Terry Mattingly at Get Religion, a blog about religion and journalism, looks at some of the fallout from the “don’t ask, don’t tell’ repeal for military chaplains.
His main question is whether a new military policy on homosexuals serving openly (they have always been there clandestinely) will affect the ability of some chaplains to follow the dictates of their tradition.
It’s a clash-of-rights issue, as he presents it.
But I what notice is how, once again, Wicca becomes the “default Other” religion, the hard case that must be accommodated:
How many Wiccans feel comfortable with a Pentecostal pastor, a Muslim imam, a Catholic priest, an Orthodox rabbi, an evangelical Lutheran or anyone from another faith leading their rites (if they are allowed to do so under their own vows)? Now, many forms of pagan faith do not have formal ordination procedures (while some do). Who approves the appointment of a layperson as a chaplain? How do a small circle of pagan chaplains serve believers on bases spread out around the world?
…. Now, the dying soldier is a Muslim and the chaplain is Jewish, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostal, Wiccan, etc. etc.
So far, there are no Pagan chaplains of any sort in the United States military. Well-qualified applicants get nowhere.
At the same time, at least some chaplains have been very supportive of military Pagans. The chaplaincy structure stood behind the Fort Hood Pagan group in 2000 all the way to the top.
Mattingly sees three possible outcomes. None of them is completely satisfactory:
(1) Find some way to end the chaplaincy program (under the assumption that if equal access is not possible, then closing down the chaplaincy program is the only legal option that is fair to all).
(2) Allow clergy to serve without violating their ordination vows (with the knowledge that, even when working with people of good will, this imperfect system will cause tensions and accusations of “hate speech”).
(3) The establishment of state-mandated and government-funded religious rites and rules of conduct of chaplains, mandating that expressions of the beliefs of many clergy are acceptable and that expressions of opposing beliefs are not acceptable. Some chaplains would argue that option (3) is already in place, but it is inconsistently enforced.
I’m thinking that we sometimes yield to the temptations of overthinking–like wondering what military chaplains meeting openly gay and lesbian troops might do vis a vis the boundaries of their traditions. When there are no openly gay and lesbian troops yet, and there won’t be until the services declare themselves ready to acknowledge them.
I guess that I’m feeling that we ought to slow down about thinking about change here.
As for Pagan Chaplains, that’s years away, as far as I can figure. If ever.
There’s an interesting semi-parallel from way back when Washington appointed a Universalist chaplain and the other chaplains complained bitterly — the old Universalist church, while Christian in other respects, did not accept the notion of damnation (not even a little; didn’t square with their notion of a loving G-d), which most others regarded as essential to the faith in general. They regarded the U’s as heretical.
I do not have the man’s response ready to hand but it was along the lines of, “We have soldiers of that faith, therefore we’re gonna have chaplains of that faith.” Period. No philosophy about it.
Got nothing for you on the various and sundry decision points chaplains are going to be facing — but as already noted, it’s not anything essentially different than they have been facing all along. One has to wonder what a Congregationalist/Universalist match up did under similar circumstances in the 18th Cent. As best they could, I’d bet. It’s not a bad mark to aim for.
“We have soldiers of that faith, therefore we’re gonna have chaplains of that faith.” Period. No philosophy about it.
That can;t follow, though. At the very least, you have to have some sort of numeric cut-off – if you have 100 Jedi soldiers, then you need a Jedi chaplain – that sort of thing.
Apart from that, there is the point that military chaplains do not have a solely religious purpose, but also one of offering general comfort. You take young men, barely more than boys, often from screwed-up backgrounds, and tell them to go and risk death in a foreign land – you have to offer some sort of emotional support.
In the UK, there;s all this hoo-hah now about Pagan chaplains here and there, in the police and so on. I don;t get it. I don;t see why there should be any state-funded chaplains anywhere, with two exceptions made for special cases-
(i) Military – as I said, young men, being asked to die, etc.
(ii) Prisons – if religion achieves a personal reform, then it is worthwhile on purely secular grounds (some analysis of whether prisoners who find religion are less likely to commit crimes again would be interesting, though).
OK, if the chaplain is there for comfort, then why not start hiring and training open minded psychologists and MSWs in religious psychology and have them take over the position. It’d be a little like Star Trek: TNG only these psychologists et.al. would be specifically trained in giving comfort on a spiritual level as well as psychological, to all denominations. There you’d have no state sponsored religion but still retain what is needed, troop emotional and spiritual support.
Pingback: The Wild Hunt » Quick Notes: Murph Pizza, Foreclosures, Chas Clifton
Chaplains, by definition, are clergy who are trained (via graduate-level Clinical Pastoral Education residencies) to serve people of any or no religion/spiritual path. By definition, they use the language the soldier/prisoner/patient uses to express her or his worldview, and work within the structure of that worldview to explore the person’s values and the meaning s/he places on what is being explored. A chaplain’s presence is for far more than simple comfort.
I am a Pagan hospital chaplain who ministers to all. Most patients do not know what my spiritual path is, and that is a measure of the success with which I do my job. Do I pray to the Christian God? Yes. I also Call the Directions. And speak rationally with Humanists about their existential pain and hope.
It breaks my heart to hear of people who call themselves chaplains but express judgments regarding those they serve — to say nothing of those who evangelize/proselytize. These are not chaplains, but clergy who are using their position to abuse those who rely on them. Chaplains who cannot serve all of their constituents need to leave chaplaincy and find a congregation to lead.
Chaplains, by definition, are clergy who are trained (via graduate-level Clinical Pastoral Education residencies) to serve people of any or no religion/spiritual path. http://www.professionalchaplains.org/ By definition, they use the language the soldier/prisoner/patient uses to express her or his worldview, and work within the structure of that worldview to explore the person’s values and the meaning s/he places on what is being explored. A chaplain’s presence is for far more than simple comfort.
I am a Pagan hospital chaplain who ministers to all. Most patients do not know what my spiritual path is, and that is a measure of the success with which I do my job. Do I pray to the Christian God? Yes. I also Call the Directions. And speak rationally with Humanists about their existential pain and hope.
It breaks my heart to hear of people who call themselves chaplains but express judgments regarding those they serve — to say nothing of those who evangelize/proselytize. These are not chaplains, but clergy who are using their position to abuse those who rely on them. Chaplains who cannot serve all of their constituents need to leave chaplaincy and find a congregation to lead.
I am someone who is hopeful to be a Military Chaplain, though I am still a few years off, but if the opportunity could open up I would blaze for it!