See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. - James 5:7

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Military Chaplains face court-martial for 'religious, conscience' objection to homosexual conduct?



Curtailing of religious liberties to be enacted?
.
Can this be true?  And yet they said this could/would never happen.
.
The U.S. Army has officially threatened military chaplains they must either embrace the new openly homosexual military, resign from service, or face court-martial for their "religious, conscience" objections. The Pray In Jesus Name Project has obtained leaked copies (unintended for media disclosure) of a private briefing given to chaplains, threatening them with court-martial unless they compromise their Christian message.
.
Christian Chaplains who speak out against homosexual sin can be accused of "harassment" by homosexuals and face disciplinary action simply for voicing their religious views outside the "context" of their religious ministry.
.
[Chaplains' interpretation: The phrase "vocational reflection" is not-so-subtle code language meaning "reconcile with homosexuality or find another line of work." The phrase "do NOT tolerate harassment" is code language for "don't speak against sin, for ANY reason, or you the Chaplain will be disciplined for quoting the Bible, and the homosexual protected."] - Source

.
“Gay marriage will affect you and you should be concerned. And there’s a lot we can do.” - Bishop Tobin
.
Advocates of gay marriage hope to convince us it just isn't so, insisting legalized same sex marriage will never result in churches being forced to go against their teaching and perform gay weddings or host receptions for same sex couples. 
.
Bishop Tobin, Bishop of Providence, Rhode Island recently warned about the implications the recognition of same-sex “marriage” would have for religious liberty:

.
“We’re familiar with other examples of the gay agenda infringing on religious freedom,” he said, noting how Massachusetts required the Catholic Church to place children for adoption with homosexual couples and how some countries have charged Christian preachers of hate crimes for voicing Christian doctrine about homosexual practices.
.
“Proponents of gay marriage say that the Church won’t be forced to witness such marriages. Don’t believe it,” he said, warning that the Church may be required to admit homosexual couples as sponsors for baptism, to rent its facilities for homosexual wedding receptions, or to hire employees despite their immoral lifestyles.
.
“For simply maintaining its teachings in these and many other possible scenarios, the Church will be accused of bigotry and unlawful discrimination. The threat to our religious freedom is real, and imminent,” he said. - Source
.
H/T Pewsitters

52 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Bishops had better wake up because there is a war on. They no longer have the luxury of silence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Austringer9:32 AM

    Thom,

    I don't see that Pewsitters have gone hysterical: the CNN (now there's an objective news source...NOT) story leaves much to be concerned about. Sure, some are quoted as saying that the new policy does not mean that chaplains have to change their beliefs, yet there are also quotes saying that it might be better for those people to leave. Well, if the new policy changes nothing for chaplains, why would that even be said?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Now only if chaplains would face court martial because they object to killing people in the name of empire....

    ReplyDelete
  5. michael r.12:23 PM

    Most people recognize this stuff as fear-mongering. It doesn't fly for most people, and certainly not for the majority of Catholics; bishops and Pope included. Homosexuals are to be treated with respect, period. If a chaplain wants to rant against the evils of homosexual sex, knowing that there are most likely homosexuals in the ranks, perhaps s/he needs to be placed in another setting for the good of military cohesion.

    So far, no Catholic priests have been forced to marry ANYONE not agreeing to abide by Catholic principles. Many priests will marry just about anyone, but that's not the same thing as a priest being forced to marry. I'd be interested in seeing the examples of this happening...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Austringer1:23 PM

    I'd like to know, Michael, just what you regard as a "rant" as compared to a reasonable sermon against homosexual acts. Not that you're likely to hear one anyway, as it seems to be that ANY statement of the Church's position that homosexual acts are disordered is likely to be taken as a "rant" by those friendly to the gay agenda, who then shrilly lament how gays are being mistreated. Most priests don't want to mess with the controversy. Of course homosexuals are to be treated with respect -- so are all God's children -- but so many gays seem to take the Church's stance against homosexual acts as abuse, and instead demand that we all consider it perfectly normal and wonderful...

    No, I doubt you'll hear many reasonable sermons, let alone rants, about the disordered nature of homosexual acts. That can't be what was meant by the persons quoted in the CNN article, those saying that chaplains who couldn't adapt to the new policy would be better off leaving -- I mean, that hasn't been a problem in the past, right? So it's reasonable to have concerns that it's the offending Church doctrine that will have to go, not the non-existent sermons.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Austringer1:58 PM

    Thom,

    What you think of as reasoned and articulate is governed by your own personal biases. For example, I really don't see Michael's use of the term "rant" as useful, which is why I asked him to state what would, by a comparison, constitute a reasonable sermon that still states the Church's position that homosexual acts are disordered. No answer yet...

    According to the CNN article you referenced, such rants haven't been a problem in the military in the past, even without the new policy. It is reasonable to suspect, then, that when persons in the military are quoted as saying that those who can't adapt to the new policy should consider leaving, it might be more than "rants" that they want to ban. The freedom for Catholic chaplains to stay in the military while remaining faithful to the Church's teaching might very well be in danger. That's not being hysterical, Thom.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Austringer3:04 PM

    Thom, let's just look at a few quotes from the CNN article you referenced:

    "The training stresses that not much will be different for chaplains, but that those who cannot "reconcile" the change in policy are able to seek a voluntary separation from the service."

    "A chaplain must be endorsed by a religious group to serve in the armed forces. Withdrawing that endorsement would force a chaplain to leave the service."
    "For some religious groups the change in policy posed a doctrinal problem. In a religious group where sex is sanctioned only between a married man and a woman, homosexuality can be considered a sin. Catholic, Orthodox, and evangelical Christian groups raised the most concerns."

    " "at this time no endorser has said they're going to withdraw their endorsement and pull all their chaplains," Lt. Col. Carlton Birch, a spokesman for the Army Chief of Chaplains office, told CNN"

    "While saying, "I don't wish anyone to leave," Magness added, "If a person can't reconcile themselves to the new policies of DADT it probably wouldn't be a bad thing for them to leave."

    ""We're in a mode where we're listening and watching. We do have concerns where there is a setting where one of our chaplains has to give the full counsel of scripture and it is offensive to someone. What will that case be? We'll just have to wait and see what happens."

    What all of those quotes tell me is that it is still an undecided question whether a chaplain will be permitted to speak of homosexual acts as sinful in a sermon. He is permitted to hold that belief personally, but it appears to be an unsettled question just how that would be handled. "We'll just have to wait and see what happens" is hardly a ringing endorsement of the idea that a Christian priest or minister is free to state that homosexual acts are gravely disorderd and sinful. Given the agressive nature of the gay agenda -- who would have thought, even a few decades ago, that we would even be discussing something so ludicrous and oxymoronic as "gay marriage" -- I think it is reasonable for Catholics to have real concern for the future of Catholic military chaplains and their freedom to express politically incorrect sentiments.

    You haven't told me yet waht is so "hysterical" about the pewsitters item. That you disagree with their concerns is a given, but where is the "hysterical" part?

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Austringer4:38 PM

    Thom, I provided you with specific quotes that give rise to reasonable concerns. That is concrete and specific as I need to be. No one has claimed that we have lost our Catholic chaplains; what has been raised are reasonable concerns. Just what part of this do you not understand? And why are you taking such umbrage? Are you a supporter of gay "marriage"? Do you disagree with the Church's position that homosexual acts are disordered?

    "Military chaplains preach/"rant" against all sorts of sins that the military doesn't actively prosecute. Like m/f sex outside of marriage." -- they do? And what, exactly, is the difference between a "rant" and a "sermon"? And do you see any difference between fornication (m/f sex outside of marriage) and homosexual acts?

    ReplyDelete
  13. michael r.4:45 PM

    Austringer, it was a beautiful day, so I went outside to enjoy it. I built a bonfire and said my office.

    I can't imagine any military chaplain preaching a sermon to men and women in uniform, promising eternal hell for sins of the flesh. This has nothing to do with pressure from gay rights activists. Can anyone imagine a military chaplain delivering a sermon denigrating Mulims, or anyone of another faith, as happens in regular church settings? As far as I know, it's just not done in the military, though I'm all ears if anyone has experiences to share. If it is ever done, it should probably be the end of that chaplains career in the military. I'm reasonably sure that Catholic chaplains can still function and carry out their duties, without need to preach against the evils of homosexuality to troops. If they need to do it, maybe the best way is for them to counsel men and women one on one, in the confessional, in which case there could never be a case made against them. I suspect this is a non-issue for all but a couple chaplains.

    ReplyDelete
  14. America was founded by Freemasons and is run by the Father of Lies.

    There is no such thing as Christian America.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Austringer6:02 PM

    Michael, you wrote: "I can't imagine any military chaplain preaching a sermon to men and women in uniform, promising eternal hell for sins of the flesh."

    No, the sense of sin has been greatly reduced in our age (the age of universal salvation), so the idea that mortal sin, if not repented of, would damn a soul to hell would likely raise a few raised eyebrows. Raised eyebrows aside, is it true or not that unrepented mortal sin leads to hell? Why would any faithful Catholic object to the idea of forceful sermons, taking to task sins of the flesh?

    If your point in all of this is to claim that --boo hoo -- the mean old Church is unfair to gays by calling their cherished affliction a "disorder", unlike heterosexual sins, then I would point out to you that I have yet to see the organization of Catholics for Adultery, or Catholics for Fornication pressing for recognition that these sins are just fine; nothin' wrong here; we're perfectly wondeful just as God made us....

    Or do you deny that there is such a thing as a "gay agenda"? Just wondering how far the head is in the sand...

    "Can anyone imagine a military chaplain delivering a sermon denigrating Mulims, or anyone of another faith, as happens in regular church settings?"

    I haven't been in any "regular church setting" that did anything like you suggest they do, and my former pastor was quite blunt. Or is it automatically "denigration" to claim that the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ? Are you saying that Catholic military chaplains can't say this?

    " I'm reasonably sure that Catholic chaplains can still function and carry out their duties, without need to preach against the evils of homosexuality to troops."

    A priest's duty is to preach the truth of the Gospels, in their entirety, regardless of the political correctness of the day. And you insist on saying "the evils of homosexuality", which obscures the fact that it is the acts that are sinful, while those afflicted with the inclination are to be treated with compassion.

    If Catholic chaplains can't preach the Gospels in regards to morality or to the the Church being the sacrament of salvation, then they are not being true to their vocation. End of story. Give to Caesar's what is Caesar's and give to God what is God, doncha know...

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Catholic chaplains in the military are overseen by the Archdiocese for the Military Services, and Archbishop Timothy Broglio is over them..

    Here is their website..

    https://milarch.org/

    I have yet to hear a Catholic priest rant...on the other hand, I've attend sevferal baptist and Pentecostal services where those indeed are rants.. :)

    In my experiences with military chaplains they would probably use the approach "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Military life is complicated, and chaplains are a critical lifeline to the active duty and families. We LUV our chaplains and their sacrifices!!

    Sara

    ReplyDelete
  18. Austringer6:44 PM

    "I built a bonfire and said my office."

    Very nice. Be sure to let us all know when you broaden your phylacteries, too.

    I should have been more specific in my last post: if a Catholic chaplain is restrained, by the military, from preaching the whole truth of the Gospel, then the government is preventing him from being true to his vocation and is interfering with the chaplain's first amendment rights. If he is not restrained but chooses not to engage politically incorrect subjects, well, then he is simply being like most priests today.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  20. michael r.6:50 PM

    Pointless to attempt to engage you, Austringer. You are rude.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Austringer9:44 PM

    "Repealing DADT has nothing to do with "restraining" anyone from "preaching" what they have already been preaching."

    OK, Thom, then why this quote from the article you referenced? "If a person can't reconcile themselves to the new policies of DADT it probably wouldn't be a bad thing for them to leave."

    Or, if everything is peachy-keen and perfectly A-OK, then why this later quote? "We're in a mode where we're listening and watching. We do have concerns where there is a setting where one of our chaplains has to give the full counsel of scripture and it is offensive to someone. What will that case be? We'll just have to wait and see what happens."

    No doubt when that case happens (let's say, oh, that a Catholic chaplain states the Church's position on homosexual acts and a gay guy objects) you will be completely amazed, amazed if that chaplain is ultimately told to leave. Who could have seen that coming, eh?? Who knew?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Austringer9:51 PM

    "Pointless to attempt to engage you, Austringer. You are rude."

    To paraphrase the martyr St. Andrew Wouters: Rude I always was, but dissenter I never was.

    ReplyDelete
  23. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Austringer10:46 PM

    "Until the Church teaches that gay people should be imprisoned, no one should feel compelled to voluntarily remove themselves from the chaplaincy."

    Do you really think that is the concern at hand? Do you really think that the Episcopal bishop who said, "If a person can't reconcile themselves to the new policies of DADT it probably wouldn't be a bad thing for them to leave", had in mind that his church, or the Catholic Church, would someday teach that gays should be imprisoned, and so he was just saying that as a warning? Not likely. Again, I think it is quite reasonable -- not at all hysterical -- to have some concerns that the new DADT policy might have the result that Catholic chaplains who state the Church's position on homosexual acts might be asked to leave the military.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Austringer10:59 PM

    Given the fact that we are now actually debating, as a society, the possibility of "gay marriage" (which only a few decades ago would have been laughed at as an impossible oxymoronic term), I don't think it is unreasonable at all. So -- you think it is entirely unreasonable to have concerns that the new policy might lead to the expulsion of chaplains who don't toe the politically correct line -- is that right? It is hard not to conclude that you are either favorably disposed to the gay agenda, or blissfully unaware of it and its success in our culture.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. A Random Friar11:07 PM

    There is a potential problem. Chaplains are expected to be able to counsel or talk with any and all military members and families that come to them. I think this is a fair job expectation.

    However, imagine a gay couple comes to the Catholic chaplain for counseling, or asks for a fairly general blessing (I've gotten asked for those in hospitals) as they get ready to go off on a honeymoon. The Catholic chaplain declines. The couple asks why. Even the most diplomatic answer from the priest could easily lead him to get cashiered out of the service, at least from what I am gathering from the leaked document.

    This is something that was pointed out when the government and the President started referring more to "Freedom of Worship" than "Freedom of Religion." I.e., faith becomes compartmentalized and in danger of being irrelevant.

    To be fair, I'm sure there's some religious that those on the right would love to shut up as well. But this does not look good.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Austringer11:27 PM

    "You aren't dealing with the facts of this matter, Austringer."

    Yes, I am dealing with the facts of the gay agenda, which does pose potential threat to priests and ministers who preach against homosexual acts ("hate speech"). You have heard, I presume, that in Canada a minister was jailed for speaking against homosexuality? There are similar cases here where "hate speech" has been tried as a means to get rid of people who uphold the Church's position on homosexuality (Kenneth Howell, for one example). It is not unreasonable to expect the US to follow Canada in this direction. It is also reasonable to have concerns for how this will play out in our military.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Austringer8:29 AM

    Thom,

    Kenneth Howell's case was in this country, not Canada.

    No doubt when concerns were raised about the possible effect of "gay rights" legislation on Catholic adoption agencies, you poo-pooed that too.

    There's no way to open the eyes of someone who is willfully blind. I can only guess at the probable reasons for your blindness -- I'll pray for you.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Austringer12:54 PM

    No, I haven't strayed -- what I have mentioned is quite relevant to the subject at hand, which is the potential muzzling or dismissal of Catholic chaplains as a result of gay activism. The same activism has closed Catholic adoption agencies and has sought to silence those who merely state the Church's position that gay sex is disordered. Of course I understand that you would like to see no connection, but I think reasonable people can look over the exchange we've been having here and draw their own conclusions.

    You never did provide any evidence of what was so hysterical in the pewsitters item. Merely providing the definition of "hysterical" does not constitute an effective argument -- it's not an argument at all.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Austringer3:46 PM

    Because other issues and circumstances present us with a picture of what could happen with the issue of Catholic chaplains. It's really quite simple: if you want to see how a particular agenda might advance its cause in one arena, look to see how it advanced its cause in other arenas.

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thom: Try posting the Truth of the Catholic Church at America Magazine and see what happens. They will literally delete the very words of the Gospel. If the worst enemies of the Chuch are to be found in the bosom of the Church, can you not understand how much worse ar the threats posed by the 'city of man'?

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Austringer5:03 PM

    "Keeping gay soldiers out of prison isn't "advancing an agenda."

    The repeal of DADT may have repercussions far beyond simply "keeping gay soldiers out of prison". (And tell me, Thom, just how many soldiers were actually imprisoned because they were gay in recent times? Or is that too hysterical a question?)It is reasonable to have concerns that a Catholic chaplain who merely states the Church's position on homosexual acts will be told he is not acting in accord with the new DADT policy -- as that CNN story you referenced indicated. If this truly had nothing at all to do with military chaplains and is confined to keeping gays out of jail (a straw-man, by the way...), then the military would hardly need to be holding training sessions for the chaplains, would it? But it has....so apparently the military itself disagrees with you, and foresees possible cases in the future where there could be conflict between the new DADT policy and religious doctrine.

    That does advance the gay agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Not surprised by the chatter5:48 PM

    What I find very curious is that there is a scenario taking place within the boundaries of a Catholic H.S. vs a "government" military which is beginning to show the type of intolerance & level of disrespect voiced towards a priest teaching students enrolled in the Catholic institution on the subject of same sex attraction and church doctrine. Now I can imagine (have witnessed it) what could be stirred up in a non-Catholic setting.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Furthering the cause of the homosexual does no one charity. Promotion of the cause of homosexuals is sinful.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Austringer8:42 PM

    Thom,

    Facts, please. It's easy to claim that soldiers have been imprisoned for being gay, but can you show me the data to support that claim? Dates, names? Otherwise, it's merely an unsupported claim.

    Where is the lack of charity and compassion, as you claim? If you think that the Church's position that homosexual acts are disordered, that's fine, but to then claim that support of the Church's teaching is an indication of a lack of charity or compassion is simply baseless. One can hate the sin and love the sinner, as we are all called to do.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Austringer11:15 PM

    "That's just it- you are ascribing to the Church that imprisonment is just for gays."

    Whahh...????!!! I have said no such thing. You are reading what you want to into my words, the better, I suppose, to construct a straw-man that you can then attack. Tell me, Thom, just where I said that the Church teaches that imprisonment is just for gays. You can't, because I never claimed such a ludicrous thing. Nor am I so ignorant of Church teaching that I would ever claim so. You are really off base....

    I asked for dates and names of soldiers that have been imprisoned because they were gay. Apparently you can't do so. I have no doubt that these imprisoned gays exist in your head, but since you admit that they are an "unquantifiable number" (which is a joke, fer Pete's sake -- these things are public record), we will have to leave them at that, a figment of your vivid imagination.

    I have no doubt that many gays were discharged because of their sexual activities -- and so were many heterosexuals, under the laws of the UCMJ (Universal Code of MIlitary Justice). But you were speaking of imprisonment, were you not? Are you familiar with the UCMJ? Can you give me actual names and dates of soldiers who were IMPRISONED (your claim) because they were gay? Show me the money, Thom.

    You're not doing yourself any favors here. You're grasping at straws and becoming increasingly incoherent.

    ReplyDelete
  48. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous5:13 AM

    Does anyone understand that Catholic priests can use the term "no natural relationship" to describe both gay situ's, and non-gays in certain specific situ's? At least the gays will now be protected from such "undermining required due to sacerdotal vows". An example comes to mind of an emotionally unstable mother-in-law causing such priestly involvement. Over simplification of the Roman Catholic position appears throughout the above comments.

    ReplyDelete
  50. torres9:52 PM

    I am just wondering where you got the image that you used for this post, thank you for your help.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I'm not sure where I got the photo - I may have taken it from pewsitters or a google search page.

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.