This is Matt: We here at CMR have been huge fans of Erin Manning who blogs over at And Sometimes Tea. And so we wanted to have Erin write over here once a week for the next month as a guest blogger. I think CMR could use some female perspective – other than Patrick’s. So enjoy Erin’s post. Heeeeeeerrrre’s Erin!!!!!!!
When Matt and Patrick honored me last week with their invitation to write a few blog posts for them this month, I was glad to accept, and grateful for the opportunity. I’m still glad and grateful, but what I have to write about this week is a bit more serious in tone than what I’d anticipated writing about when this guest-posting privilege started.
A couple of years ago, I started noticing all the discussions about the morality of torture that were cropping up in the Catholic blogosphere. As a conservative and someone who voted for GOP candidates more often than not (though I’d had a few forays into the fun of voting for independents), I hadn’t really given much thought to the issue. Sure, torture was immoral; and torture was defined loosely in my mind as “Really really bad stuff that does permanent physical damage to people, but only if it’s being done to innocent people by bad guys.” Since Americans weren’t bad guys, terrorists weren’t innocent, and waterboarding didn’t leave permanent damage (well, not most of the time, anyway; I was unaware then that it could actually kill people, which is pretty permanent by anybody’s definition) I wasn’t too interested in the debate.
Or I thought I wasn’t. But it seemed like “my side” was taking a beating, if you’ll forgive the metaphor. So I started entering in the combox discussions, wondering how we could define torture, doubting that the Church really meant enhanced interrogation when she said that torture was evil, and generally acting as though moral clarity on this issue was a practical impossibility.
The story of how that changed and I came to realize that I was out of line with Church teaching is really the story of how better-informed Catholics (one in particular) didn’t give up trying to show me how wrong I was. Eventually the light dawned, and I realized that I was trying to make the teaching fit various political ideas I had, instead of seeking the truth as a starting point. And I realized, too, how right these guys had been: I really was trying to bend Church teaching to my notions, instead of sincerely trying to understand.
I wrote about those things on my blog, and from time to time would address the issue of torture from my new-found understanding that the Church says torture is evil, that this includes things we try to dismiss euphemistically as “enhanced interrogation,” that there is no “good guys exemption” to allow us to torture prisoners, and that there’s also no “Jack Bauer ticking-time-bomb exemption” which somehow transforms torture into a good and noble act if we can just concoct a wildly unlikely-enough scenario to justify its use. I even, about a year ago, stuck a little picture on my blog sidebar which read “Coalition for Clarity/Because Torture is Intrinsically Evil.” But that was all I did.
Until last week.
It started with a question from a reader. What was the Coalition for Clarity? she asked. Was there an actual group of Catholic bloggers opposed to torture?
Good question–so I wrote a blog post about it. There should be such a group, I said.
And the response was overwhelming. I had emails and comments and post links from Catholics saying, in essence, “Sign me up.” But there wasn’t anywhere to sign them up; the group was still fictional. I had written the blog post sort of hoping some qualified person would realize that such a group was needed and would create one–but it dawned on me that I shouldn’t be asking others to do something I wasn’t willing to do myself.
So I started a blog called Coalition for Clarity. Meanwhile Tom McDonald and Sean Dailey had had the idea to start up a Facebook page with that title, too (to which they graciously added me once I broke down and signed up for a Facebook account). And considering this whole thing has only been going on since Wednesday of last week, the response continues to be amazing.
Now, maybe you’re a bit like I used to be. You haven’t given the issue of torture much thought, or you’ve let partisan beliefs set the tone for what you think of the idea. Maybe you’ve even, as I (to my shame) used to do, thought of the Church’s teaching that torture is evil as one of those nice ivory-tower things–sure, in a perfect world, torture might be evil, but if national security demands it here and now in our fallen world, well then, etc. If that describes how you think about torture, may I respectfully suggest you consider giving it a bit more thought? Perhaps delving into the Catechism’s mention of torture, or reading through some key sections of Veritatis Splendor, or seeking out other sources of Church teaching on the topic? I hadn’t yet done even that much when I used to insist that whatever torture was, the things Americans were doing or asking to do couldn’t possibly be included.
Or maybe you’re the opposite–you’re someone who has been teaching and writing against torture since before many Americans even realized that it was being done. Maybe you’re wondering why an upstart with no moral theology training or background is even involved in this effort (and nobody wonders that more than I do, believe me). If that’s you, won’t you consider becoming a contributor to the Coalition for Clarity blog?
I think we have a unique opportunity as Catholics to stand up now, before we reach a situation where one political party is enthusiastically pro-torture and the other is “Personally opposed, but…” on the issue, and be clear about the fact that the Church teaches that torture is evil. But we can’t do that unless our fellow Catholics know what the Church teaches. Right now, according to this Pew Forum survey, 51% of Catholics surveyed believed that torture was “often justified” or “sometimes justified” if it was being used to get information from suspected terrorists–and the question asked used the word “torture,” not “enhanced interrogation” or any other euphemism. A response like that shows that when it comes to torture, many of us Catholics could use a little moral clarity.
January 30, 2010 at 3:32 am
Tom,
"What makes the definition inadequate is its inadequacy, which can be demonstrating without speculating on the editorial decisions of the authors." Well said! Now tell Red Cardigan and all those other Catholics on this blog to stop using the Catechism.
". . . the Latin typica editio includes the comma." And Latin has different grammar rules than English. The term "qui" is a relative pronoun, which means that the information is still essential.
January 30, 2010 at 3:45 am
WingletDriver:
I think that the authors intended to define torture and differentiate it from some of the things that have been argued about in this blog
I'm really puzzled here. How does the statement in the Catechism define torture, other than calling it physica vel morali … violentia – physical or moral violence?
I thought we were talking about whether there were times torture was allowed; not what it was.
jj
January 30, 2010 at 3:47 am
John Thayer Jensen,
Is all violence immoral? Is it all torture?
January 30, 2010 at 4:55 am
WingletDriver:
Is all violence immoral? Is it all torture?
No, and I see your point. But you said the statement in the Catechism was supposed to define torture. It defines torture as physical or moral violence.
Then perhaps you are saying that it is defining torture as physical and moral violence when used for the purposes listed. If that is what you mean, then either:
1) the list of purposes is exhaustive. Other physical or moral violence is ok.
2) it is not exhaustive and intends to include, for instance, the extraction of war intelligence under the rubric of 'causing fear.'
I assume you embrace 1) above. But in that case… well, in that case, we are given pretty much a free ride for other purposes of inflicting physical and moral violence on persons.
Which seems pretty strange to me, since, as I have said, the justification given for the prohibition against torture is the dignity of the victim. Why that dignity is not to be respected if he has military secrets is not clear to me.
jj
January 30, 2010 at 5:11 am
Now tell Red Cardigan and all those other Catholics on this blog to stop using the Catechism.
Why? Whether the Catechism offers a definition of torture is a separate question from whether waterboarding prisoners is torture.
As for the grammatical questions, I think you're assuming too much. At the very least, I know of no meaningful distinction in meaning between "that" and "which" at the head of a restrictive clause, so I don't think you should assume the Catechism translators share your position.
January 30, 2010 at 12:37 pm
John Thayer Jensen,
"Why that dignity is not to be respected if he has military secrets is not clear to me." Why then is the dignity of criminals violated? Is this a violation of catholic teaching?
". . . well, in that case, we are given pretty much a free ride for other purposes of inflicting physical and moral violence on persons." We certainly are not and I've nowhere implied that.
Please remember, Tom, that this was the proof offered by some that the Catholic church categorically condemns waterboarding. They are reading into it what isn't there. And if, as Tom has said, that the definition is atrocious, we are then given free rein to amend anything within it under the rubric of its inadequacy. E.g., "Gosh, I don't like the stricture against abortion, but that part of the Catechism is inadequate . . . ."
Is the Catechism fully exhaustive? Absolutely not. However, one can't use it as proof of Catholic teaching based on something that is clearly not written within it.
Tom,
"Why?" You're the one saying the Catechism is inadequate because it doesn't mold to your thoughts.
As for the grammatical question, there is a distinction between "which" and "that." They are generally not interchangeable except in colloquial English. I don't believe the authors meant the CCC to be colloquial. Furthermore, I believe they knew the distinction between the two and used the proper term.
January 30, 2010 at 3:57 pm
Thanks to Tom for posting the second paragraph in the Catechism from the passage on torture. While it may be true, as Tom says, that “amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations are issues unto themselves; they are not presented in the Catechism as specific instances of torture,” the fact remains that all are discussed together as concerns about respect for the body. And, while it is always useful to have entire passages of the original source (I didn’t find it when I searched, as I found the first paragraph via word search on the Vatican Web site), I don’t think the entire section invalidates anyone’s point that governments may use “uncomfortable techniques” to extract intelligence from terrorists. It seems to me that much of the discussion here has arisen because there is no solid definition of torture, and the Catechism doesn’t help on this point.
As an analogy, we’re not supposed to murder one another. Ever. And particularly we’re not supposed to kill the innocent. But the Church has always maintained that one can defend one’s self—to the point of killing, which is then not regarded as murder–whether personally or nationally. Defending one’s country from terrorists and extracting information from them via such techniques as waterboarding seems to me to come under the category of legitimate defense. Again, if you’re going to apply the words of church officials to these rather important situations, you need to have a working definition of torture. The application of unpleasant force to one’s physique is not always “torture.”
I also disagree that it is “logic chopping,” as Tom calls it, to read the text carefully—to see what it says and does not say–and try to discern how it applies to us. Here’s one example: I have noticed that many passages in the Catechism, when referring to matters such as abortion, euthanasia, and homosexual practice, include some form of the word “grave” in the discussion—all three are “gravely” contrary to natural law or human dignity, etc. I have not asked a theologian about this, but I would suppose the word “grave” to contain theological content here—as in for a sin to be mortal, one condition is that the matter must be “grave.” I don’t think it’s “logic chopping” to notice those nuances and derive meaning from them.
The thing that bothers me the most about this discussion? That the “Coalition for Clarity” is only muddying the waters by making a huge issue out of something that, while important, is nowhere near as serious as abortion in terms of one’s actions in the voting booth. In election after election, we watch Catholics wiggle and squirm in order to vote for liberals—they try to find ways around the abortion issue. Here’s another way for them: “Well, Jones is for waterboarding, and the bishops have said that we can vote for candidates if there are other serious issues….” Never mind that Jones is strongly pro-life–or even much more inclined that way than his opponent.
January 30, 2010 at 4:09 pm
And if, as Tom has said, that the definition is atrocious, we are then given free rein to amend anything within it under the rubric of its inadequacy.
I have not said "the definition is atrocious."
I have said it's not a definition, because it makes an atrocious definition. It also makes an atrocious egg salad recipe. That's okay, though, because it's neither a definition nor an egg salad recipe.
Furthermore, I believe they knew the distinction between the two and used the proper term.
What is your distinction, and why do you believe the translators knew it and considered it to be "proper"?
Note that in the Latin the relative clause is set off with commas. Is there anyone here who took a class from Fr. Foster who can say whether that's significant?
In any case, I think you're arguing against yourself, since if the clause is meant as a definition, then it's non-restrictive, and the meaning of the sentence is, "Torture is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity."
January 30, 2010 at 4:10 pm
You're the one saying the Catechism is inadequate because it doesn't mold to your thoughts.
Absolutely not true!
I am saying the Catechism cannot be adequately molded to your thoughts.
January 30, 2010 at 5:29 pm
The thing that bothers me the most about this discussion? That the “Coalition for Clarity” is only muddying the waters by making a huge issue out of something that, while important, is nowhere near as serious as abortion in terms of one’s actions in the voting booth. In election after election, we watch Catholics wiggle and squirm in order to vote for liberals—they try to find ways around the abortion issue. Here’s another way for them: “Well, Jones is for waterboarding, and the bishops have said that we can vote for candidates if there are other serious issues….” Never mind that Jones is strongly pro-life–or even much more inclined that way than his opponent.
It seems to me that this represents an attempt at blame shifting. If pro-abort leftists have gotten tactical political mileage out of Republican embrace of a manifest wickedness, that is primarily because of the Republican embrace of manifest wickedness. If you want to fix the problem, you need to fix the problem: you need to get Republicans to repent of their embrace of the manifest wickedness of torture. That, it seems to me, is precisely what the Coalition for Clarity represents.
Sure, pro-aborts are (qua pro-aborts) vile, despicable, evil, disgusting slaves to the purposes of Satan. That is a given. Part (a small part) of what disgusts me so much about the Republican/Republicatholic embrace of torture (and preemptive war, for that matter) is that that embrace has handed these moral talking points to the political Left on a silver platter. The political Left is despicable in its pseudo-sacramental embrace of grave wickedness. But saying "they were worse than us" isn't going to get you into Heaven, nor even build long term this-worldly advantages.
January 30, 2010 at 5:34 pm
Tom,
If the authors and translators wrote, "Torture that . . . .," they would have implied that torture is fine is some circumstances. I.e., since "that" is always restrictive, they would only have been referring to the types of torture prohibited but not the types not listed. They didn't write "that" (thank goodness) and I certainly don't believe they meant torture was ok in some circumstances.
If they had written, "Torture, which . . . .," they would be indicating that the information after "which" is parenthetical or non-essential and can be omitted without changing the meaning of the sentence. They didn't.
By writing "Torture which" (without the comma) they are indicating that the information following "which" is both non-restrictive (proper use of "which") and essential (no comma). If it's non-restrictive it doesn't imply there are licit reasons for torture, which is probably why they avoided "that." However, the phrasing after "which" is also essential to the meaning of the sentence. You can argue that the translator was trying to be colloquial, but I don't know anybody who'd buy that.
Let's get back to the point, though. If you are using this paragraph from the CCC to "prove" waterboarding is wrong, you've got some issues with the wording. You have to a priori define waterboarding as torture to make it fit. But if you predetermine that waterboarding is torture, you only set up a circular argument. You and Nancy Pelosi may very well believe waterboarding to gather intel is torture, but you certainly can't use paragraph 2297 for support. I believe in the ordinary infallibility or the Church, but not the blog. I also don't believe the "stuff Tom adds to the clear wording of the Catechism" is worthy of consideration as Catholic dogma.
January 30, 2010 at 5:48 pm
WingletDriver:
Why then is the dignity of criminals violated? Is this a violation of catholic teaching?
The dignity of criminals – or terrorists – is not violated by punishing them. Their dignity is upheld by treating them as they really are.
When a man is subject to capital punishment, for example, he should be treated with dignity; given the opportunity to confess his sins; and then executed.
He should not be mocked, tormented, or otherwise made less than a man – a man who has, indeed, forfeited his right to life – but a man nonetheless.
Using coercion to extract intelligence is not itself against the dignity of the man; submitting him to degrading treatment, appealing not to his will and intellect, but to his emotions (threatening him with mock-death, for instance, by the use of waterboarding), is degrading.
If I, a man in authority, have certain knowledge of the guilt of a prisoner, I may well tell him that if he will not give me the intelligence, he will be killed. This is to treat him as he really is – a man. If I torture him, either he responds with human dignity and refuses to give me what I want – in which case I have degraded myself – or he submits, not for right reasons, but for wrong – in which case I have degraded myself and him.
January 30, 2010 at 5:59 pm
John Thayer Jensen,
". . . appealing not to his will and intellect, but to his emotions . . . ." Are a person's emotions less than intellect? I would say that both the intellect and emotions are subject to one's will, but neither is greater or lesser than the other. In fact, I'd say that the entire thread of this argument is based upon emotions more than intellect. Why should I treat another with dignity if I am in power?
Although your argument is well taken, I'd still point back to my original argument that paragraph 2297 is insufficient proof that coercive methods (including waterboarding) are always considered torture. I'd welcome another authoritative Catholic source that states that we cannot use coercive means to gather intelligence.
I do realize there is a limit to the type and frequency of these methods, but I'm not the one arguing the CCC 2297 specifically condemns all methods or intentions of harsh treatment.
January 30, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Defending one’s country from terrorists and extracting information from them via such techniques as waterboarding seems to me to come under the category of legitimate defense.
As I wrote above, I agree that the question of whether torture is always evil is different from the question of whether waterboarding a prisoner is torture.
And, for that matter, they're both different from the question of whether waterboarding a prisoner is always evil.
The Church — i.e., Vatican II, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, catechetical documents of the universal Church, the local catechism of the United States, the USCCB — unambiguously teaches that torture is always evil.
If we can get agreement from everyone that this is true, I'd count that as a success.
I also disagree that it is “logic chopping,” as Tom calls it, to read the text carefully—to see what it says and does not say–and try to discern how it applies to us.
I don't call it "logic chopping" to read the text carefully. I call it logic chopping to read into the text far more formality and precision than the text can support.
That the “Coalition for Clarity” is only muddying the waters by making a huge issue out of something that, while important, is nowhere near as serious as abortion in terms of one’s actions in the voting booth.
I do not think clarifying Church teaching muddies Church teaching. Nor do I think there is virtue in voting without a well-formed conscience.
January 30, 2010 at 6:14 pm
By writing "Torture which" (without the comma) they are indicating that the information following "which" is both non-restrictive (proper use of "which") and essential (no comma).
Can you quote a style guide that makes your distinction between "restrictive" and "non-restrictive and essential"?
If you are using this paragraph from the CCC to "prove" waterboarding is wrong, you've got some issues with the wording.
I agree. My question to you is, when have I ever attempted to prove waterboarding is wrong using only a single sentence from the CCC?
January 30, 2010 at 6:36 pm
WingletDriver:
Are a person's emotions less than intellect?
Yes. Emotions are the driving force. The intellect sees the good; the will chooses it. The emotions give us the energy to accomplish what we have willed.
Emotions must not be first or second. They are at the service of the intellect-guided will.
January 30, 2010 at 6:39 pm
I STRONGLY urge everyone who hasn't done so to read the article by Fr. Harrison–URL is already given somewhere above, but I'll repost it here: http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html. It demonstrates the kind of carefully reasoned theological and historical approach that has been missing from much of this debate.
January 30, 2010 at 7:12 pm
I have lectures to prepare and a conference paper that urgently needs revision, so pleasant as this little quarrel as been, this will have to be my last post on it. Because of limits on space, I'll break it into several parts.
Some remarks to previous posters:
Tom, 1/28, 10:55 PM: you are a rare bird indeed–an internet poster who admits he lacks the background knowledge to reply to a query! A truly righteous man…. My compliments. (And just to be clear, no sarcasm intended–most people lack your modesty, and it's refreshing.)
Kiran, 1/28, 11:28 PM: your blogger profile says you are a student (since you say you're 29, I'll assume you mean grad student), and it implies that you specialize in medieval music. That's not the same thing as being a practicing historian, and it may explain the difference in our approaches to handling historical sources and situations. I say this not to launch an ad hominem attack, but to point out that you are coming from a different starting point that I (and not quite the one you claim to be coming from). But you know best whether you have a right to the description.
To continue, Kiran: you seem to imply that an action might be excusable, though morally wrong. I disagree. If it's morally wrong, it's not excusable. If it's excusable, then it's not absolutely morally wrong. To say otherwise would be to argue that it is sometimes acceptable to do moral wrong, and it's not. This is a mistake that some on the Left have made with regard to Just War Theory–arguing that while violence is always morally wrong, it's occasionally necessary.
But wrong is never necessary, which is why the Just War tradition really teaches that some violence is morally praiseworthy (I could cite a lot of authorities here, including Augustine, who is often misunderstood and misquoted, and Bernard of Clairvaux, but I don't have time).
Kiran, the "Catholic Church" did not widely accept any of the things you cite–but it did widely accept the use of torture, across time and space. You are not handling either the sources or the events with much sensitivity or insight, I'm afraid.
In the case of the Templars: there were, indeed, objections raised to torture at the time. For example, torture, and confessions extracted by it, were prohibited by church councils in Italy–and rightly so, because what the torture was designed to extract was a confession of guilt in belief or past action, and again, torture isn't effective in those cases.
But that's not the question. Nor is the question "was it prudential or useful"–in the case of the Templars, I don't think it was.
The question is: was Clement V _morally wrong_ to mandate it–that is, was he committing a sin to do so.
Kiran and those like him seem to think he was. I don't. I also think this is precisely the sort of prudential decision which the Catholic tradition in general reserves to rulers (whether secular or ecclesiastical) on the spot. And quite rightly so.
January 30, 2010 at 7:19 pm
This debate is one that only relatively safe people, blogging from the security and comfort of home, can afford. I'm afraid it's also marked by a persistent inability on the part of some people to distinguish between a) innocent or possibly innocent people vs. known terrorists or other offenders (i.e., between the innocent and the guilty), and also between b) torture to obtain information on plots or traps set for innocent people, vs. torture to induce someone to say he believes, or did, a certain thing.
The innocent have rights that the guilty have forfeited. That is a fundamental moral truth.
Torture to extract information about a plot can work, whereas torture to extract information about beliefs or past offenses manifestly does not work.
And if one cares about protecting the innocent, then torture to extract information, like killing in war, will sometimes, regrettably, be necessary if we are to do our duty.
I wish matters were otherwise. I am repelled and grieved by by the misery of war and torture alike. But that has nothing to do with the facts.
Protecting the innocent is a more compelling moral necessity than protecting the guilty. Failure to understand that is a failure to understand our duty to our fellow Man at one of its most fundamental levels.
Zippy, 1/29, 11:10: the Church has not, in fact, made a universal, unanimous prohibition of torture in all times and in all places, so your argument is simply mistaken. Go back to the Vincentian canon: Catholic Christians determine truth by comparing a given opinion to Christian teaching across time and space: "that which has been believed always, in all places, by all." Your statement does not stand up to that test.
January 30, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Fr. Harrison's carefully reasoned theological and historical approach reaches conclusions that are contrary to the clear teaching of the Church that torture is always evil.