WHAT THE POPE DIDN’T SAY

Clearly, the Bible has no place for a tyrannical anthropocentrism

unconcerned for other creatures.

            ~ Pope Francis, Laudato Si, #68

            There have been a great many articles and blog posts about the recent papal encyclical tackling environmental stewardship, Laudato Si (or Praise Be), from Pope Francis.  The animal welfare community has joined the chorus, touting the many statements supporting a Christian concern for animals as a dramatic step forward for animals.  Without wanting to rain on anyone’s parade, and while recognizing that there is much in the encyclical for those of us who care about animals as theological matter to be excited about, I was both surprised and disappointed by what the Pope did not say.  The encyclical gives us cause for hope as a theological community at the same time that it underscores how far was have to go and how much work there is yet to do. 

The Pope has underscored, strengthened, and perhaps expanded church teaching on human responsibility for the environment, including animals, and he has made a strong showing that human welfare and the welfare of the environment are closely intertwined.  In the process he made important statements regarding how Roman Catholics, at a minimum, should understand other living beings.  He has provided us with good, strong tools to use in building theological arguments about how we should treat the animals we encounter on a daily basis.  But he has not used those tools to make the arguments himself, and he has not provided guidance on how what he has said should impact our relationships with animals.

            For example, in nearly two hundred pages discussing climate change, pollution of air and water, the need to care for the poor, the morality of purchasing decisions, and the importance of individual actions, there is not one word about factory farming or dietary choices.  Factory farming has a dramatic impact on all of these issues, and we will not be successful in addressing several environmental issues (in particular climate change) or in improving environmental justice for the poor if we do not acknowledge this fact.  The Pope has not been shy about calling out specific economic and other practices he considers problematic, nor has he been shy about urging individuals to increase recycling and reduce energy consumption.  I find it baffling that he would be silent about this issue. 

            In fact, the only specific individual action in regard to animals that he called out is the wearing of fur of endangered species. (#123)  Even this tends to suggest that the wearing of fur generally is not objectionable; it is only problematic when the fur comes from an endangered species.  Not such good news, if you are a fox or a mink.

            And this underscores my own impression of the document generally, as it relates to animals.  Like so many others writing about the environment, the Pope seems in many (but not all)  cases to conflate animals with “nature” and “the environment,” without much attention to the fact that animals are each unique individuals, and we need to care about the well-being of each one of them, not just survival of species.  So, for example, in #66, he says the creation stories in the Bible “suggest that human life is grounded in three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbour and with the earth itself.”  It is not at all clear how relationships with animals fits into this triad, but I would argue that the creation stories clearly identify our relationships with the animals as fundamental, that those relationships are intertwined with the ones the Pope has identified, and that those relationships need to be specifically called out as a fourth element for our reflection.[1]

The Pope also discusses at length how Christians have misunderstood the “dominion” given to humans over “the earth” as a relationship allowing exploitation when it should be understood as a responsibility and a care-giving role.  While of course I agree with this as a general matter, scripture uses the word “dominion” expressly in relation to the animals and the Pope doesn’t address that.  He even cites Genesis 1:28 (“And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.) in discussing dominion over “the earth.” #67.  I would argue that we need to expressly recognize that the responsibilities he speaks of apply to the animals as separate and in many ways different from (but related to) the responsibilities we owe “the earth.”

I have criticized other creation care theologians for failing to distinguish sentient animals from “nature,” and for setting forth a theology of care for the earth without addressing how their conclusions relate to animals.  The same critique can be made of many Old Testament scholars who have argued that our creation in the image of God is a vocation to represent God to the rest of creation; they, likewise, have failed to address what this might mean for how we treat animals today.  I think there are certain statements in Laudito Si that bring the Pope nearer the mark in calling out what is owed to animals, but overall, my copy of the document is pockmarked with comments such as “where do the animals fit in this argument,” and “this would be a good place to talk about factory farming,” “what about animals in labs,” “what about the impact of factory farms on rural neighborhoods and the poor who work there.” 

I am also uncomfortable with the Pope’s emphasis on human exceptionalism.  The idea that humans are unique and superior to the rest of creation has caused much sin and must be handled with care.  Although the Pope stresses throughout that the human place in creation brings with it significant responsibilities rather than rights, a balance between our unique creation in God’s image with our “common creatureliness” with the other animals (see Richard Baukham) would be helpful in underscoring that we, like they, are creatures, not Creator; and we, like they, are dependent on the mercy of others.

Notwithstanding these criticisms, I don’t want to overlook the helpful and encouraging statements in the encyclical, and there are many, that have gotten the animal welfare world rightly excited.  I will highlight below just a few of my favorite quotations, and then I will close with some thoughts about how the encyclical shows us that we, as animal advocates in faith communities, still have much work to do. 

·         It is not enough, however, to think of dif­ferent species merely as potential “resources” to be exploited, while overlooking the fact that they have value in themselves. #32

·         Together with our obligation to use the earth’s goods responsibly, we are called to recog­nize that other living beings have a value of their own in God’s eyes. #62

·         We have only one heart and the same wretchedness that leads us to mistreat an animal will not be long in showing itself in our relationships with other people.  #92

·         Every act of cruelty towards any creature is ‘contrary to human dignity.’ #92

·         Purchasing is always a moral – and not simply economic – act. #206

·         Living our vocation to be protec­tors of God’s handiwork is essential to a life of virtue; it is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience. #217

·         The Eucharist joins heaven and earth; it embraces and penetrates all creation. #236

These statements and others like them, together with the overall themes in the encyclical regarding the interrelationships of all forms of life, and of all issues of social justice, are a strong resource for all Christians who are also animal advocates.  Nevertheless, it remains for us, as advocates, to draw the conclusions in regard to animals that so many others have failed to draw.  We need to be express, intentional, and specific about applying these teachings to animals and pointing out the ways we treat animals in our culture that do not comport with what we say we believe.  We need to help the church take its head out of the sand.  As Andrew Lindsey has said, “I do not want the Church to support animals simply to conform to secular pressure, rather I want the Church to see that its own Gospel requires opposition to cruelty.” 

We are making progress, but we have a long road ahead.  Happily, there are those who are leading the way. Here is an excellent example how to do this work, from Bruce Friedrich, director of policy for Farm Sanctuary: Listen To The Pope: Don’t Cause Animals To Suffer Or Die Needlessly. We need to make these same points, and other like them, in our own church communities until we hear our church leaders take up the message. 
Photo credit: Fox photo by Gary Lehman

---

[1] In January and February of 2014, I posted a four-part discussion about creation care theologies that address this very issue, including this one, which argues for just such a fourth dimension.  You can find all four parts through the archives.