I would prescribe calm, dear sir.
I'm quite calm. I don't have to keep generating new and ingenious ways to defend the indefensible.
Hi Mark,
Torture is intrinsically immoral.
Dave has made repeated demands to know why I think the Coalition for Fog is at war with this simple point.
I have made repeated demands for you to document your repated charges against them. To my knowledge, you have as yet failed to do so (though I may have missed it).
It seems fundamental to me that when making serious charges, the least one can do is document where the accused made such objectionable statements. Or do you disagree with that? If not, your failure to document is well-nigh unethical and uncharitable in the extreme towards fellow Catholics.
And given that he has read their site and their repeated sneers and smears aimed at those who accept this rather obvious teaching,
I haven't read it all that much. But I read it enough to notice that "Torquemada" has stated at least twice now that his position is hardly any different from mine. Mine is in turn hardly any different from Jimmy Akin's, or even your own (both positions rightly understood).
So if that is the case, and you see nothing wrong with Jimmy's queries about definition, nor did you see much wrong with my position until now, when you seem to want to make me out as dense, why do you continue to speak of the "coalition for fog" as representatives of all that is evil in this discussion?
I don't know what else to add that will convince him. It could be that he simply doesn't fully grasp what "intrinsically immoral" means.
I know, of course, and I think virtually everyone in this discussion knows. The dispute (at least for some who want to talk about this in a way that isn't excruciatingly the same as your own method - since we're not all clones) is where the line is drawn between coercion and torture. Period. That's how I see it, anyway. But you say they are deliberately defending torture and deliberately intending to oppose the clear teachings of Pope John Paul II.
You don't care about that question (where lines are drawn). Fine. Different strokes. But why do you have to mock and deride those who DO care about the further relevant question of lines?
I haven't seen that these people are torture apologists, as you define that. Granted, I came in late like Jimmy. I've always stated that and am fully aware of it. Precisely because of that, I have asked for some - any - documentation that these people you seem to loathe, and who are banned from your blog, stated these contentions, particularly in a political context as lackeys and rationalizers for the Bush administration, etc.
So I now ask you (for what must be the fifth or sixth time) - indeed BEG you - with all due respect and no malice or hostility towards you as a person:
Please produce some proof that they have argued in such an ethically abominable fashion. If you produce that, I'll be more than happy to agree with you, denouncing their opinions. I'll do it here, publicly, with everyone reading, and also on my blog.
Note that I am not categorically denying that they have done as you claim. Maybe they have. I don't know. I'm just saying that I've never yet seen it myself.
One of the two main writers at Coalition for Fog states that he essentially agrees with my position. I do NOT believe that torture (as John Paul would define it, etc.) can ever be justified, in any circumstance. I've made that clear. You yourself acknowledged that, so there is no need for you to question it now. So if they (well, at least "Torquemada") essentially agree with me, they are not guilty of what you accuse them of.
Accusing the innocent unjustly or harshly judging with insufficient evidence are also sins, last time I checked. Am I to believe that you don't have a single post among the multiple thousands of words you have written about this, where you document that these things were stated and held by some folks? If not, I find that extraordinary.
If I am ever critiquing someone, especially in the strident, serious fashion that you have been doing, I make sure I document everything to a tee. I just wrote a piece, for example, critiquing liberal priest Fr. O'Leary.
Everything was documented from his own statements. I didn't have to make accusations with a bunch of righteous indignation. His own words were quite sufficient to prove that he is liberal (even in Christology, where he espouses something akin to Nestorianism).
For the life of me, I don't know why you can't do similarly in the present situation (unless you can't actually produce the goods that are required).
Many people have claimed that you have misrepresented them, and even that you are "lying" about their views. Why is that? Are they all lying? Why do they feel this way? Don't they know better about what they themselves believe than you do?
I'm delighted that we appear to agree in the main about the issue at hand, but I continue to be extremely concerned about your manifest tendency to run down others (in this case, Catholics) again and again, sans documentation and to approach people with a stereotypical group mentality, including often an ignoring of crucial individual differences.
It seems to me the smuggling of political-type divisive polemics into apologetics, where it doesn't belong.
Dave:
As I say, if reading the Coalition for Fog blog does not persuade you that one of the goals of that blog is to denigrate the Pope's quite clear teaching that torture is intrinsically immoral, I don't see what I can add that will convince you.
As to the rest, I'm having trouble believing you read what I wrote, when you say, "You don't care about that question (where lines are drawn). " How many different ways do I have to say that it's perfectly legitimate to want to know the difference between legitimate forms of coercion and torture. What I'm not interested in is the *pretense* of wanting to know the difference masking the desire to obscure all difference between the two. Contrary to common charges I don't think every person who asks how to distinguish the two is engaged in that project. But (again) the Coalition has given every indication they are. In the words of Zippy,
"There is this overwhelming insistence on the part of so may in the Catholic blogosphere that in order to know how to treat prisoners humanely, we need a philosophically precise definition of torture. Sure, torture is intrinsically evil, but that is a meaningless statement of fluff without a precise definition of what torture means.
The funny thing is, though, that with all the roundups, all the blog posts, all the flame wars galore, and all this pent up insistence that we need a more precise definition, I have yet to see a single person who insists that we need one attempt to actually provide one. If we really need a more precise definition as a prerequisite to treating prisoners humanely (I am not at all convinced that we do, but so very many people seem to think that we do), it ought to be priority one to provide one. Yet I haven't seen a single attempt, not one, on the part of any one of the loud voices insisting on a definition, to actually provide a definition and its justification. The only people I've seen attempt definitions are not the same people who are insisting that we have to have one before we can treat prisoners humanely.
It is difficult to keep from concluding that when all of these someones insist "we desperately need a precise definition of torture," they aren't really saying that we desperately need a precise definition of torture."
That said, my point *here* is that it is not necessary to define torture to agree with the Church that it is intrinsically immoral, despite what you appear to think. That doesn't mean it's never worth trying to define it. It just means you don't have to define it in order to agree with the Church that it's intrinsically immoral. The project of both Fr. Harrison and of the Coalition for Fog is to say that the Pope is wrong to say torture is always wrong. They both maintain that there are cases where it is permissible. I think Fr. Harrison says this because he's afraid (wrongly) that the definition of torture as intrinsically immoral makes the newfangled Church of Vatican II and John Paul contradict the teaching of the pre-Vatican II Church. It doesn't, which is why John Paul could say it. I think the Coalition is mostly interested in Fr. Harrison because it suits their agenda of excusing torture. But whatever their motivation, the simple fact is, John Paul says torture is intrinsically immoral and Fr. Harrison (and the Coalition) are therefore in error to say that the certain desperate circumstances render it permissible.
Mark where can I find a list of who voted for the torture bill?
Mark, when someone wants to say a behaviour is to be considered breaking the law, they usually define that activity in the law they are trying to introduce. In debate, when someone says so vigorously by using very negative language about the president and vice president of the USA, that they are liars and doing something very wrong, they need to define it. My issue with those who are bashing the policy of how we fight the war on terror or how we treat these evil monsters who want to make terror some accepted method of our world or of a religion, is that they never come up with what they believe should happen going forward. You say that the answer to the question of is torture intrinsically evil demands only a yes or no without any definition. Yet it seems the church and many others want to have some answer on what torture is and when certain things might be allowed. For example, is abortion evil and is it ever allowed? Yes or no? Well what if the life of the mother is threatened? Is war ever allowed? Well, it seems like the answer is yes, but with some definitions. Everything involving human beings needs to be defined. We might actually get into an argument about the meaning of the word "is" in a Presidential impeachment or those looking to bring gay into the seminary might try to find wording that allows this in the Popes declaration on the topic. The devil is in the details and those who want to say no torture seem to be the ones obligated to define it and list the circumstances.
This has got to be the defining line from the Coalition for Fog blog:
"I myself would characterize myself not as pro-torture, but as anti-anti-torture."
There are some folks out there that you just can't parody.
Well what if the life of the mother is threatened?
If the life of the mother is threatened, abortion is still not allowed.
What is your more philosophically precise definition of torture, which apparently we just have to have in order to even be capable of treating prisoners humanely? If we need one, well, let's see what you've some up with.
joeh: "The devil is in the details and those who want to say no torture seem to be the ones obligated to define it and list the circumstances."
You're right. The Devil IS in the details. The Devil makes a hash out of ordinary, objective things that any rational man can idependently perceive, and lies about them until that rational man is convinced that 2+2=5. Satan loves messing around with details.
"We might actually get into an argument about the meaning of the word "is" in a Presidential impeachment or those looking to bring gay into the seminary might try to find wording that allows this in the Popes declaration on the topic."
When you see that happening, it's the work of the Devil. In other words, don't be a fool to a deliberate attempt to make you stupid. The Devil loves to make people stupid. And now his job has gotten so easy that people are doing it to themselves automatically.
This driving need for a definition is ridiculous, because there are things and devices that haven't been invented yet which I'm sure will be considered torture in the future. Drug X might turn your blood into acid, but it is not incumbent on the defenders of right and wrong to declare any possibility of the use of future Drug X to be torture. Just as the writers of the Oxford English dictionary do not have to list every seating device in the world classified as a "chair." They can use a general definition.
The general definition of torture is widely available and self-evident to a rational mind. It is the intentional application of extreme physical or mental force causing extreme pain or immediate fear of death, or the infliction of dehumanizing treatment or conditions that treat a human person like an object, etc. A normal person can understand that such a general definition would cause waterboarding to be defined as torture, because it treats a person as an object and places the person in immediate fear of death. Making someone stand for the duration of an interrogation, by contrast, does not, because there is no immediate fear of death, no extreme physical pain, no extreme mental force, and it does not treat the person as an object.
I don't know why anyone would think that "the devil is in the details" would be a convincing argument on a Catholic blog....
Syd:
That was awesome! Thanks!
I think anti-anti-torture is a perfectly reasonable thing for them to be. They don't particularly want to militate for torture. I'd hesitate myself.
But - and I'll be controversial here - good Catholics should not be comfortable with the way you casually defame and insult Holy Mother Church (though I am pretty sure it is not intentional), by accusing her of having encouraged intrinsically immoral acts. Period. Not to mention the fairly outrageous way you have conducted this debate, selectively calling your more obscure interlocutors Satan apologists, gleefully mocking statements out of context, villifying political leaders, and blatantly ignoring those who take the time (like Dave who has a lot more patience than I) to call you out.
In short, you are acting like a bully, and people with more sense than I gave up reading these posts blog long ago. But since you seem to persist, and I intend to return to more reactionary pastures, I'll add: this sort of behavior will never ever convince anyone like me of your position.
You want to rescue them from the grips of Satan, right? You seriously need to calm down, pretend you've never said a word on this topic before, forget that you bitterly hate the administration, and engage - not defame - your many, many opponents. You are welcome to call me a stupid trad like Fr. Harrison, I suppose, and say you aren't wasting any more time repeating yourself to people who haven't read everything. But since you are willing to write endless posts mocking commenters too careless to watch their words, I won't buy it at all.
But I wouldn't feel the need to respond to me, Catholic torture apologist that I am, since I have some urgent and not-intrinsically immoral business involving a rack. 
You have my permission to be "depressed" though. Cheers.
Whoa, I used "but" a lot in that comment - maybe it will be worthy of a head post sneer!
Excellent. To take JP2 at his word is to "defame and insult Holy Mother Church". Look. Take it up with the Pope. Stop trying to hang JP's words on Mark like he's somehow making this stuff up. That there is a reconcilation of the Pope's words with Catholic practices of the past is obvious. What it is is perhaps less obvious. But any explanation that seeks to explain away the crystal clear meaning of the words is dismissed out of court. The Pope said "torture" is "intrinsically evil". Is he thereby defaming and insulting the very church of which he is vicar? If so, Mark is in good company, along with the rest of his "groupies".
I think anti-anti-torture is a perfectly reasonable thing for them to be.
Do you think anti-anti-abortion is a perfectly reasonable thing to be too?
Just to note:
Zippy, Henry, and others, glibly associate me with evil all you'd like...I don't intend to take the bait. Read Fr. Harrison again.
Iacobus:
I am a little confused by your post.
Are you upset with Mr. Shea being Mr. Shea? After all in the 20th Century every great Catholic Apologist in the English speaking world was both controversial and combative. Mr. Shea reminds me of Mr. Chesterton and Mr. Belloc in that regard.
Or are you upset that Mr. Shea holds that torture is intrinsically immoral? The Catechism is, I think, pretty clear on that. As I read it the Catechism teaches that torture is a violation of the 5th Commandment like murder, euthanasia and torture. Mr. Shea is clearly on the reservation when he argues that torture is intrinsically immoral?
Or are you upset that the Church once taught that torture was permissible and now it teaches that it is intrinsically immoral? Well, if the Church changes its position on this matter that is not Mr. Shea’s fault is it?
Look I am a dummy and such things confuse me. It is also unclear to me after reading the available documents in English on the internet what exactly the Church has meant by torture over the centuries and when and why it could be used. I think we need some serious Catholic Scholarship in this area. My guess is that we would be surprised by the results of said scholarship.
In any case I think it is unwise to take these arguments and debates too personally.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Zippy, Henry, and others, glibly associate me with evil all you'd like...
I've read Father Harrison, and I've responded to his argument on my blog.
I asked you a specific question: if you consider it reasonable to be anti-anti-torture, do you also consider it reasonable to be anti-anti-abortion? Do you have an answer?
No, I will not answer your insulting question, Zippy.
No, I will not answer your insulting question, Zippy.
So, just to be clear, you think it is reasonable to be "anti-anti-torture", and you think it is insulting merely to be asked the follow-up question of whether or not it is reasonable to be "anti-anti-abortion"?
Mark -
I agree that a strict technical - that is, legal - definition of torture is NOT needed in order to believe and accept that the Church teaches that torture is intrinsically immoral.
A more precise definition is needed, however, in order to apply this teaching in real life situations.
Your comment "If you are trying to treat prisoners humanely, you will not find yourself accidently torturing them..." reminds me of what Chesterton said about the Big Laws and the Small Laws. What we have is a case of a lot of people not accepting the Big Law (not everyone is a Christian, and not all Christians are that serious) so we have to enumerate a bunch of Small Laws for them in order to see that the Big Law is followed.
"Torture is Intrinsically Immoral" is the Big Law, but because it is opaque to some, we have to come up with Small Laws, like "in an emergency, you may twist an arm, but you may not break an arm", and others.
To say that torture is never justified is a bit like saying that murder is never justified. Of course murder couldn't be justified, or it wouldn't be murder - murder is unjustified killing.
Torture is the unjust use of physical coercion or pain. There may be instances when an action that would ordinarily be called torture would not, in fact, BE torture.
The extreme case would be the "ticking bomb" scenario, when a slap in the face or a twist of the arm could be seen as a legitimate act of corporate self-defense.
The problem is (Big Law, again) when people take exceptions like the one above and then try to universalize them with "we're at war, dammit" reasoning. Just twist EVERYBODY's arm... we might find out something useful that will save lives!
The Small Laws are tedious, and depressing... but necessary in our fallen world.
Tim J.:
May I comment on part of your post to Mark?
You posted in part:
“Torture is the unjust use of physical coercion or pain. There may be instances when an action that would ordinarily be called torture would not, in fact, BE torture. The extreme case would be the "ticking bomb" scenario, when a slap in the face or a twist of the arm could be seen as a legitimate act of corporate self-defense.”
Back in the dark ages some of the older cops told us that from time to time they would smack a suspect who was in serious legal trouble. The suspect was because of his age, social position or influence unaware how much trouble he really was in. The crossing of a normally rigid social boundary by the cop would in some cases bring the suspect back to reality. However the purpose of the smack, slap or kick was not to coerce the suspect by violence or fear of violence to volunteer truthful information about his activities or the activities of others. Rather it was an attempt to establish a relationship and to instantiate a dialoged with the suspect based on reality.
In my opinion if God forbid there was a "ticking bomb" then the last thing you would want to do with a suspect, assuming he had information as to where the "ticking bomb" was located was to slap in the face or a twist of the arm as a legitimate act of corporate self-defense. This action would be counter productive, the suspect would be ruined as an intelligence asset and things may well get out of hand and the suspect end up dead.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Sydney Carton,
As I mull over your defintition I wonder: would it be torture to tell a terrorist that unless he discloses the names of the rest of his cell, we will bury him in pig skin after he is sentenced and executed for his crimes?
There are two issues (at least) here, and it would be helpful if we all agreed on at least one of them. Torture is intrinsically evil. Let's all agree on that premise first, and then we can debate what constitutes torture.
Part of the problem is that there are some people who are willing to say: do whatever it takes to get info from terrorist prisoners. That is a denial of the Church's position that torture is intrinsically evil. When we all start talking about that issue, then the second issue gets inserted in the discussion: how do you define what is torture? Then , the discussion gets muddled and it looks like everyone is talking past each other and name-calling starts, and then it gets nasty.
So, let's start with a general premise, and see if anyone disagrees: torture is intrinsically evil. If and only if we all agree on that, then let's move on to the second question of what constitutes torture.
I think it is quite insulting, sir, given the situation.
Listen, they may not have expressed themselves to your satisfaction by "anti-anti-torture", but it gets the point across. Their interest is not in arguing for torture but pointing out the flaws in Mark's position on torture.
--------
BTW, I have read your post against Fr. Harrison and I thought you demonstrated a deficient understanding of tradition and the indefectability of the Church. However, since we aren't going to bridge the whole traditional/conservative divide on an issue this sensitive, I am going to do what I promised, and depart.
The only people I've seen attempt definitions are not the same people who are insisting that we have to have one before we can treat prisoners humanely.
Well, I'd say we need to have a definition of "treating prisoners humanely" (or at least of "treating prisoners inhumanely"). I don't think posing the question in terms of "humanity" rather than of "torture" avoids the problem at all.
And, by the way, I *have* attempted a definition of torture (or, rather, a rule of thumb for identifying it), so please don't generalize and say that all those insisting on the need for definitions are people looking for excuses to do immoral acts.
Frank,
Re your example: No, because if TELLING someone something were to be torture it would have to cause, objectively, extreme mental distress (something close to or in fact a mental breakdown or breaking of the will). I don't think telling someone they're eventually going to be buried in pigskin, even if their religion prohibits that, would be torture. It's not something that you think would break the will of a person. In fact, talking is probably the most harmless thing and is most unlikely to be torture (but of course, it depends on the circumstances).
Or are you upset that the Church once taught that torture was permissible and now it teaches that it is intrinsically immoral? Well, if the Church changes its position on this matter that is not Mr. Shea’s fault is it?
If the Church (meaning the magisterium, not just the opinion of one or more churchmen) really says something now that contradicts something something said earlier, then what we have is not a magisterium but a party line, in which we are expected to ignore earlier teachings and hew to the latest. That can't be right.
We have to reconcile apparently conflicting magisterial teachings. That means we can't ignore the Catechism or Veritatis splendor and pretend they don't mean what they say, but we can't ignore Exsurge Domine either, or pretend it doesn't mean what it says.
Sorry, Sydney, I assumed that it WOULD cause severe mental distress. That's what I keep getting back to. Assuming the information we seek is critical and may save lives, and the people with the information are hardened terrorists, I just don't see any way to get them to divulge what they know without causing them serious distress of one form or another (I keep thinking of Nicholas Cage shooting off the kidnapper's toe in that movie with Shirley MacLaine). I guess the answer you would give is that that person is a dead end as far as developing the information, which will have to be sought elsewhere.
I really am not at all clear on what you are saying, Seamus. I haven't seen (or don't recall seeing) you say that we are incapable of treating prisoners humanely without some additional definition (or rule of thumb for that matter) that we do not already have.
Let me restate what you quoted this way:
The only people I've seen attempt definitions are not the same people who are insisting that we don't presently have a good enough definition to be capable of treating prisoners humanely.
Are we or are we not, in your view, in our present state of knowledge and moral understanding, capable of treating prisoners humanely? More personally, are you personally capable of treating any prisoners who happen to come into your custody humanely?
I think it is quite insulting, sir, given the situation.
What situation? I don't even know you. The CfF states their position explicitly as being "anti-anti-torture". You stated that that was a reasonable position. I followed up by asking if you thought that being "anti-anti-abortion" is also reasonable. What, precisely, is insulting about asking that question?
Henry,...glibly associate me with evil all you'd like...I don't intend to take the bait.
What are you talking about? I merely stated that it is silly to attribute to Mark the view of the Catholic Church that torture is intrinsically evil. He didn't write Veritatis Splendor.
A more precise definition is needed, however, in order to apply this teaching in real life situations.
The Church seems to send us to places like the Geneva Conventions for such definitions:
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes...(CCC 2313)
These types of rules regulating the use of interrogation techniques have been in place for a while now. Is there a reason that they are no longer applicable? The fact that none of us are readily familiar with these particular rules doesn't mean that they don't exist and are no longer sufficient to govern practice in this regard.
Apologies, Henry.
Is torture intrinsically immoral? Depends on what is meant by the word "torture." In the sense used in Veritatis Splendor, certainly, but what is that sense? If the Church issued an encyclical saying that "glorking" was intrinsically evil, we might be able to say with confidence that "glorking is intrinsically evil," but this would hardly be a satisfactory state of affairs.
Mark seems to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, he claims all that is necessary is that people acknowledge the Church has condemned torture as being intrinsically evil, without having to specify what is meant by the term. On the other hand, if someone disagrees with him about the application of torture to a particular case, he accuses them of ignoring the Church's teaching even if they explicitly affirm that teaching.
As for being "anti-anti-torture," let me say this. There used to be people in Europe who called themselves anti-fascists, and who habitually smeared their opponents by calling them fascists, just as in this country there were some people who called themselves anti-communists who smeared their opponents by calling them all communists. Some of these opponents took to calling themselves anti-anti-fascists and anti-anti-communists on the grounds that while they weren't actually pro-fascist or pro-communist, they were against smearing ones opponents by falsely calling them fascists and communists.
The folks at the Coalition for Fog seem to think that something similar is happening with regard to torture. Given that at least one person on the blog supports the McCain position on torture, but still regardless gets accused of wanting to subvert Church teaching to support the Bush administration, I can't say that I blame them.
Richard Comeford -
Of course I always look forward to sincere responses to my comments.
Don't misunderstand... I am not now, nor have I ever been, a specialist in interrogation techniques. I have no idea what actually WORKS. I was only positing a situation in which what is normally seen as out-of-bounds might be justifiable. You gave a practical objection (which I appreciate), but it is the underlying moral question I was hoping to get at, in my lame way.
I would be shocked to find such things were NOT happening in battlefield situations (arm twisting, etc...) and I would be loathe to prosecute on such a basis.
The treatment of POWs in a controlled environment, though, is a different matter. If there is a reasonable doubt, the use of coercive techniques should never be considered.
We should keep in mind that we may be "aggressively interrogating" an innocent person, and nothing we do should give them cause (if they ARE innocent) for moral outrage against us.
There is a certain kind and amount of rough treatment that might be smoothed over with an apology and a packet of food to take home to the family, but I don't think I would feel too forgiving if I had been waterboarded, sleep deprived, bombarded with noise and kept in a cold cell (or worse) and then set free with a "Sorry, we thought you were someone else...".
If the Church issued an encyclical saying that "glorking" was intrinsically evil, we might be able to say with confidence that "glorking is intrinsically evil," but this would hardly be a satisfactory state of affairs.
That would also imply that the Church was a trickster Church of the Jabberwock, telling us simultaneously that glorking is intrinsically evil while knowing that we don't have any idea what glorking is. When the Church tells us that certain things are intrinsically evil, that doesn't satisfactorily answer every question that every positivist might think to pose to the definition machine, of course. Lots of theological discussion still takes place around abortion, for example, and various medical techniques (e.g. salpingectomy versus salpingotomy). But I don't buy the implicit premise here that the Church feeds her lambs with plastic faux-food they are utterly incapable of digesting.
There's a better expression than Torture Pharisee for y'all - its Torture Feeneyite. You ever hear a Feeneyite talk about the Council of Florence and Unam Sanctam? Remind you of anything?
Luckily, Feeneyism is tolerated by the Church.
Anonymous;
Thank you for your kind reply.
You posted in part:
“I would be shocked to find such things were NOT happening in battlefield situations (arm twisting, etc...) and I would be loathe to prosecute on such a basis.”
I reply: You are of course right. I would add on this matter that soldiers are often driven insane (temporary or otherwise) by the stress of danger, isolation and horrific living conditions and do things that they are not responsible for; but which are morally very, very wrong.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
"I keep thinking of Nicholas Cage shooting off the kidnapper's toe in that movie with Shirley MacLaine)."
Can we try to avoid using show business as if it were reality? It's a script, written by a scriptwriter.
" Sorry, Sydney, I assumed that it WOULD cause severe mental distress."
No, Frank, I don't think threatening someone with being buried in pigskin would mean diddly to a hardened terrorist. That sounds like another scriptwriter/show business fantasy.
Someone I believed had reason to know what he was talking about, told me in Moscow, when I was totally vulnerable, to "get rid of that document", or I might 'meet the big guy in the basement of the Lyubyanka who charges 25 rubles a knuckle" (pre-inflation).
I think this person was already wincing at what might ensue.
What I did instead was to phone my wife and tell her that I might not be getting off the plane at Dulles on Monday. Then I made many photo-copies at a hotel business center and salted many copies around Moscow with people I thought might be interested. I won't mention all of them, but one was the correspondant for the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Rick Schmied.
People get stubborn. You have no idea.
Sorry, Richard C., the "anonymous poster" was me.
Are we or are we not, in your view, in our present state of knowledge and moral understanding, capable of treating prisoners humanely?
Certainly. But if we are charged with custody of prisoners, and told to treat them humanely, the only way we can be *sure* of treating them humanely is if we know what it *means* to treat them humanely. That means we need a definition, or a set of rules, or something else that serves the function of a definition.
More personally, are you personally capable of treating any prisoners who happen to come into your custody humanely?
I avoid that problem by not taking custody of any prisoners. But you can bet your boots that if it was my job to keep prisoners, I'd take some care to figure out the practical meaning of "humane" treatment.
Posted at Jimmy Akin's blog (and my own):
I've come to the conclusion that the debate on this comes down to mostly semantics and personal hostilities. I saw that early on when I realized that folks (including myself at first) were sloppy in differentiating the terms "torture" and "coercion" in various contexts, thus leading to further confusion (within the framework of cynicism and suspicion on both sides).
Thus, when Mark sees someone like Jimmy Akin (and to a lesser extent, myself) - fellow apologists whom he knows - rendering an opinion unidentical with his own, he is capable of granting that they do it in good faith, whereas if someone he doesn't know or if someone he is personally hostile to (the dreaded "coalition for fog") renders an opinion unidentical with his own, then it is open season for mocking, caricature, and the most cynical interpretation imaginable.
One even sees this (on a much lesser scale) in comparing his remarks about Jimmy Akin and myself: the tendency to pretend that identical or virtually identical opinions are contraries. My intentions are placed on a lower level than Jimmy's. Mark writes:
"In *exactly* the same way, when the Church declares (as She does) that torture is immoral we cannot, as Dave Armstrong wrong-headedly says, declare '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).'" . . . It could be that he simply doesn't fully grasp what "intrinsically immoral" means."
So Mark objects to my demands for definition and implies I am ignorant as to a very basis distinction in moral theology. But when he comes to Jimmy Akin's views, he has no objection:
"Jimmy, as even a cursory reading of his post will show, is focusing on the question of whether the Church has answered the question 'What is the definition of torture?' Note that he focuses on whether a dubium has been submitted to the Church and whether Catholic theologians have taken up the project in any focused way. The answer to those questions, as I could have told you, is 'No.' But since this blog has never ever asserted that the term 'torture' has been given a rigorous definition by the Church, that's not particularly germane to the discussion. Jimmy, in short, is answering a question I have never bothered to ask because I already knew the answer. And his answer is 100% accurate."
[precisely as I have argued; no difference here]
"So Jimmy's perfectly right. . . . Jimmy, coming late to the conversation and trying to do his job as a specifically Catholic apologist answered the question about a torture definition in a perfectly honorable way: he tried to address the question of whether Mother Church has given a wire-drawn definition of torture. No, She has not, he concluded. And he's perfectly right. Unlike some of his more polemical readers, he did not conclude from this that it is impossible to define torture in any way, nor did he conclude that because every possible permutation of torture has not been defined, therefore no obvious act of torture can ever be named as torture. Jimmy, being indeed a true pro, knows that this is not so . . ."
[again, exactly and precisely as my own opinion. So why is Mark chiding me? Perhaps because I keep pressing him and he doesn't want to answer my questions?]
Note again how Mark cites a sentence of mine in disagreement:
". . . when the Church declares (as She does) that torture is immoral we cannot, as Dave Armstrong wrong-headedly says, declare '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).'"
Obviously (or so it seems to me, especially in proper context) I was talking about the more detailed discussion of definition here, not denying that torture (i.e., assuming some authoritative definition) is immoral. But note that Jimmy Akin states virtually the same thing:
"There have been a number of statements in Magisterial and semi-Magisterial documents condemning torture, but these do not offer technical definitions of what torture is, and having a good definition is a precondition for formulating a solid response to finely posed moral questions on the topic."
"The truth is that at this point we don't have a good definition for torture - one that will allow it to be distinguished from other uses of the infliction of pain (mental or physical) to ensure compliance with various goals - and so at present moral theologians have the liberty to hash out the question . . ." [emphases mine]
[Bingo! To use a little Catholic lingo . . .]
In his earlier piece (June 28, 2004), Jimmy wrote:
"I also can't substantively engage the question of torture without a precise definition of what counts as torture in place. Not all forms of physical or psychological pressure count as torture, but the Catechism and other relevant Church documents do not offer a precise definition of what is torture and what is not."
How is this different from what I stated?:
ME: "[A: I can't discuss whether 'torture' is immoral] [B: without knowing exactly how one is defining that term] [C: (it being a fine line in many cases)]."
JIMMY: "[A2: I also can't substantively engage the question of torture] [B2: without a precise definition of what counts as torture in place.] [C2: Not all forms of physical or psychological pressure count as torture, . . .]
If this doesn't suffice, let me put them all side by side:
Dave (A) I can't discuss whether 'torture' is immoral
Jimmy (A2) I also can't substantively engage the question of torture
Dave (B) without knowing exactly how one is defining that term
Jimmy (B2) without a precise definition of what counts as torture in place.
Dave (C) (it being a fine line in many cases).
Jimmy (C2) Not all forms of physical or psychological pressure count as torture
It's exactly the same. My position is identical to Jimmy's as far as I can tell. Why would Mark think it was different? Well, because of semantics, and a lack of interpreting remarks in context. He saw my use of the word "torture" and immediately jumped to a wrong conclusion. But I put the word in quotes precisely so I could indicate that there was some ambiguity as to definition. This doesn't mean that one is trying to deny the intrinsic immorality of torture, just as one says lust is intrinsically immoral, while at the same time simultaneously moving from the abstract to the practical considerations, and wondering when the line is crossed in many situations. Sensible discussion on lust, adultery, and permissible passion in marriage thus require rational definitions and "lines" to be drawn for it to even get off the ground at all.
Jimmy states in his older paper:
"I would be disinclined to go the route of saying that torture is not always wrong. I think that the Church is pretty clearly indicating in its recent documents that it wants the word 'torture' used in such a way that torture is always wrong. However, I don't think that the Magisterium has yet thoroughly worked out all the kinds of 'hard case' situations one can imagine and whether they count as torture."
This is my opinion and approach exactly, and (so it seems to me) that of many others. Mark would do well to figure this out, and refrain from cynical characterization (e.g.: "many torture apologists are all too eager to overlook the obvious in a rush to justify the inexcusable."): the sort of polemics that is most inappropriate in a discussion between fellow Catholics on a very complex, multi-faceted issue.
I once had a conversation with someone in which he pointed out that defining evil actions is a tricky business given that it partly requires giving a definition to nothing. Being a good Thomist, what he meant is that, metaphysically, evil is a privation -- the absence of goodness and, ultimately, even being. Consequently, it is utterly parasitical upon what is good and, by extension, what exists. Considered by itself, then, evil is nothing, making it to that extent incapable of rational description (which explains why it is in part so abhorrent to reason).
These considerations mean that at the heart of every definition of an evil act there is a degree to which it is inexplicable precisely because to that extent it is only known in terms of what it is not. This element of nothingness in evil renders complete rational precision in describing it futile.
This is not to say that moral definitions of evil acts are neither desireable or possible. Because these are failings, we do have negative knowledge of the ways in which they are failings, and it is a good to know how people fail morally in order to avoid doing so ourselves. What it does mean, however, is that no definition of an evil act is going to be completely clear and distinct. Demanding that one should have such a definition is like demanding that one be able to put one's finger upon something that is not there.
Richard W. Comerford wrote:
"Are you upset with Mr. Shea being Mr. Shea? After all in the 20th Century every great Catholic Apologist in the English speaking world was both controversial and combative. Mr. Shea reminds me of Mr. Chesterton and Mr. Belloc in that regard."
One can be both "controversial and combative" without being insulting, condescending, cynical, hyper-suspicious, given to unworthy polemics and rhetoric, straw men, etc. Mr. Chesterton (whom I know a little bit about, as I have perhaps the largest Chesterton links page on the Internet, and some 25 of his books in my personal library) was very much the former, but not the latter.
That's why he had a running vigorous dispute with folks like George Bernard Shaw or H.G. Wells, while maintaining warm friendships with them. This is not the case with Mark and his present self-made "foes." He bans them, mocks their opinions, continually (far as I can tell, since he refuses to document anything when I ask) misrepresents those very opinions, etc. There is no warm friendship. Those he opposes are, seemingly by the dozen, becoming intensely frustrated and angry at him. The conbtrast couldn't be more great.
Mark is alienating those he disagrees with. Chesterton didn't do that at all. Even his dialectical opponents loved him. For example, one of them, Cosmo Hamilton, wrote:
"To hear Chesterton's howl of joy, . . . to see him double himself up in an agony of laughter at my personal insults, to watch the effect of his sportsmanship on a shocked audience who were won to mirth by his intense and pea-hen-like quarks of joy was a sight and a sound for the gods . . . and I carried away from that room a respect and admiration for this tomboy
among dictionaries, this philosophical Peter Pan, this humorous Dr. Johnson, this kindly and gallant cherub, this profound student and wise master which has grown steadily ever since . . . It was monstrous, gigantic, amazing, deadly, delicious. Nothing like it has ever been done before or will ever be seen, heard and felt like it again."
(in iGilbert Keith Chesterton, Maisie Ward, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1943, 567)
Maisie Ward writes about Chesterton's intellectual humility in the same work (pp. 203,595-596):
"Pride, he once defined as 'the falsification of fact by the introduction of self.' To learn, a man must 'subtract himself from the study of any solid and objective thing.' This humility he had in a high degree and also that rarer humility which saw his friends and his opponents alike as his intellectual equals. 'Almost anybody,' Monsignor Knox once said, 'was an ordinary person compared with him.' But this was an idea that certainly never occurred to him."
"Chesterton . . . excelled in the soft answer - not that answer which seeming soft subtly provokes to wrath, but the genuine article . . . In the heat of argument he retained a fairness of
mind that saw his opponent's case and would never turn an argument into a quarrel. And most people both liked him and felt that he liked them. While he was having his great controversy with Blatchford back in 1906, it is clear from letters between them that the two men remained on the friendliest terms."
Likewise, good friend Hilaire Belloc wrote:
"All men one may say, or very nearly all men, have one leading moral defect. Few have one leading Christian virtue. That of Gilbert Chesterton was unmistakably the virtue of Christian
charity: a virtue especially rare in writing men, and rarest of all in such of them as have a pursuing appetite for controversy - that is, for bolting out the truth. He loved his fellow-men. Through this affection, which was all embracing he understood the common man . . . It gave him access to every mind; men will always listen to a friend; and so much was he a friend of all those for whom he wrote that all were prepared to listen, however much they were puzzled. I shall always remember how once in America a man said to me, a man who I believe had never seen Chesterton in the flesh: 'When I read of his death I felt the shock one feels upon the loss of a daily and beloved acquaintance.' "
(On the Place of Gilbert Chesterton in English Letters, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1940, 79-80)
Frank: "I just don't see any way to get them to divulge what they know without causing them serious distress of one form or another..."
That might be true, but that's not what you asked. You asked if talking about a certain thing was torture. I didn't think so, because objectively it was not the sort of thing that would break the will of a person (which is the end of torture).
As for your point quoted above, the prohibition of torture is a prohibition on breaking the will. You can't do THINGS to people which cause them to scream out "stop! stop! I'll tell you anything you want!" Because they'll end up telling you're they're the Queen of England if you demand it. That treats them as an object and dehumanizes them, and is strictly forbidden.
Sydney you're losing me. You say:
You can't do THINGS to people which cause them to scream out "stop! stop! I'll tell you anything you want!" Because they'll end up telling you're they're the Queen of England if you demand it.
But surely the reason you can't torture isn't because the information you obtain may not be reliable."
And what about tricking someone into telling you the information, which extracts the information contrary to the will of the terrorist (eg. he told you because you were a plant, posing as a terrorist in his cell).
Frank: "But surely the reason you can't torture isn't because the information you obtain may not be reliable."
I never said that. I said you cannot torture because it is dehumanizing and treats a person as an object. I did indicate that a breaking of the will might lead to them telling you anything, but I didn't mean to suggest that the moral prohibition against torture was because it was unreliable. I said a person would tell you they're the Queen of England to demonstrate how someone's will would be broken. Did you honestly think I was saying that a moral prohibition exists because of unreliability?
"And what about tricking someone into telling you the information, which extracts the information contrary to the will of the terrorist (eg. he told you because you were a plant, posing as a terrorist in his cell)."
This is sophistry. You KNOW that's not torture. It's not a "breaking of the will" to get information out of a person from tricks or incentives or because he's tired of a good cop/bad cop routine. You should know better than to ask a question like that, since it seriously damages your credibility in these discussions.
It's not a "breaking of the will" to get information out of a person from tricks or incentives or because he's tired of a good cop/bad cop routine.
Does torture have to include the purpose of "breaking a will" to extract information? It seems to me that someone could torture someone for other reasons and it still would be torture. E.g, the sadistic fun of it. To reduce torture to some kind of coercive act committed against someone's will seems to me to misframe the question.
Sorry Sydney. Bear with me. I just wanted to establish that the essence of torture isn't making someone do what they don't want to do.
My next question is about "breaking the will". How do I deal with the issue of incremental levels of coercion? For example, someone knows the names of members of a terrorist cell in his neighbourhood. If he doesn't want to tell you because you're American but otherwise has no problems disclosing the information, is it torture to threaten him with a night in jail if that's what it takes to get him to talk? No, I would guess. But say it's more important to him not to disclose the information: it would take the threat of a week in jail. As his will not to talk increases, so too does the level of threat. All along you're getting him to do something he'd rather not do, but as his resistance increases so does the level of distress required to overcome it. How do you know, other than by applying some internal test of conscience, that you've crossed the line and are breaking his will?
I apologize if I come across as a sophist. I am just asking you to address an issue that comes to me as I continue to try to think this through.
the prohibition of torture is a prohibition on breaking the will.
Serious question:
How do you distiniguish the forbidden coercion of the will of torture, and the coercion of non lethal riot control techniques, such as tear gas, piercing sounds, water cannons, rubber bullets, etc.
Aren't these nonlethal riot control measures also an example of authorities breaking the will (to riot or trespass) via pain?
Do such measures treat rioters as objects? Are they intrinsically immoral?
Or can they be justified for proportionate reason?
Dave Armstrong:
Thank you for your kind reply.
I admire Mr. Shea. I think it takes guts to stand up and say that torture is just plain evil every time all the time. I know very little about Mr. Chesterson other than that I like what little I know. Mr. Shea reminds me of the little I know about Mr. Chesterton.
If you say Mr. Shea is not like Mr. Chesterson then I bow to your superior knowledge.
Thank you for the education.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Hello Mr. Comerford.
I am Mr. Armstrong, and I am a dummy too, like you.
I also admire Mr. Shea. I do not admire the way Mr. Shea is treating many of his opponents at the present time. And Mr. Shea does not remind me of what little I know of Mr. Chesterton when Mr. Shea does this.
Mark is alienating those he disagrees with.
And even a few of those he agrees with.
Dave Armstrong:
Thank you for your kind reply.
I do not know the history of the various arguements. However this is blogdom. People are faceless. Most people post with made up names. Some post in anger and haste. There are even a few fanatics who are blind to truth, reason and a good five cent cigar. In my opinion this type of atmosphere lends itself to misunderstandings.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
The main problem I find with Mark's comments he thinks that Father is saying "John Paul II" is wrong. I know Father and he doesn't think John Paul II is wrong so it isn't a competition between the two. Where you differ is in your *interpretation* of John Paul II (what he was refering to by "torture" in a 20th century context specifically). You can disagree with that - fine. But don't go saying that in Father's mind he sees himself as opposing John Paul. He doesn't. He also said there was never an infallible statement of the Church allowing torture as Kevin Mille implied (hence he commented that there was no point in answering something that wasn't arguing against a position he held).
Btw, Jimmy probably does hold the same position as Father Harrison because This Rock magazine has accepted a downsized version of the article for publication.
as Kevin Miller implied that he did, I should say.
But don't go saying that in Father's mind he sees himself as opposing John Paul.
I don't think anyone was saying that. I think it has been demonstrated clearly that in his actual words he is in fact opposing John Paul. How he sees himself isn't relevant; in fact the "how he sees himself" gambit is a kind of reverse ad hominem, insulating his argument from criticism because whatever his argument actually says is deniable by his putative supporters through the "how he sees himself" gambit. I'm not buying it. He says outright that torture isn't intrinsically evil: that it is an open question whether torture is or is not licit to extract life-saving information. If he wants to retract or clarify, he is more than welcome to back off from that position with my full support. But in my mind it doesn't clarify the discussion when third parties say that they know him and he doesn't really mean it.
Mr. Akin hedged. He did the "What really constitutes adultery/ How close can I get?" thing in his posts.
Mr. Shea, accept that.
Mr. Shea, you are correct and Mr. Akin is not on the side of right or orthodoxy. Nor on your side. He has a long paper (or is it pixel) trail to the contrary. To be considered on orthodox on this matter, he needs to do more than "clarify," he needs a conversion. A change of heart.
Armstrong's post of 12:54 is accurate reflecting Akin's views.
Zippy says:
Well what if the life of the mother is threatened?
"If the life of the mother is threatened, abortion is still not allowed." But the church has a lot of definition about this issue allowing the mothers life to be protected even if the needed treatment to save her life results in the infant's death as long as the intent was not to kill the infant but to save the mother. In other words, they go forward to give some definition to different events and circumstances. The same is true about just war. They have not done this about torture and when they do, there will be something more substantial to follow.
Sydney Carton posts, "The general definition of torture is widely available and self-evident to a rational mind. It is the intentional application of extreme physical or mental force causing extreme pain or immediate fear of death, or the infliction of dehumanizing treatment or conditions that treat a human person like an object, etc. A normal person can understand that such a general definition would cause waterboarding to be defined as torture, because it treats a person as an object and places the person in immediate fear of death. Making someone stand for the duration of an interrogation, by contrast, does not, because there is no immediate fear of death, no extreme physical pain, no extreme mental force, and it does not treat the person as an object. "
He and mark seem to believe that "extreme physical or mental force causing extreme pain or immediate fear of death" do not need further definition. In healthcare, they try to define the level of pain so as to better understand when someone is in extreme pain." Ask any doc and they will tell you it is across the board and needs precise definition. Your definition gives a very wide latitude and that is my point. As to fear of death, what is the level of fear that one would reach to be torture. I would suspect that when a normal person who has done what a terrorist and done is arrested, they would have a fear of death. Of course, the terrorist who thinks he is going to paradise may have no fear of death no matter what you did to them.
Then he says "A normal person can understand that such a general definition would cause waterboarding to be defined as torture, because it treats a person as an object and places the person in immediate fear of death" but I would suggest that many normal people look at the situation around waterboarding and that this entire ongoing dialouge shows that many would not see this as torture. "Treating a person as an object" would have to be defined in many places in our society as to its legality and once again do these terrorist fear death or welcome it.
Mark calls Bush a liar and has repeatedly called our Vice President evil based on the issue of torture. He is advocating that there is some semblance of a reason refrain from voting for people who have done a lot to move us away from abortion on demand, gay marriage, and a host of other evils because of this issue and fails to define it in a way that allows concensus or to give any idea of what he would to protect our families in this war on terror.
It is interesting to me that some want to defend the right not to define it in a way that holds legal and moral values that an interrogator could follow.
Zippy,
I'm refering to comments like (but not limited to) this:
"The real question however, remains carefully unaddressed: Who is Fr. Brian Harrison compared to Pope John Paul II?"
That implies the person in question is trying to set themselves up against the other person on this matter.
In any case, I feel you misunderstood my point. I wasn't intending to propose it as a insulator. I realise someone could do that.
The only thing on your blog I could find "answering" (which isn't the same as refuting) Father Harrison was a piece by Miller attacking a position he didn't hold.
I don't know everyone's position on this but can we start with a simple opener? Do you think that pain infliction is instrinsically evil? Yes or no? Once I have a simple answer to that I might be able to then approach the torture issue with a better feel for where we are.
God Bless
But the church has a lot of definition about this issue allowing the mothers life to be protected even if the needed treatment to save her life results in the infant's death as long as the intent was not to kill the infant but to save the mother. In other words, they go forward to give some definition to different events and circumstances.
Theologians have done this kind of thing, but the Magisterium hasn't. The expectation that the Magisterium is in the business of providing philosophically precise definitions of specific intrinsically evil acts flies in the face of what She has actually done in formal teaching documents w.r.t other intrinsically evil acts like abortion.
Also, to be a bit more precise, it is OK to perform an operation to save the life of the mother as long as the object (not the intent) of the act isn't to kill the child. So as I understand it salpingectomy is licit while salpingotomy is not, according to prevalent theological opinion. And in point of fact ectopic pregnancies do happen pretty often in real life, whereas '24' ticking bomb scenarios do not.
Do you think that pain infliction is instrinsically evil?
No. (In fact I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim that it is). I've had a lengthy and quite civil discussion of all this fairly recently with some really smart people at the blog Enchiridion Militis.
OK. Thanks for the simple answer.
I think the problem between you and Father is when it is one or the other. When I say pain infliction by the way, I mean for the purpose of pain infliction (and not as an unintended side effect). Such as smacking (when I was still a rascal at times before and slightly into my teenage years it could certainly hurt but it was good for me nonetheless).
The question Father doesn't believe is resolved, I believe, is whether you are actaully just punishing someone for being naughty (the naughty thing being to not tell us the information - as opposed to confession which is always wrong - of what who when etc of a bomb going off). In other words, is this under what JPII meant by "torture" or not. It could well be, if it is then it is wrong.
He has had his paper peer reviewed by moral theologians known for their orthodoxy. This should at least make us think "Hmmm, maybe there are few elements to this I'm not aware of."
At any rate, the colition of the fog, or whoever they are, would be abusing Father's work if they are putting to use in their favor. He isn't for what Bush etc are doing or saying that is right.
And something else I should have said on the thread was this isn't "wrong headed traditionalism." A so called traditionalist would say (agree) that there IS a contradiction with JPII.
I must thank you though for being charitable. I've sent the material to Fr Harrison and agreed that he should keep up with what people are saying about his scribblings (his word not mine)
and HE agreed that he should keep up etc
I don't see that "torquemada" of the (acc. to Mark) infamous "Coalition for Fog" holds the views that Mark attributes to him, based on how he answered my questions:
http://coalitionforfog.blogspot....-
questions.html
So now we see him denying that he holds these terrible opinions, along with the continued refusal of Mark to document that he indeed holds them (Mark suggested I read through their blog; I did, and didn't find the damning evidence; perhaps my reading comprehension skills are poor).
I think the demands of charity require that we believe the man and not presume or fantasize that he believes something that he has denied.
Or is that quaint, old-fashioned ethics?
Dave Armstrong:
You have a very big brain. I am deeply impressed by all of the documents I found on your site. (BTW thank you for posting your arguement with my new friend Father O'Leary.)However may I respectfully suggest that it is a waste of your considerable talent to be pursuning this line of arguement with Mr. Shea? It does not in my opinion prove anything. A duumy like myself cannot even follow the arguement. In the end I will continue to admire Mr. Shea for his courage and intelligence and feel indebted to you for all of your work defending the Faith.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
Zippy,
When Father Harrison uses the word "torture" in his articles, he typically means something like the direct infliction of severe pain or suffering. Torture in that sense is not intrinsically immoral, as I would think even you would acknowledge (you said, as I recall, that it would not be immoral for guards to beat a prisoner if it was necessary to restrain him).
When Veritatis Splendor says that torture is intrinsically immoral, it is reasonable to suppose that it didn't mean to condemn the infliction of severe pain and suffering as such, but that the meaning of the word "torture" in the condemnation is somewhat narrower.
One point about Sydney's claim above that it is torture to cause one to suffer the immediate fear of death.
As I understand it, threatening someone with death or grave harm is indeed torture — unless the harm is a just penalty.
It is not torture to threaten a contumacious offender with the just penalty for his actions. Legally, threatening a just penalty is not duress, and morally it is not torture.
(This, btw, is why threats of eternal suffering for offenders in Scripture are not torture — precisely because they warn of a just penalty).
But: The legal penalty for engaging in illegal combat is death, per the Geneva Convetions.
Assuming this longstanding legal penalty is just, then how can threatening summary execution for illegal combatants be deemed torture?
Fr. Harrison pretty clearly says (beginning in his letter to Crisis in response to Mark's article there) that the Church just can't be teaching now that the acts of which she approved at one time are in fact intrinsically immoral.
First, that doesn't suggest to me that he's defining "torture" in a way terribly different from that in which, say, VS is defining it.
And, second, I'm sorry, but objectively and implicitly, he is doing one of two things. Either he's arguing that the allowing of torture amounted to an infallible teaching that it's not intrinsically immoral - which, as I said before, doesn't work. Or, he's arguing that it didn't amount to such an infallible teaching - but it's still terribly problematic for the Church now to say that torture is intrinsically evil. Which doesn't work any better.
Kevin,
I just reread Father Harrison's letter to Crisis magazine:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/se...005/
letters.htm
and while I have a lot of respect for your opinion on these matters, I don't think Father Harrison says what you claim he says. And if you read his articles in Living Tradition, it seems pretty clear to me that he doesn't hold the views you ascribe to him.
For example, Father Harrison says the Church now legitimately teaches that it is intrinsically evil to inflict severe pain on a suspect for the purpose of extracting a confession, even though the practice "was accepted sententia communis (and even put into practice) by Church authorities for many centuries during the patristic, medieval and even modern times."
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
He couldn't say that if he thought "the Church just can't be teaching now that the acts of which she approved at one time are in fact intrinsically immoral."
When Veritatis Splendor says that torture is intrinsically immoral, it is reasonable to suppose that it didn't mean to condemn the infliction of severe pain and suffering as such, but that the meaning of the word "torture" in the condemnation is somewhat narrower.
I think "narrower" is the wrong word here. Torture doesn't mean "causing severe pain", but that is because what it means is different not because it means "causing severe pain under certain narrowed circumstances".
Fair enough.
Kevin,
Actually, the problem is you keep refering to his Crisis letter. That was before he delved into the issue. If you read the whole letter he says he is appealing for people to help offer solutions etc. He did much work after that and it isn't the primary source to go to if you want his clarified more informed opinion. I think this is what is causing part of the problem.
He said to me that the position you are ascribe to him is not what he holds. If you take my word for it can that be fair enough for both of us?
Zippy, I suspect that your difference with Father is either very small or a matter of how one uses a word.
Commenting by HaloScan
