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.

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.

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.

Points to Ponder:

He who makes shoes is sure of his income -he who writes books has no such assurance. [Roger Sherman: Signer of The Declaration of Independence and a Key Contributor to Both The Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution]

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.

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.

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 my fourteenth 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]

"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.

Miscellaneous Notes on *The* Election Issue of 2006

[Note: The subject in this audio was originally recorded three times -at 3:55pm on Thursday afternoon, at 4:01pm on Thursday afternoon, and then again on Friday morning at approximately 12:10am. Originally we recorded it twice and intended to keep the better recording (mainly cause we got a phone call when in the middle of the first recording) but when checking the blog, neither one came through in a timely fashion as is the norm with audioblogger. We therefore decided to record it a third time and it also did not come through at the time recorded. However, two of the three recordings made it to the blog and we decided to use the second of the three recordings in the above posting. -ISM]

Points to Ponder:

Since Vietnam, the citizen, thinking that war must fit nicely into a formula that excludes death, disorder, and imperfect execution, commits nothing in return. The old adage that a "plan never survives contact with the enemy" (Von Moltke) has been replaced by the new motto of a spoiled culture: "support never survives contact with the enemy." ["Aslan" (circa December 2005)]

Points to Ponder:
(On Errors in One's Reasoning and Use of Logic)

It does no good to focus on anything but the root and matrix of a person's work. If they have committed errors -and often things are claimed to be "errors" which are nothing more than a writer misrepresenting the work of another person- this needs to be verified by objective criteria. For errors in a work often are the result of faulty methodology -the former is merely a symptom whereas the latter is the cause. [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa September 25, 2006)]

"U Thant Touch This" Dept.

I wanted to note here briefly that the posting from September 9th has been updated in light of two more recent developments. For those who are interested in the whole Sungenis saga, I refer you to that subject here where some of the subsequent developments can be noted. For those who do not find these subjects of interest, consider the other threads posted earlier today and what will follow this one.

Those who do find this subject of interest, I hope they approach it with the regret that such episodes should entail as watching a mental meltdown is not (and should never) be treated as something to be celebrated.{1} It is quite disturbing to see the sorts of illogic and outright contradictions which agenda provocateurs of an apologetics mindset will go through to avoid admitting when they have bitten off more than they can chew. Noted in that update is a public statement by Bob Sungenis which originally looked promising and I hold out the hope that it is genuine though and that what we are seeing is the slow agonizing process of Bob seeking to revise a previously revised worldview. However, now -in light of Jacob Michael's solid logic and reasoning- that public statement is one that can unfortunately be called into question.

Note:

{1} I only use the post title I do as a kind of playful jab at Jacob as it was a rhetorical device used by this writer in the past when the waters between us were a lot colder (metaphorically speaking). In light of the seriousness of what is involved here, a little levity somewhere is in order even if it is (admittedly) somewhat half-baked.

On Another Example of Mainstream Media Lack of Basic Ethics and Other Tidbits:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

In light of what was noted on this humble weblog yesterday viz. basic ethics, it is interesting that the Democrats who leaked part of a recent National Intelligence Estimate report engaged in precisely the same kind of unethical behaviour that we noted in that audioposting. They released out of context snippets of the report in the interest of furthering an agenda.{1} The Bush Administration responded by releasing the full report pointing out that the doctored snippets of the Democrats stop short of certain other points in the piece that they did not want to reveal to the public. This kind of manipulation of the words of a person or source is unfortunately common in some circles and those who act in this fashion --be they self-styled "apologist" sorts or mainstream media sorts-- deserve to be called on it for what they are. Consistency requires this if nothing else does.

Furthermore, it seems that certain media sorts with a short memory are crowing about President Bush saying one thing and pointing to the National Intelligence Estimate report saying the opposite and using this to disparage President Bush. There is tremendous irony in this because these critics of the president have done nothing but take issue with the findings of a previous National Intelligence Estimate report on a continual basis. What makes the present report's findings so sacrosanct??? Obviously, it contains material that can be twisted from context to appear to benefit the Democrat partisans, that is why. Your host frankly is not going to uncritically accept any report of this sort but he does expect those who want to refer to such things to represent them fairly. Let us consider what has not been represented fairly in this report before we deal with the nature of this kind of report itself. First the misrepresentation (via FamilyMatters):

National Intelligence Estimate Concludes Iraq Victory a Victory in Overall War

Read that headline again folks!!! Is that how the Democratic agenda pundits have represented this report in the media in recent days??? Of course not. Moving on...

September 27, 2006

So the declassified NIE is out for the entire world to see. In it, the intelligence community concludes that the Iraq conflict has become a "cause celebre" (perhaps best translated from French into English--in this case--as a rallying cry) for jihadists.

I don't think there is any surprise there.

Of course, the jihadists are going to use any excuse to promote their evil agenda. They've use/used the Israel-Palestinian conflict, U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, Islam's eviction from southern Spain in the Middle Ages, the Crusades and a whole host of other reasons to advance their deadly cause.

But even more striking was the sentence that followed the now celebrated "cause celebre" sentence in the NIE document: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

So, basically, the NIE is saying that victory in Iraq would be a victory in the fight against extremism. A pretty important judgment...[Excerpt from National Intelligence Estimate Concludes Iraq Victory a Victory in Overall War by Peter Brookes (circa September 27, 2006)]

Essentially, we at Rerum Novarum are only interested in this report being represented properly which means without disingenuous prooftexting of the text to manufacture "positions" that the report itself does not take.{2} As far as the weight of this report, let us consider that at the present time by referencing a Council on Foreign Relations{3} thread which discusses the nature of this kind of report:

A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is the U.S. intelligence community's most authoritative, top-of-the-line written judgment on a specific national security issue. Representatives from keyU.S. intelligence agencies participate in writing an estimate, which is then submitted to the president and other policy-makers. In September 2002, members of Congress requested an NIEassessing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee, in a 511-page report released July 9, found that "most of the major key judgments" in the 2002 Iraq NIE--which were cited by President Bush and other policy-makers in their case for war--"either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting." [Excerpt from the CFR Article INTELLIGENCE: National Intelligence Estimates (circa July 15, 2004)]

Consistency would require that those who would so berate a previous NIE report as these agenda provocateurs have done for four years now{4} be consistent and do not treat the present report as sacrosanct. This means recognizing President Bush as as much of a right to diverge from the findings of the current NIE report as they did with the report in 2002. This writer does not expect that these people will suddenly act honourably on these matters but it is noted here nonetheless for the readers consideration.

Notes:

{1} In this case, seeking to better themselves politically in the upcoming election.

{2} If what [someone is] doing is very obviously tearing snippets out of context in order to create a caricature, then that person needs not be taken seriously. They need to be pointed out and denounced for the unethical person that they are...In another area, how accurately they quote sources in making an argument. Of course there is also the issue of if you are going to attempt to oppose a person, a position or whatever, make actual arguments. Don't engage in argumentation fallacies. Those who...engage in fallacies -even if they spill a bunch of type trying to claim that a square is really a circle...- again, consider what they say in accordance with the objective criteria involved. [Excerpts from a Rerum Novarum Audiopost Transcript (circa September 26, 2006)]

{3} We are aware that in light of our past as conspiracy theoriests (circa the early 1990's) that there is a degree of irony in us citing something from the CFR so please do not bother emailing us with this "observation" as if it is something we are somehow unaware of.

{4} Now is not the time to go into the whole WMD subject again except to note (since certain agenda provocateurs seem to never remember) that this writer never took his position on the war in Iraq in early 2003 -a position as solidly based now as it was then- on the basis of WMD's or their lack thereof.

On Justification Revisited:
(Dialogue With Tim Enloe)

This is a continuation of the thread posted last week though the original email itself was drafted back on August 9th and sent to Tim on August 20th. Once again, Tim's words will be in blue font.

Shawn,

Hi Tim:

Sorry for the delay in responding...been busy with being insulted by my presumed "brother Catholics" and wanted to get another response in the can (one on integrity in general) written for posting tomorrow before I finished this response to you.

Thanks, that's a good start on what I was looking for. I'm sick to death of Reformed caricatures of Catholicism--I no longer even give the time of day to about 80% of what Reformed theologians and apologists say about "Catholic doctrine."

Rev. Pahls is a good one. I gave high marks to his essay "Reversing Babylon" a couple of years ago. From a Reformed standpoint it is excellent and I wish more Reformed theologians approached these matters as he did.

A lot of the trouble appears to be simplistically reading Reformed categories into Catholicism without an ounce of critical thought about where those Reformed categories came from and / or whether they can even adequately grapple with a very different framework.

True. We had a lot of similar problems in the two centuries or so prior to the Second Vatican Council with the attempt by many Catholic prelates to impose one kind of theological method onto everyone. They basically christened their brand of "neo-scholasticism" as THE Scholastic method and acted as if anything that did not conform to that method was to be viewed as suspect.

I have written before (and on more than one occasion) how untraditional and unfaithful to "the methods and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology" (cf. Syllabus of Errors Prop. #13) neo-scholasticism actually was. But like the Reformed sorts you refer to, a lot of the neo-scholastic proponents simply acted as if their categories were handed down from Sinai on golden tablets rather than consider that POSSIBLY their method may not be either the only viable one or even the best of the bunch. Fortunately the Catholic Church as a whole (with the exception of [certain integrist sorts]) have moved on from those presumptions. Some have gone to what we would not (in Catholic circles) consider acceptable extremes but that is another subject altogether.

And of course a lot of it is simply bigoted reactionary sloganeering--just repeating what others have been saying rather than doing any serious work for oneself.

That is the mentality of a lot of people. Did you by chance read the blog post I put up [not long ago] on the problems with the apologetics mentality???{1} I aimed it primarily at Catholics (including noting some Catholic apologists who have serious problems in some of their rational and spiritual approaches to non-doctrinal issues) but the core principle involved (if not all the precise applications) transcends any one category of people.

I suppose a big thing I want to clarify is to what extent it is true that some form of "sola fide" is compatible with Catholicism. I have seen that idea stated many times over the last few years by various Catholic sources (can't recall who), and it intrigues me.

I have been one of those who said it. To my knowledge, Dr. Art Sippo and Jimmy Akin have also said it as well.{2} I would trust the latter two to know better than I do as this subject is among their strongest suits unlike with me.{3}

It seems to me like the crux might be on the idea that faith has to be formed by love or it is not real faith.

Correct. The Scholastics utilized an understanding of faith along the pattern set down by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians xiii when he refers to "faith, hope, and charity" and the Catholic Church has traditionally referred to these as the "three theological virtues" because they are the ones which touch most centrally on theological understanding. By that understanding, faith was the cerebral aspect of the puzzle, hope to some extent is the part of the puzzle that combined with faith moves one towards concrete expression of belief and charity is that very concrete aspect of the puzzle. Understood in that light, you can see how Trent would condemn certain expressions of sola fide such as this one:

If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification...let him be anathema. [Trent Session VI: From Canons on Justification (circa 1547)]

Most Reformeds and other Protestants focus on the first part of the sentence when the contextualizing part of it is the part in bolded font. (The second part basically addresses Luther's idea that there is no such thing as free will: I deleted it cause it is not germane to this discussion.)

Given a faith that *is* formed by love, is it possible for a Catholic to be orthodox and say that justification is by "faith alone"?

I would say so, yes if by "faith alone" your understanding of faith included hope and charity.

If so, then it would appear that much of the brouhaha over "sola fide" is a matter of different terminology performing a similar function within different theological frameworks, since no Reformed person would assert that faith can be separated from works and still justify.

Trent's intention was to confirm the traditional understanding of faith within the triad of faith, hope, and charity (cf. 1 Cor. xiii). The manner in which Luther and company appeared to use the term was a novel one by those standards and certainly the writings of the reformers gave every indication of that from what I have been able to discern. However (and this is the key in the modern context), there does not seem to be a consensus of any sort amongst most Protestants today for the notion of faith as abstract and intellectual in the manner Trent condemned in its decrees and canons on justification.

That is why Pope Benedict XVI acting in the late pontiffs name{4} clarified that most of the anathemas from Trent session six did not apply to the Lutherans and other Protestant bodies today.{5} Whatever the exact situation in the sixteenth century was in reality,{6} it was determined through authentic dialogue{7} that different meanings are attached to different terms today.

Hopefully that is of some assistance, let me know if you want anymore on the subject. Nice to hear from you again my friend.

Notes:

{1} That is not the only thread posted at the time but most of the email to Tim was written before this dialogue with Apolonio on the apologetics methodology subject was formatted for the blog and posted.

{2} I asked Art in a private note if I represented him correctly and this was his response (my question in blue font):

[Tim] found the email quite helpful. We have moved onto the subject of whether sola fide can be understood in a Catholic context or not. I have held that it can be as has (I believe) Jimmy Akin and Art. (Would I be representing you correctly in saying that Art???)

Yes. This was St. Thomas' position as well as many of the Fathers. The "saving faith" includes the three elements of fides, fiducia, and fidelius. [Dr. Art Sippo: Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa August 10, 2006)]

{3} Though I am hardly a wallflower on the matter of course.

{4} When he was CDF prefect or chief doctrinal enforcer for Pope John Paul II.

{5} When hammering out the final wrinkles in the Joint Declaration on Justification between the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church which was signed by representatives of both parties on October 31, 1999. (The United Methodists signed onto the consensus in that declaration in July of this year incidentally enough.)

{6} I am hesitant to accept uncritically any one interpretation of the situation as a concrete reality since counterreformation sources have no small shortage of polemics to them on all sides.

{7} Some Principles For Authentic Dialogue and the Proper Use of Sources in Papers (circa February 9, 2006)

Miscellaneous Musings on Dialogue--An Audio Post (circa October 6, 2005)

Miscellaneous Musings on Basic Ethics Both Public and Private