Mark's got his fastball today!
183 times clearly violates the standards found in Jimmy Akin's exploration of the subject. One would assume it violates Fr. Harrison's standards as well.
But both of them have spelled out standards & paramiters based on their understanding of Catholic moral teaching.
Yo OTOH Mark have a lot of retoric & little rational argument for your view.
Why can't you see that?
Right now I'm reading Lord Acton, and my how not much has changed through the ages. While Acton's ecclesiology is poor, his sense of moral theology is spot on. Like Mark Shea's heroic stand against the rubber hose right, Acton had a similar condemnation of all the silly Catholic apologists for the St. Bartholomew's massacre of the Huguenots. Acton says of the incident, "while Calvin preached and Bellarmine lectured, Machiavelli ruled the day."
"Then you don't have to insult everybody's intelligence by saying that waterboarding somebody 183 times in one monthisn't torture."
183 times means someone (or more) is thoroughly and sadly obsessed.
One would assume it violates Fr. Harrison's standards as well.
Why?
As I recall Jimmy Akin did give standards and parameters, but never quite could explain how his standards and paramaters differed from consequentialism.
One blogger's reaction:
"Cry me a river. Not."
http://purpleslog.wordpress.com/...rted-on-monday/
And on an online forum discussing this news, one participant "asked" (with apparent sarcasm):
"Considering who he was, the real question would be "why did we stop?""
One can bet that these 2 reactions merely echo how a large section of the public feels.
Of course. Because despite the lies about it not being torture and it being all about "security", the truth is that this is torture and it's all about vengeance. The entertaining part is watching Catholics continuing to lie to themselves and others that this is *still* perfectly compatible with Catholic teaching. I can see how average Americans, who do not have the benefit of Catholic teaching, would endorse all this. What I find mystifying is how Catholics who claim (very very loudly) to be "faithful orthodox Catholics" can essentially embrace these lies and go on boasting about their tremendous superiority of fidelity over liberal Catholics who embrace exactly the same consequentialist lies to justify abortion. They don't seem to get that the very argument they use ("Yes, but babies are innocent. We're only torturing guilty people.") is a naked confession that they favor torture as a form of punishment, which even their one man magisterial hero, Fr. Brian Harrison, grants is intrinsically immoral.
Disgusting.
RE: Standards or definition of Torture:
1. Secular Legal:
The definition or standard for torture can be found in the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners war (21 October 1950) See http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm. The USA is a signatory (1955) to the above cited Convention.
"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."
The Convention's protections extend both to uniformed prisoners and civilians captured while bearing arms.
The convention is nothing new. It or its predecessor Convention has been in force for 80-years. It applies both to captured uniformed soldiers and armed civilians
The definition is clear. It was clear to me when I was an 18 year old paratrooper. It was also clear to my comrades. It was the standard until 9/11/01 and GWOT. It was also USG policy prior to 1955. (The USA is also a signatory to the 1929 Convention regarding prisoners.)The USA was very successful fighting WWI, WWII and the Cold War without resorting to water boarding, loud music and stress positions for prisoners.
2. Church Moral: For 2,000 years every time a Pope or Council has taught on the morality of torture it has taught that torture is immoral. Recently the Vicars of Christ have taught us that prisoners are to be treated with "respect" and kindness" and that their "human dignity" is not to be violated. (The theological guru for torture, Father H., is a retired seminary professor who, when he is not defending Catholic antisemitic bigots, writes articles for the Catholic press attacking John Paul the Great.)
3. Professional Standards: Until 9/11/01 and GWOT not a single intelligence service in the world taught its officers that torture was a reliable method to extract actionable intelligence from subjects. The principal reason was that there is not a single verifiable case in 4,000 of military history of torture being successfully used as an intelligence tool. (However every service teaches that torture, as a tool of coercion to extract false confessions, [See Knights Templar and Louis the Fair of France] and an instrument of terror is superb.)So ingrained was this teaching among CIA officers that the CIA had to rely on hirelings (contractors) to torture Muslim prisoners after 9/11/01.
President Bush when he was Governor pushed refused to pardon a Sheriff who had been found guilty of water boarding a prisoner. This was the American standard prior to 9/11/01. We did not water board Huns, Japs, Nazis or Commies. We do however water board Muslims - fellow belivers. It is no coincidence that eight years after 9/11/01 that UBL is still at large and that the Taliban now controls more than half of Afghanistan and is on the offensive in the other half.
We have turned our back on God and have placed our faith in worldly ways to protect us.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
>As I recall Jimmy Akin did give standards and parameters, but never quite could explain how his standards and paramaters differed from consequentialism.
I reply: Personally I don't see how they are similar to consequentialism at all. Propotionality is not consequentialism.
But I invite you Tom to make the case. Contrary to other persons here (you know who you are) I only follow rational argument & evidence.
Politics & emotions be damned.
>Church Moral: For 2,000 years every time a Pope or Council has taught on the morality of torture it has taught that torture is immoral.
I reply: Richard by your OWN ADMISSION
you are ignorant of Catholic Theology.
Plus whenever a person gives counter historical or theological evidence to any of your claims all you do it attack them personally. YOU NEVER RATIONALLY rebutt them. You did it to Jimmy Akin & I have little doubt you are doing to Fr. Harrison.
Now Fr. Harrison as a person is not the brightest bulb in the box. But those who have demonstraighted this have done so threw RATIONAL rebuttle of his claim in other areas.
>Father H., is a retired seminary professor who, when he is not defending Catholic antisemitic bigots, writes articles for the Catholic press attacking John Paul the Great.
I reply: 100% true. Therefore it should be easy for an intelligent Theologically Literate person(that excludes your Rich) to point out the flaws in his argument.
Tom can you do what both Richard & Mark refuse to do?
Make a point by point rebuttle of Jimmy Akin? I'd like to see that. I'm open ONLY to the Truth. Not left or right wing politics.
Help a brother out.
RE: Key Church’s Teachings Regarding Torture and Treatment of Prisoners v. Mr. A and Father H.
For 2,000 years every time Pope or Council has taught on the morality of torture it has taught that torture is immoral. The Church has gone further to teach that prisoners must be treated with respect and kindness. In recent years (and parallel to the 1929 and 1950 Geneva Conventions relative to prisoners of war) Pope and Council have reiterated the Church’s constant teachings:
The Holy See is a signatory to The U.N. CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In signing this document the Holy See quoted Vatican II in part and it unequivocally condemned "whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself" (Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et spes, 7 December 1965).
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE TWELFTH WORLD CONGRESS
OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
OF CATHOLIC PRISON PASTORAL CARE
Castel Gandolfo
Thursday, 6 September 2007
“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”.
COMPENDIUM
OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE
OF THE CHURCH
From the Vatican, 29 June 2004
“In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ's disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer's victim”.[830] International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances”
Dives in misericordia
Ioannes Paulus PP. II
1980 11 30
“The technical means at the disposal of modern society conceal within themselves not only the possibility of self-destruction through military conflict, but also the possibility of a "peaceful" subjugation of individuals, of environments, of entire societies and of nations, that for one reason or another might prove inconvenient for those who possess the necessary means and are ready to use them without scruple. An instance is the continued existence of torture, systematically used by authority as a means of domination and political oppression and practiced by subordinates with impunity”.
The Second Vatican Council
1965
"Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator".132
Veritatis splendor
Ioannes Paulus PP. II
1993 08 06
“Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object"
Mr. Shea has frequently cited the Church’s Compendium of Social Teachings on this matter.
See: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curi...ott-
soc_en.html
The Compendium does an infinitely better job at this than I do. Mr. A.; Father H. and anyone else who questions the Church’s teachings on torture, torture light, water boarding or the treatment of prisoners would do well to visit the above cited Compendium.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
>such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself".
I reply: Jimmy Akin also said mutilation could not be morally justified.
Not that you EVEN READ IT you just defamed the man.
I am not saying you may do ANYTHING you want to a prisoner to get info from him. That is immoral. Nor can you use ANY form of punishment to get them to convert to Catholicism "physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit;".
But clearly morally you can inflict some form of physical corporal punishment on a person.
I must be kind to my children but I can still spank them.
Richard you DON'T even know your opponants arguments! In ANY debate to be successful YOU have to be able to articulate & understand their arguments or you are just knocking down a straw man.
Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?
I don't know why I bother YOU WILL NEVER get it.
BenYachov,
"I feel your pain" -- Bill Clinton, 1992.
I've been down this road. It was frustrating at first, but you eventually figure out their "game." (to some, this is just a game). I'm quite at peace now.
In human relationships, it's soon apparent (sometimes) what a person's intention really is. On this blog, some act in good faith and some don't. Some have every intention to inform, to learn, to be open to change, etc. Some have every intention to thwart those intentions. Soon, you'll know, which emperor has no clothes.
To me, it felt like talking to a brick wall at first. When a reasonable person would engage in discussion where they treat you like an adult, it was like a gulp of water in a desert.
Go ahead and throw 'em a little bone of information or argument every now and then, but don't get worked up over their response. (But also open to the fact that they may be making some good and true points) I know I took the bait at first and got worked up over it. But now, it's rather funny. I remind myself that some just aren't serious people. But then, sometimes, they feel left out and will eventually jump back in with some pretty reasonable arguments. That's OK as long as you don't get worked up over it when they resort back to their old habits.
Just find the ones who deal with you with respect and deal substantively and respectfully with them. Maybe, just maybe, the good example will be contagious.
I'm actually learning a lot from these comment blogs about civil discourse and how to handle those you disagree with. There is a benefit.
God bless,
P
RE: The Vatican v. Mr. A on Torture
On 28 June 2004 Mr. A. posted: “I would be disinclined to make an ordinary magisterium argument concerning torture. It is not clear to me that the ordinary Magisterium ever significantly entertained the question of torture in its teaching. Churchmen simply assumed that it was a legitimate means of evidence gathering (CCC 2299), and assumptions are assumptions, not doctrines.”
On 29 June 2004 the Vatican posted:
“In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ's disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer's victim”.[830] International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances”
As posted above the ordinary Magisterium made numerous prohibitions against torture prior to Mr. A’s 28 June 2004 article. Perhaps both Mr. A. and Father H. both forgot to consult Mr. Google prior to publishing their respective articles. (Note Father H’s pro torture article is dated September 2005 – more than a year after the Vatican reiterated its prohibition against torture.)
God bless
Richard W Comerford
Tom can you do what both Richard & Mark refuse to do?
Yes, I can!
Make a point by point rebuttle of Jimmy Akin?
Oh. I was hoping you wanted one of Fr. Harrison.
I don't seem to have written anything on what Jimmy Akin has written. Where's his latest and greatest?
Actually Jimmy's argument is more specific & neuanced then Richard's DISHONEST proof texting.
Defining Torture: Two Parameters
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/
11...ing_tortur.html
Defining Torture: An Initial Exploration
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/
11...g_tortur_1.html
Defining Torture: Proposing A Definition
Defining Torture: One More Thought
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/
11...g_tortur_3.html
Jimmy Akin also said "is that the sin of torture consists in the disproportionate infliction of pain.
One of the things I mentioned in the course of developing this definition is that inflicting pain in order to satisfy hatred (as opposed to justified anger) is automatically disproportionate. This is because hatred is itself sinful, and so any application of pain in the service of something that is itself sinful is going to automatically be disproportionate."
Richard NOTHING you cited from the Vatican said it is immoral to proportionatly inflict pain on someone if they do it for a moral good without the intention to satisfy hatred. Nothing you cited SPECIFICALLY says that. Thus Jimmy is correct to say "It is not clear to me that the ordinary Magisterium ever significantly entertained the question of torture in its teaching."
I can't mutilate someone even for a serious crime. But in a life or death situation it may be moral to waterboard them.
Richard you DON'T understand your opponants arguments.
You are about as much use to the anti-torture crowd as Teats on a bull.
Why do I bother? Your pride will never let you entertain the idea you could be wrong.
Thanks Tom. I'll read it right away.
Richard do your cause a favor. Shut up. You CLEARLY don't have the skills to argue your case. Tom most likely does. So I don't even want to hear from you anymore.
RE: Infallibility and Mr. A and Father H.
Neither Father H nor Mr. A is infallible. Nor are they Pope, Council, Bishop or Pastor. Catholics are under no obligation to listen to or follow their teachings. On the other hand when Mr A or Father H teach something that is contrary to what teh Church believes we have an obligation to ignore their teachings.
As posted above in 2004 the Church taught:
“In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ's disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer's victim”.[830] International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances”
Both the USA and the Vatican are signatories to the 1929 and 1950 Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war which prohibit any type of either mental or physical coercion of prisoners to include "insulting" the prisoner. The Conentions' protection is extended to captured civilians.
Torture in whatever form, whether it be "enhanced techniques or water boarding, is a grave violation of the 5th Commandment.
Catholics are free to ignore the teachings of Mr. A and Father H or anyone else on this matter.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
>Neither Father H nor Mr. A is infallible.
I reply: Neither is Richard W Comerford's interpretations of Akin, Harrison, the UN or Vatican documents.
Thus we are free to ignore him as well.
I absolutly believe the disproportionate infliction of pain in whatever form, whether it be enhanced techniques or water boarding is a grave violation of the 5th Commandment.
I also believe a life without parrol for a Traffic ticket is torture. But not for a murderer.
But Richard has FAILED to show waterboarding INTRINSICALLY constitutes torture according to Vatican teaching.
Richard, YOU DON'T understand your opponents arguments. You don't. Accept it!
RE: Water Boarding
The Church forbids all mistreatment of prisoners - to include Muslim prisoners. It teaches us to treat prisoners with kindness and respect. It is simply not possible to be kind and respectful to a prisoner when you are drowning him.
It was not our government's policy to mistreat Hun, Jap, Nazi and Commie prisoners - and we won those wars.
As mentioned above then Governor Bush refused to pardon a convicted Sheriff for water boarding a prisoner.
Just because the current crop of prisoners is Muslim does not give us a right to mistreat them.
It is interesting to note, that the only two times in history (the PI insurrection and GWOT) that we, as a matter of policy, have tortured and water boarded prisoners, the targets of our cruelty have been Muslim (and also Christian during the PI insurrection).
God bless
Richard W Comerford
B-Y,
I may be mistaken, but it may be time for your meds... and a nap.
Relax... and take a deep breath.
If you don't have the skills or backround knowlege to defend even the "correct" moral view then why bother?
It's like listening to Kirk Camron's Bananna argument for the Existence of God or Richard Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 argument against the existence of God.
I don't do stupid.
"I don't do stupid."
Yeah... right! 
.
BY:
Chill.
RE: Kindness to Prisoners
I was pleasantly surprised when I came across words like "kindness" and "respect" in regards to the treatment of prisoners in Church documents.
We should be kind to prisoners first because Christ commanded us to "love our enemies". (It is kind of hard to love an enemy when you are bouncing him off a "flexible" wall.)
The secondary reason is that kindness to a subject will incline him to dialogoe with an interrogator. And even if he does not give up UBL's cell number anything he says is collectable and of great help in producing actionable intelligence. (As in "my Fair Lady" a subject can be geographically and socially placed by his accent and pronunciation).
What is moral and what "works" in life, even in the world of interrogation and intelligence, goes hand in hand.
God bless
Richard W Comerford
>Chill.
I reply: Hot.
BenYachov:
Here you go.
Well, Ben, have you had a chance to read Tom's post on JA's definition? Seems Tom did a pretty good job of pointing out its weaknesses.
If you think Tom is wrong, I would be interested in seeing you do a similar point by point rebuttal.
Commenting by HaloScan
