Refusing to serve your country = patriotism?

But many Catholic bishops have raised questions about whether this is a just war; many national and international leaders have raised questions about its legality. Just because a nation says it is legal doesn't make it so. Conscience is ultimately an individual matter; each soldier must ultimately ask himself the question whether the action in war or the reason for going to war is moral. His conscience, informed by many credible teachers, tells him that this is immoral and illegal. He is accepting the consequences of that. As an Army chaplain, I was taught that things like this would happen--that sometimes we as chaplains could be put in this kind of a position. You may disagree, but you are not his conscience. The military and the government may think they are issuing lawful and moral orders, but that does not absolve any soldier from following the dictates of his own conscience--"I was just following orders" didn't work at Nuremburg, and it won't work in this case.

I think this whole thing is a publicity stunt. See http://thankyoult.live.radicaldesigns.org/

The Lt. is likely betting he can get a light sentence, discharge and then hit the speaking circuit with the likes of Cindy Sheehan. Maybe in 10 years he'll be Congressman Watada and have a seat on the armed services committee.

As for Bill's comments - they deserve some thought. But at first glance it seems very squishy to me to have individual conscience be the trump card. It all becomes very relative if you throw out anything the civil authorities have to say & anything the military says. We don't have a military if we have only the loose thread of individual conscience to hold it together.

But many Catholic bishops have raised questions about whether this is a just war; many national and international leaders have raised questions about its legality.

That is a question for historians, not soldiers on active duty. As a matter of international law, Iraq is a sovereign state, and it has the power to order all foreign troops to leave its soil. But it doesn't, because the U.S. and other Iraqi allies are in Iraq at the invitation of the government.

Lieutenant Watada is not being ordered to invade Iraq in 2003. The Army is ordering him in 2006 to help stabilize the Iraqi state and defend innocents from terrorist predators. His actions, in some small way, will encourage those predators. Defending the innocent and securing justice are virtuous acts, not unjust ones.

The military and the government may think they are issuing lawful and moral orders, but that does not absolve any soldier from following the dictates of his own conscience--"I was just following orders" didn't work at Nuremburg, and it won't work in this case.

That's a false analogy. Participating in genocide is absolutely wrong, always and everywhere. The lieutenant doesn't seem to be alleging that the U.S. is committing genocide, he is following the standard moonbat line that the Bush administration is corrupt and therefore can't do anything right. Well, I can't quite follow that logic, but with luck, he and his conscience will have many years in Fort Leavenworth to think about it, while he makes big rocks into little rocks.

John, you could be right that this is a publicity stunt. The thing I despise about this guy -- and Cindy Sheehan, for that matter -- is that he seems to be enjoying the whole experience. Clearly, he is not in sackcloth and ashes, bewailing the "illegal war" his nation instigated. He's having a good time.

The LT has been trying to resign his commission for many months; the military has been stonewalling, because unlike the Catholic Church and all moral theologians, who recognize the right of selective objection, the military only acknowledges two choices: complete pacifism or complete willingness to fight. Since he says that there are causes for which he would fight, they say he must fight whenever the military decides.

And yes, he may well be enrolling in the long course at Leavenworth. He's willing to do that.

Conscience will lead one to accept dire personal consequences rather than be forced into a position to act against one's conscience.

Your conscience says differently. You aren't his judge--and neither is the military.

I asked for and received honourable discharge from the United States Navy while a Roman Catholic (though I've since come home to the Orthodox Church). The Catholic Church, both the local diocese and experts on conscientious objection nationwide, provided help and support. And this support came from no mere collection of post-Vatican II moonbats, but those who could point to a long history of Catholic conscientious objection in the U.S. going back to World War I, and the long tradition of Church sanction of those who refused to bear arms abroad. While some modern Christians, not only in the Roman Catholic Church but in all denominations, have too often twisted the notion of conscience to permit all kinds of depravity, the Catholic Church has always recognised the need to respect the individual decision to put aside arms.

No institution can recognize selective objection and function effectively -- and the Church, **in its orderings as a human institution,** doesn't recognize selective objection either. Once one joins any institution, one must submit to its rules or leave that institution. "Obey your boss only when you agree with him" is barely practicable in most institutions. But given that the military by its very nature has to claim life-or-death power (even peacetime discipline requires a radical subordination of self), it'd be absolutely impossible to act (which is part of the attraction of "selective objection" to some).

Mr Morton, you should read the various statements of the Vatican and the U.S. bishops on the subject. Al recognise selective conscientious objection. Granted, the concept may not seem acceptable to you personally, but it is sanctioned by the Catholic Church.

selective conscientious objection ... is sanctioned by the Catholic Church

In matters dealing with its own employees (which is the only part I dispute)? Where? Citation, please.

Bill, I might not be Lt. Watada's "judge," but anybody can evaluate his actions. I don't respect his decision, and his conscience is warped if he thinks sinning against charity -- yes, charity -- is in line with the moral law.

Mr. Culver, were you conscripted into the Navy, or did you enter voluntarily? Either way, I have trouble finding any sympathy in my heart for pacifists. You would let evil men prey on the innocent until Christ comes again.

But many Catholic bishops have raised questions about whether this is a just war; many national and international leaders have raised questions about its legality.

That is a question for historians, not soldiers on active duty.

Actually, that is a question for all of us. It is up to us to make moral judgements about the consequences of our actions. For Lt. Watada he was willing to accept the consequences of a court martial and time in a military jail rather than participate in what he believes is an unjust war. Perhaps you can question whether or not that equals patriotism but I think it is something that should be admired. What would happen if when the presidents and the generals all declared war and all of the soldiers on both sides just decided not to show. As Dorothy Day said "urge a mighty league of conscientious objectors". The world would certainly be a better place.

Kathy, once again: there is an elected, legitimate government of the Iraqi state. American troops, and all of the other nations' troops, are in Iraq at the pleasure of that government. What is "illegal" about that?

The world is a much worse place because decent people don't fight enough, not because there aren't enough conscientious objectors. Dorothy Day could say that because she lived in a free country that spent trillions to guarantee her safety; had she said it in the Soviet Union, she would have been sent to jail or the firing squad.

Legal and just are not necessarily the same thing. It may very well be legal to send Lt. Watada to Iraq, yet he may not judge it to be a just war, and therefore object. He is paying the price of following his conscience (just as St. Thomas More did, although not to that degree for Lt. Watada). It was perfectly legal for King Henry to demand Thomas More, one of his subjects, recognize him as the head of the Church of England. But it was not just.

I would hope that a soldier would have the balls to not fight in a war he deemed unjust, rather than fight in it - otherwise he sounds more like a mercenary than a soldier.

Refusing to serve your country = patriotism?

Refusing to fight in a war you deem unjust may be serving your country. So the answer could very well be YES.

As you yourself recognize - A "country" is, first and foremost, its citizens, not its government. If Lt. Watada truly believes this war unjust, he is serving his country by not fighting. It doesn't matter whether you or I or anyone else thinks the war just - it is not our conscience he will answer for. I think your real problem with this is that you don't really believe his objection - rather, you suspect he is just trying to get out of service. I hope that's not the case b/c that would be wrong. I don't know of any reason to doubt the Lt.'s sincerity at this point.

That's a false analogy. Participating in genocide is absolutely wrong, always and everywhere.

Whoa, hold on there - are you saying participating in an unjust war is not absolutely, always and everywhere wrong? Point to one Church document that says it is OK to engage in an unjust war.

I think you are confusing your judgment for the Lt.'s. It is the Lt. we are discussing, and just as you are allowed to make a judgment on the justness of the war, so is he. In judging his actions, we have to take his judgment at his word, not substitute ours for his, and THEN judge his action. Or are you not willing to give him the opportunity to exercise prudence that you claim for yourself (and his happens to be in line with the immediately past and present Pope's, while's yours is agin 'em)? That seems a tad unfair.

Yes -- we cannot evaluate his actions in response to his own moral evaluation of the war in the light of our moral evaluation. He must -- absolutely must, by duty -- act with regards to his own conscience.

And if he believes that he cannot, in good conscience, fight, then he is _morally obligated not to_.

We're spinning off into the ether.
I am saying that the reasons Lt. Watada gives are either false ("the war is illegal") or silly ("the war is for oil.")

He should obey his conscience. That was never the issue. I contend that his conscience is malformed and wrong: it is a defect of charity to abandon your fellow soldiers when they are going to risk their lives. And he's wrong about whether the objectives of the war are unjust, and whether the means used are immoral.

"It is a defect of charity to abandon your fellow soldiers when they are going to risk their lives."

For the last time: your own Church doesn't think so.

Eric,

I agree with you. He knew VERY WELL what he was getting into when he came into the service for one.-- That means, I feel, he "milked" the govt to pay for his schooling so he could get those butterbars and now he is ditching them because all of a sudden he deems this unaccetable. LEt's see-- how many years has this been going on? And he came in when?? Where was his conscience when he decided to become a zero? It wasn't there..because all he saw was dollar signs and a free ride.

So- I'd venture to say his conscience is clear and he got exactly what he wanted or schemed to get

Conscience is primordial- everyone here agrees. But this Lt's is falsely formed - VERY Clear.

Von, after I submitted my application for discharge as a CO, some accused me of being in it just for the money. Or rather, for the training, as I studied Chinese at Defense Language Institute. But that is an absurd accusation for a CO, for there are much faster ways out of the military. And if one approaches the matter with a little caution and forethought they can be easily designated as General or Honourable. In the group of sailors fresh out of boot camp who arrived at DLI at the same time I did, the majority left the military right after their language training through such strategies as claiming homosexuality, or claiming minor medical problems were really major. Some just went AWOL enough times to get discharged, which led to a poor service record, but who cares if you've already got lucrative civilian interpreter work lined up that doesn't care about your discharge status.

All said methods of getting out worked in just a couple of months. For a CO, however, one is looking at a long waiting process, full of hearings and appeals, and the considerable expense of legal counsel. It took nearly a year for me, and that was a long time to face the ridicule of my coworkers and superiors. For someone trying to assert selective objection, the process becomes even more difficult.

If Lt Watada were insincere, he would have found an easier way. From my experience, the mere fact that he's doing all this testifies to his sincerity.

For the last time: your own Church doesn't think so.

No, my Church teaches that defending one's country is meritorious, and it even allows the state to compel private citizens to join the military. Placing yourself in mortal danger to defend your country is true charity, because it means risking (and possibly sacrificing) your life for people you have never met.

The Church does ask that conscientious objectors should not be compelled to bear arms (though it says COs should be given alternative means of service -- something that Lt. Watada isn't asking for.) But this has always been for the sake of Christ, not for private political opinions. I don't think this man is at all like St. Martin of Tours.

It's been years now since I looked at the writings of the U.S. bishops on the matter, but if I recall correctly, they state that even alternative means of service imposed by the government may be refused.

I don't get it - in this thread, you argue that the government can compel you to bear arms, and you are immoral for not doing so (abandoning your comrades, etc.). In the thread above, you are saying a government that commits serious immoral acts loses its legitimacy and does not need to be followed.

So which is it? Is the Lt. wrong for not obeying his government, or is he wrong for obeying his government which he sincerely believes is committing grave evil? It seems you want it both ways.

I understand your view that you do not agree with his judgment (Iraq war was not wrong, means used are just, etc.). You say his conscience is malformed because he is abandoning his comrades. But the issue is not settled by the what (abandonment) but the why as well (he feels the war is unjust, etc.).

I am getting confused here - it seems you are saying his malformed conscience somehow leads him to the wrong conclusion about the justness of the war, and hence his "abandonment" is against charity (assuming the unjustness of the war is why he is abandoning - if he is just trying to get the free ride, etc., then I would agree). Are you therefore implying that JP II and B XVI, who hold the same judgment of the war as the Lt., also have maflormed consciences?

Chris.. I think he's playing all of us for show. No where has he mentioned faith, religious convictions, etc.. ITs outside and inside sources that supposedly convinced him. I just dont buy into it. He's also got up a non-profit web site promoting his cause..

HEre's a link with exerpts for those wanting to know about serving as a Catholic in our Military..

http://www.catholicmil.org/html/issues.php?issue=service

CCC 2239: It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

CCC 2310: Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.

USCCB: American Catholic servicemen and women and their chaplains are likewise called conscientiously to fulfill their duty to defend the common good. To risk their own lives in this defense is a great service to our nation and an act of Christian virtue.

USCCB: 2. Just War: New Questions. The just war tradition consists of a body of ethical reflection on the justifiable use of force. In the interest of overcoming injustice, reducing violence and preventing its expansion, the tradition aims at: (a) clarifying when force may be used; (b) limiting the resort to force; and c) restraining damage done by military forces during war. The just war tradition begins with a strong presumption against the use of force and then establishes the conditions when this presumption may be overridden for the sake of preserving the kind of peace which protects human dignity and human rights.
In a disordered world, where peaceful resolution of conflicts sometimes fails, the just war tradition provides an important moral framework for restraining and regulating the limited use of force by governments and international organizations. Since the just war tradition is often misunderstood or selectively applied, we summarize its major components, which are drawn from traditional Catholic teaching.
First, whether lethal force may be used is governed by the following criteria:

Just Cause: force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations;
Comparative Justice: while there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;
Legitimate Authority: only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war;
Right Intention: force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose;
Probability of Success: arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Proportionality: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved;
Last Resort: force may be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.
These criteria (jus ad bellum), taken as a whole, must be satisfied in order to override the strong presumption against the use of force.
Second, the just war tradition seeks also to curb the violence of war through restraint on armed combat between the contending parties by imposing the following moral standards (jus in bello) for the conduct of armed conflict:

Noncombatant Immunity: civilians may not be the object of direct attack and military personnel must take due care to avoid and minimize indirect harm to civilians;
Proportionality: in the conduct of hostilities, efforts must be made to attain military objectives with no more force than is militarily necessary and to avoid disproportionate collateral damage to civilian life and property;
Right Intention: even in the midst of conflict, the aim of political and military leaders must be peace with justice, so that acts of vengeance and indiscriminate violence, whether by individuals, military units or governments, are forbidden.
(excerpt The Harvest of Justice is Sown in Peace, 1993)

...you argue that the government can compel you to bear arms...

I didn't argue that. It's the Church's teaching.

...and you are immoral for not doing so...

I believe that it is objectively immoral to abandon your fellow soldiers, yes. There may be mitigating circumstances: the war might be legitimately unjust, or you might be a priest or religious. But since Lt. Watada was ordered to Iraq to help establish justice and defend the Iraqi population, I believe his conscience is telling him to do the wrong thing.

Are you therefore implying that JP II and B XVI, who hold the same judgment of the war as the Lt., also have maflormed consciences?

With a heavy heart, I do not agree with the prudential judgment of the Holy Fathers in their statements three years ago. Their consciences would only be relevant if they were in the U.S. military. They aren't, so that's beside the point.

Generals now have higher teaching authority that bishops? Your line of thought has departed from historical Christianity, I'm out of here.

Generals now have higher teaching authority that bishops? Your line of thought has departed from historical Christianity....

I didn't state that very well. I meant that the popes aren't conscientious objectors in the U.S. military, so their consciences aren't an issue. Saying I'm accusing them of having "malformed consciences" is a red herring -- I simply think that they came to an incorrect conclusion on a matter outside of faith and morals. I could very well be wrong, and their views cannot be dismissed or discounted. But their prudential judgment is not protected by infallibility. As an Orthodox Christian, you don't believe in papal infallibility anyway, so why is that an issue for you?

...I'm out of here.

Thank you, please come again.

I haven't read all of the comments because, well, I'm not going to!

But I want to say that I do have a problem with people who enlisted in the military but then refuse to serve when called to do so. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you're going to enlist in the military, you might end up -- oh, I don't know -- fighting a war. The lieutenant knew what he was getting into when he enlisted, he knew what the punishment would be if he refused to serve, and now he should be punished according to the law. He needs to accept responsibility for his actions, even though I sympathize with his objection to the war. (I personally believe that the war is unjust).

With that said, Eric, your post raises deeper questions about refusal to serve that could also apply to conscription. Would it be a stretch to say that you would have the same problem with people who refuse to serve when drafted as you have with people who refuse to serve after enlisting? To me, that is an entirely different ballgame. If I were to be drafted into an unjust war, I would do three things: 1) I would tell the draft board immediately that I am gay (thus disqualifying me for service under the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy); 2) if that didn't work, I would register as a conscientious objector; 3) and if that still didn't work, I would refuse to serve and face the consequences.

I think one thing we can agree on is that it is cowardly and (I believe) immoral to flee the country to avoid service, either after enlisting or after being drafted. I think that people should stand up for what they believe in, not run away for what they believe in. If someone believes that a war is unjust and therefore will not serve in it, he or she should stand up and declare that and then face the consequences as Christ faced the Cross; not run away.