Response to Eduardo

Eduardo correctly understood my post, in which I observed that "torture" -- which, Eduardo and I agree, is absolutely wrong -- is not "self-defining, and that a government lawyer or administration is not immoral or corrupt for trying to find a definition of that term that is both workable and legally and morally defensible."  I did not intend to offer a defense, or an interpretation, of the now-withdrawn "torture memos," but only to state a fact -- one that, I think, the administration's critics have not always accepted -- that any administration would have had to define "torture" in order to make meaningful a ban on torture. 

Eduardo and I (and -- obviously -- John Finnis and Robert George) agree that using "physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to the respect for the person and for human dignity," (CCC 2297), and also that "every procured abortion" is a "moral evil" (CCC 2270).  We agree that detainees have been immorally treated in some cases.  We do not agree, though -- that is, I do not think -- that "this administration affirmatively supports torture as state policy."  It is clear, though, that the Kerry Administration would have supported, as "state policy," an abortion license under which abortion at any time, for any reason, and in any manner would not only be legally protected by publicly funded.

I share Eduardo's concern about the widespread "impression" that the "Church is increasingly partisan in a way that has not been true in the past," but I believe the impression is unjustified.  That is, it seems to me that the Church's emphasis, in more recent years, on the importance of reminding Catholic voters and officials about the need to protect unborn children is of a piece with -- and is no more partisan than -- the clear and powerful critiques, in the 1980s, of what the American bishops thought were the wrong policies of the United States in economic and national-defense matters.  (See, e.g., "Economic Justice for All" (1986); "Pastoral Letter on War and Peace" (1983)). 

I agree that it would be a bad thing if "partisan loyalties [were] playing a decisive role in shaping Catholic political discourse," but tend to think that it is at least as likely -- and just as unfortunate -- that the "partisan loyalties" of left-leaning Catholics are shaping their understanding and public application of Church teaching as it is that the "partisan loyalties" of right-leaning Catholics are shaping theirs.  It is a challenge for me, and for all of us, to try hard to reverse the direction of this "shaping."  MOJ is valuable to me for many reasons, one of which is that it reminds me of, and helps me with, this challenge.  I am sure that my fellow bloggers, and MOJ readers, feel the same way.