Loading ...
A military friend of ours writes in with these words about Archbishop Edwin O’Brien’s opposition to a bill in the U.S. Congress which would recognize the right of a chaplain to pray according to his conscience. I.e., if the chaplain were Jewish, he could pray like a Jew, if Catholic, like a Catholic, without having to cater his every word to please the multi-faith censors. The first paragraphs of the article:
WASHINGTON (CNS) — A congressional proposal that would have guaranteed the right of military chaplains to pray according to their conscience could also have had an “adverse effect on unit cohesion” and even result in a ban on all public prayer in the military, according to the head of the U.S. Archdiocese for the Military Services.
Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien said in a Sept. 21 letter to U.S. Catholic chaplains that a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2007 “would seek to impose a legislative mandate for military chaplains without considering the religious needs of all military members.”
Our friend disagrees and writes:
In the December newsletter from the US Military Archdiocese, they proudly reprint the [above] article from the Catholic News Service. This is sickening to read. Are they so committed to praying with no reference to Our Lord and Our Lady that they would go to this length? All this proposed law would do is give chaplains the right, not the requirement, to pray in public in accordance with their own traditions. Why would the Catholic archbishop of the US Armed Forces oppose such a law? Could it be that there priests would no longer have an excuse to use only inclusive language and non-denominational prayers? They apparent don’t want the cover of law to be true Catholic priests.
What would Servant of God Fr. Kapaun do? He, like many Catholic priests prior to V II, prayed in accordance with Catholic tradition and he was loved and adored by soldiers from all backgrounds: protestants, Jews, and atheists. When a protestant military chaplain is leading a mixed group of military personnel in prayer, I don’t expect him to invoke the Blessed Virgin Mary. Don’t you think non-Catholics in the presence of a Catholic chaplain would have a similar expectation? They would expect him to pray like a Catholic priest. Apparently, this is something that the Archdiocese doesn’t want. They don’t want Catholic priests. They want masonic “presiders” — and that, by in large, is who they are getting…
A tricky situation this seems to be. Perhaps someone can explain to us just how this chaplain business plays out - must Catholic soldiers ever attend at the prayers of Jews, Mohammedans, and protestants? Things are dandy if Fr. Kapaun is on the job, but not every unit can have a Catholic chaplain with it, can it? Contrary to the language I used above, Jews and other infidels don’t have a right to pray according to their conscience, I think, since error has no such rights, even if it’s expedient in a state constituted like America to allow, at least, each religion some limited sphere.
We know that there is at least one U.S. military chaplain who is no masonic presider - he is also now chaplain to the armed wing our Society - perhaps he would care to share some thoughts on this subject?
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
There are not many events where the unit chaplain prays before a religiously mixed group of people. Or I should say they are not very frequent. Normally his praying is done before congregations made up of soldiers from his particular religious sect.
However, he (and unfortunately today “she”) also has a responsibility toward a particular unit, say a battalion of 500 soldiers. As the battalion chaplain of 500 soldiers of mixed religious backgrounds, and not a leader of a particular congregation, he actually may not be called to pray much in front of groups of soldiers.
Some examples where he may find himself praying with large groups include:
Before a formal unit dinner; prior to a unit boarding a plane for Southwest Asia; perhaps when visiting a group of soldiers in a remote location the chaplain would offer a scripture reading, some words of advice, and lead the soldiers in a short prayer. That’s about it. Otherwise the main purpose of the unit chaplain is advisor to the commander and a closed-door, private counselor to any soldiers in the unit. He puts together marriage enrichment retreats; he also has the responsibility of being an advisor to the commander on the religions of the people within an operational area or battlefield.
As a former commanding officer, when a protestant chaplain would visit my soldiers in combat, I’d be present for his “service”, but I would not participate directly — merely welcome him, ensure he had the resources he needed, and observe the soldiers.
Because of the dearth of Catholic priests in the military, Catholic chaplains are usually kept at a central location where they can best serve the wide-spread Catholic community among a large group of units. Protestants and Mormon chaplains make up the majority of unit chaplains - “ministering” to the battalion of 500 or so.
Today, we have women chaplain aplenty.
And now, the US Army has its first Wiccan chaplain.
Wiccan religious services are posted on the chapel doors and base newspapers right alongside the Catholic mass and Protestant services: “Wiccan Service, 6 PM Saturday Evening, George S. Patton Jr. field”
Soldiers can also put Satanist or anything else they want on their “dog tags”.
I had a soldier who did this and who also told me he was a vampire.
In our multi-cultural army we cannot prohibit such people from serving. (Incidentally, the provisions in the enlistment contract that used to ask an enlistee if he was a homosexual or if he is now or ever was a communist or member of any organization advocating the violent overthrow of the United States, which President Clinton had removed, were never re-instated by the Bush administration.)
Unfortunately the battle for defending the right to mention publicly the Holy Name of Our Lord is being fought solely by evangelical protestant chaplains. As you can see in the archbishop’s letter (which he proudly displays in his own archdiocesan newsletter), Catholics are not interested in this fight. No mentioning of Our Lord’s Holy Name, no Sign of the Cross before or after praying, and certainly no mention of the Blessed Virgin Mary or the saints.
The Navy chaplain who held a hunger strike outside the White House last year for his right to mention the Holy Name after he prays was of course a protestant. This married man with several children risked certain dismissal and possible incarceration, while the non-married priests held their collective tongues for fear of offending anyone.
Oh I should mention that Catholic priests do occasionally make the headlines, but not for the same reasons of the evaneligicals. There are several priests sitting in the Fort Leavenworth Military Prison for sodomy and plying young soldiers and marines with alcohol and porno. (How about Archbishop you focus on this problem – recruit priests who are not active sodomites, instead of your political lobbying to Congress?)
The military archbishop says that such a law giving chaplains the right to pray in accordance with their own faith traditions would undermine the good order and discipline of the unit or words to this effect. And what does the archbishop base this judgment on? His own vast military experience? As far as I know he has no military experience, yet he is able to judge something that by law is the commanding officers prerogative: deciding what is in the interest of the good order and discipline of the unit. (A commander has limited power to limit religious expression only in the interest of good order and discipline – for example, if a female soldier wants to wear a headscarf instead of an official military hat or if a Muslim soldier decides right before an assault begins that he needs to face Mecca and pray for 10 minutes. )
So we have sodomites in the Catholic chaplaincy. We have priests who refuse to give valid absolutions to soldiers on the battlefield (I was told “God forgives your sins, not me” from a Catholic chaplain while serving in Southwest Asia. He refused to say “I absolve you.”) Priests who refuse to hear confessions. Never mind promoting confessions and preparing these soldiers for a holy death.
Understandably the Military Archdiocese is a hard one to manage. It receives priests from all the dioceses in the USA – so it must be hard to ensure proper formation and priestly virtue. But to me, it looks like very little is being done. There seems no reason for the archbishop to weigh in on the side of secular progressions in this Church-State battle over the military chaplaincy.
I am anxious to hear from the Cornell Society’s grunt-padre about this…
Also…
I can see, I think, the archbishop’s point – although I don’t agree with him.
Years ago, most soldiers came from either nominally protestant, Catholic, and occasionally Jewish backgrounds and they didn’t mind Father O’Malley or Reverend Ford doing what they do. They respected “the padre” or “the chaplain” and there wasn’t much fuss.
Today we have secular progressives both inside the ranks and outside the ranks trying to eliminate the chaplaincy altogether – seeing it as an anachronistic institution that violates modern interpretations of Church-State separation. Alongside this group there is a growing minority of religious weirdoes both inside the ranks and outside the ranks trying to advance New Age, pagan, Islamist, and Far Eastern religions into the military chaplaincy.
So, one side wants no religion whatsoever. The other wants to open the door to sacrificing chickens while howling at the moon and liturgical fornication in the base chapel. The Archbishop is saying – no! to both sides. He wants both to maintain the chaplaincy as an institution and ensure that group prayer among military units doesn’t devolve into sectarian fringe activities.
My point is the American experiment in excessive multi-culturalism and liberalism is coming to its natural conclusion. Let it come. Forcing chaplains to act as merely Masonic presiders only prolongs the inevitable.
I say make the country the deal with the secular progressives and the radical fringe. Why not let Catholic priests be Catholic priests? And why are Catholic and protestant chaplains (who we at least share a common baptism with) given the same rights as Wiccans, Buddhists, and Muslims?
To summarize, we may recall that the Holy Office said that it is not so much a matter of whether schismatic worship contains anything objectionable to the Faith; rather, the problem is the very participation in worship with schismatics. By participating in schismatic and heretical worship, one is giving exterior signs of segregation and disapproval. Any participation in liturgical actions would constitute a sign of unity with those who are not in union with the Church. By coming together with them in unity of prayer, in unity of cult, in unity of veneration and worship, Catholics would offer worship with perverse schismatic and heretical ministers. In effect, the Holy Office said that it is by the very coming together with them and joining one’s prayer and worship to theirs that one is participating in worship of those who reject the Catholic Church. To participate with those who reject the Faith was therefore forbidden, since there is a danger of perversion and loss of the Catholic faith. There is the very danger of participating in a heretical or schismatic rite, since the participation manifests a sign of disunity from the Church. Participation in heretical or schismatic worship is an occasion of scandal and by participating in their worship, one confirms schismatics and heretics in their errors. The Holy Office therefore observed that the Council of Carthage forbade praying and singing with heretics and that participation in schismatic and heretic worship is “universally prohibited by natural and divine law…[about which] no one has the power to dispense…[and with respect to this participation] nothing excuses.”
http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_2006_AC_Allan.html
Communicatio in sacris is certainly related to this discussion.
There isn’t a question (is there?) whether or not a Catholic priest can lead a prayer with non-Catholics present. (We encourage non-Catholics to come to Mass) The question is whether or not the Catholic priest has the right (and I say the responsibility) to pray like a Catholic priest.
Communicatio in sacris has nothing to do with a group of Catholics and heretics praying together as long as it’s Catholic prayer, led by Catholic priests. This is something that Sacred Tradition encourages.
As far as non-Catholic chaplains having the ability to pray as non-Catholics, this doesn’t affect Catholics. Let them pray as they wish. Only the rare traditional Catholic realizes that one should not participate in these heretical prayer sessions. Most Catholics, unaware of Sacred Tradition, are following the guidance from the current hierarchy on these matters which pretty much not only permits, but encourages Catholics to participate in heretical worship.
In the military world, however, a Catholic cannot decide always whether or not to be present. He may be required to be present at an occasion where heretical worship is offered. He cannot not be present. He can always not “participate”.
I used to be in the Navy and dealt with chaplains quite often.
As I understand it, in terms of FORMAL worship, chaplains are not required to lead a service outside of their religion. In other words, a Catholic priest is not required to lead a Jewish service.
There are situations where chaplains address large groups of people and give a general benediction. To invoke the name of Christ in such a situation may not be appropriate. For instance at graduation ceremonies (i.e. from boot camp, Nuke school, etc.) the chaplain offers a general benediction. I’ve never heard of a formal complaint in such an instance where their particular belief wasn’t addressed.
In cases where a sailor or soldier cannot have access to a regular priest, the Catholic chaplain will designate and extraordinary minister to lead small services. This is true on submarines and smaller ships.
Finally, the chaplain often acts as a defacto counselor when a doctor is not available. They advise those who are potentially suicidal or with other personal and emotional problems, and help them to find an answer. Prayer may be involved, but it will be mutually agreed upon.
This is interesting, and I’m very sorry to hear that Catholics in the military have such a terrible time getting sacraments and sound spiritual guidance.
But, as a question: in the event that it is impossible to attend Mass, would it not sometimes be appropriate to attend another type of service instead? There are limits, surely, to what counts as being better than nothing. But in the unlikely event that an Orthodox Divine Liturgy service were available, I would certainly think a Catholic ought to go to that in preference to no church at all (I believe in a near-death situation you can even get absolution from an Orthodox priest, yes?). If it were some kind of Protestant or non-denominational service it might depend on the specifics. But surely a soldier would commit no sin by taking comfort in a mainline Protestant-type service, singing hymns and hearing Scripture passages, if that were the only thing available. I don’t think it could cause much scandal as long as he made it clear, wherever appropriate, that he was only coming because going to Mass wasn’t an option. If boycotting would increase the chance of getting an actual Mass, that would be a good reason for skipping the non-Catholic service. But unfortunately, none of his superiors are likely to care whether he goes to church or not, so it wouldn’t be an effective protest.
Finally, while I sympathize with most of the things that Joe Six Pack said, you do have to be careful about the “the bishops have never experienced X, so what do they know?” sort of argumentation. Employed too liberally, it could be taken to mean that the bishops should have nothing to say about proper conduct for politicians, parents, women, etc. It’s their job to make rulings about things with which they have no firsthand experience. But of course it can sometimes be appropriate for people who do have relevant experience to bring certain things to their attention that they may understandably have missed. It would certainly be a great thing if the reputation of the priesthood could be gradually restored, so that priests were again respected in the military and elsewhere.
As I understand it here in Pentagon land the problem began when the protestant chaplain was criticizes for praying in the name of Jesus.But it seems that the Protestant minister gave a sidewinder of a sermon calling on peopel to give themselves to Jesus at a funeral.The funeral happened to be Catholic.People backing the bill say that the minister should have taken into account the non fundamentalist service he was presiding over in the absence of a priest.
Ah now I understand it. Catholics were offended by the mention of the name Jesus during prayer.
Isn’t that always the way?
It’s not the Jews or the Atheists, but the Catholics who are more prickly about too much “fundamentalism” as Sacredos says.
And to think, that “fundamentalist” preacher had the nerve to mention Jesus, and the need for people to give their lives to Jesus, — actually in a sense preach the Gospel! And at a Catholic funeral mass of all places. And some Catholic priest or laypersons thought they were being sooo ecumenical by illicitly inviting a heretic to preach at a funeral mass and this his how he repays them? With the gospel truth,,, no - such things cannot be tolerated.
He should have known that preaching the Gospel in a Catholic context means - Love thy neighbor and let’s all get along.
(Clara – my problem is not that the archbishop commented on an area he lacks direct experience in. For all I know he may have some sort of direct experience. The problem is that he made a decision (to attempt to veto this legislation) based on a premise (that the law would undermine the “cohesion” of the military unit) without any sort of explanation, reasoning, evidence, argumentation… He seemed to presume the premise out of thin air or designed the premise to fit his desire to maintain a liberal, modernist notion of chaplaincy.)
Well, to be fair, *I* wouldn’t want a lot of talk about “take Jesus into your life as your personal Lord and Savior” or “is there anyone here who needs to give his life to Jesus?” if it were MY funeral, or the funeral of a dear Catholic friend or relative.
In some sense we do want to do those things, but it’s a very Protestant way of talking and thinking about it, and it does seem more fitting to use Catholic language at a Catholic funeral.
Here’s my point about “unit cohesion” -
The commanding officer is ultimately responsible for EVERYTHING – to include “unit cohesion.”
If a denominationally mixed group of his soldiers are present for a funeral service, or at a dinner, or about to go into battle, or whatever, he (the commander) decides whether or not the chaplain should speak. He can tell the chaplain to offer some words of encouragement, but no prayer. He can tell the chaplain to sit down and say nothing at all. Or, he can request the chaplain pray. If he chooses the third option, how in heck can our government tell the chaplain HOW he must pray. I recognize that the chaplain is fulfilling a military duty by leading prayer, but the act of prayer is more than just an exercise in feel-good psychology. We are asking this man, the chaplain, to lead the group in communication with God. It’s a matter of conscience how the chaplain does this communication and the government should have no say. If a commander doesn’t want the Holy Name of Jesus mentioned, then he can take the first two options in regards to the chaplain’s involvement. But don’t tell a man he MUST pray and MUST pray according to a certain government mandated masonic way.
Frankly, if I were a Catholic chaplain who offered prays to group without making the Sign of the Cross or mentioning the Jesus, I’d be very worried about my own salvation.
“…but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.”
Fair enough, Joe. That makes sense to me… I wasn’t really defending the Archbishop, just raising a point about the form of the argument.
There are going to be sticky problems however you cut it when you try to handle the “religion” element in everyone’s lives with a hodgepodge of chaplains from different religions. But requiring a Christian to pray without mentioning Jesus does seem to be compromising him in a serious way. I’m reminded of that scene in Catch-22 where the (Anabaptist) chaplain is ordered to pray for a tighter bomb pattern (something more useful than all this silly salvation stuff, you know).
My random little rebellion: in the Peace Corps, they told us that we were part of a secular organization and therefore weren’t allowed to take religious holidays off. No problem for the Muslims (of which we had just one in my group) since Uzbekistan is a Muslim country anyway, but Christmas and Good Friday were normal working days there. I decided that the rule was ridiculous, and when negotiating my “Memorandum of Understanding”(like an informal contract) with my school, I told the director that I’d need important Christian holidays off. They agreed instantly, and I became the only PCV in Uzbekistan have a clause in my contract guaranteeing me Christian holidays off. My supervisor was peeved, but since the thing was already signed and sealed she decided it was better to let it go than to give me a chance to be a First Amendment martyr. Ha.
“There are not many events where the unit chaplain prays before a religiously mixed group of people.”
It is quite frequent in the Navy, a prayer every evening by the Chaplain over the ship’s public address system is traditional.
I do not believe this debate is worth entering…all Archbishop O’Brien ought to be promoting is eliminating all non-Catholic chaplains, so pious warriors will go pope or not go at all!
I don’t object to the use of the Holy Name of Jesus, and I don’t pretend to know what the proper military chaplaincy rules should be. But I do object to the use of the Holy Name in vain, which is what Fundamentalist babble amounts to.
I realize I’m weighing in a little late on this debate (I’ve been in the field for the past month), but having been invited–in so many words–by “Joe Six Pack” to express my opinion, I felt it was a case of “better late than never.” (You see, I’m pretty sure I’m the “Grunt Padre” referred to.)
At any rate, I think that the root problem here is the impossible modus vivendi set up by the First Amendment: how is it possible that every citizen has the right to exercise his religion freely, even if Congress will enact no laws establishing religion or interfering with its practice? Certain obligations of Catholics (e.g., to defend the Faith when attacked) will sooner or later clash with the “religious observance” of, say, certain Fundamentalists who feel compelled to attack the Faith. So, it follows, that in a government enterprise such as the military the question of religious practice is going to be left in the hands of those who, as federal functionaries, have no means to judge between one religion and another. It certainly comes as no surprise, then, that neo-pagans and witches feel entitled to protection under the First Amendment.
However, it is a separate question whether or not a priest can, in good conscience, deliver a prayer to a group of various religious persuasions that does not overtly attack any of those religions. Two principles, I think, should guide the conscience here: first, that positive precepts (e.g., to expound and defend the Faith) oblige always but not at every moment or in every circumstance (”semper sed non ad semper,” in the technical language of moral theology); second, that one is always and in every moment obliged to protect holy things from blasphemous or sacrilegious insult (”Cast not your pearls before swine!”). Finally, I would add that simple prudence dictates that one not speak in a way that will be misunderstood by one’s hearers because they don’t have the education, background, etc., to receive one’s words correctly. So, in a “non-denominational” prayer, such as the ship’s evening prayer, it is possible to pray without explicitly invoking the Saviour, the Saints, and so forth, but in a way that is both consonant with the Faith and the weakness of one’s listeners. After all, it is enough for salvation–according to the great St. Thomas and other Doctors–to believe in the true God, acknowledge Him as the judge of our actions, and recognize that in His providence He will save those whom He made. (Not that one should remain at that fundamental understanding if one has the opportunity to grow in the Faith.) A priest can certainly explicitate those truths without running afoul of the (current) military chaplaincy policy (and in actual practice, everyone knows if a chaplain is a priest, and there is even a certain “holy fear” about things Catholic in many commands). Conversely, to some, the use of the sign of the Cross, etc., is received as something like: “I do not pray for you, because you are not Catholic.” I think that by little and by little, a good priest can awaken the curiosity and the conscience of an unformed soul with appeals to these general truths of the Faith, or the “preliminaries” of the Faith, more properly. A good example of this is the first half of G.K. Chesterton’s masterpiece “The Everlasting Man.”
Finally, as to the prudence of the Archbishop’s letter, there is no doubt in my mind that he wishes to avoid giving any ammunition (excuse the pun) to those who would abolish the chaplaincy altogether and who would use as their excuse that some too “sectarian” chaplains create divisions and animosity within military units. (I personally witnessed a Pentecostalist chaplain gravely offend some Jewish officers by repeatedly invoking the Holy Name in what can only be described as an extremely Holy Roller manner.) Better to do what is the morally acceptable minimum in indiscriminate gatherings so as to continue to be able to administer the Sacraments where they are so desperately needed. (This “padre,” like many others no doubt, was once able to give the last rites to someone who desperately needed that final absolution and anointing and who would otherwise never have received them.)
One “saved round” as we say in the Marines: it’s true that there are ill-formed, ignorant, and sometimes downright immoral priests in the chaplaincy. In most cases, they seem to have been ordained in the ’70’s and ’80’s. Their generation is thankfully beginning to retire. The harm they have done, whether personally or institutionally, they will soon have to answer for, and I think prayers are in order on their behalf but most of all for the “liberty and exaltation of Holy Mother Church.”–A Simple Priest.
Thank you for these comments, Simplex Sacerdos!