Scott Carson concurs with me about Mark Shea's currently excessive rhetoric on this issue, in a blog post (see also his comments underneath it):
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/...-it-
louder.html
And in a reply to me in comments:
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/
...388263696179314
Note that Carson agrees with Mark's perspective on the issue. He is not alone, however, in calling for a reform of Mark Shea's dubious methods in arguing for his position. For example, another who agrees with Mark (James) wrote on Carson's blog:
"Once again, you speak to my concerns very effectively. While I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Shea's broader point, I think he errs gravely in how he relates to those who don't or who have genuine doubts or questions that they'd like answered before they can accept what he says is the Church's position.
"I honestly think Mr. Shea would be better off letting the topic lie for a while and not addressing it. His posts of late have been ever more sarcastic and, I think, uncharitable. They're an occasion for sin for him and probably for others on both sides of the debate. I understand well the temptation to needle one's intellectual opponents, but it's not a good activity in which to engage and inevitably it undermines the truth of what one is saying."
http://examinelife.blogspot.com/
...687219774933568
I've seen several such comments in my perusal of the debate. Mark would do well to seriously consider them. Obviously, if someone agrees with him on the issue, they have no unsavory motive in expressing how they think he is acting uncharitably. They mean him well, not harm.
Mark has a lot more credibility in my mind because he is not simple defending Bush at all costs. It would be interesting to see if Clinton had done this who would be arguing the opposite position with the same great vigor. It is often not the what that is being defended but the who. Choosing to defend JPII instead of GWB ruffles a few feathers even on Catholic blogs.
I don't find it helpful to go back to some of the worst popes and darkest chapters in church history to try and find support. History judges acts. We know torture is soul destroying because we have been there. I think Vatican I limits the bounds of infallibility precisely because they knew there were dark chapters like this in church history. Infallibility was reserved to definitive teachings of popes and councils only. It seems like you are now trying to expand it.
> Mark has a lot more credibility in my mind because he is not simple defending Bush at all costs.
I didn't mention Bush at all in my posts. Political hypocrisy is also none of my concern: which is what the Church teaches.
>It is often not the what that is being defended but the who. Choosing to defend JPII instead of GWB ruffles a few feathers even on Catholic blogs.
It's what exactly is being taught that is at issue. I hope most people out there are interested in truth rather than polemics.
>I don't find it helpful to go back to some of the worst popes and darkest chapters in church history to try and find support.
Whether you think it is "helpful" or not, the Catholic must have some way of harmonizing past Catholic history with the present. No one is calling for the Inquisition again (least of all me). The issue is whether torture (however defined) is intrinsically evil or not, and what similar acts are not torture, in terms of how JPII defined it.
> History judges acts. We know torture is soul destroying because we have been there.
How do you define it? Let's get at least one objective thing accomplished.
>I think Vatican I limits the bounds of infallibility precisely because they knew there were dark chapters like this in church history. Infallibility was reserved to definitive teachings of popes and councils only. It seems like you are now trying to expand it.
My reasoning on this is precisely the opposite: I stated (and so did Fr. Harrison, whom I cited in agreement) that there is no infallible teachiong on the subject. But there is still overwhelming consensus in past Church history, which cannot be ignored. You're trying to do so; so is Mark Shea. This won't do. A Catholic is not at liberty to thumb his nose at 2000 years of history. We're not (the more ahistorical type of) Protestants. We don't live in a vacuum.
Both sides can agree (as did Scott Carson) that we have to make some sensible synthesis of past and present.
My own viewpoint is that Mark Shea has his facts wrong about what the military commission bill actually says. In my reading it does indeed ban the techniques (call them "torture lite") that Mark Shea thinks as evil and which some people think necessary. (The Bush administration in fact caved on the issue, I'd say). I've talked about this here.
To that extent, I find Mark's obsession with the issue to be quite strange. I don't want to psychologize the guy, but it seems to me that he's always had the sectarian urge. Judge from his blog over the years, I have to say I've gotten the impression that he's always wanted to be able to despise both parties and the entire American political class, and was deeply uncomfortable with having to be a supporter of one major party above another. Now he's finally found the issue on the Republican side to balance off his contempt of pro-abort Democrats.
Maybe that's not the case; but his blog persona certainly puts across that impression.
As someone who has been a target of Mark Shea's verbal abuse for the past four years, I'm certainly not surprised at his behavior. The problem is that some of you in the apologetics field are so taken with your own Catholic identity that you fail to see (or ignore) the fact that Shea has been behaving this way with anybody who passionately disagrees with him on anything. His stocks in trade are the personal attack, the non sequitur, the straw-man argument, the personal attack, the deliberate distortion of other's arguments, the personal attack, the retreat into silence when nothing else works, the personal attack, a heightened sense of victimization when challenged, the personal attack, the refusal to apoligize when caught and to amend his behavior, and the personal attack.
Shea is an embarassment as an apologist, as a Catholic and as a man.
Mark has a lot more credibility in my mind because he is not simple defending Bush at all costs. It would be interesting to see if Clinton had done this who would be arguing the opposite position with the same great vigor. It is often not the what that is being defended but the who. Choosing to defend JPII instead of GWB ruffles a few feathers even on Catholic blogs.
Randy, could I ask whom you're referring to by "defending Bush at all costs"? -- None of the erstwhile inhabitants of Mark's combox strike me as being motivated by sush.
In fact, many "neocons" in the Weekly Standard (which Mark deplores) are at odds with the President on some of his policies (the practice of "rendition", the McCain Amendment on torture, etc.).
Errr...I hope someone has informed MS that people are talking smack about him--otherwise it is some pretty bad form behind the back stuff and he frankly deseves better.
Hurrah! Thanks so much! God bless you!
We NEED to think about this issue and get it right. We DON'T need to be just following secular voices. But we have some figuring out to do!
Three cheers for the heroes like Dave and Christopher and Fr. Harrison who want to help us figure it out! There IS of course "something" terribly wrong with torture. Something that can de-soul us if we embrace it. But we need to be able to talk about it, not just say "anything called torture is 'intrinsically immoral.'"
Hi Scott,
This is all over the blogosphere right now. I didn't intend to get into some "anti-Mark crusade." It was just an observation I made. He's heard much worse. As an apologist who is subject to the criticism that we are know-it-all dogmatic types, I felt it was important to make a protest against certain manifest attitudes.
But that is distantly secondary to my concern about development and harmony of Catholic past and present.
I posted the following at Against the Grain:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=13910#623160
----------------------------------
Hi Jeff (and to some extent, Fr. O'Leary),
Is this "us vs. them" mentality necessary? My aim (like Fr. Harrison's) is to present what I believe to be the most reasonable harmonization of Catholic past and present and consistent development of doctrine, not to join in some frenzied crusade against Mark Shea.
I simply made some observations about conduct that I felt were necessary. But I have also consistently stated that both sides in this debate have been guilty of personal attack and less-than-stellar conversational ethics.
At the Coalition for Fog blog, after giving me misery for making a statement on such things, you stated (i.e., if you are this same "Jeff"):
"Here's my idea. Don't use a lot of invective against people. But if you do for some reason, try rational discussion with them if they present themselves with rational discussion. Try repeatedly to forgive and start over afresh without bearing grudges.
"Overlook insults and pettinesses. When you don't manage to do this, pick yourself up and try again. . . . Just smile and take it like a big boy. Change the conversation, ask them what they had for dinner, or ask after their ideas instead of yours.
"Remember that many people (not all) who hang around cyberspace have loneliness or other problems. Be a friend, be kind, show them Christ. Okay, no one's perfect, but when you slip up, don't justify it. Look for failures in yourself, rather than in others. No, ignore and explain away what seem like MANIFEST failures in others. When someone slangs you, make a friend of them if you can.
"Why this should be controversial--at least as something we should be trying damned hard to do--I don't know. It seems like Christian Spirituality 101 to me."
http://www.blogger.com/
comment.g...069650931622816
But now it seems you have flunked Spirituality 101 also, judging by your comments above:
"Does anyone notice how appallingly arrogant Kevin Miller is? I mean, he makes no argument whatsoever! Far above argument he is, that man."
"He simply makes a series of utterly unsupported assertions, as if they are clear to the merest imbecile!"
"Absolutely zero attempt to prove his point. But why use reasoning when haughty condescension will do the trick?"
"What caused these folks to lose their minds?"
"No need for faulty reasoning if you leave the reasoning out altogether."
". . . sterile, exclamatory kindergarten nonsense . . ."
C'mon, Jeff. Please follow your own advice (and biblical injunctions).
"And now Dave Armstrong, . . . thinks the Miller/Shea reading is a crock."
I never stated such a thing. Again, why is it necessary to indulge in such divisive invective? To be frank, I haven't even followed this debate very close
(cont.)
. . . closely (as always, I'm doing many other things, including lengthy discussions on the problem of evil).
I was simply giving my opinions (as I'm always quite willing to do!), without claiming to be any sort of expert. I found Fr. Harrison's reasoning impressive. But I don't deny that there may be reasonable analysis from the "other" side. I was quite impressed with both Scott Carson's argument and demeanor, as you can see from my paper.
But I will criticize lousy discussion ethics wherever I see it (hence my remarks about those on both sides of the dispute being guilty of these shortcomings), because it cheapens all of us and makes Catholics and Christians generally a laughing-stock to our critics.
I know firsthand, because I've been debating atheists for the past month (and have extensively in the past) and I see what they think of all our endless internal disputes. It's another reason why they reject Christianity. If we could do this in a dignified, charitable manner, I don't think anyone would fault us (they would think we are thinkers and open-minded), but if it is in this way, then I think it becomes scandalous.
Something to think about . . .
But I protest against using my stated opinion as a pretext for upping the divisive, polemic nature of the discussion on the part of many. That's neither my goal nor the way I approach issues at all (and anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know me very well at all).
======================
Also, on a humorous note, check out what Fr. O'Leary wrote about me in the same thread:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=13910#621621
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=13910#621622
Gee whiz. As soon as I dare to express my opinion on a controversial issue, the personal attacks must start right in. It must be one of my crosses. I just can't seem to avoid it, no matter what I do. And, if you look closely. Fr. O'Leary's characterizations of my opinions are a gross distortion. I won't give them the dignity of a reply.
Let him deride as he wills. I'm trying very hard to ignore those things, as best I can. Please pray for me.
This is all over the blogosphere right now. I didn't intend to get into some "anti-Mark crusade." It was just an observation I made. He's heard much worse. As an apologist who is subject to the criticism that we are know-it-all dogmatic types, I felt it was important to make a protest against certain manifest attitudes.
But that is distantly secondary to my concern about development and harmony of Catholic past and present.
I should point out that my comment was not directed at you, but at the one that sounded eerily similar to commentors of the past who said anyone who disagrees with Dave is an anti-Catholic. 
Dave,
I've been privately agreeing with Mark on this issue over the last months, although somewhat chagrined at the invective hurled from all sides during the discussions.
You've given me some serious food for thought, though. Perhaps Mark's absolutist position is too strong. Here's the thing, though: an act that is not intrinsically immoral can be made immoral by the ends it seeks to achieve. (That is correct, isn't it? Although I strive to conform my conscience to the mind of the Church, my foundations in moral theology are weak.) So, if we accept the idea that "torture" (however defined) is not intrinsically immoral, then we have to ask -- to what ends can it be used?
Obviously, using torture to "brainwash," to manipulate another person into conforming to your will (or the state's will) is contrary to human dignity.
Your argument seems to allow for corporal punishment (is this the same as torture?) for the purpose of inflicting a just punishment on a wrongdoer.
Here is where development of doctrine may come in: is it moral to "torture" (however defined) someone for the purpose of extracting information from them? Let us suppose for a moment that the Church has in the past permitted "torture" for the purpose of extracting information. (I don't conceed this point.) Let us also suppose that the best understanding at the time was that this was a highly effective method of extracting information. Now, we know today that torture is, in fact, highly ineffective at extracting information. Given this new understanding, might the teaching of the Church develop to the point that torture for this purpose would not now be moral?
Best of luck in keeping this discussion on a courteous level, Dave. If anyone can do it, you can!
I've expanded the original paper to about twice its original length. I added some of the discussion above, and also replied to DelRay & Fr. O'Leary.
Fr. Brian Harrison wrote:
"Since your comment mentions and links my last year's letter to Crisis commenting on Mark Shea's article on torture, you and your readers (and perhaps even Mr. Shea) may be interested to read my much more extensive two-part article on the morality of torture which has since been published in Living Tradition. Mr. Shea's Crisis article was a big factor in prompting me to research this difficult and unpleasant subject much more thoroughly. Part I of my article deals with the teaching of Sacred Scripture regarding the ethics of torture, while Part II deals with the witness of Tradition and Magisterium. My bottom line is that you are right and Mr. Shea is wrong. As I see it, the authentic (and much less the infallible) magisterium, correctly understood, does NOT clearly condemn as intrinsically evil the direct (intentional) infliction of severe bodily pain. Mr. Shea's position seems to me a good example of what has been described as 'magisterial fundamentalism' (interpreting magisterial statements in a superficial, literalist way without taking account of their literary and historical context, and the previous history of Scripture and Traditon on the subject)."
http://confoundingthewicked.blog...on-
torture.html
Mark Shea has written a reply (largely to my comments) on his blog:
http://markshea.blogspot.com/
200...181907685331708
I responded in the comments:
Hi Mark,
Interesting reply. I understand your position a little better now, and I suspect that others were looking for this kind of concise treatment from you.
Since I haven't read probably anymore than a tenth of the 500 or so comments at Against the Grain, I don't know if the way you portray what you call "the more virulent Coalition for Fog types" is accurate or not. You wrote:
"[T]here is an interesting discussion to be had about the relationship of the Church's developed teaching on torture (i.e. it's intrinsically immoral) with the Church past though and practice. The same can be said for the Church's developed teaching on slavery and various other morail issues (including, even, abortion). The telling thing is how little actual interest the Coalition for Fog types have in actually engaging that question. That's because the mission is not finding out how to understand and obey the Church's moral teaching on torture. The mission is *refuting* that clearly stated moral teaching."
". . . driven by an agenda to try to liquidate John Paul's teaching."
". . . "Ignore JPII" agenda."
". . . all about winning a political fight against the teaching of John Paul rather than having an actual balanced discussion of the Magisterium."
"The sotto voce idea at work among the Coalition for Fog types is, at the end of the day, that we can basically ignore John Paul when he says that torture is intrinsically immoral."
". . . essentially denying it says what it says."
". . . simply trying to ignore John Paul."
". . . just like Catholics for a Free Choice, laboring to persuade Catholics to ignore that teaching using much the same sort of rhetorical trickery."
"The lunacy of that same group of people, and its supporters, now telling the Church she doesn't know what she's talking about when she teaches that torture is intrinsically immoral . . ."
I haven't seen this in my admittedly limited perusal of the 5000 (oops, 500) comments. Would you be able to point me to a few which flat-out state that we ought to "ignore John Paul II," etc.? I haven't seen it. If you could actually document that, then your point would be a lot more solid.
Even if you could produce some, the next obvious question is whether they are representative of the whole group that you are criticizing. I would like to see how these people respond to this charge (it seems many of them are banned from your blog; I've never banned a fellow Catholic from mine: one was temporarily but soon restored).
Are you saying that these people are "traditionalists"? Perhaps some of them are. I can't keep track of who is and who isn't. Too much to do. That would be a legitimate cause for suspicion as to their prior hostilty to JPII, and mig
(cont.)
. . . might explain a lot in this particular discussion. We've seen, after all, what radtrads think about ecumenism and how they often frown upon Vatican II and its counsel. JPII was nothing if not a man of Vatican II.
Also, I'm confused that you understand well my goal in working through the issue, yet I have agreed with Fr. Harrison, whom you seem to have dismissed to some extent. I also agree profoundly on this issue with Cardinal Dulles, and it is clear that you like him because you advertised his arrival in Seattle. perhaps you could clarify your remarks with regard to Fr. Harrison, since his position seems to be little different from Cardinal Dulles' viewpoint.
Bottom line is: people don't like to be put into a box. I suspect this may be happening on both sides of this debate, including by yourself in more than a few instances. We can't judge people with a "group mentality" approach as if they all fit into a cookie-cutter pattern predetermined by the one doing the critiquing.
I've often been subject to that; I'm sure you have, too, so I would urge all parties concerned to avoid doing that, and stereotyping and caricaturing other opinions. You were quite fair with me. But that may be due to the fact that we know each other a bit and have met. I think you could, with all due respect, do better with some of these other folks, in how you characterize their opinions, and they could also do better in how they represent your own.
Your present post -- apart from the judgments I have cited, on which I reserve judgment until I see documentation -- is constructive, I think, and shows a better way to discuss the issue.
Thanks for hearing me out, and again, for fairly treating my stated opinions even when I gave you somewhat of a hard time.
Link to my comment on Mark's blog:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=42312#820893
Mark revised his post a bit, and I replied again:
Good point, Richard. Thanks.
Hi Mark,
I think you clarified your position vis-a-vis Fr. Harrison and Cardinal Dulles.
I'd still like to (since you asked!) see your reply to these things:
1) Documentation that your critics want to ignore JPII's (and the Church's) teaching.
2) [now after your revision]:
Documentation that your critics would adopt situational ethics with regard to torture, even as far as to say that what we could presumably all agree is torture based on Church teaching, is variable according to situation. I don't think they are saying that, from what I've seen (but that is my weakness in all this, because I haven't read all 500 comments), which is why I keep wanting to see documentation. I think they see it primarily as a matter of definition and of complexity that deserves closer attention.
3) Documentation that your critics are "traditionalists." [i.e., if you believe this; I don't know]
4) Some reasoning as to whether the critics you document (per 1-3 above) are representative of the whole of those who differ with you on this. [otherwise, treating them as some sort of sheep-like group of clones in their thinking is objectionable and non-factual]
"The Church's teaching is that torture is *always* wrong. Always. Without exception or excuse."
But this IS the discussion, because one has to determine exactly what John Paul II and the Church means (assuming it has authority that should be heeded, short of infallibility: I agree) in order to apply and follow the teaching.
So I don't see how the discussion could not be about the definition of "torture." Nor can I see how the past cannot be taken into account in interpreting John Paul II's comments. One has to understand how exactly he defined the word, within the overall framework of the Church's historic teaching, which he is not at liberty to reverse; only develop.
If we could definitively determine, e.g., that waterboarding falls under the "intrinsically immoral" description, then it could not be done, period. And if someone said an intrinsically immoral thing could be done, I would be in full agreement with you.
I don't believe that is what your critics are doing, however. I think they're saying that what they advocate doesn't fall under the category of acts that can never be morally done. If that's not the case, then surely you could easily document otherwise. Moral relativism and situational ethics are clearly forbidden in Catholic ethics.
Now, how do we determine what JPII had in mind, and harmonize it with past Church history? Cardinal Dulles made what I think is a plausible argument. He writes:
"In 1993, in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, John Paul II took, from Vatican II’s pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world, a long list of social evils: 'homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide . .
(cont.)
. . . mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as sub-human living conditions, arbitrary imprisonments, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons.' Where Vatican II had called these practices 'shameful' (probra), John Paul II calls them “intrinsically evil.” In the same encyclical the pope teaches that intrinsically evil acts are prohibited always and everywhere, without any exception.
Did John Paul II, by including slavery in his list of social evils, effect the revolution in Catholic moral theology that Noonan attributes to him? It seems to me that if he had wanted to assert his position as definitive he would have had to say more clearly how he was defining slavery. He would have had to make it clear that he was rejecting the nuanced views of the biblical writers and Catholic theologians for so many past centuries. If any form of slavery could be justified under any conditions, slavery as such would not be, in the technical sense, intrinsically evil.
". . . If pressed, I suspect, the pope would have admitted the need for some qualifications, but he could not have specified these without a rather long excursus that would have been distracting in the framework of his encyclical. So far as I am aware, he never repeated his assertion that slavery is intrinsically evil. Neither the Catechism of the Catholic Church nor the recent Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, in their discussions of slavery, speaks so absolutely.
". . . Radical forms of slavery that deprive human beings of all personal rights are never morally permissible, but more or less moderate forms of subjection and servitude will always accompany the human condition.
". . . The Catechism of the Catholic Church, summarizing current Catholic doctrine, explains: 'The right to religious liberty is neither a moral license to adhere to error, nor a supposed right to error, but rather a natural right of the human person to civil liberty, i.e., immunity, within just limits, from external constraint in religious matters by political authorities.'
"Noonan, arguing the case for a reversal, overlooks these important qualifications. As a historian he might be expected to situate documents like the Syllabus of Errors in their historical context, as he fails to do. His own interpretation of Vatican II is curiously similar to that of the reactionary Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who went into schism because he thought of the council as a departure from the constant teaching the Church. While there has surely been a development of doctrine in this sphere, John Courtney Murray, one of Noonan’s heroes, ended a lengthy article on the subject with the judgment: 'The legitimate conclusion is that betw
(cont.)
. . . between Leo XIII and the Second Vatican Council there was an authentic development of doctrine in the sense of Vincent of Lerins, "an authentic progress, not a change of the faith."'
"The change in teaching might be called, in the language of John Paul II, a 'necessary and prudent adaptation.' . . . the principle of noncoercion of consciences in matters of faith remains constant."
http://www.firstthings.com/ftiss...ews/
dulles.html
Fr. Harrison gets more technical and speculative but argues similarly. It seems perfectly plausible to me (as one whose favorite theological topic is development of doctrine, who has web pages on both Cardinal Newman and development, and has written a book on the topic - albeit as yet unpublished).
I think with an understanding of factors such as these, the language of VS can be harmonized with past teachings.
But as to whether we have learned some things about power, corruption. psychology, and the dignity of the human person since Inquisition and Crusades times, absolutely, we have.
That said, I think there is a degree of coercion that is not "torture" as JPII defines it, which is morally permissible in the case of terrorists, etc. I haven't worked all that out in fine detail, but I think there is some room for acceptance of a degree of coercion that is not "torture."
It's actually logically required in VS itself by the analogy to slavery, since that is not intrinsically evil, yet it was included on JPII's list. So by analogy, it would seem to follow that he meant an unjust, immoral cruel form of slavery; therefore, an unjust, immoral, cruel form of torture that can never be performed.
Ergo: some milder forms of torture or coercion are permissible. They have been in the past by the Church and in police stations and certain unfortunate scenarios during wartime. And they still are. This takes care of the "difficulty," as far as I am concerned.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=40595#820911
Posted at Against the Grain:
Hi Fr. O'Leary,
Fr. O: "Personally, I attacked your reasoning - that because the Church has clearly allowed something not unlike torture in the past, at the highest levels, its infallibility would be impugned if it now declared torture intrinsically evil."
DA: "My argument is actually designed to bypass the infallibility issue altogether (I made that quite explicit and plain in my reply to Scott Carson), but at the same time to acknowledge that these things (coercion of some sort) had very wide sanction in the Church. There are development of doctrine issues here that apply, I think, even if magisterial and infallibility factors do not. Even Fr. Harrison stated that no magisterial statements can be had."
I did not say that you said torture was infallibly taught; but you did say that the widespread practice of torture by the Church would put her infallibility in jeopardy if torture is intrinsically evil.
DA: ". . . You have misconstrued my premise, so this doesn't apply. These would fall under the past sins committed by Catholics, for which JPII often asked forgiveness."
You do make a valid point here. I stated in my last reply:
"I may have worded it poorly in places, but the issue is very complex, and so I had to explain in detail as I proceeded, what exactly I had in mind."
As I have looked over the first part of my argument, I see that it is the case that the wording no longer conveys my present opinion. When I first began the discussion, I wasn't sure if the past justification for the Inquisition, etc., was magisterial or not. Now that I have studied it a bit more, I see that it probably was not (as Fr. Harrison himself - whom I cited in agreement - holds).
And (in retrospect) I had confused somewhat the distinction between "magisterial" vs. reversals or corruptions and consistent developments of doctrine. We believe that doctrines consistently develop in the Church. This is a category larger than infallibility. This issue involves moral teaching and disciplinary actions. I believe (with Fr. Dulles) that the moral principles remain constant, whereas applications and disciplinary matters may be modified according to changing cultural situations, increased understanding, and prudence.
Even so, in the original statement of my argument, I allowed for the possibility of the issue being sub-magisterial (as indeed appears to be the case). I wrote:
"I should add that even if the Inquisition-era sanctions are not infallible (I leave those sorts of technical questions to canon lawyers), there is still a big problem that such acts were sanctioned at all by the Church in any way, shape, or form.
"That would mean the Church was on the side of (and an outright proponent of) an intrinsically immoral act. I don't believe (in faith) that this has ever happened (call me naive if you like, but there it is). If someone thinks that it has, I think it has implications at
(cont.)
. . . the very least, for their ecclesiology, even if infallibility is not involved."
As it turned out, I developed this second line of argument. In so doing, my other statement that you cite, ought to be discarded, because it clashes with my present, more developed argument. For your part, you didn't adequately take into account my later qualifications. But it is true that you spotted a contradiction that I have now rectified, based on my own greater understanding of the issue than what I had some three weeks ago.
Therefore, I'll delete the following (originally, beginning portion) from my existing paper on the topic:
"The Church has clearly allowed something not unlike torture in the past, at the highest levels. If it is intrinsically immoral, then the Church would not have been properly protected by the Holy Spirit and would have defected in a serious way. Thus, Mark [Shea]'s remarks about supposed infallibility not only are uncalled-for, but also (if he is right) would raise huge issues about the infallibility of the historic Church (and, one might say, its responsibility in sanctioning acts which would be - if Mark were right - intrinsically immoral). Nuh uh. I don't think so.
"It would be like saying that capital punishment is intrinsically immoral, or all warfare whatsoever. It just ain't so."
[Mark Shea has also clarified that he didn't intend to say that the remarks in VS were infallible; only authoritative and binding upon Catholics; to which I readily agree]
Also, I will modify the sentence:
"Torture in limited amounts for extremely important strategic and preventive purposes is no worse than warfare itself, which the Church has never condemned in toto."
to:
"Certain clearly specified, morally acceptable forms of coercion in limited amounts for extremely important strategic and preventive purposes are no worse than warfare itself, which the Church has never condemned in toto."
This is because I don't wish to be interpreted as saying (as Mark has strongly criticized):
"John Paul II condemns all forms of torture, but I dissent from that and would allow some forms."
My argument (see my latest comments at Mark Shea's blog; cross-posted to my own) is that his language, closely examined in light of history, allows some measure of coercion, according to past Church practice. Mark Shea himself noted that I made this distinction.
(cont.)
And the widespread use of torture would not? On what basis do you make this distinction between one category of church crime and another?
On the basis that the Church en masse (folks like Aquinas and Augustine and at least one ecumenical council) supported some forms of coercion. So does Holy Scripture. Does inspired Scripture teach intrinsic evil too? That is a problem far greater than sins in the Church in practice and sub-magisterial widespread error. Now we're talking about God commanding intrinsic evil in the very Law that He gave to Moses and the Jews.
The treatment of Jews, for example, was every bit as intrinsic to church law and policy as the use of torture, or rather it was more so.
This is a huge black spot, for sure. I can only say that the Church has grown immensely in its understanding of religious toleration and liberty. It's difficult to harmonize past and present on this issue, but I believe it can be done, and has been, by Cardinal Dulles and others.
A Te Deum was sung in Rome after the [St. Bartholomew's Day] massacre, if I remember correctly.
That is correct, but the question is, "what was it sung for? According to Catholic historian Warren Carroll:
"Pope Gregory XIII ordered a Te Deum said in thanksgiving for the deliverance of the French royal family and Christendom from Coligny's alleged plot to murder the king, seize the crown, support the rebels in the Low Countries, and march on Rome.
"However, the Pope was horrified by the cruelties of the massacre, shedding tears and saying, 'I am weeping for the conduct of the king [Charles IX], which is unlawful and forbidden by God.' Spanish ambassador Zuniga described him as 'struck with horror' at the details of the massacre. Later the Pope said he wept for the many innocent dead, and refused to receive the assassin Maurevert in audience."
(The Cleaving of Christendom, Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 2000, 370).
But Carroll also notes that a procession of thanksgiving took place in Rome and that the pope "celebrated the event in a special bull, though it was worded to praise only the execution of the leaders, not the slaughter of the two thousand." (Ibid., 370-371)
As usual, the truth of the matter is both more complex and interesting than the myth.
DA: "my position doesn't require me to somehow wink at or be forced to condone any sins in the past."
Since you say that church torture in the past was not a sin, what is to prevent extending this absolution to all other matters commonly thought to be church sins (based on mistakes).
The norms of Catholic moral theology, of course. You act as if no distinctions can be made at all. But yours is a circular argument: you assume all coercion whatsoever is absolutely wrong and proceed on your merry way, building a fallacious argument on a mistaken premise. If you want to dissent from Scripture, Aquinas, and
(cont.)
. . . Augustine, feel free. I'm much more reluctant to do so.
DA: "Even what I condone, is in the sense of "not intrinsically immoral." That doesn't mean that many of these coercive techniques could not have become sinful on other grounds: bad motives, excess, revenge, lust for power, etc."
In short, you hold that the torture of suspected heretics was morally ok?
I think it may be in cases where the Church sanctioned it, in the context of the medieval understanding of heresy as "soul-murder." It would not be intrinsically evil in those instances. But the line is very fine and I certainly don't advocate such practices in cases of heresy today, as I am a strong advocate of complete religious tolerance. For terrorists, mass murderers, and tyrants and despots, I do allow such a possibility, within strict control, guided by proper moral theology.
DA: "This is why I have always thought very little of the Inquisition and the Crusades, while recognizing that neither was immoral per se, and that both had legitimate justification in the framework of the medieval worldview."
The Inquisition is incompatible with current church teaching on freedom of religion.
Correct, but that is a different proposition from calling it intrinsically evil.
The use of torture by the Inquisition is incompatible with current church teaching on the rights of prisoners and the evilness of torture.
I don't believe that applies all down the line, from what I've seen. It would be extremely interesting to see, e.g., if the Church has pronounced any guidelines for interrogation of prisoners of war by the military or of suspected criminals by police. If anyone knows of such statements, please let me know.
Your hermeneutics of forcing Catholic morality into the dimensions set by the past could lead to a rehabilitation of slavery, persecution of Protestants and Jews, etc.
Not at all, as stated. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm as committed to religius liberty and tolerance as anyone on earth, including you. My goal is simply to understand the Inquisition within its historic context, and to understand the reasoning behind it, not to extol its virtues, or bring it back today. Furthermore, I live out my view on tolerance by trying to treat anyone I dialogue with, with respect (including atheists and anti-Catholics who despise me as an apostate, etc.).
I may vigorously argue my point, and utilize sarcasm and satire if it is appropriate (as Cardinal Newman did, and also St. Paul and Jesus), but I don't accuse opponents of nefarious motives sinply because they take a different view than I do. This all flows from my intense commitment to ecumenism and mutually-respectful dialogue, which in turn is a result of a certain approach to religious tolerance.
Torture is wrong, in current Catholic understanding, not because of its purpose or the subjective intent but in itself.
One needs to
(cont.)
. . . carefully define what is and what is not intended in the condemnation. Not all coercion is "torture" nor intrinsically immoral.
Many torturers have claimed a noble purpose -- perhaps most.
If you say the Church only condemns torture for its purpose or intent you are robbing its teaching of all application, because every party will call its torture "just torture" on the analogy of "just war".
I think there is room for that analogy and practice, yes. Whatever the Church is truly condemning as instrinsically evil can never be performed; I wholeheartedly agree. But what exactly are we talking about? That is my concern.
Americans will say it is ok if Americans are doing the torturing, bad if Americans are being tortured.
That's simply partisan politics of the worst sort. It has no relation to an intelligent discussion of Church teaching. I am on record as saying that America is the wickedest nation in history, based on biblical understandings, especially, "to whom much is given, much is required." So you can't nail me on this "America right or wrong" nonsense.
I've also taken extreme flak from some conservative types for my strong stand against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as immoral acts, contrary to Catholic just war tradition. I argue whatever I want and speak my mind, if I am convinced of something, no matter who may object to it and loudly protest.
Your complaints that I have misrepresented your arguments are obfuscatory.
Hopefully, my clarifications have properly disposed of this objection.
"When news of the St Bartholomew's day Massacre... reached Rome, [Gregory XIII] celebrated it with a Te Deum and thanksgiving services as a victory for the church over infidelity as well as the defeat of political treachery; and he actively subsidized the Catholic League against the Huguenots... When his dreams of an Irish invasion of England collapsed (1578 and 1579), he gave his personal support to plots to have the queen assassinated." Kelly, Oxford Dictionary of Popes.
I don't know if all this is true or not. I cited a Catholic historian who was candid about Catholic failings. This is a Protestant work by a pretty good Anglican historian (J.N.D. Kelly) but one, it should be noted, with a pronounced bias against the papacy. It should be understood accordingly.
Thanks for your replies.
Posted at Against the Grain:
Note that Fr. O'Leary's remarks must be understood within the total backdrop of his extreme, antiquated 60s-style theological ultra-liberalism. Here is a sampling from just one article of his:
=========================
The Decline of the NeoCaths
The red herring of conflicting authoritative statements on torture is designed to rehabilitate the older attitude of the Church to torture, at least to the extent required by the Bush administration.
* * *
Americans are hungry to torture Islamic bodies, though each tortured body causes a thousand new "terrorists" to spring up. Neocath priests are happy to pander to this bloodlust, much as Taliban mullahs no doubt whitewash the tactics of terrorism.
David Armstrong, lay "apologist" (for the Gospel?) writes: . . .
[then he rehashes the "textual criticism" that I have now replied to by removing unclear portions of my paper. You gotta love the "apologist" in quotes routine: used by critics of mine from all sides, as if I am not what I am, or that it is somehow an unsavory endeavor to do apologetics as a vocation.
But to his credit, he did apologize for the most extreme remarks that he made, so I won't cite those. I suggest that he remove them from his blog, however, since he retracted them here]
If the authors of these arcane debates do not make quite clear that they are protesting against torture and its legalization -- and against the concrete acts of cruelty committed in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the other largely undisclosed locations of the new Gulag -- then their alleged objectivity and serenity are deeply suspect.
* * *
Benedict XVI has indeed fulfilled the neocath dream in one respect: it now looks as if the entire Curia has devoted itself to the “inquisitorial” task of ensuring orthodoxy.
[heaven forbid! We can't have popes engaging in such outrageous, "Byzantine" activities as that! What is the Catholic world coming to, anyway?]
They have taken on a distinctly sectarian cast, regularly calling into question the legitimacy of Vatican II, and pouring scorn on other Christian denominations and other religions in a manner not only incompatible with Vatican II but with the entire ecumenical labor of the Church over the last eighty years or so. . . . Neocaths, who constantly attempt to undermine the authority of Vatican II.
* * *
The sterility of the neocath mindset is seen in the prodigious labors they devote to showing that official Catholic doctrine has never contradicted itself. See especially: http://mliccione.blogspot.com/. These extraordinary exercises, predicated on the alleged infallibility of “Humanae Vitae”, stand refuted by the clear facts of history, as found for instance in Charles Curran, ed. “Changes in Official Catholic Moral Teachings”, Paulist Press, 2003. Cardinal Dulles, favorite neocath theologian, carries this Parmenideanism so far as to maintain that the Church today, as i
(cont.)
. . . in 1866, upholds the compatibility of slavery with divine and natural law.
The neocaths used to present themselves as responsible thinkers on sexual ethics. But increasingly it has become apparent that the most primitive homophobia, based far more on Sodom’n’Gomorrah biblical fundamentalism than on any responsible consideration of Catholic tradition, is the bottom line in their sexual thinking.
* * *
The leading neocath thinkers are converts from Anglicanism or Protestantism, who speak of their former denomination in tones borrowed, at their most charitable, from the quite out-dated polemic of Newman against Anglicanism; see especially http://catholica.pontifications.net. They bring to Roman Catholicism a testy, superior attitude, . . . They really feel it is their mission to save the Roman Church from the evil “Protestantizing” influence of Vatican II.
[Fr. O'Leary, of course, being an obvious paragon of tolerant virtue. I'm against Vatican II {???} -- myself being one he lists as a "NeoCath" -- , when I have always credited my friend John McAlpine for being the primary human influence on my conversion, precisely because he was following Vatican II's ecumenical injunctions for sensible discourse with Protestants, in terms they can understand? Hmmm; very curious.]
* * *
A Church that recognizes the charisms of women and of gays is surely one that points to the future.
In contrast, the neocaths cling desperately to fetid relics of a half-imaginary past.
http://
josephsoleary.typepad.com...ecline_of_.html
And in comments:
----------------
I urge the superiority of loving and faithful sexuality, which is why I back committed unions among gays over the promiscuity that is in practice valorized by the homophobic brigade. Recently it has been discovered that a huge percentage of hate crimes against gays are motivated uniquely by religious concerns. The neocaths have their share of blame to bear for this.
------------------
One works through moral principles in the abstract (let's call this thought-process A) and then applies them to concrete, real-life situations (which are, after all, what moral theology is supposed to deal with (real life). The second thing I shall call B.
But to do abstract, theoretical reflection (A) does not necessarily require real life application (B) in order for it to be justifiable in and of itself.
I haven't applied the principles and scheme of harmonization of past and present that I am working on, to any political agenda or even any particular form of torture (i.e., I've been solely engaged in A, not B).
I don't know about those things. I don't claim to know. I would love to know. But those on the other side of the debate seem to be providing few specifics, so they have not helped me in my quest to determine if there is such a thing as moral coercion, and if so, what?
What is, then, preferable?:
1. A position that dogmatically proclaims a principle ("all torture -- implied: all coercion or even psychological "pressure" whatsoever -- is intrinsically evil!!!!") ad nauseum, yet refuses to clarify how the key word is to be defined and its parameters.
or:
2. A position that proclaims that, yes, torture is wrong in the sense that John Paul II would define and condemn it, but wonders aloud exactly how he would do so, and retains a certain agnosticism until further informed on that score.
#1 (if indeed it is of the nature portrayed above) is dogmatic without providing the crucial information which would allow it to be so dogmatic and derisive of contrary opinion, whereas #2 is agnostic on partioculars, while allowing the possibility that there may be some flexibility here in John Paul II's own definition, and seeks to know the parameters of that.
Or, in other words, I maintain that the position of #1 is irrationally dogmatic, whereas #2 is cautiously and sensibly agnostic.
I also say both positions are equally concerned with upholding Church teaching. The difference lies in the nature of the teaching itself and how it is to be applied.
From Mark Shea's blog:
Hi Mark,
You are rehashing a discussion we've had numerous times
I understand. I don't come here too much, and I am even late to the torture discussions.
(and getting away from the topic of the thread).
The topic of the thread is "Is torture immoral?" not "What is torture?"
If it has already been established what it is, and both parties agree, then this would apply. But I don't think many of your opponents agree on the definition. Without fundamental agreement on foundational definitions, it is impossible to discuss an issue. I can't discuss whether "torture" is immoral without knowing exactly how one is defining that term (it being a fine line in many cases).
Abortion or rape or murder or theft do not involve fine lines. They are what they are, and it is clear-cut. Lust or torture / coercion have fine lines that must be discussed.
I'm still working through the issue on a more elementary level, so definition is crucial for me. If it's already been dealt with, I can simply follow links. Zippy did that, so I'll take a look at what he has.
As I said, the issue under discussion, when it comes to the Coalition for Fog and their pals is this "Assuming X is torture, is it intrinsically immoral (and therefore always wrong) or not?" The Coalition wants us to believe X is *not* always immoral and that we can safely ignore appeals to Veritatis Splendor which says it is.
I've asked you now twice to document some of them saying this (and other of your criticisms). Is that forthcoming?
"What is torture?" is a separate issue. I have proposed various answers, all rejected by Foggers who seem singularly uninterested in progressing toward some sort of action that would concretely *obey* the Church's teaching. To their repeated pleas for clarity on just what "torture" means I have propose the dictionary (hopelessly unclear), the guidelines for prisoner treatment used by the military for the past 50 years (dittos), and the Interrogator's Golden Rule which says "If you'd consider it torture if done to you or a buddy by the enemy, it's torture." All of these have been rejected by the Foggers and nothing proposed in their place.
Fair enough, but do we have any solid information as to what the pope means by the term?
Why? Because (as their name makes clear) they are making the case for fog, not acting like Catholic disciples who want to implement the Church's teaching in any meaningful way. So, as long as they can pretend to be hopelessly confused about what "torture" means, they can continue to make excuses for the actual concrete acts of this Administration, which in fact has practiced torture such as (but not limited to) waterboarding, cold cells, and Palestinian hanging.
These things are all, unequivocally, torture. These things are all, unequivocally, condemned therefore as intrinsically immoral. And these things are what the Bush Administ
(cont.)
. . . Administration has done and continues to do.
Quibbling about how to tiptoe up to the line of torture is pointless. We have already crossed that line. The Church's teaching is clear: prisoners are to treated humanely.
Sure. Now what does this humane treatment include? Zippy acknowledged that there are legitimate forms of coercion besides handcuffs and incarceration. I'll be going to his blog right after I finish this.
Fine-tuned arguments about whether it constitutes torture if you attach wires to a man's testicle but don't turn on the electricity are simply legalism and in no way concerned with the obvious spirit of the law.
I agree, but nevertheless it is perfectly normal to want to know what is permissible. You can also get bogged down in your own legalistic discussion about what is legalistic. At some point there needs to be clear guidelines. That's why we have things like catechisms, for heaven's sake: sometimes folks just want a concise, clear answer on some topic without having to go through all the abstract theorizing.
Moreover, there are many questions in moral theology, where we better discuss fine lines (minus the accusation of Pharisaism), or we will be in big trouble.
Lust immediately comes to mind. If a husband can be lustful towards his own wife (as the Church has taught at times), that is a fine line. I could have sexual desire for my wife which is immoral or one which is in accord with mutual self-giving, etc. Are we not to discuss how to distinguish the two?
That's not legalism; it is practical application of agreed moral principles. I don't see that this is different. At "best," you could accuse people of having a nefarious motive and being disingenuous in asking such questions, in trying to find ways out of being obedient to the Church. If that can be established, it's another important issue such a person would need to face up to and rectify, since it is a "cafeteria Catholic" mentality. Thus far, you don't, however, seem to be making that charge against me.
So I'm simply asking about what is and what is not permissible, in concrete terms. Whatever the "Fog" does is their business. I keep asking for documentation. But speaking for myself, I'm more or less at a beginning level of inquiry on this question (I can't help that; I've been busy with many other things); hence I am asking simple questions.
Hi Zippy,
I read the article you sent me to:
http://zippycatholic.blogspot.co...just-is-
is.html
I found it far more abstract and nitpicky than I found Fr. Harrison. I must say that it hasn't helped me much to determine what exactly you guys are talking about, in cases where the line is fine (police interrogation with bright lights, etc.)
If your big point is to reiterate that sin starts in the heart and will before it proceeds to action, that's great. No one disagrees (or no one should; that's a given, biblically).
Yet this doesn't resolve how to determine:
1) What the lines of torture are and when acts are coercive and hence, not "intrinsically immoral."
2) What exactly the pope had in mind when he used the word "torture."
I agree that the more obvious examples that have been discussed, are very likely condemned (e.g., waterboarding). If others disagree with that, then I disagree with them. (what else is new? I'm always disagreeing with people! Comes with my job). But I'm trying to determine what legitimately coercive techniques are permissible.
So to that end, what do you provide me with?
I submit that whenever a helpless captive is treated as an object and made to suffer as a means to some end unrelated to his own personal good, he has been treated inhumanely. The person who does this has committed an immoral act, no matter what good end he hopes to serve by so doing.
Wonderfully self-evident, but also vague. Forgive me, if I don't think this goes far to resolve my quest for objective, concrete standards in this area.
I know there are military and police guides and international law guidelines that I'll probably have to consult at some point. But then, who's to say that these will coincide with Church teaching? It seems obvious that in many places they will not. Many international efforts promote abortion and contraception, too.
In the next paragraph you write:
"The position has some weaknesses for an anti-torture absolutist such as myself, or at least it may seem to in the abstract. Most particularly there remains the possibility that some will claim that we are torturing captives for their own ultimate good. Someone who is particularly gullible might even actually believe it, and advocate policy rooted in that belief. Also this leaves open the possibility that beating the crap out of a prisoner because he just threw feces at a guard would not, under this understanding, be necessarily considered torture or inhumane treatment. I think that is right, actually. Such an act would have to fall under prudential judgement in enforcing discipline. It could be evil in virtue of being disproportionate, of course, but it wouldn't be evil per se the way that strapping a prisoner to a table and waterboarding him to get him to cough up the names of his co-conspirators would be."
So, great. Now I know you accept the moral permissibility of handcuffs, going to jail, and "beating the crap out of a prisoner because he just threw feces at a guard." This is supposed to help me know the mortal limits of interrogation? This very example is strewn with difficulties. How does one consider what sort of "beating" is proportionate? Is a punch to the stomach okay but not to the face? Is a puinch to the face permitted, but not a second one, or one after a bloody nose, or after the detainee yells for you to stop?
I'm sorry. This seems to me to make things more confusing, not less. You'll probably charge that I'm being legalistic again. I don't think so. I would call it, rather, "asking quite relevant, necessary questions in order to better understand the principle in its application."
You yourself wrote in comments:
" I do agree that the terms in this blog entry need work."
Perhaps I am (just maybe) helping you to do some of that needed work?
There is nothing wrong with probing the logic and coherence of a position by questioning. It doesn't follow that because a guy uses his head to better understand a somewhat complex teaching, that he therefore has no heart, or is doing so strictly to "see what he can get away with."
The charge of legalism can itself be quite legalistic (and judgmental).
So this post isn't of much assistance to me (with all due respect). But it was a thoughtful exercise of a robust Catholic conscience.
I then looked at another linked on the side: "Torture definitions."
http://zippycatholic.blogspot.co...-
confusion.html
You wrote:
An intrinsically evil act is evil because of the nature of its object. Intent and circumstances are completely irrelevant to the conclusion that the act is morally evil.
Yes, absolutely.
So suppose someone says "I know the Church says that act X is an intrinsically evil act, but I don't have a good definition of act X. Therefore it is possible that act X might
(cont.)
be morally licit under circumstance A, but not morally licit under circumstance B." Does this make any sense when we are talking about acts which the Church has authoritatively taught to be intrinsically evil?
No. Again, I agree. But I am not asking that question. Mine is, rather:
"So suppose someone says 'I know the Church says that act X is an intrinsically evil act, but I don't have a good definition of act X. Therefore it is possible that act Y may not be a species of X; hence not evil; hence permissible."
You can't simply thumb your nose at the necessity of definition. It's a backwards, wrongheaded methodology to do so. You assume the very thing that you need to prove to have a solid premise.
It's not "objective" but subjective to have a mentality of "everything I define as torture is torture [therefore, intrinsically evil] because I say so and it is self-evident, and the fine lines don't matter at all because that is legalism and attempts to escape the Catholic moral imperative."
This won't do! It's viciously circular reasoning.
If we know that act X is intrinsically evil, then we know it is evil because of the nature of its object, and we know that no circumstance or intent can make it morally licit.
Yes, we do (YAAAAAAAWWWWNNNN). I completely agree. Mark Shea claims that some folks are arguing in this fashion, yet he won't document it. I asked him twice to do so with no results. I've now asked him a third time.
The notion of an intrinsically evil act that is defined as the kind of act it is by its intent or circumstances is self-contradictory.
Quite true. You need not say the same thing five times (in the article) for it to be understood. But it is also self-contradictory to say:
"This act that we refuse to specify is an intrinsically evil act."
You don't see the contradiction yet? Let me try to explain it with more straightforward logic:
1. Act X ("torture") is intrinsically evil.
2. But we don't know exactly what Act X is because it has not been specified.
3. So we know not what is intrinsically immoral.
4. Furthermore, to say that Act X is immoral without even knowing what it is, is logical and linguistic nonsense.
5. One cannot assert the following two propositions simultaneously:
A) Act X is a thing Y.
B) Act X is no thing.
It has to be one or the other. If it is a thing, then it can be further defined and specified, and has some specific content we can identify. But if it is no thing then we are talking nonsense, which never accomplishes anything.
It's like saying (to use the lust analogy again):
"Lust is intrinsically immoral."
Someone asks: "what is included in lustfulness?"
You reply: "whenever a woman is treated as an object and made to suffer as a means to some selfish end related to some male's personal sex drive, she has been treated lustfully."
He asks again about particul
(cont.)
. . . particulars and you refuse. So this person (say he is a former agnostic but highly interested in Catholicism, yet without a clue about Catholic morality) goes out and uses a condom and has sex with his girlfriend, on the grounds that this is being considerate of her needs. She doesn't have to worry about getting pregnant; she doesn't even have to take birth control pills.
They are in love, so he doesn't feel that he is using her as an object; in fact, she wanted to make love to him. So all the subjective factors are there.
But there are also objective considerations. In actuality (assuming for the sake of argument that lustfulness is absent), two objectively mortal sins have occurred: fornication and contraception.
But these two were truly ignorant of Catholic teaching. They needed particulars to have a fuller understanding. And that is exactly what you would refuse to give them, because you seem to want to rely on highly abstract moral theorizing.
This gets back to the dichotomy between the two broad approaches to our present subject.
1) Fr. Harrison and Cardinal Dulles are trying to work through both the moral principles and historic application of them, in order to sensibly ascertain present-day particularistic application.
2) But you seem to want to argue that analysis of moral principles in the avstract is all that is necessary and that both particular definition and concrete application are irrelevancies that need not be discussed. And if anyone tries to do so, you and Mark have your ready-made accusation that they are probably doing so out of a pharisaical motivation and mentality.
This won't do. We need more thoughtful guidelines for permissible coercion besides your admitted handcuffs, jail, and "beating the crap out of a prisoner because he threw a piece of poop at the guard."
I hope someone has informed MS that people are talking smack about him--otherwise it is some pretty bad form behind the back stuff and he frankly deseves better.
Oh my.
Mark has slandered and abused and lied about people who disagree with him on this issue for months now. I mean that precisely, each and every word, and speaking from personal experience.
He recently declared in one of his comboxes that If you are denying the teaching of the Church that torture is intrinsically immoral, then yes, whether you know it or not, you are an apologist for Satan. Pardon me if I am not overawed with with concern about what the man deserves.
Okay: Fr. O'Leary and Chris Sullivan have provided this definition (please forgive my ignorance, all those who have been through these discussions before):
"The U.N. Convention Against Torture (which the US ratified) definition provides that torture is
“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
"It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions.”
My questions, of course, will deal with the bolded portions. What constitutes "severe pain and suffering" in this context, and what does not? This merely proves my point. Clearly, not all coercion is ruled out. So we are still left to make the subjective (but crucial) judgment of what is "severe" pain or coercion and what isn't.
Obviously, if all coercion whatsoever for these purposes had been ruled out in this definition and criterion, there would be no need for the qualifier "severe." It's very straightforward logic and grammar. But there it is.
What are some examples of "pain or suffering arising only from . . . lawful sanctions"?
And "pain or suffering . . . inherent in . . . lawful sanctions"?
And "pain or suffering . . . incidental to, lawful sanctions"?
And for that mnatter, what are "lawful [presumably moral] sanctions" and what are not?
NOW we're getting somewhere. Finally, some sort of objective definition is proposed that we can actually talk about; something to grab onto and have an intelligent, constructive, educational discussion about.
If anyone can show me some solid answers to these (I think) extremely relevant questions, and, moreover, show that this is exactly what the Church means (by solid documentation, not just speculation) then this discussion (at least to my satisfaction) can be over tonight.
If not, I think it is actually prolonged, because it looks like you guys have fired your best shot and it may just turn out to be a blank and cause you more problems than you had remotely suspected.
Responding to Mark Shea on his blog:
Hi Mark,
I've given definitions of torture repeatedly. None seem to satisfy.
1. It is of little consequence what definition you provide on your own "authority" (if that is what you did). You have none in the first place. All you can do is #2:
2. You need to tie your proposed definition in with the Church in some substantial fashion, since that is what we're talking about.
3. When Chris Sullivan and Fr. O'Leary attempted to do so, you see what happened. I easily found five ways in which there is considerable wiggling room for coercion of some sort. Since that is my major concern, this almost constituted an argument for my present agnostic state with regard to what is being prohibited as "inherently evil."
If you want to know what legitimate coercion is, why not ask people who do interrogation rather than people who have absolutely no specialized technical knowledge?
1. I could do so, sure, but you are also required to back up your own claims with objective evidence and documentation, particularly since you have been making excessively strong and judgmental remarks about those who disagree. You're making the case; the burden of evidence and proof is on you.
2. If you have no "specialized knowledge," then why are you talking so dogmatically and at the same time attempting to minimize definitional criteria which are absolutely fundamental in this discussion and most discussions concerning the relation of theory to fact and concrete particulars?
3. I possess no "specialized knowledge" in this area, either, but that is precisely why I come at it from a standpoint of relative ignorance and inquiry, hoping to get a handle on definitions and parameters (I've been doing that literally all day today). But you are dogmatic. When pressed, frankly, you haven't produced much of consequence or import.
Again, the subject here is not "What is torture?" The subject is "When the Church says torture is intrinsically immoral can we ignore her or not?"
I've already dealt with this objection. You need not state it twice to me. For myself (and perhaps for others), nailing down this definition is absolutely crucial. Thus far, two people have referred me to the UN document that seems to produce more confusion than clarification (in terms of differentiating coercion from torture. "Zippy" sent me to his papers which provided scarcely little assistance, either.
Now you want to refrain from producing anything. This is not impressive, my friend. With your brain power and (often) tremendous insight, I think you (and your allies in this cause, as well) can do WAY better than this.
The question "What is torture?" follow that one. As far as I can tell you are agreeing that when the Church says torture is intrinsically immoral she is to be obeyed.
Of course. But what IS it? How can I opbey an injunction unless I know exactly what is being "injuncted"
(cont.)
. . . about?
At least, that's what this exchange seems to suggest:
Zippy: An intrinsically evil act is evil because of the nature of its object. Intent and circumstances are completely irrelevant to the conclusion that the act is morally evil.
Dave: Yes, absolutely.
That marks you off from the Coalition for Fog's endless attempts to neuter the meaning of "intrinsically immoral".
Maybe so; maybe not. How can I know that, either, unless you document it? This is now the fourth time I've asked you to please do so. Where have these people made such remarks? They (well, several of "them" (this "grouptalk" strikes me as downright conspiratorial) repeatedly, insistently, angrily claim that you have been misrepresenting them.
Something's going on here. People are usually the world's best expert on their own opinions (as Jimmy Akin delightfully says). I'm standing in the middle, trying to decide if your characterization of their position is accurate or not. They're mad about something, are they not? Having often had my own positions misrepresented, I know how that feels, and it ain't pleasant.
So it seems to me that it is your intellectual and ethical duty to prove your strong accusations. Just send me somewhere if you don't want to cut-and-paste. Why is that so difficult if all these past discussions are sitting there in your archives?
If you can't do so, I think you need to make a mass apology to those who have disagreed with you and retract your numerous charges. If you can do so, on the other hand, I'd have no hesitation to condemn, just as vigorously as you do, those who believe that the Church teaches a certain thing, and deliberately try to deny it or squirm out of it or rationalize it away. These are very serious charges indeed. That would constitute an illegitimate private judgment or "cafeteria Catholicism," which I believe to be almost equally manifest among both liberals and "traditionalists."
Prima facie, your continuing reluctance to document this stuff suggests that it is quite possible that you ain't got nuthin' to show and have been guilty of gross misrepresentation and caricature of your opponents, whom you continually want to put into some "group."
C'mon, Mark. I urge you as a fellow apologist and friend. You have often criticized other apologists (one in particular that I can think of) for being overly-dogmatic and judgmental of others without sufficient cause (or any at all).
Don't go down that road yourself. The Church needs your prodigious talents too much for you to go that route. And I mean that quite sincerely. People are watching you. You have one of the most popular blogs among Catholics. I think you can do a lot better than this.
So can your opponents, ethics-wise. So can I. We all can. But if they don't hold what you claim they hold, that is something else again, and has become an ethical dispute
And my latest (reply to "Zippy"), cross-posted at Mark Shea's blog:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=37237#821249
And at Against the Grain:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=13600#626643
And a response to Fr. O'Leary (we actually ended up - surprise! - agreeing on a very key point:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...?
a=27300#626645
Just a note in relation to the question of torture...
I am not a fan of torture. I think that if we behave as terrorists we lose the ideological battle immediately. Curently (due a number of factors) we are losing the war for hearts and minds in the East - and at home - hands down!
That's just my emotional response - not necessarily that rational.
All I want to add to in this is...
A lot of punishments for offences in the past - cutting off of limbs, flogging, etc, etc, were needed because life was incredibly hard! Disease, hunger, death was common. A lot of punishments today in the West would be considered as no dis-incentive at all in days gone by! Life in todays prisons would have been a step UP in many ways for living in, say, the days of Henry V.
So torture was likely to be more condoned then in the eyes of the Church because alternatives were not available. This ties in with the Churches teachings on Capitcal punishment. The Church has never stated that captial punishment is wrong = period, end of story. But, there seems to be a growing consensus that the NEED for the death penalty has largely passed by. Where we have other forms of punishment that are more humane, where we have prisons, they should be used. Where such infrastructure does not exist then the death penalty could be applicable. But it's a case of "no other way." This is my understanding of certainly JPII's stance.
Ditto I think with torture. The Churches position could be understood more clearly in respect to the conditions and intrastructure of the time. You follow? Given that we have truth drugs these days I wonder,in all honesty, what the need for torture would b?
But I don't really know enough to discuss this. I put this out for consideration.
In one of the discussions on the Against the Grain blog, Dave, you posted this:
I'm no fan whatsoever of the Inquisition, the Crusades, or of coercion to believe anything, or of torture generally speaking, but I recognize that it is necessary to some degree (the smallest amount the better) in the present circumstances. We're in the real world. Torture in limited amounts for extremely important strategic and preventive purposes is no worse than warfare itself, which the Church has never condemned in toto." (my emphases)
http://www.haloscan.com/
comments...977248644615067
Later, on your own blog, you've posted:
"I'm no fan whatsoever of the Inquisition, the Crusades, or of coercion to believe anything, but I recognize that it is necessary to some degree (the smallest amount the better) in the present circumstances. We're in the real world. Certain clearly specified, morally acceptable forms of coercion in limited amounts for extremely important strategic and preventive purposes is no worse than warfare itself, which the Church has never condemned in toto." (my emphases)
I take it that you've reconsidered your use of the word 'torture' in that prior statement. And that you don't now see yourself as defending torture as sometimes permissible, but rather only certain forms of coercion. Correct?
Hi David,
Basically, yes. I explained that Fr. O'Leary made a point about some contradictory language on my part from early on in this debate, and that I changed it later, including what you note above. This is all explained above, here:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...1877107/
#118177
(+ the continuing post below it).
At first, I was using "torture" in a wider, inclusive sense of all coercive attempts whatsoever. But eventually I realized that my opponents in the debate were usually using it to refer almost solely to more severe measures. Thus, confusion on terminological grounds was not helping any.
So I started distinguishing by using the word "coercion" as distinguished from "torture." "Interrogation" would be roughly synonymous with "coercion" also.
Jeff posted in another thread:
Dave:
This comment is irrelevant to the thread. Please feel free to erase it...couldn't locate your email!
Chris Blosser emailed me your comment from his blog, which I had not noticed. I just thought I'd bring my response to your attention for whatever it's worth to you:
" Dave:
It's true that some of my rhetoric against Kevin Miller may have been a tad overwrought. But it was over a substantive matter, not personal insults. Unlike you, I don't mind if people call me names or insinuate that I am gay or or call me a Papal dupe or something.
I DO mind professors teaching theologically related subjects at Catholic universities publicly and repeatedly excoriating a point of view without deigning to give any justification for their point of view! Which is what it appears to me that Kevin Miller is doing on this thread.
All of my sharpness was directed toward Kevin Miller the Debater and Taker of Positions, not Kevin Miller the Person. It's not a matter of pique and if Miller approached me and asked me out for a beer, I'd accept delightedly and go at it hammer-and-tongs or have a friendly chat about other matters.
If you are not familiar with the argument as it has progressed, then you will not know that Miller and Shea have simply refused to CONSIDER Harrison's argument, dismissing it as an obviously unCatholic and unfaithul way of approaching the reading of Magisterial documents on its face. They don't want us to "figure it out." They think it doesn't need any figuring...you read Veritatis Splendor and then you obey the letter. That's it. They don't engage the argument, they merely refute it with ad hominems and stonewalling, as you can see from Miller's 'argument' above. If you see substance in that that I have missed, please point it out to me.
In my delight at your having taken a position that is IN FACT, thorougly at odds with the Shea/Miller position, I took the liberty of characterizing your views in my own manner. Though I would maintain that anyone familiar with this controversy will agree with that characterization substantially, I went too far in describing it in a personal manner. For that, I apologize!"
Jeff | 10.27.06 - 12:58 am | #
And I reply:
No problem, Jeff. I just wanted to avoid the polemics at all costs and keep to the subject matter. I certainly understand why you are frustrated. The more I enter into this, I can see that there is an extreme reluctance of Mark and his allies in this to define terms and engage in substance. If that has been going on for months (along with uncharitable mischaracterizations of opponents), I thoroughly understand why folks are angry.
Mark hasn't even answered my fairly simple questions and demands for documentation after my asking five times now (perhaps he has now and I haven't seen it yet). Why that is so difficult is, I confess, beyond me (unless, of course, he has nothing and the emperor is naked).
You also misunderstand why I react to personal attacks as I do. It's not "personal" or "pique" with me, either. Rather, I am expressing my disgust that good discussion has been degraded and run through the mud. I get mad about people playing games and attacking individuals rather than engaging the topic and granting good faith to the opponent. If I protest against that, I am interpreted as merely defending myself, like some ten-year-old in a schoolyard whose mother has been insulted.
What is passion and adherence to principle on my part is often taken to be a "whining" attitude or "hyper-sensitive" or a temper. None of these things are true. I can say that over and over but many people won't understand it.
Nor do I just do so when I am the recipient of the personal attack. The present controversy makes it quite clear that I am just as passionate in defending others from personal attacks which are designed (consciously or not) to evade the subject at hand and deflect interest from a topic to people as supposedly exercising some wicked, nefarious plan to reject the magisterium, etc.
And you'll note that I've been critical of both sides. I will always champion the cause of substantive, constructive, good-natured discussion within a framework of mutual respect. Once one or more of these necessary elements are absent from discussion, it is almost impossible to accomplish anything.
It seems to be one of those things in life that are so simple (in theory), yet so difficult (given the frailties of human nature).
Thanks for the reply, Dave.
From it, I take it that you make a distinction between torture and coercion, perhaps in terms of amount of severity.
Where, then, do you draw that line past which one has engaged in torture?
Dunno. I haven't worked through all that yet. But I'm not helped in determining that by the approach of Mark and his allies of not wanting to even properly define terms or allow nuance in magisterial documents.
It's almost as if they approach Catholic documents like fundamentalists approach the Bible, without benefit of background, harmonization with other Bible texts (Catholic documents), etc. That, combined with apparent mischaracterization of opposing views, doesn't help move discussion along.
Dave,
I think we'd also need to consider what our bishops have written with regards to the question of licit or illicit interrogation.
Here are a few links:
http://tinyurl.com/yfxhzd
(see in particular the letter to Donald Rumsfeld from Bishop Wenski and the letter to the Senate from Bishop Ricard.)
http://tinyurl.com/ya8n2k
(see under the heading "Human Rights")
Nowhere in them, if I'm correct, is there any authorization given for torture or abuse as means to obtain intelligence. In fact, there's expressed a disapproval of treatment even milder than torture--treatment that is abusive, cruel, inhuman(e), or degrading.
This, too, should be taken into account.
Jimmy Akin has given his opinion, which is in broad agreement with mine and seemingly different from Mark Shea's:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/
def...s_about_to.html
Zippy Catholic makes a point that I was wondering about here:
http://zippycatholic.blogspot.co...y-
omission.html
It does seem like Fr Brian Harrison's opinion amounts to a completely knew doctrine. It might be true but it is not part of what is currently understood by infallibility, indefectability, development of doctrine, or any of the other categories that are being thown around. Here is the short version of the new doctrine:
in effect, then, that when the Church, in what would otherwise be a non-infallible act, approves of action X, then this amounts to an infallible teaching that X is not intrinsically evil
I would add that this would follow even in cases where the church has approved of X only in extremely rare circumstances. After all the differance between "X is almost never moral but in extraordinary cases your should do it" and "X is never moral" is considered so huge we cannot imagine the church even in it's non-infallible workings moving that far.
Thanks for the links, David. That is the sort of thing I am highly interested in at this point, but my interest in the subject is rapidly waning because of the refusal of my opponents to interact with what I have written in any appreciable way or to adequately defend their views (in my opinion).
Dave,
A quick opinion, subject to correction:
I think the difficulty I have with Mr. Akins' approach is that it seems to blunt the edge of the teachings of bishops and popes now.
It's as if one is saying that without a magisterial definition of the term 'torture' (one that distinguishes it from, say, licit corporal punishment), we can't yet effectively apply the magisterium's strictures against the practice of it.
er, that last comment by anonymous was mine.
Here's what I wrote on Mark Shea's blog, pretty much ending my attempts there to engage in dialogue on this topic:
--------
Zippy: Sorry Dave, but you've attributed things to me I simply did not say (e.g. "Just let everyone decide on their own, subjectively"). That isn't criticism, it is just talking to straw men.
There is a distinction between straw men and pointing out the logical consequences or reduction of one's position that one may not even realize. Oftentimes, people don't see that certain things straightforwardly follow from what they are saying. In other words, we don't -- every one of us to more or less degrees -- always think logically, or, I should say, in a logically consistent fashion.
I was, of course, attempting to do the analysis of logical reduction of your viewpoint (as I often do, being a big fan of logical consistency and coherence). Granted, one can always be mistaken in such judgments (and I very well may have been here, as I don't know you very well), but in any event, you (like Mark) decided to not seriously interact with my critiques. It is a deliberate decision to simply ignore most or all of an opposing position and a person who is asking some hard questions and seeking solid answers.
The reason is patently obvious. You think the arguments of your opponents are "a load of obvious crap." That makes dialogue impossible, because you have no respect whatsoever and only disdain for these opposing positions.
Therefore, you aren't willing to engage in a serious dialogue on this. I can see that clearly, so it is futile for me to pursue it further.
Some folks like to dialogue and learn in the process, others like to lecture; still others like to listen. The lecturers can find a ready audience in at least some of the listeners. Sometimes other lecturers will also listen if they agree with the lecturer doing the lecturing. Or they can both lecture each other and do mutual monologue. They don't want to truly interact, or at least not for any appreciable length of time, so they just talk past each other.
But the one who seeks dialogue has the frustration of not being able to do it with either the lecturers or the listeners. The lecturers only desire to lecture and (for the most part: all of this is a broad generalization) not listen and discuss and interact. And of course the listeners don't dialogue because they don't respond. They just listen to the other two part