Hold your horses. Military chaplains have long been a distinctive group, because there are times when they are free to be sectarian, and there are times when they are not free to do so.
Chaplains are recognized as being essential to good morale and discipline among soldiers. However, there are never enough of them for the demand, so there are many times when they have to provide “cross-training” as far as spiritual solace goes.
The military does permit some major divisions, however. For example, there are only a minimum number of spiritual services a chaplain Rabbi can perform for Christian soldiers. So unless there is imminent mortality, a Christian chaplain will be provided, recognized as a priority situation. But this Christian chaplain may be of any variety of Christian: Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, etc.
This means that while in that situation, chaplains are not permitted to stray onto sectarian Christian territory, but instead provide “generic” Christian services to a mixed Christian audience.
This principle gets even more difficult when there is a very mixed audience, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others.
This is when the “common denominator” principle is invoked.
In this case, all three religions worship God. And since Christians recognize Jesus as part of the Trinity of God, it should not be offensive to them if the chaplain invokes “God”, instead of “Jesus”; fully aware that neither the Jews nor the Muslims will *define* God as inclusive with Jesus.
It comes across as somewhat disingenuous for Christians to seem offended that military chaplains in mixed circumstances should refrain from offering prayers to Jesus instead of God. They are fully aware that neither Jews nor Muslims deify Jesus, and to do so in their faces is offensive to them, especially given the fact that Christian chaplains don’t *have* to do that.
Except for services with only Christians, and especially when they are performing sectarian services to just their own congregants.
So, what about this “gagging” of Catholic priests by the Chaplain-in-chief?
The original letter that he offered, in truth, was inappropriate only in a single line:
“We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.”
The military objected to this only because it seemed to incite soldiers under whatever situations to disobey orders.
It was vague enough, so that the military agreed it could be handed out in printed form, just not expressed from the pulpit in a sermon. This was the only “gagging” involved.
That is, the *intent* of the letter was never in question.
In fact, were that sentence to be expanded and elaborated upon, to explain what was meant by that, it would have not elicited any excitement at all.
Thank you for your elicitation.