Thoughts on Torture

This whole “debate” the country is having over our use of various forms of torture on high-ranking Al Qaeda prisoners has left me quite unsettled. There’s a subtle tug-of-war going on here, and the issue is not as cut-and-dry as it first appears. At least, that’s the way it appears to me.

First, let’s get the preliminaries out of the way. I should not have to state this up front, but I suppose I must, if only to avoid any ad hominem attacks. This country, the United States, is the greatest country on earth, plain and simple. I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else. I love it. Which is why this discussion on torture pains me so.

Now obviously I’m not an expert in any relevant area to this debate. I know next to nothing about the intricacies of 21st century anti-terrorist warfare. I also freely admit to lacking expertise in the intricacies of ethics and morality. That’s why, after becoming thoroughly convinced, through head and heart, of the Truth of the Catholic Church based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, I rely on the catechism for these sorts of things. So, I present exhibit A.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2297, Respect for bodily integrity:


Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately is gravely against justice and charity. 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. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.


So it seems at first glance that the Catholic Church is opposed to torture and torture is morally wrong. Okay; I understand and fully agree to this.

But then the hypotheticalists come in. Exhibit B. These are the people who always have a hypothetical situation for every contingency. The most famous hypothetical is the ticking-time-bomb scenario. Modified for 21st-century society, it’s this: you have a terrorist and you know a dirty bomb’s about to go off somewhere in the city. You know he knows (how? – Ed.) but he’s not talking. Do you torture him? Do you torture one human being to save thousands or millions of human beings?

You can take a principled stand here and say, “I will never torture! We should never, under any circumstances, torture! We must, as the catechism states unequivocally, treat prisoners humanely. Torture is absolutely out of the question.”

I agree, agree wholeheartedly. In a perfect world we can afford such principled stands. But this is a fallen world, a world where the forces of evil are actively stalking the innocent and evil men plan and act. The Church is aware of this; there is a whole doctrine of Just War built upon this realization. Also the morality of authentic self-defense. So, then, how do you deal, then, with these following points –

What if your family is stuck in this hypothetical city?

How do you weigh the pain administered to one guilty man against the pain thrust down upon possible millions – victims as well as surviving families of the victims? People who have to live decades knowing their loved one died in a horrible terrorist attack. What moral calculus comes into play here?

Perhaps torture must be viewed as a necessary evil, one that can only be used under the most limited situations and only to gather information that it is certain the victim possesses. It must never be used as a punishment but only as an information collecting tool. It must be authorized, regulated and supervised –

What am I saying? Every word in the preceding paragraph goes against the most basic fiber of my being. Did I state that strongly enough? My core is screaming out that by consenting to do evil we not only become evil but we spit in God’s eye, we say that we do not trust Him and trust His will for us. We should never ever torture and those that do under our aegis should be punished to the fullest.

But I am at a loss to offer a reasonable response to the hypotheticalists.

That’s why I’m torn in knots over this issue. I’m open to arguments for or against either side, but deep down I feel for certain torture must never be done. Maybe I’ll mull this over during the next week or two and see if I can come up with any reasonable responses or alternatives to torture, but if they haven’t been proposed already, I fail to see how I can offer anything of interest. But I’ll try.