Catholic Teaching on Torture

[cstheriot]

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

Good point. And yes, definitely confusing.

 

[cstheriot]

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

You have a good point, but I thought the church did condemn it. The catechism says is paragraph 2267:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

Pretty much, you have to have no other choice to defend lives. It even says, that today, these cases are “very rare, if not practically non-existent”. So, I would think torture would be the same, right? Very rare? Or am I seeing this wrong?

 

[dshix]

**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. **

I am very puzzled by your taking offense at my post. The rest of the CCC passage says nothing whatsoever to state that all torture is intrinsically evil, which is the point of my post.

I caution you to not speak so strongly of being offended when a post that you deem “ridiculous” has not actually said anything untrue.

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?

Thank you for bringing this up.

When we speak of using torture to extract confessions, we mean that we are using said torture to force a person to confess guilt to a crime. In years past there were many cases of such abuses, where some dignitary would get a political enemy of his into his custody, and then torture the man until he would confess to some grave crime, thus forcing him to take on the legal repercussions of that confession (which was caused by torture).

This sort of forced confession, where a person is compelled to admit to some personal sin in order that they may suffer the consequences of it (whether the sin is true or not) is evil.

Here’s an example of how torture might perhaps be used in a way that is not morally illicit.
A known terrorist plants a massive bomb in a major city, which is set to go off on a timer. The said bomb is virtually impossible to find without getting that information from the terrorist.
Law enforcement captures the terrorist and takes him into custody, and proceeds, using physical or mental violence, in an attempt to extract the information of the bomb’s location from the terrorist, potentially saving millions of lives.

In such a case, I would argue torture could be used morally.

 

[Tomdstone]

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?

Torture was allowed under George Bush II. Using the principle of rendition, innocent people were abducted to Jordan or elsewhere to be tortured there.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

I am very puzzled by your taking offense at my post. The rest of the CCC passage says nothing whatsoever to state that all torture is intrinsically evil, which is the point of my post.

I caution you to not speak so strongly of being offended when a post that you deem “ridiculous” has not actually said anything .

Here’s an example of how torture might perhaps be used in a way that is not morally illicit.
A known terrorist plants a massive bomb in a major city, which is set to go off on a timer. The said bomb is virtually impossible to find without getting that information from the terrorist.
Law enforcement captures the terrorist and takes him into custody, and proceeds, using physical or mental violence, in an attempt to extract the information of the bomb’s location from the terrorist, potentially saving millions of lives.
In such a case, I would argue torture could be used morally.

**Sir, the mistreatment of any prisoner is a crime. You are advocating that crimes against a human being be committed here on a Christian forum.
That is why I am offended. Any deliberate mistreatment of a prisoner is a crime under both USA law and Catholic Law.

As for your hypothetical “bomb” situation, this is a tired old horse that has been dragged out many times and disproven just as many times.
It is silly, and again, offensive; a clear violation of Christian ethics.
**

So always treat others as you would like them to treat you: that is the meaning of the Law and the Prophets.
For anyone who wants to sae his life will lose it; but anyoe who loses his life for my sake, that man will save it.

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

**The apocryphal story of St. Peter escaping Rome only to meet Jesus heading towards Rome might have some relevance. St. Peter asks the Lord where He is going, and our Lord replies that he is going to Rome to be crucified for a second time.

Imagine this hypothetical situation: a small nuclear bomb has been hidden in Vatican City. A strangely dressed beaded man has been found on the grounds, no I.D., and refusing to speak to authorities. So the police think that he has something to do with the hidden bomb, and they start to waterboard this person. But when they remove his shoes, gloves, and shirt, they notice wounds in feet, wrists, and side. Someone exclaims, “You are Jesus. What are you doing here?” And Jesus replies, “I have come to be tortured for a second time, since y’all didn’t get my previous message.”**

 

[dshix]

**Sir, the mistreatment of any prisoner is a crime. You are advocating that crimes against a human being be committed here on a Christian forum.
That is why I am offended. Any deliberate mistreatment of a prisoner is a crime under both USA law and Catholic Law.

As for your hypothetical “bomb” situation, this is a tired old horse that has been dragged out many times and disproven just as many times.
It is silly, and again, offensive; a clear violation of Christian ethics.
**

So always treat others as you would like them to treat you: that is the meaning of the Law and the Prophets.
For anyone who wants to sae his life will lose it; but anyoe who loses his life for my sake, that man will save it.

I am interested in having this conversation with you. I will answer the important parts of your post one at a time.

Any deliberate mistreatment of a prisoner is a crime under both USA law and Catholic Law.

True. That is certainly true. However, “deliberate mistreatment” means treatment that is not deserved or not warranted. If any punishment is warranted, it is not “mistreatment”. In the same vein, if there is a good reason for torture, and it is conducive to the common good, then it is not “mistreatment”.

As for your hypothetical “bomb” situation, this is a tired old horse that has been dragged out many times and disproven just as many times.
It is silly, and again, offensive; a clear violation of Christian ethics.

I require evidence.
Please state for me one of the “proofs” that my hypothetical is invalid for demonstrating that torture is not intrinsically evil.
Also, please prove why it is a violation of Christian ethics.
(I’m not being confrontational; I’m simply asking that we get the different points of view out on the table so we can all see everything.)

So always treat others as you would like them to treat you: that is the meaning of the Law and the Prophets.

Don’t get me wrong; I have no issue with this quote or anything that it stands for.
However, it is not relevant to the discussion at hand. I would never do anything that would make me worthy of being tortured, but if I did do some evil that it was necessary for me to be tortured, I would not consider it unjust.

---

One more thing I should say to be clear about my position:
I do not think torture is a beautiful thing. It is horrible, painful, and terrifying to think about. I can hardly imagine going through it myself, and I certainly would never want to.

But we are not having a discussion about whether torture is palatable. We are having a discussion about whether it is, objectively speaking, an intrinsic evil.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Its been shown in Gitmo that people will say what you want to hear under duress (polite way to say torture…) . If a zealot is willing to blow up a city, torture probably won’t get much.

Aim closer to home, your daughter has neen kidnapped and buried alive, there is still a chance she may be alive, would you use torture?

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

I am interested in having this conversation with you. I will answer the important parts of your post one at a time.

True. That is certainly true. However, “deliberate mistreatment” means treatment that is not deserved or not warranted. If any punishment is warranted, it is not “mistreatment”. In the same vein, if there is a good reason for torture, and it is conducive to the common good, then it is not “mistreatment”.
.

I apologise, sir, but that statement about “mistreatment” is nonsense. With all respect, I cannot have a rational conversation with anyone who would try to twist defnitions around like that. Sorry.

 

[GEddie]

I think we need to distinguish between torture as punishment and torture to obtain potentially life-saving information.

Because we as a society are fully capable of justice without torture, the first would not be justifiable. It would also fail the (USA) test of cruel and unusual punishment, as torture is not only cruel, it is vanishingly rare in this country since the Colonies.

But what about a terror situation? These people don’t fear death, so how do you get the info out of their heads before innocent citizens die?

ICXC NIKA

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

I think we need to distinguish between torture as punishment and torture to obtain potentially life-saving information.

But what about a terror situation? These people don’t fear death, so how do you get the info out of their heads before innocent citizens die?
ICXC NIKA

**A crime is always a crime, and just because one thinks that they have a valid reason for committing a particular offense does not justify that act or make it legal.

It is a spurious idea at that “torture to obtain life-saving information” might somehow be legal. It is never legal, no matter what the circumstances.**

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

**The apocryphal story of St. Peter escaping Rome only to meet Jesus heading towards Rome might have some relevance. St. Peter asks the Lord where He is going, and our Lord replies that he is going to Rome to be crucified for a second time.

Imagine this hypothetical situation: a small nuclear bomb has been hidden in Vatican City. A strangely dressed beaded man has been found on the grounds, no I.D., and refusing to speak to authorities. So the police think that he has something to do with the hidden bomb, and they start to waterboard this person. But when they remove his shoes, gloves, and shirt, they notice wounds in feet, wrists, and side. Someone exclaims, “You are Jesus. What are you doing here?” And Jesus replies, “I have come to be tortured for a second time, since y’all didn’t get my previous message.”**

 

[GEddie]

**A crime is always a crime, and just because one thinks that they have a valid reason for committing a particular offense does not justify that act or make it legal.

It is a spurious idea at that “torture to obtain life-saving information” might somehow be legal. It is never legal, no matter what the circumstances.**

Legal is whatever those who make law say it is; the question is whether it can be morally defensible.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Tomdstone]

**

It is a spurious idea at that “torture to obtain life-saving information” might somehow be legal. It is never legal, no matter what the circumstances.**

If torture is never legal, why do the Americans employ rendition to kidnap people and torture them in foreign countries, such as Jordan. Do Americans think it is OK for them to break the law because they have drones, the atomic bomb and other nuclear weapons?

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

If torture is never legal, why do the Americans employ rendition to kidnap people and torture them in foreign countries, such as Jordan. Do Americans think it is OK for them to break the law because they have drones, the atomic bomb and other nuclear weapons?

Are these crimes still being committed? I hope not, but if they are the world should know about it.
The criminal activities perpetrated by the Bush administration were supposed to have ended when Mr; Obama took office.
The perpetrators should have been prosecuted, but Mr. Obama deferred for the sake of national unity.
Some think that he made a mistake in that regard.

 

[dshix]

I apologise, sir, but that statement about “mistreatment” is nonsense. With all respect, I cannot have a rational conversation with anyone who would try to twist defnitions around like that. Sorry.

So far you have not done anything other than tout your own opinion as fact, saying that my posts are “ridiculous” and “nonsense”.

Do you realize that that is intellectual dishonesty? You haven’t stated any of the REASONS for your opinions, but only stated your opinions didactically.

Please engage in actual conversation and respond to my previous post in full.

 

[Tomdstone]

I am interested in having this conversation with you. I will answer the important parts of your post one at a time.

True. That is certainly true. However, “deliberate mistreatment” means treatment that is not deserved or not warranted. If any punishment is warranted, it is not “mistreatment”. In the same vein, if there is a good reason for torture, and it is conducive to the common good, then it is not “mistreatment”.

I require evidence.
Please state for me one of the “proofs” that my hypothetical is invalid for demonstrating that torture is not intrinsically evil.
Also, please prove why it is a violation of Christian ethics.
(I’m not being confrontational; I’m simply asking that we get the different points of view out on the table so we can all see everything.)

Don’t get me wrong; I have no issue with this quote or anything that it stands for.
However, it is not relevant to the discussion at hand. I would never do anything that would make me worthy of being tortured, but if I did do some evil that it was necessary for me to be tortured, I would not consider it unjust.

---

One more thing I should say to be clear about my position:
I do not think torture is a beautiful thing. It is horrible, painful, and terrifying to think about. I can hardly imagine going through it myself, and I certainly would never want to.

But we are not having a discussion about whether torture is palatable. We are having a discussion about whether it is, objectively speaking, an intrinsic evil.

Catholic Bishops say that torture is intrinsically evil.
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/torture/upload/torture-is-an-intrinsic-evil-study-guide.pdf
Also see Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the statement on political responsibility that the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued in November 2007. They say that torture is intrinsically evil there also.

 

[Brendan]

I require evidence.
Please state for me one of the “proofs” that my hypothetical is invalid for demonstrating that torture is not intrinsically evil.
Also, please prove why it is a violation of Christian ethics…

CCC 2298 …nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person

Torture is not conform to the legitimate rights of the human person.

Pope Benedict himself stated so

Public authorities must be ever vigilant in this task, eschewing any means of punishment or correction that either undermine or debase the human dignity of prisoners. In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances” .

In that statement Pope Benedict references the Catholic Compendium of Social Teaching

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070906_pastorale-carceraria.html

1. The activity of offices charged with establishing criminal responsibility, which is always personal in character, must strive to be a meticulous search for truth and must be conducted in full respect for the dignity and rights of the human person; this means guaranteeing the rights of the guilty as well as those of the innocent. The juridical principle by which punishment cannot be inflicted if a crime has not first been proven must be borne in mind.

In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim”.[830] International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.
.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

So we three items here. ANY punishment cannot be inflicted until the crime has been proven. In other words, the person has been charged, given a fair trial and duly convicted.

Secondly we see the prohibition against torture in direct agreement with CCC 2289, the prohibition against any activity with is contrary to human dignity.“Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim”

Finally, and to drive the point home:“a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances”

So we have a moral wrong that cannot be condoned under any circumstance. In other words, and intrinsic evil

 

[dshix]

Catholic Bishops say that torture is intrinsically evil.
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/torture/upload/torture-is-an-intrinsic-evil-study-guide.pdf
Also see Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the statement on political responsibility that the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued in November 2007. They say that torture is intrinsically evil there also.

Torture is not conform to the legitimate rights of the human person.

Pope Benedict himself stated so

In that statement Pope Benedict references the Catholic Compendium of Social Teaching

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2007/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20070906_pastorale-carceraria.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

So we three items here. ANY punishment cannot be inflicted until the crime has been proven. In other words, the person has been charged, given a fair trial and duly convicted.

Secondly we see the prohibition against torture in direct agreement with CCC 2289, the prohibition against any activity with is contrary to human dignity.“Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim”

Finally, and to drive the point home:“a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances”

So we have a moral wrong that cannot be condoned under any circumstance. In other words, and intrinsic evil

Thank you both for these resources, they are helpful.

I cannot fail to observe, however, that in nearly all the examples given here, when I read the context surrounding statements that state the absolute prohibition of torture, that the documents are talking about cases in which the victim’s guilt is not proven, as in this passage:

The activity of offices charged with establishing criminal responsibility, which is always personal in character, must strive to be a meticulous search for truth and must be conducted in full respect for the dignity and rights of the human person; this means guaranteeing the rights of the guilty as well as those of the innocent. The juridical principle by which punishment cannot be inflicted if a crime has not first been proven must be borne in mind.

In carrying out investigations, the regulation against the use of torture, even in the case of serious crimes, must be strictly observed: “Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify and in which the dignity of man is as much debased in his torturer as in the torturer’s victim”.[830] International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.

I haven’t yet seen a document what directly treats with the issue where the person in question is provably guilty and there is some good reason for using some form of torture to attain an end which benefits the common good. It puzzles me.

I intend to read more of these documents as I have time and explore the issue. Thank you, again, for the resources.

 

[Tomdstone]

Thank you both for these resources, they are helpful.

I cannot fail to observe, however, that in nearly all the examples given here, when I read the context surrounding statements that state the absolute prohibition of torture, that the documents are talking about cases in which the victim’s guilt is not proven, as in this passage:

I haven’t yet seen a document what directly treats with the issue where the person in question is provably guilty and there is some good reason for using some form of torture to attain an end which benefits the common good. It puzzles me.

I intend to read more of these documents as I have time and explore the issue. Thank you, again, for the resources.

I can see the dilemma because at one time torture was allowed during the Inquisition. It appears that the teaching may have been changed?