| Is Torture One of the Church's Non-Negotiables? |
| by Deal W. Hudson |
| 4/24/09 |
|
Over at Vox Nova some folks are discussing whether or not I have violated a “non-negotiable” teaching of the Catholic Church on torture. This was occasioned by some comments I made to my friend Bobby Eberle, a Catholic himself, at his web site, GOPUSA. Bobby asked my advice on how to think, as a Catholic, about whether torture was morally justified, this being a topic much in the news lately. Here is the section of Eberle’s column containing my comments: In trying to sift through some of the moral questions that arise from America's war on terror (oops, I said it again), I turned to my friend Deal Hudson, who is the Director of InsideCatholic.com. In addressing "torture," Hudson put it in the context of the "just war" philosophy. Hudson: ‘As with just war theory, there must be a clear threat; there must be reasonable chance for success; there must be a reasonable use of force (in the case [of torture] death or impairment should never be the result), and the consequences should not cause greater harm.” Hudson further explained to me "the precise issue is whether or not the state can inflict suffering in order to protect the common good. If we say 'yes,' the circumstances have to be tightly prescribed." Several bloggers have asked that I clarify what I meant, some have argued the Church’s teaching is a non-negotiable ban on torture, others view it as prudential, but in a very narrow range. The latter position is the one I was trying to describe. I am not a big fan of torture, meaning, I find the very thought of it horrific. The notion of torturing an enemy is not something that makes my heart skip a beat. Here is what I found when I looked up “torture” in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. 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. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law. 2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
A few observations: 2297 does not explicitly rule out torture in the case of gathering information to protect the common good; a confession is not that, it is an admittance of personal guilt about a specific act or set of acts. 2298 seems like a more sweeping comment, where it says that they deny "legitimate rights" of the human person and we should work "for their abolition. I don’t read this as declaring a non-negotiable ban on torture, but I can see why there would reasonable disagreement on the issue. My hunch is that the language in 2298 about working to abolish torture is same as the Church saying we should work to abolish war itself. When I spoke to Eberle, I was assuming any act of torture would take place with the context of war, in the face of clear and present danger to the common good. I realize people are skeptical about such reasoning in the wake of Iraq, but the Church recognizes that war is sometimes necessary, along with all suffering and death that accompanies it. I am open to hearing the arguments supporting a ban against torture as a non-negotiable teaching of the Church. Fr. Brian Harrision, O.S., has written a rather extensive account of torture, arguing it can be morally justified according to Church teaching. Readers have left 56 comments. Deal, First, I thank you for your reply and I hope there can be some discussion here (which is what I suggested should be done). Now, we must remember, while the Catechism is important, it is not the sole source for Catholic teaching (Canon Law, encyclicals, councils, et. al, are sources we look). The Catechism is an outline to be fleshed out. Because of size limits, I will do two posts. First, here is a quote from Veritatis Splendor, which is itself quoting VII, on torture being an intrinsic evil: 80. Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object".131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator".132 With regard to intrinsically evil acts, and in reference to contraceptive practices whereby the conjugal act is intentionally rendered infertile, Pope Paul VI teaches: "Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good, it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (cf. Rom 3:8) — in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general".133  Written by Henry Karlson From the first, we can see torture is listed as an intrinsic evil, with no justification, under no circumstances. Now, the Compendium of Social Doctrine says this on torture: 404. The activity of offices charged with establishing criminal responsibility, which is always personal in character, must strive to be a meticulous search for truth and must be conducted in full respect for the dignity and rights of the human person; this means guaranteeing the rights of the guilty as well as those of the innocent. The juridical principle by which punishment cannot be inflicted if a crime has not first been proven must be borne in mind. In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ's disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer's victim”.[830] International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances. Likewise ruled out is “the use of detention for the sole purpose of trying to obtain significant information for the trial”.[831] Moreover, it must be ensured that “trials are conducted swiftly: their excessive length is becoming intolerable for citizens and results in a real injustice”.[832] Officials of the court are especially called to exercise due discretion in their investigations so as not to violate the rights of the accused to confidentiality and in order not to undermine the principle of the presumption of innocence. Since even judges can make mistakes, it is proper that the law provide for suitable compensation for victims of judicial errors. ---- The two posts together I think serve as a fair presentation of Catholic doctrine on torture: it is intrinsically evil, and as such, nothing can justify its use. I think that explains why it is a non-negotiable. Written by Henry Karlson In <em>Love and Responsibility</em>, Karol Wojtyla wrote that at the basis of all human freedoms lies the principle that we may not treat a person as only the means to an end, as an instrument. Even torture used to gather information to protect the common good treats the tortured person as an instrument and not in a way that respects his personal ends. I would also add that from the Christian standpoint, what we do to one another, even to the least among us and to the worst of sinners, we do to Christ. We show our love and respect for God in how we treat one another. A Christian who defends torturing a human person defends, in a sense, torturing Him in whose image and likeness we are all made. Written by Kyle Cupp Thanks, Henry, for helping the discussion get started. Here is the most relevant portion of what you posted from Veritatis Splendor: "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object".131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator".132 If this listing had stopped at homicide, genocide, abortion, euthansia, and suicide I would have been convinced right away that I needed to rethink my position entirely (not that I am unwilling to do that, anyway.) But, as you can see, the list goes on to include such items as deportation, subhuman living conditions (obviously prudential), degrading conditions of work (also prudential), and "physical and mental torture to coerce the spirit." Help me Henry to understand two things: 1) what is the meaning and intent of the qualifying "to coerce the spirit"? Why not just leave it as torture? Why the qualifier, or describer, if you wish? 2) The items on the list that are prudentially judged to be "instrinsically evil" such as deportation, living conditions, and working conditions, don't they appear to weaken the case against a total ban on torture? Such conditions surely exist in many places around the world, yet, no one is charged with violating a "non-negotiable" for permitting them to exist (of course, eliminating them would be virtually impossible because of human freedom). The presence of torture, especially as qualified by "to coerce the spirit" leaves me unconvinced that torture is a non-negotiable in the same sense as we talk about abortion, etc. By the way, as an aside, this is example of how, in my opinion, Catholic social teaching gets itself in a jam when it describes every human good as a "right." This leads to a ridiculously long and conflicting set of duties for all of us, and especially the state. Written by Deal W. Hudson The argument that the Catechsim deliberately exludes torture for gathering information is one used by Harrison, and it simply makes no sense. As the Compendium notes: "International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances." The "under amy circumstances" bit is tantamount to saying it is intrinsically evil, and those fobidden circumstances would include the much-touted ticking bomb scenario. Remember, one must never do evil so that good might come of it, no matter how great the good. This would be consequentialism, and an appeal to Elizabeth Anscombe here is instructive -- Anscombe (who coined the term consequentialism) denounced Truman as a war criminal for his use of nuclear weapons against civilian centers, and the fact that it may have saved lives by shortening the war is not relevant. For what matters from the moral perspective is the object of the act, the directly-chosen bevahior - and in the case of torture, it is precisely to treat the person as an object, to deny his intrinsic worth as a human being. This is what makes it non-negotiable. Written by Morning's Minion While it's worth examining, does torture need to be an "intrinsic evil" in order for us to be against it? I don't think so. To be Catholic today, with the development in our understanding of human dignity as a Church and people, is to be against torture. For precisely the reasons Veritatis Splendour says above. The Church is pretty clear: upholding and promoting human dignity is fundamental to living the Gospel, and that includes being completely against torture. I don't know whether the Church considers torture to be an intrinsic evil because despite the quotes above, the Church did sanction and regulate torture during the various Inquisitions. But the fact is, to be in unison with the Church today is to look at every issue through the lens of respecting human dignity -- and that equates to being anti-torture. Written by Zoe The Church's authoritative teaching on this matter leaves little to wonder in terms of whether it is a "non-negotiable" (this is not a magisterial term) or a prudential judgment. It is quite clear that the teaching on torture is not "negotiable" and falls within the scope of absolute ecclesial authority as a matter of morality. The few bizarre justifications for taking torture as a prudential issue for Catholics are themselves issued out of tortured logic and tend to beg the question (in the logical, not colloquial sense). In other words, they antecedently assume that which they try to prove: that torture is in some cases just. Deal asks: Help me Henry to understand two things: 1) what is the meaning and intent of the qualifying "to coerce the spirit"? Why not just leave it as torture? Why the qualifier, or describer, if you wish? 2) The items on the list that are prudentially judged to be "instrinsically evil" such as deportation, living conditions, and working conditions, don't they appear to weaken the case against a total ban on torture? — SomeoneAs to (1), "to coerce the spirit" is not used in the passage as a qualifier of mental/physical torture or as a describer. Instead, it is used as a conjunct, marking it as an altogether separate term from mental/physical torture. This much is clear from the text. What coercion of the spirit amounts to could be up for interpretation. But despite the vagueness of the term "coerce the spirit", mental/physical torture is taken to be a separate term that does not suffer from that vagueness. As to (2), it is clear that you import your own meanings into the passage (you antecedently assume that certain actions listed are "non-negotiables" and others are not) that simply are not there to begin with. In fact, were to go so far as to deny that torture is a "non-negotiable" (your imported term), you would clearly be begging the question (logical fallacy). The passage in question lists all these actions and situations as "evil per se" without distinction of degree or negotiation. As intrinsic evils, their moral status is not affected by superfluous considerations such as the probability of ending them in the world. Moreover, the fact that John Paul II reiterated this teaching of the Second Vatican Council in his great moral encyclical without qualification shows that the teaching is not circumstantial or merely prudential, but absolute and binding. Written by Policraticus I think what we need to keep in perspective is that the modern Church has done a horrible job in presenting authentic Catholic teaching on capital punishment and torture in light of her Scriptures and Tradition. Tradition does not begin with Vatican II, so I'm less than persuaded by quotations from the modern Catechism, Veritatis Splendor, Vatican II, etc. There also seems to me to be a powerful natural law argument justifying torture in at least some circumstances: What if the civil authority has legitimate reason to believe that a captured terrorist is withholding life-saving information? Can someone explain to me why inflicting pain, as punishment, on someone withholding this information violates the natural moral law? If the natural law permits the taking of a life guilty of a capital crime, why can't the state inflict a lesser punishment, i.e., the infliction of pain? Because John Paul said we can't? I'm sorry: When a Pope's teachings seemingly contradict the prior Tradition (as John Paul's did vis-a-vis capt. punishment and torture), I'm erring on the side of the Tradition, not to mention my understanding of the natural law. Not EVERYTHING a Pope or Catechism says is unquestionably infallible, folks. The Pope is not the Egyptian Pharaoh, who (I think I once read) used to claim that if the sun and the tides would obey him if he so ordered it! I take the Pope's words on a subject very seriously, but when he seems to contradict the Catholic Tradition, I can, indeed must, respectfull dissent. Note: I do not necessarily dispute that the Church may make a PRUDENTIAL JUDGMENT that torture ought never be employed in modern social contexts. But on the grounds of both faith and reason, I do take beef with the notion that ALL torture is INTRINSICALLY EVIL. I found no such precedent for that belief in the broader Catholic Tradition, nor in the natural law. Written by LexEtLibertas I think what we need to keep in perspective is that the modern Church has done a horrible job in presenting authentic Catholic teaching on capital punishment and torture in light of her Scriptures and Tradition. — LexEtLibertasAt least you prefaced this statement with "I think." To counter, I think your judgment is extreme and unsubstantiated. But stating opinions does not get us any further along. Tradition does not begin with Vatican II, so I'm less than persuaded by quotations from the modern Catechism, Veritatis Splendor, Vatican II, etc. However, if the "modern" Catechism, VS, and Vatican II are part of the tradition, then by what criteria do you evaluate which parts of tradition are "persuasive"? What makes what is prior to 1965 more "persuasive," and which official teaching on torture prior to 1965 do you find "persuasive" (or at least persuasive enough to override teachings after 1965)? Better still, is there even any official teaching of the Church prior to 1965 that conflicts with that after 1965? There also seems to me to be a powerful natural law argument justifying torture in at least some circumstances: — LexEtLibertasSuch as? You assert that there is a "powerful natural law argument", yet you do not lay it out for us. Instead you pose a question: What if the civil authority has legitimate reason to believe that a captured terrorist is withholding life-saving information? — LexEtLibertasExactly. What if? Why would torture be justified by natural law in this scenario? Does natural law's provisions on the duties of civil authority override natural law's more foundational principles of respect for human dignity? Does the natural law obligate a state to protect its citizens with absolutely no limit to its conduct? Because John Paul said we can't? I'm sorry: When a Pope's teachings seemingly contradict the prior Tradition (as John Paul's did vis-a-vis capt. punishment and torture), I'm erring on the side of the Tradition, not to mention my understanding of the natural law. Since we're talking about torture here, let's set aside for now John Paul II's teachings on capital punishment. What part of John Paul II's (and Vatican II's) teaching on torture "seems to contradict" prior Tradition? What prior Tradition and which prior official teachings? On what grounds are you making your claims? Not EVERYTHING a Pope or Catechism says is unquestionably infallible, folks. This seems to me to be a red herring, but I'll go along with it. No one suggested that everything a pope says is infallible. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the teaching on torture is not infallibly pronounced. This still would not show us why the teaching on torture is wrong, since fallible teaching is not necessarily false teaching (I am not infallible, but I think I am teaching the truth when I say "1+1=2"). But on the grounds of both faith and reason, I do take beef with the notion that ALL torture is INTRINSICALLY EVIL. I found no such precedent for that belief in the broader Catholic Tradition, nor in the natural law. Really, you have offered absolutely nothing from reason or faith in favor of rejecting John Paul II's (and Vatican II's) teaching on torture. What you have done is communicated your subjective attitude and told us that it is based only on your examination of Catholic Tradition. Yet, you have pointed to nothing in the Tradition that conflicts with the current Catholic teaching on torture. So if your exhaustive study of the Catholic tradition on torture yields nothing contrary to John Paul II, then why would we have any reason to presume that he (and Vatican II) is wrong on torture? Written by Policraticus It is unbelievable to me that a conversation like this is taking place on a Catholic site. You pick at the legal definitions and argue semantics and are scaring the hell out of me. Any five-year-old with an ounce of religious training would know that this is wrong. Period. It's moral relativism like this that has led our country to physically, sexually, and emotionally violate human beings who were made in the image and likeness of God. I don't know what else to say. I don't know how it could be more clear. Written by L. Policratius: It goes without saying that Tradition is living, not static. That having been said . . . However, if the "modern" Catechism, VS, and Vatican II are part of the tradition, then by what criteria do you evaluate which parts of tradition are "persuasive"? What makes what is prior to 1965 more "persuasive," and which official teaching on torture prior to 1965 do you find "persuasive" (or at least persuasive enough to override teachings after 1965)? 1400+ years teaching that torture is morally permissible under at least some circumstances, vs 40+ years teaching it is never permissible. Better still, is there even any official teaching of the Church prior to 1965 that conflicts with that after 1965? Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium (ordinary and extraordinary): http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt118.html http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html Does natural law's provisions on the duties of civil authority override natural law's more foundational principles of respect for human dignity? You're presuming that every infliction of pain necessarily contradicts human dignity, when logically I find no reason to assume that punishment must be pleasurable. Does the natural law obligate a state to protect its citizens with absolutely no limit to its conduct? Obviously not. The ends do not justify the means. Thus, it would clearly be wrong for the civil authority to punish the children of terrorists for the crimes of their fathers, or to threaten such vicarious punishments in the course of interrogations. Written by LexEtLibertas I have just found a USCCB study guide on torture, "Torture is a Moral Issue: A Catholic Study Guide." It can be found at: http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/stoptorture/ The concluding letter from Bishop Wenski, then chairman of the bishop's Committee on International Justice and Peace, reads, in part, As you know, the United States has long supported Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits “cruel treatment and torture” as well as “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment….” It calls upon Catholics to sign the following statement of conscience: Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear. It degrades everyone involved—policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation's most cherished ideals. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable. Nothing less is at stake in the torture abuse crisis than the soul of our nation. What does it signify if torture is condemned in word but allowed in deed? Let America abolish torture now—without exceptions. It's a long documents and includes a variety if citations, most of which are about human dignity or the culture of life. But it also includes this quote from the 2007 version of "Faithful Citizenship." “A prime example [of intrinsically evil actions] is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia… Direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, are also intrinsically evil. These must always be opposed. Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified.” (Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States, No. 22, 23, November 2007) The bishop's document urged Catholic to support legislation banning torture. Such legislation was passed by the House and Senate but was vetoed by President Bush in March 2008. The bill would have allow 19 techniques for military questioners but would have outlawed "specialized interrogation procedures," such as waterboarding, used by the CIA but not by the military. Does anyone have a list of those 19 questioning techniques? I would like to see what is considered not to be torture but is still a method of extracting information. Written by Deal Hudson Deal, I think one can answer that when one takes the list of intrinsic evils, there is often, as you point out, a pull in many directions and requirements, and sometimes it becomes as quite difficult to fulfill them. You are right in saying prudence is to be used in the execution of such lists. While some things like "what is an unjust living condition" might be matters of debate, and even "what constitutes torture" on some extreme cases might be an issue of debate, I think if we are not looking to the extremes but to the general rule, we would have real agreement, and we should start our prudential reasoning from there. MacIntyre I think does a good job explaing the tragic nature of virtue in that, as you said, you can even find rival goods pulling at us, and this is what requires prudence. "One way in which the choice between rival goods is a tragic situation differs from the modern choice between incommensurable moral premises is that both of the alternative courses of action which confront the individual have to be recognized as leading to some authentic and substantial good. By choose one I do nothing to diminish or derogate from the claim upon me of the other; and therefore, whatever I do, I shall have left undone what I ought to have done." (After Virtue, 224). The point of this is that due to the tragic nature of the fall, I think this is a real possibility, and we must then work in prudence in how we deal with the rival obligations, while recognizing our lack is an area for which grace is needed (this is why utopia cannot be had before the eschaton). But some things -- such as "don't torture" can be recognized, and should be, as JPII, VII and others continue to say (Pope Benedict, for example) even if one says "what about X." We shouldn't look for a way out of our obligation. It's like the question of pornography: I know it when I see it. Nonetheless, the Compendium and VII I think are clear. I do not know about the bill to answer that question. Written by Henry Karlson LexEtLibertas Your argument is the same one which people who want to excuse themselves from living, actual authority of the Church has made. Dioscorus could have said, "the Church didn't start at Chalcedon." Lutherans could have said, "the Church didn't start at Trent." Old Catholics could have said, "the Church didn't start at Vatican I." The issue is that the living Magisterium is the authentic interpreter of that tradition. We have an obligation to recognize it as the authoritative interpreter of tradition, even if tradition is checkered, full of questions, and full of human sins. When one begins to explore the issues involved in Catholic Social Justice, such as the intrinsic worth of the human person, you will find this idea goes all the way back to the foundation of the Church itself. It's not that these teachings come out of nowhere, but our awareness and understanding of them have increased, in part because of the excess against them in the 20th century. This is normally how the Church develops -- when something inherent in her is questioned and worked against, then her voice is made clearer --- and I think anyone,looking to the horrors of the early 20th century, can understand why the Church has become significantly interested in the dignity of the human person (although it extends beyond the 20th century). Written by Henry Karlson I think Kyle and Morning's Minion hit upon the central reason as to why torture is seen as an intrinsic evil. The Church recognizes that the human person, created in the image and likeness of God, is of inherent worth, and anything which would objectify the person so that a subject is seen only as an instrument to an end, not as a subject who is an ends in their own right, must be rejected and decried as evil. Through our increased understanding of what it means to objectify people (eugenics, abortion, embryonic stem cell research, et. al.), the Church rightfully brings this back to the fundamental dignity of the human person as to answer why the action would be evil, even if others (even a vast number) would benefit from such objectification of the human person (such as in escr). Reflecting upon this principle, the Church then brings to light other examples of such objectification as intrinsically evil (torture). Indeed, I would say the logic of the Church's rejection of embryonic stem cell research (never heard the Church talk about it in the 19th century) is exactly the same logic as with torture. Both who support such practices point to the "positive good" which might be obtained if the practices are employed. For many, the embryo wrongly is seen as an invader in the woman's womb, and lots of the ugly pro-abortion literature describe it in terrorist like terms. They see a good which could come out of evacuating the terrorist and using it for research to help humanity, the same way that the government sees the terrorist and their interrogation. Abortion and the research done on the embryo in escr are forms of torture, and torture for the sake of information. It's the same logic, the same evil, but with different kinds of information being looked for. If there were found a way to use a person's body to generate cures to diseases while keeping the person alive, through means which would be of great pain and great indignity to the person, I don't think any Catholic would accept the proposition that criminals should be used to create such cures, even if one criminal is used to saved hundreds of thousands of people in this way. There could even be "ticking time bomb" scenarios here and it would still not be justified. We can always create scenarios to justify evil, if we want (and escr is trying to do so), but for those who uphold the good, the ends can never justify the means. Written by Henry Karlson Mr. Karlson: I remain unconvinced, as yo udidn't answer a single one of my substantive objections. The Pope, and the bishops, are under a moral obligation to justify their teachings when they appear to contradict the prior Tradition, as is the case here. I do not deny what is clearly the Church infallible teachong on the dignity of the person. I do deny that inflicting pain always and everywhere violates that dignity. It is the rankest theological positivism, not to mention papolatry or episcopalotry, to ascribe equal weight to every thing that's belched out of the mouth of a Pope or Bishop. Our leaders need to to answer these very real objections, and until they do, I will give their pronouncements only their due weight, no more and no less. The examples you gave don't fly. At least to the extent that they have REFUSED to explain themselves, and how their teaching is in any way consistent with what's come before, the "modern Church"'s teaching on torture COMPLETELY REVERSES the prior teaching, whereas Trent and Chalcedon really were doctrinally consistent with the preceding Tradition; for that matter, their dogmatic canons were those of an Ecumenical Council. No such dogma exists regarding torture. We have the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church, which permits it under SOME circumstances, versues a handful of remarks over the past 40 years which APPEAR to forbid it at all times. Several Catholics (Mark Shea, and yourself among them) like to pretend the Pope is the Egyptian Pharoah, who can turn blue into green if he so wishes. I, instead, choose to follow the course charted by the present Holy Father and apply a "hermaneutic of continuity" to the recent statements. And I believe Harrison does this masterfully; Rome needs to follow his lead in this regard. Written by LexEtLibertas Lex First, you have not established out the conflict in the teaching, as Policraticus has pointed out. If you are making the claim, I can't refute your points when you don't make any substantial points. Second, your charge of ultramontanism is erroneous. No one is making such a claim here. There is a level of respect and obeissance expected out of the Catholic when Magisterial teaching is being proclaimed. Of course they are not of the same level of authority -- but as is clear, when you form a consensus combined with the declarations of an ecumenical council (Vatican II), then you have even more reason to substantiate your claims. Third, you are engaging on equivocation. "Pain" is an equivocal concept. Torture is not. One can say I am pained when I hear people might go to hell. The Church in her truth teaches this and brings me pain. It is not, however, torture. The question and discussion is the dignity of the person in relation to torture. Equivocations do not help. Fourth, those who contend against councils and papal declarations always say "but the past it was different." For example, St Cyril of Alexandria did talk about the "one united nature" of Christ. This is exactly the reason why Dioscorus rejected Chalcedon. "They are going against the tradition of Ephesus" is exactly how it was put forward. The problem is that St Cyril's text was read out of the context and change in meaning of the words from his time and the time of Dioscorus. But one could do a literal "here are the texts before Chalcedon, here is Nestorius, looks Nestorian" which is what was done. Luther and Lutherans did the same with Trent. In other words, once again, when you make the charge that it is a "change" YOU must prove your point and also prove that the change is not a valid development but in contradiction to the Church's overall teaching. You have done neither. Fifth, would you deny the authority of the Popes on ESCR, since their condemnation is modern? Again, your argument of "it's only modern popes" (which is not true, but that's something else) does not answer the question, "are they right?" It's like those who say "Immaculate Conception was a modern invention." It fails to understand the pre-conditions for development and why the Church continues to grow in insight and how it does so. Written by Henry Karlson Deal, Your definition of confess seems narrow. It doesn't say "confess guilt." I confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Confess can be used to include the retrieving of information to protect the common good. Torture is a sin, and even to protect the common good, we may not use it. Our failure to prevent even the deaths of others is not a sin on our part, only a natural evil we could not stop. If we want to discuss what constitutes torture, that would be acceptable, but this seems very clear-cut. Written by Donato Infante III Mr. Karlson: I've already linked to Fr. Harrison's magisterial (no pun intended) tome on the subject, and see no need to reinvent the wheel here. Secondly, we need to clarify what we mean by torture, which is precisely what Mark Shea refuses to do. If by torture we mean ANY AND ALL INFLICTION OF PAIN FOR PUNISHMENT'S SAKE, then Scripture and Tradition, not to mention the natural law, are both firm in stating that not all torture is intrinsically evil. Thirdly, it is now universally acknowledged that the Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian schisms were over terminology (even politics), not dogma. That having been said, a single theologian, doctor, or saint does not The Tradition make. Also, Chalcedon and Trent were Ecumenical Councils which issued dogmatic definitions on the subject of Christology. No Pope or Council has dogmatically condemned, much less defined, what we mean by torture. Finally, the Pope-ESCR analogy is silly. "Thou shall not murder" is timeless Church teaching, and ESCR is murder pure and simple. Applying timeless moral imperatives to modern scientific procedures really IS legitimate theological development, not an about-face of 2000 years of contrary teaching. Please let u not exchange the Protestant error of "sola scriptura" for its equally heretical opposite, "sola-magisteria," aka Let Us Perform Every Exercise of Intellectual Kama Sutra, or Otherwise Pray, Pay, and Obey, and Never Question Apparent Departures from the Tradition by Our Clergy, for After All Everything the Pope Farts out Is Infallible. Written by LexEtLibertas BTW, I cited Fr Harrison's tome since he so meticulously documents the Scriptural teaching on this subject (such as it is), along with the teaching of Tradition and the Magisterium. Written by LexEtLibertas Lex, Your response does not answer anything, but your tone says everything. You think "whatever I don't like, I can ignore, and if you tell me to respect it, I will tell you not to be an ultra-montanist." The problem with your approach is, as I said, magisterial declarations DO have different levels of authority and value, but ALL of them require a level of respect and obeissance which you do not show. Even if one has a question over a specific case, one is to show respect for the authority behind which the magisterium teaches it, and that requires more work than you are willing to do to engage why you disagree. Letting others do your work, using a poor scriptural analysis which doesn't engage basic hermeneutical questions of how to apply Scripture to ethical questions, and showing that there has been a dispute on the subject beforehand does not respond to the current situation, and the way by which the magisterium HAS determined a response and the sources of that response. To properly engage the magisterium, you must 1) show you know their teaching 2) the explanation for it 3) why you think you are not bound by it and 4) where you think there is a mistake all while 5) showing respect to the authority of the Church recognizing you are also not infallible and the Church's magisterial authority is more likely than you to understand and apply tradition. The response we get from you by taking someone else's mismatch and unquestioned use of scripture, and incomplete history of "thinkers" (not the magisterium per se) on the question again could be and is often used by all those in every generation who want to ignore the magisterium today (they want dead records, not a living voice). The Pope/ESCR point is not invalid at all. Some people would say "it's not murder" therefore, it is not an application of historical precedents for the current situation. On the other hand, the dignity of the human person is historically accepted and also declarations about how we are to treat others are founded in Christ's commands (like the Golden Rule among others). Thus, we can say the whole issue of torture falls along these lines as well. Indeed, the point is the Church understands an aspect of its teaching better BECAUSE of external issues, which is often the case for all development. That we have had a time of profound disrespect to the human person HAS allowed and required the Church to explore this more. And this is why the ESCR and TORTURE both have come out as serious concerns against the dignity of the human person. Third: your "give a precise definition" requirement is an example of positivistic rationalism to the extreme. It's just an attempt to find a loophole through semantic legalism; as St Paul says, the letter kills, and it's all you want, a letter to kill. Sorry, you won't get it from me. Nor will you get a precise definition of God or religion from me, either. But I follow God in the Catholic religion! Written by Henry Karlson Nonetheless, while I fear this will be used for equivocations by some who follow a positivistic, legalistic (modernist!) use of words, this is a good basic, functional, definition of torture -- which must be followed, as with all things, via the spirit and not the letter... It is, "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions." This is from the UN definition of torture, something which the Vatican also respects, as per reference to international law when discussing torture. Written by Henry Karlson Maybe we should emulate the Church's teaching on tradition: Catholics distinguish capital "T" Tradition, which comes from God, either through Christ or the apostles, from lower-case "t" human traditions. So, we could have capital "T" Torture which would include the likes of crucifixion, burning at the stake, hanged, drawn and quartered, broken glass catheter, cutting out tongues, cutting off limbs, shooting knee caps and disemboweling just to name a few. Lower-case "t" torture would include sleep depravation over long periods of time, self-flagellation and watching the View. Waterboarding, falling far short of actual torture, could be considered Extreme Baptism. Written by Mark The first question should be " Does torture work ?' Ask John Mc Cain--- Did he talk-? Was it all the truth ? U.S. Soldiers are taught to only give Name, Rank, and Serial Number. Oriental soldiers are not taught -- it's not expected for them to stay alive and be questioned. Arabs probably never discuss it. Most older Catholic cultures call it squealing -- kids say snitches. Are they "sinning" to talk--or sinning to not talk..... Most of us will say anything to stay alive. But can you rely on the info-- esp as the world changes so fast. History [ and jails ] abound with tragic mis-information--- Lets be good Catholics and offer rewards and bribes instead. Saves water. Written by Paul Merriman 1400+ years teaching that torture is morally permissible under at least some circumstances, vs 40+ years teaching it is never permissible. — SomeoneYou keep discussing this 1400+ tradition of consistent teaching by the magisterium that torture is permissible in some situations, and yet you fail to render one citation from a pope or ecumenical council to back your assertions. Your position remains utterly and completely unjustified, yet you assert it as if it were self-evident. You have likewise failed to provide any reasons from natural law as to why torture would be morally justified. You're presuming that every infliction of pain necessarily contradicts human dignity, when logically I find no reason to assume that punishment must be pleasurable. — SomeoneI assume nothing of the sort, nor do my comments in anyway imply this assumption (which means you're knocking down a straw man). To compound things, you introduce another red herring with the idea of pleasure (another logical fallacy). Of course there is room in Catholicism for retributive justice, as Aquinas argues, only insofar as punishment heals the will of a wrong-doing who has committed a previous, determinate wrong and that punishment is proportionate to the offense. And since by definition punishment is "contrary to the will" (Aquinas and natural law), stating your assumption that punishment needn't be pleasurable is at best superfluous and at worst confused. But torture does not fall under the category of retributive justice, which is the only category under which punishment can be justified. So introducing punishment into the discussion is a distraction from what we are really debating. Obviously not. The ends do not justify the means. Thus, it would clearly be wrong for the civil authority to punish the children of terrorists for the crimes of their fathers, or to threaten such vicarious punishments in the course of interrogations. More red herrings (the issue is not about punishment or retributive justice, but torture). But let's seize on your first point about ends and means (with which I agree). The reason the Church forbids torture is because it justifies a moral evil in view of an antecedently postulated end. Torture works exclusively to turn a human person (an end in itself) into an instrument (a mere means), violating the personalistic norm. Furthermore, torture inflicts mental and/or physical suffering apart from any retributive and medicinal aim, which intensifies its illicitness. So really, your statement about ends and means partially helps establish my point. Now are you going to continue to introduce irrelevant material to a clearly defined debate or are you going to furnish some real evidence from the official teaching of the Catholic Church (which is the true interpreter of the Bible, not Fr. Harrison)? If you are unable to perform the latter, then I am afraid you have only given us mere assertions that are not worth the time of those informed on the matter. Written by Policraticus Policratius, Karlson, et al. Fr. Harrison's research speaks for itself, and no papal bloviations can reverse it. The question is how we are to read, weigh, and interpret current ecclesial sayings in light of this Tradition. I'm not gonna re-invent the wheel by re-posting all Harrison's examples. Scan the articles for yourself. Don't ask me to list the precedents. I already have, by reference to Fr Harrison's article(s). And I already have explained how certain kinds of torture can fit into a retributive context. Since the offender harms society by withholding life-saving information which he is morally bound to disclose, he may be properly punished for withholding it. Written by LexEtLibertas And by the way, "The Teaching of the Church" =/= "Any and Everything a Pope or Bishop Says" I do weigh the popes' and bishops' recent statements very heavily. And, as a student of Scripture, history, and natural law theorist, find them wanting. And I'm no less Catholic for it. Written by LexEtLibertas And no, I do not replicate Protestant errors. I obey my religious superiors in all things (save sin), and I accept each and every dogma of the Church, taught through the extraordinary or ordinary magisterium. When the Church shows me she has given considered reflection to the United States's interrogation techniques, condemns them, and explains how this condemnation is valid in light of her prior Tradition, I will assent. Till then, I respectfully dissent, or otherwise hold that the church's recent statements are nothing more than broad outlines not intending to be technical, let alone comprehensive. Hermeneutic of continuity, and all the jazz . . . Written by LexEtLibertas "When the Church shows me she has given considered reflection to the United States's interrogation techniques, condemns them, and explains how this condemnation is valid in light of her prior Tradition, I will assent." - LexEtLibertas Well said, I agree. Also, for the record, the same people who are outraged at waterboarding three terrorists (which prevented and attack on Los Angeles) said absolutely NOTHING about three Somali Pirates being killed as ordered by Barack Obama. Having lunch with my brother recently, I said "well at least this pirate thing puts the waterboarding nonsense to rest. No one could be clueless enough to support killing three men holding one hostage and at the same time protest pouring water on terrorists for 30 seconds." My brother said "don't be so sure, being clueless is what liberals do." He was right. Written by Mark <i>Does anyone have a list of those 19 questioning techniques?</i> Deal, You may have found what you are looking for already, but maybe for the benefit of others. According to http://tinyurl.com/ddmq2v The bill required (in Section 327 (a)) that, “No individual in the custody or under the effective control of an element of the intelligence community or instrumentality thereof, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.” The Army Field Manual was introduced in September 2006 and forbids the use of abusive interrogation techniques including waterboarding, forced nakedness, hooding, use of dogs or the application of any form of physical pain. Instead, the manual requires that interrogators restrict themselves to a series of 19 techniques such as “Emotional Futility,” “Fear Up,” “Fear Down,” “Mutt and Jeff” (i.e. Good Cop, Bad Cop), and “False Flag” (in which the detainee is made to believe he is held by agents of another country). Here is the link to the field manual (large PDF file): http://tinyurl.com/cd6ddv This field manual replaced U.S. Army Field Manual 34-53 “Intelligence Interrogation” which is mentioned in some of the newly declassified torture memos. Written by Matthew in Fairfax Also, for the record, the same people who are outraged at waterboarding three terrorists (which prevented and attack on Los Angeles) said absolutely NOTHING about three Somali Pirates being killed as ordered by Barack Obama. — MarkHaving lunch with my brother recently, I said "well at least this pirate thing puts the waterboarding nonsense to rest. No one could be clueless enough to support killing three men holding one hostage and at the same time protest pouring water on terrorists for 30 seconds." My brother said "don't be so sure, being clueless is what liberals do." He was right. Ha! That's funny. Well you and your brother are DEFINITELY related. The difference neither of you noticed is that the Somalis were armed and according to the SEALS, looked like they were about to harm the captain. THEY were in control of the situation in the raft and were about to get violent. THAT'S why the snipers were given the order to shoot them immediately. It has nothing to do with a case of torture where the guy getting tortured is already subdued and tied up. The torturers are in control of that situation. The torturee can't harm anyone. Back to the drawing board! ![[smiley=happy]](http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/components/com_jreactions/custom/templates/blog/smileys/smiley_happy.gif) Written by David "The difference neither of you noticed is that the Somalis were armed and according to the SEALS..." - Joe H er I mean David Do you mean the SEALS who were waterboarded as part of their training and do NOT believe it to be torture? Oh you Cafeteria Comrades are so silly. Written by Mark Matthew, thanks for finding those details about what techniques are considered acceptable by military, by the Democratic Congress who passed the bill vetoed by President Bush, and, presumably, by the U.S. bishops who urged Catholics to support the legislation. I note that even the 2006 field manual has been criticized lately by some human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, who take issue with Appendix M - "Separation." The appendix contains methods of interrogation solitary confinement, sense deprivation, sleep deprivation, and fear-up. Here is a description of "fear-up" from an article on the subject: “In the fear-up approach, the HUMINT collector identifies a pre-existing fear or creates a fear within the source." It is also used in conjunction with ‘emotional love or hate approaches’ where the love of the detainee to their family is exploited to break them down. For example, the HUMINT collector may ask “You know what can happen to you here?” Then follow on with questions about his family such as “I wonder how your family is getting along without you." This raises the interesting question of just what torture is, and whether, as Henry says, you really can know it when you see it. I recall that the passage from Veritatis Splendor, quoted by Henry, included a mental torture as an instrinsic evil which would, presumably, include technigues such as "fear-up." Perhaps the bishops supported the legislation as an incremental measure, leading up to an elimination of even the 19 techniques in the Army manual, I don't know. Does anyone know? Written by Deal Hudson "The difference neither of you noticed is that the Somalis were armed and according to the SEALS..." - Joe H er I mean David — MarkDo you mean the SEALS who were waterboarded as part of their training and do NOT believe it to be torture? Oh you Cafeteria Comrades are so silly. Joe H? Nope, sorry. I like his political stuff but that Latin mass stuff is not for me, no offense to him. I did have a good laugh at your attempt to change the subject when your original comment was so easily refuted. Unfrotunately you ended up falling into ANOTHER error! SEALS don't consider waterboarding torture?? Uh, yes they do, Mark, which is why they're trained to withstand it -- BECAUSE IT'S TORTURE. Just ask SEAL trainer Malcolm Nance: Nance, a veteran of counterterrorism operations in Iraq, has written a moving post for the counterinsurgency blog Small Wars Journal explaining, in more detail than anyone else has in public, what exactly waterboarding is. And Nance knows what he's talking about. As a former instructor at the Navy's training program, Nance (full disclosure, a TPMm pal) confesses that he "personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people" -- not detainees, of course, but would-be SEALs, so they could learn how (hopefully) to resist torture. — http://tinyurl.com/c9xo6oOuch! ![[smiley=think]](http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/components/com_jreactions/custom/templates/blog/smileys/smiley_think.gif) Written by David Finley My question is facetious. But it is intended to bring to everyone's attention what should seem obvious: a decent and moral person in a position of political authority may, as a matter of conscience, think it necessary to subject a terrorist to enhanced interrogation techniques for the purpose of saving thousands of lives. This is why some people may want greater precision on this question. Not because they are sadists looking for loopholes, but rather, because they have a sense of moral obligation, as well as a deep loathing for the deaths of innocents, that motivates them to seek clarity so they can sleep at night. This sort of person believes that it his duty to exhaust every possibility in order to know for sure that there is a moral means that will help extract information that will save thousands. To refer to this as "looking for loopholes" is unkind and uncharitable. Having said that, it is clear to me that the Church teaches that torture is an intrinsic evil. Written by Francis Beckwith Deal, I think you have it right when you suggested the bishops work for incremental changes if they don't think absolute, perfect changes can be established immediately. Again, I can't say much on the specific instance, but I would say such improvements would still be, as you said, an incremental improvement, and so I can see how it would be supported (just as partial-birth abortion restrictions are supported, though they are not the final goal). But I do think that some of the things under discussion in the US today, like waterboarding, have traditionally been seen as torture and so there really is no question here. Other things, of course, like "I don't like being locked up in jail because I murdered people," would not, in itself, be seen as torture (though it could be turned into torture, too). I do think, like pornography, at least for the majority of situations, we can tell as I said. More importantly, I think if people are asking the question, is "this" torture for something specific, if they have to even ask suggests the answer. We seek to avoid sin, after all. Francis: when talking about loopholes, I am talking about people who try to follow the letter of definitions to find a find a way out of the spirit of the definition to argue "x doesn't count" when traditionally, it was seen as torture (like waterbording). Written by Henry Karlson Perhaps the bishops supported the legislation as an incremental measure, leading up to an elimination of even the 19 techniques in the Army manual, I don't know. Does anyone know? — Deal HudsonMy limited understanding is that the Bishops want U.S. to comply with the Geneva Conventions, as mentioned in the letter of support you brought to our attention: “Reaffirming the standards contained in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions would reflect the conviction that our nation must treat its prisoners as we would expect our enemies to treat our own military personnel or citizens. We urge you to support proposed legislative language that would definitively implement America’s commitment to Common Article 3.” http://tinyurl.com/cys2ze In 1999, Pope John Paul II cited “the need to find a new consensus on humanitarian principles ” and called for strengthening the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions (I’ll quote the address in full): I cannot forget that tomorrow is the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, adopted at the end of the Second World War to guarantee protection of civilian persons, prisoners of war and all victims of armed conflict. This anniversary draws the international community’s attention once again to the situation of the war victims whose blood, still today, stains many States. That minimum protection of the dignity of every person, guaranteed by international humanitarian law, is all too often violated in the name of military or political demands which should never prevail over the value of the human person. Today we are aware of the need to find a new consensus on humanitarian principles and to reinforce their foundations to prevent the recurrence of atrocities and abuse. The Church never tires of repeating that education in respect for every human life, actively working with those who strive to assure aid to the suffering and ensure respect for their dignity is indispensable, whether they are civilians or the military. I invoke the Lord’s blessing upon all those who are doing everything they can to help the many innocent victims of conflicts, prisoners and civilians, at the mercy of violence. ~~~~~end quote http://tinyurl.com/czmpp5 Support for the legislation was to get the U.S. into compliance with the Geneva Conventions, and the Conventions themselves should be strengthened around “a new consensus on humanitarian principles” which “reinforce their foundations” and “prevent the recurrence of atrocities and abuse.” According to John Paul II, “military or political demands … should never prevail over the value of the human person.” Written by Matthew in Fairfax "when talking about loopholes, I am talking about people who try to follow the letter of definitions to find a find a way out of the spirit of the definition to argue "x doesn't count" when traditionally, it was seen as torture (like waterbording)." But often the dispute is in fact over the spirit. For example, I can easily imagine someone saying this, "The historical context of the Geneva Convention were Nazi and Japanese war crimes that were commissioned for only one reason: to advance the cause of totalitarian regimes. Given the spirit of that convention, do you think that its participants would approve of interpreting its prohibitions overinclusively so that they would inhibit the rescuing of the innocent?" I carry no brief for torture, and I am not saying that waterboarding is not torture. What I am saying is that these "letter"/"spirit" discussions cut both ways. So, why not commend rather than condemn the cautious public servant who wants to offer a plausible account of torture prohibitions that would allow borderline practices for the purpose of rescuing the innocent? Written by Francis Beckwith Francis, We are to avoid sin and the near occasion for sin. Those who are looking for the "loophole" are seeking to find a legal way around the "letter of the law." They have no interest in avoiding the near occasion of sin - and that, of course, is something expected of us all. There is no defense for looking to imitate sin. Written by Henry Karlson Dear St. Henry: Unlike you, I have no immediate access to people's inner life. All I can do--with the powers and five senses God has given me--is to examine what I observe and assess those observations with the moral theology he has imparted to the Church. You are truly a gifted man, able to peer into hearts and minds and extract motives and intents, without a whisper of doubt. It certainly makes moral judgment much easier. Those of us who are merely human have a lot of work to do in order achieve your heights of insight. St. Henry, pray for us. Frank Written by Francis Beckwith Mr. Hudson, A couple of years ago, I wrote an article that treated precisely the points you posed regarding the Catechism definition, which "does not explicitly rule out torture in the case of gathering information to protect the common good; a confession is not that, it is an admittance of personal guilt about a specific act or set of acts." http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/forum.asp? nav=publications&cjsForumID=1069 If I could write it again today, I'd make it much easier on myself. Soon after I'd written it, I attended a symposium on torture at CUA, in which Dr. William Barbieri cited a passage in Gaudium et Spes which states with the full authority of the magisterium of the Catholic Church on faith and morals, (later reiterated by John Paul II) "whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself . . . all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from them." There you are. "Attempts to coerce the will itself" are condemned. What else is torture but an attempt to coerce the will? If you claim ambiguity on "coercing the spirit," let me clear it up for you. Is the will not an intrinsic faculty of the soul, along with the intellect? May anyone use violence to make anyone believe anything? No? Then what makes you think that you may use violence to coerce the other faculty of the spirit, the will? What is torture but a violent effort, utilizing the infliction of torments on body and/or mind, as a means of extracting information? Torture is not merely "the infliction of a certain amount of pain." It is not like the unwanted side effect (pain) of a necessary tooth extraction. It is not a punishment. Torture is the intentional infliction of suffering to coerce the will: this is a means to an end. One may never intend to do evil that good may come of it, as St. Paul tells us. If you are presented with the truth of what the Church teaches (and Gaudium et Spes and also Dignitatis Humani are official teachings of the Church) and you continue to obstinately and publicly maintain your stance that torture is sometimes acceptable, there's no nice word for it: you are a heretic. Please stop spreading scandal and recant your statements. -Geoff Written by Geoff Geof, <i>Torture is not merely "the infliction of a certain amount of pain." It is not like the unwanted side effect (pain) of a necessary tooth extraction. It is not a punishment. Torture is the intentional infliction of suffering to coerce the will: this is a means to an end.</i> Of course one must distinguish between the necessary and deliberate infliction of pain. However, I'm curious how the definition of torture as "the intentional infliction of suffering to coerce the will" would differ from, say, a police officer physically restraining or putting down by force? or in a lesser case, parents seeking to deter their children from wrong behavior by the promise of corporal punishment (a spanking)? -- are both these instances not attempts to coerce the will by the infliction (or threat) of suffering? [Side note: I trust that I can make this inquiry without being accused by Henry of having dubious motives]. Written by Christopher (1.) Killing a person is a greater insult to his dignity, a greater cancellation of his freedoms, than causing him temporary fear or temporary pain. (2.) To kill a person because he threatens your military objectives treats him like an object, not like a person, to a far greater degree than does inflicting temporary fear or temporary pain to dissuade him from opposing you. (3.) Catholic doctrine allows Just War. (4.) The Ten Commandments say "Do not murder," not "Do not kill." (5.) We draw from (3.) and (4.) the conclusion that killing is not intrinsically wrong, but that it is justified in some circumstances. (6.) We draw from (1.) and (2.) the conclusion that, like killing, torture is not intrinsically wrong, but that it is justified in circumstances which, while they may be tightly circumscribed, cannot logically be circumscribed more tightly than those which justify killing. (7.) Catholic dogmas must be interpreted in such a fashion as to be consistent with (6.), unless we wish to attribute illogic or inconsistency to the Church's teaching. Written by Excelsior (1.) Killing a person is a greater insult to his dignity... — ExcelsiorExcelsior, how does torture affect the dignity of the torturer? See section 404 of Compendium Of The Social Doctrine Of The Church (http://tinyurl.com/hn2pc) for the Church’s opinion. My own opinion is that your analysis failed to take into account the dignity of the person committing the act. Written by Matthew in Fairfax I don't know about this. "Coercion of the will" must imply an unjust coercion of the will, for as others have pointed out, to apprehend, imprison, or execute a criminal also amounts to a great coercion -- for criminals do not will to be caught, jailed, or killed. Or take, for that matter, taxation, or any coercive law. Moreover, "coercion of the will" in this context must mean getting someone to do something against his will, and against his own good. Otherwise it would be immoral to use coercive means to keep an alcoholic or drug addict from getting his next fix. And so, we must be talking about a circumstance in which I use physical/mental pain, or the threat of it, to get someone to do something that I unjustly want him to do, that he doesn't want to do, and that is not in his interests. I don't think waterboarding meets this definition. And therein lies the crux of the pro-waterboarding argument: the information sought is sought in justice. The questioner has the right to it, and the questionee does not have the right to withhold it. Just as the criminal forfeits his natural human right to self-determination (and, possibly, his life) when he commits a crime, and this is why it's not unjust "coercion" to imprison him (which bends him against his will to be free and likely to commit other crimes), I'd argue that the detainee who withholds information to which another has a right, in justice, opens himself up to the use of proportionate means to access that information. Written by Todd M. Aglialoro "whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself . . . all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. — GeoffThat same paragraph of Gaudium et Spes lists "deportation" among the other infamies. Is it intrinsically immoral, no qualifications allowed, for a state authority to deport someone from a country? Is this the non-negotiable teaching of our Church? Written by Todd M. Aglialoro Matthew: Excelsior, how does torture affect the dignity of the torturer? See section 404 of Compendium Of The Social Doctrine Of The Church for the Church’s opinion. My own opinion is that your analysis failed to take into account the dignity of the person committing the act. I did not take the dignity of the person committing the act into account. Touché. But now, as I take it into account, I am confronted with the same problem: If all other things (e.g., the amount of forethought and cold consideration involved) remain equal, is my dignity harmed more by actually killing a person to further my goals in prosecuting a just war, or by subjecting him to temporary fear and/or pain? It seems to me that the injury done to my own dignity as the actor is proportionate to the injury done to the dignity of the person who is the object, or victim, of that action. So, again, if actual killing is not intrinsically evil, but is in fact justifiable in Just War as part of a Christian's authorization (obligation?) to defend innocent life (by force if needed), then neither can harsh, painful, scary interrogation be intrinsically evil (where "intrinsically" means "unable to be justified by any circumstances, intentions, or consequences, no matter what they are"). The alternative, if one wishes to hold on to the intrinsic evil of harsh, painful, fear-inducing interrogations, is to hold that both they and killing are intrinsically evil. This eliminates the idea of a Just War (but I don't think it was ever yet defined as dogma, was it?) and requires us to translate the Commandment "thou shalt not kill" as "thou shalt not kill, ever" instead of "thou shalt not [wrongfully] kill." I know some Catholics would be perfectly happy with that view. But there's a "gotcha," with that view: Jesus Himself, when speaking to Roman soldiery, did not tell them to resign their commissions. He told them not to abuse their power, and to be content with their pay. Period. This is an inexplicable oversight by the Savior, if Jesus was really preaching an entirely pacifist gospel. By the way, about Section 404 of the Compendium: That section deals with establishing criminal responsibility in preparation for a trial. So it's in a different category from treatment of captured combatants in warfare. Or, at least, if anyone wants to say that treatment of captured combatants, held by our military, whose release is contingent upon the end of hostilities should be identical to the treatment of a defendant, held by our civilian police and not yet tried for a crime, then it's his obligation to make that argument. Written by Excelsior Excelsior, thanks for your patience. You ask, “If all other things (e.g., the amount of forethought and cold consideration involved) remain equal, is my dignity harmed more by actually killing a person to further my goals in prosecuting a just war, or by subjecting him to temporary fear and/or pain?” I do not believe your dignity is harmed at all by killing a person in self-defense, and I believe the Catechism supports that view: “The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not." (http://tinyurl.com/c892qz section 2263) If killing in prosecution of a just war is a form of self-defense, then you did your dignity no harm in that case either. If you can avoid killing an enemy, and merely scare or subdue him using force, then section 2264 seems to require you do that: “If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful…”. The temporary fear and/or pain caused during “the preservation of one’s own life” seems to be part of the “double effect” described in section 2263. Note that section 2263 requires these secondary effects to be unintended. Killing in defense of other innocent people is permitted in section 2265, but again, the Catechism gives no reason to believe that your dignity is harmed more by actually killing a person than by committing torture. The portions of the Catechism I quoted indicate that killing in self-defense or the defense of others is not a sin, but killing must be justifiable by the circumstances. You don’t get to choose between killing and non-lethal force when non-lethal force is sufficient. So when you commit torture, you are not giving up the opportunity to kill, because the justification to kill does not exist. The fact that you have the opportunity to torture (such as denying a captive sleep for eleven straight days while you get all the sleep you need) is proof that non-lethal force is sufficient. If you don’t have right to kill in a particular circumstance, you cannot use the circumstance to justify torture. This is why I humbly believe your analysis suffers. Also, I don’t think the Compendium’s statement on dignity and torture is intended to be as limited as you have construed it, but I doubt my ability to prove otherwise. Instead, I’ll point out that Pope John Paul II linked torture to the dignity of the torturer back in 1982 in an address to the International Red Cross at the end of section 5. Original in Italian: http://tinyurl.com/dynpgt Eric Pavlat provides a translation: “The disciple of Christ rejects every recourse to such methods [torture], which nothing could justify, and by which the dignity of man is as much debased in the torturer as in his victim.” (http://tinyurl.com/dd8xy8) So hopefully this discussion helped out in some manner. Written by Matthew in Fairfax Christopher, did you read my article? I covered that point, but I'll make it again here. A police officer (or anyone else: the badge makes no difference) using force to stop an aggressor does not depend on coercing the aggressor's will. If I shoot someone, it is not to force him to will or to believe anything. A bullet going into someone's body physically incapacitates him, preventing him from continuing his violent act. That is the only justifiable use of force: to stop a physical act. Not to coerce the will or the intellect, but to physically stop the act of the aggressor. This is not done through the means of coercing his will. If I shoot someone, he can still will to kill me: he is physically incapable of doing so. Torture, by its nature, requires coercing the will as a means to its end of extracting information. Can you clearly see the difference? As for the child and his parents: the child's will is under the custody of the parents, to a greater (early childhood) or lesser (adolescence) degree, until the child is emancipated. If the child's will is properly formed through reward and/or punishment (not intended to break the will, as torture is, of necessity) the child chooses the good. Just as a parent does not let his child choose whatever food he may eat when the child is four, the parent does not treat the child as a four-year old when he is close to emancipation. The child must be given more and more autonomy of the will as he becomes older, until he is finally emancipated. Now, emancipated adults are under the custody of no one. The person's will must be held as sovereign. They can be held accountable for their actions, and they may even be physically prevented from doing harm to others, but they may not be forced to will or believe anything. That is what John Paul II speaks of when he says that "coercing the spirit" is gravely immoral. The will and intellect are the two faculties of the <i>spirit.</i> You may not use physical violence against a spiritual entity. The will itself is not a threat to anyone: the will must work through the body in order to do damage. The body is the only thing which we can use force against. Hence, inflicting pain on the body as a means of coercing the spirit is wrong. Written by Geoff Todd, Please see the link to the article in my first post and/or my most recent post. You said: "I don't know about this. "Coercion of the will" must imply an unjust coercion of the will, for as others have pointed out, to apprehend, imprison, or execute a criminal also amounts to a great coercion -- for criminals do not will to be caught, jailed, or killed." This coercion is not a coercion of the will. It may be contrary to their will, but it is not a coercion of their will. You can see the difference, no? First, I think imprisoning people may be done for one purpose: to protect other individuals from their physical actions. If, as a secondary effect, they recant their former way of life, excellent. This possible conversion should not be the intended end of the means that is imprisonment, but a happy side effect, should it occur. Secondly, the death penalty should only apply for the same reason: that the person has proven themselves a threat to others. Not only among other individuals in free society, but in prison itself. John Paul II said something similar (though not identical) about the role of the death penalty. Nonsense talk of a "repaying a debt to society" has no place in discussions of incarceration or the death penalty. "Society" cannot be a victim. Individuals are. Individuals can be remunerated. The individuals comprising society are not remunerated through imprisoning a criminal. The individuals that comprise society are merely protected through imprisoning a criminal. Todd wrote: "Or take, for that matter, taxation, or any coercive law." I won't comment here on what I think of taxation. But "coercive laws" do not force us to will or believe anything. They merely assist in punishing wrongdoers after a crime has been committed (or in punishing innocents, depending on the "law.") Todd wrote: "Moreover, "coercion of the will" in this context must mean getting someone to do something against his will, and against his own good. Otherwise it would be immoral to use coercive means to keep an alcoholic or drug addict from getting his next fix." Again. There is a difference between using force to physically deprive them of a physical good (say, wresting a pistol from a maniac's hand) and coercing their will or intellect. I can take a pistol away from a madman without coercing his will. Yes, I am contradicting his will, but not coercing his will. He still wants to shoot people. He is simply physically incapable. If I withhold alcohol or drugs from an addict, I am not coercing his will. I am contradicting his will. He still wants his alcohol or drugs. My refusal to give him alcohol or drugs is not a coercion of his will. (To be continued in a second post.) Written by Geoff Todd wrote: "I don't think waterboarding meets this definition. And therein lies the crux of the pro-waterboarding argument: the information sought is sought in justice. The questioner has the right to it, and the questionee does not have the right to withhold it. Just as the criminal forfeits his natural human right to self-determination (and, possibly, his life) when he commits a crime, and this is why it's not unjust "coercion" to imprison him (which bends him against his will to be free and likely to commit other crimes), I'd argue that the detainee who withholds information to which another has a right, in justice, opens himself up to the use of proportionate means to access that information." This is the crux of the pro-waterboarding/bamboo spikes under the fingernails/beating/electric shock/sleep deprivation/sexual abuse argument: the information is achieved directly through the means of coercing the will itself. You're not contradicting the will, you are directly intending to and pursuing a coercion of the will. It does not matter that I do not have a "right" to refuse to believe in the truths of the Catholic faith. Despite this fact, you may not morally attempt to coerce me to believe in the truths of the Catholic faith. Likewise, even if I have no right to withhold information, you may not attempt to coerce my will in order to obtain said information. The end, no matter how grave, does not justify such immoral means. Torture, as coercion of the free will, is a violation against an inviolable aspect of the human soul, (having the spiritual faculties of will and intellect), and thus of human nature and human dignity. Written by Geoff Geoff: But "coercive laws" do not force us to will or believe anything. This is true of some forms of torture, at least the kind that Todd, I, and others are justifying. We're not torturing the terrorist to get him to convert to Christianity from Islam. We are, rather, punishing him for withholding life-saving, essential information which he is morally obligated to divulge. Obviously, before such punishments are administered, there should be reasonable certainty that the terrorist does have this knowledge. At least you're trying to engage us intelligently, Geoff, rather unlike Mark Shea who insist on name-calling, misrepresentation of his opponents, strawmen, and an ultramontane hermeneutic of discontinuity when interpreting and weighing magisterial statements. Written by LexEtLibertas This has been a very informative debate in the comments. Thanks to everyone involved. It seems to me that the last 5-10 comments are talking about coercing the will when it would appear as though the main objection of Veritatis Splendour would be the objectification of the human person. JP2's list, that is the common thread. All of these acts turn the person in question into something less than a person. It's not the coercion, it's not the pain, its the lack of respect for human dignity. For that, we don't need a definition of what acts constitute torture. As long as the torturer objectifies the torturee, as Catholics, we cannot justify its use for the possibility of creating good. Written by Mike A police officer (or anyone else: the badge makes no difference) using force to stop an aggressor does not depend on coercing the aggressor's will. If I shoot someone, it is not to force him to will or to believe anything. A bullet going into someone's body physically incapacitates him, preventing him from continuing his violent act. That is the only justifiable use of force: to stop a physical act. Not to coerce the will or the intellect, but to physically stop the act of the aggressor. This is not done through the means of coercing his will. If I shoot someone, he can still will to kill me: he is physically incapable of doing so. Torture, by its nature, requires coercing the will as a means to its end of extracting information. Can you clearly see the difference? What if the police officer, prior to shooting, points his gun at the aggressor and says "stop or I'll shoot?" At this point he is clearly trying to coerce the will of the aggressor by threating to inflict pain and bodily harm. If this threat of force fails, he will escalate to using actual force and open fire. According to your argument, if I have understood it correctly, shooting an aggressor can be justified, but threating to shoot him cannot since it requires coercing the will. Therefore, police should always open fire without any warning. Written by Joseph S Mike: Punishing someone for withholding information he is morally obligated to divulge is not "objectifying" him. I guess my parents were objectifying me when I was little when I was spanked for not doing the dishes, as I was told? I personally subscribe to the Kantian argument that to NOT punish someone can be a form of objectification. Righteous punishment is a way of expressing society's sense that the perpetrator is a moral being, endowed with rights AND responsibilities. We hold him accountable for his immoral behavior in a way we wouldn't an animal. Written by LexEtLibertas Geoff, You have provided the clearest and, in my judgement, most Catholic explanation of this matter. I see no reason to think that torture is anything except an intrinsic evil, a non-negotiable, like abortion, that can never be justified. Thank you for your good work. Question for you: why hasn't the Church made this as clear as it has its position on abortion? Thank you, Patrick Written by Patrick |
|
 |
