Writing at Vox Nova, the author known as “Morning’s Minion” has published a post calling for consistency in the application of canon 915— the denial of Holy Communion to those who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin”— in this particular case, the public advocacy of abortion and torture. The post was occasioned by the recent appearance of Mark Thiessien on Raymond Arroyo’s “The World Over”, in which the duo lobbied vigorously in defense of waterboarding:
I think the analogy is clear. Arroyo and Thiessen are both Catholic public figures, and Arroyo in particular is a TV personality on a Catholic TV channel, making the scandal all the more grave. They are clearly “obstinately persevering” in support for an intrinsically evil act. Worse, they actually try to justify it on Catholic grounds. Thiessen has made it his life’s work to claim that some forms of torture are virtuous. Arroyo, again and again, invites defenders of torture onto his show, and instead of confronting them with clear Church teaching, voices his agreement. As [Archbishop Raymond] Burke says, this is “public conduct” that is gravely sinful. I would go further and argue that it is even more scandalous than support for legalized abortion. Most public supporters of abortion do not go on television extolling the great virtues of abortion for women and society. Their argument is more with how it should be treated under the law. But the Arroyo-Thiessen-Sirico cabal are (i) claiming to the faithful Catholics while (ii) making public pronouncements on the positive value of torture.
Catholic debate over torture (and/or what the Bush administration has termed “extreme interrogation”) has been going strong for several years now. It’s online manifestation initiated—to my recollection—with the publication of Mark Shea’s article in Crisis, “Toying with Evil: May a Catholic Advocate Torture?” and subsequent discussion at Amy Welborn’s, in March 2005. From time to time I’ve personally blogged on the various vollies and controversies between various camps as the debate has asserted itself, time and again, over half a decade (has it really been that long?)
That EWTN (“Eternal Word Television Network”) has hosted two explicit defenses of waterboarding— most recently by Thiessien, as well as Fr. Joseph Sirico of the Acton Institute, not to mention Q&A from Judy Brown of the American Life League questioning whether torture should be considered “intrinsically evil”—does not surprise me in the least. As I noted recently, there has been open dispute as to whether waterboarding constitutes torture from many prominent Catholics, including editor Deal Hudson, Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, and Fr. Brian Harrison (in the pages of This Rock—the flagship publication of Catholic Answers, the largest largest lay-run apostolates of Catholic apologetics and evangelization in the United States).
Little wonder that a Pew Forum survey examining “the religious dimensions of the torture debate” found many white Roman Catholics, along with most frequent churchgoers, affirming that the use of torture against terrorists is “sometimes” or “often” justifiable.
With respect to abortion, readers may recall a number of opportune moments during the 2008 presidential elections when Catholic bishops were obliged to speak out, publicly, forcefully and collectively, in correction of blatantly false presentations of Catholic teaching on abortion by Nancy Pelosi and (then) Senator Joseph Biden.
There have been numerous missed “teaching moments” for our bishops and the moviedl Catholic Church on the matter of torture.
Addendum
Further discussion of this (cross)post at The American Catholic — with some helpful comments from readers:
Donald McClarey rightly notes:
Denying communion to those who support the use of torture in certain circumstances would mean denying it to most of the popes who lived between circa 750 AD to 1871 AD. It is not politic perhaps to bring this up, but the attitude of the Church to the use of torture by lawful authority, either Church or State, did a 180 in the last century from previous praxis and teaching of the Church for a millennium.
See Fr. Brian Harrison’s “Torture and Moral Punishment as a Problem in Catholic Theology | Part II for a historical exploration of this subject).
DarwinCatholic observes:
… it seems to me that the argument lacks some crucial context. When bishops have, in rare circumstances, denied abortion to notorious abortion supporters, it has been after long years of the Church clearly denying that one may, as a Catholic, support legal abortion. It has also been after the individual politician is warned by the bishop that he/she must change his views lest he be denied communion. The denial of communion is, at that point, a response to repeated and stubborn refusal to accept correction.So in this case, an obvious first step (assuming that the Church does in fact consider the positions being taken by these people to be totally unacceptable) would be for some bishops to step forward, make it clear that these positions are morally unacceptable, and advise people that they must cease making these arguments lest they find themselves divided from the Church.
As Chris says, this is clearly a potential teaching moment. I don’t myself agree with the arguments that folks like Thiessien are making — though I’m not ready to say with confidence that it’s impossible for Catholics to make such arguments in good conscience. …
What MM does not seem fully cognizant of, unless I’m much misreading his intention with his post, is that there is a difference in Church discipline on these two issues in that the Church has already made it clear that it considers dissent on the question of legal abortion to be something which, in notorious cases, can and should be disciplined through denial of communion. He may not like that, but there it is. It is not yet, however, clear whether the topic of waterboarding is something over which the Church considers it appropriate to ban people from communion for dissent.
I have little respect for those who cavalierly lobby in defense of waterboarding — or, for that matter, those who who bring a cudgel to the discussion — tar-and-feathering as the “Rubber Hose Right” (to borrow one well-known term) anyone who raises doubts about fundamentalist proof-texting from John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendour that torture, like slavery, is “intrinsically evil”, end of story. (Cardinal Dulles noted himself in First Things danger of approaching that particular passage in such a manner).
I have considerably more respect for Catholic apologists like Jimmy Akin and Fr. Harrison, who address the issue with humility and trepidation, acknowledging the lack of clarity. Father Harrison in particular can be commended for taking into account the width and breadth of Church history and papal teaching.
Nonetheless, it has been five years of predominantly lay Catholics — some very prominent — in open dispute and confusion on the matter. The positions of both sides has been articulated such that, every time this debate resurfaces in the blogging world, one can predict from memory the various points raised and tactics employed.
There has been, however, precious little said or done by the Catholic Bishops (local or collectively) to address the specifics of these cases — in much the same way as the Church has asserted itself authoritatively and definitively on abortion, its contribution would be appreciated here.
February 12th, 2010 | 7:41 am
This debate is a mess and most commentary adds nothing to its clarity.
If I’m not mistaken, some are arguing that certain interrogation techniques applied to certain people in certain situations do *not* constitute torture. I do not think they are arguing for the morality of torture itself. The latter position would indeed be grounds for severe reprimand; the former position is not.
KSM was an *active belligerent*, which (potentially) makes his case much different than others.
This debate is in dire need of careful thinking. The post mentioned above by somebody named “Minion” adds absolutely nothing to the debate; it is pure politics and moral bluster.
February 12th, 2010 | 9:21 am
I couldn’t agree more, Paul. And I am more than a little tired of the nasty accusations and implications made by First Thoughts bloggers about Catholics who refuse, on analytical and philosophical grounds, to agree that waterboarding of captured enemy combatants meets the definition of “manifest grave sin” on the part of its practitioners and supporters. Christopher Blosser, Joe Carter, and their ilk do little to advance their case when they start every debate by judging me as a stubborn “refusenik” who has never given any thought to the moral issues surrounding waterboarding. They couldn’t be more wrong, or insulting, and continuing to start every argument on the question with “You are either too stupid or too evil to understand that you are committing a mortal sin, and it’s a mortal sin because I say so” just makes it ever less likely that I’ll give any credence to anything they have to say about this or anything else.
February 12th, 2010 | 9:41 am
Christopher,
Your commentary is helpful and this is an important issue to bring to light. Contrary to what commenter Paul says, Fr. Brian Harrison published commentary attempting to establish a loophole in the Church’s teaching against torture, as follows:
“Thirdly, 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).”
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
Catholic torture apologists have seized on this opening to refuse to believe that torture is intrinsically evil.
My personal view is that denial of Communion to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin should be exercised rarely, but consistently.
February 12th, 2010 | 9:51 am
It does seem as if these Catholic theologians and spokespersons are falling into the trap of situational ethics, if not a down right “the ends justifies the means” argument. Such as position is condemned as sinful whenever it applies to social or sexual ethics. It seems to me to be just as sinful here.
Further, might I add that those folks who are promoting the ethical acceptance of “enhanced interrogation techniques) are also being blinded by the sense of nationalism and patriotism. As such they cannot fully comprehend or accurately measure the morality of a given act when such an act is intended to save your own ass! Perhaps I am getting too cynical with my advancing years, but if the targets of terrorism were people living in another country or continent, I very much doubt that these American Catholic commentators would so quickly excuse an evil like torture.
It is hard for me to see how torture can be reconciled in any way with Catholic moral and ethical teaching.
This being said, I fail to see how the public promulgation of this poorly formed theology would warrant the denial of communion. When politicians et al promote a pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia position, they are perhaps materially cooperating in a an act that carries a latae sentence of excommunication. I am not aware that this same severe punishment applies to the issue of torture (even if perhaps it should).
Fr. Tim
February 12th, 2010 | 10:35 am
Regarding the question as to whether certain interrogation techniques applied to certain people in certain situations do or do not constitute torture, Joe Carter addressed that question thoroughly in these pages recently. This one piece in particular is a good reference:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/01/06/theissens-catechism-on-torture/
February 12th, 2010 | 10:51 am
I believe the real scandal here is being caused by Catholics who assert that the Church holds the absurd position that the waterboarding of three confirmed al Qaeda leaders several years ago in an attempt to save lives is the moral equivalent of the 1.2 million abortions that are performed every year in this country.
February 12th, 2010 | 11:08 am
Lauri Friesen Christopher Blosser, Joe Carter, and their ilk do little to advance their case when they start every debate by judging me as a stubborn “refusenik” who has never given any thought to the moral issues surrounding waterboarding. They couldn’t be more wrong, or insulting, and continuing to start every argument on the question with “You are either too stupid or too evil to understand that you are committing a mortal sin, and it’s a mortal sin because I say so” just makes it ever less likely that I’ll give any credence to anything they have to say about this or anything else.
Either Blosser and I are right or we are wrong about whether waterboarding is torture. If we are right, then you are in error and should change your opinion. If we are wrong then you should be able to explain where we err. Instead, you simply dismiss the argument because we make if forcefully. That’s a rather bizarre reason for refusing to accept a claim about morality.
I’m not sure whether you are claiming that waterboarding isn’t torture or that torture isn’t a sin. But I think it is obvious to anyone that has examined the facts objectively that both claims are untenable. Also, I’m not a Catholic but I think the Church’s position on the issue is rather clear. The Cathechism says:
This last part refers, in part, to actions taken during the Spanish Inquisition. As I’ve shown before, the difference between the Inquisition’s “water torture” and waterboarding is trivial. They are both methods of inducing drowning in order to achieve a particular end.
Being a Christian often requires that we take stands that are contrary to our own security. Even it if could be shown that waterboarding was effective and necessary (which has never been proven to be true), it would not change the fact that is is sinful and prohibited by the Church and moral law.
February 12th, 2010 | 11:21 am
Torture is wrong by definition. If it’s torture, it is intrinsically immoral. On this, no rational person can disagree. Any Catholic who says torture is not an evil is saying something incoherent.
The question is WHAT IS TORTURE?
We are permitted to use force against active combatants who are (or are about to) hurt others. Was KSM in this group of people? There is an argument that he was, and that what was done to him was morally permissible. On one argument, this would mean that what was done to him was NOT TORTURE, even though the same actions done to another person would be.
See? There are important distinctions here EVEN IF WE ALL CORRECTLY RECOGNIZE THAT TORTURE IS INTRINSICALLY EVIL.
February 12th, 2010 | 11:27 am
Mr. Carter:
I am arguing that waterboarding is not torture. I believe that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and other techniques used to weaken the will of an enemy combatant are not torture. To my mind, they do not automatically meet the Catholic requirement of being “physical or moral violence”, at least not when used in carefully defined circumstances. I am not convinced that you can categorically deny the people who are tasked with protecting the USA these tools.
However, the issue for me is really your and Christopher Blosser describing and judging me as cooperating in evil and pursuing a path of “manifest grave sin.” I am a practicing Catholic and take very seriously these Catholic teachings. You and Mr. Blosser have a differing interpretation of the teaching of the Catechism on torture. Your interpretation is not the only one and it is unjust of you to use it to end any debate made by sincere and serious Catholics about waterboarding.
I have read your and others’ descriptions of waterboarding and disagree with your conclusion. I think that you should respect that disagreement and, at least, cease using “evil” and “manifest grave sin” and making other such significant moral judgments of your opponents.
February 12th, 2010 | 11:49 am
The first line used in the catechism is interesting. It states that “Torture ….. to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred..” The purpose of the waterboarding done by the U.S. in these cases was to extract information to prevent murder. It was not done for any of the four reasons stated in the catechism.
February 12th, 2010 | 12:18 pm
Waterboarding is both physical and moral violence, and can indeed be fatal (the point of the physical exercise qua physical exercise is indeed to court the risk of fatality) – which is about the most permanent physical injury there is. It’s Orwellian anti-Christian nonsense on Dubai-Tower-high stilts to suggest otherwise.
Also, we not only have a proscription against torture to fulfill, but a prescription of human treatment of prisoners (however imprisoned).
February 12th, 2010 | 12:24 pm
I am arguing that waterboarding is not torture.
The term “waterboarding” is rather opaque. Our inability to agree on whether it is torture or not may be because we are arguing about different things. Perhaps it would be useful if we both outlined what it is we are talking about when we use the term waterboarding. Here is a description of the act from Malcolm Nance, a former SERE school instructor:
(Clarification: I’ve often used the term “simulated drowning” when talking about waterboarding. What I mean is the act simulates the effects of drowning. Simply saying that a person was being drowned is more accurate but without further explanation can lead to confusion about the technique.)
Because this issue can become quite emotional, let’s see if we can’t examine it in as objective a way as possible. Let’s strip away all of the questions about whether waterboarding is effective and focus solely on whether it meets the Catholic definition of toture.
Imagine we have an observer who is neither familiar with the Catechism or with waterboarding. We have them read the passage on torture and then observe an actual case of a detainee being waterboarded against their will. The observer is then read a description of the physical and psychological effect that are occurring when this technique is applied.
Rather than providing their own subjective moral judgment on the act, the observer is simply asked if what they just witnessed meets the criteria of torture.
I honestly can’t see how they could come to an opinion it does not. In order to claim that waterboarding does not meet the definition of torture as outlined by the Catechism, they would have to be able to say that drowning a person is not an act of “physical violence.” I don’t even think any advocate of waterboarding has ever claimed that (instead they say the violence is necessary).
The question is not whether waterboarding fits the Catechism’s definition of torture (it clearly does) but whether the passage can be liberally interpreted to provide a moral exemption for this technique.
And herein lies the problem. I don’t mean for my next claim to sound condescending, so I apologize in advance if it comes off that way. But here is what I think it going on.
Some morally serious Catholics are opposed to torture but not necessarily to the use of physical violence to extract information from a prisoner. Because they can hold both ideas in their heads without contradiction, they assume that the Catechism can be interpreted in a way that justifies their position. In order to get there they have to take a clear deontological claim (torture is prohibited) and turn it into a utilitarian claim (torture is prohibited unless a greater could can come of the action).
Most of us refuse to allow such shifts when they are used to justify abortion, birth control, euthanasia, etc., so I’m not sure why it would be allowed in this instance.
I think that you should respect that disagreement and, at least, cease using “evil” and “manifest grave sin” and making other such significant moral judgments of your opponents.
But that would be dishonest of me to say otherwise. Torture is evil and a grave moral sin. I can’t water that down just because some people might be offended any more than I can gloss over it when it applies to abortion. It is because the stakes are so high that the truth about it has to be said clearly and forcefully.
I believe that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and other techniques used to weaken the will of an enemy combatant are not torture. To my mind, they do not automatically meet the Catholic requirement of being “physical or moral violence”, at least not when used in carefully defined circumstances. I am not convinced that you can categorically deny the people who are tasked with protecting the USA these tools.
However, the issue for me is really your and Christopher Blosser describing and judging me as cooperating in evil and pursuing a path of “manifest grave sin.” I am a practicing Catholic and take very seriously these Catholic teachings. You and Mr. Blosser have a differing interpretation of the teaching of the Catechism on torture. Your interpretation is not the only one and it is unjust of you to use it to end any debate made by sincere and serious Catholics about waterboarding.
I have read your and others’ descriptions of waterboarding and disagree with your conclusion. I think that you should respect that disagreement and, at least, cease using “evil” and “manifest grave sin” and making other such significant moral judgments of your opponents.
February 12th, 2010 | 1:00 pm
Just War theory allows us to kill our enemies under certain circumstances. The idea that the doctrine could not also cover the waterboarding (which over 25,000 of our own troops have been subjected to) of three confirmed terrorist leaders in order to foil plots they orchestrated would be laughable, if it did not have such potentially serious consequences.
Let’s look at two situations to demonstrate how absurd Mr. Blosser’s position is:
Situation A:
KSM is snuggled in his bed in an apartment building in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, after a hard day of plotting mass murder. Instead of having the ISI go in and grab KSM for us so that we can attempt to stop the attacks KSM planned, we fire a Hellfire missle into the apartment, killing KSM, and possibly others who had the misfortune of renting apartments near KSM.
So KSM and some of his neighbors are dead. KSM’s jihadi warriors who intend to sacrfice themselves are eventually going to be dead. The targets of KSM’s plots are also likely to eventually be dead, since killing KSM does not cancel the plans that have already been put in motion.
Situation B:
The ISI rouses KSM from his sleep and hustles him out of the building. He is handed over to US Intelligence. He is ultimately waterboarded, and provides information that saves the lives of the people who were his intended victims (please do not waste my time with claims the information extracted by waterboarding did not save lives — Admiral Blair, OBAMA’S Director of National Intelligence, admits that it did).
So now KSM is alive, his neighbors are alive, his jihadi warriors who would have sacrificed their lives are alive, and the targets of his plots are alive.
According to Mr. Blosser, the Church says we must follow the course of action in Situation A, despite the numerous deaths that result.
On the other hand, according to Mr. Blosser, following the course of action outlined in Situation B is condemned by the Church as engaging in intrinsic evil, despite the fact that evil is actually thwarted, and many people, including the villain and his minions, are still alive.
That line of thinking makes makes the Church look vacuous. An examination of the intellectual history of the Church makes it clear the Church is not vacuous. Consequently, I have to conclude that Mr. Blosser is wrong.
February 12th, 2010 | 1:24 pm
Very interesting discussion!
First of all, I’d have to disagree with Morning’s Minion re: applying Canon 915 to those who support torture. As I recall, the canon discusses those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin. No Catholic can claim that he is unaware that abortion is a grave sin, or that the methods he supports for “termination of pregnancy” aren’t really abortion, etc.; there is also the matter that Canon 915 is usually brought up in regard to Catholic politicians, who by their support for abortion not only cause scandal but are in a position to provide financial and other supports to the abortion industry.
Morning’s Minion is speaking about applying the canon to two people who aren’t able to provide any material support to torture; these people are also claiming (as others do) that while they wholeheartedly accept the Church’s teaching against torture what they support isn’t really torture. Even though I think this is wrong, it doesn’t rise to the same level as someone openly rejecting the Church’s well-established teachings against abortion.
That said, I’d like to point out that the Bishops of the United States have a document about torture on the USCCB website, here:
http://usccb.org/sdwp/stoptorture/
When I posted links and excerpts from this document at the Coalition for Clarity website I was told by some commenters that the bishop who wrote it was a liberal and thus Catholics are free to ignore his opinion.
One more thing: there is a problem with saying, “X is an ‘active belligerent,’ and it is morally acceptable to defend oneself against someone who is hurting or about to hurt others; thus it is morally acceptable to waterboard X.” Rules for both combat and self-defense are clear–there is no such thing as “preemptive” self-defense. If “X” is in our custody and completely under our control, he is not, in his person, an immediate threat–and self-defense simply does not apply.
The argument is made that he is a threat because he knows where the ticking time bomb is, etc. But it doesn’t change the fact that he is in our custody and completely under our control, and thus not capable of posing the kind of direct and imminent harm which *must* be posed if self-defense principles are going to apply. We’re not, after all, allowed to torture mafia prisoners on the grounds that they might somehow continue to conduct business, order executions of unsatisfactory members, etc. from behind bars, making them a continued threat to society. Why should it be any different for terror suspects?
February 12th, 2010 | 1:27 pm
Mr. Carter:
I think a better comparison for your argument that evil must be identified and declared would be capital punishment. In both cases, of waterboarding and death penalty, the State uses violence to further some other, more desirable end. The death penalty, even in its most “humane form”, is the intentional termination of a human life. Whatever your own position is on capital punishment, I am sure you are aware that the teaching of the Catholic Church does not universally condemn it as evil. There are shades of nuance allowed in its interpretation and, therefore, permits its application. I believe there are similar shades of nuance with respect to waterboarding and other interrogation techniques. I am not holding in my head two contradictory notions at the same time.
February 12th, 2010 | 1:48 pm
Lauri Friesen In both cases, of waterboarding and death penalty, the State uses violence to further some other, more desirable end.
Before we get too much further, let’s see where we are in the discussion.
Are you conceding that waterboarding fits the Catechism’s definition of torture? (If not, why does it not apply?)
If you agree that waterboarding is torture, are you saying that it is sometimes morally justified and condoned by the Church for the State to torture in order to further a more desirable end?
Whatever your own position is on capital punishment, I am sure you are aware that the teaching of the Catholic Church does not universally condemn it as evil.
True, the Catechism has sections on both torture and capital punishment. But the Church condemns one without qualification and makes allowance for the other. If the Church believes that torture is analogical to capital punishment and is sometimes allowed, why is that not clearly stated?
Do you believe the Church’s position is that it is soemtimes justified, or do you see it as a matter that can be interpreted based on individual conscience?
February 12th, 2010 | 1:59 pm
“It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.”
I can understand why Mr. Nance is a “former” SERE instructor. He was doing the waterboarding incorrectly.
February 12th, 2010 | 2:20 pm
As I’ve tried to show several times, I don’t agree that waterboarding fits the Catholic definition of torture. I don’t agree that the magisterium is addressing waterboarding in its definition of torture.
I believe that you cannot equate waterboarding with the rack, nor with the more common physical and moral violence used against political dissidents by various and sundry regimes around the world. I also don’t believe that you can equate waterboarding with abortion or euthanasia.
Capital punishment is a more proportionate comparison, in moral terms, and there are many Catholics who disagree with the magisterium on its allowance for its use in certain, carefully defined circumstances.
I am not aware of what your beliefs are regarding capital punishment. I believe that the Church needs to provide clearer definitions of “torture” and “physical and moral violence”. (For example, was the omission of psychological violence purposeful? What means is the State justified in using when carrying out its duty to protect citizen?)
Finally, though, if you will insist on accusing me and others of cooperating in evil, I ask for some mercy in your judgment.
February 12th, 2010 | 2:30 pm
Brian English writes:
I can understand why Mr. Nance is a “former” SERE instructor. He was doing the waterboarding incorrectly.
Obviously, because I take it you are such an expert on the procedure, and moreso than a 26 year veteran?
Here is Mr. Nunce’s credentials:
Malcolm Nance is a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape school, who has himself been waterboarded as part of the training. A long-time intelligence specialist who speaks five languages, including Arabic, Nance has been deployed on counterterrorism operations in the Balkans, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. Now retired from the Navy, Nance is the author of the 2007 book, The Terrorists of Iraq: Inside the Strategy and Tactics of the Iraq Insurgency, and is a counterterrorism consultant based in Washington, D.C. He is also a contributor to the online site, Small Wars Journal.
February 12th, 2010 | 2:38 pm
“The argument is made that he is a threat because he knows where the ticking time bomb is, etc. But it doesn’t change the fact that he is in our custody and completely under our control, and thus not capable of posing the kind of direct and imminent harm which *must* be posed if self-defense principles are going to apply. We’re not, after all, allowed to torture mafia prisoners on the grounds that they might somehow continue to conduct business, order executions of unsatisfactory members, etc. from behind bars, making them a continued threat to society. Why should it be any different for terror suspects?”
1) I take it you also oppose the Predator strikes that have been used to kill terrorist leaders? They were not actually holding a gun to someone’s head at the time they were killed, so self-defense does not apply?
2) The comparison to members of the mafia is telling. This is not a criminal justice matter. We are at war. The police are not allowed to kill mafia members on sight, but soldiers are allowed to kill enemy soldiers on sight. Arrested mafia members cannot be held indefinitely without being convicted, while prisoners of war can be held as long as hostilities last.
We have an additional problem here because of the type of warfare being waged against us. Killers who do not wear uniforms were sent into this country to kill civilians. Some of them acheived that goal. Others were stopped. Some of them are still here, or are attempting to enter.
The question facing us is: “What can we do in interrogating leaders of these terrorists to protect the innocent civilians of this country from future attacks?”
Answering that question will necessarily require line-drawing. The attempt by some Catholics to portray those who would draw the line in a different place as the moral equivalents of Catholic politicians who support abortion is, to put it bluntly, despicable.
February 12th, 2010 | 2:52 pm
“Obviously, because I take it you are such an expert on the procedure, and moreso than a 26 year veteran?”
Based on what I know of Mr. Nance, and what I have read regarding the actual procedure for waterboarding, I think he may be embellishing his description for effect. Look around the Web for five minutes and you will find SERE instructors and participants who state waterboarding is not torture.
Mr. Nance also wrote a book, An End to Al-Qaeda, in which he promotes these brilliant ideas for destroying Al-Qaeda in just 24 months: “Nance’s plan includes exposing Al Qaeda to the international Muslim community as a global death cult; defeating the fear Al Qaeda has stoked; reducing the number of heavy military operations that use bombs (and cause civilian deaths) and relying more heavily on counterintelligence.”
If Mr. Nance is actually considered an expert on terrorism, that would explain a great deal.
February 12th, 2010 | 3:00 pm
In “Gulag Archipelago” Solzhenitsyn wrote:
//Sleeplessness was a great form of torture: it left no visible marks and could not provide grounds for complaint even if an inspection-something unheard of anyway-were to strike on the morrow.//
and then he wrote about the cynically sarcastic attitude of Soviet interrogators:
“They didn’t let you sleep? Well, after all, this is not supposed to be a vacation resort. The Security officials were awake too!”
Back in the 1970s, when the Soviet Union seemed strong and the Khmer Rouge was in power, forced sleep deprivation and waterboarding was torture. Not anymore, I guess.
And here we have the famous Begin quote about sleep deprivation as a favorite NKVD technique:
//In the head of the interrogated prisoner, a haze begins to form. His spirit is wearied to death, his legs are unsteady, and he has one sole desire: to sleep… Anyone who has experienced this desire knows that not even hunger and thirst are comparable with it.
I came across prisoners who signed what they were ordered to sign, only to get what the interrogator promised them.
He did not promise them their liberty; he did not promise them food to sate themselves. He promised them – if they signed – uninterrupted sleep! And, having signed, there was nothing in the world that could move them to risk again such nights and such days.//
February 12th, 2010 | 3:10 pm
As I’ve tried to show several times, I don’t agree that waterboarding fits the Catholic definition of torture. I don’t agree that the magisterium is addressing waterboarding in its definition of torture.
I don’t think you’ve explained, though, why it does not fit the definition of torture. The Geneva convention and the U.S. military consider the technique to be torture. I’m sure you would agree that the magisterium doesn’t have a lower standard of morality. So why would waterboarding not be covered by the Cathecism’s prohibition?
I believe that you cannot equate waterboarding with the rack, nor with the more common physical and moral violence used against political dissidents by various and sundry regimes around the world.
But waterboarding was one of the techniques used in the Spanish Inquisition. It has also been used against political dissedents around the world. If an enemy were to use it on an American prisoner of war, we would charge them with the war crime of torture. I don’t think it is as ambiguous as you think. In fact, prior to the 9/11 I think you would have had a hard time finding a morally serious Catholic that would say that it is not torture.
I am not aware of what your beliefs are regarding capital punishment. I believe that the Church needs to provide clearer definitions of “torture” and “physical and moral violence”.
I’m an evangelical but my position on capital punishment is similar to that expressed in the Catechism. I also believe that capital punishment was not only sanctioned, but required, under the Noahic covenant as a means of retributive justice.
Waterboarding, however, is not about justice but about gaining information to prevent future violence. Since the Church condemns preemptive war, why do you think it would condone a technique that is done for the same purpose?
Finally, though, if you will insist on accusing me and others of cooperating in evil, I ask for some mercy in your judgment.
Let me be clear that I’m not directly accusing people of cooperating in evil. I am merely saying, “This action is evil and should not be condoned.” Throughout the discussion I start with the good faith assumption that the morally serious Christians that disagree are either unclear on why waterboarding is, are unclear on why it naturally fits the common definitions of torture, or that they accept an ethical position (i.e., utilitarianism) that I think believers should reject.
By the way, I had another question I wanted to throw out. Not being Catholic, I’m sometimes unclear on what counts as autority in moral issues like this. If the Pope were to issues a statement saying, “Waterboarding is torture” would that change your opinion or this a matter on which individual conscience is allowed some latittude to disagree with the Church?
Brian English The attempt by some Catholics to portray those who would draw the line in a different place as the moral equivalents of Catholic politicians who support abortion is, to put it bluntly, despicable.
But how is it different from the pro-choice Catholics who claim that utilitarian concern can and should override the Church’s clear moral teachings on the issue?
Essentially, it seems a lot of people are saying, “I’m a good moral Catholic and I support waterboarding terrorist, therefore it can’t be torture.” I think it is probably the first time that they’ve been on the wrong side of the Church on a serious moral issue and trying to find a loophole. If someone wants to say, “The Church is wrong, torture should be allowed in certain situations”, then I’ll be much more open to respecting that opinion.
Look around the Web for five minutes and you will find SERE instructors and participants who state waterboarding is not torture.
Could you point some of them out for us? The sole reason that waterboarding is done in SERE school is to prepare servicemembers to endure captivity and torture. Why do you think waterboarding is taught?
February 12th, 2010 | 3:45 pm
“But how is it different from the pro-choice Catholics who claim that utilitarian concern can and should override the Church’s clear moral teachings on the issue?”
There is no such thing as a justified abortion. However, killing in warfare can be justified. You think waterboarding is equivalent to abortion–an act that is always and everywhere an evil one. I think waterboarding is equivalent to killing in warfare–an act that can be justified under certain circumstances.
“The sole reason that waterboarding is done in SERE school is to prepare servicemembers to endure captivity and torture. Why do you think waterboarding is taught?”
Waterboarding causes a great deal of distress without causing permanent harm. That is precisely why it was incorporated into our interrogation program from SERE.
None of our enemies use waterboarding, which I am sure they regard as a joke. Unfortunately, waterboarding would be a huge improvement in treatment for our soldiers who are captured. Read about the condition of bodies that have been found in Iraq and Afghanistan.
February 12th, 2010 | 3:49 pm
“Back in the 1970s, when the Soviet Union seemed strong and the Khmer Rouge was in power, forced sleep deprivation and waterboarding was torture. Not anymore, I guess.”
This speaks volumes. Our intelligence officers are the equivalent of the KGB’s and Pol Pot’s murderers.
February 12th, 2010 | 4:21 pm
Thanks to Erin Manning for the interesting comment – I both agree and disagree with it!
First, I think it is mistaken to claim that “canon 915 is usually brought up in regard to Catholic politicians” who support abortions – that might be how it is seen in some American circles, but that is too narrow (and in my view, a misleading) reading. It is really about worthiness to receive communion, a rather general issue, especially in light of “manifest” sin.
But the point on catechesis may well be right. The teaching that torture is always and everywhere wrong is as clear as the teaching on abortion, but we not hear much from this from the American bishops, who always tend to tread far too gingerly when it comes to “national security” debates. The only possible defense of Thiessen and Arroyo from this canon is ignorance – they are not “obstinately” persisting in manifest grave sin if they really think they are doing right. Then again, there are many Catholics who think abortion is also fine (or at least the “choice” of the woman, even if they themselves do not approve).
It really all comes down to consequentialism, the idea that evil might be done so that good should come from it. This dawned on me years ago when I first read Anscombe and realized that those who defend abortion and those who defend the Japanese nuclear bombings (the precursor to the torture debate) were actually arguing from very similar positions. Abortion might be regretable, but it benefitted the woman in the long run. The death of civilians might be regrettablle, but it saved more lives in the long run.
Consequentialism is the big missing word from this debate. I’ve never heard it from Thiessen, from Arroyo, from Sirico, or indeed from Akin, Harrison, or Hudson. While the defenders of torture pretend to play games about the definition of torture, when you sift through their arguments (see this thread, even) it always boils down to some notion of the greater good and the particular circumstances in which the United States finds itself. But as the Church conistently teaches (see Veritatis Splendour, for example), even if the torture of KSM saved a million lives, it still could not be defended. You think that’s tough? Rigid? Unrealistic? Well, so is telling a rape victim that terminating her pregnancy is murder.
February 12th, 2010 | 4:24 pm
Brian English: “This speaks volumes. Our intelligence officers are the equivalent of the KGB’s and Pol Pot’s murderers.”
We need to speak objectively. I don’t who does it, but the act of waterboarding, the directly-chosen behavior, is evil. Intrinsically evil. And that means that the intent of the person or the circumstances do not matter. In other words, it does not matter whether the perpetrator of torture is an sociopthatic Khmer Rouge operative or an earnest CIA officer – the act is just as evil. Everything else is just consequentialism.
February 12th, 2010 | 5:14 pm
” the act of waterboarding, the directly-chosen behavior, is evil. Intrinsically evil. And that means that the intent of the person or the circumstances do not matter. In other words, it does not matter whether the perpetrator of torture is an sociopthatic Khmer Rouge operative or an earnest CIA officer – the act is just as evil.”
So our SERE instructors were engaged in intrinsic evil?
I simply find it astonishing that you believe that a CIA officer waterboarding KSM to try to prevent a repeat of 9/11 is the moral equivalent of one of the Khmer Rouge trying to rupture a peasant’s internal organs using water because they did not properly genuflect before a painting of Pol Pot. I will not believe the Church subscribes to such foolishness unless I hear it straight from B16′s mouth.
“Everything else is just consequentialism.”
I was wondering when consequentialism would show up.
The same objection could be raised with regard to killing in warfare. Yet that is allowed under certain circumstances. Why should waterboarding be treated any differently?
No one has yet addressed the point I raise above about the apparent absurdity of claiming that the Church’s preferred method for dealing with terrorist leaders results in several thousand people dead (including the terrorist leader), as opposed to waterboarding the terrorist leader, resulting in thousands of people (including the terrorist leader) still being alive.
February 12th, 2010 | 5:17 pm
MM
But don’t you realize that good people from good countries who do bad things for good reasons turn those things from bad to merely regrettable? (Sarcasm alert.)
February 12th, 2010 | 5:31 pm
And so Joe, we arrive at the identical place as the last series on this subject. For the record, my understanding of the waterboarding technique described by Mr. Nance it that it was used by the Khmer Rouge with the intent that it probably would result in permanent physical damage. It is not the same as the CIA technique. Be that as it may, several of the posts here make it clear that several lesser forms of harsh interrogation can be seen as violating the teaching of the Catechism. It is easier to argue against waterboarding but why don’t other forms of interrogation violate the definition under your expansive interpretation? Are you arguing that Christians in general and Catholics in particular are only allowed to leave terrorists in cells with a questionnaire as to their past and future plans?
February 12th, 2010 | 5:41 pm
Brian,
The Vatican already ratified the 1884 United Nations Convention Against Torture, which includes this statement:
“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.”
That’s right. Infliction of severe pain or suffering for the purpose obtaining information is put right there on the same plane as punishment. There is no need for Pope Benedict to re-ratify the treaty.
http://www.fiacat.org/en/IMG/pdf/26juinangl.pdf
February 12th, 2010 | 5:51 pm
The treaty was signed in 1984 and the link is here:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm
The portion I quoted was in Part I Art. 1, and Joe Carter quoted it in this good piece:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/01/04/do-only-radical-pacifists-oppose-torture/
February 12th, 2010 | 6:33 pm
“No one has yet addressed the point I raise above about the apparent absurdity of claiming that the Church’s preferred method for dealing with terrorist leaders results in several thousand people dead (including the terrorist leader), as opposed to waterboarding the terrorist leader, resulting in thousands of people (including the terrorist leader) still being alive.”
Morning’s Minion has already pointed out that this is consequentialism. There’s also a great deal of sentimentalism in your comments, which is also contrary to Catholic moral thought.
February 12th, 2010 | 7:41 pm
I’ve watched the conversation go by and I’ve read the links. Fascinating and provocative, which is why you posted the article, I assume. I’m a little leery of your motives when you say, “one can predict from memory the various points raised and tactics employed.” It’s clear from the comments that no one’s mind is changed, so why raise the issue? Just to stir the hornet’s nest?
After pondering, I believe the key to your article is the last paragraph, asking for the Church to assert “itself authoritatively and definitively” on . . . torture? Whether waterboarding is torture? What relationship Legitimate Defense, specifically #2264-65 of the CCC, has to torture?
I suggest that the Church’s non-answer is your answer. Your own link to Card. Dulles’ Oct ’05 article led me to this conclusion. Most of the article, as you know, regards the Church’s official position (or lack thereof) on slavery:
“No Father or Doctor of the Church, so far as I can judge, was an unqualified abolitionist. No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such. But they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.”
Torture, whether or not that includes waterboarding, will be denounced but never definitvely ruled against.
February 12th, 2010 | 10:33 pm
For me, as a practicing Catholic, an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Pope that waterboarding is torture would end all discussion. A clear inclusion of waterboarding in the definition of torture as provided by the Catholic Catechism would make it nearly impossible for me to continue to hold to a different interpretation. Otherwise, I believe that I have a rightly formed conscience and am capable of judging for myself.
The issue that is paramount for me, in this discussion is the judgment that waterboarding is evil. I don’t think that you can call an act evil yet except the people who participate in or otherwise condone such an act from that judgment. For me it is clear: if I do evil, then I am guilty of committing a mortal sin. It is not a judgment I take or pass lightly. As I will continue to disagree with you, I will have to accept that you judge me as an evildoer. I do not so judge myself, at least, not on this question.
February 13th, 2010 | 2:06 am
I think the Church has been clear enough. Though I know others will continue to argue it, it’s hard for me to see the attempt to re-classify waterboarding or find a loophole in the Catechism as anything other than evasions.
Difficult as it is, I have had to come to the grips with the fact that our country has done some despicable things, and, moreover, that the party I have supported has advocated, and, to some extent, continues to advocate those things.
Admitting this does not entail believing that our government is no better than the Khmer Rouge, or accepting that the smug self-righteousness of the left, which would shame us into giving up opposition to abortion and the continuing institutionalization of the sexual revolution, is justified.
It does entail humility and stronger feeling of political homelessness.
February 13th, 2010 | 7:51 am
“That’s right. Infliction of severe pain or suffering for the purpose obtaining information is put right there on the same plane as punishment. There is no need for Pope Benedict to re-ratify the treaty.”
Broad statements from UN documents are irrelevant to determining the morality of certain actions in the eyes of the Church.
Pursuant to your approach, CIA agents waterboarding three known terrorist leaders to try to save lives are just as evil as Gestapo agents cutting body parts off a resistance fighter to get him to reveal the location of a safe house.
I will not believe the Church fails to see a distinction between those two situations until I hear it straight from Benedict that it is the Church’s position, not his personal belief, that there is no difference between those two situations.
Remember, both JPII and B16 opposed the War in Iraq, but B16 was very specific that their opposition was their personal belief, not Church doctrine. Catholics could disagree with them and still be considered obedient to the Church. Unfortunately for our friends on the Catholic Left, he was equally clear that disagreement on the issue of abortion would not be tolerated.
February 13th, 2010 | 8:02 am
“Morning’s Minion has already pointed out that this is consequentialism.”
So you do believe that the Church’s preferred result is more dead people. I disagree.
A charge of consequentialism is the last refuge of someone who is losing a debate. As I indicate above, consequentialism could be applied to killing in warfare, but the Church recognizes that intent and circumstances matter in judging the morality of actions.
Do you really believe that Augustine or Aquinas would have a problem sanctioning the waterboarding of KSM and his two partners in evil to try to prevent the evil those men had plotted? I do not think there is any question that Thomas More would approve.
February 13th, 2010 | 8:20 am
It’s clear from the comments that no one’s mind is changed, so why raise the issue?
My mind changed less than a year ago. At that point, bloggers such as Eve Tushnet, Mark Shea, Tom (Disputations) and others had been warning us about the temptation to excuse torture for at least 5 years. And going back through their archives, it seems so obvious now, I often wonder why I did not have my “Aha!” moment a long time ago (which may be one reason why I come across as impatient to others on the subject). Some early samples from them:
“Like Jim Henley, I got pretty depressed reading the various defenses of torture that have been posted in the blogosphere recently. It took me several days to write about this because I needed to collect my thoughts and suppress the gut feeling of rottenness and horror. I know even admitting that will lose me credibility, but hey, I figured you all deserve an explanation for why I am so late to this particular discussion: I couldn’t stomach it before.”
http://eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/2003_03_01_archive.html#90503111
“Catholics hold by faith that a single act of disobedience caused the fall of the entire human species. Can we really believe that a single act of torture will have no effect on the society that endorses it?”
http://disputations.blogspot.com/2003_03_30_disputations_archive.html#91916789
“Torture–torture!–is just fine as long as you are doing it in the defense of human rights. In fact, whatever methods we may choose to condone or contract out to our somewhat unsavory friends are fine because we are the Good Guys and we never do anything wrong. Let us do evil that good may result! It’s right there in Scripture!”
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2003/03/when-right-embraces-ring-lucianne.html
Me: Progress may (or may not) be slow, but there is progress. So praise to Christopher Blosser, Joe Carter, Erin Manning, the good folks at Vox Nova and elsewhere for being very patient and for giving other Christians and good people a chance to have an “Aha!” moment, too.
Other, better commenters can answer your questions, but here are my answers:
What relationship Legitimate Defense, specifically #2264-65 of the CCC, has to torture?
Sections 2264 and 2265 can be read here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
The catechism states clearly that use of more than necessary violence is unlawful. Also, legitimate self-defense is limited to rendering an unjust aggressor unable to cause harm. When we apply these principles to a specific instance of waterboarding, we find that waterboarding is immoral. Abu Zubuydah was captured and held in securely in prison for about 5 months prior to being waterboarded. He was taken from his secure cell and strapped down to a table, his feet slightly elevated utterly defenseless. At that point in time, there could be legitimate claim of self-defense as a premise to use more violence against him.
Torture, whether or not that includes waterboarding, will be denounced but never definitvely ruled against.
The catechism 2297 states: “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.” To me this is as definitive as it needs to be, and I would not know how to write it better. Even if they written waterboarding right in that section, wouldn’t some people insist that there are different types of waterboarding, only some types constitute torture?
February 13th, 2010 | 8:34 am
“Admitting this does not entail believing that our government is no better than the Khmer Rouge, or accepting that the smug self-righteousness of the left, which would shame us into giving up opposition to abortion and the continuing institutionalization of the sexual revolution, is justified.”
But that is exactly what is being done here. You are falling into the trap of equating the waterboarding of three terrorist leaders, which was done 6-7 years ago, with the 7-8 million abortions that have taken place since then, and the millions that will take place in the future. Equating the morality of those situations is beyond absurd.
The Catholic Left is attempting this because their political allies have revelaed themselves to be a Death Cult, with abortion as their primary sacrament. However, understanding why the Catholic Left is doing this does not make it any less inexcusable.
February 13th, 2010 | 8:55 am
Regarding the demands for the Pope to speak in order to settle the matter, on the one hand, they indicate an embarrassing ignorance of the roles in the Church of the Pope, and of those who demand he and he alone speak to their personal satisfaction on a matter before they will accept what has been taught by an Ecumenical Council, the universal Catechism and the Compendium of social doctrine written subsequent to the Council, the Compendium of the universal Catechism, the local Catechism written based on the universal Catechism — to give an incomplete list of authoritative sources all of which state that all torture is always evil.
On the other hand, it just so happens that the Pope has said that the prohibition against torture cannot be contravened under any circumstances.
February 13th, 2010 | 2:23 pm
“Regarding the demands for the Pope to speak in order to settle the matter, on the one hand, they indicate an embarrassing ignorance of the roles in the Church of the Pope, and of those who demand he and he alone speak to their personal satisfaction on a matter before they will accept what has been taught by an Ecumenical Council, the universal Catechism and the Compendium of social doctrine written subsequent to the Council, the Compendium of the universal Catechism, the local Catechism written based on the universal Catechism — to give an incomplete list of authoritative sources all of which state that all torture is always evil.”
Perhaps you could direct me to where, in any of those documents, it is expressly stated that the waterboarding of three al-Qaeda leaders to try to save lives constituted the intrinsic evil of torture.
We waterboarded our own troops. Is that an intrinsic evil? If you say no, then you admit that the act of waterboarding itself is not intirinsically evil, but the circumstances under which it is performed changes the morality of the act.
And you failed to answer my question about Augustine and Aquinas.
February 13th, 2010 | 4:26 pm
What is absurd is the notion that anyone is equating them in some absolute and comprehensive sense.
Of course 8 million abortions are not equivalent in moral gravity to the torture of a few or a few hundred captives. But the torture of a few or a few hundred captives is still morally despicable.
It is a bizarre charge to levy, as if when someone says “the firebombing of Dresden was morally wrong” that were tantamount to saying “the allies were just as bad in every respect as Hitler”.
So lets agree that as events in the world, 8 million abortions is far more grave than a few hundred captives tortured. That doesn’t improve the moral standing of perpetrating the latter in the least, though (unless we are moral relativists, of course).
February 13th, 2010 | 7:02 pm
“A charge of consequentialism is the last refuge of someone who is losing a debate.”
First, I hope wherever you got that laughable adage offers full refunds. “What you’ve just said is the last refuge of someone losing a debate” is just one example of a refuge subsequent to a charge of consequentialism.
Second, it’s practically impossible for your statement to be a better example of consequentialism. You assert moral absurdity based solely on consequences, ignoring the fact that there are some things that are always wrong to do, regardless of intention or circumstances. That’s precisely what consequentialism is.
I find it offensive to the memory of the saints you mention — albeit not particularly damaging to their reputations — to suggest that they would teach something contrary to the clear teaching of the Church. In any case, if you want to know what they think, ask them.
February 13th, 2010 | 7:47 pm
“Admitting this does not entail believing that our government is no better than the Khmer Rouge….”
I’ve noticed that a lot of people confuse “share one characteristic” with “equivalent.” I’m not sure why.
February 14th, 2010 | 7:16 am
“What is absurd is the notion that anyone is equating them in some absolute and comprehensive sense.”
Go back and read the post that started this exchange. Morning Minion is actually saying supporting the use of waterboarding on three al-Qaeda leaders is worse.
February 14th, 2010 | 7:37 am
“First, I hope wherever you got that laughable adage offers full refunds.”
I thought I came up with that myself. Guess I had better cancel that trademark application.
“Second, it’s practically impossible for your statement to be a better example of consequentialism. You assert moral absurdity based solely on consequences, ignoring the fact that there are some things that are always wrong to do, regardless of intention or circumstances. That’s precisely what consequentialism is.”
But the same charge of consequentialism could be asserted against killing in warfare. However, the Church recognizes that in some circumstances, the state has to sanction killing to comply with its duty to protect its citizens (that duty is also recognized in the Catechism).
I say Just War principles can be extended to the waterboarding of confirmed al-Qaeda leaders. You prefer that the terrorist leaders, their deluded followers, and the targets of their murderous plots, end up dead. I say our Church has an intellectual history that allows us to use reason and commomsense to avoid that absurd result.
“I find it offensive to the memory of the saints you mention — albeit not particularly damaging to their reputations — to suggest that they would teach something contrary to the clear teaching of the Church. In any case, if you want to know what they think, ask them.”
So you are not going to answer my question. That is what I thought would happen.
February 14th, 2010 | 7:56 am
“I’ve noticed that a lot of people confuse “share one characteristic” with “equivalent.” I’m not sure why.”
But you prove the point. You and Zippy assert that the waterboarding of three known al Qaeda leaders to try to save lives means our government shares a characteristic with the Khmer Rogue. In other words, the waterboarding we conducted is the “equivalent” of the Khmer Rogue’s use of water in trying to collapse internal organs as punishment for various “crimes” committed against the regime. I think the two of you are clearly wrong about that.
February 14th, 2010 | 12:34 pm
To this:
“Equating the morality of those situations is beyond absurd.”
Zippy correctly replied with:
“What is absurd is the notion that anyone is equating them in some absolute and comprehensive sense.”
Yes, it’s no brainer that to torture someone (even a terrorist) is a despicably and morally corrosive act. But it is also clear that saying that does not mean that one is saying that US forces are the equivalent to the Khmer Rouge. As Zippy wrote:
“It is a bizarre charge to levy, as if when someone says “the firebombing of Dresden was morally wrong” that were tantamount to saying “the allies were just as bad in every respect as Hitler””
Brian wrote:
“Morning Minion is actually saying supporting the use of waterboarding on three al-Qaeda leaders is worse.”
I didn’t see Morning Minion saying or implying such thing. Can you find the exact quote? Where does he say that waterboarding those three men (although many more than three were tortured) is worse than what Khmer Rouge, or the KGB/NKVD or the Nazis have done?
(Incidentally, forced sleep deprivation is also torture. After all, Solzhenitsyn, Begin and Bukovsky, brave men who suffered torture at the hands of the communists, make it clear that sleep deprivation is one of the most potent forms of torture–with the added advantage that it leaves no marks.)
February 14th, 2010 | 12:42 pm
“There has been, however, precious little said or done by the Catholic Bishops (local or collectively) to address the specifics of these cases — in much the same way as the Church has asserted itself authoritatively and definitively on abortion, its contribution would be appreciated here.”
This we can agree on.
However, I think the bishops have very little motivation to address this. Waterboarding has not been used in years, and, supposedly, will not be used again while Obama is in office.
I think the hope is that we will never need to revisit this issue. Unfortunately, I think we will.
February 14th, 2010 | 1:14 pm
I don’t read Vox Nova any more, though my nickname for it is somewhat infamous. So I’ll have to take your word for it that MM is actually saying that.
Except that, much as I consider MM to be a leftist partisan hack, I doubt even he would say something so careless and stupid. So maybe you would like to cite the specific quotation where he actually says that three instances of torture is worse than millions of abortions, in which case I’ll concede the specific point; to wit, that some freakshow in the Internet said something stupid.
February 14th, 2010 | 1:27 pm
“The catechism 2297 states: “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”
Father Harrison places 2297 in context:
It seems noteworthy that #2297 specifically repudiates torture for several specific purposes, among which is conspicuously absent that very purpose which has been raised again recently in some Western circles as possibly being a legitimate one, especially after September 11, 2001. That is, the use of physical violence, not to extract confessions of guilt from a suspect (the old Roman Law model), but to extract vital information from, say, a captured and self-confessed Al Qaeda operative whose secret plans may be the required key for saving hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives from his next projected terrorist attack. True, any exception, even in such extreme circumstances, to the rule against torture would conflict with the absolute position expressed by Pope John Paul at Geneva (“Nothing could justify . . . “). But this fact does not necessarily settle the theological question as to what counts as the authentic magisterial teaching. Firstly, because the Catechism (1992) is subsequent to the 1982 Geneva address and so could possibly represent a nuancing or revision of the Pope’s own position (on a particularly difficult subject concerning which, after all, mutually contradictory positions have been espoused in other non-infallible papal decisions over the centuries). Secondly, because the Catechism, promulgated for the universal Church by an Apostolic Constitution, enjoys a higher level of magisterial authority than a simple speech, addressed to a limited audience, that was never even published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. And thirdly, because a comparison of the Catechism, ##2297, with the 1984 United Nations Convention against torture suggests strongly that the drafters of the Catechism took into account this authoritative new international ruling on the subject (which would be a priori very probable in any case), and, while generally following the Convention’s proscriptions, deliberately decided not to do so on this particular point. The U.N. document rules out the intentional infliction of “severe pain or suffering” on any 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, . . .”.57 Now, #2297 of the Catechism is quite similar, ruling out the use of “violence” in order to obtain confessions, to punish, and to intimidate. However, this very similarity makes its failure to condemn torture for obtaining “information” look like a deliberate decision on the part of church authorities, rather than a mere oversight or coincidence.
February 14th, 2010 | 1:45 pm
“But the same charge of consequentialism could be asserted against killing in warfare.”
Consequentialism is the idea that the morality of an act is determined solely by its consequences. It is a denial that an act can be objectively evil.
Killing is not objectively evil. Thus, arguing that the circumstances of warfare make a particular act of killing good is not consequentialism.
Torture is objectively evil. Thus, arguing that the circumstances of ticking time bombs make a particular act of torture good is consequentialism.
I say Just War principles can be extended to the waterboarding of confirmed al-Qaeda leaders.
Just War principles do not allow torture.
Do you have an argument that waterboarding isn’t torture that is neither consequentialist — e.g., “Otherwise people die” — nor sentimentalist — e.g., “How dare you say we’re as bad as the Khmer Rouge!”?
So you are not going to answer my question.
I did answer your question. If I was too obscure before, the answer is that none of the saints you mention would contradict the clear teaching of the Church that torture is objectively evil. My guess is that they would agree that waterboarding is torture, but of course it would be, because to me the fact that waterboarding is torture is perfectly obvious. As I say, though, if you want to know for sure what they think of waterboarding you’ll have to ask them.
You and Zippy assert that the waterboarding of three known al Qaeda leaders to try to save lives means our government shares a characteristic with the Khmer Rogue. In other words, the waterboarding we conducted is the “equivalent” of the Khmer Rogue’s use of water in trying to collapse internal organs as punishment for various “crimes” committed against the regime.
Um… I’ve noticed that a lot of people confuse “share one characteristic” with “equivalent.” I’m not sure why.
February 14th, 2010 | 6:27 pm
“Consequentialism is the idea that the morality of an act is determined solely by its consequences. It is a denial that an act can be objectively evil.
Killing is not objectively evil. Thus, arguing that the circumstances of warfare make a particular act of killing good is not consequentialism.
Torture is objectively evil. Thus, arguing that the circumstances of ticking time bombs make a particular act of torture good is consequentialism.”
Arguing in favor of ESCR because people could allegedly be cured is consequentialism.
Arguing that waterboarding could be justified under the circumstances of warfare, just as killing can be justified under the circumstances of warfare, is not.
This idea that killing someone can sometimes be justified, while waterboarding them can never be justified, is beyond bizarre.
“Do you have an argument that waterboarding isn’t torture that is neither consequentialist — e.g., “Otherwise people die” — nor sentimentalist — e.g., “How dare you say we’re as bad as the Khmer Rouge!”?”
Yes. See above.
Do you have any argument that waterboarding can never be justified that does not make the Church look ridiculous?
“My guess is that they would agree that waterboarding is torture, but of course it would be, because to me the fact that waterboarding is torture is perfectly obvious.”
Your guess is wrong. Look at Father Harrison’s papers linked to in the addendum to the main post.
And it is surely not “perfectly obvious” that the waterboarding of three terrorist leaders to try to save lives constitutes torture. Waterboarding for that purpose IS NOT included in the prohibited purposes listed in 2297 of the Catechism.
“Um… I’ve noticed that a lot of people confuse “share one characteristic” with “equivalent.” I’m not sure why.”
No one has claimed that you are asserting that our government is identical to the Khmer Rouge in all respects. You should really give that strawman a rest.
However, you are clearly asserting that the waterboarding of three al Qaeda leaders, to try to foil murderous plans they devised, is the moral equivalent of the water torture performed by the Khmer Rogue on thousands. You are wrong about that.
February 14th, 2010 | 6:38 pm
To those Catholics who contend that torture is intrinsically evil, one small question. Was the Church when it used torture for centuries committing an intrinsically evil act? Lest anyone be confused and think that torture was restricted to the Middle Ages, torture was used in the papal states up until the time of the dissolution of the papal states in 1870, as this article on Pio Nono’s executioner, Giovanni Bugatti, makes clear.
http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/03/22/1796-mastro-titta-first-execution/
I am curious as to how the Church could have been so fundamentally in error on such an issue for so many centuries. This poses no difficulty for me as a Catholic since I do not believe torture is intrinsically evil, although a particular act of torture, depending upon the circumstances, may be evil. However, for Catholics who do believe that torture is intrinsically evil, I am curious how they square this particular circle.
February 14th, 2010 | 9:56 pm
The Catechism says yes:
Note that this is an example ofexplicit presentism, where doctrine develops and the Church explicitly tells us that past juridical practices by the Church herself are irrelevant to the moral principle in question.
February 14th, 2010 | 11:08 pm
Zippy I do not believe that the passage you quote uses the phrase intrinsically evil. If it did, we wouldn’t be looking at a development of doctrine on the issue of torture but rather a flat reversal. As to the Catechism passage itself in regard to the history of torture and the Church, here are my thoughts which I first posted on Christopher Blosser’s Against the Grain blog back in 2006.
“For centuries the Church mandated the use of torture. If torture is intrinsically evil, then the Church was mandating evil for centuries.
The Catechism passage dances around this problem but does not address it. Some of the statements in the passage additionally are factually incorrect or simply puzzling.
“Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy.” True only in part. Actually the Church was quite insistant on the death penalty for unrepentant heretics. If a secular ruler failed to enforce draconian laws against heretics, he could quickly find himself accused of heresy and facing the same penalties. Also the popes, as rulers of the papal states, routinely used both torture and the death penalty up to the dissolution of the papal states in 1870.
“She forbade clerics to shed blood.”
She used laymen to shed blood. I fail to see the difference between commanding the shedding of blood and actually engaging in it.
“In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person.” I find this statement puzzling. Who better to know what was necessary for public order: the pope on the spot in say 1250, or a pope in 2000 looking back on 1250? As far as the historical record, I am unaware of any drastic revelations recently that would allow a categorical judgment that torture was never necessary for the public order. If it could be shown that torture was necessary for the public order or in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person, as the Church obviously believed until the last century, does the Catechism stricture against torture fall?
“On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading.” Which were?
If the Church now wishes to condemn torture as intrinsically evil, I think she needs to do a much better job than this passage feebly attempts of dealing with the fact that torture was long a prized weapon of the Church in the fight against heresy and in maintenance of public order in the papal states. If the Church begins to simply do 180s, with little or no convincing explanation, in order to bring the teaching of the Church into line with modern sensibilities, I think grave damage can be done to the teaching authority of the Church.”
I really think this issue needs to be addressed by the Church far better than in the Catechism passage that you cite. The current Church I do not believe has declared that the prior actions of the Church in utilizing torture were extrinsically evil. If the Church did, what becomes of the certitude that Catholics expect when looking to the Church as an infallible guide for faith and morals?
February 14th, 2010 | 11:22 pm
“This idea that killing someone can sometimes be justified, while waterboarding them can never be justified, is beyond bizarre… Do you have any argument that waterboarding can never be justified that does not make the Church look ridiculous?”
These are what I mean by sentimentalism. Substitute “murder” for “waterboarding,” and it’s just as bizarre and ridiculous, and just as true.
“Your guess is wrong. Look at Father Harrison’s papers linked to in the addendum to the main post.”
I looked at Fr. Harrison’s papers years ago. They don’t mention waterboarding.
Your question was whether Sts. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Thomas more would sanction waterboarding KSM. They would not sanction it if they believed it to be torture, because the Church authoritatively teaches that all torture is always evil, and they each submitted their own teaching to the correction of the Church. I have no reason to think they would not consider waterboarding to be torture.
“And it is surely not ‘perfectly obvious’ that the waterboarding of three terrorist leaders to try to save lives constitutes torture. Waterboarding for that purpose IS NOT included in the prohibited purposes listed in 2297 of the Catechism.”
The Catechism teaches that all torture is always evil in its object. The claim that waterboarding isn’t torture because it’s done to save lives is consequentialist.
“However, you are clearly asserting that the waterboarding of three al Qaeda leaders, to try to foil murderous plans they devised, is the moral equivalent of the water torture performed by the Khmer Rogue on thousands.”
You are wrong about that. Circumstances and intention do affect the relative goodness or evil of acts.
February 15th, 2010 | 7:43 am
“These are what I mean by sentimentalism. Substitute “murder” for “waterboarding,” and it’s just as bizarre and ridiculous, and just as true.”
You keep arguing in circles — waterboarding = torture = murder.
Address the circumstances in which the waterboarding took place. Stop waving the word “torture” as a talisman to try to end the discussion.
“I looked at Fr. Harrison’s papers years ago. They don’t mention waterboarding.”
So you think Aquinas and Augustine were writing about interrogation under the Army Field Manual?
This “would be obedient to the teaching of the Church” defense is answered by the points raised above by Donalf McClarey.
“The Catechism teaches that all torture is always evil in its object. The claim that waterboarding isn’t torture because it’s done to save lives is consequentialist.”
So the Catechism’s definition of torture is consequentialist?
“You are wrong about that. Circumstances and intention do affect the relative goodness or evil of acts.”
So what the Khmer Rogue did was “a lot intrinsically evil” while the waterboarding of KSM and friends was “only a little intrinsically evil?” What a finely nuanced ethical system.
February 15th, 2010 | 7:49 am
Zippy and Kayla:
From Morning Minion’s post:
“Thiessen has made it his life’s work to claim that some forms of torture are virtuous. Arroyo, again and again, invites defenders of torture onto his show, and instead of confronting them with clear Church teaching, voices his agreement. As [Archbishop Raymond] Burke says, this is “public conduct” that is gravely sinful. I would go further and argue that it is even more scandalous than support for legalized abortion. Most public supporters of abortion do not go on television extolling the great virtues of abortion for women and society. Their argument is more with how it should be treated under the law. But the Arroyo-Thiessen-Sirico cabal are (i) claiming to the faithful Catholics while (ii) making public pronouncements on the positive value of torture.”
February 15th, 2010 | 8:01 am
“(Incidentally, forced sleep deprivation is also torture. After all, Solzhenitsyn, Begin and Bukovsky, brave men who suffered torture at the hands of the communists, make it clear that sleep deprivation is one of the most potent forms of torture–with the added advantage that it leaves no marks.)”
This ignores the context within which the sleep deprivation takes place. Depriving KSM of sleep to try to find out how he intends to murder people is not the same as sleep deprivation in the Gulag to try to punish innocent people or to force them to confess to imaginary crimes against the state.
February 15th, 2010 | 9:05 am
Brian:
I’m not going to defend MM’s post. I think Vox Nova is a joke.
But the words you cite don’t say that the moral gravity of millions of abortions is the same as the moral gravity of a few or a few hundred acts of torturing prisoners. What it says is that the abortion fight is over whether or not and to what extent abortion perpetrated by individuals is punishable by law, and that the torture fight is over whether or not the actual use of torture perpetrated by our government on our behalf is a positively good thing. And that happens to actually be true. China’s forced-abortion policy is analogous to our government’s torture policy, and there is no forced-abortion policy in the US, at least not yet. And when we look at acts of public advocacy by Catholics on behlf of these things and the scandal they represent, that is also distinct.
Now, I think Evangelium Vitae makes it crystal clear that, not only is actually perpetrating an abortion vicious and immoral, but also failing to vigorously oppose the legality of abortion is itself, while certainly different from the former, also vicious and immoral.
But again, the citation simply doesn’t say what you seem to be insisting it says.
February 15th, 2010 | 9:11 am
Whether an act is good or evil is one thing. How gravely evil or how meritoriously good is another. It isn’t hard. This is moral theology 101. Actually, it is something my kids understand, so it is really well prerequisite to moral theology 101.
February 15th, 2010 | 10:00 am
“China’s forced-abortion policy is analogous to our government’s torture policy…”
Good Lord. You cannot possibly actually believe that. The waterboarding of KSM and his partners in evil to try and uncover their murderous plans is analogous to the hunting down of pregnant women and ripping their unborn children from their wombs?
“But again, the citation simply doesn’t say what you seem to be insisting it says.”
Sure it does. MM wants the “Arroyo-Theissen-Sirico cabal” punished as severely as Catholic politicians who support abortion. I do not think MM’s thought process is so distorted that although he considers the cabal’s crimes to be less severe than those of pro-abortion Catholic politicians, he still wants them to receive the same punishment.
February 15th, 2010 | 10:08 am
“Whether an act is good or evil is one thing. How gravely evil or how meritoriously good is another. It isn’t hard. This is moral theology 101. Actually, it is something my kids understand, so it is really well prerequisite to moral theology 101.”
Tell that to the Catholic Left. They are the ones who are claiming that arguing in favor of the waterboarding of three terrorist leaders is the moral equivalent of arguing in favor of abortion rights.
February 15th, 2010 | 10:21 am
“You keep arguing in circles — waterboarding = torture = murder.”
How on earth did you get that out of what I’ve written?
For the record: Waterboarding is a species of torture; torture is a species of objectively evil acts; murder is a species of objectively evil acts.
“Address the circumstances in which the waterboarding took place. Stop waving the word ‘torture’ as a talisman to try to end the discussion.”
The circumstances in which the waterboarding of prisoners took place, as opposed to to circumstances in which the waterboarding of SERE trainees takes place, are what makes the former objectively torture and the latter not objectively torture (though waterboarding for torture may yet be objectively immoral).
“So you think Aquinas and Augustine were writing about interrogation under the Army Field Manual?”
No. I think Sts. Augustine was describing the world as he found it, and St. Thomas was engaged in special pleading to defend the actions of the Church during his lifetime.
I know they both submitted everything they wrote to correction by the Church, and the Church has clarified her teaching on torture since their day.
When what a Doctor of the Church wrote is in conflict with what the Church teaches, you go with what the Church teaches, as both Doctors in this case wrote.
“So the Catechism’s definition of torture is consequentialist?”
The Catechism does not offer a formal definition of torture. Intention cannot differentiate species of human acts.
“So what the Khmer Rogue did was ‘a lot intrinsically evil’ while the waterboarding of KSM and friends was ‘only a little intrinsically evil?’ What a finely nuanced ethical system.”
I think you should try to read something about Catholic moral theology before you continue. The United States Catholic Catechism for Adults has a very accessible account; the universal Catechism’s account is a much briefer sketch, and so perhaps not quite as clear, but has the advantage of being on-line.
I suggest this, not to belittle you, but because it is obvious that have not done so.
February 15th, 2010 | 11:22 am
Me:
Brian English:
Of course I mean it, in the full context in which I said it. You seem to have issues with understanding that one thing can be analogous to another thing in a certain sense, without being equivalent to it in every respect.
That specific analogous sense is that in both cases the act in question is perpetrated by the government; distinct from it being perpetrated by private individuals and not punished by government.
None of which makes MM’s argument any less a piece of partisan hackery. It just shows that you are wrong when you suggest that MM equates a small number of prisoners tortured to a large number of babies aborted in some absolute, comprehensive sense.
February 15th, 2010 | 12:51 pm
“The circumstances in which the waterboarding of prisoners took place, as opposed to to circumstances in which the waterboarding of SERE trainees takes place, are what makes the former objectively torture and the latter not objectively torture (though waterboarding for torture may yet be objectively immoral).”
So you admit that the circumstances of waterboarding changes the morality of the action. Can you say the same with regard to an abortion?
“No. I think Sts. Augustine was describing the world as he found it, and St. Thomas was engaged in special pleading to defend the actions of the Church during his lifetime.”
And now enlightened, progressive Catholics like you know better than them. You continue to fail to see the difference between the Church altering its view of the circumstances under which certain acts can take place and the Church having recognized that certain acts are always evil, no matter what circumstances they take place under.
“The Catechism does not offer a formal definition of torture. Intention cannot differentiate species of human acts.”
But the definition it does offer does not include waterboarding for the purposes of extracting information from terrorists planning mass murder.
“I think you should try to read something about Catholic moral theology before you continue. The United States Catholic Catechism for Adults has a very accessible account; the universal Catechism’s account is a much briefer sketch, and so perhaps not quite as clear, but has the advantage of being on-line.”
It’s not me who is offering a grotesque distortion of Catholic moral theology.
You are taking vague, undefined terms in the Catechism, reading your own political beliefs into them, and then asserting a complex moral issue is so obvious that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a barbarian.
Do you think Patrick Lee, professor of bioethics and Director of the Institute for Bioethics at the Franciscan University of Steubenville, knows something about Catholic moral theology?
Here is what he has to say:
“Torture is intrinsically immoral. But it must be rightly defined. As a human act, torture can be defined only by the direct object of the choice. It is intentionally mutilating someone or intentionally damaging a person’s psychosomatic integrity (attempting to reduce this person to a subhuman, disintegrated state) for the sake of information, deterrence, punishment, or sadistic pleasure.
By contrast, intentionally causing pain in order to provide the detainee with a motive to deliver information is not intrinsically immoral. Unlike bodily or psychosomatic integrity (which are violated in real torture), pain is not the deprivation of a basic human good. Indeed, pain often is part of the proper functioning of a human being as a sentient living being (which is not to say that delighting in pain for its own sake, sadism, is morally right).
It is sometimes unclear whether this or that act is torture. It is obvious that the Bush administration tried to ensure that torture would not be condoned or encouraged. Bush-administration officials wrestled with where to draw the line between what is and is not torture. They may not have drawn the line correctly — reasonable people can disagree about that — but that is quite different from condoning torture.
Liberals have for decades not only denied that there are moral absolutes (specific, exceptionless moral norms) but also denied even the existence of objective moral truth — and have labeled defenders of such moral truths “right-wing extremists.” Have they now seen the light? If so, then perhaps we can now discuss not only why torture is wrong, but also the moral truth regarding intentionally killing unborn human beings, denying unborn human beings equal protection under the law, funding research that involves deliberately dismembering some human beings for the benefit of others, and attempting to coerce health-care workers to violate their consciences.
Torture is wrong — but if, and only if, every human being possesses a profound and inherent personal dignity.”
What do you think about this, which was discussed at the Mirror of Justice site, from Chris Eberle, associate professor of philosophy at the U.S. Naval Academy:
“Two assumptions should shape the manner in which a civilized society interrogates those, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who effectively plan to attack and destroy innocent human beings.
First, human beings have a worth, or dignity, that we cannot do anything to alienate: KSM, as with any and every human being, possesses a (God-given) dignity that prohibits us from taking extreme measures to protect those he targets. Even if we can effectively protect innocent human beings only by subjecting KSM to extreme (Jack Bauer–style) physical damage, we should not do so. Second, a person’s actions can make it permissible for us to treat that person in ways that would otherwise be morally forbidden. The fact that KSM initiated a plan to destroy the World Trade Center explains why the U.S. government was morally permitted to capture, incarcerate, and interrogate him.
How does this second assumption shape the manner in which we may interrogate KSM? Suppose that, as was apparently the case, KSM had initiated further plans that would have killed a large but indeterminate number of innocents. Suppose again that KSM had information about those future attacks that, if obtained, would have allowed us to prevent them. But suppose that, having exhausted more pacific means, we could not acquire that information without waterboarding KSM. In that case, fairness in distributing harms would permit us to waterboard KSM. Given that he had forced us to choose between his well-being and the well-being of many innocents, we could “distribute” the harm to him, not them.
This non-consequentialist rationale for the permissibility of certain types of coercive interrogation attempts to balance two goods that all too easily come apart — human dignity and individual responsibility. It doesn’t justify coercing anyone . . . not even anyone who has but will not divulge relevant information. It requires that we have a great deal of reliable information about those whom we are permitted to coerce. It is consistent with strict prohibitions on extreme forms of Jack Bauer–style coercion. But it does permit us to subject some of our fellow human beings to certain sorts of “hard treatment.”
February 15th, 2010 | 1:19 pm
Yes, in the same sense, and no, in the same sense.
In an ectopic pregnancy, salpingostomy is widely believe by moral theologians to be morally licit, for example, even though the child dies from it and even though there is no “life of the mother” exception for abortion. (I myself have reservations about this, which is to say I think it might not be licit until immediately prior to or after rupture.)
Those are borderline cases, of course. Waterboarding a prisoner repeatedly until you break his will isn’t a borderline case of torture, though. It is a manifest case of torture.
And as JPII tells us,
February 15th, 2010 | 1:23 pm
Sorry, that should be “salpingectomy”. Salpingostomy, by contrast, is widely considered to fall into the species “abortion” and therefore be prohibited even in life-of-the-mother cases.
February 15th, 2010 | 1:50 pm
“So you admit that the circumstances of waterboarding changes the morality of the action. Can you say the same with regard to an abortion?”
I am saying that “waterboarding,” regarded as a physical act apart from all circumstances, is not a species of human act. The “circumstances of waterboarding” don’t *change* the morality of the action; by itself, the action has no morality, because it is not a human act. The circumstances together with the action compose a specific human act. The circumstantial relationship between the waterboarder and the waterboardee specifies at least two distinct human acts, one of waterboarding a trainee and one of waterboarding a prisoner.
“You continue to fail to see the difference between the Church altering its view of the circumstances under which certain acts can take place and the Church having recognized that certain acts are always evil, no matter what circumstances they take place under.”
The Church teaches that all torture is always evil. This is a fact.
“But the definition it does offer does not include waterboarding for the purposes of extracting information from terrorists planning mass murder.”
If you mean the paragraph doesn’t include the term “waterboarding” or the phrase “for the purposes of extracting information from terrorists planning mass murder,” that’s true. But neither does it include the term “inserting bamboo shoots under fingernails,” nor the phrase “for the purposes of winning a bet.”
Hence the point of observing that this isn’t a formal definition.
“You are taking vague, undefined terms in the Catechism, reading your own political beliefs into them”
Name two of my political beliefs.
“‘Torture is intrinsically immoral.’”
Making Patrick Lee an enlightened, progressive Catholic who knows better than Sts. Augustine and Thomas –
“‘It is obvious that the Bush administration tried to ensure that torture would not be condoned or encouraged.’”
– and one who reads his own political beliefs into the Catechism.
Chris Eberle’s argument is an elegant example of begging the question.
February 15th, 2010 | 2:45 pm
“Those are borderline cases, of course. Waterboarding a prisoner repeatedly until you break his will isn’t a borderline case of torture, though. It is a manifest case of torture.”
What do you base that conclusion on? Does it mean anything to you that the Catechism does not include obtaining information in its list of prohibited purposes.
Why don’t Just War principles apply here?
February 15th, 2010 | 3:09 pm
On the fact that repeatedly bringing a helpless prisoner strapped to a table to the point of drowning until his will breaks and he coughs up information, is manifestly torture. Much like (say) suction aspiration of a living child is manifestly abortion, whatever legitimate arguments may obtain with respect to ectopic pregnancies.
Because the Just War Doctrine is an example of a specific application of the principle of double-effect; and the principle of double-effect does not apply to intrinsically evil acts like torture, sodomy, abortion, adultery, etc.
February 15th, 2010 | 3:18 pm
“I am saying that “waterboarding,” regarded as a physical act apart from all circumstances, is not a species of human act. The “circumstances of waterboarding” don’t *change* the morality of the action; by itself, the action has no morality, because it is not a human act. The circumstances together with the action compose a specific human act. The circumstantial relationship between the waterboarder and the waterboardee specifies at least two distinct human acts, one of waterboarding a trainee and one of waterboarding a prisoner.”
Well, the the act of waterboarding a terrorist leader who has made plans to kill many innocent people is a third distinct human act.
“Hence the point of observing that this isn’t a formal definition.”
But still one you are positive includes the waterboarding of terrorist leaders.
“Name two of my political beliefs.”
1) That Bush and Cheney are two of the most evil men on the planet.
2) That the waterboarding of KSM was the moral equivalent of just grabbing some kid captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan and waterboarding him for fun.
And a bonus:
3) Catholics who don’t conclude that the waterboarding of three terrorist leaders to obtain information to prevent mass murder are stooges of the GOP, who are just as bad as Catholics who voted for Obama.
“Making Patrick Lee an enlightened, progressive Catholic who knows better than Sts. Augustine and Thomas –”
And you know better than all three of them (and are probably smarter than all three — combined!)
“and one who reads his own political beliefs into the Catechism.”
No. It means Professor Lee acknowledges that reasonable people can disagree about difficult moral issues. I know such a concept is unknown to Lords of Sanctimony like you and the members of the Coalition for Clarity, but you might want to give it a try.
“Chris Eberle’s argument is an elegant example of begging the question.”
And your failure to address the substance of that argument is an example of what exactly?
February 15th, 2010 | 3:47 pm
“Well, the the act of waterboarding a terrorist leader who has made plans to kill many innocent people is a third distinct human act.”
No. The intention cannot specify the act, because by definition it is remote from the proximate end the will chooses.
“1) That Bush and Cheney are two of the most evil men on the planet.”
Wrong.
“2) That the waterboarding of KSM was the moral equivalent of just grabbing some kid captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan and waterboarding him for fun.”
Wrong.
“3) Catholics who don’t conclude that the waterboarding of three terrorist leaders to obtain information to prevent mass murder are stooges of the GOP, who are just as bad as Catholics who voted for Obama.”
Wrong.
“And you know better than all three of them (and are probably smarter than all three — combined!)”
Patrick Lee and I both know better than Sts. Augustine and Thomas did in their lifetimes that torture is always immoral; we have the advantage of living in a time when the Church teaches this unambiguously.
As I said before, it’s my opinion that the saints and I both know that waterboarding is torture; if Patrick Lee doesn’t know this, then it follows unremarkably that we know better than he. (For free: I have a stronger opinion that the saints would have said it was torture had they been asked during their lifetimes, since they had no political need to distinguish between torture and “enhanced interrogation.”)
I am not smarter than either saint; whether I’m smarter than Patrick Lee is an empirical matter on which I have no opinion.
“It means Professor Lee acknowledges that reasonable people can disagree about difficult moral issues.”
I acknowledge that reasonable people can disaree about difficult moral issues.
I don’t acknowledge that determining the moral character of waterboarding a prisoner is a difficult moral issue, objectively speaking. Subjectively, it obviously is.
“And your failure to address the substance of that argument is an example of what exactly?”
Fully explained by the meaning of the expression “begging the question.”
February 15th, 2010 | 4:52 pm
“No. The intention cannot specify the act, because by definition it is remote from the proximate end the will chooses.”
Abstract definitions really do not help here. We have to apply the reasoning. Why don’t you answer my question that no one anwered before:
Situation A:
KSM is snuggled in his bed in an apartment building in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, after a hard day of plotting mass murder. Instead of having the ISI go in and grab KSM for us so that we can attempt to stop the attacks KSM planned, we fire a Hellfire missle into the apartment, killing KSM, and possibly others who had the misfortune of renting apartments near KSM.
So KSM and some of his neighbors are dead. KSM’s jihadi warriors who intend to sacrfice themselves are eventually going to be dead. The targets of KSM’s plots are also likely to eventually be dead, since killing KSM does not cancel the plans that have already been put in motion.
Situation B:
The ISI rouses KSM from his sleep and hustles him out of the building. He is handed over to US Intelligence. He is ultimately waterboarded, and provides information that saves the lives of the people who were his intended victims (please do not waste my time with claims the information extracted by waterboarding did not save lives — Admiral Blair, OBAMA’S Director of National Intelligence, admits that it did).
So now KSM is alive, his neighbors are alive, his jihadi warriors who would have sacrificed their lives are alive, and the targets of his plots are alive.
According to you, the Church says we must follow the course of action in Situation A, despite the numerous deaths that result.
On the other hand, according to you, following the course of action outlined in Situation B is condemned by the Church as engaging in intrinsic evil, despite the fact that evil is actually thwarted, and many people, including the villain and his minions, are still alive.
That line of thinking makes makes the Church look vacuous. An examination of the intellectual history of the Church makes it clear the Church is not vacuous. Consequently, I have to conclude that you are wrong.
February 15th, 2010 | 5:09 pm
““1) That Bush and Cheney are two of the most evil men on the planet.”
Wrong.
“2) That the waterboarding of KSM was the moral equivalent of just grabbing some kid captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan and waterboarding him for fun.”
Wrong.
“3) Catholics who don’t conclude that the waterboarding of three terrorist leaders to obtain information to prevent mass murder are stooges of the GOP, who are just as bad as Catholics who voted for Obama.”
Wrong.”
Correct my statements. How have I read you wrong?
“Patrick Lee and I both know better than Sts. Augustine and Thomas did in their lifetimes that torture is always immoral; we have the advantage of living in a time when the Church teaches this unambiguously.”
So you are smarter than Cardinal Dulles as well!
“Fully explained by the meaning of the expression “begging the question.”
Hilarious. The begging the question card played by a man who asserts waterboarding is torture because waterboarding is torture.
February 15th, 2010 | 6:06 pm
“On the fact that repeatedly bringing a helpless prisoner strapped to a table to the point of drowning until his will breaks and he coughs up information, is manifestly torture. Much like (say) suction aspiration of a living child is manifestly abortion, whatever legitimate arguments may obtain with respect to ectopic pregnancies.”
How would you have interrogated KSM? Your concern for him is very touching.
“Because the Just War Doctrine is an example of a specific application of the principle of double-effect; and the principle of double-effect does not apply to intrinsically evil acts like torture, sodomy, abortion, adultery, etc.”
So you are another one who believes that it is fine for us to incinerate terrorist leaders, but capturing and waterboarding them to save the lives of their intended victims (and, at least for the time being, their own lives) is intrinsically evil. Sorry, I do not believe in interpreting the Church’s teachings in a way that makes the Church look ridiculous.
We are at war, and Just War principles can obviously be used here.
February 15th, 2010 | 6:59 pm
Correct. I also believe it would be immoral to sodomize them repeatedly until they cough up information to save lives. On the other hand, if we have not captured them and can only stop them from attacking by killing them, that is morally licit.
That is, indeed, the correct conclusion from natural law and the teaching of the Church.
February 15th, 2010 | 9:54 pm
“According to you, the Church says we must follow the course of action in Situation A, despite the numerous deaths that result.”
When did I say the Church says we must follow the course of action in Situation A.
“How have I read you wrong?”
By imputing to me positions I do not hold and motives I do not possess. You apply an oddly complete psychological template to what I’ve written, resulting in some absolute howlers.
In brief, and without double-checking every instance, whenever you say, “That means you believe this,” it doesn’t.
“So you are smarter than Cardinal Dulles as well!”
You seem oddly concerned with how smart you think I think I am. Why is that?
To say that something is perfectly obvious is not to say that everyone who doesn’t find it perfectly obvious is less intelligent than anyone who does.
“Hilarious. The begging the question card played by a man who asserts waterboarding is torture because waterboarding is torture.”
On the one hand, I’m not “playing a card.” Eberle does, in fact, beg the question of whether waterboarding is torture.
On the other hand, sure, I’ll cop to begging the question myself, as to this point in the discussion I’ve only countered claims that waterboarding is not torture. All I’ve offered as a positive claim is that, to me, the fact that waterboarding is torture is perfectly obvious.
After many years of discussion, though, I’m essentially convinced that convincing those for whom that fact is not perfectly obvious is not going to happen through presentation of a rigorous proof, but by getting them to look squarely at the matter, stripped of consequence and sentiment and unsound defensive argument.
February 15th, 2010 | 10:35 pm
Brian:
By the way, since you are concerned that the Church not sound ridiculous, are you familiar with the Ven. John Henry Newman’s statement that the Church “holds that it were better for sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of starvation in extremest agony, so far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, though it harmed no one, or steal one poor farthing without excuse”? Would you call that a bizarre or vacuous opinion?
February 16th, 2010 | 11:01 am
“Correct. I also believe it would be immoral to sodomize them repeatedly until they cough up information to save lives. On the other hand, if we have not captured them and can only stop them from attacking by killing them, that is morally licit.
That is, indeed, the correct conclusion from natural law and the teaching of the Church.”
So now waterboarding is the equivalent of sodomy?
Those 25,000 guys who went through SERE are going to be very surprised to hear that.
Speaking of sodomy, Gerald Bradley from ND Law actually addresses it in his comment on interrogation:
“The requirements of justice really do vary with the severity of the circumstances facing the decision maker, so much so that one may — justly — cause the death of many to save an even greater number. But there are some things that are never morally justifiable, no matter what the foreseeable consequences might be. I think that some acts which today are called “torture” fall into this category, but that others said to be “torture” do not. In other words: I think that “torture” is always wrong; it is not to be done, no matter what. But I also think that some acts commonly labeled “torture” are not.
Let me explain, starting with the claim about things that are not to be done, no matter what the consequences. I think we all agree on this basic point, even if we disagree about whether torture (or some form of “torture”) is one of these things. Certainly we say that there are some exceptionless moral norms, even in warfare. Targeting innocent women and children for death is one example. Has anyone on either side of the torture debate proposed that we put a gun to the head of some al-Qaeda operative’s wife or child, in order to extract a confession from him? I do not recall any such proposal.
One might respond by saying that the torture question is different because we propose in that case to do unusual things to the operative himself, to someone who is not an innocent bystander. But has anyone seriously proposed that there are no moral limits on what might be done even to a combatant? Would we say that sodomizing an al-Qaeda terrorist is morally permissible in order to obtain information about a ticking bomb? And then quartering the guy, if the sodomy does not make him talk? I say that we should rule out these and other acts because they are immoral, no matter what may follow from our moral restraint.
It is true that American citizens have a moral right to the protection of their lives by our government. But no one has a moral right that anyone else do something which is immoral. And this is why the very real prospect of “saving American lives” is not a debate-stopper in this context.
Now to the first point. Let’s take off the table any option that would be wrong in itself. The question of justice is mainly the question of fairness. And the fairness question is mainly about considering all the consequences of our acting in this way or that or choosing to do nothing at all. Figuring out what is fair in this way calls for very clear-headed, and even cold-hearted prudential judgment. By “cold-hearted” I mean that we must not let sentiment or queasiness deter us from doing what should be done. So, if bin Laden is, right this minute, attending a wedding feast in Peshwar, and the only way to get him is to launch a missile that will kill everyone present, we should probably do so. We would not be targeting the innocent guests. We would instead be accepting their certain deaths as side effects of targeting bin Laden. If we knew that an innocent person had been saddled with a suicide belt to be remotely detonated in a crowded bazaar, it would be right to shoot that human mule dead in order to save those in the bazaar.”
With regard to your interpretation of the teaching of the Church and natural law, there is a maxim of statutory interpretation that you do not interpret a statute in a way that causes an absurd result. The same maxim should be applied to Church teachings and the natural law.
February 16th, 2010 | 11:12 am
Yes, that is, “equivalent” inasmuch as both are intrinsically immoral acts.
Why? They weren’t waterboarded (with no “secret signal” and no understanding that it was a training exercise repeatedly until their wills broke and they were forced to betray their co-conspirators).
Mind you, that doesn’t necessarily mean that what was done to them was definitely morally good. It might not be. But it was obviously a very different thing from torturing prisoner until his will breaks.
February 16th, 2010 | 11:31 am
“When did I say the Church says we must follow the course of action in Situation A.”
So are you saying we could pursue the course of action set forth in Situation B?
“By imputing to me positions I do not hold and motives I do not possess. You apply an oddly complete psychological template to what I’ve written, resulting in some absolute howlers.”
Well, let’s start with an easy one — who did you vote for in the last presidential election?
“You seem oddly concerned with how smart you think I think I am. Why is that?”
I am referring to the article linked to in the addendum to the main comment. Cardinal Dulles points out that those who interpret JPII’s laundry list of “intrinsic evils” in Veritatis Splendor (which is actually a misquote of the Vatican II pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world) as representing a reversal of Church teaching on the various practices contained in the list are mistaken.
“After many years of discussion, though, I’m essentially convinced that convincing those for whom that fact is not perfectly obvious is not going to happen through presentation of a rigorous proof, but by getting them to look squarely at the matter, stripped of consequence and sentiment and unsound defensive argument.”
Let’s get to an even more basic question. You are the President in the relevant time period. How do you interrogate KSM and his two associates?
February 16th, 2010 | 11:44 am
“By the way, since you are concerned that the Church not sound ridiculous, are you familiar with the Ven. John Henry Newman’s statement that the Church….”
I am familiar with it, and it is widely recognized that he was engaged in some hyperbole.
February 16th, 2010 | 12:01 pm
“So now waterboarding is the equivalent of sodomy?”
This still baffles me. Would you say that a cherry is the equivalent of a cherry red Ferrari?
“By ‘cold-hearted’ I mean that we must not let sentiment or queasiness deter us from doing what should be done.”
Right. And neither should we let sentiment or queasiness deter us from not doing what should not be done.
And, what do you know! What Gerald Bradley is too queasy to do he thinks shouldn’t be done, and what he thinks should be done he’s not to queasy to do.
Same for me. Same for you. Same for everyone.
February 16th, 2010 | 12:46 pm
“So are you saying we could pursue the course of action set forth in Situation B?”
No.
You realize, of course, that Situation A and Situation B do not exhaust the possibilities.
“Well, let’s start with an easy one —”
You misunderstand. I’m not interested in helping you *correct* your odd psychological template, I’m encouraging you to drop it altogether and just deal with what I actually write.
“I am referring to the article linked to in the addendum to the main comment.”
Yes, I know. Did I mention Veritatis Splendor?
“Let’s get to an even more basic question. You are the President in the relevant time period. How do you interrogate KSM and his two associates?”
Since I actually am not the President in the relevant time period, I actually do not have a detailed interrogation plan. Hypothetical questions that require hypothetical knowledge to answer are not helpful.
February 16th, 2010 | 1:14 pm
“Why? They weren’t waterboarded (with no “secret signal” and no understanding that it was a training exercise repeatedly until their wills broke and they were forced to betray their co-conspirators).
Mind you, that doesn’t necessarily mean that what was done to them was definitely morally good. It might not be. But it was obviously a very different thing from torturing prisoner until his will breaks.”
So how would you have interrogated KSM and friends?
February 16th, 2010 | 1:20 pm
“So now waterboarding is the equivalent of sodomy?”
This still baffles me. Would you say that a cherry is the equivalent of a cherry red Ferrari?”
This baffles me.
“And, what do you know! What Gerald Bradley is too queasy to do he thinks shouldn’t be done, and what he thinks should be done he’s not to queasy to do.
Same for me. Same for you. Same for everyone.”
So how do we decide who is right in order to develop an ethical policy for interrogating terrorists who have conspired with others to commit mass murder in our country?
February 16th, 2010 | 1:42 pm
“You realize, of course, that Situation A and Situation B do not exhaust the possibilities.”
So how would you handle things? What is Situation C?
“You misunderstand. I’m not interested in helping you *correct* your odd psychological template, I’m encouraging you to drop it altogether and just deal with what I actually write.”
Interesting you refuse to answer. The reason I am interested is because I find that most people who claim the waterboarding of KSM and friends was a great crime against humanity are either: (1) Catholics for Obama types who draw strength from the “Republicans support torture (and/or the War in Iraq) so that negates the Democrats’ support for abortion” argument; or (2) people who have an intense hatred of the Bush Administration, and who usually voted for third party candidates like Chuck Baldwin.
“Yes, I know. Did I mention Veritatis Splendor?”
Then what is the basis for your claim that Aquinas and Augustine would disavow their earlier writings on the use of force against prisoners and adopt your views?
“Since I actually am not the President in the relevant time period, I actually do not have a detailed interrogation plan. Hypothetical questions that require hypothetical knowledge to answer are not helpful.”
So how can you sit in judgment of the decisions made by those who did have the information about the threat to this country? Do you consider condemning people based on your partial knowledge to be consistent with Catholic teaching?
February 16th, 2010 | 1:56 pm
In specific terms, I don’t know. I’m not an interrogation expert. But whatever was the law and practice on 9/10/2001 is where I would start looking for those specific answers, if that were my responsibility.
How would you design a gene splicer? How about a tour for a rock band?
Not being an expert in those things, I would hope your answer in the context of this discussion would be, like mine, “however it makes sense to do so, within the boundaries of what is morally right”.
February 16th, 2010 | 3:00 pm
“Not being an expert in those things, I would hope your answer in the context of this discussion would be, like mine, “however it makes sense to do so, within the boundaries of what is morally right”.
Suppose the experts said waterboarding, a procedure we performed as part the training of our own troops, was necessary?
February 16th, 2010 | 3:18 pm
“This still baffles me. Would you say that a cherry is the equivalent of a cherry red Ferrari?”
That is to say, I have no idea what you mean by the word “equivalent.” Zippy points out that waterboarding and sodomy are both intrinsically evil acts, and you reply, “So now waterboarding is equivalent to sodomy?”
But the fact that they are both intrinsically evil acts does not make them equivalent, any more than the fact that a cherry and a cherry red Ferrari are both cherry red makes them equivalent.
“So how do we decide who is right in order to develop an ethical policy for interrogating terrorists who have conspired with others to commit mass murder in our country?”
Bickering, disputation, moral suasion, prayer, fasting. The usual.
“What is Situation C?”
Capturing KSM and interrogating him using moral methods. I don’t think Situation A is ruled right out, either; I have merely denied I’ve said the Church mandates it.
“The reason I am interested is because I find that most people who claim the waterboarding of KSM and friends was a great crime against humanity –”
Again: Please respond to what I write, not to your fanciful reinterpretations.
“Then what is the basis for your claim that Aquinas and Augustine would disavow their earlier writings on the use of force against prisoners and adopt your views?”
The universal Catechism, the Compendium of the Catechism, and the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults all teach that all torture is always immoral. (The Compendium makes clear that muddled readings of the Catechism that except cases of torture for information are wrong.)
If you don’t believe me, take it up with Patrick Lee.
“So how can you sit in judgment of the decisions made by those who did have the information about the threat to this country?”
Information about the threat to this country is not required to know that waterboarding is torture.
“Do you consider condemning people based on your partial knowledge to be consistent with Catholic teaching?”
Quote me condemning them.
February 16th, 2010 | 4:28 pm
“But the fact that they are both intrinsically evil acts does not make them equivalent, any more than the fact that a cherry and a cherry red Ferrari are both cherry red makes them equivalent.”
On Judgment Day, all other things being equal, who is in more trouble — the guys who waterboarded KSM and friends, or the guys who operated the forced-abortion vans in China? (I ask about that specifically because your ally Zippy asserts in one of his earlier comments that the U.S. Torture policy is analogous to China’s forced-abortion policy).
“Capturing KSM and interrogating him using moral methods.”
Suppose, as was actually the case, the interrogators conclude those methods were not working.
“Again: Please respond to what I write, not to your fanciful reinterpretations.”
It wasn’t a great crime against humanity? What was it? Are we talking about the waterboarders having to say a few additional Our Fathers after confession or are we talking about something more serious?
“The universal Catechism, the Compendium of the Catechism, and the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults all teach that all torture is always immoral. (The Compendium makes clear that muddled readings of the Catechism that except cases of torture for information are wrong.)”
So it is your belief that those documents repudiate the writings of Aquinas and Augustine, as well as Church teaching from the 4th Century to the 19th Century? You do not think this could be similar to the situation with slavery, as explained by Cardinal Dulles, or with the death penalty, where certain practices that were once in widespread use can now only be justified in very limited circumstances?
“Quote me condemning them.”
Let’s not play semantic games. You are accusing those men of engaging in intrinsic evil. You are accusing those of us who support those men as supporting intrinsic evil.
February 16th, 2010 | 4:36 pm
“Suppose the experts said waterboarding, a procedure we performed as part the training of our own troops, was necessary?”
Then the experts would be in error, and are to be corrected.
Again: It doesn’t require expert knowledge to know that waterboarding is immoral.
February 16th, 2010 | 5:20 pm
I would respond to that in the same way that I would respond if they told me that sodomizing prisoners was necessary.
February 16th, 2010 | 6:03 pm
“On Judgment Day, all other things being equal, who is in more trouble — the guys who waterboarded KSM and friends, or the guys who operated the forced-abortion vans in China?”
How would I know?
“Suppose, as was actually the case, the interrogators conclude those methods were not working.”
You’re asking me to suppose the moral methods weren’t working? What do you suppose I will conclude? That it’d be time to move on to the *im*moral methods?
“It wasn’t a great crime against humanity? What was it?”
What have I claimed it to be?
“So it is your belief that those documents repudiate the writings of Aquinas and Augustine, as well as Church teaching from the 4th Century to the 19th Century?”
In effect, yes.
“You do not think this could be similar to the situation with slavery, as explained by Cardinal Dulles, or with the death penalty, where certain practices that were once in widespread use can now only be justified in very limited circumstances?”
No. Neither does Patrick Lee. Neither does Pope Benedict XVI.
“Let’s not play semantic games.”
I’m not playing games. I am getting tired of you making stuff up and attributing it to me.
“You are accusing those men of engaging in intrinsic evil. You are accusing those of us who support those men as supporting intrinsic evil.”
Yes.
February 16th, 2010 | 6:10 pm
Let me correct myself:
Church teaching on torture varied greatly from the 4th Century to the 19th Century. To the extent the Church can be said to have taught that torture was morally acceptable during that time, yes, the Church now explicitly repudiates that teaching.
February 16th, 2010 | 6:35 pm
““On Judgment Day, all other things being equal, who is in more trouble — the guys who waterboarded KSM and friends, or the guys who operated the forced-abortion vans in China?”
How would I know?”
Let’s try one that might be at your pay grade: Catholic A votes for a candidate who is pro-life, but supports the waterboarding of KSM and his two pals; Catholic B votes votes for a candidate who supports abortion rights, but condemns the waterboarding of KSM and friends. Pursuant to YOUR INTERPRETATION of Church teaching, have both Catholics supported intrinsic evil?
“No. Neither does Patrick Lee. Neither does Pope Benedict XVI.”
I suggest you go back and read Lee again. As for B16, show me that quote.
And you are also saying Cardinal Dulles is wrong about the need for an express repudiation before you can conclude that the Church was supporting an intrinsic evil for 1,500 years?
““You are accusing those men of engaging in intrinsic evil. You are accusing those of us who support those men as supporting intrinsic evil.”
Yes.”
And you do not view that as condemnation?
February 16th, 2010 | 8:21 pm
“Pursuant to YOUR INTERPRETATION of Church teaching, have both Catholics supported intrinsic evil?”
They have both cooperated with intrinsic evil. Whether they supported it depends on whether their cooperation was formal or material, and if material whether it was proximate or remote. Moreover, they each have an obligation to work against the evil with which they have cooperated.
“I suggest you go back and read Lee again.”
Okay.
“Torture is intrinsically immoral.”
There. I’ve gone back and read Lee again.
“As for B16, show me that quote.”
“I reiterate that the prohibition against torture ‘cannot be contravened under any circumstances.’” — Pope Benedict XVI, 6 September 2007
“And you are also saying Cardinal Dulles is wrong about the need for an express repudiation before you can conclude that the Church was supporting an intrinsic evil for 1,500 years?”
Cardinal Dulles did not discuss torture in that article. I would say CCC 2298 constitutes an express repudiation. Given the history, I would welcome a more detailed treatment.
“And you do not view that as condemnation?”
No. Condemnation is a judicial act.
Come to think of it, though, I should say that I am not really *accusing* anybody of anything, in the sense that a witness accuses a defendant. I am stating that waterboarding is torture. That those who authorized and conducted waterboarding of prisoners engaged in intrinsic evil, and that those who support them support intrinsic evil, follow trivially from that statement.
February 17th, 2010 | 11:09 am
“They have both cooperated with intrinsic evil. Whether they supported it depends on whether their cooperation was formal or material, and if material whether it was proximate or remote. Moreover, they each have an obligation to work against the evil with which they have cooperated.”
They both gave $100 to the respective candidates and then voted for them.
Is it your position that the culpability of the Catholic voter is not affected in any way by the fact that one candidate supports a procedure that may or may not be used in the future, while the other supports a procedure that is performed about 4,000 times a day?
““Torture is intrinsically immoral.”
There. I’ve gone back and read Lee again.”
But you missed this part: “By contrast, intentionally causing pain in order to provide the detainee with a motive to deliver information is not intrinsically immoral. Unlike bodily or psychosomatic integrity (which are violated in real torture), pain is not the deprivation of a basic human good. Indeed, pain often is part of the proper functioning of a human being as a sentient living being (which is not to say that delighting in pain for its own sake, sadism, is morally right).”
“I reiterate that the prohibition against torture ‘cannot be contravened under any circumstances.’” — Pope Benedict XVI, 6 September 2007″
A speech to chaplains IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM? That’s the evidence supporting your contention that B16 condemns the waterboarding of terrorist leaders as intrinsically evil?
“Cardinal Dulles did not discuss torture in that article. I would say CCC 2298 constitutes an express repudiation. Given the history, I would welcome a more detailed treatment.”
1) Slavery and torture are both in the Veritatis Splendor list, and Cardinal Dulles is explaining that a repudiation of over a thousand years of Church doctrine has to be much more specific. I think it can be argued that a designation of torture as an intrinsic evil would have to be even more explicit than such a designation for slavery, since slavery was grudgingly tolerated, and actually condemned in some instances, while torture was regarded as necessary in some instances.
2) Torture is a defined term in 2297. Therefore, 2298 must be read in light of the definition in 2297, which omits from its prohibited purposes obtaining information to save lives.
3) I agree that we need a more definitive statement on this, and soon, because I can see this issue causing a serious rupture in the pro-life movement in the next two election cycles.
“No. Condemnation is a judicial act.”
No. Sentencing is a judicial act. Condemnation can come from a wide variety of sources, including from pro-life Catholics who are accusing other pro-life Catholics of supporting intrinsic evil.
February 17th, 2010 | 4:54 pm
Brian:
We’re crossing wires here.
I am saying three things:
1. The Church teaches that all torture is always evil.
2. Attempts to read the Catechism as defining torture in a way that excludes interrogation are unfounded.
3. Waterboarding is torture.
I quoted Patrick Lee and Benedict XVI in support of #1.
My argument for #2 is here.
I’ve already said all I have to say about #3.
February 17th, 2010 | 6:42 pm
“1. The Church teaches that all torture is always evil.”
But that conclusion is based upon an assertion that there has been a complete repudiation of 1,500 years of Church teaching, and a complete repudiation of some of the writings of the two greatest Doctors of the Church. I think you need far more support for your conclusion than you are currently able to muster.
“Attempts to read the Catechism as defining torture in a way that excludes interrogation are unfounded.”
But 2297 does not include interrogation. The UN definition of torture does include interrogation. Do you think the exclusion from 2297 was just some printshop error that they never bothered to fix?
Arguing that 2298 somehow modifies the definition in 2297 is completely unreasonable. That approach is actually the exact opposite of how statutes are interpreted. 2297 defines torture for the purposes of 2298.
With regard to the rest of your argument that you link to, the fact that you have to cobble together support for your position from various sources actually shows how weak it is. As Cardinal Dulles points out, repudiations have to be explicit.
Asserting that your position on this issue is beyond challenge is arrogant. Charging that other Catholics are supporting intrinsic evil based on your tenuous argument is uncharitable and shows a lack of humility.
February 17th, 2010 | 9:33 pm
“With regard to the rest of your argument that you link to, the fact that you have to cobble together support for your position from various sources actually shows how weak it is.”
I can’t argue with that.
And I mean that literally. If you think having a lot of evidence that something is true is evidence that it is false, all I can say is, how about that?
May your Lent be fruitful.
February 18th, 2010 | 9:10 am
“And I mean that literally. If you think having a lot of evidence that something is true is evidence that it is false, all I can say is, how about that?”
May your Lent be fruitful.”
But you do not have a lot of evidence for repudiation. You create a Rube Goldberg contraption of an argument by cherry-picking sentences from different sources.
If I handed a judge a brief with 10-pages of quotes from cases that do not address the relevant issue, he is not going to be impressed at how much “evidence” I have.
And your final smug comment certainly helps explain why you have no qualms about accusing fellow Catholics of supporting intrinsic evil based on your flimsy argument.
February 18th, 2010 | 4:50 pm
Brian says, in response to Joe Carter:
“You think waterboarding is equivalent to abortion–an act that is always and everywhere an evil one. I think waterboarding is equivalent to killing in warfare–an act that can be justified under certain circumstances.”
Exactly.
But Joe’s position is not merely that waterboarding terrorists such as KSM is morally equivalent to abortion (since they are both “intrinsically evil”). Joe’s position is that even the kind of “waterboarding” that has been conducted at SERE school for decades on THOUSANDS of American servicemen is morally equivalent to abortion. Joe has been perfectly clear. He holds that waterboarding at SERE school is TORTURE and hence an intrinsic and grave moral evil.
Maybe we can have an intramural debate from the “all-waterboarding-of-jihadists-is-intrinsically-evil-crowd” with some defending Joe Carter’s “SERE school waterboarding IS torture” position and some taking the “SERE school waterboarding is NOT torture” position.
That would be fun and illuminating. I know Joe is not Catholic but it would be interesting to hear whether a Catholic who held to Joe’s position would call for Church discipline on those pro-SERE waterboarding people who are “soft on torture.”
February 18th, 2010 | 5:15 pm
Keith Pavlischek He holds that waterboarding at SERE school is TORTURE and hence an intrinsic and grave moral evil.
You also left off that I think it is stupid and pointless. The reason that waterboarding is done in SERE school is to show you that when you are tortured you will likely break. Who goes into SERE training thinking otherwise?
I know Joe is not Catholic but it would be interesting to hear whether a Catholic who held to Joe’s position would call for Church discipline on those pro-SERE waterboarding people who are “soft on torture.”
You know what I would like to see: Christians trying to stand for Christian principles rather than seeing how far we can water down the Bible’s teachings while still retaining some flavor of Christianity.
This pro-torture-(but-let’s-play-semantic-games-to-avoid-calling-it-torture) position taken by some Christians is the most depressing thing I’ve see in a long time. I know people get their knickers in a twist when you point out that they are making Machiavellian arguments that Christians should be ashamed to make, but it is true.
February 18th, 2010 | 6:37 pm
It is instructional that the pro-torture Catholics here without exception refer to situation where “1000′s are saved,” and “KSM-like.”
No one of you has dealt with the reality of the dozens (hundreds?) tortured by the US Government who did not come close to these situations. And these are many of the ones that were being discussed on by Theissen and Arroyo.
February 18th, 2010 | 8:49 pm
I’m not particularly concerned with Joe Carter’s opinion on whether this or that training at SERE school, or any other form of military training is “stupid and pointless.” I suspect that military professionals far more knowledgeable and competent to speak on such matters would argue otherwise. In any case, an action can can be “stupid and pointless” and not be an intrinsic, grave, moral evil.
However, the point at hand is that Joe is embracing and defending the counter- intuitive proposition that waterboarding at SERE school is and always has been TORTURE. It is thus, by definition an grave, intrinsic moral evil–kind of like abortion.
I must say that I do think this is an absurd position (the reductio of the claim that all waterboarding is intrinsically evil in all circumstances for whatever reason). But evidently not everyone on the “all-waterboarding-is-evil” bandwagon wants to embrace what seems to me to be an absurdity.
That’s why I’d like to see a reasoned discussion on the issue between, say ZIPPY CATHOLIC, MARK SHEA and JOE CARTER. Come on guys, take to the blogosphere and debate whether the US government has been “torturing” their own military personnel for decades and hence been embracing without apology this grave, intrinsic moral evil. Maybe, just maybe, such a discussion would illuminate something about the larger discussion. But then again, maybe it would just sink into accusations of against other believers of embracing “paganism” and “Machiavellianism” and they like.
February 18th, 2010 | 9:45 pm
Someone pointed out to me by email that the microphone was mistakenly left on in here. As it happens, I posted about SERE training earlier.
You fellas have a blessed Lent.
February 18th, 2010 | 11:08 pm
I suspect that military professionals far more knowledgeable and competent to speak on such matters would argue otherwise.
If so, I’d love to hear the rationale. I’ve never heard an explanation for what it is supposed to accomplish.
In any case, an action can can be “stupid and pointless” and not be an intrinsic, grave, moral evil.
I completely agree. In the Marines I was often called upon to do things that (I thought) were stupid and pointless, but was never asked to do anything that was an intrinsically moral evil act.
However, the point at hand is that Joe is embracing and defending the counter- intuitive proposition that waterboarding at SERE school is and always has been TORTURE. It is thus, by definition an grave, intrinsic moral evil–kind of like abortion.
I know that by throwing in the word “abortion” you want it to seem as if torture must automatically be in a different category. But not all intrinsically evil acts have the same bad consequences and can thus be put on a spectrum of “bad” to “worse.” Blaphemy, for instance, is also intrinsically evil but it is not as heinous an act as abortion.
I must say that I do think this is an absurd position (the reductio of the claim that all waterboarding is intrinsically evil in all circumstances for whatever reason). But evidently not everyone on the “all-waterboarding-is-evil” bandwagon wants to embrace what seems to me to be an absurdity.
Are you sure you think the position is absurd? If so, then you must also think the claim “Waterboarding terrorists isn’t intrinsically evil because we waterboard our troops in SERE school” is absurd.
Here’s is the logical form of my claim:
P1 – Waterboarding is torture.
P2 – Torture is intrinsically evil.
C1 – If we waterboard our troops, then we are torturing our troops.
C2 – Waterboarding our troops is intrinsically evil.
Here is the logical form of the claim that a lot of people (you?) make to justify waterboarding terrorists:
P3 – We do not commit any actions that torture our own troops.
P4 – Waterboarding is an actions that is done to our troops.
C3 – Waterboarding is not torture.
You say that my claim is “absurd.” I disagree (naturally). It is arguable whether P1 is true or not, but if it is true then it can hardly be absurd.
On the other hand, the logical form of your claim is merely special pleading. You can’t say “Waterboarding terrorists can’t be torture because we do it on our troops and we do not commit any acts that torture our troops; we know that waterboarding our troops isn’t torture because we don’t commit any acts that torture our toops.”
If you want to avoid special pleading you could say that whether we waterboard our own troops has nothing whatsoever to do with the morality of waterboarding terrorists. But you can’t say that it is absurd to claim that waterboarding our troops is “absurd” if it is necessary to claim the inverse is obviously true in order to affirm the antecedent in your argument.
This is a long-winded way of saying what Zippy says in his post: “So much rhetorical hay is made of the claim “we did waterboard resistance training on our troops, therefore waterboarding prisoners for intelligence is OK” that it may be immoral simply as a matter of imprudence to do this to our troops.”
February 19th, 2010 | 12:35 am
Your wish is my command.
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2010/02/former-navy-pilot-who-was-waterboarded.html
February 19th, 2010 | 5:56 am
I still do not understand why the entire argument revolves around the torture of “clear cut, hard core terrorists holding massive life and death information” and not the reality of the situation- dozens/hundreds of suspects with simple guilt by association.
You all are arguing angels on a pin in a situation which is clearly not so abstract.
How is it remotely possible that a Catholic Broadcasting Station could even slightly endorse this behavior, much less argue that it falls within Catholic, Christian doctrine? How can the Church Leadership be silent? What in God’s name is going on here?
February 19th, 2010 | 7:03 am
From the Department of Justice ’Certain Techniques’ memo of May 10, 2005 at page 42, footnote 53:
We understand that the waterboard is currently used only in Navy SERE training. As noted in the IG Report, “[a]ccording to individuals with authoritative knowledge of the SERE program, … [e]xcept for Navy SERE training, use of the waterboard was discontinued because of its dramatic effect on the students who were subjects.” IG Report at 14 n.14. We understand that use of the waterboard was discontinued by the other services not because of any concerns about possible physical or mental harm, but because students were not successful at resisting the technique and, as such, it was not considered to be a useful training technique.
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/nat-sec/olc/olc_05302005_bradbury.pdf
February 19th, 2010 | 8:50 am
Joe, there’s no “special pleading” here. I’m simply embracing your own concession that fair minded Christians of good will can believe that waterboarding under some conditions, in some circumstances and for some reasons is NOT TORTURE (e.g. SERE training). YOU have, elsewhere, conceded as much.
Here, you tell us that THIS is your argument:
P1 – Waterboarding is torture.
P2 – Torture is intrinsically evil.
C1 – If we waterboard our troops, then we are torturing our troops.
C2 – Waterboarding our troops is intrinsically evil.
Then Joe tells us this: “It is arguable whether P1 [waterboarding is torture] is true or not, but if it is true then it can hardly be absurd.” Well, of course, if it is TRUE then it is not absurd. But what if it isn’t true?
Suppose someone (on, say the goofier extremist wing of the ACLU) constructed an argument with the following premise:
PP1 –yelling loudly at Marine recruits at Paris Island is ‘torture’
Now suppose someone (like me) came along and declared PP1 to be absurd. I don’t think the critic of PP1 would be terribly impressed if the ACLU advocate of PP1 responded by saying PP1 is “arguable.” Likewise, I’m not particularly overwhelmed by a counterargument based on claim that P1 is “arguable.”
But I’ll take it and consider it a concession: Let it be known that Joe thinks the proposition (P1) “WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE” is “arguable.”
Of course that raises the question–just what makes it “arguable.” (Does Joe think that PP1 is “arguable, too?) One might think “being arguable” AT LEAST MEANS that a Christian of good will and good faith can defend waterboarding in BOTH SERE training and against the likes of KSM in SOME CIRCUMSTANCES and under SOME CONDITIONS as NOT be accused of advocating “torture.” One would think that P1 is sufficiently “arguable” such that if they do defend waterboarding under certain conditions, they ought not be threatened with excommunication or be subject the being called “pagans” or advocating “Machiavellianism” if they do so. And, if the proposition is “arguable” then one might be a little more charitable toward EWTN, or Fr Scirico, or Marc Thiessen or whoever before hurling such charges and accusations or threatening them with ecclesiastical sanctions.
But then, I’m not Catholic so Zippy and Mark Shea may be right in insisting that this should NOT even be something about which Catholics in good faith can “argue” about without being subject to ecclesiastical sanction. So, in a sense it is none of my business who gets excommunicated or disciplined or charged with heresy, deviance from Church teaching etc. It has been interesting watching the “scandal” unfold, though.
====================
re.FWIW’s post re. why, with the exception of the Navy waterboarding has been discontinued: You would think that this is a pretty good argument on the effectiveness of the technique. Argue that it should never be done, but it is simply a stretch–one might say it is absurd– to say that it “doesn’t work.”
February 19th, 2010 | 9:46 am
“It is instructional that the pro-torture Catholics here without exception refer to situation where “1000’s are saved,” and “KSM-like.”
No one of you has dealt with the reality of the dozens (hundreds?) tortured by the US Government who did not come close to these situations. And these are many of the ones that were being discussed on by Theissen and Arroyo.”
I did not see the Theissen/Arroyo interview, so I am not sure exactly what they discussed.
However, if they were claiming that EVERYTHING that was done over the last nine years was fine, they are wrong. One case I can think of was at Bagram Air Force Base, where it appears a detainee was beaten to death.
Apparently, all that came out of that incident was minor punishments for one officer and one guard. The problem appeared to be they could not figure out exactly who was primarily responsible because no one was talking. That is not surprising, because the same thing happens in the criminal justice system all the time. This is an enforcement problem.
The US has always had laws against killing prisoners, and those laws have been broken in every war. If you want to read some horrifying material, look at the Lodge Committee testimony on what went on during the Philippine-American War (1899-1902). It makes what went on over the last nine years look like summer camp.
The other example I can think of off the top of my head took place during WW II, where SS guards and troops at Dachau, who had surrendered, were killed by US troops. Although courts martial were considered, Patton dismissed the charges.
If there is evidence prisoners were murdered, investigations should take place and, if warranted, charges should be brought. As I indicated above, sometimes those investigations are not going to be successful.
If you think a case needs to be more thoroughly investigated, call your representatives in Congress and tell them to lean on the DOJ and/or the DOD.
What the discussion between Catholics should be about is the proper method for interrogating terrorist leaders when we have a reasonable belief they are aware of plans to strike at civilians in this country. Unfortunately, I think we will have to address that issue again in the next few years.
Do all of you really believe that KSM and those like him should be interrogated with the same techniques we would use on a mountain villager captured in Afghanistan?
The Obama Administration may say it believes that, but it appears to have no interest in putting that into practice. Obama has launched about three times the number of Predator attacks that Bush approved. Dead terrorist leaders mean no messy detention and interrogation issues (but also no information on attacks).
In addition, the Taliban military commander recently captured in Pakistan is being interrogated by both Americans and Pakistanis, but he has remained in Pakistani custody. Why do you think it is being handled like that?
February 19th, 2010 | 10:02 am
“I know that by throwing in the word “abortion” you want it to seem as if torture must automatically be in a different category. But not all intrinsically evil acts have the same bad consequences and can thus be put on a spectrum of “bad” to “worse.” Blaphemy, for instance, is also intrinsically evil but it is not as heinous an act as abortion.”
But I think this is the main sticking point. You believe that waterboarding is intrinsically evil in all circumstances involving all prisoners of war, including unlawful combatants.
If one group of presidential and senatorial candidates supported abortion rights, but opposed waterboarding, while the second group supported the waterboarding of terrorist leaders, but were anti-abortion, which slate of candidates would you vote for?
February 19th, 2010 | 10:50 am
If I were Christian, I would suggest that what we are seeing here is the manufacture of evil.
Clear cut cases of torture and murder of people not clearly associated with Terrorist acts or groups was undertaken by the US government. This is well-established, BTW.
But the debate BY THE CHRISTIANS centers around the hypothetical case of immenient mass murder by near certain terrorists using “borderline” techniques. And certainly, there can be debate here.
What this reduces to is the sense that whatever the US government has done, it is uncertain whether or not it is “evil,” and well meaning people can disagree.
Hence, we are experiencing a profound lack of outrage over behavior clearly at great odds with Christianity by associating it with abstract, esoteric examples. The “evil” is being empowered by those who profess the loudest to be believe in objective evil.
Quite shocking really.
February 19th, 2010 | 11:28 am
Keith But I’ll take it and consider it a concession: Let it be known that Joe thinks the proposition (P1) “WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE” is “arguable.”
I think you are reading too much into my concession. By arguable, I merely mean the premise aren’t self-evident. That doesn’t mean that a person is justified in arguing based on those premises, only that it is not necessarily “absurd” to do so. For example, whether abortion is moral is “arguable” though at the end of the argument Christians should concede that it is an evil act.
Likewise, I’m not particularly overwhelmed by a counterargument based on claim that P1 is “arguable.”
But if its absurd, why is it used as the basis for an argument for waterboarding?
(Does Joe think that PP1 is “arguable, too?)
Of course. It’s a weak argument because the act doesn’t fit any common definitions of torture, but it is “arguable.”
One might think “being arguable” AT LEAST MEANS that a Christian of good will and good faith can defend waterboarding in BOTH SERE training and against the likes of KSM in SOME CIRCUMSTANCES and under SOME CONDITIONS as NOT be accused of advocating “torture.”
A Christian of good will and good faith can defend abortion too. They do so all the time. In fact, until the mid-1970s, many of my fellow evangelicals would have been offended if you thought there was something wrong with their support for first-trimester abortion. But their good will and good faith did not change the fact that what they were condoning was intrinsically immoral. To pretend otherwise would have been dishonest.
I think the same is true in this situation. I wish my conscience would allow me to say that the issue wasn’t clear-cut and that Christians could differ on the issue, but I cannot. (I am open, however, to hearing arguments that non-consequentialist/non-utilitarian arguments that committing intrinsically evil are sometimes justified.) I don’t like being the guy who being dogmatic and seemingly uncharitable by telling other Christians they are wrong. But the truth is that I have not seen one advocate for waterboarding—not one—start with Christian principles and argue their case that the action should be allowed.
Argue that it should never be done, but it is simply a stretch–one might say it is absurd– to say that it “doesn’t work.”
I think that the fact that the technique cannot be resisted shows both that it is torture and that it is ineffective. What if a terrorist who has no useful information is waterboarded. Since he cannot resist, he’ll have to tell his interrogators something in order to get them to stop. So he’ll lie and make something up just as American prisoners who were tortured in previous wars did. That is why torture is not only immoral but also generally unreliable for obtaining useful information.
February 19th, 2010 | 11:58 am
“Clear cut cases of torture and murder of people not clearly associated with Terrorist acts or groups was undertaken by the US government. This is well-established, BTW.”
Where are the indictments? Where are the courts martial?
Are you claiming Eric Holder’s DOJ is failing to pursue well-established cases of murder? Is it possible that there were investigations and not enough evidence was found? Our troops and intelligence officers are entitled to the presumption of innocence, or do you disagree with that?
February 19th, 2010 | 12:59 pm
A note of clarification: It is not my position that someone should be under formal ecclesiastical sanction of any kind for actually torturing a prisoner, let alone arguing about it.
(Heck, I know we Catholics are supposed to be rigid medieval heretic burners, but we don’t even excommunicate serial killers :-).
February 19th, 2010 | 1:43 pm
Yes Brian, I believe that Torture and Murder has only occurred in rare cases that have been reasonably evaluated by Justice authorities and found so extraordinary that one could conceivably argue they were legitimate by both US and International law. So it seems quite reasonable that these actions might find some respite in Christian Morality as well.