It's your blog Mark and you will run it as you see fit, as is of course your right. I had always assumed, however, that you welcomed vigorous debate, especially since you tend to post not infrequently in a manner that I had thought was meant to provoke a response. Other than the question of torture are there any other areas that you wish those who disagree with you not to bother posting responses?
Donald R. McClarey | 06.30.06 - 3:45 pm | #

Hey, it's your party. There are any number of good reasons to put an end to certain dissenting opinions. I just don't think you've articulated one.

Do you really think you're doing more harm than good by providing this forum? I don't think there's much of a need for a "troubled conscience." Remember that Truth will always triumph over sin. I don't think there's any risk that you're assisting the advancement of immoral arguments. Let's hear them, and compare them to the Truth, and the Truth will win.

And we know that's happening. We've seen plenty of people here reform their views to align them with the Catechism, or at least to question their pro-torture views. I don't think anyone is *more* pro-torture thanks to these discussion.

If there is something to be concerned about, it's that these torture conversations have become cheap-shot theater, and occasions to sin against each other. Speaking as someone who agrees with you on nearly all of what you have said about torture, admires your writing, and wonders why it's taking so $%*#ing long to get the Mary book out, I must say that this has not been your best effort. I'm somewhat relieved to see that you're not going to engage in these discussions anymore, because they really seem to have brought out your intemperate side, and your arguments suffered for it. Oh, and it really was a stupid poll.

So, I guess... onward. Keep doing what you do well, and leave this unpleasantness behind.
K the C | 06.30.06 - 3:53 pm | #

What K the C and DRM said.

Personally, I don't care what restrictions you put on the comboxes as I rarely comment in any event. It's certainly your creation to do with as you please. I don't think that, in general (not just on this issue), your attitude is too terrific however. (Not, of course, that you do, or should, care what I think.)

Based on the way the tone of your blog is deteriorating over the past few months I really think you should make good on your threat/promise/warning (whatever) to shut it down, because it is clearly having a negative impact on you.

Perhaps without this burden maybe your temperament will improve.

So I assume that you'll ban me now, but that's okay. It's not really very edifying coming here anymore anyway.

God Bless and kind regards.
cj | 06.30.06 - 4:48 pm | #

I unfortunately suspected there was such a motive for your poll.

I agree that some are denying catholic teaching. I however believe a larger number have raised valid concerns. I do not believe you have sufficiently addressed many legitimate questions by people who have posted. For example, if you do not even know what torture is, how can you claim someone is supporting it?

As others have said, it is your blog. Let's see the fruit of this particular labor.
doubting thomas | 06.30.06 - 4:49 pm | #

Now, Mark- it is one thing to delete posts and ban commentors who persistently beat this drum advocating torture, and I can understand your getting tired of it. It is another thing to run this poll as some kind of litmus test so you can then decide who to delete comments from. I have never, that I can remember, commented on this issue before on your blog and have pretty much studiously avoided it. Until you ran this poll. And my comment, since it wasn't "b," has earned the dismissal of my later comments even though I was simply pointing out that no, I disagree with your writing and it is not such a simple black-and-white issue as you would have it. I never, in raising this point, advocated "slaughter of prisoners" and never have.
I have supported your blog, as you are aware. But if this kind of tactic is what you are coming to, then you don't need to delete my posts or ban me at all- I won't returnor contribute. This is fundamentally arbitrary, unfair and uncharitable on your part. It also bans legitimate discussion that you have dogmatically decided is against Church teaching. As has been said, it is your blog and you can do what you want; so can I.
thomas tucker | 06.30.06 - 4:58 pm | #

I note without further comment that the Purge comes at the conclusion of the Quarterly Pledge Drive™.
Ernie | 06.30.06 - 5:02 pm | #

Hey, it's your party. There are any number of good reasons to put an end to certain dissenting opinions. I just don't think you've articulated one.

K the C thinks that Mr. Shea has failed to articulate a reason for a more aggressive policy of deleting and banning. I submit that that policy is likely to make it all too easy for him to neglect to articulate reasons for his positions more generally. If opponents are not left free to challenge his assumptions, point out holes in his arguments, and demand that he clarify his thinking, then he will miss the opportunity to hone those arguments and increase their persuasive power.

Now I admit that even now those opportunities are sometimes foregone, and that the debates in these boxes turn into pissing matches, but I don't think it will be any improvement to have Mr. Shea declaring that "This is what the Church teaches; everyone who disagrees is wrong," to a echo chamber of "Yep," "You said it," and "Nothing could be more obvious, Socrates," even if (*especially* if) he's right. To the extent that dissenting arguments are taken head-on, wrestled with, and refuted, then I think that truth is clarified, and onlookers find much more solid reasons for adhering to it.

But if the idea is to make this blog duller, I'd say go for it. I'll spend a lot less time here ("what's your hurry here's your hat," I hear someone say), apply myself much more diligently to my employers' business, and be able to go home much earlier.
Seamus | 06.30.06 - 5:07 pm | #

Thanks, Mark. I hope that, by banning torture apologists, you won't feel the need to harp on them when they do get through.

This is one of the areas where too many Catholics just don't understand. I don't think we quite understand that coercion of any kind is wrong, and cannot be done in self-defense the way that say, killing can be, because the human will is sacrosanct, and cannot be abused. Once you get that first principle, though, things click into place.
Joe Marier | Homepage | 06.30.06 - 5:08 pm | #

ALL coercion? So you're saying that the threat of prison is not coercion? That a cop who actually USES the PR-90 on his belt is not coercing?

There's all kinds of coercion that I think you don't really object to.
Ed the Roman | 06.30.06 - 5:10 pm | #

PR-90 is a baton, btw.
Ed the Roman | 06.30.06 - 5:11 pm | #

Weren't we just saying that book-burning is an unCatholic activity? And deleting "incorrect" comments is different exactly how?
Woebegone Kenobi | 06.30.06 - 5:12 pm | #

Learn to read, woebegone. I said giving the state the power to decide what we can and can't think and say is a bad idea.

I have always made it clear that I cheerfully practice censorship on my blog.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 06.30.06 - 5:22 pm | #

No one has addressed Mark's main point, which is that he'd do the same thing if it were abortion apologists or schismatics clogging up his comboxes with their evil. Why should torture and murder be treated differently?

(I'm sure the pro-choicers and SSPX crew think THEY have great points that deserve to be debated, too. Just because someone's opinion is carefully considered doesn't make it NOT evil.)
C.C. | Homepage | 06.30.06 - 5:36 pm | #

CC:

Bingo.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 06.30.06 - 5:41 pm | #

Mark,
On a related note, the Israelis have issued an ultimatum. If Cpl Shalit is not released, they will assassinate the Palestinian PM. What do you think?
Woebegone Kenobi | 06.30.06 - 5:46 pm | #

Seamus:

Do you really believe that if people aren't allowed to argue for the acceptibility of grave sin there just won't be anything to talk about?

I'm not talking about micromanaging every discussion. I'm saying, "Just as we somehow find things to discuss besides the goodness of partial birth abortion, theft, adultery and blasphemy, so we shall somehow soldier on without talking about the goodness of slaughtering and torturing prisoners."

And so, Donald, this is hardly the imposition of a Stalinist Police State. Just the continuation of a pattern I have held to in every arena of basic Catholic morality--except this one.

We'll still find much to discuss and argue over. Just not the question of whether "Thou shalt not murder" is optional if you have a really clever theory of "reciprocity" to weasel out of it.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 06.30.06 - 5:48 pm | #

Woebegone:

Beats me. I haven't been following the story closely.

Now, getting back to my point. Do you acknowledge the difference between editing a blog and state suppression of free speech. Or do you just want to score points and scoot? If you're not going respond to what I say, why should I respond to you?
Mark Shea | Homepage | 06.30.06 - 5:51 pm | #

"And so, Donald, this is hardly the imposition of a Stalinist Police State. Just the continuation of a pattern I have held to in every arena of basic Catholic morality--except this one."

It won't be a "Stalinist Police State" Mark, but it will be certainly a much duller blog. Good luck and God bless.
Donald R. McClarey | 06.30.06 - 6:32 pm | #

bravo for your stand, mark. i was once a person who may have looked the other way in the face of torture of prisoners, saying "that's not so bad, it's not like they're killing them or something." however, after reading your blog you have changed my mind (or knocked it off the fence) to know that torture is a real and dangerous attack on human dignity, just as serious as rape or any other degradation of humans.

i also find it loathesome that there are those who simply cannot apprehend the church's teaching on this matter. it is pretty clearly defined within the catechism (and it matters not how long it has been taught or defined) that the use of torture is a grave evil and a crime against God and man.

Mr. McClarey, how would you respond to someone like, say, John Kerry, if he were to use your last posted paragraph, but instead substituted "abortion" for "physical torture"? it sounds pretty much like his stance, and he ought to be roundly derided for his lack of moral fortitude.

i agree, mark. if our churches have been rightly forbidden from allowing those who spout pro-abortion rhetoric from speaking, why should you allow those who spout pro-torture rhetoric to post here and cause scandal to the faithful?

this has nothing to do with "right and proper" debate. it has everything to do with a defined church teaching that is not a negotiable. those things which are not negotiable are not open for "debate" and as such should not be allowed to be voiced.

-ken buck
ken buck | 06.30.06 - 6:47 pm | #

"Mr. McClarey, how would you respond to someone like, say, John Kerry, if he were to use your last posted paragraph, but instead substituted "abortion" for "physical torture"? it sounds pretty much like his stance, and he ought to be roundly derided for his lack of moral fortitude."

I'd respond Mr. Buck, but since my response would be deleted by Mark, what's the point? Debate on this issue is ended on this blog.
Donald R. McClarey | 06.30.06 - 6:51 pm | #

Ken:

Donald's right. Let's drop it.

Thanks for your kind words. I very much appreciate it.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 06.30.06 - 7:02 pm | #

We'll still find much to discuss and argue over. Just not the question of whether "Thou shalt not murder" is optional if you have a really clever theory of "reciprocity" to weasel out of it.

Well, at the risk of being banned, the definition of "murder" is not one that is self-evident. It means something like "wrongful killing," but that begs the question of what killings are wrongful. We have a tradition of Catholic teaching that tells us that killing the innocent is wrongful. Good. That has been clarified more recently to mean that noncombatants in war are not to be directly killed. Good. But when we talk about prisoners, we move away from the realm of noncombatants (except for the fact that they are now hors de combat because of their situation).

For hundreds of years, it was thought that those who were taken captive in a just war were obviously guilty of participating in an unjust war. Because the enemy's war was unjust, any killings by the enemy were wrongful killings, that is, murder. Any enemy soldiers, even if not themselves directly guilty of murder, were therefore guilty as accessories to murder. Accordingly, they could justly be punished by death or by any lesser penalty (including slavery).

More recently (probably because we realize that the guilt of participating in an unjust war cannot automatically be imputed to enemy soldiers (who in fact have a right to presume that their country's cause is a just one)), we have concluded that it is wrong to execute or enslave enemy prisoners simply because they are enemy prisoners. But we have not ruled out executing those whose guilt can be established. Indeed, we hanged a number at Nuremburg for "crimes against peace" (i.e., for preparing for and waging an unjust war). I presume those executions were not murder, although they certainly could be described as the "slaughter of prisoners." Presumably too, members of the German armed forces who were not defendants at the principal Nuremberg trial, but who were knowing accessories to the crimes against peace committed by those defendants, could also, without injustice, be executed. Again, that would not be murder, but it would argubly constitute "slaughter of prisoners."

(At this point, perhaps the objection would be made that such executions would not constitute "slaughter," because they would be carried out by lawful authority after a determination of guilt. If so, that underscores the need for a definition of "slaughter" as well as of "murder," and shows that those calling for such a definition should not be characterized as "murder apologists.")

Now we move on to the more tricky question: What "determination of guilt" is necessary (under the moral law, not the positive law) before an enemy combatant can be judged guilty of crimes against peace (or waging aggressive war, or whatever) and put to death, without that death constituting "murder"? (Or as lawyers like to put it, What process is due?) It is pretty clear that the natural law does not dictate all the procedures of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Does it dictate *any* formal process, or can the state authorize field commanders, or even individual soldiers, to make on-the-spot determinations of guilt, and to exercise the lawful authority of the state to carry out executions, so long as the commanders or soldiers are morally certain of that guilt?

These questions are not offered as a "defense of murder." They are a serious attempt to limn the requirements of the natural law as to what killings are indeed wrongful, when dealing with people who are not innocent noncombatants. I would hope, by the way, that the positive law would draw the line well short of what might arguably be permissible under the natural law. I want the positive law to make it pretty clear that soldiers in the field are *not* delegated the authority to make determinations of guilt and then to execute guilty prisoners. But I think it important to know how far our restraint is dictated by the natural law, how much by humanitarianism, and how much by prudence.

I believe I've established my anti-torture bona fides sufficiently that I shouldn't be banned for raising these questions. But I think the new rules will have a chilling effect on people of good will who are seriously trying to think through the requirements of the moral law and wish to discuss the ramifications of that law. (Of course, if I *am* banned, then that fact will make my point more decidedly than any arguments I might advance.)
Seamus | 06.30.06 - 7:06 pm | #

Seamus:

The argument, in context, was that if the enemy slaughters our prisoners, we may murder theirs. As in, take defenseless prisoners out and shoot them. As in Malmady. As in Lidice. As in murder. The word used was "slaughter" not even "try and execute". There was no attempt at claiming justice for crimes by the victims. It was a simple claim that "They murder ours, we murder theirs" is acceptable morality.

The teaching of the Church is really, really clear. You can't murder people. Excuses to the contrary and blather about "reciprocity" are excuses for murder.

Now can we please just drop this? I frankly don't give a shit if I have a chilling effect on the wearying apologias for torture and murder I've been seeing in my comboxes. Indeed, I *hope* I have a chilling effect on them.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 06.30.06 - 7:17 pm | #

"I do not know what the heart of a rascal may be, but I know what is in the heart of an honest man; it is horrible." Joseph De Maistre (1753-1821)
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 07.01.06 - 9:48 am | #

As the cause of all this fuss, I hope that Mark Shea will allow me my final word on the subject.

I have a great respect for property rights and have said in the past that I would abide by Mark Shea's rules, that if he wanted to ban me, he would never have the excuse that it was because I violated his rulings.

I shall not say one further word on the subject on this forum. If I change my mind, come to some really clever innovative whatever, you'll have to read my whit and wisdom, my depravity and vile evil (which adjective applies depend on your opinion of my arguments and my soul of course) elsewhere.

The larger problem of retail justice remains. No doubt it will crop up again elsewhere and I shall address it in non-military/non-war/non-detention terms. I no doubt will continue to make life uncomfortable for those who disagree with me but those are the breaks.

I remarked that there used to be a slight tilt against my arguments. The tilt is greater now to the point where I do wonder if this comment will even post. But I'll take a leap of faith and hit the button at the bottom anyway.
TM Lutas | Homepage | 07.02.06 - 2:17 am | #

Thanks Mark for being decent enough to let me post my concession to your new rules. It did post.
TM Lutas | Homepage | 07.02.06 - 2:19 am | #

Mark can have whatever policy he wants, but I think that a strictly literal reading of his poll did, in fact, apply to devil's advocate positions.
Sydney Carton | Homepage | 07.03.06 - 2:17 am | #

Long past due.
_
AB | 07.04.06 - 6:00 pm | #