What choice ought the Catholic make regarding these moral dilemmas?

[bbentrup]

Torture is an elusive word, anyways, potentially compounding this debate.

Is showing a prisoner around a torture chamber torture? Is strapping him down inside a torture chamber torture? Is threatening verbally and by appearance while a prisoner is strapped down torture? Is causing minor pain or discomfort only torture (poking them, for example)? Is making threats against a prisoner’s family member that you have no intent to carry out torture? Is losing your cool and angrily lashing out at a prisoner torture in any circumstances? Torture has an intent element. At what point does an intent to do an action become torture? Can you not intend torture but hope your prisoner discerns such an intent so that a third party could be saved? Can you play country music to a prisoner who hates country music more than physical pain - would that be torture?

Since the Catechism (and as pointed out, really the teaching Magisterium behind the Catechism) doesn’t necessarily go into details, and the word itself has multiple meanings, Catholics have to give some leeway in this debate to let an opponent advocate torture under certain circumstances since what they call torture may not be what the Church considers to be torture.

But torture-advocates beware - any act, whether you think it is tortuous or not, has an objective moral evaluation in God’s eyes. Even though theologians may not be able to precisely or nicely categorize an action under clear terms, such failure does not make an objectively sinful act ‘non-sinful’.

 

[benedictus2]

Torture is an elusive word, anyways, potentially compounding this debate.

Is showing a prisoner around a torture chamber torture? Is strapping him down inside a torture chamber torture? Is threatening verbally and by appearance while a prisoner is strapped down torture? Is causing minor pain or discomfort only torture (poking them, for example)? Is making threats against a prisoner’s family member that you have no intent to carry out torture? Is losing your cool and angrily lashing out at a prisoner torture in any circumstances? Torture has an intent element. At what point does an intent to do an action become torture? Can you not intend torture but hope your prisoner discerns such an intent so that a third party could be saved? Can you play country music to a prisoner who hates country music more than physical pain - would that be torture?

Since the Catechism (and as pointed out, really the teaching Magisterium behind the Catechism) doesn’t necessarily go into details, and the word itself has multiple meanings, Catholics have to give some leeway in this debate to let an opponent advocate torture under certain circumstances since what they call torture may not be what the Church considers to be torture.

Oh please. I suppose you think that in the bomb scenario given, the authorities will subject the offender to a continuous play of the music he hates.

When we say torture, we know exactly what we mean. We mean Guantanamo, we mean Nazi Germany, we mean Communist China, and Russia. We mean torture.

The other use of the word :torture is just exageration in the same way that we say something “killed” us when obviously we are still very much alive.

 

[bbentrup]

Oh please. I suppose you think that in the bomb scenario given, the authorities will subject the offender to a continuous play of the music he hates.

When we say torture, we know exactly what we mean. We mean Guantanamo, we mean Nazi Germany, we mean Communist China, and Russia. We mean torture.

The other use of the word :torture is just exageration in the same way that we say something “killed” us when obviously we are still very much alive.

Your response confuses me. If I am the head of the authorities in the bomb-scenario, which of my hypotheticals would be morally licit? All? None? or Some? (Which?) To what extent does my exact intent change the outcome of the analysis?

 

[Warrenton]

But torture-advocates beware - any act, whether you think it is tortuous or not, has an objective moral evaluation in God’s eyes. Even though theologians may not be able to precisely or nicely categorize an action under clear terms, such failure does not make an objectively sinful act ‘non-sinful’.

This is true.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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.

You are contradicting yourself. First you say that a catechism is unnecessary for deciding if something is evil. Then you proceed to make primary recourse to “an express moral imperative”. But your example of an “express moral imperative” (not worshipping other gods before God) is an example of something that could only have been learned by teaching passed on from revelation. But what is that teaching if not a catechism by another name? You are relying on a catechism of sorts. It is not clear that your primary source of knowledge of what is evil and what is good is something very different from a catechism.

As for whether or not torture is evil, consider the moral principle that has been cited here already, namely, that an evil act cannot be made not evil just because of some good that results from it. If you agree with that principle then wouldn’t your position imply that no torture is evil, even if no good at all could come from it? That is, on what other basis could you distinguish between good torture and evil torture? Suppose torture is done just for the fun of it? That would have to be OK. The only way to classify some torture as evil and some as not evil would be to consider the good that comes from it. And that basis is expressly forbidden.

If you disagree with that principle, then I suppose you would allow a priest to break the seal of the confessional if through a confession he became aware of a serious crime, or maybe a crime that was about to take place? The Catholic Church makes no exceptions in that rule. Any priest who breaks the seal of the confessional is instantly and automatically excommunicated. Yet your analysis based on the good that might result would say that sometimes it might be OK. Do you hold that position too?

 

[Warrenton]

But your example of an “express moral imperative” (not worshipping other gods before God) is an example of something that could only have been learned by teaching passed on from revelation. But what is that teaching if not a catechism by another name? You are relying on a catechism of sorts. It is not clear that your primary source of knowledge of what is evil and what is good is something very different from a catechism.

Permit me to clarify. I took my example from Exodus 20:1–17. This may be found in any standard Bible.

I trust that it is not necessary to compare and contrast the Bible with a catechism?

If you agree with that principle then wouldn’t your position imply that no torture is evil, even if no good at all could come from it?

But I don’t agree with this principle. Why do people keep writing as though I do?

That is, on what other basis could you distinguish between good torture and evil torture? Suppose torture is done just for the fun of it? That would have to be OK. The only way to classify some torture as evil and some as not evil would be to consider the good that comes from it. And that basis is expressly forbidden.

Good torture? I am saying that the morality of torture is conditioned upon what it’s used for.

Where did I ever write that torture for fun is moral?

If you disagree with that principle, then I suppose you would allow a priest to break the seal of the confessional if through a confession he became aware of a serious crime, or maybe a crime that was about to take place? The Catholic Church makes no exceptions in that rule.

This does not follow. However, let’s look to be sure. You find the support for your contention that it is absolutely forbidden for a priest to break the confessional seal. Then, we shall compare the language in your support against the language regarding torture in the catechism.

Let’s see if the words are the same.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Permit me to clarify. I took my example from Exodus 20:1–17. This may be found in any standard Bible.

Yes, the Ten Commandments do have a lot to say about how we should behave. But does it end there for you? How did you come to decide that those verses and no others and no teaching of Church is needed to know what is right? That sounds a lot like the Protestant principle of sola scriptura. Which would be fine if you were a Protestant. But you identify yourself as a Catholic, so I am a little confused.

I trust that it is not necessary to compare and contrast the Bible with a catechism?

That depends. What point do you want to make from such a comparison?

But I don’t agree with this principle. [ends do not justify the means] Why do people keep writing as though I do?

Perhaps because they assume from your religion identification that you accept the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Good torture? I am saying that the morality of torture is conditioned upon what it’s used for.

Why would you not call torture good if it prevented hundreds of people from dying from a bomb?

Where did I ever write that torture for fun is moral?

You didn’t. But it is either that or a disavowing of the moral principle cited above, which you have freely admitted you do not hold anyway, so my argument was unnecessary.

But now that you have admitted that the fullness of Catholic teaching including the catechism is not the basis for your beliefs, then at least your position is consistent. Unfortunately that means we don’t have a common basis from which to argue.

 

[Ghosty]

Warrenton:

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?

Torturing the bomber results in the death of the soul of the torturer; the innocents hypothetically are only losing their mortal lives. As Christ says “do not fear the one who can kill the body but not the soul. Rather, fear the one who kills both the body and soul in Hell”.

I’m not saying that the death of the innocents is of no consequence, but between an innocent mortal death and death of a soul, the death of the soul is the greater weight because it is eternal (barring Confession or complete repentance, which isn’t a sure thing).

But I don’t agree with this principle. Why do people keep writing as though I do?

It’s assumed that you would since you’re Catholic, and it’s been the baseline of Catholic morality since the beginning. If you disagree with this principle then you disagree with Catholic morality.

There has been disagreement at times over what precisely is evil, but never that one can’t commit evil for a good end.

bbentrup: For the purpose of this discussion, and the hypothetical that brought it about, I don’t think it’s necessary to define what is and isn’t torture. We’re being asked to assume that whatever action is carried out upon is indeed torture.

Peace and God bless!

 

[benedictus2]

Warrenton:

Torturing the bomber results in the death of the soul of the torturer; the innocents hypothetically are only losing their mortal lives. As Christ says “do not fear the one who can kill the body but not the soul. Rather, fear the one who kills both the body and soul in Hell”.

I’m not saying that the death of the innocents is of no consequence, but between an innocent mortal death and death of a soul, the death of the soul is the greater weight because it is eternal (barring Confession or complete repentance, which isn’t a sure thing).

It’s assumed that you would since you’re Catholic, and it’s been the baseline of Catholic morality since the beginning. If you disagree with this principle then you disagree with Catholic morality.

There has been disagreement at times over what precisely is evil, but never that one can’t commit evil for a good end.

bbentrup: For the purpose of this discussion, and the hypothetical that brought it about, I don’t think it’s necessary to define what is and isn’t torture. We’re being asked to assume that whatever action is carried out upon is indeed torture.

Peace and God bless!

Brilliant!

 

[Warrenton]

Yes, the Ten Commandments do have a lot to say about how we should behave. But does it end there for you? How did you come to decide that those verses and no others and no teaching of Church is needed to know what is right? That sounds a lot like the Protestant principle of sola scriptura. Which would be fine if you were a Protestant. But you identify yourself as a Catholic, so I am a little confused.Perhaps because they assume from your religion identification that you accept the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I’m glad we agree that the ten commandments are divinely revealed moral absolutes.

I never said that there are no other moral absolutes besides the ten commandments. I said that there is no moral commandment, either in scripture or in a Church teaching, that absolutely
forbids torture in the scenario of the bomber.

Why would you not call torture good if it prevented hundreds of people from dying from a bomb?

This question highlights the difficulty were are having in this debate. You are failing to make distinctions between different concepts. The saving of the people is good, the torture is not.

But now that you have admitted that the fullness of Catholic teaching including the catechism is not the basis for your beliefs, then at least your position is consistent. Unfortunately that means we don’t have a common basis from which to argue.

I don’t know what you mean by this. When did I say Catholic teaching is not the basis for my beliefs? I’ll try to rephrase it: I am saying that you are misreading the catechism.

How are you misreading it? By interpreting it more narrowly than the words or logic or scriptural comparison permit.

That ought to be a fairly common basis to debate.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

When did I say Catholic teaching is not the basis for my beliefs?

post 60, 2nd sentence. The catechism is the most definitive expression of Catholic teaching.

 

[Warrenton]

Torturing the bomber results in the death of the soul of the torturer; the innocents hypothetically are only losing their mortal lives. As Christ says “do not fear the one who can kill the body but not the soul. Rather, fear the one who kills both the body and soul in Hell”.

First of all, we cannot say whether the official will lose his soul, any more than we can say whether the people who will be blown up will.

Second, it is odd that you would advocate an official being so cavalier regarding the death of the people that the official must protect.

Third, your quote was not addressed to political leaders, it was addressed to the apostles, and was spoken when Christ was telling them they would be subject to the anger of synogogue officials for preaching the Gospel. Curiously, Christ warned them they could even be tortured. However, the “evil” of such people is not said to be the torturing, but rather their refusal to accept the Gospel, for which they in turn will be punished.

This is the problem with taking things out of context. How do you reconcile it with Christ’s parable of the disobedient servant, who will receive lashes for his disobedience? OR with Christ’s scourging the money changers and sellers from the temple? How do you reconcile it with Deuteronomy, where the judge is commanded to lash the wicked man, and the commanded to maim the wicked wife? How do you reconcile it with the entire system of punishment and trial in Revelations, where the whole earth will be put to the torture?

If this quote about not fearing is as absolute as you say, why is punishment permitted? Don’t we punish in order to prevent the malefactor from repeating bad acts? Is it then a sin to fear?

It’s assumed that you would since you’re Catholic, and it’s been the baseline of Catholic morality since the beginning. If you disagree with this principle then you disagree with Catholic morality.

If I assumed torture was absolutely evil in every case, we would not be debating, right? The whole thing rests on you and I disagreeing whether torture is absolutely forbidden in all circumstances possible.

You have not proved this satisfactorilly, but we’ve already stated our positions. You see words of absolute prohibition where I do not.

 

[Warrenton]

post 60, 2nd sentence. The catechism is the most definitive expression of Catholic teaching.

I never said that I did not accept the teaching of the catechism as far is goes. I said the catechism does not cover the scenario in this thread.

Please provide me the source for your statement that the catechism is the “most definitive” expression of teaching.

How can a digest be more definitive than the documents and teachings it sums up?
Isn’t that like saying a movie is “more definitive” than the book it’s based on?

 

[Ghosty]

I never said that I did not accept the teaching of the catechism as far is goes. I said the catechism does not cover the scenario in this thread.

You said you don’t accept the principle that one can’t do evil for a good end. That is a rejection of the basic Catholic moral principle.

First of all, we cannot say whether the official will lose his soul, any more than we can say whether the people who will be blown up will.

Committing mortal sin damns the soul.

Second, it is odd that you would advocate an official being so cavalier regarding the death of the people that the official must protect.

I never said they could be cavalier regarding the lives of the innocent. In fact I said that the official would be morally culpable if they didn’t act in every possible moral way to save the lives of the innocent.

Third, your quote was not addressed to political leaders, it was addressed to the apostles, and was spoken when Christ was telling them they would be subject to the anger of synogogue officials for preaching the Gospel. Curiously, Christ warned them they could even be tortured. However, the “evil” of such people is not said to be the torturing, but rather their refusal to accept the Gospel, for which they in turn will be punished.

This is the problem with taking things out of context. How do you reconcile it with Christ’s parable of the disobedient servant, who will receive lashes for his disobedience? OR with Christ’s scourging the money changers and sellers from the temple? How do you reconcile it with Deuteronomy, where the judge is commanded to lash the wicked man, and the commanded to maim the wicked wife? How do you reconcile it with the entire system of punishment and trial in Revelations, where the whole earth will be put to the torture?

Christ’s statement to the Apostles relates a Truth that is beyond their immediate circumstances: loss of mortal life is nothing in comparison to the loss of one’s immortal soul.

As for the punishments described in the Bible, I’ve never said that physical punishment for crime is not permissible. In fact I’ve said that even execution is permissible, and that is the extreme of physical punishment. I’ve simply said that torture as a form of coercion is forbidden by the Catholic Church. For a definition of torture, I’ll use the U.N. definition which the U.S. signed and ratified:

1. 
   *]**For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. **
   

   If this quote about not fearing is as absolute as you say, why is punishment permitted? Don’t we punish in order to prevent the malefactor from repeating bad acts? Is it then a sin to fear?

   I don’t understand how the statement that we shouldn’t fear what kills the body relates to the permission of physical punishment. It can actually be understood to permit physical punishment.
   

   You have not proved this satisfactorilly, but we’ve already stated our positions. You see words of absolute prohibition where I do not.

   Ok, how about this statement from Pope Benedict XVI:
   

   Public authorities must be ever vigilant in this task, eschewing any means of punishment or correction that either undermine or debase the human dignity of prisoners. In this regard, I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances” (Ibid., 404).

   That’s a direct statement of the Holy Father, endorsing the statements from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, paragraph 404. The ongoing weight of these statements, and the relative consistency of their application throughout Church history (with the exception of local practice for a few centuries in the last millenium when Roman Legal Code was renewed) give ample evidence of the stance of the Church.
   
   Peace and God bless!

 

[Warrenton]

You said you don’t accept the principle that one can’t do evil for a good end. That is a rejection of the basic Catholic moral principle.

 

[Ghosty]

I did not say I denied that principle. I said that applying torture in the scenario was not absolutely evil.

That was the principle being put forth when you said you rejected the principle. It must have simply been a miscommunication then.

Clearly, the circumstances addressed by His Holiness the Pope in the address are those arising in ordinary penal situations, where the crime has already been committed and the person is serving a sentence toward rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The Pope says that the prohibition can’t be contravened under any circumstances, citing the document I linked to which makes a blanket statement about the use of torture. Yes, the speech in question is in relation to imprisonment, but the Pope is making a general statement that relates to the specific topic at hand.

However, if I ask whether we can cause him physical pain to make him reveal information that he is unlawfully withholding soley to kill innocent people,

You say: no way. That’s absolutely immoral.

There appears a rather obvious lack of symmetry here.

There is a difference between punishment for a crime, which is medicinal, and coercion of a person through abuse. The former seeks to uplift the criminal in addition to protecting the public good, the latter seeks to break them down.

2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious  to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence  corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good.  Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties  commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the  penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his  punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the  value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving  public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as  possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

Since torture as punishment of the guilty is ruled out by the Catechism, it can’t be said to fall under the scope of acceptable medicinal punishment.

Also, earlier you asked:

Just out of curiosity, if you discovered this statement is not correct under Catholic interpretation, would it change your mind? Reading your previous posts, I don’t think it would because you subordinate the purpose of government to the moral teaching of the Church. It would seem to follow that the legitimacy of the act is also of secondary importance.

I originally held the same view as you, but I changed my mind upon learning Church teaching, namely that the government must be subordinate to eternal moral law. I suppose my mind could be changed again, but you’ll have to show that the Catechism is wrong in this teaching, and that’s a very tall order.

Peace and God bless!

 

[yablabo]

**The Overcrowded Lifeboat **

**A Father’s Agonizing Choice **

The Costly Underwater Tunnel

Jean Valjean’s Conscience

The Torture of the Mad Bomber

All easy answers.

The Overcrowded Lifeboat: One may NEVER do evil that good may come of it. If perchance the principle of double-effect is attempted, one will find that the option of murdering several members aboard the lifeboat fails to meet the first requisite of the principle. The captain would be seriously culpable for the murders he commands in such a circumstance. Had I been on the jury, I would have supported the notion of the captain’s guilt.

A Father’s Agonizing Choice: Again, one may never do evil that good may come of it. However, it could be argued that if the son is a capital criminal, the state could employ the father as his son’s executioner. I fail to see, myself, that this would be a capital crime…and therefore could not see how the father could impose the sentence of execution upon his son without being guilty of murder. It would be out of the father’s hands whether the other innocent would die at the hands of the sadistic guard. This is actually a very similar notion to Pontius Pilate consenting to have Christ crucified, though Pilate had confessed he found no cause in Christ (i.e., that he was innocent of crime), about which Caiphas prophesied that it was expedient that one man die for the people. Pilate’s actions to condemn to death an innocent man were just as revolting as would be a father’s were he to murder his own son.

The Costly Underwater Tunnel: Unless one IS certain of the effect, the action itself to build the tunnel is what is used for judgment. Building an underwater tunnel is a neutral action in and of itself. If one can foresee that there is a likelihood of sustaining loss of life, then it would obviously have to be prevented or safeguarded against in so far as possible. The decision, however, to crush a worker deviates from the building of the tunnel. The man would have to be rescued or at least sustained in his condition as is possible. There could be no choice to direct the action to his death, as it would in fact be murder to do so. Risk and certain outcome are not equivalent notions.

Jean Valjean’s Conscience: The confession was the right thing. There are many things immoral about Jean Valjean’s actions throughout the story of Les Miserables, but this was not one of them.

The Torture of the Mad Bomber: If one is talking about torture as an extension of corporal punishment, then there is nothing wrong with inflicting it in this case. However, it would not be moral to inflict it on the wife as she is labeled “innocent” by your question. To inflict a punishment on an innocent, whether corporal or capital, is an evil called injustice…and one may never do evil that good may come of it.

– Nicole

 

[Warrenton]

The Pope says that the prohibition can’t be contravened under any circumstances, citing the document I linked to which makes a blanket statement about the use of torture. Yes, the speech in question is in relation to imprisonment, but the Pope is making a general statement that relates to the specific topic at hand.

I understand you.

There is a difference between punishment for a crime, which is medicinal, and coercion of a person through abuse. The former seeks to uplift the criminal in addition to protecting the public good, the latter seeks to break them down.

In this case, then official is not trying to rehabilitate or break down the bomber as a goal. The goal is the maintance of safety and order, which is the purpose for having the official in the first place.

But I see your point.

Since torture as punishment of the guilty is ruled out by the Catechism, it can’t be said to fall under the scope of acceptable medicinal punishment.

It’s hard to say what remains on the table if one reads G&S broadly enough.
Remember, my assumption is that the bomber is known to be the bomber. I am not saying the official could torture the bomber on a hunch.

Arguably, if the bomber reveals the location under torture, he is saved from committing much worse crimes. While it is true that whoever contemplates murder, commits it in the moral sense, as Christ taught us, it is also true that the law always punishes attempts less severely than completed acts. Doing so seems to accord with the desideratum of lessening punishment accross the board, which is the warp and weft of recent Church pronouncements on the topic.

I originally held the same view as you, but I changed my mind upon learning Church teaching, namely that the government must be subordinate to eternal moral law. I suppose my mind could be changed again, but you’ll have to show that the Catechism is wrong in this teaching, and that’s a very tall order.

More than tall - impossible. I don’t think we will see any teaching approving any use of torture under any circumstances. This is not in the Church’s present political interest. However, as I said earlier, it is problematic when the Church of today undertakes to pass judgment on the Church of an earlier time, since this does serious violence our ability to rely on teachings over time.

Therefore, I reconcile the teaching by construing it to pertain to matters that the Church could still regulate, namely, the prudential use of torture. This permits me to read the catechism consistent with the general moral principals rather than specific ones, and allows me to reconcile the teaching to the historical and scriptural uses of what seem to be torture.

Let me qualify an earlier statement - I agree that the official could morally refuse to torture the bomber if the official believed as you believe. I had originally indicated otherwise.

If we changed the hypothetical a bit, and imagined the bomber running down the street to arm the bombs, the official would be justified in using any amount of force, including deadly force to stop him, if the bomber refused to submit to the official’s command to cease and desist.

Or to change it a bit more - suppose the disarming device was hidden inside the body of the bomber. The official would have the right to get to the disarming device even if doing so meant injuring or killing the bomber.

In both variations, the bomber has no legal or moral right to kill and harm the general public, and the official has a legal and moral obligation to prevent the bomber from killing and harming the public.

The difference in the hypothetical is that instead of running down the street, the bomber is apprehended. The danger he poses is the same, however. The bomber’s total lack of moral or legal justification is the same. The moral obligation of the official to prevent the bomber’s depredations is the same. As with the concealed deactivation device, or the running bomber, the bomber himself has put himself beyond the pale of the common circumstances the law was written to address. He has put himself beyond the pale of the common moral circumstances as well.

In common parlance, the bomber found a catch 22: he gets to kill people, and gets to watch the official do nothing to stop it.

This puts the innocent in the power of the wicked, which is totally contrary to the will of God. See Psalm 125.

It turns out that you and I have been debating a question others have reasearched before us. I found a link by a Dominican on this exact case - except he called it the “ticking time bomb” scenario. How about that? It turns out that I reach the conclusion he reached - but his article (I only read the short version - since I spent too much time reading your link to the Vatican Penology Commission submission ) has some interesting cititions in your favor going back to St. Nicholas!

Let me know if you want to read it, and I will try to rediscover the link.

Presuming we are both not philosophers (I am certainly not) we seem to have hit many of the arguments the “professionals” have thought of. Not too shabby!

Cheers!