No one is obliged to fulfil an oath if it is sinful to do so. Aquinas addressed this regarding Jephthah:
630. – But there is a question about Jephthah, whether he sinned by immolating his daughter as he vowed. For it seems not, because Judges (11:29) says: ‘The spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah’ and then mentions the vow and the victory. But Jerome says the contrary, namely, that he was indiscreet in vowing and guilty in paying. I answer that something from the Holy Spirit was there, namely, an impulse to vow in general that he would immolate whatever he came upon that could be immolated; but there was also something from his own spirit, namely, that he immolated what he should not. In this he sinned, but later he repented. Similarly, Gideon sinned by making an ephod and tempting God, when he asked for a sign on the fleece. But he also repented later, as did David, whom he mentions next, saying, David and Samuel, who are discussed in the Books of Samuel, and the prophets, concerning whom time would fail me, if I wished to discuss them.
Thus, if Owens is right in contending that the USA is waging an unjust war, it is incumbent on civilians and non-civilians alike to abstain from aiding and abetting such unjust war. If the best way to so abstain is by seeking a dishonorable discharge, then it is advisable.
The oath of Jephthah is an interesting case, but not in any way analogous to the discussion about the service oath which taken with the understanding that the government changes often and with that, our international relations and geopolitical strategy.
What Jephthah vowed was rash and ridiculous but that's not the spirit or the intent of those who enter into military service.
In any case, you underscore nicely the importance of keeping vows in Christian theology and salvation history with the Jephthah story. He thought it was so important to keep his vow that he felt compelled to immolate his own daughter.
Furthermore, I did reference the process of annulment which determines exactly that: the vow was entered into without full understanding of what it meant. Like Jephthah, it's a rash vow.
Keep in mind, however, no such cannon law process exists for vows of service.
That said, you did not address the other standards by which I evaluated Owen's position.
One is that promoting the impulsive breaking of vows is totally destructive to society.
The other is that it destroys the spiritual and psychological integrity of the men who break them.
Maybe you are fine living with these half-men in a forsaken society, but I for one am not.
The soldiers' oath is to the Constitution. Except for an illegal order in a matter that is clearly immoral (i.e.: "shoot that baby") the soldier must follow legal orders. He does not set policy, he follows it. Elected officials set policy under our constitution and you either support the Constitution or you don't. Disobeying a lawful order is a Federal felony, so the dishonorable discharge you take so lightly will be after a stint in prison. We no longer have a draft, so don't volunteer if you don't understand the concept of "Duty, Honor, Country".
The soldiers' oath is to the Constitution. Except for an illegal order in a matter that is clearly immoral (i.e.: "shoot that baby") the soldier must follow legal orders. He does not set policy, he follows it. Elected officials set policy under our constitution and you either support the Constitution or you don't. Disobeying a lawful order is a Federal felony, so the dishonorable discharge you take so lightly will be after a stint in prison. We no longer have a draft, so don't volunteer if you don't understand the concept of "Duty, Honor, Country".
It's a voluntary force. No one is being snatched off the streets to fight these wars.
And the only caveat for the oath, which is in the oath itself, is that the orders must lawful.
If everyone in the military ran every order through their own personal filter of wants, fears, or concerns, then we might as well disband our defense forces entirely.
I love Candace Owens, but on this issue I think she is making a mistake. You mentioned Scott Hahn, and he says in a recent article on the First Things website that we get it wrong when we think society is a set of isolated individuals: "While we mustn't ignore the importance of the individual, the truth is that reducing society to a collection of unattached individuals would be like trying to reduce nature to a collection of unattached atoms" (https://stpaulcenter.com/posts/society-must-uphold-the-sanctity-of-marriage). Candace Owens is reasoning from the assumption that we are just individuals with no need to honor our oaths if honoring the oath becomes inconvenient. She is wonderful, but on this point she could not be farther from the truth.
No one is obliged to fulfil an oath if it is sinful to do so. Aquinas addressed this regarding Jephthah:
630. – But there is a question about Jephthah, whether he sinned by immolating his daughter as he vowed. For it seems not, because Judges (11:29) says: ‘The spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah’ and then mentions the vow and the victory. But Jerome says the contrary, namely, that he was indiscreet in vowing and guilty in paying. I answer that something from the Holy Spirit was there, namely, an impulse to vow in general that he would immolate whatever he came upon that could be immolated; but there was also something from his own spirit, namely, that he immolated what he should not. In this he sinned, but later he repented. Similarly, Gideon sinned by making an ephod and tempting God, when he asked for a sign on the fleece. But he also repented later, as did David, whom he mentions next, saying, David and Samuel, who are discussed in the Books of Samuel, and the prophets, concerning whom time would fail me, if I wished to discuss them.
https://isidore.co/aquinas/english/SSHebrews.htm#117
Thus, if Owens is right in contending that the USA is waging an unjust war, it is incumbent on civilians and non-civilians alike to abstain from aiding and abetting such unjust war. If the best way to so abstain is by seeking a dishonorable discharge, then it is advisable.
The oath of Jephthah is an interesting case, but not in any way analogous to the discussion about the service oath which taken with the understanding that the government changes often and with that, our international relations and geopolitical strategy.
What Jephthah vowed was rash and ridiculous but that's not the spirit or the intent of those who enter into military service.
In any case, you underscore nicely the importance of keeping vows in Christian theology and salvation history with the Jephthah story. He thought it was so important to keep his vow that he felt compelled to immolate his own daughter.
Furthermore, I did reference the process of annulment which determines exactly that: the vow was entered into without full understanding of what it meant. Like Jephthah, it's a rash vow.
Keep in mind, however, no such cannon law process exists for vows of service.
That said, you did not address the other standards by which I evaluated Owen's position.
One is that promoting the impulsive breaking of vows is totally destructive to society.
The other is that it destroys the spiritual and psychological integrity of the men who break them.
Maybe you are fine living with these half-men in a forsaken society, but I for one am not.
The soldiers' oath is to the Constitution. Except for an illegal order in a matter that is clearly immoral (i.e.: "shoot that baby") the soldier must follow legal orders. He does not set policy, he follows it. Elected officials set policy under our constitution and you either support the Constitution or you don't. Disobeying a lawful order is a Federal felony, so the dishonorable discharge you take so lightly will be after a stint in prison. We no longer have a draft, so don't volunteer if you don't understand the concept of "Duty, Honor, Country".
To me, she has lost all credibility because of her virulent anti-semitism which is of the worst kind, ill-informed religious Jew hatred.
The soldiers' oath is to the Constitution. Except for an illegal order in a matter that is clearly immoral (i.e.: "shoot that baby") the soldier must follow legal orders. He does not set policy, he follows it. Elected officials set policy under our constitution and you either support the Constitution or you don't. Disobeying a lawful order is a Federal felony, so the dishonorable discharge you take so lightly will be after a stint in prison. We no longer have a draft, so don't volunteer if you don't understand the concept of "Duty, Honor, Country".
Exactly this!
It's a voluntary force. No one is being snatched off the streets to fight these wars.
And the only caveat for the oath, which is in the oath itself, is that the orders must lawful.
If everyone in the military ran every order through their own personal filter of wants, fears, or concerns, then we might as well disband our defense forces entirely.
I love Candace Owens, but on this issue I think she is making a mistake. You mentioned Scott Hahn, and he says in a recent article on the First Things website that we get it wrong when we think society is a set of isolated individuals: "While we mustn't ignore the importance of the individual, the truth is that reducing society to a collection of unattached individuals would be like trying to reduce nature to a collection of unattached atoms" (https://stpaulcenter.com/posts/society-must-uphold-the-sanctity-of-marriage). Candace Owens is reasoning from the assumption that we are just individuals with no need to honor our oaths if honoring the oath becomes inconvenient. She is wonderful, but on this point she could not be farther from the truth.
I really enjoyed reading what you wrote!
Truly. The family is the basic unit of society.