Torture

  • Thread starter Thread starter Atreyu
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please cite the appropriate CCC paragraphs indicating such as an “intrinsic evil” and I’ll not bother you in this thread again.
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."usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm

It may not reach the “intrinsically evil” standard in that intrinsically evil would require mental exercise above that of the action. It would seem one could accidently torture with mental duress. ie storing drugs in the presents of a drug addict. However in reverse the catechism is clear so knowingly torture would seem to achieve an equal level to intrinsic evil
 
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."usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm

It may not reach the “intrinsically evil” standard in that intrinsically evil would require mental exercise above that of the action. It would seem one could accidently torture with mental duress. ie storing drugs in the presents of a drug addict. However in reverse the catechism is clear so knowingly torture would seem to achieve an equal level to intrinsic evil
No, you are reading in things that are not there.
All you have quoted is something that clarifies a type…not something that outright disallows.
Given the passage quoted, it appears only torture that “uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred” is disallowed.
So if a method is found that does not meet that criteria…

As I said before:
Please cite the appropriate CCC paragraphs indicating such as an “intrinsic evil” and I’ll not bother you in this thread again.
 
The commonly known “Chinese water torture” (of randomly dripping water on the forehead) is neither violent, nor torture.
You apparently missed the episode of Mythbusters where they tried out this technique to see just how hard it was. The cast lasted about an hour before they had to end it. That’s why it’s called torture.
Whether one is using torturous means to elicit fear for a valid reason or an invalid one, one is still using torture to elicit fear.
Actually, torture is used to induce pain, which people rightly fear, but people also fear imprisonment which would be considered torture under your definition. That is, plea bargaining would have to be considered a form of torture.
The UN prohibits torture. The definition you provide doesn’t allow allow it for either purpose, nor does it even claim whether they are the same or not.
The UN prohibition covers both purposes, as you say, but the catechism does not.
The Catholic Church has recognized for over 500 years that waterboarding is torture
I was unaware of that. Can you cite your reference?

Ender
 
I think you are missing the big picture.
Not at all.

I would find it distasteful if the CCC advocated torture.
But it cannot be discounted using only the paragraphs that have been cited.

If we wish to say the CCC disallows torture then we need to find a paragraph that says exactly that. Not take a paragraph that doesn’t and read meaning into it that is not there.
 
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**."usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm

It may not reach the “intrinsically evil” standard in that intrinsically evil would require mental exercise above that of the action. It would seem one could accidently torture with mental duress. ie storing drugs in the presents of a drug addict. However in reverse the catechism is clear so knowingly torture would seem to achieve an equal level to intrinsic evil
Not at all.

I would find it distasteful if the CCC advocated torture.
But it cannot be discounted using only the paragraphs that have been cited.

If we wish to say the CCC disallows torture then we need to find a paragraph that says exactly that. Not take a paragraph that doesn’t and read meaning into it that is not there.
It teaches what it teaches free will allows you to interpret as you will however remember to teach contrary to the Church is heresy ( calm down) additionally to lead others astray is also sin. (stay calm). For one to encourage others to torture with hope of finding a loop hole is asinine as it closely fits the latter problem.
 
You are still reading more then actually is there.

I read several qualyfiers there describing the torture that runs contrary to human dignity.

So again…
If we wish to say the CCC disallows torture then we need to find a paragraph that says exactly that. Not take a paragraph that doesn’t and read meaning into it that is not there.
 
By Ender
You apparently missed the episode of Mythbusters where they tried out this technique to see just how hard it was. The cast lasted about an hour before they had to end it. That’s why it’s called torture.
Since I watch little television, yes I did miss it. In looking up the Mythbusters episode (#26), it appears that, properly applied, the chinese water torture actually CAN drive one insane. Although, forcibly & intentionally causing mental anguish &/or harm IS “mentally-violent”, making your previous claim of it being “non-violent” incorrect.
By Ender
Actually, torture is used to induce pain, which people rightly fear, but people also fear imprisonment which would be considered torture under your definition. That is, plea bargaining would have to be considered a form of torture.
“My definition” is simply from the dictionary, in which torture is defined not only as “the infliction of intense pain”, but first as “anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain”. (Note that “agony” is differentiated from “pain”.)
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture

I tend to doubt that imprisonment causes “anguish”, but I’m sure some would probably claim so.

Perhaps Merriam-Webster should be informed that their definition is either incorrect or needs to be lengthened to 3 pages for the purpose of making sure no one can ever misunderstand the “real” definition.
From Ender
I was unaware of that. Can you cite your reference?
It is widely known that waterboarding has been used at least since the Spanish Inquisition, over 500 years ago.

Google it if you want citations. Here are a few.

cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/national/main3441363.shtml
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834
timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20071107134017.aspx
crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/torquemada/index.html
catholic.org/diocese/diocese_story.php?id=27038

Additionally, if you like to read books, “The History of Torture Throughout the Ages”, by George Ryley Scott (Columbia University Press, 2003) is an interesting book. It notes that the methods of torture most used by the Inquisition were garrucha (a kind of “rack” without the actual rack), the potro (the “rack”) & the toca (also called “tortura del agua”), which consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had impression of drowning. Kind of like waterboarding, but without the benefit of modern biological knowledge to make it more “efficient”.

Chris
 
From vz71
Please cite the appropriate CCC paragraphs indicating such as an “intrinsic evil” and I’ll not bother you in this thread again.
From vz71
Please cite the appropriate CCC paragraphs indicating such as an “intrinsic evil” and I’ll not bother you in this thread again.
By vz71
If we wish to say the CCC disallows torture then we need to find a paragraph that says exactly that. Not take a paragraph that doesn’t and read meaning into it that is not there.
By vz71
If we wish to say the CCC disallows torture then we need to find a paragraph that says exactly that. Not take a paragraph that doesn’t and read meaning into it that is not there.
Why does this sound like a fundamentalist argument? Oh yeah, because they too insist on explicit statements of proof-texts to refute their preferred outcomes, only from the Bible rather than from the CCC.

As I’m sure you are aware, the CCC doesn’t have a sentence that reads “Torture is intrinsically evil.”

Then again, it doesn’t have a sentence which reads “Abortion is intrinsically evil” either.

Nonetheless, the Church has taught repeatedly that torture is intrinsically evil. For example, the encyclical letter “Veritatis Splendor” by Pope John Paul II notes that torture is an intrinsically evil act:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html
"Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.
"The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; 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”
Ooops. Darn, I can’t find a sentence there saying “Torture is intrinsically evil.”

Well, maybe in the document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”, released just last November by the USCCB. (Here it is: usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf)
“Genocide, torture, and the direct and intentional targeting of noncombatants in war or terrorist attacks are always wrong.”
Hmm. Not there either.
“The use of torture must be rejected as fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person and ultimately counterproductive in the effort to combat terrorism.”
Nope, not there either.
"Catholic teaching about the dignity of life calls us to oppose torture,(CCC 2297) unjust war, and the use of the death penalty."
Nope, not there either. (Perhaps you could teach the US Bishops how to read & understand the catechism so they can contribute to Church teaching correctly?)
“23. Similarly, direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos, are also intrinsically evil. These must always be opposed. Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified.”
Well, it isn’t there either, but the statement that “torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war, can never be justified” really seems to imply that there aren’t any qualifiers that can make torture acceptable.

But then, since none of these don’t actually contain the sentence “Torture is intrinsically evil.”, & may not be binding “ex cathedra” pronouncements, I suppose that none of them really count.

As such, I will humbly proffer what seems to be the desired “definition” of torture, & leave such a weighty topic up to more capable minds than either myself or any Catholic theologians who might have said or indicated otherwise than what is apparently desired.

torture
“A barbaric act only performed by evildoers that hate mom, baseball & apple pie, but never by noble, honorable, heroic Americans who are using only harmless innocent bottles of water in the pursuit of ‘gathering the mostest importantest information in the world’ from the scariest, most terrible, mean, spiteful & dangerous ‘islamo-fascist-klan-nazi-commie-nutso-whackjobs’ that want to kill everything on earth, because WE ARE AT WAR!!!” :bigyikes:

Will that work? 👍

Regards,

Chris
 
It was not I that came up with the ‘intrinsic evil’ argument.
I’m just shooting it down. You more then made the point for me…thank you.

Now…let me clarify something.
Using the paragraphs supplied here from the CCC, there is plenty of wiggle room for the correct usage of torture.
If you wish to disallow torture altogether, you are going to have to look elsewhere (within the CCC) to find it.

Insistance that we stick with the meaning of the words as written is not the fundamentalist position; it is in fact, the catholic one.
It is the inappropriate quoting of paragraphs and claiming a meaning there that is not that is truly the fundamentalist position.

Tell you what…as a gesture of goodwill, I’ll even make this easier.
Disallow torture completely within the CCC…and I’ll not bother you with opposition in this thread again.
I’ll not be so petty as to nit pick words, I simply want a very clear cut meaning that disallows torture.
And here is a hint…it is not the paragraph already cited.

And if you were wondering…yes, I WANT to be shown wrong here. I WANT to be shown torture disallowed completely.
But I am not going to contort a paragraph out of its clear meaning to do it. I’ll leave distortion to those that cannot form a decent argument.
 
It was not I that came up with the ‘intrinsic evil’ argument.
I’m just shooting it down. You more then made the point for me…thank you.

Now…let me clarify something.
Using the paragraphs supplied here from the CCC, there is plenty of wiggle room for the correct usage of torture.
If you wish to disallow torture altogether, you are going to have to look elsewhere (within the CCC) to find it.

Insistance that we stick with the meaning of the words as written is not the fundamentalist position; it is in fact, the catholic one.
It is the inappropriate quoting of paragraphs and claiming a meaning there that is not that is truly the fundamentalist position.

Tell you what…as a gesture of goodwill, I’ll even make this easier.
Disallow torture completely within the CCC…and I’ll not bother you with opposition in this thread again.
I’ll not be so petty as to nit pick words, I simply want a very clear cut meaning that disallows torture.
And here is a hint…it is not the paragraph already cited.

And if you were wondering…yes, I WANT to be shown wrong here. I WANT to be shown torture disallowed completely.
But I am not going to contort a paragraph out of its clear meaning to do it. I’ll leave distortion to those that cannot form a decent argument.
Frankly, at this point unless you can make a successful argument for torture which shows compliance with 2297 your creditability is shot. Until then your opinion appears too rogue to be of concern.
 
Hardly.
My opinion is that the CCC paragraphs used here to lay claim that the Catholic Church bans torture in all forms do not, in fact, ban all forms of torture.

Thus far I have been met with sarcasm, bodly written responses, and now a claim that I lack credibility.

And not a single one has bothered pulling anything more from the CCC then the one paragraph that does not prove the point.
I said it earlier, and it still stands.
Disallow torture completely within the CCC…and I’ll not bother you with opposition in this thread again.
I’ll not be so petty as to nit pick words, I simply want a very clear cut meaning that disallows torture.
And here is a hint…it is not the paragraph already cited.

If you cannot, please don’t bother with the ad hominems. They only show the opposition case weak.
 
Section 2297 of the Catechism is ambiguously written. It is easy to assume that it intends to ban all torture; the problem is, linguistically it doesn’t actually say it. The section of Veritatis splendor is clearer and does call torture an intrinsic evil - along with such puzzling additions as deportation and degrading working conditions. The section quoted in Veritatis splendor is from Gaudium et Spes which doesn’t actually call any of the things on that list intrinsically evil. I am quite reluctant to offer my interpretation of that document as superior to JPII’s but I am a little bothered by the difference between what GS says and how it is used in VS.

Regarding 2297, I tried to follow the footnote but was unable to do so. It points to DS 3722, which is the Enchiridion Symbolorum of Denziger and Schonmetzer (DS) but I couldn’t find the new version of that book on line so I have no idea what it references.

Even, however, if we finally decide that torture is never justified in any situation, we are no closer to defining what behavior should be defined as torture. Many of the definitions I have seen would extend down to fraternity hazing, which is a good bit further than I’m willing to go.

Ender
 
… Even, however, if we finally decide that torture is never justified in any situation, we are no closer to defining what behavior should be defined as torture. Many of the definitions I have seen would extend down to fraternity hazing, which is a good bit further than I’m willing to go.

Ender
Lots of very good discussion in this thread, but we are no closer to a definition of torture than when we started. Can we all agree that the following is unequivocally torture?
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.
Now just because you agree with the above doesn’t mean that this definition defines torture, you are just agreeing that the above is included in any definition of torture.
 
Can we all agree that the following is unequivocally torture?
  • to extract confession
  • to punish
  • to frighten political/military opponents
  • to satisfy hatred
    Now just because you agree with the above doesn’t mean that this definition defines torture, you are just agreeing that the above is included in any definition of torture.
What you listed were objectives and I think torture is properly about methods. For example, we punish criminals today by any number of methods but none of them are defined as torture, certainly punishment itself is not equivalent to torture. I’m afraid this doesn’t get us any closer to a workable definition.

Ender
 
What you listed were objectives and I think torture is properly about methods. For example, we punish criminals today by any number of methods but none of them are defined as torture, certainly punishment itself is not equivalent to torture. I’m afraid this doesn’t get us any closer to a workable definition.

Ender
Perhaps if I change the format of the statement it will seem more methodical. How about this,
Any treatment, used to extract confession, punish, frighten political/military opponents, or satisfy hatred, that results in permanent physical or mental destruction or incapacity.
Also, after reading through the posts again, it seems we need to define confession in the following context,
Confession: to disclose one’s guilt, knowledge of someone else’s guilt, or collusion in wrongdoing.
 
Perhaps if I change the format of the statement it will seem more methodical. How about this,

Any treatment, used to extract confession, punish, frighten political/military opponents, or satisfy hatred, that results in permanent physical or mental destruction or incapacity.
I’m not happy trying to define torture based on the reason for doing it. In general I think torture is torture regardless of why it is done with the exception of those cases where there is a medical necessity.

I really didn’t expect this topic to be all that complicated - don’t we all know it when we see it? - but the more we discuss it the more nuances we turn up. Do you recall the incident of the climber who’s arm became wedged in some rocks and he had to amputate it to save his life? Suppose he had had a friend with him; no one would call it torture if his friend had cut off the arm to save him but everyone would call it torture if that person had cut off his arm to save someone else. Generally, though, I feel more comfortable defining torture based on the action rather than the intention.

Ender
 
A politician once said:
“I don’t know what pornography is, but I know it when I see it.”

The same problem defined there is occurring here.
Without a nailed down definition of what is and is not torture, there is room to claim any number of things are not torture that may well be. Torture itself would simply lose meaning except in the most extreme cases.

Of course, maybe we should be defining torture based upon the extreme. Anything less could readily be considered punishment.
 
A politician once said:
“I don’t know what pornography is, but I know it when I see it.” … Of course, maybe we should be defining torture based upon the extreme. Anything less could readily be considered punishment.
Actually, it was Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who once said, when trying to define the concept of pornography, “I can’t define it, but I know when I see it.” And you are correct, that is exactly what is going on here. And I agree with your second premise that torture should be defined based on the extreme.
 
I’m not happy trying to define torture based on the reason for doing it. …Generally, though, I feel more comfortable defining torture based on the action rather than the intention.

Ender
The problem with not including “intentions” in the definition is that we run into all kinds of “if/then” situations. If we include those intentions in defining the most blatant forms of torture, then we have a baseline definition from which to work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top