***
The next text is:Darr, Gregory J. (1992, Winter). For God & country: the constitutional question of the U.S. Army chaplaincy. Military Chaplaincy Review, 95-101.
I suspect this should be a quick one, but we'll see.
***
"Comprehensive religious support includes pastoral acts, rites, worship, religious education, counseling, battle fatique interventions and advice to the command. Its three broad functions are to nurture the living, to care for the wounded and to honor the dead.This is just a different take on a summary of the chaplain's religious duties. I was trying to get in the head, so to speak of the military chaplain/H.R. director at the Vienna mission and wanted to understand how his military-related background might have influenced or affected him. Sort of a what made him tick project.
Chaplains are usually paired with enlisted chaplain's assistants. Together, they make up the Unit Ministry Team (UMT). Chaplain's assistants provide operational and logistical support to the team. Because chaplains are considered non-combatants under the Geneva Convention, chaplain's assistants are also tasked to provide security." (p. 96)
***
"Most active duty chaplains are given an initial commission of three years. They undergo a type of chaplain "basic training" at the U.S. Army Chaplain Center and School at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. They are also required to attend additional training through out [sic] their careers. Many make the Army a career, though recent cuts in Army troop levels will inevitibly make this more difficult." (p. 97)I don't remember if he ever was a full-time military chaplain or was always a reserve chaplain, or if it is possible to enter the Army even as a reserve chaplain (i.e., without first having been a full-time chaplain).
***
"Many religious leaders see chaplain rank and uniform as 'obstacles to ministry, concessions to militarism, and evidence that clergy [are] reversing their role priorities.'That's what happens once you become part of a system. But sometimes it's not necessarily just being part of a system that holds someone back. For example, I'm single so I might have less inhibition than someone who was the sole breadwinner with small children at home and didn't want to risk losing his/her sourse of income. I may have the same risk of losing my job, but at least it's just me involved and not other dependents.
A few chaplains concede that it may be difficult to speak out on controversial moral issues or challenge the system." (p. 97)
***
"Katcoff v. MarshIn a lot of ways, the Vienna mission acted like this too, and this is why it wanted me to attend the English speaking church - where it had so much influence and pretty much, then would have me totally under their control, which is what a total institution wants, right?
Since the ratification of the First Amendment, courts have been busy sorting out the messy divorce of church and state. Despite Thomas Jefferson's admonition that the Establishment clause is intended to act as a 'wall of separation' between the two, few courts have adequately determined how high or solid that wall should be...
...[I]n 1979, two Harvard Law School students, Joel Katcoff and Allen M. Wieder, brought suit against the Secretary of the Army alleging the unconstitutionality of the Army Chaplain Program.
...
The Army replied that the Chaplaincy is necessary for the maintenance of good morale and thus serves a secular purpose. More importantly, the Free Exercise Clause requires the government to provide opportunities for worship and religious expression to all military personnel. The current program makes this possible in remote and overseas assignments as well as during combat when civilian clergy may be unavailable.
While plaintiffs did not dispute the need for military ministry, they proposed that a voluntary civilian chaplaincy, funded and supported by various denominations, would meet the Army's Free Exercise needs without raising constitutional hackles. They used as their example the Wisconsin Synod of the Lutheran church, which conducts its own military ministry outside the Army bureaucracy.
Military considerations, the Army responded, made such a program unfeasible. According to one brief, the Wisconsin Synod could not adequately meet the religious needs of its own military members. Such a program, Army-wide, would risk constitutional challenge on the basis of the Free Exercise Clause. Thus, the Army summed up, the uniqueness of military life required the Government to actively fund and provide for Chaplaincy in order to meet the Free Exercise needs of soldiers and their families." (p. 98-99)
So it may actually be a breach of separation of church and state (1st amendment), but it's a permissable one on the grounds that the army is unique and in order for the soldiers to have any worship offered that is appropriate for military context and needs, a military-based chaplaincy is required. Any other option is less than satisfactory (i.e., won't meet spiritual needs).
***
"While the Appeals Court decision affirmed the constitutionality of he Army Chaplaincy, the case left its mark on the Chaplain Corps. In the years since Katcoff, the Chaplaincy has shored up its defenses with regard to both the Establishment and the Free Exercise clauses. In doing so, it has redefined its ministry making it, in essence, more military and more pleuralistic." (p. 99)Wow! So the chaplaincy has become more military? This was written in 1992, but the Katcoff case looks like it happened in about 1984, a couple years before I arrived in Vienna to work with the mission. To presumably the chaplaincy hadn't yet become more military. Still, that's not good, at least in my book it's not. I wonder if any of thes affected the mission's military chaplains/H.R. staff?
***
That's it for this article.
