Do RN Chaplains want to be armed? (Daily Mail)

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by stumpy, Nov 20, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:



    Army chaplains want right to carry weapons to protect themselves against the Taliban
    by MATTHEW HICKLEY - More by this author »

    Last updated at 20:28pm on 20th November 2007

    British military chaplains in Afghanistan are urging an historic change in the rules to allow them to carry weapons when out on patrol alongside troops fighting the Taliban, because of the risk of capture.

    For the first time in any theatre of conflict chaplains are no longer considered to be protected by the rules of war, because of the propaganda Taliban extremists would gain from showing "trophy" footage of a captive Christian priest.

    By long tradition, clergy serving in Britain's armed forces have not carried weapons in war-zones, but now some Royal Navy Commando chaplains want to be allowed to carry a side-arm, stating that as a last resort they would rather take their own life than fall into the hands of the Taliban.

    The issue has sparked an intense debate within the chaplain community, where some oppose the move on principle.

    Under the Geneva Convention all military chaplains are 'non-combatants' and are granted certain protections if taken prisoner, but in Afghanistan such rules are irrelevant since the Taliban pay no heed to international law or the Convention.

    UK forces in Afghanistan have already stopped observing one requirement of the Geneva Convention, as for the first time both chaplains and frontline medics have abandoned their traditional Red Cross arm bands when out in the field.

    The assessment by commanders is that far from enjoying any protection, anyone wearing the Red Cross would be at greater risk from the enemy.

    So far the firearms debate only involves Royal Navy Commando chaplains who minister to the Royal Marines, currently fighting and working to build security in southern Afghanistan.

    Commando chaplains routinely visit forward operating bases to conduct services and offer pastoral support, and unlike most of their Army counterparts they also join troops on patrols in order to share and understand their experiences.

    Uniquely among military clergy they have all completed the same training as their "flock" - in this case the gruelling 32-week Commando training course - enabling them to live and work on the frontline without being a burden to the men or their commanders.

    Without Red Cross armbands they are now indistinguishable within a group of Marines, wearing identical uniform, body armour and helmets.

    During training they are taught to handle and fire SA-80 assault rifles and pistols, because as trained first-aiders they are allowed to use a wounded Marine's own weapon to protect him on a battlefield.

    But now some chaplains are pressing for the rules barring them from carrying their own personal weapon to be relaxed - specifically within Afghanistan, because of the nature of the enemy - giving them the discretion to take a sidearm on patrol.

    There are about a dozen chaplains in Afghanistan.

    The Revd Stuart Hallam, (Church of England) Royal Navy Chaplain to 40 Commando, currently serving in Afghanistan, is one of those in favour.

    He told the Mail: "For the first time in any theatre of war we are seen as a legitimate target by the enemy.

    "We are already effectively breaking the Geneva Convention by not wearing red arm bands. Maybe we're passed gentlemen's agreements, and have to re-think the way we go about our ministry in this kind of conflict.

    "The Convention itself doesn't actually prohibit us from carrying a weapon, but long tradition and UK military rules do, and the issue has divided the chaplain community.

    "For Commando chaplains our ethos is that to serve our people we have to be able to go through what they go through, which includes patrolling on the ground.

    "In theory if we're captured in war we are supposed to be allowed to go about our ministry among prisoners. But that's a very long way from the reality in Afghanistan."

    He added: "It's very unlikely we could be captured here, but if we were, the Taliban may well use us for publicity, and then probably execute us - just as they probably would any other coalition serviceman.

    "I don't think I could put my wife through that. I personally would not want to let myself be captured.

    "For that reason I think we should be pragmatic over sidearms. None of us are comfortable with this, and there are those who think it's going too far.

    "But it's a debate which needs resolving, because of the kind of operations the Royal Marines are carrying out and are likely to in the years ahead."

    Monsignor Paul Donovan, (Roman Catholic) Director of the Naval Chaplaincy Service (Operations), said: "The Chaplain on the ground needs to make the judgement whether the Red Cross symbol, which is meant to afford protection under the Geneva Convention, instead stands him in greater danger.

    "Whilst some other nations do arm their chaplains as a matter of course, current British practice is not to."

    Military chaplains - commonly known as Padres - have a proud history of supporting Britain's frontline forces often at great personal risk, and some have been decorated for extreme valour in helping wounded troops under fire.

    In World War Two 134 British and Commonwealth Padres were killed, and chaplains followed the troops ashore on D-Day and jumped with Paratroopers behind enemy..."
  2. A minor point but typical that the Daily Mail has a large article all about Royal Navy Chaplains...then calls them Army on the title!

    But seriously, this is a major issue. What do you think?
  3. It seems rather hypocritical. It also makes one question if their faith is genuine. If you believe in God's Will and get captured, surely that should be seen as a test of your faith?* In Jesus's time being a Christian was a very risky business as Christians were persecuted and faced being killed for their beliefs. Today Christianity is the norm and the persecution and, in some places, the killings, are being carried out by the Christians (eg Robert Mugabe).

    *I personally regard it as foolhardy in the extreme, but after all Priests' own position has been compromised by their leaders' insistence (in Britain & Europe) that where the majority are Christian, Christian moral norms should be prevail and be enshrined in law. In Afghanistan the majority are Muslim. If the Taleban, who are, after all, natives of the country, choose to enforce their moral norms on Christians, who are we to condemn them? As Jesus said: Do to others as you would have done to yourselves.

    End of being Mr Nasty.
  4. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    As one of the Padre's said, he doesn't want his missus having to watch him in an orange jump suit on telly.

    It's a matter of personal choice, I can see no problem with it.
  5. Having reread the article it seems that it is not the fear of being captured or killed that is the issue, but rather sparing their wife having to watch their execution.

    A tough decision. I think that they shouldn't be armed, but it is easy to say that sitting at home in my dressing gown just before I go upstairs to a nice warm bed, rather than being somewhere hot and sandy.
  6. Wives!!??...

    Oh I forgot, proddie priests can marry... ;) Still a bit of a shock though.
  7. This is not without precedent. I have spoken to a Chaplain who carried a weapon in Vietnam for much the same reasons. The VC /PAVN were no respecters of the clergy or the Red Cross and he considered it his duty to defend himself and the wounded he looked after.

    I doubt God has a problem with that.
  8. Fair point!
  9. Yes the sin bosuns should be armed but, would you have given the "porn sin bosun" a weapon??
  10. I would leave it up to the individual Padre concerned. If they wanted to carry a side arm then let them, those that don't want it, don't force them to carry one.
  11. Did I read correctly that the side arm was to use to commit suicide rather than be captured? Surely anyone daft enough to believe in a supreme being would consider this a mortal sin?
  12. IMHO its got to be down to indivudual choice.

    One thought did occur to me and that is if they are no longer wearing red cross armbands then by not carrying a weapon on patrol, they are still singling themselves out as every other member of the foot patrol will be armed.

    As an aside, one of the best shots I ever encountered in the mob was a padre, he was an exceptional shot with an SLR, put me in my place on several occasions.

    Anyway safe trip to all those in hot dusty places
  13. I think it clearly should be down to the concsience of the individual. What ever ones views of their beliefs these guys do wonderful work for the man they minister to and are among the few god botherers I have respect for.

    Thingy, remeber some of the other padres may be women too.
  14. Slapdown accepted. My dealings with Service chaplains have usually been cordial and as one who has been involved with many hundreds of bereaved families, I do appreciate their work. Still don't believe what they do, though.
  15. You don't have to agree to respect.

    I might add I have also known a few ministers who have worked just as hard for non believers in their parish as they would have done for church members. AS I said not my scene but respect where it's due.
  16. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    I think this whole thing is the wrong way up. Any Service person sent into danger by the Govt surely has the right to the best protection and means of self-defence obtainable. If some individual Chaplains by reason of their individual belief then CHOOSE not to bear arms this has to be respected, subject to the Command's assessment that by so doing they do not increase the physical risk to their comrades.

    The RC church's long support for Irish terrorist murderers suggests that not all branches of Christianity (if indeed it is one - I have my doubts) think alike on the question of taking life.
  17. Notwithstanding the place of priests/padres/rabbis/imams in the Forces, which has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads, one observation: the UK/US/NATO/Allies are not fighting this "war" as a religious war against Islam. If the Taleban/AQ choose to single out priests for "special" treatment, it is they who are effectively fighting a religious war against Christianity.

    Now the Bible is quite explicit on the case: thou shalt not commit murder. Nothing there about self-defence, nothing there about suicide. Surely carrying a weapon (well, using a weapon against another person) is tantamount to breaching one of the founding tenets of Judeo-Christianity?

    But dogma aside, if the priest is in theatre, then it should be up to their conscience whether to be armed. Given that they might be in the position of having to fire to save the life of one of their flock, it would seem apt.
  18. And to echo that, Paul Donovan is very much a dark blue-suited Bish.
  19. What a preposterous idea a ‘Devil Dodger’ carrying a gun and being prepared to use it, if they did that it would mean that they would be prepared to break one of the commandments, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ and since when did the Padre start going into action in Helmand Province with the lads?
  20. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    40's padre obviously is. I dont think the issue is padres going on patrol trying to slot taliban but more about if they get caught.

Share This Page