I would think it is likely that you have no proof for your “torturing someone doesn’t actually fall under what is allowable for self-defense.” I don’t know if guns are mentioned either, I don’t know if knives or fists or clubs or axes are mentioned either.Torturing someone doesn’t actually fall under what is allowable for self-defense; it doesn’t fall under what is deemed moral behavior.
Are you saying Situational Ethics is the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s statement on Self-Defense?Glad to know that situational ethics is alive and well. Not.
The most common errors of Catholic apologists today is to play the “quote the Pope” card. You quote a Pope as an ultimate authority, when the Pope was possibly not speaking as an ultimate authority. For example many people quote Pope Benedict XVI in a public audience to a commission for the World Congress when he said, "…I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances…” as if that were a dogmatic statement condemning all torture**. Catholic apologists should know that this was not a dogmatic statement, and they should know better than to take a quote like this one out of context.** For one, we can go back into history and find other Popes saying something entirely different. What we end up with is an appeal to opposing authorities. For example, Pope Innocent IV openly endorsed torture during the Inquisition. Does that mean that Catholics should have endorsed torture under any circumstances back during the Inquisition? Of course not. We need to think these things through before we go off making any definitive pronouncements on such things.
We have to draw distinctions if we are to make any sense of these moral dilemmas. There are certain times that someone can be put to death, and certain times where it is immoral. The same goes for when physical or mental violence can be used on a person. I think it would be a gross misunderstanding to take Pope Benedict’s comment to mean that all physical or mental violence towards anyone for any reason is condemned in all circumstances.
Thus it goes.
Torture is always immoral, hence it’s not a part of self-defense.I would think it is likely that you have no proof for your “torturing someone doesn’t actually fall under what is allowable for self-defense.” I don’t know if guns are mentioned either, I don’t know if knives or fists or clubs or axes are mentioned either.
“it doesn’t fall under what is deemed moral behavior”
Allowing people to be blown to smitheereens doesn’t fall under what is deemed moral behavior.
You don’t have a source for your statement. Thank you. Nonetheless I value your opinion.Torture is always immoral, hence it’s not a part of self-defense.
Not really a site one should use to actually learn about the faith. Neo-Catholics, New Mass, advertises a book the last 7 popes failing to consecrate Russia, SSPX is right/Church is wrong, etc.Are you saying Situational Ethics is the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s statement on Self-Defense?
Are you saying someone is talking about Situational Ethics and who would that be?
Clarification would be appreciated.
I guess “utilitarian” now does not suffice as well.
Thus it goes.
A source? You mean like the theologian in good standing with the Church who you cited earlier in this or another thread and who wrote an addendum to the article you cited which stated rather clearly that torture is always immoral? A source like that?You don’t have a source for your statement. Thank you. Nonetheless I value your opinion.
I am reminded of an expression, “attacking the messenger not the message.” By the way, just because the computer puts up some advertisements does not constitute an endorsement as much as I get an ad for a yoga class on my computer.Not really a site one should use to actually learn about the faith. Neo-Catholics, New Mass, advertises a book the last 7 popes failing to consecrate Russia, SSPX is right/Church is wrong, etc.
You mean to say now, you agree with Father Brian Harrison’s opinion still that it is not clear if waterboarding is torture, a point that he did not back down on? Then I think we can work on this as we agree here.A source? You mean like the theologian in good standing with the Church who you cited earlier in this or another thread and who wrote an addendum to the article you cited which stated rather clearly that torture is always immoral? A source like that?
“However, now that Pope Benedict himself has personally reiterated this particular statement of the Compendium, I wish to state that I accept the Holy Father’s judgement on this matter, and so no longer hold that Catholics can ever legitimately defend the use of torture - not even in extreme circumstances to gain potentially life-saving information from known terrorists. Accordingly, the last sentence of the above article, regarding “the present status quaestionis” on torture, should now be taken as withdrawn.”
rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
Nobody disputes that the CIA-approved waterboarding was a thoroughly nasty and frightening experience. However, I submit that whether or not it reached the point of torture does remain a seriously disputed question among reasonable and well-informed people. I think anyone who carefully studies with an open mind the available documentation and arguments on both sides, in regard to both the CIA and Navy SERE versions of waterboarding, will admit that ths is true, regardless of which side they personally come down on. Thiessen is not out on a limb of his own here: he can point, for instance, to the carefully considered witness of expert and independent (non-partisan) Justice Department lawyers to back up his contention that the CIA interrogators were not torturers (cf. p. 352).- Father Harrison
So we agree waterboarding can possibly be used in order to save life.
Respectfully noted, this question not answered at all so I doubt there is any backup, thank you.Torturing someone doesn’t actually fall under what is allowable for self-defense; …
Note, even if one attacks the blog, these are Pope Benedict’s words, so we should NOT take one part of the speech out of context.“Prisoners easily can be overwhelmed by feelings of isolation, shame and rejection that threaten to shatter their hopes and aspirations for the future. Within this context, chaplains and their collaborators are called to be heralds of God’s infinite compassion and forgiveness. In cooperation with civil authorities, they are entrusted with the weighty task of helping the incarcerated rediscover a sense of purpose so that, with God’s grace, they can reform their lives, be reconciled with their families and friends,** and, insofar as possible, assume the responsibilities and duties which will enable them to conduct upright and honest lives within society.”**- Pope Benedict
catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2010/05/pope-benedict-xvi-and-condemnation-of.html“Judicial and penal institutions play a fundamental role in protecting citizens and safeguarding the common good (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2266). At the same time, they are to aid in rebuilding “social relationships disrupted by the criminal act committed” (cf.Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 403). By their very nature, therefore, these institutions must contribute to the rehabilitation of offenders, facilitating their transition from despair to hope and from unreliability to dependability. When conditions within jails and prisons are not conducive to the process of regaining a sense of a worth and accepting its related duties, these institutions fail to achieve one of their essential ends. 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)”
-Yeah shame on me for disagreeing with portions of what your source says. Shame on me for citing your source to invalidate part of your position with what your source says. But let’s ignore the fact that you are disagreeing with your source and look at our disagreements with him. Mine- I say waterboarding is always torture when used to get info, punish, etc; Father says what is or is not torture isn’t well defined- conclusion- I could be right. Your disagreement with your source- You- Torture can be moral; Your source- torture is never moral- Either your source is wrong or you are.You mean to say now, you agree with Father Brian Harrison’s opinion still that it is not clear if waterboarding is torture, a point that he did not back down on? Then I think we can work on this as we agree here.
So we agree waterboarding can possibly be used in order to save life.
Respectfully noted, this question not answered at all so I doubt there is any backup, thank you.
Also, not addressed is the immorality of allowing persons to die in a ticking bomb situation where a coercive confession may be needed.
Furthermore, Pope Benedict did not make a dogmatic statement. One can criticize the blog or criticize the messenger, but the Pope made it clear, that this statement concerning so-called torture applies:
IN SO FAR as the jailers can do this.
Hence, we can not take statements out of context and imply things that may well not be there.
Better contact Father and let him know that he’s doing it wrong since, according to you, he’s taking the Holy Father out of context.Note, even if one attacks the blog, these are Pope Benedict’s words, so we should NOT take one part of the speech out of context.
Furthermore, from the speech and with the Catechism references:
catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2010/05/pope-benedict-xvi-and-condemnation-of.html
So in other words, we should be faithful to the context of the message.
The above are only the words of Pope Benedict.
“In this regard”, so this is not a blanket statement that everyone has made it out to be.
I have this argument of “our troops are trained this way” as a way to justify doing it to another. But I want to ask, what does waterboarding and the like have to do with training for war? And the answer is - it is training to resist torture.As to your last paragraph, all the same, we do have some rights to self-defense and as a nation too. This is covered some with Cathechism quotes here: catholiclane.com/the-catechism-on-the-right-of-self-defense/
There is a thin line with this waterboarding as torture. We have some rights to self-defense, I can’t help but think, even if one is talking about “ends justifying the means”, to just allow a bunch of people being blown up without making some sort of effort to find out where the ticking bomb is does not sound moral and doing that without resorting to torture.
And this really gets us back to the use of nuclear weapons covered in previous posts, we didn’t have to drop those bombs on Japan. I guess that was sinful but it ended the war and probably saved a lot of Americans from an invasion.
And I’m reminded of an expression that “if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, and looks like a duck; it’s a duck.”I am reminded of an expression, “attacking the messenger not the message.” By the way, just because the computer puts up some advertisements does not constitute an endorsement as much as I get an ad for a yoga class on my computer.
Now, this is off-topic, I do believe SSPX has some sort of relationship with the Vatican, if the SSPX is in communion but imperfect reconciliation with Rome, then, what you are doing is really just talk. Since SSPX, Traditional Catholic literature may have some place with Rome, thus I believe your criticism falls short.
Better contact Father and let him know that he’s doing it wrong since, according to you, he’s taking the Holy Father out of context.Path_Finder said:“In this regard”, so this is not a blanket statement that everyone has made it out to be.
And had I been quoting the Holy Father it might be a valid point. I didn’t quote the Holy Father, I quoted Path Finder’s source. If Path Finder has an objection to how Father interpreted the Holy Father’s remarks, he/she needs to take up with the source he/she cited.To be fair, I have to agree with Path_Finder by the quote provided and the context in which the statement was made. That is, I agree to the extent that it is far from clear that Benedict XVI’s statement closes this discussion in the slightest. I have a hard time seeing how the author of the previously mentioned article thinks that throws a wrench in anything he stated, especially with potentially stronger and more direct comments made by St. JPII.
I am just interested on what the teaching is, and trying to interpret the Catechism’s statement in light of all of the faith. So far I think we all agree:
1.) Torture is not the mere deliberate infliction of extreme pain.
2.) Something that can be referred to as ‘torture’ is intrinsically wrong.
3.) Extracting confessions by use of force and inflicting pain for enjoyment are wrong.
4.) The ends do not justify intrinsically wrong means (I hope we all agree here).
However, that does not cover all that much and leaves a lot open for debate. A few methods I have heard the CIA use in interrogation seem outright wrong, but I am not so rash to judge the morality of another’s actions unless I have some degree of certainty about it, or prudence demands some more immediate judgment.
If it were not for statements from the Church, I would only begin to question ‘torture’ when it tried to coerce a person to act against their conscience or where the good sought from it was outweighed by evil of suffering of a person. The fact that it is extremely does not alone concern me at all (as God Himself justly ordains far more severe punishment than temporal pain).
I never said you did, I said he did and you said he was wrong about the context he/the blog took it in.And had I been quoting the Holy Father it might be a valid point. I didn’t quote the Holy Father, I quoted Path Finder’s source. If Path Finder has an objection to how Father interpreted the Holy Father’s remarks, he/she needs to take up with the source he/she cited.
I never said you did, I said he did and you said he was wrong about the context he/the blog took it in.
To be clear:
Benedict said: “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)”
From that statement the author of this article (rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html) claimes that **no **“Catholics can ever legitimately defend the use of torture - not even in extreme circumstances to gain potentially life-saving information” as an addendum to his article defending its possible defense by the faithful.
To which I agree with Path_Finder that this statement of Benedict needs to be taken in context and I find it odd that author of the above article would come to that conclusion for that statement alone. “In this regard” is a very limiting qualification even if we were to take the statement in a purely literal sense.