White House: Waterboarding is Legal

Bush claims the power to authorize this torture technique in “extraordinary circumstances”. A quick reminder on what exactly waterboarding is. An a quick reminder also that it is an intrinsically evil act, which means in is evil in ordinary and extraordinary circumstances alike. Remember too, that eight years ago this presidential candidate was embracing some of the buzz words of Catholic social teaching. And now, he is giving the thumbs up to methods of torture perfected by the Khmer Rouge. This is where we end up.

This entry was posted on Thursday, February 7th, 2008 at 4:56 pm and is filed under Consequentialism, Morning's Minion, Torture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

57 Responses to “White House: Waterboarding is Legal”

T. Shaw says:

February 7, 2008 at 4:58 pm

As if it were needed! Another resaon not to vote for George W. Bush in November.
Phillip says:

February 7, 2008 at 4:59 pm

A quick reminder. Abortion is an intrinsically evil act. Waterboarding for a large number of people is not. (Remember many believe it is justified in training.)
Stephen Braunlich says:

February 7, 2008 at 5:03 pm

Not voting looks better and better when our choice is between killing any human that hasn’t seen day light (Clinton & Obama), killing any human at its earliest moments of life (McCain), and condoning torture outside the womb (Romney).
Michael J. Iafrate says:

February 7, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Abortion is an intrinsically evil act. Waterboarding for a large number of people is not.

Waterboarding is intrinsically evil for some people, but not for others?

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word “intrinsically.”
Alexham says:

February 7, 2008 at 5:41 pm

I personally don’t care whether waterboarding is technically torture or not. We shouldn’t be doing it to anyone.
Phillip says:

February 7, 2008 at 5:49 pm

I know the meaning of the word “intrinsically”. That’s why I say it is not so since most people, even on this blog, think its okay to do when training our soldiers.
Blackadder says:

February 7, 2008 at 6:16 pm

What statement of the White House’s are you referring to? According to the Attorney General, waterboarding is not currently legal nor practiced, and could not become so without his approval.
Br. Matthew Augustine, OP says:

February 7, 2008 at 6:18 pm

Phillip,

The ‘waterboarding is not always intrisically evil’ objection would only hold water if wasn’t transparently clear that MM is talking about the waterboarding of enemy detainees. Otherwise, the objection is a red herring. I suspect that what really stands behind you objections is that you don’t think waterboarding detainees is torture. If so, make that argument. Regardless, the ‘waterboarding is not always intrisically evil’ objection is getting the discussion absolutely nowhere.
Phillip says:

February 7, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Actually I think both are torture. I just have a problem with people who don’t see it as such. I also have a problem with people saying waterboarding is torture so vote for Obama. Thus ignoring the far greater, and ongoing, evil of abortion.
Kyle R. Cupp says:

February 7, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Let’s hope and pray the next president has the moral sense to push for the outlawing of this abhorrent practice and of all other tortures. It is clear we have an official torture policy. That has to change.
Donald R. McClarey says:

February 7, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Waterboarding is intrinsically evil? Was the Church mandating intrinsically evil acts when it utilized torture from circa 950-1870?
Donald R. McClarey says:

February 7, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Torture of course was utilized frequently by popes as rulers of the papal states, including Blessed Pio Nono. Were such popes engaged in intrinsically evil acts?
Matt Talbot says:

February 7, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Donald – I haven’t done extensive research into the history of torture and the Church, but if popes committed or authorized torture, then yes, those acts were intrinsically evil.
Katerina Ivanovna says:

February 7, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Donald needs to take a class on dogma, doctrine, and doctrine development.
Donald R. McClarey says:

February 7, 2008 at 6:34 pm

“Donald needs to take a class on dogma, doctrine, and doctrine development.”

Katerina needs to learn the basic history of her Faith.
Donald R. McClarey says:

February 7, 2008 at 6:44 pm

An action that is intrinsically evil is always evil by definition. It does not become so simply in the latter half of the Twentieth Century. If a recent pope wishes to decry torture as intrinsically evil, then the Church has a great deal of explaining to do regarding past popes and Church councils who not only used torture far more severe, not to mention lethal, than waterboarding, but also mandated its use in the fight against heresy. This is a far different situation than popes having mistresses or committing other personal sins. This is the teaching authority of the Church mandating torture in one era and then purportedly condemning torture in another era as always evil. That is a problem for all Catholics who believe, as I do, in the Magisterium.
Kyle R. Cupp says:

February 7, 2008 at 6:45 pm

This history of the Catholic Church is full of vice and failure. So what? That a pope perpetrated an evil act doesn’t diminish the evil of the act or make the act good.
Br. Matthew Augustine, OP says:

February 7, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Phillip,

I see. So you are agreed that waterboarding is an intrisic evil? In that case, why not just agree with MM that our governments use it is a terrible thing which ought to be condemned? MM nowhere states that, on account of this, you should vote for Obama. As for you problem with those (like myself) who wouldn’t see waterboarding in training (with qualifications, of course) as torture, you are free to disagree, but why bring it up when it adds nothing to the conversation? As for myself, I have no moral qualms with my stance. I simply see someone voluntarily undergoing waterboarding by their peers for their own good to be substantially different than being subjected to this procedure while being the captive of hostile enemies in order instill terror or extract valuable information. I would say something similar regarding getting a finger amputed. If it is amputated by medical personel for your own good (it has gone septic) it is licit. If it done by your captors to extract info, it is torture. It doesn’t seem to me to require tortured logic to make such distictions.
Katerina Ivanovna says:

February 7, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Katerina needs to learn the basic history of her Faith.

Hehehehe….
Donald R. McClarey says:

February 7, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Father Brian Harrison has done yeoman work on this topic:

http://confoundingthewicked.blogspot.com/2006/10/fr-harrison-on-torture.html
Blackadder says:

February 7, 2008 at 7:15 pm

Donald,

Have you actually read the Father Harrison articles in question? Because his conclusions are at odds with many of the things you’ve been saying.
Phillip says:

February 7, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Br.

Torture also includes pulling a person’s finger nails out. Surely you don’t think that a person can volunteer for that and it not be torture. Also arguing so (including in the case of waterboarding) seems to be consequentialism.

As for MM, to quote you, his argument is the red herring. But I will be happy for him to say that he will vote for no one as obviously the pro-abortion stance of Obama is far worse that the now non-practiced waterboarding in interrogation.
JB says:

February 7, 2008 at 8:01 pm

Oy!

Popes participating and even advocating the use of tortue to combat is a far cry from a pope exercising his official magisterium. Bishops also owned slaves in the past, but that doesn’t make it ok. Read Newman’s Develop of Christian Doctrine.
Phillip says:

February 7, 2008 at 8:02 pm

Here’s the conclusion from Fr. Harrison:

Clearly, the Church’s magisterium in regard to the morality of torture and corporal punishment is still in the process of development, with a number of questions remaining unresolved so far, and needing further attention from theologians, philosophers, criminologists and jurists. Nevertheless, I shall conclude by offering a few tentative theological conclusions, based on my reading of Scripture, Tradition, and the rather confused and even historically inconsistent witness of the Church’s (non-infallible) magisterium:

First, three practices do seem to merit the description ‘intrinsically unjust’ according to authentic Catholic doctrine, on the combined basis of the three aforesaid pillars of authority in matters of faith and morals:

(a) Torture for extracting confessions of a crime of which one is accused (as practiced, for example, under Roman Law). This practice, of which there is not a trace of approval in Scripture, even under the harsh Old Testament law, seems even more repugnant to the Law of Christ, even though it was accepted as sententia communis (and even put into practice) by Church authorities for many centuries during the patristic, medieval and early modern times. Explicit Christian opposition to the practice dates back to Tertullian, and the reasons for its immorality were well summed up by Pope St. Nicholas I (cf. B1 above). This authentic, but so often obscured, Christian judgment, is now clearly expressed again the Catechism in #2297.

(b) Torture carried out on those not even accused formally of any crime or offence, simply in order “to frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred” – also specified in the Catechism, #2297.

(c) Torture, or indeed, mutilation or any other kind of physical or psychological violence against the person, carried out not by public authority in accordance with a norm of law, but by those acting arbitrarily and clandestinely, without any legal authority (even if they should happen to be heads of state, secret police, etc.). For what we have here is basically nothing other than grave criminal aggression directly opposed to the Fifth Commandment, even if the criminal happens to be a tyrannical and arbitrary dictator contemptuous of the rule of law. The vast majority all acts of torture occurring in the modern world, and thus coming under the particular scrutiny of Vatican II’s pastoral teaching in Gaudium et Spes against contemporary offences against the human person, would almost certainly fall into this category.

Secondly, I do not think that the direct infliction of severe physical pain, as a punishment for duly convicted delinquents carried out by public authority in accord with a norm of law, can be categorized as intrinsically evil. Such a thesis would seem to be incompatible with the divine inspiration of the Old Testament, which clearly prescribed such penalties for numerous offences. It would also amount in practice to the thesis that imprisonment is the only penalty that can ever justly be applied to even the worst criminals. But this would clearly be impractical, and indeed, inapplicable, in primitive nomadic societies (like the Israelites during the Exodus and many others) wherein nobody has any permanent dwelling place. Under such social and physical circumstances, much less is there a possibility of prisons for delinquents.

However, as we have argued, not everything that escapes the extreme moral censure of being intrinsically evil or unjust can without further ado be pronounced compatible with the New Law of Christ. Jesus has left us no specific legal instructions for dealing with crime in a society based on Gospel principles. But as we have seen in Part I of this study, the Lord has certainly left us, by precept and personal example, a new approach or outlook which emphasises, much more than the Old Law did, the importance of mercy and forbearance in the treatment of sinners. We could reasonably try to formulate a general legal principle, in application of this Gospel teaching, to the effect that the punishment of even the worst criminals should not detract from their dignity as human persons to a greater extent than should really be needed in order to maintain public order and protect innocent citizens. Also, the contemporary magisterium (GS #27) has emphasized also the harm – in this case spiritual, moral and psychological – that the infliction of grave physical pain on another human being does to the tormentor himself. In contrast to the profession of being an ordinary prison warder (and probably even the role of an executioner who presses a lever to administer a lethal injection or, in the case of hanging, to open a trapdoor), the role of torturer not only brutalizes and renders increasingly insensitive to terrible human suffering the agent himself; even worse, that role or function will tend to attract in practice, as the only persons in society willing to carry out such a function, those sorry types of individuals who already have at least latent sadistic tendencies, and so will actually enjoy their grisly task. But precisely in that situation, another type of grave sin (or at least the near occasion thereof) will be involved: that of cruelly delighting in the infliction of intense pain, often accompanied by perverse sexual satisfaction.

For all these reasons, it seems that the exclusion of torture (flogging, etc.) as legal punishment can be seen as an appropriate practical implication of the Law of Christ, especially under modern circumstances, even though such punishment is not intrinsically unjust. I would suggest that the Catechism’s censure of torture (and mutilation) as “punishment of the guilty” (#2297), and Pope John Paul II’s allocution against torture at Geneva, be understood in that light.

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). As we have noted above, this possible use of torture is not mentioned in the Catechism. If, as I have argued, the infliction of severe pain is not intrinsically evil, its use in that type of scenario would not seem to be excluded by the arguments and authorities we have considered so far. (John Paul II’s statement about the “intrinsic evil” of a list of ugly things including torture in VS #80 does not seem to me decisive, even at the level of authentic, non-infallible, magisterium, for the reasons I have already given in commenting above on that text.) My understanding would be that, given the present status questionis, the moral legitimacy of torture under the aforesaid desperate circumstances, while certainly not affirmed by the magisterium, remains open at present to legitimate discussion by Catholic theologians.
JB says:

February 7, 2008 at 8:08 pm

obviously the pro-abortion stance of Obama is far worse…

I don’t think I disagree with you, nevertheless that does not give you (or me) the right to tell someone how they must vote. MM and several other people on this blog are intelligent people trying to think critically to live out the universal call to holiness, and to do so in a very broken and fallen American culture. The USCCB has affirmed that Catholics may vote for a candidate (such as Obama) who is pro-choice, provided they are not votring for that candidate because he is pro-choice.

I’m confident I can speak for MM in saying that he is not pro-choice, nor does he like that Obama is. Nevertheless, we are free to believe based upon an honest effort to inform out conscience on the teachings of the Church and on the political candidates and issues, to vote for whomever we believe would make the best president.

Let us try to remember that we are part of the Body of Christ. We are part of the ONE, holy, catholic, apostolic, Church. Let us attempt to give each other the benefit of the doubt in matters of integrity and conscience.
Morning's Minion says:

February 7, 2008 at 8:12 pm

Fr. Brian Harrison has NOT done yeoman work on this. Fr. Brian Harrison commits some elementary errors that leads to to wonder how in the name of God he can pose as an expert on moral theology. Let’s see exact what Harrison says, shall we?

Here’s the Catechism: “Torture, which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred, is contrary to respect for the human person and for human dignity.”

Here’s Harrison: “there remains the question – nowadays a very practical and much-discussed one – of torture inflicted not for any of the above purposes, but for extracting life-saving information from, say, a captured terrorist known to be participating in an attack that may take thousands of lives (the now-famous ‘ticking bomb’ scenario). As we have noted above, this possible use of torture is not mentioned in the Catechism.”

Note the way he uses consequentialism to change the argument. The Church says that torture is wrong in all circumstances. Harrison says not so, as the Catechism does not explicitly mention the tiacking bomb scenario. Now, the only difference between “extracting confessions” and “extracting life saving information” lies in the consequences. The attack on the human dignity, the instrinsic worth of a person, the use of a person as a means to and end — in fact, everything about the act that renders its intrinsically evil, remains the same in each case.

And Phillip– stop it with the training programs. You are not appreciating the meaning of the object of the act, the direcly-chosen behavior. As somebody once noted in these debates, having sex with your spouse is morally good. Having sex with somebody who is not your spouse is the opposite. What is the object of your act? That is always the question to ask.
Morning's Minion says:

February 7, 2008 at 8:13 pm

By the way, this is not a pro-Obama post. I have serious problems with John McCain, but I believe him to be completely opposed to torture as well.
Br. Matthew Augustine, OP says:

February 7, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Phillip,

People willingly have their fingernails pulled out all the time (i.e. for medical procedures). This, or course, is not torture. I don’t think it would be a prudent form of training, as it would likely cause permanent physical damage to the nail beds and nerves. Not only that, but it probably wouldn’t do much in the way of instilling knowledge that might help a soldier survive. Also, please note that I’m *not* saying that all forms of combat training are licit, only that some kinds of activities which may be licit as training would constitute torture when done on an unwilling detainee.
Br. Matthew Augustine, OP says:

February 7, 2008 at 8:21 pm

BTW, if I was a consequentialist I wouldn’t be talking about intrinsic evils at all, since consequentialists don’t acknowledge the existence of intrinsic evils.
Phillip says:

February 7, 2008 at 8:46 pm

Br. Matthew,

But mutilations are permitted for medical, not training, as I understand it. You can agree that some forms of “training” would be illicit whether the person volunteered or not.

Also, how is it not consequentalism if that which makes it licit is for the good of the person. It seems you are saying the consequence of providing a good for the person makes it licit.

JB,

Fine, then perhaps as he admits McCain is against torture, and also pro-life, perhaps we can begin to find the posts on the evils of abortion and voting for those who support it.
Phillip says:

February 7, 2008 at 8:50 pm

MM,
It would seem you have made the mistake about objects. You criticize Fr. Harrison for allowing that inflicting pain may be licit for extracting life saving information. We can inflict pain for numerous reasons which are licit and not torture. Sort of like having sex with your wife. Its okay. So you equivocate based upon your not understanding the object of choice that Fr. Harrison is referring to. You haven’t appreciated the question let alone the answer.
Br. Matthew Augustine, OP says:

February 7, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Phillip,

Consequentialism measures the normativity of human acts merely by something extrinsic to the act itself (the consequences). Hence, they deny that there can be intrinsically evil acts. That, however, doesn’t mean that a moral philosophy that affirms intrinsic evils must totally disregard consequences- it just can’t give allow an intrinsic evil to be justified by its consequences. The issue at stake in our discussion is whether a given activity is an intrinsic evil (torture) or not. If its not an intrinsic evil then I am not a consequentialist when I say that consequences play a role in the goodness of badness of the act.
Phillip says:

February 7, 2008 at 9:07 pm

Thoughts on the person who wrote this:

“On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 22:18): “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live”; and (Psalm 100:8): “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land.”

I answer that, As stated above (1), it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man’s use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6).

Reply to Objection 1. Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

Reply to Objection 2. According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.

Reply to Objection 3. By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Psalm 48:21: “Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them,” and Proverbs 11:29: “The fool shall serve the wise.” Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6). “
Phillip says:

February 7, 2008 at 9:09 pm

Br.

Then Fr. Harrison may be right in stating that the consequence of defending the common good by the infliction of pain may make the act not torture?
Br. Matthew Augustine, OP says:

February 7, 2008 at 9:27 pm

Phillip,

Nope. Rather, Fr. Harrison seems to be saying some kinds of torture are intrinsically evil and others are not. At least thats what he seems to be saying.

…and consequences cannot change the nature of an act whose moral badness is determined my something intrinsic. The circumstances which are part of the definition of the act itself *can* change the nature of the act, but not extrinsic consequences.
Phillip says:

February 7, 2008 at 9:47 pm

So if the nature of torture is such that excludes interrogation in some way in its essence, then waterboarding terrorists would not be torture?
Phillip says:

February 7, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Also from St. Thomas, it seems one can inflict pain not for the good of the person, but for the common good.

“Reply to Objection 3. By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Psalm 48:21: “Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them,” and Proverbs 11:29: “The fool shall serve the wise.” Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast.”
Br. Matthew Augustine, OP says:

February 7, 2008 at 11:05 pm

Phillip,

I am puzzled as to your 9:47 PM comment. As for the 10:24 comment: yes, the infliction of pain can be done for the common good. This presupposes, however, that one is not inflicting pain by way of an intrinsically evil act. An intrisically evil act (which torture is) cannot be done, even for the common good.
Br. Matthew Augustine, OP says:

February 7, 2008 at 11:15 pm

…Moreover, this qoute of Aquinas hasn’t really weathered the test of time very well. While we can extract some useful principles from it, saying that someone in a state of mortal sin can lose their dignity and be treated as an animal doesn’t really jive too well with the way our Catholic worldview has developed.
Phillip says:

February 7, 2008 at 11:31 pm

That makes sense in light of Veritatis Splendor. Nonetheless, we can inflict the pain of death, even if it does not good for the individual on whom it is inflicted on. This is not torture but a morally licit act. Therefore it seems that the definition of torture cannot include inflicting pain that is not for the good of the person. Otherwise capital punishement would be morally licit and intrinsically evil at the same time. There must be another definition.
Michael J. Iafrate says:

February 7, 2008 at 11:39 pm

An action that is intrinsically evil is always evil by definition. It does not become so simply in the latter half of the Twentieth Century. If a recent pope wishes to decry torture as intrinsically evil, then the Church has a great deal of explaining to do regarding past popes and Church councils who not only used torture far more severe, not to mention lethal, than waterboarding, but also mandated its use in the fight against heresy.

The Church has explained it. The Church has admitted that its use of torture was wrong. Where have you been?

This is the teaching authority of the Church mandating torture in one era and then purportedly condemning torture in another era as always evil. That is a problem for all Catholics who believe, as I do, in the Magisterium.

It’s not a problem if you attempt to resist ecclesial idolatry, which you obviously are not able to do. The Church knows that she has made mistakes. Where have you been?
Phillip says:

February 7, 2008 at 11:44 pm

This is what we are trying to figure out. Capital punishement is not torture. Is inflicting pain for the common good in other settings, even if not for the good of the individual, also not torture? What have you not been listening to?
Donald R. McClarey says:

February 8, 2008 at 12:13 am

“The Church knows that she has made mistakes. Where have you been?”

Ever heard of indefectability of the Church Catholic Anarchist?

“Catholic Encyclopedia

Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further, that it will preserve unimpaired its essential characteristics. The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men. The gift of indefectibility is expressly promised to the Church by Christ, in the words in which He declares that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. It is manifest that, could the storms which the Church encounters so shake it as to alter its essential characteristics and make it other than Christ intended it to be, the gates of hell, i.e. the powers of evil, would have prevailed. It is clear, too, that could the Church suffer substantial change, it would no longer be an instrument capable of accomplishing the work for which God called it in to being. He established it that it might be to all men the school of holiness. This it would cease to be if ever it could set up a false and corrupt moral standard. He established it to proclaim His revelation to the world, and charged it to warn all men that unless they accepted that message they must perish everlastingly. Could the Church, in defining the truths of revelation err in the smallest point, such a charge would be impossible. No body could enforce under such a penalty the acceptance of what might be erroneous. By the hierarchy and the sacraments, Christ, further, made the Church the depositary of the graces of the Passion. Were it to lose either of these, it could no longer dispense to men the treasures of grace.

The gift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several part of the Church against heresy or apostasy. The promise is made to the corporate body. Individual Churches may become corrupt in morals, may fall into heresy, may even apostatize. Thus at the time of the Mohammedan conquests, whole populations renounced their faith; and the Church suffered similar losses in the sixteenth century. But the defection of isolated branches does not alter the character of the main stem. The society of Jesus Christ remains endowed with all the prerogatives bestowed on it by its Founder. Only to One particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. To Peter, and in him to all his successors in the chief pastorate, Christ committed the task of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Luke 22:32); and thus, to the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, “faithlessness cannot gain access” [Ep. lv (lix), ad Cornelium). The various bodies that have left the Church naturally deny its indefectibility. Their plea for separation rests in each case on the supposed fact that the main body of Christians has fallen so far from primitive truth, or from the purity of Christian morals, that the formation of a separate organization is not only desirable but necessary. Those who are called on to defend this plea endeavour in various ways to reconcile it with Christ’s promise. Some, as seen above (VII), have recourse to the hypothesis of an indefectible invisible Church. The Right Rev. Charles Gore of Worcester, who may be regarded as the representative of high-class Anglicanism, prefers a different solution. In his controversy with Canon Richardson, he adopted the position that while the Church will never fail to teach the whole truth as revealed, yet “errors of addition” may exist universally in its current teaching (see Richardson, Catholic Claims, Appendix). Such an explanation deprives Christ’s words of all their meaning. A Church which at any period might conceivably teach, as of faith, doctrines which form no part of the deposit could never deliver her message to the world as the message of God. Men could reasonably urge in regard to any doctrine that it might be an “error of addition”.”

As you believe that the Church has been wrong on the issue of Just War for 16 centuries, I can understand how you can blithely condemn anything in the past of the Church that doesn’t comport to your beliefs and prejudices. For us who view the Church as the Bride of Christ and Teacher and Mother, the idea that the Church commanded intrinsic evil for centuries poses a wee bit of a problem.
Br. Matthew Augustine, OP says:

February 8, 2008 at 12:53 am

Phillip,

You are assuming that ‘inflicting pain which is not for the good of the person’ must, in the context of a definition of torture, be what determines its moral badness. Gonna be away from the computer for awhile. E-mail me if you want to continue the discussion. You know where to find my e-mail address.
Jimmy Mac says:

February 8, 2008 at 12:56 am

“Was the Church mandating intrinsically evil acts when it utilized torture from circa 950-1870?”

YESSSSSSSSSS !!!!!

Just because the church did it does not make it, ipso facto, right, moral or proper!
Donald R. McClarey says:

February 8, 2008 at 2:20 am

“YESSSSSSSSSS !!!!!

Just because the church did it does not make it, ipso facto, right, moral or proper!”

In your opinion Jimmy Mac. Without the Church and its Magisterium that is all we are left with: individual opinion. I think that is one reason Christ gave us the Church, because He realized what a weak reed individual opinion is, as was amply demonstrated by His experiences while on Earth.
Morning's Minion says:

February 8, 2008 at 4:24 am

Donald:

Do you think Jews should be forced to wear distinctive clothing? If not, why not, because Fourth Lateran said so? Do you think Christians should be foirbidden by piloting ships owned by Muslims, or providing arms and wood for helmets? All there in Third Lateran.
Policraticus says:

February 8, 2008 at 5:32 am

Torture of course was utilized frequently by popes as rulers of the papal states, including Blessed Pio Nono. Were such popes engaged in intrinsically evil acts?

If they tortured people, then, yes, of course it was engaging in intrinsically evil acts. Being pope does not exempt one from culpability. Alexander VI was a fornicating pope. Does being pope make a difference here?

By the way, one of my major research papers was on Pope Pius IX’s evolving political views. I did not encounter one reference in any scholarship or primary sources to his use of torture. I’d love a citation not only to back up your point, but to fill in any holes in my research.

Oh, and Katerina knows the history of the Church quite well. My masters is in Church history, yet I think she knows much more than I do! Speaking of which…Katerina, how is that Patristics class going? Didn’t you also just complete a masters course in the history of the medieval and modern Church?
Michael J. Iafrate says:

February 8, 2008 at 3:50 pm

For us who view the Church as the Bride of Christ and Teacher and Mother, the idea that the Church commanded intrinsic evil for centuries poses a wee bit of a problem.

I too view the Church as the bride of Christ and Mother and teacher, etc. I have quite an ecclesiocentric theology myself. But I, unlike you, will not make the Church into a sinless idol, nor mindlessly equate “indefectibility” (which has a precise meaning) with sinlessness. If you cannot fathom the idea that the Church’s self-understanding changes over time, then take it up with the Magisterium itself which admits that the Church has done wrong in the past, including torture. If this poses a “wee” problem for you, then examine your own faith and your own theology of the Church. The latter, to me at least, seems awfully skewed.
Donald R. McClarey says:

February 8, 2008 at 6:18 pm

Michael Joseph, your comment about Alexander VI demonstrates that you miss the issue entirely. There is a world of difference between a pope engaging in sinful conduct universally condemned in the teaching of the Church, and for Church councils and popes over centuries to mandate the use of torture. Imagine if for several centuries popes and Church councils had mandated abortions in certain circumstances, and the impact of that on current teaching regarding abortion. The Church is ever a never-failing guide to Catholics or she is merely another fallible human institution.

Actually Catholic Anarchist, the Magisterium of the Church teaches that the Church, as opposed to the sinful members that make her up, can do no wrong. I assume that you were refering to the apology-thon that John Paul II engaged in during the latter portion of his papacy. I doubt if any of those would be confused with the Magisterial teaching of the Church and usually the late pope drew a distinction between the actions of sinful members of the Church and the Church herself. Pope Benedict addressed this issue in his speech to the Polish clergy in Warsaw on May 25, 2006.

“On the occasion of the Great Jubilee, Pope John Paul II frequently exhorted Christians to do penance for infidelities of the past. We believe that the Church is holy, but that there are sinners among her members. We need to reject the desire to identify only with those who are sinless. How could the Church have excluded sinners from her ranks? It is for their salvation that Jesus took flesh, died and rose again. We must therefore learn to live Christian penance with sincerity. By practising it, we confess individual sins in union with others, before them and before God. Yet we must guard against the arrogant claim of setting ourselves up to judge earlier generations, who lived in different times and different circumstances. Humble sincerity is needed in order not to deny the sins of the past, and at the same time not to indulge in facile accusations in the absence of real evidence or without regard for the different preconceptions of the time. Moreover, the confessio peccati, to use an expression of Saint Augustine, must always be accompanied by the confessio laudis – the confession of praise. As we ask pardon for the wrong that was done in the past, we must also remember the good accomplished with the help of divine grace which, even if contained in earthenware vessels, has borne fruit that is often excellent.”

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/may/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060525_poland-clergy_en.html
Donald R. McClarey says:

February 8, 2008 at 6:23 pm

Tony, please. As usual you are comparing apples to rock salt. Usually the popes were defenders of the Jews and protected their right to practice their faith throughout the Middle Ages. Now if for centuries popes and Church councils had decreed that Jews must convert to Catholicism under pain of death, then there would be the same radical disconnect between prior teaching and current teaching that we see between the practice of the Church in regard to torture from 950-1870 and the current claim by some Catholics that torture is intrinsically evil.
Michael J. Iafrate says:

February 8, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Actually Catholic Anarchist, the Magisterium of the Church teaches that the Church, as opposed to the sinful members that make her up, can do no wrong.

The Church most certainly does not teach that the Church can do no wrong.

What the Magisterium teaches is that the Church is both holy and in constant need of reform and repentance. Reform and repentance from what? Obviously, sin. The Catechism has an index entry which reads “Church, sinfulness of.” Look it up.

Of course, the holiness is part of the Church’s “essence,” while the sinfulness is a rejection of what the Church is in its deepest reality. But this teaching of the Church does not mean that the Church is not actually sinful in real life, corporately, as a betrayal of its holy essence.

You tend to have a reductionistic and simplistic ecclesiology. Fortunately the authentic teaching of the Church, most recently expressed at VII, is not so simple minded.
Michael J. Iafrate says:

February 8, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Of course in the Benedict quote above, he says nothing that would contradict the claim that the sins of individual members can indeed become systemic.
Jimmy Mac says:

February 8, 2008 at 9:41 pm

And the church without members is ………

How about non-existent for a start.
Michael J. Iafrate says:

February 9, 2008 at 1:13 am

Jimmy – Yes, the Church IS its members. This is what Donald can’t seem to understand.
HA says:

February 9, 2008 at 6:42 am

Note the way he uses consequentialism to change the argument. The Church says that torture is wrong in all circumstances.

The catechism, as cited by Fr. Harrison, does not say “in all circumstances”. He simply has correctly noted that extracting information to save a life is not mentioned in the lists that the catechism enumerates. As he also points out, the lack of any specific prohibition does not mean it is acceptable, which is why efforts such as his are all the more important.

Now, the only difference between “extracting confessions” and “extracting life saving information” lies in the consequences.

That’s not right either. The ticking-bomb scenario would play out the same regardless of whether the terrorist admitted to planting the bomb, and in such a case, a confession is clearly no longer an issue. The purpose – or object if you will — is to extract information that will save lives. Likewise, if I shoot an attacker or aggressor in the kneecap so that I may avoid shooting him through the heart, I’ve done him a service — yet if shooting people in the knee isn’t ordinarily considered torture, I don’t know what is.
Spirit of Vatican II says:

February 9, 2008 at 8:54 am

Nice to see clarity about the problem of church approval of torture in the past; according to Daniel Maguire past popes also approved of abortion. Biblical and magisterial fundamentalism on either topic takes us precisely nowhere. Rational natural law argument is required.

Vox Nova