FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Should torture ever be allowed?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
(04-29-2009, 08:26 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]Harry was obviously angry and fed up in that scene. His reaction was visceral and maybe I would have done the same in that situation. Did it pull a confession out of the killer? No.

No, he wasn't angry, or at least, anger wasn't his motivation and he did get the information. His purpose was not to get legal evidence (it would have been illegally obtained) but to get information he could use to save the girl. He did get the information out of him, but she died before they could save her, but they didn't know she was dead.
(04-29-2009, 08:31 PM)Bonifacius Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-29-2009, 08:26 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote: That is not the point. Did that scene and situation have another solution and what was it if it did? Did the character do evil?

Harry was obviously angry and fed up in that scene. His reaction was visceral and maybe I would have done the same in that situation. Did it pull a confession out of the killer? No.

- Lisa

Once again, the question isn't one of success.  It's one of proportionality.  Was it worth *trying* to force the truth out of the guy to save the girl's life.  It seems neither inherently wrong nor disproportionate, for reasons I've presented above.

I don't understand the point of Dirty Harry and that scenario in this discussion. His was a moment of desperation. We can ALL resort to violence when provoked.. In fact, I consider Harry to be truly "the tormented one" in that scene.

- Lisa
(04-29-2009, 07:53 PM)didishroom Wrote: [ -> ]Slavery, as in the case of Negro and Indian enslavement in the New World, was evil, as three different popes condemned it.
St. Paul's actions is also being misinterprited here. Jesus said when one strikes you to turn the other cheek(for him to slap you again.) He isn't condoing slapping people any more than Paul is condoning slavery when he tells the slave to be obdient to his master. Elswhere Paul recommends that if they can, slaves should try and be free. I don't want to hijack the thread, but thought I would throw that in. If you want to continue a slavery debate maybe we can ask Quis to move it for us.

But I agree with you on the torture thing. See my post above.

Roman slavery was not as brutal as New World slavery, believe it or not.  "Slaves" were often tutors, teachers, etc.  They usually didn't walk around in chains, etc.  They were more like prisoners of war or a conquered people and often they were criminals paying a debt; a lot of times, the slavery was limited in time and not until death.  Most of the hard labor was done by the Roman military, as I recall.

Anyhow, that is why masters are enjoined to treat their slaves humanely - it's not New World slavery; it was more like indentured servitude in a lot of casces.
(04-29-2009, 08:45 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]Once again, the question isn't one of success.  It's one of proportionality.  Was it worth *trying* to force the truth out of the guy to save the girl's life.  It seems neither inherently wrong nor disproportionate, for reasons I've presented above.

I don't understand the point of Dirty Harry and that scenario in this discussion. His was a moment of desperation. We can ALL resort to violence when provoked.. In fact, I consider Harry to be truly "the tormented one" in that scene.

- Lisa
[/quote]

It is our job to resist temptation.  It is our job to resist being provoked into sin.  It is especially the job of a cop not to get to desperate but to do his duty.  The question is whether he did what was right.  I say -- he was provoked, and his response, done in desperation or not, was *just and proportionate.*  I am arguing that in relevantly similar situations today the relevantly similar folks should behavior relevantly similarly.  I.e. it is *not* utterly evil to respond as he did.  If the girl is still out there, step on the guy's wounded leg.  If the bomb is still hidden, waterboard the terrorist.  If you believe that torture is inherently wrong, you have to say that Dirty Harry responded incorrectly and he should have gotten the murderer to his lawyer so the girl, status unknown, could remain where she was in her unknown status.  Do you think that would have been right -- to risk the girl's life in order to secure comfort and legal counsel for the murderer?
Yes, the Hebrews had slavery too but it was very different. Serfdom in the Middle Ages is seen by some as a kind of slavery, though the kind we think of had long been abandoned in Catholic Europe and was only reintroduced in the pagan Renaissance and Enlightment. Even in the US we have legalized slavery. Those men picking up trash in orange jump suits along the road are basically slaves. They are engaging in involuntary servitude. The Hebrews took slaves, but as war captives but were to treat them with dignity. They were even allowed to buy their own freedom. If you had sex with a slave, she was no longer your slave but your wife and if you eventually divorced she could not be sold. She was a free woman.
So yes, there are many different forms of slavery, some of which are just.

The kind the Hebrews experienced in Egypt and the ones the Negroes and Indians endured was wrong though, and that's the kind of stuff we think of when we think "slavery."
(04-29-2009, 08:56 PM)didishroom Wrote: [ -> ]The kind the Hebrews experienced in Egypt and the ones the Negroes and Indians endured was wrong though, and that's the kind of stuff we think of when we think "slavery."

The whole question here is one of connotation and denotation.  I do not want to argue whether New World slavery was worse than Old World slavery (Cato the Elder ranked slaves along with farm machinery).  Rather, my point is that the Church has never condemned any and all practices that meet the definition of "slavery" as understood by the Church.  "Gaudium et Spes" and "Veritatis Splendor" must be read in light of prior Church teachings.  So too with torture.  If "torture"="Turkish prisons, Nazi & Soviet concentration camps," of course it's always immoral.  But "torture" can also refer to quite controlled "enhanced interrogation methods."  These seem to be moral.
(04-29-2009, 08:56 PM)didishroom Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, the Hebrews had slavery too but it was very different.

In some cases, Hebrew slavery was worse than New World slavery.

Quote:The kind the Hebrews experienced in Egypt and the ones the Negroes and Indians endured was wrong though, and that's the kind of stuff we think of when we think "slavery."

I don't know that the enslavement in Egypt was wrong for the same reasons.  I don't think the Egyptians were particularly inhumane, but rather, the slavery was against God's active will to save the human race.
Bonifacius,

Fair enough.
(04-29-2009, 08:45 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote: [ -> ]I don't understand the point of Dirty Harry and that scenario in this discussion. His was a moment of desperation. We can ALL resort to violence when provoked.. In fact, I consider Harry to be truly "the tormented one" in that scene.

The point of it is that is shows a time when most people cannot say the "torture" was wrong, even if they can't bring themselves to say torture should be explicitly allowed at any time.

His moment was of desperation, as he was trying to save a girl. He wasn't being violent for the fun of it. His character does have a tendency to use "excessive" force, but that is not why he was doing it. He came to aprehend Scorpio to get the location of the girl. Scorpio fled, and Harry show him in the leg to stop him. Then he tried (and succeeded) to obtain the location of the girl who was running out of air.

Yes, most can be pushed to violence when provoked, but Harry wasn't pushed to violence out of anger, but out of necessity. It was necessary, for all views I've heard, for him to use torture. His mind was always on that 14 year old girl.

The point of "Dirty Harry" is not, the situation which that is is the point. Forget the movie and the character and focus on the situation shown. I could go into a more theoretical approach "what if a criminal...", but that scene depicts it perfectly.
QuisUtDeus Wrote:Do you have a theological argument or just an emotional reaction to offer?

Mine is an emotional reaction. If the CCC is "theology" then I go with that one.

QuisUtDeus Wrote:  Well, if you want to handpick which parts of the Gospel you are going to use in this case, so will I: Then the master sent for him. "You wicked servant," he said, "I cancelled all that debt of yours when you appealed to me. Were you not bound, then, to have pity on your fellow servant just as I had pity on you?" And in his anger the master handed him over to the torturers till he should pay all his debt. And that is how my heavenly Father will deal with you unless you each forgive your brother from your heart. (Matt 18:32-35)

Jesus didn't complain about the torture, in fact, He used it as an allegory for what will happen to those who die not forgiving others.  Would He use an intrinsic evil as an allegorical mechanism?  Interesting question.  I don't know the answer, and I don't expect anyone else on the forum does either.

Again, as I said in an earlier post, these allegories, parables, beatitudes, sermons, examples, etc., are not excuses for the bad behavior of others. Jesus uses stories about strict taskmasters and land owners because the people of the day could certainly relate to it. Debtor's prison was an everyday reality. Torture was an everyday reality. Crucifixion was everyday reality. But I think you answered your own question. The parable you quoted is a lesson about the virtue of FORGIVENESS - not the virtues of torture.

QuisUtDeus Wrote:The point is that we can't pick and choose how the Scripture applies, the Magisterium does, and that is what we are discussing - whether or not the Magisterium has done so in the case of torture.  You and a few others seem convinced that torture is forbidden, signed, sealed, and delivered.  And there is always the reference to "in this day" as if the year had anything to do with the sin.

Quis, you have a point. The year has nothing to do with the sin. What was a sin in biblical times, was a sin in the Middles Ages, and is a sin today. But no matter the era we live in, our standards for morality should be the standards of Christ. Does torture live up to it?

- Lisa
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13