For the Folks At EWTN…
..and especially for Fr. Sircio and Raymond Arroyo who seem to think that Obama speaking at Notre Dame is a greater moral evil than the United States torturing people. I single out the United States, for I doubt they would equivocate over torture being a “prudential judgment” that might be licit if done by a “competent authority” or “depending on circumstances” if (say) the Khmer Rouge were the acting agent. No, this is a sad attempt by those on the Catholic right to align themselves not only with a secular partisan movement, but also with the interests of American nationalism and the security state.
A few months back, John Carr of the USCCB made the following crystal-clear points about the Church’s approach to torture, and Sirico and Arroyo need a little education, so it seems:
“I’m honored to be part of this very distinguished panel. I have an exalted title as Executive Director of Justice, Peace and Human Development, but we cannot have justice, peace and human development when our nation advocates and practices torture. There has been a lot of discussion in Congress, CIA, White House, newspapers and even television expressing confusion, dismay, disagreements, and doubts over whether torture can be used or justified.
The Catholic Church has no such doubts when it comes to torture. Torture is abhorrent and can neither be condoned nor tolerated. Pope Benedict XVI has said that “the prohibition against torture ‘cannot be contravened under any circumstance.’” Simply put, torture is a classic moral case of ends and means. Good ends cannot legitimize immoral means. In the context of torture, we cannot defend our life and dignity by threatening the lives and attacking the dignity of others.
The moral test in economic life is how we treat “the least of these,” according to the parable of the Last Judgment in St. Matthew’s Gospel. It may not be biblical but it is also true that the moral test in this area is how we treat the “worst of these” – those who would violate all boundaries in their attacks on us.
Torture is morally wrong because it debases human dignity, which is God-given, not earned by good behavior. Respect for human dignity is a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church. In their November 2007 statement assaults the dignity of human life, it is “intrinsically evil” (No. 23), one of very few action to be labeled “intrinsically evil.”
The Catholic bishops went on to state in fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person and ultimately counterproductive in the effort to combat terrorism” (No. 81).
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has consistently and strongly opposed torture in a long series of letters to Congress and the Administration, in public statements, and in a Catholic study guide entitled “Torture in a Moral Issue,” produced in collaboration with the National Religious Campaign Against Torture. We fully support this common call for an early and effective Presidential Executive Order banning torture as it would help restore the legal and moral credibility of the United States in the international arena.
In less than a week, President Obama takes office. We have areas of agreement and differences. But we hope that he will take this important step to promote a culture that respects life. In the end, this is not about them, the detainees – they have made their choices. This is about us – who we are, what we believe about human life and dignity, and how we act as a nation.”
It seems from the behavior of EWTN that the cafeteria is wide open on the right. But this is quite possibly more serious than the standard issues on the left, which usually have to do with issues of sexual morality — sixth commandment issues. Torture in the other hand is a fifth commandment issue — that is how it is treated in the Catechism. Gaudium Et Spes lists it up there with the most serious sins, right after murder, genocide, abortion, and euthanasia.
When Biden and Pelosi made stupid comments challenging the Church’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion, the episcopal reaction was swift, loud, and stern. Will we see a similar reaction to this equally grave distortion of Church teachings?
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
Biden and Pelosi are slightly more public figures than some EWTN analysts, and they made their comments on a much more public stage (Unless EWTN can compete with Meet the Press).
I imagine that the bishops may take the course of private reprimand in this case, which I think is a wise course of action.
News reporters sometimes need to say things just to get the story out.
My only complaint with Raymond Arroyo is that he could be a little more masculine while on TV. Maybe he could use Anderson Cooper as a model.
Michael: Sirico is a priest, a priest speaking in a public pulpit. Should not the bar be a bit higher?
The USCCB Committee on International Justice and Peace, one of the committees that guide the work of John Carr’s department, was pretty vocal on the subject of torture under Bishop Wenski’s chairmanship. I suspect its relative silence now is due to the new administration being in general agreement with the Church.
Individual bishops may comment on torture now that the topic has flared up again, and I wish they would, but that may require the debate to shift from what was done in the past to what should be done in the future.
My complaint is that Raymond ruined my graduation commencement selling his book on Mother Angelica and that whoever does his makeup is horrible, too much blush.
I almost never agree with Morning’s Minion, but I do on this.
Minion:
I didn’t say the bar was lower. I think they probably deserve a good charitable thrashing by their bishop. But I don’t know if needs to be public, at least yet. If they refuse to change, then a public demand might be made. I’ll leave to the bishop to determine how to shepherd in this case, and I think we should be willing to let him determine the prudence in this case without judging him if he doesn’t act the way we want. I just caution against those kinds of demands upon our episcopacy.
Besides, I think Pelosi and Biden had both been privately told to change their positions.
Gary Keith Chesterton:
Nice name. If that real or a pseudonym? If it’s real, then you had some of the coolest (or nerdiest, depending on your perspective) Catholic parents around!
My complaint is that Raymond ruined my graduation commencement selling his book on Mother Angelica and that whoever does his makeup is horrible, too much blush.
LOL!!!
Michael: Sirico is a priest, a priest speaking in a public pulpit. Should not the bar be a bit higher?
YES, the bar should be higher. You would think he had more education than Pelosi and Biden.
Didn’t he ruin some people’s enjoyment of the papal mass? I am trying to remember — wasn’t he the one?
Why does this seem like a semantics game from the Catholic Left? The interrogation techniques most recently employed by the U.S. are simply *assumed* to be torture by the Catholic Left, when that would seem to be precisely the question at hand.
The question does NOT appear to be whether torture is ok — rape rooms, Pears of Anguish, teeth-pulling, etc. have all been rather uniformly condemned (even by those on the rubber-hose right). I don’t think anyone on EWTN was claiming that filleting a person as punishment or to extract information would fall into the category of being merely “a prudential judgment.”
Rather, it seems that it is a question of whether the techniques most recently employed constitute torture or “enhanced interrogation” — because true enhanced interrogation is not intrinsically evil. Using a bright light (ala film noir cop scenes) to make a suspect uncomfortable — enhanced interrogation. Giving suspects fluids and no bathroom breaks (ala Law & Order SVU) — enhanced interrogation. Depriving them of sleep — probably enhanced interrogation, but (depending on duration) debatable depending on several relative and subjective factors. Uncomfortable chairs? Well…how uncomfortable? Again, it’s debatable. It’s not exactly clear where one starts and the other begins, even if we’re able to clearly differentiate extremes.
However, simply placing the label “torture” on the techniques most recently used and then accusing those you don’t agree with on the Catholic Right of “approving of torture” in contravention to Magisterial guidance just seems … well … intellectually dishonest. Think you could clear this up a bit? Thanks.
God Bless,
Ryan
The interrogation techniques most recently employed by the U.S. are simply *assumed* to be torture by the Catholic Left, when that would seem to be precisely the question at hand.
The USCCB, Vatican, UN, various European powers, experts in international law, and our own State Department when the purposes suit call these acts torture. Perhaps they are all liberal Catholics. More likely they are competent to speak to this topic unlike some American in front of his keyboard that assumes his ideological heroes are pure. There is a term for what you are doing and it is called sophistry.
The question does NOT appear to be whether torture is ok — rape rooms, Pears of Anguish, teeth-pulling, etc. have all been rather uniformly condemned (even by those on the rubber-hose right).
I’m afraid this increasingly isn’t true (see here for example). If you look at the arguments typically used to justify so-called “enhanced interrogation” there’s no reason why the same arguments would justify using torture in some cases as well, and when I’ve pressed friends in conversation on this, they usually end up admitting that yeah, okay, they would favor torture too in similar circumstances. To the extent there is a semantic dodge going on here, it would seem to be emanating from the right rather than from the left.
Ryan,
Sure.
First of all, I’m not aware of any authoritative statement by the Church approving “coercive interrogation techniques” — your argument *assumes* this to be not just a legitimate moral position but one that would be approved by the Church.
Second of all, I don’t think there are any compelling or legitimate arguments to be made that the actual techniques we’re talking about here are anything but torture.
Does that help?
M.Z.,
Because I want only to think with the Church, would you mind terribly providing links to where the USCCB and the Vatican have unequivocally called waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and forced nudity torture? I am more than willing to listen to my shepherds — if they have definitively spoken I will conform my understanding thereto.
However…if they have not spoken unequivocally with specificity regarding what *is* and what *is not* torture, would you agree that with regards to most of these acts it’s a matter of degree and in many cases is both relative and subjective? (If that is the case, though, it would appear that too broad a brush has indeed been used to paint the opposition…)
God Bless,
Ryan
@Paul,
I believe acts, like people, should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Does that help clarify my position?
I’m not opposed to the acts being defined as torture, but I AM opposed to their definition as an a priori assumption with which to bludgeon the opposition.
God Bless,
Ryan
Oh, and M.Z., having seen what they have historically produced, I’m not terribly interested in the opinions of the “UN, various European powers, experts in international law, [or]our own State Department.” Semper sentir cum ecclesia is my motto.
I recently heard someone weigh on this debate. I thought what he had to say was quite counter-cultural but extremely compelling:
“But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those you curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
Ryan,
I’m not assuming anything, I’m coming to a conclusion based on my familiarity with the techniques and the history of their use.
And I have no interest in hitting you over the head with anything.
Catholic Audio,
Oh, and M.Z., having seen what they have historically produced, I’m not terribly interested in the opinions of the “UN, various European powers, experts in international law, [or]our own State Department.” Semper sentir cum ecclesia is my motto.
But somehow John Paul II was deeply interested in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“It was precisely outrages against human dignity which led the United Nations Organization to formulate, barely three years after its establishment, that Universal Declaration of Human Rights which remains one of the highest expressions of the human conscience of our time.”
And Pope Benedict XVI seems to also be impressed by such document:
“This reference to human dignity, which is the foundation and goal of the responsibility to protect, leads us to the theme we are specifically focusing upon this year, which marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document was the fruit of a convergence of different religious and cultural traditions, all of them motivated by the common desire to place the human person at the heart of institutions, laws and the workings of society, and to consider the human person essential for the world of culture, religion and science.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/nyregion/18popeatun.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2
Paul,
Roger that. My question remains: is there anything more than your “familiarity with the techniques” or your understanding of “the history of their use” which makes you slap on these techniques the label of “always torture under every possible circumstance”? In short, why should I believe you and not the rubber-hose right?
It appears clear that the very same act done with more force or for a longer duration can BECOME torture when it otherwise isn’t. It’s the *otherwise* part I’m concerned with — can waterboarding/sleep deprivation/forced nudity/etc. ever be *not* torture? Moreover, is there any Magisterial (i.e., official USCCB or Vatican) authority you can point to for the truth of the proposition?
…because all I’ve heard so far is “because I say it is.”
Again, I’m totally willing to believe, no guile involved…I just need to be shown where the hierarchy has said that I should.
@Katerina,
I’m familiar with the document, I agree it is very nice, and I particularly agree with the first sentence of the preamble.
In response, however, I’d ask what either Holy Father thought about the UN’s position on so-called ‘reproductive freedom’ and/or the food-for-condoms AIDS reduction programs? The UN is a mixed bag and not, to use the phrase of a poster above, an alternate Magisterium. Please don’t play gotcha’ games with me again. K.Thx.Bai.
God Bless,
Ryan
Catholic Audio,
In response, however, I’d ask what either Holy Father thought about the UN’s position on so-called ‘reproductive freedom’ and/or the food-for-condoms AIDS reduction programs? The UN is a mixed bag and not, to use the phrase of a poster above, an alternate Magisterium.
Yes, the UN is a mixed bag. The U.S. government is a mixed bag. The European Union is a mixed bag. Every secular institution will be a mixed bag. And what are we going to do about it? Dismiss them completely? Dismiss any good that they may have done? How are we going to engage the culture, transform the world if we dismiss the same institutions we are supposed to transform?
Please don’t play gotcha’ games with me again. K.Thx.Bai.
Then act like you know the documents, because surely if the popes thought the UN was worth their time and consideration then it is OK for us as LAY people to do the same, right?
It is interesting to see some Catholics trying to figure out how much inhuman treatment interrogators can get away with before it becomes torture. Is the point to get right up to the line of torture — as close as is humanly possible — without crossing it? Is that how Catholics obey the teachings of the Church?
The United States after WWII convicted some Japanese solders for waterboarding Americans, and some of those soldiers were hanged. Perhaps Bush should have granted them all pardons before he left office, if waterboarding is not torture.
It is absolutely clear that waterboarding is torture when somebody else does it to Americans. It’s not clear that it is torture when Americans do it to somebody else. Interesting how that works.
David,
Point taken.
That said, I trust you believe that when a cop stands while a suspect is seated during questioning, the intentional intimidation inherent in the situation is utterly beyond the pale…right? No police interrogation room should intentionally be placed above or below 72 (+ or – 2) degrees…correct? Those would be silly rationalization of intrinsic evils…am I understanding your position?
…’cuz American cops do exactly that every day and no one bats an eye. Are they war criminals by your logic or would you agree that there’s a matter of degree that’s being glossed over?
Look, I’m not saying waterboarding is kosher and I’m not saying we should be doing it (I’m inclined to think we shouldn’t). I’m just saying that from where I sit there appears to be an awful lot of intellectual dishonesty associated with the subject, this post notwithstanding — and so far no one has helped clear the matter up for me.
God Bless,
Ryan
@Katrina,
Yes, the UN is a mixed bag. The U.S. government is a mixed bag. The European Union is a mixed bag. Every secular institution will be a mixed bag.
Right. That’s why I asked for Magisterial statements. I’m still waiting, by the way.
…surely if the popes thought the UN was worth their time and consideration then it is OK for us as LAY people to do the same, right?
No, actually. Again, too broad a brush. The Universal Declaration is fine, and perfectly in line with the teachings of St. Thomas as implemented by Francisco de Victoria, but what of the other things? Condoms for food? Abortion on demand? No. If they’re not informed by Catholic social thought, lay Catholics do not owe the things produced by the UN any time or consideration.
Since no one has pointed me to a document which goes beyond saying “torture is bad” (in however many words) to define with any degree of non-subjective particularity what torture *is* and *is not*, I see no reason why I should be forced to accept the UN’s definition.
Again, I’m willing…no, I WANT…to listen to my shepherd and be conformed to his teachings. At this point, however, I don’t see that I need to eat the current ration of pablum being served — and I’m sure you’ll forgive me for not bending my knee to Vox Nova or the UN because of it. Give me practical guidance from the Magisterium and I’ll submit. Without it, I’ll continue to cry foul and intellectual dishonesty on the part of the Catholic Left.
God Bless,
Ryan
You seem to think that I should be able to pull up VS or some similar document and put you to a sentence that says “Sleep deprivation for 30 days is torture.” You aren’t interested in truth, and I for one am not going to play your game. In addressing people and regimes that have tortured, the USCCB and Vatican have been consistent.
You can cry intellectual dishonesty until you are blue in the face. I’m not interested in appeasing your magisterium of one.
I have a funny feeling that you would not be quibbling with definitions if the Iran or Syria or Al Al Qaeda or the Taliban did it, would you? No, you would denounce the evil act for what it is.
And the Red Cross said clearly that it was “torture”.
Because I want only to think with the Church, would you mind terribly providing links to where the USCCB and the Vatican have unequivocally called waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and forced nudity torture?
This is like asking the Vatican (would the magisterium do?) to list all acts that are unequivocally prayer or sexually immoral. The Church gives us the form of torture, and as reasonable agents we can identify which material actions bear that form (see below for the form). What’s even more problematic with your statement is that it seems that you are saying that unless the Church itemizes every kind of torture, then you will not admit that there are any acts of torture apart from this list. This would mean that you hold that the Church’s condemnation of torture is empty and pointless since it lacks any examples. This is manifestly absurd, and it seems to stem not from any real fidelity to or knowledge of Church authority but from a pre-conceived position on things like water-boarding, sleep deprivation, etc. If that’s true, then why posture as a magisterium-yielding Catholic? Just admit that you are an ideologue. You ask for non-subjective evaluation, yet your resistance to admitting that certain acts are torture is, well, just plain subjective.
No, actually. Again, too broad a brush. The Universal Declaration is fine, and perfectly in line with the teachings of St. Thomas as implemented by Francisco de Victoria, but what of the other things? Condoms for food? Abortion on demand? No. If they’re not informed by Catholic social thought, lay Catholics do not owe the things produced by the UN any time or consideration.
So you concede Katerina’s point: the output of the UN is not to be totally rejected but is, at least on rare occasion, good and proper. I’m glad to see you have come around on this.
Since no one has pointed me to a document which goes beyond saying “torture is bad” (in however many words) to define with any degree of non-subjective particularity what torture *is* and *is not*, I see no reason why I should be forced to accept the UN’s definition.
This is a bizarre claim. Since the modes of torture are wide, varied, and invented, how could we expect the Church to provide an exhaustive list of these modes? The Church has provided us with the essential features of torture (i.e., its form) which we use to identify specific acts of torture (the documents are Veritatis Splendor 80 and Gaudium et spes 27). However, the Church defines torture formally (i.e., what makes an action torture):
1. violation of human dignity in the form of
2. intentional mental and/or physical harm in order to
3. use a human person as a means (or instrument) for some producible end
4. against that person’s will.
That’s the form of torture, and any material action that bears that form is intrinsically evil, plain and simple.
Without it, I’ll continue to cry foul and intellectual dishonesty on the part of the Catholic Left.
What’s this “Catholic Left” business other than a superfluous label that distracts from the relevant discussion. I (and others here) quote from official papal and conciliar teachings on moral issues, so describing our position on torture as “Left” is bizarre and idiosyncratic. Now, the UN declaration on human rights simply illustrates an example of moral judgment, so we can put the UN declaration aside. Also, we can put aside your euphemisms such as “interrogation techniques,” which is too abstract to be of any use to us.
You demand magisterial documents. Now you have them. Can your next response be delivered without reference to “Left and Right” and without abstract, imported terms? Perhaps you should demonstrate some familiarity with Church teachings and use the language of the magisterium so that we can all stay on track and have a fruitful discussion.
Just to save time, Ryan, you might go here and be sure to memorize *all* the strategies available to you to avoid the bleedin’ obvious. The Dictionary Game, in which the torture excuser feigns deep interest in trying to figure out what O what torture *is* (while rejecting every conceivable attempt at definition offered and either refusing to provide his own, or providing one which excludes even 183 waterboardings as torture) is but one item out of the rich treasure trove of evasions, sophistries, red herrings, lame excuses and outright lies available to the Catholic determined to square the actual practice of torture by the Bush Administrattion with the circle of obvious and plain Catholic teaching.
Policratus, Katerina, my hat’s off to you.
Ryan, I think Mark is right: you’re getting beat, and for good reason. Sometimes the best debate move is to stop talking (typing).
Obama being honored by being granted a degree: this is an affront because of his votes, his statements, his appointments as regards the sanctity of human life. Torture has nothing to do with it. President Bush has nothing to do with it. It is an affront because of what the USCCB statement calls for in a Catholic college and because of what Obama has said and done. Whatever Arroyo said has nothing to do with it. You are just trying to evade the truth by changing the focus.
@Policratus,
I appreciate your attempt to instruct me, and I’m not trying to be sarcastic or ironically hip. I mean it. It’s helpful, and I believe I may be moving towards some clarity on the topic. I actually AM open-minded about the subject and have made no judgments about what I think ought to be allowed. (Though, to be frank, I’d tend to agree with Mark that 183 times smacks not only of torture, but of a sadistic streak beyond contemptible. But that’s my gut not my head.)
Now…I don’t need a list, really, but more a syllogism or definition which would let me determine with some specificity where the line is. For example, the moral maxim that “it’s always morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human” gets me to eliminate abortion, euthanasia, targeting civilian populations in wartime and the killing of embryonic humans for cures/perfect babies. I don’t need a “magic list from the Vatican” because I have the maxim. I can extrapolate if given sufficient data.
What you’ve given me is the following:
1. violation of human dignity in the form of
2. intentional mental and/or physical harm in order to
3. use a human person as a means (or instrument) for some producible end
4. against that person’s will.
Now this is good because it gets me closer to a definition. Unfortunately, it isn’t very well defined. While I have a general idea, I don’t have a great definition for “violation” or “harm” — harsh words might qualify, and I think we can all agree that that’s dumb.
I hate to test your patience, but I don’t suppose there’s anything more specific?
Oh, and I’ve used “Catholic Left” and “Catholic Right” because that was the language of the original post. I’ve used cumbersome circumlocutions like “interrogation techniques most recently employed” in order to try and avoid prejudicing my thinking by coloring the discussion with language suggesting a conclusion.
@Sam: you compete for material goods; it’s there that you win or lose. Spiritual goods multiply when shared. I’m trying to seek wisdom, and if I gain it it’s not to the detriment of anyone else. If I give it I lose nothing. In short, it’s not about getting beat — it’s about sanctification and growth in the knowledge of truth. I’m just trying to think with clarity.
@Mark: I’m a fan of your writings and I know you’ve been around the block on this one. I’m not a torture apologist and I’m not a Bush fan. Please don’t treat me like “the opposition” — I’m Ryan. I’m an individual and I’d appreciate being treated like one. No hard feelins. ;0)
God Bless,
Ryan
Ryan:
Fair enough. Thanks.
I wouls look forward to MZ and MM praising EWTN when it does something well which it has many many times in the past. But of course that will never happen. What a disappointing mean spirited one sided blog.
one sided blog
The same could be said for EWTN, though, Kevin: I watch occasionally, and enjoy “the Journey Home” and Daily Mass and Exposition and Benediction, among other programs; that said, I have noticed that when EWTN speaks on issues that intersect politics, the issues they choose tend to be conformed to the narrative that American conservatism uses.
There is plenty on abortion, for example. I have no complaint with that, per se, of course; but where’s the voice for workers, say, or against corporate greed and exploitation? Where’s the voice for the poor, for the distraught residents of our ghettos? Against torture, or unjust war, or racism?
To the extent that EWTN even addresses those other issues, they do so from pretty Republican premises and frames of reference.
It would be nice if there was a “Social Justice hour,” say, or some program highlighting people who are working for non-violent social change in Latin America and elsewhere.
It seems to me that EWTN speaks to and is aimed at Catholics who are politically conservative, rather than the full spectrum of Catholics in America.
“But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those you curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
Who said that? Sounds gay. Certainly not an American.
I’ve been posting on this at The American Catholic
http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/05/02/catholic-statements-on-torture/
Have a look if you like.
Like you said Matt Talbott, you “occasionally” watch programming that is on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week so you really don’t know what you are talking about. I’ve seen everything you claim is never carried addressed either in stand alone shows, as topics of discussion, or as segments in weekly variety subject type shows. But then I actually watch the station.
Mayo – You’re right, I guess, in that I’ve not made a project of studying every instant of programming on EWTN – but I tune in often enough to have a sense of the breadth of the programming there, and nothing I have seen has really challenged my assertions above.
I wouls look forward to MZ and MM praising EWTN when it does something well which it has many many times in the past. But of course that will never happen. What a disappointing mean spirited one sided blog.
It is one-sided and mean-sprited to point out that a Catholic news organization is defending an instrinsically evil act??
My disposition is generally not to heap praises upon ordinary and expected behavior. If I’m criticizing a party’s behavior, it is generally because my expectation is that they should act otherwise. If I’m praising a party’s behavior, it is often because I’m pleasantly surprised.
Will we see a similar reaction to this equally grave distortion of Church teachings?
I really doubt it.
Catholic Audio said: “Again, I’m willing…no, I WANT…to listen to my shepherd and be conformed to his teachings”
Assuming his shepherd is Jesus Christ, the following statements might be helpful, although I cannot provide footnotes from papal documents to support them:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practices without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”
I apologize for not providing Catholic Audio with chapter and verse from papal statements. I have only this humble Gospel stuff to fall back on. No doubt that makes me a fool.
If Catholic Audio can imagine Jesus pouring water into his mouth to drown him, kicking him in the kidneys, turning dogs on him, breaking his bones, confining him to a small box for weeks on end, or driving him slowly insane by solitary confinement, but just calling it “enhanced interrogation,” then Catholic Audio is free to worship that Savior.
But he certainly does not have the right to ridicule those who do not see Jesus Christ as a violent master who embraces the idea that the end justifies the means, and to demand specific proofs that individual acts are specifically condemned by the Bishop of Rome.
Really now, is that what we have come to? Have we no sensus fidelium? Is there no natural law, no conscience? It is appalling that we even need to defend a sense of common human decency that even an atheist can discern.
Deacon, Charles, et al.,
Yes, yes. Our Lord said ‘do unto others.’ I realize that, thankyouverymuch.
Such answers are, unfortunately, lacking. We are not pacifists. If pacifism is what you prize above all else, go join the Amish. Trite oversimplifications of Our Lord’s words and our Most Holy Tradition are not helpful.
The question isn’t ‘What Would Jesus Do,’ but rather ‘what means may a government licitly employ to defend its citizens against a hidden threat in light of Divine Revelation as conveyed through Sacred Tradition.’ Just because I can’t see Jesus personally employing capital punishment doesn’t mean it’s necessarily immoral for a state to do so — quite the contrary, actually. Same goes for bayonetting the enemy, Simon Peter’s ear-clipper notwithstanding.
However, AGAIN Morning Minion has assumed the answer to the question at hand by stating the following:
“…Catholic news organization is defending an instrinsically evil act??”
The correspondent for EWTN was presumably defending acts which have YET TO BE DEFINED as torture per se, not torture as such. It’s intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise and it’s not a fitting argument for the crowd alleged to be the cream of the heady Catholic intellectual crop. Once a legitimate definition has been afforded which includes with some specificity the acts performed on the folks at Gitmo, after THAT point defenders could rightly be denounced for “defending torture” — not until.
I, for one, would LOVE to see such a definition. I don’t much care what the content is, simply that it’s authoritative and/or well reasoned and not ambiguous.
God Bless,
Ryan
EWTN exists for those who more so libininally identify with an Americanist breed of ‘Christian’ quasi-gnosticism and exceptionalism than they are attached with Mother Church.