This is the third and final part of our interview with Simplex Sacerdos, a Navy chaplain who has served with the Marine Corps in Iraq. (For Part I and Part II, follow the links.) In this third part, Simplex Sacerdos kindly answered some general questions we had about Catholicism and the culture of the U.S. military.

CSGT: What, in your experience, has been the effect of the “culture of death” upon the military? For instance, what is the military’s - or the Marine Corps’ - position on the distribution of pornography and condoms?

SS: No doubt, those in the military, especially the younger servicemen, have long been given over to drunkenness and impurity. I believe it’s historically accurate to say that, before the rise of nation states at least, being enlisted in the army or the navy was not necessarily considered honorable, largely because of the immorality known to prevail there. Nowadays too there is a great deal of impurity prevalent in the ranks.

By far my worst experiences with this culture have been at the yearly periodic military education lectures, as they’re called, and specifically the talk on venereal diseases. Usually the troops are encouraged to use condoms by the “medic” giving the lecture (himself often enough promiscuous). The most egregious instance occurred at a chapel where I was temporarily in residence; I had to allow the lectures to take place there because there was no other venue that could hold the audience. When the inevitable lecture on diseases started, the medic (or corpsman) giving the talk mentioned that one way to protect oneself was abstinence, but (I quote precisely) “nobody really believes in that anymore.” He then went on to talk about the advantages of artificial contraception.

By that point in my career, I had had enough of this gratuitous encroaching of the state upon the Church; after all, they were delivering this evil counsel there in the chapel. I waited until the corpsman was finished speaking and then summoned him. In so many words I told him that if he was going to lead young people astray, he would have to do it somewhere other than the chapel. He stood by what he said, though, telling me, “I’m a good Catholic.” I pointed out to him, none too gently, that he was not, in fact, a good Catholic, but one who was too ignorant or too perverted to advise those who looked up to him as an expert. Indeed, he was, I said, awfully like those Our Lord said would be better off flung into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck.

Besides the tacit, at best, encouragement of fornication, there is of course widespread use of pornography, amongst officers and enlisted men both. Although it is not permitted, by regulation, in Middle Eastern duty stations or on government computers, it nevertheless is all but ubiquitous.

In this way, the culture of death has made its way into the military, because of the inevitability of abortion (or abortion-inducing contraception) given the indulgent attitude toward fornication.

CSGT: The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace (USMC), recently spoke out on the immorality of homosexual relations. We were impressed that an officer with such traditional views should rise so high in the modern armed forces. In your opinion, does the current military system generally encourage or prohibit the advancement of such men?

SS: I can’t say that I have any special knowledge about this, but one thing is fairly clear: an officer who hopes to be promoted must be very careful not to offend when it comes to certain matters, chief among them outwardly fair and equal treatment of all regardless of sex, religion, or race. Despite what may be said - or left unsaid - in public venues such as Congressional hearings, most career officers, especially in the Marine Corps, have very traditional views on what constitutes sexual immorality or perversion. (That doesn’t mean, though, that in some cases, their actions follow their principles.) Similarly, there is little sympathy, in the Marine Corps at any rate, for neo-pagan religion and witchcraft. The Marines like for things to conform to type: a man should be manly, a woman feminine, and the “padre” (chaplain) should be a Father, rather than a Preacher, if at all possible. That, at any rate, is the impression I’ve formed.

CSGT: One recent military innovation deeply troubling to many traditional Catholics is the large-scale inclusion of females in the US military. Do you have any remarks on opposing and practically effecting the reversal of this policy, without impugning the service of past and present lady soldiers?

SS: I think that Chesterton’s remarks on the problem of feminism in his masterful book, What’s Wrong with the World, are only too valid even today. His solution to all of the cranky ideas that have taken hold so broadly in our society is to return to a true understanding of human nature.

Perhaps the disquieting introduction of women into the military can be reversed, albeit gradually, by bringing things more into line with the dictates of reason and of human nature. For instance: it is an open secret that an unacceptable number of females in the service are unable to deploy or are forced to return early from a deployment because they become pregnant. It is clearly not enough to give females quarters and facilities separate from the males; they must be given assignments and duty stations where the separation can be as absolute as possible. Fallen human nature simply cannot be trusted when it comes to careless daily contact between the sexes. Of course, that would mean that women could not be assigned to ships or to forward bases where they would be working with men.

Perhaps the only way to discourage females from attempting to serve in traditionally all-male units would be to insist on a rigorous conformity to the standards that the men must adhere to (as was once proposed). If nothing else, this would make clear that there are certain things that women cannot, by nature, hope to do as well as men, in pluribus, can do. At the same time, perhaps the military could make it as easy as possible for a woman to leave the service in order to get married. For - to paraphrase Chesterton - there is one thing that women can do that no man can, and that is to be, not a specialist, but a “universalist”, that is, her children’s first and most influential source of knowledge about everything.

CSGT: Does the military’s mission for the chaplaincy of being a group of spiritually-based motivational speakers aimed at producing a better, more motivated fighting force conflict with what you see as your mission - which presumably has more to do with saving souls - since the preaching of the truth about sin and repentance and Hell may be a downer for most troops? If you were to preach on these topics, might such preaching be perceived by some military authorities as detrimental to a good fighting force?

SS: I think there is a good deal of truth to this characterization of the chaplaincy by the line community (those officers who are in regular succession to command, as opposed to those officers in a limited or supporting role). For completeness’ sake, I would add that chaplains are also frequently seen as those experts best suited or trained to deal with the untidy problems of service members’ lives, e.g. divorce, trouble with the law, emotional problems, and so forth. Of course, there are certainly line officers who have a great respect for the clergy - and here I’m talking of the Catholic clergy in particular - as ambassadors of Christ. (Some have been very disappointed by the priests they have had to work with, it must be said.)

However, in general, I think this is a fair generalization of the way chaplains are viewed. Unless a priest chaplain is fortunate enough to have a CO with a religious understanding of the priesthood, he could very well find himself looked at as an oddity if he is visibly only interested in the eternal salvation of the men.

Most of the line officers, though, seemingly have little interest in interfering with something purely religious. I remember a fine Protestant officer (and no merely nominal Christian) commenting on my sermons and entire modus operandi as those of someone who would have been “comfortable in the days before Vatican II.” Of course, I was flattered.

There are some, probably a minority, who are actively irritated by the supernatural approach. To illustrate something of what I mean: once in a combat zone, when discussing the upcoming Christmas feast, a Protestant chaplain told me that he planned to talk about why we fight, to give the Marines a more religious “frame” (to use Husserlian language) for their duties. I replied that I was going to talk about the Incarnation. In fact, I have never spoken from the pulpit or in the confessional about anything other than God and the things of God. Consequently, though, a senior line officer during that same deployment chided me later for not being “engaging” enough with the young men. I could only reply, “I say Mass to offer worship to almighty God, not to provide entertainment.” This was not the expected reply.

CSGT: Many people attribute the ecumenical movement of the twentieth century to the experiences of WWI trench warfare. Soldiers of all creeds and backgrounds were thrown together and “transcended their differences” in a common cause. How does one stress to Catholics and non-Catholics alike the unique value of our Church in a military where most people 1) are not Catholic and 2) highly value harmony within the ranks? For instance, is there any evangelization of non-Catholics, especially when they will soon be in mortal peril?

SS: I only wish I had a greater knowledge of the Catholic chaplains’ approach to other religions during World War I. The only thing I know through my reading is that the so-called “dialogue Mass” (so justly called by that outstanding Pontiff, Pius XI, a hideous cacophony - or words to that effect) was illicitly introduced by some priests. At the same time, I can’t help but think that so many priests of Irish and German background at that time would have had little truck with anything ecumenical.

However, what I do know for certain is that in the last forty odd years (and they have been odd), there has been great emphasis in the military chaplaincy on ecumenism, one is tempted to say on irenicism (harmony with other religions at almost any cost). It is very much frowned upon to engage publicly in doctrinal disputes, especially among chaplains. At most chaplain meetings or conferences, there is, to my mind, an exaggerated delicacy in treating of differences between religions.

Nevertheless, I have observed on the part of Protestants (whether clergy or laity) two attitudes towards the Catholic Church that I think worthy of comment. The first is the same re-emerging anti-Catholicism that is even more apparent in the civilian world. I have two examples of this, one amusing, the other outrageous.

At a chaplains’ conference on “ethical systems” (which commenced, by the bye, with Utilitarianism, as though that were the cornerstone of moral philosophy), one of the instructors, a retired Navy captain, asked what is the ethical thing for a priest to do when he learns in confession that someone is a child molester. Well, about ten hands shot up, eager to answer, but those quivering hands all belonged to Protestant chaplains. They were, if I remember correctly, quite sure that the priest would, or at least should, inform “the authorities”. The retired captain was scarcely interested when I, at last, was allowed to explain that the priest in question would at that moment cease to be a chaplain, because he would automatically be excommunicated and suspended.

The more outrageous example occurred with one of my past Commanding Officers (a staunch Protestant of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes variety), who berated me for refusing Holy Communion to a young man - not Catholic, by the way, if that’s of any interest - who clearly had no idea what he was doing when he went up for Communion at Mass.

Now, this second example is relevant to your question beca