Nancy Pelosi’s insists that military chaplains be forced to perform homosexual “marriages”. Chaplains protest.

As a follow up to Nancy Pelosi’s recent stupidity, this is form CNS:

Chaplain’s Group Says Pelosi’s Wrong About Need to Protect Conscience Rights of Chaplains
By Pete Winn

(CNSNews.com) – A group representing more than 2,500 Evangelical Christian military chaplains says House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was wrong on Thursday when she called a provision in the House defense authorization bill designed to protect military chaplains “a fraud.”  [Yes indeed!  That’s what she said.]

“I think she misses the point entirely,” said Dr. Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.

“Right now this administration has created an environment in the Department of Defense that if you are in favor of same-sex relationships, you may speak. If you are not in favor, you cannot speak,” Crews said.  [You mean, Pelosi and the The First Gay President have created a hostile work environment?  Isn’t that usually.. what’s the word… wrong?]

During her weekly press conference with reporters on Thursday, Pelosi told CNSNews.com that she agrees with the Obama administration – and opposes the provision, [Get that?  She opposes] Section 536 of the National Defense Authorization Act.

[What does Nancy Pelosi oppose?] Section 536 states that no member of the armed forces may “direct, order, or require a chaplain to perform any duty, rite, ritual, ceremony, service, or function that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain, or contrary to the moral principles and religious beliefs of the endorsing faith group of the chaplain.”

The Democratic Leader said the idea that military chaplains would be forced to perform same-sex marriages against their will is “a manufactured crisis.

“Nobody is ordering them to do that,” Pelosi said. “I’ve never seen any suggestion that we’re ordering chaplains to perform same-sex—where is that? I haven’t seen it and I’ve been around this issue for a long time.” [The all-knowing Nancy!]

Crews, whose group represents over half of all chaplains serving on active duty, agreed that no chaplains have yet been ordered to perform same-sex ceremonies.

But the retired military chaplain told CNSNews.com that military chaplains have increasingly been facing negative repercussions since the military policy on homosexuality (“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”) was lifted.

We already have some examples of a chaplain being pulled from an assignment simply because he forwarded an e-mail that was critical of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. He was told that ‘You need to be closely supervised.’ He was threatened that he would have to retire early,” Crews said.

“We have another chaplain who asked, “Can I speak about this issue? And the commander told him, ‘If you can’t get in line (with the military policy in support of homosexuality), resign your commission.’ So we have those kind of real life cases that the American public doesn’t realize is going on.” [I am convinced that the Obama Administration is trying to drive good chaplains out of the military.]

[…]

There is quite a bit more and it is interesting.

See also this.

Confusion to Pres. Obama and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)!

 

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Blatteroons, Dogs and Fleas, Priests and Priesthood, Religious Liberty, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Nancy Pelosi’s insists that military chaplains be forced to perform homosexual “marriages”. Chaplains protest.

  1. @Father Z,
    You comment:

    [You mean, Pelosi and the The First Gay President have created a hostile work environment? Isn’t that usually.. what’s the word… wrong?].”

    Although I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on TV, I am reasonably certain that the correct word phrase that pertains to the creation of a hostile work environment is legally actionable, rather than the less specific “wrong.”

    Pax et bonum,
    Keith Töpfer

  2. StJude says:

    This administration has already proven that they dont care about the conscience of anyone.

  3. rodin says:

    Might not the intent be to drive not only Chaplains, but also Catholics and those of strong religious persuasion out of the military? That would leave only those who are easily persuaded to carry out orders that are, in normal circumstances, “legally actionable.”

    Back to frauds, it is worth noting that Pelosi has enjoyed hundreds of transcontinental flights for herself and friends at the expense of taxpayers. How fraudulent is that?

  4. Please, Nancy, stop with the novena to Judas Iscariot. It is driving you totally mad!

  5. ContraMundum says:

    @rodin

    Remember stop-loss? I don’t think they’ll allow a significant number of Catholics to muster out.

    No, they want to use the men and women of the armed services as guinea pigs in their social experiments, because by virtue of enlisting they have temporarily ceded several important rights. It would be much harder for the administration to do this with civilians — at least at first.

    Besides, all US presidents, regardless of their rhetoric, enjoy the feeling of being deadly they get from commanding the most powerful military in human history.

    Next look for policy changes involving civil servants, government contractors, and universities accepting federal grants.

  6. WesleyD says:

    Section 536 is worded poorly when it states that no one may “direct, order, or require a chaplain to perform any duty, rite, ritual, ceremony, service, or function that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain, or contrary to the moral principles and religious beliefs of the endorsing faith group of the chaplain.”

    Instead, it should state that if such a direction is given, the chaplain has the right to refuse the order (with no reprisals, of course). As it is currently worded, it puts the burden on the person giving the order to be familiar with the beliefs of the chaplain’s religion and of the chaplain himself.

    However, this is a minor point, and if I were in Congress I would gladly vote for this principle no matter how sloppy the wording!

  7. CarpeNoctem says:

    I’m not sure the burden is on the one who gives the order to know what the chaplain is morally capabaly of… the greater burden is on the chaplain to have the integrity and perhaps courage to decline orders which he knows he cannot fulfill.

    Take the example of a commander, for instance in an arbitrary and totally made up case, that tells an aircrew to fly a fire engine to Afghanistan tonight. That flight crew had better know what the capacity and speed and capabilites of their aircraft are. If they are not able to comply, they need to be letting the commander know up front, and then providing him alternative solutions to accomplish what needs to be done…. “sir that’s 10,000 pounds over our weight limit. May I suggest that you call (XXXX) and have have them load up a fire engine” … “sir, my crew has already busted our flight/duty hours for today/this week/this month- we need to call in a new crew” … “sir, our fire engines are all red, you need to be sending a truck painted in camo… why don’t you call…” It’s not just a ‘no’, but also a suggestion to the commander on how to accomplish the objective in an alternative manner.

    As I said, this is a completely arbitrary and perhaps even unrealistic example, but my point is to illustrate that commanders need good inputs and feeback about what they are asking… it’s your job to help them look good by helping them make good decisions. They look very bad if an overloaded airplane goes down or the only shiny red fire engine in Afghanistan is from your unit.

    Commanders can’t know all of the funny little ‘religious things’ that are limiting to the capabilites of their chaplains. Sure, they know that there are kosher meals for some personnel, permisisons to be given for religious headgear for others, holy days that they need to accomodate for still others, and a spirit of mutual respect for all… but they don’t know everything. That’s why chaplains not only take care of the troops, but they are fellow officers with the duty of advising commanders on religious and moral concerns… so the commanders don’t look stupid or violate someone’s right to free exercise of religion.

    What we are talking about here is the unprecedented threat that the chaplain’s discretion of being a ‘religious professional’ (for lack of a better expression) may be legislated away due to the interests of the radical pro-homosexual movement which is invading our society. Section 536, as I read it is intended to enshrine policy into law which heretofore has never been questioned or challenged: chaplains are to have the freedom be chaplains. They are not simply to be ‘religious technicians’ that affect whatever policy the military wishes to implement or promote… they are to do their job with integrity and faithfulness to the ideals they have been hired in to model. A Catholic chaplain had better be a Catholic priest doing what Catholic priests are supposed to do. (And that’s where the onus of keeping everyone together in one voice on this is so important… if Fr. Lavender is a military chaplain, or perhaps simply a civilian prof at Georgetown, and sees no problem with SSM, then it might be a very short step to expecting this kind of service from all Catholic priests.) All things being equal (i.e., outside the fog of war), one would never consider holding a pilot to an order which their airplane is incapable of, or to order the same pilot to fly a plane they are not rated in. One would never expect an element to do the impossible… the heroic, yes… the impossible, no.

  8. AnnAsher says:

    It seems if ContraMundum’s assessment didn’t pan out, then, Rodin’s is a darn good back up plan. Things are getting bad everywhere you look. I feel excited anticipating Jesus Christ the Returning King. I also feel the need to prepare – spiritually and physically. On the physical side, The Ultimate Urban Survival Guide is proving a sensible and worthy read.

  9. ContraMundum says:

    Herman Bernard Kramer argued persuasively from both Scripture and private revelation in The Book of Destiny that the emergence of the Antichrist and the Return of Christ are still some centuries in the future. However, just because we may not live to see the Antichrist does not mean that we will not see several antichrists, and just because we may not live to see the End of the World does not mean we will not live to see, in a real sense, the end of the United States.

    Regarding these ideas of preparing for an EMP, persecution, or collapse of civilization, practically all of the suggestions I’ve read on this blog seem utterly silly; the only exception is that we should try to live in a state of grace. If things get that bad, your survival will depend on things you cannot control — much more so than it already does, and on surprise choices you will have to make with no time to prepare in advance. B stands for Bear.

  10. robtbrown says:

    WesleyD says:

    Section 536 is worded poorly when it states that no one may “direct, order, or require a chaplain to perform any duty, rite, ritual, ceremony, service, or function that is contrary to the conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the chaplain, or contrary to the moral principles and religious beliefs of the endorsing faith group of the chaplain.”

    Instead, it should state that if such a direction is given, the chaplain has the right to refuse the order (with no reprisals, of course). As it is currently worded, it puts the burden on the person giving the order to be familiar with the beliefs of the chaplain’s religion and of the chaplain himself.

    IMHO, it is plainly stamped as an unlawful order, which a Catholic chaplain would not need to obey.

    I think what is happening, however, is that Obamaco is not really trying to pressure Catholic chaplains but rather giving the OK for military chaplains to “marry” same sex couples.

  11. MAJ Tony says:

    WesleyD: The reulation you cite is an example of what is typical, that is “negative law,” as it proscribes what is not to be done. What IS to be done is assumed to follow from the negative. It is, as is stated by CarpeNoctem, incumbent on the subordinate, in this case, the chaplain given the unlawful order, to inform his superior of that fact, and as always, offer up alternatives where possible. That falls under the four leadership traits: courage, candor, commitment, competence. These traits are drilled into leadership in the U.S. Army from day one. Unfortunately, we fail at one or more of these from time to time, and that’s when the train derails.

  12. PostCatholic says:

    Calling an obviously heterosexual man who is the father of two children, in what gives every appearance to be a stable and loving marriage, the “First Gay President” is an unworthy insult from you, Reverend Zuhlsdorf. You can do better and I hope you will.

  13. ContraMundum says:

    @PostCatholic

    Fr. Z is merely using a title which apparently originated with Newsweek. As far as I know, the White House has remained silent about this. It does not appear that they consider this an insult.

  14. Pingback: Gay Marriage Same-Sex Attraction Pelosi Military Chaplains | The Pulpit

  15. eulogos says:

    PC, In addition, it is a parallel with how Clinton was called “The first black president” even though he clearly wasn’t. In either case the expression is supposed to symbolize some kind of affinity or sympathy with the respective group, and in neither case is it intended to be taken very seriously.
    Susan Peterson