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 10:26 pm
I haven’t read this, but it might be pertinent to the discussion.
May 5, 2009 at 10:27 pm
@Karen LH: I’m trying to figure out the principles myself. Please bear with me, too.
@anti-pro-torture Anon: Fine. Torture is out. Great. Now define your terms in a way that doesn’t result in absurdities.
@Everyone else: Can we please stop with any analysis that begins with (1) whether or not it “works” (consequentialism/utilitarianism) or (2) whether or not the person “deserves it” (subjectivist judgementalism)? ‘Cuz I’m pretty sure those are both out.
@Horatius:
You wrote:
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..
Would you limit the types of information the State is able to seek through extreme coercion? Perhaps something along the lines of “torture is the use of force by a legitimate authority to obtain information concerning an immanent act less grave than the force employed.” I’m just thinkin’ that the gov shouldn’t be able to pull fingernails to have you say whether or not you filed your taxes in 1998.
May 5, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Karen LH:
The debate over whether I kicked you in the teeth is pretty weak compared to the fact that you treated me like a bitch. Down, girl? That really does attack my dignity as a human person! You chose to torture me! Ouch.
Nonetheless, I stand by what I wrote. You can’t “think” that Church documents “pretty much” say something simply because you wish they would. The documents say what they say. And they do not say that torture = intrinsic evil.
You keep quoting Church documents about how torture is wrong, wrong, wrong, but you never address the definition of torture. I think most of us agree that torture (the real kind) is a sin against the human person and abhorrent. Some “extraction” techniques (so what’s wrong with that word?) are falsely labeled torture.
Is it often against the dignity of the human person to belittle his ideas, is that torture? You said that I verbally kicked you in the teeth. Did I torture you?
You wrote, “One way to do this is to directly attack a person’s free will. That seems to be a characteristic of torture.” Oh, come on. Now how can you be taken seriously? The Catholic Church has been attacking man’s fee will always and everywhere, well, like forever. And thank God for that!
Kate
May 5, 2009 at 10:42 pm
International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.
I am glad this was brought up because I was hoping to touch on international law.
Here’s the thing – there is no such thing. Law requires two things: first, that it apply to everyone equally, second, that there be an authority to enforce the law. Without an international sovreign organization, and none such exists, thank the Lord in heaven, international law cannot exist by definition. Instead treaties are similiar to contracts, but without courts to settle disputes. Unless there political will and cooperation, and/or they see following it as in their interest, on both sides, then the treaty is just a peace of paper. I point you to the incident of the Kellog-Briand pact in which our inestimable Mr. Wilson got all the nations to sign a treaty abolishing war as a tool of statecraft. That’s right, he outlawed war, and it worked, y’know, till World War II.
There is no law between nation states, and therefore it is not immoral to break international law.
The Catholic Church, being filled with the idealists as it is, take all law at face value, but the reality is much more nuanced. Besides it would be politically uncomfortable for them to take a different position.
http://www.culturalgadfly.com
May 5, 2009 at 10:49 pm
I think we are getting there, but there are a few more things that neede to be addressed. As American citizens, we have certain rights. I am not sure that it would be wise to have the government able to torture us over criminal matters at all. Therefore:
Torture is the use of force by a legitimate authority to obtain information concerning an act of overt or covert war against the aforementioned legitimate authority, and the physical coercian be less grave than the expected act.
Also, when the guards are bored. (j/k)
May 5, 2009 at 11:40 pm
The Catholic Church has been attacking man’s fee will always and everywhere, well, like forever. And thank God for that! No. This is incorrect.
May 5, 2009 at 11:51 pm
The USCCB document that I linked to above (which is actually not bad) contains the following definition of torture (from the UN):
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a 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.
May 6, 2009 at 12:20 am
Kate,
I’ve actually linked to two separate documents/essays which contain good definitions of torture. I notice, however, that (at least in my browser) links aren’t tagged with a separate color. So here they are again:
(1) Tollefsen essay:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2009.04.28.001.pdart
(2) USCCB document on torture:
http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/stoptorture/
May 6, 2009 at 1:43 am
Wow, I seem to have hit a nerve with the pro-torture crowd!
I’ll make sure I never get captured and put in a prisoner-of-war camp with any of you as commandant.
May 6, 2009 at 2:59 am
BTW, I’m not sure I understand where these sorts of remarks come from:
You can’t “think” that Church documents “pretty much” say something simply because you wish they would.What I wish the Church documents said was that in the ticking time bomb scenario, it would be acceptable to rack the scumbag.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), I don’t think that’s what they say.
May 6, 2009 at 4:34 am
Karen LH-
I believe what Luis, Horatius and Kate are saying is that if you believe it says something, please show where it is actually stated; especially in the case where the thing you’re quoting has already been brought up– if you disagree with how it was dealt with, argue with the arguments made against it.
Also, it’s generally polite to at least summarize arguments made in things you link to.
May 6, 2009 at 11:43 am
Foxfier,
Actually, I thought I had done those things—at least that was my intent. I appreciate that I wasn’t convincing anyone, but there’s not much I can do about that.
I do confess to jumping in mid-thread without first reading the previous posts. I know how annoying that can be, but I find it impossible to keep up with these long torture threads and also get anything else done. I greatly admire people who can, but I’m not one of them.
I actually think that the Church has made its position fairly clear on the subject of American “enhanced interrogation” techniques: the Holy Father, other Vatican officials, and the USCCB have all addressed the subject, and they all appear to be against.
I also think that the oft-quoted passage from the Catechism is clear, and, as I said before, I think it’s being overparsed to make it not apply to things like the ticking time bomb scenario. I think that part of the problem is probably that the Catechism is not sufficiently precise on the subject, and that is causing a lot of confusion. But these sorts of scenarios hadn’t really come to the fore when the Catechism was written.
I realize that a number of people on both sides of this question see their position as glaringly obvious and are therefore tempted to declare that folks on the other side are either idiots or operating in bad faith. I wish that they would stop doing that. Not only is it the sin of rash judgment, but it makes the subject that much more difficult to discuss. It’s a hard question. The issue is precisely that raised in the original post: how do you put together the injunction against torture with the obligation to defend society?
As I said earlier, I think that the key is the idea of the intrinsic dignity of the human person, that torture violates that. It makes sense to me that that would be the case—it “feels right”. It also seems to be consistent with other things that I’ve seen coming out of the Church: eg, the Catechism and the USCCB statement.
May 6, 2009 at 3:42 pm
The passage from the CCC is clear; that is why people are pointing out what it doesn’t say and asking if there’s binding teachings that cover what isn’t covered there.
One of the lovely things about the Catholic Church is that her positions can all be argued logically, if you accept some baselines.
May 6, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I also think that the oft-quoted passage from the Catechism is clear, and, as I said before, I think it’s being overparsed to make it not apply to things like the ticking time bomb scenario.
You’ve said this “overparsed” thing before. However, when I read a passage in what amounts to a book of rules and guidelines, the precise meaning is what I am going to follow. When we start equivocating one meaning with another, the rule can begin to mean anything. This is similiar to the twisting into knots that the Supreme Court has been doing to our Constitution – “it says this, and that means this.” Or, “of course this passage also means this.”
One thing that I have learned about the Church is that, in official teaching, they are precise and mean exactly what they say – nothing more, nothing less. THis catechism was written by a congress of bishope for goodness sake – if they meant to make sinful those situations already outlined, then it would. So I am not overparsing it, I am taking its plain and simple meaning – it seems to me, and forgive the pun, that you are torturing the text so that it says what you think it should say.
…the Holy Father, other Vatican officials, and the USCCB have all addressed the subject, and they all appear to be against.
Yes, that is true. However, we have not really seen an official teaching or ex cathedra statement condemning torture. It seems as though they are simply sharing their opinion on the matter, but I am not required to agree until something a little more official comes out – though I doubt it will.
As my esteemed opponents seem unable to supply any argument then the passage in the CCC, and the statement: “Torture is wrong and icky, and you are evil”, it seems to me that the debate is over.
May 6, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Would a document from an ecumenical council of the Church carry any weight? From Gaudium et Spes 27 (cited in the combox of another blog):
Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; 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 the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.
May 7, 2009 at 1:48 am
This is looking more and more like the death penalty argument….
May 7, 2009 at 4:40 am
Karen, I do not accept it, and here is why:
His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, addressing the Chilean Episcopal Conference (cf. Il Sabato 7/30–8/5/1988), reaffirmed the same when he said, “The truth is that the Council itself did not define any dogma, and that it consciously wanted to express itself on a more modest level, simply as a pastoral Council.” Vatican II is then, at most, an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium which is infallible only inasmuch as it reiterates in the “same sense and meaning” (St. Vincent of Lerins) that “universal and constant” faith—and those propositions/teachings—once and forever handed on to the Apostles by Christ Our Lord. In all other matters, wherein it proposes novel teachings and or novel expressions, the Catholic faithful are not obliged in conscience to accept these as definitive teaching.
So, if it is not infallible, and simply opinion, then I respectfully disagree, and am within my right to do so, without my faith being called into question.
May 7, 2009 at 9:49 am
Horatius:
You said:
Vatican II is then, at most, an exercise of the Ordinary Magisterium which is infallible only inasmuch as it reiterates in the “same sense and meaning” (St. Vincent of Lerins) that “universal and constant” faith—and those propositions/teachings—once and forever handed on to the Apostles by Christ Our Lord.The difficulty I see with this is the phrase:
in the “same sense and meaning” Who is to be the judge of that? Are you? Or is it the Church itself that must do so? And if it is the Church – is not Vatican II precisely doing that judgement as to what is “novel” – and saying that nothing of its teaching is ‘novel?’
If, on the other hand, you are the judge of what is ‘obviously novel,’ then surely this is the heart of Protestantism – which I left in order to become a Catholic.
jj
May 7, 2009 at 10:27 am
This is looking more and more like the Humanae Vitae argument.
Words fail.
May 7, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I do not set myself up as the arbiter. However, historically, as I have said, the church has allowed both the use of coercian as a means to both punish and interrogate, and the death penalty. As such, it would seem to me that a break from this would be novel, rather than the other way around.
Certainly the churchmen of the past two thousand years have weight even though they are dead. Are the only good and true Catholic clergy the ones we have now, are they the only ones who have the right of this matter? I would argue that breaking with the past ideas and guidelines is "novel", and therefore pastoral teaching.
"For instance, Thomas Aquinas said that punishment of heretics was jutifiable as a matter of 'compelling them [back] to the faith' and 'physically compelling them to carry out what they promised and to hold fast once they accepted'…
Aquinas rejects that "capital punishment, because involving intent to kill, is wrong". Aquinas offers no arguments for or against the use of torture, but he speaks without comment of judges who 'acting in accordance with justice' submit the accused persons to torture in order to find out the truth. The popes in 1252 and 1259 has legislatively authorized judicial torture provided that it did not 'imperil life of limb' and it may be assumed that Aquinas' acceptance of the practice extended no further. But since the moral norm that excludes intentional killing excludes also intentional infliction of harm, the exclusion of capital punishment seems to entail and/or be entailed by the exclusion of the use of torture, private or public, to inflict such harm."
From "Founders of Modern Political and Social Thought: Aquinas"
(http://books.google.com/books?id=zp94HHQ1E6gC&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&dq=Aquinas+on+Torture&source=bl&ots=x8K6JPvyYJ&sig=OqrB0dNa4tSi79PaYVlm9D2t_9M&hl=en&ei=H_ICSsDALdiDlAfVsvTiBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5)