On Torture and General Norms Revisited:
(A Response to Dr. Scott Carson)
Those who have been following these threads are aware by now (at least to some extent) that the subject of torture has been discussed in various forums in recent weeks with probably as much heat as light in some circles. We for our part at Rerum Novarum set forth in three connected parts a proposed hypothesis on these matters for the consideration of various parties involved. As we prepared to post other threads on various subjects which are completed, it was made known to us that Dr. Scott Carson of An Examined Life responded to at least some of what we wrote. His full thread to be interacted with at this time can be read HERE and in this posting his words will be in dark green font with quoted sources italicized.
I. Shawn McElhinney, whose blog Rerum Novarum I rather like and read rather often, has taken a position regarding the torture question that strikes me as grounded in reasons that are, for him, uncharacteristic. In a series of posts he has made an argument to the effect that it is not, in fact, the teaching of the universal and Ordinary Magisterium that torture is per se wrong, in spite of what Veritatis Splendor may have to say on the topic. His argument, in outline, goes something like this:
The teaching of the Church in the Ordinary Magisterium is indefectible.
The teaching of the church in the supreme ordinary (or universal) magisterium is indefectible yes. As for whether or not the ordinary magisterium in all of its parameters is, that is a controverted issue and remains unresolved by the magisterium itself. For that reason, a proposed hypothesis such as that would have the burden of proof to ultimately sustain it as a viable theory if it can withstand the required scrutiny of course.
There is also the issue of universally promulgated disciplinary directives which within certain boundaries would be protected from error either in positive or divine law. The question is whether or not any of the previous papal or conciliar statements on these matters was of universal scope either explicitly or tacitly by logical extension. This is therefore not as easy to discern as many would want to make of it -something we are sure Dr. Carson would concur with us on.
Significant theologians, including John Paul II and, even more significantly, Benedict XVI when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger and, thus, an essential influence on the writing of Veritatis Splendor, have made it clear that certain teachings, when they impinge on matters involving prudential judgments about contingent matters of fact in the temporal realm, are not indefectible.
The present writer has not made this assertion either. It is true that Pope John Paul II issued an encyclical letter where this position appears to be made; however, when one considers the manifested intention of that encyclical (as we did in the second of our three part response) it makes such a reading difficult to sustain in a coherent way.
Historically, the Church has actually required the use of torture:
This is a fact of history whatever one wants to think of that.
The past sanctioning of torture by popes and councils -going so far as to command kings and princes under pain of excommunication with matters of heresy when these undermined the common good of society- means that torture itself cannot be "intrinsically evil" unless the doctrine of indefectibility is contradicted.
Hence, in order to preserve the doctrine of indefectability, we must conclude that the teaching of Veritatis Splendor is not indefectible with regards to the moral status of torture.
In order to preserve indefectibility, there has to be continuity of principles even if they undergo further refinement over time or in accordance with changing times and circumstances. Furthermore, magisterial documents are not always easy to understand and this needs to be accounted for at all times lest Catholics do with them what many Protestants do with the Bible. (In presuming it is perspicuous or otherwise can be understood correctly in all its parameters with little or no effort on their part.)
Hence, torture is not necessarily per se wrong,
It depends on how this term is defined. The first thing the present writer noted in his posts on torture is that those who take the position of Mark Shea are required to define their terms. To ascertain whether torture is or is not per se wrong depends on how the term is defined.
In fact, given what the Church has done historically, we must conclude that torture is actually morally required under certain circumstances.
Again, it depends on how the term is defined and what those circumstances are. Under ordinary circumstances, it would appear that torture however it is defined would not be permissible. One of the things this writer did was situate Gaudium et Spes in its historical context and point out factors that impacted its content that are generally overlooked by those who quote from it too freely. Certainly Veritatis Splendour is a more authoritative text but even then, one must be careful to exercise due care in seeking to interpret its manifested intention correctly.
Our precise wording was as follows:
The past sanctioning of torture by popes and councils -going so far as to command kings and princes under pain of excommunication with matters of heresy when these undermined the common good of society- means that torture itself cannot be "intrinsically evil" unless the doctrine of indefectibility is contradicted.
Every word of that statement needs to be carefully considered.
This argument is valid, but it is not sound.
We will examine Dr. Carson's proposed counter-hypothesis in a moment but he does make a distinction between valid and sound argumentation: one that is valid in itself though whether it applies to what this writer wrote will now be considered.
(For those who may not be familiar with these technical terms, an argument is said to be deductively valid when it is not possible for its conclusion to be false when all of its premises are true, and an argument is said to be deductively sound when it is both valid and all of its premises are in fact true.)
This is an accurate summation of the distinction indeed and we thank Scott for making it.
The difficulty lies not in the structure of the argument, but in its reliance on historical facts of dubious interpretation to carry its conclusion through.
In particular, we may note that if it is possible for Veritatis Splendor to be mistaken about the moral status of torture because of the possibility of an appeal to fallible prudential reasoning, then it is equally possible for earlier documents "requiring" the use of torture to be mistaken in their use of prudential judgments to argue for the moral licitness of torture in defense of the common good.
The problem with this line of argumentation is that it assumes that all statements in an encyclical or any magisterial text are of equal weight. It is not that simple which is why the appeal to Veritatis Splendour (VS) or Gaudium et Spes (GS) in and of themselves does not suffice. One of the reasons this writer dealt with the subject of general norms of interpretation viz. GS is because that document is often appealed to in a departure from previous understandings where there is no warrant for doing do by virtue of the manifested intentions of the synod (i.e. not to make any new extraordinary definitions{1}) or the manifested intention of the document itself. This is why we focused so much on the manifested intention of GS, the manifested intention of VS, and also the important CDF Instruction which explains how to go about in a critical examination of magisterial texts with proper fidelity to the magisterium of the Church.{2}
This renders the premise regarding the appeal to the alleged historical facts regarding earlier uses of torture either false or hopelessly ambiguous, and this vitiates the soundness of the argument.
There will always be vagueness when terms are not defined which is why we insisted on it from the outset in the posting. If not for the fact that to outline the historical record would have taken up a ton of time and effort which we do not have (unfortunately) and if not for the fact that it would have unduly lengthened what we sought to make as short and concise a post as possible{3}, we could sustain by adequate proofs that assertion every bit as much as we can any assertion we have made over the years.{4} So that point aside, the soundness of the argument is not affected as much as it is (perhaps) not as strong as it could be. Having noted that briefly{5}, we shall now consider the rest of Scott's arguments in this thread.
It is worth noting at this point that the premise claiming that earlier "popes and councils" actually "sanctioned" torture is in itself hopelessly vague, even independently of its use in this particular argument.
One of the problems with striving for economy of prose is that sometimes stuff has to be glossed over to some extent. We try to only do this with items which are not in the realm of the debatable{6} but that is not always possible unfortunately.
We are not told who these popes were, or which councils, or the circumstances under which they are being said to have "sanctioned" torture, or even what the alleged sanctions were other than threats of excommunication for "heresy". It ought to go without saying that this kind of premise is utterly useless if for no other reason than its manifestly controversial nature.
This is a fair criticism it seems.
Even putting aside the difficulty of this particular premise, however, it is perhaps even more important to note that the language of Veritatis Splendor is as unambiguous in its condemnation of torture as the interpretation of earlier history regarding the alleged "sanctioning" of torture is ambiguous. So there is one point on which Shawn is quite right: either there has been a mistaken prudential judgment made somewhere, or the indefectibility of the Ordinary Magisterium is on the line.
We did not think of it that way and appreciate Scott noting the parallel ambiguity. It may help the readers to consider that once again, we have taken a position on an issue and then discovered that Cardinal Avery Dulles has agreed with us{7} -a most pleasing pattern over the years to put it mildly.{8} In posting this excerpt from a recent email correspondence, we hope Scott will see a brilliant theologian enunciating with greater crispness what your humble servant has done a less-than-stellar job at perhaps. Without further ado:
Cardinal Dulles took the same position in principle on slavery and approached it in the same framework as we have the torture subject. Here are the relevant paragraphs (particular attention should be paid to the undelined parts):
Noonan has one further argument for doctrinal change. In 1993, in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, John Paul II took, from Vatican II's pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world, a long list of social evils: "homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide . . . mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as sub-human living conditions, arbitrary imprisonments, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons." Where Vatican II had called these practices "shameful" (probra), John Paul II calls them "intrinsically evil." In the same encyclical the pope teaches that intrinsically evil acts are prohibited always and everywhere, without any exception.
Did John Paul II, by including slavery in his list of social evils, effect the revolution in Catholic moral theology that Noonan attributes to him? It seems to me that if he had wanted to assert his position as definitive he would have had to say more clearly how he was defining slavery. He would have had to make it clear that he was rejecting the nuanced views of the biblical writers and Catholic theologians for so many past centuries. If any form of slavery could be justified under any conditions, slavery as such would not be, in the technical sense, intrinsically evil.
According to the logic of Noonan's argument, whatever holds for slavery would have to be said for deportations, subhuman living conditions, and degrading conditions of work. But could not degrading or subhuman conditions be inevitable, for example, after some great natural disaster in which mere survival is an achievement? Individual deportations of undesirable aliens occur continually as a matter of national policy today; mass deportations could perhaps be necessary for the sake of peace and security. If pressed, I suspect, the pope would have admitted the need for some qualifications, but he could not have specified these without a rather long excursus that would have been distracting in the framework of his encyclical. So far as I am aware, he never repeated his assertion that slavery is intrinsically evil. Neither the Catechism of the Catholic Church nor the recent Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church , in their discussions of slavery, speaks so absolutely. [Cardinal Avery Dulles: From Development or Reversal? (circa 2005)]
The principles involved are precisely the same and likewise, without explaining how the term is being defined, the minimum requirements for a dogmatic definition are not met. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa October 23, 2006)]
We had clarified ourselves a bit earlier in another email which is cited at this point for the sake of not reinventing the wheel:
[Veritatis Splendour (VS)] was a summing up of the wide scope of moral theological questions. For that reason, it is clear that the intention of the pope was to recall the corpus of issues under that heading in a comprehensive fashion and to be in uniformity with the tradition as he claimed was his intention in VS 4 or 5. That means no new issues were to be settled and therefore we cannot presume that any new ones were. And as GS (which VS quoted) did not refer to torture as "intrinsically evil", we cannot presume that VS in appearing to say that was making a new declaration in light of the pope's manifested intentions earlier in the encyclical. And if one considers the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian as I noted in my posts on torture, it is clear that to surmize that VS had a deficiency on the matter in question is not outside the bounds of possibility and asserting that it possibly does (if one is not too dogmatic about it) is acceptable according to general norms of interpretation. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa October 20, 2006)]
In other words, there are acceptable and unacceptable ways of going about this matter and seeking further clarification. And one important issue is that a term needs to be defined and in a variegated term such as torture (or slavery), condemnations of one form do not necessarily involve another form. As GS was not settling anything new, the condemnation of slavery could not be considered comprehensive but instead a reaffirmation of the forms of slavery already condemned: namely, chattel slavery of which there were at least seven or eight papal condemnations going back to the late fifteenth century. Likewise, if torture is condemned, lacking a definition of the term, one must conclude that only those forms which were traditionally condemned would be involved.{9} Anything more than that is to read into the text which one should strive to avoid doing at all costs.
Here it is essential to see that the judgment of Veritatis Splendor, that torture is per se immoral (or, "intrinsically evil", as Shawn puts it), is not a prudential judgment, but a judgment about matters of faith and morals, the very domain in which the Ordinary Magisterium is regarded by faithful Catholics as indefectible. The judgments of earlier "popes and councils", however, to the effect that the use of torture is the correct way to safeguard the common good, are clearly matters of prudential judgment, matters in which the Ordinary Magisterium is not regarded as indefectible.
It is not this simple for reasons we have already outlined. Furthermore, if torture is "intrinsically evil" than so is everything else in that paragraph and we doubt Scott would assert that. (Or does Scott really think that deportations --also mentioned in that paragraph of GS and reiterated in VS- are "intrinsically evil"???)
So what Shawn has shown, if anything, is that if we are to regard the Church's Ordinary Magisterium as indefectible, we must take Veritatis Splendor to reflect the infallible teaching on the moral status of torture, and we must regard the actions of earlier "popes and councils" who threatened folks with excommunication for not using torture as misguided attempts to safeguard the common good. This is not what he intended to show, however, which is why I regard the argument as "uncharacteristic"--I think he is usually a little more careful than this, and his arguments are often sound as well as valid.
We hope to have explained reasonably well in this followup why what was originally written by us on this subject was written with greater care than it may admittedly appear on first or second glance. However, as noted already, Scott did pinpoint what was because of time constraints admittedly the weakest part of our exposition but hopefully it was adequately explained why that part of the equation was not delved into with the usual degree of detail that we strive to do when discussing issues.
Hopefully two additional things are clear in what was covered in this followup posting to our original exposition on torture and general norms of interpretation and it is these factors (i) there are certain areas where Scott oversimplifies our position{10} and (ii) we are quite pleased with his approach to the discipline of the dialogue on this subject and hope to have further discussions with him on issues if he is so inclined.
Notes:
{1} This does not mean that infallibility in a formal sense was lacking completely from the decisions of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council of course. But because of the predominently pastoral intention of the synod -the distinction we have outlined many times before with viable hypothesis including in this thread from over three years ago- such things cannot be so casually presumed as many seem wont to do.
{2} A document we note which was probably written by Pope Benedict XVI in his capacity as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) for the late Pope John Paul II in 1990. (Three years before Veritatis Splendour.) That text was not only issued by the CDF with the pope's full knowledge but Pope John Paul II went so far as to approve it in forma specifica which means that he made the conclusions and arguments of the text his own.
{3} Dr. Carson surely knows if he has read the blog posts to this humble weblog or past essays by the present writer that economy of prose is not one of our strong suits.
{4} Dr. Carson also presumably is aware that we as a rule document every assertion thoroughly. One reason for this is that it gives people ample reason to trust us in those cases where things cannot be so documented due either to time constraints or other factors.
{5} Certainly we must in the interest of disclosure concede this point to Scott.
{6} Meaning that the statements are not debatable even if how they are properly understood when scrutinizing the historical record is a matter of legitimate debate of course.
{7} Either on the precise issue in question or on the principles involved in properly understanding it.
{8} Normally Dulles and I are of a like mind on subjects -as I tend to discover after I have formed an opinion on a subject and then read his views on it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 16, 2003)]
{9} Namely, the limits placed on torture by past papal decrees. Or to revisit what we quoted from The Catholic Encyclopedia via their article Inquisition:
The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum -- i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. [The Catholic Encyclopedia: Article Inquisition as excerpted from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
It is also worth considering the circumstances and some of the intentions with GS which we noted in our posting from October 13, 2006. To consider those factors, it hopefully is clearer why the Council would have sought to appear to make a broader statement than they actually made. (Again, this was touched on in our three part posting on torture and general norms and will not be reiterated at this time.)
{10} We do not blame Dr. Carson for this as (i) the issues are quite nuanced ones and (ii) his civility of tone and charitable approach in disagreement with us compels us out of principle to give him all benefits of the doubt.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Points to Ponder:
(On the Dangers of Professional Wrestling)
"You can break a bone in there, brudda, and I mean any part of the bone!" [Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka]
(On the Dangers of Professional Wrestling)
"You can break a bone in there, brudda, and I mean any part of the bone!" [Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka]
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
[Note: In the interest of dividing into multiple parts (for easier reading) a previous posting, it seemed appropriate to move this posting to the present spot to avoid breaking the continuity of the aforementioned posting. -ISM]
The other night I saw a private screening of a movie called Flags of Our Fathers which will be in movie theatres on October 20th. Directed by Clint Eastwood and produced by Eastwood in conjunction with Steven Spielberg, this was a movie that I recommend all my readers to go out and see. It is a historical account of the battle of Iwo Jima and the lives of the men involved -particularly the seven who were photographed raising the flag. The tale is one of courage and sacrifice by brave heroes who would never have considered themselves as such. It is also a portrayal of some of the less-than-edifying accompanyments{1} that are involved in even the most noble of struggles. But as it has not been released in the theatres yet, all I will say is this: see the movie when it comes out.
One of the characters portrayed in the movie was Ira Hayes, a marine who was also a Pima Indian. In watching the portrayal on the movie screen, I remembered some of the Johnny Cash song lyrics that have been posted on this weblog in the past{2} and thought it would be good to post for the second time{3} a song by someone else which Johnny essentially made his own about one of the men from Iwo Jima. Without further ado, here goes...
The Ballad of Ira Hayes:
(Written by Peter LaFarge; Sung by Johnny Cash)
Call him drunken Ira Hayes
He won't answer anymore
Not the whiskey drinkin' Indian
Nor the Marine that went to war
Gather round me people there's a story I would tell
About a brave young Indian you should remember well
From the land of the Pima Indian
A proud and noble band
Who farmed the Phoenix valley in Arizona land
Down the ditches for a thousand years
The water grew Ira's peoples' crops
'Till the white man stole the water rights
And the sparklin' water stopped
Now Ira's folks were hungry
And their land grew crops of weeds
When war came, Ira volunteered
And forgot the white man's greed
[CHORUS:]
Call him drunken Ira Hayes
He won't answer anymore
Not the whiskey drinkin' Indian
Nor the Marine that went to war
There they battled up Iwo Jima's hill,
Two hundred and fifty men
But only twenty-seven lived to walk back down again
And when the fight was over
And when Old Glory raised
Among the men who held it high
Was the Indian, Ira Hayes
[CHORUS:]
Ira returned a hero
Celebrated through the land
He was wined and speeched and honored; Everybody shook his hand
But he was just a Pima Indian
No water, no crops, no chance
At home nobody cared what Ira'd done
And when did the Indians dance
[CHORUS:]
Then Ira started drinkin' hard;
Jail was often his home
They'd let him raise the flag and lower it
like you'd throw a dog a bone!
He died drunk one mornin'
Alone in the land he fought to save
Two inches of water in a lonely ditch
Was a grave for Ira Hayes
[CHORUS:]
Yeah, call him drunken Ira Hayes
But his land is just as dry
And his ghost is lyin' thirsty
In the ditch where Ira died
May the soul of the patriot Ira Hayes and all who have fought to preserve the freedom in this great-but-imperfect nation rest in peace.
Notes:
{1} Imagine that, America as great a nation as she is nonetheless has its flaws. This writer nonetheless refuses to play the game of contrasting the flaws of America in reality against some idealized notion which does not and cannot exist ala what not a few marxists-posing-as-"peacemakers" are prone to do. (In a nutshell, they are blatantly inconsistent in their approach for reasons noted at the latter link and more in depth in the original posting it was extracted from.)
{2} Here are the other ones from the weblog archives for those who are interested:
I Walk The Line (posted on October 1, 2003)
Don't Take Your Guns to Town (posted on October 2, 2003)
Big River (posted on October 3, 2003)
Give My Love to Rose (posted on October 5, 2003)
Man in Black (posted on October 7, 2003)
Long Black Veil--Written by Danny Dill and Marijohn Wilkin (posted on October 15, 2003)
{3} Neither The Ballad of Ira Hayes nor The Long Black Veil --unlike the other songs of Johnny's which we posted-- were written by Johnny Cash.
The other night I saw a private screening of a movie called Flags of Our Fathers which will be in movie theatres on October 20th. Directed by Clint Eastwood and produced by Eastwood in conjunction with Steven Spielberg, this was a movie that I recommend all my readers to go out and see. It is a historical account of the battle of Iwo Jima and the lives of the men involved -particularly the seven who were photographed raising the flag. The tale is one of courage and sacrifice by brave heroes who would never have considered themselves as such. It is also a portrayal of some of the less-than-edifying accompanyments{1} that are involved in even the most noble of struggles. But as it has not been released in the theatres yet, all I will say is this: see the movie when it comes out.
One of the characters portrayed in the movie was Ira Hayes, a marine who was also a Pima Indian. In watching the portrayal on the movie screen, I remembered some of the Johnny Cash song lyrics that have been posted on this weblog in the past{2} and thought it would be good to post for the second time{3} a song by someone else which Johnny essentially made his own about one of the men from Iwo Jima. Without further ado, here goes...
The Ballad of Ira Hayes:
(Written by Peter LaFarge; Sung by Johnny Cash)
Call him drunken Ira Hayes
He won't answer anymore
Not the whiskey drinkin' Indian
Nor the Marine that went to war
Gather round me people there's a story I would tell
About a brave young Indian you should remember well
From the land of the Pima Indian
A proud and noble band
Who farmed the Phoenix valley in Arizona land
Down the ditches for a thousand years
The water grew Ira's peoples' crops
'Till the white man stole the water rights
And the sparklin' water stopped
Now Ira's folks were hungry
And their land grew crops of weeds
When war came, Ira volunteered
And forgot the white man's greed
[CHORUS:]
Call him drunken Ira Hayes
He won't answer anymore
Not the whiskey drinkin' Indian
Nor the Marine that went to war
There they battled up Iwo Jima's hill,
Two hundred and fifty men
But only twenty-seven lived to walk back down again
And when the fight was over
And when Old Glory raised
Among the men who held it high
Was the Indian, Ira Hayes
[CHORUS:]
Ira returned a hero
Celebrated through the land
He was wined and speeched and honored; Everybody shook his hand
But he was just a Pima Indian
No water, no crops, no chance
At home nobody cared what Ira'd done
And when did the Indians dance
[CHORUS:]
Then Ira started drinkin' hard;
Jail was often his home
They'd let him raise the flag and lower it
like you'd throw a dog a bone!
He died drunk one mornin'
Alone in the land he fought to save
Two inches of water in a lonely ditch
Was a grave for Ira Hayes
[CHORUS:]
Yeah, call him drunken Ira Hayes
But his land is just as dry
And his ghost is lyin' thirsty
In the ditch where Ira died
May the soul of the patriot Ira Hayes and all who have fought to preserve the freedom in this great-but-imperfect nation rest in peace.
Notes:
{1} Imagine that, America as great a nation as she is nonetheless has its flaws. This writer nonetheless refuses to play the game of contrasting the flaws of America in reality against some idealized notion which does not and cannot exist ala what not a few marxists-posing-as-"peacemakers" are prone to do. (In a nutshell, they are blatantly inconsistent in their approach for reasons noted at the latter link and more in depth in the original posting it was extracted from.)
{2} Here are the other ones from the weblog archives for those who are interested:
I Walk The Line (posted on October 1, 2003)
Don't Take Your Guns to Town (posted on October 2, 2003)
Big River (posted on October 3, 2003)
Give My Love to Rose (posted on October 5, 2003)
Man in Black (posted on October 7, 2003)
Long Black Veil--Written by Danny Dill and Marijohn Wilkin (posted on October 15, 2003)
{3} Neither The Ballad of Ira Hayes nor The Long Black Veil --unlike the other songs of Johnny's which we posted-- were written by Johnny Cash.
Friday, October 13, 2006
On Torture and General Norms of Theological Interpretation Contra Certain "Apologist" Fundamentalist Hermeneutics -Part III of III:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
To read the previous installment of this series, please go HERE. To start from the beginning of this thread, please go HERE.
Now readers reviewing the previous installment of this thread may find the present writer's statements stunning as they appear to constitute a lack of regard for a statement in a major teaching document such as an encyclical letter. However, your host does no such thing and approaches these matters with care and discretion using as his interpretive hermeneutic an important magisterial reference issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) three years before Veritatis Splendour. Approved by Pope John Paul II in forma specifica{1} and with heavy input if not outright authorship by the present pope{2}, the latter is an important Instruction which all who would endeavour to make a proper representation of magisterial texts would take proper recognition of. It is the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian issued by the CDF in 1990. The parts particularly relevant to the present issue are the following ones -all emphasis is ours:
Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.
The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.
[Disclaimer: The footnote at the end of the last sentence was to Lumen Gentium §25 -ISM]
When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress. [CDF: Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian §24 (circa May 24, 1990)]
The Instruction goes onto note the way to properly handle perplexing issues and distinguishes carefully between those methods and what is properly understood as "dissent." Those sections should be required reading for a lot of these "apologist" sorts who accuse of "dissent" anyone who does not agree with their pet opinions -based at times on a theologically unacceptable methodology which is essentially a form of magisterial postivism. Having explained the distinctions so many do not make on these issues adequately enough already, let us finish by considering where and when torture has been condoned by the magisterium in the past and helping to connect what seems to many to be an unconnectable paradox.
To start with, there is the issue of the Catechism footnote on the subject which we are not going to delve into at the present time. Victor Morton already dealt adequately with it and his approach from every appearance conforms to the prescription on the ecclesial vocation of the theologian for how these issues are to be addressed. All that remains is to situate within the issues covered, the traditional approach to the subject of torture and finish with an exhortation to our positional adversaries to show the bare minimum of respect for the God-given faculties of reason and logic.
On the subject of what was and was not permitted, again Victor Morton has provided a service with quotes from The Catholic Encyclopedia. Here are the relevant factors to consider -all emphasis is ours:
Curiously enough torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being unauthorized until twenty years after the Inquisition had begun. It was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull "Ad exstirpanda" of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265. The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum -- i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. Torture was to applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs. In general, this violent testimony (quaestio) was to be deferred as long as possible, and recourse to it was permitted in only when all other expedients were exhausted...[The Catholic Encyclopedia: From the Article Inquisition (circa 1913)]
In other words, torture (i) was only allowed when dealing with those who were engaged in undermining the public order and common good of society and (ii) was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. These would by their very nature be extraordinary circumstances and therefore the ordinary course of events could make a wide scale disapproval of torture appropriate. The principle here is in line with the analogy to the death penalty which as Greg Mockeridge properly noted, Pope John Paul II spoke some pretty negative words about in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae but which the Holy See itself has admitted was a matter not of doctrine but of prudential matters where people of good will could disagree as long as the moral and doctrinal principles underlying the subject were respected.{3} If this principle is in force with a greater punishment such as the death penalty, obviously a lesser one such as torture would also fall under those rubrics. And recognizing this is the capstone to recognizing what the limits on freedom are in the mind of the Catholic Church.
The best example here is that of religious liberty since essentially these Muslim extremists are seeking expressions of their religious beliefs. And in a declaration of teaching, the Second Vatican Council outlined well in a non-normative fashion what the outlines of religious liberty properly understood involved. Pardon us for having recourse to a previous commentary we wrote on this matter but what was noted there explains this sufficiently as we see it:
The foundation of religious liberty properly understood is that man has a natural right to religious liberty in the social and civil arenas. This right however (like all legitimate rights) has its limits. For example, religious liberty is constrained by just public order and the common good of society. In other words, religious liberty is not just when a person exercises it in ways that are destructive of society's collective good as regulated by what the government perceives as the "common good of society."
Furthermore, common good is also tied to what is called "just public order" as the criteria that must be followed for any legitimate exercise of religion or any other social behaviour in society. The Council made this very clear in its outlining of what the role of the civil authority was later on in the conciliar declaration when outlining what the "due limits" were in the government's rights to suppress any particular expressions which were illegitimate. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 16, 2004)]
It is now time to summarize the various contents to this three-part thread and posit our conclusion so here goes...
Recognizing that:
---All legitimate freedoms are constrained by the same principles as religious liberty.
---Religious liberty is not absolute but can be regulated by society in accordance with certain objective criteria.{4}
---"[T]he freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary" (Dignitatis Humanae §7).
---In the war on terror, sometimes it is required to intern people and extract information from them for necessarily protecting society from violations to just public order and the common good of society that would be significantly more probable if these people were not so coerced. (A principle that harmonizes nicely with what DH taught on these matters.)
---Traditionally, when the issue of protecting violations to just public order and the common good of society is involved, any method of coercion not caus[ing] the loss of life or limb or imperil[ing] life (cf. Catholic Encyclopedia Article Inquisition) is morally licit and therefore not intrinsically evil.
---By logical extension, any method fitting the above criteria utilized by the US Government either at Gitmo, Abu Ghirab, or anywhere else -however tasteless it may well be- cannot be properly seen as "intrinsically evil" as torture in certain forms as those have been recognized in the past by popes and councils as legitimate.
---The past sanctioning of torture by popes and councils -going so far as to command kings and princes under pain of excommunication with matters of heresy when these undermined the common good of society- means that torture itself cannot be "intrinsically evil" unless the doctrine of indefectibility is contradicted.
---As Pope John Paul II and Vatican II made it clear that their teachings were not to be seen as disconnected from the past but instead in congruity with them, it is not possible for something previously accepted by popes and councils (within certain limits) as licit to magically morph into something "intrinsically evil."
---Recognizing the Vatican's own guidelines for proper theological analysis can lead one to conclude -safely and without fear of being viewed as a "dissident"- that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies (cf. Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian §24) and that this assessment can be levied at not only GS in some areas for reasons already noted but also VS where it cites GS on the matter in question.
---No Catholic can hold to the idea of magisterial defectibility as it contradicts solemn Catholic teaching.
When everything is taken into consideration, the hypothesis advanced by Mark Shea and his allies about torture ipso facto being "intrinsically evil" cannot sustain the scrutiny of the law of non-contradiction and thus can (and arguably should) be rejected. This does not mean that they cannot take a strict interpretation to the various factors involved and in their opinion view methods of torture at Gitmo, Abu Ghirab, or other places as inappropriate. However, they cannot logically or in accordance with general norms of theological interpretation advance that opinion as anything binding on the consciences of others. Therefore, they would do well to cease and desist such things and apologize to anyone they have spoken less-than-respectfully of for disagreeing with them in an area where there is a diversity of viewpoints on the matter which are permitted. Likewise, those who have acted as if Mark and his allies do not have the right to their opinion on the matter{5} should retract any excesses on their part as well.
Notes:
{1} This means the pope confirmed the text in a fashion which made the contents of the text his own.
{2} Back in Joseph Ratzinger's days as prefect for the CDF under his predecessor.
{3} Essentially, whenever bloodless means were sufficient to prevent an offender from damaging the public order of society, that should be the recourse. The death penalty in other words should be a last resort, not the first on these matters. As far as deciding when that last resort was or was not reached, such is by its very nature a normative issue where there could be varying points of view on the matter.
{4} [S]ociety has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.
These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. [Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: Declaration Dignitatis Humanae §7 (circa December 7, 1965) as quoted by Rerum Novarum (circa December 16, 2004)]
{5} As long as Mark and his allies do not try and make their opinions binding on others of course.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
To read the previous installment of this series, please go HERE. To start from the beginning of this thread, please go HERE.
Now readers reviewing the previous installment of this thread may find the present writer's statements stunning as they appear to constitute a lack of regard for a statement in a major teaching document such as an encyclical letter. However, your host does no such thing and approaches these matters with care and discretion using as his interpretive hermeneutic an important magisterial reference issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) three years before Veritatis Splendour. Approved by Pope John Paul II in forma specifica{1} and with heavy input if not outright authorship by the present pope{2}, the latter is an important Instruction which all who would endeavour to make a proper representation of magisterial texts would take proper recognition of. It is the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian issued by the CDF in 1990. The parts particularly relevant to the present issue are the following ones -all emphasis is ours:
Finally, in order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.
The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.
[Disclaimer: The footnote at the end of the last sentence was to Lumen Gentium §25 -ISM]
When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress. [CDF: Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian §24 (circa May 24, 1990)]
The Instruction goes onto note the way to properly handle perplexing issues and distinguishes carefully between those methods and what is properly understood as "dissent." Those sections should be required reading for a lot of these "apologist" sorts who accuse of "dissent" anyone who does not agree with their pet opinions -based at times on a theologically unacceptable methodology which is essentially a form of magisterial postivism. Having explained the distinctions so many do not make on these issues adequately enough already, let us finish by considering where and when torture has been condoned by the magisterium in the past and helping to connect what seems to many to be an unconnectable paradox.
To start with, there is the issue of the Catechism footnote on the subject which we are not going to delve into at the present time. Victor Morton already dealt adequately with it and his approach from every appearance conforms to the prescription on the ecclesial vocation of the theologian for how these issues are to be addressed. All that remains is to situate within the issues covered, the traditional approach to the subject of torture and finish with an exhortation to our positional adversaries to show the bare minimum of respect for the God-given faculties of reason and logic.
On the subject of what was and was not permitted, again Victor Morton has provided a service with quotes from The Catholic Encyclopedia. Here are the relevant factors to consider -all emphasis is ours:
Curiously enough torture was not regarded as a mode of punishment, but purely as a means of eliciting the truth. It was not of ecclesiastical origin, and was long prohibited in the ecclesiastical courts. Nor was it originally an important factor in the inquisitional procedure, being unauthorized until twenty years after the Inquisition had begun. It was first authorized by Innocent IV in his Bull "Ad exstirpanda" of 15 May, 1252, which was confirmed by Alexander IV on 30 November, 1259, and by Clement IV on 3 November, 1265. The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum -- i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. Torture was to applied only once, and not then unless the accused were uncertain in his statements, and seemed already virtually convicted by manifold and weighty proofs. In general, this violent testimony (quaestio) was to be deferred as long as possible, and recourse to it was permitted in only when all other expedients were exhausted...[The Catholic Encyclopedia: From the Article Inquisition (circa 1913)]
In other words, torture (i) was only allowed when dealing with those who were engaged in undermining the public order and common good of society and (ii) was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. These would by their very nature be extraordinary circumstances and therefore the ordinary course of events could make a wide scale disapproval of torture appropriate. The principle here is in line with the analogy to the death penalty which as Greg Mockeridge properly noted, Pope John Paul II spoke some pretty negative words about in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae but which the Holy See itself has admitted was a matter not of doctrine but of prudential matters where people of good will could disagree as long as the moral and doctrinal principles underlying the subject were respected.{3} If this principle is in force with a greater punishment such as the death penalty, obviously a lesser one such as torture would also fall under those rubrics. And recognizing this is the capstone to recognizing what the limits on freedom are in the mind of the Catholic Church.
The best example here is that of religious liberty since essentially these Muslim extremists are seeking expressions of their religious beliefs. And in a declaration of teaching, the Second Vatican Council outlined well in a non-normative fashion what the outlines of religious liberty properly understood involved. Pardon us for having recourse to a previous commentary we wrote on this matter but what was noted there explains this sufficiently as we see it:
The foundation of religious liberty properly understood is that man has a natural right to religious liberty in the social and civil arenas. This right however (like all legitimate rights) has its limits. For example, religious liberty is constrained by just public order and the common good of society. In other words, religious liberty is not just when a person exercises it in ways that are destructive of society's collective good as regulated by what the government perceives as the "common good of society."
Furthermore, common good is also tied to what is called "just public order" as the criteria that must be followed for any legitimate exercise of religion or any other social behaviour in society. The Council made this very clear in its outlining of what the role of the civil authority was later on in the conciliar declaration when outlining what the "due limits" were in the government's rights to suppress any particular expressions which were illegitimate. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 16, 2004)]
It is now time to summarize the various contents to this three-part thread and posit our conclusion so here goes...
Recognizing that:
---All legitimate freedoms are constrained by the same principles as religious liberty.
---Religious liberty is not absolute but can be regulated by society in accordance with certain objective criteria.{4}
---"[T]he freedom of man is to be respected as far as possible and is not to be curtailed except when and insofar as necessary" (Dignitatis Humanae §7).
---In the war on terror, sometimes it is required to intern people and extract information from them for necessarily protecting society from violations to just public order and the common good of society that would be significantly more probable if these people were not so coerced. (A principle that harmonizes nicely with what DH taught on these matters.)
---Traditionally, when the issue of protecting violations to just public order and the common good of society is involved, any method of coercion not caus[ing] the loss of life or limb or imperil[ing] life (cf. Catholic Encyclopedia Article Inquisition) is morally licit and therefore not intrinsically evil.
---By logical extension, any method fitting the above criteria utilized by the US Government either at Gitmo, Abu Ghirab, or anywhere else -however tasteless it may well be- cannot be properly seen as "intrinsically evil" as torture in certain forms as those have been recognized in the past by popes and councils as legitimate.
---The past sanctioning of torture by popes and councils -going so far as to command kings and princes under pain of excommunication with matters of heresy when these undermined the common good of society- means that torture itself cannot be "intrinsically evil" unless the doctrine of indefectibility is contradicted.
---As Pope John Paul II and Vatican II made it clear that their teachings were not to be seen as disconnected from the past but instead in congruity with them, it is not possible for something previously accepted by popes and councils (within certain limits) as licit to magically morph into something "intrinsically evil."
---Recognizing the Vatican's own guidelines for proper theological analysis can lead one to conclude -safely and without fear of being viewed as a "dissident"- that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies (cf. Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian §24) and that this assessment can be levied at not only GS in some areas for reasons already noted but also VS where it cites GS on the matter in question.
---No Catholic can hold to the idea of magisterial defectibility as it contradicts solemn Catholic teaching.
When everything is taken into consideration, the hypothesis advanced by Mark Shea and his allies about torture ipso facto being "intrinsically evil" cannot sustain the scrutiny of the law of non-contradiction and thus can (and arguably should) be rejected. This does not mean that they cannot take a strict interpretation to the various factors involved and in their opinion view methods of torture at Gitmo, Abu Ghirab, or other places as inappropriate. However, they cannot logically or in accordance with general norms of theological interpretation advance that opinion as anything binding on the consciences of others. Therefore, they would do well to cease and desist such things and apologize to anyone they have spoken less-than-respectfully of for disagreeing with them in an area where there is a diversity of viewpoints on the matter which are permitted. Likewise, those who have acted as if Mark and his allies do not have the right to their opinion on the matter{5} should retract any excesses on their part as well.
Notes:
{1} This means the pope confirmed the text in a fashion which made the contents of the text his own.
{2} Back in Joseph Ratzinger's days as prefect for the CDF under his predecessor.
{3} Essentially, whenever bloodless means were sufficient to prevent an offender from damaging the public order of society, that should be the recourse. The death penalty in other words should be a last resort, not the first on these matters. As far as deciding when that last resort was or was not reached, such is by its very nature a normative issue where there could be varying points of view on the matter.
{4} [S]ociety has the right to defend itself against possible abuses committed on the pretext of freedom of religion. It is the special duty of government to provide this protection. However, government is not to act in an arbitrary fashion or in an unfair spirit of partisanship. Its action is to be controlled by juridical norms which are in conformity with the objective moral order. These norms arise out of the need for the effective safeguard of the rights of all citizens and for the peaceful settlement of conflicts of rights, also out of the need for an adequate care of genuine public peace, which comes about when men live together in good order and in true justice, and finally out of the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.
These matters constitute the basic component of the common welfare: they are what is meant by public order. [Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: Declaration Dignitatis Humanae §7 (circa December 7, 1965) as quoted by Rerum Novarum (circa December 16, 2004)]
{5} As long as Mark and his allies do not try and make their opinions binding on others of course.
On Torture and General Norms of Theological Interpretation Contra Certain "Apologist" Fundamentalist Hermeneutics -Part II of III:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
To read part one of this thread, go HERE.
Before we delve into certain key factors that bear examination, we need to direct the readers to several very good threads in Christopher Blosser's second combox thread posted by some fellow named Jeff. Having done that, let us start the meat of this thread by revisiting something we noted last month on the matter:
With secret tribunals this means the torture issue is going to come up and hopefully certain Catholic...sorts --whom your host has in mind along with others who are non-Catholic-- who want to whine and complain about these issues will have the common decency to define the word torture this time around. Because if they are gonna whine and gripe about it, if they are going to throw around a word that is not going to be defined and that's/there is a serious disingenuous element there and hopefully this time around, these people will approach the issue equitably in a proper and ethical way. [Excerpt from a Rerum Novarum Audiopost Transcript (circa September 30, 2006)]
For readers who are not aware, your host had a few persons in mind with the above thread mainly Mark Shea whom we have noted before and on more than one occasion{5}, does not represent this issue accurately. The following recent bit from his own combox highlights some of the problems he has on this matter:
[A]s Eve Tushnet points out, far worse abuses have been, quite legally, perpetrated by the CIA and our President has declared that "we do not torture and have never tortured". Such abuses have include waterboarding and cold cells. Bush says these do not constitute torture (though he also backed down on waterboarding, sort of). If these are not torture, then what you saw from Abu Ghraib was not torture either. Just a "frat hazing" as Rush Limbaugh assures us. [LINK]
Frankly, Fr. Brian Harrison's response to Mark's Crisis article on torture (which Mark titled "Toying With Evil") is on the whole quite good. He gives the impression of fudging a bit on the whole issue of post Vatican II stuff but he is right in principle in what he wrote. Here is the crux of his position:
[T]he development of Catholic doctrine over time is supposed to flow harmoniously from what was taught "always, everywhere, and by all," according to the classic criterion laid down by Vincent of Lérins. The Church is not supposed to be able to invent new doctrines out of whole cloth. Indeed, Vatican I specifically rejected the idea that the Holy Spirit was promised to Peter's successors for the purpose of revealing novam doctrinam (Denzinger-Schönmetzer 3070). And if we rightly denounce activist American judges for "discovering" in federal or state constitutions such hitherto unheard of implications as the "right" to abortion and the "right" to "gay marriage," then how do we defend Popes Paul VI and John Paul II from the charge of an analogous doctrinal activism in claiming to discover, nearly two millennia after our Christian constitution was definitively laid down in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, that the infliction of severe bodily pain is "intrinsically evil"? [Fr. Brian W. Harrison: Excerpt from the Crisis Magazine's Letters to the Editor section (circa September 12, 2005)]
Your host would certainly take issue with the idea that Paul VI or John Paul II have "spoken definitively" on this matter as Mark seems to imply in some of his statements on this matter. Fr. Harrison's assessment in the above paragraph summary is on the whole accurate. We raise the issue of Fr. Harrison's letter to deal with one element that he does not and that is where he notes that "few if any orthodox theologians would regard the conditions for infallible teaching as being verified in the texts cited by Mr. Shea (Gaudium et Spes 27 and Veritatis Splendor 80)." We have to say based on our knowledge of this subject matter that Fr. Harrison is correct in his assessment. But rather than merely say this, we will now set forth our reasons for this viewpoint in the form of a hypothesis. To begin with, let us now consider Mark Shea's quotes from Gaudium et Spes (GS) and Veritatis Splendour (VS):
Furthermore...whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as...torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself...all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.
Here is the full quote with the omitted parts underlined (and the preceding paragraph which contextualizes it):
In our times a special obligation binds us to make ourselves the neighbor of every person without exception. and of actively helping him when he comes across our path, whether he be an old person abandoned by all, a foreign laborer unjustly looked down upon, a refugee, a child born of an unlawful union and wrongly suffering for a sin he did not commit, or a hungry person who disturbs our conscience by recalling the voice of the Lord, "As long as you did it for one of these the least of my brethren, you did it for me" (Matt. 25:40).
Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator. [Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes §27 (circa December 7, 1965)]
This is the foundation text from which Mark and others operate from and for that reason, we must start our inquiry here. And as we have written on general norms of interpretation before as they pertain to Gaudium et Spes, it seems appropriate to recall part of that briefly before moving onto an examination of that text in greater detail:
With general norms, one has to tread carefully and this is a subject not often understood even by many who are considered "experts" in these matters. This is part of the reason why your host rolls his eyes when those with partisan agendas quote too freely from certain portions of Gaudium et Spes or from any source without taking into account certain factors which mitigate against a false interpretation (and thus misrepresentation of) those sources. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 4, 2006)]
Essentially folks, GS is supposed to be interpreted according to general norms of interpretation as any document is. The diverse elements on GS make this obligation even more important -so much so that the document itself in its first footnote specifically says this explicitly (all emphasis is ours):
The Pastoral Constitution "De Ecclesia in Mundo Huius Temporis" is made up of two parts; yet it constitutes an organic unity. By way of explanation: the constitution is called "pastoral" because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express the relation of the Church to the world and modern mankind. The result is that, on the one hand, a pastoral slant is present in the first part, and, on the other hand, a doctrinal slant is present in the second part. In the first part, the Church develops her teaching on man, on the world which is the enveloping context of man's existence, and on man's relations to his fellow men. In part two, the Church gives closer consideration to various aspects of modern life and human society; special consideration is given to those questions and problems which, in this general area, seem to have a greater urgency in our day. As a result in part two the subject matter which is viewed in the light of doctrinal principles is made up of diverse elements. Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one. Consequently, the constitution must be interpreted according to the general norms of theological interpretation. Interpreters must bear in mind-especially in part two-the changeable circumstances which the subject matter, by its very nature, involves. [Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes Preface Footnote (circa December 7, 1965)]
If the Constitution in its prefatory footnote (which must be considered when seeking to interpret the proper sense of the council text) says that the first part of the text is presenting "a pastoral slant" in the first part of the text, then it is what it is. Neither Mark nor anyone else can change that unless we seek to ascribe to words meanings they do not have.
Another really elementary constituent to general norms of theological interpretation is this: one sentence from a Pastoral Constitution doth not a definitive statement make. Period. On that point alone, Mark's analysis is erroneous to no small degree. When one considers the times and circumstances as well, they would realize that one of the goals of the Second Vatican Council was to deal with the menace of communism but do so indirectly. This is why a lot of things were lumped together without distinction in GS: in large part because a lot of what was noted was happening in communist countries -though a lot of what was noted was to some extent universal in its scope. Again, the factors were not distinguished from one another but instead lumped together indiscriminately. On the issue in question, we are not talking about subjecting a sworn enemy of the state who is undermining the social order to coercion for the sake of protecting the public order and common good of society. No, with the communists it was anyone who was opposed to the government or who held out for freedom who was subject to inhumane treatment. There was no discrimination in their use of means of coercion in other words.
Now the council could not give the appearance of favouring one side over the other if (i) there was any hope of indirectly persuading the communists and (ii) if they were to avoid giving the appearance of giving the excesses in non-communist nations a free pass. For these reasons, the council did not name names and mentioned a host of things without proper distinctions made. That is acceptable when dealing with a pastoral constitution but it also is why the council itself included the interpretive hermeneutic with GS which applies to all magisterial texts. With the diverse elements contained within GS, it made noting these factors particularly germane; ergo you have the large prefatory note above.
This kind of overvaluing of scant statements is what happens when one approaches magisterial texts with the same lack of discernment that fundamentalists do the Bible and radical self-styled "traditionalists" or "progressivists" do with magisterial texts. There are two dangers inherent in the latter and they are opposite: "trads" pretending magisterial obedience requirements ended prior to or within the vicinity of Vatican II and "progressivist" sorts pretending that Vatican II is some break from the past and justifying every radical departure as being of equal merit or somehow authoritative. Both play into what Pope Benedict XVI called last year the "hermeneutics of discontinuity" and both are to be summarily rejected. This stance is hardly a novel one either as Pope John Paul II often said that it was a profound error to interpret the council apart from the whole of the tradition. This is why the attitude taken by people such as Mark towards those who have sought to follow the injunctions of the last two popes on these matters is inappropriate and frankly he should recognize this and adjust his attitudes accordingly. But enough on the first source and now onto the second which is Veritatis Splendour. The quote Mark referenced was this one from the text:
Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" ( intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object". 131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator". 132 [Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendour §80 (circa August 6, 1993)]
Now this quote from Veritatis Splendor appears to support Mark's reading. But one of the general norms of proper theological interpretation is to consider the words in their original context and meaning. Two references to GS in VS cannot make those statements more authoritative than they already were -particularly if there is no manifested intention in the text to do so. That raises the question of what the intention of the Pope in issuing VS was and from there we turn to the encyclical itself for the requisite evidence to be had -all emphasis is ours except the italics in the text and all footnotes not relevant to the question removed:
At all times, but particularly in the last two centuries, the Popes, whether individually or together with the College of Bishops, have developed and proposed a moral teaching regarding the many different spheres of human life. In Christ's name and with his authority they have exhorted, passed judgment and explained. In their efforts on behalf of humanity, in fidelity to their mission, they have confirmed, supported and consoled. With the guarantee of assistance from the Spirit of truth they have contributed to a better understanding of moral demands in the areas of human sexuality, the family, and social, economic and political life. In the tradition of the Church and in the history of humanity, their teaching represents a constant deepening of knowledge with regard to morality.
Today, however, it seems necessary to reflect on the whole of the Church's moral teaching, with the precise goal of recalling certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine which, in the present circumstances, risk being distorted or denied. In fact, a new situation has come about within the Christian community itself, which has experienced the spread of numerous doubts and objections of a human and psychological, social and cultural, religious and even properly theological nature, with regard to the Church's moral teachings. It is no longer a matter of limited and occasional dissent, but of an overall and systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine, on the basis of certain anthropological and ethical presuppositions. At the root of these presuppositions is the more or less obvious influence of currents of thought which end by detaching human freedom from its essential and constitutive relationship to truth. Thus the traditional doctrine regarding the natural law, and the universality and the permanent validity of its precepts, is rejected; certain of the Church's moral teachings are found simply unacceptable; and the Magisterium itself is considered capable of intervening in matters of morality only in order to "exhort consciences" and to "propose values", in the light of which each individual will independently make his or her decisions and life choices.
In particular, note should be taken of the lack of harmony between the traditional response of the Church and certain theological positions, encountered even in Seminaries and in Faculties of Theology, with regard to questions of the greatest importance for the Church and for the life of faith of Christians, as well as for the life of society itself. In particular, the question is asked: do the commandments of God, which are written on the human heart and are part of the Covenant, really have the capacity to clarify the daily decisions of individuals and entire societies? Is it possible to obey God and thus love God and neighbour, without respecting these commandments in all circumstances? Also, an opinion is frequently heard which questions the intrinsic and unbreakable bond between faith and morality, as if membership in the Church and her internal unity were to be decided on the basis of faith alone, while in the sphere of morality a pluralism of opinions and of kinds of behaviour could be tolerated, these being left to the judgment of the individual subjective conscience or to the diversity of social and cultural contexts.
Given these circumstances, which still exist, I came to the decision — as I announced in my Apostolic Letter Spiritus Domini, issued on 1 August 1987 on the second centenary of the death of Saint Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori — to write an Encyclical with the aim of treating "more fully and more deeply the issues regarding the very foundations of moral theology",9 foundations which are being undermined by certain present day tendencies. [Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendour §4-5 (circa August 6, 1993)]
Notice the pope making reference to the lack of harmony between the traditional response of the Church and certain theological positions"??? This makes it clear that the intention of the encyclical is to be in continuity with the past and show proper harmony. The reference in footnote 131 (quoting Pope Paul VI) makes this even clearer:
"Far be it from Christians to be led to embrace another opinion, as if the Council taught that nowadays some things are permitted which the Church had previously declared intrinsically evil. Who does not see in this the rise of a depraved moral relativism, one that clearly endangers the Church's entire doctrinal heritage?" [Pope Paul VI, Address to Members of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, (September 1967): AAS 59 (1967), 962 noted as a paraphrased reference in VS footnote 131]
That principle has two sides to the coin: not only what was once declared intrinsically evil cannot be recogized as licit later on if the doctrinal heritage of the Church is to be upheld but likewise, what was held as licit before cannot later be declared intrinsically evil. For these reasons, any interpretations which posit a disharmony are ipso facto to be rejected. For that reason, the interpretation Mark and his allies give to VS with regards to torture can be considered thrown out of court without any hesitation.
To be Continued...
Note:
{1} Mark Shea has likewise showed some key misunderstandings on his part to...the subjects of economics, torture[...], and just war. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 5, 2006)]
The removed text footnote went to a quoting of the material in footnote one of this posting and a previous admission that one of those in mind when the material was originally written in December of 2005 was Mark Shea.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
To read part one of this thread, go HERE.
Before we delve into certain key factors that bear examination, we need to direct the readers to several very good threads in Christopher Blosser's second combox thread posted by some fellow named Jeff. Having done that, let us start the meat of this thread by revisiting something we noted last month on the matter:
With secret tribunals this means the torture issue is going to come up and hopefully certain Catholic...sorts --whom your host has in mind along with others who are non-Catholic-- who want to whine and complain about these issues will have the common decency to define the word torture this time around. Because if they are gonna whine and gripe about it, if they are going to throw around a word that is not going to be defined and that's/there is a serious disingenuous element there and hopefully this time around, these people will approach the issue equitably in a proper and ethical way. [Excerpt from a Rerum Novarum Audiopost Transcript (circa September 30, 2006)]
For readers who are not aware, your host had a few persons in mind with the above thread mainly Mark Shea whom we have noted before and on more than one occasion{5}, does not represent this issue accurately. The following recent bit from his own combox highlights some of the problems he has on this matter:
[A]s Eve Tushnet points out, far worse abuses have been, quite legally, perpetrated by the CIA and our President has declared that "we do not torture and have never tortured". Such abuses have include waterboarding and cold cells. Bush says these do not constitute torture (though he also backed down on waterboarding, sort of). If these are not torture, then what you saw from Abu Ghraib was not torture either. Just a "frat hazing" as Rush Limbaugh assures us. [LINK]
Frankly, Fr. Brian Harrison's response to Mark's Crisis article on torture (which Mark titled "Toying With Evil") is on the whole quite good. He gives the impression of fudging a bit on the whole issue of post Vatican II stuff but he is right in principle in what he wrote. Here is the crux of his position:
[T]he development of Catholic doctrine over time is supposed to flow harmoniously from what was taught "always, everywhere, and by all," according to the classic criterion laid down by Vincent of Lérins. The Church is not supposed to be able to invent new doctrines out of whole cloth. Indeed, Vatican I specifically rejected the idea that the Holy Spirit was promised to Peter's successors for the purpose of revealing novam doctrinam (Denzinger-Schönmetzer 3070). And if we rightly denounce activist American judges for "discovering" in federal or state constitutions such hitherto unheard of implications as the "right" to abortion and the "right" to "gay marriage," then how do we defend Popes Paul VI and John Paul II from the charge of an analogous doctrinal activism in claiming to discover, nearly two millennia after our Christian constitution was definitively laid down in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, that the infliction of severe bodily pain is "intrinsically evil"? [Fr. Brian W. Harrison: Excerpt from the Crisis Magazine's Letters to the Editor section (circa September 12, 2005)]
Your host would certainly take issue with the idea that Paul VI or John Paul II have "spoken definitively" on this matter as Mark seems to imply in some of his statements on this matter. Fr. Harrison's assessment in the above paragraph summary is on the whole accurate. We raise the issue of Fr. Harrison's letter to deal with one element that he does not and that is where he notes that "few if any orthodox theologians would regard the conditions for infallible teaching as being verified in the texts cited by Mr. Shea (Gaudium et Spes 27 and Veritatis Splendor 80)." We have to say based on our knowledge of this subject matter that Fr. Harrison is correct in his assessment. But rather than merely say this, we will now set forth our reasons for this viewpoint in the form of a hypothesis. To begin with, let us now consider Mark Shea's quotes from Gaudium et Spes (GS) and Veritatis Splendour (VS):
Furthermore...whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as...torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself...all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.
Here is the full quote with the omitted parts underlined (and the preceding paragraph which contextualizes it):
In our times a special obligation binds us to make ourselves the neighbor of every person without exception. and of actively helping him when he comes across our path, whether he be an old person abandoned by all, a foreign laborer unjustly looked down upon, a refugee, a child born of an unlawful union and wrongly suffering for a sin he did not commit, or a hungry person who disturbs our conscience by recalling the voice of the Lord, "As long as you did it for one of these the least of my brethren, you did it for me" (Matt. 25:40).
Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator. [Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes §27 (circa December 7, 1965)]
This is the foundation text from which Mark and others operate from and for that reason, we must start our inquiry here. And as we have written on general norms of interpretation before as they pertain to Gaudium et Spes, it seems appropriate to recall part of that briefly before moving onto an examination of that text in greater detail:
With general norms, one has to tread carefully and this is a subject not often understood even by many who are considered "experts" in these matters. This is part of the reason why your host rolls his eyes when those with partisan agendas quote too freely from certain portions of Gaudium et Spes or from any source without taking into account certain factors which mitigate against a false interpretation (and thus misrepresentation of) those sources. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 4, 2006)]
Essentially folks, GS is supposed to be interpreted according to general norms of interpretation as any document is. The diverse elements on GS make this obligation even more important -so much so that the document itself in its first footnote specifically says this explicitly (all emphasis is ours):
The Pastoral Constitution "De Ecclesia in Mundo Huius Temporis" is made up of two parts; yet it constitutes an organic unity. By way of explanation: the constitution is called "pastoral" because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express the relation of the Church to the world and modern mankind. The result is that, on the one hand, a pastoral slant is present in the first part, and, on the other hand, a doctrinal slant is present in the second part. In the first part, the Church develops her teaching on man, on the world which is the enveloping context of man's existence, and on man's relations to his fellow men. In part two, the Church gives closer consideration to various aspects of modern life and human society; special consideration is given to those questions and problems which, in this general area, seem to have a greater urgency in our day. As a result in part two the subject matter which is viewed in the light of doctrinal principles is made up of diverse elements. Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one. Consequently, the constitution must be interpreted according to the general norms of theological interpretation. Interpreters must bear in mind-especially in part two-the changeable circumstances which the subject matter, by its very nature, involves. [Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes Preface Footnote (circa December 7, 1965)]
If the Constitution in its prefatory footnote (which must be considered when seeking to interpret the proper sense of the council text) says that the first part of the text is presenting "a pastoral slant" in the first part of the text, then it is what it is. Neither Mark nor anyone else can change that unless we seek to ascribe to words meanings they do not have.
Another really elementary constituent to general norms of theological interpretation is this: one sentence from a Pastoral Constitution doth not a definitive statement make. Period. On that point alone, Mark's analysis is erroneous to no small degree. When one considers the times and circumstances as well, they would realize that one of the goals of the Second Vatican Council was to deal with the menace of communism but do so indirectly. This is why a lot of things were lumped together without distinction in GS: in large part because a lot of what was noted was happening in communist countries -though a lot of what was noted was to some extent universal in its scope. Again, the factors were not distinguished from one another but instead lumped together indiscriminately. On the issue in question, we are not talking about subjecting a sworn enemy of the state who is undermining the social order to coercion for the sake of protecting the public order and common good of society. No, with the communists it was anyone who was opposed to the government or who held out for freedom who was subject to inhumane treatment. There was no discrimination in their use of means of coercion in other words.
Now the council could not give the appearance of favouring one side over the other if (i) there was any hope of indirectly persuading the communists and (ii) if they were to avoid giving the appearance of giving the excesses in non-communist nations a free pass. For these reasons, the council did not name names and mentioned a host of things without proper distinctions made. That is acceptable when dealing with a pastoral constitution but it also is why the council itself included the interpretive hermeneutic with GS which applies to all magisterial texts. With the diverse elements contained within GS, it made noting these factors particularly germane; ergo you have the large prefatory note above.
This kind of overvaluing of scant statements is what happens when one approaches magisterial texts with the same lack of discernment that fundamentalists do the Bible and radical self-styled "traditionalists" or "progressivists" do with magisterial texts. There are two dangers inherent in the latter and they are opposite: "trads" pretending magisterial obedience requirements ended prior to or within the vicinity of Vatican II and "progressivist" sorts pretending that Vatican II is some break from the past and justifying every radical departure as being of equal merit or somehow authoritative. Both play into what Pope Benedict XVI called last year the "hermeneutics of discontinuity" and both are to be summarily rejected. This stance is hardly a novel one either as Pope John Paul II often said that it was a profound error to interpret the council apart from the whole of the tradition. This is why the attitude taken by people such as Mark towards those who have sought to follow the injunctions of the last two popes on these matters is inappropriate and frankly he should recognize this and adjust his attitudes accordingly. But enough on the first source and now onto the second which is Veritatis Splendour. The quote Mark referenced was this one from the text:
Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" ( intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object". 131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator". 132 [Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendour §80 (circa August 6, 1993)]
Now this quote from Veritatis Splendor appears to support Mark's reading. But one of the general norms of proper theological interpretation is to consider the words in their original context and meaning. Two references to GS in VS cannot make those statements more authoritative than they already were -particularly if there is no manifested intention in the text to do so. That raises the question of what the intention of the Pope in issuing VS was and from there we turn to the encyclical itself for the requisite evidence to be had -all emphasis is ours except the italics in the text and all footnotes not relevant to the question removed:
At all times, but particularly in the last two centuries, the Popes, whether individually or together with the College of Bishops, have developed and proposed a moral teaching regarding the many different spheres of human life. In Christ's name and with his authority they have exhorted, passed judgment and explained. In their efforts on behalf of humanity, in fidelity to their mission, they have confirmed, supported and consoled. With the guarantee of assistance from the Spirit of truth they have contributed to a better understanding of moral demands in the areas of human sexuality, the family, and social, economic and political life. In the tradition of the Church and in the history of humanity, their teaching represents a constant deepening of knowledge with regard to morality.
Today, however, it seems necessary to reflect on the whole of the Church's moral teaching, with the precise goal of recalling certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine which, in the present circumstances, risk being distorted or denied. In fact, a new situation has come about within the Christian community itself, which has experienced the spread of numerous doubts and objections of a human and psychological, social and cultural, religious and even properly theological nature, with regard to the Church's moral teachings. It is no longer a matter of limited and occasional dissent, but of an overall and systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine, on the basis of certain anthropological and ethical presuppositions. At the root of these presuppositions is the more or less obvious influence of currents of thought which end by detaching human freedom from its essential and constitutive relationship to truth. Thus the traditional doctrine regarding the natural law, and the universality and the permanent validity of its precepts, is rejected; certain of the Church's moral teachings are found simply unacceptable; and the Magisterium itself is considered capable of intervening in matters of morality only in order to "exhort consciences" and to "propose values", in the light of which each individual will independently make his or her decisions and life choices.
In particular, note should be taken of the lack of harmony between the traditional response of the Church and certain theological positions, encountered even in Seminaries and in Faculties of Theology, with regard to questions of the greatest importance for the Church and for the life of faith of Christians, as well as for the life of society itself. In particular, the question is asked: do the commandments of God, which are written on the human heart and are part of the Covenant, really have the capacity to clarify the daily decisions of individuals and entire societies? Is it possible to obey God and thus love God and neighbour, without respecting these commandments in all circumstances? Also, an opinion is frequently heard which questions the intrinsic and unbreakable bond between faith and morality, as if membership in the Church and her internal unity were to be decided on the basis of faith alone, while in the sphere of morality a pluralism of opinions and of kinds of behaviour could be tolerated, these being left to the judgment of the individual subjective conscience or to the diversity of social and cultural contexts.
Given these circumstances, which still exist, I came to the decision — as I announced in my Apostolic Letter Spiritus Domini, issued on 1 August 1987 on the second centenary of the death of Saint Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori — to write an Encyclical with the aim of treating "more fully and more deeply the issues regarding the very foundations of moral theology",9 foundations which are being undermined by certain present day tendencies. [Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendour §4-5 (circa August 6, 1993)]
Notice the pope making reference to the lack of harmony between the traditional response of the Church and certain theological positions"??? This makes it clear that the intention of the encyclical is to be in continuity with the past and show proper harmony. The reference in footnote 131 (quoting Pope Paul VI) makes this even clearer:
"Far be it from Christians to be led to embrace another opinion, as if the Council taught that nowadays some things are permitted which the Church had previously declared intrinsically evil. Who does not see in this the rise of a depraved moral relativism, one that clearly endangers the Church's entire doctrinal heritage?" [Pope Paul VI, Address to Members of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, (September 1967): AAS 59 (1967), 962 noted as a paraphrased reference in VS footnote 131]
That principle has two sides to the coin: not only what was once declared intrinsically evil cannot be recogized as licit later on if the doctrinal heritage of the Church is to be upheld but likewise, what was held as licit before cannot later be declared intrinsically evil. For these reasons, any interpretations which posit a disharmony are ipso facto to be rejected. For that reason, the interpretation Mark and his allies give to VS with regards to torture can be considered thrown out of court without any hesitation.
To be Continued...
Note:
{1} Mark Shea has likewise showed some key misunderstandings on his part to...the subjects of economics, torture[...], and just war. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 5, 2006)]
The removed text footnote went to a quoting of the material in footnote one of this posting and a previous admission that one of those in mind when the material was originally written in December of 2005 was Mark Shea.
On Torture and General Norms of Theological Interpretation Contra Certain "Apologist" Fundamentalist Hermeneutics -Part I of III:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: For easier reading, this post was divided into three parts and the posting from 10/14 was moved to 10/17. (The subtitle of the original was dropped as it would have been complicated to use it with a post series unlike with a single posting.) The other two threads were posted in sequence, linked throughout (as is our wont with longer threads for easier reading) and backdated to the date of the original posting. -ISM 10/17/06 12:29pm]
To start with, the notion of defining the terms that someone uses is so elementary that we are frankly embarrassed that it needs to even be mentioned. But experience has shown that the best way to deal with pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of various stripes is to insist on this principle at all times. This is why we have insisted with greater frequency over the years{1} that those who want to be taken seriously define their terms much as we always have done. The willingness or lack thereof of anyone to conform to this fundamental principle of rational thought has always served as a kind of acid test by your host in ascertaining the integrity or lack thereof of a positional adversary.
So with that in mind, on the subject of torture we are asking those who have seized on this as a major agenda item of theirs to give the rest of us the most basic of courtesies and explain themselves. Define for us what in a workable sense constitutes "torture" and what does not. Notice we are not asking for an abstract manualist definition of the term but one which can be applied to real life situations with reasonable assurance that it provides a point of reference on the subject in question. Technically, until this is done, there is no need to take those who prattle on about this issue with even the most remote of seriousness; however we intend in the post or series to follow to touch on some of the more pertinent issues pertaining to the subject in question.
To start with, Christopher Blosser deserves to be given some credit for his handling of the issue in question in two recent postings to his weblog. Here they are in sequential order by the date they were posted:
On Torture, "Aggressive Interrogation" and The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (circa October 2, 2006)
"The Torture Debate" - Part II (circa October 8, 2006)
Those threads have combox threads and indeed we intend to touch on some of the comments made before getting to the meat of this posting. Before doing that though, it should be noted that all the combox threads pertain to the first of Christopher's postings unless otherwise noted.
Having noted that, your host pinpointed some time ago{2} a key problem with this whole issue which was recently noted by "Trubador" on Christopher Blosser's combox threads on the subject at hand:
It seems to me that way too many people are tossing the word "torture" round like the way too many people toss about the word "tolerance" or "racists" or "bigot" (and just about any other convenient word or phrase to slap a label on someone or something to avoid having to think, use reason, and be reasonable). [Trubador | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 3:02 pm]
That is the problem with people who do not define their terms: it results in very sloppy reasoning. Victor Morton contributed to that thread with some key points in a blog posting of his own over at Coalition For Fog responding to the aforementioned reflections as blogged by Christopher Blosser in the first of his two postings. While we do not have time to quote as much of that posting as would be desired, it suffices to touch on the root of the matter which is the following bits from his posting:
To the principle point of contention, and the one which I'd like to pursue, is one that Chris labels But didn't the Church use Torture? and then saying the Catechism adequately rebuts the charge...
"[H]ow can something become an intrinsic evil when the church has affirmatively and authoritatively mandated it." Every word in that sentence is relevant, and brushes away the easiest objections. [Victor Morton: Excerpt from Coalition For Fog (circa October 2, 2006)]
More could be noted from that posting -indeed the fact that various popes not only decreed that torture was to be used but indeed those civil leaders who refused would be excommunicated- but we do not want to get ahead of ourselves with so much left to go over on this subject.
"Torquemada05" from the Coalition For Fog noted additional pointers your host raised some time back in private conversations and which will be developed in this posting or (if doing so proves to be too lengthy) in followup postings constituting a post series of sorts:
Essentially the main problem that I have in the torture debate...is that [a certain person] conducts it in such a manner that is more or less divorced from both history and the Magisterium in the sense of what it actually teaches...
If all attempts to coerce the will are intrisically evil, then there can be no room for domestic law enforcement as it is currently understood. Since the Church clearly doesn't teach this, then either [that person's] reading of the document is inaccurate or the Church is in error, thus raising issues indefectability. [Torquemada05: Excerpt from Coalition For Fog (circa October 3, 2006)]
Another reason why this should be a serious issue for Catholics is the pertinence of the matter to the whole notion of what is called "indefectibility." Such a doctrine would be falsified if the Church ever at one point in time taught that something was intrinsically evil that was previously taught as acceptable. But in time we will deal with this more in detail and back to the summary of points raised by others starting with Greg Mockeridge.
Greg noted a key factor here which is not realized by those who argue for the so-called "intrinsic evil of torture" -namely that somehow it is licit at times to execute people (the obvious opinion of Pope John Paul II that this is not a preferred approach to take notwithstanding) but somehow, a lesser infliction such as torture cannot be licit.{3} This line of "reasoning" is internally contradictory and therefore cannot be admitted as a viable hypothesis where these questions are considered. Logically, if the death penalty in some instances is legitimate, so too must torture be. But that point aside for a moment, we need to get to the meat of this posting with greater haste so we will summarize the other points raised by others in two paragraphs at this time starting with Christopher Fotos.
Essentially, Christopher noted the problems inherent with those who call names and otherwise disparage those who honestly have sought to engage these issues rather than tipping the biretta, bowing three times, and incensing uncritically the opinions of some "apologist" no matter how well known they are. Rich Leonardi also made reference to the root of the issue here and why a lack of reasonable precision on this matter only muddles the issue futher and does not aid in coming to any kind of workable resolution on the matter. Donald R. McClarey pointed out another reason why this issue needs to be clarified and by logical extension that means the terms utilized need to be given workable definitions.{4} TShaw points out in a different way a key element that your host had previously noted in a phone conversation on these issues with Greg Mockeridge and which Greg noted in the same thread earlier on: that if there is a commandment against killing and yet there is just war principles, there is a serious problem logically with the idea that torture (a lesser malady than death) is somehow never permissible.
There is also a thread from "Doubting Thomas" where he supplies a helpful list of some of the techniques used at Gitmo for seeking to extract information from detainees. "Doubting Thomas" also noted the supreme irony of how according to the UN's own definition of the term, the guards at Gitmo are being tortured by the prisoners!!! We trust that anyone who respects logic and reason can see why it is important to define the terms one uses -or as Mike Mentzer once so astutely said definitions are the tools of thought- and furthermore, why those who ridicule the notion of such requests being made should be held in disregard.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} Here are two examples that readily come to mind which are by no means the earliest ones we could note from our archives:
[W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum post (circa July 3, 2006)]
{2} See footnote one.
{3} Greg's comments were of course responded to non-sequiturially by a few others and we will not entertain such absurdities since they detract from the subject at hand.
{4} Mr. McClarey also noted his own disagreement with waterboarding -a view your host does not share but we would never hold anyone in poor regard simply because they did not agree with us.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Update: For easier reading, this post was divided into three parts and the posting from 10/14 was moved to 10/17. (The subtitle of the original was dropped as it would have been complicated to use it with a post series unlike with a single posting.) The other two threads were posted in sequence, linked throughout (as is our wont with longer threads for easier reading) and backdated to the date of the original posting. -ISM 10/17/06 12:29pm]
To start with, the notion of defining the terms that someone uses is so elementary that we are frankly embarrassed that it needs to even be mentioned. But experience has shown that the best way to deal with pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of various stripes is to insist on this principle at all times. This is why we have insisted with greater frequency over the years{1} that those who want to be taken seriously define their terms much as we always have done. The willingness or lack thereof of anyone to conform to this fundamental principle of rational thought has always served as a kind of acid test by your host in ascertaining the integrity or lack thereof of a positional adversary.
So with that in mind, on the subject of torture we are asking those who have seized on this as a major agenda item of theirs to give the rest of us the most basic of courtesies and explain themselves. Define for us what in a workable sense constitutes "torture" and what does not. Notice we are not asking for an abstract manualist definition of the term but one which can be applied to real life situations with reasonable assurance that it provides a point of reference on the subject in question. Technically, until this is done, there is no need to take those who prattle on about this issue with even the most remote of seriousness; however we intend in the post or series to follow to touch on some of the more pertinent issues pertaining to the subject in question.
To start with, Christopher Blosser deserves to be given some credit for his handling of the issue in question in two recent postings to his weblog. Here they are in sequential order by the date they were posted:
On Torture, "Aggressive Interrogation" and The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (circa October 2, 2006)
"The Torture Debate" - Part II (circa October 8, 2006)
Those threads have combox threads and indeed we intend to touch on some of the comments made before getting to the meat of this posting. Before doing that though, it should be noted that all the combox threads pertain to the first of Christopher's postings unless otherwise noted.
Having noted that, your host pinpointed some time ago{2} a key problem with this whole issue which was recently noted by "Trubador" on Christopher Blosser's combox threads on the subject at hand:
It seems to me that way too many people are tossing the word "torture" round like the way too many people toss about the word "tolerance" or "racists" or "bigot" (and just about any other convenient word or phrase to slap a label on someone or something to avoid having to think, use reason, and be reasonable). [Trubador | Homepage | 10.02.06 - 3:02 pm]
That is the problem with people who do not define their terms: it results in very sloppy reasoning. Victor Morton contributed to that thread with some key points in a blog posting of his own over at Coalition For Fog responding to the aforementioned reflections as blogged by Christopher Blosser in the first of his two postings. While we do not have time to quote as much of that posting as would be desired, it suffices to touch on the root of the matter which is the following bits from his posting:
To the principle point of contention, and the one which I'd like to pursue, is one that Chris labels But didn't the Church use Torture? and then saying the Catechism adequately rebuts the charge...
"[H]ow can something become an intrinsic evil when the church has affirmatively and authoritatively mandated it." Every word in that sentence is relevant, and brushes away the easiest objections. [Victor Morton: Excerpt from Coalition For Fog (circa October 2, 2006)]
More could be noted from that posting -indeed the fact that various popes not only decreed that torture was to be used but indeed those civil leaders who refused would be excommunicated- but we do not want to get ahead of ourselves with so much left to go over on this subject.
"Torquemada05" from the Coalition For Fog noted additional pointers your host raised some time back in private conversations and which will be developed in this posting or (if doing so proves to be too lengthy) in followup postings constituting a post series of sorts:
Essentially the main problem that I have in the torture debate...is that [a certain person] conducts it in such a manner that is more or less divorced from both history and the Magisterium in the sense of what it actually teaches...
If all attempts to coerce the will are intrisically evil, then there can be no room for domestic law enforcement as it is currently understood. Since the Church clearly doesn't teach this, then either [that person's] reading of the document is inaccurate or the Church is in error, thus raising issues indefectability. [Torquemada05: Excerpt from Coalition For Fog (circa October 3, 2006)]
Another reason why this should be a serious issue for Catholics is the pertinence of the matter to the whole notion of what is called "indefectibility." Such a doctrine would be falsified if the Church ever at one point in time taught that something was intrinsically evil that was previously taught as acceptable. But in time we will deal with this more in detail and back to the summary of points raised by others starting with Greg Mockeridge.
Greg noted a key factor here which is not realized by those who argue for the so-called "intrinsic evil of torture" -namely that somehow it is licit at times to execute people (the obvious opinion of Pope John Paul II that this is not a preferred approach to take notwithstanding) but somehow, a lesser infliction such as torture cannot be licit.{3} This line of "reasoning" is internally contradictory and therefore cannot be admitted as a viable hypothesis where these questions are considered. Logically, if the death penalty in some instances is legitimate, so too must torture be. But that point aside for a moment, we need to get to the meat of this posting with greater haste so we will summarize the other points raised by others in two paragraphs at this time starting with Christopher Fotos.
Essentially, Christopher noted the problems inherent with those who call names and otherwise disparage those who honestly have sought to engage these issues rather than tipping the biretta, bowing three times, and incensing uncritically the opinions of some "apologist" no matter how well known they are. Rich Leonardi also made reference to the root of the issue here and why a lack of reasonable precision on this matter only muddles the issue futher and does not aid in coming to any kind of workable resolution on the matter. Donald R. McClarey pointed out another reason why this issue needs to be clarified and by logical extension that means the terms utilized need to be given workable definitions.{4} TShaw points out in a different way a key element that your host had previously noted in a phone conversation on these issues with Greg Mockeridge and which Greg noted in the same thread earlier on: that if there is a commandment against killing and yet there is just war principles, there is a serious problem logically with the idea that torture (a lesser malady than death) is somehow never permissible.
There is also a thread from "Doubting Thomas" where he supplies a helpful list of some of the techniques used at Gitmo for seeking to extract information from detainees. "Doubting Thomas" also noted the supreme irony of how according to the UN's own definition of the term, the guards at Gitmo are being tortured by the prisoners!!! We trust that anyone who respects logic and reason can see why it is important to define the terms one uses -or as Mike Mentzer once so astutely said definitions are the tools of thought- and furthermore, why those who ridicule the notion of such requests being made should be held in disregard.
To be Continued...
Notes:
{1} Here are two examples that readily come to mind which are by no means the earliest ones we could note from our archives:
[W]atch those who are incapable of giving a reasonable working definition of "rights" to claim that there is one. Definitions are the tools of thought and frankly, those who are not willing to define their terms do not deserve to be taken seriously...whether they are misappropriating the term "rights", "neo cons", or whatever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 26, 2005) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum post (circa July 3, 2006)]
{2} See footnote one.
{3} Greg's comments were of course responded to non-sequiturially by a few others and we will not entertain such absurdities since they detract from the subject at hand.
{4} Mr. McClarey also noted his own disagreement with waterboarding -a view your host does not share but we would never hold anyone in poor regard simply because they did not agree with us.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
I realize this weblog has been silent for a while -I trust that readers will consider what was noted in the two of the three postings from last week{1} as a large part of the reason for this.
Obviously such long absences as we are prone to take at times (for various reasons) does not help with the "site hits" but we trust that (i) most readers of some blog reading tenure at this humble weblog realize that your host does not write on anything with the idea of generating more "site hits" and (ii) there are a lot more important things in life than blogging. Or as we noted in a blog posting of musings about blogging over three years ago:
Speaking only for myself, I do not feel a sense of guilt if I go for a day or two (or three or whatever length) without blogging. Initially I did but then it dawned on me (and fortunately this happened *very* early in the life of this blog) that the moment I worry about that is the moment any edge I have (if I even have one) is blunted...
I do not know what subjects elicit the most readership and which do not and frankly, I have no interest in finding out. For the moment I do that is the moment my impulse to blog my mind becomes to some extent compromised...
Blogging is an activity that can give people a sense of exaggerated self-importance. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa February 3, 2003)]
Another reason for the aforementioned silence as of late is that your host has been working for a while on a couple posts on issues either not commonly dealt with{2} or on an issue recently discussed{3} but approaching it from a somewhat different angle than many others are approaching it at least in a macro sense.{4} At least one of them (and we know which one it is) may well generate some interest but we are not writing on the subject for that reason but because it has been on our mind to delve into it for some time and the time for doing so is now at hand.
Notes:
{1} The other posting which reissues a previously issued challenge to critics of mythical so-called "neo cons" to define their terms is also to some extent involved as the two threads mentioned in the body of this posting apply the same principle to the subjects that they intend to address today (time permitting) and later in the week (again, time permitting) respectively.
{2} Or at the very least not dealt with in the manner in which we intend to deal with them.
{3} This would be the subject of torture.
{4} We have been made aware through following threads on this matter that different people have mentioned different elements pertaining to what we intend to cover as a systematic whole in proposing a hypothesis on the matter for further consideration and review. (Many of which your host had previously noted in private conversations with friends and associates in recent months.) But enough on that for now.
Obviously such long absences as we are prone to take at times (for various reasons) does not help with the "site hits" but we trust that (i) most readers of some blog reading tenure at this humble weblog realize that your host does not write on anything with the idea of generating more "site hits" and (ii) there are a lot more important things in life than blogging. Or as we noted in a blog posting of musings about blogging over three years ago:
Speaking only for myself, I do not feel a sense of guilt if I go for a day or two (or three or whatever length) without blogging. Initially I did but then it dawned on me (and fortunately this happened *very* early in the life of this blog) that the moment I worry about that is the moment any edge I have (if I even have one) is blunted...
I do not know what subjects elicit the most readership and which do not and frankly, I have no interest in finding out. For the moment I do that is the moment my impulse to blog my mind becomes to some extent compromised...
Blogging is an activity that can give people a sense of exaggerated self-importance. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa February 3, 2003)]
Another reason for the aforementioned silence as of late is that your host has been working for a while on a couple posts on issues either not commonly dealt with{2} or on an issue recently discussed{3} but approaching it from a somewhat different angle than many others are approaching it at least in a macro sense.{4} At least one of them (and we know which one it is) may well generate some interest but we are not writing on the subject for that reason but because it has been on our mind to delve into it for some time and the time for doing so is now at hand.
Notes:
{1} The other posting which reissues a previously issued challenge to critics of mythical so-called "neo cons" to define their terms is also to some extent involved as the two threads mentioned in the body of this posting apply the same principle to the subjects that they intend to address today (time permitting) and later in the week (again, time permitting) respectively.
{2} Or at the very least not dealt with in the manner in which we intend to deal with them.
{3} This would be the subject of torture.
{4} We have been made aware through following threads on this matter that different people have mentioned different elements pertaining to what we intend to cover as a systematic whole in proposing a hypothesis on the matter for further consideration and review. (Many of which your host had previously noted in private conversations with friends and associates in recent months.) But enough on that for now.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
More on Cecilia Flynn:
(And Another Recent Passing of Note)
I posted a thread the other day on my great Aunt Cecilia Flynn, God rest her soul. Some stuff I found out about her recently (from her obituary) include that she was a navy captain in WWII, she landed in Normandy and helped set up the first hospital there, and was attached to Patton's Third Army in the sweep across Europe. I never knew any of this because she never talked about it. (She met her husband the late Edward Flynn in a Vancouver VA hospital in 1945 after he was messed up in the European fighting. They were married in 1949, had two kids, and a successful marriage of 55 years up to Uncle Ed's passing in January of 2004.) All of this reminds me of the acid test I always use to distinguish true heroes from false ones.
I always viewed John Kerry as a phony in 2004 and the primary reason was not his flip flopping though that was also one of the reasons. To me the giveaway was the way he dealt with his military service. True veterans that I have known throughout my life do not do that and indeed do not talk about their awards or those subjects unless someone asks them about it. And (when asked) they never speak of it as arrogantly as Kerry did. But enough on that for now.
Please also remember my longtime good friend Tim Tull's cousin who died in an accident about nine days ago. (God rest his soul.) He left three children and a wife, a business that was failing, and because of a preexisting heart condition, no life insurance. (They would not give it to him.) The family is in deep kim chee financially and I hope to get an address where people can send them donations in the coming days should they want to make a genuine difference with contributions. In the meantime, prayers for him and his family would be most appreciated.
(And Another Recent Passing of Note)
I posted a thread the other day on my great Aunt Cecilia Flynn, God rest her soul. Some stuff I found out about her recently (from her obituary) include that she was a navy captain in WWII, she landed in Normandy and helped set up the first hospital there, and was attached to Patton's Third Army in the sweep across Europe. I never knew any of this because she never talked about it. (She met her husband the late Edward Flynn in a Vancouver VA hospital in 1945 after he was messed up in the European fighting. They were married in 1949, had two kids, and a successful marriage of 55 years up to Uncle Ed's passing in January of 2004.) All of this reminds me of the acid test I always use to distinguish true heroes from false ones.
I always viewed John Kerry as a phony in 2004 and the primary reason was not his flip flopping though that was also one of the reasons. To me the giveaway was the way he dealt with his military service. True veterans that I have known throughout my life do not do that and indeed do not talk about their awards or those subjects unless someone asks them about it. And (when asked) they never speak of it as arrogantly as Kerry did. But enough on that for now.
Please also remember my longtime good friend Tim Tull's cousin who died in an accident about nine days ago. (God rest his soul.) He left three children and a wife, a business that was failing, and because of a preexisting heart condition, no life insurance. (They would not give it to him.) The family is in deep kim chee financially and I hope to get an address where people can send them donations in the coming days should they want to make a genuine difference with contributions. In the meantime, prayers for him and his family would be most appreciated.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Prayer Requests:
Basically, the death toll the past six years amongst family and friends is now up to 24 (the second this year and the fourth since last Thanksgiving). This time though it was an expected death of sorts which while easier to deal with nonetheless still has its problems. Therefore, any prayers for my late great aunt Cecilia Flynn and her family would be most appreciated. She was 94.
Those who recognize the name Flynn from past prayer requests would have excellent recollections indeed as her husband Ed Flynn passed away in January of 2004. I noted that at the time and in the midst of a situation where some insular sorts thought I should have been more focused on their little public pissing matches rather than on the two family deaths (and funerals) I dealt with in that month -one of which I knew was coming early in that month. (Admittedly Ed Flynn's death was surprising not cause of his age but cause of what we were dealing with viz. Uncle Mel at the time.) But lest I digress further on that factor --of which I still have some residual lividness admittedly-- this post will be wrapped up with a note that I will be back to normal blogging hopefully in a day or so.
The sad thing is, this Friday will be myfourteenth seventeenth funeral in six years -I basically have no emotion about this kind of stuff anymore even with an aunt such as Ceil who I quite liked. If nothing else, I have become pretty good at counseling others how to deal with the grief, financial factors viz. estate issues, etc. Maybe though I need to ask for additional prayers for myself that I regain the ability to have emotions about these things.
[Lord, please] remember Cecilia Flynn, whom you have called from this life. In baptism she died with Christ: may she also share in his resurrection. [Roman Missal Eucharistic Prayer 2: From Masses for the Dead]
Basically, the death toll the past six years amongst family and friends is now up to 24 (the second this year and the fourth since last Thanksgiving). This time though it was an expected death of sorts which while easier to deal with nonetheless still has its problems. Therefore, any prayers for my late great aunt Cecilia Flynn and her family would be most appreciated. She was 94.
Those who recognize the name Flynn from past prayer requests would have excellent recollections indeed as her husband Ed Flynn passed away in January of 2004. I noted that at the time and in the midst of a situation where some insular sorts thought I should have been more focused on their little public pissing matches rather than on the two family deaths (and funerals) I dealt with in that month -one of which I knew was coming early in that month. (Admittedly Ed Flynn's death was surprising not cause of his age but cause of what we were dealing with viz. Uncle Mel at the time.) But lest I digress further on that factor --of which I still have some residual lividness admittedly-- this post will be wrapped up with a note that I will be back to normal blogging hopefully in a day or so.
The sad thing is, this Friday will be my
[Lord, please] remember Cecilia Flynn, whom you have called from this life. In baptism she died with Christ: may she also share in his resurrection. [Roman Missal Eucharistic Prayer 2: From Masses for the Dead]
Monday, October 02, 2006
"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo-Con'" Dept.
(A Rerum Novarum Challenge Revisitation/Reiussuance Thread)
[Prefatory Note" What this is essentially is an indirect resumption of a series that has lain defunct since your host dispatched with the logical inconsistencies in the approach to this subject taken by one Dale Vree in March of this year. With the election just around the corner, it seems apropo to reissue this challenge; ergo your host has done that at this time. -ISM]
As it has been a longtime since this series has been added to and as your host is not about to go looking for people to answer this challenge -preferring that people respond to him on the matter instead- it seems appropriate to outline the challenge we issued last year which thus far has not been answered by those of the weltanschauung who froth at the mouth about these so-called "neo-cons." The following revisits that challenge from the archives with only the most minor of tweaking to the original text itself:
Readers of this humble weblog are asked to consider what the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, and the existence of aliens have in common. In all three cases, there are those who are in varying degrees obsessed with proving the existence of those creatures but thus far, there has been no incontrovertible proof brought forward. However, despite that and the way some of those zealots can react when their hobby or (perhaps in some cases, livelihood) is challenged, at the very least they have brought forward some evidences (whatever else you want to say about them) to attempt to substantiate the claims made. The same cannot be said for zealots of another type and with a different agenda...the latter being the subject of this thread posting you are currently reading.
There are after all certain individuals who similarly have a kind of fetish with the term "neo con" and like to use the expression (usually in a derogatory fashion) in application to a lot of different people. This attitude is of course similar to a kind of cultic deadagenting whereby the cult member seeks a pre-emptory assassination attempt of the character of a critic rather than have the common decency to consider the criticisms made on their merits or lack thereof. Your host cannot be the only one who believes that if the zealots who love to throw around the term "neo con" in a blanket and derisive fashion were to meet us all at least as far as the apologists for Nessie, Sasquatch, and space aliens have that the aforementioned people could be taken at least somewhat seriously. However, that has thus far not happened. With that in mind, our intention with this series (and any additions to it) is to assist the aforementioned ideologues in establishing what could be called motives of credibility[...] for their claims.
The readers are reminded before we begin this thread (and potentially add to it over time) that your host has sought to point out the inappropriateness of this kind of labelling on many occasions...the core problem is the same even if there are varying frames of reference if you will. And with the case of certain personages who love to use this term who have thus far shirked in true chickensh*t fashion from taking responsibility for their own past and present statements, it seemed appropriate to your host to issue a very simple challenge to such people to identify the characteristics of what a so-called "neo con" is, what their underlying philosophies are, what are signature issues where they have readily identifiable positions, etc.
This is surely not a difficult thing to do; however, the manner in which the perpetrators have fled like vampires from a crucifix from the aforementioned challenge has been for us very telling to say the least. Certainly we understand why they want to avoid that one so it seemed appropriate to issue the second and much easier challenge: produce evidences to argue for the existence of these so-called "neo cons." We at Rerum Novarum first noted this idea publicly in late October of 2005 in an audioposting[...] and followed it up a bit later with a brief revisiting of the subject with Christopher Blosser. In other words, it has not been for want of trying on the part of some people to challenge these kinds of people to put up or...well...you know the rest.
The aforementioned unsavoury sorts (to put it nicely) have ignored such simple requests for accountability and have continued to prattle on about these so-called "neo cons" including labelling certain parties as such when they have not bothered to explain what their criteria is for doing this. Your host must confess as a result of these circumstances that he has greater faith in the existence of Nessie, Sasquatch, space aliens, etc. than he does for those carping critics actually proving either (i) the existence of their fabled "neo cons" or (ii) that they even have a spine themselves and are not invertebrates. That is all that we can conclude based on what has happened to date which is why it seems appropriate to establish a series where this issue can be dealt with intermittently.
The idea for this series came about unexpectedly when your host found in his email a note from a reader who had responded to the previously noted audiopost challenge and sent in some proposed critieria. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 4, 2005)]
The footnote excised from the text above read as follows:
What is meant by motives of credibility are criteria that themselves contribute to substantiating the potential veracity of what is being asserted. Thus, for those who propagate and widely apply the term "neo con" who do not bother to provide said motives of credibility for their usage and application of that term, there is no reason to presume that they have any credibility on the matter in question. [Ibid.]
It also seems apropo to note the genesis of this challenge as we conceived of it last October; ergo the following transcript from an audiposting at that time will clarify these matters so readers know what we are looking for in issuing this challenge:
Geopolitics is a complex...labrinyth if you will and it is frequently misunderstood, mischaracterized by overly simplistic people....Now, one of your host's intellectual mentors Mike Mentzer used to be fond of saying that definitions are the tools of thought. Now, since definitions are the tools of thought -and we challenge anybody to argue otherwise- then the lack of definitions on the part of those critical of the so-called "neo cons" is basically all we need to know about the quality of their thought. However, your host wants to help these people out. He requests from anyone listening to send to your host...lets see...various points if you will, characteristics, identifying marks of what is a "neo-con." Can someone be a "neo-con" based on one issue??? Or must/is there a panorama of issues if you will that all kinda coalesce and create the/what one might call the "neo-con weltanschauung."...
What constitutes a "neo con"??? Are there certain issues of more weight than others??? Are there certain issues that are dispensible or in other words a "neo-con" may or may not think this??? And are there certain issues that are absolutely indispensible as in "a 'neo-con' definitely thinks this way and anybody who thinks this way has to be a 'neo-con"??? Something, some pointers, a list if you will of identifying marks so that we can at least know who these so-called "neo cons" really are. Your host would be very interested in that so anyone who can help out in that area, drop us a line. [Excerpt from a Rerum Novarum Audio Transcript (circa October 27, 2005)]
That is the essence of the challenge we have advanced and we reiterate it anew at this time to anyone who has frequent recourse to utilizing this term "neo con" or labelling certain people or issues as such indiscriminately. Kindly define your terms. Because until you do, this writer will continue to resolutely deny the existence of these so-called "neo cons" and look on those who kvetch about them as having less credibility than those who claim the existence of Sasquatch, aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, a huge Jewish conspiracy, or whatever. For at least those sorts bring forth evidences we can examine and subject to fundamental rules of logic and reason. And until those who decry these so-called "neo cons" act likewise, they cannot be expected to be taken seriously by anyone with a normal intact functioning brain who respects the importance of logic and reason for analyzing abstract ideas which are set forth as probable descriptions of reality.
(A Rerum Novarum Challenge Revisitation/Reiussuance Thread)
[Prefatory Note" What this is essentially is an indirect resumption of a series that has lain defunct since your host dispatched with the logical inconsistencies in the approach to this subject taken by one Dale Vree in March of this year. With the election just around the corner, it seems apropo to reissue this challenge; ergo your host has done that at this time. -ISM]
As it has been a longtime since this series has been added to and as your host is not about to go looking for people to answer this challenge -preferring that people respond to him on the matter instead- it seems appropriate to outline the challenge we issued last year which thus far has not been answered by those of the weltanschauung who froth at the mouth about these so-called "neo-cons." The following revisits that challenge from the archives with only the most minor of tweaking to the original text itself:
Readers of this humble weblog are asked to consider what the Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, and the existence of aliens have in common. In all three cases, there are those who are in varying degrees obsessed with proving the existence of those creatures but thus far, there has been no incontrovertible proof brought forward. However, despite that and the way some of those zealots can react when their hobby or (perhaps in some cases, livelihood) is challenged, at the very least they have brought forward some evidences (whatever else you want to say about them) to attempt to substantiate the claims made. The same cannot be said for zealots of another type and with a different agenda...the latter being the subject of this thread posting you are currently reading.
There are after all certain individuals who similarly have a kind of fetish with the term "neo con" and like to use the expression (usually in a derogatory fashion) in application to a lot of different people. This attitude is of course similar to a kind of cultic deadagenting whereby the cult member seeks a pre-emptory assassination attempt of the character of a critic rather than have the common decency to consider the criticisms made on their merits or lack thereof. Your host cannot be the only one who believes that if the zealots who love to throw around the term "neo con" in a blanket and derisive fashion were to meet us all at least as far as the apologists for Nessie, Sasquatch, and space aliens have that the aforementioned people could be taken at least somewhat seriously. However, that has thus far not happened. With that in mind, our intention with this series (and any additions to it) is to assist the aforementioned ideologues in establishing what could be called motives of credibility[...] for their claims.
The readers are reminded before we begin this thread (and potentially add to it over time) that your host has sought to point out the inappropriateness of this kind of labelling on many occasions...the core problem is the same even if there are varying frames of reference if you will. And with the case of certain personages who love to use this term who have thus far shirked in true chickensh*t fashion from taking responsibility for their own past and present statements, it seemed appropriate to your host to issue a very simple challenge to such people to identify the characteristics of what a so-called "neo con" is, what their underlying philosophies are, what are signature issues where they have readily identifiable positions, etc.
This is surely not a difficult thing to do; however, the manner in which the perpetrators have fled like vampires from a crucifix from the aforementioned challenge has been for us very telling to say the least. Certainly we understand why they want to avoid that one so it seemed appropriate to issue the second and much easier challenge: produce evidences to argue for the existence of these so-called "neo cons." We at Rerum Novarum first noted this idea publicly in late October of 2005 in an audioposting[...] and followed it up a bit later with a brief revisiting of the subject with Christopher Blosser. In other words, it has not been for want of trying on the part of some people to challenge these kinds of people to put up or...well...you know the rest.
The aforementioned unsavoury sorts (to put it nicely) have ignored such simple requests for accountability and have continued to prattle on about these so-called "neo cons" including labelling certain parties as such when they have not bothered to explain what their criteria is for doing this. Your host must confess as a result of these circumstances that he has greater faith in the existence of Nessie, Sasquatch, space aliens, etc. than he does for those carping critics actually proving either (i) the existence of their fabled "neo cons" or (ii) that they even have a spine themselves and are not invertebrates. That is all that we can conclude based on what has happened to date which is why it seems appropriate to establish a series where this issue can be dealt with intermittently.
The idea for this series came about unexpectedly when your host found in his email a note from a reader who had responded to the previously noted audiopost challenge and sent in some proposed critieria. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 4, 2005)]
The footnote excised from the text above read as follows:
What is meant by motives of credibility are criteria that themselves contribute to substantiating the potential veracity of what is being asserted. Thus, for those who propagate and widely apply the term "neo con" who do not bother to provide said motives of credibility for their usage and application of that term, there is no reason to presume that they have any credibility on the matter in question. [Ibid.]
It also seems apropo to note the genesis of this challenge as we conceived of it last October; ergo the following transcript from an audiposting at that time will clarify these matters so readers know what we are looking for in issuing this challenge:
Geopolitics is a complex...labrinyth if you will and it is frequently misunderstood, mischaracterized by overly simplistic people....Now, one of your host's intellectual mentors Mike Mentzer used to be fond of saying that definitions are the tools of thought. Now, since definitions are the tools of thought -and we challenge anybody to argue otherwise- then the lack of definitions on the part of those critical of the so-called "neo cons" is basically all we need to know about the quality of their thought. However, your host wants to help these people out. He requests from anyone listening to send to your host...lets see...various points if you will, characteristics, identifying marks of what is a "neo-con." Can someone be a "neo-con" based on one issue??? Or must/is there a panorama of issues if you will that all kinda coalesce and create the/what one might call the "neo-con weltanschauung."...
What constitutes a "neo con"??? Are there certain issues of more weight than others??? Are there certain issues that are dispensible or in other words a "neo-con" may or may not think this??? And are there certain issues that are absolutely indispensible as in "a 'neo-con' definitely thinks this way and anybody who thinks this way has to be a 'neo-con"??? Something, some pointers, a list if you will of identifying marks so that we can at least know who these so-called "neo cons" really are. Your host would be very interested in that so anyone who can help out in that area, drop us a line. [Excerpt from a Rerum Novarum Audio Transcript (circa October 27, 2005)]
That is the essence of the challenge we have advanced and we reiterate it anew at this time to anyone who has frequent recourse to utilizing this term "neo con" or labelling certain people or issues as such indiscriminately. Kindly define your terms. Because until you do, this writer will continue to resolutely deny the existence of these so-called "neo cons" and look on those who kvetch about them as having less credibility than those who claim the existence of Sasquatch, aliens, the Loch Ness Monster, a huge Jewish conspiracy, or whatever. For at least those sorts bring forth evidences we can examine and subject to fundamental rules of logic and reason. And until those who decry these so-called "neo cons" act likewise, they cannot be expected to be taken seriously by anyone with a normal intact functioning brain who respects the importance of logic and reason for analyzing abstract ideas which are set forth as probable descriptions of reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)