This is the second part of a three part interview with Simplex Sacerdos, a Navy Chaplain who has served with the Marine Corps in Iraq. (For Part I, go here.) Once again, we wish to express our gratitude for the generous gift of his time in responding to our questions. Fr. Simplex Sacerdos on his ministry in Iraq:

CSGT: Many of our readers will be unaware of the extent of a military chaplain’s responsibilities; would you please describe them for us?

Simplex Sacerdos: A military chaplain is primarily (by the regulations, at any rate) responsible for providing worship services for those of his own faith (or “faith group” as the clumsy modern terminology would have it). For Catholic chaplains, there has never been any question that the only regular worship service they offer is the Holy Sacrifice. Likewise, a priest chaplain will provide the other Sacraments and the instruction necessary to receive them.

However, chaplains, regardless of their faith, must from time to time provide the prayer for command ceremonies: for instance, memorial services, retirements, changes of command, the evening prayer aboard ship, and the like. These prayers are supposed to be so worded and expressed that no one present is explicitly excluded.

This directive has been the cause of quite a bit of resentment among some, especially the more traditional Protestants, since they feel that prayers must, by divine command, be concluded with the invocation of the Holy Name. I would say that, although this situation is not the ideal, it is an opportunity for presenting the preambles of the Faith to a wide audience: the existence of God, His providence, His judgment, the existence of the soul, and so forth. And so, the Catholic Faith becomes implicit in the wording and intent of the prayer.

Oftentimes, especially when serving with the Navy proper, chaplains have secondary duties that include overseeing morale services (libraries, internet centers, etc.), liaison with families (spouses’ organizations), and relations with the civilian community.

Chaplains must also provide counseling for anyone who requests it (or for whom the command requests it), regardless of the person’s religion or lack of one. Most often, the counseling issues that a chaplain deals with are marital difficulties, marriage preparation, depression and suicidal tendencies, and difficulties with military superiors (the “chain of command”). It is useful that a chaplain stands outside the ordinary chain of command (although subordinate to the Commanding Officer) because he becomes much more approachable to the ordinary service member. At the same time, by having rank, the chaplain is able to accomplish things within the very hierarchical military organization that would otherwise be difficult, sometimes impossible.

CSGT: How does the Military Ordinariate compare to other dioceses in terms of discipline, communication with the ordinary and the Pope, following of rubrics, concern over the Indult (if there is any), etc.?

SS: It might be helpful to explain how the Archdiocese for the Military Services (as the Military Ordinariate is now known) is actually constituted. Normally a diocese (or religious Order or Congregation) in the person of the Ordinary (whether bishop, archbishop, or religious Superior) assumes the burden of supporting its priests; and in return for the lifelong pledge to provide a priest with the necessities of life, the priest in turn vows obedience to the Ordinary and all his successors. This formal adoption, so to speak, of a priest by a diocese is known as incardination.

The Military Archdiocese does not incardinate anyone except of course the Ordinary, and in addition to him his auxiliary bishops. The priests who serve as military chaplains in the various services are not incardinated; rather they are assigned temporarily by their Ordinaries to the Military Archdiocese, which in turn endorses them to the branch of service they are to serve in. I suspect the reason for this arrangement is twofold: one, the Archdiocese simply does not have the means to take on the burden of incardination for its many priest chaplains; and two, the bishops are understandably reluctant to give up a priest permanently (which is what incardination in the Military Archdiocese would entail).

Knowing this arrangement makes it easier to understand why discipline within the Archdiocese is more problematic than in other dioceses. One shouldn’t get the wrong idea, though. Many of the priests are conscientious in reporting to the Archdiocese every quarter as required and in attending the yearly convocations. Others are not so obedient. However, whenever there is a grave infraction of archdiocesan norms, the Archbishop has been known to dismiss a priest from service (or revoked his endorsement, as it’s called).

The chancery officials, whether clergy or laity, are uniformly hardworking and conscientious, and they take the obligations of Canon law very seriously. They are at pains to ensure the validity of the Sacraments and their licit administration. They have an excellent record keeping system, and they are very prompt (especially compared with almost any other diocese) in dealing with canonical issues, such as annulments for “lack of form” and dispensations for mixed religion or disparity of cult. Usually, in fact, with marriage cases - a recurring issue in military life, unfortunately - the only obstacles are not from the chancery or tribunal of the Archdiocese but from the indolence or sloth of the military members asking for a dispensation or annulment.

The indult Mass, according to the 1988 provisions, is provided as a possibility in the Archdiocesan regulations. Ordinarily, of course, there is not much reason - in the present dispensation - to apply for it, inasmuch as the Masses offered in chapels are expected to be in the new rite; likewise, there is not enough interest (yet!) to have a separate Mass in the ancient, venerable rite.

CSGT: Do you have numbers on the percentage of Catholics in the Marine Corps? Among the Catholics in the Corps whom you’ve met, have you come across any with a traditionalist background or with traditionalist leanings?

SS: I believe the percentage of Catholics in the Marine Corps is somewhere around thirty-five percent. No doubt a good number of these identify themselves as Catholic without any real understanding, let alone practice, of the Faith. A large number of them, though, have been brought up practicing the Faith to some degree or other. In my experience, the number of Marines who are serious about their duties as Catholics is (relatively) very small.

It is also my feeling that of all the services, the Marines are more likely to be sympathetic to traditional Catholicism. After all, they appreciate order and clarity, and they understand very well the importance of discipline. Also, being overwhelmingly comprised of men, the Marines, like most young men, do not like the feminized approach to worship so characteristic of liberal or modernist parishes. The more structured and ordered - and therefore predictable - the ceremony is, the more comfortable they are.

In addition, I have found here and there some in both the Navy and the Marine Corps, as well as the Army, who are openly desirous of having the ancient Mass; others are very sympathetic to it.

CSGT: What is the most desperate circumstance in which you’ve said Mass? In the field, what are the minimum necessary rituals and prayers for a valid and/or licit Mass?

SS: Thank the divine goodness, I have never had to say Mass in imminently dangerous circumstances, say, out in the open with known sniper activity. However, I have often said Mass in Iraq in buildings (which served as outposts) which frequently took small-arms fire and what is euphemistically known as “indirect fire” (mortar rounds), although the effects are direct enough as is the fear one experiences.

I’m glad in a way that you ask about the minimum necessary for a valid or licit Mass in field conditions. At the chaplains school, we priests were all but forced to offer Mass with ridiculously reduced means: three stacked up boxes for an altar, a chalice, paten, purificator, water and wine and hosts, of course, and a stole (in a very ugly shade of green, I recall); that was it. That was in retrospect clearly illicit, especially since I’ve learned that there is never any circumstance where the full vestments and altar linens and vessels cannot be used. One sees photographs from the Second World War where the priest is on some Pacific island wearing all the vestments and with the altar completely dressed for Mass. My conclusion, confirmed by my own experience, is that it is always possible to use everything prescribed.

The Military Archdiocese, though (it must be said), allows military priests great latitude in deciding how much or how little of the vestments and so forth they can expediently use - and some choose to use precious little. The truth of the matter, I suspect, is that they are following their own inclinations in this and using the notion of field expediency as so much camouflage.

CSGT: Have you been approached by any officers senior to you who disagree with your orthodox take on moral theology or reverent liturgy?

SS: I have to say that most line officers would hesitate to interfere with the way purely religious ceremonies are conducted. It’s much more likely that one would encounter passive resistance from fellow priests. And by passive resistance, I mean such things as telling the people not to kneel at the appointed time (even though that was the practice clearly established by Yours Truly) or, after taking over the chapel, throwing out the CCD textbooks because they were too old-fashioned or what have you.

I must say, though, that the Military Archdiocese is quite clear in the directives it puts out, so that at least one is less vulnerable to criticism for holding to the rubrics and other norms.

I have to admit that once some senior officers made their displeasure known to me, though indirectly, when they found my sermons too unsympathetic to worldly ideas. However, I think that in these instances the grumblers were only incidentally senior officers; primarily they were badly formed, or ill-willed, Catholics.

CSGT: Are your confessions anonymous and at set, publicly known times? Or do people have to approach you in person first in order to make a confession? Are you in the confessional even if no one shows up for the posted confession time?

SS: Drawing on the golden wisdom of the great confessors (St. John Marie Vianney, St. Pio of Pietralcina, and above all St. Alphonsus Liguori), I have always tried to make confession as easy and as anonymous as possible, because it is never easy and sometimes very difficult for the men to bring themselves to go to Confession. And so, when I am at a chapel, Confession is always at set times (although with the option to make an appointment if desired) and with the option, preferred in my case, of the screen. In fact, at the first chapel I was ever at, I had a kneeler with a screen made because there wasn’t a real confessional. Of course, there were days when I read my breviary without interruption because no one came to confession, despite my active encouragement from the pulpit.

In a combat zone, however, there is no real possibility of anonymity in confession, because the priest is usually only there for a short time and there is no chapel. I can only encourage confessions by mentioning its necessity and its usefulness during the sermon and by announcing that confessions will be heard before Mass. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to battle single-handedly thirty or more years of bad pastoral practice and worse formation; the number of penitents is very small. In the Marine Corps, if it’s any consolation, the Marines are often enough sufficiently honest and forthright to realize that they are not worthy to go to Communion; and so one is greeted with the relatively rare sight nowadays of a substantial number of non-communicants at Mass.

CSGT: In your time in Iraq, have you been called upon to give Last Rites? Have you ever ministered to a Catholic or non-Catholic Marine dying in the field? What would you do differently in the case of a non-Catholic versus that of a Catholic soldier?

SS: I have had the sad but consoling duty of giving Last Rites, but certainly not as often as some of my brother priests. According to sound theology, conditional absolution and Extreme Unction may be given up to about an hour after physical death. I’m sure I don’t need to say how wrenching it can be to administer the anointing when the body is terribly mutilated, as happens with these roadside bombs.

I have never had to minister to a non-Catholic in his final agony, but if I did - and unless I knew that this person had intended to convert - I would simply ensure insofar as I could that, within the limits of his lights, he did all that was necessary for salvation: namely, expressed a belief in God and His providence, especially salvation through Christ; expressed sorrow for his sins; and made an act of charity, even something as simple as calling on the Holy Name.

With the non-baptized, a lot would depend on the circumstances, of course. There are many prudential judgments that would need to be made, but the general principle would be something as follows (which I borrow from some of the great Dominican theologians of the last century): the dying Marine or Sailor would need to express his belief in some way in the one, true God, acknowledge His providence over mankind, and express sorrow for his sins before God as his Judge.

(For Part I, go here. To be continued . . . )