Chaplains in the Government Service
By Editor
Protestants and Roman Catholics on Common Ground
Congress is now being urged to provide more chaplains for the navy. Protestants and Roman Catholics have united in pressing this demand. We believe that this movement calls for some serious consideration of the principles involved in it. In the first place, a strict interpretation and application of the Christian and American principle of the separation of church and state would forbid the appointment of chaplains to be paid out of the public treasury. This is not a new view, and we can quote good authority for it. In a letter to Edward Livingstone, written July 10, 1822, James Madison, that earnest and consistent advocate of religious liberty, thus expressed himself upon this subject:— “I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in Congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the national treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their constituents of their pious feelings if the members had contributed for the purpose a pittance from their own pockets.”—“Writings of James Madison,” Vol. III, page 273 et seq. Better even than the plan suggested by Mr. Madison was the proposition submitted to the Thirty-fourth Congress of the United States by some of the clergymen of Washington. We quote the latter part of their communication:— “We beg leave to state to you our conviction that the established election of a chaplain from abroad by your honorable bodies had its origin in a necessity now no longer existing; that the plan adopted by many of our State legislatures, of inviting neighboring pastors to act as their chaplains, thus removing all objection to associating religious devotion with their deliberations, would reflect more credit on Christian ministers, would conduce more to their individual acceptableness and general usefulness among members of Congress and their families, and would in every way promote the end had in view in the election of chaplains. “We therefore respectfully tender our services, offering to alternate in the weekly service of opening the two houses with morning prayer, and in conducting divine service on Sabbath morning, with the distinct understanding that we decline receiving any remuneration for these services. “George W. Samson, Pastor of E Street Baptist Church,
“Byron Sunderland, Pastor of First Presbyterian Church,
“Jas. R. Eckard, Pastor of Second Presbyterian Church,
“T. A. Haskell, Pastor of Western Presbyterian Church,
“P. D. Gurley, Pastor of F Street Presbyterian Church,
“Geo. Hildt, Pastor of McKendree Chapel, M. E. Church,
“Geo. D. Cummins, Rector of Trinity Church,
“J. George Butler, St. Paul Lutheran Church.
—“Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States,” B. F. Morris, Philadelphia, George W. Childs, 1864, page 328. Waiving the main question for the present, however, without conceding the principle of having paid chaplains, we wish in this article to direct attention to the official report of a hearing before the House Committee on Naval Affairs held January 20, at which an increase in the number of chaplains was the subject under consideration. We first quote from the remarks of Dr. Charles S. Macfarland, secretary of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, the first speaker to address the committee:— “I think I should remind you that the Federal Council now unites thirty of the so-called Protestant denominations, and includes 150,000 churches and ministers and possibly something like 16,000,000 of the people so far as the actual church membership is concerned. . . . I will say that it [the Federal Council] has never taken any action that we know of that did not express what would be practically the unanimous consensus of the churches. . . . It is to be remembered that we are here today distinctly representing the churches. The Federal Council of the Churches distinctively represents the churches. . . . The Federal Council, therefore, is concerned with the appointment of those men who are qualified to represent the churches in the army and navy, and their action has, therefore, been with relation to the appointment of chaplains. The chaplains only can represent the churches.” We would like to know just what Dr. Macfarland meant by that expression, “the so-called Protestant denominations.” It does not sound well. It appears as if he himself rejected the word Protestant, and apologetically adopted a word used by others. Is this to be the policy of the Federal Council of the Churches as the result of striking out the word Protestant from the report of its executive committee at its meeting in Chicago in December, 1912? We prefer the attitude of Dr. Wallace Radcliffe, chairman of the great Protestant mass meeting in the New National Theater in this city Dec. 14, 1913, when he said, “One of the best words in the English language is Protestant.” We like the estimate placed upon this word in an editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 27, 1913: “Protestant is a word that typifies the highest ideals of human progress, and one not lightly to be abandoned.” Let us hear no more of “the so-called Protestant denominations.” But our chief objection to Dr. Macfarland's position in this matter is that he claimed to be there “distinctly representing the churches,” emphasizing this claim repeatedly, and evidently expecting that it would have great weight with the committee. Dr. Macfarland or any other man has a perfect right to appear as a citizen, or as a representative of citizens, before any committee of Congress which will give him a hearing, and to urge arguments for or against any proposed measure; but when the churches as such are brought into Congress demanding5legislation in their interest, there is a violation of one of the fundamental principles of this government—the separation of church and state. We are just as strongly opposed to any attempt on the part of the Protestant churches, as churches, to control legislation as to the same attempt on the part of the Roman Catholic Church. On what consistent ground can we protest against the activities of the Roman Catholic Church in politics and its efforts to secure legislation favorable to its interests, if we consent to the idea that the united Protestant churches may enter the political field and may use their great membership as a strong argument in favor of what they ask for? And it should be remembered in this connection that it was just this church influence in political affairs in the fourth century which corrupted both the state and the church, and which finally led up to the complete union of church and state and the papal domination over the nations of western Europe. We are sure that there are hundreds of thousands of church members among the "16,000,000 of the people" mentioned by Dr. Macfarland who are absolutely opposed to this tendency of the Federal Council to exert a controlling influence in political matters, and that the Federal Council will hear from them. This was one of the reasons why the Southern Presbyterian Church came so near withdrawing from the Federal Council; and one Presbyterian paper (the Christian Observer, January 21) objected to the appointment of an official representative of the Federal Council to be located at Washington, and declared that "an earnest protest now may prevent the Federal Council from committing a blunder in the matter of the relation of church and state." This desire to save the Protestant churches from departing from one of the fundamental principles both of Protestantism and of Americanism—the separation of church and state—is most praiseworthy. It ought to succeed. Pertinent in this connection, as we believe, are some statements made in an editorial in the New York Evening Post of February 18. After discussing the alleged influence of the Roman Catholic Church at the White House the Post goes on to say:— “Having thus given our opinion of the latest Catholic 'plot,' we are bound to add a word about the great mischief which is done whenever the Catholic Church, or anybody professing to speak for it, does try to exert the influence of Catholics as a unit in any election having to do with general political questions and results. We do not say this because we dislike the Catholic Church in politics more than any other church. If it were a question of the Baptists voting one ticket solidly, we should feel precisely the same about it.” This statement is applicable to any case where any one church or any combination of churches seeks to exert a controlling influence in legislative affairs by appealing to a large and united membership as a reason for granting the demand made. Another speaker at this same hearing was Rev. Lewis J. O'Hern, C. S. P., of Washington, D. C., who introduced himself to the committee by saying:— “I assure you that it is a great pleasure to appear before this Committee on Naval Affairs in such distinguished company as the official representative of the Catholic bishops and archbishops of the United States.” The whole Roman hierarchy of this country was thus present in its ecclesiastical capacity, officially represented by this priest, who wished it to be distinctly understood that he was not speaking as an individual citizen, but as the mouthpiece of the Roman Catholic Church. In doing this he was simply following the bad example set by Dr. Macfarland. The first argument introduced by this priest was a letter from "J. Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore," in which it was stated that "the proposed scheme of substituting 'welfare secretaries' for chaplains [suggested by Secretary Daniels] does not meet with the approval of the American Catholic archbishop." It seemed to be taken for granted that if "the American Catholic archbishop" was not pleased with any proposal, that was a sufficient reason for rejecting it. But what has "the American Catholic archbishop" as an ecclesiastic to do with civil affairs? The priest also spoke of the work of a chaplain at an instruction camp who "furnished moving picture and theatrical entertainments, so that every night the men were kept in camp, happy, and away from dangerous environment." He also argued for chaplains instead of welfare secretaries on the ground that the chaplain "dispenses the sacraments, something which no layman is authorized to do." In answer to the question whether every chaplain would conduct practically the same service on board ship, the priest replied: “Well, no, sir; not entirely. At the morning service a Catholic priest would celebrate mass.” Here is one of the anomalies of this chaplain question: A Protestant nation pays from the public treasury for a chaplain to conduct what thousands of taxpayers believe to be an idolatrous service. But perhaps the most significant statement made by this priest was one relating to the apportionment of the chaplains among the different religious bodies. Note it carefully:— “According to the figures quoted above [giving the membership of the several churches], the Catholic Church is entitled to a little more than forty-one per cent of the religious leaders, and in a representative government such as ours she should have something to say about the kind of religious leaders to be appointed. Therefore I ask you to give kindly consideration to the words of His Eminence Cardinal Gibbons, that welfare secretaries cannot be considered as substitutes for regularly ordained ministers of the gospel.” The full meaning of this paragraph should not escape the attention of our readers. The claim that "the Catholic Church is entitled to a little more than forty-one per cent of the religious leaders" is based, not upon the number of Catholics in the navy, but upon the number of Catholics in the United States compared with the number of Protestant church members, and then it is declared that "in a representative government such as ours" that church "should have something to say about the kind of religious leaders to be appointed." This view of the matter is based upon the un-American principle that the representative idea in this government extends to the churches, and that the churches should have a voice in the government in proportion to their numbers. This may be the Roman Catholic interpretation of a representative government, but it is absolutely foreign to the genius of the American system of republican government. And what is the inevitable logic of this claim?—It is that as the Roman Catholic Church increases in numbers in this country she will be entitled to have more and more to say about the way the government should be run, until she dominates the whole situation. We absolutely repudiate any such interpretation of the representative principle in America. It is the Roman Catholic doctrine of the union of church and state. We wonder if the Protestant clergymen present at this hearing realized, after this priest had finished his remarks, that they had united with Roman Catholics on Roman Catholic ground, and that the Roman Catholics would be the ones who in the end would reap the full benefit of their efforts. We hope they will learn the lesson taught by this experience. We must make one more extract from the official report of this hearing before we drop this subject. In a conversation between one of the members of the committee and Bishop Lawrence, of the Episcopal Church, the following questions and answers are found:— “Bishop Lawrence: On the question of the inquiry, I have never heard of an immoral navy being a good fighting force, and therefore I should say the first essential in the navy was to create a high standard of character and intelligence, thereby making them a good fighting force. That is what we are after. “Mr. Gray: Do you regard a Christian as a better fighter than a man who is uncivilized or unchristianized? “Bishop Lawrence: That would take more of a generalization than I should be able to work out this morning. I can say that in the long run the Christian nations have beaten out the savages. I do not know anything about individual Christians. “Mr. Gray: Do you think that a man can shoot another man better if he is a Christian than if he is a barbarian? “Bishop Lawrence: I would rather have the committee discuss that question.” This is a good illustration of the confusion of principles which results when church6and state get mixed up. A navy is a fighting force, drilled in the most effective methods of warfare, instructed in the use of the most modern inventions for destroying an enemy; and a minister of the gospel of peace, the gospel which teaches us to love our enemies, advocates more chaplains in the navy in order to make it a better fighting force, but when his own logic is pressed upon him, he dare not stand for it, but refers the question to the committee. This little dialogue ought to have made a deep impression both upon the clergymen present and upon the committee. An interesting side light is thrown upon this whole question by a statement made in "Recommendations of Chaplain J. F. Fleming, United States Navy," printed as a government document:— “The government recognizes an obligation to the religious interests of the country, and tries to fulfill it by supporting twenty-four clergymen in the navy, whose return for their support is indifferent.” The reason here given for the appointment of chaplains in the navy is not that they may be of some benefit to the men on the ships, but as a recognition of "an obligation to the religious interests of the country," and then it is declared that the return which these chaplains make "for their support is indifferent." And the man who made this contribution to the discussion of the question was himself a chaplain! We refrain from any further comment. What a splendid opportunity there is for doing real missionary work in the army and the navy! Why should not the churches supply men for this work, just as they support Christian workers in other fields? To our minds this is the solution of this problem of chaplains, rather than for the churches to insist that the government shall appoint their representatives and pay them from the public treasury. Keep the church and the state separate.—The Protestant Magazine, May, 1914.