Homosexual conduct contradicts the laws of nature and of nature’s God. It, like other aberrant forms of sexuality, condones unbridled passions that lead to mistrust, failed relationships, the spread of disease, lack of discipline, and other irresponsible personal behavior. Men can only thrive under liberty ordered by moral law. The moral law of Western civilization clearly tells us that sexual immorality is offensive to God, to our fellow man, and repugnant to the survival of our culture.

Before we lay aside the longstanding laws and policies of our nation, we should take a long, hard look at the reasons that such laws and policies were codified. Every culture known to man has affirmed the intrinsic value of sex within heterosexual marriage. In fact, history has proven, time and again, that a society that approves of immorality and sexual permissiveness is doomed to failure—perhaps slow and treacherous failure, but failure to be sure.

At this moment, leaders in the White House, the United States Congress, and the military are considering repealing the law that prohibits homosexual conduct in our military. We face one of the most critical decisions affecting the good order and discipline of our nation’s military and its military readiness. Will our elected and appointed officials make the right decision? I encourage all citizens of the United States to contact their Congressional representatives and other government leaders about this matter. We cannot afford to have a military in which discipline and national security are compromised by authorized homosexual activity.

[The views expressed herein are my own and are not those of the Department of Defense.]

Just-War Theory is a checklist of criteria used to determine if a particular war/conflict is morally acceptable.  The presupposition is that some wars may be justifiable, in contrast to the pacifist claim that all wars are morally wrong.

Those who choose military service are faced with the question of whether it is permissible to bear arms.  Not all wars are equal, and obviously not all world religions agree about the matter of war.  Military ethicists have compiled the following list to help people decide.

1. Just Cause: Having right on one’s side.  Honorable motives, protection of oppressed, self-defense, concern for the dignity and worth of human life, compassion for one’s neighbor.

READ MORE from Saugus Advertiser

Traditionally, chaplains have been excluded from serving on courts martial because of conflict of interest concerns. Chaplains, as clergy, hear the confessions of Soldiers. It is unethical and illegal to disclose the details of pastoral counselling with Soldiers to anyone. In some cases, the chaplain must use discretion about even revealing that he has had a counselling relationship with a Soldier. If chaplains are not barred from sitting on courts martial, one could possibly sit on a court martial in a case involving a counsellee. There is obviously a conflict of interest which could possibly taint the impartiality of the chaplain and the entire proceedings of the court in administering justice.

Another area of concern is the appearance of conflict of interest. Soldiers talk to chaplains because they know what is disclosed to a chaplain is confidential and because chaplains have no command authority to punish them for inappropriate conduct revealed during counselling. If chaplains become a party of courts martial, the sanctity of that confidential relationship appears to be violated. A Soldier, who believes (rightly so) that chaplains are safe resources for disclosing possibly-incriminating information, may lose that appreciation for the chaplain’s ministry if he knows that the chaplain can also mete punishment on a court martial. Even if there is not direct counselling relationship (as described in the preceeding paragraph), the legitimacy of all chaplains as ministers of the sacraments would be in question. Instead of chaplains being ministers who serve Soldiers, they will become officers of the court who administer punitive actions against Soldiers.

This is not to suggest, of course, that chaplains should not function as all officers do when upholding military standards (for example, verbally instructing a Soldier to correct his uniform when it is out of compliance with regulations). Instead, I am here drawing a distinction between chaplains in the judicious application of military standards and chaplains in the judicial enforcement of military standards. There is a vast difference; for the sake of our ministry, we cannot afford to terminate this distinction.

By Nancy Montgomery, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Monday, April 7, 2008

HEIDELBERG, Germany — A V Corps chaplain accused of sex crimes and assault has been allowed to resign his commission rather than face a court-martial.

Capt. Anthony C. Mastromarino was allowed to “resign for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial,” officials said. “He is leaving the service,” said V Corps spokeswoman Hilde Patton.

Such resignations, which normally conclude with a less than honorable discharge, are a way for authorities to deal with cases that are deemed troublesome to prosecute, experts said, for a variety of reasons.

Mastromarino was charged in January with several crimes that prosecutors said he committed against a male soldier in Vilseck last June: forcible sodomy, indecent assault, indecent exposure and fraternization. He was also charged with twice threatening and assaulting a woman — in 2005 at Fort Campbell, Ky., and in January in Heidelberg. He also was charged with assaulting a military policeman called to the January incident.

READ MORE from Stars and Stripes

FORT DRUM, N.Y. – A 10th Mountain Division chaplain was stripped of his rank and sentenced to five months in military prison after pleading guilty to adultery and threatening to kill his mistress when she wanted to end their relationship, Fort Drum officials said Friday.

Capt. John Lau – a Southern Baptist minister described by the mistress as a manipulative sadist – was tried by a military judge who also ordered him dismissed from the Army with all pay and allowances forfeited.

Lau, 50, admitted he threatened to hunt down and kill Amanda Tyler, a 34-year-old British woman he met in 2004 while stationed in England, brought to the U.S. and “married” during a mock ceremony last year at Niagara Falls.

This is quite a sordid tale. Mr. Lau stated that he and his wife wanted some “spice” in their sexual relationship. So, he brought in Ms. Tyler to engage in such immorality. It is unclear to me whether Ms. Tyler was actually complicit in the lurid relationship. She stated that she was “under duress” in the relationship, though she apparently lived with the family and even went on vacations with them.

When Mr. Lau was deployed to Iraq, Ms. Tyler stated that she was going to move out. He apparently responded by threatening three times that he would kill her.

So, let’s see…if all the details of this story are true, there are adultery, enslavement, and murderous threats involved. I think that’s three strikes against the chaplain, both as a military officer and as a minister. He admitted to adultery and threatening to kill Ms. Tyler. The article included no reference to whether he has been defrocked. One can only hope that he will be expelled from ministry in the Southern Baptist Convention.

At the schoolhouse [Army Chaplain School], my class was told repeatedly not to pray in Jesus’ name. When I was a chaplain candidate, a supervisory chaplain asked me to write a prayer for a graduation; he scolded me for inserting Christ’s name in an “ecumenical setting”. I know of similar incidents secondhand.

I have also run into supervisory chaplains who would go to the wall for their chaplains who prayed according to the forms of their faith.

If the Army didn’t want me to minister according to my faith, it wouldn’t require me to have an ecclesiastical endorsement. If the Army prefers that I be deity-indifferent, it should have not required me to have an ecclesiastical endorsement. I can’t pray to a civic god because no such god exists; I can’t pray to an unknown god. My faith is in a specific (the specific) God, and to pray to anyone or anything else–or no one else–is only meaningless babble. If a commander bars me from praying at a ceremony because I do so in the name of Jesus, then he doesn’t understand prayer and only wants it for show–not to pray in Jesus name would be mere ceremonial blather. Meaningless prayer is no prayer at all.

I should expect clergy of other religions to feel the same about their own prayers.

There is no need, in prayer at a public civic ceremony, to have an “altar call”. After all, the prayer is directed to God, not to the crowd. The crowd is afforded the opportunity to listen in on the prayer, as a means of encouragement, reflection, and–if they desire–agreement. At a change of command, for example, the goal of the ceremony is not spiritual revival but recognition of the staff change; so, I should be offering a prayer that focuses on that topic. However, I will certainly direct the prayer to Almighty God; I will not invoke the favor of some nameless deity. I do not profess faith in a nameless god, and the Army knew that when I came in and wanted it that way.

Provide or perform? A ceremonial prayer is not an issue of providing. Since chaplains are called on to pray (to God), they are performing religious services according to their faith tradition. It is impossible to pray to an atheistic god because, in an atheistic worldview, no god exists. The fact that chaplains are called on to pray implies belief in God.

I searched a little more and came up with these articles: 1 2 3. The articles follow the story from the first news in August. The Roman Catholic chaplain pled guilty to “three counts of forcible sodomy against enlisted men, three counts of committing an indecent act, two counts of fraternization with enlisted service members and one count of conduct unbecoming an officer.” This week, he “was sentenced to five years in prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., dismissed from the Army and ordered to forfeit all benefits.”

The chaplain’s ecclesiastical endorsement was withdrawn and his diocese has suspended him from ministry, stating that no further action will be taken on his ministerial status until after the prison sentence is ended. I’m not sure I understand that reasoning (a priest’s admission of sexual immorality should be enough to result in him being defrocked) but, thankfully, the guilty chaplain has been removed from duty. Let’s hope the diocese will ensure that he never returns to ordained ministry. Sadly, the Marines he abused will have to live with the embarrassment and hurt for the rest of their military careers and their lives.

When I reflect on my training in ministerial ethics, I realize that neither my denomination nor seminary provided any guidance; on the other hand, the Army chaplain school covers this area as much as possible. It is an outrage that the Church provides less ethical guidance to clergy than does the Army.