Agreed. I actually found that reading Father Harrison’s argument strengthened my anti-torture views, and I don’t mean that in a “if this is the best they can do” sort of way. Anyone who cites those articles as support for the view that there is some inconsistency between opposing torture and Catholic tradition on the matter clearly hasn’t read the articles very closely.

Stop tempting my husband to write more posts!! We want him to finish his thesis so we can go on our honeymoon ;)

From the this countless torture defenders universally conclude that Veritatis Splendor essentially means nothing, and that whatever it was the Bush Administration ordered was undoubtedly a prudential judgement well within the limits of Catholic moral teaching. Talk about conclusions in search of an argument.

By the way, I have to hope that your Judie Brown comboxers was some sort of spoof. I just can’t believe that a serious prolife leader would toss away her devotion to the dignity of human life in order to defend torture. It’s like a self-destructive madness has seized many in the prolife community.

What is interesting is that he also tries to suggest theologians like St Thomas Aquinas were somehow a part of the “magisterium.” Secondly, even if the catechism is not infallible (it is not) and even if its teachings are not on the same level of doctrine (they are not), it is clear it is an authentic voice of the Church’s general disposition, and one is to respect and honor it. Disagree, if one wants, but in the proper way (they never do that). Indeed, they confuse their own interpretation of the past as authentic, over and above the magisterium and its ability to interpret the past.

Historically, we have seen this many times: Novatian, Donatus, Joachim, Luther, Jansen, et. al. Indeed, if one studies Jansen and his reading of Augustine, things will look extraordinarily familiar (on so many levels).