Catholic Teaching on Torture

  • Thread starter Thread starter cstheriot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cstheriot

Guest
As I was watching the republican debate last night, a question came to mind. I know the Catholic Church teaches that we have to keep in mind our “non-negotiable” items of our faith when choosing a candidate to support. As far as I know, there are 5 non-negotiable items.

1 - Abortion
2 - Euthanasia
3 - Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4 - Human Cloning
5 - Gay Marriage

Where does torture fall in here. This was a topic of discussion during the debate, and I just wonder, can a Catholic vote for someone who advocates the torture of another human being? Or is this something that we can differ on?
 
cstheriot said:
As I was watching the republican debate last night, a question came to mind. I know the Catholic Church teaches that we have to keep in mind our “non-negotiable” items of our faith when choosing a candidate to support. As far as I know, there are 5 non-negotiable items.

1 - Abortion
2 - Euthanasia
3 - Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4 - Human Cloning
5 - Gay Marriage

Where does torture fall in here. This was a topic of discussion during the debate, and I just wonder, can a Catholic vote for someone who advocates the torture of another human being? Or is this something that we can differ on?
Click to expand...
I don’t think any political candidate in our current election has claimed to be “pro torture.” Hence, it’s a non issue unless and until it comes up.

There is disagreement as to what constitutes torture; and to an extent these disagreements are valid. Classical forms of torture, such as crushing heads or limbs or starvation, are thankfully off the table. But what about water boarding, or sleep deprivation, or sight deprivation (hooding) or “humiliation”? (Captivity is already humiliating.)

IMNAAHO, it is these disagreements that keep “torture” out of the nonnegotiable list. There is no debate over what is involved in an abortion or in embryonic stem-cells.

ICXC NIKA
 
cstheriot said:
As I was watching the republican debate last night, a question came to mind. I know the Catholic Church teaches that we have to keep in mind our “non-negotiable” items of our faith when choosing a candidate to support. As far as I know, there are 5 non-negotiable items.

1 - Abortion
2 - Euthanasia
3 - Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4 - Human Cloning
5 - Gay Marriage

Where does torture fall in here. This was a topic of discussion during the debate, and I just wonder, can a Catholic vote for someone who advocates the torture of another human being? Or is this something that we can differ on?
Click to expand...
Torture was used during the Inquisition.
 
GEddie said:
I don’t think any political candidate in our current election has claimed to be “pro torture.” Hence, it’s a non issue unless and until it comes up.

There is disagreement as to what constitutes torture; and to an extent these disagreements are valid. Classical forms of torture, such as crushing heads or limbs or starvation, are thankfully off the table. But what about water boarding, or sleep deprivation, or sight deprivation (hooding) or “humiliation”? (Captivity is already humiliating.)

IMNAAHO, it is these disagreements that keep “torture” out of the nonnegotiable list. There is no debate over what is involved in an abortion or in embryonic stem-cells.
ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
**I think that memory of the mistreatment that our sacred Teacher received at the hands of His captors would be enough to keep the idea of promoting any mistreatment or abuse of prisoners “off the table.” **
 
Use of torture will always be that ‘dirty little secret’ no nation wishes to openly discuss. Even Trumpie backed off, and he don’t back off from anything!
 
The “5 non-negotiables” are not part of Catholic teaching as far as I’m aware. No documents from the USCCB or the Vatican mention them. The USCCB does however mention “the Consistent Ethic of Life” which includes those issues, as well as any other issues that violate the dignity of life.

This would include torture.
 
Torture is not an intrinsic evil. The word “torture”, all by itself, has not been qualified specifically enough to be considered intrinsically evil.

Just like “killing a man” is not intrinsically evil. We can kill in self-defense, which is not a sin, therefore the KIND of killing needs to be specified.
“Murder” is intrinsically evil because we know that means “killing an innocent man”.
“Suicide” is intrinsically evil because we know that means “killing oneself”.

Torture is certainly evil if it is done with an end of attaining sadistic pleasure, or for unjust reasons. It is not evil if used ordinately with the end of obtaining needed information from an uncooperative prisoner of war, when the war in question is a just war.

A relevant passage from the CCC:
CCC2297
Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.
Click to expand...
Note the cases in which torture is deemed “contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity”:
  • physical or moral violence to extract confessions
  • punish the guilty
  • frighten opponents
  • satisfy hatred
Note that this does not forbid using torture during times of war to extract needed information, and more importantly, it does not state that torture is unequivocally contrary to the moral law (i.e. intrinsically evil.)
 
ctb95 said:
The “5 non-negotiables” are not part of Catholic teaching as far as I’m aware. No documents from the USCCB or the Vatican mention them.
Click to expand...
This Vatican document mentions some of them:

“[The Church] demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms. These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature.” source: w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis.html
 
cstheriot said:
As I was watching the republican debate last night, a question came to mind. I know the Catholic Church teaches that we have to keep in mind our “non-negotiable” items of our faith when choosing a candidate to support. As far as I know, there are 5 non-negotiable items.

1 - Abortion
2 - Euthanasia
3 - Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4 - Human Cloning
5 - Gay Marriage

Where does torture fall in here. This was a topic of discussion during the debate, and I just wonder, can a Catholic vote for someone who advocates the torture of another human being? Or is this something that we can differ on?
Click to expand...
The idea of five non-negotiables is not real Catholic teaching in the sense that the list is part of the magisterial teaching of the Church . It is a shorthand way of talking about hot topics with regard to elections. There are, of course, many more moral issues that are “non-negotiable”. Murder, for example. Child abuse. Adultery. etc. etc

The list became popular a few elections ago because there was a book about it. One of the criteria was that it be a currently debated political issue. There is no real debate that murder is immoral. So it wouldn’t be on the list. Abortion, on the other hand, is a topic of debate. In that debate, there is only one Catholic “side” to be on. Hence, non-negotiable. If torture became an actual “hot topic”, it could reasonably be considered eligible for this list.
 
dmar198 said:
This Vatican document mentions some of them:

“[The Church] demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one’s children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms. These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature.” source: w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis.html
Click to expand...
It says that Catholics must promote the common good in all its forms. Does that rule out or rule in torture?
 
cstheriot said:
As I was watching the republican debate last night, a question came to mind. I know the Catholic Church teaches that we have to keep in mind our “non-negotiable” items of our faith when choosing a candidate to support. As far as I know, there are 5 non-negotiable items.

1 - Abortion
2 - Euthanasia
3 - Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4 - Human Cloning
5 - Gay Marriage

Where does torture fall in here. This was a topic of discussion during the debate, and I just wonder, can a Catholic vote for someone who advocates the torture of another human being? Or is this something that we can differ on?
Click to expand...
I think a politician who advocates torture should be excluded by law from office. Same with abortion or “same-sex marriage.” Alas, such candidates Aren’t excluded from office. Since they aren’t, I suppose Catholics should use their vote to limit the greater evil. Abortion seems like a greater evil than abortion. Therefore, if it comes down to two candidates, and one is pro-torture but anti-abortion while the other is anti-torture but pro-abortion, the anti-abortion one seems like the better option in my opinion. But I could definitely be missing something. Any thoughts?
 
I believe we can all think of scenarios where a felon has been caught after kidnapping a child and there is need to find the child alive, time being of the essence. How does one overcome obdurant refusal to reveal the child’s location?
If it were my child I know the answer. There is a question of levels of wrong. Each man to his conscience. I personally would find my child, but I am a sinner.
What about a terrorist that knows where the dirty bomb is ticking in your city?
Easy to say, love your enemy. I am too simple to understand moral absolutes that allow the victory of evil over the lives of innocents I could protect.
 
dshix said:
Torture is not an intrinsic evil. The word “torture”, all by itself, has not been qualified specifically enough to be considered intrinsically evil.

Torture is certainly evil if it is done with an end of attaining sadistic pleasure, or for unjust reasons. It is not evil if used ordinately with the end of obtaining needed information from an uncooperative prisoner of war, when the war in question is a just war.

Note that this does not forbid using torture during times of war to extract needed information, and more importantly, it does not state that torture is unequivocally contrary to the moral law (i.e. intrinsically evil.)
Click to expand...
**With all due respect, sir, this must be the most ridiculous and, at the same time, the most offensive post that I have ever seen on CAF.

CCC 2298 goes on to state:

“In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church…the Church always taught the duty of mercy and clemency. . . .
In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for the public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.”

I might add that the word “uncooperative” in regards to a prisoner does not apply that prisoner’s refusal to divulge information-- per Geneva convention. **
 
GEddie said:
I don’t think any political candidate in our current election has claimed to be “pro torture.” Hence, it’s a non issue unless and until it comes up.
Click to expand...
They may not be “pro torture” but some of them seemed to be advocating for more freedom to “obtain information” and to lesson the “rules” that we have in war. They were saying that we were at a disadvantage because of our “rules” (i am assuming they meant no torture). So, this was the reason I asked that. It does seem to be an issue for me. Maybe not as big as abortion, or religious freedom, but still there.
 
Given that the death penalty is not condemned by the Church, the categorical condemnation of torture by it would lead to a dilemma in which simply hurting someone is less acceptable than ending their being.

Morality is confusing enough.

ICXC NIKA
 
dshix said:
Note the cases in which torture is deemed “contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity”:
  • physical or moral violence to extract confessions
  • punish the guilty
  • frighten opponents
  • satisfy hatred
Note that this does not forbid using torture during times of war to extract needed information, and more importantly, it does not state that torture is unequivocally contrary to the moral law (i.e. intrinsically evil.)
Click to expand...
While I understand your point about intrinsic evil, I am slightly confused. The first thing it says that is contrary to respect for the person is “physical or moral violence to extract confessions”. Maybe I don’t understand torture, but isn’t that what they do? They torture a person to get information. Isn’t that just another way of saying extract confession? So, we would have to do our best to eliminate torture in our society?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top