ANIMAL SACRIFICE IN CHRISTIAN CHURCHES
It really didn't seem possible. Although the information sent to HUMANE
RELIGION regarding animal sacrifice claimed to be factual, it didn't give a source for the
article it quoted. The story was well-written and names of the priests and bishops
involved proved to be accurate. Still, the events being reported were so bizarre
that the possibility of a hoax had to be considered. And there was the lingering
hope that the article was a hoax--that animals were not really being sacrificed in South
Africa's Christian churches.
But it turned out to be a legitimate story. And not only was it true, the
London DAILY TELEGRAPH which reported these events, as well as spokesmen for the Roman
Catholic church in which the killings are taking place, do not see these events as a story
about the introduction of animal sacrifice into Christianity. Both secular and
religious observers view it simply as another instance of racial strife. For them,
the story is newsworthy only because the claim of racism has been made by a group of
native, black priests, who support sacrificial worship.
A coalition of these priests claims that the hesitancy of Catholic leaders to give
their blessing to animal sacrifices is simply another instance of the white colonial
mentality that refuses to give proper respect to native practices. These priests are
supported in their demand for sacrifices by Archbishop Buti Tlhagale of Bloemfontein who
asserts that "Animal sacrifice has a special place in the scheme of things and is
celebrated in almost all African families. We have kept it out of God's Church for
too long."
But faced with recalcitrant parish priests like Father Kevin Reynolds, who argues
that animal sacrifice is "foreign to traditional Catholic theology regarding the
Mass," the archbishop has offered a compromise. Although Catholic theology does
say that since the sacrificial death of Jesus 2,000 years ago, there is no longer any need
to offer animal sacrifices to God, the killing can still be carried out. But instead
of offering the blood of the victims to God, it can be offered in honor of the African
ancestors of participating Catholics. (Ancestor worship is seen by the archbishop,
and others, as the native equivalent of the Catholic practice of honoring its canonized
saints.) Archbishop Buti proposes that the blood of the slain animal--be it goat,
chicken, sheep or cow--can be presented during the Mass as "a gift to the ancestors,
not to God."
And what does the "Euro-centric" hierarchy in South Africa think about
the sacrifice of animals in Catholic churches? Well, Archbishop George Daniel, head
of the Pretoria archdiocese for the past 25 years, doesn't seem to be overly concerned
about it. He allows that it could become a problem at some future date--if the tenor
of the debate escalates--but says "we will have to cross that bridge when we come to
it."
For him, killing animals in the churches is not sacrilegious, it is just another
facet of the "incultration process." This process takes place when the
Roman Church and Catholics in a given country try to find a suitable accommodation between
church requirements and traditional practices of the native culture. The incorporation of
African music is presented as another example of incultration. There were dissenters
who fought against having native instruments and hymns as the background to their church
services, but eventually people on both sides of the debate were accommodated.
But why does Archbishop Daniel treat the slaughter of animals in the churches as
just another problem of incultration? Why does he allow both priests and media to
make this an issue of racial strife instead of declaring it a moral issue that has to do
with the introduction of blasphemous worship into the churches? Probably because he
has no foundation on which to take such a stand: traditional Christianity has never
rejected the animal sacrifice that is part of its biblical heritage.
Although prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah denounced animal
sacrifices as abominations, those condemnations did not have an affect on either orthodox
Jewish or traditional Christian attitudes. Judaism continued sacrifices until the
destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. and Christianity validated sacrificial
religion in retrospect, saying that because Jesus was the ultimate sacrificial victim,
killing animals on the altars of God was no longer "necessary."
Faced with an act that is considered theologically unnecessary rather than
blasphemous, Archbishop Daniel would be hard-pressed to make animal sacrifice a moral
issue even if he were inclined to do so. But the only problem he seems to have with
this travesty of Christian worship is the discord that might erupt in his diocese IF he
decided to put a stop to sacrificial religious rites. He wonders "what would
happen to those priests who decide to continue with the practice of animal sacrifice if we
ultimately ruled against incorporating this activity into any services."
We may never know what would happen if the archbishop decided to put a stop to the
"activity" of animal sacrifices, because so far he has shown no inclination to
do so. And unless there is an outcry from Christian people of every persuasion
against this violent and blasphemous worship, it will continue.
Copyright 2000 Humane Religion & J.R. Hyland
HUMANE
RELIGION
