“Every creature is thus the object of the Father’s tenderness, who gives it its place in the world… God enfolds it with his affection” writes Pope Francis in Laudato Si [77].
Tenderness and affection are probably not on a hunter’s mind when one of God’s beloved creatures moves into his field of view, and he lines up the shot and pulls the trigger. “Bang!” A split second later, blood is pouring out of the animal’s side. And the hunter rushes to the struggling animal to complete the kill.
All killing involves violence. There are varying levels of “humane-ness” when it comes to killing sentient beings. A quick kill with minimum pain is desirable. However, taking away the life of an animal – no matter how quickly or “painlessly” – is always a violent act. Such violence is unbecoming of disciples of Jesus.
Sometimes, in this complicated world of competing goods, such violence may be justified, even necessary. For instance, hunting animals in the remote tundra may be justified where non-violent plant-based food sources are scarce. Or, a hiker may be allowed to fight back with lethal force when she is attacked by a bear. But in a world with plant-based foods and urban living, we almost never face situations that necessitate violence towards animals.
So, what do disciples of Christ, the Prince of Peace, make of the unnecessary violence that describes almost all the violence that humans inflict on animals today? What do we make of the “thrill” that hunters experience, and repeatedly seek, when they kill innocent animals?
Because killing animals unnecessarily is unjustified violence, a peace-loving person ought to abstain from such violence. Pope Francis noted that “we have only one heart, and the same wretchedness which leads us to mistreat an animal will not be long in showing itself in our relationships with other people. Every act of cruelty towards any creature is contrary to human dignity” [Laudato Si 92]. Unnecessary killing of an innocent creature is the ultimate act of cruelty, and undermines the human being’s exalted status as a steward of other creatures of God.
Similarly, Saint John Henry Newman – who was recently declared as a doctor of the church – observed that “there is something so very dreadful, so satanic in tormenting those who never have harmed us, and who cannot defend themselves, who are utterly in our power, who have weapons neither of offense nor defense, that none but very hardened persons can endure the thought of it.” Newman then compared Jesus’ suffering with that of animals because both are innocent and defenseless. Newman wanted us to use our horror at cruelty towards innocent animals to generate anger and sadness towards Jesus crucified.
Scripture tells us that God intended a peaceful world in which humans would eat a plant-based diet. After giving humans “dominion” over other creatures, God gives us “every seed-bearing plant on all the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your [our] food.” (Genesis 1:29). There is no instruction or permission to eat meat despite humans being given dominion. Unfortunately, violence entered the world through our sin. But God still intends to restore His creation to the Edenic state of peace at the end of time (Isaiah 11). In our present age, we celebrate the inauguration of God’s peaceful kingdom at the Incarnation but await its fullness at the Second Coming of Christ. During this in between time, Christians are called to embody God’s peaceful reign as far as possible and grudgingly accept violence only when it is absolutely necessary.
Hence, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that “it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly.” We must take the clause of “needlessly” seriously! When is slaughter of animals needless in our context? Almost always!
In a recent essay, some American Jesuits attempted to celebrate hunting because it provides food for the community and they use the entire body of slaughtered animals. Feeding others and not wasting the carcass is commendable. But the killing itself is not justified because it is needless. For instance, I may need a car to commute to work. But, if I purchase a supercar, and even if I use it to commute to work everyday, my ownership of the supercar is needless. I could easily commute to work in a simple sedan. Similarly, if I am faced with the decision of harvesting beans and “harvesting” rabbits from my backyard, the slaughter of rabbits would be needless. The availability of a non-violent option makes the violent option needless, even if I claim to use every hair on the rabbit’s body.
Hunters then attempt to dress their violence with a veneer of respectability by tacking on other supposed goods from hunting: camaraderie with the boys, greater connection with God’s creation, knowledge of one’s food sources, feeding other people, and helping ecosystem conservation through payment of hunting permit fees. All of these goods can be achieved through non-violent activities such as camping, hiking, birdwatching, gardening, and donating to nonprofits. When one can achieve these goods through non-violent means, one’s continued indulgence in violence is needless.
Some hunters adhere to another strange school of thought: “If I can kill an animal with my own hands, I am allowed to kill and eat its meat or to eat meat in general.” This justification of violence through capacity does not apply anywhere else. I assume that killing a human is hard, but it does not mean I must be allowed to do it if I can do it. The same is the case with stealing and sexual violence. It is the innate goodness within us that makes it difficult to do evil things. Thus, the capacity for evil is not to be celebrated through consumption of its fruits. Instead, we ought to be grateful that God created humans with a conscience that makes violence difficult.
The more ecological minded hunters attempt to appeal to altruistic motivations. They claim to be helping nature because uncontrolled deer populations are damaging the ecosystem. This again is an attempt to dress their violence with altruistic goodness. Firstly, the deer population is out of control because hunters and ranchers eliminate the natural predators, and resist efforts to reintroduce predators. Second, these same “conservationists” promote other measures that increase deer populations: clear cutting of patches in the forests, shooting only male deer, and opposing contraception for animals. If such conservationists truly cared about conservation and not about the availability of “game”, they would advocate for non-violent measures of deer population control. At the very least, given that there is a high demand for hunting licenses, let other people do the “needful” in shooting the deer. A peace-loving Catholic is not necessitated to commit violence when there are other people who are more than willing to do the dirty job.
Ultimately, it seems that a lot of hunters enjoy the thrill of the violence. Hunters often talk about the excitement of lying in wait and the satisfaction of making a kill. Perhaps, they are culturally conditioned to celebrate this violence against animals. But Christ calls us to break free from the cultures of this world, and walk the Way of non-violence in God’s kingdom. Our allegiance to Christ and his teachings ought to trump any cultural values that stand athwart to God’s hopes for his creatures.
Violence towards innocent and innocuous animals is needless, and so is contrary to human dignity [CCC #2418]. During Holy Week, we grieved at such unnecessary violence inflicted on Jesus and other innocent victims in our world. But Easter reminds us that violence does not have the last word in God’s kingdom. God’s promise will be fulfilled: “they shall not harm or destroy on my holy mountain; for the earth shall be filled with knowledge of the LORD, as water covers the sea.” (Isaiah 11:9)