the side benefits to the means that we used to accomplish our goal.

But we shouldn’t confuse the two. Our can has never . . . and I submit, won’t ever . . . care enough about the people of Afghanistan to let that caring drive our foreign policy. Without 9/11 (or some other attack) we would have been content to leave the Taliban in power - with all the attendant social outrage - until the end of times.

Pax,
OA

You are wrong. My husband is a civil affairs officer. He was sent to both Afghanistan and Iraq to do exactly what he did, help both countries become more independent. He was not combat. There are other goals that the military has than just trying to capture our enemies.

Here is a description from wikipedia of what civil affairs do, if anyone was wondering:

Consisting primarily of civilian experts such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, police, firemen, bankers, computer programmers, farmers, and others, CA soldiers provide critical expertise to host-nation governments and are also able to assess need for critical infrastructure projects such as roads, clinics, schools, power plants, water treatment facilities, etc. Once a project has been decided on, a contract is put out at a civil-military operations center for local contractors to come and bid. CA teams will periodically check up on the status of the project to make sure the money is being well-spent.

Its an ongoing career field. There are many government agencies that have employees in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak, not just the military doing just this kind of job description. Its an area of the military that many people are not aware exists. I didn’t, until my husband decided he no longer wanted to be infantry. He thoroughly enjoys helping people in other countries rebuild their lives and create local environments that are safer for all. Its not always safe in these areas while my husband is trying to do his job, there are many people that do not want us or the locals to succeed of course. There is always the potential that the projects will be blown up, regardless of human lives lost, ours and theirs.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

You are wrong. My husband is a civil affairs officer. He was sent to both Afghanistan and Iraq to do exactly what he did, help both countries become more independent. He was not combat. There are other goals that the military has than just trying to capture our enemies.

Here is a description from wikipedia of what civil affairs do, if anyone was wondering:

Consisting primarily of civilian experts such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, police, firemen, bankers, computer programmers, farmers, and others, CA soldiers provide critical expertise to host-nation governments and are also able to assess need for critical infrastructure projects such as roads, clinics, schools, power plants, water treatment facilities, etc. Once a project has been decided on, a contract is put out at a civil-military operations center for local contractors to come and bid. CA teams will periodically check up on the status of the project to make sure the money is being well-spent.

And I’m now a military lawyer who lived in Kabul doing Post-conflict Rule of Law Development and Training (though I used to be a line officer). Regardless, as a matter of foreign policy our military intervention in Afghanistan is violent diplomacy and self-defense.

Our primary mission is not to make life better for the Afghans. That’s military tactic that’s a nice side benefit for the people of Afghanistan. But we’ve never cared about protecting them, improving their lives, or bringing democracy to a repressed population.

If we cared about that we’d have been in Afghanistan after the Soviets left. And we be in about 50 other countries today.

This is what we care about: Capturing and/or killing Islamic Terrorists and denying them a base of operations from which to plan and carry out attacks against the United States (and to some extent our allies).

We’re not there to build schools for girls, build roads, and encourage women to cast off their burquas and go to medical school. Occasionally, we sell that to our troops . . . and it’s an absurd lie that should be almost entirely transparent. When we do stuff that looks like that, it’s because we feel it will hurt our enemies and/or help our allies in the Afghan Government. Don’t confuse it with altruism.

Our mission in Afghanistan isn’t a humanitarian mission.

Pax,
OA

 

[PatriceA]

And I’m now a military lawyer who lived in Kabul doing Post-conflict Rule of Law Development and Training (though I used to be a line officer). Regardless, as a matter of foreign policy our military intervention in Afghanistan is violent diplomacy and self-defense.

Our primary mission is not to make life better for the Afghans. That’s military tactic that’s a nice side benefit for the people of Afghanistan. But we’ve never cared about protecting them, improving their lives, or bringing democracy to a repressed population.

If we cared about that we’d have been in Afghanistan after the Soviets left. And we be in about 50 other countries today.

This is what we care about: Capturing and/or killing Islamic Terrorists and denying them a base of operations from which to plan and carry out attacks against the United States (and to some extent our allies).

We’re not there to build schools for girls, build roads, and encourage women to cast off their burquas and go to medical school. Occasionally, we sell that to our troops . . . and it’s an absurd lie that should be almost entirely transparent. When we do stuff that looks like that, it’s because we feel it will hurt our enemies and/or help our allies in the Afghan Government. Don’t confuse it with altruism.

Our mission in Afghanistan isn’t a humanitarian mission.

Pax,
OA

Are you saying my husband is lying about the mission he was given as a civil affairs officer?? That is really insulting. I guess the two years he spent in Afghanistan and the 18 months in Iraq doing all he said he did was just my imagination? You can believe what you want about what the military’s mission is in Afghanistan, but I think I’ll believe what my husband was trained to do and continues to do with working with other military units and government agencies. Thank God he doesn’t believe what you believe.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

Are you saying my husband is lying about the mission he was given as a civil affairs officer?? That is really insulting. I guess the two years he spent in Afghanistan and the 18 months in Iraq doing all he said he did was just my imagination? You can believe what you want about what the military’s mission is in Afghanistan, but I think I’ll believe what my husband was trained to do and continues to do with working with other military units and government agencies. Thank God he doesn’t believe what you believe.

Please don’t be offended - I’m not belittling your husband’s duty.

This is what I’m saying: We sent our military to Afghanistan to win a war. Our primary purpose for sending them there had nothing - absolutely nothing - to do with making life better for Afghans. Part of our military strategy in our struggle against Islamic Terrorists is stability operations, which includes what your husband and I did. For example, projects that make life better for noncombatants.

But don’t confuse a tactic with a mission. Our purpose for being in a country that most of America can’t find on a map has everything to do with the 3000 people killed on 11 September 2001, and nothing to do with the fact that we wanted to do something good for the suffering Afghan people.

Your husband - and I - were/are supporting elements in our nation’s goal of capturing and/or killing terrorists and denying them command and control and and base of operations.

That’s the truth . . . and it’s not bad.

I feel very good about what little I was able to do to help the Afghans. As should your husband. That was a very wonderful side-benefit to our participation in a military operation.

I’d be very surprised if your husband disagreed with anything I’ve written about the reason we sent our military to Afghanistan and why we continue to operate there. It’s not because we want to do something nice for less fortunate people.

Pax,
OA

 

[DebChris]

You are wrong. My husband is a civil affairs officer. He was sent to both Afghanistan and Iraq to do exactly what he did, help both countries become more independent. He was not combat. There are other goals that the military has than just trying to capture our enemies.

Here is a description from wikipedia of what civil affairs do, if anyone was wondering:

Consisting primarily of civilian experts such as doctors, lawyers, engineers, police, firemen, bankers, computer programmers, farmers, and others, CA soldiers provide critical expertise to host-nation governments and are also able to assess need for critical infrastructure projects such as roads, clinics, schools, power plants, water treatment facilities, etc. Once a project has been decided on, a contract is put out at a civil-military operations center for local contractors to come and bid. CA teams will periodically check up on the status of the project to make sure the money is being well-spent.

Its an ongoing career field. There are many government agencies that have employees in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak, not just the military doing just this kind of job description. Its an area of the military that many people are not aware exists. I didn’t, until my husband decided he no longer wanted to be infantry. He thoroughly enjoys helping people in other countries rebuild their lives and create local environments that are safer for all. Its not always safe in these areas while my husband is trying to do his job, there are many people that do not want us or the locals to succeed of course. There is always the potential that the projects will be blown up, regardless of human lives lost, ours and theirs.

My last Reserve unit was a Civil Affairs Unit. Before that I was a member of an Infantry Training Unit. Yes, I trained the Drill Sergeants who trained soldiers for combat.
It is God who called me out of the reserves. This was made easy when the Army capstoned the Civil Affairs units to infantry units. Women had no choice. We had to find other units. I chose to go inactive and allow my enlistment to lapse. I knew how to protect my career, but chose otherwise. I was facing a personal crisis at the time. I had choices to make. None were made easily.
The Civil Affairs mission is one of liaison between the civilian population and the military.
There are a myriad positions within the military other than infantry and artillery. In the twenty-two years my father spent in the Army, he never carried a weapon. I would say that is a much more difficult feat in today’s army. There are still medical positions, as well as those of translators. There are rescue personnel who risk their lives to save others, including refugees displaced by war.
Individuals join the military for many different reasons. While few look for the opportunity, none knows when they might choose to relinquish their life for the sake of another.