\u2026we have this chestnut being rehashed in my comboxes<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201cTorture 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Why do suppose the statement gives these unacceptable conditions? Why does it not include \u201cinterrogation for the greater good\u201d? Why does it not simply define it as an intrinsic evil, like abortion?<\/p>\n The reason is that it is following the Just War line of reasoning, which justifies killing in certain circumstances.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Because the whole point of saying an act is \u201cintrinsically immoral\u201d is that there *is* no such thing as committing it \u201cfor the greater good\u201d. An intrinsically immoral act is one which *cannot* be justified by its end. Whether my reader realizes it or not, she is regurgitating the line of jesuitical reasoning proposed by Fr. Brian Harrison, instantly adopted as The Final Magisterial Word by the Rubber Hose Right (and dispatched by Tom Kreitzberg several years ago<\/a>). No word yet on when the Rubber Hose Right will likewise be signing off on Fr. Harrison\u2019s defense of Robert Sungenis\u2019 defiance of his bishop<\/a>. Evidently, he\u2019s a magisterial referee only on politically *useful* issues, though the argumentation style (\u201cHey! It\u2019s not *technically* torture\/defiance of the bishop\u201d) is remarkably similar. Similarly, it\u2019s an approach that tends to bury the lede by majoring in some really major minors.<\/p>\n There are two basic methods for attempting to justify torture. The first is to say, \u201cAccording to my ingenious definition, that\u2019s not torture, so it\u2019s okay.\u201d Except with Rush Limbaugh Kool Aid drinkers who think that waterboarding somebody 183time *proves* it\u2019s not torture, this trick no longer passes the laugh test (and do recall that waterboarding is but one of the strategies devised for inflicting torments on our prisoners). The other method is to say, \u201cYes, it\u2019s torture. But it\u2019s still okay because we had a good end in mind.\u201d That is the strategy my combox person is pursuing. She\u2019s trying to square the circle and say that an intinsically immoral act is rendered \u201cnot intrinsically immoral\u201d if we have a good end in mind, much like saying a circle is rendered square if we really wish it were.<\/p>\n To get the hang of \u201cintrinsically immoral\u201d let\u2019s change the example a bit. Instead of a nice cinematic waterboarding involving Keifer Sutherland as Our Hero and Khalid Sheik Mohammed as the grimy unshaven thug, let\u2019s insert, oh, real life CIA interrogators as our Heroes and Khalid Sheik Mohammed as the grimy unshaven thug. According to Ron Suskind, while we were torturing KSM, we told him that his family would be harmed, including his kids, who were 7 and 9. If you approve of an intrinsically immoral act like torture \u201cfor the greater good\u201d, then you logically must approve of any other intrinsically immoral act for the greater good. Indeed, it is a known fact among the goons who run torture states that a person who may sacrifice his own life will quickly crack, if you threaten those he loves. If you are all into efficiency, torturing the children of your target is the way to go. So saying \u201cTorture is okay when you are interrogating for the greater good\u201d is like saying \u201cSodomizing the children of KSM before his eyes is okay, if you are pursuing the greater good. After all, there are no permanent physical effects and (if you hire the right torturers) it doesn\u2019t \u201cshock the conscience\u201d of the interrogators.\u201d<\/p>\n If you reply, \u201cBut the children are innocent, so that would be evil\u201d you give away the fact that the *real* reason you are doing this is not to get information, but to punish the victim of interrogation. The real reason you are torturing KSM is because the son of a bitch has it coming.<\/em> Yet even Fr. Brian Harrison denies (along with the Catechism) that torture which is done to satisfy hatred or punish the guilty is legitimate. You are also, by the way, overlooking the fact that torture is often done in order to discover whether the person you are torturing knows anything or is guilty of anything. <\/p>\n As to my comboxers second claim: \u201cThe reason is that it is following the Just War line of reasoning, which justifies killing in certain circumstances\u201d\u2026 well, this is the sort of incredibly specious reasoning that has come to characterize the thinking of far too many allegedly \u201cfaithful conservative Catholics\u201d. Just War reasoning justifies killing *in self defense*. It does not justify taking prisoners out and gunning them down once they are in your power. Why? Because prisoners are creatures in the image and likeness of God. That\u2019s why the Catechism says that the moral law is not abrogated in wartime and the fact that we are at war does not justify immoral acts. For the same reason, we do not torture prisoners. So, when you actually look at the Catechism, rather than to Fox News talking points for your moral reasoning, you discover that Holy Mother Church commands that prisoners be treated humanely, not tortured. No where in her teaching on Just war does Holy Mother Church say torturing prisoners is okay. Nowhere.<\/p>\n The real question here is this, \u201cWhy are Catholics trying so hard to find justifications for war crimes when the Catechism is so bloody clear that torture is not justifiable and that prisoners are to be treated humanely?\u201d<\/p>\n