In a statement from October 17, 2025, Timothy P. Broglio, Archbishop for the Military Services, USA, criticized the United States Army’s decision to cancel all support contracts for military chapel services, specifically contracts for religious educators, pastoral life coordinators, and musicians. The contracts were not for specific religious affiliation, but the nature of Catholic faith formation meant those contractors disproportionately served Catholic servicemembers and their families. The sacramental nature of the faith naturally requires the bandwidth and attention of servants dedicated to bringing people to the faith. Until recently, faith tradition–agnostic contracts supported this fundamental aspect of the Church.
This contract decision, compared to the scale of the persecution of Catholics in Nigeria and the widespread secularization of the West, is of modest importance. The decision does reveal, however, a troubling conception of faith in the public square taking hold, even in an era of politically muscular conservatism that should otherwise protect those of faith in public institutions.
Contract cancellations dramatically reduce professional support for the Catholic community.
In his statement after the cancellation of these contracts took effect, Archbishop Broglio made clear that the move places an “insurmountable restriction” on the free exercise of religion. He notes that Catholic chaplains already serve a disproportionately large number of Catholic soldiers relative to their number in the Chaplain Corps, citing a RAND report showing a ratio of about one Catholic chaplain per 1,000 Catholic soldiers. He contends the contract cancellations dramatically reduce professional support for the Catholic community, and the Army’s reliance on the already slim cadre of general Religious Affairs Specialists (RAS) or directors of religious education without Catholic qualifications is inadequate.
In a response on X, a soldier in the Army Chaplain Corps inquired how the decision to cancel such contracts could inhibit the soldiers’ “free exercise” of the Catholic faith. The earnest and courageous choice to confront a matter of concern in public still underlies a more troubling conception of how some senior Army leaders conceive of their duty to preserve the ability of soldiers to practice their faith.
The logic of the decision to cancel contracts the Army does not consider necessary suggests a lack of support for making faith environments as flourishing as possible for active-duty servicemembers. In fact, the dismissive suggestion that the cancellation does not inhibit a soldier from practicing his faith implies an understanding of the free exercise of religion merely as the duty not to inhibit worship. The policy to cancel contracts for directors of religious education rests on a narrow idea that a chaplain’s duty is only to avoid restricting a Catholic soldier’s worship. The Army seems to believe that as long as it does not stand in the way, it has done its part. That is a hollow conception of liberty.
The mission of the Chaplain Corps has never been passive. It exists to provide the moral and spiritual foundations that allow soldiers to fight with conscience and conviction. To treat faith as a box to check rather than a strength to cultivate turns religion into a bureaucratic formality. This minimalist view of faith would never be applied to the many officially sponsored celebrations of identity and ideology that fill the Army calendar. It applies only to faith, and especially to Catholicism, which the government too often treats as an obstacle to tolerate.
America is a Christian nation, and the obligations toward spiritual fitness extend along a degree of realism about who serves in the Army.
The Chaplain Corps, in its mission statement, acknowledges the insufficiency of mere tolerance of faith practice. In fact, chaplains must maintain and build the spiritual readiness of the fighting force. This motto makes a demand to provide for the most conducive possible ecosystem of religious practice, not only the absence of “restrictions.” This is, then, a question of lethality. For our military to be ready and fit to fight, soldiers of faith must have an exceptional spiritual foundation. Soldiers must be confident that their, and their family’s, spiritual flourishing is even possible in a life on active duty. For Catholics, this means disproportionate access to the staff on hand, many of whom serve populations of all faiths, in order to support the reception of the sacraments.
This is also not a conflation with a supposed duty to lift every imaginable faith tradition. Catholics make up 20 percent of service members, slightly higher than the general population. America is a Christian nation, and the obligations toward spiritual fitness extend along a degree of realism about who serves in the Army.
Archbishop Broglio’s statement was necessary because he understands the reality of Catholic life in uniform. Living faithfully is already difficult in an institution that often mistakes moral clarity for exclusion. Without the modest help of lay educators, coordinators, and musicians, that life becomes harder still. His defense of the Catholic soldier is not about politics or privilege. It is about ensuring that faith remains a living part of the military community rather than a tolerated inconvenience.