“... But Torture May be Necessary and Effective”... Not!

Asked by the king whether or not he should kill prisoners, the prophet Elisha responded: "You must not kill them. . . . Serve them bread and water. Let them eat and drink, and then go back to their master" (2 Kgs 6:22).  

Let's cut right to the chase on this issue: Even if torture were "necessary" and even if torture were "effective," it is absolutely morally wrong . Fullstop. Period. No overrides, no exceptions, no exemptions. What part of "No" do we fail to understand?

First, torture is not "necessary." In almost all the debates about torture we read or hear, someone will raise the debater's point about the mythical captured terrorist who has planted a nuclear weapon in a city. The weapon is expected to detonate in, say, five hours. By torturing the terrorist--ostensibly permitted by "necessity"-we think we may be able to extract information about the location of the nuclear weapon, send in an emergency ordnance disposal team to disarm it, and thus save millions of lives. What is a little torture balanced against saving so many lives?

Now suppose we have captured an extraterrestrial from, say, Jupiter, and we think that he (she? it?) has similarly planted a bomb. It would be all right to torture a Jovian, wouldn't it? I mean, after all, torture wouldn't violate his (her? its?) "human rights," would it?

Hard cases make bad laws. It is theoretically possible to develop a wide range of extraordinarily improbable circumstances (such as torturing immigrants from Jupiter) to "justify" exceptions. The debater's point about torturing a terrorist who is thought to have planted a nuclear weapon is practically impossible. The terrorist would have to be apprehended-no easy matter because such terrorists, although evil, are usually not stupid. The good guys would require immediate intelligence about the terrorist's intentions and capabilities-again, possible but not always feasible. And the terrorist must have a pain threshold low enough to talk under torture-an unlikely prospect, for he is probably more than willing to die to achieve his nefarious ends.

Second, and therefore, torture is very unlikely to be effective. Terrorists would probably "cooperate" with authorities in terms of providing information, but would anyone really want to accept the truth of such information? Isn't it more probable that the fruits of torture would be bitter-that is, that information extracted under torture would almost certainly be unreliable?

So let's say it again, louder: Torture is absolutely morally wrong . All Christians find moral instruction in St. Paul 's Letter to the Romans: we are not to do evil that good may come from it (3:8). Catholic Christians have the additional guidance to be found in the Catechism :

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention [we want to save the city from a terrorist's nuclear weapon] that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their objective [--] such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it [#1756].

There may be times, although very rare, that there may be exceptions to absolutes. But I do not want to talk here about the famous, if abstruse, Principle of Double Effect (see Catechism #2263 and #1737 for background). Concentrate instead on the ordinary teaching of the Church, which is clear, concise, and compelling: Torture is absolutely morally wrong. So when Catholics-whether they be soldiers or scholars, people in a bar or at a ballgame-speak cavalierly about torture, suggesting that there are multiple exceptions to the basic teaching that we are permitted to torture under certain circumstances, we must understand that such a statement has no basis in sacred Catholic Tradition.

We need to understand that Almighty God can draw good from evil (cf. Romans 8:28). We human beings cannot do that; we should not try to do that; we must not try to do that. We are not God, knowing always what is good and evil (see, for example, Genesis 3:5). Therefore, we err grievously-we sin-when we take it upon ourselves to do what is evil in an attempt to bring about what is good. The simple (a word I certainly do not mean pejoratively) teaching is that we are to "See that no one returns evil for evil." We are always to "seek what is good [both] for each other and for all" (2 Thess 5:15).

Fortunately, some might say, there is a "way around that." Maybe we can "outsource" torture, letting those whose scruples are perhaps less refined than our own (a debatable point, by the way) do our torturing for us. That way, we don't get, as Michael Walzer once put it, "dirty hands." Does this argument merit a serious response? Let's see: I find someone's existence to be inconvenient for me (perhaps a rival for a job). I know I can't kill him or her, but maybe I can hire someone to do the killing for me. That would be all right, wouldn't it? Just to be clear: No , it wouldn't be all right. Not legally. Not morally. Not theologically.

But suppose that we have a corps of professional torturers who perhaps get warrants to torture suspects. Actually, one lawyer at Harvard has proposed exactly this notion. Torture is going to happen, he says; so let's control it by developing "torture warrants" and having professionals torture. We train soldiers in infantry and artillery, so maybe we could train them in torture. How would we represent their MOS (or AFSC or rating)? Maybe they could be represented, not by crossed rifles (for infantry) and not by crossed cannons (for artillery), but perhaps by crossed thumbs for gouging out eyes or crossed knives for cutting off fingers or crossed branding irons for burning flesh. But we miss the point, don't we? Torture is absolutely morally wrong whether it's done by people in other cultures or countries or by "professional" torturers.

Torture is morally wrong even if it's legally "right." Torture is morally wrong even if it's culturally permitted. Torture is morally wrong even if circumstances apparently justify it. Torture is wrong even if it's done by trained, qualified, certified, documented, licensed, and bonded official torturers.

But how about "creative torture"? Let's suppose we torture someone by sexual humiliation. That would be all right, wouldn't it? No , it would not be all right-and for many reasons, only one of which would be utter lack of modesty ( CCC #2521, #2523) on the part of the torturer. The torturer would still be acting in a sinful manner and would still be trying to draw good from evil. In today's world, suggesting that we are to be modest seems quaint. But I am not the source of that suggestion, and those who question the need for modesty-even among (perhaps especially among) our military personnel-can take the matter up with the Author of the Ninth Commandment. They will have that opportunity one day or another. (Consider, in this regard, the timeless advice of Sirach 7:36.)

A long time ago, when I was in infantry OCS, I learned the Army way to treat EPWs (enemy prisoners of war): search them, silence them, segregate them (by rank), safeguard them , and speed them to the rear (away from the combat scene). The so-called five S 's made-and make-sound moral and military sense.

What is morally correct is a force multiplier. What is morally correct invariably makes military sense. What is morally correct reflects "great credit" upon the United States , its armed forces, and our military personnel. The force of morality supplements the morality of force. And torture is absolutely morally wrong.

"But suppose I am ordered to torture someone?" Short Answer: You refuse. "Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry out [illegal orders]," says the Catechism (#2313). Let me put this teaching from the Catechism in a military context: "The [soldier] is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of [military] authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel." The passage continues: " Refusing obedience to [military] authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community" (#2242). When ordered to do something illegal and immoral, the soldier is required by U.S. law not to obey such an order. More significantly, the soldier is required by Someone Else not to obey an illegal order: God (see Acts 5:29).

Fighting terrorism, a noble and necessary struggle, demands sacrifice. But it does not and cannot demand that we compromise our national honor and personal integrity by doing evil in the hope that good may spring from it. "Without the light the Gospel sheds on God and man, societies easily become totalitarian" ( CCC #2257). We may be fairly and justifiably asked or ordered to do many things on behalf of our country (see CCC #2240, for example). Never, though, can we justifiably be called upon to sin for it. And torture is just that: a sin. Torture is absolutely morally wrong.