I will stipulate that I’m the worst Catholic in the world. OK. So if anyone wants to call me that I beat you to it so don’t bother putting it in the combox.
I’m against torturing people. For a number of reasons. I do not believe in using other people as a means to my own end, no matter how noble I believe my end to be.
And big government scares the heck out of me. A government that can torture you will torture you…eventually.
Jesus Christ had a run in with big government that didn’t end well. (Well it ended well but things looked pretty grim for about three days.)
But I do want to ask this question. As Catholics we have the Just War Theory and theories on legitimate defense so it’s not that all violence is disallowed.
I accept it’s wrong to torture a surrendered enemy but is an enemy truly “surrendered” if he has knowledge of an imminent attack and his silence is preventing someone from stopping it? Aren’t they still essentially an active combatant if their silence furthers the goals of their violence?
So, couldn’t doing violence to this person still be covered under legitimate defense?
The Catechism states:
2265. Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.[66]
But in this case the unjust aggressor is still seeking to do harm by their silence. So repelling this attack could possibly mean repelling the aggressors by physically harming the person.
I’m asking this question in all honesty.
May 4, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Matthew,
Thank you for your very pointed question. Sadly, most of the commenters thus far have avoided it and taken it up as an opportunity to pontificate their view on torture in general.
Rather then engage in honest debate they simply speak in platitudes that are one, beside the point and two, inconclusive.
To read some of these one would get the idea that violence is never defensible if one is a Catholic. That is untrue.
I gather that you wanted to debate a specific point. But sadly, it’s no longer possible to have honest debate among Catholics about the finer points.
I would’ve hoped for better from your readers as I enjoy this site immensely.
May 4, 2009 at 10:44 pm
War is not a neat business. It never has been. It never will be. The worst way to end a war is to loose. The best way to end a war is to defeat the enemy. If ones enemy by silence can still cause you damage, then you have every legitimate right to use whatever means will be effective to make him break silence, divulge whatever information he has that will harm his cause and render him no longer a threat. If harm must be done to a foe to prevent harm from being done to a friend, then act to protect the friend and let the foe take the consequences of his enmity.
May 4, 2009 at 10:44 pm
If a saint would not do it, how could we justify it?I don’t exactly picture Padre Pio or the Little Flower slamming home the switch on the electric chair so some convict can ride the lightning, but tradition is exceedingly clear that such a power is within the scope of the State’s authority. We justify it based on the teachings of Sacred Tradition as handed down to us through the Successors of the Apostles.
Also, and I’m not sure where I’m going with this, it may be worth noting that stoning was a routine prescription for the Saints of old — not just a sanitary bleed-out. We could have been commanded to kill *nicely* in an antiseptic and anesthetized manner…but we weren’t.
@Foxfier:
The abortion maxim is this: it is ALWAYS morally wrong to (1) intentionally (2) kill an (3) innocent (4) human being. If 1-4 are present, it may not be done. Easy peasy. That goes for ectopic pregnancies, too. If you’re intentionally killing an innocent human being, it’s not morally allowed. Find a different way to help.
The question is…what equivalent syllogism is there for torture?
Yes, yes, torture is an intrinsic evil which is never morally permissible. But, contrary to admirable men of significant esteem like Mark Shea and Jeff Miller, I tend to think the appropriate question at the outset of moral analysis concerns the definition of terms. How can you say what’s immoral if you can’t even tell me what’s being done?
…so I’m trying to see what kind of well reasoned definitions there are. Presently, I’m disappointed at the dearth. I may just have to see what I can make up on my own.
God Bless,
Ryan
May 4, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Catholic Audio-
that is the point I was trying to make.
Abortion is wrong. Period.
Removing the tube where an ectopic pregnancy is located, to save the life of the mother, isn’t; basically, “abortion”= “willful killing of the child” while removing the tube is only a last-ditch attempt to save one of the two lives in jeopardy– which sadly, indirectly ends one of the lives.
Boils back down to “what is torture”.
As I’ve seen equally righteous (of various forms) assertions that torture is anything short of treating someone as an honored guest with their choice of culturally-sensitive meals and appropriate mental stimulation to claims that, basically, if there’s a high survival rate it wasn’t torture.
I’ve had folks, apparently serious, insist that any questioning without a lawyer is morally torture.
I define torture as willfully inflicting agony or causing long-term damage.
Uncomfortable rooms: not torture.
Cheese grater to the feet: torture.
Electric shocks to unspeakable areas: torture.
Playing on fears: not torture. (although that sure wouldn’t keep me from freaking out in a claustrophobic situation, nor slow me in attempting harm against those who “jokingly” and knowingly inflict it on me)
I don’t bother to try to talk about this any more because the noise to information volume is far too high, and the chance of actually getting anyone to change their mind is far, far too low.
May 4, 2009 at 11:28 pm
You know things are bad when people start equating Mark Shea and the Catechism of Cardinal von “balloon” Schönborn with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
May 5, 2009 at 1:03 am
After thinking about this and analyzing this, I have concluded some things. Before I list these, let us use the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s to describe torture as “physical or moral violence” (CCC 2297). Since the term “waterboarding” is the hot-button issue right now, I will say that I do not believe that would be considered torture. However, I do not see waterboarding mentioned in the Blog Post, so I will not go into that.
Here are my conclusions regarding specific cases of using torture:
1. for vengeance or sadistic pleasure–intrinsically evil and thus not morally justified
2. for extracting confessions of guilt–intrinsically evil and thus not morally justified
3. for punishing the guilty–not intrinsically evil and therefore can be justified in certain cases
4. for extracting information–not intrinsically evil and therefore can be justified in certain cases
Now, I think it would take an extreme case of number 4 to justify physical torture, but it is not intrinsically evil.
May 5, 2009 at 4:02 am
I would define torture as the use of unnecessary force to obtain information; the sadistic infliction of pain either for its own sake or to extract a confession of guilt or belief.
The question of how much force is necessary is a prudential one. This is uncomfortable for us as Americans because of our tendency reduce everything to legalities, but every case is different, and therefore prudence is required for each case. One must act appropriate to the circumstances.
As to the treatment of prisoners (and this also touches on the death penalty), I am of the opinion that there is more to justice than simple trial and sentencing. That imposing suffering is within the purvue of the legitimate authorities, who have, to some extent, the power over citizens that God has over souls, and a father has over his children. The use of corporal punishment, and ultimately the death penalty, is a legitimate power of government.
Let me further state that the purpose of government is justice, not mercy. While individual people are called to follow in God’s footsteps in a Christian manner, such behavior for a government would be reckless and dangerous. When Our Lord says to render unto Caesar, He is indicating that the temporal authority has a different role to play. The point of this is that I would say that the use of force by individual citizens without the authorization by legitimate authority would be sinful, but it would not be with that authorization.
http://www.culturalgadfly.com
May 5, 2009 at 4:17 am
Some of these comments are unbelievable. Are you people Catholics or what? Remember, every argument you make to justify torturing non-Americans can also be used by non-Americans to justify torturing Americans.
May 5, 2009 at 4:23 am
Some of these comments are unbelievable. Are you people Catholics or what?
Thanks for the grand example of the proud tradition of Catholic Reasoning. I’m sure you contributed wonderfully to swaying minds to your view.
May 5, 2009 at 4:40 am
Foxfier, formerly Sailorette –
I’m not trying to sway minds to my view. I’m trying to get you to think. Go ahead and torture all you want. We’ll find out in the end who had it right.
May 5, 2009 at 4:40 am
@Horatius:
I would define torture as the use of unnecessary force to obtain information; the sadistic infliction of pain either for its own sake or to extract a confession of guilt or belief.This is good. Perhaps not perfect, but this is certainly a better articulation of a useful moral principle than I’ve seen before. I also like that the “unnecessary” part can be used to include subjective weaknesses.
But I wonder…do you think a negative corollary would be necessary? Perhaps as follows:
Torture is NOT the use of force by the State on a guilty party to obtain information regarding an immanent harm no less grave than the force employed.
Additional thoughts as to what I’m missing are most welcome.
God Bless,
Ryan
May 5, 2009 at 4:53 am
geronimo-
How wonderfully Catholic of you!
“Go to hell, all of you, I’m surely not going to try to save you. In fact, I’ll act to drive you away, in the name of promoting virtue, and wrap myself in my righteousness.”
If you truly believe that our souls are in peril, why on earth would you behave like that?
Will you next stand in front of an abortuary, screaming “whore!” and “murderer!”?
If your mother were about to make a mistake with her medications, would you read the warning label and explain the mistake, or call her an idiot, turn and wash your hands, saying “the dumb woman deserved it”?
If you think that personal attacks without any sort of rational argument will cause people to think– other than to think ill of you– I fear you may be in for a surprise.
May 5, 2009 at 9:52 am
Are you serious? Many of you just upbraided me for defending the use of violence in defence of the unborn, and yet you want to jump on the torture bandwagon? All this shows is that way too many Catholics are more loyal to the Republican party than to the Church. It’s a big problem among otherwise faithful American Catholics and this isn’t making it any better.
Those of you who think there is room for debate on this need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck: Waterboarding and the other “enhanced” interrogation techniques employed by the Bush Administration were torture. Any violence whatsoever done to persons who are not themselves personally visiting violence upon others is torture, including the deprivation of ordinary human nutrition and sensory stimulii.
And no, they are not still combantants if they refuse to give you information, even when that information could save lives. Firstly, you cannot visit violence upon a person in order to extract the truth from him, because that is always to treat him as a means. Violence can be used only to counter violence itself, and then only against the those personally engaged in the violence, and not against prisoners of war who no longer have any personal ability to do you harm, regardless of however useful their knowledge may be in thwarting an attack by their comrades.
Secondly, this suggestion that they have not truly “surrendered” until they tell us everything they know (which is an idea as stupid as it is dangerous) assumes that surrender is equivalent to acquiescence, which it obviously isn’t, or that acquiescence is necessary to ensure one’s own personal immunity from further violence in a state of war, which is also false. Somebody who tells you everything they know has not only surrendered, but also defected, and defection is not necessary to be rendered immune to further violence.
The “they-haven’t-surrendered-until-they-cooperate-fully” theory also assumes that we know beforehand that they know something they’re not telling us. How could we know with any certainty if they are actually withholding information from us? You can’t know that, and you certainly can’t know that with the certainty required to justify doing somebody harm, even if knowing it did justify it, which it doesn’t.
This issue is hard not in knowing what to do but having the will to actually do it: If you have a “ticking time-bomb” scenario in which thousands may die, and the only way to stop it is to use “enhanced” interrogation techniques against the one man who knows what will happen, you pray and you don’t dare lay a hand on him. Period.
~cmpt
May 5, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Foxfier,
Why do you put something in quotes to make it look like I said it?
The arguments against torture have been already been made – by the teachings of the Catholic Church. You have free will. I can’t force you to follow them. I don’t even know you, and I certainly can’t stop you from using torture if you are doing it as an instrument of the U.S. government.
Please stop making personal attacks on me and making up quotes.
May 5, 2009 at 1:27 pm
So you can’t put a person in a box with live crickets in order to get information as to where the ticking time bomb is located? You can only pray! THAT is the teaching of the Church? Essentially you sit by and let innocent people die? I don’t think that is acceptable. I have also seen people equate the use of torture in all cases, with abortion. I don’t think that is accurate. Someone posted this earlier and no one seems to have read it, I quess?
CCC 2297
“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.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.”
I think that CCC 2297 coupled with CCC 2265 indicate that, dare I say it, TORTURE, could be used to extract information regarding ongoing plans to kill others. However, if you have methods that won’t cause permanent physical harm (such as putting the person in a dark refrigerator size box full of live crickets) you have a responsibility not to pull one of his fingers off with pliers to get the information.
2297 seems to say you can’t use any torture (even live crickets) to extract a confession, punish, or work out your anger….
Those three examples have one thing in common, they exclude situations where there is a reasonable belief that the person has information which could avoid the killing or harming of other innocent people.”
That seems more reasonable… why is that wrong? — Luis
May 5, 2009 at 3:54 pm
geronimo-
Is that not a rephrasing of what you said? Is going to Hell not the logical result, if you are correct?
I notice you don’t respond to the arguments.
I have yet to make a personal attack, unless you are going to consider questioning your actions in light of your claims to be personal; in that case, you have little room to be offended, as your initial action was to do the saem.
May 5, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Whoa, gentlemen. I just posted a link to this conversation saying that not only was it an excellent summary of the positions but was also a model of civility in discussion.
Deep breath please and let not Satan enter this conversation and further divide.
Make it a great day!
May 5, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Apologies, RJSciurus, if I’m what triggered your horsey response.
May 5, 2009 at 4:15 pm
A couple matters are worth considering:
1) Torture is, by its nature, unjust. There is often talk of “A ticking time bomb… and this person knows the details.” Really? What court of law has ascertained this? What due process has been used to confirm the person’s guilt?
If we don’t have some justice mechanism in place, we have hyper-empowered individuals who are deciding the guilt and punishment of an individual. There is the possibility that the hypothetical person REALLY IS INNOCENT.
Would water boarding this innocent person be wrong?
2) All this talk of to-torture or not-to-torture is a bit drab. Let’s cut to the chase:
3) Would you cheat on your spouse to save the lives of innocents? Since perfect hypotheticals are all the rage, if having sex with someone other than your spouse would save innocent lives, would you do it?
If so, why? If not, why not?
May 5, 2009 at 4:26 pm
CCC 2297
“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.
I jump to point out that the above merely says you cannot use physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents or satisfy hatred, it does not say you cannot use violence to extract information. Confession is a legal term, and is defined as: “A written or oral statement acknowledging guilt, made by one who has been accused or charged with an offense.” However, the purpose of “torture” is not acknowledging guilt (in fact, you probably would not be in the situation if we were not reasonably certain that you were guilty), but rather to find out about other illegal, immoral, and deadly plans, plots, and organizations. So, the CCC does not condemn torture in the situation I have thus outlined.
Catholic Audio, I like the direction you are going, but a definition by negation is inherently weak, though the implications of your definition are useful for this debate. In response, I would amend my statement thus: I would define torture as the use of unnecessary force to obtain information; the sadistic infliction of pain either for its own sake or to extract a confession of guilt or belief, or any force used to extract information by an illegitimate authority.
Geronimo: Your statement is unbelievable. “Some of these comments are unbelievable. Are you people Catholics or what? Remember, every argument you make to justify torturing non-Americans can also be used by non-Americans to justify torturing Americans.” That argument in this combox is all about whether torture is acceptable or not from a Catholic standpoint. Defining it as not Catholic is as convenient as it is practically useless. As for the second part of your comment, it is entirely beside the point, since morality does not spring from practicality. However, since you bring it up, they do already torture our personell, because they are fighters in a zero sum game, and do not care about rules. We have prison camps with Islamic food – they torture and then publically behead our people. I find your statement, therefore to be niave.
Christopher – I am not a Republican, I am a conservative. First and foremost, I am a Catholic. The history of the Church is not all sweetness and light, as you seem to think. When the Church was actually invovled in secular rule, back in the days of Christendom, they used violence and the death penalty to maintain order, and to secure Christian rule over terrirtories. It is only now, in the last fifty years or so, that they have changed their position. I, for one, as someone who is skeptical about progress, think that the Church which actually was in the situation of having to defend citizens and subjects, probably know better than our modern clerics what God would find acceptable. Jesus Christ was not Mohammad – he did not lay down rules for governance as well as personal life. Therefore, please do not conflate personal morality with the morality of nation – states.