Animal Welfare

[Lady_Kikyo]

Anyone hear of Catholic Concern for Animals and THE ARK? I was looking for a fruit salad recipe and one of the links took me here. Is this even approved by the Church, or are they a little out there? (not thinking of joining, just curious…never came across a group like this)

 

[Dale_M]

They’ve been around for awhile. I remember we had a thread about them three or four years ago.

The organization was established in the UK, and has some prominent supporters:

President:
Rt Rev Malcolm McMahon OP, Bishop of Nottingham
Patrons:
Rt Rev John A Baker
Rev John Buckley, SPS
Mgr Michael Buckley
Very Rev Canon S A Condon
Rev Fr Aidan Nichols OP
Mgr Jeffrey Scott
Rev James Thompson
The Rt Hon Ann Widdecombe, MP

all-creatures.org/ca/who.html

I am not familiar with the organization, but presumably Bishop McMahon wouldn’t be involved with the organization if they were heterodox. A year ago he was considered to be the leading candidate to be selected as Archbishop of Westminster (and thus de facto spokesman for the Catholic Church in the England and Wales.)

The US branch of the organization doesn’t mention who is involved with it, but if they are seriously astray, I would think the UK organization would sever ties.

Here is the website of the UK organization.
all-creatures.org/ca/

And here is the website of the US organization:
all-creatures.org/ca/usa.html

 

[Newbie2]

There is surprisingly little current writings of the Church on Animal Welfare. One of the recent publications is by Dr.Deborah Jones, general secretary and editor of the Ark. The book’s title is “The School of Compassion”, and I’m in the process of reading it right now.

Actually, I’m reading it as part of my research for my Master’s thesis (Theology). Before I bought the book, I did a little research on Dr. Jones, and have seen that she tends to lean toward an “animal rights” position. I’ve attempted to contact Dr. Jones several times but have yet to receive a reply.

So far the book reflects the ideas of Andrew Linzey, prolific author of “Christian” animal welfare issues, who I’ve found to be definitely in the “animal rights” camp. Linzey wrote the forward for Dr. Jones’ book, so it’s not surprising that she’d be familiar with his work and agree with most if not all of it. So far, I’m not particularly impressed by Dr. Jones’ work, but to be fair, I’ve not read the entire book yet.

As far as being “approved” by the Church, they are not, but neither are they dismissed. As I said, there is surprisingly little attention paid to animal welfare issues by the Church, and many of the current day writings are just out there, the Church having made no comments one way or the other on the validity of such writings.

In my opinion, their veiws are “a little out there”, which demands a bit of explanation. Universally, methinks, or nearly so Catholics are supporters of the concept of animal welfare as are most non-Catholic Christians. We are all in agreement that animals should be cared for properly and certainly not abused or shown cruelty.

Where the differences in opion lie are what constitutes “proper care” and what defines cruelty. One extreme takes a position that animals should run free, not be confined, not be domesticated, and certainly not be eaten for food or their products used for clothing. The other extreme thinks things like randomly shooting cats for sport is a perfectly moral activity.

From what I have seen and read, the Ark tends to lean toward the former.

 

[redhen]

As far as being “approved” by the Church, they are not, but neither are they dismissed. As I said, there is surprisingly little attention paid to animal welfare issues by the Church, and many of the current day writings are just out there, the Church having made no comments one way or the other on the validity of such writings.

The big problem is that the magisterium holds that everything on the planet is ordered towards humans. No other species has intrinsic worth.

“how can we remain indifferent to the prospect of an ecological crisis which is making vast areas of our planet uninhabitable and hostile to humanity?” (John Paul II, Novo Millennio Inuente

“natural resources are limited; some are not, as it is said, renewable. Using them as if they were inexhaustible, with absolute dominion, seriously endangers their availability not only for the present generation but above all for generations to come.” Sollicitudo rei socialis 1987

When talking about the environmental crisis, JP II laments that the planet is being degraded, not for it’s own sake (and for sake of other species), but for the sake of future humans, which is growing exponentially, and is the cause of the current mass extinction and many other crimes against nature.

I don’t think we will ever see a change in this view. But I find it’s really not logical to talk about dominion and stewardship over other species, when ours is such a relative late-comer.

 

[Newbie2]

The big problem is that the magisterium holds that everything on the planet is ordered towards humans. No other species has intrinsic worth.

“how can we remain indifferent to the prospect of an ecological crisis which is making vast areas of our planet uninhabitable and hostile to humanity?” (John Paul II, Novo Millennio Inuente

“natural resources are limited; some are not, as it is said, renewable. Using them as if they were inexhaustible, with absolute dominion, seriously endangers their availability not only for the present generation but above all for generations to come.” Sollicitudo rei socialis 1987

When talking about the environmental crisis, JP II laments that the planet is being degraded, not for it’s own sake (and for sake of other species), but for the sake of future humans, which is growing exponentially, and is the cause of the current mass extinction and many other crimes against nature.

I don’t think we will ever see a change in this view.** But I find it’s really not logical to talk about dominion and stewardship over other species, when ours is such a relative late-comer**.

And yet we have the ability to affect the fate of other species above any other type or animal.

 

[kimmielittle]

The biggest problem is IMHO : Peter Singer and many others wishes us to accept Animals as equals to Humans. It is no small wonder he also embraces beastly.

I’m very careful who I allow to mentor me.

 

[Dale_M]

The biggest problem is IMHO : Peter Singer and many others wishes us to accept Animals as equals to Humans. It is no small wonder he also embraces beastly.

Peter Singer has some outrageous views. His writings show that following logic too far can get you into deep into territory which defies common sense.

However, I don’t think there is any reason to connect Peter Singer to this organization. Obviously, any position which raises animals to the status of humans is contrary to Catholic teaching, and perhaps the thinking in all of mainstream Christianity.

As a test of where CCA might stand on this matter, I decided to google the controversy regarding the decision of one part of Spain to grant limited civil rights to chimpanzees and other great apes. The Spanish legislature was considering making it nationwide:

And while the Spanish bill is uncontroversial in practice – it makes it illegal to carry out harmful experiments on apes, though no such experiments currently take place in Spain – the principle of giving apes “human” rights has caused outrage in the Church.

The Bishop of Palencia said Spain “is being used as a guinea pig for post-Marxist ideology that is characterised by its rebellion against the cultural roots of Europe, against Christian anthropology, against reason and against nature itself”.

The outspoken bishop then argued: “There’s little doubt that the next step will be euthanasia, eugenics and ethnic cleansing.”

So will this resolution blur the line between man and beast? Deborah Jones of Catholic Concern for Animals says no.

“Animals don’t have human rights per se,” she says, “but animals have animal rights. They are the ‘five freedoms’ of the Farm Animal Welfare Council code, which are freedom from hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain, injury and disease and unnecessary suffering, fear and distress, and the freedom to express normal behaviour. None too outlandish, I’d have thought.”

She says the Spanish hierarchy’s objections are cultural, not theological. “The senior clerics are steeped in such an anthropocentric viewpoint. They can’t see the whole of creation as being interconnected.”

Miss Jones argues that much of the rage in Spain was down to the government’s liberalisation of abortion and stem-cell research, but she says there’s no reason one has to necessarily be both pro-abortion and pro-animal rights.

“We’re pro-life, and we’re pro-animals. What concerns us about unborn children and animals is their vulnerability. It gets us mad when it’s presented as either/or. Our stance is deeply traditional. Newman, Manning and Heenan were all pro-animal.”

edwestonline.com/?p=46

I agree with your urging of caution in picking a mentor. Its very important to follow the right guide.

 

[redhen]

And yet we have the ability to affect the fate of other species above any other type or animal.

You’re stating what is the case, and proposing that it *should *be the case.

What is the moral basis for this claim? The Hebrew book of Genesis?

 

[Newbie2]

You’re stating what is the case, and proposing that it *should *be the case.

What is the moral basis for this claim? The Hebrew book of Genesis?

You lost me.

We have the ability to affect other species, either positively or negatively, by our actions or our inactions. There is no moral basis for this, it’s just a fact of life.

Where morality enters is in the decisions that we make that do affect other species i.e. will my particular action affect, either positively or negatively, another species. Some actions are morally neutral in this regard, but many are not.

 

[redhen]

You lost me.

I asked how can there be a doctrine of dominion and stewardship when our species is an evolutionary latecomer?

You said; “And yet we have the ability to affect the fate of other species above any other type or animal.”

Just because we have the ability to do something, it does not necessarily follow that you should do it. That’s where morality comes in.

We have the ability to affect other species, either positively or negatively, by our actions or our inactions. There is no moral basis for this, it’s just a fact of life.

Sure there is. Humans are moral agents, non-human animals are not. There is wide agreement on this, from atheistic philosophers to theologians.

Where morality enters is in the decisions that we make that do affect other species i.e. will my particular action affect, either positively or negatively, another species. Some actions are morally neutral in this regard, but many are not.

Again, where do you ground this morality?

… just asking.

 

[Newbie2]

I asked how can there be a doctrine of dominion and stewardship when our species is an evolutionary latecomer?

You said; “And yet we have the ability to affect the fate of other species above any other type or animal.”

Just because we have the ability to do something, it does not necessarily follow that you should do it. That’s where morality comes in.

Yes, we agree here.

Sure there is. Humans are moral agents, non-human animals are not. There is wide agreement on this, from atheistic philosophers to theologians.

See above. The morality comes in what actions we take or do not take, not in our ability to do or not do something. Follow me?

Again, where do you ground this morality?

… just asking.

Grounded in several areas:

1. Biblical/theological
2. Nature

Let me give an example of #2.

Let’s say that you or I decide to spray our yard for mosquitos and/or treat our lawns with pesticides for grubs. The runoff will affect, in some small way, the mosquito population, thereby affecting those species of animals (bats, birds, etc.) that feed on mosquitos. Our actions have therefore affected, probably not significantly, animals. But if everyone did such, it could and probably would have a significant effect. We could choose not to do so, if we were aware that such an action affects other species.

We throw food into the garbage, attracting raccoons. We eat meat, affecting the animals that we eat.

Just about everything we do has an effect on our environment, thereby affecting the animals that live in that environment, even in a miniscule way. No other species, by virtue of its just living out their lives has as great an impact on other species, and no other species affects our (human) lives as much as we affect theirs, by either deliberate or non-deliberate actions.

That’s what I mean by “Nature”. In Nature, we have more control i.e.dominion over all of the other species.

 

[redhen]

Just about everything we do has an effect on our environment, thereby affecting the animals that live in that environment, even in a miniscule way. No other species, by virtue of its just living out their lives has as great an impact on other species, and no other species affects our (human) lives as much as we affect theirs, by either deliberate or non-deliberate actions.

I agree, so did JP II when he talked about “a growing awareness of the fact that one cannot use with impunity the different categories of beings, whether living or inanimate - animals, plants, the natural elements - simply as one wishes, according to ones own economic needs. On the contrary, one must take into account the nature of each being and of its mutual connection in an ordered system, which is precisely the cosmos."

On Concern for the Social Order. (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis)

That’s what I mean by “Nature”. In Nature, we have more control i.e.dominion over all of the other species.

But if you remove the doctrine that man was created in the image of God, then all you have is nature, which is morally neutral. More to it, I could argue then that everything our species does (since we our part of nature) is natural, such that war and genocide are just* natural disasters.
*

See where I’m going with this? Without the biblical context, humans have no claim to moral authority over non-human animals.

 

[hitched]

The biggest problem is IMHO : Peter Singer and many others wishes us to accept Animals as equals to Humans. It is no small wonder he also embraces beastly.

I’m very careful who I allow to mentor me.

“Beastly”?

hitched

 

[Newbie2]

But if you remove the doctrine that man was created in the image of God, then all you have is nature, which is morally neutral. More to it, I could argue then that everything our species does (since we our part of nature) is natural, such that war and genocide are just* natural disasters.

Yes, that would follow.*

See where I’m going with this? Without the biblical context, humans have no claim to moral authority over non-human animals.

I think that question, removing God from the equasion, does not necessarily remove morality for those who don’t believe in (a) God. I’ve had discussions with several self-avowed athiests and agnostics who hold that there is a sense of morality, although they don’t quite know or can’t define where it originates.

I’m not quite sure I understand (bolded) what you’re saying. Are you saying that outside of biblical context, we do not have morals or that we would have such morals but they would not include an authority over animals?

 

[Dale_M]

“Beastly”?

Yes, that word puzzled me too. But then I recalled that Singer has, in the past, given a green light to bestiality. Or at least seemed to do so.

This is from a book review he wrote for Nerve.com (I believe in 2001):

Almost a century ago, when Freud had just published his groundbreaking Three Essays on Sexuality, the Viennese writer Otto Soyka published a fiery little volume called Beyond the Boundary of Morals. Never widely known, and now entirely forgotten, it was a polemic directed against the prohibition of “unnatural” sex like bestiality, homosexuality, fetishism and other non-reproductive acts. Soyka saw these prohibitions as futile and misguided attempts to limit the inexhaustible variety of human sexual desire. Only bestiality, he argued, should be illegal, and even then, only in so far as it shows cruelty towards an animal.

But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. Soyka would presumably have thought this within the range of human sexual variety.

nerve.com/opinions/singer/heavypetting/

It could be said that Singer, by not explicitly rejecting bestiality, is okaying the act. But he doesn’t come right out and endorse it.

Edit:
In a 2006 interview with Stephen Colbert, on the The Colbert Report, Singer is asked if he is in favor of having sex with animals. He might have taken some offense to the question, but eventually answers: No I am not in favor of people having sex with animals. I think sex with humans would be more fun.
colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/79411/december-11-2006/dr–peter-singer-pt–2
(The question is asked at the 2:26 mark)

 

[redhen]

I’m not quite sure I understand (bolded) what you’re saying. Are you saying that outside of biblical context, we do not have morals or that we would have such morals but they would not include an authority over animals?

I guess I got off track.

No, I’m not talking about the philosophy of ethics in general. I’m thinking about the Christian idea of dominion and stewardship. I find it hard to reconcile those concepts with matters of facts, i.e. homo sapiens sapiens is only 200,000 years old, and untold number of species existed before this time. It seems like a contradiction.

 

[Newbie2]

I guess I got off track.

No, I’m not talking about the philosophy of ethics in general. I’m thinking about the Christian idea of dominion and stewardship. I find it hard to reconcile those concepts with matters of facts, i.e. homo sapiens sapiens is only 200,000 years old, and untold number of species existed before this time. It seems like a contradiction.

Maybe, in that sense, but if you’re thinking along Christian lines, Genesis ought to about do it. Longetivity as a species does not translate to dominion; methinks it’s more useful to think along the lines of the potential for each species to take care of the others.