More Holes in the Apologia for Torture
My sincere apologies for double-posting like this, but I’ve been up all night trying to get close to the bottom of this torture debate, especially in light of my previous post that details some of the less talked about horrors of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
It is almost impossible for me to accept that on so important an issue there could be such ambiguity, confusion and uncertainty as to what the Church really teaches. I hope this brings us one step closer.
Mark Shea’s latest article at Inside Catholic includes a link to the arguments of Rev. Brian Harrison, whom I understand has become the leading reference point for Catholics seeking to justify the use of torture to obtain life-saving information in a critical situation.
At the outset I wish to say that it is obvious that Rev. Harrison is not a rabid supporter or defender of torture, and I have no wish to portray him as such. But the argument he has put forth here has been used by some who are searching, with varying degrees of eagerness, for ways to render torture under circumstances they deem necessary an acceptable practice.
A rather lengthy part of Harrison’s treatise focuses on the teachings of John Paul II, particularly Veritatis Splendor, paragraph 80. This paragraph is often invoked by Catholic opponents of torture to establish the validity of their position, for it was here that JP II included torture on a list of “intrinsic evils”, acts which may not be committed under any circumstances.
Harrison calls into question the authority of this paragraph in a number of ways I find dubious but within the realm of possibility. He opines that the list appearing in VS 80 is really a sort of convenient restatement of an earlier list provided in Paul VI’s Gaudium et Spes:
What the Pope wants to insist on here, in opposition to such theories, is simply that there do really exist classes of actions which are intrinsically morally evil, and which, therefore, can never be justified under any circumstances. And Gaudium et Spes #27 simply happens to furnish the Pope with a convenient, ready-made set of examples to help him illustrate his point.
Harrison goes on to note that there are a number of items that appear on the list that are not even actions that can be carried out by individuals, such as social conditions, and as such we may “conclude from all this” that VS 80
[C]annot legitimately be read as containing a formal judgment on the part of the Pope to the effect that the voluntary infliction of severe pain is, as such, “intrinsically evil”.
I am willing to grant this point because VS 80 is only one part of the Catholic case against torture, and only one part of JP II’s teaching as we shall see below.
Harrison goes on to argue that a “better key” to understanding the mind of JP II was his “1982 allocution at the world headquarters of the Red Cross in Geneva.” But even this “better key” does not appear to qualify as a definite teaching on torture, since JP II does not “use the natural-law language of “intrinsically” or per se evil actions.”
I submit that there is no good reason to assume that the 1982 speech is a “better key” to understanding the mind of JP II, at least on the specific question of torture within the context of the ‘War on Terror’, because there are in fact much more recent statements that no one is talking about.
I had to do quite a bit of digging myself to find these statements, but it is clear that in May and June of 2004, as news of torture of detainees in US prisons was becoming more widespread, JP spoke out twice within the period of a month on the issue that many of us are debating today.
In May 2004, JP II addressed the ambassadors to the Vatican and began it with an acknowledgement of torture on a global scale:
2. Disturbing news concerning the status of human rights is constantly arriving from all the continents. It makes clear that in contempt of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (cf. art. 5), people – men, women and children – are tortured and their dignity is offended. Thus, the whole of humanity is injured and derided. Since every human being is our brother or sister in humanity, we cannot keep silent before such intolerable abuses. It is the duty of all people of good will, whether they have responsibilities or are ordinary citizens, to do their utmost to enforce respect for every human being.
This might not be enough to establish a clear position against torture for the purposes of acquiring life-saving information, but when it is seen in the light of yet another statement made by JP II only a month later, things come into focus:
Yesterday, the World Day against torture was celebrated. May the common commitment of the institutions and citizens totally ban this intolerable violation of human rights which is radically opposed to human dignity. [emphasis added]
What the Pope was referring to here was the International Day Against Torture on June 26, 2004. And what was the focus of this day? Given the news that had been dominating the headlines, the purpose of the event was to denounce abuses of prisoners in US facilities such as Guantanamo Bay. The website for the event states
Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture has expressed its indignation following the revelation of acts of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on detainees under the supervision of US and UK Coalition forces in Iraq (as well as in Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay and secret detention centres where prisoners are deliberately being held away from all legal safeguards). It has condemned these acts and demanded that they be fully investigated and that justice be done.
Could it honestly be argued that the Pope had no idea what he was commending? First we have a statement lamenting and condemning torture on all continents. Next we have a public endorsement of an international event specifically designed to call attention to torture at US facilities. Do we have enough yet to conclude that JP II was not merely regurgitating a ‘ready made list’ when he placed torture on a list of intrinsic evils? Can it still be said that we have no point of reference, no clear understanding, of the mind of the Pope in the midst of this national and international debacle?
I am no theologian. I can’t say that statements such as these are a part of the Magisterium, though my reading of Lumen Gentium 25 suggests that they probably are. What I do think these statements establish is the following:
a) JP II was quite concerned with the issue of torture in the context we are debating now.
b) That he was unconditionally opposed to its use.
c) That he held this position consistently throughout his Pontificate.
In addition, our current Pope, Benedict XVI, has shown no signs of disagreement with his predecessor. In his 2006 message for the World Day of Peace, paragraph 7, the Pope states
The Fathers of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, pointed out that ”not everything automatically becomes permissible between hostile parties once war has regrettably commenced”.(7)
…International humanitarian law ought to be considered as one of the finest and most effective expressions of the intrinsic demands of the truth of peace. Precisely for this reason, respect for that law must be considered binding on all peoples.
Not everything becomes permissible! This may leave some question as to what exactly is permissible, but given the mounting evidence that JP II, and likely Pope Benedict, considered torture to be intrinsically evil, or in the case of the latter, not acceptable under any circumstance I think it is time we cross it off the list for good.
Am I the only one who is reminded here of what happened following the publication of Humanae Vitae? If Veritatis Splendor 80 is not to be taken at its word because it “simply happens to furnish the Pope with a convenient, ready-made set of examples to help him illustrate his point,” then what possible case can anyone make that human conscience alone is not superior to the teaching of the Church?
What we really have here is the admission of the protestant principle into a debate by Catholics who should know better. This is the same debate that sparked the English Reformation: is not the King’s sovereign judgment in his own realm more binding than that of the Church? Indeed, it is exactly the same debate under exactly the same terms because today’s torture apologists seek to use their own sovereignty within a democracy to legitimize its use. Moreover, it is exactly the same logic used to legitimize abortion in U.S. law: the sovereign grants himself greater authority than the Pope over a question of morals.
Thus the real question of the torture debates is the same as the abortion debates: whom do you serve?
“I’ve been up all night”
Like someone said: the topics on this site are often obsessive, repetitive and ridiculous. Lately some of you seem downright insane.
Insane? Really? How so?
If “being up all night” is your argument, then, you will need to explain.
Sam
If you note JTBF appears to be one of the trolls we get on here who constantly changes names, but remains on the same ip. This should tell you something about who and what he is.
Hopefully by repeating many posts on the same issue will raise awareness that not all Catholics (like 71% of Americans) are willing to justify torture.
Henry:
I don’t even know what an “ip” is. I do think, however, that an invitation to engage is her/his choice. I am not very keen on calling them “trolls” (unless that’s lingo I am unaware of) but I don’t really see what is so disturbing about daft declarations, nothing particularly insightful or threatening about that…
What is an IP address?
Every device connected to the public Internet is assigned a unique number known as an Internet Protocol (IP) address. IP addresses consist of four numbers separated by periods (also called a ‘dotted-quad’) and look something like 127.0.0.1.
What is a troll?
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion
Like someone said: the topics on this site are often obsessive, repetitive and ridiculous. Lately some of you seem downright insane.
I’ll keep a running total on JTBF’s repetitive comment, “you’re insane,” which he has now placed on two different Vox Nova posts in the past 24 hours.
I am such an ignoramus. Thanks for the education.
Poli: Got to love the insanity rebuttal? I think my students try that one on me once a week…
Sorry, I meant to put and exclamation mark there… jeez…
I’ll keep a running total on JTBF’s repetitive comment, “you’re insane,” which he has now placed on two different Vox Nova posts in the past 24 hours.
Hahaha
Sam
You are welcome; I am just way too used to internet lingo sometimes I forget others are not.
Pardon me everyone
But does anyone have anything to say about what I actually wrote :(
Oh, that… well I wrote this recently (in my post, “In Defense of Torture”):
“…my main dispute with many of the views (on both sides, since, after all, there are only two sides to everything) on torture is that they are too heroic. Those who oppose torture seem to be relishing in the cut-and-dry state of the issue (while they argue that abortion is not so cut-and-dry). Those who defend it seem to have convinced themselves that their cut-and-dry approach to life issues need not apply in this case for all kinds of tail-chasing reasons. Each side fights their fight with vigor and heroic immunity to the beliefs of the other side, because, after all: they are right and God is on their side… Consequential arguments for and catechism quotes against are distractions to the sacred flesh of the matter: We need the Crucifix. We need the Eucharist. Of course we (I) should never torture, but that is all beside the point. The real point is that we should never let it rest in the laurels of taboo.”
So, I guess, this kind of stuff confuses me because the usual reason people accept the possibility or necessity of torture isn’t because they haven’t read enough books or quotes, its because they have different intuitions on what torture is, exactly. Paying those intuitions almost no attention, is like fighting a shadow, as I see it.
The heroic, noble, and valiant charges against torture even seem to push the subject matter into a realm of taboo that is actually a harmful censor for a Catholic (as I argued).
I guess I could have been more polemic about my critique of what you (and others) seem to be doing, but I must admit that I feel like I am on silent treatment sometimes when I write a defense of torture and you follow with two posts decrying it with no mention of the critical points that precede it.
I hope it doesn’t sound too snooty of me, but I feel your pain, neglect of an argument feels weird, at best.
Sam,
Well, I hope it doesn’t sound too dense on my part when I say that I’m not exactly sure what to do with your analysis.
I just want to bring the light of truth to this matter. I don’t think it conflicts with what you want to do.
Fair enough, I think I need to write more directly, clearly, or something. I’ve been getting this “I don’t get you” reply from several others a lot here. When that happens, there is no use blaming the world, I guess I need to re-think my approach.
Let me try one more time. Two things:
1. “Bringing light to this matter” is hard to do when full consideration of the function of believe is not in operation. How can you convince those who believe otherwise? By making very, very convincing arguments? I think not. I think you will need to cross the Rubicon of their experience with empathy and insight into why they think what they think. Otherwise, “light” is really just bright for those who already see it in the first place.
2. Making torture such a complete villain for the just reasons you do has its side effects. It continues to send us into a sanitized and deodorized engagement with the world and each other. And this is not a good thing, especially when it inhibits our ability to contemplate the mysteries of our faith.
Is that any better?
Sam,
On 1, so far the people who believe otherwise are basing their case, at least partially, on an attempt to re-cast JP II’s position as somewhat vague and undefined.
To be honest I am more interested in defending his legacy and his values than I am trying to win over people who would misuse it to justify something reprehensible.
2. That’s what I don’t get. I don’t know what is meant by sanitized and deodorized, or why we would be inhibited in any aspect of our faith. I suppose the connection is missing for me.
I see. Fair enough. I do see the value in defending JPII, or anyone being misinterpreted. But it seems that such a denfese is instrumental to the ultimate end of arguing that torture is wrong. Either way, this is fine with me, I guess.
On the other point I think I am trying to say that torture is not only a moral issue, in other words, it cannot be reduced to an issue of right and wrong. Along with its moral components it is a deep mystical phenomenon manifest on the mystery of the cross. To treat as a moral question, pure and simple, seems to be a mistake to me.
Joe,
With regard to your post… What can I say? It is a good post. I just don’t know what to say about it. Like you, I am appalled that this is not as obvious to some people and that a priest feels the need to survey the history of the Church to try to justify his position and read between the lines of Church documents and impose his views on what “such and such Pope really meant”. From a theological point of view I find these arguments troubling and alarming to say the least. The hermeneutic approach to Sacred tradition is poor, also, to say the least.
I hope I didn’t come off as offended by anyone… its just a little disheartening to see the whole think hijacked by one trollish remark.
its just a little disheartening to see the whole think hijacked by one trollish remark.
It happens ALL THE TIME… better get used to it ;)
Sigh… I know.
It seems this whole article is a systematic discussion of ‘what exactly is allowable’.
For example, going back to the issue of NFP. The Church has stated that ‘contraception’ is a grave evil. Those that wish to find loopholes often try to exploit the exceptions. For example: a woman suffering from PCOS may be on Hormonal birth control because the intention is not to contracept but to treat a disease.
JP II was a stunning Phenomenoligist. Within that system of philosophy and illuminated by the Catholic faith, his understanding of the intrinsic value of man was honed.
We risk doing damage to the ‘Person’ if we define torture other than an ‘Intrinsic Evil’.
We cannot defend the action by virtue of the exception. So maybe the discussion should be more situational. Which would be the arena for Moral Theologians to tackle.
Obviously such Principles as that of double effect will come into play in particular situations. Again, the exception, not the norm.