Mary_Gail_36
New member
Here is the Catechism on Torture:
- Status
D
Darryl1958
Guest
The catechism definition of torture is broad enough that it could include warfare.
And I would include amputations performed on even guilty people, such as those performed on thieves in Iran, ought to be included in any definition of torture
And I would include amputations performed on even guilty people, such as those performed on thieves in Iran, ought to be included in any definition of torture
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
We define torture as the issue’s arise. We still do the same today, its likely that for example darkness and solitary confinement may one day be cruel and unusual punishment. But there’s a similar issue with Church and secular society as both further deal with future un defined issues as to what may be acceptable today, may be torture tomorrow. Not to excuse the crusades, but its a similar indication of civil social progress. It may happen with abortion that man looks back and wonders how that ever was comprehended as civil.The Just War doctrine comes to mind with Isis today and also the death penalty. As we advance in society we tweak these horrors where we can and when possible. At least in some sense there has been forward progress if not a step backwards at times.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
I think that it is clear that torture is an intrinsic evil. I don’t see any way around that. On the other hand, I think that it’s not always clear as to when the line has been crossed from morally licit punishment or morally licit interrogation to torture. In spite of this ambiguity, torture itself is evil.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Any judgment of what constitutes “torture” is problematic in itself because “torture” is dependent on the subjective perception of the one receiving it. That would vary wildly and oftentimes couldn’t be believed anyway.
The Just War doctrine comes to mind with Isis today and also the death penalty. As we advance in society we tweak these horrors where we can and when possible. At least in some sense there has been forward progress if not a step backwards at times.
The secular consideration of what’s “cruel and unusual” isn’t of much help, either, because that’s fitted to the nature of the crime. So a Court might say it’s “cruel and unusual” to impose the death penalty for nonpayment of taxes, but not for murder.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I think the quotes here from the CCC are always helpful and of course the USCCB has an in depth link on torture I would recommend. But as noticed over time this is just a problematic conversation in definition.
S
SWolf
Guest
If torture is an intrinsic evil, the Church taught error for several centuries and is therefore not infallible.
If torture is prudential, there is no contradiction to the fact that the Church allowed torture, whether justly or unjustly.
Torture therefore can, in certain circumstances, be justified, which makes sense given that many of the examples of torture given already in this thread are considered morally licit.
S
SWolf
Guest
“morally licit interrogation to torture”
Interrogation, in just about any form, creates at least some mental anguish. It’s just a matter of scale. It’s all torture, just a matter of degrees.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Maybe 20 years or so ago we passed abuse laws in america especially in regards to mental-health, retardation and care of the sick, afflicted and elderly. It can be one abuse or a combination of the three with physical, verbal or psychological abuse. No doubt we have progressed at least imo. But when it comes to punishment and war we see very different applied principles and its true two wrongs doesn’t make us more civil just another barbaric.
First question in my mind is the principle of equal rights. I find the penal system a monsterous behemoth and growing. Surely we cant say we are equal when we treat our own peoples in such a horrendous manner. Losing a right and being treated inhumane are very different ideals. Its a complex conversation to be sure.
J
jtauke
Guest
Would Christ have you waterboard your fellow man? Beat him? Cut him? Pull his fingernails out?
The whole idea of torture is Machiavellian, that the good outweighs the bad. Is that the moral compass we want Catholics to use?
J
jtauke
Guest
Show me an Ex Cathedra statement on torture. Not all statements by Pope’s are infallible, so I don’t know where you’re going with this.
J
jtauke
Guest
I’m confused as to why people like you are proponents of torture. What exactly is to be gained by barbaric treatment of your fellow man? Information? Torture is notoriously unreliable because victims will say anything to stop the torture.
So where’s the gain?
S
SWolf
Guest
You’re not following the argument at all.
If you support:
- Solitary Confinement or even imprisonment in general (mental anguish)
- Standard Interrogation Procedures including plea bargaining(mental anguish)
- Military training (Physical and mental anguish)
I noticed you have not yourself tried to define it and someone has already called you out on it. It’s quite clear why.
J
jtauke
Guest
I notice you haven’t cited that ex cathedra statement on torture…sooo
solitary: You equate being alone in a locked cell with waterboarding?
standard interrogation: How is this anguish? You have the right to have an attorney present at any time.
military training: terrible example, as people going through this training volunteered for it.
Can I ask why you support torture?
T
Tomdstone
Guest
A whole lot of Roman Catholic teachings are not explicitly ex cathedra: examples:
Slavery is wrong.
Artificial birth control is wrong.
In today’s modern western society, capital punishment is wrong.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
I also think that we do define what torture means and what it does not mean according to the situations that we find ourselves in. Just as there were limits to what medieval people understood to be right and wrong, and good and necessary, so to are we all faced with our limits, many of which we would not even be aware of.
The Just War doctrine comes to mind with Isis today and also the death penalty. As we advance in society we tweak these horrors where we can and when possible. At least in some sense there has been forward progress if not a step backwards at times.
That is just part of what it means to be human. We have limits and finite vision, and there will always be more to the picture than we can see.
We need to recognize that when we opt to throw people into prison, we are often throwing them into a hellish environment. Even if that is not our intention, that is just the reality of the situation or incarceration, and confining people with deep psychological and moral deficiencies together with one another. and with giving other people power over their lives in order to keep them confined. Solitary confinement is just another reality of protective custody, even though it is cruel to the extreme.
These are not nice choices, but they are the best choices that we have at the moment, as limited by what we can see as being the choices
Failing to segregate the dangerous from the general population is a worse choice, even if we fully understand how dehumanizing, how demeaning, how dangerous, and how tortuous prison is.
Finding the best course is always a struggle, and always a compromise. Pontificating against torture without defining it leaves everything to common sense rather than argument. That would be great, but remember that we are also living in a world where common sense now includes the UN defining Ireland as wage a cruel and inhumane crusade against women through banning abortion, and the left accepting the dictates of sharia as equally valid to what we practice in the West.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
The USCCB statement is no more, nor no less, ex cathedra than anything else that the Church has had us consider over the centuries.
Nobody supports torture. Everybody is asking you to define where you would draw the line between what is and is not to be considered torture.
For example, I would consider the amputation of limbs for theft to be a form of torture. The catechism draws the line only at the amputation of limbs of innocent people as cruel and inhuman.
For whatever reason, I don’t think that the catechism goes far enough in defining the limits in that case.
Principles that I might draw upon to support my limits as excluding the amputation of limbs would be that the punishment ought to fit the crime. Clearly, the use of a limb, and the pyscholigical distress involved in having a limb cut off is of a much higher degree of seriousness than stealing an avacado from the marketplace
There needs to be a sense of proportion used in defining the limits of what is necessary to maintain good order and justice in a society, and the degree of discomfort that individual is being subjected to.
A sense of proportion is but one of the factors that can be brought into the argument of where to draw the line. There are many, many other factors that can be used to make arguments either for or against any method or practice as well.
But that means that one needs to make the argument It is disingenuous to insist that we follow the Church statements one day, and the next dismiss the need, since the teachings were not ex cathedra anyway.
The USCCB is the beginning of the discussion, and not the end of it. Morality is not dictated to us from the outside. It is an inner struggle that must engage us as individuals.
J
jtauke
Guest
Swolf claimed that if the church was wrong about torture it calls into question infallibility.
He is wrong in that statement.
S
SWolf
Guest
I don’t have to. Ex cathedra pertains to all places in all times. Prudential matters are not stated ex cathedra. Seems, given torture is so common in antiquity that the Church was mostly quiet on the matter, no?
You’ve obviously never been questioned or threatened with jail time.
Not with the draft.
One last time. Tell me what your definition of torture is.
- Status