In “Defining Torture” Gail H. Miller makes clear the necessity for a uniform Internationally agreed upon definition of torture.
She notes “In the absence of a universal definition, many
governments narrowly define torture, enabling their agents to act however
they see fit without crossing the definitional line.18 Governments
are able to continue to condemn torture publicly while employing horrific
methods of interrogation and punishment. For example, in 2002,
the U.S. Department of Justice defined torture to exclude even extreme
methods of interrogation so long as they did not result in impairment of
bodily function or pain similar in intensity to organ failure.19 A single,
clear definition of torture limited to the most severe acts, yet not diluted
in force, would rein in the manipulation on each side of the spectrum—
both the advocates who overuse the term and the governments who
define it too narrowly— creating a space in which claims of torture are
taken seriously.”
Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin, in his attempt to set the parameters for any future magisterial definition of torture, points out two basic ones:
Parameter 1: The definition should correspond as much as possible to our pre-reflective sense of what constitutes torture.
Parameter 2: The definition should point to something that is intrinsically evil.
He relays that Cardinal Avery Dulles pointed out that Guadium et Spes is missing important unstated qualifiers and thus some items on the list, such as deportation, do not in and of themselves appear to be intrinsically evil without further qualification.
Doesn’t what is perceived as psychologically distressing or harmful vary from individual to individual? Is it really possible for someone to determine what is psychologically harmful in an objective manner when the psychological is subjective? Would you say that each person has different psychological and physical strengths and weaknesses? Of the definitions of torture that I have seen they all define torture using the terms “pain” or “serious pain” and “anguish of body or mind” but these terms are subjective in that what one person considers to be painful may not be painful to another person. Now, there are some obvious instances such as when a person’s finger nails are pulled out or there is a blow torch burning someone’s skin where we can intuitively know that these are torture.
Just because something is named the same exact thing doesn’t necessarily mean it is the same thing. It depends on what methodologies are being used – whether they are different or the same. How do we *know* that when the U.S. and others classified waterboarding as “torture” that they were correct in doing so? Is it because some today have preconceived notions, follow secular Leftist definition of torture, and the past assertion fits into their narrative? There is a misconception that what some call “waterboarding” today is the same as the “waterboarding” which took place during WWII at the hands of the Japanese. They are not the same thing. There are morally relevant differences.
What the Japanese did to American POWs which some now conveniently classify under the contemporary term “waterboarding” was in reality one part of a larger torture regimen known as “the water cure”. During the “water cure” torture the Japanese did not place a cloth over the person’s mouth. They poured water over the person’s face which caused actual drowning. The water went down their victim’s throat after which some would go into the lungs and some into the stomach. It de-salinated the victim’s blood and often ended up drowning his intestines. In other words, there was often actual physical harm involved and always the very real danger of serious physical harm. That is a key morally relevant difference between the Japanese “waterboarding” technique and the way the CIA practiced waterboarding under the Bush administration. For the latter there was never any physical harm inflicted nor was there any real danger of serious physical harm. There was no actual drowning, only a psychologically convincing simulation of it.
The Justice Department under Bush had strict guidelines for the administration of waterboarding. There was a cloth placed over the terrorist’s mouth and nose. The individual does not take any water into his lungs, and it is never permitted that harmful amounts of water should be ingested by the terrorist. Also, while the Japanese had no moral scruples about how often to apply their water cure torture, the CIA was not permitted to apply their waterboarding technique more than once in a 30-day period.
A clear and concise definition of “torture” is sorely needed. Is it possible for the countries in the United Nations to agree on such a definition? I doubt it. There doesn’t seem much motivation to do so.
The concerns and examples I stated above is why I titled this post, the tortured definition of “torture”. Some people have butchered the definition of “torture” and twisted it up like a pretzel in order to fit the politically correct culture of today. This even departs from Church Tradition. Tony, a commentor, pointed out at his blog that my original last statement relayed a flawed understanding of infallibility so I am eliminating it. OTOH, it seems to me to be reckless and imprudently hasty to discard centuries of tradition and ecclesiastical understanding on the legitimate use of torture (e.g. in the punishment of heretics) and categorize it as intrinsically evil based on nothing but modern intuition.
[...] in and of themselves appear to be intrinsically evil without further qualification. Continued- http://catholibertarian.com/2012/01/03/the-tortured-definition-of-torture/ googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1322318033491-4'); }); [...]
I don’t know what your catechism says, but mine says this: 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. 2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
Your apologetics for violence, both physical and mental, against your fellow human beings are gruesome.
If it simulates drowning – comvincingly – but does not allegedly actually involve danger, is that really a morally significant difference?
Assume it is intrinsically eveil for me to killl your spouse in order to force you to do some act.
If I say I am going to kill your spouse, and use a convincing ruse to make it appear I have the means to do so, yet she was never in danger, how is that morally signifcantly different from MY perspective – the perspective of the actor?
Is it true in the CIA version of waterboarding, the person is deprived of oxygen, or the ability to breath normally? If it is so safe and benign, why would they do it? Why would anyone fear being subjectied to it? Why bother with it?
Doesn’t what is perceived as psychologically distressing or harmful vary from individual to individual? Is it really possible for someone to determine what is psychologically harmful in an objective manner when the psychological is subjective? Would you say that each person has different psychological and physical strengths and weaknesses?
Yes. Yes. And yes. Precisely why a definition of torture should focus less on the actual physical effect to the victim, and more on the intent and actions of the perpetrator.
It tortures me to know that so many Catholics, including bishops and other clergy, are responsible for abortion-on-demand remaining the-law-of the-land by continuing to give their name identification and votes to the pro-abortion Democrat Party and that 55% of Catholics voted for pro-abortion, pro-infanticide 0bama for President. Living under Obama and his administration is real torture, and the thought of his being re-elected scares the Hell out of me. The thought that Catholics will once again be the largest, single voting block for the pro-abortion party sickens me and causes me to question my belief in the statement that the Catholic Church is the one, true religion. If the teaching of the Church can be used in such contorted ways as some who commented here to this article to support their “belief” that waterboarding is torture and use that to besmirch our country’s efforts to save innocent human life from Islamic terrorist, then that is verging on the state of stupidity. And thinking that so many Catholics can be that stupid shakes my faith that Catholicism IS the one true religion.
The fact that so many Catholics can believe that any attempt to coerce the free will is moral is what shakes my faith. To coerce that which is of its very nature free is a grave evil.
I find it repugnant that people would condemn other people to death out of some so-called superiority complex with regards to morality when there are legitimate methods which could be used as a last resort to stop an attack on our country. I make you bet those very same people would be the most outspoken against the administration if another 9/11 type of attack happened and these techniques weren’t used. I will admit that torture may be evil. But I contend that intention plays a part or mitigates one’s guilt and so does the Church.
My husband, an officer in the military, has tried repeatedly in the blogosphere to explain that “torture” is not a very specific term, in fact is it highly subjective, and that too many civilians far removed from the realities of warfare think that the only acceptable thing to do is say “please” and “thank you” and politely wait for them to concede that it would be nice to help you defeat them.
Putting someone in prison, possibly for the rest of their life, is torture. {Not allowing my children to watch TV or play on the computer during the school week is torture (or so they say).} Even if you consider the intent of the action, putting someone in prison, denying them contact with family and friends, limiting their diet, controlling their social activities, making them use public showers and toilets, depriving them of legal, innocent luxuries like a stroll through a park – all of this, with the intent to PUNISH them for a crime, is horrible, even barbaric. Yet I fully support locking up the bad guys, and I don’t feel sorry for them at all (except in a generic, Christian charitable way that has me pray for their souls and hope that the have the fortitude to deal with their confinement).
My husband finally gave up on trying to use logic and reason to explain the subjective nature of torture. After being viciously attacked by everybody who thinks that waterboarding is torture simply because they say so (making them right, and everybody who believes differently not just wrong, but complicit in war crimes, perhaps even as evil as Hitler and Stalin), he walked away from Catholic blogs and decided to stick with his circle of baby-killing, torture-loving army buddies on facebook.
Good post. I hope you survive the day!
Thank you for sharing your first hand insights on this real life issue made so plastic by so many so called Catholics with their holier than thou misguided thinking. If only they were as true to their OWN WORDS of belief in their Profession of Faith on Sundays in Mass professing to believe Our Lord as the Giver of Life, and their praying for God’s will to be done on earth while standing in front of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, as they are to claiming waterboarding as torture, they would remove their names from the pro-abortion party and stop voting for them. That would bring an end to the pro-abortion Democrat Party winning elections. And that would result in appointing prolife justices to the Supreme Court who previously have been defeated in the Democrat controlled Judiciary Committees and the overturning of Roe v Wade. But, no, their “purity” as Catholics doesn’t go THAT far; nor do they really care about what they profess and pray for with their own words…being Democrat is a more important identity to them than being real Catholics.
Any deliberate attempt to coerce the will is intrinsically and gravely evil.
How can torture be intrinsically evil when Saints used it as a means of self-mortification in order to get closer to Christ? The Church even used methods of torture as a means of teaching and enforcing the faith. Are you implying that the Church made a mistake, not infallible?
It is an ontological impossibility to coerce one’s own will. Self-flagellation, etc., are not torture, nor are they coercion of the will, for they are initiated of one’s own free will. One cannot contradict one’s own free will.
The Church, qua the Mystical Body of Christ and the Magisterium, did not use torture to teach and enforce the faith. Some individuals in the Church did. Some of them pretended to act in accordance with the teachings of the Church. It is impossible to coerce anyone to believe anything, by human nature, and by the meaning of the word “belief” itself. Belief is the free acceptance of truth as perceived by the intellect. Any attempt to coerce the free will is intrinsically evil.
Tell me what you think the Catechism means when it says “In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are . . .”
The catechism calls the instances you cite “regrettable.”
“This even departs from Church Tradition. Since the Catholic Church is infallible and it has sanctioned torture in the past how can it possibly be an intrinsic evil? If the Church committed an intrinsic evil that would mean that the Church is fallible and that is impossible.”
No, it’s not impossible. You’re confusing the Church’s teaching magisterium, which is infallible in faith and morals where those doctrines have been declared de fide, with the actions of Church members and prelates, which are neither infallible nor impeccable. Both Bl. John Paul II and HH Benedict XVI have taken opportunities to apologize to various groups for sins against them pursued by Church leaders in the name of the Church, including some aspects of the Inquisition. That doesn’t undercut the truthfulness of the Church’s teaching; if anything, it reinforces the universality of Original Sin and concupiscence.
-Question for Lizzie, C matt, and Tony-
Do you consider the “Great Council”, also known as the Fourth Lateran Council, to be a legitimate ecumenical Council?
Yes. And, having read it and re-read it, I fail to see how it bears on my response, since it doesn’t treat the issue of infallibility. Nor do I see how it bears on the subject of torture.
There was no question of whether Lateran IV treated the issue of infallibility. if it had, Vatican I might not have been necessary. Be that as it may, the penalties mandated by Canon 3 of the council, while admittedly vague and not quite specified, certainly included what we now call torture, and this was known at the time by those who called for them under the charism of infallibility.
OK. I read Canon 3. It seems to prescribe punishment for heretics to be stripped of any office and excommunicated. What part exactly says the Church teaches, de fide, it is moral to torture? Can you quote the portion for me because I seem to be missing it?
The answer I gave to Tony also applies to you.
in this post – http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/05/19/rick-santorum-i-do-not-believe-enhanced-interrogation-is-torture/ – Lisa Graas points out what Father Brian Harrison has stated on torture and what constitutes torture.
“Even deciding what exactly we mean by torture is not easy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes it as “physical or moral violence” (CCC 2297); the definition given by the 1984 United Nations Convention on Torture is “the intentional infliction of severe pain.” The words violence and severe are themselves somewhat vague. Who draws the line — and where? — as to which specific practices are harsh enough to correspond to those words? What has become clear in the contemporary debate is that while many shudder-evoking practices (which needn’t be spelled out here) are recognized by everyone as meriting the name torture, there is no consensus about whether other less extreme interrogation techniques really count as torture: for instance, sleep deprivation, being kept under harsh temperatures or in uncomfortable positions, or “waterboarding” (which causes a brief, panic-inducing sensation of being about to drown but no pain or injury). Since no Catholic magisterial intervention so far offers any real guidance for resolving this controversy, the only methods we can be sure are included under “torture,” when that word appears in Church documents, are those in the former group.”
You can also look at Bill Bannon’s comment on Lisa’s post. While I disagree with the false premise that waterboarding is torture or an intrinsic evil, It may be an evil, but a necessary evil which is needed in rare circumstances when our country’s national security is experiencing a grave threat to innocent lives.