The Dignity of Man and the Indignity of Torture

by Eric Pavlat

2/28/08

Display Full Article/Printer Friendly | Send to a Friend   Just a few years ago, no one seriously discussed torture. The Soviet Union, one of the world's last practitioners, had fallen, and only a handful of countries (Iraq notably among them) were still using it. But then 9/11 happened, and the world changed. Within two short years, accused Islamic militants filled Guantanamo Bay, and the United States invaded Iraq. In 2004, stories about Abu Ghraib filled the media, damaging the military's honor, while many thought it curious that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did not take responsibility and step down.   Perhaps now we know the reason why. The United States has been carrying out an official policy of torture -- or, as they call it, "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- for several years now. This year, torture was a political issue in the Republican primary. It is worth noting, and to the credit of the GOP, that the three Republican candidates still in the running (Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Ron Paul) are the only three that opposed torture. But for the first time in over a century, the issue seemed debatable.             Catholics should not be silent viewers of this debate, but should instead stand up for the dignity of man. Defining Torture   According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity" (2297). In our post-9/11 world, torture is apparently being used by the U.S. government to obtain information from suspects -- a goal not literally included in the Catechism's definition, except perhaps to "frighten opponents" into giving up information.   On the "pro" side of the argument, a few passages in Leviticus seem to speak in favor of harsh punishments, such as stoning. Some people take the inclusion of these verses as assurance that torture does not violate the moral law. However, that's an inaccurate interpretation of Scripture, as the Vatican's document "On the Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" (III.D.3) makes clear:   It is not sufficient . . . that the Old Testament should indicate a certain moral position (e.g. the practice of slavery or of divorce, or that of extermination in the case of war) for this position to continue to have validity. One has to undertake a process of discernment. This will review the issue in the light of the progress in moral understanding and sensitivity that has occurred over the years.   The writings of the Old Testament contain certain "imperfect and provisional" elements ("Dei Verbum," 15), which the divine pedagogy could not eliminate right away . . . .   Through the revelation of God's love that comes in Christ, the New Testament sheds the fullest light upon these principles and values.   So what does the New Testament teach about torture? Nothing by name, but the Lord's moral principles are in effect at all times: Love your enemies. Turn the other cheek. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Whatsoever you do to the least of My people, that you do unto Me.   In point of fact, there is nothing to support torture in the entire New Testament. Instead, the moral framework of the gospel compels us to mercy and compassion, seeing Jesus even in those who spit upon us and wish us dead.  Church History   According to historian Rev. Brian W. Harrison, Tertullian and St. Augustine both opposed torture, both without censure by any pope or council. If they had violated Church teaching in their statements, the censure would have arrived by now.  Prev - Next >> Page 1 2