'torture' And Catholic Doctrine?

[jswranch]

[quote]From CCC#2297

...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. ...[/quote]

I read it as no torture for purposes of
-confessions
-punishment
-cause fear
-satisfy hatred

My questions:
1. What is the official Catholic deffinition of torture?
When does interrogation and forms of imprisonment become torture?

2. As the CCC bans certain motives for torture, does this mean there may exist purposes underwhich torture may be allowed?

What about torture for the purpose of extracting information necessary for preserving innocent life? This one does not seem to be a banned purpose as some of the other motives were. If there was a line such as "Torture may never occur under any circumstance," the issue may be closed. However, I cannot find such ruling.

Let me know if there are anyother authoritative teachings on the subject other than 2297.

[cmotherofpirl]

there is a great ongoing discussion of this over at Mark Sheas site:
[url="http://markshea.blogspot.com/"]http://markshea.blogspot.com/[/url]

Just scroll down the days

[jswranch]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1104014' date='Oct 29 2006, 08:21 AM']
there is a great ongoing discussion of this over at Mark Sheas site:
[url="http://markshea.blogspot.com/"]http://markshea.blogspot.com/[/url]

Just scroll down the days
[/quote]

I posted this thread after being unsatisfied with Shea's post. He links to Akin. Akin seems to match my discoveries also:

[url="http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2004/06/what_about_tort.html"] ..the Catechism's list of motives for torture does not mention the use of physical pressure to obtain information needed to save innocent lives..... I would be disinclined to go the route of saying that torture is not always wrong. [/url]

[cmotherofpirl]

I have been going back and forth reading all the blogs as well.
Post a request in Q & A and se what the scholars post.

My bottom line is your can't do evil in the quest for good.

[Era Might]

From the Second Vatican Council's "Gaudium et Spes":

[quote]Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as...torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself;...they poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.[/quote]
Torture is any torment "inflicted on body or mind" that "attempts to coerce the will itself."

So anything that is attempting to coerce the will by inflicting torments on someone and forcing them to say something, whether drowning them in water or depriving them of sleep or whatever, if you are using mental or physical torments to coerce their will, then it is torture. Pope John Paul II addresses this in "Veritatis Splendor" as well, citing "Gaudium et Spes":

[quote]Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object". The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator".[/quote]
Torture is always a grave offense against God and man, and can never be justified, because it attempts to coerce the free will of man through mental and physical violence.

[jswranch]

Era,
First, that line is not drawn in the sand of when threat of unpleasantness or anguish goes from simple good order of society to torture. Isn't the threat of imprisionment, lawsuits and solitary confinement a type of torment "inflicted on body or mind" that "attempts to coerce the will itself?" Isn't that an attempt to curb, change or force (by mental threat) the free will of man? Isnt the threat of being sent to Sodomy Prison a mental threat to impact ones will?


Second,
Municpal leaders have the grave duty to insure the safety of its innocent peoples. Further teachings include they have a recourse to war and leathal force if absolutely necessary after all other resources are tapped. If we are to interpret GS 27, as all torture is [u]always[/u] evil, then we must intepret GS 27's "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide..." as all killing, war, or defense which may require lethal force as always evil. Killing and torture is evil, but sometime moral law and defense of innocent life requires us to choose a lesser evil.

Third, the magisterium has not defined torture, sleep deprevation etc. If a murder suspect, found with the body of a hacked girl in his trunk, wants to take a nap instead of answering a policeman's questions, is that sleep deprevation? Is it not mental anguish to depire the suspected killer of a cigarette until after he begins to talk?


Fourth, Akin addresses your very arguments in the com box (to Billy and David). It is worth a look. So far, his statements seem more persuasive to me.

Edited October 29, 2006 by jswranch

[Era Might]

[quote]First, that line is not drawn in the sand of when threat of unpleasantness or anguish goes from simple good order of society to torture. Isn't the threat of imprisionment, lawsuits and solitary confinement a type of torment "inflicted on body or mind" that "attempts to coerce the will itself?" Isn't that an attempt to curb, change or force (by mental threat) the free will of man? Isnt the threat of being sent to Sodomy Prison a mental threat to impact ones will?[/quote]
No, because they are not attempts to coerce the will. When you threaten someone with jail, you don't force them to do anything. If they choose to confess in face of that punishment, that is on them. However, when you drown them, then you are actively attempting to coerce their will, against their will. Interrogation is an attempt to uncover the truth; when you resort to mental and physical violence to achieve that end, you are engaging in torture. Punishment and interrogation are two different things. Punishment has no intent to uncover the truth; interrogation does.

[quote]Municpal leaders have the grave duty to insure the safety of its innocent peoples. Further teachings include they have a recourse to war and leathal force if absolutely necessary after all other resources are tapped. If we are to interpret GS 27, as all torture is [u]always[/u] evil, then we must intepret GS 27's "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide..." as all killing, war, or defense which may require lethal force as always evil. Killing and torture is evil, but sometime moral law and defense of innocent life requires us to choose a lesser evil.[/quote]
Killing and torture are two different things, and "Gaudium et Spes" does not mention war or self-defense, but homicide. Killing someone in self-defense is not an attempt to coerce their free will. Torturing someone is.

[quote]Third, the magisterium has not defined torture, sleep deprevation etc. If a murder suspect, found with the body of a hacked girl in his trunk, wants to take a nap instead of answering a policeman's questions, is that sleep deprevation? Is it not mental anguish to depire the suspected killer of a cigarette until after he begins to talk?[/quote]
There are a lot of moral questions the Magisterium has not defined specifically, but which are still condemned. If a man's wife is in a coma, can he date another woman in the meantime until she wakes up? No, even though the Magisterium has never formally treated this question.

As for specific instances, if your intent is to coerce the will through mental or physical torments, then it is torture. That's the bottom line. That is the definition of torture given by the Magisterium. When you willfully deprive someone of substantial sleep in order to do violence to them and coerce them to give information, then you are torturing. The essence of torture is in the intention, not in the act, although specific acts are often also wrong in themselves.

Going down this road of torture, we approve torture, which means that if foreign governments believe they meet the necessary conditions, they are justified in torturing American troops. If we are going to drown people for a few minutes, then we better respect the right of other governments to drown American troops to get information.

[jswranch]

[quote]No, because they are not attempts to coerce the will. When you threaten someone with jail, you don't force them to do anything.[/quote]

There is a closer link between threating jail to get someone to talk (reveal sources), do something (pay taxes), not do something else (molest kids) and torturing to reveal critical information to save lives than you propose. Both are an attempt to coerce the will with the threat of unpleasantness.

We have gotten a bit off topic here.

[quote]..."Gaudium et Spes" does not mention war or self-defense, but homicide.[/quote]
I disagree. War and self defense to the use of lethal force both result in homicide. Wars cause homicide, or they are not wars.

[quote]As for specific instances, if your intent is to coerce the will through mental or physical torments, then it is torture. That's the bottom line.[/quote]
If this is the case, I hold the threat of imprisonment is coercion of the will by threat of torment and is therefore torture.

[quote]There are a lot of moral questions the Magisterium has not defined specifically, but which are still condemned. [/quote] And if the answer is not clear as to what has been condemned, as I propose in this case, we are to turn to prayer and our conscience until we can get a better answer from the Magisterium. The Magisterium has banned torture for a number of purposes, not all purposes, especially for the great good and preservation of innocent life. If you want I could propose a few scenarios which would push this greater good issue.

[quote]If we are going to drown people for a few minutes, then we better respect the right of other governments to drown American troops to get information.[/quote] Catholic Moral theology and the wisdom of publishing certain US public policy are not the same. We cannot base the ultimate our truths off of public reaction. Imagine a claim that we cannot proclaim the dogma of the Mediatrix simply becuase it might further offend Protostants

Besides i cannot think of a situation in which torturing uniformed US soldiers could be done for the purpose of extracting information which could save the lives of innocent people for the greater good performed by legit authority.

Finally, reivew the moral implications:
[quote]2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. [/quote]
If those who legitimately hold authority are given some recourse to lethal force (to kill) in defense of innocents, do you feel they are given no recourse to threaten those same folks with physical or emotional harm in defense of innocents? We can kill terrorist, but we can never threaten them with harm???!!!

Did you read the Akin article? Why is he wrong?
(this is fun )

[Era Might]

[quote]There is a closer link between threating jail to get someone to talk (reveal sources), do something (pay taxes), not do something else (molest kids) and torturing to reveal critical information to save lives than you propose. Both are an attempt to coerce the will with the threat of unpleasantness.[/quote]
No, they are not. Imprisonment has a twofold purpose: punishment and protection. There is no attempt to coerce the will. If someone doesn't want to speak, then that's fine, they are going to jail anyway, because the purpose of imprisonment is not to coerce their will.

The presence of punishment is often a strong encouragement to do what is right, but its intention is not to coerce the will.

Now, if people were imprisoned for no other reason than that the government wants you to do something (such as renounce your religion), then this is torture, and "Gaudium et Spes" does condemn this under the name of "arbitary imprisonment".

[quote]I disagree. War and self defense to the use of lethal force both result in homicide. Wars cause homicide, or they are not wars.[/quote]
Homicide, as commonly understood, is another word for murder, which is something distinct from killing. While "homicide" can be used in a neutral sense, the general sense of the word most often refers to murder, and that is the sense in which I used the word. Other words are usually used to describe unintentional homicide, such as "manslaughter".

Killing someone is in no way an attempt to coerce their will. When carried out justly, it is in fact an attempt to protect yourself from the malicious exercise of free will.

Killing is not an intrinsically evil act. Torture is. This much is made plain by Pope John Paul II and the Second Vatican Council. The character of the acts are entirely different, as are the intentions. Killing is a natural evil, but torture is a moral evil, because the very word "torture" refers not only to an act, but to an intention (an attempt to coerce the will); while an act can be a natural evil but not a moral evil, an intention is always a moral subject.

[quote]If this is the case, I hold the threat of imprisonment is coercion of the will by threat of torment and is therefore torture.[/quote]
As we saw above, imprisonment can constitute a form of torture (that is, arbitrary imprisonment), but it is not in itself, when understood in the correct sense, an attempt to coerce the will.

[quote]And if the answer is not clear as to what has been condemned, as I propose in this case, we are to turn to prayer and our conscience until we can get a better answer from the Magisterium. The Magisterium has banned torture for a number of purposes, not all purposes, especially for the great good and preservation of innocent life. If you want I could propose a few scenarios which would push this greater good issue.[/quote]
The Magisterium has not merely "banned" torture, but has indicated that torture is an intrinsically evil act, and is never justifiable. It is preferable that a nation perishes than to commit evil in the name of preservation, because sin is always an offense against God.

The common discussion, however, is whether or not something is in fact torture. The US government claims it does not torture, and officially condemns torture as unacceptable. So if someone is justifying torture, then either 1) The US government is wrong (or lying) that what they are doing is not torture, or 2) What they are doing is in fact torture, and condemned by the Church.

[quote]Catholic Moral theology and the wisdom of publishing certain US public policy are not the same. We cannot base the ultimate our truths off of public reaction. Imagine a claim that we cannot proclaim the dogma of the Mediatrix simply becuase it might further offend Protostants[/quote]
I'm not sure what you mean. The Church's condemnation of torture has nothing to do with public reaction, but the intrinsic evil of the act.

[quote]Besides i cannot think of a situation in which torturing uniformed US soldiers could be done for the purpose of extracting information which could save the lives of innocent people for the greater good performed by legit authority.[/quote]
I can think of many situations. Had the Japanese government captured an American bomber during WW2, for example, it could have extracted information about the intentions of the United States to massacre the Japanese population with nuclear weaponry; torture would have proven very useful toward this end, althought it would have been gravely immoral.

But that is beside the point, whether we can think of situations or not, because if we are giving ourselves permission to justify torture when we feel it is necessary, then we must give other governments the same permission to determine when torture is necessary for the protection of their own nation. If we will not hold ourselves to the oversight of another nation, then we have no authority to hold another nation to our own oversight when they determine torture of American forces is necessary for national security. By saying torture is legitimate in certain cases, we make a moral determination by which every other nation is able to appeal.

[quote]If those who legitimately hold authority are given some recourse to lethal force (to kill) in defense of innocents, do you feel they are given no recourse to threaten those same folks with physical or emotional harm in defense of innocents? We can kill terrorist, but we can never threaten them with harm???!!![/quote]
Yes, that is right, because killing is only done in self-defense. Even killing has moral paramaters; for example, if lethal force is not necessary, then you must not inflict lethal force, you must inflict lesser force (such as shooting in the leg instead of the head). But, as I noted above, killing and torture are entirely different concepts, because killing can be a purely natural act (although moral factors can come into play), while "torture" as defined by the Church is never merely an act, but a moral intention (to coerce the will).

Inflicting mental or physical torments to coerce the will is the Church's definition of torture, and it is condemned as an act evil within itself, first by an Ecumenical Council, and subsequently by Pope John Paul II.

There can be no discussion from a Catholic perspective unless it is first recognized that torture is intrinsically evil, and never permissable. The only possible discussion is whether or not something is torture, and the basis of that discussion is whether or not it is a physical or mental torment intending to coerce the will. If it is, it is forbidden by the moral law.

[quote]Did you read the Akin article? Why is he wrong?[/quote]
I don't believe I have much of a disagreement with Jimmy Akin. He notes that torture is intrinsically evil:

[quote]I think that the Church is pretty clearly indicating in its recent documents that it wants the word "torture" used in such a way that torture is always wrong.[/quote]
Again, this is not in dispute so far as the Church is concerned. What is in dispute is whether or not something is torture. If a Catholic is going to justify something, then they are going to have to justify it on the basis that it is not torture, not that torture is permissable.

[jswranch]

[quote]Killing someone is in no way an attempt to coerce their will. [/quote]

Are you serious? 'Surrender or we will bomb you?' is not a coersion of the will?

[quote]I don't believe I have much of a disagreement with Jimmy Akin. He notes that torture is intrinsically evil:...[/quote]

Really? So you are ok when he says, "For example, the Catechism's list of motives for torture [u]does not mention the use of physical pressure to obtain information needed to save innocent lives.[/u] It thus might turn out that it is not torture to [u]twist a terrorist's arm behind him and demand that he tell you[/u] where he planted a bomb so that it can be defused and innocents can be saved."

If you agree with Akin that it is sometimes allowable to apply a measured amount of physical pain to get a terrorist to talk in order to save innocent lives, then you and I are on the same page. If this can be ok and is not torture, then the water dunking by the CIA for the last 50 years and today to Al Quida is not torture.

I can live with that.

Edited October 29, 2006 by jswranch

[Era Might]

[quote]Are you serious? 'Surrender or we will bomb you?' is not a coersion of the will?[/quote]
No, it is a measure of self-defense. If you say "Surrender or we will bomb you" because you want to conquer a nation, not because you are defending yourself, then that is an attempt to coerce the will of that nation. When another nation threatens us with harm, they are doing the coercing, by forcing us to protect ourselves.

And reiterating the essential point I made above, killing in itself is a natural act, and the concept is not related to any particular moral intention; your intention in killing can be good or bad. "Torture", however, as defined by the Church, is not only an act, but an objective intention to coerce the will, and the Church condemns this intention (and thus torture) as intrinsically evil.

[quote]If you agree with Akin that it is sometimes allowable to apply a measured amount of physical pain to get a terrorist to talk in order to save innocent lives, then you and I are on the same page. If this can be ok and is not torture, then the water dunking by the CIA for the last 50 years and today to Al Quida is not torture.[/quote]
That is not what Akin says. He brings up the possibility, but he does not answer it. Whether I agree with Jimmy Akin or not is not really relevant, because all that matters is what the Church teaches. But, just for the record, Jimmy Akin is clear that torture is intrinsically evil, and that the Church holds it as such.

If you want to argue that drowning people is not torture, then that is a separate discussion; so long as we first recognize that torture is condemned by Pope John Paul II as something evil in itself, and not permissable in any circumstance (see "Veritatis Splendor" above).

[jswranch]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1104162' date='Oct 29 2006, 02:09 PM']
If you want to argue that drowning people is not torture, then that is a separate discussion; so long as we first recognize that torture is condemned by Pope John Paul II as something evil in itself, and not permissable in any circumstance (see "Veritatis Splendor" above).
[/quote]

Ok, I can work on this. I suppose my understanding of torture needs adjustment. VS says "physical and mental torture" falls under the category of intrensically evil acts. I have to work from there.

[jswranch]

Here is the scenario that is causing me problems:

There is a child killer on the loose in my town. He rapes little blond girls, then sticks them in metal drums in the woods to run out of air. He has fun listening to them cry and beat on the metal. My daughter disappears. A man looking like the killer was seen in the area at the time. A manhunt ensues and he is caught. My daughter is still missing, not to be found in his car or home. However, her clothes and strands of her hair are in his possession.

At the police interrogation, he admitts to placing my daughter in the drum and tells us she has about an hour of air left. He will not tell where she is, since he is going to jail anyway.

At this point I would feel totally compelled to do what ever necessary to this man to save my little girl's life. Whatever it takes to make him give forth the info.


Help me reconcile this situation and that torture is always evil.

[Era Might]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1104257' date='Oct 29 2006, 06:05 PM']At this point I would feel totally compelled to do what ever necessary to this man to save my little girl's life. Whatever it takes to make him give forth the info.

Help me reconcile this situation and that torture is always evil.
[/quote]
This is why the police interrogate people, and not us. Every crime is personal for someone. The police have a duty to put aside personal emotions, and do their job.

Would you really do whatever it takes? Would you kidnap his own daughter and torture her in his presence to make him give up the details? Why wouldn't that be justified? Clearly, because the ends do not justify the means, no matter how much you want your own daughter back. Moreover, there is no guarantee that he would tell you the truth. He could simply give you a lie and have you on a wild goose hunt while your daughter is somewhere never to be found. Then you have lost your own conscience in a vain pursuit, and you still don't have your daughter.

This isn't the only example you could use. Suppose someone was found innocent, and you believe they killed your daughter. Would you be justified in killing them as vigilante justice? Or if someone who harmed your family was released from prison after serving their time. Should you be allowed to kill them because you believe they are a threat and shouldn't be released?

The moral law is not easy, but it exists precisely for those times when we would want to put it aside for our own gain. There's a great scene in "A Man For All Seasons":

[quote][b]William Roper[/b]: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

[b]St. Thomas More[/b]: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

[b]William Roper[/b]: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

[b]St. Thomas More[/b]: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake![/quote]
Like I was saying before, once you bend the moral law for your own sake, then you open up that door for it to be bent against you. Notice what the Second Vatican Council says:

[quote][These acts] contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice.[/quote]
Torture is not merely wrong because of the person who is tortured. A lot of people who are tortured are probably shady characters and deserve to be in jail. But when we resort to torture, we do harm and injustice to our own conscience, and we assault our human dignity by living according to a code of relativism and convenient morals. If serving God were easy, everyone would do it. If following the moral law were easy, there would be no sin.

[jswranch]

Era,
You have made some great arguments, but have added conditions to my scenario, hence my situation is not resolved and I still have conflicts with which we can work through.

[quote]Would you really do whatever it takes? Would you kidnap his own daughter and torture her in his presence to make him give up the details?[/quote]

No. This would be an offense against an innocent party. But I would be willing to try one of those nifty waterboards or electrodes on the guy.

[quote]Suppose someone was found innocent, and you believe they killed your daughter. Would you be justified in killing them as vigilante justice? [/quote]

Of course not. That would in no way save a life. The topic is whether or not I or any other legitimate authority can cause physical or mental torment for the purpose of obtaining information necessary for saving life. Vigilante justice or revenge is not in question.