When the American military is discussed in Catholic publications, the usual topic is whether our armed forces are acting in line with the Church’s just war theory. And that is the way it should be. God’s law extends to the way war is waged; all is not fair in love and war. The Church’s authority applies to the military.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, can be ordered directly from Winepress Publishers — 1-877-421-READ (7323); $12.95, plus S&H. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at jkfitz42@aol.com.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
Catholics in the military know that. Fortunately, there have been few circumstances where American Catholics have had to wrestle with a clash between what the Church teaches and their military superiors order them to do.
Recently, however, I was struck by a situation where the roles appear to be reversed, where the military is more the teacher than the student in its relationship with American Catholics. (Please don’t misread me. I am talking about individual Catholics, not the Church as an institution.) I submit that the folks in the pews could profit from paying attention to the trial of Maj. Harry Schmidt and Maj. William Umbach.
Umbach and Schmidt are the two Air Force pilots accused of involuntary manslaughter for dropping a 500 pound explosive on Canadian troops in Afghanistan last year, killing four and wounding eight. They are being charged by a military grand jury, which will eventually determine whether the two airmen will be court-martialed. If found guilty, they could be drummed out of the military and serve as much as 64 years in prison.
A pretty stiff penalty, especially if you keep in mind that no one has accused the pilots of purposely bombing the Canadians. According to the pilots’ commanding officer, Col. David Nichols, Umbach and Schmidt were not told that the Canadians were conducting live-fire exercises near Kandahar, where the pilots were patrolling “no-fly zones,” waiting to provide bomber support to any allied ground troops in the area. Moreover, on the night of the accident, Schmidt had been taking low doses of amphetamines. The Wall Street Journal reports that this is routine procedure for Air Force pilots who are operating with very little sleep.
The tragic incident occurred when Maj. Schmidt spotted troops on the ground, which he thought were enemy Taliban forces. He called for authority from his commander to strafe them, but was told to hold fire. Which he did, until he spotted what he thought was anti-aircraft fire directed at his F-16. In response, in what he believed to be self-defense, Schmidt dropped a laser-guided bomb. Unfortunately, it was a direct hit on the Canadian forces.
A few seconds after the bomb exploded, the call came from headquarters: Friendly forces were in the area. The Canadians were conducting a live-fire exercise. What Schmidt thought was anti-aircraft fire was actually the firing of small arms on a hillside. It was not until the American pilots landed a few hours later that they learned of their mistake. Schmidt fell to his knees, then ran to a restroom. The news had made him sick – literally.
An honest mistake? It seems to be. Clearly, the American pilots did not intend to harm the Canadians. It is easy to sympathize with the pilots. They did not choose to be in Afghanistan. They were tired from long hours in the air, under orders, in harm’s way, risking their lives. It is easy to see how they might overreact to what they thought was an enemy attack.
But in the military an “honest mistake” is not always a sufficient defense. Military men are held accountable for what they should have known, for not taking the proper precautions, for not adhering to the rules of engagement under which they operate. For example, Schmidt’s plane was flying out of range of anti-aircraft fire. Should he be held culpable for firing back at enemy fire that did not endanger him? Should he have been clear-headed enough in such a situation to not overreact to what he thought was an attack upon his aircraft? You and I might be held blameless for panicking in this scenario, but Schmidt is an Air Force officer. What higher conduct does that demand?
It will be interesting to watch this case unfold. Especially for those of us who live in a civilian world where “I couldn’t help it,” “I didn’t know” and “I’m sorry” seem to be sufficient defenses for any behavior. Indeed, if one is to judge from shows like Oprah’s, a few teary reflections about how a wrongdoer “meant well” is all it takes to garner him or her more sympathy than the victim of the wrongful act. In contrast, the military is teaching us in this trial about how grown-ups are expected to behave; that we are responsible for not knowing those things we should know.
It is true: We must follow our conscience. St. Thomas Aquinas stated clearly that we must follow even an erroneous conscience. But – and this is a big “but” – we have a responsibility to form our conscience correctly. It is not enough to say, “I thought I was doing the right thing” and “It was my opinion that I was behaving properly” – not if we have deliberately ignored and disregarded legitimate authority when forming our conscience.
This message seems to be lost among Catholics. From what I can see, everyone goes to Communion every Sunday, not just in my parish, but in dozens of parishes where I have attended Mass in recent years. Yet hardly anyone goes to Confession the day before. The only conclusion one can reach is that modern Catholics no longer sin (which is absurd) or that they have decided that they should be held blameless for violating the Ten Commandments and the teachings of the Church. “Being true to yourself” appears to be the essence of this new morality.
The corollary to the new morality is that God would not condemn anyone who thinks that he is doing is the right thing, that He would not impose punishment upon anyone who “did not know” that his behavior was wrong. And the corollary to that notion is that God would not be more demanding than an Air Force grand jury considering court martial. Big assumption. Big stakes.
