A deeply disturbing poll has just come out from the Rasmussen Reports, the respected public opinion research organization. They report that “Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques should be used to gain information from the terrorist who attempted to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day.”

This confirms to me that our Church and other religious leaders need to do a much better job in catechizing our people about the intrinsic evil of torture, and the utter unacceptability of consequentialist ways of thinking. Consequentialism is the mischievous notion that the end justifies the means. In this case it means the idea that our government should do “whatever it takes” to obtain information from terrorism suspects, even if that means torturing them.

Last year, there was an absolutely appalling poll from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, the well-respected research center. It revealed that most evangelical Protestants, and most Catholics, including most who attend Mass regularly, stated that they approve of the use of torture. What is especially disturbing to me is that the Pew poll didn’t allow for a wiggle-room discussion over whether things like waterboarding are actually “torture”. It openly asked people about torture — yet 62% of evangelicals, 51% of Catholics, and 54% of all weekly church-goers approved of its use.

Let’s review some important points about God’s law, as proclaimed in the teaching of the Church. The Catechism states that

Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. (2297)

Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. (2313).

This leaves no room for consequentialism — our Church clearly defines torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners as intrinsically evil, and forbids them unequivocally.

Just so it’s clear, there’s really no question that waterboarding is torture, or at the very least that it is “contrary to the law of nations”. Here is how torture is defined in the Convention on Torture, which, as a treaty ratified by Congress, is the law of the United States:

[A]ny act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person… when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Indeed, at various times in our history, our government has consistently held that anyone who waterboards a prisoner during wartime is guilty of a war crime. Our military specifically forbids the practice.

Even if you thought that waterboarding didn’t qualify for that definition, any “aggressive interrogation technique” that falls short of that definition would still be forbidden by the Convention on Torture — and thus by American law, “the law of nations”and the teaching of the Church — if they constitute:

cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture… when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Remember, waterboarding consists of continuously pouring water into the mouth and nose of a bound prisoner, so that he feels as if he is drowning and can’t escape — “inhumane”, at the very least.

I understand the impulse that leads people to support “aggressive interrogation techniques” — it’s a natural combination of fear and anger. I was in Manhattan on September 11, so nobody needs to tell me about that. But we are obliged to obey God’s law, even when we are sorely tempted to take the apple from the tree and define good and evil for ourselves, even when we’re terrified that an attack is imminent.

I call this temptation “the Caiaphas principle”, after the story of the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin in John’s Gospel, Chapter 11:

So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council, and… one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.”

The Caiaphas Principle — “do whatever it takes, even if somebody has to suffer” — is the classic expression of the wicked idea that the end justifies the means. It is not acceptable Christian behavior, no matter how understandable and tempting it may be.

We cannot do evil so that good may come of it. As Christians, we have to be better than that.

In response to my blog post the other day on torture and “enhanced interrogation techniques”, I had an interesting series of emails with a good Catholic man who strongly disagreed with my position, in good faith.  I thought the email exchange was interesting, and, with his consent and with some mild editing to remove personal information and comments, and to clarify a few points, I decided to share it with you.

The first email I received:

I do not agree that VP Cheney’s remarks about Enhanced Interrogation are disgusting as you say.  In my opinion, Enhanced Interrogation is NOT Torture.  Torture is the prolonged and continuous application of pain and suffering to a human being just for the fun of it or to punish the person.  Enhanced Interrogation is not meant to punish, but the goal is to get information about a terroist’s evil deeds which could kill or injure fellow Americans.  My advice is not to let the liberals triangulate you and our Catholic Church on the important saving methods and means we have in the use of Enhanced Interrogation.  Be honest.  If someone had your son or daughter hidden somewhere, would you allow the police or army to use Enhanced Interrogation techniques to find them?

Here is my response:

Sorry, but I have to disagree on this one.  I’ve looked at the report of the International Red Cross, as well as the CIA Inspector General’s report, and the “enhanced interrogation techniques” are indeed disgusting to me. They also fall squarely into the conduct forbidden by the teachings of our Church and by the laws of the United States.

The Catechism specifically states that “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2297)

The UN Convention Against Torture (which is the law of the United States, since Congress has ratified the Convention) defines “torture” as follows:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Any act that falls short of that definition may still be prohibited by law, in that they may constitute “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” (Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture).

That’s the law, but it’s really the moral question that I’m getting at.  I’m very disturbed by the general reliance on consequentialist arguments, and the dismissal of moral norms as irrelevant during wartime.  If there are no moral considerations about appropriate interrogation techniques, then it’s just a matter of “what works”, and there is no basis for any moral or ethical standards whatsoever — it’s a “free fire” zone for doing anything to people when we believe they have information that we want.  That is apparently is Vice President Cheney’s position, since he clearly thinks that neither moral principles nor positive laws have any binding force when our government wants to extract information from somebody.  I find that attitude to be appalling.

You’ll notice that I ducked his first question, about what I would do if it were my own children.  He didn’t let me get away with it, and came right back at me.  Here’s what I got back in reply:

I am determined to convince you of my position on Enhanced Interrogation techniques based on the following 2 elements, which are related to justice and “just war” reasoning.

1)  “Be honest.  If someone had your son or daughter hidden somewhere, would you allow the police or army to use Enhanced Interrogation techniques to find them?”  Most people would have a very clear conscience under justice or “just war” reasoning to agree with the above.

2)  ‘The Catechism specifically states that “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2297)’  The above quotation from the Catechism mentions confessions, but it does not mention “extracting information from enemies for purposes of saving lives.”

Again, please reconsider your position based purely on justice or “just war” reasoning.

Good, hard arguments.  So I sent this:

1.  I don’t know what I would do under those circumstances.  I hope that I would be virtuous, but I am weak and sin often under normal circumstances, so I have no confidence that I would do the right thing under stress. 

But here’s the important point — my personal weaknesses can’t be the measure of the moral law. In other words, I can’t define evil downwards to my level (see Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 — they tried it and look where it got them!).  God is the only one who defines the objective moral law.  Otherwise we’re in the “dictatorship of relativism”, as Pope Benedict called it. 

Pope John Paul wrote about this in Veritatis Splendor (it’s a long quote, but worth it):

104.  In this context [the intersection of human freedom and the divine law] appropriate allowance is made both for God’s mercy towards the sinner who converts and for the understanding of human weakness. Such understanding never means compromising and falsifying the standard of good and evil in order to adapt it to particular circumstances. It is quite human for the sinner to acknowledge his weakness and to ask mercy for his failings; what is unacceptable is the attitude of one who makes his own weakness the criterion of the truth about the good, so that he can feel self-justified, without even the need to have recourse to God and his mercy. An attitude of this sort corrupts the morality of society as a whole, since it encourages doubt about the objectivity of the moral law in general and a rejection of the absoluteness of moral prohibitions regarding specific human acts, and it ends up by confusing all judgments about values.

Instead, we should take to heart the message of the Gospel parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (cf. Lk 18:9-14). The tax collector might possibly have had some justification for the sins he committed, such as to diminish his responsibility. But his prayer does not dwell on such justifications, but rather on his own unworthiness before God’s infinite holiness: “God, be merciful to me a sinner! ” (Lk 18:13). The Pharisee, on the other hand, is self-justified, finding some excuse for each of his failings. Here we encounter two different attitudes of the moral conscience of man in every age. The tax collector represents a “repentant” conscience, fully aware of the frailty of its own nature and seeing in its own failings, whatever their subjective justifications, a confirmation of its need for redemption. The Pharisee represents a “self-satisfied” conscience, under the illusion that it is able to observe the law without the help of grace and convinced that it does not need mercy.

105. All people must take great care not to allow themselves to be tainted by the attitude of the Pharisee, which would seek to eliminate awareness of one’s own limits and of one’s own sin. In our own day this attitude is expressed particularly in the attempt to adapt the moral norm to one’s own capacities and personal interests, and even in the rejection of the very idea of a norm. Accepting, on the other hand, the “disproportion” between the law and human ability (that is, the capacity of the moral forces of man left to himself) kindles the desire for grace and prepares one to receive it. “Who will deliver me from this body of death?” asks the Apostle Paul. And in an outburst of joy and gratitude he replies: “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! ” (Rom 7:24-25).

2.  Just war theory really is not a help to supporters of ”enhanced interrogation”.  Traditional just war theory deals with both jus ad bello (going to war) and jus in bello (how to conduct the war).  I think a Catholic can easily hold the position in good conscience that our war against Islamists is justified (I believe so, as well).  But, once entered into, how we conduct the war must comply with the objective moral law.  The Catechism talks about this too:

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. “The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties.” [Citation to Gaudium et Spes 79]

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions.

Hope that helps to make my position clear.

The issue of torture is not an easy one, because it can conflict with a very powerful obligation on the part of our government to protect us.  This is exactly the kind of discussion that needs to take place, but, sadly, it is not.  Our media discussions of this issue are completely dominated by pragmatism and consequentialism — “does it work”?  Many thanks to my correspondent, who raised good, solid questions based on his Catholic faith.

It is up to all Christians to inject moral considerations into this debate.  Indeed, it is a specific duty of Catholics to bring the Gospel to the debate.  There is no part of life that is beyond the reign of God.  But nobody will hear about God’s will unless we talk about it.

Former Vice President Richard Cheney gave an interview the other day, in which he was asked about torture. I’m sorry, the preferred term appears to be “enhanced interrogation techniques”. Throughout the interview, the former Vice President defended the use of torture by American authorities, on the grounds that it “worked”.

Remember, we’re talking about such “techniques” as repeatedly pouring water in prisoners’ throats and noses to bring them to the edge of death by drowning (also known as “waterboarding”), subjecting them to protracted exposure to the cold to induce hypothermia, extended sleep deprivation that lasted for days, threatening to disfigure or kill them (for example by threatening to use a power drill upon them), repeated brutal physical beatings, hanging them by the arms until their shoulders dislocated, confining them in small boxes, threats of grievous violence (including rape and murder) against their wives and children. A number of prisoners were killed during the course of these “interrogations”. All suffered physically and psychologically. One can only imagine the effect on those who inflicted these torments or witnessed them.

These “techniques” were used under the authority of legal guidelines adopted by the United States government. Yes, our government authorized such disgusting and degrading things to be done to human beings in custody. That’s horrifying enough, but some “interrogators” went even beyond those guidelines, and did things to prisoners that were specifically prohibited.

With that context, here is the key exchange between the television interviewer and the former Vice President:

Chris Wallace: So even these cases where they went beyond the specific legal authorization, you’re OK with it?”
Vice President Cheney: I am.

Stop for a moment and consider that statement. Here is a man who took the oath of office as Vice President to uphold the Constitution and to faithfully discharge his duties. Implicit in that oath is that he swore to obey the law and to enforce the law. And here he is, boldly stating that he had no problem, not just with the degrading and disgusting torture of prisoners, but with appalling actions that went even beyond those permitted.

As a Christian, I find this intolerable. Regardless of how evil one may judge these prisoners to be, they are still human beings, made in the image and likeness of God. It is a gross violation of their human dignity to treat them this way. And it is degrading to the human dignity of all those who committed such acts, or who justify them.

The teachings of our Church are clear:

Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2297)

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… 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. (Gaudium et Spes 27)

Here’s what is so upsetting to me, and so dangerous. Many people — good people who love God and love their country — are defending the torture of prisoners, on the grounds that the methods “worked”, that they “saved lives”, that they “defended our country”.

That may or may not be true, but it is entirely irrelevant.

In John’s Gospel, Chapter 11, we read:

So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council, and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.” But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.”

The Caiaphas Principle — “do whatever it takes” — is the classic expression of consequentialism, the wicked idea that the end justifies the means. It is not the standard for Christian behavior. We cannot do evil so that good may come of it. Remember, Caiaphas is not the hero of the story.

Here’s the lesson to powerful people, and indeed to everyone. If it’s evil, it doesn’t matter if it “works”. It endangers your soul and corrodes your character. Don’t do it.

The debate is currently raging in the public square over the revelation that the Bush Administration authorized the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” against suspected terrorists in American custody. Many Catholics are also arguing about this issue, or are confused about what it’s all about.

While one can always argue about whether a particular technique is “torture” or not, why would we ever want to go anywhere near that boundary line? Suffocating with water? Beatings? Prolonged hanging by the arms? Confinement to tiny spaces for extended times? How can we justify doing anything close to these things?

The justifications offered for these harsh and brutal practices are almost invariably consequentialist (we need the information for the common good, so anything goes), and are deeply rooted in utilitarianism (using a person for our ends). In either case, it is something that Catholics should shun. In no way is it compatible with the fundamental principle of moral theology, which Pope John Paul II called the “personalistic principle” — people are ends in themselves, and are to be loved, not used as means to some other end. Nor is it any way in keeping with anything from the mouth of the Lord about loving one another.

Once we let consequentialism in the door, there’s no other destination but the abortion clinic and Planned Parenthood. Utilitarianism leads to the house of prostitution, the cloning clinic and the exploitation of workers. We need to beware those paths — that way passes through the gate to destruction.

I know a little about coercion and interrogation from my days as a prosecutor, so I’m particularly sensitive about torture. We routinely put heavy pressure (never physical, but moral and emotional) on people to try to “turn” them against others. It was consequentialist (we would routinely make false threats and assurances) and utilitarian (we used these people to “get” others, even though it was dangerous to them — it was not unknown for witnesses to be murdered). We saw it as being necessary for us to make the cases against people who were even worse than those we were using.

In a pragmatic, utilitarian way, we were right. But in a deeper sense, we were wrong.

It doesn’t matter if what we did “worked”. What mattered was the degrading effect of it on us — we became users. The power it gave us over other people was intoxicating, to the point that they ceased being people to us — they were pawns in a game we were playing.

It was totally incompatible with our Christianity, and is one of the main reasons I left that life.

You can see this degrading effect in the tone and language of the apologists for “harsh interrogation” — full of anger, vengeance and hate, indifferent to the victims, who, while being practitioners of terrible evil, are still children of God. You rarely hear any hint of the fact that even wicked, evil people are made in the image and likeness of God, and are entitled to be treated that way. Everyone is degraded by torture — the victim, who is treated as sub-human, and the torturer as well, who behaves beneath his human dignity.

Jack Bauer is not a Christian role model. Jesus is.

We Catholics have to be different.