Torture always wrong?

[Ella]

Bobzills, thank you for those links about waterboarding. And God Bless You for standing up for what is right.

 

[stevegravy]

Thanks to bobzills
“any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,’

Well lots of new ground has been introduced none of which deals with torture. With the exception of the post a while back. It seems to me the operative words for harsh questioning under the sanction or condensation of government official are “severe pain” physical or mental. Up until this almost all other comments about torture could have been satisfied by time out and definitely by spanking. So, for something to be torture it has to be severe pain. Ok so what is all the fuss about. Just about anybody could live with this. It says pain is ok just not severe pain. I am sure glad we straightened that out.

Now about giving the country back to the Indians you must be following the reconquesta movement. But, I don’t hold much hope out for them unless they want to be terrorist also. Then they may be in for harsh painful but not severely painful questioning.

Now about this administration causing the US to be despised throughout the world your kidding right. Nobody in there right mind could seriously believe that the US was synonymous with the statue of liberty. Unless they are really naive, Reality check time
a… The country was founded with the sin of slavery.
b. We bought the Louisiana territory from Napoleon after he stole it from Spain. Briton was very mad about that one.
c. It didn’t take fifty years after the ink dried on the constitution and we are creating incidents with Mexico so the administration could lie and gin up excitement for war. Lincoln accused the president of lying to congress. Grant wrote it was the wickedest war we ever fought. And he was around for a large portion of the Indian wars and the Civil War. Polk won the war and manifest destiny was the watch word at the time. And we ended up ripping off a big hunk of Mexico and made it ours.
d. The Spanish American war
e. The suppression of the revolts in the Phillippines
f… The creation of the state of Panama and the canal
g. And how about the Indians
h. Separate but equal
i. Refusing to open the borders to European jews in the face of Hitler’s atrocities
j Lets see then there is the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the whole who ordered Diems assignation thing.
k A whole plethora of interferance in central america

The list could go on and on. So stop with, “We lost the respect of the world” stuff. I am telling you I don’t think it was ever there. They only like us when they need us.

War crimes are for the folks who lose wars.
God will ultimately judge us and all our actions. But in good conscience I would not let the innocent suffer or be killed by these terrorist who are monsters and have lost the right to breath. In my humble opinion.

 

[bobzills]

Bobzills, thank you for those links about waterboarding. And God Bless You for standing up for what is right.

You are welcome. I hope that everyone will now agree that waterboarding is torture, plain and simple.
Which is the best symbol for America and America’s justice?
Is it

1. the Statue of Liberty and the promise of liberty and justice for all,
   OR
   2.or will it be the images of Abu Ghraib, and the policy of accepting waterboarding as a method of interrogation, and the policy of rendition of suspects to be tortured in third world countries?

 

[Ella]

I think a good question would be, do we think, if American prisoners of war were waterboarded, that this would be torture or not?

Because, one aspect of the Geneva conventions, is that it is an agreement about how prisoners are treated, including American prisoners. So, if a G.I. is waterboarded is he not tortured?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

.
…God will ultimately judge us and all our actions. But in good conscience I would not let the innocent suffer or be killed by these terrorist who are monsters and have lost the right to breath. In my humble opinion.

And thus the famous statement “-------”. If you torture many, you will eventually torture an innocent person at some point and time, and then you are the terrorist!, of course then and only then will you see the light.

 

[stevegravy]

Which is the best symbol for America and America’s justice?

The trial lawyer!!!

 

[didymus]

Which is the best symbol for America and America’s justice?

The trial lawyer!!!

Damn straight.

And if the government (God forbid) dragged you off or “rendered” you I’m willing to bet that the first thing you’d be demanding would be a lawyer. Ideally a lawyer should follow the quote from A Man for All Seasons about extending the protection of the laws even to the Devil:

MORE: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man’s laws, not God’s—and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

 

[Saint_Cunigunde]

According to Holy Writ, no, torture is not always wrong, at least not when used as punishment for the guilty.

Because we see Saint Dismas say in Luke 23:40-41:

39 And one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil.
42 And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil.

And we indeed justly…

…justly…

Jesus not only did not condemn the torture of death by crucifixion, he told St. Dismas that he would be with Him in Paradise.
So no, a resounding no, torture is certainly not “wrong” in all cases.

In any case, it is very sad(and frustrating) when people try to pin the crimes of ecclesiastics on the state(usually blaming kings, of course), such as the Inquisition, not that that was necessarily a crime. The “New Catechism”'s teaching on torture is simply another case of the Vatican(not the Church) trying to pin its own dark past on the Holy Roman Emperors, and the Kings of France.

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.

Uh huh, and you have no knowledge of what the judges in those days were faced with, the teary eyes of the mother of a murdered child; the weeping of a husband whose wife was raped. And people seem to forget the main point, the end, as it were, of torture: Torture, done for the proper reason, is love. it serves to remind the condemned of their coming divine judgement, where far more than one’s body will be at stake, and which will be much, much harsher than any earthly judgement.
It gives them one last chance to repent, before their soul goes down, to be consumed in hell’s eternal fire. Of course, I understand that these things are offensive to us today, for we all know God would never actually send anyone to hell! Oh no, of course not! He won’t do what he said he is going to do! Because God is a liar!

Well, no, actually, God can neither deceive, nor be deceived. So, in fact He permits torture to occur, eternally, and far worse than any temporal punishment. But earthly torture actually has sort of the affect of penance, in a way. Certainly, if the condemned repents, his temporal torture would be a purgation of sorts.

In the good old days, if the pope tried deceiving people on such important matters of doctrine, faith, or practice, he often got smacked up.
Oh how I long for those days, I mean, God help us all, when the Holy Father says we shouldn’t get all up in arms over abortion!

But I guess that am just to much of a Ghibelline for the typical modern mind to perceive.

Saint Mary, pray for us!

 

[delphin]

According to common sense, and to God’s Golden Rule

Yes Torture is ALWAYS wrong.

 

[josh987654321]

Yes Torture is ALWAYS wrong.

x2

I agree wholeheartedly, absolutely no exception.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

According to Holy Writ, no, torture is not always wrong, at least not when used as punishment for the guilty.

I believe you are gravely mistaken, torture is always wrong.

Because we see Saint Dismas say in Luke 23:40-41:

39 And one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil.
42 And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil.

And we indeed justly…

…justly…

Jesus not only did not condemn the torture of death by crucifixion, he told St. Dismas that he would be with Him in Paradise.

In regards to the torturers, the ones crucifying Him, He cried out “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” and I believe St. Dismas was not saying that the torturers were acting justly, rather he said that he himself was suffering justly as he was a sinner, thus showing how contrite his heart was regarding his sins. I believe it’s St. Dismas’ contrite heart that warranted the reply from our Lord, “Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.”

So no, a resounding no, torture is certainly not “wrong” in all cases.

I’m sorry, but no, I believe a resounding no, torture is always wrong in all cases and all forms.

Uh huh, and you have no knowledge of what the judges in those days were faced with, the teary eyes of the mother of a murdered child; the weeping of a husband whose wife was raped. And people seem to forget the main point, the end, as it were, of torture: Torture, done for the proper reason, is love.

I’m sorry, but there is never any ‘proper reason’ when it comes to torture and ‘love’ is the very opposite of attributes you could ascribe to such a thing.

“Do not commit the crime for which you now serve the sentence, God said ‘Vengence is mine’”

it serves to remind the condemned of their coming divine judgement, where far more than one’s body will be at stake, and which will be much, much harsher than any earthly judgement.
It gives them one last chance to repent, before their soul goes down, to be consumed in hell’s eternal fire. Of course, I understand that these things are offensive to us today, for we all know God would never actually send anyone to hell! Oh no, of course not! He won’t do what he said he is going to do! Because God is a liar!

Well, no, actually, God can neither deceive, nor be deceived. So, in fact He permits torture to occur, eternally, and far worse than any temporal punishment. But earthly torture actually has sort of the affect of penance, in a way. Certainly, if the condemned repents, his temporal torture would be a purgation of sorts.

God allows evil, but He does not will it. Torture is evil, always, in all cases and all forms it may take. Suffering can be of redemptive value when endured in the same way that Christ redeemed all of us on the Cross, but those who are the perpetrators of such evil (e.g. torture) are following the evil one.

Oh how I long for those days, I mean, God help us all, when the Holy Father says we shouldn’t get all up in arms over abortion!

Pope Francis calls abortion an ‘abominable crime’

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Saint_Cunigunde]

In regards to the torturers, the ones crucifying Him, He cried out “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” and I believe St. Dismas was not saying that the torturers were acting justly, rather he said that he himself was suffering justly as he was a sinner, thus showing how contrite his heart was regarding his sins. I believe it’s St. Dismas’ contrite heart that warranted the reply from our Lord, “Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.”

Yes, you may believe that. Stranger things have I heard.
But that isn’t what he said. He said what can only be understood simple English we are justly punished. Meaning that the punishment itself was just, because they were guilty. When Christ begged the Father to forgive those who were crucifying Him, He was asking the Father to forgive those who were crucifying Him! Because our Lord was innocent, but the thieves not. Their punishment was just, as St. Dismas said:

*But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: **Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation?
And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil.

---

Hard to argue with such an obvious statement, I mean, it just sounds foolish for someone to take what St. Dismas said, and twist the words until they’re hardly recognizable, and then use them to say nearly the exact opposite of what he actually said.

The Penitent Thief said was that he and the other thief were being justly punished because they were guilty! And it was a legitimate authority that condemned them to death. And though we, the marvelous moderns, who are pretty much the wimpiest people to ever disgrace God’s green earth, may consider that a bit harsh for something like theft, even grand theft, the fact is, it was fairly common for many things.

Now, the Romans were a very cruel people, it’s true. But it is also true, that the Empire held legitimate authority. They had the right and obligation to administer temporal justice. Perhaps the fact of Christ’s innocence is itself a warning, that the authorities must do what they can to prevent innocent men from being unjustly punished, but must also punish the guilty, “as far as they are able to do so, having a fitting respect for the mercy of God”, to paraphrase the Coronation Rite. The image of the “Lady Justice with her scales” comes to mind. A balancing act for the ages, it is an exceedingly difficult thing, perhaps impossible, to not only punish the guilty, but also to protect the innocent.
The whole purpose of having judges, is firstly the administration of justice, in the hopes that the condemned will see themselves as sinners, and repent. No need for prison ministry, just show them the rope; reality dawns very quickly when one’s own death is eminent.

God allows evil, but He does not will it. Torture is evil, always, in all cases and all forms it may take.

Is God’s damnation of souls to Hell evil?
No. It is His perfect justice, and His perfect mercy.
Likewise for His judging a soul to Heaven.

Now, temporal torture is not God’s perfect justice, it is man’s imperfect justice.
But it is justice nonetheless. And as the damned soul has admitted himself to eternal torment, so the criminal, through his misuse of the gift of free will, admits himself to his temporal judges. However, unlike the torment done by devils, out of hate for mankind, temporal punishment(like Penance, if anyone ever does that anymore) is done out of love for justice and mercy, in imitation of God’s perfect justice.
And it is not only permissible, it is demanded of temporal judges, for it is better to imitate God than not. We are all supposed to do so; but authorities are called to a much higher standard.

But what is to be classified as torture? Truly, if human pain is subjective, then how are we to define torture as extreme physical and psychological pain. At mediaeval abbeys, monks put themselves through things which today the Church, being full of wimps and modernists, might consider to be contrary to human dignity!
The point is that our mediaeval forefathers were tough.
Really tough.

Everyday life for them them was tough. They’re weren’t even many chairs around back then(one who was wealthy enough to own one, was called a chairman ). The pagan roots of pre-Christian Europe, with their very difficult, and often very painful, rites of passage, is one of the reasons that, when Europe finally converted, Christendom flourished the way it did. They took the Faith very seriously, and yet, they permitted torture.

Of course, they forbade contraception, abortion, euthanasia, divorce, remarriage, murder, suicide, rape, pornography, prostitution, usury, theft, and (chattel)slavery(very uncommon in most of Europe, but was banned anyway most everywhere until about the time that so much chatter against temporal torture began, i.e., the extraordinarily wonderful, great age that was the Renaissance), etc., etc., etc., etc… etc… (Serfdom wasn’t slavery, because the dignity of the serf was not denied, i.e., serfs were not treated as livestock, but as humans; it was a mutual agreement between landlord and tenants, much like today in an apartment, and people still have something against their landlord(some things never change )
But I guess they were wrong on these issues, too… No, of course not!

For people to have so much right in terms of their moral wisdom(remember, this age produced many, many saints; I think even more than the modern era, even counting those canonized since 1980 or so j/k), it seems rather odd that they, who took the faith very seriously, would be so horribly, even potentially damningly wrong, about something so evil as torture.

 

[Saint_Cunigunde]

Of course, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, two of the greatest saints in the Church’s history, among others(not all of whom were saints, of course), defended torture of various kinds. So it is not such a simple issue, and the answer that it is always wrong, is a fairly new one.

-.- Pfft… You just can’t win against people who think themselves more brilliant than Aquinas. I give up…

 

[Nelka]

Torture always wrong?

Yes!

 

[josh987654321]

.

:ehh:

Suppose I tied you to a table and waterboarded you, I wonder if you would take much solace in your views? and from a fellow Catholic nevertheless.

You cannot say you love God, and then justify torturing Him in your brother/sister who was created in the image and likeness of God, same as you. Actions speak louder than words, anyone capable of torture is not capable of love.

I’m sorry but torture is an absolutely non negotable and clear no! It’s pure evil. If you cannot see or understand this, than there is not point me saying anymore. I will pray for you.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Saint_Cunigunde]

:ehh:

Suppose I tied you to a table and waterboarded you, I wonder if you would take much solace in your views? and from a fellow Catholic nevertheless.

You cannot say you love God, and then justify torturing Him in your brother/sister who was created in the image and likeness of God, same as you. Actions speak louder than words, anyone capable of torture is not capable of love.

Well, I see you have completely failed to make any response to my arguments, and just spewed the same mantra as the modernists: “it is how I believe, I think, I say, because I know better than God!, and how dare anyone say otherwise! I know I am right!” Of course, if this were a dogmatic issue, and the Church condemned the unfortunate practice of torture under all circumstances, then I would submit. The fact is that is is not so simple and black and white, as “it is always wrong”, “intrinsically immoral”, one of the classic methods of saying, “there are none who loathe justice and mercy more than we.”

But God actually commanded the slaughter of infants, for good reasons, there can be no doubt, and we may never understand them. But since you don’t seem to deal well with the small cans of loveworms, so I won’t torture you anymore, by opening up any large ones. That is, perhaps, what Charlemagne meant, in the preamble of the Carolingian version of the Salic Law, when he said that the Franks “seek the key to wisdom and desire justice.” I am proudly of French descent, but I unhappily digress. ^^

If the reality is that the sinner puts himself in Hell, then so it is also the reality that a criminal puts himself on the breaking wheel, in a manner of speaking. And as St. Augustine said, even though it is perhaps dubious to extract confessions through use of torture, the judge “will be a happy and a guiltless man.” Even if an innocent man is punished.

I should add here, that so far as we can tell, serious crime in the middle ages was quite low. But as you obviously don’t care about that, and would have thugs given all sorts of luxury items, and television and computer/internet access(Psycho wife and baby killer Scott Peterson actually had or still has his own personal BLOG!) But oh no! If we put a rapist-murderer to a painful death, in the hopes that they will repent and receive eternal life, we are in SIN and don’t really love God!

Actually, the opposite is true. It is those who defend the rights of murderers who hate God, and hate justice. You have no concern at all for the souls of the lowest criminals.

You see, it is not such a simple thing. Justice is a painful thing to watch. It is ugly, and it difficult to watch. We would rather turn our heads. But it is also the due penalty(or as St. Dismas says, “the due reward for our sins”(rather peculiar thing to say; may he was just a little light-headed from all the weight-lifting, stationary cycling, reality TV watching, DVRing, internet gaming, showering, laundry work, and clothes folding he had been punished with over at Jerusalem City Penitentiary, or whatever it was called)

And what was that? I cannot say that I love God? Excuse me, but that it one to the most arrogant things anyone has ever said to me(and that is saying something)!

:
I’m sorry but torture is an absolutely non negotable and clear no! It’s pure evil. If you cannot see or understand this, than there is not point me saying anymore. I will pray for you.

St. Thomas Aquinas disagrees, and you sound like a fool when you disagree with him. He is one of the greatest saints and Doctors of the Church in its history. And he certainly never condemned torture. Ask yourself why it is, that such a holy and brilliant man could basically argue for the practice, while you, who are not (yet) a saint, and very unlikely to
come close to Thomistic excellence, says that it is “pure evil”?

And you say that is it non-negotiable, which, even if that were true, the modern state(against which the Church had set Herself until the Second Vatican Council), has legalized all but this non-negotiable, and women priests, hear them roar! By the way, I think it is very telling that they and their advocates don’t seem to like the word ‘priestess’, but I digress.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding, or just a lack of understanding, of what justice (and indeed mercy) is. It’s not pretty, it’s not easy. But it is to be administered in this life to the best human imperfection can allow for, with God’s grace; er… well, it used to be, but I keep forgetting that the anointing of kings was actually invalid, maybe even against the human dignity of collectivization and the wonders of democracy; and that it really is a human right to prenatally torture a poor little innocent babe in the womb.( May God bless and comfort the little one, so sweet and innocent; a reminder of the Christ child, a blessing to all the earth! )
But that is one of the consequences of taking justice so lightly, and thinking that soft penalties will do just as well in bringing souls to God(by making society more peaceful) than harsh ones.

And I will pray for you.

Saint Mary, pray for this one, and for all who take justice and mercy so lightly. Bring them into the holy shades, to the grove, under thy protection, and under the loving wings of God, and of His Angels. AMEN.

 

[josh987654321]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Respect for bodily integrity

2297 …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. 91

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.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Saint_Cunigunde]

The New Catechism is not infallible. Far from it.
The fact that saints during the days of the inquisitions, not only did not condemn them, but felt that the Church wasn’t going far enough in their eradication of heresy, proves that the issue of torture is at least debatable, and not non-negotiable. Non-negotiable doctrines don’t appear out of thin air. The Church’s current teaching on torture does not adhere to the traditional understanding of the issue. The issue is, at the very least, a debatable one. It’s like Vatican II’s infamous statements on religious freedom; these are basically contrary to 2000 years of Church Teaching!

I think we just need another Council to be called; maybe the Holy Roman Emperor will emerge out of the ashes of the Bundesrepublik, and pressure the Pope to call one(I won’t hold my breath, but perhaps stranger things have happened).
Somewhat like the great Emperor Sigismund(he had a deep devotion to Saint Ladislaus of Hungary(and a great sense of humour)), who asked to Pope call the Council of Constance, condemning the Bohemian reformer-theologian Jan Hus a heretic, and having him burnt at the stake! A practice, by the way(as I have said, and which you haven’t can’t seem to get your mind around), staunchly supported by St. Thomas Aquinas just a couple of centuries before.

St. Alphonsus Liguori(the “prince of moral theologians”), also defended the practice by the way, so it is not “pure evil!” Or at least, it may not be.

The real problem I have with this whole debate, is that the other side says it isn’t even debatable. I apologize if things got a little heated, but I am very passionate about these sorts of controversial issues. If I have said anything which personally offended anyone(other than the very debatable issue at hand), I sincerely apologize.

But the issue is debatable, until the Church calls another ecumenical Council, and settles it, once and for all. If they wish to settle it, then it must be brutally scrutinized and thoroughly questioned, in lively, rigorous debate. But if the your side’s responses is “it is non-negotiable, and pure evil! There can be no debate!”, then we won’t get anywhere. Accept the fact, that it is a debate, and then you at least have a chance of winning. But if you deny any possibility of the other side’s arguments being true, then you lose by default.

St. Augustine, pray for us!
St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us!
St. Alphonsus Liguori, pray for Us!

And my patrons:
My Guardian Angel dear, pray for us!
St. Wenceslas, pray for us!
St. Agericus, pray for us!
St. Casimir, pray for us!
Sts. Henry II, Cunigunde, and Otto of Bamberg, pray for us!
St. John of Nepomuk, pray for us!
Bls. Pierre of Luxembourg, Karl I of Austria(and Servant of God, Zita), and Charlemagne, pray for us!
St. Andrew, pray for us!
Sts. Dymphna, Joan of Arc, and Hildegard von Bingen, pray for us!
St. Remy, pray for us!
St. Bridgette, pray for us!
Sts. Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, pray for us!
Sts. Sigismund and Guntram of Burgundy, pray for us!
Sts. Leo III, Boniface, Martin of Tours, George, Fiacre, Olaf II of Norway, Edwin of Northumbria, Canute IV of Denmark, Louis IX of France, and Stephen I of Hungary, pray for us!
St. Mary Theotokos, pray for us!

 

[josh987654321]

The New Catechism is not infallible. Far from it.
The fact that saints during the days of the inquisitions, not only did not condemn them, but felt that the Church wasn’t going far enough in their eradication of heresy, proves that the issue of torture is at least debatable, and not non-negotiable. Non-negotiable doctrines don’t appear out of thin air. The Church’s current teaching on torture does not adhere to the traditional understanding of the issue. The issue is, at the very least, a debatable one. It’s like Vatican II’s infamous statements on religious freedom; these are basically contrary to 2000 years of Church Teaching!

I think we just need another Council to be called; maybe the Holy Roman Emperor will emerge out of the ashes of the Bundesrepublik, and pressure the Pope to call one(I won’t hold my breath, but perhaps stranger things have happened).
Somewhat like the great Emperor Sigismund(he had a deep devotion to Saint Ladislaus of Hungary(and a great sense of humour)), who asked the Pope to call the Council of Constance, condemning the Bohemian reformer-theologian Jan Hus as a heretic, and having him burnt at the stake! A practice, by the way (as I have said, and which you haven’t/can’t seem to get your mind around), staunchly supported by St. Thomas Aquinas just a couple of centuries before.

St. Alphonsus Liguori(the “prince of moral theologians”), also defended the practice by the way, so it is not “pure evil!” Or at least, it may not be.

I’m sorry, but everything I have learned about Christ tells me that torturing someone, could never be pleasing to Him. I’m sorry, but I don’t know how ‘Let He who is without sin cast the first stone.’ ‘How many times should I forgive someone who wrongs me? is seven times enough?’ ‘Love one another, as I have loved you’ ‘Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good’ ‘You have heard it said, love your friends and hate your enemies, but I tell you to love your enemies’ ‘If someone slaps your right cheek, turn to them your other cheek also’ could ever be reconciled with torturing someone, I don’t know how our same Lord and God who washed the feet of His disciples, forgave the greatest of sinners, allowed himself to be nailed to a Cross and cried out ‘Father forgive them, for they know not what they do’ as they were crucifying Him, could ever be reconciled with torturing someone.

If it’s okay, I would like to ask if you could please click on my username and read through my public message wall and then see if you still feel the same way afterwards. And if I could never torture someone regardless of their crimes/sins, I could never stand by anyone else that would do it in my place.

And I believe it’s a cruel irony, that we could ever torture somebody for their crimes against us and yet, Christ forgave us our crimes against Him, Christ, the one who is truly innocent, suffered unto death for us.

The real problem I have with this whole debate, is that the other side says it isn’t even debatable. I apologize if things got a little heated, but I am very passionate about these sorts of controversial issues. If I have said anything which personally offended anyone(other than the very debatable issue at hand), I sincerely apologize.

It’s perfectly okay, I realised afterwards I should have probably worded my responses a little differently so as not to confer that you don’t have an opinion or anything like that with ‘non negotiable’ etc, It’s just that I am also very passionate about this issue too. I would also like to apologise for what I have said that’s offended you, I don’t mean to, I just mean to express how much I am against torture and how I could never reconcile it with any of the teachings of our Lord.

But the issue is debatable, until the Church calls another ecumenical Council, and settles it, once and for all. If they wish to settle it, then it must be brutally scrutinized and thoroughly questioned, in lively, rigorous debate. But if the your side’s responses is “it is non-negotiable, and pure evil! There can be no debate!”, then we won’t get anywhere. Accept the fact, that it is a debate, and then you at least have a chance of winning. But if you deny any possibility of the other side’s arguments being true, then you lose by default.

For me personally, torture, torturing someone is simply out of the question, it’s not debatable and non negotiable for me. If I lose by default due to that stance on torture, than I’m perfectly fine with that and very happy to lose.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

• the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
• posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.
**
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed. **