Chaplain's role is to teach the faith

Thanks for your work, father Pavone. The world needs so much to hear the message of Jesus Christ!

This is not a Catholic blog place even though a Father wrote the article. You can bully your own but not the rest of us.

Catholics can bash gays but hate it when someone shines light on the elephant in their Basilica: pervert priests.

As my father used to say, "You can dish it out but you can't take it."

"The chaplain's role is to lead the community in the affirmation of those beliefs, and to bring God's strength to those trying to live them"

The solution it seems is to eliminate chaplins from the military! and replace them with professional clinical counselors who are a-religious. Service are free to read and consult tlhemselves and outside - off base religious institutions or people but there is NO PLACE for religion in the military on base. period.

@GSeeker

I would appreciate your perspective on the questions I have been asking. You said that "the Church would go against her mission to hide the truth, and a great disservice to humanity."

Given that, should DADT apply to fornicators?

To be clear, I don't hate the church but I am curious about this but can't seem to get an answer. I think the question is pretty straightforward.

Respectfully,

Wow, and shortly after the site was inundated with comments of Christo-phobics and haters of the Church. So Jesus is SO right in warning: "Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you". (John 15:20).

At the end of the day, the mission of the Church is to spread Jesus Truth as he entrusted it to The Church for the salvation of souls. It is foretold that many would oppose this message, for it is knowledge necessary for the the salvation of humanity.

The Church would go against her mission to hide the truth, and a great disservice to humanity.

The Roman Catholic Church is a politicized religious denomination.

IT IS NOT THE CHURCH! I didn't got to an RCC mass when I was in the US Army.

But, I never heard any salvation messages in the Protestant Chaplains' talks while I as on Active Duty.

While the Assemblies of God is erroneously called a Protestant denomination, it actually is not one. I had in my records that I was Assembly of God. I did meet one AG Chaplain when I was with the 196th Light Infantry Brigade in Vietnam.

In fact, he as the only Chaplain that I had a private conversation with there. I don't even remember what he said during the chapel service. And, I didn't even know that he was AG; but, I just felt the need to stay after chapel and talk to him.

That's how I found out that he was AG. I knew in my spirit that he was a REAL Believer in Jesus. I never experienced that in the presence of any other military chaplain.

We just talked as friends and brothers in the Lord. He went on R&R to Hong Kong to work with an AG missionary and I went on R&R to Hawaii to got to church at an Assembly of God. In fact, I attended church services for 3 days in a row and went to 2 different AG churches, too.

I am a Catholic and a veteran. When I was in the military, more than 40 years ago, hetrosexual sex out of wedlock was quite common. I doubt that it is less common today. Is Fr. advocating not allowing heterosexual who have sex out of wedlock to serve? If he is, we will have no military and the country will be rendered defensless.

Having served in combat, I find it hard to believe anyone would be foolish enough to expose himself to that for the purpose of making a statement and if he did he would soon find that his suvival was more important than any statement and that the only way to survive is to cooperate with and support his brothers in arms. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there is no sexual preference in combat.

There have always been gays in the military, I knew a number of them when I was in. It did not compromise good order and disciplin any more than blacks and whites serving together or for that matter men and women.

Frankly, I can't see what all the fuss is about!

""I'm a straight woman who has shared a shower with a lesbian. Guess what? There was no hanky-panky whatsoever. Why? Because hooking up and getting laid wasn't the reason for which we were sharing accommodations.""

Well, yeah, Lepi: one of those facts they constantly ignore is that LGBT people are quite accustomed to sharing sex-segregated accommodations with people who may have the same plumbing as people we may be attracted to.

We've been there all along. It's really straights who have all the weird sexualization about anything crossing those lines of sex-segregation, ...they treat everything about matters like that as some occasion for sex fantasies (be they positive or negative ones, ie fears.)

Spreading those fears to *defend* DADT is another thing the homophobic Christian clergy are actually doing that works *against* unit cohesion.

How it's supposed to help unit cohesion to make people paranoid about 'unknown gays' in the showers, frankly, is the opposite of sense.

Like I said below, chaplains are there to serve the troops, not select the troops or indoctrinate the troops or condemn some troops.

This priest here seems to believe that we as Americans are supposed to pay his Church to do the opposite of their jobs.

And demonstrates, thereby, an erroneous notion of what the role of a chaplain in our military *is.* If he can't get along with the soldiers, all the soldiers, that represent America, then he's not fit for the job.

Shrinko:

Good questions. Dollars to donuts they go unaddressed.

-----------

Thanks to the Washington Post for adding an authentic Catholic viewpoint to the debate. Father Pavone is correct in implying that repealing DADT will adversely affect unit cohesion military effectiveness, particularly if military chaplains are doing their jobs. -- navyrb81

I swear I cannot tell if you're being sarcastic or not. In the event that you aren't -- and deepest apologies if you are: A military chaplain's job then is to undermine unit cohesiveness?

Gay people aren't likely to stop existing, but a chaplain has a choice in words. It seems to me the if a military chaplain chooses to preach against homosexuality then any resulting loss of unit cohesion is on him or her every bit as much as it would be for any random homophobe.

Thank you Gladerunner. My feelings exactly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9sJVJMiYM

DollyAngel:
“The point of posting is to offer thoughtful replies in the hope of opening up dialogue.”
I was not aware of that…Where is that rule posted?
Here’s the deal. There are those of us that see ‘Father’ as no more authoritative, wise, or correct than anyone else.

‘Father’ openly wishes for the U.S. Military to conform to the moral authority of the Roman Catholic Church. That may not seem like a big deal to you, because you apparently share this belief system. For those of us who see the RCC’s dominion over the military no different than if it were to do the same for the laws of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Scientology, Wicca, etc. well, maybe you see why we get a little defensive and passionate.
I’m not trying to excuse everyone for their comments, but merely pointing out that there is room to disagree, debate, and even voice passionate dissent.
Internally I don’t give a hoot about what the RCC says its own adherents should/can do, or not. You folks volunteered for that club and you can create and subject yourself to whatever wacky and archaic rituals and rules you wish.
But this topic is not about Catholic rules for Catholics, it’s about requiring all American GI’s, including non-Catholics, to abide by those rules/interpretations.
If I were to start publicly preaching to you about what your children should or should not wear, eat, sing, watch on TV, or who they were allowed to like or love or not love, I’m sure you would look at me with disdain and disgust since you certainly don’t agree with my belief system, you might even get rather passionate about it, and rightfully so.
You would be certainly entitled to post those thoughts and passions in the same forum.

The debates gong on in your church about the next grand-high-poohbah, or the ordination of women, or the celibacy of priests, I for one, don’t bother with… that’s all internal church stuff and you are all in it voluntarily, so go ahead and make and live by your own rules, fine by me.
But to use the enormous weight and wealth and global voice of the Vatican to try to impose Catholic doctrine into the institutions of the United States Government, Yeah, now you got my attention. Now you may hear me roar.

“Do yourselves a favor and try to find out WHY the Church teaches what it does”
Why should we? We’re not members of your club. Besides, this gay thing? We already KNOW why your church teaches what it does… it’s not an education problem at all. It’s partly because we do know the ‘WHY’ that we disagree.
=
“The Church respects ALL people and only wants what is best for them”
The RCC has defined its own specific set of guidelines as to what is ‘best for us’, just like every other religion has… You certainly know that Islam as well only wants what is best for you.
Those of us that do not subscribe to your Church’s definition of ‘what is best’ have no more inclination to comply then you have for covering yourself from head to toe in public.

Peace;
GR

I agree that condemning all Catholics is not helpful nor is stereotyping gays, with references to some "lifestyle".

Lately it seems some of the Catholic posters find it easier to focus on the unfair criticism of them than the current issue.

For me it comes down to the logic of the arguments about DADT. I really would like to hear the best argument for why gays should be held to a double standard from other sinners, for example, open fornicators.

Please respond to this respectful inquiry.

"The Church respects ALL people and only wants what is best for them."

I don't like the tone of many of the comments about the Church either. My issue is that when any person or organization claims to know what is best for the individual, such a claim deserves scrutiny.

As a poster said here earlier, if your only intention to post here is to attack priests or the Catholic Church in general, you really need to find something else to do.
Father Pavone has made respectful comments. The point of posting is to offer thoughtful replies in the hope of opening up dialogue. Father's comments should also educate. If for some reason you disagree, why not ask questions, rather than attack?
Making silly comments like "the Catholic Chcurch hates gays" and making rude sexual comments tells the rest of the posters you have no intention of having a conversation and you just prefer to be obnoxious and uninformed about what the Church teaches. Do yourselves a favor and try to find out WHY the Church teaches what it does. I love the Church and continue to learn more about it daily. I also see more and more how correct the Church's teachings are.
The Church respects ALL people and only wants what is best for them.

I'm a straight woman who has shared a shower with a lesbian. Guess what? There was no hanky-panky whatsoever. Why? Because hooking up and getting laid wasn't the reason for which we were sharing accommodations. I daresay that hooking up and getting laid aren't the reasons for which people join the military either.

Matosica:

I would be interested in your take on the question of whether or not heterosexuals who are living in sin should have a DADT rule.

I would be glad to hear from anyone who supports DADT on this question and the reasons for your answers.

Thanks

I think this would be a really excellent forum for people of faith to have some productive conversations on faith and religion, if all opinions were posted with this basic thought in mind. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." This would eliminate all the mud slinging and anti-Catholic or anti-religion retoric and venting, and open the door for good common sence dialog.

Posted by: matosica |

--------------------------------

May you be reincarnated as an awkward, lonely, 14 year-old boy who is befriended by a kindly priest at CYO who grooms you and later brutally rapes you while the Bishop looks the other way and transfers the criminal to another parish to rape again.

Maybe then you won't write off those who protest these continued abominations to man and god as "..mud slinging and anti-Catholic or anti-religion.." or as "gold diggers" as the old red-faced Nazi Donohue does:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6fwPcoX6UU

GSeeker

You are wrong. The Catholic Church IS ANTIGAY, something that Jesus NEVER mentioned.

Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen

------------------------------
Except, of course, against their known gay pervert priests who they hide from civil prosecution.

"Christ's Church" indeed.

GSeeker

You are wrong. The Catholic Church IS ANTIGAY, something that Jesus NEVER mentioned.

I don't think people should be walking around with a banner saying what they do in the privacy of their room or what their sexual inclinations are.

That would mean that straight people couldn't do things like hold hands in public. A rule like that would have to be universal, instead of applying only to anyone who isn't straight.

if a woman in a shower won't feel comfortable with a strange man around, I don't know how a man in a shower should feel comfortable with a man with same sex attraction around. That would destroy morale.

"Strange" is the operative word. We're talking about comrades in the same unit. If they have to shower together out of necessity, gender or orientation may not matter. If we're talking about a public bathroom in a civilian setting, one could have a straight man who tries to accost a woman in a stall, or one could have a gay man who tries to accost another man in a stall. In both cases it's the invasion of the stall and the accosting that's the issue, not necessarily the gender or the orientation.

The "showering with gays" argument presumes that the straight man in question will naturally be a focus of desire by the gay man. The straight man in that case shouldn't overestimate his attractiveness. It also reminds me uncomfortably of the fallacy that rape is a crime of desire, when it's really a crime of power.

I would like to hear if anyone, particularly anyone taking the pro-Catholic view, as espoused by Father Pavone, believes the military should adopt a policy of DADT for someone who is living in sin heterosexually. Why or why not?

Thanks.

I think this would be a really excellent forum for people of faith to have some productive conversations on faith and religion, if all opinions were posted with this basic thought in mind. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." This would eliminate all the mud slinging and anti-Catholic or anti-religion retoric and venting, and open the door for good common sence dialog.

1.- The Catholic Church is not Anti-Gay. Is pro-morality as stated by Jesus Christ.
2.- A person's sexuality has nothing, and should have nothing to do, with a military or any other vocation (except perhaps, prostitution). I don't think people should be walking around with a banner saying what they do in the privacy of their room or what their sexual inclinations are. That probably belongs to a red light zone where people have to advertise that kind of thing to be competitive.
3.- Now, talking about the military, if a woman in a shower won't feel comfortable with a strange man around, I don't know how a man in a shower should feel comfortable with a man with same sex attraction around. That would destroy morale.

Feel free to remove all of your chaplains from the military.

Unless and until we get out of the notion of infallible scriptures even when they don't make sense, we are doomed. Only non-sectarian, non-discriminatory sayings full of love and compassion can be attributed to God.

"What the Catholic Church, based on God's word, is saying in this debate is that we believe God created human sexuality and its meaning..."

Good try, Fr. Pavone.

But if you're going to claim that God created human sexuality, you can't ignore the fact that God also created homosexuality.

Who are you -- or any other religious practitioner -- to question God's wisdom in doing so? Or to interpret why God might have done so?

Christian religionists who make claims to "know" God's intentions are, by the guidelines of their own faiths, stepping over the line that warns them off from playing God.

Fr Pavone, Daniel touched on this here, but I got into this with the evangelical who is your fellow panelist.

As a Presbyterian, I put a high value on the notion of a call to ministry--both the internal call of the Spirit and the external call of the courts of the Church.

A call to chaplaincy--whether military, hospital, or prison--is a very specialized one. It requires an ecumenicism and toleration for other points of view that would not be acceptable to a pastor of a more fundamentalist leaning. Someone who is intolerant of Jews, for example, is ill-suited to a call in a chaplaincy. Any denomination that would encourage such a person to accept a call as a chaplain is being totally irresponsible, both to the pastor and his/her potential parishoners.

We shouldn't expect chaplains to check their faiths at the door. Far from it--it's their raison d'être. However, the call to chaplaincy requires a capacity for tolerance and forebearance that's not for everybody.

A devout evangelical Protestant chaplain should not tell Jewish servicemen and servicewomen they're going to burn in Hell. Leave that to the televangelist. A Roman Catholic chaplain should not tell divorced-and-remarried servicemen and women that they're in a state of mortal sin. Leave that to the parish priest.

OK, just a second here.

On one hand he claims to respect LGBT people who want to serve our country, (despite advocating us having to do this while also suffering discrimination, silence, and job insecurity: being treated as criminals for doing so, basically,)

Then turns around and says those in the military are really just 'making a statement about being gay.'

""At the same time, I would think that defending the country and serving its citizens are precisely the motive for entering the military - not, on the other hand, making a statement about being gay.""

You dishonor our servicemembers, forgetting that chaplains are there to *serve* the troops, not *select* the troops or *convert* the troops or *politicize* the troops or *privilege* those troops that obey your Church, or *indoctrinate* those troops that they shouldn't respect *other* troops.

Military chaplains are employees of the American people. All of us. You call for them to overstep that role and try and make the military represent *your* desires.

'Make a statement about being Christian,' perhaps?

Whatever you believe you have the right to do to others, DADT is an injustice.

Unjust means can lead to no good ends, a lesson one would think your church would have learned the hard way many times over by now if you expect to maintain even a pretense of virtue.

A Chaplain's role is not to teach the faith. It is to provide spiritual comfort to those in need. If someone wants to proselytize, they should not be a Chaplain.

So Pavone accepts and praises the gays who support his pro-life stance, but when it comes to service in the military and the repeal of DADT he doesn't support them.

Since when does ANY religion dictate actions in the military? Are we to become a nation based on theology rather than human and civil rights?

Any chaplain that serves the military should be there for solace and support of the troops - not judgment of a lifestyle.

Maybe we should have a system similar to DADT for the chaplains - do your job but keep your mouths shut when it comes to making judgments and condemning others who do not belong to your particular religious sect.

There are few things more hypocritical than a priest condemning homosexual acts. Such acts regularly occur in every rectory throughout the world! I am confident there is a special hell for people like Pavone.

Should there be JUSTICE in the military?

Should it abide by the Equal Rights Provisions
of the
United States Constitution???

Gee. This is hard.

Ps: "Dollyangel", you ARE NO ANGEL. Gays are not interested in forcing anyone to have sex with them, anymore than heteroxsexuals are. You live in a delusional world.

he brings up a point which I think many have ignored, that when gay rights move in, religious rights are often thrown out the window.

How so? No believer who opposes homosexuality is being forced to turn gay, and no believer is being forced to change his or her opposition to homosexuality. One's opposition to homosexuality applies only to one's own life, since one has no control over other people's orientations.

"Stand aside if you are truly 'accepting.' Preach the message you want to preach in the chapel to those that choose to hear it, but keep your fingers off the military code / federal law. You have no authority or jurisdiction there.
Many, many members of the military are NOT Catholic. Using RCC rules as military policy opens the door for other religions to install their laws as well. I doubt you would long stand for that."

Gladerunner has the right of it, I think. The military also spends a lot of time killing, destroying, and taking by force what belongs to our neighbors but which we as a nation still covet. Why are the consciences of chaplains so much more pained by ministering to people who accept gays than they are by ministering to people who KILL OTHER PEOPLE?

Some of these comments just show how hateful some people are toward the Church and the general disrepect for a man of God, no matter what religion he might be, but especially Catholic.
Posted by: jcrr

--------------------------------

Oh, please forgive me then for not respecting one of your "men of God" who raped me at 14 and his Bishop who moved him to another parish to rape again.

There is no respect for a so-called "Christ's Church" who continues to hide its predictor clergy from civil law.

Catholics are a hypocritical joke who make a mockery of themselves.

I agree with Father Pavone's column, and he brings up a point which I think many have ignored, that when gay rights move in, religious rights are often thrown out the window. This is a danger of which we must be aware. Catholic teaching on this issue of marriage and human sexuality hasn't changed in 2,000, and it's not going to change even if DADT gets repealed.

Father Pavone, I posed this question to an evangelical panelist, and I'd like your take on it, too. I myself am a Presbyterian, and you and I both can testify to the fact that Christians disagree on a LOT. This fact is even more crucial in a chaplaincy, since the chaplain must still minister to people with whom he disagrees, even on major theological questions like Sacraments.

If a chaplain's faith taught that interfaith marriage was a sin, and he was approached by a husband who is Christian and a wife who is Jewish, would we accept his telling them that he "can't pray that you will find health in an inherently unhealthy relationship"?

Mind you, we would not (I hope) accept a chaplain who is a rabid anti-Semite by allowing him to serve his call on the taxpayers' dime. He is guaranteed by the Constitution the right to rail against the Jews all day long, but in his own denomination's church and at their expense.

Some of these comments just show how hateful some people are toward the Church and the general disrepect for a man of God, no matter what religion he might be, but especially Catholic. Thank God for the priests who have the courage to tell the whole Truth of the Church. Thank you Fr. Pavone for being one of those good priests.

Father,

It was the Church that would not believe the earth was round, the earth circled the sun, there were dinosaurs millions of years before man was on this earth.

I think we have learned much that is NOT what the Bible taught. The Bible reflects its own times, including the prejudices of those times.

There are fewer and fewer male priests but you cling to the notion that a woman cannot be a priest simply because you have always believed that to be true. What if the Bible is as wrong about gays as it was about condoning slavery, or how man came to be? What if the limits on what women in Biblical times could do were only reflective of the times and what men thought women should be allowed to do, not limits from God, who made both man and woman in His image.

The earth is not flat, there were dinosaurs before man. Grow up, think, and believe in the love and compassion of Jesus more than you believe shiboleths of times long since past.

Thanks to the Washington Post for adding an authentic Catholic viewpoint to the debate. Father Pavone is correct in implying that repealing DADT will adversely affect unit cohesion military effectiveness, particularly if military chaplains are doing their jobs.

The chaplain draws clear lines between what corresponds to Christian belief and behavior, and what doesn't. It's not up to the chaplain to create or change those boundaries.

The chaplain can also recognize that service members have many different beliefs about religion, and some of those beliefs disagree with the Catholic teachings on human sexuality. No one is expecting Catholic chaplains or Catholic service members to change their beliefs about homosexuality. What is expected of them is to treat these beliefs as applying only to themselves, and not treat others as if everyone had to accept or live according to Catholic teachings. The same would apply to any other religion.

What Pavone doesn't understand is that allowing gay members to serve openly doesn't equate to "condoning" homosexual activity - it simply amounts to respecting gays as humans as Pavone describes. People are not defined by their sexual behavior - a gay person is defined as someone who has romantic and sexual attractions to the same own gender, whether or not the person acts upon those attractions. Arguing otherwise would imply that a celibate Catholic priest is asexual.

Thank you father for speaking the truth and suffering the indignities it has generated. I am thankful for your courageous service.

Sorry Frank, if Catholic chaplains can't deal with changes in the secular military, which includes members of many religions, as well as those who don't "believe," then they need to leave the service. You appear to be calling on Catholic chaplains to undermine good order and discipline by putting their religious views ahead of their oath to serve their country.

I wonder if Frank is a truly decent man whose "theology" has twisted his sense of Justice into a pretzel, or he is a simple slave to primitive Vatican thinking.

No one is asking Frank to "condone" either gayness or heterosexuality. If chaplains discriminate in the military or anywhere else, fire their miserable butts.

Like, who the heck are you?

Are you Gay, Father?

We've only heard one side of this issue, and ad nausem.

We have been hearing from you for the past 2343 years of this republic enough already

What about those in the military who can expect to be propositioned by those of the same sex? Where are their rights?

What about men propositioning women in military? They do the same thing women now. If any there is ample documentation that straight men in military harass women. So shall we get rid of all the straight men?

It seems the focus on this debate is whether or not an agenda and a lifestyle should be imposed upon others, as if only homosexual individuals should have that particular right!>/blockquote>

Are you out of your mind? Who said straight people will be disqualified from serving. There is no agenda here, just an equal treatment. It is your bigotry that makes you think equal rights to others is a privilege.

We can respect homosexual individuals, and we should, but the short-sighted argument taking place is ignoring much, including the integrity and safety of the military. If the focus is on a lifestyle, what about the big picture, as in why someone is in the military in the first place. This debate is not only about Catholics; it's about the rights of those who choose not to go along with an agenda, no matter what their personal beliefs may be. Bravo once again, Father Pavone! :)

Posted by: dollyangel

Your are a bigot disguised under some stupid piety and what about my rights. You dimwit your rights are intact. It is your bigotry that is being trampled on.

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is not about discharging people with same-sex attraction from the military. It is about putting something, some would say common sense, above the sexual norms in our society. Becuase this is not something often publically done in our culture, there is a blindness that effects everyone's ability to see straight.

The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is not about discharging gays from the military but putting something, namely common sense, above sex - something our culture never does - a blindness unfortunately too prevelent for most people to see straight.

"What about those in the military who can expect to be propositioned by those of the same sex? Where are their rights?"

Their rights are protected under the UCMJ. Any unwanted romantic or sexual advances are prohibited already, and there can be severe penalties for making same.

If US military members can't possibly handle someone asking them out on a date then I'd suggest they aren't nearly tough enough to be a soldier. I daresay Al Qaeda will be doing more than asking for a date.

"Now if a gay person wants to serve in the military, I honor that person's commitment to defend this country and serve its citizens."

Then stand up for the right of gays to serve openly, without having to hide who they are. If the Catholic Church wants to deny sacraments to Catholic gay service members, they can. If the Church wants to include sermons against gay sex, fine, do it.

Just don't let this attitude you hold that gay sex is a sin get in the way of allowing gays to openly serve in the military.

And, more and more young Catholics will be leaving the Church. No, the earth is not flat. No, the earth circles the sun. Yes, the earth is billions of years old. Yes, women are more than a womb, they can think, own property, and act without a man telling them what to do. And, yes, the Church would be better off with female prients and married priests.

Why do we even have and pay proselytizers like Father Pavone? This must be in violation of the Firsts Amendment! ACLU where are you when we need you??

I would think that defending the country and serving its citizens are precisely the motive for entering the military - not, on the other hand, making a statement about being Christian.

sarah55:

The overwhelming majority of currently military members said either they endorsed the repeal of DADT or didn’t care. (2006 Zogby) and nearly the same amount said that a repeal would either improve, or not affect morale at all.
Please recall that today’s military is very young and more accustomed to being around openly gay people than many of us older folks are.
I would like to know about your credentials/ knowledge of military morale though. You did state rather authoritatively : “but HORRIBLY DEGRADING TO MORALE nonetheless”.
Based on what information?

I have served in the military, I knew some of the guys were gay. None of them ever tried to fondle me, tickle me, or convert me. They were decent, hard-working dedicated and patriotic. They all knew, as did the hetero’s that overt actions of a sexual nature were strictly verboten, regardless of orientation.
Other countries have already done this to little or no fanfare, and pretty much without incident.
According to Zogby the ‘morale’ issue is no more prevalent in the military than it is in the general population. There are certainly haters among the soldiers, just as in the fire department, police department, etc. but that’s to be expected.

Repeal of DADT isn’t a social experiment, it’s just accepting a situation that exists, and has always existed in the military and everywhere else. DADT is a farce, a weak policy, a political fence-sitter.
Our military will survive this, and in fact probably thrive. Right now the military needs all the willing volunteers it can get.
Right now our troops' morale has much, much more to do with returning home alive and in one piece than with the orientation of their fellow soldiers. Being shot at, blown up, or just being threatened with those possibilities on a daily basis really helps put little things such as this issue in proper perspective.

Father Pavone is taking a Catholic perspective, perhaps. There are 2 points about this.

First, obviously, non-Catholics are entitled to serve in the army. Atheists, for example, are free to discuss their atheism, without fear of discharge. So the good Father is free to do his job along side atheists, satanists, muslims,and whomever else, but he has no religious or moral authority whatsoever for people not in his church. I hope people who seem to agree with him realize that. To me, he is a guy with a collar I don't agree with.

More importantly, however, is the strange asymmetry here. Who is inveighing against couples who have sex and have no intention of procreating? Or couple's who are not married? The good Father probably would in his sermons but would he, and you, believe that if someone is openly living in sin, they should be discharged from service? If a couple wants to have sex after they are no longer procreating and are open about it, should they be banned from military service? If you say yes, you get consistency points. If not, you are probably using a double standard based on prejudice.

It may also help to know that about 50% of the DADT discharges last year were of female soldiers and recruits. Females comprise about 14% of the military. They are far, far over-represented in the discharge figures. Everyone is talking about gays in the military, but it's truly the issue of lesbians in the miliary that's driving the discharge statistics.

Perhaps we need to look at things more practically and take religion out of the discussion a moment. We enjoy the fact that thousands of men and women are willing to risk their lives in defense of and in service to our nation. The members of our great military do not hesitate to sacrifice their comforts so that America can indeed remain a land of the free. Soldiers, Airmen and Marines work (and enter battle!)closely together, often sleeping and changing clothes in close quarters. These men and women should not be asked to accept that their bunkmate may be homosexual. For the same reason that men and women do not share the same living quarters on ships or in barracks, we cannot expect a heterosexual man to comfortably room with a homosexual man. Some might say that just because one is homosexual, he/she does not look at everyone with lust or sexual desires. We could also argue that a man and a woman could share a room without any sexual desires, but THERE WOULD ALWAYS BE TENSION and complete lack of comfort. The issue here is a perceived loss of privacy. Perceived, perhaps, but HORRIBLY DEGRADING TO MORALE nonetheless. We want our military in the best possible frame of mind when they head to battle. Why should we ask them to sacrifice such a personal, individial comfort? We should not ask them to sacrifice being comfortable when changing clothes and showering when they are already willing to sacrifice their lives for us. The military is not a proving ground for our social issues. They have demands on them that most of us will never be able to understand. Let's not demand that they sacrifice a very real risk to morale.

We all have heard the true stories of Marines or soldiers jumping on granades to save their buddies' lives. My bet is that these men would not hesitate to die for ANY man. We want and need this kind of self-sacrificing spirit. Let's respect the desires of our military service members and keep the DADT policy, if only for the morale of those who will die for us - perhaps even today.

No credibility and no right to even comment on this until you cough up your gay predator priests for civil prosecution.

Hypocrites!

DADT, religion won't compromise
While Senator John McCain at one point seemed open to the idea of leading the Republican charge against the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, he now cowers to the Religious Right on this issue. Even though his wife and daughter have been vocal in support of gay rights, religion still affects politics especially within the Republican Party.

The fact is that gays are already serving in the military covertly. This is what the DADT policy promises. It seems to me that this would have an even more devastating affect on the small percentage of troops who are still homophobic. They have no idea if the person next to them is gay or straight. They must be terribly paranoid at the possibility that while showering with other in their unit, that a secret gay might be… well, secretly admiring their “unit.”

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://exm.nr/bMOWCW

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

I so agree with Father!

We've only heard one side of this issue, and ad nausem. What about those in the military who can expect to be propositioned by those of the same sex? Where are their rights? It seems the focus on this debate is whether or not an agenda and a lifestyle should be imposed upon others, as if only homosexual individuals should have that particular right!
We can respect homosexual individuals, and we should, but the short-sighted argument taking place is ignoring much, including the integrity and safety of the military. If the focus is on a lifestyle, what about the big picture, as in why someone is in the military in the first place. This debate is not only about Catholics; it's about the rights of those who choose not to go along with an agenda, no matter what their personal beliefs may be.
Bravo once again, Father Pavone! :)

With all due respect, Father Pavone is speaking for Catholics.

There are many other Christian denominations, as well as other faiths which have no conflict w/ homosexuality.

Those chaplains will be able to minister just fine.

Additionally, it is telling & unfortunate that those who take issue with the GLBT "lifestlye" (whatever THAT is) tend to focus on the act of sex to the exclusion of the whole picture- relationships, commitment, familes, and the totality of a person.

That's a form of blindness.

I wish Fr Pavone only the best. We all have our own set of blinders. I do hope that he engages in further discussion & listening. -We could all benefit from more of that.

On military bases, when our service people gather for worship, they are gathering as a community called together and united by the Word of God. By so gathering, they are saying they accept that word and are striving to live by it. If they come together as Catholics to have Mass and Communion, they are identifying themselves with a community that has a specific set of beliefs and practices, and they are saying they accept those beliefs and practices.

Pavone, you sordid ignoramus, in what way are the people gathering to pray in teh barracks any different from when the people gather to pray in their church or temple. Who makes up this crap of beliefs and practices. What if they do not gather to pray at all. Who the hell are you to tell them what to believe and practice. Keep your stinking religion out of the armed forces.

The chaplain draws clear lines between what corresponds to Christian belief and behavior, and what doesn't. It's not up to the chaplain to create or change those boundaries. If we institute policies which are going to openly condone homosexual activity, let's not be surprised or complain when chaplains do their job.

Chaplain's job is not much different than the company clerk's job is. He/she is told which persons need his counseling or who needs final rites. All the chaplain is to do is provide counseling and be doen with it. If final rites are to be performed he goes and says those stupid inanities and be done with it. Is a chaplain going to treat a soldier who is whoring around any different from someone who is on the straight and narrow. If not, why should he care if the soldier is gay or straight.

Kudos to the Washington Post for adding Father Pavone's column. He always explains the true teachings of the Church with great compassion and charity to all. Father has done just that with the subject of homosexuals serving in the military. Thank you, Father, for your holy boldness and love of all God's people you serve.

"the military already condones plenty of things that Catholics (or Muslims, Jews, etc.) disapprove of--does that prevent you from doing your job now?"

That list of things of course includes warfare, killing, invading countries, you know, all that other minor stuff.

PSYCHDOC: I don't see one "pitfall" of repealing DADT in Fr. Pavone's article. He didn't identify any, probably because he couldn't--he basically just suggested that he didn't like it.

Fr. Pavone: I agree that Catholic chaplains should remain free to express their beliefs, as should those who are Islamic, Buddhist, etc. I've never heard any serious suggestion that repealing DADT would jeopardize that freedom.

I'd like to hear your response to GLADERUNNER's argument here--the military already condones plenty of things that Catholics (or Muslims, Jews, etc.) disapprove of--does that prevent you from doing your job now?

Finally, your implication that gays who want to serve openly are entering the military in order to "[make] a statement about being gay" is, quite frankly, shameful. How dare you disparage the motives of people volunteering to protect and die for their country? You may not approve, but living a gay lifestyle is not illegal in this country, and many gay people have different belief systems in which being gay is not a sin, it's just who they are. Feel free to try to convince them otherwise, but until you do, please try to understand why people with those beliefs don't want to have to lie about how they live their life in order to serve their country. To them, being openly gay is just being honest about who they are, it's not making a political statement.

"If we institute policies which are going to openly condone homosexual activity, let's not be surprised or complain when chaplains do their job"

Replace the words 'homosexual activity' with 'birth control', does the same argument stand? Do you oppose military members rights to use condoms? Do you oppose the military pharmacy offering the pill?

Chaplains serve as guests in the military, not the other way around. It is NOT the role or obligation of the military to live up to the rules of the RCC, nor to install the church's rules into the UCMJ.
Stand aside if you are truly 'accepting.' Preach the message you want to preach in the chapel to those that choose to hear it, but keep your fingers off the military code / federal law. You have no authority or jurisdiction there.
Many, many members of the military are NOT Catholic. Using RCC rules as military policy opens the door for other religions to install their laws as well. I doubt you would long stand for that. Recognize that your religion is no different than any other religion to someone outside your religion. Convert everyone first, THEN impose your favorite archaic laws on them. I believe that's what Jesus commissioned you to do.

Great. This is needed in the Sunday sermons of Christian churches.

Thank you, Father for laying out the pitfalls for repealing DADT. We are always to uphold the dignity of all persons but we would do a disservice to our homosexual brothers and sisters by not speaking the truth.

Father Pavone is a great warrior for the cause of the dignity of life and the soul of the human being! He speaks the Truth, and Jesus said, the Truth will set you free! It is sad that Christians, Catholic and otherwise, will not stand up for Jesus, His Church and Teachings in the public forum! All that Father says is very true and if Christians will not speak up, the morals of our country will go to the dogs! Marriage IS sacred between a man and a woman, the unborn baby and the elderly are sacred, ALL life is sacred! Let us stop offending God and be as our Country was meant to be. I commend Father Pavone for his wonderful articles and blogs!