Editor’s note: This article first appeared in America in the issue of Aug. 7-14 , 1982. It was paired with another article on military chaplaincy by Gordon Zahn.
My perspective on the military chaplaincy is colored, of course, by 27 years in Navy and Marine Corps uniform. I recognize shortcomings in the military chaplaincy and the need for continuing reappraisals. Professor Gordon Zahn and others have made helpful contributions. Professor Zahn did an interesting study in 1969, for example, focusing on “role tensions” of the clergyman-officer, using Royal Air Force chaplains as a base. Further studies would be welcomed. In addition to scholarly works, less-than-scholarly articles have appeared which seem to assume that a chaplain is a hireling because he wears a uniform, is paid by the Government and evaluated by military superiors. These characteristics of the military chaplaincy deserve analysis. That they are automatically debilitating or prejudicial to a chaplain’s ministry, however, seems to be an a priori judgment. However, I shall try to examine some of the issues addressed both by scholars and others as objectively as my own perspective allows, by way of a few commonly asked questions.
1. Who are our Catholic chaplains?
Misunderstanding may well begin at this point. There is nothing mysterious about chaplains. They are ordinary priests from virtually every diocese and religious community in the United States. They serve at the pleasure of their bishops or religious superiors, and are expected to return to their dioceses or religious communities when they leave military service. Probably some 10,000 priests in the United States have been military chaplains, most for a few years, some for 20 or more. Approximately 40 to 50 priests enter military service annually, replacing those who leave, so that there is a continual turnover. Today, the average priest is about 40 years old when he enters military service; some are 50. Personhood, priesthood, attitudes and approaches to ministry are well formed long before most chaplains don a uniform.
In other words. Catholic chaplains are a cross-section of the Catholic priests of the United States, neither more nor less stereotyped. Some have graduate degrees, some their undergraduate degrees alone. Yesterday they were civilian pastors, associates, professors, hospital and prison chaplains, chancellors. Today they are military chaplains. They take their experiences into military life, and use them with much the same degree of effectiveness as in civilian life. They return to civilian parishes, schools and other activities after varying lengths of time, continuing to minister as they did before they became chaplains and during their years in military service. Most seem to consider those military years fruitful. Some are disappointed, frustrated, resentful. My impression is that much the same could be said of experiences in civilian ministries.
2. What does a Catholic chaplain do?
Again, for the most part, he does what priests do in civilian life. There are differences. His life is thoroughly integrated with his people’s lives. He may live in a pitching, tossing ship, bunking with others, eating with them, going ashore in foreign ports with them. Privacy may be nonexistent. He may live in a tent, or in a hole in the ground, with the troops. His home may be “family” quarters on a military installation, a single room in a building full of single military men and women, a house or apartment in a civilian community. He does his own shopping, cooking, bedmaking and housecleaning. His office will normally be in the heart of the complex, and when it’s not filled with people, he is usually making the rounds of working spaces, talking with men and women where they spend most of their time. Overseas, he may have to cover extensive areas and widely separated installations. At sea, he will transfer from ship to ship by helicopter or highline. But wherever he is, the priest is a priest, offering Mass, administering the Sacraments, counseling, coordinating parish activities.
Whether it is the “ministry of presence” that involves him with people of various religious persuasions, or whatever the reason, he is blessed with a number of converts. The Military Vicariate is annually first or second in conversions to Catholicism among all the dioceses in the United States. The priest chaplain’s daily closeness to his people and full sharing of their lives seem to be an important factor in this regard. His potential impact on the church in the United States is significant. Some 350,000 people enter military service annually in peacetime, replacing the number that leave. Most are very young. There are more than 30 million veterans in the United States. Obviously, their experiences affect the communities to which they return from military service, for good or for bad. This reality has not escaped the Holy Father. Speaking to Italian military chaplains, he informed them: “I would like you to carry my greetings to all the youth of Italy, whom you become close to, follow and love during military service…because the church, individual families, superiors and the youth themselves have faith in you and expect from you light, guidance, spiritual strength and a solid point of reference” (Vatican City, January 24, 1980).
3. Why does the chaplain wear a uniform?
The question of military uniform for chaplains has been around for more than two centuries. The current situation has evolved through those centuries. Virtually every option has been tried and apparently found wanting in some way, from strictly clerical garb through semiclerical, semimilitary, to full military with a distinguishing cross. I find it difficult to get excited about the arguments one way or the other. One of the first things I did as Navy Chief of Chaplains was to arrange for a quiet little survey among sailors in the Pacific, to try to gauge their feelings. My position was: If we can minister better in some other garb, or without officer status, so be it. The findings were solidly behind the hypothesis that to “the man in the ship,” it makes no difference. I suspect that a comprehensive survey of American armed forces throughout the world would yield similar findings.
In 1956, I was a delegate to a conference in the Hague that included chaplains of all religious persuasions and their staffs from many countries. Most seemed to envy the fully integrated position of American military chaplains, of which the full uniform seemed to be an element.
Could priest chaplains function effectively in clerical garb? Unquestionably. Could they function better than in uniform? I have no reason to believe so, and the uniform certainly has a lot going for it in terms of sheer practicality. Could they function in lay clothing, that is neither clerical nor uniform? I really don’t know, but my personal experience suggests that this might weaken their effectiveness within the military milieu. However, two centuries of evolution into the current uniform dress mode for military chaplains would seem to say something. The present approach did not spring into being overnight, or as the result of a single, deliberate or arbitrary decision.
4. Why is the chaplain an officer?
Much the same could be said of rank as of uniform. There have been periods in American military history when chaplains were not officers. Again, the current situation has evolved over two centuries. It seems to work better. Sometimes the British Navy chaplain’s status is cited as preferable. Technically, he is considered to be of the echelon of the individual with whom he is talking. British Army and Air Force chaplains, however, have turned to the use of identifiable officer status, rank and uniform.
In October 1980, bishops responsible for the military of some 31 countries met with the Holy Father. Most bishops seemed to feel that the systems in their respective countries were best for those nations. None seemed passionate about the officer question. Nor am I aware of any evidence that military people at large give much thought to the matter. They see a priest as a priest if he acts as a priest, regardless of his rank. If he doesn’t act as a priest, whether he is junior or senior in rank, dressed in sweatsuit, Roman collar or colonel’s uniform, he loses people. When in military uniform, I was most commonly addressed as Father, even by non-Catholics, occasionally as Chaplain, virtually never as Commander, Admiral or whatever my rank at the time. In turn, I never introduced myself as anything but Father.
What of the promotion system, competition, personal ambition, evaluations by superior officers? Do these dull a priest’s priestliness, encourage him to water down the Gospel, strive to please Caesar? I’m sure they do in a few unfortunate instances, as similar things do in civilian life. All priests are very human.
Who really evaluates priests for “promotion” in civilian life? What criteria are used? Is every bishop an outstanding preacher, an extraordinary administrator, famed for holiness, well-known for theological competency? Is the appointment of every pastor applauded by every priest in a big diocese, where the average priest ordained 25 years may still be an associate? Is no parish considered a better appointment than another? If every priest had a vote, would everyone wearing monsignorial purple have been nominated for such? Are there inequities in civilian promotions? I suspect so. In military promotions? Undoubtedly. I believe that some who are not promoted should be, some deserve promotion more than others, some should not be promoted at all. Does it hurt not to be promoted? It can hurt terribly. Again, we are all very human.
Do priest chaplains sell their souls for the mess of pottage called promotion? I don’t know of any who do, but perhaps there are a few. I personally have not seen priests changed by rank. As with the wearing of the uniform, either a priest behaves as a priest, or he doesn’t. Those few whose rank goes to their heads simply lose their people, and they frequently lose their officer peers and superiors as well.
In my judgment, the armed forces have in times past foolishly discharged priests only because they have not been promoted. To a degree, this was the fault of existing public law, but was in part, also, the shortsightedness of the services themselves. This procedure has been corrected to a degree by way of recent legislation.
5. Does Government pay mean Government control of chaplains?
This question too has been raised through the years, and quite seriously at the moment by way of a court case challenging the constitutionality of the Army chaplaincy and of general financial support for religion in the Army. Leaving aside the constitutional issues, however, can it be validly stated that chaplains are in some way restricted or programmed in their ministry, particularly in their preaching, because they are paid by the Government? Would they be freer if paid by the church?
Chaplains were not always paid by the Government, and at times those so paid were paid for such tasks as teaching secular subjects, rather than for ministerial acts. Again a particular situation has evolved through the years. Several dynamics seem to have led to the current procedure; the chaplain himself required that somebody pay him, church or state, since he could not live on “air, prayer and Holy Water.” The First Amendment required that military people not be deprived of religious ministry; the military required its commanders to assure religious services for military people; the churches had financial problems closer to home.
For years a pay ceiling was imposed on chaplains regardless of performance or years of experience. Supported by their respective churches, chaplains finally broke through. They are now paid the same as their line officer counterparts, whether they perform well or poorly, preach the 10 Commandments or the Encyclopedia Britannica. While a chaplain may fail to be promoted, he will not be demoted, either, so that he is assured of a quite reasonable income which will increase in direct proportion to his years in service, promoted or not, whether he preaches 12 times a day, or not at all.
The basic pragmatic question concerning financial support is: If the Government did not provide it, who would, should or could? The constitutional argument goes thus: Since the Government pulls people out of the mainstream of life where priests and churches are available, for the Government not to provide priests and chapels would be to deprive military people of the “free exercise of religion.” Is the church prepared to assume this financial burden?
It is said that civilian priests could handle military installations quite as well as military chaplains. If true, would they, in turn, be paid by the Government? If not, why not? Because this would make them tools? The military currently contracts with and pays at least 600 civilian priests to serve the military as auxiliary chaplains. I don’t know of any who feel particularly inhibited in their preaching.
6. Who is “responsible” for religion in the military?
One of the earliest regulations written for the Navy of the colonies required that the commanding officer see to it that divine services be held on Sundays. The tradition of making the commanding officer responsible for the moral, spiritual and religious welfare of all military personnel seems to be repugnant to some observers, yet neither its origin nor its continued observance seems rooted in a desire for “control” by the Government or the military. Before chaplains came along, commanding officers conducted services themselves, reading the Bible and leading hymns.
A military commander is charged with responsibility for every facet of military life. It is not the doctor who is responsible for medical care, the quartermaster for supplies, the lawyer for legal assistance or the navigator for guiding a ship. The commanding officer holds the responsibility, regardless of who executes it. The medical doctor treats patients on behalf of the commanding officer. Rare and venturesome indeed, however, would be the commanding officer who would tell a doctor what to prescribe. The doctor maintains his professional independence, even though he is actually paid more than line officers, chaplains and other staff corps officers, which hardly suggests that being paid by the Government means doing what you’re told. Neither being an officer nor wearing the military uniform seems to weaken a doctor’s effectiveness, or so stamp him or her as a member of the “establishment” that patients are reluctant to be treated. So with the chaplain, who carries out the commanding officer’s responsibility for religious ministry and is his official adviser on moral, spiritual and religious matters. It is the commanding officer, however, who is expected to provide financial and logistic support, assure appropriate space, personnel assistance, time in the schedule, and so on.
Whatever possible disadvantages, I suspect that most chaplains see certain values in this. Whether or not he takes his obligation seriously, the commanding officer is officially responsible for the moral climate and for at least restraining the kind of moral misbehavior on the part of some that can adversely affect the rights of others—lewdness, drunkenness. Some commanding officers may carry out these responsibilities poorly. I doubt, however, that many military chaplains would want their commanding officers relieved of such responsibilities, nor would they approve the implication: that everything is important to the command except religion.
The commanding officer’s responsibility, however, does not mean that he determines how a priest chaplain will pray, preach, sing, offer Mass, administer the sacraments, or otherwise carry out priestly or ministerial functions, any more than it means similarly “controlling” medical doctors. In these matters, the chaplain is protected by law. Are there occasions when a commander exceeds his authority? Of course, and not only in respect to religious activities. Is such interference the rule? On the contrary, I suspect that some priests would like to see their commanding officers take their responsibilities much more seriously.
It might be averred: But if you had taken an “anti-war” position, you would have been slapped down. Recently I learned of a bishop quoted to the effect that no chaplain “spoke out” on Vietnam. Such a statement is inaccurate. I landed with the first Marine ground forces to go into Vietnam. When I returned to the United States, I had several sessions with the Commandant of the Marine Corps, who personally invited me to address other senior officers and arranged for me to address successive classes of student Marine officers on what I considered to be immoral and irresponsible in the conduct of the war. Two and four years later, successively, I revisited Vietnam at the request of senior Marine Corps authorities to try to evaluate moral issues. This was not a public relations gimmick. It was an effort carried out in complete earnestness.
Did it stop the war? Obviously not. Did it even fractionally reduce the horrors where Marines were involved? I have no way of knowing. But were my opinions sought and seriously considered? Categorically yes. Nor was I at all singular. Other chaplains can tell similar stories. Concerning various issues today, for example, the Chiefs of Chaplains of the respective services meet regularly, as the Armed Forces Chaplains Board, with the Assistant Secretary of Defense responsible for all “people” matters. They are free to say what they believe and they can bring pressure to bear to have their opinions given very serious consideration, even if rejected.
There may be a more subtle issue involved in the question about the chaplain’s freedom to preach on matters of war and peace. Do at least some who raise the question assume that the chaplain proves he is free only if he preaches what they believe he should preach, as though he has no mind or conscience of his own? Do they ask themselves if he might support a position because he honestly believes it to be morally justified and reflective of church teaching as he understands it? If he disagrees with other priests, religious or laypersons, or fails to preach what they believe, is he, then, obviously a tool of the military, or worried about promotion? If a chaplain denounced the chaplaincy and the military establishment, would his credibility soar with people who might discount anything favorable that he has to say about the military, on the grounds that he is prejudiced by the very fact that he is a chaplain?
7. What of the priest chaplain’s counseling on issues of war and peace?
Customarily, an individual in uniform wishing either a separation from active duty as a conscientious objector, or a transfer from one form of duty to another for reasons of conscience, is expected, if not required, to present the matter to a chaplain. The counsel offered by the priest can be crucial. No one directs the priest how to counsel an individual, no one takes any action against the priest on the basis of such counseling. In other words, he is free and expected to counsel in accordance with his own conscience and the needs and conscience of the individual who has come to him for counseling.
The Military Vicar, Terence Cardinal Cooke, has not been idle in trying to assist our priest chaplains in such counseling for military personnel. His first Pastoral Message of Peace was shared with all priest chaplains in May 1972, while the conflict still raged in Vietnam. It was the same message he issued within his own Archdiocese of New York. The pastoral called for the elimination of war, and ultimately of the very capacity to wage it, and repeated the papal admonition that “war is no longer an acceptable alternative” for settling disagreements. No one impeded priests in the armed forces from disseminating the pastoral.
Successively, in December 1977, May 1978, December 1978, February and August 1979, the Military Vicar made available to priest chaplains copies of his “Peace Messages,” delivered on such occasions as the Prayer Meditation Service for the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament, the Thomas Merton Lecture, National Assembly of Pax Christi, World Day of Peace Observance and similar events. No priest chaplain was prevented by any military authority from disseminating these as he saw fit.
In October 1979, Cardinal Cooke requested preparation of a paper that would reflect “official” church teaching—that of the popes, the Second Vatican Council and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops—on just war tradition, nuclear weapons and conscientious objection. The paper was delivered to the Holy Father and later published as a book, In Defense of Life. The book was praised by some, criticized by others. Critics argued that the book presented a static theology, ignored current church positions, selected only papal citations suiting its purposes and omitted scriptural teachings. In other words, some averred, it was simply an effort to justify military convictions.
Whatever other criticism of the book may be valid, the latter is not. The book was not rigged. The Cardinal was deeply concerned about the consciences of military people who were raising the same questions being raised by civilians, some with an even greater sense of personal urgency. They simply wanted to know, in view of conflicting opinions they were hearing in some pulpits and reading in the Catholic press: What does the church really teach? The book tried to sort it out; perhaps it did a poor job. It was sent to every priest chaplain for use in an honest effort to help military people form their consciences. The book certainly did not have to be cleared by military authorities.
On December 7, 1981, the Cardinal sent a Pastoral Letter to all priest chaplains, to be transmitted to their people, on the same issues. Once again, some highly praised, some sharply criticized the letter. On April 21, 1982, he issued a Letter to the Priests of the Archdiocese of New York, stating the church’s stand on disarmament and asking prayers for the success of the United Nations’ Special Session on Disarmament. This letter, too, went to all priest chaplains. On June 6, 1982, he had distributed in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, at a special Mass offered for the success of the Disarmament Session, a booklet containing The World Day of Peace Message of Pope John Paul II, of Jan. 1, 1982, the homily at the Mass given by Archbishop Joseph L. Bernardin, Chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on War and Peace, and his own pastoral messages and addresses on peace and the things of war. The booklet in its entirety was sent to every priest in the armed forces, again for use with military people. What all of this says to me is that those who might believe that our priest chaplains are ignorant of or unconcerned about war and peace issues, or are being provided no tools or guidance for assisting their people in forming their consciences, are apparently not aware of the Military Vicar’s continuing efforts along these lines.
I am certain that our priests in uniform would strongly encourage and appreciate good pre-military counseling programs for young people considering military service. Such counseling could enhance the effectiveness of priest chaplains, and help save many heartaches, both for those who are persuaded that military service is not for them and for those who do enter the armed forces. Such programs are welcomed by the Military Vicar. It seems regrettable to me that because some programs seem to emphasize simply instructing young people in how to avoid military service, all counseling programs unfairly become suspect. This is especially unfortunate if a program might be precluded merely because offered by those who are personally committed to nonviolence. Integrity and objectivity are not restricted either to those who believe that war can be morally justified under rigorous conditions, or those who believe that only a nonviolent approach is legitimate. It is not the personal position of the counselor that is important, but his wisdom, knowledge, experience and willingness to present a balanced perspective, without covert or overt moral coercion.
8. Some Random Thoughts on Prophets
It is rarely easy to be a prophet. It is not always easy, perhaps, for a priest chaplain to distinguish between his own conscience and his own vanity. There can be times when he no more wants to confront a commanding officer than Moses wanted to confront Pharaoh, and when it is easy for him to beg off for the same reason Moses did. “Who am I that I should go to the Pharaoh? Who am I to lead the people?” And there can be times that the chaplain can be frightened, and confused and frustrated—as frustrated, and confused and frightened as Jonah ever was.
What prophet was always 100 percent sure of what he was doing? One with the people to whom he belongs, the military chaplain must perhaps experience their doubts if he is to know their certitudes. Far from being indifferent, or insensitive, or cocksure about war, for example, as the military chaplain is often pictured, he must suffer, and may even be destroyed by, the terribly personal existential agony of the true prophet.
What can be said of his role in war can be said of virtually all his activities. As often as the road is clear, it is foggy. As often as a situation is obvious, it is ambiguous. As often as he is convinced, he is perplexed. He must speak for God, for his church, for his people. His God may reveal Himself in ways most difficult to interpret, or, at times, seem not to reveal Himself at all. His church may speak through many voices, not all seeming to say the same thing, or may remain silent altogether. His people—who are they? Recruits and generals, seamen and admirals, husbands, wives, parents, children, sweethearts. Diverse people with diverse needs, personal beliefs, official demands, all expecting of him what God’s people have always expected of their prophets: his blessing, his support, his approval, indeed, even his miracles, and also ready to rebuff him as prophets have always been rebuffed. It is to these people that he must minister and for whom he must often be a prophet in respect to the daily realities of their lives, far removed from the immediate concerns of war.
In meeting these needs, it is helpful that a priest chaplain “belong.” He is accepted as being within “the system,” able to understand it and use it to the advantage of his people. They know he can sit in on key staff meetings and argue in their favor, if need be, yet they recognize that he is simultaneously “above” the system, not controlled by it in matters of conscience and courageous enough to give witness against it when required. He understands their life by sharing it on a daily basis.
For the new recruit, for example, separation from home and family can be traumatic, barracks life frightening. The sole familiar link with home may be the priest. Here is someone “on their side,” since he’s a priest, but able to help them because he’s on the “inside.” Life at sea, perhaps with men and women on board the same ship, can make chastity especially difficult. Pressures to have an abortion may be severe. Frequent moves and separations may make normal courtship impossible with resultant tendencies either to marry in haste or to postpone marriage indefinitely. Financial and housing benefits may favor the married, tempting single persons to marry solely for the duration of their military service, with the intention of divorcing upon leaving such service. Separations of married people characterize modern military life, with all the risks and temptations such separations may include. Children may feel rejected by a father often away from home. Frequent moves may preclude membership in any parish and loss of continuity in religious education.
In all such circumstances, the understanding on the part of an experienced priest chaplain can be invaluable. His counseling and support reflect his own experience in the milieu in which military people live and move and have their being, in the United States and abroad.
Occasionally I am asked if the shortage of priests for the chaplaincy is not largely attributable to antimilitary sentiment on the part of civilian priests. Would more priests volunteer to minister to the armed forces if not required to become uniformed military chaplains? I don’t really know, but I do know that we have many priests volunteering right now. That’s not the problem. The problem is the shortage of priests in civilian life, a shortage projected for at least the next 10 years, with the situation getting worse. Many seminaries have closed, the age level of priests in the United States has increased significantly, and in most dioceses ordination classes are a fraction of what they used to be. Bishops and religious superiors are simply unable to let priests go.
Undoubtedly, the current system for ministering to Catholics in military service could be improved. I am not at all sure that such improvement would accrue by divesting our priest chaplains of uniforms, rank or governmental pay and support. Perhaps it could. If so, to “get there from here” would require strenuous effort and enormous financial resources. In the meanwhile, my own experience and, I believe, the experience of the majority of priests who have served or are currently serving the armed forces, suggests maintaining the present system while trying each day to improve it. My own experience and that of others suggests, too, that the present system, with all its inadequacies, seems to provide countless opportunities for the priest chaplain to be the good shepherd in a unique way, truly able to say: I know mine and mine know me.
Politics
Faith
Culture
Vatican
Scripture
Podcasts