What the soldier did was totally legitimate - but so too was what the boy did. The boy was on a critical mission to deliver supplies, was fired upon, and responded with his own fire. This is, of course, one of many reasons why war should only be used as a very last resort, and why even when a war might be justified, it’s still horrible.I used a child, in my hypothetical, to make the question exceedingly difficult. I also used a child because the Palestinians have wrapped children in dynamite to blow up Jews.
In his authorized biography, Marine sniper Carlos Hathcock made sure that the book opened with the difficult target which caused him the most emotional pain. Readers should be aware that though I am American, I am a lawyer for many Vietnamese people, whom I love dearly, and that on weekends we babysit a Vietnamese girl whom I love as my daughter.
Hathcock was guarding a hilltop along the Ho Chi Minh trail. He spotted a boy employed by the North Vietnamese Army to move Russian-supplied Kalishnakov machineguns and ammunition down the trail to North Vietnamese and Viet Cong in the South. The boy walked a bike with an enormous stack of bundled rifles on it down the trail.
Hathcock thought something like, “Well, there goes a delivery involving a few dozen dead American and South Vietnamese fathers.” To try to save the boy’s life, Hathcock decided to knock down the boy’s bike with a bullet, and scare the boy away. Bang. The bullet slammed into the bike frame, knocking-down the bike and scattering the bundle of guns.
Instead of running, the boy picked up a Kalishnakov, shoved in a magazine of live rounds, and began shooting into the trees where Hathcock was located.
Suddenly Hathcock realized that this was a boy trained to fight and kill. If he ran, he would call in brigade-level suppoort. The weapons would be recovered. Americans and South Vietnamese would die.
So, Hathcock shot the boy.
Unfortunate but moral?
If a person being held by us flat out said that they had a bomb set to go off at a specific time to kill a large number of people somewhere, that’s a blatant threat. Inflicting pain on them to try and make them talk could be considered a response to aggression rather than being considered torture. I can see the argument for that because torture implies a passive prisoner and someone making active threats is not being passive. It’s ok to bludgeon a prisoner who is violently resisting, in an attempt to get them to stop. Causing harm is not the direct intent of the beating, nor would it be the direct intent of the pain inflicted on the person making the bomb threat.The problem with your examples is that these are typically stand-alone perpetrators. Once they are in prison, they do not threaten us. However, a terrorist high up on the chain of command is part of a network with plans still in place to attack our country. When he taunts his captors and tells them he has information but he’s not willing to give it up, he is most certainly an aggressor. I did not know that to be an aggressor the person only had to do it in a physical way. Tell that to the many women who have been abused mentally.
And what if he is the one who tells us he knows but just won’t give it up?
Again, comparing a terrorist to a routine prisoner (and especially a non-prisoner) is not apples and oranges. Comparing self defense when dealing with a terrorist and self defense when dealing in conventional war is not apples and oranges. Besides, conventional war (which is justified in certain circumstances by the Church) does not always include individual soldiers waiting for the other side to shoot first…and it’s still considered killing in self defense.
My understanding from what you wrote is that the boy attacked them first. So shooting back is self defense. The soldiers were right.I’ll tell you true story. An army Lt. stands beside his Hummer in a Baghdad neighborhood. As he turns, he sees a boy coming out of alley. Too laste he realizes that that boy is holding an rpg. The boy fires the RPG at the soldier. Fortunately, the projectile passed between his legs and lands under the Hummer but does not explode.
The boy drops the launcher, turns and runs. Two other soldiers fire from Hummer and kill the boy as he runs away. The boy was 10-12 years old. For the question of torture.
Were the soldiers right to kill then now disarmed
I admit that I do not know, but I could see these terrorists actually enjoying telling us that they do know something but not tell us what it is. They just seem to be in a class of prisoner all of their own.If a person being held by us flat out said that they had a bomb set to go off at a specific time to kill a large number of people somewhere, that’s a blatant threat. Inflicting pain on them to try and make them talk could be considered a response to aggression rather than being considered torture. I can see the argument for that because torture implies a passive prisoner and someone making active threats is not being passive. It’s ok to bludgeon a prisoner who is violently resisting, in an attempt to get them to stop. Causing harm is not the direct intent of the beating, nor would it be the direct intent of the pain inflicted on the person making the bomb threat.
But really, how many times does that situation take place outside of the movies? What we normally see is a prisoner we think may have useful information of some sort. We don’t really know what they could tell us specifically. They aren’t making any threats. We torture them just to see what they might say. If they have no useful information to tell us, we just shrug our shoulders and salve our guilty conscience by telling ourselves they were a bad person anyway and probably deserved it.
I’m merely trying to point out that your attempted redefinition of what constitutes an act of aggression has implications far beyond the OP’s situation.Except you are introducing changes that change the parameters to better suit your position. That is the very definition of staw man.
A lie of omission is where a person uses silence to convey a false impression. That is not at all what is going on in the OP. There, the impression conveyed is true - there is a bomb, it will go off and kill people, the boy knows where the bomb is, and he is not telling.My view of withholding information as an act of aggresion is very old. I believe there is a specific commandment concerning the bearing of false testimony. And I believe there is a fairly long history concerning the ‘lie of ommission.’
There is plenty of correct context in the paragraph. The overall theme is a broad discussion of various kinds of violence against persons, and why such violence is wrong. Very appropriate and relevant to the OP.This also places the reader in a precarious position.
If (as you say) one sentence does not necessarily relate at all to the paragraph it is contained in, then the reader is left with no context with which to read the CCC.
If you cut out all the words in the paragraph, and rearrange them to suit your whim, then I’m sure you can get them to spell out anything you want. But that is not how English works.I prefer to follow the guidelines that basic grammer put in place.
Words mean things, paragraphs provide the context for sentences contained in them, chapters provide context to the paragraphs…etc.
How ironic. Because it appears that there are additions being made to the CCC.If you cut out all the words in the paragraph, and rearrange them to suit your whim, then I’m sure you can get them to spell out anything you want. But that is not how English works.
And yet this sentence does not. The sentence you specify says “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”The next to last sentence explains what torture is, and why it is always wrong.
This is the crux of the issue for me. Is the Church’s teaching regarding torture the same as abortion where it is always wrong…or is it more like its teaching on killing in self defense or in its teaching regarding the death penalty when there is no other way to protect society?How ironic. Because it appears that there are additions being made to the CCC.
And yet this sentence does not. The sentence you specify says “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”
Nothing here specifies 'always wrong’
There is however a sentence immedietely following that offers exceptions.
I see the word “innocent” in paragraph 2297 as referring back to the previous paragraph with its prohibition against “disabling mutilation” and laying out the exceptions to that principle and not making an allowance to torture some and not others.2296 Organ transplants are in conformity with the moral law if the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and is to be encouraged as a expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissible to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.
and further on we see in paragraph 2312:2298 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, who themselves 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. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
and in paragraph 2313:“The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.”
All of this taken together argues strongly for an understanding of the Catechism that all torture is prohibited and against natural law and the moral order for all times and in all circumstances. I can’t find any wiggle room where somebody can find a case where the Church allows torture in some circumstances. The plain reading of these paragraphs argues against that.2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Good luck trying of Mars then!Clearly, this is not the world I want to be living in; Jesus, deliver me!
Yes, the greater good! What a lovely concept. So we’re all about the Ends are we? Who cares about the means, eh? Good intentions and rationalized ends, hutzah!My understanding from what you wrote is that the boy attacked them first. So shooting back is self defense. The soldiers were right.
In the case of the Palaestinian boy with knowledge of a bomb the question in regards to torture for me is :does it serve the greater good? in this case it did . Hurting this boy saved dozens of innocent lives. I personally do not like the use of torture ,but we must always look at the greater good to be accomplished. Torture just for emotional gratification, must be avoided . In wartimes when thousands of lives are at stake, we must look at this from the standpoint of the greater good.
So that in the end the ‘moral West’ is little better than the violence we roundly condemn? Then we wonder why the rest of the world despises our values!Torture? Torture?
Flying an plane into the twin towers, killing three thousand plus innocent Americans and these sob’s want to keep doing it. I say do what is necessary to keep us safe. Those people behead American Soldiers and drag their bodies through the streets of some city in Somalia and Baghdad, hang them from bridges. Kill the SOB’S. Defend us at any cost to them. So be it.
So let me make certain I understand what you are saying here…I see the word “innocent” in paragraph 2297 as referring back to the previous paragraph with its prohibition against “disabling mutilation” and laying out the exceptions to that principle and not making an allowance to torture some and not others.
Romans 12:14-21 "Bless those who persecute (you), bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Have the same regard for one another; do not be haughty but associate with the lowly; do not be wise in your own estimation. Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.Torture? Torture?
Flying an plane into the twin towers, killing three thousand plus innocent Americans and these sob’s want to keep doing it. I say do what is necessary to keep us safe. Those people behead American Soldiers and drag their bodies through the streets of some city in Somalia and Baghdad, hang them from bridges. Kill the SOB’S. Defend us at any cost to them. So be it.
You know I must cede some ground in this debate. You are right that the Church does not outright and explicitly condemn torture in all circumstances. The one area it is quiet on is torture used to get vital information from a suspect.So let me make certain I understand what you are saying here…
A sentence in a paragraph doesn’t refer to the paragraph it is in, it refers to a different paragraph entirely.
This begs the question of why they didn’t simply write it into the paragraph it refers to in the first place? Unless they actually did.
While the Church may not have spoken infallibly on this subject and can be argued that to a slight degree it is an open question in some minor circumstances I reject the proposition that torture is ever justified or defensible and my conscience as a Catholic cannot allow me to hold any other position.In this service to man, Christians readily endorse the aims and practices of the Red Cross. . . . [In those who suffer] they see the figure of Christ himself, who has identified himself with prisoners, the sick, exiles, and those despoiled of everything. How many pages of the Gospels graphically depict this theme, beginning with the parable of the Good Samaritan! And as for torture, the Christian is confronted from infancy onward with the account of Christ’s Passion. The memory of Jesus – stripped, flogged, and derided right up until the sufferings of his final agony – should always make him resolve never to see analogous torments inflicted on any one of his brothers in humanity. **Spontaneously, the disciple of Christ rejects every recourse to such methods, which nothing could justify, and by which the dignity of man is as much debased in the torturer as in his victim. . . **
contains a loophole as indicated. I’m not sure what “moral violence” means, perhaps shouting loudly at someone is moral violence, or forcing them to watch degrading films. Regardless, the loophole is that torture is only proscribed forOriginally Posted by Catechism of the Catholic Church
2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. **Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred **is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
Jesus Christ was brutally tortured before he was hung on the cross.Torture? Torture?
Flying an plane into the twin towers, killing three thousand plus innocent Americans and these sob’s want to keep doing it. I say do what is necessary to keep us safe. Those people behead American Soldiers and drag their bodies through the streets of some city in Somalia and Baghdad, hang them from bridges. Kill the SOB’S. Defend us at any cost to them. So be it.
I highlighted what I believe to be information that shows the ‘confession’ is not so (you cannot confess an act that has yet to happen).Regarding the hypothetical situation in which a Catholic confesses to a priest that he is about to perpetrate an act of terrorism: It’s my understanding that a priest is obligated to tell the authorities about crimes that he knows of that have yet to take place, even if they were revealed under the seal of confession. Right or wrong?
In various countries, the priest may be required under civil law to tell the authorities about information protected by the seal of the confessional. This is in direct conflict with Catholic canon law:Regarding the hypothetical situation in which a Catholic confesses to a priest that he is about to perpetrate an act of terrorism: It’s my understanding that a priest is obligated to tell the authorities about crimes that he knows of that have yet to take place, even if they were revealed under the seal of confession. Right or wrong?