Torture always wrong?

[RachelsAlumni]

I can’t help but note at this point that no one’s addressed my first post to this thread.

Jeremy

to answer the question:

"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. "

While 2267 is specifically referring to capital punishment, wouldn’t it also apply to preventing attack and allow bloodless torture in some cases?
is NO.

Torture is not “bloodless means” as it is used in this section of the CCC. The “bloodless means” being referred to here is incarceration as opposed to killing,* I believe the euphemism is execution*. It is not describing forms of torture that don’t leave marks, cause bleeding or death.

Also to quote then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who stated unequivocally that “The concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

Nor is the concept of an allowable form of torture as ‘preventative’. Since torture ‘which nothing could justify’ is ‘independently of circumstances…always seriously wrong’

Torture is instrinsically evil, does not ‘correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good’ and is not ‘in conformity to the dignity of the human person.’

 

[bobzills]

I can’t help but note at this point that no one’s addressed my first post to this thread.

Jeremy

As I see it, you are positing something that is not true. It goes something like this: if we know that someone has certain information which will save the world, then can we torture that person to obtain this information and save the world. Well, how do you know for sure that this is the person who has the information you need in the first place? It could be a case of mistaken identity, couldn’t it. Or one thousand and one other errors could be involved here. Because of the uncertainty principle, you will never know for absolutely sure, that this is the man who has the information that you want.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

so we’re supposed to feel all guilty because some psychopathic murderer of children gets water boarded, or is sleep-deprived or made to stay in a cold cell for a short time? Is that really “torture” in the “iron maiden” sense? There are people who live with cold and sleep-deprivation every day.

It seems to me the notion of “torture” used by a lot of the politicos and the USCCB is the “middle class suburban” notion of it. If they had to work at an open-hearth furnace with the flu, or live in a drug-infested ghetto, or pick strawberries when it’s so hot the sun feels like it’s being blasted from a shotgun, they might think differently about what real torture is.

I think that was covered here:

…whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator".132

 

[Ridgerunner]

'um so can you see the future to know who will kill? May be you could simply testify against these people in a trial then we could lock them up. No murders that way.

In the hypothetical, which is what we were talking about, it is KNOWN that the person in question put the child in the grave and that the child will die if not found and rescued. The only thing not known was the location of the grave. No crystal ball to it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think that was covered here:

…whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator".132

But that does not help in determining what is proscribed and what is not. I can assure you that if you put most suburban white collar workers on a production line in a meat-packing plant, or in the Texas sun picking cucumbers, drinking warm water and using a porta-potty, they would consider them degrading conditions of work. If you put them in a cabin with no running water and with the only source of heat being the wood they cut themselves, they would consider those living conditions subhuman. Yet, millions risk all sorts of hazards to achieve those very conditions of work and our ancestors were grateful for those very living conditions.
Much of this is in the eye of the beholder. We are born into a “vale of tears” where we are enjoined to “eat our bread in the sweat of our brow”. We all die, and rarely is that pleasant. This is not paradise, even if many of us are so privileged that we come to expect it.

When you read about the methods of “torture” to which some object, it is apparent that some do not exceed what many students go through; what many workers go through, what many witnesses or participants in trials go through and what, certainly, any marine or navy seal goes through. I personally suspect that much of the objections come from those who have always had very comfortable lives; who really don’t know how most of the world lives, and are being oversensitive as a result. And if, as seems to be the case, the USCCB has “added” to the proscriptions of the CCC, and I think they have, I think they have done so from of a “cultural”, not a “moral” standpoint.

 

[jemfinch]

to answer the question:

is NO.

You didn’t even quote me. You quoted someone else.

I’m talking about this post.

Jeremy

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What troubles me most is that the CCC is exceeding clear on the issue and trying to parse it with reference to another section that deals with self-defense, suggests but once again that someone has decided they think torture should be allowed and is trying to suggest that the Catholic Church is somehow unclear. This is now the second time someone has erroneously tried to claim that the USCCB was not following church teaching. In that and in this ithe evidence seems rather clear. One questions why someone would desire to have the Church adopt a torture friendlier position. It’s simply disgusting to contemplate.

 

[jemfinch]

As I see it, you are positing something that is not true. It goes something like this: if we know that someone has certain information which will save the world, then can we torture that person to obtain this information and save the world.

No, I didn’t say that. I said that if we know someone has certain information which is necessary to reasonably accomplish a certain good, that the state has the right and authority to apply corporal punishment if the person refuses to relinquish such information.

Well, how do you know for sure that this is the person who has the information you need in the first place? It could be a case of mistaken identity, couldn’t it.

That’s always a danger when the state applies punishments. The same argument would apply against any punishment imposed for any reason.

Or one thousand and one other errors could be involved here.

Nothing about this objection applies specifically to the scenario I proposed.

Because of the uncertainty principle, you will never know for absolutely sure, that this is the man who has the information that you want.

If that principle applies here, it would apply in any situation where the state applies a punishment, and I doubt that’s your intended result.

Jeremy

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I have read over the USCCB document of November 14, 2007 “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”. It seems to me the the US Bishops may have introduced new doctrine that is not in the Catechism.

In paragraphs 23 and 64, the Bishops indicate that the use of torture is always wrong. At times they site the Catechism no 2297 which 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.”

In 2297 it does not say that torture is prohibited even to prevent a future attack against the innocent. To the contrary, in no 2267 the Catechism states:

"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. "

While 2267 is specifically referring to capital punishment, wouldn’t it also apply to preventing attack and allow bloodless torture in some cases?

It seems like the Bishops may have said something new that is not in the Catechism. Is that how other see it?

I agree the bishops have said something that is not in the catechism. I don’t know if it’s new or not. But they are the bishops after all, and have the authority to speak on matters such as this.

 

[bobzills]

Nothing about this objection applies specifically to the scenario I proposed.

My objection is that you never know for sure if the given person actually has the information that you want.
I am opposed to torture and agree with the Bishops and with the Vatican representative on this issue.
And I don;t think that the end justfies the means.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Another point to consider is America’s reputation. I used to really believe that America was this great country which used its power to defend freedom. When Bush started torturing the prisoners at Guantanamo, I just lost all respect. I no longer really care who wins your wars, one side is as bad as the other.

 

[estesbob]

Another point to consider is America’s reputation. I used to really believe that America was this great country which used its power to defend freedom. When Bush started torturing the prisoners at Guantanamo, I just lost all respect. I no longer really care who wins your wars, one side is as bad as the other.

No one was tortured at GITMO.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

In the hypothetical, which is what we were talking about, it is KNOWN that the person in question put the child in the grave and that the child will die if not found and rescued. The only thing not known was the location of the grave. No crystal ball to it.

How do you know the story is real?

 

[jemfinch]

My objection is that you never know for sure if the given person actually has the information that you want.

The particular case being discussed is a man who confessed and turned himself in but refused to divulge where the girl has been buried alive.

I am opposed to torture and agree with the Bishops and with the Vatican representative on this issue.

So am I. Let’s try not to repeat the obvious.

And I don’t think that the end justfies the means.

Neither do I. Platitudes do not constitute argument.

Even the Catechism recognizes that all things which appear to be theft are not theft:

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.

Why is so unreasonable, then, that all things which appear to be torture may not be torture? If certain conditions hold (in particular, that the state or an agent thereof be detaining a person whom it holds with reasonable certainty to be in possession of knowledge necessary for the prevention of evil) then corporal punishment for the detainee’s refusal to divulge such information may not constitute torture (despite appearing to be so).

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

How do you know the story is real?

He just said it was hypothetical! He knows it’s not real. We’re considering that situation as representative of a situation in which the state is reasonable certain that a person possesses knowledge it needs to rectify a wrong or prevent an evil.

Jeremy

 

[Texas_Roofer]

He just said it was hypothetical! He knows it’s not real. We’re considering that situation as representative of a situation in which the state is reasonable certain that a person possesses knowledge it needs to rectify a wrong or prevent an evil.

Jeremy

He needs to understand God knows not man. Read the Limburg case. The justification is false and leads men to sin

 

[zerocrossing]

I believe that you have hit the nail right on the head. While torture is distasteful, it sometimes is neccessary.

Not according to the Catechism. It is always a grave moral wrong. The Catechism even terms it “blasphemous” in some cases.

Claiming that a grave moral wrong is sometimes necessary is reverting to situational ethics - something that the Catholic Church rejects categorically.

Frankly, I am shocked that Americans are even engaging in this conversation. We used to know that torture was a great and hideous moral evil. It was something that only the bad guys did.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No one was tortured at GITMO.

I would think it would be irrationally naive to suggest that one can believe the Bush administration on this question. We know they have tortured. We know they wanted authority to torture. We know they kept secret prisons in other countries who did not restrict the use of torture. We undeniably tortured at Abu Greb. What on earth would be your proof that no torture occurred at Gitmo?

 

[estesbob]

Not according to the Catechism. It is always a grave moral wrong. The Catechism even terms it “blasphemous” in some cases.

Claiming that a grave moral wrong is sometimes necessary is reverting to situational ethics - something that the Catholic Church rejects categorically.

Frankly, I am shocked that Americans are even engaging in this conversation. We used to know that torture was a great and
hideous moral evil. It was something that only the bad guys did.

The problem is many people define torture so loosely that even imprisoning somebody can be considered torture. I do not believe the waterboarding is torture. During the Middle Ages the church allowed "torture’ as long as it was only applied once and did not put life or limb at risk. I know that they have since tightened their definition on this but that I do not believe waterboarding falls under their prohibition. You are welcome to have your own opinion but your opinion on what constitutes torture is no more binding on Catholics than mine.

 

[estesbob]

I would think it would be irrationally naive to suggest that one can believe the Bush administration on this question. We know they have tortured. We know they wanted authority to torture. We know they kept secret prisons in other countries who did not restrict the use of torture. We undeniably tortured at Abu Greb. What on earth would be your proof that no torture occurred at Gitmo?

There is no proof that there was. The fact you don’t like George Bush and don’t believe him does not mean that we were torturing people st GITMO or any place else. The leadership of the Senate was told about this interrogation technique in 1992 and had no problem with it. But then I guess you don’t believe them either.