Allegiance, or, Serving Two Masters

Friend of CPF Joshua Casteel posted this comment in response to the discussion under Jesuit Priest Defends ROTC. But I think his thoughts are worth bringing up to the top:

"The ongoing conversation of ROTC and Catholic education is missing the point with regard to one major issue: allegiance. Let's leave violence aside for a time and assume fully that the Church didn't just screw up when it thought through the rigorous parameters which eventually developed into the Just War doctrine. So, with that assumption already made, let's take a look at what enlisted soldiers and commissioned officers swear they will do in fulfillment of the offices to which they are charged.


ENLISTMENT
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

COMMISSIONING
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

The military is an institution that serves two entities: the Constitution and the President. The President is the servant of the Constitution. By serving these two entites, the military serves the Nation. Once a person raises their right hand and takes this oath, they abdicate all moral autonomy to make future decisions as to who exactly is an enemy to the Constitution, and how such enemies are to be dealt with. A service member is a servant to a new master, and the interests of this master trump any and all personal convictions (within the bounds of civic law) which might complicate the fulfilling of obligations, which is why we should look to a few main areas of the oaths themselves.

Both oaths demand "true faith and allegiance," and commissioned officers must be "without any mental reservation" as to their readiness to serve the interests of the nation in defense against enemies to the Constitution. So, without addressing any specifics of any war in particular as to whether it may or may not meet the criteria of the Just War doctrine, we see from the very moment of initiation a demand made of service members essentially to submit entirely, without reservation, to the absolute authority of the State in determining the parameters of justice, and more importantly, how individual soldiers are to treat their "enemies". So, let's look at the command of another authority.

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other." -Matthew 6:24

Until such a thing exists in the US allowing Catholics to selectively object to wars deemed unjust by the Church, ALL Catholics serving in the military are put into a position of grave moral peril where they must choose which master to follow. It is a decision between the State and Christ's Church. The State is not an institution entirely indebted to the Gospel, and as long as Catholics are willing to raise the right hand and swear an oath of allegiance always and without reservation to uphold State interests, as interpreted by the State, Catholics will continue to serve two masters.

The problem is not so much one of doctrine, but one of deeds and duties. And as long as Catholics continue to abdicate, freely and voluntarily, the moral freedom given to them by Chirst, Church teaching will continue to be without effect. The issue is much more one of allegiance and taking seriously the fact the parameters of the State and the parameters of the Church, and the duties implied by each sphere are radically different. The political landscape has altered greatly since the time of Augustine and Aquinas. If they read our oaths, what would they think? Would they think democracy a likely avenue to arrive at Gospel interests? Would they think reformulating the geopolitical landscape of a region as equally a "just cause" as defense of the Church? Would they think natural resource security as high a cause as defense of the Church? And what would Prophets such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Jeremiah think if they looked at the oaths we so flippantly take in service of worldly dominions? I argue that everyone from Isaiah to Aquinas would be quite saddened by how easily we have accepted the new gospel of democratic nationalism, and how easily we have forgotten that we already have a political nation called the Church, and we already have a commander in chief - Christ. Which master do we choose?"

Conscientious Cooperation

The LA Times has published an excellent obituary for Desmond Doss, the heroic "conscientious cooperator" of World War II:

"Desmond T. Doss was an unlikely World War II hero.

A conscientious objector who served as an Army medic in the Pacific, he was ridiculed and cursed in boot camp by fellow soldiers for refusing to carry a weapon.

Instead he carried a pocket-size Bible on Guam, Leyte and Okinawa and when not treating the wounded, the Seventh-day Adventist from Virginia would read Scripture.

But although his religious beliefs forbade his taking of lives, Doss did what he could to save the lives of comrades.

For his heroic actions on Okinawa, including braving heavy enemy fire to single-handedly rescue 75 wounded infantrymen and lower them one by one down a cliff to safety, he received the nation's highest military award — and he did it without ever firing a shot.

"What I did," he later said, "was a service of love." "

Read the whole story here.

Christian Peacemakers Freed

"Blessed be the Lord our God--He has come to His people and set them free."

As many people may now know, the three Christian Peacemakers still held captive in Iraq have been freed. We give thanks and praise to God for this wonderful turn of events, and we especially give thanks that, according to news reports, their rescue was accomplished without a shot being fired.

We continue to pray for all those still held captive, Iraqis as well as internationals.

More updates and comments to follow.