IHM: Draft Board

Peace and Global Solidarity

IHM Peacemaker Lends Her Perspective to Local Draft Board

By Barb Beesley, IHM

Six years ago a church friend who was in the military made a strange request of me. He asked that I consider applying to serve on a local draft (Selective Service System) board. I am pretty well defined as one who works arduously for peace and is a critic of war. Tom was concerned that there be persons on a local board who would have empathy for those coming before them for deferments or exemptions. This could include, in the unlikely event of a draft, medical personnel, those training for or serving in religious capacities, or those seeking conscientious objector status.

The pastoral challenge pulled and I submitted my application. I was accepted and trained to be one of five draft board representatives. The commitment involves annual, local day-long or half-day trainings with military personnel and other citizen volunteers. We have different perspectives and experiences, but share a common commitment to provide a good ear and sound judgment should a draft be called. I was particularly moved by the experiences that some women with disabled veteran husbands shared and how that influenced their listening.

The trainings provide criteria for decision making, but a lot depends upon how each member "reads" the candidate before them their sincerity, truthfulness and how closely their situation meets the criteria. I was struck by my experience at one training which involved a hypothetical conscientious objector candidate who was very nervous. The judgment of the simulated board broke down along gender lines. The men read the nervousness as a bad sign, perhaps insincerity. The women supported the candidate's claim sensing the nervousness reflected the seriousness of a situation in which one's life might be on the line.

My contribution became the reason why I decided to resign after five years. SSS criteria for conscientious objector status requires that an applicant be morally opposed to all wars. However, that is not how mainline Christian moral theology has viewed it for centuries. According to Just War Theory, the justification or morality of a war is assessed on the basis of five principles. This means, for example, that someone seeking to become a conscientious objector based upon his belief that the war in Iraq was unjust would be denied CO status if he could not prove absolute moral opposition to all wars. Personally, I would tend to agree with Tom Gumbleton's position that all wars are unjust given our inability to limit the damage to either people or the environment. But that is not the prevailing stance of Just War Theory.

My contribution, at least as I saw it, was to continually raise the contradiction between the SSS definition and that which is commonly understood by mainstream churches. It was suggested that I work through Congress to get the definition changed. Though necessary, that seemed like a bit of a tall order. If I had remained on a board and if that board was ever actuated, I would have voted my conscience. That vote would have delayed a final decision but when the case went to the state level, the SSS criteria would ultimately prevail.

I came to know some fine military men and concerned citizens through this work. It presented an opportunity to do collective decision making, something that being an IHM has well equipped me to do! If anyone would like to consider this form of service, please feel free to contact me.

Two Pax Christi members, Eli McCarthy and Charles McCarthy, have authored a letter on the topic of selective conscientious objection. They outline Catholic teaching on the subject as they call on the U.S. Catholic Bishops to initiate an educational campaign on selective conscientious objection. They are looking for more signatures!

To read the letter and add your name, click here.