Can military chaplains be authentic without prayer?

One of my tasks at the Dutch military chaplaincy, almost two decades ago, involved sitting on a committee to advise on religious celebrations. It is not a task I remember fondly, because it was a loaded topic. Not long before our meetings started, an incident during a Christmas celebration on the island of Curaçao caused deep divisions within the chaplaincy, and a lot of pain besides.

Looking back, there was something surreal and even tragicomic about the incident and the protracted conflict that followed. I dutifully did my part in upholding the Catholic values at stake. Curaçao is historically Catholic and Catholic traditions shape the culture of the island, so our side argued those should be followed, especially on Christmas Day. Others had a different perspective, stressing that all chaplains were working on an equal basis for the military on the taxpayer’s dime. Which was also true.

Another memory of my time at the chaplaincy was reading the chaplain’s manual of the Canadian Armed Forces. I was a bit more experienced then and was impressed with the completeness, clarity and thoughtfulness of the document. I noticed that in Canada faith organizations jointly endorse all chaplains; they do not just endorse their own, as we Dutch did. And that was certainly one of the causes of our perennial conflicts.

Which brings me to the present. At the height of summer, the Canadian Armed Forces released a new instruction that bans chaplains from offering prayers in public settings. References to God or “religion-specific language” have to be avoided. Part of the motivation comes from a 2015 Supreme Court of Canada case, Mouvement Laïque Québécois vs. Saguenay, but how much that explains is hard to tell.

Internal contradictions

Understandably, some church leaders have spoken against the new instruction. Catholic military bishop Scott McCaig has called on the government to “go back to the drawing board.” A few Catholic writers are up in arms, blaming bureaucratic idiocy, the vacuity of modern secularism, or even demonic forces of liberalism that oppose true religion. Thankfully, a younger writer also pointed out that the Carney government has a pretty strong record on religious freedom. To assume anti-religious intentions from his government does not sound plausible.

So where is this coming from? I spoke to a retired senior chaplain and he had no clear answer. He did, however, speak to the contradictions this instruction creates. Authenticity, to stand for your values, is essential to avoid moral injury in the military, and now a chaplain cannot be authentic as a person of faith. Rather than creating space for everybody, the instruction excludes and enforces neutrality on everyone. Even if it will not stop chaplains from ministering to their people as true professionals, it does send a bad signal.

Flaw in the principle

As I read the instruction, I was reminded of that first encounter with a Canadian policy document long ago. It is (again) clear, thorough and thoughtful. I also believe it is wrong. It displays a flaw in secular liberalism that appears in many places. Moreover, I do not see the benefit of trying to articulate a general principle based on a case involving a lone atheist in Quebec, let alone enforcing that principle where it does not belong. It takes the agency away from professionals such as chaplains who are trained to be authentic and inclusive at the same time.

These are complicated matters and need to be handled carefully and respectfully. Catholic writers do well to hold their fire. More than anything else, the situation offers a learning opportunity that this country can benefit from tremendously. I am convinced chaplains will do their part.