What choice ought the Catholic make regarding these moral dilemmas?

[benedictus2]

Although the circumstances are different, I am reminded of the parable of the Good Samaritan. The priest and the Levite did not stop to help the man who was certain to die in the street. The law forbade either to touch the man since God forbade it in the law. This appears similar. God forbids torture. For the life of me, I can not think of an example of torture being seen as a good thing. The best I can say is that it may be seen as a “necessary evil”. Yet the catechism states that we can not do evil so that good may result. The priest & Levite may have seen the man and felt they ought to help him, but their duty to God took precidence. However, is it not also our duty to protect the people who are in desparate need in this bombing situation? What is written in our heart? Would God truly want us to say “Well, if all those innocent people die, it’s not on me, it’s on that bomber.” Something doesn’t seem right with that thinking.

Firstly, I don’t think you are reading the parable of the good Samaritan correctly. The priest and the Rabbi were not making their duty to God take precedence. If that were so then Christ is saying that God should come second. The priest and the rabbi were making it their excuse.

As regards the people in desperate need of this bombing situation, the guideline is clear - one may not do evil to effect a greater good.

Since you are asking for the Catholic position, then one factor in the equation that you have overlooked is God.

The first thing one must do is conform one’s will to God’s (so do no evil, do only good).

If from not doing evil, something evil follows, then that is not your call - that is God’s call.

Prayer is something that has been overlooked in this exercise. Do good and pray. That is all that is asked of us. We are not asked to save the world. God does that. And that only happens when we align ourselves to God’s will and stop playing God.

The Bomber is playing god. That is not solved by us playing god as well.

And while the Christian faith is not a religion of the book, the Word of God, the Word made flesh revealed God’s will and continues to reveal God’s will in His Church so we follow what the magisterium teaches and she teaches that one may not do evil to effect a greater good.

 

[Ben_Bet_Beh]

Firstly, I don’t think you are reading the parable of the good Samaritan correctly. The priest and the Rabbi were not making their duty to God take precedence. If that were so then Christ is saying that God should come second. The priest and the rabbi were making it their excuse.

Let me clarify - I meant to type that the priest & Levite did a duty to what they thought was for God.

benedictus:

The first thing one must do is conform one’s will to God’s (so do no evil, do only good).

The priest and Levite believed they had conformed to God’s will. The law forbade them from touching anything unclean. However, common sense said to help the poor man.

benedictus:

If from not doing evil, something evil follows, then that is not your call - that is God’s call.

The priest & Levite did not do evil in their own eyes. They believed they were doing the will of God by not helping the poor man in this situation.

benedictus:

Prayer is something that has been overlooked in this exercise. Do good and pray. That is all that is asked of us. We are not asked to save the world. God does that. And that only happens when we align ourselves to God’s will and stop playing God.

Thank you! I very much appreciate you pointing out this oversight which has clearly been missing from the discussion up to this point.

benedictus:

The Bomber is playing god. That is not solved by us playing god as well.

And while the Christian faith is not a religion of the book, the Word of God, the Word made flesh revealed God’s will and continues to reveal God’s will in His Church so we follow what the magisterium teaches and she teaches that one may not do evil to effect a greater good.

The Magisterium doesn’t provide us with every situation that may come up in our life experience. Yes - the Church has over 2000 years of teaching to draw on. In the torture example, the Church even admits that it regrets it’s non-action of times past. The Magisterium hasn’t always made the right decision - even though it’s teachings are infallible. There is a difference between infallibilty and leading in a manner that was not correct. The passive allowance of torture centuries ago attest to this.

 

[Warrenton]

The primary consideration of any government must be following the eternal moral law.

The primary consideration of government is to protect the innocent. If it can do so while obeying eternal moral law, so much the better.

In any case, prohibiting torture under the circumstances of this hypothetical is not eternal moral law. How could it be eternal, when the Church itself authorized torture in certain circumstances in the past? At best, its “current moral teaching,” which is different.

 

[Warrenton]

and that should be a big hint about the teaching.

 

[Warrenton]

It’s wrong because it’s a violation of the dignity of the human person. This is true in the hypothetical situation, and in every situation torture could possibly be used. This much has been said in the citations that have been provided.

How does it violate the dignity of the bomber? What about the dignity of the innocent people in the city where the bombs are concealed?

You say the catechism and G&S categorically prohibit “every situation torture could possibly be used.”

This proposition is wrong because none of your citations use the words or total prohibition that you claim they do. The merit of the hypothetical is that it finds the exception to the general rule.

 

[Warrenton]

The priest & Levite may have seen the man and felt they ought to help him, but their duty to God took precidence. However, is it not also our duty to protect the people who are in desparate need in this bombing situation? What is written in our heart? Would God truly want us to say “Well, if all those innocent people die, it’s not on me, it’s on that bomber.” Something doesn’t seem right with that thinking.

There is a lot of intellectual force in this observation.

 

[marine13]

No, the police officer is using deadly force to protect property. That is both illegal under U.S. law and immoral under God’s law (your illustration is merely one instance of the illegal and immoral “I shot him to keep him from getting away” scenario). One may use deadly force to protect against deadly threats; one may not use deadly force to kill or apprehend a fleeing criminal.[/INDENT].

While I mostly agree with you on the torture topic you are mistaken concerning the police scenario. It is most likely do to the fact there is so little information given in the scenario but never-the-less if the police officer reasonably believes that the flight of the criminal could result in serious bodily injury or death of another person he is then justified (legally and morally) in using deadly force.

But for clarification if it were a scenario where the criminal was not armed, never threatened anyone, and did not pose an imminent risk to the public then, no, the police would not be justified in shooting the criminal simply to stop them from fleeing.

 

[Warrenton]

Is that so? Isn’t abortion legal? Was it not the government who decreed this so? I suppose the unborn is not innocent?

You will need to direct me a little more, Benedictus. I am not sure how this helps answer the hypothetical. I am not arguing that the government acts morally in all circumstances.

SIZE=3]Quite wrong. We do not only refrain from torture, we say torture is wrong because torture is evil. Do good, avoid evil is the dictum.

The catechism says it is against the rights of the individual. I am not arguing that the bomber’s rights will not be violated. Of course they will.

IZE=3]The only law that one may disobey is an unjust law. Do not toture is not an unjust law.

There is an important distinction to make, and hopefully it will at least narrow the scope of the debate. We are not saying that the bomber is getting tortured “under law.” A law authorizing torture would be unjust under present Church teaching, I agree. The same principal applies to capital punishment, immigration policy, comon criminal punishment - current Church teaching characterizes many common US practices “unjust.”

The official, however, is breaking a law for a greater good.

The rightness or wrongness of something is not dependent on the quantity of people affected.

True, but the number of people affected is relevant to our determination whether to follow or depart from a general rule. This is the concept of proportionality. That is why people who continuously break the law are punished more than people who only commit a single offense.

Think abortion. Think euthanasia. Think Hitler’s Germany where so much evil were legal.

How do those clear cases inform us about the very different facts set out in the hypothetical?

 

[Warrenton]

Ghosty:
The Church does not teach by giving hints.

I have conceded that I cannot find modern citations. I have given you scripture and the history from the Church. Not certain what more you want?

Let’s recap the facts. the bomber planted hidden bombs, this is known. The official cannot find the bombs, which are believed to detonate. It is reasonable to infer that the bombs will kill innocent people. The official believes torture will result in the bomber revealing the location of the bombs, by which innocent lives will be saved.

Tell me which facts you disagree with.

From these facts, further inferences can be drawn. The bomber is guilty. The official knows it. The official, acting as an official, is primarilly responsible for protecting the public. The physical harm caused to the bomber will be less, and of a different kind, than the harm caused the detonation of the hidden bombs.

Tell me which ofthose inferences you disagree with.

Therefore, it can be concluded that public safety will best be protected by torturing the bomber.

And, public safety will not be protected by refraining from torturing the bomber.

Tell me which of the conclusions you disagree with.

Based on the “public safety” conclusions, I reach a moral conclusion: it is not immoral to torture the bomber, because: (1) he is in fact guilty; (2) harming him is necessary to protect the innocent; (3) harm in this case is a kind of punishment he brings upon himself by his evil acts; (4) the official does not offend moral law when he acts in accordance with the mandate that rulers have from God to suppress wickedness and vice.

This, perhaps, is the basis of your misunderstanding. Government never stops being government. It is only when the government prohibits people from following the commandments of the Lord that revolt is licit.

Not explicitly, no. However, in forbidding the official from torture, under the facts of this hypothetical, you consign the official to doing nothing effective. This is functionally the same as doing nothing.

 

[Ghosty]

Ben Bet Beh:

Although the circumstances are different, I am reminded of the parable of the Good Samaritan. The priest and the Levite did not stop to help the man who was certain to die in the street. The law forbade either to touch the man since God forbade it in the law.

This actually isn’t true. There is nothing in Divine Law, Old or New Testament, that forbids a Jew from touching a wounded man in the street, and even corpses can be handled if they are neglected. There would have been no sin whatsoever in checking on the man to see if he was alive.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Warrenton:

The Church does not teach by giving hints.

No, it doesn’t. It gives explicit instruction that torture, unlike execution and war, must be abolished. It doesn’t even attempt to justify historical uses of torture, but simply says that it was wrong.

I have conceded that I cannot find modern citations. I have given you scripture. I ahve given you the history of the Church. What more do you want?

The Scripture does not condone torture, but merely says that a government rules from the authority of God. The history of torture is condemned by the Church (as have been many other abuses carried out by the Church in history). You have no ecclesial backing for your argument.

Let’s recap the facts. the bomber planted hidden bombs, this is known. The official cannot find the bombs, which are believed to detonate. It is reasonable to infer that the bombs will kill innocent people. The official believes torture will result in the bomber revealing the location of the bombs, by which innocent lives will be saved.

I agree with all of these facts.

From these facts, further inferences can be drawn. The bomber is guilty. The official knows it. The official, acting as an official, is primarilly responsible for protecting the public. The physical harm caused to the bomber will be less, and of a different kind, than the harm caused the detonation of the hidden bombs.

I agree with these inferences for the most part, but I would add that the official’s primary responsibility is to protect the public in accord with eternal moral law. The official has the responsibility to not violate moral law in protecting the public:

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22 1903 Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. (emphasis mine) If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."23

The official can’t commit a morally illicit act, whether legal or illegal, in defense of the public. Period.

Therefore, it can be concluded that public safety will best be protected by torturing the bomber.

And, public safety will not be protected by refraining from torturing the bomber.

I can’t agree with either of these inferences because you are assuming the effectiveness of the torture, something the hypothetical does not give. I don’t believe, based on my understanding of how information is revealed through torture, that any innocent lives would be saved.

Based on the “public safety” conclusions, I reach a moral conclusion: it is not immoral to torture the bomber, because: (1) he is in fact guilty; (2) harming him is necessary to protect the innocent; (3) harm in this case is a kind of punishment he brings upon himself by his evil acts; (4) the official does not offend moral law when he acts in accordance with the mandate that rulers have from God to suppress wickedness and vice.

1. you can’t torture the guilty, 2) harming him is not strictly necessary to protect the innocent, but even if it was it would fall under the prohibition “you can’t commit evil for a good end” 3) you can’t punish by torture, the Catechism explicitly says this, 4) protecting the public and suppressing wickedness must be done in accord with Moral Law, since the whole point of suppressing wickedness and protecting the public is that it is the mandate of Moral Law. You can’t violate Moral Law in order to uphold it.

This, perhaps, is the basis of your misunderstanding. Government never stops being government. It is only when the government prohibits people from following the commandments of the Lord that revolt is licit.

It also ceases to have the authority of government, therefore it’s no longer government. It can call itself government, but it has ceased to have any legitimate authority and therefore isn’t government in the proper sense.

There is an important distinction to make, and hopefully it will at least narrow the scope of the debate. We are not saying that the bomber is getting tortured “under law.” A law authorizing torture would be unjust under present Church teaching, I agree. The same principal applies to capital punishment, immigration policy, comon criminal punishment - current Church teaching characterizes many common US practices “unjust.”

None of the things you mentioned are prohibited by the Catholic Church as such, so you’re really reaching. If they were they would be moral evils as well, just like torture. You are correct, however, that the U.S. government behaves in a fundamentally immoral and unjust manner on a number of issues, and is rightfully condemned on those matters. So yes, the U.S. commits moral evil, and we must not support it when it does. The fact that the U.S. government thinks it’s doing right by committing evil does not make it right.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Warrenton]

Warrenton:

No, it doesn’t. It gives explicit instruction that torture, unlike execution and war, must be abolished. It doesn’t even attempt to justify historical uses of torture, but simply says that it was wrong.

 

[Ben_Bet_Beh]

I question seriously whether the Church can blanket condemn its prior teachings and practices.

I challenge your assertion that the Church taught that torture was acceptable. The best I could find is that in practice the Church did not condemn it in centuries past. That is an important difference.

 

[Ben_Bet_Beh]

Ben Bet Beh: This actually isn’t true. There is nothing in Divine Law, Old or New Testament, that forbids a Jew from touching a wounded man in the street, and even corpses can be handled if they are neglected. There would have been no sin whatsoever in checking on the man to see if he was alive.

Not being an expert in the Judaic laws of the Old Testament, I’ll defer mostly here. In my limited research since your post, it appears the Levite & priest may have thought the man was already dead which apparently was against an interpretation of the Jewish laws of impurity. I understand that such a law does not make it part of the Divine Law.

 

[Warrenton]

I challenge your assertion that the Church taught that torture was acceptable. The best I could find is that in practice the Church did not condemn it in centuries past. That is an important difference.

Volumes could be written on the distinction between practice and teaching.

There are explicit regulations used by the Church regarding the Albigensians. If you search for “pope innocent & albigensian” you should be able to find a few links to those writings. St. Augustine accepted that it was probably a necessary evil in The City of God.

Then, of course, there is the teaching in “spare the rod, spoil the child,” and the incident of Christ and the money changers in the Temple. There are examples of flogging in the Old Testament.

Whether any of these things rises to the level of a teaching, or is merely a practice, or is a teaching that a measure of discretion is permitted in the absence of a contrary, deliberate teaching, I could not say.

 

[benedictus2]

Let me clarify - I meant to type that the priest & Levite did a duty to what they thought was for God.

There was nothing in the parable that said so.

The priest and Levite believed they had conformed to God’s will. The law forbade them from touching anything unclean. However, common sense said to help the poor man.

There was nothing in the parable that said so.

There was nothing in Judaic law that said being attacked by robbers make one unclean.

The priest & Levite did not do evil in their own eyes. They believed they were doing the will of God by not helping the poor man in this situation.

Everyone who does evil rationalizes their evil. That has nothing to do with what is being discussed.

The Magisterium doesn’t provide us with every situation that may come up in our life experience.

No but the basic guidelines cover almost all situations. One of them is one may not do harm to bring about a greater good.

Yes - the Church has over 2000 years of teaching to draw on. In the torture example, the Church even admits that it regrets it’s non-action of times past.

Please show where the Church has regretted NOT resorting to torture.

The Magisterium hasn’t always made the right decision - even though it’s teachings are infallible. There is a difference between infallibilty and leading in a manner that was not correct.

The question is at hand is about teaching not practice. If I were to tell someone in my care not to steal but I steal, it does not make stealing okay and it does not excuse the child when it follows my example because I have told her that stealing is wrong.

The passive allowance of torture centuries ago attest to this.

We do not deny that there are some who were hypocrites. Nonetheless the Church has not taught that the torture is okay.

And if you are thinking of the Inquisition, it is not as bad as you have been led to believe.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Perhaps I can frame my question this way: Why is it better that innocent people die and the bomber not get tortured, than to torture the bomber and save the innocent people? .

You are attempting to form a judgment about the morality of an action based on the known or perceived likely outcomes of that action. That is not a valid way to make moral judgments. This type of analysis has been discredited as “the end justifies the means”. It does not matter how sure you (as the official considering torture) may be as to the two outcomes. Morality does not depend fundamentally on that kind of analysis. Of course we hope that morality is generally consistent with “good” outcomes, otherwise we would have a hard time calling morality “good”. But in those few cases where our personal judgment about the possible outcomes seems to conflict with moral teaching, then we have a duty to trust God and follow morality. After all, our projections may be wrong. God is not.

 

[Warrenton]

You are attempting to form a judgment about the morality of an action based on the known or perceived likely outcomes of that action. That is not a valid way to make moral judgments.

If you read my previous posts, I would not concede the point that torture in this situation is an absolute evil.

However, that line of enquiry did not reveal to me the logic behind Ghosty’s position. I phrased the question that way to try to elicit a response to an earlier question to Ghosty.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If you read my previous posts, I would not concede the point that torture in this situation is an absolute evil.

Is the Catechism not definitive enough for you? How do you (not Ghosty) decide if something is evil?

 

[Warrenton]

Is the Catechism not definitive enough for you? How do you (not Ghosty) decide if something is evil?

The catechism does not appear definitive in this case.

The process for deciding whether something is evil does not require a catechism. It is evident that people were able to make moral decisions long before the catechism.

Here is the basic process: determine whether the action is forbidden by an express moral imperative (e.g., not worshipping other gods before God). If it is not expressly forbidden, then determine whether the act serves any good purpose (e.g., feeding the hungry fulfills a command of Christ). If the act serves a good purpose, determine whether it is prudent to do so under the circumstances. This requires weighing the good vs. evil that you mentioned in your post.