Bishop Scott McCaig of Canada Reacts to Military's Decision to Exclude Prayer at any Public Function - FULL TEXT
Response of the Catholic Military Ordinariate of Canada to the Royal Canadian Chaplaincy Service Public Reflection Policy
The recently published Public Reflection Policy is generating an immense amount of negative emotion, scrutiny and concern. I have heard from Catholic chaplains and other members of the Military Ordinariate who are experiencing frustration, a sense of betrayal, and even vocational crisis. There exists significant concern that this policy may have the unfortunate effects of undermining the morale and spiritual resiliency of scores of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members and their families, significantly diminishing the efficacy of chaplains, and even threaten the viability of the Royal Canadian Chaplains Service (RCChS) itself. The recent media storm has confirmed that this policy is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as the further advancement of atheistic secular humanism as the only acceptable belief system in the Canadian Armed Forces. This is particularly accentuated by the historical context, that of a long and venerable tradition of prayers at military services. The full consequences of this new policy are yet to be seen, but I believe it is important to address some of the issues involved and to inform you of the concrete solution that, as the Military Ordinariate, we are proposing. As noted in the policy, the Supreme Court decision (commonly referred to as the Saguenay decision) which is the new policy is based, ruled the following:
“The evolution of Canadian society has given rise to a concept of neutrality according to which the state must not interfere in religion and beliefs. The state must instead remain neutral in this regard, which means that it must neither favour nor hinder any particular belief, and the same holds true for non-belief. The pursuit of the ideal of a free and democratic society requires the state to encourage everyone to participate freely in public life regardless of their beliefs. A neutral public space free from coercion, pressure and judgment on the part of public authorities in matters of spirituality is intended to protect every person’s freedom and dignity, and it helps preserve and promote the multicultural nature of Canadian society. The state’s duty to protect every person’s freedom of conscience and religion means that it may not use its powers in such a way as to promote the participation of certain believers or non- believers in public life to the detriment of others1 .”
The Public Reflection Policy, therefore, excludes prayer at any “public function,” defined as a setting in which CAF members are required to attend in the execution of their duties2 , so as not to favour belief over unbelief or one particular belief over another. This appears to be a reasonable way to ensure the neutrality of the state, and avoid any form of coercion in religious matters. There are, however, concerns and questions that remain unresolved. To begin with, there are legal questions foundational to how the Saguenay decision is interpreted and applied. It has been pointed out that the Canadian Constitution (the basis of our legal system) recognizes the supremacy of God3 , and the Charter of Canadian Rights and Freedoms specifically protects the “freedom of conscience and religion,” as well as the “freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression4 …”
The national anthem itself contains an invocation to God to “keep our land glorious and free.” The French version of the anthem goes so far as to say, “Car ton bras sait porter l’épée, Il sait porter la croix!” As silly as it seems, the strict application of the policy would mean that a chaplain singing the national anthem at a public function, or reading from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a public reflection, could lead to disciplinary action against them. Such a scenario seems ludicrous, but it does demonstrate that serious interior contradictions exist, contradictions that will eventually need to be resolved. No doubt, more will be forthcoming about the definitive interpretation and application of the Saguenay decision. The policy could also be understood to mean that freedom of religion and religious conscience is no more than the liberty to worship inside the four walls of the chapel, with little or no application beyond it’s walls. If no opportunity is allowed for public expressions of spirituality and religious belief, it only reinforces this interpretation. Of course, these legal rulings lie outside our competency, but as partners with the RCChS in providing religious support to CAF members we will continue to be actively engaged in the process of clarifying their proper application.
Other apparent contradictions in the policy also need to be clarified. It is not clear how diversity is served by reducing the public activity of chaplains to interchangeable generic counsellors or motivational speakers, thereby silencing the rich spiritual and religious wisdom of diverse spiritual and religious traditions. It is not clear how this policy will make the CAF more inclusive by excluding the religious and spiritual aspirations and needs of the majority of members from the public forum. It is not clear how the goal of spiritual resiliency is served by omitting the prayers and blessings so cherished by so many members, especially in life-threatening situations. It is not clear how the exclusion of any recourse to prayer or reference to God in public functions is not the favouring of non-belief over belief, or the use of government power to the detriment of religious believers. It is not clear why there is no provision for the religious conscience rights of chaplains who may not wish to provide spiritual reflections with no mention of God, contrary to their training, expertise, and religious and spiritual convictions. What clearly emerges is that there are two fundamental ‘goods’ to be protected and preserved in the CAF and public functions of the military in particular: state neutrality in matters of religion and belief and the freedom of religion and religious expression
We maintain that the RCChS should not favour one over the other and propose that it is possible to protect and preserve both of these goods. The Public Reflection Policy refers to military events that are mandatory. Excluding public prayer at compulsory events preserves and protects the first of the two fundamental ‘goods’: state neutrality and the assurance that no person is required to participate in a spiritual or religious activity. But an event may have both an official and mandatory component and an entirely voluntary component as well. Complimenting the mandatory event (either beforehand or afterwards) with an entirely voluntary spiritual and/or religious component would preserve and protect the second of the two fundamental ‘goods’: religious freedom of expression. Our proposal is this: At mandatory military public functions, opportunity is given for a voluntary component lead by chaplains for the spiritual support and resiliency of the military personnel who choose to attend. This may be as simple as a voluntarily attended thanksgiving by the chaplain at Mess Dinners immediately before the official summons. It may be separate prayer services after the close of the official Remembrance Day or Battle of the Atlantic celebrations, or an interfaith/ ecumenical service on site after the official end of another mandatory event. The chaplains of each spiritual faith tradition or the local chaplain’s team could plan and carry out these voluntary services, as circumstances allow and the best support of the faithful dictates. This solution may, in fact, prove to be far superior to the previous policy, which allowed only for the most generic prayers which suppressed the full and unique expression of each spiritual faith tradition. Although it did allow for an expression of the supremacy of God in keeping with the Canadian Constitution, it was a poor compromise which did not ultimately protect or preserve the goods of state neutrality, as envisioned by the current interpretation of the Saguenay decision, or the unobstructed freedom of religion guaranteed by the Charter. We believe this simple solution to the current dilemma would be satisfying to all parties. First, it would satisfy state neutrality as no mandatory service would include an integral religious component. No serving member would thereby be subjected to something to which they object. Second, it would allow the freedom and public expression of spiritual and religious faith guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Third, it would preserve and even potentially enhance the credibility and efficacy of the RCChS. Fourth, it would protect diversity by allowing the expression of the rich and diverse spiritual and religious beliefs of serving members. Fifth, it allows for full inclusivity as all members, whether believing or not, may be adequately and equally served. Finally, it would compliment the goal of spiritual resilience by serving, in an important manner, the religious and spiritual needs of members of the CAF6 . And is this not the very purpose of the RCChS and the diversity of chaplains from so many spiritual and religious traditions? In discussing this proposal with our Ordinariate leadership team, as well as other concerned members of the military of significant rank, one serious difficulty is continually raised. Because the religious, spiritual and moral wellbeing of CAF members is first and foremost “the responsibility of commanders7 ,” there would need to be a broad/general implementation of such opportunities. These voluntary services would need to be encouraged or guaranteed with some kind of directive being promulgated by those in authority. For this reason, we are directly appealing to the right Honourable William Blair, Minister of Defence, General Wayne Eyre, Chief of Defence Staff, and General Guy Belisle, Chaplain General. Furthermore, we ask for prayers for each of them in their respective roles of service, and for their deliberations on this extremely important topic. It is particularly unfortunate that the policy decision was made without any consultation with Interfaith Committee on Canadian Military Chaplaincy (ICCMC). This body exists, in part, to advise the government on broad policy matters and areas of spiritual and moral concerns8 . It is my hope that moving forward the growing irrelevancy of this body will be reversed, and that our rich interfaith perspectives and experience would be allowed to contribute to the decision-making process regarding policies that effect the people of the spiritual and faith traditions we represent and the chaplains we endorse. This is, after all, what our agreement with the Minster of Defence envisioned. We believe that the CAF is best served when religious diversity is celebrated, military functions are made inclusive of all members and their families, and all members have equal access to the spiritual or religious support they desire in order to have optimal wellbeing and resiliency. We believe that the men and women of the CAF have a greater capacity to serve and to endure the hardships and sometimes painful losses of military life when their faith and belief systems are nourished and supported. This may be done in a complimentary manner with the neutrality of the state, upholding both goods in harmony and liberality. There may well be obstacles and difficulties in implementing such directives, but it is the right thing to do. We owe at least that much to those who serve us, and who protect our fundamental rights and freedoms.
Praesidemus,
+Bishop Scott McCaig, C.C. Catholic Military
Image source: Youtube from 2021 - CWL of Bishop McCaig
Comments