Thread: Navy officer on carrier removed for relationship

From the article

He was previously cited for conduct unbecoming an officer and for failure to obey an order or regulation.


Oath of commissioning

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

This is the saame oath I took, S-2 took, Shek took and a whole lot of others have.

We don't need ti spelled out as officers....we hold ourselves to a higher standard.

If you can't adhere to the standard get the hell out of my officer corps.

You violate your marriage vow....what makes me think I can trust you to follow your vow of commissioning?

Originally Posted by S2

"We have to be careful about putting people so high on pedestals that they can't live up to our expectations..."

I don't know what pedestal he's on but I do know that he wears the rank of a naval captain and all the expectations regarding conduct which come with that.

You're welcome to your view, obviously, but I'll be surprised if it's supported by many former or currently-serving officers at WAB.

I'd be surprised too if the current and former servicemen here supported my view. Thats one of the reasons I posted this here; to gain some insight from you guys, because from a strictly civilian view, with the facts given, this is lunacy. I do not know of a single CEO was ever fired for sitting in a car, jogging, and exchanging some racy/ flirty e-mails with a member of the opposite sex.

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

From the article

He was previously cited for conduct unbecoming an officer and for failure to obey an order or regulation.


Oath of commissioning

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

This is the saame oath I took, S-2 took, Shek took and a whole lot of others have.

We don't need ti spelled out as officers....we hold ourselves to a higher standard.

If you can't adhere to the standard get the hell out of my officer corps.

You violate your marriage vow....what makes me think I can trust you to follow your vow of commissioning?

Without the adultery,which we do not have at this point, and knowing the full context of the meetings, the violation of a marriage vow is kind of thin. Even so, if you use a violation of a marriage vow as grounds for dismissal you would have to drum out all those that are divorced unless they didn't use the, "till death do us part" clause.

Originally Posted by bonehead

Without the adultery,which we do not have at this point, and knowing the full context of the meetings, the violation of a marriage vow is kind of thin. Even so, if you use a violation of a marriage vow as grounds for dismissal you would have to drum out all those that are divorced unless they didn't use the, "till death do us part" clause.

No, divorce is perfectly legal and is recognized by almost all churches as a way to end a marriage.

I am not saying he committed adultery...I am saying he broke an oath to be faithful...as did she.

The texts exchanged are not innocent.

Regardless, he allowed himself to be involved in an inappropriate relationship. If they were both legally separated (neither was) at the time of the investigation then I would have had no problem.

They were not and he acted inappropriately and showed a gross lack of judgement. He therefore does not belong in a position of great responsibility.

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

No, divorce is perfectly legal and is recognized by almost all churches as a way to end a marriage.

I am not saying he committed adultery...I am saying he broke an oath to be faithful...as did she.

The texts exchanged are not innocent.

Regardless, he allowed himself to be involved in an inappropriate relationship. If they were both legally separated (neither was) at the time of the investigation then I would have had no problem.

They were not and he acted inappropriately and showed a gross lack of judgement. He therefore does not belong in a position of great responsibility.

I can see where as divorce is concerned you and I are not going to agree. Being separated means nothing to me. Your either married or your not, period. Take this for instance:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/div_rc.htm

Beliefs about divorce and remarriage

Roman Catholic view: Historical tradition.



Sponsored link.



The following essay provides only general information. If you are seeking guidance
on your own personal use, please consult a canon lawyer or other authority.



Variety of Bible-based beliefs:

There is no concensus within Christianity towards divorce and remarriage:

Various Christian groups -- conservative Protestants, liberal Protestants and Roman Catholics have reached different beliefs about when, if ever, the Bible permits divorce and remarriage. Some argue that the preservation of the institution of marriage is of the greatest importance and that marriages should not be disolved even though a married couple may find their life a living Hell. Others feel that to preserve the mental health of the spouses and children, that divorce should be allowed with the possibility of a future remarriage.

Each author, theolobian, and webmaster who has written on these topics seem to regard that their belief alone is the correct interpretation of the Bible. The vast majority are obviously wrong.
The main positions are:

Neither divorce nor remarriage are allowed. (Conservative Protestant view)
Divorce is OK, but not remarriage. (Ditto)
Divorce is OK in cases of adultery or desertion; remarriage is OK. (Ditto)
Divorce is OK for many reasons; remarriage is OK. (Ditto)
Divorce is impossible unless the marriage can be proven to have never existed -- described below. (Roman Catholic)
Divorce is OK in cases of marriage breakdown; remarriage is OK. Religious liberal and secular view.
This essay describes the fifth position: the Roman Catholic beliefs that the Bible does not allow divorce on any grounds. Valid marriages are indissoluble. However, if it can be proven that a valid marriage had never taken place, then an annulment can be obtained. Remarriage is generally allowed after an annulment.



Overview:

The position of the Roman Catholic church on divorce and remarriage can be summed up in a few sentences:


Divorce was allowed in Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) times. But the permanence of marriage was restored by Jesus in the first century CE.


Marriage is a sacrament that is indissoluble. Once a valid marriage has been consummated, It endures until one spouse dies.


The church does not issue divorces or recognize divorces issued by other institutions. Thus a couple who has obtained a civil divorce is still regarded as married by the Church.


The church can issue an annulment. However, the couple must first prove to a church tribunal that the marriage was invalid; that is, that a valid marriage never did exist.


At most churches tolerate divorce but I would not say they condone it. My brother in law had to get his first marriage of 11 years annulled so he could later remarry. He had three kids by the first marriage to a catholic and the ceremony was in the church. Frankly, getting an annulment at that point kind of blew my mind. This leads me to another point.
If the captain is catholic he could have his marriage annulled so it never happened. Then all the brouhaha about spending time with other women and being "improper" just gets thrown out the window. Do you see the can of worms that could open? How could he be unfaithful or acted improper if the marriage never existed? Secondly, How and why would he have been given his commission in the first place if he was already "living in sin" and his house was not in order.
The bottom line is that when you take a vow, any vow, you honor ALL of it or you honor none of it. Therefore if you take away this man's career for not honoring his "marriage vows" you should do the same to all those who have divorced and have had relationships with other women. To do anything else would be less than honorable.

As a Catholic who 1) got legally separated 2) got divorced 3) got married in a civil ceremony while getting my first marriage annulled and 4) was later married in the Church after the first was annulled I know what I am talking about on this subject.

Since my parish priest and my bishop were okay with all of the above and consider me a good Catholic, I think I can speak with some clarity on what cosntitutes follwoing of marriage vows.

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

As a Catholic who 1) got legally separated 2) got divorced 3) got married in a civil ceremony while getting my first marriage annulled and 4) was later married in the Church after the first was annulled I know what I am talking about on this subject.

Since my parish priest and my bishop were okay with all of the above and consider me a good Catholic, I think I can speak with some clarity on what cosntitutes follwoing of marriage vows.

Well then. You know first hand how hypocritical the whole process is. The semantics between the words "divorce" and "annulment" is what allowed you to remarry a second time in the church.

Originally Posted by bonehead

Well then. You know first hand how hypocritical the whole process is. The semantics between the words "divorce" and "annulment" is what allowed you to remarry a second time in the church.

Bonehead, you are not getting it.

What is so wrong about a Sgt going on his own personal PT being joined by an interrupter who happens to be female?

NOTHING.

Except that it portray an image of exclusivity. I can do this while you cannot.

The image should be I did this and so shall you. IE I am faithful and you better damned well be ... in every sense of the word.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Bonehead, you are not getting it.

What is so wrong about a Sgt going on his own personal PT being joined by an interrupter who happens to be female?

NOTHING.

Except that it portray an image of exclusivity. I can do this while you cannot.

The image should be I did this and so shall you. IE I am faithful and you better damned well be ... in every sense of the word.

Your right. I am failing to see that what he did on his own time equates to him being disqualified to do his job and thats why I brought up this thread. I freely admit my ignorance in this matter since I was never in the military. However, If I ever find myself in battle I can't see myself worrying whether my officers gave some woman the eye when his wife was not around. I'm pretty sure I would have more important issues at hand.