Can a person of faith serve in the military?

[epan]

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.

,

Yes, going into OIF1, we did not know yet that our civilian leaders were lying. But by OIF2, everyone knew that the public had been duped, and that no argument could be advanced that the war was defensive or “just”.

Personally, I felt a moral obligation to finish what we had started, and to leave the place as well off as we could. In that sense, I did my duty to my comrades in arms, and to the Iraqi people, even though at that point, it was clear that the war was an offensive war to gain oil and territory, and had never been in the defense of the US.

The official line that most warriors will give you is that they have no opinion. This is obviously not true. And that opinion may evolve over the course of a campaign, as I think it did for many in the case of Iraq, and also in Vietnam.

 

[JimG]

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.

If I recall correctly, the Soviet sub commander did not disobey an order. In fact, the subs had had NO communication from Moscow since they departed home port. The lack of communication (which is difficult with subs in any case) made the situation worse. The U.S. ships were trying to force the Soviet sub to the surface, not to destroy or sink it, and did not attempt to board it once it did surface. It seems that the Soviet naval officers did not actually understand initially that that was the U.S. intent.

If a person believes that his country is inherently evil and has evil intentions, then he should not join the military. If he disagrees with national foreign policy or national military stance, then he ought to think about getting into national politics to change that, rather than joining the military.

But each soldier does not make his or her own foreign policy or military policy. That way lies chaos.

Those in the higher levels of the officer corps, especially generals, are certainly in a position to argue vociferously for particular policies. If positively evil policies are in place, they have a duty to fight against those policies.

 

[JimG]

Yes, going into OIF1, we did not know yet that our civilian leaders were lying. But by OIF2, everyone knew that the public had been duped, and that no argument could be advanced that the war was defensive or “just”.

Personally, I felt a moral obligation to finish what we had started, and to leave the place as well off as we could. In that sense, I did my duty to my comrades in arms, and to the Iraqi people, even though at that point, it was clear that the war was an offensive war to gain oil and territory, and had never been in the defense of the US.

The official line that most warriors will give you is that they have no opinion. This is obviously not true. And that opinion may evolve over the course of a campaign, as I think it did for many in the case of Iraq, and also in Vietnam.

As to the Iraq war, I really don’t think the purpose was “an offensive war to gain oil and territory.” The U.S. gained no territory, nor intended to, and only disrupted the supply of oil. A strategy to gain oil and territory would have been entirely different.

 

[epan]

As to the Iraq war, I really don’t think the purpose was “an offensive war to gain oil and territory.” The U.S. gained no territory, nor intended to, and only disrupted the supply of oil. A strategy to gain oil and territory would have been entirely different.

errr… did you look at the map? It didn’t work out as intended, because Mr. Rumsfeld was so whacked out. If it had gone according to plan, we would have ended up with a democratic ally in the most strategically important position in the region, and with large oil reserves. I agree with you that the strategy was wrong, but that was a Rumsfeld aberration. He was just a kook. He failed to achieve his objective. Whether a better commander could have done so, is unknown, now.

But let’s go back to what you think out objective was. What was it? Was the OIF a “just war”?

 

[epan]

If I recall correctly, the Soviet sub commander did not disobey an order. In fact, the subs had had NO communication from Moscow since they departed home port. The lack of communication (which is difficult with subs in any case) made the situation worse. The U.S. ships were trying to force the Soviet sub to the surface, not to destroy or sink it, and did not attempt to board it once it did surface. It seems that the Soviet naval officers did not actually understand initially that that was the U.S. intent.

If a person believes that his country is inherently evil and has evil intentions, then he should not join the military. If he disagrees with national foreign policy or national military stance, then he ought to think about getting into national politics to change that, rather than joining the military.

But each soldier does not make his or her own foreign policy or military policy. That way lies chaos.

Those in the higher levels of the officer corps, especially generals, are certainly in a position to argue vociferously for particular policies. If positively evil policies are in place, they have a duty to fight against those policies.

Do you remember the incident? It predates me. What I heard from media reports was that a weps officer disobeyed a direct command to torpedo a US war ship. I thought that this did not come to public light until somewhat recently.

 

[JimG]

Do you remember the incident? It predates me. What I heard from media reports was that a weps officer disobeyed a direct command to torpedo a US war ship. I thought that this did not come to public light until somewhat recently.

I’m old enough to remember the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but of course complete information on the details were classified until very recently. A recent and highly readable book about these events is “One Minute to Midnight,” by Michael Dobbs. Declassified material is also available at the GWU National Security Archive website here: gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/dobbs/

The U.S. had actually sent a message to the Kremlin stating its intention to surface the Soviet sub, but that information never made to the sub commander, who, being left in the dark, didn’t know whether he was under attack or not.

Soviet communications officer Vadim Orlov, in an account of the tense situation on board the Soviet sub, states that the commander was furious at the situation and at his inability to contact Moscow, and gave orders to prepare the nuclear torpedoes (the existence of which the U.S. was apparently unaware). His deputy commander calmed him down and the decision was made to surface. The accuracy of Orlov’s account remains somewhat controversial, but it can be found here:
gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB75/

I doubt that the Kremlin would have given the commander an order to use nuclear torpedoes against the U.S. fleet in this situation. In any case, it did not.

I have no idea as to whether the Iraq war was a “just war” according to Catholic moral principles. What is apparent is that not only every intelligence agency of the U.S. thought that Saddam had WMD’s, but so did every foreign intelligence agency. In fact, so did Saddam’s generals! It was what he wanted them to think. Saddam could probably have forestalled the war early on by giving complete access to inspectors. The war was certainly not a good thing for Chaldean Catholics, who were persecuted after Saddam fell and Shiite’s took over the government from Sunni’s. Maybe the moral of the story is that removing a dictator is not necessarily always the best thing to do. I don’t know if the Iraqui’s are happier without him or not; probably they are glad he is gone. At least the nation hasn’t split up into three parts as yet.

 

[Mar044]

jesus does not shun soldiers, just as he helped roman officers and their servents on multiple occasions,

although i fear soldiers may commit sin if you use war to kill unjustly, random killing or for pleasure even in war is a sin, to kill a family because they are in the way is not moral, to kill a child you think may have a bomb without effort is a sin.

to kill a soldier is not the same as murder, if done for the right reasons.

 

[DebChris]

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.

,

My father was in Korea when I was born. Each of my brothers served in the military. My sisters also served in the Navy, as an Air Force spouse, or as a civilian. I spent the first 14 years of my life as a military dependent.
I remember reading stories of heroes who tended to the wounded on the battlefield, regardless of which side they may have been on.
My own husband served as a chaplain’s assistant. During a difficult period in our relationship, I learned exactly what that meant. Chaplains often tend to the needs of soldiers on the front lines. The chaplain’s assistant carries the rifle that may be used to save his life. It is only after my husband’s recent death that I learned how he actually earned his bronze star, an incident he had blocked from his memory. As a soldier in Vietnam, he carried two of his platoon members to safety while under hostile fire.

There are stories throughout Church history in which saints left military life in response to God’s call. It is why I gave up my career in the Reserves, even with the prospect of a direct commission. It does not, however, mean that military service is intrinsically wrong. One chaplain answered this question about whether or not a person might serve with the story of the Samaritan. He asked the soldier to picture himself 20 minutes earlier, protecting the man from the brigands who had left him to die in the ditch.

As in all walks of life, each person must answer to his/her conscience. Simply “following orders” is not considered a legal defense.

 

[JimG]

My father was in Korea when I was born. Each of my brothers served in the military. My sisters also served in the Navy, as an Air Force spouse, or as a civilian. I spent the first 14 years of my life as a military dependent.
I remember reading stories of heroes who tended to the wounded on the battlefield, regardless of which side they may have been on.
My own husband served as a chaplain’s assistant. During a difficult period in our relationship, I learned exactly what that meant. Chaplains often tend to the needs of soldiers on the front lines. The chaplain’s assistant carries the rifle that may be used to save his life. It is only after my husband’s recent death that I learned how he actually earned his bronze star, an incident he had blocked from his memory. As a soldier in Vietnam, he carried two of his platoon members to safety while under hostile fire.

There are stories throughout Church history in which saints left military life in response to God’s call. It is why I gave up my career in the Reserves, even with the prospect of a direct commission. It does not, however, mean that military service is intrinsically wrong. One chaplain answered this question about whether or not a person might serve with the story of the Samaritan. He asked the soldier to picture himself 20 minutes earlier, protecting the man from the brigands who had left him to die in the ditch.

As in all walks of life, each person must answer to his/her conscience. Simply “following orders” is not considered a legal defense.

Thanks for your personal story and comments. I completely agree: “following orders” is neither a legal nor a moral defense. In the movie “Saving Private Ryan,” there is an episode in which a German solddier is captured after a firefight. One of the men wants to shoot him, but the captain orders him disarmed and released. That was the right thing to do. Towards the end of the movie there is an episode in which a soldier who had been plagued by cowardice ends up shooting a German prisoner. That was the wrong thing to do; even though he would have been justified in shooting him in the course of battle.

But none of the soldiers ever sat around trying to decide whether WW-II was a just war or not.

 

[epan]

I’m old enough to remember the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but of course complete information on the details were classified until very recently. A recent and highly readable book about these events is “One Minute to Midnight,” by Michael Dobbs. Declassified material is also available at the GWU National Security Archive website here: gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/dobbs/

The U.S. had actually sent a message to the Kremlin stating its intention to surface the Soviet sub, but that information never made to the sub commander, who, being left in the dark, didn’t know whether he was under attack or not.

Soviet communications officer Vadim Orlov, in an account of the tense situation on board the Soviet sub, states that the commander was furious at the situation and at his inability to contact Moscow, and gave orders to prepare the nuclear torpedoes (the existence of which the U.S. was apparently unaware). His deputy commander calmed him down and the decision was made to surface. The accuracy of Orlov’s account remains somewhat controversial, but it can be found here:
gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB75/

I doubt that the Kremlin would have given the commander an order to use nuclear torpedoes against the U.S. fleet in this situation. In any case, it did not.

I have no idea as to whether the Iraq war was a “just war” according to Catholic moral principles. What is apparent is that not only every intelligence agency of the U.S. thought that Saddam had WMD’s, but so did every foreign intelligence agency. In fact, so did Saddam’s generals! It was what he wanted them to think. Saddam could probably have forestalled the war early on by giving complete access to inspectors. The war was certainly not a good thing for Chaldean Catholics, who were persecuted after Saddam fell and Shiite’s took over the government from Sunni’s. Maybe the moral of the story is that removing a dictator is not necessarily always the best thing to do. I don’t know if the Iraqui’s are happier without him or not; probably they are glad he is gone. At least the nation hasn’t split up into three parts as yet.

Well, it might be an overstatement to say that “every” informed source believed that. The best informed expert on the topic did not, Hans Blix.

You will note that I said that by OIF2, we knew that there were no WMD. My personal experience as an NCO in a recon unit was that the first actual Iraqis that we encountered was an artillery unit. They wanted to surrender, and we had no facility to accommodate them. We debriefed them and provided medical attention, food and water. The interesting thing was that they all had Russian-made gas masks and atropine injectors. Why? because they believed that they had neurotoxic artillery shells in their battery.

But, the whole WMD issue was a ruse to justify an invasion. When you think about it, every country in the region has good reason to have WMD as a deterrent. Israel, SA, Pakistan, all have WMD because they can have them. We support our friends with nuclear arsenals. Even if Iraq had WMD, it posed no threat to the US, which is why the Pentagon brass was flabbergasted by first hand accounts when the secretary of defense asked for an invasion plan.

I think that the Vatican soundly condemned the military action.

 

[epan]

I’m old enough to remember the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but of course complete information on the details were classified until very recently. A recent and highly readable book about these events is “One Minute to Midnight,” by Michael Dobbs. Declassified material is also available at the GWU National Security Archive website here: gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/dobbs/

The U.S. had actually sent a message to the Kremlin stating its intention to surface the Soviet sub, but that information never made to the sub commander, who, being left in the dark, didn’t know whether he was under attack or not.

Soviet communications officer Vadim Orlov, in an account of the tense situation on board the Soviet sub, states that the commander was furious at the situation and at his inability to contact Moscow, and gave orders to prepare the nuclear torpedoes (the existence of which the U.S. was apparently unaware). His deputy commander calmed him down and the decision was made to surface. The accuracy of Orlov’s account remains somewhat controversial, but it can be found here:
gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB75/

I doubt that the Kremlin would have given the commander an order to use nuclear torpedoes against the U.S. fleet in this situation. In any case, it did not.

I have no idea as to whether the Iraq war was a “just war” according to Catholic moral principles. What is apparent is that not only every intelligence agency of the U.S. thought that Saddam had WMD’s, but so did every foreign intelligence agency. In fact, so did Saddam’s generals! It was what he wanted them to think. Saddam could probably have forestalled the war early on by giving complete access to inspectors. The war was certainly not a good thing for Chaldean Catholics, who were persecuted after Saddam fell and Shiite’s took over the government from Sunni’s. Maybe the moral of the story is that removing a dictator is not necessarily always the best thing to do. I don’t know if the Iraqui’s are happier without him or not; probably they are glad he is gone. At least the nation hasn’t split up into three parts as yet.

Oh… and I might add, that I have personally heard General Powell say that his presentation to the UN was the low point of his career, and something that he is now ashamed of. I admired his courage to admit that.

So, apparently, the US administration knew that his presentation to the UN was falsified.

 

[Tietjen]

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?

I haven’t heard that. However, with all due respect to the Holy Father, if he did say that, I would have to question his authority on the matter. Not every word he speaks carries the weight of being infallible. I do know that the Church does not make a habit of engaging in the politics of other countries. I served for 10+ years in the US Army as an MP (during several conflicts) and I never encountered an issue over whether or not I was violating my conscience or Catholic teaching.

If you have come to realize that you are violating your well-informed conscience, then by all means either resign your commission or do not reenlist. But I’d suggest that you hold off on trying to suggest that a “person of faith” should not serve. Many of us have and do and I’m at peace knowing neither that God nor the Church see my service as sinful.

 

[epan]

I haven’t heard that. However, with all due respect to the Holy Father, if he did say that, I would have to question his authority on the matter. Not every word he speaks carries the weight of being infallible. I do know that the Church does not make a habit of engaging in the politics of other countries. I served for 10+ years in the US Army as an MP (during several conflicts) and I never encountered an issue over whether or not I was violating my conscience or Catholic teaching.

If you have come to realize that you are violating your well-informed conscience, then by all means either resign your commission or do not reenlist. But I’d suggest that you hold off on trying to suggest that a “person of faith” should not serve. Many of us have and do and I’m at peace knowing neither that God nor the Church see my service as sinful.

I have not yet expressed my opinion, which is that some avocations are honorable under any circumstances. So, I have formed my life around a career which I think brings good into the world, whether it is practiced on Wall Street, in a slum, or on the battlefield.

As for the problem that a warrior faces, I don’t see it as a trivial one. Our politicians are corrupt. Acting for the commonwealth, if it ever existed, has been replaced by acting for personal wealth and accumulation of power in national politics. We are sold the reasons of justice when we go to war, and then we find out later the real reasons. I certainly swallowed the bait with OIF1. This has been a refrain of modern US warfare, that perhaps 50% of our invasions are “unjust”. I am not referring to ongoing peacekeeping missions. And, there have been notable “just” actions, Desert Storm would be the largest most recent, “just” action. The orders to withdraw from Tora Bora bring one to question why we really went into Afghanistan the first time under President Bush. If not for that little detail of abandoning the mission at the critical moment, that would have been a “just” action.

Others may have more faith in our civilian leaders than I do, and their consciences may be clear to fight wherever they are sent. If our nation were attacked, or there were some other clearly “just” cause, I would not hesitate to pick up a weapon. The problem for my conscience is that signing up for a combat job means that I would agree to kill and destroy property, regardless of the justice of the cause. In my opinion, history has shown those causes to be just about 1/2 of the time.

My personal military experience has been similar to yours, in that I never felt that I was violating my conscience, at the time of action. But in retrospect, I did kill people, turn buildings, and in one case participate in turning most of a town into rubble. At the start of OIF, we seemed to have a just mission. By the end of my involvement in it, it was common knowledge that the original reasons had not been carefully considered, which explains why the Pentagon brass was utterly shocked when told to draw up the invasion plan, and why General Powell was a strident voice of opposition on the Cabinet. They were privy to the same intel as the Administration.

Interestingly, on the heels of all of the revelations about how we went to war, there has been a lot of talk in professional journals about what the duty of an officer is to the civilian public. On one side is the traditional view, that military officers should not get involved in politics, and on the other are the younger officers, led by a shining star out of Westpoint, who are expressing the opinion that General Shinseki’s statements were his moral duty to bring to public attention. Just as enlisted Marines have become better killers with less remorse than previous generations, they have also become more discriminating and more willing to sacrifice themselves. This same ethos may be a characteristic of the lower grade officers coming up the ranks, as well.

I am curious as to why you would question JP II’s authority to lend his moral opinion on the invasion of Iraq?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

BJPtG stated that the war in Iraq (I don’t remember what he said about Afghanistan) was unjust. I disagree with him to a degree, but I’m wrong. The Holy Father said it was unjust, he said it as a statement from his office, his statement is supported by the teachings of the Church, therefore it was unjust. For a Catholic soldier the question isn’t if the war was just or unjust, but can a Catholic serve in an unjust war.

 

[austenbosten]

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”?

Sure, my RCIA sponsor was a Colonel in the Army and served in Vietnam. He’s a very pious man.

 

[Timothysis]

BJPtG stated that the war in Iraq (I don’t remember what he said about Afghanistan) was unjust. I disagree with him to a degree, but I’m wrong. The Holy Father said it was unjust, he said it as a statement from his office, his statement is supported by the teachings of the Church, therefore it was unjust. For a Catholic soldier the question isn’t if the war was just or unjust, but can a Catholic serve in an unjust war.

Pope John Paul begged for an end to hostilities but never declared as pope that the war was “unjust.” It is only here on CAF that people are infatuated with having wars declared “just” or “unjust,” much in the same way that they ask, every time the pope makes a statement, if what he did or said is “infallible.”

There is not an office in the Holy See that investigates every war past and present, declaring them “just” or “unjust.”

And according to the Church, soldiers are to follow the orders of their superiors exactly as bishops and priests have a duty to obey their legitimate orders according to obedience. Certainly a soldier, just like a priest, has a right to refuse to commit an action that would knowingly cause him to sin but soldiers usually don’t have the knowledge of situations to objectively review the intelligence and reach a decision of their own. It is the duty of a soldier to obey his legitimate superiors and it is the duty of superiors to make sure that the actions committed by their troops are within the rules of war and engagement.

 

[R1ch4rd]

Sure, my RCIA sponsor was a Colonel in the Army and served in Vietnam. He’s a very pious man.

Being pious and an RCIA teacher doesn’t mean he was right in serving.

 

[JimG]

Here is what the pope said with respect to the Iraq war:

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2003/documents/rc_seg-st_20030219_migliore-security-council_en.html

My own military service was decades ago. I can say that nearly all those I knew in the military were good and decent people, probably more so than many that I knew in civilian life.

As for the just war issue, I still have to wonder: is this something that every individual must determine on his or her own? Moral theologians disagree about whether particular wars are just. Usually it comes down to a matter of prudential judgment.

Was World War II just? It certainly encompassed a lot of immoral actions on both sides. Was it a last resort? Could—should—the U.S. have held off longer or not entered the war? There were many in the U.S. who thought so.

Was World War I just? Korea? Vietnam? (Before answering that, read Michael Lind’s book “Vietnam, the Necessary War” and talk to the Vietnamese priest in my diocese.)

Was the Norman Invasion of England just? The American Revolution? The French Revolution? The Vendee Uprising opposing the French Revolution? The First Barbary War? The battle of Lepanto? (Probably so, since it appears that prayers to the Virgin Mary helped defeat the Turkish fleet!) The American Civil War?

The fact is, the justness or unjustness of nearly every war is disputed by many on both sides, both at the time and in retrospect.

 

[Timothysis]

Here is what the pope said with respect to the Iraq war:

vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2003/documents/rc_seg-st_20030219_migliore-security-council_en.html

I think this has to be placed in its proper time frame to be relevant. This letter speaks *“that even though the process of inspections appears somewhat slow”

• which makes me believe that it was authored before Saddam kicked out the international weapon inspectors. The situation was certainly changed once that happened. Besides this letter never comes out and says that war against Iraq would be “unjust.”

As for the just war issue, I still have to wonder: is this something that every individual must determine on his or her own? Moral theologians disagree about whether particular wars are just. Usually it comes down to a matter of prudential judgment.

An excellent point.

 

[R1ch4rd]

Originally Posted by JimG
As for the just war issue, I still have to wonder: is this something that every individual must determine on his or her own? Moral theologians disagree about whether particular wars are just. Usually it comes down to a matter of prudential judgment.

Yes, it is. IMO, every war has it’s low points. WWII was kinda just, until Hiroshima was bombed. The captain of the second B29, William Sweeney was a devout Catholic and even had his plane blessed by a Catholic priest before leaving to destroy Nagasaki. The bombing, several years later, earned a condemnation from Pope Pious XII and caused the CCC to be re-written to include the use of WMD. I’m not sure if the fire bombing of Dresden, which destroyed 15 square miles of a city that had little military value was condemned. The Vietnam War is rumored to have been encouraged by the Church to preserve Christianity in that area. Once we found no WMD’s in Iraq, we really couldn’t say “excuse us, we screwed up, we’ll be leaving now”. I think every war is fluid and wavers between just and unjust and each individual needs to follow his conscience as to whether to serve or not.

Just as we rely on our priests and spiritual leaders for leadership in matters of Faith, we have to rely on the leaders of our countries to lead us in war. If the information they get, or give, is incorrect…the onus is on them.