Torture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Atreyu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the best thought out and articulated posts I’ve read in a while; great job, Chris!
ChrisWRIT said:
“… legitimate defense can be not only a right, but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.” …

… “The end does not justify the means." …
Click to expand...
I just have one question for you, and it’s one of those 27 Ninja questions. If torturing a terrorist, and notice I did say “torturing”, who knows where the ticking time bomb is located, reveals the location of the bomb and saves lives, how do we know this action does not fall under “defense of the common good against an unjust aggressor [rendering him] unable to cause harm” and is a grave duty of those responsible for the common good? By taking away the terrorist’s ability to cause harm are not our leaders performing a grave duty? It sure sounds like the CCC is stating that the life of one unjust aggressor is worth less than the common good. Just an observation; I respectfully, but eagerly, await your answer.
 
We all know torture is wrong. But we wanted a definition of torture that could be applied in all situations. We started with this definition:
Any treatment
  • to extract confession
  • to punish
  • to frighten political/military opponents
  • to satisfy hatred
    that results in permanent physical or mental destruction or incapacity.
Click to expand...
We decided this standard was much too restrictive and left too many loopholes. So we refined it down to:
Torture is any activity that intentionally inflicts avoidable pain or suffering to secure the cooperation of the victim.
Click to expand...
Then another poster introduced a new line of reasoning according to the CCC:
2265 … legitimate defense can be not only a right, but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.
Click to expand...
Now, I’m sure all of us will agree that torturing an innocent is a mortal sin, but this seems to open the door for torturing an unjust aggressor.
 
The next person who says, “If we use torture that will make them torture us,” ought to be sent as a goodwill ambassador to the Taliban. These guys would be using torture anyway–they’re not nice people. If you have lots of nice, sharp, good-leverage scimitars lying about, and still choose to saw a journalist’s head off with a kitchen knife, well…I for one would prefer to deal with you by Apache rules, at least on an emotional level.

There are anthills in Iraq, right?😃

Anyway, I do find it interesting that RWMorris interprets the Catechism as leaving it open whether torture is permissable against an unjust aggressor. I would say it was not intended to do so, and that even if it did, one would have to conclude in the negative (but using a very narrow definition of torture), but this once again illustrates the problems with the Catechism: it’s not very well written. Too much of it contains assertions in areas where the Church has no authority, matters of fact rather than of morality, and it also has very limited, emotionalist, and, yes, Eurocentric conditions and definitions in mind in nearly all its discussion.
 
The problem with the provided “27 Ninja” scenario presupposes that the torture will result in getting information that is both truthful & useful for attaining the end of saving lives. Such a presupposition requires certainty that exists only in the hypothetical world of “Happy Happy Unicornitopia.”

In any case, I’ve been researching the issue & was surprised to find out what a large one it actually is, & one that appears to have no complete answer in sight. With the little amount of knowledge I have (compared to the vast amount of thought that some of the greatest modern thinkers of the Church have put into this issue for the last 20 years!) it doesn’t appear as if the Church has completely taught one way or the other at this point, and it doesn’t look like an answer is forthcoming anytime soon. Not every possible circumstance has been explicitly weighed by the ordinary Magisterium, but in the last couple of decades the Church has pretty clearly indicated that torture is always contrary to respect for human dignity & bodily integrity.

Still, I am left without a definitive answer at all, on either side of the question. I still tend to side against it, as it clearly CAN be wrong, but it is murky as to if or how it can be OK.

There is far too much to consider alone (or even with a dozen others on a forum!) :eek:

That said, there still are the pragmatic arguments against the use of torture, the most obvious being that if we use it against our enemies, real or perceived, it will spread further. (Sorry hastrman, like it or not, it is a valid objection. The US, al Queda & the Taliban aren’t the only entities in the universe.)

Besides, if we justify the use of brutal & barbaric practices because “they did it first!”, we are morally co-signing their actions, & providing an implicit acceptance & validation of their use of such barbarity against everyone. The ones who don’t already do so will see our use of torture, and assume it is OK to do the same. The ones that already do it will continue & become even more depraved, justifying such an increase by our example.

A second problem is that torture, even for claimed “legitimate reasons” also damages not only the individuals on both sides of it, but also in the long run damages society. I doubt torture can be performed with motives that are legitimate enough to keep the torturer from dehumanizing the person being tortured, making it easier for the torture to perform truly (or more) monstrous acts, with even less justification. The facts of abortion & euthanasia are directly related to the habit of dehumanizing certain classes of people, for various reasons.

Here are just a few of the links I’ve looked at, which have all pretty much convinced me of the futility of attempting to come to any kind of a conclusion in (another!) forum discussion! Heh :rolleyes:

From Jimmy Akin & Dave Armstrong
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2004/06/what_about_tort.html
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/controversial-torture-issue-as-related.html

In fact, an article written specifically on “defining torture” might be quite apropos here.
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/defining_tortur.html

Additionally, here is a quite thorough series called “The Torture Debate”
ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2006/10/on-torture-aggressive-interrogation.html
ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2006/10/torture-debate-part-ii.html
ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2006/10/torture-debate-part-iii.html
ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2006/10/torture-debate-pt-iv-roundup.html

And here is an encyclopedic article by Fr. Brian Harrison in two parts, titled “Torture & Corporal Punishment as a Problem in Catholic Theology”

Part 1 - rtforum.org/lt/lt118.html
Part 2 - rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html

Suffice to say, “I don’t know.” I hope the Church does provide definitive answers someday.

👍

Regards,

Chris
 
Chris, another well written post. I need to read those sources you’ve provided, and think and pray before I post again. ChrisWRIT, Hastrman, Ender, vz71, Texas Roofer, Ryan29, Al Masetti, Scottgun, and everyone else who provided (name removed by moderator)ut and ideas; Thank you. I’ll be back.
 
There is a recent article by Vincentian Father Benson in which he addresses some of the questioned raised here:
“Is torture ever a moral option for a Christian?
The Church of the 21st century has no doubt that torture is never a moral option.”
“…can we torture an individual in pursuit of information that could save many?..If torture is defined, along with abortion and other infamies as intrinsically evil actions, then like abortion, euthanasia and slavery, it is forbidden in every case. In Catholic morality, the end never, in and of itself, justifies the means. Catholic morality is not a morality of relativism or consequentialism, whether attempts to move it in that direction are made by those who on one hand are pro-abortion or those who on the other hand are pro-torture.”
“How does the Church define torture?
Some ask this question looking perhaps for a moral “loophole.” Specifically they hope to limit its definition so strictly that multiple forms of mental, emotional and physical pain would not be included…”
You can read the entire article at:
the-tidings.com/2008/031408/benson.htm
However, although, according to the above article, the Catholic Church today condemns all forms of torture, including waterboarding, it appears that this teaching has changed from what it was before, for example, at the time of the inquisition, when torture was allowed. The papal bull Ad Extirpanda issued on May 15, 1252, by Pope Innocent IV, confirmed by Pope Alexander IV on November 30, 1259, and by Pope Clement IV on November 3, 1265, authorized a limited use of torture for eliciting confessions from heretics during the Inquisition. If the Catholic Church can change its teaching on torture, can it change its teaching in other areas, for example, the restriction on women priests?
 
vz71 said:
No. Try this…
“If we use torture, it will make us morally equivalent.”
Click to expand...
equivalent to what?, that is your issue it is not “us to them” as such does not reconcile with the church.

You have yet to justify torture, and reconcile that action with RCC’s catechism
 
Texas_Roofer said:
equivalent to what?, that is your issue it is not “us to them” as such does not reconcile with the church.

You have yet to justify torture, and reconcile that action with RCC’s catechism
Click to expand...
Very well…“If we use torture, it will make us morally equivalent to the terrorists.”
 
vz71 said:
Very well…“If we use torture, it will make us morally equivalent to the terrorists.”
Click to expand...
and the differentiation between “morally equivalent to " and " terrorist” is?
 
Texas_Roofer said:
and the differentiation between “morally equivalent to " and " terrorist” is?
Click to expand...
Easy.
A terrorist is defined by more then just torture.

Although terrorists may engage in the behavior, the use of torture does not necessarily make one a terrorist.

Moral equivelance is not complete equivelance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top