Torture and the CCC - Non Negotiable

[bad_catholic]

The following is from the Cathecism of the Catholic Church and appears to pretty strong statement against torture. It is, I daresay, “non-negotiable.”

Futhermore, where is the moral outrage against torture and the fact that our president is asking for the authority to do this by the so called Christian right? The silence is deafening.

I was roundly “dissed” in another forum on this topic and, per the instructions of our benevolent hosts, I have now provide a solid set of evidence:

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 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. 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.

In Christ,

Chris (or as many will call me here Bad Catholic)

 

[Lillith]

Well…I don’t see why anyone would call you “bad Catholic”…you certainly know your catechism…

I am wondering what waterboarding is…as that was one of the forms of “interrogation” that brought about confession from the guy that planned 9-11 (sorry…I’m not about to attempt spelling his name…it’s the guy that looks like John Belushi)

Some of the topics that were debated as “is this torture” were yelling and bellyslapping…

Because we can never know what was decided legal…as it has been classified as inside information…top secret if you will…debate is going to be difficult.

We will never know if they decided to allow waterboarding or not…and I might never know what the heck that is anyway.

 

[kmknapp]

waterboarding — one wraps the victim’s face in plastic, inducing hypoxia, then floods or submerges victim’s head with/in water to induce the sensations of drowning. A “preferred” method since it does not leave physical wounds or scars for human rights people to photograph later.

karen marie.

 

[Lillith]

waterboarding — one wraps the victim’s face in plastic, inducing hypoxia, then floods or submerges victim’s head with/in water to induce the sensations of drowning. A “preferred” method since it does not leave physical wounds or scars for human rights people to photograph later.

karen marie.

:bigyikes:

Thank you Karen Marie…

That sounds…tortuous…I wonder if it’s still allowed.

 

[wjp984]

torture is usually worng but I don’t see how you can’t justify using means of torture at times to get information to save lives like in the show 24. Well to create drama they overdo it and occasioanlly are stupid and torture someone innocent. However, if you know someone is guilty and has information like when you catch a terrorist, I have a hard time not thinking it is alright to torture that person to save the lives of everyone else.

 

[Reepicheep]

torture is usually worng but I don’t see how you can’t justify using means of torture at times to get information to save lives like in the show 24. Well to create drama they overdo it and occasioanlly are stupid and torture someone innocent. However, if you know someone is guilty and has information like when you catch a terrorist, I have a hard time not thinking it is alright to torture that person to save the lives of everyone else.

1. How do you know they’e guilty if there has been no trial?
2. How do you know the information you get wil be reliable?
   (People under torture say what they think will make the pain stop, not what happens to be true)
3. .What if the torutre victim doesn’t have the correct information?
4. How do you determine what situations justify torture, and which don’t?
5. Once you allow it in extrme situations, won’t it then be called for in less extreme ones, and from there to others? We already have it being used when it’s supposed to be forbidden. What will ti be like if it’s permitted?
6. Torture is not usually wrong. Torture is always wrong

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thank you Mister Bush for your -we only spy on people we know are terrorists, and we only torture criminals. Really, why did you not arrest and try the terrorists? And how do you know the person being tortured is a criminal? ( Bush supporter) because there are only two kinds one confesses during torture, and one that dies before confession during torture. Until we finish the spying we can not tell you why we chose to keep the terrorist free!

Hope that help explain it

 

[estesbob]

Thank you Mister Bush for your -we only spy on people we know are terrorists, and we only torture criminals. Really, why did you not arrest and try the terrorists? And how do you know the person being tortured is a criminal? ( Bush supporter) because there are only two kinds one confesses during torture, and one that dies before confession during torture. Until we finish the spying we can not tell you why we chose to keep the terrorist free!

Hope that help explain it/quote

It very succincly expresses the Lefts opinion on how the War On Terror should be fought. They believe it should be fought with Lawyers and judges. Fortunatley we elected an administration that knows war is fought by the military.

 

[mosher]

The use of torture is obviously immoral. Remember that one of the basic principle of ethics is that the ends do not justify the means. And as the CCC references when it paraphrases Pius XI in Casti Cannubii it is in direct violation of the intrinsic dignity of the human person. Further, the use of torture to extract information is generally found to be unreliable anyway as the person will say anything the interrogator wants to end the suffering.

For this reason I am glad that this administration does not torture enemy combatants or terrorists (so it seems). Remember, however, even though torture is not morally allowed it does not rule our the use of aggressive interrogation to extract information.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It very succincly expresses the Lefts opinion on how the War On Terror should be fought. They believe it should be fought with Lawyers and judges. Fortunatley we elected an administration that knows war is fought by the military.

I do not know the Left could you introduce them to me, it seams you are a spokemans for them. Surely they would not have a spokesman that was not one of their own.

 

[Liberian]

Chris,

(No, I will not call you “Bad Catholic” unless you tell me to)

As usual, the devil is in the details. The condemnation is against torture–“physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred.” The American interrogators were looking for information to prevent further bloodshed; they were not seeking to “extract confessions” (which is to extract admissions of guilt in crimes already committed), “punish the guilty,” “frighten opponents,” or “satisfy hatred.”

There is also the question of what constitutes “physical or moral violence.” Quite frankly, waterboarding, playing rock music, and keeping in a cold room are quite mild in comparison to the practices of former ages. If you are going to outlaw anything that could be construed as “physical or moral violence,” you will have to empty our prisons as confinement can be considered “moral violence.”

In short, the situation is nowhere near as clearcut as many would think.

• Liberian

 

[detrockcity3]

Chris,

(No, I will not call you “Bad Catholic” unless you tell me to)

As usual, the devil is in the details. The condemnation is against torture–“physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred.” The American interrogators were looking for information to prevent further bloodshed; they were not seeking to “extract confessions” (which is to extract admissions of guilt in crimes already committed), “punish the guilty,” “frighten opponents,” or “satisfy hatred.”

There is also the question of what constitutes “physical or moral violence.” Quite frankly, waterboarding, playing rock music, and keeping in a cold room are quite mild in comparison to the practices of former ages. If you are going to outlaw anything that could be construed as “physical or moral violence,” you will have to empty our prisons as confinement can be considered “moral violence.”

In short, the situation is nowhere near as clearcut as many would think.

• Liberian

The question should not be whether or not torture is moral ever, but whether or not what we are doing is torture. Waterboarding, uncomfortable positions, uncomfortable environments, sleep deprivation, taking advantage of Islamic aversions to dogs, etc. are not torture. I haven’t heard anything about anything more serious than that, so I accept the coercive interrogation explanation.

We do know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, planner of the 9/11 attacks, was waterboarded. We also know that led to the names and addresses of many terrorists, and much other critical information, such as a plot to attack the Library Tower in Los Angeles by air. If making the terrorist behind 9/11 feel like he’s drowning prevented the loss of a multitude of lives in L.A, then I say keep doing what you gotta do.

 

[kmknapp]

Sleep deprivation, stress posturing, and deliberate induction of hypothermia (“cold room”) can all be fatal. Sleep deprivation is how the KGB got all those glorious confessions for their show trials. The Nazis were infamous for hypothermia. Our government had no difficulty recognizing these as torture when Other People in Other Countries were doing them.

karen marie

 

[detrockcity3]

Sleep deprivation, stress posturing, and deliberate induction of hypothermia (“cold room”) can all be fatal. Sleep deprivation is how the KGB got all those glorious confessions for their show trials. The Nazis were infamous for hypothermia. Our government had no difficulty recognizing these as torture when Other People in Other Countries were doing them.

karen marie

Different, different, different, and you should know that. We aren’t in the business of killing terrorists with this stuff. Nothing is so dangerous as to be fatal, but it is so helpful as to be life-preserving.

 

[Listener]

It is obvious from reading the CCC that torture is just plain immoral. Can you imagine Jesus torturing someone? I can’t imagine why anyone would think that George Bush is a good president. He says that we are going to war to spread democracy and freedom, and then he tortures people??? What kind of democracy and freedom is that? I thank God that I had the good sense not to vote for this man.

I am beginning to think that these politicians are very clever. If you want to get the votes of people who are against gay marriage and abortion, just use the term “culture of life” a lot and tell everyone you’re “pro-life.” That will get you the votes you need.

Once you’re elected, you can just start a war for no good reason, torture people, and take the law into your own hands. Checks and balances, what is that??

Some people will say it was fine because of all of the people Saddam killed. So how do you show that killing is wrong by killing more people? This really makes a lot of sense to me. Others will say, “Look at all of the babies that were killed by abortion.” My answer is, “George Bush is president, and all of those babies are still being killed by abortion.” So what else is new?

Yes, if people are going to make a list of non-negotiables, torture should definitely be on this list.

 

[mosher]

It is obvious from reading the CCC that torture is just plain immoral. Can you imagine Jesus torturing someone? I can’t imagine why anyone would think that George Bush is a good president. He says that we are going to war to spread democracy and freedom, and then he tortures people??? What kind of democracy and freedom is that? I thank God that I had the good sense not to vote for this man.

I am beginning to think that these politicians are very clever. If you want to get the votes of people who are against gay marriage and abortion, just use the term “culture of life” a lot and tell everyone you’re “pro-life.” That will get you the votes you need.

Once you’re elected, you can just start a war for no good reason, torture people, and take the law into your own hands. Checks and balances, what is that??

Some people will say it was fine because of all of the people Saddam killed. So how do you show that killing is wrong by killing more people? This really makes a lot of sense to me. Others will say, “Look at all of the babies that were killed by abortion.” My answer is, “George Bush is president, and all of those babies are still being killed by abortion.” So what else is new?

Yes, if people are going to make a list of non-negotiables, torture should definitely be on this list.

First off, your characterization of the President is completely off base - however that is for another thread.

Second, and most germane to this thread, you are trying to site a moral equivalence that does not exist. While I do assert that torture is always evil the question of that day is really about defining torture. The international documents and national documents on the issue are vague at best and the documents of the Church are equally vague on this issue save for the fact that if it is torture it is wrong. But, remember that torture is not defined by situational ethics but rather objective moral principles must be developed with greater precision then what is currently available.

 

[mosher]

It is obvious from reading the CCC that torture is just plain immoral. Can you imagine Jesus torturing someone? I can’t imagine why anyone would think that George Bush is a good president. He says that we are going to war to spread democracy and freedom, and then he tortures people??? What kind of democracy and freedom is that? I thank God that I had the good sense not to vote for this man.

I am beginning to think that these politicians are very clever. If you want to get the votes of people who are against gay marriage and abortion, just use the term “culture of life” a lot and tell everyone you’re “pro-life.” That will get you the votes you need.

Once you’re elected, you can just start a war for no good reason, torture people, and take the law into your own hands. Checks and balances, what is that??

Some people will say it was fine because of all of the people Saddam killed. So how do you show that killing is wrong by killing more people? This really makes a lot of sense to me. Others will say, “Look at all of the babies that were killed by abortion.” My answer is, “George Bush is president, and all of those babies are still being killed by abortion.” So what else is new?

Yes, if people are going to make a list of non-negotiables, torture should definitely be on this list.

First off, your characterization of the President is completely off base - however that is for another thread.

Second, and most germane to this thread, you are trying to site a moral equivalence that does not exist. While I do assert that torture is always evil the question of that day is really about defining torture. The international documents and national documents on the issue are vague at best and the documents of the Church are equally vague on this issue save for the fact that if it is torture it is wrong. But, remember that torture is not defined by situational ethics but rather objective moral principles must be developed with greater precision then what is currently available.

Different, different, different, and you should know that. We aren’t in the business of killing terrorists with this stuff. Nothing is so dangerous as to be fatal, but it is so helpful as to be life-preserving.

Yes it is different but the point remains that ends do not justify means and thus torture for any reason is not moral even at the service of justice.

Sleep deprivation, stress posturing, and deliberate induction of hypothermia (“cold room”) can all be fatal. Sleep deprivation is how the KGB got all those glorious confessions for their show trials. The Nazis were infamous for hypothermia. Our government had no difficulty recognizing these as torture when Other People in Other Countries were doing them.

karen marie

Drinking too much water can be fatal. This is not an argument. What must be determined is a more specific definition of torture and not the elimination of licit means to get viable information from unwilling captives.

 

[thistle]

torture is usually worng but I don’t see how you can’t justify using means of torture at times to get information to save lives like in the show 24. Well to create drama they overdo it and occasioanlly are stupid and torture someone innocent. However, if you know someone is guilty and has information like when you catch a terrorist, I have a hard time not thinking it is alright to torture that person to save the lives of everyone else.

Torture is not usually wrong. It is ALWAYS wrong.

GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

CCC 1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

CCC 1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. **One may not do evil so that good may result from it. **

IN BRIEF

CCC 1757 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the three “sources” of the morality of human acts.

CCC 1758 The object chosen morally specifies the act of willing accordingly as reason recognizes and judges it good or evil.

CCC 1759 “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). **The end does not justify the means. **
CCC 1760 A morally good act requires the goodness of its object, of its end, and of its circumstances together.

CCC 1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. **One may not do evil so that good may result from it. **

 

[detrockcity3]

Right, but when you consider that what we are doing is absolutely not torture, the indignation here seems stupid.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Different, different, different, and you should know that. We aren’t in the business of killing terrorists with this stuff. Nothing is so dangerous as to be fatal, but it is so helpful as to be life-preserving.

If you truly know these were not torture then you must work from a base that clearly knows what torture is- so tell us exactly what is the correct definition of torture.