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.

How about non-existent for a start.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.