The liberal hermeneutics of Fr Harrison are a corrective to magisterial fundamentalism no doubt, but it seems that Vatican II and John Paul II have clearly condemned torture, not just illegal torture. If Benedict XVI were asked whether the torture Bush wants legalized could be countenanced for the moral purpose Bush ascribes to it, it is unimaginable that he would reply: "Oh, sure. That is not the kind of torture Vatican II had in mind at all."
The reason Mark Shea finds sinister motives in writings like Fr Harrison's is the context -- such discussions have been opened only at a time when the USA is seeking to persuade itself that its torturing activities have been justifiable and when the US is trying to give legal sanction to hitherto clandestine torture. Moreover, the discussions are not attended by any condemnation of water-boarding etc. but rather insinuate that opposition to torture is only a counsel of perfection.
Just as someone who argued that the church teaching on abortion applied only to the _ensouled_ embryo, and that Alphonsus Liguori et al. had much more liberal attitudes to abortion than John Paul II, would be denounced as an abortion sympathizer and going soft on abortion, so it is not unfair (especially given neocath modes of argument) to denounce Fr Harrison as a torture-sympathizer and as going soft on torture.
Fr. Harrison's dispute of Shea's approach was motivated by nothing other than Shea's article in Crisis magazine in March 2005. I see no reason to suspect Harrison of ill motives. Likewise, there is no indication in Harrison's article that he approves of the "liberal" attitudes toward torture by the Church throughout history. If anything, he finds fault with theologians who do so and the "lukewarm" record of the Church on this issue, noting with approval the development of a stronger stance against torture.
Fr. Harrison has not said anything of waterboarding. But I know other Catholic bloggers who have disputed Shea's approach have stated their opposition to the Bush administration. To argue with CAEI's handling of this issue is not tantamount to a blanket endorsement of the Bush administration.
Christopher,
Thank-you for all your work. I have read some of what you have linked (far too much to read all in the course of the day) especially Fr. Harrison's articles. These are most illuminating and in stark contrast to some of what has been presented as Catholic thought. Keep up your good work.
I think Fr Harrison's conclusion that the Church does not teach that torture is intrinsically evil is quite wrong and a clear misreading (or deliberate falsification of) Veritatis Splendor and the Second Vatican Council.
The choice for loyal Catholics is simple: who are you going to follow : Pope John Paul II in an official encylical teaching and the last Ecumenical Council or the opinion of some theologian of a country which is engaged in torture and is passing laws to facilitate even more torture ?
The rest of the world notes the essential background of Harrison - he's an American university theologian (not a profession noted for their loyalty to the Catholic Magisterium) at a time when America wishes to justify its longstanding practice of torture.
God Bless
Spirit,
I suspect you are right. Most of this discussion has to do with politics. If Americans were captured by the Iraq secret services before the invasion of their country and tortured to reveal plans about the upcoming invasion, I am sure this discussion would have a different tone.
Hi Fr. O'Leary,
Fr. O: "Personally, I attacked your reasoning - that because the Church has clearly allowed something not unlike torture in the past, at the highest levels, its infallibility would be impugned if it now declared torture intrinsically evil."
DA: "My argument is actually designed to bypass the infallibility issue altogether (I made that quite explicit and plain in my reply to Scott Carson), but at the same time to acknowledge that these things (coercion of some sort) had very wide sanction in the Church. There are development of doctrine issues here that apply, I think, even if magisterial and infallibility factors do not. Even Fr. Harrison stated that no magisterial statements can be had."
I did not say that you said torture was infallibly taught; but you did say that the widespread practice of torture by the Church would put her infallibility in jeopardy if torture is intrinsically evil.
DA: ". . . You have misconstrued my premise, so this doesn't apply. These would fall under the past sins committed by Catholics, for which JPII often asked forgiveness."
You do make a valid point here. I stated in my last reply:
"I may have worded it poorly in places, but the issue is very complex, and so I had to explain in detail as I proceeded, what exactly I had in mind."
As I have looked over the first part of my argument, I see that it is the case that the wording no longer conveys my present opinion. When I first began the discussion, I wasn't sure if the past justification for the Inquisition, etc., was magisterial or not. Now that I have studied it a bit more, I see that it probably was not (as Fr. Harrison himself - whom I cited in agreement - holds).
And (in retrospect) I had confused somewhat the distinction between "magisterial" vs. reversals or corruptions and consistent developments of doctrine. We believe that doctrines consistently develop in the Church. This is a category larger than infallibility. This issue involves moral teaching and disciplinary actions. I believe (with Fr. Dulles) that the moral principles remain constant, whereas applications and disciplinary matters may be modified according to changing cultural situations, increased understanding, and prudence.
Even so, in the original statement of my argument, I allowed for the possibility of the issue being sub-magisterial (as indeed appears to be the case). I wrote:
"I should add that even if the Inquisition-era sanctions are not infallible (I leave those sorts of technical questions to canon lawyers), there is still a big problem that such acts were sanctioned at all by the Church in any way, shape, or form.
"That would mean the Church was on the side of (and an outright proponent of) an intrinsically immoral act. I don't believe (in faith) that this has ever happened (call me naive if you like, but there it is). If someone thinks that it has, I think it has implications at the very least, for their ecclesiology, even if infallibility is not involved."
As it turned out, I developed this second line of argument. In so doing, my other statement that you cite, ought to be discarded, because it clashes with my present, more developed argument. For your part, you didn't adequately take into account my later qualifications. But it is true that yuou spotted a contradiction that I have now rectified, based on my own greater understanding of the issue than what I had some three weeks ago.
Therefore, I'll delete the following (originally, beginning portion) from my existing paper on the topic:
"The Church has clearly allowed something not unlike torture in the past, at the highest levels. If it is intrinsically immoral, then the Church would not have been properly protected by the Holy Spirit and would have defected in a serious way. Thus, Mark [Shea]'s remarks about supposed infallibility not only are uncalled-for, but also (if he is right) would raise huge issues about the infallibility of the historic Church (and, one might say, its responsibility in sanctioning acts which would be - if Mark were right - intrinsically immoral). Nuh uh. I don't think so.
"It would be like saying that capital punishment is intrinsically immoral, or all warfare whatsoever. It just ain't so."
[Mark Shea has also clarified that he didn't intend to say that the remarks in VS were infallible; only authoritative and binding upon Catholics; to which I readily agree]
(cont.)
Also, I will modify the sentence:
"Torture in limited amounts for extremely important strategic and preventive purposes is no worse than warfare itself, which the Church has never condemned in toto."
to:
"Certain clearly specified, morally acceptable forms of coercion in limited amounts for extremely important strategic and preventive purposes are no worse than warfare itself, which the Church has never condemned in toto."
This is because I don't wish to be interpreted as saying (as Mark has strongly criticized):
"John Paul II condemns all forms of torture, but I dissent from that and would allow some forms."
My argument (see my latest comments at Mark Shea's blog; cross-posted to my own) is that his language, closely examined in light of history, allows some measure of coercion, according to past Church practice. Mark Shea himself noted that I made this distinction.
And the widespread use of torture would not? On what basis do you make this distinction between one category of church crime and another?
On the basis that the Church en masse (folks like Aquinas and Augustine and at least one ecumenical council) supported some forms of coercion. So does Holy Scripture. Does inspired Scripture teach intrinsic evil too? That is a problem far greater than sins in the Church in practice and sub-magisterial widespread error. Now we're talking about God commanding intrinsic evil in the very Law that He gave to Moses and the Jews.
The treatment of Jews, for example, was every bit as intrinsic to church law and policy as the use of torture, or rather it was more so.
This is a huge black spot, for sure. I can only say that the Church has grown immensely in its understanding of religious toleration and liberty. It's difficult to harmonize past and present on this issue, but I believe it can be done, and has been, by Cardinal Dulles and others.
A Te Deum was sung in Rome after the [St. Bartholomew's Day] massacre, if I remember correctly.
That is correct, but the question is, "what was it sung for? According to Catholic historian Warren Carroll:
"Pope Gregory XIII ordered a Te Deum said in thanksgiving for the deliverance of the French royal family and Christendom fro Coligny's alleged plot to murder the king, seize the crown, support the rebels in the Low Countries, and march on Rome.
"However, the Pope was horrified by the cruelties of the massacre, sheeding tears and saying, 'I am weeping for the conduct of the king [Charles IX], which is unlawful and forbidden by God.' Spanish ambassador Zuniga described him as 'struck with horror' at the details of the massacre. Later the Pope said he wept for the many innocent dead, and refused to receive the assassin Maurevert in audience."
(The Cleaving of Christendom, Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 2000, 370).
But Carroll also notes that a procession of thanksgiving took place in Rome and that the pope "celebrated the event in a special bull, though it was worded to praise only the execution of the leaders, not the slaughter of the two thousand." (Ibid., 370-371)
As usual, the truth of the matter is both more complex and interesting than the myth.
DA: "my position doesn't require me to somehow wink at or be forced to condone any sins in the past."
Since you say that church torture in the past was not a sin, what is to prevent extending this absolution to all other matters commonly thought to be church sins (based on mistakes).
The norms of Catholic moral theology, of course. You act as if no distinctions can be made at all. But yours is a circular argument: you assume all coercion whatsoever is absolutely wrong and proceed on your merry way, building a fallacious argument on a mistaken premise. If you want to dissent from Scripture, Aquinas, and Augustine, feel free. I'm much more reluctant to do so.
DA: "Even what I condone, is in the sense of "not intrinsically immoral." That doesn't mean that many of these coercive techniques could not have become sinful on other grounds: bad motives, excess, revenge, lust for power, etc."
In short, you hold that the torture of suspected heretics was morally ok?
I think it may be in cases where the Church sanctioned it, in the context of the medieval understanding of heresy as "soul-murder." It would not be intrinsically evil in those instances. But the line is very fine and I certainly don't advocate such practices in cases of heresy today, as I am a strong advocate of complete religious tolerance. For terrorists, mass murderers, and tyrants and despots, I do allow such a possibility, within strict control, guided by proper moral theology.
DA: "This is why I have always thought very little of the Inquisition and the Crusades, while recognizing that neither was immoral per se, and that both had legitimate justification in the framework of the medieval worldview."
--- continued ---
The Inquisition is incompatible with current church teaching on freedom of religion.
Correct, but that is a different proposition from calling it intrinsically evil.
The use of torture by the Inquisition is incompatible with current church teaching on the rights of prisoners and the evilness of torture.
I don't believe that applies all down the line, from what I've seen. it would be extremely interesting to see, e.g., if the Church has pronounced any guidelines for interrogation of prisoners of war by the military or of suspected criminals by police. If anyone knows of such statements, please let me know.
Your hermeneutics of forcing Catholic morality into the dimensions set by the past could lead to a rehabilitation of slavery, persecution of Protestants and Jews, etc.
Not at all, as stated. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm as committed to religius liberty and tolerance as anyone on earth, including you. My goal is simply to understand the Inquisition within its historic context, and to understand teh reasoning behind it, not to extol its virtues, or being it back today. Furthermore, I live out my view on tolerance by trying to treat anyone I dialogue with respect (including atheists and those who despise me as an apostate, etc.).
I may vigorously argue my point, and utilize sarcasm and satire if it is appropriate (as cardinal Newman did, and also St. Paul and Jesus), but I don't accuse opponents of nefarious motives sinply because they take a different view than I do. This all flows from my intense commitment to ecumenism and mutually-respectful dialogue, which in turn is a result of a certain approach to religious tolerance.
Torture is wrong, in current Catholic understanding, not because of its purpose or the subjective intent but in itself.
One needs to carefully define what is and what is not intended in the condemnation. Not all coercion is "torture" nor intrinsically immoral.
Many torturers have claimed a noble purpose -- perhaps most.
If you say the Church only condemns torture for its purpose or intent you are robbing its teaching of all application, because every party will call its torture "just torture" on the analogy of "just war".
I think there is room for that analogy and practice, yes. Whatever the Church is truly condemning as instrinsically evil can never be performed; I wholeheartedly agree. But what exactly are we talking about? That is my concern.
Americans will say it is ok if Americans are doing the torturing, bad if Americans are being tortured.
That's simply partisan politics of the worst sort. It has no relation to an intelligent discussion of Church teaching. I am on record as saying that America is the wickedest nation in history, based on biblical understandings, especially, "to whom much is given, much is required." So you can't nail me on this "America right or wrong" nonsense.
I've also taken extreme flak from some conservative types for my strong stand against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as immoral acts, contrary to Catholic just war tradition. I argue whatever I want and speak my mind, if I am convinced of something, no matter who may object to it and loudly protest.
Your complaints that I have misrepresented your arguments are obfuscatory.
Hopefully, my clarifications have properly disposed of this objection.
"When news of the St Bartholomew's day Massacre... reached Rome, [Gregory XIII] celebrated it with a Te Deum and thanksgiving services as a victory for the church over infidelity as well as the defeat of political treachery; and he actively subsidized the Catholic League against the Huguenots... When his dreams of an Irish invasion of England collapsed (1578 and 1579), he gave his personal support to plots to have the queen assassinated." Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes.
I don't know if all this is true or not. I cited a Catholic historian who was candid about Catholic failings. This is a Protestant work by a pretty good Anglican historian (J.N.D. Kelly) but one, it should be noted, with a pronounced bias against the papacy. It should be understood accordingly.
Thanks for your replies.
I am very pleased that Dave Armstrong and Fr Harrison are correcting the impression they gave earlier that there was some sort of Magisterial doctrinal teaching which allowed torture.
This notion is completely false and is precisely what I objected to most strongly in Fr Harrison's original letter to Crisis Magazine.
The records show that there are no papal doctrinal teachings or Ecumenical Council doctrinal teachings which establish a doctrine that torture is anywhere permitted.
That Church has always taught that torture is wrong. Some Popes and others fell into sin by tolerating torture or even trying to mandate that others practice it. But there has never been a doctrinal teaching in favour of torture.
The Catechism clearly teaches the following :-
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.
2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. 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. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
2148 Blasphemy is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. St. James condemns those "who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called." The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God's name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God's name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion.
Blasphemy is contrary to the respect due God and his holy name. It is in itself a grave sin.
It is simply blasphemous to misuse God's name to torture people or to cover up torture.
Pro torture Catholics ought not be surprised that many Catholics will react strongly to the blasphemy which tries to cover up torture.
God Bless
Note that Fr. O'Leary's remarks must be understood within the total backdrop of his extreme, antiquated 60s-style theological ultra-liberalism. Here is a sampling from just one article of his:
=========================
The Decline of the NeoCaths
The red herring of conflicting authoritative statements on torture is designed to rehabilitate the older attitude of the Church to torture, at least to the extent required by the Bush administration.
* * *
Americans are hungry to torture Islamic bodies, though each tortured body causes a thousand new "terrorists" to spring up. Neocath priests are happy to pander to this bloodlust, much as Taliban mullahs no doubt whitewash the tactics of terrorism.
David Armstrong, lay "apologist" (for the Gospel?) writes: . . .
[then he rehashes the "textual criticism" that I have now replied to by removing unclear portions of my paper. You gotta love the "apologist" in quotes routine: used by critics of mine from all sides, as if I am not what I am, or that it is somehow an unsavory endeavor to do apologetics as a vocation
But to his credit, he did apologize for the most extreme remarks that he made, so I won't cite those. I suggest that he remove them from his blog, however, since he retracted them here]
If the authors of these arcane debates do not make quite clear that they are protesting against torture and its legalization -- and against the concrete acts of cruelty committed in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the other largely undisclosed locations of the new Gulag -- then their alleged objectivity and serenity are deeply suspect.
* * *
Benedict XVI has indeed fulfilled the neocath dream in one respect: it now looks as if the entire Curia has devoted itself to the “inquisitorial” task of ensuring orthodoxy.
[heaven forbid! We can't have popes engaging in such outrageous, "Byzantine" activities as that! What is the Catholic world coming tom anyway?]
They have taken on a distinctly sectarian cast, regularly calling into question the legitimacy of Vatican II, and pouring scorn on other Christian denominations and other religions in a manner not only incompatible with Vatican II but with the entire ecumenical labor of the Church over the last eighty years or so. . . . Neocaths, who constantly attempt to undermine the authority of Vatican II.
* * *
The sterility of the neocath mindset is seen in the prodigious labors they devote to showing that official Catholic doctrine has never contradicted itself. See especially: http://mliccione.blogspot.com/. These extraordinary exercises, predicated on the alleged infallibility of “Humanae Vitae”, stand refuted by the clear facts of history, as found for instance in Charles Curran, ed. “Changes in Official Catholic Moral Teachings”, Paulist Press, 2003. Cardinal Dulles, favorite neocath theologian, carries this Parmenideanism so far as to maintain that the Church today, as in 1866, upholds the compatibility of slavery with divine and natural law.
The neocaths used to present themselves as responsible thinkers on sexual ethics. But increasingly it has become apparent that the most primitive homophobia, based far more on Sodom’n’Gomorrah biblical fundamentalism than on any responsible consideration of Catholic tradition, is the bottom line in their sexual thinking.
* * *
The leading neocath thinkers are converts from Anglicanism or Protestantism, who speak of their former denomination in tones borrowed, at their most charitable, from the quite out-dated polemic of Newman against Anglicanism; see especially http://catholica.pontifications.net. They bring to Roman Catholicism a testy, superior attitude, . . . They really feel it is their mission to save the Roman Church from the evil “Protestantizing” influence of Vatican II.
[Fr. O'Leary, of course, being an obvious paragon of tolerant virtue. I'm against Vatican II -- myself being one he lists as a "NeoCath" -- , when I have always credited my friend John McAlpine for being the primary human influence on my conversion, precisely because he was following Vatican II's ecumenical injunctions for sensible discourse with Protestants, in terms they can understand? Hmmm; very curious.]
* * *
A Church that recognizes the charisms of women and of gays is surely one that points to the future.
In contrast, the neocaths cling desperately to fetid relics of a half-imaginary past.
http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...ecline_of_.html
And in comments:
----------------
I urge the superiority of loving and faithful sexuality, which is why I back committed unions among gays over the promiscuity that is in practice valorized by the homophobic brigade. Recently it has been discovered that a huge percentage of hate crimes against gays are motivated uniquely by religious concerns. The neocaths have their share of blame to bear for this.
------------------
Chris:
It's really quite simple. Nothing Fr. Harrison or anybody else has said reduces by one iota our obligation to obey the Magisterial teaching that torture is intrinsically immoral. Dittos for anything Cardinal Dulles has said. Given that the Coalition have labored with might and main to prove precisely that Veritatis Splendor is a "fundamentalist proof text" and not the authoritative teaching of Holy Church (and larded their discourse with descriptors like "liar" "complete jerkwad" and "Pharisee" for those who advocate obedience to VS, I have to conclude that, yes, they are opposed to actually taking JPII's teaching as the authoritative Magisterial teaching it is. You can make excuse for that if you like, Chris.
Exactly, Josiah; precisely as my own. One works through moral principles in the abstract (let's call this thought-process A) and then applies them to concrete, real-life situations (which are, after all, what moral theology is supposed to deal with: real life). The second thing I shall call B.
But to do abstract, theoretical reflection (A) does not necessarily require real life application (B) in order for it to be justifiable in and of itself.
I haven't applied the principles and scheme of harmonization of past and present that I am working on, to any political agenda or even any particular form of torture (i.e., I've been solely engaged in A, not B).
I don't know about those things. I don't claim to know. I would love to know. But those on the other side of the debate seem to be providing few specifics, so they have not helped me in my quest to determine if there is such a thing as moral coercion, and if so, what?
What is, then, preferable?:
1. A position that dogmatically proclaims a principle ("all torture -- implied: all coercion or even psychological "pressure" whatsoever -- is intrinsically evil!!!!") ad nauseum, yet refuses to clarify how the key word is to be defined and its parameters.
or:
2. A position that proclaims that, yes, torture is wrong in the sense that John Paul II would define and condemn it, but wonders aloud exactly how he would do so, and retains a certain agnosticism until further informed on that score.
#1 (if indeed it is of the nature portrayed above) is dogmatic without providing the crucial information which would allow it to be so dogmatic and derisive of contrary opinion, whereas #2 is agnostic on particulars, while allowing the possibility that there may be some flexibility here in John Paul II's own definition, and seeks to know the parameters of that.
Or, in other words, I maintain that the position of #1 is irrationally dogmatic, whereas #2 is cautiously and sensibly agnostic.
I also say both positions are equally concerned with upholding Church teaching. The difference lies in the nature of the teaching itself and how it is to be applied.
Dave Armstrong,
Instead of ad-hominem attacks on Fr O'Leary "extreme, antiquated 60s-style theological ultra-liberalism" I strongly suggest that you might more profitably spend your time examining your own theology.
That a self-proclaimed "apologist" for the Catholic faith as yourself could fall into the mire of believing that Holy Mother Church ever doctrinally endorsed torture ought to ring alarm bells in your theology.
Torture is completely contra to the gospel, to the deposit of faith and to apostolic tradition. That a Catholic apologist could think the Church doctrinally taught torture indicates a lack of understanding of the most very basic principles taught by Christ and of the indefectibility of Catholic teaching.
God Bless
My first sentence above ("Exactly, Josiah; precisely as my own") was responding to Josiah's statement (on Mark Shea's blog):
"Father Harrison's concerns are clearly theoretical rather than practical. He's interested in trying to systhesize and harmonize 2000 years of Catholic teaching on the matter - not trying to determine what government policy on the matter should be."
Hi Chris (Sullivan),
How do you define torture, Chris? And what exactly were St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine advocating (some sort of coercion)?
Instead of ad-hominem attacks on Fr O'Leary "extreme, antiquated 60s-style theological ultra-liberalism"
I concede that, technically, this is ad hominem, but note that it is perfectly acceptable and standard practice to highlight a person's stated predispositions as a factor in how he approaches things.
Fr. O'Leary, after all, returns the favor. He calls me a "MeoCath" which is, as far as I am concerned, a rank insult. Not only that, he feels perfectly free to make asinine, absurd generalizations of this supposed class, as if. e.g., ones he wrongly classifies as "NeoCaths" make it their life's mission to blast Vatican II. I've rarely seen a more ridiculous portrayal of my own position (and that's saying something if you know the history of many folks who have criticized me).
I only call myself a Catholic, or (if it must be clarified) an "orthodox Catholic." I don't appreciate having self-serving polemical qualifiers attached to the label I am extremely proud to wear.
But in Fr. O'Leary's case, he is clearly a theological liberal, or (if you will) a dissenter (however you protest against my flower-powery descriptions). Or do you deny this? And I think he would be proud to readily identify himself as such (or some equivalent high-sounding term, like "progressive").
I strongly suggest that you might more profitably spend your time examining your own theology.
I'm always happy to do so. I'm sure you'll be more than happy to help me along, right?
That a self-proclaimed "apologist" for the Catholic faith as yourself could fall into the mire of believing that Holy Mother Church ever doctrinally endorsed torture ought to ring alarm bells in your theology.
Absolutely. If I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas something must surely be very wrong with me. I'll have to make sure to disagree with him whenever I can.
Torture is completely contra to the gospel, to the deposit of faith and to apostolic tradition. That a Catholic apologist could think the Church doctrinally taught torture indicates a lack of understanding of the most very basic principles taught by Christ and of the indefectibility of Catholic teaching.
Defining terms is fundamental to any decent, constructive discussion. I'm not claiming to be any sort of expert on this issue. I'm basically thinking out loud, as I often do.
So I am trying to be educated by you guys who seem to think you are especially informed about Catholic teaching on this issue. I'm all ears. Give me the definition, and also kindly explain, if you would, if there is even such a thing as any sort of moral coercion, according to Catholicism. I await your reply with great eagerness.
"He's interested in trying to systhesize and harmonize 2000 years of Catholic teaching on the matter - not trying to determine what government policy on the matter should be."
The duty of Catholics is to advocate for the implementation of Catholic Social Teaching (which is clearly and unambiguously against torture) in the Public Square.
It isn't to speculate that JPII and the last Ecumenical Council were mistaken about the intrinsic evil of torure.
Instead of dissenting from the clear teaching of the Magisterium against torture, our duty at this hour is to do what we can to carry out and implement Magisterial teaching.
While people are being tortured and killed we're distracted by "trying to systhesize and harmonize" ?
Reality check guys !
On judgement day Christ isn't going to ask how much ink we spent "trying to systhesize and harmonize" but what we did to try to stop the torturing of Christ himself truely present in torture victims (Matthew 25).
God Bless
How do you define torture, Chris?
Well, it's looks like we're back to square one again. Arguing "exactly what is torture anyway?" a la all those debates over at Mark Shea's.
Why not accept what the US Army Manual says and what international agreements, which the US is party to but ignores in direct violation of the commandment not to bear a false witness (ie to sign something and not abide by it)?
You're still in ad-hominum mode, Dave, as you have just written "he feels perfectly free to make asinine, absurd generalizations". Why not address the issue instead of attacking the man?
If you insist on talking dissent then lets be absolutely clear. Those who say torture is acceptable are in dissent.
Those who say torture is not intrisically evil are in dissent.
You claim If I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas.... The Holy Father himself has publicly distanced himself from aspects of St Thomas' writings. St Thomas himself described hsi own writings as "all straw" and refused to finish his Summa. It's a matter of public record that St Thomas was simply wrong on a number of matters of Catholic Doctrine (eg the immaculate conception and the permissibility of abortion before quickening).
St Thomas advocated the execution of heretics, something now opposed by the Church. Let's face it, Thomas was a man of his (very violent) times and Catholic doctrine has moved on since then in the journey closer to Christ.
For an "apologist" Dave, you don't seem to understand how Catholic doctrine is pronounced. It's not pronounced by Saints like Thomas but by Popes when they are defining doctrine.
If Thomas said X is OK but a Pope says X is intrinsically evil then as Catholics we must follow Pope and not Thomas.
God Bless
Father posted to you in part:
“My bottom line is that you are right and Mr. Shea is wrong. As I see it, the authentic (and much less the infallible) magisterium, correctly understood, does NOT clearly condemn as intrinsically evil the direct (intentional) infliction of severe bodily pain.”
OK. I am an idiot. I am not educated. I am not a priest. I do not have initials after my name. Father says the infliction of severe bodily pain is not evil. So what? We all know that. It happens all the time. Back in the 70’s my unit had a casualty. The medic said do not give him morphine. We had to move the guy. We really inflicted “severe bodily pain” on the guy. Of course this was not “intrinsically evil”.
Father has a big brain. He knows that sometimes you have no choice but to inflict “severe bodily pain” to save a human life. Surgeons routinely did this for centuries before we had modern pain killers. Father is simply not telling the whole truth on this matter.
Intentionally inflicting severe bodily pain on an interrogation subject in order to extract a confession or information is a violation of the 5th Commandment. Read the Catechism. Father knows that.
Father also knows that if severe bodily pain is inflicted on an interrogation subject that anything the subject says under torture is suspect. This is human nature. If an interrogation subject blurts out the purported location of UBL’s secret hideout under torture no honest interrogator or intelligence officer in his right mind is going to take this information seriously. Father knows that too.
Right now in places like China and Vietnam priests who do not have the luxury of sitting in a Western university are being tortured for the Faith. Father, meanwhile, is making an argument that torture is not really evil all the time - while he sits safely behind his university walls.
Shame on Father.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Forget I asked, Chris. I won't enter into your hostile polemics. I'll simply await other calm, rational replies to my questions or accept the fact that they won't be answered.
Be well.
Here's proof that a Pope taught clearly that torture is not allowed, and well before Vatican II and long before St Thomas too :-
http://respublicaetcetera.blogsp...on-
torture.html
God Bless
Posted at Mark Shea's blog, in response to him:
Hi Mark,
You are rehashing a discussion we've had numerous times
I understand. I don't come here too much, and I am even late to the torture discussions.
(and getting away from the topic of the thread).
The topic of the thread is "Is torture immoral?" not "What is torture?"
If it has already been established what it is, and both parties agree, then this would apply. But I don't think many of your opponents agree on the definition. Without fundamental agreement on foundational definitions, it is impossible to discuss an issue. I can't discuss whether "torture" is immoral without knowing exactly how one is defining that term (it being a fine line in many cases).
Abortion or rape or murder or theft do not involve fine lines. They are what they are, and it is clear-cut. Lust or torture / coercion have fine lines that must be discussed.
I'm still working through the issue on a more elementary level, so definition is crucial for me. If it's already been dealt with, I can simply follow links. Zippy did that, so I'll take a look at what he has.
As I said, the issue under discussion, when it comes to the Coalition for Fog and their pals is this "Assuming X is torture, is it intrinsically immoral (and therefore always wrong) or not?" The Coalition wants us to believe X is *not* always immoral and that we can safely ignore appeals to Veritatis Splendor which says it is.
I've asked you now twice to document some of them saying this (and other of your criticisms). Is that forthcoming?
"What is torture?" is a separate issue. I have proposed various answers, all rejected by Foggers who seem singularly uninterested in progressing toward some sort of action that would concretely *obey* the Church's teaching. To their repeated pleas for clarity on just what "torture" means I have propose the dictionary (hopelessly unclear), the guidelines for prisoner treatment used by the military for the past 50 years (dittos), and the Interrogator's Golden Rule which says "If you'd consider it torture if done to you or a buddy by the enemy, it's torture." All of these have been rejected by the Foggers and nothing proposed in their place.
Fair enough, but do we have any solid information as to what the pope means by the term?
Why? Because (as their name makes clear) they are making the case for fog, not acting like Catholic disciples who want to implement the Church's teaching in any meaningful way. So, as long as they can pretend to be hopelessly confused about what "torture" means, they can continue to make excuses for the actual concrete acts of this Administration, which in fact has practiced torture such as (but not limited to) waterboarding, cold cells, and Palestinian hanging.
These things are all, unequivocally, torture. These things are all, unequivocally, condemned therefore as intrinsically immoral. And these things are what the Bush Administration has done and continues to do.
Quibbling about how to tiptoe up to the line of torture is pointless. We have already crossed that line. The Church's teaching is clear: prisoners are to treated humanely.
Sure. Now what does this humane treatment include? Zippy acknowledged that there are legitimate forms of coercion besides handcuffs and incarceration. I'll be going to his blog right after I finish this.
Fine-tuned arguments about whether it constitutes torture if you attach wires to a man's testicle but don't turn on the electricity are simply legalism and in no way concerned with the obvious spirit of the law.
I agree, but nevertheless it is perfectly normal to want to know what is permissible. You can also get bogged down in your own legalistic discussion about what is legalistic. At some point there needs to be clear guidelines. That's why we have things like catechisms, for heaven's sake: sometimes folks just want a concise, clear answer on some topic without having to go through all the abstract theorizing.
Moreover, there are many questions in moral theology, where we better discuss fine lines (minus the accusation of Pharisaism), or we will be in big trouble.
Lust immediately comes to mind. If a husband can be lustful towards his own wife (as the Church has taught at times), that is a fine line. I could have sexual desire for my wife which is immoral or one which is in accord with mutual self-giving, etc. Are we not to discuss how to distinguish the two?
That's not legalism; it is practical application of agreed moral principles. I don't see that this is different. At "best," you could accuse people of having a nefarious motive and being disingenuous in asking such questions, in trying to find ways out of being obedient to the Church. If that can be established, it's another important issue such a person would need to face up to and rectify, since it is a "cafeteria Catholic" mentality. Thus far, you don't, however, seem to be making that charge against me.
So I'm simply asking about what is and what is not permissible, in concrete terms. Whatever the "Fog" does is their business. I keep asking for documentation. But speaking for myself, I'm more or less at a beginning level of inquiry on this question (I can't help that; I've been busy with many other things); hence I am asking simple questions.
Dave,
Here's some definitions for you :-
During the Reagan administration in 1981, a US Army manual defined terrorism as
"the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature… through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear."
http://www.redress.org/
publicati...orismReport.pdf
The U.N. Convention Against Torture (which the US ratified) definition provides that torture is
“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.”
This definition has been held to constitute customary international law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Uni...Against_Torture
God Bless
Responding to "zippy":
Hi Zippy,
I read the article you sent me to:
http://zippycatholic.blogspot.co...just-is-
is.html
I found it far more abstract and nitpicky than I found Fr. Harrison. I must say that it hasn't helped me much to determine what exactly you guys are talking about, in cases where the line is fine (police interrogation with bright lights, etc.)
If your big point is to reiterate that sin starts in the heart and will before it proceeds to action, that's great. No one disagrees (or no one should; that's a given, biblically).
Yet this doesn't resolve how to determine:
1) What the lines of torture are and when acts are coercive and hence, not "intrinsically immoral."
2) What exactly the pope had in mind when he used the word "torture."
I agree that the more obvious examples that have been discussed, are very likely condemned (e.g., waterboarding). If others disagree with that, then I disagree with them. (what else is new? I'm always disagreeing with people! Comes with my job). But I'm trying to determine what legitimately coercive techniques are permissible.
So to that end, what do you provide me with?
I submit that whenever a helpless captive is treated as an object and made to suffer as a means to some end unrelated to his own personal good, he has been treated inhumanely. The person who does this has committed an immoral act, no matter what good end he hopes to serve by so doing.
Wonderfully self-evident, but also vague. Forgive me, if I don't think this goes far to resolve my quest for objective, concrete standards in this area.
I know there are military and police guides and international law guidelines that I'll probably have to consult at some point. But then, who's to say that these will coincide with Church teaching? It seems obvious that in many places they will not. Many international efforts promote abortion and contraception, too.
In the next paragraph you write:
"The position has some weaknesses for an anti-torture absolutist such as myself, or at least it may seem to in the abstract. Most particularly there remains the possibility that some will claim that we are torturing captives for their own ultimate good. Someone who is particularly gullible might even actually believe it, and advocate policy rooted in that belief. Also this leaves open the possibility that beating the crap out of a prisoner because he just threw feces at a guard would not, under this understanding, be necessarily considered torture or inhumane treatment. I think that is right, actually. Such an act would have to fall under prudential judgement in enforcing discipline. It could be evil in virtue of being disproportionate, of course, but it wouldn't be evil per se the way that strapping a prisoner to a table and waterboarding him to get him to cough up the names of his co-conspirators would be."
So, great. Now I know you accept the moral permissibility of handcuffs, going to jail, and "beating the crap out of a prisoner because he just threw feces at a guard." This is supposed to help me know the mortal limits of interrogation? This very example is strewn with difficulties. How does one consider what sort of "beating" is proportionate? Is a punch to the stomach okay but not to the face? Is a puinch to the face permitted, but not a second one, or one after a bloody nose, or after the detainee yells for you to stop?
I'm sorry. This seems to me to make things more confusing, not less. You'll probably charge that I'm being legalistic again. I don't think so. I would call it, rather, "asking quite relevant, necessary questions in order to better understand the principle in its application."
--- continued ---
You yourself wrote in comments:
" I do agree that the terms in this blog entry need work."
Perhaps I am (just maybe) helping you to do some of that needed work?
There is nothing wrong with probing the logic and coherence of a position by questioning. It doesn't follow that because a guy uses his head to better understand a somewhat complex teaching, that he therefore has no heart, or is doing so strictly to "see what he can get away with."
The charge of legalism can itself be quite legalistic (and judgmental).
So this post isn't of much assistance to me (with all due respect). But it was a thoughtful exercise of a robust Catholic conscience.
I then looked at another linked on the side: "Torture definitions."
http://zippycatholic.blogspot.co...-
confusion.html
You wrote:
An intrinsically evil act is evil because of the nature of its object. Intent and circumstances are completely irrelevant to the conclusion that the act is morally evil.
Yes, absolutely.
So suppose someone says "I know the Church says that act X is an intrinsically evil act, but I don't have a good definition of act X. Therefore it is possible that act X might be morally licit under circumstance A, but not morally licit under circumstance B." Does this make any sense when we are talking about acts which the Church has authoritatively taught to be intrinsically evil?
No. Again, I agree. But I am not asking that question. Mine is, rather:
"So suppose someone says 'I know the Church says that act X is an intrinsically evil act, but I don't have a good definition of act X. Therefore it is possible that act Y may not be a species of X; hence not evil; hence permissible."
You can't simply thumb your nose at the necessity of definition. It's a backwards, wrongheaded methodology to do so. You assume the very thing that you need to prove to have a solid premise.
It's not "objective" but subjective to have a mentality of "everything I define as torture is torture [therefore, intrinsically evil] because I say so and it is self-evident, and the fine lines don't matter at all because that is legalism and attempts to escape the Catholic moral imperative."
This won't do! It's viciously circular reasoning.
If we know that act X is intrinsically evil, then we know it is evil because of the nature of its object, and we know that no circumstance or intent can make it morally licit.
Yes, we do (YAAAAAAAWWWWNNNN). I completely agree. Mark Shea claims that some folks are arguing in this fashion, yet he won't document it. I asked him twice to do so with no results. I've now asked him a third time.
The notion of an intrinsically evil act that is defined as the kind of act it is by its intent or circumstances is self-contradictory.
Quite true. You need not say the same thing five times (in the article) for it to be understood. But it is also self-contradictory to say:
"This act that we refuse to specify is an intrinsically evil act."
--- continued ---
You don't see the contradiction yet? Let me try to explain it with more straightforward logic:
1. Act X ("torture") is intrinsically evil.
2. But we don't know exactly what Act X is because it has not been specified.
3. So we know not what is intrinsically immoral.
4. Furthermore, to say that Act X is immoral without even knowing what it is, is logical and linguistic nonsense.
5. One cannot assert the following two propositions simultaneously:
A) Act X is a thing Y.
B) Act X is no thing.
It has to be one or the other. If it is a thing, then it can be further defined and specified, and has some specific content we can identify. But if it is no thing then we are talking nonsense, which never accomplishes anything.
It's like saying (to use the lust analogy again):
"Lust is intrinsically immoral."
Someone asks: "what is included in lustfulness?"
You reply: "whenever a woman is treated as an object and made to suffer as a means to some selfish end related to some male's personal sex drive, she has been treated lustfully."
He asks again about particulars and you refuse. So this person (say he is a former agnostic but highly interested in Catholicism, yet without a clue about Catholic morality) goes out and uses a condom and has sex with his girlfriend, on the grounds that this is being considerate of her needs. She doesn't have to worry about getting pregnant; she doesn't even have to take birth control pills.
They are in love, so he doesn't feel that he is using her as an object; in fact, she wanted to make love to him. So all the subjective factors are there.
But there are also objective considerations. In actuality (assuming for the sake of argument that lustfulness is absent), two objectively mortal sins have occurred: fornication and contraception.
But these two were truly ignorant of Catholic teaching. They needed particulars to have a fuller understanding. And that is exactly what you would refuse to give them, because you seem to want to rely on highly abstract moral theorizing.
This gets back to the dichotomy between the two broad approaches to our present subject.
1) Fr. Harrison and Cardinal Dulles are trying to work through both the moral principles and historic application of them, in order to sensibly ascertain present-day particularistic application.
2) But you seem to want to argue that analysis of moral principles in the avstract is all that is necessary and that both particular definition and concrete application are irrelevancies that need not be discussed. And if anyone tries to do so, you and Mark have your ready-made accusation that they are probably doing so out of a pharisaical motivation and mentality.
This won't do. We need more thoughtful guidelines for permissible coercion besides your admitted handcuffs, jail, and "beating the crap out of a prisoner because he threw a piece of poop at the guard."
I see that, in at least one of his posts, Dave Armstrong agrees with me that the Church condemns torture, but not the legitimate use of coercion by the State.
Only under "coercion" is he slipping torture back in again? Is he calling, say, water-boarding, a legitimate form of coercion in certain circumstances? He does think that the torture used by the Inquisition was justified (at least in one post above, he seems to say to).
I hesitate to say he is justifying the Bush practices that have brought disgrace on America -- water-boarding or the various methods alleged to have been used against US Citizen Jose Padilla, because he will point to some part of his prolific postings where he says he is not, and even if I find a place where he says he is, he will say he has rethought that and would not say it anymore! Then he will drag up my liberal views on gay civil unions to disqualify my opposition to torture -- oblivious of the fact that in both cases I stand for human rights and for human flourishing.
Look, torture is a vile assault on the human will and on the integrity of the human body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. The Church failed to see this clearly in Ad Extirpanda 1254 and the other papal documents repeating its teaching. The Church sees it more clearly now, and I hope will see it more clearly still as it disowns the neocath apologias for torture.
Dave Armstrong keeps asking for a definition of torture, but surely Chris Sullivan provided a quite adequate one, which has the extra advantage of being up to date and currently in force:
"The U.N. Convention Against Torture (which the US ratified) definition provides that torture is
“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.”
"This definition has been held to constitute customary international law."
When Vatican II and the Pope condemn torture they may be presumed to have something like this common, accepted definition of torture in mind. They certainly do not distance themselves from this common understanding in any way (in order to make room for a retrospective whitewashing of their own practices in the Inquisition-centuries, or in order to leave space for a righteous application of torture by the good guys -- as Americans believe themselves to be).
Guidelines for permissible correction are a quite different issue from the definition of torture.
Another different issue is the question of the right to silence and the Fifth Amendment. The 1917 Code of Canon Law shows the Church receiving this idea, which it certainly did not entertain in the past -- see Patrick Granfield, The Right to Silence: Magisterial Development, in Curran ed., Change in Official Catholic Moral Teachings (Readings in Moral Theology, vol. 13, Paulist Press). Granfield says: "The Church's recognition of this right was sudden and long overdue." Whether the USA continues to recognize this right is now doubtful.
Sorry, I meant "permissible coercion."
Imprisonment is in itself a form of permissible coercion, entailing others. Certain restraints on what is allowed here must be respected, in view of the human dignity of the prisoner.
But torture is predicated on a basis disrespect for that dignity. To draw a dicy analogy: mishandling of prisoners could be compared to lustful excesses but torture is to be compared with cold-hearted deliberate rape.
Dave could argue that rape is ill-defined just as torture is. But again there are common conventional definitions of rape as there are of torture.
At least the core of what is condemned is clear in both cases: a violation of bodily integrity and a coercion of the will.
Andrew Sullivan writes:
26 Oct 2006 10:15 pm
The cancer apparently helped begin this disaster as well:
Iban al Shakh al Libby was apparently taken to Cairo, [former FBI agent Jack] Clonan told the BBC, after being captured in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.
"He (Libby) claims he was tortured in jail and that would be routine in Egyptian prisons," Grey said. "What he claimed most significantly was a connection between ... Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. This intelligence report made it all the way to the top, and was used by (former US secretary of state) Colin Powell as a key piece of justification ... for invading Iraq," he told the broadcaster.
Powell claimed in a UN Security Council meeting in February 2003, weeks before a US-led coalition invaded Iraq, that the country under Saddam Hussein had provided weapons training to Al-Qaeda, saying he could "trace the story of a senior terrorist operative", whom Grey alleges is Libby.
"At the time, the caveats to say this intelligence was extracted under torture were not provided," Grey said.
This cancer, so beloved of this torture-friendly administration, helped generate the untruths that so many of us then believed as a reason to go to war. And in turn, it led to more torture, which the vice-president regards as a "no-brainer". In fact, it merely proves that the vice-president has no brain, when it comes to matters of intelligence-gathering.
Mark Shea:
That it presents difficulties to Fr. Harrison is of absolutely no consequence in our obligation to obey it. That other issues, like slavery, present difficulties to Cardinal Dulles, is of absolutely no consequence to our obligation to obey it.
Let's see.
We've got a professor of theology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico.
We've got, well, Avery Cardinal Dulles:
Past President of both the Catholic Theological Society of America and the American Theological Society and Professor Emeritus at The Catholic University of America, Cardinal Dulles has served on the International Theological Commission and as a member of the United States Lutheran/Roman Catholic Dialogue. He is presently a consultant to the Committee on Doctrine of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. He has an impressive collection of awards, including Phi Beta Kappa, the Croix de Guerre, the Cardinal Spellman Award for distinguished achievement in theology, the Boston College Presidential Bicentennial Award, the Christus Magister Medal from the University of Portland (Oregon), the Religious Education Forum Award from the National Catholic Educational Association, America magazine's Campion Award, the F. Sadlier Dinger Award for contributions to the catechetical ministry of the Church, the Cardinal Gibbons Award from The Catholic University of America, the John Carroll Society Medal, the Jerome Award from the Catholic Library Association of America, Fordhams Founders Award, Gaudium Award from the Breukelein Institute, and thirty-three honorary doctorates.
And we've got... Mark Shea.
Okay. Now whom do we presume might be best equipped to deal with this....
Whom might be in the worst position to declare that the other two "have difficulties" that are of "no consequence."
Thinking, thinking.....
"There is no indication in Harrison's article that he approves of the "liberal" attitudes toward torture by the Church throughout history. If anything, he finds fault with theologians who do so and the "lukewarm" record of the Church on this issue, noting with approval the development of a stronger stance against torture."
Well, yes, at least in the new version of his piece he is arguing along those lines:
He writes: "Fr. (later Cardinal) Pietro Palazzini, 1954. As recently as less than a decade before Vatican Council II, this highly respected moral theologian seems less than unequivocal in condemning torture for extracting confessions. Indeed, according to his apparent view of the doctrinal status quaestionis, the magisterial jury is basically still out over the morality of this practice, so that Catholic moralists remain free in principle to express contrasting opinions. After summarizing St. Alphonsus’ qualified defense of torture, based as it was on the premise that the common good may at times require such extreme measures, Palazzini continues, almost in the style of a ‘neutral’ observer: "Today, however, that current of [Catholic] opinion is predominant which takes its stand on the need to safeguard the rights of the human person, by virtue of which the criminal has a right to inviolability in soul and body" that trumps any appeal to the common good."
"... The fact is that in the course of nearly two millennia, no infallible teaching either for or against torture (for any purpose whatever) had ever been laid down by the Church in either her ordinary or extraordinary magisterium. What we have seen is a disappointing magisterial silence during the patristic period, followed by a merely authentic magisterial teaching against confession-extracting torture which prevailed in the late first and early second millennia. But this was then obscured, in theory and in brutal practice, for another half-millennium by an opposing sententia communis theologorum which was endorsed up till the 18th century by even saints and Doctors of the Church. Meanwhile, the per se liceity of severe pain-infliction as punishment for known offenders was constantly and universally upheld without the perceived need for specific magisterial interventions. This position was based on explicit biblical teaching, and an a fortiori theological argument flowing from the universally acknowledged liceity of capital punishment. The specific case of death by torture for certain convicted offenders was quite alien to first-millennium Christian tradition and practice, but its liceity also then became sententia communis in the medieval period. Indeed, opposition to this dreadful practice was eventually censured by the 16th-century papal magisterium – though, as we have seen, in an ill-defined way that left rather unclear both the ‘matter’ (the precise nature of what was being insisted upon) and the ‘form’ (the degree of force of this insistence) of the censure."
So I was wrong to suggest that his citing of Alphonsus Liguori was similar to that of those who cite his views on abortion with a view ot softening the Church's position on abotion.
But isn't there a sting in the tail of his article? He writes:
"The Council is contemplating, and roundly condemning, the currently existing phenomenon of torture, which happens to include this gravely aggravating factor of uncontrolled, clandestine arbitrariness. But also in the case of John Paul II’s encyclical, the Pope’s primary purpose in #80 is not to pass a considered judgment on torture as such – a question of ‘special’ moral theology. Rather, he is concerned to assert a much more general truth pertaining to ‘fundamental’ moral theology, namely, the falsity of recent ‘proportionalist’ theories... I believe we may conclude from all this that a hasty and strictly literal interpretation of what this passage says about torture would not accurately reflect the mind and intention of John Paul II. That is, VS #80 cannot legitimately be read as containing a formal judgment on the part of the Pope to the effect that the voluntary infliction of severe pain is, as such, "intrinsically evil"."
"It seems noteworthy that the Catechism #2297 specifically repudiates torture for several specific purposes, among which is conspicuously absent that very purpose which has been raised again recently in some Western circles as possibly being a legitimate one, especially after September 11, 2001. That is, the use of physical violence, not to extract confessions of guilt from a suspect (the old Roman Law model), but to extract vital information from, say, a captured and self-confessed Al Qaeda operative whose secret plans may be the required key for saving hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives from his next projected terrorist attack. True, any exception, even in such extreme circumstances, to the rule against torture would conflict with the absolute position expressed by Pope John Paul at Geneva ("Nothing could justify . . . "). But this fact does not necessarily settle the theological question as to what counts as the authentic magisterial teaching. Firstly, because the Catechism (1992) is subsequent to the 1982 Geneva address and so could possibly represent a nuancing or revision of the Pope’s own position (on a particularly difficult subject concerning which, after all, mutually contradictory positions have been espoused in other non-infallible papal decisions over the centuries). Secondly, because the Catechism, promulgated for the universal Church by an Apostolic Constitution, enjoys a higher level of magisterial authority than a simple speech, addressed to a limited audience, that was never even published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. And thirdly, because a comparison of the Catechism, ##2297, with the 1984 United Nations Convention against torture suggests strongly that the drafters of the Catechism took into account this authoritative new international ruling on the subject (which would be a priori very probable in any case), and, while generally following the Convention’s proscriptions, deliberately decided not to do so on this particular point. The U.N. document rules out the intentional infliction of "severe pain or suffering" on any 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, . . ."."
So he is arguing that the Church ahs tacitly rejected the definition of torture in current international law -- using a very dicy argumentum ex silentio. Clearly he is trying to soften Church opposition to torture as practiced by Bush on the pretext of saving American lives.
In fact Harrison's argument for the morality of torture in certain circumstances reduces to the famous "ticking bomb scenario". He recognizes that the development of Catholic teaching has ruled out the legitimacy of every other kind of torture, and that John Paul II denounces torture "for whatever reason". He makes no judgment on current US practice of torture but seems to believe that the ticking bomb scenario is of tremendous relevance (rather than a strained pretext) -- thus giving credence to the arguments by which Bush has got the USA to license torture. He admits that his view is contrary to the UN stance on torture, to which the US has subscribed, but he imagines -- very implausibly -- that the Church tacitly shares this dissent from international law.
As to Dulles on slavery, he cannot continue to claim that slavery is compatible with divine and human law and pretend to be faithful to Vatican II.
Fr. O'Leary and Chris Sullivan have provided this definition (please forgive my ignorance, all those who have been through these discussions before):
"The U.N. Convention Against Torture (which the US ratified) definition provides that torture is
“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.”
My questions, of course, will deal with the bolded portions. What constitutes "severe pain and suffering" in this context, and what does not? This merely proves my point. Clearly, not all coercion is ruled out. So we are still left to make the subjective (but crucial) judgment of what is "severe" pain or coercion and what isn't.
Obviously, if all coercion whatsoever for these purposes had been ruled out in this definition and criterion, there would be no need for the qualifier "severe." It's very straightforward logic and grammar. But there it is.
What are some examples of "pain or suffering arising only from . . . lawful sanctions"?
And "pain or suffering . . . inherent in . . . lawful sanctions"?
And "pain or suffering . . . incidental to, lawful sanctions"?
And for that mnatter, what are "lawful [presumably moral] sanctions" and what are not?
NOW we're getting somewhere. Finally, some sort of objective definition is proposed that we can actually talk about; something to grab onto and have an intelligent, constructive, educational discussion about.
If anyone can show me some solid answers to these (I think) extremely relevant questions, and, moreover, show that this is exactly what the Church means (by solid documentation, not just speculation) then this discussion (at least to my satisfaction) can be over tonight.
If not, I think it is actually prolonged, because it looks like you guys have fired your best shot and it may just turn out to be a blank and cause you more problems than you had remotely suspected.
Hi Mark,
I've given definitions of torture repeatedly. None seem to satisfy.
1. It is of little consequence what definition you provide on your own "authority" (if that is what you did). You have none in the first place. All you can do is #2:
2. You need to tie your proposed definition in with the Church in some substantial fashion, since that is what we're talking about.
3. When Chris Sullivan and Fr. O'Leary attempted to do so, you see what happened. I easily found five ways in which there is considerable wiggling room for coercion of some sort. Since that is my major concern, this almost constituted an argument for my present agnostic state with regard to what is being prohibited as "inherently evil."
If you want to know what legitimate coercion is, why not ask people who do interrogation rather than people who have absolutely no specialized technical knowledge?
1. I could do so, sure, but you are also required to back up your own claims with objective evidence and documentation, particularly since you have been making excessively strong and judgmental remarks about those who disagree. You're making the case; the burden of evidence and proof is on you.
2. If you have no "specialized knowledge," then why are you talking so dogmatically and at the same time attempting to minimize definitional criteria which are absolutely fundamental in this discussion and most discussions concerning the relation of theory to fact and concrete particulars?
3. I possess no "specialized knowledge" in this area, either, but that is precisely why I come at it from a standpoint of relative ignorance and inquiry, hoping to get a handle on definitions and parameters (I've been doing that literally all day today). But you are dogmatic. When pressed, frankly, you haven't produced much of consequence or import.
Again, the subject here is not "What is torture?" The subject is "When the Church says torture is intrinsically immoral can we ignore her or not?"
I've already dealt with this objection. You need not state it twice to me. For myself (and perhaps for others), nailing down this definition is absolutely crucial. Thus far, two people have referred me to the UN document that seems to produce more confusion than clarification (in terms of differentiating coercion from torture. "Zippy" sent me to his papers which provided scarcely little assistance, either.
Now you want to refrain from producing anything. This is not impressive, my friend. With your brain power and (often) tremendous insight, I think you (and your allies in this cause, as well) can do WAY better than this.
The question "What is torture?" follow that one. As far as I can tell you are agreeing that when the Church says torture is intrinsically immoral she is to be obeyed.
Of course. But what IS it? How can I obey an injunction unless I know exactly what is being "injuncted" about? :-)
At least, that's what this exchange seems to suggest:
Zippy: An intrinsically evil act is evil because of the nature of its object. Intent and circumstances are completely irrelevant to the conclusion that the act is morally evil.
Dave: Yes, absolutely.
That marks you off from the Coalition for Fog's endless attempts to neuter the meaning of "intrinsically immoral".
Maybe so; maybe not. How can I know that, either, unless you document it? This is now the fourth time I've asked you to please do so. Where have these people made such remarks? They (well, several of "them" (this "grouptalk" strikes me as downright conspiratorial) repeatedly, insistently, angrily claim that you have been misrepresenting them.
Something's going on here. People are usually the world's best expert on their own opinions (as Jimmy Akin delightfully says). I'm standing in the middle, trying to decide if your characterization of their position is accurate or not. They're mad about something, are they not? Having often had my own positions misrepresented, I know how that feels, and it ain't pleasant.
So it seems to me that it is your intellectual and ethical duty to prove your strong accusations. Just send me somewhere if you don't want to cut-and-paste. Why is that so difficult if all these past discussions are sitting there in your archives?
If you can't do so, I think you need to make a mass apology to those who have disagreed with you and retract your numerous charges. If you can do so, on the other hand, I'd have no hesitation to condemn, just as vigorously as you do, those who believe that the Church teaches a certain thing, and deliberately try to deny it or squirm out of it or rationalize it away. These are very serious charges indeed. That would constitute an illegitimate private judgment or "cafeteria Catholicism," which I believe to be almost equally manifest among both liberals and "traditionalists."
Prima facie, your continuing reluctance to document this stuff suggests that it is quite possible that you ain't got nuthin' to show and have been guilty of gross misrepresentation and caricature of your opponents, whom you continually want to put into some "group."
C'mon, Mark. I urge you as a fellow apologist and friend. You have often criticized other apologists (one in particular that I can think of) for being overly-dogmatic and judgmental of others without sufficient cause (or any at all).
Don't go down that road yourself. The Church needs your prodigious talents too much for you to go that route. And I mean that quite sincerely. People are watching you. You have one of the most popular blogs among Catholics. I think you can do a lot better than this.
So can your opponents, ethics-wise. So can I. We all can. But if they don't hold what you claim they hold, that is something else again, and has become an ethical dispute in addition to the "torture" debate.
Dave:
The problem with the proposed definition(s) of torture is that they always seems to be couched in terms of degree. "Grave" or "extreme" always seem to be popping up. Moral acts may sometimes be ambiguous in practice--but never in concept. I have never seen a definition of torture which does not involve a sliding scale.
This tends to make me think that torture is not a particular THING. It's just a way of saying that there is such a thing as TOO much coercion or pain that can be inflicted. That leaves the door wide open for disagreement about what the "too much" IS. And it also seems to imply in it's indefintion that "too much" might vary in some cases with the circumstances.
All this helps to reinforce the impression that "torture" is not really a clear moral category, but rather a complex, descriptive term, as is slavery. If that is the case, then I submit that Harrison and Dulles must be right. The Pope simply cannot on the face of it have MEANT by "intrinsically evil" what moral theologians mean when using the word strictly.
That impression is strongly reinforced by what Dulles and others have pointed out: The Pope in VS condemns a list of things--including 'deportation' and something like 'inhuman working conditions'--as 'intrinsically evil,' which clearly cannot be so under the usual strict definition of the term.
If he DID mean what moral theologians mean when using the word strictly, then we simply MUST find a definition of torture that is not dependent on degree. Or so it seems to me.
But this is what Mark Shea will have none of, apparently. For him, the only thing that can explain why anyone would say "Gee, the Pope can't have meant what he seems to have said in VS" must ipso facto be being unfaithful and looking for a way out of having to submit to the ordinary magisterium. I find this untrue with respect to myself and objectionable.
I DO understand the concern that if we simply start taking what the Pope says as if it's soluble and pasting unusual definitions on his terms, we are in danger of simply replacing Magisterium with Wish Fulfillment. But it's also the case that when the Pope speaks non-definitionally, especially about complex social matters, that we are sometimes forced to read him as describing or preaching or indicating rather than fixing precise categories of thought and doctrine. And that has implications for the teaching on torture.
I just don't see any way around this. I sympathize with Shea's dilemma, but I don't think, "Just read it and take it in the most literal and obvious way" provides us with any solution here.
I very much hope that your added voice to the conversation will provoke Mr. Shea--who is indeed in many ways an exemplary Catholic man--to take a fresh look at what he's been saying about this issue.
"Dunking a terrorist in water" is OK, says Cheney. Does he mean water-boarding?
In any case, it is not torture, he thinks.
"THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's a no-brainer for me, but for a while there, I was criticized as being the Vice President "for torture." We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that."
Torture of course means severe pain.
Torturers intend to inflict severe pain.
The threat of torture is the threat of severe pain.
The techniques of water-boarding and those alleged to have been practiced on US citizen Padilla are conducive to severe pain by anyone's definition.
The whole crux of the matter really isn't what VS says or doesn't say in comparison to previous Catholic disciplines regardint torture.
The crux of the matter is, in the eyes of one apologist, the attempt to "liquidate John Paul II's teaching."
For said apologist, who converted during the late pope's tenure, JPII is and always will be the Catholic Church, regardless of past events or future developments.
This is one reason why said apologist always and without exception failed or refused to criticize *any* of the late pope's prudential judgements. This is the reason why said apologist is loudly defending the late pope's stance on Iraq (despite evidence that such a stance was part of the pope's wider program of indulging and appeasing Islam). This is why, when I brought up problems with Evangelium vitae concering capital punishment, said apologist accused me on his blog of "hating the pope."
For said apologist, JPII is God. That is the fulctrum on which this issue is balanced.
The Church condemns torture defined as severe pain and I stand by that.
As to whether non-severe pain has a place in penal or investigative activity I think this is a different issue. As long as human dignity is respected I am not opposed to non-severe pain penalties or threats. But that is NOT what Bush has been up to in his Gulag and that is NOT what the neocaths want to sneak in.
Dave:
I think a theology of Reading Magisterial Documents is needed.
Shea and Miller seem to imply that any magisterial text is either a. Purely Doctrinal or b. Prudential.
I submit that there are many other types of papal writing. There is writing that is descriptive, hortatory, explanatory, etc.
Sometimes it may be difficult to decide which is which. But some general rules of thumb can be discerned.
If the Pope really means to TEACH about torture, specifically focus on the issue from a doctrinal point of view, then he will 1.) SINGLE IT OUT, he won't just mention it in passing with a passel of other things. 2.) He will tell us precisely what he is talking about. 3.) And he will link and justify his teaching to the whole past Tradition of the Church, since he is not speaking from his own person, but rather acting as the focus or magnifying glass for the consensus teaching of the consistent Institution operating throughout time. And, in this matter, he will want to make clear that the Teaching is Immemorial and binding because it is so, even if it APPEARS to be novel.
I'm not saying that it has to be INFALLIBLE. I'm saying it has to be focussed and clearly doctrinal in order to binding QUA DOCTRINE rather than a more generalized kind of teaching.
This is adumbrated and suggested where it is not explicitly stated in Fr. Harrison's Part Two, when he discusses VS and G&S.
This is another place where the discussion must focus, I submit. I am happy to revise what I have said...I'm just some guy trying to make sense out of things and happy to be corrected by those who know better. But the view that Professor Miller seems to espouse of two categories only for papal texts seems impossible to me. And I have never seen any explanation--not just no coherent explanation but ANY explanation--of why this "Two Tier Only" text analysis is indisuptable.
And this is precisely where the deeply objectionable notion of reading ALL the documents of the Magisterium across time TOGETHER seems indispensible. If we are going to try to make sense of "impurely doctrinal" or "hortatory" writing by Popes, we simply have to conflate and analyze papal documents in terms of their totality across time. This is BECAUSE the teaching IS important--even vital--even where it is NOT purely doctrinal or categorical.
We need to understand such stuff--the Sermon on the Mount isn't purely doctrinal either, but it may be even more imporatant than the Council of Nicaea.
Hi Zippy,
Dave: I have no problem personally understanding what torture is, or abortion is, or pornography is, or adultery is. I understand those things just fine.
Abortion and adultery are quite easy to understand and define. Pornography (like lust) and torture are not quite so simple. Not all of us are blessed with your remarkable abilities of discernment and intuition, I'm afraid.
Pornography is the classic example. There are more ways than one to portray nudity. The greatest art has tons of it and pornography also has it (I'm just talking about nudity per se, not depictions of sex which are clearly pornographic and wrong). There are fine lines there. When one is at the edge of the line between pornography and innocent nude art, reasonable people of good faith can differ. I regard this present debate similarly.
I understand the difference between punishing someone and torturing him just fine.
Then you can give those of us not so blessed with this easy, casual knowledge clear guidelines. What stops you? Yet you sent me to a paper of yours that did no such thing. A second I read didn't do any better. You can hide behind proclaimed self-evident "knowledge" and platitudes and maxims and slogans only so long. You have to come down to the decadent world of objectivity and factual, practical matters at some point. What are you, a hyper-Platonist or something?
Like Mark I've provided reams of definitions, discussion, and analysis of what they are, and of what necessarily follows from the fact that they are intrinsic evils.
Great. Wonderful, in fact! You're the guy I'm looking for, then. Please send me to more of these articles of yours. I hope they're more meaty than the first two.
Lots of people are claiming not to understand them: claiming that we might just slip on a banana peel and torture a prisoner on accident, or have an abortion on accident, or commit adultery on accident,
Really? How odd. An accidential abortion? Who said these things? When, where? You claim it is "lots of people." Excellent; then you'll have no trouble directing me to them.
or contracept on accident
What, confuse the birth control pill with a Tylenol?
if we don't answer questions like "how much sleep deprivation amounts to torture?" or "how much flirtation can I engage in with women who aren't my spouse without it being adulterous?"
I'm sorry to inform you that thinking and disputation involve questions like these quite often. Definition and application. I hope you're not in the legal field. Is that useless, too, since it is, after all, so "legalistic"?
The problem is, questions like "how much skin has to be exposed for it to be pornography?" are inherently flawed: they obscure the very subject they pretend to attempt to clarify.
Just let everyone decide on their own, subjectively, huh? It's not that simple. To give just one example, how a culture views nudity is widely variable over time. This holds even for Christian cultures. Thus, great paintings from the Renaissance were routinely covered over with veils over genitals. That's not how they were painted, but later cultural norms dictated that this total nudity (previously simply considered beautiful and Eden-like innocent) was
now improper and vulgar. This is real stuff; not subjective mush. We're influenced by our culture. We can hardly not be.
The whole "Mark and Zippy are saying it is wrong to have a definition" thing is a really bad straw man.
Then why did you provide me one? You should have refused on principle.
What I've said is that the kind of definition people are insisting upon (e.g. "how much skin..."), and their incessant whining and complaining that existing definitions are too vague for our poor little minds to understand, is under the most charitable possible interpretation an intellectual dead-end, and it materially contributes to a wicked project.
Really now? I would say your reluctance to provide the most basic foundation of any sensible discussion of fact, or relation of fact to theory, or application of same to real life ethical situations, is the intellectual dead-end. We are at least thinking. You seem to say that thinking is useless in such matters and intuition is all. I'm all for intution, but never at the expense of thinking.
Now, the reason I've been talking about the nature of torture in discussion that you apparently find too abstract for your taste is because that is what I've been asked to do, again and again, for over a year, by people apparently befuddled about the nature of torture.
Whether they asked or not, it is still fundamental, and your responsibility. You've had strong words of your own about your opponents.
If all you are looking for is concrete guidelines (like telling that hypothetical couple "don't engage in sex out of wedlock and don't use contraception once you are married"), I don't personally know of anything wrong with the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field Manual which incorporates them. The Church certainly seems to support them as concrete guidelines.
How do you know that? If you can't support it, then secular guidelines would be of only limited relevance to Church guidelines. We would have to judge where they crossed the line into immorality. It's not exactly like secular society is soaked in Christian ethics.
On the other hand, if you cite something like the UN resolution, you see how nebulous that was to resolve the present issue.
Hi Fr. O'Leary:
The Church condemns torture defined as severe pain and I stand by that.
So do I.
As to whether non-severe pain has a place in penal or investigative activity I think this is a different issue. As long as human dignity is respected I am not opposed to non-severe pain penalties or threats.
Hey, whaddya know? We agree! It's amazing how often that happens, seeing that you started out comparing my view to the Taliban (and I was about to bring back the Inquisition and overt anti-Semitism and who knows what else?).
I'm happy to reiterate that you apologized (though the same statements remained on your blog when I checked), but I had to mention that to show how ridiculous it is for my view to (supposedly) "move" from one characterized in that silly fashion to close agreement with you.
But that is NOT what Bush has been up to in his Gulag
Maybe so. I have not made any political argument on this. I've actually been writing apologetics on my blog, rather than political commentary (which seems to be almost a novelty among many apologist-bloggers these days).
and that is NOT what the neocaths want to sneak in.
That IS what I want to assert and so agree with you, and you HAVE put me in this ludicrous, nebulous category of "neoCath." So what does THAT show you? Presumably, that either your definition is flawed or that I am not included in said category, unless you are, too, as we agree on this.
If the latter, that's strange, since in your revision of your hit piece on those you put in the "neocath" box I was the focus, as if you are implying that my viewpoints are quintessentially "neocath."
So now that it is shown that we actually agree and you were missing the mark right and left in my case (no pun intended), what say you?
I like your comments above a lot, Jeff. Some sage advice there.
Roughing up suspects etc. no doubt goes on all the time, and while we are uneasy about it and while efforts are made to curb police brutality, it is not a matter of such grave import as the legalization of torture. The Guantanamo victims are not complaining about being roughed up, but about systematic torture -- what is recognized as such in international law and in judgements such as that of the European Court against Britain thirty years or so ago.
The issue is not John Paul II's teaching -- John Paul II in VS was quoting Gaudium et Spes, a central statement of one of the Ecumenical Councils of the Church.
Jeff thinks that for the Church's opposition to torture to be clear it would have to be singled out in a text devoted to the subject. But opposition to torture comes in the context of various other crimes against human life or human dignity listed together by Vatican II. Taking torture out of that context would actually render the moral teaching less coherent. The chief reason the Vatican has not issued a document on torture is that no one has thought of questioning its teaching until now -- when the USA is anxious to legalize torture.
Jeff thinks that for the Church's opposition to torture to be clear it would have to be singled out in a text devoted to the subject. But opposition to torture comes in the context of various other crimes against human life or human dignity listed together by Vatican II. Taking torture out of that context would actually render the moral teaching less coherent. The chief reason the Vatican has not issued a document on torture is that no one has thought of questioning its teaching until now -- when the USA is anxious to legalize torture.
Fr Brian Harrison uses a very strained arguement to see the Catechism as silently opposing the UN Convention against Torture.
Does he not know that the Vatican is a signatory of this Convention?
http://www.catholicculture.org/d...cfm?
recnum=4560
"The law of the Church (Code of Canon Law, 1983) and her Catechism (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1992) clearly identify and mention the conduct that can injure a person's moral or physical integrity, they condemn those who perform them and demand the abolition of such acts. On 14 January 1978, in his last address to the Diplomatic Corps, after referring to the torture and cruel treatment practised in various countries to the harm of human beings, Paul VI concluded: 'How could the Church fail to take a severe position of opposition . . . to torture and to similar acts of violence inflicted on the human person?. For his part, Pope John Paul II has never failed to say that 'torture must be called by its proper name' (Message for World Day of Peace, 1 January 1980). He has expressed deep compassion for 'victims of torture' (World Congress on the Pastoral Care of Human Rights, Rome, 4 July 1998), and especially for 'tortured women' (Message to the Secretary General of the United Nations, 1 March 1993). It is in this spirit that the Holy See intends to offer its moral support and collaboration to the international community, for the purpose of helping to eliminate the inadmissible and inhuman recourse to torture".
"Hey, whaddya know? We agree! It's amazing how often that happens, seeing that you started out comparing my view to the Taliban (and I was about to bring back the Inquisition and overt anti-Semitism and who knows what else?)."
A. I said from the start that I did not disagree on legitimate coercion; any more than the UN Convention against Torture does. B. I said that your argument about medieval documents and infallibility, which you have since amended, could be used to whitewash or justify other medieval horrors. As to the Inquisition, you still say -- do you not -- that you do not think the torture of heretics by the Inquisition was morally wrong?
"I should add that even if the Inquisition-era sanctions are not infallible (I leave those sorts of technical questions to canon lawyers), there is still a big problem that such acts were sanctioned at all by the Church in any way, shape, or form. That would mean the Church was on the side of (and an outright proponent of) an intrinsically immoral act. I don't believe (in faith) that this has ever happened (call me naive if you like, but there it is). If someone thinks that it has, I think it has implications at the very least, for their ecclesiology, even if infallibility is not involved."
The logical implication of this is that torture by the Inquisition is morally justifiable.
And when you deny you are being political you contradict your own presentation of your argument:
"I recognize that it is necessary to some degree (the smallest amount the better) in the present circumstances. We're in the real world. Certain clearly specified, morally acceptable forms of coercion in limited amounts for extremely important strategic and preventive purposes is no worse than warfare itself, which the Church has never condemned in toto."
Again, I hope you agree that "morally acceptable forms of coercion" do not include those at the heart of the present political controversy and condemned by the UN Convention, signed by the Vatican in 2002. Fr Brian Harrison, unlike you, the UN and the Vatican, believes that torture is justified in a ticking bomb scenario.
"It is worth noting at this point that the premise claiming that earlier "popes and councils" actually "sanctioned" torture is in itself hopelessly vague. We are not told who these popes were, or which councils, or the circumstances under which they are being said to have "sanctioned" torture, or even what the alleged sanctions were other than threats of excommunication for "heresy"." Nonsense -- physical torture is mentioned in Ad Extirpanda 1254 and the papal author approves of torture short of death or mutilation. If I remember correctly, torture was first introduced in England under papal pressure and similar pressure was applied in France to get the state to torture heretics.
"I argued that even if various Church pronouncements on this matter are not magisterial, it is still an implausible state of affairs for the Church to have offered widespread sanction for this sort of thing (some sense of the word "torture" or "interrogation" - definition is crucial here) in the days of the Inquisition (even by St. Thomas Aquinas, if I am not mistaken), if, in fact, it is intrinsically evil.
"That would mean that the Church sanctioned (even if only "non-magisterially") intrinsic evil, which would be akin to its sanction today of, say, abortion, or infanticide.
"If you think that Church sanction of limited torture in the past was not magisterial, can you give me other examples where the Church sanctioned intrinsic evil and then later reversed itself? I don't find that plausible at all.
"As far as I know, it never historically happened: not in its teachings (the Church never sanctioned, e.g., slavery, did it?)." THERE ARE MANY VERY EMBARRASSING CHURCH STATEMENTS ON SLAVERY. See Diana Hayes in Curran ed., Change in Official Catholic Moral Teachings. In 1866 the Church taught that slavery was not incompatible with divine and natural law. Slavery was first condemned in principle, by Leo XIII, after Brazil had made it illegal, the last state to do so.
"we will search Scripture, Tradition, and the pre-Vatican II Magisterium in vain for any condemnations of torture (e.g., flogging) as a punishment for duly convicted delinquents, or as a means of extracting life-saving information from terrorists or other known enemies."
"Fellow Catholics, I submit that we have a problem here. For the development of Catholic doctrine over time is supposed to flow harmoniously from what was taught 'always, everywhere, and by all,' according to the classic criterion laid down by Vincent of Lerins [A NOTORIOUSLY UNWORKABLE CRITERION]. The Church is not supposed to be able to invent new doctrines out of whole cloth. [THE CONDEMNATION OF TORTURE IS NOT OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH BUT OUT OF THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT, now better understood than in the past.]
"our divinely authored Judeo-Christian constitution not only fails to prohibit the infliction of severe bodily pain, it explicitly invokes divine authority in mandating such practices: flogging, stoning, and even burning sinners to death (cf. Lv 20:1, 14; 21:1, 9)."
YOUR HERMENEUTICS WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO CONDEMN THE TALIBAN FOR DOING THIS TODAY.
"Also, if we are going to quote one ecumenical council (Vatican II) against torture, we cannot overlook the fact that another ecumenical council (Vienne, 1311-12) legitimized it." [THIS IS INCORRECT, it seems; Vienne took the culture of torture for granted but did not pronounce on the ethics of torture.]
"The word 'definitively' applies only to infallibly proposed teachings of the Magisterium (either ordinary or extraordinary). And I believe few if any orthodox theologians would regard the conditions for infallible teaching as being verified in the texts cited by Mr. Shea (Gaudium et Spes 27 and Veritatis Splendor 80)." [In fact there are no specific moral teachings of the Church that have been pronounced infallibly -- if there were Humanae Vitae would be a prime candidate.]
"not unlike the teaching on usury, which has also been pointed to as a case in which the Church contradicted herself. As a professional apologist, I'm quite sure that you know the full story on that one, and are as familiar as anybody with the reasons why it is not a case of change in teaching but development of doctrine." See John T Noonan's essay in Curran ed., for a demonstration of the contrary view.
"I think Vatican I limits the bounds of infallibility precisely because they knew there were dark chapters like this in church history." Precisely. The Doctrine of Infallibility is actually saying that VERY, VERY RARELY can the Church claim infallibility. Even the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception may not meet the criteria for infallibility laid down by Vatican I.
Interesting line from Dulles: "A final danger of orthodoxy is dogmatism. In their excess of zeal, some want to settle every question by authority and point fingers of suspicion against anyone who raises questions and engages in speculation. Many questions in theology are still open; relatively few have been definitively settled. While we should not minimize the force of doctrinal pronouncements, we should not exaggerate them either. Not every statement that comes from the lips of the pope, a curial official, or a bishop is final and absolute."
Sad that this is invoked only to weaken the Church's admirable teachings on torture, whereas theologians like Dulles's erstwhile colleague Charle Curran, who were only practicing what Dulles preaches, were branded as heterodox due to the limited theological understanding of John Paul II and the pressure of rightists on the Vatican for over twenty years in their campaign to get Curran make an example of.
I think it's worth noting that Spirit of Vatican Two thinks the teaching of the Church on homosexuality to be "homophobic" and thinks Charles Curran is correct in his debate with Humanae Vitae.
The kinds of assumptions he is working from are directly opposed to those Dave Armstrong is working from.
He has also said that he was never interested in moral theology and didn't know much about it.
Jeff:
Just a very quick response to your call about for a theology of reading Magisterial documents.
I agree, of course, that in (e.g.) an encyclical, there can be a lot of things besides doctrine and prudential judgments - description and so on.
I don't think it's generally that hard to tell the difference.
When the pope is making a really big point in a full section of an encyclical of (re)affirming (contra proportionalism) that there are indeed specific intrinsically evil acts - and when he then makes a point of (quoting from a Conciliar text) giving examples of such acts - then I think a reasonable and good-willed reader will conclude that he means to teach (i.e., to make a doctrinal statement) that those are, in fact, intrinsically evil acts. (And that's what's happening in VS 80.)
And when he then, in another encyclical, a couple years later (I'm referring to EV 2), makes a point of including that same list of evil acts, and of saying, that with "forcefulness" he repeats the Council's condemnation of those acts "in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience," then, again, I think it's clear that he's teaching us as pope that right reason tells us that these acts are, in themselves, fundamentally immoral.
So it isn't like there aren't clear indications here that he's doing what I say he's doing.
Now, you say:
"If the Pope really means to TEACH about torture, specifically focus on the issue from a doctrinal point of view, then he will 1.) SINGLE IT OUT, he won't just mention it in passing with a passel of other things. 2.) He will tell us precisely what he is talking about. 3.) And he will link and justify his teaching to the whole past Tradition of the Church, since he is not speaking from his own person, but rather acting as the focus or magnifying glass for the consensus teaching of the consistent Institution operating throughout time. And, in this matter, he will want to make clear that the Teaching is Immemorial and binding because it is so, even if it APPEARS to be novel."
Simply put, that particular list of things that the pope "has" to do as part of a doctrinal statement is gratuitous. The Church clearly says what "has" to be there to have an infallible teaching (an explicitly "definitive" teaching, and so on.) But there's no set list of things that "have" to be there to have basic doctrine.
Thus, I reject the idea that just because your criterion (1) isn't fulfilled, that we don't have in these places a doctrinal statement about torture.
And, like Mark and others, I don't think it's that hard to figure out - at least most of the time - what "torture" means. So much for (2). Besides, the pope also teaches - in a way that I think everyone agrees is doctrinal - that direct abortion is intrinsically evil. But he gives us only a very general criterion - "willed as end or means" - for distinguishing direct abortion from morally licit acts that will lead to the death of an unborn baby. And there is in fact lots of controversy among faithful Catholic moral theologians about which of those categories some acts (e.g., salpingotomy) belong in. (I'd say that controversy is more understandable than the one about whether, say, waterboarding is torture.) The fact that JPII didn't settle that controversy doesn't mean that he didn't really mean to make a doctrinal statement about the evil of direct abortion. Ditto regarding the fact that he didn't spell out what counts as "torture."
Finally, regarding (3), JPII has extensively and intensively spelled out the meaning - including from a philosophical (right-reason) perspective - of the dignity of the human person, and in a way that makes clear that he's drawing from the Tradition; and I would say that fairly clearly even if implicitly in VS, and even more clearly and more explicitly in EV, he links his condemnations of various evil acts to that. So while, again, I would say that your criterion is a gratuitous assertion, the fact remains that it's basically fulfilled.
Back to work now.
"And, like Mark and others, I don't think it's that hard to figure out - at least most of the time - what "torture" means."
Then you can put it in plain words for us to understand.
"[In fact there are no specific moral teachings of the Church that have been pronounced infallibly -- if there were Humanae Vitae would be a prime candidate.]"
"The Doctrine of Infallibility is actually saying that VERY, VERY RARELY can the Church claim infallibility. Even the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception may not meet the criteria for infallibility laid down by Vatican I."
Etc., etc. This comes from a priest (God help us): Fr. O'Leary. I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with viciously circular liberal dissent of this sort. I'm interested (the vast majority of the time) in discussing matters with orthodox Catholics or those (including many Protestants) who take Catholic doctrine seriously and don't transform it into Liberal Anglican Lite.
I'm content that Fr. O'Leary and I (despite his atrocious dissenting views and my orthodoxy) basically agree on the "torture" issue, and will leave it at that. One can't have a discussion on Catholic doctrine when one party picks and chooses what he will from the body of infallible Catholic teaching.
I'd much rather have a discussion with an atheist. At least he doesn't attempt to pretend that his own ostensible belief system is not what it is.
A = A. Fundamental to any logical, constructive discussion.
Catholicism = Catholicism, not a watered-down, insipid, grotesque version of Broad Anglicanism with more smells and bells and ecumenical councils that supposedly usher in the New Glorious Liberal Age.
Dave Armstrong wrote
Pornography is the classic example. There are more ways than one to portray nudity. The greatest art has tons of it and pornography also has it (I'm just talking about nudity per se, not depictions of sex which are clearly pornographic and wrong). There are fine lines there. When one is at the edge of the line between pornography and innocent nude art, reasonable people of good faith can differ. I regard this present debate similarly.
This is an excellent analogy. The views of Mark Shea et al. remind me of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's definition of hard-core pornography in Jacobellis v. Ohio: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it,...". Armstrong has done an good job explaining why the Potter Stewart view of coercive interrogation that these gentlemen appear to hold is unsatisfactory (as the Supreme Court itself acknowledged a few years later when it changed the standard for pornography in Miller v. California).
I actually don't find the mechanics of defining torture that contentious; rather, what bothers me is the lack of charity displayed, especially on the part of those with the Stewart view. There doesn't seem to be any desire on their part to acknowledge that their view could be flawed, and those who dispute their view are judged summarily as having evil motives behind their disputation. Now, I haven't met any of the parties to this discussion, but I've certainly read what they've posted on the Internet, and their orthodoxy and the sincerity of their Catholic faith is manifest. It strains credulity that people of such obvious good faith have suddenly turned into apologists for evil on this issue, and it's incumbent for those with the Stewart view to justify that opinion about their fellow Catholics.
"[In fact there are no specific moral teachings of the Church that have been pronounced infallibly -- if there were Humanae Vitae would be a prime candidate.]"
"The Doctrine of Infallibility is actually saying that VERY, VERY RARELY can the Church claim infallibility. Even the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception may not meet the criteria for infallibility laid down by Vatican I."
Etc., etc. This comes from a priest (God help us): Fr. O'Leary. I'm not gonna waste my time arguing with viciously circular liberal dissent of this sort.
Excuse me, but this is a smear. The vast majority of Catholic theologians hold that Humanae Vitae is not an infallible document.
Very many theologians believe that Humanae Vitae is a mistake; in contrast to John Paul II's teaching on torture -- equally strongly affirmed.
Theologians of the stature of Fergus Kerr OP have argued that the two Marian doctrines I mentioned do not meet Vatican I's criteria of infallibility -- for instance there was no fluctuatio in the minds of the faithful which the infallible decision was to resolve.
Why would on teaching be a mistake and the other not? Well, one factor could be that Paul VI took the contraception issue out of the hands of the Council fathers, and his encyclical is a throwback to preconciliar thinking. John Paul II, on the other hand, based his impassioned denunciations of torture firmly and squarely on Gaudium et Spes.
The infallible core of Christian morality comes to us with the authority of Scripture (and is of course upheld by the ordinary magisterium), but church clarifications of this morality have never been put forward in infallible pronouncements. If they are, you can point to one such pronouncement, I am sure!
"I'm content that Fr. O'Leary and I (despite his atrocious dissenting views and my orthodoxy) basically agree on the "torture" issue, and will leave it at that." I am glad that you agree that the Inquisition was objectively wrong to use torture and that water-boarding as practiced by the USA is objectively wrong, and that you recognize the prophetic wisdom of Gaudium et Spes and John Paul II on this matter.
" One can't have a discussion on Catholic doctrine when one party picks and chooses what he will from the body of infallible Catholic teaching." But you yourself have been pointing out that there is no infallible church teaching on torture. You seem to be confusing infallible with true. Of course church teaching on torture is true (I mean the teaching of Vatican II, which contradicts what Innocent IV and the Council of Vienne took for granted). But that does not mean it is infallible in the technical sense of Vatican I. Infallibility is in practice a negative doctrine -- it warns us against taking any church statements as infallible unless extremely stringent conditions are fulfilled.
"I'd much rather have a discussion with an atheist. At least he doesn't attempt to pretend that his own ostensible belief system is not what it is." You are talking about me in the same way as you accuse Mark Shea of talking about you and your sympathizers.
"Catholicism = Catholicism, not a watered-down, insipid, grotesque version of Broad Anglicanism with more smells and bells and ecumenical councils that supposedly usher in the New Glorious Liberal Age." Scoffing at ecumenical councils is a very very uncatholic thing to do.
"My orthodoxy" proclaims Dave -- he should remember Karl Rahner's warning that the next great heresy in the Church would come from the right -- from magisterial fundamentalists unable to accept the open horizons of Vatican II.
Let him who thinks himself to stand take heed lest he fall.
Neocons and neocaths are the same breed, part of the same disease that is rotting the American soul.
The current American tragedy has been oiled by biblical fundamentalists and be magisterial fundamentalists -- who have somehow brought it about that the majority of US Catholics are pro-torture in some circumstances and that the world's most powerful army has FOR THE SECOND TIME brought hellisg agony and mass slaughter to one of the world's poorest peoples who posed no threat to the usa whatsoever -- only to their greedy imperialist ambitions.
The Catholic thing to do faced with Bush torture is to denounce it in the way that John Paul II did.
The Uncatholic thing to do is to look for loopholes that would make this specific kind of torture -- now dubbed "torture" -- legitimate as a coercion to prevent terrorist from hurting Americans.
And who has hurt Americans? Bush and his neocons, and their christianist dupes.
Jonathan:
Superb comment. I agree 100%. And thank you, insofar as your gracious words of gentle protest were referring to me and others who broadly agree with the view I am expressing.
If anyone is interested in seeing how my vainly attempted "discussion" at Mark Shea's ended (perhaps it is illustrative of your own frustrations in this farcical dispute), read from the following comment to my final comment (includes comments by "zippy" and "John Henry"):
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=24354#821410
Hi Fr. O'Leary,
You are talking about me in the same way as you accuse Mark Shea of talking about you and your sympathizers.
I don't think so. At least they are commenting on a complex, highly nuanced issue, as are those of us who disagree with them.
But you are openly dissenting on crystal-clear Catholic dogma. This is scandalous and a disgrace for a priest such as yourself, charged with teaching the true Catholic faith to the faithful. You'll stand accountable to God for how well you do in this regard (James 3:1). I have the same burden, insofar as I am a teacher, as an apologist (though to a far lesser extent than a priest, I would say).
Lots of people are reading my writing, and if I am leading them astray, I'll stand before God and have to give account for why I did so. That's enough of a prospect to sober anyone right away.
When I say you are guilty of "viciously circular liberal dissent" you tell me this is a "smear."
Perhaps it is. But you need to prove it to me. If you are right, then surely you can clarify for me your views on the following related issues, and then you will have my profound, sincere, public apology if indeed I have misrepresented you and you are, in fact (like -- as it seems like you would have us believe -- Charles Curran), no dissenter at all:
1) Are the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception in fact infallible and de fide dogma?
2) Are all Catholic faithful bound and obligated to accept the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception?
3) Are the Catholic faithful at liberty to question the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception?
4) Can the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception ever be reversed or nullfified?
5) Even if I grant you for the sake of argument that Humanae Vitae isn't infallible in the ordinary magisterium (which I don't believe), are the Catholic faithful, nevertheless, bound to it or can they dissent in good conscience?
6) Is contraception an objectively mortal sin according to historic Catholic Tradition prior to 1968?
7) If you answer "yes" to #6, did it cease to become mortal sin, and indeed, sin at all, at some point in the past?
8) If so, when did this momentous event occur?
9) On what basis do you conclude #8 (if you do)?
10) If someone asks you whether they should confess that they have used contraception, do you tell them they don't have to, because it is a good thing, and not a sin at all?
It is my job as an apologist to defend the holy Catholic faith, received from the apostles and passed down infallibly by Holy Mother Church, led by and protected by the Holy Spirit.
(cont.)
If someone clearly dissents from that, be he priest or even bishop in some cases -- heaven help us -- , then it is my duty to point that out, because, I, too, am accountable to God as a Catholic apologist and author, and I take my responsibilities extremely seriously.
ME: "Catholicism = Catholicism, not a watered-down, insipid, grotesque version of Broad Anglicanism with more smells and bells and ecumenical councils that supposedly usher in the New Glorious Liberal Age."
Scoffing at ecumenical councils is a very very uncatholic thing to do.
Of course I didn't do that. Anyone who reads the above, and who has read my past comments with you, and certainly if they have read a thousandth of my apologetics in favor of Church authority, and in glowing acceptance and advocacy of Vatican II, would know this is untrue.
The key and crucial word is clearly "supposedly." I'm not opposing the council in the slightest. I am opposing the liberal hijacking and co-opting of an orthodox council, for the nefarious purpose of making it heterodox, so as to further their own lamentable, destructive agenda. That's why I used the sarcasm of "New Glorious Liberal Age."
Vatican II is NOT liberal. It is orthodox. The liberals have twisted and distorted what it teaches for over forty years now. And again, it is my responsibility as an apologist to detest this and defend the council against its hijackers.
It is precisely because of the damage people like you have done to the council, that we have nuts on the "right" who think it is a liberal council. So the far right and far left on the ecclesiological spectrum think it is liberal, but we in the radical orthodox center understand that it is perfectly orthodox, because, as an ecumenical council, it stands in the tradition of all of the ecumenical councils.
-----------------------------
Anyone interested in further information on the errors of Catholic liberalism, dissent, and heterodoxy, see my page:
Theological Liberalism and Modernism
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ418.HTM
And for similarly serious errors on the "right" among "quasi-schismatics", see:
"Traditionalist" and Schismatic Catholics
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ389.HTM
Well, sure enough, Zippy wouldn't cease his illogical complaint, so I spent time trying to excruciatingly demonstrate where his reasoning went astray where I am concerned.
I figured that I better post it here in in case it is deleted later from Mark's blog:
Hi Zippy,
That is what "Just let everyone decide on their own, subjectively [what pornography is]", which you attributed to me, means. Maybe you didn't mean to say it, but you in fact said it.
You won't let this die, will you? You take one remark of mine, out of context, and blow it all out of proportion, then you illogically distort what I meant, and what the words that I used mean.
Here is at least some context:
ZIPPY: The problem is, questions like "how much skin has to be exposed for it to be pornography?" are inherently flawed: they obscure the very subject they pretend to attempt to clarify.
DAVE: Just let everyone decide on their own, subjectively, huh? It's not that simple. To give just one example, how a culture views nudity is widely variable over time. This holds even for Christian cultures. Thus, great paintings from the Renaissance were routinely covered over with veils over genitals. That's not how they were painted, but later cultural norms dictated that this total nudity (previously simply considered beautiful and Eden-like innocent) was
now improper and vulgar. This is real stuff; not subjective mush. We're influenced by our culture. We can hardly not be.
See entire reply, for extensive context:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=24354#821249
Later, you characterized my reply as:
But when I say "the amount of skin showing doesn't define pornography" and you reply to the effect that I am asserting hopeless moral relativism, where I'm at is that you have a tune to change before discussion with you is even possible. Sorry.
The whole backdrop of my analogy was, of course, whether we need to carefully define parameters of certain things. I used pornography and lust as two examples in seeking to show that some ethical issues have very fine lines, where reasonable people can differ. You said you knew what pornography was. I replied that it wasn't so simple and that we need some objective criteria precisely because people do differ on where the line is drawn. The analogy applies to the torture issue very closely because there we have the same sort of line:
(cont.)
1. Lust beautiful self-giving and mutual expression of love.
[commonality: both can occur during the same objective love-making act, and the line can subjectively be very fine]
2. Nude art by the great masters pornographic (not including depictions of the sexual act) nude art.
[commonality: both involve nudity, but one is morally acceptable and the other, wicked, and using women as objects for nefarious ends, intended to stir up lust, and the line can subjectively be very fine]
3. Permissible coercive techniques in the course of war or police work coercive techniques that cross the line into torture.
[commonality: both involve coercion (mentally or physically), in the effort to persuade or compel someone against their will, but one is morally acceptable and the other, wicked, and the line can subjectively be very fine]
I love analogies. I use them all the time in my argumentation. They are one of my favorite types of argument (I get a lot of that from my love of Newman). And I think this is a very close analogy (many are not this close, and quite imperfect). I know a good analogy when I see one, and In know a fair or poor one. This one is, I think, very close, and this aids in deciding issues such as this one.
You not only fail to interpret my words in their proper context, but you don't seem to understand that any single sentence of mine may also be responding to your overall remarks in their context. You can't see the forest for the trees, in other words.
So when I wrote, "Just let everyone decide on their own, subjectively, huh?" I wasn't necessarily referring to only the previous sentence (though that was included). I had in mind, also, other related remarks of yours, because I (and anyone who wants to argue effectively and constructively) respond to overall arguments, not just isolated sentences.
But to provide the backdrop of the backdrop, we also had this silly little exchange:
ZIPPY: The whole "Mark and Zippy are saying it is wrong to have a definition" thing is a really bad straw man.
DAVE: Then why did you provide me one? You should have refused on principle.
ZIPPY: If it is a straw man, Dave, that means it is not a position I have actually adopted but rather is a caracature of my position asserted by others.
Then you made the remark:
What I've said is that the kind of definition people are insisting upon (e.g. "how much skin..."), and their incessant whining and complaining that existing definitions are too vague for our poor little minds to understand, is under the most charitable possible interpretation an intellectual dead-end, and it materially contributes to a wicked project.
This is obviously itself a caricature of your opponents, and that is what I was responding to. You immediately collapse the following proposition:
1. Insistence upon definition (crucial to any sensible, coherent, constructive discussion of a difficult issue.
to your caricature:
1b. "the kind of definition people are insisting upon (e.g. "how much skin...") . . ."
(cont.)
In other words, you lump all such endeavors into an unsavory, Pharisaical, legalistic, nitpicky exercise. It's the broad brush, the caricature, the stereotypical response to serious questions. Mark has been notoriously dong this for a long time now, with many different sorts of folks who disagree with him.
This is what I am objecting to. We must argue with individuals, not immediately put them into a box on subjective grounds without even hearing what they have to say. Because then all the anger and frustration we may have towards people who truly do fall into an undesirable category, gets unfairly spilled over onto those who do not fit in the box.
This is both uncharitable and illogical, and it destroys constructive discussion. It's essentially a form of prejudice. It is highly-charged, knee-jerk polemics, not rational discussion.
You do the same in other areas with regard to necessary, inquisitive questioning (such as my own):
2. Necessary, inquisitive questioning (such as my own) about existing definitions as too vague to resolve all reasonable difficulties of others, held in good faith.
to:
2b. "incessant whining and complaining that existing definitions are too vague for our poor little minds to understand,"
Not only that; you also characterize the entire motive for dissent from yours and Mark's views as follows:
"an intellectual dead-end, and it materially contributes to a wicked project."
Right. You and Mark are the ones who have been engaging in systematic cynical characterization of opposing views. This is what destroys charitable, rational discussion.
Yet if we dare to make the slightest critique of your reasoning, you throw a hissy-fit.
The fact remains that you didn't want to provide a definition. You wanted to let individuals decide that, and thought precise definition was unnecessary with regard to torture and that everyone instinctively knows what it is, because you have no problem doing so. Yet when someone asks you to simply tell them what acts would be classified as what, under your own criteria, all you can provide as morally permissible "non-torturous coercion" is handcuffs, jailing, and "beating the crap" out of a prisoner (your words). Mark has been acting similarly.
Then I come in and make the outrageous, insufferable, wicked, deliberately distorting comment: "Just let everyone decide on their own, subjectively, huh?"
And you characterize that as my supposedly believing that you are "asserting hopeless moral relativism."
This, of course, doesn't follow, either. And that is because you have fundamentally confused two different concepts: subjectivism and relativism. It's true that in some contexts they are roughly synonymous (e.g., there is a C.S. Lewis essay, "The Poison of Subjectivism" where he decries moral relativism), but not by any means always.
You simply didn't have enough information from me to determine that I was accusing you of "hopeless moral relativism." I was not. I was protesting against excessive individualist subjectivism when objective definition and criteria and parameters are needed.
An individual could subjectively decide something (i.e., for himself), using his own ascertained objective grounds.
I could subjectively assert, e.g., that in my opinion, Mark Shea provided a better argument than you did, for the "case" you two are both trying to make. Then when asked to explain why, I could produce objective criteria including logical factors and factuality and lack of their contraries.
Subjectivism per se doesn't entail relativism. There are plenty of instances where subjectivism is entirely proper. Romantic love is one clear example. What's "objective" about that? It is almost entirely subjective. No one would have it otherwise.
I am protesting, in your case, that you are approaching an issue subjectively that also necessarily includes objective factors, such as definition. You are making recourse to subjectivism when it is improper to do so excusively. I agree that there are subjective elements in the issue of torture, too, but not to the exclusion of objective definitions and criteria.
Now, it's true that you did eventually refer me to some documents, but then, if you agreed that definition is necessary, why did you make the statement that you know pornography (and torture) when you see it, as if it is self-evident that all reasonable, moral men would agree with you? They do not. This is the whole point. So you only begrudgingly give in to my terrible demands for objective definition of some sort, and you must characterize such similar efforts as:
"their incessant whining and complaining that existing definitions are too vague for our poor little minds to understand, is under the most charitable possible interpretation an intellectual dead-end, and it materially contributes to a wicked project."
In other words, I must be part of this wicked conspiracy to even ask the question, and so here we are because you approached me with this extreme cynicism in the first place. I have just shown, I think, how this is thoroughly uncharitable as well as illogical. And I'm apparently only one of a long line of folks who have felt similarly mistreated (many of them banned from this blog). I've now experienced it myself, and so can empathize with them. Their complaints ring true to me because now I have experienced something quite like what they have been describing.
In any event, I did not accuse you of "hopeless moral relativism." That was your illogical reduction of my use of the concept of "subjectivism" where it was not warranted to do so.
You THOUGHT I had that in mind. I'm here telling you that was NOT what I had in mind (rather, it was what I have taken pains to explain above).
Others have idiotically argued that they knew better about what was in my mind than I knew myself. Do you wish to add yourself to that list of fools or will you drop this silly complaint about my alleged straw men targets?
If a word to the wise is sufficient, many words (about one small exchange) to the wise (even the cynical wise, if that is not an oxymoron) ought to be very sufficient, I would imagine.
END
"But you are openly dissenting on crystal-clear Catholic dogma." Untrue. I point out that (a) the two Marian dogmas of 1854 and 1950 in their definition may not meet the criteria of infallibility, according to some theologians; (b) that the Church has corrected its official moral teaching on many points and could well do so on the topic of Humanae Vitae; dissent from Humanae Vitae is not an issue concerning dogma and is very widespread in the Church -- indeed, it is probably the majority position.
"Charles Curran), no dissenter at all" -- he is not a dissenter in any heretical sense; like a long list of eminent Roman Cathoilc moral theologians he calls for development of the Church's thinking on a number of subjects. I understand that his condemnation by the Vatican was taken out of the CDF's hands by direct intervention of John Paul II, in response to two decades of black propaganda against Curran. He remains a priest in good standing and a deeply respected teacher and author.
1) "Are the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception in fact infallible and de fide dogma?" They may be, but some theologians have expressed doubt as to whether they meet the criteria of infallibility set out by Vatican I. Indeed, other texts such as Unam Sanctam could be seen as meeting those criteria, yet no one now thinks Unam Sanctam in infallible or even true. In practice, infallibility functions as a limiting marker, as Newman already pointed out -- Newman was a dogmatic minimalist in that he believed our interpretation of magisterial documents should limit what is binding de fide in them to the strict minimum. Dogmatic maximalists were a plague in his time and made life hell for him.
2) "Are all Catholic faithful bound and obligated to accept the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception?" Yes, but the question is whether this is an obligation de fide or one of obsequium religiosum that we bring to non-infallible teachings. Again both of these doctrines can be interpreted in a way that makes them quite easy to believe -- "Mary shares fully in the glory of the risen Christ and thus stands before us as a symbol of our own future state as the heavenly church"; "Mary was filled with God's grace from her childhood". The standard way of presenting these dogmas does not fit in with contemporary understanding of scripture or of theology -- which is why professional theologians tend to avoid referring to them -- but a liberal interpretation could make them quite biblical and could obviate the need to have them thrust on people by "infallible" decree.
3) "Are the Catholic faithful at liberty to question the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception?" They are not only at liberty but have the duty to rethink and reinterpret these doctrines in the context of an integral biblical faith; in doing so they will find the truth of these doctrines in a way that will obviate the obnoxious use of these doctrines as some kind of exercise in theological bullying or brinkmanship. The issue of the infallibility of these two doctrines is a red herring, a product of the unhappy history of ultramontanism. The doctrines make sense as part of a biblical apprehension of the glorious figure of Mary and make little sense when ripped from that context.
4) "Can the doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception ever be reversed or nullified?" Our understanding of these doctrines has been changing a lot, so rather than needing to be nullified, this new understanding will reinstate them within an integral vision. It is a mistake to treat these doctrines as dogmas on which the church stands or falls. They are way down on the hierarchy of dogmatic truths -- indeed, they are more declarations of devotion than of dogma. When that has happened, no one will want to nullify them, for they will have been properly understood.
5) "Even if I grant you for the sake of argument that Humanae Vitae isn't infallible in the ordinary magisterium (which I don't believe), are the Catholic faithful, nevertheless, bound to it or can they dissent in good conscience?" They are bound to it by a religiosum obsequium, but as many episcopal conferences pointed out, they are free to dissent in good conscience.
6) "Is contraception an objectively mortal sin according to historic Catholic Tradition prior to 1968?" Probably not, or at least not universally, since even abortion was not seen as an objectively mortal sin by such influential theologians as Alphonsus Liguori (nor was torture or slavery).
10) "If someone asks you whether they should confess that they have used contraception, do you tell them they don't have to, because it is a good thing, and not a sin at all?" I tell them that the matter is for their own conscience to decide. In fact no one has asked me this question in the last thirty years, which suggests that Catholics no longer think it is a matter for the confessional or for seeking clerical advice.
This is great!
I vote that we have "pile on Mark Shea" day once per week.
Just a note to Dave Armstrong and Fr. O'Leary, much as I share your concerns, my preference as blog-owner is that we keep the focus of this particular combox on the topic at hand.
Your own blog might be more appropriate for a specific discussion of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception and/or a general inquiry into the orthodoxy / heterodoxy of Fr. O'Leary. Thanks for your cooperation.
Oh, I'm more than done, believe me, after Fr. O'Leary's latest extraordinary reply, which inspired me to write a new paper on my blog.
Sorry for the diversion, but it's hardly possible to avoid, seeing that Fr. O'Leary incessantly peppers his rhetoric with disparaging remarks about "neocaths."
Jesus, how many times must I inflict harm upon my enemy when he does me wrong -- seven times?
Dave Armstrong, if you are still checking here: why are you addressing to me in this thread? I haven't even read this post and thread until now. If you are going to address me in public places it would be good of you to at least send me an email telling me you are doing it.
As I believe I said in all the other places we interacted, I have no problem with pursuing definitions of torture and have done so in any number of places myself. What I have a problem with is pursuing definitions of the particular form "how much of X can we do before it becomes torture", where X is something like "sleep deprive a captive". Those sorts of attempts at definition are irrational for two reasons: 1) they result in a sorites paradox; and 2) they ignore both the fact that torture is intrinsically evil and what we know about an act once we know it is intrinsically evil.
The fact that you replied to my criticism with "Just let everyone decide on their own, subjectively, huh?" shows that, at the least, you haven't understood my criticism of the particular kind of approach that so many are taking to the topic.
Commenting by HaloScan
