The archbishop for the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA, has said it would be “morally acceptable” for U.S. service members to disobey orders that conflict with their conscience if ordered into actions the Catholic Church considers unjust — comments that came as President Donald Trump’s repeated threats over Greenland and other foreign policy moves draw increasing concern.
Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio said this week that seizing Greenland “does not seem really reasonable” and could create a moral dilemma for Catholic troops, arguing that Catholic teaching allows conscientious refusal in the case of an unjust attack on a friendly nation.
“Within the realm of their own conscience, it would be morally acceptable to disobey that order,” Broglio told the BBC, while acknowledging that the practical difficulty and potential career consequences for individual service members would be significant.
“It would be very difficult for a soldier or a Marine or a sailor to by himself disobey an order. But strictly speaking, he or she would be, within the realm of their own conscience, it would be morally acceptable to disobey that order, but that’s perhaps putting that individual in an untenable situation, and that’s my concern.”
Asked whether he was “worried” about the troops in the archdiocese he oversees, Broglio said yes: “I am obviously worried because they could be put in a situation where they’re being ordered to do something which is morally questionable.”
“Greenland is a territory of Denmark,” he said. “It does not seem reasonable that the United States would attack and occupy a friendly nation.”
His comments reflect a long-standing Catholic teaching that combatants should not be compelled to follow orders they believe are clearly immoral or unjust, a principle rooted in just war theory and conscience rights. Broglio has previously voiced concern about moral limits on military action, including the view that no one can be ordered to commit an immoral act.
The remarks come amid escalating debate over Trump’s aggressive foreign policy, including proposals to bring Greenland under U.S. control, recent military engagements, and broader concerns raised by other Catholic leaders — including Pope Leo XIV and several U.S. cardinals — about the moral foundation of using force in international affairs.
The archbishop emphasized that while service members swear to obey the president and their officers, their higher oath is to “support and defend the Constitution” — and that they are not required to follow orders that are plainly unlawful, a standard rooted in military law.
READ NEXT: Legal Shockwave Threatens Major Government Agency
get a new archbishop this one is out of line.
The higher levels of the Catholic Church are corrupt. No one should listen to anyone archbishop or higher.
In 1966, when I was in boot camp in the Marine Corp, we were told that any illegal order that we were given could be ignored.
But we were also told that if we ignored that order, and it was later found to actually be legal, we could find ourselves in prison.
That’s the point! Is it legal, or does some person just want to call it illegal?
The military can not run it’s operations on the whims of an individual who just disagrees with an order. Is the order according to the Constitution? Is it legal?
While obeying orders are important to good military order, it must be considered carefully by all military people whether they can prove their reasons for what could be called insubordination.
Disobey and be ready to PROVE why that was done. Otherwise there will be MAJOR problems for that person.
People are not forced to join the military. If military orders are not liked … just don’t join up.
When will the Catholic Church claim it is immoral to pay taxes used to kill babies in the womb?
Well, they can feel free to take their moral dilemma AND their bodies OUT of the military.
Daughter of a Korean War Vet here (RIP Dad)
Sorry, but if you enlist, then you SERVE, PERIOD. “Morally acceptable” to me means the person is unfit to join the military if they have a problem with WAR.. It has nothing to do with morals, especially since “morals” are subjective. Take an Ethics Class sometime.
We already went through this conversation DECADES ago.
A conscientious objector is a person who refuses military service, especially during conscription, due to deeply held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs against war, killing, or bearing arms.
Key aspects of moral:
Relating to Right & Wrong: Concerned with human behavior’s ethical dimension, distinguishing good from bad.
Conforming to Standards: Adhering to accepted rules of conduct, like being an honest or virtuous person.
Conscience-Based: Arising from an inner sense of duty or conviction, not just external laws.
Teaching a Lesson: Conveying a message about proper behavior, as in “the moral of the story”.
Psychological Effect: Having strong impact without physical force, like “moral support”.
Virtual/Probable: Referring to something that is virtually certain or highly probable, like a “moral certainty”.
Dictionary
A. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
“the moral dimensions of medical intervention” B. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.
“he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person”
Similar:
virtuous, good, righteous, upright, upstanding, high-minded, right-minded; principled, proper, honorable, honest, just, , noble, incorruptible, scrupulous, respectable, , decent, irreproachable
truthful, law-abiding, clean-living. chaste, pure, blameless, sinless
Opposite:
immoral, bad, dishonorable
I wonder if the Arch Bishop is aware that the United States invaded and occupied Greenland on April 9, 1941 and Iceland on July 17, 1941.
Greenland was occupied over the objections of the government of Denmark, which had full sovereignty over Greenland.
Iceland was occupied over the objections of the semi-independent government of Iceland (Danish-Icelandic Union) and the government of Denmark.
That was prior to our entry in WWII and we were not at war with anyone at that time.
It was done solely on the authority of the President of the United States.
There was no declaration of war by Congress and the actions were not otherwise authorized by Congress.
Under the interpretation of today’s “progressives” these acts were “illegal” and “immoral”.
Those “immoral” and “illegal” actions kept Germany from owning the North Atlantic in WWII.
This would have cut off Britain and Russia from American aid.
Without American aid Nazi Germany would have defeated Britain and Russia.
Much of the world would be subject to Nazi morality.