Canada Bars Military Chaplains from Mentioning God at Ceremonies

Prayer Barred at Official Ceremonies

The armed forces define what such reflections may contain. They are intended to promote meaning, purpose in life and spiritual well-being. Religion-specific language is explicitly prohibited, as are references to God. Words, actions or symbols associated with a particular religious or spiritual tradition are likewise barred.

https://twitter.com/CatholicArena/status/2090467673163329565

When service members act as representatives of the armed forces, and thus of the Canadian government, they must remain neutral in matters of religion and belief. Religious symbols worn by individual service members are exempt.

The dispute is not new. In October 2023, then Chaplain General Guy Belisle issued a directive intended to replace traditional public prayers at military events with inclusive spiritual reflections. It prompted protests shortly before Remembrance Day.

Following the criticism, Belisle allowed military chaplains to continue the previous practice at that year’s commemorations and announced a review.

The new instruction is the result of that review. It replaces the 2023 directive with a permanent personnel instruction applying throughout the Canadian Armed Forces. The CAF explicitly describes religious and spiritual neutrality in the performance of public duties as a moral, ethical and legal obligation for its members.

Exception for Indigenous Traditions

The restrictions do not apply to military chaplaincy more broadly. In private conversations, faith-specific services, religious rites and regular worship, chaplains may continue to pray and practise their faith.

Military and state funerals are also expressly exempt. Religious rites may be conducted in accordance with the wishes of the deceased and the family.

A further exception applies to Indigenous traditions. Practices with spiritual elements may still form part of military events when presented in a cultural, historical or educational context. The armed forces cite the constitutional recognition of “Indigenous rights”, the state’s past suppression of Indigenous traditions and the goal of reconciliation.

Service members may not, however, be required to participate in the spiritual elements of official events.

Humanist organizations have welcomed the change. Humanist Canada and the British Columbia Humanist Association said service members should not be required to participate in religious observances at mandatory events. They see the instruction as a consistent application of the principle of state neutrality.

Dispute over State Neutrality

The armed forces justify the new policy by citing freedom of religion and the state’s duty of religious neutrality. The policy is based on the concept of negative religious freedom: the purported right not to be confronted with religion.

Whether that accurately describes religious freedom or religious neutrality is disputed. The absence of religion can itself take on religious characteristics.

The armed forces cite, among other things, a 2015 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada. In the Saguenay case, the court held that the state must favor neither belief nor non-belief.

In its instruction, the CAF says the freedom of conscience of service members without religious faith must also be protected at mandatory official events.

Scott McCaig draws a different conclusion from the same ruling. In a statement dated 10 August, the military bishop writes that, for many people, meaning, purpose in life and spiritual well-being cannot be separated from God. He argues that the new instruction requires precisely that separation and could therefore conflict with their religious beliefs and consciences.

McCaig also disputes the claim that a reflection without God is ideologically neutral. Atheist and secular-humanist views likewise rest on particular conceptions of God, the world, values and meaning. Secular-humanist chaplains are therefore rightly part of the Canadian military chaplaincy.

The state, he argues, must not decide which of these views may be treated as neutral.

Religious Groups Call for Withdrawal

The Canadian bishops subsequently said they shared McCaig’s concerns and were reviewing the new instruction, particularly with regard to freedom of conscience and religion and the place of religious expression within the armed forces.

McCaig also accused military and political officials of rejecting requests for talks with religious representatives during the years-long review of the rules. Approaches used by allied countries, he said, were not openly discussed either.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has criticized the policy as well. It argues that the rule excludes not only denominational prayers but even general references to God or the divine. In its view, this does not establish neutrality but instead gives preference to a secular worldview that is only one of many. The fellowship is calling for the instruction to be withdrawn.