The Vietnam War​—Where Has Religion Led?

THOUSANDS of young Catholics, Protestants and members of other religions have fought in Vietnam. Many are still fighting. Clergymen minister to the men right on the battlefield. Did religion have a part in leading the men to this war?

What is the position of Protestant religions toward the conflict now? Jesuit Robert Drinan in his recent book Vietnam and Armageddon points to “the almost unanimous sentiment among Protestant theologians that the Vietnam war is morally indefensible.”² Various Protestant denominations have recently issued statements in opposition to the war.

Jewish religious organizations, too, have recently opposed the war. A heading last December in the Washington Post said: “KENSINGTON TEMPLE RESOLUTION URGES END OF VIETNAM WAR.” The resolution urged President Nixon to “set and announce a complete withdrawal of all American forces operating in and over Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.”³

The Catholic Position

What about the Roman Catholic position? Last November American bishops met in national convention, and the New York Times front-page headline reported: “U.S. CATHOLIC BISHOPS CALL FOR END TO INDOCHINA WAR.”⁴ The resolution adopted by the bishops pointed to “the destruction of human life and of moral values,” and said: “It is our firm conviction, therefore, that the speedy ending of this war is a moral imperative of the highest priority.”⁵

Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit explained that the resolution “means that the war is unjust.”⁶ Therefore, he said, anyone who agrees with the Catholic position “may not participate in this war.”⁷

From such evidence one might conclude that religion has been leading mankind away from war. But why have hundreds of thousands of young Catholics and Protestants fought in Vietnam over the years? Have they acted contrary to the guidance they have received from their religion?

Confused Guidance

Actually the opposition of religion to the Vietnam war is not as clear-cut as the foregoing may indicate. For example, Archbishop Philip Hannan of New Orleans said he was among “a considerable number of the bishops who do not fully support the resolution” recently adopted by the American bishops.⁸ So Catholics may understandably be confused as to the guidance being given even now!

It is similar with Protestant religions. In 1968 the Lutheran Church in America took a stand officially approving selective conscientious objection. However, since then Lutherans have also spoken in support of fighting in Vietnam. For example, in the 1970 spring issue of the Lutheran publication the Springfielder, professor-chaplain Martin Scharlemann writes:

“We hear it said that we must love our neighbor as ourselves. Of course, that’s right. Who could quarrel with it since it is a word of the Lord? But, there is another step to this. . . . My relationship to a North Vietnamese soldier is not a one-to-one affair. In between are two sets of loyalties: Mine to my country and his to his. I have a responsibility toward my country which outranks my concern for his; and that’s true on his side, too. Now, when he is wounded and when he is in need of my help, then once more he becomes my neighbor in the ethical sense of the New Testament. The one-to-one relationship returns.”⁹

So this minister argues that loyalty to country nullifies Christ’s command to love one’s neighbor. It certainly must be confusing to persons when their church approves conscientious objection, and yet a minister encourages fighting in the war!

One might conclude that the views of this Lutheran minister are the exception today, and that religion now directs persons away from fighting in Vietnam. But was that true five or six years ago?

Earlier View of the War

Over five years ago Roman Catholic priests across the United States were questioned by Catholic Polls, Inc. They were asked: Should the United States adopt a firm policy of winning the war in Vietnam?

The priests replied: Yes​—2,706; No​—371.¹⁰

Frequently priests spoke and acted in full support of the war effort. For example, a newspaper reported that a priest and two other clergymen sought “to convince a group of Brooklyn students that the biblical injunction against killing did not apply to the war in Viet Nam.” Robert J. McNamara, the priest, argued: “What we’re doing there is necessary to prevent oligarchy.”¹¹

Some priests took an even more active part in the war. A large page-and-a-half picture of one priest appeared in Life magazine with the boldface caption, “A Brave Priest Fighting on His Own.” The article said: “In the midst of the war, the helmeted, gun-toting figure above is a strange and heartening phenomenon​—a Catholic priest who is conducting his own private war against the Viet Cong.”¹²

Why were priests almost unanimously in favor of striving for a United States victory in Vietnam? A strong influence no doubt was the guidance given by their bishops. In November 1966 the American bishops in an official statement said: “It is reasonable to argue that our presence in Vietnam is justified. . . . We commend the valor of our men in the armed forces, and we express to them our debt of gratitude. . . . we can conscientiously support the position of our country in the present circumstances.”¹³

Some bishops spoke almost as though the war was a holy crusade. The late Francis Cardinal Spellman said that United States troops were “soldiers of Christ”¹⁴ who were fighting a war for civilization, and that “less than victory is inconceivable.”¹⁵ To persons who might question the rightness of the United States’ cause, Spellman answered: “My country right or wrong.”¹⁶

Of Spellman’s call for “victory,” George R. Davis, minister of the National City Christian Church in Washington, D.C., said: “I am in agreement.”¹⁷ Other Protestant ministers showed their agreement in various ways.

Robert Mummey, a Christian Science minister, argued in favor of the war, telling a group of university students: “Killing must be done with a pure heart, otherwise you have an immoral killing. If our soldiers were indoctrinated to hate the enemy, then to kill him would be an immoral act.”¹⁸

Clergymen also showed their support of the war by honoring those killed in action. Martin Haerther, a Des Moines, Iowa, Lutheran pastor, said at one funeral: “When a soldier dies in line of duty in a just war [Vietnam], not only is it a glorious death in the service of country but it is a blessed end for him . . . I am sure the angels were on hand to carry his soul into heaven and he is now enjoying peace.”¹⁹

Where Religion Has Led

It becomes obvious that during its early stages the churches in the United States supported the Vietnam war. And to what did this lead?

For one thing it led to members of the same religion killing one another on the battlefield. There are, for example, an estimated one million Catholics in North Vietnam. What position did the priests there take? The New York Times reported: “The pastor of the Church of St. Anthony of Padua in Hanoi, the Rev. Joseph Nguyen Van Que, . . . said that he customarily blessed young Catholics who were joining the [North Vietnam] armed forces.”²⁰ Thus members of the same religion have killed one another on the battlefields in Vietnam, and with clergy blessing!

However, as noted before, there has recently been a change. In fact, an interdenominational “Call to Penitence and Action” has been published urging an end to the war.²¹

But why have religious leaders changed their viewpoint? The answer to this question will help to reveal what often determines the position religion takes on matters, and hence where it leads mankind.

[Picture on page 6]

Some priests took an active part in the war, as did this one whose picture appeared in “Life” magazine

[Picture on page 7]

Speaking of the Vietnam war, Cardinal Spellman said that United States troops were “soldiers of Christ”

BY CONDONING the Vietnam war at first, the churches led many people to consider it proper to fight in it. But now some religious organizations and their officials condemn the war. They declare that participation in it is wrong.

Why the change? Are the churches now guiding their members to live in harmony with Bible teachings? Or do other factors determine the guidance that religion provides?

The Oregon Journal recently noted that ‘churchmen were only going along with the crowd.’²² Thus, when people expressed little opposition to the war, the churches supported it. But when the public grew disgusted with the drawn-out fighting and bloodshed, then the clergy began opposing the war.

Alden Munson, editor of the United Methodist, a publication of the Methodist Church, explained:

“An accumulation of messy affairs like My Lai and the best communication coverage of war in history have had an effect on the entire nation, and the church is finally tagging along on antiwar sentiment. . . . Estimates of civilian casualties in Vietnam since 1965 range from 1 to 4 million men, women and children, but only now are the churches beginning to express horror.”²³

Yes, it was not until the war became ‘unpopular’ that religion’s cry for “peace” grew audible. It has been noted of churches that they determine what is currently popular, and then decide their position accordingly. New York city clergyman Robert J. McCracken admitted: “We are careful not to take a stand unless we know in what direction the wind is blowing.”²⁴

Attempt to Show Consistent Leadership

The Catholic Church recently indicated that it has not changed its position on the war. It asserts that Catholic leadership never did support the Vietnam war. This claim is, in effect, made in a document released last year by the U.S. Catholic Conference (USCC), the administrative arm of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Yet even prominent Catholic theologians say that, rather than being opposed to the war, the bishops had supported it. In fact, about the same time the USCC document was released, Catholic priest Peter J. Riga, Professor of Religion at La Salle College, wrote:

“Because of their massive failure of moral leadership in the greatest moral issue of our day, these American Catholic bishops who supported this war (some 95 per cent) should resign en masse because they are no longer fit for the office; . . . he who has blood on his hands is not fit to be a minister. I say that the American Catholic bishops, by their moral failure, have the blood of men on their hands.”²⁵

Do such charges by Catholics themselves cause you to wonder about the truthfulness of what the bishops have published?

Misrepresenting the Truth

Commonweal, a Catholic magazine, discussed this matter. The writer, Catholic professor and sociologist Gordon Zahn, after studying the USCC document said:

“I must challenge it as an apparently deliberate attempt to create, by means of a highly selective approach to history, a false impression that the formal leadership of the church has been a source of consistent, though prudently restrained, opposition to the war.”²⁶

Illustrating the document’s “highly selective approach to history” is the absence in it of statements of Catholic leaders who voiced support of the war. The most significant omission is the late Cardinal Spellman’s endorsements.

In fact, the statements made by Church leaders in support of the war, omitted in this document, are so numerous that Commonweal observed: “One suspects the USCC researchers could have compiled at least as extensive a body of episcopal statements supporting the war from the archives of the New York Archdiocese alone.”²⁷

But all of such evidence was deliberately left out! Yet “simple honesty,” Commonweal said, should require the inclusion of such statements, “embarrassing though they may seem now that the full measure of that war’s immorality is there for all to see.”²⁸

Is it not apparent that the USCC document is an obvious attempt to cover up religion’s early support for what is now an unpopular war? Such dishonesty may surprise you.