Cecil the lion's killer revealed as American dentist

[Brendan]

What in your view is the difference between trophy hunting and beating your dog to death with a shovel? Is one acceptable to the Church and the other not? Why?

Hunting feeds the hungry ( a Corporal work of Mercy) and the other does not.

There is nothing in Catholic theology that dictates that particularly large animals cannot be eaten, so there is nothing morally objectionable to ‘trophy’ hunting.

 

[ucfengr]

What in your view is the difference between trophy hunting and beating your dog to death with a shovel? Is one acceptable to the Church and the other not? Why?

A dog is a domesticated animal and a lion isn’t. A lion is a predator that is dangerous to people, your toy poodle isn’t.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Hunting feeds the hungry ( a Corporal work of Mercy) and the other does not.

There is nothing in Catholic theology that dictates that particularly large animals cannot be eaten, so there is nothing morally objectionable to ‘trophy’ hunting.

The Chinese eat dogs. Can a Chinese Catholic beat his dog to death and eat it in good conscience?

If this American woman who killed her dog had eaten it, would she be in the clear? Or maybe just done a sexy photo?

 

[Brendan]

The Chinese eat dogs. Can a Chinese Catholic beat his dog to death and eat it in good conscience?

As long as they do it quickly. Cattle are often killed by a sledge to the head. That is being beaten to death. Having an INTENT to cause the animal painful death is a Catholic moral wrong. Intending a clean kill and not achieving that, while not desireable, is not a moral fault.

{quote]If this American woman who killed her dog had eaten it, would she be in the clear? Or maybe just done a sexy photo?

Sure, don’t see how that is immoral. Heck, they can pose with the animal for all I care, in fact, why should anyone bother to object. There is nothing unethical about it.

I’ve seen plenty of picnic photos with people posed with their hot dog or hamburger, about to take a bite. No difference really

 

[FollowChrist34]

As long as they do it quickly. Cattle are often killed by a sledge to the head. That is being beaten to death. Having an INTENT to cause the animal painful death is a Catholic moral wrong. Intending a clean kill and not achieving that, while not desireable, is not a moral fault.

{quote]If this American woman who killed her dog had eaten it, would she be in the clear? Or maybe just done a sexy photo?

Sure, don’t see how that is immoral. Heck, they can pose with the animal for all I care, in fact, why should anyone bother to object. There is nothing unethical about it.

I’ve seen plenty of picnic photos with people posed with their hot dog or hamburger, about to take a bite. No difference really

And you are presenting this as your understanding of the position of the Church, correct? There is nothing immoral about beating your dog to death and eating it and/or posing with its carcase. Let’s say the woman did not intend to cause pain, she just liked the sound of the smacks and was hungry.

 

[adrift]

It didn’t as the skin and head of the lion were removed. In order to give the meat ‘the poor’ he would have had to admit that he had deliberately stalked a wounded animal with a huge tag around his neck for 40 hours. I am really looking forward to him surfacing to face the music

Of course being a responsible hunter would require him to make sure that he killed the lion. So why wouldn’t he admit to following the lion and not allow him to suffer? The tag made no difference. What would you be saying now if he had let the lion be wounded and die? He thought that it was a legal kill following the guides direction. The guide so testifies that he had the permits that is the hunter had his permits in order who didn’t was the land owner. Why is it that despite being told multiple times that the reason it was an illegal hunt was the lack of permits it is continuously stated that it had to do with the lion being lured,(not illegal) tagged (not illegal ) and now the lion was “stalked” again not illegal and actually a humane procedure.

 

[Brendan]

And you are presenting this as your understanding of the position of the Church, correct? There is nothing immoral about beating your dog to death and eating it and/or posing with its carcase. Let’s say the woman did not intend to cause pain, she just liked the sound of the smacks and was hungry.

In which case the smacks could be done against the sofa, and the dog should be killed quickly.

Is her intent to for the meal to kill the dog quickly and without undue suffering?

 

[FollowChrist34]

In which case the smacks could be done against the sofa, and the dog should be killed quickly.

Is her intent to for the meal to kill the dog quickly and without undue suffering?

Smacking against the sofa may take a while - that was probably when she grabbed the claw hammer. Or maybe the claw hammer was more musical as it struck? The dog’s screams as kind of a counterpoint? I wasn’t there. Maybe she filmed it and can post it. Sounds like she’d make a good Catholic.

 

[adrift]

Smacking against the sofa may take a while - that was probably when she grabbed the claw hammer. Or maybe the claw hammer was more musical as it struck? The dog’s screams as kind of a counterpoint? I wasn’t there. Maybe she filmed it and can post it. Sounds like she’d make a good Catholic.

you failed to answer

Is her intent to for the meal to kill the dog quickly and without undue suffering?

 

[FollowChrist34]

you failed to answer

Within reason - 40 hours.

 

[adrift]

Within reason - 40 hours.

 

[Brendan]

Within reason - 40 hours.

So you are saying that INTENT was that the animal died after 40 hours, or that the INTENT was a quicker death, that the person in question sought to have the animal die immediately, but that intent failed.

Say, for example, that the woman intented to strike a fatal blow and to kill the animal quickly, but for some reason she missed a vital spot and the animal ran away. If she had to spend 40 hours searching for the animal to take it out of it’s misery, and thus provide food for those in need, there would be absolutely nothing contrary to the Church’s teachings on the matter

If she deliberately struck the animal in a non vital zone, and then left it chained their, suffering for 40 hours, before she killed it and claimed the meal, that would be un Catholic

Which scenario did this woman intend?.

 

[LongingSoul]

Where you aware the Zimbabwe requires (by law) that the meat of all hunted animals be given to a governmental food bank.

That is what would have happen to Cecil.

So yes, the animal was eaten and that was known before the hunt. In fact, the knowledge would have been that the meat from this animal would be given to the poor.

So how does that factor into the CCC?

For heavens sake. What a crock. This character was not in any way shape or form a ‘game hunter’, following procedure. The government retrieved the lions body as evidence with the character nowhere in sight. This is typical of the almost comical lip service paid by some people to a noble goal for show.

qz.com/470913/cecils-killing-has-prompted-delta-to-ban-big-game-hunts-from-flights/

Good on Delta airlines for this ban. Now the government needs to stand up and ban all trophy products imports.

 

[adrift]

For heavens sake. What a crock. This character was not in any way shape or form a ‘game hunter’, following procedure. The government retrieved the lions body as evidence with the character nowhere in sight. This is typical of the almost comical lip service paid by some people to a noble goal for show.

qz.com/470913/cecils-killing-has-prompted-delta-to-ban-big-game-hunts-from-flights/

Good on Delta airlines for this ban. Now the government needs to stand up and ban all trophy products imports.

The government recovered the head and the skin so far I have not seen anything about the rest of the carcass, Again the game hunter had the proper licenses hence he was following “procedure”. It was his guides that did not. Exactly what procedure would you approve of for culling?

 

[FollowChrist34]

So you are saying that INTENT was that the animal died after 40 hours, or that the INTENT was a quicker death, that the person in question sought to have the animal die immediately, but that intent failed.

Say, for example, that the woman intented to strike a fatal blow and to kill the animal quickly, but for some reason she missed a vital spot and the animal ran away. If she had to spend 40 hours searching for the animal to take it out of it’s misery, and thus provide food for those in need, there would be absolutely nothing contrary to the Church’s teachings on the matter

If she deliberately struck the animal in a non vital zone, and then left it chained their, suffering for 40 hours, before she killed it and claimed the meal, that would be un Catholic

Which scenario did this woman intend?.

This is such pathetic nonsense it is an act of Christian charity (nay, duty) not to respond.

 

[adrift]

This is such pathetic nonsense it is an act of Christian charity (nay, duty) not to respond.

 

[Brendan]

This is such pathetic nonsense it is an act of Christian charity (nay, duty) not to respond.

It is YOUR hypothetical situation, I am just asking for clarification on what you are proposing.

 

[NextElement]

Am I the only one that’s shocked that on this CATHOLIC forum we’re still discussing “Cecil” the Lion amid all of the injustice towards humans in the world, including 57 million abortions since 1973, Middle Eastern Christian genocide, and others?

I expected it from the media but not from fellow Catholics.

 

[LongingSoul]

Am I the only one that’s shocked that on this CATHOLIC forum we’re still discussing “Cecil” the Lion amid all of the injustice towards humans in the world, including 57 million abortions since 1973, Middle Eastern Christian genocide, and others?

I expected it from the media but not from fellow Catholics.

Pope Francis, when first elected, astutely cautioned against exploiting certain issues for the purpose of shutting down other relevant conversations pertaining to human morality and moral growth. Issues such as abortion, gays and contraception. thejournal.ie/pope-francis-abortion-gay-marriage-contraception-1091405-Sep2013/

Animal welfare, the environment, the economy, refugees and other social problems all demand a moral response from the Christian community.

 

[Brendan]

Animal welfare, the environment, the economy, refugees and other social problems all demand a moral response from the Christian community.

Just to confirm, your only problem is that the animal was research tagged, and thus it was an illegal hunt.

Hunting an animal and having it’s meat be eaten, especially by the poor, is well within Catholic morality.