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 31, 2010 at 4:46 pm
WingletDriver:
A sentence can be understood with or without a non-restricitve clause. But it can contain be essential or non-essential information. If I said, "The house, which is pink, is for sale," to someone who has been looking to buy a pink house, I've used a non-restrictive clause to pass on important information. If the "which" leads a non-restrictive clause in CCC, there is no implication that certain acceptable forms of torture exist.
OK, understood – but then I thought you were contending that 2297 meant that certain acceptable forms of torture do exist and that you were arguing that from the grammar of the English translation.
Oh, well, I think I have beaten this horse as dead as it can be. My mind hasn't been changed. I am quite sure that, for instance, waterboarding when applied to the unwilling to force some response (that is, excluding, for example, waterboarding American troops to strengthen them against it; conceivably also excluding the use of it as a punishment) is torture, and that (2) all forms of torture as coercion are always wrong.
But having slept through last night (I live in New Zealand) and seeing this thread still going on, I am happy to succumb to this particular form of torture by agreeing to stop posting 🙂
January 31, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Tom:
"I am not arguing that the Church defines coercive interrogation as torture."
Do you have a point then? My point to Red Cardigan has been all along that CCC 2297 does not condemn what the CIA did. Really, what's your point?
John Thayer Jensen,
. . . but then I thought you were contending that 2297 meant that certain acceptable forms of torture do exist and that you were arguing that from the grammar of the English translation." I was arguing that if it is a restrictive clause, the authors would be implying that torture is acceptable in some circumstances. I don't believe that.
Your opinion that waterboarding constitutes torture cannot be supported by CCC 2297. That doesn't mean it's wrong. But once again, we originally got on this track because I pointed out to Red Cardigan that CCC 2297 didn't apply to what the CIA did.
January 31, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Sigh – I promised to stop, didn't I? 🙂
WingletDriver:
Your opinion that waterboarding constitutes torture cannot be supported by CCC 2297
Begging the question. The question is not whether 2297 forbids waterboarding per se nor whether 2297 condemns what the CIA did if what the CIA did is not torture. The two separate questions are:
1) Does 2297 condemn torture, even for gathering critical intelligence?
2) Is waterboarding torture?
My understanding is that 1) is answered by 'yes,' and that 2) is also answered by 'yes.' It would be absurd to suppose that 2297 defines whether waterboarding is torture; it does not mention waterboarding, nor any other form of torture.
jj
January 31, 2010 at 7:27 pm
If anyone is still interested in the question of "that" vs. "which" and the absence of a comma, I've put a post up here:
http://coalitionforclarity.blogspot.com/2010/01/torturing-grammar.html
in which someone with considerable skill in Latin discusses the official Latin of the Catechism, and shows that there is a discrepancy with the English version.
January 31, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Really, what's your point?
The Church teaches that all torture is always evil.
Along the way, I have also pointed out that:
* you are wrong in your grammatical arguments
* you are wrong in your conclusion about the implication of the English translation being non-standard
* you are wrong in implying that the Catechism offers a formal definition of torture
* you introduced a non sequitur by pointing out that the intention with which the U.S. waterboarded prisoners is not explicitly mentioned in the Catechism
January 31, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Also, in reference to the Catechism, surely in a matter of the morals, it must be interpreted not as legislation (There seems to be a thread of fundamentalist voluntarism – where is THAT in the Catechism – running through some of the posts above), but as recognition and clarification of something humanly recognizable as sinful.
Torture is humanly recognizable as sinful, as violating human dignity. Thus, torturing the Catechism aside, one can conclude that torture is wrong.
February 2, 2010 at 3:00 pm
HE WHO DOES NOT KEEP HARM OFF HIS FRIEND, IF HE CAN, IS AS MUCH IN FAULT AS HE WHO CAUSES IT.
Interesting – but would Ambrose agree that if you could keep harm off your friend by denying Christ, that it would be appropriate to do so? I doubt it. So this quote does not provide much guidance to whether it is appropriate to use torture to keep your frined from harm.