http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-29/prosecution-of-bush-six-back-on/p/

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”?

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!

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.

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.

“(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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

Disgusting.