Can U.S. Soldiers Disobey Immoral Orders? Military Archbishop Says Yes

M.Lowry

I guess I'll put a comment in, seeing so many post's and I did get Ordained through this wonderful organization. I also am ex Military and understand unlawful orders, I usually stay away from these discussions because it's like beating a dead horse. If your democrat your probably gonna find everything wrong with whatever is happening today, except the anti ice demonstrations, or the taking over of police stations, shoving and pushing police officials and expecting no retaliation, securing the boarder and so much else. But if it were Biden administration you definitely wouldn't have an issue, and let's follow the money to see who's actually funding the majority of this and what's their agenda? And sir, except for the liberal news you have no more proof those aren't actually drug boats than i have that they are, how can a country be successful without boarders, how do you know who's in your country? How can you have many of the programs we have without accountability? How could we continue Medicare, Medicare, social security, unemployment, and taxes without accountability who's here and who a person really is. What about crime, you only want gun control if its the other person who has one, you want term limits when the other side is in charge, transitioning children, now thats a hot one, and don't forget abortion. I can see just by comments some people got Ordained through here maybe to officiate a friend or family members wedding or whatever, but may not really be following Christ. My friends that told me about this site are both Ordained through it but do not follow Christ at all. I am an ex democrat born and raised, I have many issues with the way things are going in this world especially now that I didn't get ordained to officiate weddings but to learn God's word so I can witness to others and know what I'm talking about in leading them to Christ. I am rejoicing everyday in him and his word because the crazier things get the more proof his word is true. I will spread his love to everyone regardless of race, gender ideology, denomination, or political party, we, may not agree on everything as I frequently go to the bible to guide me, am I always right, probably not, nor am I always wrong, but my brothers and sisters If I may call you that, I love you, and Pray God Bless's you all and your families, maybe one day through Christ Jesus we will figure it all out. God Bless You

Evone L Payton Banks (Minister/Rev non denominational)

There's a big difference between uncomfortable to do something and immoral to do something. Let us not confuse the two. And let us also remember (coming from a veterans perspective) we know the difference. We're trained to protect from immortality. The fact that this a topic ripping through the political circuit with undertones of hate crimes happening worldwide. Is sad.

Evylyn Rose

Speaking as an Army Veteran, I agree with U.S. Military Archbishop Timothy Broglio. There are frequently times when soldiers are ordered to do some morally grey-area things during periods of war and unrest. But orders that are clearly illegal? Things you would need your fellow soldiers to point their weapons at your head to justify the feeling that there's "no other choice"? You swore an oath to disobey those orders. Upholding the US Constitution comes first in carrying out your duties.

Like the Archbishop said, though, it's not easy to disobey direct orders as a military service member. It won't be a matter of just saying "no", standing your ground, and then that's the end of it. There's every possibility that you will be detained, threatened with court martial (note: you won't be found guilty over refusing an illegal order), and possibly harassed by leadership and peers. Meanwhile, the order may well be carried out by someone else.

However, the more service members stand the ground, keep to their oaths, and refuse obey illegal orders, the more service members are inspired. Just like in basic training when we all learned "if one is wrong, then we're all wrong" also meant that if "everyone is 'wrong', then we're all right". When you are the one doing the right thing when the orders are definitely wrong, then you encourage your peers to do right, too. It may start small and slow, but overtime, it shifts and grows so and brings us back to order and abiding by our oaths collectively.

Jamie Frost

If you cant follow orders; don't be in the military..it's that simple.

Paul Dionne

We have separation of Church and state for a reason and these people are proving it. They need to stop voicing their opinions that are anti-government.

Delight Phillips

There's a huge difference between Immoral and Illegal. The present administration has given many ILLEGAL orders. Those are clearer. Immoral can be a point of view and different to different people. Immoral is bad. Illegal is WRONG!!

Delight Phillips

All miltary engagement is "IMMORAL"

Lawyer John

The Uniform Code of Military Justice allows an armed force member to refuse to obey an illegal order. As explained by a recent post on this issue, if you refuse you better be very, very certain that the order was illegal. That said, there is nothing that allows a service member to refuse an order that violates their sincerely held beliefs. Lets say that a service member's job is loading supplies onto trucks or aircraft. And suppose the service member finds out that one of the cargos contains abortion inducing medication and abortion is against their beliefs. While that member could ask his chain of command to be exempted from loading that cargo, if this is denied, then the member must follow orders. If they continue to refuse, they are subject to discipline. Refusing a legal order based solely on moral objections is not allowed. Such a position would undermine the good order and disciple of the military.

John Florea Jr

If people can refuse service to gays etc. and if doctors can refuse to help patients that pose a moral dilemma for them then a soldier can refuse orders that run contrary to their beliefs. Just because you are serving in the military doesn't mean the rights you are protecting for everyone doesn't apply to the soldier too. Any law that doesn't apply equally to ALL is unjust and immoral.

Donald G Magel

I did eight and during may stay in the desert I had time to read the Code of Military Justice. (One has o take a break from drinking once in a while). The Code says that you are required to refuse to act on illegal or immoral orders from any superior. I also learned in the code that, if requested, the Military would give me leave and travel expense with two days travel between destinations. I did a week of silence at a Catholic retreat near the Naval Academy in Maryland. It helped me to readjust my religious beliefs. The Code is the contract between service people and their supposed military superiors.

Rev. Michelle Love

As a veteran that used to work in personnel, I would recommend that servicemen and women apply to be a conscientious objector if put into this position. If they do this, they should prepare to either be cross trained into another career field or separated from service.

Rev Nolan

When it comes to moral objections to an order, that defers one to conscientious objection. When it comes to violating the law in an order, that defers one to Constitutional duty to disobey. Our oath as military personnel is to support and defend the Constitution, not to an individual person.

James Trenton Smith

The Militay themselves say to not follow immoral orders. I don't see what the conflict is.

Steven Ferrell

Easy to see from posts who has served and who has not. In the Military you follow orders and Chain of Command. If you do not, it could mean your life and that of your battle buddies.
Any Chaplin who tells troops not to follow orders, should be removed as a Chaplin.

Jeffrey Brian Currier

No matter which belief system one follows—or is indoctrinated into—Christian, Muslim, Taoist, Buddhist, Jewish, atheist, Satanist, secular humanist, and so on, the deeper problem remains the same: we lack a shared moral baseline.

Humanity has never seriously attempted peace at scale. At no point in recorded history have we refrained from exploiting others for our own benefit—expanding economic opportunity for some by imposing deprivation on others. A zero-sum mindset rooted in perceived scarcity is all we have ever known. As a result, we do not truly understand what it means to live in peace.

Rather than struggling to preserve our humanity, we routinely surrender it—often in service of a projected God, nationalism, ideology, or some other story we have invented. That, if one insists on using the term, is our real sin. Wars are not fought for virtue; they are fought over resources. Division comes first, fear follows, and together they are used to justify killing and theft in pursuit of dreams handed down by those we follow into the abyss of inhumanity.

The Church—all of them—have millions of gallons of blood on their hands, and the search for virtue through dogma is a foolish and characteristically human errand. Jesus, and others throughout history, have tried to show us the way. We hear them, many admire them, but few follow them. Instead, we predictably choose to argue over the fine points of when—or whether—we are justified in killing one another within paradigms of our own design. We make it up as we go, then look backward to scripture to justify our contemporary cause.

Walter Abington

One’s oath is to defend the Constitution.

John R Liming

People contemplating starting a war should consider all the words spoken in the bible by Jesus Christ and make their decisions in concert with those words.

Joseph Grieco

Congratulations to Pope Leo for continuing the work of Francis in purging the American Church of the Tridentine holdouts appointed by Benedict, who blindly agreed to all that Trump says and does. One of my closest friends served in the Chaplain's Corps and saw duty in the Middle East. There were strict rules of engagement (RoE) established by the DoD governing the troops actions. Anyone who arbitrarily ordered someone to countermand those RoE essentially issued an illegal order. Note, I said "arbitrarily", not in response to a "Return Fire or Die" situation. During Basic Training in all branches, the Uniform Code of Military Justice is taught. One of the articles directs service members to obey all "Lawful Orders". That topic alone is discussed in great depth - especially in the context of what constitutes "Lawful Orders" vs. Unlawful Orders. In the USN, I served on a Ballistic Missile Submarine. If you have ever seen "Crimson Tide", that movie spends the entire time determining a Lawful vs. an Unlawful Order. While the initial order did call for a missile strike (Full Disclosure - FBM submarines would not launch a Trident or Poseidon Missile for a "fueling", only in retaliation for a launch.), the follow up recalled it. That's another fallacy - in actuality there would be two confirmed messages before a launch could be ordered. Looking at the entirety, not only would Captain Hunter have issued an illegal order, based on the protocol of the times, Russia would have been obligated to execute a return launch against the United States and its allies, precipitating WWIII. So, Lawful vs. Unlawful orders will always be a slippery slope for anyone serving in the Military.

David Buck

When it comes to matters of use of force and invading other countries, the Catholic church really doesn't have any moral high ground upon which to stand. Anybody remember the Albigensian Crusade, the Lithuanian Crusade, and the Crusade in the Holy Land?

Whether you like him or his policies, the truth is that in spite of what a bunch of Democratic congress members might try to convince the military, Trump has given no illegal or immoral orders as yet. What bothered trump about Greenland was two-fold: the Chinese government has been creeping around the area (and everywhere else for that matter) and what a great intermediate jumping off point it would make for a Russian attack on North America. His comments about Greenland have started to do the thing he wanted done - having Denmark and NATO place troops there to hinder any Russian incursion. The troop numbers are small to date, but at least it's a start. I think if Greenland were properly garrisoned, Trump would not insist upon US ,.control/ownership of Greenland.

The US has a long history of buying territory from other nations. Remember the Louisiana Purchase? The purchase of Alaska? How would buying Greenland be any different?

I think that fool Carney in Canada is very wrong if thinks the poor, understrength, under-equipped Canadian Armed Forces would fight against the US for Greenland. I served more than 22 years in the CAF, and you sure wouldn't have gotten us to fight the US for anything other than a direct invasion of Canada. But then Carney and the Liberals have not shown that they have much of a clue what Canadians want so far, so why should this surprise me?

Rev. MichaelRS

There will always be false teachers and false teachings and in this area the LEFTIST "Faith leaders", as false teachers, are engaging in false teachings to inspire these activists. Here is what I mean;

They're always taking verses from the Old Testament, like from Leviticus 19:33-34 that (paraphrased) say to be kind to the stranger among you and treat them as if they were native born.

That's okay, as far as it goes. It only means if someone is visiting from China or Germany or Russia or Canada or Ecuador or Nigeria etc. that you treat them in a friendly, courteous manner.

HOWEVER, what those verses and verses like it do NOT mean is that you have to tolerate those foreigners in your land that break or are breaking the laws of your land.

Particular to this situation when the law they break was how they came into your land in the first place.

So, if you want to talk about treating them like the native born...when a native born person breaks the law they suffer the appropriate penalty. That could be anything from a temporary detainment to full arrest, receiving a citation and later a fine for some minor offense, county jail time or going to state or federal prison for a major offense.

In the case of people who enter the country illegally the appropriate penalty is arrest and deportation.

OR if they enter the country legally through an asylum application, then down the line they have their court hearings and their application is not granted, as the vast majority are not and they're issued an order of deportation. However, they then fail to follow that order so ICE has to go into the community to arrest them.

So yes, as far as breaking the law and receiving the appropriate penalties are concerned, illegal immigrants are being treated just like American citizens.

There is nothing in Christian teachings that says a person is exempt from penalties under Earthly laws because of Christian love and charity as outlined in the New Testament.

As far as Matthew chapter 25 goes, If you will look at verse 36 Jesus acknowledges that there are people in prison, but he does not say you have to free them from that, or any other Earthly justice, as an act of compassion (now interpreted as an act of Christian Compassion).

Lastly, why can't an ICE agent or official be a Christian pastor? If a police officer or deputy sheriff or state trooper or FBI agent can all be pastors, why not an ICE agent.

I mean, if you follow that thought process, if you're a pothead or an opioid abuser who considers himself a Christian, then I guess you would find objecting to a DEA agent as a pastor to be reasonable.

Keoni Ronald May

Illegal - Unethical - Immoral, are all different legal terminologies. Be prepared to go to a military prison, if your definition of illegal - unethical - immoral military commands, are not legally correct.

Vietnam War '71 - '72 - '73 MACV and JUSMAG/MACTHAI

Jerry M Choat

To this very day, God’s view of war has not changed. He still views war as a legitimate means of bringing an end to oppression and wickedness.

And just as it has always been throughout history, it is God alone who rightly determines when such warfare is to take place and who is to be involved.

And God has determined that the war to end wickedness and to avenge the oppressed is a future war and that it will be fought by his Son, Jesus Christ.

This means that the wars being fought on the earth today do not have God’s approval, no matter how noble the cause may appear to be.

And while many countries today ask God to support their conflicts, God does not pick sides.

Instead, the Bible clearly states: Do not act in vengeance, nor return evil for evil."{Romans 12:17, 19

Furthermore, God stated that humanity should wait for him to intervene at Armageddon. {Revelation 16:16

So the final war of Armageddon, is the ultimate showdown between divine authority and human governments, which currently show their defiance by refusing to submit to God’s rule.

Yes at that time" Jesus will lead the armies of heaven to victory against those who oppose Almighty God our heavenly Father {Revelations 19:11-16

Keith D

I'm not so sure that religions, especially historically violent, even genocidal ones, should speak about illegal orders. The hypocrisy factor is quite a spectacle.

Then again, insight and even prophecy happen in the strangest places, sometimes. I look at Archbishop Vigano and marvel, for instance. There seems to be real light there. Even a brilliant light!

Either way, military personnel are obligated, by Oath of Office, to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. That would mean that the generals of US bases had an obligation to thwart orders from the Joint Chumps to force, say, ... unwanted experimental gene altering shots or, say, human trafficking.

What's the standard of illegal or immoral? This is the sticking point for many. It isn't any ol' moral code; it's the Constitution, as per the Oath of Office. If they can show that an order violates either the separation and grants of powers or the rights of the people, of which only bellwether rights are enumerated (not granted by the Constitution but held as pre-existing government), then they should indeed refuse, even arrest the one issuing illegal orders.

Was the Venezuela raid or the talk about Greenland cenceived illegally by this standard? If not yes, then dangerously close to yes. Do I think there's enough chance that no is the answer? I do. And thus I fault no personnel for following those orders. I think the illegality has to be pretty brazen to justify refusal, because if the refuser fails, it's harsh for them. I this is part of how we guard against impulsive declarations that ugly duty is 'immoral.'

obere mchugh

point blank, if it is only to serve to make others rich and make more for only a select few then i would object and not fallow, invading and taking over a sovereign country just because want it is not ethical moral or right, war battle and the like are against human kind, to which has been used to cause the most horrible atrocities the world has ever seen and justified by governments while telling citizens a good story as to why there doing it to only in the end serving a nother hidden agenda to help make rich richer. even if standing up against "evil" there is always another motive there to get resources and to always help those industries that would benifit from getting them and not to get rid of evil and make right and help those in said countries,

Daniel Todd Kamm

BTW... Take good care and be safe through the weekend's weather! Never a better opportunity to encourage communities everywhere who are being "blitzed," to respond by supporting our families and friends in MN and beyond, and melting ICE... and I'm not talking "Global Warming!" Peace Out... Reb tk

Daniel Todd Kamm

"I was just following orders...." Every crime against humanity it's been "I did what I was told to do." People of conscience, especially military, whether informed by their own faith or other humanitarian concerns have so little support; when they exercise their conscience... it's a disaster; excruciatingly punitive, legally a quagmire, relationships lost, financial opportunities lost, and seen as traitors... and they sit in jail while their partners, kids etc. are punished socially, deprived financially and worse. It is the duty of every person who swears an oath to defend the constitution and the country and it's peoples to object when circumstances extend beyond what is legal, moral, or a matter of conscience. No one needs doubt , a moral dilemma, or a problem with discipline when on the battlefield and lives are at risk. Unfortunately those whose morals diverge are subjected to punishment, when they should be held up as examples... it is not a betrayal, but a right and an obligation, and it's a right and obligation that must be encouraged and supported. "I was just following orders," becomes a moot point. Those who are willing and able and have no conflicts that inhibit the actions they must take: kudos. Everyone is needed.

On a separate note, It's interesting that the "Universal" is finally addressing and supporting "moral objections" and those who object. Like most "religions" enforcement of dogma / tradition is usually the norm.

It's refreshing when religious and other "institutions" are able to rise above and support people who stray from the norm. Next thing you know, Women will be "Priests," or will they be called (OMG!) "Priestesses?" I suspect that's the only real hold up... if "we" let "them," what do we call "them?"

One wonders!

Peace, Out, Reb tk

James Riggle-Johnson

Soldiers must follow orders despite their moral objections. Morality varies depending on the individual. It is also their duty to refuse an illegal order—which is different than following their conscience. I’m not sure how these two very different things have somehow become conflated. If a soldier suddenly finding problems with their conscience, then maybe they should resign from the military.

Michael Burton

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) clearly states that service members must obey lawful orders but have a duty to disobey orders that are clearly illegal, unconstitutional, or criminal, such as those directing war crimes, torture, or harming civilians." This a tough regulation to follow; in war what orders are clearly illegal? Take Vietnam as an example. I did two tours that but was not made aware that the US was violating intenational law (Geneva Accord). Until Tet, in 1968 most Americans thought we were winning that war. The US Command in Saion held what became known as the 5 O'Clock Follies. The press would gather around thier beers while the miliarty PR types would give them the latest body count; the way "progress" in the war was made. Tet blew the socks off that crap and finally Walter Cronkite and his ilk caught the real happenings

Keoni Ronald May

I am a Vietnam War veteran, of 2 back-to-back tours of duty.

There are 3 categories or classifications, that are involved. Is it legal, is it unethical, and is it immoral.

Most people entering military service, these days, can not really differentiate the differences.

Their legal training is based on movies, television, internet, and sometimes misguided academics.

There is a chain-of-command to follow. There are different internal & external organizations to turn too.

In combat, despite the general public having their own version of combat, is very fast and very cruel.

There is no time to debate, life & death matters, when people on both sides of the battle want to live and don’t want to die.

Alexander Arends

A soldier must follow orders even when finding them immoral, or be willingto face the consequences of such action. There would be total chaos if military personnel could pick or choose what action they found moral or immoral because all of us have different moral values. Following illegal orders is different and a concientious soldier should not follow such orders. Either way, a soldier must be responsible for the action he/she takes.

PKBW

So what if China or Russia takes Greenland or another country? Trump is trying to protect the waterways around it making sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. That would be very dangerous if either of them took this area.

Donna May Evans

US Army Veteran & Retired VA Emp.

Yes Active Duty ARE REQUIRED by Military Law to NOT Follow Illegal orders . !

Required

Yes Required 1st Lesson at Basic Training in 1st Class Constitution 101.

And they did Drill it into us.

This became a very big deal Post Vietnam.!

It bothers me terribly that we have to even have this conversation.

Please help me Spread the Word Far & Wide

If an Active Duty Member followsan illegal order they can face criminal charges.

"Under military law, service members must obey lawful orders but have a duty to disobey orders that are clearly illegal, unconstitutional, or criminal, such as those directing war crimes, torture, or harming civilians; while the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) mandates obedience, it also makes obeying patently illegal commands a potential crime, with disobedience of unlawful orders being both permissible and required."

Samuel Tamayo

Dead men / women tell no tales ☠️ .
Murphy's law . Or in short ; Nun'a's . A term used by military personnel for decades...😊

Elizabeth Jane Erbe Wilcox

Morals are subjective. Your morals likely conflict with the morals of others. Laws are objective, clearly defined, black and white (in a perfect world.)

Disobeying an “immoral” order is not OK. Disobeying an illegal order is not only OK, it is required.

Mark Stricklett

Unfortunately, morality is now determined by the political administration. Never before in history has it been clearer that moral values are out of control, not the norm. If the military just adheres to the legality of orders, we should be glad.

Sir Lionheart

I suggest that if a soldier cannot follow orders that run contrary to their conscience, he/she should leave the armed forces. Can you imagine having someone under your command not knowing if you can rely upon them in the theatre of battle, putting other soldiers at risk? That would be very scary.

🦁❤️