Say no to torture, USCCB committee chair urges [CC]

[jtauke]

Then why was it allowed during the Inquisition?

Because bad people do evil things?

The Catholic Church of today would never condone such barbarism.

 

[tomarin]

Then why was it allowed during the Inquisition?

I’m just speculating but I think people believed back then the accused wouldn’t confess unless tortured (of course one would think that would put the validity of the confession in doubt since I know if I were being tortured I would probably say anything necessary to make the pain stop) and that this was a normal and necessary part of conducting a trial.

It seems that for moral authorities to take a stand against torture one must first have a concept of human rights, and that didn’t emerge until the Enlightenment.

 

[Darryl1958]

Then why was it allowed during the Inquisition?

The thing about medeival people is that they had not yet developed modern sensibilities.

Civilization is a process, even for Catholics.

I don’t know why this would be surprising to anyone.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Torture is intrinsically evil. End of story.

If you’re like Ridge and you can’t tell what torture is…I’ll pray for you.

That’s not fair at all. The question is valid. Is sleep deprivation torture? Cramped cells? Loud music?

Or are we talking about needles under the finger nails?

The latter is clear cut. The former is what they put us through in SERE school in the military. It was unpleasant, but hardly torturous.

 

[Darryl1958]

That’s not fair at all. The question is valid. Is sleep deprivation torture? Cramped cells? Loud music?

Or are we talking about needles under the finger nails?

The latter is clear cut. The former is what they put us through in SERE school in the military. It was unpleasant, but hardly torturous.

Is prison torture?
In many ways, I think that it is.

 

[Darryl1958]

Is banning abortion torture?
According to the UN it is cruel, degrading and inhumane.
Childbirth involves serious pain issues too.

 

[jtauke]

That’s not fair at all. The question is valid. Is sleep deprivation torture? Cramped cells? Loud music?

Or are we talking about needles under the finger nails?

The latter is clear cut. The former is what they put us through in SERE school in the military. It was unpleasant, but hardly torturous.

There’s no comparison. You submitted yourself voluntarily to SERE training. Torture victims don’t volunteer.

Sleep deprivation is definitely a means of torture when done to someone without consent. Enough sleep deprivation can easily kill someone. Cramped cells (one’s where a person cannot stand up or full stretch one’s body out) is also torture. Think of the cages used on our soldiers by the Japanese in WWII.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Then why was it allowed during the Inquisition?

I would say because people didn’t yet understand how it wasn’t in conformity with the dignity of the human person (see the CCC paragraph mentioned above).

One could say that the Church, who since her foundation has the fullness of truth because of her union with Jesus Christ, always held the view that torture was wrong, while also admitting that many of her members–including for centuries at a time–failed to perceive that was the case.

 

[jtauke]

Is prison torture?
In many ways, I think that it is.

It’s not. Prison cells (even solitary confinement) isn’t comparable. Cells are big enough for people to move around without restricted movement, you’re fed 3 meals a day, and usually allowed yard or workout time.

 

[jtauke]

Is banning abortion torture?
According to the UN it is cruel, degrading and inhumane.
Childbirth involves serious pain issues too.

This is a red herring, plain and simple.

 

[tomarin]

Is prison torture?
In many ways, I think that it is.

Then why is it illegal (as far as I know) for prison guards to torture prisoners? If simply being incarcerated is a form of torture then one would expect the legal system to be unable to differentiate between that and other forms of torture. But it does differentiate therefore there must be a distinction that precludes incarceration from being considered a form of torture.

 

[pnewton]

Then why was it allowed during the Inquisition?

People did evil things. Popes did evil things.

 

[pnewton]

A bull is a solemn pronouncement.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia.
newadvent.org/cathen/03052b.htm
This did not happen before the thirteenth century and the name bull was only a popular term used almost promiscuously for all kinds of instruments which issued from the papal chancery. A much more precise acceptance has prevailed since the fifteenth century, and a bull has long stood in sharp contrast with certain other forms of papal documents.

Reading this particular document gives the context of the statement made. It was** not **expounding doctrine.

 

[tomarin]

People did evil things. Popes did evil things.

I disagree with this explanation in that I don’t think the clergy who countenanced torture during the Inquisition thought they were doing evil; I think they thought they were combating heresy in a way that was lawful and appropriate. (Maybe I misunderstood what you are saying.)

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Then why is it illegal (as far as I know) for prison guards to torture prisoners? If simply being incarcerated is a form of torture then one would expect the legal system to be unable to differentiate between that and other forms of torture. But it does differentiate therefore there must be a distinction that precludes incarceration from being considered a form of torture.

But we are talking about Church teaching, not legal systems. One applies to all men everywhere, and the other applies to the society that applies it.

There are countries where what would be considered torture here is legal, the same was incarceration is legal here. Two legal actions, one moral action.

It always comes down to people’s opinion. Being able to stretch, have three meals a day (I haven’t eaten three meals a day in years, simply because I am busy and neglect myself), etc. These are all so arbitrary and aren’t codified anywhere, and thus, while they may be valid, they are not per se.

 

[tomarin]

But we are talking about Church teaching, not legal systems. One applies to all men everywhere, and the other applies to the society that applies it.

There are countries where what would be considered torture here is legal, the same was incarceration is legal here. Two legal actions, one moral action.

It always comes down to people’s opinion. Being able to stretch, have three meals a day (I haven’t eaten three meals a day in years, simply because I am busy and neglect myself), etc. These are all so arbitrary and aren’t codified anywhere, and thus, while they may be valid, they are not per se.

But there’s not a country that doesn’t incarcerate people for crimes committed, is there?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Torture is intrinsically evil. End of story.

If you’re like Ridge and you can’t tell what torture is…I’ll pray for you.

Actually, I’m the only one on CAF who has ever, to my knowledge, offered a definition of torture. So what’s yours?

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s not. Prison cells (even solitary confinement) isn’t comparable. Cells are big enough for people to move around without restricted movement, you’re fed 3 meals a day, and usually allowed yard or workout time.

Still, if our yardstick is anything that impinges on the dignity of the individual, as some say, then every jail sentence is torture. So is every criminal trial, arrest and interrogation.

 

[Darryl1958]

Then why is it illegal (as far as I know) for prison guards to torture prisoners? If simply being incarcerated is a form of torture then one would expect the legal system to be unable to differentiate between that and other forms of torture. But it does differentiate therefore there must be a distinction that precludes incarceration from being considered a form of torture.

It depends on what your definition of torture is.
Solitary is not illegal, as far as I know, although it has been known to drive people insane. Incarceration itself is very distressing, to the point where people want to commit suicide at their first oppotunity
Again, people have been able to tolerate different levels of official infliction of pain on people depending on what the sensibilities of the age are. The definitionof what is licit and acceptable, and what is not is plastic.

Once it is agreed that torture is not something to be morally tolerated, it still remains for us to struggle with where to draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not

It is all fine and well to define the UN or anyone who disagrees with our own sensibilities as bat guano crazy, but that is not really an argument, is it?

 

[Darryl1958]

This is a red herring, plain and simple.

Then define torture, more plainly and more simply.

The ball is in your court, still.