Pagans invented democracy and Epicurus (a pagan) articulated ideas of natural law and the golden rule (due unto others) long before Jesus lived. The ancient Delphic Maxims give clear guidelines for pagan ethical behavior, these guidelines are very clear that murder and harming others is wrong. Torture is no more of a pagan value than it is a Christian value.

Thus, the classic definition of what constituted ‘torture’ was PERMANENT injury to a person’s body, mind, or soul.

If the pain, terror, or trial does not provoke permanent injury then as unpleasant as it is, it is not torture.

Simple as that folks. Which is why definitions are so vital both to philosophy, theology, and ethical debates.

As for what others ASSERT to be torture or not, I’m afraid we find a case of missing quotes “”. So someone stuck in an aircraft for 3 hours without water or bathroom breaks describes the ordeal as “torture”. Or being forced to listen to some politician drone on and on about how brilliant he is while being clear as mud immediately after saying “let me be clear” could be described as “torture”. But TECHNICALLY, and thus, for purposes of ethical debates, such ordeals were not torture.

This doesn’t mean less than permanent damage is OK willy nilly. Or that it’s not subject to the moral law. Of course it is. And some things that are less than torture can be illegal and ought to be proscribed for civilized people. But again, we must stick to definitions least we inherit the curse of Babel.

After all, two can play the “let’s redefine terms” game.

I am aware of VS 80. But it does not teach what you think it does.

First of all, to say that deportation and extradition are not the same is a distinction without a difference if there ever was one.

But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that there was a difference. You mean to tell me that it would be intrinsically evil for the U.S. to deport one of its citizens to another country regardless of the dangers he may pose? Remember what “intrinsic” evil means. It means that it is evil withuot regard to intention or circumstance.

As I pointed out in a previous comment, if the use of torture, such as in the case of waterboarding, was intrinsically evil, then Catholic teaching would contain an internal contradiction. If we can impose the death penalty on a dangerous malefactor if it is deemed necessary as a defensive measure, but not waterboard (while unpleasant but leaves no permanent damage and involves no sexual degradation or anything like that) a terrorist when it is likewise deemed necessary to obtain lifesaving intel (also defensive in nature), that is a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction, something the Holy Spirit prevents Church teaching from doing.

Like the death penalty, the morality of the use of torture is fact dependent (i.e. determined by the needs of the circumstance in question).

When reading Church documents, this is the paradigm through which they must be read in order to avoid the errors that many Catholics (including yourself Matt) fall prey to on issues like this.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

An excerpt:

~Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. … The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: … whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; ~

Et cetera.

Regarding deportation, here is a link the Vatican website for the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/index.htm

Numerous Church documents on the Vatican website discuss the evil of deportation, including these:
http://tiny.cc/0vFXV

Phrase was supposed to read:

KSM was waterboarded 183 times?

Moreover, if we are to say that waterboarding is intrinsically evil, we are in a real quandry. After all, if it morally licit to inflict death on someone as a means of defense, then how can we say that waterboarding a terrorist to extract actionable intelligence (which is defensive in nature because it saves innocent lives) is intrinsically evil, especially when waterboarding leaves no permannent damage?

KSM was waterboarding 183 times? So, what? It happened to help thwart a 9-11 style attack on Los Angeles. It doesn’t matter if it took 183 or 183,000 times to get that intel. I say waterboard him until he grows gills if that’s what it takes.

Is it intrinsically evil to insist that a man who knows where his fellow murderers are planning to murder next to reveal that information? Of course not. It is a moral duty to demand that information from him.

Is it intrinsically evil for that man to refuse to reveal that information? Yes, it is.

Then how could God be offended by the use of what is really the physiological trickery of waterboarding (the terrifying inducement of the gag reflex) to induce Murderer A from revealing where his fellow murderers will strike next? The answer is that God would not be offended. His beloved creature Murderer A has become intrinsically evil and in order to stop the evil that he is a part of he can, with good conscience on the part of the induceres, be induced to reveal his intrinsically evil information.

This is not a difficult question.