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.
Vz, I apologize for my inappropriate use of sarcasm. Sometimes I forget I should step away from the discussion for a while & consider things before posting.
Given your statement, and after re-reading the entire thread several times, I have decided that I agree with you. No, the Catholic Church does not ban all forms of torture.
That said, it does depend on both the definition of torture, & the use of it, as has been discussed.
So, “What is torture”?
Instead of making up definitions, I prefer to look at the established definition.
From Merriam-Webster Online
1 a: anguish of body or mind: agony
b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument: straining
As is evident from the dictionary, intentions are not necessarily a required component for something to become torture.
Obviously, torture as defined in #3 refers to the torture of language – for example, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” This type of “torture” is not banned by the Church, while torture that meets either of the other definitions MAY be banned by the Church.
The “silliness” seen throughout the thread is in the question “*How tortuous does torture have to be to be considered torture? *”, (whew!
) based on perceived degrees.
The question of whether “degrees” of torture qualify it as torture makes the definition subjective & therefore meaningless. Additionally, it creates an implicitly false premise – that torture might not be torture. This is like saying that a fish might not be a fish, or that a circle might not be a circle. Torture is torture, but not all acts (such as appropriately administered corporal punishment) are necessarily torture.
Many (if not most) acts can
become torturous. For example, giving someone a light pinch for not wearing green on St. Patrick’s Day does not meet any of the definitions of torture. However, pinching someone hard enough to cause “agony or pain” does.
The risk of confusion also comes from the fact that some cases of torture that meet definition #1 are not necessarily morally evil. For example, cases where the torturous action, (such as the pinch described above,) is accidental, or is performed in legitimate defense would be acceptable. Accidentally slamming a person’s hand in a car door is not evil, but doing it to punish the person for some perceived slight would be evil.
I cannot imagine a scenario where waterboarding, which does meet definition #1b, could be used “accidentally”. The only way people even attempt to justify it is by the reason of “legitimate defense”.
Indeed, the CCC does state that *“… 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.” *
And this seems to be where people take sides on the use of torture.
One side argues that torture used to attain an end of legitimate defense is acceptable, while the other side argues that the end of legitimate defense is not acceptable.
I believe that the Catholic Church falls on the latter side of this equation, & holds that the claim of legitimate defense as a justifiable end does not excuse the use of torture.
Even if certainty existed that the suspect were in fact guilty, & that everything obtained from him would be 100% true. Even assuming “gathering information” is different from “extracting confessions”, and is performed for the end of legitimate defense, the fact remains that the use of torture to coercively frighten opponents into revealing whatever we want to know is morally evil, since the CCC points out that “
The end does not justify the means."
1753
“A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).”
No, this doesn’t mention torture, but then, it doesn’t mention rape or abortion either. The fact that they are not listed along with every possible example does not mean that they are somehow exempt from being evil, & thus are “allowed”.
The Catechism notes in the next paragraph (
1754) that:
- “The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil*.”
The circumstances may make the use of torture more or less evil, but they cannot change the fact that the use of torture in this way is morally evil.
Although it does not directly hinge on Church teaching, the last point which is worth being noted, is the pragmatic objection used by those who oppose the use of torture the way the US Army Field manual does, which holds as a guiding principle that we should not use any technique against an enemy that we would not like to have used against our own military or civilians. The allowance of torturous means by the US guarantees that our enemies will do the same to us, and point to America as the source of their justification for doing so.
Respectfully,
Chris
