Regardless of circumstances or results, torture can never be justified

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Dec 10, 2014

Some moral questions are very complicated. Others are very straightforward. In some cases, the morality of an act depends entirely on the circumstances. But some acts can never be justified, regardless of the circumstances.

The Catholic Church teaches quite clearly that some acts are intrinsically wrong. Deliberate abortion, for example, is always wrong. And so is torture.

This week’s revelations about the “enhanced interrogation” techniques used by representatives of the US government in the war on terror should trouble the conscience of every American. Some of the measures used in questioning captives were brutal and degrading. How could they possibly be justified?

(We could also argue about whether lawmakers who were fully briefed on these interrogation tactics a decade ago are in a strong position to criticize them now. And we could argue whether it is irresponsible to issue a public report on these unsavory tactics—likely inflaming passions against the US and endangering Americans serving abroad-- rather than quietly punishing the culprits. But those are debates for another day.)

In light of this week’s revelations, the burden of proof is on those who contend that agents of the US government did not use torture. The world at large believes that they did. We Americans cannot dismiss that belief lightly.

We can, if we choose, blame the media for sensationalizing the report, and blame the politicians for exploiting the story. But if in fact our government’s policies were gravely immoral, then we bear some degree of responsibility. To preserve our integrity (not to mention our souls), we must face that question directly.

Were American government agents authorized to use torture? It would take a strong stomach and a weak conscience to read descriptions of the CIA’s questioning sessions without serious qualms. Keep in mind that in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, St. John Paul II wrote that “physical and mental torture” is intrinsically evil. (emphasis added).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2298) teaches: “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.” When an interrogator treats his captor in a degrading manner, the human dignity of both men is violated; by treating his subject as something less than human, the captor becomes something less than human himself.

Defenders of the “enhanced interrogation” techniques say that it was necessary to put extra pressure on terrorist suspects, to extract important information that would save the lives of innocent people. That is a powerful, practical argument. But is it true? Expert interrogators question that premise.

A tortured prisoner might blurt out… anything. He may tell the truth, or he may say whatever he thinks his questioner wants to hear, whether it is true or not. Under extreme duress, he might not even know whether he is telling the truth or not; when pushed beyond their endurance, most people become less capable of speaking intelligently.

Even if it were true that torture could induce prisoners to give more accurate information, that would not be enough to justify an intrinsically evil act. Some defense experts claim that “enhanced interrogation” helped to ward off terrorist attacks. That is, to be sure, a powerful practical argument. But practical arguments are not enough to justify an intrinsically immoral act. How many women, finding themselves in difficult pregnancies, can make powerful practical arguments in favor of abortion?

A moral end does not justify an immoral means. In our battle against terrorism we may think of ourselves as the representatives of all that is good, that we are on God’s side. Yet we cannot claim the mantle of righteousness while using immoral means. The Catechism (#214*) warns: “It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death.” (emphasis added))

Once we adopt immoral tactics, we lose our right to claim moral superiority over our adversaries. Our complaints about the brutality of terrorists will ring hollow if we engage in brutality ourselves. We cannot defeat terrorism by adopting its methods.