Torture

I want to thank Michael for raising a point that has been bothering me for some time.  I feel like Catholic Democrats come in for a great deal of criticism (increasingly from the hierarchy itself, but especially from Catholic Republicans) for voting for a party whose positions depart from categorical Church teachings on abortion.  Of course, when we point out that Democrats have (at least traditionally) been closer to official Church teaching on a number of other issues, from war to the death penalty to poverty, the stock response is that these are more flexible teachings on which reasonable people can disagree. 

Fair enough, but torture is not such a teaching.  The Church's teachings on torture are as absolute as its teachings on abortion.  And here we have an administration that has repeatedly engaged in activities that any reasonable person would consider to be torture.  (The torture memo is in the worst traditions of lawyering.  I don't think there is any possible way to conceive of it as a good faith attempt to provide bright legal lines for interrogators.  It's clearly an attempt to provide the narrowest possible (not even plausible) reading of the prohibition of torture.  Note -- I do not think that Rick was defending the memo on these grounds, but I want to rule out that interpretation of the memo and take the strong position that this administration affirmatively supports torture as state policy.  If the torture memo itself is not enough to get me there, I would point towards the policy of rendition as perhaps even more damning, not to mention the goings on at Guantanamo and Abu Gharib.)

I think Michael's question is an important one because the Church's recent emphasis on abortion and homosexuality in its public statements, and in particular the behavior of some bishops during the last election, has left many people with the impression that Church is increasingly partisan in a way that has not been true in the past.  A willingness by conservative voices in the Church to publicly go after the administration on its blatant disregard for Catholic norms on torture would go a long way towards removing that impression.

There is also a sense that some have expressed that George, Finnis, and some of their New Natural Law allies have an unseemly obsession with homosexuality (and perhaps with sexual ethics in general).  Their preoccupation is often defended in terms of the Church's categorical teachings on those subjects, but, again, that does not adequately distinguish those issues from torture.  So, in this regard as well, an effort on their part to be as visibly critical of torture as they have been of other questions would go a long way towards disarming some of their critics.  In the absence of such efforts, one is left with the impression that partisan loyalties are playing a decisive role in shaping Catholic political discourse.