Catholic Teaching on Torture

[dshix]

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

That is a part of the confusion… especially since we know that the doctrines of the Church never change.

 

[Brendan]

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…

International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.

What does ‘under any circumstances’ mean to you?

And what do you mean by ‘provably guilty’, that the person has had a fair trial with competent legal defense and found guilt by a jury of their peers.

And then had the appeals process allowed to run it’s course.

Is that what you mean?

 

[dshix]

International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.

What does ‘under any circumstances’ mean to you?

A valid point.
Firstly, I am not fully aware of whether this document is considered infallible teaching of the Church (still trying find the answer on that), and if not, what level of teaching it is.
Secondly, the phrase you quote is vague. Does it mean all forms of physical abuse in interrogation are completely forbidden? I see a huge difference between tortures that involve a very small degree of abuse, such as slapping or yelling, and other tortures which are very infringing on human dignity, such as the chopping off of the fingers, the ripping off of limbs, or sexual abuse. (extreme examples).

It seems that the statement is far too broad, because torture is not well defined enough in it.

 

[dmar198]

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

The Catechism appears to mention the use of torture in the inquisition:

“the Pastors of the Church…adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for 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.” (CCC 2298)

If I’m reading that correctly, the use of torture in the inquisition was contrary to Church teaching and was an abuse.

 

[MaryHelp777]

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:

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.)

That catechism quote says torture is not allowed to extract confessions, so.torture cannot be used to extract information from people according to the catechism, torture cannot be used at all to get someone to confess information.

 

[dshix]

That catechism quote says torture is not allowed to extract confessions, so.torture cannot be used to extract information from people according to the catechism, torture cannot be used at all to get someone to confess information.

I answered this in post #22.

 

[Corki]

The Catechism appears to mention the use of torture in the inquisition:

“the Pastors of the Church…adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for 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.” (CCC 2298)

If I’m reading that correctly, the use of torture in the inquisition was contrary to Church teaching and was an abuse.

Actually, what it seems to be saying is that, with the benefit of hindsight, one can see that these practices were not necessary and led to further violations of human rights. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they were contrary to Church teaching AT THE TIME.

If we knew then, what we know now…

 

[Matthew91]

What I don’t understand is what truly qualifies as torture. How do we precisely define it?

A parent spanking a child causes pain but I don’t think we or the Church would call that torture would we?

What can authorities do to extract information from terrorists that doesn’t cross an immoral line?

Instead of doing things people commonly call torture, diet restrictions and sleep deprivation are raised as alternatives, but are these moral? Is restricting a prisoner to a bread and water diet torture? This diet would likely do major harm to their health in the long run. Is depriving a prisoner of sleep torture? If you deprive someone of sleep continuously, they will die after a certain amount of hours.

I just don’t understand the distinction here. Slapping an imprisoned terrorist in the face a few times to release information might potentially do less physical harm to that person than sleep deprivation or other methods that are not deemed torture legally to my knowledge (whether the Church does I don’t know). So why is there this taboo around something that is more shocking to our eyes to witness (someone being physically struck) when something that doesn’t shock us as much (keeping someone awake) might actually result in more damage to the person?

Would the Church consider sleep deprivation torture also?

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

Our own Sacred Teacher was deprived of sleep and food, abused and struck, brutally whipped, and then tortured to death.
I would think that these facts would make the idea of any kind of abuse or mistreatment of a prisoner repugnant to all Christians.

 

[GEddie]

Our own Sacred Teacher was deprived of sleep and food, abused and struck, brutally whipped, and then tortured to death.
I would think that these facts would make the idea of any kind of abuse or mistreatment of a prisoner repugnant to all Christians.

He was also blindfolded and bound, but sometimes those precautions are necessary in dealing with persons in captivity.

 

[dmar198]

What I don’t understand is what truly qualifies as torture. How do we precisely define it?

Occasionally the Church states a general principle and then leaves it to states to apply the principle, and steps in to point out abuses as necessary. I think the Church may end up taking a similar stance on torture. They will probably end up stating the general principle that torture is not okay but inflicting limited physical pain Is okay. Then they will probably take up specific cases and say No to some of them. The website of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace has a draft document with the following words:

“In some cases torture is easily recognizable and condemnable.” And: “Torture is not easy to define, but…common sense usually knows torture when one sees it.”

Also: “chaplains [should] act to stop such cases of torture, but should be called upon as well, in individual cases, to judge…licit interrogation techniques [such as] standing at attention for one hour…from torturous methods [such as] sleep deprivation for 24 hours… To do this objectively and fairly not only should the chaplains be prudent and experienced in matters of ethical treatment of captives but should have developed guidelines and principles to turn to a field that now, more than ever, needs development.”

source << that’s a Word document. The url is http [colon slash slash] www [dot] iustitiaetpax [dot] va/content/dam/giustiziaepace/image/Francais/pdf/o_brien.doc

That document is a draft by Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien from Baltimore Maryland. It is not yet an official statement of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. In my opinion, it has the ring of truth on the issue of defining and condemning torture while permitting legitimate interrogation techniques. I could see it being adapted by the Magisterium at some point in the future. We’ll have to wait and see.

A parent spanking a child causes pain but I don’t think we or the Church would call that torture would we?

Not based on the above document. In my opinion, a good definition of torture would leave room for two things: individual government authorities should be able to use their own best judgment, and the Church should be able to condemn abuses. Therefore, I think a definition such as this would work: torture is forcing a captive person to endure prolonged and/or repeated bodily or mental pain, beyond anything merited by a crime. << That definition leaves a qualifier in it that could allow government authorities some room to say “We inflicted this pain because he was committing this crime,” with the crime sometimes being “withholding needed information that could stop a crime.” The qualifier also is a kind of open door invitation for debate about such things, and the Church could always step in and issue a judgment in individual cases: “No, that goes beyond what is merited by the crime.”

I hope that helps. Please let me know. God bless!

 

[josh987654321]

What I don’t understand is what truly qualifies as torture. How do we precisely define it?

Intent.

There’s no real practical reason to ‘waterboard’ someone (unless for training purposes and in such circumstances, it’s not the real exercise of waterboarding) therefore it’s reasonable to conclude that waterboarding is torture, as that is it’s sole intent, to cause extreme suffering in the hope of extracting information.

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

He was also blindfolded and bound, but sometimes those precautions are necessary in dealing with persons in captivity.

If that’s done in order to ‘cause extreme suffering in the hopes of extracting information’ than it’s always wrong and I would call it ‘torture’, if it’s done to protect the location in which the prisoner was being transferred to and protect the guards who he may attack, than I believe it’s just and I would not call it ‘torture.’

I hope this has helped

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[jeffrey_erwin]

He was also blindfolded and bound, but sometimes those precautions are necessary in dealing with persons in captivity.

That may be true, but it does not translate into a justification for abuse and mistreatment.

 

[GEddie]

Therefore, I think a definition such as this would work: torture is forcing a captive person to endure prolonged and/or repeated bodily or mental pain, beyond anything merited by a crime. <<

I
That definition doesn’t work because many lawmaking entities consider that death is a “merited” punishment for crime, therefore anything short of death would be acceptable; including cruelties far beyond the current ideas of “torture.”

ICXC NIKA