As for sexual torture, no, of course they do not get a pass! What I was referring to was the torturing of females AT ALL. But I readily admit I was far from clear. Also, I feel I should apologise for my flippant use of the word "chauvinist." I am like you: I do not consider that word, as it is used by most feminists, to describe a particularly relevant concept.

Third, yes, of course popes as individuals are well capable of error. I readily conceded that the official authorisation of torture during the Inquisition was most probably not, at least, a wise move. Did these popes commit a sin by authorising it, many centuries before Veritatis Splendor? That is a question I would feel presumptuous attempting to answer.

Finally, I understand that torture was used for interrogation in Europe in the past, until the last few centuries. I readily noted that the practice of torture by Churchmen or by countries who were, on average, more moral than our own, does not justify its practise on our part. I am of the opinion, however, that of all the signs of our civilisational decay and pathetic state of dechristianisation, the sight of a Christian at least considering the theoretical acceptability of torture for interrogation ought not register fairly high on the list of things that should appall or disgust us. But maybe I am reading too much into the tones of electronically written posts.

I am bowing out because if I do not, I will never finish updating my books.

If no acts are intrinsically evil, Pat, can't abortion be just as easily justified?

BTW, I am pleased to note that such Catholic writers as Mark Shea and Scott Richert have been pointing out in various venues Pope John-Paul II's condemnation of torture as "intrinsically evil".

My point was that, whatever the Nazi's reason for not torturung captured aircrew, it wasn' because they were morally superior to "present day Americans".

No intent here to compare the American political class of today with the Nazis. That would be silly.

I am sure you are right about Nazi captors on several occasions torturing their prisoners.

Still, there was no systematic gathering of information, by torture, from captured Allied aircrews. And these men did have valuable bits of information that could have been compiled to save tens of thousands of German lives. They had been briefed on alternative targets and they knew which targets had been cancelled on earlier raids. The next targets were not known to the Germans. The cities were filled with refugees and there was no way to evacuate them as a precaution.

If the Germans had employed the logic and methods of the recent US administration, they could just as handily have made their case to justify systematic torture.Fortunately, they did not.

@13 Nicholas Moses ..." It does not matter whether torture can be moral. The contemporary U.S. government is morally incapable of exerting force on behalf of the general welfare of the nation."
As skeptical as I am about government, I'm not prepared to agree with such a blanket condemnation. What those of us who have defended a limited use of torture are doing is not justifying torture, but rather justifying America's right to exist, which we implicitly give up if we refuse to use any means of thwarting a massive attack.

Some people may find certain things worse than death, but mutilation is generally not one of them, since the vast majority of people are willing to suffer amputations or organ removals for the sake of saving their lives. You base your objection to the sexual torture of women on male chauvinism - what we use to call chivalry. Of course while there have been isolated instances of sexual torture of females by US forces, the vast majority of cases of sexual torture by US forces are performed by male and female interrogators against male prisoners. This gets a pass from you?

Your citing the official approval of torture by the papacy at various times conflates infallibility and impecability and broadens both to an extent which would startle even the most ultra of ultramontanists. Do you really believe that a pope is incapable of material sin or error in any official act? You probably don't since you hedge by pointing out the imprudence of torture. But if a pope is capable of material sin against the virtue of prudence, he's capable of material sin against other virtues - charity for example.

Approving torture because countries more civilized and Christian than the US (no very high standard) have practiced torture more is even more irrelevant. Without knowing what countries you're talking about I can't judge whether I agree with you on their merits, but in any event you can't justify specific sins by overall good conduct.

This discussion reminds me a lot of the position taken by many rightists concerning Truman's nuclear bombing of Japan. The right becomes the apologists for the crimes of the left. Rather than take advantage of this moment to uproot the culture of torture from our midst, a culture at least dating back to when Nazi prisoners were tortured to force confession to war crimes, the conservatives set themselves to the task of finding some torture justifying loophole.

This is so important a point, Prof. Wilson.

The threat of terrorism in America is a lot like the fools of medieval courts: however disruptive said fools may have sometimes seemed to the system, they were only there because they were allowed to be by the individual at the apex of the system.

It is imprudent to support taking drastic measures (especially measures that set dangerous precedents) for the sake of giving one side an advantage in what is basically a consensual game the US Government decides to play with certain extragovernmental groups having their origin in the Middle East.