My Message to Sen. Sam Brownback
Below is the text of a message I just sent to Sen. Sam Brownback:
Dear Sen. Brownback,I encourage others to contact Sen. Brownback about this issue, as well. You can access a contact form on his official campaign website here.
I am a Catholic blogger who was out front in endorsing your candidacy on my blog, Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate (http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/) before you had even declared that you would seek the Republican nomination. I have actively blogged in favor of your candidacy for months.
However, I was troubled at the news I heard regarding last week's debate indicating that you had endorsed torture as a tool for "saving American lives". If that is indeed the case, I can no longer, in good conscience as a Catholic and an American, support you. As for "saving American lives", what does it profit a man to save his life but lose his soul? I urge you to clarify your remarks to unequivocally condemn torture as "intrinsically evil" and appropriate UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, as John Paul the Great did in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor.
I have heard from many Catholics who once supported you who have now withdrawn such support in light of your remarks on the evening of the debate last week. Unless you can unequivocally condemn torture as Sen. McCain and Rep. Paul have done, I must, regrettably, withdraw my support as well.
You are better than torture. America is better than torture. America needs to hear from you, as a devout Catholic who has - more than any other candidate - done more to promote the Catholic notion of the common good in your policy preferences, that torture WILL NOT be tolerated. Please act soon to clarify your position on this issue.
I am copying this message to Father Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, who has endorsed your candidacy. I encourage you to speak with him about this issue, and I pray that you will come forward and condemn the use of torture as immoral, un-Christian, and un-American.
Yours in Christ,
Jay Anderson
http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/
UPDATE
Please note that I am aware that there is some discrepancy about whether Sen. Brownback actually condoned torture during the debate, or whether he was answering a different question. I blogged about that here, linking to this post at Res Publica et Cetera.
What I am asking for is a clarification from Sen. Brownback, as well as a clear denunciation of torture from the Senator, just as we heard from Sen. McCain and Rep. Paul. I especially think that this is necessary in light of this.
UPDATE #2
The official Brownback for President blog responds (Hat tip: Michael R. Denton). Like Michael, I believe this is "a start", but that a clear condemnation of torture from Sen. Brownback is still necessary.
Also, you can read Michael's message to Sen. Brownback here. Once again, I encourage others to similarly lobby the Senator to come out strongly against torture and its euphemestic corollary known as "enhanced interrogation techniques".
Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Does Sam Brownback Condone Torture?
Labels: Brownback, Catholic Social Teaching, Elections, Republicans
posted by Pro Ecclesia 11:57 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
There is some question as to whether the quotation is accurate.
Seems there was cross-talk...
I know about that, and blogged about it (see the link at the bottom of the post) on Saturday. What I'm asking for is clarification and a clear denunciation of torture, as we heard from McCain and Paul.
There is also a report that Brownback indicated to Hannity and Colmes after the debate that he would support torture to "save American lives". If true, that is indeed troubling.
Looks like we've got some heat on the brownback camp. His blogger responds: http://sambrownback.goingon.com/permalink/post/13997
As I post here (http://forthegreaterglory.blogspot.com/2007/05/brownback-respondssorta.html)
I don't think it's sufficient, but it might be a good sign.
I also had the impression that Sen.Brownback was endorsing an "anything goes" pro-torture policy if "American lives were at risk". In the interview with Hannity after the debate it seemed that Hannity was directly asking about torture, and Brownback certainly didn't sound very Catholic in his responses- just conservative. He needs to decide if he is a consistent Catholic or a consistent conservative ideologue- there is a huge difference as to his ultimate point of reference for his policies
I, and I suspect many others, would really like to see a video or transcript of what Brownback said on Hannity & Colmes rather than take the word of anonymous commenters or (on Mark Shea's blog) former Democratic legislature candidates.
Ok, can you help me understand this? I admit I have not followed the Catholic debate over the use of torture on terrorists enough to know the real arguments you have. I do sincerely want to know. I take my faith seriously, and just don't yet see the argument against using torture, to get information from someone who has already killed thousands by a nuclear bomb (that was the scenario given), and it is credibly anticipated they will kill thousands more, yet they will not cooperate without the use of said torture. What alternatives would you reccomend to protect the thousands of lives on the line?
I know Mark Shea has covered it (though I'm not sure in the case of the scenario that was given in the debate), but I find it difficult to find stuff on his blog, so I would appreciate a thorough answer here.
Michelle,
The short answer is that torture under the circumstances you describe amounts to consequentalism. That is, the notion that it is okay to do some evil so long as a greater good comes of it. That flies in the face of Catholic teaching, which prohibits utilizing evil means, even where a good end may result.
In other words, "The ends do not justify the means" is solid Catholic teaching.
John Paul II (the Great) defined torture as an intrinsic evil in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. In other words, torture, like abortion and euthanasia, is evil in and of itself, regardless of the circumstances. Therefore, it is never morally justified under Catholic teaching to use torture, even to obtain potentially life-saving information from a terrorist.
Hope that helps.
Have you read Jimmy Akin's discussion on this?: http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/defining_tortur_2.html
It seems that the word "torture" needs to be defined. It is a difficult discussion to have, because there doesn't seem to be an objective definition of torture for us to know what constitutes as such.
As you know, I am not supporting Brownback, but I find it quite surprising to find that you would actually consider withdrawing your support for him on the basis that he might actually have a different view than you on this, and that discussing his position in the forum he was in was difficult for him to give his clear position.
It's surprising in light of the fact that you were so quick to jump on board with his campaign because of his unaquivical positions on the life issues, but you wouldn't consider looking at one of the other committed pro-life candidates who took a position that was more favorable to enforcing our reasonable immigration laws. Though I strongly disagreed with you on this, I respected the fact that you took the pro-life issues so seriously, and that you wanted to see a Catholic get the nomination.
But now, you're actually considering withdrawing your support for this committed pro-life candidate and go with one of two other candidates who, though they are "personally pro-life" are strategically a hurdle to the pro-life cause. McCain: Gang of fourteen and membership with the "Republican Mainstreet Partnership" and advocate for the destruction of embryos for scientific research and Ron Paul: who though is pro-constitution and therefore believes the limited roll of government is to protect the rights of its citizens, believes laws against abortion should be left to the states (we saw what happened when we left slavery to the states).
I don't know about Jay, Michelle, but I'll throw my two cents in on the Brownback debate.
You say, "you wouldn't consider looking at one of the other committed pro-life candidates who took a position that was more favorable to enforcing our reasonable immigration laws." My question to you is this: what other committed pro-life candidate is there? McCain, Romney, and the others all are doubtful. Brownback is light years ahead of the rest in credibility on the abortion issue.
As for going to Paul or McCain, I generally believe that since I find neither satisfactory on the abortion issue and since I find the rest unsatisfactory on abortion, when I go to the polls in Nov 2008 it will only be to vote against Mary landrieu. That is, I won't support any of the candidates for president. Now, Nov 2008 is a long time away and I may change my mind, but I think it's an option a lot of Catholics (and probably Americans in general) are considering for 2008.
I'm still supporting Brownback at this point, but I want him to clarify his position on the issue.
Paul is a candidate I could possibly support. I have no problem with his view that abortion is an issue left to the states. Unless and until the Constitution is amended to include a pro-life amendment, the federal government has very little authority in the area of regulating abortion. Read Justice Thomas' concurrence in Carhart to see how the pro-aborts might be able to successfully challenge the PBA Ban on federalism grounds.
I will under no circumstances support McCain.
Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are both committed pro-lifers. Both have supported the Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, which is rare for a presidential candidate, and would be a welcome step towards achieving that, AND they are both fearless in supporting the enforcement of our immigration laws.
Post a Comment
<< Home