recently re-named ‘Catholic Concern for Animals’ - an ecumenical Christian
society set up to promote all aspects of animal welfare. It also has an excellent
website: www.catholic-animals.org
The Editor of ‘The Ark’ – Deborah Jones – happened to mention the lack of clear
leadership from Christian sources, bishops, priests, theologians, on the subject of
animal welfare. The following is an attempt to give a partial reason why this
important aspect of theology affecting our daily lives is not given its proper
emphasis in Christian teaching. It also, quite coincidentally, prophetically
foreshadows the most recent proposal by Parliament to introduce a law dealing with
the ‘duty of care’ – rather than ‘animal rights’.
Genesis - of animals and men.
Why is it that, as a general rule of thumb, Christian - and even more spectacularly,
‘Catholic’ - countries are infamous for their cruelty to animals? Or, to be less
derogatory, their lack of care for animals?
Bull fighting in Spain and Mexico, shooting of song birds and anything that flies in
Italy, force feeding and fattening of geese and calves throughout the European
continent are just a few obvious examples. The Irish have a cavalier attitude to
dogs; they are not treated with cruelty but they belong outside, not in the house.
The English are renowned animal lovers – we throw puppies off motorway bridges,
buy dogs for Christmas only, starve cats, neglect unto death horses, ponies,
donkeys, feel the need to have a Royal ( not just National) society for the protection
of animals and, not least, indulge in fox hunting.
Yet to be fair, the vast majority of people in this country and throughout the world
are favourably disposed towards animals. They may not be convinced that they
have souls – quite a few don’t really believe we humans have them either – but they
are part of our lives. They are useful, decorative, give companionship and are
quaint and interesting to own and watch. But when it comes to the crunch they are
a very poor second, third or fourth in our order of priorities and we don’t really
spend much time giving the whole matter a great deal of thought.
Should we? As Christians – believers in redeemed humanity – think a bit more? Is
it not time that we applied the fruits of that Redemption to the totality of God’s
creation and not just the pinnacle of it ( as we see it), the creation of mankind?
As Christians we claim that the old order, the Old Testament, the old dispensation –
call it what you will – has not been abolished but up-dated and – far more important
– fulfilled. We put this into our practical theology by our teaching on grace and
salvation, by stressing the love of God and neighbour rather than just the craven
fear and awe of God and a ‘tooth for a tooth’ attitude to that restricted concept of
our neighbour as those of the same ilk as ourselves. We accept that God created a
perfect universe since it comes from a perfect Being but that it has been thrown out
of kilter by the freely chosen act of sabotage by the first member of this pinnacle of
creation – Adam’s first, original sin. We cheerfully and triumphantly claim that God
himself took the long-promised initiative and redeemed, made fitting again, at-oned
creation. He did not automatically and miraculously set it back into kilter but he did
give us the ability to strive to do so and the assurance that we can overcome the
world – because he himself has done so. In short, we and the whole of creation are
still askew but now have God’s grace to aim to work with this and his assurance that
we will be rewarded for trying to do so.
This has been the teaching of theologians and the constant preaching of preachers
through the centuries and the foundation of our hope and confidence of eternal
life. Somehow, however, in the education of theologians – by far the majority of
whom are priests and even the higher echelons of the hierarchy – there have been
gaps, bits of revelation not mentioned, ignored or thought to be so unimportant that
they could be covered by a blanket of general principles. The official Catechism of
the Catholic Church covers the whole subject in four very brief sections ( 2415 -
24128). It does mention respect for the integrity of creation and that men ‘owe’
animals ( not own them); but owe them kindness. It does not even hint at the share
the whole of creation has in the Redemption.
Which may explain why, generally speaking and with abject apologies to the
exceptions, priests, bishops and the Church as a whole show little concern for
animal welfare apart from the odd clerics who have a dog, cat, donkey, breed barn
owls, think Vietnamese pigs have a beauty of their own or show off their
‘eccentricity’ in similar ways.
These ‘gaps’ are in our reading, understanding and up-dating of Scripture in the
light of our universal redemption when it comes to what the Bible says about
animals. We no longer ‘ love our neighbour and hate our enemy’. But we still accept
in Genesis the face value and literal, simplistic meaning of God saying to himself:
“Let us make man in our own image…..and let them (mankind) be masters of the
fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth” (Gen. 1 v
28). Even more significantly in the second account of creation we are told that God
fashioned all the wild beasts and all the birds of heaven from the soil and then
brought them “ to the man to see what he would call them; each one was to bear
the name the man would give it. The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds
of heaven and all the wild beasts.” (Gen. 2 vv 19,20).
To ‘ be master of’ need not and does not inflexibly imply ownership as of things and
chattels. Certainly to give a name to anything, any animal or any human being does
always imply the accepting of responsibility, the undertaking of a duty of love, the
duty of care and respect for that person, animal or object. We still exercise the
privilege of ‘naming’ in that sense, whether it is the naming of an invention such as a
Bunsen burner, a discovery of a country or continent, the adoption of my puppy
Bonzo or the acceptance into the intimate family and that of the Church and the
human race of baby Romeo Beckham.
It is in this more lofty and exalted manner that we ought to read God’s instruction to
man to be masters of his creation. We should understand that instruction in the light
and insight of the Redemption, the raising up of everything God made onto the
spiritual level. It is, surely, this entirety and unity of creation that St. Paul referred
to when he wrote to the Romans: “ From the beginning till now the entire creation,
as we know, has been groaning in one great act of giving birth”. (Rom 8 v 22).
The comparatively modern fashion of talking – often stridently – of ‘animal rights’
cuts right across this biblical foundation of the relationship between man and the
rest of creation. It also encourages philosophical nit-pickers to respond that
animals ain’t got no rights! Rights go together with responsibilities as much as love
and marriage, a horse and carriage. Unless you have responsibilities ( even if just
potential ones as seen in a hapless human baby) you cannot have rights. Animals
have no responsibilities in the usually accepted meaning of the word. They do not
have to pass exams, go to work, save for a pension for their old age or repay acts
of kindness and affection. They do everything by sheer instinct implanted into them
by their creator and cannot, by any effort of intellect or will, decide to drop out of the
rat race. This usually means that they are perfectly predictable and act according to
their nature – something which we humans, more often than not, go out of our way
not to do.
It is we, humans, masters and custodians and guardians of creation who have the
duty and the privilege and the ability to care for animals as God intended. When
there is cruelty and neglect, carelessness or sheer lack of thought or consideration
of animals it is demeaning, shameful to ourselves. It belittles us, makes us less
worthy of respect. We are failing to act according to our nature. For reasons of
convenience, sport, pleasure or profit or innumerable other motives we use our
intelligence and our will to lower our own dignity in the sight of God, our neighbour
and – yes – the animal world itself.
It may even be worth stressing that it is a more lofty, more worthy motive, more in
line with our nature as human beings and stewards of creation to treat animals well
because we have this duty of care; not just because we are conscious of rights and
obligations; simply keeping to some law.
This view of creation and our relationship with the animal world does nothing to cure
the problem at a stroke. After all, the lack of proper kilter caused by the Fall has
not miraculously cured our own attitude to God, ourselves or our human
neighbours. But our redemption has, at least, helped us to see where the fault lies,
in which direction we slant. This view could, at the very least, help us to think along
different and more exalted lines and not try to mend a rift, cure the undeniable evil
and scandal of animal cruelty in all its many aspects, by simply bashing the
opposition.