Tortured reasoning

Tom at Disputations takes a look at an article by a public Catholic on a Catholic site.

After the New York Times revealed that the "Red Cross has charged ... that the American military has intentionally used psychological and sometimes physical coercion 'tantamount to torture' on prisoners at Guantánamo Bay," Scrappleface countered with an article headlined, "Red Cross: Al Qaeda May Violate Geneva Conventions."

I suppose tu quoque is good enough for a satirical website. But what's good enough for a columnist writing on a website "endeavoring to evangelize the world via the Internet with the Good News of Jesus Christ in the Catholic Church in obedience to Pope John Paul II's call for a 'Springtime of World Evangelization'"?

What if, for example, we had captured one of the terrorists who held Nick Berg captive while Berg was still alive? Would we have been justified in using whatever means necessary, if he might have led us to rescue Berg?

... The ICRC does not appear to have uncovered anything approaching real torture. But perhaps it's time we put aside our squeamishness on this issue and opened a genuine debate about exactly what methods a humane society is justified in using to save innocent lives.

We have a prominent public figure publicly wondering whether the ends might justify the means and criticizing the squeamish for their reluctance to talk about the difference between evil torture and good torture.

Mark Shea who is also a Catholic Exchange author comments on this article in their roundtable section.

Note the progression of thought.

a. Hey! That wasn't really torture.

b. "Would we have been justified in using ***whatever means necessary***, if he might have led us to rescue Berg?" (Translation: the ends justify evil means.)

c. Get over your squeamishness.

I fear the Right is girding itself intellectually to become the advocates of Empowering Caesar to Take Drastic Measures for the Greater Good.

and also in reply to another commenter:

What is under discussion is not "punishment". Punishment is a legitimate function of the State. What is under discussion is Chavez' subtle urging to consider using *torture*. She writes sentences like, "And if such methods are "torture," is the United States justified in using them anyway?... Would we have been justified in using ****whatever means necessary****, if he might have led us to rescue Berg?"

If she were asking those questions in order to offer a definitive Catholic "NO!!!" then it would be one thing. For the teaching of the Church in answer to those questions is, indeed, definitive:

CCC 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.

And St. Paul is frighteningly clear: Those who argue "Let us do evil that good may result" are, in his words, "justly condemned" (Romans 3:8).

Of course there has to be a finding of good cause to believe the person is involved and knows the information -- which should involve a presentation of evidence to a court, otherwise known as due process. This punishment cannot be used as a mere fishing expedition. I think it is something we have to talk about.

All of which would be relevant if that was what Chavez was saying. She wasn't. She was cushioning her plea to consider exploring the Torture Option by saying a) "Hey! It wasn't really torture, so we aren't as bad as they say" follow by b) "And if such methods are "torture," is the United States justified in using them anyway?"

A Catholic answer to that question would be "No. Period. End of story. No nation, not even us righteous Americans, is *ever* justified using torture because it is contrary to God's law."

But instead of saying, this Chavez urged us to consider the possibility of using "whatever means necessary".

That's why I'm glad Catholic Exchange pulled the piece. They did the right thing.

I am not quite sure that they have pulled the piece yet. It is still available on it's original page and is still linked under Linda Chavez's columns.