I'll provide the response I know will come...
Nicholas the great was referring to torture to extract confessions, not to save a city.
Repeat after me: 9/11 changed everything.
Now *that's* human tradition masquerading as divine revelation.
Interesting, I thought torture was required to secure confessions under Roman Law. Did Rome's uglier practices lapse until their later revival(I almost said renaissance) at the hands of antiquarian jurists?
Mark, obviously Pope Nicholas was a Euroweenie America-hater who knew nothing about protecting the Homeland from terrorists. Unlike the Bush Administration and its combox-warrior torture apologists, of course, who know much more than popes (many of whom, come to think of it, have been Europeans... uh oh!), and certainly the rest of us surrender-monkies!
/tongueincheek of course 
Kevin Jones:
May I recommend William Walsh's "Characters of the Inquisition" to you on this matter? According to Walsh, and he quotes some formidable personalities like Saint John Chrysostom, the Church rejected the practice of torture found in Roman Law - until the early Renaissance.
At that time the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II declared jurisdiction over heretics. He tortured heretics and seized their lands and goods.
The Emperor's critics point out that all of the purported heretics appeared to be rich and political opponents of the Emperor.
The Pope claimed authority over heretics in order to prevent excesses like the Emperor's lust for revenge and gold from claiming too many innocent people.
Sadly with jurisdiction over heretics came the practice of torture. Although inquisitors were advised not to rely on evidence obtained under torture and extraordinary limits were placed on torture (One inquisitor used torture once in about 900 cases). However some Churchman embraced torture with a frightening robustness.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Roman Law did require torture to achieve "sure proof" in a criminal case. But back in Nicholas' Day, the Church was governed by collections of canon (some spurious) rather than a Code of Law. In his day (9th C), western European kingdoms were governed by customary law or barbarian versions of Roman law. Guilt was determined by oath or ordeal until the rediscovery of Roman Law in the 12th C. The Romanization of European secular law during the Renaissance was bitterly resented by common people--for all the good that did.
Torture was imposed by papal inquisitors as well as the Spanish, Portuguese, and Roman Inquisitions. The worst horrors took place in principalities ruled by bishops, canons, or religious orders. No limits on kind or duration.
If you want to learn about the history of torture (or Inquisitions), read (not our) Edward Peters, not Walsh.
>Repeat after me: 9/11 changed everything.
>Now *that's* human tradition masquerading as divine revelation.
I reply: Mark, not even your more hawkish opponents to my knowledge supports waterboarding to extract a guilty confession to a crime.
There is a moral difference between asking "Where did they hide the Nuke?" Vs. "Are you going to sign this I PLEAD GUILTY FORM or not?".
So I doubt Fr. Harrison will be moved.
BY:
And abortion will always only be used in reallio trulio desperate situations.
Once you give the green light to torture for those non-existent ticking bombs, you give it for everything, BY.
Everything.
All you have to do is lower the bar for what constitutes a "serious situation" and voila! You can employ torture to find kidnap victims, extort confessions from people who only are involved in one death instead of thousands and, eventually, for whatever else you need it for.
Sandra Miesel:
Kindly point out a single major disagreement between Peter's in his "Inquisition" and Walsh in his "Characters"?
Thank you
God bless
Richard W Comerford
By the way, BY, if you counter "aborted babies are innocent" I reply, "And so may your torture victim be, for all you know." That's the thing about torture. You often do it to find out if the person you are torturing "deserves" to be tortured. By the time you find out you are wrong, you have already made yourself a thing worthy of hell.
However, let's suppose your victim is "guilty" of something. How does that improve things? Aren't you now saying that you are torturing them, not for information, but to punish them? The point is, after all, to get information, isn't it? So why does guilt or innocence matter?
In fact, guilt or innocence need have nothing to do with it, once you grant torture as a tool for information extraction in "really truly desperate situations". So: suppose you've got Abdul's son. The boy doesn't know anything, but Abdul does. Do you follow the lead left open by our Great Public Servant John Yoo and crush the boy's testicles to get the father to talk? Why not? You've already granted that it's magically 'not torture' if the situation is desperate enough, haven't you? And it would very likely be efficient.
If you tell me it would be wrong because the boy is "innocent" I answer that "Then the real reason you are torturing your victim is because you want to punish the son of a bitch, and getting information is only secondary. If the son of a bitch turns out not to know anything, then... well... still had it coming. So no harm done."
Cheer up though. The wondrous thing about torture is that it so degrades the human conscience that the day will come when the torturer finds himself able to punish the son of a bitch by crushing his innocent son's testicles too. The torturer can always tell himself, "Nits make lice." And besides, it got the job done. Ends justify the means.
The whole God-damned thing is poison. That's why God says "Don't do it under any circumstances. Don't tiptoe up to doing it. Don't come up with fine-tune excuses for doing what would, in any other time or place, be torture."
But Maaarrrrrk, you forgot to mention Good Pope Nicholas' ruling on whether Bulgar women could wear pants.
He didn't care. Wear whatever you want, said Wise Pope Nicholas. He was good with inculturation like that.
It's a shame people forget that this guy was one of the Greats. For all most people know, this guy was Santa Claus.
Maureen, really? Have you got a source for the pants-wearing thing? Oh, man, could I use that...
I'm picturing a discussion amongst the skirts-only crowd where one nonchalantly says, Oh, but a pope said pants were okay...no, not a recent pope, one from the 800s...
Another strong stand that Nicholas took was forbidding a Carolingian prince to ditch his wife for his mistress. He wouldn't permit the hapless wife to flee to a convent because it was her duty to stay put and submit to being murdered in order to defend the sanctity of marriage. The prince died before matters got to that point, fortunately.
Eric G:
Father H. is a retired seminary professor. He has a long history of animus against JP II on matters such as Episcopal appointments, the liturgy and ecumenism. Father H's argument in favor of torture is based on pain.
As JP II points out the real issue is human dignity. Both the human dignity of the victim and the torturer. The Catechism condemns the use of moral and physical violence against prisoners.
A simple goggle search will show that Father H. name is associated with Catholic groups and media outlets that may not be in full communion with the Vicar of Christ.
Bottom line who are you going to bet your immortal soul on? A retired seminary professor with an axe to grind? Or the Vicar of Christ who taught that torture is "intrinsically evil"?
It is your eternity.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Eric G:
Thank you for your kind reply wherein you posted in part: "I demand you document your assertions".
I reply: You have to be kidding. You do not even post with your real name and your making demands? Taking yourself a little seriously perhaps?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Fr. Harrison is in fact still an active seminary professor (at Puerto Rico's pontifical university), and is not in ANY way affiliated with dissident Catholic groups.
Fr. Harrison retired about a year ago, and currently resides in St. Louis. He says Mass at St. Mary of Victories Church. By "Catholic groups and media outlets that may not be in full communion with the Vicar of Christ," Mr. Comerford is probably referring to The Remnant, a pro-SSPX newspaper which publishes Fr. Harrison frequently. Regardless, everyone involved in this discussion would do well to distinguish Fr. Harrison's person from his arguments, which stand or fall on their own merits.
By the way, Mark, if you really "wonder what Fr. Brian Harrison has to tell good Pope Nicholas," you can just read his article.
Ben Douglass:
I do not think this is a matter of arguments "which stand or fall on their own merits". Rather it is a matter of truth. What does the Church teach on this matter?
Now we have had two Popes in a row clearly teach us that not only is torture evil but we must respect the human dignity of prisoners (which is a very good interrogation technique that works incidentally). For a faithful Catholic this is no longer a matter for argument.
We still have a Catholic priest who not only dissents from this teaching but publishes articles attacking the Pope on other matters.
Prudence dictates that we pray for this priest and stay away from him unless he leads us astray. Our souls are at risk.
(His pro-torture article is horse manure. It is not well researched. It is poorly documented. Even an uneducated idiot like myself picked that up on the first read through - and I can barely read. Why folks treat his pro-torture article like the Holy Grail is beyond me.)
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I do not think this is a matter of arguments "which stand or fall on their own merits". Rather it is a matter of truth.
False dichotomy. Sound arguments establish truth.
publishes articles attacking the Pope on other matters.
If you mean his articles on the Assisi prayer gatherings as co-operation in evil, I agree with those entirely.
His pro-torture article is horse manure, etc.
Good grief, it's not the Holy Grail but it deserves a careful evalutation, not ignorant dismissals, especially from someone like Mark Shea who does not appear to have read it.
Red Cardigan,
You have lots of Old Regular Baptists in your area too?
Pretty frightening as a fashion statement. But hey, there's no accounting for taste. Don't know what the dealio is with absolutizing the relative.
Of course I have nothing valuable to say about it though because I'm just an Old Regular Catholic. heh heh heh
Ben Douglass:
Thank you for your kind reply.
We do not have to argue with God or his Vicar on earth to establish the truth. If you and I are going to remain in Communion with the Pope sooner or later we will have to stop whining and accept his teachings on faith and morals - to include torture.
Who cares if you and Father H think "the Assisi prayer gatherings as co-operation in evil". Who are you? Are you or Father H the Pope, a Bishop or a pastor? Are you a Saint?
Why does Father H's article deserve "careful evaluation"? It goes against the mind of the Church from the beginning. You know. "Love thy enemy"? If a Catholic priest in an article on torture cannot address that question with the mind of the Church then he is writing horse manure.
And why oh why does every pro-torture advocate and follower of Father H. assume that anyone who does not instantly bow down and worship his position on torture has not read his article?
Who do we follow? Father H. or the Vicar of Christ?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
We do not have to argue with God or his Vicar on earth to establish the truth. If you and I are going to remain in Communion with the Pope sooner or later we will have to stop whining and accept his teachings on faith and morals - to include torture.
The whole point of the article is to attempt to establish what is the teaching of the Catholic Church on torture. It attempts a synthesis of Scripture, the Fathers, and the teaching of the Magisterium over the centuries, to include the Magisterium of John Paul II. If you believe that Fr. Harrison's synthesis is in error, show us why and how. It's possible to disagree with that article without claiming that it constitutes a rejection of authoritative papal teachings.
Who cares if you and Father H think "the Assisi prayer gatherings as co-operation in evil". Who are you? Are you or Father H the Pope, a Bishop or a pastor? Are you a Saint?
No one, especially a saint, would answer that last question in the affirmative, so why bother asking? In fact, this whole series of questions about authority is a red herring, since neither I nor Fr. Harrison have claimed personal authority. If a syllogism starts from true premises and proceeds with sound reasoning, then the conclusion is true whether the person who created the syllogism is the Vicar of Christ or that layman in Canterbury.
Why does Father H's article deserve "careful evaluation"? It goes against the mind of the Church from the beginning. You know. "Love thy enemy"?
Again, this is an utterly glib and facile dismissal of a serious attempt to synthesize the seemingly disparate teachings on torture found in Catholic Tradition.
And why oh why does every pro-torture advocate and follower of Father H. assume that anyone who does not instantly bow down and worship his position on torture has not read his article?
Talk about assumptions. I am neither a pro-torture advocate nor a follower of Fr. Harrison. I have no firm position on this issue, as I have not sufficiently studied the arguments on all sides to reach a conclusion. I have never expected anyone to instantly bow down and worship Fr. Harrison's position, since I don't worship it myself. I merely took issue with your glib dismissal of his position in your reply to my first post.
The reason I suspect that Shea has not read Fr. Harrison's article is because he asks "I wonder what Fr. Brian Harrison has to tell good Pope Nicholas." Fr. Harrison discusses Pope Nicholas' views at length in his article. If Shea had read the article, he would know this, and hence he would not be asking about it.
Who do we follow? Father H. or the Vicar of Christ?
This is an unfair question. The proper question to ask is, "Does Fr. Harrison interpret the teachings of the Popes correctly or incorrectly?"
Mark Shea,
>And abortion will always only be used in reallio trulio desperate situations.
I reply: Abortion is the deliberate murder(direct killing) of a Fetus or Embryo who is innocent. Using pain on a criminal to make him reveal life or death information on a massive scale is another thing altogether.
>Once you give the green light to torture for those non-existent ticking bombs, you give it for everything, BY.
I reply: That is not logical. Rather onceyou give the green light to act without reference to the moral law THEN everything is permitted. The Government's problem is NOT that they might under certain circumstances inflict pain on a criminal combatant. It's that they have no moral framework from which to act. At least the Inquisidors had one. That puts them ahead of the Bushies who have none.
>All you have to do is lower the bar for what constitutes a "serious situation" and voila! You can employ torture to find kidnap victims, extort confessions from people who only are involved in one death instead of thousands and, eventually, for whatever else you need it for.
I reply: There is no bar. There is only the moral law. You either act from within it or you just do what is expedient.
BTW using Pope Nicholas remarks WON'T refute Fr. Harrison. One has nothing to do with the other.
Ben Douglass,
Son don't waste your time on Richard. I can tell you He believes what He believes not because He has thought it out or reasoned it according to moral or theological principles but because he feels it as a burning in the bosom.
Rational argument & Richard W Comerford never keep company.
Don't waste your time on him a discussion with an anti-Catholic troll would be more productive.
Anyway You know I don't agree with Fr. Harrison on Assisi but unlike Richard I can at least make a semi-coherent argument based on the teaching of the Church.
I can argue why I don't think Assisi was a direct material participation in idolatry & you & Fr. Harrison might disagree with me. Well I had this argument before with David Palm & the argument came up again at the Lidless Eye. I thought Shawn did a good Job. But that was years ago & I will prefer to leave this to the Church historians. Plus I'm still not speaking to Shawn these days.
Cheers lad.
>Sound arguments establish truth.
Amen! I have seen a couple of arguments on this topic by following some of the links Mark posts on his blog. Some are quite good. Still I think the Vatican needs to speak formally on the subject to clarify. Also some individuals gave some very good arguments on the subject for & against, always in the framework of Church teaching.
Richard of course was not one of them.
Maureen wrote:
But Maaarrrrrk, you forgot to mention Good Pope Nicholas' ruling on whether Bulgar women could wear pants.
He didn't care. Wear whatever you want, said Wise Pope Nicholas. He was good with inculturation like that.
Red Cardigan wrote:
Maureen, really? Have you got a source for the pants-wearing thing? Oh, man, could I use that...
It's in the link in Mark's post ("Here is the full text in English"). Chapter 59. Or just search for "pants".
[ The Latin word here is femoralia, which Lewis & Short's unabridged dictionary says is "late Latin and quite rare"; it's the plural of femorale, which is "a covering for the thigh". I don't know whether the translator of this piece supplied "pants" as the translation based on the word alone, or whether he has read a study of 9th century Bulgarian fashion trends. (Which doubtless exists. "Publish or perish" has generated a lot of odd articles....) ]
I agree with Maureen, by the way -- this pope rocks! In chapter 59, he begin with a response to a silly inquiry about fashion, and segues into into a sublime "Theology of the Pants"....
Ben Douglass:
Thank you for your kind reply.
The problem is that Father H published his article to refute the clear teachings of JP II that torture is "intrinsically evil". After the Holy Father had the gall of repeating this teaching to, among others, the American Red Cross Father H published an article asking the question whether or not JP II would be known to history as the Great? Father H answered his own question in the negative.
Father H clearly has an agenda here.
Father H has attacked in various, public writings JP II regarding his ecumenical efforts, appointment of bishops and the liturgy. His writings are not found in the pages of a dusty theological rag which nobody reads. Rather they are found on popular spots on the internet. His writings are not aimed at other professional theologians. Rather they are aimed at laymen who support the partisan efforts of one government administration to kidnap and torture Muslims. (The only other time that the US government has as a matter of policy tortured was during the PI Insurrection. At that time the government's targets were Catholics and Muslims.)
Father H's efforts are not an attempt to establish truth (the Church has taught the truth on this matter) but to formulate rebellion. Just look at the fanatics who embrace his cause. They have elevated Father H's teaching on this matter not only above that of the Pope ("intrinsically evil") but above Christ's ("love thy enemy").
You say you have no firm position on this issue? I hope that you are not saying that you are lukewarm? If the Vicar of Christ is going to teach that this issue is "intrinsically evil" then perhaps you should take a firm, if unpopular, position?
Immortal souls are at stake.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
RE: Who Do We Serve?
Mr. Shea has taken a lot of horse manure over the years for his defense of the Church's teachings on torture. All of the arguments for torture or water boarding or enhanced interrogation techniques lead back to the Gospel of Father H. The arguments made by Father H in favor of torture are convoluted, heavily foot noted and would make any Scribe or Pharisee proud.
Opposed to Father H's Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus Christ which can be boiled down to two simple, great commands: Love God. Love neighbor.
If we love God then we will listen to the teachings of his Vicar on this matter. If we love our neighbor then we will not water board him.
Ultimately we have to choose who we serve. Do we serve an obscure, retired seminary professor who regularly attacks the Vicar of Christ. Or do we serve Christ himself?
Choose.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
What Father Harrison has to say about Pope Nicholas and torture can be found here:
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
Ben:
Does it surprise you that Mark would trash something he hasn't read?
In addition to permitting women to wear pants, that letter of Nicholas I also forbids Christians to play any sort of game, forbids marital relations in on Saturday night or Sunday during daytime, or for the entire duration of breastfeeding, and forbids prayer for dead non-Christians. Do those rules still count?
Ah duh
Does the Old Covenant still count?
Richard:
Defaming a priest of noted orthodoxy in good standing with his Bishop is putting your soul in jeopardy. Please reconsider.
God bless.
JohnA:
This is more horse manure. Father H. reviews the purported entire history (unbelievably he ignores key figures like St. John Chrysotom) of the Church on torture. However he cannot find a single Pope or Council in the history of the Church that taught that torture is a moral act pleasing to God.
However he desperately tries to keep the issue alive by citing what he calls "the morality of pain infliction" issue. Again he ignores the teachings of our two recent Popes that the issue in question is the human dignity of the victim (and the torturer). He also ignores the Catechism which forbids the use of physical and moral violence against prisoners.
He further demonstrates a profound ignorance of the human mind. The psyche is not a tape recorder. A torturer cannot push a pain button and expect that the victim will truthfully spew out concrete information that can be processed into actionable intelligence.
Father H. attempts to make the absurd argument that this can be done and, under extreme circumstances, it is moral to do so (the same argument is made to justify abortion and other evils).
Father H is ten thousand times smarter than I. He knows exactly what he is doing here. Look at the date of article - 2005. Our government at that time was under extreme attack for its torture and prisoner abuse policies. Father H. is in his article giving cover to a secular government to do evil. The partisan proponents of that secular government have seized Father H's arguments to beat down the opposition of any Catholic who defends the Church's teachings on this matter.
Again it comes down to who will we listen to? The Vicar of Christ or an obscure, retired seminary professor?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
BTW, Fr. Harrison is one of the foremost defender of the possibility of an orthodox interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae (look it up, Richard) as against the Traditionalist objection that the Conciliar teaching could not be squared with prior dogmatic teaching on the inadmissibility of a right to public espousal of error in a Catholic state.
Some papal-hating heretic, that guy.
God bless
Tom:
Thank you for your kind reply wherein you posted in part: "Fr. Harrison is one of the foremost defender of the possibility of an orthodox interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae (look it up, Richard)".
I reply. I have read it So what? King Henry the VIII still defended the Mass and the Rosary after he broke from Rome against Calvinists in his government. Calvin and Luther still embraced Christ as their Savior. Arius embraced the Sacraments. Big deal.
No heretic rejects every point of faith and morals. Every heretic rejects at least one point that places immortal souls in danger.
You are the guy with the big brain. You know this.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Anonymous:
How do you know that Mr. Shea did not read the document in question? Is it because he will not bow down and worship your opinion?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard,
I pass no judgement on Fr. H's writings on torture. There seem to be better theologians on this blog than I am.
I merely posted it as a link to his writing on torture. It seems he does note Pope Nicholas' writings on torture.
JohnA:
Thank you for your kind reply wherein you posted in part: "I pass no judgement on Fr. H's writings on torture. There seem to be better theologians on this blog than I am."
Look, it is not a matter of being a theologian or a scholar. I certainly am not (thank God!) It is a matter of being a follower of Jesus Christ who commanded us to "love thy enemy". You cannot love you enemy while water boarding him.
We cannot be lukewarm on these matters. We are either with Christ or against him.
Be with Christ.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Tom:
Thank you for your kind reply wherein you posted in part: "Defaming a priest of noted orthodoxy in good standing with his Bishop is putting your soul in jeopardy. Please reconsider".
I reply: How do you know Father H is in good standing with his Bishop on this matter? Did you ask him? Do you know who is Bishop is?
Orthodox in what? This priest of purported orthodoxy has put himself in direct opposition to a clear teaching of the Vicar of Christ.
Again. Who do serve? Who do we follow?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
But certainly certain violence is permitted. We can put a convicted person to death. This does not mean we do not love the person in Christ. You, in your special forces work, have inflicted violence on others, yet you have been called to love them. How do we reconcile these?
James:
You posted in part: "But certainly certain violence is permitted".
I reply: Police Academy 101. There is a difference between violence and force. Violence is the immoral use of power. Force is the moral use of power. The Church teaches that the State, under certain circumstances, can use force to defend society. It permits the use of force, again under certain circumstances, to execute a condemned criminal. It does not permit the use of force to torture a prisoner. The Catechism explicitly forbids physical and moral violence being used against a prisoner.
I or you as a member of a civilian police Special Response Team or as a soldier (or now as a broken down gun carrying gum shoe or body guard) can use force, under certain circumstances, to defend innocent human life.
(I teach my students to discharge a firearm: 1) As a final option; 2) in the immediate defense; 3) of innocent human life.)
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I guess that becomes part of the problem. If what is being talked about is immoral then it is violence. If it is not it is force. But that is the whole point of the discussion.
JohnA:
The Church instructs us on what is moral and what is not. It has clearly taught us that torture is immoral. We should for the sake of our immortal souls, listen to the Church.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Does it surprise you that Mark would trash something he hasn't read?
Not at all. He disparaged my article on the modernism of the NAB before he read it. He disparaged the Catholic apologists who wrote rebuttals to Eric Svendsen's heos hou argument against the perpetual virginity of Mary, without having followed the controversy.
I think Father Harrison points out the one place where the Catholic Magisterium does not adequately address if torture is or is not moral. Otherwise, it seems he is in agreement with the Church.
Ben Douglass:
Are you a mind reader? Or did Mr. Shea tell you that he did not read the articles in question before he commented on them? And, if Mr. Shea is such a terrible fellow why then do you frequent his blog?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
How do you know Father H is in good standing with his Bishop on this matter? Did you ask him? Do you know who is Bishop is?
His bishop was Archbishop Burke, but Burke has recently been promoted to the Vatican. At present, St. Louis is waiting for a successor. I see no evidence that Fr. Harrison is under any canonical penalty, as he says Mass regularly at St. Mary of Victories Church in downtown St. Louis.
Are you a mind reader? Or did Mr. Shea tell you that he did not read the articles in question before he commented on them?
Mr. Shea told me.
And, if Mr. Shea is such a terrible fellow why then do you frequent his blog?
He's not a terrible fellow, he just needs to be more judicious with his words.
I frequent this blog because Mr. Shea links to many interesting stories and often supplies insightful and entertaining commentary.
Ben Douglass:
Thank you for your kind reply.
Did Archbishop Burke agree with Father H on the issue of torture?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Did Archbishop Burke agree with Father H on the issue of torture?
I have no idea. I imagine Archbishop Burke chose to tolerate his position, whether he agrees with it or not.
Here is the rather restrained conclusion from Fr. H.
"Clearly, the Church’s magisterium in regard to the morality of torture and corporal punishment is still in the process of development, with a number of questions remaining unresolved so far, and needing further attention from theologians, philosophers, criminologists and jurists. Nevertheless, I shall conclude by offering a few tentative theological conclusions, based on my reading of Scripture, Tradition, and the rather confused and even historically inconsistent witness of the Church’s (non-infallible) magisterium:
First, three practices do seem to merit the description ‘intrinsically unjust’ according to authentic Catholic doctrine, on the combined basis of the three aforesaid pillars of authority in matters of faith and morals:
(a) Torture for extracting confessions of a crime of which one is accused (as practiced, for example, under Roman Law). This practice, of which there is not a trace of approval in Scripture, even under the harsh Old Testament law, seems even more repugnant to the Law of Christ, even though it was accepted as sententia communis (and even put into practice) by Church authorities for many centuries during the patristic, medieval and early modern times. Explicit Christian opposition to the practice dates back to Tertullian, and the reasons for its immorality were well summed up by Pope St. Nicholas I (cf. B1 above). This authentic, but so often obscured, Christian judgment, is now clearly expressed again the Catechism in #2297.
(b) Torture carried out on those not even accused formally of any crime or offence, simply in order "to frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred" – also specified in the Catechism, #2297.
(c) Torture, or indeed, mutilation or any other kind of physical or psychological violence against the person, carried out not by public authority in accordance with a norm of law, but by those acting arbitrarily and clandestinely, without any legal authority (even if they should happen to be heads of state, secret police, etc.). For what we have here is basically nothing other than grave criminal aggression directly opposed to the Fifth Commandment, even if the criminal happens to be a tyrannical and arbitrary dictator contemptuous of the rule of law. The vast majority all acts of torture occurring in the modern world, and thus coming under the particular scrutiny of Vatican II’s pastoral teaching in Gaudium et Spes against contemporary offences against the human person, would almost certainly fall into this category.
Secondly, I do not think that the direct infliction of severe physical pain, as a punishment for duly convicted delinquents carried out by public authority in accord with a norm of law, can be categorized as intrinsically evil. Such a thesis would seem to be incompatible with the divine inspiration of the Old Testament, which clearly prescribed such penalties for numerous offences. It would also amount in practice to the thesis that imprisonment is the only penalty that can ever justly be applied to even the worst criminals. But this would clearly be impractical, and indeed, inapplicable, in primitive nomadic societies (like the Israelites during the Exodus and many others) wherein nobody has any permanent dwelling place. Under such social and physical circumstances, much less is there a possibility of prisons for delinquents.
However, as we have argued, not everything that escapes the extreme moral censure of being intrinsically evil or unjust can without further ado be pronounced compatible with the New Law of Christ. Jesus has left us no specific legal instructions for dealing with crime in a society based on Gospel principles. But as we have seen in Part I of this study, the Lord has certainly left us, by precept and personal example, a new approach or outlook which emphasises, much more than the Old Law did, the importance of mercy and forbearance in the treatment of sinners. We could reasonably try to formulate a general legal principle, in application of this Gospel teaching, to the effect that the punishment of even the worst criminals should not detract from their dignity as human persons to a greater extent than should really be needed in order to maintain public order and protect innocent citizens. Also, the contemporary magisterium (GS #27) has emphasized also the harm – in this case spiritual, moral and psychological – that the infliction of grave physical pain on another human being does to the tormentor himself. In contrast to the profession of being an ordinary prison warder (and probably even the role of an executioner who presses a lever to administer a lethal injection or, in the case of hanging, to open a trapdoor), the role of torturer not only brutalizes and renders increasingly insensitive to terrible human suffering the agent himself; even worse, that role or function will tend to attract in practice, as the only persons in society willing to carry out such a function, those sorry types of individuals who already have at least latent sadistic tendencies, and so will actually enjoy their grisly task. But precisely in that situation, another type of grave sin (or at least the near occasion thereof) will be involved: that of cruelly delighting in the infliction of intense pain, often accompanied by perverse sexual satisfaction.
For all these reasons, it seems that the exclusion of torture (flogging, etc.) as legal punishment can be seen as an appropriate practical implication of the Law of Christ, especially under modern circumstances, even though such punishment is not intrinsically unjust. I would suggest that the Catechism’s censure of torture (and mutilation) as "punishment of the guilty" (#2297), and Pope John Paul II’s allocution against torture at Geneva, be understood in that light.
Thirdly, there remains the question – nowadays a very practical and much-discussed one – of torture inflicted not for any of the above purposes, but for extracting life-saving information from, say, a captured terrorist known to be participating in an attack that may take thousands of lives (the now-famous ‘ticking bomb’ scenario). As we have noted above, this possible use of torture is not mentioned in the Catechism. If, as I have argued, the infliction of severe pain is not intrinsically evil, its use in that type of scenario would not seem to be excluded by the arguments and authorities we have considered so far. (John Paul II’s statement about the "intrinsic evil" of a list of ugly things including torture in VS #80 does not seem to me decisive, even at the level of authentic, non-infallible, magisterium, for the reasons I have already given in commenting above on that text.) My understanding would be that, given the present status questionis, the moral legitimacy of torture under the aforesaid desperate circumstances, while certainly not affirmed by the magisterium, remains open at present to legitimate discussion by Catholic theologians."
JohnA:
Thank you for your kind reply.
Every time in history when Pope or Council has taught in an authoritative manner on the morality of torture it has been to condemn it. Father H cannot point to a single instance otherwise. This should tell us something.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Ben Douglass:
Thank you for your kind reply. Well if his Bishop did not say anything one way or another (that we know of) and the Pope teaches that the matter is intrinsically wrong then I imagine it would be prudent to listen to the Holy Father.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I think he addresses that question in his article.
Father H is ten thousand times smarter than I. He knows exactly what he is doing here. Look at the date of article - 2005. Our government at that time was under extreme attack for its torture and prisoner abuse policies. Father H. is in his article giving cover to a secular government to do evil.
Are you a mind reader? How do you know Fr. Harrison's motivations? He hangs around with an anti-war, anti-Bush, paleoconservative crowd, so I imagine that his personal political convictions run somewhere along those lines. Furthermore, if you read his letter to the editor of Crisis Magazine in response to Shea's article on torture, it seems pretty clear that his primary motivation for addressing the issue of torture is to vindicate, to the satisfaction of his own conscience, the consistency of the Church's teaching over time.
It would seem from reading Fr. H's article, that he would also agree with the dignity of the human person and respecting this. Particularly in light of recent Church pronouncements:
"However, as we have argued, not everything that escapes the extreme moral censure of being intrinsically evil or unjust can without further ado be pronounced compatible with the New Law of Christ. Jesus has left us no specific legal instructions for dealing with crime in a society based on Gospel principles. But as we have seen in Part I of this study, the Lord has certainly left us, by precept and personal example, a new approach or outlook which emphasises, much more than the Old Law did, the importance of mercy and forbearance in the treatment of sinners. We could reasonably try to formulate a general legal principle, in application of this Gospel teaching, to the effect that the punishment of even the worst criminals should not detract from their dignity as human persons to a greater extent than should really be needed in order to maintain public order and protect innocent citizens."
You say you have no firm position on this issue? I hope that you are not saying that you are lukewarm?
If I did not care what the truth was, then I would be lukewarm. One who suspends judgment on a disputed theological issue because he has not yet given it sufficient deliberation to come to a conviction is not, ipso facto, lukewarm.
Ben Douglass:
Thank you for your kind reply.
Veritatis splendor was published in 1993. Father H's article questioning it teaching on torture was published 12-years later. Why the wait?
And why did Father H publish his article on a popular Catholic Web site wherein he attacked JPII for among other things his decisions on ecumenicism, liturgy and the appointment of bishops in the aftermath of the Popes address to the IRC condemning torture?
Clearly there is animus here.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
JohnA:
You posted in part: "It would seem from reading Fr. H's article, that he would also agree with the dignity of the human person and respecting this."
I ask: Just how does one torture a human being in a dignified and respectful way?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
If it is licit force and not immoral violence.
JohnA:
Thank you for your kind reply.
The Church teaches that torture is intrinsically evil. It is always immoral.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Except as Fr. H argues, there may be an area not pronounced on. But I suspect we will now begin to go round and round. So I suspect, I will now let you have the last word.
JohnA:
No. Thank you. Your last word is better than mine.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I have read Fr. Harrison's attempt to get around the obvious teaching of the Church in Veritatis Splendor. I thought that this and this basically sums up the problems with his deservedly minority opinion that is only popular with Catholics who were a) desperately seeking a theological fig leaf for their excuses for Bush torture policy or b) reflexively hostile to anything perceived as "post-conciliar" and a "change in traditional Catholic faith and morals". Personally, I think "b" is what was driving Fr. Harrison's thinking. But it certainly proved useful for the "a" crowd.
Mr. Shea:
Thank you for the links. These guys are a lot better at this than I am.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I have read Fr. Harrison's attempt to get around the obvious teaching of the Church in Veritatis Splendor.
In that case, why bother asking what he thought of Pope Nicholas I?
Ben Douglass:
Did Mr. Shea ask that question in this thread?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Mark: or c) legitimately seeking the scope of this teaching and trying to do the work of a faithful theologian: working out how this teaching on torture can be reconciled with prior teaching. Fr. Harrison has faithfully done this before with other teachings, such as that of Dignitatis Humanae. His conclusions are always in support of the magisterium. In the one small particular of torture for information gathering, he "tentatively" admitted of a possibility that it might be permissible, given what the Church Herself has bound Herself to in international treaties.
Instead of giving him a fair and open hearing, and respecting his position, his education, his eminence in Catholic scholarship, you and others (cough, cough, Richard, cough) have just flat out impugned his integrity as a Catholic.
If he's the heretic you guys make him out to be, why does his very orthodox bishop disagree with you by allowing him to publicly teach and minister?
Tom:
Perhaps you should give JPII "a fair and open hearing, and respecting his position, his education, his eminence in Catholic scholarship". After he he was the Vicar of Christ.
How do you know that Father H's very orthodox bishop agrees with Father H position on torture? Have you asked him? if not why not?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Sandra, who obviously already knows the answer, asked:
In addition to permitting women to wear pants, that letter of Nicholas I also forbids Christians to play any sort of game, forbids marital relations in on Saturday night or Sunday during daytime, or for the entire duration of breastfeeding, and forbids prayer for dead non-Christians. Do those rules still count?
The pope was issuing disciplinary rulings to the Bulgarian bishops. They had the authority, as the pastors of their dioceses, to choose not to implement these rulings even on the very day that they received this letter from the pope. If they did promulgate these rules, all their successors in these Bulgarian territories for the past eleven centuries have had the authority to change these disciplinary rules (and obviously they have).
And even if there are doctrinal issues mixed in with these disciplinary rules, no pope can teach as pastor of the universal church in a letter sent only to Bulgarian bishops. So the magisterial level of any doctrinal teaching is not very large.
This includes the pope's statement about torture being against divine law. If this was all we had to go on -- if there were no other papal or episcopal statements about torture, no highly persuasive natural law arguments, and no almost universally shared sense of horror at the concept of torture among Catholics over the years, then this statement alone would surely not be worth much.
However, as an indication that the opposition to torture did not begin with Liberal Pope John XXIII or Liberal Blogger Mark Shea or Liberal Anti-Iraq-Liberation Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, it has true value.
And it's not an accident that the paragraph about torture was preserved and distributed to the whole church in Denziger-Schonmetzer. So was his teaching that two people living together and engaging in sexual relations are not by that act alone to be considered married. But his paragraphs about pants and what days you can have sex on were not added to DS.
Tom:
I have never called Fr. Harrison a heretic. Though you have called me plenty of names on your blog.
Apologize for telling that lie or get off my blog.
Mark, you're right, it's Richard who's really going after Fr. Harrison, although I certainly don't hear you callng Richard out for his intemperate criticisms of this faithful priest; and if as you say, Fr. Harrison is "attempting to get around" "obvious" moral teachings, are you not calling that heresy?
It's your blog, my friend, do as you will.
I don't read all the comments. However, looking back over this thread, I would say to Richard, "Chill. Stop impugning Fr. Harrison's character."
No. I would not call it heresy. I would call it "bad speculative theology".
The job of theologian is to probe the unexplored regions of the tradition. It's something like "original research". Sometimes the probing turns up something interesting. Sometimes it turns out to be junk science. I think Fr. Harrison's attempt to reconcile pre-conciliar praxis and post-conciliar teaching was a failure. I think it was motivated by Fr. Harrison's conservative nature and a suspicion that conciliar teaching gave away the farm on what the preconciliar Church permitted, but I don't think it was motivated by a desire to promote heresy.
So I do think the Church's conciliar and papal teaching is obvious. And I do think Fr. Harrison is trying to find a way around it. But I don't think he's a heretic. Just a speculative theologian who, in this case, failed at the task he set himself.
Mark:
fair enough... and I agree I should not have said you called him a heretic.
I just see more value in being what you call "reflexively hostile to anything perceived as... a 'change in traditional Catholic faith and morals'" than you do. The integrity of the Faith, including the Church's moral teaching, is more important than what the "Bushies" are doing. If the Church once really taught that at least some torture was morally permissible, it's hard to see how it can now be entirely prohibitted without that prohibition implying that Church has failed in the past to teach Christ's moral law fully and correctly. That is, it seems to deny the Church's indefectibility.
So to seek answers to these issues is appropriate in my view, and not evidence of being a "rightie" or a "Bushie" or even, perish the thought, a "RadTrad."
Mr. Shea:
I never called Father H a heretic. It was Tom, the Catholic Lawyer and former prosecutor, who brought words like "heretic" and "defaming" into the conversation. (as well as an accusation said that I was endangering my immortal soul.) Typical lawyer stuff - especially for a government lawyer.
I have been very, very careful to protect the good name of Father H. I always refer to Father H as Father H for a reason - to protect him. Also my questioning of his agenda and the timing of his articles does not have to do with his theology.
Rather it has to do his very personal and public attacks on the deceased JP II wherein he asks the question should JP II be known as the Great? Then, after attacking JP II on, among other things, liturgy, the appointment of bishops and ecumenism, Father H answers in own quesion in the negative. Father H has a long published history regarding JP II.
I think we rank and file Catholic layman have a right to the truth. We have a right to know whether or not the Church teaches that torture is immoral - under all circumstances. We also have a right to question the motives of a Catholic priest who makes public attacks on a Pope - a dead Pope.
We even have a right to question the motives of a Catholic lawyer who was an apologist for torture and now an apologist for the "Five techniques".
Tom has been pushing torture or the so-called "five techniques" for some time now. (the five techniques, which were originally used by the UK against PIRA prisoners, have been found to be unlawful by both the UK and European governments.)He also decided to use Father H's theology to justify his immoral and illegal position.
I think that there are too many broken bodies out there and too many souls at risk to remain silent on this matter.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard, you really need to calm yourself, you're getting the vapors, my friend.
You seriously impugned the orthodoxy of Fr. Harrison because he has the temerity to depart from Mr. Shea's interpretation of the current state of Church teaching on coercive interrogation. Fr. Harrison, far more educated as a theologian than you or Shea or me, has concluded, with the late Card. Dulles (another well-known RadTrad(c)) that there is room in Catholic teaching for proportional use of coercion in grave circumstances.
Now you, and Mr. Shea, and others might disagree, as is your right. But instead of addressing Fr. Harrison's well-documented theological argument, you simply reverted to ad hominems, like Fr. Harrison's personal views about some prudential decisions made by the former Pope.
If Fr. Harrison is right, and the Church used to admit the morality of infliction of pain in interrogation, then he is right to seek a way to reconcile that teaching with the current teaching, because if the two absolutely conflict, the Church is not indefectible, since it used to teach that act 'x' was moral and now teaches that act 'x' is immoral. Hence it erred on a matter of morals. We know this cannot be, so Fr. Harrison's writings are an attempt to reconcile what he sees as two potentially conflicting moral teachings.
For you or anyone to suggest that hellfire awaits someone engaged in this theological inquiry, is ignorant.
By the way, Richard, lying is a sin. I have not pushed torture at all (in fact, I am not even particularly persuaded by Fr. Harrison's argument), I have only argued that some coercive techniques (like the ones you label the "five techniques") do not fall under the definition of torture under the UN Convention on Torture, a definition the Holy See endorsed.
Get your facts right, Richard. Your soul could stand in peril.
God bless.
Did Mr. Shea ask that question in this thread?
He asked that question in the blog post to which this combox is attached.
Tom:
Thank you for your kind reply.
And no you are wrong again. You are a lawyer. You are supposed to read the document first before you comment on it. Father H did not say that "there is room in Catholic teaching for proportional use of coercion in grave circumstances" as you claim.
Instead he wrote the following:
"My understanding would be that, given the present status questionis, the moral legitimacy of torture under the aforesaid desperate circumstances, while certainly not affirmed by the magisterium, remains open at present to legitimate discussion by Catholic theologians."
You made the same mistake regarding the U.N. Convention against Torture. Please read the document first. It forbids not only torture but other degrading and inhuman acts - to include the "interrogations techniques" which you endorse and purport to be legal.
These interrogation techniques (and I have been on the receiving end of all of them) are titled the "Five Techniques" and not by me, but by the European Commission and the British Government -again you need to read the documents in question first.
These techniques are, under by British, EU and UN law, Convention and treaty, illegal - again read the documents first.
Now you are the attorney here. You have the big brain. You went to law school. Passed the bar. Served as a prosecutor. You should know all this. You should read all the relevant documents first to include Father H's works before commenting on them.
If I, a dummy who barely made it out of High School, can read these documents so can you. I admit I have had, relatively speaking a lot of real world practical experience in this area. But just the same you should be explaining the documents to me - not the other way around.
And yes you have been pushing torture for a long time. You used to attack both I and Mr. Shea by name on your blog for daring to oppose torture. You changed to promoting interrogation techniques when torture became too hot to handle.
God gave you a big brain for a reason. I respectfully urge you to use it to promote the Gospel of life.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Ben Douglass:
Thank you.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard W Comerford IS in fact a liar & morally useless as an advocate against torture. He has lied about me, Jimmy Akin and others shamelessly.
His pattern is simple. You disagree with him on any points, think he has gone to far, or point out to him his arguments are not rooted in logic or Catholic moral teaching & BAM!!!!!!
He imputes bad motives to you & accuses you of being an apologist for the Bush Administration.
Then when you list his moral & logical failing he responds with a "Thank you for your kind reply." which is about as sincere as Bill Clinton wanting to make Abortion safe & RARE.
Infuriating man.
Ben Douglass,
I warned ya buddy. James White would be less evasive.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)
God bless you
Richard W Comerford
BenYachov,
Rather than called Mr. Comerford a liar, I think a better rebuke would be to say he interprets reality within a too-narrow set of intellectual categories.
Ben Douglass:
My interpretation of reality is based mainly on the Church's teachings on this matter. A Catholic in full communion with the Vicar of Christ cannot get around the teaching that torture is "intrinsically evil".
Also I have a bit of real world experience in this matter. Father H does not know what he is talking about when he writes in favor of torture: "for extracting life-saving information from, say, a captured terrorist known to be participating in an attack that may take thousands of lives:.
Human beings are not tape recorders with a "pain" button to push that provides reliable information that can be processed into actionable intelligence. I was taught back in the Dark Ages that there is not a single recorded case verified by a third party wherein torture "worked" as a intelligence tool.
Think about this. We have 4,000 years of military history. No one can document a single case. Yet Father H and his acolytes pursue this angle relentlessly. Quite frankly I do not see how a theology professor can write authoritatively about interrogation and intelligence gathering. It is outside of his expertise.
Right now, somewhere in the world, I fear a young American is torturing a Muslim. This is not good for the American. It is not good for the Muslim.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
>Rather than called Mr. Comerford a liar, I think a better rebuke would be to say he interprets reality within a too-narrow set of intellectual categories.
I reply: That's a valid way of looking at it. OTOH your characterization is merely a polite way to say the man is clueless. Which he is......
Cheers lad!
>I was taught back in the Dark Ages that there is not a single recorded case verified by a third party wherein torture "worked" as a intelligence tool.
>Think about this. We have 4,000 years of military history. No one can document a single case.
I reply: Remember when you read the above Ben Douglass THAT NOT ONE person who has ever Fornicated or committed Adultery has ever enjoyed the sex! All sin is experientially unpleasant & doesn't grant any short term gains.*
I can't make this stuff up this guy is serious.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th:
God bless you.
Richard W Comerford
Ok, Richard, ya know if you read my blog you know that Fr. Harrison actually wrote me to ask me to inform my readers that he had expanded his article on torture; I was probably one of the first people to read it.
Which is why I could state that his purpose was to try to reconcile the (apparently) absolutist position of VS#80 with the Church's traditional moral teaching, which, as he demonstrated, is that some torture under certain conditions is not morally precluded.
Pay close attention, Richard: if the Church used to teach that a practice is moral, and now seems to teach it is immoral, that's a huge problem-- because the Church cannot lead men astray in issues of 1)Divine Faith; or 2) morals.
Fr. Harrison's task, from first to last, as a Catholic theologian at a pontifical theological faculty (at the time he wrote) was to explore this issue.
Now his conclusion is different than Mark Shea's and Richard's. Instead of respecting his orthodoxy and good faith, you two chose to attack him as a dupe of the "Bushies" and "righties" despite your utter lack of competence to issue anathemas about this or any other issue.
By the way, I am an active, not former prosecutor, and can tell you categorically that some of the coercive methods at issue are used quite successfully by civilian law enforcement. I have no doubt they and other methods are equally effective in national security cases.
But effective or not, wise or not, prudent or not, Fr. Harrison has decisively established that there is no absolute, categorical prohibition against inflicting even severe physical or mental pain given the right set of circumstances.
God bless.
>But effective or not, wise or not, prudent or not, Fr. Harrison has decisively established that there is no absolute, categorical prohibition against inflicting even severe physical or mental pain given the right set of circumstances.
I reply: I've said it before & I'll say it again. Why can't the disputants in this controversy simply contact the Vatican for a clarification?
What? Are both sides deathly afraid the Vatican is not gonna come down on THEIR side? Hypothetically, If the Vatican ruled that there are a few narrow exceptions to inflicting pain by the public authority I can just see someone like the likes of Richard leaving the Church over it.
Myself I could care less which side is vindicated. I will submit regardless.
Perhaps because they are trying to figure it out themselves.
Tom:
Thank you for your kind reply wherein you posted in part: “Ok, Richard, ya know if you read my blog”
I reply: No. I visited your blog twice in order to read a heroic attack you launched on me by name.
You also posted in part: “Which is why I could state that his purpose was to try to reconcile the (apparently) absolutist position of VS#80 with the Church's traditional moral teaching, which, as he demonstrated, is that some torture under certain conditions is not morally precluded”.
I reply: No. You are wrong. He did not demonstrate “that some torture under certain conditions is not morally precluded”. Instead he wrote: “My understanding would be that, given the present status questionis, the moral legitimacy of torture under the aforesaid desperate circumstances, while certainly not affirmed by the magisterium, remains open at present to legitimate discussion by Catholic theologians.” Read his article.
You also posted in part: “Pay close attention, Richard: if the Church used to teach that a practice is moral, and now seems to teach it is immoral, that's a huge problem-- because the Church cannot lead men astray in issues of 1)Divine Faith; or 2) morals.”
I reply: No. You do not know what you are talking about. Read his article. Father H. showed that in 2,000 years that not a single Pope or Council ever taught that torture is moral – quite the opposite.
You also posted in part: “Now his conclusion is different than Mark Shea's and Richard's. Instead of respecting his orthodoxy and good faith, you two chose to attack him as a dupe of the "Bushies" and "righties" despite your utter lack of competence to issue anathemas about this or any other issue”.
I reply: No. Wrong again. Father H’s conclusion was: the moral legitimacy of torture under the aforesaid desperate circumstances, while certainly not affirmed by the magisterium, remains open at present to legitimate discussion by Catholic theologians.” Read his article.
I have never used the terms: "Bushies" and "righties". I always write respectfully of President Bush and call for prayers for him. Read my posts.
You also posted in part: “I am an active, not former prosecutor, and can tell you categorically that some of the coercive methods at issue are used quite successfully by civilian law enforcement. I have no doubt they and other methods are equally effective in national security cases”.
I reply: “the coercive methods at issue” have been titled by the EU Court and the British government as the “Five Techniques”. The EU Court and the British government have found them to be in violation of EU and British law and of the UN Convention against Torture (See Article 16 of part I).
Have you as an active prosecutor either used these techniques or have knowledge of their use by local, State or federal investigators or sworn law enforcement personnel?
Can you cite a single, documented case verified by an independent third party wherein “the coercive methods at issue” produced reliable information which was possessed into actionable intelligence?
You also posted in part: “Fr. Harrison has decisively established that there is no absolute, categorical prohibition against inflicting even severe physical or mental pain given the right set of circumstances”.
I reply: No. He did not establish anything. Read his article. He actually wrote: “Clearly, the Church’s magisterium in regard to the morality of torture and corporal punishment is still in the process of development, with a number of questions remaining unresolved so far, and needing further attention from theologians, philosophers, criminologists and jurists. Nevertheless, I shall conclude by offering a few tentative theological conclusions, based on my reading of Scripture, Tradition, and the rather confused and even historically inconsistent witness of the Church’s (non-infallible) magisterium”.
I am happy to discuss this issue with you. However please read Father H’s article first.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Reading the article first THEN discussing it! Wow! That's a first for the likes of you Richard. Too bad you DIDN'T do that when I first spoke to you & offered a link to Jimmy Akin's article on the subject.
You couldn't attack the man's character fast enough. Accuse him of usurping the Magesterium & attributing to Him views he DENIED holding in the very article you claimed to have read(but clearly didn't).
Small wonders.
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th:
God bless you.
Richard W Comerford
This subject is way above my pay grade! Whew!
Confederate Papist:
No. You are wrong. If you are a follower of Jesus Christ you are one of his soldiers. This is exactly the fight the Divine General pays you to engage. Evil always cloaks itself in high sounding, sympathetic and seemingly complicated arguments. When in fact the matter always boils down to the two Great (and simple) commands: Love God. Love neighbor.
Every Pope, every Council that has ever taught the Faithful on this matter has condemned torture. This has been the constant moral teaching of the Church for 2,000 years.
Opposed to this teaching we have the opinion of a obscure, retired seminary professor who ventures that Catholic theologians can still debate one use of torture. (This same retired professor also on a popular website opines that JP II will not be known to history as the great. JP II had the gall to teach that torture was "intrinsically evil")
And how many bishops in Communion with Rome, the successors to the Apostles, support the ruminations of the retired seminary professor? Zero.
Who do you follow?
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard - I understand, I just meant the intensity of the argument.
Richard, you keep accusing me of not reading Fr. Harrison, yet have you? How can you claim he found no support for torture in Church teaching?
A sample:
*Many Scriptural citations, of which the following is an example:
“These are the things you should not be ashamed of, and do not sin for fear of what others think: of the Law of the Most High and the covenant…of lashing a wicked slave till you draw blood.”
*St. Augustine considers the official who resorts to torture, “guiltless.”
*For several hundred years the legal code in a harmonious Church-State system, where Catholic principles were expressly made part of the civil law, torture for a variety of
Causes was permitted.
*The Angelic Doctor (that's St. Thomas Aquinas, Richard) approves of the morality of infliction of severe physical harm in particular cases.
*The noted Jesuit theologian of the 17th century, Juan De Lugo, and perhaps the greatest of the moral theologians ever produced by the Church, St. Alphonsus Liguori, both admit of the morality of torture in certain circumstances.
*Theologians in good standing with the Church as late as 1954 admit of the theoretical moral liceity of torture, while questioning its continued practical value.
*Pope Innocent IV, in the Bull Ad Exstirpanda expressly condones torture in the inquisition of heretics.
*The Council of Vienna assumes the morality of torture by permitting it in its disciplinary canons.
Etc.
You really must pay closer attention to what you're reading.
Now if the Church allowed for the morality of torture, and now appears to prohibit it not just prudentially, but on moral grounds, then the Church would have been in error about a teaching of morals all those years, Richard. Meaning She would have failed in her Divine mission to teach men infallibly what they must do to be saved.
Hence the problem, hence the theological inquiry by Fr. Harrison and Card. Dulles.
No one I have heard of advocates use of torture except in the most extreme, limited situation where it might disclose time-sensitive, life-saving information.
Stop calling people bad Catholics for calling into question Mark Shea's interpretation of Church teaching on this matter.
Your soul could be in peril, Richard.
God bless.
Confederate Papist:
Sorry. I am an idiot.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Tom:
Thank you for your kind reply wherein you posted in part:
"Richard, you keep accusing me of not reading Fr. Harrison, yet have you? How can you claim he found no support for torture in Church teaching?"
I reply: Read the article. Read my post.
Father H could not find a single Pope or Council in 2000 years that taught that torture is moral. On the other hand every Pope and Council he mentioned (and some he did not taught that torture was immoral. No exceptions.
Only Popes and Councils united with the Pope can teach authoritatively in a binding manner. What everyone else teaches or opines on this matter, to include Father H and yourself, is not binding on the Faithful.
Read the article in question. I will be happy to discuss it with you.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard:
I just summarized many sources that Fr. Harrison mentions in his article which establish that some use of torture is permissible under Catholic moral teaching.
That you wish to ignore these teachings, devalue them, denigrate them, and focus solely on VS #80 as if the Church could just change its moral teaching 180 degrees is an issue you must resolve, not me.
God bless.
Tom:
Thank you for your kind reply wherein you posted in part:
"I just summarized many sources that Fr. Harrison mentions in his article which establish that some use of torture is permissible under Catholic moral teaching."
I reply: No. You are wrong. You did not establish that "torture is permissible under Catholic moral teaching." The establishment of what is permissible under Catholic moral teaching is neither left to you nor Father H. Rather gave that authroity to the Popes and the Councils who teach in unity with the Pope. Every Pope, every Council, which has taught on this matter has condemned torture - no exceptions.
You also posted in part: "That you wish to ignore these teachings, devalue them, denigrate them, and focus solely on VS #80 as if the Church could just change its moral teaching 180 degrees is an issue you must resolve, not me."
I reply: No, You are wrong again. What you describe as "teachings" are not the "teachings" articulated by Popes and Councils on this matter. Only the Pope or a Council in union with the Pope can solemnly teach the entire Church in an infallible and binding manner on matters o faith and morality.
No Pope, no Council has ever taught that torture is moral. Every Pope, every Council which has taught on this matter has taught that torture is immoral - no exceptions.
You are not the Pope. Father H is not the Pope. The two of you together do not form a Council. Neither you nor Father H can teach in an authoritative and binding manner that torture is moral - under any circumstances.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Richard: Innocent IV was indeed a Pope; the Council of Vienna was council. Both acknowledged the moral permissibility of torture.
In Catholic theology, besides papal and conciliar sources, moral teaching is found in Scripture and in the teachings of orthodox theologians confirmed over the course of time. Thus, when Augustine and St. Thomas approve of torture, that is part of Catholic Tradition.
So Richard, if you continue to say that no pope or council approved of torture, or that it was never sanctioned by Holy Tradition, you must now be willfully ignoring Innocent IV, the Council of Vienna, and the witness of orthodox theolgians like Sts. Augustine, Aquinas, and Ligouri.
Unfortunately for your interpretation of VS#80, in the Catholic religion, respect for Divine Tradition and the Church's indefectibility require that we NOT ignore all that occurred before 1988.
It's not too late to repent, Richard.
God bless.
Tom:
Thank you for your kind reply.
You posted in part: "Innocent IV was indeed a Pope; the Council of Vienna was council. Both acknowledged the moral permissibility of torture".
No. You are wrong yet again. Neither the Pope nor the Council you cited solemnly taught the entire Church in an infallible and binding manner that torture was moral.
You also posted in part: "moral teaching is found in Scripture and in the teachings of orthodox theologians confirmed over the course of time. Thus, when Augustine and St. Thomas approve of torture, that is part of Catholic Tradition".
I reply: All of the Catholic scholars, theologians, lawyers, retired seminary professors and pastry chefs in history can line and claim that torture is moral. It does not matter. The Catholic scholars, theologians, lawyers, retired seminary professors and pastry chefs are NOT protected from error by the Holy Spirit when they teach or presume to teach on matters of faith and morals.
Only the Popes and Councils in union with the Pope are protected by the Holy Spirit when they teach in a solemn manner the entire Church on a matter of faith and morality.
Every Pope every Council which has so taught in the past 2,000 years has taught that torture is evil, or in the case of JP II, intrinsically evil.
Against 2,000 years of constant and consistent teachings of Popes and Councils on this matter stands the opinion of one elderly, retired seminary professor who also publicly opines that JP II does not deserve the title "Great".
I will follow the constant teachings of Popes and Councils.
Again I respectfully urge you to read the documents in question carefully.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Tom:
Thank you for your kind reply.
You are playing at lawyer again.
Pope John Paul The Great taught us that we have a right to the truth.
Please read what the Pope and Council in question actually taught. They did not make an infallible teaching to the entire Church on this matter.
On the other hand every Pope and Council that has actually taught on this matter, in an authoritative, binding and infallible way, has taught that torture is immoral.
Again you have to actually read the documents in question.
Now, if you still claim that a Pope, or Council in union with the Pope, has taught in an infallible manner that torture is moral then please do the following.
Please provide a link to a good English translation of the alleged infallible teaching in question. Wherein any Pope, or any Council in union with the Pope, solemnly taught the entire Church in an authoritative and binding manner that torture is moral.
You are not the Pope. Father H is not the successor to Peter. Neither one of you is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit when you teach or speak on matters of morality.
You tell em to repent? I reply I will not bow down and worship either you or Father H.
Now provide the infallible teaching of Pope or Council that torture is moral.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Tom:
Thank you for your kind reply.
You thinking like a lawyer again.
Did you actually read the documents in question? Neither Innocent IV nor the Council of Vienna solemnly taught the entire Church in a binding, authoritative, infallible manner that torture was moral.
Again I respectfully urge you to read the documents in question.
No Pope, no Council in 2,000 years has ever in an infallible manner taught the entire Church that torture was moral.
On the other hand every Pope, every Council that has in an infallible taught on this matter has taught that torture is immoral or intrinsically evil.
The Magisterium has been consistent on this matter for 2,000 years.
You are quite mistaken.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
I am afraid either Mr. Shea or Haloscan is deleting my posts. Hence the repeats.
Richard W Comerford
Richard... look them up yourself. You're merely playing games now if your argument is that I need to link to an English translation of Innocent, the Council of Vienna, Aquinas, Augustine, and Liguori. I refer you to Fr. Harrison's article and footnotes. Go look them up if you doubt Fr. Harrison's truthfulness.
Concerning your insistence that I provide you an "infallible" "solemn" source, etc, you should cease opining on theology, since you apparently do not know what you're talking about. A solemn papal definition or a solemn conciliar statement ratified by the Pope are but two ways the Church teaches infallibly.
The Church also teaches infallibly ex magisterio ordinario. Thus, for example, although Humanae Vitae was not a itself a solemn dogmatic definition, it's core assertions are probably infallible as an authoritative restatement of perennial Catholic moral teaching.
Really, Richard, I can't catch you up on this stuff. Do some studying (I recommend Dr. Ludwig von Ott) and get back to us.
By the way, if the only teaching you'll accept on this issue is that which is "solemnly taught [by?]the entire Church in an authoritative and binding manner" or an "infallible" pronouncement, good luck, because VS#80 is not a solemn exercize of the Church's infallible magisterium, and neither is the new Catholic Catechism. They are both at best expressions of the ordinary magisterium that are infallible if and only if they ratify perennial Catholic moral teaching.
The whole point of this exercize is that Fr. Harrison's article demonstrates that the Church has never held that torture is per se immoral in any and all circumstances, and that therefore the question is an open one.
Richard, if you don't understand the differing levels of teaching authority and how they are manifested, I recommend quiet reflection and study, not hurling combox anathemas.
Your soul could be in peril, Richard.
God bless.
Veritatis splendor was published in 1993. Father H's article questioning it teaching on torture was published 12-years later. Why the wait?
Uh, because Mark Shea's article on torture, to which Fr. Harrison was implicitly responding, was published in "Crisis" in 1993?
You might as well have asked why Mr. Shea took so long to address the subject. And we all know the answer to that: because it was largely an academic subject, at least as far as this country was concerned, until news started getting out that people acting under the authority of the U.S. government were doing things that, when our enemies did them, used to be considered torture.
I would recommend ANYBODY who is serious about apposing torture should be THE FIRST to kick the likes of Richard to the curb.
No movement is served by WILLFULL ignorant (possibly lying) jackasses.
Tom:
Thank you for your kind reply.
I have looked them up. You are wrong. There is no infallible magisterial teaching that torture is moral by either the Pope or Councils you cited or by any other Pope or Council. Quite the Opposite.
From an Address given by B XVI
“Public authorities must be ever vigilant in this task, eschewing any means of punishment or correction that either undermine or debase the human dignity of prisoners. In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances”.
Castel Gandolfo
Thursday, 6 September 2007
(See The Vatican Website for the complete address)
This is the constant teaching of the Catholic Church over 2,000 years regarding the immorality of torture under all circumstances.
Neither you nor Father H are infallible.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Seamus:
I am sorry. I do not understand your point.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th:
God bless you.
Richard W Comerford
BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th):
God bless you.
Richard W Comerford
Commenting by HaloScan
