Rob Vischer of Mirror of Justice reports the following purported statement from Deal Hudson:
“In addressing “torture,” Hudson put it in the context of the “just war” philosophy.
Hudson: As with just war theory, there must be a clear threat; there must be reasonable chance for success; there must be a reasonable use of force (in the case [of torture] death or impairment should never be the result), and the consequences should not cause greater harm.
Hudson further explained to me that “the precise issue is whether or not the state can inflict suffering in order to protect the common good. If we say ‘yes,’ the circumstances have to be tightly prescribed.
If this is true, and Hudson did indeed make this argument, then it has grave implications. He has fallen into the consequentialist trap, when the Church has unambiguously declared torture to be an intrinsically evil act, regardless of intent or circumstance. The analogy with just war teaching is off. The reason one cannot say upfront that all war is intrinsically evil is that some wars may be justified by circumstances. It so happens that these circumstances are more narrowly circumscribed that many Catholic war defenders are willing to admit, but the door is still open, even if slightly. It’s the same with the death penalty, but here the opening is so narrow that no case in the modern world would realistically make it through. But the door is firmly closed against torture. As an intrinsically evil act, you do not need to move onto the next phase of the moral calculus and ask about consequences. It is for this reason that a particular directly-procured abortion could not be justified by any appeal to circumstances, such as the woman’s health, material circumstances etc.
I wonder if Hudson is aware how serious this is. If he is thinking along these lines, then he is standing resolutely against the magisterium on a non-negotiable matter. Ironically, Hudson has been out in front demanding sanctions against those who publicly support abortion from receiving the Eucharist. And yet, if you interpret the appropriate canon in this manner– as I have argued before– than Hudson’s own manifest support for an intrinsically evil policy on this scale would also be grounds for banning him from communion. Not that I support that, mind you, but let’s please be consistent.
Very sad.
I would be careful with this — it seems like it is a bit of a conversation out of context (I traced it back to the original post here: http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=1348 ). I could see this as being used to say torture cannot be justified if one says “it will never be successful.” I am not saying it would be the best way to deal with it, but I could see it as “if you want to look at it like just war, it would need to follow the same requirements, and here it wouldn’t follow….”
So I would be cautious with this and consider it hearsay — and probably would be best to discuss the possible idea without names, because whether or not Deal would argue this, I am sure others would.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. It is sad to see this type of muddled thinking, particularly when so many seem to be susceptible to consequentialism.
(Except perhaps on the death penalty, there may be a few modern cases that might cut it, but I agree they would be exceedingly rare – OBL, perhaps?)
Well, the simply moral calculus is:
1) Torture is intrinsically evil according the magisterium of the Catholic Church. This means that evil is inclusive of all acts within this act-type (category).
2) War is a relative evil according to the magisterium of the Catholic Church. This means that evil is intrinsic to some acts (unjust wars) within this act-type while not intrinsic to others (just wars).
On this account, an act of torture does not enjoy the status of “just” because it meets some criteria, as an act of war may. Rather, there are no criteria for making torture just or moral.
I’m not saying it is a proper analogy (since I don’t agree with the analogy), but I can see someone, in discussion with one who did accept the analogy, “going with it” to see where it would lead. It’s why I don’t think we have enough of the conversation reported to know what is going on here. It would be the same reason why many people who do not think torture is ever acceptable still discuss whether or not it is effective, because it is that issue which wrongly convinces many for it to be acceptable. So it is best to point out the intrinsic error of torture, but also to show the self-contradiction of those who would argue as if it were like just war…
Is there a good explanation for this seeming inconsistency:
1) Torture is intrinsically evil according the magisterium of the Catholic Church.
-Therefore the legalization or support of these acts by our government must be adamantly opposed.
2) Abortion is intrinsically evil according the magisterium of the Catholic Church.
-Therefore the legalization or support of these acts must be accepted, and we must seek ways to make this evil act less frequently performed.
Dennis,
Nice.
Is there a good explanation for this seeming inconsistency:
Dennis,
Yes. It is not up to government to prohibit all intrinsically evil acts. Lies (including little white ones) and masturbation are intrinsically evil, according to Catholic teaching.
But there is a big difference between government permitting intrinsic evil and government committing intrinsic evil.
And why oh why does someone have to turn every thread into a discussion of abortion?
Dennis:
Don’t muddy the waters. This post is about the underlying morality of the act itself, and people who defend what should not be defended. The commission of an intrinsically evil act is always wrong, and abortion and torture are both heinous acts that are listed specifically together in Gaudium Et Spes among the evils of our time. Neither can be justified, ever.
Remember, people who get out in public and say either of these activities is awesome are guilty of formal cooperation in evil. I’m not saying Hudson is doing this, and, as Henry notes, there is some ambiguity over his remarks. But others are, including numerous contributors to National Review, Weekly Standard, and Fox News.
To an extent that is not the case with abortion, the acting moral agent in torture is the government. As has been made explicit with the debate on ESCR — when the government is doing it, as the representative of the people, with the resources of the people, well, that is a special problem.
And why oh why does someone have to turn every thread into a discussion of abortion?
Good question! One would think it’s the only moral issue out there…
I am sure there are other sources that state the Catholic position on torture with more clarity and detail, but this is what the Catechism says:
First, does this mean “torture that uses physical or moral violence” (as opposed to other methods) or does it mean “torture, which by definition is the use of physical or moral violence . . .”?
This could be read to permit torture to extract important information from someone who has an intent to do harm, since it does not specifically mention that kind of torture.
And if everything that is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity is intrinsically evil, then we have big problems.
“Hudson further explained to me that “the precise issue is whether or not the state can inflict suffering in order to protect the common good. If we say ‘yes,’ the circumstances have to be tightly prescribed.”
Such reasoning needs to be clarified by Deal Hudson in a public statement. One cannot help thinking that the torture memos are the precise instruments that would “tightly prescribe” the circumstances whereby the acts of torture would be permitted. If so, this is totally unacceptable.
Likewise, the American Catholic Bishops should weigh in on this controversy in an open letter to the American people. The gravity and immediacy of the issue requires they do so.
On torture, there should be no confusion whatsoever. Torture is wrong in all circumstances, regardless of the stated intention for wanting to commit the act.
Gerald,
Right, if that is his comment, it also needs an explanation. Because the word used was “suffering,” it doesn’t necessarily have to imply torture, though if used for torture, it would be equivocation going on and wrong.
“On torture, there should be no confusion whatsoever. Torture is wrong in all circumstances, regardless of the stated intention for wanting to commit the act.”
Agreed. Just as abortion, ESCR, euthanasia, and cloning are wrong in all circumstances, regardless of the stated intention for wanting to commit these acts.
The precise question is whether or not the state can grind up children, cook them, and serve them between kaiser rolls in order to feed the hungry. If we say ‘yes’, the circumstances – and, of course, the recipes – have to be tightly prescribed.
One of the differences between abortion and torture is that we have a clear definition of the former – the unborn child dies – but not the latter. No one asks “What constitutes an abortion?” but many wrestle in good conscience with the question, “What constitutes torture?” David Nickol’s citation from the Catechism gets us part of the way, I suppose, but I’m still left wondering where and how and where the line is drawn, especially with respect to specific acts.
So I’m not misunderstood, let me say I am all for an expansive definition of torture, and I would certainly include waterboarding in that description. And, I hasten to add, I make no apology for torture whatsoever. But some of the practices revealed in the recently released DOJ memos seem to beg the question, such as pushing someone into a flexible wall designed to create a loud noise. Are we any closer to a useful moral definition of torture. It doesn’t seem enough to me to simply say that, for instance, a U.S. Army Field Manual describes something as torture.
Henry,
Right. But “suffering” is a term Congress used to define torture. The Bradbury Memo I, page 2 says: “In defining the federal crime of torture, Congress required that a defendant ‘specifically intend to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering,” and Congress narrowly defined “severe mental pain or suffering to mean “the prolonged mental harm caused by” enumerated predicate acts, including “the threat of imminent death” and procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the sense or personality.”
The question is: What is the threshold at which intense suffering become torture? The memos from the Office of Legal Counsel pushed that threshold to an extreme in order to support preexisting policies and acts — including the attempt to force statements that would establish a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
So while “suffering” might appear to some to be benign, it actually plays a critical role in the entire controversy.
All the more reason for Deal Hudson to offer a detail clarification.
Gerald
Right, as I said, I think an explanation of those words would be proper and just. I can still see someone taking words out of context and using them for something else, so I think it is best to give the benefit of the doubt, though of course, those words can be and often are used for the sake of torture.
Mark
Actually, quite a few people ask, “What constitutes an abortion?” For example, I know many would say the “morning after pill” is not “an abortion” though I would strongly disagree with them. Others point out how many women have “spontaneous abortions” though others would not classify them as “abortion.”
Henry,
I agree. These allegations are too serious to be used wildly as a means to impugn a person’s character. It’s best to hold off on judgment until such time as Deal can clarify his thinking.
Given the grave nature of torture, and the disrepute of these memo, I’m sure he will respond soon and forcefully. Let’s hope he distinguishes himself.
Dennis,
David and MM have provided substantive answers to you question about the alleged inconsistency of my comment. To further clarify, my comment is about the moral status of the two acts, since Hudson is discussing moral value “just.” I did not intend to move into positive law or public policy.
Answering what constitutes torture doesn’t require us to grope in the dark or reinvent the wheel. We’re discussing a lot of interrogation techniques these days as if historical and legal precedent had nothing to offer.
MM-
I emailed Deal a link to your post, and he has put up this post over at Inside Catholic in response:
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_myblog&Itemid=127
Henry: Thank you for that. You are quite right about the question “What constitutes an abortion?” I hadn’t thought of those examples, probably because Catholic teaching on the subject is so voluminous and (to me anyway) clear. But it is not so with torture, perhaps because although there are a range of acts that could constitute torture, their effects vary, especially for what are considered “soft” measures.
Sleep deprivation, for instance. At what point does it become torture? 24 hours? 48 hours? Or is it simply when the person being interrogated announces that he is tired? Somewhere along the continuum from fatigue to cardiac arrest brought on by exhaustion we cross into the definition of torture. And if, as I believe, torture is an intrinsically evil act, then we ought to have some criteria for assessing what constitutes it. But maybe that’s not possible.
Kyle: Are you saying the moral question needs no further exploration? Fine. I’m willing to accept that. So, whose definition of torture is definitive?
Thanks, Feddie. I responded the Hudson as follows (Henry and Kyle Cupp also gave good responses):
—————————————
The argument that the Catechism deliberately exludes torture for gathering information is one used by Harrison, and it simply makes no sense.
As the Compendium notes: “International juridical instruments concerning human rights correctly indicate a prohibition against torture as a principle which cannot be contravened under any circumstances.” The “under amy circumstances” bit is tantamount to saying it is intrinsically evil, and those fobidden circumstances would include the much-touted ticking bomb scenario.
Remember, one must never do evil so that good might come of it, no matter how great the good. This would be consequentialism, and an appeal to Elizabeth Anscombe here is instructive — Anscombe (who coined the term consequentialism) denounced Truman as a war criminal for his use of nuclear weapons against civilian centers, and the fact that it may have saved lives by shortening the war is not relevant. For what matters from the moral perspective is the object of the act, the directly-chosen bevahior – and in the case of torture, it is precisely to treat the person as an object, to deny his intrinsic worth as a human being. This is what makes it non-negotiable.
No. I’m fine with continuing to explore moral questions. My point was that a lot of the questions about whether a given technique constitutes torture have been answered in our legal history. There’s historical precedent for calling many of these techniques torture.
“And if, as I believe, torture is an intrinsically evil act, then we ought to have some criteria for assessing what constitutes it. But maybe that’s not possible.”
Exactly when does enhanched interrogation become torture. When does the physical and mental intterogaton cross the line.
In some of these things its gets murky hen it goes past the hot button issue of water boarding
Yes. It is not up to government to prohibit all intrinsically evil acts. Lies (including little white ones) and masturbation are intrinsically evil, according to Catholic teaching.
Actually, lies are illegal in some circumstances, and so is masturbation. The government can’t step in with an enforcement action for any and all intrinsically evil acts, but that doesn’t mean that at least some level of law enforcement intervention isn’t called for. Intrinsicly evil is never good (by definition :))
Deal Hudson makes an argument I made above that the Catechism might be interpreted to rule out torture “to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred,” and that torture for other reasons might not be ruled out. I think the wording in the Catechism is ambiguous, and a lot depends on whether the “which” clause is restrictive or nonrestrictive. That is (to put it simply) is the meaning of the sentence fundamentally different if it is reduced to
Or is it really the intended meaning of the sentence not to condemn torture itself, but only certain kinds of torture, in which case the “which” clause is essential to the meaning.
I would just point out that if the passage is not taken as a blanket condemnation of torture, then it must be admitted that it does not rule out torture for sexual gratification, for scientific experiments to see how much a person can bear, for amusement, or just for the hell of it.
I think the only reasonable interpretation is that the cited passage from the Catechism is meant as a blanket condemnation of torture and is to be read as follows:
Commas would probably do, but I am using dashes to be absolutely clear.
Actually, lies are illegal in some circumstances, and so is masturbation.
jeremy,
And the same is true of abortion.
And the same is true of abortion
Must you make everything about abortion? ;)
Seriously though, can you think of an act considered intrinsically evil that shouldn’t be condemned by the force of the culture and the law? And in some cases, when the culture glorifies an intrinsically evil act, shouldn’t the law then be applied as a way to induce a shift in cultural attitudes?
shouldn’t the law then be applied as a way to induce a shift in cultural attitudes?
Fortunately, Torture is condemned by both the culture and the law, unfortunately some have twisted themselves into pretzels to parse the nuances of stress positions, water boardings, and beatings.
From the sound of it, torture is working it’s way through the system, and we will soon return to calling torture what it is. I wish the same could be said for all intrinsically evil acts.
To quote jh:
“ ‘And if, as I believe, torture is an intrinsically evil act, then we ought to have some criteria for assessing what constitutes it. But maybe that’s not possible.’
“Exactly when does enhanched interrogation become torture. When does the physical and mental intterogaton cross the line.
“In some of these things its gets murky hen it goes past the hot button issue of water boarding.”
What’s more important is not how far we can go without commiting a sin, but to avoid sin at all costs. This should always be the foundation when discussing whether an act is a sin or not.
Seriously though, can you think of an act considered intrinsically evil that shouldn’t be condemned by the force of the culture and the law?
jeremy,
I think it would be very difficult to find psychiatrists, psychologists, or any others that study human behavior who would say that masturbation in most cases was anything other than healthy and harmless. I would not want to see it condemned by culture or the law. The same is true of “artificial” birth control.
Since sex outside of marriage is (I believe) intrinsically evil, according to the Catholic view, it is adultery to divorce and remarry. I do not think it is the business of the law to enforce the Catholic view.
“Intrinsically evil” is a technical term in moral theology that has become “popular” because of the abortion debate. It is not a special category of evil civil law must deal with. There can be minor intrinsic evils that are far less serious than other “non-intrinsic” evils.
In my view, the term “intrinsic evil” should be confined to textbooks. See Kathleen Kaveny’s excellent articleIntrinsic Evil and Political Responsibility in America Magazine on the topic.
And yet it makes for lousy dinner conversation, can never be done in public, and can be considered harmful if done as a substitution in a marital relationship – hardly healthy and harmless in many cases. Perhaps confined to ones room mentally objectifying women in private might be considered harmless – depends where you draw the line.
Wouldn’t you say that divorce causes great disruptions in familial relationships? Don’t you think couples, especially those with children, should be strongly encouraged to work it out? I believe that the recent studies all confirm that couples who work through the hard times, rather than split, are markedly happier after 5 years.
So the real question is not should the law intervene, but how much should the law intervene. The law can be used to shape public attitudes – ‘no fault’ divorce did wonders for our society. Combine that with a libertine attitude towards sexuality – and you get a drastic uptick in single parent households – fast forward 20 years and you get a country that has to imprison an impressively large number of it’s population.
But at least torture is still illegal.
OK, will somebody tell me who Deal Hudson actually IS?
I’m pretty good at following controversialists in America, and I’ve seen him mentioned at Andrew Sullivan’s website, and I know he’s some kind of Catholic pundit, but what are his credentials, and has he written something of note that I’ve missed?
He was a former Baptist minister who was converted to Catholicism. He taught at Princeton University and left under a cloud of scandal. During the Bush years, he developed a close association with Karl Rove and assisted the White House in targeting Catholic voters to support Bush.
Digby,
I said above that Deal Hudson was at Princeton. This is incorrect. He was at Fordham Universtiy teaching philosophy. Here’s a link to an article in the National Catholic Reporter that describes his work as a Catholic activist:
http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bnHOLD081904.htm
How many folks have we heard say “I am not a big fan of torture, but…” which is effectively Hudson’s view.
Disgusting.
Will someone clarify for me, please?
I have heard it said that “Thou shalt not kill” in the Ten Commandments actually means, “Thou shalt not murder”; that is to say, thou shalt not wrongfully kill.
Killing is apparently not always wrong.
But why not? Is it not because of consequentialism? Isn’t God, to judge by the Ten Commandments, a consequentialist?
One can kill, apparently, in the defense of innocents. (As a last resort, of course. But torture, or even gray-area “enhanced interrogations,” are a matter of last resort.)
Why can one kill in the defense of innocents? Is it not because of the greater good which results?
I am not asking this to be snarky.
I am asking because I seriously do not see the objective difference (however repellent killing or frightening a person may be on an emotional level) between the intrinsic evil of causing death in the defense of innocent life, and causing fear in the defense of innocent life.
Or, rather, it seems to me that causing death is worse; that it is more likely to be intrinsically wrong.
I wonder if the Catholic Magisterium doesn’t have the argument bass-ackwards in this instance — which would disprove infallibility of course, in which case I’d have to drop out of RCIA and call my local Orthodox church for classes. (Not to raise the stakes or anything; I just want it clear that I’m taking this topic quite seriously.)
“I wonder if the Catholic Magisterium doesn’t have the argument bass-ackwards in this instance — which would disprove infallibility of course”
I will address only one of your points. If you are taking RCIA classes, I’d urge you to do some inquiry about infallibility: its history, meaning, limits and extent. Judging from your comment, you seem be reasoning on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of infallibility.
Gerald:
Thanks for your reply.
As I understand it, infallibility extends to a Magisterial teaching which is:
(a.) Not merely a matter of discipline which might alter in the future (e.g. unmarried priesthood)
(b.) Addressed to the Church universally
(c.) A matter of faith or morals
After that, though, I understand there are issues of solemn definition, promulgation by either the Pope or by Bishops in Ecumenical Council, and perhaps some other procedural requirements.
And, as I understand it, a teaching which is not a matter of discipline or infallible dogma can be regarded as a “prudential” judgment, meaning that as these are devout and usually intelligent and well-read men, one can’t disregard their opinions out-of-hand, but they can be wrong and it is not “excommunicable” to disagree with them.
Now it seems to me that those who’re criticizing Deal Hudson are saying:
(d.) He is favoring a consequentialist view of morality, and in defense of the use of “enhanced interrogation” for unlawful combatants;
(e.) The Catholic Magisterium specifically teaches
against consequentialism, and also equates “enhanced interrogation” with torture, and teaches against that as well;
(f.) Deal Hudson puts himself outside the Catholic pale, and risks excommunication (or, at minimum, makes himself a “cafeteria Catholic”) by doing so.
Okay. Let’s put all that together:
1. We’re not talking about a matter of discipline, here. We’re talking about a matter of morals, addressed to the Church as a whole. It is therefore either a prudential teaching, or it is infallible dogma.
2. Those criticizing Deal Hudson here seem to think it is infallible dogma. Or, at least, they are waving the Magisterial teaching of the Church around in such a manner as to suggest that his disagreeing with it (if he does) represents something more like a heresy, and less like a respectful disagreement between informed and intelligent persons.
3. They’re either right, or wrong, about it being a dogma.
If right, then my questions about whether the dogma is correct ARE pertinent to whether the Magisterium is, after all, infallible.
If they’re wrong, then it’s a good thing I brought it up, because now they can start admitting that Deal Hudson *can* hold consequentialist views, or allow for the moral permissibility of “enhanced interrogation” under extreme circumstances, without thereby becoming a heretic.
I’m in RCIA and have only been learning about these things for the last three years or so. So I’m aware I may have gotten some terms or details wrong in the above.
On the other hand, it regularly seems like I’ve read and remembered more about this stuff than (a.) every other RCIA participant this year, and (b.) a few of the deacons and laypersons who teach RCIA.
So if I’m way off-base here, please set me straight. But if I am, my defense is that it isn’t for any lack of earnestly trying to figure this stuff out.
Gerald, and others:
With respect to my original post, my focus is on consequentialism.
If the Catholic church infallibly teaches that consequentialism as a moral theory is wrong, why then either it’s wrong, or they’re not infallible.
As I understand it, consequentialism is the view that in determining whether a given action is morally permissible, one must consider:
(1.) What the act is, including all its circumstances;
(2.) The intention of the act;
(3.) The foreseeable consequences of the act;
…and if one has good intent, and if the goodness of the foreseeable consequences seem to outweigh the badness of the act, it is morally permissible to do that action, even if it would have been morally repugnant under other circumstances, or with other intentions, or if the consequences had been different.
I have been told in RCIA that consequentialism is incorrect; that there are certain acts which are *intrinsically* immoral, regardless of the circumstances, intentions, or foreseen consequences…that these acts are immoral in such a way that no change of circumstances, nor good intentions, nor set of consequences (no matter how beneficial) could ever make them licit.
Among these acts, I have been told, are the wearing of a condom during intercourse, and the use of “enhanced interrogation” tactics against self-identified Al Qaeda terrorists.
My response is: In both cases I think I can postulate circumstances, intentions, and foreseeable consequences which make either of these two actions obviously licit to a well-formed conscience.
By these counterexamples, I disprove the view that these acts are intrinsically immoral.
(I think.)
(But I’m longing to be proven wrong, ’cause I was kinda excited about becoming a Catholic, until I ran across these issues. And if the intrinsic immorality of these acts is “infallible” Catholic dogma, then I can’t, obviously, become a Catholic.)
BTW, I only brought up the condom thing because it’s another example of where the “consequentialist” label is trotted out. Please don’t accuse me of wanting to disprove this teaching because I want to contracept, and it’s all out of my selfish motives, et cetera. It’s not. I’m viewing this utterly without reference to personal circumstances.
Excelsior,
“(But I’m longing to be proven wrong, ’cause I was kinda excited about becoming a Catholic, until I ran across these issues. And if the intrinsic immorality of these acts is “infallible” Catholic dogma, then I can’t, obviously, become a Catholic.)”
The comment box is a rather poor place for me, or anyone, to discuss the intricacies of the questions you raise. So once again, let me say that the notion of “papal infallibility” (and I’m assuming that is what you are referring to here) has nothing to do with infallibility as you are using it above. It is quite different and on a different plane altogether.
The other questions you raise are a matter of utmost seriousness. So let me suggest that you please find someone — a theologian or a priest trained in philosophy & theology — who can make the necessary distinctions for you and then go on to provide a rationale that is compelling. It is best that this person explain your questions in a person so you and he can hash them out to your satisfaction. You should be satisfied at the end of the exchange. You should be given new insights that will reveal the truth hidden in the shadows. A few paragraphs written on this site will not lead you to the kind of understanding you need or seek.
From what you’ve said, you raise significant questions. They should not be glossed over by someone who is ill-equipped to answer them. Don’t be discouraged by someone who is doing their best but whose best is not good enough.
If you lived in the Washington, D.C. area, I would be glad to meet with you and help in whatever way I can. At the very least, I would be able to refer you to someone at Georgetown or Catholic University who could help.
It has been my experience that many individuals throw around terms like “consequentialism” and “intrinsic evil” without having the philosophical training to demonstrate how such terms proceed from fundamental principles (philosophy, metaphysics). They can’t really explain what is going on when these terms are used.
Likewise, they quote the Bible and the Catechism without being able to show the reasoning that lies behind the quotes. They use quotes as though they were footnotes to their own reasoning. But their reasoning not adequate to answer the questions you raise. In other words, they use these terms (consequentialism & intrinsic evil), or quotes from the Catechism, to STOP discussion, not to BEGIN it. You must be persistent. There IS a rationale that will satisfy your inquiry. Don’t give up. It is there. You will find it.
Please don’t consider these remarks to be an attempt to brush you off. I’m trying to give you some sound advice. Your skepticism is healthy. It will serve to deepen your faith and your life, since it is your conversion that is at issue. Remember: Catholicism must be able to stand up before all forms of skepticism. My experience thus far is that it does just that, especially if I struggle intellectually with the challenges I confront.
Excelsior – Sounds like in order to be consistent, you’d have to claim pacifism. That’s not a bad thing.
Gerald:
Thank you for your gracious reply.
Yes, I agree: Catholicism must be able to stand up before all forms of skepticism (provided it is an honest attempt to discern the truth, and not, to borrow from the old Monty Python sketch, mere contradiction, an automatic gainsaying of whatever the Church says).
I want the Truth, with a capital T. Truth, truth, truth. But it’s exhausting, and when the nearby parish’s catechists can’t quite answer a question, finding the answer elsewhere becomes frustrating.
Don’t get me wrong; they’re wonderful folk and I’m grateful for all the time they’ve spent with me. But I think they’re more used to nominal evangelicals who marry a Catholic and decide to convert for familial reasons; whereas I’d been intensely into Christian apologetics (from an Evangelical perspective) for twenty years by the time I started investigating the arguments for Catholicism and “read my way” half-way into the Church without even knowing a single Catholic soul.
So I don’t want just “a reasonably good case.” It’s easy to defeat misunderstandings and outrageous libels (e.g. Lorraine Boettner and Jack Chick, respectively). I got past the obvious misunderstandings three years ago, and never bought the outrageous libels to begin with.
What I want is to get the best-of-breed arguments against the Catholic Church, and the best responses, and decide on the basis of that. I want to ask C.S.Lewis why he remained Anglican. I want to get Norman Geisler and R.C.Sproul and J.I.Packer in a room with John Henry Newman and Fulton Sheen and Pope Benedict XVI (cum translator), and pop-quiz the lot of them until I’m satisfied.
(There, that’s not so much to ask, is it?)
I appreciate the offer to meet; but I’m in the Atlanta area and it’s a long way to shout!
But if you have suggestions for persons I could contact, well, I’d appreciate it.
BACK TO THE TOPIC:
I found the quote from the Catechism given above to offer helpful clarity:
“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.”
The debatable points here are:
(1.) What makes something “torture?” Permanence of injury? (If so, waterboarding ain’t torture.) Intensity of unpleasant sensation? (If so, an endlessly alternating playlist of Metallica and McCartney’s “Silly Love Songs” would be for a couple of hours is torture.) Or is it a matter of outrages to human dignity? (If so, playing a Britney Spears song, once, qualifies.)
(2.) Do all forms of “enhanced interrogation” constitute “torture?” Would the whole debate vanish if no waterboarding had ever been used?
(3.) Since the “enhanced interrogations” were never used to obtain confessions, to punish the guilty, to frighten opponents, or to satisfy hatred, but rather to obtain battlefield intel, does that mean there’s no problem?
(People keep applying the rules intended to prevent cops from using coerced confessions in court to the practice of coercing captured unlawful combatants into giving away their operational knowledge in wartime. They’re entirely different things.)
(4.) As someone already noted, will anyone really argue that government may never do anything that shows “a lack of respect for the person and human dignity?” If so, how can that phrase be defined so as to not include incarceration and, heck, taxation?
(5.) Are we trying to write the law toward captured *unlawful* combatants to be identical to the law toward captured *lawful* combatants? (It shouldn’t be, unless our goal is to incentivize terrorism.)
(6.) Are we trying to write the law toward captured unlawful combatants in such a way that it will *never* be morally wrong to obey? Or just so that it’ll be right 99% of the time, but will occasionally prohibit a morally right action? (Most human laws operate this way, hence opportunities for jury nullification, sentencing flexibility, exigent circumstances….)
(7.) As noted above, if causing extreme-but-temporary pain or fear is *intrinsically* wrong, even for the purpose of extracting battlefield intel from unlawful combatants, then isn’t killing the combatant even worse?
And if the wrong is *intrinsic*, not a matter of “consequences,” then it doesn’t matter if you’re killing him because he’s about to kill an innocent. (If consequences cannot justify an intrinsically evil act, then even the consequence of saving an innocent person is not sufficient justification for the initial killing.)
So, unless someone can argue persuasively that killing someone is less of an outrage against their human dignity than subjecting them to temporary pain or fear, it seems that the idea of a Just War requires consequentialism. All non-consequentialist Catholics are also, if they’re consistent, pacifists.
An alternative to pacifism might be to REALLY understand the meaning and significance of prudential judgment and what is entailed in making decisions within the context of a concrete ethics and an ethics based politics. Hot button moral issues in the U.S. are almost always discussed abstractly, as though objective reality and intentions don’t matter. Well, they do matter otherwise nothing is real. Let me explain.
Catholics who argued the Bush Administration’s early defense of the invasion of Iraq (Neuhaus, Novak, and Weigel) didn’t have the slightest clue as to the circumstances and intentions of such an attack. They knew nothing of the most proportionate calculus to direct and mobilize the wide-ranging elements of U.S. national power. They know not how to use those element with a view to bringing about a successful result. They knew nothing of the actual intentions of the U.S. government. They knew nothing of the circumstances on the ground, or the history of similar U.S. actions. These analysts just “whistled dixie” and were content to publish a sophistic display of logical abstractions, none of which had anything to do with the concrete decision-making process, or the Administration’s objective itself. Remember, even the Administration was unclear about its objectives.
Sadly, they got away with it. But that doesn’t change the fact that It was a disgusting display of narcissism. The outcome was tragic. This, in and of itself, is a strong indication that the means employed were disproportionate to the end. The means employed in any strategy will shape the outcome of the effort. A principle worth remembering is that military power can NEVER decide a political outcome. Period.
Likewise, take a look at the new army manual on counter-insurgency. It is flawed. Why? Because it assumes a heavy reliance on military power — a ratio of 10 to 1 counterinsurgency forces to one insurgent. Yet the only successful counterinsurgency operation in US history took place in the Philippines from 1948-1954. The strategy was put together by Ed Lansdale (my mentor) and it was 99% civic action. Lansdale’s use of a 99% political/civic action strategy managed to defeat a heavily armed, countrywide insurgency in the Philippines within 18 months of its inception. The Lansdale team used no US military forces whatsoever. The success of the operation still stands as a singular event in U.S. history. Its success still prevails 60 years later. You’ve heard of the phrase “hearts and minds”? Well, now you know its origins.
Lansdale, once told me: “If an insurgency is fought with weapons more lethal than a rifle, defeat is inevitable. As casualties mount, the people will quickly judge you to be their enemy.” This statement describes perfectly the American predicament in Vietnam and Iraq. Hopefully we won’t make the same mistake in Afghanistan. Hopefully!
Compare Lansdale’s strategy to the military operation in Vietnam, Iraq and (let’s hope not) Afghanistan. Both are presented in military terms. Let me offer a prediction: if the U.S. relies on a military strategy in Afghanistan — even if its called a counterinsurgency strategy — we will lose, just as we lost in Iraq and Vietnam. Military power will dominate the equation. Civilian lives will be lost. Hearts and minds will turn against us.
Don’t be deceived about Iraq. The aim in Iraq was political reconciliation. The current Iraqi government has rejected that aim, most recently within the last week. So the U.S. objective in Iraq has not been met. Nor will it be met without civic strife. Decisive civic strife will not happen until we are gone. After we are gone, there be a civil struggle to determine the outcome. Only then will a settlement of some kind result. But this settlement will be the outcome of a civil struggle, not political reconciliation.
A consideration of abstract moral principles, in and of themselves, is not an adequate guide for action. It reduces moral principles to a kind of template that ends up being akin to the worst kind of rationalistic ethics. Or it ends up looking like the corrupt scholasticism that existed for nearly two centuries prior to the Reformation, and was its occasion.
Let me make clear. The foregoing is not intended to be an argument against pacifism. Such is not my aim. I’m just saying there are other ways to do things than what we have become accustomed to seeing. From my perspective, it is good that pacifists judge U.S. policies to be at once inhuman, harmful, and indecisive. I agree with them that a sound policy must respect human dignity, individual freedom, and human solidarity. If it gives such respect, it will have a greater change of success over time. If it does not, it will always fail. This is the essence of Lansdale’s comment to me.
The offensive strategy that defeated the Soviet Union was essentially an information strategy. It was set in motion by Eisenhower within weeks of his assuming office on March 4, 1953. The aim was to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of a half billion people. To that end, the United States Information Agency was created in August, 1953 by an Act of Congress.
A few words on how public diplomacy works. One of the elements of national power that made up this political offensive was the Voice of America. Other elements of power include a wide range of educational and cultural exchange programs. These exchange programs were based on the concept that people-to-people relations are the critical element of national security. Almost every subject matter became an instrument of exchange, ranging from theology to music. There were around 150 initiatives of this nature, all were operational for nearly 60 years.
To illustrate, Willis Conover broadcast the story of American Jazz over the Voice of America two hours a day, six days a week, 52 weeks a year, for over 50 years! He broadcast to a daily audience of 100 million people who were willing to listen on their shortwave radios! Don’t forget: it was illegal to listen to the VOA in the Soviet Bloc.
Few people in America ever heard of Willis Conover, unless you were familiar with the ins and outs of jazz. But when he flew to Warsaw in 1987 (I believe that was the year) 100,000 Poles turned out to meet him at the airport. That outpouring of humanity is a testimony to the credibility of him and the VOA. Like one listener remarked: “Listening to Willis Conover’s broadcasts was like experiencing a little bit of freedom. Jazz, Conover taught, is the authentic language of freedom.
The notion that American military and economic power defeated the Soviet Union is simply nonsense. Yet it prevails. U.S. economic and military might could never explain why 2 million young people met in one place on one morning at one time in Prague and overthrew the Husak regime. The Soviet Union and its East European Empire was defeated by a political/information strategy designed to inspire hearts and minds. The elements of U.S. military and economic power were used primarily in terms of containment and deterrence. But the decisive element of U.S. national power that brought an end to the Cold War rested with America’s ability to reach out to captive hearts and minds. Eventually, those captive individuals were transformed into a strategic Fifth Column that rose up and, without violence, threw the rascals out.
It is ironic that the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty have the capacity to explain the collapse of the Soviet Union but U.S. economic and military power does not. Think about that for a moment!
Mr. Campbell, your explication of the true sources of “American power” is absolutely brilliant.
Following precisely from what you’ve written here, doesn’t it follow logically that when Muslims and other people in the developing world see the officials of the United States Central Intelligence Agency using a “torture policy” which, speaking practically, has been PROVED NOT TO WORK, the damage done to our defense forces everywhere in the world arises precisely BECAUSE we are being perceived to use a method that, strictly speaking, does NOT defend us, and can be assumed, then, to arise out of vindictiveness, racist attitudes of superiority, or, perhaps–as in the instance of the actual policy in Iraq–to misrepresent to their own people the REASONS for invading a country?
In other words, isn’t the IMPRACTICALITY of the torture policy as much a part of its immorality as the IMPRACTICALITY of certain wars is a part of their being “unjust”?
If you in America will not act to defend the Geneva Conventions, we in Europe will:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-29/prosecution-of-bush-six-back-on/p/