# Synodical Conference Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1954_S62
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

62 Proceedings of the Forty-Third Convention,

pertinent section of the chaplaincy article in Another Fraternal
Endeavor, pp. 51£., where the following statements are made: “Our
military chaplains are functioning in a dual capacity. They are,
on the one hand, appointed by the government to promote religion
and morality in the Armed Forces; and, on the other hand, they
are called by the Church to administer the Office of the Keys in
behalf of the local congregations. ... The government is not
thereby taking over the work of the Church... . The government
is interested only in adding greater efficiency to those engaged in
the military defense of the country.... The government does not
make it the duty of the chaplain to preach the Word, to administer
the Sacraments and do the work of a minister of the Gospel... .
It pays him not for doing what we call church work, but for the
service rendered ‘to promote religion, morality, patriotism, good
morale and the principles of the character guidance program,’ ”
From these premises the conclusion is drawn that the chaplaincy
system is one “fully safeguarding the principle of separation of
Church and State.” And the claim: “The government recognizes
this part of the chaplain’s position,” is based on the stipulation:
“The chaplain’s spiritual authority .. . is imparted in the ordination
that his denomination has given him” (Manual, p.3).

We, however, know of no sound basis for the assumption that
the government in the chaplaincy system is limiting its interest
and concern exclusively to morals and morale and is not involving
itself in spiritual matters. Able students of this aspect of con-
stitutional law, in tracing the origin and justifying the existence
of the system, speak differently. Leo Pfeffer in Church, State and
Freedom, e. g., says, p. 475: “As far as the government is concerned
there may appear to be a conflict between the two aspects of the
First Amendment, separation of state and church and religious
freedom, in regard to chaplaincy. Furnishing the services of a
government-paid chaplain to members of the armed services may
violate the mandate of separation; but depriving a conscripted
sailor of the opportunity to obtain spiritual comfort from a pastor
of his faith may unnecessarily violate the mandate of freedom.”
Not only is the opinion rendered that the chaplaincy may violate
the principle of separation, but also, what is more to the point here,
the system is justified, not on the grounds of the government’s
interest in civic righteousness, but by reason of its desire to provide
opportunity for spiritual comfort. Can one insist that “the gov-
ernment does not make it the duty of the chaplain to preach the
Word” when the Manual requires that opportunities for the public
worship of God be provided (cf. Manual, p.1), that explanation
for every omission of a Sunday service be made (cf. Manual, p. 4),
that a Protestant service be held (cf. Manual, p.4)? How valid
is the statement that the government does not pay the chaplain
“for doing what we call church work” when the Manual has definite
stipulations regarding communion, baptisms, funerals?

Do military regulations really indicate that chaplains are
functioning “in a dual capacity,” whereby they are in the eyes
of the state mere promoters of civic righteousness and all their
spiritual work is placed far beyond the reach and concern of the
government? Regulations require of the chaplain many duties that
lie in the area of civic righteousness, but also many others that
involve true spiritual work. Regulations do trace the “chaplain’s