Can a Soldier Disobey Illegal Orders?

Only a Dictatorship dares to insist that soldiers must obey every order without question regardless of morality or legality. For over a century, the world has had a category of military action that we call a "War Crime." While every soldier swears to obey all legal orders given by his superiors, it is explicitly stated that those orders must be LEGAL. If our American Senators want to go on record saying publicly that our soldiers have the right to refuse to obey illegal orders, that is their right, and they are absolutely correct. The POTUS has no business to castigate or threaten them for publicizing the Truth. 

It has been a cornerstone of our military ever since Vietnam to give our troops the right to refuse illegal orders. Why? That is because we hold them accountable for their actions in carrying out those orders. Any soldier who performs an illegal act, whether in combat or not, can be prosecuted in a court martial. 

Since saying, "I was only following orders" is not a valid excuse, it follows that any soldier must have the right to discern what constitutes an illegal order and decide whether he will obey. If he does not know the law, but his informed conscience rejects his orders, he can choose to run the risk of being court-martialed and defending his actions. But if he loses, he must accept punishment, and take solace from knowing he did not abandon his conscience. He cannot use religious faith as an excuse for pacifism, however, because that would have excluded him from accepting military service from the start.

Does no one remember Lt. Callie and the massacre of the village of My Lai? Come on, people! It has only been 60 years since we got a conscience. Back then, we had to look to the history of WWI and WWII to show why mindless obedience to any order, regardless of morality or legality, is wrong. The World outlawed offensive gas weapons and intentionally harming non-combatant civilians, as well as attacking wounded or surrendering enemy soldiers, as part of the Geneva Convention. Merely giving such an order is a war crime subject to disciplinary action or court martial. Certainly, no action can be taken against a subordinate who dares to adhere to his conscience and refuse. 

The question has recently arisen in the kangaroo court of public opinion as to whether the Senators who have dared to support disobedience to illegal orders in the military should be shamed or disbarred or prosecuted for treason. The suggestion implies that the US President, as Commander-in-Chief, can give any order without exception, and demand that it be obeyed without question. That is the position taken by an authority that claims absolute power. Have you voted for a dictator?

I Did Not! And I vote Republican! Nonetheless, I support allowing our soldiers to decide what they believe is right or wrong. If you ever dare to prosecute them for disobeying an illegal order, you also deserve the firing squad. They not only have the right; they have an obligation to refuse when the order is illegal. Justice is Universal, and Morality is Absolute. He took an oath to obey. Yes, but he also has a conscience. Of course, he must follow orders, but you can't give an order to murder civilians, or any other war crime.

If you are looking for political scapegoats to blame for our present problems, we can discuss how the Democrat predecessors left open the floodgates to admit a million or more illegal migrants without vetting whether they were enemies of the State. We know for certain that drug smugglers and ideological terrorists used that opportunity to enter without being challenged. Do you dare to suggest that a Senator could be tried for treason? That failure to uphold essential Law and the Constitutional duty to protect the country could easily be construed as treason, ... by the Democrats' chosen President and his advisors, from the VP to the Cabinet and on down the line. That dereliction of duty was ordered and condoned by the entire Party leadership.

But that is not my topic. Military Justice is the point in question. I have brought this up, as a reminder of the laws of our Democratic Republic. The soldiers who have volunteered to defend our country have the inalienable human right to take counsel with their conscience and their knowledge of the Law to discern whether every order given them is proper and legal. They have the right to refuse any illegal order. They may have an obligation to try to thwart obedience to orders that would place the United States under the interdict of an International War Crimes Tribunal. But above all, they have the right to obey their conscience, and to defend their actions before a court martial if they are subjected to discipline. They can not be summarily prosecuted without full legal procedures being followed. That would be a Crime Against Humanity. We do not live under a dictatorship. Let's not be foolish enough to allow this great nation to become one.

. 

Catholics have Grown Too Close to Mary?

 The new Pope, Leo XIV, has just declared in his encyclical, "Mater Populi Fidelis," that we must no longer say "Co-Redemptrix" when speaking of Mother Mary. He says, Mary does not have a role as dispensor of divine grace effective for salvation alongside Jesus. This has caused a great stir among Catholics, but it's about time that they heard this Truth. There can be no Co-Redeemer. Jesus is our only Saviour. Mary can be our most favorite patron, always able to help in prayer, but she must not be regarded as more holy or majestic than other saints, even if she is the first among equals. With this correction, we are nearing the place where the narrow gate exits from the broad highway to perdition. For centuries, most Protestants have been warning that Marian devotion has gone too far. She was happy in her proper place, for behold, she stands right next to the narrow gate, pointing us toward her God, Jesus.

But let us not demote her below what she deserves. We can, and should remember that the earliest Councils agreed that she could wear the title "Theotokos," God-bearer. Plus, our creeds state that we believe in the Communion of Saints. If they can speak to us and pray for us, then so can the Mother of God. No, she isn't in any way divine, but who is the mother wearing the crown of 12 stars in the book of Revelation, if it isn't the Queen of Heaven? Every King has a Queen, and in the Hebrew tradition, she is the King's mother. Still, there is a difference between veneration and worship. Mary is fully and only human, like us, and we should know where we must draw the line in our devotions.

Part 2.

While we want to agree that Jesus was conceived without original sin, it was not due to Mary's being miraculously conceived without sex. Excessive piety does not lend itself to good theology. It makes nonsense of the Virgin Birth of Jesus to push the virtue of conception by the Holy Spirit back a generation. The non-canonical "Proto-evangelion of James" was written under an assumed pseudonym in the late 2nd century. It was not authored by any of Jesus' disciples, and is not to be trusted as the basis of tradition.

Mary was born like every other Jewish girl of her time. What was different about her was her obedience, her piety, and her exceptional purity. She was exceptionally chaste in her morality and personal dedication to God. Her heart was "in the right place" and she was ready to respond without reserve to God's request. She had true faith in God, as uncompromising allegiance and total, complete trust in his word and promises.

Rather, in the moment that Mary agreed to become pregnant by the Holy Spirit, God retroactively removed the stain of original sin to make her pure so that Jesus would not receive the curse. "Let it be done to me according to thy Word" was all of the faith needed for God to count her as righteous, and she was cleansed. The curse was not part of the original template of Humanity, the first Adam, so that could be removed to allow the Holy Spirit to be involved in the conception. Thus, without original sin, Jesus was 100% human - and by his conception according to God's plan - also 100% Divine. 

As a paragon of virtue, Mary was, and is, an impeccable role model, but she was as human as anyone else. We do not even have the least suggestion that she committed any sin after Jesus was born, but we don't have to assert that she was forever perfectly without fault. Like all parents, she did the best that she could, and it was good enough. Jesus was happy enough to honor her wishes when she asked Him for a favor.

Part 3.

If you believe in the "Communion of Saints," Mary is a perfectly valid saint to whom we may address our petitions for prayer and aid, so long as we always acknowledge that all aid and blessings come from God alone. She may be the titular "Queen of Heaven," but she is an ordinary human, not an alternative Mediator between us and God. That is Jesus' job, and He needs no assistance. Her prayers are the same as if we asked a particularly holy friend to pray for us. The benefit of the communion of saints is that we have a whole host of people already in Heaven who can pray for us, and if He chooses, Jesus can send one of them, like an angel, to speak to us. 

Do you ask your family and friends to pray for you? If so, then you DO believe in the Communion of Saints. The Saints are as alive in Heaven as you hope to be. So, since they have all the time of eternity, they are happy to pray for us if we ask. It's not as if they are too busy. They don't have to possess divine attributes to have this ability, they only need a compassionate heart. Denying the Communion of Saints is like denying that children have guardian angels who "always behold the face of the Father." Angels don't pray for us, as that isn't their job (usually), but our friends and patron saints do... and so does Mother Mary, if you ask. It's a privilege to be able to ask the Queen of Heaven for favors.

Part 4.

But those are not the only superfluous issues brought in by the "magisterial tradition." We do not need to assert Mary's "perpetual virginity" after Jesus was born. The Bible stories are unclear as to whether his "brothers" were Joseph's sons from a previous family, a few close cousins, or possibly younger siblings. There are no Scriptures upon which to base a firm conclusion. However, private faith may be allowed to presume in favor of Mary's extended piety, so long as it does not become a "traditional" article of faith that the Church demands for universal assent. 

Another doctrine which has recently been given magisterial status is the Assumption of Mary into Heaven. There is zero evidence of this teaching in the history of the Church before the late 4th century. In fact, the earliest mentions seem to have come from heretical gnostic gospels, and the story became more and more elaborate and beautiful to satisfy the emotional devotions of pagan converts. There is no mention of this anywhere in the canonical Scriptures, and it serves no purpose in the Gospel. Believing this does not aid in salvation, but it does promote idolatry toward Mary. Just because we don't know where her mortal remains lie, making the very earth sacred around her, that doesn't mean her body is already risen. We all must be patient until Jesus returns. 

I am not raising these criticisms of Catholic doctrine in order to cast aspersions on Catholics or the Church. Rather, I am pointing out a few impediments that keep the various factions of Christianity from coming back together. We are indeed the Body of Christ on this Earth, and we should not be mired in controversy. If there is a way to meet in communion and piety without tripping and arguing about nonessential points of doctrine, we should do that. The trouble is that the veneration of Mary has become, for Catholics, almost a second gospel. But, as St Paul asserted in his letter to the Corinthians, there can be no other gospel alongside the true Gospel of Jesus Christ taught by himself and the Apostles. Even the Church is not allowed to change what was originally given for us to believe and be saved. 

The Catholic Church needs to rethink what they regard as essential points of doctrine and faith, and Pope Leo XIV has begun this long overdue process. We must remember that later ideas and developments should be carried lightly, especially those points of tradition that have accumulated over the centuries to become added doctrines long after the Apostolic Fathers have achieved Heaven. If those teachings had been necessary, Christ's Apostles would have given them to us in the beginning. And surely, the Scriptures must contain all that is needed for our salvation, or the canon would never have closed. The Church Fathers knew that they had enough. They were not praying for more revelations. They were only waiting for Jesus to return. In their time, there were various heresies to combat and theological ideas to clarify, but once the Church itself split, in 1054, the required consensus became moot.

Part 5.

We must also be wary today of the shifting sands of our modern times creeping in over the threshold of the Church. In their attempt to reflect the unconditional love of Christ's Mother, many of our leaders have left the door wide open to welcome unrepentant sinners and embrace them without calling out their sins. While the Church has always welcomed sinners, it is our task to bring them to realize that our God demands holiness. He wants our obedience to his standards of good and evil, right and wrong. When we disregard the Way that He wants us to live, and make up our own rules, we should not be surprised that our Holy God is offended. His Commandments are meant to guide us for our own good. If we deny them, we deny Him. 

Yes, we are all sinners, and yes, we are supposed to welcome sinners into the Church, but the Message of God's Kingdom is that we must Repent, and seek his righteousness. If we welcome those who have no intention to seek to please God with obedience, then we leave the Gospel open to mockery and trampling by pigs. And worse, if we care so little for sanctification that we go out and associate with them in the world, we ourselves will find that our washed garments are getting soiled by their mud. 

The message of the Gospel is that Jesus died to save us from our bondage to sin and the wrath of God due to that sin. We respond by picking up the freedom He offers and changing our lives to follow what He shows us will please God. If we do not seek to become holy, to receive the righteousness that Jesus offers, we have rejected his good news. If we deny the Truth of God's Law, and reject his love and mercy, we are thus refusing to enter his Kingdom, and we do not deserve a seat in his Church. 

What the Holy Spirit teaches us today is how the teachings of Scripture can be applied to our daily lives. That is what we need to hear for the edification of our minds and the sanctification of our souls. The Holy Spirit grants us the power to make daily repentance and to grow in holiness. Then, when we must appear before the Judgment seat, King Jesus will greet us as friends. And later, when we look around in Heaven we will find his Mother seated near his Throne.