Cecil the lion's killer revealed as American dentist

[FollowChrist34]

I would disagree, I think quite a number of people have looked at it. But the vast majority of Catholic Moral Philosophers have arrived at a different conclusion that you.

Nope, quite wrong. Aquinas has shown that Faith is quite rational.

I know this. I was stating my opinion. I was saying that the godless, irrational actions of man undercut the rationalism of the Catholic Moral Philosophers and Aquinas, rendering their claims absurd. This is tragic; I am not gloating about it; believe me, I would do anything and everything I could to change it. A CAF thread perhaps is not the best place for this discussion; it is off topic, and quite complex and nuanced.

BTW, I emailed Cardinal Marx for a confirmation of your Fr. Robert’s read on trophy hunting. If and when I get a response, I’ll post it here for our enlightenment.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I suppose if he had spent the amount on tearing up the flora and fauna in his backyard to build a pool or tennis court, THAT would be unobjectionable to “some.”

But, of course, the slugs, earthworms, hawthorns, birds, frogs and squirrels that would be exterminated there are not as “regal” as a lion and therefore, in the eyes of “some” do not count and can safely be jettisoned from the environment. It isn’t as if the real impact on the environment is what is being considered, it is the APPEARANCE and the exotic nature of what ought to be protected according to the principles of political correctness (and NOT the actual impact on the environment) that matters.
.

I just finished reading, Reaching Down the Rabbit Hole: A Renowned Neurologist Explains the Mystery and Drama of Brain Diseas
by Allan H. Ropper

In it he discusses why we can squash a fly with no moral reservation, but killing a dog in the same manner elicits moral outrage. He goes on to say anything that has humanoid eyes says to us the creature has a conscience. There is no doubt we are attributing human souls to animals now. Just look at the number of people on FB who say they trust their dog more than people, or the number of people who say if there are no dogs in Heaven, they don’t want to go there.

 

[LongingSoul]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I am go on frequent mission trips to Tanzania. As such, I know many Tanzanian priests very well. Several of them are FB friends.

I asked them if they knew of any Zimbabwe priests that I could communicate with about this incident. One of the priests ( former Secretary to the Bishop of the diocese that I go to) is studying in Rome for his STD. He put me in contact with Fr. Robert Mushohwe, a priest from Zimbabwe who is also doing advanced studies in Rome.

Fr Abraham send an introduction email, and I responded with the following question.

That was several days ago, and received a response this morning. He is home in Zimbabwe for the summer and was not checking email often.

Here is the response

My opinion of the way you coin questions to unsuspecting agents is manipulative and controlling, designed to get only the answers you want or at least block the answers you don’t want. You did that with the little exercise regarding police use of guns also.

Animals and humans are not of the same nature and the death of an animal is not the same as the death of a human being. That isn’t even the issue that anyone here has raised so you’ve wasted your time trying to get the African priest to say such a thing.

 

[estesbob]

My opinion of the way you coin questions to unsuspecting agents is manipulative and controlling, designed to get only the answers you want or at least block the answers you don’t want. You did that with the little exercise regarding police use of guns also.

Animals and humans are not of the same nature and the death of an animal is not the same as the death of a human being. That isn’t even the issue that anyone here has raised so you’ve wasted your time trying to get the African priest to say such a thing.

Why do I get the feeling you disagree with what the African priest said?

 

[LongingSoul]

I just finished reading, Reaching Down the Rabbit Hole: A Renowned Neurologist Explains the Mystery and Drama of Brain Diseas
by Allan H. Ropper

In it he discusses why we can squash a fly with no moral reservation, but killing a dog in the same manner elicits moral outrage. He goes on to say anything that has humanoid eyes says to us the creature has a conscience. There is no doubt we are attributing human souls to animals now. Just look at the number of people on FB who say they trust their dog more than people, or the number of people who say if there are no dogs in Heaven, they don’t want to go there.

A you saying that you would genuinely treat someone squashing a fly with the same feeling as someone beating a stray dog to death? To me you are the oddity, not us.

 

[LongingSoul]

Why do I get the feeling you disagree with what the African priest said?

I absolutely agree with him that an animals life is not the same as a human beings life. If you want to doubt that, you are welcome to.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Human on human death tolls: (damn those lions/slugs/worms/rats/hippos!)

Abortion 1.2 billion (worldwide last 50 years)
China (PRC) 1949-87 … 76.702 million
U.S.S.R. 1917-87 … 61.911 million
Colonialism … 50.000 million (? not sure what this is I must admit)
Germany 1933-45 … 20.946 million (including 5.291 million Jews)
China (KMT) 1928-49 … 10.075 million

Japan 1936-45 ............ 5.964 million
China (Mao Soviets) 1923-48 ... 3.468 million
Cambodia 1975-79 ........ 2.035 million
Turkey 1909-18 ........... 1.883 million
Vietnam 1945-87 .......... 1.647 million
Poland 1945-48 ........... 1.585 million
Pakistan 1958-87 ......... 1.503 million
Yugoslavia (Tito) 1944-87 ... 1.072 million

Meanwhile, the 15 bloodiest wars:

1. World War II, 20 million dead (1937-45).
2. World War I, 8.5 million dead (1914-18).
3. Korean War, 1.2 million dead (1950-53).
4. Chinese civil war, 1.2 million dead (1945-49).
5. Vietnam War, 1.2 million dead (1965-73).
6. Iran-Iraq War, 850,000 dead (1980-88).
7. Russian civil war, 800,000 dead (1918-21).
8. Chinese civil war, 400,000 dead (1927-39).
9. French Indochina war, 385,000 dead (1945-54).
10. Mexican Revolution, 200,000 dead (1911-20).
11. Spanish Civil War, 200,000 dead (1936-39).
12. French Algeria war, 160,000 dead (1954-62).
13. Afghanistan war, 150,000 dead (1980-89).
14. Russo-Japanese war, 130,000 dead (1904-05).
15. Riffian war (Morocco), 100,000 dead (1921-26).
15. First Sudanese Civil War, 100,000 dead (1956-72).
15. Russo-Polish War, 100,000 dead (1919-20).
15. Biafran War, 100,000 dead (1967-70).

Total 20th century war death toll: 35 million to 40 million.

(caveat I took these numbers from a somewhat suspect website but you get the idea; all I can say is thank God I am rational and divine, whew!)

 

[estesbob]

I absolutely agree with him that an animals life is not the same as a human beings life. If you want to doubt that, you are welcome to.

I’m just curious as to why you were criticizing Brendans actions to get an opinion from somebody that actually lives in Zimbabwe

 

[FollowChrist34]

A you saying that you would genuinely treat someone squashing a fly with the same feeling as someone beating a stray dog to death? To me you are the oddity, not us.

Yes, I fear that is where this ends up logically, anyway. It’s a fine line between love and hate.

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m just curious as to why you were criticizing Brendans actions to get an opinion from somebody that actually lives in Zimbabwe

Brendan produces the answer as a trump in the debate however seems not to register that the debate was never about the value of animal life over human life. What I see the priest as having said of significance was…

I do not know this man personally, but the act itself of hunting a lion, or any other animal, is not a moral wrong. It is, of course, to be done in accord with just laws. I do not know sufficiently about this case to know if it was done in accord with law or not. But if not, that would be the sin, not in the death of the lion.

He absolutely acknowledges that this is not just a legal question but a moral one by his use of the qualification ‘just’ laws. Most of us here know that just because something is legal it doesn’t make it moral and therefore, should rightly be subjected to examination for moral quality. Until recently, some of the ultra conservative type Catholics also claimed that environmental issues were outside of the moral sphere also. Everything we do impacts on humankind somehow, even our attitude towards the creatures God made.

 

[Brendan]

My opinion of the way you coin questions to unsuspecting agents is manipulative and controlling, designed to get only the answers you want or at least block the answers you don’t want. You did that with the little exercise regarding police use of guns also…

It what way did I ‘coin’ either question?

Here is the one that I offered to Fr Robert

Have you heard of that incident, and if so, what are the moral implications of the hunt

I would claim that the phrasing is neutral and left him free to comment in any way that he wished.

In regards to the question offered to the police in Australia, I would note that I asked YOU to offer the question, and you were free to phrase it however you wish.

And for those on the thread who are unfamiliar with the firearm discussion, you can review my phrasing here - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=965673&page=32

So I will put to you, exactly HOW was the phrasing of my question, as you put it,“manipulative and controlling” ?

 

[Brendan]

Brendan produces the answer as a trump in the debate however seems not to register that the debate was never about the value of animal life over human life. What I see the priest as having said of significance was…

I do not know this man personally, but the act itself of hunting a lion, or any other animal, is not a moral wrong. It is, of course, to be done in accord with just laws. I do not know sufficiently about this case to know if it was done in accord with law or not. But if not, that would be the sin, not in the death of the lion.

He absolutely acknowledges that this is not just a legal question but a moral one by his use of the qualification ‘just’ laws. Most of us here know that just because something is legal it doesn’t make it moral and therefore, should rightly be subjected to examination for moral quality. Until recently, some of the ultra conservative type Catholics also claimed that environmental issues were outside of the moral sphere also. Everything we do impacts on humankind somehow, even our attitude towards the creatures God made.

Do you agree with the red part as well? That the death of the lion was NOT a moral issue? Or that the only moral difficulty was in regards to local hunting laws being followed or not, not in the actual killing of the lion?

Do you agree that the hunters should be ‘highly regarded’

 

[Brendan]

Brendan produces the answer as a trump in the debate however seems not to register that the debate was never about the value of animal life over human life. .

Actually no, I viewed this debate as being over the morality of hunting lions, specifically the killing of ‘Cecil’. Thu I went to one whom I would consider a source of authority, a Catholic priest in Zimbabwe who might be familiar with the incident.

I suppose I could have contacted one of the bishops, but I know first hand how busy bishops can be, when I go to Tanzania, I live the bishop’s residence of the Bishop of Kahama.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Actually no, I viewed this debate as being over the morality of hunting lions, specifically the killing of ‘Cecil’. Thu I went to one whom I would consider a source of authority, a Catholic priest in Zimbabwe who might be familiar with the incident.

I suppose I could have contacted one of the bishops, but I know first hand how busy bishops can be, when I go to Tanzania, I live the bishop’s residence of the Bishop of Kahama.

I am not at all surprised at this. The Catholic Church in Africa is there to help the poor in any way they can. They will take the money from the hunters. There are nuns (and probably clergy) of the Catholic Church in the West who are pro-choice because they sincerely believe that helps women and families in tight economic situations. There are Cardinals who support/do not oppose gay marriage and communion for the divorce/remarried. In Ireland, it was quite common for priests to support the IRA during the 20 century. They saw the ravages and injustices that fell on the Irish Catholic poor. There are Catholic clergy in South America who support communism for the same reason. The Pope just accepted a Marxist crucifix. Liberation theology. The Jesuits owned slaves in Maryland:

“Can a man serve God faithfully and posess slaves?” Brother Joseph Mobberly, S.J. asked in his diary in 1818. “Yes,” he answered. “Is it then lawful to keep men in servitude? Yes.”
georgetownvoice.com/2007/02/08/the-jesuits-slaves/

 

[estesbob]

Brendan produces the answer as a trump in the debate however seems not to register that the debate was never about the value of animal life over human life. What I see the priest as having said of significance was…

I do not know this man personally, but the act itself of hunting a lion, or any other animal, is not a moral wrong. It is, of course, to be done in accord with just laws. I do not know sufficiently about this case to know if it was done in accord with law or not. But if not, that would be the sin, not in the death of the lion.

He absolutely acknowledges that this is not just a legal question but a moral one by his use of the qualification ‘just’ laws. Most of us here know that just because something is legal it doesn’t make it moral and therefore, should rightly be subjected to examination for moral quality. Until recently, some of the ultra conservative type Catholics also claimed that environmental issues were outside of the moral sphere also. Everything we do impacts on humankind somehow, even our attitude towards the creatures God made.

Most of us found it very interesting that he was able to find somebody living in Zimbabwe to give us a first hand take on this issue.

I don’t know what a conservative type Catholic is?

 

[sarah_j]

I just finished reading, Reaching Down the Rabbit Hole: A Renowned Neurologist Explains the Mystery and Drama of Brain Diseas
by Allan H. Ropper

In it he discusses why we can squash a fly with no moral reservation, but killing a dog in the same manner elicits moral outrage. He goes on to say anything that has humanoid eyes says to us the creature has a conscience. There is no doubt we are attributing human souls to animals now. Just look at the number of people on FB who say they trust their dog more than people, or the number of people who say if there are no dogs in Heaven, they don’t want to go there.

Does that suprise you? It’s just more Disneyesque thinking.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...u5TnZEFUC1EWIXpiN9bxw2DlniFObnT0HbpDSQY55EyzQ

 

[Brendan]

So FC, do you have a seminary that you trust or admire, we could consult their Moral Theology Department .

 

[FollowChrist34]

So FC, do you have a seminary that you trust or admire, we could consult their Moral Theology Department .

It is moral on a utilitarian level. I will give you no argument there. If I were starving I probably would kill and eat a lion, or another human being for that matter. Wouldn’t you?

 

[Brendan]

Most of us found it very interesting that he was able to find somebody living in Zimbabwe to give us a first hand take on this issue.

I don’t know what a conservative type Catholic is?

The interwebz is a wonderful thing

Actually, finding him was rather easy. As I mentioned, I am Facebook friends with a number of Tanzanian clergy and do a lot of work there. I will admit that I thought the contact would cone from one of the religious order priest, as they move around a lot more than the diocesan priests.

If course, it is just a google search to find the email address of one of the bishops, but I didn’t. Want to bother them. They lead very busy lives.

But FC brought up an interesting point, even if it was a veiled accusation that this priest is unfaithful to the Mira teachings of the Church.

Why don’t each if us reach out to the Moral Theology depts of our local seminaries

.and post both the question offered ( gotta keep longing happy) and the response

 

[Brendan]

It is moral on a utilitarian level. I will give you no argument there. If I were starving I probably would kill and eat a lion, or another human being for that matter. Wouldn’t you?

That us nit an answer to my question. What Seminary do you suggest that we contact for their opinion. Surely there must be one that you feel is faithful to the teachings of the Church.