-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan's New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Former George W. Bush speechwriter, National Review contributor, new Washington Post columnist, and self-professed Catholic Marc Thiessen appeared on the Catholic news station EWTN and defended all of the Bush administration's "enhanced interrogation methods" in an interview with prominent Catholic anchor Raymond Arroyo. At points he even endorsed, while invoking Catholic just war theory, specific instances of the use of interrogation techniques like waterboarding on terrorists like Kalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Andrew Sullivan published a long post yesterday arguing that Thiessen's views starkly contradict Church teaching. Today he followed up by adding that the Catholic bishops should somehow reprimand Thiessen as they sometimes have other Catholic politicians and officials who advocate pro-choice laws. The bishops' silence on this issue, Sullivan suggests, betrays the fact that they are partisan, and that their anti-abortion stance suggests pro-Republican feelings rather than concern for unborn babies.
Obviously this accusation against the bishops hinges on the assumption that the Catholic Church clearly regards torture as an intrinsically evil act, that is, an act on the same level of moral seriousness as, for instance, abortion. While there are a more shades of grey to this assumption than Sullivan seems to realize, I think that his argument about the bishop's aloofness, on the whole, stands up. His charge that they are uninvolved because of partisanship, though, does not.
Sullivan writes:
That Thiessen would now actually be going on Catholic television to mislead and misrepresent in grotesque fashion a position that the Bishops have declared is never justified is surely far worse an offense than any of the pro-choice politicians the Bishops have made such a public fuss over.
[...]
I think the Bishops and Cardinals in the US need to speak out directly and loudly and insistently on this and demand a Truth Commission to get to the bottom of it.
In the case of Catholic pro-abortion politicians, bishops are compelled to address the situation or deny Communion because the politicians are public figures espousing views that violate a clear and fundamental Church teaching in such a way as to cause scandal and create moral confusion.
The issue is whether this logic also applies to what Thiessen has done.
The first question is whether torture is something that is fundamentally and intrinsically wrong in the view of the Catholic Church, and the second question is whether what Thiessen has advocated is torture.
Sullivan assumes that Church teaching is crystal clear on the moral gravity and permissiveness of torture, but in fact it's not. As far as denying communion or issuing public reprimands go, there is a very high bar to clear -- the action in question must be intrinsically wrong, meaning gravely wrong in every situation, and it must be recognized as such in authoritative Church teaching.
The Catechism addresses torture in general very conclusively:
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.
Sullivan notes this passage and takes it as establishing torture as intrinsically evil, but there's a key possible exception to this rule: the Ticking Bomb scenario, which is omitted in the list of situations in this quote. It is possible that a Catholic in good conscience could interpret Church teaching as unclear or not settled in these circumstances -- such an argument is here.
Of course, the hierarchy has spoken on this. For example, in 1982 Pope John Paul II wrote, "The disciple of Christ spontaneously rejects every recourse to such methods [as torture], which nothing could ever justify." [From the above source, emphasis mine.] And the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued similar statements. The problem is that these statements do not carry what is considered the authority that canonical writings do.
Still, this evidence suggests that Thiessen is way out of line with Church authorities if he's condoning torture.
Obviously there's a debate about what does and does not constitute torture, and whether waterboarding and whatever else the U.S. has done to prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere matches that definition. Without going into semantics, it seems clear that the interrogation techniques Thiessen knows have been used certainly fit the description of what the Church itself has deemed torture in its acknowledgments of its own crimes during the Inquisition and other times.
The last consideration is whether Thiessen as a public figure and official has deliberately rejected Church teaching in such a way as to cause moral scandal and confusion. This is where there are definite shades of grey. Although Thiessen has indicated that the government performed, to his approval, acts of torture (at very least in the Church's view) on high-value terrorists over prolonged periods of time, he plausibly could have had a very broad understanding the concept of Ticking-Bomb circumstances, where the teaching is not perfectly clearly defined, especially in the case of a war on terrorism. Or, he could truly believe that the administration's methods that he was aware of did not amount to torture.
But that would be a stretch. Thiessen himself invoked just war theory. Catholic just war theory involves subtle distinctions and difficult concepts, but they are highly developed and shouldn't be elided or taken only in part. One such distinction is that between enemies on the battlefield and enemies that don't pose an immediate threat. Thiessen has made a mockery of that distinction. Even according to a loose interpretation of the Church's position, it seems that Thiessen does meet the criteria for the bishops to address his actions.
But Thiessen has not acted out in such a flagrant and unmistakable way as many pro-choice Catholic politicians have. The bishops do not, as Sullivan suggests, pounce on pro-choice politicians in public at the first opportunity. In fact most of them turn a blind eye to the many pro-choice congressmen who flout Church teaching on abortion regularly. And when they do issue reprimands, it's often not public -- take as an example when Bishop Tobin of Providence banned Patrick Kennedy from communion and the ban wasn't made public until Kennedy publicly criticized Tobin three years later.
In exercising their pastoral duties, American bishops tend to show incredible restraint and caution -- far too much for my tastes. The fact that there are many proudly pro-choice congressmen still ostensibly in good standing with their home dioceses suggests that it would be a dramatic break from precedent for any bishop to publicly excommunicate Thiessen, and probably questionable pastoral policy.
Sullivan's belief the bishops' failure to do so signals their Republican partisanship is way off base. And when he writes that the lack of a denunciation "is, I fear, a function of the stranglehold that political and Republican partisan theo-conservatives now have on the hierarchy, aided and abetted by the current Pontiff" he verges into pure conspiracy theory. The statement that "Republican theo-conservatives" have a strangehold on the hierarchy does not correspond to reality in any way. It is so far removed from anything that is apparent to an informed observer that it really does not merit a rebuttal. Unfortunately, this is characteristic of his most of his writings on Catholicism. But his usual misinterpretations of what's going on in the Church don't negate his point here.
View all comments (28) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/18/the-us-bishops-and-torture
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Jocon307| 2.18.10 @ 8:11PM
What's with all the right wing rehab and aplogetics on behalf of Andrew Sullivan?
The man is unhinged, and it is time to ignore him as the troll he has become.
Brooksanne| 2.18.10 @ 8:26PM
Thanks for a very clear analysis.
I agree that there is a gray area. It seems that a Catholic should take a lot of convincing that torture is indicated in any particular case. The burden of proof is on the person advocating something that seems to go against Catholic teaching.
Yet many Catholics on the right act as if there is no such uncertainty, and no such presumption of wrongness of torture. It seems to me that these people are all too eager to defend Bush, Cheney, and their actions, when in fact we don't know much about them.
For instance, even if we could admit that these tactics were admissible in the case of "high-level" terrorists, do the cheerleaders ask for assurance that they are not used on less important targets, and that the human rights of innocent people are safeguarded?
The rule of law is too important to sacrifice on the altar of Republican boosterism.
S.L. Toddard| 2.18.10 @ 8:37PM
"Sullivan notes this passage and takes it as establishing torture as intrinsically evil, but there's a key possible exception to this rule: the Ticking Bomb scenario, which is omitted in the list of situations"
It is not omitted: "Torture which uses physical or moral violence to *extract confessions*... is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity". The Ticking Bomb scenario assumes that the torture victim is being tortured to confess some knowledge that will prevent the aforementioned bomb from going off. And that passage clearly forbids it.
nohype| 2.18.10 @ 9:20PM
To suggest that "extract confessions" means "provide information about other terrorist attacks" shows a complete lack of understanding of what the purpose of torture has been throughout history. Extracting confessions has always meant confessing guilt or implicating confederates in that guilt.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 1:49PM
Torture has not been used throughout history to extract the names of accomplices and co-conspirators?
Nick| 2.19.10 @ 1:25AM
Mr. Toddard,
"Confession" is used in a legalistic sense. As in torturing a accused criminal to confess his guilt to a crime, so that it may be used agianst him. As Nohype explained.
Extracting information is different. Thus, it HAS been omitted. Try reading the CatholicCulture link Mr. Lawler provided.
Also, the CCC states: "[...] uses physical or moral violence [...]." Pouring water over someone's head may be scary as hell, but it doesn't cause PHYSICAL or MORAL violence.
S.L. Toddard| 2.19.10 @ 1:50PM
"Confession" is used in a legalistic sense. As in torturing a accused criminal to confess his guilt to a crime, so that it may be used agianst him"
To be frank, you may be correct. I do not know that you are, though.
Nick| 2.20.10 @ 12:11AM
Trust me. Or don't.
Read the CatholicCulture.com link.
From Mr. Lawler's post: "It is possible that a Catholic in good conscience could interpret Church teaching as unclear or not settled in these circumstances -- such an argument is here."
Fr. Brian Harrison gives very concise but complete history on the Catholic Church's views regarding torture.
dad29| 2.18.10 @ 9:35PM
"he plausibly could have had a very broad understanding the concept of Ticking-Bomb circumstances, where the teaching is not perfectly clearly defined, especially in the case of a war on terrorism."
Umnnhhh...nope.
The CLEAR moral teaching is this: one cannot do evil for the sake of good. No way, no how, period, full stop.
The question that IS open to interpretation is 'whether waterboarding is "physical violence" that constitutes torture.
Some, particularly US servicemen who've been through it, do argue that it is NOT what the Church forbids.
ZerObama| 2.18.10 @ 10:16PM
I didn't know we water-boarded 50 million terrorists to death. Obviously, Sullivan has lost full control of his faculties.
Terrance Shuman| 2.18.10 @ 10:37PM
Perhaps Mr. Lawler should try reading Mr. Thiessen's book. In it, he deals with the canard (repeated by Mr. Lawler) that "enhanced interrogation techniques are basically the same kind of thing the Church engaged in during the Inquisition. I frankly don't expect to read this sort of slipshod "analysis" in TAS. I am also a "self-professed" Catholic (Mr. Lawler somehow manages to make that sound like he doubts Mr. Thiessen's bona fides as a Cath
Mark Kirkland| 2.18.10 @ 11:03PM
The Catechism addresses torture ... "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. "
Does anybody on this website remember the Inquisition? The last execution for Heresy was carried out less than 200 years ago.
This would all be funny if it were not all so pathetic!
Liam| 2.20.10 @ 6:23AM
Too bad you fixate on past mistakes the Church has made and ignore the tremendous amount of good the Catholic Church has done for countless numbers of those suffering and dying around the world.
A little balance would be nice.
Dean from Ohio| 2.18.10 @ 11:07PM
Andrew Sullivan insisting on enforcement of Catholic moral teaching? That's rich.
Seems like one kid tattling on another after getting caught. Encouraging, though--Andrew Sullivan's conscience must still be ticking, or he wouldn't care what the bishops think.
BHG| 2.18.10 @ 11:16PM
USCCB right-wing? Someone send him a subscription to the National Catholic fishwrap!
Sullivan's hysteria about waterboarding is past peculiar. You want to see real torture? Look at the tiny bodies of babies hacked to death in their mothers' wombs? No outrage about that, is there? Theman needs our prayers!
Nick| 2.19.10 @ 1:52AM
Mr. Lawler,
I was with you up to this point: "Still, this evidence suggests that Thiessen is way out of line with Church authorities if he's condoning torture."
What is this evidence. I have not read Mr. Thiessen's book, are there admissions to acts worse than water-boarding?
"Thiessen has made a mockery of that distinction." Exactly how has he done this? And how would this make Mr. Thiessen liable to correction by his bishop.
Also, "it seems clear" is an oxymoron, is it not? If it is "clear", then it cannot "seem." If it "seems", how can it be "clear"?
Finally, who cares what Sullivan thinks or writes? This is the same guy who thinks Africans and homos ARE OBEYING the Church's prohibition against condom use, while they ARE DISOBEYING the Church's prohibition against adultery and sodomy. He also thinks Sarah Palin faked Trig's birth.
Caroline| 2.19.10 @ 2:58AM
Sullivan's an addle-brain, his intemperate rants are most likely HIV/AIDS induced: Why would anyone take his arguments seriously?
Absolutely ridiculous.
JP| 2.19.10 @ 7:31AM
This entire issue is one huge strawman. There have been only 3 documented cases of waterb0arding by the CIA. Congress has direct oversight, and under penalty of law they must be informed.
As to whether "torture" is intrinsicntly evil, one should consult the Cathechism for a definition. By definition, something intrinsicntly evil is an act by which no good can ever come from it. Stealing is not instrinsintly evil as a father may have to steal to feed his starving children. However, acts like abortion can never be considered justified - even to save the life of the mother. I have not read anywhere that torture has been put on par with something like abortion. If a soldier must beat information out of a prisoner in order to save a convoy of wounded civilians, would that be considered torture? Actually, in that case the soldier would be punished under the UCMJ. In 2003, a batallion commander was relieved of command and retired for waving his loaded side arm in the face of a captured Iraqi insurgent. The insurgent knew of the locations of hidden snipers who were killing men under the batallion commander's command. Some would say the Lieutenant Colonel was justified -but in this case, his chain of command thought otherwise.
If Sullivan is really serious about his beliefs he should demand that the DOD's SEARS schools suspend thier POW training. Most special ops people have to go through this training at least once, and waterboarding is part of the training. If waterboarding is intrinsinctly evil, why should our servicemen be subjected to it?
JP| 2.19.10 @ 7:34AM
"..Does anybody on this website remember the Inquisition? The last execution for Heresy was carried out less than 200 years ago."
Could you please elaborate on that one?
< the sounds of crickets chirping>
Mark Kirkland| 2.19.10 @ 8:12AM
The last person to die from the Spanish Inquisition was Cayetano Ripoll who was garroted in 1826. My point is why anyone gives a *&%# what the Catholic church thinks about torture when they have so much blood on their hands.
Mark Kirkland| 2.19.10 @ 9:46AM
The RCC has a long a bloody history of using murder and torture to purge the church of "heresy" and put down rebellion against papal authority. As late as the 1940s the Vatican was openly hostile to American style Democracy.
While the RCC's position on abortion is admirable, she is a little late in comming to the table of Modern Civilization to be lecturing the rest of us on the morality of torture and the death penalty.
JP| 2.19.10 @ 10:45AM
Mark,
Do you feel the same way about Woodrow Wilson and FDR concerning civil liberties? Also, you should also include the Anglican Church in your list, as well as any number of Protestant confessions. And don't forget to add any number of Socialists and Marxists. If one chooses, he can find any number of groups with far more blood on thier hands than the RCC. BTW, officially the Church apologized for its offences. Has China or Russia (whose combined death toll is about 3000 times greater than anything the RCC did) apologized for thier deeds?
Mark Kirkland| 2.19.10 @ 3:55PM
JP,
I do feel the same way except for one thing. Marxists, Communists and left wing protestant groups don't claim to have a line of authority directly from Peter to teach doctrine.
My problem, and I know this from personal experience because I have a family member in the Catholic Church, is that the church still makes existential claims about itself. It still professes to have the fullness of the revelation of Christ. It still professes that the Pope is the true head of the church. And although, since Vatican II, non Catholic Christians like myself are no longer "heretics," we are still treated as second class.
It took the issues of abortion and gay marriage to begin the process of getting the RCC out of bed with the democratic party. And still, I believe a majority of Catholics voted for Obama.
In mathematics it only takes ONE counter example to disprove a proposition. How many times can the Vatican be wrong about an issue (geocentric astronomy, torture, the death penalty, evolution, global warming, Marxist economics, ... etc.) and still be taken seriously in light of its claims about itself?
Why should a conservative who believes in individual liberty and free market economics take Rome seriously given its past?
And that brings me back to the question I started with. Why should anybody even care what Rome thinks about torture?
Nick| 2.20.10 @ 12:24AM
Mr. Kirkland,
You have some very bad misconceptions about the Roman Catholic Church.
Please do some reading about what the Catholic Church really teaches and Her true history. Start with EWTN.com.
God Bless!
bob s| 2.19.10 @ 12:55PM
Once again, I see a bunch of comments by people confusing the Modernist (Novus Ordo) Church with the Catholic Church. I don't care if the Modernists call themselves Catholic, they are not. And the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church is not anything that it's title suggests, as it was written by self-excommunicated Modernists. The real catechism of the Catholic Church is the Catechism of the Council of Trent, written by a saint, and codified by a Pope-Saint. The Great Apostasy has happened, right under peoples' noses, and hardly anyone noticed, or cared. If you doubt this, look at all the Catholic Schools closing, parish consolidations, etc. These facts, to me, at least, are hardly a sign of Divine favor. Think about it, people.
Nick| 2.20.10 @ 12:38AM
Bob S,
When, exactly, did this "great apostasy" happen?
Also, doesn't that make Christ a liar?
He said to Saint Peter, "[...] And on this Rock I will build My church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."
The Gospel of Saint Matthew 16:19
david scott| 2.19.10 @ 5:08PM
Yeah! Because it shouldn’t be okay to abduct people, illegally torture them for years without due process, and not have to tell anybody about what we did to them. What kind of Nazis could be in favor of that! Thank all that is righteous for the ACLU! There is no more freedom in this country, but they keep trying anyway. Take a look at this: http://pltcldscsn.blogspot.com.....rture.html
ZerObama| 2.20.10 @ 6:17AM
Geez, David; self-righteous much? What's the great liberal healer Obama doing right now?
Why, he's ordering repeated vicious Predator Drone attacks against innocent Afghan and Pakistani civilians (Any idea what the death toll might be, David? Do you care?) and allowing Pakistan to 'interrogate' Taliban insurgents captured this past week.
I wonder what questioning methods the Pakastani secret police are using on these unfortunate Taliban insurgents right now. I'm sure it's just a slap on the wrist, right?
Surely, the righteous ACLU will stand up to Obama and rush in to offer comfort and salvation for these poor folks right now. Sure they will.
Guess you're not too concerned about Obama's illegal activities, David; why is that, hypocrite?