Increase of Navy Chaplains Temporarily Defeated
By C. E. HOLMES
THE question of navy chaplains has recently interested both Catholic and Protestant bodies to an extraordinary degree. According to the statement of an official of the Federal Council of the Churches, the influence of religious forces has been bearing upon our government for over ten years to secure an increase of navy chaplains. At last a provision embodying this increase, and several other features, was incorporated in the annual naval appropriation bill. This measure was reported from the House Committee on Naval Affairs, Feb. 28, 1914. When the three paragraphs relating to chaplains were read before the House of Representatives, May 1, Mr. Madden, of Illinois, made a point of order against them. Under the rules of the House, a member may object to any new legislation when it is attached to appropriation bills, and thus defeat it. So this provision was eliminated from the naval bill. On May 2, however, the matter again came up, as Mr. Madden withdrew his objection of the day before, and for some time a very spirited discussion was engaged in. The principal speaker was Mr. Tribble, of Georgia, who made a point of order against these paragraphs, and remained firm in his position until they were ruled out by the chairman. In the course of his remarks Mr. Tribble was interrupted over fifty times. Referring to welfare secretaries, he said:— "The Secretary of the Navy asked the naval committee for twenty-four welfare secretaries. . . . Why was not this request granted? The secretaries were not granted the Secretary of the Navy." In answering this question, Mr. Tribble quoted Cardinal Gibbons's letter to Father O'Hern in which the cardinal stated that "the proposed scheme of substituting 'welfare secretaries' for chaplains does not meet the approval of the American Catholic archbishop, since no laymen can do the work of an ordained clergyman." Mr. Tribble then read the following from a report of a hearing on navy chaplains, at which the letter just mentioned was first read:— "Mr. Britten: The service that is given or rendered aboard ship, is it practically the same irrespective of the religious denomination of the chaplain?" "Father O'Hern: Well, no, sir, not entirely. At the morning service a Catholic priest would celebrate mass. That is our official form of divine worship." Continuing, he said: "Now listen to what he [Father O'Hern] says. Here is a man who speaks for the chaplains: 'I presume that the character of this service is more or less determined by the chaplain.'" "It is not determined by the naval committee or the Navy Department or anybody else, but the chaplain. He is an officer of rank, and his command is law; and I say that this authority given to these chaplains is going too far. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution of the United States provides that every man can worship God in this country as he pleases. This is a privilege the Constitution gives him, and I say there should not be any encroachment upon that privilege."—Congressional Record, May 2, 1914. We are glad to note that one Congressman can see the hand of Rome at work. Mr. Tribble also referred to and commented upon Father O'Hern's claim that the Catholic Church is entitled to "more than forty-one per cent of the religious leaders" in the navy. Mr. Tribble is a member of the House Naval Committee, and when the question of chaplains was before that body, he said:— "I do not see why the United States government should undertake to provide the religion of the people. I have been raised in Sunday schools and churches, and have been taught to go to church all my life, and I expect to keep it up, but I am not here to provide this body for the navy. I am here to help provide fighting forces, but I think the churches of the country ought to take care of the religious part of it." In his objection to an increase of navy chaplains, Mr. Tribble has not yet gone to the root of this difficulty. Congress has no right to appropriate money from public funds to support religious teachers. It is a violation of the principle of complete separation of church and state. At another hearing (January 20), when interrogated by a member of the committee, Mr. Witherspoon, as to whether the Protestants and Catholics on board ships were so liberal minded that Protestant and Catholic chaplains could indiscriminately minister to all efficiently, Reverend O'Hern very suavely answered:— 19'Yes, sir; I think the chaplain could minister to all. 'Mr. Witherspoon: You do? 'Father O'Hern: Yes, sir.' On the very face of it, such a declaration seems strange. Protestants and Catholics in their religious teachings have little in common. Their beliefs are widely divergent. How much dependence can be placed upon such Catholic representations is shown in another incident relating to the same question. At Annapolis, Md., is located the United States Naval Academy. The religious services at this school are conducted by one of the same chaplains that officiate on board ship. The attitude Catholics to the work of the chaplain at this academy proves that Father O'Hern's claim that a Protestant chaplain can minister to Catholics was simply a blind. The following quotation from the 'Annual Reports of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America,' page 53, explains the whole situation at the Naval Academy:— 'The secretary of the Federal Council, Rev. Charles S. Macfarland, transmitted to us a letter from the pastor of the Baptist Church of Annapolis, Md., requesting an investigation and action. The letter was a complaint that students of the United States Naval Academy being Roman Catholics were permitted to attend church services at other than the chapel of the Naval Academy, which privilege was denied to all others. The committee conferred with the Secretary of the Navy Department. 'It appears that the superintendent of the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Md., has in force an order requiring all students to attend sabbath [Sunday] worship in the chapel unless they can state in writing that they cannot conscientiously do so. The Roman Catholic students make that statement.' Will Protestants never learn that Roman Catholicism never compromises except for policy, and to get a better hold? The only safety for Protestantism is in repudiating every plan that is not Biblical, whether it be in civil or in religious affairs.