Moral injury, betrayal and retribution: Australian veterans and the role of chaplains
Abstract
This paper presents additional qualitative results from Phase 1 of a larger study examining potentially morally injurious events/experiences (PMIE) and/or moral injury (MI) among Australian veterans (Hodgson et al. in J Relig Health 60(5):3061-3089, 2021). It makes specific reference to (1) betrayal and (2) retribution experienced or perpetrated by Australian military veterans during military conflicts and peacekeeping missions. During two veteran seminars conducted in Adelaide, South Australia, a total of 50 veterans were recruited, 10 of whom were willing to be interviewed and audio-recorded about their deployment experiences. Narrative data analysis of veteran transcripts indicated that all participants had engaged in or were exposed to a PMIE/MI of one kind or another, and all had experienced betrayal and/or witnessed or perpetrated retribution. Given the ethical, moral and spiritual issues involved, the role of chaplains in addressing moral injury for the benefit of veterans through the use of 'Pastoral Narrative Disclosure' (PND) is suggested-with a specific focus upon 'restoration' and 'ritual'. Additional research is recommended with regard to acts of betrayal and retribution among veterans, as well as the further development of PND to address PMIE/MI.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
MI-related distress is sustained by maladaptive self-referential processing, including recurrent rumination, rigid moral self-appraisal, and self-condemning narratives.
“Recent empirical and theoretical literature suggests that MI-related distress is sustained by maladaptive self-referential processing—recurrent rumination, rigid moral self-appraisal, and self-condemning narratives that reorganize identity around perceived transgression or betrayal (8, 10, 15–18).”
From The therapeutic role of self-transcendence in moral injury recovery: theory, mechanisms, and clinical implications (2026) · cites this paper as [18]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 79 · Cited by 23
- Authors
- Hodgson, T. J., Carey, L. B., & Koenig, H. G.
- Affiliations
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hodgson, Timothy J.
- Venue
- Journal of Religion and Health
- Published
- 2022-02-17
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 993-1021
- ISSN
- 0022-4197 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6571
- OpenAlex
- W4213107582
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 79
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 2.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2022-04-27)
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Religion and Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › War, Ethics, and Justification
- Keywords
- moral injury, potentially morally injurious events, betrayal, retribution, military veterans, chaplains, peacekeeping missions, spiritual renewal, ritual, Australian veterans
- MeSH terms
- Betrayal, Australia, Clergy, Humans, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Veterans
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
