Andrew Linzey is one of the most prolific writers on animals from a Christian perspective. In his newest book, Why Animal Suffering Matters, he offers (among other reflections) a much-needed critique of Peter Singer. While recognizing the fact that Singer has raised the issue of animal rights in the moderna era, Linzey points out that Singer’s own treatment of humanity contradicts his stand on animal rights. That is, he points out that Singer’s support for abortion, and even the killing of infants outside of the womb, ends up justifying the abuse of animals. Because Singer thinks it is acceptable to destroy one helpless form of life, he has already accepted the notion that other helpless forms of life (the rest of the animal world in relation to humanity) are free game. To protect animal rights, the rights of human children need to be enforced. Linzey points out that Singer’s justification is utilitarian – but once utilitarian justifications are accepted, human abuse of other animals becomes acceptable along similar lines.
It is a sad fact that many Christians have not examined the question of animal rights, because, if they did so, and embraced (within a proper perspective, of course) it would help, not hinder, human rights. It would help us realize the travesty of abortion that much more. As long as the world is seen as a playing field to be controlled for our benefit, utilitarian arguments for abortion will continue to have a place of value in our society. Our treatment of animals is just one example of this. Our treatment of our children is another. The treatment of both show the poor spiritual condition of our society today.
I’m really happy to see this issue brought up here, Henry. I’ve been meaning to do so for a while.
I think many american Christians do not think about animal rights because they don’t really think about human rights very deeply. In both cases they might ask, “Is this killing/abuse justified?” and then answer, “Well, I think it should be done, so yeah of course it’s justified.”
Ecologists and eco-theologians are rightly showing us that we can no longer think of human beings as having been given free reign over the rest of creation. For too long have we operated by the assumption that we are radically different from non-human animals. Without denying the proper distinctions between animals and human beings that have been made in Catholic moral theology, we can also see ourselves in continuity with them in various ways, particularly in our ability to feel pain and the desire to preserve our lives.
I’ve been impressed with Pope Benedict’s love for animals, seen for example here.
There are more and more Catholic and other Christian writers exploring these issues. You point out Linzey, who is really great. In addition to his new book, check out Animal Theology and the more popular Animal Gospel.
Catholic ethicist John Berkman has written a few really good articles on animals and the Catholic moral tradition. One of them is co-written with Stanley Hauerwas and it’s available here. In another article (I don’t have the reference handy but could get it) he explores the question of animals with the help of Evangelium Vitae.
Stephen Webb, a theologian who has gone off the americanist deep end, has nevertheless been very thoughtful when it comes to animals and has written a couple books on it. His book Good Eating is pretty good and makes a Christian case for vegetarianism that does not fall into the problems of Singer/PETA-type arguments.
One of the best books I’ve read on animals from a Christian perspective is Matthew Scully’s Dominion. He is a former speech writer for George W. Bush. Powerful book that will not leave you unchanged.
Although the Catechism says that it is permissible to use animals for clothing and food, this additional passage sums up nicely the most basic reason I became a vegetarian almost ten years ago:
It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. (no. 2418)
Michael
One of these days I plan to do my own book on Animal Theology. While we have seen some works going on in this issue, I plan to bring my cosmic view via Maximus and Sophiology into it, and show why I believe that animals have immortal souls and relative levels of reason.
I really wish when I had a class with Berkman, the class was what it sounded like, “Theology of the Environment.” That it was on architecture and the built environment was not what I originally wanted, but, as a whole, I did get introduced to some thinkers and resources I did not know of because of it (Ellul, among others).
But it is a serious issue. And it is one which I think is due to have a serious level of theological development, if not from me, from others, sooner than later.
Oh, and I would like to see what kind of post you could do. I really am serious about this issue, even if I don’t post on it much. I’ve had some debates with friends on the rationality of animals before.
I do think Peter Singer has becomes the excuse for too many Christians to ignore our responsibility to animals. It’s sad, since some of what he says is good.
Scully’s book is fantastic on the emotional and rational lives of animals.
I’ve also seen a few books on animals from the Orthodox perspective. It seems that, considering the East’s general respect for creation, that the animal piece would fit right into that.
Michael
Yes, there are some good sources in the Orthodox tradition on this. Clement apparently was doing some work and thought on animals — though I only know about this from a discussion of it in another book on Ecology from the Orthodox perspective published by SVS.
I’ve been slowly thinking on the issue and collecting resources because when I do my writing, I want to back up what I have to say, both on history and in theology.
I just wish more Christians took notice of this developing theological tradition.
I just wish more Christians took notice of this developing theological tradition.
What? Theology develops? Tradition develops?!
I don’t think the problem is just Singer.
Unfortunately, an inverse relationship between respect for animal rights and respect for human rights is observable over the past 50 years. While it might be considered moral progress that large numbers of people in our society now have a respect for animals that is unprecidented, In that same society, over the same time-frame respect for human rights has decliend precipitously. We have world-wide levels of slavery and involutary servitude that many thought were a thing of the past a generation ago. And our attitude towards unborn children are more similar to those of pagan antiquity than to the attitudes and respect people had in the 50s.
I don’t think that the poor thinking of Peter Singer can, by itself account for this. It seems a contradiction.
There should not be animal rights, God gave man dominion over all things on the earth. That said, animals should be treated humanely when slaughtered and tame animals should be given food and drink but not animal rights.
animals should be treated humanely
This is what we mean by animal rights. We do not mean they should be given rights like the right to vote.
Harry
God gave man dominion for a purpose — not to use and abuse the earth, but to tend to it and help it. And Michael is right, when talking about animal rights, we have to discern what those rights are, just as we have to determine what rights humanity have. Indeed, I think the rights of different animals will probably be different, and so it is not just one thing for all. But once we understand the purpose of our dominion (as St Maximus the Confessor points out, it’s to be a mediator to the world, including to the animal kingdom) then that will begin to show how we are to discern those rights, too.
Michael I-
I was wondering if you could give any more context to CCC #2418. I see how you interpret that to imply the moral necessity of vegetarianism. It seems a little incongruous to think that the authors mean what you take it to mean– given the lack of any visible movement condemning eating meat among the laity, clergy, or the curia. It seems that if they really intended to condemn eating meat when it was not absolutely necessary for one’s diet, we would have heard more about this somewhere. Your comment, while it makes perfect sense, almost seems like some sort of hidden teaching of Catholicism as if you are one of a few people who know that the Catholic Church really teaches that most people (who don’t have some sort of strange dietary requirement that they eat mean) sin by eating meat.
Do you know if there has been any discussion of exactly why they put that into the Catechism or what they intended by writing it?
Michael Enright –
I don’t interpret no. 2418 to imply a universal moral necessity of vegetarianism. Sorry if that’s how you understood me. I take it to mean exactly what it says: causing needless suffering to animals is wrong. I think it is a moral teaching that we have to bring to our own contexts. In my case, I think eating meat would cause needless suffering to animals. I don’t need to eat meat. While I would argue that a large portion of humanity also does not need to eat meat, I would not elevate my own experience to a universal.
Nor would I suggest that I have some secret knowledge of “true” Catholic teaching regarding meat eating. I find it somewhat strange that you would suggest that latter point. I have not implied any such thing, yet you feel the need to make an soft accusation of gnosticism? Is that fair?
It’s strange that you aren’t aware of “visible movements” against eating meat in our tradition. Various religious orders do not eat meat. There are various cases in which Catholics are called to abstain from eating meat. Various saints were vegetarians. Looking more ecumenically and more contemporarily, there is a movement called the Christian Vegetarian Association. Vegetarianism is not foreign to the Catholic Christian tradition.
Do you know if there has been any discussion of exactly why they put that into the Catechism or what they intended by writing it?
I think my attention was drawn to that passage because it was quoted in some article I was reading. May have been one of the John Berkman articles I mentioned above. Again, I think the intention is very straightforward: it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer when there is no need to do so. Killing them for meat or clothing could be a necessity, and therefore not always morally wrong. But the passage does seem to suggest that Catholics should stop and think about their relationship to animal suffering and whether or not it is really necessary. That’s what I ended up doing in my own prayer and reflection, and the answer I came up with is that, as a Catholic, I should give up eating meat.
Michael I.-
I think that the obvious conclusion to your interpretation is that millions of Catholics need to give up eating meat. This is actually pretty tight argument. If causing needless suffering to animals is wrong, and we both agree that most people don’t technically need to eat meat to have a healthy diet, then the only possible conclusion is that most people are morally wrong to eat meat. You can soften it with qualifying phrases, but I don’t see how this is not the obvious conclusion. It is almost as if you are trying to avoid the obvious conclusion of your interpretation.
And yes, there are obviously a number of Catholic vegetarians. Although, I really can’t think of any orders. But they aren’t to my knowledge saying that eating meat is objectively wrong when it is not necessary for one’s personal diet. If it is not something that is morally obligatory, it would appear to be more of a personal preference.
However, most of the church eats meat. I don’t see how you avoid, given your interpretation,the conclusion that most people are committing an objective sin for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I’m not aware of any significant reform movement in the Church that is saying that it is wrong for most people to eat meat. I haven’t heard any bishops, cardinals, curial officials, or even moral theologians out there telling us not to eat meat. I’m not even aware of any pastors telling their congregation not to eat meat.
And, no, I didn’t intend to make an accusation of soft gnosticism. I’m sorry it came out that way.
Michael Enright –
You seem to have repeated yourself a good deal. I’m not sure what else I can say about this.
I think that the obvious conclusion to your interpretation is that millions of Catholics need to give up eating meat.
I would certainly say that I think millions of Catholics should give up eating meat. Do they need to? That’s for them to reflect on and decide. I definitely think this is one area where the Church simply could not give a definitive, objective moral rule. Too many cultural factors are at work. What we have is a very good principle, mentioned in the Catechism, that we can apply in various cultural contexts and decide accordingly. As it stands, it seems to be a very rigorous moral guideline!
Although, I really can’t think of any orders. But they aren’t to my knowledge saying that eating meat is objectively wrong when it is not necessary for one’s personal diet.
No orders that I know of say it’s “objectively” wrong, no. That would seem to contradict the Church’s general view. I’m not aware of any orders that make vegetarianism an absolute rule. Even the ones who generally hold to a vegetarian diet will make exceptions.
However, most of the church eats meat. I don’t see how you avoid, given your interpretation,the conclusion that most people are committing an objective sin for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
It’s certainly a complex issue. I think most Catholics simply don’t think about what they eat. Ignorance certainly takes away from personal guilt to some degree. On the other hand, I have met Catholics (and others) who ridicule vegetarians — myself, to my face, for example — and who gloat about the fact that human beings are “meant” to dominate animals and enjoy the flavor and nourishment that their corpses provide. It’s a type of gluttony that even seems to revel in the bloody details of meat eating (“Mmm this dead cow is delicious! Does this bother you?” or “If God didn’t want us to eat animals he wouldn’t have made them out of meat,” etc. etc.). I do think that’s sinful, and it’s also quite common. But no, I would not use the term “objective sin” unless one’s consciousness included these kinds of gluttonous attitudes.
I haven’t heard any bishops, cardinals, curial officials, or even moral theologians out there telling us not to eat meat. I’m not even aware of any pastors telling their congregation not to eat meat.
I’m not aware of any pastors who told their soldier parishioners that they might want to think about staying home from Iraq either, so I’m not sure what they really have to do with it.
There are moral theologians studying these issues. We have referenced some above.
Apart from the “Do I personally need to eat meat” question is the more social-economic-political question of factory farming and the systemic abuse of animals in various industries that use animals. Even if one could in good conscience decide that he or she “needs” to eat meat, the treatment of animals in these industries is a reality that any Christian or person of good will who eats or wears animals must take seriously. Pope Benedict has even spoken out against abuse of animals. If one is going to continue eating meat, he or she should look into alternatives to factory farming.
You seem to be obsessed with “objective moral truth,” perhaps in a disordered way. But since that is probably not possible in this case, let me ask you: Do you find the Catechism compelling on this issue? Do you find my interpretation, and my own ethical conclusion and praxis persuasive? Has it made you stop and think about your own eating practices? Even aside from the meat question, reflection on what we eat in general is important for people of faith. As the saying goes, eating is a moral act.
It depends on the meaning of the statement from the Catechism. How far does one need to go before they have eliminated unnecessary animal suffering? If you are to avoid all animal suffering that is not strictly necessary, then no, I don’t find it compelling. My intent (probably poorly executed)was to argue that this interpretation is probably not what was meant by the authors and editors of the Catechism. If they meant that, I assume they would have gone to greater lengths to challenge the many instances of animal suffering that are not strictly necessary(in places other than one obscure of the CCC that I have never seen referenced before).
So, no, I don’t take what I think your interpretation is to be compelling. I definitely don’t find your practices necessary.
As to how to interpret this statement and what practices to avoid, well, I’m not sure. I probably need to reflect more on the topic. I guess I don’t see myself as inflicting gratuitous suffering on animals, but that is probably a weaker standard than what the Catechism is teaching.
I have to wonder about citing various saints and orders as vegetarians. Were the saints (and modern orders) you mention primarily concerned about animal suffering, or were they more interested in self denial? I don’t know for sure, but it doesn’t seem to me that the line of thinking you present has been all that common in the first 2000 years of Christianity.
The meaning of the statement in the Catechism is straightforward. Most of the statements in the Catechism are straightforward, as it is a teaching document. Not a novel or poem. It’s not the meaning of the statement that you have a problem with but with the praxis that is supposed to flow from it. As you point out, that’s not simply easy to read off a page. Moral decisions are rarely ever easy to read off a page. Again, I think your obsession with objective truth and easy answers prevents you from taking the passage seriously.
I wonder about your comment that this is an “obscure” passage from the CCC that you “have never seen referenced before.” Does that matter? Is it surprising that you have not seen it referenced before?
Also curious is the way you are placing animal suffering and self-denial in opposition, as if they have nothing to do with one another or as if the vegetarian saints either were vegetarians because they were concerned about animal suffering or because they were interested in self-denial. The two in fact have very much to do with one another. Fasting and self-denial, as you know, are not goods in and of themselves but are connected to other realities, one of which is the social dimension of these practices, an attempt to live simply in the face of poverty for example.
You are right that this way of viewing animals is not “all that common” in the history of the Church. So what? Christianity is hardly a mere repetition of what has been done and what has been thought in the past but a creative engagement with the tradition in the present. That’s what Christianity has always been.
Fasting is voluntarily giving up something that is good or at least of neutral value in order to obtain spiritual benefit. Avoiding unnecessary animal suffering is not giving up something one sees as good, but giving up an evil (unnecessary animal suffering). They are two independent things. You can’t count a saint’s avoidance of meat (and other expensive foods) as implying an interest in avoiding animal suffering. Sometimes it may include both or ideas between the two. But they action doesn’t imply one motivation or the other. Just because they restrict themselves to bread and water doesn’t mean one thing about their opinions regarding animal welfare.
Yes. I do expect it to be referenced commonly. If the Church really intends to say that modern praxis is drastically off, they would be shouting it from the rooftops. As it is we have one sentence in the CCC.
I also expect the Church to have historically basically hold correct moral views. That is part of what it appears to mean to be the Church. Christianity is not a repetition of what has been done. It is appropriate to use traditional ideas of Christian morality in modern situations. Adapting to the modern world does not mean using modern progressive ethical sensitivities as a source alongside the Bible, patristics, and the magisterium.
As a question, if someone takes part in unnecessary animal suffering, is that a mortal sin and should they mention it in confession?
1) On fasting you are neglecting the social dimension of fasting as it developed historically.
2) Puzzling that you are attempting to discredit a passage from the Catechism merely by noting that it is rarely discussed. I’m no fundamentalist when it comes to the Catechism, but your approach here does not seem to take that document very seriously. It’s as if you think it must be a mistake. Or that is is not worth reflecting on or thinking about.
3) I think the Church has had basically correct moral views. But those have evolved. Respect for animals is part of our tradition. This line from the Catechism is in that stream of tradition and seems to make a pretty radical statement about the dignity of non-human life. This is to be welcomed, not waved aside.
4) As for your question, it is too vague. Too many variables. You are clearly looking for black and white answers, either for your own edification so you can have a perfect moral system with no grey areas, or probably more accurately, you are merely looking for me to make an absolute statement that you can continue to argue with and/or ridicule when I have said repeatedly that there are no easy answers in this new area of moral reflection. We all know stories of individuals who sadistically torture and kill animals for fun. Hopefully you would count this sin as a mortal sin and would recommend that the sick individual confess, and more, get some professional help before he or she extends his or her sick behavior to human beings. Other than these extreme cases, there are no easy answers.
This is about all I can say in response to your continued rephrased questions. If you have another question, a different one, on this matter, I’m all ears.
I’m not trying to discredit a passage from the catechism. I’m simply trying to dispute the praxis that you seem to think follows. I also don’t think that animal torture is relevant to a discussion of the morality of typical Catholic practices regarding animals.
I think that if there is any productive discussion left to this it would be on how moral theory should work without determining if something is actually objectively wrong. Of course there are always different levels of culpability. However at bottom, I think something is either objectively sinful or it isn’t. How does moral theology work without determining if something is objectively wrong? Can you provide other areas were you think objective moral truth inappropriate? Are there any theories that explain how moral theory should work where it is inappropriate to actually come to a clear answer?
I’m simply trying to dispute the praxis that you seem to think follows.
I have never suggested one firm praxis that should follow. I have said that I have found that I cannot eat meat without causing animals to suffer and die needlessly. I have not sought to impose this on others, only that all Catholics take this passage of the Catechism seriously and decide, honestly, for him or herself. I would not think to impose my praxis on others, as the tradition is not supportive of me doing so. But the tradition certainly is supportive of the praxis that I think is necessary in my own life.
I also don’t think that animal torture is relevant to a discussion of the morality of typical Catholic practices regarding animals.
You don’t? Don’t you think there are a good number of Catholics who hunt merely for sport? I would clearly include that in needless animal suffering and death.
I think that if there is any productive discussion left to this it would be on how moral theory should work without determining if something is actually objectively wrong.
I’m not suggesting that objective moral truth is inappropriate in this, or any other, case. I think the Catechism provides us with a clear norm: that it is objectively wrong to cause animals to suffer and die needlessly. Whether or not the particular killing of an animals is necessary depends on too many factors. I don’t think this is unique to the question of animals. If you hold to just war teaching, which I seem to remember you do, it is not easy to come up with clear answers regarding the killing of human beings. Why would there be clear answers regarding the killing of animals?
It sounds to me like your conscience is troubled by this issue. It no doubt should be troubled if you are taking this clear moral norm as seriously as the Catechism does.