Can a person of faith serve in the military?

[epan]

Let’s assume that such a thing as a “just war” can exist. This would present no problem for a Christian to fight.

What about those military actions which are not “just”?

May a devout Christian agree to be subject to orders which could require him or her to go to war, even what that war is not “just”?

 

[Tietjen]

Let’s assume that such a thing as a “just war” can exist. This would present no problem for a Christian to fight.

What about those military actions which are not “just”?

May a devout Christian agree to be subject to orders which could require him or her to go to war, even what that war is not “just”?

Catholics may indeed be apart of the military as the Church recognizes that all countries have the right to protect themselves. The Catechism speaks of this directly on this link (scroll to para 2307 - 2317).

 

[IronMIke]

We have had plenty of just wars and as well Jesus was not passive.

 

[Georgiana_X]

epan, I don’t know about other countries these days, but in America a person makes a decision to join the military and is afterwards expected to do as directed whether in agreement or not. I can understand why this could be troubling to a person of faith. Is your question about people who are drafted or required to serve in the military? I hope someone else can reply better to your question about this.

I am grateful to veterans for their service and thank them for their bravery and courage. They know best what sacrifices they have made and what their service has cost them, and that includes areas such as you mentioned. I pray for them always.

 

[JimG]

Sure. That’s why we have a military archdiocese, to serve Catholics in the military.

 

[R1ch4rd]

Let’s assume that such a thing as a “just war” can exist. This would present no problem for a Christian to fight.

What about those military actions which are not “just”?

May a devout Christian agree to be subject to orders which could require him or her to go to war, even what that war is not “just”?

Great question and ones first reaction would be yes, But if you read deeper, it seems as if you need to pick your branch carefully. A more precise question would be can a Catholic serve on a submarine or pilot an Air Force bomber, capable of destroying whole cities?

2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."109 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.

Let the debate begin…

 

[JimG]

In the USAF I was assigned to a strategic missile squadron. Those nuclear tipped ICBM’s provided a deterrent to war. There were some Catholics in my unit. One of them never failed to remind me to go to Mass on Sunday. I was somewhat insulated from the moral implications of nuclear weapons since my unit was involved only in testing, not in strategic operations. Still, the testing was necessary to ensure the reliability of the ICBM’s.

Sure I thought about the moral implications. Back then, the NCCB, the precursor to the USCCB, gave some consideration to the issue, and came out with a statement that the use of a nuclear deterrent was not inherently immoral, and so Catholics could serve in such units. Deterrence in itself is not an act of aggression or an act of war. And nuclear deterrence actually did keep the peace during the cold war over a period of many decades.

I thought of the issue again when there was a news item some years back in which a Catholic male missile crew officer objected to serving alone with a woman on 24 hr shifts in an isolated control center (these are two-person crews). His bishop supported him in his moral objections, but it’s noteworthy that neither the crew member nor his bishop raised any moral issue with the fact that he had the responsibility to launch nuclear missiles if necessary.

I think that’s because deterrence itself is not condemned. In fact, lack of a deterrent could make nuclear war more likely, and loss of innocent life more likely.

I also recall that another guy in my unit—in the electronics department—was a total pacifist. That is, when I would present him with hypothetical scenarios in which he might find it necessary to kill someone in self defense or defense of another, he always rejected such ideas. “You’re just trying to think of a way that I might have to kill someone,” he would say, “but I won’t.” Go figure.

 

[epan]

In the USAF I was assigned to a strategic missile squadron. Those nuclear tipped ICBM’s provided a deterrent to war. There were some Catholics in my unit. One of them never failed to remind me to go to Mass on Sunday. I was somewhat insulated from the moral implications of nuclear weapons since my unit was involved only in testing, not in strategic operations. Still, the testing was necessary to ensure the reliability of the ICBM’s.

Sure I thought about the moral implications. Back then, the NCCB, the precursor to the USCCB, gave some consideration to the issue, and came out with a statement that the use of a nuclear deterrent was not inherently immoral, and so Catholics could serve in such units. Deterrence in itself is not an act of aggression or an act of war. And nuclear deterrence actually did keep the peace during the cold war over a period of many decades.

I thought of the issue again when there was a news item some years back in which a Catholic male missile crew officer objected to serving alone with a woman on 24 hr shifts in an isolated control center (these are two-person crews). His bishop supported him in his moral objections, but it’s noteworthy that neither the crew member nor his bishop raised any moral issue with the fact that he had the responsibility to launch nuclear missiles if necessary.

I think that’s because deterrence itself is not condemned. In fact, lack of a deterrent could make nuclear war more likely, and loss of innocent life more likely.

I also recall that another guy in my unit—in the electronics department—was a total pacifist. That is, when I would present him with hypothetical scenarios in which he might find it necessary to kill someone in self defense or defense of another, he always rejected such ideas. “You’re just trying to think of a way that I might have to kill someone,” he would say, “but I won’t.” Go figure.

Agreed, that deterrence is a good thing.

If you received launch orders, then the picture changes. What if those orders are offensive, rather than defensive? Would you have refused to initiate a launch, and be court martialed? What difference would that have made, if you did?

There are provisions in the UCMJ to disobey an illegal order. However, whether a military action is offensive or defensive (the most common difference between a just and unjust action) does not fall into this category of exclusion. Additionally, real conditions, orders are followed, unless the commander is clearly incompetent, or poses a danger to his own unit. For example, I have seen an order given for a “danger close” air strike, that is an air strike which violated safety rules and could have resulted in friendly casualties. In that case, the gunny refused the order, and the colonel giving the order was too incompetent to call in the strike himself.

So, that was an example of refusing an order. But, it was a very unusual one. Military personnel follow orders. When you sign up, then you agree to do that.

 

[epan]

Sure. That’s why we have a military archdiocese, to serve Catholics in the military.

Yes, there are ministers and priests in the military. They don’t pick up a weapon. My question refers to those who fight.

But this raises another question. Let’s assume that the US embarks on a clearly unjust war. Would a military priest be in moral danger by supporting the personnel who were fighting? One way to look at it would be to say that the priest is only ministering to individuals, but does he not also contribute to the moral and fighting efficiency of the people fighting?

 

[epan]

epan, I don’t know about other countries these days, but in America a person makes a decision to join the military and is afterwards expected to do as directed whether in agreement or not. I can understand why this could be troubling to a person of faith. Is your question about people who are drafted or required to serve in the military? I hope someone else can reply better to your question about this.

I am grateful to veterans for their service and thank them for their bravery and courage. They know best what sacrifices they have made and what their service has cost them, and that includes areas such as you mentioned. I pray for them always.

Georgiana - that is what I refer to. If one joins the military, then one is expected to do one’s duty. If the US engages in a war of aggression, which is clearly unjust, then one must choose between criminal charges, or fighting. Cowardice is a capital crime in the military. It is very difficult to claim conscientious objection when one joined voluntarily. Disagreeing with the reason for a military campaign is never considered sufficient grounds to refuse an order.

 

[epan]

Catholics may indeed be apart of the military as the Church recognizes that all countries have the right to protect themselves. The Catechism speaks of this directly on this link (scroll to para 2307 - 2317).

Tietjen - and what about the non-defensive actions? The invasion of Iraq, for example? Did the Pope not say that the recent war was not a just war?

 

[epan]

Great question and ones first reaction would be yes, But if you read deeper, it seems as if you need to pick your branch carefully. A more precise question would be can a Catholic serve on a submarine or pilot an Air Force bomber, capable of destroying whole cities?

Let the debate begin…

Richard - I don’t quite understand. Which branch would you pick?

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Let’s assume that such a thing as a “just war” can exist. This would present no problem for a Christian to fight.

What about those military actions which are not “just”?

May a devout Christian agree to be subject to orders which could require him or her to go to war, even what that war is not “just”?

Yes, just wars exist. The Crusades were a just war (meaning the purpose of the Crusades), even though some awful things were done during the Crusades.

Military actions which are not just aren’t allowed. (e.g bombing whole cities)

I think if they think it is an unjust war then they shouldn’t. But what is a just war is up for interpretation based on the points of a just war.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Tietjen - and what about the non-defensive actions? The invasion of Iraq, for example? Did the **Pope **not say that the recent war was not a just war?

Do you have a quote?

 

[Highwayhound]

Let’s assume that such a thing as a “just war” can exist. This would present no problem for a Christian to fight.

What about those military actions which are not “just”?

May a devout Christian agree to be subject to orders which could require him or her to go to war, even what that war is not “just”?

My first thought was “Saint Joan of Arc”. I always think of her when it comes to war because the last time the French were any good at war they were lead by a teenage girl:shrug:

A couple days ago I watched a dvd about Father Vincent Capodanno a.k.a. The Grunt Padre of Vietnam. He was beloved by his fellow marines. I will be looking for a copy of the book to read.
vincentcapodanno.org/index.php
combatwife.net/memcapodanno.htm

By almost any account America’s greastest soldier - Sgt. Alvin York was a devout Christian man. If you have not read his diary it would time will spent:
["The Diary of Alvin York" by Alvin C. York 8th 1918]("The Diary of Alvin York" by Alvin C. York 8th 1918)

The October 8, 1918 entry is simply incredible. On that day Sgt York fires his guns 29 times and had 29 hits and in the process captures 132 prisoners.

Well those are my thoughts

God bless

 

[JimG]

Yes, there are ministers and priests in the military. They don’t pick up a weapon. My question refers to those who fight.

But this raises another question. Let’s assume that the US embarks on a clearly unjust war. Would a military priest be in moral danger by supporting the personnel who were fighting? One way to look at it would be to say that the priest is only ministering to individuals, but does he not also contribute to the moral and fighting efficiency of the people fighting?

I’m glad you mentioned military priests, because it gives me a chance to mention that a Kansas priest who was a chaplain in the Korean War and died in a POW camp in North Korea, has his cause for beatification under consideration at this time! His name is Father Emil Kapaun.

I really think that the duty of determining the justness of any particular military action falls on the politicians who embark upon it, not on the troops fighting it. Every soldier, every airman, every Marine, is not required to be a moral theologian. Not only that, but moral theologians themselves may disagree on particular military actions. A soldier would not be required to obey an obviously unjust order, such as to kill prisoners of war.

,

 

[JimG]

Agreed, that deterrence is a good thing.

If you received launch orders, then the picture changes. What if those orders are offensive, rather than defensive? Would you have refused to initiate a launch, and be court martialed? What difference would that have made, if you did?

There are provisions in the UCMJ to disobey an illegal order. However, whether a military action is offensive or defensive (the most common difference between a just and unjust action) does not fall into this category of exclusion. Additionally, real conditions, orders are followed, unless the commander is clearly incompetent, or poses a danger to his own unit. For example, I have seen an order given for a “danger close” air strike, that is an air strike which violated safety rules and could have resulted in friendly casualties. In that case, the gunny refused the order, and the colonel giving the order was too incompetent to call in the strike himself.

So, that was an example of refusing an order. But, it was a very unusual one. Military personnel follow orders. When you sign up, then you agree to do that.

Launch orders were not something that personally concerned me, since I was not a launch officer. If valid launch order are received, it is presumed that they will be followed.

It has probably changed now, with additional technology, but in my day a launch officer would not actually know his target except by guesswork. He might receive orders to (name removed by moderator)ut target number 89 or 77 or 99, or any of a 100 targets selected by number only.

Of course the very essence of deterrence requires both that the weapons will work and that they will be used if the nation is attacked. No matter how accurate the weapon system, if an enemy knew for certain that launch officers would never launch their weapons, they would not be deterred at all!

The whole concept goes back to Ike, no warmonger he. Still, he knew that NATO could not defend Europe against a massive Soviet attack. His solution was to assert that any attack on any NATO nation would be construed as an attack on the U.S., and would be met by “massive retaliation,” from SAC bombers with nuclear weapons. I don’t think he consulted the moral theologians on that one. The concept is certainly problematic.

 

[R1ch4rd]

Richard - I don’t quite understand. Which branch would you pick?

Got lucky and the Armed Forces didn’t want me during the Vietnam era. If I had to choose, I’d go Coast Guard. No big ordinance and, for the most part, they wait for the fight to come to our shores.

 

[epan]

Do you have a quote?

Pope John Paul II and top Vatican officials are unleashing a barrage of condemnations of a possible U.S. military strike on Iraq, calling it immoral, risky and a “crime against peace.”

The unwavering stance has made the pope one of the most visible opponents of war in current circumstances, and a rallying point for peace groups and politicians who seize on his words counseling against war.

Read more: foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80875,00.html#ixzz2AhYul1mP

 

[epan]

Launch orders were not something that personally concerned me, since I was not a launch officer. If valid launch order are received, it is presumed that they will be followed.

It has probably changed now, with additional technology, but in my day a launch officer would not actually know his target except by guesswork. He might receive orders to (name removed by moderator)ut target number 89 or 77 or 99, or any of a 100 targets selected by number only.

Of course the very essence of deterrence requires both that the weapons will work and that they will be used if the nation is attacked. No matter how accurate the weapon system, if an enemy knew for certain that launch officers would never launch their weapons, they would not be deterred at all!

The whole concept goes back to Ike, no warmonger he. Still, he knew that NATO could not defend Europe against a massive Soviet attack. His solution was to assert that any attack on any NATO nation would be construed as an attack on the U.S., and would be met by “massive retaliation,” from SAC bombers with nuclear weapons. I don’t think he consulted the moral theologians on that one. The concept is certainly problematic.

Yes, and what is the role of conscience for a military person. We know many years later that a soviet weapons officer refused to fire on an American warship blockading Cuba, from a Soviet submarine, thus probably preventing WW3. Presumably, the personal price for him was quite high. But for a submarine weapons officer to make a personal decision to belay an order… this has profound implications as to the reliability of the chain of command, which could also work in the other direction as well, not always for the best outcome.

Anyone signing up must assume that he or she will be called upon to engage in offensive military actions. Those actions might be in opposition to that persons religious beliefs. Is it not, therefore, dishonest to sign up, with such knowledge?

What about the likes of Gen. Shinseki, who came forward and pointed out that the Bush war plan would not work. History has shown that he was correct. He was castigated and lost his job for speaking up. The fact that he was correct has resulted in a rather heated discussion in professional journals regarding the moral obligation of an officer who finds himself in the same circumstances that Shinseki found himself.