(1) A description of the nature of the belief that requires the applicant to seek separation from the military service or assignment to noncombatant training and duty for reasons of conscience:

Over the past few years, I've come to understand the underlying paradox that I have been living. I am now at a point where I can no longer sanction the taking of human life in any situation, and as a result the concept of war as a medium for international problem solving is morally unacceptable for me. These beliefs are based on religious, moral and personal ethical convictions.

I cannot continue on my road toward a career as a military officer because I can no longer be a part of the process that not only condones, but propagates this solution. For a long time I saw no other answer to the problems in this world, and it almost seemed that war was the necessary evil that we have to endure in order to secure peace in our country. I saw it as my duty to participate in the defense of my country, as my father and his father did. I no longer think I can take human life for any reason, duty included. I have come to understand that the "pawns" in this deadly game are people. My duty is to understand that we are all people created in the image of God, and therefore all command equal respect. It is this spiritual revitalization that has formed the core of my beliefs which require objection.

I have rediscovered in the basic teachings of my religion central ideas which I believe point toward non-violence as the only option for Christians. A Christian believes that all persons are created in the image of God and are thus equal. This equality then calls for mutual respect based on our respect for God. Beyond the Old Testament and into the New Testament I found that my calling toward mutual respect is continued. I also found that the words of scripture continued to point me both implicitly and explicitly to a non-violent relationship with my fellow humans.

In this passage, I am asked to use prayer instead of war as a way to make change and obtain that which I need. It is made clear to me that I may not wage war in order to obtain that which I covet. The only way in which I may truly live according to this passage is in being one who makes peace.

This message reminds me that it is impossible for me to be a soldier for purely altruistic reasons. Most often, there are many reasons one joins the military. Only one of them seems to be defined by a sense of duty, self-sacrifice and love for country. It also seems to be implied that one cannot be a part of war without enjoying a certain amount of the spoils, even if this includes only an acclimation for the immoralities of hatred and killing. Just as the shepherd drinks the milk of his or her flock, the soldier eats of the fruit of war.

From these words I have learned that anger and hatred are ultimate evils, just as is killing. These emotions are of tantamount importance to the institution of war, and just as was seen above, are often instilled in the soldier as a result. I cannot enter a situation where I am forced to be angry with my brothers and sisters, or to hate and destroy them. I am told that these things are wrong.

In these passages I am given a reminder that the commandments of the old testament are still in effect. Christ's teachings in no way contradict these laws of old, but instead clarify and reinforce them. I am told that I must do more than simply refuse to kill my enemy, I am further told to love that person. These commandments are given to me as the code which is good in the eyes of Christ, I must follow them.

This selection from Romans 13, refers to Jesus' command to love neighbor as self. In doing this, one fulfills many of the commandments mentioned above while committing oneself to a life that is reminiscent of the love that Christ showed us all. In this ever-growing global environment of high-speed transportation and communication, everyone has become my neighbor. I cannot both love my neighbor and justify the taking of his or her life.

As a Christian, I am called to love every person totally. I cannot love most people and not some, because in so doing, I become a transgressor of the law. In the same way, I must keep all the law without exceptions. In making an exception for the taking of life under certain circumstances, I am no longer living according to the law.

This final quote seems to be a perfect example of what I am called to do as a Christian. I am called not just to avoid being the originator of evil, but also to avoid returning evil to the originator. This is a new call which differs from the one in the Old Testament which states: "Lev 24:19 (RSV) When a man causes disfigurement in his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, Lev 24:20 (RVS) fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has disfigured a man, he shall be disfigured." I am called to instead bless the evildoer and love him or her as a neighbor with the same vigor that I would save for myself. In this, I will be seeking peace in the way of the Lord.

War is defined as "An act of force to compel our enemy to do our will (Carl Von Clausewitz)." The "force" used to compel others in war is death. Even if I want to, I cannot use this type of force to compel my personal enemies to do my will. I cannot kill somebody who doesn't agree with me or has something that I want (which in war, is how the "enemy" is defined), but it is perfectly okay to do so if the conflict is on an international level. This contradiction created a moral dilemma for me to ponder. Why am I told repeatedly by my society, as well as my intellect, that I cannot end the life of another person, while on the other hand I am told that such actions are the only hope for creating world peace? I cannot fire a gun at someone on the street who has done hundreds of things to hurt me, but I can aim to destroy a person I don't even know with a clean conscience. The idea that there are people in other countries trained that, because of what my government does, they are to target and kill me, seems to clarify the corrupted nature of this concept of peace-making.

Our government is based on the premise that all persons are created equal, with certain rights that are "unalienable," the first of which is the right to life. It seems to me that this assumption is valid. Each person is granted life, and that gift is given equally to all, as equals. The second of these rights is liberty and the third is the pursuit of happiness. These rights don't seem to be ranked in order of importance, nor could they be if they are all unalienable. Why, then, can I justify taking one of these rights from one person in order to gain another of these rights for myself? I cannot understand or rationalize taking one person's life for the cause of securing liberty for myself or others because both rights seem to be equally unalienable. Even if I could dispense of logic and rank these rights in some sort of order according to "unalienability," it seems that life would come first, then liberty and finally the pursuit of happiness.

This describes my moral dilemma. If it is true that I cannot take these unalienable rights from others in this country, no matter what my reason, why am I allowed to take these rights from those who live outside its borders? What gives me the authority, as an equal to every person, to decide the fate of some? Is not life an unalienable right for everyone, or is it just so for fellow American citizens?

This moral conclusion based on philosophical reasoning causes me to question my involvement in the institution of war. In war I am asked to take the rights of some in order to grant rights to others. Another possible end to which war strives is peace. This brings me to another question: Does the end necessarily justify for me the means? To answer that I returned to what the execution of the means entails. In order to wage war (the means) one must take the lives of the enemy in order to achieve peace (the end, including an increase of rights for the victor). It became clear to me then, that I could not justify the means with the end because to do so I would have to consider the rights of some over those of others, something that my own constitution disagrees with.

In order to create peace, I believe, I must exude and commit only acts of peace. It is not possible to create peace with violence. The result of violence is instead a "balance of terror (Pope John Paul II, Message U.N. Special Session, 1982)," not a true peace. The absence of violence is not peace. The absence of violence is not a state of affairs which justifies the means by which it is attained if those means contradict the end for which they strive. I cannot justify war as a means by which we work for peace any more than I can prescribe hate as a means to procure love. As a result of this belief, I have found that I cannot be involved in the military because its mere existence involves a justification of war.

(2) An explanation as to how the beliefs changed or developed, to exclude an explanation as to what factors (how, when, and from whom, or from what source training received and belief acquired) caused the change in or development of conscientious objection beliefs:

My ethical and moral standards are rooted mostly in a limited few sources. This list, of course, begins with my family and its traditional Catholic beliefs, since that environment was my first source of outside stimuli. Additional (and later) sources include classes which I have taken, my personal reading of the gospels, and reflection in response to readings and discussions.

I am a product of a loving Catholic family, brought up by a father who has found his vocation in the United Stated Air Force and a mother who has found hers as a registered nurse. I have lived in seven different places and have been through thirteen moves with my family as a result of the Air Force way of life. Obviously, the military life is all I have known. It is both part of what defines me and what has always surrounded me. I had never before bothered to question the moral implications of being involved with the military and living in the way of Christ, for example, because it never occurred to me. I've been to countless masses in military churches, and have never been given the opportunity to examine the possibility of there being an inherent contradiction there. Only after being separated from this environment have I even had a chance to think about it.

Four years ago, as I neared the end of my high-school campaign, I began to search for a college in which I could continue my journey of life. I also spent a good deal of time laboring over what I wanted to study (and consequently what I would do later for a career) and how I was to pay for these studies. It was suggested, by whom I'm not sure, that I pursue a career in the military like my father had. The option had many alluring characteristics for me, since it was compatible with my desire to become an architect and also presented a possibility for financial security during college. After sending off my application for Notre Dame, then, I decided to go through the application processes for both the Air Force and Army scholarships. I was granted both, and chose the Air Force scholarship, which promised full coverage of tuition for four years (then, about $14,000 and now, over $16,000 a year) as well as a stipend of $100 a month and payment of books and "fees". I was very happy to be secure both financially and with a future career, and at seventeen, seemed to be doing the "right thing for me".

I was not completely comfortable with ROTC when I came to school. I couldn't have put my finger on it then, but I thought that I would soon get over it, and that it was a natural reaction to the change of environments. I assumed that all the other cadets felt the way that I did. I had not, however, spent time contemplating any of the issues concerning us here. I still saw the military, I think, as a sensible career toward which I was working.

Soon, I began to consider other reasons that might explain my discomfort in the corps. During the second semester of my Freshman year, I took my first Theology and Philosophy classes. These classes offered an environment in which I could (and was made to) examine the logic and moral implications of my present and future situation. I studied texts such as the Bible and Kreeft's God, Freedom and Evil. I began to see the inherent evil in war. I wondered at the possibility of other options that could take its place, such as a world order or governing council which could mediate between countries in conflict, much as our country's judicial system does on a smaller scale. I reasoned that just over a century ago people wouldn't have believed it possible to resolve certain conflicts without gun or sword duels, and now we have a complicated judicial system which handles all conflicts and the need for violence is removed. Would it be possible to create a similar judicial structure on a global scale which could mediate between countries and decide cases of justice? The absolute scale of the idea overwhelmed me. I reluctantly came to the conclusion that war is a necessary evil because the other options seemed so far out of reach. We need it in order to keep the peace, at least until another system can be implemented, I thought.

I have added an essay in order to illustrate my thinking at this time (Attachment 1). This essay, written by myself during the second semester of my Freshman year at Notre Dame for my AS112 class, offers support for the conclusions I have drawn above. Here is an excerpt which offers a particularly good example:

As I continued to wonder about these issues, I began to consider the concept of the end as it relates to the means. My assumption had been that when we had a war, its goal was to create peace. I had also assumed that the lack of violence present following the resolution of a war fit within the definition of peace. I began to wonder whether that state of affairs may, in fact, be described as peace. Peace did not seem to be something which one could fight for, it contradicted the end for which one fought. In addition, I began to wonder about whether this end of peace even justified the means--the murder of fellow humans. At this time, during my sophomore year, I had surrounded myself with friends who thought about these types of issues often. This occurred mostly by chance. I met several of these new friends through their neighbors who were fellow cadets in the corps. One other person happened to be from my home town. For whatever reason, I began spending my time with a new circle of people. Most of them were members of a group called Pax Christi and offered an outlet for discussion. For the first time I began to speak to others about these ideas.

After my sophomore year I departed for Lackland AFB, Texas for summer training. During this period, I observed the dehumanizing nature of military training. People were forced to do everything according to plans and all trace of individual choice and expression was eradicated. I began to see why nobody else seemed to consider whether war is a moral option, when one could not even decide when to eat or how much time to spend doing it. The loss of choice contributes to loss of self, and directly to loss of a personal conscience. The individual begins to rely completely upon the military for its decisions, including those of ethics and morality.

Nearing the end of training, we left the base in order to take a gun qualifying course. I have been familiar with guns all my life because my parents were both raised in South Dakota, where hunting is a normal part of life. I felt much different, however, when confronted with a gun that is instead a weapon. The nine millimeter pistol has no other purpose than the killing of fellow human beings. This was a very important point for me. I finally realized what I was headed for.

As the summer came to a close, I prepared myself for a year of studying abroad. My major of study, Architecture, includes a year in the Rome Studies Program in its required curriculum. This section of my academic career was a crucial turning point in my personal thinking, because it represented the first time in my life when I was apart from the military life in any of its forms, and could think outside of its context. I immediately found that I felt much better, freed from the moral pressures of this part of my life, and was able to examine those pressures and begin to question them in earnest. I searched for a forum in which I could discuss what was going through my head, but the only opportunity that arose was the class which I signed up for that I would take upon my return to the main campus--Theology 264, Christian Attitudes to War, Peace and Revolution, with professor J. H. Yoder.

Upon my return to the campus and the commencement of the class I mentioned above, as well as my renewed ability to speak with my friends, I began to fervently explore the history of military and Christian thought. I studied the New Testament, in which I found in Matthew, chapter 5:

These words, although not new to my ears by any means, struck a chord against my heart. I realized the clarity of their message to me. I can no longer strive to be the best person I can, while I engage in a career which guarantees that I am not meek, merciful, or truly a peacemaker. Finding that the conclusions I had drawn were echoed by the teachings of Christ offered encouragement and affirmation for me that knew no bounds. It is so obviously contrary to the Core of Christian teaching to fight in wars, that I wonder how I have missed it for so long.

Seventeen hundred years ago, Constantine changed the face of Christianity with his conversion in 312 AD. Before that time, the followers of Jesus were strictly peaceful in nature, and were often martyred when they refused to serve as soldiers in the Roman army. When Constantine declared Christianity the religion of the empire, he adapted it to his lifestyle as a Roman emperor so that he could continue to pillage and destroy. The conviction of the early believers was soon compromised as well. I find it rather difficult to believe that God aided Constantine in his battle for the throne at Milvian bridge, but this basis for his conversion was quite indicative of his attitude toward Christianity--it sometimes served his purposes to be a Christian, so he claimed to be so. I often wonder if the same attitude hasn't permeated through the centuries and contributed to the blindness of so many to the true teachings of Christ.

As I continued my search for truth, I studied ancient ethical theorists and the origins of the idea of Just War theory. I began by studying the roots of this theory. Grotius, an early Just War theorist and mediator in the 17th century, offered a reasoning for these ideas which I have summarized in Attachment 3. I have also included an essay in which, after examining the theory itself in depth, I have come to the conclusion that this idea of justification of violence (like all others) has many holes in it:

For a time, I became quite wrapped up in the teachings of Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi. I went so far as to choose him as the supreme example of a military leader, writing about his leadership style and practices for my AS311 class this fall (see Attachment 5). In studying the teachings and beliefs of this great man, I discovered an alternative to war and violence for problem solution. I found a source where my feelings concerning the futile nature of using violence to procure peace were echoed:

Gandhi also sparked in me the courage to act upon what I believe in. If it were not for his teachings, I would probably not have taken the steps which have allowed me to progress this far in the process towards my self-betterment and beliefs. He said once "If you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth." If I am right, I should live according to my beliefs no matter how many are against me. I am right. Christ teaches me that, "Thou shalt not kill" is a command that is alive and real, without exceptions, and in that reaffirmation found in the New Testament, He reveals a way of life pleasing to God for me. I cannot ask for better company.

(3) An explanation as to when these beliefs became incompatible with the military service, and why:

By the beginning of my junior year, before I departed for Rome, I had begun to think about and question the moral integrity of a system of "Just War." It was not until I returned, however, that I had to deal again with the reality of my direct involvement with that system. By November of this year, I began to look for outside help through my rector and campus ministry. I no longer felt as if I was doing my best to satisfy the requirements of being a good person, by remaining in ROTC, and especially by continuing to head towards a career in the military. I came to the conclusion, after several months' discussion with family, friends and University staff, that I would do what it took to remove this dark spot from my life.

(4) An explanation as to the circumstances, if any, under which the applicant believes in the use of force, and to what extent, under any foreseeable circumstances:

I cannot justify the taking of human life at any time for the resolution of conflict. Force does not always allude to he taking of human life, however. As I stated before, however, in the situation of war force is usually synonymous with the taking of life. Within the context of war, then, I do not believe in the use of force.

It is also important to make a distinction between force and violence. I believe it is possible to force a person to do something in a non-violent way. In these cases, I believe force can become an acceptable means by which an end may be achieved. This type of force is the only kind which I would personally use under any circumstance in my own life.

I feel that the non-violent options available to us have a potential that is much greater than we can appreciate without further exploration. The most obvious example of this reality was made by Gandhi and his successful direction of the Indian people to a liberation from British rule in 1947. The revolution was wholly non-violent in nature, and the success was astounding. Ronald J. Sider, in his book Non-Violence, The Invincible Weapon? clarifies the degree of that success:

Other incredible successes have occurred in places such as Philippine Revolution of 1986, El Salvador and Guatemala in 1944 (the ruthless dictatorship of General Martinez in both instances), and as far back as the fifth century when Pope Leo I mediated with Attila the Hun and saved Rome from destruction. The potential for the use of non-violent non-cooperation during actual armed conflict is also great. During World War II, many countries battled Adolf Hitler without ever lifting a gun. In Norway, for instance "Teachers risked their lives, refusing to teach fascist propaganda. Labour unions struck and sabotaged machinery, even though their leaders were imprisoned or killed. Almost all the Lutheran clergy resigned from the state church which Quisling tried to control. When Gestapo demanded that the Catholic Archbishop withdraw his signature from a letter supporting the defiant Lutheran clergy, he replied: 'You can take my head, but not my signature.' Quisling failed in his attempt to impose fascism through the schools and church. (Sider, pg. 20)"

Many theorists have added that, even in light of the victories made through the use of non-violent means, we have no grasp on the reality of their potential. Gene Sharp, one such theorist who has catalogued one hundred and ninety-eight non-violent methods and strategies, says:

It is my belief that, through the use and exploration of these alternative methods, we may learn that the need felt for violent means is unfounded. It is the duty of every moral person to explore these other options, whether they believe in the ethic of the Just War criteria (as the military claims) and must then examine all possibilities in order to show "Last Resort," or are pacifist in nature and cannot justify military action as it is defined today. One cannot deny their usefulness as the past has shown. Our only options are to ignore the dignity of humanity and continue to kill, or investigate these more peaceful solutions. It is time to use peace for peace, instead of war. This idea is summed up best in a statement from Father Jose Blanco, founder of AKKAPKA (a nonviolent revolutionary organization, formed in 1984, fighting for independence in the Philippines):

(5) An explanation as to how the applicant's daily life style has changed as a result of the beliefs and what future actions applicant plans to continue to support applicant's beliefs:

The most significant impact that this belief has had on me has been a renewal of faith. Much of this personal search has been marked by a thorough re-evaluation of the scriptures along with a historical study of my church's past. This has brought with it a new sense of understanding and oneness with my beliefs and with God.

My lifestyle, though not directly affected as yet by these changes, has been altered indirectly since I made the decision to seek disenrollment because of my beliefs. I have felt much better about myself, and have became true to the person within me that I have been denying for so long in order to ignore these issues. My friends tell me that I am more pleasant to be around, and I feel at ease in spite of my hectic schedule full of classes and studies. I cannot explain how difficult it had become to live contrary to my beliefs once I had finally discovered them. In order to survive, one must always feel that he or she is doing the right thing, if not for everyone, then at least for oneself. I knew that I was doing neither, and in addition, I was lying to myself in saying that it was okay. I am finally free and whole, to live the life that I should.

My future has taken a new shape as well. I no longer worry of the possibility of my having to kill or be involved indirectly in killing for my country. I can now focus more directly on my career as an architect. I have to begun to consider a more peaceful philosophical approach to design. This approach takes in to account the fair treatment of all peoples as well as those people who will be affected in the future by the building's impact on the environment. I have also considered seeking participation in one of the many groups of nonviolent activists, such as Witness For Peace (the organization of American Christians that intervened in Nicaragua in 1983-1987).

(6) An explanation as to what in applicant's opinion most conspicuously demonstrates the consistency and depth of the beliefs that gave rise to the claim:

I suppose the reason that it is most difficult to express my feelings about this subject is that I have problems understanding that some people don't feel the way I do. I feel it is almost redundant for me to explain why I feel this way about something when it seems self-evident and the only logical reaction.

The most important evidence of belief is the renewal of faith that I spoke of. In a time when I was struggling with my relationship with God, I was given a sign that has brought me home. It is exactly this faith which has brought me to a point where the sacrifices that will come from this are unimportant. I have faith that the Lord has shown me my path and this only deepens my convictions.

(1) Information as to whether applicant has ever been a member of any military organization or establishment before entering present term of service. If so, the name and address of such organization will be given together with reasons why applicant a member:

I have never been a member of any military organization or establishment before entering my present term of service.

(2) A statement as to whether applicant is a member of a religious sect or organization. If so, the statement must show: (a) The name of the sect and the name and location of its governing body or head, if known. (b) When, where, and how the applicant became a member of said sect or organization. (c) The name and location of any church, congregation, or meeting that the applicant customarily attends, and the extent of the applicant's active participation therein. (d) The name, title, and present address of the pastor or leader of such church, congregation, or meeting. (e) A description of the creed or official statements, if any, and if they are known, of said religious sect or organization in relation to participation in war:

I am a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church, centered in Rome, Italy. I was born into this religious tradition, and have been a member of many parishes throughout my life. My present pastor, also my hall rector, is Father Joseph Ross. His parish consists of the members of Morrissey Hall, University of Notre Dame, 46556. I am a participating member in this parish.

The Catholic church, in the second Vatican Council, praised "those who renounce the use of violence in the vindication of their rights and who resort to methods of defense which are otherwise available to weaker parties, provided that this can be done without injury to the rights and duties to others or of the community itself. (NCCB, pg. 94)" The Bishops go on to say:

In essence, the church recognizes both pacifism and just war theory as legitimate responses to the teachings of Christ. In the past, the church has fluctuated between stressing one or the other as a morally preferable standpoint. The original members of the Christian church were emphatic in their interpretation of the scriptures. It seemed clear from the words of Christ that "love your enemy" was a command that excluded killing as an option. Somewhere along the line since, however, Christians have found a way to justify the murder of some. Many have quoted the Old Testament, saying "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." It seems obvious to me, however, that the teachings of Christ were meant to illuminate, fulfill, and thus supersede these teachings.