S
smad0142
Guest
Is the belief that torture is an intrinsic evil an infallible teaching of the Church, or is it definitive yet reformable? Thanks!
- Status
S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
Pretty sure infallible.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
From my understanding of the Just War doctrine, as well as other aspects of Catholic teaching, I would think that torture is intrinsically evil, and the matter is not up for reform.
If any part (intent, means, end) of an act is evil, the whole act is evil. The intent could be to obtain information, the end could be saving lives, but the means is harming another human being, which can be morally neutral. However, to examine that, we must weigh it against the Just War principles in terms of handling enemy combatants, and I don’t think this fits the bill…
S
smad0142
Guest
In this article the Priest argues that torture as a means of information gathering is still up for debate in the Catholic world. Definitely worth the read:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7390&CFID=987800&CFTOKEN=43909317
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7390&CFID=987800&CFTOKEN=43909317
T
thistle
Guest
CCC 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.
CCC 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.
CCC 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.
I
IbnFiktur
Guest
It’s doctrinal writing like this that truly makes me love the Church.
S
smad0142
Guest
This does not mention torture to extract life-saving information from somebody who claims to hold such information. In the article I posted the priest divided up four ways in which torture may be used. The catechism only addresses three of those ways and does not mention the case of torturing somebody who, for example, planted a dirty bomb somewhere in a city and refuses to tell authorities where it is. Is it feasible in this case that this man’s refusal to help the authorities makes him an enemy combatant and therefore libel to just force?
G
Godfollower
Guest
Take a look at the Latin, though:
[Catechism of the Catholic Church](http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p3s2c2a5_lt.htm#II. Observantia dignitatis personarum) ¶ 2297 (Latin).
In English, the comma is missing, but at least we have the “which” instead of “that” to suggest that it’s an appositive rather than a limiting clause. In the Latin, it’s clearly set off by the commas, and the qui is the masculine nominative, meaning “who” (if the subject were a person) or “which” (if the subject is a thing).
So the meaning of that sentence is as follows:
Torture, which uses physical or moral violence [for various things], is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.
Or, on removing the appositive language:
Torture . . . is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.
Hope this helps.
In any event, it’s hard to see how doing the evil of torture in order to achieve the end of saving lives (even a bunch of lives) is compatible with the Church’s teaching that we may never do evil to achieve good. All arguments to the contrary are necessarily a form of utilitarianism, basing the ability to torture on the goodness of the results achieved – and the moral corruption of utilitarianism has been amply proved elsewhere.
S
smad0142
Guest
I suppose the question is whether or not the violence inflicted on these people is the same thing as the torture being condemned in the Catechism. I haven’t had a logical proof class in a while so I hope this isn’t too bad:
Violence can justifiably be defended against with force, up to and including lethal force.
A person who knows of an imminent violent attack, admits to knowing about the attack, and refuses to help aid in the dismantling of said attack is morally culpable for the attack, as much so as the physical perpetrators.
If force is morally licit to stop the perpetrators, then it is morally licit to torture those who refuse to aid in preventing a violent attack.
There’s my thinking. Have at it. And any Church documents specifically prohibiting violence used on people who refuse to end an attack which they know about, or similiar situations, would be very helpful!
Violence can justifiably be defended against with force, up to and including lethal force.
A person who knows of an imminent violent attack, admits to knowing about the attack, and refuses to help aid in the dismantling of said attack is morally culpable for the attack, as much so as the physical perpetrators.
If force is morally licit to stop the perpetrators, then it is morally licit to torture those who refuse to aid in preventing a violent attack.
There’s my thinking. Have at it. And any Church documents specifically prohibiting violence used on people who refuse to end an attack which they know about, or similiar situations, would be very helpful!
K
Katholish
Guest
This is silly without first having a concrete definition of “torture”.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Good point.
Torture is intrinsically evil but I doubt that the teaching on this point is infallible. The sufferings of Hell and even of purgatory might be considered a type of torture. We would need a definition of torture that does not include just punishment, even when that punishment is severe.
I would define torture as an act of direct and deliberate violence against an innocent person to a severe degree. Violence against the innocent is intrinsically evil, and therefore always immoral, regardless of degree. But the severity of the violence against the innocent is what makes it torture.
Does this imply that guilty persons can be tortured? No, it does not, because the guilty person is always innocent beyond the measure of his guilt. So a just punishment must always be limited according to the severity of the offense.
– Ronald L. Conte Jr.
G
Godfollower
Guest
Hmm.
Yes, deliberate violence against the innocent is always evil – but then there’s no need to ban torture (which is just a severe form of violence), yes? Therefore the Church’s ban on torture must be meant to apply to the guilty.
I think you’re on to something, but it needs further development.
Here’s an interesting hypothetical to think about: Suppose a terrorist has planted a nuclear weapon in the city, and he plans to die in the explosion as a martyr. What if you threaten to save him and then provide him with life in prison rather than the death penalty if he refuses to tell you where the bomb is, but execute him if he does tell you (in other words, he gets what he wants – martyrdom – only if he cooperates)?
The ban on torture includes “physical or moral violence” (“physica vel morali violentia”). So the scenario would appear to be immoral – and yet, viscerally, I’m a lot more comfortable with it somehow.
Is there a difference between physical and moral violence?
- Status