An update on the silencing of the chaplains post from earlier: A spokesman for the Army tells National Review Online:
the Army became aware of the Archbishop’s letter last Friday (Jan. 27) and was concerned that the letter contained language that might be misunderstood in a military setting. The Army asked that the letter not be read from the pulpit. Instead, the letter would have been referenced in announcements and made available in the back of the chapel for the faithful, if they wished, as they departed after the Mass. The Army greatly appreciates the Archbishop’s consideration of the military’s perspective and is satisfied with the resolution upon which they agreed.
You know, as a member of the National Guard, I can tell you that the first part of our oath is to protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemies. And we're reminded, in numerous training environments, that this is because the Army serves not a person, not an office, not a nation, but a set of ideals.
Evidently, some higher ranking members of the US Army are foresworn.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, as long as the government was satisfied with the resolution then I guess there's nothing left to discuss. I'm glad they cleared that up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe last time I checked the Constitution, the Federal Government (including the Army) was prevented from interfering with the free exercise of religion as well as abridging the freedom of speech. This is just part of Obama's war on Christianity in general, and Catholicism in particular. Worried about civil disobedience? Brother, you ain't seen nothing yet...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI note that the Army was the only component to object - not the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps or Coast Guard - all equally military.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLovely.
The Chinese government generally approves of those 'bishops' whose churches operate within the Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association. Maybe Emperor Barry the First will establish a parallel order, for these quisling SINOs (Shepherds In Name Only).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAccording to this update & the original post the Army "asked" chaplains not to read it from the pulpit. They weren't told not to read it. They were also told they could reference it from the pulpit & provide copies at the back of the chapel.
Military chaplains must walk a line between serving Soldiers & serving God. They take an oath as comissioned officers, and there are very strong prohibitions against military members engaging in policial activism while wearing a uniform or being otherwise identified as a member of the military. Which is what a chaplain does on Sundays.
I think this is a case where the civilian leadership was right in the first place by asking but not forbidding chaplains to read the letter. After the fact, the chaplains negotiated a way to handle it with the civilian leadership that allowed them to fulfill thier jobs & consciences & let the Army maintain it's apolitical position. I just don't see how anyone was harmed.
After 8 years in the Army I don't have a huge regard for chaplains as a group, but I think that the idea of chaplains is fine, and I think a man who can't in good conscience serve a military chain of command AND serve God at the same time has no business accepting a commission in the first place. Due to the dynamic between a preacher's calling from God & a soldier's duty to "kill people & break things" there will always be tension between the two; part of being a chaplain means you've decided that you can handle that tension & that you're prepared to put certain rights of civilians (such as political action) aside for the duration of your service for the privilege of ministering to soldiers.
*EVERY* soldier gives up rights during his service; it's why service is referred to as a sacrifice. This is one of the very few times I can't see a problem with Obama's leadership. I really don't think it will become a habit; liberals just can't help themselves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo wait--taxpayers paying government employees to act as messengers for a archbishop?
That's just fine?
But the actual employees supervisor having some say in whether or not they exhort, while on the government payroll, military personnel to disobey duly enacted laws? That's the problem, and not the prior scenario?
I am guessing that if an imam sent instructions to Muslim military chaplains that they must all deliver a message denouncing a U.S. and calling for sharia, KLo would be hopping mad.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs long as the government approves of the sermon beforehand, it's A-OK to say whatever you want!!!! THE NEW AMERICA!!! It's like New Coke, only much more oppressive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseamazing how the US military can become completely fruity and Godless in one short presidential term.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe silence of the lambs...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOur chaplain read the letter in full. I'd rather not say where, as I'd be genuinely worried about reprisals.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRepublicans gave us Medicare Part D. Viagra for all.. I pay or they arrest me. They doubled the budget of the Dept. of Education during the Bush administration. Just what do you all mean when you say Republicans are for smaller government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy complain about violating the 1st amendment while accepting the violation of the 9th and 10th by the federal government all day long.
"Will no one rid me of this turbulent chaplain?"
I heard a fascinating new insight recently: that there's nothing new under the sun. Seems to apply to famous quotes by sovereign leaders as much as it applies to everything else.
I'm sure its all very harmless. History tells us things like this always remain benign.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat is the difference between reading the letter from the pulpit and providing the letter at the end of the service. The wording of the letter was the same and I guarantee that most of the military would have heard about the issue before last Sunday. A verse comes to mind: "professing themselves to be wise they became fools"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, this episode has troubling features. According to the original post, " Archbishop Broglio emailed a pastoral letter to Catholic military chaplains with instructions that it be read from the pulpit...".
In a military setting, folks are very sensitive to who has authority to instruct people to do things. The Roman church, with its hierarchical structure, would be wise to adopt a different approach when issuing pastoral material to chaplains of their faith (note I refrain from the simpler formulation "their chaplains", which implies ownership). Army chaplains must always keep in mind that they answer to only one human hierarchy while on duty, and that hierarchy wears patrol caps.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, most Chaplains are "owned" by their ordaining denomination and are thus "loaned" out to the military and can be recalled by that denomination at any time. A Catholic in particular must obey his archdiocese.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat a missed opportunity. The Army could have easily solicited other statements from other religions, sects and denominations and portrayed a picture of unity rather than the balkanized view it response created.. Seems to me a typical bureaucratic CYA
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst, chaplains work for the post/unit/ship commander as a member of the staff. So there will be difficulties separating church and state right off the bat. Second, this article suggests that the letter calls on people to undermine government policy. Usually that's to be discouraged in members of the armed forces. I'm going to have to side with the Pentagon on this one, And may God have mercy on my soul.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYet on post right now they're holding Catholic Mass at the post we live on. Led by a Chaplin paid by the United States government. Every Army event I've been to is started by a generic Christian prayer and reading some letter could some how be a problem? Sometimes I have to wonder what the Army commanders are thinking.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot quite sure why all the hoopla. I perused the letter and it certainly did contain language that could have been misinterpreted in a military setting. Talk of 'resistance' of laws within a military setting is not something we should accept or allow regardless of how much we agree with the sentiment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse