Cecil the lion's killer revealed as American dentist

[FollowChrist34]

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

Slight correction: I didn’t accuse the man (Fr. Robert) of not following teaching. I said I question the teaching. Nothing against him. And I rarely if ever intentionally veil anything… that is one thing you will never have to worry about.

 

[Brendan]

Slight correction: I didn’t accuse the man (Fr. Robert) of not following teaching. I said I question the teaching. Nothing against him. And I rarely if ever intentionally veil anything… that is one thing you will never have to worry about.

Do you question that his response is in accord with Catholic on the matter, Ir do you question that the Catholic teaching is the morally true one?

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

The priest said he didn’t know enough about this case of offer an answer regarding the killing of Cecil so you just can’t use his side note generalisation as your trump card. I could just as easily ask a priest ‘is it moral for me to belt my kids for disobedience’ for him to say I don’t know about your case but corporal punishment is not immoral. How does he know my kids are in their 20’s?? Do I take that as the permission to go around belting my kids for swearing (which the boys unfortunately do and I dislike immensely)? Of course not. It is a very nuanced question and deserves a deeply nuanced answer.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Do you question that his response is in accord with Catholic on the matter, Ir do you question that the Catholic teaching is the morally true one?

The latter, sort of. Let me qualify -

I take St Francis on compassion toward animals - I posted that quote days ago it seems (will repost if you need it) - then I add the CCC quote about not doing anything contrary to the dignity of animals or creation (that quote too has been on this thread a few times now) and I get a NO to trophy hunting. I can see how someone would argue that the needs of the poor justify trophy hunting proceeds in Africa, especially with conservation groups also arguing that hunting helps preserve land and wildlife. I guess I believe that you can go either way here according to your conscience and still come out a good Catholic. I am not surprised at Fr. Robert saying what he said. Local populations are often very opposed to environmental protections because of economic reasons. Look at the rain forest for example. Try and lecture local farmers about that. Does the Catholic Church in Brazil back the farmers who desperately need land to live and who tear down rain forest land? Who knows. Probably.

 

[LongingSoul]

The latter, sort of. Let me qualify -

I take St Francis on compassion toward animals - I posted that quote days ago it seems (will repost if you need it) - then I add the CCC quote about not doing anything contrary to the dignity of animals or creation (that quote too has been on this thread a few times now) and I get a NO to trophy hunting. I can see how someone would argue that the needs of the poor justify trophy hunting proceeds in Africa, especially with conservation groups also arguing that hunting helps preserve land and wildlife. I guess I believe that you can go either way here according to your conscience and still come out a good Catholic. I am not surprised at Fr. Robert saying what he said. Local populations are often very opposed to environmental protections because of economic reasons. Look at the rain forest for example. Try and lecture local farmers about that. Does the Catholic Church in Brazil back the farmers who desperately need land to live and who tear down rain forest land? Who knows. Probably.

That’s where common sense and compassion can meet honourably with the environment. In Australia, certain local aboriginal communities have permission to fish dugong and marine turtles and other protected species since it is done for survival and preservation of the traditional community life. Luckily Australia is not tempted by big foreign money to compromise sustainability and respect for these creatures. Africa on the other hand is ripe for exploitation.

 

[Brendan]

The priest said he didn’t know enough about this case of offer an answer regarding the killing of Cecil

About the LEGALITY of the hunt, not about the hunt itself

so you just can’t use his side note generalisation as your trump card. I could just as easily ask a priest ‘is it moral for me to belt my kids for disobedience’ for him to say I don’t know about your case but corporal punishment is not immoral. How does he know my kids are in their 20’s?? Do I take that as the permission to go around belting my kids for swearing (which the boys unfortunately do and I dislike immensely)? Of course not. It is a very nuanced question and deserves a deeply nuanced answer.

Ah, but the priest was talking about a specific incident, was he not?

Let’s look at that part specifically

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.

So what is Fr saying is the sin here?

Also, I would still like to hear your answer on how I manipulated him with my coining of the
question.

As a reminder, here is my 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

So could you tell me EXCATLY how I manipulated this unsuspecting priest

 

[Brendan]

Also Longing,

What is your recommendation on a seminary to contact about this, Good Shepherd in Sydney good enough for you?

 

[FollowChrist34]

That’s where common sense and compassion can meet honourably with the environment. In Australia, certain local aboriginal communities have permission to fish dugong and marine turtles and other protected species since it is done for survival and preservation of the traditional community life. Luckily Australia is not tempted by big foreign money to compromise sustainability and respect for these creatures. Africa on the other hand is ripe for exploitation.

Exactly. I am kind of on board with the trophy hunting / save wildlife argument until I remember that that lion wandered around wounded for 40 hours…killing is killing; compassion is compassion. And for what. So that its head will sit in a private collection in the USA for viewing by a dentist and friends. (Oh, and welcome to the new face of Christianity, folks.)

 

[FollowChrist34]

Also Longing,

What is your recommendation on a seminary to contact about this, Good Shepherd in Sydney good enough for you?

Just fyi I was joking about Marx - he has enough on his plate. I didn’t email him.

 

[LongingSoul]

About the LEGALITY of the hunt, not about the hunt itself

so you just can’t use his side note generalisation as your trump card. I could just as easily ask a priest ‘is it moral for me to belt my kids for disobedience’ for him to say I don’t know about your case but corporal punishment is not immoral. How does he know my kids are in their 20’s?? Do I take that as the permission to go around belting my kids for swearing (which the boys unfortunately do and I dislike immensely)? Of course not. It is a very nuanced question and deserves a deeply nuanced answer.

Ah, but the priest was talking about a specific incident, was he not?

Let’s look at that part specifically

So what is Fr saying is the sin here?

Also, I would still like to hear your answer on how I manipulated him with my coining of the
question.

As a reminder, here is my question

So could you tell me EXCATLY how I manipulated this unsuspecting priest

What the majority of people… Catholic/Christian people are questioning is the practice of wealthy foreign tourist trophy hunters… not hunting in general. They are not hunting for food. They are not hunting for the prowess of a hunter (since they hire locals to do the finding and all the follow up dirty work). They are not empathetic to overpopulation and culling (since they support purpose breeding of lions solely for this type of killing).

They are there for the thrill of the kill and to display parts of the animal in their homes for prideful decoration and pictures of them standing over a dead beast flashing their ultra white teeth and spotless safari suits. Without the dead animal underfoot, it’s just a comical picture but the sensibilities that are stirred in normal people regarding what has happened in such a scene, is something that goes right to the basic relationship that humans have with all creation.

 

[Brendan]

What the majority of people… Catholic/Christian people are questioning is the practice of wealthy foreign tourist trophy hunters… not hunting in general.

And Father did address that, did he not? He stated that they were respected.

They are not hunting for food. They are not hunting for the prowess of a hunter (since they hire locals to do the finding and all the follow up dirty work). They are not empathetic to overpopulation and culling (since they support purpose breeding of lions solely for this type of killing).

Where is the requirement that hunting be for food. And yes, it most certainly IS for prowess, one of the best ways of learning is by leveraging an expert.

They are there for the thrill of the kill and to display parts of the animal in their homes for prideful decoration and pictures of them standing over a dead beast flashing their ultra white teeth and spotless safari suits.

And Fr Robert did not know enough about this man to address his intent, but somehow YOU do. How is that?

Without the dead animal underfoot, it’s just a comical picture but the sensibilities that are stirred in normal people regarding what has happened in such a scene,

Fr Robert did not seem to be particularly stirred by it. Are you stating that he is abnormal?

is something that goes right to the basic relationship that humans have with all creation.

Yes, the lion has the same relationship to us that the ant on our kitchen counter has. Or the carrot in our garden
No more, no less.

 

[Brendan]

And you STILL have not shown how my question to Fr Robert was coined to manipulate him

Once again, here is my 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

 

[Peter_Plato]

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?

Nope.

I suspect this is part of the difference in outlook between us. You view humans and animals as fundamentally the same kind of creature with humans being slightly advantaged in terms of capabilities. That would mean the behaviours you permit towards animals (kill and eat for food) would apply, all things being equal, to humans. (You did claim, above, that you would kill and eat another human being, correct?

My perspective is that human beings are fundamentally different from animals. Sure we share biological traits, but the difference is that humans have the capacity to exist as spiritual and eternal beings – this is why moral obligations apply with regard to the treatment of individual human beings but do not apply to individual animals.

Oh, sure, animals that are regarded as pets can legitimately be treated “as if” they are fellow members of the human race, but when push comes to shove they simply are not. You admit as much by claiming you would eat an animal if you were starving. That is where I would draw the line. I would not kill and eat another human being – I’d choose to starve.

I would suggest you read CS Lewis on the humanizing effects on animals who are kept as pets. He argues that a dog, for example, in the company of human beings takes on human-like characteristics which change the moral character of how they are to be treated to a degree. In a sense, moral principles apply vicariously to pets to some degree as a result of their becoming more human-like. I’ll have to find the reference for you.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Exactly. I am kind of on board with the trophy hunting / save wildlife argument until I remember that that lion wandered around wounded for 40 hours…killing is killing; compassion is compassion. And for what. So that its head will sit in a private collection in the USA for viewing by a dentist and friends. (Oh, and welcome to the new face of Christianity, folks.)

Exactly. I am kind of on board with the trophy hunting / save wildlife argument until I remember that that lion wandered around wounded for 40 hours…killing is killing; compassion is compassion. And for what. So that its head will sit in a private collection in the USA for viewing by a dentist and friends. (Oh, and welcome to the new face of Christianity, folks.)

I don’t like the idea of trophy hunting, but I know people have to kill for food. I’m a vegetarian, but if I were starving and no plants were available, even I would kill and eat an animal (as a lifelong vegetarian, that alone might kill me!). Even though I hate trophy hunting and can’t reconcile the words “Christian” with “trophy hunter,” since it is legal, I have to “go along with it,” so to speak. It’s the 40 hours of suffering that Cecil endured that bother me most, too. And the fact that he was lured away from a protected area. (I know the guides did this, and I’ve heard that isn’t even illegal. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong.)

I am aware that Christ, in his incarnation at least, ate, and presumably he ate meat. We are told that after his resurrection he fired and ate fish. But Christ was also compassionate, ultra-compassionate. I cannot see Christ allowing any animal to suffer for 40 hours before it died. Since we are to configure ourselves to Christ (in as much as that is possible), I don’t see how anyone who calls himself or herself a Christian (and the dentist may now) can lure an animal, or allow one to be lured, from a protected area, then inflict 40 hours of suffering on the animal. Just because God gave man dominion over the animals doesn’t mean it’s okay for man to inflict suffering on them or hunt them down to display their heads in a “trophy room.” Dominion over them means seeking what’s best for them and caring for them as well as using them for food when necessary.

I’d like to know what a “trophy hunt” is a trophy of? I realize a World Series trophy says, “These baseball players displayed the greatest skill.” What does a head of a lion symbolize when guides had to lure it out of its sanctuary and it took 40 hours to kill it? That a man with a gun (and help from guides) can kill a non-armed animal after he’s disabled it with a bow and arrow? To me, that doesn’t take much skill. It’s akin to a Sherpa carrying one up Mt. Everest. Less because on the Zimbabwean savannah, one doesn’t have to face the dangers of high altitude.

I know I don’t want to be around the type of “Christian” who would trophy hunt, legal or not.

I have agreed with every post you’ve written, FC34. I hope you don’t allow yourself to be pressured into “giving in” to a less compassionate way of thinking. Maybe you would never do that, but I don’t know you beyond this board, so apologies if I’ve misread your posts.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Nope.

I suspect this is part of the difference in outlook between us. You view humans and animals as fundamentally the same kind of creature with humans being slightly advantaged in terms of capabilities. That would mean the behaviours you permit towards animals (kill and eat for food) would apply, all things being equal, to humans. (You did claim, above, that you would kill and eat another human being, correct?

My perspective is that human beings are fundamentally different from animals. Sure we share biological traits, but the difference is that humans have the capacity to exist as spiritual and eternal beings – this is why moral obligations apply with regard to the treatment of individual human beings but do not apply to individual animals.

Oh, sure, animals that are regarded as pets can legitimately be treated “as if” they are fellow members of the human race, but when push comes to shove they simply are not. You admit as much by claiming you would eat an animal if you were starving. That is where I would draw the line. I would not kill and eat another human being – I’d choose to starve.

I would suggest you read CS Lewis on the humanizing effects on animals who are kept as pets. He argues that a dog, for example, in the company of human beings takes on human-like characteristics which change the moral character of how they are to be treated to a degree. In a sense, moral principles apply vicariously to pets to some degree as a result of their becoming more human-like. I’ll have to find the reference for you.

Peter, children who are raised in the wild by animals (and it has happened - rarely - but it has happened) take on the characteristics of wild animals. Does that mean it’s morally okay to hunt them and eat them for food? Especially if one has nothing else to eat and would otherwise starve?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter, children who are raised in the wild by animals (and it has happened - rarely - but it has happened) take on the characteristics of wild animals. Does that mean it’s morally okay to hunt them and eat them for food? Especially if one has nothing else to eat and would otherwise starve?

This is where your dislike of philosophy probably handicaps how you make inferences from what people write. Merely because children are raised by animals does not fundamentally change their moral standing because of what kind of being children are. This is a question of ontology not behavioral psychology. Being raised by animals may suppress certain traits from being displayed socially or through mannerisms, but that does not change the kind of being human children are, essentially speaking. No, it would NOT be morally okay to hunt and eat them. However, it would be okay to use extraordinary means to bring out the human traits which have not presented themselves because of abnormal upbringing. It isn’t that these children would be incapable of moral thinking and behaviour, simply that those features may not have been developed in them.

I think Lewis’ point was that humanizing animals kept as pets makes them more human-like and explains why we tend to endow them with what is akin to moral rights, although he may have push a little harder than that to making a claim that humanize do pets are essentially changed towards being a different kind of creature than they would be in the wild - somewhat akin to how humans are raised to a new kind of being in Christ.

Now, you said you agree with EVERY post written by FC34 - keep in mind that s/he made the point that s/he WOULD kill and eat a fellow human being if the situation were sufficiently dire. Apparently, you AGREE with FC34 on that point, then?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

This is where your dislike of philosophy probably handicaps how you make inferences from what people write. Merely because children are raised by animals does not fundamentally change their moral standing because of what kind of being children are. This is a question of ontology not behavioral psychology. Being raised by animals may suppress certain traits from being displayed socially or through mannerisms, but that does not change the kind of being human children are, essentially speaking. No, it would NOT be morally okay to hunt and eat them. However, it would be okay to use extraordinary means to bring out the human traits which have not presented themselves because of abnormal upbringing. It isn’t that these children would be incapable of moral thinking and behaviour, simply that those features may not have been developed in them.

I think Lewis’ point was that humanizing animals kept as pets makes them more human-like and explains why we tend to endow them with what is akin to moral rights, although he may have push a little harder than that to making a claim that humanize do pets are essentially changed towards being a different kind of creature than they would be in the wild - somewhat akin to how humans are raised to a new kind of being in Christ.

Now, you said you agree with EVERY post written by FC34 - keep in mind that s/he made the point that s/he WOULD kill and eat a fellow human being if the situation were sufficiently dire. Apparently, you AGREE with FC34 on that point, then?

Thank you for clarifying that, and I do see your point. It’s not philosophy per se that I dislike so much as the argument that it provokes. I have an inherent dislike of argument, and philosophical arguments can go on forever with no resolution. I remember my very first Ancient Greek philosophy class when I encountered Plato’s forms. It was fascinating to me then, and it’s fascinating to me now. I just don’t like the endless debates.

Part of my response is definitely colored by the fact that I’ve always had intelligent cats and dogs as pets, who were just as much a part of the family as humans. Many of them treated me better than humans did. I am not fully recovered from being hit by a truck. I have a very intelligent cat who knows when I wake up my leg is going to be stiff for a bit. So, when he sees me getting up, he runs in to “help” me. He stands beside me until I do get up and am walking. Even when I still had to use a cane, there were big, strong men who would let a door slam in my face. So, I see more humanity, thoughtfulness, and compassion in my cat.

When people are starving, on in any way in danger of losing their lives, they do things they would not otherwise do. I do not think I could ever bring myself to kill another human being, however if I were the victim of a remote plane crash, for example, and someone was already dead I might eat that person if it were the only way to remain alive. But kill the person? I don’t think I could, but I have never been in a situation where my survival was dependent on eating another human, so I can’t say positively. The will to survive is very strong.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I would suggest you read CS Lewis on the humanizing effects on animals who are kept as pets. He argues that a dog, for example, in the company of human beings takes on human-like characteristics which change the moral character of how they are to be treated to a degree. In a sense, moral principles apply vicariously to pets to some degree as a result of their becoming more human-like. I’ll have to find the reference for you.

The Problem of Pain, Chapter 9, Animal Pain

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Part of my response is definitely colored by the fact that I’ve always had intelligent cats and dogs as pets, who were just as much a part of the family as humans. Many of them treated me better than humans did.

Indeed, I’d say this view of animals definitely colors animal rights activists, in general. Pets are elevated to humanity and wild animals are elevated to pets. People who have not been “mistreated” by wild animals are certainly not going to appreciate their indifference to human welfare.

Hunters, on the other hand, have, I think, a more nuanced view of animals and their “humanith” or lack thereof.

 

[estesbob]

And you STILL have not shown how my question to Fr Robert was coined to manipulate him

Once again, here is my question.

I suspect it’s because you didn’t corn your question as follows " father Robert what do you feel about the despicable killing of Cecil the lion by Rich white Dentist from the United States ?