AND THE SECOND IS LIKE UNTO IT

Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

                                                                        ~  Matthew 22:36-40 (KJV)

But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

                                                           ~  Luke 10:29 (NAS)

            I don’t think it stirs much controversy to say that we cannot claim to love God if we do not love our neighbor, or to say that loving our neighbor does not mean that we have nice, warm feelings about that neighbor or even that we think highly of him or her; rather it is to say that we are willing to reach out to help when that person is in need or that – at the barest minimum – we refrain from treating him or her with cruelty.  It is to say that we have a responsibility for that person’s well-being. 

            Scripture, both the old and new testaments, makes clear that this is a central tenant of the Judeo-Christian faith.  Christ calls it the second great commandment, likens it to loving God, and says that on it (and on loving God) depend the rest of the scriptures.  Because we can’t really get around this requirement, since ancient times we have instead been trying to ease its burden by limiting the definition of “neighbor.” 

Jesus with the Pharisees - Gustav Dore

     Jesus tells us this will not do.  By way of answering the question posed by the lawyer in Luke's gospel, Jesus tells the parable of the Good Samaritan, which shows us that the one who does God’s will is the one who reaches out to those in need without stopping to ask whether they are “neighbors.”  Our actions reveal whether we love God, and we are called to respond to those in need without stopping to ask whether they are those to whom we have an obligation.  As R. Allen Culpepper explains in his commentary on this passage of Luke in The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume IX, the parable instructs us to do away with boundaries and with only doing good for those who can return the favor.  There is no checklist of things we must do and another of things we must not do to gain eternal life.  Instead, “[e]ternal life – the life of the age to come – is that quality of life characterized by showing mercy for those in need, regardless of their race, religion, or region [or, I would add, species] – and with no thought of reward.  Mercy sees only need and responds with compassion” (p. 230).

The Good Samaritan - Rembrandt

So we need to be alert when we read Aquinas, who, in Summa Theologica writes, “…the love of charity extends to none but God and our neighbor .”  Here is the first hint that something is about to go awry.  “None but” is limiting language.  “None but” misses the point of the parable of the Good Samaritan.  “None but” seeks to draw the circle of neighborly obligation tight, and limit its demands.  "None but" seeks to justify itself, with the lawyer in Luke’s gospel, by identifying precisely those to whom we owe obligations and those to whom we owe nothing.  Jesus has told us that this is not good enough.

Aquinas completes his thought this way, “But the word neighbor cannot be extended to irrational creatures, since they have no fellowship with man in the rational life.” There, it is done.  Nonhuman animals are outside the circle of obligation, so Aquinas can conclude, “Therefore charity does not extend to irrational creatures.”[1]  For Aquinas, those passages of Scripture that “seem to forbid us to be cruel to brute animals” do so only because of the danger that in being cruel to animals, one may become cruel to human beings.   Otherwise, “it is not wrong for man to make use of [animals], either by killing them or in any other way whatever.”[2]  So, Aquinas justifies cruelty to animals.  They are not our neighbors.

I have written before about the historic majority view of the church on animals (for example, here), as well as the persistent minority voice that has sought to remind us that kindness toward our fellow creatures and holiness have always gone hand in hand (for example, here, here, and here).   It is an important topic, and one that bears revisiting, because the notion that Christianity imposes on us no obligations for animal wellbeing is as deeply ingrained as it is deeply mistaken.  Aquinas  remains a very influential theologian, but on this point, we must acknowledge that he, and others who seek to justify human behavior by excluding animals from our circle of responsibility, are wrong. 

St. Thomas Aquinas

Aquinas is wrong both theologically and scientifically.  He is wrong theologically because, as I have suggested above, he turns the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves, and Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan, on their heads, making of them limitations on obligation instead of a widespread call to love in action.  He simply misses the point, and plays the role of the lawyer, seeking to justify himself.

He is also wrong theologically in a broader sense because he does not recognize the place of animals in scripture.  He apparently does not give value to those verses that tell us that God loves the animals, he calls them “good” wholly apart from their relationship with humans, he covenants with them, he cares for them, and he will give them peace in His kingdom.

He is wrong scientifically because we know now that animals are not “irrational;” we know that they have complex thoughts and emotions and very rich lives filled with happiness and sorrow; they remember the past and they plan for the future; they solve complex problems and form deep and abiding relationships with others of their own and other species.  See these earlier posts for discussions of animal intelligence and emotions (here, here, here, and here).

It is time to recognize that we do have fellowship with our fellow creatures.  We share the same breath of life (nephesh, see Gen. 1:21, 24; 2:7, 19), the same Creator, and the same planet.  We, like they, are dependent on that Creator’s goodness. 

The animals are indeed our neighbors, and if we love God, we will love them and take responsibility for their wellbeing.  If we do that, we will change the world.

Esther the Wonder Pig

---

[1] Thomas Aquinas, ‘Summa Theologica’ in Fathers of the English Dominican Providence (trs) The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas (New York: Benzinger Bros., 1918) quoted in Linzey & Clarke, Animal Rights, 104.

[2] Thomas Aquinas, ‘Summa Contra Gentiles’ in Anton C. Pegis (tr.) Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas (new York: Random House, 1945) vol. II, quoted in Linzey & Clarke, Animal Rights, 10.