In an era in which society encourages each to do his own thing, and “right” is a relative term, a recent study seems to indicate many people do inherently have an understanding of morality at their core — and this may sometimes conflict with the actions required by military combat:

The conflicts that troops feel can range from survivor guilt from living through an attack where other troops died, to witnessing or participating in the unintentional killing of women or children, said researchers involved in the study.

The key quote comes near the end of the article:  Combat experienced US Marines were the subject group, and the study showed

Their condition [PTSD] was more closely linked to an inner conflict rather than threats to their lives, the sight of bodies or blood, or family problems, the study said. [emphasis added]

The first quote above fails to note there are other “inner conflict[s]” besides survivor guilt and participation in crimes.  As has been noted here before, there is a natural moral conflict in mankind between valuing life and taking it.

As to how the members of the US military should handle this moral guilt, retired Navy Captain and secular chaplain psychiatrist Bill Nash says:

They have to forgive themselves for pulling the trigger…

Even that pithy construct belies a complex underpinning:  The concept of forgiveness normally involves the admission of wrong.  Since PTSD and “moral guilt” is felt even by those who do not participate in war crimes, how are Soldiers to “forgive themselves” for something that was otherwise “right?”

Another secular counselor warned of the seriousness of the issue, noting those with PTSD may harm themselves or others:

PTSD caused by moral injury can lead to more severe reactions such as family violence or even suicide, said Jonathan Shay, a psychiatrist who has worked on military mental health policies.

Though “moral injury” has been discussed here before, the article indicates it is “new” to psychiatry.  New as a dedicated field of study, perhaps.

But the picture of someone going to a man of faith in agony over the (justifiable) death of another man at his hands are as old as combat itself.  It is something with which the US military has been trying to cope every year since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began.

Unfortunately, it walks a fine line as it tries to encourage those who find solace in faith to seek out leaders of their faith — without implying it “officially” thinks faith is necessary to deal with such moral injuries.  Not unlike the US Army’s current attempts at “spiritual fitness,” there are deeper issues at play, whether one calls them matters of the heart or soul, meaning or value in life.

Of course, Christian faith — and the realization of intrinsic personal value, self-worth, and sense of greater purpose associated with it — can be a significant factor in coping with such moral struggles.  That may be, in part, why combat sometimes seems to draw men to God.