WASHINGTON — The archbishop in charge of more than 800 chaplains in the American armed forces has condemned the proposed repeal of the 1993 law banning openly homosexual persons from serving in the military.
“The effect of a repeal” of the so-called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy “has the potential of being enormous and overwhelming,” wrote Archbishop Timothy Broglio of the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA.
His statement, released on the archdiocese’s website June 1, was a summary of a report he was asked to make to the chiefs of chaplains of the armed forces. “Sacrificing the moral beliefs of individuals or their living conditions to respond to mere political considerations is neither just nor prudent,” he wrote.
Both the House of Representatives and the Senate Armed Services Committee voted May 27 to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” In both cases, the change was in the form of an amendment to a defense-spending bill. The amendment stipulates that the repeal cannot come into effect until after a Defense Department impact study and the secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the president certify that it will have no impact on military readiness, unit cohesion and recruiting, among other concerns.
The Senate will vote on the repeal later this summer.
Archbishop Broglio is charged with the spiritual welfare of the 375,000 Catholics in the military and their 520,000 family members. It’s also his job to vet priests who want to serve as chaplains. His statement warned that the change in policy could “have a negative effect on the role of the chaplain not only in the pulpit but in the classroom, in the barracks and in the office.”
Homosexuals deserve compassion and dignified treatment from chaplains, he noted, but Catholic chaplains “can never condone — even silently — homosexual behavior.”
Instead, chaplains must urge homosexuals to commit themselves to a life of chastity. “By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and by sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”
Archbishop Broglio warned against repealing the law at least until the potential impact of the change had been carefully considered.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates promised the chiefs of staff of the armed forces earlier this year that no repeal would take place until a formal study of its impact was completed early in 2011.
Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., says the Obama administration was breaking that promise with its push to pass the repeal.
“They are in a hurry because they are afraid that the balance of Congress will change in the fall elections,” he said.
Constrained Chaplains?
Thompson told the Register that “repealing the ban will put chaplains in a conflict between their military commanders and their God.” Lifting the ban would be followed quickly by a zero-tolerance rule for any discriminatory comments, he said. “A chaplain who expressed Catholic or Christian teaching on homosexuality would face disciplinary action. He would be prohibited from giving counsel.”
Likewise, 40 retired evangelical Christian military chaplains warned of “persecution” of chaplains over family-support programs some chaplains offer but would have to refuse to same-sex couples for moral reasons. The chaplains expressed that viewpoint in a joint letter to the president requesting the ban not be lifted.
One of the signers, the Rev. James Poe, told the Register that repealing the ban would wreak “havoc” in the military, whose leadership of career commissioned and non-commissioned officers is dominated by Christian family men. “Many of them will quit, and they won’t be replaced because Christian pastors will warn young men to stay away from the military,” Poe said.
As a result, “the military culture will change,” Poe predicted. “Raising a family gives you a future-oriented perspective that gays don’t have.”
Arthur Schulcz also sees chaplains being put in a conflict of interest by the repeal. He is spokesman for the International Evangelical Chaplain Endorsers (endorsers are church bodies recognized by the military to ratify clergy for service as chaplains). Schulcz’ group, representing 300 chaplains, has recommended against repealing the law.
Chaplains, he says, will be at risk of disciplinary action, including dismissal, if they inform soldiers performing homosexual acts of the immorality of their actions. “The Army only sees one side of an issue. If you don’t agree, it says, you can leave.”
Thompson is confident that any chaplain who is disciplined for teaching religious doctrine concerning homosexuality would “have a clear case that his rights under the Constitution to the free expression of religion had been violated.”
Effect on Morale
The Thomas More Center, which has many former military personnel on its legal staff, joins many secular organizations, such as the Center for Military Readiness, in claiming the repeal will impair military efficiency and morale.
“Right now, men and women are in separate barracks,” said Thompson. “Now you will have homosexuals living in close quarters with 120 other men 24-7, 365 days of the year. It’s an invasion of their privacy to put people in there with them who are going to be sexually aroused by them.”
Schulcz cited a poll by Army Times that “10% of military personnel say they will definitely not re-enlist if the ban on homosexuality is lifted, and another 15% would consider leaving the armed forces.”
A Brookings Institute forum in Washington, D.C., in early May brought together officers from several other countries that allow openly homosexual people to serve in the military to relate their experiences. Judging from the transcript of the proceedings, homosexuals have served alongside heterosexuals without incident.
Thompson, however, said the United States was a more Christian country, based on church attendance alone.
A Canadian naval officer and a chaplain both confirmed those findings from their own experience, yet both also supported Thompson’s contention that cultural differences might make the Brookings’ findings irrelevant.
The naval officer, who insisted on anonymity, told the Register, “I’ve served with gay personnel all my career, and I’ve seen no detrimental effect on military performance. What we care about is: Will a guy be willing, when there’s a fire, to put on a respirator and grab a hose and go in.” He’d never heard of a homosexual, male or female, “hitting on” another service person. “It would be the absolute kiss of death” for anyone who did, he said, noting the recent dismissal of Canada’s senior combat officer in Afghanistan for engaging in consensual sexual conduct with a female “in theater.”
But what is true of the Canadian armed forces may not be true of the American military. “The U.S. appears much less of a post-Christian society,” the naval officer said. “Ideological battles over abortion, same-sex ‘marriage’ and drugs are much more evident there.”
The Canadian chaplain, a Catholic priest of many years’ service, said Canada’s court-ordered legalization of homosexuality in the military in 1992 “was really not an issue” then and so it remains. “There used to be a concern that gay people were a security risk, that they would be open to blackmail from agents of the Communist bloc.”
No serviceman has ever raised homosexuality with him as an issue; nor has anyone complained of homosexual advances from another service member. “The position of the Catholic Church is well known,” he said.
The chaplain has no worries about being forced to perform a same-sex “marriage.” “That would never happen,” he said. (Canadian armed forces protocol requires a chaplain whose beliefs preclude his officiating at a same-sex “marriage” to refer the couple to someone who will.)
The priest doesn’t agree that the United States is more or less “post-Christian” than Canada. But based on his own service alongside American troops, he told the Register, “a large number of American troops are drawn from rural areas and are very poor. Many of them may never have met an openly gay person. That would present a challenge.”
Steve Weatherbe writes from Victoria, British Columbia.
Tim Drake: How Barack Obama Betrayed the Civil Rights Movement
Jennifer Fulwiler: Using New Technology to Support Christian Soldiers
Comments
Post a Comment
The Democrats are trying to ram this down our throats this summer because they know they are going to be slaughtered in November. Essentially, there’s nothing we can do now, except hope that 41 senators support a filibuster.
We Catholics help install this moral, economic, and diplomatic shipwreck of an administration. We would do well to repent of our error and oppose it now, with a firm resolution to get rid of it at the first opportunity.
Dominus vobiscum.
Having served in the military for three decades, my guess is that most Catholic chaplains won’t have the same heartburn on this issue as the good Archbishop Broglio clearly has. Those dedicated Catholic chaplains will continue ministering to the needs of all service members - regardless of their religious faith - as they always have. Put another way, their emphasis will be on taking care of their flock, which means putting the needs and concerns of service members before their need to follow this Archbishop.
I’m a “cradle Catholic” and a US Army veteran, and have a beautiful certificate of appreciation for my time singing in the chapel choir on base. When I enlisted, I signed my life on the dotted line to protect and defend the Constitution, and thereby the rights of 300 million American strangers…
... and I would readily put my life on the line to protect the rights of anyone to freely practice their faith ... RIGHT UP TO the hard and fast line where it interferes with the rights of OTHERS to likewise freely practice THEIR own faiths.
Deference to religious pluralism is taught in military chaplain school; HOWEVER, ABSOLUTELY NO military chaplain is *EVER* required to provide sacraments, ceremonies, or blessings that are in conflict with the doctrine, dogma, or catechism of their respective faith. The military is a secular body. NO faith can be given priority in military POLICY, not even the faith I was born into - Roman Catholicism.
27 MILLION American veterans and ~2 million service members already know this to be true.
According to the Urban Institute, there are ALREADY 65,000 gays and lesbians serving right this moment. DEMANDING that they to do so in silence doesn’t in ANY way change the FACT that straight service members are ALREADY berthing and bunking near gays and lesbians. The only thing accomplished is giving blissfully ignorant peace of mind to homophobes who do not believe that 30 million LGBT Americans deserve the same rights as straights. Other than serving “in theater” or “being underway” (situations in which ALL sexual conduct is strictly forbidden for EVERYONE - as noted above) most modern barracks actually have separate bedrooms for every person, even in multi-bedroom “apartments” that share one common area.
Millions of “modern era” veterans and service members already know this.
I served with gays and lesbians. Never once did any lesbian “hit on” me while I was in service. If anything, those I knew had a case of the “minority overachiever” complex—felt they had to work harder and be better than status quo to prove they deserve and are fully worthy of the same tasks and honors given to “the majority”.
The amendment that was added to the National Defense Appropriation Act FY2011 last month [House Amendment 672] does not in ANY way repeal the PENTAGON’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” POLICY [DODI 1332.14]. If the bill passes, that amendment will repeal 10 USC § 654 - a federal statute that is separate from Pentagon policy. By repealing that statute, it actually opens the door for the PENTAGON to EITHER create a new nondiscrimination policy if the current study finds that gays and lesbians serving honestly will not negatively affect the military **OR** reinstate a formal ask&tell; “gay ban” - the OLD policy from PRIOR to 1993 - if the current study finds that gays and lesbians are not compatible with military service.
Two words for MULTIPLE points presented in the article: red herring.
Wes, while on the one hand I think I know what you mean, on the other hand (and in accord with the Good Bishop,) what about the souls of the gay soldiers? Helping your flock means doing what you can to help them live with God for eternity. Active homosexuality is a mortal sin. We don’t want our sons and daughters leaving to fight in a war, knowing they are destined to hell should they die in combat.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” ought to be in effect for civil society as well as in the military, we Catholics ought to be pushing for this, and it is actually a new and confusing teaching of our Church that prevents us from protecting our civilization and our families. Our Holy Father, as Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote in 1986 and 1992 the two of three documents that govern the Church’s post-Vatican II teaching on this matter. Although the documents clearly teach that homosexuality is a sin, they inexplicably call for Catholics to protect the ‘rights’ of homosexuals in all but four areas: adoption, teaching, coaching, and the military. This has caused very much confusion among Catholics, much ineffectiveness in struggling against the plague of sexual immorality endangering the souls of our neighbors and our own families. These documents must be revisited, along with other Vatican II and post-Vatican II directives written in the same spirit, as these were. Meanwhile, ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is a workable policy that still has some political traction, and we should be pushing it for all civil society as well as keeping it in the military. I have a post, ‘Holy Smoking Gun,’ at http://thewhitelilyblog.wordpress.com
Suzie: As soon as you uttered the word “homophobe” I knew what you were going to say. You may believe that having open homosexuals in the ranks is fine, but the military overwhelmingly disagrees with you—especially those who don’t have private rooms. This is a bad move that will be forced on a military force that needs support, not liberal social experimentation.
But that’s not the issue here. The Church, and Catholic chaplains in the DOD, will be forced into a confrontation with policy. The whole apparatus of political correctness will inevitably follow this move. Not only will the federal government be saying that immoral, depraved, sinful behavior is okay, a direct contradiction of Church teaching, but it will punish faithful priests for saying so. Don’t believe me? Just try to say that the vastly expanded role of women in the military over the past generation has been other than wonderful. It’s been a debacle and a weakening of our forces, but if you say it out loud your career is over. Why is this almost never reported? Fear.
The Bishop is right on target.
And Suzie, watch your facts. 30 million homosexuals? Uh, no. That’s 10% of the population, you know, the discredited Kinsey percentages. More like 2% overall, probably less than 1% in the DADT military where they can’t declare themselves freely (until now, that is). Urban Institute says 65,000 on active service? Get real. 2% of about 1.5m active duty is 30,000, and that’s pushing it; more likely 15-20,000.
And yes, the Urban Institute is a liberal think tank committed to the gay agenda. In any politicized issue, check, recheck, and check again your sources.
The bishop says that repeal of DADT will be followed by a zero tolerance policy against discrimatory comments. So what the bishop is fighting for is his right to discriminate against a group of Americans and spew distasteful rhetoric against them? Is this something to be proud of?
The article goes on to note: “Now you will have homosexuals living in close quarters with 120 other men 24-7, 365 days of the year. It’s an invasion of their privacy to put people in there with them who are going to be sexually aroused by them.” I hate to break it to you, there have been gays and lesbians serving in the military in close quarters since the founding of our country. It’s just that for the past 13 years, we have forced them to lie about who they are. The only thing that repeal of the law will do is allow these fine servicemen and women to be truthful with their fellow troops.
80% of the American public believes this law is discriminatory and wrong. 75% of troops have no problem with repeal of the law. There is no reason to continue to treat our fellow Americans in such a degrading and inhuman way as to force them to lie about who they are. This is a shameful policy.
It’s also un-christian to promote a law that treats other human beings with disgust and contempt. Our fellow human beings deserve support from us, not hatred.
Jamie, it’s hard to find any sense, reason, or even truth in your comment. And I like how you just tack on that the bishop’s view is unchristian. As if anyone who dares oppose open homosexuality in the ranks is apostatizing, for crying out loud.
This is not reasoned debate—it’s outrage that someone dares disagree with your position. Rather than address such drivel, I would like to ask you one pertinent question. What is the Church’s teaching on homosexuality? (Hint: check out the Catechism.)
For a clear, sane assessment of the issue, go to
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dont-repeal-dont-askdont-tell
The Weekly Standard article Phil posted above is very helpful. Author Stuart Koehl hits the nail on the head and takes potential prejudice out of his treatment by highlighting that whereas leaders in past wars often could promote *unit cohesion* for substantial sized groups by means of “external discipline”, modern-war leaders best secure today’s more typical *small unit cohesion* requirements via “internal discipline”, to be more combat-effective.
Consider that repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will mean a higher percent of gays entering the military. They would then be free to seek one another out (entirely-open sex still being prohibited), with more “falling in love” being a non-surprising consequence for sexually attracted people under stresses relievable by sexual means with no pregnancy risks. That will mean unprecedented “conflicts of interest” in tense battlefield conditions – without supposing sex taking place during offensive operations.
Koehl put it this plausible way about *attracttion-problems*: a straight soldier could justly have doubts about two buddies in his unit. Plausibly facing death in battle, a straight soldier might well worry and ask himself: “favoritism — will this guy risk his life to save me, or will he look out for his “special friend” first”? TRUST is THE issue and no claim from the gay side can remove that problem.
The fairness of the question is solid because of the stakes and human nature. This kind of burden must not be put on our soldiers to satisfy a debt “owed” by President Obama, for no one, *straight or gay*, has a **right** to serve in the military. If one brings a serious problem he/she is not selected so as to preserve military effectiveness.
President Obama disrespects *God-respecting Americans*. Not to wonder why, for Obama himself provides **self-convicting evidence** that he disrespects Jesus Himself by showing ZERO Empathy with his own professed savior (!) who suffers by having to endure ~ 3,300 **Obama-facilitated** abortions *daily*. No president is required to be diligently facilitating of abortion! We need not accuse; Obama provides the evidence. We must cite it.
Since President Obama is so COLD to Jesus’ feelings it explains how easily he can be cold to us and to our soldiers forced to operate with an “internal discipline” which will be WOUNDED by a President Obama-driven repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
Obama’s having explicitly *chided* fellow Christians in a Keynote Address for not reading their bible, he thus becomes *big-time responsible* to know from John 1:3 and Colossians 16-17 that newly created “womb babies” are created **through Jesus Christ**. Anyone who disses his own savior will ruin the Republic in many ways, in this case by endangering our military. President Obama is eager to certify DADT.
Unwittingly, Koehl’s focus on “internal discipline” points to a strong connection between St. Paul’s Romans 1 which implies some minimum spiritual characteristics required for maintaining the proper levels of internal discipline needed to inspire **trust** within the small units on dangerous battle missions. Obama’s wounding of **trust** is unforgivable.
Before reading Paul’s letter to the Romans, Chapter 1, the informative link just below should be read to *dispel* any notion that an individual’s homosexual acts are the worst of mankind’s evil doings or that all homosexual people necessarily go to hell. The acts themselves are condemned and are gravely offensive to God. Depending partly on one’s personal degree of *inclination* and on whatever caused it, engaging in the acts indeed *can* keep one from heaven but *only* if one refuses to seek God’s graces to become chaste.
Indeed, those “other sins” on Paul’s lists (e.g., 1 Cor. 6:9-10) also disqualify the *culpable & unrepentant* from the Kingdom of God. Those caught up in the *practice* of homosexual acts need to know they can enter heaven by effort and showing confidence that Christ’s grace is sufficient though their progress be particularly difficult and unsteady.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/humanity/homo4.htm
The worst-case effect on the military is for those who have so thoroughly loved their own selves and ideological position that they suffer from the *Idolatry of Ego*, the *modern version* of the mortal man-likeness cited by Paul in Romans1: 22-23 wherein they “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man ..”. The link below for “Are we guilty of idolatry?” gives food for thought.
http://theseekeroftruth.blogspot.com/2005/01/are-we-guilty-of-idolatry.html
Under idolatry-like conditions where God can leave them to their own degradation, the military then becomes vulnerable in ways that can extend **far beyond damage to “small units”**. Such troubled ‘gays’ may not be identifiable.
For most gays, that extreme seems unlikely; but the “conflict of interest” problem of “lovers in foxholes, nearby or same” in the typical small unit remains—and is more probable when DADT is repealed. In that setting, instructors on “internal discipline” can’t compensate for nature.
So, the real threat to America is from organizations like the LBGT community backed by a president who neither respects God nor God-respecting Americans, as noted above. Take, for example, the President’s June Proclamation for LGBT Pride Month. In it he uses the term “discrimination” three times. In at least two, he should have written “unjust discrimination” for the Catholic Church teaches that discriminating is not an *intrinsic* evil.
In fact we are *just* to discriminate when it comes to refusing to hand over adopted children to gay couples and for when the Church needs to hire people who are not “gay”, for certain jobs deemed sensitive by the Church. Obama’s Proclamation is also a declaration of war on the sacredness of marriage, indeed a declaration of war upon Catholicism and Christianity in general. No surprise for a president who shows Zero Empathy for his own savior. Wake up, America or go down and ruin it all for your children.
Remember these things before the nearing DADT Senate vote, for this November’s Election Day and then up through 2012.
Re William Folgers response to Phil. If we are to follow Phil. I suspect we will be the Roman Empire all over again. Bill is right respect God or go down in ruin. God Help us.
Follow up to previous link:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/more-don’t-askdon’t-tell
@ Silverfox
“If we are to follow Phil. I suspect we will be the Roman Empire all over again.”
I’m not sure I am understanding you, Silverfox. As I read both Phil’s and William’s (Bill’s) comments, they are in agreement with one another (and I with them!)
Your comment seems to be pitting them against each other (?)
The arrogance of Archbishop Broglio is astounding. The thrust of his argument is that a conflict between cannon law and civil law, in and of itself, should prevent the military from adopting a policy. Congress and the President set military policy, and members of the military, including the chaplains follow it. End of story. An argument based on the reason or morality that underlies doctrine is all well and good, but an argument based on the conflict between doctrine and policy alone has no place in a secular republic.
Reply to Kathy, You are right, I think I mixed up the name from another posting. They (Phil, William) are in agreement my error., sorry. It is as we agree that DADT is as good as we are going to get unless some major changes take place in this country. November will be the start of our campaign to eliminate the bastion of political correctness that is doing a great harm. God Bless America
Ryan: You gotta be kidding me. He has a right and a duty to speak out against any proposed law that would conflict with Church doctrine. He’s not asking for a veto power by the Catholic Church; he’s saying that a law that endorses sin cannot be condoned and would put his chaplains in an impossible position. No place in a secular republic? Ridiculous. That’s like saying the bishops should be quiet about abortion. After all, it was approved by the Supreme Court of a secular republic. The Court could also conceivably denote parts of the Bible as “hate speech”—should we be silent then as well?
@Phil, the bishop’s argument is exactly that the Church should have a veto over military policy. He has every right to speak out, but his argument about the chaplains is preposterous. You clearly don’t understand the distinction between saying “the military shouldn’t adopt this policy because it is immoral or bad policy” and “the military shouldn’t adopt this policy because it conflicts with the catechism.” The former is a perfectly valid (albeit stupid) position; the latter is not.
Silverfox, I agree 100%!
And, we’d better start praying for our Country, because Nov. will be here before we know it.
God Bless!
Ryan, I’m afraid it is your argument that is preposterous. Go back to the article and look at what the man said. The repeal of DADT will put his chaplains in a conflict between service policy and religious doctrine, and will force Catholic servicemembers to compromise their moral beliefs by endorsing homosexuality (once the PC police show up). Show me where he says that Catholics must approve or disapprove any policy change.
The fallacy you employ is the false dichotomy. The bishop is saying both that we shouldn’t adopt the policy because it is wrong and because it conflicts with Church teaching, which is the basis for everything he preaches on a daily basis. Both are valid arguments and perfectly acceptable.
Admiral Michael Mullen on February 2nd in his Testimony before the US Senate Armed Services Committee said this in favor of repealing the Don’t ask Don’t Tell law:
“I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens. For me, personally, it comes down to integrity-theirs as individuals and ours as an institution.”
The Admiral is the highest ranking officer in the United States Military, a 1968 US Naval Academy Graduate, a Vietnam War Veteran and I believe a practicing Catholic. NOW THOSE are words of honesty and faith. I think that Archbishop Timothy Broglio and others should take heed. It is time to end the don’t ask don’t tell law.
As a military officer and a devote Catholic, this issue is a difficult one for me, but I have do disagree with the majority here.
I accept the fact that homosexual acts are mortal sins for the same reason that I accept the fact that sexual acts outside of marriage and contraception are sinful. They defy natural law because they are not open God’s love and the creative power God uses through the act to create new life. In short, to paraphrase Natural Law scholar John Finnis, homosexual acts and contraception both demonstrate a contra-life will.
With that said, I find the compelling weight of the argument for lifting the policy.
It is true that homosexuality is a violation of natural law and a mortal sin, but that in itself is simply not a sufficient reason to ban it in the military or in the public in general. As Saint Augustine pointed out, the law can serve as a moral teacher, but the law need not and often should not ban all sins, venial or mortal (Augustine uses the example of prostitution). The law should never proscribe sin, and lifting do not ask/don’t tell would not, but the question of legally prohibiting sins is a matter of case-by-case prudence. Lifting the ban would not actually conflict with Church teaching any more than permissive laws that allow individual choice on a host of other issue of mortal sin do.
Depending on how the new policy is crafted, it might conflict with a Catholic (or other Christian, or Jewish or Muslim) Chaplain’s ability to perform his duty to God, but it need not do so. Chaplains are free to speak openly to the soldiers they minister to about a host of moral issues about which soldiers have freedom to act. Every soldier has the legal right to use contraceptives or have promiscuous heterosexual relations (and among young soldiers, away from home for the first time, heterosexual promiscuity is hardly rare). The fact that soldiers have legal freedom to partake in these acts does not limit the ability of a Chaplain to counsel soldiers against them. Conversely, Chaplains do have some restrictions on what they can teach and preach outside of a Church setting already, and those restrictions are necessary to proper military discipline. For instance, a priest serving as a battalion chaplain could explain transubstantiation and the moral requirement to attend mass and receive communion while giving a homily in mass. He would be out of line in condemning a Baptist or Muslim soldier who did not believe in the doctrine while counseling and checking on soldier morale in the barracks outside of a specifically Catholic setting. Moreover, being logically consistent, if you believe that the military ought to ban homosexuality for moral reasons, you should also hold that the military ought to ban contraception and sexual acts outside of marriage and mandate mass attendance.
In short, if the repeal were crafted carefully, Chaplains would need feel no more restricted in providing counsel and advice to soldiers than they already are in other areas. If a soldier came to a Chaplain as a Catholic in private, it would be perfectly appropriate for the Chaplain to offer advice to the soldier and explain that homosexual acts were mortal sins, while it might not be appropriate for a Chaplain to condemn homosexual acts in a battalion formation – but then, it is already inappropriate for a Chaplain to preach transubstantiation or the trinity or that missing communion is a mortal sin in a battalion formation now. Context of the discussion matters now as it would if the ban is lifted.
The question of combat readiness is a more difficult one, but the arguments in this area are less than persuasive.
The idea that soldiers will not be able to deal with fellow soldiers who are homosexual is a bit offensive. Soldiers will not quite because they disagree with this policy. Soldiers understand that elected official make policy and that they implement it. Soldiers, non-commissioned officers, and officers are professionals who understand their military mission. They may not agree with their peers life-styles, but they understand their missions and can respect each other as professionals. I have served with atheists, fundamentalists, Catholics, and Muslims. I have served with single soldiers, devoted family men and women, and soldiers and leaders who had a different boy or girlfriend every week and openly bragged about about their “conquests.” I did not personally approve of how the last group lived their lives, but it did not affect our ability to complete military missions.
The article raises the question of relationships between service members. This will not be a new issue for the military. Combat arms units (infantry, armor, and artillery branches) are all male units, but all other support and service support units, which make up the vast majority of the army in terms of total numbers, are male-female integrated. Even the support companies that support combat arms units are integrated, meaning that even in a combat zone, male and female soldiers of all branches work together on a daily basis. Infantrymen are all men, but their cooks, ammunition deliverers, and medics may be women. Tankers are all men, but their tank mechanics may be women. In short, the possibility for romantic and physical relationships is already fully a reality in the military. Homosexuals will provide no more “headaches” than those already in place.
Living quarters is admittedly a more difficult question. In most new barracks, soldiers are separated by room, though overcrowding does sometimes lead to shared rooms. Older barracks do tend to require shared rooms and showers. The concerns some soldiers I know, though hardly the majority. As to officer and NCO housing, there is the question whether the military recognizes gay marriages for on-post housing, but officers and NCOs live in private quarters whether on or off post, meaning there is no privacy issue for them. Deployment conditions are more difficult, as soldiers are forced to live in close confines. Currently, the military attempts to separate males and females in such conditions in ways that would be unrealistic for separating homosexuals and heterosexuals. Even among males and females, however, such separation is hardly always ideal. Sitting in a combat outpost of seventy people in the middle of the desert with no buildings to live in, I can assure you that even amongst men and women, privacy amounted to changing clothes on the other side of a HMMWV or sand berm, and even then, within sight of someone who could provide security and over watch in case of an attack. Integrating homosexuals would not be much different. Moreover, the reality is that other very good, very professional militaries have no such bans and are perfectly effective fighting forces.
I have been fortunate in that I have never had to chapter a subordinate out of the Army for violating don’t as/don’t tell, but I have no doubt that I have probably had homosexual subordinates. If I had found out that one of my soldiers was a homosexual, I would have been required to force them out of the Army. I can tell you that for a great many of my subordinates, there loss, were I to find out that they were gay, would be a greater loss to the army than any problems their homosexuality would have caused.
I can also tell you that one of the top five officers I have ever worked with was “outed” by a peer and forced to leave the army, and that his loss was a far greater loss for the army and our general national security than has retention ever would have been. I don’t agree with his personal life and I pray for his soul – just as I pray for the souls of soldiers involved in all sorts of other mortal but legal sins – and he knows that. Yet he remains a friend and, until his dismissal, a fine office.
Finally, the current policy is dangerous because it encourages dishonestly. Neither a true ban on homosexuals nor full acceptance, the current policy asks people to be silent and implicitly to lie about their lives. As a military professional, I can live with many serious moral failings in my counterparts, but integrity and dishonesty is not one. Nothing is worse than a military policy that encourages quibbling, lying, or half-truths. Any time a lie or a half-truth is acceptable or encouraged in one area, it becomes pernicious and acceptable among many soldiers in many areas.
So in short, the moral argument against homosexuality is clear, but moral arguments do not always equate to legal arguments. Homosexual service need not interfere with freedom of religion if the policy is crafted carefully. Finally, the best evidence indicates that the policy change will not harm force readiness, and indeed, that the current policy is pernicious in the dishonesty it encourages.
Policy making is not my domain, but I can assure you that whatever policy Congress and the Command-in-Chief adopt, the military is fully professional and will execute in a way that in no way endangers national security or combat readiness.
Gee, Mike, that’s not a posting, it’s an article. I would recommend that you send lengthy posts into Catholic Register to be published, but maybe you wish to remain anonymous.
The Bishop states clearly that the introduction of open homosexuals into the military will put Catholic chaplains in an impossible position. The Church teaches that homosexuality is sinful, aberrant, depraved behavior. The military chaplains will be ordered by the liberals in the Obama Administration to halt this teaching, and eventually to acknowledge that it is okay to practice homosexuality. This they cannot faithfully do. You seem to forget that after the repeal come the executive orders mandating compliance, the diversity cops, the brass covering their asses with statements of how wonderful it all is, the obligatory re-education classes, the persecution of faithful Christians for hate speech, the resignations and non re-enlistments, the gay pride military organizations and parades, and all the rest. You left that out of your piece. Yes, it takes time. It’s designed that way, by people who are in permanent opposition to the Church’s teaching on a range of issues, so you will hardly realize that you are going against your faith. As a chaplain you won’t have problems initially, but a few short years down the road (for example) if you deny communion to “married” lesbians you may find yourself facing some ugly, non-career enhancing probes or even a court martial. It happens in stages, you know, the frog in boiling water…You are slipping right into the trap, Mike. These guys don’t want tolerance, or even acceptance. They want endorsement, approval, and celebration, and for them Obama, Pelosi et al represent the opportunity of a lifetime. Their biggest obstacle is the nasty, homophobic Roman Catholic Church, which they truly hate.
Are you serious when you say that the military ethos, the warrior subculture that we try so hard to foster in our fighting units and which has been weakened over the past generation by politically correct hypocrisy with regard to women, will not be corrupted? No true “band of brothers” can include guys that are sexually excited by other band members. Their behavior is repugnant to their comrades in addition to being immoral. But the troops will be forced—ordered—to accept a policy that endorses what their religion (80% Christian) teaches is abhorrent. You are a serving officer, but you completely misunderstand the vital importance of unit cohesion on military effectiveness. I was in the 101st Airborne, in a combat battalion, and I know American troops well. You are right about this: they are professionals and will obey orders, even bad ones issued by leftist politicians who know absolutely nothing about military affairs and who couldn’t care less as long as they appease one of their constituencies.
@Mike, WOW!!!! What a well written, concise and thoughtful posting. If only more people had your integrity and insight. You are absolutely right. Don’t ask don’t tell DOES encourage dishonesty, and that was the basis of Admiral Mullen’s testimony back in February. Most people think that DADT simply mandates that gay and lesbian servicemembers must be discreet about their sexuality, but the policy is about deception not discretion. This is obviously a complex issue that requires a lot of careful consideration instead of callous knee-jerk reactions. General David Peatreaus, one of the most respected military leaders of our time, also testified before the US Senate Armed Services Committee about a few months ago and said that he felt the time has come to repeal don’t ask don’t tell. He cautioned that addressing the whole matter of changing the current law should not be met with “soundbites”. The truth is that our military has servicemembers of many different faiths and religious and moral perspectives. Jews and Gentiles have always had to serve together despite their differences, Catholics and Protestants, Fundamentalist Christians with members of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, Jehovha’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists all have had to wear the uniform together and treat one another with dignity and respect. It is time to repeal don’t ask don’t tell.
To those who think Homosexuality should be more liberalized than it already is. I write the following, why all of a sudden do we have to go through this exercise. If you believe in God, and put God first the we should have no problem. The Bible says it’s wrong, I don’t care if you are devout Catholic or not. Homosexuality when I was in the service was not discussed or worried about, therefore Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is probably the closest we will get to obeying God’s will. Thank You.
don’t ask don’t tell is in every way an attack on the individual soldier’s first amendment rights.
““have a negative effect on the role of the chaplain not only in the pulpit but in the classroom, in the barracks and in the office.”
well it sounds to me like if you’re worried about the negative effect on the soldier you’re not being compassionate and respectful.
The chaplain is there for the soldier after all not for his own issues.
ANY religion that involves elevating oneself and denouncing anyone of a different faith as somehow wrong, incorrect, or lesser is stifled in the military.
That is the way of the military. It is a secular body that DEMANDS its Chaplaincy DEFER to religious pluralism. If a Chaplain feels unable to do so, they very simply don’t meet the standards expected of ALL military Chaplains, wholly regardless of specific faith.
That is one of the sacrifices that swearing the oath of service requires.
It’s no deep dark secret. You know when you step forward, raise your hand, swear the oath, and sign your life on the line that while you are in service, your faith stays “between your ears” when you are ANYWHERE OTHER THAN an active religious service or in a pastoral counseling session such as Pre-Cana; the only thing on your sleeves are your rank, perhaps a flag, perhaps a unit patch, and perhaps a “tab” or “scroll”.
You can’t begin to count how many times I had to tell Baptists, Mormons, and people of numerous faiths ... including Catholics ... that the military workplace was NO place to sit around discussing, evangelizing, or proselytizing any one particular faith, DEFINITELY NO place for solipsism of people of different faiths.
—————————-
As to how women have been welcomed in the military? When given the opportunity to shine in top positions such as special operations team members ... they are embraced as valid and valuable!
http://www.military.com/news/article/female-special-operators-now-in-combat.html
“Army Special Operations Command has deployed its first teams of female Soldiers assigned to commando units in Afghanistan, and military officials are assessing their initial performance in theater as ‘off the charts.’”
Phil, before you make blanket statements about things like this, how about you research some FACTS?
—————————————-
As to how things are since the repeal has now HAPPENED?
Here’s a little reading for you: http://outservemag.com/
The military has a LOT of very different rules than the civilian world. Freedom of speech doesn’t include freedom of political speech in the military. It also DOESN’T include freedom to foist your own religion on other people. If you don’t like that, DON’T JOIN THE MILITARY!
What is or isn’t a sin is the domain of the church, NOT the domain of the government. If you think it’s a sin, don’t do it.
When I served, I saw some incredibly compassionate and open-minded chaplains who were able to MINISTER to soldiers’ mental and spiritual (spiritual, not religious) health, OUTSIDE of the trappings of their own faith when the soldiers were of different faiths. That is the duty of the chaplain in a religiously pluralistic body such as the military. If a chaplain wants to proselytize or solipsize, the military will NOT be a good fit.
The difference between accepting something and approving of it is like comparing apples to astronauts.
When I served, never once did a drill sergeant ask me if I “endorsed” or “approved” of MRE’s three times per day. I did, however, have to accept the FACT that sometimes—MRE’s thrice per day were reality.
The repeal verbiage does not say that ANYONE has to endorse or approve of homosexuality. It simply says that homosexuals can now serve openly instead of being discharged. Either accept that reality or don’t serve.
The Marines, at least, seem to be embracing it.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/09/local/la-me-1009-gay-pride-marines-20111010
The good Bishop can express whether or not he approves of the repeal all he pleases. He also knows dang well that he CANNOT expect the military to set policy according to the doctrine, dogma, or catechism of ANY religion.
———————————-
Mike, as you might guess from my frankness, I was a SPC4, yet I would happily serve under such a level-minded officer as yourself!
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.