This issue is again one that is a lot more complex than people like to admit and also causes a debate that results in just an ton of accusations toward people holding view x.
Is Waterboarding Torture? Some People like Cajun Hugenot that have undergone it as part of training say no. See What is water-boarding? A first hand account. Others that have gone through it say it is while others say reasonable minds can disagree.
Even to examine this subject ask questions as a Catholic about what is permissible at times brings wilds charges that you are sacrificing your faith to an America Civic Religion, you are a horrible neo-con (whatever that is), and are just some Bush Apologist.
As one person noted that was involved in the below debates I link:
"Far too many people are just too eager to mock people charged with serious responsibilties and hence endure enormous temptations. Every time I hear the word "torture apologist," "Bushie," etc, I think that it makes no sense to denounce an evil while engaged in the evil of character assassination. How many insults can support a moral argument? How many attacks on the character of a person can build a strong foundation?"
The problem is that not everything is so clear cut and to bring that up offends people.
Catholic Apologist David Armstrong said as to this issue:
I've come to the conclusion that the debate on this comes down to mostly semantics and personal hostilities. I saw that early on when I realized that folks (including myself at first) were sloppy in differentiating the terms "torture" and "coercion" in various contexts, thus leading to further confusion (within the framework of cynicism and suspicion on both sides).
One of the best Catholic presentations on torture I have seen that examines scripture , the Church Fathers, Popes, Councils, Canon Law, Saints views, and all the way up to the present day is by Father Harrison.
See
Torture and Corporal Punishment as a Problem in Catholic Moral Theology: Part I - The Witness of Sacred Scripture
Torture and Corporal Punishment as a Problem in Catholic Moral Theology: Part II. The Witness of Tradition and Magisterium
At the end of part II after making a case what is excluded he makes a observation that I am sure will drive some bonkers:
there remains the question – nowadays a very practical and much-discussed one – of torture inflicted not for any of the above purposes, but for extracting life-saving information from, say, a captured terrorist known to be participating in an attack that may take thousands of lives (the now-famous ‘ticking bomb’ scenario). As we have noted above, this possible use of torture is not mentioned in the Catechism.
If, as I have argued, the infliction of severe pain is not intrinsically evil, its use in that type of scenario would not seem to be excluded by the arguments and authorities we have considered so far. (John Paul II’s statement about the "intrinsic evil" of a list of ugly things including torture in VS #80 does not seem to me decisive, even at the level of authentic, non-infallible, magisterium, for the reasons I have already given in commenting above on that text.) My understanding would be that, given the present status question is, the moral legitimacy of torture under the aforesaid desperate circumstances, while certainly not affirmed by the magisterium, remains open at present to legitimate discussion by Catholic theologians.
I think he is right that the question remains open.
The torture debate erupted two year among some big Catholic Apologist names on the net that I think was very fruitful and shows that a genuine discussion of what is torture and what is not needs to be had absent the constant name calling and calling into people's motives
See
On Torture, "Aggressive Interrogation" and The Military Commissions Act of 2006
"The Torture Debate" - Part II
"The Torture Debate" - Part III
The Torture Debate - Pt. IV (Roundup)
So what do I think about Torture?
The discussion and links are valuable for any Catholic or person of goodwill that is trying to do the right thing as to this issue. I highly recommend it.
Thank you for linking to my prior ventures into 'the great St. Blog's torture debate of 2006'.
ReplyDeleteAs Fr. Neuhaus said ("Drawing a Line Against Torture" October 2004):
"Torture as defined in international agreements to which the U.S. is party—outrages against human dignity, humiliation, degradation, mutilation, the threat of death—is never morally permissible. Admittedly, a measure of coercion, both physical and mental, is inevitably involved in most interrogation. The very fact of being in custody and under threat of punishment is a form of coercion. The task is to draw as bright a line as possible between such coercion and torture, and to forbid the latter absolutely. The uncompromisable principle is that it is always wrong to do evil in order that good may result. This principle is taught in numerous foundational texts of our civilization and is magisterially elaborated in the 1993 encyclical of John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor. We cannot ask God's blessing upon a course of action that entails the deliberate doing of evil. When something like Abu Ghraib happens, the appropriate response of patriotic Americans is one of deep sorrow, clear condemnation, and a firm resolution that it not happen again."