The Catechism calls for the abolition of torture, and that’s an absolute prohibition by definition
Let’s see what the citation states:
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. .
What is being described is mainly the historical use of torture, which could be different than the hypothetical. So to begin with, this citation is inapposite. Second, It says we must work for the abolition of torture. This is not the same as saying something is forbidden at all times and in all circumstances, or that it is the same thing as murder, as you claimed above. If the writers had wanted to say that, they would have.
The practices that must be abolished, moreover, are not the historical ones but rather “those practices which [are] even more degrading.” Those “even more degrading” practices are the ones that society should work toward abolishing.
You also cited to the kidnapping chapter in the catechism. It should be noted that the official here is not torturing to obtain a confession. In fact, what the bomber reveals cannot be used at his trial.
Further, the hypothetical does not state that the torture is going to be “even more degrading” than historical methods, so it may not even fall within the ambit of the catechism.
Victims of torture, not innocent victims
.
No, innocent victims. This is evident because the “victims” the passage describes are those people who, in general, were subjected to “cruel practices” that “were neither necessary for public order nor in conformity with the rights of the person.”
The hypothetical in this case presents us with a circumstance where torture is required for public order. This is the opposite case than the catechism presents.
The passage does not discuss disproportionality with regard to torture, so I’m not sure where you are getting that from
The whole point of the catechism passage is that torture was disproportionate to the alleged crimes. That is why the catechism says “in recent times it has become evident that the cruel practices [were unncessary]”
One might ask as an aside whether it is seriously advanced that the purpose of the catechism is to review comprehensively and definitively every single use of torture throughout history.
The Catechism says that torture is immoral,
Actually, the word it uses is “degrading”.
I never challenged the premise that the well being of the people is the purpose of the government because that statement is true.
Let’s illustrate the crux. An armed robber runs out of the bank, and the police officer shouts “Stop.” The robber keeps running, and the officer shoots the robber. The act is not immoral because the officer is acting in defense of the public safety. The shooting, however, may well be illegal depending on other facts.
Thus we see that the equation of lawful government action with moral action is incorrect.
Please cite an authoritative Catholic source that says that torture is permissible under any circumstance
Te history of the Church is replete with incidents where torture was used. The catechism itself mentions that often torture was legally regulated, and you could probably find your “authoritative” document in a law code that was in force in Papal lands, or a bishoprick. They are likely to be superceded, but that does not imply that they were not authoritative.
But enough citation of the catechism, because it will not resolve the debate. Why? Because you read the catechism broadly and I read it narrowly. Between our positions, the argument that torturing the bomber is immoral must ultimately rest on logic and reason.
I’ll go you one further. Failing to torture the bomber to save lives is immoral. The official only has the right to restrain the bomber in order to fulfill the purpose of the government: to save innocent lives. IF the official had seen the bomber about to detonate a bomb, the official could have killed the bomber. The official could have arrested the bomber, and used extreme force, up to and including deadly force, to do so. After the bomb went off, the official could imprison the bomber, perhaps for life. Between those extremes, the temporary causing of pain in order to extract the location of bombs that the official cannot find is actually moderate. Even better, the information that is obtained cannot be used to prosecute the bomber under US law. So, the bomber gets his mercy called for in the catechism in the end.
Against this, and I am paraphrasing your first response, you claim, “No, Let the bomb go off, perhaps a miracle will save everyone.” This contention is maintained even though “lawfully” the state can inflict far harsher consequences on the bomber. This position sacrifices the innocent citizens’ lives to a false view of what is proportional, with no countervailing benefit at all. This logic escapes me.
When a government official refrains from protecting the lives of the citizens who pay his salary because it is possible a miracle may do the job for the government, that is negligence, at best.
