Recently at Sea World a trainer was killed by a Killer Whale, also called an Orca. Prescinding from the awful tragedy, this incident brings up another issue. One of the memes that we are regularly assaulted with in our culture is that of ‘animal rights”. (Animal rights differs from animal welfare, which we should support) There are many including groups like PETA and The Humane Society who advocate that animals have intrinsic rights akin to those of human being. The Great Ape Project in Spain and elsewhere declares that “apes are members of a community of equals” with humans. They have even managed to give that the force of law. The Swiss have placed in their constitution that plants are sentient beings and have rights. Many in our country argue that animals should have legal standing; hence the cow can sue the farmer. All of this assumes that animals are moral beings capable of actions that are either good or bad. Well if animals have “rights” then it would seem they also would have to have responsibilities. The moral quality of an action is determined in part by intention. So if this is so, why hasn’t anyone charged the Orca that killed the trainer with a crime? If animals are moral beings with rights like humans then what that animal did was morally reprehensible. Now that sounds all rather silly. Of course we won’t charge the animal with murder. An animal is incapable of murder. What the animal did was instinctual killing, not murder. This is the point where the animal rights argument collapses. I also found it interesting that many people came to the defense of the whale arguing against euthanizing it, claiming it was only doing what a killer whale does. Exactly. It was not acting of its own free volition but was acting out of its natural instincts. When an animal acts in a way that is deadly or in a way that is helpful, such as porpoise or a guide dog, it is doing so out of instinct or training and not with any moral quality. Hence we treat animals in a humane and non-cruel way because it is our responsibility to do so. In other words it is part of our nature to act in such a way and not the animals’ nature that requires us to do so. So there is a fundamental distinction between human nature and animals. What does all this say about ourselves and our “natural condition”? Well this quote certainly caught my attention. There’s so much wrong with it that it hurts your head. This was spoken by former VP Al Gore in regards to the issue of global warming/climate change: “From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.” So climate change is the new world religion. Or at least it demands the full assent of a religious teaching. Apparently this issue also comes with its own moral demands, required changes in human behavior. Those who do not believe are heretics and should be shunned. In the end, doing everything the high priests of climate change, like Al Gore preach, will save the human race from its self-destructive slide. And using the law as an instrument of redemption has been tried again and again and almost always leads to mass murder in the name of some earthly utopia. What is interesting here is that by cloaking the issue of climate change in religious language its proponents are pointing to fundamental issues in the human condition: something is terribly wrong and we need to be saved from it (unlike the whale). Lots of religions and philosophies have tried to answer what is wrong and what can be done. Biblical religion sees “the terribly gone wrong” as human beings rejection of God’s authority. Sin and death are the signs of this condition. We all thirst for something more. So we search for redemption. That’s really how the Bible describes the human condition, what really went wrong, what’s at stake and what will bring us redemption. Despite this truth each one of us wants to sidestep the issue by claiming it’s not my fault. Still we know we can’t because it passes through the depth of each soul. Yet we try to go it alone, build our own version of salvation, find a false version of redemption, find an alternate version of the Christian story. Hence the importance of the recalling of the historical events of Jesus Christ during Lent which places us back into the unfolding of the human drama and its resolution. Holy Week in particular takes us back to that terrible historical moment and invites us to consider the solution it brings forth. We do need redemption and we know the source of our redemption: the Cross. What went terribly wrong in the human condition is not that we treated animals unfairly or polluted the environment; these are effects of fallen human nature. Fallen human nature calls for redemption. Jesus Christ, not the law and not cleaning up the environment, offers that redemption to humanity. Love, Fr. John B.
|
 |
