A
AlNg
Guest
Yes, for the essential parts. Some parts are not essential to the definition.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
So… instead of “torture” – since you want to prioritize “pain and suffering” and hide “to obtain information or a confession” – perhaps you should talk about the “infliction of pain” rather than calling it “torture”. BTW… your personal trainer’s workout regimen imposes “pain and suffering” on you. Unless you’re merely attempting to be facetious, though, you wouldn’t call it “torture”, right?
Then again, you consent to workouts, right? So, instead of “torture” or “pain”, perhaps you’re merely talking about “unconsented activity”? Ahh, but you don’t technically consent to paying your taxes, right?
So… let’s be honest. Talk about what you want to talk about, and leave the emotionally-charged terms aside.
A
AlNg
Guest
Except that when something is taught to be intrinsically evil, it is difficult for me to see how that would be a disciplinary issue.
E
Eric_Hyom
Guest
If Christians do not follow the teachings of Jesus, then how can you judge Jesus by the things that people do in his name.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Reasonable point!
So, I’d like to make sure that we’re making the appropriate distinctions, and addressing them each appropriately.
The distinction here, it seems, is between evils that are “intrinsic” (and therefore, always gravely sinful) and those that are not (and therefore, may be ‘venial’ sin). Moreover, we’re talking – I think – about distinctions between dogma / doctrine and discipline.
Let’s look at the second one first, since I think this is where the meat of the issue lies. We would say that, when it comes to dogma and doctrine, it always proceeds from revelation in one way or another. Perhaps it’s found in the Bible explicitly. Perhaps it’s there implicitly. Perhaps it’s from the teaching of Christ, and it’s reflected in the teaching found in Apostolic Tradition. In any case, it’s ultimately from Jesus.
Disciplines, on the other hand, are more like rules and regulations (“don’t eat meat on Friday”; “fast for one hour prior to Mass”). They may change, based on the prudential judgment of the Church.
Two thoughts arise:
- Is it the case that all of Jesus’ teachings are instantaneously taught by the Church? No… that doesn’t seem right. The history of the Church includes councils that did issue doctrinal teachings – but these events were the first instance of that teaching. Jesus always was “fully human and fully divine”, but it took the Council of Calcedon – in 451AD – to declare this as doctrine.
So, could it be doctrine that torture is intrinsically evil? Sure… but that doesn’t mean that it would necessarily be recognized as such at all times. - OTOH, could it be discipline? Well, if we go with your thesis that “the teaching has changed”, then by definition it cannot be doctrinal, and must be disciplinary! So, if we want to conclude that it’s not discipline, then we must conclude that it’s not true that “the teaching has changed.” Perhaps we might say “it was never taught in the past, but is being taught now.”
A
AlNg
Guest
Artificial birth control is said to be intrinsically evil, but does that mean that it will be recognized as such at all times? Perhaps in the future it will not be so because of concerns from other evils attacking society.
G
Gorgias
Guest
I think it means that it wasn’t recognized as such at all times in the past… but now that we have recognized it as “intrinsically evil”, we don’t move backward and say “nah… just kidding; it ain’t.”
Even less so would we say “the fact that there are other evils in the world means that we should ignore these evils”…!
P
Pattylt
Guest
I just have to comment on this…I’ve had many sessions of physical therapy that I would call torture…it may have been for my own good but heavens to Betsy…it was painful!
And yes, I consented to it. Those sent to burn at the stake did not. Where does water boarding now stand? Wasn’t there an argument that it wasn’t torture per say?. I believe (could be wrong) that it was determined to be torture.
I do understand the difference between doctrine and discipline, though. The church realized that torture was not effective and that confessions obtained weren’t valid…so, it changed its discipline. Back then, they incorrectly believed that tortured confessions were “true confessions”. They aren’t…people will say anything to end torture. When this was realized, it was fixed. I don’t blame the church for these type errors…everyone made them back them. I’m very glad they did!
A
AlNg
Guest
Isn’t that what happened to torture?
G
Gorgias
Guest
No. The Church didn’t say “torture is evil” and then came back later and said “nevermind – torture is fun! Have at it!”
Rather, it was a culturally-accepted human act, and was accepted (as a prudential judgement) as such. Later, the Church said “nope… this is sinful.” And, it never wavered from that stance.
A
AlNg
Guest
I read:
866 Pope Nicholas I condemned torture
1252 Pope Innocent IV allowed the use of torture (under certain conditions) for the Inquisition.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Gorgias:
I read:
866 Pope Nicholas I condemned torture
1252 Pope Innocent IV allowed the use of torture (under certain conditions) for the Inquisition.
Notice that they assert that the declarations against torture are not “definitive and infallible.” In other words, “not doctrine.”
If doctrine, then no waffling. If only discipline, then it can change.
So, I think we’ve considered both your options, and neither lands where you wish it to.
A
AlNg
Guest
Declarations against artificial birth control are not infallible either, No?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Depends. Inasmuch as it acts as an abortifacient, then ABC is murder, and murder is infallibly gravely sinful.
Inasmuch as it ‘merely’ artificially stands in the way of possible conception, then the declaration is certainly authoritative. Folks who cry “infallible! infallible!!” without realizing that authoritative is the standard… well, they’re kinda missing the boat.
A
AlNg
Guest
similarly with torture.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yep. Authoritative.
And, in the case where one mutable instruction is replaced with another that is opposite – and both are matters of prudential judgment – then we say that one of the prudential judgments were not appropriate.
That’s fair. And reasonable. And possible within the Church.
Somehow, when the Church talks about “doctrine” and “infallibility”, folks think that this means everything that is said is irreformable and perfect. That’s not what the Church teaches.
A
AlNg
Guest
So just as the teaching on torture has changed, it is possible that the teaching on artificial birth control could be changed.
G
Gorgias
Guest
No. Not, at least, in terms of the implication with ABC, in terms of the intrinsic evil of killing the unborn, as well as the implication that artificial means of thwarting the body’s natural function (which, also is an intrinsic evil).
On the other hand, if there were a method that (1) did not kill unborn humans in the womb and (2) did not actively attempt to nullify the workings of the human body in the act of marital intimacy and procreation, then that method would be a moral alternative.
So… does such a method currently exist? Why, yes! It’s called “natural family planning”! And, guess what? It is neither abortifacient nor an artificial means of negating the body’s functions! And so… no need to change Church teaching – we already have a method that addresses the issue, without being an intrinsic evil!
A
AlNg
Guest
that’s odd.
They change the rules on an intrinsically evil act such as torture, which affects only a few people and which almost all churches say is wrong.
It is not possible for them to change the rules on non-abortifacient artificial birth control, which almost all Roman Catholics in the USA have used and which almost all other churches allow as OK for married couples under certain conditions. A well known Roman Catholic priest and sociologist, Father A. Greeley, has written that most Roman Catholics are ignoring the church teaching on artificial birth control. But generally, i don’t think that Roman Catholics ignore the current teaching on torture.
G
Gorgias
Guest
You’re attempting to misconstrue the case. Let’s be more precise. (Yeah, I know – it hurts your argument about ABC. But it accurately states the situation. Sorry to ruin your party.)
- society / culture approves of torture. Church leaders assent.
- Later, Church leaders decry the use of torture.
- Even later, another Church leader allows it.
- Still more recently, the Church declares (non-doctrinally) that torture is an intrinsically evil act.
You recognize the fallacy in your question, right? It’s like asking “won’t doctors recant their assertions that smoking is unhealthy? After all, many of their patients smoke, and many organizations allow smoking on their grounds!” You’re conflating “truth” with “personal choice”, friend, and the two are not the same (as you point out). However, one sets policy to drive action, and not the other way around.
Two thoughts:
- You seem to be conflating “well-known” with “well-regarded”.
- Lots of folks ignore Church teaching on adultery. Many ignore Church teaching on theft, murder, and other serious sins. By your standard, the Church should reverse these stances. Is that really what you’re suggesting?
- Status