![\"Frustration\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/01\/Frustration.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nI have removed a blog post of mine\u00a0 (and two related Facebook discussion posts) that deal with Matthew 18:34, as related to the vexed \u201cwaterboarding \/ torture\u201d issue. I have done so because in the present hysterical, fanatical, anti-rational, \u201cus vs. them\u201d climate that prevails online when it comes to discussion of this issue, my reasoning cannot possibly be grasped<\/i> (i.e., by those people who are acting hysterically and judgmentally).<\/span> 1. Torture is intrinsically wrong. The church has made this very clear.<\/span> 1. I [supposedly] <\/span>am \u201cpro-torture\u201d and defend torture and am a \u201ctorture apologist.\u201d<\/span> Jesus clearly builds on this Old Testament foundation of a nascent, minimal recognition of the need for moderation in chastising one\u2019s fellow men made in God\u2019s image. The New Testament data furnishing some kind of basis for a moral evaluation of such penal practices are not abundant, but significant. On the one hand, we find no direct or outright condemnation of the aforesaid Mosaic punishments as being intrinsically unjust or evil. It would be implausible to try reading any ethical censure<\/i> into Jesus\u2019 mention of temporal torture in the parable of the unforgiving debtor (Mt 18: 34), in view of his immediate comparison of this treatment with that to be meted out in eternity by \u201cmy heavenly Father\u201d (cf. B2 above). The same can be said of the floggings referred to in the parable of the wicked servant (Lk 12: 47-48, cf. B3), particularly in the light of our Lord\u2019s own action narrated in Jn 2: 15 (cf. B6). It seems plain from the text that his \u201cwhip\u201d was used to strike the money changers themselves, not only the animals \u2013 and with considerable force.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n As a matter of fact, I never have <\/i>expressed any positive personal approval of torture for that last-mentioned purpose (and much less for any other purpose).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Nobody disputes that the CIA-approved waterboarding was a thoroughly nasty and frightening experience. However, I submit that whether or not it reached the point of torture does remain a seriously disputed question among reasonable and well-informed people.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n . . . I certainly intend to devote more study to this and related issues. However this will be my only statement on the matter in this forum. Indeed, I do not normally read this (or any other) blog, mainly because I think disputes in the blogosphere tend to generate more heat than light \u2013 especially since they so often involve intemperate, unsubstantiated, anonymous \u2013 and therefore cowardly \u2013 attacks on persons and reputations. Also, heat is often accompanied by smoke; so I hope that this present clarification of my own position at least clears the air somewhat.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Todd emphasized in his blog post that \u201cAll my musings are mine alone and do not purport to be the final interpretation of Church teaching or the official opinion of Catholic Answers<\/i>\u201d (emphasis in original). Please keep in mind that Todd\u2019s disclaimer is also my own. Neither of us purports to define the matter for the Church or to give the official opinion of Catholic Answers. And please note that these are personal blog posts; they are not in the same category of Catholic Answers\u2019 publications as books, tracts, or magazine articles.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n From the wall of a VERY concerned Catholic Torquemada Tequila:<\/span><\/span> \u00a0This is NOT the teaching of the Catholic Church. This is NOT Catholicism.<\/span><\/span> The best kept secret of the Catholic Apologetics (defense of the Faith) movement is Dave Armstrong. How do I know? From experience. Some time ago, while struggling with the Catholicity of the Church after the Second Vatican Council, I encountered Dave on an email discussion group and immediately challenged him to a debate. Rather than accept my challenge, Dave invited me to converse with him on the subjects of the Roman Papacy and the role of Tradition in the Church. During our conversation, I found Dave\u2019s honesty and sincerity refreshing. With regards to the authentic expression of Catholicism, he was both gentle and firm. At the time, I did not know these were hallmarks of Dave\u2019s Catholic evangelism, and this is why Dave was instrumental in bringing me back to the Catholic Church. Rather than refute any of the objections I raised against the Catholic Church, Dave held my hand and encouraged me to confront them. Afterwards we parted ways as friends, my confidence in the Church restored.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n For me, the big discomfort is with the fact some folks claiming to be Catholic apologists defend this practice. Between this and the geocentrism controversy, I am seriously starting to question whether the Church ought to license Catholic apologists as it does canonists and theologians. I specifically said in the post at the top that I am not qualified to even give a definite opinion on the topic.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t have a \u201clicense\u201d but I do have Fr. John A. Hardon\u2019s strong recommendation of my first book. And I have an article right in the middle of our archdiocese newspaper, every two weeks (also an Imprimatur from my own bishop).<\/p>\n I don\u2019t believe G. K. Chesterton had a \u201clicense.\u201d He didn\u2019t even have a college degree.<\/p>\n Fr. Brian Harrison is Australian, not American. Since Fr. Harrison is Australian, this statement is now shown to be false. And your comeback is the rather weak: \u201cFr Brian Harrison might as well be American.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Well, you did say, the only ones you<\/i> have come across.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t see the need for this streak of nastiness and the anti-American motif and the low blow against apologists. That\u2019s the trend lately. So go jump on that fashionable bandwagon if you must. [I gave his initials]<\/p>\n He certainly knows to keep the issue away from me.<\/span> Jacoba Jaques<\/b> . . . It\u2019s like he did what he accuses Protestants of doing. Manipulating the scriptures to fit his belief.<\/span> . . . <\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>I love the Bible; love to engage in amateur exegesis and to discuss (like all lovers of the Bible) what various passages mean. This has been ridiculously distorted to mean (in this instance, given the atrocious mentality that prevails) that I am supposedly equating my thoughts with dogma or the magisterium.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>My actual position has been incredibly distorted in certain quarters. This<\/i> is my position:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>2. I am agnostic as to whether the practice of waterboarding is a species of torture.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/span>My true position\u00a0 has been distorted and caricatured by my critics as the following:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>2. I [supposedly] <\/span>claim (in this paper) that Jesus was \u201cpro-torture\u201d [in the sense that the Church has condemned].<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/span>Woe unto me, that I dared to look at a Scripture passage that mentioned \u201ctorment\u201d or \u201ctorture\u201d (defined as interrogatory practices). It wasn\u2019t my<\/i> initial argument or speculation. I first saw it in the context of a very elaborate presentation of the scriptural data concerning corporal punishment <\/a>by Australian moral theologian Fr. Brian Harrison.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>It\u2019s important to note that Fr. Harrison is Australian<\/i> because it is charged that any doubt whatsoever as to the status of waterboarding as torture is strictly an \u201cAmerican\u201d and \u201cNeo-conservative\u201d position, and inevitably drawn therefrom. Likewise, it is important to note that he is a moral theologian<\/i>, because I am being accused of setting myself up (as an apologist) as some sort of pseudo-magisterium. Fr. Harrison wrote in his paper:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Fr. Harrison, since the time of this paper (July 2005) has clarified that he fully accepts the Church definition of torture as intrinsically immoral (on 11 March 2010<\/a>). He and others have also noted that there must sensibly be more than one meaning of \u201ctorture\u201d insofar as historically, the Church (and folks like St. Thomas Aquinas) have without question sanctioned various forms of corporal punishment (such as in the various Inquisitions). Of course, any such fine distinctions are lost upon the fanatics and hysterical polemicists out there discussing this issue on a daily basis. Fr. Harrison, like myself, was never \u201cpro-torture.\u201d In his clarification he stated:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Fr. Harrison also reiterated at the same time that he remains agnostic as to whether waterboarding is torture (in the sense that it is condemned by the Church):<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>He also condemned the usual hysterical discussions online (such as the ones now leading to false accusations coming my way): <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Fr. Harrison is not alone in his assessment concerning waterboarding. Catholic Answers published an article of his on the overall topic<\/a> (\u201cThe Church and Torture\u201d) in December 2006. On 1 May and 3 May 2014, competing articles appeared on the Catholic Answers blog: Todd Aglialoro\u00a0<\/a> arguing that waterboarding may not<\/i> be torture, and Michelle Arnold<\/a> arguing that it is<\/i>. Obviously, then, Catholic Answers (the largest and most influential lay Catholic apologetics organization) has not taken a dogmatic <\/i>stand that the Church is definitely against waterboarding as torture<\/i> (as all the hysterical fanatics writing on the topic think is self-evident). Michelle wrote in her article:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span>Moreover, CA staffer Jimmy Akin has staked out an agnostic position as well, in numerous thoughtful articles, collected with many others in my list of links of\u00a0 \u201cCalm, Reasoned (Rather Than Hyper-Polemical) Orthodox Catholic Resources\u201d. Likewise, prominent orthodox Catholic philosophers Francis Beckwith and Edward Feser . . . My own position is laid out clearly there, and we have actually had civil discussions on my Facebook page about it (one combox had over 1000 comments).<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Now we shall examine the present nonsense being spewed about my alleged opinions and arguments in particular. It seems that I am the target of a witch hunt. Ross Earl Hoffman has been the leading purveyor in recent months of the hysterical, fanatical \u201ctorture\u201d polemic.\u00a0 He is inspired by Mark Shea, who has been writing hyper-polemically on the issue for literally almost ten years now. Lately they have been joined by canon lawyer Pete Vere. The latest \u201cround\u201d in a long string of attacks came on Ross Earl Hoffman\u2019s Facebook page (posted on 1-26-15) and cross-posted on his Roaming Romans<\/i> page<\/a> (same date). He cited the recent Facebook words of Pete Vere (who goes by \u201cTorquemada Tequila\u201d):<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>Note to my Canadian friends, as well as my non-Catholic friends, who may have come across the following [one of my Facebook cross-posting of my blog article, mentioned above] and found yourselves scandalized by it. Especially my friends from the veteran community:<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
\nThis is, as they say in professional wrestling when one of the performers fails to follow script, a certain apologist \u201cgoing into business for himself.\u201d
\n<\/span><\/span>
\nI find this unfortunate given that he has produced much quality apologetics material in the past. However, I know of no post-conciliar pope or bishop who would sanction such a (mis)interpretation of the Gospel. For that reason, after going back and forth in my mind for the past week, I am making the difficult decision to withdraw any and all past endorsements of Mr Armstrong\u2019s apologetics material.
\n<\/span><\/span>
\nPlease keep us both in prayer. Dave, that he realizes the division and scandal this is causing the Body of Christ universally. Myself, that I can remain focused upon the truth and resist the temptation to reply out of vengeance.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/span>Pete has lost almost all restraint, even of common decency, in his comments over the last month about this (though he did issue a qualified apology for language in his recent post: not, of course, to me<\/i> personally). He\u2019s literally compared me (or anyone who holds my agnostic position on waterboarding) to Nazis, Holocaust deniers, geocentrist fanatics; he made out that I was a mere shill for the Republican Party and \u201cpro-torture\u201d and am letting supposed \u201cAmericanism\u201d prevail over against my Catholicism. Then he started an attack on apologetics itself.<\/span>
\n<\/span>
\n<\/span>He is guilty of much hypocrisy on all these points. He co-wrote a book with me just a few months ago, about Orthodoxy\u00a0(his portions have since been removed). In that book he wrote:<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n<\/span>Pete also (far as I know) remains on friendly terms with Karl Keating, as a frequent visitor to his Facebook page. Yet, as I have shown, Catholic Answers has not made a statement that waterboarding is definitely torture, and in their magazine and blog they have hosted \u201cagnostic\u201d articles by Fr. Harrison and Todd Aglialoro. So why hasn\u2019t Pete dissed Catholic Answers and Karl Keating and engaged in melodramatic denunciations and withdrawal of support? I\u2019m just a small fish in the apologetics world. Karl and Catholic Answers are the \u201cbig fish.\u201d Perhaps that<\/i> is the reason Pete is reluctant. But he\u2019s willing to take me<\/i> on.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Moreover, he remains friends with Catholic writer and former blogger Shawn McElhinney, as far as I know. Yet Shawn has written (some years ago now) a lengthy three-part treatment on the torture issue with a view similar if not identical to my own (one<\/a> \/ two<\/a> \/ three<\/a>). I don\u2019t see Pete ruining their<\/i> friendship or writing articles condemning him<\/i> as a Nazi or Holocaust denier, etc. Perhaps Shawn has retracted his position since. If so, these papers still remain online; they have not been removed.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Shawn also has defended the nuclear bombing of Japan in 1945, in a couple dozen posts on his old blog (see some of them<\/a>; some of which attack yours truly), which Pete thinks is a detestable position. I know; I vigorously debated him on the issue in 2005, and our friendship was wrecked because of it. So Pete thinks it\u2019s fine to maintain a friendship with a person who passionately defends<\/i> the incineration of 100,000 civilians, while dissing another \u201cfriend\u201d who is agnostic<\/i> on waterboarding: a practice that has been done on (I believe) all of three<\/i> terrorist prisoners.<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Here is the exchange I had with Pete Vere (12-31-14) on my long 1000+ comments thread\u00a0 on Facebook<\/a> (his words in green<\/span>):<\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Outside of certain segments of American Catholicism, the Church at present is pretty broad and unanimous in rejecting waterboarding as a form of torture. So theologians won\u2019t be debating this for decades to come. In fact,over on my facebook page, friend and fellow canonist Fr Philip Lee Erickson provided a short summary of the Church\u2019s condemnation of this practice.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>Speaking for myself, as an apologist, I\u2019m not defending the practice. I am thus far agnostic as to waterboarding, and definitely against torture.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>Fr Brian Harrison might as well be American.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>And I might as well be Canadian, since my dad was born there. It\u2019s neither here nor there.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>No, you definitely are not Canadian.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>You wrote on your page: \u201cSorry Dave, but waterboarding is torture. Period. The only Catholics that I have come across who doubt this or who argue otherwise, happen to be both: 1) American, and 2) Republican.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\nI recant nothing. I find it extremely creepy that some Catholics on your side of the border even think this is debatable.<\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Great. So the next step now is to define me as a lousy, disobedient Catholic (perhaps a \u201cdeceiver\u201d too, as one illustrious Catholic puts it), simply because I am agnostic and still working through the issue?<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Not really. If it is one of the many issues that I feel St Augustine would deem non-essential, I just ignore it or agree to disagree. But for something like this that I deem essential \u2014 put another way, I rank defence of waterboarding by Catholics on par with certain reactionary trads who deny the Holocaust \u2013 I usually decide to go my separate way.<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>As for geocentrism, you know full well that [Robert] Sungenis became a pariah within the apologetics community very quickly upon assuming that position. So it is a stupid analysis to tar the whole community with that<\/i> error, in light of that.<\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Dave, I think it might be time to go our separate ways for while\u2026<\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>You do what you have to do, Pete. If you want to let the devil create more division, that\u2019s your free choice. I think it\u2019s disgraceful. We\u2019ve been civil this entire thread, and here my friend, who says I helped him out of the radical reactionary movement, and with whom I co-wrote a book about Orthodoxy, wants to insult me and get away from me, simply because I don\u2019t yet have an absolute opinion on waterboarding.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>It\u2019s not just you, Dave. I have blocked about a third of the people in this conversation \u2013 namely those who are hardcore apologists for waterboarding. Not saying you are, but this issue is one that I find deeply troubling whenever Catholics claiming to be faithful take up its defence. I feel the same way about this as I do Traditionalists who deny the Holocaust. I cannot stand to be near it as it horrifies me and robs my soul of peace.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>I find it deeply troubling that Catholics will defend the incineration of 100,000 Japanese civilians with an atomic bomb. You have a good friend [Shawn McElhinney] who did so. Did you want to separate from him<\/i>, too, as a result, and find that<\/i> creepy? I defended what I believe is the Church\u2019s position (way back in 2005) and received some of the worst insults I\u2019ve ever gotten from anyone.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>Who?<\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>You know who it is. You certainly couldn\u2019t have missed that.<\/span><\/span>
\n
\nIn fact, I have always defended Fr Feeney when it came to the atom bomb. <\/span>For those unfamiliar with the history of the Feeneyite controversy, Fr Leonard Feeney was actually quite liberal for a Jesuit priest in his day prior to the bomb being dropped on Japan. However, he went into a deep depression after the bomb was dropped, contemplating the 100,000 killed. When he emerged from this depression he became the Fr Feeney who took the hardline stand on the doctrine \u201cOutside the Church no salvation.\u201d<\/span>Remember I took an extended break from apologetics. Who defends the dropping to the atom bomb?<\/span> <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>I guess so.<\/span><\/span>
\n
\n<\/span>The combox at Ross\u2019s page devoted to lying about my position (posted today) is also as fascinating as it is pathetic (excerpts):<\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>Ross Earl Hoffman<\/b> . . . its some of the worst Apologetics I have ever seen. I actually scolded him in private for stuff like this\u2026and all hell broke lose<\/span> [sic] \u2026<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n