Monday, December 27, 2010

Lucia What the US Military could learn from the Catholic Priesthood

Now that Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been repealed for the US Military, the Americans will learn the hard way what opening up the military brotherhood to open homosexuals will do. Destructive effects of bad decisions don't always show up straight away as the Catholic Church has learned.
Homosexual relationships caused a deep fracture in the priestly male fraternity. Pseudo-intimacy and intrigue replaced the outward looking evangelization of apostolic brotherhood. Bishops were unwilling to discipline the abusive priests under their charge. The Communio became divided. Religious leaders hid their own homosexual proclivities. The worst priests desacralized the liturgy and their vows and their priestly identity, while good priests often became isolated, fearful, and rigid. All priests were maimed.
But priests are not soldiers nor are soldiers priests, so having open homosexuals around should not affect soldiers in the same way. Surely?
In the priesthood, the priest unites with the spotless Bride – the Church. The priest sacrifices his own desires, giving up the love of another, for a far greater love. He surrenders his own singular needs and desires for the good of the many – Christ’s Body, the Church.

A soldier makes this same archetypal masculine sacrifice for the nation. He sacrifices personal freedom and family for the good of the nation. In both cases, it’s a sacrifice that, in different times and places, requires the shedding of blood – for God and country. And, in both cases, it’s a peculiarly masculine sacrifice.

The Church has an intimate understanding of the human person and properly ordered love. When the brotherhood is perverted, the institution breaks down. The breakdown in fraternity is a fissure that threatens to corrupt the entire institution.
Somehow, I think, all of this is just going to be too subtle for a whole lot of people.

Related link: What the military must learn from the Church ~ WTPRS

9 comment(s):

Oswald Bastable said...

Any THINKER knows this is a bad, bad, move.

Life in the military is strained enough without this extra tension.

ZenTiger said...

It's a very generalist statement, which brings its own issues.

I don't think this should be a problem in the administrative sections, but in active combat, like having females soldiers, it might bring complications, for all sorts of reasons both fair and unfair.

How easily those complications are surmountable remains to be seen. I thought the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was an attempt to keep issues on sexuality out of the armed forces without denying the opportunity of any to serve.

I'm also not sure it is valid to compare the Church to the Armed Forces, and whilst there may be similarities around the nature of taking on a vocation rather than a mere job, soldiers are required not just to "sacrifice" their lives, but take lives. I think at that point, many things become perverted as a consequence, and whilst the reasons may ultimately be defensible, no-one would deny that soldiers are not left untouched by their combat experience.

Equally then, even in making a generalization about the masculinity of sacrifice in a combat situation, that is in no way specific to heterosexual males. Therefore I think that point becomes somewhat a distraction to the bigger, more complex issue of command structures, combat pressures and the importance (for the military) in having a social structure that operates effectively under combat conditions. Thus, the role of women in direct combat must equally up for discussion, and this becomes another area where I wonder how equal we really need to be? I suspect in the "right" military culture, none of this would make a difference, but that would only be because the individual is completely reshaped to be nothing more than a well trained instrument. And yet we expect our soldiers to come back with their humanity perfectly intact.

Andrei said...

Let's not forget the Dutch went down this track years ago and have an army consisting of "openly gay men and officers.

And let's not forget what happened when this army of pansies were put to the test at Srebrenica.

They were unable to stand up to a rabble fled leaving five thousand men and boys who had come to them for protection to be massacred.

Anyway it will be about a nano second after this policy takes effect that some old drill sergeants with an exemplary careers of any years will be hauled before the man because some "openly gay" soldier who doesn't pack the gear to handle his training will go weeping to his commanding officer claiming he is being picked on because he's gay.

And these guys will be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.

KG said...

"I suspect in the "right" military culture, none of this would make a difference, but that would only be because the individual is completely reshaped to be nothing more than a well trained instrument."

Hmmm...not quite."nothing more than a well-trained instrument" suggests nothing more than an automaton, directed by those cleverer than the mere grunt.
But that's not at all how the modern military (well, the Army at least) works.
Western military doctrine has changed form the old idea of large-mass actions into increasingly autonomous small units, highly trained and flexible, able to adapt rapidly to changing conditions. In these units, trust and absolute confidence in one's fellows matters more than ever and anything which erodes those is potentially lethal.
In the selection process, all manner of characteristics which may affect unit cohesion are identified and result in the applicant being failed--why is homosexuality supposed to be treated differently?

ZenTiger said...

Yes, good point. That's exactly why I put the word in quote marks. I suspect the mindset driving the political changes to military selection criteria relies on treating soldiers as automations, where unit cohesion isn't as important as having one women, one gay, one mexican, one fat person and one muslim as evidence of a well rounded, equal opportunity army.

MathewK said...

Exactly Zen, it's all about the pc mindset for the stupid progressives. The clever progressives want this to undermine the US military. It's the most lethal fighting force on the planet and so is much loathed by them.

They only hate the unborn more.

scrubone said...

What is interesting KG, is if a gay person become a problem in a unit because of them being gay, will they be removed?

I suspect that the answer is "yes" early on, but in a few years that will gradually change radically.

KG said...

Good question, Scrubone. What will happen, I suspect is that any officer or NCO who removes a homosexual for performance-related issues will pay a high price, when the brass caves in to threats of legal action.
After that, homosexuals who screw up will be tolerated because the cost of disciplining them will be seen as too high.
If one wanted to devise a strategy for damaging morale and cohesion in the military it'd be hard to come up with anything more effective than this.

Ciaron said...

As usual, there is an historical precedent and solution

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.