It would be very interesting to see Henry Karlson over at Vox Nova and Wesley Smith over at Second Hand Smoke to comment on each other pieces to see what they agree and disagree on as to this subject.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Well, I will comment here (for various reasons, among of which, you are interested in my views, and also, I don't want to 'get in a fight').
First, we agree a pig is not a rat is not a human -- and I am sure we will also agree none of them are chickens! The point being, and I hope I made it clear on my piece, yes humans are higher up on the great chain of being; however, I don't think that means we thus turn around into tyrants over those beneath us (just as demons are those angels who think they have a right to dominate us because they are from higher up the chain of being). There must be respect for animals, and a recognition that they have a good of their own, given to them by God. But we have been given stewardship over them (as angels were to have over us, hence the notion that each nation has an angel, and each person has their own guardian angel). And it is recognized that abuse to animals, and turning them into mere objects of instrumentality, trains the person to view the world in such a wise and end up treating fellow humans that way.
Nonetheless, I do think that the great chain of being nonetheless means we cannot equivocate between humanity and the rest of the animal world. I tried to quote enough, including from the catechism, to point out I do not agree with people who do so, and extremists who think animals are more important than humans are really turning animals into a different kind of tool for some other agenda, imo.
If you have not looked into it, I think Andrew Linzey's "Why Animal Suffering Matters" is a good introduction because he does a good job at explaining the problems of a Peter Singer and how they hurt the interests of a long standing tradition for the ethical treatment of animals. And so I do think it a problem when people are callous about animals, and ignore the long-standing connection between animal rights and human suffering (and even the issue of abortion).
Well I thought you were similar. I guess though I am not sure what you meant by your footnote 6.
I am not exactly sure how GRACE could work on animals. If you could it would seem the Human Exceptionalism argument he makes at Secondhand Smoke would not work
Of course I might be needing to try to re read your piece again and try to understand your understanding of person as to this.
Ugh!!!
I said
" If you could it would seem the Human Exceptionalism argument he makes at Secondhand Smoke would not work"
This should say "If it could it seems ..."
I have discussed grace in relationship with creation in many of my posts throughout the years. There are many ways it can be expressed, however, one thing I generally look at and follow (through St Maximus the Confessor) is that grace for creation is somehow mediated through us, humanity, because the incarnation is in humanity. It would be similar to the relationship between Israel and "the nations." Humanity is priestly in regards to creation and we are called to watch over creation, but because of sin, creation has been hurt and hindered. Our guidance over creation is itself imperfect. In the way we need grace, so grace comes in us and through us, to help rise up the rest of creation.
I think this is a good post of mine on this idea: http://vox-nova.com/2009/08/29/the-eschaton-has-been-immanentized-iii-called-to-be-christ/ but so is this one: http://vox-nova.com/2007/06/17/called-to-be-mediators-between-god-and-creation/
Those, I think, serve at least help explain further what I think of our relationship with animals.
But I think one of the big differences which I have with many people is that I do see animals as capable of being persons, and either they are, or will be, through the work of Christ. Narnia I think does a good job in showing "rational animals" vs "beasts," and I think Lewis is on to the reality expressed through theosis -- which is a theosis for the whole of creation, raising all up the chain of being by the fact that God has entered creation.
I hope some of that helps.
Or, if you want a further example, and one which I always love to give: the story of Brother Wolf. Do you know it?
No I don;t know Brother wolf
I.E. in the story of Brother Wolf, St Francis moves a wolf, terrorizing a village, from its bestial nature into a friend of the village; it even makes a pact with the saint, showing it has risen up in nature and is capable of being Brother Wolf and not just a wolf.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Umbria/Perugia/Gubbio/Gubbio/Wolf_Monument.html
Presents the story. For me St Francis mediated grace to the wolf, so it rose up and became something more, and indeed, has through grace become a person (if animals are not already persons). Only persons can make agreements like that (imo). Does that help?
Thanks I wil read those other links tonight you have on the subject.
When we start talking Eastern Theology like Maximus the Confessor this is perhaps where I get confused over some of the termnology because sometimes I am assuming definitions for things they don't mean
Which is one reason I finally gave up over the Divine Energies/Divine Essence versus the Divine Simplicity debate that was such the rage between Catholic and Orthodox a few years ago on the net
So in a sense I have to get the basic Eastern thought and what they mean by it
I will admit St Maximus, St Gregory Palamas, et. al. are difficult for one to first grasp. But the more one engages them, the more they make sense -- think of sports and how difficult they are at first, but how much easier they seem to be as one engages them frequently.
Of course, St Maximus was seen as difficult, even among the Greeks, so he really is a subtle one.
I jsut read again the Wolf story., That is helpful
Post a Comment