Cecil the lion's killer revealed as American dentist

[LongingSoul]

My comment was with regard to your words and the false dichotomies that you so eagerly embrace.

You based your comment on the strawman you built first. I’ve already stated prior that hunting has a place in eco management. Being a country girl myself, I know that culling is necessary.

What we are discussing here is the type of activity that involves exorbitant amounts of money, a lot of fantasy (afterall there really isn’t much genuinely natural going on when a hunter has local helpers who lure prey into the site of is weapon and carry out all the dirty work that natural hunters undertake as part of the humbling reality of hunting wild beasts and basically comes home in his spotless designer safari gear each night. No natural accountability of the genuine hunter in relationship with the living creature he kills.)

This same character has been charged before with hunting a black bear 40 miles into a protected area. He has been charged with fishing without a license before. He has been charged with hunting his receptionists breast butt and genitals for which he settled out of court to the tune of some $130,000. And yet he remains a protected species. The archetypal ‘hunter’ who is above the law by his very title.

That’s the issue I have. He is a disgrace to hunters.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In case you missed it…

The dentist is a human being and he is owed certain moral rights that do not accrue to a lion. It is morally wrong to take from the dentist what are legitimately his merely because we do not like or agree with his actions. If he caused willful damage to the ecosystem by killing one lion then he could be made to pay towards restoring that harm, properly determined by the judicial system. But in no way did his actions cause him to forfeit his human rights. This is to treat him immorally. As is vilifying and condemning him without a proper trial. The public lynch-mob mentality that has been exhibited on social media is barbarism plain and simple.

 

[pianistclare]

Let’s try to be clear about the difference between human beings and animals.

Human beings are moral agents because we have the capacity for moral agency. That means EACH individual as an individual moral agent has a certain set of determinable rights – the right to life being one.

Having a right means other moral agents have an obligation to respect and uphold that right. In the case of a right to life, other individual human moral agents are obliged to respect the right to life of other individual human moral agents.

Please take note: animals are not moral agents. If they were, they would have obligations at the level of each individual to respect and uphold the rights of other moral agents. They could, therefore, be held responsible and liable for moral failures.

When was the last time a lion was held liable for killing a wildebeast or zebra? For eating its own offspring? The answer is pretty obvious. Lions are not MORALLY accountable BECAUSE they are NOT moral agents. Lions do what lions do. They are part of the natural order, not part of the moral order.

Animals do not have moral rights precisely because they are not moral creatures. Individual human beings, on the other hand, are capable of moral agency and, therefore, have moral rights at an individual level.

It is incorrect to speak of animal rights. It is NOT, however, incorrect to speak of animal welfare. Animals are part of a natural system, for which human beings ARE responsible. If animals had rights it would be as wrong to harm or kill any one individual without moral warrant as it would be to harm or kill its entire cohort. Clearly, this is not the case.

Animals that are as sentient capable as lions are killed every day for food. Humans have NO moral responsibility towards any one individual lion because lions do not have moral rights. If they did, the natural order would reflect the moral order and animals would NOT kill each other for their next meal and human beings wouldn’t either.

There is such a thing, however, as animal welfare. Human beings DO have responsibility towards animals as classes of beings. We are responsible for the well-being of each animal group – which is why environmentalism is morally laudable. We have responsibility for using the environment in such a way as to preserve and protect it and all the living creatures that are part of it and for its well-being as the abode of all living biological entities. We have responsibility for the whole, not for particular individual animals except to the extent that the welfare of the entire system is placed in jeopardy by their demise.

Individual animals exist for the good of the whole because that feature is intrinsic to the natural order. Individual moral agents, on the other hand, do not exist for the good of the whole. The whole exists for the good of each moral agent – that would be the true and objective GOOD of each moral individual, not merely to satisfy whims.

Note the difference.

Moral responsibility means we have obligations to uphold the rights of each individual human being as human being qua moral agent.

Environmental responsibility means we have responsibility for the welfare of the whole natural order. The life or existence of any one particular individual is NOT the concern except insofar as the whole is affected. That is why it is permissible to hunt for food provided that the hunting is sustainable and maintains the integrity of the environment within which that animal lives. That means our behaviour vis a vis the environment should reflect concern for the good or well-being of the whole and particular individual animals to the extent that their existence is required for maintaining the whole.

This is why, for example, that it IS permissible to destroy large numbers of animals infected with a disease that threatens the entire population, but a similar move would be immoral if human beings were involved. We would not ever choose to kill and burn human beings infected with, say, ebola, but, rather, do everything we can to save every life. That is because we intuitively know that each individual human being has intrinsic moral worth, but individual animals are not owed that level of obligation. At least there is not the moral warrant for that kind of obligation towards any one animal.

Yes. Thank you.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I will say this. The fact that we have reached the point where luxury killing of animals is our best bet in order to save them speaks for itself (think the Pope’s encyclical re the degraded state of man’s relationship to creation and himself). It IS time to re-examine our relationship to creation; maybe that is what all of this can lead to on a large public, secular scale, at least in terms of African wildlife and conservation efforts. I still think trophy hunting is morally reprehensible. Ecotourism I suspect could easily supplant it going forward; I can’t see ecotourism ever dying out and I can see wealthy Western nations and individuals supporting it more and more. I would go there in a heartbeat.

I apologize for clipping your post, but I’m only responding to this part.

You are absolutely right. The earth is Christ’s home. God created the world for Jesus and somehow humans got the idea that he created it for them. Most people have lost their connection to the earth and to the animals that populate it (including other humans). Culling may be necessary at times, I don’t deny that, but it’s a sad state of affairs, a sad commentary on the spirituality, or lack thereof, of men - and sometimes women - who enjoy killing for the sake of killing. What that says about someone I don’t even want to think about, but feel a moral obligation to do so.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Most people have lost their connection to the earth and to the animals that populate it (including other humans).

It seems to me that you are not helping to foster the “connection” of people to the earth since you claim it belongs to Christ and is HIS home. That would appear to make humans uninvited trespassers who wrongly think they have some kind of connection to the earth when they, in fact, don’t.

You also forget that the “meek” will inherit the earth. What do you suppose that means vis a vis from whence the endowment comes and for whom the earth was made?

You are absolutely right. The earth is Christ’s home. God created the world for Jesus and somehow humans got the idea that he created it for them.

I suspect humans got that idea from Genesis where God specifically gives Adam (mankind) the authority over the earth (dominion) by allowing him to name the creatures on it. The Old Testament and Jewish thought consistently held the idea that naming something endows the person doing the naming with power and authority over it. That is why the name of G-d is never used by Jews since that would entail man’s power over G-d. Instead the world Adonai or “Lord,” or some other “euphemism” was used whenever a reference to G-d was made.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Most people have lost their connection to the earth and to the animals that populate it (including other humans).

Although I don’t buy into the idea that city slickers are unconnected to the earth, as if the creations of man were from Mars, hunters are especially connected to the natural condition of the earth.

You can’t be a successful hunter without understanding connecting intimately with nature.

You can be a successful lawyer without knowing that lions eat gazelles and the occassional farmer.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

You based your comment on the strawman you built first.

Let’s roll the tape…

Unfortunately I don’t believe for a nano second that this dentist cares about culling and feeding the poor when he pays $55,000 to go to Africa, hires some locals to lure a lion to his vicinity and stalk and torture it for 40 odd hours.

You do believe that and and nothing will convince you otherwise. The modern world simply do not like being called out on the seven deadly sins if it doesn’t suit their lifestyle but rather than being uncharitable to point it out… it is the height of charity.

And…

Don’t worry FC34, some of us see your point clearly and agree. There is a weak spot in mankind that misinterprets mans dominance over beasts as a justification to exploit their existence without limitation… in the name of greed and lust. That’s what warrants another human voice to provide heartfelt defense against that attitude.

So there we have the elements of the false dichotomy to which I objected:

Either the hunter cared about “culling and feeding the poor” or he was stalking and torturing animals “in the name of greed and lust”.

So I ask again: do you really believe that these are the only two possible interpretations of hunting?

What we are discussing here is the type of activity that involves exorbitant amounts of money, a lot of fantasy (afterall there really isn’t much genuinely natural going on when a hunter has local helpers who lure prey into the site of is weapon and carry out all the dirty work that natural hunters undertake as part of the humbling reality of hunting wild beasts and basically comes home in his spotless designer safari gear each night. No natural accountability of the genuine hunter in relationship with the living creature he kills.)

This same character has been charged before with hunting a black bear 40 miles into a protected area. He has been charged with fishing without a license before. He has been charged with hunting his receptionists breast butt and genitals for which he settled out of court to the tune of some $130,000. And yet he remains a protected species. The archetypal ‘hunter’ who is above the law by his very title.

That’s the issue I have. He is a disgrace to hunters.

I don’t know enough about how lion hunts are normally conducted to offer an expert opinion but from what I’ve read this was not out of the norm. An argument can be had about bow (or crossbow) hunting vs. firearms but one certainly cannot argue that firearms are more natural. They obviously give the hunter a greater advantage.

And if he (or his guide) is guilty of poaching, let the justice system deal with that.

As for the amount spent, perhaps this is offensive to some. I don’t know what portion of that went into preservation of wildlife but it’s probably fair to say that the bulk of it went into the local economy one way or another. He had the money and that’s how he chose to spend it. Maybe you would prefer to tell him how to spend his money but that’s not your role in society.

I just can’t get worked up over the fact that Zimbabwe charges a lot of money for the privilage of culling their lions.

 

[DrTaffy]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this hunter hasn’t been formally charged with anything yet…has he?

Zimbabwe has applied for his extradition. That must surely include ‘formal charges’, must it not?

He said he trusted his hunting guides, one of which has been charged in the killing, and he believed that he had all necessary permits. Who here can state definitively that he’s lying?

I can definitively state that that does not exonerate him. It might mitigate the wrongdoing, but as I have said before there are some things, such as killing a large endangered animal, where one has to take responsibility oneself.

And yet this man has received death threats, has had his property vandalized, has had to hire armed guards, has had PETA calling for his hanging, and he had to close his Minnesota dental practice all without a trial.

Closing his business because no one would do business with him ever again is all on him. His fault. Sorry.

As for the rest, yes the animal rights crowd have in many cases gone way too far.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I spent an hour or so researching trophy hunting and wildlife conservation in Africa. I did not know much about it before this media explosion about the killing of Cecil. There is solid mainstream support of limited, regulated trophy hunting by conservation and biologist organizations.

The argument runs that trophy hunting generates revenue which goes back to land and wildlife conservation (and to local communities). I owe some apologies here. This is a highly controversial issue with many animal rights groups opposing killing animals for sport. These animal rights groups are not extreme or on the fringe. One of the arguments against trophy hunting I saw was that ecotourism achieves the same level of wildlife conservation and actually generates more revenue, without killing animals. The animal rights groups say the benefits of trophy hunting are often exaggerated and the extent of animal destruction downplayed.

Yet another problem is that governments of Africa are often involved in poaching rings and very corrupt themselves, thus of little help in terms of conservation. (Conservation and hunting are “white man’s” “elitist” concerns. I realize Africa has horrible poverty. But responsibility to its environment should not just be a white man’s elitist past-time.) Regulating trophy hunting is suspect and there are concerns that it is not regulated closely enough, i.e., too many animals killed and/or the revenue goes to private hands, not public and/or conservation. But there is good evidence that trophy hunting does increase wildlife populations and help conserve land.

All agree that trophy hunting is a complex, extremely controversial issue - to get to the bottom of it, i.e., whether it is good or bad, would take more time than I am willing to spend. But I wanted to post this in light of my earlier comments - it is only fair.

I will say this. The fact that we have reached the point where luxury killing of animals is our best bet in order to save them speaks for itself (think the Pope’s encyclical re the degraded state of man’s relationship to creation and himself). It IS time to re-examine our relationship to creation; maybe that is what all of this can lead to on a large public, secular scale, at least in terms of African wildlife and conservation efforts. I still think trophy hunting is morally reprehensible. Ecotourism I suspect could easily supplant it going forward; I can’t see ecotourism ever dying out and I can see wealthy Western nations and individuals supporting it more and more. I would go there in a heartbeat.

If we look at hunting in general much of it is done for recreation not unlike having a garden or going fishing on vacation. So, if you don’t wish to hunt you can feel free to abstain. I’m a hunter, and angler myself and while I fish for recreation, I hunt for meat. There is certainly nothing immoral about this. It’s not uncommon for outdoorsmen to say that they feel closer to God in the field than in church. The ones lucky enough to hunt in the wilderness after all are hunting in God’s garden. It has been the standard since the end of the market hunters ( when this ended it took subsistence hunting with it) to require outdoorsmen to pay for their sport. The Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act fws.gov/southeast/federalaid/pittmanrobertson.html
nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/PittmanRobertsonFacts.pdf
began the ball rolling in the USA. Many other nations have adopted similar acts and others have simply relied on wealthy outdoorsmen to pay the bill. This has benefited wildlife and non-sportsmen alike, for many years. It’s a good system that works well for us.

We can all agree I think, that what works for the western nations does not always work for Africa. Zimbabwe itself in a prime example of how different this part of the world is. Their Government is a peculiar mix of good intentions and outright corruption. We all know of the violence and pain brought about when the old white landowners were displaced and the lands were given to smaller holders. Some of us who are older and or spent time working in the area remember the tragic shift from colony to self determination. The end result is a nation with an abysmal human rights record and widespread poverty. So, an independent investigation will be the only way we can conclude what happened on this lion hunt and the question is who could conduct such an investigation?

One question I have for the future is what will happen when there are no longer enough outdoorsmen to foot the bill? Some “environmental” groups push for land to be handed over to trusts and private owners. This takes the lands and wildlife off of the public roll and curtails its enjoyment by the public in general. Not very different from the times when only the noblemen could hunt is it?

ATB

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

One question I have for the future is what will happen when there are no longer enough outdoorsmen to foot the bill? Some “environmental groups push for land to be handed over to trusts and private owners”. This takes the lands and wildlife off of the public roll and curtails its enjoyment by the public in general. Not very different from the times when only the noblemen could hunt is it?

Good points all, but I think this is worth focus.

Now matter how lands are owned and managed you are still left with the problem of culling. Even if all natural land were handed over to animal rights extremists they would still have to deal with that problem.

One way or another, people will end up killing lions.

In some parts of the US there is an explosion of wild pigs. WIld pigs are a threat to farmers and ranchers but they otherwise mostly leave human beings alone. But imagine if lions got out of control that way!

 

[adrift]

I apologize for clipping your post, but I’m only responding to this part.

You are absolutely right. The earth is Christ’s home. God created the world for Jesus and somehow humans got the idea that he created it for them. Most people have lost their connection to the earth and to the animals that populate it (including other humans). Culling may be necessary at times, I don’t deny that, but it’s a sad state of affairs, a sad commentary on the spirituality, or lack thereof, of men - and sometimes women - who enjoy killing for the sake of killing. What that says about someone I don’t even want to think about, but feel a moral obligation to do so.

Your statement is in disagreement with what the Church teaches. Again you do not have a link as per moderator’s request.
Catechism

358 God created everything for man,222 but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him:
What is it that is about to be created, that enjoys such honour? It is man that great and wonderful living creature, more precious in the eyes of God than all other creatures! For him the heavens and the earth, the sea and all the rest of creation exist. God attached so much importance to his salvation that he did not spare his own Son for the sake of man. Nor does he ever cease to work, trying every possible means, until he has raised man up to himself and made him sit at his right hand.223
222 Cf. GS 12 # 1; 24 # 3; 39 # 1.

223 St. John Chrysostom, In Gen. sermo 2, 1: PG 54, 587D-588A.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As for the amount spent, perhaps this is offensive to some. I don’t know what portion of that went into preservation of wildlife but it’s probably fair to say that the bulk of it went into the local economy one way or another. He had the money and that’s how he chose to spend it. Maybe you would prefer to tell him how to spend his money but that’s not your role in society.

I just can’t get worked up over the fact that Zimbabwe charges a lot of money for the privilage of culling their lions.

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.

That is why every Tom, Dick and Ashley (and every other man, or woman, on the street) feels free (and obligated) to voice their immediate and thoughtless impressions on the matter as if the uninformed opinions of the masses weigh as much in the determination of the right thing to do as those of environmental experts.

It isn’t as if we ought to stop and be informed on the issue before voicing an opinion – no, we ought to freely mouth off and castigate merely because we FEEL like it… you know… free speech and all.

I will be so glad when, so-called, modern western culture gets past this whiny, intolerable, narcissistic, adolescent stage it seems to have reverted to for the past 50 years.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Closing his business because no one would do business with him ever again is all on him. His fault. Sorry.

As for the rest, yes the animal rights crowd have in many cases gone way too far.

No, the closure of his business has more to do with the disproportionate and callous attack on the man by the mob. If he did wrong, the mob ought to refrain from hijacking the course of justice and allow the proper authorities to deal with the issue rather than dictating the terms of settlement and meting out punishment before the judicial system can even bring the man to trial and an appropriate finding of guilt can even occur.

It is, disturbingly, another example of so-called “social libertarians” flexing their mob-control muscles in the name of liberty. Unfortunately, the mob hasn’t yet realized it is being controlled and dictated to at every turn – the complete opposite of a truly free society of free men. It is dictatorship by social control and manipulation.

It is the kind of control that wrecked its vengeance on Brendan Eich, on the Kleins, on Indiana and on any other poor souls who happen to not see eye-to-eye with the mind molders*.

*As in those who are causing minds to mold, as in…

mold (mōld)
n.

1. a. Any of various filamentous fungi that grow on and contribute to the decay of organic matter.
   b. A growth of such fungi.
2. Any of various other saprophytic or parasitic organisms that resemble fungi, such as slime molds or water molds.
   intr.v. mold·ed, mold·ing, molds
   To become moldy.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

I apologize for clipping your post, but I’m only responding to this part.

You are absolutely right. The earth is Christ’s home. God created the world for Jesus and somehow humans got the idea that he created it for them. Most people have lost their connection to the earth and to the animals that populate it (including other humans). Culling may be necessary at times, I don’t deny that, but it’s a sad state of affairs, a sad commentary on the spirituality, or lack thereof, of men - and sometimes women - who enjoy killing for the sake of killing. What that says about someone I don’t even want to think about, but feel a moral obligation to do so.

Peter, sometimes I forget I have to spell everything out or people are going to take it the wrong way, whether deliberately or not.

Man does have dominion over the earth, of course, until Jesus’ Second Coming and his establishment of his Kingdom. However, men and women are doing a terrible job of taking care of the earth that was given to them as caretakers. They are polluting it by every means known to them and disrespecting it in every way possible. They are disrespecting God’s creatures - animals and other humans. Trophy killing, abortion, pollution, and more are destroying humankind’s home and Christ’s future (for humans it’s in the future) kingdom. I know you love to debate philosophical issues, but I’m not up to that today, and I’m not your philosophical equal anyway. You could get the best of me easily on my very best day. I really disliked my philosophy courses in school.

 

[Brendan]

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.

Dear Fr Robert.

There has been much news in the US about the lion that was recently killed by an American Dentist.

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

Best Regards,

Brendan

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

Dear Mr. Brendan,

Many Greetings,

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

We greatly respect the hunters, and other visitors to our country. They bring much needed monies for our economy and create much needed jobs.

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.

Please consider a visit to Zimbabwe on your next visit to Africa. If I am returned at that time, it would give me great pleasure to receive you.

In Christ,

Fr Robert.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

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

Well done!

 

[FollowChrist34]

You based your comment on the strawman you built first. I’ve already stated prior that hunting has a place in eco management. Being a country girl myself, I know that culling is necessary.

What we are discussing here is the type of activity that involves exorbitant amounts of money, a lot of fantasy (afterall there really isn’t much genuinely natural going on when a hunter has local helpers who lure prey into the site of is weapon and carry out all the dirty work that natural hunters undertake as part of the humbling reality of hunting wild beasts and basically comes home in his spotless designer safari gear each night. No natural accountability of the genuine hunter in relationship with the living creature he kills.)

This same character has been charged before with hunting a black bear 40 miles into a protected area. He has been charged with fishing without a license before. He has been charged with hunting his receptionists breast butt and genitals for which he settled out of court to the tune of some $130,000. And yet he remains a protected species. The archetypal ‘hunter’ who is above the law by his very title.

That’s the issue I have. He is a disgrace to hunters.

I agree with you. I still can’t see my way to a serious Christian embracing trophy hunting. It is clear that Africa derives revenue from trophy hunting - but it doesn’t seem like anyone wants to look at the ethics of that too seriously - and what it says about the state of man’s relationship to creation and capitalism. Objectification and desecration. We just accept it as ok because we are men and they are animals.

I personally (and I speak solely for myself here) find this argument repugnant - I don’t care who gives it to me.

To me the “inevitability”/necessity/justification of trophy hunting is on the same trajectory as selling aborted human fetal body parts to stem cell research to cure cancer. Sounds good. Objectification and desecration. Before anyone flips out and accuses me of equating the two - calm down, I am not. Let’s put trophy hunting at point (1) and Planned Parenthood at point (10) or (100) or (1,000,000) (as you wish) on the trajectory. But it is the same trajectory, whether we like it or not. I think we have become so degraded and lifeless we cannot even understand what it is to respect each other and the creation around us. And I keep getting this cant about man’s divinity which I believe, no worries, but the reality of what man does to this planet is disgusting and lower than animals. He has just about destroyed it. When a lion drops a nuclear bomb, I’ll retract these comments.

Kierkegaard was right. On these grounds, faith is absurd. What is rational is not rational or even really true. Problem.

 

[pianistclare]

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

Thank you. Of course he’s correct.
Well done.

 

[Brendan]

Thank you. Of course he’s correct.
Well done.

They do train priests well there (and in Rome).

 

[Brendan]

It is clear that Africa derives revenue from trophy hunting - but it doesn’t seem like anyone wants to look at the ethics of that too seriously

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.

Kierkegaard was right. On these grounds, faith is absurd. What is rational is not rational or even really true. Problem.

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