Genesis – of animals and men

One of our patrons, the Very Rev Canon Condon, newly retired from parish life, asks why Church teaching fails to convey to Catholics the importance of treating animals as God intended

By Stanislas Condon

Why is it that, as a general rule of thumb, Christian – and, even more spectacularly, ‘Catholic’ – countries are infamous for their cruelty to animals? Or, to be less derogatory, their lack of care for animals? Bull fighting in Spain and Mexico, shooting of song birds and anything that flies in Italy, force feeding and fattening of geese and calves throughout the European continent are just a few obvious examples. The Irish have a cavalier attitude to dogs; they are not treated with cruelty but they belong outside, not in the house. The English are renowned animal lovers – we throw puppies off motorway bridges, buy dogs for Christmas only, starve cats, neglect unto death horses, ponies, donkeys and, not least, indulge in fox hunting.

Yet to be fair, the vast majority of people in this country and throughout the world are favourably disposed towards animals. They may not be convinced that they have souls – quite a few don’t really believe we humans have them either – but they are part of our lives. They are useful, decorative, give companionship and are quaint and interesting to own and watch. But when it comes to the crunch they are a very poor second, third or fourth in our order of priorities, and we don’t really spend much time giving the whole matter a great deal of thought.

Should we? As Christians – believers in redeemed humanity – think a bit more? Is it not time that we applied the fruits of that Redemption to the totality of God’s creation and not just the pinnacle of it (as we see it), the creation of mankind?

As Christians we claim that the old order, the Old Testament, the old dispensation, call it what you will, has not been abolished but up-dated and – what is far more important – fulfilled. We put this into our practical theology by our teaching on grace and salvation, by stressing the love of God and neighbour rather than a craven fear and awe of God and that restricted concept of our neighbour as those of the same ilk as ourselves. We accept that God created a perfect universe, since it comes from a perfect Being, but that it has been thrown out of kilter by the freely chosen act of sabotage by the first member of this pinnacle of creation – Adam and his first, original, sin. We cheerfully and triumphantly claim that God himself took the long-promised initiative and redeemed, made fitting again, ‘at-oned’, creation. He did not automatically and miraculously set it back into kilter but he did give us the ability to strive to do so and the assurance that we can overcome the world – because he himself has done so. In short, we and the whole of creation are still askew but now have God’s grace to aim to work with this and even his assurance that we will be rewarded for trying to do so.

This has been the teaching of theologians and the constant preaching of preachers through the centuries, and the foundation of our hope and confidence of eternal life. Somehow, however, in the education of theologians – by far the majority of whom are priests – there have been gaps, bits of revelation not mentioned, ignored or thought to be so unimportant that they could be covered by a blanket of general principles. The official Catechism of the Catholic Church covers the whole subject in four very brief sections ( nn. 2415-2418). It does mention respect for the integrity of creation and that men ‘owe’ animals (not own them) but owe them kindness. It does not, though, even hint at the share the whole of creation has in the Redemption.

Which may explain why – generally speaking and with abject apologies to the exceptions – priests, bishops and the Church as a whole show little concern for animal welfare apart from the odd clerics who have a dog, cat, donkey, breed barn owls, think Vietnamese pigs have a beauty of their own or show off their ‘eccentricity’ in similar ways. These ‘gaps’ are in our reading, understanding and up-dating of Scripture in the light of our universal redemption when it comes to animals. We no longer ‘love our neighbour and hate our enemy’. But we still accept in Genesis the face value and literal, simplistic meaning of God saying to himself: ‘Let us make man in our own image ... and let them (mankind) be masters of the fish of the sea, the birds of heaven and all living animals on the earth’ (Gen 1:28).

Even more significantly, in the second account of creation we are told that God fashioned all the wild beasts and all the birds of heaven from the soil and then brought them ‘to the man to see what he would call them; each one was to bear the name the man would give it. The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of heaven and all the wild beasts’ (Gen 2:19-20).

To ‘be master of’ needs not and does not inflexibly imply ownership as of things and chattels. Certainly to give a name to anything, any animal or any human being always implies the accepting of responsibility, the undertaking of a duty of love and care and respect for that person, animal or object. We still exercise the privilege of ‘naming’ in that sense, whether it is the naming of an invention such as a Bunsen burner, a discovery of a country or continent, the adoption of my puppy Bonzo or the acceptance into the intimate family and that of the Church and the human race of baby Romeo Beckham. It is in this more lofty and exalted manner that we ought to read God’s instruction to man to be masters of his creation. We should understand that instruction in the light and insight of the Redemption, the raising up of everything God made onto the spiritual level. It is, surely, this entirety and unity of creation that St Paul refers to when he wrote to the Romans: ‘From the beginning till now the entire creation, as we know, has been groaning in one great act of giving birth’ (Rom 8:22).

Rights and responsibilities

The comparatively modern fashion of talking – often stridently – of ‘animal rights’ cuts right across this biblical foundation of the relationship between man and the rest of creation. It also encourages philosophical nit-pickers to respond that animals ‘ain’t got no rights’! Rights go together with responsibilities as much as love and marriage, a horse and carriage. Unless you have responsibilities (even if just potential ones, as seen in a hapless human baby) you cannot have rights. Animals have no responsibilities in the usually accepted meaning of the word. They do not have to pass exams, go to work, save for a pension for their old age or repay acts of kindness and affection. They do everything by sheer instinct implanted into them by their creator and cannot, by any effort of intellect or will, decide to drop out of the rat race. This usually means that they are perfectly predictable and act according to their nature – something which we humans, more often than not, go out of our way not to do.

It is we, humans, masters and custodians and guardians of creation who have the duty and the privilege and the ability to care for animals as God intended. When there is cruelty and neglect, carelessness or sheer lack of thought or consideration of animals it is demeaning, shameful to ourselves. It belittles us, makes us less worthy of respect. We are failing to act according to our nature. For reasons of convenience, sport, pleasure or profit or innumerable other motives we use our intelligence and our will to lower our own dignity in the sight of God, our neighbour and – yes – the animal world itself.

This view of creation and our relationship with the animal world does nothing to cure the problem at a stroke. After all, the lack of proper kilter caused by the Fall has not miraculously cured our own attitude to God, ourselves or our human neighbours. But our redemption has, at least, helped us to see where the fault lies, in which direction we slant. This view could, at the very least, help us to think along different and more exalted lines and not try to mend a rift, cure the undeniable evil and scandal of animal cruelty in all its many aspects, by simply bashing the opposition.