Cecil the lion's killer revealed as American dentist

[Brendan]

Again Fr Robert admitted to not knowing much about this particular case and that is the whole crux of this debate.

Somewhat the opposite actually. He said he had heard much about it,

In response to your question, yes I have heard a great deal about the incident.

but not sufficiently to make a decision about the legality of the hunt

I do not know sufficiently about this case to know if it was done in accord with law

If you follow the thread, Lily also had some misconceptions about what aspects of the hunt were illegal. So I do not fault Fr Robert for having the same problems.

Also, you have STILL not answered my question.

Here is your statement

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…

And here was my actual question

Quote:

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

How EXACTLY was that coined to manipulate this priest?

 

[Brendan]

I think many people see the moral concern as rather more than that. Specifically who profits from this mindless killing of wildlife.

The park service of Zimbabwe, they are the ones who charge $30,000 for the hunting permit. They would be the biggest profiteers, in terms of dollar amounts.

The workers in the hotel where he stayed, the airlines. The list seems rather long.

And how exactly, is it ‘mindless’. park services put is a lot of thought into how many permits to issue, generally employing wildlife biologists to analyze the habitat, the wildlife patterns, the availability of food, the genetic stability of the herd\pride\flock\pack\school.

And then the hunter and their guides put in a lot of bra(name removed by moderator)ower planning location, means, camouflage etc…

So yes, a LOT of mind power goes into a hunt.

Clearly his ‘guides’ and himself (head on the wall etc) but it is unnecessary and diminishes creation.

That might be your opinion, but it does not seem to be the opinion of the Church. Needless to say, I will give more credence to the moral teaching of the Church that any single person (myself included)

And where is the brave hunter?

Where would you be if people were issuing death threats.

 

[Brendan]

Brendan , something here in the article does.not make sense to.me.
It sounds a bit strange to read that hunting moves billions of dollars.and at the same.time.all this long talk about how much they revere the silence ,nature and that it is a stress relief …to end it up shooting.

Yes, park services derive a lot of their income from hunting permits. Why does that surprise you.

I know of very few hunters who object, in fact most appreciate that their money is being used for a good cause. Again, that should not be surprising.

Much of it sounds as justifying hunting either for pleasure , tradition or money.

Yes, all of those are valid reasons to hunt.

Frankly speaking ,why don t.they say " Cause I enjoy hunting " and that is it. Or " our state/ country needs money and jobs badly " and that is it.

I think several did say that, but why does it have to be just one reason?

The animals( except for.food) look here more as an excuse than a particular appreciation of part of Creation.
I frankly cannot grasp.what the Catholic teaching is through the article.

If money is necessary either for wildlife or persons ,why the excuse to hunt and not give the money directly? I do not get it. And we eat meat almost daily btw.

Here are the words of Fr Clessen from the article

What motivates me to hunt is a deep love and appreciation of the natural world,” said Father Classen, associate pastor at St. Margaret Mary Alacoque Parish in South County.

Hunting is an “opportunity to spend quality time with God, family and friends, the prayerful solitude and much needed stress relief,” he added. “And, yes, the opportunity to put fresh, healthy meat in the freezer by means of my own efforts.”

Why do you doubt Fr’s description of why he hunts?

 

[Brendan]

Again Fr Robert admitted to not knowing much about this particular case and that is the whole crux of this debate. ?

Longing, if your point here is that at least one Zimbabwean hunting law was broken, I am in full agreement. That seems certainly to be the case.

But do you really consider Fr Robert’s knowledge of the hunting laws of his home country to be the crux of this debate??

 

[graciew]

Yes, park services derive a lot of their income from hunting permits. Why does that surprise you.

I know of very few hunters who object, in fact most appreciate that their money is being used for a good cause. Again, that should not be surprising.

Yes, all of those are valid reasons to hunt.

I think several did say that, but why does it have to be just one reason?

Here are the words of Fr Clessen from the article

Why do you doubt Fr’s description of why he hunts?

It neither surprises me nor I doubt their words.
I said I do not understand it and it does not make sense to me.
Unless it is for food,as one father explained,I cannot understand what church teaching ,nature appreciation,family bonding ,and has to do with hunting.
It is not hunting I object to if necessary,I simply do not understand how the justifications and explanations make it church teaching or the position of the church.

I also do not understand what a father says about giving and taking. Go hunting,then give money and then you are set. Maybe it is not the complete explanation so I do not want to make a mess.
The amount of money involved sincerely makes me wonder if there could be a more reasonable solution to create jobs for instance or protect wildlife.
And I have hunter friends and family,and I am well acquainted with nature and animals ,wild and domestic .but I cannot even shoot at the armadillos ( here " multitas") that have left our park as a Swiss cheese full of holes.
Maybe it is simply not the right article for me to understand the issue and that is it.

 

[Brendan]

It neither surprises me nor I doubt their words.
I said I do not understand it and it does not make sense to me.

I would propose then, that you try it. If one does not understand an activity, and if does not make sense, then the obvious solution would be to try it if possible.

 

[graciew]

I would propose then, that you try it. If one does not understand an activity, and if does not make sense, then the obvious solution would be to try it if possible.

My friend,I can shoot very well. Unfortunately,I have to practice in case of self defense from human beings
I wish I could tell you how my heart sinks when hearing the “bang " and an animal falls to the ground.
In any case,I will keep trying to understand . My family does not object yet to my " homilies” after their hunting. Broomstick still works for me…and animals look grateful.
God bless you.

 

[Brendan]

My friend,I can shoot very well. Unfortunately,I have to practice in case of self defense from human beings
I wish I could tell you how my heart sinks when hearing the “bang " and an animal falls to the ground.
In any case,I will keep trying to understand . My family does not object yet my " homilies” after their hunting. Broomstick still works for me…and animals look grateful.
God bless you.

That is all that anyone can ask

 

[FollowChrist34]

My friend,I can shoot very well. Unfortunately,I have to practice in case of self defense from human beings
I wish I could tell you how my heart sinks when hearing the “bang " and an animal falls to the ground.
In any case,I will keep trying to understand . My family does not object yet to my " homilies” after their hunting. Broomstick still works for me…and animals look grateful.
God bless you.

God bless you Gracie. I think you’re doing just fine - compassion is infinite; surely there is room for us in the Catholic Church. Rome saves not enslaves.

 

[Brendan]

God bless you Gracie. I think you’re doing just fine - compassion is infinite; surely there is room for us in the Catholic Church. Rome saves not enslaves.

Agree 100%

 

[FollowChrist34]

This is arguing fast and loose with Aquinas. Aquinas would argue that it is permissible to steal bread to feed a family because human beings have an inherent right under natural law to the food appropriately required to stay alive. A right exists for a starving man to eat bread to stay alive and a rich man does not have a right to hoard bread he does not need if hoarding that bread directly causes someone else to starve.

Human beings are not food for other human beings. Ergo we have no natural right to treat other human beings as if they are food OR to kill them in order to use them for food.

The other issue is how is it decided when the circumstances are dire enough to warrant killing and eating another human being? Would a mother facing the starvation of her five children be justified in killing one to feed the others? I don’t think so.

I would suggest the proper human answer is to hold to the position that we are all in this together. We all live or we all die. There is something much more proper, decent, moral and human in NOT succumbing to the temptation to regard one another as mere food (or, as you claim, merely animals.) We aren’t.

I suspect God would be more pleased with us if we were willing to die rather than turn one of our number into our next meal. There is something much more honorable in being willing to die by starvation rather than compromise the right of another to life.

I also suspect that God realizes – as we should – that our life on earth is merely a transition to eternal life. Why would we succumb to the temptation that our earthly existence must be preserved at all costs – even to taking the unprecedented step of murdering someone we love merely to preserve our own skin?

I am not sure where you are going with this, but I highly doubt that God’s request of Abraham would lead to making spare ribs of Isaac.

I also doubt that you understand the deeper meaning of this event and request. It wasn’t a proof test to demonstrate Abraham’s loyalty and faithfulness – it was an acknowledgement by Abraham of his guilt for being disobedient and distrustful of God. He knew he deserved to lose Isaac and was forfeiting back to God the greatest blessing that God had given him to that point since Isaac represented everything promised to Abraham by God – making him the father of a great nation through Isaac.

There is much more to this and your using the story to bolster your argument fails.

No, man is not merely “an animal.” Neither have you shown that killing and eating another human being is “a rational act.”

Just because some human beings abdicate their rationality, humanity and moral agency does not entail that humans are, therefore, animals. It is possible for human beings to make themselves less than they essentially are, but it would be impossible for a lesser being to bootstrap itself into a higher order of being, although the Mormon religion essentially teaches this.

I suggest you read a bit on the differences between vegetative, sentient and rational beings in the following article, appropriately called, “Stop It! You’re Killing Me.”
edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2014/03/stop-it-youre-killing-me.html

This is a gruesome question indeed. But I was quite surprised to find that Aquinas has discussed it. Different context though. What happens to the cannibal and the cannabilized person in terms of the resurrection. I believe it works out roughly to the cannibal not absorbing the material of the cannabilized - thus both rise on the last day. Never underestimate Thomas Aquinas. We are dabbling in situational ethics, no? Aquinas rejected cannibalism as a voluntary, pleasurable act, equating it with bestiality and homosexuality, but I can find nothing where he addressed it in the involuntary, consensual, survival context. So there is some room there. Assuming we had nothing better to do (which I hope is not the case), I believe we might be able to get to the act in this context bringing about a good, i.e., preserving life which in turn enhances the good of others. Especially if the cannabilism was consensual and for survival, and we now know both will rise on the last day. One slight hiccup might be if the act is always “intrinsically evil.” Not sure that is the right phrase, but you get the idea. Murder as self-dense is allowable so I don’t think we can just say it is always wrong to murder. Again, Aquinas never explicitly addressed the morality of cannabilism for survival. (to research and write up an argument for or against would take days; a school paper) - though I was amused to see that it is a question that has been tossed around philosophical forums - is cannibalism morally justified in a survival context. You can find arguments supporting yes and no.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Agree 100%

This is a big moment, B. We agree.

:extrahappy:

 

[FollowChrist34]

This is a gruesome question indeed. But I was quite surprised to find that Aquinas has discussed it. Different context though. What happens to the cannibal and the cannabilized person in terms of the resurrection. I believe it works out roughly to the cannibal not absorbing the material of the cannabilized - thus both rise on the last day. Never underestimate Thomas Aquinas. We are dabbling in situational ethics, no? Aquinas rejected cannibalism as a voluntary, pleasurable act, equating it with bestiality and homosexuality, but I can find nothing where he addressed it in the involuntary, consensual, survival context. So there is some room there. Assuming we had nothing better to do (which I hope is not the case), I believe we might be able to get to the act in this context bringing about a good, i.e., preserving life which in turn enhances the good of others. Especially if the cannibalism was consensual and for survival, and we now know both will rise on the last day. One slight hiccup might be if the act is always “intrinsically evil.” Not sure that is the right phrase, but you get the idea. Murder as self-defense is allowable, so I don’t think we can just say it is always wrong to murder. Again, Aquinas never explicitly addressed the morality of cannibalism for survival. (to research and write up an argument for or against would take days; a school paper) Though I was amused to see that it is a question that has been tossed around philosophical forums - is cannibalism morally justified in a survival context. You can find arguments supporting yes and no.

(I am just reposting my above post to correct several typos for the record - ran out of time in my edit window)

---

I wanted to post this interesting article from the National Review - pleading to the animal rights types to reconsider their support of Planned Parenthood and to broaden their moral outlook. Thank you NR.

I wonder whether those videos might reconfigure our moral landscape in one other way. For many years now, the similarities between the industrialized, cavalier trashing of human life and the industrialized, cavalier trashing of animal life have been plain for anyone to see — at least for people who could bear to look. No, I am not saying with PETA president Ingrid Newkirk that a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. I’m saying that visual evidence of the mistreatment of animals has changed society, its carnivores and its non-carnivores alike; that many more people than before want to disengage their consumer and other choices from animal suffering; and that maybe, just maybe, the Planned Parenthood footage will make other people out there think twice about the moral connection between born animals and unborn human beings.

Read more at: nationalreview.com/article/422305/animal-lovers-should-abhor-planned-parenthood

 

[qui_est_ce]

I do have to admit that you are right. I have read that the crime was killing Cecil on property that did not have a quota for lions. Still, that’s a crime. Whether the dentist knew it or not, I don’t know, but I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he did not. The guides certainly did. I don’t know if the saying “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” holds in Zimbabwe or not. I do know they are proceeding with formal extradition. I’ve *not *been one calling for his lynching, and I think the signs and destruction of his property are just awful.

Still it bothers me that anyone ENJOYS KILLING - anything at all.- and I wouldn’t want to be around that kind of person. I don’t even enjoy killing a bug, but I will kill mosquitoes, spiders, and crickets if they get into the house, but they are welcome to stay on the lawn.

Funny, I eat meat, but I don’t kill insects. I throw them outside. I never let my kids step on bugs. Even worms, I put them back into the grass if they are on the sidewalk after a sprinkilng.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Funny, I eat meat, but I don’t kill insects. I throw them outside. I never let my kids step on bugs. Even worms, I put them back into the grass if they are on the sidewalk after a sprinkilng.

The mosquitoes in this area have been shown to be carrying West Nile (the city usually sprays), some of the spiders are poisonous and will crawl on you in your sleep and bite, and I give the crickets more than one chance, putting them back outside a few times, but if they insist on coming back in and keeping me up night after night, i will kill them. Some societies eat them. Not me. I, too, avoid stepping on things outdoors as well. That’s there milieu, not mine.

To all,

I don’t like hunting for pleasure, but if we’re talking about what law Dr. Palmer broke, it seems the only law he broke was killing Cecil on property that did not have a quota for lions, and it’s uncertain if he knew that to be the case. I wish Cecil hadn’t been killed, but people can’t lynch (figuratively, too) a man for a crime he didn’t commit.

Also, I don’t see that Brendan “manipulated” his email to Fr. Robert in any way. It was straightforward, and I’m sure Fr. Robert knew what Brendan was asking.

 

[estesbob]

Funny, I eat meat, but I don’t kill insects. I throw them outside. I never let my kids step on bugs. Even worms, I put them back into the grass if they are on the sidewalk after a sprinkilng.

I am the same way.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I am the same way.

You would let mosquitoes that might have West Nile bite you and your children and let poisonous spiders crawl on them before you would kill them? Yet you eat meat?

I’ve had West Nile, and other than feeling very tired, I wasn’t sick at all. However, one of my former professors had it, and he nearly died. I’ve been bitten by poisonous spiders as well. They weren’t the kind that could be fatal, but it took a full year before those bites were healed and my skin was back to normal. You’d risk that for yourself and your children? Yet you eat meat? I’m puzzled.

 

[qui_est_ce]

The mosquitoes in this area have been shown to be carrying West Nile (the city usually sprays), some of the spiders are poisonous and will crawl on you in your sleep and bite, and I give the crickets more than one chance, putting them back outside a few times, but if they insist on coming back in and keeping me up night after night, i will kill them. Some societies eat them. Not me. I, too, avoid stepping on things outdoors as well. That’s there milieu, not mine.

How do you know it’s the same cricket?

The crickets, cicadas, and katydids outside at this time of year are like a symphony. Can’t drown them out with A/C. Love them.

 

[estesbob]

You would let mosquitoes that might have West Nile bite you and your children and let poisonous spiders crawl on them before you would kill them? Yet you eat meat?

I’ve had West Nile, and other than feeling very tired, I wasn’t sick at all. However, one of my former professors had it, and he nearly died. I’ve been bitten by poisonous spiders as well. They weren’t the kind that could be fatal, but it took a full year before those bites were healed and my skin was back to normal. You’d risk that for yourself and your children? Yet you eat meat? I’m puzzled.

Yes-I never said I wasn’t strange. It was comforting to read Christines post and see i am not the only one who does this! Fortunately my children live in their own homes and can handle mosquitos anyway they want. Mt wife, BTW, is a vegetarian but smacks away when an insect gets near her. go figure.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

How do you know it’s the same cricket?

The crickets, cicadas, and katydids outside at this time of year are like a symphony. Can’t drown them out with A/C. Love them.

I admit, it was an assumption, LOL, but he seemed to be the only cricket around at the time. When he was silenced, all was silence except for the cicadas, which I enjoy because they stay in the trees and don’t try to invade the house.