My sincere apologies for double-posting like this, but I’ve been up all night trying to get close to the bottom of this torture debate, especially in light of my previous post that details some of the less talked about horrors of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib.
It is almost impossible for me to accept that on so important an issue there could be such ambiguity, confusion and uncertainty as to what the Church really teaches. I hope this brings us one step closer.
Mark Shea’s latest article at Inside Catholic includes a link to the arguments of Rev. Brian Harrison, whom I understand has become the leading reference point for Catholics seeking to justify the use of torture to obtain life-saving information in a critical situation.
At the outset I wish to say that it is obvious that Rev. Harrison is not a rabid supporter or defender of torture, and I have no wish to portray him as such. But the argument he has put forth here has been used by some who are searching, with varying degrees of eagerness, for ways to render torture under circumstances they deem necessary an acceptable practice.
A rather lengthy part of Harrison’s treatise focuses on the teachings of John Paul II, particularly Veritatis Splendor, paragraph 80. This paragraph is often invoked by Catholic opponents of torture to establish the validity of their position, for it was here that JP II included torture on a list of “intrinsic evils”, acts which may not be committed under any circumstances.
Harrison calls into question the authority of this paragraph in a number of ways I find dubious but within the realm of possibility. He opines that the list appearing in VS 80 is really a sort of convenient restatement of an earlier list provided in Paul VI’s Gaudium et Spes:
What the Pope wants to insist on here, in opposition to such theories, is simply that there do really exist classes of actions which are intrinsically morally evil, and which, therefore, can never be justified under any circumstances. And Gaudium et Spes #27 simply happens to furnish the Pope with a convenient, ready-made set of examples to help him illustrate his point.
Harrison goes on to note that there are a number of items that appear on the list that are not even actions that can be carried out by individuals, such as social conditions, and as such we may “conclude from all this” that VS 80
[C]annot legitimately be read as containing a formal judgment on the part of the Pope to the effect that the voluntary infliction of severe pain is, as such, “intrinsically evil”.
I am willing to grant this point because VS 80 is only one part of the Catholic case against torture, and only one part of JP II’s teaching as we shall see below.
Harrison goes on to argue that a “better key” to understanding the mind of JP II was his “1982 allocution at the world headquarters of the Red Cross in Geneva.” But even this “better key” does not appear to qualify as a definite teaching on torture, since JP II does not “use the natural-law language of “intrinsically” or per se evil actions.”
I submit that there is no good reason to assume that the 1982 speech is a “better key” to understanding the mind of JP II, at least on the specific question of torture within the context of the ‘War on Terror’, because there are in fact much more recent statements that no one is talking about.
I had to do quite a bit of digging myself to find these statements, but it is clear that in May and June of 2004, as news of torture of detainees in US prisons was becoming more widespread, JP spoke out twice within the period of a month on the issue that many of us are debating today.
In May 2004, JP II addressed the ambassadors to the Vatican and began it with an acknowledgement of torture on a global scale:
2. Disturbing news concerning the status of human rights is constantly arriving from all the continents. It makes clear that in contempt of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (cf. art. 5), people – men, women and children – are tortured and their dignity is offended. Thus, the whole of humanity is injured and derided. Since every human being is our brother or sister in humanity, we cannot keep silent before such intolerable abuses. It is the duty of all people of good will, whether they have responsibilities or are ordinary citizens, to do their utmost to enforce respect for every human being.
This might not be enough to establish a clear position against torture for the purposes of acquiring life-saving information, but when it is seen in the light of yet another statement made by JP II only a month later, things come into focus:
Yesterday, the World Day against torture was celebrated. May the common commitment of the institutions and citizens totally ban this intolerable violation of human rights which is radically opposed to human dignity. [emphasis added]
What the Pope was referring to here was the International Day Against Torture on June 26, 2004. And what was the focus of this day? Given the news that had been dominating the headlines, the purpose of the event was to denounce abuses of prisoners in US facilities such as Guantanamo Bay. The website for the event states
Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture has expressed its indignation following the revelation of acts of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on detainees under the supervision of US and UK Coalition forces in Iraq (as well as in Afghanistan, Guantánamo Bay and secret detention centres where prisoners are deliberately being held away from all legal safeguards). It has condemned these acts and demanded that they be fully investigated and that justice be done.
Could it honestly be argued that the Pope had no idea what he was commending? First we have a statement lamenting and condemning torture on all continents. Next we have a public endorsement of an international event specifically designed to call attention to torture at US facilities. Do we have enough yet to conclude that JP II was not merely regurgitating a ‘ready made list’ when he placed torture on a list of intrinsic evils? Can it still be said that we have no point of reference, no clear understanding, of the mind of the Pope in the midst of this national and international debacle?
I am no theologian. I can’t say that statements such as these are a part of the Magisterium, though my reading of Lumen Gentium 25 suggests that they probably are. What I do think these statements establish is the following:
a) JP II was quite concerned with the issue of torture in the context we are debating now.
b) That he was unconditionally opposed to its use.
c) That he held this position consistently throughout his Pontificate.
In addition, our current Pope, Benedict XVI, has shown no signs of disagreement with his predecessor. In his 2006 message for the World Day of Peace, paragraph 7, the Pope states
The Fathers of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, in the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, pointed out that ”not everything automatically becomes permissible between hostile parties once war has regrettably commenced”.(7)
…International humanitarian law ought to be considered as one of the finest and most effective expressions of the intrinsic demands of the truth of peace. Precisely for this reason, respect for that law must be considered binding on all peoples.
Not everything becomes permissible! This may leave some question as to what exactly is permissible, but given the mounting evidence that JP II, and likely Pope Benedict, considered torture to be intrinsically evil, or in the case of the latter, not acceptable under any circumstance I think it is time we cross it off the list for good.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In