I like lions. I like whales, cephalopods, glow worms, wildebeests, butterflies, stick insects, frogs and all types of cnidaria (that’s jellyfish, son). I was kind of sad when I saw Cecil the lion got shot. You wouldn’t think it from my professional writing, where human rights violations are my primary interest, but I go helplessly fubsy in the presence of anything four-legged and furry. It’s a chick-thing, I guess.
I think the natural world is terribly, terribly important, and not just because it’s pretty and often weirdly mysterious and amazing, but mainly because I have to live in it for the rest of my life.
I also grew up with the environmentalist ethic deeply embedded into my soul. Unless it is absolutely necessary, I have a visceral revulsion for the cutting of trees. I have protested the captivity of whales in public aquariums. I understand that humans come first, but there is little that can rile my blood to a high boil faster than people abusing helpless animals. (By the way: please don’t eat shark fin soup…ever. Seriously, not ever.)
I’ve never thought that being pro-life and being… well… pro-other kinds of life are incompatible. I object pretty strongly to the implication that because I don’t like what Planned Parenthood does, I must be someone who doesn’t care about other things too.
The whole weird (and dumb) thing with Cecil the Lion reminded me of the story of the guy I met in downtown Toronto one day while he was handing out pamphlets for something like Greenpeace or the World Wildlife Federation. He nabbed me with, “Do you have a moment to talk about the environment?” I was happy to chat, so I grinned mischievously and said, “Sure, if you’ve got a minute for the unborn.”
He looked a little taken aback, but to do him endless credit he didn’t start screeching like Donald Sutherland, but only said calmly that he didn’t understand. I explained what I did, which at that time was Research Director for Canada’s national pro-life lobby. He seemed a bit sad when he said, “Oh, then we are in conflict.” I asked him why, and he said, “Well, reduction of human population is necessary to save the planet.” I asked him how he knew that, and said, “I disagree. I think that setting mankind against the environment – as though he is not part of nature – is what has caused this problem to begin with. I don’t see why we can’t save the humans and the whales.” We had a good chat and parted on very friendly terms, and after that we saw each other on the downtown Toronto streets fairly regularly, and never failed to stop and say hello or wave. Things don’t have to be screechy. They can be explainy instead.
But I can’t ever be “an environmentalist” in the sense it is usually used in the papers. A brief investigation of the environmentalist movement will very quickly reveal a philosophical foundation – materialist utilitarianism mixed with quasi-spiritual New Ageism – that is deeply antithetical not only to Catholic thought but to human beings in general. It’s a funny phenomenon of philosophical history that it was the 18th century atheist political philosopher Jeremy Bentham who first proposed the notion of “animal rights,” the same Jeremy Bentham who invented utilitarianism, the philosophy that has resulted in more human deaths than any other in history. Nazism, Communism, and “abortionism” can all trace their roots there. Scratch a modern environmentalist, and you will find a utilitarian, every time. Today, the world’s leading environutter animal rights guy — Peter Singer — is also the world’s biggest proponent of infanticide and euthanasia for sick people. He was once called “the greatest living philosopher” by someone in the mainstream media.
I became interested in the environment (that we called the “ecology” then) in the 70s when it was all starting. This is the guy who helped to found Greenpeace, and he explains how things have changed since then:
But all is not lost. If you care about the degradation of the environment, you don’t have to give up the Faith, or vice-versa. There is a way of understanding all this that does not require utilitarianism. But the first thing to do is completely jettison the notion that animals have rights.
Rights can only be understood in connection to duties. Only rational beings, that is, humans and angels, can have duties. We rational beings have the right only to those things that make it possible to fulfill our duties. Catholics know that our primary duty is the worship of God, which is why the first three Commandments are first, and only once we get the worship of God out of the way do we start talking about our duties to each other.
Anyone can understand that animals do not have duties in the same sense that we do. Only rational beings are able to make the free, rational choice to obey or not obey God’s commandments and fulfill his duties in life. To speak of animals having “rights” is to fundamentally misunderstand what rights are. Much of the rhetoric, even at the “highest” levels – like the chamber of the European Parliament and at international rights conferences – simply assume that we all agree on a definition of rights, but it’s an odd fact that that definition is almost never explicitly offered in any of these documents. The meaning of the word is never even mentioned.
Properly understood, therefore, animals do not have rights. But we still have duties to them. This is also something that a non-Christian can understand. We are, as far as anyone knows, the only beings on the planet who have been endowed with that infamous combination of the ability to reason and opposable thumbs. Whether you believe the Genesis creation story or think it came about via random selection, the end result is undeniable. Like it or not, we’re the boss of planet earth, which means we have the responsibility not to abuse the other living things – and the systems that support those things – on it.
Even enlightened self-interest will demonstrate this. One thing that the scientific research into this planet’s interconnected biological, climatic and geological systems has shown us is that if we humans continue to be short-sighted – if we hunt out all the apex predators in a local ecosystem, for instance – we end up creating more and bigger problems than we started with.
I was disappointed, (though not surprised) by the lack of any guidance from Pope Francis’ recent encyclical for Catholics who care about the environment but can’t be environmentalists. We’re still waiting for a comprehensive theology of the environment; to have our duties explained without reference to modern anti-Catholic political ideologies.
After two dream-like years living in Norcia, the cradle of Western Monasticism, Hilary moved unexpectedly with her three cats to the area near Perugia, where she gardens a great deal and tries not to worry too much.
the greenpeace guy video says it is unavailable now.
Thanks. Fixed it.
Have to agree, especially the conclusion. I was hoping for but not expecting some sort of guidance as well.
Being a life-long amateur ornithologist, I like birds, and also some animals. As did St Francis, I like cattle and sheep, the latter particularly to eat, since lamb, as well as pork, is my favourite meat. I can’t stand foxes or tarantulas, or great white sharks.
But whatever, we should not unnecessarily hurt a sentient creature such as Cyril. Hunt under proper, licence, yes, but not otherwise. Blue bottles I am quite sure are not sentient!
Having said that, animals do not have Rights of any sort. Only Human Beings with immortal souls have Rights, or rights, for that matter. That is Catholic belief.
As for Pope Francis’ encyclical, the scientific bit, based on unsound, uncertain, selective and predictive science, and having nothing whatsoever to do with Catholicism, is at best, incidental.
The rest, however, is good.
Very good explanation of rights and duties. Very explainy, not screechy.
By the way, did somebody somewhere write up a short, sweet comparison between the act of killing an animal lured out of its sanctuary, and the act of killing an unborn child hiding in his sanctuary? To try to pull in those sentimentalists whose sense of fair play, developed on the playground and not yet atrophied, tells them Cecil was not killed fair and square, and therefore babies aren’t killed fair and square? In other words, it’s not very sporting, and is in fact hideous, that a mother can pay someone to enter her womb and kill her baby?
I enjoyed this and agree. God made the world for Man. He put Mankind in charge of it and commanded us to go forth and multiply…so far, I have not heard He changed His mind concerning this command. To say we are over populating our world is selfish and wrong, all people matter and not a single person is born by accident.
He made us stewards of His creation, we are to subdue it, not destroy it. It would be a very lonely place without animals, without the beauty of nature, so I believe we should take good care of the Earth God created for us.
Cecil the lion has been big news lately and it’s getting attention for all the wrong reasons, in my opinion. The media has made it out that Cecil is some special lion and therefore should not have been shot. Hunter’s, believe it or not, have a code of conduct (unlike poachers and abortionists) and are not about reducing animal numbers. Hunters target male lions who are past their prime and no longer part of any pride. Once a male lion gets ousted out of a pride by another male(s) its life is reduced to scavenging and overall deterioration. It’s these older lions that hunter’s target because a) they are not longer a factor in the reproductive cycle, and b) have a maturity about them which makes better trophies. Cecil may have been a much loved lion, but at the age of 14 he would not be dominating any pride and would certainly have to be hand fed because his hunting ability was very limited. Hunters pay high fees for the opportunity to hunt such animals and the supply of licences is kept in very tight control. Wild game reserves are costly to maintain and trophy fees provide the funding. Many property owners in Africa agree to keep their properties wild for this reason and if hunting was banned then farmers would have no choice but to clear the land to pave the way for domestic livestock. The ethics is debatable but the economics is what it is. What elite nations are trying to do now is use such economics as mentioned, but with humanity, eugenics and abortion being their tools. Let’s not confuse the role of animals and humans. Animals are at the service of humans, not the other way around.
“Much of the rhetoric, even at the “highest” levels – like the chamber of the European Parliament and at international rights conferences – simply assume that we all agree on a definition of rights, but it’s an odd fact that that definition is almost never explicitly offered in any of these documents. The meaning of the word is never even mentioned.”
Dear Miss White,
Under God, human creatures do not have rights.
Except…maybe…the right to remain silent.
The Book of Job makes an excellent case study on “rights”.
Godspeed,
Curtis
[Jesus Christ] “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.” Philippians II, 6-8
…”Amen, amen I say to you: The servant is not greater than his lord; neither is the apostle greater than he that sent him. If you know these things, you shall be blessed if you do them.” John XIII,16-17
Doctrine of the Faith:
CCC: ” 2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation.
Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.
Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives.
Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.”
CCC: ” 2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing.
They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure.
Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.”
Thank you for a wonderful explanation Hilary. I left the Church about 20 years when I became a staunch environmentalist and animal rights activist. Then God woke me up and I returned to find the Church had vanished while I was away. But that’s for another discussion and time.
Looking at what the modern church is missing, I found there was something all the while which gave us Catholics a reason to protect the environment and the animals in our care. They were the Ember Days, 4 times a year for 3 days a week – 12 days in total throughout the year – to actually pray and fast for God’s creation and what He has given to us. Talk about outdoing Earth Day or Arbor Day – 12 days in total.
We’ve lost a lot since the Church calendar was overhauled, but I think bringing the Ember Days back would go a long way to placing the environment and animals in the proper context of God’s creation and our place in it.