Posts
[Ed. Note - The following letters were sent to two prelates in the Catholic Church]
1
May 2017
Rev.
Msgr. Giovanni Pietro Dal Toso
Secretary
Delegate
Dicastery
for Promoting Integral Human Development.
Piazza
San Callisto 16, 00153 Roma, Italy
Dear
Monsignor,
Enclosed
is a copy of a letter I have sent to His Eminence, Luis Antonio Tagle
Cardinal Archbishop of Manila, concerning an elephant. I think the
letter speaks for itself but would like to add a few remarks.
Article
2415 of the Catechism states, “The
seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation.
Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for
the common good of ... humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and
animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for
moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living
beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by
concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including
generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the
integrity of creation.”
I
believe this articulation is inadequate, as it focuses too much on
use for the benefit of Man
and fails to draw the necessary connection between love
of creation and man's own
integral human development.
As
you know, the word dominion
is a derivative of
domus and primordially
refers not simply to the power of the paterfamilias
but to his love, solicitude and responsibility for the beings within
his household and, indeed, for the oikos as
a whole. It is in this
sense, I believe, that
Genesis 1:28, gives Man dominion (heb. radah)
over Creation. By focusing on use,
the Catechism obscures that the essence of dominion
is neither power nor benefit but love.
I
have
in mind
Hans Urs von Balthasar who reminds us that "when the
whole of worldly being falls under the
dominion of 'knowledge', then the springs and forces of love immanent
in the world are overpowered and finally suffocated by science..."
(Love
Alone.)
When
we treat other creatures as material objects, we close ourselves to
the forces of love immanent in them and, to that extent, we
progressively deaden ourselves; for it is the nature of death to be
inanimate and insentient. What
this means is that “integral human development” necessitates
that we ourselves refrain
from descending to the material level and
that we treat our fellow creatures not only with respect but with the
affection of the fatherhood over them which was granted to us.
As
I know you know, this becomes a matter of habitus
and
praxis. Studies
have shown that materialism – that is, deadness of heart
– begins in small things, often in childhood, and entrenches itself
as man inures and accustoms himself to view the world “objectively.”
More than a personal failing, the indifference of the soldiers on
Calvary was the product of a culture.
Our
present culture is the most materialistic of all; not just on account
of the fact that it has “the appearance of a vast warehouse of
commodities,” but because what we call knowledge
is actually a lower
faculty whose focus and practice is on things as such. We have
become too used
to executing tasks, so that the awesomeness of our technological
progress stands in inverse proportion to our ability to stand in awe
of the Creation we manipulate.
To
quote von Balthasar again, “whoever sneers at Beauty... whether
he admits it or not — can no
longer pray and soon will no longer be able to love" (The
Glory of the Lord.)
We see symptoms of our technological alienation everywhere.
Of
course, this gives rise to paradox. As a species, we could opt to
live as simple savages without all the techno-material benefits we
have discovered and created. (And Mother Nature might very well
punish us with just that after we have killed her off. ) Or we could
develop a scintilla
conscientiae equal
in strength to our knowledge and serving
to
remind us, as
through an aperture,
of our original, savage righteousness in paradise. I do not conceive
of this as a question of morals (itself a mere form of mathesis)
but of vivification.
This
task of reanimation falls heavily upon the Church. In fact, is that
not her primary task?
And
as with bringing anything back to life, back to mobility, the
habit and progress
begins with small things and
small exercises,
daily.
Some
might say that an archbishop has more serious and more important
things to do than to worry about an elephant. I say not. It was
Jesus who reminded us that as unto the least so unto Him. In fact,
I would submit that the more we focus on systems for delivering
charities, on institutional projects and programs
for development, the more we distance ourselves from immanence
and fall back into the materialism of knowledge.
The
Church has been remiss in this regard. Its bishops focus to much on
management and too little on sparked
response.
When
they do speak out it is all too often on a small menu of issues that
have become, frankly, moral fetishes. To be fully
alive
to the world is to be alive to all
of it. One does not smell a tree and not hear the bird or feel the
sun or bask in the breeze.
Our
Holy Father, has spoken out on environmental issues. It was long
overdue. But he cannot – and should not – speak out on
everything, daily. His authority would be diminished by over-use and
eventually be
ignored
as just
another
voice in the increasingly
competitive global cacophony.
It is therefore up to cardinals, bishops and priests to lift the
burden from the Pope's
shoulder's
and to assist in the work that must be done.
Mali's
suffering is heart-wrenching to anyone who
is alive to Creation.
It is as pitiable as the suffering of any child because, for all her
grandeur and size, she is, before us, as helpless as
any
child in the house over which we have dominion. For our
sake – for
the integral development of our humanity –
she deserves a cry of mercy from the memory of paradise. And so, I
have sent my letter.
I
am sending this letter to you so that you may call attention to the
fact that the Church's
catechesis in this area is
inadequate for the reasons I have discussed. That is
my opinion at any rate; and I believe it is a good one. If
I have addressed this issue to the wrong person, please be so kind as
to forwarded it to the right one.
Sincerely
yours,
18 April 2017
His
Eminence Luis Antonio Tagle
Cardinal
Archbishop of Manila
121
Arzobispo St., Intramuros,
1099
Manila, Philippines
Your
Eminence,
I
read with deep dismay about Mali, the captive elephant in the
Manila zoo who has been kept confined for 40 years in complete
isolation without the company and consolation of her own kind. This
is barbarism. I quote to you Saint Aelred of Rievaulx,
“What
forest bears but a single tree? Even in inanimate nature a certain
love of companionship, so to speak, is apparent and thrives in
society with its own kind. And surely in animate life who cannot
easily see how clearly the picture of friendship is, and the image of
society and love? For, although in other respects animals are rated
irrational, yet they imitate man in this regard to such an extent
that we believe they act with reason. How they run after one another,
play with one another and betray their love by sound and movement. So
eagerly do they enjoy their mutual company, that they seem to prize
nothing else so much as they do whatever pertains to friendship.”
(De Spirituali Amicitia 1164-67.)
Our
Church has many times spoke out against materialism. But is it not a
materialism of the cruelest sort to debase living, sentient
creatures, lovingly made by our Common to Creator, to the level of
inanimate objects, which yet remain alive if only to feel anguish?
Mali is reportedly so lonely she tries to hug and caress her own
tail.
Animal
rights groups are willing to take Mali to a sanctuary where she can
live the remainder of her days among her own kind and taste, if only
for a short while, the joys God intended for her. But zoo officials
refuse to release her. In naked contravention of Art. VII, § 2415 of
the Catechism, they want their "object" for people to gawk
at for a fee.
We
are commanded to revere the least among us and to rescue the
helpless. I implore you to speak out on Mali's behalf. It would be
such a small thing for you to do that could have a saving impact.
Sincerely,
