Moral Injury and the Demonization of American Warriors
Despite the growth and positive changes that many veterans experienced while enduring the trauma and stress of our nation’s wars, we still come home to face disparaging narratives of American warriors. Though America’s warriors often live among our nation’s civilian society, there is an extreme cultural divide between the American warrior and the American civilian. Unfortunately, “Many well-intentioned Americans cannot even find a thread of conversation when discussing military service with a veteran other than asking about PTSD or sexual harassment in the case of female vets.”1 As Law professor Rosa Brooks lamented, “Most Americans know roughly as much about the US military as they know about the surface of the moon.”2 This cultural divide leaves many veterans feeling socially isolated and misunderstood when they reintegrate back into civilian life.
Throughout America’s young history, the general public has trusted America’s sons and daughters to the leadership and care of our elected officials and the men and women within the ranks of the Pentagon and the U.S. military. Over the last few decades, America’s trust and faith in our leaders have wavered, and rightfully so.3 However, the growing mistrust of our government has only deepened the division and isolation
between America’s citizen culture and America’s Warrior culture.4 Warriors often carry blame that belongs to political and military leaders. Because resentful Americans can never reach the political and military leaders who spend our nation’s blood and treasure on war, civilian rage and resentment are often projected onto American warriors. While American warriors returning from the Vietnam War experienced this resentment in vile and blatant ways, some warriors who served in America’s post-9/11 warfare have experienced civilian resentment in more subtle ways. Few individuals have demonized warriors more than archetypical priests and priestesses.
Moral Injury
Veterans Affairs psychiatrist Jonathan Shay wrote Odysseus in America to describe the difficult transitions Vietnam Veterans faced when returning home from foreign
battlefields. In addition to the trauma of war, many veterans suffer the
psychological burdens of moral injury. Shay defined moral injury as a “betrayal
of 'what's right' in a high-stakes situation by someone who holds power.”5 In addition to being betrayed by political and military leaders, veterans often come home to the judgment and condemnation of civilians who have no knowledge of the world beyond the pale of America's borders. Empathizing with American warriors, Shay explained,
The Vietnam Veterans that I have worked with were treated shabbily by both the political right – who scorned them as "losers," lacking the war-winning sterner stuff of the World War II generation – and by the political left, who held them responsible for everything vile or wrongheaded that led us into the war, was done during the war, or came out of the war.6 Feeling betrayed by political and military leaders and condemned by civilians deepens the psychological and spiritual wounds of moral injury.7
Jonathan Shay developed his definition of moral injury after years of empathic clinical work with veterans who had been drafted and forced to serve in Vietnam. Shay gained much of his knowledge of moral injury by listening to Vietnam Veterans share their war stories. Shay acknowledged individual moral failures, but he emphasized leadership failures, which eased the weight of guilt and shame from the minds of veterans. However, over the last decade, psychiatrists, psychologists, philosophers, and researchers have completely redefined the notion of moral injury and used this term to
judge and demonize veterans. Hodgson and Carey highlighted seventeen concepts
of moral injury that vary widely in scope and definition.8 Many of these newer definitions have removed leadership from the equation, a tactic that places the burden of our nation's collective moral failures squarely on American warriors.
Hijacking and Weaponizing Moral Injury to Demonize American Warriors
Perhaps no one in American culture is more guilty of demonizing America’s warriors than our nation’s pastors, priests, and other clergy. Moreover, psychological and concepts of moral injury have been hijacked by America’s religious priesthood. Taking on a priestly role, Warren Kinghorn a psychiatrist and associate research professor of pastoral and moral theology at Duke Divinity School defines moral injury as “the experience of having acted (or consented to others acting) incommensurably with one's most deeply held moral conceptions.”9 This definition omits moral injuries caused by bearing witness to atrocities of war, a possibility recognized by many scholars.10 Writing for “a Christian theological audience,” Kinghorn admits that the “reduction of guilt, shame, or other distressing experience is not the primary goal of Christian pastoral care.”11 He writes, “The ultimate goal of Christian pastoral and congregational care is not that the veteran should feel better but that the veteran is reconciled to God and to the Christian community.”12 Kinghorn's understanding of moral injury and pastoral goals ignore how Christian communities are often a source of shame and judgment for veterans. In fact, it is hard to imagine a more severe condemnation than a Kinghorn’s priestly accusation that warriors are separated from God.
Kinghorn’s ignorant and judgmental commentary on American warriors illustrates a systemic issue in the world of academia. Kinghorn hijacked a term developed by a VA psychiatrist – who invested many years working with Vietnam veterans – and twisted the definition to conform to his own religious morality, which allowed him to make moral judgments of veterans, most of whom he will never meet. He published these condemning accusations in a “peer reviewed” article he submitted to the Journal of Religious Health, which increased the chances that his work would be evaluated by other academics who shared his religious and moral worldview. Additionally, publishing his demonic accusations in a journal article with limited readers increased the likelihood that few American warriors would ever learn about his comments. However, many American warriors are still impacted by Kinghorn's ignorant judgments because his work continues to influence self-righteous clergy, resentful therapists, and other narcissistic moralists who work with veterans.
Collapse of Priestly Authority
Ironically, Kinghorn unleashed his ignorant pastoral commentary in a culture that has more respect for American warriors than American clergy. A 2011 Gallup poll revealed that 78% of Americans had “a great deal or quite a lot” of confident in the military, while only 48% of Americans had a similar view of the church and organized religion.13 Additionally, only 3% of Americans had a low or very low opinion of the military, while 22% of Americans had a low or extremely low view of the church or organized religion.14 Though America’s faith and trust in numerous professions have declined steadily over the last few years, most Americans still believe military officers are more honest and trustworthy than clergy. Even a January 2022, a Gallup poll showed that 61% of Americans still had a favorable view of the military while only 36% of Americans still had a positive view of the ethical standards of clergy.15 Even Christianity Today recognized that numerous scandals in both Catholic and Protestant churches have fueled our nation’s distrust in clergy.
Religious ministers of every ilk who rely on their congregants' tithes, gifts, and offerings are painfully aware of the decline in organized religion and the erosion of their
pastoral significance. In fact, one might wonder if Kinghorn’s moral judgments of American warriors are fueled by an unconscious desire to remain relevant in a culture where clergy are quickly losing moral authority and influential power. Perhaps there is no better way to create an illusion of significance than to aim ignorant and senseless
accusations at a collective group that enjoys significantly greater social favor. Regardless, psychologists, pastors, and priest have twisted the definition of moral injury in ways that demonize service members and veterans and hinder American warriors from receiving valuable mental health treatment and beneficial spiritual care.
Notes
1. Kori Schake and Jim Mattis, Warriors and Citizens: American Views of Our Military(Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, 2016), 7.
2. Schakeand Mattis, Warriors and Citizens, 22.
3. Pew Research Center, Obama Leadership Image Takes a Hit, GOP Rating Decline(Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2011),
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2011/08/25/obama-leadership-image-takes-a-hit-gop-ratings-decline/.
4. Schake and Mattis, Warriors and Citizens.
5.Jonathan Shay, Odysseus in America: Combat Trauma and the Trials ofHomecoming (New York, NY; Scriber, 2002), 240.
6. Shay, Odysseus in America, 249.
7.Jonathan Shay, Achilles in Vietnam: Combat Trauma and the Undoing ofCharacter (New York, NY; Scriber, 1994); Shay, Odysseus in America.
8. Timothy J. Hodgson and Lindsay B. Carey, Moral Injury and Definitional Clarity:
Betrayal, Spirituality and the Role of Chaplains, Journal of Religious Health 56 (2017), 1212-1228.
9. Warren Kinghorn, Combat Trauma and Moral Fragmentation: A Theological Account of Moral
Injury, Journal of the Society of Christian Ethics 32,2 (2012), 57.
10. Hodgson and Carey, Moral Injury and Definitional Clarity.
11. Kinghorn, Combat Trauma and Moral Fragmentation, 70.
12. Kinghorn, Combat Trauma and Moral Fragmentation, 70.
13. Jeffery M. Jones, Americans Most Confident in Military, Least in Congress
(Washington, DC: Gallup, 2011),
https://news.gallup.com/poll/148163/americans-confident-military-least-congress.aspx.
14. Jones, Americans Most Confident in Military, Least in Congress.
15. Lydia Saad, Military Brass, Judges Among Professions at New Image Lows
(Washington, DC: Gallup, 2022),
https://news.gallup.com/poll/388649/military-brass-judges-among-professions-new-image-lows.aspx.