I recently joined the Coalition for Clarity, a group of mostly Catholic bloggers opposed to torture and to those Catholics who, in defiance of clear Church teaching, defend the use of torture, whatever euphemism they adopt for it. The Coalition was founded by Erin Manning, under the inspiration of Mark Shea, who for years has tirelessly exposed the errors of what he calls “the Rubber Hose Right”.
Mr Shea has what I call a “sar-charism”, a great gift for the sarcastic turn of phrase. I cannot say that I have never seen him get carried away with it and descend into mere name calling, but for the most part he skewers the sort of blowhards who need a good skewering.
Ms. Manning, in an early post on the Coalition website, described torture apologists as “moral imbeciles”. This provoked some reaction from those who thought she should be more conciliatory. What good does it do to offend?, one poster wondered. Shouldn’t we try to evangelize, to reach out?
I have written of torture a couple of times here, and once described its defenders as “moral idiots”. No one objected to that, but I would like to address the use of strong language here.
Let me note that I am generally in favor of irenic disputation. When I was younger I may have enjoyed a good polemical knockout, but I have long tired of it. Arguments weary me. And particularly religious arguments: I am a sentimental ecumenist, all in favor of dialogue and finding common ground.
That said, there is a time for dialogue and a time for prophetic denunciation.
I’m afraid we have become numbed-down, inured to those nice men in their well-tailored suits calmly defending “enhanced interrogation”. To paraphrase Juli Loesch Wiley, “enhanced interrogation” means torture, the way “collateral damage” means dead civilians. Because support for torture is so widespread in our society it starts to seem normal, not so crazy. But madness is madness, no matter how many of our neighbors are infected. Just because the vast majority of Americans believe the US was justified in bombing civilian populations in World War II does not mean it was not a war crime. Just because most Americans believe abortion ought to be legal does not mean it is not murder. And just because most Americans believe that torturing terror suspects is justifiable does not mean that it is not an intrinsically evil act. To be concerned that apologists for evil will be offended, have their poor feelings hurt, when someone calls their moral density for what it is is to grant too much, to imply that good and reasonable people can come to different conclusions on whether one can torture a man.
But it really isn’t like that. It’s not as if we are disagreeing about how to settle the federal deficit, or whether baseball or football is the superior sport (though the obvious and objective answer to that is “baseball, of course”). It is more like talking to someone who proposes that the solution to third world hunger and overpopulation is for the poor to eat their children. I don’t care if he is offended when I point out that this is insane and evil. I don’t care if the member of the North American Man Boy Love Association, who holds that pedophilia is normal and healthy, is offended when I say he is a pervert. And those nice men in their suits, who hold it good and moral to hang a man by his wrists from the ceiling, to threaten his children, to pour cold water on his naked body in a freezing room, to deprive him of sleep for days, to pour water into his lungs until he is half drowned, or the rest of the horrors we know have been perpetrated in our name? I’m supposed to be sensitive to their hurt feelings ? Yes, I’m sure they are traumatized. No doubt it is worse than waterboarding. But they are moral idiots, and they need to hear that they are moral idiots.
After all, Our Lord, who is- literally- love incarnate, did not hesitate to use harsh language- whited sepulchers, vipers, sons of the Devil- when the situation warranted. The torture apologists, at least in the public forum, are not the sort of broken sinners to whom Christ extended gentle mercy. They are more like the Pharisees, surely in need of a good skewering.
—Daniel Nichols
My first wakeup call on the issue of torture came when I was living in East Jerusalem when on June 19, 1977, the London Sunday Times first revealed to the world that Israeli authorities had been torturing Palestinian prisoners, and that this torture was “widespread and systematic,” and that it “appears to be sanctioned at some level as deliberate policy.” Knowing many Palestinians who talked of such reports regarding family members it was with great satisfaction that this was finally being reported on in the Western press. I naively thought that surely this story would end the torture of Palestinians by Israel. It didn’t. BTW, I happened to have grabbed my Times early that Sunday morning but have vivid memories of seeing the Israeli jeeps flying through the streets confiscating the issue at every newsstand and home in sight. I kept mine, made copies and sent it to many friends. It’s now on the Internet.
the problem is that too many, like William above, condemn the US or Israel for their torture, but not the Palestinians, or the Taliban or those who bomb or machete innocents.
Read Camus the Plague: You are either part of the plague or part of those fighting the plague, and taking a PC political stand for or against one side is being part of the plague, since a complete US withdrawal will allow some pretty nasty folks to win, endangering Muslim Indoys, Hindu Indians, Pinoy Catholics, Buddhist Thais and good Chinese atheists.
the missing link is faith in God,
I’ve written about the paradox
http://www.bloggernews.net/110958
“The naive say: no torture, because we can get confessions without it. Alas, often this is not so.
The pragmatic will say: No, we need to save innocent lives. Alas, often the innocent are tortured, and the police end up corrupted.
But the Christian says: we are only responsible for our own deeds, not the deeds of others. We may not do a bad deed even if we are fairly sure that good will come of it. So we cannot abort a child whose mother is in distress, nor can we steal because we are hungry, nor can we harm a prisoners who is helpless.
We will act ethically, knowing that even if short term harm comes from someone else’s deeds, because the first rule is to obey God. God is the one in charge, not us.”
Miss Reyes,
Not sure about your point above. You rightly say, “We may not do a bad deed even if we are fairly sure that good will come of it.” So are you against torture or not?
BTW, it is not stealing for a starving man to take food if that is the only way to keep alive. This teaching of the Church goes back centuries.
For a while I dabbled in pacifism (influenced by Dorothy Day, Wendell Berry, and Thomas Merton) and was mostly persuaded by arguments against torture in the abstract.
That said, I am not a particularly peaceful person. I like to argue. I like contact sports. I like firearms. I served in the military. I’m little troubled when some jerk that richly deserves it gets punched in the nose. I like it when the villain gets his come-uppance at the end of the movie. Etc.
Those are my personal failings I suppose. The trouble I had with pacifism came down to two things: other pacifists and parenthood.
Other pacifists: this may not be a fair generalization but I live in an area where there is a lot of anti-war/anti-torture sentiment. Many of the folks I meet each day proclaim themselves to be pacifists but after a little conversation I get the feeling that it is really something more like antipathy for our country or our military or whatever. Maybe I’m getting them all wrong but they sure never seem as angry at, say, the 9-11 hijackers as they are at, say, Dick Cheney. I could have overlooked that more or less indefinitely but it rankled.
Parenthood: I’m blessed with a beautiful child. Pacifism made a certain sort of sense when all I had to look out for was myself. Now my child looks to me for protection and I’m, so far as I can see, morally obliged to provide it. I can’t get past that apparent truth.
Which brings me to Thomas’ question: am I against torture or not? In the case where my child is endangered and there is even the slimmest of possibilities that I could provide protection by beating the information out of someone? Would I grasp at that straw? Would I torture? The answer is I probably would and a great deal more besides.
So the clear teaching of the church is what it is but as a matter conscience I cannot assent to it in that circumstance. Please God, that it never comes to that.
Obviously this is an application of a very specific case to a broader abstract question and is, perhaps, not terribly informative touching on matters of the state.
Obviously, there is some analogy to be made between the parent/child and state/citizen relationship. Also it is a very rare case when a parent would be in such a circumstance. Perhaps too rare for serious contemplation. But I’d like to meet the parent that doesn’t silently worry about half-dozen perils, real or imagined, at any moment of the day.
Near as I can tell there can be no room in church teaching for the scenario I laid out. Torture must be wrong under all circumstances or we descend into frivolous casuistry. On the other hand, the right of a child to depend upon its parents’ protection should be equally inviolable. In a close case like this I am going choose protection of my child as the higher rule.
I’ve thought about this a lot and it always comes down the same. A father who claims he does not stand ready to mete out great violence in defence of his children is:
a. a liar
b. deluded
c. a coward
or
d. has a far deeper faith than I do because I just do not understand.
That is the crux of the matter. I’m not a saint. I’m an inveterate sinner. I understand, sort of, what God was trying to do with Abraham and Isaac but I admit to cringing every time I hear that passage because I know damn well I’d have grabbed my boy and ran the other way. And if you say different, I just don’t get you. I’m not mad or angry about that maybe a bit sad.
Is this moral idiocy? Feel free to say so. I won’t feel provoked or angry or, at least I’ll try not to. To be clear, I’m not trying to persuade anyone to agree with me. I’m simply saying I do not understand and that the case seems very different to me than what you say.
The circumstances you describe only acknowledge that one can feel compelled to do what is objectionably immoral. I am a father six times over, and God only knows what I would do in the (unlikely) situation you sketch. I would imagine that Christ, rich in mercy, would consider my guilt mitigated by the circumstances, but that does not render the act moral.
We can have a well-founded fear that in certain circumstances we might do evil. But we cannot approve that evil in advance or try to justify it. What any of us might do if someone in his family is attacked, who can say? But we should hope and pray that our response will not violate the law of God no matter what.
I’m a father myself and now a grandfather. Whatever authority I have as a father to protect or guide or discipline my children comes from God – although since my children are all grown that authority is different from what it once was. But as God’s agent or minister fathers can hardly claim his authority as warrant for committing a sin – even a sin in a good cause. Same as with a political ruler. He can hardly claim that God has given him authority to protect his country by committing a sin.
BTW, Basil Seal, you’re aware that no one here (as far as I know) is advocating pacifism?
Thomas, yes. I mentioned pacifism only by way of providing some background on my own thinking. As it happens I now think pacifism is probably immoral for parents and states. I was trying to point out why I think many people find the moral denunciations of torture in the current debate unpersuasive.
Public servants past and present may well perceive the situation to be very similar to what I describe with regards to the state’s responsibility to protect its citizens. Opinion polls suggest much of the public takes a similar view. Suggesting that there is something sinister in their motives or that they are moral imbeciles is unlikely to change anything either.
All I’m saying is there may be some persuasive and comforting counter-argument to what I wrote but I have not heard it yet. I’m suggesting that rather than denunciations and bland recitation of encyclicals what do you say to someone a lot like me? Someone who doesn’t think themselves more than ordinarily malevolent but believes themselves to be in a hard spot. Because that is where I believe most people to be at on this question.
They are not indifferent and they are not morally insensible. They just need something other than an endless re-hash of ‘the authentic teaching of the church’ in the sort of like-it-or-lump-it way it is often presented.
This is a problem for many writers in the Catholic blogosphere on more than just this topic. People aren’t tempted to sin because they lack moral sensibility. They do it because it is really, really appealing or because they are very afraid or because they think they have no other choice.
Writers that fail to recognize this sound like tin-eared scolds and over-zealous hall monitors. I thought Daniel, while meaning well and intending no harm, was coming close to this in his post. A more persuasive post might address some of what I’m talking about.
Basil,
I’m a little confused by your approach, if I may say so. You say the following, “People aren’t tempted to sin because they lack moral sensibility. They do it because it is really, really appealing or because they are very afraid or because they think they have no other choice.” Now if you simply mean that in some situations we might well be tempted beyond our reliance on God’s grace, I certainly agree with you. I can think of many situations where this might occur to me and indeed has.
But it seems to me that there’s an undercurrent in what you say that I might paraphrase like this: ‘Well, since I’m not a saint, and I’m damn well gonna protect my child, I’ll torture any bastard to death who might be hiding information that might save my child. And anyone who condemns me for that is either a coward or a moral poseur.’
Am I wrong to posit this undercurrent? If you’re simply confessing moral weakness, then join the club – or rather you’re already part of the club, the entire human race. But consider – suppose I say that in some circumstances I’m likely to commit adultery. Can I say that you shouldn’t recite encyclicals, catechisms, 10 commandments, etc. to me since I need more “than an endless re-hash of ‘the authentic teaching of the church’”? I hear in your comments a faint suspicion that maybe, just maybe, the Church doesn’t have the last word on the subject of torture, as she does (I trust you’ll agree) on the matter of adultery or fornication. Because if the Church does have the last word on moral matters, then it’s exactly a reiteration of her moral teachings that we need to hear, and then, if we want to avoid sin and the punishment thereof, we’d better get on our knees and ask God to conform our wills to his law. And this is the case equally with torture and with sexual sins or stealing or whatever.
If you meant that you thought Daniel was asserting that he did not have any of the temptations which you honestly confess, then I don’t think that’s what he meant. He was going after those who attempt to justify torture, not those who might, in a moment of weakness, commit a sin.
There is a big difference between some one who admits he might commit a sexual sin out of weakness and someone who says, ‘Well, I ain’t a saint, what can I do, does God expect some sort of impossible conduct from me?’
Thomas, I think the undercurrent you attribute to my comments is felt by some non-trivial number of folks who have considered the matter and reached a conclusion different than yours or Daniel’s or even my own. For my part, I concede the moral authority of the church while simultaneously confessing to be not entirely happy about it.
That last sentence bears some explaining so here it is: there are times when making a perfectly moral decision has effects that are, or seem to be, entirely monstrous. That one has made a choice in perfect harmony with church teaching is likely little comfort to the parent of the child in my scenario or, even, the head of state who helplessly endures the attacks upon his citizens. It does appear to be almost entirely without consolation.
So I’m asking two things. If it is not entirely without consolation, what are the consolations? Here I’m seeking not some long delayed consolation like you will go to heaven or some it’s-like-buying-the-world-a-coke wouldn’t-it-be-great-if sort of thing but rather something more personal. I suspect there may be something of that sort but little if anything is written about it in these exchanges and it’s something I’d like to know more about.
Second, I think there is another undercurrent in much of what is written on this topic which can be summed up thus should you be unfortunate enough to reach a different conclusion: go to hell. Daniel points out and its true enough that Christ didn’t hesitate to forcefully condemn when it was necessary. Of course, He was possessed of a much clearer insight into the mind of man than any of us so I’m not persuaded by Daniel’s justification. That Christ condemned when He deemed it warranted is no justification for us to do so when we deem it warranted. In fact, Christ expressed some exasperation with those who constantly wished for him to condemn someone or other.
I’ve given a fairly rational explanation of how someone might reach a conclusion not supported by church teaching. It was not necessary to posit some sort of wickedness on their part for me to do so. Simple human frailty explains our current predicament pretty well. So I’m not sure why anyone thinks we’ve reached the point of dividing everyone up in those who hold sound doctrine those who should be cast into outer darkness. The circumstance of today can be understood by considering church teaching on divorce. The simple version: it’s not allowed. The slightly longer version: but the church is generous in the matter of annulments. To many folks that is a distinction without a difference.
So we find ourselves in the midst of a controversy about torture versus enhanced interrogation and unsurprisingly there is a variety of opinion among folks who call themselves Catholic. Now some of us are content to conclude that enhanced interrogation is torture and have done with the whole thing citing the clear teaching of the church. And some other of us concede the clear teaching of the church but argue that action a or technique b does not violate the same. Curiously, both sides seem to feel the problem is a moral failing with the other. So I think we would be better served by a more empathetic discourse on the topic.
No, Basil, you did not present a fairly rational explanation, you presented a very emotional hypothetical situation. I can do the same to justify, or create sympathy for, the act of abortion, for murder, for euthanasia, for any number of things. We all understand that human weakness can lead to sin. That is a familiar reality for all of us. And no, sometimes there are no worldly consolations for doing the right thing. If going to heaven does not carry much weight with you I cannot think of anything to say that will convince you.
Consequentialism is the great disease of modern moral reasoning. That is what I am resisting and calling moral idiocy. I would certainly not call a father who became brutal trying to save his child a moral idiot. I have already said that in similar circumstances any one of us might act the same. I have great sympathy for sins of weakness.
The people I am addressing are not under such duress, but justifying torture in a cool and reasoned way.
Daniel, I am not making a counter-argument based on emotion. You and I agree on the moral principle at hand. I am explaining the emotions upon which I think others are basing their moral calculations. I have a good deal of sympathy for them because feel sort of the same way.
Do you conceive of no motive other than wickedness among the people you address? I contend they perceive themselves to be under duress and it is simply not something that you perceive as rational. My point is that by disallowing such a possibility you set up a straw man which you set about in a way that is baffling to people who disagree. I am telling you that you misunderstand the people you think you are addressing.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the reward of heaven is a particularly persuasive argument. In the first place, I’m a long way from understanding the idea in any sort of mature way. Yes, it’s something that I want but it’s something I don’t understand well. I don’t think I’m alone in lacking the imagination to shake of the fairly childish notions of clouds and harps and halos try though I might. Most folks have a very poor understanding of what heaven might mean so, yes, some simple consolation might be more persuasive.
That said, I have reached the same conclusion as you: some moral acts have no consolation. Because that is true it is no surprise that there might be disagreement particularly on hard cases. I have not argued that you are wrong on the moral question at hand, only that you are wrong about the motives of the other side.
Then you misunderstand me; I quite realize that those who would justify torture are doing it in the light of some perceived good. So did the people who bombed cities in WWII. So do most people who have abortions, however some prolifers may trivialize their motives. So do all the moral idiots in history, who have wrought horrors upon the world.
Indeed, doesn’t St Thomas say that all sin is a pursuit of some perceived good? That does not make it right, as you say you agree. But they (consequentialists) do say it makes it right. You seem to say that it doesn’t make it right, but sometimes one must do wrong, which is – I think- worse.
You really have an obligation, as an adult Christian, to put childish things aside and try to come to a mature faith. If you meditate on the reality of divinization, of entering into the presence of God by participation in His nature, heaven may seem adequate consolation indeed.
“But they (consequentialists) do say it makes it right. You seem to say that it doesn’t make it right, but sometimes one must do wrong, which is – I think- worse.”
Not exactly. I am saying that if your intent of your writing is to persuade you would do well to address the apparent contradiction between to the performance of a positive moral good that results in an obvious temporal harm. We both understand that there are certain tensions and mysteries and paradoxes that confront the professed Christian. To non-believers, that seems intellectually lazy or simply non-sense. Even among believers it is a source of considerable anxiety.
While I’m certain that you do not consider yourself an advocate of the ‘prosperity gospel’ you must have noticed that one need not look too hard through back issues of CeT to find the implication that not only is a proposition morally good but is likely to bring significant temporal good along with it.
Now the temporal good — whatever it may be — is something of a by-product and not to be counted on, I suppose. But it’s not for nothing that writers mention the temporal good. They do so because it is profoundly persuasive. So it is no surprise that when a temporal good is removed from the moral equation that we should find the argument so much less persuasive. This, I think, is why hard cases become cultural flashpoints in the manner of the Schiavo case or waterboarding and also why the moral argument tends to fare badly in the popular discourse. It’s not simply because no one bothered to resort to name-calling.
Your argument against torture has moral weight but it is unpersuasive and I’ve attempted to tell you why I think so. If you think the fault entirely my own then not to worry. A bit more meditation on my part will surely put things right. On the other hand, if what I describe is more common that suggests you might wish to re-think not what you argue but how you argue it.
Basil,
I’m curious, could you give a couple examples of “one need not look too hard through back issues of CeT to find the implication that not only is a proposition morally good but is likely to bring significant temporal good along with it.”
Of course, you wouldn’t deny the obvious, I guess, e.g., if you are good to your wife and children you’re likely to enjoy a better home life and have less to worry about with your children then if you’re a drunk and beat up your family regularly?
It’s surely not controversial to affirm that! – Is that what you mean by “the implication that not only is a proposition morally good but is likely to bring significant temporal good along with it”?
“The environmental implications of what I have written should be clear to everyone, for one of the reasons why we are in the environmental mess that we are is that we habitually and grossly violate the principle of subsidiarity. “
To cite just one random occurrence by an obscure Catholic writing in a yet more obscure Catholic journal ;-).
Basil, once again you misunderstand me. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I figure that if someone can calmly tell me that hanging a man by his wrists from the ceiling, depriving him of sleep, subjecting him to extreme temperatures, or waterboarding him is moral, despite the clear teaching of the Church, nothing I could possibly say could move him. I reckon him pretty far gone, pretty hopeless.
And I am not engaging in name-calling, just accurate description.
And while it is true that right action sometimes has temporal benefits, it isn’t always the case. Just ask the martyrs…
Daniel,
My mistake. I had supposed you were attempting to be persuasive and I thought whoever you imagine you were addressing might respond to something other than what you offered. Your post, then, appears to be directed not at persons who might be persuaded but at the already persuaded. So why speak or write about it at all?
And idiot where mistaken will do is name-calling. I guess there’s not much more to say.
Basil,
Quick reply right now. I don’t see anything especially odd or that suggests anything akin to the “prosperity gospel” if one asserts that if we obey God’s law we’ll often obtain some temperal benefits as well. That seems to me pretty obvious. But of course that’s not the ultimate reason for doing so, and it doesn’t always hold true. I can’t give you references right now, but there are suggestions of this in the New Testament. St. Paul says somewhere, there is great peace in godliness, or something akin to that.
We are actually more concerned with this world. So come on over to see what the politicians are all saying about Collateral Pedophilia!
http://broomecpinfo.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/test/
Course we have other pages as well to check out on their obscene silence on depleted uranium along with what they all are collectively really SCREAMING!
xox,
The Lady Maid Marion