I know this is going to sound harsh, but the Cathechism of the Catholic Church needs to be read with its Companion and the footnotes. Eventually you get down to the definitions of terms.

It is true that torture is always evil and wrong. It is true that it involves violence to body and soul.

But it is not true to claim that any type of violence to body and soul by any person on any person for any purpose is the same thing as ‘torture’.

Otherwise, a police man restraining a criminal via the use of pressure holds and a tazer is guilty of ‘torture’ and ought to be considered a great criminal himself.

Spanking a child and sending them to bed without dinner could be – under this novel definition of ‘torture’ be considered the moral equivalent of inflicting permanent harm to a prisoner via the rack.

Giving someone a black eye is violent. But it’s not torture. Humiliating someone on April Fools Day is not the same thing as torture. And the reasons? Unless the harm is permanent, it’s just not the same thing.

After all, if you accept the CCC’s argument on Just War, you have to accept that one of the criteria is the threat is deemed ‘LASTING’ and not temporary to the common good.

Seeing how you would accept that reasoning it’s a bit odd why you’d miss the age-old distinction about torture which is exactly that: a lasting harm to someone.

I suspect because neither of you have thought through the truly horrific implications of redefining torture.

Not everything that is illegal and/or immoral is torture. So ‘abuse’ MAY if it has inflicted permanent harm on a child, woman, handicapped, etc. could certainly be considered ‘torture’ and hence, intrinsically evil and wrong.

I do NOT defend the licitness of torture as torture is classically defined.

I DO point to the classic definition and why we cannot change the definition and maintain any semblance of moral or legal regimes in a world where literally any unpleasant state can be now legitimately argued to constitute “torture”.

Once we jump the black/white divide between permanent and temporary harm, we cross a line from which society could not recover without accepting hypocrisy and intolerable moral confusion.

Neither of you – and many politicians, pundits and so-called “theologians” seem to realize the gravity of the situation. We absolutely must stick the the classic definition.

We absolutely have to take care not to switch colloquial and layman’s language which is not precise for technical language which hues to the definition of things.

Take “marriage” for example. The classic definition is one man, one woman. The moment it is open for redefinition, there ceases to be a definite state of affairs to be called ‘marriage’.

If you fail to make a distinction between inalienable human rights and civil rights (which are alienable) you run into huge contradictions and can cause vast injustices.

If in the name of humanity you fail to distinguish “modern weaponry” with INDISCRIMINATE weapons (nuclear, biological, chemical) you fall into the trap of many who quote Pius XII’s warning as though he was speaking of modern era ‘small diameter bombs’, smart bombs, inert munitions or other modern weapons which are anything BUT INDISCRIMINATE.

Thus I urge you to take this debate serious enough to set your emotions aside and stick to the definitions.

As I’ve warned before…two can play the “let’s redefine the terms” game.

The classic definition of permanent damage was there precisely because other things people do were not considered to be lasting long after the threat is over.

I would contend that while permanent damage to someone who is not a deadly threat to oneself or the state (since he’s captive) is torture and thus immoral in all cases, anything that is not permanently damaging (irreplaceable) is not torture and thus may be permitted in certain cases.

incidentally this is part of the reason land mines are considered unethical weapons. While they do provide a degree of perimeter defense or ‘access denial’ to combatants, most designs are such that they will be deadly for decades – long after any such need for defense or denial is needed, thus they are indiscriminate weapons and can be justly condemned.

Waterboarding does not inflict permanent physical, mental or spiritual harm. Neither does tazering someone. But if you move the goal posts from permanent harm into any grey area (which you must do if you include waterboarding), then you actually undermine the moral case against torture.

Torture is immoral, illegal and unreliable — in that order.

As professional interrogators will tell you, on the latter point harsh interrogation — even short of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (from which “torture” must never be morally and legally separated) — is a dubious technique. See, for example, the book “How to Break a Terrorist” by Matthew Alexander, who successfully interrogated Zarqawi.

I have never encountered any serious analysis of torture as a moral question that shifts the question to one of subjective “unpleasantness.” This is a red herring indeed.

Likewise, holding a gun to someone’s head and bluffing them to reveal information (via moral fear) was not considered “torture”.

Even giving someone a black eye was not considered torture. Neither was spanking, sending to one’s room without supper, or firing an employee and marching them out of the office in front of his peers.

Painful, humiliating, unpleasant… yes. Torture? Not according to the classic definition.

Burning, crushing, cutting something off…. scourging, crucifixion, the rack…. that’s torture.

Giving someone mind-altering and permanently damaging substances…. that’s torture.

Forcing someone to betray their religious principles (I know, almost an oxymoron to force someone to sin but still, say, forcing pork down their throats, tempting someone…) is torture.

But waterboarding, aka simulated drowning which does not permanently hurt your body, your mind, or your spirituality but DOES scare you and IS unpleasant…. would NOT qualify as torture in the classic sense.

But it’s 2003 and Bush is President and he’s the great Satan and thus, everything he does is evil and stupid…..so what do we see happen? A move to change definitions.

But here’s the problem. If you move the line from permanent damage (an objective description) towards ANY unpleasant experience (subjective) then EVERYTHING can potentially become “torture” and everyone can thus be liable for the crime and (objective) punishment due to torturers. Two can play the “let’s change the definitions” game.

Why is it that few theologians, politicians, pundits or philosophers realize that re-defining terms is a two way street that inevitably ends not with the best argument winning, but the most heavily armed side ‘winning’?

It’s like expanding the definition of marriage beyond 2 adults of the opposite sex or moving the goal posts of ‘rape’ to mean any action of a sexual nature that either then or later makes someone uncomfortable.

Once marriage or rape is open to interpretation or re-definition, it’s no longer a DEFINITE thing. The word becomes merely another weapon to hurl and not an objective, one-size-fits all situations- description of a specific act or state of affairs.

Expanding definitions is actually counter productive just like calling wolf for stray dogs is counterproductive…. eventually, if everything is torture, then society will fail to recoil in horror at genuine torture.

But Bush is the great Satan so we must stop him at all costs….until someone else is POTUS and then suddenly it’s OK. Meanwhile, every day caregivers have to physically restrain inpatients in mental facilities and cause them discomfort in the process….. which, according to the peanut gallery is now “torture” and hence a crime against humanity subject to Interpol arrest and extradition to the ICC in the Hague.

Theologians unfortunately are not known for being great Philosophers. So rarely are terms defined. Attempt at systematic argumentation is not made either. Assertions or assumptions of fact are routinely taken as though they prove something.

In the great “debate” on torture we just accept that the classic definition is changable without thinking it through. Move the definition from objective criteria into the amorphous/subjective “unpleasantness” category and suddenly you’ve expanded the universe of torturers exponentially without truly changing anything ‘on the ground’ for ‘real’ torturers.

I find Kennedy’s analysis more compelling than Hunsinger’s.