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 5, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Anon – your argument is predicated on torture being inherently evil, and that is what is being debated. I do not accept your premise, therefore your argument is meaningless.
If it were proven that toture was inherently evil, then I would agree that it would not be acceptable under any circumstances. However, to prove that you would also have to prove that violence is always wrong, which you cannot.
Enemy combatants are not protected by the Constitution, and our not entitled to due process. Second, there is a higher law than positive law. Third, there can never be absolute certainty about guilt. Courts do convict not guilty people, and set free guilty ones. It is besides the point anyway – we do not have jurisdication or sovreignity over enemy combatants. The state of nature exists between nations states and non-state actors.
No, the standard here has to be reason and prudence: if we have reasonable information or proof that someone has vital information – which happens often in intelligence – then, excercising our prudence, we can use violence to get him to tell us.
http://www.culturalgadfly.com
May 5, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I think that the problem is that torture is not merely violence against a person, but an attempt to dehumanize him. There’s a difference between trying to persuade someone to provide information, and extracting the information. The former respects free will, while the latter does not. It treats a human person as something less than a person.
May 5, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Causing the fleeting emotion of panic when someone is in a fearful situation and causing excruciating physical pain that leaves life-long scars and/or debilitation are two very different things.
If someone tied a bungee cord to my feet on a high bridge, assured me that I wouldn’t hit the water and threatened to push me over, I would experience the emotion of PANIC. Others actually pay to have this done to them.
Some would like to say that forcing a man to sleep in a bed 5 inches too narrow for his shoulders and a foot too short for his height, with loud noises occurring randomly as he begins to fall asleep, would be a violence against his human-personhood. But that would be life aboard ship for my husband. He volunteers for this “torture” in order to help defend this country from men who would, given the opportunity, cut off our heads with dull knives.
It is very important to define terms. All that glitters is not gold and waterboarding is not is not torture.
Kate
May 5, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Horatius,
I think that the Catechism of the Catholic Church pretty much says that torture is intrinsically evil. CCC 2297 says, in part:
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.
May 5, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Kate,
I don’t think that an action need do physical violence to qualify as torture. I think that waterboarding is torture because it does psychological violence. It is an attempt to get information by causing someone to lose control.
May 5, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Amy Welborn recently linked to an essay which I thought did a very good job of defining (from a moral, not necessarily a legal, standpoint) what is and is not torture.
One of the things that occurred to me when I read it is that there is a common principle underlying the Church’s opposition to such things as abortion, euthanasia, torture, etc., which is that every human person has an intrinsic dignity which must not be violated, no matter what. Period.
May 5, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Karen LH:
The CCC does not say “Torture is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity,” as you might wish it to. That sentence has qualifiers which you cannot ignore simply because you don’t believe they cover everything you want them to.
Also, many things can be contrary to human dignity and not be intrinsically evil. Slapping someone in the face. It’s usually “contrary to the respect for the person,” but until recently I believe that the Sacrament of Confirmation called for the Bishop to slap the Confirmand in the face…
Kate
May 5, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Foxfier –
It’s not a rephrasing of what I said. Anyway, a rephrasing would not go in quotes. Take a writing course.
Now, for all you pro-torturers out there – since we seem to like hypothetical situations, here’s mine:
A U.S. Marine is captured in a foreign country in which the U.S. in engaged in “nation building” (whatever that means). His captors have reason to believe that he knows about an imminent air strike on a neighboring village. The captors also know that the neighboring town does not have any soldiers (enemy combatants as you Americanites like to call them) or weapons, but only civilians who will be attending a wedding ceremony. There is no time to evacuate the town. Are they allowed to torture the U.S. Marine to find out when, how and from where the air strike is coming so they can attempt to stop it?
May 5, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Karen LH,
Again, fleeting panic is not torture, in fact many perfectly healthy people pay for that feeling (scary movies, roller coasters, bungee jumping…) Little children beg to be scared. Scaring someone and long term brain-washing are two different things. Children do not beg to have their fingernails pulled out. People do not pay to have their genitals electrocuted.
Let’s also say that a definition of torture should include the truth that it is NOT torture if someone who has undergone the treatment would be willing to do it again. Ever.
Kate
May 5, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Kate,
Down, girl. You can disagree with someone without trying to kick them in the teeth.
I’m sorry. I honestly disagree with your read on the question. It’s not a question of what I want to think, but of what I actually do think. Have a little respect for that, please.
May 5, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Karen LH “I think that the Catechism of the Catholic Church pretty much says that torture is intrinsically evil.” No, it says that torture used for the three situations listed “is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.” That specifically doesn’t include the extraction of information that is reasonably calculated to prevent the loss of other innocent human. Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. No forced confessions, you can’t just use it to scare people which can be reasonably distinguished from trying to obtain information by scaring them, and not for punishment, nor personal enjoyment. I don’t think it is reaasonable to ignore what is listed and what is not.
Geroniwimp: Grow up… “for all you pro-torturers out there” Any one who disagrees with you is a horrible bad monster with big buggy eye and sharp narly teeth, eh? There are canonists who are called to debate this type of topic and they don’t resort to such nonsense or they get thrown out by the tribunal. Your arguments for human dignity, mercifully, are indepenent of your behavior. Otherwise, you have debased the existence of essential human dignity by the way you treat others.
Luis
May 5, 2009 at 5:46 pm
I think that the Catechism of the Catholic Church pretty much says that torture is intrinsically evil. CCC 2297 says, in part:
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.
Asked and answered – please read previous posts before posting your own. If you wish to disagree, then address the previous argument, do not just restate your position over and over again. It is tiresome and unhelpful to the debate.
Geronimo – if they have legitmate authority, then yes, they would be allowed to. Think of the greater good.
May 5, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Gee, lets see here is the answer you want:
“No, because shiny, brave-nice Marine is better than anyone at wedding party and we are all just “pro-torture of non-American” big hypocrites..,.with buggy eyes!” You win Geronimo.
The hypothetical is pointless because how is the Marine going to stop the airstrike? They have him captured? Is he going to call his superiors and tell them “They are torturing me, call of the airstrike!” That won’t change the operational objective and the village is going to be Toast, anyhow. So why would you torture the guy? I vote, no you can’t torture the person because it isn’t likely that it will save innocent human life. P.S. If, since it’s your hypothetical and the Marines superiors are inclined to call off the air strike if he is being tortured, then call them up and have someone pretend they are him and being tortured. You save yourself the moral conundrum
May 5, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Horatius, I think you’re overparsing the Catechism. It’s not a mathematical definition. If it were, it could be used to argue against all physical punishment for crimes (“physical … violence to … punish the guilty…”), which is clearly nonsense.
I think that the point is that some acts attack the fundamental dignity of the human person and some do not. One way to do this is to directly attack a person’s free will. That seems to be a characteristic of torture.
Look at the language that we tend to use: We want to “extract” information. We want to “break” someone.
May 5, 2009 at 6:44 pm
@Karen LH:
Just so I know, what is your position on yelling at a suspect in a police interrogation room? A bright light in the face film-noir style? Standing while the suspect sits? No potty break after the suspect drinks several cups of coffee? How about threats of life in prison? Maybe threats regarding the death penalty or simply “or else”?
‘Cuz each of these techniques are routinely employed to “extract” information and “break” the suspect by “attacking” the suspect’s “free will”.
…so…unless you’re alleging every police department in the US has and is committing torturous war crimes, might I please suggest some nuance? If that IS your position…well…it would be nice to know up front.
God Bless,
Ryan
May 5, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Two points:
Catholic Audio: I am with you, I don’t think those things you cite are torture. They may be used to obtain a confession, for example.
KarenLH: I don’t think it is overparsing to use a plain reading of the CCC. It doesn’t say torture is intrinsically evil. Why not? It is standard statutory construction to go by what is written. The cited examples don’t involve the protection of innocent human life. I think you are reading too much into the CCC which results in an absurdity.
May 5, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Ryan,
I’m trying to understand underlying principles. Work with me.
Anonymous,
This is from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (#404):
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.
May 5, 2009 at 8:59 pm
The incredible logical twists that the pro-torture crowd will make are just astonishing to me.
Check this out guys:
torture is morally wrong. Always. Everywhere.
If you don’t get this, then sit down with the Gospels during Adoration till you figure it out.
These are human beings we are talking about. Even evil people have human dignity.
May 5, 2009 at 9:20 pm
torture is morally wrong. Always. Everywhere.
…
These are human beings we are talking about. Even evil people have human dignity.I agree with your conclusion, but I don’t think that the issue is as obvious as you are making it sound. The “pro-torture crowd” aren’t a bunch of sadists—they’re concerned about preventing another 9/11. The stakes are very high.
May 5, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Karen LH,
Section 404 apppears to be discussing the use of torture as part of the incarceration (prison) which is already mentioned in the CCC section under discussion. I think the CCC is clear you can’t use torture as punishment or in obtaining confessions during criminal investigations.
It is another matter to use torture in order to avoid the “ticking timebomb” scenario.