Experiences of moral stress discussed in military chaplaincy careTopics that soldiers and veterans bring up in chaplaincy conversations

In two cases the conversation centers around religious questions (case 9 and case 11), and in two other cases morally injurious events during deployment in the past are brought up in the conversation with the chaplain (case 5 and case 3). However, most of the questions, struggles, and problems that soldiers bring up in the case descriptions fall into two categories: they either concern frictions with the military organization or have to do with family members or loved ones. Regarding the first category, soldiers express a lack of appreciation from the organization or a lack of support for work-related struggles. For instance, in one case, a soldier struggling with physical problems due to deployment feels humiliated for having been placed in a position of lower rank (case 5). In another case, a soldier who has just learned that he is to be dismissed expresses his discontent: “I do not want to judge, but then I see colleagues perform worse than me, and I wonder: why me?” (case 1). Sometimes, frictions with the organization are interrelated with difficulties with colleagues, for instance in the case where a soldier feels “treated like a child” by superiors (case 2). As for the second category, in a majority of the cases problems with or worries about loved ones or family members are the central issue. Often, soldiers struggle with a romantic relationship, wondering whether or not to end the relationship, or they struggle with the impact that their work has on their family life. Sometimes, issues from both categories are interrelated. In case 1, for instance, a soldier who is about to be dismissed also worries about the effects the news will have on his wife and child.

‘Being a soldier’ as a core value in systemic, interpersonal, and intrapsychic moral stress

Many of the issues that soldiers bring up in conversations with chaplains – lack of recognition, support, or care from the organization where they are employed and relational issues – may seem to be relatively common issues that people struggle with. If we take a closer look from a perspective of moral stress, however, we see that the military context often plays a central role in these issues. Frictions between soldiers and the military organization, for instance, can be understood as experiences of systemic moral stress, where core values associated with ‘being a soldier’ conflict with the way in which the military organization functions. In the case descriptions it is often emphasized that, for soldiers, working in the military means more than just having a job. Often, they have spent all of their working life in the military, and their job has become a vital part of their identity. One soldier phrases this as follows: “When I started working for the Ministry of Defense, this gave my life structure. I felt at home. Actually, there is no other job that I am good at. I really thought I would grow old working here” (case 1). ‘Being a soldier’ represents a core value of soldiers, not just in their working life; it is something they identify with as a person. Therefore, a lack of recognition or care from the military organization is especially painful and unsettling. It leads to feelings of indignation and humiliation that fuel experiences of systemic moral stress. In one case, a soldier points out that he has always been loyal to the organization and has made sacrifices while working, losing his health and eventually becoming unable to work (case 6). It is extremely painful for him that these losses were never taken seriously by the organization for which he made the sacrifices. The importance of ‘being a soldier’ is also emphasized by the reluctance of soldiers in several case descriptions to consider the possibility of working outside of the military even though they feel unappreciated by the military organization.

At the interpersonal level, moral stress similar to that at the systemic level is at play in friction with colleagues. Core values associated with ‘being a soldier’ conflict with the actions and attitudes of colleagues who, for instance, do not recognize that the soldiers are good at their job or who do not provide collegial support. Again, feelings that soldiers express in relation to these types of moral stress are indignation and humiliation. Issues that soldiers raise in relation to family and loved ones also represent interpersonal moral stress. In a few cases, these issues are common problems that are not typical for soldiers, for instance when a soldier struggles with the death of his mother (case 10). In most cases, however, core values associated with ‘being a soldier’ again play a role, conflicting with notions that the other has of ‘having a good relationship’ or ‘being a good family member’. At times these conflicts have to do with the specific demands and circumstances of the military profession – in particular, being away from home for extended periods of time. For instance, in one case a soldier who is on training for a few weeks tells the chaplain that he has ended his relationship with his girlfriend (case 7). He has done this quite abruptly, by phone, even though he is not sure whether he wanted the relationship to end and feels this was not a good way to end a relationship. However, his girlfriend demanded clarity, and he did not see another option: “It’s not ideal, I know, but I had no choice – everything here [work during his training] has to go on”. In another case, a veteran who had served during World War II and in the Dutch Indies speaks about the pressure that his military past had put on his relationship with his late wife (case 3). He calls her “pure goodness” and explains that he could not bring himself to tell her about his experiences as a soldier. He expresses feelings of shame and guilt, emotions which can also be found in other case descriptions where interpersonal moral stress derives from the notion of having wronged a loved one.

In the cases, moral stress at an intrapsychic level is always related to either interpersonal or systemic moral stress. Interpersonal moral stress is intertwined with intrapsychic moral stress when core values associated with ‘being a soldier’ not only conflict with the other’s view of what a ‘good relationship’ between them should look like but also with the soldier’s own view. For instance, the soldier in case 7 who ended his relationship by phone tells the chaplain that he keeps wondering whether he did the right thing: “It constantly occupies my mind”. And the veteran in case 3 struggles profoundly with his own actions as a soldier and, according to the chaplain, suffers from moral injury. The moral stress of the veteran in this case also seems to have a systemic dimension that does not derive from a lack of recognition from the military organization, as in the examples of systemic moral stress described earlier, but from a conflict between the core values of ‘being a soldier’ and ‘being a good citizen’. Not only in the relationship with his wife but also in civil society in general, there was no place for stories about what he had experienced as a soldier.

This case also illustrates how moral distress is an experience of spiritual disorientation. What is ultimately at stake for the veteran is the question of whether he is a ‘good human being’ or whether his actions as a soldier have cut off his path towards being a good human being. The spiritual dimension of moral distress also explicitly comes to the fore in another case when a soldier tells the chaplain in a despondent voice: “I feel like I have nothing left to go for. Sometimes I wonder why I am here on earth” (case 8). Spiritual disorientation also obviously plays a role in a case where a soldier contacted the chaplain in order to discuss the meaning of a profound religious experience. In the conversation with the chaplain, the soldier explores whether he still fits in the military organization now that he has embraced faith, feeling that his newly found religious orientation might be at odds with his work in the military.

Responses of chaplains to moral stressAddressing interpersonal and intrapsychic moral stress: Opening up moral space

In nine of the 13 case descriptions, interpersonal moral stress, whether between the soldier and colleagues or between the soldier and family members or loved ones, is a central issue. As pointed out above, interpersonal stress is often intertwined with intrapsychic moral stress when soldiers or veterans wonder whether they acted rightly in relation to others or when they need to make choices about how to act in relation to others. Chaplains address these kinds of moral stress by what may be understood as ‘opening up moral space’ in conversation with the soldiers: making space for clarifying, exploring, questioning, and possibly revising their spiritual orientation frameworks, their visions of the ‘good’. They do so in a variety of ways, attuning to the specific relational struggle, the specific soldier, and the conversational situation. In all cases, the starting point is to carefully listen to the other’s story. As one chaplain phrases it in relation to a case where a soldier is struggling with his relationships with both a superior and his girlfriend: “I try to help Patrick as much as possible to tell his story, to blow off steam, by listening, summarizing, searching for meaning” (case 2). Another common feature of the chaplains’ responses to interpersonal moral stress is their commitment to nuanced, subtle moral views. This is especially visible in cases where soldiers express strong, unambiguous opinions about others or about their actions towards others. Here, chaplains open up moral space by suggesting a more subtle viewpoint. For instance, in a case where a soldier, after having had a profound religious experience, has rigorously broken off contact with his brother and friends, the chaplain cautiously questions this decision by taking up a metaphor that the soldier uses:

Chaplain: “That are many people to say goodbye to . . .”

Jos: “Well, I am a bit black and white.”

Chaplain: “How do you deal with grey?”

Jos: “Good one, that is difficult for me.”

Chaplain: “Don’t you lose too much when you don’t do grey?”

Jos: “Possibly . . .” (case 9)

In another case, in which a chaplain shares a short car ride with a soldier who tells him he has just ended his relationship with his girlfriend by phone, the chaplain’s expression of bafflement, “By phone?”, leads to an exploration of the morality of that decision (case 7). The intervention allows the soldier to express and explore his own doubts, both about ending the relationship and about the way in which he ended it.

In the case descriptions, soldiers generally tend to make firm statements when they feel wronged or not recognized by others. Here, chaplains open up moral space by adopting an attitude that they themselves, in the group discussions about the cases during the project, denote as ‘multidirectional partiality’, referring to the contextual approach to family therapy by Iván Böszörményi-Nagy and its integration into pastoral and spiritual care (Meulink-Korf & van Rhijn, 2016). They neither go along with nor contradict the opinions of soldiers about others but affirm the goodness of both the soldiers and others and represent the view that one should not give up too easily on efforts to establish or repair relationships. In a case where a soldier feels belittled by a superior while on an exercise for several weeks, the chaplain suggests entering into conversation with the superior and putting his grievances on the table, implicitly suggesting that the superior is a reasonable person who will listen to the grievances (case 2). The multidirectional partiality of the chaplain is also present in a case describing a military ritual – the so-called “flower greeting” that is traditionally organized a year after the passing of an active soldier (case 12). In this case, members of the division of the deceased soldier attended the ritual, including two soldiers of the company who had been expelled because of an ongoing investigation into drugs trade. The two expelled soldiers were not allowed to wear a uniform nor to have contact with the other soldiers of the division, and they stood a bit apart from them. The chaplain literally crossed the space between the soldiers wearing a uniform and the expelled soldiers, talking to both groups in turn.

In those cases where soldiers experience interpersonal moral stress because they feel that they have wronged others and are struggling with guilt and shame, the chaplains adopt a mild attitude and emphasize that they see goodness in the soldier. For instance, in the case where a veteran expresses regret in relation to how his late wife suffered because of his PTSD – “She had to swallow down so much because of me” – the chaplain stresses the love that the veteran shows for his wife: “Still you always speak affectionately about your wife, with very much love” (case 3). Furthermore, chaplains open up moral space by helping soldiers explore how their actions towards others which they feel guilty or ashamed about fit within their broader biographical picture. For instance, when a young soldier tells the chaplain that he regrets having been unfaithful to his girlfriend and wonders why he cheated, the chaplain, with empathy and without any moral judgement, supports the soldier in finding answers to this question (case 4). The soldier explains that he finds it scary to get older and fears getting cut off from his life with friends and family when moving in with his girlfriend. When the chaplain replies, “You are growing up?”, this seems to offer the soldier a perspective from which to better understand his infidelity in terms of marking a transition towards a more grown-up life period. In another case, a soldier, during a chance meeting with the chaplain, mentions that he has just moved out of his family home and feels guilty that he can no longer provide care to his family members as he has done in past years (case 13). Together with the soldier, the chaplain explores the ways the soldier still takes care of his family members and expresses his love for them, suggesting that besides being a rupture in his biography, moving away from home also involves biographical continuity.

Addressing systemic moral stress: Emphasizing the ‘goodness’ of the other

In five cases, systemic stress related to a lack of recognition or support from the military organization is the central issue. Here, chaplains address soldiers in ways that we may understand in terms of empowerment, emphasizing that they see them as good, valuable people, thus countering their feelings of being humiliated or belittled. Sometimes the chaplains communicate this directly to soldiers. For instance, in a case where a soldier receives a letter informing him that he will be dismissed, the soldier tells the chaplain in a raised voice: “I got rejected. Apparently, I am good, but not good enough...” (case 1). When the soldier states that he does not see a future for himself outside of the military, the chaplain responds: “As I know you, you have sufficient and more than enough good in you to find your way through this situation”. In another case, where a chaplain pays a home visit to a soldier who got sidetracked due to physical, social, and psychological problems, the chaplain emphasizes that he is amazed at his resilience and admires the way he has kept taking care of his sick wife (case 6). When the soldier replies that he does not think there is anything special about his attitude, the chaplain repeats his compliment again: “You keep going, you remain positive. That does not seem easy to me.” Sometimes, the chaplain’s view of the other as a good person remains more implicit. In a case where a soldier struggles with PTSD after deployment and feels that there is no recognition of his symptoms by the organization, the chaplain challenges the soldier to not just point at others and the organization but to explore his own part in his current situation (case 5). In the case description, she states that she was guided by a basic trust that the soldier would be able to handle this and felt that, in her actions, she was expressing this trust to the soldier.

What the chaplains do not do, when addressing the systemic moral stress of soldiers and veterans, is to further explore their critical view of the military organization. If we look back at Doehring’s (2015) steps towards moral resilience, we see that the step of identifying how social systems give rise to and sustain moral stress is missing, at least with respect to the military system. Chaplains do not express a critical view of the organization in the conversations; they address systemic moral stress primarily at an intrapsychic level by emphasizing the value and potential of soldiers. Still, the case descriptions show that the chaplains do have a critical view of the military organization and do have an eye for soldiers’ experiences of marginalization and exclusion. A comment from one of the chaplains that was supported by the whole research community was: “What are we doing in the military, when we send people on missions, people who come back injured and then work in the organization again with their injuries? How can we ethically justify that?” This critical view remains implicit in the conversations and is explicated primarily in the reflections of the chaplains on the cases. For instance, one chaplain states that he is keenly aware of how the lack of societal appreciation for veterans plays an important role in the problems that veterans experience (case 3). And in one of the cases, the chaplain keeps visiting a soldier at home over years, even though the soldier is no longer actively at work and has no other active connections with the organization, partly because the chaplain feels indignant about the way in which the soldier got sidetracked (case 6).

Key elements of chaplaincy care for strengthening moral resilience‘Knowing the chaplain, knowing the soldier’: Moral resilience starts with trust

In the case descriptions, we see that if soldiers are to talk about experiences of moral distress, it is essential that they ‘know’ and trust the chaplain. Here, the chaplains emphasize the importance of the time they spend on what they call ‘presence care’. Presence care refers to the way in which chaplains are present in the military lifeworld: “the chaplains walk around at the base, they partake in sport activities, they travel with soldiers to participate in training camps and they join the unit for deployment abroad. Without being a soldier, they live a soldier’s life” (Pleizier & Schuhmann, 2022, p. 5). In this way, soldiers can get to know the chaplain in an informal way, in everyday situations of military life. According to the chaplains, the more formal one-on-one conversations between chaplains and soldiers that were central in most of the case studies are embedded in and cannot be seen apart from presence care: “every contact is part of an ongoing story”. Within this ‘ongoing story’ between chaplain and soldier, brief, chance encounters may also attain the character of counseling sessions, as case 7 shows. Furthermore, in various cases the soldier contacts a chaplain he knows from a previous posting or from deployment, with whom he has a shared history, instead of the chaplain of his own unit. The shared history of fleeting encounters and shared activities seems to be the foundation of a trusting relationship in which the soldier feels safe to also put more serious problems on the table.

In several case descriptions, chaplains explicitly refer to this shared history in conversations with the soldiers. For instance, in one case, the chaplain, expressing his trust in the soldier’s ability to find his way outside of the military, starts his response by saying, “As I know you” (case 1). When chaplains, in response to systemic or interpersonal stress, emphasize that they see the soldier as a ‘good’ – valuable, resilient, or loving – person, they are not making empty statements but are expressing appreciation rooted in a shared history, in ‘knowing the soldier’. Furthermore, the trust that has been built between chaplain and soldier also allows the chaplain to be direct when opposing black-and-white moral views of soldiers and putting forward alternative moral viewpoints, without running the risk that the soldiers will feel rejected or belittled.

Transcending military moral frameworks: ‘Looking at and going for the human being’

The participating chaplains often designate their position within the organization in terms of ‘one foot inside and one foot outside of the military’. On the one hand, military chaplains ‘live a soldier’s life’, as indicated earlier; just like the soldiers, they are employees in the military organization, an organization with strong military values that may be at odds with values in civil society. Like the soldiers, they often see their work as more than ‘just a job’, which means that they also experience moral distress. One chaplain remarks: “As a chaplain, too, you are at risk during deployment: PTSD, moral injury, etc. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...”. Their entanglement with the military organization implies that they have an inside understanding of what it takes to work in the military. In particular, they recognize the moral stress that is explicitly or implicitly present in the stories of soldiers and veterans and understand how experiences of moral stress are related to working in the military and the core value of ‘being a soldier’. That seems to be important for the soldiers when contacting a chaplain; it is easier to speak confidentially with someone who does not need much background information. In one case, this is expressed explicitly by a veteran (case 3). Conversations he had with a pastor elsewhere were not helpful to him because the pastor did not speak and understand ‘military language’. With the chaplain, however, he could talk “from soldier to soldier. You are not an ordinary pastor”.

At the same time, the chaplains emphasize that they also represent an outsider perspective that does not fit within but transcends military values and goals. They designate this as a spiritual perspective that allows them to never see soldiers as just soldiers but “to look at and go for the human being”. In the two cases where soldiers have religious questions, they explicitly contact a chaplain because of this spiritual outsider perspective (case 9 and case 16). According to the chaplains, their spiritual orientation is always present in their work. It can be perceived in the way they make space for a mild perspective on soldiers and others and for moral ambiguity, which do not represent standard military values. In the case where a chaplain keeps visiting a sidetracked soldier at home, the chaplain acts counter to the way in which soldiers who are unable to work usually disappear from view (case 6). And in the conversation with a veteran with severe moral injury due to war experiences, the chaplain represents a view of wholeness in which there is a place for the possibility of spiritual integration in the sense of integrating the contrasting values of ‘being a soldier’ (who has killed others) and ‘being a good, loving and loveworthy human being’ (case 3).

Conversations with the chaplain as ‘moments of goodness’

Not only do military chaplains support moral resilience through their interventions within the conversations with soldiers and veterans; the act of having a conversation with a chaplain in itself seems to contribute to moral resilience of soldiers. In most case descriptions, the soldiers indicate that they experience the conversations as beneficial. In one case, a soldier points this out by comparing the chaplain’s response to his problems to reactions from his colleagues: “They just say: well, good luck with that!” (case 1). Conversations with a chaplain seem to be relational ‘moments of goodness’ in their own right in which soldiers feel connected with the ‘goodness of another’.